Just think of all the money the states would have, if they were not bogged down in law suits due to them passing draconian laws?
07/25/2011
Low-Risk Offenders Added To Internet Database
OMAHA - The state of Nebraska is being sued over its sex offender registry. The lawsuit comes after the Legislature changed the sex offender laws in the state last year.
As it stands now, anyone convicted of a crime with a sexual element is on the Internet-based registry for everyone to see.
Those who have filed suit say the changes in the law have made them targets of harassment, vandalism and worse.
The plaintiffs include three men of different ages and different walks of life. They agreed to be interviewed if their identities are concealed.
One of the men was convicted of ordering illegal pornography.
"I used to have a porn addiction in the early '90s," said Plaintiff No. 1.
Another was convicted of downloading an illegal video clip.
"I was charged with 76 files, because a person can be charged for each frame (of video)," said Plaintiff No. 2.
The third was found guilty of illegal touching.
"I plead guilty to touching a girl," said Plaintiff No. 3.
In fact, all three men pleaded guilty to their crimes. The state originally labeled each as a low-risk to commit another sex crime.
"Dec. 21, 2009, I was a level one (sex offender). I was not on the public registry," said Plaintiff No. 3. "On Jan. 1, 2010, according to the state of Nebraska, I was suddenly a predator."
His change of status came as the result of the Nebraska Legislature passing LB 285 (PDF), which changed the rules for the sex offender registry. It used to be risk-based, meaning if an offender was deemed low-risk, his or her name wouldn't be made public. Those who were likely to reoffend were placed on the registry.
The change in the law made the registry crime-based, which means anyone convicted, regardless of his or her risk to reoffend, is now added to the registry.
- Just the usual ex post facto punishment.
For the three plaintiffs, the fallout has been substantial.
Plaintiff No. 1 said he's had people call his boss.
"They were trying to get me fired in hopes of making me homeless," he said.
He also said his wife has been harassed. People have asked her how she could be married to a sexual predator. He said his daughter has also been the target of verbal abuse.
Plaintiff No. 2 said he's lost his job.
"After LB 285, I was let go from the job that I had," he said. "I've not been able to find work because I'm on the registry."
Plaintiff No. 3 said his family is paying the price.
"My children are taunted at school," he said. "Strangers, not even from the neighborhood, are approaching my house. My wife was traumatized."
All three plaintiffs said the registry's rules are making them pay twice for their crimes and they said that's unconstitutional.
They are suing the state and argue that the new law should not be retroactive to those who weren't on the registry because they were considered low-risk.
State Sen. Pete Pirsch introduced and sponsored LB 285. He said the old system was flawed because it was based on subjective assessments. He said the law should be based on objective, scientific fact.
"All it says is on this date, this person was convicted of this type of crime and it's up to you if you want to accord any meaning to it," Pirsch said.
Pirsch said he can’t comment on the lawsuit filed against the state, including whether the law should be changed, but he pointed to other states where similar laws have been upheld by the courts.
"The lion's share of these moving parts that were in LB 285 have been in place in other states and have been tested and have been upheld in terms of constitutionality," he said.
Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that part of that state's registry law was unconstitutional. The ruling said the state unfairly increased punishment on people whose crimes happened before the law took effect.
The three men suing the state are hopeful the same ruling will be made by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Still, they call themselves pariahs of society. They said society is justified in being upset with sex crimes, but said it is unjust to punish everyone the same.
"That exacted revenge may not be able to happen to this specific offender, so it spreads out to everybody, whether they're at-risk or not," said Plaintiff No. 2.
Both sides in the Nebraska lawsuit are waiting for a District Court judge to set a trial date.
