Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
My fellow friends and posters: Dave in the Phillipines started a thread concerning the RSOL digest.
Within that thread, you can click the link and it will download a pdf file, which you can open and read if you have Adobe reader installed on your computer.
Thank you, Dave!!!
Within the RSOL digest there is a mention that Maryland Court of Appeals has made a ruling the would remove over a thousand sex offenders from the Maryland registry; actually the number is closer to 1,200 registrants.
This happened for the same reason parts of the registry were struck down in Oklahoma and Ohio: parts of Maryland's sex offender registry violated Maryland's constitution.
Here is a link to the information regarding this development.
http://tinyurl.com/pbmedch
Now three states I know of have had parts of the registration process knocked down due to issues with their state Constitution.
See there IS hope and progress IS being made. In fact, more progress that I have ever seen.
Parts of the registry are beginning to crack. Keep the faith, friends. Things will get better.
And here is the actual article.
No "loopholes" here!
A response to WJLA's “Thousands of sex offenders could disappear off Maryland registry”
Families Advocating Intelligent Registries (FAIR, Inc) was distressed to see WJLA's article this morning regarding the possibility of a number of former sex offenders being removed from the registry as a result of a court of appeals decision in 2013. The headline screams "Thousands could be removed," even though in fact just over ONE thousand might be removed, setting the tone for hysteria. The story is lacking several elements that would more fairly present the situation to the public.
First and foremost is that the requirement to add additional time on the public sex offender registry to the original plaintiff and to the approximately 1,200 other registrants who are affected is not a “crack” in the justice system. Nor is it a “manipulation” of the justice system. It was found by the Maryland Court of Appeals to be a requirement that violated Maryland’s Constitution.
The implication by the Coalition Against Sexual Assault that this is a loophole in the system is not only irresponsible but also deliberately misleading. Maryland’s highest tribunal has affirmed an age-old prohibition against the imposition of ex-post facto punishment. That is no loophole. That is our law.
We all, as American citizens, firmly believe that adding a new punishment after a sentence has been imposed would be inappropriate if it were applied to us. If we claim that it is appropriate in certain circumstances, when applied to others, we relinquish this protection for ourselves, as well.
FAIR calls upon the media to present an accurate analysis of this situation, one that more accurately reflects the truth and does not resort to fear-mongering.
Let's all hang in there and fight these unfair set of laws!!!!!!!!!
rewdiazepam
Within that thread, you can click the link and it will download a pdf file, which you can open and read if you have Adobe reader installed on your computer.
Thank you, Dave!!!
Within the RSOL digest there is a mention that Maryland Court of Appeals has made a ruling the would remove over a thousand sex offenders from the Maryland registry; actually the number is closer to 1,200 registrants.
This happened for the same reason parts of the registry were struck down in Oklahoma and Ohio: parts of Maryland's sex offender registry violated Maryland's constitution.
Here is a link to the information regarding this development.
http://tinyurl.com/pbmedch
Now three states I know of have had parts of the registration process knocked down due to issues with their state Constitution.
See there IS hope and progress IS being made. In fact, more progress that I have ever seen.
Parts of the registry are beginning to crack. Keep the faith, friends. Things will get better.
And here is the actual article.
No "loopholes" here!
A response to WJLA's “Thousands of sex offenders could disappear off Maryland registry”
Families Advocating Intelligent Registries (FAIR, Inc) was distressed to see WJLA's article this morning regarding the possibility of a number of former sex offenders being removed from the registry as a result of a court of appeals decision in 2013. The headline screams "Thousands could be removed," even though in fact just over ONE thousand might be removed, setting the tone for hysteria. The story is lacking several elements that would more fairly present the situation to the public.
First and foremost is that the requirement to add additional time on the public sex offender registry to the original plaintiff and to the approximately 1,200 other registrants who are affected is not a “crack” in the justice system. Nor is it a “manipulation” of the justice system. It was found by the Maryland Court of Appeals to be a requirement that violated Maryland’s Constitution.
The implication by the Coalition Against Sexual Assault that this is a loophole in the system is not only irresponsible but also deliberately misleading. Maryland’s highest tribunal has affirmed an age-old prohibition against the imposition of ex-post facto punishment. That is no loophole. That is our law.
We all, as American citizens, firmly believe that adding a new punishment after a sentence has been imposed would be inappropriate if it were applied to us. If we claim that it is appropriate in certain circumstances, when applied to others, we relinquish this protection for ourselves, as well.
FAIR calls upon the media to present an accurate analysis of this situation, one that more accurately reflects the truth and does not resort to fear-mongering.
Let's all hang in there and fight these unfair set of laws!!!!!!!!!
rewdiazepam
http://tinyurl.com/kczwus6
Everyone on here should check their state and determine if there is a possibility that something like this could be applied to your particular state.
We have to hang in there. No worthwhile battle was ever won without a lot of sweat and tears. Ours will be no different.
rewdiazepam
In California 900 registered citizens have been crime-free for 55 years or more and still are on the registry.
The registry in some form will be with us for a while. Too many politician's constituents love the registry and feel that it protects them, so the politicians, eager to keep getting re-elected, will not lift a finger to help us.
But these decisions are examples of how we can dismantle the registry piece by piece, sort of like taking down a brick wall brick by brick.
Since I personally think the registry is here to stay for a while, we have to work with reducing all the restrictions as a result of the registry.
