Town demands that convicted murderer is removed. Is this legal?

Great Debates
1

Given that I just found a story about this on AOL, it seems like the Guay case is getting national media coverage now… In 1973, Raymond Guay was convicted for murdering a twelve-year-old NH boy. He served a thirty-five-year sentence and was paroled in September, with the command that he reside in New Hampshire while on parol. There was a huge temper tantrum, and he ended up in a Conn. halfway house for a few months instead.

This weekend a pastor in Chichester allowed Guay to move into his home. Yet again people are protesting, and want him removed from the town. As the second article states, “The selectmen voted 3-0 Tuesday to ask state and federal officials to boot Guay” so this goes beyond some concerned citizens complaining.

Are the demands of the selectmen’s board legal or is it harassment? I’m no fan of any murderer, especially one who killed a child, but he hasn’t violated parole, he’s agreed to wear a monitoring bracelet, and to never be alone with children, yet the town is harassing him.

And, is this a typical reaction to someone who has been convicted of this crime and served a lot of time? Murder is a rare thing in New Hampshire, so I’m curious if this is why people have no qualms about their demands (not to mention the threats of violence the pastor’s family has received). Considering how infrequently the death penalty is applied, there must be a lot of child murderers out there that have served their time - what sort of reception have they received in other communities?

2

If they want a law that Guay, specifically, has to move out, that’s a bill of attainder, and is prohibited by the Constitution. If they want a law that no murderer is allowed to live in the town, and then apply that to Guay, that’s an ex post facto law, and is likewise prohibited by the Constitution. At most, they could pass a law that no murderer is ever allowed to move into the town at any future time, though even that might be legally sketchy, and would in any event have no bearing on the case at hand.

3

If I’m reading this correctly, he’s there because there was a court order requiring him to live in New Hampshire. It sounds like the selectmen have voted to send a letter to the prosecutors asking them to ask the court to modify the order and require Guay to live somewhere else. I don’t think there’s anything illegal about their making that request.

What I wonder about is why the court required him to live in NH? Under these circumstances, is it wise to require Guay to live so close to the scene of his crime?

4

Because he’s on parole, and generally, one of the conditions of parole is that you have to live in state/can’t leave the state without permission, so that your parole officer can keep an eye on you

5

But why this state? Apparently he was originally going to be released in California.

I’ve now found this article, which indicates that parole officials thought his family ties in NH would provide roots. I wonder if they’ll reconsider that now that his brother has declined to take him in. The article also suggests that the community fervor may be ebbing, though.

6

No, it isn’t. The ex post facto provision would mean that murderers couldn’t be charged with “illegally” living in town before the law was passed, but it wouldn’t prohibit a law saying that murderers can’t live there in the future.

7

Ah but that’s just the thing, he isn’t free he’s on parole. He hasn’t served all his time yet

There is a lot of rules for people on parole. Some are designed to teach the convict how society functions. The basic you do what you’re told, you get a reward, type thing.

The other function is to give the law enough stupid things to pull the parolee back in line (and into the prison) if they go to far or it seems like it. In otherwords, if a person who’s never been in jail or charged, starts threatening people, it’s often difficult to do anything about it till the damage is done. These restrictions on parolees give the law, the ablitity to reign them in quicker before anything is done, based on their past behaviour.

This shows problems of parole. In most states the parolee is required to return to the general area where he used to live. This means he’s going back to the same bad influences that probably led him into trouble in the first place.

A state government survey in California in 2006 showed that towns that pass restrictive living ordinances have no different rate of re-occurence of such crimes.

But that is the thing, they aren’t meant to prevent more abuse. They give the law a reason to remove the possible offender.

For instance, if I say “I’m gonna beat the hell out of you.” You can go to the cops, but there isn’t much the can do about it, till I smash your face in. If I am on parole and you go to the cops, they can put me back inside.

You see one circumstance acts after and one before.

As for the legality of these ordinances, courts have found that they are legal so long as the provide a “reasonable” area for someone to live in.

In Doe -vs- Miller

UsCourts.Gov (WARNING: PDF File)

Another Article Re: Doe v Miller