TN: To end retroactive punishment, a judge has ordered the removal of eight men from the sex offender registry

Source: washingtonnewsday.com 12/4/21

To end retroactive punishment, a judge has ordered the removal of eight men from the sex offender registry.

To stop their retroactive sanctions, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ordered the removal of eight individuals from the sex offender list.

In her order on Friday, Trauger said, “Tennessee officials continue to defy the Constitution’s guarantees.” “The same analysis applies… to Tennessee’s own, very comparable scheme and practices, according to federal district courts in this state. Officials in Tennessee have continued to apply the state’s long-held-to-be-illegal policy on others in similar situations “Regardless of the rulings, she stated.

According to The Associated Press, the Ex Post Facto provision of the United States Constitution prohibits governments from increasing the punishment for a crime done before. To determine a clause violation, a judge must decide that the statute being applied retroactively is criminal. The violation, according to Trauger, is based on the law’s punitive aspect rather than the plaintiffs’ hardship.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

GOOD FOR YOUR JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to go not to let public opinion guide your “Rulings”!!!!!!

Hmmm… The TN judge cited Michigan’s Snyder ruling, iirc. Nice. I also like how the judge told the state that they haven’t had proof that the plaintiffs posed a threat.

According to the article, the state also claimed that the registration of these 8 individuals was necessary to prevent more sex crimes from being committed by them.

So where is the evidence that the registry is effective in preventing future offenses by those registered? Everything I’ve read says the nearly all sex crime is committed by those without priors, and that nearly all registrant recidivism is for the unruly hyper-technicalities (in part) at issue in this case. And with the very, very small number of registrants accused of another sex crime, the registry had nothing to do with the identification or investigation.

I hope ACSOL or someone else can find a case cite to this ruling.

This is about to start here in Michigan , A lot of us will start retaining lawyers soon, i myself am looking into going this route. These courts are starting to figure out the politicians are just making a joke out of the Courts rulings & the rights of the people,
Good for this Judge. Next we need the Courts to start awarding monetary damages to those families effected from their negligent actions.

Slowly, ever so slowly the, the tide is turning.

OMGosh!! Give that judge the “Spine of Steel Hero Award” for having the courage to rule against the obviously unconstitutional Registry!!
👏🏻🤗😃😁

This seems HUGE!!!!!! That means if I read this correctly that if you were convicted before the inception of Megan’s Law in 1996 you technically should not be on the registry.

Any thoughts?

Janice can we use this to remove RSO’s from Megan’s Law convicted before 1996?

I feel there is some hope and light at the end of the tunnel

I live in Illinois now, was convicted in 1992 in TN, was on the registry and still am on TN registry… I mover here in 2012 and Illinois told me I don’t have to register here, but TN still has me on theirs and my address here is listed on their site.
Does this mean I can finally get off of it?
Please help.
Thanks

They can be removed from the State Registration, but private websites such as Home Facts and others can still published the information…
Being removed from the State Registration is good and the person no longer has to report but those other sites can still create havoc towards the person