Convicted sex offenders retain a constitutional right to privacy, and those rights are being violated by a state law mandating that everyone convicted of some sex crimes wear a GPS monitoring bracelet as part of their sentence, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday. Full Article
Related posts
-
MA: Former Mass. city councilor accused of having explicit images of a child apparently joined Russian army
Source: wbur.org 4/11/24 A U.S. Air Force veteran who fled a charge of possessing sexually explicit... -
MA: A father did everything he could to protect his son. Until he couldn’t.
Source: bostonglobe.com 2/22/24 BRAINTREE — Kevin Berner hung up the phone and — in a daze... -
MA: Reforms are sorely needed at Sex Offender Registry Board
Source: dotnews.com 11/8/23 Serving as Massachusetts state auditor doesn’t just mean reviewing finances. A big part...
“The reproduction and dissemination of child pornography itself harms the children who are depicted and revictimized with each viewing,’’ Gaziano wrote. That would be the judge. Also, how does the victim know every time a person views it? I could see once someone is caught and paraded publicly and the government informs them that the images were found…
This is cool and all, but how’s this right to privacy any different than our right to privacy of not having our PAST follow us around every corner of the internet directly because of Government’s decision to post said info explicitly to remove our privacy?
“In a 7-0 ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court decided that privacy protections found in both the state and federal constitutions apply to sex offenders, who are entitled to a case-by-case review of whether GPS monitoring is needed to protect society.”
—–
Two items in this paragraph warm my cockles (couldn’t resist the seafood reference, given it’s MA). First, it was a 7-0 decision. This wasn’t too surprising given SCOTUS’ Jones ruling and maybe one or two subsequent ones that slip my mind. But one chucklehead could’ve still dissented just to make a statement about the dangers of the scourge…yet none did. Nice. Second, the mention of, “a case-by-case basis review.” That’s synonymous to “individual risk assessment.” Now that I really like to see. Regardless what SCOTUS has said, State Courts of Last Resort, and at least one Federal Appeals Court, are finding that a necessary element. That’s *very* nice.
=====
“If you treat sex offenders [as] one category of people and you don’t treat them as individual human beings, the system isn’t going to work well from a public safety perspective,’’ he said. “From a public safety perspective, this is the best result.”
—–
Who does this judge think he is, calling us individuals, topped off by the phrase “human beings”?!? The nerve. Doesn’t he know we’re all filthy old subhumans cruising around parks and playgrounds in a van asking for help in finding our puppy while handing out candy as reward?
Then maybe someone should inform the state police because they routinely use Harris Stingray and other similar “cell site simulators” systems to monitor and covertly harass …[People Forced to Register]. Ever wonder why you get pulled over so frequently? I’ve successfully used this fact as a defense against speeding tickets in MA. I even sent a FOIA request to the state police who replayed they could not confirm or deny the use of these systems. There ae other FOIA request to MA that prove they use them. If they don’t do so openly, they’re doing so illegally, and with illegal intent.