MI: ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Update on 6th Circuit Decision

In a recent NPR interview, ACLU Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman stated she believes that sex offender registries should be abolished.  In support of that belief, Aukerman stated that registries are ineffective and make society less safe.

Aukerman criticized both legislators and law enforcement for the current challenges now facing registrants.  Legislators have passed and keep passing new laws because they believe doing so will help them to get re-elected.  Law enforcement spends time and money monitoring people convicted of a sex offense when they should be monitoring those who actually pose a danger to society.  If registries cannot be abolished, they should be reduced by removing all children and by shortening the amount of time individuals should be required to register, according to the ACLU attorney.

Aukerman also discussed the current status of Michigan sex offender laws which were declared unconstitutional by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016.  Despite that ruling, the state of Michigan has failed to modify its sex offender laws.

According to the ACLU attorney, she and others are negotiating with the Michigan state legislature about changes to the state’s sex offender laws.  Because the Court has retained jurisdiction of the case, it could issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s sex offender laws if the legislature does not act quickly.

In the closing of the radio interview, Aukerman posed an important question for the public to consider: do you want to be mad (that someone has already been sexually assaulted) or do you want to be safe (from a future sexual assault)? She then added, “if you want to be safe, you don’t want a registry.”

Interview

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

426 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well. They have a bill drawn up

Anyone care to give the simple details of what it looks like.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billintroduced/House/pdf/2020-HIB-5679.pdf

People whose offenses occurred before April 12, 2011, cannot be subjected to the 2011 amendments, which retroactively extended many individuals’ registration terms to life, classified registrants by tiers, and imposed extensive reporting requirements.

o People whose offenses occurred before January 1, 2006, also cannot be subjected to the 2006 amendments, which imposed restrictions on where people can live, work and “loiter,” and which enabled the public to subscribe to updates about registrants on the internet.

I literally see no changes to this.

uhm what happened to this
People whose offenses occurred before January 1, 2006, also cannot be subjected to the 2006 amendments, which imposed restrictions on where people can live, work and “loiter,” and which enabled the public to subscribe to updates about registrants on the internet.

seems we are still being forced ex post facto

I am no expert here but this bill as read does NOT address Judge Cleland’s order pertaining to ex post facto. In other words, it isn’t the relief order we arr all holding our breath for. I think this is just another example of the political stupid shit politicians pull. We are still in a holding pattern waiting for the state to address Judge Cleland’s order

@Michigan….the bill was introduced and submitted to the judiciary committee. If the people on this committee have any constitutional awareness or knowledge of the current events then this bill will never see the light of day again as currently written.

Can someone please explain about the conviction before 2011 in Michigan?

I’m in mid Michigan, back in 93 I did 30 days for 4th degree, been tier 3 the entire time of this registry,,,,,,, 5-31-2020 at 11:40 a Sargent Wilson meadows called the house phone (his number is 989-301-1867) wanting to talk to me,he said he was calling about the sor.
I had the answering service (family members) do the interaction,
I believe that, this was a scam in progress,
Has anyone else had this happen in Michigan?

So,
If this is going to drag on for who knows how many more years can the sor website be taken down until the Michigan state police have a policy that is constitutional, I think judge Cleland might be receptive to this….

Can anyone clear this up?
Tim P , of the Michigan ACLU posted this on another website,,,April 6th 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within SEVEN days of the entry of this order:
a) The MSP and Plaintiffs’ counsel shall POST notice of this order, and a copy of it or link to it, on their websites
2. and/or such other locations as will with reasonable assurance allow it to be seen widely by class members;
If my math is correct,6 plus 7 is the thirteen of April,
I looked, couldn’t find it on the “MICHIGAN STATE POLICE “ SOR.
So who is in charge of the “Michigan state police” ?
So I can ask that person.
Why haven’t the “MSP “ followed the honorable judge Cleland’s ruling ?
Has the ACLU addressed this non confirming act by the “Michigan state police “ ?

Three questions I hope I can get answers to and thanks for the forum.

Thanks lop,
I was having no luck finding it, now that I read it, it leaves more questions, who wrote this? A cop? A lawyer ? a legislator ?
That looks like a summary of the order by someone instead of the actual order judge Cleland said to post.
Funny how that post was dated the next day
Nothing about this case has moved that fast.

1 5 6 7