Comments on: Bad news out of the 10th Circuit: Millard v. Rankin reversed and remanded.

By: Phillip W Morrow

Phillip W Morrow — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:17:45 +0000

That’s a fact modern day lepers, punishment on a daily basis, why don’t other felons have to register as be publicly shamed

By: Phillip W Morrow

Phillip W Morrow — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:12:56 +0000

In reply to Jacob. The sixth circut laws are about expost facto that judge the ruled that is in visolation of constitution, what the attorney for colorado cases, argued was 8th and 14th amendments she should of argued expost facto and used michigan as an example

By: David V C

David V C — Sat, 22 Aug 2020 02:41:53 +0000

In reply to Shadow dweller. If you look for it, in the judgment it is openly confessed that the public can ( and does) punish us and the legislative branch cannot be held responsible because it can only be ‘punitive’ in the court if it is done by the government. In other words, as long as it is only the public punishing us and our families, and not the government, the courts will not take our side.

By: Shadow dweller

Shadow dweller — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:21:36 +0000

This federal court zoomed in on settled federal court rulings as they always do. This reversal is not surprising to me. The Pharisees cannot see their hypocrisy, no more than a court jester sees the strings attached to him. However, they won’t escape judgment themselves. The court’s reversal decision only reflects the hardness of their heart/resolve.
This is decision is based on ‘INTENT.’ And there is never going to be a legislator who will admit to ‘INTENT’ So, the Appeals court reverses the lower court’s ruling in favor the defendant’s, merely because nowhere in the legislated laws of Congress or the States is printed the word INTENT. What I find very troublesome with SORNA legislations and these courts double talk of no ‘INTENT’ of further punishment, is their DISCLAIMERS following SORNA laws right down to the law enforcement. These disclaimers on all Federal and State SOR’S websites reveal the legislators, before the enactment of SORNA, considered the outcome of public SOR’ registries would most likely give rise to ostracism, reproaching, job loss or unemployment. homelessness, and even VIGILANTE’s targetting those on the registries for harassment, assaults, robberies, and death. Which all the above indeed has happened. So, I believe these disclaimers do show prior knowledge of what can and will happen to those on the registries. If not malicious criminal intent perpetrated by hands vigilantes, at least criminal intent of ‘knowingly enacting laws that would give rise to crimes committed on or toward those Americans on these registries. Their disclaimer goes something like this; We cannot be held criminally or liable for any person who uses the sex offender registry to target those on the SONRA.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 18:16:51 +0000

In reply to somebody682. So because of the supreme court decision, that's it. Never going to change, it will always be this way. All we can is sit back and wait until we die. Pray we don't get old and need to be in a nursing facility, because none will take us. What I great future I have.

By: somebody682

somebody682 — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:48:03 +0000

In reply to Joe123. I missed the residency restrictions part of the ruling. That I blame the 10th Circuit more for. SCOTUS has never ruled on whether or not residency restrictions are punishment. IIRC, part of the Smith v Doe ruling explicitly said that sex offender registration is not akin to banishment. At least at the time of the case, Alaska didn't have any sex offender residency restrictions.

By: somebody682

somebody682 — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:40:09 +0000

I’m not going to blame that much of this on the 10th Circuit to be honest. SCOTUS already ruled that registration isn’t punishment. The 10th Circuit has to follow SCOTUS under stare decisis. And if something isn’t punishment, it can’t be considered cruel and unusual punishment, even for juveniles or minor offenders.

Unfortunately, the way stare decisis works is that bad precedent (such as Smith v Doe) leads to more bad rulings.

By: Sex Offender TRUTH

Sex Offender TRUTH — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:50:12 +0000

In reply to Joe123.

Hey Joe123 seems like it’s not just that state but ALL states! The fact is that Black Lives might Matter but ours sure the f^ck don’t!

Society will bend over backwards for some vandals and looters and actually reward them but do your 20 years on this repugnant hit list and what do you get? Any of those reparations for the abuse we face daily – no – didn’t think so!

Nope the entire USA isn’t very bright are they and they are only getting dumber!

By: DM

DM — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:49:24 +0000

Registered and living in Colorado….very disappointed….sad…. not surprised. It was a long time coming and based on what has happened in Michigan when their Legislature was told to get in line, I am not confident it would have mattered.

By: Tereto

Tereto — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 21:43:25 +0000

They will always argue the intended purpose of these registration laws is to protect the public from sex offenders, but what the laws intentions are and what actually applies are world’s apart. We see new laws added all the time which can easily be considered punishment. We know there in no guaranteed protection with such laws and the need for them is moot at best, yet law makers excuses will always be worded as thus. Intentions and actual effects are more often than not, world’s apart.