2011 in review

January 3, 2012 Comments off

2011 annual report for this blog. Here’s an excerpt:

This blog was viewed about 40,000 times in 2011.
The most popular post that day was Weaknesses of Michigan Sex Offender Registry.
Most visitors came from The United States. Canada & The United Kingdom were not far behind.

Click here to see the complete report.

Categories: Uncategorized

Constitutionalfights Blogs to be Set to Archive Status

July 15, 2011 Comments off

NOTE:
Constitutionalfights blogs were set to Archive Status and our email address was inactivated on Sept. 22, 2010.

History:
Our blogs were actively updated for 32 months. We had well over 250,000 readers and published more than 1100 blog posts. Our sole and primary mission was to repeal the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (Senate Bill 10) and to defeat it’s unconstitutionally retroactive implementation. However, our mission to defeat the Ohio Adam Walsh legislation has been accomplished. Therefore, we ceased actively updating these blogs.

Emailing Constitutionalfights:

Our email account is no longer active. You may still try to email us, but we do not check this email account at any regular interval. If you do email us, there is virtually no chance of the message getting to me unless it has a relevant subject line. If your email does not have a relevant subject line, it will surely be lost in the junk mail folder.

Also, if you do try to email us, please do not ramble on about your personal situation and tell me how bad it is. I know how much damage these laws to in the lives of those who are forced to deal with them. Everyone seems to write me long stories about about how unfairly they have been treated and how bad they have it, but don’t do this because I wont read it. Frankly don’t really care about the specific facts of your case. But if you have a legitimate question, I may still catch it if I check the email account periodically. Why do you think I started Constitutionalfights ? The answer is: to fight against these laws, because they were unconstitutional. I already know how damaging they are to families and individuals.

Finally, search our blogs before you ask a question. Most answers are found on our blogs. Use the search box on each blog to find related posts. For example: I am constantly asked by readers about laws in other states, or whom they can contact in their state. We only focused on Ohio legislation. Therefore, we do not know the laws in your state, and we are not familiar with laws related to moving to or from Ohio. If you read the blogs, you will see a Links Page with an RSOL link where each state’s organizer can be contacted.

I am not a legal professional and therefore I cannot and will not offer legal advice. So don’t ask me for legal advice.


Victory in Ohio:
Now, on the heels of the June 3, 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling which invalidated the reclassification of ex offenders into more punitive registration requirements, we claim this victory in our mission. we claim this victory for The Constitution of the United States of America and the rule of law.

Continuing the Battles:
But this is just one battle in the war against onerous, unconstitutional and ineffective sex offender laws across this country. We have posted countless times on our blogs how these sex offender laws are unjust, unconstitutional and ineffective. Hundreds of thousands of ex offenders remain victims of these laws. But the task of spearheading the battles of these citizens will have to be taken by others. Someone must and will eventually step forward just as we did. If not, hundreds of thousands of citizens will continue to have their throats under the boots of legislators across this great nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Decision:
I have mixed feelings about ending our active involvement in these fights. I have thought long and hard about it. But the truth of the matter is that everyone in battles such as these are in it for their own interests. I have experienced this many times throughout this 2-1/2 year fight. When an individual’s interests are satisfied, they leave the fight. We lost many of those soldiers throughout these last few years. Even those who were in the fight with us but who did not benefit by this particular court ruling have become dismissive of our work now that we have claimed victory.

Furthermore, very few of those who contacted us, or followed our blogs, actually took any action to join the fight. Sure, there were a few individuals who sent letters and emails or made calls, but these are just a tiny fraction of those who were affected by these laws. Most people took no real action or got actively involved. Most emails I received were complaining to me about their situation, or asking me to do something for them.

Accolades:
I would like to recognize those who did do wonderful and effective work; RSOL, Ohio RSOL, Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Policy Institute, Amy Borror of the Ohio Public Defender Office,

We received only three donations in 32 months. We thank those individuals for their generosity and help. If you would like to contriubute, you can still send a donation here for all the work we have done over the past 2-1/2 years. But once again, this lack of help by others makes the decision to step away much easier.


