Opinion ID: 2526547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: B. 5 v. S.B. 10 and remedial v. punitive

Text: {¶ 10} This court has consistently held that R.C. Chapter 2950 is a remedial statute. State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, ¶ 29. We have also stated, There is no absolute test to determine whether a retroactive statute is so punitive as to violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws; such a determination is a `matter of degree.' State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 418, 700 N.E.2d 570. In Cook, we examined the guideposts listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), 372 U.S. 144, 168-169, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644, for determining whether a statute is punitive and concluded that R.C. Chapter 2950 serves the solely remedial purpose of protecting the public. Cook at 423, 700 N.E.2d 570. {¶ 11} After Cook was issued, R.C. Chapter 2950 was amended by S.B. 5. This court again concluded that despite the changes effected by S.B. 5, R.C. Chapter 2950 was a remedial statute. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, at ¶ 43. Some factors pertaining to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, however, suggested that the statutory scheme was punitive. First, the procedures for registration and classification of sex offenders were placed within Ohio's criminal code, R.C. Title 29. Second, failure to comply with certain registration requirements subjected a sex offender to criminal prosecution. R.C. 2950.99.