Two sex offender petitions for Writ of Certiorari to be considered by SCOTUS
Two cases are scheduled to be considered during the Supreme Court of the US’s conference scheduled for Friday January 4th; Vasquez v. Foxx (a case that we previously described as a “Bad decision out of the 7th Circuit“) and Bethea v. North Carolina
According to Vasqez’s Petition; “Illinois law makes it a felony for people who have been convicted of certain offenses to “knowingly reside” within 500 feet of home daycares and other facilities. The ban does not exempt residences that were established before the opening of a new daycare, meaning that whenever a third party decides to operate a home daycare within 500 feet of the residence of someone subject to the law, that person must move out of his or her home or face arrest and criminal punishment.” They ask the SCOTUS to decide whether that’s constitutional.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, what happened with these cases today?
We will know when the orders come back
The question: whether or not State legislators intended 775.215 formerly 794.065 to serve the objectives of criminal punishment: retribution and deterrence.
Because the statute affixes culpability to prior criminal conduct it serves the aim of retribution.
A person whose conviction under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145 was classified as a felony of the first degree or higher COMMITS A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083
A person who violates this subsection and whose conviction under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145 was classified as a felony of the second or third degree COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR OF THE FIRST DEGREE, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
The statute also criminalizes conduct legal before its enactment with the intent to deter future criminal action.
Finally, unlike other remedial statutes dealing with sexual offenders, 775.215 is prospectively applied.
Considering statutory construction and history along with a safe guard against an Ex Post Facto violation with its prospective application suggest the intention of its makers in 2004 was to impose a punishment.
A happy healthy New Year to all.
The Illinois case specifically seems a no-brainer. It’s the same logic as pocket parks – illegal as hell but still done. Kind of surprised such a case made it to SCOTUS but if that’s what it takes to end the practice nationwide I’m glad to see it.