Remember the little phrase in Congressional bills "..and for other purposes," that we all wonder about, here is a perfect example.
5-16-2008 National:
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping emergency wartime funding package that includes restrictions on President Bush’s Iraq policy and provides tens of billions for new domestic programs.
The voice vote approval sets up a floor fight next week between the two parties over domestic priorities and the Iraq war on the eve of Congress’ one-week Memorial Day recess.
The package includes three separate amendments: $169 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through part of next year; more than $25 billion in new domestic spending; and language that sets a goal for the president to transition troops out of a military role in Iraq by June 2009.
The three different amendments will give Democrats who oppose the war an opportunity to vote for withdrawing troops without jeopardizing funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate is expected to ultimately reject the war policy amendment, which also includes a ban on permanent military bases in Iraq and language to give troops longer lag time in between troop deployments.
The chamber is anticipated to approve the troop-funding provision, but the prospects for the amendment adding domestic spending remain unclear.
Through a procedural maneuver, the bill would land on Bush’s desk as one bill. But the package first must clear the Senate and House, which earlier Thursday rejected a provision to spend $162 billion on the wars.
Bush has vowed to veto any bill that exceeds $178 billion for the wars through the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and for part of fiscal year 2009. He has called on Congress to keep the bill free of domestic add-ons, but Democrats are daring him to veto the bill at a time when a growing number of Americans are concerned about the economy and the direction of the country.
Republicans say Democrats are putting troops at risk by loading up the supplemental, which Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) characterized as “horse-blank.”
“What hogwash. Let’s all have a big laugh,” he said before mockingly laughing out loud.
“By the end of 2008, the war in Iraq will have cost over $600 billion,” the 90-year-old Byrd said in a scathing 30-minute opening statement. “More than $600 billion dollars for every minute since our lord Jesus Christ was born. That’s a staggering figure.”
A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in pushing to beef up the domestic spending in the supplemental measure, recognizing that the must-pass bill remains one of the few pieces of legislation likely to become law before November’s elections.
Still, the committee added some controversial provisions that could cost Democrats some GOP support and votes from the conservative wing of their caucus.
For instance, Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.
The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.
But critics say that it amounts to amnesty for people who entered the country illegally, and warn that it could imperil support for the underlying bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat who voted against the Feinstein-Craig amendment, said it raises a “red flag.”
He said he would wait until he sees the final product before determining whether to support the bill.
Other immigration measures were added as well, including one by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sought a three-year extension on a returning worker provision under H-2B visas, which she said was necessary to save seasonal businesses like seafood companies. That amendment has the support of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
“It could be the end of crab meat,” she warned if the amendment were to be rejected. It was added to the Iraq-funding portion of the bill.
By a 20-9 vote, the committee also approved an amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to increase low-income heating assistance by $1 billion.
The move prompted the ranking member of the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), to warn that a slew of amendments that were being added could lead to a White House veto.
“I think we are getting carried away here with the ease with which we are running up the bill,” Cochran said. “We’re turning this bill into a huge bill to force the administration to veto it.”
But Cochran and a number of other Republicans are strongly supportive of many other domestic spending items in the bill. Cochran, for instance, backs $10.4 billion for Gulf Coast recovery from the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A number of centrist Republicans and ones in tough races support a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, 11 Republicans are co-sponsoring a provision by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to expand educational benefits for veterans, many support a plan to delay seven Medicaid rules issued by the Bush administration and $400 million of the so-called Byrne grants for state and local law enforcement remains very popular with both parties.
Those provisions, as well as billions of dollars for military-construction projects, might be too tough politically for Republicans to vote against, Democrats hope. And in the committee markup, Republicans were not shy about adding more funding on the domestic side.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) won adoption of $50 million for an amendment to fund the Adam Walsh Act, a law aimed at tracking unregistered sex offenders. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) won adoption of a $100 million amendment to boost border security.
“I think what you saw today is a strong expression, bipartisan, from a number of people about our country addressing critical domestic issues,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, who is a member of Democratic leadership. “It’s now up to the full Senate to determine that.” ..more.. by The Hill
May 16, 2008
Senate panel approves Iraq war funding bill
April 29, 2008
Department of Justice Announces $11.8 Million to Help States and Tribal Governments Comply With Adam Walsh Act
4-29-2008 National:
WASHINGTON, April 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Department of Justice today announced more than $11.8 million in grants and assistance to state, local, and tribal governments to assist with developing or enhancing programs designed to implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. These awards are made through the Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program.
"Protecting our most vulnerable citizens from dangerous predators is an intrinsic duty," said Jeffrey L. Sedgwick, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. "These grants will provide states, units of local government, and tribal communities with the resources they need to protect communities and fully implement the Adam Walsh Act."
The grants are administered by the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART). Funding will be used to develop or enhance sex offender registration programs; improve law enforcement and other justice agency information sharing as it relates to sex offender registration and notification; develop or enhance local absconder apprehension efforts; collect, store, and analyze sex offender biometric and DNA data for investigative purposes; and implement other efforts aimed at furthering the objectives of SORNA.
