According to a March 21 ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court, there are times when the legislature’s judgment in drafting a statute “may be based on regional speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data and is not subject to judicial factfinding.” This statement could be scary to a non-legal person.
In this ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that residency restrictions are constitutional.
As FAC begins to look at taking down low hanging fruit in the various Florida counties, and ultimately attacking the elevated residency restrictions some counties have, should we be concerned about this ruling? Yes, it is not the same as if it had been a ruling out of Alabama or Georgia, but let us look to our legal pundits to analyze this ruling as to its effect on future lawsuits.
I recently read that Illinois is considered by many to be among the top three worst states to live in if you have a past sex offense. Some of our members from Illinois agree with this statement.
Using the Court’s rationale, we’d still be burning “witches” and drowning innocent people accused of being “witches”
Another politician who is ignorant of facts but yet wants to increase the punishment. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/convicted-pedophiles-could-face-much-darker-future-gop-backed-bill-cant-rehabilitate-predator
Decisions based on highly-speculative conjecture is faith-based nonsense and magical thinking. When personal bias is used to craft laws, then it’s patently loony tunes and unconstitutional.
I totally agree with you except for your conclusion that personal bias and nonsense in crafting laws renders them unconstitutional. What would be true in an ideal world and what is true in the existing world are two different things. The Constitution allows legislators to be idiots and to produce unfortunate law.
There is evidence of this ignorance in the link posted by Eugene V. Debs regarding the statute proposed by Florida representative Anna Luna(tic). She seems to be reacting vindictively and has obviously not explored the implications of her law. The bill makes it unlawful for someone who “knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or sexual activity.” This could be applied to a husband who goes on a honeymoon with his bride. They likely intend to engage in sexual activity. Then there is the question of who did the transporting if the couple switched drivers before crossing a state boundary. That scenario must sound absurd to someone who is not familiar with the way prosecutors think and act. The federal law as now written requires some UNLAWFUL sexual activity rather than merely sexual activity.
I see the article’s statement written in bold to be a statement regarding separation of powers rather than one condoning legislative stupidity. Yes, a legislature “may” do stupid things and can’t be second guessed by the courts having different views of what should have been legislated. Stupid is unfortunately not the same thing as unconstitutional.
“The Constitution allows legislators to be idiots and to produce unfortunate law.”
I’m sure you read the part about Eugene V. Debs stating “as a new mother” which is exactly my point. The PERSONAL BIAS should not be used as a gimmick, to gain sponsors for a bill. It’s emotional manipulation at the highest level of cringe. SORNA came to be in a similar fashion.just because all the senators at the time were overwhelmed with the “little Adam this and little Adam that” so the unfortunate take-away is misplaced and misdirected passion is NOT truth when a tragedy is exploited for political gain.
*mic drop*
This is a shortcoming of the USA’s legal system the founders could not have imagined. It is a shame US and State consitutions do not have lanuage requiring peer reviewed emperical data be applied to any law if such data exists. There should also be a clause that requires new laws to prove after some period of time they produced that desired objective of the law.
I agree with your principle written here.
However, given people have taken to disregarding the US Constitution and court orders/opinions regardless of what they say, a USC amendment would not make a difference. There can be laws on the books dictating what you just said and those in the power would disregard it regardless.
All one has to do is start a petition to put it to a vote of the people to make a law(s) of what you said and it could very well be passed into law. However, who will prosecute it if it became law? The people can complain but will someone prosecute using it if it is violated based upon this complaint with facts? At this time, the only way to prosecute someone who does this is to vote them out of office after making their transgression known. However, will the people who like them in office overlook or accept their error because of their entire body of work in office and let them stay in?
Those in office have the ability to be protected from such stupidity in office and will use it to their advantage every time regardless, even when what you write and propose should be the standard to which they operate when voted in by the people.
Another bad decision on the books because of someone filing in pro per. These guys need to knock off filing these BS lawsuits. Now everyone is going to have to pay for his filing without a competent counsel.
That may be but if he did not, then we would not have gotten the issue in the opinion which is of concern here and one which those in IL should be questioning within their legal and legislative realms if they truly believe and follow this thinking.
TS:
You don’t grasp the seriousness of getting these bad decisions on the books. The ACLU argued empirical data in the Does litigation in Michigan and won. Here the Illinois upheld these restrictions based on speculation. This is what happens when you file in pro per. This guy has not only screwed himself, but he has screwed every other person on the registry.
Illinois has a hideous provision of its sex offender registry, which one federal judge has declared unconstitutional as applied to a single individual, which requires that any person required to register as a sex offender in another state, regardless of whether the underlying offense would even be unlawful in Illinois, is a “sexual predator” who must register in Illinois for life and be subject to the many restrictions imposed on “sexual predators” in that state.
This creates the extremely absurd result that if I were to spend 3 or more days in Illinois, even though my underlying offense is not a crime in that state (the age of consent is 17 there, and I was convicted of F.S. 794.05(1) due to sexual activity in 1997 with a17-year old when I was 25), I would be declared a “sexual predator.” That is clearly an unconstitutional burden on my right to travel and my fundamental right not to be called a “predator” by a state whose laws say I haven’t even done anything criminal, but I’m not going to be the test case. I won’t set foot in Illinois or about a dozen other states.
RM:
The age of consent is 16 or 17 in over half the states. Talk to an attorney to see if you can get off of the registry in one of these states.
Sorry, I have to intervene. You don’t even know the half of it. The worst part is once you get on the registry in IL. they won’t take you off. So, when someone does a national search on you, you pop up in IL, FL. and whatever other states you’ve registered in. Oh, wait, maybe that’s just me of course haaaaaaah
mac:
I’m aware that some states like Texas, Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and New York keep you on the registry after you move to another state. Most likely, this issue will be addressed in future litigation, so I wouldn’t give up hope that someday you will be off of every registry. The litigation in Michigan is very hopeful. Follow this litigation and reassess your options after the dust settles.
It’s a terrible ruling, for sure, especially considering the Court has a 5-2 Democratic appointed majority. On the other hand, the probation sentence imposed by the trial court was astonishingly reasonable compared to most states. So Illinois seems to be a mixed bag.