I have to chime in here and say that NARSOL does advocate for the end of a public registry in favor of a law-enforcement only one. Research does not support public notification as promoting public safety, nor is it shown to provide prevention or protection to children or other victims.

CP, none of us are saying that we shouldn’t have to per se, what we are battling with here is the exhaustive length of time that we have to do it. i think that many of us do believe that the registry is not a bad or wrong thing, but come on… A lifetime registration… Especially for some of those who are tier 1 and had just a misdemeanor? Let’s say for a moment that you are a drunk driver and you not only received a 3rd drunk driving, but others were hurt, not killed but hurt. Now the judge finds you guilty and sentences you to 6 years in prison. You serve your time and are released on parole. Shortly before your release your told that you have to be put on a 15 year registration because of this drunk driver registration law that was passed a few years ago in memory of a family that got killed by an anonymous drunk driver calling it the spaulding law in honor of that family’s last name. So now you are say, half way finished with being on that registry, but now you get another letter stating that a new law has been passed because a little baby died in a drunk driving accident and you’ve been reassessed and have to be on a lifetime registry. i ask you CP is that justice, constitutional? Were not saying do away with the registry, were saying give us our due process rights like every other criminal.

Bert, your discouragement and frustration are certainly understandable, and I expect all of us who are registered citizens have considered, more than a few times, just giving up. Most offenders I have known are not monsters, they are men (and women) who made some very poor decisions which resulted in some very hurtful (for the victim) actions. But, we must not allow ourselves to be categorized by society, and ostracized to the point we are rendered powerless and hopeless. Whether things get better for us, or worse, we must strive to maintain our dignity and integrity. Weakness and shame can overtake us only to the degree that we allow ourselves to be molded by the opinions and unjust laws of society and government. We must never give up the fight to regain what is rightfully ours by virtue of the Constitution. However, we must fight, not from a position of anger and despair, but with a calm voice of reason and steadfast determination. I applaud those who possess the courage to continue holding their head high in the midst of such seemingly overwhelming odds. Be encouraged Bert. Injustice can never crush the spirit or silence the voice of those willing to meet it with hope and perseverance. Hang in there, and no matter how difficult the road ahead let us never lose hope that positive change will come.

Does in the Snyder case need to ensure to emphatically show the effects on families of registrants as well as punitive effects on the registrants themselves.

The Supremacy Clause applies to the states. That’s why it is supreme. States may not enact laws that are in conflict with a Supreme Court decision. So, in response to your question, if the outcome is positive for the registered citizens of Michigan, it will be a positive outcome for the registered citizens of every other state because those states cannot maintain registration schemes which continue to impose ANY restrictions that the Court disallows. However, we are really way ahead of ourselves since we have no way of knowing how the Court will decide Snyder if it grants the petition. The decision is just as likely to be negative as it is positive.

I understand SCOTUS opinions are law of the land. State laws vary state to state. My question is moreso how can a positive (for sex offenders) opinion be adapted state to state.

If the Supreme Court takes the Snyder Petition it will hear the case and render an opinion. ANY opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land by virtue of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2).