Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Default 28 CFR 72.3 and Sex Offender Registration

    My question involves criminal law for the state of: Missouri
    Cases: Doe v Phillips, Doe v Lee, Doe v Keathley, Carr v United States

    In Missouri the two cases of Doe v Lee and Doe v Keathley make Sex Offender Registration mandantory under 28 C.F.R. 72.3 retrospectivly to all sex offenders without limit. In the case of Carr v US it was shown that the reading of a law is to be understandable in plain lanquage and is a good example of such.
    § 72.3 Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
    The requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.

    Does this not state that the offense must be a registered offence (or at least registerable under the prior acts) prior to the enactment of that act for it to be registerable under that act?
    If I am reading this correctly than Doe v Phillips would still be in full effect and the other 2 cases would be in error.
    The prerequisite for inclusion does not list those that do not have a prior requirement to register. In the reading of 72.3 is found similarities to what is found in Carr v United States “By its terms, the first element of §2250(a) can only be satisfied when a person “is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.”

    Thanks for any help.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    Nope, it specifically would seem to state otherwise. The operative word is that it applies to "ALL SEX OFFENDERS". They don't even need the second clause. However, it would seem the, "including..." clause that covers is intended to have the "prior to the enactment of that act" applies to the entire thing that precedes it, that is, "offense for which registration is required."


    The courts have held that new rules requiring things like registration, conditions on release, and even extend incarceration enacted after the offense or even the conviction do not violate the ex post facto clause.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post


    The courts have held that new rules requiring things like registration, conditions on release, and even extend incarceration enacted after the offense or even the conviction do not violate the ex post facto clause.
    I do know that post registration is non punitive in nature as you say about EPF, but I never saw any sentence extension based on a preexisting sentence guideline?

    Once sentenced, that's it, right?

  4. #4

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    I can see your point however according to the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook the use of positives is preferred and thus the "including" portion would be used as opposed to saying "excluding". If rewritting it to have exclutions it would be harder to understand. Having "inclutions" would also mean that there are unspoken exclutions. This would be understandable concitering that there are sex offences that are not listed as requiring registration.

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    I do know that post registration is non punitive in nature as you say about EPF, but I never saw any sentence extension based on a preexisting sentence guideline?

    Once sentenced, that's it, right?
    I believe that the reference is to what is used for the "Successful completion of an approved rehabilitation program". In most cases failure of this would impose some type of extension.

  5. #5

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    So far there have been 75+ views of this thread and only 2 replies. It has been my hope that I would see more response to my question. I know that there is a lot of emotion that ties to the registration of sex offenders and that few are able to comment without this emotion. Please I need your unbiased opinions.
    Here is a little more of what I have found.
    DOE v. LEE
    John DOE, Appellant, v. Jerry LEE and James Keathley, Respondents.
    No. ED 90404.
    -- January 06, 2009
    On February 28, 2007, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Attorney General in 42 U.S.C.A. Section 16913(d), the Attorney General issued an interim ruling, which stated that “[t]he requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.” 28 C.F.R. Section 72.3. On the same day, the Attorney General's office issued an explanation of the interim rule, which stated that “[t]his rule forecloses such claims by making it indisputably clear that SORNA applies to all sex offenders (as the Act defines that term) regardless of when they were convicted.” Office of the Attorney General; Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 72 FR 8896.
    42 USC § 16911. Relevant definitions, including Amie Zyla expansion of sex offender definition and expanded inclusion of child predators
    In this title the following definitions apply:
    (1) Sex offender. The term "sex offender" means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.

    28 C.F.R. Section 72.3
    The requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act apply to all sex offenders,
    Taken by its self this would mean that all sex offenders of all sex offenses are to register. However we know this to not be true. There are sex offenses that do not require the sex offender to register. So the remaining portion of Section 72.3 must be used to help define who is to register and who is not.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    The Appellant lost that case and for the exact reasons I already brought up. Further NOTHING in that case supports you r view up the last two sentences of your post.

    The regulation doesn't say that "ALL SEX OFFENDERS MUST REGISTER" it says ACT applies to ALL offenders regardless of date of conviction.

    The rest of the act, which is a LAW (it's in 42 USC 16901) outlines who must register. All this CFR does is administratively clarify that it MATTERS NOT WHEN YOU WERE CONVICTED.

    Perhaps you should go look in a dictionary for the definition of including.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toledo, OH
    Posts
    16,307

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    So far there have been 75+ views of this thread and only 2 replies. It has been my hope that I would see more response to my question.
    Perhaps the VOLUNTEERS a) are not interested in your thread or b) feel they don't have anything to add.

  8. #8

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales
    Thank you flyingron
    To be clear the the law that you speak of is the emotional outcry that was included to get the votes needed to pass.
    C.F.R. 72.3 is the one that defines who must register and much more. The then USAG Alberto Gonzales had not done his job and provided the rules that were his responsablility. As a result we have one rule for multible areas of use. The SORNA is thus not complete and in need of some changes. I belive that what was a good and noble effort has turned into a monster because of Gonzales. In order to get this monster under control it is nessasary to question those things that are in control. Only then can the current AG get them repaired.
    If we do not get SORNA fixed then all of those young lovers and dumb mistakes will be on the registry right next to me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: 28 Cfr 72.3 and Missouri

    Sorry, all 28 CFR 72 does is clarify that it the SORNA applies notwithstanding the date of conviction. The entire part is less than a page long.
    SONRA is the law. SORNA is not part 72. It's the US code part I mentioned earlier. That part of the code defines based on the crimes committed which Sex Offender Tier you fall into and what registration requirements there are. All Part 72 does is clarify what isn't stated one way or another in the act, that date of conviction has no bearing on the requirements of the act. Yes I know there is a lot of hysteria when it comes to this legislation (people are touchy about the children). But the fact is, it is Constitutionally enacted US Law. It has so far stood judicial review with respect to retrospective laws.

    You can gripe about it all you want, but the law is clear. If you want to protest it, especially if you're not in Missouri where DOE V LEE sets the precedent, you can try your own court battle.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Sex Offenses: Registration as a Sex Offender
    By Eagerly in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 05:14 AM
  2. Sex Offender Registration: PC 290 Sex Offender Registration
    By needing help in forum Probation, Parole and Incarceration
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 09:44 PM
  3. Post-Conviction Relief: Sex Offender Registration Overseas
    By Uther1111 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 09:33 AM
  4. Post-Conviction Relief: California sex offender registration
    By rreed in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-25-2006, 01:19 AM
  5. Expungement and Sealing: Expungement and Sex Offender Registration
    By lyn in forum Criminal Records
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 08:50 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources