kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com : Statehouse Testimony targets sex offenders.
AUGUSTA -- Victims of sex crimes and the offenders often live in the same home, where the crimes also occur.
That was part of the message brought by Kurt Bumby, senior manager of the Center for Sex Offender Management, to a committee of legislators wrestling with the problem of how to manage sex offenders and increase public safety. "Being grabbed in an alleyway sometimes happens, but those are the exceptions," Bumby said. "Strangers tend to be the exception."
The Committee on Criminal Justice & Public Safety met Monday at the Department of Public Safety offices in Augusta for a briefing on Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. In the second of three informational meetings, the panel heard from Bumby as well as from officials in four other states where policymakers have grappled with similar issues. "We either reinvent the wheel or take a day and bring in the experts," Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, said. "This should enhance the effectiveness of what we're trying to do."
Diamond, Senate chairman of the committee, said the committee is dealing with three issues:
* legal challenges of Maine's retroactive registration requirement filed by sex offenders;
* the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is aimed at expanding the national sex offender registry and keeping track of sex offenders no matter which state they live in, while increasing penalties for crimes against children; and
* a tiered system to classify offenders based on offense or risk to reoffend or both.
"We have our hands full," Diamond said.
Sen. Earle McCormick, R-West Gardiner, said he was looking for information on how the state's sex offender registry can be more effectively administered. "If we have a three-tier system, how do we figure who are the high risks?" McCormick said.
Bumby told committee members that sex offenses are a small percentage of all crimes committed, but get a disproportionate amount of publicity.
He also said offenders are a diverse group. "Research is clear that sex offenders don't all look the same, and those variations have important implications for management strategies," Bumby said. "One-size-fits-all strategies are not likely to get us the results we want."
"Depending on whom they target, recidivism rates vary," Bumby said. "Sex offenders are not all alike. Do we want policies to treat them alike? Will that serve the public?"
He recommended concentrating on higher risk offenders to lower the recidivism rate.
"It seems we do better to increase public safety when we focused on higher-risk offenders," Bumby said.
Bumby also said a federal study showed that longer sentences do not result in much variation in the rate of committing another sexual offense. He also said that despite a sharp increase in restrictions on where convicted sex offenders live, there's no evidence those restrictions affect the recidivism rate.
Later, Roger Werholtz, secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections, said the state legislature there imposed a permanent moratorium to prevent municipalities from restricting where sex offenders can live.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Update to Ohio Supreme Court Decision
Cleveland.com: Supreme Court upholds man's predator' status ;
Stricter classification went into effect after his sentencing.
... But since the case was based on Ohio's former sexual predator statute, the court's 4-3 ruling is actually less significant because larger challenges to the current offender classification system are looming.
In January, Ohio's Adam Walsh Act kicked in with a far stricter, three-tier, retroactive sexual offender classification system that requires frequent registering with local police and listing in a public database.
That new system is already being challenged in lower courts across Ohio -- with some judges, including one in Cleveland, already having declared it unconstitutional. It is expected to eventually reach the high court.
"If they had decided that the old law was unconstitutional, then that would have had a huge impact on Adam Walsh," said Amy Borror, from the Ohio public defender's office, which is challenging the new laws and had awaited Wednesday's ruling.
In State v. Ferguson, the case decided Wednesday, Andrew J. Ferguson of Cleveland argued that a 2003 amendment to the former sex offender law reclassifying him a predator for life was a form of added punishment.
Writing for the court's majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said retroactive classification in this case is not punitive because the General Assembly intended the provision to be a public safety issue.
"It is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than to punish the offender," O'Connor wrote.
She was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Robert Cupp and Terrence O'Donnell.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Paul Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. Lanzinger questioned why the majority did not use the same analysis the court had used in a case earlier this year when it concluded that residency rules for sexual predators were not retroactive.
Even if she were persuaded the old law was retroactive, Lanzinger said, "I cannot accept that the challenged amendments are merely remedial and do not impair vested, substantial rights."
