Twitter | Search | |
Guy Hamilton-Smith
One of the most common misconceptions that people have about sex offense registries is that people are on them because they are dangerous. I mean, that is the whole point, right? Except, it's only constitutional so long as the government *isn't* indicating that. Weird, huh?
Reply Retweet Like More
Guy Hamilton-Smith Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
In fact, you can go on to most registries and there will usually be a disclaimer saying "the State Police makes no representations about anyone on here being dangerous" or something along those lines. That's because danger, or risk, or whatever, actually has nothing to do w/ it
Reply Retweet Like
Guy Hamilton-Smith Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
The Supreme Court ruled, way back in 2003, that so long as the government wasn't saying anything about someone being dangerous or being a threat, that procedural due process did not require states to give people an opportunity to demonstrate that they weren't a risk
Reply Retweet Like
Guy Hamilton-Smith Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
IOW, risk, or total lack thereof, is simply not a relevant factor for most state sex offense registration schemes. It simply does not matter. And yet, the presumption of risk is the entire reason why the scheme exists in the first place. Hence the confusion.
Reply Retweet Like
Guy Hamilton-Smith Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
When risk or dangerousness is simultaneously both presumed (Smith v. Doe) *and* irrefutable (CDPS), I submit that SCOTUS carved out a special perch beyond the reach of much of the constitution just for unpopular people.
Reply Retweet Like
Guy Hamilton-Smith Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
And in this era, that's 'sex offenders', but every era has witches, and the infrastructure that we build (or as is perhaps more apt, destroy) has effects that far outlast whatever moral panics that occasioned them.
Reply Retweet Like
Justin Stout Jan 29
Replying to @G_Padraic
It's overwhelming the amount of people on there that are under the age of 25 who hooked up with their slightly underage girlfriend in a consensual manner. Ie., 20&16 etc. Also there are 3 ages of consent in this country 16, 17, 18 and it's about 1/3 of the US for each category.
Reply Retweet Like
larita patata frita 🍓 Jan 29
There shouldn’t be a public registry, but stop normalizing 20something dudes hooking up with minors.
Reply Retweet Like