Restrictions of former felons

There was a really interesting discussion on Bloomberg Law regarding a California Law on Free Speech for sex offenders.  The interviewee was UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who runs the Volokh Conspiracy blog, which is one of my must-reads on the law. 

I am going to generalize the topic a little bit to expand on the principle.  When someone commits a crime, gets fairly convicted, serves their time, and then gets released, should they still be subject to any restrictions?  I can think of two salient examples of when we restrict former-felons and one that is more informal.

Many former felons are prevented from voting.  I have a big problem with this one. Even from jail I think voting is such a fundamental right that they should be allowed to submit absentee ballots.  But at least this restriction is somewhat understandable.  But once they have legally served their time and are released, I don't think there is any justification to withhold this right.  Even a difficult re-application process is too much of an obstacle. Voting rights should be reestablished immediately and former felons should just have register to vote at their outside of prison address.

The second and much larger restriction is on former sex offenders.  I understand the visceral discomfort that many people have just thinking about this kind of offense.  But there are some local restrictions such as prohibiting them from living or even walking within 2000 feet of a school or park.  The problem with these restrictions (or at least one of them) is that there are no places within many cities that are not within 2000 feet of a school or park.  So essentially, they are prohibited from living, working, or traveling into the entire city.  If they have family or friends in these cities, they can't visit.  If they have a job in these cities, they can't work.  If there is a store in these cities, they can't shop.  And when adjacent cities have similar restrictions, they can be kicked out of the an entire county, region, or even state.  This is just too onerous.  Do we deport them altogether?  Just keep them in jail for life?  I have no problem jailing them for their offenses.  But if they get a 10-15 year sentence, that should be the sentence.

I have a particular issue with this last one when it is applied so broadly that it captures a 17-year old who had some kind of consensual relations with a 16-year old long-time boy/girlfriend.  In jurisdictions where this is illegal, the person should be subject to penalties. But a lifelong ban on living, working, or shopping anywhere in a state is a bit much, don't you think?

The Bloomberg Law discussion that prompted my post centers around a California Law that prevents any former sex offender from posting anything online anonymously.  It is a core component of our right to free speech that we have the right NOT to say something, including our names. There are restrictions to this (job applications perhaps).  But we all have the right to post anonymously online. Except former sex offenders in California.  Not for anything.  They can't post to Yelp anonymously.  They can't make political statements online anonymously.  Or religious statements.  I understand that society wants to be able to track whether any sexual invitations on chat rooms come from a sex offender, but this law is way too overbroad and prohibitive.  I was glad to hear that the Appeals Court struck it down.

Deposit Structuring Law

Money laundering is illegal.  To catch money launderers, there is a bank rule that any cash deposit over $10,000 has to be reported to the government for vetting. 

This would be easy to get around if you just deposit $9,000 over and over again.  So there is also a law that if you structure your deposits with the specific purpose to avoid getting reported, this is also illegal. Thanks to Bloomberg Law for the link.

The odd thing about this law is that it doesn’t have to be structured this way because you are money laundering.  If you are intentionally structuring it to avoid reporting because you don’t want the government in your business, that is also illegal, even if the actual money is not. 

Furthering the challenge to regular depositors, the IRS doesn’t have to prove the structuring before confiscating the funds in the account.  So if they see a series of almost-$10,000 deposits, they can take it and force the depositor to sue to get it back.  Since this often costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which you don’t get back even if you win, it is often not worth the trouble. If the IRS confiscates $30,000 and it would cost $25,000 and 2 years to get it back, it may not be worth it.

This doesn’t seem very fair.