OH- Sexual crime law OK

Someone is drinking wacky water, one legal system for sex offenders and a completely different legal system for others? While ex post facto may not apply here because of the court's meaning of "punishment" other laws and constitutional provisions do. i.e., when you say xx-years, is that a contract, and one that has finality? Clearly, the public's right to know is based on laws when the agreement between the registrant and the state was made, and included a finality provision; to view it otherwise is to say the agreement was a lie, a sham and made in bad faith. I wonder, are their judges in courts, at various levels, that for reasons yet unknown, should be recusing themselves from these cases?

A few notes on portions of the court decision:

"Conversely, remedial laws are those affecting only the remedy provided, and include laws that merely substitute a new or more appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an existing right. (p-5)" Registration after the agreed upon term extinguishes registrants' rights to no longer register, and as such is no remedy at all, it is an abrogation of the registrants' remedy.

Further, "The Cook court noted that “[e]xcept with regard to constitutional protections against ex post facto laws * * * felons have no reasonable right to expect that their conduct will never thereafter be made the subject of legislation. (p-5)” To say this, and not include a belief of finality in the term -part of the agreement-, is to say that, the state can forever lie when making agreements with registrants. If the state can lie and get away with it, why does the state prosecute offenders if they lie? This double standard must cease.

To say that, "registration and community notification laws are necessary to achieve the goals of protecting the public from sex offenders (p-5)" is a ruse. To believe that is also to believe that sex offenders are not part of the public which needs to be protected from harm. R&C laws place registrants in harms way and there is documentation to prove that over 150 registrants have been brutally murdered and otherwise harmed due to these laws. There is no evidence showing that registration laws protect anyone in the public, such is illusory, and as mentioned, there is substantial evidence that they cause harm to many registrants and their families.

The entire principle of "finality and proportionality" that flows through all criminal code -nationally- is thrown out the window when it comes to sex offenders and registration laws, and not to other types of offenders, this is discrimination in violation of both the state Constitutions and the U.S. Constitution.

2-28-2009 Ohio:

Court says offenders' registration retroactive

In a case likely headed for the Ohio Supreme Court, the state's 2007 law toughening requirements for sex offenders to report their address can be applied retroactively, an appeals court ruled Friday.

Even if the original time when offenders had to report has expired, the law is legal and still applies, the Cincinnati-based 1st District Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision written by Judge Sylvia Hendon.

"By their voluntary acts (crimes), sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens. Their convictions of felony offenses put them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them," the decision read.

The issue is a fight over the rights of convicted sex offenders versus the public's right to know where those sex offenders live, work or go to school.

A decade ago, Ohio lawmakers enacted a law that required sex offenders to register their address. The length of time they had to register depended on the crime committed and other factors considered by a judge - including the likelihood of offenders committing future crimes.

In 2007, Ohio lawmakers amended that law to mirror the federal law - commonly called the Adam Walsh Act, named for the 1981 killing of the 6-year-old at the hands of a convicted pedophile.

It changed the reporting requirements based solely on the crime.

The impact of the change was that hundreds of sex offenders in Hamilton County and thousands across Ohio were required to report for longer times - often for life - than originally ordered to by a judge.

Jerome Sewell Jr. was one of them.

Sewell and another man were accused of sexually touching two women as they slept in 1998.

Sewell pleaded guilty in 1999 to sexual battery and was sentenced to two years of probation and six months in a drug- and alcohol-rehabilitation program, and was ordered to stay away from the victim. He also was required to report his address to officials for 10 years.

Then the law changed and reclassified all sex offenders. The 2007 law requires sex offenders to register - based on their crimes - for 15 years, 25 years or life.

The new classification was based only on the crime - not on judge's opinions of future danger - and Sewell, who was months away from completing his 10-year reporting requirement, now has to register for life.

He sued, saying the law change can't be applied to him because he already was classified and argued that it can't be applied retroactively or his punishment increased.

The appeals court disagreed, deciding the new reporting requirements are no different than those for enhancements of tax codes, or new requirements for passports or driver's licenses for all citizens.

"They are legitimate exercises of governmental regulatory power to protect a public interest or further a legitimate government interest," Hendon wrote.

Sewell and his attorney, Margie Slagle, disagree.

"These individuals have a court order. That also gave them the right to be done with that duty after 10 years. They have a court order for that," Slagle said, adding that it was improper for Ohio's General Assembly to create laws that violate existing court orders.

She likens it to a moratorium on home foreclosures applied, like this law, retroactively.

"Is that constitutional? We're on a very, very slippery slope," she said.

Dan Burke, an attorney with the Hamilton County Public Defender's Office, said he has six clients whose reporting requirements would have expired if not for the new law.

Slagle will appeal the case to the Ohio Supreme Court. Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutor David Stevenson believes that court will hear the issue.

"I would expect it would be appealed, and I would expect them to take it," Stevenson said. ..News Source.. by Kimball Perry