Showing posts with label Sex Offender - Registry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Offender - Registry. Show all posts

April 6, 2011

Deputy: Followed guidlines on offender letter

When lawmakers weave a law so tight, that goes both ways, here we see the officer claiming he doesn't work on Sunday. In other words, the registrant can't perform his duties either because of the way the law is worded. Lawmakers must assure that local jurisdictions make themselves available according to the way the law is worded.
4-6-2011 Ohio:

LISBON - The sheriff's deputy in charge of keeping track of registered sex offenders said they followed the law in the case that resulted in charges being dismissed.

"My concern is that it makes it sound like we dropped the ball and we didn't," said Sgt. Dan Bradley of the Columbiana County Sheriff's Office.

Bradley's comments were in response to a recent ruling by county Common Pleas Court Judge Scott Washam, who dismissed charges of violating sex offender registration requirements against ___ Washam said the sheriff's office failed to follow the law.

___, 31, of Neeld Road, was indicted last year for failing to verify his current address with the local county sheriff, which he was required to do after pleading guilty to sexual battery charges against an adult female in 2001. The charged carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

___ failed to notify the sheriff's office of his current address by the Oct. 2, 2010, deadline. The warning letter advising ___he was in violation of the notification requirement was dated Oct. 4 and mailed the next day. Washam said the law requires the warning letter be sent the next day following the verification date, which would have been Oct. 3.

Bradley said the problem was the verification date, Oct. 2, fell on a Saturday, "and I don't work seven days a week ... In order for us to comply with the judge's order we would have to send the notice out on Sunday, which is physically impossible since the post office isn't open on Sunday."

Bradley prepared the warning letter and sent it out when he returned to work on Monday, Oct. 4.

The warning letter told ___ he had to report by Oct. 11, but the law gives the defendant seven days from when the letter actually was mailed, which Washam noted made the reporting date be Oct. 12.

Washam also noted in his ruling the warning letter was sent by certified mail, thereby requiring ____ signature. Repeat notices were sent out until one arrived on Oct. 21, when ____ was at home to sign for it.

Bradley said this is not the first a reporting date fell on a weekend and the defendant failed to show up, nor will it be the last, "but this is the way the (state) attorney general's office told us to do it."

"Everything we do in regard to this is how we've been trained by the attorney general's office to do it ... I don't want the public to think we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing," he said. ..Source.. by TOM GIAMBRONI , Salem News

Read More of Article...

March 8, 2011

Lawmakers to consider revamp of Idaho’s sex offender requirements

3-8-2011 Idaho:

Idaho could change its plan for managing sex offenders that includes requiring offenders to report more information, expanding a state board that oversees sex offenders, and ditching part of the state’s sex offender law that is unconstitutional.

Sen. Denton Darrington, R-Declo, said the package of changes is a major piece of legislation that he thinks will get through the Idaho Legislature this year. Darrington chairs the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee, which approved introducing the plan.

The change comes in response to an Idaho Supreme Court case in 2009 that ruled the state’s “violent sexual predator” designation, which required some offenders to check in with law enforcement more frequently, violated the offender’s constitutional rights. Offenders couldn’t receive information on why they were called violent predators, which went against their right to due process.

Darrington, who helped craft that sex offender law in 1998, said the high court ruling wasn’t a surprise, and that Idaho needs to find a new way to manage its sex offenders. Since the court ruling, there have been no new violent sexual predators designated. Currently, 51 sex offenders in Idaho are labeled violent, out of several thousand total registered offenders.

Under the new plan, the violent sexual predator designation disappears and the Sex Offender Classification Board would be double in size from four members to eight, increase its responsibilities, and be renamed the Sex Offender Management Board. Also, all registered offenders would have shorter deadlines for registering and reporting changes in personal information.

The package of changes was introduced Monday by Steve Bywater in the attorney general’s office and a member of the Idaho Criminal Justice Commission (ICJC), which put together the legislation. Bywater said that among the new reporting requirements for all sex offenders would be reporting the car they drive and any Internet markers, including their e-mail address or Facebook account.

Bywater also said offenders ready to leave a state prison would now need to report their address before they leave. They’d also need to report a change of address within two days. The public can search some of the reported information on an Idaho State Police website.

The reporting changes would bring Idaho closer into compliance with the federal sex offender law, though Bywater said the ICJC doesn’t recommend fully complying with that plan. He did say the legislation would allow for better state supervision of sex offenders.

The change would cost $70,000, due to the expansion of the board. In addition to coming up with a new way to deal with violent offenders or those at risk of repeating a sex crime, the board would also create new state standards for treating and evaluating offenders, including the use of polygraph tests and psychosexual evaluations, when necessary.

Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, a member of ICJC, supports the plan, saying Idaho needs a new way to identify people who are dangerous. Bock serves on Darrington’s committee, which unanimously agreed to hold a hearing on the legislation. ..Source.. by Brad Iverson-Long

Read More of Article...

No sex offender registry for Gabrielse

Can a plea bargain override Michigan law? It appears so, as Michigan has a provision in its law which says, if the crime was sexual in nature then that person is required to register. I guess there is an unwritten exception for smart lawyers!
3-8-2011 Michigan:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - Former attorney Carl Gabrielse will not have to register as a sex offender, the Ottawa County prosecutor said Monday.

Gabrielse was allowed to plead guilty to gross indecency between a male and female -- a five-year felony, which is less than his original charge of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Gabrielse was a private attorney working part-time for the city on contract. A victim said Gabrielse assaulted her in a restroom in the Ottawa County courthouse during a meeting to discuss a plea deal. She reported the incident immediately.

He was sentenced to time in jail -- and served six months on the delayed sentence -- and 12 months of probation; which will end April 19.

Gabrielse was allowed to plead to the lesser charge because he successfully completed the terms of his delayed sentence, including sex offender counseling. ..Source.. by WOODTV.com

Read More of Article...

February 27, 2011

Low-level Sex Offenders Close to Deregistering

If it is true that, "once a offender means always an offender," then here is what needs to be done. All those parents, grandparents, etc., that have committed a illegal sexual act, in their younger days, needs to march themselves down to the local police station and ask to register as a sex offender because of the past act. Convicted or not, the act itself made you a sex offender, confess and register. NOW the police WILL BE OVERWHELMED for sure!
2-27-2011 Texas:

Low-level sex offenders will soon see a change to their status. The Council on Sex Offender Treatment has decided to allow certain sex offenders to be deregistered and taken off the state's sex offender list.

But many parents around the community are concerned with what this decision may mean for their families.

"A sex offender is a sex offender and that will never change," said Don Byerlon, a grandparent in Midland.

Plenty of families around West Texas are worried about the possibility of low-level sex offenders becoming deregistered from the state of Texas sex offender list.

"Well, I really don't think it's smart having kids myself, especially girls," said Michelle Licon, a parent from Midland.

But the way the Council on Sex Offender Treatment sees it; by deregistering the low-level sex offenders they can concentrate on those that may pose more of a risk.

"The philosophy that we're operating on is that if we pay equal attention to all sex offenders, we're not paying enough attention to the more dangerous ones," said Liles Arnold, the Chairman for the Council on Sex Offender Treatment.

Some of the offenses that may allow a sex offender to become deregistered off the list are:
· Compelling prostitution
· Indecent exposure
· Unlawful restraint
· Indecency with a child by exposure
· Possession or promotion of child pornography
· Online solicitation of a minor
· Sexual performance of a child
· Indecency with a child between 13 and 17 years old

And some believe that there are sex offenders who don't really belong on that list.

"I have mixed emotions because kids are going to be kids and some of the teenagers are labeled sex offenders and they really aren't," said Evelyn Byerlon, a grandparent in Midland.

And everyone can agree that the most important issue here is "the safety of the kids. I want my kids to be able to come to the park and not have to worry about if somebody's watching them," Licon said.

After a meeting Saturday, the Council on Sex Offender Treatment did not actually implement any of these rules just yet. But after finalizing the protocols, they say these rules could be implemented in the next few months. ..Source.. by Meron Berkson, CBS 7 News

Read More of Article...

