The heat is turned up (one hopes) against sex offender registry statutes

Admin

As I’ve noted a number of times here on the VC (most recently here) I’ve gotten involved over the last few years in a series of constitutional challenges to various State “sex offender registry” statutes, which typically impose a series of reporting requirements (e.g., tell your probation officer of every address change, or email address you use) and disabilities (on owning property near a school, say, or on using the Internet) on persons who have been convicted of certain sex-related crimes. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The VC is no lightweight. It was one of the premier law blogs before moving to the WP. This is pretty big news.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

Not sure how much credibility this Volakh has. Didn’t he support the constitutionality of residency and presence restrictions back in 2006 in an editorial he wrote? Volakh did not see the writing on the wall that it would make registrants homeless and public safety would decrease, and basically endorsed them.

0
Reply

I should have said that Volakh wrote a piece in 2003 supporting the Megans Law Supreme Court Case of Smith v Doe decision. That was back in 2003. Maybe he has progressed in his thinking since then. Over 12 years ago. I knew I remembered reading something by him that totally pissed me off many years ago. But to correct myself, I did not see any Volakh writing on anything pertaining to supporting residency or presence restrictions on registrants. Glad I caught my own error before someone else did.

0
Reply