Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Child Pornography And Criminal Justice Reform
Source: Dawinder S. Sidhu & Kelsey Robinson Drug offenses lie at the heart of the movement... -
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
How is progress with the IML lawsuit? Will the findings of the 6th Circuit Appeals be used to argue that it is “punitive” and “banishment”, seeing as that’s exactly what the court found? What about the plethora of cases of citizens traveling abroad and being denied entry? I hope that will be used as well to show that registered citizens are treated as 2nd tier citizens even after their punishment has been served. This must be abolished, or at the very least, allow for a registered citizen to get a petition to be removed.
The next hearing for AB 558 in front of the Asm Appropriations has ALREADY been scheduled for next Wednesday, May 5th.
That gives very little time to make calls and send letters!
This is truly terrifying.
Does anyone know of any psychiatrists in California that are rational and friendly towards sex offenders, that are able to provide assessments? Any recommendations?
Hello…
So the halfway point of my 5 year probation is coming up in a few months. The law says I can try for early termination at the halfway point but some say it’s just best to wait until at least 3 years.
The question is… is there any downside to trying at 2.5 years? I mean, if I get denied, does that jeopardize trying at the 3 year mark? Other than paying a lawyer twice I guess.
Thanks.
The hearing for AB 558 is on Wednesday! There is no more time to contact the Assembly Appropriations Committee!
Why was the information about contacting the Assembly Appropriations Committee not placed on this website? We need to do better than this!
Has anyone sent letters/made calls? I sent my letters yesterday… but it’s too late!
For those interested in reading some legal cases that show how even courts that recognize we have low recidivism still rule against us, look at this one:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1218655.html
I found it interesting that we don’t qualify for strict scrutiny as a suspect class even though we are “politically powerless” because our crimes made us powerless, not that we were born that way.
They also don’t consider our privacy important enough as they claim its all available anyway, and only allow “rational basis” review that holds up because we are more likely than a person not convicted of a sex crime to commit another.
It doesn’t address other fundamental rights though, like right to travel, which the registry clearly hampers.
For those that have time to read it, what challenges would work that weren’t tried?
“Bill would reform CA sex offender registry”
This is an article about the tiered registry bill that appears in Bay Area Reporter, a gay newspaper in S.F. Most of the comments in reaction are pretty appalling.
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=72553
@ David Kennerly, Enraged mother of two, I understand your concern, but I wouldn’t take Lisa Roberts too seriously. If you looked at the other comments it was everyone else trying to calm her down, not agreeing with her. And given her slippery slope attitude on the subject, I think it’s relatively safe to assume that she’s a republican. Or at least she thinks like one haha.
I’m posting this for those that would like to listen to Neil Gorsuch during a U.S. Supreme Court case that was recently heard; Maslenjak v. United States Oral Argument, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could determine whether the government can strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship for lying during the naturalization process even if the lie was irrelevant to receiving citizenship.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?425470-1/maslenjak-v-united-states-oral-argument
I haven’t finished listening to this, so I’ll comment later. It’s good to learn everything we can about the people that control our future.
Any posts or statements on AB 558 for Wednesday would be very helpful.
CA RSOL is being unusually quiet about the new hearing for AB 558, is there any reason for this?
Here is a very good read (from 2006) about why criminals should have heightened scrutiny when legislature runs amok to please the majority and fear mongering press:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=californialawreview
I particularly like this from page 1224:
“Furthermore, legislatively enacted
retribution against a class of persons falls squarely within the
Constitution’s prohibition against bills of attainder.”
Tons of good stuff in here.
This would be fantastic from 6th circircuit and we all know what they just did
“Trump will nominate Joan Larsen, who currently serves on Michigan’s Supreme Court, to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnat”
Wait….
Bill of Attainder- an act of legislature finding a person guilty of treason or felony without trial.
What am I missing? Why do so many keep asking about this? Especially if the majority have taken a Plea deal, how would this fight the Registry?
The new French President was 15 when he fell in love with his then married, 39 yr. old drama teacher. In this country she would have been thrown in jail, given the title of Sex Offender and put on the registry.
They are now married, to each other.
No sex offender, registrant title for her, instead it’s First Lady of France!
Hi Guys,
Well I wasn’t sure if I should post my comment here or in a Michigan post, so anyway here it is
I was watching the news today here in Michigan and found out that 1) Justice Young retired last month and also I wonderful Governor(NOT) has elected Justice Kagan to the 6th Circuit Court in Ohio.
