MANDATORY LIFE! for failure to update information within 72 hours.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Volokh Conspiracy, and Sentencing Law and Policy all cover a story about a prosecution under GA's law requiring a mandatory life sentence for the second failure to update your registration.

GA, has had lots of problems with its draconian sex offender laws.

In one case, the GA high court dealt with a case in which a person was on the registry and had moved into a house in GA. A school bus stop was placed near his house after he had moved into the house. The GA law required him to move, since he was not allowed within that distance of a school bus stop. I don't remember how the courts ruled on possibly striking that down...but GA subsequently revised that law to allow people who were already living somewhere not to move if a school bus was put up after they moved in.

In another case in GA, a 16 year old got a 10 year sentence for statutory rape with a 15 year old-thinking she was older of course. That guy got a sentence reversal form the GA Supreme Court on 8th amendment 'cruel and unusual punishment' grounds.

Now, in another 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment case before the GA Supreme Court, the defendant was originally convicted of both sexual solicitation of a minor and statutory rape and served his time for both. For the second offense, he was required to register as a sex offender. GA requires a sex offender in the registry to update his information with the sheriff if it changes. The update must be done within 72 hours.

In one instance, the defendant failed to register his change of address becuase he inadvertently transposed two numbers in his address. This was his first failure to register. In the second instance, the defendant tried to change his address, then wasn't able to move into the new address within 72 hours, and was hence technically in violation.

Unfortunatly, GA law prescribes a mandatory life sentence for failure to comply twice.

I looked up GA's sex offender registration law. (GA code 42 section 1-12). The offense's language does not require "intent". Nor is there a general statute elsewhere in the law, that applies, that says that all offenses must specifically state what intent is required. Thus, since the statute doesn't explicitly require intent, no showing of intent not to register is required to convict the guy. Thus, "I tried to comply," is not an excuse. "I tried to call and leave a message," is not an excuse. "It got lost in the mail," is not an excuse.

I noticed the law requires height and weight to be among the information in the registry. Does this mean if you go on a diet you need to call the sheriff within 72 hours!? Strictly speaking, unfortunately, yes it does.

The prosecutor in this case is quoted in the media as saying "it's not my place...to decide...what we want to enforce or not enforce."

Obviously, this prosecutor is an idiot. The choice of what to enforce is solely the prosecutors' and the prosecutor's alone. Its called absolute prosecutor's discretion. Indeed, the barrier to this kind of outrageousness is supposed to be prosecutor's discretion, not the 8th amendment. One public defender in GA on the Volokh conspiracy's web comment thread about the case, commented that prosecutor's often hide evidence of the first failure to comply, in order to avoid the outrageousness of this issue.

But the law's stupidity is what created this potential. We should not simply blame the prosecutor for this situation.

Some might argue that "sex offender's" should be getting life anyway, so such issues are not sympathetic to them.

I would suggest to people who make such arguments, that such people actually look at a sex offender registry at some point. I have looked at the sex offender registries in many states, including GA, and I notice that many people who register are there for crimes such as certain types of solicitation of a minor, or indecent exposure.

Lists of things you might be on the registry for in GA include such things as viewing online child porn, incest, and certain indecent telephone conversations. To date I have never heard of a 2nd degree murder registry or an armed robber registry.

Probably correctly, the 8th amendment is very very rarely used to invalidate sentencing laws. Probably incorrectly, as the Sentencing Law and Policy author notes, when the 8th is used to invalidate sentencing laws, it is usually used in the context of the death penalty, while ignoring disproportionate prison terms.

I guess it will be another law in the incredibly dumb, and never should be prosecuted category. Unfortunately, it will probably also be in the "now that it has been prosecuted is going to stick" category as well.

I don't know how much its costs the taxpayer to incarcerate, (and provide free health care to) such people for life for such ridiculously small offenses, but I know its too much.

It's unfair to the criminal and unfair to the taxpayer-and the politicians just eat it up.

The ever aggravating DNC

First I heard some people complaining that having superdelegates in the democratic presidential primary at all was pretty silly. But I also heard the answers that superdelagetes are part of the agreed to system, and that there have to be objective leaders in the party

But then we hear of Clinton and Obama's massive campaign contributions to suerdelagets running elsewhere. (Pointed out in the Boston's Globe article just liked to is that giving money to a single voter to vote for a candidate would be ridiculous-but that we seem tolerate it at the level of superdelagtes-which count many many many more times than a single vote) How objective these superdelagtes must be!

And then I hear that Hillary Clinton's position is for the Florida and Michigan delagates to count normally, despite her violation of the rules in both states by campaigning there, and despite Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan and not campaigning in Florida pursuant to the same rules which she broke, and despite prior rulings by the DNC that the delegates there would not count becuase of violations of party rules.

