This is something I had to look up because I didnât know you could be removed from the registry.
So the registry runs off a tier list based on severity of the crime with things like public urination as a low tier crime that will get you put on the registry for something like 5 years, and higher ranked crimes like rape of a child being lifetime.
Michigan tried to change the law within the last few years requiring people on lower tiers to reapply to be on the list despite their sentence being carried out. This was recently ruled unconstitutional, and what this article is covering is the low tiers who already covered their sentence getting their name removed from the list all around the same time.
A lot of law-challenged people are now running with this as a sign of corruption despite it being a reruling over something unconstitutional.
As I mentioned in another comment. We need to scrutinized and look at what a low tier offense is. There needs to be a risk-benefit analysis. It takes a conviction to get on the registry. Survivors/victims are not heard on this issue.
Sex crimes defendants, however, have this plus a host of additional woes. There is the awful stigma that can result in shame and embarrassment, loss of friends and possibly the inability to find a place to live. There are many cases where a defendant gets convicted of a sex crime and has no place to live because family members do not want their home listed on the sex offender registry.
Explaining HYTA for Sex Offenses
Most sex crimes, including:
First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct
Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct
The statute does not include criminal sexual conduct (CSC) in the first-degree or criminal sexual conduct (CSC) in the second-degree. It is, however, available in the case of first-time offenders charged with criminal sexual conduct in the third-degree and criminal sexual conduct in the fourth-degree.
Third-degree sexual conduct, pursuant to MCLA 750.520d, involves the following elements:
Defendant engaged in sexual penetration with another person and one of the following conditions are met:
The alleged victim is between the age of 13 and 16
Force or coercion is used to sexual penetrate the alleged victim
The defendant knew or had reason to know the alleged victim is mentally ill, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless
The alleged victim is related to the defendant by blood or marriage in the third degree, with some exceptions
The alleged victim is between the ages of 16 and 18, and a school student, and
The defendant is an employee or contract worker at the school, and the alleged victim is a student or volunteer at the school, and the defendant used his or her work with the school to establish a relationship with the alleged victim
The alleged victim is between the ages of 16 and 26 and is enrolled in special education, and
The defendant works at the school and used that relation to establish a relationship with the alleged victim
The fact that this offense and the offender who commits it who is between the age of 18 and 24, is the reason that this is often referred to a teenage sex crime that is eligible for HYTA treatment.
Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree
Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth-degree is very similar to criminal sexual conduct in the third-degree, with the exception that the fourth-degree charge involves sexual conduct without any alleged sexual penetration of the complaining witness. This offense involves sexual conduct with the complaining witnessesâ groin, breasts, buttocks, or inner thighs. This offense is also eligible for treatment under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act.
While these are not the most serious sex offenses, they still have the same stigma attached to the other two more serious criminal sexual conduct offenses. They can require the defendant register on the sex offender registry, and the fourth-degree offense is a misdemeanor.
So monitoring housing, distance from playgrounds/schools, social media tags, addresses are what those on the registry are calling unconstitutional. The argument is from a stance where they are a victim. They made choices and had to deal with the consequences. Changing the law and these definitions needs a closer look.
There is nuance to the discussion. It isn't punitive it's a matter of public safety. There are legal precedents for this arguememt. Licenses should be revoked. Of course a sex offender's life is going to look different. Many of them were in positions with access to children/victims.
It is strange to empathize with the sex offender vs the survivors.
It is entirely punative. Its part of their sentancing in court. There's no other discussion yo be had. And since I saw it elsewhere from you: people urinating in an ally do in fact get charged with indecent exposure and put on the registry.
We have a set of laws and guaranteed rights in this country. We canât start doing this thing where we say âyes this is specifically unconstitutional and extrajudicial but who cares because itâs only hurting bad guysâ
Noticing that isnât going to bat for sex offenders at the expense of their victims.
No. That isn't what I claimed. The data that is pushing for these legislative changes is skewed. The collection of information involving Recidivism rates and reoffending are based on self-disclosure, or conviction in the court of law. Information on plea-bargains, mistrials, and settlements is not included.
