11-9-2011 National:
Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in 2006, which required states to implement new policies by July of this year or face a financial penalty for non-compliance. Only 15 states did, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Why?
Susan Frederick, senior federal affairs counsel for NCSL, tells Governing that many states discovered it would be cheaper to take the financial hit than implement the policy. Congress decided that states that failed to comply with SORNA would forfeit 10 percent of their Byrne Justice Assistance Grant starting in FY 2012. The block grant totaled about $250 million in FY 2011.
Full implementation is "labor-intensive," Frederick says. The law requires offenders to register regularly and in-person with authorities, usually local law enforcement, and they must give notice if they travel or move. Juveniles who perpetrated certain offenses must register for life; that requirement can be reduced to 25 years with a court order. And the policy must be applied retroactively to previously convicted offenders.
So, many states found "it's cheaper not to comply," Frederick says. New York was one such state. In a letter to Linda Baldwin, director of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, Risa Sugarman, director of the state's Office of Sex Offender Management, said: "The costs would be far greater than the loss" of federal funding.
The state was set to receive about $16 million from the Byrne JAG fund this year, meaning it will lose $1.6 million, Janine Kava, spokeswoman for the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, tells Governing. Sugarman wrote that the federal mandate to treat juvenile offenders the same as adults wasn't consistent with the state's own philosophy. She also asserted that the state's current policies for sex offender registration were sufficient for maintaining public safety.
"New York believes that our present laws and risk assessment method provide our citizens with effective protection against sexual predators," Sugarman said. The state "will continue its commitment to ensuring that our citizens are protected from sexual predators by the enforcement of all of our laws and the continued cooperation with your office."
Kava says New York has been notified by the SMART office that it can recover some of its lost funding by taking certain steps -- such as upgrading the state's sex offender registry's IT infrastructure to improve data collection and information sharing -- that meet some of SORNA's requirements. According to the final guidelines for SORNA compliance released by the office, funds will be returned to the non-compliant states "solely for the purpose of SORNA implementation."
The law is currently before Congress for reauthorization, and Frederick says NCSL is lobbying lawmakers to make improvements. Those include allowing flexibility in the frequency of sex offender notifications, giving states options in how they define juvenile offenders and allowing states to decide whether SORNA should be applied retroactively. The reauthorization bill is under consideration by the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
"No member of Congress wants to see a law fail," Frederick says. "There are people in Congress who recognize that some of the changes we suggest are not going to erode the law."
The map below denotes the states that have not fully implemented with SORNA. ..Source.. by Dylan Scott
November 9, 2011
States Find SORNA Non-Compliance Cheaper
October 20, 2011
State lawmaker looks at break with federal sex offender guidlines
Missouri is now one of the states that, has been deemed IN COMPLIANCE by the SMART Office. Now Missouri is considering backing out of those rules due to what appears to be COLLATERAL COSTS of remaining in-compliance. Costs which no one has talked about before. Is AWA compliance a MISTAKE asks state lawmaker?10-20-2011 Missouri:
UPDATE: A reader comments: If someone is not working, they may be applying for welfare programs (costs to the state), BUT ALSO, if that person is not working then they are ALSO not contributing to the state coffers through employment law requirements, which means that too is a, cost to the state! Good points, pennies make dollars make thousands etc etc etc time the number not working.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Major changes could be on the horizon for Missouri’s sex offender registry.
The state representative leading a committee that is looking into ways of cutting down the size of the state’s sex offender registry says it may make sense for the state to detach itself from federal sex registry rules.
Rep. Rodney Schad, R-Versailles, said Wednesday that large numbers of people on the state sex offenders registry are there due to federal rules that are more stringent than state laws. Schad said the result is hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on the sex registry do not have to be on that list. Schad said people on the list for less serious crimes aren’t able to find jobs and wind up costing the state through public assistance.
“We have some people that are absolutely no risk to society, to children, or to anyone else that are burdened with this label of ‘sex offender’”, Schad said.
Schad thinks that by allowing certain sex offenders to have a route off the official registry, the state will be able to save money — enough to overcome federal grant money that would be cut off if the state bucks federal sex offender statute mandates.
During testimony before Schad’s committee this week, Highway Patrol Captain Tim McGrail, who oversees the state’s sex offender registry, said the state would stand to lose $500,000 a year in federal money if the laws are changed the way Schad is proposing.
Schad thinks it’s possible the state could recoup that money in savings on state programs for offenders who could come off the list.
There are currently more than 12,000 people on Missouri’s sex offenders’ list. Schad said that list has grown dramatically in the last four years as the state tries to stay in line with increasingly stringent federal guidelines.
“We’ve grown in the last four years, about 4,000 offenders on the registry,” said Schad. “That’s just unacceptable. We may have ruined another 4,000 lives.”
Schad’s committee may hold more hearings in other areas of the state as it prepares to draft legislation for the upcoming legislation session. Last year, Schad sponsored a bill that would have made changes to state rules on who must register for the sex offenders list and for how long. The bill received overwhelming support in the House of Representatives, but died without a committee hearing in the State Senate. ..Source.. by Missouri News Horizon
September 26, 2011
Keeping track of sex offenders costly
All this to know where registrants SLEEP for a few hours of the day. Officials REFUSE to acknowledge the truth "TRACKING WHERE REGISTRANTS SLEEP" is all a registry does. Nothing this stupid has ever occurred before in history.9-26-2011 Ohio:
Sheriff puts the low end of costs at about $179,000 annually.
BUTLER COUNTY — Change in laws in the past five years have forced counties to spend thousands of dollars on registering and tracking sex offenders and the way cases are handled in court.
The Butler County sheriff predicts the number of sexual offenders his office must monitor will double in five years, but despite budget woes, he believes keeping vigilant is a high priority.
On average, Sheriff Richard Jones’ office monitors 460 sex offenders. That number jumps to around 700 if juveniles and offenders who only work in the county are included.
The increase in the number of sex offenders will raise the cost of monitoring sex offenders for counties, and some law experts said it will continue to clog the court system.
“Is it expensive? It’s expensive not to do it,” Jones said. “If you look at the current trends, whatever I have now I suspect in five years it’s probably going to be doubled or tripled because some of these people have to register for life.”
Jones’ department keeps the Ohio Attorney General’s office, which manages the sex offender registry, apprised when offenders move in, move out or phase out of the reporting requirement, and the sheriff demands face-to-face random verification that offenders are where they said they were going to live.
A low estimate of the cost of dealing with sex offenders is $179,000 annually, Jones said. That number includes salaries for the assistant prosecutor, who handles all cases involving children, the sheriff’s deputies who monitor offenders once they leave prison, mailing costs for notifications that go out to neighbors when a sex offender moves into town and costs to hunt down offenders who have skipped the state and violated reporting requirements.
Those costs don’t include other prosecutors who handle adult sex cases in the seven county common pleas courts or benefits, or ancillary costs like gas for the deputies who monitor the offenders regularly, sheriff officials said.
Lawmen have had to get creative dealing with the changes in laws in recent years. Legislators in 2007 passed a law that forced the attorney general and all sheriff’s offices to reclassify sexual offenders. Then the Ohio Supreme Court struck down part of the law and did so again recently saying offenders couldn’t retroactively be required to comply with new reporting requirements. As a result, the attorney general’s office has had to reclassify almost 30,000 sex offenders.
The across the board changes, with reporting requirements for even the least severe of sex crimes, have also permeated the court system. Chris Pagan, a defense attorney who has represented people accused of sex crimes, says the law is clogging the docket.
“It is certainly a lot more difficult to settle sex cases now than it was before,” he said. “People who are truly innocent, the fact that there would be a registration requirement is a deal stopper most of the time.”
Some question why sex offenders are required to register and submit to monitoring, but murderers, robbers, burglars and other criminals remain virtually invisible once they are released from prison.