February 17, 2011

One-size-fits-all laws for sex offenders miss the mark

The Claim "The registry serves a good purpose." The real problem is, no one can answer how it serves any public safety purpose. Consider, does the public feel safe not knowing about murders, those that steal from homes, the 1,500 or so annually that kill young children, domestic violence offenders, those who abuse the elderly, and the list goes on and on. Approximately 95% of new sex crimes are committed by someone who never before committed a sex crime. Finally, what good does it do to know where CERTAIN former sex offenders SLEEP for a few hours of the day? i.e., their address.
2-17-2011 Illinois:

Justin Raxter is a 22-year-old college student. He plays guitar and writes and records his own music. He likes watching “The Office” and “Family Guy,” and will eat anything with bacon.

He is also a registered sex offender.

When he was 18, Raxter, of Loves Park, began dating a girl who was 15. The age difference of three years did not seem important at time. He’ll now spend more than three times that amount listed on the Illinois Sex Offender Registration.

A registry he said ruins people’s lives.

“I want to try to inform the public that not every sex offender is the same and not every sex offender should be treated the same,” Raxter said in a telephone interview.

Raxter said he has been unable to obtain employment since being charged with criminal sexual abuse, a misdemeanor in the state of Illinois for which he’s serving two years of probation. He also was charged with child pornography for photos and videos he had of the girl, charges that later were dropped, he said.

After they broke up and he was convicted at age 21, he had to register as a sex offender for 10 years. So, by the time Raxter gets off the registry, he’ll have spent about a third of his life with that label.

Amie Eipers, a licensed clinical social worker in Naperville who knows Raxter, and Catherine Wilson, a clinical psychologist in Chicago, have both worked with sex offenders.

“Society doesn’t want them to move forward,” Eipers said. “Society wants to punish them forever.”

“In any other crime, we’d call them an ex-offender,” Wilson said. “We don’t make murderers register.”

But while Sharmili Majmudar, executive director of Rape Victim Advocates in Chicago, acknowledges that the registry is not perfect, she said it serves a good purpose.

“What they did is illegal,” Majmudar said about newly turned adults having consensual sex with a minor. “People do want to know when someone has been convicted of a sexual offense in their community. While not a perfect tool, it certainly has provided some transparency around sex offenders.”

Raxter’s probation requires him to be employed or go to school. So Raxter takes classes at Rock Valley Community College.

But he’s not allowed to come in contact with anyone under the age of 18. Raxter said he was removed from an online course because a 17-year-old was in the class. And even though they were not physically meeting in the same classroom, it would have violated the terms of his probation.

Raxter also had to get a court order to see his nieces.

“Before I was convicted, my family would always throw huge dinners on the holiday,” Raxter said. “Unfortunately due to all the restrictions, such as no contact with children, we are no longer allowed to have most of the family over, and because of this holiday dinners haven't been the same since.”

Raxter used to play guitar in bands performing every weekend throughout the state and other parts of the Midwest. He also went to the movies so often that it was hard to even name a favorite. These are examples of things he can no longer do for fear that he would violate his probation.

“It is very hard to predict where a child may be present,” Raxter said.

Eipers, Kyle Cushing, a licensed clinical psychologist in Rockford, and Robin McGinnis, a social worker in Mundelein, all offer therapy to sex offenders. And all said there should be different labels for someone in Raxter’s situation.

“I think the biggest misconception is that once they hit that registry, they’re viewed as pedophiles,” Cushing said. “There’s a hysteria, a not-in-my-backyard philosophy. People need to be more educated about what the specific offense was.”

McGinnis said that the “once a sex offender, always a sex offender” label is not accurate.

“In young adults, male brains don’t mature developmentally until 25,” McGinnis said. “So, some engage in dumb, risk-taking behaviors.” But that does not mean that they will always be a sex offender, she said.

All three agree that therapy and counseling can be useful in treating sexual offenders.

And counseling is part of Raxter’s probation requirements, a service the state does not pay for.

“Right now, I just do the group stuff,” Raxter said. “I’m paying $20 per week for that, and one-one-on would be more like $100 per week.”

Raxter said group therapy has helped with his personal life, but that he does not always identify with the other people in the group.

“The age range isn’t the same,” Raxter said, and it is difficult to hear about a 50-year-old trying to have sex with a 15-year-old.

Raxter is getting A’s and B’s in his classes for the first time ever. He said being labeled as a sex offender has made him want to excel in other areas of his life.

He is working with Illinois Voices, a group that is trying to reform state and federal laws on sex offenders from the one-size-fits-all policies. Raxter has visited Springfield to talk to lawmakers about legislation to get those charged with his misdemeanor removed from the registry. A bill introduced last week by state Rep. Robert Pritchard, R-70th, would accomplish that.

Also, MTV is now filming Raxter for an episode of “True Life” about his problems as a registered sex offender.

“It's hard to think how different my life was just a couple years ago,” Raxter said. “I am somewhat starting to get used it, but I don't think being sex offender for a consensual relationship is something anyone should be getting used to.” ..Source.. Gina Harkins

Read More of Article...

February 16, 2011

Wyoming teen sex registry bill moves forward

2-16-2011 Wyoming:

CASPER, Wyo. — A bill that would require teenagers who commit violent sex crimes to register as sex offenders cleared a state legislative committee Monday.

Under the legislation, neighbors, school officials and law enforcement would be notified of certain juvenile sex offenders living in the community. But those teenagers would not be listed on the state's online database.

Wyoming currently does require juveniles to register as sex offenders.


The legislation, which was passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is designed to bring Wyoming into compliance with federal guidelines for sex offender registration. The bill would require all sex offenders to register e-mail accounts, online user names and their work or school addresses.

The committee, however, amended the bill to keep offenders' Internet identifiers and phone numbers off the public database. Instead, that information would be kept by law enforcement.

Last month, the House Judiciary Committee stripped the juvenile registration provisions from the bill. When it reached the House floor, Rep. Keith Gingery, R-Jackson, amended the bill to include juveniles again.

Under his amendment, only teens who commit certain violent crimes, such as sexual assault and kidnapping, would be required to register. After 10 years, juveniles could also petition to have their names removed from the registry.

The House passed that version of the bill in late January.

"I think we've narrowly construed it down to just the juveniles that have committed heinous sexual assaults -- these are your most serious sexual assaults," Gingery said Monday. "And I think the neighbors have a right to know if there is a 17-year-old living next door that might abuse their 6-year-olds.

"We understand the argument on the other side that those offenders could be victims themselves, coming back to school. So we made sure they're not on the website — all we're doing is telling the neighbors about them, and we're telling youth organizations."

Juvenile crimes are normally kept private so teenagers have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, said Linda Burt, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Wyoming. Informing neighbors and others about a teenager's crimes will keep that from happening, she contends.

"They are bullied, they are harassed and they are pushed out of their communities because of this information," she said.

Sex offender registration laws across the country have become so broad that they are virtually useless for helping the public decide which offenders represent a true danger, she added. Burt said she's been contacted by several Wyoming men who are on the registry for the statutory rape of women who are now their spouses.

Wyoming would lose $85,000 in grant money if it fails to comply with the federal guidelines, according to Senate Judiciary Chairman Drew Perkins, R-Casper. That money is used to pay for drug enforcement programs.

The bill, however, is expected to cost the state $144,000.


Several other states have chosen not to comply with the guidelines because the cost of implementing them is greater than the reduction in grant funding. ..Source.. By JOSHUA WOLFSON Casper Star-Tribune

Read More of Article...

February 11, 2011

Loopholes Plague State Sex Offender Registry

2-11-2011 New Mexico:

This is the first in a three-part series examining the state's sex offender registry

When Richard Hill, 67, was sentenced last July on charges that he sexually molested a young girl, his victim told state District Court Judge Stephen Pfeffer she had been used “like a tool.”

“The word ‘love’ no longer has any meaning to me,” she told the court. “He took all that away from me.”

The victim recounted the sex acts she was forced to undergo for the man who, even prior to sentencing, denied he had done anything wrong. The victim said she forgave Hill, but it was a mental evaluation saying he was unlikely to re-offend that gave him the break few convicted sex offenders get in New Mexico.

Hill was convicted of molesting and raping the girl for a period of five years, beginning when she was 8 years old. But because of that mental evaluation, the court allowed Hill’s record to be wiped clean if he completes probation. That means Hill, of Santa Cruz, is now living free from a system that would otherwise tell his neighbors about his conviction.

