« "Racial Disparities, Judicial Discretion, and the United States Sentencing Guidelines" | Main | Marching bishops perhaps take Connecticut to verge of repealing its death penalty »

April 3, 2012

Ohio Supreme Court finds required juve sex offender registration unconstitutional on numerous grounds

As reported in this lengthy official press release, the "Supreme Court of Ohio today voided as unconstitutional provisions of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that impose automatic lifelong registration and community notification requirements on certain juvenile sex offenders who were tried within the juvenile court system."  Here is more on this significant state Supreme Court ruling which has national implications:

In a 5-2 majority decision authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, the court held that applying automatic lifetime sex offender registration and community notification requirements imposed by the AWA against an Athens County 15-year-old violated the prohibitions in the U.S. and Ohio constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment, and also violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law....

ustice Pfeifer’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Yvette McGee Brown. Justices Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp entered separate dissenting opinions.

The full opinions in In re C.P., No. 2012-Ohio-1446 (Ohio Apr. 3, 2012) (available here), run 53 pages and they are all must reads for any and everyone who follows juvenile justice issue or sex offender registration issues or Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.  Here is how the majority opinion gets started:

In this case we determine the constitutionality of R.C. 2152.86, which creates a new class of juvenile sex-offender registrants: public-registry-qualified juvenile-offender registrants.  These offenders are automatically subject to mandatory, lifetime sex-offender registration and notification requirements, including notification on the Internet.  We hold that to the extent that it imposes such requirements on juvenile offenders tried within the juvenile system, R.C. 2152.86 violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16.

April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2016303a36c4d970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio Supreme Court finds required juve sex offender registration unconstitutional on numerous grounds:

Comments

This "little angel" who needs protection from having to register as a sex offender according to the Ohio Supreme Court abducted and raped a 6 year old boy and prevously was convicted of raping his 8 year old half sister and sent to sex offender therapy where he admitted to raping or sexually molesting at least 5 other girls. He committed all of those offenses by the time he was 15. And the Ohio Supreme Court somehow thinks it is grossly excessive "cruel and unusual punishment" to require C.P. to register as a sex offender? Really, this kid is the very definition of a dangerous icky perv who has raped multiple children over time.

What are they possibly thinking? Even if the sex offender registry somehow is punishment, this little monster and budding psychopath has raped multiple children over time and even after being in sex offender treatment program raped and abducted a 6 year old. This icky perv is an absolute menance to any child who he gets near - merely being on the sex offender registry isn't punishment for this kid - mere listing on the sex offender registry for such an obviously dangerous offender is an absolute joke. How many children does this monster have to rape before he is permanently taken out of circulation and locked up for life?

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Apr 3, 2012 12:06:13 PM

Erika:: "And the Ohio Supreme Court somehow thinks it is grossly excessive "cruel and unusual punishment"
to require C.P. to register as a sex offender?"

Such is by definition, a liberal position based upon liberal or "progressive" philosophy.

"If I looked at jails and crimes and prisoners in the way the ordinary person does, I should not speak
on this subject to you. The reason I talk to you on the question of rime, its cause and cure, is
because I really do not in the least believe in crime.

There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there
is any sort of distinction between the real moral condition of the people in and out of jail.
One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the
people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail
because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot
avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their
control and for which they are in no way responsible."
~~Clarence Darrow, 1902

[Try to find a conservative who will go for that.]

Posted by: Adamakis | Apr 3, 2012 1:24:34 PM

all registrations should be ruled unconstitutional on numerous grounds

Posted by: Tom Danson | Apr 5, 2012 1:27:55 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB