From 2006: Hofsheier Decision (Equal Protection)
From 2012: Case that said 311.11a cases weren’t subject to the Hofsheier Motion because there is no violation of the Equal Protection doctrine
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
TN: Tennessee will remove HIV-positive people convicted of sex work from violent sex offender list
Source: abcnews.go.com 7/19/24 NASHVILLE, Tenn. — HIV-positive people who were convicted in Tennessee of sex work...
The California Penal Code seems to be rather random and arbitrary when it comes to 290’s.
Apparently, you can rape /have intercourse/whatever with a minor under certain conditions and not have to register, but, if you chat with, send certain images or attempt to meet ala “To Catch a Predator” then it’s lifetime registration. So the penal code says it’s “okay” to have sex with a minor under certain conditions and get a misdemeanor, but God forbid you chat online with one. I’m so confused!!!
Here is the complete decision on file at the Court:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/E054886.PDF
The case is discussed is pretty damn similar to mine. I sat for two years in therapy listening to others that had sex with minors, one of which when the minor in question was engaged in the relationship for almost two years since 15, and they don’t have to register. But 1 file that was on my computer, and I’m labeled a monster for life? Almost three years with zero prospects for work, and nearly had a job until they blatantly told me in the interview that they won’t hire someone “like” me because its a risk.
Yep, no violation of equal protection there…..right. >.>
Not clear why this item from last year got posted now. Nonetheless, this ruling is not surprising. It goes right along with the original decision. The point here is that statutory rape and possession of child pornography are not so similar, they involve significantly different elements. As such, they are not comparable for purposes of equal protection. As the courts have ruled previously, the courts defer to the Legislature’s perogative to have someone convicted of possession of child pornography register while not applying the registration requirement to statutory rape.
That is, the court has ruled that the test of equal protection isn’t whether what most people would consider to be a lesser offense is subjected to different and maybe harsher treatment than a more serious offense.
The legislation is so screwed up. The problem is that politicians filter through so many bill proposals from special interest groups, searching for the “feel good” bills that will further their own political career.
I see it this way: we have a battle on at least three fronts, 1) legislative; 2) judicial; and 3) public opinion. Its hard to fight on the judicial front when the laws are so screwed up in the first place. Its difficult to fight on the legislative front because political decisions are based on public opinion. How can we win with public opinion when it is, in turn, affected by the former two? Not to mention the media, which loves to spoon-feed heaps of fear-laced drivel into the minds of the braindead public, who are more concerned with America’s Got Talent and the Price Is Right than they are with, I don’t know, THINGS THAT MATTER.
I would of used equal protection to campaign with out being thrown in prison for it.
Also if a town limits where you can live it also limits how many can vote at the polls to change the laws.