what does this mean?

[iloveray]

SECTION 30.

(a) This Act shall become effective July 1, 2006.
(b) Any person required to register pursuant to the provisions of Code Section 42-1-12, relating to the state sexual offender registry, and any person required not to reside within areas where minors congregate, as prohibited by Code Section 42-1-13, shall not be relieved of the obligation to comply with the provisions of said Code sections by the repeal and reenactment of said Code sections.
(c) The provisions of this Act shall not affect or abate the status as a crime of any such act or omission which occurred prior to the effective date of the Act repealing, repealing and reenacting, or amending such law, nor shall the prosecution of such crime be abated as a result of such repeal, repeal and reenactment, or amendment.

SECTION 31.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

Doesn't (c) of this section mean that someone shouldn't be able to be added to the registry if their conviction occured prior to the 7/1/06 effective date and they were not required to register at that time?

[YourFriendlyDA]

No, that provision is just the legislature's way of saying that all prosecutions for actions committed before that date should still proceed. Any action that was illegal prior to the enactment is still illegal now.

When they change a statute there are always arguments that the prior action is now legal because the language is different. They are just trying to clarify. This would most likely impact prosecutions for failure to register. They are not addressing the crimes that would require registration, just the status of an action as a crime.

This was a specific attack on the statutory rape amendment that changed stat rape to a misd in certain circumstances (also in 2006). They were trying to make it explicit in this language that they were not changing the status of anyone that had been convicted under this statute and was required to register and didnt.

[iloveray]

So-they think they can raise a punishment for a prior conviction but not lessen it?

[YourFriendlyDA]

The courts have deemed that the requirement to register is not "punishment". They see it as an administrative policy.

[iloveray]

Well-that is ridiculous and they know it. They should put whoever made that decision on the registry and see if that changes their opinion-anything that restricts being able to do something you want to do is punishment--especially if it inhibits where you can work, live, and hang out.