Officials: Sex offender law has few problems

With respect to the police mentioning where "residency restrictions" came from, this is absolute proof they have no idea what is from the Adam Walsh Act, and what comes from the minds of state lawmakers. Residency restrictions DO NOT come from the AWA federal law, what has happened is, state lawmakers, when enacting AWA requirements, coupled their own requirements which have nothing to do with AWA, then blame the federal law. This is th kind of misinformation that is spreading across the nation.

2-22-2011 Ohio:

Scott Hildenbrand has a pragmatic attitude about the responsibility law-enforcement agencies have to keep track of registered sex offenders who live in area communities.

"In a perfect world, we wouldn't have any sex offenders," said the chief deputy of the Geauga County Sheriff's Office. "But this isn't a perfect world. We do have sex offenders and we need to have a system in place that accounts for their whereabouts so law-abiding citizens can have peace of mind."

The system referred to by Hildenbrand has been in place since Jan. 1, 2008, when Ohio's Senate Bill 10, originally passed in July 2007, went into effect.

Ohio already had been at the forefront of states in registering sex offenders since the mid-1990s. With the implementation of the legislation, Ohio became the first state to come into substantial compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

"Nothing that's happened since then indicates to me there are any problems with the system," said Lake County Sheriff Daniel A. Dunlap. "Our role (in monitoring registered sex offenders) has grown greatly in recent years. We take advantage of any program that enhances the safety of our citizens."

A key provision of the bill established residency restrictions for registered sex offenders. They are prohibited from establishing a residence within 1,000 feet of a preschool, school or day-care center. The law also establishes three classifications for registered sexual offenders.

Tier III offenders are individuals convicted of the most serious felonies. They must do in-person registrations every 90 days for the rest of their lives at the sheriff's office in their home county, and the sheriff's office must provide written notification by mail to all residents living within one mile of the offender when they move in.

Tier II offenders must register twice annually for 25 years. Tier I offenders must register once per year, on the anniversary of conviction, for 15 years.

As of Friday, the office of Attorney General Mike DeWine reported that there are 17,927 registered sex offenders in Ohio. That total is down slightly from 18,809 in November 2009.

The eSORN list is linked to 88 sheriff's offices and 32 correctional facility records offices of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.

In the Lake County Sheriff's Office, the registration and monitoring of registered sex offenders is handled by deputies Michael Perry and David Harvey.

"Is the system flawless? No. But our success rate is good," Perry said. "It's a group effort involving law enforcement and the courts. We're very aware of what citizens want."

Perry said that a new wrinkle in the system, in place since late 2010, sends written notifications to registered sex offenders of the next date they must report to the sheriff's department.

"This eliminates the excuse of not knowing the registration deadline," Perry said.

"Once the individual goes three days past the deadline, a warrant is issued for his or her arrest."

Hildenbrand said that in Geauga County, there have been "several instances" of registered sex offenders violating the 1,000-feet rule. Those individual were required to change residence to come into compliance.

Lake County Prosecutor Charles E. Coulson has been critical of the legislation since it hit the books in 2008. Coulson said the law casts too wide of a net.

"The law is arbitrary and indiscriminate," Coulson said. "We want to protect the public, of course, but by covering such a wide area, we are needlessly putting the spotlight on people whose offenses may not rise to the level of seriousness this law intends to address.

"There are individuals who technically fall under this law, needing to register, who are not a danger to society," Coulson added.

"I hate to see kids who make one stupid mistake forced to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives.

"Right now, there is no discretion for judges who know the entire history of a case. We need to give the judges some discretion."

In June 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court by a 5-1 vote threw out sections of the legislation.

The justices ruled that provisions of the law violated the constitution when state officials were forced to change the classifications of individuals convicted of sex offenses prior to implementation of the new rules.

Perry said the ruling necessitated a certain amount of paperwork but did not represent a setback to the registration and monitoring of sex offenders in Lake County. ..Source.. David S. Glasier

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Stop the sex offender fear-mongering

11-16-2010 California:

The Jessica's Law residency restriction leaves some offenders homeless and does nothing to protect children. A Los Angeles judge was right to order its suspension.

Some critics of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza's order temporarily staying enforcement of the sex offender residency restrictions of Jessica's Law, reported by The Times on Nov. 5, are exploiting the legitimate fears of decent people. These critics ignore the reality that these particular residency restrictions apply to all paroled sex registrants, most of whom have never harmed a child, and do not effectively protect our children. In fact, by creating a crisis of homelessness among sex registrants, broad residency restrictions actually endanger our community. Ordinarily, the recidivism rate among the vast preponderance of sex offenders is low. Why destabilize them and create a far greater risk of reoffending? Indeed, Espinoza's order came after the defenders of the residency restriction failed to offer any evidence or argument to the contrary.

To be clear, a separate residency law prohibits the small group of sex offenders who have actually victimized children and are designated as "high risk" from living near schools. Moreover, all parolees required to register as sex offenders continue to be monitored by GPS bracelets at all times; Espinoza's order did not revoke or change those restrictions. Those who claim that as the result of the court order child predators will now be living near schools are misleading the public.

The real effect of the order is that people like William Baker (name changed) will be permitted to have a roof over their heads. In the 1970s, Baker committed a sex offense against an adult and served an appropriate prison sentence. Baker is now completely blind and unable to care for himself. After the passage of Jessica's Law, Baker was not permitted to live in the room his sister provided both him and his wife; like nearly all residential units in Los Angeles, Baker's resident was within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Instead, Baker had to move every two hours all day to prove that he was not "residing" anywhere near a school or park. Baker would ride public transportation all night to get some sleep and remain compliant with the residency restriction.

Forcing individuals like Baker into homelessness not only does nothing to protect children, it also comes at a great financial cost to taxpayers. The best way to manage parolees is to have them in stable housing where they can be treated, managed and monitored. In the wake of Jessica's Law, the state has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in Los Angeles County alone to subsidize expensive motel rooms and crowded rental units in the tiny slivers of compliant residential land. The vast majority of those who receive these subsidies could otherwise live with their own families at no cost to the taxpayer.

And this state money could easily run out, starting a public witch hunt in earnest. In fact, very recently a residential treatment center was firebombed and shot up because one or more assailants assumed that sex offenders resided there.

Let's focus on sound practices based on fact and law and move away from the political fear-mongering that is as counterproductive as the residency restriction itself. The alarmism could unleash uncontrollable vigilantism. This is a case highlighting the crucial importance of judicial independence. Espinoza's ruling was based on clearly established legal precedent; it was righteous, and he was courageous. ..Source.. Michael P. Judge is public defender of Los Angeles County.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How often do the police speak -Negatively- about sex offender laws?

2-11-2010 Oklahoma:

This story may suprise you, and then again, when you hear what the author of the law in question says, it may not suprise you? However, consider that the law's author was likely pushing for some political gain under the pretext of public safety when he first proposed the law. With that said:

FOX News: Sex offender zones (CLICK for Video)

A law intended to protect Oklahomans from sex offenders may be having the exact opposite effect. Police departments around Oklahoma are openly protesting the Sex Offender Residence Restriction Law. Police say, lawmakers hoped it would drive sex offenders out of the state. Instead, police say, sex offenders have simply stopped registering.

