Former juvenile sex offender gets a shot at a new life

See Illinois Law on this page for specifics that must be met, and whatever the judge comes up with.

12-26-2011 Illinois:

Tim, subject of a 2009 Tribune profile, is no longer on Illinois' sex offender registry

After years of anxiety, Tim has finally gained the security of an anonymous future. The young man from Antioch committed a sex crime at age 14 and was put on a registry open only to police, but he worried that a federal law might cause his identity to be made public.

That threat has passed. With the help of Northwestern University law students and a raft of good recommendations, Tim persuaded a judge in early November to remove him from the registry. He no longer needs to tell police when he moves to a new home, and a world of career options is now available to him.

"It's opened so many doors," said Tim, 21. "It's the biggest weight off my back ever."

For others, though, the apprehension remains. The federal law remains in effect, and while Illinois officials say juvenile identities will remain protected for the foreseeable future, some advocates are concerned that that could change, harming young people they say are at very low risk of committing more sex offenses.

"Children do not go out and hide in the bushes and attack strangers," said Nicole Pittman of Human Rights Watch, who is tracking the effects of the federal law. "It's usually inappropriate behavior, and longitudinal studies that tracked children from the time of their offense to well into their 30s found that less than 2 percent committed another sex crime."

People who know Tim, who was profiled in a 2009 Tribune story, say he is a good example of why juvenile sex offenders should have the chance to regain their privacy.

He endured a terrible childhood of neglect and all manner of abuse as he shuttled between foster homes on the West Side of Chicago. He got involved with a gang and was twice locked up for minor crimes.

When he was 14, he had sexual contact with an 8-year-old girl who lived in one of his former foster homes. He quickly confessed to what he had done and, contrary to his lawyer's advice, didn't fight the case in Cook County Juvenile Court, where he was found to have committed felony criminal sexual abuse.

He spent time in a Department of Corrections facility that treats young sex offenders, then went to Alternative Behavior Treatment Centers in Mundelein. Founder Robin McGinnis said Tim responded well to his therapy there and continued on the right path after he left.

"I'm very proud of him," McGinnis said. "He's pulled it together. It's really very impressive."

Tim's offense required him to be put on the state's juvenile sex offender registry. He had to tell the local police when he moved into their town, and they informed nearby schools and day care centers. Otherwise, his identity and crime remained private.

But under the provisions of a federal law passed in 2006, many juvenile sex offenders' names, photos and addresses can be revealed online.

At least 32 states have listed some juvenile sex offenders online, according to Pittman. She said that can have a profoundly harmful effect on people who pose little risk for re-offending, costing them jobs and educational opportunities.

Other states, including Illinois, have not done that. Illinois State Police officials said federal authorities backed off that mandate earlier in 2011, giving states the discretion to keep young people off the website. There is disagreement, though, about whether that has ended the matter for good.

Whatever happens, Tim won't be affected. He took advantage of an Illinois law that allows people to get off the juvenile registry if they complete their treatment, stay out of trouble for five years and pass a screening showing that they pose a low risk for committing another sex crime.

Assisted by Northwestern law students John Doyle and Alberta Yan, he went before a Juvenile Court judge Nov. 3 to ask to be removed. Alison Flaum of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center said it was an emotionally powerful moment.

"I couldn't help but remember that the last time he was in that courtroom, he was filled with shame and fear," she said. "I was just so happy for him to hear people say nice things about him in the very same room."

The judge granted Tim's request and, with that, set his life on a new course. He said he wants to enlist in the military, something his place on the registry had prevented. After that, he said, his plans are simple.

"My long-term goals are working a career, owning a house," he said. "Just trying to live the American dream, I guess." ..Source.. by John Keilman, Chicago Tribune reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Texas sex offender registry in danger?

A BIG Opps?

9-9-2010 Texas:

Proposal to kill registry was $3 million mistake, official now says.

In the Texas Department of Public Safety's proposed budget for the next two years, officials warn that if they must reduce spending by 15 percent, a high-profile public registry of sex offenders will have to go away.

No more website, no more postcard notifications to neighbors, the budget document states, even though one of the agency's goals listed in the budget document is to "enhance public safety."

The savings would be just over $3 million of the $28 million the state's police force would have to cut from its $2.7 billion two-year budget, DPS accountants reported.

One problem: The agency is required by state law to operate the registry, which keeps track of 62,971 sex offenders, including 1,326 in Austin.

So what gives?

It was a mistake, a DPS spokeswoman said Wednesday.

"We do not anticipate any reductions in the sex offender (registration) program," said Tela Mange, chief of media relations for the DPS. "We are working on a revision to that."

The cut was listed in the proposed budget for 2012-13 that was submitted to the Legislature in recent days. Legislative leaders were surprised, especially because DPS Director Steve McCraw had testified at a June hearing that he favored implementing a federal law that could add thousands of offenders to the registry.

The law expands the types of offenses for which offenders must register, a move that, by some estimates, could cost Texas up to $38 million, even though McCraw has insisted it could be done for much less.

The proposal to "do away with the sex offender website and postcard notifications informing the public of movements of high-risk offenders" was listed on Page 707 of its 769-page budget filing with the Legislative Budget Board.

Despite that plan, Mange said McCraw has made it clear "that even if there is a reduction to the department's budget, the essential elements of the sex offender program would remain intact because of its importance to the state."

"DPS would seek legislative authority to reallocate other DPS resources to ensure other elements of the program are not diminished," Mange said. "The state Legislature has made it clear that this is a state priority because of the nature of the threat."

So why propose that it be cut?

"I believe they may be working on a revision of that part of the (legislative appropriations request) to make clear that we would find a way to continue the program," she said. "We are asked by the Legislature to do a lot of things that sometimes aren't funded."

And if the sex-offender registry continues to be funded, where will the $3 million cut to pay for it be made elsewhere?

No immediate word on that, Mange said. ..Source.. Mike Ward AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offenders' Names Expunged From Registry

Very unique argument: Lawyers claimed, that since the U.S. Court held -SORNA- cannot be retroactive, that means it is punishment. Then the lawyers -in state court- claimed their clients, who likely had similar circumstances as the one in the U.S. Supreme court, should not be required to register, hence remove them from the registry. This is a clever construction using federal law to control state law.

UPDATE 7-18: Addressing my construction of "punishment" mentioned by our reader in the comments: In Carr the court said "Having concluded that §2250 does not extend to pre enactment travel," is a way of saying, you cannot criminalize that act. When an act is criminalized, punishment follows, hence I still believe this is what Burrough's lawyers put forth in their argument in state trial court (an appeal may follow). True, they may also have mentioned Indiana's residency cases, but they do not explain the U.S. Supreme court usuage in their construction, as I mentioned above.

