Interesting here is, the ruling effectively requires a court to look closely at the circumstances of an individual registrant and law at time of his/her conviction, to determine if they should be on the registry. This decision is a as applied to a specific person, here a disabled one whose conviction is many years ago. As to punitive finding, it is ONLY punitive to the person under consideration and his/her specific circumstances.2-11-2015 New Hampshire:
The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that an aging, disabled sex offender should be excused from the state’s registry if he can prove he no longer poses a threat. At the same time, the court said the registry law is not overly punitive toward those convicted before it was created.
The case involves “John Doe,” an unidentified Manchester man who was convicted in 1987 of sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter. He was placed on probation until 1990, during which he attended counseling. The registry was created two years later. Doe is now in his 60s, permanently disabled and living in a boarding house.
Ten years ago, Doe made an effort to move in with his son, but the neighborhood petitioned the landlord to refuse. He was injured a year later and today can only move around with a cane or mobility scooter. His doctors recommended he move into public housing, but the Manchester Housing Authority denied the application after learning of his registry status.
Doe’s attorney, Bill Chapman, argued that Doe no longer poses a threat and yet remains subject to harassment and squalid living conditions because of the registry requirement.
The court reviewed a similar argument in 1994 (State v Costello) but found the registry as it existed then was not overly punitive to those convicted before it was created. In their order yesterday, the justices noted that the registry requirements have evolved over time and “are significantly different from the act that we considered 20 years ago.”
Today, registrants are classified into three tiers, with Tier III, under which Doe falls, representing the most serious offenses. Tier III offenders are placed on the registry for life and must report in person to their local police station four times per year.
The court found that the law today creates an undue hardship on Doe, given his physical condition and previously completed sentence. The new rules, they said, effectively impose an altogether new punishment.
“We are convinced that the punitive effects clearly outweigh the regulatory intent of the act,” Justice Robert Lynn wrote for the court.
But the justices were careful not to issue a blanket ruling on the registry law itself. They said Doe can be excused if he can prove to a lower court judge that he no longer poses a risk “sufficient to justify continued registration.” ..Source.. by Jeremy Blackman
I love that statement coercing someone into prostitution and the part about the attorney won't appeal. To me the internet is a form of communication and internet site's have safety rules in place. It is law enforcement that break the law's of the internet to enforce the law's. That said, the internet should be opened to everyone that wishes or wishes not to go on there and its their right to defend that right. While everyone should know that anything you write on the internet stays on the internet and someone can access it. Knowing someone's address or interned identities is like wanting to know the identities of terrorists or murderers that may never murder one in their life. State's want to look into crystal balls and predict too much. One cannot predict what can happen today or tomorrow or are they wanting to be above God themselves. I do believe that's the case. They have the sex offender already in bondage for the rest of their life what more do they want blood or the whole human body even there mind. The bible says love God with all thy heart, mind, and soul .
ReplyDeleteIt never says love man with all thy heart, mind , and soul but that is about what man want's to do they want All of the sex offenders life.
This issue is very discriminating and the courts should be ashamed of themselves along with the housing authority. Its as if the sex offender is a terror for the rest of their remaining days. Are the court systems a terror too good or evil. It seems a leopard cannot change his spots if that's what the courts are looking at. Its as if it wants to make the sex offender want to offend again so the courts could say they were right. The courts and all that are in with all this scheme want to be proud but we know what the bible says' about the pride of those people. All I can say is they don't know how to humble themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis incidental ruling just proves they are protecting the status quo by not blowing the dam and opening the "flood gates." Because they moment they humanize ALL sex offenders, the whole thing comes down, and it would appear that no judge wants that footnote or asterisk on their legacy.
ReplyDeletePunitive damage and undue hardship's but they are looking for a new punishment for those sex offenders. Maybe they will get around to just cutting their legs off, oh wait, that would be cruel and unusual punishment.
ReplyDelete