Arciero files bill on sex offenders

Another new lawmaker who has succumb to the Political Hype that AWA (SORNA as to registrants) will protect communities. SORNA is nothing more than a "Address Book" w/pictures and a lawmaker's belief that one registrant is more of a risk than another to the community. The public needs to face the reality of what all registries are, and Address Book which -at best- tells you where a person sleeps for a few hours of the day/night. Day after day you read stories of NEW SEX OFFENDERS committing NEW OFFENSES, how is the registry protecting you from that? It isn't and cannot, and that is where the threat is, new offenders, not former offenders. WAKE UP, take the time to analyze what the registry truely accomplishes, it make you feel safe, and false sense of security. One thing it does accomplish, that is, it sucks your pocket book dry supporting false political beliefs.

3-6-2011 Massachusetts:

Westford — State Rep. James Arciero filed legislation on Feb. 4 to that would make information about Level 2 sex offenders available online.

The legislation would bring it into compliance with a federal act and allow the state to access a significant source of funding.

“This will be my top public safety priority in the upcoming legislative session. This simple act will move us forward in protecting families and children in our neighborhoods,” said Arciero, who sponsored similar legislation last year with former state Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, who recently became Worcester County Sheriff. “Level 2 offenders are dangerous people and we need to have all the tools available to protect our communities.”

Laurie Myers, president and founder of Community Voices, said the bill would ensure the most current information regarding sex offenders is available to the general public via the Internet.

“The safety of my community doesn't end at the town line. As parents we travel to different communities with our children and should have access to the information without having to visit the police department to fill out a form every time we want it. Sex offenders use the Internet to prey on children, it only makes sense that parents be allowed to use it to keep our communities safe." said Myers.

Community Voices is a citizens group founded in 2004 dedicated to supporting, advocating and representing victims and survivors of crime; and specializes in sexual assault and Internet safety. Her group is supporting the passage of the measure.

The legislation will bring Massachusetts in compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and enable the state to access Byrne Formula Grant funding. The act organizes sex offender categories into three tiers, requiring tier one adults to register for 15 years, tier two for 25 years, and tier three for a lifetime.

By complying with the Adam Walsh Act, Massachusetts could gain $600,000 in public safety funding, according to Arciero.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board is charged with determining the danger level associated with a sex offender’s crime and proclivity to re-offend. Level 1offenders are deemed to have a low risk of re-offending. Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk--their crimes are considered a danger to the public, but information is available to the public only at the local police department. Level 3 denotes offenders whose crimes pose the greatest risk to public safety and are highly likely to re-offend. Their information is available on-line to all interested individuals.

In order to build the necessary support for passage of the measure on Beacon Hill, Arciero won the support of local and county officials.

“The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board deems Level 2 sex offenders dangerous, yet members of the public cannot easily access information about their whereabouts,” said Middlesex Sheriff Peter J. Koutoujian. “Rep. James Arciero’s legislation is a common-sense measure to increase public safety by making such information readily available. I applaud him for his leadership on this issue.”

Littleton Police Chief John Kelly said “I believe it is one of our fundamental responsibilities, as a society, to protect our children and those that have and may be victimized by sexually deviant perpetrators. The foremost proactive manner in which to do this is through information and education and this proposed legislation will do just that, allow us to make additional safeguarding information available to those we serve. Rep. Arciero’s legislation will make Massachusetts compliant with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.”

Chelmsford Police Chief James Murphy said making Level 2 sex offender information more widely available to the general public would be a public safety benefit.

Westford Police Chief Thomas McEnaney noted that the issue was a major public safety concern last year in his town.

“Last year, we had a situation in which several residents were concerned that sex offender information available from other states’ monitoring systems was better than that which could be obtained from the Massachusetts’ system. I am hopeful that we can move in the direction of greater awareness of potentially dangerous individuals so that citizens can take the necessary precautions for themselves and their families” he said.

In 2009, a Level 2 sex offender living in Westford’s Forge Village section was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl. Charges were dropped for lack of evidence, according to police, but the court case raised awareness among residents about the difficulties in obtaining information. After delving into the offender’s background, a group of residents discovered that he had been convicted of a sexual offense in Florida. While his information was available online from that state, similar information was not available in Massachusetts. Residents contacted Arciero who helped to organize a public forum. One outcome was a decision to file legislation making it legal to post the names of Level 2 offenders online.

Enactment of the law would result in savings to taxpayers by eliminating many of the proceedings regarding changing classification, according to Arciero.

The measure has over 36 legislative co-sponsors and will now be assigned to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. A public hearing is expected to take place within a few months, Arciero said.

“With the support of members from both the House and Senate and backing from both Republican and Democratic members, I think we can put together a strong bipartisan and bicameral coalition to get the necessary votes to make this happen.” Arciero said. ..Source.. Editor’s Note: This story was written and submitted by the office of Rep. James Arciero.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee Report: "Do Not Implement the Adam Walsh Act"

1-13-2011 Texas:

Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee Report: "Do Not Implement the Adam Walsh Act." That is the recommendation and in spite of the loss which would be $1,404,571, where as the cost is assessed at $38,771,924.

The question now is, will all Texas lawmakers agree? The major portion of the report on sex offenders begins on this page.

Quote From Report:

Study the efficiency and fairness of the current sexual offender registry system and make recommendations to improve the system, if necessary. Study the issue of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, focusing on the associated costs to the state and the punishment of juveniles. Examine the risk assessment tools used to measure the likelihood of recidivism among sexual predators.

