ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

National

CT: Suit targets WL ban on sex offenders in public places

An anonymous resident and an advocacy group that represents accused and convicted sex offenders have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the town’s 10-year-old policy barring people on Connecticut’s sex offender registry from a number of public places. Full Article

Join the discussion

    • TS

      How what? How can they sue based upon what happened in IL yesterday with the decision? How can they NOT sue on these grounds. Just because IL says this, there are much more that counter what IL has said.

  1. Chris F

    Ahh…Connecticut….

    Wait…isn’t this the birthplace of the Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS decision where Connecticut won to put people on a public sex offender list with no hearing or evaluation because it claimed :

    *****
    [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.
    *****

    and SCOTUS ruled the list ok because:

    *****
    due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. Injury to reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty
    *****

    So, how is it that this ruling stands if the list, that doesn’t indicate anyone is dangerous, is suddenly depriving people of their liberty interests?

    Color me confused.

    • New Person

      ===
      due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. Injury to reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty
      ===

      Wait, isn’t that b/c you have a conviction? So processing known info isn’t any injury, correct? So what if the conviction was dismissed? The statutory scheme is processing information that is no longer public. So that person is still deemed similarly to all registrants despite not having a conviction. That, in itself, is an injury.

      From the People v DiPiazza (a MI case) stated that labelling someone a sex offender who has had their case dismissed is cruel and unusual. (Granted it is bulit around a romeo-juliet idea and an expungement program, but the offender was 18 years old when it happened.) It did injure DiPiazza to try to get a job by being on the registry.

      There is federal injury too as those with expunged cases in CA cannot qualify for HUD assistance, which is an injury to the opportunity for housing assistance.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *