Andy  0:00  
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts,

Unknown Speaker  0:09  
FYI P.

Andy  0:11  
Recording live from si p studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet, this is Episode 77 of registering matters. Larry, another fine Saturday night for us to be recording a podcast because we have no other lives that we need to attend to.

Larry  0:24  
It is fantastic. It's a beautiful day and I could be out in the land of in chat but 71 degrees 9% humidity,

Unknown Speaker  0:34  
what is it chanting about your state?

Larry  0:37  
The climate and the people the diversity and the tolerance are just so much enchanting about the state. You couldn't believe how wonderful it is to be here? Well, considering

Andy  0:46  
that you're there, I can't imagine it's all that enchanting.

Larry  0:50  
Well, let me downsize.

Andy  0:53  
One out of what's what's the population like 3,000,002 million,

Larry  0:57  
to about 2.1 billion.

Andy  1:00  
Alright, so one, one at one out of 2 million. There you go. So one out of a million Good job. Well, let's get things going. We got a new patron, we are welcoming Rebecca, I am so very excited. She's a good friend of mine. And thank you so much. And also then thank you to all of our patrons. It really shows that you appreciate the work that we're doing here and helps keep us motivated to keep recording on every Saturday night.

Larry  1:21  
She's listening live and at our fantastic chat room

Andy  1:25  
in our broadcast studio that that travels traverses the whole entire webs. We got a question from a patron user, I think it came like actually over in the in the Patreon feed and says I'm wondering if anything can be done about Facebook, the company banning sex offenders with the ruling handed down in North Carolina? I mean, if horizon blocked registrants or Gmail did it there would be an outcry by the ACLU and the courts would correctly step in? I know it's a private company, but the service they provide has been ruled by courts to be akin to public squares, telephones and the like. Can we do anything, Larry?

Larry  2:00  
Yes. What can we do? Well, there's a lot of there's a lot of questions blended in here in here about the Facebook. Or did did opine that the state could not the state could not prevent people. And and that's important to draw that distinction because that was really issue big exam when there was North Carolina statute that said anyone had to register could not could not be on Facebook or other social media platforms. And therefore we don't know. We don't know how far the courts thinking would go. But then he brings in the ACLU, which is the organization that everybody loves to hate, but yet it's the organization that gets the most criticism for not doing everything that it should do to save sex offenders, but yet I've met like one sex offender in my life as a member of ACLU, it's the most puzzling thing I've ever seen. Here, they get so much criticism about what they should do with their membership organization, they are a union, have you noticed that union is in their name. So their union of people who've come together to pull their resources to fight things that are of a priority to the members of that union. And the members of that Union have prioritized fighting for sex offenders, because that's not what they've signed up to do to donate their dollars for. I do believe if more people who are required to register would be a member of ACLU, and respond to their surveys about what they would like to see the union working on. I think that that could change. But even if there were thousands of people that are members, then you've got the PR component that the ACLU has to look at. And although they are have, they're willing to undertake unpopular causes, taking on a giant like Facebook, which would dwarf a man but everything that they saw you could put together in terms of resources, many times over, taking on that, and it will also be in the court of public opinion. Facebook only put that policy in because of the public opinion outcry that they should bad these horrible predators from from the ring and seeking out new victims. Facebook was dragged kicking and screaming into this by public opinion. So the ACLU would be fighting massive public opinion, gargantuan resources to try to lay new case law saying that a private company doesn't have the right to determine who can use it use its resources. Now he's right. If if that if that were to be if you'd be banned from from having an email account, that probably more without cook outcry. But an email account in of itself is not the same thing as networking, where you can become friends and connected with someone email, if you have an email, if you have a Gmail account, that doesn't directly connect you with a with a with a minor doesn't. I mean, you could use it to have to communicate with a minor, but that doesn't directly connect you, Facebook, you can you can go and I don't even have a Facebook account. But you can go and look at profiles of people of all ages, and you can submit friends request to them. You can read whatever information might make public and there are postings that you could you could you could theoretically do a lot of trolling that you can't do by accessing by accessing a Gmail account. From a technical

Andy  5:25  
point of view, if you wanted to say that this class of people couldn't have access to that class of people, the other class being minors, it seems like it would be a flip of a switch to say it. And it also then feels like people forget that at least the people still under supervision, most likely have a clause that say they cannot be in contact with minors. So you've already got them either breaking a probation condition, if not some kind of law. But yeah, how do you deal with the people on the backside that have have finished their sentences? I don't I don't know that Facebook has a leg to stand on. beyond that. They're a public company.

Larry  6:03  
And they don't have a leg to stand on.

Andy  6:05  
Well, I mean, they have from the point of view of just saying, hey, these people can't have access to Facebook, because you know, they can't contact minor. So we're not going to let them on Facebook at all. They these people have triggered the UI factor. The creepy factor. We don't want them here. Not in my backyard. It just like I beyond that. There are plenty of other people on there that are certainly non desirables, the guy from Christ Church that did the shooting in the mosque. He, you know, televised it and it got hit millions and millions of times. That is not a person that you would want. That would be the public's perception is that you don't want those people on Facebook. The manufacturers are huge on Facebook, you have UFO conspiracy theorists and all these other people that are running around Facebook, doing demonstrably bad things, and harming people with the fake news with conspiracy theories and all those things, having someone just present their doesn't necessarily do that. So I don't like it's to me it's a it's a it's a flawed argument that they would say, these people who have not always convicted committed a crime that was against chop, we're just going to ban them outright from being on Facebook. Even though the crime might not involve a child.

Larry  7:22  
I agree this will be a good time to talk about the feedback we've received over the past week about us sounded like we're defending. I'm not defending Facebook, I wish they didn't have the prohibition. What we're talking about when we talk about things here on the podcast, we're talking about whether there's a legal remedy or not? And if so, what is the viability? And what are the odds of it succeeding? And what would it cost to fund such a legal? I think there are some challenges on settled earlier podcast, I think there are some challenges that could be made. It's going to be expensive. Facebook, since they're worried about public opinion, they are going going to fight back. They're not going to say Oh, okay, the sex of interest want to be on our network, we realize we've made a mistake, come on, come on, they're not going to do that. They would only do that if public opinion had shifted. And the public was rejecting this discriminatory practice of Facebook, the public is not rejecting it, the public is rejoicing, and the public is what caused them to initiate the band to start with. So I'm not I'm not supporting it. I'm not defending it, I'm merely pointing out that is going to be tough. And the case law unpacking him does not address this, it addresses date interference, right? There could be a brand new case, come forward that says that we want to challenge private interference. And I would welcome such a case, I would, I would like to know how we're going to fund it because we're talking about six figures many times over. Yeah, to get such a challenge to the US Supreme Court, a segment today with great review after we worked through the lower courts and got to the to the possibility of getting the Supreme Court. Will the ACLU ACLU undertake that challenge. I'm, I can't speak for the ACLU because I'm not on their board. And I'm not on their staff. But I can speak from a pragmatic business point of view, that they're trying to keep their dollars flowing from their members to do two things that our members have identified. And our donors have prioritized. And this is not one of them. And they would not be willing, from a business point of view, to alienate their donors to start having people pull their checkbooks back and say, Well, I'm not given to this organization anymore, because I'll be damned if I'm going to defend sex of it, I have my money going to fight for sex offenders. Yeah. So they have to make a business decision. So I'm barely explaining a business decision that they might make, and that they do make on a regular basis when they're looking at cases that are going to take a look at how their donors are going to support that. And the wit ability of that action, I think that they have a reasonable shot at winning, so they can recover all the thousands of hours of time that they've gotten invested into it. And a case that they don't see as winnable, if they don't see it as is reasonably winnable, and they see it, it's going to alienate their donors from a business perspective, that's not a real good case to undertake. You know, I don't make the rules for life. I just simply telling you what they are. And that's not a good business model. If you piss off your donors, and you take a case you can't win. So you get to devour all your resources, fighting a losing battle, you said, I mean,

Andy  10:36  
I'm completely with you. And the solution that I see is that this would never happen. But a government takeover of Facebook Not going to happen, or the government build a post office esque social network that everybody is allowed to be on and then you you have the government doing it, and then they can't ban it, that would be a First Amendment breach. Can we double back just real quick? Why doesn't packing him to prevent an entity like Facebook from blocking us?