Matt Kanai, general counsel for law enforcement for the state attorney general’s office, said registration isn’t meant to punish the offenders; it is a tool for the public. Sex offenders, he said, are viewed as people who will likely attack again, so keeping tabs on them and providing their locations to the public is a service.
“Sex offenders do tend to operate in their neighborhood. Crimes like murder aren’t neighborhood specific. They are not necessarily looking at everyone that’s mowing their yard or walking down the sidewalk as their next potential victim,” Kanai said. “Murders happen in the heat of the moment or in a bar or liquor store. Those people aren’t thinking when I see people walking down the street I want to go murder that person, but sex offenders we do have that concern, that every person is a potential victim.”
However, a study by J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia University in 2010 found while registering sex offenders appears to be a good, notifying the public is not always a good thing. Public notification may scare away those inclined to be future offenders. But it appears to actually increase the likelihood that convicted sex offenders will offend again, the study shows analyzing national crime data.
Monitoring sex offenders
Glenda Moore, who owns and operates Tiny Times Daycare said she appreciates that sex offenders are monitored and keeps a notebook of local sex offenders on the front desk for staffers to reference.
“Unfortunately, in today’s climate we have to,” she said. “If someone new moves in or someone in the area moves, we get a report from the police immediately.”
The closest sex offender to the facility at 50 Smalley Boulevard facility is less than 500 feet away in the 100 block of the road.
However, that offender, who was convicted in 2004 of raping an 11-year-old boy, is allowed to live there because he perpetrated the crime before recent rules were enacted.
“He lived there before he committed that, which is kind of crazy, and he owns the property, but that’s what they told us,” Moore said. “We were all upset by that because we’re like, what does that have to do with it? He committed that (crime), he shouldn’t be that close to children, but that’s the law. We don’t have too much choice.”
Moore said a better option would be giving sex offenders a certain amount of time to find a new residence in the event they owned property near a daycare center or school prior to their conviction.
“I think you give up those kind of rights when you commit those kind of crimes,” she said. Under state licensing requirements, daycares must undergo six hours of training every three years in how to check for the signs of child abuse and how to keep informed of where sex offenders are.
Being informed as a business owner made her check out who lives around her Monroe home, Moore said.
“It makes you much more aware,” she said.
Staying aware of sex offenders’ movements also is a challenge for local schools, who take action to ensure teachers and parents are well-informed.
“On occasion, when there is a sex offender identified in the area, we get a notice from the county and our Human Resources office will make copies and distribute it to all the different buildings,” said Joni Copas, spokesperson for Hamilton City Schools. “Our director of transportation, Becky Goosey, gets the notices, too, and she also checks the website on a regular basis. She has at times made adjustments, moving a bus stop down the street a little, if there’s been a sex offender identified in the area.”
Parents also help the district keep track of sex offenders, Copas said.
“They get the notices and will let us know when they see things that are suspicious,” she said.
Cost of keeping track
Deputy Mike Jacobs and part-time help from the rest of the sheriff’s office keep track of an average 460 sexual offenders – a job two-and a half people did a few years ago. On average, Jacobs makes 20 changes a day in the system, registers about 120 new offenders a year and has about 70 registrations expire annually.
The number of offenders who don’t register is under 10 percent, but the sheriff’s office could not give an accurate number.
Lt. Mike Craft said they have adjusted to cope with the dwindling county coffers in bad economic times.
“Budget cuts have hurt Mike tremendously and Sgt. (Mike) Nutt and Mike have been able to balance this thing and utilize other people in the department to pick up some of the slack to get the same efficient job done we’ve always done,” Craft said.
The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, an organization that focuses on public policy and public education to end sexual violence, opposes residency restrictions because research has shown that sex offenders with stable housing and social support are less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack such stability.
“There is no evidence that these laws protect children,” according to NAESV policy. “In fact, those states that have studied the issue carefully have found no relationship between sex offense recidivism and sex offenders’ proximity to schools or other places where children congregate.”
“Because residency requirements cause instability, which may increase the risk of re-offense, NAESV opposes residency restrictions.”
A 50-year-old Hamilton man convicted in 1996 of raping a female adult said sex offender registration and residency requirements prevent people from getting jobs and integrating back into society.
“I know one guy, he’s certified in 10 different areas of automotive repair, one of the best mechanics there is, and he can’t get a job,” he said. “Drug dealers cost this country billion of dollars in lost life, lost property and jail time because drug dealing is way more harmful.”
Registering as a sex offender, he said, does little to actually deter people from breaking the law, he said.
What about people who want to be notified if such a person moves into their neighborhood?
“If somebody moves into your neighborhood and you don’t like it, well, this is still America,” he said. “You’re allowed to live wherever you want, to an extent.”
He said being required to register every 90 days means writing a reminder “in great big letters” 10 days before the registration date and coughing up a $25 registration fee.
“It’s turning into a money pit,” he said. “It’s going to turn into its own private little entity: the sex offender police.”
He suggested that registration be done on a case by case basis with a deputy that talks and monitors sex offenders every day, rather than a sheriff or a judge.
“He should be able to make an assessment to say ‘We’ve got this dude’s DNA and fingerprints, we’ve got files of his pictures and we know what kind of car he drives, This dude ain’t going to be able to do anything that we’re not going to be aware of if he was to recommit,’ ” he said.
A 74-year-old Middletown man convicted in 2003 of gross sexual imposition and the attempted rape of a young girl said society should weigh each case on its own merits, rather than lumping all sex offenders together and stigmatizing them for life.
However, the first-time offender said he understands the desire to have sex offenders register as required.
“I think society needs a way to have some kind of control,” he said.
The man, who works for himself, said sex offenders typically face scrutiny, if not outright rejection, when it comes to applying for better jobs.
“They want a clean record,” he said. “I wanted to apply for a certain position ... but I refrained because of not having a criminal-free background.”
Law enforcement officials checking up sometimes seemed like an “infringement” on his space but he understands why they have to do it.
Despite all the monitoring, he’s never had trouble of any kind with neighbors, customers or acquaintances who find out about his checkered past. ..Source.. by Denise G. Callahan and Eric Schwartzberg, Staff Writers
July 29, 2011
Maine one of many states failing to comply with federal sex offender laws
AUGUSTA, Maine — State officials said Friday they are unsure how much money they stand to lose for failing to meet a deadline to comply with a federal law related to sex offender registries.
One thing is certain, though: It is almost certainly less than the amount of money it would cost Maine to come into full compliance.
As of Friday, Maine was one of at least 36 states that failed to meet requirements by the July 27 deadline of the Adam Walsh Act that passed five years ago.
The law, named after a Florida boy who was killed 30 years ago by a sex offender, calls on states to work toward changing their registries in a way that feeds into a national sex offender database.
The number of compliant states could shrink after the Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending and Tracking reviews additional state plans, but Maine will not be on the list.
“For Maine to comply, it would be a radical departure from what we have now,” said Matthew Ruel with the State’s Bureau of Identification, which oversees Maine’s Sex Offender Registry. “I couldn’t say what the dollar impact would be because, frankly, we don’t know what substantial compliance would look like.”
According to the Department of Justice, states that fail to comply could lose 10 percent of their Byrne Justice Assistance Grant. Maine received more than $1.3 million in funding for 2011 under that program.
Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, said he would be surprised if the the Department of Justice withholds state funds.
“But I’m more concerned about doing what’s right for Maine,” said Plummer, the House chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Other states have voiced concerns about the federal act’s requirements, including how it addresses retroactive punishment and that it seeks to include juveniles on the national registry.
Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, a member of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said her problem with the Adam Walsh Act is that it treats all states the same.
“There is no flexibility built into it,” she said. “I understand that a percentage of [federal] grant money could be withheld, but full compliance would be much more expensive for Maine.”
