Comments (52) | Add a comment
ACLU says laws unfair toward sex offenders
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
A pair of Nevada laws that toughened sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional, a civil rights lawyer told a federal appeals court panel Wednesday.
Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, told judges with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the new laws re-punish sex offenders by upping their tier classifications, in some cases forcing them to move because they lived too close to a school or other place prohibited under the laws.
"It was being applied retroactively," McLetchie said. "We needed an injunction because parole and probation officers were telling our clients they had to move."
Deputy Nevada Attorney General Binu Palal countered that the law as written does not require offender tiers to be changed and that state officers who said as much were wrong.
"They never should be applied retroactively," Palal said.
The case arises from two state laws passed in the 2007 Legislature to comply with the Adam Walsh Act passed by Congress in 2006.
The federal law required states to comply or risk losing 10 percent of a federal criminal justice grant.
The ACLU said Nevada would have lost about $300,000 a year.
A key part of the state laws reclassified sex offenders based on their original crimes, not their likelihood to offend again.
The laws also imposed stricter travel and residency requirements on the most serious Tier 3 offenders. For example, they would be barred from knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.
The ACLU and lawyer Robert Langford filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of sex offenders to stop the laws from taking effect. In the lawsuit filed in June 2008, just before the laws were to take effect, the lawyers argued that the laws unconstitutionally re-punished sex offenders for years, and in some cases decades, after they had completed their sentences and probation.
The laws would reclassify many Tier 1 offenders as Tier 3 offenders, subjecting them to stricter registration and living requirements.
Extreme residency requirements would make "it impossible for offenders to live or go anywhere," they said in the lawsuit.
In October 2008, U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued an injunction to stop the new laws from going into action.
"The application of these laws retroactively is the equivalent of a new punishment tacked on to the original sentence," the judge wrote in the injunction.
The Nevada attorney general's office appealed the injunction, which led to Wednesday's hearing.
Contact reporter Brian Haynes at bhaynes@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0281.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I have read the story and most of the comments. To say the least this is a very sensitive issue. I am in a very precarious position because as a child I was a victim of mental and physical abuse and molestation. In my day people mostly turned the other way rather than to face up to the problem. Throughout my life I have always been an advocate for children and would not hesitate to call 911 if I thought that a child was being hurt. I am a senior now and find myself on the other side of the fence.......someone very close to my heart has been accused of molesting a minor. It is true, he did it. I have learned a very hard lesson at this stage of my life! Not every case is the same and while I abhore what he has done I can at the same time understand how it happened as I was very close to the situation. So, keep beating your breast, and pulling your hair and screaming. I sincerely hope that no one else has to find out first hand what this is like from the other side. I have been where you are and now I am where I am.......it is no fun. EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY!! What has happened to me could happen to you. No matter what you think you would say or do, trust me it won't happen the way you play it out in your mind because the reality is the biggest shock to the system that you can possibly imagine. In my wildest dreams I NEVER, thought my Golden Years would be spent like this...........
@bghs1986 ---------- Nice try !!! Everybody is stupid, but you. Again, nice try.
Dont you just love the ACLU? They are really interested in promoting values and morals and making this a better society. Dont you think that every pedophile, murderer and rapist deserves at least two or three extra chances to straignten up their lives? Everyone is entitled to some sort of hobby dont you think? God, I am sick of this stuff!!!
Actually, @Samuel Adams - the rates for high recidivism are for pedophiles - and the laws I challenged target far more than pedophiles, like people who committed statutory rape. I support tough sex offender laws that target dangerous offenders but the laws that were struck down were unconstitutional, unsafe, and unfunded. Many states are rejecting Adam Walsh laws for just these reasons but NV blindly rushed into it - out of a fear of losing a few hundred thousand dollars in federal funding. So far, they have spent far more than that on unnecessary litigation and, if they succeed in overturning the injunction, they will have to spend millions. Millions to save a few hundred thousand dollars, and no payoff in terms of safety plus constitutional violations = bad lawmaking.
@Samuel Adams, true pedophiles have high rates but not "sex offenders" in general. Everyone, even sex offenders, is protected by the constitution, which forbids second punishments. I support tough laws but not only is this unconstitutional, it fails to promote safety because it lumps non-dangerous offenses (like public indecency) in with dangerous ones, creating a needle in the haystack problem.
There are many reports online that show that sex offenders have the highest rate of recidivism, & the ACLU wants us to coddle them???
The ACLU in Nevada is against women and children!!!
@Gary...I am always interested in learning new things. So, please tell me how defending the U.S. Constitution is a Communist Endeavor. The ACLU fights for individual freedoms and the idea of individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology. Per you instructions I Googled ACLU and was shocked to learn The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
And Megan's Law is a feel good law that does nothing to Stop Rape or Child molestation. I have a convicted Child molester living right next Door to myself and Family. I'm more worried about the ones that haven't been caught or convicted yet, rather then the one next door. My children know what to do if that Child molester even talks to them. But what about the unknown one down the street? or at the store, school, parking lots, Parks, and other areas you let your Children roam unsupervised? Simple fact is, most parents don't actually take the steps to protect their children (Look where all the kids are on Friday and saturday nights)
To my fellow bloggers;
My personal true feelings regarding this particular topic of sex offender registration are immaterial and would be very biased indeed, since I have personally had to deal directly with the offender and enforce the law and also have dealt directly with the victims and their families, whereby the damage done by this heinous crime is immense and usually lasts forever. That being said, if however there is a Constitutional Violation in re-registering a sex offender and adding additional punishments and restrictions to his/her already documented sentence, then I have to side with the ACLU on this one. If however, the main objective is to add more restrictions on future sex offenders then I am all for that, the sky is the limit as far as I am concerned, throw the key away. Just an old cop reflecting,
Gordon Martines