Ex post facto

[goddessoflubboc]

Uh, how many posters on this thread are affected by the new legislation for the safety of the community at large? Oh, yeah, ONE.

And we're the stupid ones. LOL

 

[CdwJava]

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.

Yes ...so, since the Supreme Court did not overturn 3003.5(b) it applies even to you non-parolees. So, it was decided for now ... at least until a NEW case overturns or suspends it.

No, it is not. That concept is retarded. CA penal code doesn't accept it as such.

And just which Penal Code section(s) are you using to define "violent" crimes? Those that are eligible for strikes? Or those that are considered a crime of violence?

You asked a question about the law and you received answers. The fact that you did not LIKE the answers, and you did not find a throng of cheerleaders to support your contention that the law is unconstitutional does not change the law at all.

The law, as it stands, prohibits 290 registrants from residing within 2000 feet of certain locations. Personally, I thought the court would have overturned it and I also feel that it is too draconian in most circumstances.

3003.5 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for
any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290
to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park
where children regularly gather.​

In my town, this will prohibit ANY 290 registrants from living in town and will push them all out in the county. The sheriff's departments in the state do not like this because it will create clusters of sex offenders in small, unserved and unincorporated locales and add to the potential dangers to those previously desirable types of communities for some people. Now the rural life will have a greater sense of risk.

So, disappear, unsubscribe, whatever ... the law won't change because you don't like it.

 

[BOR]

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.

Carl, I read part of the case where the CA SC discussed the Retroactive application argument, and it states CA law does not permit a retroactive application unless the statute clearly outlines it, BUT, In re E.J. et. al, the court determined the application was prospective and NOT retroactive.

This case hinged on a voter approved measure though, not a statute, and also discusses that problem.

To the poster, absent a CA argument the courts have generally ruled such a registration is NON punitive in nature, and does not violate ex post facto clause.

The decision discusses both the EPF clauses of the federal and CA constitutions.