Maryland Department of Legislative Services (PDF file): 2008 Fiscal and Policy Note
State action necessary for compliance with SORNA (including statutory changes) is not entirely clear. Failure to comply with SORNA puts a state at risk to lose 10% of Byrne grants, which all of the states use to pay for such things as drug task forces, anti-gang units, police overtime, and
other law enforcement activities. But funding for this formula grant program in fiscal
2009 has been cut from its $520 million fiscal 2008 appropriation level to zero and
replaced with a $200 competitive grant program. While it is unclear how this change will
affect the penalty provisions of SORNA, Maryland could risk the loss of between zero
and about $200,000 for noncompliance.
But, Maryland would spend $9,112,724 to implement these laws. See statistics.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Ohio County Must Lay Off Sheriffs
Ohio.com : Sheriff's office laying off up to 23 deputies
DAYTON: As the county tries to find $2 million in budget cuts, the sheriff's office in Dayton is preparing to lay off anywhere from five to 23 deputies.
Chief Deputy Mike Nolan in the Montgomery County sheriff's office said the cuts will take effect Jan. 1.
With the recession squeezing tax revenues, communities around Ohio are slashing jobs and services, and first responders are finding they're not immune from cutbacks.
Columbus and Toledo are looking at hiring no new police officers or firefighters to replace those who are retiring.
The cost of implementing the Federal Adam Walsh Act (SORNA) laws in Ohio in 2009 is:
18.6 million dollars.
In exchange for implementing these sex offender registration laws before the 2009 deadline, Ohio will receive $622,383 (the 10% of Byrne Funding). This is the reason for states like Ohio for rushing to enact these laws. The federal government is blackmailing states by threatening the loss of the 10% Byrne funds if they fail to enact these laws by July 2009. In return, states will spend at least 30 times more to enforce the laws (Ohio will spend $18.6 million in order to avoid the $622,383 funding loss). And the result ?... laying off sheriffs is only the beginning. And this all is making our state safer?? Great work, guys !
See the statistics for yourself at http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-will-it-cost-states-to-comply-with.html
DAYTON: As the county tries to find $2 million in budget cuts, the sheriff's office in Dayton is preparing to lay off anywhere from five to 23 deputies.
Chief Deputy Mike Nolan in the Montgomery County sheriff's office said the cuts will take effect Jan. 1.
With the recession squeezing tax revenues, communities around Ohio are slashing jobs and services, and first responders are finding they're not immune from cutbacks.
Columbus and Toledo are looking at hiring no new police officers or firefighters to replace those who are retiring.
The cost of implementing the Federal Adam Walsh Act (SORNA) laws in Ohio in 2009 is:
18.6 million dollars.
In exchange for implementing these sex offender registration laws before the 2009 deadline, Ohio will receive $622,383 (the 10% of Byrne Funding). This is the reason for states like Ohio for rushing to enact these laws. The federal government is blackmailing states by threatening the loss of the 10% Byrne funds if they fail to enact these laws by July 2009. In return, states will spend at least 30 times more to enforce the laws (Ohio will spend $18.6 million in order to avoid the $622,383 funding loss). And the result ?... laying off sheriffs is only the beginning. And this all is making our state safer?? Great work, guys !
See the statistics for yourself at http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-will-it-cost-states-to-comply-with.html
Murdering Sex Offenders on Registry
Video excerpts:
"A growing controversy about registered sex offender websites"
"Increasingly they are being used for acts of vigilantism and even murder. And even registry advocates are getting concerned."
We have been shouting this from the rooftops for a year now and only now are officials realizing this might be a problem?
"Reigniting debate over sex offender registries."
"Half of all registered sex offenders have been harassed
in person and 1/4 have received threatening calls and emails".
How many murders and acts of violence will be allowed as a result of these registries before our society finally demands their removal?
- cfcamerica.org
"A growing controversy about registered sex offender websites"
"Increasingly they are being used for acts of vigilantism and even murder. And even registry advocates are getting concerned."
We have been shouting this from the rooftops for a year now and only now are officials realizing this might be a problem?
"Reigniting debate over sex offender registries."
"Half of all registered sex offenders have been harassed
in person and 1/4 have received threatening calls and emails".
How many murders and acts of violence will be allowed as a result of these registries before our society finally demands their removal?
- cfcamerica.org
Utah Sex Offender Registry - Partial Court Victory
Deseretnews.com: Sex registry is changing ; Justices order state to erase data about victims' age, gender.
Utah must change the listings on its sex-offender registry to eliminate data about a victim's age and gender following a Utah Supreme Court ruling issued Friday.
The high court concluded that providing information about possible "targets" the offender might seek in the future suggests that the offender still remains a danger to the community, but it provides no court hearing for the individual to contradict that contention.
The ruling emerged from the case of Steven Arthur Briggs, who was found guilty of sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl in 1986 and served 15 years in prison. He refused to register as a sex offender after being released from prison. Briggs appealed his case and argued that Utah's sex offender registry unfairly labels all sex offenders as predators even when they have had no history of repeat crimes, which subjects them to such things as possible public humiliation, physical danger and discrimination in housing and employment.
Briggs said publishing that information in the online registry without a hearing before a judge to prove he is not a current risk violates his constitutional right to due process.
The Supreme Court rejected other claims made by Briggs — such as his argument that his constitutional rights would be violated if he is required to register, and that the information included such things as his address, how he looks and any prior convictions.
But the high court said the parts of Utah law that require publication of Briggs' primary and secondary "targets" do breach his right to due process as it is done without providing him with a court hearing where he can show otherwise. In Briggs' case, the high court reversed portions of a ruling by a trial court and sent that part of the case back to the lower court.
Utah must change the listings on its sex-offender registry to eliminate data about a victim's age and gender following a Utah Supreme Court ruling issued Friday.
The high court concluded that providing information about possible "targets" the offender might seek in the future suggests that the offender still remains a danger to the community, but it provides no court hearing for the individual to contradict that contention.
The ruling emerged from the case of Steven Arthur Briggs, who was found guilty of sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl in 1986 and served 15 years in prison. He refused to register as a sex offender after being released from prison. Briggs appealed his case and argued that Utah's sex offender registry unfairly labels all sex offenders as predators even when they have had no history of repeat crimes, which subjects them to such things as possible public humiliation, physical danger and discrimination in housing and employment.
Briggs said publishing that information in the online registry without a hearing before a judge to prove he is not a current risk violates his constitutional right to due process.
The Supreme Court rejected other claims made by Briggs — such as his argument that his constitutional rights would be violated if he is required to register, and that the information included such things as his address, how he looks and any prior convictions.
But the high court said the parts of Utah law that require publication of Briggs' primary and secondary "targets" do breach his right to due process as it is done without providing him with a court hearing where he can show otherwise. In Briggs' case, the high court reversed portions of a ruling by a trial court and sent that part of the case back to the lower court.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
More Harm Than Good
NewsObserver.com (North Carolina) : More harm than good - Attempts to strengthen laws against sexual offenders have unintended consequences. Prevention would be better.
North Carolina's intentions to further protect communities by strengthening the state's laws against sexual offenders will do very little to keep people safer, ineffectively target people who are least likely to reoffend and ultimately may increase the chances that the most troubled offenders will recommit sexual crimes.
Although only one state lawmaker voted against these tighter restrictions, other legislative members should examine the research more closely and revisit such laws in the next session.
The state's legal clampdown -- aimed at bringing North Carolina into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act -- went into effect Dec. 1. Among the new requirements: that people who commit certain sex offenses remain on the state's offender registry for 30 years, triple the previous length of time. Offenders must also now report a change of address to their local sheriff's department within three business days and stay at least 300 feet away from any place where minors might gather, including malls, childcare centers and churches.
Registration and notification laws were intended to encourage citizens to be proactive in protecting themselves as well as provide law enforcement with a ready pool of suspects when a sex crime is reported.
