OK: Removes 2,400 Registered Sex Offenders After Supreme Court Ruling

Oklahoma has removed 2,400 sex offenders from its registry since a state Supreme Court decision six months ago.

The legislature passed a law in 2007 increasing the number of years sex offenders have to register and it was applied to people already convicted, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court said the law could only apply to people going forward. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Unfortunately, our California Supreme Court strongly disagrees with the Oklahoma court. Our court just this past year, in Doe v. Harris, ruled that the state of the law at the time of even a plea bargain is not binding, can be charged by the legislature and applied in the new form at any time.

That ruling affected a LOT, probably most registrants.

The circumstances in this Oklahoma case are similar to what I have decried going on in California, where even those who previously met the standard to be relieved of registration are now forced to resume registration because even though they already had been relieved, the standard has now been increased, so they would have to meet that standard, which is a certificate of rehabilitation or a pardon, depending on the charge — and as well know, the court only rarely grants that certificate to registrants.

People in California who already had met the standard for and EARNED relief had it taken away later by a change in the law! And our court says that is perfectly fine, no problem at all. Anyone applying for a certificate of rehabilitation should consider that – is it really worth the incredibly intrusive and revealing and publicizing — basically, your ruination — not only to almost certainly be denied, but more importantly, if even if you are granted the certificate and your offense allows you to stop registering on that basis, the law is changed later and you must resume registering! What if they increase the standard again, and allow relief only if you get a pardon? Then all you did, and the ruination you suffered, to get the certificate will have been wasted.

Even the Okies get it right, but the educated, enlightened, elite of California can’t make sense out of common sense. What can we expect from a group of lawmakers that want to tax mileage now.

“Our court just this past year, in Doe v. Harris, ruled that the state of the law at the time of even a plea bargain is not binding, can be charged by the legislature and applied in the new form at any time.”

I wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court would call bullsh** on this ruling.
I know how they ruled about the registry alone. But to allow a legislature to change the binding matters of a contract….that’s lunacy!

The courts in this state (the stupid state) are still seeking out avenues of relief we as registrants may take advantage of, and when they find or notice one they close it. I was eligible for the same relief Chance Oberstien found and talks about; when I went to pursue this avenue of relief it was discovered that it had been recently closed. The specialist attorney wasn’t even aware of this new change. This state seems to have thrown away the law books for us only, and this in and of it’s self should be challenged.

ELECT A NEW GOVERNOR,,& EVERY ONE CLEAN UP & RUN FOR LOCAL OFFICE;-)lol You throw enough daggers 1’s gonna stick! That would be My approach & Put every thing We can behind the Children of abuse & WAR as Charities & the Families & children effected By these laws & maybe change a few in the process,,,Just My humble opinion. Better Yet have The RSO’s Family Members Run For Office….just sayin’

What makes it really sad that California does this is two excerpts from the California Constitution. One says that no ex post facto law may be passed. The second is that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” which also states no ex post facto law may be passed. California keeps insisting on passing such laws and making excuses for their own failure to follow their own law.

Am trying to find info on what I can do to have a relationship with someone who is a lifetime register… finding it difficult to find ANY info on what my rights are in this

any thoughts ?