This is absolute proof of the unconstitutionality of registry laws! To convict someone of a law, that you know they do not have the mental capacity to understand, is itself a crime. This man's civil rights have been violated to the tune of the 500 days he has spent in jail in the past. I hope the judges and lawmakers that knowingly convicted him are placed in a special hell in the next world, they had the ability to help, and failed!
7-30-2009 Tennessee:
Carlton Hunter consistently fails to register as a sex offender, and he has served nearly 500 days in jail over the past five years as punishment for that.
Hunter, 45, was convicted in 1990 of two counts of attempted rape. He has racked up dozens of arrests since, almost all nonviolent misdemeanors: obstructing a passageway, public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia. And after he gets released on the minor charges, a new warrant inevitably is issued for his arrest when he fails to report it to the sex offender registry.
Hunter is homeless. He also is mildly mentally retarded and has paranoid schizophrenia. His attorneys say he has no family, nobody to watch over him, and he simply can't comprehend or comply with the rules of the sex offender registry.
The state agreed, granting Hunter an exception. He no longer will have to follow the rules of the registry. And though Hunter is an extreme case, some advocates are concerned that the law may need to be changed to deal with repeat offenders who lack the mental capacity to follow it.
"In terms of understanding mental illness, it's inconceivable that anyone could meet the requirements if they're mentally incapacitated," said Ben Middleton, senior vice president of core services at Centerstone.
Though there's no way to track how many people on the sex offender registry have mental illness, an analysis of the database showed that 9 percent of the 1,300 offenders in Nashville list themselves as homeless. Roughly 50 percent of those homeless offenders have been arrested for violating the laws of the registry in Nashville, according to their court records.
About 30 percent of homeless people have a severe mental illness, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
Metro Public Defender Dawn Deaner first met Hunter at a jail docket for sex offender registry violators. He had already been picked up multiple times for the offense.
Soon, Deaner said, lawyers from her office would go to the dockets with Hunter's paperwork in hand, prepared to show the judge he couldn't be tried and hoping to get him out of jail as soon as possible.
"The registry and its specific language does not really include a category of what to do with individuals who are developmentally delayed or mentally ill, to the point they can comply with requirements," Deaner said.
It's been nearly two decades since he committed a violent offense, Deaner said, and it's rare to find someone as sick as Hunter. She fears cases like his may become more common as the state cuts mental health services.
"The competency of an individual can fluctuate, and competency can deteriorate," Deaner said. "If more people lose their services and become incompetent, you're creating more clients like Carlton who just don't have the wherewithal to remember."
Registration rules vary
Tennessee law requires anyone convicted of a violent sexual offense to register three times a year for life. Nonviolent offenders must register annually for 10 years. But all offenders must notify the registry within three days of an arrest or address change.
And though the law allows for people physically incapacitated through illness to stop registering, there's nothing that mentions mental illness or defect.
Deaner's office initially fought the rules with a lawsuit against the Tennessee Attorney General's office. Sharon Curtis-Flair, spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said they made an agreement with Hunter after consulting with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
She refused to say whether they've been asked to consider if there's a larger issue worth examining with offenders like Hunter.
Hunter is the first person the TBI has been asked to exempt for mental issues, spokeswoman Kristin Helm said.
"We're open to any legislation, but right now we have to follow the law as far as what the registry requirements are," Helm said. "If there's a case and that circumstance can be proven, we'll look at it on a case-by-case basis."
More homeless housing
As for Hunter, his entry on the registry will be listed as inactive. No longer will he be arrested for violations. He occasionally stays at the Nashville Rescue Mission, but mostly he is a wanderer. His lawyers usually don't know where to find him until he turns up in jail.
To Sita Diehl, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness's Tennessee chapter, Hunter's dilemma is another reason Nashville needs more housing for the homeless.
