Judge blocks part of sex offender bill

From Yahoo! News:

A federal judge on Monday blocked Georgia from targeting eight individuals with its sweeping law that would bar sex offenders from living near school bus stops.

Many states have barred offenders from working and living near schools, but Georgia’s law goes farther by restricting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.

The temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper applies only to the eight plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Lawyers for the state said the law is necessary for public safety.

Both sides will be back in court July 11, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers said they hope to persuade the judge to overturn the new bus stop limits for all sex offenders.

8 comments

  1. jacewalden says:

    I support the Sexual Predator bill, but I do see a couple of problems with it.

    The distance restrictions make it nearly or completely impossible for sexual predators to live in some of the higher populated areas (i.e.) Forsyth county. Which means they’re gonna have to start moving to places that are less populated, like my home County–Fannin. I don’t think they need to be around kids, but I definately don’t want them moving up here. I think the distance restrictions do need to be reexamined.

  2. Tommy_a2b says:

    I do not care if you agree or disagree with the bill. Who is this judge to think that it has a say. Legislators write laws not judges. So yes Chris I am going to say it, “Stupid Activist Judges.”

  3. Chris says:

    I’m less worried about them moving to rural areas (small communities take more notice of strangers) then I am about them simply going underground where they can’t be tracked.

    My Solution:
    If they still pose a danger to society they need to be locked up. If they don’t pose an immediate danger, they still have a disease and should be isolated from the triggers of that disease (ie children). Find an island somewhere, remove all the children and let them live out the rest of their lives away from temptation.

    Its probably more humane than what we’d need to do with them in general society to keep our children safe. Which is why the ACLU would oppose my plan.

  4. jacewalden says:

    “Who is this judge to think that it has a say.”

    Tommy_a2b,

    I really hate to bust someone out, but that is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Have you ever heard of a thing called checks and balances? Or, let me phrase it like this:

    Let’s say the legislators wrote and passed a law that required all Christians to persecute Jews every third Sunday. The Judge overturns the statute because it is unconstitutional. Who do you support? The legislators or the judge?

    Chris,

    I agree 100% with your idea. Either keep them in jail, or put them on an island.

  5. Bill Simon says:

    The only “check” and “balance” Tommy’s interested in is the size of the check anyone gives him to add to his bank balance. 🙂

  6. Bill Simon says:

    So, Chris: If a 19-year-old man has sex with a 17-year-old girl, that man is a sicko with a problem?

    And, what if they get married?

    And, what if it was just oral sex?

    See, all these crimes do not involve a 35-year-old doing a 12-year-old. Too bad we are so wound-up with every act of “sodomy” being the absolute worst thing imaginable.

    Too bad some of these oral sex offenders have to be banished from society when we have state senators and reps participating in the very same thing…but, for them, it’s just called “meeting with the lobbyists”…

  7. Grieving says:

    On March 20, 2007, 6 year old christopher barriors was brutally sodomized by a 32 year old man and the 58 year old father of the 32 year; the child was forced to perform oral sex on them both while the wife/mother of the perps masterbated; then the child was strangled to death, stuffed in a garbage bag and left on the roadside. The entire inbred family had a sexual battery history against children and incest; the proposed law that the ACLU blocked would have prevented them from moving into the trailer park; the bus stop was 300 ft from the boy’s home. So, they moved in and watched every morning and every afternoon for the kids to get on and off the bus and play in the yards until one day, little Christopher was on the swings alone. The ACLU is every bit guilty of accessory to the rape, torture and murder of a child of six. The spokeswoman made a comment that made me wretch almost as hard as when I read what these proven monsters did to that little angel: “Its a very sad story, but child molesters need a place to live, too”. Gee, Susan, I wonder if you would be so kind as to put your money where your mouth is and rent a room or two in your lovely home to them. I’m sure that just because they’ve raped little kids before doesn’t mean that they’ll necessarily rape and/or murder yours, right? If the ACLU feels so strongly about their “rights” and “civil liberties”, let them open their homes to them and prove to the general public that we’re wrong. The only ones who support this bill are the perverts, their families, their lawyers and ACLU.

Comments are closed.