Ruel said his office would know more in a few weeks about what Maine’s next steps are but he has been in close contact with the SMART office.
Haskell, meanwhile, said she has been trying to set up a workshop of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee to discuss her bill, LD 1514, which was held during the recent Legislative session.
Haskell’s bill seeks to overhaul Maine’s Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, first passed in 1990, by creating a three-tiered system for offenders.
Plummer supports Haskell’s bill and said it distills what his committee has been working on for several years.
“I had hoped to get it done this last session, but there were several new members on the committee and I remember how long it took me to get up to speed,” Plummer said, adding that he plans to schedule a workshop on LD 1514 sometime this fall.
Ruel said he’s not sure if Haskell’s bill addresses all the requirements spelled out in the Adam Walsh Act. Part of the problem, he said, is that different state’s courts have ruled in different ways on the constitutionality of sex offender registries. ..Source.. by Eric Russell, BDN Staff
July 28, 2011
5 years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law
7-28-2011 National:
(CNN) -- Five years ago this week, President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act with the intention of making it the law of the land for keeping tabs on sex offenders.
Named for the 6-year-old whose slaying by a stranger galvanized child safety reforms and turned his father, John Walsh, into one of the nation's most recognizable victims' advocates, the law set forth the most comprehensive national standards to date for monitoring sex offenders in America's communities.
This week also marks a key deadline for states, tribes and U.S. territories to meet the act's requirements or face a 10% cut in federal justice assistance funding, not exactly small change in tight economic times.
As of Wednesday, the 30th anniversary of Adam Walsh's disappearance from a Florida department store, 14 states, nine tribes and the territory of Guam had "substantially implemented" what's known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. On the eve of the July 27 deadline, last-minute submissions were trickling into the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, known as the SMART office.
The law expanded the categories of crimes eligible for registration and increased the period and frequency of registration for certain adults and juveniles, effectively growing registries by as much 500% in some states. It called for jurisdictions to retroactively register some adult offenders who'd already done their time on the registry. It also called for registration of certain juveniles who'd been shielded from the registry in the past, based on the notion that confidentiality offers them a greater likelihood of rehabilitation.
The goal was to corral the information into a national public registry and FBI database. But the act is still very much a work in progress.
It's not from a lack of desire, said Susan Frederick, federal affairs counsel with the National Conference of State Legislatures. Since 2008, 48 states have enacted nearly 350 laws related to residency restrictions, sentencing and monitoring sex offenders, according to an NCSL database.
"States are very sympathetic to the need to supervise and penalize registered sex offenders. There's no softness on that population," Frederick said. "But any time you're going to be collecting and cataloging information on more people more often, that comes at a high cost. The question is whether it's worth it."
Many states don't want to change their laws; others believe the legislation's cost outweighs its predicted benefits, she said. Texas has put the estimated federal funding cuts at $1.4 million, compared to a cost of $38.7 million.
To see how the law has fared in practice, one need look no farther than Ohio, the first state to adopt the law in its original, most stringent form, in 2007.
Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, SB 10, has resulted in more than 7,000 legal claims, according to the state public defender's office. It also has led to years of litigation, two state Supreme Court rulings and separate registry criteria for sex offenders whose crimes occurred before and after the law's enactment.
The slow unraveling of Ohio's law underscores some of the major criticism of the new federal scheme and the registry in general: that it stigmatizes offenders beyond hope of rehabilitation while giving the public a false sense of security.
The federal agency created to help the states implement the act acknowledges that compliance has been an uphill battle. It has also listened to the states' concerns and issued supplemental guidelines that offer states more flexibility than Ohio had when it adopted its law.
Controversial legal issues like retroactive registration -- requiring an offender who was sentenced before the legislation to follow the new rules -- and juvenile registration get the most notice. For most states, however, the biggest hurdles are implementing technology and adjusting statutes, said Linda Baldwin, director of the SMART office.
"What happens across the board is some states are finding it more difficult to implement SORNA depending on their starting point," she said. "We've found that states whose systems are not centralized and digitized have had to make great changes to their registry system, but those changes require an investment that states have been able to apply to our office for funding for."
Uniform laws and a centralized database enable law enforcement to share information and ensure offenders don't slip through the cracks, Baldwin said. Community notification makes information about released sex offenders broadly available through various means, such as postcards in the mail, phone calls, e-mail alerts and police going door to door.
Online registries don't include everyone who is a threat, she said, because not all dangerous predators are known to law enforcement. Online registries also are not a tool to reduce repeat offenses, she said.
"It's hard to measure whether these important public safety goals are being met and figuring out how to measure that is challenging and may take years for us to complete," Baldwin said. "But what we've found is, as an alternative, many people are focusing on registration notification programs as tools to reduce recidivism, which really is not a major goal of these laws."
She stressed that the registries are "primarily a law enforcement tool, an ability to allow the public to take measures to protect themselves."
The effectiveness of registries -- for sex crimes and other offenses -- has long been a topic of debate. Supporters like Baldwin tout their public safety benefits, while critics say they can have the unintended consequence of destabilizing sex offenders.
"Public notification creates barriers to successful sex offender management and treatment and supervision," said Alisa Klein, Public Policy Consultant for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and co-author of the report, "A Reasoned Approach: Reshaping Sex Offender Policy to Prevent Child Sex Abuse (PDF)."
Offenders re-entering the community need strong support systems to prevent them from reoffending, she said, through family, faith communities and a steady job.
"Going on a public registry creates an immediate stigma. It can prevent employment, prevent them from living with families, get them thrown out of faith communities; it has the consequence of putting someone in an emotional state that may make them more likely to reoffend," she said.
Some states have attempted to evaluate the benefits of SORNA. In Texas, home to more than 60,000 registered sex offenders, a 2010 report from the Senate Criminal Justice Committee (PDF) concluded, "It is clear registries do not provide the public safety," noting the issue contained "gray areas."
The California Sex Offender Management Board also recommended against implementing the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, stating, "California state law and practice related to offender risk assessment, juvenile registration and sex offender monitoring is more consistent with evidence-based practice that can demonstrate real public safety outcomes."
Who commits sex crimes against children?
- Family member: 34.2%
- Acquaintance: 58.7%
- Stranger: 7%
-- U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000
People on both sides of the debate agree that truly dangerous sexual predators, such as pedophiles and rapists, need to be monitored closely if they're going to be released into communities.
The federal law uses a three-tiered system based on the sex crimes offenders are convicted of to determine the length of time they must remain on the registry and the frequency with which they must check in with law enforcement. Critics say that using offense-based registration instead of an approach based on risk-assessment -- favored by states like Texas and California -- pulls too many offenders onto the registry and overburdens law enforcement, preventing police from keeping a close eye on the worst of the worst.
"I think we would have a better use of our time if we could determine who the most dangerous ones are," said Sheriff Jeff Grey of Mercer, Ohio. "Sometimes we get tied up registering the ones who are trying to do the right thing and don't have time to look for the ones that are out of compliance, but just because someone's registering and doing everything he's supposed to doesn't mean he's not going to reoffend."
In Ohio, law enforcement is working closely with the state Attorney General's Office to explore ways that technology can streamline the process. Sheriffs' departments use software that sends e-mail notifications to offenders or calls them seven days before they have to register. If the e-mail bounces back or the call goes to the wrong person, law enforcement knows an offender is not complying, Grey said.
The state also recently released an iPhone app -- Shaquille O'Neal is its spokesman -- that locates registered sex offenders in a given area. Authorities in Ohio also are looking into kiosks to allow offenders to self-register through iris and fingerprint scans at the sheriff's department if the technology proves reliable.
"We need to keep up with the technology because it's there to help us do the job," said Grey, chairman of the sex offender registration and notification committee for the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association.
