SD: This South Dakota man was removed from sex offender registry after 10 years: ‘You still have the chance’

Source: news.yahoo.com 5/1/22

Taylor Hughes was stuck in Mitchell because the roads to Plankinton were closed. A spring snowstorm had blown in and the convicted sex offender had no way to get back to his home.

It was 2018, and Hughes had three years left before he could petition to be removed from the sex offender registry. His mom had suggested he stay at her apartment for a day or two.

If it was longer than three days though, Hughes was risking his chance to start over, since sex offenders are required to register new living addresses within three days of moving, according to state law. And if they fail to do so, it’s a class six felony.

But what Hughes didn’t expect was the storm to last four days, leaving the former dishwasher at Blarney’s Sportsbar & Grill to stay with his mom while completing his weekend evening shifts.

“Someone called me in, saying I was living there,” he said. “Seeing that I didn’t register that address — I was only there for four days, because of the snowstorm over a weekend — they [the police] decided to charge me.”

That charge, failing to register, meant the difference between Hughes’s name staying on the sex registry list or being struck from it.

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.  
 

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here’s to the celebration:
Hughes shouldn’t have been on the registration list anyways.
So called statutory rape is a legal fiction that questions the ability of someone who is legally employable and able to provide for their offspring to engage in sexual intercourse with their partner. The entire mantra behind this anti welfare criminal law is to prevent teenage pregnancies and thus save the States from paying child support.
Sadly enough, people are even on the registry for something so dumb as this.

For those who have a 14-16 year old as a complainant they shouldn’t be on the list anyways.

Why?

Under Carey v Population Services International it is the right of the minor to make the decisions:

Regulations imposing a burden on a decision as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child may be justified only by compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests. Pp. 431 U. S. 684-686.
The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a State may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy.

These are the Eisenstadt rights ! If she’s willing then there’s no crime. The only criminal is the so called government.

Look at Texas law, if you are married suddenly it is ok. Why?

Because states are legislators of Puritanic based morality.

How does marriage make it suddenly ok to have sex?
What does that piece of paperwork actually mean? Nothing!

Tomorrow morning she can divorce you and you’re still going to jail.

Here’s to the celebration:
Hughes shouldn’t have been on the registration list anyways.
So called statutory rape is a legal fiction that questions the ability of someone who is legally employable and able to provide for their offspring to engage in sexual intercourse with their partner. The entire mantra behind this anti welfare criminal law is to prevent teenage pregnancies and thus save the States from paying child support.
Sadly enough, people are even on the registry for something so dumb as this.
For those who have a 14-16 year old as a complainant they shouldn’t be on the list anyways.
Why?
Under Carey v Population Services International it is the right of the minor to make the decisions:
Regulations imposing a burden on a decision as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child may be justified only by compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests. Pp. 431 U. S. 684-686.
The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a State may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy.
These are the Eisenstadt rights ! If she’s willing then there’s no crime. The only criminal is the so called government.
Look at Texas law, if you are married suddenly it is ok. Why?
Because states are legislators of Puritanic based morality.
How does marriage make it suddenly ok to have sex?
What does that piece of paperwork actually mean? Nothing!
Tomorrow morning she can divorce you and you’re still going to jail.

They will delete this but it’s just the truth!

There was my two cents but it was spent on other nonsense.

Here’s to the celebration:
Hughes shouldn’t have been on the registration list anyways.
So called statutory rape is a legal fiction that questions the ability of someone who is legally employable and able to provide for their offspring to engage in sexual intercourse with their partner. The entire mantra behind this anti welfare criminal law is to prevent teenage pregnancies and thus save the States from paying child support.
Sadly enough, people are even on the registry for something so dumb as this.
For those who have a 14-16 year old as a complainant they shouldn’t be on the list anyways.
Why?
Under Carey v Population Services International it is the right of the minor to make the decisions:
Regulations imposing a burden on a decision as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child may be justified only by compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests. Pp. 431 U. S. 684-686.
The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a State may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy.
These are the Eisenstadt rights ! If she’s willing then there’s no crime. The only criminal is the so called government.
Look at Texas law, if you are married suddenly it is ok. Why?
Because states are legislators of Puritanic based morality.
How does marriage make it suddenly ok to have sex?
What does that piece of paperwork actually mean? Nothing!
Tomorrow morning she can divorce you and you’re still going to jail.

An article reposted by yahoo that seems to be nuetral(even slightly leaning in favor in support for the PFR) instead of one sided against the former person forced to register? This alone is progress.

Here is a troubling passage:

“He had one goal on his mind: Make it 10 years – the time needed to be allowed off the registry – without anything on his record, from DUIs to infractions as serious as failing to register, so that he might be able to get off the sex offender registry…No strikes allowed.”

The implication is that if he would have had a non-sex offense or even non-FTR-related offense, like a speeding ticket, he would have had to have STAYED on the registry even LONGER. Did anyone else pick that up? At BEST, this was a poorly-ascertained statement.

People need to email the article’s author and thank them. They need to know that their stories are appreciated.