Comments on: SCOTUS: United States v. Haymond: a win for the registrant

By: Sc

Sc — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:14:39 +0000

In reply to Candice.

@Candice,

The difference is like the word tomato.Is it pronounced tomAtoe? or is it pronounced toMAHtoe…

Regardless of which it’s still the same thing. Those in power will tell you that civil is different from criminal in that um… Well, there’s no trial, no new crime, this isn’t punishment, it’s for the greater good… and other nonsense like that.

As far as this car goes, he was basically convicted for a new crime that he was never charged for.

By: Sc

Sc — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:05:59 +0000

I came across this article on another site. At the time it had 800+ comments so I decided to see what was being said.

I was pleased to read that the majority (19 out of 20 maybe) of those posting were commenting that this was the correct course of action for this case as laid out by the Constitution. The fact that this guy was on probation fur a sex crime was irrelevant as far as the comments went nor that he “may” have downloaded more illegal pics.

Might be the fear machine is losing its grip?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:04:56 +0000

In reply to Tearful Eagle. would be great, but as we all know the registry is not punitive.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:08:32 +0000

In reply to Candice. Civil commitment does not require the accusation of a new crime. Sometimes it does not even require new facts of any kind. So this case did not cover civil commitment. I suspect SCOTUS already has issued a ruling that in effect has allowed civil commitment, but I’m not sure what case.

By: Candice

Candice — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:27:34 +0000

What about civil commitment? They learn things about someone after the fact or find new evidence and confine a person indifferently without a jury’s decision. How is it any different?

By: Tearful Eagle

Tearful Eagle — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:33:54 +0000

In reply to Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN Ret. I agree with you for sure on the constitutional aspect. My question however is that not the job of the judge, to hear the case and then apply the law as he or she interprets it. Then if two different courts come up with differing opinions then the SCOTUS who should be constitutional experts and advocates settle difference? This is why in my opinion we need judges who are strict constitutionalits.

By: Tearful Eagle

Tearful Eagle — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:28:33 +0000

So enlight of this case. Can it be used in the export facto challenge? My thinking is this. If one was sentenced before the registry came out and is now forced to register which has liberty issues, can we be put on the registry without a jury saying so. It would seem according to my layman’s perspective that Gorsuch would say no?

Just random idea from someone who is tired of being tired.

By: EdC

EdC — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:24:42 +0000

In reply to EdC. Oops, the words "on supervised release" should have been in [ ] not ( ).

By: EdC

EdC — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:19:15 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee.

That is the key point! The last two sentences of 3583(k) were the object of the decision. The first sentence says; “[i]f a defendant (on supervised release) required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act commits any criminal offense….” One has not committed a “criminal offense” until until he has been convicted through a jury trial, a plea or a bench trial. In those proceedings, all constitutional due process provisions apply.

Any violation that does not rely on the finding of a new criminal offense can be handled by a judge as usual. No problem there.

By: Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN Ret

Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN Ret — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:42:54 +0000

Our laws are so convoluted that even the people in the ‘law business’ are confused. This is what happens when opinion rather than the Constitution is used to determine an individual’s freedom. I have never been in favor of ‘case law’. If one judge gets it wrong an injustice can be perpetuated for years before it is corrected. The Constitution should have to be cited in every judgment. I guess if one is in the ‘law business’ it’s job security for many.