2-28-15 Nevada:
After years of languishing in Nevada courts, legislators are reconsidering sex-offender laws affecting juveniles and the way criminals are ranked and registered.
State Sen. Richard “Tick” Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, and Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, introduced Senate Bill 99 in February to repeal the state’s version of the federal Adam Walsh Act. Critics have said the law disenfranchises juveniles who could be reformed, and many think the way the law categorizes offenders — based on the crimes committed rather than risk of re-offending — might not really serve the public interest.
The law has been challenged in Clark County courts, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Nevada Supreme Court, which placed an emergency injunction against the law in October, the day before it was supposed to finally be enacted.
The Nevada Legislature passed Assembly Bill 579 in 2007 to make the state compliant with the Walsh Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006. The law was named after Adam Walsh, the 6-year-old son of TV personality John Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in Hollywood, Fla., on July 27, 1981.
Las Vegas attorney Maggie McLetchie has been litigating the issue since 2008. She said the Legislature was wrong to think that the federal government could compel Nevada to follow its guidelines.
McLetchie was scheduled to challenge the law in the state’s high court in early February, but oral arguments were canceled to give the Legislature another chance to work on it.
SEXUAL DELINQUENTS
One problem with the Walsh Act is that community notification and lifetime registration applies to youths convicted of sex crimes as long as they’re over 14. But opponents of the law say juveniles should be treated differently than adult offenders.
Las Vegas attorney Donna Coleman has been serving on a committee evaluating the Walsh Act for the state attorney general’s office. She said she would testify in favor of the bill to repeal it.
The fragile minds of juveniles might not be able to cope with the pressures of community notification and appearing in online sex offender registries, Coleman said.
“We are at a very high suicide rate for juveniles,” she said. “We don’t want to push them over the edge.”
A 2014 study by the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission found that most juveniles convicted of a sexual offense were not motivated by “deviant sexual arousal or a focused intent to harm others,” which would indicate a risk of future sexual offenses. Youths usually commit sexual crimes due to developmental or social issues, or because they were abused themselves.
Most juveniles respond well to therapy, the report said, so they will not become adult sex offenders.
The proposed law would ensure that juveniles would not be subjected to community notification, though schools would continue to get the information. When youths reach age 21, a court hearing would assess whether they were a risk to the public, Coleman said.
Juveniles who commit particularly heinous sexual crimes likely would be tried as an adult and thus be subjected to adult registration rules, she added.
Sgt. Brian Zana with the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation’s sex offender unit compared publishing youth offenders on the public register to branding them with a “Scarlet Letter.” He said the division supports the idea of holding hearings when a juvenile offender turns 21.
“You have to remember children make mistakes,” he said.
Treatment of juvenile sex offenders was addressed in the first Walsh Act case to reach the Nevada Supreme Court. Justices upheld a lower court ruling that said the law did not violate the state constitution. But in an opinion penned by Justice Michael L. Douglas, the court acknowledges problems with the law.
“We share the juvenile court’s concerns regarding the wisdom of this legislation. Nevertheless, we are bound to follow the law,” the opinion reads. “Of utmost concern, it does not appear from the legislative history that the Nevada Legislature ever considered the impact of this bill on juveniles or public safety.”
Another problem is that the statute applies to offenders retroactively, and some people could end up on Internet sex offender registries for crimes that happened as long ago as 1956. In a worst-case scenario, the law could even be applied to people convicted long ago under Nevada’s voided and unconstitutional criminalization of consensual homosexual acts, McLetchie said. SB 99 would not repeal that, too.
RATING RISKS
The old sex offender law was pretty simple: Offenders individually were rated by specially trained mental health professionals from low to high according to their risk of re-offending. But how long people have to register as sex offenders is not based on this risk rating under the Walsh Act.
The current law categorizes offenders into tiers based on the crime they committed and might not truly be in the public’s interest, according to a 2012 multi-state study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. Researchers found that many with the highest risk of re-offending often ended up on lower tiers with shorter registration terms under the Walsh Act.
“It’s not that cut and dry,” Zana said of categorizing offenders based on convictions.
Many first-time offenders automatically would be rated on the lowest tier under the Walsh Act but would be ranked higher if considered individually based on their risk of re-offending. This includes crimes such as lewdness with a child under 14 and incest, he said.
Under Walsh Act standards, the lowest registration tier is assigned to those convicted of a crime against a child or a sexual crime. Offenders have to register for 15 years.
Tier II offenders committed a sexual crime or one involving a child if it is punishable by imprisonment for more than a year. Those who re-offend after being assigned Tier I graduate to this level and have to register for 25 years. Tier II crimes include felony luring of a child, sexual abuse against children, sex trafficking and child pornography.
