Comments on: Violent offender registry proposed – the branding continues

By: George

George — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:55:10 +0000

That court records are already public records is misleading. There has long been a difference between individual court records and “complied” records, which is what the registries are. See U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE v. REPORTERS COMMITTEE, 489 U.S. 749 (1989).

“Finally: The privacy interest in maintaining the practical obscurity of rap-sheet information will always be high. When the subject of such a rap sheet is a private citizen and when the information is in the Government’s control as a compilation, rather than as a record of “what the Government is up to,” the privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) is in fact at its apex while the FOIA-based public interest in disclosure is at its nadir.”

That there is a “public interest” in the registries is one argument. That that public interest is vastly exaggerated by alarmists statistics is another. So what is the actual public interest in relation to an individual’s privacy? Shouldn’t the public interest be weighed in each case depending on the risk of each individual?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:20:20 +0000

I haven’t looked very closely at the Adam Walsh Act. I think it would behoove me to do so.

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:38:05 +0000

Sorry, been bouncing my way around Central Asia on my way back home. The internet connections are terrible and don’t allow for a lot of browsing.

I agree that residency restrictions are unwise and would advocate strongly against them. It may be that the Adam Walsh’s Act’s RELATIVELY sane registry requirements may be the answer to preempting ever crazier state and local restrictions. The defense bar will reflexivly and rightly challenge the constitutionality of the AWA on Commerce Clause grounds but we need to consider that that leaves us with 18 year olds engaged in consensual sex having to register for life, 2500 foot banishment zones and the like.

By: How should the defense bar handle offender registry legislation? - apublicdefender.com - haven’t you paid enough for your crimes already?

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:07:34 +0000

[...] Smith, who commented here on my violent offender registry post (and I tried to engage him in a mini-discussion) has [...]

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:25:05 +0000

The registries, standing alone, maybe not be problematic. After all, these are public records and anyone can access them at the courthouse. (I’m not going to concede that I’m okay with them).The residency restrictions, on the other hand, are surely punitive in nature and that I do have a lot of problems with.

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:49:08 +0000

I suppose it was inevitable and this proposed law law bears watching because eager beaver legislators in other jurisdictions will no doubt import it. Unlike many of my friends, I am not opposed in principle to such registries but despise the ham-handed way in which they are inevitably imposed.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:03:30 +0000

Oh, yeah, I was going to mention that in the post, but I forgot. Between this and sex offenders, I think about half of all offenses in the state are covered (or will be) via registries.

I’ll add some thoughts to the post.

By: Audacity

Audacity — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:01:04 +0000

This is getting out of hand. What’s next? Non-violent offenders? Too many speeding tickets and you get an S on your license plate?