Reason.com: Writing Sex Offender Laws Based on Fake Recidivism Numbers Is Rational, Court Says
Last week the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a state law banning sex offenders from public parks, overturning a 2017 appeals court ruling that deemed the statute “unconstitutional on its face because it bears no reasonable relationship to protecting the public.” The seven members of the higher court unanimously disagreed, saying, “We conclude that there is a rational relation between protecting the public, particularly children, from sex offenders and prohibiting sex offenders who have been convicted of crimes against minors from being present in public parks across the state.”
In reaching that conclusion, the justices relied on alarming claims about recidivism among sex offenders, even while acknowledging that the claims have been discredited. The decision, written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, shows how fear overrides logic in dealing with sex offenders and how toothless “rational basis” review can be, allowing legislators not only to draw their own judgments but to invent their own facts.
It”s alright Bob. I”ve got anger issues. I would not want people”s fingers chopped off, or lethal injections, I”m just tired of people stealing.I deal with it everyday. There should never be a repeat sex offender but I do know people lie,that”s why we can”t have extreme punishments, like castration. People abuse the system and that could be real bad for the innocents that are found guilty. What would you do if you were home and someone broke into your home to steal from you or cause harm? Would,you leave your AR15 locked up in the gun safe?
Another Crack Head Judge
…where did IT go to law school?…more importantly, where is It’s medical health expert..It, needs one!
Really that dumb? Wow..the ignorance in adjudication of Law
What next?
Appeal to the US Supreme Court – that would be a good thing.
How much will it cost…thanks
Think if we can get this recividism thing taken care of, it may just open those doors. Once that is shot down in a legal forum there no leg to stand on. Wouldnt that be lible or misrepresentation? False facts presented to a court isnt that purgery?
Yup, it seems like its “begging” for it to knock on SCOTUS’s door.
All 7 judges unanimously agreed ?? hmmm. Saying that facts don’t matter and fake emotional stuff can be used rationally ? I don’t know about this. Sometimes I wonder if these judges are actually NOT crazy. That they do this on purpose (knowingly) so it can strategically or methodically go to a higher court for better or worst. They couldn’t agree with us because with SCOTUS, it will carry more weight, so they disagree with us knowing it would probably be appealed, so that SCOTUS can get it and rule in our favor ? ? I wonder if that ever goes on. Or maybe I’m reading between the lines too much and I’m wrong.
I have wondered that myself a couple of times for some cases. So you’re not alone. In this case, the reason for the unanimous decision is just plain nuts. I would of dismissed this as business as usual, if there was a split decision and have read the dissenting opinion, but to have all 7 judges agreed upon that crazy reasoning ? I’m having a hard time buying it. You would have to wonder.
You have me thinking now of that possibility.
I think the reasoning is much simpler, the Illinois Supreme Court Justices are elected not appointed. Which this case clearly proves that these issues are more political than anything else, that’s the only logical explanation for acknowledging the facts and ruling against them.