Alaska Supreme Court rules
state sex offender registry law
unconstitutional
Fox News,
by
Louis Casiano
Original Article
Posted By: M2,
6/15/2019 8:18:50 AM
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring the registry of all sex offenders is unconstitutional because it violates offenders' rights to due process. The ruling was issued Friday.
In a 3-2 decision, the court said an offender must be given the chance to prove he or she is rehabilitated and no longer remains a threat to the public.
“Our decision requiring an individualized risk-assessment hearing is based on the judicial power,” the court wrote in its opinion. If an offender "can show at a hearing that he does not pose a risk requiring registration, then there is no compelling reason requiring him to register, and the fact that
Then why register firearms? Mine pose no risk to the public, unless someone assaults me, or my family...
5 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 6/15/2019 8:28:06 AM (No. 98535)
Well , that will be simple enough. If the perp says he/she does not pose a risk, then they are released. If , on the other hand, they can say they do pose a risk , they go to jail/treatment. Whew! That was easy. Why didn't we think of this before?
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/15/2019 8:38:37 AM (No. 98546)
There are different types of sex offenders.
A rapist is a rapist, and deserves to be on a lifetime registry. How could he prove that he is no longer a rapist??
On the other hand, an 18 year old boy who has sexual intercourse with his 16 year old girlfriend, has committed staturtory rape, I guess,
And he is probably not a sex offender for life.
The judges want the offender to prove a negative, which is contrary to the law. Perhaps they want an Alaska version of the Salem witch trials and a dunking pole.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
StormCnter 6/15/2019 8:54:29 AM (No. 98558)
I have always had doubts about whether sex offender registries are constitutional. Most of us want to know if there is a convicted sex offender living next door. That's one half of the quandary. However, a convicted murderer can live next door without my knowledge because there is no similar registry. Also a convicted armed robber. That's the second half of the quandary.
I can't figure out why it is constitutional for other types of offenders to complete their legal punishment and avoid a registry, but sex offenders cannot.
7 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
HotRod 6/15/2019 9:58:37 AM (No. 98609)
There is no rehabilitation for perversions. These kind of people will behave as long as they are monitored closely, and faced with severe punishment.
A cucumber, once made into a pickle, can never be a cucumber again!
4 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Sunhan65 6/15/2019 10:08:11 AM (No. 98621)
#4 is right. We are not consistent. I suspect on some level we recognize that some crimes are driven by the inherent nature of the individual as opposed to those committed to achieve an otherwise rational objective. A thief doesn't necessarily want to steal; he just wants money. He believes stealing is easier than working. A thief with enough money might stop. In other words, it's possible to "cure" a thief with money.
There's no comparable way to cure a pedophile. You obviously can't cure a child rapist by giving them children, and they can't cure themselves by conscious decision. Their compulsion is not subject to rational resolution. I suspect the drive will always be there, hence the need for heightened vigilance.
As for releasing them, I like Dennis Miller's alternative to sophisticated technological monitoring: burial. It's cheap, efficient, and you'll always know where they are.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
FleetUSA 6/15/2019 11:21:43 AM (No. 98689)
This seems to open a huge window for "experts" gaming the system. Maybe on second offense they are in the system, third offense and it is life in prison.
0 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
seamusm 6/15/2019 11:29:45 AM (No. 98694)
We treat real sex offenders differently because there is a visceral hatred of such crimes. Sadly we over-react when we treat young men who had sex with their teen girlfriends as sex offenders. I have a problem with life-long registration and laws which allow the general public to know the sometimes ancient and one-time sins of their neighbors. But with repeat offenders I have no such objection.
3 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Catherine 6/15/2019 6:42:03 PM (No. 98947)
Where I live, sex offenders live in a mobile home park wired off with chain link fence. If they order pizza, women deliverers are not allowed to go in, either the offender meets them at the fence or male deliverers bring it. Some have mentioned the constitution rights of sex offenders. I don't think they have any once they sexually abuse anyone else. They abused the constitutional rights of the person they abused to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think this SC decision is wrong - big time.
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
chance_232 6/15/2019 10:27:57 PM (No. 99004)
I have very mixed thoughts on the registry. That its for life assumes no possibility of rehabilitation. Now, if it was limted to rape and sexual assault, I would have buy in.
Back in 1995 when I was living in Riverside CA, the local sheriffs department showed up at my house looking for my uncle. Apparently he used my address for cheaper car insurance. I was stunned to learn that he was required to appear on the sex offenders registry. I later learned that the reason was that he was caught late at night, in the late 1940's on a secluded beach with his other half. The actual charge was indecent exposure. 50 years later, he was required to register as a sex offender despite never having run afoul of the law in the previous 50 years. Literally, not even a parking ticket.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 6/15/2019 11:29:48 PM (No. 99039)
OK, then just hang them all.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "M2"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)