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.

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.

I happen to agree with The Gid.

But that’s just me.

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.

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…

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.

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.