TN: Judge orders state to remove men from sex offender registry
A federal judge ruled Monday that Tennessee’s sex offender registration act is unconstitutional, at least as it was applied retroactively to two offenders.
The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee affects only the two men who sued, identified in court documents as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2.
“I think the ruling, while it is narrowly tailored to our clients, does open the door to the possibility of a class action,” attorney Ed Yarbrough said in an interview.
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson had already ruled in February that parts of the law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents people from being punished by a law passed after their crime was committed. On Monday, he ordered the state to stop enforcing any part of the law against the two plaintiffs and to remove their names from the sex offender registry.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TN: yet another ex post win, more registry removals:
https://fox17.com/amp/news/local/federal-judge-rules-for-tenn-sex-offenders-rebukes-state
Ex post
THANK you so much for posting that. I consider this and the judges statements a huge win. At least for those 8 people. It Seems to take tons of money for each person to win because the “Bulk” removal thing is not working. Each person is going to have to do this on their own and many cannot afford it.
I will be eligible soon and will borrow off of my 401K to try and appeal. When I say soon I mean in the next 16 months. Shame they make us wait 20 after we are off all paper. If the judge says we should not be on retroactively, why do we have to wait 20 years?
Ruling could change TN’s registry:
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/ruling-could-signal-future-change-to-tennessees-sex-offender-registry
Note that this causes concern among victim advocates, according to the article. Not victims; victim ADVOCATES, who make a living claiming to speak on behalf of victims. We rarely hear victims themselves advocating for more registration.
I’m going to express a viewpoint regarding victims that will probably get me hunted down by people with pitchforks and torches. I propose that when it comes to the subject of registration, the desires of victims are not relevant. (“Burn him. He’s a witch.”) Make no mistake, I do have great compassion and empathy for victims of sexual assault.
The wishes of victims are primarily driven by feelings of retribution, which are absolutely valid. “I want to hurt the person who hurt me.” The traditional justifications for judicial punishment are deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. Adequate retribution is certainly necessary. However, along with the other three elements, the appropriate amount of retribution is factored in to punishment at sentencing. That is the time when victim needs, desires and anger must be strongly advocated for and then considered by the sentencing authority. Advocating for harsher punishments at various legislatures is also an option.
Short of the death penalty or imprisonment for life, some victims will never feel that their perpetrator has been adequately punished. Their feelings of “closure” will not be satisfied by anything less. Sex offender registration is ostensibly not punishment. Its stated purpose is only to enhance public safety. Whether or not a person is on the registry has nothing to do with retribution, which is thus not relevant.
Victims and those who advocate for victims rights and desires for retribution do indeed have a paramount place in the legislative and sentencing processes, but little or no place regarding sex offender registration.
Veritas.
Ed C
Not always the case. In my Case, no one even showed up but me and my lawyer. The state was trying to force the witness to testify but she did not want to as it was her parents who turned us in for dating. I did not want to force her to show up and have a trial so I plead guilty.
That was a huge mistake. I got a 30 year sentence. I went back on appeal and again, she did not show up. This time I challenged in a higher court that the sentence was cruel and personal in nature. The new judge agreed and tossed the rest of my sentence. That was after I had already served 10 years.
I guess my point is that victims get their say in criminal proceedings if they choose. Since registration is not supposed to be punishment, victims’ desires for additional retribution should not be a factor in legislation or implementation.
I’m glad that you got the bulk of that sentence thrown out. That was at least a bit of justice.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_16-cv-02862/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_16-cv-02862-3.pdf
Took a while but I found the official ruling.