However, independent research from Marquette University and the University of Alabama has shown that these laws do little to prevent sexual crimes or mobilize citizens into action. Instead, there is evidence that they limit an offender's ability to put treatment skills to use and make it that much more difficult to successfully integrate back into society, as well as find housing and employment.
In an additional study out of Marquette University, researchers found that family members who were unconnected to the original crime are also harassed, including receiving death threats.
Even supporters of Jacob's Law, the first federal act requiring sex offender registration, have raised concerns about the legal restrictions. Among them is Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling, an 11-year-old Minnesota boy who was kidnapped years ago and still missing and for whom the offender registration law was named. Wetterling and her husband co-founded the Jacob Wetterling Foundation -- now the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center -- which works to prevent sexual violence.
In a 2007 article for Human Rights Watch, Wetterling spoke out about the repercussions of the current attitudes toward sex offenders and the laws created as a result of those feelings. She cited research that showed that many of the laws may not prevent sexual attacks but instead invite the public to harass, ostracize and even commit violence against sex offenders, all of which affects their efforts to turn their lives around. Such experiences may also encourage offenders to further isolate themselves and may actually increase the chances that they will repeat their crimes. These findings are consistent with other previously cited research.
Additionally, current laws do not address the individuals who are at the greatest risk of committing a sexual offense, namely family members. According to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice, only 3 percent of children under the age of 6 who have been sexually assaulted were assaulted by strangers; most were assaulted by family members or someone known to the child.
North Carolina's intentions to further protect communities by strengthening the state's laws against sexual offenders will do very little to keep people safer, ineffectively target people who are least likely to reoffend and ultimately may increase the chances that the most troubled offenders will recommit sexual crimes.
Although only one state lawmaker voted against these tighter restrictions, other legislative members should examine the research more closely and revisit such laws in the next session.
The state's legal clampdown -- aimed at bringing North Carolina into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act -- went into effect Dec. 1. Among the new requirements: that people who commit certain sex offenses remain on the state's offender registry for 30 years, triple the previous length of time. Offenders must also now report a change of address to their local sheriff's department within three business days and stay at least 300 feet away from any place where minors might gather, including malls, childcare centers and churches.
Registration and notification laws were intended to encourage citizens to be proactive in protecting themselves as well as provide law enforcement with a ready pool of suspects when a sex crime is reported.
However, independent research from Marquette University and the University of Alabama has shown that these laws do little to prevent sexual crimes or mobilize citizens into action. Instead, there is evidence that they limit an offender's ability to put treatment skills to use and make it that much more difficult to successfully integrate back into society, as well as find housing and employment.
In an additional study out of Marquette University, researchers found that family members who were unconnected to the original crime are also harassed, including receiving death threats.
Even supporters of Jacob's Law, the first federal act requiring sex offender registration, have raised concerns about the legal restrictions. Among them is Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling, an 11-year-old Minnesota boy who was kidnapped years ago and still missing and for whom the offender registration law was named. Wetterling and her husband co-founded the Jacob Wetterling Foundation -- now the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center -- which works to prevent sexual violence.
In a 2007 article for Human Rights Watch, Wetterling spoke out about the repercussions of the current attitudes toward sex offenders and the laws created as a result of those feelings. She cited research that showed that many of the laws may not prevent sexual attacks but instead invite the public to harass, ostracize and even commit violence against sex offenders, all of which affects their efforts to turn their lives around. Such experiences may also encourage offenders to further isolate themselves and may actually increase the chances that they will repeat their crimes. These findings are consistent with other previously cited research.
Additionally, current laws do not address the individuals who are at the greatest risk of committing a sexual offense, namely family members. According to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice, only 3 percent of children under the age of 6 who have been sexually assaulted were assaulted by strangers; most were assaulted by family members or someone known to the child.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
AdvocatesTake Aim at Registry, Rules
Maryland Daily Record: Advocates for sex offenders take aim at registry, other rules.
Elected officials and victims’ advocates say tough sex-offender laws are necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals. But some offenders and their relatives, like Kennedy, see the restrictions as overly intrusive and unnecessary. Her husband has served his time and is a danger to no one, Kennedy argues.
“In Salem, they had a witch-hunt, and in America, we’re still having a witch-hunt, and the witch-hunt is just different,” said Kennedy, a Parsonsburg nurse. “It’s the sex offender.”
Kennedy runs a blog called Sex Offenders and Their Wives, where she vents about the difficulties of living with sex-offender restrictions and debunks what she said are myths about offenders, like the high probability that they will re-offend and their imperviousness to treatment.
She also heads the Maryland chapter of the national group Reform Sex Offender Laws. (ConstitutionalFights is the Ohio Affiliate for RSOL)
She started reading about sex offender laws on the Internet and found that lots of offenders, their family members and some advocacy groups agreed the restrictions had gone too far.
Human Rights Watch released a study last year arguing that registration laws are overbroad, that registries have led to violence and harassment against registrants, and that residency restrictions “banish offenders from entire urban areas.”
Like Sandy Kennedy’s blog, offender-advocacy Web sites argue that the majority of registered sex offenders are not monsters who repeatedly kidnap and rape children — or, as Baltimore criminal defense lawyer Thomas P. Bernier put it, “some lecherous guy pulling 10-year-olds into a van.”
Many don’t pose a continuing threat to children, Bernier said; some never did in the first place.
Challenging the premise
Recent studies have shown that, at most, 20 percent to 30 percent re-offend, a lower rate of recidivism than other criminals, he said. (Actually it is under 10% - see our post on Federal Justice Department Statistics)
“There are these evil people,” said Pavlinic, who specializes in defending accused child molesters. “Those are violent sexual predators, people from whom the public has to be protected. There are a lot of people who have in the course of their life simply made a mistake, either with their own children or because of the age difference.” They “get treatment and then they never do it again,” he said.
Sandy Kennedy suggested that the government register criminals with a higher risk of recidivism, like drug dealers. She said she is not opposed to all sex offender restrictions, just the pointless ones.
Opposing the registries
“Safe,” though, was not what Sandy Kennedy felt when a local newspaper published her husband’s name.
Vigilantism is one reason some activists oppose putting offenders’ identifying information, including pictures, on Internet registries.
Paul Shannon, a founder of Reform Sex Offender Laws, said registries encourage people to target sex offenders, citing the 2006 murder of two Maine offenders by someone who found their names online. (Shannon would like to see public registries abolished; information about truly dangerous criminals should be shared among law enforcement officials, who would decide whether to alert the community.)
One of the men killed in Maine had served time for having otherwise consensual sex with his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was a few days shy of 16. “Virtually all adolescent sexuality is now criminalized,” said Shannon, who said he is not an offender or ex-offender, just a civil liberties advocate. “This is a serious attack on children and their right to grow up.”
ABC reporter John Stossel did a series earlier this year on offender laws gone overboard; among other people, he featured a man who had, had sex with his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 15. Twelve years later, they are married with four children, but he must still register as a sex offender.
He said sex offenders have begun pushing back against the regulations but haven’t gotten much traction.
“Who wants to be the guy who wants to be known as out in [the] legislature championing sex offenders?” Bernier said.
Freedom to fight
Shannon, the national organization’s founder, said it’s typical for women who are close to sex offenders to advocate on their behalf. The offenders themselves don’t necessarily want to call more attention to themselves, he said. Though Kennedy worries about her safety and that of her husband, she said she needs to speak publicly in order to bring change.
“I figure he’s on the registry; how much more visible can you get?” she said. “I felt that if we didn’t want publicity, that we won’t be able to change the way things are. We were trying to keep a low [profile], not being public,” she said, “until he registered and they kind of gave us the freedom to go on out and make it known, and fight some of the injustices.”
