September 29, 2013
Some off sex offender registry
"At least 17 removed from registry in area after ruling requires changes
JA is finally getting some relief after 20 years of anxiety.
A, 50, is one of approximately 300 people whose names have been removed from Oklahoma’s Sex Offender Registry since a June state Supreme Court ruling, according to Department of Corrections records.
“It’s a big relief,” the Boynton man said. “I don't worry about it no more. I used to worry about it all the time — would I get in trouble where I lived.”
Nearly 7,400 convicted sex offenders’ names appear on the DOC’s registry. That is down from approximately 7,700 listed when the state’s highest civil court ruled amendments to the Sexual Offender Registration Act couldn’t be applied retroactively."
http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x2112883475/Some-off-sex-offender-registry
Showing posts with label Ex Post Facto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ex Post Facto. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 September 2013
Thursday, 26 September 2013
The Unevidenced, Vote-Grabbing, Persecution Ramps Up
Posted: 03.13.2013 at 4:48 AM
New law means more people on sex offender registry
"The bill signed Tuesday will require people convicted of a single Tier I offense for some crimes involving minors to be placed on the online registry.
LANSING (AP) -- More people will be added to Michigan's public sex offender registry under a bill signed by Gov. Rick Snyder.
The bill signed Tuesday will require people convicted of a single Tier I offense for some crimes involving minors to be placed on the online registry. Offenses that qualify include possessing child pornography and surveillance of a minor.
Republican Sen. Rick Jones is the bill's sponsor. He says it will add about 250 people to the public registry.
People convicted of such crimes must already register with the state, but their information is made available only to police. Currently only people convicted of Tier II and III offenses are placed on the public registry."
Reply ...
"This is appalling, but very normal for some legislator posturing for their next political office at the expense of our registrant families.
There are well over three quarter of a million (751,138) men, women and children required to register for offenses such as urinating in public, streaking, incest, exposure, rape, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry ex-girlfriend, accusations after a party where there was heavy drinking, or a spiteful student, viewing suggestive or abusive images of a person underage (16 in some states and 18 in others), solicitation, prostitution, endangering the welfare of a child and many other "offenses" resulting in a registry not being used as intended and that was to manage and track the most violent repeat offenders.
Our organization, Women Against Registry, advocates for the families of these folks who have been adjudicated, paid their debt to society and are living a law-abiding life. But, these families are subjected to harassment, beatings, vehicles damaged, signs placed in their yards, being asked to leave their church, organizations, flyers distributed in the community and even being murdered all because they are trying to help someone reintegrate into society."
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=871383#.UkPVHFNjP1E
New law means more people on sex offender registry
"The bill signed Tuesday will require people convicted of a single Tier I offense for some crimes involving minors to be placed on the online registry.
LANSING (AP) -- More people will be added to Michigan's public sex offender registry under a bill signed by Gov. Rick Snyder.
The bill signed Tuesday will require people convicted of a single Tier I offense for some crimes involving minors to be placed on the online registry. Offenses that qualify include possessing child pornography and surveillance of a minor.
Republican Sen. Rick Jones is the bill's sponsor. He says it will add about 250 people to the public registry.
People convicted of such crimes must already register with the state, but their information is made available only to police. Currently only people convicted of Tier II and III offenses are placed on the public registry."
Reply ...
"This is appalling, but very normal for some legislator posturing for their next political office at the expense of our registrant families.
There are well over three quarter of a million (751,138) men, women and children required to register for offenses such as urinating in public, streaking, incest, exposure, rape, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry ex-girlfriend, accusations after a party where there was heavy drinking, or a spiteful student, viewing suggestive or abusive images of a person underage (16 in some states and 18 in others), solicitation, prostitution, endangering the welfare of a child and many other "offenses" resulting in a registry not being used as intended and that was to manage and track the most violent repeat offenders.
Our organization, Women Against Registry, advocates for the families of these folks who have been adjudicated, paid their debt to society and are living a law-abiding life. But, these families are subjected to harassment, beatings, vehicles damaged, signs placed in their yards, being asked to leave their church, organizations, flyers distributed in the community and even being murdered all because they are trying to help someone reintegrate into society."
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=871383#.UkPVHFNjP1E
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
"All Other Claims Against Defendants Are Dismissed With Prejudice" - Well, At Least The Court Terminology Is Honest - USA
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Doe v Raemisch
"Plaintiffs' affidavits explain in detail the difficulties and embarrassment they and their families have endured as a consequence of complying with these new restrictions, even though their convictions are now almost twenty years in the past and they have led completely law-abiding, if not exemplary, lives in the interim. Their stories raise substantial questions as to the wisdom and fairness of subjecting them and similarly situated individuals to lifetime registration and notification requirements with their attendant obligations and restrictions. But given the previous decisions addressing the issues Plaintiffs raise, I conclude that the relief, if any, must come from the legislative branch. With one limited exception, the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. For the most part, the amendments to the Wisconsin sex offender registry system do not depart in any meaningful way from the systems already found to be constitutional by the Bollig and Smith Courts.
The lone exception I find to this is the $100 fine provision, which I have concluded cannot be constitutionally imposed on them. With this exception, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment declaring that imposition of the $100 annual fee on Plaintiffs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 301.45(10) constitutes punishment in violation of their rights under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions and enjoining Defendants from assessing or collecting such amount from Plaintiffs. All other claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice."
September 25, 2013
Federal Court of Appeals: Sex Offender Registry Fee Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Violation Under Certain Circumstances
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html
Doe v Raemisch
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8848008220643270891&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/doe-v-raemisch.html
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html
Doe v Raemisch
"Plaintiffs' affidavits explain in detail the difficulties and embarrassment they and their families have endured as a consequence of complying with these new restrictions, even though their convictions are now almost twenty years in the past and they have led completely law-abiding, if not exemplary, lives in the interim. Their stories raise substantial questions as to the wisdom and fairness of subjecting them and similarly situated individuals to lifetime registration and notification requirements with their attendant obligations and restrictions. But given the previous decisions addressing the issues Plaintiffs raise, I conclude that the relief, if any, must come from the legislative branch. With one limited exception, the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. For the most part, the amendments to the Wisconsin sex offender registry system do not depart in any meaningful way from the systems already found to be constitutional by the Bollig and Smith Courts.
The lone exception I find to this is the $100 fine provision, which I have concluded cannot be constitutionally imposed on them. With this exception, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment declaring that imposition of the $100 annual fee on Plaintiffs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 301.45(10) constitutes punishment in violation of their rights under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions and enjoining Defendants from assessing or collecting such amount from Plaintiffs. All other claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice."
September 25, 2013
Federal Court of Appeals: Sex Offender Registry Fee Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Violation Under Certain Circumstances
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html
Doe v Raemisch
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8848008220643270891&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/doe-v-raemisch.html
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)