A federal district court in Idaho issued a decision recently in which it agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the requirement to register is not punishment. Therefore, governments may retroactively apply new collateral consequences after a registrant is convicted.
“This federal court ignored the significant harm caused to registrants and their families in its decision,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
In the decision, the court stated that SORNA requirements are “time-consuming, burdensome and inconvenient.” The court also acknowledged that “there are some negative implications, assumptions, or stigmatizations” due to the SORNA regulations. The court, however, stated “that is still not enough.”
Also in the decision, the court stated that “nothing in SORNA enables law enforcement to subject registrants to random house checks.” “If SORNA does not enable random house checks, also known as compliance checks, then why do they continue to take place,” stated Bellucci.
The court acknowledged in its decision that plaintiffs provided evidence that registries and notification laws do not reduce recidivism. The court, however, chose to ignore this evidence because “there is not a scientific consensus regarding whether registries reduce recidivism.”
In its decision, the court clearly stated its conclusion: that registration, including SORNA requirements, are “a civil regulatory scheme” and not “akin to criminal punishment.”
Click here to download the decision
Could the court draw us a picture of what would be considered “punishment”? Is this like “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”?
I bet 100% of them and every person would quickly change their mind on this if it was them or someone they care about.
Once again they get it wrong. I wish the word “burdensome” would stop being used in these challenges. Burdensome is interchageable with “hardship” which is NOT considered punitive. Instead use targeted retaliation or wilful/wreckless endangerment. Having your information put online (regardless for the purposes of the public safety argument) invites and increases the chances of bodily hard, property damage and enticement to murder. It actually gives the greenlight to mentally disturbed individuals to do “God’s work.”
If having one’s physical address posted online is not punishment, then why did SCOTUS members get their home addresses scrubbed from the net?