PS: There is not one study anywhere which shows these laws protect anyone, but there are studies to show the harm they cause. The problem is, lawmakers do not get votes by showing such evidence. Here the police are explaing the problems with these laws.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

California Supreme Court upholds state enforcement of sex offender ban

See my comments in a earlier post.

2-1-2010 California:

Voter-approved limits on where sex offenders can live can apply legally to parolees who committed their sex crimes long before Jessica's Law passed, the California Supreme Court ruled today.

The ruling means state parole agents can continue enforcing a ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children "regularly gather" — the most controversial provision of the 2006 ballot measure backed by 70 percent of voters.

The majority opinion from Justice Marvin R. Baxter found that the 2,000-foot ban does not amount to retroactive punishment as a parole condition for convicts who are required to register as sex offenders.

"It matters not ... whether the registered sex offender is being released on his current parole for a sex or nonsex offense," Baxter wrote. To rule otherwise, he wrote, would grant parolees with earlier sex convictions "a free lifetime pass" from the ban.

The court, however, declined to say whether the law can apply to those sex offenders once they leave parole, saying there is no evidence that it is being enforced against anyone but parolees.

Critics say the ban has forced thousands of registered sex offenders into homelessness, potentially raising the risk of recidivism. Since the law passed, the number of paroled sex offenders registered as transient has risen from less than 100 to more than 2,200. The ranks of homeless sex offenders increased dramatically over the past year, after state parole officials cut back on paying for motel rooms and apartment rents for many sex offenders.

The plaintiffs in the case are four registered sex offenders who committed their sex offenses before the law passed but were later released from prison after serving time for other crimes. They claimed the ban amounted to retroactive punishment, also arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague and that the 2,000-foot ban infringes on various constitutional rights, including property and privacy rights, by severely limiting where they can live.

The court left that question open, ruling that the plaintiffs would need to show lower courts that the law is overly restrictive in the counties where they live.

Justices Carlos R. Moreno and Joyce Kennard dissented, arguing that the 2,000-foot ban should apply only to those convicted of sex offenses after the law passed.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the decision in a statement today.

"The voters passed this important initiative to help protect our communities and our children from sexual predators and I am pleased the court ruled today to uphold the will of the people," he said. "My Administration will continue to do everything within our power to protect California's children and families from the threat of sexual predators including defending Jessica's law."

Ernest Galvan, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling, and the constitutional questions it left open, warrant a change in the law.

"This is in no way a green light for rousting sex offense registrants out of their homes or starting a round of local enforcement of these residency restrictions," Galvan said. "There are still very grave constitutional doubts about this law. The best thing to do would be for the Legislature to fix it."

Proposition 83, backed by 70 percent of voters in 2006, stiffened penalties for some sex crimes, required lifetime GPS monitoring of newly released sex criminals and set the 2,000-foot "predator free zones." It is considered among the nation's stiffest anti-predator laws.

One advocate for sex offenders predicted that San Francisco, where state maps show scant available housing outside the zones, will turn the legal tide against the 2,000-foot rule.

"This case is not over," said Jake Goldenflame, himself a convicted sex offender and author of "Overcoming Sexual Terrorism." "It is just beginning." ..Source.. John Simerman
Contra Costa Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court: Calif. Sex Predator Law Needs More Hearings

In essence, a non decision on the residency portion of Jessica's law. With that said, I do see a problem, the court said, "because the law NOW SAYS that persons convicted of certain crimes will be on LifeTime probation when released," and each of the Plaintiffs' crimes fell into these -certain crimes category- then the residency law was not applied retroactively, instead it is being applied prospectively.

As best as I can see, it appears, none of these Plaintiffs attacked the "LifeTime Probation" portion, hence the court was not stopped from their prospective application decision. However, the court did REMAND each Plaintiff's case for further hearings, where they may be able to attack the "LifeTime Probation" portion.

Normally a law is retroactive, if it is enacted AFTER the date of conviction, however, here the court seems to have substituted the "date of release" for the "date of conviction" in order to save the law. That seems to violate ex post facto clauses, but I'm just one opinion.

2-1-2010 California:

Calif. High Court Not Ready To Rule On Sexual Predator Law, Returns Cases To Lower Court

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court on Monday ordered more investigation into whether the state's sexually violent predator law is constitutional.

On Monday, a 5-2 court ruled that separate inquiries must be conducted into the claims of four registered sex offenders who allege they can't find a place to live because vote-approved Jessica's Law prohibits them from residing within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children congregate

The law also requires parolees to live in the county of their last legal residence.

The four registered sex offenders whose claims were considered contended that such residency restrictions essentially bar them from living in densely populated areas. Most of San Francisco, for instance, is off limits because of the stay-away requirements.

The high court said it wasn't presented with enough evidence to support or refute those claims and sent each case back to a trial court for further hearings. The court said each case should be considered separately.

The court noted that there are 3,884 parolees subject to Jessica's Law, and 718 of them have declared themselves homeless because of their inability to comply with the restrictions.

Proposition 86, which established Jessica's Law, was passed by 70 percent of voters in 2006 and increased the punishment for committing sexually violent crimes.

Justice Carlos Moreno and Joyce Kennard dissented with the ruling, writing they felt that applying the law retroactively to offenders convicted before the law took effect was wrong.

On Thursday, the court also asked for more evidence to determine if it's constitutional to indefinitely incarcerate sex offenders found to be mentally disturbed in mental health facilities after they serve their prison terms.

The court said more hearings must be scheduled to determine if sexually violent predators can be punished differently than other mentally disturbed violent criminals, who can be held for defined terms after their prison sentences are served. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NY- North Hudson considers sex offender ordinance

8-12-2009 New York:

The North Hudson Village Board discussed a potential sex offender ordinance Tuesday, Aug. 4, but took no action, instead referring the document back to the Public Safety Committee.

The North Hudson Village Board discussed a potential sex offender ordinance Tuesday, Aug. 4, but took no action, instead referring the document back to the Public Safety Committee.

The issue came up after the city of Hudson passed an ordinance earlier this summer.

The ordinance the village is considering is very similar to the Hudson ordinance, establishing residency restriction and restricted zones (parks, schools, churches, etc.). The North Hudson proposal would establish a limit of 200 feet in both cases. North Hudson Police Chief Mark Richert said five offenders currently live in North Hudson, but none would fall into the restriction zones being proposed.

He added, however, that courts have ruled it is illegal to essentially outlaw offenders from living anywhere in a municipality.

The board found out Tuesday night, however, that many state officials oppose sex-offender restriction laws. Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry Specialist Jody Voegeli, Eau Claire, said sex offender laws drive offenders under cover and make them harder to track.

“Not all states like restrictions – many states have repealed them,” Voegeli said. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections is against them, as are many organizations established to protect victims of sex offenders.

“Research shows 90 to 95 percent of children are offended by someone they know. Research shows that offender restrictions do not protect kids and might even put them at greater risk – where the offender lives does not matter, or help.”