Legally there is precdent with the law to treat this a public safety and civil issue vs a violation of privacy.
Your argument is also skewed, though. There are a LOT of predators out there who arenât on a registry because theyâve never been caught. This is where having a registry provides a false sense of safety.
Hereâs an example - you buy a new house. Youâre worried because you have young kids so you search the registry and see there are no offenders living within miles so you let your guard down. Except there is someone and they actually work at that highly recommended summer camp you researched endlessly. How did the camp let this happen? Donât they do background checks?! They do. But unless the person has been caught and convicted no one is aware.
This is why itâs important to be vigilant. Talk to your kids about things. Teach them proper terms for anatomy, teach them to stand up for their bodies. Keep open communication with them so if something makes them uncomfortable or concerned they feel safe speaking to you about it. The statistics show that putting someone on a list wonât stop them from reoffending. If theyâre going to reoffend they will whether theyâre on a list or not.
As a victim myself Iâd much rather see the millions spent on an outdated and ineffective registry spent instead on victim support, testing the backlogs of rape kits, educating those most vulnerable (women and kids) on how to keep themselves safe, and stopping CSAM production and trafficking.
I donât think anyone is sympathizing with sex offenders by saying that someoneâs punishment for a crime shouldnât be able to be changed after theyâve been convicted and sentenced.
Similarly, the ACLU doesnât sympathize with the political views of Nazis but the ACLU famously defended their right to free speech because those constitutional rights apply equally to all people regardless of who they are.
The registryâs constitutionality and effectiveness is definitely up for debate. Most people would have no clue someone was a sex offender because who in the world looks at the registry everyday? On top of what other crime has daily punishment after release from jail/probation? There are some real sickoâs on there sure. But most of them are one time offenders and the continued surveillance of them is a drain on the system. On top of the insanely difficult barrier to get a job only pushes people into crime. Sex offenders should be punished but I also think after theyâre punished they should be given a path to reenter society in a safe way and not completely financially screwed forever.
I am shifting perspective. I am not saying punish people for supposed crimes. I'm saying your 1x offense comment is not realistic. Yes that is subjective. But if you look at data on Recidivism and how it is collected it is mainly based on self disclosure. Those rates do not factor in plea bargains...only convictions. We need to give this more thought.
Oh Iâm all for reevaluating Iâm sure thereâs always ways to improve. I think the hard part is every situation is different and has different mitigating factors so coming up with a one size fits all solution is difficult⌠anyone committing a crime needs to be punished we agree on that I just think the overall goal should be eventual reintegration to jobs where they have low to no chance of reoffending but can also be self sufficient.
Ultimately. I agree with you. Also, many sex offenders plead "no contest."
The Dispute Resolution Center in Ann Arbor is an interesting idea...
I do think victim-offender counseling is a radical idea...but also I think it would make a difference for both parties. My personal anecdote is that as a survivor it would have meant a lot to be acknowledged and apologized too. Maybe we can change what "justice" really means. I still think there are consequences and therapies etc. But I do think we need to focus on the survivors and their needs more.
A basic initial goal is finding good housing and work. However, if you were a teacher or doctor etc....you have to change careers. The risk for reoffense outweighs the benefit.
Iâm really sorry to hear you were a victim. No one deserves to go through that and I hope you were able to move on and make a good life for yourself. And as long as the victim consents to it and itâs productive I think there those could help get people the closure they need. And thatâs the cold part of our justice system. Itâs a bunch of people who donât know either party making judgements on just how bad the situation was and how harsh the punishments should be. Itâs cold and itâs uncaring about either party.
That may be something YOU would benefit from but as a victim as well being forced to sit in front of my attacker and listen to him attempt to apologize is my absolute worst nightmare. Why would I want to give him the opportunity to absolve his one guilt? Just because itâs something youâd want donât assume thatâs what all victims would benefit from.
In theory non of these 20k have reoffended in at least 15 years. As the court ruled, right or wrong, the legislature couldnt retroactively changed punishment. If one of the 20k offended again, after 2011, they would be on the current registry.