"The question becomes, how can we keep ourselves and our children safe," Diehl said. "One way is to get these people into housing where we can keep better track of them, and get them stable." ..Source.. by Kate Howard
July 30, 2009
TN- Mentally ill struggle to meet sex registry regulations
June 7, 2009
AK- Offender won't have to register
Old article but worth a read: This is a State Supreme Court decision based on state Constitution and therefore not precedent elsewhere; to our knowledge Alaska has not done anything about this, rightfully so.
7-28-2008 Alaska:
ALASKA SUPREME COURT: Convict argued law should not be applied retroactively.
An anonymous man who has been fighting Alaska's sex offender registration law since the mid-1990's when it was first enacted has finally won.
He doesn't have to register, but most others still do.
Known variously in federal and state lawsuits as James Rowe and John Doe, the unnamed man is a child molester who had been convicted, sentenced, done all his prison time and most of his probation by 1994 when Gov. Wally Hickel signed the registry into law. It was retroactive to 1984.
The law requires all convicted sex offenders to provide Alaska State Troopers with a current address and other identifying information, including updates from one to four times a year -- some for the rest of their lives. The information, along with the convict's record and physical description, are made accessible to the public, including online.
Doe-Rowe filed suit with others in federal court in Anchorage the day after Hickel signed the law. He argued it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it was unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated his right to privacy.
But his main argument was that the law was not in effect when he committed his crimes, that it was punishment applied to him retroactively. In general, retroactive laws are called "ex post facto" and are barred by both the U.S. and the Alaska constitutions.
It took years, but the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Doe-Rowe lost.
Alaska and other states with similar laws argued that they were not punishment, but merely regulations used to keep track of sex offenders for the protection of the public.
Each federal court that ruled on the case reversed the ruling of the previous court, an indication of how contentious the issue is. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the states, concluding the registration requirement was not an "ex post facto" punishment.
So Doe-Rowe started over. In 2005 he filed suit in state court, arguing that the Alaska Constitution offers stronger protection of individual liberties than the federal constitution.
Doe-Rowe lost in Anchorage Superior Court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a 52-page split decision issued Friday, the court voted 2-1 that forced public registration is punishment as well as regulation, and cannot be added retroactively to the sentence of someone who committed their crime before the law existed. Two justices did not participate in the case and Chief Justice Dana Fabe disagreed with the conclusion.
Justices Warren Matthews and Robert Estaugh particularly faulted the sweeping effect of the law, noting that it applies equally to all people convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the severity of the crime, the success of their rehabilitation, or their continuing danger to the public.
Ex-offenders lose jobs and housing because of the registry, the justices noted. There is no way to petition to be allowed to stop registering, or to limit registration information to legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Even someone who becomes physically incapacitated and therefore incapable of committing another offense must keep signing up, they said.
Although the aims of the registration law are "undeniably legitimate and important," Estaugh wrote, "Alaska's statute is excessive in relation to the state's interest in public safety."
In her dissent, Fabe said her colleagues did not offer convincing reasons for coming to a different conclusion than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's decision relieves Doe-Rowe of the obligation to register, but the law remains in effect for those convicted of covered crimes committed after August 1994, when the law took effect. ..Source.. by SHEILA TOOMEY
December 21, 2008
UK- High Court frees thousands to challenge place on sex offenders register
12-20-2008 United Kingdom:
Thousands of convicted sex attackers won the right to challenge being on the sex offenders register for life today after a landmark High Court ruling.
Three judges said that indefinitely placing sex offenders on the register with no right of a review is a breach of their human rights.
The test case opens the way for thousands of individuals to try to get off the list on the basis that there is no longer a risk that they will reoffend.
Tonight the Home Office said that it was extremely disappointed with the ruling and is urgently considering an appeal. There are 31,392 sex offenders on the register. Anyone given a sentence of more than 30 months for a sex crime automatically goes on the register for life.
The ruling came in test cases involving a teenager, known as F who cannot be identified, and an adult, Angus Thompson.
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Underhill and Mr Justice Flaux said that the existing registration scheme wrongly denied them the chance to prove in a review that they no longer posed a risk of reoffending.