Larry  11:10  
else it was it was the first amendment is designed the citizen from governmental intervention and suppression and infringement. It does not per You have no right to private owners, try go into your church on Sunday and say, Reverend, I want to take the pulpit for today. Because I've got a message, it kind of is different than yours, try going down to your local radio talk show and say, I'd like to come and hear your your microphones for the day, you don't have the right to speak on a private platform, you have the right to be free from suppression from the government. As you speak, the government is not suppressing you from being on facebook, facebook is now the government put a lot of pressure on Facebook, without any statutory requirement. They encourage this. And they make it easier through the collection of the model, would you give them your email address and all your screen names right at your registry office, there's a big giant data dump that goes into a governmental database that all the registry officials can dump these into, and all the social media outlets are given access to this data dump. And that's one of the ways you get dropped because because you've provided this by statute to the to the registry, the registry is dumped into the the resource that social media uses to screen out and clean up their, their their lists. So you may be able to private registry, or the few that are left that are not where you're not listed publicly. And you may still get kicked off Facebook, because they may catch up with the data dump. And I forget what that platforms call but there's a there's a there's a place where we're all these these monitors and screen names and whatnot are listed for social media to take advantage of.

Andy  12:48  
What about the the comment in that question about it being akin to the town square? Where would that would there ever be a breach where the government could say no, let these people on? Well, I

Larry  13:03  
I just I certainly can't speak for everything the courts by I just don't i don't see the same exact analogy because that it's not the government doing it. I mean, you guys can change the constitution and freedom of speech is cannot be interfered with by private entities. So try getting that through the process. But good luck with that, because you got to get it through two thirds of both houses of Congress, and the three quarters of the states have to ratify that. But right now, the first that that's not what you're protected from, you're protected from governmental suppression. And I didn't write the Constitution, I'm just telling you what it is best to understand it. Right, right.

Andy  13:41  
But so what the problem that I personally run into is because of the age that we are, and it keeps advancing at such an extreme pace, Elizabeth Warren, and so forth. And all these people, they may turn around and go, Hey, I'm going to do a Facebook Town Hall. Well, crap, I can't attend it. But so that that is a breach of my first amendment that they're using a platform that I am unable to receive that message that's doing it. I Right. Yeah. But the politicians like the government is then using the platform to then distribute the message. And there is a barrier in there, I understand what you're saying it just like there feels like there's encroachment, some gray area where the two are overlapping at some point,

Larry  14:23  
oh, we're going to have to have the evolution. Now. Some people don't believe in the evolving standard. who believe in strict interpretation. I mean, you would ever be able to get there from here. But but the government is not stopping you. It is Facebook that stopping you. Right? The government just simply encouraged them to be more selective about who they who they allow on their network.

Andy  14:45  
Yeah. I'm with you.

Larry  14:47  
though. I would love to see the litigation. I don't see the ACLU as being the lead on that litigation, because it's not a constitutional protection. If it were a governmental intrusion, the government is not telling you, you can't go on Facebook. It's just like international travel, you can travel all you want as long as the country let you in. Right.

Andy  15:05  
Right. Right. Right.

Larry  15:06  
It was just simply telegraphing the information in advance before you get there. So they told you back,

Andy  15:11  
right. Here we go again, man. I just Yeah, what organization do you think? What? Do you think there's somebody that would initiate that kind of challenge? What kind

Larry  15:24  
of organization would take it up? I think it's, I think it's going to come down to the offenders themselves. themselves, rather than then claiming that they're all living under bridges and tents and holding 10 cups are going to have to be a lot more generous with funding, causes of action. And in defense of normal donors, they're very generous. Just don't have very many of them. Yeah, sure. Sure. 800,000. You know, the number on our roster so small,

Unknown Speaker  15:51  
right? Yeah, no, I totally know that

Larry  15:52  
and and, and they would have you believe that they're all living in tent city and up to them, many of them are living in tent city. That's absolutely there's significant underemployment and unemployment, but update hundred thousand, there's not 800,000 unemployed, and underemployed, there are a lot of vendors who are doing quite well financially. And so this, this will probably run off some listeners, but I think that those who are doing quite well, to be a little bit more generous of supporting because I think rather than, than waiting for an organization to save, I think it's time that we start saving ourselves, right?

Andy  16:27  
Well, you know, on that note, you talked about driving listeners off, we tried that for a while and it didn't work, it went backwards, just letting you know, if you're actually trying to run them off, it went backwards.

Larry  16:37  
Also, we're growing, we are growing.

Andy  16:40  
I got bad news for you, man. We got we have good numbers from last week. But that's probably all because a guy that'll go back to normal. Well, let's start hitting these articles. Um, I bet you This one's more up my alley than yours. The push to predict police shootings tracking officers stress exposure and body camera practices could help keep them from pulling the trigger. And this comes from the Atlantic. This is having machine learning and computer algorithms determine the the state of mind of a of a law enforcement officer. And I guess maybe like, hey, you're on desk duty today. Because Hey, your mom, your excuse me, your your wife kicked you in the shin on your way out the door and your kid get some bad grades. You shouldn't be out. And you shouldn't be out because you might potentially pull the trigger on someone. And my favorite thing in the article, Larry, if I can find it easily enough. It's like the officers do not want to have some sort of controlling authority that says whether they're up or down, they don't want to have some sort of technology determining where they are. But at the same time, they're using all this technology to to predict where the crime is going to be. I find that to be a little hypocritical if he

Unknown Speaker  17:48  
asked me know,

Unknown Speaker  17:50  
I know right?

Andy  17:53  
Oh, there it is. It says police officers are the first ones to say, hey, that's unfair. I'm not going to get this promotion because some algorithm said I might be more of a violent or at risk when someone else and you want to turn around and say exactly, it's unfair that some kid gets put on a whitelist because he lives in a poor area and is surrounded by poverty and violence. That was my favorite clip in the article.

Larry  18:12  
Well, I guess is just demonstrative of the hypocrisy in humans. Anything else you want to cover on that article before we drive along? I didn't. I didn't, you're right. I didn't. I didn't find it where I could be much of a contributor to it. But they reminds me of the reminds me of parents and kids. Anybody who's listening was raised in that lesson. Your kids will tell you when they want to be different. They'll tell you bomb Dad, why do I have to conform? Why do you tell me I have to do something? Because it's about epic. Why can't I be? Why can't I have bolts and screws in my face? And if I cannot do it, why can't I be unique and have my hair spiked up a foot and a half in the air and painted green and purple? it you know, why can't I be have my own individuality? Okay, but then magically that same adolescent, they quickly turn and do a flip flop, when there's something that they would like to do that all the other kids are doing. That's the crowd herd mentality, right? Then they'll say, Well, everybody else's get to do that. Everybody else gets that. And you try to do that, as a parent trying to say, Well, you know, you just got to tell me that. You can have spiky purple hair. And you can have screws and bolts out of your skin and you should be an individual. How come I can't be an individual as a parent and not do something just because although the parents are doing it, and they completely do it about face it and say, Well, I can't explain it. But they said what everybody's doing it. So those of you that was raised a teenager raised a child through adolescence, tell me tell me how you how you square that up, because they want you to conform in every way as a parent. But yet they want to be complete rebels themselves and say that I want to be my own individual?

