A Stitch in Haste

Some recent stories bring back to the forefront the questionable constitutionality of finding ever more ways to demean, stigmatize and marginalize a sizable component of The Others Who Are Ruining America™ —

ITEM: Georgia and sex offenders, Part One —

Five sex offenders filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming that a tough new Georgia law that bans them from volunteering at churches also robs them of their right to participate in religious worship.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rome, claims the Georgia law effectively “criminalizes fundamental religious activities” for sex offenders and bars them from serving as a choir member, secretary, accountant or any other role with a religious organization. “Even helping a pastor with Bible study or preparing a meal in a church kitchen will subject (sex offenders) to prosecution and imprisonment,” the complaint said.

MY TAKE: Keep in mind that not only are the First Amendment rights of the offenders being infringed here, but so are the rights of the churches. If they choose to allow sex offenders into their congregation (a hardly outlandish proposition, if their purpose is truly to save souls, do unto others, etc.), then they should be allowed to do so — no different than if I want to invite a sex offender into my home to do — well, to do whatever we darn well please. The furthest that the government ought be allowed to go is to impose context-neutral restrictions on (or liability for) allowing sex offenders unsupervised access to children (and remember — not all registered sex offenders are child molesters). Those who do not recoil in horror at the thought of being near a sex offender ought be allowed to do so, especially in the context of First Amendment activities. More details available from the Southern Center for Human Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs.

—

ITEM: Georgia and sex offenders, Part Two —

The Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged with its 6-1 decision that banishing convicted criminals from the state is illegal, but it upheld a tactic by judges who ban them from living in all but one of Georgia’s 159 counties.

That’s what happened to Gregory Mac Terry, who was restricted from living everywhere in Georgia except rural Toombs County after he pleaded guilty in 1995 to charges he assaulted and stalked his estranged wife.

MY TAKE: As a textualist, my first, most superficial thoughts are that if the Georgia Constitution forbids banishment from the state, and a sex offender is banned from “only” 158 of the state’s 159 counties, then the act is indeed constitutional. Point conceded: “de facto banishment” is gobbledygook — but only in this context.* The weightier question of whether any banishment comports with due process, the Eighth Amendment or other constitutional limitations remains unresolved. Incidentally, at what point does poor, unfortunate Toombs County obtain standing to challenge its transformation into a “sex offender dumping ground”?

(*On the other hand, recall that some clever politicians are creating a very different kind of “de facto banishment” — by imposing redlining zones that are so sweeping and draconian that they effectively make the entire jurisdiction off limits. This back-door, “bottom-up” sort of banishment is an entirely separate question from “top-down” banishment openly and notoriously imposed, as Georgia judges seem to enjoy handing down.)

—

ITEM: Georgia and sex offenders, Part Three —

The Georgia Supreme Court was asked Monday to consider its ruling that freed Genarlow Wilson last year when deciding a challenge to a life sentence imposed on a sex offender.
…
At issue is a mandatory life sentence imposed in December on Cedric Bradshaw in Bulloch County for failing to register as a sex offender for the second time.

After his release from custody a year ago, Bradshaw twice moved in with relatives, registering their Statesboro addresses. But both times authorities ordered him to leave because the homes were too close to places where children congregate. Bradshaw then gave an address for a family friend but didn’t move into that man’s trailer within the 72 hours required by law. Convicted a second time of giving an improper address on the sex offender registry, Bradshaw was given a mandatory life term.

MY TAKE: The propriety of sex offender registry laws (dubious in and of itself) is entirely separate from the question of whether particular penalties for breaking such laws are proper or improper. And the fact remains that Bradshaw did knowingly provide false information — whether “out of frustration” is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I would think that adding a clearer intent element — “failure to register with intent to evade” or “with intent to commit a sex crime” or such — might cross the line from “inhumane blood lust” back over to “civilized criminal justice.” (My one and only post on Genarlow Wilson, meanwhile, is here.)

—

ITEM: A federal court in Indiana has struck down that state’s (new and yet to be enacted) law authorizing the unlimited warrantless search of a convicted sex offender’s computers. From the decision:

By granting unlimited access to these devices, the Indiana legislation crosses the most fundamental boundary under the Fourth Amendment, and dispenses with the warrant requirement. The ability of the individual to retreat into his home, and there to be free from unreasonable intrusion by the government, stands “at the very core” of the protections granted by the Fourth Amendment.

MY TAKE: As FourthAmendment.com notes, there is a great deal more of this enthralling language by this “activist judge” respecting the original meaning, plain language protections of the warrant requirement. I may quote more of it wholesale in a subsequent post on laptop searches that I’m planning. Stay tuned. For now, the key point is to recall the all-important difference between requiring a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of avoiding prison (i.e., parole or probation) and infringing upon those rights even after one’s sentence has been fully served (as was the case with these plaintiffs. Doe v. Marion County, No. 1:08-cv-0436 (S.D. Ind., June 24, 2008) (PDF – 52 pages)

—

ITEM: Another redlining victim, or victimizer, or something —

Keith Shortsleeves knew he was going to have to stay in Glens Falls Hospital for at least a few weeks when he checked in on Jan. 20 for diabetes-related problems. … Nearly five months later, Shortsleeves is still in the hospital, despite the fact he is no longer in need of treatment there.
…
He is a Level 3 sex offender who can’t go back to his former apartment in Fort Edward [New York] because of handicapped accessibility issues, but can’t find an accessible apartment anywhere else because of laws that dictate where sex offenders can live.

So since February, Shortsleeves has stayed in a variety of hospital rooms, most recently in a third-floor corner room overlooking the front parking lot, waiting for a solution to his housing woes.

MY TAKE: Stories like this will become more ubiquitous as redlining spreads to more and more municipalities, counties and states. Because of course the goal of redlining is increasingly not to create safe zones around schools and playgrounds (and parks and day care centers and bus stops and churches and …). Rather, the unspoken, invidious purpose is indeed to drive out the Others™ altogether. Mission Accomplished … almost.

Just one post script:

The tab for many of their stays falls to taxpayer-funded Medicaid or Medicare.

You get what you pay for — and you pay for what you get. (Via Sex Crimes Blog.)

Filed under: Law