Convicted even though, addmitted by the judge, that state laws were the cause of the confusion. Hopefully some good hearted lawyer will help in an appeal of this dumb decision; note, 82 other s were recently in the same boat! Are lawmakers trying to protect the public, or, get registrants behind bars! There needs to be a -reasonable man standard- applied to this law as well.
1-13-2009 North Dakota:
Legal requirements designed to keep police informed when registered sex offenders change their place of residence or employment are “confusing” and should be explained in simpler language to those offenders, Grand Forks District Judge Deb Kleven said today.
Kleven made the observation during a sentencing hearing for Randy P. Stenerson, one of 82 registered sex offenders living in Grand Forks, who has been jailed at the Grand Forks County Correctional Center the past three months after his arrest for failing to meet registration requirements.
Stenerson, 51, has lived in motels, at the Grand Forks Mission and, for a brief period last summer, beneath the Sorlie Bridge, since coming to Grand Forks in 2006 following his release from the state penitentiary. He was charged last fall with failing to notify Grand Forks police of a change in his residence, a charge later amended to failure to register a change in employment. He pleaded guilty Dec. 4 under terms of a plea agreement that would allow him to avoid a return to prison.
Stenerson was arrested Sept. 11, two days after his employment status changed, according to Daniel Borgen, his court-appointed attorney. Borgen said that Stenerson, like previous clients he has represented in similar circumstances, was confused about when he was supposed to notify authorities about the change.
The notification requirements “are eight columns long in the North Dakota Century Code,” Borgen said, and are difficult for the lay reader to comprehend.
“I agree with you,” Kleven said, adding that the requirements can be confusing to police and prosecutors, too, and that she has had to correct court records in several such cases. She suggested that a handbook be prepared detailing the requirements in simpler language.
Kleven sentenced Stenerson to 18 months of supervised probation, with credit for the 124 days he has been in jail. She also directed him to abide by about 20 conditions of parole, including directives to “seek and maintain employment” and submit to electronic monitoring if requested by his probation officer.
Asked whether he had somewhere to stay if he was released, Stenerson indicated that he hoped to return to the Mission. He said he believed he would qualify for readmission there if he was placed on supervised probation.
“It’s cold out there,” Kleven said, urging him not to return to the Sorlie Bridge.
“I don’t want to go back there,” Stenerson said with a grim smile.
He said he was reluctant to move in with relatives in the area because of the media attention he attracts as a high-risk sex offender, but he has “a friend I can stay with a few days” until he makes longer-term arrangements.
Before releasing him, Kleven reminded Stenerson that he is obligated by state law to notify the police of any change in his residence and employment, among other requirements.
“It is complicated,” she said, “and I agree with you it should be in layman’s terms.”
In an interview following the sentencing, Kleven said that state lawmakers “change the requirements every session, and there’s nothing these people have that explains” what they’re supposed to do.
“It’s pretty routine to have people in here who changed jobs and didn’t realize” all that was required of them under the notification law, she said. They did commit offenses that required them to be registered as sex offenders, but such administrative violations aren’t on a par with “the clear-cut cases of some who move here from out of state and don’t register” because they’re deliberately trying to evade the legal requirements. ..News Source.. by Chuck Haga Grand Forks Herald
January 13, 2009
ND- Judge: Legal requirements for sex offenders 'confusing'
December 5, 2008
NC- More harm than good
12-5-2008 North Carolina:
Attempts to strengthen laws against sexual offenders have unintended consequences. Prevention would be better
North Carolina's intentions to further protect communities by strengthening the state's laws against sexual offenders will do very little to keep people safer, ineffectively target people who are least likely to reoffend and ultimately may increase the chances that the most troubled offenders will recommit sexual crimes.
Although only one state lawmaker voted against these tighter restrictions, other legislative members should examine the research more closely and revisit such laws in the next session.
The state's legal clampdown -- aimed at bringing North Carolina into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act -- went into effect Dec. 1. Among the new requirements: that people who commit certain sex offenses remain on the state's offender registry for 30 years, triple the previous length of time. Offenders must also now report a change of address to their local sheriff's department within three business days and stay at least 300 feet away from any place where minors might gather, including malls, childcare centers and churches.
