Very unique argument: Lawyers claimed, that since the U.S. Court held -SORNA- cannot be retroactive, that means it is punishment. Then the lawyers -in state court- claimed their clients, who likely had similar circumstances as the one in the U.S. Supreme court, should not be required to register, hence remove them from the registry. This is a clever construction using federal law to control state law.7-18-2010 Indiana:
UPDATE 7-18: Addressing my construction of "punishment" mentioned by our reader in the comments: In Carr the court said "Having concluded that §2250 does not extend to pre enactment travel," is a way of saying, you cannot criminalize that act. When an act is criminalized, punishment follows, hence I still believe this is what Burrough's lawyers put forth in their argument in state trial court (an appeal may follow). True, they may also have mentioned Indiana's residency cases, but they do not explain the U.S. Supreme court usuage in their construction, as I mentioned above.
Appeals Follow High Court Ruling On Retroactive Listings
INDIANAPOLIS -- Three Indiana sex offenders who claimed they should never have been on the state's registry had their names removed on Thursday.
Attorneys for the men argued that the crimes were committed and the convictions handed down prior to the creation of the Indiana Sex Offender Registry in 1994, and, therefore, their clients' names should not be listed, 6News' Derrik Thomas reported.
The defendants petitioned the court, saying that having their names on the registry has hurt their chances of getting jobs and finding housing.
"Before, it was never considered punishment. It was a civil sanction, like a parking fine," said Kathleen Sweeney, the attorney for Fred Gaither, 39, who received an eight-year sentence for rape in July of 1992. "Now they are saying this is so significant and invasive and you can never get rehabilitation, and so now they are saying that it's punishment."
The challenges follow a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which requires sex offenders to register, did not authorize retroactive enforcement.
The Indiana Attorney General's Office said it will be vigilant in overseeing similar cases.
"Our interest is ensuring that the registry has integrity and people are on the registry that are required to register," said Attorney General Chief Deputy Gary Secrest.
There are about 70 cases in Indiana of sex offenders appealing their registry listing. There are more than 13,000 sex offenders currently on the registry. ..Source.. TheIndyChannel.com
