In a clash that has surfaced in federal courthouses across the country and a recent Houston case, a collection of judges have held it is their duty to set conditions of release for accused sex offenders despite a strict law that limits their discretion.
The constitutional conflict hinges on whether judges or lawmakers should decide how these defendants live their day-to-day lives after they are arrested. It touches on public safety, just treatment and whether the judiciary or legislative branch should determine bail conditions for a category of people accused of crimes involving children.
The ongoing dispute flared up locally in April when U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes ordered court officials to remove the ankle monitor of a man named Sam Robinson who had just admitted to engaging in a sexually explicit video chat involving a child. The tracking device Robinson had been wearing was excessive, Hughes said, since the teenage girl in the streaming internet exchange was “halfway around the world” in the Philippines.
Like other judges, Hughes bristled at the notion that his duty to set bond was being usurped by a 2006 sentencing law that mandates inflexible conditions of release in child pornography and child sexual assault cases. Like others on the bench, he noted that the defendant before him had not been accused of having any physical contact with a child.
“He looked at pictures,” Hughes told a prosecutor who objected to him removing the tracking device. “You have no evidence he ever molested a child.”
The move by Hughes reflects a steady trend among a small collection of federal judges who have ruled that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is overly restrictive. The George W. Bush era act expanded the role of the federal government in handling sex crimes involving minors in order “to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.” Legal journals note that the Walsh amendments were tacked onto the bill just seven days prior to its passage without substantive debate or legislative findings.
Glad to see judges at least seeing the light.
The criminals are running the country and most of the entire world. Have any of you heard of Pedogate and Pizzagate? People in positions of power who make laws for profit are committing the worst crimes. Their greed and tyranny is apparently even too much for these awakened judges who probably know about their crimes against kids and the rest of us. It’s about time everyone wakes up!👊🏽
The heading on this post shows another ridiculous assumption by the legal system. People convicted of CSC are automatically classified as “violent offenders” regardless of the actual circumstances. In Michigan, that means that you are automatically thrown in with the worst of the thugs when you get to prison. That “violent” label then gets placed on you the rest of your life.
Wow, I’m happy to see this. I didn’t even know there was an ongoing dispute between Judges and lawmakers regarding AWA and similar laws. The tides are indeed turning. Slowly but surely. This is great!
Great article, by the time more judges rule against AWA, it will hopefully cripple it and be done with it. Judges need back their powers.
Great article. Law makers are out of control and see registered citizens as their bread and butter for their own reelections. Hopefully the judicial system can take back control and bring sanity to the criminal justice system.
Best article I have read in a while. I applaud these Federal judges for standing their grounds constitutionally. I hope more and more of them join to help restore their powers and discretion.