Constitutional Fights Revoke Adam Walsh Act Laws !
Informing U.S. citizens of Constitutional abuses by our elected officials, in their irresponsible and unconstitutional implementation of the Adam Walsh Act (Sex Offender Laws, SORNA). SIGN PETITION TO REVOKE THESE ABUSIVE LAWS
OH: Franklin County Judge Rules Against Adam Walsh Act
Columbus Dispatch ( Columbus OH) : Franklin County Judge Rules Parts of Adam Walsh Act Unconstitutional.
"I anticipate that one or both of the parties in the case will appeal," Judge Schneider said. "It won't rest until the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court rules on this decision. So, I encourage them to appeal. Only the Supreme Court can render the ultimate decision."
Under the Adam Walsh Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2008 in Ohio, Plaintiff Toles was reclassified as a Tier III offender, requiring him to register quarterly for the rest of his life. He also became subject to community notification, under which the sheriff is required to notify his neighbors and others in the community of his residence.
Schneider ruled that Toles, 38, is not subject to community notification because a hearing at the time of his conviction determined he was not a sexual predator.
The judge also ruled that much of the information required on the registration form under the new law posed an unreasonable burden in Toles' case, such as license-plate numbers of vehicles available to him, where those vehicles are usually kept, telephone numbers he uses, and "any other information required by (the state Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation."
"How does anyone know what telephone numbers he might use?" Schneider wrote. "Most troubling is the open invitation to BCI to add additional requirements without limitation."
Although Schneider's ruling applies only to Toles, Skendelas expects it to be "persuasive" when other Franklin County judges consider similar cases. The county public defender's office is handling more than 500 challenges to the law, he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this court decision here, or here.
Synopsis:
Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County Ohio, Judge Schneider (9 Sept 2008):
The issue before the court was the plaintiff's requirement to register to satisfy the requirements of the new Adam Walsh Act law (Senate Bill 10), and the County Sheriff's obligation of community notification.
The challenge was based on the constitutional violation of the law with respect to The Ohio Constitution, which prohibits any law from being passed retrospectively (or retro-actively) This prohibition is also included in the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. (see related case State of Ohio v. Cook 1998 )
Judge Schneider found that the law was applied retrospectively but he failed to recognize that the new requirements of reporting were substantive (i.e. punishment, burdensome). This is a failure that has been seen in other courts. Judges are unable to understand the burdensome nature of the new law's reporting requirements.
Judge Schneider did however recognize as burdensome, some of the requirements of the new law which would require reporting of previously-not required information (travel documents, social security number, license plate of vehicles owned or used by offender, where vehicles are parked, photographs of such vehicles, professional licenses or permits, email addresses, telephone numbers, internet identifiers, and "any other information required by BCI (Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation").
Furthermore, the Judge wrote that the change in classification imposes burden to the offender in restricting their ability to move without stigma and burden. Judge Schneider writes "This court concludes that these requirements constitute a new affirmative disability or restraint".
The Court finds that "the new registration requirements go way beyond the limits of the requirements considered by the Ohio v. Cook court. Pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act, the new registration requirements are much more detailed , much more burdensome and much less narrowly tailored and apply to all classifications of sex offenders. In fact, it is impossible for this Court of anyone else to determine exactly what the requirements are because the statute authorizes "any other information required by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation".
Judge Schneider concludes: "Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the additional registration requirements beyond frequency and duration ... are clearly punitive in their effect and therefore violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Regarding re-classification, the Court holds "that if a previously convicted sex offender had the benefit of a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09 and was found by a court not to be a sexual predator, the community notification provisions of R.C. 2950.11 do not apply." Judge Schneider continued in writing that "an offender who has been adjudged as not being a sexual predator has an expectation that he could make decisions based on that finding."
Georgia Court Rules Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional
Atlanta Journal-Constitution : Court: Sex offender law unfair to homeless.
wrdw.com : Georgia Supreme Court rules sex offender law unconstitutional.
Jurist Legal News(jurist.law.pitt.edu) : Georgia high court declares sex offender laws unconstitutional for homeless.
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday declared unconstitutional a provision of the sex-offender registry law that was criticized for making homelessness a crime.
The state registry law, one of the toughest in the nation, made it a crime if a sex offender were homeless and could not register a specific street or route address at the local sheriff’s office.
In a 6-1 decision, the state Supreme Court said the law provides no direction for homeless sex offenders who have no street or route address. This makes them have to guess as to how they can comply with the law’s reporting provisions, the decision said. This lack of direction “leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” said the opinion, written by Justice Hugh Thompson. The registration requirements are “unconstitutionally vague,” the court found. Justice George Carley issued the lone dissent.
The ruling was a huge legal victory for William James Santos, charged in Hall County for failing to register a new address in the sex-offender registry. Because this would have been his second failure-to-register offense, he faced a mandatory life sentence. The law requires an offender to report his or her address within 72 hours after being released from custody or moving to a new address.
Santos had lived at the Good News at Noon homeless shelter in Gainesville and, during that time, correctly gave the shelter’s address on the registry. But in July 2006, he was forced to leave. Over the next three months Santos was homeless and could not give an address or comply with the statute. In October 2006, Santos was arrested and indicted for failing to register. In jail for more than a year awaiting trial, Santos should soon be freed, said his lawyer, Hall County public defender Adam Levin.
“The court recognized that fairness is important for everybody, even the unpopular people in society,” Levin said. He added that even though the address requirement is no longer constitutional, he will encourage Santos to let local law enforcement know where he is living.
“This law was so poorly drafted it was contrary to public safety,” Weber said. “It was putting homeless persons in a situation where, if they said, ‘Hey, I’m homeless,’ they’d go to jail. It encouraged them not to report their addresses, which means no one would know where they lived.”
Halloween Sex Offender Law Tossed
AP: Rules limiting sex offenders on Halloween blocked
Newsnet5.com (St. Louis): Halloween Sex Offender Law Tossed.
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that parts of Missouri's new law restricting registered sex offenders' actions on Halloween night are unenforceable, saying the law lacked clarity and could cause confusion for sex offenders and those charged with enforcing it.
The law, signed by Gov. Matt Blunt in June, requires that sex offenders avoid all Halloween-related contact with children from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Oct. 31. It requires them to remain inside their homes with the outside lights off and to post a sign saying they have no candy. A violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.
After hearing arguments in a case brought by four sex offenders, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of some parts of the law.
Jackson found no fault with the provision requiring sex offenders to keep their porch lights off. She agreed there was no lack of clarity in the requirement for a sign that reads, "No candy or treats at this residence."
But other aspects of the statute were too broad and raise questions, the judge said.
For example, Jackson said, may a sex offender have contact with his or her own children on Halloween? Passing out candy is clearly prohibited, but what else constitutes Halloween-related contact? And if a sex offender planned to be out of town on Halloween, he or she would not technically be "inside the home" as the law requires, Jackson pointed out. The law allows sex offenders to leave home on Halloween night if there is "just cause" such as work or an emergency, but Jackson criticized the measure for failing to define the term more clearly. Such vagueness would cause confusion among sex offenders, police and prosecutors, she said.
The judge cited a letter sent by the Cape Girardeau County Sheriff's Department to registered sex offenders in the southeast Missouri county. She said the letter's reference to the "Halloween season" could have police trying to enforce the law on days other than Oct. 31.
The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. Attorney Dave Nelson called the law's requirements a "scarlet letter" for sex offenders. He said the statute also results in additional punishment by requiring what amounts to "house arrest" one day each year.
Anthony Rothert, the legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, said the order was not limited to the four plaintiffs. But to his understanding, the ruling means that sex offenders in Pike, Cape Girardeau and St. Louis counties — where the plaintiffs live — can spend time with their children on Halloween night and do not have to stay inside their homes. Rothert said the order applies only to this Halloween but that the ACLU will continue working to get the entire statute off the books.
It is part of a nationwide law enforcement trend targeting sex-offense suspects or registered sex offenders on Halloween and more severely restricting their activities that night. (This is UnConstitutional)
Ohio Senator Steve Austria: Corruption, Fraud, Arrogance
Ohio Senator Steve Austria (R-Ohio Senate): Corruption, Fraud, Arrogance...
Multiple issues involving corruption and fraud of Steve Austria have been uncovered in 2008. These facts demonstrate Mr. Austria as a man unfit to serve the people of his District or the people of Ohio. Now, Steve Austria is running for Congress in the 7th District. (OH-7).
Corruption
politickeroh.com: Neuhardt claims new ad exposes Austria for who he really is:
The campaign of attorney Sharen Neuhardt (D-Yellow Springs) released a new TV ad that they say exposes opponent state Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) for who he really is.
"Steve Austria is another career politician filling his campaign coffers with thousands of dollars from some of the very people who pushed our country into an economic crisis," said Neuhardt spokesperson Jessica Kershaw. "Austria's best friends are Big Oil and Big Money. He'll be no friend to the voters of this District."
The 30-second ad titled, "Bought and Paid For" highlights what the Neuhardt campaign calls the tens of thousands of dollars Austria has taken from big money special interests.
The Neuhardt camp is saying Austria has taken more than a half million dollars in contributions from "big money special interests, including some of the world's largest health care, insurance, oil, and banking companies - the same people who are responsible for many of the most serious problems facing our country."The Neuhardt office says this includes "at least $111,000 from health care and insurance interests, at least $53,000 from banking and finance interests, and at least $36,400 from Big Oil and energy interests."
Austria is showing he has $271,492 cash on hand compared to Neuhardt's $83,262 for the remainder of the race.
13 Feb. 2008:
According to Congressional candidate John Mitchel (R-Beavercreek), former U.S. senator Mike DeWine (R-Cedarville), retiring Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield), endorsed successor candidate State Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) and his spouse, and a variety of local GOP officials have had a long history of cronyism and a recent corrupt scheme that involves steering a no-bid contract to Hobson campaign contributors, which incident Mitchel equates with the corrupt activity that has landed former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) in federal prison. He has been demanding a full investigation, which he accuses local GOP officials of resisting in order to conceal the conflicts of interests and influence peddling that have occurred.
OhioDailyBlog: OH-07: Austria (R) Called Co-Conspirator in Corrupt Steering of No-Bid Contracts:
Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John Mitchel (R-Beavercreek), now running for the seat of retiring Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield), charges that opponent State Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) and his spouse Eileen are co-conspirators in a scheme to steer no-bid contracts to campaign contributors of Hobson, who supports Steve Austria in the race and has paid Eileen Austria large consulting fees. Mitchel compares the scheme to the steering of federal contracts by Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) that resulted in his resignation from Congress in November 2005 and guilty plea to federal conspiracy charges. Cunningham is serving an eight year prison sentence.
In an email to Greene County officials, following up on his request for a meeting to discuss requests for information on the matter, Mitchel describes his allegations this way:
Former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in federal prison for steering no-bid contracts toward his campaign contributors. Steve and Eileen Austria sit on the referenced advisory committee along with Sam Greenwood of the Greentree Group. They were instrumental in causing money transferred by Greene County to the Dayton Development Corporation to be used to award a large no-bid contract to Greentree Group, purportedly to assist in an effort to keep Wright Patterson Air Force Base open during the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process. Mitchel contends, however, that the base was in no real danger of closing, so the transactions in reality amounted to no more than an enormous transfer of public wealth to private hands.
Arrogance
Reformcongress.com: Steve Austria ignored constituents’ rights:
Beavercreek, Ohio, Tuesday, January 8, 2008: Today congressional candidate John Mitchel criticized State Senator Steve Austria and Representative Kevin DeWine for failing to defend their constituents’ constitutional right to initiative petition. In March, 2005, Mitchel filed a grievance claiming that over 2,000 citizens were denied their right to place on the ballot an initiative to vote up or down on $14 million of Greene County tax dollars for financing The Greene, privately developed by Steiner and Associates.
Desperation
thestateofamericasfamily: Ohio Senator Steve Austria’s Bid for US Congress Turns to Desperate Sliming Politics (Mar 2008).
Steve Austria is mired in the muck of dirty tactics because he obviously fears his opponent may win.
Austria is the current Ohio Senate majority leader. He is a Beavercreek Ohio businessman not a lawyer like his mentor Dave Hobson, who is retiring from his career job on Capitol Hill. Remember those words. Hobson is a career politician who never wrote a law and he is Austria’s mentor. Ron Hood also is a businessman and the son-in-law of Bill and Pam Dean. The Dean family is one of Xenia’s prominent entrepreneurs in the service sector. Hood served in the Ohio House of Representative from 1995-2000 and 2005-2006. Unlike Austria who is endorsed only by several party organizations, Hood is endorsed by a number of family associations like Family First, Moms for Ohio and Citizens for Community Values, by several gun owners associations, and by the Chamber of Commerce.
What inspired this post was a slick mailer I received yesterday from Austria. The sliming of Ron Hood advertisement says Hood voted with democrats 80% of the time. Austria’s glossy green with yellow letters oversize postcard accuses Hood of being a RINO, which means a Republican in name only. On the front and back, it says Ron Hood is a Democrat. The real interesting thing about Austria’s sliming tactic is found in the small print. That’s right, in small print Austria acknowledges his accusations are based only on 3 bills and not on Hood’s entire record. Out of the hundreds of bills Hood sponsored and the many more he voted on only House Bill 66, House Bill 23, and House Bill 160 are used as proof of Hood being an undercover liberal. I checked the huge budget bill House Bill 66. I found conservatives Dewine and Widener voting with the Democrats on a lot of legislative items too. Does that make them liberals too?
It is obvious Austria is a real political desperado willing to do any thing to win. It also shows what kind of politician he really is.
Austria’s dirty political tactic against Hood raises the ethics question. Anyone who attempts to deceive the public in such an under-handed but strategic way shows not only desperation but also questionable ethical quality. He is supposed to be pro-life and pro-family. Should we not expect at least honesty from him?
Yet, it was Austria whose ethics have been called into question by Retired Air Force Lt. Col. John Mitchel. His investigation into the BRAC deal led him to bring charges against Austria, his wife, his mentor, and others for using No Bid government contracts to launder money. Citizens should be asking the Governor and Attorney General what is being done about it. (See sources in linked article.)
More Corruption
While out on the campaign trail talking about eliminating wasteful spending and fixing a corrupt system (when he's not bashing his opponent's family), Senator Steve Austria then actively solicites donations from the lobbyists with which he has "long-term working relationships".
In his letter to lobbyist, Mr. Austria seems to make these points:
1. We've been working hard to raise money and build grassroots support.
2. Our opponent is getting support from the Democratic Party.
3. The work we've done on the 'grassroots' part of the campaign can't hold up, so I'm turning to you, my long-time lobbyist friend.
4. Can you get other lobbyists to help me?
It appears that Steve Austria is appealing to his lobbyist friends to help him clean up Washington?? (DailyKos)
OhioDailyBlog: OH-07: Austria (R) Called Co-Conspirator in Corrupt Steering of No-Bid Contracts. (Jan 2008)
State Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) and his spouse Eileen are co-conspirators in a scheme to steer no-bid contracts to campaign contributors of Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield), who supports Steve Austria in his campaign and has paid Eileen Austria large consulting fees. Mitchel compares the scheme to the steering of federal contracts by Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) that resulted in his resignation from Congress in November 2005 and guilty plea to federal conspiracy charges. Cunningham is serving an eight year prison sentence.
In an email to Greene County officials, following up on his request for a meeting to discuss requests for information on the matter, Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John Mitchel (R-Beavercreek),describes his allegations this way:
Former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in federal prison for steering no-bid contracts toward his campaign contributors. Based on remarks spoken to me by Ms. [Marilyn] Reid, [the Greene County GOP chair who is running for county commissioner,] I am alleging that is exactly what occurred with the BRAC Initiative Agreement. There is compelling evidence that Dave Hobson and other elected officials, including Steve Austria as well as Mrs. Austria, who both sit on the Dayton Development Coalition Wright-Patt 2010 Advisory Committee, intervened to influence the award of no-bid contracts to The PMA and Greentree Groups. Please note that documents disclosed on the FEC website show that employees from PMA and Greentree donated over $50,000 to "Hobson for Congress" prior to, during and since the period of performance (PoP) of the BRAC Initiative Agreement. Don't hesitate to call if you have any questions prior to our meeting on the 24th.
On the telephone yesterday, Mitchel further explained his accusation. Steve and Eileen Austria sit on the referenced advisory committee along with Sam Greenwood of the Greentree Group. They were instrumental in causing money transferred by Greene County to the Dayton Development Corporation to be used to award a large no-bid contract to Greentree Group, purportedly to assist in an effort to keep Wright Patterson Air Force Base open during the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process. Mitchel contends, however, that the base was in no real danger of closing, so the transactions in reality amounted to no more than an enormous transfer of public wealth to private hands, and in any event the purpose of the contract was lobbying and that is not the business of Greentree, an IT firm. Greentree in turn awarded a $660,000 contract to PMA, which is in fact a lobbying firm. During the period for performance under these contracts, principals or employees of Greentree and PMA gave $50,000 in campaign contributions to Hobson. Eileen Austria was a district director for Hobson, and while so employed Hobson paid her $50,000 as a political consultant. Linking the transfers together, Mitchel sees an orchestrated chain of transactions that acted as a pipeline for public money that ultimately wound up in the hands of Eileen Austria.
Mitchel has aggressively sought information and documents from county officials in this matter, but says that he has been stonewalled. He has kept the other GOP congressional contenders in the district informed of his efforts and has no intention of letting the matter drop. He is attempting to spur the press and local federal prosecutors to investigate further, but has seen little movement to date. He attributes the inaction on the part of prosecutors to the existence of close ties to the Republican establishment, pointing out for example that the wife of prominent Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Schenck was a staffer for Sen. Mike DeWine (R) in his Xenia district office.
Not Endorsed
The Dayton Daily News has endorsed attorney Sharen Neuhardt (D-Yellow Springs) , and wrote that Austria does not "have the kind of reputation that Rep. Hobson had when he first ran for Congress."
The editorial board criticized Austria as being "scared of saying anything that might offend" in their endorsement of Neuhardt. They note Neuhardt's never having held office, but say that she "compares well with the experienced politician in her understanding of issues."
The board concludes that if voters select Austria "they are settling for mediocrity, quite possibly on a long-term basis." But if voters choose Neuhardt, "they are hoping for something better." "She has the potential to develop into a leader in an important policy realm or more than one," The News wrote. "The rookie is the better, bolder, more optimistic choice."
DDN wrote that "Austria's attacks are shameful" and that "Austria has not earned a major promotion" as he has "no compelling record".
Unconstitutional
Furthermore, in 2007, Mr. Austria thumped his chest in support of the Adam Walsh Act Law ( Ohio Senate Bill 10) which violates the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens. He introduced and sponsored the bill, and proudly puffed his chest, even as various Ohio Senators spoke out in concern about the violative nature of the implementation of these laws. Only a voice vote was taken and Mr. Austria voted to enact these laws, which impose ex post facto punishment on citizens whose crimes date back decades.
Both the Ohio and United States Constitutions prohibit enacting any law which imposes punishment for crimes committed before the law went into effect. Mr. Austria either does not understand the constitution or he does not feel it applies to him or his decisions as an elected official in Ohio.
ConstitutionalFights.org has made multiple efforts to contact Mr. Austria and his office and campaign manager. All of our calls to his office over the past 10 months have not been returned. In asking to speak or meet with Mr. Austria, our requests were denied. Our request for a written statement from Mr. Austria for this blog was ignored. If you would like to contact Steve Austria to ask him about these issues, his official contact information is: Ohio Senator Steve Austria -
sd10@mailr.sen.state.oh.us Telephone: (614)466-3780
Ohio Senator Jon Husted: Corruption, Fraud, Arrogance
Ohio Representative Jon Husted (R-37th Ohio House District and Speaker of the House): Corruption, Fraud, Arrogance...
Multiple issues involving corruption and fraud of Jon Husted have been uncovered in 2008. These facts demonstrate Mr. Husted as a man unfit to serve the people of his District or the people of Ohio.
Illegal And Dishonest
Update- 30 October 2008: Montgomery County Elections Board to Investigate Husted.
Jon Husted, contrary to law, does not live in the 6th District. Husted, Speaker of the House, is currently representative for the 37th Ohio House District. A Cleveland Plain Dealer article published Sunday that reported that Husted’s Kettering home looks abandoned. The article said:
“While Husted won’t say how much time he spends in Kettering, his modest ranch-style house had tightly-drawn blinds and a six-week-old stack of newspapers next to the front door on a recent summer day. Cobwebs were beginning to creep over a front picture window.”
The Columbus Dispatch reports: Residency questions continue to dog Husted; Husted claimed a tax break on a Kettering house; his wife got a break on another home (18 Oct 2008):
DAYTON — Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, has long claimed that although he lives with his family in Upper Arlington, his real home is in his district in Kettering. But legal documents involving property owned by Husted and his wife, Tina , raise new questions about his principal place of residence.
Those documents show that Jon and Tina Husted received a property tax break on the Upper Arlington home she owned at the same time he got a tax reduction for his Kettering home.
(Tina is Husted's second wife ; Husted is divorced from his first wife, according to Cleveland.com)
Ohio law says a couple can only take that tax reduction on one home.
Montgomery County Auditor Karl Keith, a Democrat, and Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa, a Republican, said they will investigate to see if the law was broken. Since they married in 2005, Jon and Tina Husted each claimed a separate house as a primary residence on legal documents that trigger the 2.5 percent property tax reduction for owner-occupied homes.
"The 2.5 percent reduction is meant to be on one property and one property only. It's supposed to be your primary residence," said Keith. "Those are legal documents. You are signing those documents under penalty of perjury." A "principal residence" is a person's legal, permanent residence and used to determine where a person can vote, according to John Kohlstrand, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Taxation.
By law, Husted cannot run for the Legislature if he does not live in his district. He is registered to vote in Kettering.
Husted said he stays in an Upper Arlington house with his wife and children. He would not say how often he sleeps in his Kettering home, nor whether he plans to move his family to that house once he relinquishes his Speaker duties this year, or if he is elected to the Ohio 6th District Senate seat.
His opponent in that race, Democrat John Doll, said Husted should forfeit his seat if it turns out he does not legally reside in the district. Husted said he does live in the district and was unaware of the tax issue.
Cleveland.com: "While Husted clearly spends most of his time living in a $343,000 three-bedroom (2436 square foot ) home in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington with his growing family, he is supposed to live in his legislative district."
In an Editorial Letter written by Kettering resident, Marybeth W. Rutledge, Husted was challenged:
"If Rep. Jon Husted really lived on Sherbrooke Drive in Kettering, he would have endured at
least 10 days without power (due to the September hurricane wind storm) . But, of course, he doesn't live there like we do. No, he was happily ensconced in Columbus in "his wife's house."
If Husted really lived on Sherbrooke, he'd have done all he could to help his constituents
(aka neighbors) with their ordeal; he'd know that his constituents include the elderly, small
children, pregnant women and others whose health and safety were at risk. He'd know some
constituents/neighbors had power, but no phone or cable, and he'd have seen what
influence could be brought to bear from his position as state representative to help. But he
doesn't live there.
Jon Husted wants to be elected to the Ohio State Senate from his "home district." Come on,
Jon, you're kidding, right?"
Marybeth W. Rutledge
Kettering
Kettering resident Lauren Klein wrote:
"Husted's dishonesty is upsetting.
Re: 'Husted's residency in Kettering questioned,' Sept. 13:
As a Kettering resident, I am not upset that Jon Husted owns a home in Kettering, but lives with his family in Upper Arlington. I'm upset that Husted won't admit it. I'm annoyed that he specifies his wife owns
the home in Upper Arlington. He won't admit he doesn't live in the Sherbrooke residence
because it's dishonest, and he knows it. He is not committed to the area or the people he was
elected to represent. He is committed to what works best for him.
I contacted Husted's opponent, John Doll, a labor attorney who lives in Washington Twp.
He believes voters want the person who represents them to live in the district they represent. I'm voting for John Doll."
Lauren Klein
Kettering
The Dayton Daily News: Questions About Husted's Kettering Residency
13 Sept 2008
DAYTON — Ohio Speaker of the House Jon Husted was accused on Friday, Sept. 12, by his opponent of not living in his district. "Apparently he thinks the residency laws of the state of Ohio do not apply to him," said Centerville school board member John Doll, a Democrat who is running against Husted, R-Kettering, for the 6th District Ohio Senate seat.
Doll said it is impossible for Husted to be in touch with his district and properly represent the community because he spends little time here.
Husted said the home he owns at 148 Sherbrooke Ave. is his residence, but he said his duties as House speaker require that he spend more time in Columbus than the average legislator. He said he also lives in an Upper Arlington house owned by his wife.
Husted's Kettering home frequently looks unoccupied and newspapers sometimes accumulate on the grounds. He said he has a basket by the front door to collect items in and he does not believe that six weeks of newspapers piled up, as Doll contends.
Husted said he does sleep in the Kettering home but refused to say what percentage of the time he spends living in Kettering and how much he spends in the Upper Arlington house with his wife and two children.
"I've answered these questions many times," said Husted.
Doll also demanded that Husted agree to serve a full four-year Senate term should he be elected to the Senate in November, rather than run for Ohio secretary of state in 2010. "I'm flattered that people are considering me for other offices of a statewide nature," said Husted, adding that it is premature to for him to comment on his future plans.
The deadline has passed to challenge a person’s place on the ballot. However, the board can question the validity of a person’s registration, said Steve Harsman, board of elections director.
Ohio law on residency for voting purposes says a person’s residence is the “place where the family of a married person resides.”
A legislator may be forced to forfeit his seat if he is not a legal resident of the district he represents.
Currently things stand with the Montgomery County Board of Elections attorney conducting a review of residency laws. The Board is considering a full investigation of Husted.
More Disception
Jon Husted refused to commit to serving a full term for the people of Ohio, in his run for an Ohio Senate seat in 2008. Mr. Husted is playing coy on speculation that he will leave his Senate seat early if he decides to run for Ohio Secretary of State in 2010.
Opponent John Doll demanded that Husted agree to serve a full four-year Senate term should he be elected to the Senate in November, rather than run for Ohio secretary of state in 2010. "I'm flattered that people are considering me for other offices of a statewide nature," said Husted, adding that it is premature to for him to comment on his future plans.
Cleveland.com: Jon Husted won't say if he's a secretary of state candidate.
buckeyestateblog: Meet Jon Husted: The Eternal Candidate.
The Dayton Daily News seems to have caught everyone's favorite Republican state rep between a rock and a hard place. You see, Speaker of the House Jon Husted is running for a state senate seat even though it's widely expected that he'll run for Secretary of State in 2010.
Of course no one really enjoys being stepped on by someone out to climb the ranks, so Husted has been pretending to care about the Dayton area senate district he's running for. The truth came out however, when Husted refused to commit to staying the full senate term if elected.
In St. Paul last week during the Republican National Convention, Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine told a crowd of delegates that he looks forward to working along side his friend, Jon Husted, when Husted runs for Ohio Secretary of State in 2010.
Husted, R-Kettering, is now House Speaker and a candidate for a four year term in the Ohio Senate. Despite the open talk of him running for secretary of state, Husted is mum on it and declined to say whether he’s committed to serving his entire term if elected to the Senate.
Cleveland.com: "Asked about his statewide ambitions in 2010, Husted hedged, saying the decision "hasn't even been approved at the family level yet." Yet he mentioned both secretary of state or treasurer as possibilities."
Corruption
The House speaker, Jon Husted, a young opportunist from Kettering in the Dayton area, was nailed by the Cleveland and Dayton papers for repeatedly accepting free flights and trips from his lobbyist pals. While Husted’s office denied at the time that the lobbyists were engaging in politics, I looked up their firms’ websites. One site proudly proclaimed that they could create personal relationships with legislators on behalf of their clients! Of course Husted’s office had no comment and the Ohio press, in spite of their occasional good reporting, seems inadequate to hold politicians accountable, especially considering that television news in Ohio does virtually no political reporting. (OhDave)
Cleveland.com: "Trips that Husted has taken as speaker with his son, Alex, and high-powered lobbyists have brought controversy in recent years. On Memorial Day Weekend in 2005, the pair jetted off on a fishing trip with a trio of lobbyists in tow as the state's $51.2 billion budget was being debated. An Ohio State bowl game trip that year on a plane owned by NCR, a Dayton-based Fortune 500 company, with his family and lobbyists along also netted headlines. "You just have to make sure to do things in a way that are more appropriate, and I have tried to follow those lessons," he said. "
"Husted's rise also had a dark side in the form of covert assistance from a little-known nonprofit group known as Citizens for Conservative Values. In 2004, the Dayton-area issue advocacy group began a secret push to help Husted became speaker, even going so far as to ink contracts handing out fat bonuses to consultants if he was named the House leader. After benefiting from the group's work, Husted pushed a campaign-finance bill that forced more disclosure from issue advocacy groups.
"That was a great lesson for me in life, because that is not who I am and I can't affiliate with organizations that are not me," Husted said. "
Husted Fears Free Speech
House speaker considers political blogs dangerous:
Sunday, July 30, 2006 — Ohio House Speaker Jon A. Husted is no fan of political blogs.
“I believe they’re overrated in some respects,” the Kettering Republican said during a taping Friday of ONN’s Capitol Square. “In high-profile campaigns, this is a way for people to use third parties to get bad information out about your opponent.” The fact that people are paying attention to the blogs, Husted said, “is undermining the campaign process in terms of trying to advance ideas.”
Jon Husted should be afraid of political blogs because with his actions in the Ohio General Assembly, they may soon put him out of work. Perhaps Jon Husted thinks free speech is dangerous too?
Unconstitutional
Furthermore, in 2007, Mr. Husted thumped his chest in support of the Adam Walsh Act Law ( Ohio Senate Bill 10) which violates the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens. He presided over the Ohio House vote where various representatives spoke in concern about the violative nature of the implementation of these laws. Only a voice vote was taken and Mr. Husted voted to enact these laws, which impose ex post facto punishment on citizens whose crimes date back decades.
Both the Ohio and United States Constitutions prohibit enacting any law which imposes punishment for crimes committed before the law went into effect. Mr. Husted either does not understand the constitution or he does not feel it applies to him or his decisions as an elected official in Ohio.
ConstitutionalFights.org has made multiple efforts to contact Mr. Husted and his office. All of our calls to his office over the past 10 months have not been returned. In asking to speak or meet with Mr. Husted, our requests were denied. Our request for a written statement from Mr. Husted for this blog was ignored. If you would like to contact Jon Husted to ask him about these issues, you can apparently find him living at his home in Upper Arlington, not in Kettering. His official contact information is: Ohio Representative Jon Husted - Speaker of the House, district37@ohr.state.oh.us Telephone: (614) 644-6008
Issues of cost, content arise over sex offender registry
Timesargus.com (Vermont) : Issues of cost, content arise over state's sex offender registry.
MONTPELIER – Under the provisions of a new federal act, Vermont stands to lose up to $35,000 in government funding if it doesn't expand its Internet sex offender registry. But officials say the changeover would add about 2,000 new names to the list – and cost upwards of $3 million to implement.
The new act has also spawned a philosophical debate about which offenders belong on the publicly accessible Internet sex offender registry. "I think it's a good idea to have a uniform system, and I support the idea in principle," said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But we believe this thing is a little more complex than what first met the eye, and we're going to have to take a hard look at whether we should comply, given that it may cost millions to do so."
Vermont has about 2,400 sex offenders on its statewide registry, but only about 400 meet the threshold required to land on the more public Internet registry. Under the Adam Walsh Act, all 2,400 offenders would likely appear online, because federal guidelines use an "offense-based" classification system to assess risk into a three-tier hierarchy.
Anyone convicted of those crimes – even non-contact mis-demeanors – would appear on the registry for anywhere from 15 years to life, depending on the offense. Vermont, conversely, uses a "risk-based" system that relies on a number of different criteria. And lawmakers and policy makers have thus far reserved the Internet registry for only the more serious offenders.
"I think the committee is in agreement that we ought to expand the Internet registry, but I think it's going to be up to the Legislature, the administration, and perhaps ultimately the courts to decide whether we can comply with this federal act," Sears said.
The Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and the office of the Defender General have said an expanded registry could lead to millions of dollars in additional legal costs for the state, mainly because offenders would prove less amenable to plea deals if the conviction meant a slot on the Internet sex offender registry.
The office of the Defender General estimated it would need an additional $1.8 million if the new registry standards were enacted. The Department of State's Attorneys pegged first-year costs at more than a half-million dollars. An official from the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the registry, said the state is capable of meeting the new federal requirements, but that would necessitate two additional employees and new computer software, estimated to cost a total of $350,000 in the first year.
Juvenile offenders as young as 14 also would qualify for the Internet registry for extreme offenses.
"The question ought to be what makes sense for Vermont and how far do we go?" Sears said. "Should people who had a statutory rape conviction be on there for life? Or someone who committed a non-contact offense? These are some of the issues we need to think about.
ABA Opposes Adam Walsh Act
sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com : American Bar Association Opposes the Adam Walsh Act.
Attn: Mr. David J. Karp, Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy
Room 4509, Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
RE: Comments on the interim regulations to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-248), the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA); OAG Docket No. 117
On behalf of the American Bar Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed captioned interim regulations that would apply SORNA retroactively to juvenile offenders.
ABA juvenile justice policy is set forth in 20 volumes of IJA-Juvenile Justice Standards (“Standards”) developed by the Association in conjunction with the Institute of Judicial Administration. The Standards call for individualized treatment that is fair in purpose, scope and not arbitrary. These goals are set forth in the
Standard Relating to Disposition:
The purpose of the juvenile correctional system is to reduce juvenile crime by maintaining the integrity of the substantive law proscribing certain behavior and by developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior. This purpose should be pursued through means that are fair and just, that recognize the unique characteristics and needs of juveniles, and that give juveniles access to opportunities for personal and social growth.
The Standards set forth clear parameters for juvenile justice sanctions: the definition and application of sanctions should address public safety; give fair warning about prohibited conduct; and recognize “the unique physical, psychological, and social features of young persons.”1 The Standards, as well as accepted research in developmental science, recognize that juveniles are generally less culpable than adults, and that their patterns of offending are different from those of adults.2 Thus, ABA policy supports sanctions that vary in restrictiveness and intensity, and are developmentally appropriate and limited in duration.
Given the goals of the juvenile justice system and the transitory characteristics of juvenile offenders, ABA policy also limits the way juvenile records are compiled and disseminated. The Standards frown on “labeling” offenders, require very careful control of records, and prohibit making juvenile records public. In addition, “[a]ccess to and the use of juvenile records should be strictly controlled to limit the risk that disclosure will result in the misuse or misinterpretation of information, the unnecessary denial of opportunities and benefits to juveniles, or an interference with the purposes of official intervention.”3 This is so because most adolescent anti-social behavior is not predictive of future criminal activity.
Most importantly, ABA policy prohibits collateral consequences for delinquent behavior: “No collateral disabilities extending beyond the term of the disposition should be imposed by the court, by operation of law, or by any person or agency exercising authority over the juvenile.” 4 Lifetime registration violates this Standard and is detrimental to both rehabilitation and crime prevention.
The ABA opposed those provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that apply to juvenile offenders. A large percentage of “sex offenses” occur within families and do not rise to the level of sexual predation that is the target of the Act. The "Lifetime Registration" provisions of the Act are likely to have a chilling effect on the reporting of these crimes and will reduce admissions (guilty pleas) to the charges in the cases that do get reported. Concerns about the prospects of the retroactive application of the Walsh registration provisions already are having an adverse effect across the country with respect to admissions and delinquency adjudications in sex offense cases. As a consequence of its "Lifetime Registration" provisions, the ultimate impact of the Walsh Act here will be far more contested proceedings in these cases; far fewer delinquency adjudications; and far fewer juveniles getting the treatment they need. In addition, the fact-finding and guilty plea (admission of guilt) processes in most juvenile courts have fewer safeguards than in the adult system. Adjudications for sex offenses tend to lack the precision required by ABA policy (See Standards Relating to Adjudication). Furthermore, sex offending in adolescence has limited correlation to adult sex offending (the number of false positives close to 90 percent).
Because the Adam Walsh Act is inconsistent with ABA juvenile justice policy and because we believe the statute is overbroad in this respect, we urge you to draft the regulations so as to not further broaden the reach of the act and to minimize the harm that will result from application of the statute. The clearest way to accomplish this is to reject retroactive application of the Act to those who were under 18 at the time of their offenses. To the extent possible, the regulations should also provide a reasonable method for low-risk offenders to petition to be removed from federal and state sex offender registries. Finally, the ABA also suggests that the Department of Justice urge Congress to reconsider whether the Act should apply to juvenile offenders.
Sincerely,
Denise A. Cardman ..Source..
Sex Offender Mandate Threatens Liberty
badgerherald.com : Sex Offender Mandate Threatens Liberty.
If ever there was a good time to give short shrift to principled arguments on behalf of justice, the punishment of sex offenders could very well be that time. The caricature of the typical child molester — a man with sunglasses and a mustache, peering out his window as he cruises by the local middle school — is not a figure that should, or ever will, invite sympathy.
So it is understandable that the town of De Pere, in the interest of wiping clean such a stain on the fabric of civil society, would want to impose harsher restrictions on sex offenders. De Pere’s city council passed a law this past Tuesday mandating that registered sex offenders avoid loitering within 200 feet of public parks, schools or other areas where one would conventionally expect to find children. The ordinance applies to all sex offenders and will be pertinent to them even if they are not under state supervision.
The measure is not alien to the universal human urge to defend its young — perhaps that is why the city council passed it unanimously — but the casual disregard of De Pere’s city council for the rights of society’s most detested individuals is an act of insanity all the more troublesome because it is so excusable. De Pere’s ordinance may make a city council feel good about their ability to defend a threatened community. It may make police feel as though they have the legal muscle to nip pedophilia in the bud. It is also a drastic violation of human rights.
The idea that all sex offenders — every individual who has committed a crime that is remotely sexual in nature — are a threat to children reeks of a paranoia with no interest in hearing the voice of reason. Every class of offender, whether his or her crime victimized children or not, will now be painted with the stigma of pedophilia, the most egregious brand of sexual crime it is possible to commit. And while the bitter pill of reality may be difficult to swallow, it is impossible to see how certain classes of sexual crime — with their own psychological motivations and underlying causes — can in any way make an offender more disposed to harm children than the average citizen. The drunken partygoer who became too aggressive in a moment of alcohol-induced self-confidence is no more likely to be De Pere’s next pedophile than its average inconspicuous male park-goer.
Society has the right — and the responsibility — to protect itself from any individual who would do it harm. However, if such restrictions are truly necessary, it begs the question as to why these offenders, so unworthy of loitering in parks, are worthy of living in civil society at all. Parks, above any other public area, are where someone would be most expected to “loiter.” If this amount of latitude, so willingly given to any other member of society, is denied to sex offenders, then it is challenging to see how the city council of De Pere has any true willingness to see sex offenders rehabilitated. It is not an act of insensate brutality to acknowledge that the average pedophile may very well never be fully capable of existing in society. And if that is the case, attempting to make him or her stay away from parks will do little to discourage an underlying disorder that renders an individual more fit for a prison cell than the tree-lined streets of De Pere.
One must also question whether the measure is not simply designed to drive sex offenders out of De Pere altogether, so that another town in Wisconsin can bear the proud mantle of a municipality that is friendly to sex offenders. During a discussion on the ordinance, Alderman Bob Wilmet cited his concern that De Pere could become a dumping ground for sex offenders that are fleeing neighboring areas, where ordinances are stricter. As a patchwork of local regulations concerning the conduct — and in many cases, the living circumstances — of sex offenders begins to spring up across the state, it will be increasingly difficult for them to not only find a place to live in a state that has supposedly welcomed them with hesitant arms, but to be able to travel at all without fear of violating a draconian ordinance drafted upon the whim of well-intentioned councilmen.
TX Sex Offender Registry Toughest in Nation
mysanantonio.com : AG wants online IDs of sex offenders listed.
AUSTIN — Not sure who your kid is chatting with online? If Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has his way, the state's public sex offender registry would include e-mail addresses and online names.
In what some are calling the toughest reporting proposals in the country, Abbott on Wednesday called for giving the public more information about the state's 53,000 registered sex offenders. Aiming to crack down on cyberpredators, Abbott hopes to expand the state sex offender registry to include e-mail addresses and Internet screen names.
He said his proposal would provide Texans with the “most comprehensive reporting requirements in the country” and would provide law enforcement, and ultimately the public, “with new and better tools to track and monitor sex offenders.” The attorney general's plan would need the Legislature's approval; Abbott said he plans to meet with lawmakers in coming weeks.
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said he doesn't have any problems providing the public with more information on sex offenders and thinks Abbott's proposals have a good chance of passing the Legislature next year. Texas leaders have enacted increasingly strict registration requirements for sex offenders. This year, the Texas sex offender registry expanded to include an offender's school or place of work.
Some question whether the focus on online predators creates a false sense of security. Jill Levenson, a clinical social worker and professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida who has studied how sex crime policies affect sex crime rates, said children “are most often molested by people who are acquainted with the family, relatives and friends of the family, people who are trusted and use that trust to gain access.
“Parents certainly need to take precautions (regarding who their children are communicating with online) but in a way, all of this attention to Internet predators and stranger abductions and sexually motivated homicides takes away from important information we need to be giving parents, which is that children are much, much more likely to be abused by people (the family knows).”
As for whether tougher reporting requirements are effective in lowering the rate of sex crimes, Levenson said the studies she and others have done have been, at best, mixed. “Overall, the totality of research so far looking at the impact of registration and notification with sex crime rates does not really indicate there is a strong deterrent or preventive effect,” Levenson said.
She said she knew of no public registry in the nation containing offenders' e-mail addresses or online names.
But Congress continues to pass stricter laws, as do states. Many registries, including the Texas registry, include at least some juveniles, their names, addresses and photos. Critics in Texas complain that the state registry includes anyone convicted of a sex crime, whether the offender had sex with a teen who was a few years younger or whether the offender repeatedly used force against a young child.
Bruce Siegel, 38, a convicted sex offender in the Dallas area, complained that Abbott's proposal targets all offenders, not just the ones he believes the public needs to be warned about. “Now you're asking police departments to monitor more, which spreads them pretty thin when they really need to ride herd on 10 or 30 percent of (all offenders), Siegel said. “It's going to cause more paperwork and a lot of wasted time.”
Abbott's proposal also would require offenders to report their cell phone numbers to law enforcement, though the numbers would not be made public. It would also restrict some high-risk offenders from using the Internet at all.
...UN-CONSTITUTIONAL ! And many courts still are unable to see that these restrictions are "punishment".
Recidivism of Alaska Sex Offenders
Alaska Justice Forum: University of Alaska Achorage.
sexoffenderstudies.blogspot.com : Recidivism of Alaska Sex Offenders.
A recent study of sexual offenders released from incarceration in Alaska shows that for the three years after the offenders left prison in 2001, the rates of recidivism for sexual offenders were, by most measures, no higher than for offenders in general. The study, which was done by the Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center, a subdivision of the Justice Center, compared recidivism for sexual offenders released from prison in 2001 with a random sample of non-sex offenders also released in 2001. The analysis used the three measures most commonly used to determine recidivism: incidents of remand to custody, rearrest, and re-conviction on any new offense. The results are similar to those found in an earlier study done by the Alaska Judicial Council. (See Alaska Felony Process: 1999, Alaska Judicial Council, 2004.)
In the case of rearrest for a new sex offense, there was a slight but statistically insignificant difference between the sex offender group—3.4 percent—and the non-sex offender group—1.3 percent.
This finding figure is similar to that of other studies posted on this blog (e.g. California Department of Corrections study and others). Once again, these studies debunk the myth of sex offenders having high rates or recidivism. The fact is that sex offenders actually have lower recidivism rates for sex-related crimes than non-sex offenders have for any crimes. For methodology and charts, see links above for full study text. Also see our "Truth over Myth" post on this blog.
Children required to register as sex offenders for life
forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com : Challenge to juvenile sex offender risk prediction.
Did you know that each year, about 10,000 children will have to register as sex offenders for life? That's part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, embedded in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed by the U.S. Congress two years ago.
Under SORNA, these arrested juveniles will be subject to warrantless searches for the rest of their lives, despite the fact that as kids they did not have the same types of due process rights that protect adults in criminal court. SORNA marks a huge departure from past juvenile justice practices, which recognized that children are different, and that most juvenile crime is "adolescent-limited."
So, here's some food for thought:
* What if it turns out that this new practice is not just extremely harsh, but paradoxically puts the public at heightened risk by impeding rehabilitation, and consigning kids who would otherwise move on with their lives to the status of permanent social pariahs?
* And what if it turns out that the "scientific" methods the states use to determine which juveniles are at high risk for sexual reoffending are completely worthless?
Well, it looks like both of those things are true.
Prediction tools don't work:
This month's Psychology, Public Policy, and Law published an important study showing that the systems in place to determine which juveniles are at high risk for recidivism simply don't do the job.
The researchers followed high-risk juvenile males for an average of about six years. They rated them on the highly touted Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II) and the risk protocols developed by three states (Texas, New Jersey, and Wisconsin). Not only did the systems not work, but they were not even consistent with each other!
"This finding suggests that a juvenile's assessed level of risk may be more dependent on the state he lives in than on his actual recidivism risk," the authors concluded. And SORNA's own tiered risk system fared even worse: Juveniles designated as high risk actually recidivated at lower rates than others.
In summary, the researchers concluded that the risk tools that have such important implications for the lives and futures of adolescents are both "nonscientific" and "arbitrary."
Treatment works:
Although the efficacy of sex offender treatment among adults is contested, among adolescents the study findings were clear: Developmental factors play a big role in adolescent sexual behavior, and risk for reoffense can be reduced through high-quality treatment.
This is consistent with other recent research showing that even the most intractable offenders can be rehabilitated -- and at a cost far lower than the cost of punishment. The authors concluded that SORNA as it applies to youth is not only misguided but is likely to do more harm than good:
"The legislation … is based on the assumption that juvenile sex offenders are on a singular trajectory to becoming adult sexual offenders. This assumption is not supported by these results, is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the juvenile court, and may actually impeded the rehabilitation of youth."
Now, consider these facts:
* Most juvenile sex offenders stop offending by early adulthood.
* Among delinquents, just as many non-sex offenders as sex offenders go on to engage in adult sexual offending.
* At least one in five adolescent males commits a sexual assault. (See Abbey, referenced below.)
What do these facts add up to?
The need for widescale prevention efforts, instead of ineffective stigmatization of a few unlucky individuals. (Funding for such efforts has dropped precipitously, probably not coincidentally to the rise of increasingly punitive sanctions; see Koss citation, below.)
Other challenges to SORNA
Meanwhile, other aspects of SORNA face challenges, and a few such challenges are headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, legal challenges assert that SORNA exceeds federal rights by encroaching on state and local decision-making.
As summarized in the current issue of the American Bar Association journal, at least two courts have sided with critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law, and in a third case the new law has been put on hold until arguments are heard. (I reported on one of those cases, U.S. v. Waybright, back in August – the blog post with links is here.)
SORNA-style databases are already being extended to domestic violence offenders, and if they are upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court they are likely to extend even further. That is the conclusion of Wayne A. Logan, a law professor at Florida State University and author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.
So, warn your kids now: Don't ever get arrested. You may be publicly stigmatized - and perhaps even subject to warrantless searches - for the rest of your life.
For further information:
Caldwell, M.F., Ziemke, M.H., & Vitacco, M.J. (2008). An examination of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as applied to juveniles: Evaluating the ability to predict sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14 (2). 89-114.
Abbey, A. (2005). Lessons learned and unanswered questions about sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 (1). 39-42.
Koss, M.P. (2005). Empirically enhanced reflections on 20 years of rape research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 (1). 100-107.
For further information on the juvenile registration requirements of SORNA, see the U.S. Department of Justice's online fact sheet; this month's Police Chief magazine also has a summary of SORNA that includes the juvenile provisions (online here). The full text of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is here.
The American Bar Association article, "The National Pulse: Crime Registries Under Fire -- Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it's unconstitutional," is available here.
Most of these points also apply to adult offenders. See source post for hyper- links.
Privacy, Safety Balance At Issue
kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com (Maine): PRIVACY, SAFETY BALANCE AT ISSUE As information on sex offenders becomes more public, state officials are seeking ways to find common ground.
Maine officials sought guidance last week from experts across the United States on keeping society safe while protecting sex offenders' rights.
"Sex offenders have always lived in our community," said Detective Bob Shilling of the Seattle Police Department in Washington. (...and always will, by the way)
The difference today is that community notification and Internet posting of convicted sex offenders can increase worry among neighbors and make offenders targets of harassment.
Maine policymakers brought in the Department of Justice's Center for Sex Offender Management for aid in dealing with snags with its own policies, partly because having sex offenders' information on the Internet-- including those convicted a decade before the registry began -- raises their profile and can bring more problems.
In an article in the Winter 2008 "Washburn Law Journal," Lara Geer Farley framed the challenge for lawmakers: "At a time when national polls indicate that Americans fear sex offenders more than terrorists, legislators will have to show they have the intelligence and courage to create a society that is safe yet still protects the human rights of everyone."
He noted a tragic parallel between the two states on opposite sides of the country: Washington state, like Maine, has seen two sex offenders shot and killed by men who learned their whereabouts through information posted by authorities on a sex offender Web site.
Over the years, the Washington state notification system has been refined so a committee does a risk assessment of each inmate before release, and the exact address is provided only to police who verify it in person.
Maine state Sen. William Diamond, D-Windham, chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, described a delicate balance between community safety and sex offender rights. "We need to distinguish the high risk from the low risk within our sex offender registry for the public's interest in particular," he said. "Our immediate task is to make a recommendation to the next Legislature on how a tier system can be implemented which includes developing a system for assigning risk levels to each (person) on the sex offender registry."
"I am convinced we need to have an end-of-sentence review board," said Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, another committee member.
McCormick said he sees problems arising from Internet posting of sex offense convictions from as far back as 26 years ago, even though the person has lived a law-abiding life since the conviction. "We hear some horror stories," he said. "They have established their lives and they're really traumatized. They haven't reoffended."
"We are expecting the Maine Supreme Court to rule on one of those cases early next year, which may tell us that our sex offender registry is at least partially unconstitutional," Diamond said after the conference. "We learned that some other states avoided this problem by not requiring registration during the times before they had a registry."
Walter McKee, a past president of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said he would like to see a repeal of the provision that back-dates registerable offenses to include convictions between 1982 and 1992. "They're the least fair of all," he said. "I think that repealing the retroactivity would be appropriate and fair." Going forward, McKee said he wants to trim the list of registerable offenses.
"Take off some of the lower-end offenses that do not have any higher degree of recidivism than any other crime," he said. "I think everyone agrees that there are a number of sex offenses that we don't need people to register for."
Court challenges to the retroactive provisions of Maine's Sex Offender Registration & Notification Act have counterparts in other states as well.
Ohio officials decided to conform early to the federal Adam Walsh Act and passed enabling legislation that carries retroactive registration requirements.
So far, the Ohio Attorney General's Office has received more than 4,000 challenges to the state statute, said Erin Rosen, general counsel of the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway, in the Attorney General's Office.
Rulings in some of those cases favor the challengers: One found sex-offender residency restrictions punitive and said they violate constitutional protections. The Supreme Court of Ohio has said it will decide the issue.
McKee also objects to Maine complying with the Adam Walsh Act. He said the penalty for noncompliance is an estimated $40,000 loss in federal grant money while the compliance cost is estimated to exceed $1.5 million.
74 Sex Offenders Due To Leave State Registry
Hartford Courant (Connecticut): 74 Sex Offenders Due To Leave State Registry.
The purpose of the 10-year provision is to recognize that — as disturbing as sexual assaults may be — not all of the people who commit them are threats to public safety, said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D- East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's judiciary committee.
Lawlor cited as an example an 18-year-old who carries on a high school romance with a 15-year-old girl, which is a violation of state law, but they marry and start a family. That man should not be viewed in the same light as other sex offenders, he said.
Under the law, those convicted of a "sexually violent offense" and repeat offenders register for life. An offense classified as a "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" or a "nonviolent sexual offense" requires a 10-year registration.
Lawlor would like to see the registry pared further. He supports putting only the most dangerous sex offenders on the list, which has doubled in size since 2003.
"There are so many names, it's hard to decide who's really dangerous and who's not," said Lawlor, who also is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven and a former prosecutor.
Attorney Al Mencuccini, who initially represented Daley, said he thinks the 10-year clause makes sense.
"I'm not sure a person should be labeled the rest of their life for something that happened a long time ago," he said. Being on the sex offender registry, which is easily accessed on the Internet, is like having a scarlet letter, he said. "That's a brand we don't even put on people who have murdered someone."
ME Legislature Considers Adam Walsh Act Changes
kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com : Statehouse Testimony targets sex offenders.
AUGUSTA -- Victims of sex crimes and the offenders often live in the same home, where the crimes also occur.
That was part of the message brought by Kurt Bumby, senior manager of the Center for Sex Offender Management, to a committee of legislators wrestling with the problem of how to manage sex offenders and increase public safety. "Being grabbed in an alleyway sometimes happens, but those are the exceptions," Bumby said. "Strangers tend to be the exception."
The Committee on Criminal Justice & Public Safety met Monday at the Department of Public Safety offices in Augusta for a briefing on Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. In the second of three informational meetings, the panel heard from Bumby as well as from officials in four other states where policymakers have grappled with similar issues. "We either reinvent the wheel or take a day and bring in the experts," Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, said. "This should enhance the effectiveness of what we're trying to do."
Diamond, Senate chairman of the committee, said the committee is dealing with three issues:
* legal challenges of Maine's retroactive registration requirement filed by sex offenders;
* the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is aimed at expanding the national sex offender registry and keeping track of sex offenders no matter which state they live in, while increasing penalties for crimes against children; and
* a tiered system to classify offenders based on offense or risk to reoffend or both.
"We have our hands full," Diamond said.
Sen. Earle McCormick, R-West Gardiner, said he was looking for information on how the state's sex offender registry can be more effectively administered. "If we have a three-tier system, how do we figure who are the high risks?" McCormick said.
Bumby told committee members that sex offenses are a small percentage of all crimes committed, but get a disproportionate amount of publicity.
He also said offenders are a diverse group. "Research is clear that sex offenders don't all look the same, and those variations have important implications for management strategies," Bumby said. "One-size-fits-all strategies are not likely to get us the results we want."
"Depending on whom they target, recidivism rates vary," Bumby said. "Sex offenders are not all alike. Do we want policies to treat them alike? Will that serve the public?"
He recommended concentrating on higher risk offenders to lower the recidivism rate.
"It seems we do better to increase public safety when we focused on higher-risk offenders," Bumby said.
Bumby also said a federal study showed that longer sentences do not result in much variation in the rate of committing another sexual offense. He also said that despite a sharp increase in restrictions on where convicted sex offenders live, there's no evidence those restrictions affect the recidivism rate.
Later, Roger Werholtz, secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections, said the state legislature there imposed a permanent moratorium to prevent municipalities from restricting where sex offenders can live.
Update to Ohio Supreme Court Decision
Cleveland.com: Supreme Court upholds man's predator' status ;
Stricter classification went into effect after his sentencing.
... But since the case was based on Ohio's former sexual predator statute, the court's 4-3 ruling is actually less significant because larger challenges to the current offender classification system are looming.
In January, Ohio's Adam Walsh Act kicked in with a far stricter, three-tier, retroactive sexual offender classification system that requires frequent registering with local police and listing in a public database.
That new system is already being challenged in lower courts across Ohio -- with some judges, including one in Cleveland, already having declared it unconstitutional. It is expected to eventually reach the high court.
"If they had decided that the old law was unconstitutional, then that would have had a huge impact on Adam Walsh," said Amy Borror, from the Ohio public defender's office, which is challenging the new laws and had awaited Wednesday's ruling.
In State v. Ferguson, the case decided Wednesday, Andrew J. Ferguson of Cleveland argued that a 2003 amendment to the former sex offender law reclassifying him a predator for life was a form of added punishment.
Writing for the court's majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said retroactive classification in this case is not punitive because the General Assembly intended the provision to be a public safety issue.
"It is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than to punish the offender," O'Connor wrote.
She was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Robert Cupp and Terrence O'Donnell.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Paul Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. Lanzinger questioned why the majority did not use the same analysis the court had used in a case earlier this year when it concluded that residency rules for sexual predators were not retroactive.
Even if she were persuaded the old law was retroactive, Lanzinger said, "I cannot accept that the challenged amendments are merely remedial and do not impair vested, substantial rights."
Justice Lanzinger clearly understands the Constitution, along with Justices Pfeifer and Lundberg. They grasp the concept of expost facto provisons of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. However, Justices O'Connor, Moyer, Cupp and O'Donnell have demonstrated their incompetence, which insists on their immediate removal from the Court.
OH Supreme Court: Upholds Retroactivity
ColumbusDispatch: Ohio Supreme Court upholds sex offender rules. October 1, 2008 1:45 PM
The Ohio Supreme Court today upheld as constitutional the retroactive application of a 2003 law that tightened reporting and community notification rules on registered sex offenders (Adam Walsh Act) .
Applying the law to sex offenders whose crimes predate it doesn't violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions against "ex post facto," or retroactive, laws, wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor, who authored the court's 4-3 majority opinion.
That's because the law's provisions are remedial and designed to protect the community, and not punitive and designed to punish the offender, she wrote.
The 2003 law toughened a 1996 law, called "Megan's Law," which classified convicted sex offenders and required them to register with their local sheriff.
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge in 1998 to the 1996 law. The court ruled then that the law's requirements could apply retroactively because the law's intent was to protect the community from future sex crimes rather than impose additional punishment on the offender.
O'Connor used the same standard in upholding the retroactive application of the 2003 law.
The 2003 law toughened "Megan's Law" by, among other things: requiring lifetime registration for offenders classified as sexual predators; requiring offenders to register not only with their home county sheriff but with the sheriff of the county where they go to school or work; and expanded community notification by allowing photos and other information provided to sheriffs by offenders to be included in a database accessible online.
O'Connor noted that the court already upheld retroactive application of the 1996 law and that that the changes in the 2003 law reflect the same intent to protect the community.
"We determine that the legislative history supports a finding that it is a remedial, regulatory scheme designed to protect the public rather than punish the offender a result reached by many other courts," she wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the tighter rules amount to punishment.
In a separate case earlier this year, the court ruled that the 2003 law's residence restriction prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school could not apply retroactively because there was a lack of clear legislative intent. Nothing in the law stated that the residence restrictions could apply retroactively, the court ruled.
This is the manner by which courts will take away our rights. They re-define terms, like "punishment" in order to justify unconstitutional laws. They simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that these laws impose restrictions and punishments on citizens who committed crimes up to decades ago. Just three justices were able to understand the obvious fact that these laws impose punishment. We must fight them to forcefully take back our rights !
Utah Judge Rules Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional
Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) : Clearfield sex offender can be anonymous online, judge rules.
09/29/2008
A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring sex offenders to reveal their Internet screen names and passwords to the Utah Department of Corrections violates the constitutional rights of a Clearfield man.
U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell concluded that the man - identified as John Doe in court documents - retains his First Amendment right to anonymous online speech. The ruling bars the state Corrections Department from requiring Doe to reveal his online identifiers, which include names used in Internet chat rooms and instant messaging.
The judge stressed that her decision, which was handed down Thursday, applies only to Doe. She also noted that an analysis of the constitutionality of the law would be different for people who - unlike Doe - are on parole for their sex crimes.
The ruling is apparently the first in the nation to address whether sex offenders have the First Amendment right to speak anonymously online. It has no effect on the requirement that sex offenders register with the state.
The decision centers on a state law that took effect on July 1 requiring Utah's nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders to turn over certain Internet information, including screen names and passwords to social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
It is unclear if the decision could allow others on the sex registry to challenge the requirement once they are no longer on parole. The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling.
