I don’t think this is a bad use of resources at all. I hope this guy gets the max for his failure to register. Yeah, it’s a little cheap, but so what? He raped and murdered a six year old girl. I don’t want that animal out on the street, and he technically violated the law. Too bad for him. Count this as one of those “technicalities”.

I don’t blame the NH town one iota either.

I hope this former offender chooses to retaliate. I know thousands of people who are on these registries all over the country are doing exactly that against governments at all levels and local citizens. It’s the right, moral thing to do.

These registries and especially all the other useless laws that have resulted because of them (e.g. banishment) are not just worthless. They are worse. They have caused far more damage to society than any tiny little benefits that maybe we’ve all gotten from them. They are truly idiotic. But at least in that respect, they really fit in our country these days.

Au contraire, Angela, it looks like this law is going to put a child rapist/murderer back behind bars. I’d say that’s a pretty big benefit.

I agree that some of these laws are needlessly draconian when it comes to low-level sex offenders. But that it ensnared this guy, although there is a slight twinge of the feeling that the state is taking an unfair advantage, I am happy. 22 years for raping and killing a six year old girl is an outrage.

So take it up with the sentencing judge. He did his time. If you don’t like the fact that he “only” got 22 years, that’s fine. That, at least, is a reasonable position (regardless of whether I agree with it).

But this guy didn’t do anything to warrant time back in. He moved. He registered. He didn’t violate the spirit of the registry law. And you can’t punish someone for an offense they were already punished for, which is what you are suggesting.

Of course, you’ll respond with some asinine comment, which makes me wonder what exactly happened to you to make you so angry. Were you a victim once? Someone close to you? Regardless, your comment with be ridiculous, and once again, I will wonder why I bother to engage in this ridiculous debate with you.

SV, the issue for me is that a guy who raped and killed a six year old girl is a danger to the community. The streets are safer without him, and if he violated the law and the prosecutor has an opportunity to put him back in the pokey, then he should. It doesn’t have to do with anger or anything like that–just common sense. Now, this may not comport with your sense of fair play, and there are arguments to be made that the ability of the government to screw with people like this is not a good thing, but the bottom line is that no tears should be shed for this guy. Yeah, he did his time–and yeah, that means he got to get out, but that doesn’t entitle him to break laws, now does it? He killed a six year old girl–that means that prosecutors are justified in throwing the book at him for criminal violations. That may violate your sense of fair play–well, guess what, fair or unfair, it’s legal to go after this guy for a technical violation. (Of course, the courts could agree with your “spirit” argument. However, this would violate the plain language of the statute–not only is the statute clear on its face–that both sets of authorities need to be notified–it also specifically contemplated the specific factual situation presented here, viz., an out-of-state move. You never know what some judge is going to do, but any objective observer would have to say that the “spirit” argument is an uphill climb.) Just as the law sometimes requires some pretty unfair results that benefit your clients. Just as you have every right to protect your client within the confines of the law, so does the state. And here, it’s hard to argue that the state is simply being cruel, rather than looking out for the safety of society. The ends (putting a child killer back in the pokey) are moral, and the means are legal–why the outrage?

Speaking of asinine, this quote takes the cake: “And you can’t punish someone for an offense they were already punished for, which is what you are suggesting.”

Unless Connecticut has some goofy double jeopardy caselaw, I don’t see why he cannot be punished for this violation, even if the motivation for bringing charges was his prior crime. Furthermore, all I am saying is that the prosecutor should prosecute him for a violation of the registry law–if you don’t like the interpretation of the law, then file an amicus brief if this puppy ever gets litigated and argue that he really didn’t violate the law.

If I am a prosecutor, and some low-level offender makes this mistake, I ignore it–a child-killer, I don’t. Guess what, that’s called prosecutorial discretion, something which a part and parcel of our system of justice.

You misunderstand.

Of course he can be charged and punished for violating the registry law; I just don’t believe he really did violate the registry law. And if he didn’t, then you can’t throw him in jail for a crime he already did time on. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. That’s all I meant.

And in the “Why do I bother?” category: I’m done with this one.

I think you misunderstand, or don’t read carefully enough:

First, I never suggested that we simply punish him for his past crimes. What I am saying is that it is ok for his past crime to have a bearing on whether the prosecutor vigorously pursues him for a technical violation.

Second, I think the parenthetical about statutory interpretation makes it clear that I understand that you believe that the guy didn’t violate the law.

Where you went astray, logically speaking anyway, was appending your view that the guy didn’t violate the law onto my view (which presumes that he did, and is fair, given the plain language of the statute) that we should go after this sick predator. In any event, I don’t see how you get around the word “also”. That pretty much nails it down.

I have to concede that the plain language is pretty, well, plain. Yeah, it’s a technical statute (though I hesitate to call violating it a “technical” violation — this isn’t the world of VOP — violation of a law is violation of a law).

I still don’t buy it, though, so my fallback position has to be the “spirit of the law” argument.

I used to work in a different state, where failure to register cases were my specialty — my boss kept assigning ‘em to me. Now, in that state, the State still had to prove that the defendant willfully and knowingly failed to register. I’m not sure how it works in CT (I’ve not yet had to look into it), so there’s still that mini-hurdle. My point? Regardless of your view of these statutes, these cases aren’t as easy for the prosecution to win as everyone seems to think.

