In one case at least, common sense has finally won out. From today’s News-Journal:
For the second time this year, the Delaware Supreme Court has found that a person legally can be removed from the state’s sex offender registry — implicitly finding that the registry is not a permanent life sentence without exception and that the registry statute does not overpower all other state laws.
In this latest case, the justices ruled that a full and unconditional pardon by former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of a man convicted at 19 of having sex with a girl who was under 16, meant he no longer had to register as a Tier II sex offender.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that this finding is limited only to those who have received full and unconditional pardons.
Which means that a lot of low-level ‘sex offenders’, who represent no societal threat whatsoever, are still tagged with the Scarlet Letter. A tag, by the way, which severely constricts one’s ability even to find gainful employment in many instances.
Former AG Charley Oberly puts it best:
“You would be better off being convicted of manslaughter than a sex offense to obtain a job [today],” Oberly said, adding that the job Heath was having trouble landing because of his status was as a truck driver.
And, while I have great respect for victims’ advocates (and, in another life, worked on Delaware’s Victims’ Bill of Rights), I call bullshit on advocate Dana Conner, who stated:
“…that there were a number of places where someone could have objected to Heath’s pardon but did not. She said she could not speak to the specifics of the Heath case but said this should put state officials on notice about future pardon requests and their potential to affect the registry.
“My concern is with the process,” she said, and that someone missed, or could miss in future, the opportunity to make an appropriate objection. “If we don’t do our job, then someone will be removed [who shouldn’t be],” she said, adding that the process should not be “pro forma.”
No, Dana, the process worked exactly as it should have. Due to Delaware’s Victims’ Rights laws, one of the strongest in the nation, communication and coordination between law enforcement, the courts, the AG’s office, and the victims’ services are institutionally very solid. Victims are given every right and opportunity to be notified of, and to participate in, every step of the proceeding, from arraignment all the way through the pardon process and (in this case) subsequent litigation. You will note that nowhere in her statement did Ms. Conner allege that the victim in this case had been denied any of her rights. Delaware takes victims’ rights seriously, and nothing about them is ‘pro-forma’.
So, my advice to Ms. Conner is to advocate on behalf of real victims, not raise false hypotheticals that she knows, or should know, are virtually impossible to happen to victims. To mislead the public is to do a disservice to victims.
I’ve written about this issue before. This decision simply illustrates that the entire issue of a Sex Offender Registry needs to be revisited. People who represent a threat to society by dint of their past actions must, of course, be identified, and steps must be taken to keep the public safe from them. That should be the purpose of a Sex Offender Registry. But, as currently constituted, low-level offenders with little or no risk of recidivism face a lifetime sentence of diminished opportunities for offenses not warranting such punishment.
I have no faith in the preening narcissists in the Delaware General Assembly to do the right thing. Hell, they introduced six new bills this year alone toughening Registry standards despite not one scintilla of evidence that there is a problem that needs fixing. Except, perhaps, their electoral problems.
Ultimately, relief will have to come from the courts and someone or several someones willing to challenge the notion that Pee Wee Herman and Ted Bundy should be judged by the same standard. Soliciting sex from a policewoman masquerading as a prostitute, for example, is not the same as rape, and offenders should not face similar lifetime fates.