‘An Electorate That Subsists on a Steady Diet of Fear’

In March 2011, Professor Catherine L. Carpenter of the Southwestern Law School published The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws.

Published here is the abstract from that article. At the end of the post, you will find a link to an online source for the entire article. NU / FACTS recommends this article to anyone in Nebraska who has a sincere interest in public safety. We urge politicians and certain segments of law enforcement to read it, too.

The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws


Catherine L. Carpenter 


Southwestern Law School
March 13, 2011

Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 63, p. 101, 2012 

ABSTRACT

More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. 

This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation. 

Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.

Click here to find a downloadable PDF of the entire 63-page paper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s