CT- Sex Offender Registry Riddled With Flaws

12-5-2008 Connecticut:

Overhaul Would Provide More Information, Make Sure Serious Offenders Make List

Connecticut's sex offender registry law needs to be updated. The state Department of Public Safety announced recently that 74 convicted sex offenders will be coming off the registry before the end of this year because their 10-year online registry period will expire. This is one of several examples of problems with the current system that must be solved.

First, many true sex offenders are avoiding the registry altogether by "charge bargaining" in our courts. Current law requires sex offender registration only for convictions under certain specific statutes, such as first-degree sexual assault. Skilled defense attorneys know this and will agree to have their clients plead guilty and even accept a prison sentence in exchange for a prosecutor's agreement to have them plead to charges that do not require registration.

An example of this is a rapist who breaks into a house and commits a forcible sexual assault. This is classified as both burglary first-degree and sexual assault first-degree. Both are extremely serious, but only the sexual assault crime requires sex offender registration. If a prosecutor knows that the victim is reluctant to testify, he or she might be willing to accept a guilty plea for burglary first-degree only as a compromise — not risking losing the case at trial, but allowing the rapist to avoid sex offender registration. This happens with increasing frequency in our state's courts.

The law should be changed to allow a Sex Offender Risk Assessment Board to look beyond the specific crime of conviction and instead classify a convicted felon as a sex offender based upon the underlying facts, including the police reports and prior history of the offender. Minnesota and other states have such a procedure, including due process protections, and the constitutionality has been successfully tested in the courts.

Second, there is far too little information about registered sex offenders on the current registry. Many other states provide important details on offenders, including whether the victims were male or female, adult or child, known to the offender or strangers, and some details of the crime. On Connecticut's registry, only the technical name and number of the crime of conviction is listed, which is meaningless to citizens hoping to make decisions about the risk of a nearby offender.

Individual contact information for the probation and parole officers responsible for the supervision of the offenders should also be listed, as is the case in other states.

Third, there should be an explanation of risk level for individual offenders in our registry. All sex offenders are subjected to extensive risk assessment by the state Department of Correction, the Office of Adult Probation and the Parole Board, and citizens have a right to know this.

Fourth, there are so many names on Connecticut's registry that the significance of the information has been diluted. More than 5,100 names appear on the registry today. When it began 10 years ago, citizens assumed that every person listed was a dangerous sex offender and probably a pedophile. In reality, that is not the case.

"Charge bargaining" means that many dangerous convicted sex offenders do not even appear on the registry. At the same time, a large number of those listed were convicted of having sex with underage girls when they themselves were also teens. This is a serious crime, but not necessarily that of a dangerous child molester. Many states limit the online registry to high- and medium-risk sex offenders.

Finally, the length of time an individual offender remains on the registry should be decided case by case based on risk. Ten years is much too short of a time for high-risk offenders. A minimum period should be established, and 10 years seems to be appropriate. That period then could be extended based on the offender's risk.

The General Assembly and governor have been working on these changes for several years now. In 2006, some of these proposals were approved and work has been underway since then to put these changes online. A new federal law has complicated this process for Connecticut and many other states, but we are hopeful this can be resolved in both Washington and Hartford next year. ..News Source.. by MIKE LAWLOR