Never forget that the Government Cross-Checks Data
Showing posts with label Registry - RSO Census. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Registry - RSO Census. Show all posts
March 1, 2010
February 6, 2010
Are New Laws Making Sex Offender Tracking Tougher?
In 2010 there will be a census taken by the federal government, it is estimated to cost $11 billion dollars. Having the police do a monthly/quarterly census of registered persons may eventually be cost prohibitive. So, Mr. John Q. Public how much money do you want to divert from your children's education (or other worthy cause, Colleges, Health Care or Seniors) to know where former sex offenders SLEEP for a FEW hours of the day? The RSO census shows nothing more than that; where they sleep for a few hours. Further, no one has yet proved registry's have any public safety value, but it sounds good, right?2-6-2010 Florida:
VIERA -- Law enforcement officials said new laws are making it tougher for them to keep track of sex offenders.
In Brevard County alone, there are 712 registered sex offenders, all of whom are required to register with the Sheriff’s Office either twice or four times a year, depending on the severity of their crime.
New laws have increased the price for new identification, and the amount of paperwork needed to show proof of residency at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
Officials said many sex offenders are homeless or move around a lot.
A sex offender’s license must have the correct address listed, or they could face a third-degree felony charge.
Authorities said in certain cases, the new laws are making it much tougher on sex offenders trying to register.
“The identification law is something that Homeland Security came up with, so when people come in, they are who they say they are,” said Lt. Todd Goodyear, with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office. “It wasn’t aimed at sex offenders, but for a lot of these guys, particularly with residency, it’s hard for them to prove it.”
Before October 2009, it cost $10 to renew a license. Now, it costs $25.
Brevard County officials said many sex offenders move around several times a year, which can become a financial strain.
Officials said in some cases, these new rules make it more difficult for them to track the offenders, and more difficult for the offenders to comply. ..Source.. Margaret Kavanagh
December 9, 2008
Inspector General: "Public can not rely on sex offender registries"
Notice the finger pointing in the OIG report. Also, this system can never work because there is a -Grand Canyon- between, what lawmakers want -AND- what can be achived in reality, and it has nothing to do with those required to register. It is likened to counting stars, where some die every minute and others are born every minute, then there are those in-process and states are updating registries using human beings. No phone book is ever perfect, in life we must accept that some tasks are impossible.
And, we must remember that it was Congress -or the select members chosen to create the Adam Walsh Act behind closed doors- that REMOVED (or failed to include) section 106 of Senate Bill 1086. That section required states to COUNT and ACCOUNT for every record in their registry. At the time my guess is, they did not want the public to know the truth of how many registered sex offenders really existed, we know they current claim of over 600,000 is INCORRECT and BLOATED. see Double/Triple/Quadruple Counting of the number Registered Sex Offenders Nationally . See end of news article for more on the OIG Report:
12-9-2008 National:
The FBI is responding to a report filed by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that states the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) and state registries are inaccurate and incomplete. The report states neither law enforcement officials nor the public can rely on the registries for identifying registered sex offenders.
The report specifically points out that states across the country have not entered records on roughly 22 percent of their individual sex offenders and have not identified those who did not maintain their registration in the NSOR. The OIG says that they also found states do not enter sex offender information such as Social Security Numbers, driver's license numbers and Vehicle Identification Numbers.
The OIG found several causes for the missing and incomplete records.Prior to the Adam Walsh Act, states were not required to enter information on their registered sex offenders into NSOR. Further, some records that states attempted to enter were rejected because they lacked information required by NCIC. Also, some state registries are not fully compatible with NCIC, causing records to be lost when those states attempt to update NSOR records.
The OIG also says it found the state sex offender records accessed through OJP's NSOPR portal are inconsistent and incomplete, and they do not provide reliable information to identify non-compliant sex offenders. Due to these weaknesses, federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who use the NSOPR portal to query the public state registries during investigations may not obtain accurate information on a suspect's registration or fugitive status. In addition, the public cannot use the state information available through the NSOPR portal as a reliable tool to identify all registered and non-compliant sex offenders in their communities.
