Has the state of Missouri voted to come out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act?

4-7-2012 National:

The buzz for the past week have been what the title of this post says, but is that correct or is something missing? It all seems to have started with this news article "Missouri House endorses changes to sex offender registry, allows petitions for removal" (I'm preserving the full article is at the end of this post).

Effectively the article says: The Missouri HOUSE passed a bill (HB 1700) which made changes to its sex offender laws. I see no mention of why its House did what it did, nothing zip. And, Missouri's Senate has yet to vote on that bill.

Assuming no Senate action, we need to look at what the House approved, and decide if there MAY BE a reason other than a purpose, to come out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act.

Missouri State Constitution:

Section 1. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 13. That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.

News Article citing this case: Part Of Missouri's Sex Offender Law Ruled Unconstitutional "He successfully argued it would be unconstitutional for the state to force his client out of his home. The judge writes "Section 566.147, as amended in 2006, violates Article 1 & 13 of the Missouri Constitution and Article 1 &10 of the United States Constitution as a punitive ex post facto law that is retrospective in operation that disadvantages those offenders who lived within 1000 feet of a school or day care center at the time of its amendment, like Plaintiff, and intends to criminalize Plaintiff's and other similarly situated offenders' residency." Judge Joyce writes "Section 566.147 as amended in 2006, violates the Due Process Clause of the Missouri and United States Constitutions by depriving Plaintiff and those similarly situated of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard." Judge Joyce writes "As a result of this court declaring and finding 566.147, as amended in 2006, unconstitutional under both the United States and Missouri Constitutions, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the state of Missouri Department of Corrections is hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing the law against plaintiff and all other similarly situated offenders...""

...

That Missouri law (Section 566.147) violated the Missouri Constitution, which has a strange provision, "or retrospective in its operation", that sometimes covers civil matters. Could the Missouri House changes be, because AWA would have made them out of compliance with their State Constitution?

OR, read what I propose...

Before answering that, what does the Adam Walsh Act have to say about changes that would violate a States Constitution?

The Adam Walsh Act 42 USC 6925: SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

(b) STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(2) EFFORTS.—If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction’s constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction’s constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction’s highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction’s interpretation of the jurisdiction’s constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.—If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction’s constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.

Hummmm, AWA will not allow a state to violate its own constitution, could that be why the Missouri House made the changes it did? Maybe the AWA changes would force Missouri to violate its constitution (violate the "or retrospective in its operation" provision like the above court case mentioned). Honestly, I really do not know WHY the Missouri House made those changes.

So, here I merely challenge the alleged reason the Missouri House made the changes it made, but also leave open, that, it could be to "come out of compliance." But, based on that news article there is not enough evidence -in these eyes- to support "coming out of compliance."

What do you folks think NOW? I'm all ears...

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

---

Missouri House endorses changes to sex offender registry, allows petitions for removal

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Republican-led Missouri House gave first round approval Tuesday to legislation that would allow some people eventually to be removed from the state's sex offender registry.

Sponsoring Rep. Rodney Schad said the registry must be sufficiently narrow to be a notification tool and not additional punishment. In recent years, lawmakers have expanded the public sex offender registry.

"We've piled on to the point that the registry no longer means anything to the public," said Schad, R-Versailles. "The public has become numb to the registry."

Under the legislation, several offenses no longer would require state registration, including promoting obscenity and furnishing pornographic materials. In other cases, people could petition a state trial judge to be removed if they meet certain requirements. Petitions for removal could be filed after 20 years for those convicted of particularly serious offenses such as forcible rape, forcible sodomy or child molestation — crimes that Schad labeled as the "seven deadly sins." People convicted of other sex offenses would need to wait 10 years before they could seek removal.

The local prosecutor, who would need to be notified by the person making the request, could present evidence suggesting some requirements for removal had not been met. Prosecutors also would need to make "reasonable efforts" to notify the victim of the sex offense of the dates and times for court hearings on the petition. Requests for removal would be granted unless the person has not properly registered, committed another offense requiring registration or failed to complete probation and sex offender treatment programs.

Lawmakers endorsed the legislation by voice vote during an evening session with few people watching from the public galleries. The measure needs another vote before moving to the state Senate. There was little apparent opposition to the measure, and Schad said the legislation was discussed at night to avoid conducting the debate in front of the many children who visit the state Capitol during the day on school field trips.

Besides allowing people to be removed from the registry, the legislation also would exclude juveniles who are required to register as sex offenders from the public list posted online.

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Louisiana Listed Among States in Compliance with Federal Adam Walsh Act

Again we see another state violating the rights of registrants in the name of AWA, the law which is but a end-run around constitutional protections, and crafted behind closed doors by a few persons in Congress and passed under suspension of the rules which is not allowed for such legislation. Louisiana succumbs while other states hold back. There is nothing uniform about the Adam Walsh Act, it creates a state of confusion designed to harm those registered under it under the pretext (ruse) of protecting the public.

7-2-2011 Louisiana:

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell announced today that the United States Department of Justice has determined that Louisiana is in substantial compliance with the Federal Adam Walsh Act. The state now joins just seven other states which have substantially implemented Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act or SORNA.

"This finding of substantial compliance was based on numerous legislative, policy and technological changes and updates made in recent years with regard to sex offender registration and community notification," said Attorney General Buddy Caldwell. "These efforts were spearheaded by the Attorney General's Office in cooperation with the Louisiana Sheriff's Association, the Louisiana District Attorney's Association, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, State Police, the Office of Probation and Parole and the Louisiana Legislature."

Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006, following several high-profile stories of sex offenders who were bouncing from state to state to assault and kill children.

The mandate requires every state to adopt more uniform standards for registering sex offenders by July of this year. Its backers crafted the legislation so offenders would have a harder time evading authorities, especially when crossing state lines. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates there are more than 780,000 sex offenders nationwide with about 100,000 living in violation of their registration requirements.

In 2007, the Louisiana Legislature passed House Bill 970, which was signed by the governor as Act 460 and became effective January 1, 2008.

States that fail to comply with the upcoming federal deadline risk losing 10 percent of their Byrne JAG funding annually. That money is used by law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies to purchase equipment, provide training, and help victims. Louisiana would have faced losing roughly $450,000.00 of this funding for failing to comply by the deadline. ..Source.. by KATC.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New state sex offender laws in place

Again we see another state violating the rights of registrants in the name of AWA, the law which is but a end-run around constitutional protections, and crafted behind closed doors by a few persons in Congress and passed under suspension of the rules which is not allowed for such legislation. Michigan succumbs while over 40 other states hold back.

7-2-2011 Michigan:

GAYLORD, MI -- New reporting rules are in place for Michigan’s 35,000 sex offenders.

Police will gather more information and they explain why it’s important.