The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006 and is designed to protect children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation and violent crime. The Act also aims to prevent child abuse and child pornography, promote Internet safety, and honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other crime victims. SORNA, Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, was enacted to protect the public from convicted sex offenders and offenders against children by establishing a comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders.
To further the Justice Department's efforts to assist state, local and tribal governments with the implementation of SORNA, the SMART Office will host its annual Symposium on Sex Offender Management and Accountability on July 30--August 1, 2008 in Baltimore. The 2008 Symposium will address a wide variety of topics relating to Sex Offender management and the implementation of the Adam Walsh Act. In addition, the Symposium will include specialized tracks focusing on policy, enforcement, emerging issues and Indian country issues. ..more..
March 14, 2008
House vote rejects cuts to law enforcement grants
3-14-2008 Washington D.C.:
Washington, D.C. - The budget approved by the U.S. House on a 212-207 vote Thursday rejected proposed administration cuts to law enforcement grants as well as changes in the program, said Rep. Dave Loebsack, a Mount Vernon Democrat.
Loebsack said the budget would provide full funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. In Iowa, the grant money is used for drug investigations, and Iowa law enforcement officials have been vocally unhappy in recent weeks about cutbacks.
House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said in a statement that Loebsack's testimony to the committee asking for more money for the grants "played a valuable role" in the committee's decision. The grants are important to local law enforcement officials as they fight drugs, Spratt said.
Full funding would mean the program would receive about $1 billion during the upcoming budget year, about the same as it received in 2005, congressional aides said. However, the budget is a blueprint and actual spending levels have yet to be determined.
President Bush's proposal eliminated all direct grants for the program and replaced them with $200 million in competitive grants, which would have pitted law enforcement agencies against each other and left Iowa $1.6 million short compared to previous allocations, aides said. The program has faced repeated cuts during the past five years.
The Byrne program is named for a rookie New York City police officer killed by drug dealers in 1998. ..more.. by Reporter Jane Norman can be reached at (202) 906-8137 or at jnorman@dmreg.com
March 2, 2008
NY- Substantial Byrne Grant Fund Losses, A Myth
Sex offenders
The House votes this week on a 2008 update to the child predator law, which would post a sex offender's place of employment or school on the Internet registry that now displays their name, photo and home address. Several sex offenders in Rockingham County have told this writer that House Bill 1640 would open them to ridicule and harassment at work if they could get a job.
Being on the current registry makes that hard, but not impossible, they say. The proposed law would subject their companies to boycott or worse. A vigilante might visit the office or warehouse looking for them and hurt somebody else by mistake.
Carolyn Lucet treats paroled sex offenders and said she has only had one patient return to prison on a new sex charge in her three decades as a clinician. She said anyone might Google the address of an employer and find out its name.
"Today some companies are willing to take a chance on hiring a sex offender," she said. "But not if protesters can target their business."
Lucet warned that a jobless offender is at risk of losing all their social supports. Cutting that tie would make them more dangerous.
"We need to base our public policy on research," Lucet said. "People are focused on all this feel-good legislation, but now we're seeing the start of a backlash against it."
She said several states have rejected parts of the Adam Walsh Act. Others are banning the new residency restrictions.
"We know that treatment works for sex offenders," Lucet said.
A subcommittee worked hard this summer on House Bill 1640 to comply with the federal Adam Walsh sex offender registry law to keep the state from losing what was thought to be $200,000 in federal Byrne law enforcement grants. The amount at stake is actually $56,000 for a state that gave up $3 million in federal funds to pilot test the federal Real ID program.
Governor Lynch underscored the moral issue at stake in a letter this week to Michael Chertoff, the secretary for Homeland Security. The governor urged the feds not to make New Hampshire join the Real ID program this spring as scheduled. Policy makers fear it would let "Big Brother" too easily keep tabs on the populace.
"New Hampshire and many other states across the nation have raised legitimate questions about privacy protection and the costs of Real ID," Lynch wrote. "To date, the federal government has ignored those real problems and barreled ahead with Real ID. We have a law that prohibits New Hampshire from taking part in this burdensome system and New Hampshire was right to reject it." ..more.. by Chris Dornin, of Golden Dome News, covers the Statehouse in Concord.
February 13, 2008
Sex offenders: How much do we need to know?
1-31-2008 Nebraska:
There's a scary amount of information about all of us out on the Internet. "Google" youself, and click through a few links, and you'll be amazed what might show up.
Web surfing turns into something more serious, however, when our safety and that of our family is involved.
But how much do we need to know to be safe? And where is the border between our right to know and other people's privacy?
It's tempting, when the other people are convicted sex offenders, to let their civil liberties fall by the wayside. That's what opponents to a bill by Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha, LB957, say would happen if the bill becomes law.
