January 4, 2012

Technical Question: Related to FEES for Sex Offender Registration in ANY state

1-4-2012 National:

I've been thinking quite a bit about registration fees because its the start of a new year and registrants are bringing up the topic again. This post will be updated as folks provide input.

My Ques. for everyone:
Excepting State and Federal tax systems which are for the general good and everyone derives some benefit from, and birth or death certificate systems, can anyone think of other governmental systems that a person is FORCED to be part of without asking to be part of (committing a crime is equivalent to asking and related fees excepted), and derives nothing from the system, but are FORCED to pay a fee or other charge for, or to be included in, the system?

Generally one gets something out of a governmental system but first chooses to join, but I cannot find anything equivalent to sex offender registration system and its fees (in some state and city localities), which is why I'm asking if folks can think of something. My mind needs tweaking.

Note: As to any criminal conviction, the person and the State part ways (finality of sentence) when the sentence ends. Therefore anything after that point is not a consequence of the person's actions. We are studying the period after the sentence.
Appreciate any thoughts folks may have.


GPS Fees: If GPS was ordered or part of the law under which the person was sentenced, then these fees are excluded. However, there have been some states that have retroactively applied GPS laws, including their fees, and that may be a system likened to sex offender registration system fees.

DNA Processing Fees: If a person is convicted of a crime DNA processing fees are a likely charge, and possibly assessed, so would be excluded. However, some states have retroactively applied DNA laws, including their processing fees, and that may be a system likened to sex offender registration system fees. Secondly is the issue of requiring DNA samples on arrest, but I haven't yet seen any case of charging fees for that.

CIVIL COMMITMENT COSTS: There have been reports in one state that the state is trying to recoup the cost of civilly committing sex offenders from those civilly committed. Now given civil commitment -a government system- is for a crime YET TO BE COMMITTED this is as egregious as I can think of. The costs of this system is likened to the costs of registration systems.

DUPLICATE PROCESSING FEES: This was raised and there is value to explore it as a system. Not sure where to take this from here though, any thoughts are helpful.


Parole and Probation Fees: and fees directly a result of the crime or as part of the sentence would be excluded because these are all a direct result of the person's actions. But, when the sentence ends, so should these fees.

Social Security: As I recall this would fall under a Tax and taxes are a exception since everyone qualifies for a benefit down the road.

Medicare: The person must sign up therefore chooses to participate, so it does not qualify.

Medicaid: While it is a government system and paid for out of general taxes. I have not heard that anyone using it is paying fees for using it, and again if used it is by choice of the person.

Vehicle Registration Fees: No one is FORCED to own a car, therefore these fees are by choice of the person registering car.

Driver's License: The person does not have to drive, s/he makes a choice to drive, therefore these are excluded.

Voting: Requirement to have an ID which one must pay for first. (likely this does not qualify because one is not FORCED to vote, even though they should).

ObamaCare: This is close, but since the person can derive a benefit from it, should they need it, would push this outside of the "does not derive a benefit from it" requirement like sex offender registration.

Normally everyone, including sex offender registrants, pay taxes, federal and state, and that money is used to pay for the operation of anything resulting from an enactment of law. i.e,. Taxpayer money pays for systems that keep everyone safe (Police and likewise things). Given the truth of that, then charging sex offender registrants, through a registration fee, to maintain a system that taxpayers (including the registrant) already pay for, is an unjust enrichment of the state. This should be prohibitive.
Thanks for helping,

No comments: