If It’s “Not Punishment,” Then What’s $1.5 Million For?
For years, the government has insisted that being labeled a “sex offender” is not punishment. Courts have echoed it. Legislatures rely on it. The label, we’re told, is merely “civil,” a regulatory measure with no punitive effect.
Then along comes the case of Ashley MacIsaac…
MacIsaac, a well-known musician, recently found himself on the receiving end of a little technological hiccup when Google’s AI decided out of thin air that he was a registered sex offender. Out there in public. A declaration served up to anyone who searched his name online.
No big deal, right? After all, we’ve been assured that label doesn’t actually hurt anyone. It’s not punitive.
Except, strangely, his concert got canceled. His reputation took a hit. He reported concerns for his personal safety. And now he’s suing Google for $1.5 million. Which is interesting. Because if the label carries no stigma… if it’s not punitive… if it doesn’t affect a person’s standing in the community… if it doesn’t cost them their job… then what exactly is that $1.5 million supposed to compensate? A mild inconvenience? A clerical annoyance? Perhaps the emotional distress of being slightly misunderstood?
Let’s be serious!
In the real world — the one outside of court opinions and legislative talking points — being labeled a sex offender is about as far from “non-punitive” as it gets. It changes how people see you instantly. It affects your job, your housing, your relationships, your safety. But here’s where it gets interesting.
When someone like MacIsaac — someone not on any registry — is falsely labeled, everyone suddenly understands the gravity of it. The damage is obvious. The outrage is justified. The legal system recognizes it as the kind of harm worthy of a seven-figure lawsuit. Yet when the government applies that same label to hundreds of thousands of people and without any individualized risk assessment and sometimes decades after the offense took place, we’re told — straight-faced — that it’s not punishment. That it’s just an administrative tool for public safety.
So which is it? Because it can’t be both. Either the label is devastating, which is why MacIsaac is in court demanding big compensation, or it’s harmless. Of course, we all know the answer. The harm is real. It’s immediate. And it’s severe.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those made to register as the result of a conviction = Pandora’s box
Those that are labeled as registered in error, or falsely accoused of being one = Cash box
When I got caught up in net nanny sting it ruined any career forever for sure. My case was over a picture sent on my phone though it was sent by a friend but yes I pleaded out for trial is suicide in 2015. Well when I was arrested I was in talks to work for General Atomics on their new rotax engines also drone used now heavily over seas. This killed that career from ever transpiring and money I could of made. An example of ending a life. Arresting was sorry but I take that as him being able to sleep at night plus I was a score for him and oceola county they put press brief just for me when arrested out
when i was arrested for looking at a picture, they seem to enjoy the fact that my life was from then on ruined and useless to society by FDLE and the County deputies there.
Here’s something I wrote some time ago.
I’ve heard it before where concerns are raised for the safety of one falsely accused of a sex offence and then completely dismissed for those of us who were correctly accused.
The sex offence registry is either inherently dangerous or it is not. The consortium of they shouldn’t be allowed to report a thing as dangerous only when it affects those falsely accused unless we as a society agree that the inherent dangerousness of the registry is acceptable. And if we do, shouldn’t we then agree that an inherently dangerous policy should then be considered a punishment as punishments often harbor acceptably dangerous consequences to an offender?
It’s all about being defendable.
Ones ethnic background is defendable.
Ones gender is defendable.
Ones Religion is defendable.
But then we get into another area. Ones activities. Can ones activities be defendable? Sure. Being an employee or enjoying a hobby. These are activities that can be defendable.
But, can car jacking be defendable as an activity? How about thievery or robbery or sexual offending or murder?
We are not saying ‘ I cook hamburgers for a living so therefore I shouldn’t be discriminated against.’
We’re saying we did horrible things to people and we were punished.
If the carjacker can move forward after punishment and we were both released from our obligations to our government then why must society keep adding these arbitrary and capricious restrictions and irrational carve-outs?
But wait there’s more; “Least Restrictive Means test. When the Supreme court, in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, uses the permissive rational basis standard, it demands only that a law be a rational means for achieving a legitimate governmental purpose.”
So if this logic is good enough for the rest of society then why not society’s pariahs?
From a song I wrote; “If I shoulda got life then I woulda got life.”
End this nonsensical madness.
The only good the sex offence registry ever did was to give politicians votes so they can restrict the lives of even more citizens.
Of course, not punishment. No stigma.
The usual blah, blah, blah from lawmakers.
I’m sure it’s no different from Google deciding to publicly label him as a “pedestrian”.
It is punitive. I have been threatened to be killed, scammed, ect. Told the State of Florida if yall don’t start doing anything I will have no choice but to protect myself. These laws have gone way to far. It’s time for change. NO MORE REGISTRY
Why can’t this case be used as case law against the registry.
Somebody send that man (MacIsaac) a Costco membership! He’s earned it!