in the national very view a conservative publication, has a character view of you as a smear that appears meritless to the point of demagoguery as mainstream and correct. i ll remind my colleagues and those watching that two of the largest most substantial law enforcement advocacy organizations in our country, the national fraternal order of police and the national association of chiefs of police have spoken up in support of your qualifications and capabilities. the fop letter says there s little doubt that you have the temperament, legal experience to earn this appointment. the same sentiment was echoed by the iacp. in their letter they said they believe you have a deep understanding for the challenges and complexities confronting the policing profession and you have
characterized that view of you as a smear that appears meritless to the point of demagogue ri and characterizes your approach in sentencing as mainstream and correct. i ll just remind me colleagues and those watching that two of the largest most substantial law enforcement advocacy organizations in our country, the national fraternal order of police have spoken up in support of your qualifications and your capabilities. the fop letter says there s little doubt you have the tempe temperament, legal experience and family background to earn this appointment. they believe you have a deep insing and appreciation for the challenges and complexity confronting the policing profession and during your time as a judge displayed your
characterized that view of you as a smear that appears meritless to the point of demagoguery and characterizes your approach in sentencing in these cases as mainstream and correct. and i ll just remind my colleagues and those watching that two of the largest, most substantial law enforcement advocacy organizations in our country, the national fraternal order of police and the international association of chiefs of police have spoken up in support of your qualifications and your capabilities. the f.o.p. letter says there s little doubt you have the temperament, intellect, legal experience and family background to have earned this appointment. that sentiment was echoed by the iacp. in their letter they said you believe you have a deep understanding of and appreciation for the challenges and complexities confronting the policing profession and you have during your time as a judge displayed your dedication to ensuring our communities are
0 stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review and yours is entitled prevention versus punishment: towards a principled distinction in the restraint of released sex offenders. and in it you argue, and i quote, a recent spate of legislation purports to regulate released sex offenders by requiring them to register with local law enforcement officials, notify community members of their presence, undergo dna testing and submit to civil commitment for an indefinite term. at many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who have already been sanctioned for their crimes. under existing doctrine the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially preventative rather than punitive. and what you go on to explain is if they
0 activism and advocacy as it concerns sexual predators that stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review prevention versus punishment toward a principled distinction in the restraint in it you argue and i quote a recent spate of legislation reports to release sex offenders by requiring them to notify local law enforcement and submit to civil commitment for indefinite term. many say it violates the rights of individuals that have been sanctioned for their crimes. the contusionalty of sex offender statutes depends on their characterization as essentially preventsive rather than punitive. you explain if they re viewed an punitive, they re unconstitutional. if they re preventative, they are not. throughout the course of your note, you argue they should be viewed as punitive and therefore unconstitutional. indeed in the second to last page you go through each of those for ca