The sex offender registry ruling
Following the June 2002 decision by Judge Victoria Roberts of the Eastern District of Michigan holding internet publication of Michigan's sex offender unconstitutional, the following were observed:
- The Department of State Police stopped using its more detailed internal registry for a time, taking the position that its use was also prohibited by the judge's order. Judge Roberts then amended her order to permit law enforcement agencies to continue to use and share registry information; her order now simply prohibits internet publication of the registry. See State can track sex offenders, but not publish list (Detroit Free Press, June 25, 2002).
- Predictably, several of the candidates running for Governor and other political offices blasted the judge's decision, asserting that the law is essential for the protection of children.
It should be noted that this decision did not come out of the blue. Similar decisions been made in other states, with Connecticut's law currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision, though, is contrary to an earlier decision rendered by Judge Patrick Duggan of the same court three years earlier in the 1999 case of Akella, et al. v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, et al. (not available on the web). The Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, has previously rejected a challenge to the Tennessee registry statute. Cutshall v. Sundquist (1999).
The issue has received significant attention in Michigan. In the last couple of years, there have been several news stories and editorials about the serious shortcomings of this state's particular system, the most prominent being the fact that it lumps true sexual predators together with 16-year-old boys convicted of statutory rape for having sex with their 15-year-old girlfriends and drunks prosecuted for urinating in public.
The internet registry simply lists names and addresses; it does nothing to describe the nature of the offense. Judges have no discretion on whether to require registration, and the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that registry reporting is mandatory even when the offender's juvenile record is cleared under a youthful offender act. The issue became acute in May, just before Judge Roberts's ruling, when it was revealed that the 14-year-old victim in an unrelated rape case had kept a diary detailing her sexual encounters with over 20 boys and men, ages 14 to 20.
See, for instance:
Teen sex offenders face years of stigma - October 2001
Registry lists young sex offenders
Promiscuous teen faces a life sentence - August 2001
Several related columns were written within a few weeks by Brian Dickerson, the Free Press columnist who has written most extensively about this subject: First - Second - Third - Fourth
Newspaper editorials:
Make Sense of Youthful Sex Offenders Law (editorial) - Detroit News
State needs separate rules for teen offenders (editorial) - Detroit Free Press
A comment -- The ALI's Model Penal Code, as we recall, defines statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent only if the defendant is more than three years older than the "victim". This one change would go far toward ameliorating the situation that many teens find themselves in when they are caught.
11:09:58 PM 
|