Justice Lanzinger clearly understands the Constitution, along with Justices Pfeifer and Lundberg. They grasp the concept of expost facto provisons of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. However, Justices O'Connor, Moyer, Cupp and O'Donnell have demonstrated their incompetence, which insists on their immediate removal from the Court.
Stricter classification went into effect after his sentencing.
... But since the case was based on Ohio's former sexual predator statute, the court's 4-3 ruling is actually less significant because larger challenges to the current offender classification system are looming.
In January, Ohio's Adam Walsh Act kicked in with a far stricter, three-tier, retroactive sexual offender classification system that requires frequent registering with local police and listing in a public database.
That new system is already being challenged in lower courts across Ohio -- with some judges, including one in Cleveland, already having declared it unconstitutional. It is expected to eventually reach the high court.
"If they had decided that the old law was unconstitutional, then that would have had a huge impact on Adam Walsh," said Amy Borror, from the Ohio public defender's office, which is challenging the new laws and had awaited Wednesday's ruling.
In State v. Ferguson, the case decided Wednesday, Andrew J. Ferguson of Cleveland argued that a 2003 amendment to the former sex offender law reclassifying him a predator for life was a form of added punishment.
Writing for the court's majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said retroactive classification in this case is not punitive because the General Assembly intended the provision to be a public safety issue.
"It is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than to punish the offender," O'Connor wrote.
She was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Robert Cupp and Terrence O'Donnell.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Paul Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. Lanzinger questioned why the majority did not use the same analysis the court had used in a case earlier this year when it concluded that residency rules for sexual predators were not retroactive.
Even if she were persuaded the old law was retroactive, Lanzinger said, "I cannot accept that the challenged amendments are merely remedial and do not impair vested, substantial rights."
Justice Lanzinger clearly understands the Constitution, along with Justices Pfeifer and Lundberg. They grasp the concept of expost facto provisons of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. However, Justices O'Connor, Moyer, Cupp and O'Donnell have demonstrated their incompetence, which insists on their immediate removal from the Court.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
OH Supreme Court: Upholds Retroactivity
ColumbusDispatch: Ohio Supreme Court upholds sex offender rules. October 1, 2008 1:45 PM
The Ohio Supreme Court today upheld as constitutional the retroactive application of a 2003 law that tightened reporting and community notification rules on registered sex offenders (Adam Walsh Act) .
Applying the law to sex offenders whose crimes predate it doesn't violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions against "ex post facto," or retroactive, laws, wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor, who authored the court's 4-3 majority opinion.
That's because the law's provisions are remedial and designed to protect the community, and not punitive and designed to punish the offender, she wrote.
The 2003 law toughened a 1996 law, called "Megan's Law," which classified convicted sex offenders and required them to register with their local sheriff.
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge in 1998 to the 1996 law. The court ruled then that the law's requirements could apply retroactively because the law's intent was to protect the community from future sex crimes rather than impose additional punishment on the offender.
O'Connor used the same standard in upholding the retroactive application of the 2003 law.
The 2003 law toughened "Megan's Law" by, among other things: requiring lifetime registration for offenders classified as sexual predators; requiring offenders to register not only with their home county sheriff but with the sheriff of the county where they go to school or work; and expanded community notification by allowing photos and other information provided to sheriffs by offenders to be included in a database accessible online.
O'Connor noted that the court already upheld retroactive application of the 1996 law and that that the changes in the 2003 law reflect the same intent to protect the community.
"We determine that the legislative history supports a finding that it is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than punish the offender a result reached by many other courts," she wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the tighter rules amount to punishment.
In a separate case earlier this year, the court ruled that the 2003 law's residence restriction prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school could not apply retroactively because there was a lack of clear legislative intent. Nothing in the law stated that the residence restrictions could apply retroactively, the court ruled.
This is the manner by which courts will take away our rights. They re-define terms, like "punishment" in order to justify unconstitutional laws. They simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that these laws impose restrictions and punishments on citizens who committed crimes up to decades ago. Just three justices were able to understand the obvious fact that these laws impose punishment. We must fight them to forcefully take back our rights !