Elected officials and victims’ advocates say tough sex-offender laws are necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals. But some offenders and their relatives, like Kennedy, see the restrictions as overly intrusive and unnecessary. Her husband has served his time and is a danger to no one, Kennedy argues.
“In Salem, they had a witch-hunt, and in America, we’re still having a witch-hunt, and the witch-hunt is just different,” said Kennedy, a Parsonsburg nurse. “It’s the sex offender.”
Kennedy runs a blog called Sex Offenders and Their Wives, where she vents about the difficulties of living with sex-offender restrictions and debunks what she said are myths about offenders, like the high probability that they will re-offend and their imperviousness to treatment.
She also heads the Maryland chapter of the national group Reform Sex Offender Laws. (ConstitutionalFights is the Ohio Affiliate for RSOL)
She started reading about sex offender laws on the Internet and found that lots of offenders, their family members and some advocacy groups agreed the restrictions had gone too far.
Human Rights Watch released a study last year arguing that registration laws are overbroad, that registries have led to violence and harassment against registrants, and that residency restrictions “banish offenders from entire urban areas.”
Like Sandy Kennedy’s blog, offender-advocacy Web sites argue that the majority of registered sex offenders are not monsters who repeatedly kidnap and rape children — or, as Baltimore criminal defense lawyer Thomas P. Bernier put it, “some lecherous guy pulling 10-year-olds into a van.”
Many don’t pose a continuing threat to children, Bernier said; some never did in the first place.
Challenging the premise
Recent studies have shown that, at most, 20 percent to 30 percent re-offend, a lower rate of recidivism than other criminals, he said. (Actually it is under 10% - see our post on Federal Justice Department Statistics)
“There are these evil people,” said Pavlinic, who specializes in defending accused child molesters. “Those are violent sexual predators, people from whom the public has to be protected. There are a lot of people who have in the course of their life simply made a mistake, either with their own children or because of the age difference.” They “get treatment and then they never do it again,” he said.
Sandy Kennedy suggested that the government register criminals with a higher risk of recidivism, like drug dealers. She said she is not opposed to all sex offender restrictions, just the pointless ones.
Opposing the registries
“Safe,” though, was not what Sandy Kennedy felt when a local newspaper published her husband’s name.
Vigilantism is one reason some activists oppose putting offenders’ identifying information, including pictures, on Internet registries.
Paul Shannon, a founder of Reform Sex Offender Laws, said registries encourage people to target sex offenders, citing the 2006 murder of two Maine offenders by someone who found their names online. (Shannon would like to see public registries abolished; information about truly dangerous criminals should be shared among law enforcement officials, who would decide whether to alert the community.)
One of the men killed in Maine had served time for having otherwise consensual sex with his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was a few days shy of 16. “Virtually all adolescent sexuality is now criminalized,” said Shannon, who said he is not an offender or ex-offender, just a civil liberties advocate. “This is a serious attack on children and their right to grow up.”
ABC reporter John Stossel did a series earlier this year on offender laws gone overboard; among other people, he featured a man who had, had sex with his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 15. Twelve years later, they are married with four children, but he must still register as a sex offender.
He said sex offenders have begun pushing back against the regulations but haven’t gotten much traction.
“Who wants to be the guy who wants to be known as out in [the] legislature championing sex offenders?” Bernier said.
Freedom to fight
Shannon, the national organization’s founder, said it’s typical for women who are close to sex offenders to advocate on their behalf. The offenders themselves don’t necessarily want to call more attention to themselves, he said. Though Kennedy worries about her safety and that of her husband, she said she needs to speak publicly in order to bring change.
“I figure he’s on the registry; how much more visible can you get?” she said. “I felt that if we didn’t want publicity, that we won’t be able to change the way things are. We were trying to keep a low [profile], not being public,” she said, “until he registered and they kind of gave us the freedom to go on out and make it known, and fight some of the injustices.”
States Have A Choice in AWA Implementation
Maryland Daily Record: Federal law ties funds to tougher state restrictions.
