MO- Sex Offender Statutes and Savvy Readers

10-29-2008 Missouri:

Well, I have to say, I'm impressed. In the comments section of the story on yesterday's federal ruling concerning the Doe v. Nixon case, or Registered Sex Offenders v. Missouri, I saw some extremely well-reasoned arguements and informed comments.

Since the hearing, held in St. Louis, was about four hours in length, it was difficult to pull the most pertinent information into a story short enough to run in print. However, in this vast expanse of blogland, here's a sampling of some of the other things said during the oral arguments:

Dave Nelson, an ACLU attorney repesenting the four plaintiffs, all registered sex offenders, mentioned that he hoped US District Judge Carol E. Jackson would address the "SNL arguement." Nelson was referring to a statement in an opposition filed by Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle, using a Saturday Night Live skit to demonstrate what Swingle called the "reasonableness" of the law.

Nelson also mentioned that since filing the lawsuit, the ACLU had been contacted by other "potential plaintiffs." After the hearing, Swingle said he anticipated meeting many more registered sex offenders before the issue was resolved.

In his argument, Nelson argued that requiring someone to remain in their home during a certain time on a specific date amounted to a punishment by restricting their freedom of movement, a concept central to the American idea of punishment.

Both the U.S. and Missouri constitutions prevent someone being punished under a law that wasn't enacted until after their sentence.

Attorney Chris Quinn, who represented Gov. Matt Blunt and Attorney General Jay Nixon in the suit, countered that maintaining that all registered sex offenders remain in their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Oct. 31 was "hardly a tyrranical restriction."

Quinn also questioned Nelson's use of the term "scarlet letter," to refer to the statute's requirement that sex offenders turn off their residential lighting and post a sign outside saying no treats or candy were available.

"There's nothing inherently stigmatizing about putting a sign on your door," Quinn said. The stigma, Quinn said, lay in the conviction itself.

Quinn argued that Halloween is such an old and recognized holiday that the general public should understand what the phrase "Halloween related activity" is intended to mean in the statute.

Judge Jackson interjected and asked him if bobbing for apples in the basement of your residence would be considered Halloween-related activity and therefore prohibited.

Quinn didn't answer.

A letter sent by the Cape Girardeau County Sheriff's Department to all 85 registered sex offenders in Cape Girardeau County did raise concerns about the interpretations of the statute, argued Nelson.

Jackson later agreed during her 40-minute explanation of her decision to grant partial relief and bar the three named counties from enforcing the first two provisions of the statute, those involving staying inside during certain hours and avoiding Halloween-related activity.

Since a federal judge has already called those parts of the law vague and unclear, Swingle said he'd be surprised if any Missouri prosecutor chose to file charges this Friday against a registered sex offender for violating either of the disputed portions of the statute. ..News Source.. by Southeast Missourian