Sex offenses are very serious crimes. There is no debate over whether violent and dangerous people should be punished monitored extensively. However like with most issues there are levels and gray areas. In addition there are limited resources to address all of the issues facing the state today. However, it is important to emphasis the fact that high cost does not negate public safety measures. Extensive research has been done on sex offenders and the affects of registration and other sanctions. Based on the research, the testimony provided during the hearing, it is clear registries do not provide the public safety, definitely not the way it is now. Add this to the recent stories in the media highlighting some of the issues and concerns it is the recommendation of this committee to:

1. Repeal Article 62.402 (A) and (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable Texas not to be bound to the federal minimum for registration requirements.

2. Establish a minimum standard for registration requirements, which include the current process for deregistration for those approved by the CSOT.

3. Not to implement AWA.

4. Require that all registered sex offenders have risk assessments done.

5. Continue working to improve communication between states regarding registered sex offenders who present a significant risk to community safety.

The full report can be found here: by Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA-States resisting Adam Walsh Act

7-10-2010 California:

California, 46 others argue law is flawed

SACRAMENTO — It was milestone legislation hailed at the White House, the culmination of an exhaustive campaign by bereaved parents to help prevent future abductions and murders of children.

Yet, nearly four years after the Adam Walsh Act was signed by then-President George W. Bush, California and 46 other states have refused to follow through and implement the law, despite its potential political appeal and the threat of losing federal funding for noncompliance.

By continuing to balk, cash-short California risks losing $5.6 million annually from the Justice Department as well as another $22.5 million in a one-time grant to be received in 2010-2011, according to the state Department of Finance.

However, it would cost the state even more — $32 million a year — to carry out the law that the state believes is flawed, officials here argue.

“California is smart to step back and say there are more costs than benefits. ... So far, pretty much everyone seems to understand this is a bad idea,” said Robert Coombs, a member of California’s Sex Offender Management Board, which has long contended the state is better off sticking with its own aggressive measures and registration policies. ..For Rest of Story.. by Michael Gardner

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Effort to Track Sex Offenders Prompts States’ Resistance

Please pay particular attention to comments made by John Walsh which imply that, a registration law such as The Adam Walsh Act would have prevented the murderous acts of Joseph E. Duncan III, is not recognizing that, tracking follows criminals and does nothing to prevent such acts. All former offenders but one of the high profile offenders who committed murderous acts were properly registered according to the law of the day, and still murdered someone. As long as lawmakers think tracking will prevent crimes, there will be another such crime someday. PREVENTION is absent in all registration laws and that is why they do not work.

2-8-2009 National:

An aggressive federal effort to keep track of sexual offenders is at risk of collapse because of objections from states and legal challenges from sex offenders and others.

The effort, approved by Congress three years ago, requires all states to adopt strict standards for registering sex offenders and is meant to prevent offenders from eluding the authorities, especially when they move out of state.

The law followed several heinous crimes by sex offenders on the run, including Joseph E. Duncan III, who in 2005 fled North Dakota, where he had been registered, and committed sex crimes and murder in three states, ending with the torture and killing of a 9-year-old boy in Montana.

An estimated 100,000 sex offenders are not living where they are registered, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which collects the data from the states and provides it to the United States Marshals Service and other federal agencies.

But officials in many states complain about the law’s cost and, in some instances, contend their laws are more effective than the federal one. The states also suggest that the federal requirements violate their right to set their own policies and therefore may be unconstitutional, at least in part.

Despite a looming July deadline, no state has been deemed compliant with the law, and some are leaning toward ignoring major requirements. As a result, one of the toughest child-protection initiatives in the nation’s history is languishing.

“We support the intent, and I’m sure every one of my attorney general colleagues supports the intent,” said Mark J. Bennett, the attorney general of Hawaii. “But we believed we couldn’t follow every single provision because, legally and practically, some of the provisions didn’t make sense.”

Some sex offenders and civil liberties groups have also taken court action to block the law’s provisions. In Ohio, a man convicted 15 years ago of “gross sexual imposition” involving a teenage girl is challenging the requirement that he remain on the state’s registry of sex offenders for the rest of his life, instead of the 10 years previously required by Ohio law.

“That’s not what I want my children to grow up with,” said the man, Darren L. Coey, 35.

Members of Congress say they may try to address some of the problems with the law. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said through a spokeswoman that he planned “to determine whether revisions and improvements can strengthen compliance, and then to quickly make whatever changes may be needed.”

While some of the law’s backers acknowledge that the states have legitimate concerns, they remain fundamentally committed to the law, and suggest that the delays leave a patchwork of differing state laws that keep children unnecessarily vulnerable to predators.

Even with the spotty compliance and shortcomings, supporters say, the law has reaped benefits. Since its passage, the Marshals Service has brought charges against 615 sex offenders for failing to register or update their registration, an agency spokesman said.

“The single most important thing about it was creating a more consistent, uniform process across the country,” said Ernest E. Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an advocacy group. “There are a lot of states that really don’t know where these guys are.”

The law, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act — named for a 6-year-old boy whose abduction and murder in 1981 changed how law enforcement agencies look for missing children — makes it a federal felony to fail to reregister as a sex offender after moving to another state and requires states to toughen their penalties, now often misdemeanors, for failing to register at all.

It also requires offenders deemed especially dangerous to register for life and to renew their registration, usually in person, four times a year. In addition, the law expands the number of crimes for which sex offenders must register and requires states to collect more of their personal information and post much of it publicly.

But legal challenges have been mounted over requirements that juvenile sex offenders appear on public registries, possibly for life, despite research suggesting that young offenders are less likely to commit sex crimes later in life than older offenders.

Other lawsuits have challenged the requirement that adults whose crimes were committed before the law’s passage appear on public registries for longer than they had been led to expect. Some lawyers say that amounts to changing an offender’s penalty after the fact, a potential constitutional breach.