So much for rules. The possibility, however slight, that these delegates could be the deciding factor (or indirectly deciding factor- as counting Florida and Michigan will have an effect on superdelagates) makes a mockery not only of democratic principals-but of fundamental principals of reliance on agreements between parties.

I even hear that it seems like a political possibility given that most democrats, even Obama, do support counting Florida and Michigan in at least some way-yet virtually nobody is thinking of paying for a revote. I also understand that the party has the right to nominate anyone it wants reagraless of any rules-because it has first amendment rights to support whoever they want-so the courts could not fix this unfairness.

All that alone is pretty aggravating to me.

I didn't need then, for Hillary to make the situation look more ridiculous, by today coming out with a statement comparing the need to count these delegates to freeing the southern slaves. No, I'm not joking, click on the link.

So how could it be worse?

How about talk, in the Washington Post, of a future President Obama nominating this same Hillary Clinton to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States? Forget about the fact that she has no judicial experience nor has even showed interest-her statements today virtually prove that she has no concept of fairness.

A while back I predicted that Florida and Michigan would count and Hillary would win by that and Obama would have no remedy-that seems unlikely now.

New prediction: someone finds a loophole in the DNC "rules" which allow even "pledged delegates" to vote however they want according to the 'technical rules" -wouldn't that be just hilarious?

EDIT: oh wait-its already being talked about here... i suppose this is what happens when you have no real rules

DUI prosecution persecution..real life victims of absolute immunity

The Agitator has a good post about some horrible DUI injustices recently.

He points to two documented cases where police arrest drivers who blew very very low (and quite legal to drive) amounts on the breathalyzer. In both cases, the police believed that although the breathalyzer was low, the defendants were probably under the influence of drugs. This belief of the police constituted probable cause.

After they were arrested, the defendants were tested for drugs, and none were found.

Undaunted, the prosecutors of the cases went forward anyway.

Of course, because the defendants were clearly innocent, the cases were eventually beaten.

Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, once probable cause is established, as long as a prosecutor choses to continue prosecuting a case, the case remains open until the defendant pleas out or the case is tried. This is true even if overwhelming evidence of innocence appears before trial. Because of this, these clearly innocent people were out thousands in attorneys fees.

I don't blame the police for the arrests in these cases. In fact, I agree with these arrests, and would have made them myself. There was clearly probable cause at the time of arrest.

However, for the prosecutor to go ahead with a case, not when there is just obvious reasonable doubt-but when the balance of the evidence is in favor of the dependent strikes me as unjust-and a waste of the taxpayers money-who pay the prosecutor to prosecute people they think are guilty.

Of course, its bad enough that the people must go through this ordeal-but because of absolute immunity they are not entitled to any compensation for this prosecution despite the prosecutors knowledge of overwhelming exculpatory evidence. they are out thousands for appearing guilty at one point-despite being able to prove their innocence.

These prosecutors are also highly unlikely to be disiplined administratively. In most jurisdictions, there is usually no real ethical rule that the prosecutor would have broken with these prosecutions. Most ethical rules simply tell prosecutors not to prosecute if they think there is no probable cause. They say nothing about knowledge of actual innocence or overwhelming probability of a failed prosecution. For these prosecutors-it was just another day at the office.

Of course-this is all statistically unlikely to happen to you-but thats why nobody cares. Its also what makes problems like this so frustrating to those affected: if your arrested-even your closest friends will think you must have done something.

A college student doesn't pay attention? Walk out of class!

In a reminder that college students are viewed as children that have no rights whatsoever in life-

Instapundit links to this story at the Chronicle of Higher Ed-

The story is a Syracuse University professor's policy: If ONE student is caught texting in class-the POLICY of this instructor is to WALK OUT FOR THE DAY.

thats right-if ONE student choses not to pay attention-the other students are penalized by not getting their eduction.

So now, in addition to paying outrageous sums of tuition (which increase every year faster than inflation-virtually everywhere and every year and professor's saleries do as well) students are now also required to, for no additional renumeration, do the professor's discipline work for him-so long as they want the 'privilege' of their professor not walking out on their pre-scheduled and pre-payed for course. This task is of course impossible (requiring a success rate of 100%-or 0% texting) even for a payed teacher (which is-I gather-why this guy they refuse to do it).

Now, I'm not saying that students are buying A's with their tuition money. Nor am I saying they are buying their diplomas without doing their work-but if there is anything-anything at all, that they can be said to be contracting for when they dole out outrageous sums for tuition-its the right to be in class and learn.

To make matters worse, the teacher has tried to deflect criticism by dubiously claiming he was afraid of being sued-simply telling a student to stop texting. He even claimed he was afraid of being sued for sexual harassment for telling a female to stop.

