CO: Judge Finds Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional

NPS,

I think this case can pertain to you about your loss of job due to being on the registry, especially since you have that affirmation as evidence after dutifully working for 7 years without conflict.

Interesting tidbit about Judge Matsch. He was born in 1930, which makes him 86 or 87 years old. He was appointed by Richard Nixon in 1974, and most of his career has been considered a “tough but fair judge.” He was the judge of record for the Timothy McVeigh case, and adjudicated his conviction and upheld his death sentence in 2001.

For him to come up with a clear and concise ruling on the obvious merits of Constitutional law is refreshing, and hopefully other justices will see the light of day with his ruling. Alison Ruttenburg deserves every plaudit for engineering a rock-solid case with the greatest implementation of Stung’s Second Postulate (“The more effectively that true recidivism rates of registrants are presented in court, the more likely the case will be decided in favor of registrants.”) that I’ve seen this side of Janice Bellucci and Chance Oberstein.

Everything can be summed up in Matsch’s money quote from his opinion:

“The fear that pervades the public reaction to sex offenses – particularly as to children – generates reactions that are cruel and in disregard of any objective assessment of the individual’s actual proclivity to commit new sex offenses. The failure to make any individual assessment is a fundamental flaw in the system.”

AJ…Chris, because I like you..LMAO… I think you like doing this shi..just as much as I do….I really do enjoy it when we collaborate together and come together with great arguments and consensus….Hey, how about that???Cruel and Unusual huh????I think someone in our group thought of this argument too…I was questioning myself after you guys stated I should lose that argument, so much that I removed it from my motion…I haven’t read the decision completely or the briefs AJ provided, but they are downloaded and I might have to rethink adding CaU back in there. I don’t know yet..If I do I am sure I can downsize it and maybe make it short and sweet with the new info…Damnnnn it, just when I thought I was ready to file….

Given technology has given people at their fingertips the ability to pull people’s information online, there really is no need for the registry. The registry was a tool in the age when paper and pencil was the way to track someone. Unless you are homeless, you are pretty sure to be listed somewhere online through some database via a utility bill, telephone number, voter registration, marriage, previous marriage, family, etc. So in reality, the registry needs to be done away with because LE can already get the info they want and need without someone having to come in to notify them.

Taking the registry back behind closed doors is unnecessary and a waste of time and money when there is the aforementioned ability currently in addition to the potential continuing ability to monitor someone who is no longer under the need to be monitored once their sentence is complete. Monitoring someone who has committed a sex offense and is out of incarceration is called parole, which already has a check in requirement. Once a sentence is done, it is done. If there is a need for monitoring outside of parole and a completed sentence, then it is a form of civil commitment without the barb wire, steel fences, concrete buildings and psych treatment because the person is still being monitored, every time they register, which still violates my Constitutional rights.

So, just doing away with a public registry is not enough, it needs to be done away with completely.