CrimProf Blog directs us to an article on Law.com discussing "[a] steadily increasing number of courts across the United States are prohibiting witnesses and victims from uttering certain words in front of a jury, banning everything from the words 'rape' to 'victim' to 'crime scene.'" According to the article, prosecutors and victims' rights advocates claim that "courts are going too far in trying to cleanse witness testimony, all to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial." The ABA Journal has similar coverage.
ZDNet reports that Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is "backing off of a bill he signed requiring lifetime GPS monitoring of child sex offenders." According to the article, Gov. Doyle intends to use passive monitors that cost much less than the real-time devices and delay implementation of the law he promoted on the campaign trail to save money. Even under the new plan, the program would cost over $11 million. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has more.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has "signed a bill that makes it illegal for sex offenders to live within 1,000 feet of schools, day care centers and playgrounds." Sex offenders who violate the new law could be charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense and face up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
The town of Weymouth, Massachusetts is "joining a growing number of communities across the Commonwealth by banning Level 3 sex offenders - those deemed most likely to re-offend - from living within 1,500 feet of any school, park, daycare center, or recreational facility." The move makes it nearly impossible for Level 3 sex offenders to actually live in town. According to the article, "[w]ithout a state law restricting where sex offenders can or cannot live, municipalities are increasingly ... drawing up maps that hem sex offenders into tiny pockets of town or forbid them from visiting public places like libraries."
U.S. Attorney Bill Mercer (District of Montana) says his office will "withhold federal prosecution against offenders within the Missoula District," in light of a ruling (which we previously mentioned here and here) that found constitutional problems with the Adam Walsh Act. The U.S. Attorney however did state that sex offenders whom fail to register in Montana will still be prosecuted, but not within Missoula District; his office will forward on prosecutions within the other districts. Of note, the U.S. Attorney did note that he expects the Justice Department to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit or defend the law as Constitutional in another court.
Sentencing Law and Policy reports that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has "upheld the state's practice of charging convicted sex offenders $34 a year to pay for the state's sex offender registry." The appellant, who was convicted in 2000 of five counts of felonious sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, challenged the twice-a-year $17 fee convicted sex offenders must pay each time they register their address and other particulars with their local police department. According to the article, "[t]he money covers the cost of registering sex offenders: $15 of it goes toward the costs of maintaining the statewide sex offender registry. The remaining $2 goes to the local police department for work registering offenders." The Boston Globe has more.
An Ohio man, who police say was caught on tape having sex with a picnic table, will now spend six months behind bars. The man has pleaded no contest to several misdemeanor charges. County police report that a neighbor secretly taped the man "walking out onto his back deck in broad daylight, at times completely naked, standing at a round, metal table on its side and having sex with it."
Defendants do deserve a right to a fair trial, and if public opinion is going to be skewed by politicians and the media to basically see anyone who is accused as guilty, then the courts need to help find a balance. Many men and women have been accused of sexual misconduct, sexual offense, sexual abuse and other crimes, only to be found innocent. Our system is designed to let defendants be "innocent until proven guilty." Public opinion is strong, as is public outcry against sex offendors, but branding the innocent as being guilty goes completely against our justice system.
Posted by: JT | June 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM