HARTFORD, Conn. (CN) — Nearly 10 years after he was pardoned for sexually assaulting a 25-year-old woman, a Connecticut man claims in a federal complaint that he is barred from using the library and other public spaces because of an unconstitutional town law. Full Article
Related posts
-
CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children
Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23 NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would... -
CT: Connecticut disclosure rules for sex offenders deemed unconstitutional
Source: courthousenews.com 9/14/23 But the ruling only applies to the man who brought the case, since... -
CT: ‘Just existing, not living’: CT residents retroactively added to sex offense registry seek reprieve
Source: ctmirror.org 9/10/23 Twenty-five years after Connecticut required them to register as “sex offenders” ex post...
He is being Punished.
Maybe they will grant him relief and he’ll go away without anymore fuss. But I’d be very surprised if they squashed the law. Good for those bringing the case!! Wish I had the guts my wife & children are mentally BROKEN & fragile.
The false stat that the 2003 SCOTUS based every thing upon is still being purported as truth in lower courts.
from the article:
======
“The single purported justification for the ordinance is that ‘recidivism rates for released sex offenders is alarmingly high, especially for those who commit their crimes against children,’” the complaint states.
Calling this statement “false,” Doe and his group note that the recidivism rate for sex offenders as a class is actually “lower than that for every category of offenders other than murderers.”
======
Can we sue the SCOTUS for using false data that was never substantiated? We have research work from PhD’s that reveal the “frightening and high” recidivism rate is false. We have NJ’s 21 year study that proved the registry did not affect the rate of sex crimes 10 year before or 10 years after the implementation of the registry.