Illinois Legislature Considers More Sex Offender Restrictions

From one of my colleagues, I learned that the Illinois Legislature is considering a number of new sex offender bills. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Every year, Illinois' list of registered sex offenders grows. And every year, the Legislature introduces a new crop of bills to restrict where they can live, where they can walk or stand, what they can drive, even what they can wear.

New bills would crack down on sex offenders who try to sign up for Internet dating sites, would prohibit them from driving ice cream trucks or donning Santa costumes and would prevent them from visiting nursing homes. One bill mandates that their movements be monitored for life by satellite.

Those bills, if ultimately passed into law, would join a long list of boundaries already encircling the state's roughly 23,400 (and counting) registered sex offenders. On the books in Illinois now are laws prohibiting more than one sex offender from living in the same household while on parole; requiring that they have their names and images posted online, generally for life; and barring them from living within 500 feet of schools, from loitering near playgrounds, or from working in youth programs.

Similar restrictions have been proposed in Missouri. For example, in 2006 the Legislature increased mandatory sentences for sex offenders and increased the number of offenders who would be electronically monitored. But a measure pushed last year by then-Gov. Matt Blunt calling for the death penalty for child rapists did not get to a vote.

Lawmakers in Illinois say the special nature of sex crimes makes tighter restrictions on them necessary.

"If you look at the recidivism rate of sex offenders, it's over 50 percent," said state Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, sponsor of the new satellite monitoring legislation. "These people can't be cured."

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have argued that restrictions that extend past a convict's prison sentence and parole time — extending in many cases to a lifetime — are unconstitutional.

Courts have ruled otherwise, and even the Chicago ACLU today acknowledges that that debate is over. But they and others say there are still legitimate concerns that the proliferation of sex-offender restrictions could become unmanageable for the state, and so onerous for the offenders that some will attempt to evade the registration system altogether.

"At a very pragmatic level, if you create so many harsh rules that there is literally no place for this person to live ... they'll try to live 'off the books'," said Chicago ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka. "Then whatever value that system had goes out the window."

Seriously, over 50 percent recidivism? For post-incarceration release (which is the only population that is affected by these restrictions, the numbers are far, far lower. Notably, some of the restrictions (nursing homes and dating sites) represent new areas for sex offender liberty to be curtailed.

Comments

[Alan]

This is nothing but pure hysteria.Politicans speading fear to get elected. They prey on sex offenders because they live in the shadows.Thank God we have A.C.L.U..Now I know how the Jews felt in Germany in 1940!

[littleone]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/browse_thread/thread/27b4a371a2a1f42a

We review de novo a circuit court's holding with respect to the
constitutionality of a statute. Russell v. Department of Natural
Resources, 183 Ill. 2d 434, 441, 233 Ill. Dec. 782, 701 N.E.2d 1056
(1998). Statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, and
the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the
burden of rebutting this presumption. Russell, 183 Ill. 2d at 441.
Here, that party is defendant, who for the reasons set forth below has
met this burden.

A cornerstone of our jurisprudence is that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const.,
amends. V, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. Due process of law
requires that the proscriptions of a criminal statute be clearly
defined. City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440, 448, 227 Ill.
Dec. 130, 687 N.E.2d 53 (1997), aff'd, 527 U.S. 41, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67,
119 S. Ct. 1849 (1999). To satisfy the vagueness doctrine, a criminal
statute must meet two requirements. First, the statute must provide a
person [*9] of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to
distinguish between lawful and unlawful conduct so that he or she may
act accordingly. Russell, 183 Ill. 2d at 442; Morales, 177 Ill. 2d at
449. " 'No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property
to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to
be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.' " Morales, 177
Ill. 2d at 450, quoting Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 83
L. Ed. 888, 890, 59 S. Ct. 618, 619 (1939). Thus, a statute is
unconstitutionally vague "if its terms are so indefinite that 'persons
of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application.' " Fagiano v. Police Board, 98 Ill. 2d
277, 282, 74 Ill. Dec. 525, 456 N.E.2d 27 (1983), quoting Polyvend,
Inc. v. Puckorius, 77 Ill. 2d 287, 299-300, 32 Ill. Dec. 872, 395 N.E.
2d 1376 (1979).

[david]

Jack Franks is a jack ass his 50%recidivism rate is an out right lie and he knows it in reality it;s more like 7 or 8 % and thats doj numbers these guys will tell you anything even if it means being untruthful to get their way he is probably in bed with the owner of the company that will do the tracking and also some of are darling poli ticians want have these gps devices installed on our vehicles so they can monitor your milage so they can tax you on the amount you drive this has to stop some where how much do we really want to give up these draconian laws have to stop