The NH Sexual Predator Law Under John Lynch -- Ex-Post Facto Law -- Comments from a Law Enforcement Officer, and Fellow Conspirator:

After "Against the Grain" and its audience explored the problems of the new Sexual Predators law keeping sexual offenders incarcerated AFTER they had served their time under prior convictions, Gardner Goldsmith received this very interesting and insightful letter from a law enforcement officer who has some major problems with the application of this new standard on people convicted under DIFFERENT laws. This person has many years of experience, and understands the need for protection against sexual predators, but he also understands the concept of proper jurisprudence, and he has trouble with this law. He asked that his identity remain a secret, and Gard has agreed to his very reasonable request. Read his thoughts about this new standard of law, and wonder about the Constitutional restrictions against ex-post facto law.

Here is his message, something to tell others to read and remember, to tell your representatives to know, and to explain to the Governor's office.

He writes:

"The Sexual Predator Law show was great. I am a police officer and have done my time (as a) detective investigating sex crimes. While I will be the first to acknowledge the difficulty of dealing with these types of offenders, I don't think civil commitment law is the way to go. It puts WAY too much power in the hands of the state and who they hire as doctors to review these cases. Have you seen the payscale for the state? They don't pay anything near what doctors, counselors, IT people, lawyers, etc get on the open market. Does it make any sense to have under paid, under trained and under funded doctors making this type of determination? I think that this is simply a way to completely circumvent the justice system. If there is a problem with sentencing, fix that. Man this is a major hit on civil rights."

Correct. This law needs to be applied only to those who are convicted under it, and even in such instances, it is not a firm rule to be used with certainty. As the officer mentions, the counselors are not a jury. This law circumvents the jurisprudential process and is dangerous to civil liberties. The fight to stop sex crimes does not trump the need to have a properly functioning justice system.