2-7-2013 Oklahoma:
Attorneys for three convicted sex offenders who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws told the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday that the regulations are being applied retroactively, which makes them unconstitutional.
Attorneys Jim Drummond of Norman and John Dunn of Tulsa urged the state's highest court to keep the state from placing their clients' names on the registry.
An attorney for the state, Senior Assistant Attorney General Neal Leader, urged the nine-member court to uphold the rules, saying residents need to know whether convicted sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods.
"Give us as much protection as possible," Leader said. "The children and the citizens of this state deserve no less."
Drummond represents two men who say they are exempt from the state's sex offender registry rules because their crimes predate the creation of the registry in November 1989.
Joseph Hendricks was convicted of the Oklahoma equivalent of lewd or indecent acts with a child in California in 1982. He moved from California to Oklahoma in 2009.
The second man, Michael Bollin, was convicted of an unspecified sex offense in Missouri in 1987 and has lived in Oklahoma since June 2004.
Dunn's client, James Starkey, pled no contest to sexual assault on a minor child in Texas in 1998 and received a deferred sentence.
When he moved to Oklahoma later that year, the law required him to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
The law has since been changed to require longer registration.
In an unrelated case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in 2010 that sex offender registration laws could only be applied going forward.
The court said defendants should get the benefit of laws that existed at the time of their sentencing and not face punishments that were added later.
Drummond and Dunn told the state Supreme Court that this is what is happening with the sex offender registry.
People convicted of certain sex offenses in Oklahoma before 1989 don't have to register, but those convicted in other states do if they moved to Oklahoma later.
"Is this regarded as punishment?" Dunn asked. "We believe the act is punitive in nature."
Justices peppered the attorneys with questions during their oral presentations, and several alluded to the seriousness of the issues the registry represents.
"This is an issue of statewide public concern," Vice-Chief Justice John Reif of Skiatook said. "We're struggling to find the best answer." ..Source.. by Tim Talley
Tracking sex offenders in Mississippi
22 hours ago
I thought that it has been made very clear that the registry is punitive and does not serve a purpose of safety. They traded the idea of safety for a larger pool of people to label as SO's. They a re labeling children, teens and adults who have done as little as a stupid move with a phone image as an SO. There is no true supporting evidence that the SO registry has protected one single child and it has been more than proven the punitive measures have harmed and placed in harm hundreds of thousands of children. Yet the one punishment fits all is unconstitutional in itself. If the person was a repeat offended he/she would not have finished probation and be living a free life. The media and the government in general have created a nonexistent unsupported profile of a sex offender. This leaves many, children, teens and adults who are guilty of being normal children, impulsive teens with a phone or foolish young adults who did not realize it was their age and not chemistry that told them they could or could not fall in love. There is a very small percent of the pool of labeled SO's who if need further punishment should be dealt with in the existing criminal justice system. The SO registry is simply a scheme for people to capitalize on the fears of the general public to create themselves jobs, positions and status. Impulsive, stupid behavior should be punished but then let the person live and have a job. A criminal conviction lives with person forever anyway. The label of SO is so stigmatizing it is debilitating in itself. The incorrect profile politicians allow to hang on the freely handed out label of SO and now try to call it for protection of children when hundreds of thousand of children are being victims of the label directly or indirectly is nauseating.
ReplyDeleteThe hysteria ignorant and not so ignorant politicians have created with a unfitting profile of an SO percents a huge number of people to move on after punishment and create a life. It hurts hundreds of thousands of children directly and has not proven to save one child. Hurting hundreds of thousands of children does not honor the memory of Megan or Adam. IF the media was not blocked from providing truthful information regarding the label SO then the terror of the SO registry would have never started never mind continue.
I totally agree with keepjustice!! Alot of people don't realize how many people are on the SO list that shouldn't be on it!!
ReplyDeleteThis law is absolutely rediculous. You have no idea what this stigma can do to a family! This situation has ruined my marriage all because the time for hi. To register has come and gone yet he is still made to humiliate hi.self twice a year. All because the Justin e system wa ts to.put a label on hi. Instead of know him. My children have lost friends because of this idiousey! The system has many flaws they treat everyone as if they have false and killed someone and that is not the case inproba ly 50%of these cases! The authorities need tonspend moreti.e figuring g out ea h I dividual instead of everyone e being g pug under some broad spectrum of criteria
ReplyDelete