On July 12, 2013, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill requiring the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) to amend registry requirements for defendants classified as level two and level three sex offenders, under G.L. c.6, §§ 178D and 178K. Level two offenders are deemed only a moderate risk for reoffending, and prior to the new law, the Board was barred from publishing those offenders’ registry information online.
Lawmakers deliberately sought to change that policy, and enacted a law that allowed the Board to retroactively post on the Internet information about level two sex offenders.
The move promptly resulted in a class-action suit on behalf of level two sex offenders in Massachusetts, who claimed the law constituted an ex post facto violation. On July 5, 2013, even before the governor had signed the bill into law, the plaintiffs filed a brief requesting class certification, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief enjoining the SORB from publishing registry information about level two sex offenders online.
Lower courts sided with lawmakers, but the state Supreme Court reversed the previous rulings, stating, “We conclude that the amendments [to the bill] are retroactive … but that such retroactive application would violate State constitutional due process.” Full Article
Finally, a high court specifically recognizes the Ex Post Facto nature of a Registry’s application.
Courage is the rare commodity in all branches at this time as evidenced by the unfettered proliferation of these draconian laws which inherently violate the rights of registrants.
Sounds like those unfortunate souls that find themselves on the judiciary without the courage to plow through these basic constitutional matters by themselves should heed the lessons herein and the courage on display that reveals the inconvenient truth, and thus act on a nationwide basis.
This will not only be good for registrants but for the country at large as it brings us back to the tenets of a free society that limits punishment to those instruments available at the time of sentencing and simply nothing beyond unless in extraordinary cases.
So why wouldn’t those violations of retroactive and due process apply here in after the fact putting information online and some not.
?????