But never say never.

In People v DiPiazza, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a detailed opinion finding that Michigan's requirement that certain juvenile sex offenders register under Michigan sex registry is cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, the court was threading a needle in this case: it didn't strike down the entire statute, it only ruled on its application in DiPiazza's case. But other defendants similarly situated are now able to swoop into court on DiPiazza's coattails. DiaPiazza was 18 when he had a consensual (factually, because legally she could not consent) relationship with his "almost" 15 year old girlfriend. (They married a few years later and had a child.) He was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, but under Michigan's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which does not result in a formal conviction if the defendant successfully completes probation. Unfortunately, even after completing probation and having the conviction off his record, he still had to register as a sex offender. Michigan had even amended its SORA provisions to take account of HYTA offenders, exempting them from registration, but included, strangely, a cut-off date — meaning that because DiPiazza was convicted before the effective date of the amendment, he didn't get the benefit of the amendment. Basically, Michigan tried to give juvenile offenders like DiPiazza a break, but wrote the statute very poorly so that defendants like DiPiazza, who was convicted six weeks before the amendment went into effect, still had to register.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that this public registration in the face of a juvenile conviction that is not even a conviction under the law constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The opinion is interesting, if for no other reason than cruel and unusual punishment arguments are rare, especially successful ones.