Isn't it unconstitutional to punish ex-sex offenders twice for one crime?

Question

Sex offenders who were convicted/sentenced with prison or other form of punishment are being punished again in some States.The second punishment may be unconstitutional if it wasn't written in the initial sentence:The monitoring & harrasment of ex-offenders' registration; the continuos public exposure is "probation for life"; it affects their life wherever they go. In my opinion, the rights of ex-convicted sex offenders are being violated permanently if the regstration is not mandated initially. Those cities & states that mandate the registration are either allienating, or permanently punishing ex-sex ofenders who already served their time. Allienating it's a form of punishment equivalent to deportation or exhile, "in the country of freedom"? The consequent shame, depression, & discrimination causes extreme suffering & stress that trigger antisocial behavior or repeated violations leading to the "count of 3 strikes and they are out for life". Isn't there social forgivness in America?

Answer 1

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

More recently, in U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').

In U.S. v. Felix, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (1992), the Court held that 'prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy, where certain of the overt acts relied upon by the Government are based on substantive offenses for which the defendant has been previously convicted, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.' Felix, at 1380. See also Saccoccia, 18 F.3d at 798 (citing Felix, at 1384) ('A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.')

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306 (1984).

However, stretching the bounds of logic, the courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1438 (9th Cir.'94).

But, double jeopardy may exist if the federal prosecutors were mere 'tools' of the state or that the federal proceeding was a 'sham' carried out at the behest of the state. Koon, at 1438.

Close coordination between state and federal authorities, including 'the employment of agents of one sovereign to help the other sovereign in its prosecution,' does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. U.S. v. Figueroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.'91), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1098 (1992); accord U.S. v. Paiz, 905 F.2d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir.'90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 924 (1991) (holding that the fact 'that an Indiana prosecutor was later designated a Special Deputy United States Attorney for purposes of a federal prosecution' was insufficient to establish a sham prosecution). Nor is a county's possible pecuniary interest in a federal proceeding sufficient to transform the federal government into a mere 'tool' of the county.

Answer 2

I'd say so. As you say, they've already served their time, thus it's just additional punishment. There's a certain stigma associated with some being labeled a sex offender, regardless of what the crime they actually committed was. There are lots of archaic laws around the country as to what constitutes a sex crime, and it's not necessarily fair for someone who committed a "non-crime" to be forced to live this same punishment as someone who committed the more heinous stuff. For example, there are laws where it's a sex crime to swear in the presence of a minor. Is that ever enforced? Not likely, but that doesn't really matter (spanking a child publicly could be enforced and deemed a sex crime). The very fact that those would carry the same stigma as a rapist certainly isn't right. It's one thing to have law enforcement keep an eye on someone who may potentially be at risk of recommitting an offense. It's quite another though to publicly tell everyone in a community that someone is a sex offender. I've never seen that actually expanded upon by saying what the person actually did, so most would never know. And you can't put it past people to take matters into their own hands and carry out their own form of vigilante justice based on a lack of information (there's a sex offender in their area, and they don't like it, regardless of the details they may never have been told). So by announcing this to the community, you do in fact endanger the life of that individual, which is not the place for the state once the individual's time has been served. As such, publicly shaming someone, especially one who is genuinely changed having served their time or one who only committed a "non-crime," would be nothing less than cruel and unusual punishment (a term I do believe is used WAY too much, but is appropriate here). Should they be kept an eye on by law enforcement? Absolutely. Does the community need to know? Absolutely not.

Answer 3

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! the parents of children that were abducted,molested,tortured and killed by a repeated sex offender.Fought long and very hard to get a national sex offender registry list.There has been many cases where a dangerous sex predator lived in a neighborhood ,and no one knew.That is until a child comes up missing and found dead.If that parent had known of the existence of the sex offender,perhaps those children would still be alive today.You get rid of the registry then you remove the rights of children to be protected against sexual predators.As for what you stated as reasons that could cause a sex offender to repeat their crime,I`m not buying that one at all.The reason they become a repeated offender is that they have sick sexual desires and have the need to fulfill those desires and if they are not closely monitored they will act upon those desires over and over again.I feel the decisions of the courts on how to handle this situation,has given fairness to all.Instead of locking up the sex offender for life to protect society from them,they have chosen to keep tight tabs on them and made it possible to know when a sex offender is living in your neighborhood.You may feel this is unfair but I bet a lot of parents sleeps a lot better at night knowing their children are being protected.

Answer 4

The Constitution prevents "double jeopardy" which is being tried twice for the same crime (for example, OJ cannot be re-tried for murdering Nicole and Ron since he was already acquitted). It says nothing about the punishment of a crime involving the rest of your life.

I'm pretty sure that the point of registration is to purposely alienate those members of our society who feel it is appropriate to prey on children and those weaker than them. You enjoy the freedoms of this country IF AND ONLY IF you follow the laws of this country. You do not have a right to live shame-free, depression-free, or discrimination-free when you cause pain and irreparable harm to another individual.

Screw "social forgiveness". What about those who were violated in the first place? THEY don't have an opportunity to live without the scar of the actions taken on them, why should the abuser have that opportunity?

You are so far off base here that one can only assume you are "suffering" from the "stigma" of being a sex-offender.

Answer 5

That's nothing NY State has proposed keeping them locked up beyond their sentencing, and you are right. However, it is "politically correct" to do this, and you may notice that judges are not bound by "constitutional law" any more when it comes to issues of "public good." While I have no use for sex offenders, I think if it's an "illness" it should be
"treated" by a medical procededure to solve their hormone imbalance if nothing else works, they should either be found to be "mentally imbalanced" requiring supervision or incarceration, or left alone as long as they have corrected the error of their ways. Or move to a third world country where such behavior is acceptable as long as they pay for it. Every society seems to need it's scapegoats to demonize and hate, it used to be witches, various religions or ethnic groups, neighborhood eyesore owners, (or nazis but they've become a joke no one remembers the punchline to), now sex offenders are the only ones "politically correct" left to hate.

Answer 6

Let me tell you who is being violated, the poor children who never had a chance from those sick perverts. I believe that every single sex offender should be castrated. There is no excuse for anyone to find a child sexually attractive. I don't believe that anyone who has violated a child deserves anything. You can go and try to defend all you want to, but the truth is that for those who are considered first offenders, this isn't their first time offending. You need to shout your concerns in the ears of all those who are sickminded like that. The rest of us will be out here waiting to do what we have to for when they try to invade our children. You need to ask yourself who is protecting that child who has no clue as to what is going on. Who will speak for them? GOD help you.

Answer 7

I agree completely. Also, these same people who want to monitor these offenders who have already served their time and should be left a lone as every other offender has no problem living next door to a convicted and released murderer or drug trafficer. Go figure.

Answer 8

I know they can be punished for different types of sexual acts. Luck, it's not 100 yrs ago, my bounty hunter grandfather would have a hay day, shoot them! I believe they should be killed or spend the rest of there lifes in jail !

Answer 9

Nope theres not for sex offenders especially sex offenders who hurt children they must be monitored for our childrens sakes. They should have not done what they did then they wouldn t be being bothered by the registration.

Answer 10

I have 2 children and if you are looking for sympathy from me , you are not going to get it. If there is a sex offender living anywhere around me I want to know. Usually this type of behavior cannot be cured, so for my safety and my daughter's, I think registering is a great idea.