A Stitch in Haste

Four very different developments in the ongoing hysteria against sex offenders:

---

STEP FORWARD: A New York judge has reiterated her view that Governor George Pataki broke the law by denying due process to several convicted sex offenders whom he ordered confined to mental hospitals after their sentences were up --

[Justice Jacqueline] Silbermann ordered hearings within 20 days on whether the offenders need continued confinement. She said that unless Kirby [Forensic Psychiatric Center] produces the inmates, they will be "discharged from the custody of (Kirby) and from further detention."

The judge in November found that 12 sex offenders — known as "John Does" — were held illegally after their sentences ended for crimes including sodomizing and raping children. To date, none has been released because a judge stayed the order after Pataki objected.

MY TAKE: I have no problem with confining the criminally insane — for their protection as well as for ours. But even the most dangerous or deranged convicts are still entitled to due process. These people are locked up for years, so you would think that the state can find the time to evaluate them and initiate the mandatory — and humane — process to continue their confinement where necessary. Merely blathering "It's always necessary..." is not an option.

---

STEP BACK: One of the municipalities that started it all, Miami Beach, Florida, decided that it likes its own version of redlining better than the surrounding county's law, because — of course — the city law is harsher:

"It's ironic that when we started, we thought other municipalities would say this ordinance is too strong," [Mayor David] Dermer said.

Still, Dermer said, the law is working. Since the inception of the ordinance, he said, the number of sexual predators living in the city has gone down from 33 to 23.

Note that the mayor did not say that the number of sexual offenses has gone down, only the number of sexual "predators" (is that the official, legal term?). Well, at least he's honest about his real motives.

Meanwhile, another Miami Beach hack politician is crafting a new city ordinance to cherry-pick the elements of the county law that are more harsh than the city law. Because, of course, the law can never be too harsh.

---

STEP FORWARD: Iowa prosecutors are inching back from the precipice, denouncing that state's 2002 redlining law, issuing a five-page document calling for alternative approaches. Perhaps the most damning point made by the prosecutors is that 80-90% of child molesters preyed on their own children or other relatives. Redlining is utterly useless against these predators. The letter has much, much more. You know a law is bad when even prosecutors want it changed. (Via Sentencing Law and Policy; see also Concurring Opinions.)

---

STEP BACK: Camden, New Jersey is borrowing a page from the Miami Beach playbook --

Despite warnings from critics that the law might be unconstitutional and unenforceable, City Council yesterday adopted an ordinance to limit where convicted sex offenders can live in Camden.
...
The ordinance bars convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any public or private school, park, playground, public library or day-care center in Camden's eight square miles.
...
Just the overlapping circles around the more than 30 public schools would bar Megan's Law registrants from living anywhere in the city, [an opponent of the law] said.
...
Council President Angel Fuentes said the ordinance was worth the risk of a legal challenge.

MY TAKE: Note that last line. This is increasingly becoming the new statecraft — pass whatever law feels good and worry about legal challenges (and "activist judges") later. Whatever happened to the idea that hack politicians — who tend to be lawyers — asking their hack counsels --who are always lawyers — to review, a priori, the constitutionality of a bill before it is passed into law? Since when is passing constitutionally suspect laws "all about the children"?