--The OIG says the National Sex Offender Registry maintained by the FBI is incomplete; 22 percent of sex offenders nationally are not registered
--The FBI acknowledges the NSOR is incomplete
--The FBI says while they maintain the registry, it is up to the states to make sure sex offenders are put in the registry and tracked
Included in the report are three recommendations made to the FBI as to how to solve the problems listed above. OIG believes that the Department and its components should provide additional assistance to jurisdictions to ensure that information on registered, non-compliant and fugitive sex offenders is included in the national registries. Specifically, OIG makes the following recommendations to the Department's components:
1.The FBI should ensure NSOR has more complete and accurate information by designing and implementing a new audit of jurisdiction registries' compliance with FBI NSOR procedures and with the SORNA guidelines.
2.The FBI should implement the Advisory Policy Board-approved changes to NSOR that specifically provide information regarding fugitive status.
3.The USMS should obtain NSOR and the NCIC Wanted Persons File data downloads from the FBI and use that information to manage and conduct fugitive sex offender investigations.
The FBI responded to the report by stating the agency concurs with all three of the recommendations made by the OIG. The FBI also noted that the sex offender information maintained by the FBI is sourced through individual states and territories, additionally, that is the responsibility of the states to populate the NSOR. ..News Source.. by KHQ Local News
Quoted from the actual report
=====================================
INTRODUCTION
This report examines the Department of Justice’s (Department) implementation of Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which sets forth specific responsibilities for the Department in identifying, arresting, and prosecuting sex offenders who have failed to register or update a registration.1 Sex offenders who do not register or update registrations are considered non-compliant and are subject to prosecution under SORNA when federal jurisdiction can be established. When a warrant is issued for a non-compliant sex offender, the subject is referred to as a fugitive sex offender. Records on convicted, non-compliant, and fugitive sex offenders are maintained within the national sex offender registration system.
The national sex offender registration system is composed of two registries operated by different Department components. One is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), which is part of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). NCIC is an information system that provides law enforcement agencies with around-the-clock access to federal, state, and local crime data, including criminal record histories and wanted and missing person records. The other is the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry Website (NSOPR), which is an online portal linked to all states’ sex offender public registries. Using NSOPR, members of the public can access information on sex offenders in any of the states’ public registries. The information in both the FBI’s NSOR and OJP’s NSOPR portal is provided by the states, territories, federally recognized Indian tribes, and the District of Columbia (collectively referred to in this report as “jurisdictions”). The inclusion, accuracy, and integrity of the data are ultimately the responsibility of those jurisdictions.
At the state level, sex offender registration requirements and penalties for failing to register vary by jurisdiction, and the requirements for maintaining a registration are based on the nature of an offender’s crime and on state law. At the federal level, records of three categories of sex offenders are included in the FBI’s NSOR: individuals convicted of criminal offenses against minors, individuals convicted of sexually violent offenses, and individuals who are designated as sexually violent predators.
SORNA requires convicted state and federal sex offenders to register within 3 business days in the states in which they will live, work, and attend school after being released from incarceration or, in cases in which there is no term of incarceration, within 3 days of being sentenced. Once registered, convicted sex offenders are required to verify their registration information periodically with jurisdiction authorities. The jurisdiction registration authorities are also required to alert the FBI when they receive new or updated registration information.
Absent an extension, state, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions must implement SORNA requirements by July 27, 2009 – 3 years after the date of SORNA’s enactment. The Department’s only mechanism for enforcing state and territorial compliance with SORNA requirements is to reduce the grant funding the Department provides by 10 percent. The sanction for a tribe is that the authority and responsibility for implementing SORNA are transferred from the tribe to the state in which the reservation is located.
