![\"\"](\"http:\/\/change-production.s3.amazonaws.com\/photos\/wordpress_copies\/criminaljustice\/2010\/01\/sex_offender.jpg\" "\\"sex_offender\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The names of low-level sex offenders in Nebraska were posted online <\/a>today under a new law, which took effect despite a lawsuit trying to stop it.<\/p>\n A class-action lawsuit filed by convicted sex offenders has been seeking to prevent the state from publishing their names, saying the new rule punishes them retroactively and will do more harm than good. The plaintiffs had won a temporary stay, but that was lifted today and the names went up.<\/p>\n The previous law notified communities of high-risk offenders only. The new rule forces every sex offender in Nebraska to register for a minimum of 15 years. An attorney for the plaintiffs argued that some of his clients pled guilty to less-serious offenses and would have made different choices if they had known these ramifications would come later.<\/p>\n “Now they’re going to be all lumped together with a broad brush and I think that’s going to dilute the registry and drive them underground,” Attorney Stu Dornan said<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I’ve argued in this space many times about the dangers of including in the registry people who did not commit violent offenses or who have proven themselves rehabilitated. If we include all sex offenders on the registry, we’re stretching state resources too thin to monitor a huge group of less-risky individuals, and we’re continuing to punish people who have served their time and should be allowed to rebuild lives. Forcing them to register just extends the sentence, eliminates opportunity and causes us to miss warning signs from people who do post a threat.<\/p>\n The lawsuits are still active in federal court, and two facets of the law are on hold after federal judge Richard Kopf called them “probably unconstitutional.” These provisions would allow state agents to monitor computer use by sex offenders and banned them from using social network sites.<\/p>\n Kopf upheld most of the laws, however, including the rules that went live today, though he said he didn’t like it:<\/p>\n “I am not a fan of laws like this one,” U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf wrote. “If I had my druthers, I would enjoin the entire law and not just the portions that are probably unconstitutional.<\/p>\n “I am pretty sure that this enactment will divert attention and money from policing the monsters (and God knows there are plenty of monsters out there). I also worry that this law will incite a virulent form of vigilantism against the hapless.”<\/p>\n Both articles via the always informative Sex Offender Issues<\/a><\/p>\n