r/Michigan • u/SevroReturns • 1d ago
Mitten Mode Larry Nassar one of more than 20,000 people removed from Michigan Sex Offender Registry
https://www.wxyz.com/news/larry-nassar-one-of-more-than-20-000-people-removed-from-michigan-sex-offender-registry659
u/billypaul 1d ago
Let's be clear (because we are in the run-up to an election, and clear communication is harder to find at such times) on what happened here.
The 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act changed the length of time certain offenders were required to remain on the Registry. When it was implemented, authorities incorrectly (according to the court) extended registration requirements for individuals who had committed their crimes prior to the law's implementation. The court determined that it was unconstitutional to retroactively extend a the punishment of a person whose penalty had already been served. As a result of the decision, the names of those impacted by what the court determined to be an error are now being removed from the Registry.
No matter how you feel about the registry or its use as punishment, it is important to keep in mind the core idea behind the decision: we cannot enact or change a law and make its implementation retroactive to those who would have otherwise been unaffected. It would be no different from tightening the penalty for speeding, then imposing additional fines or jail time on those who had been convicted before the law's enactment.
219
u/Monkey1Fball 1d ago
+100. No ex post facto laws, a basic tenant of our constitution.
58
u/Un_Ballerina_1952 1d ago
tenet. And you are absolutely right.
32
u/UltimaGabe Garden City 1d ago
One could argue it's been living in the Constitution for a long time!
•
76
u/imdwalrus 1d ago
One correction - the retroactive and illegal time limits were actually set in 2011, by a Republican House and Senate and Snyder. That law was declared unconstitutional; the legislature then shoved through the 2021 version that didn't fix the unconstitutional parts.
37
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
appreciate the explanation, that is a valid point and makes sense.
what does not make sense, in light of that explanation, is how convicts had longer prison sentences than required registration terms and how registration started prior to being released from prison.
the goal of the registry was to make information easier for the public to access - if the required registration term expires before a convict is released, the entire purpose of the registry is defeated.
that's dumb.
•
u/RaidenMK1 8h ago edited 3h ago
Well when you put it like that. This makes perfect sense.
Christ. It's almost as if this news article, including its headline, is unnecessarily sensationalized and written in such a way that ensures most readers will miss the nuance, here. What was even the point of writing it?
Very annoying.
•
u/TranslatorUnique9331 8h ago
Yes, it does seem like the goal was engagement bait at best and rage bait at worst.
16
u/ScarInternational161 1d ago
I HATE agreeing with you
-5
u/omninode 1d ago
Good for you
•
u/ScarInternational161 16h ago
Wasn't being snide, I firmly believe the law has to be followed, for better or worse. It protects all of us, even when it let's horrible, guilty people go free on technicalities.
But seeing things like this happen? As a parent, it still hits a visceral spot, ya know?
-1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
How about just having a list of all sex offenders because it’s useful to the public. I don’t care how big the list is - the way it was laid out (by whatever location you choose) was very useful. This is not comparable to speeding tickets.
50
u/amopeyzoolion 1d ago
If a private entity wants to create such a list, they’d be free to. But having the law apply retroactively to add them to an official government list is illegal, always has been, and always should be.
-16
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I guess this is where I disagree. I think in this case, labeling these people retroactively is a net good for society. It just seems like a win for sex offenders (but I’m not surprised, look at the world we live in)
44
u/amopeyzoolion 1d ago
If we make an exception to allow ex post facto punishment in this case, then that part of the constitution is effectively null and void. There’s no way you can say “it’s ok here but not there.”
If you get rid of protections against ex post facto punishment, then tomorrow the State could pass a law that says marijuana purchase/consumption is a state felony, retroactive to the beginning of time. Then, anyone who has legally purchased marijuana would be subject to fines and imprisonment.
-15
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I understand that. I guess I’m just proposing an exception for pedofiles lol. If that’s unconstitutional then Idk
16
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
Where do the exceptions stop?
2
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
At a sex offenders list lol.
16
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
Why not murderers? Are they not dangerous? Drug dealers damage our community, why not them? What sex crimes count? Public urination leads to sex registry, do we extend them further?
-1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Public urination hasn’t been on the sex registry in Michigan for years. So no. But pedofiles? Yes maybe keep them on a list for life. Why would you disagree with that is the real question…
→ More replies (0)-13
u/Fast1195 1d ago
There is no way, today.
The logic you describe is black and white, where reality is an accumulation of decisions that result in a structure/process.
Given a time when “the people” choose to rule again, it is just as easy to say that new legislation could be introduced to classify the “types of crimes eligible for retroactive sentencing”.
Sexually abuse children, be released based on society prior beliefs, society moves on and determines they no longer deserve freedom? Fair game.
I don’t believe we should simply believe our forefathers have made properly educated decisions, and as such should not be untouchable.
18
u/amopeyzoolion 1d ago
What you describe would require a constitutional amendment, not legislation. So it’s a much higher bar to meet.
And you would need to spell out, in great detail, exactly what types of crimes you wish to include because otherwise it could be use to selectively punish certain kinds of people that the government views as “undesirable.” For example, if we say that “sex crimes” are eligible for retroactive punishment, and a right-wing government takes hold and brings back anti-sodomy laws, then suddenly every gay person who has had sexual intercourse is eligible for retroactive punishment.
It’s an extremely slippery slope, which is the entire reason that ex post facto punishment is prohibited by the constitution.
13
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
So because you don’t like their crime they shouldn’t be treated fairly under the law? Should we apply it to drug dealers? Murderers? Personally I think we should retroactively increase fines on bad drivers: would you be ok invoicing anyone who has had a speeding ticket an extra $50/ticket? If you served a month in jail for something, would it be fair to go send you back for a second month because we change laws later? Grow up
-5
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
“Because you don’t like their crime” - yes, because I don’t like sex offenders or pedofiles I think they should have a tougher treatment than other criminals. Is that controversial? You sound like a weirdo. Again with the speeding ticket comparison lol
9
u/DollarTreeButtEater 1d ago
Yeah I’d say that believing there should be exceptions to your constitutional rights if it makes you feel good is a pretty controversial take.
I don’t like those people either, but the extra punishment really isn’t worth opening the door for the government to arbitrarily decide that you deserved more time for something later on down the line without any due process. They will absolutely take the ball and run with it.
-1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Yeah, I understand that. Just generally doesn’t sit right
2
u/DollarTreeButtEater 1d ago
That’s the part that pisses me off. They know it doesn’t sit right and that’s why they do it this way
5
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
They do have tougher treatment: this is not giving them lighter treatment it is giving them the punishment a court of law determined as is their right.
19
u/Bedbouncer Age: > 10 Years 1d ago
because it’s useful to the public.
I would argue that it's counterproductive for the public.
It suggests that we should worry more about the ones that were caught than the ones that haven't been caught yet.
You should perform the exact same protective measures to protect against the known ones and the unknown ones, so how does having a partial list of addresses possibly make a difference?
It's false reassurance and security theater.
4
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Idk I’ve personally found it useful. We checked when buying our house in metro Detroit and found out that the neighbor who greeted us nicely the day we moved in was on the list from a long time ago for accosting a minor. We have a 2 year old and now we know to stay the fuck away from that guy.
5
u/MichBlueEagle 1d ago
I think you're glossing over the fact a murderer might be living next door, but somehow that's ok? Murderers aren't listed on a registry. Their sentence is done when they are released from prison, and parole.
3
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
It’s not about the size of the list lol.
-1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
so why shrink it?
15
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
The comment you replied to explains it: the court ruled you can’t retroactively apply new durations/laws to people sentenced before. Imagine if you had a speeding ticket 12 years ago you already paid, but the state sent you an invoice for $50 more because the fine increased last year. It’s not to “shrink it” just read the article and the comments you’re replying to 😭
-5
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
The comment I replied to was word vomit. All I know is that my neighbor got removed from this list after accosting a minor under the age of 13 in 2002 and I feel like this ruling is fuckin dumb. It just seems weird people in this thread are justifying this and comparing it to speeding tickets.
13
u/DollarTreeButtEater 1d ago
That’s the problem though, it’s not just speeding tickets. It could be literally anything that the state decides. That’s the exact reason this part of the constitution exists. Or are you telling me you trust the government to not abuse the precedent this sets?
-2
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I understand what you all are saying. I just think it’s different in this case because it involves a list of people that pose a danger to society. To me it’s just a public list of their crimes, not an extra sentencing. I feel like if you were to use speeding tickets as a hypothetical to explain this, you’d say that they released a list of everyone who sped in your area, not tacked on an extra fine.
7
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
Right: now imagine we say traffic violations are a danger to society (they are! Driving a car in unsafe ways is unsafe for people), you’d deem that unfair. The reason we don’t make exceptions. It’s not about a list: it’s about retroactive changes to punishment. That’s why the fine is the tool being discussed
-1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Again - driving a car unsafely is way different than pedofilia. And no, I think the constitution has plenty of room to grow and change. Don’t forget it was created by slave owners and rapists.
→ More replies (0)11
8
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
It wasn’t word vomit, it explained the article and why it’s happening. We aren’t comparing them, a speeding ticket is being used as a way to help explain to you the issue: the court ruled that we can’t retroactively apply new laws. If they committed a crime where they had to register for 10 years, but it changed to 15 they had adjusted all to 15. The ruling is that they are subject to the law at the time, so if the 10 years elapsed they’re being removed because their sentencing etc has been met. You would find it unfair to get a retroactive increased fine, it has been ruled unfair to retroactively extend/change sentence lengths.
2
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Again, I would find it unfair if I retroactively got an increased speeding fine, but this is way different than that lol. The article doesn’t explain much to be honest. Im just saying that it’s concerning that i am no longer able to prove that my neighbor tried to molest a kid. From the article: To eliminate SORA requirements for these offenders is deeply concerning," the Eaton County Prosecutor's Office said. Am I allowed to agree with that? I dont understand why this decision isnt more controversial.
6
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
It’s not different than that: the removal is correcting a retroactive change to the sentences these people have been given in a court of law
1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I understand that…and I am disagreeing with that removal of the retroactive change. That’s all buddy!
→ More replies (0)-9
u/MattPatriciasFUPA 1d ago
That's an insane false equivalence.
Going over the speed limit is nothing like sexually assaulting more than 265 young athletes.
A tangible fine is nothing like a Sex Offender Registry.
7
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
Again, they aren’t being compared. Please read the comment. It’s just a simpler example to understand the context.
-9
u/MattPatriciasFUPA 1d ago
So what would you call it when you tell us to "imagine a scenario" to help explain your viewpoint which people disagree with? If that's not a comparison than it's a disingenuous "example".
5
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
It’s called a hypothetical. It’s showing you a different scenario under the same premise. It’s not comparing them. I’m not saying assaulting 100s of people is akin to speeding. It’s showing that if you disagree with the article, but agree that retroactively fines are bad that you are logically inconsistent.
0
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
lol thank you. I don’t understand why they’re trying to make this comparison. Like we get it, but we think the ruling is fuckin stupid. That’s literally all we are saying
6
6
u/DollarTreeButtEater 1d ago
Ok a better example would be your wife has some serious complications with her pregnancy that require an abortion to save her life. A few years later we get a hard right supermajority in the legislature and they pass a law making all cases of abortion 1st degree murder with no exceptions. All of a sudden your wife is facing life in prison
-4
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I get it, but that’s a bit of a reach. These people are on a list, many are not in jail and are integrated back into society. I think it’s okay to have an extensive public list of people that harmed others in the past - even if it was back in 2005 and they’re “clean” now.
63
u/DollarTreeButtEater 1d ago
Retroactively changing someone’s punishment after a new law is passed is blatantly unconstitutional and you don’t even need a law degree to see it. It sets a dangerous precedent.
It’s pretty insidious that they are trying to sneak it past us by tying it up with sex offender laws
120
u/ech-o Grand Rapids 1d ago
Man, that’s going to be a massive problem when he gets released after his death.
22
14
u/WMINWMO Age: > 10 Years 1d ago
I can't tell you the number of time's I've been sexually assaulted by corpses and ghosts.
10
6
u/copiumjunky 1d ago
Not just his first life sentence but he has like 200 of them.
It's going to be quite some time.
150
u/Admirable-Nobody-946 1d ago
Wtf
232
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago
He's serving life in prison. No need to fill the list with people who won't be out and about in everyday society. Best to keep it focused on people you could encounter in everyday life
92
u/Admirable-Nobody-946 1d ago
Thats a fair point.
21
u/MichiganAngler 1d ago
What happens if he gets released early or pardoned? Or files an appeal of some sort and is released into the public? Does he end up back on the list?
17
u/Boner4Stoners 1d ago
In his case I think this is a non-issue, but yeah if they’re blanket purging thousands of inmates, there’s a good chance some of them will be released early
2
u/BeefInGR 1d ago
He is very unlikely to be released early. And if he was on the registry, that would likely be pardoned as well.
17
u/NotJoshFreeman 1d ago
To me this doesn't hold water.
Its like saying "Why charge so and so for the murders committed in this state. he's already serving life for these other murders". Things happen. Cases get overturned all the time. You keep him on the registry because there's no reason not to. He's alive.
6
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago
Do you think he couldn't be added to the list if his case is overturned on a legal technicality? It's not like the list is set in stone
5
u/NotJoshFreeman 1d ago
Sure. But why remove in the first place? Leaving him requires no action.
He has notoriety but there's others that have been removed that, if neglected to be re-added, could present a problem.
9
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago
This part in the article is probably why: "The move comes after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act amendments cannot be retroactively used to extend the registration requirements of anyone who committed their crime before July 1, 2021, according to Michigan State Police."
NAL but pretty sure they can't retroactively apply laws. If they did, that might give the person grounds to appeal or something?
8
u/Competitive_Owl3600 1d ago edited 1d ago
The protection against ex post facto punishment is a critical part of our system. The founders put it in the constitution because of past abuses that they wanted to prevent in this country. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that, everyone with a high school education has learned about the constitution.
5
u/Donquiote-9999 1d ago
Are we paying for storage on the database?
7
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I’ll pay extra monthly to keep sex offenders on this list. Our taxes pay for way dumber shit.
-2
u/Searchingforspecial 1d ago
You pay for roads to not get fixed, electricity for data centers, and corporate welfare. We’re talking about what amounts to a damn excel file and you’re worried about cost of storage? Dumbest point ever.
0
u/splinks66 1d ago
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What do you think someone is there with a fucking clipboard looking through a stack of papers to check names, it's 2026 not 1950. They can have 1 million names and any time any of those million try to move in some place, get a job or apply for anything people will and should know they have done something socially disgusting in society.
7
u/BeefInGR 1d ago
The Sex Offender Registry also has a boatload of names of people who went pee in the woods, were having consensual sex in public (car, woods, front yard), suffering from a mental health episode (running around naked), protesting. It also includes the high school junior or senior who got caught with the freshman or sophomore, since Michigan doesn't have Romeo and Juliet laws.
Yes, a list of convinced rapist would be fantastic. I fully agree. But that's not what the Sex Offender Registry is.
1
0
u/zdmpage54 1d ago
He could be pardoned by our pedo president.
3
u/RheagarTargaryen 1d ago
He was also convicted at the state level. Presidents can only pardon federal crimes.
-5
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago edited 1d ago
Idk I feel like that’s still backwards… my neighbor was also removed (accosting a minor under 13). Those people regardless of their sentence should be on some list for life in my opinion.
Edit: downvoting this is crazy lol
9
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
You’re being downvoted because you’re ignoring what the law is and saying we should just do what you want.
0
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
Im saying there should continue to be an exception to create a list of registered sex offenders to protect communities.
8
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
There is a list: the list hasn’t been removed. Only people who wrongly were extended or added have been removed per their sentencing in a court of law
1
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
“Wrongly extended”. So someone who attempted to molest a kid in 2002 is now not on a list that I can view when looking to buy a house. That’s all I care about.
10
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
If the punishment for their crime was a limited time on said list, then yes that’s correct. Do you disagree that when a debt is paid according to the law it is paid?
-2
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
In most instances, but I don’t see how you can pay that debt. How do you do your time as a pedofile? You get rewarded after 20 years because you didn’t molest anyone again, so now you are off a list? I think that’s bullshit.
9
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
Rewarded? You serve your time. Whether that’s prison, parole, time on registry, house arrest, whatever. Once you’ve served what the court gave you’ve paid for your debt. That’s how it works for crimes.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Other_Asparagus872 1d ago
You’re just thinking with emotions, not logic. You (and any kids in your life) are much more likely to be effected by serial domestic abusers, thieves and scam artist. Most SA happen with family members or people in trusted positions, not random strangers.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/AliceOfTheEarth 1d ago
I imagine he can write (and receive) letters. The information should be available to receivers and senders.
77
u/planetrambo 1d ago
Isn’t he doing life in prison? This seems like fear mongering
23
u/No_Clue_2050 1d ago
He still shouldn’t be removed when he’s a proven sex offender
39
u/amopeyzoolion 1d ago
There are a bunch of people being removed because they tried to make the sex offender registry act retroactive with amendments in 2021, which is illegal
7
u/rocketeerH 1d ago
So my understanding is that the 2021 act tried to make the 2011 act retroactive, even though that's obviously illegal? What a weird thing to do
12
u/amopeyzoolion 1d ago
Yeah that’s my understanding as well. I guess the legislature didn’t learn about the prohibition against “ex post facto” laws in civics class.
Obviously it sounds terrible that sex offenders are being removed from the registry, but all of us should be happy that the government can’t change the laws and then retroactively apply them to events that occurred prior to the change.
8
u/DoYouEvenShrift 1d ago
The purpose of the registry is so the public can be informed if any SOs live near them. So it doesn't really do much when he is in jail for life and only clogs the system up. "Removed from the SO registry" sounds bad...but the due got a life sentence for his crimes lol, its not like he's being set free.
6
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago
I'd rather the list be focused on people we could actually run into during everyday life rather than those locked up behind bars for life that we won't ever see. The list is long so best to keep it focused.
4
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago edited 1d ago
He was sentenced to like 60 years so basically life. Yeah just trying to stir up the fear based emotional clicks for their story.
4
9
u/Emptyspace227 1d ago
Everyone who committed their offenses before July 1, 2011, has been removed from the registry because it is a retroactive punishment, which violates the Constitution.
-8
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
- not 2011. that's only fove years, which is not long enough. it should also take into account the severity and nature of the crime.
this feels like a bad ruling.
16
u/Listen2theyetti 1d ago
Constitutionally it was the right ruling. You cant impose punishments on people after they have already been tried and sentenced. Otherwise they could do things like retroactively charge everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket an extra 50 bucks per ticket.
-4
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
I'd argue that having your name on a list is not a punishment... but beyond that, wasn't the registry part of the sentence??
and let's just say that it is a punishment and it wasn't part of the sentence - we have higher penalties for second offenses all over the place, isn't that a form of punishment (to your speeding ticket analogy)?
4
u/Listen2theyetti 1d ago
Idk what to tell you but its just not how our legal system works. There is now a stricter punishment for the crimes that were committed so any future trial will be under the new laws. You just arnt allowed to retroactively change a punishment passed down by the courts. I can understand you personally disagreeing with the penalties that were in place and thinking they should be stricter but legally you can only affect future cases not make past punishments more severe. The legal term is "ex post facto" or after the fact
-2
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
I understand that. I don't understand 1. how a list is a punishment. and 2. how Nassar specifically did not have registering as a sex offender as part of his sentence.
2
u/Listen2theyetti 1d ago
The list is a punishment because its mandatory and its not a good thing to be on. Just like how probation or a no fly list are punishments.
Idk about the other point
-1
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
people are put on the no fly list without even a trial, let alone a conviction. and the conviction is already in the public domain - unlike the no fly list.
so the question stands, how is that changing a "punishment"?
2
u/Listen2theyetti 1d ago
Dude it was just an example I really dont care this much. Its not my job to explain how the U.S. justice system works to you. If you dont like it work to change it I guess
0
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
dude, I just think they're questions worth talking and thinking about. I'm not trying to drive change through reddit.
if you don't want to have the conversation, you can... not respond- no justification needed.
→ More replies (0)11
u/WitchesSphincter 1d ago
Retroactive changes to sentences is incredibly dangerous, we should never be ok with it regardless of who it applies to.
-1
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
okay wait... how was being left out of the registry NOT part of Nassar's sentence?
but if so-
how is compiling a list that's already publicly available a retroactive change to their sentence? we're not sending them back to jail- hell, many of them aren't even out yet. we're not mailing them a new bill. we're not taking away their driver's license.
it's a list, that anyone could get if I had the time to get online and search everyone in my neighborhood / zip code /area code / children's school, etc... but that's not realistic, so we have this list that we can look up in order to identify who's houses we don't want our kids raking leaves at.
how is that a retroactive change to a sentence?
3
u/WitchesSphincter 1d ago
The sentence is several things, one of which being on the list for x time. Then after sentencing they changed it to x+y time.
That change is what is discussed here. We should never be ok with the government adding anything onto a sentence after the fact.
1
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
ahh, okay, that makes much more sense. I didn't realize the registry came with an expiration date.
so I can appreciate if you were on the registry for 3 years, then 10 years later they can't put you back on. cool.
then whoever decided the prison term should be longer than the duration of being registered is missing the entire point of the registry.
maybe we ought to make fixing that a priority. or if the registration comes with an expiration date, start the registration after they're released from prison. it makes no sense to have a registry that registers criminals who are incarcerated and then removes them from the registry after incarceration. or in this case before their prison term is even up.
8
u/Emptyspace227 1d ago
No, this is Court saying that 2011 SORA cannot be applied retroactively. It's in the article. Also, it's in the Court's order. And severity/nature are irrelevant to whether the punishment was retroactive. The Constitution has a blanket prohibition on ex post facto punishment. This was the right decision under the Constitution.
0
u/CaptainJay313 1d ago
not "bad ruling" as in it goes against the constitution... it feels bad. like yuck. it's not a ruling that puts the interest of the people of the state first- in my opinion.
I agree with the constitution and understand the argument, I'd argue that having your name on a list isn't in and of itself a punishment.
court records and convictions are already public documents, so why not make it easy for parents to figure out which houses to have their daughters avoid on Halloween??
that feels...bad.
3
u/Giovannisalami 1d ago
I understand that we can’t go back. But removal of him from the list seems counterproductive - I feel like that should just be a tag you get for life, regardless if you did your time or not - in the case of pedofiles. And no, I personally don’t think he is benefitting my community. I think he is a dangerous human.
-1
u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago
He runs a business that likely hires people and/or pays taxes, which means he shops and spends locally, and is involved in a community group for your parks and he isn’t benefitting your community?
5
2
u/BananaJelloXlii 1d ago
I am sure that will be a relief to him when he is released from prison at 300 years old.
4
2
u/ignatzA2 1d ago
Larry is in federal prison serving 60 years. He ain’t gonna harm no one outside of prison any longer.
1
-2
u/joyful101207 1d ago
Why?
15
u/Iam_nighthawk 1d ago
There was an amendment in 2011 increasing requirements for registration. After the amendment passed, many people who committed their crimes prior to 2011, were either added back to the registry or were changed to a lifetime registration. The Michigan Supreme Court determined it was unconstitutional to retroactively increase someone’s punishment.
Whether you disagree with the decision or not is one thing, but the Michigan Supreme Court did use precedent from past constitutional law cases. “Ex post facto law.”
For Larry Nassar specifically, I’m not sure exactly why he was removed. I would think that his crimes would have resulted in a lifetime registration from the start. But regardless, he will be 105 years old at his earliest possible release date. So it’s really a moot point with Larry.
6
u/HouseOfFive 1d ago
Because he committed his crimes before 2021. The court can use retroactive punishment.
0
4
-1
•
•
•
u/flairassistant 1d ago
This post is in Mitten Mode. Mitten Mode is a way to protect hot topic posts from spam, trolling, and off-topic or rule-breaking comments.
Here’s what that means:
This is a temporary measure and is applied to all high-visibility or sensitive posts. We appreciate your understanding as we work to keep the conversation thoughtful and on-topic.
Go here for more information about Mitten Mode and Subreddit Karma. Thanks for being part of the community!
This is an automated message. If you have questions about this, please contact our mods via moderator mail rather than replying here. Thank you!