[Condor51]

I believe there may be a Constitutional issue here ... Ex Post Facto laws cannot be enacted.

Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

This is way out of my pay grade, but there seems to be a conflict.

[LIConFem]

There is a conflict, but the issue is a lot simpler than this proposed measure. Simply lock child molesters up for the rest of their lives, with no chance of parole. Once the current batch dies off, you won't have to worry about recidivism.

[dirtboy]

This is way out of my pay grade, but there seems to be a conflict.

SCOTUS sidestepped the issue by saying registration wasn't a punishment, therefore no ex post facto law.

Which makes utterly no sense on several levels, but, then again, we're talking SCOTUS here.