2-24-2006 Michigan:
WAYLAND (NEWS 3) - It may have started as a prank, but police in Wayland have another name for Ryan Zylstra's decision to take pictures of classmates having sex: a felony.
The 17-year old was arrested and charged with manufacturing, distributing, and using a computer for child pornography.
Investigators say the trouble began New Year's Eve. Zylstra began taking pictures during a party at his Wayland home. Among the snapshots was a photo of two classmates having sex. Police say the Wayland Union High School senior then posted the picture on a website.
"Some of these photographs or printed pictures were passed around during the lunch break at Wayland High School," Police Chief Dan Miller told News 3. "In talking through, some of the students actually thought it was kind of a joke originally," said Smith.
But police aren't laughing. They say the mother of the 16-year-old girl caught on camera says her daughter tried killing herself after learning the picture became public.
And, police say because both teens in the picture were under 18, the photo constitutes child pornography. "I don't really relish, like the fact that my daughter’s in the same school with someone like this. Even though it's a prank, it's a serious prank," Smith said.
But around Wayland, reaction to the charges is mixed.
"He put pictures that shouldn't have been on there, but people should be allowed to put any pictures on there," said Josh Jones, a freshman at Wayland High.
Ashlie Hollis, a 2003 Wayland graduate, feels no pity for Zylstra. "He hurt somebody and he basically disgraced her. I mean, that's horrible. You don't do that to somebody," Hollis said.
Meanwhile, the police chief hopes this case serves as a warning to parents. "If they see them on the computer, ask them what they're doing. If they've heard of these other websites, these blogs or whatever, ask them what they're putting on or make them show them what they're putting on," said Miller.
Zylstra is free on bail. He's scheduled to appear before a judge next month. ..News Source.. by Scott Noll, News 3 Reporter
Teen put sex pics of friends online, police say
2-23-2006 Michigan:
WAYLAND -- A Wayland Union High School student faces three felony charges for allegedly taking photographs of two juveniles having sex, posting them from the Internet and linking to them from the popular Xanga web site, allegedly prompting a student in the photos to attempt suicide. Ryan Andrew Zylstra, 17, has been arrested on charges of manufacturing child pornography, distributing child pornography and use of a computer for child pornography.
Wayland Police say Zylstra took photos of a male teen and female teen "engaged in sexual activity" at Zylstra's home on New Year's Eve. Police say Zylstra linked to the photos from his blog site on Xanga, and students printed the photos and passed them out at school on Jan. 3, the day students returned after the holiday break. According to the police report, the mother of the girl in the photos said her daughter came home from school and attempted suicide because of her embarrassment.
The mother reported the incident to police Jan. 16, and police confiscated two computers from Zylstra's home. Police sought a warrant and Zylstra turned himself in Wednesday evening. He is to be arraigned March 6 in Allegan District Court. The Xanga site has been at the center of controversy recently elsewhere in West Michigan. Twenty East Grand Rapids High School students were suspended from extra-curricular activities for two weeks after photos of them drinking alcohol were posted on various Internet blog sites, including Xanga. ..Source.. by Jean Gallup, The Grand Rapids Press
May 18, 2009
MI- Online prank ends with child porn charges for teen
March 27, 2009
VT- Sex Offender Sentence Criticized
1-5-2006 Vermont:
Vermont Judge Edward Cashman is coming under fire for handing out a light sentence to a child rapist.
The judge says did it because he no longer believes in punishment and he wants to speed the rapist's entry into a rehabilitation program.
Judge Cashman's short sentence for an admitted child molester triggered immediate public and political reaction with some lawmakers saying he should leave the bench.
Judge Edward Cashman's light sentence was the talk of the town. Wednesday he sentenced child rapist Mark Hulett to 60 days in jail. Hulett admitted he raped a little girl countless times when she was between 7 and 10 years old.
Prosecutors said Hulett deserved at least 8 years in prison in part as punishment.
But Judge Cashman said the 60-day sentence guaranteed that Hulett would get into sex offender rehabilitation quickly or face a possible life sentence. He said he had no choice because the Corrections Department classified Hulett as a low risk offender meaning he can't get treatment until he's out of jail.
And more importantly the judge announced that after 25 years on the bench, he no longer believes in punishment.
Almost everyone we spoke with in Burlington on Thursday had heard about the case, but we found no one who liked it.
"We were actually talking about it at work this morning. It just does not fee as if justice was done. Seems like a really serious crime with a pretty small consequence," said Joan Robinson of Burlington.
"I was dismayed to see that someone who had committed such a serious crime against a young child would be given less of a prison sentence than for instance someone who got a second-term DWI," said Paul Poss of South Burlington.
"It just seems really sad to me that was the judge's decision. And I hope that other judges look at that decision and see it as the wrong decision,"explained Robyn MaGuire of Winooski.
It's absolutely amazing based on what's going on in the United States with sex offenders, registry, non-registry, and so forth, that somebody could get a 60-day sentence and get off that easily. It just seems impossible to me that a 60-day sentence is logical," said Bill Polk of Panton.
Now the judge's ruling apparently sparked some political fires at the statehouse. Republican lawmakers have scheduled a press conference for tomorrow to call for mandatory minimum sentences. That's a direct response to Judge Cashman's ruling.
On the other hand, several defense lawyers toldChannel 3 the judge's decision was "fair", "brilliant" and "beautifully reasoned."
Some Republicans have started calls for Cashman's removal from the bench.
But they may have to until Judge Cashman's six-year retention hearings in March 2007. Legal experts say it is highly unlikely his sentencing decision would qualify as an impeachable offense. And as for any Judicial Conduct Board disciplinary action, the judge's behavior would have to be unethical, not just unpopular, to get him in trouble. ..News Source.. by WCAX TV News
November 13, 2008
FL- Sex offender free after court throws out his probation violation sentence
Old case, but shows how ridiculous laws are applied to sex offenders!
11-18-2006 Florida:
A state appeal court ordered the release Friday of an 80-year-old convicted sex offender serving almost 10 years in prison for violating his probation by having lunch near children playing at an open house in East Naples.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal ordered Collier Circuit Judge Cynthia Ellis to reinstate probation for Donald Conhagen, who has been in prison for almost nine months.
Conhagen pleaded guilty in 2002 to attempted capital sexual battery of a child under 12 and lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16. He was sentenced to a year in the Collier County jail followed by five years of probation.
One of the terms of sex offender probation is a prohibition of unsupervised contactwith children under 18. He was arrested and charged with violating that after he had lunch at a picnic bench near where children were playing in an inflatable bounce house.
The appeal court, based in Lakeland, ruled there was no evidence Conhagen had actual contact with any of the children and overturned the prison sentence.
“This was just a horrible prosecution,” Conhagen’s attorney, Steve Grogoza, said Friday.
According to court records, Conhagen, a pilot who kept his plane at Naples Municipal Airport, was invited to an open house by another airport tenant, European American Aviation, on Dec. 3, 2005. The company is a supplier of aircraft equipment, and it planned the open house, which featured seminars, as an advertising promotion.
The company provided lunch for those attending and set up several picnic tables in the parking lot. It also set up a bounce house “to entertain any children who might accompany their parents to the open house,” according to the appeal court decision.
Parents were supposed to supervise their children if they brought them.
“Conhagen had no reason to anticipate the presence of children at this event. He did attend, and during the lunch break he joined other attendees at the picnic tables to eat the lunch provided by EAA,” according to the higher court.
The officer manager for the company knew Conhagen was a registered sex offender. She called the Collier County Sheriff’s Office to get advice on what to do if Conhagen attended the open house. A deputy told her to contact him if Conhagen “noticed the children and didn’t leave,” according to the appeal court.
When Conhagen sat at one the tables, the officer manager called the Sheriff’s Office. A deputy arrived and took pictures surreptitiously of Conhagen as he ate lunch near the children.
“Conhagen did not leave the table and did not make any contact with a child. Following lunch, Conhagen returned to the seminars,” according to the decision.
Conhagen later was charged with violating his probation. In court, prosecutor Steve Maresca argued Conhagen’s activities constituted unsupervised contact with children.
“He was staring at children in a bounce house for 45 minutes,” Maresca said Friday.
Ellis found Conhagen in violation of his probation and sentenced him to nine years and 11 months in state prison.
Grogoza, who handled the appeal, argued that was a death sentence because Conhagen is almost 81 years old. Conhagen has been in Okeechobee Correctional Institution since Feb. 24.
“This case answers the question I’m asked all the time — are there innocent people in prison,” Grogoza said.
Conhagen is originally accused of sexual contact with two victims around 10 years old. He had faced an automatic life sentence but pleaded to a lesser charge because the family of the victim in the more serious case was uncooperative, Maresca said. ..News Source.. by Chris W. Colby
June 22, 2008
SCARLET LETTERS AND RECIDIVISM: DOES AN OLD CRIMINAL RECORD PREDICT FUTURE OFFENDING?
2006
Research Summary:
This research explores the issue of old prior records and their ability to predict future offending. In particular, we are interested in the question of whether, after a given period of time, the risk of recidivism for a person who has been arrested in the distant past is ever indistinguishable from that of a population of persons with no prior arrests. Two well-documented empirical facts guide our investigation: (1) Individuals who have offended in the past are relatively more likely to offend in the future, and (2) the risk of recidivism declines as the time since the last criminal act increases. We find that immediately after an arrest, the knowledge of this prior record does significantly differentiate this population from a population of nonoffenders. However, these differences weaken dramatically and quickly over time so that the risk of new offenses among those who last offended six or seven years ago begins to approximate (but not match) the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record. ..Source.. by MEGAN C. KURLYCHEK and ROBERT BRAME, University of South Carolina -and- SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, University of Maryland
May 3, 2008
Sex Offender Residency Statutes and the Culture of Fear: The Case for More Meaningful Rational Basis Review of Fear-Driven Public Safety Laws
2006:
Introduction
Seventeen states and an increasing number of municipalties have passed laws prohibiting people convicted of sex offenses from residing near places where children congregate, such as schools, parks, day cares, and playgrounds.' These laws reflect the public's growing fear of sex offenders and outrage at the crimes they commit.'
But do sex offender residency statutes actually protect children, or do they undermine community safety? Are these laws common sense, appropriate responses to a serious threat posed to the nation's children, or are they fear-driven reactions to high-profile media coverage of child abduction and sexual assault cases? Moreover, suppose these restrictions are not based on any evidence that they are effective in preventing or reducing child sexual abuse, but are instead hot-blooded legislative responses to public outcry generated from extensive media coverage of child abduction cases. Under such circumstances, should a court, faced with an equal protection challenge to the law, apply a toothless, highly deferential rational basis analysis? Or, should the court conduct a more meaningful review—with bite?
This Article argues that sex offender residency restrictions are driven primarily by fear and dislike of sex offenders, not reasoned analysis of what is necessary to protect children. Accordingly, courts, when considering equal protection challenges to such laws, should eschew highly deferential rational basis review fora more rigorous standard.
Part I analyzes the media's role in shaping and distorting public perception of crime and safety issues in the United States.
Part II discusses the development and proliferation of sex offender residency restrictions as a response to high-profile media coverage of child abduction cases. Part II also examines whether residency restrictions are effective in reducing child sexual abuse and concludes that these laws are likely ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
Part III argues that courts, applying rational basis review, should more closely scrutinize sex offender residency restrictions because such laws are motivated primarily by fear and dislike of sex offenders rather than reasoned analysis of what is necessary and appropriate to protect children from sexual abuse. Part III discusses United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno,' City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 7 and Romer v. Evans'—three cases in which the United States Supreme Court held that classifications driven by fear and dislike of politically unpopular groups are irrational under the rational basis standard. Although Moreno, Cleburne, and Romer provide a conceptual basis for closer scrutiny of fear and prejudice-based classifications, those cases, in and of themselves, do not provide a sufficient framework for analyzing the type of statute at issue here. Unlike the classifications at issue in those cases, which the Court found to be solely motivated by fear or a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, sex offender residency statutes are ostensibly motivated by a legitimate and important governmental purpose: the protection of children from sexual abuse. This public safety rationale, however, should not shield sex offender residency statutes from meaningful scrutiny of whether the means chosen by the legislature—prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance of places where children are likely to congregate—further the stated goal of protecting children from sexual abuse. Part III argues that because sex offender residency statutes are largely the result of media-generated fear and dislike of sex offenders, courts should look behind the stated public-safety goals to examine more closely the question of whether these statutes actually protect children.
Part IV proposes a framework for courts to use in determining whether a law, with an ostensibly permissible goal, is nonetheless impermissibly fear-based and therefore irrational.
Part V applies this new framework from Part IV to a hypothetical equal protection challenge to Ohio's sex offender residency law.
..The Rest of the Paper.. by David A. Singleton, Sex Offender Residency Statutes and the Culture of Fear: The Case for More Meaningful Rational Basis Review of Fear-Driven Public Safety Laws, 3 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 600, 610 (2006).
April 10, 2008
Megan's Law - Facts about Sex Offenders
Let us see how much we know-and see how much of what we think has been based on the myths we have all heard about sexual assault and sex offenders. Take 5 minutes to complete the True or False Quiz: ..CLICK for the List of Questions.. by The Office of the Attorney General of the State of California
April 6, 2008
MI- Teen put sex pics of friends online, police say
2-23-2006 Michigan:
.WAYLAND -- A Wayland Union High School student faces three felony charges for allegedly taking photographs of two juveniles having sex, posting them from the Internet and linking to them from the popular Xanga web site, allegedly prompting a student in the photos to attempt suicide. Ryan Andrew Zylstra, 17, has been arrested on charges of manufacturing child pornography, distributing child pornography and use of a computer for child pornography.
Wayland Police say Zylstra took photos of a male teen and female teen "engaged in sexual activity" at Zylstra's home on New Year's Eve. Police say Zylstra linked to the photos from his blog site on Xanga, and students printed the photos and passed them out at school on Jan. 3, the day students returned after the holiday break. According to the police report, the mother of the girl in the photos said her daughter came home from school and attempted suicide because of her embarrassment.
The mother reported the incident to police Jan. 16, and police confiscated two computers from Zylstra's home. Police sought a warrant and Zylstra turned himself in Wednesday evening. He is to be arraigned March 6 in Allegan District Court. The Xanga site has been at the center of controversy recently elsewhere in West Michigan. Twenty East Grand Rapids High School students were suspended from extra-curricular activities for two weeks after photos of them drinking alcohol were posted on various Internet blog sites, including Xanga. ..more.. : by Jean Gallup, The Grand Rapids Press
March 24, 2008
Understanding Treatment for Adults and Juveniles Who Have Committed Sex Offenses
November 2006
Introduction
Specialized treatment has been a mainstay of sex offender management approaches for several decades. In recent years, however, the heightened attention to sex crimes and its impact on victims and communities has resulted in a push for more punitive responses to the individuals who commit these crimes, including lengthier periods of confinement, tighter residency restrictions, expanded registration and community notification laws, and enhanced surveillance and monitoring strategies. The widespread focus on these types of “get tough” strategies consequently has begun to overshadow the important role of treatment in sex offender management efforts.
As has already been demonstrated by leading researchers in the general correctional field, however, an exclusive reliance on punishment-oriented and surveillance-driven approaches has limited impact on enhancing community safety (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). When offender management strategies include a rehabilitative focus, the outcomes are much more promising (Aos et al., 2006; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).
Therefore, as stakeholders across the country are challenged to identify effective strategies for managing individuals who commit sex offenses and thereby ensure the safety of communities, the need to understand the role of treatment will undoubtedly arise. Yet when the topic is broached, it often raises more questions than answers. Most notable are questions about what treatment “is” for adults and juveniles who commit sex offenses, how it differs from other forms of treatment for different populations, and, of course, whether it has a significant impact on recidivism.
The purpose of this brief is to provide a broad overview of current research, professional literature, and practice trends relative to treatment for sexually abusive individuals, in an attempt to better illuminate this rather complex topic for those who have a stake in sex offender management. Although specialized clinicians may find this brief to be of interest, the primary intended audience is the range of other management professionals seeking to understand key issues about treatment for adults and juveniles who have committed sex offenses. ..more.. by Center for Sex Offender Management
February 20, 2008
Anonymous Blogging and Defamation: Balancing Interests of the Internet
2006
Abstract:
As more and more people create personal websites and blogs, courts are more frequently asked to rule on questions related to the Internet boom. Specifically, an issue has arisen concerning what standard to apply in defamation suits brought against anonymous bloggers. Courts have wrestled with producing an appropriate standard for revealing the identity of an anonymous blogger who posts allegedly defamatory material on a message board or website. Recently, in Doe v. Cahill, the Delaware Supreme Court created a strict standard that makes it extremely difficult for defamation victims to bring suit against anonymous bloggers. The standard created is far too sympathetic to anonymous bloggers and fails to address important issues facing victims of defamation.
It is important not to silence communication on the Internet, but it is just as important not to silence victims of defamation. Therefore, this comment argues for the protection of libel plaintiffs facing defamatory comments from anonymous bloggers. ..more.. by BETSY MALLOY, University of Cincinnati - College of Law
February 9, 2008
STATEMENT ON SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS IN IOWA
December 2006 Iowa:
The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000 foot residency restriction for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.
The ICAA has the following observations concerning the current restriction:
1. Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.
2. Research does not support the belief that children are more likely to be victimized by strangers at the covered locations than at other places.
3. Residency restrictions were intended to reduce sex crimes against children by strangers who seek access to children at the covered locations. Those crimes are tragic, but very rare. In fact, 80 to 90 percent of sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance who has some prior relationship with the child and access to the child that is not impeded by residency restrictions. Only parents and caretakers can effectively impede that kind of access.
4. Law enforcement has observed that the residency restriction is causing offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new locations, to register false addresses or to simply disappear. If they do not Iowa County Attorneys Association register, law enforcement and the public do not know where they are living. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety.
5. There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction.
6. The categories of crimes included in the restriction are too broad, imposing the restriction on many offenders who present no known risk to children in the covered locations.
7. A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders.
8. Many offenders have families whose lives are unfairly and unnecessarily disrupted by the restriction, causing children to be pulled out of school and away from friends, and causing spouses to lose jobs and community connections.
9. Many offenders are physically or mentally disabled but are prohibited from living with family members or others on whom they rely for assistance with daily needs.
10. The geographic areas included in the prohibited 2,000 foot zones are so extensive that realistic opportunities to find affordable housing are virtually eliminated in most communities. The lack of transportation in areas not covered by the restriction limits employment opportunities. The adoption of even more restrictive ordinances by cities and counties exacerbates the shortage of housing possibilities.
11. The residency restriction has no time limit; and, for many offenders, the restriction lasts beyond the requirement that they be listed on the sex offender registry. For this reason, there are many offenders who are subject to the residency restriction but who are not required to inform law enforcement of their place of residence, making enforcement nearly impossible.
12. There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved. The restriction causes many supervised residential placements to be unavailable even though they may be the most appropriate and safest locations for offenders to live.
13. Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter into plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from the trauma of the trial process. This unforeseen result seriously jeopardizes the welfare of child victims and decreases the number of convictions of sex offenders to accurate charges.
Consequently, many offenders will not be made fully accountable for their acts and will not be required to complete appropriate treatment or other rehabilitative measures that would enhance the safety of children. Similar unintended negative effects often accompany well-intended efforts to increase prison sentences with mandatory provisions.
14. The drastic reduction in the availability of appropriate housing, along with the forced removal of many offenders from established residences, is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders.
Efforts to rehabilitate offenders and to minimize the rate of reoffending are much more successful when offenders are employed, have family and community connections, and have a stable residence. These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practices. ..more.. by The Iowa County Attorneys Association
January 26, 2008
Justice Blocks MySpace Sex Offender Code
10-23-2006 National:
The Department of Justice has just rolled out a CAPTCHA in front of its National Sex Offender Public Website, forcing you to prove you're human before you start running searches.
That kills the screen-scraping code we released Friday -- which, no doubt, was the intent. The only explanation on the site reads, "This form is necessary to prevent abuse by automated user agents."
The site seemed pretty abuse-resistant before. Running too many searches too fast got you banned; consequently, the sex-offender-scraping portion of my code performed one transaction every 30-seconds -- slow enough to be replaced by an extremely-patient human.
It could be that the DoJ just has a broad interpretation of "abuse." Policing virtual communities probably wasn't in Justice's institutional mind when it created the site.
I don't know if this completely closes the door to a repetition of my MySpace offender search. After satisfying the CAPTCHA once, you're currently allowed to search over-and-over again. That means you might be able to slip in a search of all the ZIP codes in, for example, one city, but I doubt you could perform the 8,500 queries needed to cover the entire U.S.
Is this enough to let MySpace off the hook? Now the company can legitimately claim it has no easy access to the sex offender registries, even if that wasn't the case when it said so last June. ..more.. by Kevin Poulsen
Official CAPTCHA site:
January 23, 2008
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States
Please note: This study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes in the U.S. was NOT funded by anyone or any group. As a working profiler, I wondered what the statistics were regarding these crimes. I could not find any studies that discussed these offenses and the profile of the offenders, so I did the research myself. Additionally, I was not paid for publishing the results. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D.
Introduction:
After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 , it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.
There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.
Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.
This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.
Victims:
Of the 1500 cases reviewed, 525 (35%) were child molestations, 358 (24%) were rapes, and 617 (41%) were sexual homicides and serial murders. Of the child molestations, 47% of the victims were Hispanic, 36% were Caucasian, 8% were Asian, 6% were African American, and 3% were other nationalities. In most instances, the offenders were familiar with their victims. In fact, 82% of the victims were known to their attackers. The other 18% were molested by strangers. In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims’ homes. Victims ranged in age from 1 year old to 13 years old, with the average age being 6.
In rape cases, the offenders were less likely to know their victims. Only 64% of the victims knew their attackers. Furthermore, rape victims proved to be more diverse than child molestation victims. Hispanic and Caucasian victims were identical at 35% each.
The next most likely victims were African American women, and other nationalities comprised the remainder. These women suffered brutal attacks. Commonly, a weapon was used to control the victims. These weapons were most often sharp instruments. And the victims were beaten during the rapes over 70% of the time. Offenders engaged in sodomy in 67% of the attacks, and gang rape took place in .007% of the cases. Rape victims ranged in age from 16-79 and averaged age 23.
Serial rapists accounted for 3% of all illegal immigrant rapists. Each serial rapist averaged 5 victims, with the number of victims ranging from 2 to 11. Two serial rapists were confirmed HIV positive, and another offender had a venereal disease.
The murders were the worst of the sex crimes and were especially vicious. The most common method was for an offender to break into a residence and ambush his victims. Not only were victims raped, but some (6%) were mutilated. The crime scenes were very bloody, expressing intense, angry perpetrator personalities. Specifically, most victims were blitzed, rendered incapable of fighting back, and then raped and murdered. The most common method of killing was bludgeoning, followed by stabbing. Caucasians were more likely to become victims of sexual homicide committed by illegal immigrants. Hispanics were second, and African Americans were third. Victims of sexual homicides averaged age 42. However, victims ranged in age from 16-81.
Serial killers accounted for .005% of the sex crimes. The serial killers averaged 9 victims per offender. Victim choice centered on victims the offenders did not know. Each serial killer targeted men and women, but females were higher, making up 73%. Illegal immigrant serial killers were more likely to strike in the West and the Southern United States.
Victim socioeconomic status changed for each type of crime. Those who fell victim to child molestation tended to be from a lower socioeconomic status than those who were raped and those who were raped and murdered. In fact, 57% of those rape/murdered were from the upper middle class.
There was an especially disturbing finding that in 22% of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted. These disabled victims were each under age 18. In those cases, the perpetrators knew their victims.
Offenders:
The average age of illegal immigrants who were sex offenders was 27, but they ranged in age from 16-69. Child molesters tended to be older, averaging age 32. The average age of rapists was 26, and murderers averaged age 28. There is a trend that these offenders are becoming younger. For example, in 2006, the average age of sex offender illegal immigrants was 20. The highest number came from Mexico. El Salvador was the original home to the next highest number of sexual offenders. Other countries of origin included: Brazil, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico*, Russia, and Vietnam.
They averaged 4 victims per offender. Nearly 63% had been deported on another offense prior to the sex crime. There was an average of 3 years of committing crimes such as DUI, assaults, or drug related offenses prior to being apprehended for a sexual offense.
Alcohol and drug use seemingly played a large role in these crimes. In fact, 81% of offenders were drinking or using drugs prior to offending. Rapists and killers were more likely to use alcohol and drugs consistently than child molesters.
Offenders had the use of a vehicle in 78% of the cases. However, the vehicles were only owned by those offenders 54% of the time. In the other instances, the offenders either borrowed or stole the vehicle.
Many offenders were unkempt in appearance and worked with their hands. They were transient in that they went where work took them. Therefore, only 25% were stable within a community. Further, in 31% of the crimes, the offenders entered into the communities where they offended within 2 months of the commission of their sex offenses. However, many, 79%, had been in the U.S. for more than one year before being arrested for a sex crime, and they were typically known to the Criminal Justice system for prior, less serious offenses before they molested, raped, or murdered.
There was a trend to be single while offending, as only 23% were married at the time of their crimes. Most were known to date quite a bit and have derogatory views of females. Domestic violence was common as well, as nearly half of those with spouses or significant others had a history of domestic abuse.
Nearly 35% were considered religious and even more, 59% had been raised in a religious home. Their work consisted of manual labor in industries such as agriculture, construction, restaurant, and tourism. Residences were rented and usually shared with several other illegal immigrants. Many were partially bi-lingual with a preference for their native languages.
Education levels were typically low. Only 22% had graduated high school. As such, there was a pattern of irresponsible, impulsive behavior in offender backgrounds. Solutions to their problems entailed moving, i.e. running away. Most simply ran to the southern U.S. border after being connected with their sex offenses.
Conclusions:
Illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes first cross the U.S. border illegally. Then they gradually commit worse crimes and are continually released back into society or deported. Those who were deported simply returned illegally again. Only 2% of the offenders in this study has no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally. There is a clear pattern of criminal escalation. From misdemeanors such as assault or DUI, to drug offenses, illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes break U.S. laws repeatedly. They are highly mobile, work in low skilled jobs with their hands, use drugs and alcohol, are generally promiscuous, have little family stability, and choose victims who are easy to attack. Their attacks are particularly brutal, and they use a hands-on method of controlling and/or killing their victims.
Note: Nearly 30% of the victims were illegal immigrants themselves.The remainder were U.S. citizens.
*One offender came from Puerto Rico. He had entered PR illegally from DR and then came to the mainland. He was charged with child molestation.
Copyright © 2006, Violent Crimes Institute
By Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. Violent Crimes Institute, Atlanta, Georgia
Selected bibliography for those interested in reading more w/links:
January 21, 2008
Case Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation
May 2006
Excerpt: "Research has shown that between 40 and 150 incidents of child abduction murder occur each year, which is less than one half of one percent of the murders committed nationally."
No statistics exist to document how many of these are the result of PREVIOUSLY convicted sex offenders, however, some of these murders have an element of sexual contact as part of the murder and it may be a first sex offense for the offender. eAdvocate
See also the NISMART Series of reports: National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) Reports
And: Homicides of Children and Youths
Executive Summary:
Cases of abducted and missing children found murdered continue to traumatize victims' families and friends and the public. While these cases are still quite rare, with the amount of national and international media attention they are given, we too quickly recognize the victims' names.
Our first research into this subject was "undertaken in an effort to better understand these types of murders and to identity investigative techniques and strategies that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal investrgatrons and the apprehension rate of murderers who abduct children." This follow-up research continues that effort.
We collected 175 solved cases and added them to the orieinal data set. We obtained the new cases from agencies of all sizes in the United States and even went to some states not included in the original survey.
The additronal cases are reflective and supportive of the original report with several significant and definite differences between the first study and this one. With more killers identified, we find that the relationships between them and their victims change from strangers to an almost equal likelihood of being friends / acquaintences. The probability of the killer's name coming up during the first week of the investigation decreases. Another srgnificant change is the increase of the use of pornography by killers as a trigger. This should not be surprising, given the overwhelming sexual motivation of killers in these cases.
Victims continue to be females slightlv over 11 years of age, leading normal lives and living with normal families - typical low-risk victims. The initial contact between the victim and killer is still within 1/4 mile of the victim's residence.
The killers remain around 27 years old and are predominately unmarried, with half of them living either alone or with their parents. Half of them are unemployed, and those who are employed work in unskilled or semi-skilled
occupations.
More than half of these cases are initially reported to a law enforcement agency as a "missing child." Fast action is necessary since there is typically over a two-hour delay in making the initial missing child report, and the vast majority of the abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.
One question answered by this research is this. What can we tell parents to help them protect their children? Even though child abductron murders are rare, parents must eliminate, or minimize, the opportunity for their children to become victims. We need to tell parents that if their child is unaccounted for, call the police immediately.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Child abduction murder is every parent's worst nightmare. To compound the problem, child abduction murders are incredibly difficult to solve and deeply impact law enforcement officials involved in the investigation. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), abductions resulting in a child's death present many investigative and emotional obstacles for law enforcement officers (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2000). Hanfland. Keppel, and Weis (1997) state that the rarity of child abduction murders, even among criminal homicides, and their complex, emotion-laden, high profiles, make them extremely difficult to investigate.
The 1979 abduction of seven-year-old Etan Patz and the 1981 abduction and murder of six-year-old Adam Walsh terrified parents throughout the nation. As a result of the notoriety of these cases, inflated and unsubstantiated numbers of missing children were widely reported to be over 2 million per year. The number of children who were abducted and then murdered was erroneously reported to be as high as 5,000 per year (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children,2000).
The public outcry over concern for the safety of America's children contributed to the establishment ofthe National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by the United States Congress. To the contrary, careful research has shown that between 40 and 150 incidents of child abduction murder occur each year, which is less than one half of one percent of the murders committed nationally. On average, there is one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child (Finklehor. Hotaling & Sedlalq 1992).
Missing and Abducted Children Statistics
Missing children cases are tipically placed into five categories: family abduction, nonfamily abduction, runawavs, throwaway or abandoned children, and children who become lost or injured (Baker, Rurgess. Rabun, & Nahirny, 2002). In 1988, an estimated 354,100 family abducttons occurred. Forty-six percent of those abductions involved concealment of a child, out of state transportation or the intent to keep the child indefinitely or to permanently alter custody.
During this period, an estimated 3,200 to 4,600 nonfamily abductions were known to police (Finklehor et al.. 1992). Unfortunately, less than 5% of those types of cases are reported to police (Hanfland. et al.. 1997), and they are more likely to result in harm or death. Approximately 200 to 300 of them were stereotipical kidnappings in which the child was transported a distance of more than 50 feet or kept over night. An estimated 446,700 children ran away during this period, and approximately 127,100 children were told to leave their home or were abandoned (Finklehor et aI., 1992).
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to gather accurate information on child abduction for a variety of reasons. Existing studies on child abduction are limited in scope, and there are discrepancies in the statistical information produced. Boudreaux, Lord, and Etter (2000) propose an explanation for the deficiencies in dataon child abduction: ..more.. by Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington -and- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
November 12, 2007
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
HR 4472
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. In recognition of John and Reve Walsh on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction and murder.
TITLE I--SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Declaration of purpose.
Sec. 103. Establishment of program.
Subtitle A--Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Sec. 111. Relevant definitions, including Amie Zyla expansion of sex offender definition and expanded inclusion of child predators.
Sec. 112. Registry requirements for jurisdictions.
Sec. 113. Registry requirements for sex offenders.
Sec. 114. Information required in registration.
Sec. 115. Duration of registration requirement.
Sec. 116. Periodic in person verification.
Sec. 117. Duty to notify sex offenders of registration requirements and to register.
Sec. 118. Public access to sex offender information through the Internet.
Sec. 119. National Sex Offender Registry.
Sec. 120. Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website.
Sec. 121. Megan Nicole Kanka and Alexandra Nicole Zapp Community Notification Program.
Sec. 122. Actions to be taken when sex offender fails to comply.
Sec. 123. Development and availability of registry management and website software.
Sec. 124. Period for implementation by jurisdictions.
Sec. 125. Failure of jurisdiction to comply.
Sec. 126. Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) Program.
Sec. 127. Election by Indian tribes.
Sec. 128. Registration of sex offenders entering the United States.
Sec. 129. Repeal of predecessor sex offender program.
Sec. 130. Limitation on liability for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Sec. 131. Immunity for good faith conduct.
Subtitle B--Improving Federal Criminal Law Enforcement To Ensure Sex Offender Compliance With Registration and Notification Requirements and Protection of Children From Violent Predators
Sec. 141. Amendments to title 18, United States Code, relating to sex offender registration.
Sec. 142. Federal assistance with respect to violations of registration requirements.
Sec. 143. Project Safe Childhood.
Sec. 144. Federal assistance in identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major disaster.
Sec. 145. Expansion of training and technology efforts.
Sec. 146. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.
Subtitle C--Access to Information and Resources Needed To Ensure That Children Are Not Attacked or Abused
Sec. 151. Access to national crime information databases.
Sec. 152. Requirement to complete background checks before approval of any foster or adoptive placement and to check national crime information databases and State child abuse registries; suspension and subsequent elimination of Opt-Out.
Sec. 153. Schools Safe Act.
Sec. 154. Missing child reporting requirements.
Sec. 155. DNA fingerprinting.
TITLE II--FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS NEEDED TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL ATTACKS AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES
Sec. 201. Prohibition on Internet sales of date rape drugs.
Sec. 202. Jetseta Gage assured punishment for violent crimes against children.
Sec. 203. Penalties for coercion and enticement by sex offenders.
Sec. 204. Penalties for conduct relating to child prostitution.
Sec. 205. Penalties for sexual abuse.
Sec. 206. Increased penalties for sexual offenses against children.
Sec. 207. Sexual abuse of wards.
Sec. 208. Mandatory penalties for sex-trafficking of children.
Sec. 209. Child abuse reporting.
Sec. 210. Sex offender submission to search as condition of release.
Sec. 211. No limitation for prosecution of felony sex offenses.
Sec. 212. Victims' rights associated with habeas corpus proceedings.
Sec. 213. Kidnapping jurisdiction.
Sec. 214. Marital communication and adverse spousal privilege.
Sec. 215. Abuse and neglect of Indian children.
Sec. 216. Improvements to the Bail Reform Act to address sex crimes and other matters.
TITLE III--CIVIL COMMITMENT OF DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS
Sec. 301. Jimmy Ryce State civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous persons.
Sec. 302. Jimmy Ryce civil commitment program.
TITLE IV--IMMIGRATION LAW REFORMS TO PREVENT SEX OFFENDERS FROM ABUSING CHILDREN
Sec. 401. Failure to register a deportable offense.
Sec. 402. Barring convicted sex offenders from having family-based petitions approved.
TITLE V--CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION
Sec. 501. Findings.
Sec. 502. Other record keeping requirements.
Sec. 503. Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct.
Sec. 504. Prevention of distribution of child pornography used as evidence in prosecutions.
Sec. 505. Authorizing civil and criminal asset forfeiture in child exploitation and obscenity cases.
Sec. 506. Prohibiting the production of obscenity as well as transportation, distribution, and sale.
Sec. 507. Guardians ad litem.
TITLE VI--GRANTS, STUDIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
Subtitle A--Mentoring Matches for Youth Act
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Findings.
Sec. 603. Grant program for expanding Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program.
Sec. 604. Biannual report.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act
Sec. 611. Short title.
Sec. 612. Findings.
Sec. 613. Purpose.
Sec. 614. Grants authorized.
Sec. 615. Use of funds.
Sec. 616. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 617. Name of League.
Subtitle C--Grants, Studies, and Other Provisions
Sec. 621. Pilot program for monitoring sexual offenders.
Sec. 622. Treatment and management of sex offenders in the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 623. Sex offender apprehension grants; juvenile sex offender treatment grants.
Sec. 624. Assistance for prosecution of cases cleared through use of DNA backlog clearance funds.
Sec. 625. Grants to combat sexual abuse of children.
Sec. 626. Crime prevention campaign grant.
Sec. 627. Grants for fingerprinting programs for children.
Sec. 628. Grants for Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.
Sec. 629. Children's safety online awareness campaigns.
Sec. 630. Grants for online child safety programs.
Sec. 631. Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program.
Sec. 632. Fugitive safe surrender.
Sec. 633. National registry of substantiated cases of child abuse.
Sec. 634. Comprehensive examination of sex offender issues.
Sec. 635. Annual report on enforcement of registration requirements.
Sec. 636. Government Accountability Office studies on feasibility of using driver's license registration processes as additional registration requirements for sex offenders.
Sec. 637. Sex offender risk classification study.
Sec. 638. Study of the effectiveness of restricting the activities of sex offenders to reduce the occurrence of repeat offenses.
Sec. 639. The justice for Crime Victims Family Act.
TITLE VII--INTERNET SAFETY ACT
Sec. 701. Child exploitation enterprises.
Sec. 702. Increased penalties for registered sex offenders.
Sec. 703. Deception by embedded words or images.
Sec. 704. Additional prosecutors for offenses relating to the sexual exploitation of children.
Sec. 705. Additional computer-related resources.
Sec. 706. Additional ICAC Task Forces.
Sec. 707. Masha's Law.
..more.. Choose "Text of Legislation" Then choose "#5" Then "Printer Friendly Display"
October 23, 2007
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..
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..
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..
October 10, 2007
The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do Laws Targeting Sex Offenders Increase Recidivism and Sexual Violence?
2006
ABSTRACT:
Sex offenders are universally hated and despised and seen as dangerous sexual predators unless locked up and kept under surveillance. Following a number of highly publicized violent crimes, all states passed registration and notification laws and many passed civil commitment laws. Although these laws were passed as a means to decrease recidivism and promote public safety, the resulting stigmatization of sex offenders is likely to result in disruption of their relationships, loss of or difficulties finding jobs, difficulties finding housing, and decreased psychological well-being, all factors that could increase their risk of recidivism. The civil commitment programs amount to expensive preventive detention and incapacitation rather than treatment; very few have been released. The high costs of the civil commitment programs divert resources from other programs with a better chance of being effective in reducing sexual violence.
Introduction
Sex offenders are the most vilified group in society. People hate and despise them and think they should be locked up for life. Other criminals consider them too abominable to associate with. They are seen as dangerous sexual predators for whom treatment won't work and who are at a high risk to reoffend. These beliefs are widespread, unsupported by facts, and have resulted in harsh laws specifically targeting sex offenders (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004). These laws are easily passed since it is politically dangerous to take any stance other than that of being tough on sex offenders. Such laws include central registries that exist in all 50 states, involuntary civil commitment laws in 16 states, and new laws in several states restricting where released sex offenders can live.
The focus is now on protecting society rather than individual rights. Janus (2004b) notes the paradigm of governmental social control has shifted from solving and punishing crimes to identifying "dangerous" people and depriving them of their liberty before they can do harm. I believe the net result of this may well be to increase rather than decrease recidivism of sex offenders and make society as a whole more dangerous rather than safer in terms of sexual violence. ..more.. by Hollida Wakefield, M.A.
October 2, 2007
Juvenile Sexual Offenders and Their Victims: Final Report
A Report Submitted to The Governor and The Florida Legislature
Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offenders and Their Victims
January 18, 2006
Executive Summary
The 2005 Florida Legislature authorized the creation of the Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offenders and Their Victims (C2005-263, L.O.F.). Governor Jeb Bush appointed Task Force members who began their work in July 2005. The Task Force was given a broad mandate to examine all aspects of how the State of Florida processes and treats juvenile sexual offenders and their victims. Specifically, the Task Force was directed to make findings including, but not limited to:
• Identification of statutes that address juvenile sexual offenders.
• A profile of the offenses committed by juvenile sexual offenders placed in programs from July 2000 to July 2005.
• An assessment of the appropriateness of placements based on the acts committed.
• Identification of community-based and residential commitment programs available for juvenile sexual offenders.
• Assessment of the effectiveness of juvenile sexual offender programs.
• Identification of qualifications of staff who serve juvenile sexual offenders.
To fulfill its mission, the Task Force held five meetings and a series of conference calls. Their study of Florida Statutes, juvenile sexual offenders in Florida, resources for treatment of juvenile sexual offenders and their victims, assessment, placement and qualifications of staff resulted in a number of findings and recommendations contained in this report.
Findings of the Task Force
The Task Force found that Juvenile sexual offending behavior is complex and necessitates a careful analysis of statistics, trends and research. They found significant differences between adult sex offenders and juveniles who commit sexual offenses. The Task Force reviewed research findings from national studies and from the State of Florida that indicated:
• The per capita incidence of juvenile sexual offending crimes in Florida has slightly decreased over a six-year period.
• Juveniles who commit sexual offenses have an extremely low re-offense rate.
• A significant percentage of juveniles who commit sexual offenses were themselves victimized.
The Task Force examined the types of events resulting in charges of sexual offenses, and the practices involved in the adjudication and disposition of juvenile sexual offenders. They concluded that changes in Florida Statutes were needed to clarify the term ‘juvenile sex offender’ and the issue of consensual sex between children or between adolescents to prevent unnecessary labeling or other unintended consequences that would stigmatize youth into and through adulthood.
When a sexual offense does occur, the Task Force found a critical gap in services available for victims and their families. They found that victims of child-on-child sexual offenses have needs that extend beyond the time limits and resources available through existing programs. The Task force considered victim services one of the top priorities in their findings and recommendations.
Once any youth is adjudicated for a sexual offense or an offense involving inappropriate sexual behavior, the Task Force concluded that comprehensive assessments must be conducted by qualified practitioners. The results of these assessments should drive the classification of the youth, the treatment intervention, and the decision to place the youth in the community or a residential facility to ensure that the placement is appropriate to the act committed and the treatment needs of the youth.
In identifying available treatment resources, the Task Force found that both community-based and residential treatment options are available in the Department of Juvenile Justice service continuum. In consideration of placement appropriate to the seriousness of the offense and the treatment needs of the youth, however, the Task Force found a gap in specialized treatment in lower restrictiveness or community-based settings. Additional funding or fund-shifting to increase the number of lower restrictiveness beds or community-based slots is needed.
The Task Force concluded that a successful approach to treatment of juvenile sexual offenders and their victims must include the development of a balanced continuum of care beginning with multi-agency involvement, collaboration, and cooperation at the community level. The Task Force called for local communities to work together to address the complexity of need, looking to the Department of Juvenile Justice to take the lead to establish interagency communication, coordination and collaboration to develop and maintain an adequate continuum of services.
Of the findings made by the Task Force, the availability of resources for sexual offenders and their victims, especially the lack of community-based resources was regarded most important. Task Force members considered the following findings critical and in need of immediate attention:
• A coordinated, community-based network of resources for the treatment of the victims of sexual offenders and the families of the victims is limited or non-existent in most areas of Florida.
• Comprehensive psychosexual assessments of juvenile sexual offenders by qualified professionals are not automatically required for all adjudicated youth with a history of sexually delinquent or sexually inappropriate behavior.
• The Department does not require specialized certification for all sexual offender assessment professionals under contract with the Department.
• There is a critical lack of community-based treatment resources, forcing placement of youth who represent less of a risk to public safety into expensive high restrictiveness settings.
• The use of the label ‘Juvenile Sex Offender’ is inappropriately applied to youth who are very young or who engaged in ‘consensual’ sexual behavior with victims of the same age or developmental stage with no criminal intent. ..more..
September 17, 2007
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
Congressional Action
July 27, 2006: Signed by President George W. Bush
July 25, 2006: House agreed to Senate amendments by voice vote
July 20, 2006: Passed Senate as amended by voice vote
March 8, 2006: Passed House by voice vote
Other Status
May 17, 2007: Proposed guidelines issued by the Office of Justice Programs.
February 28, 2007: Interim rule with request for comments (by April 30, 2007) issued. Addresses retroactivity. Precedes full guidelines and regulations to implement sex offender registration and notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Rule declares the sex offender requirements to be non-punitive, regulatory measures. Asserts that those are validly applied, and enforced by criminal sanctions, to sex offenders whose predicate offense occurred prior to creation of the requirements.
August 2006: Regulations are being prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Provisions Affecting the States
The stated purpose of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is to protect the public, in particular children, from violent sex offenders via a more comprehensive, nationalized system for registration of sex offenders.
The act states that the attorney general will issue guidelines and regulations in interpretation and implementation of the legislation.
The act calls for state conformity to various aspects of sex offender registration, including information that must be collected, duration of registration requirement for classifications of offenders, verification of registry information, access to and sharing of information, and penalties for failure to register as required. The act states that failure of a jurisdiction to comply with the federal requirements within three years of the implementation of the act will result in a10 percent reduction to Byrne law enforcement assistance grants.
A number of new grant programs are authorized to assist states in improving sex offender registration and related requirements of the act.
Requirements
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act requires that sex offender registration occur before an offender is released from imprisonment or within three days of a non-imprisonment sentence. Changes in registry information must be reported in that time period, as well.
Each sex offender is to provide the following registration information: Name; Social Security number; address or multiple addresses; employer and address; school (if a student) and address; license plate number and description of any vehicle owned or operated by the offender; and any other information required by the attorney general.
Each jurisdiction must include the following information for each offender in the registry: A physical description; the criminal offense; the criminal history of the offender, including dates of arrests and convictions and correctional or release status; a current photograph; fingerprints and palm prints; a DNA sample, a photocopy of a valid driver's license or ID card; and any other information required by the attorney general.
The law defines and requires a three-tier classification system for sex offenders, on which other requirements are based. The tier levels are established as:
Tier I are those other than a tier II or tier III.
Tier II are those other than Tier I with an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and comparable to or more severe than the following federal offenses involving a minor: sex trafficking; coercion and enticement; transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity; abusive sexual contact. Also includes any offense involving use of a minor in a sexual performance, solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution, or production or distribution of child pornography.
Tier III are sex offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and comparable to or more severe than the following federal offenses: sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse; abusive sexual contact against a minor less than 13 years old; offense involving kidnapping of a minor (parent or guardian excepted); or any offense that occurs after one has been designated a tier II sex offender.
The law makes further clarifications of a sex offense and offense against a minor.
Regarding juveniles, the act defines a conviction for purposes of registration and classification to include juvenile adjudications if the juvenile offender is at least 14 years of age at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense aggravated sexual abuse.
The law sets requirements on duration of the registration requirement, according to the classification system. Tier 1 sex offenders are required to register for 15 years; tier II for 25 years and tier III offenders must register for life. Registration periods may be reduced, also according to the tier system, for completing certain programs or having a clean record for specified periods of time.
Registered sex offenders are required to appear in person to verify their address and other registry information and for update of the required photo. Frequency of personal appearance is set according to the tier system. Tier 1 offenders must appear in person each year; tier II offenders every six months; and for tier III sex offenders in-person verification is required every three months.
States are required to have a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment greater than one year for failure of a sex offender to comply with requirements. Assistance by federal law enforcement agencies is available to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who abscond from the registration requirement.
The law requires that states make registry information available on the Internet, in readily accessible form and with certain mandatory exemptions. Each state's website must have search capabilities compatible to the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The attorney general is to develop software to enable jurisdictions to establish and operate uniform registries and Internet sites, and states will have one year to implement it after it becomes available. The act also requires prompt sharing of information on registered sex offenders among state, local and federal law enforcement agencies and other entities.
Grant Programs Authorized
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 authorizes a Sex Offender Management Assistance grant program to help states implement and comply with the law, with bonus payments for substantial implementation within two years of the Act. A Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office is established in the Department of Justice to administer standards for sex offender registration, grant programs and assistance to states. Other grants to states or localities are authorized to assist with verification of sex offender addresses.
The law authorizes grants to states for establishing, enhancing or operating civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous people. It includes definition of a sexually dangerous person and provides that states must have such a program or a plan for establishment within two years of the enactment of this act to receive these grants.
Also authorized is a three-year grant program at $5 million each year, supporting active, real-time and continuous monitoring (GPS) of offenders. States and localities may apply FY 2007 through FY 2009, and will be required to report on effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The act authorizes Sex Offender Apprehension Grants, also 2007 through 2009, to assist states and localities in enforcing sex offender registration requirements.
Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants are authorized, also 2007 through 2009, to assist state and local governments, public and private entities, in addressing treatment needs of juvenile sex offenders.
Grants to law enforcement agencies are authorized under the Bureau of Justice Assistance to help with investigation and enforcement of sexual crimes against children. This includes funds for personnel, computer hardware and software needed to investigate and enforce Internet-facilitated crimes against children. Grants also are authorized to law enforcement agencies for fingerprinting programs for children; and to government and nonprofit organizations for purposes of establishing and improving child Internet safety.
Section-by-Section Summary of the Act
Title I: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Sec. 111. Definitions, including three-tier sex offender classifications.
Sec. 112. States must establish a statewide sex offender registry that conforms to federal standards. The attorney general will issue guidelines and regulations interpreting the federal law.
Sec. 113 (c). When a registered sex offender changes registry information, states are required to immediately provide information to all other jurisdictions in which the offender is required to register.
Sec. 113 (e). States must provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment greater than one year for failure of a sex offender to comply with registration requirements.
Sec. 114. Sets out all of the information states must acquire as part of registration, including a DNA sample and "any other information required by the attorney general."
Sec. 115. The duration of the sex offender registration requirement is established in accordance with the three-tier system set out in Sec. 111. Requires 15 years for tier I sex offender; 25 years for tier II; and life for a tier III sex offender.
Sec. 116. Offenders required to register must appear in person for address verification every three months, six months or one year, according to the three-tier classification, including taking updated photographs.
Sec. 117. State officials must notify offenders of the registry requirements prior to release from custody or immediately upon sentencing if not in custody, and ensure that the registration occurs.
Sec. 118. Sex offender registry information must be available via the Internet in single-query format. Each state’s Internet site must be compatible for search capabilities within the National Sex Offender Public Website, and participate in that website as decided by the attorney general. Includes items required and optional for disclosure exemption.
Sec. 119, 120. The attorney general will establish a National Sex Offender Registry and a Public Website.
Sec. 121. Immediate information sharing is required when a sex offender registers or updates registry information. Notice is to be provided to the attorney general for update of the national registry, and information is to be provided to appropriate law enforcement, school and housing agencies, all other jurisdictions in which a sex offender must be registered, and other specified agencies, entities and organizations.
Sec. 122. The attorney general and appropriate law enforcement agencies also must be notified of failure of a sex offender to comply with registry requirements.
Sec. 123. The Attorney General shall consult with states and other jurisdictions to develop computer software for the creation and operation of uniform sex offender registries and websites.
Sec. 124, 125. States have three years, or until July 2009, to implement the requirements for sex offender registries, and one year from the creation of the software named in Sec. 123. States that fail to comply will lose 10 percent of funds allocated for that fiscal year under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Sec. 125 (b). States are not required to take action that would violate that state’s constitution, as determined by the state’s highest court. However, the state must act in good faith with the attorney general to reconcile differences between this law and the state’s constitution and the state must implement alternative procedures or accommodations to fulfill the purposes of this law. (Consultation with state governor, attorney general, legislature is not mentioned.)
Sec. 126. The attorney general will establish a Sex Offender Management Assistance grant program to offset costs to states in implementing provisions of this law, for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009. Authorizes appropriations but no amount specified.
Sec. 143. The Department of Justice will create a Project Safe Childhood program to integrate federal, state and local efforts to investigate and prosecute child exploitation cases, identify and rescue victims of child exploitation crimes, conduct local training, education and awareness. The Department of Justice also will conduct training of state and local law enforcement relating to computer-aided child exploitation crimes. Appropriates funds for various functions FY 2007 and as may be necessary for five succeeding fiscal years.
Sec. 144. The Department of Justice will help states locating sex offenders who might be relocated after a major disaster.
Sec. 145. The attorney general will expand training efforts for all levels of law enforcement to effectively respond to threats to children. Meetings and conferences will be convened to discuss problems of use of Internet technology to exploit children and to develop pro-active approaches. Authorized is $1 million is for FY 2007 for these programs.
Sec. 146. Creates an Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice, to administer grant programs and provide technical assistance to states and other entities involved with sex offender registration and notification.
Sec. 153. States may request the Department of Justice to conduct fingerprint checks of national crime information databases as part of an individual’s background check by a child welfare agency or school.
Sec. 154. Prohibits state policy that would remove a missing person entry from a state law enforcement system or National Crime Information Center database based solely on the age of the person.
Sec. 202-216. Sets federal mandatory penalties for crimes against children, including sex trafficking in children. Extends statute of limitations for felony sex offenses.
Title II: Federal Criminal Law Enhancements Needed to Protect Children From Sexual Attacks and Other Violent Crimes
This title creates federal offenses for the sale of date rape drugs over the Internet, creates stricter federal penalties for people who commit federal crimes against minors such as engaging in conduct relating to child prostitution and sexual abuse or sex trafficking of children. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Title III: Civil Commitment of Dangerous Sex Offenders
Sec. 301. The attorney general will issue grants to states to establish or enhance civil commitment programs. A state must establish a program, or submit a plan for the creation of one, to be eligible for a grant. (Does not mandate state provisions.)
Sec. 302. Creates “civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person,” procedures for persons in federal custody against whom criminal charges have been dismissed solely due to the mental condition of the person (at U.S. Code 4248.) The attorney general “shall make all reasonable efforts to cause a state to assume such responsibility” for the custody and treatment of such people. If the state will not assume responsibility, the attorney general must place the individual in a suitable facility until a finding that he is no longer sexually dangerous, at which time he may receive conditional discharge. If the director of a facility in which a person is placed under federal civil commitment certifies that a person is sexually dangerous for reasons not related to a mental condition, the attorney general will release that person to the state for purpose of state proceedings for civil commitment; or, absent the state assuming responsibility, will release the person.
Title IV: Immigration Law Reforms to Prevent Sex Offenders From Abusing Children
This title amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to designate failure to register as a sex offender as a deportable offense and prohibits aliens who have committed sex offenses against children from having family-based petitions for citizenship approved unless determined appropriate by the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Title V: Child Pornography Prevention
Asserts interstate commerce aspects of the child pornography market, which relies substantially on mail and Internet. Establishes definitions, procedures and penalties under federal law. Includes provisions governing simulated sexual conduct. May preempt some state laws.
Title VI: Grants, Studies, and Programs for Children and Community Safety
Sec. 603 - 617. Authorizes mentoring grants under the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention specifically to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Police Athletic League at-risk youth program.
Sec. 621. Grants are authorized from the Department of Justice to states, localities and tribes to assist with programs to utilize active, real-time monitoring devices for supervision of sex offenders, including equipment and personnel costs. Sets out minimum standards for the monitoring, and the attorney general will report to Congress by 2010 on effectiveness of electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Funding is authorized at $5 million per year for FY 2007-2009.
Sec. 622. Addresses treatment and management of sex offenders in the federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 623. Creates a new section of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to authorize grants to states, localities and tribes to assist in the enforcement of sex offender registration requirements, and grants to assist in the treatment of juvenile sex offenders. For registration requirements, authorizes appropriations for FY 2007-2009, with no monetary amount specified. Authorizes $10 million per year for FY 2007-2009 for juvenile sex offender treatment grants.
Sec. 624. The attorney general may provide grants to train and employ personnel to assist in cases cleared through DNA backlog elimination. Authorizes appropriations 2007 through 2011, with no amount specified.
Sec. 625. The Bureau of Justice Assistance may provide grants to law enforcement jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents to hire additional law enforcement or train current staff in combating sexual abuse of children, investigating the use of the Internet in the sexual abuse of children, and/or purchase computer equipment to investigate sexual abuse and facilitate the creation of sex offender registries. Jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 residents may apply, based on need. The attorney general is to prioritize the awarding of the grants based on need. Authorization provided for FY 2007-2009, with no amount specified.
Sec. 627. The attorney general is to create a program authorizing grants to state, localities, and tribes for the purpose of creating voluntary finger-printing programs for children, hiring law enforcement to conduct these programs, and providing the necessary computer equipment for these programs. Limitations for the use of the children’s fingerprints are included, with criminal penalties for violating the restrictions. Beginning in FY 2007, $20 million total is authorized for a five-year period.
Sec. 628. Authorizes grants to Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, for victim assistance services, for FY 2007-2010.
Sec. 630. The attorney general will make grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to establish programs to educate children and parents on Internet safety. These grants are subject to the availability of appropriations, and no specific amount is named.
Sec. 631. The attorney general may award grants to state, localities and tribes for the purpose of periodically verifying the residence of all or some registered sex offenders in their jurisdiction. The attorney general is required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of this activity. Authorizes sums as necessary to carry out this section for FY 2007-2009.
Sec 632. Authorizes funds to United States Marshals Service for "fugitive safe surrender program."
Sec. 633. The secretary of Health and Human Services and the attorney general will create a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect. States and/or localities are to provide the information to be listed in the registry via electronic means and containing specific information decided by the secretary. Allows that an existing state or local equivalent registery of child abuse cases will suffice for the national registry.
Sec. 636. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using driver’s license registration processes within the states to improve compliance with sex offender registration requirements, assess systems capabilities in the states, and determine potential costs to states.
Title VII: Internet Safety Act
This title creates federal offenses and penalties for child exploitation via the Internet and for knowingly embedding words and digital images into web source code for the purpose of deceiving minors into accessing material constituting obscenity. It also instructs the attorney general to increase the number of computer forensic examiners to be dedicated to investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children, and forms additional Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Full text of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
..more.. by Updated July 27, 2007 NCSL Law & Criminal Justice Committee Susan Parnas Frederick, 202-624-5400 Donna Lyons, 303-364-7700