Andy  19:49  
Absolutely. I do. I do see I mean, our society is on a massive collision course with all this artificial intelligence, machine learning, learning algorithm limbs and so forth. And I were on a collision course. And there's going to be a lot of negative outcomes along with a lot of positive outcomes. But Jeepers, I there was an article I don't think we put it in here is that law enforcement is feeding pictures of celebrities into their their analysis database looking for people that may have committed committed a crime along the way. And if you train these things on the wrong data on a biased set of data, you're going to have bias results. It is not it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing. Well, let's move on over to an article from the appeal. Simon Lou Liu. So that could be Lulu or Lou isn't a sex offender, but he's still on the registry for life. Larry, we've talked about this sort of thing before how does someone get not convicted of a sex crime and they end up on the registry? I I'm deeply puzzled on how these things occur. I like nine months ago, we talked about someone from Georgia that ended up being acquitted, I think or expunged or something like that, but still had to register. So here's another guy that didn't get convicted of a sex crime, but he's on the registry.

Larry  21:07  
Well, there was a sex crime committed, he just wasn't the actual commit.

Andy  21:11  
That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. Now remember that now That's right. He was president of and so they tagged him along with the guy that did it.

Larry  21:17  
Well, by golly, you go and be present, when prime is committed, and you're 13, 1415 years old, you're old enough to know what they're liable to do when they go in there. And they hate all to have known that they were going to commit a sex offense. And by golly, he should be old enough to man up and take that punishment and have to read for why we wasted time with

Andy  21:36  
this article comes from the appeal. There are some really interesting points that get made in here about how absolutely over the top in effect of the registry, as they say there's 108,000 people in the registry in California, which is a I'm sorry, 106, which is a gigantic number of people. And I don't really know how you monitor hundred and 6000 people, if something like 3% from 5%, 10% of the ones that quote unquote, are dangerous. It seems like you're you have a lot of resources wasted when you're trying to watch everybody when you don't need to watch everybody.

Larry  22:11  
Well, this exposes a flaw in the media. But the main one of the many flaws and the tough on crime he was just came through back in the 90s when we were in the super predator scare about teenagers and and he he was president and an unflattering situation where this crime was committed. But he apparently from all accounts everybody can see he did not commit the crime. But he's registered and there was no process in California. The judge has said that she feels bad about of nothing she could do about the time and delhi delhi reprieve he has through executive clemency through governor Newsome. And that that's that sad because even under this tiered registry, that's going to take us back to 2021. He's a tier three, and he would not be eligible to have getting relief under the under the up coming law this that's going to be fully operational think about 2021. But he's not eligible. So isn't that sad that he that he has no way of the registry?

Andy  23:13  
And the I'm not sure if it was the judge that sentenced him, but a superior court judge that is now retired, she said I think it violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. I think it's cruel and unusual punishment as it applies to juveniles. If you label a juvenile with lifetime registration, I think it's unfair. I think it is wrong. And I think the law should be changed. I know that like I have an evolving understanding of what this podcast actually is. And that is one of the things it's like you have said that courts are not judges aren't roving tribunals, I guess it is. And here it is, if we want this to go away, then the legislature is the path. How do we get the legislature to pass things, we have to go build relationships and testify and do all those things at the legislative level, because we're going to get when the judges do things that we don't want? Well, it

Larry  24:02  
might be possible, I'm not going to proclaim to be an expert on this case, because this is the first I saw in this article. But it might be possible that being that that you have crimes committed when a person's a juvenile, even though he was trying to adult court, as I understand it, he may be able to challenge some constitutional claim there, but that's gonna be very expensive. And the sad thing about is that just shouldn't have to be is like the case of the kid that was in went into Michigan, Anderson, Zach Anderson guy that went into Michigan, on the online, he met a girl online that was under age and then went into Michigan that made national news and father spoke at the normal conference at one of the normal conferences in Atlanta. And the bigger issue is, you know, Zach should not have been in that predicament. But But the reason why Zach was in that predicament, because we have strict liability office schemes, meaning that, that that the age going to two persons under age was no defense, specifically Michigan, the fact that she was only 16. And represent herself to be 18 was not a defense for for the crime. We should change these things legislatively. The courts are not there to figure out what the best public policy should be. And I'm not defending bad pub public policy. But I'm telling you that the courts are supposed to be highly restrained, highly deferential to the enactment of the people. And if the people make bad public policy, unless it violates the constitutional, the courts are supposed to take a hands off approach. That's what we encourage, when we select people for the court, we asked them, are you going to be legislating from the bench, but we don't want you on the court. If you're going to legislate from the bench, we want you to interpret that law by golly. And you're supposed to defer to the will of the people. Les is defective from a constitutional point of view, not because you can imagine a better way to do something, it probably would be better if California wasn't wasting their money, tracking 160,000 people from a policy perspective, even if the registry were effective, it would probably be more effective. If you were tracking a smaller number of people, right? You could actually track those people. Now I'm not I'm not advocating tracking 85. So listen carefully to what I'm saying. But I'm saying yes, you're going to have a registry. And if you're determined to have it, it's not the judges place to determine what the size of the registry should be, and what all should be included. And the rest of what the duration is. Those are policy choices. You made those California, you did that. And you need to change that don't look to the ropes to come up with a better policy. That's not their role.

Andy  26:58  
I find particular individual f2 kink, I'll give you a second cooldown say that your head starts exploding. But this particular guy while he was gone, he earned his GED. He excelled at college courses and learn computer programming. He has I forgot where it said it. But he's got a pretty good profession. There's a picture in here with him with his arm around his sister, good looking. They're not kids anymore, but good looking folks. And yet, he's talking about how much this settles him with such baggage that he cannot move on and have any sort of productive career. We often talk about, like, Are we going to judge people in the totality of their lives or the worst day of their lives? And I this just doesn't look like it's a positive impact on the future of someone after this goes on. Yeah, he made a mistake when he was 17 or something like that. And looks like he's trying to come up but he's got this frickin ball and chain that he's trying to carry around. And it's that shitty.

Larry  27:55  
But he was 16 at the time and research Chinese ever spoke little English according to story. Yeah. And, and, and I'm all for him getting off the registry. But I I take the attitude that I took with Martha Stewart and rush limbaugh's I'm going to be fair with attacking both. It would be nice if he would recognize that this registry not only interferes with his life, and his ability to raise his family, that it'd be really nice if Raj and jack what's his name here, Simon, I mean, not jack, but Simon. And and if Martha would recognize that the system is so oppressive, that it destroys a lot of people's lives. Maybe Simon should be off the registry, but shows social, the other hundred and 6000 people, particularly if they've paid their debt at full to society. So Simon, don't just focus on yourself, you come first, right, but we need to end the dab registry. Because no one deserves this shame and humiliation. Not just you. Right? Right. Right. Right.

Andy  29:01  
And that would be like a huge other angle is it's always about me. Hey, yeah, I get it's about you. But can we try and figure out how to help the most people more people than just you? But I mean, I you know, unless you go to court with a class action, which I really don't want to go into that conversation. It is about you.

Larry  29:19  
It is about him? Yeah, absolutely. But what he says keeps me from from living my life. And I wish he would say and don't tell him what it does to the other hundred 60,000 people, right.