The Ohio Supreme Court today upheld as constitutional the retroactive application of a 2003 law that tightened reporting and community notification rules on registered sex offenders (Adam Walsh Act) .
Applying the law to sex offenders whose crimes predate it doesn't violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions against "ex post facto," or retroactive, laws, wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor, who authored the court's 4-3 majority opinion.
That's because the law's provisions are remedial and designed to protect the community, and not punitive and designed to punish the offender, she wrote.
The 2003 law toughened a 1996 law, called "Megan's Law," which classified convicted sex offenders and required them to register with their local sheriff.
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge in 1998 to the 1996 law. The court ruled then that the law's requirements could apply retroactively because the law's intent was to protect the community from future sex crimes rather than impose additional punishment on the offender.
O'Connor used the same standard in upholding the retroactive application of the 2003 law.
The 2003 law toughened "Megan's Law" by, among other things: requiring lifetime registration for offenders classified as sexual predators; requiring offenders to register not only with their home county sheriff but with the sheriff of the county where they go to school or work; and expanded community notification by allowing photos and other information provided to sheriffs by offenders to be included in a database accessible online.
O'Connor noted that the court already upheld retroactive application of the 1996 law and that that the changes in the 2003 law reflect the same intent to protect the community.
"We determine that the legislative history supports a finding that it is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than punish the offender a result reached by many other courts," she wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the tighter rules amount to punishment.
In a separate case earlier this year, the court ruled that the 2003 law's residence restriction prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school could not apply retroactively because there was a lack of clear legislative intent. Nothing in the law stated that the residence restrictions could apply retroactively, the court ruled.
This is the manner by which courts will take away our rights. They re-define terms, like "punishment" in order to justify unconstitutional laws. They simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that these laws impose restrictions and punishments on citizens who committed crimes up to decades ago. Just three justices were able to understand the obvious fact that these laws impose punishment. We must fight them to forcefully take back our rights !
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Utah Judge Rules Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional
Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) : Clearfield sex offender can be anonymous online, judge rules.
09/29/2008
A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring sex offenders to reveal their Internet screen names and passwords to the Utah Department of Corrections violates the constitutional rights of a Clearfield man.
U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell concluded that the man - identified as John Doe in court documents - retains his First Amendment right to anonymous online speech. The ruling bars the state Corrections Department from requiring Doe to reveal his online identifiers, which include names used in Internet chat rooms and instant messaging.
The judge stressed that her decision, which was handed down Thursday, applies only to Doe. She also noted that an analysis of the constitutionality of the law would be different for people who - unlike Doe - are on parole for their sex crimes.
The ruling is apparently the first in the nation to address whether sex offenders have the First Amendment right to speak anonymously online. It has no effect on the requirement that sex offenders register with the state.
The decision centers on a state law that took effect on July 1 requiring Utah's nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders to turn over certain Internet information, including screen names and passwords to social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
It is unclear if the decision could allow others on the sex registry to challenge the requirement once they are no longer on parole. The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling.
In her ruling, Campbell pointed out that nothing in the new law prevents the Corrections Department from linking protected anonymous online speech to a registrant and said that investigators have other tools, such as subpoenas, to unmask suspects in Internet sex crimes. In addition, she wrote, legislators could amend the law if the state wants Doe's Internet information strictly for law enforcement purposes.
09/29/2008
A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring sex offenders to reveal their Internet screen names and passwords to the Utah Department of Corrections violates the constitutional rights of a Clearfield man.
U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell concluded that the man - identified as John Doe in court documents - retains his First Amendment right to anonymous online speech. The ruling bars the state Corrections Department from requiring Doe to reveal his online identifiers, which include names used in Internet chat rooms and instant messaging.
The judge stressed that her decision, which was handed down Thursday, applies only to Doe. She also noted that an analysis of the constitutionality of the law would be different for people who - unlike Doe - are on parole for their sex crimes.
The ruling is apparently the first in the nation to address whether sex offenders have the First Amendment right to speak anonymously online. It has no effect on the requirement that sex offenders register with the state.
