I can understand a murderer, or gang leader released after serving 20-30 years of a "life sentence" as a conditional parole... or even a true child sex offender, not someone who was 19yo with a 16yo girlfriend (not speaking to this case, but someone I knew who fell into that scenario and now has to register for the rest of his life, even though he later married that same woman).
The ex post facto bit is even more disturbing.
Now, not even a day later we are talking about doing something just as insane. :(
> On Monday, India's Supreme Court dismissed an appeal to stop his release, saying it "shared" the concern of most citizens but its hands were "tied" by the law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35149409
I hate that politicians all around the world are more than happy to keep the people occupied in these things that don't affect a lot of people.
But the EFF's point here is solid: This wasn't a punishment handed down as part of a sentence. This was added to someones sentence ex post facto, and that is not cool. It is fairly cut and dry; You only are sentenced according to the law at the time you committed the crime. Adding new punishments, no matter how well intentioned, is unconstitutional. I don't even have to cite an amendment, it's in article 1.