This defendent basically received due process regarding his risk of teoffense. Sad part is his likelihood to reoffend applies via precedent to ALL registrants. No one else will be offered due process..

But still we fight on, and will keep trying

https://www.macombdaily.com/2023/09/22/court-of-appeals-rejects-cruel-unusual-punishment-claim-in-lifetime-sex-offender-registration/amp/

Second, why should the cops here be investigated? They may have been a bit indelicate, but they told the truth. There are a bunch of registrants who did the exact same thing when they were minors, so what is there to investigate? If disciplined in any way, I would think their union reps would raise nine kinds of hell.

Third, why aren’t there any complaints about the DAs in these circumstances? Cops only make arrests, not charges and certainly not prosecutions. I’ll bet the first DA to successfully convict a minor for self-CP is still patting himself on the back.

Fourth, this should be a parental issue, not a legal one. The father could have solved the problem by taking her phone away. Replace it with one that doesn’t have internet access if she “needs” a cell phone (though kids got along just fine without them until 10 or 15 years ago). There was no reason to involve the cops here.

Source: CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/us/columbus-ohio-police-officers-under-investigation/index.html

State statutes often overrule common law, which can result in children, and people with mental disabilities being incarcerated. In a challenge to this, Justice Robert Bell wrote in favor of common law, saying “[mens rea is] a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions of conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” ~ GARNETT v. STATE 332 Md. 571, 632 A.2d 797 (1993) Sadly, Justice Bell was in the minority.

Twenty percent of people on US sex offender registries (200,000) are there because of something they did as a juvenile.

Source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

Who’s the genius that thought this through?