Reply To: Connecticut considers substantial cut to state’s sex offender registry

Tim Lawver

What you describe is called, ” mission creep”. Iam sure you know the term, but some don’t. The SORs began to protect kids but the scope expanded rapidly.

The point is SCOTUS made an exception with the state’s regulatory regime in 2003 (Alaska, Conn), because of the ” grave risk posed to the vulnerable population by the deviant.” Especially, the repeat offender! SCOTUS UPHELD A STATE’S RIGHT.

However, that state right was not specifically or expressly extended the the FED. The FED has unconstitutionally annexed the scope into their jurisdiction, specifically the fed is delving into the day to day lives of citizens. This use of the “special interest” is a convenient way to circumvent constitutional separation of powers protections. This has been the case with every form of government ever conceived by mankind. The founders did their best but……….? Republic lost?

With that argument at hand the state’s were able to avoid ex post and due process claims. I can not imagine a time when a state WOUND NOT claim “public interest of safety” when violating ex-post or process protections. It is an empty argument, simply because it will always be claimed by individuals writing law that is ON IT’S FACE applied retrospectively. To paraphrase Justice Stevens…that the touchstone itself ( the initial notice of conviction) is both necessary AND sufficient to justify the new burdens clearly implicates a protected liberty interest.

It also was imposed and applied on those who had not waived rights via plea agreement including the right to defense in civil claims. Civil claims can occur without conviction, like OJ, but he was afforded defence in the subsequent civil claim. Many pre Megan’s law defendants were absolutely denied the OPPORTUNITY to keep their names off the ELECTRONIC LIST.

The most important aspect of the regime is that it implicates both the use of a database AND palpable individual freedom from government overpowering individual liberty interests via the pen. What is most concerning is the power of the database in the hands of the financially and politically motivated class.