Canada’s Supreme Court has voided part of the National Sex Offender Registry.
In a ruling on Friday, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that forcing the registration of all sex offenders with multiple convictions was excessive and that it would be unconstitutional to keep offenders registered for the rest of their lives. Stated.
“While compulsory registration has the appeal of simplicity and ease, the convenience of requiring registration for all sex offenders is not constitutional,” the court said in a majority vote.
The ruling concerns the conviction of Eugene Ndhlovu, who pleaded guilty in 2015 to the sexual assaults of two women in 2011.
Under amendments made to the sex offenders register in 2011, Ndhlovu’s name was permanently added to the list, with no judge or royal discretion.
But the trial judge found that the King had produced little evidence to show that the mandated list had helped police investigate sexual assaults. Judge Andrea Moen ruled that the social benefits of being placed on the compulsory lifetime list did not justify the impact on Ndlov.
Moen’s ruling was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeals but upheld by the Supreme Court.
Friday’s ruling said the registry was not intended to punish criminals, but to aid law enforcement.There are now 27 violations of varying severity for which offenders must be listed. said.
“(The Registry) is nearly 20 years old,” the court wrote. “Despite its long history, there is little or no concrete evidence of how well it assists police in preventing and investigating sex crimes.”
On the other hand, we found that the impact of being placed in the registry was severe.
Criminals should report to the police if they change their address, travel, or obtain a driver’s license or passport. Police may contact you at any time. There is some evidence that the stigma it brings and that simply being on the list increases the likelihood of reoffending.
“The impact of the (registration) order on criminal liberties can only be described as fairly serious,” the court wrote.
Three judges disagreed with the majority on the constitutionality of the mandatory list, but agreed that the permanent list cannot be justified.
Opponents wrote that before the list was made mandatory, too many judges refused to put offenders on the list, which made the list less effective.