Besides Ohio, states that have adopted SORNA are Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The number of offenders on Wyoming's registry increased from 125 to 1,450 after the state moved from risk-based assessment to a tier system for registration, said Kevin R. Smith, deputy director of the state's Criminal Justice Information Services.
The biggest change for Wyoming involved juveniles, who were exempt from registration under old state law. New guidelines passed in January 2011 allowed Wyoming to exclude juveniles from appearing on the online registry, but they're still subject to community notification, he said.
"It's always been a difficult decision for the Legislature, the need to register juveniles for public safety versus the idea of confidentiality to rehabilitate juveniles." Smith said. "Wyoming didn't want to be seen as any more or any less restrictive than the national standard. ... We didn't want to be seen as the place to come to that was easier on sex offenders."
There's a saying among critics of the registry, that the rare cases of "stranger-danger" inspire the most sweeping legislative reforms. The slayings of Adam Walsh, Jacob Wetterling, Jessica Lunsford and Dru Sjodin, all sparked legislation that has been incorporated in the Adam Walsh Act.
Sadly, it often takes a tragedy to inspire needed reforms, said Linda Walker, Sjodin's mother. She thinks if the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website had existed in 2003, it might have saved her daughter's life.
Neither Sjodin, a University of North Dakota student, nor her mother knew that a sex offender considered likely to reoffend was living across the border in Crookston, Minnesota. Alfonso Rodriguez was released from prison in May 2003 after serving 23 years for sexual violence against a Crookston woman. He abducted Sjodin from a mall parking lot in Grand Forks, North Dakota, on November 22, raped and murdered her. Rodriguez is awaiting execution on federal death row.
Sjodin's death inspired Dru's Law, which required convicted child molesters to be listed on a national online database and face a felony charge for failing to update their whereabouts. It was included in the Adam Walsh Act and signed into law the same day, five years ago.
Sjodin's mother has become a member of a club no one wants to belong to: The Surviving Parents Coalition. The group advocates for legislative initiatives in areas of child safety education, the expansion of DNA laws and national standards for sex offender legislation -- Walker's main focus.
She maintains that the Adam Walsh Act sets minimum standards, not a ceiling, so the public can protect itself.
"Our borders, we don't see them, and we're such a mobile nation, we move to different communities frequently, so this gives you a better awareness of who you might be living among," she said.
"I get so angered that we humanize these people who choose to victimize. We give these offenders two, three, four different chances -- what does that say to the victims?"
Some people would rather die than face a lifetime on the registry. One of those people, Roy Martin, hanged himself in his garage after learning he would be reclassified as a Tier III offender in Ohio.
Martin was released from prison in 2004 after serving 10 years for raping a female relative, though he maintained his innocence, said his lawyer, Shimane K. Smith.
Under the state's Megan's Law, which took effect in 1997, a judge classified Martin a sexually oriented offender, which meant he had to register once a year for 10 years after his release. Then he received a letter in November 2007 from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation notifying him that under Ohio's SB 10, he would be reclassified effective January 1, 2008, as a Tier III offender.
For the rest of his life, he would have to check in every 90 days with law enforcement to confirm his home address, employer, school address and Internet identifiers and vehicle make.
His sex offender status was already a source of deep shame for the introverted, 50-year-old construction worker, who was prone to drinking in times of despair, said his companion, Denise Sees.
"You go to get a job, they know your record, they don't want you. Everybody knows who you are. You're marked for life," she said.
She never suspected he was capable of killing himself. But upon reflection, there were signs to indicate he had prepared for it, she said. He cleaned up the garage, organized his tools, finished an addition to the house. Then, early in the morning of February 27, 2008, he came home smelling of alcohol.
"I went to bed; told him we didn't have to talk about it. In the middle of the night, I heard coughing. I thought he was smoking a cigarette. I woke up the next morning and was calling for him. He was in the garage. He had hung himself with a cord," she said.
He didn't leave a note, but she knew that the prospect of lifetime registration was too much to bear.
"If you've not been involved in it you do not know what it's like," she said. "I just think him having that label on him, he couldn't take it anymore. I think he thought that was his best choice."
Since Martin's suicide, retroactive registration under SB 10 has been found unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court in two cases, including a July 13 ruling that found imposing "current registration requirements on a sex offender whose crime was committed prior to the enactment of SB 10 is punitive."
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said he does not agree with the court's decision in State v. Williams (PDF), but his office will not appeal the ruling. He does plan to seek clarification on how the panel reached its decision and how that could apply to cases down the road.
DeWine, a former U.S. senator and representative, continues to support public registration. His next step is to figure out how to make sure offenders retain their pre-SORNA classification.
"The public has an interest in making sure these people check in with police and that we know where they are," he said. "The public policy goal of the attorney general's office is to make sure that the sex offenders who were classified before remain classified."
The recent court ruling creates a cliffhanger ending for those watching three juvenile cases that raised similar claims regarding retroactive registration.
"We think with the court's finding that SB 10 can't be applied retroactively to adults should lead to the same finding for children," said Brooke Burns with the Ohio Public Defender's Office, who represents two juveniles in claims that retroactive application of the law for juveniles is unconstitutional.
The cases underscore concerns nationwide that placing teens on a public registry will stigmatize them and hamper their chances of moving beyond the offense.
Given juveniles' positive response to treatment and room for cognitive development, the juvenile system has traditionally been regarded as rehabilitative, unlike the adult system, which counts punishment among its goals, Burns said.
"The court's finding that registration is punishment opens the door for us to start advocating that juveniles cannot be given a punishment because they're in juvenile court, which in itself is a rehabilitative system," she said.
Another scenario she hopes for is that the court might consider terminating the requirement to register at 21, the age at which the juvenile court loses jurisdiction over an offender -- except when it comes to the registry, Burns said.
"The only penalty that sticks beyond the juvenile system in and of itself is registration," she said. "We hope with (the court calling the registry) punishment, perhaps the court will find ... that you cannot impose a lifetime punishment on children or a person when the court that imposed it only has jurisdiction on a person 'til 21."
The use of the word "punitive" in the ruling has been a source of hope to opponents of the registry, who disagree with case law that says sex offender registration does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is a civil remedy intended to protect the public.
Critics of the registry say it perpetuates fears that strangers are most likely to commit sex offenses on children, when research shows the most frequent perpetrators are relatives and acquaintances. Victim advocacy groups and policy think-tanks cite volumes of academic research and a Department of Justice study to support the argument that registries are not a cure-all for preventing sex crimes against children.
"It's such a misleading statement to send to the public that we somehow have a notion of where all sex offenders are and that we can keep the public safe from them because we have a registry," said Elizabeth Barnhill, executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "It's fueled by awful things that happened to children and very understandable, but unfortunately that's not a fix that makes sense for most offenders."
Sex crime prevention begins in the home, she said, by instructing parents of the warning signs and teaching children not just about good touches and bad touches, but also about basic respect.
"Primary prevention is very long-term work that involves a cultural shift in terms of how we deal with children, what we teach children, the messages communities send toward children and women," she said. "There are still a lot of cultural norms that allow for the victimization of people who are vulnerable." ..Source.. by Emanuella Grinberg, CNN (This story was assisted by an H.F. Guggenheim/John Jay reporting fellowship from the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at John Jay College.)
July 27, 2011
D.C. won't meet federal sex offender registry mandate
This is the first published analysis of "Initial" -AND- "Ongoing" costs of implementing the Adam Walsh Act. Never forget, the "Ongoing Costs" are forever, soaking the pockets of taxpayers.7-27-2011 Washington DC:
The District will not meet a July 27 deadline to fall in line with a federal mandate designed to create a national sex offender registry, likely causing the city to lose $250,000 in grant money that it uses for crime prevention.
