A federal judge ruled in November that Arizona’s sex offender registry is constitutional.
The Arizona Mirror reported on the lawsuit filed by a man who went by John Doe. He had been convicted of sexual conduct with a minor in 2016. His lawsuit claimed the requirement that he register as a sex offender violated his due process and free speech rights. The suit also tried to do away with the laws that required him to register as a sex offender for life, register his residency in a new county every time he stays there for more than three days and report any online identifiers he uses.
Ben McJunkin is an associate professor of law and associate deputy director for the Academy for Justice at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Among other areas of law, he specializes in sex crimes. He spoke on The Show to talk more about this issue.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: And Ben, what about this case and the ruling in it stands out to you?
BEN MCJUNKIN: Well, I think the thing that’s most notable about this particular case is that the judge gave sort of short shrift, in my opinion, to a few of the arguments that the plaintiff is raising here. And the reason for that is that mostly there’s bad precedent on the books both Supreme Court precedent and Arizona Supreme Court precedent…
McJunkin got it mostly right. But I’d still like to hear someone explain how in the few and far between cases of registrant recidivism, there is never a registry violation concurrent with the second offense.
I also wonder why in cases like this no one ever counters the state’s McArgument (that registration on the petitioner is necessary because he’s still dangerous, level 3, or whatever) that the registry simply does not prevent recidivism – there is more than plenty of evidence to support that – and whether or not a civil scheme actually accomplishes what it’s supposed to is a factor in constitutionality. There is precedent for the latter, I just don’t recall the case.