Hitler Politics Alive in America
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. " From "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler
We have 4770 guests and 1 member online
Reports and PDF downloads concerning Sex Offender Laws in America
Alaska Constitution found to have stronger protection of individual liberties than U.S.Constitution
| 
| 
| Legal Issues - Legal Issues |
ALASKA SUPREME COURT: Convict argued law should not be applied retroactively.
Text in Red is comments by CITIZENS FOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGE, AMERICA
An anonymous man who has been fighting Alaska's sex offender registration law since the mid-1990's when it was first enacted has finally won.
He doesn't have to register, and all who were senenced prior to the registry being created do not have to register as well.
Known variously in federal and state lawsuits as James Rowe and John Doe, the unnamed man had been convicted, sentenced, done all his prison time and most of his probation by 1994 when Gov. Wally Hickel signed the registry into law. It was retroactive to 1984.
The law requires all convicted sex offenders to provide Alaska State Troopers with a current address and other identifying information, including updates from one to four times a year -- some for the rest of their lives. The information, along with the convict's record and physical description, are made accessible to the public, including online.
Doe-Rowe filed suit with others in federal court in Anchorage the day after Hickel signed the law. He argued it was unconstitution al on several grounds, including that it was unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated his right to privacy.
But his main argument was that the law was not in effect when he committed his crimes, that it was punishment applied to him retroactively. In general, retroactive laws are called "ex post facto" and are barred by both the U.S. and the Alaska constitutions.
It took years, but the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Doe-Rowe lost.
Alaska and other states with similar laws argued that they were not punishment, but merely regulations used to keep track of sex offenders for the protection of the public.
Each federal court that ruled on the case reversed the ruling of the previous court, an indication of how contentious the issue is. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the states, concluding the registration requirement was not an "ex post facto" punishment.
So Doe-Rowe started over. In 2005 he filed suit in state court, arguing that the Alaska Constitution offers stronger protection of individual liberties than the federal constitution.
Doe-Rowe lost in Anchorage Superior Court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a 52-page split decision issued Friday, the court voted 2-1 that forced public registration is punishment as well as regulation, and cannot be added retroactively to the sentence of someone who committed their crime before the law existed. Two justices did not participate in the case and Chief Justice Dana Fabe disagreed with the conclusion.
Justices Warren Matthews and Robert Estaugh particularly faulted the sweeping effect of the law, noting that it applies equally to all people convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the severity of the crime, the success of their rehabilitation, or their continuing danger to the public.
Ex-offenders lose jobs and housing because of the registry, the justices noted. There is no way to petition to be allowed to stop registering, or to limit registration information to legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Even someone who becomes physically incapacitated and therefore incapable of committing another offense must keep signing up, they said.
Although the aims of the registration law are "undeniably legitimate and important," Estaugh wrote, "Alaska's statute is excessive in relation to the state's interest in public safety."
In her dissent, Fabe said her colleagues did not offer convincing reasons for coming to a different conclusion than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's decision relieves Doe-Rowe of the obligation to register, but the law remains in effect for those convicted of covered crimes committed after August 1994, when the law took effect.
Doe-Rowe filed suit with others in federal court in Anchorage the day after Hickel signed the law. He argued it was unconstitution al on several grounds, including that it was unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated his right to privacy.
But his main argument was that the law was not in effect when he committed his crimes, that it was punishment applied to him retroactively. In general, retroactive laws are called "ex post facto" and are barred by both the U.S. and the Alaska constitutions.
It took years, but the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Doe-Rowe lost.
Alaska and other states with similar laws argued that they were not punishment, but merely regulations used to keep track of sex offenders for the protection of the public.
Each federal court that ruled on the case reversed the ruling of the previous court, an indication of how contentious the issue is. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the states, concluding the registration requirement was not an "ex post facto" punishment.
So Doe-Rowe started over. In 2005 he filed suit in state court, arguing that the Alaska Constitution offers stronger protection of individual liberties than the federal constitution.
Doe-Rowe lost in Anchorage Superior Court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a 52-page split decision issued Friday, the court voted 2-1 that forced public registration is punishment as well as regulation, and cannot be added retroactively to the sentence of someone who committed their crime before the law existed. Two justices did not participate in the case and Chief Justice Dana Fabe disagreed with the conclusion.
Justices Warren Matthews and Robert Estaugh particularly faulted the sweeping effect of the law, noting that it applies equally to all people convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the severity of the crime, the success of their rehabilitation, or their continuing danger to the public.
Ex-offenders lose jobs and housing because of the registry, the justices noted. There is no way to petition to be allowed to stop registering, or to limit registration information to legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Even someone who becomes physically incapacitated and therefore incapable of committing another offense must keep signing up, they said.
Although the aims of the registration law are "undeniably legitimate and important," Estaugh wrote, "Alaska's statute is excessive in relation to the state's interest in public safety."
In her dissent, Fabe said her colleagues did not offer convincing reasons for coming to a different conclusion than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's decision relieves Doe-Rowe of the obligation to register, but the law remains in effect for those convicted of covered crimes committed after August 1994, when the law took effect.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/477163.html
http://community.adn.com/adn/adn_pubstory_477163#comment-313728
Offender won't have to register
By SHEILA TOOMEY
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Published: July 28th, 2008 02:37 AM
Last Modified: July 28th, 2008 06:16 PM
Find Sheila Toomey online at adn.com/contact/stoomey or call her at 257-4341.
Like this? Let your friends know now!
blog comments powered by Disqus
Sex Offender Reports Summary (