Risk of Erroneous Deprivation

The current procedures under the public notification provisions of the law are extremely broad and contain absolutely no safeguards to prevent erroneous deprivations of a registrant’s liberty interests. Without any preliminary determination of whether and to what extent an offender represents a danger to society, the level of danger to the public posed by any particular sex offender, if any, remains unknown. Surely, not all offenders present a significant danger to the public. Yet, the law currently deprives all offenders — including those who present no danger to the community and are not likely to recidivate — of these interests automatically, for life. Therefore, persons convicted of crimes listed under the law who do not pose a significant danger to the community are at substantial risk of being erroneously deprived of their liberty interests.

A weighing of these factors leads us to conclude that, at a minimum, the plaintiff should be entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to public notification of his status as a sex offender. In other words, the State must allow a registered sex offender a meaningful opportunity to argue that he or she does not represent a threat to the community and that public notification is not necessary, . Because the law provided the plaintiff with neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard in a court room prior to notifying the public of his status as a convicted sex offender Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. Th state can not assume guilt and force the defendant to prove his innocence If the reason for the law is to protect against the offenders that pose a high risk to re offend at the present time then the state has a responsibility to the citizenry to prove on an indivisible basis that A person is dangers. Since the data shows that 85-97% will not re offend it is the states responsibility to prove beyond reasonable dough that a person falls within that 3-15% before the reregistration and the notification

Conclusions based on the state of Hawai Supreme Court decision in State versus Bani
http://hawaii.gov/jud/22196.htm

1 comment for “Risk of Erroneous Deprivation

  1. The Inquiring Mind
    April 21, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Here is a stupid question: Do you not think that law makers,and the courts DO NOT know that what you have said above is true? I’ll answer for you: Of course they know SO laws violate Ex Post Facto (when applied to someone AFTER their conviction) Due Process (both Substantive & Procedural) and Equal Protection, yes, they know. To say that they don’t know is to say that these people are wholly ignorant of the US Constitution. They know, but they choose to deny people with sex offenses these Constutional Rights. In Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the AK case that started states on their race to the bottom with SO laws, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg & Breyer were the only Justices that got it right with their dissenting opinions. These three Justices had the guts to call a spade a spade; the other six Justices grew chicken feathers while clucking and bent to a public out of blood. And a side note is Justice Kennedy’s unproven, unvetted statement that recidivism rates for SOs were… “Frightening and High…” as a justification for his ruling in favor of AK’s SO laws, was just a asinine as could be. I’ll bet 3-1 odds he has been made aware of his false statistics since this ruling but still has those chicken feathers therefore, a retraction of his “Frightening and High” Papal Bull will not be forthcoming from him because it takes a real man to admit when he’s wrong and correct his mistake. My father, an E-9 when he retired (after 27 years) from the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division, told me when I was about 16 or 17: “a real man does that have to spout-out that he is one, that it shines through for all to see when you are one”. I don’t consider those men who made the call in Smith v Doe as real men and I don’t make no apology for saying so either.

Comments are closed.