IN- Who's right when it comes to laws for sex offenders?

This is a interesting opinion, albeit biased (see last sentence). Given that last sentence comment I'll add, it cannot be "continuing" unless it comes from the sentencing court and would have to be in that court's sentencing order. Here, with parks, it is not, and as to other issues mentioned, the ex post facto clauses have no exceptions written into them, except what judges have read into them.

9-26-2008 Indiana:

Answer depends on if our focus is on punishment or safety.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld Plainfield's law that bans sex offenders from parks. Child-safety advocates are elated, but the American Civil Liberties Union says enjoyment of parks is a “core value” under the Indiana constitution and that banishment amounts to a second punishment for a crime.

So who's right? The question is being debated in several communities that have laws similar to Plainfield's. The bans in Lafayette and Michigan City have also withstood court challenges. A suit over a similar law in Greenwood has been on hold pending an outcome in the Plainfield case. A federal judge overturned Indianapolis' law as overly broad. It banned offenders from being within 1,000 feet of a park or school. There are very few such places in the city.

An answer to the question depends on our focus.

If we just concentrate on the punishment aspect, it can seem to be too unfair to the offenders. We tend to have a “punish and move on” attitude about crime in this country. Once people have paid the debt for their crimes, they are allowed the benefit of the doubt and given a chance to learn from their mistakes.

We especially have to be careful not to deny a whole class of offenders constitutional rights that belong to everybody. The Fourth Amendment does not make an exception for sex offenders when it says “the people” have a right to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” for example. Indiana was not mindful of that blanket right when it tried to require registered sex offenders to “volunteer” for on-demand searches of their computers.

But there is a safety aspect to be considered. The man at the heart of the Plainfield case - identified only as John Doe - was not someone who was arrested for having sex at 18 with his 16-year-old girlfriend. He was convicted on child exploitation and possession of child pornography. It is not unreasonable to worry about him being in a park where children congregate.

It is now well-known that sex offenders have to register with the state and that many communities are trying to restrict their movements, so such treatment can be no great surprise to anyone. Certain things, therefore, can be seen as a continuation of the punishment, not a second round of it. ..Source.. Opinion by News Sentenial