« Unanimous Supreme Court of New Hampshire upholds state's first modern capital conviction (with proportionality review to follow) | Main | "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing" »
November 7, 2013
New Michigan law adds to number of states requiring registered sex offenders to pay yearly feeThis local article report on yet another notable extra bit of punishment now for sex offenders in Michigan. The piece is headlined "Sex Offenders Will Have To Pay To Live In Michigan Under Bill Signed By Gov. Snyder," and here are the details:
Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation requiring registered sex offenders living in Michigan to pay an annual $50 fee. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Rick Jones, replaces the system under which sex offenders paid a one-time $50 fee. Snyder signed the bill into law on Tuesday.
The measure only applies to registered sex offenders who are out of prison. Officials say $20 of each fee would go to local law enforcement and $30 would go to the state. If offenders don’t pay the annual fee, they face misdemeanor charges.
Offenders who can’t afford the fee would have the chance to make their case and receive a 90-day waiver. To do that, offenders would either have to prove in court that they are indigent, are receiving food assistance from the state, or are living under the federal poverty level.
Snyder said the law brings Michigan in line with neighboring states that require sex offenders to pay for the operating cost of sex offender websites. He said Indiana charges $50 per year, while Illinois and Ohio charge offenders $100 per year. The state said the move could bring in about $540,000 more in revenue each year.
But not everybody is on board with the new law. 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.
“They have paid their dues … this is a burden that we just keep piling on,” said Shelli Weisberg, legislative liaison for ACLU of Michigan. She argues that the state is not asking offenders to pay for something that benefits them, but something that is intended to protect citizens. Therefore, the state should pay for it.
November 7, 2013 at 08:12 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Michigan law adds to number of states requiring registered sex offenders to pay yearly fee:
Leave it to the ACLU to complain about trifles. You can't get Saturday night dinner for four for $50. The idea that this is a burden is preposterous.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 8:28:07 AM
When does a Saturday Night Dinner become a burden; $50, $250, $600, $1000,...?
We know that this is a continuous fine, which makes it ex-post facto, does it not? There is no state benefit to the payee. At what price does a civil action become a criminal penalty?
Because it deals with sex-offenders, it is a trifle? How about paying more in old traffic fines because of inflation.
I am all ears. Your government has no limits, does it?
Posted by: albeed | Nov 7, 2013 9:03:50 AM
"When does a Saturday Night Dinner become a burden; $50, $250, $600, $1000,...?"
I don't know, but it's way beyond $50.
"We know that this is a continuous fine, which makes it ex-post facto, does it not?"
Since the Supreme Court has held that something far more onerous -- post-offense and post-sentencing registration requirements -- are not ex post facto violations, a fortiori this isn't either (nor does the ACLU spokesman argue that it is, so far as I know).
"Because it deals with sex-offenders, it is a trifle?"
No, it's a trifle because it's a trifle, and would be such for any offense, including offenses having nothing to do with sex.
"I am all ears."
Actually, you're not. I have seldom run across a person with a mind so completely closed on the subject of The Total Evilness of All Government.
"Your government has no limits, does it?"
It's no more my government than it is yours. But for however that may be, it's your contempt for government that seems to have no limits.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 9:25:30 AM
This law could spark a major rebellion by former sex offenders into collectively disobeying the payment requirement, just like a tax-payers' revolt. Attempting to enforce this law could put law enforcement officials and politicians at extra risk for their own safety if they attempt to enforce this on somebody who is already embittered about having to submit to various post-sentence punishment after he or she has paid his or her debt to society.
I pray such resistance, if it occures, will never take a violent form, but this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back or the spark that lights a fire.
Posted by: william r. delzell | Nov 7, 2013 10:58:19 AM
Hey Bill -- can I borrow fifty bucks?
Posted by: Guy | Nov 7, 2013 12:53:40 PM
No problem, as long as you promise not to join Mr. Delzell's hypothesized armed uprising.
You really do meet all kinds on this blog.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 1:22:09 PM
You should have said, will you GIVE me 50 bucks this year, next year, and the year after that, and the year after that,.....
Do you have any more ad hominem attacks for me. That doesn't cast you in a good light Professor, er I mean Big Government Indoctrinator.
I am not a CINO in name only, you big government types almost get to me, but then, you only think you are a conservative.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 7, 2013 2:22:34 PM
In regards to Bill Otis's caustic remark, I need to clear the air. Nobody said they should resort to armed rebellion, but sometimes, one single indignity can trigger an unexpected uproar. Remember in Tunisia over a year and a half ago, when a Tunisian merchant set himself ablaze to protest percecution by somebody who had physically assaulted him and vandalized his vendor cart, it caused some previously calm and seemingly complacent fellow Tunisians to spontaneously erupt in pent-up anger and resentment even over petty as well as over major grievancies from the previous dictatorship.
Back during the mid-1970's, when the I.R.S. had a practice of singling out racial minorities for tax harrassment, one individual victim of the I.R.S. decided that enough was enough. While I certainly do NOT recommend or condone his response, I can understand what pushed him over the edge to do what he did, just as I can understand why the law eventually jailed him. He pulled a gun on two IRS agents who barged into his Memphis domicile, forced them to undress, and then had them leave naked back to their cars with only their ignition key so the two agents could safely get out of the neighborhood. Obviously, this individual went to jail as he expected to, but several of his neighbors regarded him as a hero despite his high-handed tactics. They also had had it up to here with unfair treatment by the I.R.S.
We all remember Rosa Parks. After a tired day of work as a seamstress, she was too tired to give up her transit seat to a white woman. When the Montgomery, Alabama, authorities arrested her for standing up for her rights, the Montgomery motor-bus system would have a thirteen month boycott on its hands from December, 1955 to January, 1957.
Another example of spontaneous outrage occurred in East Tennessee back in the early 1890's when previously law-abiding coal miners went on an armed rebellion against the state authorities to protest the use of privatized convict-lease labor that would have otherwise destroyed these miner's ability to support their families. Their uprising lasted several months and actually SUCCEEDED in forcing Tennessee to replace convict-leasing with a STATE-run prison system where inmates could only work for the state and NOT for any private mining companies in Appalachia. These miners actually captured the sympathies of the state National Guard soldiers that the Governor deployed in an unsuccessful attempt to put down the rebellion. Local jurors chose to acquit the miners with a measure called NULLIFICATION. The local residents also viewed convict-leasing as an economic threat to their way of life. Thus, Tennessee, which had hoped to save money by leasing out convicts, ended up paying far more than it would have with a state-run prison in having to use draconian methods in its unsuccessful effort to crush the miner's union.
While we can expect at least 99% of those liable to comply with this Michigan fee law, all it takes is one individual subject to this law to flip his or her lid against the authorities. Who knows? If such action occurs and hits the 6:00 o'clock news, it might cause at least a VERBAL backlash by others who are subject to the Michigan law.
Maybe Michigan's politians had GENUINELY good intentions in thinking they were somehow protecting the public safety, but in the end, the Michigan politicians and their supporters displayed STUPID judgement!
Posted by: william r. delzell | Nov 7, 2013 2:39:39 PM
When you are a sex offender with no prospect of employment, $50 means a week of food.
Posted by: Margie | Nov 7, 2013 3:21:49 PM
the fact that otis thinks $50 is a trifle shows that he does not understand the situation of the poor.
in any case, the amount of the registration fee is immaterial; the obvious purpose of this legislation is to create an annual requirement that many sex offenders will fail to satsify (just as many americans file their taxes late, don't renew their driver's licenses, etc.), thereby committing a misdemeanor. that, in turn, will justify additional incarceration and/or constitute a parole violation that will lead to additional incarceration. so, this is a social control tool.
