The Jessica's Law Petition

[Zombiewire]

I am sure you will get this via your email "pass it on" however, I have brought it right to you.

http://www.petitiononline.com/jlaw/petition-sign.html?

[large]

Thank you James . . .

[Chuckie]

Where's the petition to allow us to use these people for product testing? It should be a big hit with the animal rights groups. It would also give more accurate results.

Implant a chip? nah. Let's just keep em in a cage and only take them out long enough to test the effects of injesting super glue.

[Lexi]

LMAO! @ Chuckie!

Of course, I must say that while the animal rights activists may like that, the prisoner's rights groups might not.

[Chuckie]

with some of the offenses prisoners are in there for...animal rights/prisoner rights...what's the difference?

[randell6564]

Keep allowing our Government to create laws such as this and one day they will OWN YOU! These human rights violations will end up at your front door, affecting YOUR lives!

[Zen Curmudgeon]

Keep allowing our Government to create laws such as this and one day they will OWN YOU! These human rights violations will end up at your front door, affecting YOUR lives!Yeah, yeah. But as long as O'Reilly's book sales lag behind Olbermann's we'll keep hearing about this.

And brace yourself for the "war on christmas" redux.

ZC

[randell6564]

Yeah, yeah. But as long as O'Reilly's book sales lag behind Olbermann's we'll keep hearing about this.

And brace yourself for the "war on christmas" redux.

ZC
"O'Reilly's book sales"? I am not familiar with this O'Reilly and any book that he has written regarding this issue. Could you provide a link?
Thanks!

[Lexi]

Are you a sex offender, randell?

[Zen Curmudgeon]

Are you a sex offender, randell?Are you taking your medications, Lexi?

ZC

[Lexi]

Shut up, Zen, I wasn't addressing you.

But maybe I should ask you the same thing. The only people who have anything to lose by the passing of such a thing are sex offenders and child molesters.

Where do you fit in that scale?

[Zen Curmudgeon]

Shut up, Zen, I wasn't addressing you.And yet, here I am.

In the lap dance of life, Lexi, you are nothing more than a dry hump.

Have a nice day.

Consider estrogen supplements.

And while you're winding up your righteous bullshit indignation, remember to find reasonable justification for your undeniably rude "are you a sex offender" question to a brand new forum member.

ZC

[Lexi]

Given the nature of his post, it's a rather reasonable question, I don't care if he's a new forum member or a used one.

I call it like I see it.

And, it's better to be a dry hump than a drug & alcohol addicted wet noodle. Wassamatta Zen, don't you have what it takes to get through life being sober? Is it too tough for you? Sober up and grow some balls before you attempt to challenge me.

[Zen Curmudgeon]

And, it's better to be a dry hump than a drug & alcohol addicted wet noodle. Wassamatta Zen, don't you have what it takes to get through life being sober? Is it too tough for you? Sober up and grow some balls before you attempt to challenge me.

http://www.koaa.com/community/listens/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3216

Posted by Lexi - 10/20/2006 : 4:58:27 PM

And, by the way, this is a message board. Try not to take it so seriously all the time. Yes, we have serious topics, but sheesh, it's nothing to hate each other over, now, is it?

[randell6564]

Are you a sex offender, randell?
Why do you insult? Did you even check out my link? Have you ever done any research on these ridiculous laws in order to come to a logical, rational, intelligent and informative decision on your own; or are you just another citizen that trusts your government so much that you allow them to make your decisions for you? Never considering the impact that it will have on YOUR life some day.

How much you may hate people for something they have done does NOT make it ok to rewrite our United States Constitution! In fact rewriting it purely out of anger is so ridiculously UN-intelligent and irrational that it horrifies me!
The only people who have anything to lose by the passing of such a thing are sex offenders and child molesters.
Oh? So the families.,the innocent wives and children of these sex offenders do not have anything to lose? That is a Very Narrow minded statement Lexi! And it is very good evidence that you are in fact NOT very informed!

Laws such as these will indirectly affect YOU, ME and everyone else! No, I am not a sex offender. I am a very concerned and INFORMED citizen!

