I enjoyed the President's swipe at SCOTUS earlier this week.
That being said, the Supremes have yet to rule on the practice of civil commitment for federal prisoners.
With the spotlight glare upon The Wise Ones, may they twist ever so uncomfortably in their robes over that issue based on the ruling by the California Supremes indicating such practice may "...violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection."
Yet per usual, the Cali Supremes placed a hedge bet.
(...)
The ruling, written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, did not strike down the measure.
Instead, the court said a fact-finding hearing must be held to determine whether valid reasons exist for treating sex predators differently from others subject to civil confinement, such as mentally disordered offenders.
Justice Ming Chin, joined by Justice Marvin Baxter, dissented.
"Whether sexually violent predators present a distinct danger warranting unique remedies is for society to determine, not a trial judge," Chin wrote.
KTLA News, (1.28.2010)
Read more over at ABC News, San Francisco. (1.28.2010)
As previously mentioned by one of SF's froggiest, California is also questioning the constitutionality of Jessica's Law.
(...)
The number of convicted sex offenders living on the streets is soaring across the state, according to new figures released to the ABC7 I-Team. It is an unintended consequence of Jessica's Law (Prop 83), passed overwhelmingly by voters a few years ago.
The California Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling next week whether Jessica's Law is so broad and intrusive, that it violates the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders. But, even more important, the measure meant to protect children could actually be putting us all at risk.
(...)
Under Jessica's Law, a paroled sex offender can't take up residence within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Checking the map at the parole office in San Francisco, that leaves very few places for sex offenders to live.
The I-Team spoke with San Francisco parole supervisor Armel Farnsworth.
Noyes: The high rent district, the parking lot of the ball park?
Farnsworth: Yes.
Noyes: The toxic waste dump at Hunter's Point?
Farnsworth: Yes.
Noyes: Or out on the golf course?
Farnsworth: The golf course at the Olympic Country Club, yes.
(...)
The author of Jessica's Law, State Sen. George Runner, says he is open to communities loosening the restriction against sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.
"If the city of San Francisco felt like 500 feet was a better number, we certainly don't have any issue with that," said Runner. "Our issue has been pretty simple, we just don't think that a person who has molested a child should live across the street from a school."
The California Supreme Court could do away with the residency restriction altogether. The key issues: the law also applies to parolees who have not committed crimes against children, and it sometimes applies to those who committed sex crimes long ago.
Read more over at ABC News, San Francisco. (1.28.2010)
9 comments:
ahhh signs of weakness. NO RESTRICTIONS. That's the phrase. NO RESTRICTIONS. How many RSO's on the SRO (standing room only) list lived across the street from a school when they did their devious deed? I think I've read about twenty or so. And I read ONE HELL OF A LOT. Also ... this means that all of us are suffering because twenty sick mfers hurt a child. When fascism comes to america.......
Lookie ! No room for comments on the sex offender arrest !! I know a few garage apartments on Mitchell Ave they should be checking .....
so should we all gather in Cal. for a rally and fact finding session?how about a bus ride across country for equal rights?
We should.
I have just added a Reference List to my economics blog with economic data series, history, bibliographies etc. for students & researchers.
read carefully.
Good and bad news
For me it also makes no sense that they are discussing in the article only violent folks and mentally disturbed folks. Some are JUST PLAIN ENTRAPPED folks and some are bouyfriend and girlfriend and some piss on the street and some peer through windows.
Keep repeating: NO RESTRICTIONS.
It's VERY important that this be shoved back under the rock. Until that happens the door is open.
I have a copy of the courts opinion. I have to look at it.
However, I have a quick point to make. The correct title of California's Proposition 83 is actually "Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act".
Before all of this gets out of hand, lets look at 2 problems with this act. 1st it's a punishment act. No matter what way you slice this law, it's an ex post facto violation. The Supreme Courts in all 50 states can look at an abortion all day long and call it an orange. At the end of the day, "it's still an orange" (continued punishment AFTER THE FACT is still PUNISHMENT - therefor it's an ex post facto violation.
Secondly the title of Proposition 83 states that it's an act for "Sexual Predator's". So if your a convicted "Sex Offender" it does not apply??
I know what some of you are saying, well you have to read the law because it applies to both...I know that! My point here is that the title of Proposition 83 "suggests" PUNISHMENT and suggests that all sex offenders are "Predators" which is flat out garbage and not the truth.
You have to look at the words and what the law actually says.
The Constitution is words also. They were words that meant something at one point in our nations history. Words that guaranteed not only our safety from big Government micro managing our lives, but also freedom from them taking over control of our lives and walking all over us.
Every case sets a precedent!
I hope to find the answer to the question of a 5 to 2 vote that suggests Jessicia's Law, Prop 83, is constitutional in this 50 page document.
Maybe the answer is that it's constitutional because AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY our government say's it is and the California Supreme Court just want's to agree with the desires of the uneducated/scared public.
That, my friends IS NOT what is known as being "constitutional"...it's known as being "convient".
CORRECTION:
The Supreme Courts in all 50 states can look at an abortion all day long and call it an orange. At the end of the day, "it's still an abortion"
Lateness of the hour.
I'm not going to give you a line by line analysis nor a summation of the California Supreme Courts Decision on Feb 01 2010, concerning the 4 parolees.
Only to say that all 4 parolees committed their crimes BEFORE Proposition 83 was passed (it was passed by a citizen vote of 70% in favor), but the Majority of the Justices made their case FOR the constitutionality of Jesica's Law and not against it.They sited much case law to back their decision.
As I read more and more of these cases, It seems a though interpreting law (at this level of the justice system anyway),is kind of like driving a car. Now, most of us think of law as driving a car in a straight line. That's what most of us THINK. However, if you want the car to go left you steer in that direction. If you want it to go right, you steer the car in that direction. Steering in this case is using CASE LAW. The more you use to support your (intended) conclusion, the more you justify your decision(s).
Both Justice Moreno and Justice Kennard dissented with Justice Moreno writing the opinion. He (Moreno) really blows this whole issue of constitutionality vs unconstitutionality right out of the water.
You have to read the whole decision to understand what I am about to say, but Justice Moreno made the case by saying "Prop. 83, as approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006)) was enacted. Nothing in the language of the proposition or in the relevant extrinsic materials supports any other conclusion."
The material handed out to the California voters DID NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE that Prop 83 was going to be RETROACTIVE. California Penal Code apparently prohibits this kind of action because the voters were not given CLEAR INTENT of what the law would entail. Justice Moreno goes on to say “California continues to adhere to the time-honored principle . . . that in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature or the voters must have intended a retroactive application.”
So....which way do you want to steer the car? I think this car (cases S156933,S157631, S157633, S157634), was steer toward the 70% of California voters...no matter what the ORIGINAL INTENT was supposed to be used for.
Remember what I said in an earlier post: "Every case sets a precedent"! If you don't remember that now, YOU WILL when it gets used against YOU.
Lastly, Sex Offenders have begun to be hit with new laws almost every time legislation is in session these days. And, I can remember saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" when I was in grade school. The last line of that goes..."with liberty and justice for all". The last time I looked, Lady Justice still had her blindfold on, and the scales of justice were still balanced in her hand.
....Did I miss the day the scales became tipped and the blindfold ripped from her eyes???
Click on my name above and you can view the California Decision in PDF format.
Post a Comment