You have to admire the ICLU's tenacity. Once it finds a group of oppressed victims whose rights are being crushed, it sticks with them, no matter what. Some advocates would have been disheartened if the highest court in the land turned back their efforts:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would not consider a constitutional challenge to a state policy that sharply restricts minors' visits to imprisoned sex offenders who victimized children.
[. . .]
The DOC justified the restrictions by arguing that sex offenders are at high risk of repeating the crime and often know their victims.
According to court records, visitations occur in areas with 25 to 30 tables and as many as 100 people often supervised by a single guard. The agency knew of past incidents when children were sexually abused in visiting areas.
[. . .]
The ICLU argued the policy violated prisoners' constitutional right to maintain family relationships and that it was cruel and unusual punishment.
But the ICLU is not deterred. It gets right back into the fight:
Six sexual offenders including convicted child molesters and rapists sued the city Wednesday to block a new ordinance that bans them from coming within 1,000 feet of parks, pools, playgrounds and other sites when children are present.
The six, including a college student who has joint custody of his 7-year-old son and has completed probation for child exploitation, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which filed the complaint seeking class-action status in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.
The six allege the new ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on streets and highways that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites. They are seeking temporary and permanent injunctions barring the city from enforcing the new law.
Sarcasm aside, I think the ICLU is on a little firmer footing in the Indianapolis case. In the DOC case, the restriction was strictly aimed at limiting the access of child molesters to children. That seems like a no-brainer. The Indianapolis ordinance seems to treat all sex offenders the same, which is also a problem with the state's sex-offender registry and Web site. There is a difference between a serial rapist or child molester and someone who was guilty of statutory rape for sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 19.
If the Indianapolis ordinance limited itself to child molesters, I wouldn't care if the restrictions meant they could never set foot out of their homes.
