Kentucky's Sex Offender Law Struck Down

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Nevadamedic, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. Nevadamedic
    Offline

    Nevadamedic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,439
    Thanks Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Diagon Alley
    Ratings:
    +178
    LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- When Kentucky's new sex offender law went into effect last October, Louisville Metro police officers went door-to-door looking for convicted sex offenders. The law ruled that they could no longer live within 1,000 feet of a church, school, day care or a park with a pool.

    Those who support the law said children come first. But several sex offenders who violated it took legal action claiming the new residence restrictions violated their rights.

    "There's a new punishment for the people that have already served their debt to society," said Plantiff's Attorney Michael Goodwin last October. "The constitution forbids these new punishments that they have already been punished for."

    Tuesday, District Judge Donald Armstrong agreed.

    He ruled the law is unconstitutional and should not apply to anyone convicted prior to the date it went into effect.

    Armstrong also said it should only affect accused sex offenders with pending criminal charges.

    http://www.wlky.com/news/13746555/detail.html

    I agree with this Judge. You also have people who are convicted of a Sex Offense for say being with someone who is 16 when they were 18 and this law affected them as well. I think that is crap, that shouldn't be illegal let alone a Sex Offense. Now if it were people who are under lifetime supervision or high risk sex offenders then I agee with this law.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    Actually I agree. If they are still a threat then they should be IN jail or a treatment facility. If the law won't deal with them then this LAW is beyond the pale. The Constitution is quite clear, you can NOT remove peoples rights because you want to or the majority likes the idea.

    If they are on parole they have restrictions, if they are NOT on parole then any attempt to further restrict them is a violation of their RIGHTS as protected by the Constitution. Does not matter one bit about an arbitrary list of "sex" offenders. In fact push come to shove that list is unconstitutional if it includes anyone not currently in jail, being hunted, or on parole.

    I wonder how many liberals here that are all for the rights of terrorists support laws like this?
     
  3. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Sloppy laws.

    You cannot backdate punishment. Thus only those convicted after the law took effect are subject to it. The law would be incorporated into parole instructions as well as discharge briefings prior to release. This has the precedent with death penalty states. If someone commits murder and is convicted during a time frame when the state has no DP, he cannot be put to death just because the state enacted one. I totally agree with this.

    If they had simply took the convict out to the dempsey dumpster, shot him, and hung a sign on him reading "failed human being" the state could have avoided the embarrassment of sloppy law.
     
  4. Nevadamedic
    Offline

    Nevadamedic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,439
    Thanks Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Diagon Alley
    Ratings:
    +178
    Those are typical Parol and Probation rules as well as no internet use.
     
  5. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Makes me wonder about convict laws on voting and guns. Using the same logic, once the full debt is paid, there would be no restrictions on either.
     
  6. Nevadamedic
    Offline

    Nevadamedic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,439
    Thanks Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Diagon Alley
    Ratings:
    +178
    No, once your convicted of a Felony you lose your right's to own a gun or vote. You can apply for voting rights back.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    You can alos apply for the right to own weapons again, you do it to the Secretary of the Treasury, why him? I believe because originally the Secret service was through treasury.
     
  8. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    I agree

     
  9. Angel Heart
    Offline

    Angel Heart Conservative Hippie

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Ratings:
    +341
    Nope you're wrong...

    Oregon you get your rights back the day you walk out of prison.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/231136_gfelon04.html
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985

Share This Page