The Illinois Supreme Court issued a horrible opinion, upholding the ban on predators and “child sex offenders” from parks. You can read the full opinion here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SexOffendersIL.pdf
The crux of the opinion is that the state’s ban on sex offenders from parks (which an appellate court previously found unconstitutional) was found to be constitutional and the same “frightening and high” myth that has been prevalent in other bad decisions has permeated this one too. Although the Court acknowledged that empirical science has debunked these myths, it found that the legislature is more appropriate to interpret those studies than a court. VERY BAD!
The only saving grace is that the Supreme Court allowed the case to be remanded to the appellate court for consideration of an Ex Post Facto challenge. Let’s hope something can still come out of this.
This why for the last four or five years we have posted many articles about the low re-offense rate not only that but the fact that of the new sex crimes people on the registry are only involved in less than 1% of those. that means that 99%+ of the new sex crimes are done by people not on the registry and of people on the registry 99%+ don’t reoffend. it’s also why in a number of my articles I have said that no matter how insignificant the re-offense rates may seem to the case, they need to be nonetheless be brought out. This is a good example of why that needs to happen.
Reoffence rate articles:
http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/18/destroyed-families-destroyed-lives-all-because-of-a-lie-2.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2017/09/16/what-is-a-valid-evaluation-or-study-of-recidivism.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/26/so-why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important-2.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/23/simple-question-2.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/21/who-really-commits-new-sex-crimes-2.html
so what happens right now well from my point of view it is Time to File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS because the Supreme Court of Illinois based their decision upon false information and because of that their decision cannot stand.
I addressed this very issue in an article that I wrote about Smith versus doe in June of 2015 http://sosen.org/blog/2015/06/17/time-to-file-a-petition-for-writ-of-error-coram-nobis-in-smith-v-doe.html and I and others have written enough articles about the low re-offense rate with statistics and data that any competent lawyer should be able to stand before a judge and disprove the state’s claim of high re-offense rates and if there is no high re-offense rate there is no public safety issue.
This is why we badly need risk based assessment. Should those dangerous people that are known to seek out children be disallowed from parks? Absolutely. But those people are probably already in prison or on lifetime probation with conditions stating where they aren’t allowed to go.
Now consider someone at the opposite end of the spectrum that was convicted of a non violent statutory offense or a non contact offense decades ago.
These two people don’t belong lumped together, equally punished for what one might do. The former is a predatory monster that actually presents a public danger. The latter offender will never offend again and probably didn’t intend to in the first place. Placing the same restrictions on everyone because of something statistically improbable is nonsense. The more people figure it out soon the better off everyone will be.
Why is it that this idea, so plain an expression of common sense, can not resonate in legislatures across the land?
When I see what I consider surprising conclusion from a higher court I tell myself it took 50 years for SCOTUS to finally say that separate but equal was inherently unequal after upholding the concept in the Plessy case. It may not be swift but it will come – this system cannot maintain forever. Also, keep in mind that the young people of today are the future – they have friends and family on the registry – many of them know the truth or will learn it – when they do it will start to crumble. It will happen.
Yeah it sounds like he should have gone in with an ex post facto challenge rather than challenging a particular requirement. Ouch. Certainly some research and study by both client and attorney would’ve revealed that as a better strategy. The client even said that he didn’t know it was a law because it was passed after he was convicted. That should have been a red flag for the attorney right there. Nevertheless, good lesson. Hope he has future success with this.
The public, though more ignorant of the realities of our country’s problems and policies than ever before, wants more direct influence, through representatives that they elect, re: sentencing. They reject the independent judicial discretion offered by ‘book learnin’ liberal judges (until THEY are on trial). The idea of mob-mentality ‘justice’, enforced solely by elected legislators is scary.
Don’t worry it’s still won’t stop the 12 killing a day in that city 🌃 those humans are just doing their job so they can keep them rich people 🤑 smiling
I find this difficult to understand. The SCOTUS has already held that banning such from public parks WAS unconstitutional; so how can an Illinois state Supreme Court find otherwise!?
Where did the SCOTUS hold that?
In the PACKINGHAM decision. Read it…
I’ve read Packingham comprehensively.
It was cited in our Internet Identification Challenge.
Where does it say that banning registrants from public parks is unconstitutional? Please copy and paste the language.
“The Court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.” Alito’s concurrence. I read and agree with this as Alito does, only I understand it differently from him
From Kennedy’s opinionated musings in the official opinion:
“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that astreet or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989). Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire.”
How is this not a constitutional argument against keeping SOs out of public parks?
it’s an argument against, but not a ruling on.
See comments above (or below, not sure how it comes out on the thread).
I did find this, and it pretty much states that it should be available to “all persons.” SCOTUS hasn’t outright said it, but I feel that we would get a favorable outcome. Again, it is an IL law, and an IL court ruled on it. It is in violation of the federal constitution, let the federal level determine it’s constitutionality.
“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989). Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire.”
FL law does not ban Parks as long as you have a purpose to be there – however, many counties DO ban Parks!
The SCOTUS makes rulings on specific issues (ie: Whether XYZ is constitutional under…, Whether ABC can be enforced against…)
Until they answer an issue specifically, they have not considered that issue.
‘Whether it is constitutional to banish registered sex offenders from public parks under the First Amendment’ is (to our knowledge) not an issue taken up by SCOTUS and perhaps it will be, should this individual appeal this further.
Since it’s now been remanded, it goes back to the appellate court for ruling on the Ex Post Facto issue and undoubtedly the losing side will again appeal it to the IL Supreme Court. And so passes another year or so…
Packingham was a very strong case, but the issue there was whether a registrant can be totally blocked from accessing social media. The SCOTUS gave a parenthetical example of parks and “public squares” but their decision was limited to the issue in question (access to social media).
We need to be very careful when posting here, because many registrants use our site as a resource. The language in statutes, ordinances and judicial opinions is usually technical and confusing. People check our site because they would otherwise not be aware of a new law or decision and for a lay explanation of what it’s about.
I wasn’t trying to call you out on your statement. Perhaps we were not aware of a decision, in which case I’d want to investigate it and report on it. If not, I wanted to correct your statement before someone relies on it and gets arrested.