In her ruling, Campbell pointed out that nothing in the new law prevents the Corrections Department from linking protected anonymous online speech to a registrant and said that investigators have other tools, such as subpoenas, to unmask suspects in Internet sex crimes. In addition, she wrote, legislators could amend the law if the state wants Doe's Internet information strictly for law enforcement purposes.
Montgomery County Ohio Prosecutor Corruption
DaytonDailyNews : Heck, aide admit liability for violating law.
WHIO TV: Local Prosecutor Admits To Federal Law Violations.
(25 Sept 2008) Just months after the Ohio Attorney General was forced to resign amidst sex and corruption charges, Montgomery County Prosecutor, Mathias H. Heck Jr. admitted to corruption today. These are two Ohio officials who are responsible for enforcing the Adam Walsh Act /SORNA laws in Ohio, which violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.
DAYTON — Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias H. Heck Jr. and his administrative assistant, Greg Flannagan, admitted liability for violating federal law that prohibits certain government employees from participating in political activity, the Office of Special Counsel said Thursday, Sept. 25.
The special counsel's investigation revealed that Heck routinely conveyed his expectation that subordinates contribute money to the local Democratic Party and time to political campaigns, in defiance of federal law. The special counsel charged that Heck and Flannagan used their official authority to interfere with or affect the results of elections, the office of special counsel said.
Heck admitted that he solicited contributions for local Democratic Party fundraisers from six employees of the Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office. Flannagan admitted collecting the cash and checks for these fundraisers from prosecutor's office employees," the special counsel's office said. "Although Mr. Heck denied knowing that the Hatch Act prohibited the solicitation of political contributions from employees, as both an attorney and a long-time elected official, he should have known that whenever public employers place conditions on public employment requiring employees to become involved in partisan political activity, they put at risk the basic freedoms of speech that are protected by our Constitution."
"The people and employees of the prosecutor's office expect and deserve more from their elected officials," said U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch. "Politicization of government offices and pressuring subordinates to contribute to political causes are testaments to why Congress enacted this law and are behaviors that simply will not be tolerated."
As part of the settlement, Heck agreed not to seek employment with either a different state or local (county) agency for a period of 18 months unless such employment is to an elective office. Flannagan agreed to accept a five-day suspension without pay.
In consideration for their admissions of liability and their agreement to accept these penalties, the Special Counsel has agreed to dismiss the complaints. The motion for dismissal is currently pending review before a judge. After the judge dismisses the case, if either Heck or Flannagan fail to live up to the plea agreement, the Office of Special Counsel may refile and seek to have them prosecuted.
The Hatch Act strictly prohibits some state and local employees who have duties in connection with federally funded programs from being candidates in partisan elections. Until 2007, the county prosecutor's office, with Heck as prosecutor, received federal funds to support some of its enforcement programs.
The penalty for a proven violation of the act by a state or local employee normally is removal of the employee from his/her position by the state/local agency and debarment from state/local employment for the following eighteen months, or forfeiture of federal grant funds by the state/local agency in an amount equal to two years of the salary of the employee. However, because MCPO no longer receives federal funds, the available options for a meaningful penalty in these cases were limited.
This man should be removed immediately from his elected position and disbarred ! Call his office at 937-225-5757 and insist that he resign! And call the Ohio Ethics Commission to complain at http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/, 800 589 5256 - Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 202 482 9300 - US office of Government Ethics, 800 854 2824 - US Office of Special Counsel
Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office: http://www.mcpo.com/
Mathias Heck profile: http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/mathias_h_heck_sept_oct_2006.html
http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/mat_heck_nov_dec_2003.html
Mathias Heck Political Fund: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/mathias_h_heck_jr_campaign_fund.asp
OH - Sex Offenders Near School Under Construction
sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com : Sex Offenders Near School Under Construction.
wlwt.com Cincinnati : New School Could Have Sex Offenders As Neighbors.
This is yet another example of societal hysteria and inane legislation. They decide to build a new school in a bad neighborhood and now want to remove any nearby sex offender from this bad neighborhood and from the adjacent homeless shelter. See video below.
CINCINNATI -- When the new $62-million School for the Creative and Performing Arts opens in Over-the-Rhine next year, it will have 1,300 students from across the city. It could also have as many as 19 sex offenders living nearby.
"Well, it's outrageous. It concerns me and I'm sure it concerns most parents," Cincinnati City Councilman Jeff Berding said. Ten of them live within a quarter-mile of the school, while nine more told authorities that they live across the street at the Drop Inn Center, a homeless shelter.
"There are laws on the books that we should enforce to make sure this can't happen," Berding said. (But these laws have been ruled to be unconstitutional, Jeff.)
But the law in question won't allow it. That's because the 19 men committed their crimes before passage of the current law that bans them from coming within 1,000 feet of schools. That means those 19 sex offenders are exempt from the law, and unless they commit another crime, cannot be forced to move.
Meanwhile, the Drop Inn Center's executive director said that the nine men who said they live at the center don't live there. "We do not house sex offenders at all. It's against the law," Pat Clifford said. (Oh really? I thought the registries were a sure-fire way to track all sex offenders...hmm)
"Does a sex offender go to the public library downtown? Can you say, yes or no, whether a sex offender has been in a public library? You don't know. You can't prove yes or you can't prove no. Is a sex offender in Washington Park right now? I can't prove it. It's a public place," he said.
Previous studies have shown that despite laws requiring offenders to register their address, the address given can easily be wrong. Some have even registered parking lots near the Ohio River as their home.
Cincinnati Public Schools said they work closely with Cincinnati and Hamilton County to ensure the safety and security of school children. (which is really the whole crux of the issue. Parents need to take their own responsibility to protect their children from all kinds of dangers - not limited to sex offenders)
IN: Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender Ban
Indystar.com: Indiana Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender Ban.
Plainfield, Indiana has won the latest round in the long-running lawsuit filed by a convicted sex offender who was banned from the town’s parks. The Indiana Court of Appeals today released a 20-page ruling that upholds the town’s 2002 ordinance prohibiting persons on the state registry of sex offenders from going into Plainfield parks and recreation facilities.
While the ban on sex offenders in the parks does have a punitive aspect, the court said it is not unconstitutional, as the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, tried to claim in his suit.
The appeals court said Plainfield did not violate the portion of the Indiana Constitution that guarantees rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.
Plainfield Town Manager Rich Carlucci said today that the purpose of the ban on registered sex offenders in the parks is to keep them away from children playing in the park.
The appeals court decision upholds a ruling in March this year by Hendricks Superior Court Judge Robert W. Freese, who had granted summary judgment for Plainfield and upheld the town’s ordinance.
Doe and his son visited Plainfield parks and recreation areas in 2004 and 2005, according to the court.
Doe sued Plainfield in November 2005, which began nearly three years of twists and turns in the legal case.
This is unbelievable; making walking in a park illegal for certain groups of people is outrageously unconstitutional in every way.
Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties
Social Science Research Network: Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties, National Rights and the Dormant Commerce Clause, Environmental Justice, and Alternatives by Shelley Ross Saxer, Pepperdine University - School of Law
September 11, 2008
Abstract:
Sex offender residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities because we fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. The practical effect of banishment through residency restrictions must be understood in the context that there are few places in modern day America to which a sex offender may be banished that is isolated from the rest of society. Rather than being excluded and thrust into some undeveloped wilderness, sex offenders are banished through residency restrictions to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Federalism concerns arise when states or municipalities attempt to exclude hazardous waste disposal from within the state, and judicial and legislative efforts to banish sex offenders to other states may also run afoul of Dormant Commerce Clause principles, which operate to discourage states from such protectionist activities.
Banishing sex offenders through residential restrictions, both legislative and private, impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, rather than by strangers, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of the sex offenders and the rights of our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that state and local legislators should seriously reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses.
Sex Offender Registries Under Fire
abajournal.com : Crime Registries Under Fire:
Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it’s unconstitutional.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Included in the Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which establishes a national sex offender registry and creates three classifications of sex offenders. The most serious group is required to register within three days after moving to a new state or face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The law also makes it mandatory for states to maintain an online registry accessible to the public.
Most federal courts—spurning critics who contend that Congress exceeded its authority by encroaching on state and local control—have upheld SORNA.
But at least two courts this year have sided with the critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law. In both rulings, the courts referred back to a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1990s that limited the federal government’s reach into state law. Meanwhile, a third federal court temporarily halted the new law until it had a chance to hear arguments on the issue.
More is at stake than just the sex offender registries, observers say. Americans have become accustomed to national crime registries, and courts could throw them into doubt. “Not surprisingly, given our increasing sense of informational entitlement and disdain for criminal offenders, we are seeing registration and notification laws spread to other subgroups, such as domestic abusers,” says Florida State University law professor Wayne A. Logan, author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.
Also up for grabs is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court’s line of federalism cases.
...The Walsh Act is the most far-reaching and may present the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to sink its teeth into such laws, Logan says.
The act “represents a zenith in federal demands on states with respect to registration and community notification,” he says. “Among other things, the law significantly expands the scope of registration eligibility and requires, for the first time, use of in-person verification and a conviction-based registration classification scheme. The states are expected to make major changes to their regimes, at significant trouble and cost.”
A Sex Offender is SOMEONE'S Child!
cleanuptheregistryohio.blogspot.com : A Sex Offender is SOMEONE'S Child!
You will not find photos like these on any Sex Offender registry!
Do you have similar photos like these? Family photos; everyone has them! As parents we are so proud of our children and always showing them off at any given opportunity.
Do you see a 'sex offender' emerging out of any of these pictures? Is he scarey to you? Someone you think you should protect your child from? How about the imfamous word 'perv'?! How about 'PRED-A-TOR', because he's on the registry?!
If this was YOUR child's photos and he were convicted as a sex offender and placed on a registry for a consensual sex act with his girlfriend, how would YOU feel?
Aren't you just a tiny bit, just a wee-bit 'peeved' that you are being deceived to believe that an individual like my son is suppose to be a threat to your child?
Don't you feel a bit taken advantaged of by your politicians that you vote for, keeping your family 'safe' from 'predators', when they include individuals like my son?
I'm not saying the sex offender registry is not a good tool, well, it use to be a good tool~ because now, you have individuals like my son in the same category of those that ARE a danger to your child~and now, well, you don't know who they are!! They are all the same....just listen to any politician advocating for 'tougher' sex offender laws and restrictions.
Exposing Lies About Sex Offender Recidivism
offenderstatistics.blogspot.com : Official California Report to the Legislature and Govenor's Office.
Section 3: SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM (pdf)
Data at a Glance:
• 3.55% of sex offenders on parole with CDCR had committed new sex offenses by the time the conclusion of their three-year parole period.
• A ten-year follow-up study of 879 sex offenders in the state of Ohio reported that when using sex offense conviction as the outcome measurement, of 34 % of sex offenders who have re-offended, only 8 % were re-committed for a new sex crime, plus 3 % for a technical violation judged to be related to a potential new sex crime, while the other 22% reoffended for non-sexual offenses.
Solid information about the recidivism of sex offenders is one of the key building blocks for good policy and effective practice in sex offender management. If it were not for the concern that an identified sex offender may offend again in the future and create another victim, the questions about how to best manage sex offenders living in California communities would not be of such intense interest. Knowing how likely it is that an individual sex offender or a certain type of sex offender might re-offend can drive many decisions. Similarly, knowing what interventions actually reduce the chances that a sex offender will re-offend is also extremely important.
Existing data indicates that the majority of sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Additionally, research studies over the past two decades have consistently indicated that recidivism rates for sex offenders are, in reality, lower than the re-offense rates for most other types of offenders. In a longitudinal study that followed 4,742 known sex offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were charged with or convicted of, a new sexual offense (Harris & Hanson, 2004). The U.S. Department of Justice found that 5% of 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in 1994 were re-arrested for new sex crimes within three years. Recent research data from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicate that fewer than 4% of the convicted sex offenders released to parole in 2003 were returned for a new sex offense over the course of a three year period of living in the community under parole supervision (CDCR Research, 2007).
Colorado Deciding Whether to Implement AWA
Denverpost.com: Colorado sex-crime database perplexes.
When President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act into law, it required states to contribute to a national database of sex offenders with more current and stringent registration requirements.
But states and American Indian tribes are having a tough time implementing some of the requirements of the 2006 law — such as making the names and addresses of juvenile sex offenders available on the Internet.
In Colorado, officials have met for more than a year to decide whether to comply with the Adam Walsh Act by July or lose $240,000 in federal funding. And it may be worth losing the money since it could cost more to fulfill the law's requirements.
"I think at this point, the committee has not reached a final conclusion," said Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, program director of Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board. "We are looking at the fact that this is an unfunded mandate. The other issue is that the committee and the state are committed to doing what is best for safety and victim protection. And looking at this act, is it going to further the cause?"
The Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that promotes alternatives to prison incarceration, has estimated that the law would cost Colorado $7.8 million to implement.
This fall, the committee is expected to present a preliminary recommendation to Gov. Bill Ritter to decide on compliance. "The money is not necessarily there, and does it make sense above and beyond that even if the money were there?" Lobanov-Rostovsky asked.
In Colorado, sex offenders are classified based on risk to the community. And not all states have the same charges or same coding for offenses, but they all have to become uniform under the act. "We would have to shift over to a charge-based system," Lobanov-Rostovsky said. "We would have to change our sexual-assault statutes, and those are some of the challenges."
One of the biggest controversies for states to deal with is whether to upload information about juvenile sex offenders into the database, such as their address, the school they attend and a photograph.
"We are extremely disturbed that we could be putting kids as young as 14 on this database," she said. "What we would like instead is for people on the registry not to get this sort of ostracism and get them the services and opportunities to help reduce recidivism."
Nastassia Walsh said a national sex-offender registry is not the answer and that money should be spent on rehabilitation or other crime-fighting programs. "There really is no evidence to show that this is an effective way to enforce public safety," she said. "It is just political rhetoric to keep kids safe, but it is turning into a logistical nightmare."
Even sex offenders are entitled to protections of Constitution
ReviewJournal.com ( NV) : EDITORIAL: Upholding our rights
Even sex offenders are entitled to protections of Constitution.
Sex offenders are an unsympathetic lot, and deservedly so. But if the government is allowed to trample and shred the constitutional rights of even the tiniest, most shunned segment of the population, how long before authorities decide to take away yours?
U.S. District Judge James Mahan took the state of Nevada off that slippery slope Wednesday when he prevented the retroactive application of a law that would have reclassified more than 2,000 registered sex offenders.
The statute, approved last year to meet the standards of the federal Adam Walsh Act, aimed to reclassify sex offenders based on the crimes they've committed, rather than their perceived risk of re-offending. As a result, hundreds of Tier 1 offenders who've completed prison terms, stayed out of trouble for years and been considered no threat to public safety suddenly would have been labeled Tier 3 offenders. Their photos and personal information would have been posted on the state's sex offender Web site, they would've had to check in with authorities every 90 days, and a few would have had to wear GPS monitoring devices. Many feared losing their livelihoods and their rebuilt reputations.
Judge Mahan correctly ruled that applying the law retroactively violated the Constitution's due process and double jeopardy protections. A decision on whether the law can be constitutionally applied to future convictions is pending in state court.
"We know that it's a brave thing to do to make a decision that affirms the rights of sex offenders," said ACLU of Nevada staff attorney Maggie McLetchie, whose organization brought the challenge to federal court on behalf of several plantiffs. "It's about the limits on the power of government."
Amen. Aside from the constitutional concerns, there were legitimate public safety issues as well. How could the law-abiding public be expected to measure the risks to themselves and their families if, overnight, the number of Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada grew from about 160 to more than 2,500? Would their children really be in danger if one day their neighborhood was deemed free of dangerous molesters and rapists, but the next day the state said there were two on the same street?
The ACLU and the federal court deserve a lot of credit for protecting not just the rights of sex offenders, but of all citizens.
Sex Offender Registration Causing Problems for Agencies
wcsh6.com: Maine - Sex Offender Registration Causing Problems for Agencies
The state's online sex offender registry is filled with more than 3,700 names. Each of those offenders is required to register with the local police or sheriff's office when they move to a new community.
Local law enforcement agencies say there is a benefit to registering these offenders, but they say keeping tabs on them is taxing their departments' resources.
Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was signed into law in 1999. The state began requiring local departments to register offenders in 2006. Washington County Sheriff Donnie Smith has only 8 patrolmen to cover more than 3,200 square miles. Smith said the sex offender registrations are cutting into the time his staff spends out on the roads. He said it usually takes about 40 hours per week.
"We're not getting any support from anybody for this," Gastia said. "This is entirely the responsibility of the city of Bangor. We're mandated by the state. We're responsible for finding the funding and manpower to go out and do this. It's been very much a challenge and very taxing on us."
"No," Blanchette exclaimed. "We are not going to be able to fund municipalities for what they are doing because they are going to get some funding through the Adam Walsh Act which is a federal act."
Nevada Sex Offender Law Overturned
kvbc.com: Nevada Sex Offender Law Overturned
ktvn.com: Sex Offender Law Dropped
Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge kept a new state sex offender law from going into effect. The law would have forced other offenders - who committed crimes and served their time long ago - to sign up with the state's sex offender registry, even though the registry may not have been around at the time of their conviction.
A federal judge ruled that changes to Nevada's sex offender law are unconstitutional. The changes would have grouped all of the offenders together so that, no matter how minor the offense, everyone convicted would have to register as a sex offender, dating all the way back to 1956.
Cameron Wolter was convicted 22 years ago. "My offense was with an adult. She said it wasn't consensual after the fact." Camerson says he obeyed all of the registration rules, yet was afraid that the new law would cost him again.
The ACLU agrees, and that's why it brought the lawsuit against the state of Nevada.
"I think the court recognized that the state of Nevada is safer under the old statutory scheme because it does provide an assessment of each individual law," explains Robert Langford with the ACLU. "We need to go back on the table and really think about re-victimization. And also, do we set ourselves up for failure by putting a law that they all become tier three - and parole and probation could not possibly keep up with it?"
Because these changes are not going to be implemented, Nevada could lose about $300,000 in Justice Department grants. It's possible that the federal government will appeal the ruling or try to pass the laws again.
http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/nv-permanent-injunction-offender.html
Columbus, OH: Sex Offender Registration Ruling
Dispatch.com (Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio): Columbus, OH: Sex Offender Registration Ruling.
A man convicted of rape seven years ago won a partial victory yesterday in a Franklin County lawsuit challenging a new state law that retroactively imposed stricter registration requirements for sex offenders. Rubin T. Toles must register his address with the sheriff more frequently and for the rest of his life, but many other requirements contained in the law are unconstitutional in his case, Common Pleas Judge Charles A. Schneider ruled.
Toles' lawsuit is among numerous challenges that have been filed across the state since Ohio adopted the Adam Walsh Act late last year, but it's the first to be ruled on in Franklin County. In May, a Cuyahoga County judge found the retroactive aspects of the law to be unconstitutional in the case of a man convicted of sexual battery in 2003.
"I anticipate that one or both of the parties in the case will appeal," Schneider said. "It won't rest until the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court rules on this decision. So, I encourage them to appeal. Only the Supreme Court can render the ultimate decision."
Toles pleaded guilty in 2001 to the rape of a 12-year-old girl. The court classified him as a sexually oriented offender and determined that he was not a sexual predator. Under state law at the time, Megan's Law, he was required to register annually for 10 years when he was released.
Under the Adam Walsh Act, which took effect Jan. 1 in Ohio, Toles was reclassified as a Tier III offender, requiring him to register quarterly for the rest of his life. He also became subject to community notification, under which the sheriff is required to notify his neighbors and others in the community of his residence.
Schneider ruled that Toles, 38, is not subject to community notification because a hearing at the time of his conviction determined he was not a sexual predator. The judge also ruled that much of the information required on the registration form under the new law posed an unreasonable burden in Toles' case, such as license-plate numbers of vehicles available to him, where those vehicles are usually kept, telephone numbers he uses, and "any other information required by (the state Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation."
"How does anyone know what telephone numbers he might use?" Schneider wrote. "Most troubling is the open invitation to BCI to add additional requirements without limitation."
However, the change in frequency and duration of registration was not punitive or burdensome enough to violate the state's retroactivity clause, the judge ruled.
The county public defender's office is handling more than 500 challenges to the law, he said.
Nearly 1,000 such cases had been filed in Cuyahoga County when the ruling was issued there in May, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported.
Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Defender, said that "26,000 people were reclassified under the new law. Nobody has a good number for how many have filed challenges, but it's in the thousands."
Federal Judge Stops New State Sex Offender Law
lasvegasnow.com (Nevada) : Federal Judge Stops New State Sex Offender Law
San Luis Obispo County Website : Judge restricts sex offender laws
A federal judge Wednesday put a stop to a new state sex offender law. The law would have reclassified sex offenders putting them in categories based on the crimes they committed.
Opponents say the new system is unfairly targeting non-dangerous offenders.
It means sex offenders who committed crimes years ago, and served their time, will not have to worry about their past resurfacing. "I was charged with a sex crime against an adult. I did my time -- 22 years -- and now in the state of Nevada they are trying to implement sanctions which would make it impossible to live," said Wolten.
Maggie McLetchie with the ACLU argued the law once again punishes sex offenders who have already served jail time. "You were throwing all kinds of people into this sex offender group -- anybody. Number of people could have qualified as sex offender under the definition. It made no sense. It would not have furthered public safety." McLetchie says it would ruin hundreds of lives. "It would have put them at risk of losing their jobs, put their families at risk of violence."
Wolten says some sex offenders are considered more dangerous than others. And this is why the new law was challenged. "Sex predators, you're mixed in the means with people that are killing and molesting children. I have an 8-year-old daughter. I don't have any issues like that. I don't want to be in that factor," said Wolten.
The judge made it very clear his decision Wednesday has no affect on existing laws when it comes to sexual crimes against children.
What Will it Cost States to Comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act?
NJJN - National Juvenile Justice Network: What Will it Cost States to Comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act?
Provides a chart that shows that for all states, the first-year cost of implementing SORNA outweighs the cost of losing 10 percent of the state's Byrne Grant money (the consequence of not complying with SORNA by July 2009). The sheet also gives detailed information on the cost analyses performed by Ohio and Virginia.
Ohio will spend 18.6 million dollars to implement the SORNA laws in 2009.
In return for implementing this law before the deadline, Ohio will receive $622,383
(the 10% of Byrne Funding).
In other terms, Ohio will spend 30 times more to implement these laws than it will receive by the federal government for doing so.
Download report here (PDF file).
Montanta Judges: Yes and No on Sex Offender Law
kxmc.com.com: Federal Judges Disagree on Sex Offender Registry
BILLINGS – Two district judges in Montana have reached opposite conclusions about the constitutionality of a federal law that requires sex offenders to register with local authorities when they move to another state.
District Judge Richard Cebull in Billings ruled Friday that the Adam Walsh Act and the included Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) are constitutional. But District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula ruled in June that the act didn't pass constitutional muster.
The contradictory rulings mean the U.S. 9th Circuit Court will have to resolve the matter.
After determining that Congress exceeded its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Molloy dismissed the charges against Waybright. That case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Ohio County Judge Refuses to Rule Against AWA
29 Aug 2008: Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Dennis J. Langer refused to recognize the constitutional violations of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act sex offender law (Senate Bill 10):
The decision holds that:
- SB 10 is not an Ex-post Facto law.
- SB 10's classification, registration and notice requirements are not impermissibly retroactive.
- SB 10 does not implicate Double Jeopardy.
- SB 10 does not violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
- SB 10 does not entail Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
- SB 10's residency restrictions, applied prospectively, do not violate Substantive Due Process.
- SB 10's scheme does not violate Procedural Due Process.
- SB 10's application does not constitute a breach of Petitioner's plea agreements.
This is yet another failure of the courts to demonstrate the courage to do the right thing. Judge Langer, if you do not believe that this law imposes punishment, let us post your name, address, workplace and photo, along with those of your family, on the sex offender web site as a sex offender for all to see. Surely you will then understand that these impositions are, indeed punishment. And if the law is retro-active with regard to residency restrictions, then why is it not retro-active with regard to its implementation of other requirements ??
Download and view this decision here.
or
Download and view this decision here.
But Sex Offenders Say They Have Rights Too
FoxNews.com: Sex Offenders Try to Block Laws Allowing Them to Be ID'd Online.
States across the nation are adopting laws that publicize the names of offenders on the Internet.
But sex offenders say they have rights, too ( Oh really? what a concept ), and argue it's wrong to lump those guilty of minor offenses with the worst offenders. Some are challenging the laws.
"People think that imposing these draconian retroactive laws are a way to keep their children safe," said Margaret McLetchie, an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer. The laws, which they say are unconstitutional, were tailored to meet standards under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in 2006.
Nevada was among the first to pass the laws that would allow the state to post on the Internet the names, photos, home and work addresses and vehicle descriptions of offenders who've served probation or prison sentences on convictions as far back as 1956.
McLetchie said the measures mix serious sex offenders with people convicted of misdemeanors such as public nudity and could subject them to violence from neighbors who see their names and photos.
"These laws don't provide public safety, they only demonize a particular group," she said.
Implementation has been challenged in some states, including Florida and Ohio. "We've objected since it was first introduced in the Legislature," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio public defender's office in Columbus. "We believe it's unconstitutional when it's applied retroactively. Even going forward, it's bad policy." Borror noted similarities between the Ohio and Nevada laws, and said officials in Ohio were watching the Nevada case with interest.
The Ohio registry went into effect Jan. 1 despite objections that it punished offenders twice, broke plea deals and represented a violation of states' rights by Congress. Furthermore, by creating the registry, the state Legislature usurped powers reserved to the courts, Borror said. "We used to have a system where a judge made a decision about an offender's risk to re-offend," she said. "Now it's based only on the offense that they're convicted of, not on any future risk."
The federal law sets a July 2009 deadline for enactment, and threatens states with the loss of federal grant money if they fail to adopt it. In Nevada, officials told lawmakers the state stood to lose $300,000 a year if they failed to adopt the law.
Langford said he believed Nevada lawmakers knew the law would change the lives of convicted offenders, but didn't consider the breadth of the measures or the increased costs of enforcing them (...in other words, it will costs states far more to defend , enforce and implement than they would have lost had they failed to enact the laws) .
The plaintiffs claim the law is broad enough now to apply to a wide range of offenses ranging from child molestation to rape to theft of a pornographic magazine from a store.
Offenders complain that reclassification is unfair.
One plaintiff, identified as Doe 2 in court documents, said neither he nor his attorney at the time understood that lifetime supervision would apply after he pleaded guilty in 2001 to a sex offense, or that he would continue to be banned from going to parks or schools. "I was not told that there would be any restrictions on me whatsoever after I was done with probation."
Dilution of a Sex Offender
dailycamera.com - The dilution of a sex offender: Making the term apply to non-sex-offenders a scary proposition.
The term "sex offender" has the tendency to strike fear in parents' hearts, cause countless Web sites to track registries (complete with searchable maps), and inspire the citizenry to distribute fliers and call public meetings. And we're not making light of any of it.
That's why diluting the term by adding a whole host of criminals to the database is a scary proposition indeed.
And that includes naked priests.
This week, a court declined to downgrade the conviction of Rev. Robert Whipkey, 53, to a petty offense of public indecency. Whipkey, a Catholic priest was charged with indecent exposure after being caught running naked around the Frederick High School track last June. Whipkey will be sentenced in October. He faces possible jail time and registering as a sex offender.
There are problems with sex offender registries going on in Colorado and nationwide right now.
When our courts add, say, a 18-year-old student who has consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend in Georgia, or a man running naked around a Weld County school track at 4:30 a.m., they risk making the term obsolete, or at least weaker than it should be.
When you hear the term "sex offender" do you immediately think there's a risk to area children -- or does your mind start to wander toward how the term applies to a broad base of crimes, including streaking and urinating in public?
That's not to say these things are not crimes, because they are. Running around in the buff is illegal, and so is statutory rape, even when it's consensual. Lumping all of these crimes into the sex offender registry is, however, offensive.
All of it is available online, as well, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. And some web sites have searchable maps. Sometimes they are rich with detail, including profile pictures. But they are often short on facts: Such as with what, exactly, the person was charged.
Information is a good thing, but it's incomplete. Individuals can obsess about which registered offenders may be close to their neighborhoods and parks, but our children would be safer if parents and guardians focused even closer to home. In the vast majority of abuse cases, the abuser is a close friend or family member. Looking for signs of abuse and talking about it with our kids is a better strategy than clicking on any map.
-------------
Incidentally, this is also what is happening in many states which are beginning to post online registries which list offenders of non-sex-related crimes, such as animal abuse, drug crimes and murder. All of this results from the ridiculous new Adam Walsh Act laws being enacted all over the country in response to political correctness.
Federal lawsuit challenges Alabama sex offender registration law
AL.com Birminghamnews: Federal lawsuit challenges Alabama sex offender registration law, claiming indigent sex offenders are being jailed for not being able to provide proof of residence. Sunday, August 17, 2008
A federal lawsuit is challenging the state's Community Notification Act, contending it violates the rights of poor sex offenders who have served their sentences, but are jailed because they cannot provide a valid residence.
The suit, filed in Birmingham's federal court on behalf of three named plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals, said indigent offenders have a hard time finding somewhere to live as a result of the law, which requires sex offenders to give authorities a valid address. If they don't provide an address to authorities, it's a felony. The law also places restrictions on where a sex offender can live. Under the law, a sex offender can't live within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility.
Josh Bearden, an assistant Alabama attorney general, said there have been a number of constitutional challenges to the Community Notification Act, nationally and in Alabama.
The suit said poor offenders are penalized and jailed after they have served their original sentence if they can't provide a valid address. The suit names Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale and the sheriff's office as defendants. The suit seeks to have the process of jailing indigent sex offenders and the Community Notification Act as it relates to indigent offenders declared unconstitutional. The suit contends the sheriff's office automatically jails poor sex offenders without a hearing to determine indigence.
Hale said any convicted sex offender who does not comply with the law should be jailed. Hale said his deputies go out and check addresses to make sure they are verifiable residences. Hale said he has no sympathy for convicted sex offenders. "I'm not going to help get a sex offender a place to live," he said.
The Community Notification Act for sex offenders became law in 1996. The intent was to let law enforcement and the public know where sex offenders live because they are considered at high risk to repeat their crimes.
The lawsuit said the sex offender law, however, has the unintended effect of causing indigent sex offenders to live on the streets, under bridges, in tents or in trailers without registering because they cannot find an approved residence. "We're creating an underclass of sex offenders we will not be able to find," Fonteneau said, adding she believes the process is happening in other places
NV Sex Offender Laws Face Court Challenge
AP: Sex offender laws in Nevada face court challenge
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Eager to protect children from sexual predators, Nevada and other states across the nation are adopting laws that publicize the names of offenders on the Internet.
But sex offenders say they have rights, too, and argue it's wrong to lump those guilty of minor offenses with the worst offenders. Some are challenging the laws.
"People think that imposing these draconian retroactive laws are a way to keep their children safe," said Margaret McLetchie, an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer.
Nevada was among the first to pass the laws that would allow the state to post on the Internet the names, photos, home and work addresses and vehicle descriptions of offenders who've served probation or prison sentences on convictions as far back as 1956.
McLetchie said the measures mix serious sex offenders with people convicted of misdemeanors such as public nudity and could subject them to violence from neighbors who see their names and photos.
"These laws don't provide public safety, they only demonize a particular group," she said.
U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 10 in the Nevada lawsuit. He is being asked to make permanent a temporary ban he imposed that stopped the law from taking effect July 1. Mahan has expressed concerns that if Nevada posted its list of 4,941 people convicted of sex crimes since 1956, there would be no way to restore their privacy if the law was later found to be flawed. Once posted, the judge said, "the cat's out of the bag."
His ruling is expected to be watched closely in states that have adopted or are considering provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. Implementation has been challenged in some states, including Florida and Ohio.
"We've objected since it was first introduced in the Legislature," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio public defender's office in Columbus. "We believe it's unconstitutional when it's applied retroactively. Even going forward, it's bad policy."
Borror noted similarities between the Ohio and Nevada laws, and said officials in Ohio were watching the Nevada case with interest.
The Ohio registry went into effect Jan. 1 despite objections that it punished offenders twice, broke plea deals and represented a violation of states' rights by Congress. Furthermore, by creating the registry, the state Legislature usurped powers reserved to the courts, Borror said.
"We used to have a system where a judge made a decision about an offender's risk to re-offend," she said. "Now it's based only on the offense that they're convicted of, not on any future risk."
The federal law sets a July 2009 deadline for enactment, and threatens states with the loss of federal grant money if they fail to adopt it. In Nevada, officials told lawmakers the state stood to lose $300,000 a year if they failed to adopt the law.
Langford said he believed Nevada lawmakers knew the law would change the lives of convicted offenders, but didn't consider the breadth of the measures or the increased costs of enforcing them. "Nobody wants to say they're for sex offenders," Langford said.
The plaintiffs in the Nevada lawsuit include a construction company manager, a tow truck operator and a grandfather, according to court documents. They are not identified by name.
Most say in court documents that they served sentences ranging from probation to prison time in plea agreements that predated passage of laws redefining a sex offender. The plaintiffs claim the law is broad enough now to apply to a wide range of offenses ranging from child molestation to rape to theft of a pornographic magazine from a store.
One plaintiff, identified as Doe 2 in court documents, said neither he nor his attorney at the time understood that lifetime supervision would apply after he pleaded guilty in 2001 to a sex offense, or that he would continue to be banned from going to parks or schools. He said he fears for his family's safety and his job if he is identified publicly as a sex offender. "I have done everything I can to comply with the law, and be a good citizen," he says in the affidavit. "I would never hurt anyone. But none of that matters now."
4000 Ohio Sex Offenders Challenge Law
sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com: OH Nearly 4000 Sex Offenders Challenge New Rules
WBNS TV Columbus: Updated: Thursday, August 7, 2008 7:21 AM
Nearly 4,000 convicted sex offenders in Ohio are challenging a bill that would redefine the way they are classified.
10TV News talked to a convicted sex offender, who asked not to be identified, who pleaded guilty to rape when he was 29 years old.
"I made a mistake," the man said. "Every day I pay for it, every day."
The man, now 56, has served time behind bars, completed counseling and was about two years from not having to register as a sex offender, 10TV's Andy Hirsh reported.
"It's almost there," he said. "The nightmare would be over."
He recently received a letter from the attorney general's office informing him that he was reclassified as a Tier III sex offender, the most severe type under the new law. It requires him to register his address every 90 days for the rest of his life. The man is also subject to community notification wherever he lives, works or goes to school.
"I started crying," the man told 10TV News. "I just couldn't believe it."
Nearly 4,000 other sex offenders across the state are challenging the new law, claiming they are being punished a second time for their crimes.
"They're saying, 'Hey, I entered my plea of guilty under these conditions, these rules, and now you're enhancing them,'" said Franklin County Judge Charles Schneider.
Schneider is one of many judges in the state trying to determine if it is fair, Hirsch reported.
"Is it constitutional to change the rules as to this individual, from those that applied when he or she entered their plea?" Schneider said.
The sex offender 10TV News talked to said no.
"I'm being punished again, after my sentence is over," he said. "I'm being punished every day."
Schneider said he expects to have his decision on Senate Bill 10 cases by the end of August. It would be the first ruling in Franklin County. An appeals court in northern Ohio has ruled the new law is constitutional.
Link to read decision: http://opd.ohio.gov/Adam_Walsh/Attorney_Forms/AWA_RichlandCo_Sigler_decision%20.pdf
This is a good thing, but there are nearly 30,000 sex offenders in Ohio and all 30,000 must challenge! Get off your duffs!
OH County Judge Finds AWA Unconstitutional
CentralOhio.com: Richland County judge finds Ohio sex offender law unconstitutional
MANSFIELD : Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese found in favor of the Mansfield man’s appeal Monday, ruling that retroactive reclassifications are unconstitutional in the state of Ohio.
According to James Mayer III, Sigler’s latest attorney, DeWeese is one of the state’s first judges to issue a ruling among hundreds of appeals filed since the Ohio Attorney General’s office reclassified all sexual offenders.
Under the mandate of the Adam Walsh Act, states must fully comply by July 2009 or face a 10 percent cut to their share of federal grant funds used to fight crime — funding that suffered a 67-percent cut in 2007.
Mayer believes other defense attorneys across Ohio will use DeWeese’s ruling in arguing for their own clients.
In reclassifying him under the new law, the Ohio attorney general considered only the level of crime he pleaded to, rather than actual details, Mayer said.
The retroactive reclassification to Tier III meant Sigler would have to register with the sheriff’s department every 90 days for the rest of his life, instead of once a year for 10 years — or face felony charges. It also meant the Richland County Sheriff’s Department would mail notification cards to every address within a mile of Sigler’s residence.
Sigler’s name would be added to a national sex offender registry under the Walsh Act, but that portion of the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Florida last April. Currently, Sigler is identified as a sex offender on a registry kept by the Richland County Sheriff’s office and the state of Ohio.
After his reclassification appeared online early in 2008, coworkers and neighbors looked at him much differently, Sigler said.
In his ruling Monday, DeWeese said it is appropriate to use the new classifications for people convicted in new cases, but it violates the Ohio Constitution to retroactively change a sentence a court previously decided.
In his ruling, the judge noted the Walsh Act has resulted in more than half of the county’s sex offenders being reclassified as Tier III offenders.
Sigler said his classification is a crucial issue.
Tier I, he explained, “means usually that you’ve made one mistake in your life. You made a bad choice. You chose to do something wrong, and you’re paying for it."
Those labeled Tier II are considered habitual offenders, but not necessarily predators.
“I don’t think we’re going to know how this will play out for some time. But I do feel strongly that Judge DeWeese got it right.”
New York May Weigh Sex Offender Act
NYSun.com: New York May Weigh Sex Offender Act
The state Legislature must decide in its upcoming session whether to enact laws that would bring the state into compliance with a federal sex offender act that puts adolescent sex offenders as young as 14 in a national public registry. The state Senate majority leader, Dean Skelos, intends to comply with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, a spokesman, Scott Reif, said. It is not clear, however, whether the Assembly will agree to pass the necessary legislation.
Supporters call the Walsh Act a tool to improve monitoring and toughen punishment of sex criminals, while opponents say the law stigmatizes juveniles, does not take risk assessments into account, and would be too costly to implement.
"This is a difficult one, and it's going to take a careful look to see whether or not we are going to do this," Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Democrat of Brooklyn who is chairman of the Assembly Committee on Codes, said.
States have until July 2009 to comply with the act or risk losing 10% of the federal money, known as Byrne grants, used for enforcement purposes, according to the Division of Criminal Justice Services. New York State stands to lose about $800,000.
The act, signed by President Bush in July 2006, requires states to submit information on sex offenders to a national public registry; imposes mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious offenses; and mandates civil confinement for sex offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released from prison.
The state already has a sex offender registry, which it has used for the last 12 years and which lists more than 27,000 offenders, he said. But to comply with the act, New York would have to drop its risk assessment process, which enables the state to determine how long an offender should have to register based on his or her determined threat to society, and to implement a procedure of setting registry requirements based on conviction, the director of the Division of Criminal Justice Services's Office of Sex Offender Management, Luke Martland, said.
New York State also would have to include more people in its registry and add juveniles who have been adjudicated in juvenile court of an offense comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse, Mr. Martland said. Currently, the records of most juvenile sex offenders in New York are sealed and juveniles are not put in public registries, he said.
"Common sense would tell you that having your name, picture, and home address on the Internet as a sex offender at age 8, 12, or even 14 could be devastating in terms of peer relationships, community [relations], ability to stay in school, and involvement in church activities," a co-director of the Adolescent Sex Offender Treatment Program at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Barbara Bonner, said.
NY Sex Offender Registry Lawsuit Sets Precedent
Newsday.com: Sex offender's suit over registry change dismissed- 8 Aug 2008
Is a sex offender registry a tool for community safety, or punishment by public shame?
A lawsuit filed against New York State last year by a convicted sex offender, which was dismissed in federal court in Central Islip on Monday, argues that the registry can be abused as punishment instead of its original public service purpose, and that extending the registration period is a violation of constitutional rights.
The offender, a Brookhaven resident who was given the pseudonym "Alan Woe" in court papers and who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, had sued over a 2006 change that extended the length of time sex offenders must register. The change, the suit argued, unfairly deprived them of due process.
The registration time for Level 1 offenders was increased from 10 to 20 years, while Level 2 and 3 offenders are now registered for life. Level 2 offenders may petition for removal from the registry after 30 years.
The changes were enacted three days before the man, a Level 1 offender, would have reached 10 years on the registry, according to the lawsuit.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Leonard Wexler dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the Level 1 offender did not have a right to have a 10-year period on the registry. Wexler noted that Level 3 and 2 offenders can petition to be downgraded to Level 2 and 1, respectively.
It is this potential "door-opening," said the lawyer who filed the suit, that counts as a victory because it possibly could give Level 1 offenders the right to petition to be removed from the registry before a 20-year period ends.
"For the first time, this judge's decision holds that sexual offenders have constitutional rights and that those rights can be enforced in court," said John Ray, the offender's lawyer, at a news conference at his Miller Place office yesterday.
First Appellate Court to Rule on SORNA Challenges
Eighth Circuit Becomes First Appellate Court to Rule on Constitutional Challenges to SORNA
sexcrimes.typepad.com: August 01, 2008
The Eighth Circuit became the first appellate court to render an opinion regarding some of the constitutional challenges against SORNA. The Court reviewed claims concerning the non-delegation doctrine, the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Commerce Clause, and procedural due process. Since the court focused on the Ex Post Facto claim, I will address its arguments on that challenge below. This is the key part of how the court resolved the ex post facto claim in United States v. May:
May contends SORNA does not apply to him because his travel in interstate commerce, although occurring after SORNA’s enactment, occurred before the Attorney General issued an interim ruling designating the applicability of SORNA to offenders convicted before SORNA’s date of enactment....
The district court predominantly relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 89-90, 105-06 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act was civil and nonpunitive, and thus its retroactive application did not violate the ex post facto clause. We recognize, as did the district court in Beasley, “the issue is very different [than in Smith]. It is whether imposing criminal penalties for traveling to and residing in a new state and not registering as a sex offender in that new state at a time before the Attorney General issued his interim regulation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Beasley, 2007 WL 3489999, at *3. If a defendant, like May, is not even subject to the Attorney General’s regulation under § 16913(d) (which we have already determined), then neither the promulgation of the regulation nor § 16913(d) would present an ex post facto clause problem in such a case. To the extent May challenges the overall applicability of SORNA, the ex post facto framework outlined in Smith leads to the conclusion SORNA does not violate the ex post facto clause.
The court's opinion is a bit confused on this point. Since I haven't seen the briefs, I'm not sure if this confusion was derived from the party's construction of the ex post facto issue. There are three potential ways that a SORNA case can be retrospective: 1) the prior sex offense conviction which was the only retrospective component in Smith; 2) interstate travel before the passage of SORNA (or the Attorney General’s statement on retroactivity); and 3) failure to register before the passage of SORNA (or the Attorney General’s statement on retroactivity). In this case, because the Eighth Circuit disagrees with the Eleventh Circuit's statutory interpretation of SORNA, the second and third issues do not apply. However, like most district courts who have reviewed similar claims, the Eighth Circuit does not address the first issue - whether the defendant's prior sex offense conviction, which is a necessary element of the crime, makes the indictment retrospective. I think this omission is notable because the inclusion of the prior crime was sufficient for the USSC to conclude in Smith that the Alaska statute was retrospective (538 U.S. at 90).
Having decided that the statute was not retrospective, the Eighth Circuit could have stopped its analysis. However, the court continued on and turned to the question of whether the statute was punitive in intent:
Congress stated its purpose in establishing a comprehensive national system for registration of sex offenders was “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children, and in response to the vicious attacks by violent predators.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 16901. As was the case in Smith, SORNA’s registration requirement demonstrates no congressional intent to punish sex offenders. Congress described SORNA as a public safety measure. See § 16901.
This portion of the opinion is just mistaken (although it is a mistake that most of the district courts have made as well). How can the court conclude that, "SORNA’s registration requirement demonstrates no congressional intent to punish sex offenders" when the statute included a term of imprisonment for violation from 1 to 10 years? The crime of failing to register at 2250(a) was placed within the criminal code and is clearly intended to be punitive. This is a very different case than in Smith where the court was not reviewing the modest criminal penalties attached to the Alaska statute (538 U.S. at 101-02). Simply describing SORNA as a "public safety measure" does not remove the clear punitive intent of Congress. If future courts follow the same logic, any criminal provisions could be considered non-punitive in intent simply be appending the one-sentence SORNA statement of purpose.
The Eighth Circuit also decided that the statute's effects were not so punitive as to override the non-punitive intent. Unfortunately, the court does not revisit the seven Mendoza-MartinezSmith. Having done so, I think a court should conclude that the effects are much more punitive than the Court reviewed in Smith. factors as the court did in Smith.
I am disappointed that the first circuit opinion on SORNA's constitutionality has followed the mistaken lead of most district courts. As I argue in my new article, prosecutions under 2250(a) likely violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, deny defendant's procedural due process under Lambert, and represent an unconstitutional use of federal power that cannot be supported by the Commerce Clause.
References:
Sexcrimes.typepad.com: AWA -SORNA Case Summaries
Sexcrimes.typepad.com: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
AK Court Rules Adam Walsh Act Retro-Active
Newsminer.com: AK Court Rules Adam Walsh Act Retro-Active
ANCHORAGE -- The Alaska law requiring detailed personal information on sex offenders to be collected and distributed cannot be applied to people who committed their crimes before the law was passed, the Alaska Supreme Court justices ruled.
The decision Friday was brought in the case of a man convicted in 1985 and listed under the pseudonym "John Doe" in the lawsuit.
The Legislature in 1994 passed the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act.
Justices said detailed personal information about sex offenders required by the law and posted on the Internet cannot be applied to "Doe" or others convicted and sentenced before the law was enacted.
That would violate the ex post facto clause of the Alaska Constitution, justices said. An ex post facto law is a one passed after the commission of an act and which retrospectively changes the legal consequences.
The decision reverses a Superior Court ruling in favor of the state. It was written by Justice Robert L. Eastaugh. Chief Justice Dana Fabe dissented.
Attorneys for "Doe" contend the law substantially altered the consequences attached to his completed crime and that the Alaska Constitution afforded him more protection than the federal version.
State attorneys said the measure was a regulatory law intended to help protect the public, not a penal law aimed at the offender and was not intended to punish convicted individuals for past acts.
Justices disagreed, concluding the law's effect was punitive. It places a severe stigma on all to whom it applies. Offenders face intrusive duties under threat of prosecution and are subject to profound humiliation and community-wide ostracism, the decision said.
State attorneys argued that negative effects on employment and housing opportunities would exist even without the registry and result not from dissemination of information but from the conviction itself. State attorneys said there was no evidence that Alaskans have directed any wrath at convicted sex offenders and that the sex offender registry Web site warns not to commit crimes using information from the site.
Justices did not find those arguments persuasive.
Read this ruling here.
Recent Supreme Court decisions: http://www.state.ak.us/courts/sp.htm
IN Appeals Court Rules Against Sex Offender
Indianalawblog.com: 23 July 2008
Yesterday's Court of Appeals decision in the case of Jesse S. McCown v. State of Indiana (ILB entry here, 5th case, is the subject of a story posted this afternoon by Sophia Voravong in the Lafayette Journal Courier that begins:
A Lafayette man convicted of molesting a 14-year-old girl more than 20 years ago will have to register on Indiana's Sex and Violent Offender Registry, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
Jesse S. McCown, who was homeless at the time, was found guilty in May 2007 of two Class D felony counts of failure to register as a convicted sex offender and one misdemeanor count of failure to possess identification.
He appealed the decision by Tippecanoe Circuit Court Judge Don Daniel on grounds that his 10-year requirement to register already expired. McCown, who pleaded guilty in 1987 to two counts of child molesting, was released from prison in 1990 and from parole in 1991.
Sex with a 14-year-old is sexual misconduct with a minor under current law, but it constituted child molesting under the law that was in effect at the time of the offense.
"Our position was simply that his 10 year registration ran out a long time ago," Lafayette attorney Bruce Graham, who represented McCown on appeal, said today.
"It's not clear to me how the Court of Appeals concludes to the contrary. I've read the opinion twice now, and I still don't understand their underlying theory."
Graham said he plans to request that the case be transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court.
NJ: Sex-Offender Residency Limits Rejected
AP News: NJ Sex-Offender Residency Limits Rejected
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks, or other places where children gather, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The three-judge panel found that New Jersey's Megan's Law was "pervasive and comprehensive" and should be the only law governing how sex offenders are treated.
The towns banned adults convicted of sex offenses against a child from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, church or other place "where children might congregate."
Similar laws are in place in many states and dozens of New Jersey towns; those in New Jersey will be at risk if the latest ruling stands.
Appellate Judge Joseph F. Lisa, writing for the court, said the Cherry Hill and Galloway ordinances "interfere with and frustrate the purposes and operation of the statewide scheme."
"Megan's Law is already accepted as constitutional and as the state's comprehensive approach to sex offenders. The residency requirements do not contribute to rehabilitation and may in fact undermine it," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the state chapter.
State Public Defender Yvonne Smith Segars filed a brief urging the appeals court to strike down the laws.
"You can't impose unrealistic burdens on people and expect them to reintegrate. They paid their debt to society and are under supervision," Segars said.
* Court ruling: http://tinyurl.com/5tjwo5
Sex Offenders Unlikely to Re-Offend
NewScientist.com: Sex offenders unlikely to commit second crime
06 July 2008, Magazine issue 2663
SEX crime statistics tend to make depressing reading, but now there is some good news from the most populous state in the US. Just 3.2 per cent of more than 4000 sex offenders released on parole in 2002 were re-imprisoned for another sex offense in the subsequent 5 years, according to new figures from California.
While experts know that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than most other criminals (New Scientist, 24 February 2007, p 3), the very low rate of re-imprisonment in the new study will challenge public perceptions about the risks these criminals pose.
The figures are broadly consistent with a 2007 Minnesotan study, which found that 3.2 per cent of sex offenders released from 1990 to 2002 had been re-imprisoned for a further sex crime within 3 years of their release.
What's more, sex offenders in Minnesota are even less likely to reoffend ...
The complete article is 322 words long.(subscription required)
Editorial: The uncomfortable truth about sex crimes
24 February 2007, Magazine issue 2592
SEX offenders are a breed apart, notorious recidivists who are driven by deviant sexual desires. That, at least, is the common perception. The facts are rather different. Most sex offenders do not fit any psychiatric diagnosis related to sexual deviance. Reconviction rates for this group as a whole are relatively low compared with other types of criminals. Most importantly, the majority are not a breed apart.
The label "sex offender" is a rag-bag term that covers individuals who have committed a wide range of offenses. Some are nasty opportunists for whom rape or child abuse is just one in a long string of diverse crimes. Most knew their victims: they assaulted acquaintances, family members or friends. Others are young men who had sex with under-age girlfriends. The stereotypical predator, persistently targeting vulnerable strangers, is rare.
While it is true that convicted sex offenders are more likely to commit a further ...
The complete article is 715 words long.(subscription required)
April 2007 Minnesota Sex Offender Recidivism Report:
which found that 3.2 per cent of sex offenders released from 1990 to 2002 had been re-imprisoned for a further sex crime within 3 years of their release.
Nevada Sex Offender Law in Legal Limbo
UPI.com ( Nevada) : Nevada Sex Offender Law in Legal Limbo
CARSON CITY, Nev., July 1 (UPI) -- A U.S. judge says he has blocked Nevada's new sex offender law from going into effect until constitutional challenges are resolved.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan said he was concerned that if the law went into effect Tuesday as planned, low-level sex offenders would be publicly identified on the state's sex offender Web sites. They would then be unable to regain their anonymity if the law is later found unconstitutional, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday.
"It's a matter of due process," he said. Mahan is set to hear arguments Aug. 26 on whether the law is constitutional.
The new Nevada sex offender law is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and local defense attorney Robert Langford on behalf of 12 sex offenders. They argue that the change in law is cruel and unusual punishment by punishing sex offenders again for crimes they have already paid for.
It would change the way Nevada classifies sex offenders, who currently are categorized by their risk of re-offending. Under the new law, sex offenders would be classified by the crimes they committed, with the number of Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada increasing from about 160 to more than 2,500.
Sex Offender Law Controversial
NevadaAppeal.com (Nevada) : Sex Offender Law Controversial
If a new Nevada law concerning sex offenders goes into effect, Carson City will go from zero, to an estimated 23, Tier 3 offenders — a term once used to identify an offender who was believed most likely to commit a sexual crime again.
The increase in Tier 3 offenders won’t be because those people suddenly moved here.
They’ve lived here all along, deemed either Tier 2, “moderate risk” or Tier 1, “low risk” under Nevada’s former system based on a individual assessment of an offender’s risk to the community.
Buckling under the pressure to enact the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act rather than lose out on tens of thousands of dollars in federal funding, Nevada legislators adopted the new system which replaces the individualized risk-based assessments with tier levels dictated by the type of crime committed.
No longer will the tier levels indicate whether or not a sex offender is low risk, moderate risk or high risk to the community.
That, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, is dangerous to the community and in violation of a number of rights afforded individuals in the U.S. and Nevada constitutions.
“The new system is totally divorced now from risk to the community,” said Lee Rowland, northern coordinator for the ACLU of Nevada. “Now all of a sudden the designation of Tier 3 no longer has any relationship to risk.”
On Thursday, Las Vegas Judge David Wall issued a preliminary injunction in a case filed on behalf of two convicted sex offenders who challenged the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 579.
Wall granted the delay until Aug. 29, when he will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the law passed by the 2007 state Legislature.
Another Registry? Not So Fast !
Sunjournal.com (Maine): Another registry? Not so fast ! Tuesday, July 8, 2008
If there's one thing Maine knows about online criminal registries, it's that they carry unforeseen consequences.
The Department of Corrections plans to publish the an online database of 10,000 people serving prison or probation terms. The logic is simple: providing public information, to the public, for the benefit of the public.
Yet this is the same logic that, tragically, helped a Canadian man murder two registered sex offenders in Maine in 2006. Stephen Marshall researched his victims via Maine's online registry.
The murders raised many questions about online registries; Maine's highest court answered some in a landmark decision last year, in which it said the registry had become possibly unconstitutional.
The core problem with criminal registries is stigma. Although those registered earned their inclusion, unless the registry makes clear differentiation among them and their crimes, the public's natural inclination is assuming the worst, which can breed contempt, suspicion and fear.
Just like Hester Prynne, the adulteress in Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter," her shame as a public pariah overshadowed her personal attributes. It was impossible for Prynne to seek or earn redemption while her crime was broadcast from the red "A" pinned to her clothing.
The law court's evaluation of the steady expansion of Maine's sex offender registry, which grew to include crimes and criminals dating back decades, echoed this notion.
It must be weighed whether a public registry of probationers and prisoners can preserve their rights, while also providing a valuable public benefit. Could a registry be an incentive against criminal behavior? Will it protect people from harm, or only further castigate criminals?
How does one separate the dangerous from the reformed? Is there a legal liability for the state if the online registry contains misinformation? At what point does a convicted criminal pay their debt to society, if they must register?
Such questions need time to consider. Maine's sex offender registry has existed for years, without yet reaching a conclusion. Before any new registries are opened, a good amount of examination needs to occur.
If there's one thing Maine should know by now, it's not to start a registry, then try to answer the questions later.
Utah Judge Stops Sex Offender Registry Law
KSL.com: Judge bars enforcement of sex offender-registry law. July 1st, 2008 @ 6:45pm
(watch video)
A federal judge has barred Utah from enforcing a new sex offender-registry law, pending the outcome of a suit that could decide whether the law is constitutional.
The suit claims the requirements of the law are a violation of one's right to privacy.
The law, known as House Bill 34, requires registered sex offenders to turn over to the Department of Corrections their passwords to social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook.
Sex Offender Retroactivity Correction Act of 2008
U.S. Congress: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Retroactivity Correction Act of 2008:
Bill Status:
Introduced: Feb 13, 2008
S 2632
110th CONGRESS, 2d Session
"To ensure that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is applied retroactively."
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 13, 2008
SEC. 2. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS.
Section 113 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913) shall apply to sex offenders convicted before, on, or after the date of enactment of that Act.
Call and write your U.S. Senators and Congressmen to tell them to STOP this bill !
Find your U.S. Representative: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Find your U.S. Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Feds Release New Adam Walsh Act Guidelines
U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs: New Adam Walsh Act Guidelines.
On July 1, 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey released the National Guidelines on Sex Offender Registration and Notification. These Final Guidelines, designed to assist jurisdictions with their SORNA implementation efforts, will be published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2008. Following the public comment period on the Proposed Guidelines, the SMART Office reviewed the more than 275 comments received and incorporated several suggestions in the Final Guidelines. In conjunction with the release of the Final Guidelines, the SMART Office published a set of frequently asked questions about the Final Guidelines and Fact Sheets to explain significant changes from the Proposed Guidelines, including revised minimum registration requirements for juvenile sex offenders. (Changes can be read here)
At the end of April 2008, the SMART Office awarded more than $11 million in funding to state, local, and tribal governments. This funding will be used to create or enhance sex offender registration programs, improve law enforcement and other justice agency information sharing as it relates to sex offender registration and notification, and collect, store, and link sex offender biometric data or submit for analysis DNA data for investigative purposes.
Later this month, the SMART Office will host its 2008 National Symposium (July 30-August 1, 2008 ) on Sex Offender Management and Accountability. The symposium will bring together state and federal lawmakers, top state, local and tribal government officials, policy advisors, law enforcement, parole and probation officers, prosecutors, and frontline professionals who monitor, register, track, and manage sex offenders. The symposium also will include special tracks focusing on policy, enforcement, emerging issues, and topics related specifically to tribal governments and sex offender management in Indian Country.
(These laws are to apply to children as young as 14 years of age.)
(Read full text of guidelines .)
(Read FAQ of SORNA guidelines.)
Regarding Retroactive application:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 113: "(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 or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b)."
(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.)
Refusing to Adopt the Adam Walsh Act
HumanRightsWatch: Protecting Children from Sexual Violence: Don't Adopt the Adam Walsh Act
By Sarah Tofte, Criminal Justice Researcher
published in Sacramento Bee
Sex offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, over 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not reoffend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by persons with no previous sex offense convictions.
The Adam Walsh Act doesn’t tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children aged 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat child sex offenders differently than adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that child sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation – and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor’s veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.
In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.
The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.
Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn’t comply with the law – but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state’s sex offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
And there are other costs to implementing the act. Subjecting convicted sex offenders to community notification for the rest of their lives may do great harm – both to the individuals and to community safety. Offenders included on online sex offender registries endure shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment, and even vigilante violence. Their families suffer as well.
Unnecessarily expansive community notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, “No one believes I can change, so why even try?”
Every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. Promoting public safety by holding offenders accountable and by instituting effective crime prevention measures is a core governmental obligation. But states can address the real problem of sexual violence by refusing to adopt the Adam Walsh Act – and then limiting their registration and community notification laws to individuals identified as posing a real risk to the community.
IN Adds Other Crimes To Online Registry
NWITimes.com: Violent offenders added to online registry.
Indiana began posting the names, photos and addresses of violent offenders -- those convicted of murder and voluntary manslaughter -- online in a database that already contained the names of convicted sex offenders.
But many of the offenders, most of whom already have served their court-prescribed sentences, believe the law is comparable to double jeopardy because it punishes them beyond their time in prison.
But Elias Velasquez, of East Chicago, said he feels he is being convicted again.
More than 20 years ago, the 44-year-old man was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the 1987 shooting death of a man in a bar. He served five years in prison and was released in 1993 with good-time credit.
Velasquez said he has stayed on the right side of the law for 15 years -- volunteering his time with youth and helping north Lake County residents secure jobs with the construction company where he works.
But the 2007 amendment to state law now requires Velasquez and other violent offenders to register their home and work addresses with the Sex and Violent Offenders Registry.
"It feels like harassment," he said. "It's kinda like double jeopardy. ... I'm trying to live my life. I'm not bothering anybody."
Welcome to the club, boys. When it's just sex offenders, everyone is okay with it. but when it starts including other offenses, now society cries foul. We all must stop these laws NOW before every offender (past and present) is posted online for the world to see. Join our fight !
LA To Castrate Sex Offenders
KALB.com: Baton Rouge - Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Signs Chemical Castration Bill
(As absurd as this is, we must tell you that this is not a joke)
Governor Bobby Jindal today signed the Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill, SB 144, authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders.
Governor Bobby Jindal said, “The Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill is a good bill...
SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.
This bill also provides that a court may instead order a physical castration instead of the chemical castration. Convicted sex offenders who undergo castration must still serve their full sentence, as their treatment will not affect their sentencing. Under the bill, if a convicted sex offender fails to appear for their chemical castration, they will serve an additional sentence of three to five years.
This will certainly not withstand Constitutional challenge as it is a blatant violation of the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as forced vasectomy has been ruled. Bad move, Bobby.
Nevada Sex Offender Law Challenged
ReviewJournal.com: Jun. 25, 2008 Las Vegas Review-Journal
ADAM WALSH ACT: Sex offender law tested anew
Constitutionality of law taking effect July 1 challenged
Challenges to Nevada's new sex offender law mounted Tuesday as the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of 12 sex offenders who claim the law is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was filed on the same day a District Court judge granted an injunction on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, which permits them temporarily not to comply with the new law, known as the Adam Walsh Act.
The lawsuit claims the new law, set to take effect on July 1, violates sex offenders' constitutional rights by punishing them for crimes for which they've already served time. It also restricts their movement in that the law prevents them from being within certain distances of schools, parks or day care facilities, the lawsuit states.
On Tuesday, District Judge David Wall granted the preliminary injunction for two sex offenders who filed a challenge to the new law. The injunction, filed by attorney Richard Schonfeld, allows the sex offenders, known only as D.P. and W.L., to not comply with the new law while their case is heard in court. It was granted in part because the sex offenders might win their case, Schonfeld said.
Sex Offender Sanctions: Are There ANY Limits?
Sex Offender Post-Incarceration Sanctions: Are There ANY Limits?
-by Richard G. Wright
(PhD in Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Boston; Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Bridgewater State College)
American society has decided that there is no greater villain than the sex
offender. Terrorists, drug dealers, murderers, kidnappers, mobsters,
gangsters, drunk drivers, and white-collar criminals do not elicit the
emotions and evoke the political response that sex offenders do. The intent
of this paper is to empirically substantiate this claim. Central to this
argument is the imposition of post-incarceration sanctions.
One way to discern society’s views about specific forms of criminal
behavior is to examine historical, and contemporary methods of
punishment. In the last fifteen years, all forms of government have pursued
unique ways to control sex offenders after their release from prison or jail.
All criminal offenders are subject to community supervision in the form of
probation or parole conditions. For some offenders, probation and parole
conditions may be quite restrictive and may include random drug tests,
unannounced home visits, searches, and strict requirements for substance
abuse and psychological counseling. Yet, as will be discussed in this
article, there are a number of post-incarceration sanctions that have been
created exclusively for and apply only to sex offenders.
The growth of sex offender post-incarceration controls have come from the federal government,
state governments,and now in an interesting trend, from local cities and towns; all of whom are trying to determine if,
when, and how sex offenders will return to their communities. Specifically,
society has imposed post-incarceration controls on sex offenders’ privacy,
places of residence, travel, employment, sexuality, and reproductive
rights.
Sex Offender Boundaries Deemed Ineffective
Miller-Mccune.com: Prohibiting sex offenders from living near schools sounds like a good idea, but such residency restrictions may make it harder to supervise offenders — and without preventing new sex crimes.
Spurred by the visceral public reaction to violent crimes committed against children, lawmakers have introduced an array of strategies designed to control sex offenders and prevent them from committing new sex crimes, including longer prison sentences and parole terms, civil commitment of sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences but are judged to pose a continuing threat, and GPS monitoring of released sex offenders.
Increasingly common are residency restrictions on certain types of released sex offenders, barring them from living within a certain distance (typically 1,000 to 2,000 feet) of a school, playground or other area where children gather
But residency restrictions for sex offenders not only don't seem to be working as promised, there's some indication that by hindering smarter practices they help increase the danger of molestation. And despite their popularity with lawmakers and the public, they have not been universally embraced, even by those in the law enforcement community. A January 2007 resolution passed by the American Correctional Association declares, "There is no evidence to support the efficacy of broadly applied residential restrictions on sex offenders." A 2006 statement issued by the Iowa County Attorneys Association on that state's residency restriction requirements takes a similar view, asserting, "There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction."
A new study, "Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism," which contains a detailed analysis of 224 sex offenders....(read article)
The study concluded, "Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual-offending recidivism."
In analyzing re-offense rates among 130 sex offenders on probation, the Colorado report found, "When controlling for risk, sex offenders living in SLAs had the second-lowest number of criminal, technical and total violations (high-risk offenders in jail had the lowest number of violations)." A technical violation is one that contravenes the terms of either the offender's probation or his treatment and can include such behavior as possession of pornography or "having a sexual relationship with a vulnerable person (for example, dating a woman who has small children)."
Another federal district judge finds SORNA unconstitutional
Missoulian.com: Molloy: Sex offender registry rule unconstitutional.
A federal judge in Missoula (Montana) this week ruled that a provision of the national Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional and dismissed a felony indictment accusing one sex offender of failing to register in Montana.
In a 44-page opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy ruled that Congress cannot federally criminalize a sex offender's failure to register in a state-run database. Congress therefore exceeded its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause by making it a federal crime for a sex offender to travel to another state and fail to re-register in that jurisdiction, Molloy wrote.
Sentencing.typepad.com: In his order, Molloy dismissed the indictment without prejudice, ruling that the provision “would allow Congress to federalize nearly any local criminal offense simply by making it a crime for someone who committed the offense to travel in interstate commerce at some point in his life.”
CaliforniaCriminalDefenseLawyerBlog.com: US v. Waybright - Re-Registry Provision Struck Down :
Waybright argues Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause by enacting two specific provisions of SORNA—18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 16913. [...] Section 16913 imposes registration requirements on all sex offenders in the United States regardless of whether they travel in interstate commerce.[...] Waybright asserts, even if § 2250(a) is a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, he cannot be convicted under the statute because he should not have been required to register under § 16913 in the first place. According to Waybright, the registration requirements found at § 16913 also exceed Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. Waybright contends § 16913 is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to force citizens who have been convicted of purely local offenses under state law to register as sex offenders.
District Judge Molloy quickly determined that the only way § 16913 could be appropriately upheld under the Commerce Clause would be under the Lopez (514 US 549) theory that there must be a nexus between the statute and regulation of "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." Given that threshold, the US then argued that there was a substantial connection between the government's economic interest in regulating child pornography (as part of the Adam Walsh Act) could be undercut by not allowing registration of offenders. Molloy easily dismissed this argument:
Section 16913 has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise; it regulates purely local, non-economic activity. While certain sex offenses may be commercial or economic in nature (e.g., child pornography), sex offenders themselves are not necessarily engaged in commercial or economic activity. Even though the Adam Walsh Act regulates some sex offenses that are commercial (e.g., the distribution of child pornography), its regulation of sex offenders is not indispensable to the success of its other provisions. [...] But, any effect on interstate commerce from requiring sex offenders to register is too attenuated to survive scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.
Molloy then rejected an alternative argument made by the government based on the Necessary and Proper clause. Finding no other possible way for the government to justify this Congressional power, Molloy then stated:
Section 16913 is not a valid exercise of any of the congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution. As a consequence, Section 16913 is unconstitutional. To obtain a conviction under § 2250(a), the government must first prove Waybright was required to register under § 16913. Because §16913 is unconstitutional, the government cannot satisfy its burden of proof with respect to § 2250(a). Accordingly, the Indictment must be dismissed.
This is the first district court decision that has declared a portion of the Adam Walsh Act unconstitutional. The government, obviously, plans to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but we find Molloy's argument to be compelling. Section 16913 has as much to do with interstate commerce as us registering with the local VFW.
One thing to watch for if the government ends up losing its appeal, however, is what Molloy alluded to in his footnote on the constitutionality of the provision. He basically gave Congress a roadmap by which to make the statute constitutional.
In declaring § 16913 unconstitutional, the Court expresses no opinion about the wisdom or necessity of creating comprehensive, national standards for the registration of sex offenders. Nor does the Court mean to suggest Congress could not have achieved the purposes of SORNA in a manner consistent with its enumerated powers. To the contrary, the Court acknowledges § 16913 could be made constitutional by limiting the registration requirement to sex offenders who travel in interstate commerce or by amending § 16913 to encourage the states to enact laws requiring all sex offenders to register.
So far, this case hasn't received much in the way of national legal coverage, but there are a few tidbits floating around:
State v. Ferguson : Ohio Sex Offender Law
State v. Ferguson, Case No. 2007-1427. Oral argument May 6, 2008. Does the retroactive application of 2003 amendments to Ohio’s “Megan’s Law” to sexual offenders whose crimes took place before the effective date of those amendments violate the prohibition in the U.S. and Ohio constitutions against ex post facto laws that impose more severe punishment on an offender “after the fact” of his crime than was applicable to his offense at the time it was committed? Oral argument preview. Court Docket and Briefs. Argument Video.
from: Cleveland Marshall College of Law
State of Ohio v. Andrew J. Ferguson, Case no. 2007-1427
8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
The video below is the "Argument Video" before the Ohio Supreme Court in this case. Basically, two areas of law are presented:
1. whether the 2003 amendments to Ohio's Sex Offender Registration Laws were meant to be prospective (looking forward to new offenders) or retro-active ( applying back to before the law was created) ...
and
2. whether these laws are punitive (punishment) or remedial (remedy to society).
Even the Attorney representing the State of Ohio admits that these 2003 amended laws were not intended to apply retro-actively. Its astounding, really. Even though this case relates to the 2003 amended Ohio Sex Offender Registration Law, it has relation to the 2008 Adam Walsh Act Laws, and the new law is discussed in these arguments. But the arguments that these laws are not punitive is absurd. Instating life-long requirements to register with sheriff's offices up to four times each year until the day you die ( with threat of imprisonment for failing to do so) is clearly and obviously punitive. What is truly insightful is that these public officials are often confused as to which laws they are talking about, and what requirements are included in them.
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
Federal Lawsuits Against Adam Walsh Act
The Adam Walsh Act faces federal constitutional challenges. Two federal circuit courts, the 4th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, are now considering whether Congress violated the Constitution's commerce clause in passing the Adam Walsh Act because challengers allege it has no nexus with interstate commerce. U.S. v. Comstock, No. 06-hc-2195BR, and U.S. v. Powers, 07-cr-221KRS.
But it is Ohio that finds itself in the midst of a legal meltdown because of a shift in sex offender registration law. Ohio rushed to switch from a long-standing state offender registration program to the 2006 federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act registration system.
This posting will be updated when more information is found regarding the federal cases.
Ohio Court Rules on Adam Walsh Act
8 May 2008 - Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, 8th Appellate District:
In Ohio, vs Vincent Holloman-Cross, the Court of Appeals refused to recognize the implementation of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act's retro-active application as being punitive in nature.
" The ex post facto clause of Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the United
States Constitution prohibit:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the
law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such
action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than
it was when committed. 3d Every law that changes the punishment, and
inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when
committed.” Calder v. Bull (1798), 3 U.S. 386, 390.
{¶ 16} The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is
contained in the Adam Walsh Act, enacted on July 27, 2006, which requires
convicted sex offenders to register in the jurisdiction in which he or she resides.
SORNA is incorporated into Ohio law. See R.C. 2950 et seq.
{¶ 17} SORNA requires all jurisdictions to maintain a registry including the
following information regarding sex offenders: names and aliases, social security
number, residence, place of employment or school, vehicle information, physical
description, criminal history, current photograph, fingerprints, palm prints, a DNA
sample, and a photocopy of one’s driver’s license or identification card. 42 U.S.C.
16914. SORNA also sets forth the manner in which sex offenders are to register,
namely, every ninety days, as applied in the case sub judice. 42 U.S.C. 16916.
{¶ 18} The Supreme Court of the United States set forth the framework for
determining whether a statute violates the ex post facto clause:
“We must ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to
establish ‘civil’ proceedings. If the intention of the legislature was to
impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was
to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must
further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in
purpose or effect as to negate the State's intention to deem it ‘civil.’
Because we ordinarily defer to the legislature's stated intent, only the
clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform
what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.”
Smith v. Doe (2003), 538 U.S. 84. (Internal quotations and citations
omitted.)
{¶ 19} Thus, we must first consider whether SORNA is civil or punitive in
nature. SORNA is codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, a section reserved
not for criminal punishment, but for “Public Health and Welfare.” Furthermore,
SORNA’s purpose is to “protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against
children ***.” 42 U.S.C. 16901. Thus, “[i]t is clear that Congress intended SORNA
to be civil in nature.” United States v. Mason (M.D.Fla. 2007), 510 F.Supp.2d 923,
929. Therefore, we find that SORNA is civil and nonpunitive.
{¶ 20} Furthermore, we must consider whether SORNA’s statutory scheme is
so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the intent to deem it civil. A review
of SORNA reveals that it deals primarily with procedural issues, including collection
and dissemination of a sex offender’s information, which is indicative of a civil
statutory framework. Thus, “there is insufficient evidence to transform SORNA from
a civil scheme into a criminal penalty.” Mason. The majority of courts that have
addressed this issue as it pertains to failure to register pursuant to SORNA have
found the same. See United States v. Markel (W.D.Ark. 2007), 2007 U.S. Dist.
{¶ 21} Therefore, we find that SORNA, as set forth in the Adam Walsh Act
does not violate Holloman-Cross’ ex post facto protections. Holloman-Cross’
second assignment of error is overruled"
This decision irresponsibly fails to understand the comprehensive nature and onerous requirements instated on offenders who committed crimes BEFORE this law was passed. The requirement does not involve simple dissemination of information, but a requires past offenders to report in person up to four times a year for as long as he lives, in many cases. And to have his personal information and image posted online as a Scarlet Letter, which exposes him to vigilante violence and societal rebuke. THIS IS PUNISHMENT. And this Court is wrong.
SC Court Rules on Retroactive Sex Offender Law
A South Carolina Court of Appeals ruled on June 5, 2008 that the application of the state's amended sex offender registry law was retroactive in this case:
"Prior to 1996, S.C. Code §§ 23-3-430 and 23-3-460 required any person convicted of indecent exposure to register annually as a sex offender. In 1996, the statute was amended to include a person convicted of indecent exposure only “if the court makes a specific finding on the record based on the circumstances of the case the convicted person should register as a sex offender.”
Wiesart appeals the trial court’s ruling that S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430(14) (Supp. 2007) is not retroactive. We reverse.
Statutes that are remedial or procedural in nature, however, operate retroactively. A statute is remedial and applies retroactively when it creates new remedies for existing rights or enlarges rights of persons under disability.
Wiesart argues the amendment to § 23-3-430 is retroactive because it is procedural or remedial in nature. We agree.""
Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data
This is an Official Report from the State of Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
April 2001
Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases
Understand that "re commitment for a new crime" includes minor probation violations ranging from not reporting, to any failure to abide by any probation requirement. We know for a fact that probation officers often use any excuse possible to re-arrest a sex offender and they do. In one case, in Ohio, a released sex offender on probation was re-arrested because he shared a name with another sex offender in the county. In another, possession of an "R"-rated movie named "Kids" was used to re-arrest a sex offender on probation. And in another case, a sex offender on probation was threatened with arrest and charges for having a video security system at his residence.
The category of "re-committment for a technical violation " indicates that the sex offender was found to be in violation of his probation and re-incarcerated for violating some probation requirement (see above) . Therefore, the focus on this data should be on re-arrest for another sex crime. After all, this is what all the societal hysterical concern is all about:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%. This rate was comprised of:
Recommitment for a New Crime 22.3 %
* For Sex Offense 8.0 %
* For Non-Sex Related Offense 14.3 %
Recommitment for a Technical Violation 11.7 %
* For Sex Offense 1.3 %
* For Sex Lapse 1.7 %
* For Non-Sex Related Offense 8.7 %
The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.
Recidivism rates differed considerably based on a victim typology:
Sex offender type General recidivism Sex recidivism
Rapists – (adult victims) 56.6% 17.5%
Child Molester – extrafamilial 29.2% 8.7%
Child Molester – incest 13.2% 7.4%
Sex offenders who returned for a new sex related offense did so within a few years of release. Of all the sex offenders who came back to an Ohio prison for
a new sex offense, one half did so within two years, and two-thirds within
three years.
Paroled Sex offenders completing basic sex offender programming (level 1)
while incarcerated appeared to have a somewhat lower recidivism rate than those
who did not have programming. This was true both for recidivism of any type
(33.9% with programming recidivated compared with 55.3% without
programming) and sex-related recidivism (7.1% with programming recidivated
compared with 16.5% without programming).
CONCLUSION:
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%
This is hardly the exaggerated claims of recidivism made by the media and hysterical society.
Spread the word, educate society. Ignorance is dangerous.
These Ohio statistics are in line with federal United States Department of Justice data, which reports:
Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child Victimizers re-arrested)
vs.
Recidivism Rates for NON- Sexual Offenders (67% re-arrested, 47% re-convicted)
See this page for USDOJ report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidiv
Furthermore, see the REPORT TO THE OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION: SEX OFFENDERS JANUARY 2006
by the OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION
"Research has shown that sex
offenders recidivate at a lower rate than other offenders.
A review of 61 recidivism research studies
involving 24,000 sex offenders found that only 13.4 percent committed a new sex offense (Hanson and
Morton-Burgon 2004). It further shows that when sex offenders do recidivate, they are more likely to
commit a non-sex offense"
Senate Quietly Passes Another Sex Offender Law
The United States Senate Quietly Passes Another Unconstitutional Sex Offender Law
Politco: Legislation passed without fanfare in the Senate Tuesday night would require convicted sex offenders to register their email addresses and IM screen names with a government-controlled database. The Senate version of the bill, known as the KIDS Act, is intended to make it difficult for sex offenders to join social networking Web sites like Facebook and MySpace. The act is just one of many Congress is considering as it takes aim at sex offenders. Beyond the KIDS Act, there’s the Deleting Online Predators Act, the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, the Children's Listbroker Privacy Act, the Combating Child Exploitation Act and the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act. The KIDS Act (Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act) is joined by the SAFE Act (Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act) and the mother of them all, the PROTECT Our Children Act (Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act).
Is there anyone else out there who thinks this all has become ridiculous?
But civil libertarians say that the bill is too broad, that it could reach convicted offenders with little chance of recidivism. “Everybody wants to keep kids safe,” says Michael Macleod-Ball, the ACLU’s chief legislative and policy counsel. But Macleod-Ball said that the bill’s policy goals have to be balanced against the rights of individuals, and that each offender’s situation should be evaluated on its own merits.
“If you’re going to affect somebody’s rights, there’s got to be a connection to some sort of legitimate public policy purpose, and there are some people that are within the realm of the Senate regimen who would fall outside of that,” he said, arguing that it “makes a little more sense if there is a specific determination that’s made by the court or by some probationary or parole process that finds an actual nexus between the restriction you trying to impose and the nature of the conviction.”
The fact is: that it is illegal for Congress to devoid any citizen of their Constitutional Rights. The application of this law is another example of unconstitutional retro-active application of "post-facto" punishment and is clearly another violation of the United States Constitution. Contact the US Senate and Congress to tell them forcefully that we will not allow them to trample the US Constitution !
US Court says Adam Walsh Act Unconstitutional
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Florida): 23 May 2008
Decision: US vs Madera
"Because Madera’s indictment concerns his failure to register during the gap period between SORNA’s enactment and the Attorney General’s retroactivity determination, he cannot be prosecuted for violating SORNA during that time. Thus, his indictment is due to be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Having decided the case on this basis, we need not reach the important constitutional questions raised in Madera’s appeal."
Note: Remember as these court rulings begin to be decided, we must still continue to fight very hard to get the courts throughout the United States to rule constitutionally regarding the illegal Adam Walsh Act laws, particularly in the view of this blog, within the state of Ohio. This decision is a positive sign. However, its application is limited to a citizen's failure to register in Florida alone , at this point.
Lawsuits Test Crackdown on Sex Crimes
Kansas City InfoZine and Stateline.org ( 19 April 2008) - From California to North Carolina, a flood of litigation has accompanied an expansion in the scope and severity of penalties imposed by local, state and federal lawmakers on those who commit sex crimes.
Penalties for molesters and other sex criminals have toughened considerably in recent years and now include execution in at least five states, chemical castration in eight states and the use of technology to monitor offenders' every move in more than half the states.
In some instances, punitive measures are limited only by lawmakers' imaginations. In Louisiana, for example, a proposal being debated this legislative session would forbid offenders from wearing masks on Halloween or Mardi Gras. In New Jersey, a new state law prevents molesters and others from surfing the Internet unless it is for work-related purposes; Florida and Nevada have similar laws.
The recent legal challenges take aim at laws that sex criminals say violate constitutional guarantees, including privacy, due process and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
In Georgia and Ohio, sex criminals have successfully challenged residency restrictions that forbid them from living within 1,000 feet of schools or other common gathering places for children. California's highest court also is considering whether to strike down zoning laws that could make huge swaths of the state off-limits to offenders.
In Missouri's Supreme Court, a convicted sex offender is challenging aspects of the state's practice of "civil confinement," which has allowed him to be held indefinitely in a treatment program for a crime he committed in 1983 and for which he finished serving time years ago. More than 20 states allow civil confinement after it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in separate decisions in 1997 and 2002.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meanwhile, is preparing to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a wide-reaching federal law that requires all states to dramatically toughen penalties for sex criminals by July of next year, or risk losing funding from a congressional grant program. A trial judge ruled against parts of the law last year.
A broad spectrum of critics - including civil-rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, law enforcers, prosecuting attorneys and even some victims' assistance groups - has criticized some of the recent local, state and federal laws aimed at sex criminals.
Many say the laws are more about political opportunism than public safety. Elected officials recognize that they can appeal to voters by piling up penalties on a widely detested criminal population that has few advocates willing to stand up for its rights, critics say.
"It's still an easy, no-lose-politically situation," said Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago and author of a blog, Sex Crimes, that reports on trends in sex-offender legislation.
Meanwhile, the federal Adam Walsh Act is likely to face more litigation than any other statute because of its breadth. The law requires some juvenile offenders as young as 14 to be included in online registries and retroactively applies new registration requirements to offenders who have been out of prison for years.
Ohio Court Rules AWA Unconstitutional
sexcrimes.blogspot.com: Ohio Court Rules AWA Unconstitutional.
BREAKING NEWS!
May 12, 2008
Court Rules Ohio's AWA Compliance Statute Unconstitutional
In Evans v. Ohio, a court in Cuyahoga County ruled that the state's AWA compliance statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Ohio Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments and violates the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. While there has been some recent pushback against the AWA at the federal level, this is a notable successful challenge at the state level. Here is a key portion of the opinion (which thanks to a couple helpful readers you can download here):
http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/files/evans_v_ohio.pdf
The Act is punitive because it is not tailored to a non-punitive purpose. The Adam Walsh Act fails to consider an offender's likelihood to re-offend. The expanded notification provisions ostracize offenders. The residency restrictions are arbitrary. The Act is not tailored because it imposes new restrictions and obligations without any regard for the offender's potential for future harm.
Cleveland.com: Cuyahoga County Judge Ronald Suster rules new Ohio sex offender law unconstitutional:
A new state law toughening registration requirements for convicted sex offenders is unconstitutional, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge ruled last week.
Judge Ronald Suster blocked the state from enforcing the law on one sex offender convicted of sexual battery in 2003.
In his court order, Suster ruled that the new requirements are unlawful because they increase punishment without a court hearing and are retroactively applied to sex offenders whose crimes were committed before the law passed in 2007. Suster's decision reinforces the arguments presented in a federal class-action lawsuit filed in January by the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office on behalf of sex offender registrants statewide convicted before the new law was enacted.
Suster was unavailable for comment Friday. But in his ruling, the judge contended that the law's intention is "to punish and ostracize this unpopular group," rather than enhance public safety. The law "goes beyond mere 'official archives of criminal records' into a system that effectively ostracizes offenders and subjects the offenders to harassment and ridicule as well as potential abuse," Suster wrote.
The law took effect in January to comply with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a set of federal laws mandating that all states uniformly register sex offenders and place them into a national registry by 2009. It was billed as a way to prevent sex offenders from slipping through the cracks and committing other sex crimes.
In Ohio, the law reclassified sex offenders into three tiers - increasing the number of offenders who must register every 90 days for life by nearly 60 percent.
Suster issued an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law on Tramaine Evans, 30, who was convicted of sexual battery in 2003 and served a year in prison for his crime.
Evans was instructed to register as a sexually oriented offender annually for 10 years. But in November, he received notice that under the new state law, he had been reclassified as a Tier III sex offender and must register every 90 days, as well as notify neighbors of his criminal record and abide by residency restrictions for the rest of his life.
His challenge to the state law was one of nearly 1,000 filed this year in Cuyahoga County, said John Martin, appellate supervisor for the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office.
The state has 30 days to appeal Suster's decision in the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals.
MO lawmakers Ignore Supreme Court
The Missouri News-leader.com : Missouri sex offenders with decades-old records might soon be told to stand and be counted, a practice that's already common in other states and seems to be gaining momentum as state legislatures seek to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act law.
Last week, the Missouri House Rules Committee approved a Senate Joint Resolution that would require almost all sex offenders to register, regardless of conviction date.
The resolution seeks to upend a 2006 Missouri Supreme Court opinion that ruled retroactive registration --then common in the state -- illegal under the Missouri constitution. The decision led to the removal of more than 4,300 names from the Missouri sex offender registry.
Last year, Tennessee toughened its sex offender registry laws to apply to anyone in the state who has ever been convicted of certain sex crimes. Prior to the change, only those who committed crimes after Jan. 1, 1995 -- when the state's registry law took effect -- were required to sign up.
Michigan lawmakers are mulling over a bill that would force adults convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a child to register, regardless of conviction date. Michigan enacted its registry law -- known as a Megan's Law in most states -- in October 1995, and has typically only required those convicted after that date to register.
The U.S. Constitution specifically bars states from passing ex post facto laws --those that punish someone for activity committed before the law was enacted. But retroactive enforcement of Megan's Laws is not a new concept.
Iowa, New York, New Jersey and a host of other states require offenders to sign up if they were on parole or probation for a sex crime when the registries took effect.
Such provisions have come under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which say they go too far in regulating the lives of offenders.
"It's a fiction to say that this is a civil matter when this is, in fact, an extension of the criminal punishment," said Mike Kopie, a Chicago defense attorney and co-chair of NACDL's Sex Offender Policy Task Force. "There has to be a balance between protecting the community and the rights of people to go on with their lives."
The increased strictures mandated by the Walsh Act may prompt new challenges to the retroactive application of Megan's laws, said Michael Iacopino, also a member of the NACDL's task force.
"They're requiring sex offenders to report more often, they're requiring sex offenders to report more information," he said. "It's becoming more like a probation and parole as opposed to a regulatory system."
States are expected to comply with the Walsh Act by July 2009. Failure to do so could result in the loss of federal grant money.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reported in March that 19 states have taken steps to comply with the act. Among them: Ohio, which has faced outcry over a provision that retroactively increased the period of time sex offenders in the state must register.
More than 3,000 offenders have filed suit to challenge the change, said Erin Rosen, an Ohio assistant attorney general.
Prior to the new law, the majority of Ohio's 27,000 sex offenders were required to register for 10 years, Rosen said. Now, most must register for life.
The sticky issue of ex post facto registration requirement is unlikely to go away anytime soon.
Impeach Marc Dann
Marc Dann: I bet your 11-year old daughter, Jesse , is proud of you now.
UPDATE: 16 May 2008: Just because we finally got rid of Marc Dann, the corrupt Ohio Attorney General, we will not rest yet. We have many other Ohio elected officials to focus our efforts on now in order to remove them from public office. For information on the other corrupt Ohio politicians and elected officials who are responsible for enacting, implementing and enforcing the unconstitutional Adam Walsh Act laws which violate the Ohio and US Constitutional Rights of 30,000 Ohio sex offenders ( i.e. citizens who yes...can vote) :
http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2008/01/elected-and-public-officials-who-are.html
Ohiogop.org: The Ohio Republican Party has initiated efforts to impeach Ohio Attorney General, Marc Dann. He has shamed the state of Ohio with corruption and scandal and now must be removed. He refuses to resign, despite the support of no Ohio political figures. Both Ohio State politcal parties are planning for impeachment of Marc Dann, as early as next week.
“The attorney general's office has been rocked by scandal involving sexual harassment, the hiring of poorly qualified pals, contributing to a culture lacking in professionalism. That was the conclusion of an internal report unveiled on Friday. The report included many disturbing details. The communications director attempted to impede the investigation. Two top aides (and longtime friends of Dann) have been fired. The chief of staff (another Dann friend) resigned. Dann admitted to an affair with a co-worker — and a colossal failure of management.” (Editorial, Akron Beacon Journal, 5/6/08)
Sign the petition to force resignation or impeachment of Marc Dann, Attorney General of the State of Ohio here: http://www.ohiogop.org/DumpDann/Dump_Dann/Home.html
The phone number to Marc Dann’s office is (614) 466-4320.
Or you can email Marc Dann directly at marcdann@yahoo.com.
Contact Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and tell him
you disagree with his comments that “no one has accused Marc Dann of being a bad AG”
and ask him to more aggressively seek Marc Dann’s resignation.
The phone number to Chris Redfern’s office is 1-877-OHIO-DEM.
Or you can email Chris Redfern at chrisredfern@ohiodems.org
Watch news reports from Ohio network news channels:
The Ohio Democrat Party has officially made Marc Dann persona non grata (Latin, plural: personae non gratae, also abbreviated PNG), literally meaning "an unwelcome person,":
UPDATE 14 May 2008: WBNS 10TV: Marc Dann Resigns As Attorney General.
Finally this corrupt man has resigned from his office and spared the State of Ohio more shame and embarrassment. One down, many more to go.....
With our efforts to oust Marc Dann from office for his corruption, we now turn to the other corrupt Ohio politicians and elected officials who are responsible for enacting, implementing and enforcing the unconstitutional Adam Walsh Act laws which violate the Ohio and US Constitutional Rights of 30,000 Ohio sex offenders ( i.e. citizens who yes...can vote). See here for information about these officials:
http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2008/01/elected-and-public-officials-who-are.html
State by State Compliance
This is very interesting information from gimeweb.com
(which reportedly comes from a document was prepared by Alisa Klein, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, last updated: April 3, 2008).
This document gives the up to date information on states compliance to the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA. Of all the states in this compliance list Kansas has gone the way of requiring nearly everyone called and/or labeled a sex offender to register for life. It is more than obvious that some states care more about not losing 10% of Byrne Funds than they do about the injustice of the Adam Walsh Act.
You will see that only about 10 states have yet enacted legislation in reaction to the Federal Adam Walsh Act guidelines. Some of these laws do not satisfactorily fall into compliance with the federal guidelines. And they vary greatly in their restrictiveness, and therefore in their degree of constitutional violation.
It is up to everyone who is targeted by the Adam Walsh Act to fight these laws. If you don’t fight, the lawmakers will continue to be emboldened in their efforts to trample your constitutional rights.
USAToday: 6 May 2008 - States mull retroactive sex-offender registries
A federal law that requires states to establish a new system for registering sex offenders by 2009 is prompting some states to mandate retroactive registration — forcing offenders to register even if their crimes were committed before registry laws went into effect. Under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, states have until next year to establish a tier system for offenders to register for 15 years, 25 years or life, based on the nature of their offenses.
Though the law does not mandate retroactive registration, Tennessee passed a law last July requiring it. The law applies to anyone who has ever been convicted of a sex offense that requires registration, said Kristin Helm of the Tennessee Bureau for Investigation.
At least two other states are moving in that direction:
• Michigan. The House Judiciary Committee is considering a bill that would force adults convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a child to register, regardless of conviction date.
•Missouri. A Senate committee is considering a resolution that would require almost all sex offenders to register, regardless of conviction date. If passed, the measure could appear on November ballots.
A USA TODAY search of state registry laws shows that at least 15 other states required retroactive registration prior to the Walsh Act becoming law.
U.S. Constitution bars states from passing ex post facto laws — those that punish someone for activity committed before the law was enacted. However, retroactive enforcement of Megan's laws — the informal name for sex offender-registration laws named for New Jersey abuse victim Megan Kanka — was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. The court found that Alaska's retroactive Megan's law was a regulatory measure, not punitive.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has been critical of the retro-registration laws.
"It's a fiction to say that this is a civil matter when this is, in fact, an extension of the criminal punishment," said Mike Kopie, co-chair of the NACDL's Sex Offender Policy Task Force.
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann; Resign or Impeachment
WLW700.com: Many Democratic leaders in Ohio are calling for the Attorney General to resign. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is leading the call for Marc Dann to leave his job, after being caught in a sex scandal. Dann has continued to insist he will stay on the job.
On Friday, Dann admitted to an extramarital affair with a subordinate after findings in an unrelated sexual harassment investigation threatened to reveal the relationship. Strickland, Sen. Sherrod Brown, other Democratic state officeholders and all Democratic state legislators sent Dann a letter Sunday saying his actions hurt his ability to do his job. Dann says in a written response that his office will continue to provide legal services and work with law enforcement partners.
See the full text of the letter to Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, and view the names of everyone who signed it by clicking the link: http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/mlib/1209/05/1209_1210006767.pdf
The letter also states that if Dann refuses to resign, legislation will be introduced to impeach him.
Marc Dann , who campaigned and fought for the illegal implementation of Senate Bill10 ( Adam Walsh Act law in Ohio) is also responsible for taking away legal Constitutional Rights of nearly 30,000 Ohio citizens. This law, which he proudly thumps his chest about, takes away due process rights (disallowing a court hearing to establish classification) , imposes double jeopardy punishments, and violates separation of powers provisions of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
Marc Dann Must Resign..... or we, the people, will force him from office.
Maine, NH loosen sex offender laws
Nashuatelegraph.com : Concord: A state Senate panel voted to weaken proposals to crack down on convicted sex offenders. The changes would do away with current laws that compel out-of-state sex offenders who register with the state to identify their place of work. It would also lower some Sex Offender Registry requirements from life to 10 years for an adult. Foster said, "When you are talking about taking away people's liberties and rights as a citizen, you've got to make darn sure it's done properly." ( THINK about that quote ! - unbelievable)
Fosters.com : A sex offender bill that would incorporate a tiered system into the state law is currently under going some major changes in the Senate. The bill, HB1640, was drafted so the state would come into compliance with federal legislation known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. The bill would create a state tier system, provide more information to the public and help prevent sex offenders from moving to the state.
Other possible changes include reducing the time a Tier I offender must register on the public list from 15 years to 10 years, repealing the current law that requires out-of-state offenders working in New Hampshire to register the address where they are employed, and removing all aspects of the bill that would require DNA samples from every registered sex offender.
Sexcrimedefender.com : Veto of Sex Offender Registration Reform. AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday vetoed a bill aimed regarding the state’s sex offender registry. Baldacci said his biggest concern is that the bill didn’t do enough to differentiate between sexually violent predators and those who are not a high risk to reoffend. "I have no doubt that there are people on the registry who shouldn’t be required to register because they no longer pose a risk to public safety," Baldacci said in the statement. "But until we have a better system to judge who those people are, we should continue with our current law."
Meanwhile, last fall the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said the state’s sex offender law could be unconstitutional because it increases criminal punishments retroactively for people who already have completed sentences. "We have not made any changes [since last fall], which means we’re still very vulnerable to having our registry being unconstitutional," he said.
Lifetime sex offender monitoring
News14.com: RALEIGH -- A Wake Superior Court judge has ruled that four North Carolina sex offenders shouldn't be subject to lifetime monitoring. The decision was the latest rejection of the state's attempts to track sex offenders who have finished their sentences. Many are contesting the tracking, under which more than 100 people are monitored statewide. Attorneys opposing the monitoring have argued that the system violated constitutional rights and was beset by technical problems. Corrections officials say the department spends almost $3,000 a year to track one offender.
Unfunded Adam Walsh Act
As we have published on this blog, no federal funds have ever been appropriated for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act laws, despite the fact that states like Ohio have irresponsibly rushed to pass these laws in order to gain the promise of federal funding. This is just another example of the backwards ineptitude of our legislators and government.
press-release-depot.com: WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire:
"Nearly two years ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 -- the most promising and comprehensive child protection legislation in decades," said John Walsh, host of 'America's Most Wanted.' "Unfortunately, despite the promise of a renewed commitment to protect our nation's children, almost none of the Adam Walsh Act's enforcement programs have been funded.
The US Marshals Service has received no new positions or funding for Adam Walsh related efforts. The USMS has no full-time personnel working these cases. Because no funding for Adam Walsh Act enforcement was included in the FY 2008 budget, the USMS is now facing a severe reduction in trained agents. It is in need of an additional $50 million in funding this year to go after these fugitives.
In other words, the U.S. Congress and Ohio legislature passed laws to appear tough on sex crimes, yet have never approved any money to enforce these unconstitutional laws. Still, the brilliant Ohio legislature has rushed forward to implement these laws on an emergency basis, in order to collect federal funds which never existed. Therefore, the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens have been curtailed while there is no money to carry out these laws.
Where will the money come from? Open up your wallets again, Ohioans !
Feds collect your DNA
U.S. Justice Department is proposing a directive to collect DNA samples from all American citizens who are arrested, and to keep these DNA samples on file.
On Friday April 18, 2008 the Department of Justice posted the following in the Federal Register:
The Department of Justice is publishing this proposed rule to implement amendments made by section 1004 of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and section 155 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. ( from sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com)
"This rule directs agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals, or that supervise individuals facing charges, to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted,...".
"Agencies required to collect DNA samples under this section may use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual described in paragraph (a) or (b) who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample. [emphasis added]" (from theothersideofkim.com)
We STRONGLY urge you to make your voice heard on this abhorrent proposal. Written comments can be made, and must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509, Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference OAG Docket No. 119 on your correspondence.
In addition: You may submit comments electronically (That is done from the Regulations.gov website) . Here is the procedure to get you to the proper document on the Regulations.gov website:
1) Click on this link: http://www.regulations.gov/
2) In the SEARCH box enter: DOJ-OAG-2008-0009-0001
3) Near the bottom of the page you will see "View this document" and just above that is this Docket ID: DOJ-OAG-2008-0009 CLICK on that link
4) Now you will see a full page, where you can "add your comment," or see the comments that others have already entered.
Note: To add your comment click on the yellow balloon
which is on the PROPOSED RULE line over to the right side.
CAUTION: BEFORE ENTERING YOUR COMMENTS read the following which explains how to stop your PERSONAL or BUSINESS INFORMATION from appearing online, although your comment will still appear.
Posting of Public Comments:
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit a comment, the public posting will include voluntarily submitted personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.).
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted (not printed online).
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must identify prominently any confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be redacted effectively, all or part of that comment might not be posted on http:// www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency’s public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency’s public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
Tenn: Online DUI & Animal Abuse Registry
Classify this one under the "we warned you this would happen" tab:
Tennessee may add more online crime registries
Tennessean.com: Bills would keep tabs on drunken drivers and animal abusers. Looking up names of methamphetamine makers and sexual offenders in Tennessee is already just a mouse click away. The ability to look up animal abusers and drunken drivers may be just a vote or two away. This year, legislators have proposed doubling the number of crime registries in Tennessee, adding Internet databases of people with animal cruelty and repeat drunken driving convictions to existing registries of people convicted of sexual crimes and making meth.
Jack McDevitt, associate dean of Northeastern University's College of Criminal Justice in Boston, said there's significant debate over the benefits of crime registries. The information they provide may not be useful to the public, and could stand in the way of rehabilitation, he said. "The stigma becomes so concentrated and widespread that people can't ever get away from it, don't feel like they can leave it behind and change their life," he said. "From the offenders' perspective, these kinds of lists don't make it any easier to change their lives around."
Tennessee's proposed drunken driver registry would also be a first. That bill would require court clerks to report second DUI offenses to the state Safety Department, which would maintain the registry. About 8,000 people per year would be added to the database, according to an estimate by legislative staffers. That proposal is advancing in the House. On the Senate side, it appeared all but dead in a committee until it was revived on Thursday. Lawmakers closely questioned Rep. Frank Niceley, a Strawberry Plains Republican who's sponsoring the House version. In the end, they voted in favor of it.
The registry would serve much the same purpose as the sex offender registry, bringing "an element of shame" to people on it, as well as awareness for the people who live near them, Niceley said.
Tennessee Lawmakers Explore Animal Abuse Registry
WDEF.com: Once reserved for sex offenders and meth addicts, Tennessee lawmakers may soon extend a cyber scarlet letter to those convicted of animal abuse. Several Chattanooga area residents like the idea. Kenneth Pickat says "Its right, they should pass that law." While Kathy Brady feels "its probably a pretty good idea".
Under the proposal, anyone convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals, felony animal fighting, or bestiality would automatically be placed on an on-line registry for all to see.
Like sex offenders, animal abusers would also be required to inform authorities when they move, but would only face a fine for violating the law.
The bill sailed through Tennessee's Senate, but faces more debate in the House where some lawmakers say the state needs a registry for drunk drivers first.
If lawmakers sign-off on the "animal abuser registry" bill, it would launch July first. After creating a database of previous convictions, authorities estimate they would add three new offenders each year.
adam walsh act sex offender registry
Florida : InterState Adam Walsh Act Unconstitutional
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida: USA v. Robert D. Powers Decision:
Congress Has No Power to Regulate Traveling in Interstate Commerce By Unregistered Sex Offenders.
On Friday, April 18th , District Judge Gregory Presnell in Orlando handed down United States v. Powers, a decision striking down part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 on Commerce Clause grounds. In relevant part, the Act requires state sex offenders to register if they travel out of state. Specifically, a state sex offender who "travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves, or resides in, Indian country; and [who] knowingly fails to register" with the sex offender registry can be charged with a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
On Friday, April 18th, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell on Friday ruled that the 2006 federal law requiring state sex offenders to register with law-enforcement officials when they move across state lines was largely a local issue.
As the Government notes, the Adam Walsh Act was enacted with a commendable goal — to protect the public from sex offenders. However, a worthy cause is not enough to transform a state concern (sex offender registration) into a federal crime. If an individual’s mere unrelated travel in interstate commerce is sufficient to establish a Commerce Clause nexus with purely local conduct, then virtually all criminal activity would be subject to the power of the federal government. Surely our founding fathers did not contemplate such a broad view of federalism. Accordingly, the Court finds that the adoption of the statute under which Defendant is charged violates Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
US District Court Decision
Links:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/04/district-judge.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-sexoffender1908apr19,0,1375426.story
Ohio AG Marc Dann, Sex Charges
BREAKING NEWS!
Sexual Harassment , Corruption Charges involving Ohio Attorney General, Marc Dann.......
Evidence of Lying, Obstructing Justice, Calls for Dann to Resign or be Impeached:
10May 2008:
NEW CONTACT INFO:
The phone number to Marc Dann’s office is (614) 466-4320.
Or you can email Marc Dann directly at marcdann@yahoo.com
2 May 2008: Marc Dann Under Fire : Marc Dann admits to sexual affair with office subordinate. Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann says he is “heartbroken by my failure” to recognize and stop problems in his office, in the wake of completion of a probe of sexual harassment complaints and other staff problems in his office. He then acknowledged having a romantic relationship with a subordinate and apologized to his wife and children.
“I have not conducted my self in a way that is consistent with my values ...,” he said.
Ben Espy, the executive assistant AG, cited a hostile work environment created by Gutierrez, an office rampant with rumor and inappropriate fraternization, and “poor judgment” on Dann’s behalf.
As for whether Dann, who is married, had an affair with Jessica Utovich, Dann’s former scheduler and the office’s travel director: Both declined to answer that question, Espy said. Espy added, “The refusal is an answer itself.” Utovich acknowledged delivering schedules to Dann’s Dublin condo, and the investigation concluded that she had stayed overnight on more than one occasion. “I don’t think you deliver a schedule overnight,” Espy noted. Dann admitted he did get involved in a romantic relationship that caused his family immense hurt and embarrassment.
We must demand the resignation of Marc Dann. He has demonstrated a shameful disrespect for his office and position and has embarrassed the state of Ohio long enough. The corruption, immorality and abuse of his office will not be allowed to continue. he must be forced to resign. Contact Marc Dann himself at telephone: 614-466-4320. They cowardly don't post an email address at the Attorney General web page, but inquiries can be sent here:
http://www.ag4ohio.gov/Public/details.aspx?s=222
Vindy.com has full coverage of the Marc Dann scandals.
Ohio.com, 19 April 2008: COLUMBUS — A woman claims she was sexually harassed by a top aide to Attorney General Marc Dann. Police were asked to investigate the matter Friday, intensifying pressure at the office of Ohio's top law enforcer. Stankoski's plan to seek a criminal investigation was first reported Friday by The Columbus Dispatch and The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer. Another staffer, Vanessa Stout, also 26, has also filed claims against Gutierrez, who roomed with Marc Dann at a Dublin town house apartment at the time of one of the alleged incidents. Dann, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, was in the apartment that night, Stankoski has alleged. He recused himself from the internal investigation because of his ties to Gutierrez and the apartment.
**the irony is rich. Marc Dann's roommate may be required by Marc Dann's "pet" Adam Walsh Act law to register as a sex offender! ***
Text messages have reportedly been deleted to cover up this scandal involving Marc Dann, Attorney General of Ohio and his top aide. This story is sick and involves him buying her a sex toy, demanding she come over for drinks, driving his Suburban while so drunk that he hit a guard rail, showing up at a State office smelling of alcohol and vomit, and the woman waking to find her pants undone and this pervert lying next to her in his underwear . Marc Dann reportedly refuses to release email records. And now a second aide may be implicated.
Listen to Audio: Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann has been good to his friends from the Mahoning Valley, bringing more than a dozen of them to Columbus since he took office in January 2007. But sometimes, that loyalty hasn't served him well. ...
Related Reports:
http://dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/04/13/DENIED.ART_ART_04-13-08_A1_7G9TM7E.html?sid=101
http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/apr/15/how-was-dann-involved-in-fiasco/
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/04/_aplain_dealer_reporterscolumb.html
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/04/18/gutierrez_problems.html?sid=102
According to Vindy.com, several emails from Marc Dann's office, demonstrate an odd, emotional, childish, unprofessional, and suspiciously gay-appearing relationship between Marc Dann and his aide (Marc Dann refused to release 19 emails ):
The office released about 2,200 e-mails between the attorney general and his former scheduler.
Attorney General Marc Dann’s then-scheduler chastised him in a Sept. 4 e-mail for “taking things out on me and other people here.”
Two days after that, on Sept. 6, Jessica Utovich wrote Dann, a Liberty Democrat, that she didn’t “appreciate being yelled at in front of everyone.”
In between, Dann sent an e-mail to Utovich: “You are the bff” (text-speak for “best friend forever”).
Some of the e-mails show a curious relationship between Dann and Utovich, of Columbus.
In some e-mails, the two joke with each other, but others show an emotional boss-worker relationship.
In the Sept. 4 e-mail to Dann, Utovich wrote: “Please do not EVER tell me to stop acting emotional. I try to do my job to the best that I can and you s--- on it. I try my hardest to make sure you are taken care of, do what you need too (sic) and prioritize only to have you complain and change everything without telling anybody. Your emotional crap is what makes everyone else so miserable.”
A Sept. 19 e-mail to Dann from Utovich reads: “You realize everytime [sic] that you tell someone to do something re: your schedule, within this office, it allows them to continue to go behind our backs and create more problems.”
Stout said she went to the condo a few times and described Dann, Gutierrez and Jennings as “pigs” who “all drank a lot.”
In what appears to be a response to a question, Utovich wrote a Sept. 27 e-mail to Dann and Colleen K. Brown, Dann’s executive assistant, that read: “Unionize women in this place? You can’t have a conversation about anything serious with any of the guys that work here without them laughing.”
A number of the e-mails between Dann and Utovich are informal, consistent with previous Dann e-mails released by his office at the request of the media.
“Answer your text punk,” Utovich wrote Sept. 25 to Dann.
In an Oct. 10 e-mail exchange, Utovich wrote to Dann: “You look nice in the wsj (The Wall Street Journal) picture. Mean look. Grrr....”
Dann responded: “FAT.”
The two exchanged numerous late-night e-mails on Oct. 16. One sent by Utovich at 11:10 p.m. reads: “I’m cranky. The office is not so comfy to sleep in.”
In response, Dann wrote, “Use the couch.” She replied, “Use the bathroom. Locked. I don’t have your keys.”
wsugop.blogspot.com: reports a history of embarassing conduct by Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann:
EMBARRASSMENTS
April 2007 — Dann fired Rick Alli, his director of law enforcement operations, after Alli failed to resign his Youngstown police job after getting his state job.
May 2007 — David L. Nelson, Dann's driver and a member of his security detail, was fired after it was discovered he served time for involuntary manslaughter in Pennsylvania.
June 2007 — Dann spotted a reporter who had written a story Dann didn't like and yelled, "Hey Steve, write this down: Go f--- yourself."
December 2007 — Dann disciplined Jennings for sending a profane, abusive e-mail to a co-worker.
February 2008 — Dann used a state plane and his state-owned SUV to travel to political events. He paid for the trips out of his campaign account. The SUV was purchased from a campaign contributor instead of through the state purchasing system.
Other incidents include: Responding to criticism of him, Dann, who is Jewish, sent an e-mail to Jennings saying "Jesus had it better on Good Friday." And Dann fired his staff auditor for falsely claiming he is a certified public accountant.
Lawsuits test crackdown on sex criminals
Stateline.org: A death-penalty case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week marks the latest constitutional challenge to an ongoing, nationwide crackdown on sex criminals.
From California to North Carolina, a flood of litigation has accompanied an expansion in the scope and severity of penalties imposed by local, state and federal lawmakers on those who commit sex crimes.
In Georgia and Ohio, sex criminals have successfully challenged residency restrictions that forbid them from living within 1,000 feet of schools or other common gathering places for children. California’s highest court also is considering whether to strike down zoning laws that could make huge swaths of the state off-limits to offenders.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meanwhile, is preparing to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a wide-reaching federal law that requires all states to dramatically toughen penalties for sex criminals by July of next year, or risk losing funding from a congressional grant program. A trial judge ruled against parts of the law last year.
A broad spectrum of critics — including civil-rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, law enforcers, prosecuting attorneys and even some victims’ assistance groups — has criticized some of the recent local, state and federal laws aimed at sex criminals.
Many say the laws are more about political opportunism than public safety. Elected officials recognize that they can appeal to voters by piling up penalties on a widely detested criminal population that has few advocates willing to stand up for its rights, critics say
Meanwhile, the federal Adam Walsh Act is likely to face more litigation than any other statute because of its breadth. The law requires some juvenile offenders as young as 14 to be included in online registries and retroactively applies new registration requirements to offenders who have been out of prison for years.
Sarah Tofte, a Human Rights Watch researcher who has studied sex-offender laws and advocates for a comprehensive approach that focuses on treatment, said she thinks it is unlikely that lawmakers will back away from tough new laws — despite the mounting legal challenges.
She noted that the federal Second Chance Act signed by President Bush this month — which eases convicts’ re-entry into society by focusing on rehabilitation — does not apply to sex offenders, who are viewed by the public and by legislators as immutable, lifelong criminals.
“I think it’s going to be quite a while until we let sex offenders be treated like other ex-offenders,” Tofte said.
U.S. Congress H.R. 5760
BREAKING NEWS !
U.S. Congress H.R. 5760 to extend deadlines for implementing provisions of the Adam Walsh Act laws; from 2009 to 2011.
This may indicate some realization on their parts that the legal challenges are founded and legitimate. In the least case, it relieves the time constraints on states who are rushing to implement these laws in order to gain federal funding.
Read H.R.5760
Title: To reauthorize the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and for other purposes.
Type in search term: 5760
Proposed Senate Bill 2632 : "To ensure that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is applied retroactively." "Section 113 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913) shall apply to sex offenders convicted before, on, or after the date of enactment of that Act." This retroactive aspect is an clear and shameless violation of the U.S. Constitution !
Read S. 2632
Title: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Retroactivity Correction Act of 2008 (Introduced in Senate)
Type in search term: 2632
No Easy Answers
(New York, September 12, 2007) – Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch urges the reform of state and federal registration and community notification laws, and the elimination of residency restrictions, because they violate basic rights of former offenders.
The 146-page report, “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States,” is the first comprehensive study of US sex offender policies, their public safety impact, and the effect they have on former offenders and their families. During two years of investigation for this report, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted over 200 interviews with victims of sexual violence and their relatives, former offenders, law enforcement and government officials, treatment providers, researchers, and child safety advocates.
“Human Rights Watch shares the public’s goal of protecting children from sex abuse,” said Jamie Fellner, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. “But current laws are ill-conceived and poorly crafted. Protecting children requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach than politicians have been willing to support.”
"Sexual violence affects tens of thousands of people each year, many of them children. For the most part, the media has tended to focus on cases where children are abducted by strangers, who were often previously convicted sex offenders. This leads many to believe that children are most at risk from strangers and those with a history of abusing kids. Perhaps it’s not surprising law-makers have also taken this view – many of us who began work on this report thought the same way as well.
But now we believe current legislation may do more harm than good. I’m Sarah Tofte, US researcher at Human Rights Watch, and for close to two years, I’ve spoken to victims, former offenders, and child safety advocates for a report on United States sex offender laws. We examined various laws – on registration, community notification, and residency restrictions –that apply to former offenders. "
Listen to Report Audio:
NACDL Slams Adam Walsh Act
In a scathing letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the NACDL decried the Adam Walsh Act as blatantly unconstitutional and contradictory to public safety. The letter, in it’s an entirety can be viewed here: http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/2cdd02b415ea3a64852566d6000daa79/Rules&Reg_attachments/$FILE/SORNA.pdf
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing the mission of the nation's criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's more than 12,800 direct members -- and 94 state, local, and international affiliate organizations with another 35,000 members -- include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness within America's criminal justice system.
Rights and Law Network
Rights and Law Network: Our mission includes establishing a movement to reform or abolish the current sex offender laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and that do more harm than good. Join our discussion forum for more detailed discussions on our legal platforms. A non-profit group seeking to eliminate current legislation alleged to be for the protection of society, but is being used to extend criminal sentences, and to persecute former offenders that have paid their debt to society.
Judge Dismisses Sex Offender Case
WHIO Dayton: Miami County - The Miami County prosecutor said he will fight common pleas judge’s ruling that follows a Piqua sex offender to live too close to a school.
In a written decision, Miami County Common Pleas Judge Robert Lindeman dismissed the pending case against Burge because the residency law, made by the Supreme Court in February 2003, was not in effect when Burge was convicted of his sex offense.
Sex Offender Sues Every Sheriff, Prosecutor
WLKY.com: Sex Offender Files Suit Against Every Sheriff & Prosecutor In Indiana.
SCOTT COUNTY, Ind. -- A man filed a lawsuit against every sheriff and prosecutor in the state of Indiana. The law that goes into effect in July would allow law enforcement to search his computer at any time. Morris' attorney said it's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. ACLU attorney Ken Falk said the Supreme Court has expressly said that law enforcement cannot conduct a search without probable cause and a warrant, and that lawmakers completely ignored that.
WTHR.com: ACLU fights sex offender monitoring law ( April 14, 2008):
Indianapolis - A legal effort is underway to stop a law that allows police to monitor Internet use of sex offenders. According to the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the law tramples Fourth Amendment rights. "There has to be at least some reasonable suspicion to enter their homes and violate their Fourth Amendment," Falk said. "People who are no longer on probation or parole or any court supervision, who are free people, who have all the constitutional rights that all Americans have, one of those, of course, is your Fourth Amendment right.
Law requiring GPS on sex offenders is illegal
Sentencing Law and Policy: Split Sixth Circuit panel addresses challenges to Tennessee sex offender GPS rules.
The Tennessee Serious and Violent Sex Offender Monitoring Pilot Project Act (the “Surveillance Act”), imposes retroactively a requirement that all convicted sex offenders not only register with the Tennessee sexual offender registry, but also wear a relatively large device (a global positioning system, “G.P.S.”) at all times....
Court dissenting opinion:
[G]iven the large size of the G.P.S. device, the Surveillance Act violates Appellant Doe’s constitutional rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The box measures 6 inches by 3.25 inches by 1.75 inches. Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1005 (6th Cir. 2007). The box must be worn outside any coat or outer garment, making it plainly visible to onlookers. Id. at 1002. In essence, this box is a modern day “scarlet letter,” branding sex offenders with a marker of their crime for all to see.
I believe that the retroactive application of the Surveillance Act constitutes an Ex Post Facto Clause violation because (1) as a catalyst for public ridicule, it is a form of shaming, humiliation, and banishment, which are well-recognized historical forms of punishment; (2) it promotes the traditional aims of punishment; and (3) it is excessive in forcing Doe to broadcast his sex offender status not only to those who choose to inquire, but also to the general public....
Supreme Courts limit sex offender residency restriction
Sentencing Law and Policy: Missouri high court limits application of sex offender residency restriction.
"violates the bar on retrospective laws set forth in article I, section 13 of the state constitution. Missouri has prohibited retrospective civil laws -- which create new obligations, impose new duties or attach new disabilities with respect to actions already past...this Court has held that a law requiring registration as a sex offender for an offense that occurred prior to the registration law's effective date was an invalid retrospective law in violation of article I, section 13. Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006). The same long-standing principles apply here, as the residency restrictions impose a new obligation on R.L. and those similarly situated by requiring them to change their place of residence based solely on offenses committed before the statute was enacted."
Sex Crimes: The Property Rights Argument is Gaining Force.
Georgia Supreme Court ruling has refueled the debate on whether states should restrict where sex offenders live. The Georgia court struck down its residency restrictions last week, giving opponents of such buffer zones hope that other state laws will be reviewed and possibly overturned....for the past three years, opposition to residency restrictions has grown.
That’s why Georgia’s ruling was “monumental,” said Corwin Ritchie of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. “When these laws were first bantered about, they sold an awfully convincing bill of goods, that they are awfully good safety measures,” Ritchie said. “I think in Georgia they are seeing the full impact of the unintended consequences and saying this is not constitutional.”
Targeting past sex offenders
Joplin Globe/Missouri: Senators back amendment targeting past sex offenders.
Senators endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment Tuesday that could undo a Missouri Supreme Court ruling and restore the names and addresses of more than 4,300 past sex offenders to a state registry. They also voted to require sex offenders to stay in their homes on Halloween. The Senate’s effort to increase the tracking and public notification of people convicted of decades-old sex offenses came just moments after a registered sex offender urged a House committee to use restraint in imposing new restrictions. Aside from registering their names, addresses and other information, sex offenders also are prohibited under Missouri law from living or loitering near schools and child care centers.
“I am not for sex offenders,” Rep. Nasheed said. “However, I do believe we can go too far.”
The amendment seeks to undo a June 2006 Missouri Supreme Court decision that sex offenders convicted of crimes before Missouri’s registry law took effect in January 1995 cannot be required to register. The high court ruled the law violated the state constitution’s prohibition on retrospective laws.
As a result, the sex offender registry maintained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol no longer lists the addresses of 4,364 people whose most recent sex-offense conviction occurred before 1995, said patrol spokesman Capt. Tim Hull. The registry still listed detailed information for 6,995 other offenders as of Tuesday, Hull said.
ACLU challenges new sex offender law
IndyStar.com : ACLU challenges new sex offender law.
The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit today challenging a new provision of the state sex offender law that will require those who register to agree to searches of their computers. Passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly, Senate Bill 258, which takes effect July 1, addresses several issues related to sex offenders. One is that when a sex offender begins probation, parole or enrolls in the state's sex offender registry, they must sign a consent form agreeing to searches of computers or Internet-enabled devices at any time. Also, they must agree to install software that monitors Internet usage at their own expense. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, says placing the restriction on sex offenders who aren't in probation or still on parole violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Sex offenders generally must register for 10 years after their release from prison, though some must register for life. "It seems to be, in our estimation, a pretty clear violation of the fourth amendment when you're not on parole or probation," said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director.
Sex offender laws struck down
Nevada/ Las Vegas Sun: Juvenile sex offender laws struck down — for now.
...the constitutionality of Nevada’s new sex offender laws as they apply to juveniles — The judge ruled the juvenile sex offender laws Nevada adopted with the passage of Assembly Bill 579 are unconstitutional. The laws being challenged in AB 579 are based on the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, signed into law by President Bush in July 2006. ....expects the laws will not be enforced until the Supreme Court hears the appeals. The state’s high court is not expected to rule on the case before July 1. The new laws, Voy agreed, are unconstitutional because they violate due process.
Operation Awareness
Operation Awareness
Operationawareness.com was started in May 2006, a site devoted specifically to child safety, criminal justice and civil rights issues.
Understanding the Ramifications of The Adam Walsh Act (AWA)
Adam Walsh Act Violations based on Retro-Active Application of AWA
ABS's 20/20 Interview by John Stossel:
Retroactive Law Unconstitutional
Is Retroactive GPS Monitoring Unconstitutional?
[Jonathan Adler, April 1, 2008 at 11:19pm] from: http://volokh.com/posts/1207106347.shtml
Does Tennessee's Serious and Violent Sex Offender Monitoring Pilot Project Act, which requires convicted sex offenders to wear a GPS device (including those previously convicted), violate the Constitution's ex post facto clause? Six judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit thought so, and dissented from the denial of en banc review of a panel decision concluding otherwise. Wrote Judge Keith for himself and five other judges:
I believe that the retroactive application of the Surveillance Act constitutes an Ex Post Facto Clause violation because (1) as a catalyst for public ridicule, it is a form of shaming, humiliation, and banishment, which are well-recognized historical forms of punishment; (2) it promotes the traditional aims of punishment; and (3) it is excessive in forcing Doe to broadcast his sex offender status not only to those who choose to inquire, but also to the general public. The majority, in upholding the Surveillance Act, deliberately turned a blind eye to the obvious effects of forcing Doe to wear such a large box on his person. Moreover, the majority erred in its emphasis that such boxes “will only become smaller and less cumbersome as technology progresses.” The question at hand was whether the required technology under the Surveillance Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause today, not whether technology could conceivably develop such that it will become inconspicuous in the future.
UPDATE: Here is the original panel's decision in Doe v. Bredesen.
The Permanent Underclass
This is an MSNBC story demonstrating the inherent problems with legislation designed to make registered sex offenders a permanent underclass. After being forced to move herself and her family out of her home once, Jennifer Lowe ( a misdemeanor offender) found herself in violation of another new Iowa law forbidding a registered sex offender from living near bus stops or parks. She was imprisoned and her children were taken away from her.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23827702/
U.S. District Court approves the forfeiture of sex offender's house to the federal government:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamela Stanek said", We frequently use the federal forfeiture laws in child pornography cases to take the instruments of the crime — computers, printers, video cameras," she said. "But this is the first time we've taken a house."
The city hopes to get the majority of the proceeds from the sale of the house.
15 year old son re-classified to register every 90 days for the rest of his life::
About 2 years ago, her 15-year-old son was convicted of inappropriately touching his 9-year-old younger sister, a tragedy which shocked her family. When her son was sentenced, a judge determined he was a sexually oriented offender, the lowest severity under the law. But in January the law changed. The family received a letter from the Attorney General's office saying the boy was reclassified to the most severe type of offender who must register now every 90 days for the rest of his life !
Vigilantism
Is this the kind of nation you want The United States of America to be?
Most responsible county sheriff web sites which list sex offender registration information place a disclaimer similar to the following: "Any actions taken by you against any person on this list, including vandalism of property, verbal or written threats of harm or physical assault against an individual on this list, their family, or employer, may result in your arrest and prosecution. "
Yet, in less than 30 minutes, the following online news headlines and stories were found quite easily to demonstrate the extent to which vigilantism is taking place in this nation against a particular group of citizens, based purely on a crime they committed ( or were accused of committing) :
Vigilante violence has led to instances of stabbings, houses burned, even targeted killings by strangers who found names and addresses through online registries. Other registrants have been driven to suicide.
A Compilation of Deaths, Suicides & Murders of:
Former Sex Offenders, and/or Persons Accused (or Falsely Accused) of Sex Crimes
Clint and Alexis Jurek just bought their first house and got ready to move in with baby, Max. Then a post card came in the mail.
"All of our neighbors think that a sex offender lives at our address," says Alexis. "And not only that, but our house has been vandalized." Because of a clerical mistake, it appeared the offender still lived there.
Google News Headlines:
Wrong Place Vandalized, Torched; Meant For Registered Sex Offender
Vigilantes burn rapist out of second home
The Maine Senate has given initial approval to a bill making changes in the state's sex offender registry.
The changes address concerns raised after two men listed in the registry were murdered in 2006.
Vigilante’s Check Sex Offender List, Hit Wrong House
NY - Vigilantes Use Online Sex Offender Map to Burn Down Wrong House
Russia rallies around killer of 'pedophile'
No charges against activist who pulled guns on registered sex offender
Did Sex Offender Listing Lead To Murder?
Sex offenders will be named & shamed on web
Vigilantes: Coming soon to a community near you
Making Vigilantism Easier For The Masses
Vigilante Justice - Megan's Law listing may have led to Slaying
Vigilante Murder spurred by Megan’s Law?
Bring back vigilante justice! (for sex offenders)
SEX Offender vigilante justice!
Sex Offenders Killed by Vigilante
murder of washington sex offenders
Looking For Some Internet Fun? Now You Can Find Your Neighborhood Perv Online!
Vigilante Used Web to Find, Kill Sex Offenders
WA: admitted vigilante killer of sex offenders is arraigned
This April, a vigilante in Maine used a sex offender registry to track down and kill six convicted sex offenders.
tahuya news: vigilante beats sex offender
Megan's Murder: Once again Megan's Law has been used by a vigilante to locate and murder a convicted sex offender.
Apparent Vigilante Working Bellingham
Sex Offender Registries: Death Sentence
Police suspect sex offender targeted in arson attempt
Sex Offender News - Canadian suspect in slaying of sex offenders ...
Slayer of Sex Offenders Shoots Self Outside South Station
Vigilante action is illegal, yet most people have those reactions that border on rage when they find out someone is a sex offender
Sex Offenders Don't Deserve To Be Set Up For Murder
California's Sex Offender Database: Is Your Home at Threat Level Red?
vigilante justice jeopardizes the sex offender registry and the notification - Megan's Law
The Detroit News and Free Press are reporting that a burned and beheaded body found by a utility crew is that of a convicted sex offender.
One of the two Maine sex offenders killed by an apparent vigilante was listed in the state's online registry because of a 2002 conviction for having sex with a minor when he was 19
Maine Killings Raise Vigilantism Fears
vigilante mobs terrorising not just the convicted but also the alleged
having their photographs, names, home and/or work addresses posted on the Internet putting them at risk for vigilante justice?
more violence against sex offenders
The ACLU is asking Vermont to take down its online list of registered sex offenders, after vigilante Stephen Marshall tracked down and murdered two convicted sex offenders using a similar list
Seems some hicks near Knoxville found out they had a child-oriented sex-offender and decided to send him a message. Unfortunately, the message they sent him involved his wife dying in a fire.
Vigilante kills two, then himself
Sex offender asks for help from city officials, says he's target of vigilantes
It's easy to hate sex offenders
Killings of 2 Bellingham sex offenders may have been by vigilante, police say
murder of washington sex offenders
Death of Sex Offender Is Tied to Megan's Law - New York Times
Vigilantes Check Online Sex Offender List, Hit Wrong House
Vigilantism Against Sex Offenders Could Jeopardizes Community Safety Tools
Murder May Be Tied to Online Sex Offender List : NPR
Paedophile website raises vigilantism concerns
Law Times - Open sex-offender registry may spur vigilantes
Vigilantes take law into own hands
Teen Suspended for Sex Offender Warning (website, death, claim )
Maine killings raise questions about sex offender registries ...
USATODAY.com - Suspected shooter found sex offenders' homes on website
Murders Put Focus on Sex-Offender Registry Policies : NPR
Sex Offender's Body Burned, Beheaded
Professionals Respond
Below are memorandum, editorials, and letters written by "counseling and legal professionals:
gimeweb.com: I am a counselor who has worked with sex offenders every week for years. I have put in more hours than anyone I know in northern Nevada working to help prevent new sex crimes in our state. I, too, am a businessman in the community; I, too, am a father and a grandfather. I, too, am outraged by the same events that horrify all of us. First of all, the vast majority of convicted sex offenders are hardly up to the standard of "predator." Face it, the word "predator" is overused... What's really going on here though, if you stop and just think, is that we Americans have some sort of weird blind spot when it comes to sexual crimes....Sure, as a parent, I'd like to know about the dangerous people in my neighborhood: but so long as we're outing sex offenders why wouldn't we list convicted drug abusers, meth manufacturers, those convicted of domestic violence, and why not all the drunks convicted of drinking in public and DUI? - Steven Ing (read full letter)
Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present, and Future
WAYNE A. LOGAN key note speaker
Florida State University College of Law:
When information on registrants is made available, without reference to individual risk, as the AWA mandates and now occurs in most states, a saturation effect can occur, which can be detrimental to community members. As the Supreme Court observed in an unrelated context, "when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless". Secondly, over-broad notification might enhance the prospects of recidivism among otherwise law-abiding ex-offenders.
(read full address; PDF)
Professor Katherine Hunt Federle, Director of the "Justice for Children Project"
The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Letter to the Ohio House of Representatives, June 2007:
Senate Bill 10 goes well beyond the mandates of the Adam Walsh Act. Moreover, the federal financial incentives to implement provisions of the Adam Walsh Act by July 27, 2007, are illusory.
Let me first address the question of financial incentives. The Adam Walsh Act authorizes a ten percent bonus from Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) funds to those states implementing the requirements of the Act prior to July 27, 2007. 42 U.S.C.A. 16926(c)(1). The problem is that no SOMA funds have been appropriated. The Justice Department’s SMART Office cannot say when or if it expects SOMA funds to be appropriated, and there is no indication that the current Congress has any intention to appropriate funds for SOMA. Accordingly, neither the ten percent bonus nor the general SOMA assistance money that Ohio will need to implement the Adam Walsh Act currently exist, and they may never exist. ( read full letter)
State Cuts sex offender treatment
Chronicle-Telegram/Associated Press: The State of Ohio has stopped paying for counseling services for paroled sex offenders because of budget constraints, a move that leaves many offenders without the ability to pay for much-needed therapy, critics say. The state-funding cut was part of a $71 million reduction in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s budget. Ohio had spent about $1.3 million a year funding external treatment programs for sex offenders.
*** Now....if sex offenders are such a huge threat to public safety.......why on earth would the state cut counseling treatment services for released sex offenders? This is a very interesting question for Ohio officials to answer. It presents an enormous hypocrisy in their arguments for imposing stricter and retroactive Adam Walsh Act laws! ***
National News Coverage
Age of Consent: Sex Offender Laws - John Stossel, ABC News
Do tough sex offender laws in states ruin some lives while saving others?
Aired 03/11/2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4432467&affil=wkef
Report Faults Sex-Offender Laws
Human Rights Watch Report Criticizes State, Federal Sex-Offender Laws
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3592687
Should 14-Year-Olds Have to Register as Sex Offenders?
Lawsuits Planned Over New Sex Offender Registration Laws
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3483364&page=1
Sex Offender Runs for Mayor of Suburb
Registered Sex Offender Caught in Internet Sting Runs for Mayor of Dallas Suburb
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4495132
Breaking News
BREAKING LEGAL NEWS: The latest official legal information will be posted here. Check the Legal and Official Information Post for archives.
18 March: There has been little news and movement on the issue in the past three weeks but keep checking back often , as this blog is updated daily. See News Post for the latest.
DO NOT be fooled into thinking this is just going to go away, however. Just because there is a lull in the news, this is still a RED HOT button issue in this state. Individual case challenges are currently being heard, reviewed , and decided in county courts. Reclassification hearings are being heard, and county court constitutional challenges are being reviewed. Once this stage is complete, it will then go on to the state level where it should become much more public and widely known.
Corruption
This post will focus on the corruption of the Ohio elected officials who allowed the unconstitutional AWA law to pass in Ohio:
Ohio Senator Steve Austria (R -7th District):
13 Feb. 2008
According to Congressional candidate John Mitchel (R-Beavercreek), former U.S. senator Mike DeWine (R-Cedarville), retiring Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield),
endorsed successor candidate State Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) and his spouse, and a variety of local GOP officials have had a long history of cronyism and a recent corrupt scheme that involves steering a no-bid contract to Hobson campaign contributors, which incident Mitchel equates with the corrupt activity that has landed former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) in federal prison. He has been demanding a full investigation, which he accuses local GOP officials of resisting in order to conceal the conflicts of interests and influence peddling that have occurred.
OH-07: Austria (R) Called Co-Conspirator in Corrupt Steering of No-Bid Contracts:
Ohiodailyblog.com
Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John Mitchel (R-Beavercreek), now running for the seat of retiring Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield), charges that opponent State Sen. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) and his spouse Eileen are co-conspirators in a scheme to steer no-bid contracts to campaign contributors of Hobson, who supports Steve Austria in the race and has paid Eileen Austria large consulting fees. Mitchel compares the scheme to the steering of federal contracts by Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) that resulted in his resignation from Congress in November 2005 and guilty plea to federal conspiracy charges. Cunningham is serving an eight year prison sentence.
In an email to Greene County officials, following up on his request for a meeting to discuss requests for information on the matter, Mitchel describes his allegations this way:
Former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in federal prison for steering no-bid contracts toward his campaign contributors. Steve and Eileen Austria sit on the referenced advisory committee along with Sam Greenwood of the Greentree Group. They were instrumental in causing money transferred by Greene County to the Dayton Development Corporation to be used to award a large no-bid contract to Greentree Group, purportedly to assist in an effort to keep Wright Patterson Air Force Base open during the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process. Mitchel contends, however, that the base was in no real danger of closing, so the transactions in reality amounted to no more than an enormous transfer of public wealth to private hands.
Steve Austria, Kevin DeWine ignored constituents’ rights
Beavercreek, Ohio, Tuesday, January 8, 2008: Today congressional candidate John Mitchel criticized State Senator Steve Austria and Representative Kevin DeWine for failing to defend their constituents’ constitutional right to initiative petition. In March, 2005, Mitchel filed a grievance claiming that over 2,000 citizens were denied their right to place on the ballot an initiative to vote up or down on $14 million of Greene County tax dollars for financing The Greene, privately developed by Steiner and Associates.
Ohio Senator Steve Austria’s Bid for US Congress Turns to Desperate Sliming Politics: 2 March 2008
( from thestateofamericasfamily.wordpress.com)
Steve Austria is UNFIT for U.S. Congress and must be defeated
Steve Austria is attempting to get the Republican nomination for Congress in the 7th U.S. Congressional District, former seat of Dave Hobson (R-Springfield). Steve Austria is unfit to serve in the U.S. Congress amidst arising scandals of corruption in his position as Ohio Senator.
Ohio Representative Jon Husted (R -37th District):
* House speaker considers political blogs dangerous:
Sunday, July 30, 2006 — Ohio House Speaker Jon A. Husted is no fan of political blogs.
“I believe they’re overrated in some respects,” the Kettering Republican said during a taping Friday of ONN’s Capitol Square. “In high-profile campaigns, this is a way for people to use third parties to get bad information out about your opponent.”
The fact that people are paying attention to the blogs, Husted said, “is undermining the campaign process in terms of trying to advance ideas.”
“One of the things that is so frustrating when you’re running a campaign is when we get out there, we’re trying to decide who should lead our state, about the important issues of creating jobs and improving the future of this state — and we’re talking about whether or not Ted Strickland is gay on a blog.” he said. “That is not helpful.”
Earth to Jon Husted: we ain’t goin’ away my man. Things can only get better - worse for guys like you. (www.plunderbund.com). Jon Husted SHOULD be afraid of political blogs because with his actions in the Ohio General Assembly, they may soon put him out of work. Perhaps Jon Husted thinks free speech is dangerous too?
* The House speaker, Jon Husted, a young opportunist from Kettering in the Dayton area, was nailed by the Cleveland and Dayton papers for repeatedly accepting free flights and trips from his lobbyist pals. While Husted’s office denied at the time that the lobbyists were engaging in politics, I looked up their firms’ websites. One site proudly proclaimed that they could create personal relationships with legislators on behalf of their clients! Of course Husted’s office had no comment.
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Contributors/ohdave082406.htm
Since January, Speaker Husted, who is comfortably on his way to the gerrymandered and secure state Senate seat held by term-limited Jeff Jacobson, has made little secret in the shadows of Columbus’ watering holes about his desire to be Secretary of State.
But as the dynamic duo of Husted and Ohio Republican Party Prince Regent Kevin DeWine plot their way back to power – the combination of political Machiavellism and personal ambition may wind up burying both Ohio’s economy and the long alliance between struggling but still powerful (and personally wealthy) manufacturers.
(from Progress Ohio)
Jon Husted is unfit to serve in the elected office amidst arising scandals of corruption and his opposition to free speech, in his position as Ohio Representative.
steve austria, john white, jon husted, jeff jacobson, marc dann, ted strickland, mathias heck, ohio representative, ohio senate, senator, representatives, general assembly, suck sucks unfit illegal corrupt resign remove impeach criminals crime unconstitutional attorney general prosecuter ohio adam walsh act law sex offender registry registration child protection sexual predator registered sex offender law
If you are directly affected ..
If you are directly affected by this law...as a sex offender on registration or a family member or friend of one, here is what you NEED to do immediately:
1. File the complaint forms with the local courts. They are provided for you at Ohio Public Defender web site. (http://opd.ohio.gov/Adam_Walsh/Adam_Walsh.htm)
You must do this , not only to protect your own constitutional rights, but also to join in the fight to make it more likely that we will succeed as a whole. File both the Motion for Relief from Community Notification and the Petition to Contest Reclassification. Make sure you also note on your filings that you contest the Constitutionality of the law's application: "that SB 10 violates the ex post facto, double jeopardy, and separation of powers provisions of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution". The more complaints filed, the more cumbersome it becomes for the courts and politicians. It not only assures you of contesting your own rights, but it also strengthens the cause throughout the state and nation.
File in the county of your registration AND the county of your conviction (if different). File copies with both the Clerk of Courts and the County Prosecutor, as instructed. Keep a copy. You have an extended deadline but it will not go on forever so get it done!
2. Call, email and write your local representatives.
Be persistent and forceful in what you have to say to them. These politicians are cowards and bow to public opinion more than you know. Any indication that they will receive negative media attention will scare them more than you know. Tell them you insist that they stand up against the AWA law or that they resign. Do not make your case personal. No politician really cares about your own personal interests. They only care how it affects their reputations. Base your case on the illegality of the law and the irresponsibility of their actions in passing it. Beyond all, let it be known that you are not "asking" them , but rather demanding. Remember that these political and elected officials hold their positions ONLY as a privilege and at the pleasure of us, the citizens who vote !
3. Join ConstitutionalFights and our efforts to fight AWA and the SB 10 laws. Sign our petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/oh08/petition.html.
Shop, Support, and Fight
Here we will offer some promotional products. The goal here is simply to spread the word and get this effort widely known. This is not a profit enterprise. Any commissions from products sold here will go directly and completely into our efforts to fight Adam Walsh Act Laws in Ohio and the U.S.A.
T-SHIRTS
Constitutional Fights Revolution shirt
Constitutional Fights Revolution
Get this custom shirt at Zazzle
Constitutional Fights We The People shirt
Constitutional Fights We The People
Get this custom shirt at Zazzle
Constitutional Fights US Flag shirt
Constitutional Fights US Flag
Get this custom shirt at Zazzle
CAPS:
Constitutional Fights Fist Cap hat
Constitutional Fights Fist Cap
Get this custom hat at Zazzle
BUMPER STICKERS:
Constitutional Fights Red Sticker bumpersticker
Constitutional Fights Red Sticker
Get this custom bumpersticker at Zazzle
Constitutional Fights White Sticker bumpersticker
Constitutional Fights White Sticker
Get this custom bumpersticker at Zazzle
Constitutional Fights Black Sticker bumpersticker
Constitutional Fights Black Sticker
Get this custom bumpersticker at Zazzle
Truth over Myth
Fact #1 -Family acquaintances account for the great majority of sex offenders.
The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted Runaway and Thrownaway Children : Official Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: "results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers" http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_qa.pdf#search='nismart'
The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire):
"The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances"
Fact #2 - Sex Offenders have much lower rates of recidivism that other offenders.
United States Department of Justice / Bureau of Justice Statistics cites :
Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child Victimizers re-arrested):
* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
* Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
* Of Child Victimizers, approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
Recidivism Rates for NON- Sexual Offenders (67% re-arrested, 47% re-convicted):
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Don't believe me? Look at the U.S. Department Of Justice web site statistics yourself :
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidiv
Fact #3 : Child Sex Offenses have decreased dramatically since 1990.
The Crimes Against Children Research Center studies:
a) "various forms of child mistreatment and child victimization declines as much as 40-70% from 1993 through 2004, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault..."
b) " sexual abuse started to decline in the early 1990's after at least 15 years of steady increases. From 1990 through 2004 sexual abuse substantiations were down 49%"
c) "sexual assaults of teenagers have decreased , according to the National Crime Victimization Survey ...from 1993 through 2004 , overall sexual assaults were down 67%"
d) "sexual abuse declines have occurred in 41 states ...with no apparent regional , ethnic or racial pattern".
U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs study -Juvenile Justice Bulletin :
Explanations for Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases:
a) "The number of sexual abuse cases substantiated by Child Protective Service dropped a remarkable 40% between 1992 and 2000."
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System:
a) "Cases of substantiated sexual abuse have declined approximately 39% nationwide from 1992 to 1999. Despite the dramatic nature of the decline, little discussion of the trend has occurred at either the national or the state level. "
b) "Child Protective Services (CPA) agencies in the majority of these states were had spent little time considering the implications of the trend....In fact, respondents in 16 states , or about 50%, were unaware of any consdieration or discussion among CPS administrators of the decline at all. Six states were not even aware of the decline in sexual abuse in their state. "
Fact#4: The Center for Sex Offender Management published this report on Truths vs. Myths which support the facts stated above:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders
August 2000
There are many misconceptions about sexual offenses, sexual offense victims, and sex offenders in our society. Much has been learned about these behaviors and populations in the past decade and this information is being used to develop more effective criminal justice interventions throughout the country. This document serves to inform citizens, policy makers, and practitioners about sex offenders and their victims, addressing the facts that underlie common assumptions both true and false in this rapidly evolving field.
Ohio Constitution
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm
Excerpts:
§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)
All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.
§ 1.03 Right to assemble (1851)
The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct their representatives; and to petition the general assembly for the redress of grievances.
§ 1.08 Writ of habeas corpus (1851)
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety require it.
§ 1.10 Trial for crimes; witness (1851; amended 1912)
Except in cases of impeachment, cases arising in the army and navy, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, and cases involving offenses for which the penalty provided is less than imprisonment in the penitentiary, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and the number of persons necessary to constitute such grand jury and the number thereof necessary to concur in finding such indictment shall be determined by law. In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to procure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; but provision may be made by law for the taking of the deposition by the accused or by the state, to be used for or against the accused, of any witness whose attendance can not be had at the trial, always securing to the accused means and the opportunity to be present in person and with counsel at the taking of such deposition, and to examine the witness face to face as fully and in the same manner as if in court. No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; but his failure to testify may be considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. (As amended September 3, 1912.)
§ 1.16 Redress in courts (1851, amended 1912)
All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.
[Suits against the state.] Suits may be brought against the state, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law.
(As amended September 3, 1912.)
§ 2.01 In whom power vested
The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose to the general assembly laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls on a referendum vote as hereinafter provided. They also reserve the power to adopt or reject any law, section of any law or any item in any law appropriating money passed by the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided; and independent of the general assembly to propose amendments to the constitution and to adopt or reject the same at the polls. The limitations expressed in the constitution, on the power of the general assembly to enact laws, shall be deemed limitations on the power of the people to enact laws.
(As amended Nov. 3, 1953; 125 v 1095.)
§ 4.01 In whom power vested
The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, courts of appeals, courts of common pleas and divisions thereof, and such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as may from time to time be established by law. (Amended 7-7, 1968; Nov. 6, 1973; SJR No.30.)
§ 4.04 Common pleas court
(B) The courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters and such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law.
§ 2.28 Retroactive laws
The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state.
§ 1.02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly.
§ 2.38 Removal of officials
Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers, including state officers, judges and members of the general assembly, for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other cause provided by law; and this method of removal shall be in addition to impeachment or other method of removal authorized by the constitution. (Adopted September 3, 1912.)
United States Constitution
Get your own copy of the United States Constitution here at Heritage.org ..... or view it online at:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Definition of "Ex post facto":
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
Article 3 Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
ConstitutionalFights Online
We have just begun to spread the word about this unconstitutional law passed by the Ohio Senate and House. We have just begun to call upon these elected officials to either stand and speak out publicly AGAINST the illegal implementation of this law, or to resign, or be be forced out of office.
ConstitutionalFights on YouTube:
Watch Ohio Politicians Pass an Illegal Law in an emergency vote just to get Federal Money:
The above videos of the Senate and House voting on this law can be found on the Ohio General Assembly web site and a link to each full, unedited videois listed in the "video" post here. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, they have made their public videos so difficult to copy or record, that I had to go through many levels of conversion and editing to even get a poor quality video source. The audio and video are edited and not coordinated. The video was edited to show the faces of the corrupt politicians to the public, and the audio was edited to give a sense of what was said in the voting sessions. The complete edited audio of these clips can be heard here:
boomp3.com
The voices of the Senators in this clip are (in order): Steve Austria, Randy Gardner, Ray MIller, Shirley Smith, Lance Mason, Tom Sawyer, Teresa Fedor, Timothy Grendell, Robert Spada,Jeff Jacobson, Steve Stivers, Lance Mason, Dale Miller, Steve Stivers, Tim Schaffer, Timothy Grendell, Ron Amstutz, Tim Robersts, Steve Austria. A few of these Senators actually said "I have concerns about the Constitutionality of this law....but I'm going to vote 'yes' anyway". Unbelievable! More on these corrupt politicians later...
Marc Dann and Lee Fisher are Idiots
The above video shows two Ohio politicians, Lee Fisher and Marc Dann, who supported and pushed hard to get the Adam Walsh Act law in place. These officials have no regard for the Ohio nor United States Constitutions and are in violation of their oaths of office. The legislation they espouse violates Constitutional Rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens. These two corrupt officials should be contacted with fierce opposition, be forced to stand publicly against this unconstitutional legislation and be forced to resign from office. Note: Lee Fisher doesn't even know the proper name of the law.
Put 14 year old kids on online Sex Predator Lists:
Teenagers as young as 14 years of age will be listed on the new Sex Offender Registry ,under Adam Walsh Act legislation. These children will have their photos, home addresses and other personal information posted publicly online , which opens up other family members in their home to the same public humiliation and potential violence which they will face.
What's New ?
This blog is updated daily, in our fight against the Adam Walsh Act laws and against the elected officials who enacted it.
We make every attempt to keep the blog layout clear, concise and well-organized to make it easier to navigate. So often, updates are placed into already-established posts. So please check back often for additions to posts.
What is a "Sex Offense"
As we push forward with our efforts to stand against this irresponsible Adam Walsh Act legislation and the elected officials who enacted it, it has become clear that many citizens are ignorant of what constitutes a "sex related offense".
To be clear, the designation of a "sex offense" in Ohio and most of the U.S., includes any crime or offense which is related to sexual conduct. Sex offenses include many crimes other than what you see represented in your local news "scare" reports. Sex offenses include: public indecency, voyeurism, importuning (soliciting a person to engage in sexual activity), child endangering, sexual imposition (sexual contact which is offensive to another person), and also includes the so-called "Romeo & Juliet" offenses (where teenagers of similar age engage in sexual activity before one is of legal age).
False new reporting often leads citizens to see "sex offenders" only as the predatory violent animals associated with the highly publicized news cases, or where a teacher violates a student, or where a child is murdered. This is a false representation of "sex offenses", as most sex-related crimes are not predatory or violent acts.
Furthermore, even in cases where children are violated, statistics clearly show that the vast majority of victims knew the offender. In such cases, the Adam Walsh Act laws would do little to prevent them from occurring. It is quite uncommon that victims do not know their abusers personally. "Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child's family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998)."
An additional widespread misconception is sex crime recidivism rates. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism than those involving non-sex offenses. "43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
Conclusion: What you often see represented in news reports is misleading or not accurate. Not all sex offenders are predatory child rapists. Most sex offenders do not repeat sex crimes. And most sex offenders knew their victims before the crime. Therefore, the scare tactics used in implementing the Adam Walsh Act are false. They play on the fears of those who see the rare but highly publicized violent and predatory news reports. They cite false recidivism rates of sex offenders. And they rely on a false assumption that the stranger down the block will break into your home and assault your children, when the facts and statistics show that most offenders personally knew their victims before the crime.
Citizen Response
Letter of Support:
I would like to express my opinion on the fight that we, you, and others have, and how I believe we can achieve power and force to weigh upon all political figures who continue to support Ex Post Violations in sex offender laws. The courts in large part have also been at the forefront of denying Ex Post Facto, double jeopardy, and lack of Due Process by acquiesing to the political powers, Denying the clear words in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
-from Founder of http://www.gimeweb.com/
ConstitutionalFights Endorses Candidate David Esrati for Congress in OH-District 3. Mr. Esrati has proven he is a leader, not a follower, and that he is honorable. He stands for the law of the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution. Please read his statement in response to our inquiry HERE.
