2-22-2011 Colorado:
Legislators appear to have learned from last year's debacle in setting priorities for continuing a sex-offender oversight panel.
The state legislature has a chance this year to get it right when it comes to reauthorizing Colorado's highly regarded sex- offender management board.
Last year's misguided attempt, which included efforts to water down the board's power, was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Bill Ritter, and deservedly so.
Judging by the latest measure, which will be heard in committee this week, it seems state lawmakers are on the right track.
Created in 1992, Colorado's sex- offender management board was charged with providing statewide standards for the court-ordered treatment and management of convicted sex offenders.
The board's authority sunsets this year. The basic mission of House Bill 1138 is to reauthorize the board until 2020. But it's also notable for what it doesn't do.
Last year's debacle of a bill would have eliminated the so-called no- known-cure approach that has guided the management of offenders. Treatment is based on the belief that sexually abusive behavior is a compulsion.
This bill maintains that essential idea, but refines the language to include the proviso that through treatment, some offenders can recognize and manage the cycle of "unhealthy patterns" that lead to abuse. If so, they can be classified and monitored as lower-risk offenders.
It seems reasonable to acknowledge that some sex offenders are more dangerous than others, and tailoring the level of supervision to a reliable assessment of risk is appropriate.
Importantly, the legislation makes clear that the safety of victims and potential victims from physical or psychological harm is a priority.
In creating metrics for identification and evaluation of lower-risk offenders, the board must be vigilant in ensuring public safety.
Some other portions of the bill carried over from last year's bill are noncontroversial and appropriate, such as giving the state Department of Regulatory Affairs authority to investigate complaints against sex-offender treatment providers. That's appropriate.
Thankfully, this bill leaves out the element of last year's measure that was the fuse to the bill's implosion — the offender treatment choice option.
Remember that fiasco? Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, amended the bill at the last minute to let sex offenders pick their own treatment providers.
Foster used her soapbox to push for the change without telling anyone her brother-in-law, a sex offender, had been treated by one of the providers she publicly railed against.
Even worse, she later lied about it. When a Denver Post reporter asked Foster whether she had a relative who had gone through the Teaching Humane Existence Program, she said no. A week later, she changed her tune.
The amendment was an objectionable element of the measure that then-Gov. Ritter cited in vetoing the bill.
It is important this new bill, supported by the Colorado Department of Public Safety, makes it through the legislature with few, if any, changes.
Without such enabling legislation, the board will cease to exist. We hope lawmakers respect the history of this measure and the urgent need for its passage. ..Source.. EDITORIAL The Denver Post
February 22, 2011
Editorial: Right track on sex-offense law
June 5, 2009
Deadline extended for national sex offender registry compliance
6-5-2009 National:
BENNINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to extend a deadline for states to comply with federal sex offender registry requirements, something Vermont officials have been pushing for.
Compliance checks
The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it will extend the July compliance deadline contained in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, part of the Adam Walsh Act that was signed into law in 2006.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other members of Congress asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in March to consider such an extension because many states were having trouble complying with certain sex offender registry provisions.
The Adam Walsh Act requires full compliance within three years of the law's passage. But so far, no state has been able to meet the requirements mandated by SORNA.
And the registry and notification program requirements are costly for states that are facing growing budget concerns amid the economic downturn. States not in compliance faced financial penalties.
Leahy praised the Justice Department's decision. "Everyone wants to strengthen the tools and resources available to law enforcement to protect our children," he said. "Vermont and other states across the country are working to comply with the important provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This much-needed extension will provide needed time to meet those requirements."
State Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears, D-Bennington, said state officials have been working "very closely with Sen. Leahy's staff to try to get an extension." Even John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted, and the father of Adam Walsh, is in favor of the extension, Sears said.
The Vermont Legislature passed a law this year strengthening the state's sex offender registry, Sears said. The expansion of the registry will add more than 1,500 names to the list, and the home addresses of those convicted of certain sex crimes. But the state still does not meet all of the requirements of SORNA, Sears said.
"We did a lot of work, but recognized that we may need to make changes," he said. "I'm not sure how much we'll have to add to that," he said.
No state has been able to comply. In fact, Sears said, Nevada thought it had implemented the proper rules, only to have the state supreme court strike down its work.
Vermont and other states are pushing for new compliance rules to be written under the Obama administration's Justice Department.
"That really is the key focus point, working with the new attorney general to get the rules," Sears said.
The biggest hurdle for Vermont could be implementing the "level system," which requires sex offenders to be ranked based on the severity of their crime, according to Sears. Vermont uses three levels to rank sex offenders' risk of reoffending — low, moderate and high risk.
Sears said the federal system is problematic because "often times the crime doesn't indicate the risk to re-offend." Rather, someone who commits a lower-level sex crime could be more apt to commit the same or similar crime again.
"That's a concern from Vermont's point of view. We feel our system is a little better," he said. "We're hoping that we'll be able to meld the two together somehow." ..Source.. by NEAL P. GOSWAMI, Staff Writer
February 12, 2009
OH- Sex offender challenges state database
First we have federal probation agents construing the Adam Walsh Act. Congress ONLY permitted the USAG to construe AWA, hence interpretations of federal probation officers are illegal acts.
One needs to understand how the AWA actually interacts with state laws. There is nothing in AWA (SORNA Title-I only) that is applicable DIRECTLY to state registrants, in other words state registrants are not required to follow federal SORNA because it is not applicable to state registrants. AWA including SORNA (and the Guidelines as construed by the USAG) are parameters for state legislators to follow when conforming state laws to the wishes of Congress.
Once state legislators conform state laws to AWA, then and only then must state registrants follow STATE law as enacted by the state legislature. AWA is written so that state legislators DO NOT have to follow AWA -to the letter- only substantially, and the USAG says whether a state has met the substantial requirement, if not the state loses Byrne Grant money.
If a state choses not to follow AWA (i.e., Ohio doesn't require certain persons to register, see story), then those persons do not have to register. SImply said, if one lives in OHIO then they follow what OHIO has enacted, not what a third parties (federal probation officers) believes AWA says because they do not have the authority to interpret AWA, that authority is vested ONLY to the USAG. eAdvocate
2-12-2009 Ohio:
Federal probation officers are demanding that sex offenders in Ohio register their names with a state database even if the state doesn’t require it.
A Cincinnati man challenged the practice in a federal lawsuit Wednesday, claiming it was unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
The man, identified only as “John Doe” in the suit, was convicted of sexual battery in 1993 and completed his sentence for that crime in 1997. He currently is on federal probation for a drug offense.
The Ohio Justice & Policy Center sued on the offender’s behalf after his probation officer ordered him to place his name on Ohio’s registry of sex offenders, even though the state exempts him from the database because he served his sentence before the registry law took effect in the late 1990s.
The lawsuit says the registration requirement violates the offender’s rights and also is unconstitutional because it allows the federal government to trump a state law.
“There is no question he does not have to register under state law,” said Margie Slagle, an attorney with the Ohio Justice & Policy Center. “The feds think they can ignore Ohio’s wishes and make him register. It’s just bizarre.”
Federal officials declined comment Thursday. But a lawyer for Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis, who maintains the registry in Hamilton County, confirmed the county has been registering offenders at the request of federal probation officers.
“The bottom line is we have had guys showing up with an order from a probation officer saying, ‘I’m required to register,’” said Dave Stevenson, an assistant county prosecutor. “So we register them.”
He said the probation officers tell the offenders they must register under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which compiles state sex offender databases from across the country. Each state has its own rules, however, and Ohio’s exempts many offenders who committed crimes long ago.
Stevenson said Hamilton County has opted to register those offenders even though some other Ohio counties have refused.
Slagle said few offenders – maybe a dozen or so – were required to register under orders from the probation officers. But she said the practice should end because it is illegal and costly, especially in a county struggling with budget cuts and layoffs.
“The sheriff should not be wasting tax dollars chasing down offenders that the state of Ohio does not require them to chase,” Slagle said. “It’s a waste of money.” ..News Source.. by Dan Horn
December 5, 2008
WY- Bill would streamline sex offender registration
12-5-2008 Wyoming:
A proposed bill for the 2009 Legislature will streamline and close loopholes in the law for registered sex offenders, according to the draft passed by the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee on Thursday.
"We're satisfied," said Byron Oedekoven, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police.
"They took our suggestions to heart," Oedekoven said. "They added even clearer language."
While the proposed changes will not directly affect residents in neighborhoods where sex offenders live, they will clarify the process for registering and better conform to the federal Jacob Wetterling and Adam Walsh acts, he told the committee.
The federal laws were passed to manage sex offenders. Jacob Wetterling, 11, was kidnapped in Minnesota in 1989 and never seen again. In 1981, Adam Walsh was abducted from a store in Hollywood, Fla., and murdered. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act makes it a federal offense to fail to register as a convicted sex offender.
Wyoming also has drawn criticism for being a haven for offenders because of its lax registration laws, Oedekoven told the committee in September.
About 1,300 sex offenders are required to register in Wyoming and many of those do not have substantial ties to the state, he said then.
After strengthening the requirements in 2007, sex offenders lost interest in moving to Wyoming, Oedekoven said then.
But the law still had some problems, Oedekoven said Thursday.
-- The existing law stated convicted sex offenders either had three days or 10 days to register.
-- It could allow offenders to notify either the sheriff or the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation.
-- Laramie and Natrona counties notified by mail residents living within 750 feet of a sex offender, but sheriff's deputies in other counties notified residents by going door-to-door.
The proposed bill requires offenders to register with the sheriff's office within three working days from the time of their sentence or the time when they moved to the county of their residence. It also requires them to register in the counties outside the county of their residence where they work or attend school.
The three-day vs. 10-day requirement caused a problem in Goshen County, where an offender read the part of the law mentioning 10 days and registered after the three-day requirement, Oedekoven said later. The offender was not prosecuted for this violation, he added.
The requirement to register with the sheriff and not the DCI further streamlines the process, Kevin Smith of the DCI told the committee. "This will go after people who skirt registration by moving frequently."
It also saves the confusion of an offender being questioned by the sheriff when the offender thought he did the right thing by notifying the DCI.
The notification must be in person and not written, and the offender must be photographed, fingerprinted and palmprinted. The offender also must describe his vehicle and give the sheriff the license plate number, and give a DNA sample, according to the proposed bill.
After an offender registers with the sheriff, the sheriff notifies the DCI, which notifies the victim or the minor victim's family.
Offenders convicted of lesser sex crimes must report to the sheriff in person annually, and those convicted of more serious crimes with minors must report in person more frequently, according to the proposed bill.
The proposed bill also would allow counties options to notify residents.
The mail notification in Laramie and Natrona counties is working well, and other counties would like to do that, Oedekoven said.
The door-to-door notification, especially in rural areas, costs sheriff's offices money in overtime and in manpower, he said.
However, Rep. Keith Gingery, R-Jackson, said he personally had done door-to-door notification about sex offenders and believed people liked that because he could answer their questions.
Smith of the DCI responded that the state's Web site -- attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci -- has much of the information people want. ..News Source.. by TOM MORTON
Star-Tribune staff writer
