06-20-2019, 05:54 PM
(06-20-2019, 02:23 PM)6andcounting Wrote: From the technical standpoint of your explanation of the ruling, it makes sense to me.
Less on the ruling and more on the law itself....This guy was convicted in 2005 to 7 years in jail and the law was passed in 2006 so I can deduce he was still incarcerated when the law was passed. I can see him having register when he gets out. If someone's punishment was long over by 2006 and they didn't register I think they my have more of a fair point. Retroactively adding punishment after your no longer in the court system and served your punishment would be unfair. I know we view offenders as people who can never be cured so no sympathy from me, but I can see the point.
I am not sure if I like the decision or not. It is expanding the powers of non-elected officials. People may support it in the area of enforcing laws against sex offenders but oppose it in other situations.
