When a Lafayette Parish man removed the words “sex offender” from his state-issued ID, law enforcement officers said Louisiana law had been broken. A local judge saw things differently. Full Article
Related posts
-
LA: Proposal to make vasectomy mandatory for convicted sex offenders advances to the House
Source: wdsu.com 4/5/24 BATON ROUGE, La. —The mandatory vasectomy bill passed committee at the state capitol... -
MO: Louisiana Bill SB371 to allow judges to sentence child sex offender with surgical castration advances
Source: louisianaradionetwork.com 3/26/24 A bill SB371 to give judges the discretion to punish individuals who sexually... -
LA: Louisiana woman challenges Sorna using ADA angle
Source: courthousenews.com 12/21/23 NEW ORLEANS — A federal court in Louisiana denied the state police’s request...
The judge is right!! The guy did his time and payed for his crime!! End of story! Oh no not for sex crimes! Law makers keep adding new laws! Well no one did this too me! So i will/add and pass a law that it can’t happen to you! LE dumb dumbass pass feel good laws that don’t help anyone. Just to shut the complaint up!
From the article is a quote from an LSU law professor, Ken Levy: “He said the law is “not meant to stigmatize” the offender but “to protect the public.””
This is the stance new cases should be bringing up that the registry is going beyond its statutory means. Stigmatism, banishment, or exclusion from privileges/immunities upon the same terms.
The more states that recognize that the registry is going beyond its statutory means then it becomes easier to overturn bad laws, or possibly the whole registry scheme itself.
Now, I don’t believe the registry was made “to protect the public”. It was made to “make person(s) available for questioning”, which has been denoted in recent California cases. The government is moving the goal post here and has been moving it all along, which is why Louisiana and other states can put “Sex Offender” on driver’s licences.
Amazing that I see this story on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
This will be an interesting case to follow. The guy may end up being convicted of defacing the document (even if it’s unconstitutional speech, one cannot act autonomously), I think the larger outcome will be LA having to drop the idea of branding RCs’ IDs. I’m just surprised ANYthing like this comes out of LA!
On another note, LA seems a bit messed up on its perspectives on sex crimes. From the article:
*****
Tier 1 cases involve cases such as indecent behavior with juveniles, crimes against nature and voyeurism. They require registration for 15 years, State Police say.
Tier 2 crimes involve a “sexual offense against a victim who is a minor” and require sex registry registration for 25 years. Such crimes include oral sexual battery, pornography involving juveniles and computer-aided solicitation of a minor.
*****
So you can mess around with a juvenile, screw an animal or have “unnatural copulation” with another human, and/or be a peeping-tom, and the State says you register for 15 years. However if you go down on someone, CP, or try to hook up with a juvenlie online, you get 25 years. Based on the offenses, it would seem the Tiers need to be flipped. Screwing Elsie the cow is “better” than a pic of a naked teen?!? Really?!?
“He said the law is “not meant to stigmatize” the offender…”
Um, riiiiiiight….
THE RIGHT TO KNOW?
What clause supports that premise under the constitution? NONE!
The right to know is a false narrative not supported by the constitution. This is a ploy of the electronic DOMESTIC surveillance saints to maintain their current disposition of unfettered use of the infrastructure. PERIOD.
AJ / lmao Elise the cow or billy the goat
Hmmm. . Someone may have erased that from my documents too. . but I’m not sure.
This case will ultimately be upheld. In Butts County Georgia a federal judge ruled recently that things like signs on lawns at Halloween placed by the sheriff’s office is compelled speech. By placing “SEX OFFENDER” on a state issued ID would fall under the 1st Amendment protections regarding compelled speech
While defacing a government document is technically against the law (yes, a driver’s license or identification card provided by a state government is a government document), the Alabama Court case we discussed here regarding stamping of driver’s licenses with words such as this probably helped sway the judge in this.