DOJ seeking comments on proposed SORNA Rule
The Department of Justice is proposing a rule that specifies the registration requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (‘‘SORNA’’). The rule in part reflects express requirements of SORNA and in part reflects the exercise of authorities SORNA grants to the Attorney General to interpret and implement SORNA’s requirements. SORNA’s requirements have previously been delineated in guidelines issued by the Attorney General for implementation of SORNA’s requirements by registration jurisdictions.
NOTE: This appears to be in response to the Non-Delegation issue that was before the SCOTUS in Gundy:
You can read the full notice here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/pdf/2020-15804.pdf
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read thru it but very legalese so not sure I fully understood it. Will this implement new substantive restrictions on us?
I read in it that “courts have consistently rejected ex post facto challenges to SONRA itself” and references US V Felts. Does this have any effect on our ex post facto challenge?
In essence… any Ex Post Facto challenge will fail and your Federal Government requires anyone, regardless of when sentenced as well as disregarding what your State requirements or lack thereof, to register for the time period of their choosing according to the Tier System.
Also, the AG has the authority to add anything they want to the requirements to register.
Neat huh?
Oh, the 7 day temporary address requirement to register is lovely due to “[t]he benefits of having this information include facilitating the successful investigation of crimes committed by sex offenders while away from their normal places of residence and discouraging sex offenders from committing crimes in such circumstances.”
If only there was so much concern for the multitude of other crimes being committed in the U.S. for those who have prior felonies with much, much higher recidivism. This conclusion flies in the face of logic and reality. I am confused by the continuous pursuit of the illusion of public safety by focusing on a group of citizens that have proven (for decades), repeatedly I might add, that the levels of new laws aimed at monitoring them are grossly unnecessary and do absolutely fuck all in addressing the prevention of new crimes by those who are not being monitored.
Sigh…. I want out of this “great nation” more and more every day.
/rant off.
This ties into what I was referring to in a previous post about a Federal AND a State registry by the way.
I wish they would put it more in layman‘s terms. I get lost in the legalese. From what I gather everybody must register regardless of when the offense took place, Retro active as well.
You gather correctly sir!
@SC.
“Also, the AG has the authority to add anything they want to the requirements to register”.
No. I don’t believe the AG has this authority, because some were sentenced under different laws with different requirements.
In order for him to do this he would be, in essence, modifying the sentence or even vacating the sentence handed down by the judge, which would mean he now would be in violation of ‘separation of powers’ by becoming a judge himself, and overruling the previous judge’s judgment and an acting ‘judicial’ branch of the government, which is not only unconstitutional, but a governmental violation.
He cannot make his own laws either, because he is not a legislative branch of the government either.
This is why we have separation of powers, and it doesn’t matter how big you are, if they are violated, then it won’t fly.
The US attorney general has to appear before SCOTUS and can be denied.
David, I think you are not quite on point. Remember registration is not part of the punishment stipulated by the court. It is a civil regulatory measure. I don’t see any separation of powers question here. Please let me know if I am not interpreting this correctly.
Veritas.
@Ed C
Hi, Ed. For those who are labeled Sexual Predators under Megan’s Law, the judge tells them they will have to register the rest of their life at their sentencing, so, it is part of the sentence handed down, as well as PRC.
In most felony cases, it was mandatory that PRC was given, and if it was not given by the judge, then the sentence was void and felons actually had to be brought back to court while in prison, and their sentences vacated, and re-sentenced with PRC and then sent back to prison.
I don’t see much, if any any difference here.
PRC is not part of your imprisonment, (non-punitive) but part of the sentencing, and follows it the same as registration and is handed down orally upon sentencing.
Similarly, if it was mandatory that someone was to be on PRC, but got out of prison before it was found missing on the docket, then they were free from PRC-the court could not impose it, yet now the AG is trying to impose the registry for thousand’s of people that never carried it in their sentences regardless that it is a civil regulation. He is adding to the sentence an ordinance that did not exist, and in order to add anything, just like the PRC, you have to vacate the previous judgment which only a judge can do.
If someone under a previous law which did not carry a lifetime registration though the crime was the same as the one under the newer Megan’s Law or even the most current AWA, then in effect, a new judgment has been rendered that has been added to a past judgment that the judge nor the law required at that time and therefore the Attorney General has, in essence, re-visited and un-finalized the courts’s sentence and amended what was handed down by the judge which I see is a disgusting separation-of-powers violation.
I hope this makes it clear what I am getting at, and thanks Ed, for being so kind in your words 🙂
They know its unconstitutional so they are trying whatever they can do keep it justified in the minds of public policy makers, judges, and the citizens.
Thanks FAC for getting this out so quickly.
Who here’s good at this stuff?
Load of crap stuff, as this is just minimally required BS, and notes that all jurisdictions can impose further laws as they already do.
What’s your bead on this… a good thing? Bad thing?