A violent sex offender released from a psychiatric hospital last month and forced to live as a transient was kicked out of a motel in Vallejo this week amid public outcry, including critical statements from local police and city officials.
_____ _____ ____, 51, who committed five sexual assaults over 15 years, was evicted Wednesday from the Motel 6 on Enterprise Street after police and residents discovered he had been secretly placed there, Vallejo officials said Thursday.
“It appears that Motel 6 did not know that they had rented a room to Mr. ____, the recently released sexually violent predator,” said Daniel Keen, the Vallejo City Manager. “Once they confirmed that he was staying there, they acted immediately to evict him.” Full Article
Man this is so inhumane to subject this guy to this type of treatment. I will be really surprised if this guy doesn’t lash out and really hurt someone not because he has a proclivity to do so but simply because of the unbarable sittuation that he is being subjected to. He did his sentence and if the people want further retribution from people like him then change the sentencing laws and keep them locked up if you must but don’t subject a human being to this draconian barbaric humiliation that’s happening to this guy.
Doesn’t it say in the law that housing discrimination is illegal?
Total BS. All the people that did not, do not and never will like the laws here should leave the country and go live someplace like N Korea instead of continually trashing the laws with new laws when there were already laws on the books dealing with what the new laws claimed to address. You shouldent be able to do this to someone that “paid his debt to society.”
sexually violent predator who committed five sexual assaults over 15 years, with that being said I really do not know what you would do with a person like this, I think he needs to be kept some where he can be watched, I have children and he is one I would not want around. Thumb me down but this guys history should have never allowed him out. He is why we get all these BS restrictions placed on us.
Let the state find a place for him to stay and pay for it since he was deemed SVP. These are the things that need to be ironed out ahead of time rather than just reactionary thinking and acting.
Motel 6 has said in the past it would not rent to RSO’s. I’m not sure they could do that in NJ where the Constitution says it’s illegal to use the lists to deny housing. What people need to do is reprint any complaints they can find about Motel 6 health code violations. Cut and Paste what ever you find to public forums.
I’m very new to the site how do I get involved and may I submit articles?
Kevin said “That only applies if you can prove he was being discriminated against based solely on his status as a registrant. One could simply cover themselves by saying it is only his criminal record that they discriminating against.”
But registration is based on criminal record. So it still violates PC 290. They would have to find something unrelated to registration.
The general pattern of the Equal Protection Clause is the granting of additional rights, not take them away from one class to make the law equal to all classes of ex-offenders. So , in other words, a hypothetical lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who is a non-registrant with a criminal record who is being discriminated against would, if successful, give non-registrants the protection from discrimination on housing, usage of services from businesses, etc. Yes, it would be hard to show that registrants are not being discriminated against because not everyone plays by the rules and follows the law. Registrants continue to face discrimination in violation of PC 290. The recent Supreme Court case making gay marriage legal and recognized in all 50 states was based in part on the Equal Protection Clause. It gave the right to marry and be equal with everyone else. It did not make it illegal for hetero’s to marry to achieve parity. It is called Equal Protection Clause because it’s meant to protect, not give authority to discriminate. Also, generally the Equal Protection Clause applies to government actions by the state or local governments. The 14th Amendment expands the Bill of Rights ( 1st 10 Amendments that apply to the Federal governement ) to the states. So Equal Protection Clause would apply to state actions that require registration of sex-based crimes and not of any other class of criminal. If sucessful, the remedy would be to end registration on those who have convictions that required or led to registration and not to impose it on other classes of criminals who don’t register for so-called sex offenses to achieve parity.
Some of this discrimination of those with criminal records is being addressed with recent legislation to ban the box, which bans prospective employers from asking about criminal convictions on an initial application. This legislation also helps registrants, who have criminal records, as well. I would also like to see a Equal Protection case on registrants being allowed to have the benefits of Prop 47.