If the city continues not to act, it could stand to lose about $1 million from the feds over the next four years. Tuesday is the last chance before the deadline for the council to act on legislation introduced by the mayor in May that's designed to bring the District into compliance with the five-year-old Adam Walsh Act. After Tuesday, the council won't meet again to vote on legislation until mid-September.
At-large Councilman Phil Mendelson, who is handling the mayor's bill as head of the public safety committee, told The Washington Examiner that he's not rushing.
"We'll continue to look at the legislation over the next couple of months," Mendelson said. "We need to look beyond the deadline and at what's the right policy."
The District won't likely be the only jurisdiction not to meet the deadline for the controversial federal requirements, which include tracking for at least 25 years on a nonpublic sex offender registry youths as young as 14 who are convicted of violent rapes. Only seven states are in compliance with the act, although many -- including Virginia -- are working closely with federal officials to meet the deadline. Some states, such as Maryland, aren't interested in changing how they handle juvenile sex offenders.
There's also the issue of cost.
Earlier this month, the District's chief financial officer determined that implementing the legislation would cost more than $700,000 in the first year, and $78,000 for every year that follows.
The city's "funds are not sufficient" to make the legislation a reality, the CFO wrote to the council. The CFO's assessment also confirmed the city would lose the federal grant money, which in the past has been doled out to groups such as the gang-fighting nonprofit group Peaceoholics.
Beyond the cash, there's also the potential cost of having sex offender laws that are less rigourous than other states, police union chief Kris Baumann said.
"It's a small price to pay for us not to become a haven for sex offenders," Baumann said.
Mendelson said that won't happen.
"My impression is that our current law is pretty good and this is about closing a few details," Mendelson said. ..Source.. by Freeman Klopott | Examiner Staff Writer
July 21, 2011
SORNA's Approaching Deadlines by Dr. Levenson a Guest Blogger at SAJRT
Dr. Levenson was a Guest Blogger over at "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment," and had the following to say about SORNA's approaching deadlines.
Here is a guest blog from Florida's Jill Levenson, a public policy researcher and expert. In this piece, Jill discusses a variety of issues associated with evidence-based risk management of sexual offenders--focusing specifically on the SORNA. Please note that the majority of Jill's references are in Sage Journals, which means that ATSA members can access them for free from the Members Only side of http://www.atsa.com/. RJW
With the SORNA deadline approaching next week, only eight states are in substantial compliance with the law. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which is Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), requires states to meet minimum standards in their sexual offender tracking and disclosure procedures.
Why is it that over 80% of states are not complying, especially when facing a 10% loss of federal crime funding each year? Since its inception, certain pieces of SORNA have been quite controversial and, in many cases, "deal-breakers" for states. Aside from the fiscal reality that SORNA will cost more for most states to implement than they would lose through penalties, parts of the law contradict evidence and best practices that some states have spent years refining.
Take, for example, the rigid offense-based tier system that classifies offenders by their statutes of conviction. There is a seemingly intuitive logic to the belief that statute titles, crime degrees, and descriptions accurately portray the offense in question. We all know, however, that in many cases statutory language does a poor job of characterizing the crime—and an even worse job of characterizing the criminal. In other words, SORNA tiers confuse the seriousness of the crime with the risk to reoffend. Although the SORNA guidelines cleverly avoid using the word risk, there is a clear implication, based on the associated longer registration durations and more frequent updates, that the Tier 3 offenders are more dangerous and therefore necessitate closer monitoring for longer periods. As well, "tier enhancements based on recidivism" can be made, allowing an offender with more than one conviction to be upgraded to a Tier 3 based on the repetitive nature of the criminal behavior—again suggesting to the public that higher tier assignments are associated with an increased likelihood of recidivism.
Unfortunately, in most instances, offense definitions are an inadequate means for evaluating risk or determining supervision needs. They overestimate risk for most offenders, and underestimate risk for those who plea-bargained to lesser offenses. Andrew Harris and colleagues (2010) found that applying SORNA criteria in Ohio and Oklahoma greatly skewed the distribution of risk into the highest tier compared to the states' prior classification schemes using risk assessment tools. Naomi Freeman and Jeffrey Sandler (2010) found that SORNA tiers were less effective in identifying sexual recidivists in New York than assessment tools utilizing risk factors statistically associated with recidivism. Many states have spent the past two decades developing and refining evidence-based risk management systems, and although SORNA does not technically require states to abandon the use of those tools, it does require registration and notification decisions to be based on the federal guidelines rather than the state's risk assessment.
And, speaking of longer registration durations (25 years to life), they contradict research indicating that sexual offenders become less likely to reoffend with increased time spent offense-free in the community. According to Static-99 guidelines, an offender's risk declines by half after 5 years, and by half again after 10 years. As well, reoffending declines with age. Right now, 20% of America's sexual offenders are over 56 years of age. Over time, with longer registration durations, we should anticipate an aging sexual offender population of which a greater proportion will pose a lower risk to public safety.
SMART Office staff have claimed that the purpose of SORNA was never to prevent recidivism, but to provide a monitoring tool for law enforcement and to increase public awareness. Indeed, the AWA legislative intent does not mention reduced reoffending as a goal. But, isn't that a little disingenuous? Why the need for enhanced law enforcement monitoring and increased public awareness if not for the hope of preventing future sex crimes and protecting potential victims from the trauma of sexual assault? Do Americans really want to spend tens of millions of dollars on sexual offender notification if it doesn't pay off in terms of protecting communities? Surveys of the American public have found that most citizens support SORN laws because, in fact, they believe them to be effective in reducing sexual recidivism. About a dozen empirical investigations (see summary in Levenson, 2009) have been conducted to date on the effectiveness of SORN laws to reduce recidivism. Most have not shown declines in sex crime rates generally or sexual recidivism specifically that can be attributed to SORN. Interestingly, the two studies that have noted significant effects on recidivism were conducted in Washington and Minnesota—both states with empirically derived risk assessment systems and concordant monitoring and management plans.
Or, consider the requirement that minors adjudicated delinquent in juvenile courts must be registered as sexual offenders. Though the SORNA guidelines conceded to states that public notification was discretionary, even registering juveniles with law enforcement contradicts a century of juvenile justice philosophy in the United States. The labeling of minors, and the subsequent potential obstacles to educational, occupational, and social opportunities, seems counter-intuitive to both juvenile advocates and victim advocates. This component of SORNA has been a noted barrier to implementation for many states.
We've seen the harrowing story of Jaycee Dugard in recent weeks, and all of us wondered how a registered sexual offender could get away with holding someone captive for 18 years. We've heard the scathing reports of parole agent incompetence, and we've used our 20/20 hindsight to shrewdly point out the missed clues. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Garrido was high risk; he'd had two previous arrests, one resulting in a conviction for the abduction and rape of a woman whom he held hostage until she escaped.
But, perhaps, the real answer to the unfathomable question—How could this happen?? —is simply that Philip Garrido was a needle in a haystack. Philip Garrido is an example of how overzealous SORN laws might actually be counterproductive. As the registered sexual offender population nears three quarters of a million, fiscal and personnel resources are spread thin, law enforcement agents' capacity to target their monitoring toward more dangerous individuals is compromised, and the public's ability to distinguish truly high-risk predators is diluted. As Robin Wilson astutely pointed out in his recent San Francisco public radio interview, cases like Jaycee (and Adam Walsh, Jessica Lunsford, and Megan Kanka) are exceedingly rare, which is why they command so much attention—they shock us. They are statistically improbable events not representative of the vast majority of sexual assault cases and, thus, not the best cases on which to base public policy designed to address a rampant social problem.