Andy  29:29  
There you go. There you go. Well, and then another article from the appeal, Louisiana bill could jail defense attorneys for doing their jobs. That's, that's, that's bad news. So the bill forces attorneys to choose between violating our ethical mandates or going to jail for following them. Um, I'm going to, I guess, make my own interpretation. Is this a defense attorney that I like the person says I'm innocent until proven guilty, and the defense attorney should actually step up and go, now this guy's actually guilty, I stepped down as being this person's attorney. That's not exactly

Larry  30:05  
this is this is regarding the rules of pre trial interviews. defense attorney under this proposed rule is going to have to tell the person that they do not have to give the interview. Part of part of defending someone is to figure out what their accusers are going to say, well, the best way to figure out what there's I mean, you could just look at the police report, or you can go talk to them and see what they're going to say, and you determine if they're going to be credible, if they're going to come across Well, that's how you tell your client, this person is solid, they're going to come across very well. They're going to be very convincing. Are you going back to your client, this person was fidgeting, they were on dope the entire time, that kept put together to construct construct to consensus coherently, and they're not going to be very credible. And then they told a different story. But what was in the police report, so therefore, we're going to be page one of the previous statements. You can't do that unless you go talk to them. This is, too it's it's basically intended to chill did this is the victims advocates, the people were supposed to work hand in hand with Sunday. This is the victims advocates, saying that they don't want these ugly defense attorneys having these conversations with with victims and witnesses. So by golly, they need to tell them up front. You ain't got to talk to me. But if you do, I mean, to me, this is nothing but intimidation. And I wouldn't be I'm not surprised. It's this coming out of Louisiana. The legislature there are there You're the one who believes that, you know, the government restraint is interesting when when you look at these conservative legislators they do they spend day and night trying to undo court opinions just asking alexandria next time I haven't been on an event every time they went something through the courts of Louisiana. The prosecution apparatus runs to the legislature and says can you help us overturn this was a new law? It can what can we get away with this? But but this is nothing but something trying to chill the defense attorneys for being aggressive, and interview witnesses and trying to gather as much information as I can. That's all this is about.

Andy  32:07  
Doesn't that absolutely break the system then?

Larry  32:11  
It has the potential to I mean, if you look at the chief public or Dorothy's cheap, but Colorado from the Orleans Parish said that the said this is not necessary. And and then there was a professor of legal ethics of criminal justice at Loyola University, called the legislation and anti defense bill and said that if lawmakers cared about victims, they would protect them against the abuses by law enforcement attorneys as well. So, but this is sad, but this is where we are we, we can't have anybody. If someone is deemed to have possibly committed a crime, we've got to abolish the statute of limitations, we've got to abolish the Confrontation Clause, we've got to make sure that defense attorneys can't do their job because we've got to get a conviction. That's the attitude of the victims advocate. So law enforcement apparatus.

Andy  33:01  
And that completely changes where the fulcrum is, as far as the balance of powers, like you know, it, the the prosecution has pretty much all of the money to begin with. defense side has limited resources. If it's a public defender, it's incredibly limited. And we're going to hamper their ability to mount a defense further. And we're trying to do criminal justice reform and reduce prison populations. Isn't this going to actually like make it skyrocket? Certainly would would, it would

Larry  33:31  
have a chilling effect, if you were because one of the comments was we'd have to take two attorneys to make sure that that we didn't run afoul of this, that there's that clearly we prized them they had the right to talk. Well, hopefully, the victims advocates apparatus, which is already significant in the system. They've told them, hey, when the defense team shows up, and contact you hang up the phone, screen them out, block them don't have any. They've already got people giving them their advice. I don't know why we own our side half tell them and advise them. We don't

Andy  34:02  
represent them. With this, if that logins past, do you think that would survive some sort of court challenge?

Larry  34:08  
It's hard to say, you know, because, you know, there's, the courts in Louisiana are more politicized because of the election process. So if it were it litigated and state courts, I would say would probably survive.

Andy  34:22  
We definitely have a Supreme Court. Heavy show tonight. Here's the the first article that comes from the New York Times, and it's about Kevin and Gorsuch justice with much, much in common, but they take different paths. I definitely need you to take the reins on this one and try and explain this legal theory stuff. And but yeah, so go ahead with that, please. I didn't want to spend a

Larry  34:43  
lot of time on it. I just wanted to do illustrate one point that, that when we spend all of our energy, trying to vilify a person, which I would be happy if Merrick Garland had been confirmed, but he wasn't. But we spent all this effort trying to vilify this appointee. And, lo and behold, hey, bite turned out to be a little bit different than what was the fears words, were a little tail? Well, no more when the big cases come out, that are going to be coming out in the next 30 days, by the end of June, you will have all the decisions on this term from this term. But the already they're saying that Calvin ah is more to the center of the court, which the center of the court is is is john Robert, Chief Justice Roberts. And the center is much more conservative and center used to be back 20 years ago. But they're saying that he appears to be more of a centrist. And it may be that he turns out not to be what everyone fear. Now again, don't. in favor of him, I made it clear, I was actually for the process of confirming the nomination of Merrick Garland. But I also opposed the character assassination they did with 40 year old allegations that were never raised at the time. But we just might see a different capital than what people feared. Just like when we got a justice john paul stevens from President forward in 1975. He was taken over from the liberal way mo Douglas. And there were all this fear that civil rights would come to an end and that we would go back to the 1950s with john paul stevens turned out to be nothing of the sort. So I would just say, let's just wait and see we can talk about after the June 30. End of the term, we can see where he sides on these big cases, and we can have a more rational conversation about where Cavanaugh really is. But it could be that the fears were overblown. Hmm.

Andy  36:40  
I know that personally, I mean, I haven't followed much from Kevin Plus, he's only been there for a handful of months anyway. But it, it has felt like Gorsuch has been a bit of a wild card. Maybe more of a libertarian mindset ish. Not exactly so hard. Right leaning. I don't know if that's just me, not understanding what's going on. But that's just how I felt so far. Oh, well,

Larry  37:03  
I think I think I could agree with you on some of the stuff. He's he also seems to side with corporate ish corporate interest on everything, right, that I've looked at. Yeah. Sounds like companies didn't do no wrong.

Andy  37:14  
Yeah. Yeah. You got a guy that freezes death? Well, he, he left the trailer for it was like the first case that he sat on when he got appointed. And I don't I don't remember the details, but the guy left his truck in the freezing cold and so that he didn't die. And the company's like, I don't know. Anyway, he

Unknown Speaker  37:33  
started with the corporation.

Larry  37:39  
As opposed to dying. Well, but that's the company policy. You know what the boss? literalist is not, I'm not supposed to make bet good policy for the company. I'm supposed to look at the policy. It was clear. And he understood it. And he signed a degree to it. By golly, he abandoned the truck, and he had no business doing that. Well, let's go. So you guys, you're always trying to make the course undertake a role that they're not supposed to do if you want different policy, don't bring that problem does take that to your legislature.

Andy  38:13  
Just Just go die, sit in your truck and die. I'm sorry, I can't I can't see how that actually takes precedent. Or it doesn't take precedent over the cargo of the truck. But that's just my

Larry  38:23  
personal situation. He could disobey company policy and pay the consequences or he could protect his life.

Andy  38:29  
Yeah. I know which one I'm going to take and sorry. All right.

Unknown Speaker  38:32  
Good that I know price.

Andy  38:34  
I know. So

Larry  38:36  
well. Then if you don't like that change the law. It says a company can't fire someone in that circuit don't don't bring that binding dispute doesn't the court we're not

Andy  38:44  
here for that. But even the military, they will they will kick that back and say, you know, you're required to follow follow direct orders of your superiors, unless there are things called unlawful orders that would let you know, hey, I need you to punch yourself in the face for an hour. No, I'm sorry. You can't ask me to do that. Oh,

Larry  39:01  
well, I don't know the specifics of that case. Yeah. Enough. I know. I just heard that media coverage about it. But yeah, but he he shouldn't have abandoned the truck. The company has an asset there they have to protect in a soft protective when you leave it

Andy  39:13  
at this next article comes from a website with the subheading of community for cops. So this I guess this is like a social media site just for the law enforcement, knuckleheads. So this is police mag calm. Oregon Supreme Court rules. police can't take suspects garbage without a warrant. Larry, I mean, so you throw some stuff in your cannon, you set the catcher at the corner. The police cannot tell the garbage collection company, hey, pick that one up and set it aside and we'll pick it up around the corner. That is an unwarranted search and seizure. And I'm i think i'm in favor of that plan that they can't do that.

