Kansas Courts Uphold the Nation’s Toughest Rules for Tracking People After Conviction
It was recently reported that the Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that the registry is not punitive. It turns out that this registry includes more than just people with a past sex offense. The Kansas Criminal Registry is one of the most sweeping in the country, including people convicted of drug, violent and sex crimes.
The court wrote in its ruling, “Dissemination of registration information does not rise to the level of public shaming, does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, are not excessive, and are rationally connected to a nonpunitive purpose.” What??!! Did the attorney not present the wealth of research proving the sex offense registry is punitive? Or is it because the Kansas registry includes too many other crimes? Or is it because some judges let their own personal biases enter into their decisions?
All registrants must check in with their sheriff’s office and pay $20 every three months. Additional check-ins are required within three days of getting a tattoo or new job or new email address, and for purchasing a car or boat. If a person misses a check-in for more than two weeks or falls behind by $40 on fees, they will be charged with a felony.
Justice Eric Rosen dissented by saying that the registry is “effective banishment”. He also wrote in his dissent, “Countless jurists, scholars, and social scientists have confirmed how common these burdens are to those required to register. Today, the court eschews the United States Constitution and the citizens it stands to protect for reasons I cannot comprehend.”
The biggest shock of all was the majority of the Kansas Supreme Court Justices ruling that the Kansas Legislature did not intend for the system to be a punishment, so it cannot be considered cruel or unusual punishment. So, if a legislative body is not able to see the error of their ways when they pass a law, then the law should stand as constitutional?
Fortunately, some Kansas citizens see the errors of their legislators’ and justices’ ways and are beginning to have a discussion on how to correct these errors.
Also, let us not forget that Kansas does not have residency restrictions.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only value of these KS rulings is the scathing an in depth dissent by KS Supreme Court Justice Eric Rosen. It is really worth a read:
For more than 15 years I have been a proud member of a court that has historically taken an unyielding stand against the degradation of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. See In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 242 P.3d 1168 (2010); In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034, 190 P.3d 245 (2008) (protecting rights of natural parents); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016), adhered to on reh’g 306 Kan. 682, 396 P.3d 711 (2017) (striking down as unconstitutional statute criminalizing refusal to submit to testing of bodily substances deemed to have been impliedly consented to); In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460, 470, 186 P.3d 164 (2008) (upholding juveniles’ constitutional right to jury trial). Even in the era of Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896), this court protected civil rights against forces of discrimination. See, e.g., Board of Education v. Tinnon, 26 Kan. 1, 22-23 (1881) (power to divide city into districts does not include power to divide city according to race, color, nationality, or descent); Webb v. School District, 167 Kan. 395, 403-04, 206 P.2d 1066 (1949) (creation of special school district carved out to exclude African-American children was impermissible subterfuge for segregation).
Today, I feel none of that pride. Today, the court eschews the United States Constitution and the citizens it stands to protect for reasons I cannot comprehend. Today, I dissent….
Who was the defending person in this ruling? Did NARSOL try to stop this or did nobody speak up because nobody knew about it before hand ?
The court wrote in its ruling, “Dissemination of registration information does not rise to the level of public shaming, does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, are not excessive, and are rationally connected to a nonpunitive purpose.”
Just WTH was this judge smoking? It clearly is public shaming, it’s most definitely a disability and an excessive restraint, and punitive that failing to follow any laws whether known or not equals jail and possible prison time. Heck there are states that are happy to slap you with lifetime GPS monitoring, lifetime registration, lifetime probation, etc. All of this after you were already quote on quote punished.
Well, Perhaps,
As Dorothy Said, “Toto, I’ve Got a Feeling We’re Not in Kansas Anymore”
Folks, everyone should be working as hard as possible to take money and other resources from law enforcement. The Oppression Lists deserve consequences. Make them real. De-fund at every opportunity. Vote it.
There are many in law enforcement who will privately tell you that the registry is not working. The real problem is with our legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Follow the money! What is the Kansas supreme court smoking?
Captain
This is just beyond reproach
Highly Flawed Jurisprudence!
Where does One Begin? Or Exist Again!
“The Legal Reasoning, is, Well, Not Consistent, as What is Taught in the Majority of Law Schools in US”
-Discussion with a Retired Law School Dean