Opinion ID: 2680019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Promote Traditional Aims of Punishment

Text: [¶37] The fourth factor requires us to determine whether SORNA of 1999 promotes the traditional aims of punishment, specifically, retribution and deterrence. The Does argue that SORNA of 1999 is retributive because it imposes registration obligations on them for past wrongdoing even though some of them have gone decades without reoffending; additionally, they argue that it is a deterrent because they are subject to increased supervision by the State and increased scrutiny by the public. [¶38] In considering this factor in Smith, the Supreme Court concluded that although the Alaska sex offender registration scheme may deter future crimes, such a finding did not warrant a finding that the registration statute was punitive because “[a]ny number of governmental programs might deter crime without imposing punishment.” 538 U.S. at 102. Further, even though the Alaska registration scheme differentiated among individuals based on the extent of their wrongdoing, 19 the corresponding length of the reporting requirements was “reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.” Id. [¶39] In Letalien, we concluded that given the differences between Smith and Letalien in the length of registration for certain offenses, the sparse record provided “little basis to assess the reasonableness of this widely disparate treatment and whether Maine’s requirement of lifetime registration is reasonably related to the danger of recidivism.” 2009 ME 130, ¶ 46, 985 A.2d 4. [¶40] We are unable to determine on this record whether SORNA of 1999 is more deterrent in effect than other civil regulatory schemes. Likewise, on the record presented we cannot assess whether the registration requirements are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism. See id. Thus, we treat this factor as neutral. See id.