Starting July 1st, Michigan sex offenders will have to tell police more info, like what kind of car they drive, where they work, and even what their IP address is and what internet provider they use. It’s all part of the Adam Walsh Act.

"It’s something that needs to be done, and again, it's for the general public, it's the security aspect for the public, the public wants to know, so they have the right to know," explained Sgt. Jeff Gorno with the Gaylord Michigan State Police.

The new system will classify sex offenders by tiers.

Offenders with lesser sex offenses, like indecent exposure and 4th degree criminal sexual conduct crimes, will be classified by the first tier. These individuals won't be listed on the public registry, but must check in once a year with police for the next 15 years.

Second tier offenders who commit more serious crimes, like date rape, 2nd and 3rd degree CSC, or internet and child porn offenses, will be on the public registry, and must register with police twice a year for 25 years.

The third tier is reserved for the most serious crimes, like first degree CSC and molesting a child under 13. You’ll find them on the sex offender site and they have to register four times a year with police.

"Most families, if their child or their relative is a victim, they want them to register, they want them to be accountable, they want people to know what this person is capable of," said Libby Mikulski, Crime Victim Rights Advocate with the Charlevoix County Prosecuting Office.

Most of the collected information will be put on the state's Sex Offender Registry public database. Mikulski thinks having information about where they work, what kind of car they drive, and internet activity is important.

“We're looking at all of these things very seriously, and if you're not complying, you need to be arrested," said Mikulski.

If the sex offender doesn't register within the 15 days, a warrant will be set out for their arrest, and if they lie on the forms they fill out, that's a four year felony.

Police say Friday, because of the amount of sex offenders registering throughout the state, the data base system crashed several times and they had to tell some people to come back.

But they say by the end of the month, the Michigan Sex Offender Registry site should be updated with all the new information. ..Source.. by Andrew Keller

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender registration update expected to create long lines at police departments throughout Michigan

What a waste of taxpayer money especially when 95% of new sex offenses come from people not on the registry, maybe they should be registered?

6-24-2011 Michigan:

If you're a sex offender in Michigan, you might have to spend some time waiting in line.

Changes passed this April to the Sex Offender Registration Act will require the collection and verification of additional information from each registered sex offender, as well as their fingerprints and palm prints.

And local agencies have 15 days to register offenders — and it's going to be busy at most law enforcement agencies, said Sgt. Chris Kuhn of the Allegan County Sheriff's Office.

The new law requires sex offenders to provide social security numbers, passport information, email addresses, online screen names, as well as vehicle and employer information.

Offenders will register within the jurisdiction that they live.

There are three tiers of sex offenders under the new law, Kuhn said. The first tier have committed the least severe offenses and have to register at the beginning of each year. The second tier has to register bi-annually and the third quarterly.

Registration for the second and third tiers is between July 1 through 15.

Kuhn said offenders registering, verifying, or changing their address at the Allegan County Sheriff's Office should expect the registration process itself to require about 30 minutes per person, not including time waiting to be processed.

Kuhn said sex offenders have received letters notifying them what tier they are in and information they need to bring.

There are around 300 sex offenders that will have to complete the registration in in Allegan County, Kuhn said. They are setting up a separate room to handle the number of people coming in.

Kuhn said the Grand Rapids Police Department will have about 1,000 offenders to register.

The city of Kalamazoo has 687 offenders registered, according to the Michigan State Police Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry website.

After the registration, the offender will be given have a receipt to carry around verifying their information.

While the information will take a while to collect and enter into the state's database, Kuhn said it will be invaluable to law enforcement. Some of the information will be made available on the sex offender registry.

Kuhn said July 1, 5, 6 and 15 are anticipated to have the longest wait times. Kuhn said offenders will most likely come at the beginning or wait until the end. ..Source.. by Fritz Klug | The Kalamazoo Gazette

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal Lifetime Juvie Sex Offender Registry Contradicts State Law; Justice Grants Held at Bay

This article clearly shows all the different state programs, and likely there are many more, which receive money THROUGH Bryne Grants. Is it any wonder why some lawmakers sacrifice former sex offenders to save these grants? Advocates need to address these other state programs in commentary fighting the Adam Walsh Act.

UPDATE: Note to readers, the 10% Byrne Grant deduction is applicable to a state for every year of noncompliance, not just for one year. This is why so many Advocate calculations are incorrect, they calculate for one year and fail to show following year/s.

1-22-2011 Maryland:

Feds Tie Grants to State Compliance with Washington Mandated Standards

WASHINGTON (January 21, 2011) - Maryland lawmakers thought the flurry of seven bills passed last year brought the state's sex offender registry in line with federal standards, but they discovered differently this week and now face a tough choice: Enact legislation to register juvenile offenders for life, or risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants.

The state will forfeit 10 percent of its Byrne Justice Assistance Grants for next fiscal year if it does not make the sex offender registry compliant with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 by June 30. That could mean registering sex offenders as young as 14 for the rest of their lives.

Bill Toohey, the director of communications at the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention, said 10 percent would have amounted to about $600,000 this year.

A search of that office's Awarded Grants Database revealed that 117 projects at the state, county and municipal level are receiving Byrne funding -- from as little as $1,540 to as much as $278,332.

"There's a whole wide array of services that are funded by (Byrne grants)," Toohey said. "That's why it's so valuable."

State Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery, sponsored a successful 2009 bill to give judges the authority to require the registration of juvenile sex offenders they considered a threat to reoffend. But Frosh said instituting mandatory lifetime registration of juveniles is something that requires careful deliberation.

"I'm not sure it's something we ought to be leaping into," Frosh said. "We are talking about juveniles, after all, and there is evidence that they can be rehabilitated."

Frosh, a lawyer, has warned about possible unintended consequences of such measures in the past. He used the fad of teen "sexting," or sending nude pictures to friends via cell phone, as an example of an offense that could lump juveniles in with violent criminals on the same registry.

"It's a mark that will hamper somebody for the rest of his or her life," Frosh said. "I mean, it's necessary in some cases, but I'm not sure that we want to paint this with a broad brush."

Maryland is not alone in its struggle for compliance -- far from it. Frosh said only four states meet the federal standards for sex offender registry so far because the federal legislation is hard to interpret.

But law enforcement agencies across Maryland rely on Byrne grants.

Baltimore has 14 programs receiving Byrne funds, including a Prostitution Diversion program ($59,071 in grant money), an Inter-Agency War Room Coordination program ($207,440) and a "YouthBuild" program focused on reducing criminal recidivism rates for juveniles ($110,080).

The Baltimore Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice received $278,332 in grant money for its Sexual Assault Response program last year. According to GOCCP, the program "encourages reporting of sexual assaults, improves case investigation protocols and techniques, and provides support and services to victims." It is using the grant money to provide training, equipment and personnel.

The program's director, Sheryl Goldstein, said now would be an especially tough time to lose 10 percent of the Byrne grants.