Larry  39:50  
While I might have known you was gone cup now.

Unknown Speaker  39:52  
I know I'm a lefty.

Larry  39:55  
So Well, well, I mean, the doctrines been around for a long time. But once you abandon that, did you no longer have an expectation of privacy. But I did not get the chance to read this decision. I probably got to read it before we do the next week's show, because it was fascinating to figure out how they got there. Because they they they the case laws been so well established it when you abandon ownership interest in something, how can you turn around and claim a prophecy? Right?

Andy  40:20  
The Okay, so the way that you know, just in reading the article the way that it's it says it is it's not like a banding in a public Trash Can it is a banning it in your like, quote unquote, your own trash cans. But then, yeah, it seems like once the garbage collection people would have been taken custody of it, then that it would be fair game. But doesn't that end, expand out and mean? Like the whole trash dump is not any place that the police could go search for things without a warrant?

Larry  40:48  
Well, I mean, having not read it, I guess, they came down was that the person blunts? There's a you become an agent of the state at some point. So what are the guests that they decided was that by by going to the garbage company and saying, Can you get this trash for us from this particular address that that workers persons become an agent of the state and at which time you become an agent the state you have to operate within the rules of the state actor, so I'm guessing without reading it, that that's probably how this came about. But that all the doctrinal garbage had been at once you abandoned something you no longer care about the privacy when you put it in the trash can and the trucks are coming you don't know what they're going to do with it for all you know, they take it and they take all the paper and they stack them up in nice stacks and read through them you don't know what they do with them but you've abandoned any ownership interest you assume they're taking it compact again and landfill but you don't know what their trash Do you know all your trash to know where it goes and what happens to it.

Andy  41:44  
I do know where it goes but No, I've never followed it.

Larry  41:46  
So so but I'm guessing that the that the person the cops are asking the garbage company become actress and agents of the state and therefore they have to operate on the same rules of the state of a state actor what my what my hunch tells

Andy  42:02  
a funny little side story when I first moved into this area and a garbage truck came by and it had the little arm and it came out and picked up the cannon smashed it in like you know, like, tipped it over its top and like shook it and I was I was amazed I took Lydia with it.

Larry  42:17  
We've had those here for about 25 or 30 years. Georgia

Andy  42:21  
I just went It was probably close to 20 years ago that this happened but I just always exposed to the guys driving around and two guys in the back of it and then maybe they had some sort of lift that they could pick it up but they would just pretty much just throw trash in the back I was just shocked when that thing like picked it up an automated slammed into the to the receptacle back there.

Larry  42:40  
Fantastic that system. But But yeah, this is this is a this is a significant decision, particularly because of the long standing doctrine of abandonment. And then this state Supreme Court said nope, not so fast here. be interesting to see if this spreads across the country to other other states to prevent course, if people will say to this and say well, they said in Oregon that that that that you have to get a warrant because these are agents of the state and again, I'm guessing that so if I turned out to that's not what they said don't get too bad. That's how I say you could get there right would be but would be to come up with that is a theory.

Andy  43:20  
An article from the New Jersey Law Journal powered by law com bill easing time limits on sex offense civil suits signed by Murphy, which I guess it's the governor, I totally I like this one goes over my head again. But I think it's a extending out statute of limitations, which is perfectly in our favor, I think.

Larry  43:40  
Of course it is why why would you object to having to having an unlimited amount of time to get on my alarm does my grandchildren I my blood pressures.

Unknown Speaker  43:56  
I keep hearing

Andy  43:57  
I keep hearing I keep hearing Arctic, I keep hearing cases or situations where someone with the same name with their in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they get locked up. And they have literally no way to defend themselves. And I'm shocked that we would actually pursue having someone put behind bars for any any length of time beyond what it takes to, for them to defend themselves. And here we are, we're actually pushing that out to 10, 2030, whatever those number of viewers are. And even even if you if you are absolutely innocent, but somehow you look the same, you touch the same glass or something that was in the area, you have no way to defend yourself.

Larry  44:40  
Well, just be clear that this is this is the civil side. Sure. So but I get your point. And and this is this is this is a victims driven thing. And and it has, as both things do there's there's a monetary component to it. They really don't care as much about the the the person I mean, if the person happens to have resources financially, then of course they would, would you civil action. If you can expand the statute limitations, remember the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt is timeless? The evidence 50 plus one, right? Right. And you have a lower standard to prove you have you have no right to paid counsel to say for example, the person worked from for an entity it had deep pockets. And they sue the the accused the accused abuser that never got charged criminally that they sued them that that's a side issue. They don't give a damn about them per se. They care more about the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, or the University of Ohio, or the deep pocketed entity. This is a mechanism to get at the money, because these people need to be made whole mean so therefore, this extended to statute limitations for a civil action. You may not ever hurt the person who did like we got father Peralta here, I'll take it and New Mexico that just got extradited from it. He's got the criminal convictions to deal with. But he's also got all sorts of civil action. He got a dime to his name. They don't care about him. They care about the Archdiocese of Santa Fe where he where he was an actor and committing these, these these unspeakable actions that he apparently did, or at least he's been convicted of the more they did him or not. And that's that's what this was about. Is the money Andy

Andy  46:38  
as if there's not enough money. I mean, the attorney lobbies one going around trying to extend these out so they can keep dipping the finger in the kettle. Oh, yes.

Larry  46:45  
I can. And if you look at the margins of this, there's no opposition to this. Just to be clear. This is not a democrat versus Republican. Yeah, it was approved by the full Senate 32 to one. Yep. And in the house, the assembly 71 to zero.

Andy  47:04  
And then what's that five abstain, or five just said President? I'm

Larry  47:07  
guessing 555 didn't vote, but but there's still opposition to speak up to this. Now, I know that the same Jersey is heavily favored democratic, but it's not 100% democratic. So you got a lot of Republicans voted for this as well.

Andy  47:22  
Right. Right. Right. Right, right. Well, this next one comes from one of my favorite news persons. Nina Totenberg, she covers the supreme court for NPR, Supreme Court's conservatives defend their handling of death penalty cases. Obviously, this has pretty much nothing to do with our calls. But we covered this a month in six and eight weeks ago, where there were two death sentences or executions that were that were happening. And one of them claimed he wanted to have his Muslim religious leader there with him, and Texas refuse that one. And then another guy I forget, was it like Missouri or something like that. And he was a Buddhist, maybe as Alabama. And they said, go ahead and let the guy there. And I'm just like, Man, that is a really hypocritical decision there for them to say one guy can and one guy can't. And so anyway, apparently, with all the outcry from all of the from the public, that kind of forced the supreme court justices to actually put out some sort of memo justifying their reasoning behind their decisions, which I think is kind of interesting. Oh,

Larry  48:25  
well, you know, and they did try to explain away at it the boat to do on sense of the timing of the, of the appeal from Alabama, and that some of the conservative justices are saying that this is last minute tricks by the attorneys to delay the execution. And another was one where the state had already thrown in the towel, and it wasn't good execute, execute the person. And they said that was okay. Go execute him. Did you see that?

Unknown Speaker  48:49  
Yes, yes, yes. Yes, I know.

Andy  48:53  
And then Texas turns around, and they go, yeah, sorry, we're not going to have this controversy at all. We'll just ban all religious leaders from being in the execution chamber. I think they can be in the waiting room. But I you know, there's only probably like, I don't know, a half dozen or maybe 10 seats in those execution waiting or visit, visiting rooms, whatever a visit vision rooms. I don't know this. I literally feel that this is they didn't like that the Muslim wanted to have his religious leader there. And that was bad. So they let the Buddhist do it. I literally feel that that's what the answer is there.

Larry  49:25  
I'm one of those who believes that that things are not quite that conspiratorial. I believe that the timing was was also a factor. I would I would hate to I mean, the judges are not immune from prejudices. But I would hate to think that was the deciding factor. without evidence, I'd be reluctant to say say that I'd say that. It's it's more likely than not that the timing of the request has a lot to do with it. More than that, but could be Yeah.

Andy  49:56  
I it feels awfully what's the word? What's the word? coincidental I guess is the word I'm looking for. Moving on to a an article from CNN week, this is maybe two or three months ago that Harvey Weinstein that there was a harvard law professor, a dean that had just stepped up and said that he was helped represent Harvey Weinstein in that whole big shit show that's going down. But the the harvard law professor representing Harvey Weinstein is being removed as a faculty Dean, because of public pressure from the students at the institution. So now him and his wife have, they're not going to be deans. And I guess it doesn't mean they're being fired, I don't think but I don't think they're going to really have their contract renewed, or at least they're not going to be deans, because of all the public outcry. So here we go. Again, this is similar to judge Persky

Larry  50:43  
writing, because of all places, you would expect Harvard to be able to say, Well, whatever their policy is, regarding outside representation, that's, that's the, that's what they should be following. And I, of course, don't know what their policy is. But but the, to remove him from a steamship because of have taken on a controversial case, unless that's their policy, if you're going to do controversial cases, you can't be a dean here, then that's not call for because he also left the defense team, as I as I heard a few days ago that he thought he thought gonna be on the defense team. And a quote

Andy  51:17  
here from professors, Sullivan or the attorney, he says, it is particularly important for this category of unpopular defendant to receive the same process as everyone else, perhaps even more important, he says, I gotta agree when I mean, like, even just the accusation, just like I heard a clip earlier of Kevin off saying something, you know, like, we, that whole process, destroyed his reputation, put his family under all that stress, I don't want to litigate the facts of it just but the accusation puts a person under so much pressure that by golly man, you should be able to defend yourself with everything you can throw at them. Because even like just the accusation just completely destroys everything around you.

Larry  52:01  
every American should be appalled, that since we have an adversarial system, that we would want a person not to have representation in an adversarial system, that would be like sending your military with to battle without giving them any weapons. Right, our system requires a gentleman contest to take place. And the jesters are highly trained professionals. And to put a person in that bring without any representation is suicidal. And it should be objectionable to all Americans that we would expect a person to be in this arena, with no representation. I'm appalled that that people are so ill informed that they would want Weinstein not to be represented. That's more appalling to me than anything, right. I want Charles Manson to have representation. Because he's an arena where he can't control the environment door. This is a skilled or trained and probably did do some not Weinstein, Manson probably did do what he got convicted up. But until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he deserves his advocate he needs still deserves his advocate at sentencing. Because there's there's a wide disparity in terms of what sentences can be imposed for criminality. And part of the the attorneys job is to advocate for the best outcome for his or her client, and put forth mitigation, right, a sentencing memorandum put to prepare the convicted person to testify and to speak at sentencing. That's all an attorney's job, you actually don't want that to happen.

Andy  53:40  
I was online earlier today, I was looking at Legal Zoom, which is I'm sure you're familiar with it. But it's like it's like cookie cutter contracts that and but it brings it down to a very reasonable affordable level. for things that are incredibly common wills or like a car sale kind of agreement. There's even some contracts in there for like dog walking, which I think is kind of funny. But my point here is that for for this, it's been commodities to where you just give them your state, you give them a couple details, and poof, they can spit out a contract.

Unknown Speaker  54:11  
Great.

Andy  54:12  
But I do now appreciate much more that all of the nuances and all of the little intricacies and details of whatever trial whatever case, you're trying to defend yourself against that the level of expertise, there's a big difference in someone that's very green, and right out of college versus someone that's a seasoned warrior, I suppose you could say in the jousting arena, as you just were saying it, it is ridiculously expensive. And we don't have the facilities and the resources, particularly if someone like Harvey Weinstein to mount anything have a reasonable defense.

Unknown Speaker  54:45  
Well, that would have thought about that before they did.

Andy  54:47  
Yeah, there's always that we could make this show really short and just say, Well,

Unknown Speaker  54:51  
what happens if they didn't do it?

Andy  54:53  
There is that I don't buy

Larry  54:54  
that to start with. But what happens if they didn't do it?

Andy  54:58  
Or like the strict liability thing? We're like, hey, she said she was 18. And I mean, I believed or what am I supposed to do a background check on the person before we go and get busy?

Larry  55:07  
Yes, boys, that's what you need to do.

Andy  55:09  
I think that is something that we should actually like, put in our public education system and more so that, hey, look, you really ought not do this stuff without actually knowing getting references and background checks on the people that you're hopping into bed with,

Unknown Speaker  55:24  
which is really disturbing.

Andy  55:28  
There's also another article that we have from the Atlantic that talking about the the the dean being removed, and it just talking about the damage that Harvard has done in the trust of having these people that they should be tenured, they should be sort of protected from what the public outcry would be the horde of people. And anyway, so it's just a continuation of the Harvey Weinstein, but from a completely different angle that one comes out of the Atlantic. Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at register matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon. com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts for Stitcher, or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed. You make it possible. This one I think is kind of neat. I listened to the news clip. But it's Oklahoma house passes criminal justice for measures to apply state question retro actively. This is pretty exciting. I think as far as criminal justice reform things go where they have moved a whole bunch of things. I think it's 700 items, they've moved them to be more like on a misdemeanor list. But then they said that they're going to do something where it's going to circle back around. And it would retro actively apply to people and effect 60,000 people that have been convicted of felonies. One is such fantastic, it is amazing. And I know he had a really thick Oklahoma accent too. He said, you get out and you can't get a job because you have a felony, you can't get a lawyer because you don't have any money. You can't get a lawyer because you don't have any money and you can't get a job because you can't get a lawyer. You're stuck in this cycle.

Larry  57:38  
Oh, and I'm glad that they recognize that. And the nice thing about this is, to the extent it can be bipartisan, which Oklahoma is very few democrats left. But this is one of those things where those few democrats are not going to criticize the Republicans saying that they're soft on crime. So this is a done deal, because it's kind of like the first step act where we're the elder, real opposition, what's coming from the conservatives, led by Tom Cotton, and the US Senate. This is one of those things where there's no political last, because the the one democrat that's in the legislature in Oklahoma was not going to criticize this. Let me just see how it is because I know this a heavily republican state, but but you're not going to get any political damage. And basically, they've they've decided that they just can't afford to have such a high rate of incarceration, and Obama, it finally dawned on him but but but they did dawn on when they're making all those laws to make everything fell it that's

Andy  58:32  
what I was just gonna, I mean, like, they didn't think about it up front. So they let the system get overcrowded and expensive and all that. And they're like, oh, maybe we should adjust this. But it took it took a generation for it to actually like kick in, and actually have the impact that that for them to change their mind.

Larry  58:48  
Well, now in the house, let's just be fair, there's 39 republicans and nine Denver. So so the nine Democrats, so there are not meaningful. I mean, that's a supermajority, no doubt. And then on the House of Representatives, or 76, Republicans and 25 democrats there, again, you've got a supermajority, you need a supermajority to be able to run the place without any really deference to the other side, when you've got more than two thirds. You don't need to care about what the other side thinks. Because it's irrelevant, and

Unknown Speaker  59:19  
they're probably just in Tulsa, and Oklahoma City is probably where all those people are.

