Three years ago, a federal judge ruled that such consequences amounted to cruel and unusual punishment of three men who challenged their treatment under Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act. Last week a federal appeals court overturned that decision, saying the burdens imposed by registration do not even qualify as punishment, making the Eighth Amendment irrelevant.
While that conclusion might seem counterintuitive, it comports with the U.S. Supreme Court’s understanding of sex offender registration, which it views as civil rather than punitive. Even though there is no evidence that publishing information about people convicted of sex offenses protects public safety, that is what legislators claim they are trying to do. And since their goal is prevention rather than retribution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled, any harm inflicted by this policy is incidental.
That is not how it looks from the registrant’s perspective.
There was a time when Jim Crow laws weren’t considered racist. Judges are prevented from stating the obvious because they know if they do, the whole thing comes down. Since i refuse to believe that a judge is stupid, it means one and only one thing: THEY PURPOSEFULLY LIE and making rulings based on a desired outcome rather than commons sense or even the Law.
In 2020, any judge who continues to state that sex offender laws “are not punishment” should be disciplined for failure to recognize the obvious.
Everyone knows it’s punishment, including them.
If anyone at FAC is watching the RNC tonight, this would be a GREAT TIME to get letters or some kind of correspondence with the President. I’ve heard a lot of talk about first time offenses and second chances. We have to get it through everyone’s head that “sex” does not mean “violent”. I say this because they’ve emphasized “non-violent first time offenses”. News media and LE mislead people and politicians by referring to sexual offenses as “violent” crimes.
This is the time, people. It’s worth a chance. I’ve seen plenty of video footage of average people who are part of some kind of committee or activist group getting to SIT AND TALK with Pres. Trump. There’s no reason in the world why FAC and/or NARSOL can’t do the same.
They should wait and talk to the new president. After the chaos ends.
Unfortunately there are many reasons why that won’t happen. I know that FAC in the beginning spend much time and expense in Tallahassee getting face time with lawmakers (and this effort is always ongoing) and from what I understand what came out of that effort was the understanding that though lawmakers will say to our face they agree (and they do!) to do so in public is instant political suicide. Listen, we’re doing good. Our fight is in the courts and we will win eventually because the law, commons sense, morality and what is safest for our communities are ALL on our side. It’s just a matter of getting judges to open their minds, rule according to law and make the right decision. As you can see this whole idea of “punishment” is a major barrier. Judges often either cannot or refuse to see this scheme as punishment due to the fact that a) lawmakers don’t intend it to be and b)even if it is, it serves a greater, legitimate purpose of protecting children. Both of course are untrue. We’re so close. Judges around the country are starting to see the light. More so than ever before. As the research keeps pilling up, and the examples of obvious punity occur, we inch closer and closer. These lawsuits that FAC are working on – it’s good it’s happening later rather than sooner. We need more judges elsewhere creating case law in our favor. The more the better. We will do this, everything is gonna work out – I truly believe this. End of sermon – thanks i guess i needed to vent a little. 🙂
Rpsabq
Unfortunately I agree .It wouldn’t do any good to talk with any politician now. The only possibility is if Trump would win the election for then he would have nothing to loose by helping a cause he believes is unjust. Especially because of the magnitude of wasted money. Right now it would be suicide for any politician .
so basically the court said “Tough sh*t!” to every registrant covered by the 10th Circuit. We need Alabama’s registry to get challenged to SCOTUS. The Colorado registry does NOT have anywhere near the restraints of AL’s registry. We don’t want a “lax” registry to be the one that we fight all the way to SCOTUS, we need one like AL, FLA, or TN.
Obvious answers
I love it . Great idea!!! They just don’t get it.
Let us take this to another level; Let us put on our Legal Thinking Hats:
So, now, Colorado has decided that SOR laws are Civil and NOT punitive (Criminal).
So, if this is the case, there within, if a person who is forced to register is charged for a violation of the aforementioned, it is treated AS CRIMINAL based on Strict Liability of the Law (as Colorado, and many other State Jurisdictions have adopted the Strict Liability Thesis).