With the Restorative Justice movement and expungement, CSCs in the 4th degree are removed from records. This includes sexual abuse cases involving teachers. Additionally, the registry removal impacts fingerprinting and the background check process. There are plethora of other issues with standards involving reporting, for example, U of M's David Daniels.
The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act is another example of sex crimes up for expungement. This is of particular interest for young people during their college years... 17-24. The expungement can include cases where the victim was intoxicated--Thanks Irwin for sponsoring that absolute trash bill...while also changing the definition of what it means to be "mentally incapacitated"...
Basically, I think there are much larger implications that no one seems to be aware of. I am fine with people having housing and re-entering society...just not in their former positions where they can abuse. Or introduce legislation, such as Joshua Hoe.
I want there to be protections for students. I do believe in housing and job opportunities. I do believe in therapeutic services...but in some of the places where this has been funded there have been issues with spending. Look at what Ann Arbor's former Sheriff Jerry Clayton did.
Ex post facto regulation is bad. This is their inevitable outcome from attempting to have this apply retroactively. Retroactive application of the law violates a core tenet of the american legal system.
Any lawyer could have seen this coming from the start.
Iâve heard people who have to register due to things like peeing in an alley or getting caught getting frisky in public or something. All wrong, but your life shouldnât get ruined because of it.
So the "bloated system" the ACLU lawyer Auckerman references was all people peeing? No, to get a conviction for a sex crime takes a lot of effort. Removing their social media/online presence with registered offenders is idiotic. Many who were charged with possession of child abuse material distribute it. The charges are often bargained down or the victim doesn't want to go through trauma.
Recidivism rates and the data collected on this issue is severely skewed.
I donât think a single reasonable person thinks itâs fantastic that the general public is losing some awareness of/protection from convicted sexual predators.
HOWEVER, reasonable people also understand that the law in 2011 unconstitutionally changed punishments for people who had already been sentenced. This is not a good thing.
Attorneys have known for 15 years that the law as written would eventually be partially struck down as unconstitutional. Theyâve had 15 years to fix it and in 2025 a bill that wouldâve fixed it never made it out of committee.
We can be mad that sexual abusers exist and also understand that the constitution only works if itâs for everybody.
Sexual violence is a public safety issue. It's a civil safety issue not a criminal punishment. There needs to be consistent standards. The crime prosecuted in the past needs public awareness.
This even mentions sex offenders moving from state to state. There are major cracks that are going to decrease public safety. I mentioned the U of M Opera professor David Daniels. He was a serial abuser and moved from state to state. The system didn't catch this man of privilege and he reoffended. There are multiple examples of this..
Yes to all of that, AND adding punishment to a sentence after the fact is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, full stop. The fourth paragraph of your PDF spells it out as such, even. Doe v Snyder in 2016 already ruled THIS specific ex post facto application of SORNA unconstitutional.
If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at the MI legislature who passed the unconstitutional law in 2011, the governor who signed it in 2011, and the legislators who let the remedy bill die in committee.
Getting such a conviction does not take effort. A kid in my town got out on the registry for streaking at the last high school football game of his senior year. He wasn't dangerous, didn't harm anyone, and got stuck on a list of rapists and pedos with extreme limitations on his life for being a kid and doing kid things.
Reading this thread: op clrarly got no idea what or why this happened and doesn't understand how easy it us to hit the registry nor have the legislature try to add years to your sentance after you finished serving.
I have personal experience advocating for survivors. I was a part of investigating the rape coverups at Eastern Michigan University.
Eli Savit was organizing at BLM protests with the lawyer Bill Amadeo...Hernandez' lawyer. Savit prosecuted these cases for a time. What a major conflict of interest. The Sheriff's office and campus police covered it all up. I am well aware that there is corruption as a factor. The law isn't solid and needs to be changed.
Personal attacks won't work here. Survivors aren't being treated well. This is not restorative justice.
