State Supreme Court won’t rule on teen sex offender law
Monday, Sept. 8, 2008 | 6:41 p.m.
CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has declined to rule on the constitutionality of a new law stating that teenage sex offenders can be punished as adults.
The court dismissed the appeal of Clark County in 21 cases that these youth, who were 14 years old and older and had committed sexual acts, had to register as sex offenders.
District Judge William Voy of the Clark County Family Court ruled that a part of a new law involving sexual offenses by teenagers was invalid. He said setting the age at 14 was arbitrary. There should be a basis for setting that age, he said.
In his decision, Voy said some youngsters who are younger than 14 are just as disposed to committing another sex crime and the law takes away the discretion of the courts.
In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court said the decision of Judge Voy is not a final judgment in the cases of these 21 juveniles. “We lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals,” said the three-justice panel of the Supreme Court.
The 2007 Legislature patterned the law after the federal Adam Walsh Act that included many teenage sex offenders age 14 and older with adults in requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.
The federal act said the states must enact similar laws or lose federal funds.
Discussion: 5 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Technorati













ats cuz day doan no watt to say
I thank the writer for the article.
Great to see the news.
The link to the actual Court Case and previous ruling is here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB...
I must say, I wished the writer of the article would do a more descriptive explanation of the decision.
I found the below thought on another website:
In a previous decision....Here it is in slow-mo: Under the new laws, 14-year-old sex offenders can be punished as adults. But a child who is 13 years, 11 months and 29 days can’t. This age distinction, Voy noted, is arbitrary. Without a rational reason for the age cap, the law is a violation of due process, because part of due process is the right to rational law.
Were it not for Voy’s determination, the laws would go into effect July 1. Maggie McCletchie, ACLU of Nevada staff attorney, expects the laws will not be enforced until the Supreme Court hears the appeals. The state’s high court is not expected to rule on the case before July 1.
http://www.cfcamerica.org
"The 2007 Legislature patterned the law after the federal Adam Walsh Act that included many teenage sex offenders age 14 and older with adults in requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.
The federal act said the states must enact similar laws or lose federal funds."
Notice how the Federal Government is blackmaling the states? Pass these laws, or you will lose money.
Is that Extortion, or Blackmail... what would the legal term be for that.
This practice only promotes legislatures, hungry for money for their state, and eager to make a name for themselves to pass ignorant legislation which harms thousands of children and families, effectively making thousands of VICTIMS.
These legislators always talk about the Victim of sex crimes.. holding up some horrific crime which happened recently to shock the voters.. then they get laws passed that make thousands of victims.
Example.. Come watch an innocent 14 year old tell his story of how the united states is effectively ruining his life with legislation such as the Retroactive Adam Walsh Act which is totally unconstitutional. His video is here.
http://www.failamerica.blogspot.com
Families Against Ignorant Legislation, America
Warning, the video may elicit many emotions from the viewer.
Hmmm... A double edged sword here. I will say that Adam Walsh is a manic crusader for the rights of the abused child. Who can blame him after what he went through? He has taken it to extreme limits and it does not take a psychologist to recognize his life-long guilt over the loss of his child to a probable sex maniac, child killer. Politicians, talk-show hosts, police officials have rallied to his cause - no matter who might be innocent or in the way.
Common sense should play a role here - not Adam Walsh. If some 14 year old boy is sexually active (intercourse) with an age appropriate, consenting partner - then such is not a sex crime and the boy should not be listed as such (or vice-versa).
Hows about 'do an adult crime, do adult time'....and I would certainly think violating anyone sexually would fall into the 'adult crime' category.