Posted by: HGD | Nov 7, 2013 3:56:42 PM
"...the fact that otis thinks $50 is a trifle shows that he does not understand the situation of the poor."
The fact that you think it's anything BUT a trifle shows that you are disconnected from reality.
"...in any case, the amount of the registration fee is immaterial; the obvious purpose of this legislation is to create an annual requirement that many sex offenders will fail to satisfy..."
You would need to check that out with Mr. Delzell, who says, "[W]e can expect at least 99% of those liable to comply with this Michigan fee law."
When you guys figure out which version you want to go with, be sure to post it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 4:36:59 PM
William r. delzell --
"We all remember Rosa Parks. After a tired day of work as a seamstress, she was too tired to give up her transit seat to a white woman. When the Montgomery, Alabama, authorities arrested her for standing up for her rights, the Montgomery motor-bus system would have a thirteen month boycott on its hands from December, 1955 to January, 1957."
"Abominable" is hardly adequate to describe comparing Rosa Parks to a sex offender, but fear not, no one is going to call you on it on this site.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 4:42:22 PM
"Bill, when you are a sex offender with no prospect of employment, $50 means a week of food."
If it's true that sex offenders have no way to support themselves -- which it isn't, as we both know -- I guess it means it's a good idea to avoid being a sex offender. I agree.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 4:46:57 PM
"That doesn't cast you in a good light Professor, er I mean Big Government Indoctrinator."
Were you under the impression that I worry about the opinions anonymous commenters in cyberspace hold of me?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 4:49:57 PM
After spending a decade or more in prison, my sex offender/internet only child pornography clients have an extremely hard time obtaining employment and a place to live. $50.00 is more than a trifle. What is worse is that there is no objective basis for claiming that the registration requirements make us any safer--so why should anyone, the public or the offender, pay for a prophylactic program
Posted by: ? | Nov 7, 2013 5:38:30 PM
Bill, perhaps you are an ass? I am listed on the nanny big government Sex Offender Registries but I am not a sex offender. "sex offender" is a label that only stupid people use. I don't think you are stupid.
Any "fee" is just pure theft. But it would be no problem for me because I guarantee you that I would cost the criminal regime an amount of 12 times whatever they cost me. They would collect $50 but pay out $600. These criminal governments are always too stupid to know or care though. They are just big government after all.
All families that are listed on these Registries should ensure that everything the criminal regimes do is counterproductive.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 7, 2013 5:53:21 PM
True story: Today, I went to the drugstore to get some shampoo, paper towels and bandaids; to the dry cleaners to pick up some stuff (including my wife's winter coat, so it was somewhat more expensive than usual); and then to get lunch at a barbecue place. This took about two hours, maybe a little less. When I got back, I was $62 lighter.
If $50 isn't a trifle, it's the next best thing. The truth of it is that you can't stick your nose out the door and not spend $50.
P.S. It's not the law per se, but the cultural opprobrium attached to the behavior involved in committing sex offenses, that makes it difficult to obtain employment. Normal people just are not at ease around those who find six year-old's sexy. That is not your fault or mine or the law's, and it's not going to change, either.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 5:54:43 PM
Crider screamed at the convicts that they would never get away with it, that they would be killed. With the knife at his neck and a civilian at his side, Dunn yelled: “My God, Ben, don’t let them shoot now. There’s an innocent man here.” The guards lowered their rifles and opened the gate.3
Outside, the men commandeered a car belonging to a prison guard, the prison siren howled, and the local sheriff, Bill Alexander, led the chase. A bridge was out, and the inmates were forced to turn back the way they came when Alexander spotted the convicts’ vehicle and leaped out of his car, blocking their path. Dunn yelled to Alexander, “Let us pass, Billy.” “Well you can pass, Warden,” replied Alexander, but “those convicts have got to fall out of that car.” The ringleader opened fire; Alexander shot him through the head and the convicts’ car backed up and screamed off in a different direction. After fleeing about a quarter of a mile north, the convicts leaped out of the badly damaged car and hid in a ditch. Alexander, who had been following, saw Warden Dunn’s body inside the abandoned car, slumped over with “blood running from his head.” Alexander leapt out of his vehicle and “kept on shooting until all of the convicts gave up.”4
Later, the newspapers would say it was the “bloodiest quarter hour” in the history of McAlester prison. “Black Sunday” left the warden, Jess Dunn, dead; he had been shot at close range after freeing himself from his bonds. Three inmates were dead; the fourth, Hiram Prather, would be tried and executed for Dunn’s murder. The next day, the break was front-page news across the country, page one New York Times material. Bill Alexander, the sheriff who thwarted the break, became a celebrity, recounting events on the CBS radio network. A group of prisoners wrote to the local paper expressing their sorrow for the loss of a man who had given them “the hope of self-redemption.” The new warden, Fred Hunt, a 200-pound man fond of his ten-gallon hat, announced that Dunn’s pet project, a prison rodeo that brought thousands to McAlester, would proceed in Dunn’s honor.5
The newspapers said that history had repeated itself in the 1941 McAlester break. Five years earlier, in the great break of 1936, Jess Dunn had headed the posse that spent days in the Kiamichi mountains tracking Claud Beavers. At the time, some speculated that Beavers had escaped McAlester to avoid sterilization, but Warden Kenny denied it. Five years later, as sterilization menaced McAlester for the last time, Claud Beavers broke again. Once more he faced Dunn; this time both would die.6
Nourse, Victoria F. (2008-07-17). In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near-Triumph of American Eugenics (Kindle Locations 2086-2106).
Posted by: George | Nov 7, 2013 5:59:33 PM
Bill, of course, you can respond to any deprivation or punishment or response by saying that it is avoidable if one doesn't commit the crime. But that does not mean it is a fair, or good policy. You simply avoid the issue, and I find your comment heartless.
There are offenders who have spent years in prison and are honestly trying to build a life. They can't get hired anywhere for any job, which I don't think is a fair response. I've tried to hire ex offenders, only to find my business boycotted once a reporter searches the registry so as to terrorize anyone willing to employ someone and give them a second chance. They struggle to put food on the table. I know many that are homeless. Imposing fees that deprive them of food for a week is wrong, and probably bad policy as well.
Again, when you have no income, $50 is immeasurable.
Posted by: Margie | Nov 7, 2013 6:05:39 PM
If I'm recalling correctly, you have said (and I fully believe it) that you make quite a good income notwithstanding your listing on the SO registry. But if you can do it, one must think others can as well.
This puts the skids under earlier commenters who have said, in effect, that to be placed on the registry is to be sentenced to a life in which a $50 fee is a hardship.
I appreciate your candor.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 6:06:20 PM
The fact that the registered sex offender must pay ANY amount, whether it be 10 cents or $400 per year (as in the case of Lake Charles, LA), for which the refusal to pay results in a criminal violation, is enough to render the scheme punitive. There is no other civil fee one must pay in order to be legal in any context. A registered sex offender doesn't have the option to opt out of the registry, so he should not be responsible for its financial upkeep, or more likely, for ANY state-related expense that they can claim as a "civil" fee.
And don't compare sex offender fees to taxation with regard to criminal penalties. One can opt out of the workforce altogether, or work below a certain threshold, to legally avoid paying taxes. Licensed contractors can give up their license and work for other contractors, and not have to pay a contracting fee.