It’s Not Over:
Even after this victory in Ohio, we continue to see good people trampled on by politically-correct sex offender legislation. These laws are destroying families across the United States. Many good people are caught up in these webs of public shaming created by our state and federal legislators of both parties. Children of ex offenders are ostracized and shamed. Parents are banned from being involved parents. And people are being shamed on public government web sites and banned from living in certain areas or visiting public places.

Of course, there are some real monsters out there. But only these sensational crime cases make the headline news. Most ex offenders are not a danger to society and simply made a terrible mistake. I know of no one in this world who hasn’t made mistakes, yet this is the only group of citizens we refuse to forgive, or allow to continue on living a normal life.

Sadly, the Federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA) remains alive, albeit on “life-support”. It has been crippled with various legal challenges and revisions. All those who are affected by this terrible legislation should continue to seek its ultimate repeal. An AWA Study Guide can be downloaded here.

Lawsuit Against Ohio:

If any reader is a legitimate legal professional who is willing to organize a class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio, in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings which found these laws to be a violation of our constitutional rights, please contact us (or Ohio RSOL). Because these laws were enforced for two years before being ruled unconstitutional, we believe we have standing to form a large class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio.

Logic and Facts:
If we are to have offender registries, they must be risk-based. Evidence must be given in a court of law to prove that an offender is a high risk. If this evidence cannot be made in court, an ex offender should not be on a sex offender registry.

Sex Offender Registries should not be public ! Registries of those truly dangerous should be available to law enforcement agents only. Over 90% of sex assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. This “stranger danger” hysteria myth must be killed with factual data.

The widespread lies about sex offender recidivism must be defeated. Many research studies have been completed to determine actual sex offender recidivism. Their results almost always provide a recidivism rate range between 5 -15% .


Encouragement:
We urge all those who are still adversely affected by sex offender laws in this nation to become actively involved in the fight against them. Join and support the efforts of RSOL and your state RSOL affiliate. Write, email, call and meet with legislators, donate your time and money to the efforts of those actively fighting, create information blogs like ours, post responses to online articles, gather statistics and spread truth.

And so this blog is now set to Archive Mode. This means that we will no longer be updating it, but will retain its content for the world to read. We will also not be checking or responding to any emails after October 1, 2010. In addition to the above referenced reasons, this is partly due to the fact that too many people in the “network” too often abuse the “reply all” button without regard to whom they are sending emails.

Final Word:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. “

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Categories: Uncategorized

Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law

July 14, 2011 Comments off

Court: Sex offender law not retroactive

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 13 (UPI) — A law on registration and community notification for released sex offenders cannot be applied retroactively, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday.

The justices ruled 5-2 the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Law can only be applied to offenders who committed their crimes after it became effective, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The court reversed a decision by a state appeals court.

“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Justice Paul Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.'”

Justice Terrence O’Donnell in the minority opinion said the court has said in previous rulings that requiring sex offenders to register and providing community notification in some cases are civil sanctions, not criminal penalties.

Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law: Hundreds of previously-convicted sex offenders will be affected

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a ruling published today, has declared that imposing “enhanced” sex offender registration and community notification requirements on previously-convicted sex offenders, as required by the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) which was contained in 2007’s Senate Bill (SB) 10 is a violation of the Ohio Constitution.

“When the General Assembly adopted the AWA by enacting 2007 S.B. 10,” stated a Ohio Supreme Court press release, “it included statutory language requiring that, regardless of the date on which a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply a new three-tiered AWA offender classification scheme and must include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the prior, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.”

The decision was based on Article II, Sec. 28 of the Ohio Constitution, which states in part, “The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws.” Similar wording can be found in the U.S. Constitution as well, where one clause in Article I, Sec. 9 reads, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto ["after the fact"] Law shall be passed.”

The case at issue was State v. George Williams, where the defendant had been convicted for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor—conduct which took place prior to July, 2007, although Williams was convicted on the charges in December, 2007, after SB 10 had been passed.

