IN: 7th Circuit again reverses judgment for sex offenders who challenged registration requirement

Source: theindianalawyer.com 4/27/23

Requiring sex offenders who are already subject to registration elsewhere to also register in Indiana rationally promotes public safety, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a district court’s judgment. This is the second reversal in the case.

The plaintiffs in the case are Indiana residents who committed sex offenses either before the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act existed or before it covered their specific offenses.

Their registration obligations vary depending on their offenses, but they all must register under SORA at least once annually. They also must comply with various restrictions — such as staying off school property — and notify law enforcement before leaving their residences for more than 72 hours.

Read the full article

 

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.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The court has also concluded that SORA’s other-jurisdiction provision “undoubtedly” advances a legitimate and nonpunitive interest by alerting and protecting the community from offenders with a “frighteningly high risk of recidivism.”

Are you f***ing kidding me??????

I thought courts were supposed to make rulings based on facts. I guess I was wrong.

The registry promotes hate, marginalization and harassment, not “public safety.”

Are these judges smoking crack?

It’s time for a change in strategy. We need to start offering rewards of money to individuals or groups that can actually put an end to this, not behind closed doors but publicly.

To be fair to Indiana, most states have similars laws. Their reasoning is to keep registrants from “shopping” state to state for a better deal. So states require them to serve out the registration time of their conviction state.

The 7th Circuit?
No it’s a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

If you’re crazy enough to give them an address, then you’re submitting yourself to the government.

The very intent behind the ex post prohibition is to prevent Congress from acting upon the already convicted in vindictiveness. If there is any recidivism at “frighteningly high rate” here its congress themselves. That the courts uphold increased civil pains such as registration, which cannot be proven effective, is wrongdoing in of itself! Just as abandoned ratified agreements do not promote legitimate government manifests. The prohibition on bills of attainder are also a regulatory function manifest in the Articles themselves. Involuntary servitude, safe to say, is historical punishment. As ratified under the 13th amendment. However in arguendo ; are all persons getting fair trials? Likely not! As evidenced by exonerations and cases like Bill Cosby’s.