Nebraska already makes information about high-risk sex offenders, those considered likely to reoffend, available on the Nebraska State Patrol Sex Offender Registry at http://www.nsp.state.ne.us/sor/
Perform a search for McCook, for example, and you'll find seven such offenders, where and what they were convicted of, and their home addresses.
There's a warning on the home page: "Sex offender registry information shall not be used to retaliate against the registrants, their families, or their employers in any way. Vandalism, verbal or written threats of harm are illegal and will result in arrest and prosecution."
The proposal, however, would expand the online registry to include the name of everyone convicted of a sexual offense that carries a sentence of at least one year, and more information about them, including where they work.
A 10-year-old Lincoln boy's family testified in favor of the law, saying they never would have let him go to a convenience store if they had know a convicted sex offender worked there.
The same day the boy allegedly was assaulted, last October, the convenience store employee killed himself after learning the police were investigating him.
Col. Bryan Tuma, superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol, supports the bill, saying it would help create a nationwide registry of sex offenders. Now, a patchwork of laws makes it difficult to track registered sex offenders from one state to another.
If Nebraska doesn't pass the legislation, it could lose about $60,000 in federal funding.
Besides the current online registry, sex offenders can be prohibited by local government from living within 500 feet of a school or childcare center, and another bill would keep them from working within that distance.
Are more restrictions needed? Is it possible to rehabilitate sex offenders and how much differently should they be treated than other lawbreakers?
Whatever the Legislature's decision, the new measures should stand or fall on their own merit. The $60,000 in federal funding shouldn't be the determining factor. ..more.. by McCook Daily Gazette
Utah steps up sex-offender law, still short of federal compliance
1-28-2008 Utah:
Registered sex offenders will be listed longer and will be required to pay moderately higher fees under a proposed bill in the Legislature. The new requirements, however, are far less strict than a 2006 federal law demands.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 requires states to list juvenile sex offenders as young as 14 on the registry, to relist many offenders who have already fulfilled their obligations and to register people for crimes that were not previously registerable in their states.
States such as Ohio, which implemented many controversial elements of the Adam Walsh Act on Jan. 1, have already been challenged on constitutional grounds for the changes.
The deadline for compliance set by Congress is July 2009.
Utah Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clinton, said his bill, which is not yet numbered, will improve Utah's sex-offender monitoring system by implementing elements of the Adam Walsh Act but will not fully comply with it.
"We decided we're not going to go into full compliance," Ray said. "We're going to look at it over the summer, because we've been told to expect some changes to Adam Walsh."
Utah could lose as much as $400,000 if the federal government's deadline is enforced. For failure to comply, the act says, states will lose 10 percent of their Byrne Justice Assistance grants that they would otherwise receive.
Utah received $4.4 million in 2004, but according to the National Sheriff's Association, the Byrne grant fund was reduced in the most recent budget from $520 million to just $170 million.
If Utah's grants decrease as a result of the budget cut, its penalty would decrease, too.
Utah's Legislature may not be alone this year in its resistance to Adam Walsh Act compliance. The National Conference of State Legislatures' official policy regarding the act calls the law "an unfunded mandate," "inflexible" and, "in some cases, not able to be implemented."
The conference put forth 11 suggested amendments, asking the federal government to allow states more flexibility.
Ray said he will introduce a bill that will extend parole periods for sex offenders, which will in turn extend their time on Utah's sex-offender registry. His bill will not, however, ask Utah to list juveniles on the registry. Offenders who have already fulfilled their registration period also will not be relisted.
"If they're off the registry, as far as we're concerned, they've met their requirements," he said. "We're not going to go back and punish them a second time."
Offenders who are still in their 10-year registration period would be required to fulfill the new requirements, which may be longer than 10 years.
Ray said his bill will not add crimes to the list of registerable offenses.
Registered offenders' annual fee could increase from $75 to $100 per year.
Another Utah bill related to Adam Walsh directs the Division of Child and Family Services to eschew an estimated $500,000 in federal funds per year. The bill tells DCFS to place foster children with family during the time it takes to do a criminal background check.
The Adam Walsh Act instructs states to wait until the background check is complete before placing children with any foster parent, kin or otherwise.
Other laws regarding sex offenders that are not related to the Adam Walsh Act have been proposed in the Utah Legislature as well.
House Bill 265 asks for longer minimum sentencing options for three child sex crimes. Currently, violators of those laws can be sentenced to 15 years to life in prison, but that may jump to 25 years.
Utah currently has almost 7,000 registered sex offenders. More than half are no longer incarcerated, on probation or parole. ..more.. by Jesse Fruhwirth - STANDARD-EXAMINER
February 12, 2008
AG Miller: Attorney general’s criminal law proposals for 2008
Miller has called for stronger tools to stop Internet predators of children; more resources for drug treatment, enforcement and prevention; better laws to prevent domestic violence injury and homicides; and other measures.
2-11-2008 Iowa:
Des Moines. Attorney General Tom Miller has proposed nine criminal law legislative priorities that are under consideration by the Iowa Legislature. Many of the proposals have been working their way through the 2008 General Assembly.
“We have asked for measures including proposals to prevent and punish sex offenses against children,” Miller said, “and to prevent domestic violence injuries and murders.”
Another proposal is aimed at helping block the sale of guns to persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. “We never will prevent all disastrous murders such as we saw at Virginia Tech and the Omaha Von Maur store,” Miller said, “but this would be a step in the right direction.”
Miller also asked the Legislature to prohibit the possession of firearms by persons convicted of domestic abuse assault or persons who are subject to a domestic abuse no-contact order. For the last decade, about a dozen Iowans have been killed each year in domestic violence homicides – mostly by guns. The change would make Iowa law consistent with federal law.
Miller again appealed to the Legislature to strengthen drug treatment as a key means to reduce crime. “There is a very clear linkage between drugs and crime, and we can reduce crime if we provide more drug treatment.”
Miller’s proposal would increase funding for community substance abuse treatment by $7 million, expand funding for drug courts by $3 million, and fund effective after-school programs with $5 million. Miller also urged the Legislature to replace $2.7 million in expected losses of Federal funding for Iowa Drug Task Forces.
Summary of the Attorney General’s 2008 Criminal Law Legislative Proposals
Fund Drug Treatment to Reduce Crime:
1. Increase state funding in several key areas to deal with the problem of drug-related crime in Iowa, focusing particularly on increased funding for drug treatment and prevention.
(a) Expand Treatment ($7 Million). The Attorney General proposes an increase of $7 million to provide increased funding for community substance abuse treatment services. Increasing the money available for substance abuse treatment will reduce crime and make Iowans safer, because most crime is associated with drugs, and drug treatment is effective in reducing drug use.
(b) Expand Drug Courts ($3 Million). Drug court programs specially tailored to the specific needs of families, juveniles and adults in local communities have shown success in Iowa. Because these programs are proving their effectiveness, the state should ensure their continuation and expansion. The Attorney General proposes an increase of $3 million for this purpose.
(c) Fund After-School Prevention Programs ($5 million). Studies show that children are most at risk during unsupervised after-school hours. For example, in a study of American teens, the YMCA found that youth who are unsupervised after school are three times more likely to use drugs than their peers who are supervised. The Attorney General supports a proposal by the Iowa Afterschool Alliance for an increased appropriation of $5 million to fund the demonstrated need for effective after-school programs in Iowa.
Prevent and Punish Sex Offenses Especially Against Children:
2. Prosecute Internet predators for enticement.
Amend the “enticing” statute to facilitate prosecution of Internet predators who attempt to seduce children, but who do not know that they actually are communicating with investigators posing as children. Legislation is needed following the recent Hansen decision, which limited the use of this enforcement method.
===============================================
eAdvocate citing from the Hansen case: Apparently, the Hansen case looked at the TWO state statutes, one for enticing away and one for attempted enticing away. The court said:
On appeal, Hansen emphasizes the distinction between the substantive crime of enticing away a minor, as provided in section 710.10(2), and the crime attempted enticement, as provided in section 710.10(3). Given this distinction, Hansen alleges that the facts, which are largely undisputed, amount only to attempted enticement because no one was actually enticed away. More particularly, he urges:
absent a specific victim, either a minor under the age of sixteen or a person who defendant reasonably believed to be a minor under the age of sixteen, who, in fact, was enticed away by defendant’s conduct, there can not be a completed offense. If no one was enticed away . . . the offense was not completed, only attempted.
We lay the text of those two provisions out in full. Iowa Code section 710.10(2) provides that:
A person commits a class "D" felony when, without authority and with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor under the age of sixteen, the person entices away a minor under the age of sixteen, or entices away a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen.
Iowa Code section 710.10(3) provides that:
A person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when, without authority and with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor under the age of sixteen, the person attempts to entice away a minor under the age of sixteen, or attempts to entice away a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen.
(Emphasis added)
It is significant that the only difference between the two statutes is two words. Based on the language used in the statutes, the apparent intent of the legislature, and case law from our supreme court defining the parameters of the term entice, we agree, and conclude substantial evidence does not support Hansen’s conviction for enticing away a minor.
===============================================
3. Allow multiple charges for child pornography.
Amend the “sexual exploitation of minors” statute to allow multiple criminal charges against persons who possess multiple images of child pornography. The recent Muhlenbruck decision limited prosecution to a single charge when multiple child pornography files are found on a single computer. (This proposal now is an amendment to a bill sponsored by Rep. Deborah Berry.)
4. Prohibit sexual abuse by deception.
Amend the definition of “sexual abuse by deception” to include “deception as to the sexual nature of the act.” There have been several cases in which naive victims, typically minors, were persuaded to submit to fondling or other sexual contact by adults who claimed to be conducting “health examinations” or who used some other ruse. Such cases were successfully prosecuted before the recent Bolsinger decision, but now legislation is needed in the wake of that decision.
