Comments on: Someone Did Their Job, Well Sort Of. http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sor.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:09:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ilah http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sor.html#comment-216 Ilah Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:43:44 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sort_of.html#comment-216 Quote: "Like I said, this will be fun to watch." Nah, it'll fall off the radar completely. All the public will remember is that some offender got "busted" in a park, and therefore believe there is an emergency need for the ordinance. Quote: “Like I said, this will be fun to watch.”

Nah, it’ll fall off the radar completely. All the public will remember is that some offender got “busted” in a park, and therefore believe there is an emergency need for the ordinance.

]]> By: Abdul http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sor.html#comment-215 Abdul Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:47:42 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sort_of.html#comment-215 That also brings up another constitutional issue, can you charge someone with an offense if their activity was not a crime at the time the offense was committed? How about "no" under the concept of ex post facto laws. Like I said, this will be fun to watch. That also brings up another constitutional issue, can you charge someone with an offense if their activity was not a crime at the time the offense was committed? How about “no” under the concept of ex post facto laws. Like I said, this will be fun to watch.

]]> By: Ilah http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sor.html#comment-214 Ilah Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:49:01 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/06/someone_did_their_job_well_sort_of.html#comment-214 His conviction was for "sexual battery" in 1990 (IC 35-42-4-8), and there is no specification that it was against a child. That would mean the ordinance wouldn't currently apply to him. It may apply to him after July 1, though, when the state will retroactively name thousands of offenders "predators"--including those who were convicted of crimes against adults, even if the single offense happened decades ago. And once they are named "predators," the state will also define them, as of July 1, as "offenders against children." His conviction was for “sexual battery” in 1990 (IC 35-42-4-8), and there is no specification that it was against a child. That would mean the ordinance wouldn’t currently apply to him.

It may apply to him after July 1, though, when the state will retroactively name thousands of offenders “predators”–including those who were convicted of crimes against adults, even if the single offense happened decades ago. And once they are named “predators,” the state will also define them, as of July 1, as “offenders against children.”

]]>