- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by mut.
September 19, 2020 at 4:53 pm #76623
By Joe Kelly . . . CHICAGO (CN) — The Seventh Circuit on Friday weighed the intrusiveness of a Wisconsin statute that institutes lifetime GPS monitori
[See the full post at: 7th Circuit Court reviews lifetime tracking]
September 20, 2020 at 6:10 am #76642
This is all coming to a head. Prepare for round after round of Court Challenges until it reaches the point such that, it’s going to get beyond Crazy. It will become nearly Chaotic…and NONE of this is ever going to be good!
September 23, 2020 at 12:10 pm #76754
My favorite paragraph is “Schmelzer explained that GPS tracking could help establish a nexus between child pornography and contact offenses, and it could determine where an offender was when downloading child pornography on a computer.”
If that’s not the ultimate stretch attempt to try to make the round ends justify square means, I don’t know what is. Surely the AG himself was cringing at his own statements and felt a little soiled when he left the courthouse that day.
September 27, 2020 at 2:20 pm #76854
The Criminalized Man
Ed – that’s an amazing admission on Schmelzer’s part. If a “nexus between child pornography and contact offenses” hasn’t been established (and I know it can’t be since there isn’t one), how did even possessing “child pornography” become criminalized to begin with? Who lied to lawmakers to convince them to pass such laws, whose enforcement sets the precedent for present-day calls to ban “fake news” and other non-classified information that the enforcing regime happens to disapprove?
October 18, 2020 at 2:22 pm #77447
if its a “civil” law then why aren’t targets paid for their burdens?
October 29, 2020 at 2:33 pm #77733
My favorite sentence:
But Schmelzer mostly just offered that “we don’t want to diminish the state’s effort to protect children from these crimes” and that society has already determined that sex offenders have a reduced expectation of privacy.
First, the state’s efforts to protect children from “these crimes” would be better served if they’s quit harassing those that are among the least likely to commit them as shown by every empirical recidivism study done both before and after the implementation of Megan’s Law. Second, since when does society get to determine privacy rights?