States have a choice: They can fall in line with a federal sex offender law by enacting broad new restrictions on offenders by next summer, or risk losing federal anti-crime money. (Implementation costs are many times greater than the amount of funds states would lose in refusing to adopt these Adam Walsh Act laws - see our post : "Costs to States" for statistics )
Offenders and their lawyers say the government is improperly using the law, the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, to impose restrictions on offenders convicted years ago. “The big problem we’re having here is people are being prosecuted for federal failure to register when SORNA hasn’t even been implemented in states,” said Paresh S. Patel, an assistant federal public defender in Greenbelt.
Federal defenders across the country are challenging SORNA on many grounds.
SORNA expands the number of people required to register, increases the information governments must collect about registrants and the information they can disclose to the public, and toughens penalties for failing to register.
Under the terms of the law, states must pass SORNA-compliant laws before July 27, 2009, or lose 10 percent of their funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program.
Maryland received $2.2 million in Byrne money in the 2008 fiscal year.
Patel said not a single state is complying yet.
States have a choice: They can fall in line with a federal sex offender law by enacting broad new restrictions on offenders by next summer, or risk losing federal anti-crime money. (Implementation costs are many times greater than the amount of funds states would lose in refusing to adopt these Adam Walsh Act laws - see our post : "Costs to States" for statistics )
Offenders and their lawyers say the government is improperly using the law, the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, to impose restrictions on offenders convicted years ago. “The big problem we’re having here is people are being prosecuted for federal failure to register when SORNA hasn’t even been implemented in states,” said Paresh S. Patel, an assistant federal public defender in Greenbelt.
Federal defenders across the country are challenging SORNA on many grounds.
SORNA expands the number of people required to register, increases the information governments must collect about registrants and the information they can disclose to the public, and toughens penalties for failing to register.
Under the terms of the law, states must pass SORNA-compliant laws before July 27, 2009, or lose 10 percent of their funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program.
Maryland received $2.2 million in Byrne money in the 2008 fiscal year.
Patel said not a single state is complying yet.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Poll Question: Will You Help Us Fight ?
ConstitutionalFights.org is the Official State Affiliate of the RSOL
(Reform Sex Offender Laws Now! ) Organization.
As such, we are occasionally asked to undertake efforts and research
for the parent organization. The objective of this work is to further
the efforts and fights against unconstitutional sex offender laws
throughout the nation and within Ohio. Letter writing, compiling
information about state sex offender laws and statistics, posting or
distributing fliers, etc. are amongst these efforts.
Therefore, we need to establish a means to build a list of Ohio
members who would be willing to provide research and writing efforts
on behalf of the Ohio Affiliate, and for the national organization.
This list would be separate from this member list here on Yahoo
Groups, as members of this Group may or may not be interested in
working to help defeat these laws.
The primary consideration in establishing such a list would be that of
member PRIVACY! Names of members will never be posted, released or
distributed by or with the knowledge of ConstitutionalFights.
If you have a suggestion for building such a member list, please post
or contact us here, at our Yahoo Group, or at ConstitutionalFights@yahoo.com.
Are you willing to help fight these laws?
Please submit your answer above, or respond to our survey question at :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/constitutionalfights/polls
(your name will not appear in results)
Iowa May Defy Federal Mandates for AWA
Siouxcityjournal.com: Iowa lawmakers could change sex offender law.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- As Iowa faces a deadline to update its sex offender law to match a stricter federal one, state lawmakers may use the opportunity to get rid of a controversial 2,000-foot rule restricting where offenders can live. Under the federal law, sex offenders would have to stay on an online public registry at least five years longer, reveal more personal information about where they work and go to school, and face more supervision from law enforcement.
If Iowa doesn't comply with the federal provisions by the July deadline, the state could lose up to $450,000 for law enforcement activities. (But the cost of implementation is many times greater than this amount - see "Cost to States" post on this blog)
For some Iowa lawmakers, the federal law is providing an opportunity to toss out the state's 2,000-foot state rule that bans sex offenders from living near child care centers and schools.
