holding that “[t]he Sex Offender Registration Act, W. Va. Code §§ 15-12-1 to 10, is a regulatory statute which does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[t]he Sex Offender Registration Act, W. Va. Code §§ 15-12-1 to 10, is a regulatory statute which does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
- recognizing Sex Offender Registration Act as regulatory and one that does not enhance or increase punishment
- recognizing purpose of sex offender registration is “to protect the innocent public from sex offenders[.]”
- “Moreover, sex crimes and sex offender recidivism present real and substantial challenges to law enforcement officers who are charged with protecting the innocent public and preventing crime. We are aware that sex offenders are significantly more likely than other repeat offenders to reoffend with sex crimes or other violent crimes and the tendency persists over time.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, Justice,
concurring:
(Filed Dec. 13, 2001.)
I concur in the Court’s judgment because as the majority opinion demonstrates, the law is fairly well settled that most sexual offender registration statutes, being essentially civil regulatory statutes, are not subject to an ex post facto analysis.
However, as civil statutes, these statutes are subject to other constitutional scrutiny, including substantive and due process scrutiny. A statute which fails to allow a person to make an individualized showing that their registration is no longer appropriate may be constitutionally infirm. Nothing in the majority opinion would preclude the presentation and consideration of such a case. Our law, even at its fiercest and most protective, must also serve the purpose of rehabilitation. I personally feel that “lifetime” registration without even the possibility of “unregister-ing” upon proof of full rehabilitation is wrong as a policy matter, and it may be constitutionally wrong as well.