Posted on 08/19/2009 11:34:56 AM PDT by pabianice
BOSTON — The state’s highest court has ruled that sex offenders convicted before 2006 cannot be forced to wear GPS devices if they violate probation or parole.
In the 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said a 2006 law requiring all sex offenders to wear GPS devices cannot apply retroactively.
David Frank, of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the case was a balancing act between public safety and constitutional rights.
“The court had to balance the right of the public to protect itself against sex offenders and those who have been convicted of certain crimes versus a defendant’s constitutional right to not be subject to punishment for the same crime twice,” Frank said.
The ruling stemmed from the case of a man convicted in 1997, who broke his parole just after the 2006 law took effect.
But can they smoke?
“cannot apply retroactively.”
No matter someone’s personal feelings on any crime, retroactive laws are unjust.
Bad laws are made for “good” causes.
States rights was destroyed in this country so we could wipe out legal segreation. A good cause, but wiping out states rights was bad.
They should’ve been sufficiently punished when they were punished. Then this wouldn’t be an issue.
(Or if you think they were indeed punished sufficiently, then get off their backs.)
The purpose of law is to do justice, to balance the scales. Not to prevent crime, but to restore once a crime has been committed.
Bears repeating ...
No matter someone’s personal feelings on any crime, retroactive laws are unjust.
You get convicted of a sexual offense, you die in prison.
Hating Massachusetts and the rest of the Northeast is easy!
Remarkable that the left is only concerned about the Constitutional rights of CRIMINALS!!
LOL!
Works for me...
...for those convicted after such a law is passed.
“You get convicted of a sexual offense, you die in prison.”
now that is a great idea!
Sure. If they don’t want to wear the GPS, stay in jail.
Frankly, I also think that false accusations of rape should receive some very serious jail time. Take the Duke accuser, for instance.
The problem is, most people that gravitate toward government seem to have no common sense, discretion, or judgment. Including judges.
It’d be a start.
But I wasn’t actually advocating life-in-prison. More like hanging.
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>
"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
are they strapped to the neck like in that movie, and if they leave the approved perimeter, do they explode?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.