Those in the highest tier, which applies to people convicted of crimes including kidnapping and sexual abuse against a minor under 13, must register for life. Top-level crimes also include sexual assaults and murders involving rape.
All of the tiers also include attempts or conspiracies to commit those crimes and similar convictions from other states.
The Legislature said during the 2008 special session that more than 2,000 parolees would move from a low-risk rating under the old law to the highest tier under the Walsh Act.
“You get a needle-in-the-haystack problem,” McLetchie said.
Zana said he has been studying the proposed repeal for a couple weeks, and that while it’s not perfect, he said it’s heading in the right direction.
He said the current law is confusing and a handful of sexual offenses aren’t included, such as peeping and taking secret “up-skirt” photos. “Those are entry-level sex offenses,” Zana said.
Like so-called gateway drugs, Zana said people committing these offenses often get bored and move on to worse crimes.
Nevada was one of the first states to pass the Walsh Act, Segerblom said, adding that the Legislature rushed to comply with federal guidelines out of fear of losing criminal justice grants.
But the cost to implement it — estimated at $4 million in 2009 — far exceeds the less than $200,000 Nevada would have lost. To Segerblom’s knowledge, the state never has received federal funds to help with implementation of the Walsh Act.
LIFETIME MONITORING
Assemblyman Phillip O’Neill, R-Carson City, requested a separate bill draft to change laws about the lifetime monitoring of offenders and the system for dealing with violations. For the proposed changes, O’Neill has been working with the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation, which has been trying to change lifetime registration laws for years with no success.
The complexity of the legislation is one reason it hasn’t gained momentum in the past, according to parole department Lt. David Helgerman. Many hesitate because on the surface the bill seems to remove lifetime supervision altogether, but Helgerman said the department is actually trying to replace it with an extended probation period.
“We would not recommend something we thought would be a detriment to public safety,” Helgerman said.
Currently, lifetime registration begins for sex offenders after they have finished parole. And to punish violations would require an offender to be charged with an additional felony in the jurisdiction in which they were first charged. If they have moved to another city, officers must scramble to meet the 72-hour deadline to get the violator to court, where they could then be released on bail.
“There’s a long list of problems,” he said about the law.
O’Neill’s bill would replace lifetime registration by extending the maximum probation terms and giving courts more deference in sentencing sex offenders. Rather than new charges, violators would face a parole hearing. The proposed changes also would make it easier to hold hearings for violators in other jurisdictions and would make it easier to transfer probationers and parolees out of state, Helgerman said.
Helgerman said the majority of the sex crimes an ex-convict would have to register for come with life sentences in prison, so lifetime supervision requirements are “redundant.” The four charges that don’t carry maximum sentences of life in prison right now — battery to commit sexual assault, child pornography, incest and exploiting people with mental illnesses — would all get extended prison sentences under the new bill.
O’Neill’s bill also would prevent sex offenders from being released on bail after violating the terms of their registration.
Helgerman said the state has 783 offenders on lifetime supervision.
“This bill would give our current law more teeth,” Helgerman said.
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
Segerblom said that the current law unnecessarily “lumps everyone together” and burdens local law enforcement agencies. Nine years after the federal Walsh Act passed, most states have rejected it. Only 17 states have enacted it, and the count might include other states, like Nevada, where the law was approved but not fully enforced because of lawsuits.
“We had a really good sex offender law before the Adam Walsh Act,” Segerblom said. “Sometimes you just need to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ A bad law is a bad law.”
SB 99 addresses some of what opponents point to as the Walsh Act’s problems. The current draft of the bill gives offenders a way to appeal tier designations and lifetime monitoring after 15 years, and it calls for individual assessments of juveniles based on their risk of reoffending. The bill also would give juvenile courts the ability to exempt youths from community notification and registration.
The state attorney general’s office has defended the Walsh Act through every legal challenge, and Attorney General Adam Laxalt plans to continue to do so. When asked if Laxalt would support efforts to repeal the Walsh Act, Assistant Attorney General Brett Kandt said there’s no reason for the attorney general’s office to change course “unless and until the Legislature says so.”
Kandt said that he hasn’t seen any studies about problems with the Walsh Act, and the attorney general only engages with the Legislature on bills that would affect public safety, which he did earlier this session. Laxalt’s office sent a memo in January urging lawmakers to support Assembly Bill 45, which would allow the Department of Corrections to give sex offenders risk ratings of moderate-low and moderate-high in addition to low, moderate and high.
This risk ratings system would have no effect on the length of time an offender has to register under Walsh Act standards.
