When a sex offender is notified under due process to appear in person to a police officer to register.. Is this a form of detention which can invoke Miranda readings.. You are detained photographed asked question, and required to do so as in any other official police proceeding, which can lead to an arrest for what ever reasons. I have seen people arrested before while registering.

My thought is do we have the right to remain silent, as long as we appear as ordered, and do not reveal any form of information. Its the states duty to find any information out it seeks as in any other proceeding. Can anyone be punished legally for choosing to remain silent in any proceeding? Would this constitute a failure to register if one shows and chooses to remain silent? Would a conviction from choosing to remain silent hit miranda, and constitutional violations? Would a conviction from choosing to remain silent then become punitive, and not regulatory?

From what I understand we retain the right to never speak to anyone if we dont want to weather they are police or regular citizens. We have a right to never sign or agree to anything we dont want too? Am I correct here?

Maybe there can be a new way in my thought in combating civil regulatory schemes.

Civil regulatory schemes are generally for licensed ideals like driving,fishing, firearms. People generally get something in return for giving their information such as a right to carry a weapon or drive a vehicle.

My point being is a sex offender forced to register their information to live life as any other citizen and be forced with incarceration if they do not voluntarily provide the information the state demands.

Can our government incarcerate a person for choosing to remain silent, and choosing to not sign anything? I think the civil scheme in things can be shown at that point to be punitive. Does Our government have a blank check here to incarcerate anyone who chooses to remain silent?

A federal statute principally supported by what we now know as the Hard Right Wing and a few Democrats strips away completely fairness in the laws and through its barbarism suggests it is constitutional by the slick twist of words and twisted reasoning.

Still today the vast numbers of supporters of this unfair federal statute are the rabid Hard Right Republicans we were able to witness during this past August recess of Congress.

Those so called child protection groups along with John Walsh who to this day refuse to acknowledge even an iota of unfairness will stand firm for injustice as the article points out, their bias interests, which for John Walsh means millions of dollars.

John Walsh and Ahearn, Mark Lunsford, and a host of other people of that coalition are the principle promoters of this unfair, and from the judicial mind of Justice Ginsburg, unconstitutional federal statute, as this statute is supposed to have a link to the Alaska case heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Courts that have been willing to be convinced that the AWA is unconstitutional are quickly overturned on the flimsiest judicial arguments of a higher state court. What we have been seeing on the judicial side is a willingness to have a continuation to support the popular sentiment of legislative leaders, rather than have the judicial fortitude to do their judicial jobs of protecting the US Constitution, and that of states.

See children being labeled sex offenders, as young as 4, here:

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/12/child-sex-offenders.html