Sex-offender law ignores real harm

2-25-2008 National:

Sarah Tofte is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch.

State lawmakers will need to decide whether to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act on sex offenders or lose federal money for law enforcement. The choice for states is to dramatically increase their registration and community-notification requirements for convicted sex offenders by 2009 or lose significant federal law enforcement grant money.

President Bush in his 2008 budget has eliminated the Byrne Grant program, accordingly states will not lose anything if they do not enact the Adam Walsh Act. eAdvocate

It doesn't seem like a difficult choice. Who wouldn't want to support laws targeting convicted sex offenders and be paid for it? Yet legislatures from Arizona to Illinois to Rhode Island are leaning against implementing the law. Because once you get past the painful emotions and look hard at the problem of child sexual abuse, it turns out that sex-offender registration and community-notification laws might not actually prevent sexual violence.

Sex-offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex-offense convictions.

The Adam Walsh Act doesn't tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat juvenile sex offenders differently from adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that young sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation - and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor's veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.

In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child-safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.

The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.

Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law - but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex-offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.

Unnecessarily expansive community-notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, "No one believes I can change, so why even try?" ..more.. Sarah Tofte is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch and the author of "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." E-mail her through HRW at hrwnyc@hrw.org.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Megan's Law: Does it protect children? (2)

An updated review of evidence on the impact of community notification as legislated for by Megan's Law in the United States

November 2006 United Kingdom

Foreword
The NSPCC’s purpose is to end cruelty to children. Children have a right to be protected from all forms of abuse whether within the home or from someone unknown to the child.

Recent public debate has focused on the risks posed by sex offenders to children. The NSPCC believes Government is right to tackle this and is publishing “Megan’s Law: Does it protect children?” as a contribution to this important debate. There is no solid evidence that supports the introduction of Megan’s Law into the UK.

The NSPCC report shows that there is not one Megan’s law but many different variations of community notification. Although the law is popular with parents, there is no evidence that open access to sex offender registers actually enhances child safety. There is no evidence that Megan’s Law reduces reoffending. However, there is some evidence that it may have unintended negative consequences for children.

The NSPCC supports the view that when the police are aware that an offender poses a risk to the public they or the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) should be responsible for informing individuals and the community, as they see fit on a case by case basis. But two things are clear. First, the success, or lack of success, of these arrangements is either not established or, if it has been, has not been well communicated. Secondly, there is significant public concern about arrangements for protecting children from sex offenders in the community.

The NSPCC considers that in the UK there is a danger that public debate is focusing on a small number of high-risk offenders and excluding the many ‘medium-risk’ offenders who also pose a significant risk to children. The NSPCC believes that the current system of monitoring and sharing information about sex offenders under the MAPPA needs to be strengthened. Recent reports suggest that the MAPPAs are overstretched and under resourced. We are concerned that risk assessments are not being consistently carried out, that there are not enough sex offender treatment programmes available, and that multi-agency arrangements are not working consistently.

Measures taken to enhance community safety through the management of registered sex offenders are only one part of keeping children safe. In order for the sexual abuse of children to be addressed effectively, a broad approach is required to ensure that children are supported to talk about abuse, that adults act to stop abuse taking place and that potential abusers themselves are provided with help before they abuse.

Mary Marsh, NSPCC Director and Chief Executive ..more.. by Kate Fitch

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

April 1998, NCJ-168965

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

Foreword
Americans have become increasingly angry in recent years in response to a series of violent and highly publicized sexual assaults, primarily against children, committed by individuals with extensive prior sexual offense histories. This outrage has been intensified by the perception, justified or not, that systems traditionally used by justice agencies to monitor law-breakers returned to the community do not adequately protect the public from that unique category of individual known as the sex offender.

Seeking to address the public’s concern, the U.S. Congress established three statutes that collectively require States to strengthen the procedures they use to keep track of sex offenders: the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (enacted in 1994), the Federal version of “Megan’s Law” (enacted in 1996), and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act (also enacted in 1996).

In brief, the statutes require States to establish registration programs so local law enforcement will know the whereabouts of sex offenders released into their jurisdictions, and notification programs so the public can be warned about sex offenders living in the community. (The Lychner Act also requires the creation of a national sex offender registry, and it requires the FBI to handle registration in States that lack “minimally sufficient” programs.) The States were assigned a difficult task. They were given until September 1997 to comply with the Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law, and until October 1999 to comply with the Lychner Act. Those that failed to meet the compliance deadlines risked losing 10 percent of their appropriation from the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which provides funding for State and local
crime eradication efforts.

Compliance was complicated by the fact that both Megan’s Law and the Lychner Act amended portions of the Wetterling Act, creating confusion as to whether the requirements of one statute superceded those of another. There were also questions as to whether the registration and notification programs, once implemented, would survive constitutional challenges based on claims of excessive punishment, invasion of privacy and denial of due process. Another hurdle was the growing number of individuals who fell under the statutes’ requirements. According to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of sex offenders jumped 300 percent between 1980 and 1994. In 1994, there were approximately 234,000 sex offenders under the care, custody or control of corrections agencies — 60 percent under conditional supervision in the community — on any given day.

States experiencing difficulty meeting the compliance deadlines were given the opportunity to request 2-year, “good-faith-effort” extensions. Forty-two of the 56 States and territories required to comply with the statutes requested deadline extensions. It appeared the States needed guidance and clarification to help them comply with the registration and notification statutes.

To assist the States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, along with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, cosponsored the National Conference on Sex Offender Registries, held July 16-17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington. This publication presents the proceedings of that 2-day conference.

The conference featured presentations by Federal officials who explained the requirements of the registration and notification statutes in detail and who answered the questions of State representatives. Representatives from several States presented information on programs that their States had implemented in response to the Federal requirements. Elected officials provided a legislative perspective to the proceedings, and experts updated participants on the status of legal challenges to registration and notification programs.

Many of the problems and issue areas identified in these proceedings were subsequently addressed or ameliorated in Federal legislation and regulations. The issue of sex offending is as sensitive and emotionally charged as any faced by society. The federally required programs are relatively new or redesigned approaches to controlling sex offenders, and a period of time must elapse before quantitative study can be conducted to ascertain whether they are effective. I hope these proceedings serve during this period as a valuable reference tool and also as a contribution to the ongoing debate over the methods used to control sex offenders.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

..more..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Summary of State Sex Offender Registries Dissemination and Procedures: Update 1999

August 1999 NCJ 177620:

This factsheet summarizes State procedures, including use of the Internet, for disseminating sex offender registry information to criminal justice agencies, schools and other youth-serving organizations, and the general public. Information supplied in this report reflects conditions as of May 1, 1999. It updates the "Dissemination of Sex Offender Registry Data" section of the Summary of State Sex Offender Registries: Automation and Operation 1998. The Acrobat file version of the Factsheet includes working links to registry websites. ..more..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001

2001 NCJ 192265:

This factsheet updates the original Summary of State Sex Offender Registries: Automation and Operation 1998. It summarizes information on the status of sex offender registries in the 50 States and the District of Columbia as they operated in February 2001. Information is presented on the organizational location of the State registries, number of offenders in the registries; their level of automation and capability to receive, store, and transmit fingerprints; whether DNA samples are included in registration procedures; and community notification procedures including use of the Internet to post information on registered offenders.

Background and overview

In March 1998 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) established the National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP).

As a component of the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), NSOR-AP assists States in meeting the requirements of the Wetterling Act (Pub. L. 104-145, 110 Stat.1345), as amended by Megan's Law, and the Pam Lychner Act (Pub. L. 104-236, 110 Stat.3093). The program also provides assistance to allow States to participate in the FBI's permanent National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). The congressional appropriation in 1998 was $25 million. Subsequent funding was provided under the ongoing NCHIP program.

Under NSOR-AP, a project was initiated in April 1998 to survey the States to evaluate the status of State sex offender registries (SOR's) and to identify priority areas, before the awarding of funds. The survey findings were published in a web-only format and are available on the BJS website at .

1999 update

Pursuant to section 902 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Congress directed the Attorney General to study the feasibility of establishing a national hotline to access the FBI's sex offender registry. In support of this study, BJS was asked to contact the States a second time for an update of their sex offender registry dissemination procedures to reflect conditions as of May 1999.

BJS asked the States to provide information on all existing State notification systems, and also to describe any use of the Internet, CD-ROM's, and hotlines to disseminate information to the public on registered sex offenders.

Of particular interest were those procedures used to disseminate information on sexual predators, or the highest risk offenders in each State's registry.

The report Summary of State Sex Offender Registry Dissemination Procedures, Update 1999, a BJS Fact Sheet, was published in August 1999 and is on the BJS website at .

Summary of State sex offender registries, update 2001

In February 2001, BJS contacted the States for a third time to obtain information on the operation of their sex offender registries. In addition to updating procedures relating to community notification, the States were asked to update information on the overall operation and automation of the SOR's. Responses were received from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Once the information was updated, a draft was sent to the States for final review.

Location of State sex offender registries

In 17 States, the State police (patrol or troopers) were responsible for operating and maintaining the registry. The department of public safety (DPS) was responsible in 11 States. The office of the attorney general operates the registry in six States, and the department of corrections is responsible in three States. In the remaining States some other defined criminal justice agency is responsible for the SOR.

Number of offenders in the registry

Several factors in the authorizing legislation significantly influenced the size of any particular State registry, among them are included the number of different offenses requiring registration, the date that "triggers" the registration mandate, and the duration of the registration requirement. (For example, California includes all adults convicted in a California court of a covered offense since 1944.)

In February 2001, there were approximately 386,000 convicted sex offenders registered in 49 States and the District of Columbia. The number of offenders in individual State Registries ranged from 473 registrants in Maine to 88,853 registrants in California (this represents about a 14% increase in the California registry in a 3-year period), with the registry median being approximately 4,100 offenders.

The legal status of registries was a factor affecting the counts of registered sex offenders. Massachusetts' information is not included in the 386,000, because at the time the survey was conducted a superior court injunction was in place against the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB), prohibiting registration without first providing the sex offender a hearing. The injunction was appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. On June 28, 2001, the court concluded that the SORB can require an offender to provide his home and work address prior to providing the offender a hearing to determine whether or not the offender has to register. Under the ruling the SORB may also transmit this data, and other data regarding the offender, to police departments. However, the information may not be disseminated to the public until the board classifies the offender and the offender has an opportunity to challenge the recommended classification at an administrative hearing. Massachusetts estimates that there are about 17,000 offenders identified as qualified to register.

Comparatively, in April 1998, approximately 277,000 convicted sex offenders were registered in 49 States and the District of Columbia. (At the time the survey was conducted in 1998, Connecticut did not have a centralized sex offender registry and thus did not provide information on the number of registered offenders.) ..more.. by

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites: A Content Analysis of All 50 States and the District of Columbia

June 2007 National:

Introduction
A significant social problem that many people face today is sexual abuse and violence. Most people who experience a form of sexual abuse and/or violence are extremely ashamed. The intense feelings of shame that accompany the victims of sexual offenses cause those victims to keep that shame and the cause of it a secret. For that reason, many victims of sexual violence keep their victimization a secret. The secret nature of sexual abuse and violence often veils the elevated number of Americans who actually do experience such victimization (Welchans, 2005).
History and Nature of the Problem

In 2004, the Uniform Crime Reports, compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, calculated that 94,635 forcible rapes had been reported in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, USDOJ, 2004). The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in one report, stated that in 2005, for every 1,000 people age twelve and older, one rape or sexual assault occurred (USDOJ, 2005). In examining college-age women, one study found that 28 out of every 1,000 women were the victim of rape or attempted rape within a six month period (Fisher et al., 2000 as cited by Welchans, 2005).

Children can be the victims of sexual offenses and assaults too. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 16% of all rape victims, across twelve studied states, were under the age of twelve (Langan, et al, 1994 as cited by Welchans, 2005). In 1998 alone, the number of corroborated cases of child sexual abuse reached over 103,500 in the United States (Jones, et al, 2001 as cited by Welchans, 2005). Freeman-Longo (1996) reported that as many as one in every five children is at risk for sexual victimization before reaching their eighteenth birthday. ..more.. by Christina Lombardo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...