Finally, one cannot say "well if you don't want to pay the fee, don't do the crime!" This is another fallacy that ignores prospective liberty violations, and this can easily be rendered as such in the Supreme Court.
The bottom line: Registration is NOT criminal, but civil, and by requiring fees, Smith v. Doe is again breached. Anger or vilification against individuals does not give license to run roughshod against such individuals' civil rights. The amount is irrelevant, period.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Nov 7, 2013 6:48:19 PM
If anyone ever needs concrete proof that Bill Otis has lost his marbles, link back to this thread. I for one have already bookmarked it.
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 7, 2013 7:20:26 PM
Eric Knight --
The change that is the subject of this post is turning a $50 one-time fee into a $50 yearly fee. So let's just start at the beginning: Do you know of any caselaw holding the one-time fee unconstitutional? Do you regard the new, post-offense and post-sentence change as different, for constitutional purposes, from a legislatively imposed post-offense and post-sentence requirement to register as a SO -- a requirement also backed up by criminal sanctions if breached?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 7:28:55 PM
Well I like you too.
I find it hilarious that in a previous thread you said that a conscience and empathy of the released offender are what determined whether he/she would recidivate, not another big government (read liberal, bleeding heart) program.
That you are unable to comprehend that what is good for the citizens, should also be good for the government and Justus system is telling beyond all that you say. There is a cataract in your vision that clouds rationality.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 7, 2013 7:51:53 PM
Odd you should say that. I'd just been thinking of linking this thread on Crime and Consequences. People can judge for themselves whether the defense side has gone from belligerent to unhinged in its hysterical opposition to a minimal change in $50 fee.
P.S. Are you planning to join up with the armed insurrection of SO's (speaking of people who've lost their marbles)?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 9:40:53 PM
When you offer some opinion other than your constant refrain that anyone who works for the government is a cretin -- if, for example, you were to make something that is recognizably a legal argument -- then I would have some reason to take account of your opinion.
Instead, it's the same thing over and over and over again: The government stinks, the government stinks, et al.
Get over it. First, it's flagrantly false, and second, even if were true, we get the point by now.
The government has major problems, especially now, with a President who flagrantly lies. There are also sometimes prosecutors who are thugs and defense lawyers who are criminals.
Fine. We all know that. You won't be getting perfection or anything close to it. But there are many fine and intelligent people who work in this Administration and have worked in past Administrations. There are many fine defense lawyers (some of whom I helped train) and many fine prosecutors. Your jaundiced view to the contrary is just plain nuts.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2013 9:54:41 PM
I don't know if it falls under ex post facto, but it's bad policy. Legislatures, as a general matter, shouldn't pile monetary punishments on old convictions.
And I don't care what SCOTUS says--restrictions on sex offenders can be very burdensome. Obviously, no one feels all too sorry for them, but some of the restrictions are just nuts.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2013 10:09:19 PM
Bill your so full of it you should be a thanksgiving turkey!
"Odd you should say that. I'd just been thinking of linking this thread on Crime and Consequences. People can judge for themselves whether the defense side has gone from belligerent to unhinged in its hysterical opposition to a minimal change in $50 fee."
So do remember how the illegal registry became legal in the first place right?
your know the LEGAL one that said since it had no inperson reporting requirments and they were free to live and work WHERE they wish and there is only a MINIMAL requirement to return a POSTCARD once a year was passed?
Sorry there is NOTHING minimul about this!
I'd pay it in the ONLY currently our criminal govt understands. FORCE!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 7, 2013 10:15:51 PM
Bill, I can't believe that you don't really get it. The amount of the theft doesn't matter. It could be 10 cents. It's theft, period.
The Registration harassment campaign pisses me off to the extent that I could kill people. I do retaliate non-stop but I keep it legal. I seriously doubt that everyone does.
Perhaps the only thing that keeps me from killing people is that I have a great life. I don't think that is the case for a lot of people on the Registries. If I were struggling, I would be looking for serious revenge.
I wasn't a dangerous person until I was listed on the Registries. But the Registries make the people listed on them more dangerous with every passing day. I honestly have been surprised that more people are not bring murdered. That is what needs to happen.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 7, 2013 11:28:30 PM
The only semi-legitimate excuse that these criminal regimes could possibly have had for failing to get the rest of their Registries created a decade ago is the cost. But the precedent that this theft creates will allow these criminal regimes to steal to support their new Registries. So they will literally haves no excuses not to create them. Can we start with the Gun Offender Registries already?!
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 7, 2013 11:30:14 PM
Families that are listed on these Registries: please, please take it to heart that you should cost these criminal regimes time, money, and other resources. They deserve to be broke so they have less capability to harass people. Let them struggle to maintain even basic services.
Think of the impact that will be made if only a small percentage of Registered families who are charged this $50 end up costing the criminal regime $600. It takes only a small percentage. Don't just complain, retaliate.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 7, 2013 11:38:42 PM
FRegistry Terrorist - Your statements are spot on, except people are being killed over the registry. There have been several killings of registrants by vigilantes, and earlier this year an innocent woman was killed because her address was listed on the registry because her husband was a registrant. So not only do these people have to pay when they have no money for housing or food, but they are paying for a public hit list for any vigilante to look them up.
When is this craziness going to end? The registry is so bloated these days that no one can pull it up and know who is really a danger and who is not, including law enforcement. Millions of dollars are wasted every year tracking 5% of the people that commit sex offenses, think of Jerry Sandusky and Ariel Castro, neither on the registry, and yet everyone started going cuckoo over sex offenders. Over 20 years of data from before the registry was implemented and after, show no change in child sex abuse cases. It shows that around 5% of the cases are still being committed by first time offenders, so it isn't protecting the public. If you make an intelligent registry and take off the 95% that are not a danger to society, there would be no need to charge anyone for registering.
Posted by: Jill | Nov 8, 2013 7:25:53 AM
"Over 20 years of data from before the registry was implemented and after, show no change in child sex abuse cases. It shows that around 5% of the cases are still being committed by first time offenders,".
I know that you meant to say:
95% of current sex offender cases are being committed by first time offenders. That is the correct statistic.
I am afraid that some politico/LE type (Bill Clinton, Mark Foley, John Walsh, etc.) will read your statement and incorrectly self-justify themselves with the SO registry because they don't want to think.
Whenever people see numbers, they don't really comprehend, i.e. ex-AUSDA's. I ask you to count from 1 to 20 slowly, putting pictures of real people in your mind, then realize that the only person who will possibly re-offend is number 20.
For that, we have lifetime fines, housing and work restrictions, cannot visit a PUBLIC park or your childs school activities, may be be forbidden to associate with minor relatives, etc. You get the picture.
When the cure (which is a placebo) is worse than the disease, just what the hell are we doing?
Posted by: albeed | Nov 8, 2013 7:47:15 AM
Jill (Nov 8, 2013 7:25:53 AM):
Yes, I'm very aware that families listed on the Registries are being murdered. And it's a hit list for a LOT more than just murder.
Yes, the Registries are bloated in a ridiculous way (that pretty much only government could managed to screw up so badly). But there should be no Sex Offender Registries, not even for the worst of the worst. The Registries are simply ineffective and people should never worry about relying on them. Your next door neighbor may have shot his last next neighbor's child, but you'll never be told that. So you basically have to watch out for everyone. And of course, the person who is going to molest your children is not listed on any Registry.