7-18-2010 Indiana:

Appeals Follow High Court Ruling On Retroactive Listings

INDIANAPOLIS -- Three Indiana sex offenders who claimed they should never have been on the state's registry had their names removed on Thursday.

Attorneys for the men argued that the crimes were committed and the convictions handed down prior to the creation of the Indiana Sex Offender Registry in 1994, and, therefore, their clients' names should not be listed, 6News' Derrik Thomas reported.

The defendants petitioned the court, saying that having their names on the registry has hurt their chances of getting jobs and finding housing.

"Before, it was never considered punishment. It was a civil sanction, like a parking fine," said Kathleen Sweeney, the attorney for Fred Gaither, 39, who received an eight-year sentence for rape in July of 1992. "Now they are saying this is so significant and invasive and you can never get rehabilitation, and so now they are saying that it's punishment."

The challenges follow a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which requires sex offenders to register, did not authorize retroactive enforcement.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office said it will be vigilant in overseeing similar cases.

"Our interest is ensuring that the registry has integrity and people are on the registry that are required to register," said Attorney General Chief Deputy Gary Secrest.

There are about 70 cases in Indiana of sex offenders appealing their registry listing. There are more than 13,000 sex offenders currently on the registry. ..Source.. TheIndyChannel.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judges, state duel over sex registry

7-13-2010 Indiana:

Court rulings cloud who’s being tracked

FORT WAYNE – Theothis Allison, 44, served time in the mid-1980s for a sex crime. Since his release from prison in 1986, he has married, had children and stayed out of trouble.

And after the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Richard P. Wallace, who had a 1989 conviction for child molesting, no longer had to register with the state as a sex offender, Allison asked Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull to take him off the sex offender registry.

In a handwritten letter filed in late April, Allison made his request, which Gull granted about 10 days later, according to court documents.

But since then, the Indiana attorney general’s office has filed motions asking to intervene in the case. In the motion, the attorney general has requested that Gull change her order for a number of reasons – taking issue with Allison’s letter, saying Gull lacked jurisdiction in the case and saying that Allison may be required to register under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which Indiana does not yet follow.

Gull has no intention of changing her order. She staunchly refuses to muddy the waters for sex offenders and those who handle the sex offender registry by dealing with the federal question.

But other judges are handling similar motions differently. Allen Superior Judges John Surbeck and Ken Scheibenberger have been inclined to grant the attorney general’s requests.

But the judges agree that the attorney general’s office’s insistence on intervening in so many of these cases continues to cause headaches and confusion for all involved.

Wallace removals

Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court issued what is now frequently just referred to as “the Wallace ruling,” which allowed sex offenders who committed their crimes before the creation of the registry to petition the courts to be removed from the list.

Indiana created its sex offender registry law in 1994, with the passage of the Sex Offender Registration Act, known as Zachary’s Law. In 2001, the state legislature amended the law to include all people convicted of certain sex offenses regardless of their conviction date. The registry includes the names, addresses and photographs of those convicted of sex crimes and some violent crimes in each community.

And in 2003, Wallace’s ex-wife told authorities that Wallace never registered as a sex offender. Wallace was convicted of not registering, but he appealed, arguing in part that the changes to the registry violated the state’s Constitution by creating an after-the-fact punishment.

The Supreme Court eventually agreed with him, finding that “the changes to the act violated the state’s Constitution by imposing burdens on Wallace that added punishment beyond what could have been imposed when his crime was committed,” according to the ruling.

Since the ruling, local courts have been processing requests from sex offenders asking to have their names removed because of the dates of their conviction.

In an effort to streamline the process this spring, the legislature required sex offenders to begin making such requests in the counties in which they reside, not where their conviction occurred.

But along with each sex offender’s request, the attorney general’s office has also filed paperwork, asking that the judges construct their orders or instruct the sex offenders that they may be required to register under the federal law. So far, nearly 70 motions have been filed with various county courts, said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

The paperwork is maddening to the judges, who aren’t sure what the purpose of the request is, other than to confuse.

Federal rules

In 2006, the federal government enacted the Adam Walsh Act, officially known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and unofficially by its acronym: SORNA. The law was an attempt to combine all the sex offender registries around the country.

Indiana is one of a handful of states not in compliance with the act, said Brent Myers, the director of registration and victim services with the Indiana Department of Correction.

The state has recently filed an extension request, asking it be allowed until June 2011 to comply with the requirements of the law, Myers said.

A state out of compliance misses out on federal grants. When in compliance, sex offenders in that state who fail to register can be charged with a federal crime, Myers said.

And the state attorney general’s office wants to make sure that if Indiana sex offenders are some day required to register, they can still be forced to do so, in spite of an order by a state court judge.

“(The attorney general) wanted to put something there in writing so there is no dispute later,” spokesman Corbin said.

There was a fear that if federal prosecutors chose to charge an offender with a federal failure to register, then the sex offender could come back and say that he or she was not required to register under state law.

“This will prevent them from doing that. We’re foreclosing a sex offender from being able to use that as an issue,” Corbin said. “This keeps them from using it as an escape hatch.”

Mixed results

While he is still waiting to see his name removed from the registry, Allison doesn’t worry much about the federal law.

“I don’t know nothing about the federal requirements,” he said. “I just know I’m not supposed to be on (the Indiana sex offender registry).”

Myers is not sure whether those released from their registry requirements will still be required to register under SORNA if or when the time comes, or whether they’re required to register now if they cross state lines.

“(The Wallace decision) does not have an impact outside of Indiana,” Myers said.

Surbeck and Scheibenberger are conducting hearings on every request from the attorney general’s office – and so far, both are inclined to grant the office’s request.

“I suppose it is necessary,” Scheibenberger said. “But it would have been nice had the attorney general let us know he was going to take that position.”

During a hearing Friday afternoon, Surbeck told the deputy attorney general handling the case that he felt the state’s request asked him to overstep his boundaries.

“I’ve always been taught that I have no jurisdiction over federal matters,” Surbeck said. “I don’t see anything wrong with my order.”

Gull, so far, refuses to change her orders to reflect any concerns regarding the federal law and she’s not holding hearings.

Her orders are clear in their application to state law, and Gull said, her position is that there is no federal requirement under Indiana law at this time.

“So what do I tell people?” she asks. “My orders are perfectly legal and the attorney general can challenge them if he wants to.