The decision centers on a state law that took effect on July 1 requiring Utah's nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders to turn over certain Internet information, including screen names and passwords to social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
It is unclear if the decision could allow others on the sex registry to challenge the requirement once they are no longer on parole. The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling.
In her ruling, Campbell pointed out that nothing in the new law prevents the Corrections Department from linking protected anonymous online speech to a registrant and said that investigators have other tools, such as subpoenas, to unmask suspects in Internet sex crimes. In addition, she wrote, legislators could amend the law if the state wants Doe's Internet information strictly for law enforcement purposes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Montgomery County Ohio Prosecutor Corruption
DaytonDailyNews : Heck, aide admit liability for violating law.
WHIO TV: Local Prosecutor Admits To Federal Law Violations.
(25 Sept 2008) Just months after the Ohio Attorney General was forced to resign amidst sex and corruption charges, Montgomery County Prosecutor, Mathias H. Heck Jr. admitted to corruption today. These are two Ohio officials who are responsible for enforcing the Adam Walsh Act /SORNA laws in Ohio, which violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.
DAYTON — Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias H. Heck Jr. and his administrative assistant, Greg Flannagan, admitted liability for violating federal law that prohibits certain government employees from participating in political activity, the Office of Special Counsel said Thursday, Sept. 25.
The special counsel's investigation revealed that Heck routinely conveyed his expectation that subordinates contribute money to the local Democratic Party and time to political campaigns, in defiance of federal law. The special counsel charged that Heck and Flannagan used their official authority to interfere with or affect the results of elections, the office of special counsel said.
Heck admitted that he solicited contributions for local Democratic Party fundraisers from six employees of the Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office. Flannagan admitted collecting the cash and checks for these fundraisers from prosecutor's office employees," the special counsel's office said. "Although Mr. Heck denied knowing that the Hatch Act prohibited the solicitation of political contributions from employees, as both an attorney and a long-time elected official, he should have known that whenever public employers place conditions on public employment requiring employees to become involved in partisan political activity, they put at risk the basic freedoms of speech that are protected by our Constitution."
"The people and employees of the prosecutor's office expect and deserve more from their elected officials," said U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch. "Politicization of government offices and pressuring subordinates to contribute to political causes are testaments to why Congress enacted this law and are behaviors that simply will not be tolerated."
As part of the settlement, Heck agreed not to seek employment with either a different state or local (county) agency for a period of 18 months unless such employment is to an elective office. Flannagan agreed to accept a five-day suspension without pay.
In consideration for their admissions of liability and their agreement to accept these penalties, the Special Counsel has agreed to dismiss the complaints. The motion for dismissal is currently pending review before a judge. After the judge dismisses the case, if either Heck or Flannagan fail to live up to the plea agreement, the Office of Special Counsel may refile and seek to have them prosecuted.
The Hatch Act strictly prohibits some state and local employees who have duties in connection with federally funded programs from being candidates in partisan elections. Until 2007, the county prosecutor's office, with Heck as prosecutor, received federal funds to support some of its enforcement programs.
The penalty for a proven violation of the act by a state or local employee normally is removal of the employee from his/her position by the state/local agency and debarment from state/local employment for the following eighteen months, or forfeiture of federal grant funds by the state/local agency in an amount equal to two years of the salary of the employee. However, because MCPO no longer receives federal funds, the available options for a meaningful penalty in these cases were limited.
This man should be removed immediately from his elected position and disbarred ! Call his office at 937-225-5757 and insist that he resign! And call the Ohio Ethics Commission to complain at http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/, 800 589 5256 - Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 202 482 9300 - US office of Government Ethics, 800 854 2824 - US Office of Special Counsel
Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office: http://www.mcpo.com/
Mathias Heck profile: http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/mathias_h_heck_sept_oct_2006.html
http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/mat_heck_nov_dec_2003.html
Mathias Heck Political Fund: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/mathias_h_heck_jr_campaign_fund.asp
OH - Sex Offenders Near School Under Construction
sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com : Sex Offenders Near School Under Construction.
wlwt.com Cincinnati : New School Could Have Sex Offenders As Neighbors.
