Court challenge to juvenile sex offender registration laws fails

Juveniles who are convicted of a sex crime in California and are sentenced to state custody can be required to register with police as sex offenders for life, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty and mandatory life sentencing laws cannot be applied to juveniles because of their lesser mental and emotional development. But the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said the same rationale does not apply to state sex offender registration laws, which are meant to protect the public rather than to punish the offender.

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“The laws are “intended to assist law enforcement to maintain surveillance of (repeat) sex offenders, and have no purpose to punish for past misconduct,”


They can no longer hang their hat on the recidivism argument (for youths or adults). There is no way to placate or ameliorate subjugation and oppression.. the registry IS punishment. Full stop. End of conversation.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty and mandatory life sentencing laws cannot be applied to juveniles because of their lesser mental and emotional development. But the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said the same rationale does not apply to state sex offender registration laws, which are meant to protect the public rather than to punish the offender.”

I don’t think my vocabulary is deep enough to express the amount of expletives this paragraph deserves, particularly that last line.

I don’t care what the intent of the law is. It’s without a shadow of doubt the worst part of our sentence. I’m willing to bet even people that spent a decade or longer behind bars will say that having to register is a much harsher punishment than anything they went through up to that point.

I don’t comprehend this law:
Under California law, youths sent to state confinement for rape, sodomy, forcible oral copulation or molestation are subject after their release to the same registration requirements as adults who’ve committed the same crimes.

So they’re adults, not youths? I’m getting lost in these inconsistencies. Why is it convenient for the state to pick and choose who’s an adult and who’s not an adult when there’s been a chosen age set in CA law at 18?

If it’s intent, then why can a minor not be a willing participant in other incidences? Is it age or is it intent? If it’s intent, then maybe there shouldn’t be an age limit. If it’s age, then the courts are wrong on this decision.

I hate how the use of “for public safety” is being bandied about. It all stems from the 2003 decision and propagating the false, extreme notion that the recidivism rate is at 80%, which is frightening and high. Also, his lawyer should have contacted an SO specialist that reveals today’s registry is punishment, as per Snyder and the PA court systems.

arguments about public safety “are properly addressed to the Legislature.”

Umm, no. They are the ones that keep flaunting the false “frightening and high” and “80% recidivism” to enrage the public and make their bills fly through without opposition regardless of the real harm caused to the country.

This is why any lawsuit needs to include Bill of Attainder and point out the quotes by legislature that demonstrate they intend to punish and ignore the Constitution, as well as perpetuate the lies when they know the truth.

Granted, this was a bad case. The kid either didn’t get the right treatment, or didn’t respond to it and may be a threat. That doesn’t make a registry ok though, and his inclusion should raise a Substantive Due Process concern if there isn’t a fair hearing to determine his level of dangerousness warrants lifetime disclosure of his acts.

Maintain surveillance of repeat offenders? Hmmm

So, if you are not a repeat offender then why is the registry there for you? Surely you don’t need surveillance then because you’re not a repeat offender. Oh, wait, just in case you do something or something happens and they need to find you. If it saves one child….

Was this kid tried as an adult or a child? If a child, then how can adult crime sentencing, e.g. registry, be applicable? Aren’t they mixing fruit here?

This young man’s history is not indicative of other young people either I bet. Hope he is getting the help he needs in all seriousness. Tragic he was a target then perpetuated that onto others.

I see this getting appealed to CA SC, if that is the next step.

This kid was not the best candidate.

So they are saying that regulation is for protecting the public and punishment is not? What a false contrast to save a bad law. What is punishment for then if not for a deterrent, which in turn is a benefit to protect the public? Is punishment solely to feed the sadistic emotions of those we want revenge against? Is that a valid policy for a civilized society. In turn how can one call something regulation that so resembles conditions of probation or parole? Gobbledygook.

Well we can deduce two points here: the client’s attorney should have NOT taken this to court with his client being a repeat offender, that was just a stupid move. More importantly, now juveniles will suffer the same way as adults, they are not excluded. So this helps all of us because we have more participants in the ‘pool’. All we need now is more parents with money that are willing to file a lawsuit to help their boy, using the same angle and arguments that we know, which is that the 2003 law which applies to adults and juveniles was Wrong and based on false facts. This will only help all of us in the long run. The courts are just begging for a challenge to the 2003 ruling.