Changing rules

The Ohio Supreme Court last week cleared the way for tougher sentencing after the fact. All a prosecutor or lawmaker needs do is sell justices on the idea that the increased punishment is merely an increased burden, and the law under which someone was sentenced becomes moot.

The court on Wednesday upheld constitutionality of tougher registration and notification restrictions the General Assembly imposed on sexual offenders who were convicted before the law took effect. The court upheld the tougher requirements 4-3, dividing over whether the additional restrictions are civil protections for the public or additional and unconstitutional punishment. Justice Maureen O'Connor, for the majority that included Lima's Justice Robert R. Cupp, wrote "Ohio retroactivity analysis does not prohibit all increased burdens. It prohibits only increased punishment."

Forcing someone to register as a sexual offender with the county sheriff is the very essence of punishment - if only because only those convicted of sexual offenses have to do so. Making the registration requirements more stringent after someone has been found guilty and sentenced gives the Legislature unnatural power, which the Ohio Supreme Court now has upheld.

The 2003 law expanded on the 1996 Megan's Law, which required the classification of sex offenders and retroactively subjected them to mandatory registration of their whereabouts and required public notification depending on the severity of their classification. The court's ruling let stand the Legislature's determination that the most severe classification, sexual predator, a lifelong designation, and required sex offenders to register not only with their local sheriff but also with the sheriff in counties where they work or go to school.

"I do not believe that we can continue to label these proceedings as civil in nature," Justice Judith Lanzinger wrote for the minority. "The restraints on liberty re the consequences of specific criminal convictions and should be recognized as part of the punishment that is imposed as a result of the offender's actions."

If members of the Legislature want to increase the punishment for sexual offenders, that is within their rights and ability. However, to change punishment after the fact is to ignore the U.S. Constitution. A state's highest court isn't supposed to allow that.