Larry  59:23  
Yeah, but those of those those, they're not going to vilify the republicans for doing this. They're they're pretty much for it. If you flip that over, you run the risk of being vilified if you can't get the republicans to join you, because they're going to say, like they said about Obama, that they're turning the tidal wave of crime on America, right, when he when he was when he was trying to roll back some of the excesses of our system. But But I don't expect our beta vilification. I think it's great for us to make this retroactive and help these people and I commend them. Absolutely. For taking for taking these these steps. People say we don't have any positive news, we just gave you some,

Andy  59:57  
um, is it? Is there anything? So I like Ted Cruz, I guess it is or maybe I think it's Ted Cruz, has they've, they've pushed really hard maybe as Paul Ryan, they pushed really hard to say that any bill that we're going to put forth, we're going to attach money to it to see, you know, if there's no funding for it up front, we're not going to even consider it. Is there not something on the other side in these criminal justice bills, where the Hey, we're going to go after? Pick this crime? What is going to be the criminal justice impact going down? Do you know? Do we have to start pre funding to build prisons? Because that's got to take a decade or something to build a prison? Is there? Is there any sort of thought process when they make criminal laws that there's going to be an impact on the prison system?

Larry  1:00:41  
Yes, there's, there's their fiscal impact reports that they keep in mind more of our legislature, so part time, they have very short sessions, 30, 6090 hundred 20 days, relatively short period of time, and there are hundreds of bills moving, and but the fiscal impact analysis oftentimes get fudge because interminable they know. If you if you take something that's a fourth degree felony, for example, and make it a secondary felony, and you take the maximum exposure from 18 months to nine years, we do know that you're going to spend more than your own 18 months, we can figure that doesn't take a lot of

Andy  1:01:19  
complicated math does it

Larry  1:01:20  
but but what but there's some things we don't know, what we don't know, is how many more police officers are going to be dedicated to a special unit to enforce that crime, because it carries a stiffer sentence. We don't know how much after nine years the judge is going to impose because that that that is available to them, because unless you mandate, right mandatory a portion of the nine years, you don't know how much it's going to be appropriated. So it's very difficult. So what we can tell you in a fiscal impact report is that the average cost per prisoner is $42,000. I just pulled that out of my service somewhere around $40,000. So by state, we can tell you that will have more prisoners in the system, right? We can tell you that, but we don't know how many meaning and we don't know how quickly will see them materialize, we know that there's gonna be so they'll say an indeterminate fact, difficult to analyze. But let's say you just looked at the prison, you made the mistake, you didn't look, well, if you haven't worked serious crime, you're going to also have more people involved on the other side on the prosecution side, because they the Office of the prosecutor is going to take the more serious crimes that they term cirrhosis, but the amount of time to take so they're going to devote more staff power to that the trying to keep the person defended is more complicated, because they're facing, you're going to spend a whole lot more resources trying to defend, hopefully, someone facing nine years of prison and somebody face to face the 90 days on a petty misdemeanor. So you've got so you've got a more complex system, to process reports have to be more thorough, what happens when a person after they work out a resolution, all the machinery along the way, is impacted by making something a more serious crime. And quantifying that, and figuring out how it's going to affect all the moving parts is very difficult to do. So it's easy to pass it because you know the impact is going to be it's going to be incremental, and in the future. It's difficult to identify. And by the time you identify it, when you've got 60,000 people in prison where you had 30,020 years ago, as a cost of your corrections department is gone up by 350%. The people who made those policies are long gone. It doesn't

Andy  1:03:23  
sound like it doesn't sound like it would be complicated math, and probably scale, there's probably some sort of efficiencies in there to you know, to doesn't always meet two more people doesn't always mean double the cost. But there's also larger infrastructure things and transporting and all that other stuff that but if you make stuff where you if you have doubled the number of people like Shouldn't you end up spending twice as much? I mean, it can't be that hard to figure out

Larry  1:03:48  
is a little more complicated than that. But yes, you do know that the costs are going to go up, as they do to the fiscal impact reports, which is what your question is, most states have had anything to do with they have some process to try to analyze the fiscal impact that's going to have on that particular state, and all the agencies that are going to be that have interplay. And they said that here, they said that request for comment from all the agencies, that that potential heaven impact and the agency, sometimes to clients to comment, or they put in comments that we don't know how much it's going to impact us, but it will impact us. And if it's something where there's a lot of public, there's a lot of lots of times there's public support to do something. And the public doesn't care about the funding.

Andy  1:04:27  
I was just going to ask it. I mean, so On the flip side, should you even put any sort of price tag on having a safe society?

Larry  1:04:34  
Well, that's that's what some people say. Now, the funny thing is, they don't want to pay any taxes. If you if you they, they'll always tell you that taxes are too high. Of course, we're with the lowest tax nations. But that's a discussion for another podcast. But they'll always tell you taxes do not. But they'll tell you, there's some things are just you don't even look at the money, you should just do it, because it's right thing to do it. But when you double your correctional system, it's just like doubling your educational system. If all of a sudden you have a school system has goes from 40,000 to 80,000. In a five year period of time, you're going to have an exponential explosion, the cost of schooling your kids in a district? Well, that's one thing you really can't control as much because growth and population trends, you just have to do your best you can have to anticipate crunching those numbers and prepared for growth. But the corrections debt is something you can directly impact because the policies that we make determine how many people we have in that system.

Andy  1:05:31  
So Did I just hear you hint that the SI p studios is going to create an economics podcast? Is that what I heard you just say?

Larry  1:05:37  
I don't think that

Andy  1:05:42  
should we should we head on over to the Boston Herald article? Are you ready or have you come off that soapbox? I think so. All right. Well, from the Boston Herald com this is SJC, which is their Supreme Judicial Court. They have a strange name for their highest court rules. convicted sex offender Wayne Chapman can be set free. He's still faces of course,

Larry  1:06:01  
this is breaking news. So

Andy  1:06:02  
Oh, I'm sorry. Hang on. Wait, wait. pause, pause, pause. I missed my cue. You know, we're going to get a cease and desist order from CBS at some point right.

Larry  1:06:16  
Now, now we have breaking news.

Andy  1:06:17  
Breaking News. This is this is only a couple days old. So it's from the 16th. So

Larry  1:06:21  
now it's time for the click, click

Andy  1:06:23  
click Oh, God, man, I'm never gonna This is too much work. Man. I can't do all this. All right. Well, this article comes from the Boston Herald. It's only a couple days old. And the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that this this guy Wayne Chapman can be set free, but he still faces a court date on lewd behavior charge. I got Larry, if looks were anything, this guy is very creepy looking. And he got convicted. Like 100 years ago, he's admitted to sexually abusing some hundred boys in the United States and Canada starting when he was seven. But and he's been in prison for ever, but he is now going to be allowed to be released. But this is the article that you wanted to cover as the the feature article of the night to tell me what you have in mind for this one?

Larry  1:07:10  
Well, I don't think we give enough attention to civil commitment as it pertains to sexual offenders. And it's not that we don't care. It's just that that there's so much out there. And this is one of those instances where there was a favorable decision that could have some additional impact beyond Chapman, and the state, the state was being a little bit duplicitous. And in his case, he he's he's been like Andy says forever and ever since the 70s. And, and he's petition for release a number of times. And and it's been denied. But finally, in 2016, or 18, the examiner said that he could be released, and then the state did want to be released and they tried to interfere with his release. And this just decision as a wonderful read for people who love. I love legalities, because Contrary to popular belief out there, that civil commitment is somehow something that only happens at 20 states, it happens and I think all of our states, but this opinion, helps you distinguish between the civil commitment that all states do individuals who are mentally defective and dangerous, versus what they do to a sexual offender. So I printed up a PDF of will make it available and I made some highlights in it, which I've been doing recently. Thank you. But the issue presented on this appeal is whether the statutory scheme set forth in general all see 120 38, an individual who seeks to be discharged from civil commitment as a sexual dangerous person must remain civil committed, committed while awaiting trial. Sometimes for years after both qualified examiners have concluded that he or she is no longer sexually dangerous. And they had ruled in a case called Johnstone back in 2009. A decade ago, that that that is not correct, that they can't get ticket holder was the Commonwealth decided they wanted to continue to hold Chapman, because because he's high profile. He's yucky. And they wanted to continue to hold him. And the high score and state says no, you cannot get around Johnstone. That's existing precedent. And we're not going to over ourselves on that, because you haven't given us any reason to do so. But then if you go to page four, they start talking, they compare the differences and sex offender civil commitment, and regular civil commandments. So I want all the people who who get so angry that we say civil commitment is constitutional. To understand that the reason why we say that is because it is all state. So the federal government said what to commit people. The question is whether or not you provide proper due process, but simply committed with sex offenders, they don't provide a robust enough due process. If you look, as you read through this 15 pages, they talk about how in regular civil committed what a person can only be held for like 2448 hours before several steps I take place, then they can be held at most for a month. And then they have to have regular robust review process safe, they're still dangerous. And then they compare it with the sex of intersects civil commitment, which is from one day to life, and how that they don't get the same robust reviews. And this is just a great read for those who like legal stuff. And ultimately, captain is going to be released. Just like Hinckley was ultimately released, despite all the US government's protestations, he got released, because the professionals viewed have no longer as dangerous what he did in 1981, was no longer a threat to public safety today, and will be civil to commit a person we're supposed to be working to restore them to. They're no longer dangerous. That's what happened. In this case, Chapman is no longer dangerous, according to the experts, you gotta let him go, or is it girls, you have to let

Andy  1:10:51  
him know. And he's also I mean, he's been locked up, or he's been locked up for like, over 40 years. And he's looking pretty old. I mean, he might be like, 70 years old, I don't see what is ages in this article. But But you know, somebody says that they never age out the registrants, they never age out, they will never be cured of their illness. And I'm inclined to disagree with that, like you will eventually, like you're not going to have the energy to go do things, you're not going to have the stamina to go do things you're not you know, think things start to Peter out as it were. And I'm speaking only from a male side, I you know, there are women that commit crimes too, but I imagine that they likely age out to

Larry  1:11:37  
so the importance of precedent, and how difficult it is for them. They weren't interested in overruling Johnstone, and the state is going to have to accept the fact that once if they can't convict him, and I think these are charges he picked up while in the hospital, I think he is supposed to look down a dress or fondled somebody or something. And old people do that. That's one of the most common things happen with people a way as they age, when they go into assisted care, as their mental faculties degrade, they start saying inappropriate things, right, they start touching people, and they start acting weird. It's a part of the deterioration mentally, that doesn't make you a sexual predator. That makes you a deteriorating mental, mentally individual, which happens to so many of us as we age. Unfortunately, it's uncomfortable for those who work in that environment. And they have to they have to endure the rude comments and being touched in appropriately. But that doesn't mean that he's out there on the streets tried to be a sexual deviant and trying to do some damage. This was stuff he did. Apparently, it's a very young if I read this, right, wasn't it boys?

Andy  1:12:42  
Yeah, that's what it looks like it says down there at the bottom. I do have a question. In regards to this, though. We set up we set a prison terms for people to you know, to to whatever, repent and reflect on what they've done. When do we stop keeping people locked up? Because we're angry at them? I mean, is it that feels like the reason why they don't ever want to let this guy goes because we're still like, he creeps us out. And maybe he is creepy. But like, we I don't think we should keep people locked up just because we're angry at them.

Larry  1:13:11  
That's that's exactly what's happening here. This what he did was so apparent that I can't let it go. I'm shooting the president is free. Mmm, I may have we hit a shot in our history. Not only was the president and it was four additional individuals were shot. Right. Right. Right. It was difficult to let go, thankfully. But But he was found not guilty by insanity. And once his dangerousness had been addressed, he was supposed to be like, Oh,

Andy  1:13:40  
and did he get released before reagan died? No, he did not okay. Probably was a contributing

Larry  1:13:46  
factor. I don't think he would but but but the key players of deceased before he got released, that would be Reagan and press secretary Brady. Did there were some DC police officers involved? I remember when della Hampton don't remember the other one, but but it was it was I think a total spot.

Unknown Speaker  1:14:06  
Well, there we go.

Larry  1:14:09  
Is there anything So Hank, Hank, and all all the legal junkies read this matter to the next week? Because I know that I found it fascinating to read this about the process of civil commitment. And civil commitment is a viable tool that has long been accepted as being constitutional. But it's only for the time necessary to restore the person to they're no longer dangerous. That's all we're supposed to be doing. It's not punishing them. It's supposed to be helping them.

Andy  1:14:38  
If there's nothing else that's going to wrap it up, Larry,

Larry  1:14:41  
that right? Well, then how do we get the podcast to grow?

Andy  1:14:44  
We we send out How about we send out Jolly Ranchers to everybody on the registry and tullman to listen. Sounds like

Larry  1:14:50  
one idea. How do we do that? Well, do you? Do you have phone numbers and names and addresses for everyone

Andy  1:14:57  
certainly could get the addresses? I guess I can stop the the ticker tape parade now, huh? I think you can. But obviously, the website is registry matters dot CEO. And you can find I almost always forget to tell people, there is a transcript that gets done. And it's pretty accurate. It's done by some artificial intelligence. But you can pick up a transcript and other show notes, whatever you need all the links to the articles that we covered tonight at registry matters dot CEO, you can also listen to the podcast there if you want to. You can also sign up for an email notification when the show comes out from there as well. Larry, your favorite thing is you want people to call in and leave voicemail questions. And the phone number to do that is 747-227-4477. And how can people reach us by email? Or Oh, that's easy

Larry  1:15:47  
is registry matters. Cast registry matters cast at gmail. com

Andy  1:15:51  
outstanding. And of course,

Larry  1:15:53  
go ahead. And I forgot Oh people that on the light breaking news, we need your help. Because we'd like to make this a regular segment or something in the in the 24 to 36 hours preceding recording comes out. And we want we want to report late breaking stuff. And the hundreds of people out there listening. Just shoot something to us that will you tell them how to get it to us. But if something is late breaking that you think but have interest, get it to us and we'll select that as the late breaking news segment.

Andy  1:16:24  
Email is probably the best thing. Or you can send it a voicemail and I'll certainly get those. And then how about the best way for people to support the podcast? What do they got to do there?

Larry  1:16:33  
Well, that's that's even easier. They just have to go to patreon.com slash registry batters and sign up. And they can do that at any amount beginning at $1 per month

Andy  1:16:44  
outstanding even just a buck or

Larry  1:16:47  
even just a buck perfect. Matter of fact, we've got some and we're we're grateful to everybody. A buck is impressive because it's going to help us get to that 100 patrons by the end of the year.

Andy  1:17:00  
Perfect, perfect, perfect. Well, that's going to wrap it up and I appreciate all the people in the chat and listening to the live stream. And without further ado, Larry. I will I'll see you next week.

Unknown Speaker  1:17:11  
I goodnight. Bye.

Unknown Speaker  1:17:14  
Thank you for joining us here at FYI P and we hope you will join us again on our next broadcast.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai