Reply With QuoteAm I missing something here.....
Who voted this a$$ in?
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=di...12&format=html
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Attorney General Bill Lockyer moved late Wednesday to dismiss a federal lawsuit that challenges a voter-approved measure prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.
Lockyer urged the lawsuit’s dismissal because the measure does not have any sanction against those who violate the 2,000-foot rule. Proposition 83 “does not call for punishment, mush less imprisonment, for violation of the residency restriction,” the attorney general’s brief said.
A lawsuit challenging one of several provisions of Proposition 83 was brought by an unidentified California registered sex offender who already lives within 2,000 feet of a school or park. The plaintiff, identified in court papers as John Doe, is not on parole or probation for a sex crime. He was convicted 15 years ago and served no time.
LockyerÂ’s office also said the lawsuit should be dismissed because the measure does not apply to registered sex offenders like John Doe who are already living in a prohibited area and who are not on parole or probation. It was not immediately known how many California registered sex offenders are living within 2,000-foot zones and who are no longer on parole or probation.
There are some 90,000 registered sex offenders in CaliforniaÂ’s communities, but the attorney generalÂ’s brief only addressed how the law applies to persons such as John Doe. Which registered sex offenders the law ultimately would cover is to be the subject of further litigation.
A spokesman for the measureÂ’s author, State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said he did not intend for it to apply to sex offenders already in the community.
“We’ve stipulated all along in every news article in which Senator Runner was quoted that it was his intent that it would be prospective only,” Runner’s spokesman Will Smith said.
A day after the measure passed Nov. 7, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston temporarily blocked the 2,000-foot requirement from taking effect, ruling that it was likely unconstitutional as applied to sex offenders in the community because it amounted to new punishment on them after their convictions. Illston set a Nov. 27 hearing.
The so-called JessicaÂ’s Law also increases prison terms for sex offenders and requires lifetime satellite tracking for rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. None of those provisions was a part of the lawsuit.
The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and suffocated by a convicted sex offender last year. More than 70 percent of voters approved the measure Nov. 7.
Am I missing something here.....
Am I missing something here.....
So am I
time to recall
the ppl that were just elected are not in office yet....
The way I read this is Lockyear filed a motion to have the LAWSUIT (that challenges the law) dismissed, not the law.
The way I read this is Lockyear filed a motion to have the LAWSUIT (that challenges the law) dismissed, not the law.
Exactly, he is trying to keep the law from being thrown out.... that's a good thing!:idea:
Exactly, he is trying to keep the law from being thrown out.... that's a good thing!:idea:
Yes, he is trying to get the law suit dismissed because the person that filed it does not have "standing" to sue. Standing would mean that the law impacts that person, but because the punishments for violations was not established, the person filing the case, has no case issue, and therefore the attempt to block the law should be dismissed. It is a good thing he is trying to do........MP
It sounds like a bad law. The concept is to keep molesters away from children, but there are a lot of convicted sex offenders that are not child molesters. If it also does not impose any penalties, then it is toothless. It would seem that we need to make sure that child molestation is something that these perverts do not get more than one chance at.
'A lawsuit challenging one of several provisions of Proposition 83 was brought by an unidentified California registered sex offender who already lives within 2,000 feet of a school or park. The plaintiff, identified in court papers as John Doe, is not on parole or probation for a sex crime. He was convicted 15 years ago and served no time.'
Posting Permissions