Knocking down the residency restrictions---or at least modifying them---working on getting a lifetime registration reduced to something we can live with, abolishing the mark on driver's licenses, reducing the number of offenders who are on a public web site, etc. We can work on these things one by one.
Since we cannot get the registry abolished, we need to work toward making it something that the registrants and their families can live with.
Now I want to make it clear that I would rather abolish the registry completely---and that is what I am working toward----but until then, we can get some of the ridiculous restrictions abolished.
This will have to be done on a state to state basis at the state level. That is why it is so important to join your state chapter and help us work toward out goal.
We need each and every poster here--and their families--to enlist in this battle.
rewdiazepam
Maybe you can clear this all up for me but how does the ex post facto law come into play with the registry?
I am a convicted so charged in 98 found guilty in 99 in florida if that helps and the florida constitution has the ex post facto law in it. If you can shed some light on this i would appreciate it before I just had to register in my county once I would guess because I was a convicted felon and that was it now I have to register 2 times a year (every 6 months), Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Bill
In the opinion, they went through all the amendments the Oklahoma legislature had made over the years which enhanced the original requirements. Some of these were registry restrictions, a mark on the driver's license, the requirement to register every 90 days, lifetime registration, etc.
They ruled that Oklahoma had finally added so many restrictions since the original act, that it become punitive and over the line with the tier levels.
They did NOT rule that the Sex Offender Registry in Oklahoma was punitive on its face. The registry in this state will remain; they did not rule that the registry itself was unconstitutional, but the added amendments had a punitive effect and thus could not be applied retroactively.
For a law to violate the ex post facto clause, the law would have to be punitive in nature; the ex post facto clause does not cover civil laws.
Once they ruled that the added tier levels and all the other restrictions had a punitive effect, then they could rule that any retroactivity of that law was unconstitutional.
Here are two key conclusions of the Starkey case. These are taken directly from the Court's opinion"
"SORA's obligations have become increasingly broad and onerous. We find there is clear proof that the effect of the retroactive application of SORA's registration is punitive and outweighs its non-punitive purpose. The retroactive extension of SORA's registration is inconsistent with the ex post facto clause in the Oklahoma Constitution."
and
"Our scope is focused on the constitutionality of retroactively extending SORA registration. The legislature has continued to move the finish line without a hearing and with no change in circumstances. Only by reason of legislative action, Starkey has had his finish line moved several times with no demonstrated change of conditions over those that existed when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction and enforcement of the Oklahoma SORA. Having found SORA's effects to be punitive, we find the retroactive extension of its registration period violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws provided in Article 2, § 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution."
and
"The retroactive application of the numerous changes to OSORA transformed the registry into a system of punishment."
@Bill, I will try to answer your specific questions.
You asked," Maybe you can clear this all up for me but how does the ex post facto law come into play with the registry?"
They did not say the registry was punitive, but that with all the added restrictions since the inception of the registry, parts of the registry could not be applied retroactively. The will continue to have a Sex Offender Registry in this state.
You said, " I am a convicted so charged in 98 found guilty in 99 in florida if that helps and the florida constitution has the ex post facto law in it. If you can shed some light on this i would appreciate it before I just had to register in my county once I would guess because I was a convicted felon and that was it now I have to register 2 times a year (every 6 months), Any info would be greatly appreciated."
They enhanced your registration requirements from once a year to every six months and I assume you were not given any due process, i.e. you were not able to challenge the increased restrictions in a court of law.
If a court in Florida would rule that when they increased your requirements from once a year to twice a year it had a punitive effect, they would have to revert you back to your original requirements since a punitive regulation cannot be applied retroactively. And this would apply to all offenders whose registration requirements were increased.
Here is what they did to me and many others here in Oklahoma: When I was released in prison in 2000, the law required me to register once a year for 10 years with no other restrictions.
In 2008, I received a letter from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections that stated, due to the enactment of the tier levels in Oklahoma, I was classified as a tier 3 offender and would now have to register every 90 days for the rest of my life.
Starkey challenged this retroactivity and won. As a result they had to revert me back to my original registration requirements, which were registering annually for 10 years. As a result once I had registered for 10 years, I had to be removed.
They did almost the same thing to you in theory.
rewdiazepam
Thanks now I have to figure out where to go from here. A friend of mine is into this more than me I have given up but I will talk to him and show him your post when he gets back from NY and ask him what he thinks but from what i see that you have written they more or less have pretty much just done the same thing to us here as they do to everyone else. I appreciate your response. Have a great day!!!!
Thanks Bill
I'm finding there are options, costly, but they are there.
As a result, I received a letter and a CD about once a week for almost four months from an attorney in Oklahoma City who wanted to represent my case and get me removed from the registry for a fee of $5,000.
He apparently went through the sex offender registry and determined the ones that would be removed, then sent out mass mailings to each one.
I did not answer any of his letters, as I knew if the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in our favor, and I would be removed at some point.
After the Starkey decision in June, the letters continued. His letters now said that I had won my case, but the Oklahoma DOC might take quite a while to get my name removed and his fee had been reduced to $2,500 or something like that. I am not about to pay an attorney that kind of money to get removed when I know in time that they state will do it anyway. They have too.
They are dragging their feet. They had 7,000 registrants' files to originally go through and they have reduced that number to 2,400 files. My name is at the latter part of the alphabet and my case was a serious charge of first degree rape, so I will be one of the last to get removed.
But I WILL get removed or I will sue the state for violating a court order.
rewdiazepam