A local news report has the details:
A ruling Tuesday from a district court judge could change the law limiting where sex offenders can live. Last October, Kentucky passed new laws prohibiting convicted sexual offenders from living within 1,000 feet from facilities with children. WAVE 3's Caton Bredar has the latest from an attorney involved in the case.
Kentucky's new sex offender laws took effect last October, and almost immediately, Kentucky State Police identified and charged more than three dozen sex offenders for violating residency restrictions.
Attorney Mike Goodwin's client was arrested the same night the new law took effect. Goodwin says the problem, legally, is that the new law amounts to a second punishment for the original crime, which is ex post facto, or unconstitutional.
"The Legislature decided that this is punishment," Goodwin said, referring to the new law. "They named it that in the title of the bill, and they said this is an act all about punishing sex offenders. And the Constitution couldn't be clearer that you can't punish people twice for the same thing."
According to Goodwin, his client was found guilty of a sexual offense nearly 10 years before being found in violation of new residency restriction laws. Those laws, passed last summer, dictate that convicted sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, day care, or public playground. It's a law Jefferson District Judge Don Armstrong deemed unconstitutional, dismissing Goodwin's client's case.
It sounds to me like Kentucky may have made the mistake of being too honest about its residency restrictions. Most states take the restrictions out of the criminal code and do everything possible to avoid calling the restrictions punishment. And this court case is exactly why legislatures go through the effort to change the appearance of their residency laws.
Many aspects of these registration laws use terms to make it look like states are not punishing. "Fees" charged instead of calling them "fines". Fees usually provide services the individual can deny to take. In my opinion, I think there is alot of sleeze in this registration. It violates all we have learned from psychological studies concerning this crime. ie: a secure enviornment and employment equals lower recidivism. Offender registration is called by many : "A modern day witchhunt". Registration excludes child killers released from prison...go figure. They may be your next babysitter!
No one has ever proved that this registry has made one child safer. But,it sure has been big bucks for our state coffers, however. Thank you D.O.J grants!
Posted by: Rendo1 | August 21, 2007 at 08:39 PM