Kansas Courts Uphold the Nation’s Toughest Rules for Tracking People After Conviction
It was recently reported that the Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that the registry is not punitive. It turns out that this registry includes more than just people with a past sex offense. The Kansas Criminal Registry is one of the most sweeping in the country, including people convicted of drug, violent and sex crimes.
The court wrote in its ruling, “Dissemination of registration information does not rise to the level of public shaming, does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, are not excessive, and are rationally connected to a nonpunitive purpose.” What??!! Did the attorney not present the wealth of research proving the sex offense registry is punitive? Or is it because the Kansas registry includes too many other crimes? Or is it because some judges let their own personal biases enter into their decisions?
All registrants must check in with their sheriff’s office and pay $20 every three months. Additional check-ins are required within three days of getting a tattoo or new job or new email address, and for purchasing a car or boat. If a person misses a check-in for more than two weeks or falls behind by $40 on fees, they will be charged with a felony.
Justice Eric Rosen dissented by saying that the registry is “effective banishment”. He also wrote in his dissent, “Countless jurists, scholars, and social scientists have confirmed how common these burdens are to those required to register. Today, the court eschews the United States Constitution and the citizens it stands to protect for reasons I cannot comprehend.”
The biggest shock of all was the majority of the Kansas Supreme Court Justices ruling that the Kansas Legislature did not intend for the system to be a punishment, so it cannot be considered cruel or unusual punishment. So, if a legislative body is not able to see the error of their ways when they pass a law, then the law should stand as constitutional?
Fortunately, some Kansas citizens see the errors of their legislators’ and justices’ ways and are beginning to have a discussion on how to correct these errors.
Also, let us not forget that Kansas does not have residency restrictions.
Follow the money! What is the Kansas supreme court smoking?
Captain
This is just beyond reproach
Highly Flawed Jurisprudence!
Where does One Begin? Or Exist Again!
“The Legal Reasoning, is, Well, Not Consistent, as What is Taught in the Majority of Law Schools in US”
-Discussion with a Retired Law School Dean
Folks, everyone should be working as hard as possible to take money and other resources from law enforcement. The Oppression Lists deserve consequences. Make them real. De-fund at every opportunity. Vote it.
There are many in law enforcement who will privately tell you that the registry is not working. The real problem is with our legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Well, Perhaps,
As Dorothy Said, “Toto, I’ve Got a Feeling We’re Not in Kansas Anymore”
The court wrote in its ruling, “Dissemination of registration information does not rise to the level of public shaming, does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, are not excessive, and are rationally connected to a nonpunitive purpose.”
Just WTH was this judge smoking? It clearly is public shaming, it’s most definitely a disability and an excessive restraint, and punitive that failing to follow any laws whether known or not equals jail and possible prison time. Heck there are states that are happy to slap you with lifetime GPS monitoring, lifetime registration, lifetime probation, etc. All of this after you were already quote on quote punished.
Who was the defending person in this ruling? Did NARSOL try to stop this or did nobody speak up because nobody knew about it before hand ?
The only value of these KS rulings is the scathing an in depth dissent by KS Supreme Court Justice Eric Rosen. It is really worth a read:
For more than 15 years I have been a proud member of a court that has historically taken an unyielding stand against the degradation of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. See In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 242 P.3d 1168 (2010); In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034, 190 P.3d 245 (2008) (protecting rights of natural parents); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016), adhered to on reh’g 306 Kan. 682, 396 P.3d 711 (2017) (striking down as unconstitutional statute criminalizing refusal to submit to testing of bodily substances deemed to have been impliedly consented to); In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460, 470, 186 P.3d 164 (2008) (upholding juveniles’ constitutional right to jury trial). Even in the era of Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896), this court protected civil rights against forces of discrimination. See, e.g., Board of Education v. Tinnon, 26 Kan. 1, 22-23 (1881) (power to divide city into districts does not include power to divide city according to race, color, nationality, or descent); Webb v. School District, 167 Kan. 395, 403-04, 206 P.2d 1066 (1949) (creation of special school district carved out to exclude African-American children was impermissible subterfuge for segregation).
Today, I feel none of that pride. Today, the court eschews the United States Constitution and the citizens it stands to protect for reasons I cannot comprehend. Today, I dissent….