Board Trustee Daryl Standafer said he didn’t understand the logic of “200 feet.”

“What makes that safer than, say, 300 feet or 100 feet?” Standafer asked.

Voegeli said that’s the point – residency restrictions won’t help.

Department of Corrections representative Mike O’Keefe, Hudson, said any offender still under supervision has restrictions imposed by the department. Once they are off probation, or supervision, however, the department does not monitor them – that’s when Voegeli and the people with the Sex Offender Registry Department begin their work.

Local ordinances, however, can impose restrictions – those are the restrictions that Voegeli claims will drive sex offenders under cover.

Some board members feel an ordinance is important because of the city of Hudson passing an ordinance. With restrictions in Hudson, the fear is that potential sex offenders would start their residency search in North Hudson.

Trustee Marc Zappa said it appears there is not a real problem in North Hudson and that the village is attempting to “mirror the Hudson situation.”

The board voted to refer the issue back to the Public Safety Committee for more discussion and fact-finding. ..Source.. by Doug Stohlberg, Hudson Star-Observer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Rescue mission seeks aid

In light of the Michigan case of Thomas Pauli, who froze to death because of, being denied entry or would have been denied entry (depending on who one believes), to one of the available missions because of his status as a RSO, follow closely how Missons in California handle that circumstance. Read carefully, the article is difficult in places.

2-2-2009 California:

Chief executive of group that runs the winter homeless shelter likens the current climate to the Great Depression.

BURBANK — The Union Rescue Mission that runs the winter homeless shelter at the Burbank Armory plans to appeal to city and state officials soon for increased shelter aid, expecting a Depression-scale increase in homelessness.

“We’ve been speaking out to public officials, but I don’t think anybody is quite ready to see the gravity of this,” said Andy Bales, chief executive of the Union Rescue Mission, which runs a number of shelters in the Greater Los Angeles area. “We need to take emergency steps for the number of people that are going to be coming our way because of foreclosures and job loss.

“This is alarming, and I’ve been working with the homeless for 23 years. It’s getting a little Depression-like.”

California’s unemployment rate is now at 9.3%, according to the Employment Development Department. California ranked among the states hit hardest by America’s 81% foreclosure increase between 2007 and 2008, according to the real estate database Realty Trac.

“I wish there was a way the armory shelter could stay open all year,” Bales said. “We see people pulling up for homeless aid in nice cars after just having their homes foreclosed on.”

The winter shelter will finish its second year at the armory March 15. The residents surrounding the armory and Pacific Park have been speaking to the City Council about their concerns that this would become a permanent arrangement for future winters.

The most recent round of complaints Tuesday came after a sex offender did not show up in the shelter’s screening process and was discovered when he went to register his location with the police.

Resident Brian Blevins said he has seen homeless people panhandling, urinating in public and sleeping outside in his neighborhood — which contains a baseball field, an elementary school and a nursery school — when they are supposed to be confined to the shelter.

“I think the security is incredibly lax, unlike the way it was told to us before they opened it this year,” Blevins said. “We’re still waiting for the reports on this year’s shelter to be made public. I don’t think the shelter should continue this way next year. If they do it next winter, they should focus on families and single mothers.”

Another resident, Armando Perez, was concerned the shelter’s presence would ruin the neighborhood’s real estate value.

“This is a cancer, and if we’re not careful, it will spread to the lymph nodes,” Perez told the council.

The shelter has seen many more economically troubled families this year as opposed to the chronically homeless, said Sgt. Thor Merich, a Burbank Police Department liaison with the winter shelter.

“There’s often a reason people are homeless, mostly because of drugs, alcoholism or mental problems,” Merich said. “But this year especially, people are being driven into homelessness suddenly and for the first time. People who are down and out from the economy are not the types likely to break the law.”

The homeless who apply for space at the shelter have their names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and previous residency screened before being taken on buses into the armory. Along with security to keep them from wandering the neighborhood, this screening is to make sure they are not on the Megan’s Law or any other sex offender registry databases, said Carrie Gatlin, spokeswoman for the Union Rescue Mission.

“The man mentioned in the City Council meeting registered in four days in accordance with his 30 days Megan’s Law deadline, so he was referred out to another shelter we operate where they don’t have women and children concerns in the shelter or in the neighborhood,” Gatlin said. “We always work with the homeless to find them a place to sleep and keep them off the streets. The police say we’re doing all the right things in screening them, aside from having access to the police database. We missed that sex offender because we couldn’t find him under his previous location.”

Compared with last year, there have been fewer calls for police support to the neighborhood around the shelter, Merich said.

“It’s understandable for people to have those fears, but the whole thing is mostly perception,” Merich said. “This is something new to Burbank. We are in discussion with the shelter almost daily about their security. To our knowledge, nobody has showed at the shelter trying to fool the system. We may find after we are done reviewing this season that somebody has snuck in and fooled it, but we’re doing multiple check processes almost nightly.”

Given the concerns of the neighborhood, Councilman David Gordon thinks there could be a more appropriate place for the winter shelter next year.

“The neighborhood has these fears that are starting to take place,” Gordon said.

“I want to help those in need, but even with everyone trying their best to make it work, it doesn’t seem compatible with the neighborhood around it.”

The Burbank Armory becomes unavailable when the National Guard holds training there, but it also has the space, bathroom and kitchen facilities an effective shelter needs.

“For the winter shelter, we really don’t have much choice on location besides the armory,” said Burbank Mayor Dave Golonski. “I’ve heard the concerns of that neighborhood pretty loud. In order to sell their homes, people have to disclose that there is a shelter there part of the year, which could hurt their property value.” ..News Source.. by Tom Risen

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

VT- Accused Sex Offender Can Stay in Burlington

10-3-2008 Vermont:

Just weeks after a judge ordered an accused teenage sex offender out of Burlington-- it appears he can stay after all.

The case began when Dustin Moore, 18, was released from a juvenile detention center after an alleged sex offense.

He moved back to his parent's house in Burlington's New North End across the street from an elementary school.

Judge Ben Joseph ordered Moore to move after tensions arose when residents learned that he may be a sex offender and that he is facing new charges stemming from an alleged sex offense that took place while he was at the detention center.

Moore pled innocent and is currently awaiting trial.

Judge Ben Joseph released him with orders not to live within 1,000 feet of a school or day care-- a rule also being considered by the Burlington City Council. But that's a problem because Moore can't find a residence within city limits that meets that simple requirement. So the court decided to drop that restriction, rather than face the possible alternative of Moore becoming homeless.

"When we're presented with a choice of do we want to know where Mr. Moore is at all times, or if we follow the rule of he can't live within 1,000 feet of a school or day care facility- that basically makes him homeless- or at the very best, transient. I think it's a far better policy for public safety purposes to know where Mr. Moore is," Chittenden County State's Attorney T.J. Donovan said.

Moore is currently living on Flynn Avenue in the South End of Burlington. Donovan says there is a day care in the area and managers have been alerted to Moore's proximity. Immediate neighbors have also been informed of his presence. Moore is also required to check in with Burlington police twice a day.