This is yet another example of societal hysteria and inane legislation. They decide to build a new school in a bad neighborhood and now want to remove any nearby sex offender from this bad neighborhood and from the adjacent homeless shelter. See video below.
CINCINNATI -- When the new $62-million School for the Creative and Performing Arts opens in Over-the-Rhine next year, it will have 1,300 students from across the city. It could also have as many as 19 sex offenders living nearby.
"Well, it's outrageous. It concerns me and I'm sure it concerns most parents," Cincinnati City Councilman Jeff Berding said. Ten of them live within a quarter-mile of the school, while nine more told authorities that they live across the street at the Drop Inn Center, a homeless shelter.
"There are laws on the books that we should enforce to make sure this can't happen," Berding said. (But these laws have been ruled to be unconstitutional, Jeff.)
But the law in question won't allow it. That's because the 19 men committed their crimes before passage of the current law that bans them from coming within 1,000 feet of schools. That means those 19 sex offenders are exempt from the law, and unless they commit another crime, cannot be forced to move.
Meanwhile, the Drop Inn Center's executive director said that the nine men who said they live at the center don't live there. "We do not house sex offenders at all. It's against the law," Pat Clifford said. (Oh really? I thought the registries were a sure-fire way to track all sex offenders...hmm)
"Does a sex offender go to the public library downtown? Can you say, yes or no, whether a sex offender has been in a public library? You don't know. You can't prove yes or you can't prove no. Is a sex offender in Washington Park right now? I can't prove it. It's a public place," he said.
Previous studies have shown that despite laws requiring offenders to register their address, the address given can easily be wrong. Some have even registered parking lots near the Ohio River as their home.
Cincinnati Public Schools said they work closely with Cincinnati and Hamilton County to ensure the safety and security of school children. (which is really the whole crux of the issue. Parents need to take their own responsibility to protect their children from all kinds of dangers - not limited to sex offenders)
wlwt.com Cincinnati : New School Could Have Sex Offenders As Neighbors.
This is yet another example of societal hysteria and inane legislation. They decide to build a new school in a bad neighborhood and now want to remove any nearby sex offender from this bad neighborhood and from the adjacent homeless shelter. See video below.
CINCINNATI -- When the new $62-million School for the Creative and Performing Arts opens in Over-the-Rhine next year, it will have 1,300 students from across the city. It could also have as many as 19 sex offenders living nearby.
"Well, it's outrageous. It concerns me and I'm sure it concerns most parents," Cincinnati City Councilman Jeff Berding said. Ten of them live within a quarter-mile of the school, while nine more told authorities that they live across the street at the Drop Inn Center, a homeless shelter.
"There are laws on the books that we should enforce to make sure this can't happen," Berding said. (But these laws have been ruled to be unconstitutional, Jeff.)
But the law in question won't allow it. That's because the 19 men committed their crimes before passage of the current law that bans them from coming within 1,000 feet of schools. That means those 19 sex offenders are exempt from the law, and unless they commit another crime, cannot be forced to move.
Meanwhile, the Drop Inn Center's executive director said that the nine men who said they live at the center don't live there. "We do not house sex offenders at all. It's against the law," Pat Clifford said. (Oh really? I thought the registries were a sure-fire way to track all sex offenders...hmm)
"Does a sex offender go to the public library downtown? Can you say, yes or no, whether a sex offender has been in a public library? You don't know. You can't prove yes or you can't prove no. Is a sex offender in Washington Park right now? I can't prove it. It's a public place," he said.
Previous studies have shown that despite laws requiring offenders to register their address, the address given can easily be wrong. Some have even registered parking lots near the Ohio River as their home.
Cincinnati Public Schools said they work closely with Cincinnati and Hamilton County to ensure the safety and security of school children. (which is really the whole crux of the issue. Parents need to take their own responsibility to protect their children from all kinds of dangers - not limited to sex offenders)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
IN: Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender Ban
Indystar.com: Indiana Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender Ban.
