Registry Laws Cause More Problems Than Homelessness
Someone with an organization out of Virginia called Reform Sex Offenders Laws read about South Florida's struggle with the unintended consequences of the sex offender residency laws -- essentially consigning offenders into homelessness. RSOL's response raised a series of troubling questions about other problems with overreaching sex offender laws. The statement:
Are Americans aware that their teenagers are having consensual sex which could result in the older teen being convicted of sexual assault, battery or rape a prison sentence and being listed on a Sex Offender Registry for 15 years, 20 years or for a lifetime?
Are Americans aware that their teenagers are e-mailing and texting nude photos of themselves and others? This could result in both teens being charged with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography with time in prison and being listed on a Sex Offender Registry for a lifetime.
Are Americans aware that if they receive one unwanted e-mail or text of child pornography on their computer or phone and a service technician finds the old/deleted file they will be charged with possessing child pornography? Resulting in time in prison and being listed on the Sex Offender Registry for a lifetime.
Are Americans aware that if they have knowledge that their juvenile child is having consensual sex with someone of 18 years or older, they (the parent) can be convicted of indecent liberties by person of supervision and listed on a Sex Offender Registry for 15 years, 20 years or for a lifetime?
Are Americans aware that middle schoolers have been convicted and listed on Sex Offender Registries for pinching other middle schoolers on their rear-end?
Are Americans aware that because of the “Victim’s Rights Laws & Rape Shield Laws” an ACCUSATION ALONE is sufficient for a conviction, a prison term of 5 to 25 years or even life and then being listed on a Sex Offender Registry most likely for life?
Are Americans aware that NO evidence, NO witness, NO dates or times have to be given by an accuser?
Are Americans aware that they CAN NOT defend themselves by supplying evidence or witnesses that can prove an accuser is lying and had motive to lie?
Are Americans aware that some States (Virginia) allow an accuser only 21 DAYS to recant a lie? Any amount of time after 21 days the wrongful conviction, the prison term and remaining on a Sex Offender Registry stands. If a witness was found 15 years after a murder case that could convict the murderer or if DNA was discovered to free a wrongfully convicted person 25 years later why can’t an accuser recant and the conviction be stricken from the record?
Are Americans aware they are no longer innocent until proven guilty in America when there is a sexual claim. They are guilty and not allowed to prove their innocence?
There is a huge difference between stealing a newspaper and robbing a bank, both crimes are considered theft but both are differentiated by law and society. Are Americans aware that the current laws that label someone as a Sex Offender in the U.S do not differentiate? Whether you are accused of teenage consensual sex, urinating in public, mooning or streaking, pinching or touching someone or being a serial rapist upon your return to society, conviction and sentence will be the same.
Are Americans aware that a VERY large number of Registered Sex Offenders have never touched or raped anyone, let alone a child? But guilt by association on the Sex Offender Registry labels them all as a “pervert” a “pedophile” and a “predator” for life.
Are Americans aware that somes states' legislatures (Virginia 2006 & 2008) broadly re-classified Non-Violent Offenders to Violent Offenders? This includes many offenses that had NO physical contact. The situation that has been imposed upon the “Registered” is that, under the guise of protecting our children, the Legislators are in fact repeatedly trying, convicting and re-sentencing Citizens without even notifying them that this has occurred. To re-sentence a Citizen of the United States without giving them the opportunity to testify on their own behalf is clearly a violation of their Constitutional Rights.
Our Legislators have taken a group of people and used them as a platform to win elections and instill fear into the parents of our country so that they look like heroes. People that are not "child-molesters", "pedophile's" or perverts" have all been bucketed into one massive Registry and must endure a lifetime of shame. The Sex Offender Registries are extremely costly both financial and to the families of the registered. Contrary to popular belief among the Legislators there is indeed hardship related to being listed on a Sex Offender Registry. The lives being destroyed are not just the “registered” but their spouse, their children and every family member sharing their name and address. When you are a “Registered Sex Offender” you struggle to find and keep housing, employment and your family because of the stress and humiliation that the Registry creates within yourself, your neighbors, your co-workers and vigilantes looking for justice for a victim they don’t even know. The Sex Offender Registries are not protecting anyone, they are a means to humiliate, degrade, re-prosecute and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent citizens.
The Studies below have proven that the current Sex Offender Laws, the Registries and the Residency Restrictions are ineffective and damaging. Our Legislators repeatedly state inaccurate recidivism rates (the rate to re-offend) of “sex offenders” to the public to gain support of voters and to push through flawed legislation. The recidivism rate for “sex offenders” is significantly lower than that of murders, drug dealers and users or armed robbers. An interesting fact since Sex Offender Legislation is based on the assumption that “sex offenders” will recidivate with new sexual offenses.
There is also a study conducted by the Attorney General’s of numerous states that proves the Internet is not as dangerous as our Attorney Generals and Legislators have convinced you to believe that it is.
• No Easy Answers: Human Rights Watch Study, September 11, 2007
• The Adam Walsh Act: Scarlet Letter by Lara Geer Farley, April 17, 2008
• Fact Sheets Examine Impact of Sex Offender Registries: Justice Policy Institute, September 22, 2008 • Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders by Jill Levenson Ph.D. January 2009 • Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States. December 31, 2008
• Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycare Centers: Influence on Sex Offense Recidivism, An empirical analysis by Jill Levenson Ph.D. December 23 2008
• New Jersey DOC Study on the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration February 11, 2009
• Registering Harm: How Sex Offender Registries Fail Youth and Communities, Justice Policy Institute November 21, 2008
A new book written by Dr. Richard Wright titled Sex Offender Laws: Failed Polices, New Directions concludes that the proliferation of “Sex Offender” legislation over the past 20 years in America that were meant to memorialize an assaulted, murdered or missing child have largely failed. They have NOT reduced Sex Offender recidivism rates (5.5%), provided safety, healing or support for victims, reflected the scientific research on sexual victimization, offending and risk or provided successful strategies for prevention. Dr. Wright interviews Patty Wetterling, the mother of an abducted child says twenty years later that there are many issues with current policy and “We have not built into the system any means for success”. If Jacob Wetterling’s mother can see that current laws and policies are failing why can’t our government?
The fear and loathing against Registered Sex Offenders that is currently considered acceptable needs to stop before additional Citizens and communities are harmed. Our Legislators need to rectify this mess they have created by bucketing ALL sexual related acts into Sex Offender Crimes. The broad brush that the Legislators have been allowed to use across our population will continue to grow until it reaches into your home and labels you and your family.
The Registries need to be returned to their original intent, to list only the most dangerous, untreatable and repeat offenders.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/grimm_truth/2009/05/registry-laws-cause-more-problems-than-homelessness.html
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
FLORIDA STATE 'GETS IT' WILL MORE STATES FOLLOW TO CLEAN UP THE REGISTRY?
State needs to fix the sex offender mess
By FRED GRIMM
fgrimm@MiamiHerald.com
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1068989.html
Thoughtfulness comes too late.
The task force charged by the Broward County Commission with finding a way out of the conundrum created by sex offender residency restrictions has listened to experts, crunched numbers and discussed a dismaying array of unintended consequences.
By its second meeting on Tuesday, none of the task force members were defending the notion that draconian restrictions actually protected children from sex offenders.
They discussed better solutions than laws that forced registered sex offenders into homelessness; that left parole officers with no alternative but to send them to live under a highway bridge; that encouraged sex offenders to cluster in neighborhoods with less restrictive ordinances.
FAILURE OF LAWS
They talked about the documented failure of these laws in other states.
They talked about laws, instead, that would keep sex offenders from loitering around places where children congregate. They talked about re-zoning industrial areas to allow sex offender housing.
They talked about restrictions that fail to distinguish between less dangerous offenders and sexual predators.
They pushed beyond the emotional stuff and dug for what made sense.
It was the kind of thoughtful examination needed to sort out a complicated and volatile problem.
Except, it comes too late. Most of South Florida's cities (and Miami-Dade County) have already passed 2,500-foot restrictions around schools, parks, day care centers, even school bus stops. The County Commission holds sway over less than three square miles of unincorporated Broward.
''That's just a tiny portion of the county,'' lamented Lori Butts, a forensic psychologist on the task force. The task force was wrestling Tuesday with the perverse effect of leaving those unincorporated areas without jacked-up restrictions, creating a kind of refuge for sex offenders driven out of nearby cities.
Nor can the Broward County Commission (unlike the Miami-Dade Commission) pass a superseding ordinance, replacing the 2,500-foot restrictions passed by Broward cities with something sensible, said Task Force Chairwoman Jill Levenson, Lynn University's expert on sex crime policies.
OBVIOUS IRONY
An obvious irony hangs over the Broward sex offender task force, with members from law enforcement, corrections, academia, government and with a victim and a sex offender at the table. Best I can tell, it's the first in the state. Other cities and counties passed a frenzy of residency restrictions without bothering to examine the consequences.
You'd think Miami-Dade, with that festering homeless colony under the Julie Tuttle Causeway, would have appointed a sex offender task force months ago.
It's probably too late. It'll take a state law now to sort out this mess. Lori Butts said her group can't do much more than deliver a ``well thought out, well researched idea we'd like to see happen statewide.''
The state must either fix the mess, Butts said, or pay the tab to keep sex offenders in prison. Forcing potentially dangerous predators into homelessness, she said, ``is just crazy.''
Homeless sex offenders are beyond treatment, she warned. ``If they're living under a bridge, they can't get better. ''
By FRED GRIMM
fgrimm@MiamiHerald.com
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1068989.html
Thoughtfulness comes too late.
The task force charged by the Broward County Commission with finding a way out of the conundrum created by sex offender residency restrictions has listened to experts, crunched numbers and discussed a dismaying array of unintended consequences.
By its second meeting on Tuesday, none of the task force members were defending the notion that draconian restrictions actually protected children from sex offenders.
They discussed better solutions than laws that forced registered sex offenders into homelessness; that left parole officers with no alternative but to send them to live under a highway bridge; that encouraged sex offenders to cluster in neighborhoods with less restrictive ordinances.
FAILURE OF LAWS
They talked about the documented failure of these laws in other states.
They talked about laws, instead, that would keep sex offenders from loitering around places where children congregate. They talked about re-zoning industrial areas to allow sex offender housing.
They talked about restrictions that fail to distinguish between less dangerous offenders and sexual predators.
They pushed beyond the emotional stuff and dug for what made sense.
It was the kind of thoughtful examination needed to sort out a complicated and volatile problem.
Except, it comes too late. Most of South Florida's cities (and Miami-Dade County) have already passed 2,500-foot restrictions around schools, parks, day care centers, even school bus stops. The County Commission holds sway over less than three square miles of unincorporated Broward.
''That's just a tiny portion of the county,'' lamented Lori Butts, a forensic psychologist on the task force. The task force was wrestling Tuesday with the perverse effect of leaving those unincorporated areas without jacked-up restrictions, creating a kind of refuge for sex offenders driven out of nearby cities.
Nor can the Broward County Commission (unlike the Miami-Dade Commission) pass a superseding ordinance, replacing the 2,500-foot restrictions passed by Broward cities with something sensible, said Task Force Chairwoman Jill Levenson, Lynn University's expert on sex crime policies.
OBVIOUS IRONY
An obvious irony hangs over the Broward sex offender task force, with members from law enforcement, corrections, academia, government and with a victim and a sex offender at the table. Best I can tell, it's the first in the state. Other cities and counties passed a frenzy of residency restrictions without bothering to examine the consequences.
You'd think Miami-Dade, with that festering homeless colony under the Julie Tuttle Causeway, would have appointed a sex offender task force months ago.
It's probably too late. It'll take a state law now to sort out this mess. Lori Butts said her group can't do much more than deliver a ``well thought out, well researched idea we'd like to see happen statewide.''
The state must either fix the mess, Butts said, or pay the tab to keep sex offenders in prison. Forcing potentially dangerous predators into homelessness, she said, ``is just crazy.''
Homeless sex offenders are beyond treatment, she warned. ``If they're living under a bridge, they can't get better. ''
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
SEXTING STUDY_ANYONE LISTENING?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j-nCv_kH_YA6AKV7_qS-wajxamkw
By Michel Comte –
OTTAWA (AFP) — Youths exchanging nude photos of themselves over cellphones, known as "sexting," should not face child pornography charges, as some have in the United States, a humanities conference heard Tuesday.
Peter Cumming, an associate professor at York University in Toronto, presented a paper on children's sexuality at the 78th Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences defending the practice as a modern variation on "playing doctor or spin-the-bottle."
"Technology does change things, and there can be very serious consequences" Cumming said.
"But that obscures the fact that children and young people are sexual beings who have explored their sexuality in all times, and all cultures and all places.
"A distinction has to be made between nudity and child porn," he added.
The annual conference, held this year at Ottawa's Carleton University, brings together 8,000 researchers from around the world to discuss the latest social trends.
Sexting -- a combination of the words "sex" and "texting" -- made headlines earlier this year after students in a dozen US states were charged with child pornography for sharing nude and semi-nude photos with friends and classmates.
In March, three teenage girls sued a Pennsylvania prosecutor who accused them of peddling "child pornography," after a teacher discovered a waist-up image of two girls covered just by a bra, and another image of a girl topless.
District Attorney George Skumanik called for the girls to undergo five weeks of behavior courses and take a drug test or face prosecution, according to a letter apparently sent to the teenagers' parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a cosignatory to the complaint, said Skumanik's threat was unconstitution al, and prosecution could have landed the girls on the sex offenders register, blighting future job prospects.
In other cases, a "bored" Florida boy was charged for sending a photo of his genitalia to a female classmate, while another was listed as a sex offender for emailing nude photos of his 16-year-old girlfriend to her family after an argument.
According to a survey by a US family planning organization, published in December, 20 percent of American teenagers said they had participated in sexting.
Cumming said that to consider labeling a teen a sex offender because of a sexting incident -- a label that will stick for life -- defies common sense.
"It would be very unlikely to see dozens of news stories announcing that some children were caught playing spin-the-bottle, or doctor, or strip poker," he said in his presentation.
"Yet many of the cases brought forward have been on the same level of innocence and experience as those activities. In other words, kids are playing spin-the-bottle online."
Cumming also argued that such online activities are safer than traditional sexual games because there is no immediate physical contact and thus are less likely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases
By Michel Comte –
OTTAWA (AFP) — Youths exchanging nude photos of themselves over cellphones, known as "sexting," should not face child pornography charges, as some have in the United States, a humanities conference heard Tuesday.
Peter Cumming, an associate professor at York University in Toronto, presented a paper on children's sexuality at the 78th Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences defending the practice as a modern variation on "playing doctor or spin-the-bottle."
"Technology does change things, and there can be very serious consequences" Cumming said.
"But that obscures the fact that children and young people are sexual beings who have explored their sexuality in all times, and all cultures and all places.
"A distinction has to be made between nudity and child porn," he added.
The annual conference, held this year at Ottawa's Carleton University, brings together 8,000 researchers from around the world to discuss the latest social trends.
Sexting -- a combination of the words "sex" and "texting" -- made headlines earlier this year after students in a dozen US states were charged with child pornography for sharing nude and semi-nude photos with friends and classmates.
In March, three teenage girls sued a Pennsylvania prosecutor who accused them of peddling "child pornography," after a teacher discovered a waist-up image of two girls covered just by a bra, and another image of a girl topless.
District Attorney George Skumanik called for the girls to undergo five weeks of behavior courses and take a drug test or face prosecution, according to a letter apparently sent to the teenagers' parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a cosignatory to the complaint, said Skumanik's threat was unconstitution al, and prosecution could have landed the girls on the sex offenders register, blighting future job prospects.
In other cases, a "bored" Florida boy was charged for sending a photo of his genitalia to a female classmate, while another was listed as a sex offender for emailing nude photos of his 16-year-old girlfriend to her family after an argument.
According to a survey by a US family planning organization, published in December, 20 percent of American teenagers said they had participated in sexting.
Cumming said that to consider labeling a teen a sex offender because of a sexting incident -- a label that will stick for life -- defies common sense.
"It would be very unlikely to see dozens of news stories announcing that some children were caught playing spin-the-bottle, or doctor, or strip poker," he said in his presentation.
"Yet many of the cases brought forward have been on the same level of innocence and experience as those activities. In other words, kids are playing spin-the-bottle online."
Cumming also argued that such online activities are safer than traditional sexual games because there is no immediate physical contact and thus are less likely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases
OHIO SEXTEXTING LAW DOES NOT COVER IT ALL REP MAAG OF OHIO!~
When Rep. Maag decided he wanted to do something about 'teens' being branded 'sex offenders' for 'racey' photos taken via cell phone I called him personally at his home.
I discussed with him what happened to my son. He said what happened to my son should have never happened and what happened to the girl who killed herself should not have happened either.
Too bad for my son, as there was nothing he could do about that now, but he did ask if I would send him a written testimony he could submit. He also asked if there were senators that had compassion for what happened to my son and if I would forward those senator's name onto him. I forwarded those names and I took the time to write up a testimony and sent it to Rep. Maag. Whether or not he will use it, I do not know. I've not heard anything back from Rep. Maag, assistant or even a staff member.
I suppose the net casted too many teens. No one cares what happens to our sons and daughters who are over the age of eighteen
concerning a sex offense......
Sacrificing our sons and daughters to the registry for consensual sexual matters is 'okay', because our government is doing us all a big favor, by protecting the United States citizens.
Most know of my daughter Ali; she has spoken out as a sibling of a sex offender in public, on Internet Radio and even at her school's Communication class.
If you read enough of my blog, you also know the harmful and emotional affects Ali has gone through.
I've not blogged enough lately or even posted much. My son finally came home from prison and I'm onto another chapter of being a mother to a sex offender.
Part of my son's probation is no camera's or any picture-taking devices, cannot purchase toys (??) and no access to the World Wide Web.
Tonight my son will finally have his first chance to have his own voice on ARC, America's Reality Check hosted by Kevin and Mary (www.americanrealitycheck.com).
He will not be breaking his probation, because he will not be accessing the web, he will be talking on the phone and the interview will be broad casted on the WWW.
I don't know what my son will have to say or talk about.
I hope you will come this evening and listen in or even ask him a question.
If you read this posting too late, you can always download the interview and listen to it. Feel free to leave me a comment on this.
I am blessed to have my son home and safe.....and through it all thus far, he still has his sense of humor.
Here is the link:
American’s Reality Check
May 27, 2009
9:30 p.m. Eastern
Dial: 724-444-7444
Code: 29521
Chat: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc
I discussed with him what happened to my son. He said what happened to my son should have never happened and what happened to the girl who killed herself should not have happened either.
Too bad for my son, as there was nothing he could do about that now, but he did ask if I would send him a written testimony he could submit. He also asked if there were senators that had compassion for what happened to my son and if I would forward those senator's name onto him. I forwarded those names and I took the time to write up a testimony and sent it to Rep. Maag. Whether or not he will use it, I do not know. I've not heard anything back from Rep. Maag, assistant or even a staff member.
I suppose the net casted too many teens. No one cares what happens to our sons and daughters who are over the age of eighteen
concerning a sex offense......
Sacrificing our sons and daughters to the registry for consensual sexual matters is 'okay', because our government is doing us all a big favor, by protecting the United States citizens.
Most know of my daughter Ali; she has spoken out as a sibling of a sex offender in public, on Internet Radio and even at her school's Communication class.
If you read enough of my blog, you also know the harmful and emotional affects Ali has gone through.
I've not blogged enough lately or even posted much. My son finally came home from prison and I'm onto another chapter of being a mother to a sex offender.
Part of my son's probation is no camera's or any picture-taking devices, cannot purchase toys (??) and no access to the World Wide Web.
Tonight my son will finally have his first chance to have his own voice on ARC, America's Reality Check hosted by Kevin and Mary (www.americanrealitycheck.com).
He will not be breaking his probation, because he will not be accessing the web, he will be talking on the phone and the interview will be broad casted on the WWW.
I don't know what my son will have to say or talk about.
I hope you will come this evening and listen in or even ask him a question.
If you read this posting too late, you can always download the interview and listen to it. Feel free to leave me a comment on this.
I am blessed to have my son home and safe.....and through it all thus far, he still has his sense of humor.
Here is the link:
American’s Reality Check
May 27, 2009
9:30 p.m. Eastern
Dial: 724-444-7444
Code: 29521
Chat: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
RELEASE BRANDON_ANOTHER YOUTH RAPED BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
I read the story of Brandon this evening and my mind has been restless since. (WWW.FREEBRANDON.ORG)
I was invited to listen to Brandon's mother Jane on ARC (www.americanrealitycheck.com), but couldn't bring myself to even listen. I know of the heartache and I know of the anger...but most of all, the feeling of helplessness.
Brandon will be released. The media will expose the injustice and there will be an attorney that will take his case.
Our children must STOP paying the price for the John Couey's of the world. Is the government only conditioning our youth? This sickens me and leaves me speechless at this time.
Please, all pray for Brandon.
I was invited to listen to Brandon's mother Jane on ARC (www.americanrealitycheck.com), but couldn't bring myself to even listen. I know of the heartache and I know of the anger...but most of all, the feeling of helplessness.
Brandon will be released. The media will expose the injustice and there will be an attorney that will take his case.
Our children must STOP paying the price for the John Couey's of the world. Is the government only conditioning our youth? This sickens me and leaves me speechless at this time.
Please, all pray for Brandon.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
MY SON, THE FUTURE FOR A SEX OFFENDER LIFE
Today we bring my son home. He has been gone for over two years. He has been locked away between the county jail and prison.
It has been a long hard journey thus far. None of us knows what the future will hold.
We hope that we can make a difference in this world of what is known as the Sex Offender Registry.
My mother and I spoke last night and one thing is for certain.....we do not know why this happened to our family and everything we have experienced has been a horrific nightmare!
My son was still a boy, just 20 when this started and now at age 23, he has become a man through our grand judicial system. It will not be interesting to see how he has grown into a man these past three years.
He will still be my son, forever he will be my son, and I can only pray that one day the chains that enwrap him as a slave by our government will be released BY the people of the United States!
For this I pray for all the offenders who have served their time, are offense free, those who were accused falsely and especially our young sons who had to learn and live through hell at such an early age.
It has been a long hard journey thus far. None of us knows what the future will hold.
We hope that we can make a difference in this world of what is known as the Sex Offender Registry.
My mother and I spoke last night and one thing is for certain.....we do not know why this happened to our family and everything we have experienced has been a horrific nightmare!
My son was still a boy, just 20 when this started and now at age 23, he has become a man through our grand judicial system. It will not be interesting to see how he has grown into a man these past three years.
He will still be my son, forever he will be my son, and I can only pray that one day the chains that enwrap him as a slave by our government will be released BY the people of the United States!
For this I pray for all the offenders who have served their time, are offense free, those who were accused falsely and especially our young sons who had to learn and live through hell at such an early age.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SON IS A SEX OFFENDER?
My son comes home this week.
I've debated if I should go to my neighbors and talk to them of my son's offense.
Should I? Or should I say nothing?
I've debated if I should go to my neighbors and talk to them of my son's offense.
Should I? Or should I say nothing?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SEX OFFENDER!
I cannot believe for the life of me how the American people are not any smarter than the German's were with Adolph Hitler.
Just as Hitler banned smoking, started registries and DECLARED to the citizens of Germany "It is for the CHILDREN" Americans still do not GET IT!
Americans have become WEAK! Americans can no longer THINK and rationalize for themselves that they depend on the government to do their thinking and decision makings for THEM -- No questions asked and worse, they ACCEPT all that is fed to them.
I am just downright pissed off and hate the idea of being forced to take a bite of a shit sandwich the government feeds!
My son is a sex offender and what 'other' Americans fail to conceive is how EASILY their family could be the NEXT VICTIM!
So the story goes.....until it affects YOU..... you do not CARE!!
AHhhhhhhhh.....but the affect HAS started.....with the teens with their cell phones of nudity!
When SORNA captures MY SON on the the registry, then believe you me, the registry is WORTHLESS and I will repeat myself, IS NOT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC NOR ANY CHILD!!!!
Here is a word from Constitutional Fights:
Notice:
Ohio County Sheriffs are now imposing mandatory fees (up to $100 per year)on those who are required to register on sex offender registries across the state. See also “Forcing Sex Offenders to Pay Fees”.
We obtained this letter from the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office from a reader:
The imposition of fees on the 30,000+ registered sex offenders in the state now debunks the false notion that the retro-active Adam Walsh Act lifetime registration laws are not “punitive” in nature, as courts across the state have ruled. Fining citizens up to $100 per year for each forced registration reporting is indeed punitive…without question. When will our state courts recognize this fact? What happens if a sex offender does not have $25 at the time of registration? Will they then be denied the ability to register until they pay (thereby putting them in violation of registration laws and exposing them to incarceration)?
Where are the Ohio indigency policies for those who are unable to pay these fees? How many registered sex offenders will be imprisoned because they do not have the $25 fee to pay at the required time of registration? And where are the attorneys and civil rights organizations who should be suing the state over these imposed fees?
WDTN.com : Sex offenders Will Pay Fee to Register
Constitutionalfights spoke with the Montgomery County Public Defender office and the Montgomery County Sheriff office today:
The Public Defender is awaiting direction from the Ohio Public Defender office. We will keep you posted.
The Sheriff SORN office states that the only exemption to these imposed fees is providing proof that an individual falls below 125% of the poverty level (approx $9735 per year for one person, gross).
Any inability to make fee payments will be deferred for one year, after which they will be forwarded to the Montgomery County Prosecuter for prosecution (bill collection). Once this collection process begins, an individual would have 90 days to make full payment. Constitutionalfights never condones violation of any law, but neither do we condemn acts of civil disobedience. For instance, if every sex offender in the state refused to pay these fines for the one year period, it would certainly put the County Sheriff’s departments on notice, would heighten public awareness of the issue as it would become a state-wide news story, and would put the squeeze on the already-cash strapped Sheriff Departments across the state
Just as Hitler banned smoking, started registries and DECLARED to the citizens of Germany "It is for the CHILDREN" Americans still do not GET IT!
Americans have become WEAK! Americans can no longer THINK and rationalize for themselves that they depend on the government to do their thinking and decision makings for THEM -- No questions asked and worse, they ACCEPT all that is fed to them.
I am just downright pissed off and hate the idea of being forced to take a bite of a shit sandwich the government feeds!
My son is a sex offender and what 'other' Americans fail to conceive is how EASILY their family could be the NEXT VICTIM!
So the story goes.....until it affects YOU..... you do not CARE!!
AHhhhhhhhh.....but the affect HAS started.....with the teens with their cell phones of nudity!
When SORNA captures MY SON on the the registry, then believe you me, the registry is WORTHLESS and I will repeat myself, IS NOT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC NOR ANY CHILD!!!!
Here is a word from Constitutional Fights:
Notice:
Ohio County Sheriffs are now imposing mandatory fees (up to $100 per year)on those who are required to register on sex offender registries across the state. See also “Forcing Sex Offenders to Pay Fees”.
We obtained this letter from the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office from a reader:
The imposition of fees on the 30,000+ registered sex offenders in the state now debunks the false notion that the retro-active Adam Walsh Act lifetime registration laws are not “punitive” in nature, as courts across the state have ruled. Fining citizens up to $100 per year for each forced registration reporting is indeed punitive…without question. When will our state courts recognize this fact? What happens if a sex offender does not have $25 at the time of registration? Will they then be denied the ability to register until they pay (thereby putting them in violation of registration laws and exposing them to incarceration)?
Where are the Ohio indigency policies for those who are unable to pay these fees? How many registered sex offenders will be imprisoned because they do not have the $25 fee to pay at the required time of registration? And where are the attorneys and civil rights organizations who should be suing the state over these imposed fees?
WDTN.com : Sex offenders Will Pay Fee to Register
Constitutionalfights spoke with the Montgomery County Public Defender office and the Montgomery County Sheriff office today:
The Public Defender is awaiting direction from the Ohio Public Defender office. We will keep you posted.
The Sheriff SORN office states that the only exemption to these imposed fees is providing proof that an individual falls below 125% of the poverty level (approx $9735 per year for one person, gross).
Any inability to make fee payments will be deferred for one year, after which they will be forwarded to the Montgomery County Prosecuter for prosecution (bill collection). Once this collection process begins, an individual would have 90 days to make full payment. Constitutionalfights never condones violation of any law, but neither do we condemn acts of civil disobedience. For instance, if every sex offender in the state refused to pay these fines for the one year period, it would certainly put the County Sheriff’s departments on notice, would heighten public awareness of the issue as it would become a state-wide news story, and would put the squeeze on the already-cash strapped Sheriff Departments across the state
Saturday, April 25, 2009
FINDLAY YOUTH RAPED BY THE ADAM WALSH ACT
Michael S. Mitchell, 19, of Findlay, was placed on community control sanctions for five years by Judge Niemeyer on a fourth-degree felony unlawful sexual conduct with a minor conviction. Mitchell was convicted last month of engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl in Findlay in February 2008. While on community control, the defendant will have to serve 30 days on electronic monitoring. He will have to serve 17 months in prison if he fails to complete his sanctions. Mitchell was also found to be a Tier II sex offender, which means he will have to register with law enforcement every 180 days for 25 years.
Monday, April 20, 2009
COMMENT OF CONTROL BY THE SEX OFFENDER MOM
While watching a documentary over the weekend, I heard these words:
"There are three ways to control people; fear, demoralize and people of poverty, the poor."
"There are three ways to control people; fear, demoralize and people of poverty, the poor."
Saturday, April 18, 2009
OHIO HB 11 PROPOSED & SPONSORS
The following link will take you to HB11 as it is being proposed, along with the sponsors of the bill.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_11
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_11
Friday, April 17, 2009
REVISION LETTER TO OPPOSE THE ADAM WALSH ACT
Below is the letter being used to send to senators concerning the Adam Walsh Act. Please feel free to edit this letter to OPPOSE the act.
For Ohio citizens, the Judiciary Committee Members are in the previous blog. Remember to send a letter to Bobby Scott!
Congressman Bobby Scott's Contact:
Washington, DC Office1201 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515
202) 225-8351 FAX (202) 225-8354
Hampton Roads Office2600 Washington, Ave, Suite 1010Newport News, VA 23607
757) 380-1000 FAX (757) 928-6694
Richmond Area OfficeThe Jackson Center501 N 2nd Street, Suite 401Richmond, VA 23219-1321
804) 644-4845 FAX (804) 648-6026
Dear (YOUR) Senator:
I am sure you share my belief that we must do everything in our power to help protect our children from sexual predators in our communities. That is why I am asking for your help today.I am extremely concerned about how we track registered sex offenders in our country. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an estimated 100,000 sex offenders are unaccounted for and not living where they are registered. Because law enforcement agencies are too underfunded and overwhelmed to track them, these dangerous predators are free to roam undetected from state to state, targeting and re-offending more innocent children.The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which was signed into law in 2006, created a National Sex Offender Registry, but recent news reports reveal most states will not be in compliance with the law by the upcoming July deadline. Supporters of the law acknowledge there are adjustments that should be made to the law, but they are adamant, as am I, that the basic purpose and spirit of Adam’s act must be upheld. The act calls for a National Sex Offender Registry, which is critical to the safety of our children.I implore you to reexamine this law with fellow lawmakers, reauthorize it and see that it is fully funded. I realize our country’s current economic crisis will not make this charge an easy one, but what could be more urgent and of greater importance than the safety and well being of our children?
For Ohio citizens, the Judiciary Committee Members are in the previous blog. Remember to send a letter to Bobby Scott!
Congressman Bobby Scott's Contact:
Washington, DC Office1201 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515
202) 225-8351 FAX (202) 225-8354
Hampton Roads Office2600 Washington, Ave, Suite 1010Newport News, VA 23607
757) 380-1000 FAX (757) 928-6694
Richmond Area OfficeThe Jackson Center501 N 2nd Street, Suite 401Richmond, VA 23219-1321
804) 644-4845 FAX (804) 648-6026
Dear (YOUR) Senator:
I am sure you share my belief that we must do everything in our power to help protect our children from sexual predators in our communities. That is why I am asking for your help today.I am extremely concerned about how we track registered sex offenders in our country. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an estimated 100,000 sex offenders are unaccounted for and not living where they are registered. Because law enforcement agencies are too underfunded and overwhelmed to track them, these dangerous predators are free to roam undetected from state to state, targeting and re-offending more innocent children.The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which was signed into law in 2006, created a National Sex Offender Registry, but recent news reports reveal most states will not be in compliance with the law by the upcoming July deadline. Supporters of the law acknowledge there are adjustments that should be made to the law, but they are adamant, as am I, that the basic purpose and spirit of Adam’s act must be upheld. The act calls for a National Sex Offender Registry, which is critical to the safety of our children.I implore you to reexamine this law with fellow lawmakers, reauthorize it and see that it is fully funded. I realize our country’s current economic crisis will not make this charge an easy one, but what could be more urgent and of greater importance than the safety and well being of our children?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
I MAY NOT BE FAMOUS OR RICH LIKE OPRAH AND JOHN WALSH BUT I'M SMARTER! IS OUR GOVERNMENT?
I read Oprah was having an exclusive show for John Walsh to fund his Adam Walsh Act. I didn't watch it! I don't need to watch it!
Here is MY breakdown. John seems to think that in order to promote the Adam Walsh Act, he can BUY it! Oprah believes this is true too, otherwise, why would John be her guest? Other than she was molested and raped as a young child by her UNCLE. Anyone who would GIVE money to this cause BELIEVES they can BUY safety for our children; furthermore, if this works, than I say our government is CORRUPTED! Isn't this like a BRIBE?
If there is a better word for this, please correct me.
Oprah and John are going to PURCHASE laws against sex offenders and they want the United States citizens to invest as well.
Since when is our government up for sale? Since when can we BUY laws? If they're purchasing laws, we all know the buyers are our elected officials. Isn't this a lawsuit of some kind waiting to happen? I would think it should be possible!
John must have watched Bobby Scott address SORNA/Adam Walsh Act. Cost is an issue, but more so is its EFFECTIVENESS!
Does John and Oprah think if they donate money to our government to enact the Adam Walsh Act that it will be a done deal? Is our government going to BUY this? Are WE the PEOPLE going to BUY this? Are we going to ALLOW this to happen?!?!
I say if this is allowed, our President is Oprah and our Vice President is John Walsh!
I'm so livid about this insanity, I can't even rationally blog about it!
Here is MY breakdown. John seems to think that in order to promote the Adam Walsh Act, he can BUY it! Oprah believes this is true too, otherwise, why would John be her guest? Other than she was molested and raped as a young child by her UNCLE. Anyone who would GIVE money to this cause BELIEVES they can BUY safety for our children; furthermore, if this works, than I say our government is CORRUPTED! Isn't this like a BRIBE?
If there is a better word for this, please correct me.
Oprah and John are going to PURCHASE laws against sex offenders and they want the United States citizens to invest as well.
Since when is our government up for sale? Since when can we BUY laws? If they're purchasing laws, we all know the buyers are our elected officials. Isn't this a lawsuit of some kind waiting to happen? I would think it should be possible!
John must have watched Bobby Scott address SORNA/Adam Walsh Act. Cost is an issue, but more so is its EFFECTIVENESS!
Does John and Oprah think if they donate money to our government to enact the Adam Walsh Act that it will be a done deal? Is our government going to BUY this? Are WE the PEOPLE going to BUY this? Are we going to ALLOW this to happen?!?!
I say if this is allowed, our President is Oprah and our Vice President is John Walsh!
I'm so livid about this insanity, I can't even rationally blog about it!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
MOTHER OF SEX OFFENDER URGES TO KILL OHIO HB 11!
First, here is the article link and the mother's email address so you can read it yourself and send her an email on what you think of HB 11. Please remember to CALL or E-MAIL the Judiciary Committee (Provided at the end of this blog) who will review the bill that you OPPOSE this HB 11!!
The state representative who will draft the proposed bill is Gerald L. Stebelton, so be sure and CALL HIM!! Tell your friends and family to call too! (614) 466-8100 district05@ohr.state.oh.us
The headline:
Mother urges stricter guidelines on sex offenders
http://www.journal-news.com/news/hamilton-news/mother-urges-stricter-guidelines-on-sex-offenders-80474.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
kbenton28@gmail.com
Here we go again with another hysterical, uneducated mother, who must believe we live in a Communist United States (dictatorship is running close!) as she runs to our government to protect her child!
As a parent, I say if you're worried about your child crossing the street, than YOU walk them across the street! Same as Benton, either she is worried about her child's safety or she isn't! A LAW will not protect her eleven-year-old, only SHE can! I mean, what she is actually saying and what others are agreeing is to let your children run unsupervised! She's worried about the sex offender who is on the registry, yet she is NOT worried about someone who is NOT?
If you know your child cannot swim and go to the beach, its okay to lay down and catch a few rays? Or, do you WATCH them to ensure their safety? OR, if you're like me, you have them in a life jacket AND you watch to ensure their safety! Same concept, only the parent IS the life jacket to the child!!
They say Americans are lazy and parenting falls right into that category. The only generation to have a Sex Offender Registry is the generation of TODAY! The ONLY person possible to protect their child is THEIR PARENTS! Hasn't anyone figured out that all these laws are NOT protecting ANY child? HELLO?!~ Is there any intelligent LIFE left on this planet? Only the politic ans who continue to gain votes for promoting they can PROTECT your child! Where are the STUPID signs so I can start handing them out!
I was always told I was an over-protective parent. I never allowed my children to run around at a ball park to play or ride their bike alone, take a walk alone, or ANY activity alone! No, they were not allowed to look at toys without me! I don't care if it WAS an isle over, if I couldn't see them, reach out and touch me, then they were too far away from me~~too far away from safety! They were lucky to walk to the bus stop alone!
It really irritates me (an understatement) when I see children that cannot be any older than seven or eight years of age riding their bikes or playing without adult supervision! I always say, usually out loud...."Where are their parents?"
Yes, WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? Sitting on their lazy butts, not wanting to attend to their child or as long as they are out of their hair and in someone elses, it's 'okay'! Give me a STUPID sign!
More STUPID and pathetic is when our legislators pass another bill to 'PROTECT' our children, it covers EVEY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER ON THE REGISTRY! HA! Yeah, everyone needs to protect their child from my son! Sure they do! GAG!*# CHOKE*#!
Have Americans become BRAIN dead? Can they NOT think for themselves? COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!~ COMMON SENSE!
I'm done with this entry! I think anyone who reads this gets the picture; If there IS intelligent life still roaming in the United States!
OHIO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONTACT:
Senator Timothy Grendell - CHAIR
(More famous for the belief in the 'OFFENDAR '-A GPS tracking system for ALL offenders to wear....which they can just cut off! Good way to continue spending our tax dollars!)
SD18@senate.state.oh.us
Telephone: 614/644-7718
Senator Jim Hughes - VICE CHAIR
SD16@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-5981
Senator Joseph Schiavoni
sd33@maild.sen.state.oh.us
614/466-8285
Senator Kevin Coughlin
SD27@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-4823
Senator Shirley Smith
senatorsmith@maild.sen.state.oh.us
614/466-4857
Senator Keith Faber
SD12@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-7584
Senator David Goodman
SD03@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-8064
Senator Bill Seitz
SD08@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-8068
The state representative who will draft the proposed bill is Gerald L. Stebelton, so be sure and CALL HIM!! Tell your friends and family to call too! (614) 466-8100 district05@ohr.state.oh.us
The headline:
Mother urges stricter guidelines on sex offenders
http://www.journal-news.com/news/hamilton-news/mother-urges-stricter-guidelines-on-sex-offenders-80474.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
kbenton28@gmail.com
Here we go again with another hysterical, uneducated mother, who must believe we live in a Communist United States (dictatorship is running close!) as she runs to our government to protect her child!
As a parent, I say if you're worried about your child crossing the street, than YOU walk them across the street! Same as Benton, either she is worried about her child's safety or she isn't! A LAW will not protect her eleven-year-old, only SHE can! I mean, what she is actually saying and what others are agreeing is to let your children run unsupervised! She's worried about the sex offender who is on the registry, yet she is NOT worried about someone who is NOT?
If you know your child cannot swim and go to the beach, its okay to lay down and catch a few rays? Or, do you WATCH them to ensure their safety? OR, if you're like me, you have them in a life jacket AND you watch to ensure their safety! Same concept, only the parent IS the life jacket to the child!!
They say Americans are lazy and parenting falls right into that category. The only generation to have a Sex Offender Registry is the generation of TODAY! The ONLY person possible to protect their child is THEIR PARENTS! Hasn't anyone figured out that all these laws are NOT protecting ANY child? HELLO?!~ Is there any intelligent LIFE left on this planet? Only the politic ans who continue to gain votes for promoting they can PROTECT your child! Where are the STUPID signs so I can start handing them out!
I was always told I was an over-protective parent. I never allowed my children to run around at a ball park to play or ride their bike alone, take a walk alone, or ANY activity alone! No, they were not allowed to look at toys without me! I don't care if it WAS an isle over, if I couldn't see them, reach out and touch me, then they were too far away from me~~too far away from safety! They were lucky to walk to the bus stop alone!
It really irritates me (an understatement) when I see children that cannot be any older than seven or eight years of age riding their bikes or playing without adult supervision! I always say, usually out loud...."Where are their parents?"
Yes, WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? Sitting on their lazy butts, not wanting to attend to their child or as long as they are out of their hair and in someone elses, it's 'okay'! Give me a STUPID sign!
More STUPID and pathetic is when our legislators pass another bill to 'PROTECT' our children, it covers EVEY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER ON THE REGISTRY! HA! Yeah, everyone needs to protect their child from my son! Sure they do! GAG!*# CHOKE*#!
Have Americans become BRAIN dead? Can they NOT think for themselves? COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!~ COMMON SENSE!
I'm done with this entry! I think anyone who reads this gets the picture; If there IS intelligent life still roaming in the United States!
OHIO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONTACT:
Senator Timothy Grendell - CHAIR
(More famous for the belief in the 'OFFENDAR '-A GPS tracking system for ALL offenders to wear....which they can just cut off! Good way to continue spending our tax dollars!)
SD18@senate.state.oh.us
Telephone: 614/644-7718
Senator Jim Hughes - VICE CHAIR
SD16@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-5981
Senator Joseph Schiavoni
sd33@maild.sen.state.oh.us
614/466-8285
Senator Kevin Coughlin
SD27@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-4823
Senator Shirley Smith
senatorsmith@maild.sen.state.oh.us
614/466-4857
Senator Keith Faber
SD12@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-7584
Senator David Goodman
SD03@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-8064
Senator Bill Seitz
SD08@senate.state.oh.us
614/466-8068
Sunday, March 29, 2009
SEXTEXTING 'NOW' PUNISHABLE AS A SEX CRIME?
There is a vast array of sex offenses that prosecutors have to choose from.
The Sex Offender Registry was NOT intended for child's play with adult consequences!
It is a moral issue!
We, as 'adults' do not understand the 'thinking' of our youth today, simply put, they are NOT thinking!
Adults did not understand the time era of "Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll" either.
I am sure it is this same youth of yester-year, as adults, that are 'not' understanding our youth of today!
Underage "Sexting" Now Punishable as a Sex Crime in a Growing Number of Jurisdictions
www.philadelphiacriminaldefenselawyerblo...g_now_punishabl.html
As cellular telephone technology advances at an extremely rapid pace, more and more teenagers are possessing phones with the capabilities to snap still photos or record short videos. Coupled with the fact that as a society, children are becoming acquainted with sex at younger ages, this technology has led to the practice of sexting; sending nude photos or other sexually explicit photos and/or videos to a recipient via cell phone. The practice of sexting has led to numerous ethical and moral arguments, but the practice amongst teens has caught the attention of law enforcement. In many jurisdictions, these sexually explicit images and videos, sent amongst teenagers, are violations of child pornography laws.An online survey conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy showed that one-in-five teenage participants have sent and/or received sexually explicit material via cell phone. Nearly two-thirds of those who admitted to sexting only did so within a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship; however teens in the other one-third admitted to sexting for the purpose of “hooking-up”. It is this culture of a casual sexual relationship which causes worry amongst advocacy groups who blame society’s attitude for the first rise in teenage pregnancy rates in the past fifteen years.A Delaware middle-school recently dealt with an incident where cell phones were confiscated during class because they were forbidden in the classroom, only to find sexually explicit material upon inspection of the phone’s content. The school determined the images were not sent at or during school and decided to notify the students’ parents to deal with the problem. Other teens have not been as lucky. Another student in Delaware faces obscenity charges for sending nude photos of himself to classmates. In Pennsylvania, seven students were charged with sending or receiving child pornography when their phones were discovered to contain explicit images sent between the students. Convictions for these offenses not only will carry potential confinement, fines, and psychological evaluations, but may also require those convicted to be registered as sex offenders.Many oppose prosecution in these cases for the simple reason that the participants do not have a criminal intent, but rather are merely conforming to society as they see it. There are no penalties for the same consensual actions amongst those of age. Many agree that the responsibility stems with the parents to talk to their children. Children should understand that once an image is sent, they no longer have any control over it; and with today’s technology, such material can easily end-up on the internet. Teens should understand that cellular phone technology does not come with a guarantee of privacy.Child PornographyFederal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.
Top of Form
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
Bottom of Form
The Sex Offender Registry was NOT intended for child's play with adult consequences!
It is a moral issue!
We, as 'adults' do not understand the 'thinking' of our youth today, simply put, they are NOT thinking!
Adults did not understand the time era of "Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll" either.
I am sure it is this same youth of yester-year, as adults, that are 'not' understanding our youth of today!
Underage "Sexting" Now Punishable as a Sex Crime in a Growing Number of Jurisdictions
www.philadelphiacriminaldefenselawyerblo...g_now_punishabl.html
As cellular telephone technology advances at an extremely rapid pace, more and more teenagers are possessing phones with the capabilities to snap still photos or record short videos. Coupled with the fact that as a society, children are becoming acquainted with sex at younger ages, this technology has led to the practice of sexting; sending nude photos or other sexually explicit photos and/or videos to a recipient via cell phone. The practice of sexting has led to numerous ethical and moral arguments, but the practice amongst teens has caught the attention of law enforcement. In many jurisdictions, these sexually explicit images and videos, sent amongst teenagers, are violations of child pornography laws.An online survey conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy showed that one-in-five teenage participants have sent and/or received sexually explicit material via cell phone. Nearly two-thirds of those who admitted to sexting only did so within a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship; however teens in the other one-third admitted to sexting for the purpose of “hooking-up”. It is this culture of a casual sexual relationship which causes worry amongst advocacy groups who blame society’s attitude for the first rise in teenage pregnancy rates in the past fifteen years.A Delaware middle-school recently dealt with an incident where cell phones were confiscated during class because they were forbidden in the classroom, only to find sexually explicit material upon inspection of the phone’s content. The school determined the images were not sent at or during school and decided to notify the students’ parents to deal with the problem. Other teens have not been as lucky. Another student in Delaware faces obscenity charges for sending nude photos of himself to classmates. In Pennsylvania, seven students were charged with sending or receiving child pornography when their phones were discovered to contain explicit images sent between the students. Convictions for these offenses not only will carry potential confinement, fines, and psychological evaluations, but may also require those convicted to be registered as sex offenders.Many oppose prosecution in these cases for the simple reason that the participants do not have a criminal intent, but rather are merely conforming to society as they see it. There are no penalties for the same consensual actions amongst those of age. Many agree that the responsibility stems with the parents to talk to their children. Children should understand that once an image is sent, they no longer have any control over it; and with today’s technology, such material can easily end-up on the internet. Teens should understand that cellular phone technology does not come with a guarantee of privacy.Child PornographyFederal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.
Top of Form
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
Bottom of Form
MAUREEN KANKA_SEXTEXTING TEENS
http://www.examiner.com/x-2446-North-Jersey-Crime-Examiner~y2009m3d26-UPDATE-Megans-mom-urges-help-for-teen-who-posted-nude-pixThe mother of the girl for whom Megan's Law is named says prosecutors shouldn't treat teens who take nude pictures of themselves the same as they do adults.Maureen Kanka said a 14-year-old North Jersey girl facing juvenile complaints for posting naked photos of herself on MySpace needs help, not prosecution.“This shouldn’t fall under Megan’s Law in any way, shape or form,” Kanka said. "The only person she exploited was herself.”If deemed "delinquent" by a judge, the girl would have to register with the state as a sex offender, under Megan's Law. (See my story from earlier today: Do 14-year-old's naked pics make her a Megan's offender?)New Jersey's measure has varying degrees, but its basis requires convicted sex offenders to notify authorities where they live.When the most dangerous sex offenders move to a neighborhood, police go door to door to personally notify citizens and past victims. Those considered to have a lower risk of re-offending are listed on an Internet registry available to the public. The lowest risk offenders must register but aren't subject to notification laws.Lawmakers adopted the measure in large part due to Maureen Kanka's diligence, following the 1994 rape and murder of her 7-year-old daughter by a twice-convicted sex offender who'd moved into the family's neighborhood. Several other states then followed suit.Since then, however, technology and overly proactive local governments have created problems that couldn't have been foreseen.In just the past four years, 118 towns in New Jersey have OK'd ordinances limiting where sex offenders can live. Most of them have put a 2,500-foot perimeter around schools, parks and libraries.A state appeals court nullified the measures in December, ruling that state authorities -- and not town fathers and mothers -- should be drawing the red lines. The state Supreme Court is now deciding what should be done. (See my story: Sex offenders are people, too.)Branded sex offenders end up quietly moving in with friends or relatives, taking work (if they can get it) that pays under the table, and generally committing other minor violations or petty crimes.This includes not only those who might reoffend but also those trying to get their lives on track.In fact, one of the cases were brought on behalf of a college freshman who couldn't live in a dorm because he was branded a sex offender for an incident that happened when he was barely into high school.Now comes the Clifton girl who posted nude photos of herself in an album for her boyfriend. Thus far prosecutors are treating her like a delinquent -- which means Family Court hearings, legal expenses for her mother, and the possibility she could be entering the prime years of her life carrying a tremendous burden for what looks like a foolish mistake.Similar cases are being reported nationwide. It's such an exploding topic that a plotine of tonight's "Private Practice" dealt with a 12-year-old girl who'd sent her boyfriend a nude photo of herself.The worst many of these real-life youngsters have done is decide poorly, Kanka said.“These kids aren’t sex offenders,” she said.On top of all that, a report released earlier this year by the National Institute of Justice says Megan's Laws nationwide haven't reduced either the number of child victims or the likelihood that tagged predators will strike again.Based on hard data and not anecdotes, the report suggests that the costs of these programs nationwide "may not be justifiable" any longer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
SORNA WITNESS AMY BORROR
U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
HEARING ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT
(SORNA)
TUESDAY,MARCH 10, 2009
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF:
AMY BORROR
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER
1
Chairman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, thank you for this opportunity to
testify about the barriers to states’ implementation of the Adam Walsh Act’s Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, the potential legal ramifications of the Act, and Ohio’s
experience attempting to comply with the Act’s requirements.
The Office of the Ohio Public Defender is, of course, concerned about the constitutional rights of
our clients who are affected by this Act. But we are also concerned about our clients’ futures,
and any obstacles that may prevent them from leading crime-free lives. We work with law
enforcement, prosecutors, victims groups, treatment providers, and child advocates on this
issue because we are all committed to a common goal: reducing the incidence of sexual abuse
in our society.
And personally, as someone who has several friends who have been victims of sexual abuse, I
am concerned with not just the stated goals of policies aimed at improving public safety, but
also with the practical effects those policies have on my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
It is for all of these reasons that I am here today.
Ohio’s implementation of the Adam Walsh Act
On June 30, 2007, Ohio Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), the state’s attempt to implement the
requirements of the federal Adam Walsh Act, was signed into law. In late November 2007, the
Ohio Attorney General’s office mailed letters to thousands of registered sex offenders in the
state, informing them that their classification status and registration duties were changing under
the new law.
In the 15 months since those reclassification letters were mailed, at least 6,352 petitions
challenging the new law’s retroactive application have been filed in 78 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Ohio courts of appeals have issued decisions in at least 59 cases.1
The Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association estimates that the new law has increased sheriffs’
workloads by 60 percent.2
The Adam Walsh Act, which is intended to create uniformity in sex offender classification and
registration requirements across states, has instead resulted in tremendous variation in the
application of Ohio’s sex offender registration laws across Ohio’s counties.
The implementation of SB 10 across the state of Ohio has been uneven, at best. County courts,
prosecutors, and sheriffs have interpreted the massive new law differently. Many courts have
1 See http://www.opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Attorney_Forms/AWA__Attorney_Forms.htm
2 The Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Ohio's tougher sex offender law being met with lawsuits, confusion,” Jan.
21, 2008.
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
8 East Long Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-2998 www.opd.ohio.gov
(614) 466-5394
TIMOTHY YOUNG Fax (614) 644-9972
State Public Defender
2
issued blanket orders staying enforcement of the new law and allowing persons retroactively
affected by the law to continue registering under Ohio’s prior sex offender classification and
registration scheme until the Supreme Court of Ohio issues a ruling on the constitutionality of
SB 10.
The impact of the new law on offenders varies greatly, depending on the county in which they
reside. An offender may have to file a challenge to his reclassification as a civil motion or as a
motion in his original criminal case. A civil filing fee, ranging from $10–$300, may be assessed.
If the offender is indigent, counsel may or may not be appointed at state expense. While the
challenge petition is pending, the county sheriff may or may not send out community notification.
And, the judge considering the offender’s challenge petition may consider constitutional
challenges to the offender’s reclassification, or may simply view the hearing as an opportunity to
correct any errors that may have occurred in the reclassification.
The effect of SB 10 on Ohio was stated succinctly by Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Judge David E. Cain: “It’s a mess created by politicians, and it’s going to be a mess for the
courts to sort out.”
Changes to Ohio’s sex offender registry and classification scheme
The transition from a risk-based classification system to an offense-based system has turned
Ohio’s sex offender registry upside down.
Prior to adopting SB 10, Ohio had a risk-based sex offender classification system. After a
conviction of or plea to a sexually oriented offense, a hearing was held to determine whether the
offender was likely to commit another sex offense in the future. While these proceedings were
deemed to be civil in nature, the Ohio legislature recognized that the offenders needed
procedural protections. At the hearing, the offender and the prosecutor could present evidence,
call and examine witnesses and expert witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses and expert
witnesses. The offender had the right to be represented by counsel and, if indigent, to be
provided counsel at state expense. The state had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the offender was likely to reoffend. And, the offender had the right to appeal an
adverse ruling.
Simplifying Ohio’s risk-based classification system a bit, offenders could be classified into one of
three categories. An offender who had been convicted of or pled to a sexually oriented offense,
but who had not been found likely to re-offend, was labeled a sexually oriented offender. An
offender who had a prior conviction for a sexually oriented offense, but had not been found likely
to re-offend, was labeled a habitual sexual offender. And an offender who had been convicted
of or pled to a sexually oriented offense, and had been found likely to commit another sex
offense in the future, was labeled a sexual predator. These three categories roughly translate,
in duration and requirements of registration, to the Adam Walsh Act’s Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III,
respectively.
The state’s risk-based classification system had resulted in a registry that looked much like what
scientific research tells us about the likelihood of sex offender recidivism: 77% of Ohio sex
offenders were classified as sexually oriented offenders, 4% were labeled habitual sexual
offenders, and 18% were labeled sexual predators. After implementing SB 10, Ohio’s registry
became top-heavy: only 13% of offenders are classified in Tier I, 33% are in Tier II, and 54%
are in Tier III.
3
Ohio’s Sex Offender Registry
Previous, risk-based system Senate Bill 10/Adam Walsh Act
SOO Habitual Predator Tier I Tier II Tier III
The number of people in the highest tier of Ohio’s registry has tripled. Nearly 8,000 of Ohio’s
sex offender registrants were moved from one of the two lower classification levels into Tier III—
not because they had committed a new crime or because of new evidence of their future
dangerousness, but only because of the crime of which they had been previously convicted.
Ohio’s old registry was, potentially, a useful public safety tool. It included more than 22,000
offenders; however, only 4,000 of those offenders were labeled sexual predators. Those 4,000
offenders, found by a judge to be likely to reoffend, would rightly garner the most attention from
the public and require the closest supervision by law enforcement. Now, however, Ohio’s
registry includes more than 12,000 people labeled as Tier III offenders. Their propensity to
reoffend is not known, but the public will certainly perceive them as dangerous, and law
enforcement must expend tremendous resources to supervise them.
Under Ohio’s old law, a person convicted of rape for consensual sex with a person four years
and one day his junior might have been classified a sexually oriented offender, if that person
had not been found likely to commit another sex crime. Also under Ohio’s old law, a person
convicted of sexual imposition, a misdemeanor, might have been classified a sexual predator, if
a judge found him likely to reoffend. Now, however, Ohio courts are mandated to classify the
person convicted of rape as a Tier III offender and the person convicted of sexual imposition as
a Tier I offender.
The person convicted of rape could lead a law-abiding life and could even, as happened in at
least one Ohio case, marry the “victim” of his offense and have a family, but he would forever be
labeled a Tier III offender, the supposed worst of the worst. Even though the person convicted
of sexual imposition is likely to commit future sex offenses, a judge would not be able to classify
that person into a higher tier until that person committed and was convicted of a subsequent sex
offense. Instead of being able to properly label a high-risk offender, the court must instead wait
until another offense is committed and another victim is created.
Sex offender registration and notification laws are supposed to be forward-looking, aimed at
protecting the public from future crimes. Risk-based systems, like Ohio’s prior scheme, do a
4
much better job of addressing the stated aim of sex offender registries: protecting the public
from future criminal acts.
In its position paper on the Adam Walsh Act, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
(NAESV), a victim advocacy organization that conducts the public policy work of state sexual
assault coalitions and rape crisis centers, states that, “over-inclusive public notification can
actually be harmful to public safety by diluting the ability to identify the most dangerous
offenders and by disrupting the stability of low-risk offenders in ways that may increase their risk
of re-offense. Therefore, NAESV believes that internet disclosure and community notification
should be limited to those offenders who pose the highest risk of re-offense.”3
The Adam Walsh Act, however, is not concerned with the likelihood of future crimes. It looks
only at past offenses and labels offenders based on those past offenses, without considering
what those offenders might do in the future.
Retroactivity
One of the primary objections to the Adam Walsh Act concerns the requirement that states
apply the law retroactively to persons who offenses predate the enactment of the Act. It is
important to remember, however, that the Adam Walsh Act as passed by Congress was not,
itself, retroactive. Rather, the Act delegated authority to the Department of Justice to interpret
and administer the Act’s registration provisions, and to determine the applicability of those
provisions to offenders who were convicted prior to the enactment of the Act.4 The Guidelines
for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, issued by the Department of Justice’s SMART
Office, require that the Act be applied retroactively to persons with convictions for sex offenses
who are incarcerated or under supervision; who are already subject to a pre-existing sex
offender registration system; and who re-enter the justice system because of another crime,
regardless of whether it is a sex offense.
Congress did not mandate that all sex offenders be reclassified, and certainly did not require
that those offenders who have completed their period of registration be re-registered under the
new provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. Applying the Adam Walsh Act’s classification,
registration, and notification requirements retroactively, as required by the Guidelines,
unnecessarily subjects states to lengthy and expensive constitutional challenges that could be
avoided simply by applying the Act prospectively only.
Retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act presents separation of powers issues, as state
legislatures, acting on a directive handed down by the executive branch of the federal
government, will be reversing decisions made by judges. In Ohio, the retroactive application of
SB 10 legislatively overturned thousands of legal decisions of trial court judges—to not label
offenders as sexual predators—simply because offenses committed many years ago fall into a
certain Tier, as defined by the Act.
Plea deals that predate the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act and states’ implementation
legislation raise additional legal problems. There are thousands of offenders in Ohio who, since
the enactment of Ohio’s prior sex offender registration system, had pled guilty to sex offenses.
3 http://www.naesv.org/Policypapers/Adam_Walsh_SumMarch07.pdf
4 42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(d) provides that “[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the
applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before July 27, 2006….”
5
Many of them pled guilty to offenses that would, under the Adam Walsh Act, be Tier III offenses.
But those offenders were labeled, by a judge, as sexually oriented offenders (similar to Tier I),
not as sexual predators (similar to Tier III). In many cases, that label of sexually oriented
offender was part of a plea bargain, agreed to by the State of Ohio, through the office of the
county prosecutor.
Those plea deals are contracts: the defendant agreed to give up his or her right to trial and
agreed to go to prison, and in exchange, the State agreed that the defendant would not be
labeled a sexual predator. But now, with SB 10 being applied retroactively, thousands of
offenders will be notified that, because of the offense to which they pled guilty, they are being
reclassified as Tier III offenders and subjected to lifetime registration and verification duties.
The State of Ohio, which years ago entered into these contracts and agreed to less-severe
labels, has now unilaterally altered thousands of contracts. And, as a result, has made onerous
changes in thousands of people’s lives, changes that were neither anticipated nor necessary.
The cost to states and their court systems of the retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act
could take many forms: class action lawsuits; thousands of motions to withdraw pleas; and
lawsuits for damages after offenders lose their jobs, are forced to move, or appear on an
internet registry after being told they would not. And, perhaps most costly, defendants’
unwillingness to enter into future plea agreements, knowing that at any time, any branch of
government at any level may choose to breach the State’s obligations in that contract.
The retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act’s classification, registration, and notification
requirements runs afoul of fundamental fairness. It has, and will continue to, unduly burden
court systems and prove costly for the states. Congress, with its one-sentence delegation of
authority to the Department of Justice, surely did not intend to levy such a cost on the states
and their courts.
The Act’s application to juveniles
The juvenile court system is based on the fundamental belief that children can be rehabilitated.
Indeed, juveniles’ inherent amenability to rehabilitation has been recognized by the United
States Supreme Court. In its 2005 opinion in Roper v. Simmons, which declared the death
penalty for juveniles unconstitutional, the Court stated:
The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less
supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is
evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would
be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a
greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.
The emerging field of neurological science tells us that children’s brains are physically different
from the brains of fully mature adults, and that as a result, they are not only more likely to
engage in risk-taking behavior, but also more amenable to treatment. In children and
adolescents, the prefrontal cortex is not yet “hardwired” to the rest of brain. It is this part of the
brain that plays a critical role in decision making, problem solving, and being able to anticipate
the future consequences of today’s actions. Until the prefrontal cortex becomes fully connected,
children must rely on another part of the brain for decision making: the amygdala, which
processes emotional reactions and is the part of the brain known for the “fight or flight”
response.
6
While this period of brain development can lead to children behaving irrationally, making poor
decisions, and overreacting to perceived threats, it is also what makes children especially
amenable to treatment. Treatment provided during this critical stage of development to a child
who is sexually inappropriate or abusive will impact the way that child’s brain continues to
develop; as a result, juvenile sex offenders are known to be especially amenable to treatment,
and thus significantly less likely to reoffend.
According to the Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities, research shows that
“with treatment, supervision and support, the likelihood of a youth committing subsequent sex
offenses is about 4–10 percent.”5 And a compilation of 43 follow-up studies of the re-arrest
rates of 7,690 juvenile sex offenders found an average sexual recidivism rate of 7.78 percent.6
Additionally, the American Psychological Association has noted that because “adolescent
sexual offending is different from adult sexual offending in its motivation, nature, extent, and
response to intervention … [r]esearch has consistently shown that the majority of children and
teenagers adjudicated for sex crimes do not become adult offenders.”7 The National Center on
Sexual Behavior of Youth has conducted an extensive review of the available research on
juvenile sex offenders, and has concluded that adolescent sex offenders have fewer numbers of
victims than do adult offenders, and engage in less serious and aggressive behavior.8
The inclusion on a public registry of all children who are adjudicated delinquent of certain sex
offenses is fraught with problems that undermine both the history of the juvenile court system
and the purpose of the Adam Walsh Act. It ignores the very foundation of this country’s juvenile
court system: a belief, confirmed by scientific research, that children can and should be
rehabilitated. And it dilutes the effectiveness of the public registry as a public safety tool, by
flooding it with thousands of juvenile offenders, 90–96 percent of whom will never commit
another sex offense.
Juveniles who are amenable to treatment and who are successfully rehabilitated have no place
on a public registry of violent adult sex offenders. Those who interact with each child
individually—juvenile court personnel working in conjunction with treatment providers—should
continue to be allowed to determine whether a child’s offense was a youthful indiscretion, a
manifestation of a mental illness or other behavioral health problem, or a sign of a child who is
not amenable to treatment and who poses an ongoing threat to public safety.
Including children on an internet-based registry also puts those children at risk of being targeted
for harassment and abuse. A pedophile could use the online registry to find victims. The
registry will provide him with the names, pictures, and home addresses for children as young as
14, as well as the names of the schools they attend, the cars they drive, their license plate
numbers, and other identifying information. Many juvenile sex offenders were themselves
victims before they committed their offenses, and are especially vulnerable to further
victimization.
5 https://secure.digital-community.com/english/oacbha.org/includes/downloads/volume3issue1.pdf
6 Michael F. Caldwell, What We Do Not Know About Juvenile Sexual Reoffense Risk. Child
Maltreatment, Vol. 7, No. 4, Sage Publication, November 2002 (291-302).
7 http://www.apa.org/ppo/ppan/sexoffenderaa06.html
8http://www.ncsby.org/pages/publications/What%20Research%20Shows%20About%20Adolescent%20S
ex%20Offenders%20060404.pdf
7
Additionally, many juvenile sex offenses are intra-familial. During deliberations in the Ohio
General Assembly on SB 10, testimony was heard from several parents with a child who
sexually offended on a sibling. Those parents testified about the conflicts they face, as parents
of both a juvenile sex offender and a victim of sexual abuse. In these situations, the offender
and the victim receive much-needed treatment only if their parents are willing to speak up and
seek help. Undoubtedly, many parents will be unwilling to ask for help if doing so resigns one
child to a lifetime of inclusion on an internet-based registry, with all the restrictions on schooling,
employment, and residency it entails, as well as potential threats to that child’s safety. As a
result, in many instances, neither offender nor victim will receive the treatment they need.
The risk of mandatory, lifetime inclusion on a public registry will also mean that children facing
charges for sex offenses will be less likely to plead guilty and more likely to go to trial, thus
exposing the victim and others to the trauma of testifying and to other intrusive aspects of the
criminal justice system. And children’s defense counsel will certainly work to get sex offense
charges reduced to non-sex offense charges, such as assault, in order to avoid the severe
consequences of lifetime inclusion on the public registry. But a child adjudicated delinquent for
assault is unlikely to receive sex offender treatment, which results in tremendous lost
opportunities for treatment and the prevention of further harm.
The list of offenses to be included on the public registry may seem to target only the “worst of
the worst” of juvenile sex offenders. But in Ohio, the offenses recognized as equating to the
federal definition of “aggravated sexual abuse”—rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual
imposition—include a wide range of behaviors.
Several years ago, my office represented “Brian,” a 16-year-old boy. On the school bus, Brian
sat next to a 15-year-old girl whom he had dated previously. He touched his former girlfriend’s
breasts through her clothes, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to put his hand down her pants.
The girl testified at trial that Brian had put his hand down her pants “[a]bout to the knuckle line.”
Brian was adjudicated delinquent for attempted rape and gross sexual imposition.
In another example of a client my office represented, “Zach,” a 14-year-old boy, and several
other children had been at a friend’s house without parental supervision. Zach and some of the
boys had stolen bottles of alcohol, and the girls had set up a tent in the yard. At some point in
the evening, Zach and a 10-year-old girl, who “had become boyfriend and girlfriend earlier that
day,” were lying on their sides next to each other in the tent. He put his arm over the girl’s
midsection and touched her “below her beltline” but “did not put his hand in between her legs.”
Zach was adjudicated delinquent for gross sexual imposition on a victim under the age of 13.
My office also represented “Michael,” whose case highlights many of the problems typically
found in juvenile courts. Michael was removed from his mother’s custody at the age of 11, after
being physically abused, and over the next several years was placed in seven different foster
homes. He is very low-functioning and has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder,
extreme mood swings, and reactive attachment disorder. Despite this, Michael was adjudicated
delinquent for gross sexual imposition without being represented by counsel. Michael certainly
should have been evaluated for his competency to face the GSI complaint, but he had no
attorney to raise the issue, and Ohio lacks a competency statute for juveniles.
The Adam Walsh Act purports to protect society from dangerous sexual predators, like the adult
pedophiles, unknown to their victims, who kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered Adam
Walsh, Jacob Wetterling, Jessica Lunsford, and the other children for whom the legislation is
8
named. But, with the overly broad requirements of the Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s SB 10,
Ohioans instead find themselves “protected” from children like Brian, Zach, and Michael.
The year that Ohio implemented the Adam Walsh Act also marked the 40th anniversary of In re
Gault, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted many basic due process rights to
children in juvenile court, including the right to advance notice of the charges, the right to a fair
and impartial hearing, and the right to be represented by counsel. But Gault did not grant full
due process protections to juveniles facing delinquency complaints. Notably absent are a
child’s right to a grand jury determination of probable cause and the right to an open and speedy
trial by jury. And, at least in Ohio, juveniles have yet to fully realize the promises of Gault. A
recent study found that two-thirds of children facing unruly or delinquency complaints are not
represented by counsel when they appear in Ohio’s juvenile courts.9
The failure to fully protect juveniles’ constitutional rights is certainly not limited to Ohio. Last
month, two Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judges pled guilty to receiving $2.6 million in
kickbacks to send juveniles to certain juvenile detention facilities. A lawsuit filed by the Juvenile
Law Center on behalf of 70 families affected by this scandal alleges that the two judges violated
the rights of juveniles in ways that went beyond the kickback scheme.10 The lawsuit asserts that
in “a wave of unprecedented lawlessness,” the judges failed to advise youth of their right to
counsel, accepted their guilty pleas without explaining the charges against them, and garnished
the wages of their parents to pay the costs of detention. If Pennsylvania were to adopt the
Adam Walsh Act’s overly broad offense-based system, some of these youth, forced to enter
admissions to sexual offenses in courts that showed complete disregard for their constitutional
rights, would automatically be labeled Tier III and subject to lifetime registration and notification.
The Guidelines for implementation, issued by the SMART Office, instruct that “registration need
not be required on the basis of a foreign conviction if the conviction ‘was not obtained with
sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process….’” The Guidelines fail to
acknowledge, however, that only limited due process protections are offered to children in
juvenile court. By placing juvenile sex offenders on a public registry, the Adam Walsh Act
imposes adult sanctions on juvenile defendants. It treats a select group of children who appear
in juvenile court differently than other children who appear in juvenile court; it treats them more
like adult sex offenders than like children. And it does so without regard to the limited due
process protections offered to children in juvenile court.
Limited due process protections make the retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act
especially inappropriate for juveniles. Children who have already been through the juvenile
court system—without full due process protections and perhaps without even being represented
by counsel—could never have anticipated that lifetime inclusion on a public registry would
someday be a consequence of their juvenile court proceeding.
Recognizing the unique qualities and needs of children, the juvenile court system was
established to focus on treatment, supervision, and control, rather than solely on punishment.
Inclusion on a public registry, though, will significantly limit treatment and aftercare options for
juvenile sex offenders. Many group homes, foster homes, and community placements will not
accept children with sex offenses in their histories. Children on a public registry with community
notification requirements will be nearly impossible to place for or after treatment. As a result,
many juvenile sex offenders will be kept in juvenile correctional facilities far beyond the time it
9 http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/ohiowaiverpetition20060309.pdf
10 http://www.jlc.org/news/25/luzernelawsuit/
9
takes them to complete treatment. Children will be incarcerated not because they need further
treatment or pose a risk to public safety, but only because public policy will prevent them from
going anywhere else. This is a dramatic, and ill-advised, shift in the focus of the juvenile court
system from treatment to punishment.
Subjecting juvenile sex offenders to the same sanctions as adults raises legal and scientific
questions about culpability and punishment, and the registration and notification requirements
are inconsistent with the purposes of juvenile court: treatment and rehabilitation. Inclusion on
an internet-based public registry will subject juveniles to social ostracism, limit access to
educational and work opportunities, make it more difficult for juveniles to be placed with family
or friends, and limit residential treatment options. And treating juvenile sex offenders in the
same manner as adult sex offenders with respect to reporting, notification, and length of
classification, even though juveniles have fewer legal rights and protections than adults,
presents legal and Constitutional problems.
The plain language of the Adam Walsh Act requires that all children age 14 and older who are
adjudicated delinquent for offenses “comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual
abuse” be included on the public, online registry of sex offenders. But the negative
consequences of doing so—fewer intra-familial crimes being reported, fewer offenders and
victims receiving treatment, and children on the registry being targeted for abuse and
exploitation, to name only a few—would actually put states out of compliance with the stated
intent of the Adam Walsh Act: protecting children from violent sex offenders.
Substantial compliance and SORNA as a “floor”
The Adam Walsh Act requires substantial implementation, and the Guidelines issued by the
SMART Office purport to require substantial compliance. But the definition of “substantial” is
unclear, and leaves states uncertain about their options to tailor the Act to their systems and
needs.
The Guidelines offer that the “substantial” compliance standard “contemplate[s] that there is
some latitude to approve a jurisdiction’s implementation efforts, even if they do not exactly
follow in all respects the specifications of SORNA or these Guidelines.” However, the
Guidelines also say that the Adam Walsh Act presents a set of “minimum national standards,”
and that the Guidelines “set a floor, not a ceiling,” for states’ registration systems.
These two statements, taken together, imply that a state’s implementation efforts do not have to
“follow in all respects” the Adam Walsh Act or the Guidelines, but only if the state chooses to
exceed the requirements of the Act or the Guidelines. These two statements seem to define
“substantial” compliance as something at or above 100 percent compliance. That, of course, is
an illogical and unfounded definition of “substantial,” and clearly goes beyond what is required
by the Adam Walsh Act. The Guidelines instruct that nothing less than strict compliance will be
sufficient, while the Act requires only the substantial implementation of the federal law.
Further, the characterization of the Guidelines as a “floor” is disingenuous. It is akin to
Congress declaring that a speed limit of 95 miles per hour is now the floor for speed limits
across the nation. States could feel free to exceed that requirement and set the speed limit
within their jurisdiction at a higher rate, but 95 miles per hour would be the new national
minimum. Ohio and other states, with speed limits ranging from 55 to 75 miles per hour, would
be left staring upward at the 95-mile-per-hour floor, wondering how to achieve that level,
10
whether doing so would be worth the effort and cost of implementation, and most importantly,
what impact the implementation of this new federal requirement would have on public safety.
States should be allowed to substantially comply with the Adam Walsh Act not by blindly
enacting federal mandates, but by crafting good public policy that both achieves the Act’s goals
and is tailored to the unique systems and public policy goals of each state.
Cost to implement
Especially now, as the country faces the most serious economic downturn in at least three
decades, the cost to implement the Adam Walsh Act must be considered.
Virginia’s Department of Planning and Budget, which has developed one of the most detailed
fiscal analyses to date, estimated that implementing the Adam Walsh Act would cost the
Commonwealth nearly $12.5 million the first year and nearly $9 million every year thereafter, to
maintain the system. While the Virginia fiscal analysis included cost estimates for law
enforcement and the adult prison system, it did not include estimates for expenditures by the
juvenile justice system, courts, prosecutors, or defenders.
And, compared to the estimated $12.5 million Virginia would have to expend to implement the
Adam Walsh Act, it risks losing only $394,304, were it to choose to not comply with the federal
Act.
Virginia costs vs. financial penalty
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
Using the Virginia cost estimates, the Justice Policy Institute estimated the cost of
implementation for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, based on population, and
11
compared those numbers to the amount of money states would lose in Bryne Grant funds11 if
they chose to not comply with the requirements of the federal Adam Walsh Act.12
Other states show a similar disparity between costs incurred to implement the Act and the
potential financial penalty for non-compliance.
Texas
Implementation cost: $38,771,924
Ten percent penalty: $1,404,571
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
California
Implementation cost: $59,287,816
Ten percent penalty: $2,187,682
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
11 Based upon 2006 allocations for Byrne grants.
12 http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
12
New York
Implementation cost: $31,300,125
Ten percent penalty: $1,127,984
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
Florida
Implementation cost: $29,602,768
Ten percent penalty: $1,204,269
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
13
Tennessee
Implementation cost: $9,985,946
Ten percent penalty: $481,778
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
While not an exact measurement of the necessary state expenditures, the Justice Policy
Institute’s calculations provide a picture of the serious fiscal impact on states that choose to
implement the Adam Walsh Act. For states to just break even between expenditures and the
potential loss of Byrne grants, Virginia’s cost estimates must have been overestimated, or
allocations to the Byrne grant funds must increase from their 2006 levels, by a factor of 31.
These are significant costs to implement an act, the efficacy of which is being questioned not
only by defense attorneys, civil libertarians, child advocates, and treatment providers, but also
by social science researchers and a growing number of concerned state attorneys general,
prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and victims groups.
Conclusion
The effects of the Adam Walsh Act, once implemented, contravene the Act’s well-intentioned
goals. An act intended to unify registries across the country has instead placed an incredible
burden on courts and law enforcement and created confusion from one jurisdiction to another.
A law aimed at protecting children from sexual predators instead places thousands of juveniles,
many of whom have been sexually abused, on an online registry and into harm’s way. A
system meant to simplify sex offender classification has instead muddled the meaning of
offenders’ designations, and left the public to only speculate about which prior offenders might
pose a future risk.
Respectfully, I urge the Members of this Subcommittee to consider an extension of the deadline
for states to comply with the Act; the establishment of task forces, comprised of experts in the
field of sex offender management and representatives of all stakeholders in this complex issue,
to examine the practical effects of the Act on public safety; and possible statutory reform.
Chairman Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
HEARING ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT
(SORNA)
TUESDAY,MARCH 10, 2009
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF:
AMY BORROR
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER
1
Chairman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, thank you for this opportunity to
testify about the barriers to states’ implementation of the Adam Walsh Act’s Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, the potential legal ramifications of the Act, and Ohio’s
experience attempting to comply with the Act’s requirements.
The Office of the Ohio Public Defender is, of course, concerned about the constitutional rights of
our clients who are affected by this Act. But we are also concerned about our clients’ futures,
and any obstacles that may prevent them from leading crime-free lives. We work with law
enforcement, prosecutors, victims groups, treatment providers, and child advocates on this
issue because we are all committed to a common goal: reducing the incidence of sexual abuse
in our society.
And personally, as someone who has several friends who have been victims of sexual abuse, I
am concerned with not just the stated goals of policies aimed at improving public safety, but
also with the practical effects those policies have on my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
It is for all of these reasons that I am here today.
Ohio’s implementation of the Adam Walsh Act
On June 30, 2007, Ohio Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), the state’s attempt to implement the
requirements of the federal Adam Walsh Act, was signed into law. In late November 2007, the
Ohio Attorney General’s office mailed letters to thousands of registered sex offenders in the
state, informing them that their classification status and registration duties were changing under
the new law.
In the 15 months since those reclassification letters were mailed, at least 6,352 petitions
challenging the new law’s retroactive application have been filed in 78 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Ohio courts of appeals have issued decisions in at least 59 cases.1
The Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association estimates that the new law has increased sheriffs’
workloads by 60 percent.2
The Adam Walsh Act, which is intended to create uniformity in sex offender classification and
registration requirements across states, has instead resulted in tremendous variation in the
application of Ohio’s sex offender registration laws across Ohio’s counties.
The implementation of SB 10 across the state of Ohio has been uneven, at best. County courts,
prosecutors, and sheriffs have interpreted the massive new law differently. Many courts have
1 See http://www.opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Attorney_Forms/AWA__Attorney_Forms.htm
2 The Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Ohio's tougher sex offender law being met with lawsuits, confusion,” Jan.
21, 2008.
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
8 East Long Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-2998 www.opd.ohio.gov
(614) 466-5394
TIMOTHY YOUNG Fax (614) 644-9972
State Public Defender
2
issued blanket orders staying enforcement of the new law and allowing persons retroactively
affected by the law to continue registering under Ohio’s prior sex offender classification and
registration scheme until the Supreme Court of Ohio issues a ruling on the constitutionality of
SB 10.
The impact of the new law on offenders varies greatly, depending on the county in which they
reside. An offender may have to file a challenge to his reclassification as a civil motion or as a
motion in his original criminal case. A civil filing fee, ranging from $10–$300, may be assessed.
If the offender is indigent, counsel may or may not be appointed at state expense. While the
challenge petition is pending, the county sheriff may or may not send out community notification.
And, the judge considering the offender’s challenge petition may consider constitutional
challenges to the offender’s reclassification, or may simply view the hearing as an opportunity to
correct any errors that may have occurred in the reclassification.
The effect of SB 10 on Ohio was stated succinctly by Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Judge David E. Cain: “It’s a mess created by politicians, and it’s going to be a mess for the
courts to sort out.”
Changes to Ohio’s sex offender registry and classification scheme
The transition from a risk-based classification system to an offense-based system has turned
Ohio’s sex offender registry upside down.
Prior to adopting SB 10, Ohio had a risk-based sex offender classification system. After a
conviction of or plea to a sexually oriented offense, a hearing was held to determine whether the
offender was likely to commit another sex offense in the future. While these proceedings were
deemed to be civil in nature, the Ohio legislature recognized that the offenders needed
procedural protections. At the hearing, the offender and the prosecutor could present evidence,
call and examine witnesses and expert witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses and expert
witnesses. The offender had the right to be represented by counsel and, if indigent, to be
provided counsel at state expense. The state had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the offender was likely to reoffend. And, the offender had the right to appeal an
adverse ruling.
Simplifying Ohio’s risk-based classification system a bit, offenders could be classified into one of
three categories. An offender who had been convicted of or pled to a sexually oriented offense,
but who had not been found likely to re-offend, was labeled a sexually oriented offender. An
offender who had a prior conviction for a sexually oriented offense, but had not been found likely
to re-offend, was labeled a habitual sexual offender. And an offender who had been convicted
of or pled to a sexually oriented offense, and had been found likely to commit another sex
offense in the future, was labeled a sexual predator. These three categories roughly translate,
in duration and requirements of registration, to the Adam Walsh Act’s Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III,
respectively.
The state’s risk-based classification system had resulted in a registry that looked much like what
scientific research tells us about the likelihood of sex offender recidivism: 77% of Ohio sex
offenders were classified as sexually oriented offenders, 4% were labeled habitual sexual
offenders, and 18% were labeled sexual predators. After implementing SB 10, Ohio’s registry
became top-heavy: only 13% of offenders are classified in Tier I, 33% are in Tier II, and 54%
are in Tier III.
3
Ohio’s Sex Offender Registry
Previous, risk-based system Senate Bill 10/Adam Walsh Act
SOO Habitual Predator Tier I Tier II Tier III
The number of people in the highest tier of Ohio’s registry has tripled. Nearly 8,000 of Ohio’s
sex offender registrants were moved from one of the two lower classification levels into Tier III—
not because they had committed a new crime or because of new evidence of their future
dangerousness, but only because of the crime of which they had been previously convicted.
Ohio’s old registry was, potentially, a useful public safety tool. It included more than 22,000
offenders; however, only 4,000 of those offenders were labeled sexual predators. Those 4,000
offenders, found by a judge to be likely to reoffend, would rightly garner the most attention from
the public and require the closest supervision by law enforcement. Now, however, Ohio’s
registry includes more than 12,000 people labeled as Tier III offenders. Their propensity to
reoffend is not known, but the public will certainly perceive them as dangerous, and law
enforcement must expend tremendous resources to supervise them.
Under Ohio’s old law, a person convicted of rape for consensual sex with a person four years
and one day his junior might have been classified a sexually oriented offender, if that person
had not been found likely to commit another sex crime. Also under Ohio’s old law, a person
convicted of sexual imposition, a misdemeanor, might have been classified a sexual predator, if
a judge found him likely to reoffend. Now, however, Ohio courts are mandated to classify the
person convicted of rape as a Tier III offender and the person convicted of sexual imposition as
a Tier I offender.
The person convicted of rape could lead a law-abiding life and could even, as happened in at
least one Ohio case, marry the “victim” of his offense and have a family, but he would forever be
labeled a Tier III offender, the supposed worst of the worst. Even though the person convicted
of sexual imposition is likely to commit future sex offenses, a judge would not be able to classify
that person into a higher tier until that person committed and was convicted of a subsequent sex
offense. Instead of being able to properly label a high-risk offender, the court must instead wait
until another offense is committed and another victim is created.
Sex offender registration and notification laws are supposed to be forward-looking, aimed at
protecting the public from future crimes. Risk-based systems, like Ohio’s prior scheme, do a
4
much better job of addressing the stated aim of sex offender registries: protecting the public
from future criminal acts.
In its position paper on the Adam Walsh Act, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
(NAESV), a victim advocacy organization that conducts the public policy work of state sexual
assault coalitions and rape crisis centers, states that, “over-inclusive public notification can
actually be harmful to public safety by diluting the ability to identify the most dangerous
offenders and by disrupting the stability of low-risk offenders in ways that may increase their risk
of re-offense. Therefore, NAESV believes that internet disclosure and community notification
should be limited to those offenders who pose the highest risk of re-offense.”3
The Adam Walsh Act, however, is not concerned with the likelihood of future crimes. It looks
only at past offenses and labels offenders based on those past offenses, without considering
what those offenders might do in the future.
Retroactivity
One of the primary objections to the Adam Walsh Act concerns the requirement that states
apply the law retroactively to persons who offenses predate the enactment of the Act. It is
important to remember, however, that the Adam Walsh Act as passed by Congress was not,
itself, retroactive. Rather, the Act delegated authority to the Department of Justice to interpret
and administer the Act’s registration provisions, and to determine the applicability of those
provisions to offenders who were convicted prior to the enactment of the Act.4 The Guidelines
for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, issued by the Department of Justice’s SMART
Office, require that the Act be applied retroactively to persons with convictions for sex offenses
who are incarcerated or under supervision; who are already subject to a pre-existing sex
offender registration system; and who re-enter the justice system because of another crime,
regardless of whether it is a sex offense.
Congress did not mandate that all sex offenders be reclassified, and certainly did not require
that those offenders who have completed their period of registration be re-registered under the
new provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. Applying the Adam Walsh Act’s classification,
registration, and notification requirements retroactively, as required by the Guidelines,
unnecessarily subjects states to lengthy and expensive constitutional challenges that could be
avoided simply by applying the Act prospectively only.
Retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act presents separation of powers issues, as state
legislatures, acting on a directive handed down by the executive branch of the federal
government, will be reversing decisions made by judges. In Ohio, the retroactive application of
SB 10 legislatively overturned thousands of legal decisions of trial court judges—to not label
offenders as sexual predators—simply because offenses committed many years ago fall into a
certain Tier, as defined by the Act.
Plea deals that predate the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act and states’ implementation
legislation raise additional legal problems. There are thousands of offenders in Ohio who, since
the enactment of Ohio’s prior sex offender registration system, had pled guilty to sex offenses.
3 http://www.naesv.org/Policypapers/Adam_Walsh_SumMarch07.pdf
4 42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(d) provides that “[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the
applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before July 27, 2006….”
5
Many of them pled guilty to offenses that would, under the Adam Walsh Act, be Tier III offenses.
But those offenders were labeled, by a judge, as sexually oriented offenders (similar to Tier I),
not as sexual predators (similar to Tier III). In many cases, that label of sexually oriented
offender was part of a plea bargain, agreed to by the State of Ohio, through the office of the
county prosecutor.
Those plea deals are contracts: the defendant agreed to give up his or her right to trial and
agreed to go to prison, and in exchange, the State agreed that the defendant would not be
labeled a sexual predator. But now, with SB 10 being applied retroactively, thousands of
offenders will be notified that, because of the offense to which they pled guilty, they are being
reclassified as Tier III offenders and subjected to lifetime registration and verification duties.
The State of Ohio, which years ago entered into these contracts and agreed to less-severe
labels, has now unilaterally altered thousands of contracts. And, as a result, has made onerous
changes in thousands of people’s lives, changes that were neither anticipated nor necessary.
The cost to states and their court systems of the retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act
could take many forms: class action lawsuits; thousands of motions to withdraw pleas; and
lawsuits for damages after offenders lose their jobs, are forced to move, or appear on an
internet registry after being told they would not. And, perhaps most costly, defendants’
unwillingness to enter into future plea agreements, knowing that at any time, any branch of
government at any level may choose to breach the State’s obligations in that contract.
The retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act’s classification, registration, and notification
requirements runs afoul of fundamental fairness. It has, and will continue to, unduly burden
court systems and prove costly for the states. Congress, with its one-sentence delegation of
authority to the Department of Justice, surely did not intend to levy such a cost on the states
and their courts.
The Act’s application to juveniles
The juvenile court system is based on the fundamental belief that children can be rehabilitated.
Indeed, juveniles’ inherent amenability to rehabilitation has been recognized by the United
States Supreme Court. In its 2005 opinion in Roper v. Simmons, which declared the death
penalty for juveniles unconstitutional, the Court stated:
The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less
supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is
evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would
be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a
greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.
The emerging field of neurological science tells us that children’s brains are physically different
from the brains of fully mature adults, and that as a result, they are not only more likely to
engage in risk-taking behavior, but also more amenable to treatment. In children and
adolescents, the prefrontal cortex is not yet “hardwired” to the rest of brain. It is this part of the
brain that plays a critical role in decision making, problem solving, and being able to anticipate
the future consequences of today’s actions. Until the prefrontal cortex becomes fully connected,
children must rely on another part of the brain for decision making: the amygdala, which
processes emotional reactions and is the part of the brain known for the “fight or flight”
response.
6
While this period of brain development can lead to children behaving irrationally, making poor
decisions, and overreacting to perceived threats, it is also what makes children especially
amenable to treatment. Treatment provided during this critical stage of development to a child
who is sexually inappropriate or abusive will impact the way that child’s brain continues to
develop; as a result, juvenile sex offenders are known to be especially amenable to treatment,
and thus significantly less likely to reoffend.
According to the Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities, research shows that
“with treatment, supervision and support, the likelihood of a youth committing subsequent sex
offenses is about 4–10 percent.”5 And a compilation of 43 follow-up studies of the re-arrest
rates of 7,690 juvenile sex offenders found an average sexual recidivism rate of 7.78 percent.6
Additionally, the American Psychological Association has noted that because “adolescent
sexual offending is different from adult sexual offending in its motivation, nature, extent, and
response to intervention … [r]esearch has consistently shown that the majority of children and
teenagers adjudicated for sex crimes do not become adult offenders.”7 The National Center on
Sexual Behavior of Youth has conducted an extensive review of the available research on
juvenile sex offenders, and has concluded that adolescent sex offenders have fewer numbers of
victims than do adult offenders, and engage in less serious and aggressive behavior.8
The inclusion on a public registry of all children who are adjudicated delinquent of certain sex
offenses is fraught with problems that undermine both the history of the juvenile court system
and the purpose of the Adam Walsh Act. It ignores the very foundation of this country’s juvenile
court system: a belief, confirmed by scientific research, that children can and should be
rehabilitated. And it dilutes the effectiveness of the public registry as a public safety tool, by
flooding it with thousands of juvenile offenders, 90–96 percent of whom will never commit
another sex offense.
Juveniles who are amenable to treatment and who are successfully rehabilitated have no place
on a public registry of violent adult sex offenders. Those who interact with each child
individually—juvenile court personnel working in conjunction with treatment providers—should
continue to be allowed to determine whether a child’s offense was a youthful indiscretion, a
manifestation of a mental illness or other behavioral health problem, or a sign of a child who is
not amenable to treatment and who poses an ongoing threat to public safety.
Including children on an internet-based registry also puts those children at risk of being targeted
for harassment and abuse. A pedophile could use the online registry to find victims. The
registry will provide him with the names, pictures, and home addresses for children as young as
14, as well as the names of the schools they attend, the cars they drive, their license plate
numbers, and other identifying information. Many juvenile sex offenders were themselves
victims before they committed their offenses, and are especially vulnerable to further
victimization.
5 https://secure.digital-community.com/english/oacbha.org/includes/downloads/volume3issue1.pdf
6 Michael F. Caldwell, What We Do Not Know About Juvenile Sexual Reoffense Risk. Child
Maltreatment, Vol. 7, No. 4, Sage Publication, November 2002 (291-302).
7 http://www.apa.org/ppo/ppan/sexoffenderaa06.html
8http://www.ncsby.org/pages/publications/What%20Research%20Shows%20About%20Adolescent%20S
ex%20Offenders%20060404.pdf
7
Additionally, many juvenile sex offenses are intra-familial. During deliberations in the Ohio
General Assembly on SB 10, testimony was heard from several parents with a child who
sexually offended on a sibling. Those parents testified about the conflicts they face, as parents
of both a juvenile sex offender and a victim of sexual abuse. In these situations, the offender
and the victim receive much-needed treatment only if their parents are willing to speak up and
seek help. Undoubtedly, many parents will be unwilling to ask for help if doing so resigns one
child to a lifetime of inclusion on an internet-based registry, with all the restrictions on schooling,
employment, and residency it entails, as well as potential threats to that child’s safety. As a
result, in many instances, neither offender nor victim will receive the treatment they need.
The risk of mandatory, lifetime inclusion on a public registry will also mean that children facing
charges for sex offenses will be less likely to plead guilty and more likely to go to trial, thus
exposing the victim and others to the trauma of testifying and to other intrusive aspects of the
criminal justice system. And children’s defense counsel will certainly work to get sex offense
charges reduced to non-sex offense charges, such as assault, in order to avoid the severe
consequences of lifetime inclusion on the public registry. But a child adjudicated delinquent for
assault is unlikely to receive sex offender treatment, which results in tremendous lost
opportunities for treatment and the prevention of further harm.
The list of offenses to be included on the public registry may seem to target only the “worst of
the worst” of juvenile sex offenders. But in Ohio, the offenses recognized as equating to the
federal definition of “aggravated sexual abuse”—rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual
imposition—include a wide range of behaviors.
Several years ago, my office represented “Brian,” a 16-year-old boy. On the school bus, Brian
sat next to a 15-year-old girl whom he had dated previously. He touched his former girlfriend’s
breasts through her clothes, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to put his hand down her pants.
The girl testified at trial that Brian had put his hand down her pants “[a]bout to the knuckle line.”
Brian was adjudicated delinquent for attempted rape and gross sexual imposition.
In another example of a client my office represented, “Zach,” a 14-year-old boy, and several
other children had been at a friend’s house without parental supervision. Zach and some of the
boys had stolen bottles of alcohol, and the girls had set up a tent in the yard. At some point in
the evening, Zach and a 10-year-old girl, who “had become boyfriend and girlfriend earlier that
day,” were lying on their sides next to each other in the tent. He put his arm over the girl’s
midsection and touched her “below her beltline” but “did not put his hand in between her legs.”
Zach was adjudicated delinquent for gross sexual imposition on a victim under the age of 13.
My office also represented “Michael,” whose case highlights many of the problems typically
found in juvenile courts. Michael was removed from his mother’s custody at the age of 11, after
being physically abused, and over the next several years was placed in seven different foster
homes. He is very low-functioning and has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder,
extreme mood swings, and reactive attachment disorder. Despite this, Michael was adjudicated
delinquent for gross sexual imposition without being represented by counsel. Michael certainly
should have been evaluated for his competency to face the GSI complaint, but he had no
attorney to raise the issue, and Ohio lacks a competency statute for juveniles.
The Adam Walsh Act purports to protect society from dangerous sexual predators, like the adult
pedophiles, unknown to their victims, who kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered Adam
Walsh, Jacob Wetterling, Jessica Lunsford, and the other children for whom the legislation is
8
named. But, with the overly broad requirements of the Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s SB 10,
Ohioans instead find themselves “protected” from children like Brian, Zach, and Michael.
The year that Ohio implemented the Adam Walsh Act also marked the 40th anniversary of In re
Gault, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted many basic due process rights to
children in juvenile court, including the right to advance notice of the charges, the right to a fair
and impartial hearing, and the right to be represented by counsel. But Gault did not grant full
due process protections to juveniles facing delinquency complaints. Notably absent are a
child’s right to a grand jury determination of probable cause and the right to an open and speedy
trial by jury. And, at least in Ohio, juveniles have yet to fully realize the promises of Gault. A
recent study found that two-thirds of children facing unruly or delinquency complaints are not
represented by counsel when they appear in Ohio’s juvenile courts.9
The failure to fully protect juveniles’ constitutional rights is certainly not limited to Ohio. Last
month, two Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judges pled guilty to receiving $2.6 million in
kickbacks to send juveniles to certain juvenile detention facilities. A lawsuit filed by the Juvenile
Law Center on behalf of 70 families affected by this scandal alleges that the two judges violated
the rights of juveniles in ways that went beyond the kickback scheme.10 The lawsuit asserts that
in “a wave of unprecedented lawlessness,” the judges failed to advise youth of their right to
counsel, accepted their guilty pleas without explaining the charges against them, and garnished
the wages of their parents to pay the costs of detention. If Pennsylvania were to adopt the
Adam Walsh Act’s overly broad offense-based system, some of these youth, forced to enter
admissions to sexual offenses in courts that showed complete disregard for their constitutional
rights, would automatically be labeled Tier III and subject to lifetime registration and notification.
The Guidelines for implementation, issued by the SMART Office, instruct that “registration need
not be required on the basis of a foreign conviction if the conviction ‘was not obtained with
sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process….’” The Guidelines fail to
acknowledge, however, that only limited due process protections are offered to children in
juvenile court. By placing juvenile sex offenders on a public registry, the Adam Walsh Act
imposes adult sanctions on juvenile defendants. It treats a select group of children who appear
in juvenile court differently than other children who appear in juvenile court; it treats them more
like adult sex offenders than like children. And it does so without regard to the limited due
process protections offered to children in juvenile court.
Limited due process protections make the retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act
especially inappropriate for juveniles. Children who have already been through the juvenile
court system—without full due process protections and perhaps without even being represented
by counsel—could never have anticipated that lifetime inclusion on a public registry would
someday be a consequence of their juvenile court proceeding.
Recognizing the unique qualities and needs of children, the juvenile court system was
established to focus on treatment, supervision, and control, rather than solely on punishment.
Inclusion on a public registry, though, will significantly limit treatment and aftercare options for
juvenile sex offenders. Many group homes, foster homes, and community placements will not
accept children with sex offenses in their histories. Children on a public registry with community
notification requirements will be nearly impossible to place for or after treatment. As a result,
many juvenile sex offenders will be kept in juvenile correctional facilities far beyond the time it
9 http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/ohiowaiverpetition20060309.pdf
10 http://www.jlc.org/news/25/luzernelawsuit/
9
takes them to complete treatment. Children will be incarcerated not because they need further
treatment or pose a risk to public safety, but only because public policy will prevent them from
going anywhere else. This is a dramatic, and ill-advised, shift in the focus of the juvenile court
system from treatment to punishment.
Subjecting juvenile sex offenders to the same sanctions as adults raises legal and scientific
questions about culpability and punishment, and the registration and notification requirements
are inconsistent with the purposes of juvenile court: treatment and rehabilitation. Inclusion on
an internet-based public registry will subject juveniles to social ostracism, limit access to
educational and work opportunities, make it more difficult for juveniles to be placed with family
or friends, and limit residential treatment options. And treating juvenile sex offenders in the
same manner as adult sex offenders with respect to reporting, notification, and length of
classification, even though juveniles have fewer legal rights and protections than adults,
presents legal and Constitutional problems.
The plain language of the Adam Walsh Act requires that all children age 14 and older who are
adjudicated delinquent for offenses “comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual
abuse” be included on the public, online registry of sex offenders. But the negative
consequences of doing so—fewer intra-familial crimes being reported, fewer offenders and
victims receiving treatment, and children on the registry being targeted for abuse and
exploitation, to name only a few—would actually put states out of compliance with the stated
intent of the Adam Walsh Act: protecting children from violent sex offenders.
Substantial compliance and SORNA as a “floor”
The Adam Walsh Act requires substantial implementation, and the Guidelines issued by the
SMART Office purport to require substantial compliance. But the definition of “substantial” is
unclear, and leaves states uncertain about their options to tailor the Act to their systems and
needs.
The Guidelines offer that the “substantial” compliance standard “contemplate[s] that there is
some latitude to approve a jurisdiction’s implementation efforts, even if they do not exactly
follow in all respects the specifications of SORNA or these Guidelines.” However, the
Guidelines also say that the Adam Walsh Act presents a set of “minimum national standards,”
and that the Guidelines “set a floor, not a ceiling,” for states’ registration systems.
These two statements, taken together, imply that a state’s implementation efforts do not have to
“follow in all respects” the Adam Walsh Act or the Guidelines, but only if the state chooses to
exceed the requirements of the Act or the Guidelines. These two statements seem to define
“substantial” compliance as something at or above 100 percent compliance. That, of course, is
an illogical and unfounded definition of “substantial,” and clearly goes beyond what is required
by the Adam Walsh Act. The Guidelines instruct that nothing less than strict compliance will be
sufficient, while the Act requires only the substantial implementation of the federal law.
Further, the characterization of the Guidelines as a “floor” is disingenuous. It is akin to
Congress declaring that a speed limit of 95 miles per hour is now the floor for speed limits
across the nation. States could feel free to exceed that requirement and set the speed limit
within their jurisdiction at a higher rate, but 95 miles per hour would be the new national
minimum. Ohio and other states, with speed limits ranging from 55 to 75 miles per hour, would
be left staring upward at the 95-mile-per-hour floor, wondering how to achieve that level,
10
whether doing so would be worth the effort and cost of implementation, and most importantly,
what impact the implementation of this new federal requirement would have on public safety.
States should be allowed to substantially comply with the Adam Walsh Act not by blindly
enacting federal mandates, but by crafting good public policy that both achieves the Act’s goals
and is tailored to the unique systems and public policy goals of each state.
Cost to implement
Especially now, as the country faces the most serious economic downturn in at least three
decades, the cost to implement the Adam Walsh Act must be considered.
Virginia’s Department of Planning and Budget, which has developed one of the most detailed
fiscal analyses to date, estimated that implementing the Adam Walsh Act would cost the
Commonwealth nearly $12.5 million the first year and nearly $9 million every year thereafter, to
maintain the system. While the Virginia fiscal analysis included cost estimates for law
enforcement and the adult prison system, it did not include estimates for expenditures by the
juvenile justice system, courts, prosecutors, or defenders.
And, compared to the estimated $12.5 million Virginia would have to expend to implement the
Adam Walsh Act, it risks losing only $394,304, were it to choose to not comply with the federal
Act.
Virginia costs vs. financial penalty
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
Using the Virginia cost estimates, the Justice Policy Institute estimated the cost of
implementation for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, based on population, and
11
compared those numbers to the amount of money states would lose in Bryne Grant funds11 if
they chose to not comply with the requirements of the federal Adam Walsh Act.12
Other states show a similar disparity between costs incurred to implement the Act and the
potential financial penalty for non-compliance.
Texas
Implementation cost: $38,771,924
Ten percent penalty: $1,404,571
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
California
Implementation cost: $59,287,816
Ten percent penalty: $2,187,682
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
11 Based upon 2006 allocations for Byrne grants.
12 http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
12
New York
Implementation cost: $31,300,125
Ten percent penalty: $1,127,984
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
Florida
Implementation cost: $29,602,768
Ten percent penalty: $1,204,269
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
13
Tennessee
Implementation cost: $9,985,946
Ten percent penalty: $481,778
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
Implementation
Cost
Ten Percent
Penalty
While not an exact measurement of the necessary state expenditures, the Justice Policy
Institute’s calculations provide a picture of the serious fiscal impact on states that choose to
implement the Adam Walsh Act. For states to just break even between expenditures and the
potential loss of Byrne grants, Virginia’s cost estimates must have been overestimated, or
allocations to the Byrne grant funds must increase from their 2006 levels, by a factor of 31.
These are significant costs to implement an act, the efficacy of which is being questioned not
only by defense attorneys, civil libertarians, child advocates, and treatment providers, but also
by social science researchers and a growing number of concerned state attorneys general,
prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and victims groups.
Conclusion
The effects of the Adam Walsh Act, once implemented, contravene the Act’s well-intentioned
goals. An act intended to unify registries across the country has instead placed an incredible
burden on courts and law enforcement and created confusion from one jurisdiction to another.
A law aimed at protecting children from sexual predators instead places thousands of juveniles,
many of whom have been sexually abused, on an online registry and into harm’s way. A
system meant to simplify sex offender classification has instead muddled the meaning of
offenders’ designations, and left the public to only speculate about which prior offenders might
pose a future risk.
Respectfully, I urge the Members of this Subcommittee to consider an extension of the deadline
for states to comply with the Act; the establishment of task forces, comprised of experts in the
field of sex offender management and representatives of all stakeholders in this complex issue,
to examine the practical effects of the Act on public safety; and possible statutory reform.
Chairman Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
SORNA WITNESS DETECTIVE BOB SHILLING
Testimony:
Detective Bob Shilling
House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(SORNA)
March 10, 2009
2
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Guests, I am honored to be given the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Bob Shilling. I am a twenty-nine year veteran of the Seattle
Police Department. I have spent the last nineteen years as a detective in the Special
Victim’s Unit, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail. I have written or co-authored 12
pieces of sex offender legislation that have been passed into law in Washington State,
and testified on the Community Protection Act of 1990, which became the first
community notification law in the United States. I am the only municipal law enforcement
officer in the United States who is a member of the Interpol Specialists Group on Crimes
Against Children. I currently serve as Chair of the Sex Offender Management Theme
Group.
My experience in protecting the public from sex offenders spans two decades. It’s not a
job to me it’s a passion. Perhaps my most significant experience related to this work
comes from the fact that I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The abuse spanned
a four-year period and without question marks the darkest days of my life. I have
dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to stop sexual abuse, not only in this country,
but also around the world.
Prior to becoming a detective in the Special Victims Unit, I like many citizens, believed
the only way to manage sex offenders was to put them on a distant island where they
couldn’t victimize anyone else. My feelings were naïve, yet a heartfelt response to a very
complex problem. My focus then and now has always been victim centered. What can
we do to ensure we don’t have additional victims? What can we do to stop sexual abuse
before it happens? What has research taught us? How do we hold sex offenders
accountable while making sure they have the tools to succeed once they are released
from incarceration?
Washington State has been in the national forefront of sex offender management and in
ensuring public safety from sex crimes. We have an End of Sentence Review Committee
that looks at the risk each sex offender poses to the community prior to their release
from prison. We have a highly regarded sex offender treatment program within the
prison system, and statewide certification of sex offender treatment providers in private
practice. We do actuarial risk assessments on each of our sex offenders in an effort to
identify those who are most likely to re-offend. This helps put precious public safety
3
resources where they are needed the most; monitoring the highest risk offenders. We
proactively educate our community about sex offenders. We want the public to be able
to protect themselves from known sex offenders, as well as those who haven’t been
caught yet. We also educate the community that it’s in the best interest of public safety
to be invested in the offender’s success when they are released.
I’ve trained law enforcement officers from all over the world in the art of educating the
community about sex offenders. I’ve stated: “You can’t do community notification without
community education. To do so is like smoking a cigarette while standing in a pool of
gasoline.” Without education there’s misinformation. Misinformation leads to heightened
anxiety, which in some cases, leads to vigilantism. The community deserves to know
who the high-risk sex offenders are in the community, about the relatively low sex
offender recidivism rates, and what research tells us. Citizens can and will act
responsibly if we are honest with them. They are better able to protect themselves and
their loved ones when we educate them about sex offenders.
I ask that you consider how the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
impacts the public safety aims of effectively managing sex offenders in the community.
The SORNA does not mandate community education as a component of community
notification. This is a recipe for disaster and leaves citizens trying to sort out fact from
myth, truth from emotion, and what to do next. This creates public safety concerns and
does not have the citizens invested in offender success. It has the opposite effect.
The SORNA mandates offense based tiering, which is a faulty alternative to actuarial
risk based tiering used in over 20 states. Citizens have grown used to level one sex
offenders being low risk, level 2 moderate risk, and level three high risk. Under SORNA,
most sex offenders will be tier 3. That will cause great confusion and anxiety for the
citizens, as they believe each of these offenders is a high risk to re-offend. That just is
not true. Sex offenders differ greatly in their level of impulsiveness, persistence, risk to
the community, and their desire to change their deviant behavior. Assigning sex offender
tiers based on crime of conviction tells us very little about who this sex offender is and
what his or her risk for re-offense may be. In Washington State, I have the ability to
aggravate someone’s risk level if dynamic risk factors indicate an escalation in risky
4
behavior. I won’t have that ability under SORNA. Their tier is their tier. It is not an
effective way of doing business with the public.
Research tells us that 90% of victims under age 12 knew their abuser. That number is
66% when the victim is between 18 and 29 years old. (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000) Under
the SORNA, all sex offenders will be subject to broad based Internet dissemination
(community notification) regardless of risk. When we know that most victims of sexual
abuse know their abuser, and in a large proportion of cases it’s a family member,
Internet notification increases the likelihood that the victim will be identified. Victims tell
us that their greatest concerns are their family knowing about the assault (71%), and
people outside the family knowing about the assault (68%). (Kilpatrick, Edmunds,
Seymour (1992) Rape in America.) The last thing we want to do is create disincentives
to victims and their families to report.
Finally, I ask you to consider the retroactivity aspect of the SORNA. Research tells us
that most sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. In a 2004 study done by the
pre-eminent researchers Harris and Hanson, with a sample of 4,724 sex offenders over
a 15-year follow-up period, “73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with or
convicted of another sexual offense.” Under the SORNA, law enforcement will be
responsible for reviewing the criminal history of anyone brought back into the system
even for a non-sexual criminal offense. If they were once convicted of a sex offense,
regardless of how long ago that conviction was, the offender will be required to register
as a sex offender. This will be very labor intensive and costly. Our time, efforts, and
resources are more effectively spent focusing on moderate to high-risk sex offenders,
not sex offenders who committed their sex crime 25 or 30 years ago have not reoffended
in a sexual way.
Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration
Detective Bob Shilling
House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(SORNA)
March 10, 2009
2
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Guests, I am honored to be given the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Bob Shilling. I am a twenty-nine year veteran of the Seattle
Police Department. I have spent the last nineteen years as a detective in the Special
Victim’s Unit, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail. I have written or co-authored 12
pieces of sex offender legislation that have been passed into law in Washington State,
and testified on the Community Protection Act of 1990, which became the first
community notification law in the United States. I am the only municipal law enforcement
officer in the United States who is a member of the Interpol Specialists Group on Crimes
Against Children. I currently serve as Chair of the Sex Offender Management Theme
Group.
My experience in protecting the public from sex offenders spans two decades. It’s not a
job to me it’s a passion. Perhaps my most significant experience related to this work
comes from the fact that I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The abuse spanned
a four-year period and without question marks the darkest days of my life. I have
dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to stop sexual abuse, not only in this country,
but also around the world.
Prior to becoming a detective in the Special Victims Unit, I like many citizens, believed
the only way to manage sex offenders was to put them on a distant island where they
couldn’t victimize anyone else. My feelings were naïve, yet a heartfelt response to a very
complex problem. My focus then and now has always been victim centered. What can
we do to ensure we don’t have additional victims? What can we do to stop sexual abuse
before it happens? What has research taught us? How do we hold sex offenders
accountable while making sure they have the tools to succeed once they are released
from incarceration?
Washington State has been in the national forefront of sex offender management and in
ensuring public safety from sex crimes. We have an End of Sentence Review Committee
that looks at the risk each sex offender poses to the community prior to their release
from prison. We have a highly regarded sex offender treatment program within the
prison system, and statewide certification of sex offender treatment providers in private
practice. We do actuarial risk assessments on each of our sex offenders in an effort to
identify those who are most likely to re-offend. This helps put precious public safety
3
resources where they are needed the most; monitoring the highest risk offenders. We
proactively educate our community about sex offenders. We want the public to be able
to protect themselves from known sex offenders, as well as those who haven’t been
caught yet. We also educate the community that it’s in the best interest of public safety
to be invested in the offender’s success when they are released.
I’ve trained law enforcement officers from all over the world in the art of educating the
community about sex offenders. I’ve stated: “You can’t do community notification without
community education. To do so is like smoking a cigarette while standing in a pool of
gasoline.” Without education there’s misinformation. Misinformation leads to heightened
anxiety, which in some cases, leads to vigilantism. The community deserves to know
who the high-risk sex offenders are in the community, about the relatively low sex
offender recidivism rates, and what research tells us. Citizens can and will act
responsibly if we are honest with them. They are better able to protect themselves and
their loved ones when we educate them about sex offenders.
I ask that you consider how the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
impacts the public safety aims of effectively managing sex offenders in the community.
The SORNA does not mandate community education as a component of community
notification. This is a recipe for disaster and leaves citizens trying to sort out fact from
myth, truth from emotion, and what to do next. This creates public safety concerns and
does not have the citizens invested in offender success. It has the opposite effect.
The SORNA mandates offense based tiering, which is a faulty alternative to actuarial
risk based tiering used in over 20 states. Citizens have grown used to level one sex
offenders being low risk, level 2 moderate risk, and level three high risk. Under SORNA,
most sex offenders will be tier 3. That will cause great confusion and anxiety for the
citizens, as they believe each of these offenders is a high risk to re-offend. That just is
not true. Sex offenders differ greatly in their level of impulsiveness, persistence, risk to
the community, and their desire to change their deviant behavior. Assigning sex offender
tiers based on crime of conviction tells us very little about who this sex offender is and
what his or her risk for re-offense may be. In Washington State, I have the ability to
aggravate someone’s risk level if dynamic risk factors indicate an escalation in risky
4
behavior. I won’t have that ability under SORNA. Their tier is their tier. It is not an
effective way of doing business with the public.
Research tells us that 90% of victims under age 12 knew their abuser. That number is
66% when the victim is between 18 and 29 years old. (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000) Under
the SORNA, all sex offenders will be subject to broad based Internet dissemination
(community notification) regardless of risk. When we know that most victims of sexual
abuse know their abuser, and in a large proportion of cases it’s a family member,
Internet notification increases the likelihood that the victim will be identified. Victims tell
us that their greatest concerns are their family knowing about the assault (71%), and
people outside the family knowing about the assault (68%). (Kilpatrick, Edmunds,
Seymour (1992) Rape in America.) The last thing we want to do is create disincentives
to victims and their families to report.
