Maine Supreme Court to Consider Retroactivity of Sex Offender Registry

Although many states have had no problem applying their respective sex offender registry laws retroactively, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is hearing argument on the issue. From the Associated Press:

The issue of whether Maine's online sex offender registry can be applied retroactively rests with the state supreme court.

The Supreme Judicial Court heard appeals Tuesday in two separate cases involving convicted sexual offenders who declined to register as required by a change in state law. Judges sided with the men and ruled that the amended law is unconstitutional, which prompted appeals by the state.

A state prosecutor defended the law, saying it provides an effective tool for protecting potential victims from predators. But the lawyer for one of the offenders says the law makes a mockery of civil rights protections and brands individuals as dangerous when in fact they are not.

Comments

[Sex Offender Issues]

Full 33 minute video of oral arguments here:

http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?mid=1029331570

[debra poirier]

Applying SORNA retroactively is a dirty DEED. Clearly in violation of constitutional rights to Due process, equal protection, ex-post facto, and double jeopardy for former offenders convicted and sentenced 20 years ago.At that time, former offenders had proper representation, understood the requirements of their sentence, and made good faith efforts to fullfill those obligations. Prior to sentencing, former offenders had risk assessments. Those deemed low-risk were released into the public after their incarceration. After successful completion of their sentence, former offenders were free to conduct their lives accordingly. After years spent invested rebuilding their lives and never re-offending, former offenders are now all considered potentially dangerous. After nearly two decades of living their life free and protected, they are forced to identify themselves as sex offenders. No longer free to protect their privacy and the privacy of their families. One can not be held accountable for conduct that occurs before it is against the law. However, in the case of SORNA, former offenders are no longer allowed their right to privacy, even after 20 years of re-establishing that right. Paul Stern claims convictions are a matter of public record. He is correct. What he fails to consider is the fact that the only information within the public domain is the personal information that was listed at the time of conviction. Where a former offender lives 20 years later with his family is personal information not within the public domain. SORNA targets our whole family and anyone who associates with us, placing us at risk and in danger. Alot of money and resources has been spent on this law that protects NO ONE.
Who and what will protect former offenders that were never even considered dangerous previously, and who is protecting their families and their rights?????????
SORNA has trampled on my own constitutional rights, human rights, parental rights and has stomped on my pride. I now live in fear of our government and of the public this law claims to protect. I feel like the victim of a violent assault, no longer safe in my own home. It can not be allowed to continue.

[Ilah]

Maine's Supreme Court did a unique thing: Concluded the laws examined in Doe v. Dept. of Saefty and Smith v. Doe were not as extensive and intrusive as today's laws. In other words, Maine demonstrated its capacity for thought.