This brings me to my question, I know it won’t effect Does v Snyder in anyway since it is now in the hands of SCOTUS, but since Justice Young and Justice Kagan is now going to the 6th Circuit How will this effect the Temelkoski case here in Michigan since Young and Kagan were both part of the oral arguments and
it is suppose to be decided by like July I believe, and some one named Wilder is replacing Young,and he is a Conservative. Any thoughs on this Subject.
Quick question… for those of us who aren’t listed on the ML site, how do people know you’re an RC? Specifically in regards to things like being denied on a cruise (well, assuming your conviction has been expunged), or Disneyland or other things like that.
The most amazing Bill of Attainder argument I have ever read, and it has historical examples that specifically make Sex Offender laws unquestionably punishment:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=plr
see this on page 1315:
Brown, 381 U.S. at 458. Some are critical of those who would suggest that prevention is
punishment, believing that, because prevention purports to serve a public safety purpose, it is
somehow less than punishment; however, the Brown Court expressly states the contrary. Id. “[T]he
legislature made a judgment, undoubtedly based largely on past acts and associations . .. that a given
person or group was likely to cause trouble . .. and therefore inflicted deprivations upon that person
or group in order to keep it from bringing about the feared event. Id. at 458-59. Further, one of the
very justifications for imprisonment (which is punishment) in our society is to prevent future reoffenses
and harm by the convicted during their time of incarceration. See id.; see also
Punishment-Theories of Punishment, supra note 20 and accompanying text (“[L]aws that specify
punishment for criminal conduct should be designed to deter future criminal conduct …. General
deterrence means that the punishment should prevent other people from committing criminal acts.
The punishment serves as an example to the rest of society, and it puts others on notice that criminal
behavior will be punished. Specific deterrence means that the punishment should prevent the same
person from committing crimes. Specific deterrence works in two ways. First, an offender may be
put in jail or prison to physically prevent her from committing another crime for a specified period.
Second, this incapacitation is designed to be so unpleasant that it will discourage the offender from
repeating her criminal behavior.”). The prevention/deterrence purpose is likely the most relevant to
try to strike down sex offender regulations because often the main purpose for the legislation is to
prevent the offenders from inflicting future harm.
“South Carolina Supreme Court: Teens can be kept on sex-offender registry for life”
This is from Bill Dobbs:
“South Carolina’s Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a law imposing *lifetime* registration and electronic monitoring on juveniles for some sex offenses. The Associated Press has the details in a short article, below. In a longer story reporting reaction to the ruling, Charleston’s Post and Courier found an “outcry” from researchers and lawyers. Doug Berman chimes in with legal analysis for Sentencing Law and Policy followed by a link to the court’s decision. Have a look!” –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
By Jeffrey Collins
South Carolina can continue to require some teens convicted of serious sex crimes to appear on the state’s public sex-offender registry and wear an electronic monitor for the rest of their lives, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
A boy from Spartanburg County who was 15 when he sexually assaulted a 5-year-old boy and ended up on the registry challenged the law.
The justices had already ruled that it was legal to list juveniles for life on a registry that can only be viewed by law enforcement. Wednesday’s ruling extends that to the public registry on the State Law Enforcement Division’s website .
The teen’s lawyer said being publicly branded a sex offender and electronically monitored for the rest of his life is too harsh a punishment, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on the death penalty for anyone under age 18.
The justices, however, said the Legislature was well within its power to pass a law that treats juveniles and adults differently in criminal punishment, but establishes the same requirements for the registry. They noted that the registry’s goal is to protect the public.
“If the requirement that juvenile sex offenders must register and must wear an electronic monitor is in need of change, that decision is to be made by the Legislature — not the courts,” Associate Justice John Kittredge wrote.
The teen was convicted in Family Court of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and a judge ordered the lifetime monitoring.
http://www.thestate.com/latest-news/article148323554.html
The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) | May 8, 2017
Should minors convicted of certain sex crimes be required to register as offenders for life? S.C. Supreme Court rules yes as attorneys, researchers cast doubts
By Gregory Yee
Excerpts: Last week’s S.C. Supreme Court ruling that juveniles convicted of certain sex crimes must be registered for life on the state’s sex offender registry is drawing outcry from attorneys and researchers. Prosecutors applauded the ruling, saying that some young offenders are beyond rehabilitation and need to be monitored, but other attorneys and researchers say the lifetime registry makes rehabilitation difficult if not impossible.
Ninth Circuit Public Defender Ashley Pennington said it is clear from the court’s decision that there are major issues with the registration requirement. “The isolation and stigmatization of children and adults caused by these laws can have the effect of increasing despair and future criminality,” he said. “Researchers in (South Carolina) and Ohio have studied this issue and found that their law was not reducing recidivism but tending to generate instability and criminal behavior. Ohio, Rhode Island and other states are now considering changing their law.” MORE:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/should-minors-convicted-of-certain-sex-crimes-be-required-to/article_ee9c39b4-30ef-11e7-b160-176003785d08.html
Sentencing Law and Policy | May 4, 2017
South Carolina Supreme Court rejects constitutional challenge to juvenile sex offender’s mandatory lifetime registration/monitoring
By Doug Berman
Yesterday the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down an opinion in In the Interest of Justin B. unanimously rejecting the contention that “mandatory imposition of lifetime registration and electronic monitoring on juveniles is unconstitutional.” The relatively short opinion is a bit curious because, after reviewing a bunch of previous rulings in which it had “upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory lifetime sex offender registry requirement with electronic monitoring for adults and juveniles,” the opinion does not discuss Graham or Miller but does confront and reject the juvenile’s assertion that the constitutional analysis should “yield a different result under the reasoning of Roper v. Simmons.” MORE:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/05/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-constitutional-challenge-to-juve-sex-offenders-mandatory-lifeti.html
In the Interest of Justin B.
South Carolina Supreme Court, Case No. 2015-000992
Opinion filed May 3, 2017
http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27716.pdf
This also from Bill Dobbs:
“Flashback to 2006, ‘civil containment’: For wrongdoing, the criminal justice system provides accountability — charges are brought followed by a process to determine guilt and then punishment. Plenty of flaws and glitches and biases in the system but the idea is to reckon with bad conduct. What about locking people up, not for what they did but for what they *might* do? Should liberty be taken away with just an expert’s hunch and a judge’s order? As states were passing ‘civil confinement’ laws in the mid-2000s, Mark K. Matthews reported on the issue for Stateline. In the years since it was published the number of people locked away has increased and is now more than 5,000. Haunting are the 2006 words of New York City’s bar association, “It cannot be overstated how readily sex offender civil commitment laws may be abused.” -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
Stateline | Feb. 9, 2006
Molesters confined even after jail time is up
By Mark K. Matthews, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Sex offenders are a different type of criminal, increasingly punished under a different set of rules. Upon release from prison, they are followed by satellite, showcased on the Internet and prohibited from living in certain neighborhoods. In eight states, they even face castration.
But it is the issue of civil confinement that is causing the most controversy. When the most dangerous sexual predators are due to leave prison in 16 states, officials can revoke their freedom and toss them into mental hospitals indefinitely.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the practice, and at least eight states this year are considering similar legislation. MORE:”
https://web.archive.org/web/20060909053302/http:/www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=87312
I thought that I would let everyone know about this site I have been reading that explains law and the constitution in comics. It’s pretty good at boiling it all down to manageable sections to read and understand. http://www.lawcomic.net
anyone heard anything from WAR and their supposed class action that was supposed to be filed last fall? I used to get answers back when I emailed them asking what was up but my last few emails about the supposed suit have been ignored…just curious because they told me that they had a complete legal team working on it and it was going to be filed in January and that’s the last I heard from them.
Mike r and Steve, what is the class action for again? In what state? Thanks.
thank you Steve..I don’t understand why she didn’t email me back the last couple of times like she did before but ok. from what I was told the suit will be attacking the core elements of the registry and the recidivism issue directly. I hope it happens she said way back in May or June of last year and again in September and then February which was the last I heard from her that there was a complete legal team working on it..so I really hope that they bring a cognitively sound arguments…
My annual was the first week of Jan. Just had my first ‘compliance check’ of the year a few minutes ago. Two officers requested that I step out of a security door so they could ‘see’ who they were speaking with. I did acknowledge that I was who they were asking for. I told them that I am refusing to sign the paperwork as it is not part of 290. They asked if they could see my face more clearly. I put my face closer to the screen door. Officer commented on me shaving, lol. Same officer mentioned that they would keep coming back so they could figure out who I am, and if I live at the address. They come anyways. Other officer asked for my birth date, I provided that. For more clarification, someone else answered the door so I had to at least address the officers and I haven’t been on probation for years. Unbelievable how I get all worked up and my adrenaline fires up every time this happens and how long it takes for me to calm down.