IL: Are Sex Offender Restrictions So Vague They’re Unconstitutional?

A group of convicted child sex offenders is challenging the Illinois law that bans them from parks and schools. They say key sex offender restrictions are so broad it’s impossible to know what is or isn’t allowed and that means the laws violate the constitution. They’re asking a federal judge to immediately suspend certain restrictions on every registered child sex offender in the state of Illinois. Full Article

Also so

Court case challenges some restrictions on sex offenders

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I understand that fighting this based on “too vague” is possible, but I don’t understand why it isn’t pursued on “due process” violations. These people haven’t individually had a chance to a fair hearing where both sides present evidence as to the threat to children they are, and for how long they should be restricted if at all.

To remove an individual’s rights to be on public property, attend church, or be even near public property goes against many constitutional rights that should only be taken away if there is a clear and present danger, it is in the state’s best interest, and there is no alternate means to protect citizens.

I can see where these restrictions could be present as conditions of probation, but to be law for those that have served their time it is outrageous.

you hit so right on the nail chris. it boggles my mind that no attornies are bringing any issues forward except for minor technicalities or the famous expost facto claims. the only case I can find or have heard about is the bani vs Hawaii which he was successful on his right to reputation. I am not sure if it’s been overturned or not I can’t find any evidence that it has. it’s almost as though people don’t want to win or something.

Yes, I don’t get it?
Seems they as SO’s are just fine with being punished forever as long as they can go a few places?
This goes far beyond incrementalism. I would think that there is a much bigger prize somewhere hidden within this Lawsuit.

Frank

I agree. There are so many other arguments to be presented. What about equal rights? Murderers, Drug dealers, Drunk Drivers don’t have these restrictions, yet many have affected children with their offenses.

First off, that guy who got probation should be thanking the state of Illinois they didn’t send him downstate to prison for possessing CP.
I don’t know the Illinois statute but saying you can’t be near a park is pretty vague. They must have some set distance (1,000 feet, 2,000 feet) I supposed being on the registry can get you kicked out of your apartment but outside of Chicago, land & property is pretty cheap. But again, do some of the smaller towns have local ordinances? This article is pretty vague

Please remember that Obama is a constitutional lawyer and yet he signed the International Megan’s Law…so…do you really think that there is a prayer that any of this will be found to be unconstitutional?

NO is the proper answer. Obama betrayed his oath and sealed our fate.

We are second class citizens (who still have to pay full taxes even though we do not enjoy full rights to what they pay for) and in fact, we are paying taxes to keep us out of certainly publicly funded areas and deprive us from certain publicly funded benefits as well.

Just remember that it’s not added punishment because the “supreme court” says so. F them!

Clarity? Smarity. It is clear from evidence that presence restrictions only serve the purpose of continued punishment.
How many angles can sit on the head of a pin? This is what this rich nation can pay people to argue ad infinitum.

hey tired never give up never give in and always maintain hope. with hope comes action with action comes change we will defeat this evil that is poisoning our society.