March 5, 2013

Maine's sex-offender registry law upheld

The 1999 law is 'non-punitive' and protects the public, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court rules.

By Matt Byrne
Staff Writer

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the state's sex-offender registration law in a narrow 4-3 decision Tuesday, saying the statute does not violate the rights of people convicted of sex crimes before 1999, when the law was retroactively applied to include them.

The court found the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999 to be constitutional, upholding a lower court's ruling.

Maine law requiring offenders to register on the Internet-based list is "non-punitive," the majority ruled, and serves the legitimate governmental goal of protecting the public's safety.

While lawyers for the 15 plaintiffs -- each referred to in court documents only as John Doe -- argued that registration is an unconstitutional punishment, the majority ruling cited the U.S. Supreme Court in dismissing the challenge.

"The Does argue that the registry's availability on the Internet is punitive because of its stigmatizing effects. The Supreme Court found that '(t)he purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender. ... The attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of a valid regulation.' "

Justice Andrew Mead wrote the 39-page opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley and Justices Jon D. Levy and Ellen Gorman.

The decision is the latest chapter in the decades-long public conversation about the utility of the registry.

It is unlikely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the only possible avenue for recourse, said Jim Mitchell, the attorney who argued on behalf of the John Does. Mitchell, nevertheless, called the ruling a disappointment.

"The majority simply downplayed the seriousness of what registration means," Mitchell said. "That's very disappointing."

The John Does had petitioned to have their names removed from the registry, in part because they had already paid their debts to society.

In a dissenting opinion on Tuesday's ruling, Justices Warren M. Silver, Donald Alexander and Joseph Jabar argued that the publication of personal information is a shaming technique they consider a continued punishment, even after offenders serve out the term of their court-mandated sentence.

Under the law, a sex offender is required to provide his or her photo, name, address and other detailed information to the state, which then publishes it in a online database where members of the public can easily find information, perhaps including the names of offenders who live near them.

Currently in Maine, 2,928 people are active registered offenders, according to the state. Officials who maintain the registry could not say Tuesday how many of those offenders were convicted before 1999 and could have been affected by the court's decision.

To test whether the registry system is an unconstitutional punishment, the justices relied on a technical seven-point evaluation that is established in case law.

At one point in the opinion, the court's majority likened the requirement that registrants report to police in person every five years to obtaining a driver's license and said written notifications to authorities present a minimal burden.

The court decision is the latest development in the life of the controversial registry law, which has changed significantly since it was first put into effect in 1992.

An update to the law passed in 1999 included in the statute a wider variety of offenses, imposed harsher penalties and created two separate categories for convicts: sex offenders and sexually violent predators. Sex offenders were required to register for a decade, while sexually violent predators were required to register for life.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)