Sex-offender monitoring OK'd

This is clearly -as applied to folks whose judgments have already been entered- an ex post facto violation, anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. In court -under those circumstances- this will go down like the Hindenberg. Each lawmaker who voted for it should be made to pay the legal costs to defend it. In other states similar laws have been held to be ex post facto violations.

3-6-2010 Oklahoma:

The Senate bill would force some of them to wear electronic trackers after their release.

OKLAHOMA CITY — The state Senate passed a measure Wednesday that would require some sex offenders to wear electronic monitors after their release.

Senate Bill 2301 by Sen. Dan Newberry, R-Tulsa, passed by a vote of 37-4 after a lengthy debate. It now heads to the House.

The proposed law would require sex offenders who have completed their sentences but are considered Level 2 offenders to wear a monitoring device for 10 years, Newberry said.

Level 2 offenders include those convicted of facilitating, encouraging or offering sexual conduct with a minor or producing a child younger than 18 for prostitution.

The measure would require Level 3 sex offenders — those convicted of rape, forcible sodomy or incest — to wear the device for 15 years after their release.

The offender would be charged $75 a year to pay for the monitoring. The bill exempts indigent offenders from paying the fee.

After the monitoring period is completed without further legal troubles, a sex offender could petition a court to have the device removed, Newberry said.

Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-Hartshorne, who voted against the bill, said it seems that lawmakers are always passing legislation to make them appear tough on crime.

A vote against such a measure will be used against a lawmaker in the next re-election campaign, he said.

But "what does it do to stop people from reoffending?" Lerblance asked, adding that an electronic monitor won't protect someone from falling victim to a sex offender.

Newberry argued in response that an electronic monitor would reduce a sex offender's propensity to reoffend.

Sen. Steven Russell, R-Oklahoma City, voted for the bill but questioned whether it would violate the U.S. Constitution by imposing a punishment retroactively.

Newberry said the bill would make changes to the sex-offenderregistration statute. It would not resentence the offender, he said. ..Source.. BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau