IL: Class Action – Supervised release policies unjustly effectively keep sex offenders in prison ‘for life’

Speaks volumes when they say they’re suing and not seeking monetary damages.

BTW, this quote in the article has me thinking:
”
“When people receive an indeterminate sentence, meaning it’s a three-to-life term of Mandatory Supervised Release, they can never max out that time. They could remain in prison for the rest of their life and never receive credit for having served their MSR time, and they can never terminate their MSR,” Nicholas said.
”

What exactly is the point of registration? Is there set way out of it? B/c registration sounds exactly what’s happening in that quote from above.

Since we’re in California, its constitution (Article 1, Section 1) says each of its citizen has an inalienable right to privacy and obtain privacy. There is no end game to registration, which is all about exposing privacy. There is nothing as for accumulated works for a specific compensation – it just is as well as an indeterminate sentence.

So registration doesn’t provide an actual set pathway off of registration as denoted it is an inalienable right to obtain privacy. There is none. There was a pathway called 1203.4, but at the time it was challenged, the courts couldn’t find anything that said that registration created a disability for relief.

So indeterminate sentence that is deemed a “duty” under ML that is attached to your crime and you are unable to quit said duty or you will be dominated to be punished and returned to said service. You can’t force a free person to work under such conditions unless it is punishment. That’s called involuntary servitude.

Again… two folds:
1) No direct set pathway to obtain privacy. Sorry, but being “judged” again to be off of the registry sounds like a parole type thing or prison to get out prison for good behavior trial & judgement. No other set of convicts have to be “judged” again to be off of any registry. Again, how many registrants are actually off the list since its inception. Why can 10,000 immediately slide off the registration on this proposed tiered bill and not earlier? Why are registrants held hostage from their privacy rights?

2) Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. This is where 1203.4 should have prevailed over registration. Registration makes you serve the state. Well, that makes them the master. But if you’re free (awarded the 1203.4), then you are still serving the master? And if you don’t, then you will be duly punished and returned to service for the “duty” of registration. Also, 1203.4 should re-affirm the “inalienable right to obtain privacy” set for within California’s constitution. Registration prevents one from gaining employment, housing, as well as to free travel without molestation (go onto any campus unless given permission).

So if you view involuntary servitude with the lens of the person you’re serving as “Master”. When you are done with your punishment and out of custody, then why are you still serving the same master? Service should be compensated and the only consequence if you decide not to serve is the loss of wage or the loss of job. Beyond that consequence should incite involuntary servitude, unless to punish a crime. It is apparent that California will stand by the fact the SCOTUS said registration is not punishment. Fine, but you are still required service to the state after your punishment sentence was completed. That state is still forcing you to do a service after the completion of your custody – thus still serving the master, with the inability to quit serving due to legal laws oppressing it. That is involuntary servitude!