Around the Web

Sentencing Law and Policy has an article about how Georgia's ruling on sex offenders which has prompted other states to re-examine their laws.  I seem to be in the minority in believing that the Georgia ruling just doesn't matter that much.  I'm swamped with work and a head cold right now, but I hope to examine this in greater detail soon since the idea that this was a very significant decision seems to be gaining traction.

Crime and Consequences has an article which discusses the possibility that prostitution could become a federal crime if Congress reauthorizes a federal human trafficking statute adopted eight years ago.

A group of community leaders in New York are opposing plans to place housing for sex offenders in vacant warehouse space.

In Ohio, new legislation reclassifying some sex offenders and increasing notification requirements is being opposed by advocates speaking out for registered sex offenders' rights.  Participants oppose recent state legislation passed earlier this year that changed sex offender classifications and expanded information required when offenders register.

Comments

[Ilah]

My sense is the Georgia decision is more important because it exists, not because of the grounds upon which it was decided.

State Rep. Keen, however, seems to believe RSO's have been prowling the borders, just waiting to stampede into the state, like a modern-day Land Rush. His fear is so great, he's currently drafting ways to amend the state constitution in order to work around the court ruling.

(Hawaii amended its constitution to permit retroactive registration of sex offenders, and Missouri is looking into doing the same.)

[Joe Power]

I wonder if all the various residency restrictions might end up invalidating the reasoning the Supreme Court used to justify sex offender registries (i.e., that they were merely informative and not punitive in nature.) Like "seperate but equal" before it, this argument will be seen as fine in theory but impossible in practice.

[Ilah]

From Smith v. Doe, deciding Alaska SORA:

"The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."

Of course, there's also the Court's clear point that Alaska's SORA, on its face, didn't require updates to be made in person, and therefore imposed no affirmative disability. And the Court pointed out there was no evidence SORA would lead to any occupational or housing troubles that wouldn't have occured without the public registry.