enforcement. As of February 1998, there were nearly 240,000 offendersregistered in the United States(Oakes 99). Even still, not all registry information is disseminated to the public. Some statesnumerically rank offenders using tier levels according to factors used to determine the offender’srisk of re-offense. The higher the tier classification, the more information about the offender isreleased to the public. Classification is done by either prosecutors, boards, or clinics. Everyoffender is at least assigned to the low risk Tier 1, where only the law enforcement agency isnotified. A Tier 2 ranking, considered moderate risk, requires that notification be made toagencies, schools, and community organizations. A Tier 3 ranking is considered high risk andcommunity notification is required. In addition, some states require that the sex offender be givennotice to the classification. This allows for a review process if the offender wants to challenge theclassification(Oakes 99). Such a system is likely an effort to head off constitutional challenges, ofwhich there have been many.Sex offenders have raised challenges to notification laws based on the Bill of Attainder,Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Ex PostFacto Clauses in the United States Constitution. In the Michigan case, Doe v. Kelley ‘97, thecourt held that because notification does not constitute a punitive purpose, the Bill of AttainderClause was not violated. A New Jersey court, in Paul v. Verniero ‘97, held that notification doesnot constitute punishment and does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. In1997, the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clause arguments were defeated in Kansas v.Hendricks when the court held that notification did not amount to a second trial. In Femedeer v.Haun ‘99, the Utah court set up a two step analysis that an offender must meet beforedemonstrating a ...
