State of California, meet FRCP 65(b)
From San Francisco's own Judge Illston:
"Illston found that the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, had shown a "substantial likelihood of success'' in demonstrating that Prop. 83 is a punitive measure that should not be imposed retroactively on people who committed sex crimes before it passed. She barred enforcement of the residency restrictions until Nov. 27, when a hearing is scheduled before another judge on a preliminary injunction that would extend the ban."
For more, the story can be read at the Chronicle's website. If people want to know more, I can go on PACER and pull down the order.
And for 1Ls, it's a neat application of both Civ Pro (Rule 65) and Crim Law (retroactive punishments). See - you are learning something!
I'd also like to point out how happy I am that this injunction (and hopefully the permanent injunction to issue later) will stop this enormous waste of money (did anyone read the thing? projected annual costs of $200M!!).
"Illston found that the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, had shown a "substantial likelihood of success'' in demonstrating that Prop. 83 is a punitive measure that should not be imposed retroactively on people who committed sex crimes before it passed. She barred enforcement of the residency restrictions until Nov. 27, when a hearing is scheduled before another judge on a preliminary injunction that would extend the ban."
For more, the story can be read at the Chronicle's website. If people want to know more, I can go on PACER and pull down the order.
And for 1Ls, it's a neat application of both Civ Pro (Rule 65) and Crim Law (retroactive punishments). See - you are learning something!
I'd also like to point out how happy I am that this injunction (and hopefully the permanent injunction to issue later) will stop this enormous waste of money (did anyone read the thing? projected annual costs of $200M!!).
posted by Tom Fletcher at 3:37 PM
2 Comments:
Tom, the injunction does nothing to the prospective application of prop 83 to persons now and in the future charged with registerable offenses. This is highly unfortunate. The costs argument is what it is--to implement the provisions of this asinine proposition even to future registerees will cost a lot of money. I think, though, that a better argument against this type of law is that it effectively forecloses any possibility of reintegration of registrees into normal society. That might be the point, but I do not think it wise. Also of note is the stunning breadth of the offenses for which registration is required, and offenders whom this statute reaches. The crimes for which registration is required include both misdemeanors and felonies, and offenses such as oral copulation, indecent exposure, and burglary.
Maybe if there were some evidence that it would actually make a difference in reducing the number of future victims, we could talk about whether the benefit outweighs the costs and the intrusion in the lives of all those past offenders who will never commit another sex offense (that's most of them, by the way). But there isn't any evidence at all that this would reduce the number of victims at all. There isn't any evidence that it gets us any closer to controlling the subset of offenders who are truly the dangerous ones. There isn't even any evidence that it will keep those most dangerous offenders from reoffending. Definitely very expensive though. And it definitely is the sort of thing that makes it a lot harder for those who do want to reintegrate into society and play by the rules.
Post a Comment
<< Home