« Should law enforcement service be an aggravator or mitigator at sentencing? | Main | "Time to end the crack disparity" »

April 26, 2009

Kansas appeals court strikes down "branding" requirement for sex offender

As detailed in this local news report, a "Kansas appeals court has ruled that a judge overstepped his authority when he ordered a man to put up signs announcing that he was a sex offender." Here are a few more details:

Quoting from the title song of the 1960s TV series “Branded,” the three-judge panel ruled Friday in the case of Leroy Schad, a 73-year-old Hudson, Kan., man who was ordered to post the signs on his house and car as part of a plea bargain related to his taking baths with two children....

While the TV show was used as an illustrative example, the ruling itself hinged on precedents from Tennessee, Montana and Illinois. In those cases, the courts ruled that public humiliation would interfere with the rehabilitative purpose of probation and was impermissible....

In addition to overruling the sign conditions, the appellate judges also ordered Stafford County District Judge Ron L. Svaty to reconsider the five-year length of Schad’s probation and a prohibition on leaving his house to buy groceries.

The full, lengthy ruling can be accessed at this link.

April 26, 2009 at 06:18 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kansas appeals court strikes down "branding" requirement for sex offender:


The criminal lover judges should be forced to have offenders live next to their homes. Then, they make make suggestions for other people to endure.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 26, 2009 7:44:05 PM

S. Clause, do you copy and paste these memes? Maybe a sex offender does live next door and the panel is trying to get their property values back up.

The sex offender next door

A 2002 Wright State University study concluded that homes within one-tenth of a mile of a registered sex offender sold for an average of 17.4 percent less than comparable houses elsewhere. It also noted that homes one-tenth to two-tenths of a mile away sold for 10.2 percent less and homes two-tenths to three-tenths of a mile sold for 9.3 percent less.

Posted by: George | Apr 26, 2009 7:58:47 PM

George: Are you objecting to having a predator next door or to labeling such next door? You likely object to Megan's law, caring about labeling an offender, and less about his victims.

The neighbors should be able to sue the judge for the loss of value. Sex offenders that are released should only be allowed to live next to judges.

A sex offender at age 73 likely has a prior offense or two. If he does, there should be recourse against anyone that loosed him on the public, for the children and for the property value losers. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 26, 2009 8:34:27 PM

Question in torts case law. I buy a house. A predator is close by. Is that an undisclosed defect? Am I owed money damages from everybody that put him there, including the criminal lover judge that loosed him? Is a valid class action potentially embedded in the lack of disclosure?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 26, 2009 8:38:13 PM

Forgot my status in the body of the email.

I am an owner of the law. You convertin' law technicians are messing with it. I don't like it.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 26, 2009 8:44:42 PM

What does "Megan's Law" have to do with "victims"?

Posted by: Mark#1 | Apr 26, 2009 10:11:02 PM

Megan opened the door. That is all she did. She was taken from us by a freak immunized and protected by the vile criminal lover lawyer. Her kidnapper, rapist, murderer was sentenced to death. Then the vile lawyer ended the death penalty in that state. The freak has a lawyer charmed life.

I would like to see a direct action movement in this country. One victim, one judge. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 26, 2009 11:15:01 PM

S. Clause, if Megan's Law really protected victims I'd be all for it. Same with residency restrictions. The unintended consequences outweigh the benefits. Don't take my word for it. If you spend a day on Google researching it you would likely change your mind or at least no longer have blind faith in these laws. Google this:

"Does Megan's Law work?"

When it comes down to it, the only thing I really object to is lawmakers being the media's lap dogs. The media is less popular than Congress and yet it is in control. I have nothing against rational or tough laws but do not respect media "if it bleeds, it leads" driven laws. They are too often counterproductive. There should be a law against passing a law based on a story that still gets good media ratings.

Posted by: George | Apr 27, 2009 12:27:49 AM

I didn't ask about Megan Kanke. I asked about "Megan's Law." If you can--which I doubt--attempt to stay on topic and describe the relationship between "Megan's Law" and "victims."

Posted by: Mark#1 | Apr 27, 2009 4:27:52 AM

Problem with SC is that everyone fall into these catagories: Criminal, rent seeking lawyer, a lawyer loving judge, or a fascist like him.

Posted by: MarkM | Apr 27, 2009 4:38:20 AM

I know of no data that Megan's Law has prevented any crime. I believe it is lawyer masking ideology, to present the appearance of virtue, while doing nothing about the person. If someone has data, I am open to a change of mind, since I am persuaded by facts. It does cause a great deal of unconstitutional disruption, as people who kissed a 17 year old have their houses burned down to force them to move, despite the fact they really did nothing wrong.

I support permanent incapacitation in the form of One-Two-Three Dead. That would have protected Megan, since her abductor would have been deceased long before she opened the door. That would cut into the lawyer business, so it is impossible until the lawyer can be controlled better.

Lawyer gotcha and pretextual abuse of the law would be included in the counting. That means that a prosecutor charging a dude that kissed a 17 year old girl, would have his count started, for rent seeking, a polite phrase for armed robbery. Do that three times, get shot in the head. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 27, 2009 4:45:07 AM

MarkM: the problem with SC is that he supports the Constitution, including Article I Section 1, and believes in the rule of law. He sees the self-stated goals of all law subjects in failure, except for rent seeking. He lovingly criticizes the lawyer to improve his chattel, the law. He then gets personally attacked for dissenting from the little crime syndicate bunko operation racket you guys have going. He objects to the totally false and unlawful central doctrines of current methods. You cannot read minds, nor predict the future, nor use fictional characters, nor use a void for vagueness word from 1250 AD, that violates the Establishment Clause, when it really means, in accordance with the New Testament. He sees intelligent, modern people indoctrinated into believing Medieval garbage, that causes all law subjects to fail.

You will thank me later, after a little deprogramming from your cult indoctrination. It is so good, you are going to say, what indoctrination. But they made you believe in the false, supernatural, unlawful doctrines above. You have some thinking to do about what you are defending.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 27, 2009 5:01:12 AM

Excuse me. There are so many deeply flawed central doctrines, I always forget one. Add this to the list.

Twelve strangers off the street, after all with knowledge have been excluded, cannot detect the truth by using their gut feelings. They can only detect which side they personally liked better.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 27, 2009 5:10:53 AM

While I should ignore the troll, since I am actually in the process of buying a house, the documentation given in Virginia at least informs people that no representation is made regarding the presence of sex offenders in the neighborhood and that if you want to find that out, you can check the online sex offender registry.

So, there would be no tort action for the "undisclosed" defect of a sex offender, because while they do not provide that information, they provide information on where to find it, and it is up to the buyer to discover that. Anyone paranoid about sex offenders to worry about that when buying a house probably already has looked it up even before it goes to the contract stage.

Posted by: Zack | Apr 28, 2009 3:21:07 PM

Zack: If the presence of a sex offender has such a drastic effect on the value and resale potential of a home, a non-informative disclaimer does not fulfill the duty to avoid bad faith, and to not defraud.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 28, 2009 9:10:28 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB