Where's our Murder/Arson/Robbery Registry?!!!

[custosnox]

Having the sex registration across the board is really stupid.  Having to register because you flashed your breasts at a marti gras event, or because you had to take a leak and wasn't a bathroom around is really idiotic.  Similar situation when you have every reason to believe she is 18 (like the fact that you met in a bar) and can proof it, yet they concider it 2nd degree rape.  It makes the idea of a sex registry overly broad and pretty much meaningless because you don't even know if the people on it did anything to really merit it, unless it is an obvious charge like lewd molestation on a minor. 

As far as the idea that once they get out of jail they have served their time, does that mean that everything should carry a sentence of jail time?  Or that every conviction should have only one part of the punishment?  How is it different than being on probation and being ordered to do community service?  It is all part of the sentencing, though registry should actually be sentenced and not automatic.  This does not, however, make it double jeopardy.  You are not being tried twice for the same crime, you have a sentence levied against you in the form of registration, as well as the time in jail. 

[izmophonik]

Having the sex registration across the board is really stupid.  Having to register because you flashed your breasts at a marti gras event, or because you had to take a leak and wasn't a bathroom around is really idiotic.  Similar situation when you have every reason to believe she is 18 (like the fact that you met in a bar) and can proof it, yet they concider it 2nd degree rape.  It makes the idea of a sex registry overly broad and pretty much meaningless because you don't even know if the people on it did anything to really merit it, unless it is an obvious charge like lewd molestation on a minor. 

As far as the idea that once they get out of jail they have served their time, does that mean that everything should carry a sentence of jail time?  Or that every conviction should have only one part of the punishment?  How is it different than being on probation and being ordered to do community service?  It is all part of the sentencing, though registry should actually be sentenced and not automatic.  This does not, however, make it double jeopardy.  You are not being tried twice for the same crime, you have a sentence levied against you in the form of registration, as well as the time in jail. 

Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice.  Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause.  However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period.  There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not.  Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.

Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.

[custosnox]

Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice.  Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause.  However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period.  There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not.  Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.

Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.

Granted, most molestations are done by those that the kid knows, but how often is that person they know because they would stop at a neighber of the schools house on their way home everyday because the nice man always had treats and was nice to them?

I think being a "sex offender" should really depend on the details of the crime and be levied against on offender by court order.  There should be language in place that says these crimes can carry the penalty of registration, restricted living and so forth. After all, just about every other crime carries a maximum punishment, not a "this is what every offender will be penalized".

The due process is the court hearing that originally charged, and found guilty, the person that was accused of the act.

[Conan71]

Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice.  Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause.  However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period.  There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not.  Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.

Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.

But his trial would have been his due process.  I would assume he also utilized the appellate system as well.  For some reason his story didn't resonate with a jury of his peers (assuming he went the jury trial route).

[guido911]

Actually I do.  

SMITH et al. v. DOE et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 01-729. Argued November 13, 2002--Decided March 5, 2003

The Alaska Supreme Court found their registration law unconstitutional in July 2008.  There are several challenges making its way to the Supreme Court.  Of course these sort of issues take a very long time to get sorted out.

Also, IMHO these people have been denied his or her 5TH Amendment protection of due process against double jeopardy.

I'm confused. In Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 104-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1153-54, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003), The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuits decision that the sex offender registry was punishment. In doing so, the Court held:

The Court of Appeals' reliance on the wide dissemination of the information is also unavailing. The Ninth Circuit highlighted that the information was available "world-wide" and "roadcas[t]" in an indiscriminate manner. 259 F.3d, at 992. As we have explained, however, the notification system is a passive one: An individual must seek access to the information. The Web site warns that the use of displayed information "to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution." http:// www.dps.state.ak.us/nSorcr/asp/ (as visited Jan. 17, 2003) (available in the Clerk of Court's case file). Given the general mobility of our population, for Alaska to make its registry system available and easily accessible throughout the State was not so excessive a regulatory requirement as to become a punishment. See D. Schram & **1154 C. Milloy, Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism 13 (1995) (38% of recidivist sex offenses in the State of Washington took place in jurisdictions other than where the previous offense was committed).

The excessiveness inquiry of our ex post facto jurisprudence is not an exercise in determining whether the legislature has made the best choice possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. The question is whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective. The Act meets this standard.

The two remaining Mendoza-Martinez factors-whether the regulation comes into play only on a finding of scienter and whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime-are of little weight in this case. The regulatory scheme applies only to past conduct, which was, and is, a crime. This is a necessary beginning point, for recidivism is the statutory concern. The obligations the statute imposes are the responsibility of registration, a duty not predicated upon some present or repeated violation.

Our examination of the Act's effects leads to the determination that respondents cannot show, much less by the clearest proof, that the effects of the law negate Alaska's intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme. The Act is nonpunitive, and its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[Emphasis added]. Is there another Smith v. Doe case you are talking about because that is a very common case style? Or did you look at the Ninth Circuit's opinion?

Also, I would be interested in those other cases you were referring to.