HOUSTON (CN) – A Pasadena, Texas law that bans sex offenders from living “within 1,000 feet … of any neighborhood” is unconstitutional, a man who completed serving his sentence 8 years ago claims in court.
Israel Escobar sued the city of Pasadena on Wednesday in Federal Court.
Pasadena, pop. 133,000, part of greater Houston, is a Hispanic-majority city known for its refineries and strawberry festival. It was named after the California city.
Escobar spent six years in prison after he was convicted of three felonies: attempted sexual assault, sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child.
Texas “civilly committed” him before he finished serving his sentence in October 2007. Texas requires sex offenders in the program to live in halfway houses that are supposed to help them make the transition from prison to becoming productive, job-holding citizens. Full Article
Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings
Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)
There’s something wrong with this picture. At this point in time this brand of modern Nazism should be disappearing now that it’s known that everything most everyone thought they knew about people forced to register is the total opposite of reality. The below statement doesn’t even try to veil its self in some sort of reasonable justification; it’s raw in your face BS.
“The civil commitment process is designed to provide a safety net for high-risk repeat sex offenders who have a legislatively created diagnosis of a brain amorality that could lead to future sex assaults,”
This is the same kind of rhetoric the Nazi’s were using to justify their persecution of created classes of people. I think it is the authorities in Pasadena who have a “brain amorality.” They are just plain evil for allowing this to happen and to continue.
State judge Michael Seiler should be taken off the bench and exposed for what he really is; a fraud, because the manner in which he rules is nothing that resembles justice; it’s persecution borne of his prejudice and his ignorance, and allot of other things, none of them good.
“The civil commitment process is designed to provide a safety net for high-risk repeat sex offenders who have a legislatively created diagnosis of a brain amorality that could lead to future sex assaults,”
Could = may or may not occur
Has = already has occurred
This is where Due Process and Equal Protection should be quite easy to identify, but the fear mongering overshadows the inequities of the rights of registrants. Where is the reason to assume an offense will be imminent? I continually see the word “high risk”, but the empirical evidence is contrary to that risk evaluation. Again, if the basis is “high risk” to abridge the rights of citizens, then there should be empirical evidence to support such a thesis – again, if they refer to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court has recently been proven to have received FALSE FACTS. Therein lies the crux of registration, regardless if it is punishment or not, it violates the rights of a citizen after completing their respective programs/time as their rights are abridged.
But how this judge behaves is similar to how SO’s are generally treated. We are literally abused. Without Janice and people like Janice, SO’s would continue to be trampled upon without regard of the rights of citizens. With more and more empirical evidence about SO’s, the truth will be difficult to dissuade – unless it is buried from the public and officials. Again, thank goodness for Janice and others who won’t let SO’s get buried, literally and figuratively.
Hi New Person, did you read the part where is said that
“though not one person has been discharged since the program started in 1999?
I can’t see how they could come up with the conclusion that these people are such a high risk since none of them have ever been released from the “program,” and I wonder how many of them have re offended since 1999.
Hi New Person,
Welcome.
Please consider discontinuing use of phrase Sex Offender (SO), and instead using Registered Citizen (RC).
We are finding choice of language and words is key to discussing the issues, especially in regards to civil, constitutional, and human rights.
Welcome again.
Cold hard proof that these laws have everything to do with political survival and absolutely nothing to do with integration and effectively completing a sentence.
Most importantly is the framework of the law at the time of sentencing. In addition to over simplified and draconian laws, they clearly violate many constitutional protections. It is on display for all to see but still clearly hidden in plain sight.