• news
  • TUESDAY JUNE 7 2005 5:53 PM

Federal Court Upholds FL Sex Offender Registry

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of the sex offender registry in Florida. The Court simultaneously upheld another law that requires sex offenders released from prison to submit DNA samples to law enforcement.

The Florida laws are fairly typical of "Megan's Laws" which have been enacted across the country in the last decade. The laws were prompted after 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender who was living in her New Jersey neighborhood.

The plaintiffs in the case were a group of convicted sex offenders living in Florida, who challenged the law on the basis that it violated their federal constitutional rights. The federal court, however, disagreed:

Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. concluded the requirement was ``rationally related to a legitimate government interest.''

``It has long been in the interest of government to protect its citizens from criminal activity, and we find no exceptional circumstances in this case to invalidate the law,'' Birch wrote.

Lawmakers also have a valid reason for keeping better track of sex offenders than other criminals because of their increased likelihood of committing more crimes, he said.

``The increased reporting requirements based on evidence of increased recidivism among a class of felons is rationally related to the state's interest in protecting its citizens from criminal activity,'' Birch wrote.


In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled that online databases allowing public access to sex offender registries were legal, so the Appeals Court decision today holding the registration itself legal is hardly surprising. The 2003 case, however, was decided on procedural due process grounds, whereas the latest challenge was based on substantive due process grounds, alleging essentially that sex offender registries denied the plaintiffs' fundamental rights.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
MissTyrios

misstyrios

NEWSWIRE

Allston, MA

JUN 07, 2005 08:30 PM

allergic said:
I'm just wondering why you posted this story. was somebody supposed to say "ehh, what's wrong with raping/killing 7 year old chicks?"



I just went off on a fairly vicious rant. I thought it better for my own sake to refrain, however.

Let me just say that I tend to write stories about legal issues that interest me. I do not aim to make every story controversial. It's fascinating to see an issue like this litigated under two 14th Amendment theories, and subsequently upheld both times.

[Edited on Jun 07, 2005 by MissTyrios]

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

JUN 07, 2005 09:53 PM

It seems to me that if you can declare someone legally incompetent and involuntarily commit them to a mental hospital, it's OK to register and monitor high-risk sex offenders. It seems to me to be the same general process; the state does have the right, under certain circumstances, to detain or restrain those who pose a threat to themselves or others, even if no actual crime has yet been committed.

And, remember, no one is going in a sex offender registry without a conviction, and without being certified as high-risk by psychiatric evaluation.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next