Reply To: NO! We don’t need another sex offender law to fight


You are correct. I think there are multiple challenges to registry laws. First is ‘compelling government interest’. If you remove the false assumption about recidivism, the law fails. Also, as i mentioned in my original post, ex post facto was INTENDED to apply to both civil AND criminal laws. In addition, and probably closer to your theory as to cost; registry laws may also be a ‘bill of attainder’. Why does the public need protection from SO, but not from those who commit burglary, robbery, assault or murder ? Either the public needs protection against criminals, or they don’t. It’s illegal to pass a law that discriminates agains only one class of people, even if they are criminals.
But again, the problem is finding someone with the courage AND the MONEY to make the challenge. There isn’t a single politician who doesn’t know the basis for registry laws was a lie, yet they will ALWAYS support any additions or restrictions on offenders.
Furthermore, look at the chances anyone has to be removed from the registry, even in those states that ‘have’ such provisions. The process is backwards. You are automatically guilty of the possibility to reoffend. There are NO facts or statistics to back up the assumption. You are not innocent until proven guilty. You are simply guilty. They claim that the time since the offense is taken into account. It is NOT. If their interpretation of the Static 99, or whatever says you could reoffend, you’re finished. Their ‘theory’ trumps that fact that you can show DECADES of not reoffending which is absolute PROOF that you don’t pose a risk. It;s really no different from the civil forfeiture laws. Constitutionally illegal. Nowhere in the Constitution was permission give to ignore the Constitution. Property cannot be taken without a trial. There are no loopholes or exclusions to this. Congress is PROHIBITED from passing such laws. (as well as ex post facto) Legally it would require an amendment to the Constitution. The government simply ignores it by again claiming the Constitution doesn’t apply in civil cases. Even with CAFRA the amount seized by the government has gone from less that $400 million in 2000, to OVER $2.5 BILLION in 2010.
Bottom line is we seem to have have no recourse against a government run amok.