Kentucky's Sex Offender Law Struck Down

[Nevadamedic]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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?

 

[pegwinn]

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.

 

[Nevadamedic]

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.

Those are typical Parol and Probation rules as well as no internet use.

 

[pegwinn]

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.

 

[Nevadamedic]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree

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?

 

[Angel Heart]

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.

Nope you're wrong...

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

Washington state prohibits felons on probation, in prison or on parole from voting. Ex-felons in the state must satisfy all court-related costs before getting their rights restored. More than 150,000 ex-felons are unable to vote, about 3.6 percent of the state's population.

"Keeping people out of the loop, keeping people isolated from the larger community just creates more prisoners," said Monifa Bandele, national field director for Right to Vote, a New York-based advocacy group. "The results of these laws is that it prevents people from voting. It doesn't prevent crime."

Washington's neighbors -- Idaho and Oregon -- automatically restore voting rights to felons once they've completed their sentences.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/231136_gfelon04.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Yup , that is a State by State issue.

 

[pegwinn]

Yup , that is a State by State issue.

Normally I would say that is how it should be. However since the second amendment is federal in nature, I wonder how they get around it. Voting is a different issue since there is no "right to vote" per the constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only way to get permission to own guns again is THROUGH the Federal Department of the Treasury. My comment about State to State is about voting rights.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

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.

CASTRATE THEM!!!!!

 

[JeffWartman]

CASTRATE THEM!!!!!

Have you read the rest of the thread?

RGS and pegwinn are both making good points. Perhaps you could learn something?