The Big Oxymoron is that the State of Colorado has deemed SOR as Civil, therefore, Jurisprudence should be based on CIVIL LAW and not CRIMINAL LAW, as Strict Liability is based on CRIMINAL LAW!
Last evening, I spoke to a Retired Federal Appeals Court Judge (appointed by President Regan-[NO POLITICS, PLEASE]), and within minutes, That person said to me that, My Analyses was “ON POINT”; as he said, “You Got Something here, BIG TIME! This is a Fantastic Argument, and this will probably Upset the Apple Cart!” That person will help guide US through this MORASS, as needed!
Something to brood over as We Eat Our Wheaties this morning!
Everyone Stay Healthy and Safe!
TheTruthHurts
I agree completely. They can’t have it both ways either criminal or civil. They can’t say the restrictions are civil but if you accidentally fail to comply with one you are punished criminally.
A question that immediately came to mind is whether there are applications of strict liability applied in civil cases. There are, and product liability in tort cases was my first thought. My second question is whether there are other examples of civil regulatory measures that provide for the commission of a new felony rather than just civil penalties such as fines? If so, shouldn’t they then be classified as a criminal statute, and thus subject to more rigorous constitutional standards, e.g. ex post facto? You may have started the apple cart to wobble a bit.
At this point, I have no idea regarding the answer to the second and third questions. I believe that your analysis certainly deserves more investigation. It is this sort of out-of-the box legal thinking that may open new avenues of attack. Thanks.
Although the Supreme Court did not rule ANY registration requirements are not punishment, neither did it provide concrete guidance as to when the punishment line is crossed. Courts generally only answer the questions put to them in individual cases, and will not apply rulings more broadly. Cases such as Millard are necessary but only nibble at the margins. We need to find new questions to ask in order to get new answers.
Veritas.
Nice catch. I hope someone challenges it.
Will this effect the Florida ex post facto case? If so how? Thank you for any info given.
Well what needs to be done is there needs to be a group of individuals collecting and disseminating judges, legislators personal information..all of it… telephone numbers (private and work),vehicles used and borrowed,all internet monikers and addresses….it may appear as punishment BUT it really is not..Its a community service, a civil service..They work for the public so its the publics best interest to have 24/7 access to them..build it like pirate Bay so every time they take it down it springs up in ten new places…I wonder how long it will be before they understand what punishment looks like then ..lol
I wonder if the plaintiffs are going to be able to certify the 6th circuit opinion as being in conflict with the 10th’s and other State Supreme court opinions resulting in similar conclutions.
Mark, we don’t want that registry to be the one challenged all the way to SCOTUS! The CO registry does not have near the restrictions Alabama, TN, Florida, or MS has. We need the most onerous, most debilitating registry with the most restraints/disabilities to fight all the way to SCOTUS. We need one that’s so over the top with restrictions that the court will be pretty much forced to rule it punitive.
Thank you for the correction. I hope they all went out and had a beer and congratulated themselves together after the decision. They’ll look like heroes in the morning paper.
Below this article, some very good comments.
It’s obvious the judge had made up his mind as to how he or she was going to decide this case before it ever began. He just had to figure out how he was going to twist the laws around to keep from looking like a complete idiot. You failed Judge.
It’s a panel of judges. not one.
From oral arguments, it’s not obvious that judges were going to rule this way. Plaintiff-appellees’ lawyer unfortunately made it a little easier for them to do so.
The lawyer defending judge Matsch’s decision stammered and stuttered a lot and didn’t sound all that confident to me in the first place. I listened to the oral arguments.
Also, consider this….LEGISLATORS CAN MOST LIKELY GET BACK DOOR EX PARTE ACCESS TO JUDGES WHENEVER THEY WANT TO, SO YOU KNOW SOME POLITICAL ARM TWISTING WAS ENGAGED IN.
Usually there’s one judge that stands out steering the pack I would certainly like to know who that was.