« Notable headlines provide signs of the marijuana times | Main | New report assails Massachusetts sentencing and corrections policies and practices »

March 24, 2013

Should sex offender have to pay an annual fee for their monitoring?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new article from Michigan, headlined "ACLU, other groups object to Michigan bill pushing annual sex offender fee."  Here is how it starts:

A bill to require the more than 40,000 people on Michigan's sex offender registry to pay an annual fee is igniting a debate over who should bear the costs for operating and maintaining the state's system used to track offenders.

Registered sex offenders already are required to pay a one-time $50 fee, but some lawmakers want to charge them $50 every year to cover the $600,000 a year cost to operate the database. The state says the move could bring in about $540,000 more in revenue each year.

Sex offenders "put themselves onto this registry by their actions," said Republican Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, who is sponsoring the legislation that is headed to the Senate floor, but not yet scheduled for a vote. "Therefore, they need to pay a fee to maintain it."

But opponents, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, say it's merely a feel-good measure that ignores experiences in other states where the promise of more revenue falls well short of expectations and is an overly burdensome cost for registered sex offenders who already struggle to find housing and jobs.

March 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017ee9b7d0ec970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should sex offender have to pay an annual fee for their monitoring?:

Comments

NO they should not. They should not be paying a dime of it. This illegal piese of shit registry is a retroactive criminal action. Demanding payment just makes it more of a criminal action....EXTORTION.

The fucktard govt stooges want it. They can pay for it.

The hate filled sheeple who live in this country want it. They can pay for it.

Any payment i made would be in a currently they would not like LEAD!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 25, 2013 12:39:14 AM

I work as a reader/writer for a local community college.

This type of legislation could galvanize sex offenders into committing civil disobedience by collectively refusing to pay for it. You would not have enough jail cells to hold all of them.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Mar 25, 2013 9:17:29 AM

Here's an idea for these criminal regimes. They can hire private "non-profit" (wink, wink) companies to visit people on their lists every month (you know, to verify information) and then charge all the people on their lists to pay for it all. How about that?

I'm sorry, but if these criminal regimes want to provide their sheep with a service, then they need to pay for it. I have paid far, far more than my fair share of taxes for decades and I personally am tired of supporting the losers who want huge, nanny governments. You want it, you pay for it. I am sick of carrying you.

People who are on these lists need to ensure that they legally cost these criminal regimes many multiples of what the regimes cost them. I personally like to use a factor of 12. If they cost me $50, then I will cost them $600. This criminal regime thinks they could bring in about $540,000 a year but in reality, it would be counterproductive just like the Registries are and it should cost them about $5,940,000 extra per year.

People who are on these lists: If you don't know, you need to understand that it is quite easy to legally cost criminal regimes a lot of money. You simply need to think about it, be creative, and work on it every day, as needed.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 25, 2013 10:38:38 AM

william r. delzell (Mar 25, 2013 9:17:29 AM):

I personally don't think civil disobedience is a good strategy for the witch hunt. These laws are weapons that the criminal regimes and their scumbag supporters use to attack people on their lists, their spouses, and their children. Therefore, a person on the list has to neutralize that weapon.

I don't know how most people on the list feel about being arrested but to me it is completely unacceptable. If I am ever arrested for any of this stupidity, I am going to go off in a major way. I've already completely decimated the Registries and their associated stupidity and I bring pain to people on a daily basis but I would step it up a hundred fold. This is a war that the morons who support these laws have already lost but they are too stupid to know it or too arrogant to care.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 25, 2013 10:43:31 AM

When is enough, enough?
People charged with sex offenses go to jail or prison, they do their time like for any other crime, but when they get out, they are still "doing time" on a registry that costs them housing, jobs and any kind of normal life. Now you want them to pay for monitoring?
After you've done your time in prison, you shouldn't have to keep paying for your crime.
A prison sentence is punishment enough.
Get rid of the registry, it serves no purpose accept to continue the witch hunt on people who have already paid their debt to society.

Posted by: kat | Mar 25, 2013 11:10:08 AM

Here's my issue: These monitoring companies are not government-run. They're independent businesses. How can a court force someone to sign and adhere to a new commercial contract with a non-government entity under pain of imprisonment if they don't? It's at best an unconscionable contract and at worst fraud.

Posted by: NickS | Mar 25, 2013 1:06:29 PM

Professor Berman, I was hoping you would cover this! I think it is also important to note that this initiative is the second one the "law and order" crowd aimed at sex offenders this year. The first was legislation that, if you can believe it, expanded registration requirements by placing defendants convicted of possessing child pornography on the public registries, instead of the private ones! What's that you say? Adam Walsh required states to put those offenders on the public registries, and so did Michigan before the Republican takeover in 2011? Yup. In 2011, the legislator taking credit for "expanding" the registries actually eliminated the public registry requirement for simple possession defendants! Two years later, he turned around and took credit for expanding the registry by putting them back on! So did the Governor! You can't make this up!

Posted by: Alec | Mar 25, 2013 1:43:28 PM

Quote:

"Sex offenders "put themselves onto this registry by their actions," said Republican Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, who is sponsoring the legislation that is headed to the Senate floor, but not yet scheduled for a vote. "Therefore, they need to pay a fee to maintain it."

Ahh, Senator? You have just admitted that the registry is PUNISHMENT. The registry is ostensibly only legal in the first place because it is considered REGULATORY, and added no undo liberty deprivations to the registrant.

The bottom line: EVERYONE knows the registry is punishment. It once may have been deemed regulatory, but when the effects include many restrictions that supersede those of probation or parole, and for those registrants NOT on probation or parole, then that facade has been ripped from the punitive result that the registry has bequest.

Posted by: Eric Knight | Mar 25, 2013 4:39:32 PM

I am a reader/writer for a small community college.

I got the idea about civil disobedience when I watched a 60 Minutes TV episode last night about some female Russian human rights activists called Pussy Riot, who staged a protest against the Putin dictatorship's increasingly totalitarian tendencies by staging an uncouth skit inside one of Russia's Orthodox churches during a religious service.

While their judgement may have been poor, they did succeed in shocking Russians and the international community about the reality of Russian oppression under Putin. Even those Russians who disapproved Pussy Riot's boorish and vulgar tactics felt that the government imposed an extremely EXCESSIVE sentence on the two defendants that the authorities managed to apprehend. The other activists have gone into hiding and agreed to a 60 Minutes interview only under the condition of altering their voices and hiding their faces. The activists DID succeed in making Putin look ever more sinester.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Mar 25, 2013 7:32:16 PM

LOL A $50 fee causing civil disobedience? This is not 1765 and the Stamp Act.

It is not like this is reserved solely for the diaper snipers. Get a ticket? You will pay fees for the cost to adjudicate it. License suspended? Pay a fee for the cost of a nameless bureaucrat clicking a few keys on the computer and giving it back.

Pistol owners pay for their state's permit system and hunters alone pay for wildlife management in most states (and these are people who committed no crime.)

There are credible arguments against the registries. The problem is that I seldom see them here, as the those against them would rather fall into hysteria about the silly stuff.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 9:02:10 AM

NickS stated: "Here's my issue: These monitoring companies are not government-run. They're independent businesses. How can a court force someone to sign and adhere to a new commercial contract with a non-government entity under pain of imprisonment if they don't? It's at best an unconscionable contract and at worst fraud."

Can I assume that you are against Obamacare? The only difference is that government imposed penalty is financial instead of incarceration.

Actually, there is another difference. Obamacare DOES force individuals into a contract with a commercial entity, while this fee probably does not. I suspect the diaper snipers are paying the government, not the company managing the database. It is kind of like saying that I am forced to have a contract with Cisco Systems because they supply and maintain the software for my state's DMV.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 9:10:46 AM

TarlsQtr1 posted that "the only difference is that government imposed penalty is financial instead of incarceration." Wrong. These people have already been incarcerated, they have served their time, monitoring and registry are nothing more than continued punishment which deprives these people who have already paid their debt, to any quality life.

Posted by: kat | Mar 26, 2013 9:30:44 AM

Tarls no offense but get off your high horse and take a long walk off a short pier.

If you took pretty much every sex offender registry law passed in the last decade and changed "sex crime" to read

DUI
BANKROBBER
DRUNK
DRUG DEALER
EMBEZELLER

and so on. You and all the twits who scram about new sex crime laws would be screaming to high heaven! Right along with the ACLU and every other govt watchdog organization. It's only hate filled two-faced assholes who refuse to see that the CONTINUAL retroactive changing of the law in ONLY the case of sex crimes is perfetly legal when in fact it's TREASON when done by the govt fucktards of this country who took an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 26, 2013 11:52:12 AM

You and the other assholes who want them to pay for their monitoring. There's a solution. It's called Parole/Probation.

Put them on it and charge that normal LEGAL montly fee.

But WAIT. Legally they have FINISHED thier COURT ORDERED criminal PUNISHMENT!

Damn There's that nasty fucking constitution again. Fuck it! Let's do it anyway!

That is the way you think!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 26, 2013 11:54:48 AM

Kat stated: "Wrong. These people have already been incarcerated, they have served their time, monitoring and registry are nothing more than continued punishment which deprives these people who have already paid their debt, to any quality life."

Where does it say that someone's punishment for a crime cannot be BOTH incarceration AND financial? So, no, if you have gone to prison but have not yet paid a fee imposed by the court/state, you have not "paid [your] debt." If the court/state deems that you need to be on a registry and pay for that pleasure as the result of being a diaper sniper, you have not "paid your debt." Just like fines, parole, community service, etc, paying your debt does not necessarily stop at the pedestrian sally port of the local state prison.

Now, if you want to argue that the registry is not supposed to be punitive and is illegal on that basis, along with retroactivity, have at it. I am not an attorney, so take it to the courts and factually I may agree with you. That said, I am not going to shed any tears over a $50 fee either.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 12:17:32 PM

Rodsmith,

I am not sure where we are as a society when being against sex crimes qualifies as being on a "high horse." I must really be an arrogant jerk because I am also fully against murder and knocking grandma over the head for her SS check.

If the courts say it is constitutional, it is constitutional by definition. I hate Obamacare but the courts say it is constitutional, so it is (at least until another SCOTUS says otherwise).

And I have made my position clear here on other threads. I am against registries. Dangerous sex criminals should be locked up and the keys thrown away. When I worked in the prison, there was a rule that if you wrote a misbehavior report and wanted the inmate boxed for an infraction then you better call the sergeant right away and request it. If you wait until after the inmate went back to the housing unit or another location in the prison to make the decision, too late. Why? Because if it was safe enough for the inmate to walk around the prison unescorted, then it is safe enough to not box the guy. I use the same theory with SOs. If they need to be registered, then keep them in prison.

This leaves the 21 year old who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend free to get back to life after prison. This leaves the teenage boy who texted his 21st digit free to get back to life. This even allows the kiddie porn guy who has never actually touched a kid, hopefully after he has served a long sentence, to move on. The rest can rot in a cell. No registry needed.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 12:39:22 PM

TarlsQtr1 (Mar 26, 2013 9:02:10 AM):

I don't think you truly appreciate the glory of being listed on the nanny governments' hit list. In fact, I'm going to say that it is extremely likely that you don't know squat about it and that you ARE NOT EVEN CAPABLE of understanding it. People who are on these lists are done with it. They'll be no more harassment without an equal and greater response.

You find the idea of "A $50 fee causing civil disobedience" hilarious? I do wonder if you can even comprehend the point? The amount is unimportant, it is the idea. $50 means nothing to me, I could easily pay that every day. But believe me, a fee for the privilege of being listed on the nanny governments' moronic hit list is just completely unacceptable. It's obnoxious theft perpetrated by scumbag criminal regimes.

I personally will go beyond civil disobedience in response to such theft and I will recoup every single dollar not only stolen from me, but also every dollar that doesn't come my way because of the nanny hit list (it's a bit hard to calculate but I'm generous). I will recoup those dollars and many multiples as punishment. I have developed many efficient, effective ways to legally take money from criminal regimes every day. IF you pay any taxes, which I seriously question, then you are helping pay for it.

And in closing, since you want to call people who have never harmed children "diaper snipers", I'll go ahead and call you a P.O.S. douche bag. Have a nice day sucking at life.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 26, 2013 12:42:12 PM

TQ stated:

"Where does it say that someone's punishment for a crime cannot be BOTH incarceration AND financial? So, no, if you have gone to prison but have not yet paid a fee imposed by the court/state, you have not "paid [your] debt." If the court/state deems that you need to be on a registry and pay for that pleasure as the result of being a diaper sniper, you have not "paid your debt." Just like fines, parole, community service, etc, paying your debt does not necessarily stop at the pedestrian sally port of the local state prison."

How about this:

"Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning “after the fact.” Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing an ex post facto law, which is one that makes an action a crime even though it was not a crime when it was committed, or increases the penalty for a crime after it was committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make it easier to convict someone. Similarly, Article 1, Section 10, provides that no state shall pass an ex post facto law. The Constitution protects individuals by denying to the Congress or state legislatures the power to punish people by passing ex post facto laws."

I would say a $50 annual fine for life disregarding basic human rights, versus fees for privileges, is an additional punishment.

Also your term, diaper sniper, says more about you than you can imagine!

Thanks!

