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.