7th Circuit: “Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague”

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #8810 Reply
      Avatar
      NARSOL
      Admin

      First the 6th; then the 4th; now the 7th!… Source: http://bit.ly/2gYlcXy… A 2008 Hartford City ordinance that restricted registered sex offenders
      [See the full post at: 7th Circuit: “Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague”]

    • #8811 Reply
      Avatar
      Should’ve struck it down

      Why did she stop short of an outright striking down of the law? To avoid an appeal perhaps to a higher court? Did she watch the 6th’s efforts and maybe Pennsylvania’s efforts too? This is interesting, but she should have struck it down. Judges need to stop being afraid of doing that.

    • #8812 Reply
      Avatar
      Phoebe Carpenter

      Personally, I think should be a national news story called, “Merry Christmas from NC” and bring some national attention to the “good people of NC”. To help make the story news worthy, organize a few human right advocates to picket the house when officials come to the home, or picket the office of the governor and give a lump of coal to the governor for every day he has to live in a tent, (and make sure that the lump of coal is broadcast in the news).

      Tonight I light a candle for the compassion of NC.

    • #8813 Reply
      Avatar
      James Townsend

      Actually court systems are human and err but court systems don’t want to admit it. Just like other human’s want to be right and very vague when it comes to this type of conviction of a sex offense of an internet nature.
      I do not know about physical contact if the laws are different in those situations but would say that the nation as a whole don’t know the whole picture of what the sex offender or suppose sex offender ordeal is all about and that is one reason that justice and true justice has to be more important than this sex offender “one shot Charlie “deal

Viewing 3 reply threads
Reply To: 7th Circuit: “Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague”
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">