“Prior to his sentencing hearing,” the Supreme Court’s press release stated, “Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. Pursuant to the AWA he was classified as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence, and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the next 25 years.” Under Megan’s Law, his registration and reporting requirements would have been limited to 10 years.

Williams appealed that ruling under the ex post facto/retroactivity clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, as well as arguing violation of the U.S. Constitution’s due process clauses and its ban on double jeopardy.

Another portion of the AWA, which would have allowed the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders without the necessity of judicial approval, was overturned by the same court just over one year ago.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, overturning the AWA was largely based on the fact that while several state decisions had held that the registration requirements of Megan’s Law were considered remedial rather than punitive in nature, “Following the enactment of SB 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 [the AWA] is punitive,” Justice Pfeifer stated in the majority opinion. “The statutory scheme has changed dramatically since this court described (in [State v.] Cook) the registration process imposed on sex offenders as an inconvenience ‘comparable to renewing a driver’s license.’ … And it has changed markedly since this court concluded in [State v.] Ferguson that R.C. Chapter 2950 was remedial…

“Based on these significant changes to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, we are no longer convinced that R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, even though some elements of it remain remedial…,” the high court concluded. “We conclude that SB 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of SB 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws.”

“The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Williams does a really good job of explaining how in light of these internet websites that we now have, and community notification and criminal penalties attaching and more periodic registration in person with a sheriff there, all of these measures are looking more and more and more like punishment and less and less and less like a driver’s license,” one attorney analyzed, “and as that shift has happened, it’s become more like criminal punishment, and really, the Ohio Supreme Court is the first top court in a state to characterize it that way.”

Kinsley said that through her discovery motions in the case, it had been revealed that hundreds of people in Ohio will be affected by today’s decision, and will now be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of appearing on sex offender websites.

Court: Law applied to convicted sex offenders violates constitution

The legislature’s attempt four years ago to apply a new law to already-convicted sexual offenders violated the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

Imposing enhanced registration and community notification requirements in the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act against defendants whose crimes were committed before the effective date of that law violates a constitutional prohibition on the General Assembly enacting retroactive laws, the justices declared.

The 5-2 decision, which reversed a ruling by the 12th District Court of Appeals, was written by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.

“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.’ “

Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Yvette McGee Brown.

Justice Terrence O’Donnell authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Robert R. Cupp.

Today’s decision came on the appeal of George Williams of Warren County, convicted in December 2007 for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor an offense that occurred before the Adam Walsh Act took effect. Williams asked the judge to sentence him under the previous sex offender classification setup, known as Megan’s Law.

The judge rejected that motion and classified him under the more stringent Adam Walsh Act as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his home county and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the ensuing 25 years.

Williams appealed, but was turned down by the 12th District Court of Appeals.

Pfeifer noted that in earlier Supreme Court decisions on previous changes in the sex offender law, justices upheld the changes because they were more remedial than punitive, and thus the constitutional ban on retroactive laws did not apply. But the changes in the Adam Walsh Act made them punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.

The Ohio Supreme Court could have new rules when it comes to registering sex offenders…unless the crime was committed before 2007.

Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?

July 11, 2011 Comments off

Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?

Under U.S., Ohio Constitutions’ Bans Against Ex Post Facto Laws

State of Ohio v. George D. Williams, Case no. 2009-0088
12th District Court of Appeals (Warren County)

ISSUE: Does retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007 as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) on offenders whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the AWA violate the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws?

BACKGROUND: In a June 2010 decision, State v. Bodyke, the Supreme Court of Ohio voided as unconstitutional two sections of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that authorized the state attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who had previously been classified by judges under an earlier version of the law, “Megan’s Law.” The Court held that the challenged provisions violated the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution. The defendants in Bodyke also argued that application of the AWA to crimes that were committed before the July 1, 2007 effective date of that legislation violated the constitutional prohibition against “ex post facto” laws (laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed). However, because the Court’s ruling on the separation of powers issue voided the Bodyke defendants’ reclassifications under the AWA and reinstated their Megan’s Law registration status, the justices declined to review the appellants’ ex post facto arguments. In this case, a defendant not affected by the Bodyke decision challenges on ex post facto grounds a trial court order that applied the AWA classification scheme in sentencing him for a crime he committed before July 1, 2007.

