Oregon City to Ban Would-Be Criminals

[ShadowFox]

ABC News: Oregon City to Ban Would-Be Criminals

Upset With Drugs and Petty Crime, Eugene, Ore., to Ban Miscreants From Downtown By CLOE SHASHA July 25, 2008 Fed up with drug dealing and petty crime, Eugene, Ore., officials want to ban people who have been accused or convicted of crimes from the downtown area. Some say the proposed ordinance is an overreaction that's unconstitutional and would never stand up in court. Others, like Eugene Chief of Police Robert Lehner, defend the proposal as an effective way to fight crime and blight, and say the exclusion is not as broad as it seems. Store owners and residents in Eugene, population 153,000, have been complaining about unsavory people who loiter downtown, hindering business and threatening pedestrian safety, according to Lehner.

What do you think about this? Do you support them banning people, or are you against it? Thoughts?

[SoylentGreen]

At a guess I would say eugene is a boring little shit hole town with absolutely nothing provided for the young. There probably is nothing better to do there than hang around and smoke a bit of dope.
But this bit is interesting

Chief of Police Robert Lehner, defend the proposal as an effective way to fight crime and blight, and say the exclusion is not as broad as it seems.

In other words like most towns the crime rate is the effect of one or two persons who commit the majority of the crimes. he has his eye on a few particular trouble makers that he wants to get rid of.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Halofan48 ABC News: Oregon City to Ban Would-Be Criminals What do you think about this? Do you support them banning people, or are you against it? Thoughts?

It's obviously unconstitutional. It won't survive the first challenge.

It's ridiculous as well.

[Kamehameha34]

I wouldn't oppose it if the power to ban people were given to the courts instead of the town legislature, because rights can be removed if the citizen is given due process in the context of a criminal trial.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tivodan1116 It's obviously unconstitutional.

Why would you care about that?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I wouldn't oppose it if the power to ban people were given to the courts instead of the town legislature, because rights can be removed if the citizen is given due process in the context of a criminal trial.

Are courts allowed to go back and add onto a sentence for those who were already convicted and have served their sentence?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Halofan48 Are courts allowed to go back and add onto a sentence for those who were already convicted and have served their sentence?

Of course not. Being tried twice for the same crime is an actual violation of the constitution.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Of course not. Being tried twice for the same crime is an actual violation of the constitution.

But then, if the courts went back and banned these people for a crime they were convicted of and served their sentence, then wouldn't it be unconstitutional? Maybe i missed something.

[Kamehameha34]

Right, which is why I wouldn't oppose giving the right to the courts to remove certain rights as due process allows, which forbids double jeopardy.

[ShadowFox]

Wait wait wait, can courts remove rights guaranteed by the constitution? I know they can say if a law is constitutional or not, but can they revoke rights?

[The Dunedan]

Wait wait wait, can courts remove rights guaranteed by the constitution? I know they can say if a law is constitutional or not, but can they revoke rights?

They do it all the time. If you're convicted of a Felony, you lose your Rights to own or even -touch- a firearm or ammunition for any reason, and your Right to vote. Firearms Rights are also eliminated for anyone -accused- (note; not CONVICTED) of a crime of Domestic Violence, and such revocation is effectively permanent.

Felons may petition to have their Rights restored, but while they can (after spending a -lot- of time and a -LOT- of money) have their voting Rights restored, Bill Clinton deliberately and permanently de-funded the Federal office responsible for restoring firearms Rights to Felons, while not actually getting rid of the department itself. So, the department still exists (and therefore cannot be replaced) but has no funding, staff, or power. So even though the law -says- Felons can have their Rights restored, they can't.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Halofan48 Wait wait wait, can courts remove rights guaranteed by the constitution? I know they can say if a law is constitutional or not, but can they revoke rights?

It's in plain English in the 5th amendment.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's in plain English in the 5th amendment.

Ok, i must be missing something here, please explain which part of the fifth amendment says they can override part the fifth amendment and add on to his/her sentence after the original sentence has been served?

[Thanatos]

Kamehameha is saying that only newly convicted criminals could be deprived of this right.

Halo is excused because Kame is about as clear as mud, and incidentally thinks Kame is arguing for double jeopardy.

I personally think I agree with both of your stances.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Kame means that the banning would only be acceptable as a sentence in a trial that didn't violate the constitution by double jepoardy. which I agree with, in this case.

[tivodan1116]

The law is unconstitutional. It's ridiculously overbroad and denies due process in that it also seeks to ban people who are accused of a crime.

In terms of people who have already been convicted, on an individual basis, yes, the courts do sometimes "ban" people from going to certain places (sex offenders not going near daycare centers, for example). However, in all cases, those "bans" need to be substantially related to the crime the person has committed.

You cannot simply, as others have suggested, ban all convicts from a certain municipality. That is not substantially related to their crime and punishment.

Look at the article again. People downtown are complaining about "unsavory" people hanging around. The complaints aren't even reasonable - to find someone, without interacting with them, to look "unsavory" is sheer prejudice. The law should be for fighting actual crime, not for making skittish, prejudiced people feel comfortable.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Quote by: tivodan1116 It's obviously unconstitutional Why would you care about that?

Would you care to explain this statement further? I don't know how to respond to this.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The law is unconstitutional. It's ridiculously overbroad and denies due process in that it also seeks to ban people who are accused of a crime.

Yeah, banning people who merely standing accused is a bit much. Have we been debating a joke? My faith in the human spirit has been pretty well crushed but now that I look at the article again there's some tiny glimmer that says the people of Oregon are probably smarter than this.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Thanatos Yeah, banning people who merely standing accused is a bit much. Have we been debating a joke? My faith in the human spirit has been pretty well crushed but now that I look at the article again there's some tiny glimmer that says the people of Oregon are probably smarter than this.

In most small towns you will find that the majority of crimes are the actions of one or two particular families or even individuals. I think the police chief has identified who is responsible for most of the criminal activity and is just looking for a way to rid himself of these people.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: SoylentGreen In most small towns you will find that the majority of crimes are the actions of one or two particular families or even individuals. I think the police chief has identified who is responsible for most of the criminal activity and is just looking for a way to rid himself of these people.

Small towns? That "town" has a greater population than Hartford and many of "cities" in my state. I'd hardly call 153,000 people a town small enough where only a a few known culprits commit crimes.

My "town" is only 68,000 people yet have a police force of over 500 officers.

[Kamehameha34]

In terms of people who have already been convicted, on an individual basis, yes, the courts do sometimes "ban" people from going to certain places (sex offenders not going near daycare centers, for example). However, in all cases, those "bans" need to be substantially related to the crime the person has committed.

Where in the constitution does it say that?

Would you care to explain this statement further? I don't know how to respond to this.

Am I misreading your signature?