9-13-2008 Nevada:
Even sex offenders are entitled to protections of Constitution
Sex offenders are an unsympathetic lot, and deservedly so. But if the government is allowed to trample and shred the constitutional rights of even the tiniest, most shunned segment of the population, how long before authorities decide to take away yours?
U.S. District Judge James Mahan took the state of Nevada off that slippery slope Wednesday when he prevented the retroactive application of a law that would have reclassified more than 2,000 registered sex offenders.
The statute, approved last year to meet the standards of the federal Adam Walsh Act, aimed to reclassify sex offenders based on the crimes they've committed, rather than their perceived risk of re-offending.
As a result, hundreds of Tier 1 offenders who've completed prison terms, stayed out of trouble for years and been considered no threat to public safety suddenly would have been labeled Tier 3 offenders. Their photos and personal information would have been posted on the state's sex offender Web site, they would've had to check in with authorities every 90 days, and a few would have had to wear GPS monitoring devices. Many feared losing their livelihoods and their rebuilt reputations.
Judge Mahan correctly ruled that applying the law retroactively violated the Constitution's due process and double jeopardy protections. A decision on whether the law can be constitutionally applied to future convictions is pending in state court.
"We know that it's a brave thing to do to make a decision that affirms the rights of sex offenders," said ACLU of Nevada staff attorney Maggie McLetchie, whose organization brought the challenge to federal court on behalf of several plantiffs.
"It's about the limits on the power of government."
Amen. Aside from the constitutional concerns, there were legitimate public safety issues as well. How could the law-abiding public be expected to measure the risks to themselves and their families if, overnight, the number of Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada grew from about 160 to more than 2,500? Would their children really be in danger if one day their neighborhood was deemed free of dangerous molesters and rapists, but the next day the state said there were two on the same street?
The ACLU and the federal court deserve a lot of credit for protecting not just the rights of sex offenders, but of all citizens. ..Opinion Source.. by Review Journal.com
September 13, 2008
NV- EDITORIAL: Upholding our rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The only problem I see with how this judge ruled on this issue is that Nevada apparently had a risk assessment program in place that was able to determine if the offender is at risk for re-offending again.
There are a lot of states that have not had formal risk assessment programs, but the offender was released from probation/parole.
However, I can personally say I know of many people who would be considered Tier 3 based on today's AWA that have not re-offended for many years after their crime.
Just because an RSO's victim was under 12 does NOT mean he/she will ever re-offend again. Each person must stand on their own merit and not on the Federal Governments desire to classify a group of citizens based on statue.
I speak from experience. The AWA would have me register as a level 2 in Washington. Washington has a risk assessment program in place.
This goes against what WA has in place. Also it would effectively create "more" high level offenders just because of the offense, not on the risk of re-offense. The law honestly makes no sense.
We need more stands to keep risk assessment possible.
Post a Comment