is the registry "cruel and unusual" or not?

In 2017, a Colorado judge called the registry cruel and unusual punishment and now attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit are appealing the Colorado decision. 

The court ruling is correct, of course, as anyone acquainted with the registry and its effects can tell you. Other criminals, with minor exceptions, are not subject to legislated shunning and legislated discrimination and legislated cruelty the way those who commit sex offenses are.

In August, when U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Matsch decided in favor of the three Colorado plaintiffs, he was quoted by Alan Prendergast in Westword,

"A convicted offender is knowingly placed in peril of additional punishment, beyond that to which he has been sentenced pursuant to legal proceedings and due process, at the random whim and caprice of unknowable and unpredictable members of the public.

Knowingly placed in peril. Legislators know what they have done. They know what happens to those on the registry. They know that jobs are hard to find, that housing is hard to find, that families suffer.

How do we know they know? Because the legislators are the ones who write the laws, the ones who vote for the laws, the ones who ignore all evidence of the damage done by registries, the ones who hear stories from registrant families and do nothing.

It is true that those on the registry are at the random whim and caprice of unknowable and unpredictable members of the public, but they are also at the random whim of completely knowable legislators. When legislators want to introduce a bill easy to pass, creating additional hurdles for registrants has been almost a sure thing.

Those additional hurdles are imposed on registrants without benefit of due process, a right guaranteed to all citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Being turned down for an apartment or for a job is predictable for those on the registry. What is unknowable and unpredictable are the laws that can be passed long after a person has been convicted and sentenced for his or her crime, laws that change the time on the registry from fifteen years to lifetime, laws that suddenly make it illegal to live in one's own home, laws that too often lead to homelessness and despair.

Judge Matsch continued,

"This risk continues for the entire time a sex offender is on the registry, and perhaps even beyond that if he is fortunate enough to eventually deregister." [My emphasis throughout.]

Getting removed from the registry is a good thing but even past registry status can be discovered with an internet search. Unscrupulous websites that post registry listings do not keep their sites in sync with the official registry sites. Old information remains online.

Getting off the registry is not the same as being free of the registry.

Oklahoma News at KFOR reports on the reasons behind the appeal:

Now, several attorneys general are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reverse the decision.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said although the ruling involves only one Colorado case, it has wide-ranging implications for access to sex offender registries nationwide if upheld.

 AG Hunter is correct: this ruling does have life-changing implications for registrants all over the country. That is not what he's thinking about, though.

“This ruling undermines the rights of victims and survivors of sex crimes, who must forever endure the trauma caused by horrific acts,” Attorney General Hunter said.

If the victims and survivors must forever endure the trauma even with rapists and assailants and trench-coated lurkers and middle-school sexters on the registry, what does Hunter claim the registry does for the victims and survivors?

“It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety.

There is no good evidence that shows the registry having any positive effect on public safety. AG Hunter continues talking through his hat:

"Registry systems are one of the most cost-effective ways to protect the public while reintroducing sex offenders into society.

Cost-effective? Tracking the location of law-abiding citizens who are unlikely to commit another crime is in no way cost-effective.

His claim that registries reintroduce registrants back into society is ridiculous. The registry keeps people from rejoining society. He surely knows this, though perhaps without the kind of heartbreaking understanding that registrants have because their families are broken up or driven into poverty.

With 874,000 on the registry in the U.S., Hunter should be careful spouting untruths.  The number of people who understand the realities of life on the registry continues to grow.

AG Hunter falls back on an emotional appeal:

"Parents and victims have the right to know.

Parents and victims do not have more rights than other citizens. Common courtesy and loving kindness require--at the very least--that we do not make things worse for people who are victims and survivors but there are no extra rights for those who endured something awful.

He continues:

"My attorneys general colleagues in the 10th circuit and I believe the court was wrong to second-guess this policy and the judgement should be reversed.”

There is no way that the attorneys general are completely unaware of the damage done to those on the registry. So what could be behind this lawsuit and Hunter's foolish talk?

Hunter says undoing the registry in one state compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system, and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.

What was that, AG Hunter? Are you talking about money? Federal funding might dry up if the registries are taken down?

Oh, that is sad. Sad, indeed.

Here's a thought for those attorneys general who worry about losing funding: Getting rid of the registries will save money.

Without sex offender registries, those law enforcement officers who have been knocking on the doors of law-abiding registrants to tell them they cannot have a jack-o-lantern on the porch...

...those officers can now concentrate on people who commit crimes.