In Smith v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that Alaska’s sex offender registration and notification statute did not constitute punishment and was therefore not susceptible to challenge under the Ex Post Facto Clause. In reaching that conclusion, the Court looked to the seven factors articulated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. To evaluate those factors, the Court applied a presumption of constitutionality, conducting the sort of narrow factual inquiry characteristic of rational basis review. Since Smith, courts have disagreed as to whether sex offender laws are punitive when applied to juveniles, and the Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue. This Note argues that the Court should suspend the presumption of constitutionality when conducting its ex post facto inquiry for laws that burden juvenile offenders. The Court should do so because the very rationales that underlie the presumption are inapplicable in both the case of juvenile offenders and the ex post facto context. Introduction – Full Paper (pdf)
Related posts
-
Sex Offender Registration Doesn’t Help Victims, Hurts Young Offenders
Jason was 14 years old when he met his first girlfriend, a 13-year-old neighbor of the... -
TN: Teen rapists to be charged as adults, added to sex offender registry under bills
One lawmaker is pushing for harsher penalties for teens convicted of rape in Tennessee. The new... -
MD: The Absurdity Of Charging 10-Year-Olds As Sex Offenders
A ten-year boy has just been charged as a sex offender as a result of a...
Personally, I find it irrational for people to argue the registry is inhuman for a child due to their age, but completely just when applied to an adult. Besides adults changing their behavior constantly like children, it can be argued the registry is worse for an adult since they must seek employment and housing in order to take care of their children and themselves!