Prevent Domestic Violence Injury and Homicide:
5. Domestic violence offenders and possession firearms: Prohibit persons from possessing a firearm who (1) have been convicted of a domestic abuse assault, or (2) are the subject of a current pending domestic abuse no-contact order.
The measure would promote public safety and prevent death and injury in domestic violence cases. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by persons who have either been convicted of domestic abuse or ordered to avoid contact with a domestic abuse victim (following notice and a hearing.) However, a state law is needed to enable state and local authorities, who must deal with the vast majority of domestic violence cases, to enforce this prohibition. More than twenty states already have passed legislation mirroring provisions of the federal law. The bill passed the Senate last year in the first session of this General Assembly.
6. Define strangulation as a form of felonious assault.
After use of a gun, strangulation is the most common lethal method of domestic assault. Strangulation is common in domestic violence cases, and it has been identified as a prime indicator of the likelihood of murder. Ten percent of violent deaths each year are due to strangulation, and female victim outnumber male victims by 6 to 1.
But strangulation rarely can be prosecuted successfully at the felony level, unless death or a broken neck results. Defining assault by strangulation as a form of felonious assault and Class “C” felony would help, as has been done already in six other states. Strangulation would be defined as knowingly impeding the normal breathing or blood circulation of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck. This measure would strengthen domestic violence protection for victims by taking domestic abuse perpetrators out of the home before the situation escalates to murder.
Prevent Sale of Guns to Certain Persons:
7. This measure would help prohibit sale of guns to a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Federal law prohibits issuing permits to persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. The FBI maintains a list of persons of that status, and sellers of guns are required to check the federal data bank and refuse sales to persons on the list. However, following the Virginia Tech mass murders, examination of compliance showed that most states, including Iowa, do not send the FBI more than a small fraction of the names of those who should be disqualified from obtaining permits to possess a firearm. Legislation could help correct this, while preserving an efficient check system and still protecting the general confidentiality of mental health records. This measure would not prevent all disastrous murders, such as at Virginia Tech and the Omaha Von Maur store, for example, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Prevent and Prosecute Financial abuse of Older Iowans:
8. Create an Older-Iowan Financial Fraud Prosecution Unit in the Attorney General’s Office.
In a state with a large and growing elderly population, surprisingly few law enforcement resources are devoted to protecting a group that is specifically targeted for fraud -- and is vulnerable to fraud. The Attorney General’s Area Prosecutions Division has been successful in prosecuting several major cases in this category, but could do much more with a two-person team specializing in this area. The proposal would provide funding for an experienced prosecuting attorney, an experienced investigator, and related costs, at an appropriation of $230,000.
Replace Lost Federal Funds for Iowa’s Drug Task Forces:
9. Replace an expected $2.7 million loss in Federal Funds that have been used for statewide drug law enforcement efforts by Iowa’s Drug Task Forces.
For State Fiscal Year 2009, the federal government is anticipated to cut the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding for the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP), which is directed by Iowa statute to coordinate and monitor statewide drug enforcement efforts and substance-abuse prevention and treatment programs. Local Drug Task Forces under the ODCP framework have been instrumental in law enforcement efforts against drugs, and it is important to find state funds to replace the lost federal funds.
About $1 million of the cuts will affect local direct grants, and the other $2 million in cuts will affect state-coordinated grants via the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) to drug task forces, community drug and crime prevention initiatives, and offender treatment programs. The impact of cuts to Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding administered by ODCP will be the elimination of grants for 15 drug control programs across the state and 39 personnel working in those programs.
Byrne-JAG-supported drug task forces currently serve about three-quarters of the State of Iowa, providing communities with front-line protection against methamphetamine and other drugs. As it stands now, the anticipated federal cuts will severely harm the level of effort and scope of service of Iowa drug task forces. In SFY 2007, Byrne-JAG-supported Iowa drug task forces seized illegal and diverted drugs valued at more than $31 million dollars and netted over 2,000 criminal convictions. ..more.. by IowaPolitics.com
February 5, 2008
Budget takes aim at Justice earmarks
2-5-2008 National:
President Bush’s $22.7 billion fiscal 2009 budget proposal for the Justice Department aims to consolidate the department's state and local law enforcement assistance grants (Note: At the end of that link the Byrne grant for 2009 is only 200 million making passage of AWA by the states less likely) and includes boosts for FBI, counterterrorism activities and border security.
Overall, the budget represents a $350 million decrease from fiscal 2008. In addition, the Bush administration is requesting $931 million compared with $855 million for information-sharing technology that was included in the 2008 omnibus budget.
Department officials said in a press release that they hoped to replace $675 million worth of earmarks in the fiscal 2008 budget for state and local assistance with four new competitive grant programs. Officials say the new programs will total $1 billion in discretionary grants and the Office of Management and Budget’s DOJ budget summary states that these grants would consolidate more than 70 state and local law enforcement assistance programs that are worth more than $2 billion in spending.
The four new consolidated grant programs are:
• Violent Crime Reduction Partnership, worth $200 million.
• Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program, worth $200 million.
• Violence Against Women Program, worth $280 million.
• Child Safety and Juvenile Justice Program, worth $185 million.
The budget significantly decreases the funding for grants to state and local governments compared with the 2008 budget. For example, according to DOJ numbers, Congress allocated $2.4 billion to DOJ for state and local discretionary spending in 2008, while Bush is asking for just $800 million for fiscal 2009.
The administration is requesting $7.1 billion for the FBI -- including $235.5 million for operations that include efforts to tackle cybercrime -- about $450 million more than the bureau got in fiscal 2008 from Congress. Under the proposed budget, the FBI would also get an additional $28.4 million to update technology, central records management, field facility infrastructure and information technology disaster recovery.
The administration is also asking for nearly $50 million more than Congress gave Justice for fiscal 2008 to implement a nationwide Integrated Wireless Network — an upgrade that officials say is vital to national security.
The budget proposal calls for a 6 percent increase in spending on the department’s law enforcement and prosecution programs, including $492.7 million to improve DOJ’s counterterrorism and intelligence capabilities.
Bush seeks an additional $100 million in new resources to create the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative, which will focus DOJ efforts on the needs of that region. ..more.. by Ben Bain
January 23, 2008
Will states say 'no' to Adam Walsh Act?
1-23-2008 National:
Facing a 2009 deadline to comply with a controversial federal law intended to crack down on sex offenders, states are nearing a crossroads. They either must fall in line with the statute or ignore it and absorb the penalty — a 10-percent cut to their share of funds in a congressional grant program used to fight crime.
With most state legislatures reconvening this month, debate is likely to resume soon over the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in 2006.
The sweeping law, named after the murdered 6-year-old son of “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, requires states to adopt, by July next year, strict new standards for registering sex offenders and providing public information about their crimes and whereabouts. It calls on states to publish photos and addresses of sex offenders online and dramatically toughens criminal penalties for those who fail to register, among other provisions.
For months, however, state legislators across the country have criticized the law as a “one-size-fits-all approach” that does not give states enough time, money or flexibility to make the changes sought by the federal government.
Critics point out that the U.S. Justice Department has yet to issue final guidelines for states to follow, leaving them with roughly half the time originally allotted by Congress to comply with the act. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Matz, said the guidelines still are being evaluated internally.
Strenuous objections also have been raised by states and advocacy groups over some of the act’s provisions. One in particular has raised concern: a requirement that some juveniles as young as 14 be listed on states’ online sex-offender registries. Most states do not include juveniles on online registries, and juvenile-rights advocates say listing young offenders on the Internet could subject them to harassment or violence.
“You’re damaging their lives and not serving any public safety,” said Sarah Bryer, director of the National Juvenile Justice Network. Bryer said juvenile sex offenders can be rehabilitated and are not as likely as adults to repeat their crimes.
Citing those complaints and others, state lawmakers are questioning whether it makes sense to comply with the act by its 2009 deadline, if at all, said Donna Lyons, a criminal justice analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), an alliance representing the nation’s state legislators. The organization recently released a policy statement — approved unanimously by more than 7,000 state lawmakers — seeking congressional amendments to revise the act.
“States are looking at cost-benefit analyses and asking, ‘Is it worth the 10 percent we’re going to lose?’” Lyons said, referring to the penalty states would face for not complying with the act — a 10-percent reduction in criminal justice funding provided by the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
States use Byrne grants to pay for drug task forces, anti-gang units, police overtime and other law enforcement activities. But funding for the grant program itself was slashed by 67 percent — from $520 million last fiscal year to $170 million this year — in a $555 billion appropriations bill signed by Bush last month.
That deep cut has figured into state lawmakers’ thinking as they compare the costs of complying with the Adam Walsh Act with the costs of not complying, said Susan Parnas Frederick, senior committee director of NCSL's Law and Criminal Justice Committee in Washington.
“What’s 10 percent of nothing, anyway? Maybe we’ll just do what we’re doing, lose the 10 percent and not have to deal with all this garbage,” Frederick said.
At least six states — Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada and Ohio — last year revised sex-offender laws in an effort to comply with the act. The Justice Department rejected Louisiana’s efforts as not enough, and has yet to rule on the other states’ laws, many of which went into effect Jan. 1.
States found to “substantially comply” with the act by July of this year are eligible for extra federal dollars for sex offender management. Frederick said federal financial incentives may motivate states to comply with the act, despite many lawmakers’ objections.
Matz, of the U.S. Justice Department, noted that states can apply for a pair of one-year extensions under the act if they fail to comply by next year’s deadline. Extensions must be approved on a case-by-case basis by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
“We want to give people enough time. We want to be available for assistance,” Matz said.