Finally, I ask you to consider the retroactivity aspect of the SORNA. Research tells us
that most sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. In a 2004 study done by the
pre-eminent researchers Harris and Hanson, with a sample of 4,724 sex offenders over
a 15-year follow-up period, “73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with or
convicted of another sexual offense.” Under the SORNA, law enforcement will be
responsible for reviewing the criminal history of anyone brought back into the system
even for a non-sexual criminal offense. If they were once convicted of a sex offense,
regardless of how long ago that conviction was, the offender will be required to register
as a sex offender. This will be very labor intensive and costly. Our time, efforts, and
resources are more effectively spent focusing on moderate to high-risk sex offenders,
not sex offenders who committed their sex crime 25 or 30 years ago have not reoffended
in a sexual way.
Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration
SORNA WITNESS MARK LUNSFORD
Jessie was a beautiful baby. I can remember when she was about one year old, and she
would laugh at me and give me kisses and hugs and pick the raisens out of my cereal as we sat
at the kitchen counter.
I remember when she was about 4 and she would run through the house telling on her older
sister Elizabeth and her brother Gerald, all the time. They're about 10 years older or more than
Jessie. They learned to give her what she wanted. I got more hugs and kisses and I love
you's.
I can remember how she missed her brother and sister when they got older and moved out,
I got more hugs and kisses, she got nephews and a niece. She was about 7 then.
She could drive the bratz through the house in their bratz car. She can operate a D-9
Dozer and a rubber tire loader from her fathers knee. From bumps to bruises, from bandaids
to bicycles, she was a tomboy with her daddy and a very nice young lady for her grandma.
I could go on and on but the best way to describe Jessie is for you to think about the small
child in your life. You know the one, the one you would change the world for.
We were more than father and daughter, we were best friends. As a single father i learned
alot of things about my children that only a single parent could understand. Me and Jessie
would argue about who loved each other the most. (description of how we would show each
that we loved one another).
One day we left North Carolina to see her two nephews and one niece in Ohio. That is
where my older children moved to. We spent two weeks with them that was the first time the
met and the last time they would ever play together. We then ended our trip in Florida where
my parents lived.
My mom and dad are good christian people. They sang gospel music all over Ohio. I can
remember people like the Rambos and Bill Gaither and throwing rocks on top of the church. I
learned to be a good father to my children by being raised by good parents.
Well it was February 2005, we had lived in Florida for a year now with my parents. Now
we really had a house full of love.
On February 24 in the early morning hours about 2 or 3 a.m. she was taken from her bed
from a stranger. For the first few days detectives told me my father knew where Jessie was,
they even said they found her blood on his under clothes. They said he showed no remorse for
Jessies disappearance. They asked me to go into the room I was broken hearted, angry and
confused and I asked my father what he did with Jessie? My father looked at me and said,
Marky honey I dont know where Jessie is and he began to cry.
My father told the detective that he had enough and he was going home. They grabbed
him by his arms and put them behind his back and told him he was not going anywhere. A few
days later, they told me they thought that my mom and dad gave Jessie to someone else to
raise.
Then they said on national T.V. that my mom raised red flags on her polygraph.
Three weeks went by and they found her killer and he confessed and told them where to
find her. She was repeatedly raped, tied with stereo wire and kept in a closet for 3 days. She
was only 150 yards from her bedroom.
John Couey convicted sex offender arrested 23 times or more in his 46 year life took my
little girl, put her in a trash bag and buried her alive at the back door of his home.
I'm sure that when she was dying she was crying for me. I still hear her cries.
As a parent i will never be able to get over the grief of knowing that she was only
150 yards away from me for at least 3 days, while i prayed for her to come home.
Her death was a result of a system that failed her and us. For if we had tougher laws for
registration and good programs for notification this may have prevented her death. Although
John Couey was on probation his probation officer didnt even know he was a convicted sex
offender. The sheriff was advised by the AG office 3 months before the kidnapping to round up
the absconded sex offenders, John Couey was on that list.
But there is more, much more. The day Jessie disappeared, the law enforcement went to
John Couey's address and asked his housemates if they had seen him and they said no and
they never asked to search the trailer.
My heart sank at the trial when another resident of John Couey's trailer admitted that had
the police asked to search the trailer, she would have let them.
On the second day of Jessie's disappearance, one of the residents of the home was visibly
shaking and openly nervous when the police came to the door. This was actually in the police
report. But the never asked to search the trailer. Even worse on February 25, 26 and the 28,
police received tips from people who said that John Couey was a sex offender who was living
across the street from Jessica. They even identified his address.
No crime victim, no individual or family, should ever have to go through what my family
and I have been through. This has changed everything i ever knew. From the grass being
green and the sky being blue.
My job now is to declare war on child sex offenders and predators and to get you to join
me. Instead of them stalking our kids, we will stalk them. And instead of them being our
worse nightmare we become theirs.
Jessie's law, was past in Florida and is tougher legislation to stop these kinds of crimes.
Since the law first passed in Florida, I have been to many states to speak about Jessie's Law
and at least 37 states have passed it in their jurisdiction.
I lobbied the halls of congress for the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act which the President
signed in 2006. I've lobbied for I.C.A.C and the U.S. Marshalls funding.
You, the Federal Legislator appropriate the money that the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act
needs now. Our childrens very lives depend on you to make that decision. I know Jessie did.
And know that these types of crime are just to heavy for mercy. It's more than mercy can
do. It is an eye for an eye for a child.
On February 12, 2007 jury selection began for the murder trial of Jessica Marie Lunsford
and it was followed by a 3 week trial.
The jury came back with 4 guilty verdicts and recommeded the death penalty. Judge
Howard gave John Couey the death penalty.
Sitting through the trial was one of the hardest things I have ever done. I can't tell you
how many times I wanted to kill him.
Remember people watch out for our children. The child you save could be your own.
Through sexual offender registration and tracking system, properly funded and enforced
may have protected Jessie and will protect other children.
In Florida, the law is so slacked that the public is only notified of sexual offenders, and that
is at the discretion of each sheriffs department. The public is not notified when a sexual
predator moves, So we need better notification for the public. We must know where every
John Couey is so that we can take the necessary steps to protect our children.
In addition to a strict registration system, Congress must empower law enforcement to go
after these guys. If law enforcement is not empowered and funded to go after these predators
the system fails all of us. Additionally if we are not going to empower law enforcement, as has
been the case in failing to fund AWA then registration and notification became that much more
important. So fathers and mothers have the information they need to protect their children.
It's simple, you as legislators and all organizations, whether you are surviving parents
coalition or NCMEC or ACLU we are all for human rights and it's time we all realize our children
need our help to protect their rights for a safe life.
would laugh at me and give me kisses and hugs and pick the raisens out of my cereal as we sat
at the kitchen counter.
I remember when she was about 4 and she would run through the house telling on her older
sister Elizabeth and her brother Gerald, all the time. They're about 10 years older or more than
Jessie. They learned to give her what she wanted. I got more hugs and kisses and I love
you's.
I can remember how she missed her brother and sister when they got older and moved out,
I got more hugs and kisses, she got nephews and a niece. She was about 7 then.
She could drive the bratz through the house in their bratz car. She can operate a D-9
Dozer and a rubber tire loader from her fathers knee. From bumps to bruises, from bandaids
to bicycles, she was a tomboy with her daddy and a very nice young lady for her grandma.
I could go on and on but the best way to describe Jessie is for you to think about the small
child in your life. You know the one, the one you would change the world for.
We were more than father and daughter, we were best friends. As a single father i learned
alot of things about my children that only a single parent could understand. Me and Jessie
would argue about who loved each other the most. (description of how we would show each
that we loved one another).
One day we left North Carolina to see her two nephews and one niece in Ohio. That is
where my older children moved to. We spent two weeks with them that was the first time the
met and the last time they would ever play together. We then ended our trip in Florida where
my parents lived.
My mom and dad are good christian people. They sang gospel music all over Ohio. I can
remember people like the Rambos and Bill Gaither and throwing rocks on top of the church. I
learned to be a good father to my children by being raised by good parents.
Well it was February 2005, we had lived in Florida for a year now with my parents. Now
we really had a house full of love.
On February 24 in the early morning hours about 2 or 3 a.m. she was taken from her bed
from a stranger. For the first few days detectives told me my father knew where Jessie was,
they even said they found her blood on his under clothes. They said he showed no remorse for
Jessies disappearance. They asked me to go into the room I was broken hearted, angry and
confused and I asked my father what he did with Jessie? My father looked at me and said,
Marky honey I dont know where Jessie is and he began to cry.
My father told the detective that he had enough and he was going home. They grabbed
him by his arms and put them behind his back and told him he was not going anywhere. A few
days later, they told me they thought that my mom and dad gave Jessie to someone else to
raise.
Then they said on national T.V. that my mom raised red flags on her polygraph.
Three weeks went by and they found her killer and he confessed and told them where to
find her. She was repeatedly raped, tied with stereo wire and kept in a closet for 3 days. She
was only 150 yards from her bedroom.
John Couey convicted sex offender arrested 23 times or more in his 46 year life took my
little girl, put her in a trash bag and buried her alive at the back door of his home.
I'm sure that when she was dying she was crying for me. I still hear her cries.
As a parent i will never be able to get over the grief of knowing that she was only
150 yards away from me for at least 3 days, while i prayed for her to come home.
Her death was a result of a system that failed her and us. For if we had tougher laws for
registration and good programs for notification this may have prevented her death. Although
John Couey was on probation his probation officer didnt even know he was a convicted sex
offender. The sheriff was advised by the AG office 3 months before the kidnapping to round up
the absconded sex offenders, John Couey was on that list.
But there is more, much more. The day Jessie disappeared, the law enforcement went to
John Couey's address and asked his housemates if they had seen him and they said no and
they never asked to search the trailer.
My heart sank at the trial when another resident of John Couey's trailer admitted that had
the police asked to search the trailer, she would have let them.
On the second day of Jessie's disappearance, one of the residents of the home was visibly
shaking and openly nervous when the police came to the door. This was actually in the police
report. But the never asked to search the trailer. Even worse on February 25, 26 and the 28,
police received tips from people who said that John Couey was a sex offender who was living
across the street from Jessica. They even identified his address.
No crime victim, no individual or family, should ever have to go through what my family
and I have been through. This has changed everything i ever knew. From the grass being
green and the sky being blue.
My job now is to declare war on child sex offenders and predators and to get you to join
me. Instead of them stalking our kids, we will stalk them. And instead of them being our
worse nightmare we become theirs.
Jessie's law, was past in Florida and is tougher legislation to stop these kinds of crimes.
Since the law first passed in Florida, I have been to many states to speak about Jessie's Law
and at least 37 states have passed it in their jurisdiction.
I lobbied the halls of congress for the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act which the President
signed in 2006. I've lobbied for I.C.A.C and the U.S. Marshalls funding.
You, the Federal Legislator appropriate the money that the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act
needs now. Our childrens very lives depend on you to make that decision. I know Jessie did.
And know that these types of crime are just to heavy for mercy. It's more than mercy can
do. It is an eye for an eye for a child.
On February 12, 2007 jury selection began for the murder trial of Jessica Marie Lunsford
and it was followed by a 3 week trial.
The jury came back with 4 guilty verdicts and recommeded the death penalty. Judge
Howard gave John Couey the death penalty.
Sitting through the trial was one of the hardest things I have ever done. I can't tell you
how many times I wanted to kill him.
Remember people watch out for our children. The child you save could be your own.
Through sexual offender registration and tracking system, properly funded and enforced
may have protected Jessie and will protect other children.
In Florida, the law is so slacked that the public is only notified of sexual offenders, and that
is at the discretion of each sheriffs department. The public is not notified when a sexual
predator moves, So we need better notification for the public. We must know where every
John Couey is so that we can take the necessary steps to protect our children.
In addition to a strict registration system, Congress must empower law enforcement to go
after these guys. If law enforcement is not empowered and funded to go after these predators
the system fails all of us. Additionally if we are not going to empower law enforcement, as has
been the case in failing to fund AWA then registration and notification became that much more
important. So fathers and mothers have the information they need to protect their children.
It's simple, you as legislators and all organizations, whether you are surviving parents
coalition or NCMEC or ACLU we are all for human rights and it's time we all realize our children
need our help to protect their rights for a safe life.
SORNA WITNESS ERNIE ALLEN
TESTIMONY OF
ERNIE ALLEN
President & CEO
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
for the
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY
“SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA)”
March 10, 2009
2
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the sexual exploitation of children and the importance of the Adam Walsh Act.
Chairman Scott, we are deeply grateful for your long history of advocacy for children and for
your leadership on these issues.
As you know, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is a not-for-profit
corporation, mandated by Congress and working in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Justice. NCMEC is a public-private partnership, funded in part by Congress and in part by the
private sector. For 25 years NCMEC has operated under Congressional mandate to serve as the
national resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children. This statutory
mandate (see 42 U.S.C. §5773) includes 19 specific operational functions, among which are:
• operating a national 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1-800-THE-LOST® (1-800-843-5678), to
intake reports of missing children and receive leads about ongoing cases;
• providing technical assistance and training to individuals and law enforcement agencies
in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing
and exploited children;
• tracking the incidence of attempted child abductions;
• providing forensic technical assistance to law enforcement;
• facilitating the deployment of the National Emergency Child Locator Center during
periods of national disasters;
• working with law enforcement and the private sector to reduce the distribution of child
pornography over the Internet;
• operating a child victim identification program to assist law enforcement in identifying
victims of child pornography;
• developing and disseminating programs and information about Internet safety and the
prevention of child abduction and sexual exploitation;
• providing technical assistance and training to law enforcement in identifying and locating
non-compliant sex offenders; and
• operating the CyberTipline, the “9-1-1 for the Internet,” that the public and electronic
service providers may use to report Internet-related child sexual exploitation.
3
The CyberTipline is the national clearinghouse for leads and tips regarding child sexual
exploitation crimes. It is operated in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”), the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces (“ICAC”), the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, as well as other state and local law enforcement. We
receive reports in eight categories of crimes against children:
• possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography;
• online enticement of children for sexual acts;
• child prostitution;
• sex tourism involving children
• extrafamilial child sexual molestation;
• unsolicited obscene material sent to a child;
• misleading domain names; and
• misleading words or digital images on the Internet.
These reports are made by both the public and by Electronic Service Providers, who are required
by law to report to the CyberTipline. The leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who examine
and evaluate the content, add related information that would be useful to law enforcement, use
publicly-available search tools to determine the geographic location of the apparent criminal act,
and provide all information to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation. These
reports are also triaged to ensure that children in imminent danger get first priority.
The FBI, ICE and Postal Inspection Service have “real time” access to the CyberTipline, and
assign agents and analysts to work at NCMEC. In the 10 years since the CyberTipline began,
NCMEC has received and processed more than 667,000 reports. To date, electronic service
providers have reported to the CyberTipline more than 5 million images of sexually exploited
children. To date, 21 million child pornography images and videos have been reviewed by the
analysts in our Child Victim Identification Program, which assists prosecutors to secure
convictions for crimes involving identified child victims and helps law enforcement to locate and
rescue child victims who have not yet been identified.
4
In 2008, Congress amended NCMEC’s authorization to specifically authorize us to provide
training and assistance to law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating non-compliant
sex offenders. All states/jurisdictions currently require sex offenders to register; California
enacted the first such law in 1947. As of our latest survey of the states, there were 673,989 sex
offenders who are required by law to register their address and other information with law
enforcement and update this information as it changes. However, the mobility of offenders and
inconsistencies among current state registration laws have resulted in as many as 100,000
“missing” sex offenders – law enforcement does not know where they are, yet they are living in
our communities.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, passed by Congress in 2006, conveyed
“fugitive” status on non-compliant sex offenders who have left the state and failed to register,
and charged the U.S. Marshals Service with tracking them down. In response, NCMEC created a
Sex Offender Tracking Team. Upon request from the Marshals, we run searches of noncompliant
sex offenders against public-records databases donated to us by private companies for
the assistance of law enforcement. We also conduct internal searches for potential linkages of
non-compliant sex offenders to NCMEC cases of child abduction, online exploitation and
attempted abductions. We forward all information to the Marshals, who use it to locate the
offenders so they can be charged with the crime of non-compliance. This has resulted in
thousands of arrests of fugitive sex offenders by the Marshals. In addition, NCMEC provides
assistance to any requesting law enforcement agency trying to locate non-compliant sex
offenders. Most of the law enforcement agencies who request assistance from NCMEC have
exhausted all of their resources trying to locate these offenders and have been unable to do so.
To date, we have provided more than 1,200 analytical leads packages to law enforcement upon
request, and act as liaison between local law enforcement and the Marshals Service, where
necessary.
NCMEC also partners with ICE on the “Operation Predator” initiative. ICE developed this
initiative to identify, investigate and arrest child predators and sex offenders. NCMEC’s alliance
with ICE is designed to facilitate the exchange of information on exploited children and those
5
who prey upon them. NCMEC supports ICE’s efforts by providing analysis utilizing public
records database searches and CyberTipline reports on potential child victims and those
suspected of crimes against children. An ICE Special Agent has been assigned to work at
NCMEC so that ICE can promptly and efficiently act on the information developed by NCMEC.
This alliance has proved enormously successful: nearly 12,000 individuals have been arrested
nationwide. Almost 85% of these arrests are of non-citizen sex offenders, more than 6,300 of
whom have been deported.
However, despite our progress the victimization of children continues. There has been much
attention given to the question of how many children are victimized by sexual offenders. Experts
estimate that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized in some way before
they reach adulthood, and just 1 in 3 will tell anybody about it. Clearly, those numbers represent
a broad spectrum of victimizations from very minor to very severe. Nonetheless, the numbers
are powerful testimony to the fact that children are at risk and that we must do more.
There are strong empirical data as well. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 67 percent
of reported sexual assault victims are children1 – more than two-thirds. And these are only the
ones that law enforcement knows about. Most crimes against children are not reported to the
police.2 This means that there are many, many more victims of these heinous crimes than the
statistics show.
In recent years, millions of Americans have followed with horror the devastating stories of
Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage and others. These tragic cases have generated anger
and indignation nationwide, and epitomize an area of great concern: how to effectively track,
register and manage the nation’s convicted sex offenders. Sex offenders pose an enormous
challenge for policy makers. They evoke unparalleled fear among citizens. Their offenses are
associated with the greatest risk of psychological harm. Most of their victims are children and
youth. And, according to the National Institute of Justice, child abusers have been known to
1 Snyder, Howard N., Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and
Offender Characteristics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, July
2000, page 2.
2 1999 National Report Series: Children as Victims, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2000, Page 7.
6
reoffend as late as 20 years following release into the community.3 As policy makers address the
issue of sex offenders, they are confronted with some basic realities:
• most sex offenders are not in prison, and those that are tend to serve limited sentences;
• while most sex offenders are in the community, historically their presence was largely
unknown to citizens;
• sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense; and
• while community supervision and oversight is widely recognized as essential, the system
for providing such supervision is overwhelmed.
Of the estimated 100,000 non-compliant sex offenders, many are literally “missing.” They
moved and failed to register their new address with law enforcement, or they provided the wrong
address or some similar variation. The number of offenders required to register is only going to
increase as new cases work their way through the criminal justice system. This problem is not
going to go away. These offenders will be in our communities. The question is: what more can
we do?
In 1994 Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Predators Act, mandating every state to implement a sex offender registration program.
However, by 2006, even though all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and some U.S. territories
and Native American tribes had created sex offender registries, there was still a striking lack of
consistency and uniformity. In response, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act in July of 2006 in an effort to enhance and tighten the sex offender registration
system. The Adam Walsh Act attempted to correct the serious discrepancies among the
jurisdictions, eliminating loopholes in the laws that permitted sex offenders to cross state lines
and remain undetected. By encouraging uniformity across jurisdictions, the Adam Walsh Act
attempted to prevent sex offenders from “forum-shopping” in order to remain anonymous.
However, despite Congress’ intent, the goals of the Adam Walsh Act remain unmet today.
3 Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, June 1997.
7
Title I of the Adam Walsh Act is commonly referred to as the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA). The Sex offender Monitoring, Apprehension, Registration and
Tracking (SMART) Office is authorized to determine whether a jurisdiction has substantially
implemented SORNA or to grant an extension of the deadline. A jurisdiction must submit
materials about its registration program to the SMART Office. The Adam Walsh Act permits
jurisdictions to apply for up to two one-year extensions. The deadline for submitting extension
requests is April 27, 2009.
Currently, there are no jurisdictions listed on the SMART Office webpage as having achieved
substantial compliance. Seventeen jurisdictions are listed as having been granted a one-year
extension to July 26, 2010 (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Jersey, Quileute Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation, and South Carolina).4
Thirty eight jurisdictions have submitted materials for review.5 These are:
• Alabama • Kentucky
• Alaska • Louisiana
• American Samoa • Maryland
• Arizona • Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
• Arkansas • Minnesota
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe • Mississippi
• Coeur D’Alene Tribe • Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
• Colorado • Missouri
• Colorado River Indian Tribes • Nebraska
• Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• Connecticut • Oklahoma
• Florida • Puerto Rico
• Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation • Quileute Tribe
• Guam • Rhode Island
• Idaho • Santee Sioux Nation
• Iowa • South Carolina
• Kansas • Vermont
4 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/faqs/faqs_statusofjurisdictions.pdf
5 Id.
8
A few states have announced that they have implemented SORNA, but only the SMART Office
is authorized to make an official determination of substantial implementation.
Cost appears to be the primary hurdle for compliance. It is difficult to determine a particular
jurisdiction’s required costs to implement SORNA with accuracy. However, some jurisdictions
are doing so in an attempt to weigh the costs of implementation against the loss of Byrne Grant
funds.
NCMEC is in frequent contact with registering agencies and has learned anecdotally that they are
most concerned about:
• personnel (40 states have fewer than 10 staff members);
• lack of law enforcement personnel dedicated solely to sex offender issues;
• database software purchase, installation and maintenance;
• outdated computer hardware and software;
• lack of centralized communication systems between jurisdictions for tracking offenders;
• lack of technology to easily identify fake addresses;
• lack of a national registry of sex offenders covering all tiers;
• in some states, registrants’ verification is by mail and not in person;
• increased incarceration of offenders and related expenses;
• additional court proceedings;
• training of law enforcement, court and correctional personnel;
• lack of funding to conduct community notification of sex offenders;
• inability to track homeless registrants;
• lack of notice by jails of offenders’ release;
• lack of a comprehensive national jail data system; and
• lack of uniformity in laws and requirements across jurisdictions.
In order to come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, many jurisdictions must make
fundamental changes to their sex offender registration systems. Yet, these jurisdictions simply
9
do not have the resources to make the necessary changes, leaving us where we were prior to the
enactment of the Act with inconsistency across the jurisdictions enabling some sex offenders to
game the system.
In order to help protect our nation’s children, we must improve our current registration system so
that we know where all of the convicted sex offenders are. We must assume that those who
represent the greatest threat are those least likely to be compliant. They are the most likely
offenders to attempt to disappear.
From the beginning of the discussions that led to the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, it was
always understood that the jurisdictions needed help in order to implement the new law. We are
deeply grateful to Chairman Alan Mollohan, Congressman Frank Wolf and the House
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and to Chairwoman Barbara
Mikulski, Senator Richard Shelby and the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations
Subcommittee for their repeated attempts to do just that. On several occasions since the passage
of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, the CJS Subcommittees have passed appropriations measures
providing seed funding to begin implementation at the state and federal level. Yet, for reasons
unrelated to the merits of the Adam Walsh Act, and having to do with larger funding disputes
which resulted in Continuing Resolutions and late session Omnibus Appropriations measures,
the funds designated by the CJS Subcommittees were never actually appropriated. Once again
this year, Chairman Mollohan, Chairwoman Mikulski and their subcommittees are taking steps
toward providing assistance.
In our judgment, providing such funding is the key to being able to finally implement this critical
system. However, with the compliance date looming and with essentially no funding having
been provided to date, we think it imperative that Congress act to keep the Adam Walsh Act
alive by extending the deadline for compliance and reauthorizing the statute.
We understand that resources are scarce and that there are many competing demands. However,
it is hard to imagine a greater or more pressing priority. NCMEC urges lawmakers, law
enforcement and the public to take a serious look at the dangers threatening our children today,
10
and to move decisively to help states create a seamless, coordinated, uniform system that works.
Now is the time to act.
Thank you.
ERNIE ALLEN
President & CEO
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
for the
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY
“SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA)”
March 10, 2009
2
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the sexual exploitation of children and the importance of the Adam Walsh Act.
Chairman Scott, we are deeply grateful for your long history of advocacy for children and for
your leadership on these issues.
As you know, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is a not-for-profit
corporation, mandated by Congress and working in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Justice. NCMEC is a public-private partnership, funded in part by Congress and in part by the
private sector. For 25 years NCMEC has operated under Congressional mandate to serve as the
national resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children. This statutory
mandate (see 42 U.S.C. §5773) includes 19 specific operational functions, among which are:
• operating a national 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1-800-THE-LOST® (1-800-843-5678), to
intake reports of missing children and receive leads about ongoing cases;
• providing technical assistance and training to individuals and law enforcement agencies
in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing
and exploited children;
• tracking the incidence of attempted child abductions;
• providing forensic technical assistance to law enforcement;
• facilitating the deployment of the National Emergency Child Locator Center during
periods of national disasters;
• working with law enforcement and the private sector to reduce the distribution of child
pornography over the Internet;
• operating a child victim identification program to assist law enforcement in identifying
victims of child pornography;
• developing and disseminating programs and information about Internet safety and the
prevention of child abduction and sexual exploitation;
• providing technical assistance and training to law enforcement in identifying and locating
non-compliant sex offenders; and
• operating the CyberTipline, the “9-1-1 for the Internet,” that the public and electronic
service providers may use to report Internet-related child sexual exploitation.
3
The CyberTipline is the national clearinghouse for leads and tips regarding child sexual
exploitation crimes. It is operated in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”), the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces (“ICAC”), the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, as well as other state and local law enforcement. We
receive reports in eight categories of crimes against children:
• possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography;
• online enticement of children for sexual acts;
• child prostitution;
• sex tourism involving children
• extrafamilial child sexual molestation;
• unsolicited obscene material sent to a child;
• misleading domain names; and
• misleading words or digital images on the Internet.
These reports are made by both the public and by Electronic Service Providers, who are required
by law to report to the CyberTipline. The leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who examine
and evaluate the content, add related information that would be useful to law enforcement, use
publicly-available search tools to determine the geographic location of the apparent criminal act,
and provide all information to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation. These
reports are also triaged to ensure that children in imminent danger get first priority.
The FBI, ICE and Postal Inspection Service have “real time” access to the CyberTipline, and
assign agents and analysts to work at NCMEC. In the 10 years since the CyberTipline began,
NCMEC has received and processed more than 667,000 reports. To date, electronic service
providers have reported to the CyberTipline more than 5 million images of sexually exploited
children. To date, 21 million child pornography images and videos have been reviewed by the
analysts in our Child Victim Identification Program, which assists prosecutors to secure
convictions for crimes involving identified child victims and helps law enforcement to locate and
rescue child victims who have not yet been identified.
4
In 2008, Congress amended NCMEC’s authorization to specifically authorize us to provide
training and assistance to law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating non-compliant
sex offenders. All states/jurisdictions currently require sex offenders to register; California
enacted the first such law in 1947. As of our latest survey of the states, there were 673,989 sex
offenders who are required by law to register their address and other information with law
enforcement and update this information as it changes. However, the mobility of offenders and
inconsistencies among current state registration laws have resulted in as many as 100,000
“missing” sex offenders – law enforcement does not know where they are, yet they are living in
our communities.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, passed by Congress in 2006, conveyed
“fugitive” status on non-compliant sex offenders who have left the state and failed to register,
and charged the U.S. Marshals Service with tracking them down. In response, NCMEC created a
Sex Offender Tracking Team. Upon request from the Marshals, we run searches of noncompliant
sex offenders against public-records databases donated to us by private companies for
the assistance of law enforcement. We also conduct internal searches for potential linkages of
non-compliant sex offenders to NCMEC cases of child abduction, online exploitation and
attempted abductions. We forward all information to the Marshals, who use it to locate the
offenders so they can be charged with the crime of non-compliance. This has resulted in
thousands of arrests of fugitive sex offenders by the Marshals. In addition, NCMEC provides
assistance to any requesting law enforcement agency trying to locate non-compliant sex
offenders. Most of the law enforcement agencies who request assistance from NCMEC have
exhausted all of their resources trying to locate these offenders and have been unable to do so.
To date, we have provided more than 1,200 analytical leads packages to law enforcement upon
request, and act as liaison between local law enforcement and the Marshals Service, where
necessary.
NCMEC also partners with ICE on the “Operation Predator” initiative. ICE developed this
initiative to identify, investigate and arrest child predators and sex offenders. NCMEC’s alliance
with ICE is designed to facilitate the exchange of information on exploited children and those
5
who prey upon them. NCMEC supports ICE’s efforts by providing analysis utilizing public
records database searches and CyberTipline reports on potential child victims and those
suspected of crimes against children. An ICE Special Agent has been assigned to work at
NCMEC so that ICE can promptly and efficiently act on the information developed by NCMEC.
This alliance has proved enormously successful: nearly 12,000 individuals have been arrested
nationwide. Almost 85% of these arrests are of non-citizen sex offenders, more than 6,300 of
whom have been deported.
However, despite our progress the victimization of children continues. There has been much
attention given to the question of how many children are victimized by sexual offenders. Experts
estimate that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized in some way before
they reach adulthood, and just 1 in 3 will tell anybody about it. Clearly, those numbers represent
a broad spectrum of victimizations from very minor to very severe. Nonetheless, the numbers
are powerful testimony to the fact that children are at risk and that we must do more.
There are strong empirical data as well. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 67 percent
of reported sexual assault victims are children1 – more than two-thirds. And these are only the
ones that law enforcement knows about. Most crimes against children are not reported to the
police.2 This means that there are many, many more victims of these heinous crimes than the
statistics show.
In recent years, millions of Americans have followed with horror the devastating stories of
Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage and others. These tragic cases have generated anger
and indignation nationwide, and epitomize an area of great concern: how to effectively track,
register and manage the nation’s convicted sex offenders. Sex offenders pose an enormous
challenge for policy makers. They evoke unparalleled fear among citizens. Their offenses are
associated with the greatest risk of psychological harm. Most of their victims are children and
youth. And, according to the National Institute of Justice, child abusers have been known to
1 Snyder, Howard N., Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and
Offender Characteristics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, July
2000, page 2.
2 1999 National Report Series: Children as Victims, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2000, Page 7.
6
reoffend as late as 20 years following release into the community.3 As policy makers address the
issue of sex offenders, they are confronted with some basic realities:
• most sex offenders are not in prison, and those that are tend to serve limited sentences;
• while most sex offenders are in the community, historically their presence was largely
unknown to citizens;
• sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense; and
• while community supervision and oversight is widely recognized as essential, the system
for providing such supervision is overwhelmed.
Of the estimated 100,000 non-compliant sex offenders, many are literally “missing.” They
moved and failed to register their new address with law enforcement, or they provided the wrong
address or some similar variation. The number of offenders required to register is only going to
increase as new cases work their way through the criminal justice system. This problem is not
going to go away. These offenders will be in our communities. The question is: what more can
we do?
In 1994 Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Predators Act, mandating every state to implement a sex offender registration program.
However, by 2006, even though all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and some U.S. territories
and Native American tribes had created sex offender registries, there was still a striking lack of
consistency and uniformity. In response, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act in July of 2006 in an effort to enhance and tighten the sex offender registration
system. The Adam Walsh Act attempted to correct the serious discrepancies among the
jurisdictions, eliminating loopholes in the laws that permitted sex offenders to cross state lines
and remain undetected. By encouraging uniformity across jurisdictions, the Adam Walsh Act
attempted to prevent sex offenders from “forum-shopping” in order to remain anonymous.
However, despite Congress’ intent, the goals of the Adam Walsh Act remain unmet today.
3 Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, June 1997.
7
Title I of the Adam Walsh Act is commonly referred to as the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA). The Sex offender Monitoring, Apprehension, Registration and
Tracking (SMART) Office is authorized to determine whether a jurisdiction has substantially
implemented SORNA or to grant an extension of the deadline. A jurisdiction must submit
materials about its registration program to the SMART Office. The Adam Walsh Act permits
jurisdictions to apply for up to two one-year extensions. The deadline for submitting extension
requests is April 27, 2009.
Currently, there are no jurisdictions listed on the SMART Office webpage as having achieved
substantial compliance. Seventeen jurisdictions are listed as having been granted a one-year
extension to July 26, 2010 (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Jersey, Quileute Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation, and South Carolina).4
Thirty eight jurisdictions have submitted materials for review.5 These are:
• Alabama • Kentucky
• Alaska • Louisiana
• American Samoa • Maryland
• Arizona • Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
• Arkansas • Minnesota
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe • Mississippi
• Coeur D’Alene Tribe • Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
• Colorado • Missouri
• Colorado River Indian Tribes • Nebraska
• Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• Connecticut • Oklahoma
• Florida • Puerto Rico
• Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation • Quileute Tribe
• Guam • Rhode Island
• Idaho • Santee Sioux Nation
• Iowa • South Carolina
• Kansas • Vermont
4 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/faqs/faqs_statusofjurisdictions.pdf
5 Id.
8
A few states have announced that they have implemented SORNA, but only the SMART Office
is authorized to make an official determination of substantial implementation.
Cost appears to be the primary hurdle for compliance. It is difficult to determine a particular
jurisdiction’s required costs to implement SORNA with accuracy. However, some jurisdictions
are doing so in an attempt to weigh the costs of implementation against the loss of Byrne Grant
funds.
NCMEC is in frequent contact with registering agencies and has learned anecdotally that they are
most concerned about:
• personnel (40 states have fewer than 10 staff members);
• lack of law enforcement personnel dedicated solely to sex offender issues;
• database software purchase, installation and maintenance;
• outdated computer hardware and software;
• lack of centralized communication systems between jurisdictions for tracking offenders;
• lack of technology to easily identify fake addresses;
• lack of a national registry of sex offenders covering all tiers;
• in some states, registrants’ verification is by mail and not in person;
• increased incarceration of offenders and related expenses;
• additional court proceedings;
• training of law enforcement, court and correctional personnel;
• lack of funding to conduct community notification of sex offenders;
• inability to track homeless registrants;
• lack of notice by jails of offenders’ release;
• lack of a comprehensive national jail data system; and
• lack of uniformity in laws and requirements across jurisdictions.
In order to come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, many jurisdictions must make
fundamental changes to their sex offender registration systems. Yet, these jurisdictions simply
9
do not have the resources to make the necessary changes, leaving us where we were prior to the
enactment of the Act with inconsistency across the jurisdictions enabling some sex offenders to
game the system.
In order to help protect our nation’s children, we must improve our current registration system so
that we know where all of the convicted sex offenders are. We must assume that those who
represent the greatest threat are those least likely to be compliant. They are the most likely
offenders to attempt to disappear.
From the beginning of the discussions that led to the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, it was
always understood that the jurisdictions needed help in order to implement the new law. We are
deeply grateful to Chairman Alan Mollohan, Congressman Frank Wolf and the House
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and to Chairwoman Barbara
Mikulski, Senator Richard Shelby and the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations
Subcommittee for their repeated attempts to do just that. On several occasions since the passage
of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, the CJS Subcommittees have passed appropriations measures
providing seed funding to begin implementation at the state and federal level. Yet, for reasons
unrelated to the merits of the Adam Walsh Act, and having to do with larger funding disputes
which resulted in Continuing Resolutions and late session Omnibus Appropriations measures,
the funds designated by the CJS Subcommittees were never actually appropriated. Once again
this year, Chairman Mollohan, Chairwoman Mikulski and their subcommittees are taking steps
toward providing assistance.
In our judgment, providing such funding is the key to being able to finally implement this critical
system. However, with the compliance date looming and with essentially no funding having
been provided to date, we think it imperative that Congress act to keep the Adam Walsh Act
alive by extending the deadline for compliance and reauthorizing the statute.
We understand that resources are scarce and that there are many competing demands. However,
it is hard to imagine a greater or more pressing priority. NCMEC urges lawmakers, law
enforcement and the public to take a serious look at the dangers threatening our children today,
10
and to move decisively to help states create a seamless, coordinated, uniform system that works.
Now is the time to act.
Thank you.
SORNA WITNESS MADELINE CARTER
Testimony Submitted by Madeline M. Carter
Director, Center for Sex Offender Management and Principal, Center for Effective Public Policy
to
House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
March 10, 2009
Good afternoon Chairman Scott and members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Carter.
I want to begin by thanking the Committee for convening this hearing and for offering me the privilege
of addressing you. I also want to acknowledge the enormous respect I have for the other witnesses who
are speaking today. Each of us comes to this issue with a unique background and set of experiences –
including law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and victim advocacy. As a result we may see the issue
of sex offender management through different lenses and perhaps have divergent thoughts about the
public policy approach that will result in the greatest benefit. I am certain of one thing however: that
we all share the same goal – to prevent sexual victimization.
Let me begin by saying a few words about my background. I am a Principal with a non‐profit
organization in Maryland. For 26 years we have worked with state and local government officials across
the country to advance sound policy solutions within the criminal justice system. Nearly 12 years ago
we were awarded funds by the Justice Department to establish the Center for Sex Offender
Management. I have served as its director since that time.
CSOM’s mission is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through
improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders. Over 12 years, we have produced
nearly 40 policy and practice briefs and other resource documents; trained nearly 50,000 professionals;
and provided training and technical assistance to officials in almost every state. We do not conduct
original research ourselves. Our role is to assist policymakers and practitioners in understanding the
research and translating its findings into policy and practice.
I want there to be no misunderstanding about the purpose of our efforts. We do not view
ourselves as advocates for anything more than sound policy approaches that result in safer
communities. Our goal is to support efforts to end sexual violence. I personally am deeply concerned
about the threat posed by sexual violence. I am a professional in this field and also the mother of two
2 P a g e
children. I pray they never experience sexual assault. I am a friend to many who have, and as a young
teenager I was the victim of an attempted rape by an individual that was described to me by police as
most likely a serial rapist. Like you, I have a major stake in the safety of victims and potential victims
and the safety of our communities.
I would like to share with you five points that I believe can guide our collective thinking on this
matter.
