undr cvr wrote on July 17, 2008 01:32 PM: EX POST FACTO is key.

A key word in the AG statement to be aware of is 'will apply only to future cases and not to those who have already paid for their crimes'.

There are sex offenders who have had lifetime supervision added to their consequences after the sentence was served.

Under the terms 'lifetime supervision', a sex offender is still 'in custody' under federal definition.

At what point under the AG's statement is 'already paid for their crimes'?

The focus here is 'tier 3'. Under the new law, the low level 'tier 1' and 'tier 0' non violent and often hands off offenders who have not been on the internet or notification lists are now subject to changes as thier tier levels have been changed as well...'EX POST FACTO'

"We're not altogether clear what it means," ....When you are dealing with the State of Nevada, unless forced by the feds...any statement from Nevada officials is worthless.

RightOn,
"Nevada only changed the law so they would not lose $300k from the Feds if they didn't comply. It has nothing to do with trying to protect the public, but money...."

The State of Nevada is not complying with Constitutional law on the indigent defense issue.

Know this!! The State of Nevada doesnt honor contracts unless it is beneficial to special interests. Even at the expense of violating federal criminal statutes (as in the indigent defense matter)

To Justice wrote on July 17, 2008 01:28 PM: What about the children who ARE sex offenders? The youngest sex offender in this country FORCED to register is 4 years old for playing doctor. Not all sex offenders had anything to do with kids. Some are because they peed in public.. you think they should be KILLED for that? I am sure YOU have never peed in public, not even as a child?

Justice wrote on July 17, 2008 01:23 PM: The only good sex offender is a dead sex offender. God Bless the Children.

RightOn wrote on July 17, 2008 01:04 PM: JohnKirbyRules: You are right on the money!

I applaud everyone who can take their head out of the sand and see what the government is doing. Nevada only changed the law so they would not lose $300k from the Feds if they didn't comply. It has nothing to do with trying to protect the public, but money....

We are all equal and deserve equal protection under the law. When someone enters into a contract, as these people have done with the State of Nevada, you can't go back and change it just because of a new law.

JohnKirbyRules wrote on July 17, 2008 11:34 AM: MICHAEL......you are absolutely right. Expost Facto is totally against the Constitution (Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution)

NRB.....any law that is against the Constitution MUST be ignored, federal law or not.

JACK....skinny dipping, swimming naked in your backyard swimming pool, streaking naked across a football field and urinating in public (even if behind a bush) are all considered sex offenses if you are caught. Do you really want to bury those "threats" or "predators" to society? Use what little common sense you have to come up with the correct answer.

NRB wrote on July 17, 2008 11:15 AM: This letter makes no sense at all. How can we fall in line with the federal law if we are ignoring it?

Jack wrote on July 17, 2008 09:37 AM: registration requirements are not an additional penalty.
Of course my solution would make it so we never had to ask a sex offender to register again.
BURY THEM! ALL OF THEM!

michael wrote on July 17, 2008 06:47 AM: EXPOST FACTO,. which is forbidden by our constitution,.,.,. a person can not have new additional penalties,. for an old crime,.