“It is not my job to tell offenders what federal law is or isn’t,” Gull said. “It seems we are splitting hairs and spending a lot of time and talent, and paper on all of this.” ..Source.. Rebecca S. Green | The Journal Gazette

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Scots sex offenders win human rights fight

5-20-2010 Scotland:

Judges have ruled the system that places sex offenders in Scotland on a register for life with no way of being removed is in breach of their human rights.

In a landmark judgment involving a convicted sex offender who was placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely at the age of 15, three judges said the scheme, as it stands, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

It means hundreds of people in Scotland could appeal their cases and challenge their inclusion on the register, while Scottish ministers will now have to change the law to bring the system into line with European legislation.

In future, the system will have to allow offenders to be able to apply for their removal from the register if they can prove they no longer pose a risk.

The decision follows the judgment last month of the Supreme Court, the highest in the land, to unanimously dismiss a Home Office challenge in relation to two English offenders who were on the register for life.

Lawyers for 52-year-old Angus Thompson and a teenager, who raped a child when he was aged just 11, ­successfully argued that the lack of opportunity to demonstrate they had reformed was a breach of their human rights.

The new UK Government may now have to adapt legislation to make ­provision for those who want their inclusion on the ­register re-examined.

The sex offenders register contains the details of anyone convicted, cautioned or released from prison for a sexual offence against children or adults since September 1997, when it was set up.

There are 3913 registered sex ­offenders in Scotland, of which 1631 are subject to the notification requirements for an indefinite period.

In the Scottish case, Lord Hamilton, the lord president, Lord Reed and Lady Smith upheld the appeal of Mr A – who pled guilty in 1993 at the High Court in Airdrie to two charges of assault with intent to rape, one of which included an element of robbery. He was 14 at the time of the offences.

While the case is to be continued later next month – to decide on how it affects ministers and to what extent it will be applied retrospectively – ­lawyers said it was agreed yesterday that Scottish ministers will have to change the law.

Tony Kelly, his solicitor, said: “This outcome was inevitable given the recent declaration by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the Sex Offender Notification Scheme, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, was incompatible with convention rights – in that it failed to provide a mechanism for review to enable offenders to apply for their removal from the register.

“The court has continued the matter to discuss and decide upon the question of the remedy to be afforded to: the particular petitioner in this case; and Scottish ministers.

“This has important ramifications in relation to sex offender notification for the past and in the future.”

Kelly added: “Scottish ministers’ recognition that legislation will require to be forthcoming (and that in early course) is, perhaps, an indicator of the significance of this ruling for the Sex Offender Registration Scheme in Scotland.”

Offenders are placed on the register for life if they are sentenced to 30 months or more in jail. Any convicted offender on the register has to notify the police of their personal details, any change of address and when they travel abroad.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We will consider the impact of any judgment on the notification regime as it relates to offenders subject to indefinite notification. The objective is to have in Scotland a notification system that will be compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The Scottish Government’s priority is protecting the public. Scotland has one of the most robust systems of managing sex offenders in the world. The notification requirements form an important part of this system. They provide an invaluable tool to the authorities in allowing the police to keep track of the whereabouts of individual sex offenders; and managing the risk of known sex offenders.” ..Source.. Lucy Adams, Chief Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Panel approves changes to sex offender registry

Reporters, at times and this is one, miss the most important facts! Senate Bill 12 also says:

Sec.-4: Any person who is on the state sex offender registry on the effective date of this Act shall be deemed to have been assigned to Tier III. However, any such person may petition the court, pursuant to § 22-24B-17, for appropriate reassignment in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Right, force everyone to be the worst-of-the-worst, and if you don't like that, get an attorney (bill also says none will be appointed) to petition the court to get a CORRECT Tier Level. This is legal? Should the state be forced to pay the attorney fees & costs for every registrant who has been MIS-CLASSIFIED by the legislature? Obviously I say YES!

2-11-2010 South Dakota:

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - A South Dakota Senate committee has advanced a bill that would create tiers for the state's sex offender registry, giving some people a chance to get their names removed.

The bill, approved 7-0 by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, would create three groups of sex crimes.

Those convicted of serious crimes could never get off the offender list.

Those convicted of a middle group could ask to be removed after 25 years, and those convicted of less-serious crimes such as misdemeanor indecent exposure could ask to be removed after 10 years.

The bill now heads to the full Senate. ..Source.. KTIV.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Legislature Debates Changing Sex Offender Registry

1-29-2010 Maine:

Supreme Court Ruling Necessitates Changes

AUGUSTA, Maine -- Lawmakers met in Augusta Thursday to discuss changing the state's sex offender registry to satisfy the concerns of the Maine supreme court.

The court said it is unconstitutional to impose new laws that are retroactive for people convicted of sex crimes in the 1980s and 1990s.

The ruling means the state cannot require sex offenders to register for the rest of their lives when they were previously told they would have to register for only 10 years.

Maine changed the law in 1999 to require all sex offenders to register for life.

Lawmakers also discussed the possibility of changing the registry to better differentiate between minor and serious offenses.

A deadline was set for the end of March to make the necessary changes. ..Source.. WMTW.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawmakers discuss sex offender law

1-20-2010 Maine:

High court sets revision deadline

AUGUSTA, Maine — State lawmakers reopened the books on Maine’s controversial sex offender law on Wednesday in the wake of a recent court ruling questioning the constitutionality of aspects of the registry.

Late last month, Maine’s highest court gave the Legislature slightly more than three months to revise a 1999 state law requiring certain sex offenders to essentially re-register with police every 90 days for the rest of their lives. The court said applying that lifetime requirement retroactively without the possibility of a waiver was unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Janet T. Mills told a legislative committee that the Supreme Judicial Court upheld Maine's right to maintain and publish — including on the Internet — a list of convicted sex offenders in the interest of public safety. Additionally, the law can remain in place for people convicted after the 1999 law took effect.

But Mills said the court’s ruling means the Legislature will have to take steps to address sex offenders convicted between 1982 and 1999.

“You need to do something,” Mills warned the lawmakers.

Those words appeared to resonate with members of the Criminal Justice Committee, some of whom have been involved in writing and re-writing Maine’s sex offender registry law for a decade or more.

“One of the options we don’t have is to do nothing,” said Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison. “I think we have an obligation to respond.”

Under current law, anyone convicted of a sex offense or sexually violent offense since Jan. 1, 1982, is required to register with the state. But the law has gone through various iterations in response to public outcry, national requirements and legal challenges.

