Replies

I'd be curious to read the decision as to see exactly how the judge struck down the law. But if the plain text of the statute made it apply retroactively, he would have no choice but to strike down the law in its entirety, no?

I also can't figure out how the offender gives testimony about himself on the basis that he was already convicted of the crime and the list states a mere fact that he was convicted of that crime. The offender isn't offering a thing. Again, I probably need to look at the Iowa law though.

As far as harsher sentencing for violent offenders, I agree 100%. Seven years should mean seven years. The fortunate thing, is it seems like sentencing in this country is becoming more formula based and stringent where you can't get away with serving three years on a 7-10 anymore.

Three strikes and you're out for violent crimes should also be considered and enacted in most states where it hasn't been already. I am not talking about three drug dealing/using convictions here, but violent crime.

"The offender isn't offering a thing."

If he's required to register with the local authorities, then he's offering his record to be made available to the public at large. Because of this action, initiated by the offender, his liberties are curtailed.

This would fall under self-incrimination.

I agree with you -- why stop with child molesters? I would also like to know if the person moving into my neighborhood has been convicted of rape, burglary, assault and battery, etc.

Some on this board are calling for life sentences or even the death penalty for these crimes. Given that "inappropriate touching" will vault you into the child molester category, I fear the molester, faced with life in prison or the death penalty, will go much further.

Recall the phrase, "Have you ever heard of the 'Little Lindbergh' Law?"

You are right about the whole law being useless depending on the wording. I didn't get the point about the self-incrimination either, that seemed silly. A conviction is part of the public record, so I don't see how one could avoid revealing it.

I live in NJ and I am of the impression that this whole sex-offender registry thing got started out here in a response to the murder of Meagan Kanka. It was clear at the time that it was bi-partisan knee-jerk grand standing on the part of pols who wanted to be seen as doing SOMETHING! The problem is, like so many other folks these days, they didn't want to be bothered to take the time and make the effort to do something good and effective.

And of course, when the leftists and the criminals start howling in protest, well, look how anti-crime one looks then.