A conviction on sex-related charges can, and often does, brand offenders with a label that sticks with them for life, marking them forever in a statewide online database where they can be tracked and scrutinized by police and neighbors.

On its face, the registry is an inescapable system for most of the 55 offenders in Rio Arriba County. Their crimes have been singled out by the government so the offenders can be identified and tracked by anyone with an Internet connection. The consequences for not obeying their responsibilities, such as checking in with a sheriff’s deputy or submitting DNA to a state database, could mean additional time in prison.

Law enforcement plays up the registry’s effectiveness in protecting the public.

“I’m sure a few (offenders) slip through the cracks,” former Santa Fe County sheriff Greg Solano said last October. “If they do, they’ll pay the penalty.”

But underneath that harsh-sounding exterior is a framework of loosely joined state and federal laws; unfunded mandates; threats from the federal government to pull grant money; offenders who struggle with psychological problems, including thoughts of suicide; police who are not aware of the law’s specifics; jurisdictional problems with tribal governments; and an occasional legal loophole in which a convicted offender can slip through without having to notify the public.

“Eventually this system will implode,” said Lloyd Swartz, himself a registered sex offender in Albuquerque who now lobbies against expanding New Mexico’s registry database. “It’s not sustainable.”

General Treatment

Enforcement of sex offender law in New Mexico relies on a partnership between state government and county sheriffs, built on the reasoning there’s a risk the offender could go out and re-offend, according to state statute. The law forces sex offenders to report their addresses to the local sheriff’s department. The sheriff’s department has to track them, and the state keeps a searchable online registry of offenders, as mandated by state law. People without an Internet connection can visit the sheriff’s department in person to learn if any registered sex offenders are living near them.

The process works like this, according to state statute:

After release from prison, sex offenders have the threat of more jail time hanging over their heads for not entering the registry. They have to meet with deputies on a regular basis in a process outlined by state law or they will be entered into the database as an “absconder,” and a warrant will be issued for their arrest, which could send them back to jail for another 18 months.

A sex offender has 10 days after being released from custody of a jail, or after he is placed on probation or parole, to register with the county sheriff’s department. The offender has to give information that includes his name, date of birth, social security number, address and place of employment, as well as the date, location and type of his conviction.

Offenders also have to provide written notice of their conviction to their employer or the dean of their school, if they’re attending school in the state.

The sheriff’s department then takes a physical description of the offender and a sample of his or her DNA, which is put into the state sex offender DNA identification system, which can be accessed by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

From then on, the offender has to tell the county when he moves within 10 days. This includes “temporary” living locations such as a shelter or halfway house, if the offender is homeless.

The law requires people convicted of lower-degree felony sex offenses to register and check-in every three months for a period of 10 years, but if the registrant is convicted again they have to register for the rest of their lives. People who commit certain types of violent offenses, such as rape, have to register for the rest of their lives. There is also a push under new federal standards to make the minimum registry period 15 years in the state.

Convictions Erased

The first link for the government to get someone onto the registry begins at sentencing, but there is a loophole a convicted sex offender can slip through before the case is even over, according to First Judicial District Attorney Angela Pacheco.

Though Pacheco called it “rare” in her experience, a judge can give a defendant a “conditional discharge,” meaning a charge could be erased from a convict’s record if he complies with the conditions of probation or parole without re-offending.

This means the defendant does not have to go on the registry once he’s released, Pacheco said.

This scenario played itself out in Hill’s case. A recording of the proceedings and court documents tell the following story:

Hill’s plea agreement ordered a suspended sentence of five to 20 years if he could complete five years of probation. Hill’s attorney, Joseph Campbell, asked for a conditional discharge, supporting his request with a doctor’s report which stated Hill was not likely to re-offend. Still, then-assistant district attorney Jennifer Padgett said in court she was opposed to the conditional discharge.

Pfeffer, citing the report, granted the conditional discharge request. He declined to comment on the ruling for this story, arguing Hill had not served his five years of probation yet so the case was ongoing.

In this case, the prosecution opposed the discharge, but Pacheco said things like that can sometimes be used to reach a plea agreement in a case. She also pointed out Hill would be in more trouble if he violated the terms of his release.

“A conditional discharge is a gift,” she said. “But you can blow it.”

Keeping Track

Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties have a combined 165 sex offenders scattered across thousands of square miles, but in each county the job of keeping tabs on them falls on a single deputy in that county’s sheriff’s department. Each deputy in charge of their respective county said keeping up can be difficult.

Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputy Deborah Anaya runs her department’s registry on top of her job as a criminal investigator. In Rio Arriba, the job was performed by former lieutenant Manuel Valdez, who left the department with the Jan. 1 change in administrations. Valdez had been keeping tabs on every sex offender entering and leaving Rio Arriba County since 1998, but in his opinion, it’s not a one-man job.

Much of the responsibility for registering falls on the offenders themselves, who are required to meet with the sheriff’s deputy in charge every 90 days or possibly face a felony charge of absconding from the registry.

But Valdez’s and Anaya’s jobs go further than that. Valdez said he needed to check that the offenders are living where they say they are, a process called validation.

“It’s a full-time job,” Anaya said. “It really is.”

But keeping tabs on the offenders has to be done alongside other jobs. Valdez said he had contacts with other departments in Rio Arriba County who sometimes helped by validating offenders for him.

However, questions also arise over this validation process. One offender has an address listed in the phone book different from the one in the registry. Two other offenders interviewed for this story, one of whom has been free for several years, said a deputy never knocked on their doors to talk to them, which Valdez confirmed.

In keeping tabs on sex offenders, state Public Safety Department Special Programs Supervisor Regina Chacon said state laws have improved over time.

But in the experience of one Rio Arriba registrant, the laws put in place don’t matter as much as the people charged with enforcing them. He said how the police exercise their authority can mean the difference between serving his sentence by meeting with people like Valdez, an officer he described as a “good guy,” and embarrassing situations in which he feels his rights were not being respected.

“They started up all kinds of (expletive),” the man said of a run-in with Española Police officers “about a year ago” while trying to pick his step-son up from school.

The registrant, who asked to remain anonymous because he has children in school, said he was picking up his stepson from school when he saw his parole officer speaking with an Española officer.

“They talked to the school and said, ‘Hey, do you know there’s a convicted sex offender driving around on your property?’” the registrant said. “The police said I was not allowed on campus anymore.”

Valdez and Chacon each said there is nothing in state law that requires registered sex offenders to stay a certain distance away from a school.

On his way home with his son, the registrant said he was pulled over by city police, who said they wanted to verify that the boy in the vehicle was actually the registrant’s step-son.

The registrant says he can appreciate the police following up on a call, but said it’s their job to know the law.

“It’s trampling on my rights as well,” he said.

This is important to the registrant because he was convicted 20 years ago in Utah of raping the mother of a man he had been feuding with when he was 17. Today, he calls that the worst decision he made in his life, one that forced him to grow up inside prison. He’s been through counseling and has a family now. He feels he has been rehabilitated.

“I’ve talked about this so many times,” he said of his crime. “It was part of the process of being involved in prison. What I did was very shameful and very bad. I learned to separate who I am now from what I’ve done.”

‘Unfunded Mandate’

In his years doing the job, Valdez said he saw changes in the registry law give more responsibilities to the sheriff’s department. People have to register more frequently for more crimes and for longer periods of time, he said. Valdez said that means sheriff’s departments throughout the state are being burdened by the government without any corresponding help.

“It’s an unfunded mandate,” Valdez said.

Sheriff’s departments are also required to notify a school whenever an offender moves within a one-mile radius. They also have to be in contact with other states to find out when an offender moves into their county or when one of their offenders notifies them that they are moving to another county or state.

Valdez said he was required to notify a school in-person if a convicted sex offender moved in nearby, but he did not have to do this for the offender’s immediate neighbors. The responsibility for learning about that falls on the neighbors themselves.

To do that, the state Public Safety Department keeps a searchable database of 2,572 sex offenders living in New Mexico, which can be found on the state’s website. These offenders also can be found on a national database of every sex offender in the country for states that comply with new federal regulations.

