Two more bills in Congress affecting a CERTAIN group of former sex offenders:

The bills are:

H.R.3746
Title: To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] (introduced 10/4/2007) Cosponsors (8)

PART A--GRANTS TO STUDENTS
SEC. 401. PELL GRANTS.
(e) Ineligibility Based on Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexual Offenses- Paragraph (7) of section 401(b) (as redesignated by subsection (d)(2)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: `or who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period of incarceration for a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense (as determined in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program)'.

H.R.4137
Title: To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 11/9/2007) Cosponsors (29)

PART A--PART A AMENDMENTS
SEC. 401. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.
(c) Ineligibility Based on Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexual Offenses- Paragraph (7) of section 401(b) (as redesignated by section 101(a) of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act) is amended by inserting before the period the following: `or who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period of incarceration for a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense (as determined in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program)'.

I find these really egregious because if the powers that be are sending folks to civil commitment for SEX OFFENDER THERAPY (i.e., rehabilitation) before being released into the community, what is inconsistent about SCHOOLING (making the person a better person) which leads to employment and again reduces the chances for recidivism?

Further, study the wording "or who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period of incarceration ...," in other words, if one is subject to, or will be subject to, a civil commitment hearing (such MAY RESULT in civil commitment), how would they know that BEFORE the hearing which determines whether civil commitment is or isn't appropriate?

The reality of what Congress is trying to do here is, deny folks who are WAITING FOR THEIR HEARING which can take years before they get one. These folks, although in a facility, have completed their sentence and until the hearing they are no different than anyone else in society. What grounds are there to deny these folks?

This is spitefull and vindictive legislation based purely on hatred of anyone convicted of a sex offense. In no way can this legislation be construed to PREVENT future offenses, which I thought was the correct basis for protecting the public.

Clearly this amounts to further punishment (ex post facto violation), as no other type of offender is so denied, and is also a violation of the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately Congress no longer checks to see if proposed laws would deny any rights before enacting them, if they are affecting sex offenders.

Finally, Under the Adam Walsh Act:

Under AWA anyone who is convicted of an offense of a sexual nature, OR is a person convicted of any other crime type -but has a sexual offense in their background-, who following convicted comes under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons (all federal sentences do), WILL BE SUBJECTED to a civil commitment hearing at or near the end of their federal sentence. Hence, they too will be denied Pell Grants under these new bills.

I first raised the AWA issue of "following a federal sentence WILL BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT HEARING" in my 2007 commentary. One final point, what if the offender is a juvenile or young adult?

I urge everyone to click on those bills, find out who those are that are Sponsoring or CoSponsoring those bills, and write to them, blasting them for these clear constitutional violations!

eAdvocate (3-7-08)