WY: Changes in laws allow for retroactive harsher punishment according to state supreme court.

A bad decision out of the state of Wyoming, where the state’s supreme court allowed changes in registration laws to be applied retroactively against a man whose offense occurred more than a decade before the changes.

Jeffrey Earl Harrison committed a sexual offense in 1994. He was not required to register, because at the time registration was only required for people whose offenses were committed against someone under 16. His offense was not.

In 2009, the law changed and required registration regardless of the age of the victim. Harrison was forced, retroactively and after 13 years, to register.

The Wyoming law, however, had a way off. After 25 years, one could petition for removal. So in 2019, 25 years after his offense and conviction and no subsequent convictions, he petitioned for removal. And was DENIED!

The District Court found that the removal statute required that someone register for at least 25 years. Since he had only been registering for 10 years (because he was not required to register for the first 13 years, as the statute didn’t require it), he would not be eligible for another 15!

WTF, right?!?! So his 25 years of good behavior don’t count for anything and someone who committed a far more heinous crime a decade more recently than him will become eligible for removal before he can, all because a change in the law that’s applied retroactively when it comes to the punitive aspects, but not when it comes to any benefit.

It’s hard to believe, but you can read it for yourself here: https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/Harrison%20S-20-0153.pdf

 


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 thoughts on “WY: Changes in laws allow for retroactive harsher punishment according to state supreme court.

  • March 10, 2021

    Just like any criminal activity, money is doing the talking…Constitution be damned!

    Reply
  • March 10, 2021

    How dare the court rule that the statute means what it says.

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *