9-22-2009 Rhode Island:
PROVIDENCE — Rhode Island is getting an extra year to comply with a federal law that would create a nationwide network of sex-offender registration and notification programs.
But despite the additional time, serious challenges still stand in the way of the state meeting the requirements of the law by July 2010, said Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. The state might even have to ask for another year’s reprieve. “We have a lot of work to do in a very short time.”
President George W. Bush signed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act into law in 2006. Also known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, it requires all 50 states and federally recognized Indian tribes to track people convicted of sex crimes, even those who completed their sentences decades ago, on a centralized computer registry. The state’s Web site would feature a photograph of and detailed information about each offender, including their home address, job locations and license plate numbers. It could be accessed by anyone.
States nationwide have been struggling with the cost and legal complications of implementing the law, so much so that the federal government extended the deadline for all to comply from July 2009 to 2010. In addition, it’s met more than 100 legal challenges.
States that fail to comply stand to lose 10 percent of the federal money they receive for sex-offender management programs and other law-enforcement initiatives. In Rhode Island, $80,000 to $500,000 could be at stake, Healey said.
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch recently detailed the obstacles in a letter to Governor Carcieri, House Speaker William J. Murphy, Senate President M. Theresa Paiva Weed, the state police and the state Department of Corrections. In the coming weeks, he plans to convene a group of stakeholders to work on how to bring the state into compliance, Healey said.
Complying with the act will mean significant changes to the state’s sex-offender registration and notification laws. Under the federal act, for example, a sex offender’s risk level would be based on the offense committed.
Currently, a sex offender notification board assigns an offender’s level based on a predicted risk that he or she will reoffend, after a review of his or her criminal history, disciplinary record in prison and course of treatment, among other factors. The offender then has the right to appeal.
The lowest-risk category is Level I. The highest, Level III, requires a broad range of notifications to the public about where those people are living after serving their sentences. A Level II designation also requires community notification. An offender can appeal his or her level under the state system.
Another concern Lynch raised in his letter is that the law would require community notification for anyone over 14, including juveniles involved in a crime of violence or a crime against a child under 12. Minor offenders — even those whose cases go through closed Family Court trials — would have to update registration information three times a year for at least 25 years, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Currently, in Rhode Island, the community is alerted to the presence of juvenile sex offenders, but their information cannot be posted on the state’s Web site.
The law would also mandate that all sex offenders register with the state. State law now requires that anyone convicted of a sex crime since 1992 register, amounting to about 1,800 registered sex offenders. No one knows how many more offenders would be required to register under the retroactive provision, but Paula Kocon, coordinator of the Parole Board’s sex-offender community-notification unit, says she knows of at least 350.
Finding sex offenders who committed their crimes decades ago will mean police and state prosecutors must dig through old records. “How are we going to find these individuals?” Assistant Attorney General Bethany Mactaz said. “It is going to be very difficult.”
In addition, it broadens the crimes that require registration, lengthens the time offenders must register and increases the information states must provide to the public.
Despite the hurdles, Lynch backs the measure, saying it will streamline registration, eliminate the offender’s right to appeal his or her classification and save money, Healey said. “Ultimately, it would really do, we think, a better job of safeguarding the public.”
But his office notes that the law is facing legal challenges across the country.
No states have complied with the act, but the Department of Justice expects to announce that several jurisdictions have completely implemented it, possibly before the week’s end, said Susan Oliver, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. ..Source.. by Katie Mulvaney, Journal Staff Writer
September 22, 2009
RI- R.I. gets extension on complying with sex offender law
April 26, 2009
MD- Registries for sex offenders vex states
4-26-2009 Maryland:
Maryland asks for extension
Maryland lawmakers are at odds over how to keep track of hundreds of juvenile sex offenders even though a 3-year-old federal law requires that they be registered in a national database.
The statute, called the Adam Walsh Act after the slain son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh, establishes a national online registry for both juvenile and adult sex offenders and organizes them into three categories, according to the severity of their crime.
Tier-one offenders must update their whereabouts every year for 15 years, while tier-two offenders must do so every six months for 25 years. Third-tier offenders are required to check in every three months for the rest of their lives.
The act was signed into law by President Bush in 2006, and states have until July of this year to become compliant or face cuts in federal funding. To date, no state has become fully compliant. Last month, Maryland joined 30 other states in applying for a one-year extension.
State lawmakers say they have encountered pitfalls because the law runs contrary to the state's legal philosophy of protecting the records of juvenile offenders from public view.
"It puts the state in a difficult bind," said Delegate Michael D. Smigiel Sr., Cecil Republican, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "It's easy just to say, 'Lock them up and throw away the key,' but there is a matter of balancing of our own public policies and making sure all these individuals are listed, and sometimes that's easier said than done."
So far, Maryland has revised its existing registry laws so offenders must provide a copy of their driver's license, e-mail address, former names, nicknames and computer log-in or screen names.
Legislation also was passed in April to ensure certain juvenile offenders are registered.
According to a task force set up in 2005 by the state Department of Juvenile Services, in 2004 there were 195 juvenile sex offenders in residential placements in Maryland, and 275 offenders were living at home and being treated in their communities.
Delegate Jill P. Carter, Baltimore Democrat and a defense lawyer, said it was unfair for a juvenile to be faced with the "humiliation" of the sex-offender label.
"I'm not inclined to support sweeping up children into this mandate. A lot of times juvenile offenders are victims of abuse as well, and sometimes charges are overblown. I think it's unfair," she said.
Lawmakers are also concerned with the retroactive application of the act, saying that many offenders could be stigmatized for offenses committed decades earlier.
"Sometimes the point is lost when you try to group everyone all in the same category. It's definitely a balancing act," Mr. Smigiel said.
Parole and probation agents agree with the tougher restrictions, however, even when it comes to juveniles, and they do not see why the state has been slow to comply with the act.
"It's a travesty that we haven't gotten our act together on this," said Rai Douglass, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, Local 3661, which represents parole and probation agents in Maryland. "Juveniles or not, people have a right to know if a violent sex offender lives next door."
Maryland has not been alone in its static posture. Currently, no state has become fully compliant, while only a few, including Ohio, Florida, Delaware, Louisiana and Oklahoma, have adopted the act's key provisions.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to the Justice Department that most states could not become compliant because of "unforeseen difficulties," such as the fact the department's final guidelines were not issued until June 2008.
"A situation where all states are unable to comply ... and suffer penalties as a result does not help the vital goals of the act," Mr. Leahy said.
Many states are also hesitant to commit to legislation as numerous legal challenges to the act have crept up in the last year.
In September, U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled that Nevada's adoption of the act was unconstitutional because it violated due process, and the state has yet to consider legislation related to the statute since.
Last month, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Florida, ruled that the act's registration requirement was constitutional because it fell under the Commerce Clause powers of the U.S. Congress.
On April 20, the 9th District Court of Appeals also upheld the law as applied retroactively to sex offenders in the state.
States that are not compliant face a 10 percent reduction in a federal funding grant for state law enforcement agencies, which in the case of Maryland amounts to about $2 million.
State officials say losing the funds would be a critical blow for agencies already suffering from cutbacks owing to the state's $2 billion budget shortfall.
"This is a challenge," said Kristen Mahoney, executive director of the Governor's Office for Crime Control and Prevention. "It's an important grant and every penny counts, especially now." ..News Source.. by Michael Drost
