Jessica's Law Challenged in CA

[chanel]

The California Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 Thursday that a 2006 ballot initiative that permitted the state to lock up sexually violent predators indefinitely may violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

The ruling, written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, did not strike down the measure, Proposition 83, also known as "Jessica's Law."

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.

Proposition 83 increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, prohibited them from living near schools and parks, and changed the law to permit their indefinite confinement to mental institutions, instead of two years with the possibility of extensions.

Richard McKee, a convicted child molester, challenged his confinement on several constitutional grounds, but the court found that only his equal protection argument had merit.

Constitutionality of 'Jessica's Law' questioned - latimes.com

Hmmmmm. I wonder who was representing Mr. McKee. Any guesses?

 

[strollingbones]

i have a problem with indefinate sentences...or adding on to the sentence after the person has served what was given....all its says about the lawyer is he would not return the phone call

 

[jillian]

poor dear is trying to imply that the ACLU is defending the guy. Don't you recognize the rightwing rant?

All the Court said is there has to be a showing that sex offenders are a greater risk to the population for recidivism than other types of criminals.

Oh no!! How horrible!!! They want the Constitution to apply!! I thought the "constitutionalists" want that. *shrug*

Reality: Even if it is the ACLU, popular thoughts, actions, people don't get their constitutional rights violated. It's only the things the majority doesn't like that need protection.

 

[chanel]

Caught that eh? Yes Jillian I do believe that the ACLU is involved. They have challenged every sex offender law on the books.

Legal question - If this is overturned in CA (and I'm not saying that it will), will it apply to all other states?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

poor dear is trying to imply that the ACLU is defending the guy. Don't you recognize the rightwing rant?

All the Court said is there has to be a showing that sex offenders are a greater risk to the population for recidivism than other types of criminals.

Oh no!! How horrible!!! They want the Constitution to apply!! I thought the "constitutionalists" want that. *shrug*

Reality: Even if it is the ACLU, popular thoughts, actions, people don't get their constitutional rights violated. It's only the things the majority doesn't like that need protection.

I disagree with this law because of the limits on where people can live AFTER serving their time. That is cruel and unusual punishment when they can not even live in a town or city and are forced to live under a bridge somewhere.

Further what right do they have AFTER the time served to tell this now free person where they can and can not live?

I do not disagree with locking them up forever if they are a threat.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Caught that eh? Yes Jillian I do believe that the ACLU is involved. They have challenged every sex offender law on the books.

Legal question - If this is overturned in CA (and I'm not saying that it will), will it apply to all other states?

California Supreme Court only applies to California.

 

[jillian]

Caught that eh? Yes Jillian I do believe that the ACLU is involved. They have challenged every sex offender law on the books.

Legal question - If this is overturned in CA (and I'm not saying that it will), will it apply to all other states?

Well, it was kind of obvious.

Maybe because people want to (including me) treat sex offenders in a way that isn't consistent with our Constitution???? Who else is going to defend the constitution regardless of whether or not the subject matter offends you? That's what they're supposed to do and if they're not pissing us off, they aren't doing their jobs. Do you think I like the idea tha Nazis can march themselves through a community of holocaust survivors? I don't. But it was the right call constitutionally.

Will it apply to other states? Well, do you think people should be imprisoned indefinately? There will be similar suits in other states. But California is not binding precedent for anywhere but Cali.

We all know that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is astronomical. I'm personally for chemical castration, but that's for another conversation. But -are they more dangerous than other offenders who have finished their sentence? And if they are, give them longer sentences.

 

[chanel]

I'm not sure if the residency requirement is practical. However who can argue with this?

Proposition 83 increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, prohibited them from living near schools and parks, and changed the law to permit their indefinite confinement to mental institutions, instead of two years with the possibility of extensions.

If we accept the fact that they are insane and treatment rarely works, shouldn't they be confined indefinitely?

And what about GPS monitoring? Isn't that a violation of "equal protection"?

 

[jillian]

I'm not sure if the residency requirement is practical. However who can argue with this?

Proposition 83 increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, prohibited them from living near schools and parks, and changed the law to permit their indefinite confinement to mental institutions, instead of two years with the possibility of extensions.