While the founder and principal of 'ConstitutionalFights' is Reagan Conservative , we are not afraid to support candidates of any party who stand for the right principles. We will endorse and support any candidate who stands up for the Constitution..... and will work actively to defeat any candidate who fails to support the Constitution.
Citizen Response:
When people hear the word “sex offender” they think of a child rapist, scum, low-life. While that may be true for some, it isn’t true for all. Everyday you hear how some town has passed a local ordinance further restricting where an offender or predator can live. The problem is that these laws don’t work. According to the “Constitution” once someone has paid their debt they are therefore free. But not so for the sexual criminal. If these people are such a threat to everyone why let them out at all. You’d be better off leaving them in prison or putting them on death row. Because all these restrictions amount to pretty much that. Even though most experts say that the current laws and ordinances do no good and may be having the opposite consequences. It’s time for society to wake up. You need to look at the bigger picture and see what happening to the Constitution and basically everyone rights. History can teach us a lot. Long before Hitler killed the first Jew he passed laws going after “sex deviants.” So these were the first sex offender laws. Then Hitler went after the political enemies. This is pretty much equal to the “Patriot Act.” Which summed up means as long as the government says you are a suspected terrorist you will have no rights? Then he went on to make concentration camps to hold these people to protect the general population from such dangerous criminals. No camps in America yet. But some state are already done going after the sexual criminals and started going after other groups. Take the state of Wisconsin for example. Here is a proposed bill called Leah's Law. It consists of requiring that the state of Wisconsin set up a public online database, much like the Sex Offender database currently in place, and maintain the database with updated registered repetitive violent offender information such as photograph, current address, and previous convicted crimes. Leah's Law would also require a U.S. postal mail notification to residents in a repetitive violent offender's neighborhood. Then let’s take California . There next step is to maintain a state arson registry. So when will the concentration camps come? How much longer are you, the American people just going to sit by and watch until they come for you but by then it will be too late.
"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state," Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R), told reporters.
"The people will take any infringement on their own freedoms as long as it benefits the children." - Adolf Hitler
As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” (Mein Kampf)
First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Why You Should Care
If these "Adam Walsh" laws only affect sex offenders, why should we care?
Well, when we allow elected officials to pass laws like this which curtail Constitutional Rights of one group of citizens, it becomes much easier for laws to be enacted by legislators and upheld in courts to apply to other groups of citizens.
While some may believe that the "Adam Walsh" Act and its resultant state laws are acceptable because they only apply to sexual offenders, we need to understand that these laws set legal precedent which will allow future laws to curtail the rights of other Americans.
Perhaps we may see laws passed which designate those arrested for drunk driving (DUI) as required to have a special colored license plate on their cars, even if they were convicted several years ago. Or perhaps those with any drug related offense within the past decade may be required to be listed on a local sheriff registry web page. These scenarios are not far-fetched, considering the breadth of the Adam Walsh Act provisions.
That is why you should care greatly about this abuse. The Ohio battle is on the forefront of this war to protect our Constitutional Rights. And Ohio needs to set the precedent to stand up to this abuse of power by our elected officials.
Sadly, there will always be the ignorant who make comments suggesting we "throw sex offenders off bridges" , "imprison them for life", or advocating that we "castrate them" or "put them to death". The ignorance of those who believe a sex offender could never be in their own family is astounding. There are families of 30,000 Ohio citizens alone who never thought their loved one would be accused of a sex crime, Yet now they face reality. Friends, parents, children and families of 30,000 Ohioans must hear the ignorance of these reactionaries.
Yes, your loved one could be sexually violated. It CAN happen to you.
Yes, your loved one, child, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, parent or good friend could someday be a "sex offender".
It CAN happen to you, too.
Think twice before you take Constitutional rights from other citizens. It might one day affect YOUR family too. Think about it.
Video
Ohio Senate - video of voting on Senate Bill - May 16, 2007, beginning at time mark 19 min,50 sec):
Only a voice vote was taken (31-1) beginning at time mark 31 min,15 sec. Note that great emphasis in the presentation of this bill was placed on the federal funding advantage to the State. Senators Shirley Smith and Lance Mason, actually expressed opposition of the
retro-active aspect of this bill , yet both still voted to pass the bill. Final vote was taken at time mark 56 min, 40 sec. ( 32-0).
Ohio House of Representatives - video of voting on Senate Bill 10 - June 27, 2007, beginning at time mark : (1 hr, 21 min, 40 sec):
Beginning at time mark 1 hr, 23 min, 20 sec. Again, great emphasis was placed on implementing this bill in time to receive federal funding. Representative Bill Seitz expressed opposition to retro-active implementation yet still voted to pass the bill. Voting began at time mark 1 hr, 34 min 06 sec. NO voice vote was even taken. Only electronic voting was taken (97-0).
January 29, 2008: Federal Court Judge Patricia Gaughan in Cleveland asked all 88 Ohio counties to hold off enforcing part of the new Adam Walsh sex offender law.
All 88 counties were sued Friday by the public defender for what they believe are unconstitutional practices in the implementation of the new law, according to the complaint.
February 2, 2008: WKRC TV Cincinnati:
High Cost of New Sex Offender Law
October 2007: Sex Offenders and their families gathered on the steps of the Ohio State House to educate the public about the Adam Walsh Act that was signed into law earlier in 2007
Contact Us
Questions or Concerns may be addressed to "Constitutional Fights".
NOTE: All threatening or illegal correspondence will be forwarded to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies immediately (along with complete headers and message sources).
Intelligent, informative, or constructive comments are acceptable. Emotional, personal or unintelligent reactions are not acceptable. If you're angry about this blog go kick your dog.
Audio Clips
Talking Points Radio:
Description: Meet 3 moms who have come together due to a common bond to discuss the destruction of young lives due to the sex offender registry.more
Description: Meet 3 moms who have come together due to a common bond to discuss the destruction of young lives due to the sex offender registry. less
Hosted by: Educate All Youth
Listen to audio
Ohio's new sex-offender law draws rebuke from judges
23 Jan 2008
At issue are a host of potential contradictions and constitutional questions arising from the state legislature's attempt to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
from: The Cleveland Plain Dealer, News - http://www.audio-newsstand.com/
boomp3.com
Minnesota Public Radio- A better approach to sex offender policy
June 2007
"Sometimes what happens is lawmakers don't want to know the facts, or the facts don't make any difference," says Mathern. "There really are two things that affect public policy. One is the facts. The other is the feelings and political pressure. There are legislators who will say, 'Don't confuse me with the facts. I've made up my mind.'"
"These public policies have to be discussed. And the citizens have to start influencing their legislators to use facts, to use research, to use an approach that actually works, not an approach that just gets more votes," says Mathern. "We have to make sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot by being righteous, but making things worse."
Listen To Audio
Audio Highlights of the Ohio Senate Vote enacting the Adam Walsh Act laws ( see voting videos here). The audio quality is poor because the Ohio General Assembly website makes it very difficult to record or copy their videos. BIG shock, right?
boomp3.com
New York Public Radio: Are sex offender laws working?
Listen to Audio
Petition: Revoke Adam Walsh
Online Petition - Let Your Voice Be Heard ! We ask for your support in signing this online petition which will be forwarded to legislators to help revoke this unconstitutional law:
http://www.petitiononline.com/oh08/petition.html
Contact the Elected Officials
The following Corrupt public or elected officials are actively and irresponsibly curtailing the Constitutional Rights of Ohio and U.S. citizens. We encourage you to contact them repeatedly and often to insist that they actively stand up to defeat the Adam Walsh Act and its laws which trample Constitutional rights of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens. Demand that they do so or resign immediately. Do not easily accept leaving a message with a secretary. Insist on speaking to these individuals, or write or email them directly. Remember, these people hold their positions at our pleasure, as voting citizens. And remind them that they have sworn to uphold the Constitutional rights for all citizens. Tell them that they have failed to abide by their oath and that they may be forced to resign or be held criminally responsible:
NOTICE : Absolutely NO physical threat or violence is suggested, promoted nor condoned by ConstitutionalFights.org or its organizer, nor members. But we do have the Constitutional Right in the State of Ohio to : assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct their representatives; and to petition the general assembly for the redress of grievances. [Section1.03 Right to assemble (1851)].
Ohio Representative Jon Husted - Speaker of the House, Voted YES on this law.
district37@ohr.state.oh.us
Telephone: (614) 644-6008
Ohio Representative John White - Voted YES on this law.
district38@ohr.state.oh.us
Telephone: (614) 466-6504
Who is your Ohio Representative?
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp
Ohio Senator Steve Austria - Introduced this legislation, Voted YES on this law.
sd10@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Telephone: (614)466-3780
Senator Jeff Jacobson - Voted YES on this law.
jjacobso@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Telephone: (614)466-4538
Who is your Ohio Senator?
http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/index.html
Montgomery County Ohio Prosecutor
Mathias Heck - Defends this law.
Telephone: 937-225-5757
Email ( Their email listed on their website DOES NOT work. Email landisk@mcohio.org
Staff Listing
Ohio Attorney General
Marc Dann - Campaigned on passing this legislation, Defends this law.
Telephone: 614-466-4320
They cowardly dont post an email address but inquiries can be sent here:
http://www.ag4ohio.gov/Public/details.aspx?s=222
NEW CONTACT INFO:
The phone number to Marc Dann’s office is (614) 466-4320.
Or you can email Marc Dann directly at marcdann@yahoo.com
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
Defends this law.
Governor's Office
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6108
Telephone: (614) 466-3555
He cowardly does not post an email address but inquiries can be sent here:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=448
or sent to his secretary, Keith Dailey:
keith.dailey@governor.ohio.gov
Sample Letters to Elected Officials:
I, frankly would not be so polite as these, but these letter samples were provided by sexoffenderissues.com:
Respectful Sample Letter 1 to Elected Officials
Respectful Sample Letter 2 to Elected Officials
ConstitutionalFights Sample Letter #1: (for elected officials currently in office)
(elected official's name):
We, as active voting citizens of Ohio, and as constituents who give you the privilege of holding your elected office, demand your immediate resignation of office for the following causes:
1. Your support, endorsement, and enacting of the unconstitutional Adam Walsh Act law (Ohio Senate Bill 10) which violates the ex post facto, double jeopardy, and separation of powers provisions of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution. And it constitutes breach of contract of original plea
of the offenders (As the conditions of punishment are now changed years after the plea agreement was made).
2. Your refusal to personally respond to your Constituent's phone calls, emails and inquiries to your office regarding this legislation.
3. Your refusal to acknowledge nor publicly take a stand to renounce the Constitutional violations of this legislation.
4. Your refusal to respond to our prior demands, as Constituents of your office.
We have initiated a citizen action organization to remove you from office. In just over one month's time, we have seen over 900 Internet web views and 80 petition signatures demanding revocation of this irresponsible legislation, at ConstitutionalFights.org . And these efforts are growing weekly.
Also at ConstitutionalFights.org, we are endorsing candidates which take a public stand against this legislation which violates the Constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens. And we will continue to publicize your responsibility in enacting this violative law.
Clearly it is necessary for us to remind you that you serve in your elected official position at OUR pleasure. With your actions, you have demonstrated that you are unfit to serve in this privileged position.
Therefore, unless you immediately and publicly renounce the Adam Walsh Act retroactive applications, we expect your immediate resignation.
ConstitutionalFights Sample Letter #2: (for candidates running for local and state offices)
District Candidates;
We are a local community action group called ConstitutionalFights.
As a growing and active political force in your district, we ask your position on the recently enacted Adam Walsh Act laws in Ohio.
Will you actively and publicly stand against the illegal retroactive and unconstitutional implementation of this law?
If you refuse to answer, the answer will be an implied 'no' and we will work against your election.
If your answer is 'yes" we would consider helping your candidacy and offer an opportunity to post your statement on our action web site: www.constitutionalfights.org .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find your U.S. Representative: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Find your U.S. Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
steve austria, john white, jon husted, jeff jacobson, marc dann, ted strickland, mathias heck, ohio representative, ohio senate, senator, representatives, general assembly, suck sucks unfit illegal corrupt resign remove impeach criminals crime unconstitutional attorney general prosecuter ohio adam walsh act law sex offender registry registration child protection sexual predator registered sex offender law
News and Blog Information
THIS POST IS UPDATED DAILY
Daily Kos: The Treatment of Sex Offenders in This Country: Most felony level offenses having sex as an element, from lewd behavior to child molestation to rape, now carry mandatory lifetime registration, with permanent stigmatization and restrictions on where people can live. Many states are also regularly employing civil commitment for offenders whose incarceration term has expired, keeping them in state mental hospitals indefinitely without the need for a sentence from the court. The result is the creation of a permanent institutionally persecuted pariah class.
Citizens for Legislative Change: Adam Walsh Act Laws (AWA), SORNA, sex offender legislation.
Rights and Law Network: Adam Walsh Act Laws (AWA), SORNA, sex offender legislation.
The Liberty Papers: More sex offender insanity.
S.O. Laws Unconstitutional: A Father of 3, Husband of 1 who thinks their needs to be Sweeping, Immediate changes in the S.O. Laws in America. Retroactive laws that do not take into consideration how many years has gone by since a crime was committed, the age of the person, or any other relevant information only hurt a large number of people.We do need laws that protect our citizens, but just because a person commits a crime, does not make them a NON-CITIZEN.
AuthorsDen.com - New 2008 federal sex offender laws: ...Many legislators are now having second thoughts about some classifications of sex offenders. Many will tell you that the "strict" sex offense laws were made for the predators, like rapist and child predators, not video voyeurs and such. But in the past few years to "earn" the offender tag is quite easy to earn. As Senator Keith Kreiman of Iowa is quoted as saying " It is very politically risky to even hold hearings on repealing some of the sex offender laws" (USA Today).
News_Herald.com: New Law Targeted by Sex Offenders. The Adam Walsh Act has only been in effect since Jan. 1, but the petitions protesting the controversial new sexual predator law are already pouring in. As of March 20, 74 appeals have been filed in Lake County alone. "We put a stay on all hearings, pending a decision by the Supreme Court," the judge said. "For now, we're ordering them to keep registering (as they were before the law was passed)."
Columbus Dispatch: Thousands of sex offenders across Ohio are filing similar challenges. "If you call everybody a threat, nobody's a threat," said Margie Slagle, a lawyer with the Ohio Justice and Policy Center in Cincinnati.
Lorain Chronicle Telegram: In the first day of hearings on complaints from sex offenders who have been reclassified under a new state law, prosecutors and defense attorneys got through nine cases Tuesday. The law would be fair if it only applied to those who committed sex crimes after it took effect, critics have said.
Patterico.com: Texas officials may soon begin ignoring a new federal sex offender law that would require some juveniles as young as 14 to register on a national Web site. A federal community notification act approved by Congress and signed by President Bush is so sweeping, it’s raising concern among even those who traditionally have pushed for greater public sex offender disclosure. Scores of prosecutors, victims’ rights advocates and normally get-tough lawmakers say provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 are Draconian and costly and may end up harming the victims they’re supposed to protect. “We think our laws are strong enough,” said Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, a leading advocate of sex offender registration laws in Texas.” States risk losing federal funding if they don’t implement the new law by 2009. In addition, some are troubled by the lack of local control.
American Bar Association, ABA Journal : One in 100 adults in the U.S. is serving time in prison right now, reportedly the highest incarceration rate ever. And it is even higher for members of certain minority groups. They also add up to a lot of money spent on state and federal prisons. It costs an average of nearly $24,000 to house an inmate annually.
TheCourier.com: Court challenge prompts judge to stay cases. A Hancock County judge agreed Monday to put Ohio's sex offender law on hold in 11 cases until a federal court judge addresses constitutional challenges to the new law.
New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library: Facing Deadline, States Troubled by Federal Sex Crime Mandates.
WTVG TV Toledo: Sex Offenders: "Attorney General's office increased the number of sex offenders considered dangerous by 8000... The law is already costing tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars".
Philly.com: Sex Offender Law Ignores Real Harm. 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex-offense convictions. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child-safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.
TheBriefcase: Commentary and Analysis of Ohio Law: What research has been done has not shown that sex offender registration laws have any effect whatsoever on the one thing they’re supposed to affect: the incidence of sex crimes. In fact, as I mentioned several months ago, there’s some basis for believing that they’re actually counterproductive, in that they force sex offenders “underground,” making them that much harder to track..
USAToday : Sex-offender residency laws get second look. "It does not differentiate between real predators and the type of men he recalls arresting for urinating in public, a sex offense in" many states. "We need to focus on people we're afraid of, not mad at," says Lamons, a Tulsa Democrat who wants the rules to focus more on high-risk offenders. Now a backlash is brewing. Several states, including Iowa, Oklahoma and Georgia, are considering changes in residency laws that have led some sex offenders to go underground. Such offenders either have not registered with local police as the laws require or they have given fake addresses. The push to ease residency restrictions has support from victims' advocates, prosecutors and police who say they spend too much time investigating potential violations. The surge in residency restrictions happened in the absence of research proving that they work.
APublicDefender.com : Sex offender residency restrictions getting a second, closer look.
Brendan's Commentaries: More Adam Walsh madness in Ohio.
Cincinnati Enquirer / Cincinnati.com : Get Real on Sex Offender Rules. "Applying these laws retroactively is inhumane." There are more than 550,000 convicted sex offenders in the nation, more than 1,000 living in Greater Cincinnati. We urge the Ohio General Assembly not to waste time writing a new, specifically retroactive restriction law, but to instead work out a sensible classification system and invest in programs that would require released offenders to undergo continuing treatment rather just move down the road.
CentralOhio.com: Sandusky County Sheriff's Office has been sending out sex offender notifications to inform county residents if they have a sexual offender in their neighborhood... AGAINST the Federal Judge court order prohibiting this action.
TimesReporter.com: Sex offenders registered in Tuscarawas County will not have to change their reporting habits, at least for the time being.
SanduskyRegister.com : An obviously BIASED report but you can register your opinion on the page: A Feb. 6 order by a judge from the U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio will essentially allow the most serious sexual offenders convicted before Jan. 1 to move in next door to you and your family with no notification. The law is being challenged on the grounds it violates the Ohio Constitution and U.S. Constitution because it changes a defendant's sex offender status and reporting requirements without any hearing, without any regard for prior court decisions and without due process.
Seattle Times: The Harm Done by Sex Offender Laws.
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Ohio's new sex offender law draws rebuke from judges.
Sentencing Law and Policy: Sex offenders and the city states: AWA's many trivial pursuits.
Salem News : The local lawsuits filed to challenge reclassifications of sex offenders will remain on hold for now, pending the outcome of a federal lawsuit challenging the changes.
Vindy.com: Youngstown — All five Mahoning County Common Pleas trial judges have signed an order halting action in their courts concerning protests filed by 60 registered sex offenders against their reclassification under a new state law. The stay, filed Thursday, halts action on the protests pending resolution of a case now before U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio
WTVG Toledo: Right now there is a lawsuit; all 88 sheriff's offices are being sued
Blueshift: to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws.
Reformsexoffenderlaws.org: to protect society and its children from the dangers of sexual harm. We are also committed to preserve civil liberty and genuine criminal justice.
ROAR for Freedom: to educate society about the truths, rather than the myths about sex offenders, recidivism rates, and the effects that laws and ordinances have on sex offenders.
Sex Abuse Treatment Alliance:Dedicated to preventing sexual abuse through education, outreach, and community reconciliation of sexual abusers.
Sex Crimes: devoted to criminal laws regulating and punishing sexual violence.
Sex Offender Issues: the truth about sex offender laws, issues and how they violate the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights and Human Rights.
Sex Offender Research by A Voice of Reason: dedicated to research, studies and court cases related to sex offender issues.
Cleveland Free Times: Sex in the Time of Hysteria.
Cincinnati City Beat: Next Comes Burning at the Stake.
Voices for Ohio's Children: Implementation of the Adam Walsh Act in Ohio.
Davidson Justice: video.
Sex Offender Issue: Have We Gone Too Far?
Sex Offender Too: Willy, Registered Sex Offender.
Dayton Daily News: Constitutionality of Sex Offender Law Challenged.
News and Noteworthy: Articles concerning sex offender issues.
Sex Offender Support and Education Network: to advocate for positive sex offender policies and programs that include accountability, fair sentencing, and supportive community reintegration strategies.
Porkopolis: Blame the People who Wrote the Law.
Stateline.org: Anti-sex-offender zoning laws challenged.
Google News: Search terms Ohio "Adam Walsh".
OnceFallen: Through Knowledge and Wisdom Shall We Rise From The Ashes.
Sentencing Law and Policy: Professional Law Blog.
Helium: Is the Adam Walsh Act about sex-offender notification unconstitutional?
Sex Offender Issues: Sex Offender Laws may do more harm than good.
Sex Offender Issues: Ohio articles.
No Sex Offenders Need Apply: Counter-productive world of sex offender legislation.
Sex Gulag: Legal and Civil Rights issues.
Cincinnati Enquirer: Sex Offenders Face Tougher Rules.
Stateline.org: Will States say "No" to Adam Walsh Act?
WHIO TV: Adam Walsh Act requires sex offenders to register for life.
Ohio.com: A.P. Legal challenges mounting to sex offender law.
Huffington Post: Sex Offender laws may do more harm than good.
SexCrimeDefender: Adam Walsh Act.
Chillicothe Gazette: Data entry error causes worry ; residents thought sex offenders lived nearby.
Utah Daily Herald: Utah decides not to fully implement the federal Adam Walsh Act....calls the law "an unfunded mandate," "inflexible" and, "in some cases, not able to be implemented."
DailyPress: States can protect children without the problematic Adam Walsh Act.
OperationAwareness: Why The Child Safety Act Will Not Work
WKRC TV Cincinnati: High cost of new sex offender law. Deputy Adam Breeze, Hamilton County Sheriff's Office: "No free time to do anything else....In Hamilton County alone, 600 low level offenders are now high level offenders... same people, no new crime, just a new label... The Ohio Justice and Policy Center is suing to get Senate Bill 10 thrown out. The suit challenges retroactively changing someone's offender status But the group also says upgrading low level offenders adds fear, without adding safety. Margie Slagle, Ohio Justice & Policy Center: "What the politicians don't tell folks is that most of the people on this list are not child molesters."
Online Petition: To revoke Adam Walsh Act and Laws.
Legal and Official Information
THIS POST IS UPDATED DAILY
Online Petition Against Adam Walsh Act: Please sign and forward to others concerned with protecting Constitutional Rights.
Facts about Megan's Law and Sex Offenders in New York State
A Detailed Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism in New York State
OrlandoSentinel.com, Orlando FL: An Orlando federal judge has ordered the release of two jailed, out-of-state sex offenders who moved to Florida, ruling that part of the Adam Walsh Act requiring their registration is unconstitutional. "The Adam Walsh Act was enacted with a commendable goal — to protect the public from sex offenders," Presnell wrote. "However, a worthy cause is not enough to transform a state concern (sex offender registration) into a federal crime."
Kansas Department of Corrections: Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders re-offend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive.
MaineToday.com: Maine's sex offender law could be unconstitutional because it retroactively increases punishments for people who have already completed their sentences for sex crimes, the state Supreme Court said Tuesday.
Dallas Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer: Proposed updates and case citations regarding the Adam Walsh Act.
FederalDefenseCases : Cases Interpreting the Adam Walsh Act.
Ohio Supreme Court Decision: Case number 2006-2187. Francis Hyle, Green Township Law Director, et al. v. Gerry R. Porter, Jr. REVERSED ! ***A Victory for our Constitutional Rights !
WDTN - Dayton , 20 Feb 2008 : Ohio Supreme Court Rules: Sex Offender Residence Law Not Retroactive. COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The state's high court ruled Wednesday that a sex offender may not be booted from a home within 1,000 feet of a school if he owned it and committed his crime before the distance restriction became law.
WBNS - Columbus , 20 Feb 2008: Sex offenders can’t be forced to move away from schools if they lived in their homes before a 2003 law restricting their residency took effect, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today. In a 6-1 ruling, the state’s high court said the law banning sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools does not apply retroactively.
Journal of Sex Offender Civil Commitment- The Science and Law : The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do laws targeting sex offenders increase recidivism and sexual violence?
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio Judge Patricia Gaughan: orders stay on community notification and extends time period for filing complaints.
Capital Blog: Dann on Sex Offender Decision (7 Feb, 2008) COLUMBUS - Attorney General Marc Dann announced today that most provisions of Senate Bill 10, which implements the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act in Ohio, will remain in effect while the constitutionality of the law is being challenged in federal court. According to Mr. Dann, Judge Patricia Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio today signed an order preserving the law’s registration requirements.
Cleveland.com: (7 Feb, 2008) Federal judge extends deadline for challenging classifications.
Ohio Public Defender:
official information on Adam Walsh Act, legal challenges, and related cases.
Class Action Lawsuit (Licking County): Filed by the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, this lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10 based on the Contracts Clause, Retroactivity Clause, Due Process Clause, Double Jeopardy Clause, Inalienable Rights Clause, and Separation of Powers Doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.
Class Action Lawsuit (Hamilton County) : Filed by the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, this lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10 based on the Contracts Clause, Retroactivity Clause, Due Process Clause, Double Jeopardy Clause, Inalienable Rights Clause, and Separation of Powers Doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.
Ohio Justice and Policy Center: Files lawsuit challenging Ohio's new sex offender classification system and registration law.
Ohio Supreme Court Case Number 2006-2187: State of Ohio is forcing a man to move from his home because he lives within 1000 ft. of a school. His crime and home purchase both occurred before the 2003 went into effect.
Ohio Supreme Court Case Number 2007-1427:
Challenge to the Adam Walsh Act, regarding retroactive application, classification and constitutionality.
Human Rights Watch:
Articles on Adam Walsh Act
Ohio Judicial Conference:
Explanation of Senate Bill 10
Constitutional Challenge of Senate Bill 10:
Constitutional challenges
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: "Congress needs to face things when [they] pass statutes, and the defendants, no matter what the charge is . . . have rights, and here we have a statute that Congress gave no apparent thought to when it passed the statute. . . . This little section was slipped in right at the last minute, according to the chronology, and there’s not a thing to indicate they paid any attention to it. This is serious"
Ohio Public Defender Office:
Notice of constitutional challenges in various Ohio counties
United States Department of Justice:
Proposed guidelines for implementation of Adam Walsh Act.
United States Department of Justice:
Public comments on Proposed guidelines.
White House:
Fact Sheet on Adam Walsh Act.
National Conference of State Legislatures:
Adam Walsh policy Objections.
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Criminal recidivism of sexual offenders.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: The Scarlet Letter of the Adam Walsh Law.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: Sex Offender Laws Run Amok.
Class Action Lawsuit, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio: seeks a declaratory judgment that the 60-day time limit on the filing of challenge petitions and the provisions that require community notification for newly-classified Tier III offenders without a prior hearing violate the procedural aspect of the Due Process Clause.
Class Action Lawsuit, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio: Temporary retraining order and preliminary injunction.
ACLU of Ohio: Welton v. Dann (Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act): LEGAL THEORY: While courts have largely rejected arguments the old law was unconstitutional, we believe the new law is sufficiently flawed enough that it is now, without a doubt, unconstitutional.
FederalDefenseCases: Cases interpreting the Adam Walsh Act.
The Cost of Implementing the Adam Walsh Act: Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law — but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006:
Congressional Action
July 27, 2006: Signed by President George W. Bush
July 25, 2006: House agreed to Senate amendments by voice vote
July 20, 2006: Passed Senate as amended by voice vote
March 8, 2006: Passed House by voice vote
Online Petition Against Adam Walsh Act:
Please sign and forward to others concerned with protecting Constitutional Rights.
Our Mission Statement
The purpose of this site is to inform Ohio and United States citizens of Constitutional abuses by our elected officials and politicians. We will be silent no longer. We will hold these elected officials accountable for trampling Our Constitutional Rights !
Ohio Senate Bill 10, also known as the "Adam Walsh" law was furiously and irresponsibly enacted on January 1, 2008. Because the Ohio Legislature passed this law in a reactionary manner for politically correctness and to gain federal funding, they failed to responsibly review the legislation or study the impact, objections, nor constitutionality of the law. As a result, there are Constitutional challenges and court filings proceeding all over the state of Ohio which are challenging this legislation.
The law imposes retro-active restrictions and requirements on offenders who were either convicted of or pleaded guilty to any sexually related offense. Many of these offenders have satisfied all conditions, consequences and requirements of their offense, which may have occurred up to 10 years ago or more. Imposing new retro-active punishment on them constitutes a violation of the Ohio and United States Constitution with regard to its Double Jeopardy provision.
Yet this law imposes, among other things, a life-long registration requirement on them, meaning they are legally required to register with the local sheriff offices four times every year until they die to register every detail of their living conditions and location. Many of these people have fulfilled all previous registration requirements for a period up to 10 years already. This retro-active punishment is a violation of State and US Constitutional Rights, relating to Ex Post Facto provisions.
Beyond this, these offenders will now be re-classified in accordance with federal guidelines with no individual review by a court or judge, based solely on the offense which they committed. Universal re-classification of sex offenders into federal mandated tiers without the individual review before a court of law and judge is a violation of the Separation of Powers provision of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
This law violates the ex post facto, double jeopardy, and separation of powers provisions
of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution. And it constitutes breach of contract of original plea of the offenders. As the conditions of punishment are now changed years after the plea agreement was made.
We ask for your support in signing this online petition which will be forwarded to legislators to help revoke this unconstitutional law:
http://www.petitiononline.com/oh08/petition.html
"adam walsh act" , adam walsh act, adam walsh, sex offender, sex offender law,sex offender laws, unconstitutional, illegal, abuse, adam, walsh, senate bill 10, SB 10, Ohio, "adam walsh act" , adam walsh act, adam walsh, sex offender, sex offender law,sex offender laws, unconstitutional, illegal, abuse, adam, walsh, senate bill 10, SB 10, Ohio, Megan's Law, registered sex offenders, sex offender registration
Web Counter
Free Counter
