This will never pass constitutional muster, no sweat.
I'm all for protecting children from pedophiles, but I prefer to execute them instead. Then you don't have to worry about registering the scum at all...
But they have to be convicted first, this is America not Cuba.
"...but I prefer to execute them instead."
The pedophiles, not the children...:>D
Those that said this will never pass the Constitutional test are correct.
I also agree w/ execution of real child pervs. I used the word real b/c like the scenario of an 18 yr old & 16 yr old VOLUNTARY sexual relationship I do NOT find to be in a perv category & I don't think should even be prosecuted let alone have the 18 on some registry list. Don't forget that would be the same as a Sophomore & a Junior in HS having sex which is not considered a perv activity. And usually, when it is an 18 & 16 it IS b/c they started dating in HS.
I would like the execution sentence of rapists in @ LEAST the cases where there is DNA evidence of rape of children OR of adults. Not that I think you have to have DNA to convict but @ least that version of a proposed law has a better chance of passage & meeting Constitutional muster.
Unfortunately, this proposed thing in OH may sound good but it will W/O a doubt be mis-used by folks wanting to ruin some innocent person for reasons other than protecting children.
----
On the "stupid to put on the list" scenario. I remember reading somewhere that a mother got convicted b/c she didn't PREVENT her daughter from getting pregnant. Now mind you, this was not a case of a mom LETTING her daughter get raped by say the mom's boyfriend or anything like that - it's just that her daughter voluntarily had sex, got pregnant & later MARRIED THE FATHER. 1st off I think it's ridiculous that she was even tried & convicted but even WORSE she is on the state's sex offender registry list for Pete's sake.
----
I have no problem w/ children testifying via closed-circuit video as long as the lawyer for the defendant is in the same rm as the child when asking questions & hence the lawyer for the accused will be face-to-face & the accused will see the child. The "right to face one's accuser" was/is meant to prevent "anonymous" accusers/court witnesses & if the accused, their lawyer(s) & court officials know the name of the child & it is in the record then IMHO Constitutional muster has been passed.
----
BTW folks, don't forget that the "innocent until proven guilty" isn't really for prosecutors - just the judges & juries. B/C IMHO, if a prosecutor DOESN'T believe the defendant is guilty then they have NO BUSINESS prosecuting them @ all. Also, the general public does NOT have to give the benefit of the doubt to defendants/accused UNLESS they are on the jury - it's called the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech - @ least as long as the person says something like "IMHO", "AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED", "I BELIEVE" or some such it is perfectly OK for folks to say that they "think" someone is guilty regardless of the results of a trial (possible examps OJ/Yates) or EVEN IF a trial even happens @ ALL (possible examp Ramsey's).
----
This also reminds me that if a convicted child perv (or any convicted criminal) dies before all appeals are exhausted their conviction can be erased if requested by lawyers/family. Examp, remember that priest convicted of child molestation that got killed (note I didn't say murdered) in prison, well, technically his "record" DID have his conviction erased b/c he died. The same thing has been requested in re Ken Lay but I haven't heard if that has been granted yet . I believe this is the case regardless of if an appeal is even ACTUALLY in the works/on-going process/been granted but not finished. I don't believe in this. The closest I come to possibly saying "ok" is ONLY IF an appeal has been granted by a court but after the granting of permission to appeal the appeal is left unfinished b/c of the death. But @ the very least, if the latest appeal request has been denied or not even submitted in court yet, IMHO, the conviction should stand.