NO INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HAVE TO BE THE VICTIM OF A SEXUAL CRIME, and communities have a responsibility to prevent such terrible acts from occurring. Registration and notification laws were intended to encourage citizens to be proactive in protecting themselves as well as provide law enforcement with a ready pool of suspects when a sex crime is reported.
However, independent research from Marquette University and the University of Alabama has shown that these laws do little to prevent sexual crimes or mobilize citizens into action. Instead, there is evidence that they limit an offender's ability to put treatment skills to use and make it that much more difficult to successfully integrate back into society, as well as find housing and employment.
In an additional study out of Marquette University, researchers found that family members who were unconnected to the original crime are also harassed, including receiving death threats.
Even supporters of Jacob's Law, the first federal act requiring sex offender registration, have raised concerns about the legal restrictions. Among them is Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling, an 11-year-old Minnesota boy who was kidnapped years ago and still missing and for whom the offender registration law was named. Wetterling and her husband co-founded the Jacob Wetterling Foundation -- now the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center -- which works to prevent sexual violence.
In a 2007 article for Human Rights Watch, Wetterling spoke out about the repercussions of the current attitudes toward sex offenders and the laws created as a result of those feelings. She cited research that showed that many of the laws may not prevent sexual attacks but instead invite the public to harass, ostracize and even commit violence against sex offenders, all of which affects their efforts to turn their lives around. Such experiences may also encourage offenders to further isolate themselves and may actually increase the chances that they will repeat their crimes. These findings are consistent with other previously cited research.
Additionally, current laws do not address the individuals who are at the greatest risk of committing a sexual offense, namely family members. According to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice, only 3 percent of children under the age of 6 who have been sexually assaulted were assaulted by strangers; most were assaulted by family members or someone known to the child.
l l l
IT IS TIME THAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS LOOKED MORE CLOSELY at what it takes to prevent sexual offenders from repeating crimes as well as how to prevent sexual crimes from being committed by family members.
Among other ideas, lawmakers should consider increasing:
* The number of community and prison treatment programs, such as the N.C. Department of Corrections' Sexual Offender Accountability and Responsibility (SOAR) program, which has shown strong success in reducing crimes.
* Funding for transitional services such as safe housing, job training, therapy and other community support programs for sex offenders released from prison.
* Funding for research to better understand the causes of sex offending behaviors.
Once more is understood about what programs and treatments work, policies can be designed to support those that have proven to be successful.
There is no doubt that sexual violence is a horrific crime that affects victims and their families physically, mentally and financially. The public also feels the economic toll as hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually on medical and crisis services, incarceration and rehabilitation.
As a community, we must take the necessary and effective steps to prevent these heinous acts of violence. Although broadly tightening the laws on sexual offenders would seem to make the most sense, research has shown such restrictions may actually do more harm than good. ..News Source.. by Melissa D. Grady, The News & Observer
NC- Editorial: Get tough on the right people
12-5-2008 North Carolina:
Tougher new sex-offender laws are tailor made for the likes of James Artie Clark, a Burgaw resident who this week admitted repeatedly molesting three young girls over the course of a year or so. When he gets out of prison - he'll serve 16 to 20 years, exceedingly light punishment compared to the lasting emotional and physical harm he caused those children - he should be on the sex-offender registry for the rest of his natural life, if possible.
But in their well-intentioned zeal to get tougher on the James Artie Clarks in the state, the Honorables have used a black-and-white distinction when shades of gray might paint a more realistic picture. Clark is the kind of criminal lawmakers had in mind when they voted to triple the number of years a sex offender must remain registered with law enforcement after leaving prison.
A new law that took effect Monday requires sex offenders to be on a public registry for 30 years instead of 10, as mandated under the previous law. It makes little distinction between a child molester and a young adult who has consensual sex with an underage girlfriend (a criminal offense, as it should be, but hardly the same category as a serial pedophile).
As difficult as it is to forgive anyone who commits a sexual offense, our justice system operates not only to punish people but to give a second chance to those who are able and willing to rehabilitate themselves. Long-term monitoring after the person has served his sentence can thwart any chance of rehabilitation; contrary to popular consensus, experts say not all sex offenders are equal. In addition to registration requirements, convicted sex offenders also face restrictions on where they can live and where they can be seen in public.
