2-25-2010 Maryland:
Fifteen years have come and gone since he was arrested, pleaded guilty and received five years' probation for the third-degree sexual offense of trying to solicit sex from a prostitute who was 13 years old. Larry -- a name I've given him for the purposes of this column -- served his probation and took part in weekly group therapy sessions at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Records indicate that he has not committed such a crime -- or any crime -- since then. "In fact," he adds, "I would say I've lived an exemplary life since then."
There aren't many sex offenders going public these days. Larry, who told his story provided I did not use his name, says he "came out of the woodwork" only because of what he (and others) see as election-year hysteria in Annapolis to toughen laws and regulations on sexual offenders, particularly those who victimize children. One of the dozens of measures in the legislature would expand Maryland's sex offender registry to cover cases from 15 to 25 years ago.
That means Larry's face and his record would appear where it doesn't now: on the Internet, for the entire world to see. "I hadn't really been paying attention to all this nutty, knee-jerk sex offender legislation," he says. "But I am now."
When he was arrested in 1995, he had been a consultant on several government-funded projects. He lost his security clearance, lost his job. He had a difficult time finding another. "Categorically turned down by many, many employers," he says.
So he took a lot of lousy jobs that didn't last. Finally, he found a good job commensurate with his education and training, but he's sure he would lose it if the General Assembly expands the offender registry.
Larry wrote an anonymous letter to the House Judicial Proceedings Committee. He had a friend deliver it for him. He gave me a copy. I told him I'd let him have his say in this space because an anonymous letter to an Annapolis committee probably never gets much attention.
"Over the past 15 years," he wrote the committee, "I have been continuously employed. I completed an advanced degree; and I have provided time tutoring and guiding adult students in my field. I am involved in an international program to improve technology in third-world countries. I have made valuable contributions using my artistic and creative side.
"I do not seek contact with children, and I usually go out of my way to avoid it. I do have several nieces whose lives I've been invited into with welcome arms. Friends have knowingly welcomed me into their homes.
"Rehabilitation has not been easy. I've worked extremely hard at it and succeeded at it. Were I to detect potential triggers, I know how to employ avoidance strategies involving family, friends and therapists."
Larry credits the group therapy sessions at UMMC with having the most effect on his thinking and behavior, and he thinks the state should spend its money on such programs instead of the costly expansion of its online offender registry.
"I attribute a certain amount of ease in rehabilitation to the fact that I was not subject to any post-probation placement on Internet sex offender lists or unsolicited neighborhood notifications. For example, my current employer, who I hope to be my long-term employer, would not have hired me, according to their policy, had I been on the state's sex offender list. If I get on such a list, who knows whether I'll keep my job? It's open season on you once you're on that list."
Larry believes he made a contract with the state 15 years ago -- a guilty plea in return for five years' probation, the court-ordered therapy and nothing more. "I have lived in a contract with the state of Maryland," he wrote. "Now the state of Maryland wants to impose stringent, retroactive reporting requirements on me and put my picture on the Internet, parading me like a circus freak. The state wants to humiliate me and set me back. The state wants to open me up to potential violence. The state is about to punish me for having done everything right for over 15 years." ..Source.. Dan Rodricks
February 25, 2010
Will sex offender have to pay for old crimes?
June 18, 2008
MO- Registered sex offender files suit against sheriff
6-18-2008 Missouri:
A registered sex offender from Willow Springs has filed a civil lawsuit against Howell County Sheriff Robbie Crites.
Scott Kramer is the petitioner in the suit, filed Friday in Howell County Circuit Court. He is represented by Jacob Y. Garrett of Garrett & Silvey attorneys at law in West Plains.
The suit states that on Aug. 28, 2001, Kramer entered a guilty plea in Pennsylvania for a misdemeanor offense of indecent assault, according to the laws of Pennsylvania.
After the guilty plea, Kramer was sentenced to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and started his sentence Sept. 11, 2001. He was released on parole Feb. 27, 2002.
Kramer later moved to Missouri, the suit says, and transferred his parole to Missouri. At that time, he was required by his parole officer to register as a sex offender. Kramer now has completed his parole, but is still being required by the sheriff to register as a sex offender.
The suit states Kramer believes that under statutes on the date of his conviction – Aug. 28, 2001 – he would not have been made to register as a sex offender.
“The crime for which the petitioner pled guilty to in Pennsylvania constituted a misdemeanor offense and thus was not a registerable offense under the applicable statute that was then in effect in Missouri on the 28th day of August, 2001,” the suit says.
The suit further states that Kramer wouldn’t have been required to register as a sex offender in Pennsylvania if he still lived there since he pled guilty to a misdemeanor.
The petition filed in the suit also states that laws of this nature “could not be applied retroactively to an individual requiring them to register as a sex offender for a crime committed prior to statutory requirements.”
Kramer is asking that the court find he “is not required to register under Missouri law as a sex offender,” as well as “for an order directing the sheriff to remove the name of the petitioner from the sex offender list for the state of Missouri; for an order providing that the sheriff no longer be required to direct the petitioner to register as a sex offender; and for such other relief as the court deems just and proper in the premises.”
Attached to the petition filed by Kramer is the definition of indecent assault in Pennsylvania.
The documents state, “A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and:
1.) the person does so without the complainant’s consent;
2.) the person does so by forcible compulsion;
3.) the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion …;
4.) the complainant is unconscious …;
5.) the person has substantially impaired the complainant’s power to appraise or control his or her conduct …;
6.) the complainant suffers from mental disability …;
7.) the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or
8.) the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant.”
According to the documents, the crime is considered a misdemeanor in Pennsylvania unless it is the second or subsequent offense, there has been a course of conduct of indecent assault by the person, the indecent assault was committed by touching the complainant’s sexual or intimate parts with sexual or intimate parts of the person, or if the indecent assault is committed by touching the person’s sexual or intimate parts with the complainant’s sexual or intimate parts.
Kramer, age 45, currently is registered on the Howell County list of registered sex offenders, as well as the database maintained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
The petition filed in the civil lawsuit only states one side of the case. ..News Source,, by Howel County News
May 1, 2008
MO- Making Sex Offender Registration Laws Retroactive
Here is a news item which will clearly be misconstrued by those who do not understand ex post facto clauses and state constitutional amendments. Apparently Missouri's current constitution prohibits RETROACTIVE application of both civil and criminal laws. The prohibition against ex post facto laws ONLY applies to criminal laws. i.e., laws that the intent of the legislature is to fet out punishment.
Accordingly, the Missouri legislature is going to propose a constitutional amendment to its voters to PERMIT RETROACTIVE application of its civil laws (or at least the registry law), which is perfectly legal. Now, since registry laws have been deemed to be civil laws, not criminal laws, then once the constitutional amendment is passed they can apply the registry laws to those before xx date which they chose. This is exactly what Hawaii did and it was deemed constitutional.
However, there would still be an issue as to the loss of a protection of a prior law, that could be raised by some folks on the registry (those before the xx date) but someone would have to bring that issue to court to get relief, if possible.
4-30-2008 Missouri:
JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2008-04-30) Missouri's House Crime Prevention Committee heard a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the retrospective application of sex offender registration laws.
If the amendment were to get on the Missouri ballot, voters would either adopt or reject the law that could force more sex offenders to register even if they were convicted prior to the adoption of the registration requirement.
Southeast Missouri Republican Senator Jason Crowell is sponsoring the constitutional amendment.
"If we are going to have a sex offender's registration list, all sex offenders will be on that list. Not just those who commit their offense post 1995."
Any law restricting sex offenders from residing near a school or child-care facility would be applied retrospectively.
The amendment would also allow the continuation of the DNA analysis collection of felons regardless of when the felony was committed. ..more.. by Erika Navarrete
January 27, 2008
THE CASE AGAINST CIVIL EX POST FACTO LAWS
Cato Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 2-3 (Fall/Winter 1995/96). Copyright © Cato Institute. All rights reserved.
According to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.'' A similar provision that applies to Congress is found in Section 9 of the same article. At first glance these constitutional prohibitions seem simple enough--retroactive laws violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. With one ruling in 1798, the Supreme Court succeeded in muddling the issue of ex post facto laws by holding that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws.
In The Constitution of Liberty, F. A. Hayek (1960: 205-20) notes that some coercion, while unavoidable in a civil society, can be minimized by requiring that coercive actions comply with general rules that are known in advance by individuals. If individuals know the law, they can base their actions upon established rules and minimize the ill effects of coercion. Hayek states that not all legislative enactments will satisfy the three criteria of what he calls "true law''--generality, certainty, and equality. He argues that true law provides the general rules which minimize coercion and that legislative enactments which do not satisfy these criteria are objectionable. He writes that the law must be general, that it must be known and certain, and that it should apply equally to all. A necessary condition for the law to be known and certain is a prohibition on ex post facto laws. After all, the law can hardly be known and certain if new laws can be made to apply retroactively to actions already performed.
From a policy standpoint, as Hayek's analysis indicates, ex post facto laws are riddled with problems. Unfair and unpredictable, ex post facto or retroactive laws mar the American legal system and create an abundance of problems.[1]
This article examines the origins of the constitutional interpretation of ex post facto laws, reviews sources favoring the prohibition of ex post facto civil laws, considers the damaging impact of retroactive laws on property rights, and proposes a solution to the debate over retroactive laws in which ex post facto civil as well as criminal laws would be constitutionally prohibited unless just compensation is provided for unfair retroactivity. Given that the clear constitutional ban on ex post facto laws does not distinguish between criminal and civil laws and given our own intuitions about fairness in the legal system, the prohibition on ex post facto laws should be extended to civil laws in order to prevent unfair and capricious changes in the law.
Calder v. Bull: Origins of the Distinction between
Civil and Criminal Ex Post Facto Laws
The Supreme Court first held that the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applied only to criminal laws in the landmark opinion of Calder v. Bull (1798). The issue in the case, which arose from the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was whether the act of the Connecticut legislature to set aside a decree of a probate court (which had the effect of divesting the appellants of certain property) was an ex post facto law. ..more.. by Steve Selinger is a land developer who has been the "beneficiary'' of certain ex post facto laws. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Princeton University and a doctorate in economics and econometrics from the California Institute of Technology. He thanks Lawrence E. Smith, Bill Talbott, Suzanne Tracy, and Beth Vella for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
