Comments for ConstitutionalFights

Comment on IL Rep: Some Tiring of Piling on Sex Offenders by Angela

Angela — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:03:08 +0000

Nice post. It’s a controversial legislature.

Even though it aims to protect children, the cost may be rather heavy for a sex offender. I agree that this will be criminalizing everything a sex offender does, even after they have paid a debt to society.

Comment on TN Lawmakers Debate Juvenile Sex Offender Registry by VDog

VDog — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:42:06 +0000

If these registry laws are so damaging, so harmful, so destructive to the lives of juveniles, why cannot the same be said of adults? And if they are, why does the Ex Post Facto clause protect them?????

Comment on Time For A New Approach To Released Sex Offenders by greg55

greg55 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:42:51 +0000

now this sure makes more sence then all these useless lqaws tha tdo nothing but make it harder to track real threats….even the police agree these laws do no real good

Comment on NH Bill to Create Internet Murderer Registry by greg55

greg55 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:28:00 +0000

When is this all going to stop. As this article points out it started with sex offenders and the public let it happen out of the hatred they have towards them. Know it is spreading to another segment of society that it feared. How long till it in compasses the dreaded drunk driver, the drug addict, the worthless check writer.
You know back 25 or 30 years ago the government passed a law that allowed the police depts. to bring charges against a person they thought had committed domestic violence against there spouse….even if that person did not want to have charges filed. They used the excuse that the battered spouse was afraid to file the charges, and that something had to be gone to stop the domestic violence. I remember the fuss that surrounded this at the time in the papers and the news. And one of the biggest concerns of the time was that if the government was allowed to have this power that it was just a matter of time and they would be applying this to more then the domestic violence cases. The government insisted that was not the case, that if given this power that it would only be applied to domestic violence cases. Well here we are 25 years later and this law is being applied in so many cases other then domestic violence it’s not funny.
We allowed the government do this all over again with the sex offender hysteria….its spreading to include other crimes. Crimes that the people have done there time for…..crimes that the likely hood to ever re offend is well below 1%……Come on now how many convicted murders ever re offend…..sounds like another excuse by the government to move forward with some other agenda other then public safety….but hiding it all by simply saying OH IT ALL THE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND A NEED TO KNOW.
WAKE UP AMERICA THEY ARE JUST CHIPPING AWAY EVERDAY AT WHATS LEFT OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHT. AND IT WILL CONTINUE TILL YOU STAND UP AND LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD …ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Comment on 9th Circuit Nixes Juvenile Sex Offender Registration by greg55

greg55 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:39:17 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t our elected officials take a oath of office where they swear to up hold the constitution of the United States of America? Yet the other day I see a article on line where a elected official states it’s the job of the courts to decide if a law is constitutional or not.
It seems to me these elected officials know fully well it will take years to challenge these laws in court and have them ruled unconstitutional by then a lot of damage has been done.
It seems to me these elected officials are making a mockery of our constitution each and every time they pass a unconstitutional law. DON’T THEY COMMITT PERJURY EACH AND EVERYTIME THEY PASS LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AFTER ALL THAT OATH OF OFFICE IS NO DIFFERENT THEN A OATH YOU TAKE IN COURT TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH….BUT THE TRUTH IS SOMETHING ELSE WASHINGTON HAS LOST SIGHT OF.
It’s time we as Americans stand up and let our voices be heard….each and every time our elected officials pass unconstitutional laws it chips away at our constitution AND AFTER ALL THAT CONSTITUTION IS BUT A SHELL OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS AND SOON THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT OF IT.

Comment on Young Man Struggles with Sex Offender Label by mako

mako — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:16:28 +0000

These sex offender laws are not only taxing our economic system, but it is turning criminals into people who made mistakes. $365 MILLION dollars has been approved to fund the Adam Walsh act which will be used to put people like Matthew in prison. Meanwhile, the drug dealer, alcoholic or murderer is free to interact with anyone they please, even your kids. Instead of spending $30,000 to incarcerate Matt, we should use that money to help him get a job to do an honest days work, become a tax payer and so that he can afford to move away from the school where the children were probably not at risk anyway. BTW, according to the DOJ, 97% of the sex crimes are committed by people NOT registered as former offenders. That doesn’t sound like good business sense.