Gov. Brian Sandoval’s office did not return repeated calls to ask whether he would sign a bill to repeal Nevada’s version of the Walsh Act. ..Source.. by Contact Wesley
Showing posts with label ( .News-SORNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-SORNA. Show all posts
February 28, 2015
Bill would repeal Adam Walsh sex-offender act in Nevada
December 30, 2014
Lifetime registration mandate for juvenile sex offenders is unconstitutional, Pa. Supreme Court says
See also: Pa. court throws out juvenile sex-offender registration12-30-2014 Pennsylvania:
A Pennsylvania law that requires juveniles who commit the most serious types of sex crimes to register with police for life is unconstitutional because it breeches the youngsters' civil rights, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The decision by the state's highest court upholds earlier rulings by judges in York and Montgomery counties against the juvenile sex offender registration rules of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.
The state Legislature adopted the latest version of SORNA under federal pressure in 2011.
In the York County case, on which the Supreme Court ruling is based, attorneys for seven juveniles challenged the lifetime registration decree. The dispute came to the Supreme Court after the district attorney's office appealed county Senior Judge John C. Uhler's conclusion that SORNA violates the law in regard to juvenile sex offender registration.
Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices Max Baer, Thomas G. Saylor, J. Michael Eakin and Debra McCloskey Todd upheld Uhler's decision. Justice Correale F. Stevens issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the right of juvenile sex offenders "should not have precedence over a rape victim's anguish that very well may last a lifetime."
The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Baer, comes seven months after the justices heard arguments on the case.
At issue, Baer noted, is whether SORNA improperly treats adult and juvenile sex offenders alike and whether the rights of serious juvenile offenders are breached by SORNA's automatic lifetime registration requirement.
Under SORNA, the lifetime registration applies only if a juvenile offender is at least 14 years old and has been adjudicated guilty by a county judge of rape, involuntary deviate sexual assault or aggravated indecent assault. Juveniles can apply to be removed from the sex offender registry at age 25, however.
Baer wrote that the SORNA requirement is unconstitutional in that it saddles juvenile offenders with an "irrefutable presumption" that they are likely to reoffend and so violates their rights to due process of law. The juveniles have no "meaningful" opportunity to challenge whether they should be subject to lifetime registration, he noted.
He cited arguments by opponents of the registration mandate that, unlike adult sex offenders, juveniles who commit sex crimes are statistically far less likely to re-offend. SORNA's registration rule simply doesn't take that into account, and so "improperly brands" youthful offenders, Baer found.
Pennsylvania already has a "reasonable alternative," however, he concluded. Adult sex offenders are evaluated individually before being designated for 10- or 25-year or lifetime registrations, Baer noted. "A similar process could be utilized to assess which juvenile offenders are at a high risk to recidivate," he wrote.
In his dissenting opinion, Stevens noted that SORNA already provides an opportunity for juvenile sex offenders to get off the registration list at 25, provided they don't commit further serious crimes and have completed treatment programs.
By adopting the juvenile offender registration requirements of SORNA, "the Legislature recognized violent sexual crimes such as rape must be treated as the serious crimes they are," Stevens wrote. ..Source.. by Matt Miller
November 26, 2014
Don't Listen to Predators
11-26-2014 Tribal Nations:
The greatest resource of a tribal nation is their people. Every elected tribal council has a responsibility to the membership that they serve but more importantly they have a sacred obligation to protect the welfare of their future generations.
Over these past few years we have seen many legislative acts coming out of the Obama administration that have had a direct effect on the unique and detrimental issues that plague our reservations. VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) are just a couple of them.
These acts play an important roll in administering the safety of our membership on our reservations but more importantly they bring our nations into compliance with federal mandate as directed by these acts.
We can never measure which type of violence outweighs another. Violence toward anyone in any form is an atrocious crime and should be addressed by all tribal councils directly but when violence is committed against a child especially a sexual assault is when a tribal council must take strong action to eradicate this genocidal threat to our future.
Recently U.S. Attorney Eric Holder held a tribal consultation meeting in Bismarck, ND and spoke to the issues concerning VAWA and SORNA. SORNA has express statutory requirements that must be obeyed by the tribes. Native Nations are federally mandated that all sex offender registrations for offenders living on or visiting the reservations must be put on the tribes website and made available to the public and tribal law enforcement via the tribal website or the public safety funding for the tribe could be put in jeopardy. Simply having a link to the state sex offender registry just isn’t enough.