When the General Assembly adopted the AWA, it specified that, regardless of when a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply the new AWA sex offender classification scheme and include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the previous, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.

George Williams of Warren County was convicted in December 2007 of engaging in sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl. The conduct on which his conviction was based took place in May 2007. Prior to his sentencing hearing, Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. He was sentenced to three years of community control and classified as a Tier II offender under the AWA, requiring him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence every 180 days for the next 25 years. If he had been sentenced under the Megan’s law version of the statute, Williams, who had no prior sex-related convictions, would have been subject to once-a-year registration for 10 years.

Williams appealed, arguing that the retroactive application of the AWA registration requirements to his May 2007 offense violated the ex post facto, due process and double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. The 12th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s classification of Williams under the AWA as constitutional. The court of appeals cited several prior Supreme Court of Ohio decisions including State v. Cook (1998), State v. Wilson (2007), and State v. Ferguson (2008), in which this Court held that the statutory registration and community notification requirements imposed by the state on sex offenders were civil and “remedial” measures designed to protect the public rather than punitive measures intended to punish or deter offenders. Applying that same analysis to Williams’ case, the 12th District held that retroactive imposition of the AWA registration requirements as part of Williams’ sentence did not retroactively “increase the punishment” for his crime, and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution or the retroactivity clause of the state constitution.

Williams sought and has been granted Supreme Court review of the 12th District’s ruling.

Attorneys for Williams point out that the Cook, Wilson and Ferguson decisions cited by the 12th District all analyzed the pre-2008 sex offender classification scheme under Megan’s Law, not the more stringent requirements imposed by the AWA. They argue that these earlier decisions relied on the fact that, before a sex offender was classified under Megan’s Law, the court was required to conduct a hearing at which the judge reviewed the facts of that specific case and the defendant’s personal and social history to determine how likely that individual was to reoffend — and then impose whatever level of registration and/or community notification the court found necessary to protect the community. They note that the AWA has eliminated judicial review of an individual offender’s history or the circumstances of his crime for purposes of classification, and instead imposes identical registration and community notification requirements on offenders based exclusively on their offense. The appellants argue that the AWA classification system is no longer primarily a remedial scheme related to the actual danger posed by individual offenders.

Attorneys for the state point to specific language included in the AWA stating that the legislature’s intent was “to protect the safety and welfare of the people of this state,” and that the exchange or release of information required by the statute “is not punitive.” They argue that the registration and community notification requirements in the AWA are merely expansions of requirements that were already imposed under Megan’s Law, and assert that nothing in the 2007 changes to the law have changed the nature or intent of those requirements from remedial to punitive. Accordingly, they assert, the Court should follow its earlier holdings that requiring sex offenders to register with police and disclosing their presence to others who live, work or attend school nearby is not punishment, and applying those requirements retroactively does not offend the ex post facto provisions of the Ohio or U.S. constitutions.

NOTE: An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the position of Williams has been submitted by the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center and Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. The American Civil Liberties Union also has submitted an amicus brief supporting Williams’ position. The Ohio attorney general’s office and Franklin County prosecutor’s office have entered amicus briefs supporting the position of the state. Copies of the amicus briefs and all other filings in the case can be accessed by going to the following hyperlink: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/searchbycasenumber.asp and entering the case number, 2009-0088, in the search box provided.

Contacts
Michael Greer, 513.695.1325, for the state and Warren County prosecutor’s office.

Katherine A. Szudy, 614.466.5394, for George Williams.

