Friday, May 05, 2006

So Why Do We Even Need This Ordinance?

Proving our earlier contention that the Melina Kennedy-Mary Moriarty Adams crackdown on sex offenders in our public parks is completely unnecessary because of a new state law, the Star's Brendan O'Shaughnessy explains an amendment Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi (R) offered to a council committee for the proposed ordinance to remedy a flaw that could result in double jeopardy:

Lifetime parole conditions for sexually violent predators already prohibit them from frequenting areas where potential victims can be found. A new state law, effective July 1, makes a violation a felony offense.

Brizzi's office determined the city proposal could create a situation of "double jeopardy," where a city fine could hamper his ability to prosecute the parole violation, because a person is protected against multiple punishments for the same offense.

"We don't want the whole thing to be struck down as unconstitutional," Brizzi said.
He proposed the amendment so the fines would not apply when there's an option of criminal prosecution.

As written, sex offenders could visit a public park only if they are accompanied by an adult who is not a sex offener (or at least one who hasn't been caught yet). But if the state law makes it a felony for these sex offenders to visit areas where potential victims can be found, then why are we even considering this ordinance? So Melina Kennedy and Carl Brizzi can debate which one of them is tougher on sex offenders? What a complete waste of taxpayers resources.

5 comments:

paula said...

...An amendment Carl Brizzi (D)...

Huh? I thought Carl was an (R)?

Advance Indiana said...

Hard to keep them straight. Huh?

Anonymous said...

Gary-

Come on. This was an attempt by Brizzi to take another one of Melina Kennedy's ideas. (Remember his sudden tax inforcement?) Brizzi liked the idea and got behind it. The amendment wasn't needed, city legal and the counsel to the council had reviewed it (as they review all proposals). Brizzi was making another stunt and not fighting crime...

morgan kaela said...

Brizzi wouldn't have touched the ordinance if it wouldn't have prevented criminal prosecution. Unf, due to Ms. Kennedy's lack of experience in criminal law, she didn't even recognize the double jeopardy issue. I think the ordinance is unnecessary too, but when you have a public hell-bent on doing whatever they can to punish sex offenders, the council would've been committing political suicide to vote it down. At least Brizzi recognized the double jeopardy issue and fixed it. How could he not be fighting crime? As it was written, you could only fine them, not put them in jail.

Anonymous said...

Morgan, you must have been drinking the Kool-Aid. City Legal reviewed the ordinance and specifically looked at any potential double-jeopardy concerns and determined there weren't any. That Brizzi's amendment wasn't required, but, in fact, didn't change any thing.

As for a public being hell-bent on punishing violent sex offenders (who are among the most likely criminals to repeat their offences), its summer, and I think protecting our children by keeping rapists and child molestors off our swing sets is a good idea.

Brizzi thinks winning votes and not investigating the governor's corporate buddies is a good idea (I wish I could negoiate my own 80K raise). Brizzi needs to go, if we want to protect our children, ourselves, and our city.