Thursday, November 12, 2015

Justices uphold sex-offender label for Ohio man who had sex with teen

I say lets put Injustice Lanzinger on the registry. Better yet, lets do all those things to her than the Internet trolls are always saying we should do to s*x offenders, and lets see if we find THAT shocking!

The D'OH-io Supreme Court doesn't even remember their own recent decisions. Take this case for example:

State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374

{¶ 16} Following the enactment of S.B. 10, all doubt has been removed:

R.C. Chapter 2950 is punitive.

Justices uphold sex-offender label for Ohio man who had sex with teen

By Alan Johnson
The Columbus Dispatch  •  Thursday November 12, 2015 11:02 AM

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld state sex-offender registration requirements in a case in which a convicted offender challenged them as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The 5-2 decision issued on Thursday involved Travis Blankenship, of Clark County, who was convicted for having unlawful sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl when he was 21. He met the girl through a social-media site.

Blankenship pleaded guilty and served 12 days of a six-month sentence, which also included five years of community control. He was classified as a Tier II sex offender under state law, requiring him to register in person with the sheriff’s office in the county where he lives every 180 days for 25 years.

Blankenship appealed the registration requirement, arguing it was too severe given the nature of the crime, a fourth-degree felony. The Second District Court of Appeals rejected his appeal.

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, writing for the majority, said that the registration requirements are “not so extreme as to be grossly disproportionate to the crime or shocking to a reasonable person and to the community’s sense of justice.” She said the sex-offender law does not violate the U.S or Ohio constitutions.

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented, saying the rules breached Blankenship’s rights under the specific circumstances.

“I do not believe that the registration and address-verification requirements at issue in this case are cruel and unusual with respect to all Tier II sex offenders. But as applied to Blankenship, who was deemed to warrant a prison sentence of only 12 days, who has a low risk of reoffending, and who possesses none of the characteristics of a sex offender, the requirement to register and verify his address every six months for the next 25 years ‘would be considered shocking to any reasonable person.'"

No comments:

Post a Comment