Title: Hensler v. Cross, et al.  (concurring)

State: west-virginia

Issuer: West Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

-- No. 29563 Michael M. Hensler v. David B. Cross, Sergeant T. R. Cox, Magistrate Michael Allman and Magistrate Michael Fuscardo FILED December 13, 2001 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Starcher, J., concurring: RELEASED December 14, 2001 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 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, beingessentially civil regulatory statutes, are not subject to an ex post facto analysis. However, as civilstatutes, 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 individualizedshowing that theirregistration 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 eventhe possibility of “unregistering” upon proof of full rehabilitation is wrong as a policy matter, and it may be constitutionally wrong as well.