States wrestle with how to fund federal sex offender law

Why is equality (stated intent of AWA) such a good thing? After all, every state has and retains its own name, sovereignty, criminal laws, divorce laws, marriage laws, etc. If ALL criminal codes are not made equal -nationally- then they should not be just for sex offenders. A national reverse discrimination question. States should retain the right for its legislature to apply another state criminal code as it sees fit, constitutional privileges and immunities clause, and not be forced into something they may not totally agree with.

Equality is not always the correct answer for every circumstance, equality can lead to absurd results. If a registered offender living in a remote area of Alaska moves to a new igloo -and the registration office is hundreds of miles away- by dogsled, how can s/he comply with the AWA 3-day change of address required by AWA? Only "sovereignty" can answer such questions. Think about thousands of similar questions. PS: Why does AWA not contain a single provision to handle an aging population of registrants, and those who are disabled etc., who because of their circumstance cannot comply with AWA provisions? Is strict punishment for noncompliance always the correct answer, nationally?

12-23-2008 National:

An effort to create uniform nationwide standards for how to keep track of sex offenders has stalled largely because states being asked to comply with the new federal guidelines can't or won't pay the costs.

After Texas legislators convene in January, they'll have to decide whether to comply with a new federal law that came without funding, or to stick with existing state statutes.

Chances are good the Lone Star State won't be alone if it fails to meet a July 2009 deadline; so far, not a single state has complied with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

The 2006 law was designed to crack down on sex offenders by requiring minimum standards for public registries, including who must register, for how long, and what information is made public. The law also set penalties for failing to register.

California officials estimated compliance would cost the state more than $21 million, according to Allison Taylor, executive director of the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment. The as-yet-undetermined price tag for Texas could also run into the millions.

The next session is "going to be tough as nails" because of the faltering economy, said Rep. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin. "You and I are asking the question, 'Do we have the dollars?' "

Other state estimates are lower, but the cost, much of which is technological, would be borne by local as well as state law enforcement agencies, Ms. Taylor said.

Although Texas is ahead of the game because it has already done some of the modernization required by the law for offender registration software, a lot of smaller jurisdictions, such as police departments, "do not have computer technology in place right now, so they're looking at a huge cost to come into compliance," she said.

If states don't comply, they'll lose 10 percent of some federal grant money. In Texas, not complying could cost about $700,000, while complying will cost millions more.

That may make the decision simple, said Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, long an advocate of strong sex offender laws.

"Seven hundred thousand on the one hand vs. $20 million on the other hand? It's pretty easy to resolve," she said. "Our laws are strong, and we don't need to comply."

Laura Rogers, director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, which oversees implementation of the law, said some money has been used to set up the national registry and her office.

She agreed that financing is a "really large issue" but said "there is some hysteria out there, unnecessary hysteria."

"It boils down to whether you're an optimist or pessimist," she said. Some outdated or inefficient programs "could be slightly modified, in a not very expensive way, to meet the minimum standards."

The implementation cost may be the biggest obstacle, but it is far from the only one.

Guidelines for implementing the act were not finalized until July, making it difficult for states to get their new laws passed and implemented.

In addition, some states disagree with the federal provisions for registration of juvenile offenders, retroactive registration and rating offender risk levels.

Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, founded by the parents of Adam Walsh, for whom the act was named, said the law is "of historic importance" because it would bring consistency to state laws regulating sex offenders across the country.

"Our frustration is that we are nowhere near the point where we thought we would be," he said. "We recognize how difficult this is for states."

Texas leaders are particularly concerned that the new guidelines require lifelong offender registration for certain juveniles age 14 and over.

The state experimented with mandatory registration several years ago, but at the urging of prosecutors, defense attorneys and experts, later opted to leave the decision to judges.

"I want us to go closely and carefully and thoughtfully so at the end of the day, we have the right people doing what they need to be doing and not ensnaring 14-year-olds having to register four times a year for lifetime," Mr. McReynolds said.

But Ms. Rogers said juvenile registration concerns were satisfied in the final guidelines.

Those now required to register are sex offenders in need of monitoring, she said. "We're not talking about kids who are playing doctor."

Despite the changes, Ms. Taylor said juvenile registration remains "a huge sticking point."

Another sticking point for Ms. Shapiro is how far back the federal law reaches in requiring registration. Texas requires registration for sex offenses dating to the 1970s. But she is troubled by the requirement that an offender who completed his sentence and then reoffends with a nonsex crime could be forced to register.

"Texas always has had retroactivity," said Ms. Shapiro. But the idea that a crime such as writing a hot check "could cause you to go back on the registry, when it's not even a sex offense, makes no sense ... the extent that they go back just makes it untenable."

Finally, Ms. Taylor said the federal requirement that offenders be assigned a risk level based on a conviction instead of an evaluation may be a deal breaker for Texas.

In the last year or so, Texas, like many states, has moved to "dynamic risk assessments" to determine the danger to the public, she said, but "if you are basing registration on risk level to the community, you would not be in compliance."

Ms. Shapiro and Mr. McReynolds say they'll study the issue carefully.

Ms. Shapiro says she may file a bill asking for an extension to meet the deadline. The federal government has provided for two one-year extensions, meaning final compliance wouldn't be required until 2011.

Mr. McReynolds said he wants to come up with a "sane approach."

"We want to be tough on crime," he said, "but we don't want to be absurd." ..News Source.. by DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News