...even if you didn't do anything that should put you on the list.
GA Supreme court upholds the position that even if you don't commit ANY sexual crime you are still going on the sex offenders list if you commit OTHER crimes like kidnapping, illegally detaining a minor, etc.
This quote is priceless:
Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Harold Melton rejected arguments that the provision, as applied to Rainer, was cruel and unusual punishment. Sex offender registry laws, Melton wrote, "are regulatory, not punitive, in nature."I would like to advance a position that
many may find controversial, all regulation is punitive in nature because it provides punishments if those regulations are not met. So I think that the distinction is a fuzzy one at best to differentiate between. Add to that this concept: All regulations inherently reduce the choice set of the individual without facing punishment. That reduction in choice set is in and of itself a punishment of a kind. (Please note I'm not arguing that laws against murder is a bad thing, merely that regulation reduces choice set or more rightly that regulation increases the costs of making certain choices, which outside of the protection of life, liberty, and property are a bad thing.)Here is another gem:
"Because the registration requirements themselves do not constitute punishment, it is of no consequence whether or not one has committed an offense that is 'sexual' in nature before being required to register," Melton wrote.Does that make any sense to anyone? We all know that those regulations of where you can live/work/go make life hell on people that are convicted of a sex offense. As a result I can very clearly say that those regulations ARE punitive.
Now please understand I'm not saying that real sex offenders deserve a pass, on the contrary they deserve to get it good and hard. however there are WAAAY too many people that have no business being on those lists. 18 year old hooks up with his 17 year old girlfriend, even if it's consensual, her parents can file charges anyway (this varies from state to state but documented cases exist of this kind of shit).
Come on GA, you can do better than this.
Visiting from David Codrea's War on Guns.
Rainer was subjected to “reasonable regulations” and was “due processed”. The court said so. So, there.
Folks who make regulations never make “unreasonable” regulations and the courts always allow for due process. Our jails and prisons are overflowing with otherwise not guilty inmates who have been due processed with reasonable regulations. The prosecutors get by with it because they say they can and the judges allow it because they say they can.
[W-III]
Thanks WW,
I appreciate the visit, And while David and I see eye to eye on most things, many of his readers will disagree with me on others.
I agree with your analysis and think that the idea of checking off legal boxes to say "okay we did X,Y,&Z therefore the outcome MUST be just.
Too much faith in the system is the fundamental problem in that instance.