Federal Judge Stops New Retroactive State Sex Offender Law

Wednesday, 10 September 2008 15:59 |

News - News

click to see full-size image

Federal Judge Stops New Retroactive State Sex Offender Law -Citing Unconstitutionality of the law.

Sep 10, 2008 07:46 PM

Ruled Unconstitutional to Retroactively add punishment to persons who have already served out their sentences for a crime.

All across America, judges are being hit with lawsuits complaining of Unconstitutional Punishments being added to crimes committed 10, 20, 30 years ago. These unconstitional laws are costing each state millions to hear all these cases, 700 suits challenging the laws filed in one state alone. These retroactive laws deny due process and violate both the united states constitution and the constitution of every state in the union which states:

§23. Prohibited Laws

Section 23. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted.

A federal judge Wednesday put a stop to a new state sex offender law. The law would have reclassified sex offenders putting them in categories based on the crimes they committed.

Opponents say the new system is unfairly targeting non-dangerous offenders.

It means sex offenders who committed crimes years ago, and served their time, will not have to worry about their past resurfacing.

"It is an impossible law that they are trying to impose on people." People like Cameron Wolten. He is a registered sex offender.

"I was charged with a sex crime against an adult. I did my time -- 22 years -- and now in the state of Nevada they are trying to implement sanctions which would make it impossible to live," said Wolten.

Lawyers representing the Attorney General's office and those working with the ACLU both explained to a federal judge why the new law would work -- and why it doesn't.

Maggie McLetchie with the ACLU argued the law once again punishes sex offenders who have already served jail time. "You were throwing all kinds of people into this sex offender group -- anybody. Number of people could have qualified as sex offender under the definition. It made no sense. It would not have furthered public safety."

McLetchie says it would ruin hundreds of lives. "It would have put them at risk of losing their jobs, put their families at risk of violence."

Wolten says some sex offenders are considered more dangerous than others. And this is why the new law was challenged.

One man we interviewed said he has paid his dues and now he just wants to live his life.

The judge made it very clear his decision Wednesday has no affect on existing laws when it comes to sexual crimes against children. {sharethis}