The case brought before the Supreme Judicial Court involved Eric Letalien, a Dixfield man who was 19 when he was convicted of rape in 1996 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. At the time, he was required to register as a sex offender for 15 years, but was also allowed to seek a waiver from the registry after five years.

Under the changes enacted in 1999, he was required to register as a sex offender every 90 days for the rest of his life. The updated law also took away his right to ask for a waiver.

Mills presented the committee with several options. Committee members also expressed an interest in simultaneously reviewing a bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Anne Haskell, of Portland, that would rewrite various aspects of the law.

The first option presented by Mills was to repeal the lifetime registration requirement and the mandatory check-in with police every 90 days for anyone convicted before the 1999 law.

A more complicated but constitutionally sound option would be to create what Mills called a “rolling registry” where offenders would only have to follow the laws that were on the books at the time of their conviction.

“It would be difficult to administer but it would be the most legally defensible option,” Mills said. One question that lawmakers would have to address, however, is how to treat people convicted between 1982 and 1992, the year the first sex offender registry law was passed.

The state could also keep lifetime registration but allow convicted offenders the opportunity to seek a waiver from that requirement if they met certain requirements, such as no subsequent offenses.

The retroactive application of registration requirements has long been one of the most hotly debated aspects of an already controversial law. Critics argue that requiring registration for people convicted before the law took effect constitutes additional punishment on many people who served their time and have had no subsequent violations.

Debate over the law re-ignited in 2006 when a Canadian man entered Maine and killed two strangers he had tracked down through addresses listed on the state’s online registry. One of the men, a 57-year-old Milo resident, had been convicted in Massachusetts the year before Maine’s registry law went into effect.

Last year, the law was changed to allow people convicted between 1982 and June 30, 1992, to petition to be removed from the registry altogether. In order to be eligible, the individuals must not have had any subsequent felony-level offenses.

Matt Ruel, director of the State Bureau of Identification, which maintains the registry, said Wednesday that 175 people have successfully petitioned to have their names removed since the law took effect on Sept. 1. About 200 requests have been denied, he said.

There are roughly 3,200 registrants in the system, Ruel said.

But as committee members acknowledged Wednesday, any additional revisions will have to navigate a maze of legal, legislative and political obstacles, not the least of which could be a veto by Gov. John Baldacci.

Baldacci spokesman David Farmer indicated that the administration plans to play a major role in determining the best way to meet the court’s requirements without gutting the law.

“He wants to protect the registry,” Farmer said Wednesday. “He thinks it is an important public safety tool.”

Zachary Heiden, legal director with the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said he believes simply eliminating the retroactivity of the law is the best and simplest option. While waivers may make sense from a policy standpoint, waivers may not meet the constitutional test, he said. ..Source.. Kevin Miller

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Plan would trim sex offender list

1-10-2010 South Dakota:

Removal option would apply to certain lesser crimes

As it is now, Tacy Chrispen's son probably will spend the rest of his life on South Dakota's sex offender registry.

The then-18-year-old high school senior's crime: Having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who was 3 years, 23 days younger.

Because of that age difference, and the fact that she was younger than 16, he was convicted of statutory rape, spent a year and a half in prison and now is classified as a sex offender.

It is this kind of situation - described by some as a "Romeo and Juliet" story, that has spurred state Sen. Gene Abdallah to push for a change in the law.

He and others, including prosecutors, think it's unfair to treat people convicted of less serious crimes - such as Chrispen's son - the same as people convicted of rape and other heinous crimes. Currently, both types of convicts appear side-by-side on the registry of sex offenders on the Internet, and most stay on the list for life.

But under the plan being proposed by Abdallah and a legislative committee, the state would move to a three-tier system to classify sex offenders, and those convicted of lesser crimes would have a better opportunity to get their names removed from the list.

An Argus Leader analysis of the sex offender registry data shows that 18 percent of the 2,600 people on the list in December were convicted of less severe crimes and could qualify to be placed on the lowest level.

More than 10 years has passed since the convictions of 40 percent of the possible Tier I offenders, making them potentially eligible for removal.

Under the tier system, those convicted of rape or other severe crimes would be placed on Tier III of the registry for life. Those convicted of crimes on Tier II, such as possession or sale of child pornography, would have to be on the list for at least 25 years before they could petition for removal. People convicted of less severe crimes, such as indecent exposure or statutory rape, could end up on Tier I for at least 10 years.

A legislative study committee led by Abdallah that met four times last year produced eight proposals that seek to change the state's sex offender laws. But it is the bill that contains the tiered setup that has gained the most attention.

'False sense of security'

the state's current system, in which all offenders are required to register for life and all are placed on the same list online is a broad-brush approach that is ineffective in letting people know which offenders are truly dangerous, said Ryan Kolbeck, president of the South Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"I think the sex offender registry gives us a false sense of security because we cannot determine who is or is not a real threat," he said.

The proposed three-tier system, as outlined in Senate Bill 12, would address that problem and has gained widespread support among lawmakers. A recent Associated Press survey shows that two-thirds of all lawmakers support the legislation.

But it is not without its doubters, including Attorney General Marty Jackley.

Some skeptics consider the tiered proposal too lenient, some are worried it will become a logistical nightmare for the court system, and some think it will create much more work for law enforcement officers.

"My preference is to have our scheme remain the same with a loosening on statutory rape and certain juvenile offenses," Jackley said.

He favors keeping what would qualify for Tier II offenses under the proposal, such as the manufacturing of child pornography, incest and solicitation of a minor, together with Tier III offenses and require such offenders to remain on the registry for life.

Abdallah, who is retired from 25 years in law enforcement, insists he is not soft on crime: "I have no sympathy for sex offenders whatsoever."

He acknowledges that the proposals will be changed once the legislative session begins.

It must be decided whether an offender on Tier II could petition for removal 25 years after conviction or 25 years after initially being placed on the registry, which was created in 1994.

It also hasn't been decided how the offenders will be placed on the tiers.

The bill now reads that all current offenders will be placed on Tier III and will have to petition the courts be placed on a lower tier, in addition to petitioning the court for removal from the list at the appropriate time.

That process would mean a lot more work for the court system, Jackley said.

Meeting federal law

Part of the reason for the push to change state sex offender laws stems from the desire to comply with federal law. The Adam Walsh Act was enacted in 2006 and mandates the three-tier system.

Named after the son of John Walsh, host of the "America's Most Wanted" television program, the act requires states and reservations to meet several requirements, such as that offenders register quarterly. States must be in "substantial compliance" by July or risk losing up to 10 percent in certain law enforcement assistance money, which for South Dakota totaled $87,000 last year.

The problem is that state officials don't exactly know what "substantial compliance" means.

"The federal government has never defined what substantial compliance is," Jackley said.

While changes to the sex offender laws aim for more fairness and compliance with federal laws, members of the study committee also want to ensure that South Dakota law discourages offenders
from other states from moving here.
"It is our intention as a committee to make the laws as tough or tougher as any other state," Abdallah said.

But that could cause problems.

Enforcement issues

The committee is proposing to apply the most severe registration laws on the offenders convicted in other states. For example, an offender convicted in Georgia would have to stay 1,000 feet from a school here, instead of the 500 feet as provided for in South Dakota law, because Georgia's law is more strict.

While Sioux Falls Police Department Captain Greg VandeKamp understands legislators' reasoning, he is worried about the increased workload.

"It becomes, on the street level, very difficult to enforce," he said.

It already is a full-time job monitoring offenders, and it is difficult track the 500-foot community safety zones around town, VandeKamp said. Making Sioux Falls police track laws from other states to apply to certain offenders would be very difficult, he said.

My concern was if we do make changes, that we end up with changes that are enforceable," he said.

Study committee member Rep. Peggy Gibson of Huron said there are too many people on the registry who don't belong, and that limits the effectiveness of the list.

"What happens when you have too many on the registry, the real violent ones are not watched as closely as they need to be," she said.

Chrispen, who spoke on the condition that her son's name not be used, said her son, now 22, should not be lumped in a category with pedophiles or rapists. His victim was his girlfriend of more than seven months. He spent Christmas with her family, the sex was consensual, and the charges came only after an acrimonious breakup, she said.

"But they are treated the same when you looked at the sex offender registry," Chrispen said.
"To me, they need to look at every case, they are not all black and white."

Gibson agrees and points to the case of Jose Delgado as another person who does not belong on the sex offender registry.

Delgado was 37 when he was was convicted of sexual contact with a minor in 1983 for touching a 13-year-old female. He spent six months in the county jail. The Huron man eventually moved on with his life, got married and had three children. Then, in 1994, when the state introduced the sex offender registry more than a decade after his conviction, he was required to register.

'My kids ... pay for it'

If he had known that a public registry would be created, he said, he never would have had children. "Now I've been married for over 20 years," an emotional Delgado said. "My kids have to pay for it."

Delgado's wife, Jody, said the situation has been the hardest on their 17-year-old son, Aaron. When the registry was posted online, he was first approached by his hockey teammates in the locker room.

Their response came in the form of taunts such as, "So, Delgado, I heard your dad raped somebody."

"I don't know what to say to that," Aaron Delgado said.

But he has learned to deal with the questions.

"I can't do anything about it. They have it online. You can't break the Internet," he said.

Besides, Aaron Delgado said, he knows his dad is not a bad person.

"He's just another normal person. You can't judge a person by their past anyway. People can change and not a lot of people like that concept."

Gibson has spent time with the Delgado family and wants Jose off the list.

"He's been clean ever since," she said of the 63-year-old Delgado. "He is a viable member of society."

Other than the 1980s conviction, Delgado's record consists of only a few speeding tickets.
Opportunity to petition

There is a provision in the law that a sex offender convicted of statutory rape can petition the court to be removed after 10 years on the registry if they meet certain criteria, such as compliance with registration. To date, no one has gotten off the registry through this provision.

The restrictions are too limited and too costly for offenders to petition, Kolbeck said.

Adjudicated juveniles also can petition the courts to be removed from the registration if they think they do not qualify and if their sentence was discharged.

The proposed legislation would loosen the requirements and give offenders such as Delgado an opportunity to petition for removal.

It's a provision that concerns Jackley.

"It lightens what the review standard is," he said.

But for Delgado, removal from the list would lift a heavy burden.

"It's like they would take 100 years off my shoulders," Delgado said. "If this does happen, the feeling would be like a free man again." ..Source.. Megan Luther

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ruling clouds sex-offender registry

1-8-2010 Indiana:

Work is hard to find for Shane Call these days.

He still sells cleaning and hygiene products out of his home, but gone are the days when he would hit nearby farmers markets and hawk his goods and generate a nice supply of cash. After someone found his photo on the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry along with the words “child molesting,” he was no longer welcome.

“It’s really, really affected my life in the past five years,” said Call, who claims he was wrongly convicted by a jury of child molesting in 1991 and had to appear on the state sex offender registry after it was created in 1994. “Before I was on the list, I hated the fact I was accused of that crime, but as soon as I got on the list, things got hard.”

A ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court last year, though, found that Richard P. Wallace, a man convicted of child molesting in 1989, no longer had to register with the state as a sex offender because he committed his crime before the law that created the registry was enacted.

That ruling has thrown the state and local sex offender registries into disarray.

Allen County officials say that like Wallace, Call is no longer required to register as a sex offender. His name and face have been scrubbed from the Allen County sheriff’s online registry. Officials with the Indiana Department of Correction, though, are refusing to erase any names from the state’s official registry without a court order.

The Allen County registry is supposed to be an offshoot of the state registry, something the sheriff’s department created as a way for local residents to search using the sheriff’s Web site. Now, though, the registries do not match.

At issue are different interpretations of the state high court’s ruling: Officials with the Indiana Department of Correction – which keeps the state’s official registry – believe the ruling applies only to Richard P. Wallace. Allen County police, prosecutors and local judges have determined the ruling applies to everyone.

Cpl. Jeff Shimkus of the Allen County Sheriff’s Department is part of the agency’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Team. As the officer charged with enforcing the registry laws, Shimkus said more trouble may be ahead.

The situation opens the door for each county to interpret the ruling differently, throwing off uniformity across the state at a time when the state’s goal, in order to comply with federal laws, was to be more standardized regarding sex offenders, Shimkus said.

“It’s going to cause problems with the state site because its accuracy can’t be guaranteed,” Shimkus said.

‘A nightmare’

Sometime after the court’s ruling on the Wallace case last year, officials with the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office met with officials from the Allen County Sheriff’s Department to decide what the decision actually meant, Shimkus said.

The consensus was that the names of offenders who committed crimes before the creation of the registry had to come off the local list.

Also removed were the names of people who had committed lesser crimes that previously did not require registration.

For instance, between 1994 and 1997, people convicted of rape were required to register only if the victim was younger than 18. Someone who raped an adult in 1995 would not have been required to register. But laws were later amended to require all convicted rapists to register as sex offenders.

Now, people convicted of rape before the law was amended no longer appear on the Allen County sex offender registry, local officials said.

“We don’t have to like it, but that’s what the law says,” said Shimkus of the decision.

For nearly four months, Shimkus’ team, including himself, Cpl. Michael Smothermon and Crystal Barker, pored over 625 files of sex offenders. By the time they were done removing names, 375 remained on the registry.

“It was a nightmare,” Shimkus said of the work.

Some other Indiana sheriff’s departments are falling in line with what Allen County is doing. Officials with the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department have been combing sex offender files in their registry but have yet to find any offenders who are affected by the Wallace ruling, according to department spokesman Sgt. Chad Hill.

Other departments, like the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Department, are not removing any names unless given a court order, much like the Indiana Department of Correction.

“Our role is to determine who has to register,” said Brent Myers, director of registration and victims services for the Indiana Department of Correction. “Whether or not local sheriffs are enforcing who has to register, that’s something they have to talk about with their legal counsel.

“Unfortunately, the (Wallace) decision, like a lot of decisions, is very complicated, and there’s not a one-size-fits-all option.”

The DOC’s view

Like the meeting in Allen County, officials with the Department of Correction, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office and the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council met after the Wallace decision was passed down.

But the consensus was different from the Allen County interpretation.

“The Supreme Court did not order us to review every individual; it referred to only Wallace,” Myers said.

The feeling after the meeting with the attorney general was that offenders who thought they should be off the registry because of the Wallace decision should take it up with the local courts, Myers said. There, an impartial review could be done.

If the DOC receives a court order to remove a name from the list, then that name will be removed, Myers said. So far, the department has received fewer than 70 such orders from local judges.

Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull said the criminal division has been inundated with requests to remove sex offenders from the state’s registry, including requests from offenders who were never prosecuted in Allen County.

And Gull has also seen requests from out-of-state offenders or even federal offenders wondering how, or whether, the changes apply to them.

“I don’t know what the status of the law is in other states,” Gull said. “Hell, I don’t know the status of the law in the state of Indiana. It changes all the time.”

As they work through the petitions that fall within local jurisdiction, Gull said they are strictly applying the statute. If the offenders committed their crimes before the registry was in effect, then their names are off the list.

And like Shimkus, Gull believes the confusion could increase.

“I knew it was going to be bad,” she said. “And I don’t think it is as bad as it is going to get.”

Future problems could include offenders not realizing they are eligible to be removed from the registry. The DOC is not doing anything to help, Gull said.

A written request

Call sent a handwritten letter to Allen Superior Court on Dec. 3.

In it, he talked about how difficult it has been to support his wife and 13-year-old son since being put on the list. He noted that he has not been in any trouble since his conviction and reasserted his innocence. Call says he was framed.

“Not everybody who pleads guilty is guilty,” said Call’s wife, Jennifer Call, adding that her husband’s past is a dark secret that’s hard to talk about with others. “Everyone who has known him has said, ‘I can’t believe that about your husband.’ ”

Call didn’t know what to expect after sending the letter, but Thursday he got his validation: a letter of response, telling him the judge agreed with him.

He’d soon be off the state registry. ..Source.. Jeff Wiehe and Rebecca S. Green

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IL- Juveniles can be required to register as sex offenders

10-9-2009 Illinois:

The supreme court held that registration is not punishment and that juveniles can be required to register even though they aren’t entitled to a jury trial on the charges.

The Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq, is not unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders, the Illinois Supreme Court has held. The case is Birkett v Konetski, No 102667, 2009 WL 1416070.

Trial court ruling: juveniles not required to register

Jared P., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent after a bench trial for committing the offenses of criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse. At his sentencing hearing, he argued that he should not be required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq, because he was not entitled to a jury trial on the charges, which subjected him to an adult sentencing scheme, including the duty to register.

The circuit judge placed the minor on probation until the age of 21 and found that requiring a person to register as a sex offender is sufficiently serious that the right to a jury trial should attach. The judge declined to require the minor to register as a condition of his probation.

The state unsuccessfully moved to reconsider and then filed a mandamus action with leave of the Illinois Supreme Court. In the meantime, the minor appealed, and the appellate court modified the dispositional order to reflect an adjudication of a single count of criminal sexual assault.

The supreme court noted that the Sex Offender Registration Act classifies a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for committing the offense of criminal sexual assault as a “sex offender.” 730 ILCS 150/2(A)(5), (B)(1). Sections 3 and 3-5(a) of that statute mandate registration for adult and juvenile sex offenders, and section 5 requires circuit judges to notify sex offenders released on probation of their duty to register, the court observed.

The circuit judge had no discretion to decline to comply with the statute’s reg istration requirements, the court said, and his order exempting Jared P. from the registration requirement was in clear violation of the statute’s plain language. Therefore, the court found, the matter met the requirements for mandamus.

Supreme court: registration not punishment

The court then proceeded to consider the minor’s constitutional arguments against registration. First, it discussed whether PA 95-658 and PA 94-168, both of which were enacted after the minor’s delinquency adjudication, applied retroactively to him and, if so, whether retroactive application violated his constitutional rights to procedural due process and against cruel and unusual punishment, disproportionate penalties, and ex post facto laws.

In PA 95-658, the legislature added section 3-5 to the statute, requiring juvenile sex offenders to register but also providing for termination of registration under certain circumstances. PA 94-168 changed the meaning of “sexual predator” to provide that any person convicted of criminal sexual assault after July 1, 1999, falls within that classification. Both acts applied to the minor, the court found.

The court found that requiring the minor to register as a sex offender is not comparable to the imprisonment an adult would receive for conviction of the same offense. Though the minor argued that the registration requirements constrained his liberty, including his freedom to travel and to associate with others, the court noted that he was never required to serve any detention but was merely placed on probation.

The court also reaffirmed its prior holdings that the statutory registration requirements do not constitute punishment. Rather, it said, the registration statute is regulatory in nature, intended to foster public safety.

Furthermore, the court noted, the amendments of PA 95-658 significantly mitigated the impact of the registration requirement on the minor. It did so by eliminating the provisions that would have required him to register as an adult when he reached age 17 and gave minors the right to petition for termination of registration after five years – a right not available to adults.

For all of those reasons, the court found that the minor’s registration obligation was not sufficiently burdensome to mandate the right to a jury trial.

Because registration is not a punishment, the court also found that the registration act violates neither the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment nor the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. For the same reason, the court rejected the minor’s argument that PA 94-168’s working to reclassify him from a sex offender to a sexual predator violated the ex post facto provisions of the federal and state constitutions.