Ross Loder, who lobbies for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, said the department will finalize a draft bill early this week. The Legislature reconvenes in January.
Child abuse experts contend up to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by a person known to the child's family, and it's a myth that children are most vulnerable to attacks by strangers who approach them at school or other public places.
Some victim advocates and lawmakers are leery of the new federal law, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, said the provisions would cost Iowa law enforcement more in time and money. "When you're adding additional burdens on state and local taxpayers, you'd better make darn sure what you're doing is going to result in better public safety," said Kreiman, who heads the judiciary committee in the Iowa Senate.
Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said the existing 2,000-foot rule is "extremely bad public policy." He urged lawmakers to be careful when applying the federal law.
"Several courts already have declared portions of the Walsh act unconstitutional, and state legislatures around the country are beginning to defy its mandates. Iowa's leaders should do the same," Stone said.
But, Loder said: "If Iowa were to stand out and say, 'We're not going to comply,' is the implication that we're going to be kind of like an island for offenders who don't want to be in this national system?" (Not if other states follow your lead, as they should)
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- As Iowa faces a deadline to update its sex offender law to match a stricter federal one, state lawmakers may use the opportunity to get rid of a controversial 2,000-foot rule restricting where offenders can live. Under the federal law, sex offenders would have to stay on an online public registry at least five years longer, reveal more personal information about where they work and go to school, and face more supervision from law enforcement.
If Iowa doesn't comply with the federal provisions by the July deadline, the state could lose up to $450,000 for law enforcement activities. (But the cost of implementation is many times greater than this amount - see "Cost to States" post on this blog)
For some Iowa lawmakers, the federal law is providing an opportunity to toss out the state's 2,000-foot state rule that bans sex offenders from living near child care centers and schools.
Ross Loder, who lobbies for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, said the department will finalize a draft bill early this week. The Legislature reconvenes in January.
Child abuse experts contend up to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by a person known to the child's family, and it's a myth that children are most vulnerable to attacks by strangers who approach them at school or other public places.
Some victim advocates and lawmakers are leery of the new federal law, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, said the provisions would cost Iowa law enforcement more in time and money. "When you're adding additional burdens on state and local taxpayers, you'd better make darn sure what you're doing is going to result in better public safety," said Kreiman, who heads the judiciary committee in the Iowa Senate.
Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said the existing 2,000-foot rule is "extremely bad public policy." He urged lawmakers to be careful when applying the federal law.
"Several courts already have declared portions of the Walsh act unconstitutional, and state legislatures around the country are beginning to defy its mandates. Iowa's leaders should do the same," Stone said.
But, Loder said: "If Iowa were to stand out and say, 'We're not going to comply,' is the implication that we're going to be kind of like an island for offenders who don't want to be in this national system?" (Not if other states follow your lead, as they should)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
GA High Court Strikes Down Sex Offender Law
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Court strikes down life sentence for sex offender:
Prison term imposed after he failed for second time to register as sex offender
The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down another provision of the state’s tough sex-offender law, calling mandatory life sentences for offenders who fail to register a second time “grossly disproportionate” punishment.
In a 6-1 decision, written by Justice Robert Benham, the court said the life sentence imposed upon 26-year-old Cedric Bradshaw of Statesboro violates the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
“We conclude the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment is so harsh in comparison to the crime for which it was imposed that it is unconstitutional,” Benham wrote.
Georgia’s sex-offender law has been under legal attack on a number of fronts. It requires offenders to register their addresses within 72 hours after release and makes it a crime for them to live within 1,000 feet of places children congregate.
His lawyer, circuit public defender Robert Persse, applauded the ruling. “The state’s penalty provision was excessive and clearly disproportionate to the offense in question,” he said.
After getting out, Bradshaw registered as required and moved in with his sister. But he was forced to leave because her home was within 1,000 feet of a children’s recreation center. He properly registered again and moved in with his aunt. But he had to move once more because she lived near a church.
Bradshaw then registered a family friend’s trailer but gave an incorrect address and never moved in. Last December, he was convicted of the second offense and sentenced to life.
