CRM-123 Discussion 2
Aramis
mod2replies.docxWillie McClendon
John Doe believe that his due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause was violated because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be "currently dangerous." Doe was a convicted sex offender and subject to the law. Connecticut's "Megan's Law" requires persons convicted of sexual offenses to register with the Department of Public Safety and requires the Department to post a sex offender registry containing registrants' names, addresses, photographs, and descriptions on the Internet. The Court of Appeals agreed with Doe and concluded that such disclosure violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be "currently dangerous.
The Second Circuit's judgment must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme. Mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693. But even assuming, arguendo, that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact--that he is not currently dangerous--that is not material under the statute. Cf., e.g., Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433.
In the case of Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (2003), I believe that John Doe believed his due process rights had been violated because he felt like him being included on the site meant that he was labeled as dangerous which is a violation of his rights. Although the registry is for sex offenders, John Doe felt that he although charged with his crime, he didn’t feel like him or the others included on the site should have their picture and personal information available to people on the internet. His main argument was that his information was available to the public and if someone was to look online they would see him and others included on this site which he felt was infringing on their personal rights. Except there is a law that covers the site and its exclusivity to the information. This is how it has been and it was not picking out any one individual but certain cases were deemed as sex offenders and have to for the remainder of their lives be ready to provide this information willingly as a result of those actions. The Supreme Court did not agree with Doe, they agreed with the State of Connecticut, it was an unanimous decision. The court decided that, “because the law was not based on an offender's dangerousness, but rather only on convictions, disclosing an offender on the registry without a hearing did not violate due process.” I do not think that the Constitution should afford the due process rights to sex offenders who have been convicted for sexual offenses against minors. I think that if a person is found guilty of a crime that they did actually commit against a person that is sexual they definitely need to pay whatever price is decided for them in sentencing. The person that was assaulted will never be the same so whatever consequence the offender gets in the process is karma in my opinion.
Convicted sex offenders have already be afforded a hiring and a opportunity to contest. Sex offenders are more likely to repeat the offense then any other type of offender, therefore they should have to register and available to the pubic.
