Comments on: Good news coming for South Carolina

By: Christopher Brown

Christopher Brown — Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:47:51 +0000

The USA constitution was written for everyone,but primarily for those citizens who may be singled out and marginalized,belittled by society!! And therefore have overbearing “special laws” placed against them,then sex offender registry is a perfect opportunity for them us constitution to protect them but stupid legislature backwoods idiots don’t understand this.best example
Is a typical county sheriffs office in rural n.c
Plus they don’t realize half the people in the registry do not
Have crimes against children

By: Edward Schrader

Edward Schrader — Sun, 17 Jul 2022 14:17:26 +0000

I am a follower of the decisions made by the ( American Law Institute) concerning the length of time for registration. They do not agree on the long term registry penalties that are placed upon registrants. In there most recent article concerning there approval of the 5th edition concerning sexual assault, they would like to see an across the board registration time of 15 years, and after 10 years having a clean record, the last 5 years would be removed and the registry would be terminated. This would be great for all if they do decide to keep the registry intact. My honest opinion is to see the registry completely abolished due to the fact that it is unconstitutional in so many ways that have been proven in many cases. hopefully one day Legislators will remove the blinders and open there eyes to see the whole picture to why this is unconstitutional. No other crime is punished with so many restraints, regulations that a sexual offender has to comply with. I do agree that a jail sentence should happen for all crimes, but after the sentence has been completed it is done, the pentalty has been paid. Under a sexual offense i classify it as punishment after punishment almost like a double jeopardy. Thank you for allowing me to comment, and thank you for your hard work concerning these issues.

By: Jonathon Merritt

Jonathon Merritt — Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:13:45 +0000

I left SC for Georgia because of their restrictions and quarterly registration. The registry in Ga had been
Defanged by the lawsuits by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I had hoped for similar litigation in SC. I am hopeful that these new changes will not be designed only appear to the Supreme Court like the law makers had done something for all of us.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:39:20 +0000

In reply to Dustin. Dustin, please don't confuse celebrating progress toward our ultimate goal as endorsing "watered-down" registries. While this bill is far less than I would have wanted, it is the first significant improvement in the registry laws since they were first enacted in 1994. While other states are continuing to fight against new, more restrictive bills, the ones we have in the works in SC will ease the burden for many registrants and give some hope for actually getting off the registry, which we have never had before. Partial progress is still progress and should be accepted as that and applauded!

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:47:31 +0000

I’m not so optimistic. Whatever process they come up with will likely be unduly difficult, expensive, and ultimately at a judge’s discretion which seldom (if ever) swings in a registrant’s favor. Beyond that, as soon as one registrant meets all requirements and prevails , someone will complain and come up with a new system even more burdensome in order to ensure that all other petitions fail.

While I am grateful to the efforts of NARSOL and other groups fighting the registry, I’m a bit disappointed that most appear to endorse proposed watered-down versions of it. I

By: Tim also

Tim also — Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:09:30 +0000

Elephant in the room is this true law (not color of law) that applies to anyone including the public officials who conspire as stated here courtesy of Cornell Law:

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

By: Dr.

Dr. — Sat, 19 Mar 2022 01:50:50 +0000

In reply to Tim in WI. THANK YOU TIM IN WISCONSIN !!!!!!!!!! Exactly what needed to be said !!!!!!

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 01:10:00 +0000

CLAWING BACK THE UNFETTERED DATABASE and is impact upon liberty.
Again the minority in Alaska v Doe pointed to the inability of the offender to seek removal from state’s database registry as dispositive of the people’s civil intent. The majority disagreed, and pointed to processes available under appeal by courts upon the conviction itself. However, most of the already convicted had either waived their appeal rights outright by standardized waiver, or by expiration of time limit latches contained in state statutes relating to appeals. These facts left most pre act offenders without recourse as to the unconstitutional retributive actions embedded in the people’s use of ex post facto language by every state’s congresses and Attorneys Generals use of a database registry as imposed without procedure or substantive processes. SCOTUS in Connecticut DPS03 upheld that state’s actions upon “..the similarly situated..” which is lawyer code for cases where State factually obtained and has in it’s possession a judgment of guilt AND a signed standard waiver of civil right in a 9-0 ruling.
According to the link cited above, SCOTUS has now ruled South Carolina may not impose (constitutionally speaking) the life term duty to registration without opportunity to petition for removal. The problem for legislators now is any “petition administered by courts” IS “a process normally associated with criminal procedure” as cited in SMITH V DOE03 by the Rehnquist led majority as notably lacking in their probative analysis of historical punishment. So what was absent in 2003 is now necessary. This fact highlights how dysfunctional opinions of courts can be when blatantly unconstitutional government actions are permitted to stand even by those commissioned to keep it’s covenants in tact. As the article states, states are now left with cold cases to re-litagate, and there are serious problems in promulgation, including lost evaluations, records, and transcripts. If you ask me, this isn’t good news at all. In fact, it’s more evidence of the corrupted influence of big data money that has been in play since the beginning. Fact is, far more crime, and especially sex crime, has been enabled by the database than has been circumvented through the use.