Finally, the court declined to grant the minor’s request for a supervisory order allowing him to petition for removal from the sex offender registry five years after the date he should have been ordered to register instead of five years from the date the circuit judge actually advises him of his duty to register in accordance with the mandamus order of the supreme court. The court granted the state mandamus relief and directed the circuit judge to vacate the order exempting the minor from registration and to advise him of his duty to register as an offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. ..Source.. by Helen Gunnarsson, Lawpulse

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MI- Registered for life

10-9-2009 Michigan:

There’s no question that sexual assault is wrong. But, like other crimes, punishment shouldn’t mean the end of the offenders’ lives. Highlighting this issue is the case of a Washtenaw County teenager who’s fighting to remain off the state sex offender list for a crime he committed when he was 15 years old. State laws that require long-term registration on the sex offender list even after incarceration and parole create a social stigma around these people that ruins their lives. Michigan and other states should reevaluate their laws on sex offenses and work toward rehabilitating offenders rather than permanently ostracizing them.

Three years ago, a then-15-year-old Washtenaw County male was convicted of second-degree sexual misconduct after he grabbed a female classmate and touched her breast. The male was put on probation for 18 months, required to complete a sex offender rehabilitation program, avoid contact with the victim and register his name with a nonpublic sex offender registry for juvenile offenders. At the age of 18, he was legally obligated to reregister on a public adult sex offender list for the next 22 years. But his lawyer was able to successfully petition Family Division Judge Darlene O’Brien to keep his name off the public registry. O’Brien determined that 22 years of registration for the relatively mild offense qualified as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Washtenaw County prosecutors are appealing the decision.


This case aptly demonstrates why the sex offender registry is deeply flawed. This teenager may have committed a crime, but not one that’s memory should be shackled to him for much of his adult life. And some even less notable crimes — like public urination and streaking — can also land people on the list for 25 years. Such strict penalties for less serious crimes are patently absurd.

But having one’s name placed on a public sex offender registry is an unfair burden for more serious offenders, too, and often prevents their successful re-entrance to society. Being placed on a registry constrains the ability of sex offenders to find jobs or places to live. Last winter, a Michigan homeless man froze to death because the law prevented him, as a sex offender, from staying at local shelters. According to mlive.com, the local shelters also housed women and children, which means homeless sex offenders can't use them (Man found dead in cold was turned away from shelters in past because he was sex offender, 01/28/2009).

A more extreme example is Florida, where the law requires convicted sex offenders to live at least 2,500 feet from public places where children gather. On Aug. 5, the Economist reported that due to limited housing options in Miami and the 2,500 feet law, many sex offenders have no choice but to live together under a bridge. The fact that sex offenders are unable to find a home in Michigan and nationwide is a tragic failing of the law.

The goal of the corrections system should be to prepare offenders for reintegration into society, not continue to punish them by removing them from society forever. Instead of prohibiting sex offenders from living a normal life after serving their time, sex offenders should participate in rehabilitation programs that prevent further offense and allow them to become productive members of society.

Sex offenses are terrible, but the fact that offenders are forced to live on the streets because of them is equally terrible. Legislatures should make rehabilitation the rule, not stigmatization. ..Source.. by The Michigan Daily

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

VA- Jailed man avoids sex offender registry

10-8-2009 Virginia:

STAUNTON — A Waynesboro man narrowly avoided the national sex offender registry after pleading guilty to reduced sex charges.

___, 20, appeared in Augusta County Juvenile and Domestic Relations court Wednesday on three counts of carnal knowledge of a child.

___ had sex with a 13-year-old girl multiple times, a felony in Virginia, authorities said. He was 19 at the time.

In court, attorneys reduced his charges to misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor instead of the initial felonies. The reduction bought ___ a cleaner name — he won’t register as a violent sex offender — but landed him six months in jail, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney John Reed said.

“We felt the more appropriate disposition was that he go to jail,” Reed said.

___ appeared in Waynesboro court Tuesday and pleaded guilty to a similarly reduced charge. He’ll serve two months for his Waynesboro crime, but again avoided the registry.

Authorities on Wednesday returned ___ back to Middle River Regional Jail in Verona. ..Source.. by Chase Purdy, The News Virginian

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

VT- Easier exemptions from offender registry approved

10-7-2009 Vermont:

MONTPELIER (AP) -- A legislative committee on Tuesday approved rules opening the door a bit for people with sex crime convictions who want to be left off Vermont's newly expanded Internet sex offender registry.

The rules mean a sex offender who successfully completed a jail term and treatment years ago and who has committed no new sex crimes since then can ask a Corrections Department panel to have his or her name left off the Internet registry.

Lisa Menard, deputy corrections commissioner, told the Legislative Committee on Administrative rules "there was a desire to treat each case on a case-by-case basis," that was not adequately reflected in an earlier version of an emergency rule released by her department.

Adoption of the rule came just days after the Oct. 1 expansion of the sex offender registry to include a broader range of sex crimes. The number of offenders listed on the Internet grew from 461 to 1,149 last week.

A still broader registry available to law enforcement contains 2,460 names, including those listed on the Internet, said Sheri Englert, sex offender registry program coordinator at the Department of Public Safety.

Lawmakers this past spring voted to expand the Internet sex offender registry to include a wider range of offenders. It was part of two multitiered bills on sex offenders passed following the June 2008 rape and killing of a 12-year-old Braintree girl, Brooke Bennett.

During legislative debate, there was some concern that the newly broadened registry would include people whose crimes dated back as much as 20 years, but who had successfully re-entered society and maintained a clean record in recent years.

The rule approved Tuesday sets up a class of offenders eligible to petition the Corrections Department to be left off the Internet registry, but it gave those offenders a limited time period in which to file their petitions. It began in June, shortly after the law was passed, and ended last week, Englert said.

Offenders got letters in July telling them they needed to fill out paperwork before Oct. 1 if they wanted to begin the petition process. About 230 did so, Englert said.

Menard said the Sex Offender Review Committee would begin reviewing those applications soon; the rule approved Tuesday will govern that process.

Menard said some offenders would be ineligible to petition for exclusion from the Internet registry: those deemed "high-risk" by corrections staff, those who had not completed sex offender treatment programs while incarcerated, those convicted of aggravated sexual assault and repeat offenders.

Under the rule, the committee will make recommendations, with the commissioner of corrections making the final decision.

A call Tuesday to the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, which was active in the sex offender legislation, was not immediately returned.

