Michigan Senate approves tightened restrictions

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #79162 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      By Samuel Dodge LANSING, MI – The Michigan Senate voted Wednesday to codify court-recommended changes in the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act. Th
      [See the full post at: Michigan Senate approves tightened restrictions]

    • #79173 Reply
      Avatar
      aaron

      You know I live in MI and I am on the registered and I find it sad that now nit only do I have to suffer but with the new regulation my family and employer dose as well I very well may lose my job over this simple because I know people like grandma that I use her car once in a while to take her to get groceries or I use the shop truck to get delivery or something so its like saying hay if you on the registry pick the closest people to ya cus there on the registry now as well this whole thing is a joke there forced to remove or re word things so there just retaliating for it I am sad that this is what the government has done to people mountins of evidence in front of there face and they just close there eyes and look at the Sunday comics instead

    • #79180 Reply
      Avatar
      Jonathan

      I do not live in Michigan, but its interesting to see how these bills work. They introduce it with other bills. It kind of drowns out any discussion and seems like it is done that way for that reason. I do not know if its true, but thats what it looks like me.

    • #79183 Reply
      Avatar
      Kohli R

      I’m my opinion……I believe that the registry shoukd just not be public. Problems solved on all levels. I am not a sex offender but I was a victim and I for one do not want to have access to a public sex offenders registry. Why should I remain on the victim card with this registry being dangled in front of me over and over again. It is unconstitutional to be shamed and ostracized for a crime when you served your time. No other crime has that. Not to mention every crime now is being expunged for people except sex offenders……that is cruel and unusual punishment and that is not fair. But oh the government and Hollywood idols and the Supreme Court Justice Robert’s can be sex offenders but not be known……..yet push yo keep the registry so they can pawn off the guilt of their crimes on others and use that to keep the public eye off their own pedo crimes. This clean slate deal needs to be available to sex offenders too. If its for all but one group that is unconstitutional. It’s all or nothing.

    • #79188 Reply
      Avatar
      WC_TN

      I posted a link to the article on our social media platform, “Connections”. A retired circuit court judge from MI wrote an op-ed and point-blank called this new bill “CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL” because the “new and improved” bill leaves in place the very provisions that the courts struck down in the first place.

      I wish the court would quit giving the state more chances to “get it right” and just strike the whole thing down and leave them with nothing. Maybe that would be the kick in the butt they need to do their job and do it within humane and constitutional boundaries! As Larry has said multiple times on “Registry Matters”, The choice of fix it or do without gives politicians in both parties the political cover to fix the registry since they can tell their voters that the courts gave them a final ultimatum of either fix it or it goes away. In the end, I guarantee you that voters will opt for a registry that truly passes constitutional muster over nothing at all.

      The emboldened caption below the photo says it all. “Why an attempt to revive Michigan’s sex offender registry is doomed”

    • #79192 Reply
      Avatar
      Mike

      So nothing basically changes? I know it’s not what we wanted but I was afraid they’d add things in like license plate identifiers or something like that.

      I still have 15 years left to go on this registry out of 25. Some people can murder someone, serve their sentence and probation, and still be free of the system before I am.

    • #79207 Reply
      Avatar
      nobody in particular

      I can understand the appeal of there being a convenient list of all the ‘undersireables’ in society, available to anyone, at anytime, and having heaps of provisions and restrictions placed on those who everyone basically hate, and want to suffer. But what happens if the number of individuals on that list becomes equal to, or even exceeds the number of those not on it? And what happens when the conditions imposed on those individuals become so onerous, that they literally have *nothing* to lose by *not* following the rules. Whenever I read an article about “fixing” the registry, the only thought that comes to mind is that whenever something is added or changed, those actions only *validate* the registry, and the mentality supporting such a useless and costly system. It would have been like people casually suggesting during the Salem witch trials, “You know, burning, pressing, hanging, and drowning these young women seems *slightly* barbaric… maybe we should find a more ‘humane’ way of torturing them to death…” If there is one thing I have learned about people, it’s how absolutely cold, brutal, and uncaring they can be when they have “permission” to dehumanize and regulate an entire class of people based on a single, easily identifiable aspect or trait, or a *percieved* threat to their ‘idyllic’ way of life.

    • #79212 Reply
      Avatar
      Ryan

      I currently reside in NC and was looking to move back hone to MI. I have been waiting the outcome of this case to see if I should. My conviction in Mi was pre 2011 by about 10 years. So I am not sure about out of state offenders moving back to MI. I would assume it’s the same thing but you never know.

    • #79218 Reply
      Avatar
      Ken

      Assuming that this bill doesn’t get vetoed, how would it even pass muster with the Federal District Judge overseeing the case? Or, am I missing something?

    • #79251 Reply
      Avatar
      Don

      @Ken. It doesn’t pass Constitutional muster. I am one of the Does vs Snyder II litigants, and if the 6th Circuit does not grant immediate injunctive relief and put this on hold immediately we will file a new lawsuit. Either way, we will be taking it right back into litigation–assuming Gov. Whitmer signs it which she might not. Her office has been getting large amounts of calls and emails in opposition to it.

      • #79547 Reply
        Avatar
        Ken

        @Don
        It looks like you and the other litigants are up to bat.

Viewing 9 reply threads
Reply To: Michigan Senate approves tightened restrictions
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.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *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 contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





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