Ohio Channel Video

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp

Ohio HB 77 Bill Summary – Sex Offender Reclassification

February 17, 2011 Comments off

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_HB_77&ACT=As%20Introduced&hf=analyses129/h0077-i-129.htm

Summary, and Content and Operation:

Excerpt:

Court reclassification or classification of pre-S.B. 10 offenders and delinquent children into S.B. 10 Tier classification

Conviction, guilty plea, or adjudication prior to January 31, 2011 -

The bill repeals the existing provisions that contain the reclassification mechanism enacted in S.B. 10 and that the Supreme Court in Bodyke, supra, held to be unconstitutional (repeal of R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032). It also repeals two existing, related provisions enacted in S.B. 10. One of the related provisions extends the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law was scheduled to expire on or after July 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2008. The other requires a sheriff to notify the AG when an offender or delinquent child initially registers an address with the sheriff on or after December 1, 2007, based upon a duty imposed for an offense committed prior to that date (repeal of R.C. 2950.033 and 2950.043; these sections were not addressed in Bodyke, supra). The bill enacts a judicially based reclassification mechanism to replace the repealed, unconstitutional mechanism. It also enacts a provision that extends the new mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law were modified as a result of the operation of the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism and, subsequently, were terminated or scheduled to be terminated as a result of the decision in Bodyke, supra (see “When SORN Law duties terminated or to be terminated under Bodyke,” below).

Fighting Ohio House Bill 77 – Reclassification of Sex Offenders

February 8, 2011 Comments off

This is a letter we sent today to the Ohio Representatives on the eve of the Criminal Justice Committee hearing of Wed, Feb 9th, 2011. We urge all readers to write, email and call the Representatives listed on the previous posting to strongly oppose this House Bill 77:

Representative:

I lead an organization named ConstitutionalFights which strongly opposes House Bill 77, introduced by Rep. Hackett. This bill will come before the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011.

HR 77 is the Legislature’s latest attempt to re-classify citizens who have a sex offense conviction in their past. We strongly urge you to oppose advancement of this bill.

The intent of HR 77 is very similar to that of Senate Bill 10, which was ruled as a constitutional violation on June 3, 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bodyke vs, Ohio ( R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order).

The difference with HR 77 is that it orders all affected citizens to appear in court for a second sex offender classification hearing.
This is an attempt to bypass the Separation of Powers violation.

But in the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the challenges of Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto violations were not
even addressed by the Court. Had these challenges been decided, they would certainly have resulted in similar nullification of the law.

HR 77 requires any citizen with a sex offense who had not matriculated off the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 to appear before a Court for a second sex offender classification hearing. A majority of these individuals had fulfilled all requirements put upon them by the sex offender laws in place at the time of their conviction or plea. To haul them back into Court for a new classification hearing where a new set of registry requirements would be imposed is a violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. This bill violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto clauses of our Constitutional rights.

In addition to the constitutional violations of any law which attempts to retroactively reclassify offenders and to impose new and more stringent sex offender registry requirements, there are several other factors which our Legislature must consider when drafting sex offender legislation.

Firstly, there is no empirical or statistical data or evidence to support the contention that public sex offender registries have any
effect on recidivism or public safety. In fact, the only data correlating these two factors is in opposition to popular conception.
Publicly-accessible sex offender registries actually serve to isolate humiliate individuals to the point where they cannot build family and social support systems necessary to live productive and law-abiding lives. Along with residency restrictions, these public registries are no less than a Scarlet Letter which brands individuals, often
for a lifetime from normal social life and interaction.

Public sex offender registries do not prevent crimes. National media sensationalistic news reports of hideous sex offenses actually support this contention. In recent years, the highest profile news stories of sex offenses have involved men who were actively compliant registered sex offenders. These registries are simply a means for legislators to appear tough on sex crimes and an excuse for the public to feel better.
But the harm they do in the lives and families of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens caught up in the registry net is dramatic.

A popular myth is that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. The statistical data proves this to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics refute this myth. USDOJ data reports that “Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child victimizers re-arrested)”
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136)

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation study, “Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases”, concludes that the recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%. The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%.
(http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf)

Numerous other studies have reported similar data. I can provide official sources.

Finally, this is just morally unjust. Most of the individuals who would be affected by legislation such as HB 77 are those who made a terrible error in their lives many years ago (often times 10 -20 years ago).
They have been living law-abiding, productive lives in the years since they served their debt to society. All of us make mistakes in our lives, yet sex offenders are the only group to which we give no second chance. If the laws are in place at the time of conviction, we have no argument. But imposing new laws in order to recapture those who completed their obligations many years ago is simply immoral and wrong.