Posted by: albeed | Mar 26, 2013 1:23:45 PM

FRegostry Terrorists stated: "I don't think you truly appreciate the glory of being listed on the nanny governments' hit list. In fact, I'm going to say that it is extremely likely that you don't know squat about it and that you ARE NOT EVEN CAPABLE of understanding it."

We are in complete agreement. I am not capable of understanding what it is like being on the "hit list" any more than I am capable of understanding how someone commits an act that could get them on it.

You stated: "I personally will go beyond civil disobedience in response to such theft and I will recoup every single dollar not only stolen from me, but also every dollar that doesn't come my way because of the nanny hit list (it's a bit hard to calculate but I'm generous). I will recoup those dollars and many multiples as punishment. I have developed many efficient, effective ways to legally take money from criminal regimes every day. IF you pay any taxes, which I seriously question, then you are helping pay for it."

Your words do a better job of making my case for keeping diaper snipers in prison than I ever could.

You stated: "And in closing, since you want to call people who have never harmed children "diaper snipers", I'll go ahead and call you a P.O.S. douche bag. Have a nice day sucking at life."

Do you prefer, "Dirtbags who raped a woman?" Or "POS perverts that look at naked children?" Take your pick.

I have a good job, can go anywhere I want (including parks, libraries, and schools), can live anywhere I want (including near parks, libraries, and schools), can move without telling a soul, all without the police looking to arrest me if I do, and I suck at life?

Too funny.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 1:47:58 PM

albeed stated: ""Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning “after the fact.”

And anything so cut and dry as you believe should be brought to the courts immediately and overthrown quickly.

Good luck.

You stated: "I would say a $50 annual fine for life disregarding basic human rights, versus fees for privileges, is an additional punishment.'

Yeah, but you probably define "high speed broadband internet for children" as a "basic human right," so excuse me for not being impressed with your statement. It is one of those phrases so overused to be rendered meaningless.

You stated: "Also your term, diaper sniper, says more about you than you can imagine!"

Those 13 words are far harsher than any you have showered on a murderer, rapist, child molester, or any other criminal that has been discussed on this board.

It says more about you than you can imagine!

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 2:00:09 PM

TarlsQtr1 (Mar 26, 2013 1:47:58 PM):

THAT'S your criteria for not sucking at life? If I had thought about it previously, I think I would have guessed that. That's what funny. I'm not sorry for you, it's probably what you deserve.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 26, 2013 2:35:28 PM

FRegistryTerrorists stated: "THAT'S your criteria for not sucking at life? If I had thought about it previously, I think I would have guessed that. That's what funny. I'm not sorry for you, it's probably what you deserve."

It is not an exhaustive list by any means, but sure is a great start.

I will be leading my son's cub scout meeting tonight at the local school. And you?

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 2:48:18 PM

TarlsQtr1 (Mar 26, 2013 2:48:18 PM):

By saying you suck at life, I was actually referring to the fact that you are likely a pathetic person. I wasn't interested in getting in a pissing match with anyone about who's quality of life is better or worse than anyone else's. You can't compete with me there regardless.

But I have learned that you've been fooled by your little panacea BS laws. Do you think that I cannot go to parks, schools, be around children, and all the rest of those lies? Why would you assume that? Are you a moron?

I am around children all of the time precisely and only because of the Registries and un-American scum like you. I have huge pool parties at my home very often, even in the winter. And everyone loves all the boats and other toys that I own. If my children were in scouts, everyone would be at my home. So don't worry, neither I or my children are missing out on anything. The Registries turned me into the kind of person who would never allow that.

You commented about going to your child's function at a school in a wild attempt to somehow make me think your life doesn't suck and mine does (which again, I wasn't really talking about). So I see that you are very, very likely exactly the type of pathetic person that I imagined you are.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 26, 2013 4:25:42 PM

FRegistryTerrorists stated: "By saying you suck at life, I was actually referring to the fact that you are likely a pathetic person. I wasn't interested in getting in a pissing match with anyone about who's quality of life is better or worse than anyone else's. You can't compete with me there regardless."

Ah, yes. Completely judging someone's life based solely on your imagined interpretation (to be illustrated later in this post) of my support for SO registries. You then go on to say that you do not want to get into a pissing match about quality of life and then proceed to do exactly that in the next sentence. How cognitively dissonant and unstable of you.

You stated: "But I have learned that you've been fooled by your little panacea BS laws."

Your imagination again. I have stated quite clearly that I am AGAINST these laws. They ARE a "panacea" and ARE "BS." Try 1-800-ABCDEFG. Hooked on Phonics worked for my son and can work for you too!

