Sex Offender Registration and Double Jeopardy

Maybe this is a question for Aaron to answer. I see many states are now requiring sex offenders who were convicted and served out their sentences to register long after they have been released from parole, probation or other holds. How is this not double jeopardy in sentencing when the sentence has been completed before the advent of the Megan's laws? I have been a bit confused about the law that would let what amounts to a re-sentencing after the completion of sentence. Could you perhaps enlighten me? And where does the U.S. Constitution stand on this? Also states Constitutions. Your thoughts please. Thanks.

It's been litigated a lot of times, and no jurisdiction has found it to constitute double jeopardy or a Due Process violation. (It wouldn't be double jeopardy anyway - it's not a second trial for the same offense.) Perhaps it is best viewed as an example of bad facts making bad law - people don't want sex offenders in their neighborhoods, and the courts seem willing to bend the law to permit these rules. The externalities (i.e., how these rulings might apply in other contexts) are ignored, although perhaps it's like the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore - a decision the court intends to ignore as a precedent.

I don't think DJ is the right violation to coin, it concerns Due Process.

The USSC ruled Megan's law constitutional.


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1231.ZS.html


Sex offender registry of past defendant's before the constitutionality was decided is permitted. It's purpose is NON punitive, therefore it does NOT violate the Ex Post Facto clause.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html