MI- State appeals court limits sex offender registry

Read the decision:

11-4-2009 Michigan:

In what may be an important precedent, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a man arrested for a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” relationship cannot be listed on the state’s sex offender registry because doing so would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The defendant, Robert Dipiazza, was arrested and convicted of having a consensual sexual relationship with a girl who was nearly 15 when he had just turned 18. The girl’s parents knew of and approved of the relationship, but Dipiazza was nonetheless charged after one of the girl’s teachers turned him in to police after she found out about the relationship.

The law under which Dipiazza was convicted allowed for youthful offenders to complete a probationary period and then have the offense wiped from their record without a conviction. He completed that probation without incident and in 2005, the charges were dismissed without conviction. Still, he was required then to go on to the state’s registered sex offender list because of an arbitrary deadline in a state law governing the sex offender list.

The Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act was amended in 2004 to the effect that for those convicted as youthful offenders, only those who failed to complete the probationary period had to be put on the registry. But Dipiazza was convicted on Aug. 29 of that year; had he been convicted a mere five weeks later, he would not have been placed on the registry because he completed the probation and the charges and conviction were then dismissed.

The trial court ruled that being required to go on the sex offender list did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because the registry requirement is not punishment at all. The court did, however, reduce the amount of time the defendant had to be on the list from 25 years to ten years. The appeals court overturned that ruling, agreeing with defendant that the law, as applied in this particular circumstance, constituted cruel and unusual punishment and ordering the trial court to have him removed from the sex offender registry.

The court ruled:

Here, the circumstances of the offense are not very grave. Defendant was 18 years old and in a consensual sexual relationship with a teen who was almost 15 years old. The teen’s parents knew of the relationship and condoned it. This teen is the same person defendant married five years later. The gravity of the offense does not change regardless of the date on which the assignment to youthful trainee status occurred.

The penalty in this case, however, has been harsh. Defendant is being required to register as a sex offender for ten years. He receives the social stigma of being labeled as a sex offender and the social stigma of being “convicted” of a crime even though he successfully completed his status as youthful trainee and the court dismissed the proceedings. As a result of registering as a sex offender, defendant has been unable to find employment and, in fact, lost two jobs after it was discovered that his name is on the sex offender registry. He is depressed and, although he finally married Trowbridge, the opportunity to marry and pursue happiness was withheld from him because of his inability to find employment as a result of being labeled a convicted sex offender. Given the circumstances of this case, the offense that defendant committed was not very grave, but the penalty has been very harsh.

With regard to a comparison of the penalty to penalties for other crimes in this state, defendant would not have had to register as a sex offender had he been assigned to youthful trainee status approximately one month later than he was. Defendant is required to register as a sex offender along with rapists and pedophiles. The PSOR does not provide a description of an offender’s offense. Thus, individuals viewing the PSOR are unable to determine whether a person who is registered is a rapist, a pedophile, or just a person who engaged in consensual sexual activity with a teen…

Also, it is abundantly clear that there is no goal of rehabilitation in this case. Defendant never posed a danger to the public or a danger of reoffending. Defendant is not a sexual predator, nor did the trial court deem him to be. Further, even if defendant needed rehabilitation, SORA’s labeling him to be a convicted sex offender works at an opposite purpose, preventing defendant from securing employment and otherwise moving forward with his life plans.

Consequently, after considering the gravity of the offense, the harshness of the penalty, a comparison of the penalty to penalties imposed for the same offense in other states, and the goal of rehabilitation, we conclude that requiring defendant to register as a sex offender for ten years is cruel or unusual punishment.

It’s obviously a victory for Dipiazza and defendants who are similarly situated; it sounds to me like a victory for reason as well. ..Source.. by Ed Brayton