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
The heat is turned up (one hopes) against sex offender registry statutes
- ·July 8, 2015
- ·4 Comments
Related Posts...
General Comments April 2021
April 1, 2021
General Comments March 2021
March 3, 2021
The Sex Offender Law That Could’ve Broken the Government
February 26, 2021
NY: Rensselaer County proposes animal abuser registry
February 23, 2021
The VC is no lightweight. It was one of the premier law blogs before moving to the WP. This is pretty big news.
This is indeed a good thing, as the WP is a widely read news outlet. Now all we need to do is to get people like the Runners to start reading it.
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.
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.