Where do we as an Oglala Nation take our stand to protect the welfare of our children? We begin by coming into compliance with current federal mandates by publishing the names of those tribal members on our website who have committed atrocious crimes against our children. We begin by making it our own sacred cause to defend our future generations against the sexual predators that roam our communities no matter who they are related to or who they are politically in the community or what they write in the newspapers. It shouldn’t take an act of congress for we, as a sovereign nation, to do what’s in the best interest of our children.
It is fundamentally wrong on every level to give power and protection to those who have committed the most heinous crimes against our children behind closed doors. We are better than that, our heritage is greater than that and we as a nation must take action on every level to address this issue. Dis-enrollment and banishing child predators are just a couple solutions but coming into compliance with federal law is where we must begin.
There is no one person more corrupt in our society than an individual who attacks our native children and any council representative who defends such an individual should also be held politically accountable.
Over these past few years I have been reading the editorials written by Oglala Sioux Tribal member but was surprised to find out that this Tribal member is a convicted sex offender but not just any sexual offender he is an offender of a child. He makes accusations toward our tribal leadership about being corrupt but how can an individual such as this criticize about an issue when their crime outweighs any issue concerning a tribal representative. Money issues can be fixed, leadership issues can be remedied but his victim will always suffer long after the tribal council issues are resolved.
Why hasn’t that person ever written an editorial to the victim for the crime he was sentenced for? Why hasn’t he ever apologized to his victim publically? I guess the bigger question would be… Why is he being published in the first place? ..Continued.. by Garfield Steele who is a Wounded Knee District Council Representative.
October 21, 2014
Federal government says state's sex offender registry program still compliant with federal law
PIERRE, South Dakota — The U.S. Department of Justice has reaffirmed South Dakota's compliance with a national sex offender registration act.
Attorney General Marty Jackley says the state's Sex Offender Registry continues to comply with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
South Dakota currently has 3,300 registered sex offenders living in the state.
Jackely says the state has a compliance rate of 98.9 percent and has had only 36 instances of non-compliance.
South Dakota was the originally the fourth registry in the nation to be certified.
South Dakota finished its renewal process in May. The Department of Justice reaffirmed the state's compliance status this week. ..Source.. by Daily Journal
November 13, 2013
Jurisdictions Substantially Implement Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
One more State falls into the further punishment through registries mindset.11-13-2013 Colorado, Washington DC:
The Justice Department's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) today announced that Colorado and five federally recognized Indian tribes are the latest jurisdictions to substantially implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma also were recently found to have met the criteria for substantial implementation of SORNA.
"I'm very pleased that so many tribes continue to make significant progress and am especially pleased to add Colorado to the list of states that have substantially implemented the provisions of SORNA," said Dawn Doran, Acting Director of the SMART Office. "Colorado is well known for their excellence in sex offender management efforts. We have worked together for several years to reach this point and look forward to a continued partnership."
"Colorado is committed to keeping the public safe," said Governor John Hickenlooper. "Complying with federal sex offender registration and notification requirements is a key factor for public safety. We are gratified that the state's efforts the past several years to achieve substantial compliance with the federal Sex Offender Registration Notification Act is now certified by the U.S. Department of Justice. This Act supports consistent accountability across state lines and nationally to more effectively protect the public."
Since the passage of SORNA, the Department has continuously assisted jurisdictions in implementing the Act in order to create a comprehensive national system for registering and tracking sex offenders. To date, 77 jurisdictions (17 states, three territories and 57 tribes) have substantially implemented SORNA.
In addition to Colorado, the States of Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming; and the territories of Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have substantially implemented SORNA.
A list of the 57 tribes that have substantially implemented SORNA can be found at: http://www.smart.gov/newsroom_jurisdictions_sorna.htm
The Act is named in memory of Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old boy, who was abducted and murdered in Hollywood, Fla. on July 27, 1981. It was signed into law exactly 25 years later.
The Office of Justice Programs, headed by Assistant Attorney General Karol V. Mason, provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. OJP has six components: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. ..Source.. by Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
October 2, 2012
States still resisting national sex offender law requirements
Six years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act, aimed at setting up a uniform national registry to track known sex offenders as they move around the country. The law offers states federal funds to complete their part of the job, and 16 have secured Justice Department approval for doing it successfully. But most states have struggled to implement the law, and several have essentially abandoned efforts at compliance and left the federal money on the table.
States that did not implement their registries by July 27, 2011, face a 10 percent loss in federal justice assistance grants, which fund courts, crime labs, corrections and other law enforcement programs. The only way they can keep that money without meeting the deadline is to apply to use it for Adam Walsh Act compliance activities. Some 29 noncompliant states have agreed to do this.
But five states — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas — are simply saying “no” to the Adam Walsh Act, at least for now. They have neither complied with the law’s requirements nor applied to use their justice assistance grants to come into compliance. They have elected to forfeit 10 percent of their justice assistance funding for the coming year.
“We’re hoping that in the future, some of those five will indeed apply,” says Linda Baldwin, director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking within the U.S. Department of Justice. Not applying to use the grant monies for compliance is “not necessarily a refusal,” Baldwin says. States will get another chance to use their grants for compliance in 2013.
But by then, there may be changes to the federal law, which is named for a child who was kidnapped and later murdered in south Florida in 1981. (The registry provisions of the Adam Walsh Act are formally known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA.) In August, the U.S. House passed a reauthorization of Adam Walsh specifying that any penalty a state incurs for noncompliance with registry requirements won’t harm local law ...continued... by Maggie Clark
September 28, 2012
Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands Latest Of 55 Jurisdictions To Substantially Implement Provisions Of The Adam Walsh Act
Notice the error in the title, it says 55 when it should be 54, see SMART Office (16+35+3)9-28-2012 Washington DC:
The Justice Department's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) recently announced that Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the latest jurisdictions to implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Since the passage of SORNA, which establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders, a total of 16 states, three territories and 36 tribes have met the requirements for implementation. The Act is named in memory of Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old boy, who was abducted from a mall in Hollywood, Fla. on July 27, 1981.
In addition to Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the states of Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, and the United States territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, have also substantially implemented SORNA.
"We are encouraged by the efforts of so many jurisdictions to implement SORNA's requirements, and we commend those that have substantially implemented the Act," said Linda Baldwin, Director of the SMART Office. "We are also encouraged that the vast majority of jurisdictions are committed to exchanging information in a manner that will lead to improved monitoring and tracking of sex offenders across the United States and abroad."
States and territories had until July 27, 2011, to substantially implement SORNA. Beginning in 2012, those that did not were subject to a 10-percent reduction in their Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Byrne (JAG) award. The penalty will continue to be applied on an annual basis until a state or territory substantially implements SORNA.
"Fortunately, withheld JAG funding can be reallocated back to states and territories if these funds are applied toward SORNA implementation activities," added Director Baldwin. "In 2012, all but five jurisdictions (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska, and Texas) requested reallocation of their SORNA penalty to continue SORNA implementation efforts and we are pleased to announce that we have granted all of the reallocation requests received." ...continued... by SOURCE Office of Justice Programs
August 13, 2012
UPDATE: Adam Walsh ReAuthorization Act of 2012
To read prior posts on the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act click on this link.8-13-2012 National:
I am sure most folks know that the U.S. House, by voice vote, amended and approved HR 3796 The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 on 8-1-2012 and sent the bill to the U.S. Senate for their approval. On 8-2-2012 in the Senate: "Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." There the bill sits because the Senate will not reconvene until 2:00 PM September 10, 2012. They may or may not do anything with the bill.
The bill effectively reauthorizes Grants found in the original AWA, from 2013 through 2017. That is a pile of money which our economy cannot afford right now, but Congress will likely get its way under the guise of public safety. Without getting into what is good about AWA (there are good parts) OR what is bad about AWA (a BIG portion of SORNA Title-I), today something came to light folks need to know about!
The SMART Office has posted, what amounts to -an all point bulletin- about AVAILABLE PROJECT GRANTS "Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program". On the Federal Grants Wire site is this:
Criteria for Selecting ProposalsNow, the bill has not yet passed, right? Today is 8-13, Senate back 9-10...
A review panel convened by the SMART Office will evaluate all applications on the basis of the following criteria:
- (1) the application identifies a problem that is consistent with the purposes of this initiative;
- (2) the application describes a project that effectively addresses the problem statement;
- (3) the implementation strategy, time line, and capability of the organization and staff are sound;
- (4) the application articulates clearly the jurisdiction's goals, outcomes, and objectives and describes the accountability system and performance measures to determine progress towards achieving them;
- (5) the project demonstrates meaningful attention to the safety of victims and the general public by supporting jurisdiction's efforts to substantially comply with SORNA thus ensuring sex offender registration and tracking;
- (6) the application identifies specific individuals, or a process to identify individuals, to serve as the Grant Manager/Grant Coordinator, and demonstrates the skills, roles, and involvement of these individuals; and
- (7) the budget is reasonable as it relates to project activities.
For NSOPW, TTSORS and the Exchange Portal:
- (1) the application identifies a need that is consistent with the purposes of this program;
- (2) the application describes a project that effectively addresses the statement of need;
- (3) the implementation strategy, time line, and capability of the organization and staff are sound;
- (4) the application articulates clearly the goals, outcomes, and objectives of the project and describes the accountability system and performance measures to determine progress towards achieving them;
- (5) the project demonstrates meaningful attention to the public safety by supporting the operation of the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website, which supports the SORNA goal of sex offender registration and tracking;
- (6) the application identifies specific individuals, or a process to identify individuals, to serve as the Grant Manager/Grant Coordinator, and demonstrates the skills, roles, and involvement of these individuals; and
- (7) the budget is reasonable as it relates to project activities.
Or, has there been another Behind Closed Doors session? Judge for yourself.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Today Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) (where AWA Grant posting appears) was last updated.
June 30, 2012
Legislature modifies Virgin Island's sex offender registration laws
SMART Office has yet to declare VI compliant though.6-30-2012 Virgin Islands:
ST. THOMAS - Legislation to update the territory's sex offender registry laws passed the 29th Legislature on Thursday.
The bill would bring the territory into compliance with federal regulations and qualify the territory for some federal law enforcement funding.
The legislation amends the V.I. Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act of 1997 to increase reporting requirements for convicted sex offenders.
Gov. John deJongh Jr. submitted the bill to the Legislature last year.
The measure requires all sex offenders to register with the V.I. government within three days of coming to the territory or changing residences within the territory. Reporting requirements vary depending on the crime for which the offender was convicted.
The bill also expands the requirements of who must register. Currently, anyone who has been convicted of a sexual crime anywhere in the United States or by a court of another "competent jurisdiction" must register.
The proposed law would establish a three-tiered classification system, requiring offenders convicted of crimes of varying severity to register for 15 years, 25 years or life. Currently, the law requires sexual offenders to register for either 15 years or life.
The territory already has lost about $92,000 in federal law enforcement funding this year and stands to lose a similar amount for each year that the territory is not in compliance with the mandates required by the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006.
V.I. Attorney General Vincent Frazer said 34 states also have failed to meet the requirements. ..Source.. by ALDETH LEWIN
March 2, 2012
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Exchange Portal
With all the computers today, they use ARCHAIC thinking, in essence a bulletin board. Real time exchange of information still does not exist. i.e., they dump info in a bucket of sorts and hope it gets picked up by the right people who may need it, a telephone call would work better! Fact Sheet3-2-2012 National:
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. SORNA aims to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law and generally strengthens the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs.
SORNA also requires that jurisdictions share information about the offenders they register more effectively, especially when an offender relocates or is required to register with multiple jurisdictions. To facilitate effective information sharing, the SORNA Exchange Portal was created to serve as the mechanism by which jurisdictions’ sex offender registry officials securely communicate with one another. The SORNA Exchange Portal:
---Provides a common environment for all SORNA jurisdictions to share information.The Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) serves as the technical assistance provider for the SORNA Exchange Portal through the support of grant awards received from the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.
---Enables jurisdictions to share contact information in order to make it easier to connect and communicate with the right people about the right issues.
---Fosters cooperation among jurisdictions for a collaborative effort to improve public safety.
---Includes Offender Relocation Tasks, which provide a system for jurisdictions to notify each other of relocating offenders and/or offenders required to register in more than one jurisdiction.
IIR supports the SORNA Exchange Portal by hosting, managing, and enhancing the portal and by providing technical assistance to the state, territory, and tribal government agencies that use it. ..Source.. by SORNA Office
January 16, 2012
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) DENIES States Funding if they promote reunification of a child with a registered sex offender parent
1-16-2012 National:
First I must admit I do not know much about the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (see also its manual), and if not for Maryland's Children’s Law Center testimony in their legislature which I learned of because it contains a reference to the Adam Walsh Act in it, which I always search for in the news, I would be oblivious of this denial to registered sex offenders, and do not know if it extends to those convicted of a sex crime who no longer have to register.
Rather than trying to explain here is the sentence in the testimony which caught my eye:
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is one of the federal laws governing funding for child welfare programs. In 2010, Congress amended CAPTA to include several additional eligibility requirements that states must meet in order to receive CAPTA funds. Bill 19-466, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendment Act of 2011, addresses two of those additional eligibility requirements: the requirement to address the needs of infants with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and the requirement not to require reunification of a child with a parent who must register in a sex offender registry under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2005. I commend the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) and the Council for acting in a timely manner to bring DC law in line with the new federal requirements.It appears -as worded- that this is a 100% denial of CAPTA funding if a State supports reunification with a parent who is registered under the Adam Walsh Act.
With that said, and tongue-in-cheek here goes, if CAPTA means for a state to DENY reunification in every case, without court intervention, then I am against this provision. I am sure there are cases where reunification should not happen, but it seems the issue should be left to the discretion of the state with some form of court hearing.
We cannot forget the Adam Walsh Act is over-broad in many respects, and cares little about families of registrants, in fact, their is no mention or consideration of "the family" of registrants AT ALL within AWA! Why do we have COURTS? What is their PURPOSE? Does Congress want to destroy families of registrants? The effects of AWA is already doing that today!
Again, like in the Adam Walsh Act, we see Congress CONTROLLING state legislators, implying they are not able to make such decisions for children in their state. Accordingly, let this post be a wake-up call for folks who are involved in this CAPTA law, and look to have Congress allow states to make their own decisions.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
February 3, 2011
“Sexually dangerous” in Butner test law in federal court
The government position "Waiting for cases to run through the courts." In other words, they are hoping some lawyer will come up with something to allow them to hold these folks.2-3-2011 North Carolina:
Here is what disturbs me, the government lawyers found a way to allow courts to apply sex offender laws (i.e. Megans' laws and the Adam Walsh Act) retroactively, to keep former sex offenders in a holding pattern -so to speak- by saying, registration is not punishment instead it is regulation. And have brought back many under the umbrella.
Is the next step of the holding pattern, a civil commitment hearing? The Mission Statement of the SMART Office was "The SMART Mission Statement: To assure that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from preying on citizens through a system of appropriate restrictions, regulations and internment."
Today that has changed to "SMART Mission: To protect the public by supporting the national implementation of a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification system." Today they have the Civil Commitment law through AWA and thats what this is all about. A forever changing Mission to suit someone's wishes, but who?
The federal Bureau of Prisons claims that 93 men it holds in Butner Federal Corrections Complex 30 miles north of Raleigh are too “sexually dangerous” to release even though their sentences are up.
The men are testing their “civil commitments” in the federal courts, claiming abuse of power and indefinite detention. The lawsuits started in the federal court in downtown Raleigh, but now the decisions have been sent up to the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court and the Supreme Court.
Some of the 93 went to prison for sex crimes, including child abuse, rape and making or owning child pornography. Others have never been convicted or charged with a sex crime. Paul Aldrich hasn’t had a sexual offense on his record since 1989.
“No convictions in 20 years, now they’re saying he’s sexually dangerous,” Mark Sigmon, who served as Aldrich’s attorney, said in an interview. If the government still considers him dangerous, Sigmon said, “Will it ever consider him safe?”
The federal Bureau of Prisons asserts that as civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is intended to prevent future offenses, the prisoners’ rap sheets are irrelevant. The law gives the Bureau the power to commit anyone under its authority by showing “clear and convincing evidence” they’re a sexual threat. The Bureau must make its case before a judge, but only two of the 93 prisoners have received a hearing to date.
“Butner is Gitmo for Americans,” one man, Sean Francis, told the Record. “American citizens have been held for years with no due process of law whatsoever.”
“There are a lot of guys up here who are tired of this,” Gerald Timms, another of the 93 said. “They’ve been up here almost five years … detainees are not prisoners, yet we are treated just like if not worse than criminals convicted of crimes.”
The federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Raleigh has found the civil-commitment procedure unacceptable in three separate rulings — “U.S. v. Comstock,” “Timms v. Johns” and “U.S. v. Broncheau.” With multiple cases, multiple legal rulings and multiple levels of the court system involved, the situation, Sigmon said, “is more Byzantine than most.”
Sexual danger and civil commitment
A number of state governments already use civil-commitment procedures to keep sexual offenders behind bars. The Bureau’s authority under the Adam Walsh Act goes further, however; in the words of the district court in Comstock, “a criminal history of sexual violence or molestation is not required … Individuals convicted of and serving time for bank robbery, mail fraud, tax evasion, drug dealing and sexual abuse of a child in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United states are all equally subject to certification and commitment.”
If either the Bureau or the U.S. Attorney General certifies a prisoner as sexually dangerous, the Bureau can detain the prisoner until the commitment hearing. To prove its case to the hearing judge, the Bureau need only present convincing evidence, rather than proving the threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the act doesn’t define “sexually dangerous,” the Bureau has developed its own two part definition:
• The individual has either engaged in child molestation—defined as “sexual exploitation” or illegal sexual conduct with anyone younger than 18—or “sexually violent conduct.” The latter covers illegal sex acts accompanied by the use of force or intimidation; drugging or knocking a victim out; and sex with a victim incapable of understanding or refusing.
The definition originally included individuals who knew they had a “potentially life-threatening” STD but didn’t tell their sex partner. The Bureau dropped that clause from the final draft of the rule.
