Alaska Supreme Court says law requiring all sex offenders to register is unconstituti

[Common]

Alaska Supreme Court says law requiring all sex offenders to register is unconstitutional

I could not disagree with a court more

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state’s sex offender registry law is unconstitutional.

The court said in a 3-2 ruling on Friday that the law requiring all offenders to register violated offenders’ rights to due process.


“But its defect may be cured by providing a procedure for offenders to establish their non-dangerousness,” the ruling said.



The Alaska Sex Offender Registry Act requires those convicted of a sex offense to put their personal information, including their home address and workplace, into a state database.


“If [an offender] can show at a hearing that he does not pose a risk requiring registration, then there is no compelling reason requiring him to register, and the fact that ASORA does not provide for such a hearing means that the statute is unnecessarily broad,” the justices wrote in their opinion.


The ruling follows a 2016 lawsuit filed by an unnamed man who moved to Alaska after being convicted of aggravated sexual battery in Virginia in 2000. The man argued that Alaska did not have the legal authority to make him register because the crime happened in another state and it violated his right to privacy.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...constitutional

[MisterVeritis]

Interestingly, I agree with the court.

The records should not be made public once the sentence has been served. We have a right to be forgotten.

Police departments should have access to the database.

[The Xl]

I'll get some $#@! but I agree. If you've served your time for your crime, I don't see why you should have to register as an offender. No one registers as a murderer or anything else, I don't see why it would be different here

[Cletus]

Interestingly, I agree with the court.

The records should not be made public once the sentence has been served. We have a right to be forgotten.

Police departments should have access to the database.

I concur completely.

Putting someone in a public database like that amounts to a life sentence.

[Common]

The problem with this is simple, its proven sex offenders cannot be cured, therefore they are always sex offenders and sex offenders have a higher than average recidivism rate.

If you are a parent of small children you have a right to know if a convicted pedophille lives anywhere near you

[The Xl]

You also have to consider that a lot of what is considered a "sex offender" isn't even sex with a minor, public urination in some places with a dip$#@! judge and prosecutor can have you wind up being labeled a "sex offender." And not all sex offenders are created equal so to speak, having consensual sex with a 17 year old is very different than the rape of the 9 year old. But our courts don't understand nuance, so everything gets lumped in together.

[donttread]

Interestingly, I agree with the court.

The records should not be made public once the sentence has been served. We have a right to be forgotten.

Police departments should have access to the database.

It's a tough one because of the re-offened rate. But on the other hand do we have an assault or murder offender registry?

[MisterVeritis]

The problem with this is simple, its proven sex offenders cannot be cured, therefore they are always sex offenders and sex offenders have a higher than average recidivism rate.

If you are a parent of small children you have a right to know if a convicted pedophille lives anywhere near you

What do you mean it is proven? It is asserted.

What would you do with the information that you are not already doing?

It is a bad law. Why lump together sex offenders with pedophiles?

[MisterVeritis]

It's a tough one because of the re-offened rate. But on the other hand do we have an assault or murder offender registry?

I am not aware of one.

[Lummy]

Isn't the whole point of the exercise to gin up justification for high tech intrusion and experiment with new gizmos on a subset of experimental guinea pigs, and at the same time get the general population of peeps acclimatized to the notion of 24/7 surveillance?

I think so, yes. Yes, that's it.