There are also concerns that the law does not take into account the individual circumstances of each sex offender, including the likelihood of committing more crimes. Instead, it lumps all offenders into broad levels of dangerousness based on the crime for which they were convicted, allowing, the law’s critics say, the worst offenders to blend in with less threatening ones.

John Walsh, Adam’s father and the host of the television show “America’s Most Wanted,” said the law was vital to monitoring sex offenders but suggested Congress postpone the compliance deadline. Mr. Walsh said the many obstacles — most recently the recession, which has made it tough for some states to pay for the law’s provisions — need more time to be worked out.

He warned, however, that delays come with a cost. Criminals like Mr. Duncan, who has been sentenced to death, are glaring examples of why the law must succeed, he said.

“As long as it isn’t fully funded and implemented,” Mr. Walsh said, “the bad guys can still float through the country and commit horrible crimes.”

States can ask to extend the July deadline for one or two years, and officials at the Justice Department, which oversees state compliance with the law, said they had granted seven such requests.

According to the Justice Department, 20 states have sent materials for review, though in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Andrew J. Harris, an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Massachusetts, the department said in December that only Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana and Ohio had tried to fully comply.

States that do not fully comply stand to lose part of their federal crime prevention grants. But the grants have shrunk in recent years — they currently range from $281,000 to $1.1 million a year, based on a state’s size — and many states have calculated that losing the money would be far less expensive than meeting the law’s requirements.

Most states overhauled how they monitor offenders in the 1990s, after federal initiatives like Megan’s Law created general requirements for registering offenders and making information about them public. Many states complain that the new federal law disrupts and even clashes with their own carefully created policies for managing sex offenders.

“It’s this point in history where states have had many years of developing systems that they feel are working pretty well, and they look at this as a bit of a step backwards,” said Mr. Harris, who studies sex offender laws.

For example, opponents say, the federal law’s requirement that offenders update their information in person as many as four times a year makes no sense in rural states where they would have to travel great distances.

“That is a huge problem,” said Richard Svobodny, deputy attorney general of Alaska. “We have people who live in the village of Eek, Alaska, who would have to fly hundreds of miles to comply.”

Some top state law enforcement officials said they supported the law in spirit but were shocked by the statutory changes it demands, which some estimated would result in an utter rewrite of their state criminal codes.

“It would shut the justice system down to do this,” said Buddy Caldwell, the attorney general of Louisiana, a state whose effort to comply with the law last year was rejected by the Justice Department as inadequate. “And to be quite honest with you, it’s bordering on the ridiculous.”

In California, officials have estimated that even an “incomplete list” of costs to meet the federal act would be more than $38 million for efforts that include additional records checks, more frequent reporting to local law enforcement agencies and reclassifying current offenders.

The legal backlash has also been widespread.

In Nevada, which passed sweeping legislation in 2007 meant to bring the state into compliance, the public defender’s office in Clark County filed suit on grounds that the juvenile requirements went too far. The case is pending in the State Supreme Court.

In a separate Nevada case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal district judge invalidated the state’s attempt at compliance in September on the ground that it violated constitutional protections against retroactive laws.

The judge also found that the law violated both the constitutional right to due process, because it did not give sex offenders notice of changes to their registration status, and the contracts clause of the Constitution, because it changed the terms of plea agreements. Compliance in Nevada is delayed while its appeal is pending.

In Florida and other states, some federal judges have found that the federal government does not have the authority to punish sex offenders who fail to register as required under federal law. These judges have ruled that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, such punishment is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. The rulings are under appeal.

Concerns over the retroactive requirements of the law set off thousands of legal challenges in Ohio, which has tried unsuccessfully to comply, passing legislation in 2007 that included provisions requiring many offenders to stay on the state’s registry longer than expected.

Many such offenders were originally told that they would be on the registry for 10 years, but will now be on it for life. They include Mr. Coey, the convicted offender who has asked a court to block the requirement, and who, with help from the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, earlier succeeded in fighting a residency restriction barring him from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

Mr. Coey planned to marry Crystal Mullins, the mother of his two young children, once he was off the registry.

“I’ve reached my limit with the changing laws,” Mr. Coey said. “I can accept that it was my decision that put my name on a list, but it’s not Crystal’s fault. I can’t do this to them if I’m going to be on that list for life.” ..News Source.. by ABBY GOODNOUGH and MONICA DAVEY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CO- Sex-convict database perplexes

9-22-2008 Colorado:

When President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act into law, it required states to contribute to a national database of sex offenders with more current and stringent registration requirements.

But states and American Indian tribes are having a tough time implementing some of the requirements of the 2006 law — such as making the names and addresses of juvenile sex offenders available on the Internet.

In Colorado, officials have met for more than a year to decide whether to comply with the Adam Walsh Act by July or lose $240,000 in federal funding.

And it may be worth losing the money since it could cost more to fulfill the law's requirements.

"I think at this point, the committee has not reached a final conclusion," said Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, program director of Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board. "We are looking at the fact that this is an unfunded mandate. The other issue is that the committee and the state are committed to doing what is best for safety and victim protection. And looking at this act, is it going to further the cause?"

The Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that promotes alternatives to prison incarceration, has estimated that the law would cost Colorado $7.8 million to implement.

Lobanov-Rostovsky said that figure sounds too high — unless it figures in the cost to all local law enforcement statewide — but he has not come up with his own cost estimate yet.

This fall, the committee is expected to present a preliminary recommendation to Gov. Bill Ritter to decide on compliance.

"The money is not necessarily there, and does it make sense above and beyond that even if the money were there?" Lobanov-Rostovsky asked.

The Adam Walsh Act was named after a 6-year-old Florida boy who was kidnapped and murdered in 1981. His father is John Walsh, host of television's "America's Most Wanted."

Under the law, sex offenders classified as the highest risk must update their registration every three months for life or face felony prosecution.

The Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office has filed seven cases against people charged with failing to follow the restrictions of the Adam Walsh Act — most recently, the case against Alden Yelloweagle, a 49-year- old sex offender from Montezuma County.

In 2005, Yelloweagle was convicted of abusive sexual contact and was ordered to serve a year and a day in federal prison. When he got out, Yelloweagle was instructed to register with the Montezuma County Sheriff's Office and did, but he failed to re-register as required under the law, according to court records.

Yelloweagle faces up to 10 years in federal prison if he is convicted, more time for failing to re-register than he got for his original conviction.

Erin Runnion, whose 5-year- old daughter Samantha was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and killed in California in 2002, says it is absolutely essential to complete the national database.

"By and large, once convicted, sex offenders move, and they move a lot," Runnion said. "And if sex offenders move, they are going to states where states don't keep on track, so the interstate communication is absolutely critical to knowing where they are."

Runnion says states can apply for grants through the Department of Justice's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking.

She also said citizens should get involved.

"They can and they should write to their congressmen and senators," she said. "Tell them, 'You passed it. Now fund it.' Give states the appropriations they need to come into compliance with the registry."

The law not only mandates an updated national database, it also requires classification of sex offenders based on their conviction.

In Colorado, sex offenders are classified based on risk to the community. And not all states have the same charges or same coding for offenses, but they all have to become uniform under the act.

For example, Colorado does not have a specific charge that identifies an offender whose victim was under age 12.

"We would have to shift over to a charge-based system," Lobanov-Rostovsky said. "We would have to change our sexual-assault statutes, and those are some of the challenges."

Also under the law, American Indian tribes were forced to decide whether to let states take over registration of sex offenders or get their own databases in compliance with the national system.

"A lot of these policies are drawn and dictated out with American Indians," said Janelle Doughty, director of the Department of Justice and Regulatory Affairs for the Southern Ute tribe. "We are used to it. Tribes really do not get consulted at all. Congress passes a law, and we have to figure out how we are going to be proactive and make it work."

Doughty says there are federal grant funds available to tribes, but the money may not stretch far enough.

The Southern Ute Indians decided to maintain their own database and purchased computer software without grant funding, she said.

One of the biggest controversies for states to deal with is whether to upload information about juvenile sex offenders into the database, such as their address, the school they attend and a photograph.

Currently in Colorado, information on juvenile sex offenders can be obtained from individual police departments that keep the registration on file or by ordering the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's CD-ROM of sex offenders.

But the public cannot access information about juveniles in Colorado on the Internet.

"The legislature felt that juvenile offenders should be given a second chance and not identified in such a public way," said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety.

Nastassia Walsh, a research assistant at the Justice Policy Institute who analyzed the costs and requirements of the Adam Walsh Act, strongly opposes juveniles being listed on the national database.

"We are extremely disturbed that we could be putting kids as young as 14 on this database," she said. "What we would like instead is for people on the registry not to get this sort of ostracism and get them the services and opportunities to help reduce recidivism."

Nastassia Walsh said a national sex-offender registry is not the answer and that money should be spent on rehabilitation or other crime-fighting programs.

"There really is no evidence to show that this is an effective way to enforce public safety," she said. "It is just political rhetoric to keep kids safe, but it is turning into a logistical nightmare." ..News Source.. by Felisa Cardona, The Denver Post

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ohio's new sex-offender law draws rebuke from judges

Summit judges to refuse to enforce provisions
1-24-2008 Ohio:

Akron - Summit County judges will join their counterparts in at least four other Ohio counties in refusing to enforce provisions of the state's new, tougher sex-offender registration law.

The eight judges of Summit's general trial division will act this week to either issue a stay to block all of the affected cases from moving forward or issue a preliminary injunction in each case they hear.

At issue are a host of potential contradictions and constitutional questions arising from the state legislature's attempt to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Ohio is one of the first to raise its standards to comply with the federal law, which mandates that states act by 2009. But the federal government has yet to issue its final guidelines for adhering to the law. Other states have contemplated not following the federal edict, which could put them in line to lose grant money.

Ohio's law, which went into effect at the beginning of the year, changes the registration requirements for some sex offenders. The state mailed notices about the law to 19,000 offenders, one local judge said.

The law applies retroactively to people whose cases have been through the courts. Critics argue that the new law amounts to added punishment, which defense attorneys say is double jeopardy.

Summit County Common Pleas Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer, the court's administrative judge, said that in some cases, the courts, prosecutors and defendants had reached agreement on the levels of classification and reporting responsibilities, only to see the terms wiped away by the legislature.

The law has also been attacked because it requires juvenile sex offenders to register for life, and in some cases, have their pictures posted in Internet registries. The legislation would also put a financial strain on the law enforcement agencies that have to enforce it.

Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove said that offenders already required to register under the old law will still have to follow the terms of the old law until the matter is resolved by higher courts.

Stark, Licking, Van Wert and Warren counties already have taken measures similar to Summit's to halt enforcement of at least parts of the law, said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio public defender's office in Columbus.

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said the judges of his court are staying the reclassifications one case at a time, and shipping the cases to retired Cuyahoga County Judge William Coyne, who will hear them.

Borror said other counties have also taken a one-case-at-a-time approach. In Cuyahoga County, at least one Common Pleas judge and one Juvenile Court judge, have granted injunctions in cases. Lake County Prosecutor Charles Coulson said Tuesday said the justice system there will let higher courts sort out the questions about the law before it is enforced.

There have been 80 challenges to the law filed in the past week in Summit County, Cosgrove said. In Cuyahoga County, about 300 sex offenders have filed civil suits challenging their re-reclassification, Presiding Judge Nancy McDonnell said.

The state public defender's office has a form on its Web site that offenders can use to challenge the law. Borror said her office will help with the legal cost for those who can't afford lawyers.

Authorities in Stark County are hoping that the 5th Ohio District Court of Appeals, seated in Canton, will resolve the issue for the 14 counties in that district. Other judges across the state said they hope the Ohio Supreme Court takes up the questions, providing resolution for everyone.

Stormer said the problem is compounded because the legislature moved quickly, without consulting the sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and other state and county officials who would have to implement the new law.

"While the intent was to retain federal grant money underwriting many criminal justice programs, we have no idea how much it's going to cost to administer the new program, and to address the legal challenges," Stormer said. ..more.. by James EwingerPlain Dealer Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Protect children from sexual violence: Don't adopt the Adam Walsh Act

1-18-2008 National:

As state legislatures begin their 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 is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch and the author of No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S. Readers may write to her at HRW, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10118-3299; Web site: www.hrw.org.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New sex-offender law faces opposition

This article is being shown as a "Adam Walsh Act - Objection" because although Oklahama claims to be complying with AWA as to risk levels, actually they are not following AWA as written. While they are using virtually the same terms and phrases, Oklahoma's method of assessing a level is quite different from AWA. Hence, by doing it their way, they are objecting to what AWA recommends. However, it cannot be forgotten that the guidelines are not mandatory for states to follow; they are guidelines. eAdvocate
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.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Legislative Analysis: The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV) did not take a formal position in support of or in opposition to the Adam Walsh Act as a whole. However, NAESV is concerned that the political discussion surrounding sex offender management issues, both on the national and state level, has become greatly skewed towards efforts to increase penalties for offenders and create more restrictive offender management programs in lieu of addressing the underlying issues which lead to sex offending behavior. While offender accountability and management are important factors in how our communities respond to sexual violence, it is critical that these issues do not replace or diminish efforts to provide victims with rights and services and to prevent future victimization. NAESV would like to stress the ongoing and critical need to provide victims with substantive rights, increase funding for direct victim services, increase funding for rape prevention education, and to pursue other victim and prevention focused policy initiatives.

What follows is an analysis of the Act that may help you with both the implementation of this legislation in your state as well as state legislation related to sex offenders. Summaries of each title are followed by notes for advocates and, where appro priate, NAESV’s position on particular aspects of the Act. NAESV also has a position statement on sex offender management issues that can be found on our website (www.naesv.org). ..more..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Coalition for Juvenile Justice Objects to The Adam Walsh Act

David J. Karp, Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: OAG Docket No. 117
Comments in Opposition to Interim Rule RIN 1.105--AB22

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced rule. For the reasons that follow, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice recommends that the interim rule be withdrawn. Further, the Coalition strongly urges the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress to revisit the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and work diligently to craft legislation that protects and defends all of our nation’s children and youth, including those who are victims of sexual abuse and assault, as well as children and youth who are adjudicated for sexual offenses.

Introduction
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) is a representative national nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. Created in 1984, CJJ comprises Governor-appointed State Advisory Groups (SAGs) charged to fulfill the mandates as well as the spirit of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Working together with allied individuals and organizations, SAGs seek to improve the circumstances of vulnerable and troubled children, youth and families involved with the courts, and to build safe communities. Today, more than 1,500 CJJ members span the U.S. states and territories, providing a forum for sharing best practices,
innovations, policy recommendations and peer support.

There is not just one but rather fifty-six different juvenile justice systems across the nation and the U.S. territories, each with its own structure, laws, policies and service-delivery models. To varying degrees, each jurisdiction has proactively taken steps to protect its citizens from repeat sexual offenders, and our members are eager to partner with the federal government to better hold offenders accountable, protect vulnerable populations and improve the overall public safety for communities across the nation. In the spirit of this partnership and per your invitation, we take this opportunity to comment on recent policies that we believe unnecessarily hinder the states, territories and federal government from achieving these goals together.

Our comments primarily address the Attorney General’s interim determination that Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Act), also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), applies retroactively to all sex offenders as defined by the Act regardless of when they were convicted. We, however, also take this opportunity to express our grave concerns with and opposition to the overall applicability of Title I to children and youth who have been adjudicated within the juvenile system and not convicted as adults.

SORNA Should Not Be Applied Retroactively to Children and Youth Adjudicated within the Juvenile Court System In articulating his rationale for retroactivity, the Attorney General acknowledges that he is determining “the applicability of SORNA’s requirements to virtually the entire existing sex offender population . . . regardless of when they were convicted” (emphasis added).

Respectfully, the Attorney General greatly underestimates how difficult it would be for the states to apply the mandates of the Act retroactively. In order to comply, each state would first have to review thousands if not tens of thousands of case files to determine which children and youth fall under the mandates of the Act.

Given that many states either still lack the information technology to store these files electronically or only recently obtained this ability, taking this first step towards compliance would mean conducting a paper review of thousands if not tens of thousands of case files. Next, each state would have to locate and notify each child still living in that state, which presents its own set of difficulties. Poor and low-income children and youth are disproportionately represented in our nation’s juvenile justice systems, and a constant challenge for poor and low-income families is frequent relocation of their residence. Case managers have a difficult time monitoring children and youth who are currently juvenile justice-involved, let alone children and youth who have been discharged and no longer required to report to the agency.

Moreover, retroactivity does not take into account those children and youth who have moved out-of-state. Currently, state juvenile databases are not linked to nor do they communicate with juvenile databases in other states. Thus, a likely scenario could include a child who was adjudicated in one state, but has subsequently moved to another. It is unlikely that the first state has a forwarding address for the child, and equally unlikely that the second state is aware that the child is now in its jurisdiction.

Finally, despite the Attorney General’s determination that retroactive applicability of the Act does not violate the ex post facto protections of the U.S. Constitution, CJJ asserts the retroactivity runs afoul of fundamental fairness. At the time of disposition, neither the judge nor the juvenile nor the prosecuting or defending attorney were proceeding with the expectation that the child’s adjudication would trigger the additional sanction of registering for 25 years to life as a sex offender.

Based on such reasons, CJJ asserts that it is impractical and burdensome for the states to comply with SORNA retroactively. In addition, for states to attempt to manage such a burden, they will be forced to take on additional costs—or to consider use of federal juvenile justice appropriations in a manner would be entirely at odds with the core prevention, early intervention and system improvement goals for federal appropriations to states and localities under current federal juvenile justice laws.

SORNA Should Not Be Applied to Children and Youth Adjudicated Within the Juvenile Court System Practical considerations and burdens stated, CJJ also asserts that it is bad public policy for SORNA to be applied to children and youth adjudicated within the juvenile s ystem, retroactively, or otherwise.

First, SORNA as applied to children and youth is not in accord with the Act’s public safety objective of “protect[ing] the public from sex offenders and offenders against children,” in that it will expose certain children to adult offenders. Just as members of the public will be able to access the registry via the Internet and identify offenders in any and every community, adult offenders who are still inclined to offend will be able to access the registry via the Internet and identify adjudicated children and youth in any and every community.

Moreover, the young person’s exposure will not be limited to the Internet. Pursuant to SORNA, four times a year these children and youth will have to report to a centralized location to provide certain updated information--bringing them into the physical presence of others and making abusive and unlawful actions much easier for those adult offenders who are so inclined to target vulnerable children and youth.

Second, SORNA as applied to children and youth assumes a clear distinction between the children who are abused and children who abuse, which is not always the case. It is common knowledge among juvenile experts and practitioners that children who commit sexual abuse against others are far more likely than the general population to have been physically, sexually, or otherwise abused themselves. Research cites that between 40% and 80% of sexually abusive youth have themselves been sexually abused, and that 20% to 50% have been physically abused (Center for Sex Offender Management, 1999). These facts are critical to consider when policy decisions are made regarding a national sex offender registry. To be clear, CJJ strongly agrees that children who abuse others sexually must be held accountable for their actions and closely attended to, in order to ensure that they do not re-offend and that they receive the treatment they need to heal and overcome these harmful proclivities. Exposing such children and youth through a public registry, however, is counterproductive.

Third, research does not support the application of SORNA to children. According to the National Center of Sexual Behavior of Youth, a training and technical assistance center developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the recidivism rate among juvenile sex offenders is substantially lower than that of adults (5-14% vs. 40%), and substantially lower than rates for other delinquent behavior (5-14% vs. 8-58%). The Center also found that juvenile sex offenders are more responsive to treatment than adults and that they are less likely than adults to re-offend given appropriate treatment. In other words, children whose conduct involves sexual abuse and acting out—even when assaultive—do not pose the same threat in terms of duration or severity to public safety as do adults. Children and youth, therefore, do not need to be subjected to the same restrictions.

Fourth, the research does not support the application of SORNA to children and youth. According to the National Center of Sexual Behavior of Youth, a training and technical assistance center developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the recidivism rate among children and youth who commit sexual abuse is substantially lower than that of adults (5-14% vs. 40%), and substantially lower than rates for other delinquent behavior (5-14% vs. 8-58%). The Center also found that children and youth who commit sexual abuse are more responsive to treatment than adults and that they are less likely than adults to re-offend when provided with appropriate treatment. In other words, children and youth do not pose the same threat to public safety as adults and do not need to be subjected to the same restrictions.


Fifth, SORNA as applied to juveniles flies in the face of some of the core purposes, functions and objectives of our nation’s juvenile justice systems in that it strips away the confidentiality and the overall rehabilitative emphasis which form the basis of effective intervention and treatment for youthful offenders. This stripping away of confidentiality as it applies to children under the age of 18 cannot be taken lightly. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that children and youth implicated by the Act have not been convicted of a criminal offense, by deliberate action of the states’ legislatures and prosecuting authorities.

Rather, they have been adjudicated delinquent and, by virtue of that adjudication, have been found to be amenable to treatment and deserving of the opportunity to correct their behavior apart from the stigma and perpetual collateral consequences that typically accompany criminal convictions. Subjecting juveniles to the mandates of SORNA interferes with and threatens child-focused treatment modalities and may significantly decrease the effectiveness of the treatment.

Sixth, SORNA as applied to children and youth will disrupt families and communities across the nation because SORNA does not just stigmatize the child; it stigmatizes the entire family, including the parents and other children in the home. Similarly, the mandates and restrictions associated with SORNA impact not only the child, but the entire family, particularly in terms of where registrants can live, e.g., prohibitions against living within so many feet of a school or a park. In its efforts to support families as the fabric of strong communities, the federal government must be careful not to promulgate policies and promote practices that unnecessarily introduce or exacerbate tensions in the home, the school and between members of the same community, particularly where those tensions center on children and families who need and can benefit from appropriate treatment.

Seventh, SORNA as applied to children and youth could have a chilling effect on the identification and proper treatment of children and youth who exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior in that families will be more inclined to hide problems and not seek help for a troubled child or youth if they are aware of the potential long-term consequences of their child being not only labeled but also being required to register for life as a sex offender.

Finally, as a due process matter, the Act does not make clear exactly who should be held accountable and sanctioned if a child under the age of 18 does not comply. Minors, even those adjudicated delinquent, are still dependent upon adults, and children subject to SORNA would be dependent on adults to help them comply with the Act. Neither the interim rule nor the Act speak to how the state is supposed to respond, i.e., who the state is supposed to arrest, prosecute and punish, when a child’s parent or guardian fails to or refuses to provide the child with the assistance s/he needs to comply with the Act.

For all of these reasons, CJJ asserts that it is bad public policy for SORNA to be applied to children and youth adjudicated within the juvenile system and strongly urges the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress to revisit the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and work diligently to strike a more compassionate and productive balance between victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, and child victims of sexual abuse who sadly exhibit abusive behaviors.

Conclusion
In closing, we reiterate the eagerness of the states to partner with the federal government to hold offenders accountable, protect vulnerable population and improve the overall public safety for communities across the nation. For the aforementioned reasons, however, we believe that the Act and the interim rule unnecessarily hinder us from achieving these goals together. We therefore urge the Attorney General to withdraw the interim rule, or alternatively, to exclude juveniles in its application.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Interim Rule for the Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 and we trust that our comments will be given serious and thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Nancy Gannon Hornberger
Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Acting for the whole of the organization and its Board.

The Coalition for Juvenile Justice was incorporated in 1985 as a national association of state juvenile advisory groups. ..source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

American Bar Association Opposes the Adam Walsh Act

Attn: Mr. David J. Karp, Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy
Room 4509, Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

RE: Comments on the interim regulations to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-248), the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA); OAG Docket No. 117

On behalf of the American Bar Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed captioned interim regulations that would apply SORNA retroactively to juvenile offenders.

ABA juvenile justice policy is set forth in 20 volumes of IJA-Juvenile Justice Standards (“Standards”) developed by the Association in conjunction with the Institute of Judicial Administration. The Standards call for individualized treatment that is fair in purpose, scope and not arbitrary. These goals are set forth in the

Standard Relating to Disposition:
The purpose of the juvenile correctional system is to reduce juvenile crime by maintaining the integrity of the substantive law proscribing certain behavior and by developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior. This purpose should be pursued through means that are fair and just, that recognize the unique characteristics and needs of juveniles, and that give juveniles access to opportunities for personal and social growth.

The Standards set forth clear parameters for juvenile justice sanctions: the definition and application of sanctions should address public safety; give fair warning about prohibited conduct; and recognize “the unique physical, psychological, and social features of young persons.”1 The Standards, as well as accepted research in developmental science, recognize that juveniles are generally less culpable than adults, and that their patterns of offending are different from those of adults.2 Thus, ABA policy supports sanctions that vary in restrictiveness and intensity, and are developmentally appropriate and limited in duration.

Given the goals of the juvenile justice system and the transitory characteristics of juvenile offenders, ABA policy also limits the way juvenile records are compiled and disseminated. The Standards frown on “labeling” offenders, require very careful control of records, and prohibit making juvenile records public. In addition, “[a]ccess to and the use of juvenile records should be strictly controlled to limit the risk that disclosure will result in the misuse or misinterpretation of information, the unnecessary denial of opportunities and benefits to juveniles, or an interference with the purposes of official intervention.”3 This is so because most adolescent anti-social behavior is not predictive of future criminal activity.

Most importantly, ABA policy prohibits collateral consequences for delinquent behavior: “No collateral disabilities extending beyond the term of the disposition should be imposed by the court, by operation of law, or by any person or agency exercising authority over the juvenile.” 4 Lifetime registration violates this Standard and is detrimental to both rehabilitation and crime prevention.

The ABA opposed those provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that apply to juvenile offenders. A large percentage of “sex offenses” occur within families and do not rise to the level of sexual predation that is the target of the Act. The "Lifetime Registration" provisions of the Act are likely to have a chilling effect on the reporting of these crimes and will reduce admissions (guilty pleas) to the charges in the cases that do get reported. Concerns about the prospects of the retroactive application of the Walsh registration provisions already are having an adverse effect across the country with respect to admissions and delinquency adjudications in sex offense cases. As a consequence of its "Lifetime Registration" provisions, the ultimate impact of the Walsh Act here will be far more contested proceedings in these cases; far fewer delinquency adjudications; and far fewer juveniles getting the treatment they need. In addition, the fact-finding and guilty plea (admission of guilt) processes in most juvenile courts have fewer safeguards than in the adult system. Adjudications for sex offenses tend to lack the precision required by ABA policy (See Standards Relating to Adjudication). Furthermore, sex offending in adolescence has limited correlation to adult sex offending (the number of false positives close to 90 percent).5

Because the Adam Walsh Act is inconsistent with ABA juvenile justice policy and because we believe the statute is overbroad in this respect, we urge you to draft the regulations so as to not further broaden the reach of the act and to minimize the harm that will result from application of the statute. The clearest way to accomplish this is to reject retroactive application of the Act to those who were under 18 at the time of their offenses. To the extent possible, the regulations should also provide a reasonable method for low-risk offenders to petition to be removed from federal and state sex offender registries. Finally, the ABA also suggests that the Department of Justice urge Congress to reconsider whether the Act should apply to juvenile offenders.

Sincerely,

Denise A. Cardman ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New U.S. law puts teen sex offenders on Web

9-13-2007 Arizona

Teen sex offenders would have their photos posted online under a new federal law that threatens to undo reforms state lawmakers pushed through last session.

During a legislative hearing Wednesday, Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said it might be worth opting out of the Adam Walsh Act and risk losing federal law enforcement funds.

Johnson led efforts to soften punishment for young, nonviolent sex offenders after hearing tearful testimony from constituents about teens as young as 14 prosecuted as adults and placed on lifetime probation for one-time incidents with a family member or a younger girlfriend.

The new state law, which takes effect next week, allows teens to have their cases sent back to juvenile court or have their probation lifted, and requires that they be placed in treatment with young people convicted of similar crimes. The law applies only to nonviolent, first-time offenders.

“To think that the Adam Walsh Act might wipe all that out is pretty hard to take,” Johnson said. “A lot of kids make mistakes ... (only) to have their whole entire life ruined, with no light at the end of the tunnel.”

The 2006 federal law is intended to protect children from violent sex offenders by creating a nationwide registration and notification system.

For the first time, those requirements will extend to juveniles, and be applied retroactively, as well as on tribal lands.

Patty Morris, a supervisor with the state Department of Public Safety, which administers the state’s sex-offender registration site, said Arizona is well ahead of other states in complying with the federal law.

The state has until July to comply, or risk losing more than $1 million in federal drug interdiction funds. But lawmakers and state officials suggested the new law might cost more than that to implement.

It requires listing additional information in the sex offender registry, including the offender’s school and workplace. It also requires notifying neighbors, schools and child welfare agencies. Morris said it’s unclear how notification would work on remote tribal lands.

The interim committee on youthful sex offenders, cochaired by Johnson, expires at the end of the month. But Johnson urged committee members, who include prosecutors, probation officials and the chief juvenile public defender, to keep meeting and recommend legislation for the upcoming session.

East Valley families testified last session their children had been forced to live in homeless shelters, placed in group therapy with adult rapists and subjected to harsh sex-offender probation terms that prevent them from having a family or living a normal life.

Jason Grygla, a counselor and former juvenile probation officer, said the committee needs to address the problem of law enforcement agencies holding cases until teen offenders near their 18th birthdays, increasing the odds they’ll be prosecuted as adults.

“They’re sitting on these cases before they’re filed,” Grygla said. “The charges come down and they’re yanked out of treatment and put into the adult system.”

Barbara Marshall, chief of the juvenile crimes division for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, disputed that, saying it’s considered malicious prosecution to hold onto a case.

Also Wednesday, Human Rights Watch released a report arguing that laws aimed at alerting the public to sex offenders in their midst may do more harm than good.

The international watchdog group singled out the Adam Walsh Act for requiring juvenile registration, saying it can only exacerbate problems with state registration systems. ..more.. by

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

A Reader's Comment Objecting to the Adam Walsh Act

A reader posted the following comment to the Rhode Island AWA Objection, because it really pertains to the Adam Walsh Act in its entirety I thought it appropriate to address it separately. Reader's Comment:

The Adam Walsh Act appears to impinge several constitutional provisions.

First, it excludes consensual conduct between adults from its application but nowhere defines "consent" leading to arbitrary enforcement. Moreover, "non-consent" is not an element of the listed federal crimes.

Second, the Act calls upon state legislators to determine without a judicial trial who is guilty of crimes comparable to or more severe than cetain federal crimes and impose restrictions on the individuals liberty in consequence of that determination. The Act is, therefore, a prohibited bill of pains and penalties.

Third, the registration laws no doubt impose an affirmative obligation on the individual to labor on behalf of the general public and have been held to not constitute punishment. Involuntary servitude, however, can only be imposed as punishment for a crime. Finally, forced public charity is communism, plain and simple.

The reader's first issue "Adult Consensual Conduct" is a moot point since criminal law does not punish such conduct therefore it would not come under AWA in any way.

The reader's third issue "Labor on Behalf of the General Public" is also a moot point since AWA does not require registrants to perform any form of labor for the public good.

The second issue is rather interesting though, but since AWA does not require legislators to determine guilt-inoccence that portion is incorrect. However, AWA does call for a comparison of sorts to be made and that is what will be addressed.

First the portion of AWA in question:

Sec. 111(8) CONVICTED AS INCLUDING CERTAIN JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS- The term `convicted' or a variant thereof, used with respect to a sex offense, includes adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for that offense, but only if the offender is 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18, United States Code), or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.

Now the federal statute in question:

Title 18 § 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse
(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

AWA defines a procedure to be followed, a comparison of the facts of an individual's crime to the elements of a federal criminal statute. While this may seem to be a simple procedure, in reality it is not so, prosecutors take painstaking care when charging someone with a crime. However, under this new AWA procedure anyone could be doing the comparison and the result determines whether the person will have to register under AWA.

Will administrative employees of local police stations have the expertise to perform this procedure? Further, will they have the documentation from the person's original court files, one must consider that in some cases persons registering may have come from other jurisdictions or other states. Cases may be years old, and then there is the retroactive application of AWA to further complicate matters. Will these reviewers set aside personal biases and prejudices? These and many other questions are left unanswered. Further, there does not seem to be any appeal of a local reviewer's decision.

Other problems also become apparent, why should these cases have such a review to establish whether or not they will register, and what Tier Level they will be assigned if they are required to register, and the remainder of the registrants are denied such a searching review before being classified and a Tier Level assigned?

I do recognize that Congress wanted to cull some cases and include others, but the parameters set for these cases exclude all other persons who will have to register. The remainder of those cases have their Tier Levels set by how much time their sentence was for, a completely different system of classifying levels.

Reader's Comment: "Impose restrictions as the result of classification"
While AWA does not restrict a registrant's liberty per se, if registration is coupled with residency laws, then yes it will restrict liberty in some cases. It will depend on how a local residency law is written.

Finally, I agree that AWA is unconstitutional on many levels, especially its retroactivity which destroyes "finality of judgement" between the state and the registrant. Said another way, retroactivity violates "Laches" in this writer's opinion. Further, there is no proof that at some point in the future Congress will again allow the states to make the laws further retroactive into a quasi lifetime sentence.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...