just got off the phone with the husband and I need to rephrase the last post. what I am looking for is SOMM and to see if they are truly trying to make it unconstitutional.

The sex offender registry will most likely always exist in one form or another. I doubt that the registry as a whole will ever be ruled unconstitutional. Why? Too many citizens are in love with the registry and they feel as if the registry gives them a semblance of protection by identifying offenders and where they live. Any politician who would even try to make the registry fair for the offenders would never get elected or re-elected as the registry has been politicized, so politicians will leave the registry alone. But we are winning through court decisions.

Hoping for a complete abolishment of the sex offender registry is just asking too much. What can---and is being done---is that through court decisions in our favor, some of the restrictions of the registry are slowly being lifted, which makes the registry less burdensome for families. But this is happening on the state level, not the federal level.

So, no the registry will most likely always exist, but the registry of tomorrow will be much easier than the registry in the past.

We have made great strides to cripple the registry at the state level. Here is a post I made about a year ago, which will explain these strides in detail. Read my post dated 7/11/2017.

https://tinyurl.com/yadfnqwg

At the time that post had been written, two more recent court decisions have been made it our favor. The first was the Muniz ruling in Pennsylvania. Noted this decision was at the state level, not the federal level.

https://tinyurl.com/y9vzgmqp

The other landmark decision was the one in Colorado in which Judge Matsch ruled the entire Colorado sex offender registry unconstitutional and a violation of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling is being appealed to the Tenth Circuit Federal Court at this time.

https://tinyurl.com/y8grd5d5

Each one of these court rulings would have been unheard of a decade ago. We are making progress and I am sure you will agree when your read my links.

rewdiazepam

We're in PA and my son's registration time just went down to 10 years instead of the 15 years because of the Muniz ruling.
It's all state to state at this point.

I was talking more of the SOMM program in Indiana. From what I found the offenders that plead not guilty can opt out of the program without being pentalized. But I can't find if it has been approved or not. Also if there are any groups that me and my husband can sign up for to help please let me know

rewdiazepam, my son was telling me that a couple of states, I believe Vermont and Maine have SO registries that are not on "public display" in the sense that people cant just go online and Google SO registry in Burlington, VT and get the personal info like resident address, etc. That the way people find out is they actually have to inquire directly to authorities... Do you know if this is something that actually exists or is in the works??

Whitetiger,

I guess I misunderstood what you was asking, but since you mentioned Indiana and unconstitutional in the same sentence, I think this is what you are thinking about---

Here is the story: In most every prison, there is a STOP---sex offender treatment program---offered to those convicted of sex offenses. Most are either court ordered to take the course or need to take the course if they have any hopes of an early release.

The problem in the past is that in order to enroll in the course, AN OFFENDER WAS REQUIRED TO ADMIT HIS GUILT. THIS LEFT INMATES WHO WERE INNOCENT YET CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES IN NO MAN’S LAND. THEY WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE COURSE, BUT THEY COULD NOT ENROLL IN THE COURSE IF THEY MAINTAINED THEIR INNOCENCE.

Some guys who were innocent lied and said they were guilty just to appease the prison officials. They “played the game” and sat through the course even though they were innocent.

BUT LAST YEAR, A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED THAT INDIANA'S MANDATED SEX OFFENDER CLASSES FOR PRISONERS WHO OPPOSE THEM VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM SELF-INCRIMINATION. In other words, the prison could not punish an inmate who refused the course b/c he was innocent.

https://tinyurl.com/yc2kdfzv

I don’t know how the prison system is handling their SOTP at the present time, but I know they must follow the court’s ruling.

“THE SEPT. 28 RULING IN THE CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT FILED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA WILL AFFECT ALL CONVICTED, INCARCERATED SEX OFFENDERS WHO OPT OUT OF THE INDIANA SEX OFFENDER MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT, OR SOMM, PROGRAM. Three of the plaintiffs will be eligible for release from prison.

“THE PLAINTIFFS, ALL CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES, ARGUED THAT SINCE THEY PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE CRIMES THEY WERE CONVICTED OF, THEY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO ATTEND THE SOMM PROGRAM.

“The program, instituted by the Indiana Department of Correction in 1999, forces participants to confess guilt in the crimes for which they are charged, give written consent to disclosure of confession and submit to a polygraph test.

“Specifically, the program requires participants to disclose the details of the crimes for which they were convicted and confess to any past acts of sexual violence.

“Jeff Cardella, a criminal law professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, says the requirement to confess other crimes for which they were not adjudicated or convicted is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

"The criminal defendant could potentially face additional charges as a result of that confession," he says. "They're being ordered to confess to crimes the state might otherwise not be aware of," he told IndyStar.

If prisoners do not participate in the program, they could stay in prison longer than they otherwise might.

Punishment for not participating in the classes includes loss of good-time credit, loss of credit-earning class time and loss of "life, liberties and freedom for refusing to admit to an act they denied at trial," plaintiffs allege in the original complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young ultimately sided with the prisoners.

"It is undeniable that prison authorities may, in the interest of rehabilitation, impose penalties for failing to participate in sex offender treatment programs," Young wrote in his opinion. "But the SOMM program at issue in this case provides significant penalties, in the form of lost earned food time credits and demotion in credit class, or choosing to remain silent."

He added that prisoners should be able to earn credit toward their sentences without incriminating themselves, "like any other convicted prisoner."

Representatives from New Castle and Plainfield correctional facilities declined to comment on the lawsuit.

An attorney for the Indiana attorney general's office filed a motion to stay, pending an appeal of the case.

"In the absence of a stay pending appeal, unquestionable and irrevocable harm to government actors, as well as the citizenry of Indiana will be sustained, the consequence of which greatly outweighs the harm to the limited persons affected by the Judgment," wrote Jonathan P. Nagy, deputy attorney general.

"If the Court’s Judgment is not stayed pending appeal, various convicted sex offenders, including three of the class representatives, are eligible for immediate release."

“The case is expected to be appealed to the 7th District Court of Appeals in Chicago.”

I think this court ruling is on appeal, but if it is not overturned on appeal, then Indiana cannot punish an inmate if he maintains his innocence and refused to take the course.

Rewdiazepam

@Unconstitutionaltreatment,

There are no states which do not have a public sex offender registry. I think where your son may be confused is that some states do not place ALL registrants on the public registry.

I talk often to a wife from California whose husband is on the sex offender registry for indecent exposure. In California, he still must register, but b/c his offense was one of the less serious offenses, he is not on the public registry. Several states have the option to only place the more serious offenders on the public registry.

Hope this clarifies everything for you folks.

rewdiazepam