-
Michigan v Snyder and People v Betts
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed amicus briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court today in
Michigan v Snyder (Case number 153696) and People v Betts (Case number 148981), arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community.
“When originally put into place, Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act was narrow in scope and specifically designed to be an important law enforcement tool to protect the public from dangerous offenders,” said Nessel. “But since its enactment, the Act has swelled without any focus on individualized assessment of risk to the community, which makes it increasingly difficult for law enforcement officers to know which offenders to focus on. It also makes it difficult for offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community because they are limited in where they can live, work or even attend their children’s school functions.”
Nessel also pointed out that public accessibility of the registry has led to shaming, ostracizing, and even bullying of registrants and their families. Because the registry now allows the public to submit tips on the registry website, the public is essentially encouraged to act as vigilantes, opening the possibility for classmates, work colleagues and community members to be vindictive and retaliatory.
“There are certainly dangerous sexual predators and the public needs to be protected from them,” said Nessel, “but the current requirements are not the way to achieve that goal.”
Amendments to the Act in 2006 and 2011 – especially geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements –are onerous restrictions that are not supported by evolving research and best practices related to recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed, holding that Michigan’s SORA is punishment and cannot be applied retroactively. A number of state supreme courts have struck down their state registry laws on similar grounds.
“Simply put,” said Nessel, “the state Sex Offender Registration Act has gone far beyond its purpose and now imposes burdens that are so punitive in their effect that they negate the State’s public safety justification.”
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Recd.148981_Betts_SORA_br_MSC-FINAL_marked_645819_7.pdf
Arizona Citizens Call to support HB2300 Maricopa attorney behind push to slightly loosen sex offender registry law
5 thoughts on “Michigan v Snyder and People v Betts”
Leave a Reply
What is the date associated with this information??
Updated: Jun. 9, 2021 at 3:27 PM MST
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCSC) – The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that requiring sex offenders to be on a registry for life is not constitutional without some sort of review process.
South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry Act is almost 30 years old and requires most offenders to check in with local deputies at least twice a year. Some are required to check in four times a year.
According to the FAQ section of the state’s registry website, an offender will only be removed from the registry if the offense is “reversed, overturned, or vacated on appeal and a final judgment has been rendered,” or if they were pardoned.
https://www.live5news.com/2021/06/09/court-rules-lifelong-sex-offender-registry-unconstitutional-without-review-process/
February 8, 2019
What will this new ruling do to guys (convicted 2008) who were sentenced to life time registry and tether
At this time the ruling only applies to Michigan. If you were convicted in MI or have to register in MI you may want to speak with someone like your P.O. or other registrants in your community.