At the federal level, the responsibility for implementing various elements of SORNA is assigned to several Department components. Two units within OJP, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office), are responsible for implementing the required changes to the NSOPR portal and assisting jurisdictions with required enhancements to their registries. The FBI is responsible for maintaining the National Sex Offender Registry. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has been designated by the Department as the lead federal agency for investigating non-compliant and fugitive sex offenders and for assisting states in enforcing their registration requirements. U.S. Attorneys’ Offices can pursue charges against sex offenders who are not in compliance with registration requirements resulting from prior federal convictions. They can also pursue charges against sex offenders who are not in compliance with registration requirements resulting from state convictions if those offenders travel in interstate or foreign commerce. The Department’s Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section assists federal attorneys with prosecutions of fugitive sex offenders.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to assess the Department’s efforts to implement SORNA requirements and to assess whether those efforts have increased the number of fugitive sex offenders investigated, arrested, and prosecuted by the Department. In this review, we analyzed law enforcement and sex offender registration data from January through March 2008. We also examined trends in fugitive sex offender investigations, arrests, and prosecutions during fiscal year (FY) 2004 through FY 2007, and conducted interviews at the Department components involved with implementation of SORNA.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Our report examines three aspects of the Department’s implementation of SORNA. First, although the Department did not issue guidance to the components on implementing specific SORNA requirements, we found that the components have begun to address each of the requirements but have yet to fully implement all of them. For example, the Department is still working to track sex offenders entering and leaving the country and to enhance the Department’s Project Safe Childhood initiative to combat the proliferation of crimes against children, including Internet-based crimes. Based on the progress to date, we believe the Department components are on track to complete the specific tasks they are assigned under SORNA by July 2009. But despite the Department’s assistance to state, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions in implementing SORNA, we believe the jurisdictions will not fulfill their SORNA requirements by July 2009.
Second, we found that information in the national sex offender registries is incomplete and inaccurate and therefore the registries are not reliable tools for law enforcement and the public. For example, we found that registries were missing records, did not always identify known fugitives, and did not always contain sufficient information to enable law enforcement and the public to accurately identify sex offenders.
Third, although implementation of SORNA is not yet complete, we found that the USMS has increased federal investigations and arrests of fugitive sex offenders and has increased assistance to state agencies with fugitive sex offender investigations and arrests.
The following sections of this Executive Digest describe our findings in the above three areas in more detail.
Click to read the remainder of the report:
December 4, 2008
Double/Triple/Quadruple Counting of the number Registered Sex Offenders Nationally
This is a post of one of my commentary from 2005 in my old system.
11-27-2005 National:
The evolution of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006:
The initial act was HR-3132 `Children's Safety Act of 2005' which the House passed and sent to the Senate and died in the Senate. Then Rep. Sensenbrenner morphed HR-3132 into a new bill HR-4472 `Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006' which the House passed on 3-8-2006 and sent to the Senate. The Senate had serious concerns with HR-4472 and they developed their own version and passed it on 5-4-2006, it was called S-1086-ES `Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act' sending it to the House. A stalemate, the House did not pass the Senate version.
Both the House and the Senate knew they were at an impasse and that the President wanted something passed before election time. So off they went behind closed doors and not allowing the public to provide any input they created the HR-4472-ENR `Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006' which the Senate passed on 7-20-2006, then the House passed it on 7-25-2006, so that it could be signed by the President on 7-27-2006 the Anniversary of the murder of Adam Walsh (an unsolved crime to this date, so it is not known whether any sex offender was involved in his murder).
Now, the entire "Sec. 106" from the Senate S-1086-ES was brought forward to the Adam Walsh EXCEPT Sec 106(c) shown at end.
So it begs two questions:
1) Why would they not want the public to know how many registered sex offenders nationally?
2) Why would they not want to ensure that registered sex offenders (RSO) are not being double-counted?
Well, neither question is relevant but logically inferred by the withdrawn section 106(c), what they do not want revealed is, that what politicians the media and oodles of other folks have been touting "there are over 500,000 sex offenders nationally" is most certainly incorrect. Revealing such a fact, just before elections, would cause chaos and many might not be re-elected, hence section 106(c) was deleted from the Adam Walsh Act.
Throughout the Internet and in the media the sources of these figures has been Parents for Megan's Law and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, neither of which do I believe has done anything wrong. The real source of the problem is in the way states account for RSOs. A few examples, some noted by the article "Ghosts in the Machine," are:
A) It is a well known fact that many RSOs move around frequently, the registry causes that but most will not admit that. When they register in the new jurisdiction then they are registered in two places, then several states enacted laws to require RSOs to report to both jurisdictions to correct the records. First, no one took care of what had happened up to that point (California was missing 33,000 and somehow that was cleared up, by quietly correcting the double postings when they realized what was going on [see: 4-5-2003 California].). Second, some offenders moved state to state looking for a better life, again double counted by being in both registries (to show from and to). Another is an even bigger problem, college RSOs who move (technically) for a semester then back at the end of the semester, double counted. There are numerous other ways that this occurs. Congress recognized these circumstances and inserted into the Adam Walsh Act Sec. 119(b) "Electronic Forwarding," computerized notification of all jurisdictions of any change to a RSOs record.
B) The requirement to register where a person resides, works, and goes to school; that could be up to 3 jurisdictions, up to triple counting. Then some jurisdictions require registration if a person is only going to be there "temporarily," couple that with residence, work, and school, up to quadruple counting. There have been many news reports of local jurisdictions (with their own registry) showing one number of registered offenders and that disagreeing with what the state shows. Nothing in the Adam Walsh act seems to resolve these conflicts.
C) The research done by the journalist in "Ghosts in the Machine" was stunning, proof that the dead cannot get up out of their grave to provide the state with a death certificate to have their name removed (Florida requires that death certificate for removal of a name). Also proving that those who are incarcerated, after registering, cannot leave incarceration to correct the local jurisdiction's records. Nothing in the Adam Walsh act seems to resolve these conflicts.
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that, the -failure to include- Sec. 106(c) of the Adam Walsh Act, is proof that they do not want the public to know the truth, one could even infer it was a cover-up, PR damage control, or to permit the sound bites to continue to garner votes at election time. Are there over 100,000 missing sex offenders -OR- are there over 100,000 "Ghost Numbers?" Remember the states receive federal grant money -annually- based upon the number of registered offenders they have (Title 42 Section 14071(i)(2)(B)). What do you think?
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.
..Source.. by eAdvocate
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)
FL- GHOSTS IN THE MACHINE: Are dead sex offenders really dangerous?
Recovered, because original is no longer on Internet.
11-27-2005 Florida:
According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Curtis Talley, 83, is a sex offender living in Seminole county. If you go to the FDLE’s sex-offender registry and type in Talley’s name, you’ll find his listing and photo. You’ll see that he committed sexual battery. You’ll see that his crime was against a minor. You could study his yellowed eyes and note that his last known address is in Altamonte Springs. You might wonder why men like Talley are out on the streets, but if you live in Altamonte Springs you’ll likely be thankful that the FDLE has alerted you to this menace. Now you can be vigilant, right?
No need. Talley won’t be bothering you. He’s been dead for three years. He’s one of hundreds of “ghosts” on the FDLE’s website who, for one reason or another, are never taken off, even though they’ve shuffled off this mortal coil. The only thing Talley’s record – and the hundreds like it – does these days is inflate the number of sex offenders users of FDLE’s website believe are loose on the streets of Florida.
And there are a lot of living people on the FDLE site who are no threat to you either. Offenders who live outside Florida, are in prison or who have been deported are all listed among the 36,037 sex criminals registered with the FDLE. All told, nearly half of that number are not here, in one way or another. Which means two things: The FDLE’s website is exaggerating the threat posed by sex offenders, and you aren’t getting a clear picture of who is and isn’t in your neighborhood.
DAWN OF THE DEAD
As of Nov. 16, there were 541 dead or reported dead on the state rolls. It’s FDLE’s policy that offenders’ names will remain on the rolls for one year after their death.
“If the public is checking regularly, they can be informed that an offender living nearby is no longer alive,” says FDLE spokeswoman Kristen Perezluha.
That’s a ridiculous policy in and of itself, says Jim Freeman. “What possible threat can a dead person pose to the public?”
Freeman is co-founder and legal affairs director for Sohopeful International, a group whose mission is to challenge overzealous and ineffective sex-offender laws. He thinks the policy of not immediately removing the dead from the rolls only contributes to an atmosphere of fear and hysteria. It’s an arguable point. But often enough the FDLE isn’t even following its own rules. Orlando Weekly found that of Central Florida’s 57 dead or reported dead offenders, at least 23 died more than a year ago. (Most deaths were confirmed by counties, but nine were confirmed by www.rootsweb.com, a site recommended by an employee in vital statistics.)
Preston Lane Huff is registered as a sex offender in Volusia County, but he’s been dead since 2001. Ernest G. Martinez is still listed even though he’s been dead since 2000. And Allen P. Hubbard, who is registered in Seminole County, has been dead since August 1997, more than eight years ago. Hubbard, according to the FDLE’s site, is “reported deceased.” His last known address, a post office box, was posted on the FDLE site in 2001, four years after his death.