In Ohio, legal challenges to the state’s three-week-old law already are mounting. Lawyers have challenged a provision of the law making new registration rules retroactive to old cases — another requirement under the Adam Walsh Act. The state recently sent notices to thousands of sex offenders informing them of new registration obligations.
Jon Paul Rion, a Dayton criminal defense attorney whose firm is representing more than 35 sex offenders with challenges to the new law, told Stateline.org the provision for retroactivity violates constitutional guarantees by imposing punishments beyond those originally handed down by courts.
But the Ohio attorney general’s office, which helped craft the state’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, has stood by the law, claiming that registration is not criminal punishment, but a civil regulatory measure that enhances public safety. ..more.. by John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer
January 21, 2008
Extortion can't save kids
1-21-2008 National:
WASHINGTON: As state legislatures open 2008 sessions, lawmakers will need to decide whether to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act on sex offenders or lose federal money for law enforcement. The choice for states is to dramatically increase their registration and community notification requirements for convicted sex offenders by 2009 or lose significant federal law enforcement grant money.
It doesn't seem like a difficult choice. Who wouldn't want to support laws targeting convicted sex offenders and be paid for it? Yet legislatures from Arizona to Illinois to Rhode Island are leaning against implementing the law. Because once you get past the painful emotions and look hard at the problem of child sexual abuse, it turns out that sex offender registration and community notification laws might not actually prevent sexual violence.
Sex offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not reoffend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex offense convictions.The Adam Walsh Act doesn't tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children age 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat child sex offenders differently than adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that child sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation — and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor's veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.
In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.
The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.
Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law — but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.And there are other costs to implementing the act. Subjecting convicted sex offenders to community notification for the rest of their lives may do great harm — both to the individuals and to community safety. Offenders included on online sex offender registries endure shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment and even vigilante violence. Their families suffer as well.
Unnecessarily expansive community notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, ''No one believes I can change, so why even try?''
Every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. Promoting public safety by holding offenders accountable and by instituting effective crime prevention measures is a core governmental obligation. But states can address the real problem of sexual violence by refusing to adopt the Adam Walsh Act — and then limiting their registration and community notification laws to individuals identified as posing a real risk to the community. ..more.. by Sarah Tofte, Human Rights Watch
October 28, 2007
New sex-offender law faces opposition
A three-tiered ranking system takes effect Thursday.
10-28-2007 Oklahoma:
New restrictions for sex offenders -- including a three-level ranking system that designates how long they must register -- take effect Thursday.
However, some of those who are on the front lines dealing with sex offenders believe that Oklahoma's law is having an adverse effect and needs further changes.
''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,'' said Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team.
Lopp is also a member of the review board established by the new law to categorize the sex offenders into three levels.
''I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''
Categorizing offenders: Lawmakers changed the state law to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act, said Jim Rabon, who oversees sex offender registration for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
What the federal law calls a ''tier system,'' the new state law calls a ''numeric risk level.'' The risk level is determined by the type and severity of crime for which the offender was convicted and the number of convictions that person has, he said.
Level One offenders will register for 15 years; Level Two offenders will register for 25 years; and Level Three offenders will register for life.
As in the previous version of the law, those who are categorized as ''aggravated'' or ''habitual'' sex offenders will also be required to register for life.
Rabon said the committee that set up the levels reviewed cases of people beginning prison and probation between July 2006 and June 2007 and determined that most sex offenders fall into the highest risk category.
The review revealed that 78 percent of the sex offenders fall in Level Three, 3 percent in Level Two and 19 percent in Level One.
Based on those numbers, Tulsa Police Sgt. Gary Stansill, who has spent more than 20 years investigating sex crimes in Tulsa, said he believes that the Oklahoma law is too broad.
Under the law, he said, an 18-year-old who is convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 15-year-old and someone who is convicted of groping an officer during an undercover sting would both be registered sex offenders for life.
''The least number of people should be in the worst tier, but the most number of people are going to be in the worst tier under the new law,'' Stansill said.
Federal law mandates that any state that does not adapt to the Adam Walsh Act will receive up to a 10 percent reduction in federal grant money. Based on past funding, that might amount to a loss of about $200,000 to $300,000 for Oklahoma, Rabon said.
The loss in funding is part of the reason the state has moved to comply with the federal law, he said. Another reason is consistency.
''We do recognize that if all of the states' registration systems are similar, that does make it easier to track offenders when they move from state to state,'' Rabon said.
He said it is important that people realize that Oklahoma has what he believes is one of the best sex offender registration systems in the country.
By that, he means a lot of information is available on the Department of Corrections Web site that is easy for the public to access and local law enforcement agencies to update. He said Oklahoma has a low percentage of delinquent offenders compared to other states.
The residency debate: Lopp said he doesn't believe that the offense-based assessment is the the best way to categorize offenders. He thinks a tiered system is a step in the right direction but that it should be based on the risk of the individual.
