I hate to say it, but the judge in this case is right. He blocked enforcement of a popular ballot initiative keeping sex offenders at least 2,000 feet from parks.
Now, I’m all for frying every sex offender on the planet.* I think it’s nauseating that we don’t do more to punish rapists and child molesters — I’ve heard the argument that lax rape laws are due to overwhelmingly male legislatures, and I’m not sure I believe that (plenty of other laws are too lenient), but it’s a problem nonetheless.
But there’s something called ex post facto, which means, in a word, retroactive. That’s forbidden in America. If the punishment for robbery is 1 year, and I rob, you can’t then pass a law extending my sentence to 3 years. You have to wait until I rob again to give a different punishment.
Likewise, for sex offenders who’ve already committed their crimes, you can’t add the extra punishment of a 2,000-foot rule. Such a rule can only apply to sex offenses to take place after the law’s passage.
Robert VerBruggen blog at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
*Save for the 18-year-olds who had consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends, and the guys who, drunk themselves, had sex with drunk girls and got prosecuted. I love this line from the Cornell Rape Education Web site, not because it’s bad advice but because it’s an accurate description of the law: “Being drunk or high is not a legal defense against a charge of rape. You are responsible for your actions, whether or not you are drunk or on drugs. Furthermore, a woman who is drunk or under the influence of drugs may be incapable of consent.” In other words, men are responsible for their drunken behavior. Women aren’t.
Let Others Know About This Post These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • blogmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Fark
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Live
  • YahooMyWeb