specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I have no quarrel with sending the case back to give defense counsel the opportunity to file a Rule 604(d) certificate, although the need for it is not entirely clear. I do disagree with the notion that the defendant’s right to due process of law would be violated by applying the Registration Act to him.
As the majority says, a penal statute should be upheld as long as there is a conceivable basis for finding a reasonable relationship to the public interest intended to be protected. People v. Kohrig, 113 Ill. 2d 384, 398, 498 N.E.2d 1158 (1986).
As we said in People v. Fuller, 324 Ill. App. 3d 728, 733, 756 N.E.2d 255 (2001):
“While the term ‘sex offender’ may carry a stigma, there is little doubt that the offense of kidnaping a person under 18 is intended to trigger the Registration Act.”
True, the court in Fuller pointed out an “eerily suggestive” statement by the defendant (“ ‘[I] was going to find a hotel room and ask the girl if she had any friends’ ”), but the decision was not locked into its specific facts. Fuller, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 733. It is the nature of the crime — kidnaping a child — that triggers the Registration Act provisions. Fuller observed that the “most obvious connection” between aggravated kidnaping and the purpose of the Registration Act is that the crime “is often a precursor offense to juvenile pimping or exploitation of a child.” Fuller, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 733.
It does not take much imagination to add to the list of reprehensible acts an offender might commit. Once an offender makes the decision to commit the aggravated kidnaping of a child, there is a very real possibility the child will become a victim of sexual abuse. Our reports are filled with such cases.
In this case the crime was interrupted while it was in progress. The child was being held in a stolen van when the police arrived. The legislature has the authority to protect children from such an offender. Requiring him to register his name and address with law enforcement officials does not offend due process of law. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that it does.