State law does not allow citizens full access to information about all of the registered sex offenders in New Mexico; there are more than 100 additional sex offenders, 2,694, in the state than are currently on the state’s website.

According to Chacon, who runs the state’s registry, this is because several of the offenses recognized by law are not required to go up on the state’s site. Most of the registrable offenses include violent crimes, or crimes involving children, while statute does not require registry for crimes like incest.

However, the website also overlooks some crimes that can involve children, such as aggravated indecent exposure. Enticing a child, or trying to get a child to enter a vehicle or a secluded place with the intent to commit a sex crime, is also not a searchable offense on the site.

As part of the law, a sex offender is also required to disclose where he works, but sometimes the public does not get that information, either. Chacon said state law allows sex offenders to submit proof, often in the form of a letter from their boss, to show their line of work does not bring them into contact with children. ..Source.. Bill Rodgers, SUN Staff Writer

Part two of this series examines the legal, financial and political pressures behind the state’s system for dealing with sex offenders.

Read More of Article...

December 31, 2010

Sex offender registries ruin many lives

12-31-2010 Washington:

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, Wash. - Ed Gonda and his family moved to Bainbridge Island upon hearing it was a pastoral "laid back, forgiving" kind of place.

After finding a rental, he and his wife enrolled their daughter in school.

As Christians, they found a local church they liked. They made friends with neighbors and island residents.

But eventually, word got out.

Gonda had a criminal past. And not for burglary or drug possession, but for a sex offense.

The news traveled fast, and people who they thought they knew well acted swiftly. His daughter could no longer play with friends down the street, he said. The church pews around them were vacant on Sundays. They more or less stopped going out anywhere on the island.

"We're treated like we're diseased," his wife said.

Having a daughter, Gonda can empathize with islanders. He would never want a pedophile around her, and he has family members who were the victims of sexual abuse.

Gonda didn't go to prison for being a pedophile. In 1995, when he was in his early 30s, he had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl he lived with at the time.

Gonda pleaded guilty to his charges and did about four years in state prison. He participated in and paid more than $10,000 for sex-offender treatment. He has committed no new crimes since he got out of prison about a decade ago, according to a check of his criminal history. As sex offenders go, he is considered a "Level 1" by law enforcement, the level least likely to re-offend. He said that just to be safe, he avoids places where teens close to his victim's age congregate.

"I admit, I was wrong," Gonda said. "But I've changed. Why are people still looking at me for something I did 15 years ago?"

Law enforcement makes a determination of how likely a sex offender is to re-offend and rates them on a scale of 1 to 3.

But the public often fails to see any nuance.

"People look at them in a bucket," said Bainbridge Island Police Commander Sue Shultz. "They say 'Any kind of sex offender is a sex offender, and always will be a sex offender.' "

The registration of sex offenders in Washington state was one of three components of the Community Protection Act of 1990, passed in the wake of two tragic and brutal killings. It's a popular measure with the public, and the Legislature has strengthened and spent more money on the laws surrounding sex offenses. Lawmakers have also bolstered penalties for failing to register as a sex offender.

There is also a national registry for sex offenders.

The subject of debate is who is included in the registries, who is not and how often should they be checked on.

While extremely rare, recent horrifying crimes committed by sex offenders have galvanized lawmakers to act.

Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge uses the analogy of an airplane crash.
"It doesn't happen very often," he said. "But when it does, it's a tragedy."

Hauge chaired a task force convened by Gov. Chris Gregoire in the wake of the killing of Zina Linnik, a 12-year-old girl abducted and murdered by Terapon Adhahn, a Level 1 sex offender. A result of that task force was the creation of a sex-offender policy board that reports to the governor, and the creation of a pot of grant money awarded to local law enforcement to make face-to-face contact with every sex offender in the state.

"Nobody knows how much of a safety factor it adds," Hauge said. "But a murder of a young girl damages the community in an incalculable way."

Thomas Weaver, a defense attorney who handles sex cases, questions the indiscriminate nature of a sex offender registry. While lower-level sex offenders might not have their pictures in the paper like Level 3 offenders do, they're still on the list, he said.
Weaver also wonders about a slippery slope in registration. For example, why not enact a burglary offender registration to notify the public when such convicts are released, he wonders.

A kidnapping registry was created in the wake of Washington's sex offender registry, he said. Nevada has a registry for convicts of many different crimes. And there have also been calls in some states for a registry of arson offenders, a crime that also often involves an underlying psychological component.

Where to draw the line?

As a sex offender, Ed Gonda can understand why people would be afraid of Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders. His family's few options of places to live are apartments and houses that accommodate sex offenders. But he doesn't want to go to those places out of fear for his wife and daughter.

Other landlords, however, won't rent to him because of his status.

"So where can we live?" he wonders.

While in prison, he changed his name. He still feels blessed to have found a family and for the neighbors on Bainbridge Island that do accept him.

"God gave me a family, a wife and a new start," he said. "I just wish someone would give us a chance." ..Source.. Josh Farley

Read More of Article...

December 29, 2010

Two Decades of Sounding the Alarm on Sex Offenders

12-28-2010 Washington:

POULSBO — “This notification is not intended to increase fear,” the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office flier reads. “Rather, an informed public is a safer public.”

For 20 years, that statement has accompanied the brief dossier on sex offenders released by the sheriff’s office to the community where they will live.

Washington reserves community notification for the sex offenders it ranks as most likely to re-offend. Whether it has made the state safer in the first two decades of notification’s existence is a harder question to answer.

The concept of community notification, developed by a task force in the late 1980s, was not envisioned as a crime prevention tool. It was a mechanism for law enforcement to inform residents of dangerous offenders — something they were prohibited by law from doing before 1990, said Lucy Berliner, a member of the original task force and head of the Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress.

Rather than questioning whether notification makes a community safer, she asks, “Is it right for the government to have information about your safety and be prevented from telling you about it?”

Notification has long endured scrutiny as a public safety tool. But local law enforcement believes it does serve as a deterrent.

“I think that because the public has tasked us with this, we do the best we can and it makes a difference,” said Doug Dillard, a Kitsap County Sheriff’s detective whose full-time job is monitoring sex offenders.

Dillard registers sex offenders, tracks down those who fail to do so for prosecution, and arranges community gatherings when Level 3 sex offenders change addresses.

His most recent meeting concerned the release of Johnathon Daniel Roswell, a 26-year-old man convicted of sex offenses in four different cases. When he was 17, he was convicted of third-degree rape of a 13-year-old girl. When he was 19, he was convicted of third-degree molestation of a 14-year-old girl. And when he was 21, he was convicted of second-degree child molestation of a 15-year-old girl. He knew the victim in each case.

A crowd of about 20 turned out at Poulsbo Fire Department headquarters on Dec. 13 to learn about Roswell, who was moving to Ryen Drive, which is in a neighborhood north of Poulsbo not far from the community’s Little League and Babe Ruth fields.

The meeting didn’t make North Kitsap resident Bruce MacLearnsberry feel any safer.

“It’s merely a reminder that it’s out there,” he said. “But we have to show up, we have to speak up.”

MacLearnsberry, who said he’s disillusioned with a justice system that releases an offender with multiple convictions, quoted Edmund Burke as rationale for notification: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

‘I HAVE TO PROTECT MY CHILDREN’

Community notification was a component of the 1990 Community Protection Act, a landmark piece of legislation passed unanimously that included new tools for the monitoring of sex offenders.

The act was prompted by public outrage at two killings — a young woman who was abducted and murdered in Seattle in September 1988, and the sexual assault mutilation and murder of a 7-year-old boy who was riding his bike in Tacoma in May 1989.

Then-Gov. Booth Gardner ordered the creation of a task force on community protection that was led by longtime King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and included various stakeholders from the criminal justice system and the mothers of the two victims.

Their recommendations were introduced before the Legislature and were unanimously approved in January 1990.

The Community Protection Act bolstered sentences for sex offenders, provided them with increased treatment opportunities, and enhanced victims’ services.

But it was also a fundamental shift in the way the criminal justice system dealt with a unique criminal population. The state was the pioneer in the nation in establishing three unorthodox systems aimed at reducing the number of victims of sexual violence:

* Registration of offenders to a set period of time beyond incarceration and probation, so law enforcement could keep a better eye on them;

* A civil commitment process in which sex offenders found to have a “mental abnormality or personality disorder” could be committed indefinitely — a process that already existed for mentally ill people found to be a danger to themselves and others.