But I digress…

The “mini-hurdle” is an interesting mens rea question–if the standard is that he knew he was violating the law (something you don’t see very often), then that’s a toughie, but I doubt seriously there’s an “ignorance of the law” defense to this charge. (Believe it or not, ignorance of the law is a valid defense to some crimes, for example, Linda Tripp’s wiretapping charge.) I am not a Connecticut lawyer. It would seem to me that it would be a difficult argument to make, as there’s no way that an ignorance defense is available for the failure to register, and it’s unlikely that the statute has a different mens rea for registering with the new place and notifying the old place.

The thrust of Gideon’s post was that this was a bs charge and that prosecution wasn’t worth it. That is an unrealistic viewpoint. First of all, if this guy hurts someone after the prosecutor could have put him away for the violation (or at least tried), prosecutor has no more job, and the new victim’s family would (rightly) be outraged. Second, this guy, given his past, is a very very dangerous criminal. Yeah, we don’t get a do-over with his original sentence, and yeah, there may be issues with whether he committed a crime, but whenever you can lock up a child-killer, you should try to do it, even if the charge is one you wouldn’t ordinarily be bothered with. Why? Because there’s a not insignificant risk that this guy’s gonna hurt some kid.

I think some of these registration laws are over-inclusive. But they rightly impose onerous burdens on guys like this.

::shrug::

I happen to agree with The Gid.

But that’s just me.

Well, that’s what makes the world go ’round, doesn’t it?

Persecuted after serving one’s sentence. This is the United States? Are we still protected by the Constitution?

Registration of sex offenders is only possible since it is a not “retroactive punishment prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause.” The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe 538 U.S___(2003) decided that registration of sex offenders is regulatory (i.e. as in motor vehicle registration laws), and not punitive.

Connecticut’s original registration scheme, under § 54-102r was purely regulatory:

E.g. Registration with the local police only, similar to registering a business with city hall per town ordinance regulation,

No punishment for mistakes in the registration process - i.e. correcting a technicality on an address change with administrative sanctions), did pass Constitutional muster.

But in its transition to § 54-250</b et seq. has progressively grown from a regulatory to a punitive measure, so much so, in that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision would differ if it ruled on the current registration scheme.

Now an offender is punished after the fact:

Offenders who move out of state are punished by being banished from living within major areas of certain cities.

The public sex offender registry list is used to punish offenders most recently by SORNA the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title I of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 by:

Revoking the right to assemble peacefully in a public place and interfering in free association by banning registrants from churches, libraries, or any place where children congregate.

Denying equal treatment by discrimination: From working in certain jobs with children, picking up their own children at school, or bringing their own kids to places where children congregate, even if the offense had NOTHING to do with a minor, or the offender was sentenced and turned his life around a long time ago, or committed a minor offense like drunken groping, consensual sex between a younger and older teenager, or a one-time forcible sex with the wife.

Creating laws are deliberately vague and overbroad: The laws are in perpetual change, differ greatly state to state, very strict on what an offender must register: work site, school, telephone number, tattoos, car, residence, vacation spots, and anything imaginable (as politicians love to add any laws that claims to protect the children).

Crafting Laws so that to “violate any provision of this section”: You commit a serious felony for a minor transgression of a regulatory code (a rule made by an agency, the enforcement branch of the executive branch, not just statutory law or a penal code). Georgia is leading the way for a mandatory ten years for something as harmless as forgetting to register your company’s new telephone number… Or as trivial as forgetting to go to the State Police to register your new peace sign tattoo…

Most egregious of all: Under the AWA, all travels by a registrant must be registered, recorded, and restricted.

Registry is NOT meant to follow and trace the offender, that’s probation, and probation is PUNISHMENT. If so, then these laws are clearly unconstitutional! Following the slippery slope, these laws will soon cover youthful offenders, juvenile sex offenders, anyone with an offense, ever, that entered into a diversionary program, think Accelerated Rehabilitation in CT (the AWA mandates this), and so much more…

Next up, registration for most crimes, all of your criminal and motor vehicle information available on the ‘Net, monitoring your movements 24-7, logging all of your calls and emails and aggregating all of your data, “to protect the children and the homeland“…

Well, now you can see where I’m going. Rant over.

So basically you’re saying it’s ripe for a challenge?

Mark, I agree with much of what you said, but this bothered me:

or a one-time forcible sex with the wife.

I would not put any act that includes force in the same category as one that is consensual. It’s the force–not the sex–that makes a difference.

Gideon said: “So basically you’re saying it’s ripe for a challenge?”

More than ripe. Reading the two rulings, particularly where SCOTUS outlines what the laws do NOT contain, is instructive. The trouble, really, is getting a state court to actually acknowledge what SCOTUS approved SORNA because of what it lacked, not because of what it was named. Most states have been willing to say that since this thing called SORNA was approved once, it must be approved for all time–no matter what changes had been made. After all, it’s still called SORNA, right?

This has resulted in judges saying that having to appear in person before law enforcement four to sixteen times a year (or more) is not substantially different from mailing in a form once a year, and that living under restrictions of housing, employment, travel, and holiday observances–as well as having to report any change or occurance of residence, travel, auto purchase, employment and education–is not at all like being under supervision.

But there are a few courts–Maine’s Supreme Court being one–that are no longer willing to sound so foolish for the sake of public agreement.

Take a look at http://www.sexoffendersagainstpersecution.com to see what these guys have to go through.