Source: journals.sagepub.com 8/25/25
Abstract
The maintenance of a public sex offense registry has been codified as a non-punitive civil policy since the 2003 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Doe. But since then, sex offense registries have transformed from a centralized state repository of information to a sprawling digital archive of personal data about people required to register. We identify and report the current technological capabilities of state-run sex offense registries through a 50-state survey and draw from the analysis to argue that the digital turn has changed the form and function of the registry. While the Court saw registries as analogous to a trip to an archive, our data show how registries now exert digital punishment and lateral surveillance through state-enabled technical capabilities on registry websites. In a departure from earlier schemes that required users to conduct a targeted search on a government-run website, registrants’ personal information is now routinely harvested and posted for profit motives in the private sector. Such shifts require a new analysis of sex offense registries; one that specifically interrogates at what point technology transforms a civil, purportedly non-punitive public policy into a decidedly punitive measure.
Introduction
The advent of public sex offense registries signaled a new approach to those already subjected to criminal punishment. For people convicted of a qualifying sexual offense, inclusion on the registry means any member of the public could learn about their conviction through …
#spoton
Well written. A lot of good references and is an article I hope is added to the legal library to be used in cases going forth when legal challenges are presented on this topic and those within.
From the article:
” This analysis asks whether the policy or practice in question has “been regarded in our history and traditions as punishment; imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; promotes the traditional aims of punishment; has a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose; or is excessive with respect to this purpose” (Smith at 97). These factors derive from case law established in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (372 U.S. 144, 168–169) and require courts to seek clear proof that a civil remedy has transformed into a criminal penalty in its effect (Smith at 92). ”
The stipulation that the registry could only be accessed in a targeted way has devolved, obviously. The online registry is punishment today, promoting the traditional aims of punishment. The online registry is akin to being put on display in a pillory (hands and head clamped down by two pieces of wood) in a town square for public humiliation and punishment. This alone should take down the registry altogether as it shows how the intent of the registry has gone from targeted to worldwide broadcasting exposure, which includes theatrical named raids for public consumption such as “Operation Boo”.
Also in that aforementioned quote is, “imposes an affirmative disability or restraint”. For those in the Michigan case, in-person reporting is punitive. In CA, in-person reporting was punitive and it allowed qualified registrants to de-register after successfully completing probation (PC 1203.4) via Kelly v Municipal, 1958. Around the late 1990’s to early 2000’s, in-person reporting was not longer deemed punitive despite specifically imposing an affirmative disability and restraint.
It truly is time to reflect on the 2003 decision of what was decided back then to what it has eroded to in magnitudes.
I have only read the above abstract so far, but have one major disagreement already. It’s not technology that made the registry punitive in effect. It’s the state legislatures that considered Smith v. Doe a blank check to impose whatever obligations and restrictions tickled their fancy at the time and laughably call it non-punitive. Seriously, isn’t an obligation or restriction imposed due to the commission of an offense the very definition of punitive?
And to say they’re imposed because of registration, not the conviction is absolutely absurd and will remain so until there are a significant number of registrants without convictions for qualifying offenses.
The registry can also be referred to as a digital prison, because that’s basically where we’re at. It’s become Info-tainment and a digital shaming gimmick akin to those “mugshot” websites. It’s a police blotter tailor made for Karens and the ignorant.
The registry was nothing but a virtual jail cell, when I got off the registry, I literally felt like I had just got out of prison after serving 27 years, and as I reintegrate back into society I feel institutionalized.
As I have long said and will continue to do so, just because the intent was not what it became, the outcome of it today and it has been for ages now is what it is despite the initial intent…punishing in how it is carried out and what it does to those impacted by it whether on it or impacted by someone who is. The courts need to recognize that further beyond those who have already done so.
Smith v Doe gave way to the bloated registry we have today that allowed states to do whatever they wanted to those forced to register. Smith v Doe’s ” Frightening and high” was used by courts to continue the cruel and unusual punishment. The Adam Walsh Act allowed states to change their registries allowing more individuals to be placed on the registry in exchange for grants. As technology advanced the registry with information about registrants were at people’s fingertips. Now we have websites with our information from the registry for profit, scammers using our information to commit fraud and our information is used to harass/banish/harm/ murder all because we are on the registry.
The Registration Act Violates Civil and Constitutional Law — And Private Sector Profit Requires Restitution
Disclaimer: This entry documents constitutional harm under survivor-centered doctrine. It does not constitute legal advice.
The registration act is not civil. It lacks a harmed party, a compensatory aim, and a remedy. It imposes restraint without contest, without adjudication, and without relief. It violates the doctrines of access, due process, and proportionality.
By reusing past criminal outcomes to justify ongoing restraint, the act imposes punishment twice. It functions as digital re-prosecution, not civil oversight. It breaches the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process protections.
The act has enabled private companies to harvest, monetize, and weaponize personal data from state-run registries. Registrants’ names, addresses, and biometric data are posted for profit—without compensation, without contest, and without remedy. This constitutes unjust enrichment, lateral surveillance, and digital punishment.
The state cannot outsource punishment to private actors. The registry’s transformation into a commercial archive violates the Takings Clause, the civil law requirement of restitution, and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Restitution must be remedied. Every dollar earned from registrant data without consent is a constitutional debt.