So.,Saint Pious, Keep allowing all the media hype to form your opinions and perception of the world around you, and one day, when we have become a Socialist Government, you will be left standing with your finger up your self-righteous butt, wondering "How did this happen?".

[randell6564]

Are you a sex offender, randell?

http://www.koaa.com/community/listens/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3216

Posted by Lexi - 10/20/2006 : 4:58:27 PM

And, by the way, this is a message board. Try not to take it so seriously all the time. Yes, we have serious topics, but sheesh, it's nothing to hate each other over, now, is it?
This is funny! Well done 'Zen'!

[Lexi]

It wasn't meant as an insult, it's merely a direct question.

I do not think that any woman who has any brains should be married to a sex offender, she places her self and her children at risk.

I think the community should have a right to know if a sex offender -- particularly a violent one and/or one who goes after children -- is in their neighbourhood.

If these sex offenders or their spouses do not like the consequences, then let that be a lesson to society to think about the consequences you'll face for the crime you'll commit.

If I were married to a man who turned out to be a sex offender, I'd divorce him in a heartbeat and ask the court for all the alimony and child support I could get (if kids were involved), and I wouldn't give a rip flying horse's butt if the whole world knew where he lived after that. I'd likely join the lynch mob that would surely form, actually.

My right to live in a safe neighbourhood and protect my children outweighs the wants and desires of any known criminal out there, whether those criminals like it or not.

If sex offenders don't like that, then they should have thought about that before molesting innocent people; and if their spouses don't like it, then they should do the right thing and leave the idiots.

[Lexi]

And by the way, my post has nothing to do with hating anyone, but Zen is too high on drugs to comprehend that. Like many other substance abusing heterophobics, he has a habit of twisting things around because he doesn't have the ability to carry on an intelligent discussion with people who don't agree with his lifestyle.

[randell6564]

I do not think that any woman who has any brains should be married to a sex offender, she places her self and her children at risk.
Well, I respect that, BUT, how did you form this opinion? Are you reminded of the photograph of the freaky looking registered sex offender that was splashed on every T.V. screen across the country during the 5 o'clock news, every time that our pandering politicians say that they are "tough on sexual predators"?

Do you recall ever fearing to fly because there seemed to be a hell of a lot of plane crashes in the world? But after some thought, you realize that this fear is irrational because in fact, there are very few compared to car accidents! It's just because the media covers every horrific plane crash, but only covers a select few car accidents, making it seem this way!

Every home in this country is flooded with headline news stories about sex offenders because it is the 'Hot Topic'! It creates good ratings, it clinches your votes, it causes you to believe that there is a freak poised to pounce from behind every bush, out of every tree in every park in every neighborhood in this world and snatch your child!
I think the community should have a right to know if a sex offender -- particularly a violent one and/or one who goes after children -- is in their neighbourhood.
Your child is more at risk of being shot by a stray bullet fired by your local gang-banger, hit by a car, falling off of his/her bycycle and cracking his/her head open, or being molested by someone within his/her own family than coming into contact with someone who likes to play with children in that way! The majority of sex crimes against children are perpitrated by a family member, so how does being made to register as a sex offender, being made to wear a tracking device protect them?
And this is not so much a question of safty as it is a question of what constitutes a violation of our U.S. Constitution!
If these sex offenders or their spouses do not like the consequences, then let that be a lesson to society to think about the consequences you'll face for the crime you'll commit.
It would be nice if it were in fact a lesson learned, but history has proven that no form of punishment has ever detered anyone from the act of victimizing others. are you aware that even with the Death Penalty there are more crimes involving murder than ever before? No punishment will prevent your local sex offender from seizing his oppurtunity because he does not think that he will be caught or he just doesn't care if he is!
If I were married to a man who turned out to be a sex offender, I'd divorce him in a heartbeat...
I'm sorry lexi, I just do not bye this, unless your kind of Love is very shallow and unmeaningfull. You are in the minority here!
My right to live in a safe neighbourhood and protect my children outweighs the wants and desires of any known criminal out there, whether those criminals like it or not.
No matter how you clothe it, these laws are Blatent violations of Human Rights, and the point here is this; If we continue to allow our Government to perpitrate these violations then we have effectivley opened the door for more! And one day there will come one that DIRECTLY violates your Rights!