* A system of community notification, in which the proximate locations of many sex offenders living in the community would become public information.

Community notification of a registered sex offender depends upon the classification of the offender. Level 1 offenders are classified as being at low risk of reoffending; Level 2s present a “moderate risk;” and Level 3s present a “high risk.”

Information about Level 1 offenders is only released upon request by community members. Information about Level 2 offenders is included in public databases and released to schools and other organizations where children congregate. Level 3 offenders’ information is disclosed to the public at large.

Those who attended the Poulsbo meeting felt knowing who was in their neighborhood would help them keep their children safe.

“It is really up to us to watch where these guys are living,” said Brooke Hammett, who has a young son. “The police can’t watch them twenty-four, seven.”

Mitch Smith, who called himself a “hard-nosed grandpa,” said he believes the responsibility of protecting the community — particularly children — falls on everyone’s shoulders and not just law enforcement.

“Any knowledge I can gain to help protect our youth,” he said, “I’m going to use that.”

George Minder of Poulsbo said he believes it’s irresponsible for his fellow residents not to come to such a meeting.

“I can’t sit back and wait for something to happen,” Minder said. “I have to protect my children. My wife. My family.”

THE COUNTY’S CALL

Law enforcement is required to send word to local media if a Level 3 sex offender is released from prison or moves. In Kitsap County, agencies mail notices to nearby residents as well. The office will spend up to $500 out of pocket to send notices to homes near where the offender will be living in a radius ranging from a quarter-mile to a mile, depending upon the population density of the area, Dillard said.

A common misconception is that registration requirements include restrictions on where an offender may live. That’s not true, Dillard said.

An offender could be on probation and face restrictions. But if they’re only required to register, they can live where they want. Offenders are required to register after they’re released from prison for at least 10 years, and those with the most serious offenses may have to register for life.

Level 3 offenders are subject to more stringent registration mandates, including community notification. Level 2 offenders can still be searched in a public database and Level 1 offenders often exist under the radar, though their status is noted in background checks and police databases.

The Department of Corrections assesses an offender upon their release from prison, but law enforcement can classify an offender at any level they choose. Mason County, for instance, has decided to classify every offender that’s homeless as a Level 3. In Kitsap County, there are homeless offenders at the other levels, though they are required to check in once a week and provide a report of where they’ve stayed.

Sheriff’s offices in Washington use a risk assessment to decide into which level an offender should be placed. The test weighs age, prior sex offenses and whether the offender’s victims were related to them or male.

‘PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW’

Notification’s popularity isn’t in doubt. Surveys in 1997 and 2007 found that a majority of state residents knew about and considered the community notification of sex offenders “very important,” according to the state Attorney General’s Office.

“I sense there’s very strong community support for notification,” said David Boerner, a Seattle University law professor, former prosecutor and one of the architects of the Community Protection Act. “People want to know.”

The attorney general’s office goes a step further, arguing that the state’s residents are safer because of community notification. Attorney General Rob McKenna points to a 2005 study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy that says sex offenders’ rates of recidivism — or re-offense — have dropped 20 percent for violent felonies and 70 percent for felony sex convictions since the 1990 establishment of registration and notification.

But overall research on the topic is mixed, and it “does not consistently conclude that community notification reduces recidivism, prevents sex crimes, protects children, or enhances community safety,” said a report penned by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, an Oregon-based treatment and policy group.

Notification can, in some cases, have a negative impact on both an offender’s family and could potentially reveal the offender’s victim, the association said.

Community notification is often damaging for the offender. About one-third to one-half of adult sex offenders have experienced housing instability, job loss, vigilantism and threats, and property damage, the association said. In extreme cases, offenders have been assaulted. Two sex offenders were murdered in Bellingham in 2005 by a vigilante later sentenced to 44 years in prison for their deaths.

There might not be much sympathy for a sex offender. But an offender is most likely to re-offend when they’re unstable, said John S. Furlong, a longtime New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

“You’re actually promoting the recidivism of a new crime,” he said of notification, which he calls “community vilification.”

Contemplating, threatening or committing violence against an offender could lead to the courts or Legislature taking away notification, said Sue Shultz, commander for the Bainbridge Island Police Department.

More important, Shultz said, is that parents keep a dialogue with their children about safety, including appropriate versus inappropriate touching.

“We fail when we don’t teach our kids,” said Shultz, a former special assault crimes detective for the Bremerton Police Department for seven years.

In these days of cost-cutting, notification gives law enforcement one of its few ways to be “proactive,” said Bill Adam, a Mason County detective.

Adam is vigilant in distributing fliers to keep the community abreast of the sex offenders most likely to reoffend. Mason County was rocked by the rape and murder of 15-year-old Jennie Osborn by a sex offender in Lake Cushman in 2001.

Adam’s job exists, he said, so that a similar crime never occurs again.

“Even a remote possibility that notification can prevent that horrific crime, it makes our entire program worthwhile,” Adam said. “How can you even put a price on the life of a child?” ..Source.. Josh Farley

Read More of Article...

Should All Convicted Sex Offenders Be Required to Register?

12-27-2010 Washington:

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND — Ed Gonda and his family moved to Bainbridge Island upon hearing it was a pastoral “laid back, forgiving” kind of place.

After finding a rental, he and his wife enrolled their daughter in school. As Christians, they found a local church they liked. They made friends with neighbors and island residents.

But eventually, word got out.

Gonda had a criminal past. And not for burglary or drug possession, but for a sex offense.

The news traveled fast, and people who they thought they knew well acted swiftly. His daughter could no longer play with friends down the street, he said. The church pews around them were vacant on Sundays. They more or less stopped going out anywhere on the island.

“We’re treated like we’re diseased,” his wife said.

Having a daughter, Gonda can empathize with islanders. He would never want a pedophile around her, and he has family members who were the victims of sexual abuse.

Gonda didn’t go to prison for being a pedophile. In 1995, when he was in his early 30s, he had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl he lived with at the time.

Gonda pleaded guilty to his charges and did about four years in state prison. He participated in and paid more than $10,000 for sex-offender treatment. He has committed no new crimes since he got out of prison about a decade ago, according to a check of his criminal history. As sex offenders go, he is considered a “Level 1” by law enforcement, the level least likely to re-offend. He said that just to be safe, he avoids places where teens close to his victim’s age congregate.

“I admit, I was wrong,” Gonda said. “But I’ve changed. Why are people still looking at me for something I did 15 years ago?”

Law enforcement makes a determination of how likely a sex offender is to re-offend and rates them on a scale of 1 to 3.

But the public often fails to see any nuance.

“People look at them in a bucket,” said Bainbridge Island Police Commander Sue Shultz. “They say ‘Any kind of sex offender is a sex offender, and always will be a sex offender.’”

The registration of sex offenders was one of three components of the Community Protection Act of 1990, passed in the wake of two tragic and brutal killings. It’s a popular measure with the public, and the Legislature has strengthened and spent more money on the laws surrounding sex offenses. Lawmakers have also bolstered penalties for failing to register as a sex offender.

The subject of debate is who is included in the registries, who is not and how often should they be checked on.

Shultz said that twice a year, Bainbridge officers “very discreetly” check on the island’s sex offenders to ensure they’re living at their registered address and that they haven’t made any significant changes in appearance that would necessitate a new photo being put on file. Level 3 sex offenders — though Bainbridge doesn’t currently have any — are checked on every three months.

Random attacks by sex offenders are rare. Shultz and other officials point out that more than 90 percent of sexual abuse cases occur between a victim and someone they thought they could trust.

Outside of two incidents of non-sexual criminal activity, none of the 11 Level 1 sex offenders on Bainbridge Island have been reported to police for even an allegation of sexual abuse, Shultz said. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but she encourages residents to put it into perspective.

So far, the legislative decree for the registry has been to err on the side of caution. While extremely rare, recent horrifying crimes committed by sex offenders have galvanized lawmakers to act.

Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge uses the analogy of an airplane crash.

“It doesn’t happen very often,” he said. “But when it does, it’s a tragedy.”

