Original Article
03/05/2013
BALTIMORE - The Maryland Court of Appeals on Monday decided that sex offenders whose crimes took place before the registry was created in 1995 should not have to register, and the decision could have widespread implications for hundreds of others on the list.
The case of Sarah Foxwell, an 11-year-old girl found raped and slain on the Eastern Shore in December 2010 sparked outrage and increased efforts to tighten restrictions on Maryland sex offenders.
"It's enabled all of us statewide to have a conversation about the fact that this really is a problem. It really does happen and it can happen anywhere, whether it's on the Eastern Shore or it's right here in Baltimore City," said Adam Rosenberg, the executive director of the Baltimore Child Abuse Center.
Much of the conversation has focused on the sex offender registry, which was placed front and center in the Maryland Court of Appeals on Monday.
In the case presented to the court, a Washington County teacher who went by the name John Doe was convicted in 2006 of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old student in 1983. Doe argued that he should not have to register as a sex offender because the registry didn't exist until 12 years after the crime.
"He's saying when I did what I did, there was not a sex offender registry in place, therefore you can't put me on the sex offender registry for doing what I did," explained Baltimore criminal defense attorney Christopher Wheatcroft, of the firm Alperstein & Diener, P.A.
The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling that sets new precedent in the state and has the potential to remove hundreds of sex offenders from the registry.
Wheatcroft called the decision fair but acknowledged that the future will at least partly depend on how the Legislature and the Department of Public Safety react to the ruling.
"Long-term, I don't know how many people will be off the registry, and I don't know what process they're going to have to follow to make that happen if it remains an opportunity for them," Wheatcroft said.
Rosenberg said regardless of what happens, the registry is only one part of the solution.
"It's great to be able to know who is in your neighborhood that has been convicted of being a sex offender, but that doesn't solve the entire problem," he said. "There are many more people who could be committing a sex offense that we don't know of, and that is preventable."
- Preventable how exactly? And what about knowing all the other ex-felons who live in our neighborhood, like murderers, gang members, drug dealers / users, DUI offenders, thieves, etc?
Details written in the judgment show that the court was somewhat divided in determining its ruling. Legal experts said the issue still has a long road and will likely make its way to the Supreme Court.
- Search:
- Site
- ACLU
- Legislature
- Other
Search this site only:
Search all ACLU sites:
Search all state legislatures:
Search other related sites, or Google:
| Recommended: | State News: |
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label ExPostFacto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ExPostFacto. Show all posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
CA - 'Pocket parks' aim to drop sex offender rate in LA neighborhoods
Labels: California , ExPostFacto , Residency , Video
Original Article
03/14/2013
By Leanne Suter
LOS ANGELES (KABC) - A sliver of land in Harbor Gateway South is about to be transformed in to Los Angeles' first "pocket park." It's just 1,000 square feet, but it's having a big impact on the community's sense of safety.
"It takes care of the sex offenders and keeps the kids off the street gives them somewhere to play," said resident Janet Shour.
Until now there was no green space in the 13-block neighborhood, but there was an unusually high number of registered sex offenders - more than 130 of them at its peak.
"Our big concern was student safety, our children were afraid," said Marcia Reed, principal at 186th Street Elementary. "I had to actually call the police in one incident where one of the sex offender chased a few of our children and they were so afraid."
The community turned to their senior lead LAPD Officer Brian Cook for help. His idea was to use a tiny piece of city-owned property and the law to take back the streets.
"Jessica's Law is out there and says registered sex offenders on parole or probation can't live within 2,000 feet of a park or school, that's where the idea came from," he said.
Once the park is built at the corner of Torrance Boulevard and Denker Avenue, the number of registered sex offenders in the area is expected to drop more than 95 percent, giving residents some relief and kids some hope.
- It's just another ex post facto law that is punishing ex-offenders for the sake of punishment, nothing else.
"There's not that many parks around the area so kids don't have anywhere to play so I think it's a great idea," said 9-year-old Savannah Marmolejo.
The park is expected to be completed in June and will be the smallest park in the city.
See Also:
03/14/2013
By Leanne Suter
LOS ANGELES (KABC) - A sliver of land in Harbor Gateway South is about to be transformed in to Los Angeles' first "pocket park." It's just 1,000 square feet, but it's having a big impact on the community's sense of safety.
"It takes care of the sex offenders and keeps the kids off the street gives them somewhere to play," said resident Janet Shour.
Until now there was no green space in the 13-block neighborhood, but there was an unusually high number of registered sex offenders - more than 130 of them at its peak.
"Our big concern was student safety, our children were afraid," said Marcia Reed, principal at 186th Street Elementary. "I had to actually call the police in one incident where one of the sex offender chased a few of our children and they were so afraid."
The community turned to their senior lead LAPD Officer Brian Cook for help. His idea was to use a tiny piece of city-owned property and the law to take back the streets.
"Jessica's Law is out there and says registered sex offenders on parole or probation can't live within 2,000 feet of a park or school, that's where the idea came from," he said.
Once the park is built at the corner of Torrance Boulevard and Denker Avenue, the number of registered sex offenders in the area is expected to drop more than 95 percent, giving residents some relief and kids some hope.
- It's just another ex post facto law that is punishing ex-offenders for the sake of punishment, nothing else.
"There's not that many parks around the area so kids don't have anywhere to play so I think it's a great idea," said 9-year-old Savannah Marmolejo.
The park is expected to be completed in June and will be the smallest park in the city.
See Also:
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
MD - Maryland Court of Appeals: Retroactive Sex Offender Law is Unconstitutional
Labels: ExPostFacto , Maryland , Unconstitutional , Video
Video Description:
On March 4, 2013 the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that retroactively requiring a person to register as a sex offender in accordance with laws created in 2009 and 2010 violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The video shows the oral argument that took place prior to this decision - the oral argument was held 09-07-12.
See Also:
Video Link
On March 4, 2013 the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that retroactively requiring a person to register as a sex offender in accordance with laws created in 2009 and 2010 violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The video shows the oral argument that took place prior to this decision - the oral argument was held 09-07-12.
See Also:
- Case brief and notes
- New Case Significantly Changes Maryland Sex Offender Registration
- Sex offender doesn't have to register
- State weighing effect of court ruling on sex-offender registry
Video Link
ME - Court upholds sex offender registration for those convicted before 1999
Labels: ExPostFacto , lawSuit , Maine
Original Article
03/05/2013
By Judy Harrison
PORTLAND - The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday upheld the law that requires information about people convicted of sex crimes before 1999 to be listed on the Maine Sex Offender Registry.
In a rare 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley and Associate Justices Jon Levy, Andrew Mead and Susan Gorman agreed that the law is constitutional. Associate Justices Donald Alexander, Warren Silver and Joseph Jabar dissented.
“We conclude that SORNA [Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act] of 1999 is nonpunitive,” Mead wrote for the majority in a 39-page opinion (PDF).
- It's ex post facto punishment, which is a violation of the US Constitution and Maine's Constitution! If you had to live by your own draconian laws you'd see it that way as well.
Silver in the 13-page dissent said that the requirements of the law “are punishment to those who have completed their sentences and paid back society long ago.”
More than a dozen sex offenders appealed a 2011 decision by Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy. The men, identified only as John Does in court documents, were seeking to have their names removed from the registry because they had completed their sentences prior to 1999.
The case the justices ruled on Tuesday dates back to 2006, when the plaintiffs filed suit in Kennebec County Superior Court challenging the state’s 1999 sex offender registry law and seeking to remove their names from the registry. Lawmakers amended the law in 2005 so it would apply retroactively and require all sex offenders to register who had committed crimes after Jan. 1, 1982.
The chief plaintiff, known in court documents as John Doe I, was convicted in 1985 of unlawful sexual contact with a family member and was sentenced to five years in prison with all but 60 days suspended and two years’ probation. He has not been convicted of any sex offenses since. He argued that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration law violated his constitutional rights.
This was the second time Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices heard arguments related to the case.
The primary challenge to Maine’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was that it violated the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed.
Maine’s sex offender registry has gone through a number of changes since it was created in 1992. It attracted national attention when, on April 16, 2006, a 20-year-old Canadian man killed two sex offenders in Maine before killing himself after getting their names from the state’s online registry.
The current case stems from a court case filed less than two weeks later challenging the law. Over time, several dozen John Does joined the case, but a number of them later dropped out after the Legislature amended the law in 2009 to allow some sex offenders to be removed from the registry if they had completed their sentences, committed no additional crimes and met other standards.
03/05/2013
By Judy Harrison
PORTLAND - The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday upheld the law that requires information about people convicted of sex crimes before 1999 to be listed on the Maine Sex Offender Registry.
In a rare 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley and Associate Justices Jon Levy, Andrew Mead and Susan Gorman agreed that the law is constitutional. Associate Justices Donald Alexander, Warren Silver and Joseph Jabar dissented.
“We conclude that SORNA [Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act] of 1999 is nonpunitive,” Mead wrote for the majority in a 39-page opinion (PDF).
- It's ex post facto punishment, which is a violation of the US Constitution and Maine's Constitution! If you had to live by your own draconian laws you'd see it that way as well.
Silver in the 13-page dissent said that the requirements of the law “are punishment to those who have completed their sentences and paid back society long ago.”
More than a dozen sex offenders appealed a 2011 decision by Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy. The men, identified only as John Does in court documents, were seeking to have their names removed from the registry because they had completed their sentences prior to 1999.
The case the justices ruled on Tuesday dates back to 2006, when the plaintiffs filed suit in Kennebec County Superior Court challenging the state’s 1999 sex offender registry law and seeking to remove their names from the registry. Lawmakers amended the law in 2005 so it would apply retroactively and require all sex offenders to register who had committed crimes after Jan. 1, 1982.
The chief plaintiff, known in court documents as John Doe I, was convicted in 1985 of unlawful sexual contact with a family member and was sentenced to five years in prison with all but 60 days suspended and two years’ probation. He has not been convicted of any sex offenses since. He argued that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration law violated his constitutional rights.
This was the second time Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices heard arguments related to the case.
The primary challenge to Maine’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was that it violated the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed.
Maine’s sex offender registry has gone through a number of changes since it was created in 1992. It attracted national attention when, on April 16, 2006, a 20-year-old Canadian man killed two sex offenders in Maine before killing himself after getting their names from the state’s online registry.
The current case stems from a court case filed less than two weeks later challenging the law. Over time, several dozen John Does joined the case, but a number of them later dropped out after the Legislature amended the law in 2009 to allow some sex offenders to be removed from the registry if they had completed their sentences, committed no additional crimes and met other standards.
Monday, March 4, 2013
MD - Sex offender doesn't have to register - Judges rule it violates Constitution, ex post facto laws and is additional punishment!
Labels: ExPostFacto , Maryland , OffTheRegistry , Unconstitutional , Video
Original Article
03/04/2013
By JESSICA GRESKO
A ruling Monday from Maryland's highest court calls into question a state law that requires some people to register as sex offenders for crimes committed decades ago.
The ruling means at least one man will have his name removed from the sex offender database, but other offenders may also be able to challenge their inclusion.
Maryland first created a sex offender registry in 1995, and more than 8,300 people are now in the database. Lawmakers strengthened sex offender laws in 2009 and 2010, and one of the changes made required registration for some people who committed crimes before the database's creation.
On Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a man who as a junior high school teacher in the early 1980s had inappropriate contact with a 13-year-old student. The man pleaded guilty to abuse in 2006 after a former student came forward, and he went to prison for about two years.
As a result of provisions that went into effect in 2009 and 2010, the man was required to register as a sex offender. That's because while he committed his crime before the registry existed, he pleaded guilty after it was in place. He was also required to re-register every three months for the rest of his life.
A majority of the seven judges sitting on the court ruled that the man should not be required to register, but they disagreed as to why.
Three judges said in a 41-page ruling that requiring the man to register violates the Maryland Constitution. The Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, which retroactively dole out punishments that weren't in place at the time an act was committed.
Two more judges agreed the man should not have to register but rested the decision both on the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions. One more judge said the man shouldn't be required to register because it wasn't part of his plea agreement. A final judge would have upheld a lower court ruling requiring the man to register.
One of the man's attorneys, Pat Cresta-Savage, said the ruling was "definitely a victory" for her client, but how it will affect others "remains to be seen." She said it seems individuals will have to challenge their inclusion on a case-by-case basis.
David Paulson, a spokesman for the Maryland Attorney General, said the office is reviewing the ruling. The office could decide not to challenge the ruling, to ask the court to reconsider or to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
See Also:
03/04/2013
By JESSICA GRESKO
A ruling Monday from Maryland's highest court calls into question a state law that requires some people to register as sex offenders for crimes committed decades ago.
The ruling means at least one man will have his name removed from the sex offender database, but other offenders may also be able to challenge their inclusion.
Maryland first created a sex offender registry in 1995, and more than 8,300 people are now in the database. Lawmakers strengthened sex offender laws in 2009 and 2010, and one of the changes made required registration for some people who committed crimes before the database's creation.
On Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a man who as a junior high school teacher in the early 1980s had inappropriate contact with a 13-year-old student. The man pleaded guilty to abuse in 2006 after a former student came forward, and he went to prison for about two years.
As a result of provisions that went into effect in 2009 and 2010, the man was required to register as a sex offender. That's because while he committed his crime before the registry existed, he pleaded guilty after it was in place. He was also required to re-register every three months for the rest of his life.
A majority of the seven judges sitting on the court ruled that the man should not be required to register, but they disagreed as to why.
Three judges said in a 41-page ruling that requiring the man to register violates the Maryland Constitution. The Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, which retroactively dole out punishments that weren't in place at the time an act was committed.
Two more judges agreed the man should not have to register but rested the decision both on the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions. One more judge said the man shouldn't be required to register because it wasn't part of his plea agreement. A final judge would have upheld a lower court ruling requiring the man to register.
One of the man's attorneys, Pat Cresta-Savage, said the ruling was "definitely a victory" for her client, but how it will affect others "remains to be seen." She said it seems individuals will have to challenge their inclusion on a case-by-case basis.
David Paulson, a spokesman for the Maryland Attorney General, said the office is reviewing the ruling. The office could decide not to challenge the ruling, to ask the court to reconsider or to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
See Also:
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
ID - State's top court: Sex offender not exempt from registering
Labels: ExPostFacto , Idaho
Original Article
02/26/2013
The Idaho Supreme Court upheld a 1st District Court ruling from Kootenai County that said a 2009 amendment to the state's sex offender registration law does apply to a Coeur d'Alene man, according to a Monday opinion.
[name withheld], 55, was sentenced in July 1991 to 10 years in prison for felony lewd conduct with a minor, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. His probation ended in July 1996, and the case was dismissed in February 2011.
At the time [name withheld] was sentenced, Idaho didn't have a sex offender registration statute.
But in 1993, the Idaho Legislature passed the Sex Offender Registration Act. The act applied retroactively to people convicted prior to July 1993, and those who were still on probation.
The act required sex offenders to register while on probation and "for a period of 10 years after the date of discharge from probation, parole or release from incarceration, whichever is greater."
In 1998, the Legislature repealed the Sex Offender Registration Act, and enacted the Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The new act applied retroactively to people convicted of crimes before the statute was enacted. It also applied to those on probation.
So, because [name withheld] was still on probation, the statute applied to him and he had to register as a sex offender.
[name withheld] sought an exemption, but his offense, lewd conduct, is considered an aggravated offense so he wasn't eligible. The District Court in Kootenai County denied his petition for an exemption.
"When a legislative act is expressly stated to be retroactive, subsequent amendments to that act are also retroactive, as long as retroactive application would not violate the Constitution," according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The justices added, "Mr. [name withheld] does not contend that applying the amendment to him would violate any constitutional provision. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Mr. [name withheld]'s petition."
02/26/2013
The Idaho Supreme Court upheld a 1st District Court ruling from Kootenai County that said a 2009 amendment to the state's sex offender registration law does apply to a Coeur d'Alene man, according to a Monday opinion.
[name withheld], 55, was sentenced in July 1991 to 10 years in prison for felony lewd conduct with a minor, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. His probation ended in July 1996, and the case was dismissed in February 2011.
At the time [name withheld] was sentenced, Idaho didn't have a sex offender registration statute.
But in 1993, the Idaho Legislature passed the Sex Offender Registration Act. The act applied retroactively to people convicted prior to July 1993, and those who were still on probation.
The act required sex offenders to register while on probation and "for a period of 10 years after the date of discharge from probation, parole or release from incarceration, whichever is greater."
In 1998, the Legislature repealed the Sex Offender Registration Act, and enacted the Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The new act applied retroactively to people convicted of crimes before the statute was enacted. It also applied to those on probation.
So, because [name withheld] was still on probation, the statute applied to him and he had to register as a sex offender.
[name withheld] sought an exemption, but his offense, lewd conduct, is considered an aggravated offense so he wasn't eligible. The District Court in Kootenai County denied his petition for an exemption.
"When a legislative act is expressly stated to be retroactive, subsequent amendments to that act are also retroactive, as long as retroactive application would not violate the Constitution," according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The justices added, "Mr. [name withheld] does not contend that applying the amendment to him would violate any constitutional provision. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Mr. [name withheld]'s petition."
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
PA - Law change means some will be registered sex offenders for life
Labels: Church , ExPostFacto , MegansLaw , OnlineRegistry , Pennsylvania , PFML , Playground
Original Article
02/18/2013
Late in 2002, [name withheld] of Hazleton pleaded guilty to molesting a 7-year-old girl and was sentenced to serve one year in prison and register as a sex offender for 10 years.
- And anything beyond this is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
His 10 years on the registry would have expired on May 15, but a little more than a year ago the law changed.
Now [name withheld] must register as a sex offender for life.
- And that is unconstitutional additional punishment! Imagine, if they can do this, then they can change any law and re-punish you for something you did years ago.