The case is due back in court in a few weeks. Donovan has said that Moore does not have a lot of job training or education. So, they're hoping to work with the defense toward a solution that will provide Moore with the skills and training needed to become a productive member of society. But Donovan says the resolution also has to protect the public. ..News Source.. by Rachael Morrow - WCAX News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

GA- Sex Offender Faces Life in Prison for Being Homeless

8-7-2008 Georgia:

Sex Offender 'Clusters' Are Cropping Up in Georgia

A convicted sex offender in Georgia was pulled off the street and now faces life in prison -- not for committing a crime -- but because he was homeless.

Larry W. Moore Jr., who was convicted of a felony in North Carolina in 1994 for indecent liberty with a child and a sex offender registry violation in Georgia in 2005, could receive a life sentence after violating the state's registry law a second time.

A conviction for the second violation occurred last week, after an Augusta investigator found out that he registered a false address; he actually lived on the street. Under Georgia's new law, this second violation triggers an automatic life sentence.

Georgia's new sex offender law -- one of the nation's toughest to date -- prohibits offenders from living and working within 1,000 feet of not just schools and day care centers, but also churches, public or community swimming pools, public or private parks, bus stops and any other places "where minors congregate."

While many states have registry requirements, Georgia's 2006 sex offender law added school bus stops and churches to the list of places 1,000 feet from which registered sex offenders couldn't live or work, leaving them with only a handful of hotels and shelters to choose from, policy experts said. And although there is a court-ordered hold on the bus stop limitation, the church provision is in place.

Last fall, the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union asked a court to prevent nine elderly and severely disabled offenders who lived within 1,000 feet of a church from being evicted.

The SCHR said that among those who faced eviction were residents of nursing homes, persons with Alzheimer's disease, and a resident of a hospice care facility who was told he had six months to live, according to court documents. They argued that the law incorrectly makes no exception for those who "by virtue of their advanced age and/or physical conditions…are not a danger to anyone." The case is pending.

Among critics of the Georgia law are law enforcement officials within the state, who say the law creates clusters of sex offenders and forces them underground where police can lose track of them completely. In Augusta, only one investigator is keeping track of more than 200 sex offenders, according to Sgt. Ray Hardin, an investigator at the Richmond County Sheriff's department. Hardin said that his office is overwhelmed by the constant flow of paperwork and the same sex offenders who come in "three times a week telling us where they moved to next."

Studies also show that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other types of criminals. Jill Levenson, a professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida, told ABC Law & Justice Unit that there is not one case in the entire United States where a child or adult was not assaulted because of residency restrictions and called these laws "one of the largest wastes of resources and false sense of security things we've done yet."

Policy critics also argue that the wave of recent sex offender legislation gives neither hardship exemptions based on illness or disability, nor laxer sentences for seemingly less serious crimes, like a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old. They argue that the legislation is based on reactionary politics and myths about sex offenders that are not supported by valid research or evidence.

But in a nation where child rape and murders victims like Meghan Kanka, Jessica Lunsford and Polly Klaas are practically household names -- each having had laws passed in their honor -- child predators and sex offenders are hard pressed to find any sympathy from their communities.

In an interview with the L.A. Times, the Georgia law's Republican sponsor Rep. Jerry Keen acknowledged the law would be "an inconvenience" for "some folks" who would have to move. "But," he said, "if you weigh that argument against the overall impact, which is the safety of children, most folks would agree this is a good thing."

Heavy Price for Homelessness

In Georgia, first-time sex offenders can be arrested and face 10-30 years in prison for a single violation of registry requirements. Repeat violators automatically receive a life sentence, legal experts said.

Moore joins 15 other Georgia sex offenders who have violated a provision that requires them to register an address since the law was passed in April 2006, but he is the first of several pending cases where the state has arrested an offender who then tried to use a homelessness defense, said Sarah Totonchi, a public policy director of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Proper registry means going to the police and telling them where you live, and under law, "homeless does not constitute an address," she said.

The assistant district attorney on the case, Mukty Patel, said that homelessness was not a sufficient excuse. "We only had to prove that he failed to register when he checked out of his hotel," she said.

Critics of the registry say the law places people in a catch-22 by rendering nearly the entire state unlivable for sex offenders, while at the same time insisting that they register a permanent address.

"The law leaves very little recourse for people who are thrown onto streets as a result of this law, and the same residency laws that cause people to lose their homes also deem many of the shelters unavailable," Totonchi said.

According to the SCHR, only one shelter in the state meets the requirements, and it is currently full.

Across the nation, state legislators are enacting similar residency laws that make it difficult for offenders to hold legal residences or remain in a community at all. In addition to residency restrictions on sex offenders, some states require GPS monitoring of sexual predators, and have proposed that offenders use bright colored license plates on their vehicles.

Misguided Measures?

Despite the prevalence of state registry laws, some policy experts said there is no research to suggest a relationship between where sex offenders live and whether or not they'll repeat their crimes, or that these laws are even effective in preventing sexual crimes.

"We should base our laws to protect children on evidence-based research and expert knowledge, but instead lawmakers are responding to 'stranger danger myths,' which make us most fearful of the wrong enemy," said Totonchi of the SCHR. "We tend to be most afraid of strangers when the statistics tell us we should be watching out for family members at the dinner table," she said.

In fact, only 7 percent of sex crimes against kids are committed by strangers, according to Justice Department statistics, while 80-90 percent of sex crimes are committed by a person the child knows.

And contrary to popular belief, studies show that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other types of criminals, re-offending in about 14 percent of cases.

Jill Levenson of Florida's Lynn University told ABC Law & Justice Unit that "ironically, what happens with residency restrictions is that we end up creating exactly the types of risk factors that we know lead to higher recidivism rather than lower recidivism," Levenson said. "In other words, we know that stability, social support and employment are really important factors to help criminals maintain a productive life and not resume a life of crime, so disrupting the stability of criminal offenders is not likely to be in the best interest of public safety."

Georgia isn't the only state where law enforcement officials are publicly opposing the sex offender laws they're expected to uphold.

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Sheriff Don Zeller said new residency restrictions are forcing offenders into rural parts of the county where they are far harder to keep track of -- or worse, forcing them underground, where they can be lost track of completely.

"We're finding that it's almost impossible to keep track of individuals we have registered in the county,'' Zeller told ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. "Five years ago, we knew where about 95 percent of those individuals were. Now we're lucky if we know where 50, 55 percent of them are.''

And paradoxically, Zeller said, the new restrictions are also creating sex offender "clusters'' -- like the Ced-Rel Motel in Lynn County, where more than two dozen sex offenders lived at one time.

"What if some individual comes in there with a family and decides that they're going to stay there overnight, not knowing that 26 sex offenders are living there? And what happens if then they expose their family because most families will send their kids down to get pop or ice and, unbeknown to them, there are 26 sex offenders living in that same complex?" Zeller said.

Paul Zandbergen, a member of the University of South Florida's geography department, did a study in which he mapped the effects of residency restrictions in his state and found that "if you add up all the restrictions -- almost nothing is left [that people can live in] fairly quickly."

