JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri’s Supreme Court on Tuesday sided against three men previously convicted of a sex crime and facing a new criminal charge under a law making it illegal for them to be near certain parks.
The cases are the most recent to focus on a portion of the Missouri Constitution barring retrospective and ex post facto laws. The high court ruled last month the ban on retrospective laws does not apply to criminal statutes. A divided Missouri Supreme Court concluded Tuesday the parks restriction is a criminal law and the retrospective laws prohibition does not apply. Full Article
See also: http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.com/2013/12/missouri-v-wade-and-other-consolidated.html
Can Janice or someone with some basic legal background read this decision and weigh in on this? (I realize Janice is not an attorney in MO, but maybe she can lend some insight just the same).
So, now we have a supreme court saying that restrictions put upon someone who were convicted of a specific crime are criminal and not civil. Even if they are, aren’t such restrictions covered under ex post facto laws?
And, what about the part about where the statute says for out-of-state offenders convicted of a law that is similar to the ones in this chapter. Talk about unconstitutionally vague. Then, they compare it to gun restrictions for felons. What about those convicted of a misdemeanor “sex offense.”
This is either decision is either really: 1) stupid for the government and good for registered citizens (because it could pave the way for big-time challenges against these laws given that they now deem them as criminal statutes and not civil) or 2) scary because the supreme court is implying that any law restricting someone convicted of a crime in the past is okay because it’s not civil.
Didn’t the US Supreme Court essentially say that all S.O. Registration Laws are okay as applied retroactively because they are CIVIL??? Thus, if said laws are deemed CRIMINAL, then hasn’t the US Supreme Court essentially banned them as applied retroactively???
This ruling could either be really bad or really good.
I would love for some legal insight from Janice, et al, if they have the time.
I am not a lawyer but if this is considered criminal law that prohibits sex offenders from areas. Isn’t that singling out a certain class of people? That were ruled unconstitutional centuries ago. Discrimination period.
It appears as if the courts in general are neck deep in the crap they’ve created and can’t figure a way to climb out of this deepening legal cesspool. I’m not a betting man, but history tells me that the losers will be RSO’s (again).
The headline should read missouri rules against the Constitution ……that’s what they basically did…..I like the
Rams and Cardinals (just not when they play the Dodgers)….
but that ruling by missouri subverts Constitutional Rights and they failed to protect support it…….ex post facto …double jeopardy …equal protection …due process…just for
openers to appeal that missouri court…they are grossly wrong and sue BIG $$$$$ lawsuits ….I want some of that
missouri jackpot $$$$$$$$.
Janice,
I’ll keep supporting, that you can count on and I’ll keep plodding along in the marathon. I guess the effects of these unconstitutional laws are short term because of the legal challenges, and it seems like the consequences of those laws to registered citizens have a longer effect. I live for the day when the registry is gone or includes everyone! I prefer gone. Thank you.
Glad you here Janice to calm us down on headline like this!!
Janice Bellucci is what I call a TRUE hero, A person who fights for the rights of others, I do not live in California but keep the good work up.
Thank you Janice and the people that support you. I hope the marathon can be completed in a few more years.