Sex Offender Registry Unconstitional-Ontario

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-07-01 07:03pm

CBC wrote:KITCHENER, ONT. - An Ontario provincial court judge has found the law governing the province's sex offender registry is too broad and therefore unconstitutional.

Christopher's Law, as it is known, requires anyone convicted of a sex offence to register with their local police force every year as long as they live in Ontario.

Police wanted the registry, saying lives could be saved if they had speedy access to the names and addresses of known sex offenders.

But Justice Gary Hearn, presiding over the law's first constitutional challenge in Kitchener, said it deprived offenders of their right to liberty and security, no matter how laudable its goal.

In a written decision released in Ontario Court, he said the law is offence-oriented, requiring everyone convicted of a sex offence to register, regardless of the crime committed.

Hearn said offenders have no way of disputing their inclusion on the registry or arguing that they should be removed from it, meaning the law lacks fundamental procedures giving people the right to a hearing.

Stephen Gehl, the lawyer who launched the challenge, said, for example, a man convicted of patting a woman on the bum would be put in the same category as a dangerous pedophile. He argued people should be included on the registry only if they are high-risk or violent offenders.

The registry was created in April 2001, eight years after being recommended by a Brampton coroner's inquest into the sex-murder of 11-year-old Christopher Stephenson. Several other provinces have followed Ontario's lead by creating their own registry. In December 2002, Ottawa passed legislation to create a national registry.

It isn't yet clear what the implications of Hearn's ruling will be. Decisions by provincial court judges are not binding on other Ontario judges.

Fortunatly the judge's ruling isn't binding. I don't care that relitivly minor offenders are included on this list or not, as far as I'm concerned the good points outway the bad. If people are on the list for patting a woman on the bum than they should have thought of that before sexually harrasing that woman.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-01 07:22pm

Actually, the judge makes a good point. If you got convicted for streaking through a soccer game when you were 19 and you're lumped in with pedophiles 10 years later, that's pretty fucking unfair.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-07-01 07:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the judge makes a good point. If you got convicted for streaking through a soccer game when you were 19 and you're lumped in with pedophiles 10 years later, that's pretty fucking unfair.

True. There should be some kind of appeal process in place to deal with this. In addition there should be a regular reassessment for people on this list as some of them may actually reform.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-07-01 08:09pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the judge makes a good point. If you got convicted for streaking through a soccer game when you were 19 and you're lumped in with pedophiles 10 years later, that's pretty fucking unfair.
True. There should be some kind of appeal process in place to deal with this. In addition there should be a regular reassessment for people on this list as some of them may actually reform.

I'm wondering if the problem is that the registry is retroactive? Make it part of the sentence (10 years + lifetime registry) from now on. Otherwise, you are essentially tacking onto the punishment without a trial and often after the person has been fully released (time is up)- laudable goal, but objectionable precedent.