Archive
Analysis of New York Sex Offender Law
American Psychological Association : Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law.
Abstract:
Despite the fact that the federal and many state governments have enacted registration and community notification laws as a means to better protect communities from sexual offending, limited empirical research has been conducted to examine the impact of such legislation on public safety. Therefore, utilizing time-series analyses, this study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration Act. Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders. Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
Sex Crimes Laws Need Updating
news-press.com (FLA) – Editorial: Sex crimes laws need updating.
Our society needs a new approach to sex offender laws that will be effective, just and constitutional.
Mind you, we have no sympathy for people who commit sex crimes, but there appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach as it relates to perpetrators. And our society has branded all sex offenders with virtual “Scarlet Letters” making it impossible to live their lives in society once they have served their time.
Last week, lawyers were arguing the constitutionality of a Lee County ordinance prohibiting the presence of sex offenders within 300 feet of a number of areas. These include schools, day cares, video arcades, pools, parks, playgrounds, zoos, skate parks, beaches or “any similar type places where children congregate.”
One huge problem is that there is no map to show what is off limits to registered sex offenders.
If our aim is to make life as miserable as possible for sex offenders once they serve their time, then they – and taxpayers – are probably better off if they stay in prison.
However, we need to get over our discomfort on this issue and face up to the fact that a vigilante mentality in dealing with sex offenses must go by the wayside.
We are a nation of laws. Let’s start a serious debate – without fear or vengeance – about how we might punish and possibly rehabilitate sex offenders.
Sex Offenders Cluster In Urban Buildings
wmur.com (NH) : Sex Offenders Often Cluster In Urban Buildings.
There are about 2,400 registered sex offenders living in New Hampshire, and often, they end up living in the same building in the state’s largest cities. Officials and sex offenders said it often isn’t easy for them to find a place to live, and many eventually settle for the same rooming house or apartment building.
Offenders said reintegrating into a place they’re not wanted isn’t easy. “People don’t want to give you jobs, give you a chance for anything,” said an offender.
Hundreds of sex offenders live in New Hampshire neighborhoods. Many are clustered in apartment buildings or rooming houses because they are low-profile and cheap. “If they live in a city like Concord, there’s only a few landlords that will rent to them,” said Scott Dodge, a Concord parole officer.
But it raises the question of whether a cluster of known sex offenders is safe?
(This “clustering” dynamic is what Miami, FL learned when they banished offenders to live under the Tuttle Bridge)
NJ Supreme Court Ruling Changes Sex Offender Laws
nbc40.net : NJ supreme court ruling forces upper twp., others, to change sex offender laws.
Upper Twp.- On Monday night the Township Committee voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance that would have the effect of invalidating an existing 2005 ordinance that regulates where convicted sex offenders can live. The 2005 ordinance that Upper Twp. enacted, restricted how close, a convicted sex offender, could live to schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds.
In May, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Megan’s Law adequately protected children from sexual predators, and that local laws went too far, effectively restricting sex offenders right out of many towns and cities, “….the State Supreme Court has determined that the townships and municipalities are not authorized to adopt such ordinances,” said Township Solicitor, Daniel Young.
With such local laws now ‘invalidated’ by the court ruling, most municipalities are striking them from their books to avoid possible future lawsuits.
Experts: Sex Offender Laws Flawed
news.cincinnati.com – Experts: Sex Offender Laws Flawed.
The arrest of two sex offenders in Kenton County this year shows the complications of enforcing Kentucky’s strict residence restrictions. A 43-year-old Michigan native was arrested for violating the terms of his bond for allegedly trying to pick up his prescription medication from an Erlanger house he was ordered to move from because it was within 1,000 feet of Railroad Park.
Another sex offender was arrested for not registering after being released from prison, but he claims he is homeless and had no permanent address to give authorities.
“There is not a lot of thought that goes into the residency restrictions,” said Robert Lanning, chairman of the Kentucky Sex Offenders Management Task Force, a group of corrections officials, attorneys, prosecutors and treatment experts. “It’s a knee-jerk reaction sometimes. Because of that, there are unintended consequences.”
While Kentucky’s original residency restrictions said registered sex offenders on probation or parole could not live within 1,000 feet of a school or day cares, it was strengthened in July 2006 to include all registrants regardless of probation or parole status. In addition, it added playgrounds to the list of prohibited areas, and measured the distance from the property line as opposed to the wall of the building. Then, on Oct. 1, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the strengthened restrictions couldn’t be applied to registrants retroactively.
Critics say the residency restrictions law is still flawed because it is imposed equally upon all offenders without regard to whether their crime was committed against a child or adult.
Richard Tewksbury, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Louisville, has studied sex offenders and said one of the unintended consequences of residency restrictions is that they can force offenders from their homes, creating stress that can trigger new offenses. Those offenses range from going underground and not reporting where they live to committing additional sex crimes, he said.
“Sex offender laws have a whole host of negative implications for individuals and the community, Tewksbury said. “The two arrests in Kenton County are not at all an uncommon scenario.”
John Delaney, the head of the public defenders office for Kenton and Campbell counties, said sex offenders are an easy target for authorities trying to look tough on crime. “They are an easy target because no one likes sex offenders,” he said. “Everyone hates sex offenders. No one is going to have any sympathy for a sex offender, even when in reality their sex offenses were not that horrible.”
Delaney said the laws give people a false sense of security. “While registered sex offenders can’t live within 1,000 feet of a school, one could go sit outside of the school on a bench for the entire school day, (legally)” he said.
While the Kentucky Supreme Court had struck down the strengthened restrictions, it didn’t prevent Erlanger police from arresting the Michigan native, Trevor Killey. He was placed on the sex offender registry for 25 years after being convicted of being a peeping tom 14 years ago in Michigan. The equivalent charge in Kentucky doesn’t even require someone to register as a sex offender.
His wife said her husband had just briefly returned to pick up his prescription medication. While police officers didn’t arrest the husband on the spot, Kenton District Judge Douglas Grothaus signed a warrant for his arrest on Sept. 30. It states that Killey was in violation of his bond by going back to the house. His lawyer, Ryan Reed, said by the time his client was locked up, the state Supreme Court had already ruled unconstitutional the law he was accused of breaking. “For Mr. Killey, it is pretty much a black-and-white issue,” Reed said. “His crime occurred prior to July 2006. The registry restrictions don’t apply to him.”
Tewksbury said he doesn’t know how many sex offenders are wrongly being arrested after the supreme court ruling knocked down a portion of the residency restrictions.
“In some way, he may well be inviting more difficulties in his life as people see sex offenders of all varieties as the most heinous and dangerous members of our community when in fact so many of our sex offenders really are not any serious threat to us,” Tewksbury said.
Delaney said he is currently representing a sex offender who was given $20 and a bus ticket back to Kenton County after being released from the Little Sandy Correctional Complex in Sandy Hook. With no money, job or family living outside of 1,000 feet of a school, Delaney said the sex offender had no permanent address.
“He was essentially homeless,” Delaney said, “until authorities arrested him for not registering. Now he is living at the Kenton County jail.” While Delaney didn’t release his client’s name, said the sex offender has chosen to not post his $250 bond and stay in jail because he has no place to go. The sex offender could ultimately be convicted and sent back to prison, Delaney said.
“So now we have taxpayers literally paying the price for a misguided law that has very little positive impact on the community,” Tewksbury said.
When Will Ohio Supreme Court Rule on AWA?
ConstitutionalFights spoke with the Ohio Supreme Court, Clerk of Courts this week.
We asked when the Ohio Supreme Court might be expected to release their decision on Ohio Senate Bill 10
(Adam Walsh Act/SORNA). We were told that typically a ruling is made between 4-6 months after oral arguments, which were heard on Nov. 4, 2009.
Thank you: we thank all those who sent letters to the Court. We heard from a large number of those who sent letters.
Download Audio MP3: If you do not have time to watch the videos of the hearings, we have extracted the audio for you in MP3 format so you can listen in your car or on the run. Click here to download:
DE: Sex Offenders Can be Removed from Registry
delawareonline.com : Sex Offender Registry – Court says Minner pardon restored all of man’s civil rights.
For the second time this year, the Delaware Supreme Court has found that a person legally can be removed from the state’s sex offender registry — implicitly finding that the registry is not a permanent life sentence without exception and that the registry statute does not overpower all other state laws.
In this latest case, the justices ruled that a full and unconditional pardon by former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of a man convicted at 19 of having consensual sex with a girl who was under 16, meant he no longer had to register as a Tier II sex offender.
The ruling was praised by the Delaware American Civil Liberties Union as a needed exception to the registry, but victim advocate Dana Harrington Conner expressed concern about the creation of another way off the state’s list of sex offenders.
While the Delaware Attorney General’s Office opposed removing Brian Heath from the offender registry, it signaled this week that it accepted the high court’s decision and that Heath’s removal did not threaten public safety.
Heath completed his probation, fulfilled his registration requirements and stayed out of trouble.
Oberly said Heath, who has since been married and has a child, could not obtain gainful employment and even had difficulty renting an apartment because he was listed on the sex offender registry.
