OK: Sex registry law needs overhaul

In 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature approved a new law that required all sex offenders be classified under a three-tier system that placed offenders in a specific category depending on the nature of the sex crime.

However, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) went a step further and made the new registration law retroactive to 1998. However, in June 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the retroactive application of the rule was unconstitutional.  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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

Another state added to the list of those acknowledging the registry needs to be changed.

Three cheers for Ok. When will California join the rest of the more intelligent states that are already leading the way for better reformed rules for SO that don’t pose a serious threat to the society and once again become lawabiding, tax paying citizens

My favorite line:

most state lawmakers who have never seen a sex offender law they didn’t like.

A great article, and I agree with this guy…except for the part where he says high-risk offenders need to check in daily. That’s absurd. Other than that, it’s a good read. I’m getting the general opinion that the pendulum is starting to swing toward the right direction. I hope I’m right!

I was wondering about a person who has been convicted in another state (Michigan in 1989) and relocates to Oklahoma in 2014. Any ideas to where he would fall in terms of ex post facto?

Incidentally, the conviction was in July 1989, and Michigan Sex Offender Registration Law began in 1992. They were able to “side step” the ex post facto by the phraseology, “Convicted after OR currently incarcerated for…” How a judge is supposed to consider a proper sentence, considering a law which had not even been proposed at the time of conviction/sentence is beyond me. Meaning, Michigan was able to effectively “re-sentence” without allowing the [e]ffected individuals their day in court.

Californians tend to look down their noses at the backwards and uneducated “Okies”, but they appear to be light years ahead of California in terms of reasonableness, fairness and constitutionality regarding RSO’s. So who’s the stupid state now?

“When most people think of a sex offender, they think of a baby raper or serial rapist. But the truth is most sex offenders are convicted of nothing even similar. We need to stop painting every sex offender with the same broad brush and look at individuals for what they did and act accordingly.”

So true!