The problem with your conclusion is, A. Threat assessment is part of the original intent and process of state. After conviction a pre-sentence investigation takes place prior to sentence hearing. The pre-sentence investigators are thorough in developing background via interviews of both witnesses and family members about the convicted. A report is made to the bench along with a recommendation concerning need for length of sentences & structure. This is a different opinion ( Amica) for the court itself and rarely approved or agreed with be either plaintiffs( District Attorney) or defense attorney ( respondant). The threat assessments continue within DOC processing, ah the first stop in prison life. It comes in many forms: psychological tests, literacy tests, delousing, medical \ dental exam and more. A period of isolation is used to test ones fortitude. By the time a person finishes a sentence they know who you are. That is ALL the justification for treatment programs.THE

B: SCOTUS03 pinned registration’s congressional intent based on “conviction itself” and not ” levels of threat. ” Now that congress ( some of 50) have embraced tiers that justification became an errant assumption prima facia. The same can be said about the people’s intent to utilize the database machine property to impose affirmative restraint upon where on can live or work. Obviously even speech is implicated in the cyber sense.

agree!!

Not so sure about the lasting ramifications given all the court did was pass the buck onto SC legislature to ” fix” the fact that no review ( judicial) was promulgated along with the passage of the Act. Obviously, SCOTUS 03 declared such exercises as “bootless. “

HnH, law made in one state or one circuit is not insignificant. It becomes precedent for litigation in other states and other circuits. Laws can achieve a domino effect. We have all too often seen this happen to the detriment of registered citizens. We need to celebrate when it has the potential for happening to their benefit.

I don’t believe there was a role from NARSOL in this particular case, nor did NARSOL state they had involvement in it. They are reporting and bringing attention to it however. It’s simply a case whose results further NARSOL’s cause for Rational Sexual Offense Laws. Overall, it really is a great win that’ll probably have lasting ramifications for South Carolina.