Comments on: Sex offense registration for life unconstitutional, says SC Supreme Court

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:04:13 +0000

Plaut V. Spendthrift Farms, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) forbids the legislature and executive branches from modifying, annulling, revisiting, etc., Article III court cases whcih refer to federal
court decisions however states have been applying the decision in Plaut as well. AWA contains language that violates the constitution at; Subtitle A, Sec. 113(d), “the Attorney General will have authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this title to sex offenders convicted prior to the enactment of this Act….and to prescribe rules for the registration of such offenders…” Look at Plaut, where Justice Scalia basically writes that it is a violation of Article III when the legislative/executive branches change the outcome of a previously ruled court case. In the issue of AWA, the Article III violation of Separation of Powers comes when the Attorney General applied Sec 113(d) to pre-AWA offenders which resulted in changing the ruling judge’s decision by making all sex offenders subject to registration requirements. If the sentencing judge originally specified a prison term with probation to follow, and the offender completed that sentence, it becomes illegal for the legislator and USAG to impose further sanctions on those offenders who completed their sentences as imposed in a court of law. The legal beagles need to look at this stuff and make it a part of their presentation at NARSOL.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 17:02:14 +0000

In reply to Kenneth.

Why? You ask.
Because, you can make fools out of some of the people all of the time; and you can make fools out all of the people some of the time, but you may not make fools of us all, all of the time.

Some of us refused to sign our rights away via a court’s standardized waiver of civil rights. Obviously in that scenario AGs acted in “caprice” as if a waiver was in their possession. The absence of waiver creates a viable substantive 14th amendment claim, as intentionally pointed out in Connecticut DPS v. Doe. What is less obvious, is the factual lack thereof ( court’s judgement) of registration duty in the context of “germain evidence” in FTR, failure to register case scenario. May we rightly convict a man of prison escape without the prerequisite paperwork declaring his internment lawfully done? May we rightly convict a man of abscouding from probation without the proper court paperwork declaring his duty to report to probation
dept. in the first place. These are simple concepts for any jury to understand.

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:27:28 +0000

You can make the arguement that the sex offender registry is for the protection of the people, then why isn’t there a violent offender registry? Surely people would want to know if they live or will live near someone convicted of man slaughter, aggravated assault, burglary, etc.

By: Jonathon Merritt

Jonathon Merritt — Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:40:53 +0000

I see them making it technically possible but realistically impossible for anyone who actually had a victim. You will spend thousands of dollars for a dream that they will deprive us of.

By: Frank Stuart

Frank Stuart — Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:18:21 +0000

If it is illegal for a state to require registration for life, how is legal for the federal government to do it. I live in Texas where registration for my crime is ten years after which you can apply to be removed. But because I was charged under federal laws, I have to register for life with no possibility of being removed from it.

What’s good for the states should be good for the Federals!