Some states have refused federal funds so they can continue to develop risk-based assessments, he said.
A risk-based assessment could then correspond with the residency restrictions, which have created headaches for law enforcement agencies across the country.
Stansill said residency restrictions have driven sex offenders underground in Tulsa.
The controversial state law that went into effect last year has put 90 percent of the city off limits for sex offenders by prohibiting them from living within 2,000 feet of playgrounds, parks or child-care facilities. They were already prohibited from living within that distance of a school.
The new law does loosen the residency restrictions slightly by specifying that offenders are precluded from living near only child-care centers -- and not including day-care homes, which are numerous.
Before the residency laws, Tulsa had about 540 registered sex offenders at the peak.
As of Sept. 20, 329 were registered here, Stansill said.
''If I really thought it would really do some good, then I would be all for it (the residency restrictions). Then we could focus on the people who don't want to register -- who have no good excuse for not registering -- because they are the people who are likely to be re-offending.''
The new law that takes effect Thursday requires police to register sex offenders even if the offenders intend to move into restricted areas. Previously, Tulsa police would tell an offender to look for another place to live and then come back to register.
''If I register those people, does that give them the right to live there?" Stansill questioned. "Or are we supposed to register them and turn about and work a case against them for violating the residency law?''
Stansill said sex crimes detectives are already overloaded with sex offender law violation cases.
From 2006 to 2007 Tulsa police have investigated 228 sex offender registration violation cases. During the same time period, they investigated 275 rape cases.
Forcing offenders to move from place to place because of residency laws could do more harm than good, Lopp said.
''When you keep making these people move, you are disrupting their stability; you are disrupting their jobs; you are causing an immense amount of stress on that population,'' Lopp said.
''What do we know about re-offense? Stress, job instability, living instability increase the chance of re-offense.''
Authorities say research shows that where sex offenders live is not a factor -- that most of them know their victims and that attacks often occur in the victims' own homes. But Rabon said there is more than one side to the argument about residency restrictions.
''The other side of that is that between the DOC and all of the local law enforcement agencies, . . . everybody works hard trying to locate them and keep the addresses current,'' he said.
That results in Oklahoma having a high rate of compliance, Rabon said. Of 5,462 registered sex offenders statewide, 870 are classified as delinquent, meaning their locations are unknown.
''When the residency restriction went into effect, we saw the delinquent number bump up a little bit, not a huge number,'' he said.
Meanwhile, Lopp hopes the committee works to encourage state and federal legislators to change the laws to make them more effective.
''What ultimately is going to have to happen to change this law is the community is going to have to get in touch with legislators and tell them, "This is not helping; this is making things worse,' " Lopp said.
September 17, 2007
Federal funding comes with strings attached
9-15-2007 Arizona:
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution never has been amended or revoked:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
However, this brief and powerful declaration has been rendered almost meaningless as Congress and the federal bureaucracy seem able to reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is the addiction of states to federal tax dollars.
Congress frequently offers million of dollars to entice state governments to carry out new policies. Over time, states have become completely dependent on these cash transfers and wouldn’t know how to operate without them. Earlier this year, the governor and the Legislature debated for months on how to use $10.6 billion in state taxes. In truth, the state will spend more than $26 billion this fiscal year, with nearly $12.9 billion coming from the federal government.
With the states hooked, the federal government now can dictate almost anything and the states generally go along to keep the money spigot flowing. Arizona wants its $500 million in federal highway dollars? Then the state must have a mandatory seat belt law. Arizona can’t get by without $40 million in federal funds that makes up two-thirds of its child enforcement budget? Then the state had better turn over employment records and other “private” information about its residents.
Only rarely does a politician step forward to defend the principle of federalism enshrined in the 10th Amendment and point out that states have ceded too much to Washington for this cash. One of those occasions happened last week when Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, suggested Arizona ignore a federal mandate to participate in a national sex offender registration program.
In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act to require all states join the national database and to dictate how every state provide key details to the public. It just so happens the federal law conflicts with changes made earlier this year by the Arizona Legislature to treat some underage sexual offenders differently than adults.
State lawmakers recognized that lifetime registration and probation requirements were unduly harsh when applied to juvenile, immature experimentation. In some cases, juveniles were forced to receive “counseling” alongside adults in a manner more likely to turn the teens into predators themselves.
The 10th Amendment says states should decide on their own how or when to join a national registration program. But the Adam Walsh act threatens to take away federal money for combating drug smugglers if states don’t follow the federal rules. For Arizona, that would amount to more than $1 million if we don’t comply by July.
Johnson fought long to get her colleagues to look beyond their natural disgust for sex offenders to see some juvenile cases in a different light. She doesn’t want that hard work to be undermined by a inflexible federal law.
We have disagreed with some of Johnson’s stances on other issues related to questions of federalism. But we wish her well this time as she tries to convince other state officials to walk away from the federal money pushers. ..more.. by Tribune Editorial
