Sunday, March 21, 2010

Sex Offender Registry Applies to Other Crimes

This doesn’t make any sense to me. 

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the requirement that a man convicted of a crime with no sexual component still must register as a sex offender.

James W. Smith was convicted in Brown County in 2001 of false imprisonment of a minor for making the victim ride with him while he attempted to collect a drug debt from the victim’s friend. Both he and the victim were 17 at the time.

Under Wisconsin’s original 1993 statute, only those convicted of first- or second-degree sexual assault were required to register. In 1996, the law was expanded to require registration by those convicted of other crimes, including kidnapping or false imprisonment of a child.

[...]

Writing for the majority, Justice Annette Ziegler found that the requirement, stated clearly in the statute, is rationally related to a legitimate government interest - protecting children and assisting law enforcement. Despite its name, the sex offender registry’s goal is not to identify those convicted of sexual crimes.

More than 41 other states require sex offender registration for those convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor, even when there is no sexual element involved, according to the opinion.

Ziegler wrote that in many cases, people who kidnap children do have a sexual motivation.

In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote that by failing to define the sex registry statute’s purpose clearly, the majority abdicated its obligation to provide meaningful review. Under the majority view, Bradley wrote, anyone convicted of just about any crime should register if the broad purpose of the sex offender registry is protect the public and assist law enforcement.

As a matter of law, I suspect that Ziegler is correct.  The statute says what the statute says.  As a matter of policy, I agree with Bradley.  This is moving down a path where anyone convicted of any crime has to register with the government.  That’s an intolerable level of oppression. 

Furthermore, by including other crimes in the sex offender registry, it dilutes the meaning of the registry.  For example, if a parent in a custody battle takes his or her kid and is captured, that person is now a registered sex offender?  The whole point of the sex offender registry was to make people, including law enforcement, aware of these predators in our midst.  The guy who ran off with his own kid (much like the 18-year-old dude who slept with his 17-year-old girlfriend) isn’t a threat in a neighborhood. 

I think the court got the ruling correct, but it does highlight the fact that the legislature needs to reevaluate the sex offender registry and how it is used.

(10) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1025 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. This is further proof that we’re all going to end up on that list someday.  Government has a lot of control over people on that list and believe me there are some government people out there that want to control where and how you live.  Easiest way to do that is to put you on the sex offender list.

    I seem to remember another group of people that put others on lists in the 1930s, but it was hard to tell what they were there for because they were speaking German.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1054 hrs


  2. “Getting tough on crime” is always popular among legislators because voters don’t seem to pay attention to the costs. Voters need to. Longer sentences, pointless wars on relatively safe drugs like marijuana, registries, etc. all cost you more and take away from things like shared revenue for local governments. Wouldn’t you rather have the money go to something constructive like education?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1345 hrs


  3. I agree 100% with Owen and with Free Lunch.  Jay I agree with about, oh, zero percent.

    Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 1558 hrs


  4. Then you’re blind and/or ignorant.  You government people who believe in the system will be in for a shock when the system comes back to bite you.  Keep voting though, it appears to be working.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1640 hrs


  5. I would look to find out when this provision was passed and who voted for it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2038 hrs


  6. Doug, you’d do better to look to your neighbors and find out which ones are idiots.  Otherwise, they’ll just keep on electing and supporting politicians who reflect their dumb ideas.

    Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2040 hrs


  7. What a joke.  Our judicial system is a failure and progressing down the wrong path.  The average citizen is either oblivious or ignorant to how big a monstrosity our system of laws, enforcement, and court has become.  Too many laws, too many non-violent felonies, things written too vauge, and far too many ways of convicting people for things that do more harm in punishing than the little justice received (example 18 year old gets a 17 year old pregnant and they have been dating for 2 years).  If a revolution does come, burning down the courthouses would be a great start on recovering our freedom and putting this country back on the right path.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1412 hrs


  8. Keep this quote in mind, all you people who keep screaming, “Kill ‘em all!”  Maybe it will spark something in your narrow, mean little minds:

    “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.”—Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403.  This quote is not found in any online copy of Mein Kampf.

    Posted by cajajo on March 26, 2010 at 0147 hrs


  9. This is one of the best posts that I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the same theme. I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.

    Posted by Natural Teeth Whitening on April 12, 2010 at 0555 hrs


  10. Hey this is really nice information. I was looking for something similar like this. Thanks for this useful information.
    Teeth Whitening
    Teeth Whitening Systems
    Teeth Whitening Products

    Posted by David Leonen on April 18, 2010 at 0333 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.