PORTLAND, Maine — Once again the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has been asked to help balance an individual’s rights with the public’s interest in protecting people, especially children, by requiring individuals convicted of sex crimes to be identified on the state’s online sex offender registry.
Justices will hear oral arguments Thursday afternoon for the second time in a case that was filed in 2006 in Kennebec County Superior Court.
The return of the case to the state’s high court is the latest skirmish over a complex legal issue that has been addressed by judges and lawmakers more than a dozen times over the past 20 years.
The primary challenge to Maine’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is that it violates the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed.
Maine’s sex offender registry has gone through a number of changes since it was created in 1992, according to The Associated Press. It attracted national attention when on April 16, 2006, a 20-year-old Canadian man killed two sex offenders in Maine before killing himself after randomly getting their names from the state’s online registry.
The current case stems from a court case filed less than two weeks later challenging the law. Over time, several dozen John Does joined the case, but a number of them later dropped out after the Legislature amended the law in 2009 to allow some sex offenders to be removed from the registry if they had completed their sentences, committed no additional crimes and met other standards.
Many of the remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit, however, are not eligible to have their names removed from the registry, according to the AP.
“The central issue has always been the registrants’ desire to be removed from Maine’s sex offender registry,” attorney James Mitchell of Augusta wrote in his brief for the plaintiffs, all of whom are referred to in court documents as “John Doe.” “Every plaintiff along the way was a person who received notice to register years after his offense and punishment or who had registration requirements changed after his first registration. Retroactivity is at the heart of the case.”
Assistant Attorney General Paul Stern disagreed with that premise in his brief.
“From the outset of this litigation, [the plaintiffs’] goal has been to do away with the registry so that ‘the [sexual] offender[s] could sink back into anonymity,’” he wrote, citing one of the Mitchell’s motions filed in the case.
“The state does not claim that the registry is a complete or perfect solution to the larger issue of sex offender recidivism — indeed, it is but one component of a broad-spectrum approach that includes containing and supervising convicted offenders, supporting victims, and educating and informing the public,” Stern said.
Stern said the registry did not have to “be perfect to pass constitutional muster.”
The case does not challenge a law — passed earlier this year by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Paul LePage — that overhauled the sex offender registry.
LD 1514 created a tiered system for offenders. Under the new law, offenders will be separated into 10-year registrants, 25-year registrants and lifetime registrants based on the severity of their offenses. The new law also created a Sex Offender Risk Assessment Advisory Commission “for the purpose of conducting a continuing study of methods that may be used to predict the risk of recidivism by a sex offender and to develop a method that may be used for such purposes.”
It was unclear Wednesday how the justices will view the issues raised by the plaintiffs — which include an argument that a reoffender risk assessment is a better way to protect the public from pedophiles than is a list of people convicted of sex crimes — in light of the new law.
If they have to register as sex offenders, then they have been tried and convicted. We are not talking about innocent people wrongfully identified. I believe the rights of the children to be safe are more important that the rights of the losers who violate the children’s rights to safety and security. In this case, the public has a right to know.
What about 19 yr old men who had sex with their 14 or 15 yr old girlfriends? Are they sex offenders?
No because such relationships would be completely legal under Maine law. 14 is the age of consent in Maine as long as the actor is not more than 5 years older, so a 19yo could legally have sex with a 14yo as long as the 19yo was less than 5 years older. 16 is the absolute age of consent in Maine (that is, anyone of any age can legally have sex with someone who is 16).
thats good news! well on the 16 year old part :)
The argument is always framed as one of the rights of the community to be safe verses the rights of the individual.
The problem with that argument is, that the law doesn’t distinguish between people who are dangerous and those that are not.
As long as the registry has people who can demonstrate that they are not dangerous, BUT for the lack of legal recourse, the registry is unconstitutional.
It is self-evident you can’t protect yourself from people who are not dangerous. The ONLY way to determine a person dangerous that passes constitutional muster is through a court of law and under accepted standards of proof, that is appealable.
You don’t get to set up executive boards who use voodoo science and, and apply it to whomever you want.
The State says the registry doesn’t have to be perfect in order to pass constitutional muster.
Does that mean the registry doesn’t have to do anything in order to pass consitutional muster? See, the State loves it when the question is framed as one of public safety verses individual rights. That way it seems that registry is actually doing something.
But the registry doesn’t. It doesn’t reduce re-offense levels. It doesn’t facilitate re-entry into the community. It doesn’t force people to get help for any sexual problems they might have.
All the registry does is de-stabilizes a person and forces them into isolation.
The debate is not one of public safety verses individual rights. The debate is about human rights! No legislature can legislate someone dangerous. Non-dangerous people cannot be included on a sex offender list. There must be a process that is legally acceptable to determine someone dangerous. There must be a process where someone can be determined not dangerous if he meets criteria.
It is called, Due process of law. It ensures fairness and justice. Your registry doesn’t provide public safety. It does exactly the opposite. In fact, it is dangerous to be on a registry to the point that it becomes legally acceptable to avoid the registry.
You people are living in a fantasy land where you can make up hate lists, systematically banish them from the community and allow law makers complete control over the list.
Agreed. I want to know which offender actually pose a threat or which offenders just got lumped in because of vague definitions.
I agree – I think that the public has the right to know about the sex offenders in their area, but to lump all offenders into one is not constitutional.
These animals should either be put down or never allowed out of prison. Recidivism is about 60%, let’m rot.
in maine…why have a registry? its $500 bail first offense!
I guess if you don’t like being on “The List” then keep your hands in your pockets, not someone elses’ pants.
just hang them all and problem solved.
My opinion on the sex offender registry isn’t right it violates these people rights, they paid for their crime, Leave it at that , shouldn’t be a sex offender registry ! I know that children can be coached into LYING about these sort of things, The DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES ( CHILD PROTECTIVE ) can and do coach the children into saying that someone has done wrongful things to them when in fact it’s a LIE . So there shouldn’t be a sex offender registry,
I don’t buy that. I did child protective work for almost 15 years in another state. I was a caseworker, not an investigator, but I had children who were molested and they would tell anyone who was willing to listen what happened without being asked anything. Child protective workers would rather not even hear what child molesters do, there is no reason they would coach children to lie. Moreover, the children’s sexualized behavior would tell the story, especially with young children. I did know of adolescent females who would lie about someone sexually abusing them, for attention or to get back at someone for not letting them see their much older boyfriend. In those instances, though, they sounded more credible than they should have just because they had been molested at a younger age. Sexual abuse happens more often than you think. The jails, psychiatric hospitals, treatment centers, homeless shelters, and streets are full of people molested as children.