"There really isn't anywhere to make up money like that in today's economic climate, unfortunately," Goldstein said. "Everybody's being squeezed and certainly local governments are feeling the pain of budget cuts and reduced revenues."

Smaller cities also benefit from the Bryne grants. Brentwood, population 2,838, revived its police department in 2009 after it was disbanded in the 1970s. The town received $77,440 in grant money to modernize the new department with computers, a server and camera equipment.

"I don't know what we would have done (without the Byrne grant)," Brentwood Mayor Xzavier Montgomery-Wright said. "We would have probably been operating on a much smaller scale, meaning maybe one computer system for a number of officers and an admin person. How do you function like that from a public safety standpoint?"

While there's no discussion of losing the grants entirely, Toohey said losing even 10 percent "would make a very significant impact."

But there's some resistance in both branches of the State House to enacting the federal mandates for putting juveniles on the sex offender registry for life.

"I don't think that any decisions have been made yet about necessarily how to address some of the concerns," Delegate Kathleen Dumais, D-Montgomery, said. "Even when we passed the bills (last year) the majority of us were doing it because we didn't certainly want to lose any Byrne money. But at the same time, many of us thought that some of the federal requirements were pretty stringent. ... Putting juveniles on a public sex offender registry was really something that gave all of us a great deal of heartburn." ..Source.. ANDY MARSO

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

National sex offender registration struggles to take hold

8-1-2010 National:

Earlier this month, the state of North Dakota received another extension from the federal government, putting off for another year compliance with a 2006 law setting national standards for sex offender registration.

Earlier this month, the state of North Dakota received another extension from the federal government, putting off for another year compliance with a 2006 law setting national standards for sex offender registration.

It’s the last extension allowed by the feds and, the thing is, the state may never comply with the law the way it’s written.

The law is better known around here for creating the Dru Sjodin national sex offender website, named after the UND student who was kidnapped and killed nearly seven years ago.

Unlike several of the states and American Indian nations that haven’t complied with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, also known as the Adam Walsh act — only three states and two nations have — North Dakota doesn’t have funding problems. It has a difference of opinion.

“We’re in full compliance except for a couple of areas, and those areas are where I have policy disputes with the one-size-fits-all federal approach,” said North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. The state, he said, is “99 percent” in compliance.

One of those areas of differences is how sex offenders are assessed for risk. The federal law says risk should be based on the statute the offender was convicted of. North Dakota has a committee that evaluates not just the crime, but factors that could increase the risk of reoffending.

Stenehjem’s not alone. Some law enforcement experts feel the same way and have told Congress so.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who wrote the part of the law creating the Dru Sjodin website, said he understands many states feel they have a better way to deal with sex offenders, but that can be addressed after they’ve come into compliance.

“The reason the Adam Walsh act, and the Dru Sjodin part of it, exists is because hasn’t been anything on the national level that works,” he said. If 47 states won’t comply, he said, there still won’t be national system that works.

At some point folks will realize just what a disaster the Adam Walsh Act is, as it permits Federal Administrative employees (SMART Office) to OVERRIDE state judges, state legislatures and constitutional rights of citizens of the states. One day they will wake up, North Dakota is blinking its eye already!

Deadline 2011

SORNA, as the law is called in the federal jargon, consolidated a patchwork of national standards for registering sex offenders and extended them to American Indian reservations.

The law memorializes two well-known victims, UND student Dru Sjodin and Adam Walsh, the son of John Walsh, host of “America’s Most Wanted.” The son’s 1981 murder inspired the father to become an anti-crime activist, eventually landing on TV.

Starting July 27, 2006, states, U.S. territories and reservations around the nation had three years to comply, and may seek two, one-year extensions, meaning the drop-dead deadline for compliance is July 27, 2011. Reservations may choose to have the states they’re in take the lead.Jurisdictions that that don’t comply risk losing 10 percent of their annual allotment of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, a major source of federal grants to state and local law enforcement agencies.

For some states, such as California, the cost of compliance far outweighs the loss of funding. The state’s Sex Offender Management Board said in early 2009 that compliance would cost $31.3 million a year, not including $6.8 million in one-time costs. Noncompliance, on the other hand, would risk just $2.1 million a year.

For North Dakota, which is already mostly compliant, the loss of funding would amount to $78,000 in fiscal year 2010. Stenehjem said it’s just not worth it to make the state, in his opinion, less safe.

Approaches to risk

What SORNA does is expand the kinds of offenses that require registration — for example, some juveniles who aren’t tried as adults must still register — and it requires offenders to provide more information about themselves and update that information, including their whereabouts, more frequently.

By and large, Stenehjem said he considers SORNA a good law. Sex offenders aren’t required to stay in one place and a national law will do a better job tracking them, he said.

Even within North Dakota, he said, it’ll help the state work better with tribal governments. Reservations don’t have the same kind of registration and tracking requirements as the rest of the state and, sometimes, sex offenders will head for reservations and disappear from the radar, he said.

But Stenehjem has a real problem with SORNA when it requires the state to base the risk level of sex offenders on the offenses they’re convicted of. This is the so-called “offense-based” approach, which contrasts with the “actuarial” approach of some 20 states, North Dakota among them.

The actuarial approach bases the risk level not only on offenses committed, but also factors such as the person going through sex offender treatment and holding steady jobs. States argue that this is a more accurate method of assessing risk, allowing authorities to focus finite police resources only on the sex offenders that are truly likely to reoffend.

In North Dakota, Stenehjem said, the state’s Sex Offender Risk Assessment Committee is made up of psychologists, law enforcement officials and victims’ advocates who go through every sex offender’s case to determine the risk level.

He faulted the offense-based approach because a conviction alone can give a false impression of a sex offender. For example, if the sex offender managed, through plea bargaining, to attain a conviction on a lesser charge, his risk level drops simply because it was negotiated that way between prosecutors and the defending attorney.

Plea bargaining is extremely common in the U.S. justice system with most cases never going to court.

The state committee considers the circumstances of the offense, Stenehjem and Assistant Attorney General Jon Byers said, for example, the age of the victim, the offender’s criminal history, what police said happened along with the evidence gathered compared with what the victim and the offender said. The committee also looks at other factors that raises or lowers risks, they said, for example, going through sex offender treatment or drug abuse treatment lowers the risk, as is having a steady job and a consistent place to live.

Crude instrument

There is disagreement among law enforcement experts about which approach is appropriate at the national level. In early 2009, that disagreement came before Congress again when the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing to find out why so few states had complied with SORNA.

On one side are those that, like Stenehjem, think offense-based risk assessment is too crude an instrument to be effective.

“One of the fundamental problems in our field is that we tend to paint all sex offenders with the same brush,” Madeline M. Carter, director of the Center for Sex Offender Management in Silver Spring, Md., told the subcommittee. “Professionals have long recognized key differences among them. These differences relate to the types of crimes they commit, to the victims they target, to their risk for re-offense, and to the types of interventions that will most likely reduce their risk.”

SORNA may even impede states from effective management of their sex offender populations.

In Washington state, authorities may raise the risk-level of a sex offender if there were indications that he was engaging in risky behavior, said Bob Shilling, a detective in the Seattle Police Department. “This helps put precious public safety resources where they are needed the most, monitoring the highest-risk offenders.”

SORNA, he said, would not allow this.

National approach

On the other side are those that think the actuarial approach is too subjective and varies too much from state to state to work at the national level. How could there be a national system if a sex offender might be a moderate risk in one state and a high risk in another?

“Individuals who do not have a national perspective do not understand the significance of the jurisdiction-specific modifications they seek,” Laura L. Rogers, the former director of the Justice Department office charged with implementing SORNA, told the House subcommittee in a statement. The law already has flexibility for different jurisdictions, she said, and changes to make it more so would only create problems.

“There is little consistency to these various programs,” complained Rep. Louis B. Gohmert Jr., R-Texas, the subcommittee’s ranking member and a former judge. “They are not uniform in the criteria they apply or in who performs the assessments. This creates discrepancies over which sex offenders should be tracked nationwide.”

Nevertheless, states do want SORNA modified and North Dakota is among them.

Stenehjem said he’s contacted the Justice Department, which says its hands are tied by the language of the law, and congressional leaders who “listened politely” but have yet to take action.

Dorgan’s office said the only correspondence with the attorney general is a copy of a letter requesting this year’s extension.

The senator said he’s sympathetic. If states think they have a better approach, he said, Congress may address that, but the first priority is to establish a consistent national system. ..Source.. by Tu-Uyen Tran, Grand Forks Herald

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs

5-28-2010 Washington DC:

Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police. Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.

But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.

"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.

Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.

"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — deciding who represents the greatest risk."

Incarceration's High Cost

The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.

The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as Chelsea's Law, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.

But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher, "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.

California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.

But Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the Republican sponsor of Chelsea's Law, disputes the LAO's higher cost estimates for his bill and says that even the corrections department's projected $54 million cost in 2030 would represent a small fraction of the projected state budget and "can be absorbed.

"I disagree with the criticism that I hear that the costs are too high," he says. "It's absolutely not asking too much of government to protect children from violent sex predators."

An Expanding List

At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses — including public urination, "sexting" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "Romeo and Juliet" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.

The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: They are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.

But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

"Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."

Can States Bear The Cost?

Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others.

"In criminal justice, there are people who you're mad at and there are people you're afraid of," says Fletcher, the California representative. "All of our focus is on people we feel are likely to reoffend."

Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders — moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.

And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The practical effect of the federal law would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.

The Justice Department's proposed changes would allow states more discretion about listing offenders as young as 14 on their registries, as well as offenders whose crimes predate the law's passage.

If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.

"This federal mandate is requiring all kinds of things that financially are near to impossible for states to implement," Klein says. "In these incredibly difficult fiscal times, with states near bankruptcy, it is extraordinarily hard for them to come into compliance, just for financial reasons."

The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.

"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences." ..Source.. Alan Greenblatt

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Offender registry called too strict

5-11-2010 Maryland:

Delaware's list includes juveniles as young as 9

Their youthful faces stare from the pages of Delaware’s online sex offender registry, some obviously scared, some scowling, some expressionless.

These are photographs of children who committed sex crimes. They are branded, a condemnation that can haunt them forever.

Delaware has some of the youngest sex offender registrants in the nation – one as young as 9 – according to backers of legislation that would give Family Court judges some discretion in deciding which juveniles belong on the registry and which do not.

In registering offenders who are younger than 14, Delaware’s registry system is more stringent than required by the federal Adam Walsh Act, a law that some states complain is too strict.

Advocates of the legislation cite research indicating that children convicted of a sex offense are unlikely to commit another one. Opponents cite studies that find just the opposite.

Due to political, legal and social concerns, the push to give Family Court judges a say in the matter has run into a wall of opposition.

Attorney General Beau Biden opposes the legislation. Election-minded legislators don't want to give opponents the opportunity to paint them as soft on sex offenders.

This is the problem in a nutshell, lawmakers who don't have the courage to speak the truth! They too fear the FEAR MONGERS like Delaware's AG.

Publicity about the abuse charges against pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley has made the issue of sexual offenses even more politically toxic.

"I can't even get it out of committee," said Rep. Melanie George, D-Bear, referring to the bill she introduced last year that would give Family Court judges the power to decide if children younger than 14 should be listed on the registry. It also would give them discretion to decide whether juveniles older than 14 should be listed if they are convicted of certain lower-level offenses.

'Made my life difficult'

A law like that might have kept "Kevin's" name off the registry. But thanks to what critics say is Delaware's one-size-fits-all system, he's a marked man.

Now in his 20s and living in another state, Kevin agreed to an e-mail interview on the condition that his real name and certain details of his case be withheld.

Kevin's name does not appear on the sex offender registry of his current state, but his Delaware listing is easily found on the Web.

All you have to do is Google me and the top hit is [my name on] Delaware's registry," Kevin wrote.

At age 13, Kevin was caught "messing around" with a younger child and was convicted of two misdemeanor sex offenses. "We were just kids," he said, describing the encounter as consensual but declining to go into detail. Juvenile records are sealed and not available for review.

Kevin's listing as a moderate-risk offender put him on the registry -- listings of low-risk offenders can be accessed only by law enforcement -- and being on the public registry has followed him into adulthood.

Like all registered sex offenders, Kevin must provide his name, date of birth, address, employer, driver's license number, Social Security number, professional licenses, passport, immigration status and school affiliations to the offender registry. He must update any change in these details of his life within three days or face a felony charge. His photo, name, physical description, address, car license number and crime are on display to anyone. There are restrictions on where he can live, and his status is a red flag on job applications.

"All this has done is made my life difficult. It's not like the public is being protected. I was just 13," Kevin said.

Kevin said the incident was his one and only legal offense. His name did not appear during a search of Delaware Superior Court and Court of Common Pleas records.
It's tales such as Kevin's that bother Lisa Minutola, chief of legal services for the Public Defender's Office.

Minutola has spoken with a few youth offenders whose names still appear on the registry years later, and "they definitely had horror stories of not being able to get employment, not being able to get an education," she said.

Age limits

According to Minutola, the Delaware registry has one person who was listed at age 9 who is now in his teens. Three individuals were placed on the registry at age 10, she said. The registry, which has 2,725 entries, isn't searchable by age.

The Adam Walsh Act does not require offenders younger than 14 to be placed on the registry; offenders ages 14 to 17 must be placed on the registry only if they commit certain serious offenses.

