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.
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.