Nancy Sabin is the executive director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, named for a Minnesota boy who was abducted at gunpoint in 1989 and never heard from again. The foundation spearheads preventive education programs aimed at protecting children from both stranger predators and sex offenders in their own communities or homes.

"Can you help me understand where all these sexual predators are coming from?" she asked rhetorically. "They're coming from our homes!

"Why do we pretend we don't know where they are?" she asked, adding that Americans "need to see ourselves as part of the solution." ..News Source.. by BRITTANY BACON

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

GA- Woman sues over ongoing sanctions for sex as a teen

7-14-2008 Georgia:

Consensual activity by a student shouldn't force her to move from home, plaintiff says.

Wendy Whitaker's name may be on Georgia's sex offender registry, but her offense suggests she is no predator.

At age 17, while a high school sophomore, Whitaker had oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate. In 1997, she pleaded guilty to sodomy and got five years' probation. Whitaker, 28, has moved twice because of the sex offender law's restrictions that say an offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate. Whitaker was recently told by a sheriff she must move again because her home is within 1,000 feet of a church.

"It's a recurrent nightmare," Whitaker said Friday. "It's like a roller coaster. One minute, I'm OK. The next, I'm not. This time, I really thought everything was going to be all right."

Whitaker is the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed in Atlanta that seeks to have the residency restrictions found unconstitutional. Whitaker and her husband, Michael, purchased their home in Harlem in January 2006, but her name was not put on the deed until 2007.

This is a potential problem under S.B. 1, the sex offender law passed last session to address a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court. In November, the court struck down residency restrictions that applied to homeowners, saying that making them have to abandon their homes was an "illegal taking."

S.B. 1 maintains the residency rules but says they cannot be enforced against offenders who bought homes before July 1, 2006.

Last week, Columbia County Sheriff Clay Whittle, after finding Whitaker's name was placed on the deed in 2007, ordered her to move within 48 hours.

Whitaker said Friday she has had ownership rights to the home, even if her name was not on the deed. "We've been married eight years, and everything we have we have together," she said.

Whitaker's lawyers asked Whittle to not enforce the residency restrictions against the woman while the suit is pending. The sheriff agreed. The matter is now pending before U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper, who is overseeing the federal case.

But on Thursday, the state Attorney General's Office filed a motion stating that if Whitaker actually has a property interest in the home, she should seek relief from being evicted in the state courts, not the federal court.

"Assuming there is actual enforcement of an existing provision of the sex offender statute, [its] purpose ... is to protect the most innocent of victims, Georgia's children," the motion says. "There is indisputable evidence that convicted sex offenders have a propensity to re-offend."

Whitaker's lawyer, Sarah Geraghty, said the state should let the matter rest until the federal suit is over.

"Wendy Whitaker is not now and has never been a threat to anyone," she said. "The state of Georgia has better things to do than to evict a woman from her lawfully purchased home because she had sex as a teenager."

Augusta lawyer David Hudson, who represents Whittle, said the sheriff wants direction from the courts. If Cooper denies Whitaker's request, the sheriff "will enforce the law."

As for Whitaker's case, Hudson added, "My personal opinion is it seems to be costing the state of Georgia a lot of time and effort because of a law that reaches out to place these onerous burdens on offenders who are not predators." ..News Source.. by Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH- Dover defends sex offender ordinance in NHCLU challenge

7-3-2008 New Hampshire:

DOVER – Municipalities have a history of enacting regulations for the safety of their citizens, and a Dover ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders can live falls into the same category and thus is protected under the law, officials said this week in a response to a legal test of the ordinance.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union is challenging Dover's sex offender residency restrictions in a case that could have ramifications for the entire state. The ordinance bars sex offenders who must register for life from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day-care facilities. Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen all have similar ordinances and many other communities, including Manchester, have considered such legislation.

In May, the civil liberties union filed a motion to dismiss a charge against former local resident Richard Jennings, a registered sex offender who is accused of living within a restricted zone, claiming that the ordinance itself violates the state constitution.

In a response filed Tuesday in district court, the city laid out its argument for why the ordinance is valid and contends that it is meant to protect Dover's citizens much in the same way that regulations on the sale of drug paraphernalia and curfews for minors do.

The response also says the city has the right to enact the ordinance because the state has never tried to stop municipalities from regulating sex offenders and that Jennings' constitutional rights have not been trampled.

"It's an effort to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse and that's the bottom line," police Chief Anthony Colarusso said yesterday of the city's ordinance. "I know there are some critics who feel it's not effective, and I would agree that it doesn't solve everything, it can't prevent every crime, but it's just one more tool in the fight against sexual predators." The civil liberties union argues in its earlier motion that the city does not have the power to restrict where sex offenders can live, that state criminal law dealing with sex offenders preempts the local ordinance and that the ordinance runs afoul of the state constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

The two legal motions set up a constitutional showdown that may affect similar sex offender residency restrictions throughout the state. No matter who prevails in district it's likely the losing side will appeal to the state Supreme Court. A decision there could nullify or validate the ordinances.

Jennings, 41, pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious sexual assault in 2000 for having sex with a 15-year-old girl and served four years in state prison. In May of this year, he was sentenced to more than four months in jail after pleading guilty to two counts of failure to report for living in Dover although he was registered in Epping.

Jennings is scheduled to go to trial for violating the city ordinance on July 21 at 9 a.m. in Dover District Court. ..News Source.. by CLYNTON NAMUO

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH- zoning out sex offenders

Something I continually find interesting is, if the intent of these ordinances is to make it safer for children, how dumb is it to think that only sex offenders make an area unsafe? What about the effect of drug crimes and domestic violence, there are far more victims of those crimes, and a much higher rate of recidivism too. Clearly, the intent here is other than the safety of children!

Another thought, where in state or federal law is there any law that prevents, geographically, a class of people from residing in any specific area. Further, if such law exists, I would think it would have to be enacted by the state or federal government. i.e., During the war there were camps for the Japanese folks here in America. Such laws simply do not exist today.

5-11-2008 New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union recently dropped a civil suit alleging that the city of Dover had violated the rights of Richard Jennings, a convicted sex offender. Instead, an NHCLU lawyer will defend Jennings against charges alleging he violated a city ordinance that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or daycare facility. The NHCLU disputes the constitutionality of the ordinance.

“It violates Mr. Jennings’ constitutional rights,” said Barbara Keshen, who will defend Jennings in Strafford County Superior Court. “The town exceeded its authority in enacting this ordinance.”

Proponents of the ordinance maintain that it’s a necessary measure to protect the city’s children. Former City Councilor Matt Mayberry proposed the ordinance, which passed in 2005. “He had asked the chief of police at the time about ordinances like this to provide another tool to make the community safer,” said Dover Police Lt. David Terlemezian.

The ordinance unanimously passed the Council. “I wasn’t part of the original drafting, but my understanding is that a good amount of research went into it and the city is confident it’s legal and sound and will survive the challenge,” Terlemezian said.

The NHCLU disagrees.Keshen declined to elaborate on the points she will argue in court but will file a motion this week with more details.

Jennings, 41, is accused of violating the ordinance in November 2007 after he was charged with two felonies for failing to notify police that he had moved from Portsmouth to Dover. The ordinance violation was tacked on after police discovered that Jennings had relocated within 2,500 feet of the My School Kindergarten at 118 Locust St.

Jennings’ was originally convicted of felonious sexual assault on a minor in May 2000. Although Terlemezian did not have details of that case, he said, “it involved a teenage girl that was known to him.” Since the victim was a minor, Jennings is required to register as a sex offender for life.

The NHCLU decided to drop its civil suit after lawyers from the organization concluded that they would be able to get their case heard sooner if they switched to a defense strategy. “If Mr. Jennings wins, then the city will appeal. If the city wins, we will appeal. We thought that we could get it in front of the Supreme Court faster, rather than wait for civil court,” Keshen said.

Defending the rights of a convicted sex offender is a tough sell, but the NHCLU believes the ordinance is unconstitutional because it essentially bans Jennings from living in Dover. The restrictions imposed by the ordinance encompass virtually the entire downtown area, where most affordable housing is located.

“There is no question that the ordinance was put in place by people that believe that these kinds of residential zoning ordinances would protect their children,” Keshen said. “But there is no empirical data to support that. People have a mistaken belief that these ordinances do anything to protect children.”

Keshen said a number of organizations that deal with domestic and sexual abuse have found that restrictive zoning is ineffective. “The reality is that these ordinances don’t do a wit to protect children,” she said.

Keshen offered a number of more effective ways to protect children from convicted sex criminals. Strict supervision of offenders is one way to cut down on second offenses, she said. Some states have instituted systems that use GPS devices to track sex offenders. Quality treatment that is readily available to convicts is another way to combat repeat offenses. “As most professionals that work in this area will tell you, sex offenders are particularly amenable to treatment,” Keshen said.

The idea that convicted sex criminals still can’t be trusted around children even after serving their time and being released from prison could reflect poorly on the state’s correctional system. Although he doesn’t work in corrections, Terlemezian doesn’t believe the state system is at fault. “My speculation is that it’s rooted more in the human psyche,” he said, referring to the reasons people commit sexual offenses.

According to Terlemezian, this is not the first time the ordinance has been violated. Typically, if the police become aware of a sex criminal living within 2,500 feet of a school or daycare center, they give that person 30 days to relocate. If the offenders move, the summons never gets filed and they don’t get charged. But Jennings has refused to move. “He’s chosen not to plead guilty,” Terlemezian said.

If found guilty of the violation, Jennings would face a $500 fine. But, if he is not found guilty, the ordinance could ultimately be overturned.

“I don’t think it’s likely,” Terlemezian said. ..more.. by Patrick Law

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Tracking Homeless High Risk Sex Offenders

4-3-2008 California:

SACRAMENTO, CA - Lisa Hayre has worked as a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation since 2001. Her job has changed dramatically since voters passed Jessica's Law in November 2006.

"In the past we actually went up to a door and knocked on a door to do our home visits," said Hayre. "Now we're meeting our clients on the streets or under a bridge."

According to a January report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, of the 67,710 sex offenders living in California, 2,879 were registered as transient in January -- an increase from about 2,000 listed as transient in 2006 before the passage of Jessica's Law. Of 3,884 sex offenders on parole in December, 718 had declared themselves transient, which, according to the report, is four times more than a year earlier.

Under the provisions of the Jessica's Law, convicted sex offenders may not live within 2,000 feet of any school or park. "That leaves very few places for offenders to live," said California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Gordon Hinkle.

Lawrence Smith is one of a high risk sex offender currently being tracked by Hayre. He wears a GPS tracking device. "It's a bit of a struggle," said Smith about living on the streets. "The law has so many restrictions so many of us are just homeless."

Corrections officials are worried many of the homeless sex offenders will slip through the cracks. Smith admits he's thought about going underground. "Yes, I actually have thought about it," he said.

Hayre will try to prevent that. "Ideally we'd like them to have a place to live where they can get support from loved ones and be a valuable member of society," she said. "I think having any parolee be transient is a concern for the public." ..more.. by Deborah Hoffman, Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH- Sex-offender limits to have day in court

4-1-2008 New Hampshire:

When then-Mayor Bernie Streeter vetoed an ordinance right before leaving office that would have established residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, one of the reasons he cited was the likelihood that it would be challenged in court.

It turns out he was right.

On Wednesday, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Strafford County Superior Court against the city of Dover, arguing that its residency ordinance was unconstitutional and subjected released sex offenders to "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable restrictions."

Dover enacted an ordinance in 2005 that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day-care center. The ordinance carries penalties of a $500 fine for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

Barbara Keshen, a staff attorney for the union, claims in the suit that the 2,500-foot restriction places off limits all of the city's downtown, which is where "all of the affordable housing is located."

As a result, she said, the ordinance, in effect, prohibits registered sex offenders from living anywhere in the city.

The suit was filed on behalf of a 41-year-old man who pleaded guilty in 2000 to a felonious sexual assault charge involving a 15-year-old, which resulted in a two- to four-year sentence in state prison.

When he moved into a Dover apartment sometime after his release and registered with police at his new address, he was charged with violating the city's residency ordinance. A hearing on that violation has been scheduled for June 3 in Dover District Court.

As some may recall, a divided Nashua Board of Aldermen voted 7-6 in late December to approve a similar ordinance that would have restricted where certain convicted sex offenders could live in the city.

Under the ordinance, which was introduced by then-Alderman-at-Large Jim Tollner, convicted sex offenders would have been restricted from living within 1,000 feet of city day-care centers, schools and parks.

After being amended, the ordinance would have applied only to those offenders who had never lived in Nashua and whose victims were younger than 13.

But Streeter, in one of his final acts before leaving office, vetoed the ordinance Jan. 2. An attempt to override the veto three days later fell one short of the necessary 10 votes, 9-3.

At the time, we expressed several reservations about the ordinance, which we did not believe would prove to be particularly effective in meeting its intended goal: keeping the city's children safe.

We feared such an ordinance could have a detrimental effect on the registration process, driving more sex offenders underground and making it more difficult for law enforcement to track their whereabouts. In fact, that was one of the reasons why the Nashua Police Department took a position against the ordinance.

We also noted that studies show family members and acquaintances – not strangers – are responsible for about nine of every 10 sex assaults against children. Such an ordinance would do little, if anything, to address the larger problem.

Still, given the popularity of these types of ordinances here and around the country, the fact that the civil liberties union is challenging the issue in court might be a good thing.

A court ruling could go a long way in determining whether these kind of ordinances can pass constitutional muster. ..more.. by Editorial Nashua Telegraph

BACKGROUND: The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union has gone to court to challenge the constitutionality of sex-offender residency restrictions in Dover.

CONCLUSION: Good. A court ruling might help to clarify the constitutional aspects of these kind of measures once for and for all.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- Dozens Of Sex Offenders Registered As Homeless In Orange County

More laws that make ZERO sense. I challenge anyone to explain how making homeless folks register more often (even daily) is going to protect children? Those seeking such laws need to be removed from office as they have lost the ability to think rationally, hence are not able to protect anyone!

3-25-2008 Florida:

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Channel 9 has discovered there are more than 36 sex offenders registered as homeless in Orange County.

Most of them don't have an address listed at all on the state's public sex offender database. Others just use an intersection or list the bridge they regularly sleep under.

Police say they treat homeless offenders like any other, visiting them regularly at the locations they claim they're staying, but some folks who live in those areas say that's not enough.

"Otherwise, it makes it very easy for a sexual predator just to be loose and be in places like this where you have a lot of children," said Charles Collins, a grandfather.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office is currently pushing for a new law that would force transient offenders to register more often than those with regular addresses. ..more.. by WFTV.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ME- Bucksport sex offender seeks to move back home with his parents; prosecutors object

3-12-2008 Maine:

Travis White wants to move back home to Bucksport. His aging parents need his care. And, his attorney contends, the 37-year-old convicted sex offender could benefit greatly from a familial support system.

Hancock County prosecutors see his situation differently, however, and don’t think White should be allowed to return to a community they say he devastated with his misconduct.

White’s case evokes a question whose answer has been elusive both in Maine and across the country: How should society deal with sex offenders once they are outside prison walls?

"I think we’re starting to get better at addressing these questions, and we’ll continue to get better," said Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, chair of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. "But it’s an ongoing battle, and the fact is, there’s no easy answer."

White, a former baseball and basketball coach in Bucksport, was convicted in 2002 of sexually assaulting young boys during a decade-long stretch dating back to 1991. He was released late last summer after serving six years in prison, including the time he was held in jail before the trial.

He’s on probation now, and one of his conditions is that his probation officer approve all living arrangements. But finding housing has been difficult, according to White’s attorney, Stephen Smith of Bangor, who revealed that his client has even spent significant time in a homeless shelter.

With his options running out, White is turning to perhaps the only people who can see past his criminal conduct: his family.

Smith recently filed a motion in Hancock County Superior Court to amend his client’s probation conditions and allow him to move back into his parents’ Bucksport home.

"I think it’s entirely reasonable for someone who has served time and who is still under strict supervision to be allowed to stay with family," said Smith, who didn’t represent White at his trial but has taken over the case since.

White’s probation officer opposes the request on the basis that his parents’ home would be an unhealthy environment. Hancock County District Attorney Michael Povich agrees and said the man’s relocation would be traumatic for the victims and the Bucksport community at large.

And so, later this month, Travis White will return to the same courtroom where he was sentenced for his crimes years ago.

Once again, a judge will help decide his fate.

A painful trial

Neither White nor his parents agreed to be interviewed for this story. The following account is based on court documents and previously published reports in the Bangor Daily News.

White’s weeklong trial in March 2002 featured extensive media coverage and standing-room-only crowds in the Ellsworth courtroom.

The most pointed testimony came from the four male victims — all under the age of 12 when the misconduct occurred — who recalled in painful detail how their one-time coach took advantage of them.

Each story was the same. He invited them to his basement apartment, they said. He gave them alcohol. When they fell asleep, he made his move. Each victim told jurors that they awoke during the night at White’s apartment to find the man either fondling them or performing oral sex on them.

After five days of testimony, the jury needed only about an hour to find White guilty of multiple counts of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child.

It’s important to note that White maintained his innocence throughout the trial and in fact took responsibility for his crimes only at sentencing, about three months after he was found guilty.

"What I did was wrong, hurtful and disgusting," he told the court on June 26, 2002. "I’ll continue to pray for those I’ve hurt and hope someday that they will forgive me."

Justice Thomas E. Delahanty II, who presided over White’s trial, was critical of the man’s sudden remorse at sentencing.

"His denials required those people to come into court to embarrass themselves and humiliate themselves in public," Delahanty said before handing down a sentence of 38 years in prison with all but eight years suspended.

White later filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that his attorney at the time, Donald Brown of Bangor, provided an insufficient defense. That motion was denied, and White spent six years at the Down East Correctional Facility in Machiasport.

He earned time off his sentence for good behavior and was released late last summer with nearly three decades of probation following him like a shadow.

The risks of returning

Now that he’s on the other side of prison walls, White, like most sex offenders, has a close relationship with his probation officer.

He’s in regular counseling. He has a job with an excavation company in Bangor. His attorney says White genuinely wants to rebuild his life. The only problem has been finding a suitable place to live.

White appealed recently to his probation officer, Donald Muth, to explore the option of moving back to Bucksport. Smith said the request has two purposes: to provide his client with a support system and to allow White to help care for his aging parents.

According to court documents, Muth was hesitant and solicited input from Dwayne Hogan, a clinical social worker in Bangor, about White’s request.

In a letter to Muth, Hogan wrote that he didn’t think it was a good idea for White to live with his parents. Hogan alleged that the parents have consistently doubted their son’s culpability in the crimes, and he worried that they would not monitor his behavior.

Mary Kellett, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted White’s case in 2002, agreed with that assessment.

"He wants to live in the same basement apartment where he perpetrated this abuse," she said, even suggesting that White’s parents enabled his conduct.

The district attorney’s office has been in contact with the victims since White’s release, Kellett said, but she declined to speculate about their opinions of the man’s desire to return to Bucksport.

The prosecutor also indicated that while only four victims came forward for trial purposes, she believes others may have been assaulted by White several years ago.

"He’s still a risk, and he’ll always be a risk," Kellett said. "We need to do everything we can to make sure he’s properly supervised and that he doesn’t reoffend."

Smith disputed the fact that his client is a risk. When asked if White is being discriminated against, the attorney said, "Yes, in the sense that all sex offenders have a thumb put on them. And maybe that’s appropriate, but at some point you have to ask, ‘Is it more than necessary?’"

On Tuesday, March 25, inside the Hancock County Superior Court, that’s exactly what Justice Delahanty will be tasked to decide.

Maine’s sex offender laws

White would not be the first sex offender living in Bucksport. According to Maine’s Sex Offender Registry, 15 are listed with Bucksport addresses, a relatively high number for a town of only about 5,000 residents, Sen. Diamond said.

Like every state, Maine has a version of the federal Sexual Offender Act of 1994, also known as Megan’s Law for a Florida girl who was raped and killed by a violent sex offender who lived next door. It requires law enforcement agencies to make information available to the public regarding sex offenders, but it allows states to determine how to disseminate that information.

As of 1999, Maine’s sex offender registry has been maintained by the Maine State Police and the State Bureau of Identification. The public can access the registry online or request information about offenders at local municipal offices.

Communities also are free to institute further restrictions specific to where offenders can live. Some communities, like the southern Maine city of Westbrook, have passed laws so restrictive that they effectively ban sex offenders from living anywhere in town. Diamond said he thinks many of those restrictions could be challenged in court as unreasonable.

Bucksport has not yet instituted any such restrictions.

Maine’s sex offender laws have been under serious debate since the brutal slayings of John Grey of Milo and William Elliot of Corinth in April 2006. A Canadian man, 20-year-old Stephen Marshall, shot and killed both men after finding their names and addresses on the online registry. Marshall later committed suicide as police were trying to apprehend him.

Rep. Joseph Tibbetts, R-Columbia, one of Diamond’s colleagues on the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said legislators are in the midst of overhauling the sex registry bill.

The changes likely will include instituting classifications for offenders based on the severity of the crimes they have committed, Tibbetts said.

By classifying former offenders by the crimes of the past that ignores, possibly purposefully by lawmakers, the effects of prison, probation, parole and any therapeutic or other programs the former offender may have taken. Accordingly, the system of classification is a farce and misleads the public. Further, by ignoring the rehabilitative effects says, that those systems were in place for show and were never intended to help society in the long run. It is a sad society that simply ignores rehabilitation and the classification system continues to mislead the public as to these former offenders, such protects no one! eAdvocate

Diamond added that housing restrictions might need to be considered as well.

Both legislators said cases like White’s are common but difficult for lawmakers who have to weigh the rights of victims against offenders who are trying to reintegrate into society.

Once the former offender completes what is statutorily prescribed for the crime committed, is there really a diference in the rights of victims and former offenders? According to current law, NO! They are on equal footing in society.eAdvocate

"From a legislative side, what we’re trying to do is get sex offenders back into some form of productive society," he said.

Still, any law changes wouldn’t affect White’s case, since his fate is tied to probation conditions outlined by the court.

No easy answer

Bucksport police Sgt. Sean Geagan, who was the primary investigator in White’s case, said his department will monitor White closely if he’s allowed to move back.

"But I don’t think we can take a position on where he can live," he said. "We are going to continue to keep people safe, whether it’s victims or the perpetrators."

If it is true that former offenders are somehow being protected, how can lawmakers explain the vigilantism and murders former offenders are facing? Lawmakers have zero in place to protect former offfenders or their familes, that issue is simply ignored by lawmakers!eAdvocate

Bucksport Town Manager Roger Raymond also responded diplomatically when asked about White’s situation.

"Our position [as a town] is that we respond to our citizens," he said. "If they came to us and said, ‘Look, this isn’t something we want,’ we would respond. Absent of that, it’s not fair for me or anyone else to pass judgment."

Raymond pointed out that White’s parents live in a house that is away from the center of town. It’s not near a school or any other place where children might congregate.

Although there hasn’t been significant public outcry yet, the town manager conceded that Bucksport is a small community where White could easily run into a victim or victim’s family members.

Rep. Tibbetts agreed that in White’s case the family is the ultimate support network, but he also said he would never question the judgment of a probation officer.

Sen. Diamond said the fact that White has been staying in a homeless shelter is particularly troubling, and he wondered if the state could come up with a compromise.

He offered the suggestion that White wear an ankle monitor, which has become a more common law enforcement tool in other states to track sex offenders.

"The alternative is that he’s going to be on the street where, in my opinion, he’s at more of a risk to reoffend," he said. "New victims are no less important than the existing victims."

No matter how Justice Delahanty rules in White’s case, the issue of what to do with sex offenders who have been released from prison is not going away, Tibbetts said.

"At some point we need to ask, ‘Are we going to maintain them the rest of their life?’" he said. "It makes for a very difficult situation, that’s for sure." ..more.. by Travis White

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Calif. Law Puts Sex Offenders on the Streets

2-24-2008 California:

A new report finds more convicted sex offenders in California homeless because of a state law restricting where they can live. Tom Tobin, a psychologist specializing in sex offender treatment, talks with Jacki Lyden about the findings.

NPR Reports: CLICK to listen to their report.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Jessica's Law may increase crime risks

2-22-2008 California:

SACRAMENTO -- -- The law voters passed to crack down on sex offenders could actually be increasing the danger such offenders pose by driving them into homelessness at a significant rate, members of a state board said Thursday.

In the 15 months since voters approved Jessica's Law, which restricts where paroled offenders may live and requires electronic monitoring of their whereabouts, the state has recorded a 44% increase in those registered as transients, according to a report released by California's Sex Offender Management Board.

The law prohibits ex-offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places where children gather, but it lacks adequate definitions of such places, the report says. And in some counties and cities, the law's residency restrictions make large swaths of housing off-limits.

Unresolved questions about major parts of the law make it impossible to determine whether the state is safer now from sex offenders, panel member said. Some said the law could be making things worse.

Tom Tobin, the board's vice-chairman and a psychologist, said that homelessness removes offenders from their support systems, such as family members, which increases the chances they will commit new crimes.

"I see homelessness as increasing overall risk to public safety, and as a very, very undesirable consequence of probably a well-intended law," he said.

Officials on the panel said in interviews that many parts of the law, which involves harsher sentencing for sex offenders, were not complicated. But many California locales are not fully enforcing it because of confusion about who is covered by it and how it should be applied, according to the report, which is the first formal look at the workings of the controversial measure, approved as Proposition 83 in November 2006.

The 15-member board was created by lawmakers and the governor to examine how the state handles sex offenders.

There are 67,710 registered sex offenders in California communities, the report says. The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has identified 4,345 offenders on parole that it says are subject to the law, but members of the state panel said it is unclear who else may be because the law is vague.

The number of transient sex offenders who could be homeless or moving from house to house increased from 2,000 more than a year ago to 2,879 today. "If they're transient or if they're homeless, that might actually bring their risk [of re-offending] up quite a bit," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, the board's chairwoman and the director of a victim-assistance group in Sacramento.

The report pointed out that what enforcement there is generates millions of dollars in costs to the cash-strapped state.

California's corrections agency is spending an estimated $20 million a year to monitor more than 3,000 paroled sex offenders by global positioning system satellite technology. That is a fraction of those who would eventually have to be watched.

The law also reduced from two to one the number of past sex crimes that requires an offender who leaves prison to be evaluated by a mental health expert.

The purpose is to determine whether he or she is a "sexually violent predator" and eligible for commitment to a mental hospital.

The new evaluations increased costs to the state from $3 million to $27 million, the report said. But confinements did not markedly increase, Brown-McBride said.

The report suggests that the public misunderstands the best way to protect against sex offenders.

It cited studies showing that residency restrictions in other states did not reduce the number of new crimes committed by sex offenders.

And it cited a national survey that found nine out of 10 sex crimes are committed by acquaintances or relatives of victims, undercutting the notion that keeping them away from schools and parks makes a difference.

Brown-McBride said the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the law's sponsors, need to answer basic questions before statewide enforcement is possible. In addition to the issue of definitions -- what constitutes a park, for example, and which agencies should monitor offenders -- the questions include the law's failure to identify which offenders are covered.

State corrections officials, the state attorney general, local law enforcement agencies and others have differing interpretations.

The state Supreme Court is also weighing a challenge to the law from some sex offenders who say it is unconstitutionally being enforced retroactively against them based on old crimes.

In a statement, the governor's office said that he welcomed the report's "valuable analysis and recommendations to help deal with some needed adjustments to Jessica's Law." ..more.. by Michael Rothfeld, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...