Point #1: Sex offender policy and practice should be evidence based. When empirical research
is applied to both policy and professional practice it is referred to as evidence‐based policy or practice.
Today, we have a wealth of knowledge about the factors associated with recidivism risk, and methods to
intervene with and reduce that risk. Important and extensive research regarding criminal offenders,
including sex offenders, has been conducted over the past three decades.
Within the context of this hearing it is not possible to reasonably review all of the significant
findings, although I and perhaps some of my colleagues will touch upon a few major findings. The point
I want to make at this moment, however, is an important and over‐arching one: that there is a wide
body of research that can and should shape public policy because it can increase public safety by
reducing new crimes, including sexual offenses.
This research has shaped practice in local communities across this country over the last decade
or more. The results are promising and need ongoing support and evaluative study.
Point #2: Not all sex offenders are alike. Perhaps one of the most illuminating research findings
relates to the label “sex offender.” One of the fundamental problems in our field is that we tend to
paint all sex offenders with the same brush when professionals in the field have long recognized key
differences among these offenders. These differences relate to the types of crimes they commit and the
victims they target, the pathways that lead to their abusive behavior, the degree to which they are
motivated to change, their risk for recidivism, and the types of interventions that will most likely reduce
their risk for reoffense.
These key differences have important implications. For example, among adult sex offenders,
research tells us that some are at higher risk to reoffend than others. While some are extremely
dangerous others can be safely managed in the community. Research further distinguishes adult sex
offenders from their juvenile counterparts: Juveniles are developmentally different, have lower
recidivism rates, and seem to respond well to treatment.
These research findings suggest that a “one size fits all” approach to sex offender policy is
inappropriate. Instead, a more tailored and strategic approach is called for.
3 P a g e
I respectfully recommend that this Committee support further examination of the differences
between juvenile and adult sex offenders, and the treatment, supervision, and other supports needed to
prevent specific sub‐populations of offenders from committing new crimes.
Point #3: Risk assessment is an important tool in our management arsenal. If a one size fits all
approach is not appropriate, we need a way to distinguish among sex offenders. Until recently, we had
no choice but to categorize offenders primarily on the basis of the specific offense they had committed.
Risk assessment instruments offer a scientifically‐based method to distinguish important differences
among individuals. While these tools are not perfect, they have been consistently demonstrated to be
more reliable than professional judgment.
Given the significant advances in research–both in terms of our understanding that sex
offenders are not all alike, and in terms of our ability to distinguish sex offenders from one another
through the use of risk assessment tools–a tailored approach to sex offender management, based upon
risk to reoffend, should be employed to all of our sex offender management strategies.
The road to moving the criminal justice system from an offense‐based to a risk based system,
not only for sex offenders but also with other offender types, has been a long one. Today, many states
use actuarial risk assessment to differentiate between offenders; resource allocation and management
strategies are deployed accordingly. I encourage this Committee to consider establishing a commission
to examine the use of actuarial risk assessment tools to guide the tiering of sex offenders for registration
and notification purposes.
Point #4: There is no silver bullet. We want desperately to find the “silver bullet” that will solve
this problem, but there are no silver bullets—there is no single answer to the problem of sexual
violence. It is much too complicated for any one solution.
CSOM has developed a model policy framework for sex offender management. We call it the
Comprehensive Approach. It is built on solid research and a set of core values, the most fundamental of
which is that our efforts should focus squarely on victim protection and safety. The Comprehensive
Approach acknowledges that there are many elements involved in an effective approach to protecting
public safety: thorough investigative practices; appropriate charging and plea negotiations; informed
sentencing; and management practices based in research around assessment, treatment, and
institutional and community management. Among these elements are registration and notification.
Research suggests that some of the strategies that we have at our disposal are more powerful tools in
reducing recidivism than others. Admittedly the research is not yet complete; there is still much we do
not know. But thus far, the evidence suggests that a combination of sex offender specific treatment and
4 P a g e
community based supervision can increase public safety by reducing new sex crimes. Thus far the
research on registration and notification has not demonstrated the same results. Therefore, the
research suggests that we cannot rely on this as our only strategy, and it also suggests that we should
invest our limited resources in those strategies that show promise for greater public safety by reducing
new sex crimes and, at the very least, be judicious in our investment in options that do not.
Point #5: We should use the lessons of research and experience to build a better, stronger
approach to reducing victimization. There was a time not too long ago when little was known about sex
offenders. I still remember it well. When we established CSOM, the research was scant. The professional
opinions were oftentimes in sharp disagreement. Our first step was to bring all the voices in the field
together. With their help we identified promising practices, synthesized the research, and built an
approach that offered the promise of reducing future victimization. As we have learned more, the
approach has evolved. We still have more to learn.
But some things we already know. We know that some of the efforts we have made in the past
in the name of public safety have proven ineffective. We should let go of those. Others hold promise
for recidivism reduction. We should embrace these.
We know now from more than a decade of experience working with communities all across the
country that we can hold offenders accountable; we can provide victims with support and safety, and
partner with them in our efforts to increase public safety. Most importantly, we know from research
that we can reduce the likelihood of new sex crimes and the harm that it causes. But to achieve these
goals, we must be thoughtful and deliberate in our strategy. We must bring all of the stakeholders
together. We must evaluate the extent to which each community’s efforts align with research. We must
provide information and training to professionals; educate our communities; and fully invest in
strategies proven effective. These are the lessons of more than a decade of work that guides us to
meaningful solutions. These lessons are documented in several of the written materials I have supplied
along with my testimony. I and my colleagues across the country would be most pleased to partner with
you to understand how best to implement these approaches to sex offender management strategically
on a national basis.
In closing let me say that my first and only goal is to prevent future sexual violence. To this end, I
support efforts to reconsider any provisions of SORNA that are not supported by research; to advance
policy around those strategies that are evidence based; and to expand our national research agenda in
the area of sexual violence prevention.
5 P a g e
Congress can provide important leadership to the nation on this critical issue. I thank you for
your concern over this matter and look forward to joining forces with you to end sexual violence.
Director, Center for Sex Offender Management and Principal, Center for Effective Public Policy
to
House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
March 10, 2009
Good afternoon Chairman Scott and members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Carter.
I want to begin by thanking the Committee for convening this hearing and for offering me the privilege
of addressing you. I also want to acknowledge the enormous respect I have for the other witnesses who
are speaking today. Each of us comes to this issue with a unique background and set of experiences –
including law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and victim advocacy. As a result we may see the issue
of sex offender management through different lenses and perhaps have divergent thoughts about the
public policy approach that will result in the greatest benefit. I am certain of one thing however: that
we all share the same goal – to prevent sexual victimization.
Let me begin by saying a few words about my background. I am a Principal with a non‐profit
organization in Maryland. For 26 years we have worked with state and local government officials across
the country to advance sound policy solutions within the criminal justice system. Nearly 12 years ago
we were awarded funds by the Justice Department to establish the Center for Sex Offender
Management. I have served as its director since that time.
CSOM’s mission is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through
improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders. Over 12 years, we have produced
nearly 40 policy and practice briefs and other resource documents; trained nearly 50,000 professionals;
and provided training and technical assistance to officials in almost every state. We do not conduct
original research ourselves. Our role is to assist policymakers and practitioners in understanding the
research and translating its findings into policy and practice.
I want there to be no misunderstanding about the purpose of our efforts. We do not view
ourselves as advocates for anything more than sound policy approaches that result in safer
communities. Our goal is to support efforts to end sexual violence. I personally am deeply concerned
about the threat posed by sexual violence. I am a professional in this field and also the mother of two
2 P a g e
children. I pray they never experience sexual assault. I am a friend to many who have, and as a young
teenager I was the victim of an attempted rape by an individual that was described to me by police as
most likely a serial rapist. Like you, I have a major stake in the safety of victims and potential victims
and the safety of our communities.
I would like to share with you five points that I believe can guide our collective thinking on this
matter.
Point #1: Sex offender policy and practice should be evidence based. When empirical research
is applied to both policy and professional practice it is referred to as evidence‐based policy or practice.
Today, we have a wealth of knowledge about the factors associated with recidivism risk, and methods to
intervene with and reduce that risk. Important and extensive research regarding criminal offenders,
including sex offenders, has been conducted over the past three decades.
Within the context of this hearing it is not possible to reasonably review all of the significant
findings, although I and perhaps some of my colleagues will touch upon a few major findings. The point
I want to make at this moment, however, is an important and over‐arching one: that there is a wide
body of research that can and should shape public policy because it can increase public safety by
reducing new crimes, including sexual offenses.
This research has shaped practice in local communities across this country over the last decade
or more. The results are promising and need ongoing support and evaluative study.
Point #2: Not all sex offenders are alike. Perhaps one of the most illuminating research findings
relates to the label “sex offender.” One of the fundamental problems in our field is that we tend to
paint all sex offenders with the same brush when professionals in the field have long recognized key
differences among these offenders. These differences relate to the types of crimes they commit and the
victims they target, the pathways that lead to their abusive behavior, the degree to which they are
motivated to change, their risk for recidivism, and the types of interventions that will most likely reduce
their risk for reoffense.
These key differences have important implications. For example, among adult sex offenders,
research tells us that some are at higher risk to reoffend than others. While some are extremely
dangerous others can be safely managed in the community. Research further distinguishes adult sex
offenders from their juvenile counterparts: Juveniles are developmentally different, have lower
recidivism rates, and seem to respond well to treatment.
These research findings suggest that a “one size fits all” approach to sex offender policy is
inappropriate. Instead, a more tailored and strategic approach is called for.
3 P a g e
I respectfully recommend that this Committee support further examination of the differences
between juvenile and adult sex offenders, and the treatment, supervision, and other supports needed to
prevent specific sub‐populations of offenders from committing new crimes.
Point #3: Risk assessment is an important tool in our management arsenal. If a one size fits all
approach is not appropriate, we need a way to distinguish among sex offenders. Until recently, we had
no choice but to categorize offenders primarily on the basis of the specific offense they had committed.
Risk assessment instruments offer a scientifically‐based method to distinguish important differences
among individuals. While these tools are not perfect, they have been consistently demonstrated to be
more reliable than professional judgment.
Given the significant advances in research–both in terms of our understanding that sex
offenders are not all alike, and in terms of our ability to distinguish sex offenders from one another
through the use of risk assessment tools–a tailored approach to sex offender management, based upon
risk to reoffend, should be employed to all of our sex offender management strategies.
The road to moving the criminal justice system from an offense‐based to a risk based system,
not only for sex offenders but also with other offender types, has been a long one. Today, many states
use actuarial risk assessment to differentiate between offenders; resource allocation and management
strategies are deployed accordingly. I encourage this Committee to consider establishing a commission
to examine the use of actuarial risk assessment tools to guide the tiering of sex offenders for registration
and notification purposes.
Point #4: There is no silver bullet. We want desperately to find the “silver bullet” that will solve
this problem, but there are no silver bullets—there is no single answer to the problem of sexual
violence. It is much too complicated for any one solution.
CSOM has developed a model policy framework for sex offender management. We call it the
Comprehensive Approach. It is built on solid research and a set of core values, the most fundamental of
which is that our efforts should focus squarely on victim protection and safety. The Comprehensive
Approach acknowledges that there are many elements involved in an effective approach to protecting
public safety: thorough investigative practices; appropriate charging and plea negotiations; informed
sentencing; and management practices based in research around assessment, treatment, and
institutional and community management. Among these elements are registration and notification.
Research suggests that some of the strategies that we have at our disposal are more powerful tools in
reducing recidivism than others. Admittedly the research is not yet complete; there is still much we do
not know. But thus far, the evidence suggests that a combination of sex offender specific treatment and
4 P a g e
community based supervision can increase public safety by reducing new sex crimes. Thus far the
research on registration and notification has not demonstrated the same results. Therefore, the
research suggests that we cannot rely on this as our only strategy, and it also suggests that we should
invest our limited resources in those strategies that show promise for greater public safety by reducing
new sex crimes and, at the very least, be judicious in our investment in options that do not.
Point #5: We should use the lessons of research and experience to build a better, stronger
approach to reducing victimization. There was a time not too long ago when little was known about sex
offenders. I still remember it well. When we established CSOM, the research was scant. The professional
opinions were oftentimes in sharp disagreement. Our first step was to bring all the voices in the field
together. With their help we identified promising practices, synthesized the research, and built an
approach that offered the promise of reducing future victimization. As we have learned more, the
approach has evolved. We still have more to learn.
But some things we already know. We know that some of the efforts we have made in the past
in the name of public safety have proven ineffective. We should let go of those. Others hold promise
for recidivism reduction. We should embrace these.
We know now from more than a decade of experience working with communities all across the
country that we can hold offenders accountable; we can provide victims with support and safety, and
partner with them in our efforts to increase public safety. Most importantly, we know from research
that we can reduce the likelihood of new sex crimes and the harm that it causes. But to achieve these
goals, we must be thoughtful and deliberate in our strategy. We must bring all of the stakeholders
together. We must evaluate the extent to which each community’s efforts align with research. We must
provide information and training to professionals; educate our communities; and fully invest in
strategies proven effective. These are the lessons of more than a decade of work that guides us to
meaningful solutions. These lessons are documented in several of the written materials I have supplied
along with my testimony. I and my colleagues across the country would be most pleased to partner with
you to understand how best to implement these approaches to sex offender management strategically
on a national basis.
In closing let me say that my first and only goal is to prevent future sexual violence. To this end, I
support efforts to reconsider any provisions of SORNA that are not supported by research; to advance
policy around those strategies that are evidence based; and to expand our national research agenda in
the area of sexual violence prevention.
5 P a g e
Congress can provide important leadership to the nation on this critical issue. I thank you for
your concern over this matter and look forward to joining forces with you to end sexual violence.
SORNA WITNESS EMA J. DEVILLIER
PREPARED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ONCRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
THE ADAM WALSH CHILD PROTECTION & SAFETY ACT’S
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA):
BARRIERS TO TIMELY COMPLIANCE BY STATES
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Emma Devillier
Majority Witness
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Office of the Attorney General of Louisiana
Chief, Sexual Predator Unit
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005
(225) 326-6284
DevillierE@ag.state.la.us
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
2
My name is Emma Devillier. I am here on behalf of Attorney General James D. “Buddy”
Caldwell, as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana where I serve as
Chief of A.G. Caldwell’s Sexual Predator Unit. I come before you this afternoon as
someone who has been a frontline prosecutor of sexual offenders for over a decade and
also as a representative of A.G. Caldwell, who has thirty years of experience as a
frontline prosecutor. It should first be said that A.G. Caldwell and I believe that
establishing some uniformity among the states regarding sex offender registration laws
is a worthwhile goal. Ultimately, a reasonable degree of uniformity will lead to
increased compliance by offenders and fewer legal defenses for those who continue to be
non-compliant. A.G. Caldwell and I also speak to you today as parents, who want to
know if there is a predator next door. As prosecutors and parents, we understand what
it takes to successfully prosecute sex offender and child predator cases, how registration
issues affect the administration of justice in some of those cases and we understand a
parent’s desire to have information that will allow them to protect their children against
such predators. We, however, believe very strongly that SORNA, did not get it right.
SORNA is not the pinnacle of good public policy where sex offender tracking is
concerned. In fact, in some respects it is not good policy at all. When you look at what
Louisiana has done to craft and implement a tough and targeted policy of mandatory sex
offender registration which maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system and
does not impede the administration of justice, it will become abundantly clear to you
where SORNA falls short of the mark and why states are having difficulty adhering to it.
We all believe in mandatory sex offender and child predator registration, but if we do
not do it right we are helping the true predators go undetected. The devil is in the
details. I am here to tell you why Louisiana has not and why other states probably will
not come into compliance with the current legislation and to respectfully implore you to
take a hard look at what it will take to have an effective public policy that accomplishes
effective tracking of sex offenders and child predators while not impeding the
administration of justice.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
3
A.G. Caldwell and I are grateful to Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Ranking Member
Louie Gohmert, and the other esteemed members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify regarding the current Barriers to Implementation of the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (hereinafter referred to as “SORNA”) and
for your commitment to exploring and crafting sex offender registration and notification
policy that works to enhance public safety.
The Office of the Attorney General of Louisiana suggest that the Subcommittee delay the
July 27, 2009 enforcement date of SORNA and create task forces to examine the
significant barriers to implementing the Act. This is not just an arbitrary suggestion. It is
an informed and educated analysis developed over time.
The Hurdles of Implementing SORNA in Louisiana
I was the Assistant Attorney General responsible for coordinating Louisiana’s efforts to
implement SORNA compliant legislation. In fact, I was one of the first Assistant
Attorneys General in the country to work with the SMART Office when it first opened
for business. Between late 2006 and mid-2007, my office worked closely with all
stakeholders (District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Corrections officials, etc) to help craft
Louisiana’s version of SORNA, House Bill 970, which passed in the 2007 Regular
Session of the Louisiana Legislature which session concluded in June of 2007. Because
Louisiana was trying to comply within the first year of passage of the Adam Walsh Act,
key members of the Louisiana Legislature and I had the dubious charge of trying to get
SORNA compliant legislation passed before the release of the SORNA Final Guidelines.
After passing HB 970 in the 2007 Regular Session, Louisiana submitted the legislation
to the SMART office for determination of substantial compliance. Despite best efforts,
in late fall of 2007, the SMART Office determined that though the State of Louisiana had
made “substantial efforts to achieve compliance with SORNA”, the State had “not
achieved substantial compliance with SORNA.” Former Director of the SMART Office,
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
4
Laura Rogers, stated that Louisiana had failed to enact all provisions of SORNA.
In our Compliance Audit by the SMART Office, Louisiana was told that in some
instances HB 970 had exceeded what is required by SORNA. By this time, Louisiana
had no choice but to wait for the release of the final guidelines to be issued before
making another attempt at full compliance. However, some, though not all, of the
changes recommended in the compliance audit were enacted in the 2008 regular
session of the Louisiana Legislature. The Final Guidelines were not released until July 1,
2008, after the 2008 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature and a full year after
Louisiana had originally submitted HB 970 to the SMART Office. Additionally,
Louisiana takes issue with the guideline’s interpretation of the substantial
compliance language in the Act to mean actual ( strict) compliance is
required. There is a huge difference in substantial compliance with the
intended purposes of the Act, versus actual compliance with the poorly
drafted and illogically formulated provisions of the final guidelines as
hereinafter discussed.
This entire experience has been difficult for several reasons. First, Louisiana received
very little guidance from the SMART Office. Though Louisiana tried very hard to work
with the SMART Office, we received no clear instruction or guidance on whether the
legislation we were proposing was sufficient or even close to being in “substantial
compliance” with SORNA. Second, the SORNA final Guidelines are not practical. We
experienced great difficulty in determining which of our State’s substantive sex crimes
belonged in which tier. The elements of Louisiana’s sex crimes do not fit neatly into the
elements of each tier proposed by SORNA. The Final Guidelines do not take into
account the elements of a sex crime that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Third, it
is quite obvious that the SMART office interprets “substantial compliance” to mean
“actual” or “strict compliance. The SORNA Final Guidelines determined that
SORNA offered jurisdictions a “floor” in which to comply, not a guideline. In this vein,
Louisiana was even advised in its compliance audit by the SMART office that it would
have to amend some of its substantive sex crimes in order to comply. Fourth, as a
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
5
prosecutor who has specialized in sex crimes, I can tell you that SORNA’s offense-based
(at least as interpreted by the SMART Office), retroactive system is overinclusive, overly
burdensome on the state, exorbitantly costly, and will actually do more to erode
community safety than to strengthen it. This is generally true, I am advised, not just for
Louisiana but for most states.
FIRST HURDLE: LACK OF TIMELY AND ACCURATE GUIDANCE
Louisiana seeks this extension because the implementation phase has been delayed by
lack of proper guidance from the SMART office. As outlined previously, though
perhaps through no fault of the SMART office, there were undue delays by the SMART
office in responding to the request for guidance from Louisiana. Though our criminal
statutes were outlined to the SMART office before the beginning of our legislative
session in 2007, we did not get a response until well after the session was over.
Additionally, this response was not a firm one as the final guidelines were not published
until after the end of the 2008 legislative session. After reviewing the final guidelines,
Louisiana believes in some instances they are ill conceived and are not practical or
advisable for the good of the criminal justice system and Louisiana seeks this extension
in order have an opportunity to discuss these issues with the Congress. Even former
Director of the SMART office, Laura Rogers, in her recent comments to the Surviving
Parents Coalition, agrees that though the drafters of the Adam Walsh Act had good
intentions, “they did not consult professional child abuse prosecutors or those with
frontline experience and knowledge.” Having been a legislator, I am acutely aware that
even with the best intentions and the best attempt to consult all stakeholders, mistakes
in the drafting of legislation is difficult to avoid, particularly when it is as comprehensive
as the Adam Walsh Act. Those mistakes are inevitable and understandable. What would
not be understandable is not addressing those mistakes once they become apparent.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
6
SECOND HURDLE: GUIDELINES ARE NOT PRACTICAL
The final guidelines indicate that all state sex offenses must be “tiered” by comparing
the state sex offense to the described federal offense to determine if the state sex offense
is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense. This is fairly consistent with
the AWA. However, the problem comes in the interpretation as to how that comparison
is performed. The problem in trying to compare our offenses to the federal offenses is
that the federal offenses differentiate seriousness based on facts not necessarily made
elements in the State definition of the crime.
To understand the problem you will first have to understand that the Federal statutes to
which the state statutes are to be compared are distinguished between sexual acts and
sexual contact and require categorization based on the method used (physical
force/drugs) to complete the sexual act or contact and the age of the victim. For
example the guidelines require that any offense which involves force and penetration
must fall into tier 3 and require lifetime registration and any offense involving
penetration or any type of sexual touching (through the clothes or otherwise) of a child
under 12 requires lifetime registration whether or not force or drugs were used to
accomplish the task. Given that requirement, in which tier should Louisiana’s indecent
behavior statute be categorized? The indecent behavior statute in Louisiana requires
lewd and lascivious behavior upon the person or in the presence of a child under the age
of seventeen when there is an age difference of greater than two years between the child
and the perpetrator. The elements of the indecent behavior do not necessarily include a
sexual act (penetration or direct touching of the genitals) or sexual contact (fondling of
genitals through the clothing). Indecent behavior could be accomplished by performing
a sexual act in the presence of a child. A good prosecutor will not list the nature of the
lewd or lascivious behavior except to state that it happened upon the person OR in the
presence of a child and that the child was under the age of sixteen and the perpetrator
was more than two years older. The prosecutor will always only plead the facts he
necessarily has to prove because he will be held to whatever facts are alleged.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
7
The SMART offices compliance audit of Louisiana’s 2007 legislation stated that
Indecent Behavior should not be listed as a tier I crime (requiring 15 years of
registration) because it could involve a sexual act or contact with a minor. The audit
stated that this crime should be listed as a tier II (requiring 25 years of registration) and,
if the victim was under the age of 12, it should be listed in tier III (requiring lifetime
registration). The audit and the final guidelines state that the age of the victim should
be controlling as to the tier of the offense, whether or not it is an element of the offense.
This is not enforceable. If the age of the victim is not in the bill of information how will
you hold the offender accountable for a fact that has not been established in a court of
law? The guidelines state that you will have to look at the underlying facts of the offense
to determine the age of the victim. How does this possibly afford due process?
Basically, the guidelines seem to be stating that we must allow some bureaucrat to
determine what the underlying facts of a conviction were and then apply the appropriate
tier to that offense based on the determination of this bureaucrat. We are essentially
basing an offender’s future legal obligation to register on facts that have not
been established in a court of law. Because SORNA requires that time period of
registration and number of in-person renewals per year be tied to the elements of the
offense of conviction, the Louisiana legislature thought it necessary to have a judicial
determination of these facts. Therefore, we placed offenses in tier I which did not
necessarily include the types of elements described in SORNA for tier II and tier III
placement. The SMART office’s test was the opposite, if the elements of tier II or tier III
were not necessarily excluded, then it should be placed into the higher tier. This means
all offenses involving a child victim must require a 25 year or lifetime registration
period.
If no crimes against children are left in tier I, i.e., indecent behavior with a juvenile,
prosecutors who run into difficulty with a reluctant and terrified victim will have to go
outside of the sex offense statutes to accomplish a plea where there will be no resulting
sex offender/child predator registration required. Even though the courts have ruled
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
8
that registration is regulatory and not intended to be punitive, the courts did recognize
that registration does have punitive effects. When these punitive effects interfere with
getting a plea in a child sex case because the offender refuses to plead to anything that
requires 25 year or lifetime registration and you have no sex offense in tier I that you
can offer because your victim is seven and traumatized about trial, the prosecutor will go
outside of the child sex crimes statutes to effectuate a plea. This is not based on laziness
or not caring, it is based on the realities of what we, as sex crimes prosecutors, deal with
on a regular basis in trying to seek justice while not re-victimizing the victim.
Registration is supposed to be a product of a conviction. In order to
maintain prosecutorial discretion which is essential for the administration
of justice, if registration is to be offense based, it must be based on the facts
as alleged in the bill of information. If the facts in the bill of information
leave doubt as to the specific act involved or the specific age of the victim
which would establish that the offender’s actions were of the type described
as a tier II or tier III offense, then the offense should be categorized in tier
I.
Sex cases involving minor victims are the most difficult cases to prove.
Often your whole case comes down to the word of a child versus that of an
adult. Many of these offenses are not reported until the perpetrator (often
a family member) is separated from the victim through divorce or a change
in living circumstances. There is rarely any physical evidence. The child is
often reluctant to participate in a public trial. We cannot mandate sex
offenders register until we convict them. Good public policy will not
impede a prosecutor’s ability to get a plea is these most difficult cases. The
current requirements of SORNA will impede this process much to the
detriment of public safety and criminal justice.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
9
THIRD HURDLE: SMART OFFICE DETERMINATION THAT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
MEANS ACTUAL (STRICT) COMPLIANCE
Louisiana addressed some of its concerns outlined above by banking on the “substantial
compliance” language of the act. The substantial compliance language, we thought,
would allow us to leave certain child sex cases in tier I so that prosecutors would have a
place to go in child sex cases in which the victim recants or indicates that a trial is not
something they can handle and registration for 25 years or life was a deterrent to getting
a plea as charged. Again, even though the courts have found that registration is not
part of the punishment for a crime but is regulatory, offenders surely do not see it that
way. It is particularly burdensome in Louisiana because we require, in addition to
publication of the information on the registry, that the offender send a post card with his
picture and the details of his conviction to all of his neighbors within a certain radius of
his home. This must be done every time the offender changes addresses and every five
years, whether or not the offender has a change of address. Additionally, we require
offenders to carry a driver’s license or identification card with SEX OFFENDER in red
letters across the bottom of the offender’s photo. Also, in Louisiana, no matter the tier
of your first sex offense conviction, a second conviction will require lifetime registration.
Still further, if the offense of conviction requires registration for any period less than
life, the prosecutor upon showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender
poses a substantial risk of re-offending, the court may order the offender to register for
life. All of these additional provisions go far beyond what is required by SORNA. By
determining that “substantial compliance” means strict compliance, the SMART office
has taken away Louisiana’s ability to address the problems outlined above in a fashion
that does no harm to the intent of the act. To the contrary, we believe that what
Louisiana has done actually enhances public safety by maintaining prosecutorial
discretion and targeting resources towards the worst offenders. Louisiana submits that
no where in the Adam Walsh Act does the Act require strict compliance or suggest that
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
10
these are minimum standards which must be adhered to religiously. Such a
requirement is unrealistic and impractical.
FOURTH HURDLE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE ACT
With respect to sex offenders whose convictions predate the enactment or
implementation of SORNA, the Guidelines require that a jurisdiction register the
following offenders: (1) those who are incarcerated or under supervision for the
registration offense or for some other crime; (2) those who are already subject to a preexisting
sex offender registration requirement; and (3) those who subsequently reenter
the jurisdiction’s justice system for a conviction for some other crime, even a non-sexual
offense.
One of the practical problems with this retroactive provision is that it fails to give proper
guidance to enable law enforcement to identify such offenders and to classify them in a
tier. When the requirement of retroactive application of SORNA is taken into
consideration, the problem of “tiering” offenses becomes even more evident. Even if the
age of the victim or specific facts relating to the offense are put forth in the Bill of
Information, law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcement of registration laws will
spend countless man hours tracking down bills of information, often from out of state
convictions, trying to ascertain the facts alleged in each bill rather than just looking at
the criminal statute violated in the conviction to determine if it necessarily includes a
forced sexual act or sexual contact with a child under the age of 12.
Retroactivity as required by the guidelines is also problematic in that it requires an
offender who has long ago finished his legal obligation to register to register once again
if he is subsequently convicted of any felony. States do have the discretion to give the
offender credit for the time that has elapsed since he last registered, but that is small
solace to an offender who under SORNA will have to register for life if convicted of the
subsequent felony. Prosecutors have real concerns about the effect of this provision on
the ability to get pleas in cases having nothing to do with a sex offense. For example, an
offender who has a felony theft charge pending who twenty five years ago was convicted
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
11
of indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of 12, will, if convicted of the felony
theft charge, have to register again for the rest of his life, under the current
requirements of the guidelines. Louisiana, therefore, adopted a limited retroactivity
provision making the new registration periods applicable to all sex offenders who were
under an active obligation to register as of the effective date of the act. Retroactivity was
also limited in Louisiana because prior to 1999, a Judge could legally waive sex offender
registration and many did, as part of a plea agreement. There was real concern that
convictions could be overturned if the new registration statute was made to apply to
these offenders. There is Louisiana case law supportive of the offender’s right to
withdraw his plea if the waiver was part of the plea agreement.
Furthermore, I ask you, how will juveniles who never had an existing duty to register be
subjected to the Act? How would we find them? Louisiana, therefore, adopted a
prospective only application for a very limited number of juvenile offenders age 14 and
above adjudicated or convicted of only the most heinous acts – aggravated rape, forcible
rape, 2nd Degree Kidnapping of a child under 13, aggravate kidnapping of a child under
13, aggravated incest involving penetration and aggravated crime against nature.
Another issue stemming from the retroactive provision of SORNA is the “recapturing” of
offenders. Once a jurisdiction enacts SORNA legislation, that jurisdiction is required to
“recapture” and register “retroactive” sex offenders within the following time frames”
Tier I offenders within one year; Tier II offenders within six (6) months; and, Tier III
offenders within three (3) months. How is this to be accomplished? We can barely
keep up with the ones we know about now given our limited resources.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
12
Compliance Issues Plaguing Other Jurisdictions
I participate in a national sex offender management listserv and have engaged with
other offices of Attorneys General through the National Association of Attorneys
General to discuss issues related to SORNA implementation. Through this process I
have learned that not only Louisiana but many other states are experiencing the same or
similar difficulties as evidenced by the failure of any state to achieve substantial
compliance as of this date. In addition to the above issues faced by Louisiana,
discussions with other States through NAAG and otherwise, have raised other issues
with regard to AWA compliance which need to be considered:
1) Many States currently have risk-based assessment schemes to determine the
length and conditions of registration rather than offense-based schemes in which
they have invested lots of time and money and which they believe accomplish the
same goal as the AWA but just arrives there through a different avenue. These
States have indicated that, at least informally, the SMART office has indicated
that they will have to switch to an offense based scheme or be deemed to be noncompliant.
Massuchusetts has jurisprudence which establishes that sex offenders
have a state constitutional right to a risk assessment before being placed on a
public registry.
2) Most other States have indicated similar problems with retroactivity as faced by
Louisiana.
3) Some States are concerned that the inclusion of the sex offender’s employment
address and school address will impede reintegration of sex offenders into the
community by making it much more difficult to obtain employment, de-stabilize
offenders and be counter productive to public Safety.
4) Some States are concerned that quarterly registration will divert law enforcement
resources away from the more important public safety task of compliance checks
to do less important administrative tasks.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
13
5) The requirement that the States get palm prints which can only be provided by
agencies that use Livescan technology will prove too expensive and difficult for all
registering agencies to acquire.
6) Whether those States who allow a sex offender to be relieved of the obligation to
register by obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation will, due to the retroactivity
requirement, have to revive those obligations. (The SMART office has now said
any provisions to relieve an offender from registration before the allotted time
periods in the AWA would not be in substantial compliance with the AWA)
7) The significant cost of compliance versus the loss of Byrne funds. SORNA
Compliance motivated by loss of Byrne Funds
8) Some States have significant concerns about juvenile registration based on their
constitutions, on public opinion or on their juvenile systems which are design to
not permanently label a child in hopes of rehabilitation.
Conclusion
As a State AG, we support the idea of having more homogeneous sex offender
registration laws across the nation. Louisiana specifically, submits that it has achieved
“substantial compliance” as required by SORNA because we disagree with the SMART
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
14
office’s interpretation of that language in the ACT to mean strict compliance. However,
any such federal attempt to help all state’s achieve this goal must take into consideration
the varying states’ current substantive criminal statutes and the varying sex offender
registration laws and policies with the goal of making enforcement of such laws when an
offender crosses state lines more feasible. To ensure that federal legislation in this
regard is based on sound public policy and that it will be effectively implemented, all
stakeholders must be brought to the table.
In addition to the issues highlighted above there are many more which need discussion.
Not the least of which is SORNA’s inadequate provision of sex offender registration
computer programs to jurisdictions. The program made available only addresses the
needs of the central registry in each jurisdiction. SORNA fails to recognize that the
central registries would have no information but for the information provided by local
law enforcement agencies which actually register the offenders. In order to meet the
time restrictions required by SORNA on transfer of registration information from the
local sex offender registrar to the central registry, local law enforcement must have the
ability to transfer this information electronically. No provisions in the act address this
essential element. Louisiana has addressed this by imposing a fee on all felony
probationers which is paid into a technology fund to support the implementation of a
web-based program for the collection, storage and transfer of this data to our central
registry at no cost to the tax payer. We not only believe we are substantially compliant
with SORNA we believe we have far exceeded its goals.
Respectfully, Attorney General Caldwell and I urge the members of this Subcommittee
to consider an extension of the deadline for states to comply with the Act, the
establishment of a task force comprised of prosecutors, law enforcement, state
registries, corrections, experts in the field of sex offender management, victims and all
other stakeholders in this complex issue to examine the practical effects of the Act on
public safety and possible reform to address the concerns raised here and those
recommended by the task force. Not to do so would jeopardize the viability of the
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
15
overall goal of SORNA and would put states at imminent risk of losing vital BYRNE
grant dollars for worthy law enforcement programs beginning July of 2009.
Emma J. Devillier, Asst. Attorney General, Criminal Division, Office of the Attorney
General of Louisiana, Chief, Sexual Predator Unit, Baton Rouge, LA
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ONCRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
THE ADAM WALSH CHILD PROTECTION & SAFETY ACT’S
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA):
BARRIERS TO TIMELY COMPLIANCE BY STATES
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Emma Devillier
Majority Witness
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Office of the Attorney General of Louisiana
Chief, Sexual Predator Unit
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005
(225) 326-6284
DevillierE@ag.state.la.us
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
2
My name is Emma Devillier. I am here on behalf of Attorney General James D. “Buddy”
Caldwell, as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana where I serve as
Chief of A.G. Caldwell’s Sexual Predator Unit. I come before you this afternoon as
someone who has been a frontline prosecutor of sexual offenders for over a decade and
also as a representative of A.G. Caldwell, who has thirty years of experience as a
frontline prosecutor. It should first be said that A.G. Caldwell and I believe that
establishing some uniformity among the states regarding sex offender registration laws
is a worthwhile goal. Ultimately, a reasonable degree of uniformity will lead to
increased compliance by offenders and fewer legal defenses for those who continue to be
non-compliant. A.G. Caldwell and I also speak to you today as parents, who want to
know if there is a predator next door. As prosecutors and parents, we understand what
it takes to successfully prosecute sex offender and child predator cases, how registration
issues affect the administration of justice in some of those cases and we understand a
parent’s desire to have information that will allow them to protect their children against
such predators. We, however, believe very strongly that SORNA, did not get it right.
SORNA is not the pinnacle of good public policy where sex offender tracking is
concerned. In fact, in some respects it is not good policy at all. When you look at what
Louisiana has done to craft and implement a tough and targeted policy of mandatory sex
offender registration which maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system and
does not impede the administration of justice, it will become abundantly clear to you
where SORNA falls short of the mark and why states are having difficulty adhering to it.
We all believe in mandatory sex offender and child predator registration, but if we do
not do it right we are helping the true predators go undetected. The devil is in the
details. I am here to tell you why Louisiana has not and why other states probably will
not come into compliance with the current legislation and to respectfully implore you to
take a hard look at what it will take to have an effective public policy that accomplishes
effective tracking of sex offenders and child predators while not impeding the
administration of justice.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
3
A.G. Caldwell and I are grateful to Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Ranking Member
Louie Gohmert, and the other esteemed members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify regarding the current Barriers to Implementation of the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (hereinafter referred to as “SORNA”) and
for your commitment to exploring and crafting sex offender registration and notification
policy that works to enhance public safety.
The Office of the Attorney General of Louisiana suggest that the Subcommittee delay the
July 27, 2009 enforcement date of SORNA and create task forces to examine the
significant barriers to implementing the Act. This is not just an arbitrary suggestion. It is
an informed and educated analysis developed over time.
The Hurdles of Implementing SORNA in Louisiana
I was the Assistant Attorney General responsible for coordinating Louisiana’s efforts to
implement SORNA compliant legislation. In fact, I was one of the first Assistant
Attorneys General in the country to work with the SMART Office when it first opened
for business. Between late 2006 and mid-2007, my office worked closely with all
stakeholders (District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Corrections officials, etc) to help craft
Louisiana’s version of SORNA, House Bill 970, which passed in the 2007 Regular
Session of the Louisiana Legislature which session concluded in June of 2007. Because
Louisiana was trying to comply within the first year of passage of the Adam Walsh Act,
key members of the Louisiana Legislature and I had the dubious charge of trying to get
SORNA compliant legislation passed before the release of the SORNA Final Guidelines.
After passing HB 970 in the 2007 Regular Session, Louisiana submitted the legislation
to the SMART office for determination of substantial compliance. Despite best efforts,
in late fall of 2007, the SMART Office determined that though the State of Louisiana had
made “substantial efforts to achieve compliance with SORNA”, the State had “not
achieved substantial compliance with SORNA.” Former Director of the SMART Office,
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
4
Laura Rogers, stated that Louisiana had failed to enact all provisions of SORNA.
In our Compliance Audit by the SMART Office, Louisiana was told that in some
instances HB 970 had exceeded what is required by SORNA. By this time, Louisiana
had no choice but to wait for the release of the final guidelines to be issued before
making another attempt at full compliance. However, some, though not all, of the
changes recommended in the compliance audit were enacted in the 2008 regular
session of the Louisiana Legislature. The Final Guidelines were not released until July 1,
2008, after the 2008 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature and a full year after
Louisiana had originally submitted HB 970 to the SMART Office. Additionally,
Louisiana takes issue with the guideline’s interpretation of the substantial
compliance language in the Act to mean actual ( strict) compliance is
required. There is a huge difference in substantial compliance with the
intended purposes of the Act, versus actual compliance with the poorly
drafted and illogically formulated provisions of the final guidelines as
hereinafter discussed.
This entire experience has been difficult for several reasons. First, Louisiana received
very little guidance from the SMART Office. Though Louisiana tried very hard to work
with the SMART Office, we received no clear instruction or guidance on whether the
legislation we were proposing was sufficient or even close to being in “substantial
compliance” with SORNA. Second, the SORNA final Guidelines are not practical. We
experienced great difficulty in determining which of our State’s substantive sex crimes
belonged in which tier. The elements of Louisiana’s sex crimes do not fit neatly into the
elements of each tier proposed by SORNA. The Final Guidelines do not take into
account the elements of a sex crime that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Third, it
is quite obvious that the SMART office interprets “substantial compliance” to mean
“actual” or “strict compliance. The SORNA Final Guidelines determined that
SORNA offered jurisdictions a “floor” in which to comply, not a guideline. In this vein,
Louisiana was even advised in its compliance audit by the SMART office that it would
have to amend some of its substantive sex crimes in order to comply. Fourth, as a
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
5
prosecutor who has specialized in sex crimes, I can tell you that SORNA’s offense-based
(at least as interpreted by the SMART Office), retroactive system is overinclusive, overly
burdensome on the state, exorbitantly costly, and will actually do more to erode
community safety than to strengthen it. This is generally true, I am advised, not just for
Louisiana but for most states.
FIRST HURDLE: LACK OF TIMELY AND ACCURATE GUIDANCE
Louisiana seeks this extension because the implementation phase has been delayed by
lack of proper guidance from the SMART office. As outlined previously, though
perhaps through no fault of the SMART office, there were undue delays by the SMART
office in responding to the request for guidance from Louisiana. Though our criminal
statutes were outlined to the SMART office before the beginning of our legislative
session in 2007, we did not get a response until well after the session was over.
Additionally, this response was not a firm one as the final guidelines were not published
until after the end of the 2008 legislative session. After reviewing the final guidelines,
Louisiana believes in some instances they are ill conceived and are not practical or
advisable for the good of the criminal justice system and Louisiana seeks this extension
in order have an opportunity to discuss these issues with the Congress. Even former
Director of the SMART office, Laura Rogers, in her recent comments to the Surviving
Parents Coalition, agrees that though the drafters of the Adam Walsh Act had good
intentions, “they did not consult professional child abuse prosecutors or those with
frontline experience and knowledge.” Having been a legislator, I am acutely aware that
even with the best intentions and the best attempt to consult all stakeholders, mistakes
in the drafting of legislation is difficult to avoid, particularly when it is as comprehensive
as the Adam Walsh Act. Those mistakes are inevitable and understandable. What would
not be understandable is not addressing those mistakes once they become apparent.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
6
SECOND HURDLE: GUIDELINES ARE NOT PRACTICAL
The final guidelines indicate that all state sex offenses must be “tiered” by comparing
the state sex offense to the described federal offense to determine if the state sex offense
is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense. This is fairly consistent with
the AWA. However, the problem comes in the interpretation as to how that comparison
is performed. The problem in trying to compare our offenses to the federal offenses is
that the federal offenses differentiate seriousness based on facts not necessarily made
elements in the State definition of the crime.
To understand the problem you will first have to understand that the Federal statutes to
which the state statutes are to be compared are distinguished between sexual acts and
sexual contact and require categorization based on the method used (physical
force/drugs) to complete the sexual act or contact and the age of the victim. For
example the guidelines require that any offense which involves force and penetration
must fall into tier 3 and require lifetime registration and any offense involving
penetration or any type of sexual touching (through the clothes or otherwise) of a child
under 12 requires lifetime registration whether or not force or drugs were used to
accomplish the task. Given that requirement, in which tier should Louisiana’s indecent
behavior statute be categorized? The indecent behavior statute in Louisiana requires
lewd and lascivious behavior upon the person or in the presence of a child under the age
of seventeen when there is an age difference of greater than two years between the child
and the perpetrator. The elements of the indecent behavior do not necessarily include a
sexual act (penetration or direct touching of the genitals) or sexual contact (fondling of
genitals through the clothing). Indecent behavior could be accomplished by performing
a sexual act in the presence of a child. A good prosecutor will not list the nature of the
lewd or lascivious behavior except to state that it happened upon the person OR in the
presence of a child and that the child was under the age of sixteen and the perpetrator
was more than two years older. The prosecutor will always only plead the facts he
necessarily has to prove because he will be held to whatever facts are alleged.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
7
The SMART offices compliance audit of Louisiana’s 2007 legislation stated that
Indecent Behavior should not be listed as a tier I crime (requiring 15 years of
registration) because it could involve a sexual act or contact with a minor. The audit
stated that this crime should be listed as a tier II (requiring 25 years of registration) and,
if the victim was under the age of 12, it should be listed in tier III (requiring lifetime
registration). The audit and the final guidelines state that the age of the victim should
be controlling as to the tier of the offense, whether or not it is an element of the offense.
This is not enforceable. If the age of the victim is not in the bill of information how will
you hold the offender accountable for a fact that has not been established in a court of
law? The guidelines state that you will have to look at the underlying facts of the offense
to determine the age of the victim. How does this possibly afford due process?
Basically, the guidelines seem to be stating that we must allow some bureaucrat to
determine what the underlying facts of a conviction were and then apply the appropriate
tier to that offense based on the determination of this bureaucrat. We are essentially
basing an offender’s future legal obligation to register on facts that have not
been established in a court of law. Because SORNA requires that time period of
registration and number of in-person renewals per year be tied to the elements of the
offense of conviction, the Louisiana legislature thought it necessary to have a judicial
determination of these facts. Therefore, we placed offenses in tier I which did not
necessarily include the types of elements described in SORNA for tier II and tier III
placement. The SMART office’s test was the opposite, if the elements of tier II or tier III
were not necessarily excluded, then it should be placed into the higher tier. This means
all offenses involving a child victim must require a 25 year or lifetime registration
period.
If no crimes against children are left in tier I, i.e., indecent behavior with a juvenile,
prosecutors who run into difficulty with a reluctant and terrified victim will have to go
outside of the sex offense statutes to accomplish a plea where there will be no resulting
sex offender/child predator registration required. Even though the courts have ruled
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
8
that registration is regulatory and not intended to be punitive, the courts did recognize
that registration does have punitive effects. When these punitive effects interfere with
getting a plea in a child sex case because the offender refuses to plead to anything that
requires 25 year or lifetime registration and you have no sex offense in tier I that you
can offer because your victim is seven and traumatized about trial, the prosecutor will go
outside of the child sex crimes statutes to effectuate a plea. This is not based on laziness
or not caring, it is based on the realities of what we, as sex crimes prosecutors, deal with
on a regular basis in trying to seek justice while not re-victimizing the victim.
Registration is supposed to be a product of a conviction. In order to
maintain prosecutorial discretion which is essential for the administration
of justice, if registration is to be offense based, it must be based on the facts
as alleged in the bill of information. If the facts in the bill of information
leave doubt as to the specific act involved or the specific age of the victim
which would establish that the offender’s actions were of the type described
as a tier II or tier III offense, then the offense should be categorized in tier
I.
Sex cases involving minor victims are the most difficult cases to prove.
Often your whole case comes down to the word of a child versus that of an
adult. Many of these offenses are not reported until the perpetrator (often
a family member) is separated from the victim through divorce or a change
in living circumstances. There is rarely any physical evidence. The child is
often reluctant to participate in a public trial. We cannot mandate sex
offenders register until we convict them. Good public policy will not
impede a prosecutor’s ability to get a plea is these most difficult cases. The
current requirements of SORNA will impede this process much to the
detriment of public safety and criminal justice.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
9
THIRD HURDLE: SMART OFFICE DETERMINATION THAT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
MEANS ACTUAL (STRICT) COMPLIANCE
Louisiana addressed some of its concerns outlined above by banking on the “substantial
compliance” language of the act. The substantial compliance language, we thought,
would allow us to leave certain child sex cases in tier I so that prosecutors would have a
place to go in child sex cases in which the victim recants or indicates that a trial is not
something they can handle and registration for 25 years or life was a deterrent to getting
a plea as charged. Again, even though the courts have found that registration is not
part of the punishment for a crime but is regulatory, offenders surely do not see it that
way. It is particularly burdensome in Louisiana because we require, in addition to
publication of the information on the registry, that the offender send a post card with his
picture and the details of his conviction to all of his neighbors within a certain radius of
his home. This must be done every time the offender changes addresses and every five
years, whether or not the offender has a change of address. Additionally, we require
offenders to carry a driver’s license or identification card with SEX OFFENDER in red
letters across the bottom of the offender’s photo. Also, in Louisiana, no matter the tier
of your first sex offense conviction, a second conviction will require lifetime registration.
Still further, if the offense of conviction requires registration for any period less than
life, the prosecutor upon showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender
poses a substantial risk of re-offending, the court may order the offender to register for
life. All of these additional provisions go far beyond what is required by SORNA. By
determining that “substantial compliance” means strict compliance, the SMART office
has taken away Louisiana’s ability to address the problems outlined above in a fashion
that does no harm to the intent of the act. To the contrary, we believe that what
Louisiana has done actually enhances public safety by maintaining prosecutorial
discretion and targeting resources towards the worst offenders. Louisiana submits that
no where in the Adam Walsh Act does the Act require strict compliance or suggest that
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
10
these are minimum standards which must be adhered to religiously. Such a
requirement is unrealistic and impractical.
FOURTH HURDLE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE ACT
With respect to sex offenders whose convictions predate the enactment or
implementation of SORNA, the Guidelines require that a jurisdiction register the
following offenders: (1) those who are incarcerated or under supervision for the
registration offense or for some other crime; (2) those who are already subject to a preexisting
sex offender registration requirement; and (3) those who subsequently reenter
the jurisdiction’s justice system for a conviction for some other crime, even a non-sexual
offense.
One of the practical problems with this retroactive provision is that it fails to give proper
guidance to enable law enforcement to identify such offenders and to classify them in a
tier. When the requirement of retroactive application of SORNA is taken into
consideration, the problem of “tiering” offenses becomes even more evident. Even if the
age of the victim or specific facts relating to the offense are put forth in the Bill of
Information, law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcement of registration laws will
spend countless man hours tracking down bills of information, often from out of state
convictions, trying to ascertain the facts alleged in each bill rather than just looking at
the criminal statute violated in the conviction to determine if it necessarily includes a
forced sexual act or sexual contact with a child under the age of 12.
Retroactivity as required by the guidelines is also problematic in that it requires an
offender who has long ago finished his legal obligation to register to register once again
if he is subsequently convicted of any felony. States do have the discretion to give the
offender credit for the time that has elapsed since he last registered, but that is small
solace to an offender who under SORNA will have to register for life if convicted of the
subsequent felony. Prosecutors have real concerns about the effect of this provision on
the ability to get pleas in cases having nothing to do with a sex offense. For example, an
offender who has a felony theft charge pending who twenty five years ago was convicted
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
11
of indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of 12, will, if convicted of the felony
theft charge, have to register again for the rest of his life, under the current
requirements of the guidelines. Louisiana, therefore, adopted a limited retroactivity
provision making the new registration periods applicable to all sex offenders who were
under an active obligation to register as of the effective date of the act. Retroactivity was
also limited in Louisiana because prior to 1999, a Judge could legally waive sex offender
registration and many did, as part of a plea agreement. There was real concern that
convictions could be overturned if the new registration statute was made to apply to
these offenders. There is Louisiana case law supportive of the offender’s right to
withdraw his plea if the waiver was part of the plea agreement.
Furthermore, I ask you, how will juveniles who never had an existing duty to register be
subjected to the Act? How would we find them? Louisiana, therefore, adopted a
prospective only application for a very limited number of juvenile offenders age 14 and
above adjudicated or convicted of only the most heinous acts – aggravated rape, forcible
rape, 2nd Degree Kidnapping of a child under 13, aggravate kidnapping of a child under
13, aggravated incest involving penetration and aggravated crime against nature.
Another issue stemming from the retroactive provision of SORNA is the “recapturing” of
offenders. Once a jurisdiction enacts SORNA legislation, that jurisdiction is required to
“recapture” and register “retroactive” sex offenders within the following time frames”
Tier I offenders within one year; Tier II offenders within six (6) months; and, Tier III
offenders within three (3) months. How is this to be accomplished? We can barely
keep up with the ones we know about now given our limited resources.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
12
Compliance Issues Plaguing Other Jurisdictions
I participate in a national sex offender management listserv and have engaged with
other offices of Attorneys General through the National Association of Attorneys
General to discuss issues related to SORNA implementation. Through this process I
have learned that not only Louisiana but many other states are experiencing the same or
similar difficulties as evidenced by the failure of any state to achieve substantial
compliance as of this date. In addition to the above issues faced by Louisiana,
discussions with other States through NAAG and otherwise, have raised other issues
with regard to AWA compliance which need to be considered:
1) Many States currently have risk-based assessment schemes to determine the
length and conditions of registration rather than offense-based schemes in which
they have invested lots of time and money and which they believe accomplish the
same goal as the AWA but just arrives there through a different avenue. These
States have indicated that, at least informally, the SMART office has indicated
that they will have to switch to an offense based scheme or be deemed to be noncompliant.
Massuchusetts has jurisprudence which establishes that sex offenders
have a state constitutional right to a risk assessment before being placed on a
public registry.
2) Most other States have indicated similar problems with retroactivity as faced by
Louisiana.
3) Some States are concerned that the inclusion of the sex offender’s employment
address and school address will impede reintegration of sex offenders into the
community by making it much more difficult to obtain employment, de-stabilize
offenders and be counter productive to public Safety.
4) Some States are concerned that quarterly registration will divert law enforcement
resources away from the more important public safety task of compliance checks
to do less important administrative tasks.
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
13
5) The requirement that the States get palm prints which can only be provided by
agencies that use Livescan technology will prove too expensive and difficult for all
registering agencies to acquire.
6) Whether those States who allow a sex offender to be relieved of the obligation to
register by obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation will, due to the retroactivity
requirement, have to revive those obligations. (The SMART office has now said
any provisions to relieve an offender from registration before the allotted time
periods in the AWA would not be in substantial compliance with the AWA)
7) The significant cost of compliance versus the loss of Byrne funds. SORNA
Compliance motivated by loss of Byrne Funds
8) Some States have significant concerns about juvenile registration based on their
constitutions, on public opinion or on their juvenile systems which are design to
not permanently label a child in hopes of rehabilitation.
Conclusion
As a State AG, we support the idea of having more homogeneous sex offender
registration laws across the nation. Louisiana specifically, submits that it has achieved
“substantial compliance” as required by SORNA because we disagree with the SMART
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
14
office’s interpretation of that language in the ACT to mean strict compliance. However,
any such federal attempt to help all state’s achieve this goal must take into consideration
the varying states’ current substantive criminal statutes and the varying sex offender
registration laws and policies with the goal of making enforcement of such laws when an
offender crosses state lines more feasible. To ensure that federal legislation in this
regard is based on sound public policy and that it will be effectively implemented, all
stakeholders must be brought to the table.
In addition to the issues highlighted above there are many more which need discussion.
Not the least of which is SORNA’s inadequate provision of sex offender registration
computer programs to jurisdictions. The program made available only addresses the
needs of the central registry in each jurisdiction. SORNA fails to recognize that the
central registries would have no information but for the information provided by local
law enforcement agencies which actually register the offenders. In order to meet the
time restrictions required by SORNA on transfer of registration information from the
local sex offender registrar to the central registry, local law enforcement must have the
ability to transfer this information electronically. No provisions in the act address this
essential element. Louisiana has addressed this by imposing a fee on all felony
probationers which is paid into a technology fund to support the implementation of a
web-based program for the collection, storage and transfer of this data to our central
registry at no cost to the tax payer. We not only believe we are substantially compliant
with SORNA we believe we have far exceeded its goals.
Respectfully, Attorney General Caldwell and I urge the members of this Subcommittee
to consider an extension of the deadline for states to comply with the Act, the
establishment of a task force comprised of prosecutors, law enforcement, state
registries, corrections, experts in the field of sex offender management, victims and all
other stakeholders in this complex issue to examine the practical effects of the Act on
public safety and possible reform to address the concerns raised here and those
recommended by the task force. Not to do so would jeopardize the viability of the
Emma Devillier
Subcommittee on Crime
15
overall goal of SORNA and would put states at imminent risk of losing vital BYRNE
grant dollars for worthy law enforcement programs beginning July of 2009.
Emma J. Devillier, Asst. Attorney General, Criminal Division, Office of the Attorney
General of Louisiana, Chief, Sexual Predator Unit, Baton Rouge, LA
SORNA'S WITNESS LAURA ROGERS
Statement of Laura L. Rogers
Former Director of the SMART Office in the Department of Justice
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
2:00 P.M. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
March 10, 2009
Hearing on: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA):
Barriers to Timely Compliance by States
Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify and submit this statement for the record.
Until recently, I served as director of the Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office
in the Depart of the Justice. Prior to my appointment, I prosecuted
child homicide and child sexual abuse cases for over a decade at the
San Diego District Attorney’s Office. In have tried over 120 jury trials
as a prosecutor, and have a 92% success rate. Additionally, I served
as a senior attorney for the National District Attorney’s Association’s
National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse for 5 years where I
trained front line child abuse prosecutors, police, doctors, first
responders and others on how to investigate and prosecute child
homicide (including shaken baby syndrome cases) and child
physically and sexual abuse cases. After leaving NDAA, I
established a consulting firm, the National Institute for the Training of
Child Abuse Professionals (NITCAP), and continued to train frontline
child abuse professionals in the United States and around the world.
2
In short, I have dedicated my entire professional career to protecting
children, and holding perpetrators accountable.
Protecting children is not a partisan, or political issue. It is
simply the right thing to do. The Adam Walsh Act, which I had the
privilege to help implement, is part of a larger framework in our
country to protect children. It is not the only law designed to protect
children, nor is it the most important law, but it is sound public policy.
It should be supported by this body, financially and otherwise. Like
many laws, it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement.
The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law on July 26, 2006.
Since that day, there has been much progress throughout this nation
in the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA). However, the momentum with which this
progress is being made stands to be undermined if special-interest
groups’ and individual jurisdiction’s myopic criticisms of the law is
allowed to change the statutory language of SORNA. Individuals who
do not have a national perspective do not understand the significance
of the jurisdiction-specific modifications they seek.
Congress intended to give this country and its citizens a
comprehensive system for sex offender registration and notification
under SORNA. SORNA recognized that every jurisdiction is unique,
with distinct systems and issues, and SORNA provides significant
flexibility that will allow for the comprehensive nature of the Act to be
3
achieved, while still requiring jurisdictions to meet or exceed
equivalent minimum standards.
Modification to SORNA will not resolve all hurdles to substantial
implementation. Modifications to SORNA will create new and
different issues. As the SMART Office currently does, each
jurisdiction must be worked with individually to achieve success in a
unique way.
The facts show that sex offender registration and a public
registry are highly valued by the public. In Calendar Year 2008,
NSOPW had nearly 5 million users and over 772 million sex offender
files were accessed. Currently SORNA provides a comprehensive
system that gives our children and families access to the same
minimum level of information regardless of where they choose to live,
work and go to school. SORNA was created because of the fact that
sex offenders do reoffend. It was never intended to reduce recidivism
rates—because only sex offenders themselves can change this
statistic. SORNA and the public registry are intended to allow
families and individuals to inform themselves regarding which sex
offenders, both adult and serious juveniles offenders lurks in their
communities and, based on this knowledge, to allow for informed
decision making to occur. SORNA is about accountability.
This statement will focus on three issues:
(1) the challenge to achieve SORNA compliance
(2) flexability for jurisdictions within SORNA, and
4
(3) the resources that are needed to fully achieve SORNA’s
vital purpose.
1. SORNA compliance is challenging but achievable and on-track.
Currently, no jurisdiction has met substantial compliance. However,
this does not mean that SORNA, as currently constituted, is too
burdensome or unachievable. All this indicates is that the deadline
for compliance has not yet arrived.
Congress set July 27, 2009, as the initial compliance date. It
also built in two one-year extensions, extending the final deadline into
July 2011. When I left office in January 2009, several jurisdictions
had been working quickly and were extremely close to achieving
substantial compliance years in advance of the final deadline.
Numerous jurisdictions had already demonstrated enough progress
to be granted an extension. Information on the SMART Office
website reveals that several more jurisdictions have been granted
since my departure.
The reality is that jurisdictions still have two years and four
months to substantially comply with SORNA. The Final National
Guidelines on Sex Offender Registration and Notification were only
published July 1, 2008. Dozens of jurisdictions have already
submitted new or amended legislation, compliance packages, tiering
structures, extension requests and other items for review to the
SMART Office. Jurisdictions will work within whatever time frame is
available. Extending the current time line will assure that many
5
jurisdictions will delay in the process of substantial implementation.
The issue of the necessity for an additional extension in addition to
the two already provided for in SORNA is not yet ripe.
The Attorney General is responsible for determining substantial
compliance by the jurisdictions with SORNA, and that duty was
delegated to the SMART Office. Prior to my departure from SMART,
I was working with the Office of General Counsel to put into formation
the establishment of a formal appeals process for jurisdictions which
disagreed with compliance decisions. During my tenure, we resolved
all issues through simple discussion. I expect that this informal and
pragmatic process will continue over the next two years until most or
all jurisdictions are compliant.
As a practical matter, the term substantial compliance means
just that; complying with the minimum standards as required by
SORNA. It does not, and has never in practice, meant total
compliance. States such as Louisiana, whom I had the privilege of
working with, have held an unreasonable and incorrect understanding
of “substantial compliance.” To “substantially comply” with SORNA,
at jurisdictions, at minimum must require persons convicted of
offenses included under SORNA to register in accordance with the
minimum standards set by SORNA.
Further, Congress included in SORNA a method to resolve any
conflicts that might exist between SORNA and a jurisdiction’s
constitution. Prior to my departure, only two jurisdictions had
6
submitted potential conflicts to the SMART Office, and upon thorough
review, neither met the requirements for relief under SORNA.
2. SORNA offers significant implementation flexibility to jurisdictions.
The statutory language of SORNA, with respect to certain sections
was initially somewhat inflexible. Through the Final Guidelines, I
resolved many problematic issues and built in greater flexibility to the
system. The SMART Office received over 650 pages of comments to
the Proposed Guidelines. Those comments were quite helpful and
instructive. The open comment period, and the feedback we got
during that timeframe, guided us in the drafting of the Final
Guidelines. As a frontline child abuse prosecutor, I know how
important it is for guidelines and regulations to assist practitioners,
not hinder them.
Of all of the issues, the most common refrain we heard during
the public comment period to the proposed guidelines was the
requirement that juvenile sex offenders register. Congress originally
wrote the juvenile registration requirement to include registration of
adjudicated juveniles 14 years or older who committed acts of rape,
sexual acts against unconscious or intoxicated individuals and sexual
conduct against children under 12 years old. As written by Congress,
this section was highly problematic and did not make sense to many
jurisdictions and other stakeholders. I found the provision particularly
troubling. The comments provided during the publication of the
proposed guidelines echoed the same concerns. Working within the
confines of the law, I worked to ensure that the Final Guidelines
7
allow jurisdictions complete discretion regarding registering juveniles
who engage in low end “consensual” sexual conduct against children
under age 12. Now, only older juveniles who are forcible rapists and
the like are mandatory registrants under SORNA.
Congress wisely provided jurisdictions complete discretion to
not register statutory rape type offenders. Cases involving
participants are at least 13 years old with a partner not more than 4
years older are not required to register under SORNA’s registration
scheme. If consensual sexual activity does occur between partners
with more than 4 years of separation, then prosecutors have several
options: charge the case as a felony qualifying as a tier II offense
under SORNA; charge the case as a misdemeanor;, or decide not to
file the case. In many cases, the best result from a local prosecutor
exercising wise discretion is not to file a case in the first case.
SORNA does not require any prosecutor to file any case. In most
cases, when charged most severely, the offender would be no more
than a tier two- type offender, but often a tier one offender and
therefore not necessarily required to be on a public registry.
Another example is the clean-record example. The clean record
exception allows tier one and adjudicated juvenile tier three sex
offenders to discontinue their registration obligations after
successfully completing four criteria as set out in the statutory
language of SORNA. As written, SORNA seemed to require
mandatory implementation by individual jurisdictions. Because some
jurisdictions that have registration systems that far exceed the
8
minimum requirements of SORNA, mandatorily requiring
implementation of this exception would cause some jurisdictions to
completely overhaul their already well functioning registration
systems. Clearly SORNA’s intent was to allow great flexibility to the
jurisdictions and not force already well functioning systems to
revamp. Through the Final Guidelines, we made sure to give those
jurisdictions far greater discretion and flexibility.
A final example is SORNA’s recordkeeping requirement.
SORNA appropriately requires all information be collected in a digital
format or be digitally linked. Many jurisdictions balked at the expense
of reacquiring all existing finger and palm prints in digital format.
After consulting numerous subject matter experts, we afforded
jurisdictions the flexibility to simply scan existing ink prints, allowing
them to avoid the significant costs of purchasing live scan systems to
achieve the same goal. This decision was made for two reasons;
first, it was good policy; and two, this decision can significantly reduce
the costs jurisdictions, such as Californias’ claim they must shoulder
in order to be in substantial compliance.
These are just a few of the myriad examples of the flexibility
that we built into the Final Guidelines. As these examples
demonstrate, SORNA, as it is being implemented, is far from the
inflexible system that its critics paint it to be.
However, there is a significant hurdle to substantial
implementation that can be solved by Congress: the lack of funding.
9
Congress should provide resources to support the jurisdictions and
the SMART Office in their ongoing efforts.
3. My final point is that although SORNA is affordable, far more
resources are needed to achieve its promise. During my tenure, the
SMART Office created, paid for, and provided a secure
communication portal system to all 253 SORNA registration
jurisdictions to allow full compliance with SORNA for immediate
communication and sharing of information. On January 20, 2009, we
made available to relevant jurisdictions the Tribal and Territory Sex
Offender Registry System (TTSORS), which provides each tribe and
territory an individual digital sex offender registry fully connected to
the NSOPW. In only a couple of months, tribes have embraced this
opportunity and approximately 35 tribes are currently testing the
software and three tribes have requested to be connected to the
system. We created an automated community notification system to
allow for proactive notification to the public when sex offenders
register in a community, the ability to conduct an email address
search, a several mile radius search map where sex offenders live,
work and go to school and we renovated the NSOPW. We did this
all with a limited amount of staff and money; imagine what we could
have been achieved with adequate resources.
Another controversial issue is the retroactivity of SORNA. Congress
intended SORNA to provide a national blanket of comprehensive
standards. The only way to achieve this goal is to require all sex
offenders who are currently active in the legal system to be required
10
to register. Blindly excluding all sex offenders convicted prior to July
2006 would significantly impact SORNA’s effectiveness. The United
States Supreme Court has determined that retroactivity is
constitutional, as it regulatory and is not a punitive measure.
To clarify how the retroactive component works, SORNA does not
require jurisdictions to proactively seek out sex offenders that have
completed their registration requirements and that are not currently
registering or on some type of criminal supervision (parole/probation).
Only sex offenders currently registering, who are currently being
supervised or who are convicted of another crime are captured under
SORNA requirements. The retroactivity issue, though controversial
now, will ultimately fade away as more sex offenders receive
convictions post implementation.
SORNA does not control where a sex offender lives, works or
goes to school. It has nothing to do with residency restrictions which
are all the result of state and local legislation.
There is no workable alternative to a system like SORNA.
SORNA is an evidence-based system that requires registration based
on the fact that the sex offender has ALREADY been convicted of
assaulting a real person. There is a movement afoot however, to
remove the evidence based component of SORNA and replace it with
a soft (and unproven) artifice called “risk assessments.” Congress
wisely recognized that risk assessment tools should not used to
determine if a convicted sex offender should register---by guessing
11
whether they will re-offend. Rightly so, Congress recognized that risk
assessments are not foolproof and are not useful for juveniles.
However, “risk assessment” tools remain available for treatment
purposes. Currently, only a minority of jurisdictions use them for
registration purposes, and it should remain that way for good reason.
For one reason, besides the obvious (they are not reliable) there are
an insufficient amount of trained professionals available to
appropriately administer risk assessment tools to all the sex offenders
in the United States.
SORNA is a strong law. It is part of the tool kit that child abuse
professionals need to protect children. It provides for a standardized
minimum level of sex offender registration and notification throughout
the United States. SORNA is not meant to be a panacea for sexual
abuse, assault, rape and sexual murders. It is meant to and does
provide information that allows parents and others to make informed
decisions regarding adult sex offenders and serious juvenile sex
offenders who reside, work and go to school in their communities.
The amount of use of the NSOPW demonstrates that the public has
embraced the type of knowledge and information that SORNA
provides.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts, and I am
eager to work with the Congress on this important issue in the future
in any way I can be of assistance.
Former Director of the SMART Office in the Department of Justice
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
2:00 P.M. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
March 10, 2009
Hearing on: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA):
Barriers to Timely Compliance by States
Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify and submit this statement for the record.
Until recently, I served as director of the Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office
in the Depart of the Justice. Prior to my appointment, I prosecuted
child homicide and child sexual abuse cases for over a decade at the
San Diego District Attorney’s Office. In have tried over 120 jury trials
as a prosecutor, and have a 92% success rate. Additionally, I served
as a senior attorney for the National District Attorney’s Association’s
National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse for 5 years where I
trained front line child abuse prosecutors, police, doctors, first
responders and others on how to investigate and prosecute child
homicide (including shaken baby syndrome cases) and child
physically and sexual abuse cases. After leaving NDAA, I
established a consulting firm, the National Institute for the Training of
Child Abuse Professionals (NITCAP), and continued to train frontline
child abuse professionals in the United States and around the world.
2
In short, I have dedicated my entire professional career to protecting
children, and holding perpetrators accountable.
Protecting children is not a partisan, or political issue. It is
simply the right thing to do. The Adam Walsh Act, which I had the
privilege to help implement, is part of a larger framework in our
country to protect children. It is not the only law designed to protect
children, nor is it the most important law, but it is sound public policy.
It should be supported by this body, financially and otherwise. Like
many laws, it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement.
The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law on July 26, 2006.
Since that day, there has been much progress throughout this nation
in the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA). However, the momentum with which this
progress is being made stands to be undermined if special-interest
groups’ and individual jurisdiction’s myopic criticisms of the law is
allowed to change the statutory language of SORNA. Individuals who
do not have a national perspective do not understand the significance
of the jurisdiction-specific modifications they seek.
Congress intended to give this country and its citizens a
comprehensive system for sex offender registration and notification
under SORNA. SORNA recognized that every jurisdiction is unique,
with distinct systems and issues, and SORNA provides significant
flexibility that will allow for the comprehensive nature of the Act to be
3
achieved, while still requiring jurisdictions to meet or exceed
equivalent minimum standards.
Modification to SORNA will not resolve all hurdles to substantial
implementation. Modifications to SORNA will create new and
different issues. As the SMART Office currently does, each
jurisdiction must be worked with individually to achieve success in a
unique way.
The facts show that sex offender registration and a public
registry are highly valued by the public. In Calendar Year 2008,
NSOPW had nearly 5 million users and over 772 million sex offender
files were accessed. Currently SORNA provides a comprehensive
system that gives our children and families access to the same
minimum level of information regardless of where they choose to live,
work and go to school. SORNA was created because of the fact that
sex offenders do reoffend. It was never intended to reduce recidivism
rates—because only sex offenders themselves can change this
statistic. SORNA and the public registry are intended to allow
families and individuals to inform themselves regarding which sex
offenders, both adult and serious juveniles offenders lurks in their
communities and, based on this knowledge, to allow for informed
decision making to occur. SORNA is about accountability.
This statement will focus on three issues:
(1) the challenge to achieve SORNA compliance
(2) flexability for jurisdictions within SORNA, and
4
(3) the resources that are needed to fully achieve SORNA’s
vital purpose.
1. SORNA compliance is challenging but achievable and on-track.
Currently, no jurisdiction has met substantial compliance. However,
this does not mean that SORNA, as currently constituted, is too
burdensome or unachievable. All this indicates is that the deadline
for compliance has not yet arrived.
Congress set July 27, 2009, as the initial compliance date. It
also built in two one-year extensions, extending the final deadline into
July 2011. When I left office in January 2009, several jurisdictions
had been working quickly and were extremely close to achieving
substantial compliance years in advance of the final deadline.
Numerous jurisdictions had already demonstrated enough progress
to be granted an extension. Information on the SMART Office
website reveals that several more jurisdictions have been granted
since my departure.
The reality is that jurisdictions still have two years and four
months to substantially comply with SORNA. The Final National
Guidelines on Sex Offender Registration and Notification were only
published July 1, 2008. Dozens of jurisdictions have already
submitted new or amended legislation, compliance packages, tiering
structures, extension requests and other items for review to the
SMART Office. Jurisdictions will work within whatever time frame is
available. Extending the current time line will assure that many
5
jurisdictions will delay in the process of substantial implementation.
The issue of the necessity for an additional extension in addition to
the two already provided for in SORNA is not yet ripe.
The Attorney General is responsible for determining substantial
compliance by the jurisdictions with SORNA, and that duty was
delegated to the SMART Office. Prior to my departure from SMART,
I was working with the Office of General Counsel to put into formation
the establishment of a formal appeals process for jurisdictions which
disagreed with compliance decisions. During my tenure, we resolved
all issues through simple discussion. I expect that this informal and
pragmatic process will continue over the next two years until most or
all jurisdictions are compliant.
As a practical matter, the term substantial compliance means
just that; complying with the minimum standards as required by
SORNA. It does not, and has never in practice, meant total
compliance. States such as Louisiana, whom I had the privilege of
working with, have held an unreasonable and incorrect understanding
of “substantial compliance.” To “substantially comply” with SORNA,
at jurisdictions, at minimum must require persons convicted of
offenses included under SORNA to register in accordance with the
minimum standards set by SORNA.
Further, Congress included in SORNA a method to resolve any
conflicts that might exist between SORNA and a jurisdiction’s
constitution. Prior to my departure, only two jurisdictions had
6
submitted potential conflicts to the SMART Office, and upon thorough
review, neither met the requirements for relief under SORNA.
2. SORNA offers significant implementation flexibility to jurisdictions.
The statutory language of SORNA, with respect to certain sections
was initially somewhat inflexible. Through the Final Guidelines, I
resolved many problematic issues and built in greater flexibility to the
system. The SMART Office received over 650 pages of comments to
the Proposed Guidelines. Those comments were quite helpful and
instructive. The open comment period, and the feedback we got
during that timeframe, guided us in the drafting of the Final
Guidelines. As a frontline child abuse prosecutor, I know how
important it is for guidelines and regulations to assist practitioners,
not hinder them.
Of all of the issues, the most common refrain we heard during
the public comment period to the proposed guidelines was the
requirement that juvenile sex offenders register. Congress originally
wrote the juvenile registration requirement to include registration of
adjudicated juveniles 14 years or older who committed acts of rape,
sexual acts against unconscious or intoxicated individuals and sexual
conduct against children under 12 years old. As written by Congress,
this section was highly problematic and did not make sense to many
jurisdictions and other stakeholders. I found the provision particularly
troubling. The comments provided during the publication of the
proposed guidelines echoed the same concerns. Working within the
confines of the law, I worked to ensure that the Final Guidelines
7
allow jurisdictions complete discretion regarding registering juveniles
who engage in low end “consensual” sexual conduct against children
under age 12. Now, only older juveniles who are forcible rapists and
the like are mandatory registrants under SORNA.
Congress wisely provided jurisdictions complete discretion to
not register statutory rape type offenders. Cases involving
participants are at least 13 years old with a partner not more than 4
years older are not required to register under SORNA’s registration
scheme. If consensual sexual activity does occur between partners
with more than 4 years of separation, then prosecutors have several
options: charge the case as a felony qualifying as a tier II offense
under SORNA; charge the case as a misdemeanor;, or decide not to
file the case. In many cases, the best result from a local prosecutor
exercising wise discretion is not to file a case in the first case.
SORNA does not require any prosecutor to file any case. In most
cases, when charged most severely, the offender would be no more
than a tier two- type offender, but often a tier one offender and
therefore not necessarily required to be on a public registry.
Another example is the clean-record example. The clean record
exception allows tier one and adjudicated juvenile tier three sex
offenders to discontinue their registration obligations after
successfully completing four criteria as set out in the statutory
language of SORNA. As written, SORNA seemed to require
mandatory implementation by individual jurisdictions. Because some
jurisdictions that have registration systems that far exceed the
8
minimum requirements of SORNA, mandatorily requiring
implementation of this exception would cause some jurisdictions to
completely overhaul their already well functioning registration
systems. Clearly SORNA’s intent was to allow great flexibility to the
jurisdictions and not force already well functioning systems to
revamp. Through the Final Guidelines, we made sure to give those
jurisdictions far greater discretion and flexibility.
A final example is SORNA’s recordkeeping requirement.
SORNA appropriately requires all information be collected in a digital
format or be digitally linked. Many jurisdictions balked at the expense
of reacquiring all existing finger and palm prints in digital format.
After consulting numerous subject matter experts, we afforded
jurisdictions the flexibility to simply scan existing ink prints, allowing
them to avoid the significant costs of purchasing live scan systems to
achieve the same goal. This decision was made for two reasons;
first, it was good policy; and two, this decision can significantly reduce
the costs jurisdictions, such as Californias’ claim they must shoulder
in order to be in substantial compliance.