I’m curious as to how this issue would play out in the U.S. Supreme Court……. There’s been much political controversy and downright mud slinging in Kansas the past 4-5 years specifically regarding the State Supreme Court. It was interesting and at times almost farcical reading to look through the articles. It was SO blatantly obvious that most of the politicians interviewed, no matter what the topic was, were not basing they’re actions on any form of informed common sense but on a careful analysis of what part of the political base they wanted to appeal to the most at that given moment. A court observer could get whiplash trying to keep up! 🤣
You’ve got it Roger. Some of these politically positioned judges prefer to appeal to the voter base rather than refer to the Constitution. We know from history what such actions eventually lead to and it ain’t pretty.
I think the justices’ of Kansas need to visit Oz. They need brains, hearts, and courage to do the right thing. No place like Bleeding Kansas, what a world.
The Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in my state of Georgia was a personal friend of my family. After I was convicted and made to abide by the draconian sex offender registry policies of this state, my parents went to visit him in his Georgia Capitol office. They asked him how he could have voted to pass such terribly punitive legislation. In reply, he stared down at the floor and admitted that he had NEVER READ the bill that he helped pass into law. He explained that he would not be able to hold his present office if he had voted against it. It is all voter-based political theater. Nothing more. Yet on our side, we have thousands of pages of hard, cold evidence, factual information, studies, expert testimony, and other clearly defined proofs. All this evidence shows that the United States stands alone in how awfully and lawlessly wrong they are in how they treat ONE class of people after they have paid their debt to society (in my case, fifteen years of prison time).
Is legislative intent to pass an unconstitutional law important.
The Court’s logic is as follows: Congress may enact an unconstitutional law, so long as Congress did not mean to do so. This argument and the analysis therewith are immaterial to evaluate whether an Act is an unconstitutional and the Court knows it. Since the 1920s courts have held that mere intention, even when overtly unconstitutional, has no bearing on the constitutionality of legislative acts.[1] Hence legislative intent is irrelevant when Congress adopts a law that: (1) violates a constitutional prohibition; or (2) falls outside the constitutional authority granted to Congress.
A few recent examples show the principles applied by the Supreme Court when judging the rightness of statutes and the question of legislative intent to comport with the Constitution. The bottom line is that mere intent to comply with the Constitution will not save an otherwise unconstitutional law. Take for instance laws that imposed poll taxes,[2] banned abortion[3] or compelled sheriffs to conduct criminal background checks on would-be gun purchasers.[4] In each instance, State legislators or the U.S. Congress, collectively, passed laws that presumably a sufficient number of members believed were in accord with the Constitution. Nevertheless in these instances, the U.S. Supreme Court found that these laws violated the U.S. Constitution. And in each instance the Court did not inquire about the motives of lawmakers – it was not relevant.
[1] See United States v. Doremus, 249 US 86 (1919).
[2] Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966).
[3] Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).
[4] Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).
Look like it is Time to File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS
I invite any one of those judges to walk a mile in our shoes. Dear magistrates of the courts, please contact me to arrange a one week long “Day in the life” of any of us. And THEN and only then are you allowed to make a statement that the registry is not punishment.
We as a collective disagree with your blanket statement, and this goes for our families as well who suffer on a daily basis. Not because we committed a crime (That was a long time ago and they moved passed them) but the burdens you have put on us that effects them until we are “Truly” free.
CherokeeJack
I agree completely . Would society ever agree to release a known convicted murderer who was on death row awaiting execution?
Anyone would answer ,of coarse not. That why is society agreeing to convict about one million people of a sex offense then put them on a list that destroys there lives, effects every aspect of there life. There marriages, there employment. There housing, there relationship with there children, there interacting with neighbors, there usefulness in there religion, there sense of self worth as a person, and more. This is done not just temporarily but in most cases for 25 years, ( which is life for many) or for life. Condemned to this with no hope or possibility of redeeming themselves, or in many cases taking it back to court in the hope of a fair trial.
In the meantime they release them out on there own with no way to get out of the grave they have been thrown in. What incentive is there for any of these to improve themselves, though many do even in spite of what has been forced upon them.
Why would they not all just turn into cereal killers?that would be the natural inclination. If they are so terrible that they deserve this punishment, and can’t change , Why are they being released. Or could it be that something else is behind there actions. Like politics or money, yes, then there actions can be understood.
There is a Bible example of one that actually is so mean that he deserved to be confined to a restricted condition which has made him even more wicked than he was before. Read Revelation 12:12.
Because of this all the inhabitants of the earth are suffering.
Jack, you are so correct. Let any of these judges be in the registry for just one week and “punitive” will be the word of the day for them.