I could continue with supporting arguments but in an effort to be concise, I will conclude. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional supporting information to the Committee members
for their consideration in these hearings. After the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs, Ohio) which we fought for 3 years, we have extensive experience in studying sex offender laws, their effects, and the related empirical data within Ohio and throughout the nation.

We urge you to strongly oppose House Bill 77 and any future legislation which attempts to retroactively classify those who have long since satisfied all registration requirements of their offenses.

OH: House Trying to Retroactively Classify Past Offenders (Again)

February 7, 2011 Comments off

As we posted last week, The Ohio House of Representatives has proposed a new bill (HR 77)

If this bill passes, anyone who had not yet matriculated off of the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 would be hauled back into court for a second sex offender classification hearing where a judge would instate a new sex offender classification. The result of this bill would be exactly what Senate Bill 10 did in 2008 (to reclassify those who should have graduated off of the registry and impose new registry requirements on them, often a life-long registration requirement).

HB 77 is to be debated in the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011 at 9 am. Everyone affected or concerned with this matter should attend this hearing at The Ohio Statehouse in Columbus Ohio. (update Feb 8: we are told by Rep. Slaby’s assistant that only sponsors will participate in this first hearing, and that opponents will not be permitted to participate).

The hearing is open to the public and opposing opinions are allowed. Just fill out the witness form when you enter the statehouse. If you have any written information for the record, you should submit it as well.

If we act proactively and if we have a large number of people attend this hearing, we can avoid a repeat of the 2-1/2 year debacle which we experienced with the implementation of Senate Bill 10 from Jan 2008 through June 2010 when it was finally ruled to be illegal.

We have a good chance to defeat this bill before it advances to a vote. But only if we have others willing to join in the fight, appear at the hearing and communicate your opposition to the bill.

In the meantime, readers should contact the bill’s sponsors and Committee members to clearly express their opposition to this House Bill 77, which would retroactively classify anyone with a sex offense who was not removed from the ESORN sex offender registry before January 1, 2008. This retroactive bill is a violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions which expressly forbid any ex post facto law. It also violates constitutional rights of the Double Jeopardy clause of both Constitutions.

Bill Sponsors:

REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon

Bob D. Hackett, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1470
Fax: (614) 719-6984
Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us

Nancy J. Garland, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us

Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Courtney Combs, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6721
Fax: (614) 719-6954
Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us

Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip
Phone: (614) 466-9690
Fax: (614) 719-6962
Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us

Jay Hottinger, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Fax: (614) 719-3971
Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us

Bill Patmon, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-7954
Fax: (614) 719-0010
Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us


Criminal Justice Committee:

Lynn Slaby R Chair
Phone: (614) 644-5085
Fax: (614) 719-6941
Email: district41@ohr.state.oh.us

Roland Winburn D Ranking Minority Member
Phone: (614) 466-2960
Fax: (614) 719-6940
Email: district40@ohr.state.oh.us

Bill Hayes R Vice Chair
Phone: (614) 466-2500
Fax: (614) 719-6991
Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us

Nancy J. Garland D
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us

Louis W. Blessing, Jr. R
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Connie Pillich D
Phone: (614) 466-8120
Fax: (614) 719-3582
Email: district28@ohr.state.oh.us

Danny R. Bubp R
Phone: (614) 644-6034
Fax: (614) 719-6988
Email: district88@ohr.state.oh.us

W. Carlton Weddington D
Phone: (614) 466-5343
Fax: (614) 719-3581
Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us

William P. Coley, II R
Phone: (614) 466-8550
Fax: (614) 719-6955
Email: district55@ohr.state.oh.us

Sandra Williams D
Phone: (614) 466-1414
Fax: (614) 719-0011
Email: district11@ohr.state.oh.us

Joseph W. Uecker R
Phone: (614) 466-8134
Fax: (614) 719-3966
Email: district66@ohr.state.oh.us

Ron Young R Member
Phone: (614) 644-6074
Fax: (614) 719-3963
Email: district63@ohr.state.oh.us

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers