Linkfest: Sex Offender Mania Updates
---
To review: I don't blog much about the sex offender mania anymore for two reasons: (1) there are several good single-issue blawgs covering the topic in great depth and detail, and (2) I can't be one of them — the flood of laws and lawsuits in this embarrassing race to the bottom are simply too overwhelming.
But every so often a news report or blogpost catches my eye.
---
ITEM: I noted previously that "within xx feet" laws restricting where sex offenders can live — or work, or merely be — can easily turn into de facto exile zones. The first notorious example was Miami Beach, Florida. Now, as should surprise no one, de facto is metastasizing into de jure:
---
ITEM: A Florida trial court has found that Jacksonville's 2,500-feet exclusion zone ("any school, public library, day care center, park, playground or other place where children regularly congregate") is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, every single rights-based challenge to the residency restriction (and there were lots — from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Ex Post Facto Clause and back to the Eighth Amendment) was in fact rejected. The sole reason that Jacksonville cannot impose a 2,500-foot zone is because the State of Florida has already imposed a 1,000-feet zone (i.e., an uninspiring pre-emption challenge). According to the court, if Jacksonville wants to expand the zone to 2,500 feet then it must have a (mere) rational basis for doing so; none was found in the legislative record.
Bottom line: Residency restrictions remain perfectly hunky-dory, but when both the state capital and city hall race to bottom, the state must always win as a matter of law. Thrilling. And all this assumes that the pre-emption invalidation survives appeal — big assumption. The case is Florida v. Schmidt, No. 16-2006-MO-010568-AXXX (4th Jud. Cir., October 11, 2007) (PDF - 42 pages) (Via Sex Offender Research.)
---
ITEM: I've blogged previously about how Halloween is an especially scary night for those who suffer from sex offender mania. This year is no different:
But every so often a news report or blogpost catches my eye.
---
ITEM: I noted previously that "within xx feet" laws restricting where sex offenders can live — or work, or merely be — can easily turn into de facto exile zones. The first notorious example was Miami Beach, Florida. Now, as should surprise no one, de facto is metastasizing into de jure:
While dozens of New Jersey municipalities have tried to restrict convicted sex offenders from living near their schools and parks, officials in Newton are seeking to bar high-risk sex offenders from living anywhere within the borders of their 3.5-square-mile Sussex County community.MY TAKE: I am long numb to the thought that hack politicians are perfectly willing to pass a law that they have been warned is almost certain to be struck down, or that de jure exile has finally been proposed somewhere. It will be proposed elsewhere in the future. (Via Sex Crimes Blawg.)
During the past year, courts have struck down three New Jersey towns' ordinances prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living within specified distances of schools and parks.
Despite the prospect of a legal challenge, officials in Newton said they were confident that their ordinance, which would bar sex offenders classified as being at high risk of repeating their crimes, would win approval by the Town Council on Oct. 10.
---
ITEM: A Florida trial court has found that Jacksonville's 2,500-feet exclusion zone ("any school, public library, day care center, park, playground or other place where children regularly congregate") is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, every single rights-based challenge to the residency restriction (and there were lots — from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Ex Post Facto Clause and back to the Eighth Amendment) was in fact rejected. The sole reason that Jacksonville cannot impose a 2,500-foot zone is because the State of Florida has already imposed a 1,000-feet zone (i.e., an uninspiring pre-emption challenge). According to the court, if Jacksonville wants to expand the zone to 2,500 feet then it must have a (mere) rational basis for doing so; none was found in the legislative record.
Bottom line: Residency restrictions remain perfectly hunky-dory, but when both the state capital and city hall race to bottom, the state must always win as a matter of law. Thrilling. And all this assumes that the pre-emption invalidation survives appeal — big assumption. The case is Florida v. Schmidt, No. 16-2006-MO-010568-AXXX (4th Jud. Cir., October 11, 2007) (PDF - 42 pages) (Via Sex Offender Research.)
---
ITEM: I've blogged previously about how Halloween is an especially scary night for those who suffer from sex offender mania. This year is no different:
To discourage contact with children, some registered sex offenders in Maryland will be asked to post signs at their homes that say "No Candy at This Residence," on Halloween.MY TAKE: As I blogged previously —
For the second straight year, parole and probation agents plan to team with local police to dissuade sex offenders who are not allowed to have contact with children from participating in the holiday.
...
In addition to the signs, all such offenders have been advised in a letter to stay home from 6 p.m. on Halloween until the next morning, leave their lights off and refuse to answer their doors.
And what about the kids? Is there no negative effect from teaching them that it's okay to treat some people — even very very bad people who do very very bad things — as outcasts who are beyond all redemption and must be avoided forever? Is it wise to tell children that there really are monsters, and that they live right down the street, and that they are so horrible that you can't even ring their doorbell with Dad by your side?(Via Fark.)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
14 October 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.