Plainfield, Indiana has won the latest round in the long-running lawsuit filed by a convicted sex offender who was banned from the town’s parks. The Indiana Court of Appeals today released a 20-page ruling that upholds the town’s 2002 ordinance prohibiting persons on the state registry of sex offenders from going into Plainfield parks and recreation facilities.
While the ban on sex offenders in the parks does have a punitive aspect, the court said it is not unconstitutional, as the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, tried to claim in his suit.
The appeals court said Plainfield did not violate the portion of the Indiana Constitution that guarantees rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.
Plainfield Town Manager Rich Carlucci said today that the purpose of the ban on registered sex offenders in the parks is to keep them away from children playing in the park.
The appeals court decision upholds a ruling in March this year by Hendricks Superior Court Judge Robert W. Freese, who had granted summary judgment for Plainfield and upheld the town’s ordinance.
Doe and his son visited Plainfield parks and recreation areas in 2004 and 2005, according to the court.
Doe sued Plainfield in November 2005, which began nearly three years of twists and turns in the legal case.
This is unbelievable; making walking in a park illegal for certain groups of people is outrageously unconstitutional in every way.
Plainfield, Indiana has won the latest round in the long-running lawsuit filed by a convicted sex offender who was banned from the town’s parks. The Indiana Court of Appeals today released a 20-page ruling that upholds the town’s 2002 ordinance prohibiting persons on the state registry of sex offenders from going into Plainfield parks and recreation facilities.
While the ban on sex offenders in the parks does have a punitive aspect, the court said it is not unconstitutional, as the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, tried to claim in his suit.
The appeals court said Plainfield did not violate the portion of the Indiana Constitution that guarantees rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.
Plainfield Town Manager Rich Carlucci said today that the purpose of the ban on registered sex offenders in the parks is to keep them away from children playing in the park.
The appeals court decision upholds a ruling in March this year by Hendricks Superior Court Judge Robert W. Freese, who had granted summary judgment for Plainfield and upheld the town’s ordinance.
Doe and his son visited Plainfield parks and recreation areas in 2004 and 2005, according to the court.
Doe sued Plainfield in November 2005, which began nearly three years of twists and turns in the legal case.
This is unbelievable; making walking in a park illegal for certain groups of people is outrageously unconstitutional in every way.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties
Social Science Research Network: Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties, National Rights and the Dormant Commerce Clause, Environmental Justice, and Alternatives by Shelley Ross Saxer, Pepperdine University - School of Law
September 11, 2008
Abstract:
Sex offender residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities because we fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. The practical effect of banishment through residency restrictions must be understood in the context that there are few places in modern day America to which a sex offender may be banished that is isolated from the rest of society. Rather than being excluded and thrust into some undeveloped wilderness, sex offenders are banished through residency restrictions to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Federalism concerns arise when states or municipalities attempt to exclude hazardous waste disposal from within the state, and judicial and legislative efforts to banish sex offenders to other states may also run afoul of Dormant Commerce Clause principles, which operate to discourage states from such protectionist activities.
Banishing sex offenders through residential restrictions, both legislative and private, impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, rather than by strangers, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of the sex offenders and the rights of our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that state and local legislators should seriously reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses.
September 11, 2008
Abstract:
Sex offender residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities because we fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. The practical effect of banishment through residency restrictions must be understood in the context that there are few places in modern day America to which a sex offender may be banished that is isolated from the rest of society. Rather than being excluded and thrust into some undeveloped wilderness, sex offenders are banished through residency restrictions to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Federalism concerns arise when states or municipalities attempt to exclude hazardous waste disposal from within the state, and judicial and legislative efforts to banish sex offenders to other states may also run afoul of Dormant Commerce Clause principles, which operate to discourage states from such protectionist activities.
Banishing sex offenders through residential restrictions, both legislative and private, impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, rather than by strangers, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of the sex offenders and the rights of our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that state and local legislators should seriously reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses.