These are just a few of the myriad examples of the flexibility
that we built into the Final Guidelines. As these examples
demonstrate, SORNA, as it is being implemented, is far from the
inflexible system that its critics paint it to be.
However, there is a significant hurdle to substantial
implementation that can be solved by Congress: the lack of funding.
9
Congress should provide resources to support the jurisdictions and
the SMART Office in their ongoing efforts.
3. My final point is that although SORNA is affordable, far more
resources are needed to achieve its promise. During my tenure, the
SMART Office created, paid for, and provided a secure
communication portal system to all 253 SORNA registration
jurisdictions to allow full compliance with SORNA for immediate
communication and sharing of information. On January 20, 2009, we
made available to relevant jurisdictions the Tribal and Territory Sex
Offender Registry System (TTSORS), which provides each tribe and
territory an individual digital sex offender registry fully connected to
the NSOPW. In only a couple of months, tribes have embraced this
opportunity and approximately 35 tribes are currently testing the
software and three tribes have requested to be connected to the
system. We created an automated community notification system to
allow for proactive notification to the public when sex offenders
register in a community, the ability to conduct an email address
search, a several mile radius search map where sex offenders live,
work and go to school and we renovated the NSOPW. We did this
all with a limited amount of staff and money; imagine what we could
have been achieved with adequate resources.
Another controversial issue is the retroactivity of SORNA. Congress
intended SORNA to provide a national blanket of comprehensive
standards. The only way to achieve this goal is to require all sex
offenders who are currently active in the legal system to be required
10
to register. Blindly excluding all sex offenders convicted prior to July
2006 would significantly impact SORNA’s effectiveness. The United
States Supreme Court has determined that retroactivity is
constitutional, as it regulatory and is not a punitive measure.
To clarify how the retroactive component works, SORNA does not
require jurisdictions to proactively seek out sex offenders that have
completed their registration requirements and that are not currently
registering or on some type of criminal supervision (parole/probation).
Only sex offenders currently registering, who are currently being
supervised or who are convicted of another crime are captured under
SORNA requirements. The retroactivity issue, though controversial
now, will ultimately fade away as more sex offenders receive
convictions post implementation.
SORNA does not control where a sex offender lives, works or
goes to school. It has nothing to do with residency restrictions which
are all the result of state and local legislation.
There is no workable alternative to a system like SORNA.
SORNA is an evidence-based system that requires registration based
on the fact that the sex offender has ALREADY been convicted of
assaulting a real person. There is a movement afoot however, to
remove the evidence based component of SORNA and replace it with
a soft (and unproven) artifice called “risk assessments.” Congress
wisely recognized that risk assessment tools should not used to
determine if a convicted sex offender should register---by guessing
11
whether they will re-offend. Rightly so, Congress recognized that risk
assessments are not foolproof and are not useful for juveniles.
However, “risk assessment” tools remain available for treatment
purposes. Currently, only a minority of jurisdictions use them for
registration purposes, and it should remain that way for good reason.
For one reason, besides the obvious (they are not reliable) there are
an insufficient amount of trained professionals available to
appropriately administer risk assessment tools to all the sex offenders
in the United States.
SORNA is a strong law. It is part of the tool kit that child abuse
professionals need to protect children. It provides for a standardized
minimum level of sex offender registration and notification throughout
the United States. SORNA is not meant to be a panacea for sexual
abuse, assault, rape and sexual murders. It is meant to and does
provide information that allows parents and others to make informed
decisions regarding adult sex offenders and serious juvenile sex
offenders who reside, work and go to school in their communities.
The amount of use of the NSOPW demonstrates that the public has
embraced the type of knowledge and information that SORNA
provides.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts, and I am
eager to work with the Congress on this important issue in the future
in any way I can be of assistance.
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): Barriers to Timely Compliance by States
The full video, including questions and answers can be viewed here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090310_1.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090310_1.html
THE NAME GAME OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
I left only one comment to this story at the end, as I can be partial on my own blog.
This case reminds me of G. Wilson, GA, without the 'audience' and video taping.
I find it very disturbing that this young man took advantage of one teen passed out and then to force another to perform oral sex. This sickens my stomach as a mother of two daughters.
I am very bothered that Michael did not have, at the very least, be assessed and recieve counceling.
Kids being kids is one thing, but this sort of behavior brings a bright red flag up in my eyes!
Philbin, 18, receives six-month sentence for sex with minors
Misdemeanor charges stem from party last summer
By Andy Nelesen • anelesen@greenbaypressgazette.com • March 13, 2009
An 18-year-old man was sentenced Thursday to six months in jail and 2½ years of probation for having sex with two drunken 16-year-old girls at an Aug. 21 house party.
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1');
Michael Philbin, son of Green Bay Packers offensive coordinator Joe Philbin, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor counts of sexual intercourse with a child and two misdemeanor counts of battery for the incident. State Assistant Attorney General Dennis Krueger said he opted for misdemeanors over more serious felonies after reviewing the evidence gathered in a six-month investigation.
"We charged the crimes we felt we could prove," he said after Thursday's hearing.
Philbin, who was 17 and a student at Green Bay Southwest High School at the time of the party, said Thursday that he was "ashamed" and "embarrassed."
"I am sorry for my actions," he said. "I would take them all back if I could."
Philbin apologized to the girls and their families and his own family for "what I put them through."
He had sex with one girl after she passed out and was placed on his parents' bed. He then joined another 17-year-old boy in the basement and forced a second girl to perform oral sex, according to the criminal complaint filed last month.
Krueger referred to the second suspect as a co-defendant, but the teen, now 18, has not been charged. Krueger said he expects to make that charging decision in 60 days.
The state Attorney General's Office was asked to handle the case after the Brown County District Attorney's Office became aware of a conflict of interest early in the prosecution.
Brown County Circuit Court Judge Sue Bischel said by all accounts Philbin was a good person who made a horrible decision.
Reading from a pre-sentence report, Bischel said Philbin acknowledged that he took advantage of the girls, knowing they had too much to drink.
"In looking at these (pre-sentence) reports, I see a whole different Michael Philbin than was at that party that night," Bischel said.
In his statement to the court, Philbin said the girls "were more intoxicated than I thought."
Bischel allowed Philbin to have work- and school-release privileges and to accrue good time, which means he could be released in about 4½ months if he follows jail rules. Philbin was barred from the Southwest High School campus while his case was pending.
Bischel also ruled Philbin did not have to register as a sex offender and could petition to have the misdemeanor convictions removed from his record if he completes probation.
Bischel said that offender registration was "not appropriate" and was "excessive punishment in the long term."
In your voice
rickyslife wrote:
I am glad this young man did not have to register as a sex offender but this case once again proves like the Joshua Lunsford (Mark Lunsford son) and Ryan Wyatt (federal TX judges son) there are two different criminal systems for our sons and money talks. These parents of all three young man (who were all legal adults) should help kids like Oklahoma's Ricky be off the registry for similar acts and he has a expungment. www.rickyslife.com share his story and educate your children cause some are being destroyed by a government since their name means nothing. more stories: www.cfciowa.org or www.cfcoklahoma.org or www.ethicaltreatment.org lets work to save all these boys who are having consensual sex not just those with prestige.3/15/2009 7:30:14 AM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090313/GPG0101/903130593/1207/GPG01
This case reminds me of G. Wilson, GA, without the 'audience' and video taping.
I find it very disturbing that this young man took advantage of one teen passed out and then to force another to perform oral sex. This sickens my stomach as a mother of two daughters.
I am very bothered that Michael did not have, at the very least, be assessed and recieve counceling.
Kids being kids is one thing, but this sort of behavior brings a bright red flag up in my eyes!
Philbin, 18, receives six-month sentence for sex with minors
Misdemeanor charges stem from party last summer
By Andy Nelesen • anelesen@greenbaypressgazette.com • March 13, 2009
An 18-year-old man was sentenced Thursday to six months in jail and 2½ years of probation for having sex with two drunken 16-year-old girls at an Aug. 21 house party.
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1');
Michael Philbin, son of Green Bay Packers offensive coordinator Joe Philbin, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor counts of sexual intercourse with a child and two misdemeanor counts of battery for the incident. State Assistant Attorney General Dennis Krueger said he opted for misdemeanors over more serious felonies after reviewing the evidence gathered in a six-month investigation.
"We charged the crimes we felt we could prove," he said after Thursday's hearing.
Philbin, who was 17 and a student at Green Bay Southwest High School at the time of the party, said Thursday that he was "ashamed" and "embarrassed."
"I am sorry for my actions," he said. "I would take them all back if I could."
Philbin apologized to the girls and their families and his own family for "what I put them through."
He had sex with one girl after she passed out and was placed on his parents' bed. He then joined another 17-year-old boy in the basement and forced a second girl to perform oral sex, according to the criminal complaint filed last month.
Krueger referred to the second suspect as a co-defendant, but the teen, now 18, has not been charged. Krueger said he expects to make that charging decision in 60 days.
The state Attorney General's Office was asked to handle the case after the Brown County District Attorney's Office became aware of a conflict of interest early in the prosecution.
Brown County Circuit Court Judge Sue Bischel said by all accounts Philbin was a good person who made a horrible decision.
Reading from a pre-sentence report, Bischel said Philbin acknowledged that he took advantage of the girls, knowing they had too much to drink.
"In looking at these (pre-sentence) reports, I see a whole different Michael Philbin than was at that party that night," Bischel said.
In his statement to the court, Philbin said the girls "were more intoxicated than I thought."
Bischel allowed Philbin to have work- and school-release privileges and to accrue good time, which means he could be released in about 4½ months if he follows jail rules. Philbin was barred from the Southwest High School campus while his case was pending.
Bischel also ruled Philbin did not have to register as a sex offender and could petition to have the misdemeanor convictions removed from his record if he completes probation.
Bischel said that offender registration was "not appropriate" and was "excessive punishment in the long term."
In your voice
rickyslife wrote:
I am glad this young man did not have to register as a sex offender but this case once again proves like the Joshua Lunsford (Mark Lunsford son) and Ryan Wyatt (federal TX judges son) there are two different criminal systems for our sons and money talks. These parents of all three young man (who were all legal adults) should help kids like Oklahoma's Ricky be off the registry for similar acts and he has a expungment. www.rickyslife.com share his story and educate your children cause some are being destroyed by a government since their name means nothing. more stories: www.cfciowa.org or www.cfcoklahoma.org or www.ethicaltreatment.org lets work to save all these boys who are having consensual sex not just those with prestige.3/15/2009 7:30:14 AM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090313/GPG0101/903130593/1207/GPG01
Saturday, March 21, 2009
SEXTEXTING-NOW WE HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!
As 'SexTexting' continues to make headlines throughout the United States, I have to wonder if the Ohio senator's remember me asking them to do something!
Though it may be too late for my son, hopefull it will not be for others!
THE VERDICT
Dalia Lithwick
Teens, Nude Photos and the Law
Ask yourself: should the police be involved when tipsy teen girls e-mail their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures?
Published Feb 14, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 23, 2009
Say you're a middle-school principal who confiscated a cell phone from a 14-year-old boy, only to discover it contains a nude photo of his 13-year-old girlfriend. Do you (a) call the boy's parents in despair; (b) call the girl's parents in despair; or (c) call the police? More and more, the answer is (d) all of the above. Which could result in criminal charges for both of your students, and their eventual designation as sex offenders. "Sexting" is the clever new name for the act of sending, receiving or forwarding naked photos via your cell phone, and I wasn't fully convinced that America was facing a sexting epidemic, as opposed to a journalists-writing-about-sexting epidemic, until I saw a new survey done by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. One teenager in five reported having sent or posted naked photos of themselves. Whether all this reflects a new child-porn epidemic, or just a new iteration of the old teen narcissism epidemic, remains unclear.
Last month, three girls (ages 14 or 15) in Greensburg, Pa., were charged with disseminating child pornography for sexting their boyfriends. The boys who received the images were charged with possession. A teenager in Indiana faces felony obscenity charges for sending a picture of his genitals to female classmates. A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were charged with felonies for sending nude images of themselves to classmates. Some of these teens have pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Others have not. If convicted, these young people may have to register as sex offenders, in some cases for a decade or two. Similar charges have been brought in cases reported in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
One quick clue that the criminal-justice system is probably not the best venue for addressing sexting? A survey of the charges brought in the cases reflects that—depending on the jurisdiction—prosecutors have charged the senders of smutty photos, the recipients of smutty photos, those who save the smutty photos and the hapless forwarders of smutty photos with the same crime: child pornography. Who is the victim here? Everybody and nobody.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
There may be an argument for police intervention in cases that involve a genuine threat or cyberbullying, such as a recent Massachusetts incident in which the picture of a naked 14-year-old girl was allegedly sent to more than 100 cell phones, or a New York case involving a group of boys who turned a nude photo of a 15-year-old girl into crude animations and PowerPoint presentations. But ask yourself whether those cases are the same as the cases in which tipsy teen girls send their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures.
The argument for hammering every such case seems to be that sending naked pictures might have serious consequences, so let's charge these kids with felonies, which will surely have serious consequences. In the Pennsylvania case a police captain explained that the charges were brought because "it's very dangerous. Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture." The argument that we must prosecute kids as the producers and purveyors of kiddie porn because they are too dumb to understand that their seemingly innocent acts can harm them goes beyond paternalism. Child-pornography laws intended to protect children should not be used to prosecute and then label children as sex offenders. We seem to forget that kids can be as tech-savvy as Bill Gates but as gullible as Bambi. Even in the age of the Internet, young people fail to appreciate that naked pictures want to roam free.
The real problem with criminalizing teen sexting as a form of child pornography is that the great majority of these kids are not predators. They think they're being brash and sexy. And while some of the reaction to sexting reflects legitimate concerns about children as sex objects, some perpetuates legal stereotypes and fallacies. A recent New York Times article quotes the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a nonprofit domestic-violence-awareness group, saying that the sending of nude pictures, even if done voluntarily, constitutes "digital dating violence." But do we truly believe that one in five teens is participating in an act of violence? Experts insist the sexting trend hurts teen girls more than boys, fretting that they feel "pressured" to take and send naked photos. Paradoxically, the girls in the Pennsylvania case were charged with "manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography" while the boys were merely charged with possession. If the girls are the real victims, why are we treating them more harshly than the boys?
Judging from the sexting prosecutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana this year, it's clear that the criminal-justice system is too blunt an instrument to resolve a problem that reflects more about the volatile combination of teens and technology than about some national cybercrime spree. Parents need to remind their teens that a dumb moment can last a lifetime in cyberspace. But judges and prosecutors need to understand that a lifetime of cyberhumiliation shouldn't be grounds for a lifelong real criminal record.
Lithwick is a NEWSWEEK contributing editor and a senior writer for Slate. A version of this column also appears on Slate.com.
Though it may be too late for my son, hopefull it will not be for others!
THE VERDICT
Dalia Lithwick
Teens, Nude Photos and the Law
Ask yourself: should the police be involved when tipsy teen girls e-mail their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures?
Published Feb 14, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 23, 2009
Say you're a middle-school principal who confiscated a cell phone from a 14-year-old boy, only to discover it contains a nude photo of his 13-year-old girlfriend. Do you (a) call the boy's parents in despair; (b) call the girl's parents in despair; or (c) call the police? More and more, the answer is (d) all of the above. Which could result in criminal charges for both of your students, and their eventual designation as sex offenders. "Sexting" is the clever new name for the act of sending, receiving or forwarding naked photos via your cell phone, and I wasn't fully convinced that America was facing a sexting epidemic, as opposed to a journalists-writing-about-sexting epidemic, until I saw a new survey done by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. One teenager in five reported having sent or posted naked photos of themselves. Whether all this reflects a new child-porn epidemic, or just a new iteration of the old teen narcissism epidemic, remains unclear.
Last month, three girls (ages 14 or 15) in Greensburg, Pa., were charged with disseminating child pornography for sexting their boyfriends. The boys who received the images were charged with possession. A teenager in Indiana faces felony obscenity charges for sending a picture of his genitals to female classmates. A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were charged with felonies for sending nude images of themselves to classmates. Some of these teens have pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Others have not. If convicted, these young people may have to register as sex offenders, in some cases for a decade or two. Similar charges have been brought in cases reported in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
One quick clue that the criminal-justice system is probably not the best venue for addressing sexting? A survey of the charges brought in the cases reflects that—depending on the jurisdiction—prosecutors have charged the senders of smutty photos, the recipients of smutty photos, those who save the smutty photos and the hapless forwarders of smutty photos with the same crime: child pornography. Who is the victim here? Everybody and nobody.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
There may be an argument for police intervention in cases that involve a genuine threat or cyberbullying, such as a recent Massachusetts incident in which the picture of a naked 14-year-old girl was allegedly sent to more than 100 cell phones, or a New York case involving a group of boys who turned a nude photo of a 15-year-old girl into crude animations and PowerPoint presentations. But ask yourself whether those cases are the same as the cases in which tipsy teen girls send their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures.
The argument for hammering every such case seems to be that sending naked pictures might have serious consequences, so let's charge these kids with felonies, which will surely have serious consequences. In the Pennsylvania case a police captain explained that the charges were brought because "it's very dangerous. Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture." The argument that we must prosecute kids as the producers and purveyors of kiddie porn because they are too dumb to understand that their seemingly innocent acts can harm them goes beyond paternalism. Child-pornography laws intended to protect children should not be used to prosecute and then label children as sex offenders. We seem to forget that kids can be as tech-savvy as Bill Gates but as gullible as Bambi. Even in the age of the Internet, young people fail to appreciate that naked pictures want to roam free.
The real problem with criminalizing teen sexting as a form of child pornography is that the great majority of these kids are not predators. They think they're being brash and sexy. And while some of the reaction to sexting reflects legitimate concerns about children as sex objects, some perpetuates legal stereotypes and fallacies. A recent New York Times article quotes the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a nonprofit domestic-violence-awareness group, saying that the sending of nude pictures, even if done voluntarily, constitutes "digital dating violence." But do we truly believe that one in five teens is participating in an act of violence? Experts insist the sexting trend hurts teen girls more than boys, fretting that they feel "pressured" to take and send naked photos. Paradoxically, the girls in the Pennsylvania case were charged with "manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography" while the boys were merely charged with possession. If the girls are the real victims, why are we treating them more harshly than the boys?
Judging from the sexting prosecutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana this year, it's clear that the criminal-justice system is too blunt an instrument to resolve a problem that reflects more about the volatile combination of teens and technology than about some national cybercrime spree. Parents need to remind their teens that a dumb moment can last a lifetime in cyberspace. But judges and prosecutors need to understand that a lifetime of cyberhumiliation shouldn't be grounds for a lifelong real criminal record.
Lithwick is a NEWSWEEK contributing editor and a senior writer for Slate. A version of this column also appears on Slate.com.
JOSHUA LUNSFORD IS NOT ANY BETTER THAN MY SON OR OTHERS--OHIO
Kudos to Operation Awareness!
IF YOU DO MY SON LIKE YOU DO THOSE PREDATORS, I WILL EXPOSE EVERY CASE WHERE YOU GAVE A “TRUE” SEX OFFENDER A LENIENT SENTENCE.”-Mark Lunsford To The Clark County Ohio Prosecutor's OfficeFriday March 13, 2009www.operationawareness.com/whats_new_28.htmlThere is something about Mark Lunsford that smells more rotten than a bucket of chum that’s been sitting on a Florida beach for days. I’ve covered Mark Lunsford’s activities and glaringly paradoxical behavior before. I’ve watched as he blazed a trail of vengeance against everyone who ever has been or will be convicted of a sex offense after the brutal murder of his daughter 2005, save for his son Joshua.Joshua Lunsford was charged in 2007 with two felony sex crimes involving a 14 year old female after being repeatedly warned by her parents to stay away. Joshua Lunsford was 18. He was allowed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor with no sex offender registration.We’ll get to how he escaped the sex offender registry and Jessica’s Law, the laws Mark Lunsford so relentlessly pushes for in a moment.Mark doesn’t particularly care for this website much or what I have to say about his activities and his hypocrisy. I don’t blame him. I have been threatened once already by the Jessica Marie Lunsford Foundation’s attorney, Mr. Gelman on behalf of Mark.Mark and the Jessica Marie Lunsford Foundation’s attorney don’t like me exposing Mark’s “less sympathetic” side and I can’t say I blame them. Make no mistake, Mark is a highly vindictive man and will resort to just about anything if you get in his way or make known certain truth’s about him that might jeopardize contributions to his foundation - the one named after his daughter Jessica. After all, Mark has a new lifestyle to maintain. I have personally felt his and his brat pack of wolves “below the radar” wrath firsthand.What happened to Jessica Lunsford was absolutely horrible, brutal, and heinous. No one could or would argue that and NO parent should have to live through such a tragedy. Jessica was a beautiful young girl with a smile that must have lit up every room she walked into and for that I do feel sorry for Mark Lunsford. But my sympathy and respect for him stops there.I have watched as Mark has gone from a grieving father to a pseudo “celebrity” status. Through his daughter Jessica’s foundation, Mark rakes in enough money for him to have quit his job as a dirt truck driver and travel around the countryside, partying it up and riding an $80,000.00 custom built Harley Davidson Motorcycle. The motorcycle which was donated to his daughter’s Foundation was supposed to be auctioned off for charity, instead Mark liked it so much he kept it for himself.Mark is also a member of the Survivng Parents Coalition.There are certain things the public has the right to know, especially if it involves a non-profit charitable foundation that collects donations from well intentioned citizens trying to make what they think is a difference regarding issues and/or causes they care about. People have the right to know where there money is going and how it is being spent.Recently, Mark gave testimony at a Congressional Hearing on SORNA and the Adam Walsh Act. This happened on March 10, 2009 and can be viewed here. Mark is sporting his traditional ponytail, a black suit with a tie with printed pictures of Jessica on it. In the video, Mark is sitting to the right of Ernie Allen, lobbyist, attorney and President of the NCMEC.I watched and I listened.There was discussion about consensual acts/crimes and whether or not those convicted of such crimes should be required to register, you know, the people just like Mark’s son Joshua.All across the board came a resounding “NO” that those types of offenses should NOT require a person to register - they aren’t the dangerous, predatory, violent types that parents, children and the public need fear. In other words, these weren’t the people lawmakers had in mind when crafting these laws.There was talk of people who were in fact on the registry, tragically and needlessly placed on it, sometimes for life, for exactly those types of offenses, their lives forever destroyed, many of them children, teens, and even young adults... just like Joshua.Mark Lunsford made crystal clear and stated on the record that he felt that it was OKAY if some people were put on the sex offender registry, even if they didn’t belong there, that it was a “small sacrifice” to make …”IF it saves just one child.”Save his own son. Save himself.It is OKAY with Mark to throw other people’s children under the bus, completely destroying so many once promising young lives, just not HIS child.And he made damn sure that it didn’t happen to his son, even after he violated his probation sentence and had a restraining order placed against him.How?The same way other people get “justice”. With connections, power, money, and threats, or a combination thereof. Just ask Mark Foley, the disgraced former Senator that was (ironically) so instrumental in the passage of the Adam Walsh Act itself.Mark was candid with those in attendance after the hearing ended. He freely told how he was able to keep his son off the sex offender registry even though, by law, he should be on it.Mark contacted the Ohio Prosecutor’s Office and advised them that he would “expose every sex offense case where they gave a lenient sentence to a true sex offender if they treated his son like one of those predators.”And so, his son avoided registration, his conviction is also no longer available for viewing on the Clark Co. Ohio website which I do find very troubling.Let's be clear though, Joshua's sex crimes were consensual in nature and no young man or woman should be registering for situations such as these, and it could be argued that no person should be registered for any consensual/non-forcible offense that is not indicative of coercive or predatory behavior toward teens.The hypocrisy of it all.Clearly, Mark knows there is a difference between “TRUE” sex offenders (Mark’s own words) and people like his son Joshua. Still, he pushes for these laws without giving those in situations like his own son a voice. To me this is unconscionable. I honestly don’t know how the man sleeps at night knowing, KNOWING, that he has helped and is helping to destroy many young lives just like his son Joshua’s and make their lives a living hell.As for the Ohio Prosecutor’s Office, if they have something to hide and are letting the dangerous ones off easy, that IS a problem and it SHOULD be exposed, not used as some sort of bargaining chip. Mark just might be bargaining away the life of a child he says he so urgently wants to save.Whether he realizes it or not, Mr.Lunsford has hurt far more children and families than he has helped. I cannot believe that he does not realize this. If he really cared about protecting children he would listen to what Detective Robert Schilling has to say, and focus our limited resources and taxpayer money on those [sic] “ TRUE” dangerous and predatory offenders. Offenders like the man that killed Jessica - John Couey. A man a world apart from his son Joshua and others like him.Joshua Lunsford is no different or any more special than any of the thousands of kids, teens, and young adults who made the same mistakes Joshua did. The only difference is that their parents lacked power, connections and money. They aren’t any more or less guilty than Joshua Lunsford is.Because consensual acts ARE in fact registerable offenses, the Sex Offender Registry is and continues to be hopelessly watered down, filled with consensual sex “criminals”.Save Mark’s son.THIS is the reason that the dangerous ones, the John Couey’s of the world, slip through the cracks. That might be good enough for Mark Lunsford, but it’s not good enough for me.Mr. Lunsford if you read this, I implore you to take a long look in the mirror and not follow the same path as John Walsh - blindly seeking vengeance through your “tears of rage”, mowing over the innocent and telling yourself that it is OKAY if it saves just ONE child. It’s NOT okay, and it won’t SAVE ANY children.Open your mouth and your heart and do what you know is right, what no one else has the balls to do or say, do what is NEEDED to make that difference you so desperately seek, the change that has the best chance of saving just ONE child. Have the grace to give those convicted of consensual acts what you gave your son, a second chance.Note: Calls to the Ohio Prosecutors Office were not immediately returned. Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
IF YOU DO MY SON LIKE YOU DO THOSE PREDATORS, I WILL EXPOSE EVERY CASE WHERE YOU GAVE A “TRUE” SEX OFFENDER A LENIENT SENTENCE.”-Mark Lunsford To The Clark County Ohio Prosecutor's OfficeFriday March 13, 2009www.operationawareness.com/whats_new_28.htmlThere is something about Mark Lunsford that smells more rotten than a bucket of chum that’s been sitting on a Florida beach for days. I’ve covered Mark Lunsford’s activities and glaringly paradoxical behavior before. I’ve watched as he blazed a trail of vengeance against everyone who ever has been or will be convicted of a sex offense after the brutal murder of his daughter 2005, save for his son Joshua.Joshua Lunsford was charged in 2007 with two felony sex crimes involving a 14 year old female after being repeatedly warned by her parents to stay away. Joshua Lunsford was 18. He was allowed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor with no sex offender registration.We’ll get to how he escaped the sex offender registry and Jessica’s Law, the laws Mark Lunsford so relentlessly pushes for in a moment.Mark doesn’t particularly care for this website much or what I have to say about his activities and his hypocrisy. I don’t blame him. I have been threatened once already by the Jessica Marie Lunsford Foundation’s attorney, Mr. Gelman on behalf of Mark.Mark and the Jessica Marie Lunsford Foundation’s attorney don’t like me exposing Mark’s “less sympathetic” side and I can’t say I blame them. Make no mistake, Mark is a highly vindictive man and will resort to just about anything if you get in his way or make known certain truth’s about him that might jeopardize contributions to his foundation - the one named after his daughter Jessica. After all, Mark has a new lifestyle to maintain. I have personally felt his and his brat pack of wolves “below the radar” wrath firsthand.What happened to Jessica Lunsford was absolutely horrible, brutal, and heinous. No one could or would argue that and NO parent should have to live through such a tragedy. Jessica was a beautiful young girl with a smile that must have lit up every room she walked into and for that I do feel sorry for Mark Lunsford. But my sympathy and respect for him stops there.I have watched as Mark has gone from a grieving father to a pseudo “celebrity” status. Through his daughter Jessica’s foundation, Mark rakes in enough money for him to have quit his job as a dirt truck driver and travel around the countryside, partying it up and riding an $80,000.00 custom built Harley Davidson Motorcycle. The motorcycle which was donated to his daughter’s Foundation was supposed to be auctioned off for charity, instead Mark liked it so much he kept it for himself.Mark is also a member of the Survivng Parents Coalition.There are certain things the public has the right to know, especially if it involves a non-profit charitable foundation that collects donations from well intentioned citizens trying to make what they think is a difference regarding issues and/or causes they care about. People have the right to know where there money is going and how it is being spent.Recently, Mark gave testimony at a Congressional Hearing on SORNA and the Adam Walsh Act. This happened on March 10, 2009 and can be viewed here. Mark is sporting his traditional ponytail, a black suit with a tie with printed pictures of Jessica on it. In the video, Mark is sitting to the right of Ernie Allen, lobbyist, attorney and President of the NCMEC.I watched and I listened.There was discussion about consensual acts/crimes and whether or not those convicted of such crimes should be required to register, you know, the people just like Mark’s son Joshua.All across the board came a resounding “NO” that those types of offenses should NOT require a person to register - they aren’t the dangerous, predatory, violent types that parents, children and the public need fear. In other words, these weren’t the people lawmakers had in mind when crafting these laws.There was talk of people who were in fact on the registry, tragically and needlessly placed on it, sometimes for life, for exactly those types of offenses, their lives forever destroyed, many of them children, teens, and even young adults... just like Joshua.Mark Lunsford made crystal clear and stated on the record that he felt that it was OKAY if some people were put on the sex offender registry, even if they didn’t belong there, that it was a “small sacrifice” to make …”IF it saves just one child.”Save his own son. Save himself.It is OKAY with Mark to throw other people’s children under the bus, completely destroying so many once promising young lives, just not HIS child.And he made damn sure that it didn’t happen to his son, even after he violated his probation sentence and had a restraining order placed against him.How?The same way other people get “justice”. With connections, power, money, and threats, or a combination thereof. Just ask Mark Foley, the disgraced former Senator that was (ironically) so instrumental in the passage of the Adam Walsh Act itself.Mark was candid with those in attendance after the hearing ended. He freely told how he was able to keep his son off the sex offender registry even though, by law, he should be on it.Mark contacted the Ohio Prosecutor’s Office and advised them that he would “expose every sex offense case where they gave a lenient sentence to a true sex offender if they treated his son like one of those predators.”And so, his son avoided registration, his conviction is also no longer available for viewing on the Clark Co. Ohio website which I do find very troubling.Let's be clear though, Joshua's sex crimes were consensual in nature and no young man or woman should be registering for situations such as these, and it could be argued that no person should be registered for any consensual/non-forcible offense that is not indicative of coercive or predatory behavior toward teens.The hypocrisy of it all.Clearly, Mark knows there is a difference between “TRUE” sex offenders (Mark’s own words) and people like his son Joshua. Still, he pushes for these laws without giving those in situations like his own son a voice. To me this is unconscionable. I honestly don’t know how the man sleeps at night knowing, KNOWING, that he has helped and is helping to destroy many young lives just like his son Joshua’s and make their lives a living hell.As for the Ohio Prosecutor’s Office, if they have something to hide and are letting the dangerous ones off easy, that IS a problem and it SHOULD be exposed, not used as some sort of bargaining chip. Mark just might be bargaining away the life of a child he says he so urgently wants to save.Whether he realizes it or not, Mr.Lunsford has hurt far more children and families than he has helped. I cannot believe that he does not realize this. If he really cared about protecting children he would listen to what Detective Robert Schilling has to say, and focus our limited resources and taxpayer money on those [sic] “ TRUE” dangerous and predatory offenders. Offenders like the man that killed Jessica - John Couey. A man a world apart from his son Joshua and others like him.Joshua Lunsford is no different or any more special than any of the thousands of kids, teens, and young adults who made the same mistakes Joshua did. The only difference is that their parents lacked power, connections and money. They aren’t any more or less guilty than Joshua Lunsford is.Because consensual acts ARE in fact registerable offenses, the Sex Offender Registry is and continues to be hopelessly watered down, filled with consensual sex “criminals”.Save Mark’s son.THIS is the reason that the dangerous ones, the John Couey’s of the world, slip through the cracks. That might be good enough for Mark Lunsford, but it’s not good enough for me.Mr. Lunsford if you read this, I implore you to take a long look in the mirror and not follow the same path as John Walsh - blindly seeking vengeance through your “tears of rage”, mowing over the innocent and telling yourself that it is OKAY if it saves just ONE child. It’s NOT okay, and it won’t SAVE ANY children.Open your mouth and your heart and do what you know is right, what no one else has the balls to do or say, do what is NEEDED to make that difference you so desperately seek, the change that has the best chance of saving just ONE child. Have the grace to give those convicted of consensual acts what you gave your son, a second chance.Note: Calls to the Ohio Prosecutors Office were not immediately returned. Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
Monday, February 9, 2009
U.S. Government Scramble to Justify Adam Walsh Act
From the New York Times, the headline reads:
"Effort to Track Sex Offenders Draws Resistance "
The United States has so many sex offender's on the registry, they are having a hard time tracking them all and they no longer can 'define' a sex offender who is 'dangerous'!
Example:
"There are also concerns that the law does not take into account the individual circumstances of each sex offender, including the likelihood of committing more crimes. Instead, it lumps all offenders into broad levels of dangerousness based on the crime for which they were convicted,
allowing, the law’s critics say, the worst offenders to blend in with less threatening ones."
The government certainly does not take into account the circumstances of each case. Instead, our government used the form of Communism in determining teiring by offense! No consideration of circumstances are relevant.
In partial agreement with the law's critics, the registry should ONLY be for the WORST offenders! This was the true intent of the registry to begin with!!
Very disturbing is the following:
"John Walsh, Adam’s father and the host of the television show “America’s Most Wanted,” said the law was vital to monitoring sex offenders but suggested Congress postpone the compliance deadline. Mr. Walsh said the many obstacles — most recently the recession, which has made it tough for some states to pay for the law’s provisions — need more time to be worked out.
He warned, however, that delays come with a cost. Criminals like Mr. Duncan, who has been sentenced to death, are glaring examples of why the law must succeed, he said.
“As long as it isn’t fully funded and implemented,” Mr. Walsh said, “the bad guys can still float through the country and commit horrible crimes.”
The 'state' does not pay for the compliance. What Walsh was actually saying is due to the recession, tax payers cannot afford to pay for compliance! Who pays for YOUR state? YOU do!
Walsh's warning used 'Mr. Duncan' as an example. Yes, let's use Duncan as an example!
Duncan is on death row for his heinous crime and justly so; however, it is the other 'offenders' who pay for Duncan's crime! The offender's who are still allowed to live outside prison walls - if you call watching your back at every turn, being harassed, unable to have a job or a 'normal' life living!~Experts are needed, not our government, because our government is NOT an expert nor is John Walsh.
My son, like so many sex offenders on the registry did NOT commit Duncan's crime, nor Couey's crime, but my son and every offender pays for their crime?!? Here's the word: COMMUNISM!
CLEAN UP THE REGISTRY AND RESTORE IT TO ITS TRUE INTENT!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/09offender.html?_r=1
"Effort to Track Sex Offenders Draws Resistance "
The United States has so many sex offender's on the registry, they are having a hard time tracking them all and they no longer can 'define' a sex offender who is 'dangerous'!
Example:
"There are also concerns that the law does not take into account the individual circumstances of each sex offender, including the likelihood of committing more crimes. Instead, it lumps all offenders into broad levels of dangerousness based on the crime for which they were convicted,
allowing, the law’s critics say, the worst offenders to blend in with less threatening ones."
The government certainly does not take into account the circumstances of each case. Instead, our government used the form of Communism in determining teiring by offense! No consideration of circumstances are relevant.
In partial agreement with the law's critics, the registry should ONLY be for the WORST offenders! This was the true intent of the registry to begin with!!
Very disturbing is the following:
"John Walsh, Adam’s father and the host of the television show “America’s Most Wanted,” said the law was vital to monitoring sex offenders but suggested Congress postpone the compliance deadline. Mr. Walsh said the many obstacles — most recently the recession, which has made it tough for some states to pay for the law’s provisions — need more time to be worked out.
He warned, however, that delays come with a cost. Criminals like Mr. Duncan, who has been sentenced to death, are glaring examples of why the law must succeed, he said.
“As long as it isn’t fully funded and implemented,” Mr. Walsh said, “the bad guys can still float through the country and commit horrible crimes.”
The 'state' does not pay for the compliance. What Walsh was actually saying is due to the recession, tax payers cannot afford to pay for compliance! Who pays for YOUR state? YOU do!
Walsh's warning used 'Mr. Duncan' as an example. Yes, let's use Duncan as an example!
Duncan is on death row for his heinous crime and justly so; however, it is the other 'offenders' who pay for Duncan's crime! The offender's who are still allowed to live outside prison walls - if you call watching your back at every turn, being harassed, unable to have a job or a 'normal' life living!~Experts are needed, not our government, because our government is NOT an expert nor is John Walsh.
My son, like so many sex offenders on the registry did NOT commit Duncan's crime, nor Couey's crime, but my son and every offender pays for their crime?!? Here's the word: COMMUNISM!
CLEAN UP THE REGISTRY AND RESTORE IT TO ITS TRUE INTENT!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/09offender.html?_r=1
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Sex Texting Making Headlines - More Sex Offenders to Come and More Families Torn
It has always been said: "A picture that will last a lifetime." We never knew it meant sex offender registration for life!
Since September, 2006, I've done nothing but research sex offender issues, laws, requirements, anything pertaining to a sex offender or offenses. More specifically, offenses such as my son's that involve their girlfriend. Here we are, 2009, where more families will be affected, or should I say 'infected' by modern technology in the hands of their teenager - the cell phone - and the pictures they take!
My son became a sex offender due to a picture he and his girlfriend took, via CELL PHONE! A picture that was never sent to anyone else nor viewed by anyone except by the police who unlocked the code on the cell phone.
In today's newspapers, such offenses are making headlines! I just read about how they will start enforcing sex offenses for 'pandering obscenity' and 'child pornography' to those kids who take such pictures on their cell phones and then sending them to their peers.
If I've said this a million times, I will say it a million more.........such offenses do NOT and should NOT make one a sex offender and the sex offender registry was not intended this purpose!
