N.C. faces deadline to comply with federal sex offender law

6-3-2011 North Carolina:

Because of the price tag tied to a far-reaching federal mandate requiring states to overhaul how they keep track of sex offenders, North Carolina might opt to ignore a major provision of the law, a state legislator said Thursday.

The decision would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grant money used to assist crime victims and fund criminal justice programs.

The mandate, passed by Congress in 2006, requires every state to adopt more uniform standards for registering sex offenders by July of this year. Its backers crafted the legislation so offenders would have a harder time evading authorities, especially when crossing state lines, officials said.

But several states have taken issue because the law imposes strenuous costs and, some critics say, actually undermines public safety. The mandate has also ignited a flurry of lawsuits from civil rights groups that oppose it on constitutional grounds.

Because of the mounting opposition, one of the biggest changes to how sex offenders are tracked and monitored in years might flounder.

"The requirements of the federal government are so burdensome and so expensive we've decided it may not be worth the (grant) funding they're offering of us," said state Rep. Sarah Stevens, a Republican from Surry County.

Congress passed the law, entitled the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, following several high-profile stories of sex offenders bouncing from state to state to assault and kill children.

It was named after a6-year-old Florida boy who was kidnapped from a shopping mall in 1981 and later found beheaded. His father, John Walsh, went on to host the television show "America's Most Wanted" and advocated for the legislation's passage.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates there exist more than 780,000 sex offenders nationwide, and about 100,000 live in violation of their registration requirements, said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, the organization's legislative affairs director.

Despite the criticisms over costs, supporters contend the new mandate will for the first time bridge the patchwork of state laws. The current system, proponents say, makes it easy for offenders to dodge police and leaves kids vulnerable to lurking predators.

"The problem with inconsistencies is that sex offenders who want to evade law enforcement can cross state lines and simply get lost in the system," Davis said.

In one of the biggest changes under the mandate, sex offenders are classified into one of three "tiers" based solely on their offense, with those in the lowest tier required to register for 15 years and the highest to register for life.

Opponents of the new system argue it lumps offenders into broad categories instead of evaluating them to determine their risk of committing another crime. This, critics say, creates a needle-in-the-haystack effect, where there is no distinction between people on the registry.

"You want to more closely monitor the folks who are higher risk, and that's one of the problems with the Adam Walsh Act – risk is irrelevant," said Margie Slagle, a staff attorney at the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which filed suit opposing certain provisions of the law. "You haven't an idea who may or may not pose a risk to your child."

Currently in North Carolina, most first-time offenders register for 30 years but can petition for removal after a decade, said New Hanover County Assistant District Attorney Connie Jordan, a prosecutor in charge of sex crimes. Those who commit the most heinous acts or are multiple offenders can face a lifetime of registration and satellite monitoring.

Among the many provisions contained within the federal legislation is a new set of responsibilities for the U.S. Marshals Service. The agency is now charged with hunting down noncompliant sex offenders, and as of February, had arrested more than 43,700 offenders nationwide since the law passed five years ago, according to congressional testimony from Marshals Director Stacia Hylton.

States that fail to comply with the upcoming federal deadline risk losing 10 percent of their Byrne JAG funding annually. That money is used by law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies to purchase equipment, provide training and help victims. North Carolina received nearly $8.7 million in JAG funding last year, according to Jamie Markham, assistant professor at the UNC School of Government.

Stevens said she has been collaborating with state Rep. Rick Glazier, a Democrat from Cumberland County and fellow member of the House judiciary committee, to form a legislative group that would be tasked with analyzing North Carolina's current policies. She said she expected the federal government to loosen up its provisions in response to criticism.

North Carolina's reluctance to adopt the new requirements reflect cost concerns as well as the logistics of implementing such a complex set of new policies. The Justice Policy Institute, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., estimated in 2009 that North Carolina would incur $14.7 million in costs to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, much more than it stands to lose in grant funding.

States that choose to follow the mandate will likely need to hire more staff, buy new software and equipment and possibly contract with outside companies.

The law requires sex offenders to update their registration more frequently. It also increases the amount of information offenders are required to provide authorities and requires those deemed most dangerous to verify their information in person at least four times a year.

If North Carolina fails to adopt the mandate, it will join several other states that are either waiting to see whether the federal government agrees to more changes or have rebuffed it altogether. In fact, only seven states have been deemed compliant as of last week. They are Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Delaware, Florida, South Dakota and Wyoming.

In some states where the necessary policies have been adopted, court actions have blocked the enforcement of certain provisions. In Nevada and Ohio, for example, civil liberties groups won suits stopping a requirement that would have applied the new laws to offenders convicted under the old laws.

In one case in Ohio, for example, a former female prison guard who had consensual sex with an inmate was nearing the end of her 10-year registration requirement when the state adopted the federal law. Had the Ohio Supreme Court not struck down the retroactive provision, the woman would have faced a lifetime on the registry.

Kansas state Rep. Pat Colloton, who testified in February before a congressional subcommittee about the new law, said some states want more flexibility in how long they monitor sex offenders, possibly providing incentives for those who keep a clean record.

Texas, long famous for its strict criminal penalties, failed to change its policies before the legislative session ended Monday. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety said bluntly last week that Texas "is not going to be in compliance" come the July deadline.

In California, too, no legislation has been filed to date that would fulfill the law's requirements. Officials there have said the mandate runs counter to the state's successful approach toward sex offender management, which relies heavily on risk assessment to classify offenders.

Colloton said allowing states to prescribe registration requirements based on risk of re-offending would make it easier for them to adopt the changes.

"They want to keep it more flexible so they can target their resources," she said. ..Source.. by Brian Freskos