Constitutional or Unconstitutional: Sex Offender Registration

The Constitutionality of Sex Offender Registration, Public Registries and the ever changing and expanding Federal, State and Local restrictions and regulations (via law) is a regular topic for writers, reporters and attorneys.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), ruled that registration is administrative not punitive but since 2003 every state took that ruling and ran with it as permission to restrict anything. Full Article

More from It’s Time to Reduce, Reconstruct, Reclassify, Rethink and Reform the Virginia Sex Offender Registry 

Related posts

Subscribe
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.
  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
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.  
 

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good article. Good points.
Yes, it seemed is a ex post facto “punishment” case went to the Supreme Court today, they would have to consider how overreaching and punitive the rules have become.

Yes, KCBS covered this very briefly but did not discuss the Tiered Bill or ideals.
We will see how long it will sit. Thanks for letting us know, Anyone else? Also thanks to Robin Banks on Living w/ article on 18 y.o. HS Senior, victim or life in punitive punishment.? How many years since then? 30? Since Probation/Parole.

It seems to me, that the “best bang for the buck” is get the SOR back into the court pipeline so the pillars of the house can be remove.

I still say challenge these laws for election reasons.

Long time reader but first time commentator. First though, thank you to all who participate on this site. It has been very helpful throughout my struggles.

I recently had my annual registration in San Bernardino County, Victorville. Last year, my first time in the city, I was told to fill out the city’s OffenderWatch paperwork (about 5 pages). I was naive and filled a lot of it but not all. It contained questions regarding email and social network sites. I left that section blank, among others. This time, I was given the same paperwork to fill out again. I then asked if anyone could provide me with the penal code directing me to fill out such paperwork. The receptionist excused herself, came back, and reported that it had to be filled out but I could put N/A in all boxes. I did. Nothing more was said about the form during my time there.

How is this form legal, in present form, which includes email and social network questions? I am aware that currently, asking for that information is not allowed at this time. I imagine that since I was not pressured or directed further, that the paperwork is illegal and/or not necessary. Can someone comment? Thanks

To be honest, it was refreshing that I stood up and challenged it. I’m glad I did.

The registry is an unlawful Bill of Attainder that was unlawfully passed. It is also supposedly not punishment for a crime and therefore unenforcable absent Contract! The Sex Offender Contract/Agreement forms that citizens of the United States are forced to sign by the government against their Will, under threat of imprisonment, are unlawful, invalid Contracts, and by Law unenforcable.
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Our Constitution!

” The state citizen is free from any and all government attacks and procedure absent contract.” see Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly “… every man is independnt of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70,