Win in AL: 11th Circuit deems Alabama sex offender restrictions too harsh
Alabama cannot completely prohibit convicted sex offenders from cohabitating with minors, according to a 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Wednesday.
After being convicted of one count of possession of child pornography in 2013 and serving his sentence for the crime, Bruce Henry married and his wife gave birth to a son, but state law prohibits sex offenders from residing together or conducting overnight visits with minors, even if it is their own child.
In his resulting lawsuit, Henry said the law was unconstitutional and the state had other methods to protect children that were not so extreme as to strip sex offenders of parental rights.
The three-judge appellate panel Wednesday agreed.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This case also cements the presumption of dangerousness of a PFR. It says the PFR is responsible for proving he/she is not dangerous to children. Once again, the 11th Circuit condemns every Person Forced to Register as a danger to society.
Actually, it is the reverse. While the PFR should always bring a credible accredited individual assessment(s) which proves they’re not a threat, it is the gov’t who must prove they are a threat, which is a greater hill to climb since it is their law they are trying to impose. The PFR should always have data which proves they aren’t a threat not to counter the gov’t but society at large no matter what.
Just as in CA v Thai was found in favor of the people where the gov’t has to prove the petitioner is a threat, the petitioner has always brought some sort of assessment proving they aren’t one to which the gov’t has to overcome. It should be the same way here in this AL case where petitioners should come armed with data proving they aren’t a threat to the minor(s) or the family which the gov’t will have to overcome to enforce their thinking as wanted in the law to begin with.
As a side note, it was interesting to read that Henry’s federal supervised release conditions explicitly excluded his children from a contact restriction with minors. The Eleventh Circuit briefly addressed how supervised conditions restricting contact with minors have been held by every circuit as not narrowly tailored if the boilerplate condition included an offender’s own children. My hope is that, while not directly addressed in the Henry case, offenders who are subject to this boilerplate condition upon their release from prison may return home to their spouse and children without government intrusion. Unfortunately, this was not so in my case as the probation office enforced an after-the-fact imposed boilerplate no-contact-with-minors lifetime supervised release condition to include my child. I could not live in my home after I was released from prison and my wife subsequently asked for a divorce. I challenged the condition in court for over 12 years on numerous occasions with no success. On the heels of the Henry case, I hope the courts in the Eleventh Circuit will never again impose conditions on offenders prohibiting contact with their children as a matter of course.
I have to agree with Cherokee and others on this parental rights issue. While I’m not married and if I had children or came out of prison I would want to be with my family. While courts seem to justify everything even the justification of setting up some in an internet setting. Should not one look at family also. Talk about their code of conduct in all this registry.
If one has to pay a penalty of prison or probation or is ostracized in many ways by this sex registry is that really true justice?
While many judges understand truth those that set-up others do not actually know they are putting themself in jeopardy in many ways with these actions. My hats off to any judge that gives true justice in this registry ordeal sham.
I believe Judges will agree in many cases that the SOR is unconstitutional, but public opinion and the publics votes are what keep the registry alive.
Still a win is a win
Finally, some judges with common sense and some compassion. Or they just believe in justice. Either way, it is a win for families staying together. Being apart could actually cause more issues than being together.