GA: Sex offender argues mandatory ankle monitors are unconstitutional

Admin

As opposing attorneys argued the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registry Review Board on Monday, several Georgia Supreme Court justices kept focusing on an aspect of the law that applies to the most dangerous predators: they must wear an ankle monitor for life but face no punishment if they don’t. Full Article

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 or abbreviate 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.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“If a statute requires me to pay $1 that is mine, it’s still unconstitutional,” Justice Harold Melton said.

That’s interesting.

Maybe there is something behind the involuntary servitude argument that’s been brought up on here a lot…and maybe some judges would agree.

I would like to see how they worded it in the original case to see how they argued and got the judge to come to that conclusion if someone can find it.

0
Reply

“It looks like now we’ve gone to a system where we just want to collect some money” but offer no counseling that might help a sex offender, Justice Robert Benham said” WOW the truth that REALLY hurts. In Benham’s other words, it all about making money for some crooked company and not about protecting that child. A slap in the face on a icy cold morning with a wet branch, I would say.

0
Reply

What is going on in this case denoted in the article:

”
The case went to the Georgia Supreme Court after the state appealed a Fulton County Superior Court ruling that the sex-offender registry law was unconstitutional.
”

Is Georgia the next to follow suit after Michigan? Can anyone give an update on this, please? Thanks in advance!

0
Reply