Reply To: Federal judge in Indiana holds mandatory “sex offender” classes unconstitutional

#24834
Avatar
Tim L

From my perspective the headline here is THEY PLEADED NOT GUILTY!

There can be no public interests implicated from those whom were factually not guilty. Unfortunately, false positives occur in this country. It happens way more than people know. When a sexual component exists in any particular case jury’s mindset is skewed in favor of the prosecution to the point where NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE is needed for conviction. Over at http://www.wrongful convictions blog and innocenceproject.org they confront that FACT on a daily basis. DNA exoneration lays that fact bare and NARSOL errs when it points to playground pissers as the apex of abhorrent application of SOR obligations. Clearly thzere are persons on the list who were actually not guilty to begin with. I am in that group.