The Honorables did leave an opening that could help sex offenders who really want to change. An offender can petition a judge after 10 years for a waiver of future registration requirements if he (or she) can show good behavior and compliance with registration requirements up to that point.
The General Assembly, as well as the federal government, also recognize that some sexual predators will never be rehabilitated, or perhaps a more appropriate word would be "cured" of their sick obsession. Those are the criminals most law-abiding citizens agree should be separated from polite society.
North Carolina law sets aside special provisions for violent predators and repeat offenders. Lifetime registration and monitoring could be required.
The law also was recently changed to require a minimum 25-year sentence for certain sex crimes, including rape, against children under 13.
For too long sex crimes against children and teens were swept under a rug, especially if a relative or acquaintance was involved. That's changed, for the better. Society now wants to make sure predators are punished and that laws are in place to prevent them from repeating their crimes.
North Carolina legislators are to be commended for adopting tougher penalties for pedophiles and violent predators.
But they also should periodically review the laws they have adopted to make sure they're getting tough with the right people, and not preventing the re-assimilation of those who have the will and the conviction to become productive members of society. ..News Source.. by Star News Online
CT- Sex Offender Registry Riddled With Flaws
12-5-2008 Connecticut:
Overhaul Would Provide More Information, Make Sure Serious Offenders Make List
Connecticut's sex offender registry law needs to be updated. The state Department of Public Safety announced recently that 74 convicted sex offenders will be coming off the registry before the end of this year because their 10-year online registry period will expire. This is one of several examples of problems with the current system that must be solved.
First, many true sex offenders are avoiding the registry altogether by "charge bargaining" in our courts. Current law requires sex offender registration only for convictions under certain specific statutes, such as first-degree sexual assault. Skilled defense attorneys know this and will agree to have their clients plead guilty and even accept a prison sentence in exchange for a prosecutor's agreement to have them plead to charges that do not require registration.
An example of this is a rapist who breaks into a house and commits a forcible sexual assault. This is classified as both burglary first-degree and sexual assault first-degree. Both are extremely serious, but only the sexual assault crime requires sex offender registration. If a prosecutor knows that the victim is reluctant to testify, he or she might be willing to accept a guilty plea for burglary first-degree only as a compromise — not risking losing the case at trial, but allowing the rapist to avoid sex offender registration. This happens with increasing frequency in our state's courts.
The law should be changed to allow a Sex Offender Risk Assessment Board to look beyond the specific crime of conviction and instead classify a convicted felon as a sex offender based upon the underlying facts, including the police reports and prior history of the offender. Minnesota and other states have such a procedure, including due process protections, and the constitutionality has been successfully tested in the courts.
Second, there is far too little information about registered sex offenders on the current registry. Many other states provide important details on offenders, including whether the victims were male or female, adult or child, known to the offender or strangers, and some details of the crime. On Connecticut's registry, only the technical name and number of the crime of conviction is listed, which is meaningless to citizens hoping to make decisions about the risk of a nearby offender.
Individual contact information for the probation and parole officers responsible for the supervision of the offenders should also be listed, as is the case in other states.
Third, there should be an explanation of risk level for individual offenders in our registry. All sex offenders are subjected to extensive risk assessment by the state Department of Correction, the Office of Adult Probation and the Parole Board, and citizens have a right to know this.
Fourth, there are so many names on Connecticut's registry that the significance of the information has been diluted. More than 5,100 names appear on the registry today. When it began 10 years ago, citizens assumed that every person listed was a dangerous sex offender and probably a pedophile. In reality, that is not the case.
"Charge bargaining" means that many dangerous convicted sex offenders do not even appear on the registry. At the same time, a large number of those listed were convicted of having sex with underage girls when they themselves were also teens. This is a serious crime, but not necessarily that of a dangerous child molester. Many states limit the online registry to high- and medium-risk sex offenders.
Finally, the length of time an individual offender remains on the registry should be decided case by case based on risk. Ten years is much too short of a time for high-risk offenders. A minimum period should be established, and 10 years seems to be appropriate. That period then could be extended based on the offender's risk.
The General Assembly and governor have been working on these changes for several years now. In 2006, some of these proposals were approved and work has been underway since then to put these changes online. A new federal law has complicated this process for Connecticut and many other states, but we are hopeful this can be resolved in both Washington and Hartford next year. ..News Source.. by MIKE LAWLOR
December 4, 2008
IA- Seize chance to redo sex-offender laws Statutes waste resources, don't improve safety
12-4-2008 Iowa:
The Iowa Legislature will have the opportunity next session to repair an ill-conceived and ineffective state law. Though the price of scuttling this bad law will be adopting another bad one, it is a trade-off lawmakers should exercise, though with extreme reluctance.
The existing Iowa law makes it a crime for convicted sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of any facility where children congregate, including schools and child-care centers. In many cases, this means men and women convicted of sex crimes are limited to living under bridges, along riverbanks or remote areas of the county. The law absurdly does not prohibit offenders from hanging out at any of those facilities, however.
The legion of critics of this law has grown to include law-enforcement officials, county prosecutors and even crime-victim advocates, who say the law has numerous unintended consequences, including discouraging reports of sex offenses and driving offenders underground.
Although lawmakers have so far lacked the courage to repeal the 2,000-foot law, they now have political cover: They can replace it with a new statute that would bring Iowa into conformance with a new federal law that expands federal sex-offender registry requirements to all 50 states.
The new draconian federal statute goes beyond Iowa's offender-registry statute to include a longer list of sex offenses and lengthens the registration period up to life, depending on the severity of the crime.
That's not an improvement. More years on the registry will consign people convicted of sex crimes to more years of suspicion and problems getting or holding jobs, continuing education and leading normal lives. The federal law thus is afflicted with some of the same defects as Iowa's 2,000-foot rule, and the same unintended consequences of forcing offenders underground and discouraging sex-crime reporting.
Moreover, if Iowa adopts the federal law, the Iowa Department of Public Safety and all 99 county sheriffs will absorb additional expenses and time riding herd on thousands of convicted sex offenders. Offenders must show up in person to re-register annually - some every three months - and not only report their current residence but employment, school and travel plans of more than seven days.
But the state of Iowa has a gun to its head: If it refuses to enforce the federal law, the state stands to lose 10 percent of federal law-enforcement grants. Besides, lawmakers reasonably might be reluctant to make Iowa a haven for sex offenders, which could happen if our law was more lenient than those in surrounding states.
So, in this lesser-of-evils equation, the greater good would be done by complying with the new federal law, and, in the process, scrapping the 2,000-foot rule and instead prohibiting sex offenders from entering schools and other places where children congregate.
The next step will be to work on Congress to rewrite the federal registry rules. Some who commit sex crimes may be incurable predators, and they deserve special treatment. The law treats all sex offenders alike, however, and as a result no one is any safer, law-enforcement resources are wasted and lives are unnecessarily ruined.
Iowa has learned that lesson. Now, Congress should get the message. ..News Source.. by The Register's editorial
April 5, 2008
UT- Parents fear kids will be on sex list
Trading of nude photos raises questions about state's offender registry
4-5-2008 Utah:
A day after the Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a key case challenging the constitutionality of the state's sex offender registry, prosecutors are being inundated with calls and notes from parents.
The parents are concerned their children will be prosecuted and forced to register as sex offenders for taking indecent pictures with their cell phones.
Prosecutors are saying a scenario posed by a Utah Supreme Court justice during oral arguments Wednesday just isn't realistic.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a convicted sex offender who is challenging the constitutionality of the requirement to register as a sex offender. The man, who served time for sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl, claims the sex offender registry stigmatizes him as a sexual predator and that he has a due process right to prove to a court that he is not a danger to the community. Currently the sex offender requirement is handled by Utah Department of Corrections policy.
During oral arguments in the case Wednesday, Chief Justice Christine Durham alluded to the prosecution of minors taking indecent pictures with their cell phones and sending them to friends as a possible offense that could result in kids being registered as sex offenders.
Assistant Utah Attorney General Laura Dupaix, who argued on behalf of the state in the case, said that is just not realistic.
