Did you read the HTML link? Registering as a Sex Offender in and of itself is not a punishment. But, when you consider that removal from the registry can be had in 10 years for those who are classified as Non-Violent and those that are Violent can NEVER be removed then you can see how the ex post facto clause is violated as it adds punishment to the crime (18.2-374) I know it's a little hard for everyone else to understand. But, going from registering and being a productive citizen and being able to petition the courts for removal to never being able to be removed IS A PUNISHMENT. Plain and simple, otherwise what would the point be in having 2 different set of rules?
The fact is, the law did not deem my crime as a violent sex offense when it was committed. For them to do so now and increase the penalty is punitive. There are really no 2 ways about it.
Ok, so I am arguing with an Attorney who is obviously much more qualified than myself. I am not aiming to disprove your opinion. While I think the case you cited does relate to the subject I am addressing, it is too general. I am speaking more specifically about a re-classification which includes a stricter registration requirement. How this can not be punitive is beyond me. Just because the registry by itself is not punitive, the act of re-classifying while not by itself is punitive. But, since it includes a longer registration term IS punitive.
I wonder why it is not more clear why this is a violation of the ex post facto clause. The reason why legislature is being passed retroactively as it stands is because typically it does not stiffen the penalty. A prime example is one of the more recent proximity laws imposed by Virginia. Where, as long as you currently resided within 1000 feet of a school you were not required to move. So, similarly this seems to be along the same lines. But this law WAS passed retroactively. Who is the one defining exactly what punishment is? The legal definition seems to say the same thing that I have ascertained.
