Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pruning or slashing?
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Delgado; Frerichs-Raoul; Art; Capital; CTA (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
Sorry for the delay in posting the QOTD. That interview with Morgenthaler took up a big chunk of my morning.
Anyway, here’s the setup, from a Daily Herald editorial…
Despite the governor’s contention that a “do-over” on juvenile sex offender registration requirements “condones leniency toward sex offenders,” the General Assembly’s override of his veto instead struck a blow for fairness.
The override, 76 to 34 in the House and 41 to 8 in the Senate, axed the requirement that juvenile sex offenders must register as adults at 17 and made it possible for them to eventually ask a judge to remove their names from juvenile registries.
Those overrides were a wise acknowledgment of an over-reactionary law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2006. It actually read that a juvenile sex offender “upon attaining 17 years of age shall be considered as having committed the offense on or after the sex offender’s 17th birthday” — even if he was 12 or 13 at the time of his offense.
In Illinois, where no distinction is made between types of offenses or the age of offenders, that means a 13-year-old who touched a girl’s breast and then fled was equated with an adult rapist or child molester. That simply is not fair, especially since juveniles who took plea deals under one law might have rejected them under the terms of the later, harsher law.
Under state law, juvenile sex offenders still must register, but their names are withheld from all but law enforcement, schools and day-care organizations. Those registrations can run from a short time to life.
Go read the whole thing and then answer the question: Was this veto justified? Why or why not?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 10:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pruning or slashing?
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Delgado; Frerichs-Raoul; Art; Capital; CTA (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
That simply is not fair, especially since juveniles who took plea deals under one law might have rejected them under the terms of the later, harsher law.
Well, that argument didn’t go anywhere with the the Lautenberg Amendment, but I feel it’s a VERY valid argument.
There is a huge difference between two 15 year olds making out, and rape/molestation.
The governor was simply pandering to his feminist base.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 11:13 am
Despite the recent insanity with state government, this was a tough decision the general assembly made, and a good one. Sex offender laws have become too out of control and reactionary. They need to be fairer and distinguish between offenders who have a higher chance at being rehabilitated, such as juveniles, and offenders who do not.
And Pat Collins- I think the governor was pandering to MANY groups with his veto. Just because you’re a feminist doesn’t mean you want to throw all sex offenders on an island and blow it up…
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 11:18 am
Hmm, I was a little worried that this might not attract many comments. Oh, well. Live and learn.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 11:46 am
I wonder if the Gov knew what he was vetoing. His comments suggest he was not familiar with the original law or the changes being made. it sounds like the veto was pointless, and targeted more at the soundbite topic of sex offenders then the actuall content of the bill.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 11:48 am
Well Ghost, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time he didn’t pay attention to what the bill actually said
Comment by Lainer Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 11:50 am
Actually, I agree the whole sex offender thing is getting out of hand.
If they really ARE a danger, then give them a LONG sentence.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 12:21 pm
Juveniles with petty minor offenses should not be in the same mix with repeated dangerous sex offenders. Sounds like the Governor is watching too much Bill O’Reilly.
Comment by Lula May Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 12:32 pm
Lainer, are you implying the Gov does not study every bill carefully before excercising his veto power and issuing a press release? I am shocked, shocked I say.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 12:42 pm
If the Governor wants to crack down on sex offenders, he should try to figure out why the Department of Professional Regulations is reprimanding doctors or merely suspending their license for sex-related offenses instead of banning them from practicing medicine permanently.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 1:15 pm
Wow. I am really impressed that amid the fog of this crazy year, a great public policy decision was made and defended. It has been nearly insane the way these laws have continued to be passed with higher and higher penalties for teenaged offenders engaged in consenting activities. These past 15 years there have been a good number of lives horribly impacted by these anti-male “soccer-mom over reactions”. Kudos to the GA for recognizing and correcting a portion of this over-reach.
Comment by Chad Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 1:31 pm
This veto override truly is a public-policy triumph in a year full of … ummm … mostly unwise ones. I’m with the General Assembly on this one. I’m guessing the Guv’s veto was based on either a failure to understand a lot of the nuance involved in sex-offender registration of juvies … or, perhaps worse, a lack of interest in learning about such nuance, coupled with an abundance of interest in the easy PR value of his veto.
Comment by Linus Wednesday, Oct 17, 07 @ 1:40 pm