2-7-2009 National:
Each of these laws was patterned after the former and each merely tightened the former procedural requirements for registrants and making more and more of registrants' personal information public. Lawmakers claiming -each time- that the controls of the former law were insufficient and tracking of registrants was the answer to reducing sex offenses. State and local lawmakers, following each law, enacted collateral residency and proximity type laws applying them to registrants. This is the history and mentality of lawmakers, tracking, exclusion and isolation is their answer. Prevention absent from their minds!
Never have lawmakers used evidence based studies to make their decisions, sound bites and FEEL-good laws abound. Lawmakers goals under the pretext of protecting children and false claims of recidivism, accomplished nothing but did succeed in getting lawmakers votes and reelection, increasing law enforcement jobs, and making the public FEEL safer, but are they?
Billions of dollars have been spent, law enforcement -spread thin- spends the majority of their time keeping the addresses of where registrants sleep up to date, registrants are hunted down for their addresses (addresses of where they sleep) and prosecuted for technical violations of law causing a swelling prison population and associated costs skyrocketing.
Thirteen years later New Jersey decides to study whether Megan's law was effective. The result: Recidivism was not reduced; No reduction in sex offenses; The number of victims also has not been reduced; Sentences were increased and fewer paroles and Corrections costs soared.
New Jersey Concluding: Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable!
Given each law was patterned after the former, will it not be true, they too -are and will be- a failure?
Unfortunately the New Jersey study fell short of telling the whole story.
The effects on registrants and their families: Newborn children of reunited families, and newly established relationships, have been torn from the family and given to other families or put into foster care; Other children of these families are shunned by their peers throughout society and not allowed to play with children of other families; These children are growing up in fear of law enforcement with their visits and technical prosecutions of their parents, losing some parents to prisons; Many spouses have sought divorces or other living arrangements due to the constant harassment of them and their children by the community; Suicides have soared and murders of registrants, folks accused of offenses and some innocent folks; Homelessness abounds and most recently one registrant, rejected by society's social safety net, froze to death in -3 degree weather.
Megans' laws are not just a failure, they are a horrific disaster, and will effect future generations in ways we yet can conceive. Are these costs justifiable for some to FEEL safe?
eAdvocate
February 7, 2009
Megans law, The Jacob Wetterling Act, and The Adam Walsh Act
December 4, 2008
The Fleecing of America: Are States Using Sex Offender Registries for Profiteering?
This is a post of one of my commentary from 2005 in my old system.
11-27-2005 National:
"Ghosts in the Machine" by James Carlson is an absolutely wonderful article of how the State of Florida is misleading the public about their "Sex Offender Registry" by including in their totals many groups of former offenders who should not be included. Mr. Carlson is to be commended for his article.
Today we are going to add value to that article by expanding on a few points which escaped Mr. Carlson which is why we have titled our commentary "The Fleecing of America: Using Sex Offender Registries for Profiteering?" Yes, it gets better because it goes way beyond Florida and it appears most all states are following the same tactics.
Referring to our chart below, whether or not these 16,781 "Ghost Offenders" are shown on the "Public Registry" or not, is not important, important is they are included in the totals which Florida reports to the Federal Government and which Florida receives federal funding for.
Each year Florida reports their numbers and gets their funding. Why the double, triple accounting? Notice the number who have "moved out of state," well they are also being reported by the state they moved to, and that state is also receiving funding for them.
Florida claims that they remove "dead offenders" only when they "receive a death certificate," (Clovis Claxton committed suicide and is still listed). It appears Florida says one thing and does another. Why is it that Florida, fully aware of the problem, cannot enact legislation that, when a death certificate is issued for a registered offender (or the state registry should be checked when any death certificate is issued) that a copy is sent to the appropriate agency to correct the registry records?
Could income be a possible reason? Florida, like most states, charges registered offenders a fee to maintain the registry or for making changes. Florida also requires registered offenders to renew their driver's license annually (with associated costs) when other residents do so once every five years. A "Windfall," albeit illegal but who will be the Whistelblower?
As to the 8,260 in jail or prison (a much higher number in other states) why bother putting them into the registry while they are incarcerated? When they are released from jail or prison, part of the release process, could be to register them. Could income be a possible reason, and income every year of incarceration until release?
Recently, in Michigan, the state police ran "Operation Verify" to see that RSOs lived where they were registered. A few Michigan police agencies reported: "Many times, offenders who haven’t updated are in prison or in the hospital." "12 had moved out of Michigan without notifying state police but were in compliance with their new state's laws and seven were in a county jail. [snip] ... one was located in prison and one was deceased." Even more amazing is, the Michigan State Police always blame the offenders for registry errors even when the state auditor blames police!