Sex Offender Registries Under Fire
abajournal.com : Crime Registries Under Fire:
Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it’s unconstitutional.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Included in the Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which establishes a national sex offender registry and creates three classifications of sex offenders. The most serious group is required to register within three days after moving to a new state or face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The law also makes it mandatory for states to maintain an online registry accessible to the public.
Most federal courts—spurning critics who contend that Congress exceeded its authority by encroaching on state and local control—have upheld SORNA.
But at least two courts this year have sided with the critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law. In both rulings, the courts referred back to a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1990s that limited the federal government’s reach into state law. Meanwhile, a third federal court temporarily halted the new law until it had a chance to hear arguments on the issue.
More is at stake than just the sex offender registries, observers say. Americans have become accustomed to national crime registries, and courts could throw them into doubt. “Not surprisingly, given our increasing sense of informational entitlement and disdain for criminal offenders, we are seeing registration and notification laws spread to other subgroups, such as domestic abusers,” says Florida State University law professor Wayne A. Logan, author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.
Also up for grabs is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court’s line of federalism cases.
...The Walsh Act is the most far-reaching and may present the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to sink its teeth into such laws, Logan says.
The act “represents a zenith in federal demands on states with respect to registration and community notification,” he says. “Among other things, the law significantly expands the scope of registration eligibility and requires, for the first time, use of in-person verification and a conviction-based registration classification scheme. The states are expected to make major changes to their regimes, at significant trouble and cost.”
Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it’s unconstitutional.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Included in the Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which establishes a national sex offender registry and creates three classifications of sex offenders. The most serious group is required to register within three days after moving to a new state or face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The law also makes it mandatory for states to maintain an online registry accessible to the public.
Most federal courts—spurning critics who contend that Congress exceeded its authority by encroaching on state and local control—have upheld SORNA.
But at least two courts this year have sided with the critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law. In both rulings, the courts referred back to a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1990s that limited the federal government’s reach into state law. Meanwhile, a third federal court temporarily halted the new law until it had a chance to hear arguments on the issue.
More is at stake than just the sex offender registries, observers say. Americans have become accustomed to national crime registries, and courts could throw them into doubt. “Not surprisingly, given our increasing sense of informational entitlement and disdain for criminal offenders, we are seeing registration and notification laws spread to other subgroups, such as domestic abusers,” says Florida State University law professor Wayne A. Logan, author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.
Also up for grabs is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court’s line of federalism cases.
...The Walsh Act is the most far-reaching and may present the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to sink its teeth into such laws, Logan says.
The act “represents a zenith in federal demands on states with respect to registration and community notification,” he says. “Among other things, the law significantly expands the scope of registration eligibility and requires, for the first time, use of in-person verification and a conviction-based registration classification scheme. The states are expected to make major changes to their regimes, at significant trouble and cost.”
A Sex Offender is SOMEONE'S Child!
cleanuptheregistryohio.blogspot.com : A Sex Offender is SOMEONE'S Child!
You will not find photos like these on any Sex Offender registry!
Do you have similar photos like these? Family photos; everyone has them! As parents we are so proud of our children and always showing them off at any given opportunity.
Do you see a 'sex offender' emerging out of any of these pictures? Is he scarey to you? Someone you think you should protect your child from? How about the imfamous word 'perv'?! How about 'PRED-A-TOR', because he's on the registry?!
If this was YOUR child's photos and he were convicted as a sex offender and placed on a registry for a consensual sex act with his girlfriend, how would YOU feel?
Aren't you just a tiny bit, just a wee-bit 'peeved' that you are being deceived to believe that an individual like my son is suppose to be a threat to your child?
Don't you feel a bit taken advantaged of by your politicians that you vote for, keeping your family 'safe' from 'predators', when they include individuals like my son?
I'm not saying the sex offender registry is not a good tool, well, it use to be a good tool~ because now, you have individuals like my son in the same category of those that ARE a danger to your child~and now, well, you don't know who they are!! They are all the same....just listen to any politician advocating for 'tougher' sex offender laws and restrictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