"What I can't understand is how can they do this? If you are already under Megan's Law, how can they add to that? That's very upsetting," [name withheld] said.
- Because they claim it's regulatory and not punishment, which we all know is a load of BS!
The U.S. Constitution bans ex post facto laws - those that take effect after the fact.
- And so does the states constitution (section 17).
However, in challenges to the sex offender registry under Megan's Law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the registry is a regulatory law, not a criminal law, so the ex post facto rule doesn't apply.
An update to Megan's Law in Pennsylvania that Gov. Tom Corbett signed on Dec. 20, 2011, changes the registration requirement from 10 years to life for some crimes, including indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, to which [name withheld] pleaded guilty. The law now requires offenders to register for 15 years, 25 years or life depending on how their crime is categorized.
Some offenders who completed their time on the registry before the law changed must re-register.
Others who never had to register when their cases were adjudicated must go on the registry. An Altoona attorney told his local newspaper, the Mirror, in December 2012 that at least three people who accepted pleas keeping them off the register want to negotiate new deals or challenge the new law that requires them to register.
The attorney, Thomas M. Dickey, did not return a telephone call asking for an update on those cases.
"I'm looking for a sexual offender to challenge this as ex post facto," Shelly Clevenger, assistant professor at Illinois State University, said.
Clevenger is studying the retroactive law in Illinois, where sexual offenders face additional restrictions.
"We have some strange laws. Sexual offenders can't go to a public park, be on a walking trail, operate a food vehicle. The state is starting to legislate what offenders can and cannot do," she said.
In her dissertation for a doctorate in criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in May 2012, Clevenger studied the effectiveness of Megan's Law in Pennsylvania. The law takes its name from Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl who was sexually abused and murdered in New Jersey in 1994.
"Overall, the results of the current study, coupled with results from previous studies which have examined the effectiveness of Megan's Law, indicate that the legislation has not been effective in reducing and/or preventing rape, sex offenses and/or the murder of children," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.
Since Megan's Law took effect in 1996 in Pennsylvania, the incidences of rape, other sex crimes and murder of a person younger than 13 decreased in urban areas, Clevenger's study found. But in suburban and rural areas, rape and sexual offenses increased, according to her study.
Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law in Stony Brook, N.Y., said case statistics alone don't measure the effectiveness of the law. Creating a registry for sex offenders made people more aware of sex crimes. That might have caused people to report abuse instead of keeping secrets, Ahearn said.
Instances where the registry prevented a crime don't show up on statistics, but parents who consulted the registry have prevented children from playing where an offender lived, she said.
"There's plenty of anecdotal evidence," Ahearn said.
When Clevenger conducted research for her doctorate, she wasn't expecting crime rates to move in different directions in urban and rural areas. When thinking about the results, she noticed that the drop in urban crimes coincided with a national trend. She reasoned that Megan's Law might have enticed offenders to move from urban areas to suburbs and rural areas.
"That was the best theory I could come up with," Clevenger said.
Assorted laws in municipalities around the nation set distances from schools, playgrounds or other public places where sex offenders may not live.
Clevenger said residence rules and competition for rental housing in cities might have led some sex offenders to move from urban areas to suburban or rural areas.
In Hazleton, [name withheld] said he cannot go to events at the Wiltsie Center at the Historic Castle, such as the George Thorogood concert on March 10 that he would like to attend.
"We can't even go to church," he said, citing a city law.
[name withheld] hasn't had a job since his release from prison, and he said that's common for people on the registry.
"Very few of us are able to work. Employers won't hire. They don't want their businesses on the registry," [name withheld] said.
He receives disability payments.
"I've been trying to get off disability and find a job. I'm never going to be able to. Nobody's going to hire me," [name withheld] said.
His criminal record includes a conviction for arson in 1999. Two years ago, workers at the office of state Rep. Tarah Toohil said [name withheld] harassed them. In 2005, [name withheld] was charged with failing to report a change of address to the registry.
Megan's Law requires offenders to report address changes within 48 hours. Under current law, if [name withheld] misses that deadline, he can be charged with a felony and sentenced to prison for up to 10 years.
- So if it's regulatory and not punishment, then why would he be sentenced to 10 years in prison, more than what his actual crime received (1 year)? Sounds like additional punishment to us.
Four times a year, he must report to a police station to update his information on the registry. Police take a new photo of him, note his address, emails, workplace and whether he is enrolled in a school or college or owns a vehicle or boat.
"If I go on vacation, I have to register in that state and tell Pennsylvania police that I'm going there. So I don't go nowhere," [name withheld] said.
No one has ever harmed him because he is on the registry. A note on the website for the registry says anyone who intimidates or harasses a person on the registry can be prosecuted or be liable in a civil lawsuit.
- Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it does, all the time, as seen here.
Still, [name withheld] remains fearful.
"You don't know what vigilante is out there. I don't trust nobody. All my trust is gone," he said.
Parents have different fears when trying to protect their children.
The registry provides a starting point by listing people who are potential threats because of their past actions.
- It only lists some people, ex-sex offenders, not all criminals who have or may harm children, like murderers, gang members, drug dealers, DUI offenders, kidnappers, etc.
"There are pedophiles on the registry and people on the registry that you should look out for," Clevenger said.
But she said the registry can breed a false sense of security. Parents should realize that not every offender is on the registry, nor are offenders likely to be strangers, Clevenger said.
The case of Jerry Sandusky underscores that sexual offenders can avoid detection for years while remaining off the registry. Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, is serving a prison sentence of 30 to 60 years for abusing at least 10 boys during a 20-year span.
The registry started to prevent strangers from abducting children, as happened to Megan Kanka. Her death outraged the nation, but the circumstances of her case are relatively rare.
Most children are abused by someone whom they know, Clevenger and Ahearn said.
"The fact that most crime(s) of this nature (are) not committed by a stranger, but by an intimate, who likely does not appear on the registry, suggests that this legislation was passed without any attention to the facts and realities of sex offenses," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.
- Of course they ignored the facts. If you go back and review the history, and the many recidivism studies, you will see the law doesn't jive with the facts.
Ahearn said Parents for Megan's Law recommends several strategies to reduce child sexual abuse. Her group staffs a 24-hour hotline. Members lead education programs for parents and children from preschool to high school. The group counsels victims.
- And now, in New York, they are also being contracted to MONITOR ex-sex offenders!
"When the victim is provided services, they are more likely to participate in the criminal justice system and less likely to be revictimized," Ahearn, the director, said.
- Do you have facts to back this statement up? Or you just assume we will believe you? Like domestically abused men/women who move from bad relationship to another, We're sure your statement is not exactly true, it's just an assumption on your part.
She said the group also supports police. Through a new program with Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., the group will hire retired police to verify addresses of people on the registry.
Ahearn favors having offenders stay on the registry for life and believes they also should have individual monitoring plans. People who comply with the registry requirements have a lower rate of repeating crimes, she said.
- Ex-sex offenders in general have low recidivism rates, and there is no study or evidence to back up her assumption.
Local laws that keep offenders from living in sight of children reduce temptation to commit further crimes, Ahearn said. The local laws, she said, will vary among communities because of population densities, but shouldn't be so restrictive that courts will overturn them.
- Again, her opinion doesn't make it a fact. Show us a study to prove that Ms. Ahearn! She's also making the usual blanket statement making it appear as if all ex-sex offenders are out drooling over children, which is false. Many have not touched a child in any way, yet she makes it appear as if all are child molesters.
"You want to avoid a registered sex offender having his backyard against the backyard of a day care or a school," Ahearn said.
- What if the ex-sex offenders crime didn't involve a child?
She referred to sex offenders as pied pipers who befriend children and parents while setting the stage to abuse a child.
- You see, she thinks all ex-sex offenders are child molesters. That would be like saying all humans are murderers because a couple are. It's the same logic!
"Most child sexual abuse happens with somebody in an existing, trusted relationship," Ahearn said. "That doesn't mean the relationship is known by parents."
- What about the ex-sex offenders who had nothing to do with children but their crime was against an adult? Stop assuming all ex-sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile, predators who are lurking behind every corner just waiting to jump on your child, that is absurd!
02/18/2013
Late in 2002, [name withheld] of Hazleton pleaded guilty to molesting a 7-year-old girl and was sentenced to serve one year in prison and register as a sex offender for 10 years.
- And anything beyond this is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
His 10 years on the registry would have expired on May 15, but a little more than a year ago the law changed.
Now [name withheld] must register as a sex offender for life.
- And that is unconstitutional additional punishment! Imagine, if they can do this, then they can change any law and re-punish you for something you did years ago.
"What I can't understand is how can they do this? If you are already under Megan's Law, how can they add to that? That's very upsetting," [name withheld] said.
- Because they claim it's regulatory and not punishment, which we all know is a load of BS!
The U.S. Constitution bans ex post facto laws - those that take effect after the fact.
- And so does the states constitution (section 17).
However, in challenges to the sex offender registry under Megan's Law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the registry is a regulatory law, not a criminal law, so the ex post facto rule doesn't apply.