Hauge chaired a task force convened by Gov. Chris Gregoire in the wake of the killing of Zina Linnik, a 12-year-old girl abducted and murdered by Terapon Adhahn, a Level 1 sex offender. A result of that task force was the creation of a sex-offender policy board that reports to the governor, and the creation of a pot of grant money awarded to local law enforcement to make face-to-face contact with every sex offender in the state.

“Nobody knows how much of a safety factor it adds,” Hauge said. “But a murder of a young girl damages the community in an incalculable way.”

Victim’s advocates, who see the impacts sex offenses have on victims, have a hard time finding any sympathy for the registrants, said Lucy Berliner, a longtime advocate and head of the Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress.

“The only consequence I can see of registration is the inconvenience for the sex offender,” she said.

Aside from law-enforcement monitoring costs, registration also creates an entirely new class of crime: failing to register. All sex offenders have 72 hours to register with their local sheriff’s office any time they move to a new permanent residence.

The crime carries a maximum of five years in prison, and if the offender’s failed to register twice before, up to 10 years in prison.

Not counting the state’s 37 county jails, there are more than 300 inmates serving time for failing to register in the state’s prison system, at a cost of more than $1 million a year.

The cases take up law enforcement’s time and resources. Trina Washburn, Kitsap County Detectives Support Specialist, has five file cabinets of active county sex-offender registration cases.

Registration, as one might imagine, isn’t popular with offenders. It’s often the worst part of a criminal sentence.

“I’ve had attorneys tell me, ‘My guy will do twice the amount of time in custody — as long as they don’t have to register,’” said Kevin Hull, Kitsap County deputy prosecutor and head of the office’s special assault unit. “That tells me that there is some value to it.”

Registration, however, is not negotiable, Hull said.

“If we can prove a sex crime, then we’re going to prove a sex crime,” he said.

There are more than 20,000 registered sex offenders in the state, with almost 800 in Kitsap. Of those, there are 44 Level 3 offenders, 148 Level 2s and almost 600 Level 1 sex offenders.

The registration period — 10 years for lesser sex crimes, 15 years for midrange sex offenses and life for the most serious — also starts over anytime the offender commits a new crime.

Registration’s effect can be two-fold: law enforcement keeps an eye on an offender for many years after a conviction, and for some cases, a lifetime. Conversely, it also has a deterrent effect on an offender, because, as David Boerner, a longtime Seattle University law professor and one of the architects of the act that created registration, points out, “’They know who I am and where I am.’”

‘A WHOLE NEW WORLD OF JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS’

Thomas Weaver, a Bremerton defense attorney who handles sex cases, questions the indiscriminate nature of a sex offender registry. While lower-level sex offenders might not have their pictures in the paper like Level 3 offenders do, they’re still on the list, he said.

Currently, Weaver has a case in which the 19-year-old defendant is charged with having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. The defendant is permitted to have sex with a teen if he’s no more than 48 months older than the teen — but in this case, he’s 54 months older.

A conviction would require the defendant to register for a decade.

“(The need for registration), I think, is to provide notification to the community of a potential danger,” he said. “I don’t see how, in the case of a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old girl, the community needs to be notified every time he moves.”

“Sexting,” where teens send lewd photos to each other over mobile phones, may seem to some just an immature teenage mistake. Under the law, however, it can be considered “Dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct” — a class B felony requiring 15 years of sex offender registration for those convicted of it.

Weaver said he also regularly gets what he calls “playing doctor” cases that involve siblings. Typically, an older brother, at least three years older than his sister, has touched her private parts. Such a conviction, if the girl is under 12, is a class A felony — which, barring an appeal from the defendant, means a lifetime of sex offender registration.

“They’re still coming to understand sexuality,” Weaver said. “What we’re saying as a society is you’re supposed to have the sexual maturity of an adult when you’re pubescent or even prepubescent.”

Those convictions are adding up.

“We’re creating a whole world of juvenile sex offenders,” Weaver said.

State Rep. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard, is for harsh sentences for sex crimes and for monitoring of offenders, such as GPS anklets. But she said she’s heard from constituents that in some cases involving young adults, the rigidity of the law can interfere with an offender’s ability to move on in life.

“Things happen, they’re young,” she said. “Should they be tied with this for the rest of their lives when they become upstanding adults?”

State Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, a member of the House’s public safety and emergency preparedness committee, is crafting legislation that would help certain juveniles who are not predatory offenders opt out of registration.

“A lot of these kids get into trouble and now they’re labeled as sex offenders for life,” she said. “Then they have no life, they can’t get into the military, they can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. We have to have a way to get them off these registries.”

Sex offenders can petition the courts to end their requirement. They’re eligible after at least 10 years of registering — two years in juvenile cases. But even if they’ve completed sex offender treatment and kept their nose clean since they were released from incarceration, the time and money to go through the process may still end with a judge hesitant to grant the request, Weaver said.

THE REGISTRY’S LIMITS

Weaver does wonder about a slippery slope in registration. For example, why not enact a burglary offender registration to notify the public when such convicts are released, he wonders.

A kidnapping registry was created in the wake of Washington’s sex offender registry, he said. Nevada has a registry for convicts of many different crimes. And there have also been calls in some states for a registry of arson offenders, a crime that also often involves an underlying psychological component.

Where to draw the line?

As a sex offender, Ed Gonda can understand why people would be afraid of Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders. His family’s few options of places to live are apartments and houses that accommodate sex offenders. But he doesn’t want to go to those places out of fear for his wife and daughter. Other landlords, however, won’t rent to him because of his status.

“So where can we live?” he wonders.

While in prison, he changed his name. He still feels blessed to have found a family and for the neighbors on Bainbridge Island that do accept him.

“God gave me a family, a wife and a new start,” he said. “I just wish someone would give us a chance.” ..Source.. Kitsap Sun

Read More of Article...

December 11, 2010

Men cleared from sex offender registry

12-11-2010 Georgia:

A man convicted of a 1993 armed robbery and false imprisonment in DeKalb County has been taken off the state's sex-offender registry because his offense did not involve a sex crime.

An order, recently signed by DeKalb Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams, removes Omar Howard from the registry's strict restrictions and is the result of legislation passed earlier this year. "The General Assembly should be commended for recognizing it's unwise to dilute the sex offender registry with people who aren't actually sex offenders," said Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Howard was put on the registry because his false imprisonment conviction involved a minor and, at the time of his conviction, the law did not make a distinction whether it involved a sex offense. Lawmakers earlier this year allowed such offenders to be removed from the registry if a judge finds the offender did not commit a sex crime and does not pose a substantial risk of committing a dangerous sex offense.

Donnie Lee Boone, convicted in Richmond County of a 1994 armed robbery of an Augusta restaurant during which a minor was kidnapped, also was recently removed from the registry. A Superior Court judge found Boone's crimes did not involve a sex offense and that he posed no risk of committing one in the future.

Georgia's registered sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of child care centers, schools, school bus stops, swimming pools and other places where children congregate. It places similar, though less severe, restrictions as to where they can work. ..Source.. by Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Read More of Article...

December 1, 2010

Missouri sex offender registry includes those busted for public urination

12-1-2010 Missouri:

St. Louis, MO (KSDK) -- With more than 12,000 people on Missouri's sex offender registry, some groups are advocating change. They argue law enforcement can't keep track of everyone on the list. To make the system more efficient and fair, groups like Missouri Citizens for Reform want all non violent offenders removed from the list.

Dennis Conlin started Missouri Citizens for Reform.

"Not everybody on the registry is violent," Conlin said. "Should the Romeo and Juliet case where the 19-year-old boy is having consensual sex with 15-year-old girl, should he be on the registry for life? I don't think so. Should a person being accused of urinating in public be on the registry for life? No, I don't think so."

Conlin said the current system lumps all offenders together and brands everyone, even those arrested for streaking, with a lifetime scarlet letter.

"In Missouri it's one size fits all. Everyone is on the registry," said Conlin.

But he doubts change will come soon. Conlin said most lawmakers don't want to risk political suicide by promoting such a bill.

"I see an injustice here. I see legislators, politicians, prosecutors; nobody wants to seem soft on child crime," Conlin said.