[Lexi]

It is a cold, hard fact of life, randell, that whenever people of a particular "social group" (in this case, sex offenders) repeatedly give the community at large something to fear, then eventually the community is going to pull together to do what they can to erradicate that fear.

Why should criminals get away with forcing innocent people to have to live their lives in a barracade for their own protection?

Since the law does very little to allow people to protect themselves and their families, there's nothing more that we can do other than to create more laws that will allow us to have greater legal recourse against offenders.

Jessica's law targets violent, predatory sex offenders; generally repeat offenders This is more than reasonable.

It is unreasonable for innocent vicitms, particularly children, to have to endure something they don't deserve. Why should any creep who hurt and killed a child, rapes a woman, or even a man, be allowed to roam free only to do it again?

There are very few (if any) sex offenders who have committed only one offense, especially after being let out of jail. Why should society, as a whole, have to put up with these people, then? They are habitual and repeat offenders, and the rights of communities to protect their wives and children far outweighs the "right" of a sex offender to roam the streets in search of another victim.

I'm usually one who doesn't like "too many laws", and people who know me will tell you that I'm one of the first people they know who will stand up and fight for the US Constitution and the rights of the people.

I see nothing unconstitutional about keeping an eye on already convicted violent, repeat sex offenders. There was a time when these people were given a fair trial then hanged afterwards.

There are more sex offenders than perhaps you care to realize -- not all of them are considered violent, and most of them probably have never seen the inside of a courtroom. Even so, they still manage to do plenty of damage.

[randell6564]

Jessica's law targets violent, predatory sex offenders; generally repeat offenders This is more than reasonable.
Wrong. 'Jessica's Law' "targets" EVERY single man or woman who has ever been labled a 'Sex Offender' and has been made to register as such. Including offenses like peeing in public! (this will get you onto the list)

It will also not matter how long ago ones crime was committed, or whether or not he/she is a repeat offender. It will not matter that there are a very large number of EX-offenders out there, trying to make a good life for themselves and their family.

There is a woman who has been married to a man who committed a sexual offense over 20 years ago. He has been an upstanding member of our society ever since. They bought and lived in a home that they planned to stay in for the rest of their lives. They had been living in this home for 10 years when a law was passed that states to the effect that no registered sex offender can live within 1000 feet of a school or park. They had to remove their children from the school right down the street, and sell their home, or he would be arrested. And the kicker is that this man was not a pedophile! He was never deemed to be a threat to children, but these laws do not differentiate between the many different offenses.
The same will happen when Jessica's Law is enacted. It will be made retroactive and will put a gps device on the leg of EVERY person who is registered, no matter how safe they may be!
I DO NOT care what ANY man or woman has EVER done! Tracking a human being is disgusting, and scares the hell out of me! What will be next?
Why should any creep who hurt and killed a child, rapes a woman, or even a man, be allowed to roam free only to do it again?
you're still not getting it! Are you so nieve to believe that making someone register or where a tracking device will keep them from harming you?
There are very few (if any) sex offenders who have committed only one offense, especially after being let out of jail. Why should society, as a whole, have to put up with these people, then? They are habitual and repeat offenders, and the rights of communities to protect their wives and children far outweighs the "right" of a sex offender to roam the streets in search of another victim.
I see nothing unconstitutional about keeping an eye on already convicted violent, repeat sex offenders. There was a time when these people were given a fair trial then hanged afterwards.

There are more sex offenders than perhaps you care to realize -- not all of them are considered violent, and most of them probably have never seen the inside of a courtroom. Even so, they still manage to do plenty of damage.
Show me where you get your information, show me facts and I will consider it. But I do not think that you can, because I have, all around me a plethora of information that can prove that you are only stating your opinion without any hard evidence.
It is difficult to reason with ignorance.

[Lexi]

ex Offender' and has been made to register as such.

