ID: Sex offenders ask court to revive Idaho registry lawsuit
A group of 134 sex offenders have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court to revive their lawsuit against the state of Idaho because they say they were denied their constitutional rights when they were forced to register as sex offenders.
The group, referred to only as John Does 1 through 134 in the lawsuit, notified U.S. District Judge David Nye recently that they would ask the appellate panel to review Nye’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit.
In the April ruling, Nye said though it was clear some of the plaintiffs had faced significant hardship under the sex offender reporting rules — including trouble finding employment and housing, difficulties attending church and burdens on travel — their claims simply weren’t supported by case law.
Similar arguments against sex offender registry rules have been rejected by courts in several states and appellate circuits.
“Although the court sympathizes with the Does and recognizes they have endured substantial obstacles, the challenges the Does allege are the same as those raised by sexual offenders … across the country that have already been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court,” Nye wrote.
[FAC COMMENT: UNLESS THE COURTS START CONSIDERING FACTS BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, WE CANNOT CREATE GOOD CASE LAW. LET’S START NOW!]
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with you, FAC. Just because the current case law supports one side, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was originally decided correctly based on true facts and statistics. While I was in prison in Michigan, I helped several inmates file appeals. In 2 of those cases, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned existing case law and established new court procedures. Both times, it was because I convinced them that the underlying facts and State statutes repudiated the logic behind the older decisions. The false notion of high recidivism is still widespread throughout the country. The false notion that the registries aren’t punishment still persists. Case law that is based on false premises is simply bad law.
What controls findings in today’s judicial system…the Constitution or case law? What happens if a case is mishandled and the decision is truly in violation of the Constitution? Does that mean that from then on all similar cases are based on an un-Constitutional decision? For the judicial system to be truly fair, the only matters to be considered in any case should be the Constitution and the facts. Past cases be ‘damned’.