Comments on: DOJ urges SCOTUS not to review Sixth Circuit panel decision finding retroactive application of Michigan sex offender law unconstitutional

By: John schultz

John schultz — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:55:47 +0000

I too read the full decision, and both briefs and the SGOpinion. The SG opinion in my view was expertly done, classic DOJ lawyeting. Mary, I don’t share the view it was rushed and illogical. It very slyly and d eviously debased and devalued the significance of the 6th Circuit ruling, saying this was just cleanup and Michigan can fix all this by just rewriting its law. Downplaying whilst redirecting to the other courts of review as similar in action. It was damn sneaky. No one, repeat no one, should read that brief as helpful for our cause. Better read it again if you do.

By: no hope

no hope — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:18:32 +0000

The registry came into effect because the supreme court said many years ago that the list would not be punitive to those on it. obviously years later they could not be more wrong(see definition below)
The fact that if your on it you cannot get the majority of jobs, you cannot live in the majority of areas and everyone in the world can harass or worse harm you because your on the list and a website showing your face and address is about as punitive as it comes. why has this simple fact not been used to overturn the original decision?
is not being employable or being allowed to live where you like not punishment? if you deny anyone of color or religion a job or place to live because of what color they are or what religion they practice is that not punishing them? is that not punitive?
baseball player playing in the college world series this year from oregon state was supposed to be drafted in the 1st round of the draft meaning millions of dollars to him, but because of something he did when he was 15 that landed him on the RSO list not only made him leave the world series early as soon as espn found out but also caused him to not get drafted at all by any team, is that not punitive? people say well he has his degree from Oregon state to get him a job don’t feel bad for him,, don’t they understand that being on the list masters degree or not he is getting hired no where they do background checks?that the majority of RSO’s if not self employed have menial jobs no matter the degree or experience?
pu·ni·tive
ˈpyo͞onədiv/Submit
adjective
inflicting or intended as punishment.

By: Lee C

Lee C — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:46:58 +0000

In reply to Jv.

It would take lawmakers who actually used logic, reason, research, and FACTS!

These are 4 things that lawmakers in Florida HATE more than kryptonite!

Literally…those 4 things actually take away their power. Instead of logic, reason, research, and FACTS, they use a private agenda which will enrich them personally.

You think Rick Scott cares about anyone except Rick Scott? He doesn’t.
You think Rick Scott cares about truth? He doesn’t.

He is not interested in doing anything except what will benefit aka enrich himself personally. Sex offenders are simply pawns to him.

By: Reformed Sex Offender

Reformed Sex Offender — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:56:25 +0000

In reply to G.W.. I definitely agree! It should be part of sentencing and not automatically apply to everyone based on the type of offense or length of sentence.

By: Pj

Pj — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:37:59 +0000

In reply to FLCitzen. @FLCitzen Exactly!

By: PJ

PJ — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 03:05:24 +0000

In reply to Mary.

That part about some courts may disagree with the 6th court of appeal’s Snyder v. Does case is not necessarily true. If SCOTUS doesn’t grant review it means they agree with the Snyder outcome – It has its backing stamped on it. Not to mention the DOJ agreed as well – also stamped on it. That is three federal high powers agreeing in unison – which means that Snyder v. Does will be the most influential case across the land and above all. It will be almost impossible for any other federal court to disagree with it. While I do prefer as well for SCOTUS to review it and go even further with it in our favor, either way it goes, we can do a lot with it in our favor.

By: G.W.

G.W. — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:29:07 +0000

In reply to Reformed Sex Offender. If they are going to do that, they need to do all the punishment during sentencing, and say " this is your punishment, + lifetime (or 10, 20 yrs ) on the registry" and not wait till you are done with prison sentence and/or probation and say "Oh by the way, you have to register for life, (or 10 or 20 yrs. ) ", Not ex post facto.

By: FLCitzen

FLCitzen — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:57:16 +0000

In reply to Jv. I think that would miss the major point that the registry is punishment and indeed unconstitional.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:33:06 +0000

Actually, I don’t see this as a win at all unless SCOTUS takes the case and decides in our favor. Reason being on my thought is that the SG does not want this nationwide and this is a stall tactic. Think about this, if the SG thought these laws were unconstitutional then they would come out and inform SCOTUS of that and not blow smoke up where the sun does not shine trying to keep as many of these laws in place like they are doing now.

By: PJ

PJ — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:18:43 +0000

In reply to Jv.

No.

Nobody should be registering in person or be on a list “post” sentence. This very thing bothers the majority of the SCOTUS justices. Just ask justice Kennedy when he said it was a “troubling fact ” to know that people are being punished even after they finished their sentence. Even with a tried and true individual risk acessment applied correctly, I can bet many people would be off that registry by the thousands. If you’re not dangerous, then why do you have to be on a list with a label that says ” not dangerous” but I’m still here. It’s stupid.