You stated: " Do you think that I cannot go to parks, schools, be around children, and all the rest of those lies? Why would you assume that? Are you a moron?"

Did I say that? Where? I am smart enough to know that I do not know your entire situation. Some diaper snipers can and others cannot depending on each case. You do realize that people have to speak in generalizations in a forum such as this, correct? Are you a moron?

You stated: " The Registries turned me into the kind of person who would never allow that."

But you were a person that could get put on a registry long before you were on one. Typical projection of blame. The "Registries" TURNED YOU-your words, not mine-into A (even if "A" is something "good", like a parent who would not let his children suffer because of his perversions if it was possible), instead of your thoughts, words, or actions being the cause. Classic.

You stated: "You commented about going to your child's function at a school in a wild attempt to somehow make me think your life doesn't suck and mine does (which again, I wasn't really talking about)."

I did no such thing other than make a point that there are things (good things)I can do that you cannot (without breaking laws). You are the one centered on who has the crappy life or who is "pathetic" and brought this topic up, not me. More projection on your part.

You stated: "So I see that you are very, very likely exactly the type of pathetic person that I imagined you are."

I am sure you "see" a lot of things. Please do not open that horror show that is your "thought" processes to the world.


Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 5:12:12 PM

TarlsQtr1 (Mar 26, 2013 5:12:12 PM):

Wow, you need to slow down and think. Your post is quite a mess and I could dissect the entire thing point by point.

For example, just in the first paragraph you have three large errors. I did not "completely" judge you (for example, I said you are "likely" a pathetic person). I did not imagine that you support the SO registries (I read your reply above about how dangerous people should still be in prison). And just because I said originally I "wasn't interested in getting in a pissing match" doesn't mean that I had not changed my feelings about it or that I cannot make a comment that would be part of a pissing match. There is absolutely nothing "cognitively dissonant" or "unstable" about that. How foolish.

So, you and I could go back and forth and back and forth dissecting every little thing said. Some might be valid but I feel like a lot of the problem with forums like this is that it is too difficult to briefly explain some concepts (for example, you completely missed my point about how the Registries have changed me in some ways). Whatever. You've already wasted far too much of my time. I won't waste more, except to tell you that I can go to any local school that I want and participate in boy scout activities without breaking any laws. Slow down and think.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 26, 2013 6:35:01 PM

FRegistryTerrorists stated: "Wow, you need to slow down and think. Your post is quite a mess and I could dissect the entire thing point by point."

Isn't it funny how many people say this but always find a reason not to do it? LOL I wonder why...

You stated: "For example, just in the first paragraph you have three large errors. I did not "completely" judge you (for example, I said you are "likely" a pathetic person)."

You said at different spots, "Have a nice day sucking at life," "By saying you suck at life, I was actually referring to the fact that you are likely a pathetic person", "...who's quality of life is better or worse than anyone else's. You can't compete with me there regardless,"... un-American scum like you..." " So I see that you are very, very likely exactly the type of pathetic person that I imagined you are...".

LOL No, you were not "completely judging" anyone. BTW, using weaseler rhetorical devices in a couple of those changes nothing. It is a debate trick that even my college freshman know and could not get away with. So, be a man for once and admit what you said WAS a "complete judgment" instead of blaming, mom, dad, ADHD, me, registries, registry "terrorists", the dog, your wife, your kids, the guy who strip frisked you at booking, etc. for the bad things in your life.

You stated: "I did not imagine that you support the SO registries (I read your reply above about how dangerous people should still be in prison)."

So, you are proving that I support SO registries by reading the post where I said that dangerous SO's should be left in prison? Uh, you do realize that those are two completely separate actions and you contradict your assertion in your own statement, correct?

What I essentially said was, keep dangerous SO's in prison and let the ones that are not dangerous get on with their lives after release without being registered. What part of that theory do you disagree with?

You stated: " And just because I said originally I "wasn't interested in getting in a pissing match" doesn't mean that I had not changed my feelings about it or that I cannot make a comment that would be part of a pissing match."

Nope, nothing cognitively dissonant or unstable about insisting that you do not want to get into a pissing match and then doing so on a whim. Just as there is nothing unstable about flaunting the law or launching straight into ad hominem when you encounter someone who disagrees with you by calling them "terrorists", "pathetic", telling them they "suck at life", etc. Yep, you are a picture of stability and sanity. I didn't even address you and you launched into the ad hominems. Giving you a keyboard is like giving the Church microphone to a Tourette's patient. It is awkward, painful, and I shouldn't watch, but cannot help it.

You stated: "So, you and I could go back and forth and back and forth dissecting every little thing said. Some might be valid but I feel like a lot of the problem with forums like this is that it is too difficult to briefly explain some concepts (for example, you completely missed my point about how the Registries have changed me in some ways)."

I missed no such thing. I correctly said that you are responsible for any changes (good or bad) and used the registries as an excuse.

You stated: " You've already wasted far too much of my time."

Considering that you engaged me, your little diatribe about "wasting time" is quite precious.

You stated: "I won't waste more, except to tell you that I can go to any local school that I want and participate in boy scout activities without breaking any laws."

I mentioned that I was going to be leading my son's pack as the den leader tonight and no, you cannot do that.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 26, 2013 9:01:37 PM

shame on you tarls!

"albeed stated: ""Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning “after the fact.”

And anything so cut and dry as you believe should be brought to the courts immediately and overthrown quickly."

might want to go back and take a quickie history course!

Target Slavery you know that thing that any number of courts in american said was legal for what almsot 200 years before suddenly in 1860's it was NOW illegal

target segration. another thing that for 100 years was legal as far as the courts were concerned till suddenly in the 1960's it was now illegal.

then there is the 2nd amendment... 300 years guns were legal for anybody and anyone...till after the JFK killing in the 1960's and then suddenly.....the courts say it's got all kinds of restrictions. Even now the govt is illegaly keeping individuals from keeping the guns they are legally able to keep using lack of funds for the FBI as their excuse even when the LAW demands to run the program.

Hell even the current illegal registry is illegal on it's face. I take it you have never bothered to read the USSC decison from 2002 that make it legal.

If you had bothered you would know what we have now is illegal on it's face. That is starting to work it's way though the courts that are not a bunch of govt fucktard chickens who when they see a lawsuit over it just announce!

"The USSC said the registry is legal...so that's it!"

Never mind that the registry the USSC said in 2002 was legal is 1000% opposite from what we have now. What we have now is an illegal retroactive LIFETIME PROBATION/PAROLE system!

if you want ANOTHER chance to read it

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html

notice especialy this part!

"Respondents’ argument that the Act, particularly its notification provisions, resembles shaming punishments of the colonial period is unpersuasive. In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. The fact that Alaska posts offender information on the Internet does not alter this conclusion. Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U.S., at 104. Moreover, its obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which the Court has held to be nonpunitive. See, e.g., ibid. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. "

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 26, 2013 11:42:26 PM

TarlsQtr1:

Let's cut to the chase. If a legislature or executive order enacted a law with a new registry requirement that required that all registrants report to the local jail so they could be put to death in a gas oven, would you consider that acceptable under the U.S. Constitution?

Since you seem to be gung-ho on allowing the registry to occur with the current slate of post-correctional system punishments, then of course you would be in favor of this requirement. And no, that's NOT too extreme, using your logic. It is just as unconstitutional to enact residency restrictions, employment restrictions, travel restrictions, and yes, registration fees, as it is to kill sex offenders without trial.

Now, if you say that all sex offenders should be killed, then enact a law that dictates the minimum sentence for a sex offense upon conviction is death. Then it would be MORE allowable under the current framework of the Constitution than any other action in the previous paragraph.

What say, yo?

Posted by: Eric Knight | Mar 26, 2013 11:46:04 PM

Rodsmith,

I am going to copy/paste my response to Eric.

"Your ilk claims breathlessly that the $50 registry fee and the registries themselves are unconstitutional in an equally obvious manner. Yet the first registry began 60+ years ago, the Jacob Wetterling Act began 20 years ago, and the federal version of "Megan's Law" was enacted close to 20 years ago. Not to mention that SCOTUS ruled against you (twice?).

I am not saying that registries are or are not constitutional. I am not even a lawyer, so I do not have the expertise to give such an opinion. What I HAVE BEEN saying is that even this Kentucky boy can see that y'all need a little humility and admit that this is not as clear of an issue as you claim."

SO's are not antebellum African-Americans and you are not Abraham Lincoln. SO's are not Jim Crow blacks and FRegistryTerrorists is not DR. MLK Jr.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Mar 27, 2013 9:44:35 AM

rodsmith (Mar 26, 2013 11:42:26 PM):

If you are arguing with someone and you come to realize that the person cannot understand when they have lost and they are grasping at nonsensical straws, cut your losses and forget about it.

I'm personally not too hung up on whether or not the Registries and the rest of the stupidity are constitutional or not. That's for lawyers/courts to define and it doesn't matter to me if they say it is constitutional, I will still know that it is wrong, stupid, and that there are no good Americans who support it.

Good people need to ignore the terrorists who say the Registries are constitutional, for public safety, for protecting children, or any of the other lies. The people who support the Registries (and especially the rest of the stupidity) have shown their hand, we know their main motivations, we know what they are about.

Just know the Registries, *ETC.* are wrong and wage war. Identify the terrorists and lower the quality of their lives in the same vein that they do to listed people, their spouses, and their children.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 27, 2013 12:13:32 PM

WEll tarls i can see you didn't bother to read the decision. The ONLY real one by the USSC on it. Since sorry but i don't consider NOT making a decison...making a decision. That is just being a chickenshit and dodgeing the question. Especialy when you know your going to have to toss your earlier one that you know very well is gonna piss off a shit load of people like yourself.

Sorry but it's not rocket science. It's so simple even a fucktard politician can understand it.

If you go to court to make something legal...i.e. the public registry law. There the court tells you it's legal BECASUE you are not doing "X", "Y", AND "Z" then you walk out of court and immediately move to pass laws REQURING those same individuals now be REQUIRED to do "X", "Y" AND "Z"

Guess what not only are you a two-faced asshole. You are a traitor to your oath of office and a CRIMINAL.

The really sad thing is that the majority of the american sheeple have been fucked up in the head so badly they have no clue about the lies they have been told and thanks to the dumbing down of american via what's left of the public school sytem they are even too ignorant to find the real truth for themselves.

When this country was founded if a court officer had tried the shit they try today. They would not have made it out of the courtroom alive! Pretty much any american citizen who saw them in action would have killed them on the spot!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 27, 2013 1:14:41 PM

I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE EVERYONE SO ANGRY!

Seriously though, my issue with Obamacare is the forcing of contracting with a private company, but I'm still hoping a public option is still in the works. The other reason I don't draw a comparison to Obamacare is that the punishment is indeed financial and not criminal (which is why it's under the taxing clause). If failing to get insurance under Obamacare was a felony charge (like failing to register), do you think it would be upheld?

Posted by: NickS | Mar 27, 2013 2:21:57 PM

LOL NickS what makes you think it won't be. the SECOND year after passage. They are really really good at getting the camel knows under the door and then jumping forward a light year!

The sex offender registry was the same way. first one in 1943 calif...another fucked up ideal from the surfer dumbies. did nothing; really required nothing.... went 50 years after passange and pretty much NOBODY even knew it existed.

Jacob wetterling act was passed and pretty much nobody noticed. really didn't require anything. Since accoridng to the president who paased it. it was to apply to the "worst of the worst! Violent or Repeat Offenders"

but did expand the door calif created making it nation wide....then Megan's law hit and all illegal hell broke loose.

Do you really think that if once the court cases settle and it is officialy in place for the nation and 50 million people or more ignore it and tell the feebs to fuck off...the next step for the crooks who own the insurance companies who pushed this wont' demand some type of criminal punishment.

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 27, 2013 4:42:49 PM

Just stopping in and noticed a change in Michigan SO law. $50? I only wish...my town of Lake Charles, Louisiana just passed a City Ordinance forcing them to pay $600 fir the first year and $200 annually. I can't wait for somebody to take this on. This could create a law suite that could bankrupt a city.

Posted by: Top Ramen | Mar 28, 2013 2:16:22 AM

I am curious, in response to the person who just commented about Lake Charles, Louisiana's, new ordinance requiring a $600.00 initial payment and a $200.00 annual payment thereafter, how will these people, particularly if they are indigent, pay for it? Will they have to return to a life of crime by robbing banks or by using credit card fraud/identity theft to come up with the dough (examples of serious NON-sex offence crimes!). Most of these individuals do not have relatives who are able (or, in some cases, even willing) to cough up the dough for those who are subject to this registration law. If this law actually has the result of forcing them to commit other crimes in order to pay up, then this will defeat the whole purpose of the law. Instead of making Lake Charles safer for the law-abiding, these laws could usher in a new crime wave of several non-sex offenses (including violent offenses)just because several former sex offenders are either unable (or unwilling)to pay their hard-earned money for a registration law that they did not vote to pass. But, trying to reason with the right-wing Tea Party types who instigate this law is well nigh impossible.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Mar 28, 2013 10:05:48 AM

how true William. Especialy if they start the crime wave of violence with the govt fuckups who passed the illegal shit to begin with.