An update to Megan's Law in Pennsylvania that Gov. Tom Corbett signed on Dec. 20, 2011, changes the registration requirement from 10 years to life for some crimes, including indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, to which [name withheld] pleaded guilty. The law now requires offenders to register for 15 years, 25 years or life depending on how their crime is categorized.
Some offenders who completed their time on the registry before the law changed must re-register.
Others who never had to register when their cases were adjudicated must go on the registry. An Altoona attorney told his local newspaper, the Mirror, in December 2012 that at least three people who accepted pleas keeping them off the register want to negotiate new deals or challenge the new law that requires them to register.
The attorney, Thomas M. Dickey, did not return a telephone call asking for an update on those cases.
"I'm looking for a sexual offender to challenge this as ex post facto," Shelly Clevenger, assistant professor at Illinois State University, said.
Clevenger is studying the retroactive law in Illinois, where sexual offenders face additional restrictions.
"We have some strange laws. Sexual offenders can't go to a public park, be on a walking trail, operate a food vehicle. The state is starting to legislate what offenders can and cannot do," she said.
Does the law work?
In her dissertation for a doctorate in criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in May 2012, Clevenger studied the effectiveness of Megan's Law in Pennsylvania. The law takes its name from Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl who was sexually abused and murdered in New Jersey in 1994.
"Overall, the results of the current study, coupled with results from previous studies which have examined the effectiveness of Megan's Law, indicate that the legislation has not been effective in reducing and/or preventing rape, sex offenses and/or the murder of children," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.
Since Megan's Law took effect in 1996 in Pennsylvania, the incidences of rape, other sex crimes and murder of a person younger than 13 decreased in urban areas, Clevenger's study found. But in suburban and rural areas, rape and sexual offenses increased, according to her study.
Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law in Stony Brook, N.Y., said case statistics alone don't measure the effectiveness of the law. Creating a registry for sex offenders made people more aware of sex crimes. That might have caused people to report abuse instead of keeping secrets, Ahearn said.
Instances where the registry prevented a crime don't show up on statistics, but parents who consulted the registry have prevented children from playing where an offender lived, she said.
"There's plenty of anecdotal evidence," Ahearn said.
When Clevenger conducted research for her doctorate, she wasn't expecting crime rates to move in different directions in urban and rural areas. When thinking about the results, she noticed that the drop in urban crimes coincided with a national trend. She reasoned that Megan's Law might have enticed offenders to move from urban areas to suburbs and rural areas.
"That was the best theory I could come up with," Clevenger said.
Assorted laws in municipalities around the nation set distances from schools, playgrounds or other public places where sex offenders may not live.
Clevenger said residence rules and competition for rental housing in cities might have led some sex offenders to move from urban areas to suburban or rural areas.
Life on the registry
In Hazleton, [name withheld] said he cannot go to events at the Wiltsie Center at the Historic Castle, such as the George Thorogood concert on March 10 that he would like to attend.
"We can't even go to church," he said, citing a city law.
[name withheld] hasn't had a job since his release from prison, and he said that's common for people on the registry.
"Very few of us are able to work. Employers won't hire. They don't want their businesses on the registry," [name withheld] said.
He receives disability payments.
"I've been trying to get off disability and find a job. I'm never going to be able to. Nobody's going to hire me," [name withheld] said.
His criminal record includes a conviction for arson in 1999. Two years ago, workers at the office of state Rep. Tarah Toohil said [name withheld] harassed them. In 2005, [name withheld] was charged with failing to report a change of address to the registry.
Megan's Law requires offenders to report address changes within 48 hours. Under current law, if [name withheld] misses that deadline, he can be charged with a felony and sentenced to prison for up to 10 years.
- So if it's regulatory and not punishment, then why would he be sentenced to 10 years in prison, more than what his actual crime received (1 year)? Sounds like additional punishment to us.
Four times a year, he must report to a police station to update his information on the registry. Police take a new photo of him, note his address, emails, workplace and whether he is enrolled in a school or college or owns a vehicle or boat.
"If I go on vacation, I have to register in that state and tell Pennsylvania police that I'm going there. So I don't go nowhere," [name withheld] said.
No one has ever harmed him because he is on the registry. A note on the website for the registry says anyone who intimidates or harasses a person on the registry can be prosecuted or be liable in a civil lawsuit.
- Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it does, all the time, as seen here.
Still, [name withheld] remains fearful.
"You don't know what vigilante is out there. I don't trust nobody. All my trust is gone," he said.
Proactive parents
Parents have different fears when trying to protect their children.
The registry provides a starting point by listing people who are potential threats because of their past actions.
- It only lists some people, ex-sex offenders, not all criminals who have or may harm children, like murderers, gang members, drug dealers, DUI offenders, kidnappers, etc.
"There are pedophiles on the registry and people on the registry that you should look out for," Clevenger said.
But she said the registry can breed a false sense of security. Parents should realize that not every offender is on the registry, nor are offenders likely to be strangers, Clevenger said.
The case of Jerry Sandusky underscores that sexual offenders can avoid detection for years while remaining off the registry. Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, is serving a prison sentence of 30 to 60 years for abusing at least 10 boys during a 20-year span.
The registry started to prevent strangers from abducting children, as happened to Megan Kanka. Her death outraged the nation, but the circumstances of her case are relatively rare.
Most children are abused by someone whom they know, Clevenger and Ahearn said.
"The fact that most crime(s) of this nature (are) not committed by a stranger, but by an intimate, who likely does not appear on the registry, suggests that this legislation was passed without any attention to the facts and realities of sex offenses," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.
- Of course they ignored the facts. If you go back and review the history, and the many recidivism studies, you will see the law doesn't jive with the facts.
Ahearn said Parents for Megan's Law recommends several strategies to reduce child sexual abuse. Her group staffs a 24-hour hotline. Members lead education programs for parents and children from preschool to high school. The group counsels victims.
- And now, in New York, they are also being contracted to MONITOR ex-sex offenders!
"When the victim is provided services, they are more likely to participate in the criminal justice system and less likely to be revictimized," Ahearn, the director, said.
- Do you have facts to back this statement up? Or you just assume we will believe you? Like domestically abused men/women who move from bad relationship to another, We're sure your statement is not exactly true, it's just an assumption on your part.
She said the group also supports police. Through a new program with Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., the group will hire retired police to verify addresses of people on the registry.
Ahearn favors having offenders stay on the registry for life and believes they also should have individual monitoring plans. People who comply with the registry requirements have a lower rate of repeating crimes, she said.
- Ex-sex offenders in general have low recidivism rates, and there is no study or evidence to back up her assumption.
Local laws that keep offenders from living in sight of children reduce temptation to commit further crimes, Ahearn said. The local laws, she said, will vary among communities because of population densities, but shouldn't be so restrictive that courts will overturn them.
- Again, her opinion doesn't make it a fact. Show us a study to prove that Ms. Ahearn! She's also making the usual blanket statement making it appear as if all ex-sex offenders are out drooling over children, which is false. Many have not touched a child in any way, yet she makes it appear as if all are child molesters.
"You want to avoid a registered sex offender having his backyard against the backyard of a day care or a school," Ahearn said.
- What if the ex-sex offenders crime didn't involve a child?
She referred to sex offenders as pied pipers who befriend children and parents while setting the stage to abuse a child.
- You see, she thinks all ex-sex offenders are child molesters. That would be like saying all humans are murderers because a couple are. It's the same logic!
"Most child sexual abuse happens with somebody in an existing, trusted relationship," Ahearn said. "That doesn't mean the relationship is known by parents."
- What about the ex-sex offenders who had nothing to do with children but their crime was against an adult? Stop assuming all ex-sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile, predators who are lurking behind every corner just waiting to jump on your child, that is absurd!
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
OK - Sex Offenders Challenge Registry Rules In Oklahoma Supreme Court
Labels: ExPostFacto , lawSuit , Oklahoma
Original Article
02/05/2013
OKLAHOMA CITY - Attorneys for three men who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws say they are a form of punishment and are unconstitutional.
The attorneys made the charges on Tuesday during oral arguments before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Their clients were convicted of various sex crimes in other states and want to stop the state from placing their names on the sex offender registry.
Each case challenges the state's attempt to make its sex offender registration rules retroactive.
Two of the men claim they are exempt from the rules because their crimes pre-date the creation of the registry in 1989. The other was required to register for 10 years when he was sentenced and is challenging the state's attempt to make him register longer following legislative amendments to the registry rules.
02/05/2013
OKLAHOMA CITY - Attorneys for three men who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws say they are a form of punishment and are unconstitutional.
The attorneys made the charges on Tuesday during oral arguments before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Their clients were convicted of various sex crimes in other states and want to stop the state from placing their names on the sex offender registry.
Each case challenges the state's attempt to make its sex offender registration rules retroactive.
Two of the men claim they are exempt from the rules because their crimes pre-date the creation of the registry in 1989. The other was required to register for 10 years when he was sentenced and is challenging the state's attempt to make him register longer following legislative amendments to the registry rules.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
PA - Appealing Pennsylvania’s New Megan’s Law
Labels: ExPostFacto , MegansLaw , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Unconstitutional
Original Article
This is an excellent article. Click the link above to read the entire thing, and see the video.
