Comments on: Lots of bills reported out of committee http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/ Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: All the criminal justice bills you can gorge yourself on | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-2007 All the criminal justice bills you can gorge yourself on | a public defender Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:40:38 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/#comment-2007 [...] as promised, here is the post on what happened to all those criminal law related bills that were voted out of [...] [...] as promised, here is the post on what happened to all those criminal law related bills that were voted out of [...]

]]> By: Legislative session roundup | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-1821 Legislative session roundup | a public defender Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:47:14 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/#comment-1821 [...] the legislative session was gaining steam, I posted about the most interesting criminal justice bills. This weekend, I’ll find the time to [...] [...] the legislative session was gaining steam, I posted about the most interesting criminal justice bills. This weekend, I’ll find the time to [...]

]]> By: Insanity now, serenity later? DNA testing at time of arrest - a public defender - http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-842 Insanity now, serenity later? DNA testing at time of arrest - a public defender - Wed, 02 May 2007 12:25:37 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/#comment-842 [...] of the many criminal justice bills proposed this term is SB 838. While I mentioned it in the list, I haven’t yet had the [...] [...] of the many criminal justice bills proposed this term is SB 838. While I mentioned it in the list, I haven’t yet had the [...]

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-449 Gideon Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:58:49 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/#comment-449 On 0708 - we all know how fluid parole's definition of "violent offender" is; so how far before they take the stance that the statute doesn't <i>limit</i> them to the listed offenses. Edit: Umm, yeah, that made no sense. Sorry. On 0708 – we all know how fluid parole’s definition of “violent offender” is; so how far before they take the stance that the statute doesn’t limit them to the listed offenses.

Edit: Umm, yeah, that made no sense. Sorry.

]]> By: Miranda http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-448 Miranda Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:03:01 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/14/lots-of-bills-reported-out-of-committee/#comment-448 My thoughts on some of these, for whatever they're worth: NB 5503 - I'm opposed to this type of legislation generally, but specifically, this is poorly drafted. Two problems I'll mention now. (1)Why does this residency restriction apply to registrants who were not convicted of offenses involving minors? (2)A practical problem I see as coming up (an argument we will probably have to make in the future): John Doe now/at the time of the enactment of the statute resides within 1000 feet of an elementary school. In 2008, he will be charged and convicted with a sex offense requiring registration. Will he be exempt from this restriction by subsection (b)? In other words, does (b) exempt those people who at the time of the enactment of the restriction live within 1000 feet of a school AND are currently required to register? Or can Mr. Doe claim exemption for future registration because he had an established residence within 1000 feet at the time of the enactment? Maybe I am being too literal, but I don't think this is clear. HB 7365 - LOVE IT! It's about time. SB 0708 - You know, I thought the idea behind the sex offender registry and the winning argument against its opponents was that sex offenders were of a special threat to our children and community. I guess, as a society, we're willing to allow employers, landlords and members of our communities to treat those convicted of sex offenses as less than human. It's okay for their neighbors to know their business, for their landlords to evict them and for their bosses to fire them, because we're just protecting our children from these predators by disseminating the information. And apparently now we've slid down the slope far enough to believe "violent offenders" also qualify for this treatment. Awesome. My thoughts on some of these, for whatever they’re worth:

NB 5503 – I’m opposed to this type of legislation generally, but specifically, this is poorly drafted. Two problems I’ll mention now. (1)Why does this residency restriction apply to registrants who were not convicted of offenses involving minors? (2)A practical problem I see as coming up (an argument we will probably have to make in the future): John Doe now/at the time of the enactment of the statute resides within 1000 feet of an elementary school. In 2008, he will be charged and convicted with a sex offense requiring registration. Will he be exempt from this restriction by subsection (b)? In other words, does (b) exempt those people who at the time of the enactment of the restriction live within 1000 feet of a school AND are currently required to register? Or can Mr. Doe claim exemption for future registration because he had an established residence within 1000 feet at the time of the enactment? Maybe I am being too literal, but I don’t think this is clear.

HB 7365 – LOVE IT! It’s about time.

SB 0708 – You know, I thought the idea behind the sex offender registry and the winning argument against its opponents was that sex offenders were of a special threat to our children and community. I guess, as a society, we’re willing to allow employers, landlords and members of our communities to treat those convicted of sex offenses as less than human. It’s okay for their neighbors to know their business, for their landlords to evict them and for their bosses to fire them, because we’re just protecting our children from these predators by disseminating the information. And apparently now we’ve slid down the slope far enough to believe “violent offenders” also qualify for this treatment. Awesome.

]]>