Florida Supreme Court OK's Porn For Sex Offenders. You Go Figure.

You can read more here.

Check out the story below:

Florida sex offenders on probation can possess pornography so long as it does not relate to an offender's ''particular deviant behavior pattern,'' the state's Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 5-2 decision overturned a 2006 Third District Court of Appeal ruling on a Miami case in which the appellate court said offenders cannot have any sexually explicit material.

In the Miami case at issue, Donald Kasischke pleaded guilty in 2001 to three counts each of lewd or lascivious battery and exhibition on a 15-year-old boy. He was sentenced to a year in prison followed by two years of community control and eight years of probation.

A search of Kasischke's home after his release turned up pornographic photos and a videotape. The porn contained images of young males having sex, but it could not be determined that any were underage. He was hauled back to prison in 2003, which the Third DCA ruled was appropriate.

Probation officers sometimes join local police on ''compliance checks,'' searching the homes of offenders to make sure they are obeying release conditions. Such searches led to the arrests in 2005 of two Miami sex offenders, one of whom had a copy of Maxim magazine and the other a Kama Sutra manual. Judges dismissed their cases.

The Supreme Court justices read the wording of the law, which includes the phrase about relevance to an offender's deviant behavior pattern, and they decided Kasischke should not have been reincarcerated.

Kasischke, 61, who has a doctorate in gerontology, is still locked up at Everglades Correctional Institution in South Miami-Dade County, but he will have a new hearing in Miami based on Thursday's favorable ruling.

''This case is a victory for due process and fair notice,'' said Thomas Regnier, the Miami-Dade County assistant public defender who represents Kasischke. ``Laws have to be clearly written so they're understandable. And when they're not clearly written, they can't be used against a defendant.''

TREATMENT PROGRAM

In Florida, judges must impose certain conditions on sex offenders who are being released on probation. Conditions include curfews, completion of a treatment program and not being able to live within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds.

Another condition of release -- the one at issue in this case -- is explained in Florida's statutes:

``Unless otherwise indicated in the treatment plan provided by the sexual offender treatment program, a prohibition on viewing, accessing, owning or possessing any obscene, pornographic or sexually stimulating visual or auditory material, including telephone, electronic media, computer programs or computer services that are relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern.''

In writing the Supreme Court's ruling, Justice Raoul Cantero III noted that the court considered all possible interpretations of the wording. The majority concluded that the phrase ''relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern'' included all items previously mentioned in the sentence. The justices who dissented -- R. Fred Lewis and Kenneth Bell -- argued that the language was meant to prohibit all pornographic materials.

Acknowledging that the law's wording is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, Cantero said the court applied the rule of lenity to this case. That rule says ``when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.''

DISSENTING OPINION

In his dissenting opinion, Bell called the majority's decision ``unnecessary and unfortunate.''

Editor's comment: Another sign of the times, requiring us to put a lid on crazy.

''Florida courts and law enforcement are left with a vague restriction on a sex offender's access to sexually stimulating material,'' Bell wrote. ``The statute is intended to prohibit offenders like Dr. Kasischke from possessing any pornography.''