12/18/2012
On December 20, 2012, Pennsylvania will begin enforcing its new changes to Megan's Law. By now, many people have realized that they or their friends will be negatively impacted by these laws. For most, it's probably hard to grasp how such laws could be legal. Undoubtedly, many appeals will be filed to challenge these laws. In some states such as Ohio, many of the retroactive provisions have been found to be unconstitutional upon being appealed, and have been reversed. In other states, the high courts have upheld the new laws. The purpose of this article is to educate you all about why these new laws may or may not ultimately be determined to be illegal.
The United States Constitution, as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, contain clauses that prevent legal consequences from being changed retroactively. Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads:
For example, one cannot be arrested today based upon a new law if the actions of that individual were legal during the time the actions were taken. Additionally, if an individual were sentenced to the maximum term of 10 years of imprisonment for a crime in 1999, and in 2002 the maximum sentence for that crime changed to 20 years, the sentence of that individual cannot be changed retroactively to conform to the new law.
However, in order for a retroactive law to violate the ex post facto clause, the legal consequence that is changed retroactively must be "punitive" (i.e., considered to be punishment), as opposed to civil, remedial, or a collateral consequence. Some examples of collateral consequences include loss of the right to vote, enlist in the armed services, or own a firearm. Although it may be hard to imagine, some high courts have ruled that sex offender registration requirements are not punitive, but are instead collateral consequences.
However, in State v. Williams,129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374 (PDF), the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the requirements of Ohio's new sex offender laws based upon the Adam Walsh Act had transformed the law from remedial to punitive. Their decision was not based upon a single requirement, but instead was based upon the totality of the requirements. The Court cited the various new requirements, and also stated two other factors that influenced their decision: 1) the procedures for registration and classification of sex offenders were placed within Ohio's criminal code, and 2) failure to comply with certain registration requirements subjected an offender to criminal prosecution.
This is an excellent article. Click the link above to read the entire thing, and see the video.
12/18/2012
On December 20, 2012, Pennsylvania will begin enforcing its new changes to Megan's Law. By now, many people have realized that they or their friends will be negatively impacted by these laws. For most, it's probably hard to grasp how such laws could be legal. Undoubtedly, many appeals will be filed to challenge these laws. In some states such as Ohio, many of the retroactive provisions have been found to be unconstitutional upon being appealed, and have been reversed. In other states, the high courts have upheld the new laws. The purpose of this article is to educate you all about why these new laws may or may not ultimately be determined to be illegal.
The United States Constitution, as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, contain clauses that prevent legal consequences from being changed retroactively. Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads:
"No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed."
For example, one cannot be arrested today based upon a new law if the actions of that individual were legal during the time the actions were taken. Additionally, if an individual were sentenced to the maximum term of 10 years of imprisonment for a crime in 1999, and in 2002 the maximum sentence for that crime changed to 20 years, the sentence of that individual cannot be changed retroactively to conform to the new law.
However, in order for a retroactive law to violate the ex post facto clause, the legal consequence that is changed retroactively must be "punitive" (i.e., considered to be punishment), as opposed to civil, remedial, or a collateral consequence. Some examples of collateral consequences include loss of the right to vote, enlist in the armed services, or own a firearm. Although it may be hard to imagine, some high courts have ruled that sex offender registration requirements are not punitive, but are instead collateral consequences.
However, in State v. Williams,129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374 (PDF), the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the requirements of Ohio's new sex offender laws based upon the Adam Walsh Act had transformed the law from remedial to punitive. Their decision was not based upon a single requirement, but instead was based upon the totality of the requirements. The Court cited the various new requirements, and also stated two other factors that influenced their decision: 1) the procedures for registration and classification of sex offenders were placed within Ohio's criminal code, and 2) failure to comply with certain registration requirements subjected an offender to criminal prosecution.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
IN - Supreme Court removes Hammond man from sex offender list
Labels: ExPostFacto , Indiana , lawSuit , OffTheRegistry , RegistryIsPunishment , Unconstitutional
Original ArticleAll states have the issue of "ex post facto" laws in their constitutions, so why aren't all states finding the same?
01/10/2013
By Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a Hammond man removed from the state's sex offender registry after determining the law requiring him to register for life imposes an unconstitutional retroactive punishment (PDF).
[name withheld], 52, pleaded guilty to child solicitation in 1997 after seeking a sexual encounter with a 9-year-old Lake County girl, according to court records.
He served 18 months in prison, 18 months on probation and was required by a 1996 law to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
In 2006, the Republican-controlled General Assembly changed the sex offender registration law to require adult sex offenders who victimized children younger than 12 to register for life.
[name withheld] argued in his appeal to the state's high court that extending his registration period from 10 years to life was an additional retroactive punishment and prohibited by the "ex post facto" clause of the Indiana Constitution. Ex post facto is Latin for "after the fact."
In a 5-0 decision, the state Supreme Court agreed.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, weighed the punitive effects of lifetime registration and determined that as applied to [name withheld]'s low-level felony conviction it is additional punishment and therefore unconstitutional.
Republican Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who sought to keep [name withheld] on the sex offender rolls, is reviewing the court's decision, said spokesman Bryan Corbin.
Corbin said Zoeller expects to meet with state legislators to help draft an update to Indiana's sex offender registration law in the wake of several similar recent court rulings.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
IN - State Sex Offender Registry Differs From Federal Guidelines
Labels: ExPostFacto , Indiana , Registration
Original Article12/07/2012
By Rachel Hartog
Three recent cases in Indiana reveal a nuance of the state’s sex offender registry that is different when compared to federal guidelines.
Indiana’s constitution does not require sex offenders who were convicted prior to the creation of the registry in 1994 to register now, because those cases are considered “ex post facto,” or after the fact. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidelines do not consider sex offender convictions ex post facto and say that any offender should be currently registered. It is a policy many other abide by, making Indiana’s guidelines rare.
- The US Constitution also forbids ex post facto laws, but the corrupt government ignore the Constitution.
Attorney Kristin Mulholland defended one case where the offender committed an act in Illinois before the registries were in place, but now lives in Indiana where he has not been required to register.
“Now Illinois passed a law making it so that he would have to register, and under Illinois law, they decided that it’s not ex post facto as to sex offenders having to register,” Mulholland says. “So there’s the difference between the ways Illinois looks at its constitution and the way Indiana looks at its constitution. Indiana provides broader protection its citizens under its constitution.”
While the sex offender registry policy will not be changed in regards to ex post facto cases, Avon State Representative Greg Steuerwald is currently working on legislation requiring offenders to register in each new county they travel to within 72 hours of their arrival.
“These changes are very necessary,” he says. “They’re going to make the registry much more effective. It’s going to enable law enforcement to keep track of offenders better and it’s going to better advise the public in general.”
Steuerwald says a recent study revealed loopholes in the registry that the new law would fix. He plans to introduce his bill when the legislation session convenes next month.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
PA - Megan's Law changes creating controversy - More punishment and non-sex crimes being added
Labels: ExPostFacto , MegansLaw , Pennsylvania , Video
Original Article
Changing the laws that affect someone after the fact is an unconstitutional ex post facto law which the Constitution forbids, but when the government is corrupt, anything is possible. It also is a violation of the contracts clause.
12/03/2012
PITTSBURGH - In three weeks, the state's Megan's Law registry is going to change. New laws will protect the public from even more sexual predators for even longer periods of time.
It sounds like a logical change, but as Target 11 investigator Rick Earle learned, it's only creating controversy.
Lawmakers said the tougher restrictions are designed to keep communities safe, but defense attorneys said they go way too far and target people who've already had their day in court.
To this day, [name withheld] maintains his innocence, so why did he plead no contest to indecent assault?
"With having a public defender and already having a record being on parole, what chance did I have?" said [name withheld].
Earle asked, "So you thought you had two strikes against you?"
"I had the whole deck of cards against me," said [name withheld].
For the last nine years, his picture and address have been posted on the Megan's Law website. It was supposed to be removed next year, but because of sweeping new changes to Megan's Law, he will remain on the website for at least 15 more years and possibly even longer.
- Which is unconstitutional and additional punishment!
"My family has a lot of get-togethers that I can't go to because of my picture being on the computer," said [name withheld].
Right now, sex offenders either register for 10 years or life.
The new system will divide them into three categories -- 15 years, 25 years or life.
Plus, certain crimes, like invasion of privacy and unlawful restraint, will now be added to Megan's Law, and the crimes don't have to be sexual in nature.
- Hell, why don't we also put all other criminals on the registry, and instead of calling it the "sex" offender registry, call it the "Sinners" registry, which would be more accurate.
These changes apply to anyone currently serving time or on parole or probation.
"It's going to open a can of worms," said defense attorney Phil Dilucente.
- The can of worms was opened many years ago.
Dilucente represents a number of clients who will now be forced to register as sex offenders -- something they weren't told at sentencing.