The judges said that both applicants were entitled to declarations that the scheme was incompatible with their Article 8 right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Latham said that it might well be that any right of review “should be tightly subscribed in the public interest”. He warned that an offender might find it very difficult to establish that he no longer presented any risk of re-offending.
“But I find it difficult to see how it could be justifiable in Article 8 terms to deny a person who believes himself to be in that position an opportunity to seek to establish it.”
Lawyers for the applicants argued they should be entitled to appeal to come off the register and stop having to notify the police of their personal details, including whether they intended to travel abroad.
F, now 16, was convicted of two offences of rape and other serious offences at the age of 11. He was sentenced to 30 months’ detention by Liverpool Crown Court in October 2005 and was released on licence in January 2007.
Last year F’s family booked a holiday in Spain, but he was unable to travel as approval had not been given, the High Court was told.
Later his local youth offending team wrote to his mother making it clear that, as he was on the sex offenders register, he would need to notify the authorities of his travel plans “for the remainder of his life”.
Hugh Southey, appearing for F, said that as there was no review process — he could still be on the register “aged 70 or 80”, even if he committed no further offence.
Pete Weatherby, appearing on behalf of Thompson, argued that adults were also entitled to periodic reviews.
Thompson, from Newcastle Upon Tyne, was sentenced in November 1996 to five years’ imprisonment on two counts of indecent assault on a female and other offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The court heard that e had since been released and he had not been in any more trouble.
The Home Office and Ministry of Justice were unable to say how many people are on the register for life.
A Home Office official said: “We are extremely disappointed with today's High Court judgement and are now considering an appeal.”
The official added: “The UK 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.” ..News Source.. by Richard Ford Home Correspondent.
June 18, 2008
MT- Despite ruling Marshals search unregistered sex offenders
The truth is that the Adam Walsh Act does permit the U.S. Marshal's service to work with local police to find those who do not register. Accordingly, should they find someone then they simply DO NOT charge them in federal court BUT then turn them over to state authorities for state prosecution. Generally, states have different punishment schemes than what is prescribed by AWA. Accordingly, the only provision of AWA that is no good (unconstitutional) is the provision which allows charging someone for FTR after crossing state lines in federal court.
6-18-2008 Montana:
Despite a ruling by a federal judge against a key provision of the national sex offender registration law, U.S. Marshals say they will continue to hunt down sex offenders who fail to register here in Montana.
Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula ruled that Congress exceeded its authority when it created the Adam Walsh Act.
That law made it a federal crime for sex offenders to travel to another state and not re-register as a sex offender.
Chief Deputy US Marshal Rod Ostermiller calls the ruling an isolated decision and says Marshals will continue tracking down sex offenders even if it means prosecuting them in state courts.
"We're going to try to minimize any impact that it has on public safety. We're going to continue to investigate these crimes and hopefully it will have a minimal impact because we are not going to let up." said Ostermiller.
If the sex offenders get prosecuted in state courts rather than federal courts, Ostermiller says the end result will be lighter sentences and a higher cost to taxpayers here in Montana.
Over the last year, 20 people have been charged with failing to register here in Montana. ..News Source.. by KPAX-TV
PA- Sex offender fights long sentence
No matter what, sentences have to be proportional to the CRIME one is being sentenced for, and enhanced only by what those laws allow. This, like the Adam Walsh Act sentences, which this may have flowed from, are excessive and unconstitutional!
6-18-2008 Pennsylvania:
A convicted sex offender with a federal sex-crime record is the focus of a Cumberland County Court battle over a mandatory state sentencing law that could imprison him for the rest of his life.
The disagreement erupted Tuesday during sentencing for Bruce Paul Ward, 33, of Lower Allen Twp., when First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating urged President Judge Edgar B. Bayley to impose a 50- to 100-year state prison term for two felony child pornography convictions.
"Some people just need to go to jail for a very long time," Keating said.
Bayley postponed Ward's sentencing after Deputy Public Defender Arla Waller argued that the mandatory sentencing law Keating invoked is unconstitutional.
