MT Supreme Court: The Registry is Punitive
Montana has joined a small but growing list of state supreme courts that have ruled that their states’ registries are punitive and cannot be imposed retroactively. Selected excerpts:
“A growing body of research into the effectiveness of sex offender registries has cast significant doubt on their capacity to prevent recidivism.” And “the burdens and intrusiveness of SVORA have increased substantially through the subsequent amendments.”
“We conclude that the SVORA structure in place since 2007 is punitive and therefore cannot apply retroactively under the ex post facto clause. Unlike the pre-2007 SVORA, the law today places onerous, life-long affirmative restraints on registrants that significantly hinder their liberty and deprive them of privacy. These burdens and the scope of information collected are excessive in relation to the civil regulatory goal. Criminal conduct is undisputedly the trigger for the registry requirements, and the registry itself, by design, implicates a host of collateral consequences and encourages social stigma. These characteristics are emblematic of criminal punishment.”
“Under our constitution, citizens have the right to be free from retroactive punishment. If the people, through their legislature, wish to create harsh and long-lasting consequences for certain crimes, they may do so, but it is unconstitutional to reach back years or decades and alter the punishments from previous convictions or retroactively punish conduct that was once lawful. By amending SVORA to create a punitive scheme of harsh and lifelong consequences for sexual offenses, the State created a structure that it can only constitutionally apply to convictions in a prospective manner.”
“We hold that SVORA, as amended since 2007, is punitive in nature. The requirements brought on by those amendments cannot be retroactively applied to defendants whose convictions predate them.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am the sister-in-law of a sex offender. The laws placed on SO affect their entire families. I am angry and heart broken at the cruelty that is spewed on these people and their families. They are human beings too!!!
TO GIVE THE EIGHT ANSWER TO THE COIRTS, OTHER THAN WE ALREADY KNOW THAT STATS AND HOW IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD FOR SOCIETY AND DOES NOT GOOD FOR FAMILIES AND NO GOOD FOR BUSINESSES OR THE ECONOMY.
SIMPLY LOOK AT The State of Connecticut.
The only thing is to sign a piece of paper every 90 days and in between those times you can go where you want so what ever you want as long as you don’t harm anyone and don’t break the laws or harm anyone… Free to go. But this in place and a very small crime rate and does no good but harm society and stop families for providing for the families.
Point PR ven is the economy would be better off with no back ground checks and no registry.
Safety measures for the public are already in place and to reduce the amount of harm in society.
The registry and the requirements are in fact bombastic and these politicians know it and these judges know it. They are the problem to societies VIOLANCE not the people.
Also, Connecticut is a 10 yr registry state. Only certain (heinous sex offenses) get 15 yrs or life on the registry there.
Awesome! I can’t wait until the Court decision in Does v. Swearingen, if they ever get around to it.
@David
Seems to them to not be much of a priority. It was like when I didn’t want to do something when I was a kid I would run away from home. Avoiding responsibility at all costs.
I hope New York and Hawaii will be the next states to change their laws. SCOTUS DEFINITELY NEEDS TO OVERTURN BOTH MEGAN’S LAW, AND INTERNATIONAL MEGAN’S LAW!
It’s simple in Fl. The juvenile registry is not retroactive but the adult registry is. Case closed if an honest judge