Only six states actually define the youngest age at which an offender must be registered, "which leaves open the possibility that even very young children who evidence sexual behavior problems may be subject to registration," according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Of the six states that do define the youngest registration age, North Carolina sets the limit at 11; Indiana, Ohio, Idaho and Oklahoma begin registering offenders at 14, and in South Dakota the minimum age is 15.

Twenty states -- Delaware is not among them -- have instituted special juvenile procedures or time limits that can remove a juvenile from the list once a set period of time has elapsed and no further offenses have occurred.

Minutola wants Delaware judges to have more freedom when the federal law does not apply.

"What we're asking is for those juveniles that Adam Walsh doesn't even require registration for ... that the court would have the discretion to have a hearing to determine whether or not the juvenile should be registered," she said.

That's not the way Biden sees it.

Biden took steps to strengthen Delaware's sex offender registry soon after he took office -- and he's not amenable to legislation he believes would weaken it.

"Juvenile sex offenders do re-offend," and that's why they belong on the registry, Biden said.

"The public needs to know. The public has a right to know," he said. "No one's been able to provide us any [examples of] so-called miscarriages of justice."

Only six to eight other states give judges discretion on placing juveniles on offender registries, said Deputy Attorney General Christina Showalter, adding that a judge would not have enough information on the offender to make such a ruling at the time of conviction.

According to Biden and Showalter, keeping juveniles off the registry or easing restrictions would threaten public safety.

"These are young predators," Showalter said. If they aren't placed on the list or their names are expunged, "they go on to be camp counselors, baby sitters ... and that's the most chilling part of this."

Grier Weeks, executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, agrees.

"There's always a debate about where the discretion should reside, with prosecutors or with the judiciary. I'm sure these lawmakers are well-intentioned and they see this as a problem," Weeks said.

"It's not a black-and-white issue. Are there juveniles who commit sex crimes who do not belong on sex-offender registries? Of course," Weeks said.

"But when they are prosecuted and convicted for very serious sex crimes, then what I would say is, there's a saying in criminal justice circles that the sex offender's greatest weapon is camouflage. When you get into discussions about expunging records and removing people from sex offender registries ... you're essentially trying to erase the record of something the public needs to know."

Conflicting studies

Biden and Showalter cite a number of studies showing that juvenile offenders are likely to re-offend. Perhaps the most persuasive is a 2007 study by the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center that tracked juvenile offenders who were released in 2001.

Of those offenders, 41 percent were arrested for a new sex offense within five years of release.

Nicole Pittman, an attorney and juvenile justice policy analyst with the Defender Association of Philadelphia and the National Juvenile Defender Center who is urging Delaware to modify its law, cites studies that some find equally persuasive.

For example, a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology tracked juvenile sex offenders from adolescence through age 26. Fewer than 2 percent were arrested for an adult sex offense by age 27.

Delaware's juvenile sex offender statute "is ruining the next generation," Pittman told a joint meeting of the state House and Senate judiciary committees on March 31.

"Delaware has the youngest registrants in the country, and when you say in the country, it means in the world," Pittman said. "Having offenders who are younger than 14 on the registry is problematic."

Pittman said recent studies indicate that juvenile sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5 percent to 14 percent -- substantially lower than the rates for other juvenile crimes, which range from 8 percent to 58 percent.

In 2006, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act, which contains a provision known as SORNA: the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

That act requires juvenile offenders as young as 14 to register for life if convicted of more-serious sex offenses. States that do not comply will lose 10 percent of their funding from the federal Byrne Grant anti-crime program.

Delaware revised its law in an attempt to comply with the act, but in doing so it "cast an overly wide net that will tragically engulf nearly all adolescent sexual behaviors, including those prepubescent-like, exploratory behaviors committed largely out of curiosity," Pittman said in a prepared summary of her analysis of Delaware's law.

Politics in play

If the recent studies indicating that juvenile offenders are unlikely to commit another offense are true, Delaware's law could run counter to the 2002 state Supreme Court decision in Delaware v. Sapp.

In that case, the court advised the General Assembly to keep in mind that the registry statute must be related to the government's interest in protecting the public from the danger of recidivism of sex offenders.

The court also noted that then-current studies indicated that sex offenders -- particularly those who target children -- were likely to offend again.

But keeping Delaware in compliance with SORNA while easing the statute when it comes to the youngest offenders is a difficult political task, particularly in an election year.

"It's a volatile issue. Dr. Bradley's case certainly puts these kinds of cases in the spotlight," Minutola said.

"But Dr. Bradley is clearly a case of an adult offender. He's different from the children that we're talking about," she said. "Unfortunately, that case is highly publicized and it certainly might make things even harder."

Rep. Tom Kovach, R-Brandywine Hundred, voiced the political difficulties facing legislators who might otherwise consider backing George's bill.

"How do we protect the public legitimately," Kovach asked during the joint judiciary committee meeting, and how can legislators explain to the public that they aren't being soft on sex offenders?

No one had an answer. ..Source.. J.L. Miller

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Michigan not alone in seeking changes to sex offender registry

The entire Adam Walsh Act is "dracomian" and "vindictive" in its attempt to unseat constitutional protections for registrants.

5-10-2010 Michigan:

The state of Michigan is not the only state struggling to comply with the changes required by the federal Adam Walsh Act to the state’s sex offender registry. The Bangor Daily News reports that Maine is having a difficult time with those requirements as well and may ask for a delay in implementation of those changes.

Legislators from that state call many of the changes required “unworkable” and “draconian” and say they have not yet found a way to comply with the law in a way that makes sense. One of the major problems there, as here, is how to treat juvenile offenders and those in so-called Romeo and Juliet relationships. ..Source.. Ed Brayton

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Feds recognize Delaware's work to go after child predators

Another state that will be violating rights of their registrants using the Adam Walsh Act, the Act of entrapment!

5-3-2010 Delaware:

Wilmington, Del. — Delaware has become just the second state in the country to achieve compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act.

This recognition by the federal government reflects the significant steps Delaware has taken in recent years to strengthen the fight against criminals who prey on children, Attorney General Beau Biden said.

The State Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Delaware State Police, and members of the General Assembly worked with the Department of Justice to enact legislation that brought Delaware into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, Biden said. The agencies has have an ongoing partnership to track offenders and investigate and prevent sex crimes.

“We will never stop fighting to get these criminals off the streets and away from our children,” Biden said.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently determined that Delaware has substantially implemented the provisions of the sex offender registration and notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Act aligns sex offender registry standards across the states and asks states to place the burden of proof on convicted sex offenders.

Anyone know what they are talking about here? Please e-mail me: eAdvocate

Biden created the Delaware Department of Justice Child Predator Unit and established the Delaware Child Predator Task Force in partnership with the Delaware State police. He has fought for tougher sex offender registry laws and led the effort to enact greater penalties for child pornography offenses. As a result of these efforts, over $1.3 million in federal grant funding has already been secured to expand Delaware’s fight against child predators.