Oh, and what about those 100,000 missing sexual offenders discussed repeatedly in AWA legislative hearings and in news reports? The ones who supposedly take advantage of discrepancies in laws to shop around for lax states where they can more easily neglect to register and avoid detection while seeking new child victims? My colleagues and I (Levenson & Harris, 2011) analyzed data downloaded directly from the online registries, along with surveys of registry managers, and we discovered that approximately 4% of the nation's RSOs have addresses that cannot be verified. We estimate the number of noncompliant sexual offenders to be between 25,000 and 30,000—but less than half of them are officially designated by states to have truly absconded. And, incidentally, research conducted in Minnesota, South Carolina, New York, and New Jersey all conclude that failure to register does not typically contribute to the likelihood for sexual recidivism.
Perhaps the apparent lack of state enthusiasm for SORNA will provide an impetus to re-open the dialogue about sexual offender management. SORNA in its current form sacrifices precision for over-inclusion, quality for quantity, efficiency for symbolism. By going back to the drawing board, with input from victim advocates, law enforcement, psychologists, criminal justice practitioners, and academic researchers, Congress has an opportunity to create model legislation that is evidence-based and more likely to achieve the goal of preventing repeat sexual violence.
July 20, 2011
Grant money for N.C. at risk
This is an excellent article which covers ALL the major issues about compliance with the Adam Walsh Act; and Act that makes everyone cringe given it is harmful in every respect, even to the taxpayers of any state that enacts it! It drives costs UP UP UP UP for nothing more than a address book of places where registrants sleep for a few hours of the day! Monitoring registrants is nothing more than an illusion, police merely monitor the computer address book, and occasionally check a home address by visiting them.7-20-2011 North Carolina:
Beginning later this month, North Carolina and all other states will lose grant money if they don't comply with new minimum standards for sex-offender registration and notification set by the federal government.
The new component of the sex-offender registry law aims to ensure uniformity among registries across the country and requires more disclosure from offenders.
They still must register their home address, as they did before. But they must also tell where they work, where they attend school, their car description and their email addresses and Internet usernames.
The intentions are good. But it could cost North Carolina millions of dollars and hundreds of hours to become compliant.
And, you cannot forget, there is a BIG difference between "becoming compliant" and "remaining compliant" those costs are not even mentioned in this article, and those costs are forever once the changes are made.North Carolina legislators are studying ways to pay for the changes. States that do not meet the criteria for "substantial implementation" of the new act's rules by July 27 will lose 10 percent of federal law-enforcement assistance grants.
Sheriff Bill Schatzman of Forsyth County said his agency monitors 500 to 550 registered sex offenders a year. The sheriff's office will work the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Marshals Service to implement the new law, Schatzman said.
A staff of five people — three deputies and two administrative assistants — monitors the sex offenders, he said.
At least one deputy visits the offenders' homes, workplaces and schools to make sure they are where they are supposed to be, Schatzman said.
It's not a matter of if, but when, North Carolina complies, said Cpl. J.F. Daniel, half of the two-person team that monitors nearly 700 sex offenders registered with the Guilford County Sheriff's Office.
"We don't have the resources," Daniel said.
Since the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was enacted in 2006, local law enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office have collaborated more often to catch sex offenders who don't comply with registry requirements.
The act makes it a federal crime for registered sex offenders to knowingly fail to register when moving from state to state and allows the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute them.
County sheriff's offices are supposed to register and monitor sex offenders. If deputies lose track of an offender, then they can ask the U.S. Marshals Service to locate the person inside or outside the state.
If the person is found out of state, the U.S. Marshals Service investigates and consults with the U.S. Attorney's Office to consider prosecution.
Updating the registry isn't a big burden on sex offenders, said U.S. Attorney Anand P. Ramaswamy, who works in Greensboro.
"But there are some people who just don't want to make the effort," he said.
Anonymity is one reason offenders flee.
"If I'm here and if I'm registered, then my neighbors know," said Bill Stafford, U.S. marshal in Greensboro.
"I can't move next to the school; I can't do all those things. I think, 'OK, I'll move to South Carolina and nobody will know the difference.'"
Not anymore.
In May, a judge in the U.S. Middle District Court in Greensboro sentenced former Alamance County resident David Alan Heming, 48, after he pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender.
He moved to Pennsylvania twice without registering, making him subject to the federal law.
He was sentenced to 27 months in prison and was ordered to serve 15 years of supervision after his release.
Ramaswamy is prosecuting at least four other offenders.
North Carolina could lose 10 percent of its Edward Byrne law-enforcement assistance grant, which was about $7.1 million in the last fiscal year, if it doesn't comply with the new rules.
Before state legislators decide to comply, they want to know how much the new law would cost and what the state would lose without complying. In 2009, the nonprofit Justice Policy Institute estimated North Carolina would pay nearly $14.7 million in the first year to implement the act. If it didn't comply, the state would have lost more than $546,000 in grants. ..Source.. by JournalNow Staff McClatchy-Tribune News Service
May 24, 2011
On the Money Trail With Oregon's Latest Sex Offender Bill
5-24-2011 Oregon:
This story begs the question: why would the state suddenly seek to broaden the list by including all sex offenders, rather than those who are predatory?
(SALEM, Ore.) - The sponsor of new proposed legislation that would require all sex offenders to become part of a government registry, State Representative Kim Thatcher (R) Keizer, recently brought forth a significant bill to increase state government transparency.
Logically, she would understand our quest to follow the money trail behind SB 67 and HR 2765; proposals which would disrupt the lives of any person ever convicted of a sex offense, regardless of how minor, by forcing their names onto yet another taxpayer funded public computer registry.
First, I must say that I have yet to hear of a child surviving a sexual molestation because their parents spotted a would-be convicted sex offender in a mandated state computer registry. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, or that we would even necessarily know, what I am saying however that we are a bit low on success stories stemming from Oregon's mandatory sex offender registry.
We do however know many stories of police and state authorities not fully investigating claims of sex abuse; we know the state Dept of Human Services will place children with known sex offenders; I don't see what the government can gain in terms of public safety by helping one or two people in the 'background investigation' business spike their incomes.
This story begs the question: why would the state suddenly seek to broaden the list by including all sex offenders, rather than those who are predatory?
I don't personally care if my neighbor got drunk and went streaking during a college party, do you? I don't care about minor adjudicated offenses being resurrected for the sake of further invading privacy. I don't care if Joey screwed Sally and she was 17 and he was 19, I don't think very many people care. However I know there are tens of thousands of sex offender families who would appreciate their names not being drug through the mud with legislation that sounds good at face value, but in fact faces several obstacles, including privacy issues from HUD (Housing and Urban Development)
Again, back to that money trail with Rep. Thatcher. Drop in the toll, here we go.
VroooomRep Thatcher said she sponsored HB 2765 on behalf of Daniel Meister. Mr. Meister testified before the Senate Judiciary in support of SB 67. This is noteworthy, because Meister runs a private business called Pacific Screening, Inc., providing--for a membership fee-- background checks/screenings for various organizations (apartment communities and public housing the biggies but also churches, businesses large and small, non-profits, schools, and private citizens.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the money trail; the super information highway, where you are about to meet Dan Meister...
It would appear that Mr. Meister is pushing this legislation in the interest of private profit. (Pacific Screening employees 5-9 people and posts an annual revenue of $500k-$1 million.)
In support of Senate Bill 67 he wrote (unedited):
"It is critical that the Oregon State Police be allowed the release the unrestricted names of sex offenders registered in Oregon.I would deem 'critical' the pending result of any such legislation. I would also note that there is a good reason that people aren't listed; because they served their time, made restitution, and moved on. Dragging skeletons out of closets is bad business. There are things called 'rights' that perhaps are being overlooked.
"Organizations such as apartment communities, public housing agencies, churches, businesses large and small, non-profit groups, schools and private citizens rely on the Oregon State Police information.
