Ohio Senate Bill 10 unconstitutional?

Question

There was a law passed in Ohio under the Adam Walsh Act. This gives the FedGovt the right to dictate to state lawmakers how to RETROACTIVELY re-align sex-offenders within Ohio. This law forces double jeopardy, makes the plea deal nul & void and other problems.

Please don't get me wrong. I know that SO's need to have some guidelines for protection of the general public, but the ones that are in prison now are being forced to sign papers re-assigning them a higher level of offense WITHOUT an attorney present, they ARE NOT told they can appeal this within 60 days of signing it. But if they are making a sex offender register, I would also like to know if a drug dealer, murderer and/or other serious offender is living within a stone's throw of my house too!

Here's the kicker: the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) is a MONETARY INCENTIVE LAW that was hurried and passed without regard to the defendent nor his/her family so that the State could collect Federal Money!

Your thoughts.....

but what of prior registration requirements already in place before this law? And what if there was no 'victim', say an 'attempt'? How does that work?

In some research, that SO's are less likely to repeat their offenses and are usually friends and family members as opposed to 'strangers' in the n'hoods. Drug dealers, robbers, etc have a higher rate of re-offending.

All acts against children, including sexual ones are henious (sp), but this law should include those with drug dealings, robbery with weapons, etc.

What I am upset about for DUE PROCESS is that it being RETROACTIVE that the prisoners presently serving are NOT given due process to explain this law & don't know to appeal it to their specific case.

(ps thanks for letting me vent)

agreed on the ex post facto situation. These kind of "retroactive laws", if this stays in place (especially because the FedGovt is dictating policy here), will start with this kind of one, then move into other jurisdictions & under other convictions (murder, drugs, etc). I could understand them making it effective to SO's from 1/1/08's date forward, but not retro-active. Yup, the Atty's are gonna have a field-day on this one!

Answer 1

It isn't double jeopardy but I know for a fact that some attorneys are arguing that it violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the US constitution. Whether or not they will prevail on that remains to be seen. Expect to see many appeals throughout the state of Ohio on that very issue when the law takes effect on January 1, 2008.

Answer 2

Actually the law has to do with registration and does not change the legal aspect so it is not double jeopargy. I think that the idea is a good one considering the high rate of repeat but as you say why not do drug dealers and rapist the same way. One of those things where it is a very good idea and is alittle worrisome at the same time. Many non-punitive laws have been made retroactive and I think most of them are not good laws as much as political points. It will stand and it is legal[ for the moral and just side of it-I would have to say a qualified Yes it is but does have some problems with some of the aspects you stated.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court has held that SO registration requirements are NOT punitive in nature, so no double jeopardy or violation of the plea bargain applies to making the registration requirements retroactive.

Richard