Ohio's tougher sex offender law being met with lawsuits, confusion

1-21-2008 Ohio:

The three weeks since Ohio rushed to implement tougher sex offender registration laws have been filled with confusion, lawsuits and concern that the provisions may do more harm than good.

Ohio is one of the first states to pass legislation to comply with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a set of federal laws that stiffens registration requirements for convicted sex offenders.

The act mandates that all states uniformly register sex offenders and place them into a national registry by 2009. It was billed as a way to prevent people who commit sex crimes from slipping through the cracks and committing other offenses.

Being on the forefront of the movement has landed Ohio courts in the middle of constitutional arguments over retroactively classifying some offenders - often with harsher penalties - without a court hearing.

It also has put a strain on sheriff's offices, who could see a 60 percent increase in their workload as they scramble - with no extra money for personnel - to register thousands of new sex offenders who now have to check in every 90 days.

And child advocates across the state are concerned about parts of the law requiring juveniles who committed sex crimes to register for life and, in some cases, have their pictures placed on the Internet.

They say those measures negate the purpose of Juvenile Court and ignore evidence that juvenile offenders have low recidivism rates -- between 4 and 13 percent.

Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann campaigned on the promise that he would implement the act. And its implementation put the state in line to receive an increase of up to 10 percent in federal grants used to fight crime, said Erin Rosen, a senior assistant in the office.

But opponents say the act will cost taxpayers far more to put into practice and defend in court. It is an assertion Dann's office did not dispute.

Court battles under way

Last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office filed 225 motions asking judges to prevent sex offenders who were convicted before the beginning of the year from being saddled with the harsher penalties. They plan to file more this week.

"We believe the Adam Walsh Act constitutes punishment," said Cullen Sweeney, an assistant Cuyahoga County public defender. "You can't apply punishment retroactively."

Supporters of the bill argue that the registration requirement is a civil penalty, not a criminal action.

Common Pleas Judge Joan Synenberg granted an injunction last week preventing the new law from taking effect against a 26-year-old Bay Village man.

Dillon Chupa was convicted seven years ago of sexual battery and corruption of a minor. A judge labeled him a sexually oriented offender and ordered him to report his address to the Sheriff's Office once a year for 10 years. He has not been arrested again.

Recently, Chupa got a letter telling him he has been reclassified as a more serious sexual offender and will have to register four times a year for the rest of his life; the sheriff would notify his neighbors and co-workers; and he would be prevented from living near a bus stop, school or daycare center, according to his lawyer, Larry Zukerman.

Chupa sued Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann to block the harsher penalties.

"He's being punished more than once for the same act," Zukerman said. "It should be over and done with."

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Judge Kristin Sweeney granted a temporary injunction preventing at least one juvenile from being placed on the registry.

The Ohio Public Defender's Office has filed for temporary restraining orders to keep any kids in the Ohio Department of Youth Services from being placed on Internet registries, and they will help incarcerated youth to file motions preventing reclassifications.

Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the state public defender's office, said about 2,500 juveniles could be reclassified. Some counties, she said, are refusing to appoint lawyers to people fighting the reclassification under the argument that it is a civil penalty.

"It's a mess," Borror said. "Not only are different counties doing different things but different judges in the same county are doing different things."

More work, no money

As the court battles ensue, sheriff's offices across Ohio are bracing for the flood of new registrants. Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association President Robert Cornwell said enforcing the unfunded mandate will be a monumental task.

In Cuyahoga County, the sheriff's Sex Offender Registration Unit registers about 400 sexual predators every 90 days. Now, they face the prospect of having to register nearly 1,400 people at least four times a year.

"That's some astronomical number," Sheriff's Sgt. David Synkowski said. "It's a disaster for us. . . . I think many people didn't think this all the way through."

Cuyahoga has to find money to remodel space for the increased registrants and their files, to mail between 500 and 1,500 post cards for each registrant who falls under the community notification requirement and to pay deputies to track down and charge offenders who don't follow the new rules.

"I'm sitting here most the day trying to bail out the sinking ship," Synkowski said.

Kids, families at risk?

Child advocates across the state have bombarded government offices with letters expressing their concerns about the law. And countrywide, groups have sent letters to the newly created federal Department of Justice Sex Offender, Sentencing, Monitoring Apprehending, Registering and Tracking -- SMART.

The 876 pages of letters, most opposing parts of the guidelines, can be found at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/guidelines.htm.

Cuyahoga County Children and Family Services Director Jim McCafferty worries that the law -- meant to protect children -- could harm some.

Ken Boris, who oversees the department's sex abuse unit, said some facilities and prospective foster or adoptive parents might turn down a child because they don't want their addresses listed online, which could occur if the youth placed was a certain level of sex offender.

Answers from the Ohio attorney general's office on how to handle these problems have been vague, Boris said.

"This is a little bit of a political football that nobody wants to appear soft on crime, but it's going to be hard to include juveniles," he said.

Boris said that other things about more-stringent registration requirements for juveniles bother him.

First, he said, lifetime penalties take away any incentive for juveniles to get treatment and to stay out of trouble. Numerous studies show low rates of recidivism for juveniles who get treatment. The public embarrassment of having to register could actually work against public safety.

Boris said the law also might unintentionally harm young victims of sex crimes. Perpetrators may be less likely to plead guilty because of lifelong penalties, he said. That could force more cases to trial and more victims to testify. Some may decide not to testify, meaning fewer convictions of sex offenders.

Laws like the Adam Walsh Act are directed toward the "monsters," Boris said. Those people are a only a small percent of offenders. ..more.. by James F. McCarty contributed to this story. rdissell@plaind.com, 216-999-4121