If law enforcement thinks they need to know where certain people live so they can go around and harass them every once and awhile, that is the entire point of probation and parole. So they need to stop being morons and use it.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 8, 2013 8:56:24 AM
albeed (Nov 8, 2013 7:47:15 AM):
Yes. And it's not just that 19 out of 20 people are being harassed just to supposedly try to prevent that 1 person from committing a sex crime. It is that all that harassment not only did not and will not prevent that person from committing a sex crime, it likely was a very strong contributor to the sex crime being committed.
When all know this is not for public safety and it's not about facts. The criminal regimes that run the Registries cannot even begin to have any credibility until they get more Registries created. It simply has to happen. If they get away with stealing from people to pay for the Registries, they will have lost their last excuse.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 8, 2013 9:00:57 AM
Thank you for confirming that being on the Registry does not, contrary to some claims here, mean a life of poverty.
You say this: "Bill, I can't believe that you don't really get it. The amount of the theft doesn't matter. It could be 10 cents. It's theft, period."
I can't believe that you don't really get it. An assessment established by statute and approved by the courts is not theft. Something does not become a crime -- theft or any other -- simply because you don't approve of it. You are entitled to your opinions, but you do not create law.
As for those who murder people on the registries: If the murder has sufficient aggravating factors, and lacks mitigating ones, the jury should be authorized to consider the death penalty. If imposed, it should be carried out promptly, after full and fair review but without endless delays about manufactured procedural questions.
I trust you agree with me on this point. Do you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 8, 2013 12:22:07 PM
Bill Otis' question:
"Do you know of any caselaw holding the one-time fee unconstitutional?"
I don't know of any challenge regarding a one-time fee assessment. I would assume it hasn't happened, since that would seem to be a precedent-setting case if it were to occur. I do know that one case regarding a challenge to recurring sex offender fees was not successful. This occured in New Hampshire (story: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/fees-for-sex-offenders-upheld). Unfortunately, the case was not argued with effective legal counsel, so this precedent sits. (That fee is $34 per year.)
Nonetheless, any liberty requirements negated (such as imposition of monetary "fees," either one-time or recurring) on those not under the jurisdiction of the court would seem to be highly qualified for a federal court challenge. I know for a fact that if this scheme was tried in California, Janice Bellucci of California RSOL would be waiting at the L.A. Federal Court file clerk's window, written challenge in hand, at 8 am the morning after such a law were passed. Janice doesn't muck around with state courts in this regard.
"Do you regard the new, post-offense and post-sentence change as different, for constitutional purposes, from a legislatively imposed post-offense and post-sentence requirement to register as a SO -- a requirement also backed up by criminal sanctions if breached?"
Well, the fact that the registry was ruled constitutional in itself opened up the can of worms of which the fees are only one part, along with residency restrictions, proximity restrictions, and technology restrictions. All have criminal felony or misdemeanor implications, and some states may consider them additional "strikes" as well. Justices usually look at the "constitutional" aspect of the registry to justify any restrictive scheme constitutional under the same brush, which is very troubling.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Nov 8, 2013 2:19:21 PM
Eric Knight --
Thank you for your response. As it notes, a challenge to the provision at issue here would have no precedent behind it, and thus would be an uphill climb.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 8, 2013 2:47:23 PM
Bill Otis (Nov 8, 2013 12:22:07 PM):
Of course being listed on the Registry does not guarantee a life of poverty. Talented people are able to thwart almost all of the Registry, just as they can overcome many obstacles of life. But that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't lead to a life of poverty for many. It certainly doesn't help and it is a burden 1,000 times the actual conviction itself (i.e. take away the witch hunt and NO ONE would care about such a conviction as much as they do now).
I just don't think you truly appreciate what the constant harassment of the Registries can do to a person. After more than a decade of the nonsense, it has made me hate people more than I ever dreamed would be possible. It has completely transformed me, I won't even go into it. The Registries have lead people to murder children. I have zero doubt in my mind that they have lead a good percentage of Registered people into a life of poverty where they would not have been before. Zero doubt.
I was not clear before what I was saying to you - I was saying that I can't believe that you don't get it that the amount (of the Registration "fee") does not really matter. Doesn't matter if it's $.10 or $1,000, it is still outrageously offensive to real Americans.
Now, about it being "theft", of course I understand that it is not technically theft. The whole topic of unjust laws is very tough. If we are to be a nation of laws, how can any be ignored? And I used to be a real law-and-order person, so this is tough for me. But there is a point where governments become criminal. Slavery used to be legal but I think we can all agree that the people affected by it probably did not need to acknowledge that it was "the law" and accept it. They were justified to take the law into their own hands.
I don't know. These governments have proven to me that they are criminal. They have proven to me that they are not my governments. So I'm not going to worry about what they want often. I am at war with some people. There are no laws in war. I have decided that in many cases, I am going to be the judge, jury, and executioner. The opinion of people that I am at war with does not matter. What I say goes. These "fees" are theft and I will react accordingly.
I'm not too worried about the people who murder people who are listed on the Registries. I was saying that the people on the Registries should be murdering more people. I would love to hear about law enforcement going around someone's property just to "check up on them" and see the person light them up. I think that may be one of the reasons that we don't have Gun Offender Registries. I think politicians, law enforcement, etc. might just be afraid of those people. Their BS might be quickly met with violence. They would not be so easy for the bullies to harass.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty per se but I don't think we can have it in the U.S. because we convict innocent people. It is quite clear that many "juries of our peers" wouldn't know a fact from a feeling or opinion if their lives depended on it. They can't be trusted.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 8, 2013 4:52:39 PM
Doe v. Raemisch, 895 F. Supp. 2d 897 - Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2012 found the fee fine-like and therefore ex post facto.
Posted by: George | Nov 8, 2013 4:53:35 PM
I tend to agree with the idea that a monetary extraction based on a criminal conviction that wasn't part of the judgment is a problem. Could the legislature impose a 10% surcharge on all criminal fines after the fact? Why does the fact that it has a specific usage change the analysis?
I tend to think that dangerous sex offenders need to be incarcerated, not subjected to a crazy patchwork of rules and regulations that are like the sword of Damocles. In Texas, a sex offender has to give the cops all of his email addresses--forget to give them one, and you're facing years. As much as I don't like sex offenders (and I believe that death is an appropriate form of punishment for some forms of sexual assault), my general view is that if they are dangerous, they should be locked up for long periods of time, not subjected to a veritable spiderweb of restrictions.
There are horror stories out there about very minor sex offenses triggering lifelong registration obligations. That's just cruel. And make no mistake, these horror stories, even if you don't care about the very minor offender, erode the citizenry's faith in the criminal justice system. Most people have a pretty good idea of what's appropriate, and a lot of this stuff is clearly not. Also, when there are a lot of sex offenders, then the really dangerous ones slip through the cracks.
By the way, libs, I am not going soft.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 9, 2013 2:18:45 AM
I am glad that you are not going soft on crime and I agree with your analysis. It is so self-evident that even an educated high school kid could figure it out. Instead, many judges go through truly remarkable mental gyrations to rationalize away the unconstutionality of further restrictions. Eric had it right that when judges use Smith vs Doe inappriately to rationalize the constitutionality of further restrictions, they are using this precedent selectively and incorrectly. The decision was narrowly tailored only for the conditions of registration and other restrictions were even noted to potentially make the act of registration itself unconstitutional
You are also correct that there are very minor crimes, (touching over clothes) that can get you on "the list". When I played little league baseball (many years ago), the best coach I had would encourage you occasionally by patting you on the butt when you went up to bat and no he was not fruity. Technically, in many states, that is a sex crime.
