It's bizarro world in liberal land, where you say goodbye upon greeting, and hello upon leaving.
According to AM 1280 the Patriot, a Massachusetts judge has "has ruled that parts of Missouri's new law restricting registered sex offenders' actions on Halloween night are unenforceable, saying the law lacked clarity and could cause confusion for sex offenders and those charged with enforcing it."
After hearing arguments in a case brought by four sex offenders, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of some parts of the law.First, we have an activist judge defying common sense and the welfare of the general public. In her own odd interpretation, she's essentially given sex offenders carte blanche to do whatever they want on Halloween.
(O)ther aspects of the statute were too broad and raise questions, the judge said.
For example, Jackson said, may a sex offender have contact with his or her own children on Halloween? Passing out candy is clearly prohibited, but what else constitutes Halloween-related contact? And if a sex offender planned to be out of town on Halloween, he or she would not technically be "inside the home" as the law requires, Jackson pointed out.
The law allows sex offenders to leave home on Halloween night if there is "just cause" such as work or an emergency, but Jackson criticized the measure for failing to define the term more clearly.Such vagueness would cause confusion among sex offenders, police and prosecutors, she said.
Second, the ACLU has naturally interjected itself into the fray; once again siding with the perpetrator rather than the criminal:
The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. Attorney Dave Nelson called the law's requirements a "scarlet letter" for sex offenders. He said the statute also results in additional punishment by requiring what amounts to "house arrest" one day each year.Too bad. We're talking sex offenders that, if allowed, would commit indescribable actions towards youngsters if allowed. Yet, "civil liberty" groups like ACLU fight for their rights. What rights do they possess? These people have committed arguably some of the most egregious acts in judicial history, and instead of focusing concern on the potential victim, the ACLU is instead defending the criminal.