ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Updates

In a recent NPR interview, ACLU Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman stated she believes that sex offender registries should be abolished.  In support of that belief, Aukerman stated that registries are ineffective and make society less safe. Aukerman criticized both legislators and law enforcement for the current challenges now facing registrants.  Legislators have passed and keep

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


This topic contains 12 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Tim in WI 2 weeks, 2 days ago.

  • Author
  • #59471 Reply

    In a recent NPR interview, ACLU Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman stated she believes that sex offender registries should be abolished.  In support of
    [See the full post at: ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Updates]

  • #59477 Reply
    Jean onerle

    So is the registration ended?

    • #59479 Reply


  • #59480 Reply

    I am a Tier 2 offender in which I got arrested in a sting operation in which the police posed as an underage girl and I was arrested when I agreed to foolishly meet up 19 years ago. I was 22 back then now I am 41. If new legislation is passed is it likely that my registration term could be reduced (currently 25 years)? I have only this one felony on my record and haven’t been in trouble since.

    • #59482 Reply

      There isn’t any new legislation. This is a matter of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Michigan’s registry is unconstitutional and now ACLU is trying to get Michigan’s legislature to change it to being on par with the Court’s decision. The legislature was given 90 days to change it last spring. They failed to make the changes within 90 days. So now it goes back to court and the judge will decide what happens next. You should listen to recording above.

      In the meantime you absolutely must continue following the law as you had been, as nothing has changed yet. However, based on the fact that you were convicted 19 years ago, that is what this ruling addressed. Changes made in 2006 and 2011 should not be applied to people convicted before those changes were made. So yes, my opinion is that when the changes are finally settled and enacted they will affect you in a positive way if you are a Michigan registrant. I am not an attorney. This is just my opinion based on my understanding of the case and you should wait until you have official confirmation about any changes that will affect you.

      • #59486 Reply
        Ed C

        Wasn’t it only the ex post facto application of the Michigan law the determined unconstitutional? While quite important, that affects a very narrow slice of those required to register, and has little effect on the registry itself. As long as registration is considered to serve a legitimate non-punitive public safety measure, eliminating registries will be tough.

        Given that registries don’t increase public safety, how draconian do laws need to be before they become in effect a bill of attainder? Registries are punishing both directly and collaterally, and not part of any court’s sentence. The only thing keeping them from being unconstitutional bills of attainder is that they ostensibly serve a legitimate public safety function–like speed limits– and are thus not punishment.

        • #59489 Reply

          Ex post facto (retroactively applying the law after the fact) was the main ground. In 2006 and 2011 stricter restrictions were added, such as those who were originally registering for 10 years, now have to register for 25 or life. Plus all the reporting requirements that were not in place prior to 2006 are now in place for all registrants. So in the case of someone who was convicted in 2000 I would think that once this is settled they will be reverted back to a 10 year registering term and no longer have to report internet identifiers within 3 days, residence restrictions and all those other restrictions and requirements that came in 2006 and 2011 should no longer apply to those convicted prior to those changes. Again I am just speculating.

          And, I should add that the 6th Circuit Court found Michigan’s registry to be a form of punishment. They said it creates moral lepers out of registrants.

        • #59560 Reply

          One issue that has to be settled is whether or not severability will apply to the law. If severability applies, then the unconstitutional parts will be discarded and the registry will simply revert back to what it was before the 2006 and 2011 updates were enacted. If severability does NOT apply, then an only then would the registry law as a whole be overturned within the 6th Circuit.

  • #59483 Reply
    Tim in WI

    The Michigan legislature has had three + years notice and an Mandamus from a federal judge to alter the course but have not moved. SCOTUS in 03 made clear the rules of constitutional engagement on the issue but the legislature in all 50 have been lead by national party leadership into affirmative restraints incongruous to the Smith ruling.

    Who or what are they hard up against? Clearly whatever or which ever force it is preventing MI from act is more powerful than a federal judge Cleland’s orders.

    • #59501 Reply
      NH Registrant

      It’s all about MONEY. That’s why there’s a lot of feet-dragging in state govts. In my state, it costs you $50 a year for the privilege of being a target for harassment – or worse (which has actually happened several times in my state alone in the past decade). That’s a lot of FREE MONEY for state govts. And who would dare argue against it? There are enough ignorant voters who would end the careers of politicians if they dared to vote against the registry. It’s really sad.

      In my state, I have to register for LIFE for possession of images. In other states, it would only be 10-25 years.

      • #59556 Reply
        Tim in WI

        @NH registrant,
        Most of the MONEY you refer to goes to “help offset the costs of maintenance” of state’s database machines. As property goes it’s the same as the incarcerated man maintaining prison grounds. Each work a disposition of anti- liberty applied to the body whole. A recent federal court opinion declared SOR amounts to custody.

        Who would argue against it? I would sir! And am, in an FTR here in Rock County WI. Next court date :Thursday 5th.

  • #59506 Reply

    Much of this whole ordeal of the sex registry is Twisted. Michigan and other States have their ups and downs but its a wonder why the registry still stands. One doesn’t know wheather to condemn NARSOL,the justice department, or the unlawful use of fair prictice’s & justice. Now in the 70’s one of my favorite groups was Bufffalo Springfield. They had some good songs such as Whats that sound. So look what’s going down today.

    Who is using principal today to convict. Guess the bible’s meaning of lead us not into temptation doesn’t mean anything in these enticements. Someone is not using principal right or are we just common people being judged by all this twisted control of government with this registry ordeal. We need to stop this right now before it gets to a more davestating stage.. One wonder who pre-judges another today as a wicked and evil person.

    Their is no ten commandments today except the governments self-righteous commandments. Protecting who when they are bait a trap for one.. But leave it up to those that understand about this twisted confusion. Sure we can all write to governors and whoever but most letters get tossed in the trash. I wonder who has wisdom today in many of this government ruse. Guess we need to bring Ben Matlock back or some biblical principal.

  • #59791 Reply

    Well, in my opinion Mrs Aukerman doesn’t say much that we don’t already know, and in my opinion because next year is an election year nothing is going to be passed this year or next, the Legislature is going to continue to drag their feet and laugh, even Cleland keeps giving the Legislature more and more time. This whole thing should of been done with 3 years ago, and I believe it will drag on for another 3 years. My con fiction was in 1992, my registration start date is the same as my conviction date. That means I’ve been I this thing for 27 years now, 2 years over my original 25 years. I’m at the point where I don’t believe anything the state says or the ACLU said at this point, until there is some real progress and people who are pre 2006 and 2011 are removed from the registry.

    • #59932 Reply
      Tim P

      Of course you have the right not to believe anything from the ACLU or others if you wish. Now that you do not believe them go to another source who is fighting to get the changes the ACLU won in court and now is working to get the Leglislators to do the job that they are elected to do. How about you write to your Michigan Elected State Officals and get them to do the job they should be doing. How about you writing to the Governor of Michigan and ask her why she is not leading the change that the courts have ordered. I suggest you get involved or don’t complain when things are not moving fast enought for any of us.

Reply To: ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Updates
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links to other websites
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version