I don't care if the number is 5% or 95% of the offenders on the list that are like this. The example above would read on the registry, 4th degree child abusive activity if prosecuted. One percent of people like this on the list is 1% too many and is cruel and unusual. Our states sheriffs want more on the list so that they can get more Byrne Grant money, that is all. Pimping for federal money, what disgusting animals!
When there is no force, threats, coercion, incapicitation or deception involved with anyone over the age of 14, the crime should not demand registration except as a matter of judicial finding, period. It is the people that use these tools that we should be concerned about, not two young people making out.
Why should I respect irrational laws. I am not a dummy, nor an apologist for stupidity. Laws like this are meant to be challenged in any way possible. I agree with FRT on many points. The powers that be earned my disrespect and I will give it to them.
PS: No, I am not on the list, but know two truly remarkable young people who inappropriately are. To say to win at the ballot box, look at how difficult that was and will be in Missouri. It is hard to persuade the number of poorly educated, er I mean indoctrinated people in this country.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 9, 2013 8:56:09 AM
First it was fifty. The next Governor was running for office on the backs of ex inmates and he makes it Five hundred. Then its a year for failure to pay. Then the Governor is running for President on the backs of the inmates.
Posted by: Liberty1st | Nov 9, 2013 1:11:58 PM
The entire conversation about whether a $50 fee is constitutional is a red herring. Those complaining only care about minimizing ALL punishment for SO's, regardless of it being aligned with the constitution.
I, for one, many times in the past have said that we should do away with registries and just keep dangerous SO's behind bars. Those that are in for relatively minor offenses (showing his ugly to a college co-ed as a practical joke)should do little or no time and should not need to register.
The last I knew, prison for dangerous people is still constitutional. However, I received just as much rancor and name-calling as a "registry terrorist." Why? Because anything short of a pat on the head and my son as a gift to the local diaper sniper does not appease many here.
Again, $50 and registries are red herrings.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Nov 11, 2013 2:28:21 PM
The unfortunate answer for those who want to get rid of the Sex Offender Registry is to create more registries. Push for a murderer's registry; a drug dealer's registry; DWI public registry. The more registries there are the more diluted they become.
Including more people will give more people to argue against them and add strength to the argument that they are unfair.
Posted by: athought | Nov 11, 2013 7:45:57 PM
"The entire conversation about whether a $50 fee is constitutional is a red herring. Those complaining only care about minimizing ALL punishment for SO's, regardless of it being aligned with the constitution."
The odd thing is that it makes a really lousy red herring. $50 a year is less than 14 cents a day. The notion that this is a "burden" is WAY beyond absurd.
14 cents a day and the board goes ballistic. Go figure.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 11, 2013 8:07:06 PM
Tarls your about as full of shit as bill is on this is one!
I have NEVER said minimizing all punishment for sex crimes. But this continual UPPING of the punishment AFTER the fact is illegal and TREASON when committed by any govt official who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution and grounds for their summery execution!
I am sick of fucking govt fucktards who pass a new law and then walk out telling media that "it's probably unconstutional but we'll let the courts sort it out"
As far as I'm concerned at that point anyone who just heard that has the legal right and DUTY to kill that dumb son of a bitch!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 12, 2013 2:22:31 AM
athought (Nov 11, 2013 7:45:57 PM):
I’ve often wondered if creating the number of public Registries that should exist (at least 10 of them) would bring some sanity to the U.S. But I doubt it. The people who love big government will surely be happy if it gets bigger. You will find few people in government who are not in favor of growing bigger. Money will never be an object because most people who support big government are completely financially irresponsible. And if the criminal regimes can convince the majority of stupid people that they are forcing the families listed on the Registries to pay for them, there will never be much complaining about the cost (regardless of if it’s true or not).
But it is not the families who are listed on the Registries who are responsible for getting the rest of the Registries created. The criminal regimes and the people who support them are responsible. The people who support the Sex Offender Registries are responsible. They have no excuses at all not to have already gotten it done. In that respect, they have failed miserably. They must not care about children.
If people have a "right to know" about people around them who have committed sex crimes then I have a right to know about people around me who have committed any crime. Until these criminal regimes get the rest of their Registries created, they will continue to have no credibility and deserve no respect.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 12, 2013 9:08:02 AM
I can’t speak for other people but for me, the Registries and the adjunct, illegal horseshit that goes with them (e.g. $50 "fees") are not a red herring at all. It IS a red herring to say they are. People who do that are saying, "Oh look, these child molesters don’t want us stealing their homes, employment, money, etc. from them because they want to molest children!!!" That is EXACTLY what some of the Registry Terrorists say. They are gd liars (and remember, if they lie once, you can call them "liar" for the rest of their lives, so do so).
For me, the Registries are a COMPLETELY separate issue from sex crimes sentencing. I rarely ever even talk about sentencing. The only thing the Registries have done for me that is related is made me fully understand that governments can never be trusted. Nearly all are criminal regimes run by terrible people. The only thing that is usually relevant for me about sentencing is that I am almost always against anything that any criminal regime is doing. If they say the sky is blue, I know that it probably isn't and that I should probably beware of thinking it is. That is how Registries are connected to sentencing. But is there anyone who looks at the current prison industry in the U.S. and thinks it is moral? People are okay with profiteering companies lobbying for tougher sentencing so they can make more money?
Bill, since you are so worried about people complaining about a $50 "fee", why don’t you just go ahead and support your criminal regimes paying for it? It’s a drop in their giant bucket. How many pennies a day is it when you spread it over all taxpayers and borrowed money in the state? In REALITY, the criminal regimes who just have to have their glorious Registries are the ones who are whining about the cost. How are they ever going to pay for the rest of their Registries?
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 12, 2013 9:12:34 AM
"Bill, since you are so worried about people complaining about a $50 'fee', why don’t you just go ahead and support your criminal regimes paying for it?"
It would be a little odd for me to point out they're a bunch of little children for complaining about a 14 cents a day fee, and then go ahead and pay it for them, now wouldn't it? Why would I indulge, much less pay for, juvenile attitudes?
I have a better idea: Since you sympathize with the people who actually owe this absurdly low fee, why don't YOU pay it for them? As you've said, you have plenty of dough.
P.S. Earlier in this thread, Guy asked to borrow the $50, and I replied "No problem," but he never got back to me.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 12, 2013 12:19:11 PM
Bill, I said "support your criminal regimes paying for it", not that you pay for it. That is, support the idea that government pay for their own crap.
We are not being "little children" for complaining about paying for the Registry horseshit. Not only that, but it is actually unbelievably outrageous that any American would think it is acceptable to even ask a Registered family to pay for their own harassment. Typical of the people in this country today though - everyone wants something yet no one wants to pay or work for it.
People who are listed on the Registries - ensure that you cost these criminal regimes far, far more than they steal from you. Don't just pay attention to direct theft like this "fee"; determine everything that they cost you in every way and charge them 12 times that amount. Work at it, be creative. All it takes is a bit of effort.
The U.S. Sex Offender Registries - Promoting the ignorant, illiterate redneck in all us since 1994
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 12, 2013 2:38:55 PM
Complaining about paying 14 cents a day for ANYTHING is juvenile. What can I tell you? Life has its bad features. Paying 14 cents even for something you despise (like, say, I despise these felon-eligible "navigators" for the indecipherable Obamacare websites) is just one of those things adults have to put up with.
