Court says sex registry law unfair to juveniles
Posted: Friday, November 07, 2008
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Juveniles are treated unfairly under the South Dakota law that requires sex offenders to register with law enforcement agencies and appear on a public list, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The justices ruled unanimously that the current law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it treats juvenile offenders more harshly than it does adults convicted of sex crimes.
The high court's ruling means its "entirely possible" all juvenile sex offenders will have to be removed from the sex offender registry until the Legislature can fix the law, Attorney General Larry Long said.
Officials will have to look at the Supreme Court ruling and a federal law that requires state registration of sex offenders, the attorney general said. "It will require some studious application of our time in order to figure out how to be in compliance with both."
The law requires people convicted of certain sex crimes to register with local law enforcement agencies when they are released from jail or prison. Information about those on the sex offender registry is available to the public on government Internet sites.
Most on the registry are adults. But offenders who are 15-17 must register if they are found in juvenile court to have committed certain sex crimes.
The high court's ruling dealt with a Butte County case in which a boy admitted in juvenile court that he committed two counts of first-degree rape when he was 15. The victims were 7 and 9 at the time.
A judge ordered that the boy be placed in state Corrections Department custody and register as a sex offender.
The boy appealed the requirement that he register as a sex offender, arguing state law is unconstitutional because it treats juveniles more harshly than adults.
Adult offenders sometimes get a suspended imposition of sentence, which means a conviction in essence is wiped out if the person successfully completes probation. That offender then may be able to have his name removed from the sex offender registry.
The boy's appeal argued that the law is unconstitutional because juveniles cannot get a suspended imposition of sentence that allows their names to be removed from the sex offender registry.
The state argued the law has a legitimate purpose in protecting the public from sex offenders. But the Supreme Court said the state has not provided any rational basis for treating juveniles more harshly than adult offenders.
"In our examination of the sex offender registry scheme and its disparate treatment of juvenile offenders, we cannot conceive of any state of facts to suggest a rational basis for the harsher treatment of juveniles," the high court said.
The law is unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the boy in the appeal and other juveniles in the same situation to be registered, the Supreme Court said. The juvenile court must rescind its order requiring the boy to register as a sex offender, the justices said.
State law also provides another way for offenders to get their names from the list. After being on the list for 10 years, some can ask that their names be removed. But some offenders, including those whose victims were younger than 13, cannot get their names removed from the list.
In Thursday's ruling, two justices argued the current law also violates the constitutional requirement for due process because juvenile sex offenders do not get hearings to determine if they have been rehabilitated before their names are put on the public sex offender registry.
But the court majority said the law does not violate due process rights and that the courts should not try to write laws because that authority must be left to the Legislature.
The justices ruled unanimously that the current law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it treats juvenile offenders more harshly than it does adults convicted of sex crimes.
The high court's ruling means its "entirely possible" all juvenile sex offenders will have to be removed from the sex offender registry until the Legislature can fix the law, Attorney General Larry Long said.
Officials will have to look at the Supreme Court ruling and a federal law that requires state registration of sex offenders, the attorney general said. "It will require some studious application of our time in order to figure out how to be in compliance with both."
The law requires people convicted of certain sex crimes to register with local law enforcement agencies when they are released from jail or prison. Information about those on the sex offender registry is available to the public on government Internet sites.
Most on the registry are adults. But offenders who are 15-17 must register if they are found in juvenile court to have committed certain sex crimes.
The high court's ruling dealt with a Butte County case in which a boy admitted in juvenile court that he committed two counts of first-degree rape when he was 15. The victims were 7 and 9 at the time.
A judge ordered that the boy be placed in state Corrections Department custody and register as a sex offender.
The boy appealed the requirement that he register as a sex offender, arguing state law is unconstitutional because it treats juveniles more harshly than adults.
Adult offenders sometimes get a suspended imposition of sentence, which means a conviction in essence is wiped out if the person successfully completes probation. That offender then may be able to have his name removed from the sex offender registry.
The boy's appeal argued that the law is unconstitutional because juveniles cannot get a suspended imposition of sentence that allows their names to be removed from the sex offender registry.
The state argued the law has a legitimate purpose in protecting the public from sex offenders. But the Supreme Court said the state has not provided any rational basis for treating juveniles more harshly than adult offenders.
"In our examination of the sex offender registry scheme and its disparate treatment of juvenile offenders, we cannot conceive of any state of facts to suggest a rational basis for the harsher treatment of juveniles," the high court said.
The law is unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the boy in the appeal and other juveniles in the same situation to be registered, the Supreme Court said. The juvenile court must rescind its order requiring the boy to register as a sex offender, the justices said.
State law also provides another way for offenders to get their names from the list. After being on the list for 10 years, some can ask that their names be removed. But some offenders, including those whose victims were younger than 13, cannot get their names removed from the list.
In Thursday's ruling, two justices argued the current law also violates the constitutional requirement for due process because juvenile sex offenders do not get hearings to determine if they have been rehabilitated before their names are put on the public sex offender registry.
But the court majority said the law does not violate due process rights and that the courts should not try to write laws because that authority must be left to the Legislature.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 1 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Mary Hannan wrote on Dec 27, 2008 9:24 PM: