The Greensboro News Record has an editorial discussing a sex offender registry loophole in North Carolina law. The op-ed discusses a case where a woman, "convicted in 1995 of taking indecent liberties with a child, registered her address as required. For several weeks, however, she spent most nights at her parents’ home in another town, returning during the day to check her mail and do household chores." The authorities charged her with violating the registration requirements and she was convicted. The North Carolina appeals court "overturned the conviction, ruling the state did not provide enough evidence to show she had moved her actual residence." I have no idea what the so-called "loophole" is, but like the word "technicality" it is often used by media to describe an outcome they don't like.
Many blogs have noted this announcement from Concurring Opinions, which states that "Concurring Opinions, like A.I.G. and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac before it, is now too big too fail. We expect that should our blogging rate slow, or the general market conditions to lead to a run on our host, the Feds will step in ensure market stability." Clearly, Sex Crimes must find a merger partner so that it can similarly protected by the Feds. Maybe we should contact Goldman to find an appropriate match in these troubled economic times.
FoxNews has an editorial which calls on Congress "to fully fund the sex offender registry and notification system they created two years ago under the Adam Walsh Act...." The op-ed also asserts that Congress has "fallen short in providing money for federal law enforcers to carry out their responsibilities under the Adam Walsh Act, such as hunting down, arresting and prosecuting unregistered sex offenders."