I didn't agree with Laffler or Dorsey or Miller v. Alabama, but you don't seem me up here complaining about them day after day.
Adults adjust to the fact that life presents very annoying burdens. From your point of view, the 14 cents a day would be one of them -- if it could reasonably be characterized as a "burden," which it cannot.
"We are not being 'little children' for complaining about paying for the Registry horseshit. Not only that, but it is actually unbelievably outrageous that any American would think it is acceptable to even ask a Registered family to pay for their own harassment."
When you get convicted of Crime X (a sex crime or anything else), you get charged court costs. Is it similarly "outrageous" for a criminal to have to pay for the costs of convicting him? And no, the costs of prosecution are not exactly the same thing as the costs of the registry, but they're close enough on the annoyingness index.
Look, 14 cents a day is 14 cents a day. It's just amazing how bent over some people are. If people can go ballistic about something that trifling, what that tells me is not how "outrageous" it is, but about how much THEY are on the lookout for something to complain about.
Perpetual anger is not a prescription for either maturity or happiness.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 12, 2013 4:19:27 PM
I agree with rodsmith, you are full of yourself. Address the real issue, it is a post conviction, post sentencing, post release of all sentencing obligations fine, no matter how trivial the amount.
Your responses are as trivial as your first contribution to this discussion. I agree with Daniel on this thread. Go help that felon you hired by making him pay some more trivial fees.
I know, you don't give a darn about what anonymous commenters say about you. Well I don't give a darn about apologetic, indoctrinated, govt (rodsmith common noun) ex-AUSDA's say.
How's YOUR government working out for everybody lately, and I mean both liberal and conservative? It couldn't be screwed up any more if "they" actually tried to screw it up.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 12, 2013 6:46:10 PM
"I agree with rodsmith, you are full of yourself."
I don't believe it is me that rodsmith said I was full of.
"Address the real issue, it is a post conviction, post sentencing, post release of all sentencing obligations fine, no matter how trivial the amount."
The SCOTUS has already addressed it, but since, as you've said many times, the Justices are merely pajama-clad dunces, I know that doesn't count with you.
And trivial is still trivial, by the way.
"Your responses are as trivial as your first contribution to this discussion."
You are of course free to report me to the Dean.
"I agree with Daniel on this thread. Go help that felon you hired by making him pay some more trivial fees."
I think he's pretty satisfied with my present interactions with him, not that it's any of your business. And he is not obligated to pay any fees anyway.
"I know, you don't give a darn about what anonymous commenters say about you."
Correct. Is there some reason I should care?
"Well I don't give a darn about apologetic, indoctrinated, govt (rodsmith common noun) ex-AUSDA's say."
That is of course your choice. (But it's ex-AUSA, not ex-AUSDA).
"How's YOUR government working out for everybody lately, and I mean both liberal and conservative?"
As I have pointed out before, with no rebuttal from you, it's as much your government as it is mine. To answer your question directly, however, the government is working poorly indeed: The President is a brazen liar about his most important "achievement," has driven up the national debt more than any other President by far, and is proposing to allow Iran to launch the second Holocaust with some give-away-the-store agreement that even France, of all things, couldn't stomach.
Of course you say not a word about any of that and reserve your criticism for me and others who think putting criminals in jail is actually a good idea. Care to help out with that rather than yelp from the sidelines?
"It couldn't be screwed up any more if 'they' actually tried to screw it up."
That is probably incorrect. I expect it to get considerably more screwed up as Obamacare reveals more and more of the lies that were used to peddle it (such as that premiums will go down). Still, I agree with your sentiment, if not with your wording.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 12, 2013 10:17:19 PM
Let me explain in simple concepts that were addressed to you in the 2nd comment on this thread.
I claim that it is unconstitutional and wouldn't pass the Smith vs. Doe test which "permitted" the registry laws. SCOTUS has NOT ruled on post release FEES if you read the decision. It is unconstitutional because it is a "criminal fee" , despite any obfuscating language by the legislators, after the fact and violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. Even a District Court in Wisconsin decided in this favor.
You claim that it is trivial. What is the definition of trivial? I don't recognize the word in the Constitution. Trivial is one of those "slippery slope" weasel words that can be pulled out of your sphincter. If it is in relation to yours, it might not only be trivial but the word microscopic may be more appropriate.
Maybe surgery would help with rodsmith's accurate description of your condition.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 12, 2013 10:45:45 PM
"I claim that it is unconstitutional and wouldn't pass the Smith vs. Doe test which "permitted" the registry laws. SCOTUS has NOT ruled on post release FEES if you read the decision. It is unconstitutional because it is a "criminal fee" , despite any obfuscating language by the legislators, after the fact and violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution."
That's a mirror image of the argument rejected in Smith v. Doe. Fees are merely the tail of the registry dog (as even FRT admitted, the fees are an "adjunct" (his word) of the registries).
"You claim that it is trivial. What is the definition of trivial?"
We can start with 14 cents a day.
"I don't recognize the word in the Constitution."
I don't think "registries" is in the Constitution either. So what?
"Trivial is one of those "slippery slope" weasel words that can be pulled out of your sphincter. If it is in relation to yours, it might not only be trivial but the word microscopic may be more appropriate."
If ever proof of how juvenile you are were needed, you just supplied it. This is about seventh grade level. It's also vulgar, but I wouldn't want to stop you; I actually appreciate it when the pro-sex offense crowd says what they think. It does my arguing for me.
"Maybe surgery would help with rodsmith's accurate description of your condition."
As I was saying, perpetual anger is not a prescription for either maturity or happiness.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 12, 2013 11:57:11 PM
bill I've never seen you this dense before. I agree the 14 cents is chicken feed! but in this case like most of the other illegal rules covering sex crimes!
It's really that dirty stinking nose of the camel pushing in under the tent side!
Sorry but someone needs to hit that fucker with a sledge hammer!
right now it's just once a year! next it will be once a month! then everytime you walk into the office! don't believe me! It's already happening in other states!
as for this bit of stupidity!
"When you get convicted of Crime X (a sex crime or anything else), you get charged court costs. Is it similarly "outrageous" for a criminal to have to pay for the costs of convicting him? And no, the costs of prosecution are not exactly the same thing as the costs of the registry, but they're close enough on the annoyingness index."
Since the "court costs" and "cost of supervison" are all SET BY THE JUDGE! at the TIME OF CONVICTION! no 10-20 fucking years later! THAT IS ILLEGAL under our govt! no matter what 9 govt fuckups on a court now say! and I've yet to find that one anyway!
the whole reason they allowed the 2002 dole decision to sweek by 5-4 was that it was NOT like probation/parole! and the only interfearance in the individuals life with to return a fucking postcard once a year!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 13, 2013 12:17:46 AM
a few examples to prove my point about it only being the nose under the tent!
Council moves forward with raising fees for convicted sex offenders
"Currently, any convicted sex offender who moves into the city pays a $60 fee for their initial registration. That same amount is charged for the annual renewals of those already living in Sulphur. If passed, the new ordinance, according to Councilman Stuart Moss, would make the initial registration $600 and the annual renewal fee $200."
Kinder officials agree to raise sex offender fees
"KINDER — Officials here agreed Monday to raise the registration fees for sex offenders and child predators living or moving into the town.
An ordinance unanimously adopted by the council increases a one-time initial registration fee from $60 to $400 for newly convicted offenders and those moving into the town. The annual renewal fee will also increase from $60 to $100 for all offenders.