“You would be better off being convicted of manslaughter than a sex offense to obtain a job [today],” Oberly said, adding that the job Heath was having trouble landing because of his status was as a truck driver.
Heath petitioned then-Gov. Minner for a pardon, which was granted in October 2008.
Lee County Sex Offender Law Being Challenged
winknews.com (FLA.):Attorney says Lee County sex offender law is unconstitutional.
On Thursday, a Lee County judge will hear arguments about whether Lee County’s “Child Safety Zone” ordinance is unconstitutional. Attorney Peter Aiken says the law is far too broad to be fair.
“I’m a grandfather in this community. I have two little grandkids,” Aiken said. “I don’t have a problem in the world with real laws, with real penalties.” But Aiken says the “Child Safety Zone” law makes it too difficult to understand where offenders can and can’t be. “The problem with a law like this, which I call a feel-good law, is it makes the public feel good and feel safe, but it doesn’t do anything,” Aiken said.
Aiken represents 57-year-old Joseph Comfort, the first person arrested under the ordinance, after visiting a Lehigh Acres swimming pool in July. The law orders offenders to stay 300 feet from areas “where children congregate” like schools, parks, and beaches; but Aiken says the language is so vague, offenders don’t know where they can be legally.
“If you read this ordinance technically, you can’t go to McDonald’s, because McDonald’s has the playground out front.”
Aiken says Florida law lumps all sex offenders together in one category, whether the past crime involved a child or not. “This law deals with anybody that’s been convicted of a sex offense and has been labeled a sex offender, regardless of how long ago, regardless of the conduct,” Aiken said.
Aiken says Comfort’s crime nearly 20 years ago didn’t involve a child; yet the attorney says this ordinance is like punishing his client for life. “A lot of these people are living clean, productive lives, with children, with families. It’s not fair,” Aiken said. “It is absolutely, 100-percent, not fair.”
Aiken says sex offenders are already subject to tough laws and regular visits by deputies.
Read the full ordinance here: http://www.lee-county.com/gov/bocc/ordinances/Ordinances/09-19.pdf
Federal AWA Has an “Out” Clause
The Federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 has an “out” clause.
Federal AWA has an “out” clause: a state can still be in substantial compliance if the state’s highest court rules that part of the law violates state constitution.
Federal AWA is not required to be applied retroactively; one-sentence delegation of authority to the U.S. AG (42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(d)) Emphasized in recent United States Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit ruling: “The Attorney General, exercising authority delegated by Congress, determined that SORNA would apply retroactively to all sex offenders … including juvenile delinquents.” (U.S. vs. Juvenile Male, CR-05-00054-SEH)
“we conclude that the retroactive application of SORNA’s provisions to former juvenile offenders is punitive and, therefore, unconstitutional”.
Section 113 (d) ensures that there will be a means to resolve issues about the scope of SORNA’s applicability, including any questions that may arise concerning the retroactive applicability of its requirements to sex offenders convicted prior to its enactment, and a means to fill any gaps there may be concerning registration procedures or requirements for sex offenders to whom the Act’s normal procedures cannot be applied.
Sec 16913 (d) Initial registration of sex offenders unable to comply with subsection (b). The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this title to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this Act [enacted July 27, 2006] or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders.
Federal AWA requires retroactive classification of those incarcerated, under supervision (parole/probation), on a sex offender registry, and those who re-enter justice system because of another crime.
Section-by-Section Summary of the Act
Sec. 125 (b). States are not required to take action that would violate that state’s constitution, as determined by the state’s highest court. However, the state must act in good faith with the attorney general to reconcile differences between this law and the state’s constitution and the state must implement alternative procedures or accommodations to fulfill the purposes of this law. (Consultation with state governor, attorney general, legislature is not mentioned.)
Sec 125 (b) STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.
Radio Broadcast on Adam Walsh Act
TalkShoe Radio Broadcast from Americans Reality Check – Nov 11, 2009
Guest: Margie Slagle from Ohio Justice Policy Center (click here to listen to archived audio)
Download audio MP3 file
Episode Notes: Staff Attorney Margie Slagle of Ohio Justice and Policy center discusses the Sex Offender Laws and the Current Ohio Supreme Court hearing on the AWA. We will be discussing the recent Supreme Court of Ohio’s hearings on the Adam Walsh Act. Couple thoughts if you seen the footage of the Supreme Court: Did you feel that the Justices asked some very good questions so they can uphold the Ohio constitution? Was the Ast AG lost for words? or was he “punked”? Who do you think was the winning side with the most “factual information” during these hearings? Some of these questions and more will be raised during this episode. So please do join us on this night.
Repeal Adam Walsh Act Laws ! ConstitutionalFights.wordpress.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.