In a decision out of the Ohio Supreme Court today, the Court ruled that ‘Sierah’s Law,’ (creating a violent offender database, which became effective March 20, 2019) does not violate Ohio’s constitutional prohibition on retroactive statutes, when retroactively applied to an offense that occurred before March 20, 2019.
Interestingly, the Court analogized the violent offender database to the sex offender registry and pointed out that: “The duty to enroll as a violent offender is far less burdensome than the registration duties imposed by Megan’s Law, S.B. 5, or the Adam Walsh Act. In comparison to sex offenders, a violent offender has to register less frequently and in fewer places. And in contrast to a sex offender’s registration duties under the Adam Walsh Act, a violent offender’s duty to enroll annually for ten years under Sierah’s Law is far less burdensome than the requirement to register either once a year for 15 years, every 180 days for 25 years, or every 90 days for life. And unlike the database established under S.B. 5 and retained in the Adam Walsh Act, the violent-offender database itself is not a public record, cannot be accessed by the public over
the Internet, and is available only to federal, state, and local law-enforcement officers. Violent offenders are not subject to community notification, and the information about them that is accessible through a public-records request differs little from information that is already available as public records.”
The court had previously ruled that the sex offender registry had “tipped the scales” to becoming punitive in State v. Williams.
While this has no bearing on Sex Offender Registration, it’s interesting that the court points out some of the punitive components of registration as distinguishing one registry from the other.
It’s allowing retroactive punishment which is ALWAYS WRONG!!
It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to see the above made strong hints to the sex offender registry’s punitive nature and harsh penalties for a violation or failure to register.
It also shows one judge can state nothing is punishment and another judge could say the entire registry is punishment. We just need someone in a court that matters to be that person or persons to give us that ticket to freedom, justice, Liberty and the truth. No more hiding behind ancient case law, the bench or your pension.
It should be the exact opposite because violent offenders will have a much higher recidivism rate than sex offenders. So violent offenders should have much higher registration requirements and be listed on a public website so individuals working with them, dating them, and countering them at their church, etc. will be notified that that individual is susceptible to violent reactions / responses.
Would that prevent violent crime?
I think these registrations are nonsense, whether sex offender, violent offender, or gun owner. However…IF they want to be “fair,” violent offenders should definitely swap requirements with PFRs. Hell, a nice public B&E list would let me know if I need to invest in stronger locks or seek options to “protect my family and property.”
This reasoning is GOOD persuasive authority.