The fees are the same set by the Allen Parish Police Jury last month and similar to recent increases imposed by Lake Charles, Sulphur, Westlake and other municipalities. Reeves is considering adopting a similar fee structure, according to town attorney Michael Holmes.
State law sets the annual fee at $60, but allows municipalities to increase the costs for monitoring, tracking and other services."
Sex Offenders Assessed New $50 Fee
"LANSING - Sex Offenders will have to pay a fee to maintain the sex offender registry in Michigan. On Tuesday Governor Snyder signed into a law a measure that charges registered sex offenders $50 a year for as long as they are required to be on the sex offender registry. The law was sponsored by Senator Rick Jones of Grand Ledge.
"This law will help reduce taxpayer costs to maintain Michigan's sex offender registry," Gov. Rick Snyder said in a statement sent to the media. "By requiring registered sex offenders to pay an annual fee to fund the registry website, law enforcement will be able to direct more of its resources to public safety."
Previously, registered sex offenders only had to pay a one-time fee, which only provided enough revenue to cover about 10 percent of the cost to maintain the state's sex offender registry, according to the Governor's office."
in EACH case they had already passed an illegal after the fact fee. NOW it's time to UP it!
Long past time to remove these little Nazi wannabee's Any way we can!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 13, 2013 12:35:55 AM
I do agree with Bill that the amount is trivial. Luckily, the amount is completely irrelevant.
Any American knows these thieving "fees" are immoral and un-American. We need to ensure that every time a "fee" is increased, it costs the criminal regimes more. But not only that, we need to individually identify the politicians or other people that push for these "fees" and we need to attack them personally. Local politicians are easy pickings. Find out who their enemies are and help them any way you can (do not ever worry about or mention "sex offender"). Do not forget that they are attacking your spouses and your children.
rodsmith, I love your analogy about the camel and the sledge hammer. I think it's quite accurate. I've never heard it before. I find the image hilarious.
Also, I'm glad you repeated what the criminal governor of Michigan said - "By requiring registered sex offenders to pay an annual fee to fund the registry web site, law enforcement will be able to direct more of its resources to public safety." Wow! When I first scanned that article it didn't hit me how freaking accurate his politically incorrect statement is. Amazing. What he surely must recognize is that their precious panacea Registries are not for "public safety" and by getting additional money to deal with them, they can actually take the current resources being wasted on them and divert them back to public safety. Where I live, I really do think the law enforcement officers involved with the Registries feel like they are wasting their lives. I feel bad for them occasionally.
Bill is wrong about "perpetual anger" as well. Families that are listed on the Registries need to get angry, stay angry, and direct it at appropriate targets. The worst thing possible would be if a criminal regime approves a "fee" and the families listed on the Registries just say "No problem, that's trivial." The proper response is "That's unacceptable and I am going to make you pay in multiples."
And as far as other problems in the U.S., who cares? As long as the Registries exist, I am not going to worry about being a good citizen. Until the Registries disease is cured, the rest of the country can burn to the ground.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 13, 2013 10:17:14 AM
What happens if large numbers of former rso's nationwide decide to focus on this new fee law that Michigan and other states have, and use these laws to galvanize registrants and other activists into committing civil disobedience to these law all at the same time. Remember the freedom riders of over fifty years ago who forcibly desegregated lunch counters and other public accommidations by means of civil disobedience and boycotts. All it takes is to put two and two together.
Posted by: william r. delzell | Nov 13, 2013 1:21:29 PM
william r. delzell (Nov 13, 2013 1:21:29 PM):
I am pretty "galvanized" in the War against Registry Terrorists but I am not going to be committing civil disobedience for the simple reason that I am not going to allow any of these criminal regimes to arrest me. That is one of their main weapons so I feel it should be neutralized and made useless. Further, if they arrested me, I can't imagine what I would have to do to retaliate for that. It would be huge and would require plenty of work. And it could raise the war to another level and I'm not sure I want to leave the U.S. yet.
However, what I personally practice is better than civil disobedience. The article said that "the state said the move could bring in about $540,000 more in revenue each year." If all people did what I do, the state would incur $6,480,000 in additional costs, for a net gain of $-5,940,000.
Also, Registered families in Michigan would be hanging around children all the time, all over the place. They would be going out of their way to do it.
There is a lot more, of course. Families do need to resolve that if the Registries, they will be counterproductive and cost a fortune.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 13, 2013 4:58:25 PM
"And as far as other problems in the U.S., who cares? As long as the Registries exist, I am not going to worry about being a good citizen. Until the Registries disease is cured, the rest of the country can burn to the ground."
As often happened when I argued cases in federal court, the best thing to do -- and I will do it now -- was remain silent and let the adversary's words speak for themselves.
You are an able and candid spokesman for your side of this debate.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 13, 2013 6:10:31 PM
You are right. just as I have to remember, whoever invented the "no slam toilet seat" did more good for the American People than 200+ years of the Justus dapartment. Big government types were born that way and can't help themselves.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 13, 2013 6:58:29 PM
Actually, the Justice Dept. has been around for 143 years, not "200+".
BTW, do you agree with your ally FRT that, until the SO registries are abolished, "the rest of the country can burn to the ground"?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 14, 2013 4:23:17 PM
I am not an RSO but I can understand FRT's feelings as he is an RSO and the "trivial" obstacles (fines, where you can live, work, associate with, technology you can use - you know, the typical parole/probation restrictions even though he should be off-paper but can still go to prison for these trivialities) affect not only him but his family and I assume he has children as well. I would personally be pissed off too. As I have said, I know two individuals (I used to be a volunteer private school athletic director) who are listed for truly trivial matters (no harm to anyone) and they are having a hard time because of the "witch hunt". They really are remarkably good people who wouldn't harm anyone.
No, I don't want my country to burn, no matter that my government seems intent on going to hell in a handbasket. Until TSHTF, I will do what I can to help the country and try to make people understand that because of the wide net being cast and the lying, fear mongering statements of media and politicians, the real harm that is actually being caused to RSOs and their families.
I try my best not to stereotype people or make assumptions about them.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 14, 2013 6:22:56 PM
Bill, don't get too excited. You know it's often hard to convey full sentiments in just a few vague sentences. I was speaking in the context of some political issues that you were talking about.
Despite your newfound belief in things I say, you would not believe the amount of wealth that I have invested in the U.S. I need a fairly stable infrastructure to maintain that, let alone get income from it or grow it. I also have many children and their families that live in the U.S., along with many other family members and friends. The U.S. is still a good place to live off of the labor of other people too, so I'm good with it for now.
A little more about what I meant is that I'm not going to be very concerned for the overall welfare of the country or for the vast majority of its citizens. I take care of my family and friends but the Registries have relieved me of any responsibility to worry much about anyone else. If I don't know someone, I assume that they have been indoctrinated as a Registry supporter until they prove otherwise. And until they prove otherwise, I am free to exploit them (which is something that wealthy people can do really, really well). The zealous Registries supporters have said I'm a monster who has no rights. I don't have to treat those people like they are humans.
I took a plea bargain and I thought I was making an agreement with legitimate governments. I should have been off of their BS Registries years ago. And the Registries never should have grown into the pure harassment scheme that they are. And there are no excuses that many other Registries don't exist. So F them. They say I'm a dangerous person who has to be "monitored". That's what they've created. They've always been stupid and I truly expect that to continue and get worse.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 15, 2013 9:27:11 AM
"As I have said, I know two individuals (I used to be a volunteer private school athletic director) who are listed for truly trivial matters (no harm to anyone) and they are having a hard time because of the "witch hunt". They really are remarkably good people who wouldn't harm anyone."