Some researchers and reform groups claim the registry doesn't prevent sexual assaults and, in fact, are counterproductive because they drive sex offenders underground, making them more difficult to track. Others believe the registration laws need to be repealed altogether and replaced with tougher punishments for the most violent of sex crimes. Still, others say the registries themselves are a good idea, but want to see greater limits placed on those required to register. ..Source.. Leisa Zigman, I-Team Reporter

Read More of Article...

November 24, 2010

Of sex and injustice

11-24-2010 Michigan:

Why the Michigan Sex Offender List needs to be abolished as soon as possible.
(Audio)

Some years ago, I talked to a heartbroken woman who lived near the Ohio border. Her daughter, who was younger than 16, the legal age of consent in Michigan, had been willingly having sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, an honor student. The kids wouldn't stop doing it, surprise, surprise, and the mom then took them to court.

When the boy, who was hoping for scholarships and acceptance at an Ivy League school, learned that he was going to end up on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry, he felt that his life was ruined. Soon after, he drove his car into the path of an oncoming tractor-trailer. He left no note, and his death technically could have been an accident, but everyone knew it wasn't.

Welcome to our wonderful world of stigma.

It's called the Michigan Sex Offender List, and is a terrible thing that needs to be abolished — as soon as possible. It was born of a half-baked noble idea that was rushed into law in Lansing and turned into something dangerously bad. This all started in 1994, when Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, was brutally raped and murdered. The scum who did it was a convicted felon who had served time for other sex crimes, and who lived across the street. Megan's parents had no idea of his background.

A national outcry led to Congress requiring persons convicted of sex crimes against children to notify law enforcement of any future change of address or employment, in some cases, for the rest of their lives. That itself ought to make us a bit uneasy; it sounds like something that would happen in a place like the Soviet Union, where prisoners often weren't allowed to leave Siberia even after they did their time. However, given the nature of sex criminals, and our legitimate interest in protecting children, this action might conceivably be justifiable in the interests of society.

What happened next, however, wasn't. New Jersey passed something known as "Megan's Law," which required the state to maintain a database listing all released sex offenders — and to notify communities whenever an offender moved into the neighborhood. Supposedly, that's so parents can keep little Billy away from the pervert's house. In fact, that sounds like a sure-fire way to make it impossible for these folks ever to rehabilitate themselves, and maybe even an open invitation to vigilante action. (Little Susie's late coming home from school? Let's string up the neighborhood pervs!)

Michigan then did something even worse. We created a registry listing people convicted of all sorts of "sex" crimes, showing people's driver's license pictures, telling where people live and indicating something about the severity of their crimes through a vague and confusing system of numbered categories.

Investigations have shown that the site is frequently out of date and lists wrong addresses. Worse, serial child rapists are there next to people who — when they were 16 — had sex with their eager and willing 15-year-old girlfriend or boyfriend. You can even get on the sex offender registry for indecent exposure, meaning it may well contain some drunken frat boys arrested for urinating in the South Quad.

To add to the monstrosity of this, once you get on the list, you stay on for at least 10 years, sometimes for life. This got new attention earlier this month, after it was revealed that a 14-year-old girl in Wayne County's Huron Township had sex with an 18-year-old classmate. Neither knew how old the other was.

Initially, both said it was not only consensual, the girl approached him. Then, however, the child had second thoughts and claimed she was raped. Classmates made fun of her, and she killed herself. Had she lived, the boy would have ended up on the offender list even if she had stuck to her story that she seduced him.

He also would have gone to jail. But since the only witness is now dead, he's home free. Which is a nutty system. But for those whose partners haven't died — how is somebody supposed to get a job and turn their lives around when they are on that list?

I just called it up and plugged in my fairly upper-middle-class ZIP code. There was one name in my neighborhood, but when I clicked on his info to see what he had been convicted of, I got knocked off the registry.

The Michigan State Police specifically say they won't verify for the accuracy of the registry's information. Nor does it do any good in preventing crime. Two years ago, a study of a similar New Jersey law found that the registry had no effect on reducing sexual offenses, re-offenses or the number of victims. What the law did do was cost the state a lot of money.

Obviously, this turkey should be repealed, and replaced with a law that requires authorities to keep close tabs on dangerous sexual predators, or, if it isn't politically possible to entirely get rid of a sex offender list, have it only for convicted child molesters.

Actually, if somebody is that dangerous, they probably shouldn't be out on the street. We need, as penal experts now say, to lock up the people we are legitimately afraid of, not the ones we are mad at. I wouldn't have any problem with stiffer penalties for dangerous sex criminals, especially if the Legislature wanted to save us millions by releasing a lot of nonviolent criminals.

Incidentally, I have a selfish interest in abolishing the sex offender registry; I might easily have been on it. Not because of anything I did when I was in high school; I was far too socially inept, and the only woman I now want is older than the president.

But I do take my dog to public woods, and once or twice, at night, after a day of coffee drinking, I have had to join him in peeing on trees. All things considered, I would rather not have my driver's license picture on the registry. It makes my face look fat.


Women who need real justice: Last week I saw former Gov. William Milliken, a man who has devoted his life to justice. I was curious to know what he was thinking about the new administration. I found, however, that he was much more focused on the present — specifically, on a favorite cause of his: Unjustly imprisoned women in Michigan prisons. For years, he has supported the Michigan Women's Justice and Clemency Project.

He and Carol Jacobsen, a University of Michigan professor who directs the project, have petitioned Gov. Jennifer Granholm to commute the sentences of dozens of battered women. I've looked at their case files. Most probably never should have been in prison at all; they were the victims of bad lawyers and insensitive judges.

Some killed boyfriends and husbands who were attacking them or their children. Some were dragged along on crime sprees by criminal lovers, more or less against their will. Others have been held far past any reasonable time they should have been behind bars.

Jennifer Granholm leaves office in five weeks; she can never run again, and has nothing to fear politically. She hasn't left much in the way of progressive legacy over the last eight years. Letting these poor women go would be a golden opportunity to do the right thing and correct an injustice.

Let's hope that in our lock-'em-up-obsessed world, the governor at last finds the courage to do the right thing. ..Source.. Jack Lessenberry

Read More of Article...

October 25, 2010

Proposed Bill To Ensure Sex Offenders Properly Register

10-25-2010 Ohio:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- State Representative Nancy Garland announced her plans to introduce legislation that will ensure all sex offenders will fulfill their registration requirement, Monday.

The bill, developed by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, was created as a fix to an unintended consequence of a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision.

A fix, Rep. Garland says is crucial for maintaining the safety of the members of the community.

"Fixing the unintended loophole from the Supreme Court decision will give the legal system the tools they need to effectively track offenders and will provide Ohioans a piece of mind," said Rep. Garland.

The bill is designed to give prosecutors the ability to effectively prosecute any sex offender who fails to comply with the registration requirements.

The situation began in January 2008 when the Adam Walsh Act replaced the previous legislation known as Megan’s Law, which covered sex offenders.

The Walsh Act required the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders into Tiers I, II or III. The previous classifications under Megan’s Law were “sexually oriented offender, habitual sex offender, sexual predator” etc. As a result, several sections of the sex offender registration requirements were repealed.

The need for this legislation arose from the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling on State v. Bodyke in June.

The decision from this case exempted sex offenders convicted under Megan’s Law from the need to comply with registration requirements, which wasn’t the original intent of the Adam Walsh Act. The new legislation will correct this situation, according to Rep. Garland.

The proposed bill will only affect offenders who were classified by the courts prior to Jan. 1, 2008 when the Adam Walsh Act became a law, approximately 20,000 Ohio sex offenders. ..Source.. Alex Mazer

Read More of Article...

October 19, 2010

Study: Sex offender law changes may not have boosted community safety

10-19-2010 South Carolina:

Does South Carolina’s sexual offender registry help cut down the number of new sex crimes? Does it decrease the odds that people listed on it will reoffend?

A group of researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina spent the past five years examining those questions and outlined its findings in a report released recently.

They found that the state’s sexual offender registration and notification laws, enacted in 1995, inadvertently led to changes in the way sex crimes are prosecuted — changes that could actually “reduce community safety,” according to the report.

After 1995, researchers saw a spike in the number of plea bargains for sex crime defendants who plead to non-sex charges. Defendants who are guilty of sex crimes, but who ultimately pleaded to lesser charges, are not subjected to registration and could face lighter sentencing. Researchers can’t say for sure why the laws led to changes in prosecution.

Among their findings:

• Before 1995, defendants stood a 9 percent chance of getting their charges reduced from a sex crime to a lesser offense, such as aggravated assault or criminal domestic violence, the report said. After the law went into effect, that figure rose to about 15 percent. When the registry went online in 1999, it jumped to 19 percent.

• After 1999, when the registry went online, defendants tried for sex crimes were acquitted at higher rates compared with the previous nine years, the study’s authors said.

• Among both adults and juveniles, the laws had no apparent effect on recidivism rates, which were similar for listed and non-listed offenders.

• Plea bargains for juvenile offenders more than doubled after the registry laws hit the books.

• Prosecutors dismissed juvenile sex crime case at higher rates after the law took effect.

• In comparing data from the five years leading up to the law with the 10 years that followed it, researchers made one finding in support of registering sex offenders: doing so was a deterrent that averted about three new first-time sex crimes a month among adults.
Elizabeth Letourneau, a psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor at MUSC who led the study, said policymakers should find ways to improve the registration and notification laws rather than focus on the one bright spot.

“Our goal is to prevent sex crimes,” said Letourneau, also a victim’s advocate. “However well-intentioned it may be, this law doesn’t do that very effectively.”

South Carolina’s sexual offender laws are among the toughest in the country, requiring lifetime registration for both adults and juveniles convicted of sex crimes, Letourneau said.

The registry must be continually updated and monitored. Officers are dispatched to registrants’ homes to verify their address. Maintaining the registry, which lists more than 10,000 people, costs the state millions of dollars, Letourneau said.

The MUSC researchers propose changing state laws to limit the amount of time an offender would remain on it. For example, some states release convicts from the list after 15 years, Letourneau said.

Time limits could free up money to focus on high-risk offenders, she said.

Letourneau said she is particularly troubled that some of those offenders, who may end up with non-sex crime charges, will not get the punishment, specialized treatment and supervision they need.

“If they’re being charged with non-sex offenses or being acquitted outright, the community and the victims are not served,” she said.

Researchers submitted the report to the U.S. Department of Justice last month.

MUSC’s legislative liaison, Mark Sweatman, said he plans to discuss it with the S.C. attorney general, state legislators and officials from the State Law Enforcement Division in the coming month. ..Source.. RENEE DUDLEY

Read More of Article...

October 13, 2010

Questioning the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registries

10-13-2010 South Carolina:

(HealthNewsDigest.com) - Charleston, S.C. - Two federally-funded MUSC studies on South Carolina's sex offender registration and notification system and its effect on community safety revealed that prosecutors often pursue non-sexual charges or fail to get convictions for sex crimes since the registry was enacted in the mid-90's. The studies also found that the current system for convicted sex offenders often did not deter them from committing similar crimes.

Lead investigator for both studies, Elizabeth Letourneau, Ph.D., MUSC associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, said the findings show that the current state and federal laws for registering sex offenders and notifying communities about their locations need to be revamped.

The purpose of the projects was to examine the effectiveness of South Carolina's sex offender registration and notification policy in reducing sexual violence. In connection with a National Institute of Justice report late last week regarding adult sex offenders, and conclusions of a recent project funded by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) involving juvenile sex offenders, Letourneau found that these laws did not produce their desired effects to deter new and repeat sex crimes.

"The idea behind these laws was that they would deter repeat crimes by identified offenders, and would deter first offenses by people who had not yet committed any sex crimes" she said. "However, we found no evidence of reduced reoffending for juvenile or adult offenders subjected to registration and notification and no evidence of initial deterrence for juveniles. Moreover, we found strong evidence that these policies influenced how juvenile and adult sex crime cases are prosecuted and ultimately reduced the likelihood of finding juveniles or adults guilty of sex crimes. In combination with an accumulation of published evidence from other researchers, our findings indicate that it is time to revamp our state and federal laws pertaining to the registration and community notification systems for sex offenders. The current state policy of registration and notification is failing because the unintended effects it has had on prosecution of sex crime cases could actually reduce community safety."

While noting that registries and notification systems are well-intended and strongly supported by most citizens, Letourneau's research has highlighted numerous problems, and prompted the thought that the state is annually spending an untold amount of money to support an ineffective system.

With respect to Letourneau's adult-focused project, the most interesting results were:

* Both registration and online notification were associated with significant increases in plea bargains, where defendants were permitted to plead to non-sex offense charges;

* Adult defendants who were actually prosecuted for sex crimes (who did not plead) were significantly less likely to be found guilty after online registration was enacted;

* Similar plea bargain results were found for juvenile defendants, whose rates of pleading to non-sex offense charges more than doubled after South Carolina's policy was enacted. Prosecutors also dismissed significantly more juvenile sex crime cases after South Carolina's policy was enacted;

* Defendants whose charges are dismissed outright, pleaded to non-sex offense charges or acquitted are unlikely to receive specialized treatment or supervision that might reduce recidivism. The message to their victims is that these offenses were not serious enough to convict;

* There was one positive finding, that registration (but not online notification) was associated with a prevention or deterrent effect for adults. That is, two to three new sex crimes that would have been committed by first-time offenders were averted each month after the initial registration policy was implemented.
Moreover, registration and notification failed to have any effect on sexual or violent reoffending for juveniles or adults, possibly because sexual reoffense rates are already low (e.g., fewer than 5 percent of juveniles had new sex offense convictions over time). No initial deterrent effect was identified for juveniles. Thus, not only is community safety potentially compromised by dismissing, acquitting, or incorrectly charging offenders, community safety is not improved by reduced recidivism.

Although Letourneau and her colleagues demonstrated that registration and notification had unintended effects on prosecution of sex crime cases, they cannot definitively say why these changes occurred. Letourneau speculates that two characteristics of South Carolina's policy influenced these results. First, South Carolina's policy is based solely on the conviction offense. Second, once triggered by a conviction, South Carolina registration and notification requirements endure for life, with no exceptions. Thus, neither prosecutors nor judges are permitted any leeway once someone has been convicted of a sex crime; they cannot consider an individual's actual risk of sexual reoffense or any mitigating or extenuating circumstances. With their hands tied, and with such severe lifelong consequences, prosecutors, judges and possibly jury members appear to have identified alternative ways for keeping some juveniles and adults off the registry. A more equitable solution would be to revise the existing policy, both to take into consideration the research findings that have been generated during the past 15 years and to reduce the likelihood that judicial decisions makers will subvert the law.

Based on their results and other empirical studies, Letourneau and colleagues detail specific suggestions to strengthen registration and notification policies. Letourneau argues that objective risk assessments should influence registration and notification requirements for adults. Such requirements should be dropped or severely curtailed for juveniles, given the complete absence of any outcomes supporting these policies with juveniles and given very low juvenile recidivism rates. A policy that focuses primarily on high risk adult offenders-the type of offenders whose crimes spurred the creation of registration and notification policies in the first place-- is less likely to be subverted by judicial decision makers and more likely to have positive results on recidivism.

"This system is failing. No one, not victims, offenders, or the rest of us, is served well by laws so poorly designed that even prosecutors look for ways around them. It is easy to argue that sex offenders deserve what they get, including lifetime registration and public notification. But when such policies fail to reduce recidivism and at the same time cause the kinds of unintended effects that we have identified, it is time to look for new ways to prevent sexual violence," Letourneau said.

About MUSC
Founded in 1824 in Charleston, The Medical University of South Carolina is the oldest medical school in the South. Today, MUSC continues the tradition of excellence in education, research, and patient care. MUSC educates and trains more than 3,000 students and residents, and has nearly 11,000 employees, including approximately 1,500 faculty members. As the largest non-federal employer in Charleston, the university and its affiliates have collective annual budgets in excess of $1.7 billion. MUSC operates a 700-bed medical center, which includes a nationally recognized Children's Hospital, the Ashley River Tower (cardiovascular, digestive disease, and surgical oncology), and a leading Institute of Psychiatry. For more information on academic information or clinical services, visit www.musc.edu. For more information on hospital patient services, visit www.muschealth.com. ..Source.. Medical University of South Carolina

Read More of Article...