"They rely on this information to be correct, up to date and complete. Organizations are basing rental decisions, employment decisions and volunteer decisions on this information... unfortunately, this information is not complete. The current Oregon Sex Offender Web sites does not contain the a majority of sex offenders currently living in the state."
- Daniel Meister, Pacific Screening Inc. 'Quality Applicant Research Services'
I can only imagine how difficult life must be for those who become a 'sex offender' and then manage to regain control of their lives; to assume their place in society with jobs and responsibilities, only to suddenly be re-exposed for a crime they have already paid their dues for, in a quirky double jeopardy framework, under Thatcher and Meister's sex background microscope law.
People who offend children are already on the list, and they don't come off. This is needless big government control at its finest, cleverly using political law to raise the incomes of a limited few while stripping and further eroding the rights of Oregonians.
I have a close friend who is a sex offender because he and his fiance were petting too heavily in a parked car at Bush Park in Salem. They have been married for years, have children, but that event is still on his record, and this would force my friend into a bizarre place that would utterly misrepresent him.
It's also worth noting that Meister's testimonial letter ends with broad, unsubstantiated claims and resorts to fear tactics in order to justify this legislation as being of emergency interest to the state:
In my biggest customer group, the apartment communities, are missing sex offenders every day. Not every sex offender we screen has a county criminal record (OJIN), but they are listed as a sex offender with the state. We just can not get the information. The law needs to change. If offenders are left off the sex offender list, we can not do a complete criminal search. At this time, the current Oregon Sex Offender Web sites does not contain the majority of sex offenders currently living in the state.I don't envy Thatcher or others in her shoes, nor do I doubt that she has the better interests of voters at heart. I really liked her transparency bill. Oregon's legislators carry a heavy load and they are tasked with mountainous responsibility. Knowing that to be the case, it is easy to understand how ideas presented to legislators that are well greased and presented with passion, are easy to be tricked by. To me the victim list expands when these things happen to include the legislators themselves. People like Thatcher know that it is important for all Oregonians to have a roof over their heads, and this bill would lead to past offenders losing jobs and housing and being tossed onto the streets. That will raise the danger level, not lower it.
- Daniel Meister, 'Pacific Screening Inc. Quality Applicant Research Services'
Chasing Sex Offenders
I have some time with this subject, having spent the past 23 years in news. Before that, when I was a U.S. Marine on guard (barracks) duty, I caught a man, another Marine, who had allegedly tried to rape a young civilian woman visiting the base on a Saturday night. I pulled the guy out of a car and pinned him down in a phone booth as I called the MP's. I'm as serious as anyone about protecting the virtue of my fellow citizens.
Still, I have learned a great deal over the years and it isn't all about catching bad guys, however vividly those moments stand out.
My most memorable event was chasing the man known as 'Polk County's Most Notorious Sex Offender' Larry Lee Edwards, down the street as a camera man with KATU Channel-2 News with my 30+ pound TV camera and actually catching him, and making him talk. I was really proud of myself, but my ultimate lesson about Edwards, and all sex offenders, is that they are people too, regardless of how they may disgust us.
I met his father and interviewed him at the time, and the senior Mr. Edwards told me about how his son was in the Navy; how he had traveled the world and accomplished a great deal, but then suffered a long-term relationship break up that ruined him emotionally, and ultimately he responded by raping two young boys in the Dallas area.
When I chased Edwards down the street that day, he had just been released from 14 years in prison, and he had no place to live, so he was staying in an abandoned field in Dallas. This to me is the reality of further juxtaposing human beings based on their individual records. Guys like Larry Lee Edwards are potentially dangerous, their crimes were hugely significant, and they will always easily and quickly be found on a registry. But that guy who streaked down the road at a drunken frat party is who this legislation would float to the front and there is no need for this when taxpayer revenues are already strained and the authorities themselves are failing in their roles.
Instead let's clean up shop, hold cops and social workers accountable, and not waste taxpayer funds wrecking the lives of those who have paid their dues, done their time.
If this measure in enacted it would place approx 18,000 people on the registry. It passed the Senate 30-0 and has moved to the House.
One person who contacted Salem-News.com but preferred to not use their name, made another strong point, that is the way a reckless law like this would in fact endanger the families of sex offenders who are leading legal productive lives. These people are as innocent as anyone and equally significant.
The proposed Senate bill moved quickly at first but the legislation has slowed, as legislators agreed to move it to a work session, the next work session is set for tomorrow, Tuesday, 24 May 2011, at the capital, 1:00 p.m. in Room 343. ..Source.. by Tim King: Salem-News.com Editor and Writer
May 13, 2011
ACTION ALERT: Request for Reallocation of Byrne/JAG Grant Funds that Have Been Denied, and Delay Implementation of SORNA
PLEASE Pass this along to every Lawmaker you know.5-13-2011 Washington DC:
Have you heard anything about states considering or pursuing a mechanism to delay implementation another year, while reacquiring funds for sole use toward SORNA implementation?
THERE IS a WAY!
“If it is determined that a jurisdiction did not substantially implement SORNA by July 27, 2011, a reduction of 10% of the jurisdiction's Byrne/JAG funding will be imposed when the FY 2012 awards are made. For any jurisdiction that has been penalized and wishes to reacquire its funds to dedicate solely towards SORNA implementation, that jurisdiction must make such a request in writing using a special form to the SMART Office.”The form to complete is found HERE (PDF file).
Requests to reacquire funds must include a detailed plan and timeline for substantial implementation of SORNA. That plan and timetable are similar to what AG’s Office has been submitting to receive an extension each year for the last two years.
April 1, 2011
Maine’s sex offender conundrum
As far as the State is concerned, truthfulness doesn't matter, only the almighty buck matters!4-1-2011 Maine:
UPDATE: To the visitor commenting about "John Walsh and scrapping the registry." There is a link in the original story, but it is to a letter to a lawmaker, and we do not consider that a credible source. However, with that said, somewhere in the past we do remember him saying something to that effect, and we are trying to find it again. Will post it if we find it.
On Jan. 2, when the 125th legislative session was still a gleam in every new legislator’s eye, the Bangor Daily News published an article titled “State to craft new sex crime laws.” Mal Leary led off with the description of legislators “bracing” for onslaught.
Oh, those sex offenders! We seem to know what to do with every other type of offender. But sex offenders, who notoriously enjoy a recidivism and probation violation rate of around 16 percent of that experienced with your average, run-of-the-mill former prisoner, evoke the shudder complex from the most compassionate among us.
One way of reducing the bracing factor in dealing with sex offenders is to educate the public concerning the level of threat posed by various categories of offense. That would, however, demand that we psychologically profile each offender, a task above the budgetary tolerance line.
So we are required to render all sex offenders 14 and older as more or less equal if we are to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act. We create something of a lifelong leper colony for people who have been caught acting out fantasies prompted by our sex-crazed culture.
What ought to concern us more are the ones who have not yet been caught and who may be living next door.
Four of the 50 states are now in compliance with the Adam Walsh Act — South Dakota, Ohio, Delaware and Florida. Thus violation of any one of 189 sex offenses, including urinating on the sidewalk, streaking or online sex chat, will result in a lifetime registry.
Maine legislators, meanwhile, are bracing.
At stake is a cut of $166,000 to $350,000 in Byrne Justice Assistance funds to law enforcement agencies.
Thankfully, cooler heads are and have been prevailing. “We have had some serious questions about the Adam Walsh Act so far,” says veteran Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick. His former co-chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, Rep. Ann Haskell, D-Portland, adds that compliance has been a concern in many states and that change tends to be incremental.
That brings us to the ultimate in inanity — LD 8. As amended, LD 8 would permit towns with no police department to move the current 750-foot buffer between sex offender housing and schools or day care centers to 2,500 feet, or half a mile.
