Wow...

My thoughts exactly! If this wins and NH removes the public registry, every state affiliate should follow suit!

very good news indeed. now if only this would have a domino effect!!!

I wish echo!

But this is great news!

I don't understand leaglese, but I do see WAR and RSOl named which tells me the pittance I'm able to send is doing something. This is something that's on my mind as my LO is handicapped. So hoping this works out in my and this communities favor!

Awesome - it is uplifting to know that slowly (very slowly) states are beginning to realize some of the truth and not just all the hype that has gone on for years -

This is also being looked at in Maine as well.

See, my fellow posters and friends, we ARE making progress on a state by state basis. More progress than we ever have before.

I have been in this fight for a very long time. Back in the mid-2000's things were looking bleak with all the residency restriction being enacted and then the AWA was a big blow, but I never lost my spirit. And I have never seen so much promise for a better day for all my friends as I do right now.

Things are happening. It is slow, but more and more courts are ruling in our favor.

First, Ohio, then Oklahoma, then Maryland, now NH. All four states have or are in the process of attacking parts of the registry. Registrants are being removed and now the public registries are being attacked. Has this every happened before?? NO

This is not just a case of me cheerleading and rallying the troops. Just see for yourself. This is not merely a hope or a dream-----this is REALITY.

This is why I have said that the registry, the AWA, and the enhanced requirements need to be attacked on a state-by-state basis.

We cannot attack the registry as effectively on the FEDERAL level because of the Supreme Court decisions in 2003 that the registry was not punitive, but the states are beginning to attack the registry alleging it is a violation of the STATE constitution, not the federal constitution.

Now every mother, every wife, every girlfriend, every dad, and every family member can say, "Maybe my loved one----a son, a husband, or a boyfriend----can get some relief from the onerous restrictions of the registry some day.

It is coming my friends. But we must continue to work and educate. We must stick together and be strong. We must, despite our differences and varied opinions, realize that we all have one common goal-----to support each other until that glorious day comes when everyone is relieved of the duty to register.

But most of all we must continue to have FAITH.

rewdiazepam

it certainly give my heart some hope!!!!

I see that the little 6 year old girl that was killed , was killed by some one other than the father which was being scrutinized because he was a sex offender ten or more years ago . this should make people wake up too . It was done by a young man that lived in the area and , as far as i can see even was helping search for her . It is not the people on the REGISTRY that people need to worry about . , It is almost always some one else that has never been on the damn thing to begin with ! Wake up AMERICA .

John Doe has a very compelling argument here.

It was important for his attorney to bring up the fact, that while the registry was ruled not punitive by the Supreme Court in 2003, so many new rules and regulations which are ramifications of the registry have changed it so much that it has now become punitive.

I am also happy that he debunked the myth that sex offenders have a high rated of recidivism.

We need to do this on a state by state basis and cripple this registration scheme.

rewiazepam

It is really nice to see some good news...and positive progress!

I am a bit confused.

On one hand, the attorney is arguing the case from the position that because his client's crime was done in 1982 and thus, before the registry was created and his client has not reoffended in 30 years that he should not be on the registry.

On the other hand, it is the judges themselves who are questioning the legitimacy of the registry on the basis that is becoming punitive rather than staying regulatory. In other words, the judges seem to be looking at this case in broader terms than the actual case presents.

If this is true, the outcome could be very positive. However, the outcome may be narrowly tailored to rule only on the one client, John Doe, and his circumstances.

In all the cases I've studied it seems as though the sentencing IS tailored for the defendant depending on the situation and the judge. Sometimes it comes down to having a good lawyer and a judge willing to listen.

If the registry is ruled to be punitive, then it cannot be applied retroactively to anyone convicted before the inception of the registry.

In fact, if the entire registry is ruled to be punitive, I cannot see how they can force an offender to be included on the registry unless that was part of his sentencing. Putting him on the registry in this case would be added punishment.

Civil laws or regulatory schemes to protect the public, which was the ruling in the Supreme Court 2003 case, can be applied retroactively.

Since he was convicted in 1982, if the registry were to be ruled punitive, he should be removed.

rewdiazepam