Missouri Supreme Court decision on lifetime monitoring
The Missourinet reports the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of a lower court’s ruling, saying the sex offender failed to present evidence that a lifetime electronic monitoring requirement is unconstitutional.
I’m starting to think there isn’t much of a constitution left.
Elon Musk said that information will be the new gold, the future currency.
GPS tracking, DNA on file, fingerprints, Internet Identifiers, picture taken every 6mo./3mo. phone number changes, address permanent/transient, etc. The Registry is a cash cow of compelled information/data. Can’t let that pesky constitution get in the way of profits.
When anti-registry activists were first trying to say this publicly back in the mid-2000s, we were ignored. The government, through the public registry, has the structure needed to create such a database of ALL people. It is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, they have the piees if they take the time to cobble together the SOR with other monitoring programs.
The illuminati is real.
However, there is this: Psalm 9:9 “The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.”
I have read the full ruling. An important fact to point out is that the petitioner in this Missouri case is on community supervision for life, not merely required to register as a sexual offender. The lifetime post-release supervision with electronic monitoring was imposed as part of the petitioner’s sentence for rape of an 11 year-old, not retroactively imposed as a condition of registration. A roughly similar provision exists in Florida for those convicted of Lewd and Lascivious Battery against a Child Under 12 under F.S. 775.082(3)(a)4 (the mandatory minimum is 25 years imprisonment followed by probation with mandatory electronic monitoring for life).
Although this fact is of little solace to the petitioner, it is an important distinction. For comparison purposes, the Florida offense that is equivalent to the petitioner’s is Capital Sexual Battery under F.S. 794.011(2)(a), which at the time of her offense would have mandated a life-without-parole sentence in Florida (now, under Florida law the possible sentence is life without parole or death).
I’m not defending the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision, but I think this the story requires contextualization.