Nothing ‘cruel’ about driver’s license law

Astate law requiring that aggravated sex offenders’ driver’s licenses include a “sex offender” notation may not necessarily prevent future assaults. But judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Oklahoma law isn’t “cruel and unusual,” so this is at least an instance where court rulings and common sense align.

The law passed in 2007. In 2010, Ray Neal Carney was convicted of sexually abusing a child. Upon his scheduled release in 2018, Carney will have to register as a sex offender and have the label included on his driver’s license.

In a lawsuit, Carney argued the label violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Carney’s brief declared he would experience “pain” as a result of “effectively being driven from his Oklahoma City community and being ostracized from many aspects of civil society.” He worried he would face “humiliation” whenever he was “cashing a check, picking up prescriptions, obtaining medical care, boarding a plane, renting a vehicle, and making most everyday purchases in many stores.”

We know what you’re thinking: Heaven forbid someone who sexually abused a child should feel subsequent “humiliation.”

Carney’s argument didn’t sway the justices, who noted the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a life sentence “for three theft-based felonies totaling a loss of about $230,” a 25-year sentence “for stealing golf clubs,” a life sentence “for possessing 672 grams of cocaine,” and a 40-year sentence “for possessing nine grams of marijuana.”

“The license requirement is certainly not more disproportionate than these examples,” the opinion stated. “Moreover, there are no risks of incarceration or threats of physical harm.”

Carney’s lawsuit said the driver’s license law violates his constitutionally guaranteed right to “equal protection of the laws” under the 14th Amendment because individuals convicted of aggravated sexual assault are treated differently than non-aggravated sex offenders.

In dismissing that argument, the judges dryly noted Carney “has not shown that he is being treated differently than other aggravated sex offenders.” They also noted the Legislature had a “rational basis” for imposing the license-label requirement that stressed public safety considerations.

Carney’s lawsuit argued the license requirement was enacted out of animus toward aggravated sex offenders. The justices disagreed, writing, “The license requirement is not ‘wide-ranging’ or novel and does not serve ‘just to eliminate a privilege a group would otherwise receive.’ … More specifically, this law limits only a very narrow right: the right to a state identification that does not indicate a person is a sex offender.”

And the judges pointed out the license requirement cannot be considered “unusual” because “the license requirement does not stray from what state governments do each and every day: communicate important information about its citizens on state-issued IDs.”

Sex offenders who fail to get a license with a “sex offender” label can lose their driver’s license and face a misdemeanor. The threat of an extra misdemeanor may not be much of a deterrent. At the same time, the label penalty hardly outweighs the seriousness of the crime. Oklahomans should be pleased the courts agree.