Opinion ID: 2056690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: SORNA of 1999 Promotes Retribution and Deterrence

Text: [¶ 75] Unlike the majority, I would conclude that SORNA of 1999 does promote retribution and deterrence. As the Indiana Supreme Court recently said in its discussion of that state's sex offender registration act: It is true that to some extent the deterrent effect of the registration and notification provisions of the Act is merely incidental to its regulatory function. And we have no reason to believe the Legislature passed the Act for purposes of retributionvengeance for its own sake. Nonetheless it strains credulity to suppose that the Act's deterrent effect is not substantial, or that the Act does not promote community condemnation of the offender, both of which are included in the traditional aims of punishment. Wallace, 905 N.E.2d at 382 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Even if one accepts the premise that publicly labeling individuals as violent sexual predators is not in any way intended as retribution for their crimes, SORNA of 1999 has had this effect. It promotes community condemnation in its most extreme form: vigilantism. Two Maine men were murdered after their names were found on the Maine Sex Offender Registry. See Doe v. District Attorney, 2007 ME 139, ¶ 56 n. 21, 932 A.2d 552, 568 (Alexander, and Silver, JJ., concurring). This factor, therefore, suggests that the SORNA of 1999 registration requirements have a punitive effect.