Agitator doesn't like this, and I don't either.
...requiring Smith to register as a sex offender is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the public, including children, and assisting law enforcement. Requiring Smith to register, even though his conviction for false imprisonment was not of a sexual nature, is rationally related to the government interest in protecting the public and assisting law enforcement because: (1) false imprisonment has been linked to the commission of sexual assault and violent crimes against children; (2) an offender's sexual motive or intent may be difficult to prove or determine within the context of false imprisonment; and (3) false imprisonment places the minor in a vulnerable position because the offender, rather than the minor, has control over the minor's body and freedom of movement. The legislature chose to require registration by those, like Smith, who commit the crime of falsely imprisoning a minor, regardless of whether that crime is of a sexual nature.
SCOWI may well be bound by the language of the law. In that case the language of the law should be changed. This is idiotic.
Iowa bagged their Supream Court, perhaps it time for Wisconsin to do so as well
ReplyDeleteIowa didn't "bag" its SupCo; they just changed the path to getting a seat on the highest court.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as our blogger infers, it's the job of the Supremes to interpret (read: CHANGE) our laws, richly deserved in this case.
Actually, Tim, I suggested that 'the law be changed.'
ReplyDeleteThat IS the job of the Leggies, not SCOWI.
However, the more typical solution to this sort of problem is for the D.A. to choose another prosecutorial route--use a different law.
Dissents by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
ReplyDeleteGo Hamline!