ACSOL Board Member Ira Ellman has published a scholarly work that claims the registry regime is motivated by animus and should be stricken. This conclusion is based upon an analysis of four relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which the Court determined what constitutes animus and struck down existing laws on that basis.
According to Ellman’s work, “(n)o similar regime has ever been imposed on any other group of law-abiding former felons who have fully served the sentence for the crime they committed years earlier”. The work also concludes that the registry raises a “strong an inference of animus” and that inference of animus “does not survive the scrutiny of scientific studies which find the registry ineffective and often counterproductive”.
In addition to serving as an ACSOL board member, Ellman is the author of “Frightening and High,” a scholarly work published in 2017 which revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court relied in the past on unsubstantiated statements in a “Psychology Today” magazine article when it determined that the requirement to register does not constitute punishment and therefore new sex offender laws could be applied retroactively. Ellman is also a Distinguished Affiliated Scholar at the Center for Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley.
I truly hope the right kind of people read this. Thank you for your work!
I’d donate funds for a case to the supreme court to hear this argument. But I think the counter argument is that it was created not with ill intent and but with the guise of public safety. Of course we all know it was created with ill intent and by politicians taking advantage of tragedy to secure their six digit a year job in a position of power.
Well if it’s counter productive that could only mean one thing. It was thought of by people who had deviant sexual interests, and were coming down hard lest anybody should ever suspect them. Just like with Dennis Hastert.
I find this paper interesting:
1) “After reviewing these practices of other countries, as well as the social science evidence, the Council of the American Law Institute has proposed a revision to the Model Penal Code, to be reviewed by the membership in June of 2021, that would eliminate entirely all publicly accessible websites listing “sex offenders”, as well as any other forms of general public notification concerning them, and prohibits or limits other collateral consequence currently applied to them alone.” That is a follow up to the ALI article published here on ACSOL earlier this year through this paper. Good to read this.
2) The additive punishment detailed in the NY v TX example is actually possible with the US DoD (UCMJ) when the US DoD feels the civilian punishment is not enough (was actually done and noted in a Virginia military case) and the example needs to be set for the military (but is NOT double jeopardy to the military member) through a court-martial of some sort. No one told the military member that at the recruiting station, did they?
3) He should’ve called out the fact Adam Walsh did go missing but it has not been established he had been actually sexually assaulted (though his parents surely believe the fact he did) as I have read.
I’d like to see Dr. Ellman or an esteemed colleague take on the DoD UCMJ related to Article 120, etc and the miscarriages of justice happening there because those convicted there are subjected to registry rules upon release.
Can I make a sizeable donation if it helps Ira Ellman to try to take on the registry as a whole?
I’m in the Northeast, so it may not help me directly, but let’s see what can be done.
Let me know.
This paper backs up what I’ve been saying for years: We need to go after the registry as a whole, not chipping away at it. Chipping away at it helps only a few, not the whole, leaving far too many lives still affected negatively by this unconstitutional registry. Take it on as a whole, that’s the only relief that many of us can even hope for.
I’m sure this will go as far to helping eliminate the registry as all the other papers written by educated, intelligent scholars that base their findings on facts and not public hysteria. In other words, it will go nowhere.
“…the claim that it is justified by the clearly valid purpose of reducing the incidence of sexual offending does not survive the scrutiny of scientific studies which find the registry ineffective…”.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about the Registry itself that prevents any actual sex offenses.
The Registry does not “lock” a PFR’s zipper in the event the PFR were going to expose himself.
The Registry does not stop the PFR from talking to a teenager, nor stop him/her from actually soliciting the minor.
The Registry does not block the PFR’s computer from accessing a porn website, nor does it block pop-up windows linking to illegal images. Nor does it block a computer from transmitting such images.
(Nor does having “Sex Offender” emblazoned across a PFR’s Driver’s License or passport stop any of these actions.)
Point being, the Registry does not itself do anything to actually stop any illegal action.
(If the Registry were able to actually STOP sex offenses before they occurred, the government could rebrand it, revise it to include ALL people, and then there would be no more sex crimes. Period.)
The author makes essentially the same interpretation of the Whetterling Act as Justice Steve in his decent in Alaska v Bartello filed in 97 (Smith v Doe 2003)
I just read footnote 1 in the article which is a brief synopsis of Professor Ellman’s bonafides. Though that single sentence is impressive, it failed to mention that he was also a Supreme Court law clerk and a legislative aide to Senator Adlai Stevenson III. I’ve tucked away all that biographical information to use against those who will invariably try to divert any discussion by diminishing the author.
“Who is this guy anyway? Probably pandering to those who fund his research.”
“Welllllllllll….”
I have to admit I do have in mind a particular counselor who employs those sorts of red herrings.
Veritas.