"When you have any type of law that's passed and there is retroactivity, where there's punitive punishment for laws that people have already been convicted for, that, in and of itself, is problematic," said Dilucente.
- Yes, it's an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
State police tell Target 11 they expect an additional 1,500 to 2,500 offenders will be added to the database under these new rules. About 500 of them will be in Allegheny County.
- The more people they have on the registry, the more money there is to be made.
"I do think it's fair. The law is a little tougher, and I'm not going to sit here and apologize for making a tougher law to protect our kids from predators," said state Sen. Kim Ward of Hempfield Township.
- But it doesn't protect anybody, it only makes you look good to the sheeple, and it's also a violation of your oath of office.
The new law also closes a major loophole that allowed out-of-state sex offenders to come to Pennsylvania without registering.
"You're not just a predator in one state if you are a predator, so we need to know who is here, where they are, are they near our schools, and what are they doing," said Ward.
"I'm more or less kind of disappointed because I lost a lot of friends and family members," said [name withheld].
Some defense attorneys have told Earle they are gearing up to challenge the law. Lawmakers said they are confident it will stand up in a court of law.
Changing the laws that affect someone after the fact is an unconstitutional ex post facto law which the Constitution forbids, but when the government is corrupt, anything is possible. It also is a violation of the contracts clause.
12/03/2012
PITTSBURGH - In three weeks, the state's Megan's Law registry is going to change. New laws will protect the public from even more sexual predators for even longer periods of time.
It sounds like a logical change, but as Target 11 investigator Rick Earle learned, it's only creating controversy.
Lawmakers said the tougher restrictions are designed to keep communities safe, but defense attorneys said they go way too far and target people who've already had their day in court.
To this day, [name withheld] maintains his innocence, so why did he plead no contest to indecent assault?
"With having a public defender and already having a record being on parole, what chance did I have?" said [name withheld].
Earle asked, "So you thought you had two strikes against you?"
"I had the whole deck of cards against me," said [name withheld].
For the last nine years, his picture and address have been posted on the Megan's Law website. It was supposed to be removed next year, but because of sweeping new changes to Megan's Law, he will remain on the website for at least 15 more years and possibly even longer.
- Which is unconstitutional and additional punishment!
"My family has a lot of get-togethers that I can't go to because of my picture being on the computer," said [name withheld].
Right now, sex offenders either register for 10 years or life.
The new system will divide them into three categories -- 15 years, 25 years or life.
Plus, certain crimes, like invasion of privacy and unlawful restraint, will now be added to Megan's Law, and the crimes don't have to be sexual in nature.
- Hell, why don't we also put all other criminals on the registry, and instead of calling it the "sex" offender registry, call it the "Sinners" registry, which would be more accurate.
These changes apply to anyone currently serving time or on parole or probation."It's going to open a can of worms," said defense attorney Phil Dilucente.
- The can of worms was opened many years ago.
Dilucente represents a number of clients who will now be forced to register as sex offenders -- something they weren't told at sentencing.
"When you have any type of law that's passed and there is retroactivity, where there's punitive punishment for laws that people have already been convicted for, that, in and of itself, is problematic," said Dilucente.
- Yes, it's an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
State police tell Target 11 they expect an additional 1,500 to 2,500 offenders will be added to the database under these new rules. About 500 of them will be in Allegheny County.
- The more people they have on the registry, the more money there is to be made.
"I do think it's fair. The law is a little tougher, and I'm not going to sit here and apologize for making a tougher law to protect our kids from predators," said state Sen. Kim Ward of Hempfield Township.
- But it doesn't protect anybody, it only makes you look good to the sheeple, and it's also a violation of your oath of office.
The new law also closes a major loophole that allowed out-of-state sex offenders to come to Pennsylvania without registering.
"You're not just a predator in one state if you are a predator, so we need to know who is here, where they are, are they near our schools, and what are they doing," said Ward.
"I'm more or less kind of disappointed because I lost a lot of friends and family members," said [name withheld].
Some defense attorneys have told Earle they are gearing up to challenge the law. Lawmakers said they are confident it will stand up in a court of law.
Monday, November 19, 2012
OH - News outfit (WEWS-TV) claims unconstitutional laws trampling on ex-criminals rights are loopholes?
Labels: CrimeVigilante , Disinformation , ExPostFacto , Homeless , MassHysteria , Ohio , Unconstitutional , Video
An unconstitutional (ex post facto) law that eradicates people's human and civil rights is NOT a "loophole!" If you want to trample on criminals rights, due to your life of fear, then you should do it across the board and stop discriminating. You are throwing all ex-offenders into the "child molester, pedophile, predator" basket, and many are not either, but hey, the media needs to report on something, right?
VA - Former teacher arrested on charges of sex abuse from 1960s
Labels: ExPostFacto , StatuteOfLimitations , Virginia
Original Article
11/18/2012
MCLEAN - The head of a northern Virginia private school says the school is "deeply disturbed" by the news that a former longtime teacher has been charged with sexual assaults involving four of his students from the 1960s.
- So since the laws are retroactive (ex post facto), are they going to go back 100 years, check birth/marriage certificates and arrest anybody who married underage children or gave birth to someone underage? How many politicians would that ensnare? Or what about John Walsh, or this elderly couple? And what about the statute of limitations? And what "proof" can they possibly have? It's one persons word against anothers.
Fairfax County Police on Friday arrested 73-year-old [name withheld] of McLean after a yearlong investigation.
Police opened the case after receiving a report from a 55-year-old woman who was a student of [name withheld]'s at the Potomac School. She came forward after running into [name withheld] at the Washington Episcopal School, where he was teaching at the time. Police say their investigation found three other alleged victims, all girls ages 12 and 14 when the alleged incidents occurred between 1968 and 1969.
"We are deeply disturbed by this news and our hearts are with the entire Potomac community, past and present, as we work through this difficult time," wrote Potomac School head Geoffrey Jones in a note to parents Friday that was reported by The Washington Post.
[name withheld] worked at the Potomac School from 1965 to 1994, police said. The school confirmed he was both a teacher and an administrator and said in a statement Saturday that it is cooperating with Fairfax County's investigation.
A message left at a telephone listing for [name withheld]'s home in McLean was not immediately returned Saturday. [name withheld] is being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, and the jail said he is set to appear in court Monday.
The Potomac School was founded in 1904 and has students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Approximately 1,000 students attend the school.
11/18/2012
MCLEAN - The head of a northern Virginia private school says the school is "deeply disturbed" by the news that a former longtime teacher has been charged with sexual assaults involving four of his students from the 1960s.
- So since the laws are retroactive (ex post facto), are they going to go back 100 years, check birth/marriage certificates and arrest anybody who married underage children or gave birth to someone underage? How many politicians would that ensnare? Or what about John Walsh, or this elderly couple? And what about the statute of limitations? And what "proof" can they possibly have? It's one persons word against anothers.
Fairfax County Police on Friday arrested 73-year-old [name withheld] of McLean after a yearlong investigation.
Police opened the case after receiving a report from a 55-year-old woman who was a student of [name withheld]'s at the Potomac School. She came forward after running into [name withheld] at the Washington Episcopal School, where he was teaching at the time. Police say their investigation found three other alleged victims, all girls ages 12 and 14 when the alleged incidents occurred between 1968 and 1969.
"We are deeply disturbed by this news and our hearts are with the entire Potomac community, past and present, as we work through this difficult time," wrote Potomac School head Geoffrey Jones in a note to parents Friday that was reported by The Washington Post.
[name withheld] worked at the Potomac School from 1965 to 1994, police said. The school confirmed he was both a teacher and an administrator and said in a statement Saturday that it is cooperating with Fairfax County's investigation.
A message left at a telephone listing for [name withheld]'s home in McLean was not immediately returned Saturday. [name withheld] is being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, and the jail said he is set to appear in court Monday.
The Potomac School was founded in 1904 and has students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Approximately 1,000 students attend the school.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
PA - (The Blair Witch Project) Plea deals could lead to Walsh Act challenge
Labels: ExPostFacto , Pennsylvania , Registration , Unconstitutional
Original Article
11/15/2012
By Phil Ray
38 local residents set to be added to sex offender list
HOLLIDAYSBURG - There could be a court challenge to the implementation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act if local people who accepted plea agreements without registration requirements are now mandated to register with police as sexual offenders, an Altoona defense attorney said Wednesday.
- It should be challenged, and the judges who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and people's rights need to start doing so. This is clearly an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.
Thirty-eight local residents are scheduled to be added to Blair County's list of 85 sexual offenders when the new federal registration system becomes effective in Pennsylvania, Blair County probation officials said.
Tom Shea, director of the Blair County Adult Parole and Probation Office, said the Adam Walsh provisions will go into effect on Dec. 20.
Shea has been working with the Blair County district attorney's staff, the public defender's staff, the county prison and state police in preparing for the implementation of the new act.
Compliance is mandatory if Pennsylvania is to continue to receive federal money for certain programs.
Attorney Thomas M. Dickey said that he has been approached by at least three previous clients who are concerned they may be among those who will now be required to register.
Dickey said he is hoping that he will not have to launch a court challenge to the new law.
He is hoping that some agreement can be reached with prosecutors that would permit those individuals to withdraw their initial guilty pleas and enter pleas to charges not requiring registration.
The original pleas did not require registration for the offenses his clients pleaded to and to make them now register as sex offenders "is not what they bargained for," Dickey said.
He said other defense attorneys are closely watching the situation.
Blair County Probation Officer William Decker, who supervises sex offenders on probation, said a review of county records determined that 38 people who previously did not have to register with police will now have to do so under the new law.
Shea and his staff initially thought they would be required to review records back to 1953 to determine if there were people convicted of offenses like corruption of a minors who would now have to register.
It would have required the review of thousands of criminal records.
The requirement has now been relaxed in Pennsylvania, and Shea said that Blair County is about 90 percent ready to implement the new requirements that will be put into place to track sexual offenders in Pennsylvania and nationwide.
11/15/2012
By Phil Ray
38 local residents set to be added to sex offender list
HOLLIDAYSBURG - There could be a court challenge to the implementation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act if local people who accepted plea agreements without registration requirements are now mandated to register with police as sexual offenders, an Altoona defense attorney said Wednesday.
- It should be challenged, and the judges who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and people's rights need to start doing so. This is clearly an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.
Thirty-eight local residents are scheduled to be added to Blair County's list of 85 sexual offenders when the new federal registration system becomes effective in Pennsylvania, Blair County probation officials said.
Tom Shea, director of the Blair County Adult Parole and Probation Office, said the Adam Walsh provisions will go into effect on Dec. 20.
Shea has been working with the Blair County district attorney's staff, the public defender's staff, the county prison and state police in preparing for the implementation of the new act.
Compliance is mandatory if Pennsylvania is to continue to receive federal money for certain programs.
Attorney Thomas M. Dickey said that he has been approached by at least three previous clients who are concerned they may be among those who will now be required to register.
Dickey said he is hoping that he will not have to launch a court challenge to the new law.
He is hoping that some agreement can be reached with prosecutors that would permit those individuals to withdraw their initial guilty pleas and enter pleas to charges not requiring registration.
The original pleas did not require registration for the offenses his clients pleaded to and to make them now register as sex offenders "is not what they bargained for," Dickey said.
He said other defense attorneys are closely watching the situation.
Blair County Probation Officer William Decker, who supervises sex offenders on probation, said a review of county records determined that 38 people who previously did not have to register with police will now have to do so under the new law.
Shea and his staff initially thought they would be required to review records back to 1953 to determine if there were people convicted of offenses like corruption of a minors who would now have to register.
It would have required the review of thousands of criminal records.
The requirement has now been relaxed in Pennsylvania, and Shea said that Blair County is about 90 percent ready to implement the new requirements that will be put into place to track sexual offenders in Pennsylvania and nationwide.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
PA - Megan's Law just got tougher
Labels: ExPostFacto , Pennsylvania , Registration
Original Article
Of course it did! Every year the politicians need something that will help them get re-elected.
10/13/2012
By Kevin Amerman
Changes will force more defendants to register as sex offenders; thousands of appeals could result.
When former DeSales University custodian [name withheld] was sentenced to jail in September for secretly filming partially naked co-workers — one while she pumped breast milk — there was no mention in court that he would have to register with the state as a sex offender.
That's because he doesn't have to — yet.
But come December, [name withheld] and scores of others will have to register as sex offenders under sweeping changes to the state's Megan's Law. The changes, which will take effect Dec. 20, will increase the number of years sex offenders have to register and broaden the law to include more crimes, such as invasion of privacy.
- Just more of the usual unconstitutional ex post facto laws. I sure hope invasion of privacy is defined and must be sexual in nature, otherwise there is going to be a lot of people put onto the online hit-list who do not need to be there.
Under Megan's Law, photos and addresses of registered offenders are placed on the Megan's Law website, for everyone to see and defendants face penalties for failing to register properly or on time.
Authorities say the changes are necessary to close major loopholes. Under the current law, out-of-state sex offenders who move to Pennsylvania are not required to register and homeless people are exempt. The new law closes those loopholes and also forces sex offenders to register for longer and update their information more frequently — as often as four times a year.
Some of the new crimes listed as Megan's Law offenses deal with custody interference and unlawful restraint of a child. Others don't necessarily have to involve minors.
- Unlawful restraint of a child could be you catching kids in your yard tearing it up, and you hold them until police arrive, which you've now committed a crime that will label you a sex offender when nothing sexual was involved. Well, that is how I read it, which may not be true, since they did not link to the new law to be read by others.
"We used to think of Megan's Law as protection against pedophiles," Lehigh County Chief Deputy District Attorney Matthew Falk said. "It has expanded beyond that."
- And still the media continues to use the term pedophile when referring to those labeled sex offender, even when no sex was involved, thus keeping the hysteria alive, which is probably their intention.
But defense attorneys say the changes may violate some offenders' rights, mainly because the new law is retroactive for some offenders. Anyone serving jail time on the newly included crimes or serving probation or parole on them will now have to register — a move some attorneys say is sure to set off a firestorm of appeals.
[name withheld], 33, pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy. His attorney, Jay Nigrini, said he advised [name withheld] of the possibility he may have to register as a sex offender under the new law. The changes show [name withheld] will have to register for 15 years.
If that happens, Nigrini said he likely would appeal. He figures others will too.
"There are going to be problems with this logistically, absolutely," Nigrini said. "This will be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court."
- Everybody in this state should sue the government, if possible, and file a lawsuit. When you make it hurt financially, then it will make them think and possibly repeal the law.
One major problem, Nigrini said, is that nothing had been put on the record about Megan's Law registration during his client's guilty plea hearing and hearings for thousands of others like him. Therefore, it wasn't part of the deal and may be unconstitutional, he said.
- If it wasn't a law when the person was convicted and sentenced, then it's unconstitutional.
Lehigh County public defender Earl Supplee said it's simply not fair to retroactively force people to register as sexual offenders.
"I don't think it's right to increase penalties retroactively," he said. "The question is: Is Megan's Law [registration] a punishment?"
- Of course it is. If you have to live with the insane restrictions, then you would know that.
Supplee said defendants who pleaded guilty or no contest to offenses that didn't require them to register as sex offenders might argue that they wouldn't have entered the pleas had they known they'd have to register.
"The person could say, 'I would have fought the case if it was a Megan's Law case,'" Supplee said. "That's where I think you could have legitimate constitutional challenges."
- As you should! Everybody should take this to court!
Supplee said appeals courts could rule that registering as a sex offender is not a punishment and is a "collateral consequence" and can therefore be applied. Collateral consequences are considered non-direct results of prosecutions that are not part of a sentence. They can include the loss of a certain license, welfare benefits, voting rights or deportation and are viewed as being beyond the realm of a sentencing judge.
- So what they are basically saying is, anything goes! Imaging if they added more punishment onto all other criminals? We'd have so many law suits in the system, that the system goes broke, and crashes!
Lehigh County Judge Douglas G. Reichley, who was a state representative when the bill was passed, said he doesn't recall any concerns expressed by lawmakers that retroactive registration could violate a defendant's rights.
- It doesn't matter if there are or aren't concerns! If you read and know the constitution, and are defending it, like you took an oath to do, then you'd see it's unconstitutional.
The law's changes, based on the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, create three tiers of offenders with registration requirements of 15 years, 25 years or life. Currently there are two types of registration: 10 years or life.
Of course it did! Every year the politicians need something that will help them get re-elected.
10/13/2012
By Kevin Amerman
Changes will force more defendants to register as sex offenders; thousands of appeals could result.
When former DeSales University custodian [name withheld] was sentenced to jail in September for secretly filming partially naked co-workers — one while she pumped breast milk — there was no mention in court that he would have to register with the state as a sex offender.
That's because he doesn't have to — yet.
But come December, [name withheld] and scores of others will have to register as sex offenders under sweeping changes to the state's Megan's Law. The changes, which will take effect Dec. 20, will increase the number of years sex offenders have to register and broaden the law to include more crimes, such as invasion of privacy.
- Just more of the usual unconstitutional ex post facto laws. I sure hope invasion of privacy is defined and must be sexual in nature, otherwise there is going to be a lot of people put onto the online hit-list who do not need to be there.
Under Megan's Law, photos and addresses of registered offenders are placed on the Megan's Law website, for everyone to see and defendants face penalties for failing to register properly or on time.
Authorities say the changes are necessary to close major loopholes. Under the current law, out-of-state sex offenders who move to Pennsylvania are not required to register and homeless people are exempt. The new law closes those loopholes and also forces sex offenders to register for longer and update their information more frequently — as often as four times a year.
Some of the new crimes listed as Megan's Law offenses deal with custody interference and unlawful restraint of a child. Others don't necessarily have to involve minors.
