Last week the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a state law banning sex offenders from public parks, overturning a 2017 appeals court ruling that deemed the statute “unconstitutional on its face because it bears no reasonable relationship to protecting the public.” The seven members of the higher court unanimously disagreed, saying, “We conclude that there is a rational relation between protecting the public, particularly children, from sex offenders and prohibiting sex offenders who have been convicted of crimes against minors from being present in public parks across the state.” Full Article
Also see:
IL: Public Parks Ban is Constitutional (Supreme Court Reversal)
At the time of the incident Mr. Pepitone was not required to register – his requirement had expired. He is not listed on any state’s registry web site, today.
Even assuming for one second that the registration requirement is based on a danger to the community, how is it rational to restrict such a person’s presence in a public place?
That reversal was insanity. Now they’re trying to do the same thing with the Colorado ruling. We’re never going to make any headway or inroads as long as they continue to pull stunts like this.
When a politically powerless and hated specific named group is the only one targetted by a law, and that law does not apply to everyone, it is supposed to get heightened scrutiny.
It is true that laws that apply to all only get heightened scrutiny when they disadvantage one of the “protected” classes like based on religion, being a minority, or sexual orientation. That is not the case here, and the judges failed, and the lawyers may have failed to ask for it.
If the court asserts that actual facts do not matter, how could we possible hope to win anything? This is hate in it’s purest form.
Hate to say it but the registry will never go away.
When you read that a judge or court says that “facts do not matter” it is as if you are in the Twilight Zone or on mushrooms. If we were not a hated class, that type of quote would be all over the late night talk shows and SNL. What’s more it was unanimous. WTF?
Hmmm! that’s like saying you can turn the lie into the truth to make it all seem believable.
“WRITING SEX OFFENDER LAWS BASED ON FAKE RECIDIVISM NUMBERS IS RATIONAL, COURT SAYS”
WTF!!! Am I reading this right??? Are you f%#&ing kidding me? So this court is actually saying that it is ok for the state to make laws based on FAKE NEWS? Somebody please, say it ain’t so. Oh man, if this is the case, and nothing is done about it, then our grandchildren are in trouble.
“IL: WRITING SEX OFFENDER LAWS BASED ON FAKE RECIDIVISM NUMBERS IS RATIONAL, COURT SAYS”
Hmmm, this is the same type of dysfunctional thinking that places most sex offenders on the registry.
Yeah, unfortunately Freedom and Liberty are just punch lines in this country. The US actually doesn’t have much of either anymore. Not just applying to RC’s, but in general…unless you are part of the ruling class. Just look, we have a president that advocates grabbing women by the crotch, but then we have continuous punishment for every day citizens. When it was the 80’s and crack was a problem what did we do? Lock up everybody because it was mainly African Americans who had the problem. Now it’s white kids overdosing on heroine and it’s a national health emergency. Just depends on what class you are in as to how they treat you. Like it or not we live in a feudal society. Our founding father’s would be disgraced.
This article is from the original 2013 incident that precipitate all the legal activity culminating in the chilling, dystopia-inducing decision:
https://patch.com/illinois/bolingbrook/sex-offender-charged-with-being-near-bolingbrook-park-police
Note that he wasn’t even required to register at the time of his arrest. This means ANYONE convicted after 2000, regardless of whether they have to register or not, still has to follow all sex offender restriction laws, presumably for life. I actually find that aspect of the entire crime even MORE chilling than the albeit non-Constitutional ruling.
Hopefully, this unbelievable, disturbing, unprecedented comment/ruling will help us later on. If this doesn’t show SCOTUS things have gotten completely out of hand nothing will
This is the problem with our system of state governments having ELECTED judges that are allowed to run for re-election. Most of these 7 Justices are up for re-election in the next year or two and the terms last 10 years.
Unless Smith V Doe 2003, Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003, and Mckune V Lile 2002 and the lies spoken by those SCOTUS Justices gets over-turned, facts won’t matter and we’ll continue to be held hostage to public opinion regardless of facts or the US Constitution.
This country and its judges has a history of ignoring the Constitution until at least 25% of public opinion supports the right thing to do. That won’t change. If it did, the legislation would simply take away more power from the judiciary and have the support of the people to do it. Once the percent reaches at least 25%, then the judges know their ruling has the chance to educate and bring that number high enough to avoid the backlash of legislators.
Even with good rulings, state’s don’t have to change. School segregation was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS and many southern states ignored that for 10 years, until Congress made actual laws against it. It’s a shame SCOTUS has no enforcement powers. It is truly the weakest part of our government and that isn’t right.
So does this mean Congress can write laws based on FAKE NEWS?
I am wondering if it is legal now to base laws that assume people with more melanin in their skin are subhuman, or that people who pray to Yahweh or Allah or the Great Spirit or don’t believe in God, can be considered dangerous because of that, or that people who have Chinese or Japanese ancestry must be put into camps separated from the rest. These were all rational ideas in the past and I suppose these judges think that legislators have changed since then and we can trust public opinion to be based on the best evidence available. If they believe so, they have either no intelligence or no education in history; we need to start picking judges not by popular vote, but by results of their IQ tests, which now should be required along with a history proficiency tests of all candidates for the bench.