Tuesday, June 18, 2013

OH - Court Upholds Juvenile Sex Offender Provision

Original Article


CINCINNATI - An Ohio appeals court has upheld a provision that allows some minors convicted of sex offenses to be required to register as sex offenders beyond their 21st birthday.

The ruling stems from the appeal of a 16-year-old Cincinnati boy convicted of a sex charge, with a sentence requiring him to register as a sex offender until he's at least 24 years old.

The teen's attorneys had argued the requirement was a violation of his constitutional rights.

The 1st District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati disagreed in a ruling last week, saying that juvenile offenders do not have a fundamental right to be free from punishment after the age of 21.

The decision upholds a provision of the Adam Walsh Act, named for a 6-year-old boy killed in Florida in 1981.
- Of which it was never proven that Adam was sexually assaulted and instead of punishing murderers, they punish ex-sex offenders?  Oh and John Walsh admitted dating an underage Reve, so why is he not on the sex offender registry?


ASOinGA said...

I see the word "punishment" is used- As in the article "... do not have a fundamental right to be free from punishment after the age of 21". Hummm, So is the court saying registration is 'punishment'?

Sex Offender Issues said...

Thanks for the comment. We've highlighted that section. :)

Mark said...

IN RE: RAHEEM L. APPEAL NO. C-100608 TRIAL NO. 09-8835X. Raheem was punished for his offense. But the sex offender registration would extend until his twenty-forth birthday before Raheem could petition for relief. The court did not state he was being punished as a registrant but it appears this way in the decision. As an editorial note, the attorney for Raheem did not do a very good job of arguing the case and a sharp reader will note this in the decision!

Mark said...

To SO Issues: I made an error in one of my opinion statements below and want to make the correction. In State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.] (7/13/11), the Ohio Supreme court did hold that their sex offender registry R.C. Chapter 2950 is PUNITIVE and is fully explained in that case as a pdf file at PARAGRAPH 15. "Therefore, I do not believe that we can continue to label these proceedings as civil in nature. . . ." I do not like to make errors so I humbly make the correction for all. And get this case because it can set a deadly precedent.

john bea said...

That simple my friend John Walsh is supposed to be one of the good guys in this extended punishment act which he push for was designed for one thing and one thing only to punish anyone no matter what their age to matter how young they are on this draconian registry, when the truth is they should also put murderers on a registry because you have more to worry about when murderers than you do with sex offenders but they're not interested in that politicians are pushing the boundaries to see just how much they can get away with before all freedoms will be restricted and by then it will be too late.