Courts of other jurisdictions have similarly held that requirements of Megan’s Laws of other states did not amount to punishment and could be legitimately considered remedial. A statute that can fairly be characterized as remedial, both in its purpose and implementing provisions, does not constitute punishment even though its remedial provisions have some inevitable deterrent impact, and even though it may indirectly and adversely affect, potentially severely, some of those subject to its provisions. Such a law does not become punitive simply because its impact, in part, may be punitive unless the only explanation for that impact is a punitive purpose. The court agreed with the Legislature that sex offenders’ past behavior is a strong predictor of future conduct. Drug possession was not involved.
Remedial statutes are those which are made to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law, or which supply a remedy where none previously existed. Remedial statutes are also referred to as statutes designed to correct imperfections in prior law by generally giving relief to the aggrieved party.
The court has reviewed documents from the man’s case from the District Court including copies of the indictment and authenticated copies of the presentence investigation report. The latter was prepared by a United States Probation Officer, United States District Judge, after the defendant’s plea and before imposition of sentence. The report contains several types of documents, including an analysis of the crime committed by the defendant and the sentencing options and recommendations of the Government, as well as copies of the e-mail communications between the defendant and the undercover postal agent who posed as a seller of pornographic videotapes and communicated with the defendant regarding the defendant’s purchase of these videotapes. The e-mails between the defendant and the agent contain information regarding the age of the minors in tapes the defendant attempted to purchase. Specifically, the tapes ordered by defendant were to contain child pornography depictions of 5 or 6 year olds, 11 year olds, or 14 year olds.
The document is accepted by this court under the common-law hearsay exception for public records. The court may receive an authenticated document and take judicial notice of the authenticity of the document with a proper official seal or signature affixed by an officer of the Federal Government. The man offered no evidence to the contrary or otherwise challenged the presentence investigation report.
Therefore, based upon the available, reliable and admissible facts of the defendant’s federal conviction, the court finds that the defendant was convicted of a felony which contains the essential elements of a New York felony, and he must register as a sex offender under SORA.