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 28, 2013 1:14:47 PM

I'm with Top Ramen. $50 is peanuts. Lots of states require a lot more. Louisiana is a good example, with the requirement that the offender pay to produce and send postcards to every person/household within a certain geographic radius of their new address. In the more populous areas -- New Orleans, Baton Rouge -- this notification process can cost over $1000. You also have to spend $100-200 on newspaper ads notifying the community. And this must be completed within 3 weeks of release from prison, when most ex-inmates do not yet even have a job. Not to mention this must be repeated every 5 years or any time you move to a new address. And this is on top of other fees that come out to over $100 a month.

It is hard to see how any of this serves society's interest in having people move on from their crimes and not reoffend. If you want to keep punishing people, keep them in prison. If they've served enough time and are ready to leave prison, do what you can easily and cheaply do to help them succeed (or at least don't affirmatively set them up to fail).


Posted by: anon | Mar 28, 2013 1:20:58 PM

anon at 1:20 PM

I agree that $50 is peanuts compared to $600 in Lake Charles. It is clear that the Lake Charles law intends to "banish" SO's. It has only been in effect this year so I am sure there will be legal challenges, followed by more judicial cowardice.

Another reason not to live in that Jindahl hell-hole where the state motto is "Come on Down to N'w Orlins, where the cops are honest, sometimes".

Posted by: albeed | Mar 28, 2013 5:59:02 PM

well anon 1:20 i think if i was one of the people being illegaly persecuted in that area.

I would not only tell the govt fucktard stooge to kiss my ass. I'd sooner go back to prison but along the way i'm now going to KILL YOUR ASS! so there will be one less govt fucktard in the world!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 28, 2013 8:36:18 PM

Man, if it was me, I would tell the Criminals in LE to kiss my a$$ because I would be unemployable and homeless with the maggot 'I'm sorry sir, but we are a CHRISTIAN values community and we can't have someone like You there' crowd would be in NIMBY mode.

Personally, I would prefer to be locked up where I don't have to worry about my needs, hopefully in the 'Civil Confinement' locations where I can run up a Real Big Bill.

Posted by: The Emperor | Apr 2, 2013 11:03:59 PM

There is a simple answer to this problem. when a court sentences you they have to inform you of your full registration duty if it did not include hey registration fee at sentencing they cannot make you pay it.( retroactive) I think we've already went down this road.

Posted by: rodp | May 24, 2013 2:16:22 AM

Just to hit on some of the false analogies brought up here:

@william r. delzell: Adjudicating a ticket is a one time fine paid as part of a punishment. Recovering a suspended license is a one time fee. They are not continuous or annual.

A fee is the price one pays as remuneration for services. One can avoid any and all service fees by not utilizing the service. One can avoid a permit fee by not owning a pistol. If you don't hunt, you aren't required to pay the wildlife service fee. There is no driver's license fee for anyone who chooses not to drive and no mortgage fee if you don't buy a house.

@TarlsQtr1: That portion of the Affordable Care Act was ruled constitutional because it was considered a tax. It was deemed a tax because it applies to everyone over certain income lines. Everyone. The only people who don't pay are those who are below the line much like people with an income level under the line after deductions don't pay income tax.

@rodsmith: If punishment is to be considered in terms of both incarceration and financial, then that financial obligation needs to be entered as part of the sentencing after conviction under fines and court costs. It's not. If a change in law is made to do so, then under the US constitution it can not apply to those convicted before passage.

Now for an analogy that isn't false: What is the reasoning for everyone paying taxes for public schools (even if the payer uses private or homeschooling) or parks and recreation (even if they never go to the park)? Why do we all pay taxes to support fire and law enforcement (even if our home never catches fire or we are ever a victim of a crime)? It's because they are all services provided by the government to the public. What is the Offender Registry? A service provided by the government to the public.

Who, then, should foot the bill when it comes to the Offender Registry?

What it comes down to is this: It isn't a fee. Registrants can't opt out because they are mandated to register. It isn't a tax because it isn't being mandated of everyone. By nature and definition, it is a continuous fine (which is, as illustrated above, a punishment) being imposed under threat of further punishment.

Unless we are setting out to redefine all the relevant terms, there is really no two ways about it: it is an annual fine.

Posted by: Chance | Mar 25, 2014 7:02:29 AM

I was convicted of csc-1 in 1983, did my time, community service , fines, and much more.
In 2013 I was convicted of having a drug house, witch I had cards for, another story. Because of the drug charge they pull in the old criminal sexual charge and require me to register after 30 years. Does it ever stop?
Does anyone have a same situation and is anyone able to fight this change?

Posted by: tom | Jul 17, 2014 11:11:47 AM

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