Quote:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a Shawano County transgender woman who has been prohibited from changing her name due to her listing on the state sex offender registry.

The plaintiff, identified only as Ella, was placed on the sex offender registry for a sexual assault she committed as a teenager.

She argues requiring her to register as a sex offender violates her First Amendment rights because the statute’s prohibition against legally changing her name restricts her right to self-expression as being a female, WLUK-TV reported.

She argues the law forces her to identify herself as a male anytime she is required to present her legal name.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...-registry-case


thoughts? the system should and I assume will be fixed but regarding this case

She shouldn’t have sexually assaulted someone. Not being able to change name is one of the repercussions of the crime she committed, now gotta live with all the consequences.

Maybe with some caveats. Presumably the issue is that it would make it easier for an offender to hide from people that they're on the register. If that's an administrative problem that could be solved by amending various documents and informing victims or others related to the case then I could see it being workable.

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy here but it's worth remembering that a person's mental well-being is a big factor in recidivism.

The other thing is that I'm inferring from the article that she was a juvenile at the time of the offence. It's hard to have a strong position without knowing the details but that might sway me a bit.

The very specific details may matter but in general it's like justifying racism against someone because they have committed a crime. That's an awful idea.

I don't know, there are sex offenders and then there are SEX OFFENDERS.

The lists are good for predators but probably cruel and unusual for the garden variety pervs.
I have mixed feelings even though it feels good to say screw em all.

I'm not totally trusting of our justice system. So I think each case should be heard on how much of a danger the person actually is, not just on a conviction.

It's more about the lists having to be able to cope with a name chamge.

The problem is if that the purpose of the register is for people to be readily identifiable to their past then that might be diametrically opposed to the needs of a trans person. And generally I'd say there's an obvious choice in the other direction, but when it comes to sex offenders I have a lot more hesitance.

I do think there's an underlying issue here as to whether these registers are fit for purpose (and there's a big variation on what being on a register involves depending on where you are in the world). You can make a good case for the public having a genuine interest here but equally if the goal is lowering rates of re-offending then often these things can get in the way of that.

Not at all. Criminals lose all sorts of rights such as voting, owning guns, etc. Some of them even lose their freedom.

Sure but some things are (or arguably should be) protected against discrimination.

That's why in general it's much the same as justifying racism against criminals.

She's being "discriminated against" cuz she's a nonce, not cuz she's trans.

The 'reason' for the discrimination is irrelevent

The reason is criminal behavior. We do and should discriminate against that.

I need more details especially as to why the database or tracking system could not be changed to reflect the new name?

I am inclined to support her and would vote to allow this change.

Plus I think it is more congruent. If she is truly a sex offender who is a recidivist threat then having her with a male name could actually disguise her in public.

Change the name, update the register, and notify anyone who needs to be notified.

I am not down with denying her the ability to identify as she wants regardless of past crimes when it seems a system upgrade is the easy answer.

So, the argument is, the government should be forced to accept and explicitly endorse whatever a person believes about themselves? Or, it's discrimination? An ID card isn't a form of expression. I would assume the ID card would have to be accurate, if it says whatever we want it to say, what's the point?

No it's actually very relevant, as she's a crim. And crims lose certain rights/freedoms/good times non crims enjoy and take for granted. Losing certain rights- such as freedom if convicted and sentenced, or not being allowed to vote or own a firearm if paroled for example- is the price you pay for being a crim.

That said I'd be interested in knowing the nature of the actual offence. If it was something like running around naked while drunk in public or something stupid, then I might have a different position. Unless she's a creepy Criminal Minds/Mindhunter style sex offender, and in that case try as I might I just can''t muster up any sympathy for her here.

I don't see why they can't just put her new name on the nonce list anyway problem solved.

Actually CV it is even better than problem solved.

Arguably she could hide in plain sight easier by being a transfemale while her birth cis male name is the one on the dangerous offender list.

People not paying too much attention might not make the connection the gender has changed and this is the same person.

Better to allow the transition and update the listing.

It's irrelevant because this is a right that isn't taken away because somone is a 'crim'.

I'm uninterested in the specifics because there's a far more importnat general point. But I very much agree that being a 'crim' in the usa is so common and so often the result of coercion then we shoud be very wary about supporting the removal of any rights just because someone is a 'crim'. Especially an underage 'crim'.

