<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This month at the Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/01/this-month-at-the-supreme-court-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/01/this-month-at-the-supreme-court-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:04:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark in Jersey</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/01/this-month-at-the-supreme-court-2/#comment-17620</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark in Jersey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/01/this-month-at-the-supreme-court-2/#comment-17620</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Defendant was convicted of a DUI and sentenced to probation. Probation moved to modify conditions and wanted to include sex offender evaluation and treatment. &lt;/i&gt;

That is Fuc*%$d up on so many levels.  What part of &lt;b&gt;ex post facto&lt;/b&gt; don't people get?  You are sentenced for a particular crime, and you do your time according to the sentence handed down by the court.  That is why they call it the "sentencing court", as that judge is in the ONLY position to review the case file and order recommendations on probation conditions.  Now we have a loophole that allows probation officers to amend conditions of probation not ordered by court that are reasonably related to an offender's rehabilitation.  They are part of the Judicial Branch, but a probation officer should NOT be able to slap any conditions on a defendant that the PO wants, without &lt;b&gt;due process&lt;/b&gt;.

Now years later, you are punished for the same crime, by virtue of being on probation for a totally unrelated offense, without any judicial oversight.  Now if the judge ordered the sex offender treatment and the defendant agreed as part of a plea bargain, we would have some &lt;b&gt;due process&lt;/b&gt;.  Of course Conn. Courts have ruled that a probation officer can act like judge jury and executioner over any aspect of your life when you are on even MISDEMEANOR probation...

Seems like these rights are eroding every day.    In any case, the right of a defendant to be free from unreasonable, unrelated probation conditions for the underlying MISDEMEANOR case definitely outweigh the risk to public safety by this low-level convict.  If this defendant was such a threat, it was the  responsibility of the ORIGINAL sentencing court (for the sex crime) and probation for that old, expired, served-out sentence to impose that condition.  Once done, how can you revisit old sentences?

It is a dangerous road to follow on.  We are on the cusp of the State digging up anyone's old sex-or-violence related conviction (teenage sex, unwanted slap on the butt charge, old weapons charge, history of threatening) and registering them and imposing post-sentence supervision... 

This is so we can &lt;b&gt;feel&lt;/b&gt; safe.  And the politicos can claim they are for &lt;b&gt;public safety&lt;/b&gt;, and &lt;b&gt;SPO&lt;/b&gt; can claim how such a good idea these laws are because they prevent potential victims.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Defendant was convicted of a DUI and sentenced to probation. Probation moved to modify conditions and wanted to include sex offender evaluation and treatment. </i></p>
<p>That is Fuc*%$d up on so many levels.  What part of <b>ex post facto</b> don&#8217;t people get?  You are sentenced for a particular crime, and you do your time according to the sentence handed down by the court.  That is why they call it the &#8220;sentencing court&#8221;, as that judge is in the ONLY position to review the case file and order recommendations on probation conditions.  Now we have a loophole that allows probation officers to amend conditions of probation not ordered by court that are reasonably related to an offender&#8217;s rehabilitation.  They are part of the Judicial Branch, but a probation officer should NOT be able to slap any conditions on a defendant that the PO wants, without <b>due process</b>.</p>
<p>Now years later, you are punished for the same crime, by virtue of being on probation for a totally unrelated offense, without any judicial oversight.  Now if the judge ordered the sex offender treatment and the defendant agreed as part of a plea bargain, we would have some <b>due process</b>.  Of course Conn. Courts have ruled that a probation officer can act like judge jury and executioner over any aspect of your life when you are on even MISDEMEANOR probation&#8230;</p>
<p>Seems like these rights are eroding every day.    In any case, the right of a defendant to be free from unreasonable, unrelated probation conditions for the underlying MISDEMEANOR case definitely outweigh the risk to public safety by this low-level convict.  If this defendant was such a threat, it was the  responsibility of the ORIGINAL sentencing court (for the sex crime) and probation for that old, expired, served-out sentence to impose that condition.  Once done, how can you revisit old sentences?</p>
<p>It is a dangerous road to follow on.  We are on the cusp of the State digging up anyone&#8217;s old sex-or-violence related conviction (teenage sex, unwanted slap on the butt charge, old weapons charge, history of threatening) and registering them and imposing post-sentence supervision&#8230; </p>
<p>This is so we can <b>feel</b> safe.  And the politicos can claim they are for <b>public safety</b>, and <b>SPO</b> can claim how such a good idea these laws are because they prevent potential victims.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