"There are no juveniles in the sex offender registry" currently, Dupaix said. According to state juvenile law, a juvenile offender has to be ordered held in secure confinement until they are 21 in order to require them to be a registered sex offender. Taking dirty pictures with a cell phone hardly seems like an offense deserving such a punishment, Dupaix said.
"We all know that is not a serious offense," she said. However, she said prosecutors also need to send a message that such behavior is also not socially acceptable.
The Supreme Court's discussion about cell phone pictures stems from the Davis County attorney's prosecution of about 28 junior high students accused of trading nude and sexually explicit pictures over cell phones. Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said he intended to send a message to teens that this sort of behavior is not acceptable, but he never intended to charge them with a crime that would land them on the sex offender registry.
Rawlings said since the supreme court's hearing Wednesday, he has been inundated with calls by concerned parents who are worried that children are being put on the sex offender registry.
"None of these kids are going to be registered sex offenders," Rawlings said Friday.
He said he hopes to get the word out to parents that while trading in indecent pictures will get juveniles in trouble, being on the registry is not a realistic option.
Dupaix said she has filed a letter to the Supreme Court, clarifying Utah's laws regarding such behavior. ..more.. by Geoffrey Fattah, Deseret Morning News
April 3, 2008
UT- Sex offender's case may affect fate of Web registry
4-3-2008 Utah:
A convicted sex offender says the Utah Sex Offender Registry violates his due process rights and if the Utah Supreme Court agrees with him, the state's highest court could strike down the policies governing the registry as unconstitutional.
Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday in a key case that could hold sway over the fate of a registry that the public can use to access information, such as names and addresses, of thousands of convicted sex offenders over the Internet.
The case involves Steven Arthur Briggs, who was convicted of sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl in 1986 and sentenced to serve 15 years in prison. Before being released from prison in 2002, Briggs was told by prison staff that he had to fill out paperwork to register as a sex offender.
Despite being told that it was the law, Briggs refused to sign the paperwork, which included telling prison officials where he would be living. "You'll have to file charges against me, if you can find me," Briggs was quoted in court documents as telling prison officials.
Briggs was later charged with failing to register as a sex offender between 2003 and 2005. The court sentenced Briggs to two consecutive years in jail with all but 61 days credit for time served. Briggs appealed and argues that the Utah Sex Offender Registry stigmatizes all sex offenders as sexual predators, even those who have no history of repeat offenses. People on the registry are then subjected to public ridicule and humiliation, even after they have fully served their sentence and fulfilled their debt to society.
During oral arguments, Briggs' attorney, Lori Seppi, told justices the sex offender registry lumps all sex offenders in the same category and implies that they are all predators. This includes a 17-year-old male convicted of having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend as well as others with no history of repeat abuse. This information is then published on the Internet without giving the person a chance to argue before a judge that they are not a danger to the community.
Seppi said this violates the Constitution's guaranteed right to due process, adding if these people are going to be held out for public shame, they have a right to challenge it in court and prove that they are not a danger.
Justice Michael Wilkins asked if it's true that the sex offender is a predator, shouldn't he or she be on the registry?
Seppi said she was not arguing that everyone should be taken off and said some people should be on the registry as dangerous, but she argued Utah's laws do not make a distinction.
Chief Justice Christine Durham said she was troubled by this. She noted that children who send cell phone pictures of themselves nude to each other or children charged with acts of lewdness could wind up on the registry alongside adult rapists and violent sex offenders.
Durham suggested that the implication of being on the registry could be far more egregious than the original offense.
Assistant Utah Attorney general Laura Dupaix said all the state does is publish truthful information about sex offenders on the registry, including the crime of which they were convicted. The stigma doesn't come from the state but rather from what the public decides to do with the information, she said.
Dupaix said she would not trust a registered sex offender to be alone with her children, based on their past conduct. The registry gives the community the ability to use the information to make those choices.
Justice Matthew Durrant said he doubted the framers of the Constitution could have anticipated something like the sex offender registry or Internet publication.
Dupaix said the registry is not much different than word circulated about the abuse of a child among colonial townsfolk or of the public humiliation from time spent in the town stockade.
The justices will consider the arguments and issue a written opinion in the coming months. ..more.. by Geoffrey Fattah, Deseret Morning News