That law violates the prohibition against cruel and usual punishment set by the U.S. and state constitutions, Waller argued. She said it might not even be applicable because of the timing of Ward's case.
Bayley called the sentencing law "draconian." He scheduled a July hearing to see if it should be imposed.
Waller said state officials told her the 18-month-old mandate has not been used against any convicted sex offender by any Pennsylvania court.
Keating was livid at the postponement.
"This is outrageous. It's completely a delay tactic," he said afterward. "If they [thought] this statute didn't apply, why didn't they bring it up before his trial?"
A county jury convicted Ward in March on two felony counts of possession of child pornography and 45 charges of possessing obscene materials.
Ward was arrested in May 2006 on a tip from a minister who reported seeing photographs of teenage girls in provocative poses in Ward's Rana Villa Avenue home. The pastor said he also saw a 13-year-old girl arrive at the home for Ward to photograph, police said.
Authorities said videos of girls having sex and stripping were taken from Ward's home. Sex acts involving people and animals were depicted on other materials, Keating said.
He said Ward also had a "rape kit" that contained equipment for abducting and rendering victims helpless. Keating said Ward told authorities he sometimes used the alias "Jeffrey Dahmer," the name of the late cannibalistic serial killer who murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991.
When arrested in 2006, Ward was a registered sex offender.
In 2001, he pleaded guilty to a federal child porn possession charge and was sentenced to 27 months in prison, followed by two years of probation, Keating said.
Keating insisted that Ward's federal sentence should automatically trigger the state sentencing mandate.
Waller disputed that, cited her constitutional argument and claimed the sentencing law can't be applied to Ward because it didn't take effect until January 2007, seven months after his arrest.
Ward remains free on bail. ..News Source.. by MATT MILLER
May 2, 2008
CA- Long Beach Suspends New Residency Ordinance for Sex Offenders
5-2-2008 California:
LONG BEACH - The city has temporarily suspended enforcement of its new sex offender residency ordinance, according to attorneys representing about 25 sex offenders and property owners who had filed a claim opposing the ordinance.
Sarah Stockwell, a Fountain Valley defense attorney, said that City Attorney Robert Shannon informed her this morning of the policy change, which suggests "there may be some changes to (the ordinance) before they enforce it."
"It's a minor victory," Stockwell said. "It at least gives our clients and sex offenders as a whole a temporary sigh of relief."
As of 1 p.m., Shannon had not returned a phone call seeking comment.
Stockwell and two other defense attorneys filed the claim with the city last week asking that the law be amended.
The new ordinance builds on the statewide Jessica's Law, which prevents sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks. However, courts have ruled that Jessica's Law can only apply to sex offenders released from prison or jail since voters passed the law Nov. 7, 2006.
The Long Beach ordinance, which the City Council unanimously approved March 18, is broader and more limiting than Jessica's Law.
It creates 2,000-foot buffers around not only schools and parks, but also child-care centers and beaches. Furthermore, it limits the number of sex offenders who can live on a parcel of land, regardless of how many residential units there may be, to just one.
Under the law, most residentially zoned areas in Long Beach are now off-limits to sex offenders, and the ordinance affects all sex offenders, giving it the retroactive status that Jessica's Law doesn't have.
In their claim, the three defense attorneys say the ordinance is unconstitutional because of the retroactive penalties and because it may force sex offenders to sell their homes.
Also, the claim says that by prohibiting property owners and managers from renting to sex offenders, the city is asking them to violate state law.
Landlords would need to use the state Megan's Law Web site, which identifies many of California's sex offenders, in order to keep them out, but state law prohibits the site from being used to deny housing, the claim says.
The city has until June 7 to respond to the claim. If it doesn't, or it doesn't amend the law to the attorneys' satisfaction, then the attorneys plan to file a lawsuit and ask for a temporary restraining order to prevent the law from being enforced, Stockwell said. ..more.. by Paul Eakins