Indeed. And if they can't then the system needs to be modified. This is not some impossible to resolve dilemma.

And I've already listed rights that get forfeited once one is convicted of crimes, so your insisting it's a right is neither here nor there.

I think you're putting your ideals before objectivity. Criminal cases should be decided on their severity, and it's why I'd be interested in knowing the specifics/severity of the sex offence she committed. We don't know if her conviction was the result of coercion and this is what I mean by ideals vs objectivity, cases should be viewed based on the facts.

I agree that it's not- or at the very least really shouldn't be- hard to resolve.

I'm, saying that it's a right that isn't (or shouldn't be) forfeited in the same way that the right not to be discriminated on the basis of race shouldn't be (YMMV). Hence from my position it follow's that the facts about being a 'crim' are irrelevant.

Sure cases should be decided on facts. This is a red herring here but in general I wouldn't rely on the usa legal system to deicde the usa legal system is a ceorcive monstrosity.

The point was about our general attitudes where imo shouldn't be to just say "there a 'crim' so **** 'em"

Indeed

I don't think your comparison to racial discrimination is apt considering the context. I further don't feel she's being discriminated against or profiled due to her being Trans. She's having a right or freedom denied due to her being a criminal sex offender. Whether it shouldn't be forfeited is a different discussion.As it stands certain rights & freedoms get denied if you're a criminal offender.

As for "there a 'crim' so **** 'em", for me it depends on the crim and nature of the offence. I don't view criminals in an egalitarian sense as I believe in rehabilitation for those who can prove it and recognise that many crimes can have mitigating circumstances and committed at times by some who are overall decent people who made bad or wrong decisions, which could be due to circumstance.

When it comes to violent,predatory or psychopathic criminals or predatory sex criminals, then I tend to have a "there a 'crim' so **** 'em" attitude tbh.

That's why again I'd like to know the specific offence as I believe what constitutes a legal sex offender needs to be overhauled and reformed in some cases, so the emphasis for me is predatory sex offenders. If she's the latter then I've no sympathy for her predicament.

We disagree.

I'm referring to the genral attitude which is why I dont want to delve into the specifics. I'm also very dubious about my (and everyone elses) ability to assess most cases from afar. It's not like the prosecution/police will tell us about the coercion and other tactics used to get a prosecution while the 'crim' is not a reliable source.

No. You say this as if what I've said is subjective and open to argument. It isn't on both counts. What I pointed out re forfeiting certain freedoms in the case of a criminal conviction is factually accurate.
Your disagreement with the way things currently stand, again is neither here nor there and irrelevant.



So again you put your ideology before objectively studying individual cases on their merits.
As Cuepee pointed out, this could possibly be used in an attempt to hide her sex offender status. That has real world implications which supersedes your ideology. So the specifics are actually relevant.

The cops and courts haven't assessed it from afar, they've viewed the case on its merits and the facts.

You haven't provided any evidence this chick was coerced and again are putting your ideology first, objective scrutiny second. Assessing something based on your ideology is flawed methodology.

Again, update the sex offender registry with her new name and identity with an updated photo. If she objects to this too, then I reckon we know what kind of sex offender she is.

No. Which rights should not to be forfeited is a matter of opinion and law.

Indeed principles first. Within that the courts decide based on individual cases. That's exactly how it works. The trouble with you approach is that ~all cases will not be studied 'objectively' by you me or anyone outside the court system and those involved.

Beyond that yes of course you are quite right. I think there are some right that shouldn't be forfeited whatever the details of the case. Dont you?

Sure but then we have to make the register fit for purpose.

Sure but they're part fo a coercive 'justice' system. Not taht that's relevant to the poitn about rights.

I'm not concidering the details of this case atall. It's pure vanity to think we are going to deal with a justice system by 'objectively' considerering ~0% of the cases. That is not a methodology. We have to have some principles and of course we do.

Indeed. make the system fit for purpose so that you and I dont decide about the system on the merits of ~0 individual cases about which we are not very well informed (at best)

This isn't discrimination. This is actually a transgender person looking for an exception to a law.

The law is indiscriminate, no sex offender can change their name.

Here is the relevant law:

Here is more details about this case:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20...der-offenders/

"She" raped an autistic child four/five years ago, with force.

If it's about whether it's discrimination or not then the severity of the crime is a different issue