In my mind, this amounts to a transparent attempt to say "It doesn't matter what you think because your not a lawyer, and I mentioned the word 'law.'" "I must be motivated by legal complexities you cant fathom you childish undergrads. "

Unfortunately, this argument has the ability to feed the popular, lawyer hating, notion that people are constantly winning frivolous lawsuits all the time in court.

Its also a popular method used by college administrators when they have had enough student involvement and just want to handle matters unilaterally.

Its true that the law is complex, and unfortunately its also true that people sometimes win frivolous cases. However, it is not true that I have to be a lawyer to call B.S on your argument that you might be sued for saying something to a student who is disrupting class. I don't have to be a lawyer to do that any more than I have to be a doctor to know that HIV is a deadly virus.
And by the way Mr. Professor, last I checked, your not a lawyer either. (yes, I checked your Syracuse bio-your not)

He also played the race card, trying to garner sympathy by claiming the student who texted in class was more prone to do so because the professor is a member of a minority group. This argument is even more inflammatory and problematic in my mind. It says "Don't disagree with me, because if you do, your a bad person for not being sensitive to my race."

The situation is part of a larger problem.

When I was in college at the University of Maryland, the official student code made clear that the university could suspend or expel students for any reason at any time, regardless if it didn't actually violate the rules. While the university had procedures for this, its official legal position was that it was not bound by such procedures. The university's position, apparently, was that conduct procedures rules were just used as loopholes-and it would be better to treat every case individually at the whim of a self righteous student board, which was chosen by professors who looked hard to find the most self righteous students possible.

I also remember that, in college, the alcohol policy gave written warnings and punishments-to students who were at a party in which somebody gave somebody else who was under 21 a drink-actually they did this even if they found the responsible person(s)-and of course-even if you could prove you had nothing to do with it and had no idea there was even alcohol at the party.

I remember when teachers would do similar things in elementary school too-"unless the person who stole the erasers comes forward-nobody gets recess."

Someone should really explain the concept that teachers-and not 3rd graders-are much better equipped to find the culprit.

College students are expected to behave like adults-which I agree with. But I also expect Universities to treat them as such.

via drudge..possible florida/michigan deal

Just as I predicted after seeing the "campaign contributions" of the candidates to the superdelegates (and others predicted along he way):

Clinton is negotiating a possible deal to seat Florida's delagates without a redo..(with a half penalty)

even at half penalty-this gives Clinton an outrageously unfair advantage (as she won Florida by a lot because Obama didn't campaign there pursuant to the rules-and Clinton broke the rules and did campaign there.)

so the deal is..we reward Clinton for cheating in the election??? how can anyone pretend this is a fair system after this kind of deal?

and of course-I can't even imagine Obama has a legal remedy-parties have a right to nominate whoever they want however they want-probably even breaking the preset rules..even if they didn't the courts would probably find it a non justiciable political question.

at least they are just going to divide Michigan evenly-since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state

Public University student disciplined for reading a book on break

the book has "ku klux klan" in the title-and it actually happens to be anti klan

but obviously that shouldn't even be relevant...public universities shouldn't be able to punish people for reading book while they are on break...especially not becuase they dislike the content

via....

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/reading_book_on.html


UPDATE: The university has backtracked somewhat.

vigin isalnds held in contempt for housing mentally ill in jail; several times; over same exact people;

vigin islands were required to transfer these NOT GUILTY prisoners OUT OF PRISON when they were found not guilty by reason of insanity YEARS AGO

charges in one case included ATTEMPTED STEALING OF A BICYCLE.


the Virgin islands contacted less than 2% of the hospitals to try to find a place for them.

they even tried to get out of the order by saying that they would 'dismiss the charges'

from the order:

This Court has recognized the financial barriers to
compliance faced by Defendants, and created a
remedial account in order to provide Defendants with
ready access to funds necessary to improve
conditions and operations at the jail. Even if the
funds in the remedial account did not cover the entire
cost of constructing a forensic unit, they could have
been used to pay for the temporary transfer of Mr.
Ramos and the NGRI patients to a stateside forensic
unit, or to increase mental health services at the CJC,
until Defendants develop a concrete plan for
appropriately housing and treating these prisoners in
the territory. The funds in the account could have
covered the costs of hiring medical staff for and
equipping the Annex until the supplemental budget
was approved. Defendants, however, took none of
these steps. Such conduct exposes them to contempt.

a recent contempt of court order:


link to aclu article
http://www.aclu.org/prison/mentalhealth/32928prs20071130.html


aclu is asking that the defendants be fined.

zero tolerence to the stupidith degree

Girl tires to get out of fight...bullies keep going...camera shows bullies hit her first....victim suspended along with bullies because of zero tolerance policy.

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/was-student-wrongfully-suspended/133451.htm


this sort of thins happens all the time in many school districts:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=71