- Unlawful restraint of a child could be you catching kids in your yard tearing it up, and you hold them until police arrive, which you've now committed a crime that will label you a sex offender when nothing sexual was involved. Well, that is how I read it, which may not be true, since they did not link to the new law to be read by others.
"We used to think of Megan's Law as protection against pedophiles," Lehigh County Chief Deputy District Attorney Matthew Falk said. "It has expanded beyond that."
- And still the media continues to use the term pedophile when referring to those labeled sex offender, even when no sex was involved, thus keeping the hysteria alive, which is probably their intention.
But defense attorneys say the changes may violate some offenders' rights, mainly because the new law is retroactive for some offenders. Anyone serving jail time on the newly included crimes or serving probation or parole on them will now have to register — a move some attorneys say is sure to set off a firestorm of appeals.
[name withheld], 33, pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy. His attorney, Jay Nigrini, said he advised [name withheld] of the possibility he may have to register as a sex offender under the new law. The changes show [name withheld] will have to register for 15 years.
If that happens, Nigrini said he likely would appeal. He figures others will too.
"There are going to be problems with this logistically, absolutely," Nigrini said. "This will be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court."
- Everybody in this state should sue the government, if possible, and file a lawsuit. When you make it hurt financially, then it will make them think and possibly repeal the law.
One major problem, Nigrini said, is that nothing had been put on the record about Megan's Law registration during his client's guilty plea hearing and hearings for thousands of others like him. Therefore, it wasn't part of the deal and may be unconstitutional, he said.
- If it wasn't a law when the person was convicted and sentenced, then it's unconstitutional.
Lehigh County public defender Earl Supplee said it's simply not fair to retroactively force people to register as sexual offenders.
"I don't think it's right to increase penalties retroactively," he said. "The question is: Is Megan's Law [registration] a punishment?"
- Of course it is. If you have to live with the insane restrictions, then you would know that.
Supplee said defendants who pleaded guilty or no contest to offenses that didn't require them to register as sex offenders might argue that they wouldn't have entered the pleas had they known they'd have to register.
"The person could say, 'I would have fought the case if it was a Megan's Law case,'" Supplee said. "That's where I think you could have legitimate constitutional challenges."
- As you should! Everybody should take this to court!
Supplee said appeals courts could rule that registering as a sex offender is not a punishment and is a "collateral consequence" and can therefore be applied. Collateral consequences are considered non-direct results of prosecutions that are not part of a sentence. They can include the loss of a certain license, welfare benefits, voting rights or deportation and are viewed as being beyond the realm of a sentencing judge.
- So what they are basically saying is, anything goes! Imaging if they added more punishment onto all other criminals? We'd have so many law suits in the system, that the system goes broke, and crashes!
Lehigh County Judge Douglas G. Reichley, who was a state representative when the bill was passed, said he doesn't recall any concerns expressed by lawmakers that retroactive registration could violate a defendant's rights.
- It doesn't matter if there are or aren't concerns! If you read and know the constitution, and are defending it, like you took an oath to do, then you'd see it's unconstitutional.
Drastic changes
The law's changes, based on the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, create three tiers of offenders with registration requirements of 15 years, 25 years or life. Currently there are two types of registration: 10 years or life.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Sex Offender Cartoons for Congress
Labels: Cartoon , ExPostFacto , Unconstitutional , Video
Video Description:
3 vital fixes for sex offender policy in the United States: If these are not done we'll keep punishing the wrong people and freeing the wrong people. See text of my open letter to Congress, at http://gregkendall.com/docs/timeline_2012-Sep-30.htm
See Also:
3 vital fixes for sex offender policy in the United States: If these are not done we'll keep punishing the wrong people and freeing the wrong people. See text of my open letter to Congress, at http://gregkendall.com/docs/timeline_2012-Sep-30.htm
See Also:
Thursday, August 30, 2012
IN - Sex Offender To Court: 'I Shouldn't Have To Register'
Labels: ExPostFacto , Indiana , Registration , Video
He is right! If the Constitution still meant anything, this would be knocked down as an unconstitutional ex post facto law. Cindy Oetjen is the typical prosecutor, she could care less about the constitution and facts. The facts are, that sex offenders have one of the LOWEST recidivism rates of all other criminals, and she'd know that if she'd look at the facts. And if we must have an online hit-list for ex-sex offenders, then we should have one for ALL criminals.
Video Description:
A man convicted of rape and child abuse in Massachusetts said he shouldn't have to register as a sex offender in Indiana because he moved here before the registry laws went into effect in either state.
Video Description:
A man convicted of rape and child abuse in Massachusetts said he shouldn't have to register as a sex offender in Indiana because he moved here before the registry laws went into effect in either state.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
OH - Ohio Supreme Court to Consider Whether a Court May Impose Sex Offender Registration Requirements Months After Sentence is Imposed
Labels: DueProcess , ExPostFacto , lawSuit , Ohio
Original Article
08/20/2012
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether, after a court makes a sentencing entry in a criminal case involving a sexually oriented offense, the court can later require the defendant register as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act.
The case is State v.Raber. Argument is scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2012.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of sexual imposition, a third-degree misdemeanor. The court sentenced him to sixty days in jail, thirty of which were suspended, and placed him on probation for two years.
According to the Court of Appeals (PDF), “At the sentencing hearing, the [trial] court expressed uncertainty about whether [the defendant] would be required to register as a sex offender. With the agreement of the parties, the court took the matter under advisement so that counsel could have the opportunity to brief issues related to sex offender classification. The court later determined that . . . [the defendant] would be required to register as a sex offender only if the conduct underlying [the defendant’s] conviction was non-consensual."
The court held an evidentiary hearing at which it determined that the conduct was not consensual. The trial court ordered the defendant to register as a sex offender.
The Defendant argued to the court of appeals that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether he was a sex offender because it no longer had jurisdiction over the case after entering a final judgment of conviction and sentence. This argument is based, in part, upon the language of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act, which requires the “judge [to] provide the notice to the offender at the time of sentencing.”
The court of appeals rejected this argument. The court reasoned that the determination that a defendant is a sex offender “constitutes a separate and distinct judgment from the judgment of conviction and sentence.”
The state argued in its brief, in part, that the process of having a later hearing on the sex offender registration issue was done with the consent of the defendant. The brief states:
The defendant responds that the state had an opportunity to appeal the decision of the trial court to not impose sex offender registration requirements at the time of sentencing. The defendant also suggests that because sex offender registration is “punitive” the procedure in this case “violated the [defendant’s] constitutional rights of Due Process and Double Jeopardy under the 5`h Amendment of the United States Constitution” by reopening “the case long after final judgment” and holding “further hearings.” This is, the defendant, because the constitution forbids a court, “Once divested of jurisdiction,” from adding “further punishment [to] a defendant’s original sentence, even if the omission was accidental or otherwise.”
A decision is expect in early 2013.
08/20/2012
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether, after a court makes a sentencing entry in a criminal case involving a sexually oriented offense, the court can later require the defendant register as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act.
The case is State v.Raber. Argument is scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2012.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of sexual imposition, a third-degree misdemeanor. The court sentenced him to sixty days in jail, thirty of which were suspended, and placed him on probation for two years.
According to the Court of Appeals (PDF), “At the sentencing hearing, the [trial] court expressed uncertainty about whether [the defendant] would be required to register as a sex offender. With the agreement of the parties, the court took the matter under advisement so that counsel could have the opportunity to brief issues related to sex offender classification. The court later determined that . . . [the defendant] would be required to register as a sex offender only if the conduct underlying [the defendant’s] conviction was non-consensual."
The court held an evidentiary hearing at which it determined that the conduct was not consensual. The trial court ordered the defendant to register as a sex offender.
The Defendant argued to the court of appeals that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether he was a sex offender because it no longer had jurisdiction over the case after entering a final judgment of conviction and sentence. This argument is based, in part, upon the language of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act, which requires the “judge [to] provide the notice to the offender at the time of sentencing.”
The court of appeals rejected this argument. The court reasoned that the determination that a defendant is a sex offender “constitutes a separate and distinct judgment from the judgment of conviction and sentence.”
The state argued in its brief, in part, that the process of having a later hearing on the sex offender registration issue was done with the consent of the defendant. The brief states:
Putting off the registration question but imposing the jail sentence greatly benefited [the defendant] because it allowed him to serve his jail time in between his college semesters. Yet despite his agreement to and his benefit from this bifurcated process, [the defendant] now complains that he was treated unfairly. The Court should not condone such mischief.
The defendant responds that the state had an opportunity to appeal the decision of the trial court to not impose sex offender registration requirements at the time of sentencing. The defendant also suggests that because sex offender registration is “punitive” the procedure in this case “violated the [defendant’s] constitutional rights of Due Process and Double Jeopardy under the 5`h Amendment of the United States Constitution” by reopening “the case long after final judgment” and holding “further hearings.” This is, the defendant, because the constitution forbids a court, “Once divested of jurisdiction,” from adding “further punishment [to] a defendant’s original sentence, even if the omission was accidental or otherwise.”
A decision is expect in early 2013.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)









