Posted on 03/05/2003 8:43:20 AM PST by Indy Pendance
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld laws that put convicted sex offenders on Internet registries, ruling the laws do not impose an extra, unconstitutional punishment after a sentence has been served.
In a case from Alaska, the high court by a 6-3 vote ruled the laws do not add a form of unconstitutional punishment after offenders have served their sentences.
All 50 states have some version of the registries modeled after a pioneering New Jersey law named for Megan Kanka, a young girl killed by a sex offender who was a neighbor. Known as "Megan's Laws," they were adopted in the 1990s in an effort to protect communities from sex offenders.
The Alaska law requires people convicted of sex offenses, such as assaults and distributing child pornography, to register initially in person at an Alaska state trooper post or municipal police department.
The law created a central registry for sex offender information, maintained by the Alaska Department of Public Safety. It has published the information on the Internet.
Alaska's Web site can be searched by name, partial address, zip code or city. It includes the offender's name, photograph, physical description, street address, work address and conviction information.
The Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that Alaska violated the constitutional protection against laws that increase the punishment after a crime has been committed.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the majority that Alaska's law was nonpunitive and its retroactive application does not violate the Constitution.
Two convicted sex offenders, and the wife of one of the two men challenged the law for adding new punishment for old crimes, subjecting them to shame and stigma.
But a 20 year old "spousal abuse" misdemeanor charge which now disqaualifies one from owning a gun, although that wasn't the penalty until two years ago, is constitutional?
Regardless of the fact that sex offenders need to be identified, these black-robed persons sure have some wierd logic sometimes.
"Nonpunitive"? So does this mean that government can require any group of people it wants to register with the authorities?
Sounds like somebody's using child molesters as a tool for engaging in a different kind of "molestation".
I think SCOTUS punted on this one. IMO anyone who molests kids should be under lifetime sanction and supervision, with hanging by piano wire one treatment option. However, IMO the Megan's Laws are a pretty clear ex post facto sentence - additional sanction imposed by law after conviction - we should change the laws going forward to deal with this problem and not disregard the constitution in doing such. Serious usurpation of rights always starts with actions against undesirables such as pervs and drug addicts - but eventually spreads to all of us.
People don't realize they're on a slippery slope until they notice they're wearing skis.
Well, these laws are an attempt to get around the belated realization that a five year sentence and release with minimal supervision wasn't dealing with the hazards these pervs represent to society. If New Jersey had mandated life sentences retroactively after these pervs were convicted, as opposed to a registry, SCOTUS would have overturned it - I guess SCOTUS was winking at this law, deciding that it was not an excessive burden on the invididual and therefore they were willing to overlook ex post facto considerations. But the states need to make some serious changes to sentences for these guys - mandate lifetime probation, treatment, and also a life sentence as an option - or, just let my wife have five mintues alone with them, that would work as well.
What the people do with the information provided by this law can certainly be punitive.
And you're right. Do I also have the right to know if any of my neighbors have been convicted of burglary? Arson? Assault? Rape?
Where does it stop?
Two convicted sex offenders, and the wife of one of the two men challenged the law for adding new punishment for old crimes, subjecting them to shame and stigma.
Just as I thought. Wink, wink, this isn't punitive, so it isn't an ex post facto punishment. This isn't meant to sound sympathetic, but getting your name published in a manner that in many cases will get you driven from your residence counts as punishment in my book. Granted, I would be leading the mob doing that particular task, but I am not kidding myself as to what a registry represents, and SCOTUS played word games here. These guys are a serious problem and legislatures need to do more than just create a registry and consider the problem solved - either we lock them up and throw away the key, or, if we think they can be released back into society, then come up with extensive treatment programs and keep them under probationary sanction for the rest of their lives, so a registry is not ex post facto going forward.
Yep, many libs think us gun owners are just as despicable as child molesters, if not worse, so we too should be subject to these guidelines as well. It never stops with the undesirables, because that term is SO elastic to the liberal mind.
Because that's the court system. They serve their sentences and they are let out. However, I understand people who commit these types of crimes can never be rehabilitated. It's like an addiction for them. So the chances of them committing another crime are great.
Not to mention - where would we keep them? If you go to the FL Dept. of Law Enforcement web site - www.FDLE.gov, and go to the sexual offenders registry, you will see hundreds (if not thousands) of offenders listed.
This is a great tool if you're looking for a house in another town. But then, what do you do when you find out that one lives in your neighborhood? Certainly you would shield your kids from them. Then what? Cross the street if you see them walking towards you?
This will not be the last of this kind of post-conviction treatment, and I highly doubt it will be confined to just "post-conviction" cases. Those who seem to pose a threat, those who are not of a protected class, those who are merely accused or even acquitted... add in those who are improperly listed (opportunity for abuse by those with authority over the webpage)...
Pandora. Box. Key. Trouble. Ugh.
After a crimminal serves his/her debt to society, then all rights and privileges should be restored.
The 9th amendment states:
"The enumertaion in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be constrtued to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Every citizen has the "others (rights) retained by the people" which includes the right to privacy.
How abut we just stop giving these sickos special treatment? No more guards just for them, no more special cells just for them, just put them in general population. That will take care of the problem.
I hear that Devil's Island is currently vacant, that's where my wife thinks we should send them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.