Under current federal rules, states that fail to substantially implement these provisions by July 26 stand to lose 10 percent of their annual federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding.

Biden’s office is overseeing the prosecution of former Lewes, Del. pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley, who is accused of raping or sexually abusing 103 children at his office. ..Source.. Community News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

US judge won't ask Nebraska Supreme Court to review law

This is the federal judge who seems to believe that, states should have no say as to their laws, only federal interpretations of state laws are allowed.

4-16-2010 Nebraska:

OMAHA -- A federal judge won't ask the Nebraska Supreme Court to review the state's revised sex offender registry law.

In an order issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said no legal reason has been presented to justify a high court review.

The request stemmed from a federal lawsuit filed in December on behalf of 20 sex offenders, their relatives and employers. It sought to stop the law from taking effect, saying it violated federal and state constitutions.

Kopf has blocked portions of the law, including provisions that sought to monitor convicted sex offenders' computer usage and prevent them from visiting certain Web sites. But he did leave most of the law intact, saying it came close to meeting criteria set for the state by Congress. The revised law went into effect in January.

Attorney Stu Dornan asked in a motion filed last month in U.S. District Court to have the Nebraska Supreme Court review the law for conflicts with the state constitution.

Nebraska lawmakers changed the law earlier this year, saying the revision was needed to comply with federal legislation passed in 2006. That legislation said that if Nebraska and other states don't publicly register all people convicted of sexual offenses and make other adjustments, they could lose out on federal grant dollars for local law enforcement.

At least 30 states have passed legislation in an effort to comply with the law and many others are studying it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. ..Source.. JournalStar.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New Jersey Has Not Complied with Federal Sex Offender Law

3-7-2010 New Jersey:

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 set forth uniform standards for tracking sex offenders in all 50 states. As the July 2009 implementation deadline approached, only one state, Ohio, had complied. The U.S. attorney general signed an across-the-board extension until July 2010 for all states, including New Jersey, to bring their sex offender reporting systems into conformity with federal requirements. Failure to do so would subject the states to loss of 10 percent of their allocations under Title I, Part E, Subpart 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

When it comes to sex offender laws, the nation looks to New Jersey for direction. That's because New Jersey's Megan's Law was the first such law in the nation, a model for other states and the federal government. But with the federal mandate looming, the underpinnings for the AWCPSA sex offender registry provisions seem to be eroding. A federally-funded study conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey Department of Corrections, released last February, found that Megan's Law does not effectively deter sex crimes, but does impose a tremendous cost upon taxpayers -- $5.1 million in New Jersey in 2007. Earlier studies reached the same conclusion as the 2009 Rutgers study.

As reported by NewJersey.com, critics of the studies, such as the mother of Megan Kanka, the murdered little girl after whom Megan's law was named, point out that the studies addressed the recidivism rates of offenders. The critics contend that stopping recidivism was never the purpose of Megan's Law, which instead was designed as an information tool for parents.

When it comes to the AWCPSA-required expansion of its sex offender registry, New Jersey faces some of the same issues as other states, including the required inclusion of children convicted of sex crimes in the federal database and application of notification requirements to crimes committed before registration was mandated.

The state's public defenders expressed concern in 2007 that an expanded sex offender registry in New Jersey will impede the efforts of convicted sex offenders to maintain employment and housing and may increase the likelihood of sex offenders and their family members suffering harassment. The public defenders' association notes that the federal rules would expand the audience receiving reports of sex offenders in a jurisdiction to include housing authorities, social service agencies, background check providers and volunteer organizations where contact with children is possible. The inclusion of employer name and address in the public database can be expected to lead to job losses, the public defenders said.

The federal law requires changes to New Jersey law in other areas as well, including the classes of people who must register and the crimes for which they must register. Under New Jersey law, for example, exhibitionism and possession of kiddie porn are not covered offenses, whereas they are under the federal statute.

JusticePolicy.org points out that for New Jersey, as for every other state, the initial cost of AWCPSA compliance outweighs its potential loss of federal funds for noncompliance. New Jersey's first-year outlay of $14,088,206 would vastly exceed the $516,071 it stands to lose if it fails to implement AWCPSA. If you have questions about New Jersey laws regarding sex offenders, the sex offender registry or the new federal requirements, please speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area for more information. ..Source.. David T. Schlendorf Law Offices

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender registry changes proposed

We urge folks to support and lobby New Hampshire lawmakers on behalf of an 11th hour effort to take HB 1628 off the House consent calendar for the March 10 House floor session and retain it in the House for the rest of 2010. The innocuous sounding bill asks the Department of Safety to devise voluntary guidelines for community notification of neighbors when a sex offender moves in. Such notification frequently causes vigilantism. Instead of sending HB 1628 to the Senate, the House would ask the Criminal Justice Committee to deal with its subject matter as part of a comprehensive study of the sex offender internet registry, risk assessment, and community notice.

3-7-2010 New Hampshire:

Editor's note: This is one in an occasional series about state legislation regarding sex offenders.

Several bills being proposed in the state House of Representatives would make adjustments to the state's sex offender registry.

The measures come after Gov. John Lynch signed a bill into law in 2008 that brought the state into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which required the state to implement a tiered registry.

Since then, lawmakers have proposed bills that would add offenses to or otherwise adjust the registry. The latest round of bills range from requiring those who murder children to register for life to changes such as requiring the registration of sex offenders' watercraft.

The bill proposing the lifetime registration of child murderers, House Bill 1647, has received some heat for a provision that would restrict residency. The bill would require any person convicted of first- or second-degree murder against someone under 18 to register for life on the Department of Safety's list. It also would restrict paroled child murderers and certain sex offenders from living within 25 miles of the victim or victim's family.

Two Lakes Region lawmakers proposed the bill in response to convicted child killer Raymond Guay moving to New Hampton, where two aunts of his victim live about two miles from his residence.

State Rep. Fran Wendelboe, R-New Hampton, is the primary sponsor of the bill and said Guay's case is the perfect example of why such a law is needed. Guay killed a 12-year-old Nashua boy in 1973 and was sentenced to 18 to 25 years in a federal prison.

Probation officials notified New Hampton selectmen about Guay moving to the town, but the board's legal counsel told the board not to release the information because of liability.

Wendelboe said authorities have always believed Guay's intentions against the boy were sexual assault, but since he was never charged with sexual assault, he was never required to register on the list that would allow the public to track him.

"The community wasn't informed when he moved into the community, and there was a lot of outrage," she said.

During a January hearing in Concord, most were in favor of the provision of the bill that called for those convicted of murder against a child to register on the sex offender list.

However, the part calling for the residency restriction came under fire because of recent issues regarding such restrictions, including a District Court ruling that Dover's sex offender ordinance barring offenders from living 2,500 feet from a school or day care was unconstitutional.

Wendelboe said it was not the intent of her bill to include sex offenders as well as murderers in the 25-mile-radius, and she is considering rewording that portion of the bill or dropping it.

