A stunning about face: A Cook County judge on Thursday who had found a defendant not guilty of a sex crime has now ordered him to register as a sex offender as part of a stiff, 30-year sentence. …
“Though insufficient to establish guilt,” Judge Hill said, “the evidence is sufficient to meet the lower threshold of proof for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act.” Full Article
Perhaps he deserves it, but I’m not sure the judge is right that he can increase the sentence by adding sex offender registration.
The judge says:
“Though insufficient to establish guilt,” Judge Hill said, “the evidence is sufficient to meet the lower threshold of proof for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act.”
While case law appears to say he can’t, unless something has replaced this:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/20111031-rtc-pdf/Appendix_E.pdf
Beginning in Apprendi,
60 the Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment,
“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond
the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.”61 In Blakely v. Washington,
62 the Supreme Court applied Apprendi to a state sentencing
procedure that, like the federal sentencing guidelines, called for judges to find certain facts and,
based on those judge-found facts, to impose a sentence within a prescribed mandatory range.
63
As the Court explained, “the ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum
sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or
admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant ‘statutory maximum’ is not the
maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may
impose without any additional findings.”64 The Court held that the state sentencing procedure
violated the Sixth Amendment because it required the sentencing court to impose a sentence that
it could not have imposed based on the jury’s findings alone.65
So the bar for proof is lower to force someone to register, than the proof that is needed to find a person guilty? DId I understand that right?
We already live in country that a simple accusation of a sex crime causes a person to completely lose the ability to foster a child forever. What’s next?
Needless to say there is nothing pretty about what the guy did! That said–I just dont understand where these incredibly long prison sentences come from!! I saw nothing anyone couldn’t get over.I’m not trying to minimize his disgusting behavior, but honestly 30 years???