What is most interesting about what local police found is, the lists they were given included offenders who were dead, moved out of state, and in jails and prisons. So what we have is local police agencies are wasting their time trying to verify people who should not be in the registry in the first place. Additional wasted funds, but at the local level. True there was no mention of "deported offenders," but we know they exist.
See:"85% of Child Predators Captured Are Criminal Immigrants" by Jim Kouri (25 October 2005) "Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security recently revealed that arrests for child sex crimes during the first two years of Operation Predator have exceeded 6,000 and 85 percent of them are criminal immigrants. [snip] Since Operation Predator began on July 9, 2003, the initiative has resulted in 6,085 child predator arrests throughout the country -- an average of roughly 250 arrests per month and eight arrests per day. While arrests have been made in every state, the most have occurred in these states: Arizona (207), California (1,578), Florida (255), Illinois (282), Michigan (153), Minnesota (190), New Jersey (423), New York (367), Oregon (148) and Texas (545)."
When offenders move out of state, is it possible they may move from state to state, causing them to be included in several state registry numbers? Certainly, and then a few states are deriving income from that offender. Maybe all offenders should move from state to state to state to state to state, at what point will it break the bank?
In April of 2005 Parents for Megan's Law surveyed all states and found out how many offenders are included in each state registry. Reportedly there are 551,987 offenders nationwide. PML web site further states "Our results indicate that approximately 24% of the nation's sex offenders are failing to comply with state registration requirements." Their number for Florida shows 33,990 (4-2005) and they rate it A+. It appears that the number given to PML by Florida officials includes dead, deported, moved out of state and those still in jails and prisons, or are those "Ghost Numbers" considered missing by PML?
In closing, it appears Florida is getting federal funding far in excess of what it should be getting. Is this profiteering? What about the other states?
..Source.. by eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
August 30, 2007
A Review of the "TopTen Reviews of State Registries"
A few readers have pointed out this new site which purports to review and compare all state registries. Here is their main page: TopTen State Registries
While their main page looks good, in that it compares 10 state registries in detail, but there is no way to get the same review of any state or states that does not appear in their TopTen.
Things get worse when you click on any individual state registry because individually they do not show all the details which they show only for the TopTen registries. Individually you are left with -their opinion- without any supporting information.
What is it they are reviewing:
What to Look for in Your State’s Sex Offender Registry
The laws in each state govern state run sex offender registry websites. These laws regulate how much information is disclosed to the public and who is posted on the registry. However, states are free to design their registries so they are easy to use as well as provide additional tools and information like maps, comprehensive search functions and safety tips.
Below are the criteria TopTenREVIEWS used to evaluate sex offender registries.
Information Provided – This information varies by state depending on state laws. It may include a photograph, name, home, work and school addresses, physical description, crime location, conviction date, offense committed and basic information about the victim including gender and age.
Search Functions – The search function should be easy to use and produce relevant results. The important search criteria are name, geographical location and type of crime or offender risk level. More in–depth searches filter offenders by gender, physical description, higher education schools, etc.
Additional Site Features – The state sex offender registry sites should provide the community with supplemental information and tools. These may include a mapping function, printer–friendly profiles, legal information, safety tips and additional resources for offenders, victims and involved citizens.
Ease of Use – As with any service, state–run sex offender registries should be user friendly. The website should be accessible from the state’s homepage and through a search engine. The site itself should be easy to navigate and have well labeled buttons and text fields, so anyone can find the information they seek.
Contact Information – The registry websites should have apparent contact information for the agency that oversees the registry. Contact information may include an email address, physical address and phone number.
To read the review on your state’s registry click the “Read Review” button under your state’s name in the table above. Or, find your state in the product list on the left side of the page.
Now, notice that there is no date as to when they reviewed a state registry. How up to date is this review? Laws change daily and with the Adam Walsh Act virtually every state registry will be changing, as states enact their version of AWA.
For a minute take a look at Florida, under "Additional Site Features" where it shows "Number of Entries" 39,525. I presume that means there are 39,525 registered offenders living in Florida communities.
In reality that is not true, Florida includes -in their numbers- folks who have moved out of state, folks who are in prison, folks who have died, folks who have been deported, etc. How do I know this to be true, read this article: "Ghosts in the Machine" by James Carlson, my hats off to that man for uncovering the truth. Now while that shows Florida's number sto be wrong, sadly it is true of all states.
Now, Congress had the opportunity to force the states to post the correct numbers when they were CREATING (behind closed doors) the Adam Walsh Act. In the Senate version was this requirement:
S-1086-ES SEC. 106. PARTICIPATING STATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES.
(c) Publication of Number of Offenders Registered-
(1) IN GENERAL- Every 6 months, the Attorney General shall collect from each State information on the total number of covered individuals included in the registry maintained by that State.
(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND CONTENTS- The Attorney General shall--
(A) release information under paragraph (1) to the public in a manner consistent with this title; and
(B) include in such a release the number of individuals within each tier and the number of individuals who are in compliance with this title within each tier.