"There's not many people that murder, but it would be a nightmare if sex offenders were included," she said.

Wendelboe said once changes are made to that part of the bill, she is confident it will pass.

"We're not the first state to do this," she said. "Children are the most vulnerable of the population. Anyone who murders a child is in a different category."

The bill is due to reach the House floor on March 10.

Another piece of legislation, House Bill 1642, would bring the state into further compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. The bill has passed the House and now will come before the Senate.

Assistant Attorney General Ann Rice said there were some elements left out of the law, and this is a chance to correct that. The bill adds the language "accomplice to, or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit" under sex offense crimes that would require a person to register as a sex offender.

The bill would also require an offender to provide the state with the make, model, color and license plate or registration of any vehicle, watercraft or aircraft owned and operated by the offender, as well as the location where such equipment is regularly kept. The current law only required this for vehicles such as cars.

Other bills have a longer road ahead of them. One, House Bill 111, asks not to include Tier 1 offenders on the public list of registered offenders, but rather on a private list, which the state used to have before its registry was modified to fit the Adam Walsh Act. Tier 1 includes offenses such as sexual touching and violation of privacy.

The bill was proposed in early 2009 by Rep. Jennifer Brown, D-Dover, and was placed in interim study, where it remains.

Brown said she has no problem with Tier 1 offenders registering with police but doesn't think they should be on the public list because it puts them under the same umbrella as other sex offenders.

"They just don't belong in the same place as the real bad guys because they get looked at that way by the public," she said.

Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, said House Bill 111 is one of multiple bills pertaining to sex offenders that has been placed in interim study. Pantelakos said these bills seek to making adjustments to the tiered system and the goal of putting them into study is to better organize them and bring them back as one bill.

Pantelakos is not a supporter of the Adam Walsh Act.

"I think each state should address things as they go along," she said.

She supports House Bill 111 because she thinks it separates those "who made a stupid mistake" from sexual predators.

Another bill being studied is House Bill 1601, which proposes that those convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault against adults, not just those who offend against children, be required to register on the Department of Safety's public list.

Other sex offender bills proposed in the House include:

House Bill 1508, which would prohibits those convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault or felonious sexual assault against children from initiating contact with the victim and includes all forms of communication. Anyone guilty of this would face a Class A misdemeanor. This bill passed the House on March 3 and now goes on to the Senate.

House Bill 1628, which would require the commissioner of the Department of Safety to develop guidelines to be used by local law enforcement agencies for providing neighborhood residents notification of the release of a sexual offender. This bill is recommended by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and has a March 10 floor date in the House. ..Source.. AARON SANBORN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Child-safety act not necessarily worth the added costs

2-20-2010 Arizona:

One of the highest priorities for me as a state lawmaker is to keep the people of my district and the state safe. Arizona has been a leader in tracking convicted sex offenders and has provided a simple-to-use public Web site so citizens can see where offenders released to the community are living.

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography and to promote Internet safety. The goals of the act are noble, but it is questionable whether the new requirements contained in it will make Arizonans safer. Also, the costs of putting in place all phases will be millions of dollars during a time of financial crisis in our state.

The federal government required states to comply with the act's provisions by July 2009. To give you an idea of the struggle going on across the country, only one state has complied. Arizona is one of 49 states not in compliance and is making plans for a second extension, to comply by July 2011.

A major component of the Adam Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act It requires major policy changes to state laws, with a significant fiscal impact. Here in Arizona, we have 14,500 registered sex offenders. The state Department of Public Safety handles the address-verification and sex-offender Web site at a cost of $1.1 million annually. With new requirements in the Registration and Notification Act, those costs to the taxpayer would soar, with limited evidence the public would be safer.

Some examples of the changes? Arizona requires that the offender register in the jurisdiction of his residence. The Registration and Notification Act requires registration in the jurisdiction of his conviction, incarceration, residence, employment and school attendance, potentially five separate registrations.

Requiring that registrants register "where they were convicted" is confusing and even be absurd. Once a person is convicted -and registers- then they can never move because, if they do, then they must always return to where they were convicted for any changes. Further, many are sent to prison and released elsewhere, the law requires them to return to where they were convicted, register, then go back to where they were living, register, etc. At times the law can be an ass!

The Registration and Notification Act also requires:

• Offenders to appear in person as often as once every three months for verification.

• All registration information available in digitized format.

• Registration for all registered offenders, not just the most serious Level 2 and 3 offenders.

• Palm prints. Software alone for this one requirement would cost Arizona nearly half a million dollars.

Overall, implementation of all the new requirements would climb into the millions of dollars.

Last year, the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1011, which established the Registration and Notification Act study committee, to examine the implementation of this portion of the Adam Walsh Act.

Legislators made up just a small part of the committee. Members included law enforcement, the courts, Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, psychologists and civic organizations.

We looked at the effectiveness of the current sex-offender laws in Arizona, the standards set by the act, and the impact of adopting the federal standards. We submitted for an extension until 2011 for implementation and will not face the loss of 10 percent of the state's allocated Byrne Grant money. We remain committed to making sure the public is safe and that we are responsible with your money. ..Source.. Linda Gray

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

TN- State Not In Compliance With Federal Law, Adam Walsh Act

7-29-2009 Tennessee:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The state is not in compliance with a Federal law called the Adam Walsh Act because Tennessee does not have a sex offender registry for juveniles which could cost the state $250,000.

Tennessee's sex offender registry is powered by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. A touch of a button brings up adult sex offenders, down to where they live.

"Law enforcement, it's very important to them, they feel like, it helps them do a better job dealing with the sex offender when they move back into the community," says State Rep. Debra Maggart.

The TBI says juvenile sex offenders should also be on a list.

"We're talking about someone that has committed a violent sex offense," says Maggart. "It's not just about outing someone and saying that they did this and look at what they did, it's about protecting the community from someone who might do it again."

Maggart is crafting legislation that calls for 14 through 18 year olds, convicted of rape or attempted rape to go on a juvenile sex offender registry. She will introduce her bill in January. She's pushed different versions of it over the past two years.

Creating the registry would mean Tennessee would be compliant with the Adam Walsh Act and more than $250,000 would head to Tennessee law enforcement agencies as a result.

"I am very concerned about the negative impact of putting children on a sex offender registry," says Linda O'Neal, Tenn. Comm. on Children and Health.

Child advocates will fight the upcoming legislation on Capitol Hill because they said while adult sex offenders regularly re-offend. It is a different story for juveniles.

"We really need to give these kids a second chance because the research is very clear that treatment is effective, that most of them, overwhelmingly in the 90 percent range, they will never re-offend again," says O'Neal.

The Department of Children services and many in the juvenile court system are also against this type of registry, believing the system they have in place works just fine.

"For the really serious, really violent offense, most these adolescents get transferred to the adult systems and they go on the registry, and the judges know the ones that are really dangerous," said O'Neal.

Since there are federal dollars up for grabs some version of a juvenile registry maybe created. Most likely it could be a registry that only juvenile court judges and police are allowed to see.

Meantime the TBI has filed an extension with the Federal government, so Tennessee can comply with the Adam Walsh Act. That way those federal grant dollars will keep coming, at least for now. ..Source.. by News Channel5.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MO- U.S. adds to sex offender registry confusion

Talk about muddy waters, this state is in a landslide of mud!

The current decision of the Missouri Supreme court violates the state's constitution, no where in the constitution does it allow the court to SPECULATE what the legislature may do IF they CHOSE to participate in an upcoming federal law. We must remember that the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) GUIDELINES are for the state legislatures, parameters for them to conform state registration laws to a federal mandate, but GUIDELINES are not law, and as such the state does not have to conform to them. Further, the 10th Amendment could also prevent the state from complying if lawmakers wanted it to; today it is unknown what lawmakers may wish to do.

Further, already in AWA is a section that says, if a state would violate its constitution then the state does not have to comply with AWA. The prior Missouri high court decison on this issue said, that forcing people to RETROACTIVLY register would violate the state constitution, hence they did not have too. With that earlier ruling in place, the high court had put finality on the issue. The new decision of the high court is SPECULATING what the legislature MAY DO, when and if they choose to enact AWA provision, and that violates the state constitution. i.e., the court is substituting its decision for what the legislature may be.

Note: To those who raise issues of the costs to implement far exceed the Byrne Grant penalties, what these folks have done is FIRST ASSUME that the USAG has acted in a manner that comports with law, and by not raising that issue have waived it. The issue of USAG acting properly is a threshold issue.

7-25-2009 Missouri:

Three rounds of legal battles in the Missouri Supreme Court still have not cleared confusion looming over the state's sex offender registry, as prior offenders are rushing to court to file new challenges.

The suits are seeking to stop local officials from enforcing new federal guidelines, which were supposed to be in place across the country by this week.

The federal law creates a national registry of people convicted of sex offenses and expands the type of offenses for which a person must register.

"It really has muddied the issue," said attorney Julie Brothers, who filed for a temporary restraining order this week in St. Louis County on behalf of an offender known as John Doe. "There are some major conflicts that are super confusing."

The confusion centers around about 4,300 offenders whom Missouri had exempted from its sex offender registry but who are required to register under the federal law, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

The high court court has misinterpreted the Adam Walsh Act which has a specific exemption, that if a state would violate its own constitution then it does not have to comply with the Adam Walsh Act!

Adam Walsh Act: SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

(b) State Constitutionality-

(1) IN GENERAL- When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction's highest court.

(2) EFFORTS- If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction's constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction's constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction's highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction's interpretation of the jurisdiction's constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction's highest court.

(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES- If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction's constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.

..

The conflict could cost Missouri hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal grant money if the state does not comply with the federal guidelines.

Obviously, if the high court read AWA the way it is written with the exception, then there is no issue of a loss of federal grant money. See above. Accordingly all issues are resolved.

One more issue which I will explain at some point throughly is this, the USAG has waived his right to apply AWA retroactively by his failure to enact (i.e., construe) rules for notifying FORMER sex offenders which Congress SPECIFICALLY told him to do! Merely issuing a rule that says "I want it to apply retroactively" does not absolve him from doing so in a manner that provides FORMER sex offenders of their due process rights. To date he has failed to do so....

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has given every state a one-year extension on the deadline to meet federal standards. But as states review the situation, some lawmakers and experts are concerned about the cost of complying.

"I think the states are being really careful," said Amanda Petteruti of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington. "Most states are already doing what they can in terms of sex offender registration. They are trying to decide if it's really worth it to them to come into compliance."

LEGAL TANGLES

Last month, the Missouri Highway Patrol mailed letters to convicts who were not previously required to register under state law, urging them to now add their names to the list.

The letters were drafted after the Missouri Supreme Court released a short opinion June 16 supporting the federal guidelines. But experts say federal law contradicts Missouri's sex offender registry laws, and the high court still has not addressed the conflict.

"The lawyers are confused. The judges are confused. The cops are confused," Brothers said. "The Missouri Constitution is going to have to be amended if we comply with federal guidelines."

Two previous state Supreme Court decisions said that an offender convicted before the list was created does not have to participate. The constitution forbids the state from retroactively imposing a penalty for a conviction, Brothers said.

But the federal law applies to retroactive convictions.

In addition to mandating who should be registered as sex offenders, the federal law also includes a long list of other standards that will require states to upgrade computer software, create a plan for notifying neighbors and share data with other states.

Illinois is still working on its plan to integrate federal law into its existing sex offender registry.

Illinois officials hosted two rounds of statewide meetings to discuss the changes. Judges, police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and treatment providers weighed in.

"We discussed what compliance should look like in Illinois," said Cara Smith of the Illinois attorney general's office. "Now comes the work of taking the information we heard and structuring it into a law."

Illinois created its sex offender registration law in 1986 and expanded it in 1996. Smith said it closely mirrors federal requirements. She said meeting the federal standards is attainable.

"I don't know of any mechanical functions that would become a problem to comply," she said.

Missouri has already submitted paperwork for the federal authorities to review, said Capt. Tim McGrail of the Missouri Highway Patrol. He said the state program was changed when lawmakers passed bills in 2007 and this year to address issues like DNA processing and sharing information with other states.

"I think we have a pretty good system," he said.

COST OF COMPLYING

The federal government can't mandate states to make the changes, experts said. So instead, Congress threatened to take away 10 percent of a federal law enforcement grant if states don't comply. Missouri would stand to loose an estimated $400,000; Illinois' total loss would be about $850,000, according to the Justice Policy Institute.

Lawmakers in Virginia asked experts to guess how much taxpayers would spend on the changes. The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget decided the first year would cost more than $12 million. Virginia only stood to lose about $400,000 in U.S. grant money each year, according to the department's documents.

"With the economic crisis upon us, states absolutely do not have the money to be doing this right now," said Petteruti, who works for a foundation that lobbies for alternatives to incarceration. She said the changes do little to improve the public's safety because every state already has a list.

"The states are already doing what they can," she said.

Missouri and Illinois said they have not estimated the costs.

Smith said critics of the federal regulations raised concern about the price tag for making changes.

Petteruti said most of the money would go toward installing and maintaining new computer software that links with a national database and manpower to keep up with the paperwork and attorney fees for legal challenges. The price tag for each state will differ.

The U.S. Justice Department has offered some federal grant money to help establish a system for notifying the community when a sex offender moves, McGrail said.

"When you start talking about resources for technology, the cost could be high," McGrail said. "But we are fairly close to compliance. ..Source.. by HEATHER RATCLIFFE, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...