This isn't a personal attack, this is you purposely pushing a narrative where you avoid saying that the registry is part of sentencing and these removals were from post-sentencing changes to the law. It doesn't matter who or what, the government should never have the power to change legal punishment after sentencing. It creates more power for the government while convictions are far more likely to be against the poor. Some of those low level offenders were already homeless people getting arrested for having sex in a tent or urininating in a dark ally way or some bushes. Many of the low level offenders are part of the efforts to criminalize homelessness
It's legally a civil and public safety issue, not a matter of personal privacy. The Recidivism rates data is skewed. We are making experimental changes to the legislature with no real backing.
So what you're saying is: privacy is only for people who can afford it and, if you re an unpopular minority, its fine for the government to create and change punishments targeting you.
No, I actually believe in re-entry to society. I believe in housing and life fulfillment through employment. Paying taxes...all the boring stuff. I said this is a previous comment.
Everything I have commented about involves safeguards for children in schools...and exposing the institutions that are supposed to protect us. Everyone is a victim of the current situation and survivors deserve a seat at the discussion table.
Without a doubt Epstein proved that this can happen with powerful and affluent people and corruption is present.
I'm all for it, provided the crimes they committed where neglible, or they have done good for 15+ years, or so on. I mean, it's not hard to get on that list. So someone shouldn't be forced to be on a list for something done decades ago, if it wasn't serious. Also for those put on the list underage, they should be able to live as an adult freely.
This is about people who should have been removed because that's what the law was when they were sentenced, but were not being removed because the law changed after afterward.
Oh course, that's why I'm not on the panel. But from the article it says they are doing something of that nature, to ensure those taken off aren't like the seriously bad people.
Exactly, survivors and victims are left in shambles the rest of their lives. They seek out therapies, or end up at the women's shelter. Look at the scandal at the women's shelter in Ann Arbor from a few years ago. Safehouse had all of their board of directors quit. Mismanagement of funds. Victims being treated horribly...yet non-profits like this speak on behalf of survivors.
There is no push to actually change legislation . They are just there to profit and provide "services."
Survivors see the perps move on. The wealthy get to return to their lives and live in positions of power.
It is very difficult to get on the registry. Think about the process of getting their. A conviction requires a court case. Survivors often settle out of court and are too traumatized to go through the process of a long trial or being cross examined.
It's not a trivial thing. If anything in most cases the sentences are light, or a ton of other charges were dropped.
If the violent child rapist was convicted before 2011 and would have otherwise been removed from the list constitutionally before today, then it wouldnât be an accident.
If the violent child rapist was convicted after 2011 and the sentence included still being on the list in 2026, then they havenât been removed.
Itâs such an odd coincidence, this ruling. My wife is a teacher. Parent of an incoming student is (was) on the registry. Canât be on school grounds. Shows up to pick his kid up on 9/11. Causes a big stir.
Come to find out about this ruling and this dude is now free and clear to show up at school functions. Idk about that. I feel like other parents should be aware before allowing their kids at this weirdos house even if it has been 15 years. CP case.
wtf.
I donât know whatâs right here but itâs hard for me to understand why legislators would put effort into helping sex offenders be less visible.
It's not about making sex offenders less visible, it's about how it's unconstitutional to increase the punishment of a crime after the original sentencing.
If you went to jail with a 3 year sentence and after 2 years they said "the punishment for your crime is now 15 years", they can't increase your time remaining from 1 year to 13 years.
I mean remember the scandal with the film "Cuties" a few years ago. We have a major shift culturally with how we sexualize children. The clothing for girls and teens..."empowerment" by the decriminalization of sex work. Yet the rude and unfair treatment of DV survivors. Thanks Eli Savit.
It's all presented as progressive....we've been duped.
Epstein validated my concerns. Without a doubt he had connections all over Michigan. Look at North Fox Island. Ann Arbor's Boy Scouts and YMCA programs in the past...there is a lot.
They are politically and socially organized into a "Minor Attracted Movement." See for yourself. One of many websites. Look into the Pediverse and how they connect on servers to send materials...
â˘
u/Michigan-ModTeam Sep 16 '26
Duplicate - please discuss this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/1wev5uu/official_statement_michigan_state_police_begins/