An Illinois appeals court ruled that a state law making it a crime for convicted sex offenders to set foot in public parks is unconstitutional because it can punish innocent conduct. Full Article
Related posts
-
IL: Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Law Limiting Where Child Sex Offenders Can Live
Source: wttw.com 4/6/24 SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that a state law restricting... -
IL: Ex-Chicago police officer is sentenced to a year in prison for forcing woman to perform sex act in squad car
Source: currently.att.yahoo.com 2/27/24 A former Chicago police officer who forced a woman to engage in a... -
WI: Illinois judge who reversed rape conviction removed from bench after panel finds he circumvented law
Source: yahoo.com 2/24/24 CHICAGO (AP) — An Illinois judge who sparked outrage by reversing a man’s...
I love this quote in the brief…..
In re K.C., 186 Ill. 2d 542, 545-50 (1999). The
court held that the statute criminalized innocent conduct, including, for example, a person who
entered someone else’s vehicle simply to turn off headlights that had been left on, people who
decorated a bride or groom’s car for a wedding, and a person who got into a car accident. Id. at
552-53. In so ruling, the court acknowledged that “a statute violates the due process clauses of
both the Illinois and the United States Constitutions if it potentially subjects wholly innocent
conduct to criminal penalty without requiring a culpable mental state.” Id. at 551.
This is a major key ruling that is directly relevant to all these unconstitutional bans against us………
An ethical judiciary will always come to this same conclusion:
1. Ordinary conduct may not be outlawed based on prior conviction, especially ex-post facto prohibition
2. Any prohibition on conduct, if it can be done at all, must be based on actual and current risk – not a blanket ban.
Let us hope that there are enough ethical Judges to uphold and expand this obvious basic Constitutional guarantee.
WOW…this is huge. Especially for Illinois where it seems anything that’s against Registered Citizens is ok.
I really hope this ruling can cause similar laws in other states to fall!
And now for the appeal to be filed…. Yes it’s a victory, but we all know there will be an appeal.
“a statute violates the due process clauses of
both the Illinois and the United States Constitutions if it potentially subjects wholly innocent
conduct to criminal penalty without requiring a culpable mental state.” Id. at 551.
Hmm…. Potentially subjects wholly innocent conduct like wanting to travel internationally to concluding based on the past unrelated conduct that you’re engaging in human trafficking or sex tourism without requiring a capable mental state….
Just a pitch.
“a statute violates the due process clauses of
both the Illinois and the United States Constitutions if it potentially subjects wholly innocent
conduct to criminal penalty without requiring a culpable mental state.”
Isn’t this also the conclusion SCOTUS should come to after the Feb 27th oral arguments in the North Carolina Internet/social media restrictions case? If they don’t, we are all screwed for a very long time.
I still don’t understand why the argument is never made that criminalizing normal activities to prevent something else from happening that is already a crime will only punish law abiding citizens. Those targeting children to do harm to them won’t care about laws telling them they can’t go to a park/mall/school or can’t look at social media sites, and they are very unlikely to get caught doing normally legal things before committing an actual crime. Therefore, the laws do not at all support their intended goals and are unconstitutional deprivations of liberty.
man this statement by the court maybe the most valuable asset any of us have moving forward..there’s ABSOLUTELY NO ambiguity and i cant believe that all the proffesional attorneys never located that case and cited it in all these bans and restrictions arguments….it doesnt even say if it makes it illegal but if it even makes it potentionally illegal like I said some of the best ammunition we have comes straight from the horses mouth in decisions like this….big big big
From the article:
*****
Justice Robert Carter dissented, disagreeing that the state law is facially unconstitutional.
“By keeping sex offenders who have committed sex offenses against children away from areas where children are present, the legislature could have rationally sought to avoid giving those sex offenders an opportunity to reoffend,” he wrote. “Whether the statute could be more finely-tuned to accomplish that goal is a question for the legislature, not for the courts.”
*****
Ummm…job for the legislature? Did you not study government in the 5th grade? Separation of powers means that it is absolutely the justice’s job to reign in the legislature when it violates the constitution with these types of broad laws and laws unnecessarily taking away people’s rights. That’s your job judge.
most of those judges like that seem to think it’s their job to confirm the legislative powers and rubber stamp any legislation that comes out of that branch…they also seem to think that its their job to make sure the government always has the upper hand in the courts to ensure convictions…