September 14, 2005

The ACLU Doesn't Always Get Its Way

Level 3 sex offenders are deemed as sex offenders whose risk of reoffense is high and the degree of danger posed to the public is of concern enough that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination.  These criminals are usually put on public databases and they are required to report their address and other such information should they move.  They are generally limited to where they can live (i.e. they cannot live within a certain distance of schools, parks, etc.).  As a parent, I appreciate that, if the judicial system can't keep this scum in a prison (my first residence of choice for these criminals), there are at least limitations to where they can live.  Well, the ACLU doesn't necessarily agree - heck, they want the criminals to live wherever they want:

The ACLU filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of Kyle Lewis, a Level 3 sex offender, and his mother, who owns the property where her son lives. The Issaquah ordinance passed last month also makes it illegal to rent homes to sex offenders in prohibited areas.

But not everyone agrees with the ACLU's high level of criminal support:

Last week, a court commissioner denied an ACLU request for a temporary restraining order to block the ordinance until the preliminary-injunction hearing date of Sept. 23. The city then began issuing fines of $250 a day to Lewis and his mother.

Lewis didn't want his mother to be penalized and has agreed to move out of Issaquah, said ACLU spokesman Doug Honig.

"The lawsuit is proceeding, just on a slower schedule," Honig said. A trial date is set for Feb. 27, 2007, but a summary judgment could be issued earlier, he said.

The ACLU withdrew their motion seeking to bar the city of Issaquah from enforcing an ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live.  In other words, when things weren't going their way, they pulled back.

I find this interesting.  If you dig for a bit on the Internet, you will find these little stories hidden in the corners - hidden in quite a number of corners.  When the ACLU wins a case, or depending on what the subject matter is, the MSM generally picks up on the story and makes it a national news event.  When the ACLU withdraws, or loses, it's buried on page seven - not nearly as newsworthy.  I also find that stories relating to sexual predators, or other such criminals tend to get less media attention (and the ACLU tends to brag less about these cases).  What they are doing is so political in nature and is more about the money they want to win, the notoriety they hope to achieve and the leaders' own personal agendas.  I find it disgusting, and absolutely criminal.  As is the situation in the aforementioned case, the criminal is represented, the victim(s) and potential victims are not.  It's good that the judicial system put the hammer down on this one - that's one for the victim(s), zero for the ACLU.