Those are characterizations. Could you provide specific and verifiable facts?
I doubt you buy characterizations; if as you say, you are wealthy, I'm sure you got that way be insisting on facts. That is a wise insistence for us all.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 15, 2013 4:56:03 PM
"The zealous Registries supporters have said I'm a monster who has no rights. I don't have to treat those people like they are humans."
If you don't have to treat them like humans, then I guess you feel like you can treat them like, say, frogs.
A person can kill a frog at will. Do you think you are free to kill registry backers at will? If, as you say, they don't need to be treated as if they are human, why not?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 15, 2013 5:03:09 PM
No, I will not give you verifiable names and case numbers as I am sure you wouldn't do so upon my request. Let me say that the maximum sentence in either case was no more than 90 days in jail and 2 years probation. One judge wanted to give no jail time for one individual but our state has mandatory minimums and the prosecutor was adamant (a dick). Both cases involved 20 - 22 year olds involved with 15 -16 year olds' and were consensual. They did not have actual intercourse in either case but Bill Clinton type relations.
When I was a teenager (about the same time as you), two salesman in a Sears department (late 20-30s) were romantically involved with two teenage girls (15 -16) I knew who worked in the Sears cafeteria. They eventually got married and seemed to be happy. Now they would be listed for life as SOs.
When I was 14 years old, minding my own business at school, a 12 year old girl sat in my lap and put her arms around me. I was so startled and shocked that I stood up immediately and she almost fell to the floor. Today I would be an SO if she got upset through no action of my own and reported me.
John Walsh himself was in his early 20's when he became involved with his future wife (Reve) when she was 16.
In all these cases, the contact was consensual. I maintain that if there must be an age of consent, it should be under 14. After that, penalize it if you want to but the sentences should be mitigated and not for SO registration.
By the way, I will ask you a question and the answer is quite evident. If you have been released from probation/parole, trying to rebuild your life and then your legislature says you cannot live within a certain distance of a school, attend a park, decorate for a holiday, attend your kids school and pay a yearly fee, are these "restrictions" punitive or not and I want a yes or no!
Posted by: albeed | Nov 15, 2013 6:36:47 PM
In the above comment in the second to the last paragraph, I meant to say, 14 and over.
Posted by: albeed | Nov 15, 2013 9:18:20 PM
well bill in answer to your question!
"Do you think you are free to kill registry backers at will? "
I would have to say YES!
If the govt and it's backers refuse to leave them alone and wants to illegally and continually fuck with them. Well under the govt's own rules it uses to strike countries and individuals around the WORLD! they have every legal and moral right to strike back!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 16, 2013 6:52:20 PM
Bill Otis (Nov 15, 2013 5:03:09 PM):
That is a much more appropriate question for the Registry Terrorists. They say that they need a Registry and the people listed on it are animals. They are the people who cannot mind their own business or leave other people alone. Is killing the animals part of their harassment scheme? It is.
Just because the Registries exist, I spent almost the entire weekend all around people, including children, who have no idea that I am Registered. But it's very possible that some criminal regimes wasted resources to "verify" that I live exactly where I told them I do. The Registries are worse than a panacea.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 18, 2013 8:36:02 AM
I'm Shaun Webb, and I'm a writer of true crime portraying sex offenders as the modern-day lepers.
The political Ricks; Snyder and Jones, are knee-jerking to other state's policies that have been proven ineffective. All this is for votes, that's it. Fear and loathing in Michigan.
Posted by: Shaun Wevb | Jan 1, 2014 2:56:00 PM
Folks like Bill don't address the point, if Bill had a speeding ticket from 10 years ago, and paid the fine, should the state come back 10 years late and tell him to give $1,000? Of course this a criminal matter which makes it even more ex post de facto, it isn't the amount of the fine, its legalized theft and ex post de facto.
We don't need to get into whether the sex registry involves everyone with serious crimes or not (aka sexting,teens having consensual sex, urinating in bushes, the fitzroy guy who grabbed a teenage girl's arm but did not kidnap her just chastised her), its quite simple, a state should not be able to charge you money and thief your money just for the privilege of staying out of prison, when you served your sentence. We don't even need to get into the fact that the word SEX is a attractive name for the state to get a license to put folks on a registry.
Should a burglar who committed a crime 30 years ago and paid fines served his sentence and so on, then pay a fee for the rest of his life a new fee introduced by the state later on? The constitution of the united states does not dictate exceptions to the ex post de facto rule. Should Bush who got a dwi or Cheney, pay a $1,000 fee 40 years after their conviction for the rest of their life, and if they have no money, jail time? It's enhancing a penalty for a previous crime (although I read that because of record keeping they didn't have to serve jail time or more severe penalties).
Of course being a burglar might seem like not a serious crime as a "defined sex offense", but we aren't really hear to debate the merits and fairness of a registry or rather someone who takes a baseball bat and hits you should be subject to a "violent offender registry", rather whether a fee for just existing and staying out of jail, upon committing no new crimes, and enhancing an existing punishment is against the Constitution.
Can a state or the federal government charge you a fee and mandate you to buy health insurance or arrest you if you don't purchase it and pay for it, most don't like that, in this case the fee is like that, only its not for a crime committed because you served your sentence. States of course know this, so they try to give "indigent exemptions" to make court challenges less likely. Also, the fee could violate the 13th amendment, since you need to earn money to pay the fee or have money, in illinois they bring up community service instead of paying the fee because folks aren't paying.
In fact this isn't a debate about a sex registry, its about the government's ability to charge you a fee or in Illinois force you to community service or slave labor even though you didn't commit a new crime and are not on probation or parole.The 13th amendment says you cannot be compelled to labor unless its as punishment for a crime, since there is no punishment in a registry, the fee is punishment, so Illinois requirement that one do community service or its idea, if you cannot pay the fee, is a violation of the 13th amendment and it cannot be justified as a punishment since it would violate ex post de facto laws.
One of the more sensible posts, save the ranting and other comments for other topics, related.
Posted by: Kris | Jan 17, 2014 6:41:31 AM
the sex offender registry in my eyes is a system we pay police to gather information and have them run a program online where they have a system that revolves around citizens tips. there are so many offenders out there police whether state or local would not have time to monitor there selves. so tax payers pay for a system that they run. also if its hard on politicians cuz of people like bill oreiley where the if your not for it than your against. i also think by the numbers the state could not afford to house that many sex offenders in prison and later have to put them in protective custody for being outkast behind prison walls. what i think we should do is reccomend that we give them jail like how we do now. place them on parole/felony probation for 5 years. and have the charge listed on their criminal record like everyone else in stead of having a public informed system that puts everyone at loss. this would also make sure that they could not get jobs around children etc. besides that we dont have a armed robber registry, nor do we have homicide registries, aggrivated assaults, and temp murder. shouldnt we be making sure anyone who buys homes around schools and daycare centers go through backround checks by federal laws. i mean sex offenders are bad but doesnt mean i would want my kids around someone who could possibly kill me or rob me either. just saying sex offender registry is garbage and needs to abolished. michigan i believe has already shut down a couple of prisons. are federal debt is still extremely high. why do we keep making things worse for this country honestly
Posted by: josh | Feb 17, 2014 9:15:41 AM