Ex post facto

[ergray]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

In June of 2005 I was convicted of a felony sexual battery. I have to register under penal code 290. On November 8th, 2006 Prop 83, or Jessica's law went into effect. Instead of applying it you offenders who have been convicted after November 8th, 2006, people who were ON PAROLE or in prison are affected with the residency laws.

I have never molested a child, raped anyone, nor do I have a violent background. I score a total 1 on the Static-99 (test used to define risk level) which is the lowest possible. I have done my time, I have done my parole. I made massive adjustments to my life to make sure I don't do anything stupid like that again. I'm tired of being punished over and over and over again. This is ex post facto, why am I being punished?

 

[goddessoflubboc]

You were convicted of a violent crime. Regardless of whether it was your first act of violence or not (it being exceedingly rare for someone to be caught and convicted after just one occurrence) you now DO have a history of violence.

Since you were still under the purview of the justice system they had every right to include you in the new legislation.

I do hope for your sake that you've changed, it will make life easier for you.

 

[ergray]

You are incorrect. California's sexual battery definition is significantly different then most states, and is not a violent crime. I earned it by grabbing someone's butt, not by force or anything else.

 

[cyjeff]

You are incorrect. California's sexual battery definition is significantly different then most states, and is not a violent crime. I earned it by grabbing someone's butt, not by force or anything else.

Maybe you didn't learn as much as you thought.

Grabbing someone else's person IS violent.

 

[CdwJava]

You are incorrect. California's sexual battery definition is significantly different then most states, and is not a violent crime. I earned it by grabbing someone's butt, not by force or anything else.

Whether you consider it "violent"or not, it still requires you to register pursuant to PC 290 (the Sex Offender registry Act). PC243.4 (which is what you were probably convicted of) requires such registration and it IS the crime of battery which is the unlawful touching of anther.

It is not a SERIOUS violent offense such that is involves a potential strike allegation, but depending on what standard you are using to define a "violent" crime, it could be described as such. And, of course, your registry IS in VCIN which is the "Violent Crime Information Network."

 

[ergray]

Whether you consider it "violent"or not, it still requires you to register pursuant to PC 290 (the Sex Offender registry Act). PC243.4 (which is what you were probably convicted of) requires such registration and it IS the crime of battery which is the unlawful touching of anther.

It is not a SERIOUS violent offense such that is involves a potential strike allegation, but depending on what standard you are using to define a "violent" crime, it could be described as such. And, of course, your registry IS in VCIN which is the "Violent Crime Information Network."

Ok, this is all old news, how does this relate to my question?

 

[CdwJava]

Ok, this is all old news, how does this relate to my question?

Your question has already been litigated - the courts have ruled that these laws are NOT unlawfully ex post facto.

See In re E.J. was decided 2/1/10 by the CA Supreme Court. Residency requirements pursuant to PC 3003.5(b) were ruled legal. A host of ex post facto challenges have failed as well. Sorry, but your argument is old news. And while I have sympathy for the arguments made in In re E.J., the matter was decided.

 

[Isis1]

You are incorrect. California's sexual battery definition is significantly different then most states, and is not a violent crime. I earned it by grabbing someone's butt, not by force or anything else.

great. is this my ex?

sexual battery = violent crime!!!

i think i'm going to be sick.

 

[Proserpina]

great. is this my ex?

sexual battery = violent crime!!!

i think i'm going to be sick.

Don't be sick, lovey - have some wine with me

 

[Isis1]

Don't be sick, lovey - have some wine with me

i'm all hopped up on dayquil and halls. so technically, i'm all ready sick. but the poster did make me a bit queazy.....

 

[ergray]

If you have no legal advice or anything constructive to add, you mind taking your ignorant bias elsewhere? I deal with too much of that crap as it is, and you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Troll elsewhere.

 

[ergray]

Your question has already been litigated - the courts have ruled that these laws are NOT unlawfully ex post facto.

See In re E.J. was decided 2/1/10 by the CA Supreme Court. Residency requirements pursuant to PC 3003.5(b) were ruled legal. A host of ex post facto challenges have failed as well. Sorry, but your argument is old news. And while I have sympathy for the arguments made in In re E.J., the matter was decided.

No it wasn't. It made it to the supreme court level, and after the judges kicked it around a bit, they said it could apply to parolees released after the fact. I am not a parolee. It has since been booted back down to the lower courts.

 

[goddessoflubboc]

If you have no legal advice or anything constructive to add, you mind taking your ignorant bias elsewhere? I deal with too much of that crap as it is, and you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Troll elsewhere.

I may come back to this thread JUST to see the responses to this post.

BTW OP, whether it's a butt, a breast, or a neck - it's violent. You don't have to strike someone for it to be violence. If you haven't learned that, no matter where you go, you're life will be in a world of hurt.

 

[ergray]

I may come back to this thread JUST to see the responses to this post.

BTW OP, whether it's a butt, a breast, or a neck - it's violent. You don't have to strike someone for it to be violence. If you haven't learned that, no matter where you go, you're life will be in a world of hurt.

No, it is not. That concept is retarded. CA penal code doesn't accept it as such. Sorry, you are wrong like the rest of the trolls in this forum. Obviously after doing a couple of quick searches here on the replies, no one around here is very bright, so I'm just going to unsubscribe from this topic and allow the trolls to have a field day. I hope to god no one takes this place seriously, or they are completely ****ed.. Toodles.

 

[goddessoflubboc]

Uh, how many posters on this thread are required to register for the safety of the community at large? Oh, yeah, ONE.

And we're the stupid ones. LOL