The Indiana Supreme Court must decide if a Howard County father can attend his son’s school activities despite his serious sex offender status after hearing arguments Thursday on an ex post facto claim.
After being convicted of child solicitation in 2010, _____ ____ was sentenced to 18 months of probation and was ordered to register as a sex offender for 10 years. However, the Howard Superior Court granted ____ special permission to continue attending his son’s school activities on school property, despite his sex offender status.
But when the Unlawful Entry Statute, Indiana Code section 35-42-4-14, took effect in 2015, ____ and other serious sex offenders found themselves subject to a Level 6 felony charge if they entered school property. ____ filed a post-conviction relief petition arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, and the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. Full Article
The whole “not punitive” thing yet again. I swear these people would be adamantly arguing for segregation if it were still a thing. If you’re going to be in this kind of position, you need to be fighting for justice, not contract law. You’re in the wrong line of work if that’s how you’re approaching every case, especially if you’re well aware of the actual facts.
I wonder if former bank robbers are never allowed to be in the presence of money ever again? These Attorneys Generals are saying the system never rehabilitates. If so, let’s get rid of these pessimistic bastards and this whole useless criminal justice system.