Banishing Acts: How Far May States Go to Keep Convicted Sex Offenders Away from Children?

Authors

Bret R. Hobson, University of Georgia School of Law

Publication Date

2006

Abstract

Few legislative goals are more commendable than states' attempts to prevent child sexual abuse. Given the difficult nature of this problem, some judicial deference to legislative efforts is appropriate. Politicians, however, should not receive carte blanche to enact reactionary, overinclusive statutes of questionable efficacy. When laws such as residency restrictions target all convicted sex offenders who have already paid their debt to society, courts should closely examine whether such laws violate substantive due process and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Despite the difficulty in articulating a discrete fundamental right that is infringed by residency restrictions,these laws restrain the liberty of a politically powerless, socially reviled group and thus deserve some form of heightened scrutiny under substantive due process. Furthermore,although residency restrictions share some features with registration-notification provisions, which the Supreme Court has deemed non punitive, residency restrictions impose a much more affirmative restraint and are therefore punitive in effect. As such, retroactive applications of residency restrictions violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Recommended Citation

Hobson, Bret R. (2006) "Banishing Acts: How Far May States Go to Keep Convicted Sex Offenders Away from Children?," Georgia Law Review: Vol. 40: No. 3, Article 11.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol40/iss3/11