(3) DOUBLE-COUNTING- In reporting information collected under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that offenders are not being double-counted.
That provision was stricken from the final Adam Walsh Act. Why? I can only guess, but haven't you heard the politicians screaming to the high heavens, first, 400,000 then, 500,000 then 550,000 and more recently over 600,000. They simply do not want the truth known because by keeping it hidden they can justify all the balony laws they are passing. They want the public to believe the problem is getting worse day by day.
I could write volumns about why registries are no worth a darn, but I am going to stick to law. Do you see any mention of the the WARNINGS required by the Adam Walsh Act? TopTen Review is only concerned with what the public feels it needs.
Adam Walsh Act Requires: "Sec 118(f) Warning- The site shall include a warning that information on the site should not be used to unlawfully injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named in the registry or residing or working at any reported address. The warning shall note that any such action could result in civil or criminal penalties."
"Sec 118(e) Correction of Errors- The site shall include instructions on how to seek correction of information that an individual contends is erroneous."
Reviewers simply do not care about protecting the lives of registrants and their families which, in some cases, includes the children of registrants. Here is a sampling of what is going on with respect to murders and other deaths of registrants. That is my old listing I am releasing a newer one shortly.
The TopTen Review is useless in my opinion, but if someone can find value to it, the link is above.
eAdvocate
August 28, 2007
A Reader's Comment Objecting to the Adam Walsh Act
A reader posted the following comment to the Rhode Island AWA Objection, because it really pertains to the Adam Walsh Act in its entirety I thought it appropriate to address it separately. Reader's Comment:
The Adam Walsh Act appears to impinge several constitutional provisions.
First, it excludes consensual conduct between adults from its application but nowhere defines "consent" leading to arbitrary enforcement. Moreover, "non-consent" is not an element of the listed federal crimes.
Second, the Act calls upon state legislators to determine without a judicial trial who is guilty of crimes comparable to or more severe than cetain federal crimes and impose restrictions on the individuals liberty in consequence of that determination. The Act is, therefore, a prohibited bill of pains and penalties.
Third, the registration laws no doubt impose an affirmative obligation on the individual to labor on behalf of the general public and have been held to not constitute punishment. Involuntary servitude, however, can only be imposed as punishment for a crime. Finally, forced public charity is communism, plain and simple.
The reader's first issue "Adult Consensual Conduct" is a moot point since criminal law does not punish such conduct therefore it would not come under AWA in any way.
The reader's third issue "Labor on Behalf of the General Public" is also a moot point since AWA does not require registrants to perform any form of labor for the public good.
The second issue is rather interesting though, but since AWA does not require legislators to determine guilt-inoccence that portion is incorrect. However, AWA does call for a comparison of sorts to be made and that is what will be addressed.
First the portion of AWA in question:
Sec. 111(8) CONVICTED AS INCLUDING CERTAIN JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS- The term `convicted' or a variant thereof, used with respect to a sex offense, includes adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for that offense, but only if the offender is 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18, United States Code), or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.
Now the federal statute in question:
Title 18 § 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse
(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.
AWA defines a procedure to be followed, a comparison of the facts of an individual's crime to the elements of a federal criminal statute. While this may seem to be a simple procedure, in reality it is not so, prosecutors take painstaking care when charging someone with a crime. However, under this new AWA procedure anyone could be doing the comparison and the result determines whether the person will have to register under AWA.
Will administrative employees of local police stations have the expertise to perform this procedure? Further, will they have the documentation from the person's original court files, one must consider that in some cases persons registering may have come from other jurisdictions or other states. Cases may be years old, and then there is the retroactive application of AWA to further complicate matters. Will these reviewers set aside personal biases and prejudices? These and many other questions are left unanswered. Further, there does not seem to be any appeal of a local reviewer's decision.
Other problems also become apparent, why should these cases have such a review to establish whether or not they will register, and what Tier Level they will be assigned if they are required to register, and the remainder of the registrants are denied such a searching review before being classified and a Tier Level assigned?
I do recognize that Congress wanted to cull some cases and include others, but the parameters set for these cases exclude all other persons who will have to register. The remainder of those cases have their Tier Levels set by how much time their sentence was for, a completely different system of classifying levels.
Reader's Comment: "Impose restrictions as the result of classification"
While AWA does not restrict a registrant's liberty per se, if registration is coupled with residency laws, then yes it will restrict liberty in some cases. It will depend on how a local residency law is written.
Finally, I agree that AWA is unconstitutional on many levels, especially its retroactivity which destroyes "finality of judgement" between the state and the registrant. Said another way, retroactivity violates "Laches" in this writer's opinion. Further, there is no proof that at some point in the future Congress will again allow the states to make the laws further retroactive into a quasi lifetime sentence.
eAdvocate
