MI: Michigan Supreme Court to Look at Lifetime Registration
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to look at the case of a man who’s on the sex offender list for life, although his conviction was erased nearly 20 years ago.
Among the issues: Is it “punishment” to be placed on the registry?
The man was 19 when he was charged with kissing and groping a 12-year-old girl in Wayne County. He pleaded guilty, but his conviction was erased in 1997 after he completed three years of probation. A law gives breaks to young offenders who commit crimes but subsequently stay out of trouble.
Nonetheless, he’s on the sex offender list.
In an order released Saturday, the Supreme Court said it will take up the appeal. The court wants lawyers to address several issues, including whether the registry in some cases violates the constitution as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The man in the Wayne County case said his status on the registry has hurt his ability to work, affected his family life and caused depression. In 2012, a judge ordered his removal, but the state appeals court last year reversed that decision.
“The central purpose of (the registry) is not intended to chastise, deter, or discipline. Rather, it is a remedial measure meant to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public,” the appeals court said.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m thinking that the state appeals court should have their logic checked. Let’s use this statement, and see if it makes any sense:
The central purpose of thalidomide is not intended to prevent children from developing limbs and giving them a 40% survival rate. Rather, it is meant to help with anxiety, insomnia and morning sickness.
After all, we’re just dealing with intentions, apparently.
The Appeals court said:
“The central purpose of (the registry) is not intended to chastise, deter, or discipline ”
I’m sorry, but that statement is laughable with ” intended ” as a keyword. It may have not been intended, but the fact of the matter is, that is what it does. It’s like you’re in a boxing match and you say to your opponent: ” you see, I didn’t mean to pound on you to hurt you, but I’m a boxer and this is what we do “. lol. good intentions, no doubt, but the point of the matter is, you still get hurt.
2nd laughable statement by the Appeals:
“Rather, it is a remedial measure meant to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public.”
Sounds like something the director of the CDC would say in a virus outbreak epidemic (in a Hollywood movie)
Now how and in what way would it do that ? Do you have any empirical evidence that it has been effective? To protect the general public even if the constitutional rights of us all are violated ? If it happened to a family member or a closed loved one of yours, would you still hold on to that statement ?
It is so easy to say something, In order to just quickly dismiss and move on to the next case. Seen it many times sitting in court. It’s a shame.
lol…we both caught that, I guess…
what is the road to hell paved with again? was it tootsie rolls? oh wait….nope it’s not tootsie rolls….