LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Hours after a judge upheld a new state law, deputies in at least one Kentucky county arrested convicted sex offenders Wednesday for allegedly violating new restrictions on how close they may live to schools and other places where children gather. Ten sex offenders sued the state last month, claiming the new restrictions were unconstitutional because they force sex offenders to move from their property without due process of law and imposes penalties after they have served their sentences. However, U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II refused their request for an injunction Tuesday night, saying it wasn't yet clear whether the law would cause irreparable harm to people who are forced to move. "Law enforcement officials retain the discretion to enforce the new statute in a humane and sensible manner, considering all relevant factors," Heyburn wrote. Early Wednesday, Fayette County sheriff's deputies went out to enforce the law. They targeted 50 sex offenders who had not yet moved, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported Wednesday. "We feel it is very important to send a strong message from the beginning," Fayette Sheriff Kathy Witt said. Most of those being forced to move lived in older, urban neighborhoods. With a few exceptions, the new state law makes downtown Lexington virtually off-limits for sex offenders. After nearly four hours, one of the two teams of deputies sent out had made eight stops and arrested three sex offenders in violation of the law. Those arrested were charged with a misdemeanor. Authorities aren't sure how many sex offenders in Kentucky will have to move because of the law. There are more than 5,000 registered sex offenders in Kentucky. The law, passed earlier this year by the General Assembly, bars sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, playgrounds and other places where children gather. It is similar to laws passed in several states — including Iowa, Indiana and Georgia — after a convicted sex offender was charged in Florida last year with kidnapping, raping and killing a 9-year-old girl. A judge recently blocked a Georgia provision preventing sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop, but left in place bans on sex offenders working or loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, gyms and swimming pools. Iowa's law included a grandfather clause allowing people to stay in their homes if they lived there before the law took effect. One of the attorneys for the Kentucky offenders, Michael Goodwin, said by e-mail that Heyburn's decision "will force thousands of people across Kentucky out of their homes." He said they would continue challenging the law in court.
Just my 2 cents worth but if they are still a threat they should not be out in the first place, if they are a repeat offender they should be dead and if they have been released haveing served their full time then they should no longer be restricted. For the ones guilty of the things that pop to most of our minds when hearing the terms child molestor or sexual offender then I figure they should at least get life or far better would be execution, but a lot of those who would be on these lists would also include things like say an 18 year old who slept with their concenting 17 year old girl friends and were charged when she got pregnant and a Dr or some such found out among a lot of other 'crimes' that I doubt many of us would figure deserved a life sentance even if part of it was to be served living among the public with added restrictions and a scarlet letter.
The only thing about this that bothers me is the ex post facto (retroactive law) consideration. I'm with monkeyman, otherwise.
I'm with Monkeyman, If they are a risk then why are they walking the streets while so many non violent, non threat criminals rot behind bars? I'm against having the mentioned 18/17 romance labled as a sex offense and ruining someones life for no good reason, and..... Do NOT retroactively punish people. Once you open the door on that crap, we're all in big trouble. How 'bout that dui that uncle Bob got 15 years ago. Now we decide we're going to be tougher on dui, go find Bob, arrest him again to serve some more jail time, and take his liscence away...... Nope, shouldn't do that.
