Tracking sex offenders
Saturday's lead editorial
Not one North Carolina state legislator voted against a tough, new sex-offender monitoring law last year. But some judges have.
The latest was Ripley Rand, who ruled in Wake County Superior Court last week that four registered sex offenders should be released from satellite tracking systems.
Twenty-one others have been granted similar breaks in other courts.
Activist judges rewriting laws at the expense of public safety? That might be a common reaction. After all, sexual predators often repeat their offenses. The best way to prevent that, if they’re not incarcerated, is to strictly limit where they can go and whom they can see. That requires close monitoring.
But it must be done without violating constitutional safeguards that apply even to convicted sex offenders. Judge Rand spotted one problem with the law’s application, and he didn’t address another one.
The law went into effect Dec. 1 but applied to everyone who was at that time a registered sex offender and met other criteria. It’s questionable, at best, whether a new law can go back and place additional conditions on a defendant that weren’t part of his original judgment. Rand dismissed the monitoring requirement on that basis. He didn’t consider a further objection that the new law effectively increases penalties long after conviction and sentencing.
On the other hand, judges can use the law to order lifetime monitoring for offenders whose crimes were committed on or after Dec. 1 — unless the courts find other objections.
Satellite tracking has become a popular means of watching offenders who are never trusted, even after they complete their sentences. But it strains the agencies assigned the job of operating, maintaining and paying for the systems. While the offenders themselves often are required to pay the cost — several thousand dollars a year — many simply don’t have the money. Potential employers, always aware of the criminal history, aren’t keen to hire sex offenders who carry obtrusive tracking devices wherever they go.
Laws like this should give judges some discretion to limit monitoring when appropriate. For some offenders, lifetime tracking might seem excessive. In cases of extremely dangerous predators, however, judges should use every legal means they can to lengthen prison terms.
There’s no need for satellite tracking when criminals are confined to 8x10-foot cells. And, if a person poses such a severe threat to the community that he has to be tracked everywhere he goes, maybe he can’t be trusted in society in the first place. After all, the best tracking system in the world can’t stop a crime. And, isn’t that the objective?
.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The question here is not if the Judges were 'activist judges' but if they were considering the constitutional aspects of the law.
We must remember that regardless of how repulsive it is to us the things that sex offenders may do, the constitutional provisions of all law is to protect you and me, and in doing so, also protects those we hate.
Lets say that such laws are not challenged. What would happen if a law was passed that those convicted of more than one DUI had to register. Well, we have a sex offender registry so a DUI registry is not out of line. Then they pass a law that requires anyone every convicted of two or more DUIs, regardless of how long ago they occurred to be on the registry. Again, as they did it with sex offenders, there is procedure and acceptance of this.
Finally, they pass a law that says not only must a person with two or more DUIs have to register but we want to know where they are every day to make sure they are not driving while intoxicated so they must wear a breathalyzer no matter where they go and breath into it once an hour.
Now, some people may think that is going too far but the legislature passed the bill with few nays. Does it mean that it is a good bill? Not necessarily.
All laws are to protect someone but the Constitution is to protect all of us from the abuses of government and a ill informed majority.
If sex offender laws focused on those who were most likely to re-offend, then I don't think there would be much problem. Sex offender laws, however, do not focus on the most likely to re-offend. People who were convicted 20 years ago are now required to register because they may be a threat. People who were children themselves when they 'offended' by being curious children or because of 'Romeo and Juliet' offenses are required to register.
Considering this current issue, when do we go back and say 'well, we know that you were not told you would have to do this when you were sentenced but we changed our minds and now you have to wear this tracker for the rest of your probation, or, for some, the rest of your life.'
I'm sorry but while what these people have done is unconscionable, we should not be able to change the rules of the game then expect past players to be subject to them. And if you truly believe that to be the case, then whatever you did in your past and was not caught, now would be the time to get a lawyer so you will be ready when they come after you.
Posted on May 3, 2008 4:53 PM
The artical on sex offenders got part of the issue very wrong. Sex offenders are one of the lowest groups to re-offend. The US Dept. of Justice Statistics show that 3.5% of sex offenders are reconvicted within 3 years of release from prison. 95% of those arrested for a sex offense have never been arrested before for anything. 90% of sexual assaults are commited by a person well known and trusted by the victim with over 50% of those being a family member. I do not support sex offenders but if those in office realy wanted to protect the public they would mandate that ALL KNOWN SEX OFFENDERS BE TESTED for how likely they are to re-offend. Then using a tier system place those who are at the most risk to re-offend on a public sex offender registry. Then law enforcement could keep a extra watch on those offenders.
Posted on May 5, 2008 11:33 AM
fbtqx zjgebc ceuldib xkfawopz ymeoagwsu gmdjr bwsfjqec
Posted on September 6, 2008 7:27 PM