The FDLE says the reason for dead offenders populating the rolls is that it hasn’t received confirmation of death. The responsibility of maintaining the website doesn’t fall on any one person at FDLE. Instead, many state agencies, such as the Department of Highway Safety and the Department of Corrections, that might receive new information on an offender have the ability to update the FDLE’s registry.
Perezluha says there are FDLE analysts who remove dead offenders from the site, but the system for reporting dead offenders is virtually nonexistent. There’s no agreement between counties and the state to send death certificates to the FDLE. If the FDLE hears from law enforcement that one of its offenders might be dead, it’s the department’s responsibility to get verification, which often doesn’t happen for more than a year, if at all.
This haphazard approach to updating the website is why dead people like Hubbard and Talley live on in virtual reality.
Besides the dead, there are thousands of other offenders still on the site who pose little or no threat to the public. For instance, 807 offenders have been deported, and 7,173 have moved out of state. (The high number of out-of-state offenders is likely due to Florida’s requirement that sex offenders must register within 48 hours of entering the state, meaning many on the list might just be passing through.)
But the largest chunk of listed offenders who don’t currently pose a threat is the incarcerated; 8,260 on Florida’s rolls are in custody at the local, state or national level.
Why list people behind bars? As a precautionary measure for when they’re released, says the FDLE. “A lot of offenders will stay in Florida once they get out,” Perezluha says. “We’re just making sure the public is informed.”
If you’re going to track people in prison, you’d better be diligent about it; many aren’t getting out for years, and some, like Calvin J. Austin, 29, a sex offender registered in Volusia County, are in for life.
“I ask again, what purpose does it serve to list people who are in jail or aren’t even in this state?” says Freeman. “They can’t harm anyone while they’re in custody.”
FEAR AND HYSTERIA
When Megan’s Law passed in 1996, it was intended to “require the release of relevant information to protect the public from sexually violent offenders.” The FDLE’s website is the highest-profile means of releasing that information. It’s where people go when they want to know if they need to be a little extra cautious around the neighbors. According to a 2001 Department of Justice summary of sex offender registries, the FDLE’s website draws about five million hits per month.
The default search settings on the site do filter out the deceased, the deported, the out-of-state and the incarcerated (except for offenders locked up in county jails).
But when you ask the state of Florida how many sex offenders it has, all of the above are included in the figure.
Besides portraying Florida as crawling with offenders, the overall figure can help determine how much money Florida gets to comply with registry laws. Under the Jacob Wetterling Act, one of the first sex-offender registry laws, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Sex Offender Management Assistance Program offers grants to states to aid in compliance with registry requirements. The law states, “In allocating funds under this subsection, the director may consider the annual number of sex offenders registered in each eligible state’s monitoring and notification programs.”
More sex offenders equals more money. And Florida will need it, if a bill introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson makes it into law. Nelson has proposed the Sexual Predator Effective Monitoring Act of 2005, which would require tracking ankle bracelets for offenders. In the first year, the law would disperse $10 million to the states to help implement the tracking program. The proposed law states that a “share of the funding under this Act [will be] based on the total number of eligible states and the population of sex offenders to be monitored with global positioning systems in those states.” Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Nelson, says the initial $10 million will go to the states that request and show a need for the money. If all of the states’ requests add up to more than $10 million, then the allocations would be based on the number of offenders in each state. Florida, with its reported 36,037 offenders, is near the top of the list nationally.
Nelson’s bill to crack down on sex offenders is one of at least five introduced at the federal level this year. To illustrate the need, Nelson remarked to his fellow senators, “In our state alone, we have over 30,000 registered sex offenders.” Soon that number had shown up on CBS news and in the Christian Science Monitor, and in the months following it would be repeated on CNN and other broadcast news outlets. Two months after Nelson introduced his bill, Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings introduced the House version and again threw out the 30,000-plus figure to prove the need for the legislation.
It’s a big, scary number, to be sure. If all the state’s sex offenders, as reported by the FDLE, were grouped together, they’d fill the TD Waterhouse Centre to capacity. Twice. Unfortunately, the number has no relation to the reality of the problem.
Freeman, of Sohopeful, thinks the bloated figure is a danger in and of itself, as it makes it hard for people to separate the truly dangerous from the rest of the pack. “All this adds up to is fear and hysteria,” he says. “That doesn’t help keep people safe. But it can help politicians pass laws. It can help make them look better.”
..News Source.. by James Carlson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
