Smalltown v. Sex Offenders

The act of Smalltown to separate sex offenders from the rest of society is critical since it will significantly lead to low cases of transmitting diseases. Indeed, those who transmit diseases break the bylaws, and should be segregated. In addition, this move will reduce abuse on children. Therefore, it is a valuable initiative to take them to live in homes of small groups in the agriculture area of the town. Even though sex offenders may argue that this legal action is discriminatory, the overall good of society should be the motivating factor in such actions. My focus would be to seek legal redress over the issue because the rule that the town intended to enforce will enable the town deal with the issue of sexually transmitted illnesses and abuse, especially abuse on children (Rea 123). Therefore, I will be seeking for the authority from the court to implement the bylaw against sex offenders.

My first move would be to take the issue up with the Supreme Court. Here, I will pray to the court to implement the rule passed against the sex offenders by the town authorities. In addition, I will petition the court to give Smalltown authorities more powers to separate the sex offenders from other members of society. It is my belief as a plaintiff that these actions do not violate the constitutional provision, especially freedom of association and movement. Indeed, the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement and association, but it provides limitation to these rights. The town authorities should come up with programs aimed at reforming the group, by getting them out of town should be viewed as an act of disciplining them. Therefore, these initiatives are not against the supreme law, but rather, they should be seen as complementary. This is because, the constitution itself is against any forms of discrimination and states clearly that no individual is entitled to any form of discrimination because of his or her sex, color and gender or sexual orientation. However, it requires protection of the vulnerable members in society (Nezu, Fiore & Nezu 270).

Discrimination of any form should not be encouraged at any given time in society. As a plaintiff in this case, it is my belief that Smalltown has not contravened the constitution by passing laws that are aimed to empowering the fundamental principles of the land constitution. I believe that the judges should empower the town authorities to implement the new laws. The penalty in this move is economical in several ways. It helps minimize the cost of putting people behind bars (Nezu, Fiore & Nezu 270).

The case is not an isolated one. Warth v. Seldin is also another case that is similar to the Smalltown v. Sex Offenders. The plaintiff was challenging the exclusionary nature at which the town directive was zoning people based on taxation. The judge held that the petitioners had no grounds to base their case. The ruling had far-reaching implications. It meant that it was difficult for tenants to achieve any standing in a case relating to affordable housing.

In this case, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Smalltown, the ruling will have some implications for future cases related to sexual crime. People will not have any ground to bring any litigation against any form of discrimination or segregation for sexual crimes that they will have been found guilty of committing.

Work Cited

Maguth, Nezu, C., Fiore, A.A. & Nezu, A.M .Problem Solving Treatment for Intellectually Disabled Sex Offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, (2006): 2(2), 266-275

Rea, J. Covert. Sensitization. The Behavior Analyst Today, (2003): 4 (2), 192-20