Hogwash. Have you even read the proposed law for yourself, or are you just going by "reports" you're reading on the net?

Tracking a human being is not disgusting if that human being is a violent predator upon society, especially small children.

Show me where you get your information, show me facts and I will consider it.

Let's turn the tables here.

First, you show me where this law is unconstitutional.

Then, you show me stats that prove that most sex offenders only commit one offense then stop. In fact, also show me the stats showing that sex offenders, once let out of jail, are "rehabilitated" and don't continue their crimes.

If you have this plethora of information, let's see it (and it had better come from reputable sources and not pro-sex offender websites).

As well, specifically show me where, in the law, that it states that all sex offenders will be targeted for tracking.

And, by the way, a tracking device may not keep a sex offender from assaulting people, but it'll sure as hell tell the cops where they are if they're wanted for hurting someone else. I think that might be a bit of a deterrant.

[randell6564]

First, you show me where this law is unconstitutional.
lets see.,heres a few places:
a. The Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause;
b. The Act violates the procedural component of the Due Process Clause;
c. The Act violates the substantive component of the Due Process Clause and the right to family privacy;
d. The Act violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000©© (2006);
e. The Act violates the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of association;
f. The Act violates the Takings Clause;
g. The Act violates the right to interstate and intrastate travel;
h. The Act violates the Eighth Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment and by impermissibly punishing Plaintiffs based upon their status.
As well, specifically show me where, in the law, that it states that all sex offenders will be targeted for tracking.
here is a little tidbit right from the 'sample resolution' that has been brought before the voters:
(i) Additional resources are necessary to adequately monitor and supervise sexual predators [AND OFFENDERS.] It is vital that the lasting effects of the assault do not further victimize victims of sexual assault.

(j) Global Positioning System technology is an useful tool for monitoring sexual predators and [AND OTHER OFFENDERS] and is a cost effective measure for parole supervision. It is critical to have close supervision of this class of criminals to monitor these offenders and prevent them from committing other crimes.

There is much more my friend but unfortunately I have to step out for a time. I will however be back to fill you in on the rest! Though something tells me that no matter how much hard evidence I present to you, it will do nothing. It will go right over your head! lol!

[Lexi]

a. The Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause;

ex post facto -

A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e052.htm
---------------------------
Jessica's law doesn't seek to do this to already convicted offenders.

It is legal, however, for newly convicted sex offenders, or those newly labeled as sexual predators by a court of law, to be eligible for this monitoring.


b. The Act violates the procedural component of the Due Process Clause;
c. The Act violates the substantive component of the Due Process Clause and the right to family privacy;


Considering that the proposed law has set forth some rather strict guidelines as to who is made to be monitored and who isn't, I don't believe that either component of the Due Process Clause is violeted here. From what I've read in the proposed law, those who have failed to follow through with court orders -- falsifying information concerning their address or other required information, failure to re-register, and so forth -- are the ones who are possibly eligible for monitoring. As such, they have to be ordered by a judge to receive this monitoring.

I did not see anywhere in the bill, however, that made the monitoring information public, so I don't see where the privacy issue would play into here any more than it already does for those who have to register.

I'd also like to add that this bill also states that convicted offenders who've not repeated their crime for 10 or more years can petition the court to be removed from the registry.
--------------
d. The Act violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000©© (2006);

(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws

The Special Litigation Section protects the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons confined in certain institutions owned or operated by, or on behalf of, state or local governments. These institutions include facilities for individuals who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled, nursing homes, juvenile correctional facilities, and adult jails and prisons.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this one to me. Are you insinuating that sexual offenses are religious in nature and should be allowed to continue?

Or, are you insinuating that GPS monitoring is the same as confinement?

Is a stolen vehicle being tracked via GPS still sitting in the garage, then?

Offenders being tracked by GPS are not confined, they're merely being electronically monitored. This monitoring can actually prove them innocent if the GPS device shows they weren't at the crime scene...

e. The Act violates the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of association;

This is the free exercise clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Again, are you purporting that sexual offenses are a religious right?

According to Wikipedia,
Freedom of association is a Constitutional (legal) concept based on the premise that it is the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit.

I see nowhere in Jessica's Law that states an offender or predator can't choose his own friends, however, generally they're told to stay away from their victims and pedophiles are usually ordered by the court to stay away from children. Such restraining orders are not unconstitutional.

f. The Act violates the Takings Clause;

Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.

This means that the government can not take your property without giving you it's monetary worth. I fail to see how this is relative to a sexual predator being monitored by GPS.

If the person has to move away from a school, as stated in one of your posts, they receive just compensation when they've sold their house; unless you are now asserting that the government took their house, kicked them out of it, and gave them nothing in return.

g. The Act violates the right to interstate and intrastate travel;

I did not see anything in the bill that would keep the sexual predator being monitored by GPS from travelling, so I fail to see the relavence here, as well.

Most states have laws, however, that if a sex offender moves to another state, they must register in the place where they're moving to. As for leaving the country, well, good luck getting another country to let you in if you're an offender of any kind.

h. The Act violates the Eighth Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment and by impermissibly punishing Plaintiffs based upon their status.

Let's talk about the abuse of the 8th amendment here, shall we?

Do you want to know what "cruel and unusual" punishment is? It's a 9 year old girl being sexually penetrated by a full grown man, then beaten to death afterwards.

It's an innocent person being painfully and emotionally damaged and violated in a sexual manner, sometimes beaten to death, sometimes shot, some have had their arms cut off and were left for dead by the perps. Remember Jacine Galinsky? Minding her own business, taking a morning jog, she's kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and beaten mercilessly and left for dead. Her badly battered body was found, she had died after the perps left the scene and before she was found.

Yes, let's talk about cruel and unusual punishment here. If the stupid idiot can give it out, he should be able to take what's given to him in return. I'd say that lifetime GPS is not even on the scale compared to the life sentence of physical and emotional trauma caused by the sick minded M-F-s who sexually violate people like that.

Again, being monitored would be a direct result of their having defied court orders, so it's not a sentence based on status, it's more a consequence for their further defiance of court orders.

You can read the House Bill for yourself right here:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/05laws/ch_2005-028.pdf

Now, the question remains as to whether this will open doors to other people being eventually monitored by GPS.

I think this is a valid question and a legitimate concern, and the answers lie within the voters. It'll be up to the voters to keep this law from being used as a foot in the door to Governmental intrusions.

[randell6564]

ex post facto -

A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e052.htm
---------------------------
Jessica's law doesn't seek to do this to already convicted offenders.

It is legal, however, for newly convicted sex offenders, or those newly labeled as sexual predators by a court of law, to be eligible for this monitoring.



Considering that the proposed law has set forth some rather strict guidelines as to who is made to be monitored and who isn't, I don't believe that either component of the Due Process Clause is violeted here. From what I've read in the proposed law, those who have failed to follow through with court orders -- falsifying information concerning their address or other required information, failure to re-register, and so forth -- are the ones who are possibly eligible for monitoring. As such, they have to be ordered by a judge to receive this monitoring.

I did not see anywhere in the bill, however, that made the monitoring information public, so I don't see where the privacy issue would play into here any more than it already does for those who have to register.

I'd also like to add that this bill also states that convicted offenders who've not repeated their crime for 10 or more years can petition the court to be removed from the registry.
--------------


(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws

The Special Litigation Section protects the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons confined in certain institutions owned or operated by, or on behalf of, state or local governments. These institutions include facilities for individuals who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled, nursing homes, juvenile correctional facilities, and adult jails and prisons.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this one to me. Are you insinuating that sexual offenses are religious in nature and should be allowed to continue?

Or, are you insinuating that GPS monitoring is the same as confinement?

Is a stolen vehicle being tracked via GPS still sitting in the garage, then?

Offenders being tracked by GPS are not confined, they're merely being electronically monitored. This monitoring can actually prove them innocent if the GPS device shows they weren't at the crime scene...



This is the free exercise clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Again, are you purporting that sexual offenses are a religious right?

According to Wikipedia,
Freedom of association is a Constitutional (legal) concept based on the premise that it is the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit.

I see nowhere in Jessica's Law that states an offender or predator can't choose his own friends, however, generally they're told to stay away from their victims and pedophiles are usually ordered by the court to stay away from children. Such restraining orders are not unconstitutional.



Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.

This means that the government can not take your property without giving you it's monetary worth. I fail to see how this is relative to a sexual predator being monitored by GPS.

If the person has to move away from a school, as stated in one of your posts, they receive just compensation when they've sold their house; unless you are now asserting that the government took their house, kicked them out of it, and gave them nothing in return.



I did not see anything in the bill that would keep the sexual predator being monitored by GPS from travelling, so I fail to see the relavence here, as well.

Most states have laws, however, that if a sex offender moves to another state, they must register in the place where they're moving to. As for leaving the country, well, good luck getting another country to let you in if you're an offender of any kind.



Let's talk about the abuse of the 8th amendment here, shall we?

Do you want to know what "cruel and unusual" punishment is? It's a 9 year old girl being sexually penetrated by a full grown man, then beaten to death afterwards.

It's an innocent person being painfully and emotionally damaged and violated in a sexual manner, sometimes beaten to death, sometimes shot, some have had their arms cut off and were left for dead by the perps. Remember Jacine Galinsky? Minding her own business, taking a morning jog, she's kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and beaten mercilessly and left for dead. Her badly battered body was found, she had died after the perps left the scene and before she was found.

Yes, let's talk about cruel and unusual punishment here. If the stupid idiot can give it out, he should be able to take what's given to him in return. I'd say that lifetime GPS is not even on the scale compared to the life sentence of physical and emotional trauma caused by the sick minded M-F-s who sexually violate people like that.

Again, being monitored would be a direct result of their having defied court orders, so it's not a sentence based on status, it's more a consequence for their further defiance of court orders.

You can read the House Bill for yourself right here:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/05laws/ch_2005-028.pdf

Now, the question remains as to whether this will open doors to other people being eventually monitored by GPS.

I think this is a valid question and a legitimate concern, and the answers lie within the voters. It'll be up to the voters to keep this law from being used as a foot in the door to Governmental intrusions.

Well done Lexi! I have to admit that I was wrong in my initial impression of you! You remember? When you asked me if I was a sex offender? lol!
I thought that you were just another drive-by poster, with nothing better to do but insult the intelligence of well meaning individuals because you really could not come up with anything better!
I apologize. You seem to be an intelligent and articulate individual; you make a very good defense. BUT, you have failed to notice my reference to this law being "Retroactive". By applying this fact to the argument of wether or not it is Un-constitutional, you will get my meaning.
At the moment though, I would much rather play my drums than continue to expound on the subject at hand! No offense my friend, but my band-mates are mean-mugging me! YOU cannot hurt me in cyber-space, but they are right here and can do some damage if I continue to type! lol!

I will get back to you k?
PEACE!

[Lexi]

There are times when I'm painfully blunt, but honestly, I didn't intend for my bluntness to offend you, it was more of my asking a direct question to give me a better perspective on your reasoning. So, let me be the one to apologize, and I thank you for yours.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I still disagree with your assertion that the law is retroactive, and the reason why I disagree with that is due to the wording in the HB. I'll go back and read through it again, though, to be sure.

If, however, I'm wrong in that, then I would certainly agree with you on that point, it can't be enforced retroactively, except that if an already existing "sex offender" suddenly becomes a "sexual predator" after the law goes into effect, he or she may be effected by the new law.

However, it is questionable to me as to whether it may be enforced on already convicted offenders who are not in compliance with the court ordered registration process, I'll have to do a little research on that one. Because of the way it's written, it looks like they will be able to enforce it on those who are not in compliance currently, since it takes a court order for the monitoring to begin, and that would take yet another court appearance or two, which covers the part about due process and so forth.

I'm wondering if this goes into affect if it can later be amended for the monitoring to be cut down to 25 years or so instead of for life, in the event that the offender stays clean for all that time.