Comment on MA Working to Meet Sex Offender Guidelines by Letsgetreal

Letsgetreal — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:28:07 +0000

The overriding issue is that the Adam Walsh Act was developed without utilizing any research on sex offenders in general – their recidivism rates, different kinds of offenders, etc – or effective sex offender management policies. Many legislators were provided with this information, yet they ignored it. We need evidence-based legislation using the volumes of research on sex offenders. Instead we have legislation based on myths and erroneous statistics.

In the passage of sex offender legislation, our representatives have made the following statements:

* “The rate of recidivism for these offenders is astronomical …” (Jennifer Dunn, Congressional Record, vol. 140)

* “We know that more than 40% of sex offenders will repeat their crimes.” (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Congressional Record, vol. 142)

* “There is a ninety percent likelihood of recidivism for sexual crimes against children.” (Mark Foley, Congressional Record vol. 151)

Federal legislation including the Adam Walsh Act/SORNA have used these myths to support comprehensive and punitive legislation that flies in the face of research. In the past five years, the Bureau of Justice (2003), the Virginia Sex Offender Task Force (2006), Ohio Dept. of Corrections, and a New York State Sex Offender Registry (2005) study examined from 2,000 to 20,000 offenders in periods from 3 years to 10 years post-release. Sex offense recidivism ranged from 3% to 8%. Unfortunately, it’s unfounded quotes from ill-informed politicians that sway the votes of their colleagues.

Numerous reports, including ones from the DOJ and the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, have stated that 93% of offenses are committed by family members or close family acquaintances. Other studies show that approximately 93-95% of sex offenses are committed by people not yet on the registry. It doesn’t matter how much information is included on registries if the offender is in the home or hasn’t yet been apprehended!

Recent studies have indicated that public registries do not impact either initial offending or reoffense rates (New Jersey and New York). Other research has indicated that registration, notification, and other auxiliary restrictions do “more harm than good” and are verging on lifetime probation. While the claim is that these policies are regulatory rather than punitive, it is incumbent on the government to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a significant need to “regulate” all former sex offenders and that said policies do, in fact, protect the public.
http://tinyurl.com/y93yhel

Comment on MA Working to Meet Sex Offender Guidelines by Letsgetreal

Letsgetreal — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:20:45 +0000

Based on what Mass. received in 2007. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/07JAGstateallocations.pdf

Massachusetts Fiscal Impact for SORNA /Adam Walsh Act: A Tax We Cannot Afford

Massachusetts Cost of Implementing SORNA ………………………………………………..$10,461,238

Massachusetts Byrne Money 2007………………………………………………………………………$6,382,251
Massachusetts 10 percent of Byrne money if not in compliance …………………………$638,225

States can expect to incur significant costs as they attempt to comply with SORNA. States should consider all possible areas in which increased expenditures will occur.

• New personnel

• Software, including installation and maintenance

• Additional jail and prison space

• Court and administrative costs

• Law enforcement costs

• Legislative costs related to adopting and crafting state law

If Massachusetts chose not to comply, it would take 16.39 years PLUS, before they incurred a cost.

Comment on Sex Offender Hysteria Ends Santa Letter Tradition by greg55

greg55 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:54:21 +0000

Smart decision……what was this guy going to do sexually assault some one through the mail…or hop in his sled and travel 1000’s of miles to assault some kid. What don’t they have kids that Alaskan towns.
This story doesn’t state what this guy did to be put on the sex offender registry…..writing smut letters, peeing in a alley or heaven forbid if he had sex with his 17 year old girl friend when he was 18.
How RIDICULOUS

Comment on NJ Supreme Court Ruling Changes Sex Offender Laws by Bennie

Bennie — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:50:01 +0000

When providing summaries of court rulings will you please also provide the link to the actual court ruling. It is easier to compile a log of rulings if this is done. As more laws are overturned these rulings can be used by others in other states or to bring attention to state legislators and others they better not do this.

constitutionalfights.org response:

Thanks for your suggestion.
I try to always provide a link to the court decision. However as you can imagine, in tracking news and court cases nationally, I am sometimes unable to locate a ruling. Sometimes this is because the news reports come out before the ruling is posted by the court. In tracking court rulings from every state across the nation, we are sometimes unable to track down the decision in a particular jurisdiction. In general, readers can go to the web page for the court in question and search decisions using case numbers or names of parties. A google search of the case name/number can also provide a source. We do welcome and encourage readers such as yourself to help by searching the archives of the courts in question and provide to readers any sources we are missing. Thanks !

The ruling in the above posting is an old ruling and can be found on our blogs if you search the blog archives for “NJ Supreme Court”
http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/nj-high-court-strikes-down-residency-laws/