If we accept the fact that they are insane and treatment rarely works, shouldn't they be confined indefinitely?

And what about GPS monitoring? Isn't that a violation of "equal protection"?

We can't argue with it... which is why, if it doesn't comport with the constitution, someone has to.

As for accepting the "fact that they are insane and treatment rarely works", that is our presumption. It is what the hearing is going to examine. They also have to be more dangerous to society that other offenders in order to treat them differently.

GPS monitoring? Whether its a violation depends on a balancing of the person's right versus the governmental interest. That's the standard as I understand it.

 

[strollingbones]

when a society....sexualizes kids to the point this society has...what can you expect? a society with no shame...ends up having no morals

 

[Gunny]

when a society....sexualizes kids to the point this society has...what can you expect? a society with no shame...ends up having no morals

A completely selfish and self-centered society concerned only with what feels got to me now ends up having no morals. Especially when any attempt to teach any kind of morality is attacked continually by political hacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

when a society....sexualizes kids to the point this society has...what can you expect? a society with no shame...ends up having no morals

Ya, sure thing, it is Media's fault that sexual predators exists and can not be retrained not to be sexual predators. got ya.

 

[Gunny]

poor dear is trying to imply that the ACLU is defending the guy. Don't you recognize the rightwing rant?

All the Court said is there has to be a showing that sex offenders are a greater risk to the population for recidivism than other types of criminals.

Oh no!! How horrible!!! They want the Constitution to apply!! I thought the "constitutionalists" want that. *shrug*

Reality: Even if it is the ACLU, popular thoughts, actions, people don't get their constitutional rights violated. It's only the things the majority doesn't like that need protection.

I disagree with this law because of the limits on where people can live AFTER serving their time. That is cruel and unusual punishment when they can not even live in a town or city and are forced to live under a bridge somewhere.

Further what right do they have AFTER the time served to tell this now free person where they can and can not live?

I do not disagree with locking them up forever if they are a threat.

I agree from a legal standpoint.

The obvious solution is to not let them out. I cannot think of one thing peds offer society that isn't completely negated by their sexually predatory nature. IMO, you molest a child, no second chance.

 

[lawbuff]

Caught that eh? Yes Jillian I do believe that the ACLU is involved. They have challenged every sex offender law on the books.

The ACLU does not generally handle criminal cases, even appeals, unless the Death penalty is involved. You are refering to Civil challenges.

Most states have a right of first appeal for counsel, and that was the Court of appeals. There is no right to appointed counsel at the high court stage, but the appeal can still be heard, or denied, as the case may be.

Legal question - If this is overturned in CA (and I'm not saying that it will), will it apply to all other states?

I read part of the opinion, it was remanded to the trial court for further consideration on the 14th AM claim of Equal Protection. If found to violate the EP clause, it may have an impact later, as no doubt it would be appealed to the US SC, or if he is held in custody, a bypass appeal, so to speak, could be filed with a U.S. District Court under a 2254 Motion of Habeas Corpus. If it was soley a state constitutional question, then no federal appeal can be filed.

 

[Gunny]

when a society....sexualizes kids to the point this society has...what can you expect? a society with no shame...ends up having no morals

Ya, sure thing, it is Media's fault that sexual predators exists and can not be retrained not to be sexual predators. got ya.

I didn't blame the media at all.

 

[lawbuff]

I'm not sure if the residency requirement is practical. However who can argue with this?

Proposition 83 increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, prohibited them from living near schools and parks, and changed the law to permit their indefinite confinement to mental institutions, instead of two years with the possibility of extensions.

If we accept the fact that they are insane and treatment rarely works, shouldn't they be confined indefinitely?

And what about GPS monitoring? Isn't that a violation of "equal protection"?

The appeal was also challenged on a 14th AM Due Process claim and also an Ex Post Facto claim, both failed, only the EP claim was sustained and remanded.

Defendants have challenged retroactive residency laws, etc., before, as a violation of Ex Post facto, but the SC ruled they are NOT punitive in nature, therefore no such claim can be uhheld, so that would be up to an individual state and thier EPF clause.

Gps monitoring is no different from a house arrest ankle bracelet.