• A finding by a Bureau mental-health professional that the individual will have serious difficulty refraining from further sexual offenses if released.
“There must be some documented evidence of sexually violent conduct or child molestation for an inmate to be reviewed and considered for potential certification,” the Bureau of Prisons’ Traci Billingsley told the Record.
“The limited psychological review,” Aldrich said, “consisted of me walking into female psychologists office and telling her that ‘I have nothing to say and that my lawyer recommended that that I say nothing.’ I was in and out of her office in less than 5 minutes.”
In the Broncheau case, District Judge Terrence Boyle stated that the only evidence the Bureau offered to justify certifying Donald Broncheau—imprisoned for lying to an FBI officer, a federal crime—was the decision of the Certification Review Panel’s interim chair.
If the judge at the commitment hearing finds the evidence convincing, the act directs the Bureau to turn the prisoner over to his home state’s prison system. If that isn’t practical, the Bureau must keep him in a designated facility until such time as the judge reviews the case and determines he’s no longer a threat.
Billingsley said the reason so many prisoners have wound up assigned to Butner is because it has a treatment program in place for sex offenders. Francis, Timms and Aldrich said they’ve yet to receive any sort of treatment; Timms said he’ll request treatment if a judge ever commits him under the act, but not until then.
The delay in holding hearings, Billingsley said, is because the process went on hold after the first ruling in Comstock that the hearings were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court rejected that challenge in May 2010. Sigmon said that at this point, as he understands it, the Bureau is waiting on the other court cases to work through the system, but will schedule a hearing if a prisoner requests one.
The attorney in Timms v. Johns has requested the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case, following the Fourth Appellate Court overruling District Judge Terrence Boyle. In U.S. vs. Broncheau, Boyle ruled the Butner prisoners should be set free; the appeals court stayed the release until it could review Boyle’s decision.
Sigmon told the Record that some prisoners, rather than wait for the court cases to play out, are applying for commitment hearings. He said there have been prior Adam Walsh cases where the government decertified and released the prisoner shortly before a scheduled commitment hearing.
“It’s indicative how much the government is overreaching in these cases,” he said. “I think it’s tragic if someone spends two years of their life in jail only when it comes time, the government says ‘Okay, we really can’t prove it.’” ..Source.. by Fraser Sherman
January 19, 2011
State could lose federal aid over sex offender registry
It seems more likely that the SORNA Guidelines which the state is supposed to follow are over-breadth. Has the USAG exceeded permissible limits of the Nondelegation Doctrine in exercising his vested power in construing SORNA? Further, I also still see that this state is one I pointed out that has a unusual wording of its ex post facto clause which may also play a part in this divide. (Click on Pic)1-19-2011 Maryland:
Expanded registry does not go far enough for Adam Walsh Act
Despite a major push by Maryland lawmakers last year to get tough on sex offenders, the state still is not in compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act, a public safety official said Tuesday.
Noncompliance could cost the state more than half a million dollars in federal grant money for law enforcement agencies.
Lawmakers pledged reform last year in the wake of the December 2009 killing of Sarah Foxwell, an 11-year-old Eastern Shore girl who had been in contact with a registered sex offender. Gov. Martin O'Malley backed legislation to revamp the state's sex offender registry — a move that officials believed would bring them into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act.
Changes included adding the names of those who commit sexually motivated acts of indecent exposure or possess child pornography and requiring people who list themselves as "homeless" to provide more information about where they are living. The registry includes nearly 7,000 people now.
The problem, said David P. Wolinski, who administers the state registry, is that Maryland does not require lifetime registration of juveniles convicted of the most serious sex crimes — a necessity under the Adam Walsh Act.
"That's the one hang-up," Wolinski told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. "Otherwise everything else is fine. We've made a lot of progress."
Only about four states are in compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, Wolinksi said. Still, Maryland's failure to meet its strict standards means the state is set to lose 10 percent of the federal funding it gets from the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. The state received about $6 million in Byrne money last fiscal year, according to the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention.
Otherwise, Wolinski said, the registry expansion is "going well."
Within a month, he said, corrections officials will begin adding a "plain-language" description of the crime for which each offender was convicted, another requirement signed into law last year.
Fewer than 500 of the registrants — about 6.7 percent — are listed as "noncompliant" or "absconders," according to data distributed by Wolinski.
Some lawmakers have suggested that the General Assembly might take another look at the registry this year, but this time with an eye toward removing some kinds of low-level offenders. No bills concerning the registry have been introduced yet this year. .Source.. by Julie Bykowicz, The Baltimore Sun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