In his ruling, Benham noted that someone convicted of voluntary manslaughter or aggravated assault with the intent to murder, rob or rape can receive a sentence as lenient as one year. “Georgia’s mandatory punishment of life imprisonment is the clear outlier, providing the harshest penalty and providing no sentencing discretion,” Benham wrote. “This gross disparity between Georgia’s sentencing scheme and those of the other states reinforces the inference that [Bradshaw’s] crime and sentence are grossly disproportionate.”
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in a concurring opinion, said life sentences “should be reserved for society’s most serious criminal offenders … Bradshaw’s failure to register as a sex offender, when his underlying crime only landed him in jail for five years, is not the kind of crime a civilized society ought to require him to pay for with his life.”
The ruling is the latest setback for the sex-offender law.
A year ago, the court ruled in favor of a Clayton County homeowner, saying it would be an “illegal taking” if he were forced to abandon his home after a day care center was built nearby. The ruling prompted the Legislature to amend the law. Two months ago, the court struck down as vague another provision, saying it gave no clear direction to offenders who are homeless and cannot register a route or street address.
Still pending is a federal lawsuit attacking the law’s provisions that make it a crime for sex offenders to live or work within 1,000 feet of places children congregate. On Monday, a judge allowed the lead plaintiff, Wendy Whitaker, to remain in her home outside of Augusta while her lawsuit makes its way through court.
Prison term imposed after he failed for second time to register as sex offender
The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down another provision of the state’s tough sex-offender law, calling mandatory life sentences for offenders who fail to register a second time “grossly disproportionate” punishment.
In a 6-1 decision, written by Justice Robert Benham, the court said the life sentence imposed upon 26-year-old Cedric Bradshaw of Statesboro violates the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
“We conclude the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment is so harsh in comparison to the crime for which it was imposed that it is unconstitutional,” Benham wrote.
Georgia’s sex-offender law has been under legal attack on a number of fronts. It requires offenders to register their addresses within 72 hours after release and makes it a crime for them to live within 1,000 feet of places children congregate.
His lawyer, circuit public defender Robert Persse, applauded the ruling. “The state’s penalty provision was excessive and clearly disproportionate to the offense in question,” he said.
After getting out, Bradshaw registered as required and moved in with his sister. But he was forced to leave because her home was within 1,000 feet of a children’s recreation center. He properly registered again and moved in with his aunt. But he had to move once more because she lived near a church.
Bradshaw then registered a family friend’s trailer but gave an incorrect address and never moved in. Last December, he was convicted of the second offense and sentenced to life.
In his ruling, Benham noted that someone convicted of voluntary manslaughter or aggravated assault with the intent to murder, rob or rape can receive a sentence as lenient as one year. “Georgia’s mandatory punishment of life imprisonment is the clear outlier, providing the harshest penalty and providing no sentencing discretion,” Benham wrote. “This gross disparity between Georgia’s sentencing scheme and those of the other states reinforces the inference that [Bradshaw’s] crime and sentence are grossly disproportionate.”
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in a concurring opinion, said life sentences “should be reserved for society’s most serious criminal offenders … Bradshaw’s failure to register as a sex offender, when his underlying crime only landed him in jail for five years, is not the kind of crime a civilized society ought to require him to pay for with his life.”
The ruling is the latest setback for the sex-offender law.
A year ago, the court ruled in favor of a Clayton County homeowner, saying it would be an “illegal taking” if he were forced to abandon his home after a day care center was built nearby. The ruling prompted the Legislature to amend the law. Two months ago, the court struck down as vague another provision, saying it gave no clear direction to offenders who are homeless and cannot register a route or street address.
Still pending is a federal lawsuit attacking the law’s provisions that make it a crime for sex offenders to live or work within 1,000 feet of places children congregate. On Monday, a judge allowed the lead plaintiff, Wendy Whitaker, to remain in her home outside of Augusta while her lawsuit makes its way through court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