Keith Flynn, the Orleans County state's attorney and chairman of the executive committee of the Vermnont State's Attorneys Association, said he had not read the rule and could not comment on it. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MI- Sex offender avoids registry

Its about time a Judge has stood up and said, enough there are folks who just do not belong on the public registry!

10-5-2009 Michigan:

Prosecutors to appeal judge's ruling that keeps teen off books

Ann Arbor -- Prosecutors are appealing a Washtenaw County judge's decision that kept a convicted juvenile sex offender off the state's public sex offender registry.

Debra Keehn, an Ann Arbor lawyer who represents the juvenile identified in court records as T.D., said Friday the implications of a ruling by Family Division Judge Darlene O'Brien could be profound if the state Court of Appeals takes the case. "The decision is so well reasoned it's likely the Court of Appeals will affirm the decision and then the law changes for everyone in Michigan," said Keehn, who declined to identify her client by name or allow The Detroit News to interview him.

Steve Miller, chief deputy prosecutor for Washtenaw County, said his office has decided to appeal the Sept. 30 ruling. He had no further comment.

In the case, T.D. was 15 when he was accused of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. The case involved a 15-year-old female classmate who accused T.D. of grabbing her and touching her breast in school. A jury convicted him of the charge when he was 16.

T.D. remained in detention while his case was prosecuted and was placed on 18 months of probation for his sentence. He completed a juvenile sexual offender treatment program, had no contact with the victim and provided his fingerprints as ordered, Keehn said. He also placed himself on a nonpublic juvenile sex offender registry as required by law.

Once he turned 18 in March, T.D. was required under Michigan law to place himself on the public sex offender registry, where his name would remain for 25 years.

His lawyer filed an appeal to keep his name off, claiming the registry marginalizes rehabilitated offenders and puts up tremendous barriers that force many to resort back to crime.

In her decision, the judge said she considered T.D. to be rehabilitated and the severity of the teen's offense to be "low," saying the incident was "more akin to a juvenile prank than predatory, perverted, criminally deviant sexual conducted likely to be repeated."

O'Brien said: "It would be cruel or unusual punishment to require T.D. to publicly register for the remainder of the 25-year period."

Asked how T.D. reacted to the ruling, Keehn said "he is very happy."

Larry Dubin, a criminal law professor at the University of Detroit-Mercy, said O'Brien has ruled part of the sex offender registry law is unconstitutional.

"Judge O'Brien's opinion warrants serious consideration by an appellate court to determine whether the current law is unconstitutional in depriving a judge of exercising discretion when the facts do not warrant registration as a sex offender," Dubin said. ..Source.. by Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- Sex Offender Registration Removal and a New Florida Case

8-18-2009 Florida:

Florida law provides that under certain circumstances an individual may have his name removed from the sex offender or sexual predator registry. However, before that can occur, the judge deciding the matter must determine that removal of the person's name will not conflict with federal law.

In a recent case called Miller v. State of Florida, a judge denied Mr. Miller's request to have his name removed from the sex offender registry because it conflicted with a federal law commonly known as the Adam Walsh Act. More specifically, the judge found that the Adam Walsh Act permits only persons who have been convicted of consensual sexual activity to be exempt from registering as sex offenders. Because Mr. Miller was unable to prove that the sexual activity that he was convicted of was consensual, the trial judge refused to order the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Miller's name from the sex offender registry.

In response, Miller made three arguments:

1. The crime that he pled guilty to (lewd or lascivious battery), does not require proof that the sexual act was not consensual;

2. The Florida law that permits an individual to have his name removed from the sex offender registry does not explicitly require that the crime in question involve consensual conduct; and

3. The sex act that occurred between Miller and the victim in his case was, in fact, consensual.

On appeal, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected each of these arguments. From now on, therefore, one of the things that a person trying to get his name removed from Florida's sex offender registry will have to prove is that the sexual activity he was convicted of was consensual in nature.

..Source.. by Ron Chapman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

UK- Sex offender register breaches THEIR rights - paedophiles can apply to 'clean the slate', say judges

7-24-2009 United Kingdom:

Paedophiles and rapists yesterday won the right to have their names removed from the Sex Offenders Register in a landmark human rights ruling.

Appeal Court judges ruled sex offenders who no longer pose a threat should be given the chance to have their names wiped off the police database.

The decision has outraged victims' groups who fear sexual predators will commit further crimes without any restrictions or supervision of their movements.

The case comes after two convicted sex attackers, including a child rapist, went to the High Court arguing that being on the register for life was a breach of their human rights.

Currently those given a jail sentence of more than 30 months for sex crimes are placed on the register indefinitely. That means they have to notify the authorities of any change of address or name and any foreign travel plans. But Lord Justice Dyson said it was 'disproportionate' to keep an offender's name on it forever.

The court ruled the 2003 Sexual Offenders Act was incompatible with a criminal's right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Yesterday the Home Office announced it would appeal against the ruling which legal experts predict will force Parliament to change the law.

Once that happens, thousands of sex offenders will be able to demand reviews of their cases and that their names be removed from the register and police databases. There are currently 31,392 sex offenders on the register. Furious campaigners last night blasted the decision. Spokesman for the National Victims' Association Neil Atkinson said: 'It's an appalling decision.

'This is a category of crime that is tremendously difficult to monitor because the criminals themselves have been proven to lie to authorities about their possibility of reoffending.'

The test case was first brought before the High Court last year by a child rapist who argued his name should be taken off the register because it prevented him from going on family holidays.

The teenager from Wigan, identified only as 'F', was just 11 when he was convicted of raping a child under 13 and other sexual offences in 2005.

He was handed a 30-month youth custody sentence at Liverpool Crown Court and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life. But he complained he was unable to go on a family holiday in 2007 due to restrictions placed on foreign travel.

There were also concerns that having his name on the Sex Offenders Register would damage his career prospects. Those on the register are allowed to keep their passports and travel abroad if they notify police about their plans.

Police would only impose a travel ban if they received specific intelligence to suggest the offender planned to commit offences abroad.

The High Court also considered the rights of another sex offender, Angus Aubrey Thompson, 51, from Newcastle, who was jailed for five years in 1996 for indecent assaults on a girl.

He was released on licence in 2000 and has since suffered a series of heart attacks and is stricken by arthritis.

The court heard that the stress of being kept indefinitely on the Sex Offenders Register had contributed to his ill health.

The verdict concludes a case that began in December last year when High Court judges ruled that keeping offenders' names permanently on the register without review violated their human rights.

Yesterday a Home Office bid to overturn the ruling was rejected in the Court of Appeal. ..Source.. by Rebecca Camber

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...