ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


NH: Supreme Court Rules That Retroactive, Lifetime Registration Requirement Is Unconstitutional As Applied To ACLU Client

CONCORD – In a victory for fundamental fairness, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held today that New Hampshire’s law requiring the registration of certain criminal offenders is unconstitutional as applied to an ACLU client because the law retroactively imposes lifetime restrictions on individuals who were convicted before these lifetime restrictions were enacted. Full Article

Also see: N.H. Supreme Court: Disabled sex offender eligible to get off sex offender registry 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is the greatest news I’ve heard in a long time! Hopefully this will be the beginning of a shift in our courts – finally, and rightly recognizing the punitive nature of the sex offense registry.

Works for me.

What’s that Rock……If you smelllllllllllllllllllllll what the Constitution is cooking..!!!!

I wan’t to hear this from the California Supreme Court; “the act as currently constituted is excessive” and certain aspects of the act “serve no readily-apparent non-punitive purpose.” If I ever hear this in Cali I’ll fall out of my char!!! And if I ever hear this from a Florida court I’m pretty sure I’d have a heart attack on the spot! “[w]e find the lifetime duration of the registry in particular to be excessive, when considered with all of the act’s other impositions. If in fact there is no meaningful risk to the public, then the imposition of such… Read more »

It’s always nice to see justice in action.
Kinda reminds me of how fresh it smells after a nice rain shower.

But the remedy determined by the Court was that the petitioner have a hearing in which he has to prove he is no longer a danger to the public. So it wasn’t just an automatic “Nope, no registry for him – it’s unconstitutional.”
Sorry, it seems like a half-assed decision. How can it be unconstitutional, but he still has to have a hearing, prove that he is not dangerous, and still hope that another judge agrees? (What if the hearing judge doesn’t agree and decides he belongs on the registry? Then what? Constitutional or unconstitutional?)

WOW…if I’m dreaming, please don’t wake me!

Furthermore, if the additional hearing were to find that he remains a threat to the community and he is, therefore, forced to register, it would nonetheless still be retroactive punishment for a crime for which he had already been punished years before.

This is defenitly a step in the right derection but it amazes me how much of cowards these judges are they make the decision that the law is unconstitutional but refuse to stand up and grant relief instead letting the violations continue for years of further litigation.

This is great, but lacking at the same time. Yes, it provides a possibility of relief at some point for a lot of those convicted before these things came into effect, but doesn’t do a thing for those convicted after the restrictions came into effect. What about the recently convicted, it is every bit as unconstitutional to put them through this for life.

The old saying is don’t count your chickens before their hatched. While this may be a victory for some there is still a lot more to go. Yes, I pray that all brothers and sisters caught up in this sexual nightmare of the sex registry get relief and the registry is put to rest for good. While their are many on the registry with various types of offenses there is still a burden to bare. Yes the registry hinders a lot on it from jobs, housing, living amongst others that are more astute than the low life sex offender, in… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x