That affirms the public stereotype of a sex offender as a sleazy-looking, unlicensed male lurking behind bushes in the schoolyard. One veteran probation officer told me that in his 30-year career, he could think of only a handful of sex offenses that originated on school property, and all were committed by staff.
Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, a committee member and retired state trooper, is all over LD 8. “I am concerned about keeping children safe,” he avers. That sets Rep. Burns apart from the rest of us, one would suppose.
The committee verdict on the bill was a hung jury — 6-6 — and it has not yet been reported to the full Legislature. We look forward to fierce debate on the floor of the House being led by ought-to-pass advocates of this feel-good opportunity. At stake is an indeterminate fiscal report.
The fact that state legislators are “bracing” themselves ought to be cause enough for concern. The preponderance of sex offenses occur within families, carried out by family members or friends to whom it likely never occurs to lurk in the schoolyard bushes or near a day care.
They get plenty of opportunities right at home. In fact, the most common profile of a sexual predator is one who looks and acts just like the rest of us.
We could do away with the registry entirely by requiring GPS ankle monitors to be worn by all sex offenders for however long the court would deem appropriate. The savings in law enforcement man-hours would likely far exceed the loss of funds from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program.
Adam Walsh’s dad, John, argues that we ought to scrap the registry altogether and start over.
The core problem is a public that naively believes that family members, pastors, teachers and neighbors are inherently good just because of who they are.
Perhaps we all ought to wear GPS ankle bracelets to protect each other from enablers who have failed to learn that trust is not something you earn because of who you are or where you live or how you make your living but by proving yourself to be trustworthy.
Big brother is watching! ..Source.. by Stan Moody of Manchester served in the Maine Legislature and was a prison chaplain.
March 25, 2011
Michigan lawmakers approve sex offender registry changes, including teen provisions
A wolf in sheep's clothing is what we have here. Lawmakers say "consensual sex" cases will no longer be listed on the registry, but, they do not tell folks how that is accomplished. Within the bill it is required for folks to effectively reopen their case -some decades after the act/s- and somehow prove the acts were consensual at the time. Tampering with the evidence -after the fact- can be a ex post facto violation. It is very likely these cases will wind up in court in a lawsuit against the state.3-25-2011 Michigan:
Further, Michigan has what is known as HYTA cases, and as best the new changes read, many of these cases -of which none have a conviction on their record- will wind up back on the registry. These are cases, which the law -at the time- promised folks, if you follow whatever the court said, for a period of time, then there will be no conviction on your record. So much for TRUTH in LEGISLATION! Never trust the state, money will be their deciding factor, lives mean nothing to them.
The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
Quote from Calder: "I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender."
LANSING, Mich. — Many teenagers cited for having consensual sex with minors would no longer be listed on Michigan's sex offender registry under legislation headed to Gov. Rick Snyder.
A package of bills related to the offenders' list was overwhelmingly approved Thursday by the Legislature, and some of the bills are on their way to the governor.
Offenders would not be listed for having consensual sex with partners who were between the ages of 13 and 16, provided the offender was not more than four years older than the victim. The legislation calls for a petition process to allow those young offenders currently on the registry to be taken off if a court determined the sex was consensual.
The Michigan bills are aimed at complying with a federal statute. ..Source.. by The Republic
March 15, 2011
Editorial: Reform Michigan's sex offender list
Instead of lawmakers playing parent to Michigan's youth, it would be much better if judges made the decision rather then they being tied to a 4-year age difference. Lawmakers can never know -beforehand- the circumstances of every single case!3-15-2011 Michigan:
Removing experimenting teens from sexual criminal registry is reasonable and just
The Michigan Senate has adopted necessary reforms making Michigan's sex offender registry less brutal and stigmatizing to teenagers. The reforms ought to be quickly adopted by the state House.
We have long argued that the state's sex offender registry is too all-inclusive and damaging to the life chances of teenagers engaged in consensual sexual experimentation.
Currently, all those are placed on the list must remain on it for 25 years. This includes youths who have been convicted of statutory rape after engaging in consensual sex with an underage partner. The age of consent is 16.
A 17-year-old who has intercourse with his 15-year-old girlfriend, if convicted of statutory rape, in which consent is not at issue, can now find himself on a list with rapists and child molesters.
The Legislation adopted by the Senate would prevent such teens from being listed, as long as there is no more than four years between the ages of those engaged in consensual sexual activity and neither of the partners is younger than 13 years of age.
The legislation does not legalize underage sex; the age of consent remains at 16. And those convicted of statutory rape would still have to be on a police list for a period of time. Underage sex, after all, remains a bad idea.
The point of a public sex offender list, we have argued, is to alert citizens to the fact that a convicted sexual predator is in their midst.
It is not to stigmatize for decades young people who have not engaged in a predatory act.
We and the American Civil Liberties Union have been arguing for such reforms for years. But despite efforts by some reasonable lawmakers, their colleagues have balked.
The sponsor of the bills is Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who noted that federal legislation has spurred this move to change state law.
The federal Adam Walsh Act requires with public sex offender lists to have a tiered process, in which people convicted of lesser, non-assaultive offenses would not be on the public list and could petition to have their names removed from the police list after 10 years.
More serious offenders would be on the public list for 25 years and have to report their whereabouts to the police twice a year.
The most serious offenders would be on the public list for life and have to report every three months.
Penalties for failure to report would be increased. Currently, failure to report in a timely way only becomes a prison offense after the third or fourth such failure.
This legislation makes it a possible jail offense to fail to report a first time.
The catalyst for states revising their lists to conform to federal legislation is the disbursement of federal law enforcement grants.
In Michigan, about $1.2 million is at stake.
This would have been sensible legislation without federal prodding, but if it takes an incentive for it to pass, so be it. ..Source.. by Detroit News
March 8, 2011
Federal government wants national sex offender database
One other point needed to be said, beyond implementation costs for the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA) are, increased yearly maintenance costs because SORNA was made retroactive and a significant number of those registered before SORNA who had a 10 year registration period, will after SORNA, be required to go back on the registry for a lifetime. All this amounts to increased annual costs which no one has yet mentioned.3-8-2011 Texas:
Texas has more than 60,000 registered sex offenders in its database.
Now, the federal government is calling for a national sex offender database.
While many think it's a good idea, others say it will only hurt the system we already have.
Allison Taylor with the Council on Sex Offender Treatment says the so-called "Adam Walsh Act" is not needed. The plan would introduce a national sex offender registry. It's only been implemented by a handful of states - Texas is not of them.
Taylor says complying with the act is costly for Texas as well, with some reports showing it's going to cost more than $38 million.
A note, President Obama has only budgeted 30 million for ALL 50 States to implment the Adam Walsh Act, and here in Texas they would have to spend 38 million alone (Unfunded Mandate). This is why, and rightfully so, many states are balking especially in these economic times."The important thing is 'Does it enhance public safety?' and that is the main thing. Based on research, what we know is it would not enhance what we already have in the books," Taylor said.
The State of Texas helps you know exactly where the sex offenders are in your area. ..Source.. by Casey Claiborne
March 3, 2011
House passes bill to bring Miss. in line with federal sex-offender registration regulations
3-3-2011 Mississippi:
JACKSON, Miss. — The Mississippi House of Representatives has passed a bill (HB 2032) to revise the state law regarding the registration of sex offenders.
The legislation would bring the state into compliance with national requirements and preserve access to federal funding. The bill would amend certain definitions, clarify the responsibilities of state and local officials and of convicted sex offenders, and lay out penalties for violations.
Rep. Kimberly Campbell Buck, D-Jackson, said Wednesday the changes would ensure that Mississippi remains eligible for federal Justice Assistance Grants, which support a variety of state and local programs to carry out law enforcement and crime prevention.
The bill earlier passed the Senate and is now headed to the governor's desk. ..Source.. by The Republic