Now that this is affecting more families, it increases 'awareness' of how easy it is to become a sex offender. It also increases the number of people who will fight against such laws while empowering 'sex offenders' in even higher numbers to unite.
The government is conditioning our younger generation to accept dictatorship. The government is conditioning our young generation to accept less freedoms than previous generations. We just CANNOT accept this and must STOP these UNCONSTITUTIONAL issues!
WE are the PEOPLE who COUNT! WE have voices that MUST be heard and we MUST exercise our RIGHTS! The fight has only just begun and we must endure for the long road ahead of us all. Progress is always slow, so we have to be patient.
Above all else, we have to have balance in our lives to continue to have the stamina that is needed for such an exhausting and emotionally draining matter.
I have lived my life for almost three years thinking of nothing else but my son and the injustice of laws that has made him and many others a sex offender. I have thought of nothing else but how this will affect my son and other families for almost a lifetime, for just ONE mistake. Just ONE bad decision. I've been in my own world, a fog -- filled with anger, hate and pure madness of HOW this could possibly happen in the United States of America!
I have been self-absorbed in the world of sex offenses, to the point that I stopped living. I glued myself to the computer and only existed on a day-to-day basis. There was no enjoyment in life, no happiness or laughter. I viewed the world quite differently and my thoughts were negative. I lived on the edge, knowing I could explode at any given opportunity to an innocent being. Even watching t.v., I became aware of all the sexuality displayed and was disgusted by it.
I became distant from my friends, my family and even my husband. I lost my son and no one understood. My two girls, they still had their lives, or so I thought.
My youngest daughter has Asperger's and lives in her own world and is 'untouched'. My oldest daughter -- seventeen, athletic, employed, doing well in high school and busy every weekend.
And then one night, I got a call from the police station. My oldest daughter went to a football game intoxicated. I thought it was some kind of joke. Not Ali, she isn't that stupid! Not Ali, that is something she would come home and tell me about someone else and how 'dumb' it was. But, it was her, my daughter. When I picked her up, it was like walking into a room filled with spilt alcohol. Five shots of vodka, on a 5'3", 120 pound girl.
The only thing close enough to tear apart a family is death. My daughter had been suffering from depression. Depressed about her brother, depressed about her mother, depressed because the life she once had was torn from her....ripped into shreds.
She started cutting herself. She said she did this so she could 'feel' again. She and I have always been close and when I asked her why she didn't come to me, she said she didn't want to 'add' more burden. She said she couldn't live anymore, it was too hard for her....she just couldn't do it anymore. She was no longer 'good', even though she tried, she just couldn't be anymore.
I thought she was 'okay'. I found out she was depressed in '07, but I thought she had overcome it all. But she hadn't and she hid it well from me.
This happened this past October. She has been in counseling since and takes medication. She has been doing terriffic!
It still remains, that I almost lost 'another' child due to sex offender laws that put my son on the registry.
To be labeled a sex offender truly affects the whole family. We feel the same pain and we live out our lives with the same sufferings. A common tie that is pure agony.
I've put down the torch of sex offender advocate, but the flame still burns and awaits for my son to return to pick up the torch - which he will be joined with others.
Since September, 2006, I've done nothing but research sex offender issues, laws, requirements, anything pertaining to a sex offender or offenses. More specifically, offenses such as my son's that involve their girlfriend. Here we are, 2009, where more families will be affected, or should I say 'infected' by modern technology in the hands of their teenager - the cell phone - and the pictures they take!
My son became a sex offender due to a picture he and his girlfriend took, via CELL PHONE! A picture that was never sent to anyone else nor viewed by anyone except by the police who unlocked the code on the cell phone.
In today's newspapers, such offenses are making headlines! I just read about how they will start enforcing sex offenses for 'pandering obscenity' and 'child pornography' to those kids who take such pictures on their cell phones and then sending them to their peers.
If I've said this a million times, I will say it a million more.........such offenses do NOT and should NOT make one a sex offender and the sex offender registry was not intended this purpose!
Now that this is affecting more families, it increases 'awareness' of how easy it is to become a sex offender. It also increases the number of people who will fight against such laws while empowering 'sex offenders' in even higher numbers to unite.
The government is conditioning our younger generation to accept dictatorship. The government is conditioning our young generation to accept less freedoms than previous generations. We just CANNOT accept this and must STOP these UNCONSTITUTIONAL issues!
WE are the PEOPLE who COUNT! WE have voices that MUST be heard and we MUST exercise our RIGHTS! The fight has only just begun and we must endure for the long road ahead of us all. Progress is always slow, so we have to be patient.
Above all else, we have to have balance in our lives to continue to have the stamina that is needed for such an exhausting and emotionally draining matter.
I have lived my life for almost three years thinking of nothing else but my son and the injustice of laws that has made him and many others a sex offender. I have thought of nothing else but how this will affect my son and other families for almost a lifetime, for just ONE mistake. Just ONE bad decision. I've been in my own world, a fog -- filled with anger, hate and pure madness of HOW this could possibly happen in the United States of America!
I have been self-absorbed in the world of sex offenses, to the point that I stopped living. I glued myself to the computer and only existed on a day-to-day basis. There was no enjoyment in life, no happiness or laughter. I viewed the world quite differently and my thoughts were negative. I lived on the edge, knowing I could explode at any given opportunity to an innocent being. Even watching t.v., I became aware of all the sexuality displayed and was disgusted by it.
I became distant from my friends, my family and even my husband. I lost my son and no one understood. My two girls, they still had their lives, or so I thought.
My youngest daughter has Asperger's and lives in her own world and is 'untouched'. My oldest daughter -- seventeen, athletic, employed, doing well in high school and busy every weekend.
And then one night, I got a call from the police station. My oldest daughter went to a football game intoxicated. I thought it was some kind of joke. Not Ali, she isn't that stupid! Not Ali, that is something she would come home and tell me about someone else and how 'dumb' it was. But, it was her, my daughter. When I picked her up, it was like walking into a room filled with spilt alcohol. Five shots of vodka, on a 5'3", 120 pound girl.
The only thing close enough to tear apart a family is death. My daughter had been suffering from depression. Depressed about her brother, depressed about her mother, depressed because the life she once had was torn from her....ripped into shreds.
She started cutting herself. She said she did this so she could 'feel' again. She and I have always been close and when I asked her why she didn't come to me, she said she didn't want to 'add' more burden. She said she couldn't live anymore, it was too hard for her....she just couldn't do it anymore. She was no longer 'good', even though she tried, she just couldn't be anymore.
I thought she was 'okay'. I found out she was depressed in '07, but I thought she had overcome it all. But she hadn't and she hid it well from me.
This happened this past October. She has been in counseling since and takes medication. She has been doing terriffic!
It still remains, that I almost lost 'another' child due to sex offender laws that put my son on the registry.
To be labeled a sex offender truly affects the whole family. We feel the same pain and we live out our lives with the same sufferings. A common tie that is pure agony.
I've put down the torch of sex offender advocate, but the flame still burns and awaits for my son to return to pick up the torch - which he will be joined with others.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Sex Offender says "John Walsh is a Good Guy"......
I received a letter from my son today.
Due to the Adam Walsh Act and SB 10 in Ohio, my son was re-classified to a tier II offender, from a low-risk offender tier I. Also, A.W.A. now forces my son to registry for twenty-five years instead of ten years and register twice a year instead of once a year.
My son has no idea about sex offender issues. He has been either in the county jail or prison since this nightmare began when he was just twenty years old, three years ago.
In his letter today, he states that he received a court paper stating his tier to the registry re-classification is at a stay until it goes to the Supreme Court. He doesn't even realize that SB 10 has GONE through, as he believes it will go through.
He asked me if I thought the government would go against John Walsh (???!~)... and "John's a good guy for what he does."
My son's release date is May 6, 2009.
Due to the Adam Walsh Act and SB 10 in Ohio, my son was re-classified to a tier II offender, from a low-risk offender tier I. Also, A.W.A. now forces my son to registry for twenty-five years instead of ten years and register twice a year instead of once a year.
My son has no idea about sex offender issues. He has been either in the county jail or prison since this nightmare began when he was just twenty years old, three years ago.
In his letter today, he states that he received a court paper stating his tier to the registry re-classification is at a stay until it goes to the Supreme Court. He doesn't even realize that SB 10 has GONE through, as he believes it will go through.
He asked me if I thought the government would go against John Walsh (???!~)... and "John's a good guy for what he does."
My son's release date is May 6, 2009.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Collins Speaks of OHIO Cost of Prisons_Passing the Buck!
In this article, you will note the suggestions of Collins equate to someone else footing the bill for offenders. Mostly, the offender paying the cost. In most cases, the offender does not have any money to begin with; the offenses Collins pointed out to cut costs are 'felon' offenders. We all know felons have a difficult time finding a job.
Too bad for the offender? The state will still have to foot the bill, as offender would have to seek assistance through the state!
Other costs for housing offenders other than in prison would still cost the state and counties money.
I would say this is 'Passing the Buck'
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2008/12/oh_state_could.html
Too bad for the offender? The state will still have to foot the bill, as offender would have to seek assistance through the state!
Other costs for housing offenders other than in prison would still cost the state and counties money.
I would say this is 'Passing the Buck'
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2008/12/oh_state_could.html
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Chills, no charges, over naked teen pics; sex offender requests report - with video
Some folks want to claim 'the law is the law'. Either it IS a sex offense or it is NOT a sex offense!?
My son is a sex offender for less than what these kids have done. It simply is WRONG! How many more cases will come and go? How many more to be prosecuted for life and others to let go?
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20081216/NEWS01/812160305/-1/NEWSFRONT2
My son is a sex offender for less than what these kids have done. It simply is WRONG! How many more cases will come and go? How many more to be prosecuted for life and others to let go?
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20081216/NEWS01/812160305/-1/NEWSFRONT2
How to Change Sex Offender Laws for Consensual Sex Activity? GO PRO
Will Senator Emanuel Jones go down in history? I BET HE DOES! What a man~what a man! WhooAH!~
http://senate-press.com/?p=125
Sen. Jones to be Featured on FOX Sports Pre-game Show
ATLANTA – (December 18, 2008) Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) was interviewed by FOX Sports this week regarding his leadership in changing Georgia sex offender laws so they are appropriately applied to the crimes committed. The cases of Marcus Dixon and Genarlow Wilson, both charged with sexual offenses after having teenage consensual sex, demonstrated the need for sentencing reform. Dixon now plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Sen. Jones’ interview will air this Sunday, December 21 at 12:00 p.m. on the Fox Sports network.
“The Marcus Dixon case was the catalyst for changing state law to make the distinction between adults who commit heinous crimes and teenagers who engage in consensual behavior,” said Sen. Jones. “I fought to ensure that the change was made retroactive so those who had been unfairly sentenced were given an opportunity to reclaim their lives.”
FOX Sports reporter Pam Oliver interviewed Sen. Jones at the state Capitol for a segment on native Georgian Marcus Dixon, who at 18 was charged with aggravated child molestation in 2003 after engaging in consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. Dixon was originally sentenced to 10 years in prison, but after serving 15 months, the state Supreme Court overturned his sentence. After a successful college career, Dixon is beginning his NFL career with the Dallas Cowboys practice team.
In 2006, the mandatory 10-year minimum prison sentence was eradicated for teenagers convicted of a sexual offense after engaging in consensual sexual activity, making the charge a misdemeanor. However, that change did not apply to those convicted before 2006, as in Wilson’s case, an oversight that Sen. Jones sought to correct. Wilson’s sentence was overturned upon a Georgia State Supreme Court ruling as a result of legislation authored by Sen. Jones.
“Both Genarlow and Marcus fought for their freedom, and I was determined to see that their courage was justified,” Sen. Jones added. “I am pleased FOX Sports chose to highlight this issue, which I believe shows Georgia to be a state where justice is sensibly applied.”
Sen. Emanuel Jones represents the 10th Senate District, which includes portions of DeKalb and Henry counties. He may be reached at 404.656.0502 or via e-mail at emanuel.jones@senate.ga.gov.
PRESS RELEASEFor Immediate Release:December 18, 2008For Information Contact:Raegan Weber, DirectorKallarin Richards, Senior Communications Specialistkallarin.richards@senate.ga.gov404.656.0028
http://senate-press.com/?p=125
Sen. Jones to be Featured on FOX Sports Pre-game Show
ATLANTA – (December 18, 2008) Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) was interviewed by FOX Sports this week regarding his leadership in changing Georgia sex offender laws so they are appropriately applied to the crimes committed. The cases of Marcus Dixon and Genarlow Wilson, both charged with sexual offenses after having teenage consensual sex, demonstrated the need for sentencing reform. Dixon now plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Sen. Jones’ interview will air this Sunday, December 21 at 12:00 p.m. on the Fox Sports network.
“The Marcus Dixon case was the catalyst for changing state law to make the distinction between adults who commit heinous crimes and teenagers who engage in consensual behavior,” said Sen. Jones. “I fought to ensure that the change was made retroactive so those who had been unfairly sentenced were given an opportunity to reclaim their lives.”
FOX Sports reporter Pam Oliver interviewed Sen. Jones at the state Capitol for a segment on native Georgian Marcus Dixon, who at 18 was charged with aggravated child molestation in 2003 after engaging in consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. Dixon was originally sentenced to 10 years in prison, but after serving 15 months, the state Supreme Court overturned his sentence. After a successful college career, Dixon is beginning his NFL career with the Dallas Cowboys practice team.
In 2006, the mandatory 10-year minimum prison sentence was eradicated for teenagers convicted of a sexual offense after engaging in consensual sexual activity, making the charge a misdemeanor. However, that change did not apply to those convicted before 2006, as in Wilson’s case, an oversight that Sen. Jones sought to correct. Wilson’s sentence was overturned upon a Georgia State Supreme Court ruling as a result of legislation authored by Sen. Jones.
“Both Genarlow and Marcus fought for their freedom, and I was determined to see that their courage was justified,” Sen. Jones added. “I am pleased FOX Sports chose to highlight this issue, which I believe shows Georgia to be a state where justice is sensibly applied.”
Sen. Emanuel Jones represents the 10th Senate District, which includes portions of DeKalb and Henry counties. He may be reached at 404.656.0502 or via e-mail at emanuel.jones@senate.ga.gov.
PRESS RELEASEFor Immediate Release:December 18, 2008For Information Contact:Raegan Weber, DirectorKallarin Richards, Senior Communications Specialistkallarin.richards@senate.ga.gov404.656.0028
There's no justice like Angry Mob Justice
From the UK:
"I don't have any answers about that. I'm certainly not an advocate for pedophiles and sex offenders. However, I do see issues that need addressing:America's "Megan's Law," which gives people access to the database of local sex offenders (and it's equivalent abroad) stems from a real case of a registered Sex Offender living in a local community. He was guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering a little girl. Clearly he was not 'rehabilitated' and posed a very real danger to his community.That demands we ask:
Of the serious sex offenders released from prison to cut costs, make space or because of legal issues, how many are actually 'safe?' Wouldn't it be better all around (for both the sex offenders and their local community) if those convicted of serious sex crimes remained in jail? Can they ever be 'rehabilitated?'
How many people on the sex offender's register aren't really sex offenders? How long before a frat boy convicted of peeing in the streets, or an 17 year-old sentenced after having consensual sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend, gets caught up in misguided 'mob justice'? In the puritanical United States especially (sex toys are still banned in Alabama, for example) how many innocent people are being seared with the same brand as the most disgusting and dangerous of criminals?
What poses more of a risk to the local community? A solitary sex offender who's name and location is known to the public - or a violent, murderous mob performing the equivalent of an old-fashioned Old West lynching? Is that the sort of 'safe' community anybody wants to live in?If life has taught me anything, it's that a person can be capable of acts of great goodness or terrible evil. However, 'people', when they're combined into a hysterical, screaming, illogical crowd, are universally just horrible, horrible people.Should the names of addresses of Sex Offenders really be made public?Can the public be trusted with that information?Was society really safe from Andrew Cunningham, and people like him?Did Andrew Cunningham deserve to be beaten, mutilated and killed for a crime he'd 'served his time' for?Is the information about convicted sex offenders safer in the hands of police and local law enforcement?And given that dangerous sex offenders are living amongst us - and some do re offend - can we trust the judgment of law enforcement, which released them, any more than our angry, bloodthirsty mobs?Or, as Andrew Vacchss wrote in the New York Times, can serious sex offenders ever be trusted to live safely amongst other people?"The obsession of sexual predators is typified in the case of Donald Chapman, a New Jersey rapist who was released in November after serving 12 years, the maximum for his crime.He underwent continual therapy in prison, and was utterly unaffected by it. He vows to continue to attack women—a threat that reflects his total absorption with sexual torture. As a result of his threat, he sits in his house in Wyckoff, N.J., surrounded by a 24-hour police guard."
"I don't have any answers about that. I'm certainly not an advocate for pedophiles and sex offenders. However, I do see issues that need addressing:America's "Megan's Law," which gives people access to the database of local sex offenders (and it's equivalent abroad) stems from a real case of a registered Sex Offender living in a local community. He was guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering a little girl. Clearly he was not 'rehabilitated' and posed a very real danger to his community.That demands we ask:
Of the serious sex offenders released from prison to cut costs, make space or because of legal issues, how many are actually 'safe?' Wouldn't it be better all around (for both the sex offenders and their local community) if those convicted of serious sex crimes remained in jail? Can they ever be 'rehabilitated?'
How many people on the sex offender's register aren't really sex offenders? How long before a frat boy convicted of peeing in the streets, or an 17 year-old sentenced after having consensual sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend, gets caught up in misguided 'mob justice'? In the puritanical United States especially (sex toys are still banned in Alabama, for example) how many innocent people are being seared with the same brand as the most disgusting and dangerous of criminals?
What poses more of a risk to the local community? A solitary sex offender who's name and location is known to the public - or a violent, murderous mob performing the equivalent of an old-fashioned Old West lynching? Is that the sort of 'safe' community anybody wants to live in?If life has taught me anything, it's that a person can be capable of acts of great goodness or terrible evil. However, 'people', when they're combined into a hysterical, screaming, illogical crowd, are universally just horrible, horrible people.Should the names of addresses of Sex Offenders really be made public?Can the public be trusted with that information?Was society really safe from Andrew Cunningham, and people like him?Did Andrew Cunningham deserve to be beaten, mutilated and killed for a crime he'd 'served his time' for?Is the information about convicted sex offenders safer in the hands of police and local law enforcement?And given that dangerous sex offenders are living amongst us - and some do re offend - can we trust the judgment of law enforcement, which released them, any more than our angry, bloodthirsty mobs?Or, as Andrew Vacchss wrote in the New York Times, can serious sex offenders ever be trusted to live safely amongst other people?"The obsession of sexual predators is typified in the case of Donald Chapman, a New Jersey rapist who was released in November after serving 12 years, the maximum for his crime.He underwent continual therapy in prison, and was utterly unaffected by it. He vows to continue to attack women—a threat that reflects his total absorption with sexual torture. As a result of his threat, he sits in his house in Wyckoff, N.J., surrounded by a 24-hour police guard."
Review of the Department of Justice’s Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Very long read, but here is the 'just' of the report:
DOJ OIG: Review of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2009-001, December 2008: "...we found that information in the national sex offender registries is incomplete and inaccurate and therefore the registries are not reliable tools for law enforcement and the public. For example, we found that registries were missing records, did not always identify known fugitives, and did not always contain sufficient information to enable law enforcement and the public to accurately identify sex offenders."
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (codified primarily in sections of 42 U.S.C. as well as 10 and 18 U.S.C.), was signed on July 27, 2006. SORNA is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16901.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0901/final.pdf
DOJ OIG: Review of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2009-001, December 2008: "...we found that information in the national sex offender registries is incomplete and inaccurate and therefore the registries are not reliable tools for law enforcement and the public. For example, we found that registries were missing records, did not always identify known fugitives, and did not always contain sufficient information to enable law enforcement and the public to accurately identify sex offenders."
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (codified primarily in sections of 42 U.S.C. as well as 10 and 18 U.S.C.), was signed on July 27, 2006. SORNA is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16901.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0901/final.pdf
16 Year Old Lisbon Youth Classified As High Risk Sex Offender
In the below article, I would like to know who put the gun to these girls' head? An important fact left out of this article is the ages of these girls. Also, what kind of relationship did they have with Calkins? I would venture to say they were all friends and furthermore, they ALL should be punished! I disagree this young BOY should be a level III sex offender! This certainly is a classic example of KIDS being STUPID!
NONE of the parties involved felt what they were doing was wrong and I can bet they thought they were being 'funny'!
Our youth has not learned from G. Wilson of GA., the first to make national headlines.
There are better ways to handle such offenses and the sex offender registry was NOT intended for this type of offense! They are KIDS!
A Lisbon teenager who coerced several girls into providing him with sexually explicit pictures of themselves will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.
16 year old Mitchel Calkins was sentenced Tuesday to 180 days in jail and 10 years probationary supervision.
He will also be enrolled in a specialized sex offender treatment program.
Calkins persuaded teenage girls to send him sex videos of themselves over the Internet and through his cellular phone.
Calkins refused to apologize for his actions in court even though his attorney says he took responsibility for his actions.
Calkins admitted to a felony charge of possessing a sexual performance of a child in a plea bargain with prosecutors.
He has already spent 75 days in the county jail, which will be credited to his sentence.
The judge denied granting Calkins youthful offender status and ordered him to stay away from computers.
Calkins was also classified as a high risk Level 3 sex offender.
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/12/09/16-year-old-lisbon-youth-classified-as-high-risk-sex-offender/
NONE of the parties involved felt what they were doing was wrong and I can bet they thought they were being 'funny'!
Our youth has not learned from G. Wilson of GA., the first to make national headlines.
There are better ways to handle such offenses and the sex offender registry was NOT intended for this type of offense! They are KIDS!
A Lisbon teenager who coerced several girls into providing him with sexually explicit pictures of themselves will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.
16 year old Mitchel Calkins was sentenced Tuesday to 180 days in jail and 10 years probationary supervision.
He will also be enrolled in a specialized sex offender treatment program.
Calkins persuaded teenage girls to send him sex videos of themselves over the Internet and through his cellular phone.
Calkins refused to apologize for his actions in court even though his attorney says he took responsibility for his actions.
Calkins admitted to a felony charge of possessing a sexual performance of a child in a plea bargain with prosecutors.
He has already spent 75 days in the county jail, which will be credited to his sentence.
The judge denied granting Calkins youthful offender status and ordered him to stay away from computers.
Calkins was also classified as a high risk Level 3 sex offender.
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/12/09/16-year-old-lisbon-youth-classified-as-high-risk-sex-offender/
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Come Together
My son is eligible to be released early. He has served his minimum prison requirement by the judge and his attorney submitted the paperwork to the judge last week.
It has been 'more' emotional lately, as we, as a family, anticipate the judge's decision.
I've been 'blank' for words to write, but I've had many thoughts.....just too hard to put them together.
Depression. Is there anyone out there that doesn't suffer from this disease? I've fought with my doctor's for years telling them I wasn't depressed! Now however, I can actually go to them and say "Hey!" "I'm depressed and I KNOW what it feels like now!" "Guess what?" "The meds don't work!" hahaha!~
I have to wonder how a sex offender lives his life on a day-to-day bases. Heck, I'm only a mother and it is nothing but hell as far as I am concerned! My son is the sex offender, but I feel like "I" am the sex offender! This is the meaning of 'bonding' between mother and child.
I've been reading some good media coverage on behalf of sex offender laws and the registry. Cases such as my son, only they're 'teenagers'. Other Romeo's and their girlfriends. The results are the same, if convicted, the branding of a sex offender. I will say two years ago nothing was being covered. More families are taking a stand now. More families are joining together, unitedly. This is long over due and a relief to know that there is more support available, but more importantly, that there are others like me. Other's who do not just 'comply' and 'accept'.
For many years I have questioned myself on authority, laws, rules.... because I never lived inside that tiny little box.
I was a 'why' person and you better have an answer that was satisfying to me! I was raised in a time of being "Proud to be an American". It was the time of "Buy American". Unions were strong! Most importantly, which always rang in my head "Home of the Free"!
Nothing and I mean NOTHING was set in stone, other than the Ten Commandments!
I always felt free and I lived free!
In passing years, I noticed small changes. I would say the first was the great seat-belt law! How dare they?
No one stood up against that law.
Sadly, many have stopped standing up for what they believed in and for what they believed to be true.
Americans have allowed our government to tell them what is good for them and what is bad for them. Americans have become weak! Americans are raising their children to be compliant.
It is 'to each its own', but not in the sense that phrase stood for when it was popular in the late 60's, early 70's.
To each his own now is, I won't help you neighbor! I'm in it for myself and myself alone! 'To each his own' use to mean, you had a RIGHT.
Americans stopped exercising their rights. Now look where we're at today.
No smoking. THAT law has become ridiculous! McDonald's refusing to serve you in the drive-thru until you put out that cigarette!
Worse is the registries. They are NOT going to stop.
Americans have to start 'loving your neighbor' again! Americans have to start 'a village raises a child' again! Americans need to STOP depending on their government to THINK for them.
I've come up with one conclusion - - and here it is:
"If you follow rules (laws) CHANGE will NEVER come!"
It is people like me, who live outside the box, that do not agree with a rule or a law, that does not 'comply' who says "THIS NEEDS CHANGED!"
Those in favor? Let's get it together!
It has been 'more' emotional lately, as we, as a family, anticipate the judge's decision.
I've been 'blank' for words to write, but I've had many thoughts.....just too hard to put them together.
Depression. Is there anyone out there that doesn't suffer from this disease? I've fought with my doctor's for years telling them I wasn't depressed! Now however, I can actually go to them and say "Hey!" "I'm depressed and I KNOW what it feels like now!" "Guess what?" "The meds don't work!" hahaha!~
I have to wonder how a sex offender lives his life on a day-to-day bases. Heck, I'm only a mother and it is nothing but hell as far as I am concerned! My son is the sex offender, but I feel like "I" am the sex offender! This is the meaning of 'bonding' between mother and child.
I've been reading some good media coverage on behalf of sex offender laws and the registry. Cases such as my son, only they're 'teenagers'. Other Romeo's and their girlfriends. The results are the same, if convicted, the branding of a sex offender. I will say two years ago nothing was being covered. More families are taking a stand now. More families are joining together, unitedly. This is long over due and a relief to know that there is more support available, but more importantly, that there are others like me. Other's who do not just 'comply' and 'accept'.
For many years I have questioned myself on authority, laws, rules.... because I never lived inside that tiny little box.
I was a 'why' person and you better have an answer that was satisfying to me! I was raised in a time of being "Proud to be an American". It was the time of "Buy American". Unions were strong! Most importantly, which always rang in my head "Home of the Free"!
Nothing and I mean NOTHING was set in stone, other than the Ten Commandments!
I always felt free and I lived free!
In passing years, I noticed small changes. I would say the first was the great seat-belt law! How dare they?
No one stood up against that law.
Sadly, many have stopped standing up for what they believed in and for what they believed to be true.
Americans have allowed our government to tell them what is good for them and what is bad for them. Americans have become weak! Americans are raising their children to be compliant.
It is 'to each its own', but not in the sense that phrase stood for when it was popular in the late 60's, early 70's.
To each his own now is, I won't help you neighbor! I'm in it for myself and myself alone! 'To each his own' use to mean, you had a RIGHT.
Americans stopped exercising their rights. Now look where we're at today.
No smoking. THAT law has become ridiculous! McDonald's refusing to serve you in the drive-thru until you put out that cigarette!
Worse is the registries. They are NOT going to stop.
Americans have to start 'loving your neighbor' again! Americans have to start 'a village raises a child' again! Americans need to STOP depending on their government to THINK for them.
I've come up with one conclusion - - and here it is:
"If you follow rules (laws) CHANGE will NEVER come!"
It is people like me, who live outside the box, that do not agree with a rule or a law, that does not 'comply' who says "THIS NEEDS CHANGED!"
Those in favor? Let's get it together!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
More sense, please_GA_Sex Offender or Sexual Irresponsible Behavior?
The media is starting to 'get' the difference in sex offenses of violence vs non-violent and consensual. May I also include, the difference between our young acting out in a sexual manner vs sexual predatory crimes.
Read the full article here:
http://savannahnow.com/node/625512
Read the full article here:
http://savannahnow.com/node/625512
Thursday, November 27, 2008
LISTEN to the SEX OFFENDER EXPERT_Maine
Sex Offender Expert Offers Coping Advice
Written by James Straub
Thursday, November 27, 2008
BLUE HILL — Generation after generation of youngsters has ventured from home and into the cruel world with this time-honored parental advice echoing in their minds: “Don’t talk to strangers.”
Barbara SchwartzTurns out the well-intentioned words to live by are way off the mark when it comes to protecting our offspring from the horrors of child sexual abuse.
It would be better to admonish our children to beware of Uncle Charlie, the youth choir director, the babysitter and others near and dear to them.
It would be better yet to teach them the value of talking openly to their parents.
Barbara Schwartz, noted expert in the field of sex offender treatment, made those points before an audience of about 100 area residents who packed the Blue Hill Farm Country Inn Nov. 19.
Schwartz’s talk, “No More Victims: Sex Offenders and the Community,” was sponsored by “Breaking the Silence,” a support group for victims of sexual abuse, family members and community.
In introducing Schwartz, host Jim Schatz said that society is marginally effective at taking deviant behavior out of the community, but not at all effective at taking such behavior out of the offender.
Focusing on child molesters, Schwartz spoke for nearly two hours on managing sex offenders in the community.
“Stranger danger is not where we should put our energy,” Schwartz said, adding that children are far more likely to be sexually abused by a family member, babysitter, minister, Scout leader or some other trusted adult.
Despite a media blitz that creates a scary climate through shows such as “CSI” and “Law and Order,” sadistic pedophiles — those who hurt or kill children — are extremely rare, accounting for less than 10 crimes a year in the United States, Schwartz said.
“They’re all about sex and murders,” Schwartz said of popular television fare.
Far more common are fixated pedophiles, those obsessed with prepubescent children.
“A fixated pedophile is the individual we think about when we think of a child molester,” said Schwartz.
Statistically, 90 percent of child sexual abuse victims in the United States are molested by family members, friends and close acquaintances, Schwartz said, adding that more than 50 percent are molested by other children or adolescents.
“We can teach kids to be afraid of strangers,” she said, “but the guy next door that you’ve known for 20 years is the real danger.”
There is a fine line to observe, however.
“If we scare them too much, they become paranoid about all adults,” Schwartz said. “Who are they going to tell?”
When children tend to fear or distrust all adults, sexual crimes against them go unreported.
Schwartz said it is wise to teach children appropriate boundaries, personal distances and the right to privacy.
She said parents should not force their children to kiss or sit on the laps of relatives and friends, and they should teach their children that when an adult tells them “it’s our secret,” that’s a cue to come and tell their parents what is happening.
“Teach them to use their intuition and their instincts,” said Schwartz. “If it seems yucky, it probably is. Tell someone.”
The ultimate goal regarding child sexual abuse is “no more victims,” but until the goal is reached, there will be victims and offenders.
Schwartz, who serves as the director of Maine’s sex offender therapy program with the Department of Corrections, directed many of her remarks at keeping the community safe.
She urged her audience to educate themselves about sexual predators in order to offset the misinformation and the myths surrounding the subject.
Among those myths is the belief that sex offenders always repeat their crime.
“It’s not true,” Schwartz said, adding that the recidivism rate among child molesters is 15 percent across the board, including those who have received treatment and those who have not.
Another myth, she said, is that treatment doesn’t make a difference. Studies refute that and clearly show that treatment reduces recidivism rates.
The popular notion that banning sex offenders from places where children gather will significantly protect children is ill informed, Schwartz said.
“If you want to molest a child, being 2,000 feet from a school isn’t going to keep you from doing that,” she said. “Ninety-three percent occur in our homes. Places frequented by children are the safest places. The isolated kid is at risk.”
Schwartz also labeled as a myth the notion that the only way to deal with child sex offenders is to put them behind bars.
Likewise, the notion that tougher legislation is the only solution is a myth.
“I’m not suggesting we don’t incarcerate sex offenders,” she said, “but, again, don’t paint them with a broad brush.”
Schwartz offered alternatives, such as putting sex offenders on probation, GPS monitoring, strict loitering laws and more.
She said a “containment approach” works well when a team of probation officers, counselors and other support providers surround the offender with supervision.
Shunning offenders from the community is counterproductive, as offenders become unable to find housing or employment.
Schwartz said they end up homeless or in very temporary shelters and drop off the radar screen.
“If they can’t find a job, they can’t pay for therapy,” Schwartz said. “They need appropriate therapy and they need circles of support and accountability to reintegrate back into communities. That’s something communities can organize for little money.”
She said communities can identify appropriate rental housing for offenders, who often make great tenants because they come with probation officers, must not be involved with drugs and must pay their rent on time. Communities also can offer jobs and welcome offenders into a church with appropriate safeguards.
Schwartz works in Maine prisons where she directs the RULE program, a therapy program for sex offenders.
The program is based on the principles of “responsibility” for the impact of their offenses on victims and community, “understanding” their actions, “learning” new patterns of behavior and “experiencing” new skills to live in a community.
“It’s all about no more victims,” said a participant in the RULE program who had come to the talk with Schwartz.
His presence reinforced the responsibility aspect of his prison therapy program as he encountered several audience members who remain victims of sexual offenses.
The audience, too, appeared to benefit from meeting face-to-face with a sex offender.
The “Breaking the Silence” group was formed more than a year ago as victims and families coped with allegations of sexual abuse by a mentor at Liberty School in Blue Hill. Howard Evans was charged last March with unlawful sexual contact and two counts of assault.
In August, he pleaded guilty to the charges.
Several audience members said issues raised by Evans’ unlawful behavior remain unresolved.
“More needs to be done for victims to rehabilitate them back into the community,” said one woman. “It takes a lot to speak out. There is re-entry for victims as well as offenders.”
Schwartz said forming groups to support victims is an excellent community response. She praised the “Breaking the Silence” group for its work.
The local support group will meet more frequently in response to a recent arrest of a Blue Hill man on three counts of unlawful sexual contact stemming from alleged incidents with a 10-year-old girl in 2004.
“Breaking the Silence will meet every other week,” said program organizer Hugh Curran.
The group meets at the Blue Hill Congregational Church. For information, call 667-4580.
http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18134&Itemid=1
Written by James Straub
Thursday, November 27, 2008
BLUE HILL — Generation after generation of youngsters has ventured from home and into the cruel world with this time-honored parental advice echoing in their minds: “Don’t talk to strangers.”
Barbara SchwartzTurns out the well-intentioned words to live by are way off the mark when it comes to protecting our offspring from the horrors of child sexual abuse.
It would be better to admonish our children to beware of Uncle Charlie, the youth choir director, the babysitter and others near and dear to them.
It would be better yet to teach them the value of talking openly to their parents.
Barbara Schwartz, noted expert in the field of sex offender treatment, made those points before an audience of about 100 area residents who packed the Blue Hill Farm Country Inn Nov. 19.
Schwartz’s talk, “No More Victims: Sex Offenders and the Community,” was sponsored by “Breaking the Silence,” a support group for victims of sexual abuse, family members and community.
In introducing Schwartz, host Jim Schatz said that society is marginally effective at taking deviant behavior out of the community, but not at all effective at taking such behavior out of the offender.
Focusing on child molesters, Schwartz spoke for nearly two hours on managing sex offenders in the community.
“Stranger danger is not where we should put our energy,” Schwartz said, adding that children are far more likely to be sexually abused by a family member, babysitter, minister, Scout leader or some other trusted adult.
Despite a media blitz that creates a scary climate through shows such as “CSI” and “Law and Order,” sadistic pedophiles — those who hurt or kill children — are extremely rare, accounting for less than 10 crimes a year in the United States, Schwartz said.
“They’re all about sex and murders,” Schwartz said of popular television fare.
Far more common are fixated pedophiles, those obsessed with prepubescent children.
“A fixated pedophile is the individual we think about when we think of a child molester,” said Schwartz.
Statistically, 90 percent of child sexual abuse victims in the United States are molested by family members, friends and close acquaintances, Schwartz said, adding that more than 50 percent are molested by other children or adolescents.
“We can teach kids to be afraid of strangers,” she said, “but the guy next door that you’ve known for 20 years is the real danger.”
There is a fine line to observe, however.
“If we scare them too much, they become paranoid about all adults,” Schwartz said. “Who are they going to tell?”
When children tend to fear or distrust all adults, sexual crimes against them go unreported.
Schwartz said it is wise to teach children appropriate boundaries, personal distances and the right to privacy.
She said parents should not force their children to kiss or sit on the laps of relatives and friends, and they should teach their children that when an adult tells them “it’s our secret,” that’s a cue to come and tell their parents what is happening.
“Teach them to use their intuition and their instincts,” said Schwartz. “If it seems yucky, it probably is. Tell someone.”
The ultimate goal regarding child sexual abuse is “no more victims,” but until the goal is reached, there will be victims and offenders.
Schwartz, who serves as the director of Maine’s sex offender therapy program with the Department of Corrections, directed many of her remarks at keeping the community safe.
She urged her audience to educate themselves about sexual predators in order to offset the misinformation and the myths surrounding the subject.
Among those myths is the belief that sex offenders always repeat their crime.
“It’s not true,” Schwartz said, adding that the recidivism rate among child molesters is 15 percent across the board, including those who have received treatment and those who have not.
Another myth, she said, is that treatment doesn’t make a difference. Studies refute that and clearly show that treatment reduces recidivism rates.
The popular notion that banning sex offenders from places where children gather will significantly protect children is ill informed, Schwartz said.
“If you want to molest a child, being 2,000 feet from a school isn’t going to keep you from doing that,” she said. “Ninety-three percent occur in our homes. Places frequented by children are the safest places. The isolated kid is at risk.”
Schwartz also labeled as a myth the notion that the only way to deal with child sex offenders is to put them behind bars.
Likewise, the notion that tougher legislation is the only solution is a myth.
“I’m not suggesting we don’t incarcerate sex offenders,” she said, “but, again, don’t paint them with a broad brush.”
Schwartz offered alternatives, such as putting sex offenders on probation, GPS monitoring, strict loitering laws and more.
She said a “containment approach” works well when a team of probation officers, counselors and other support providers surround the offender with supervision.
Shunning offenders from the community is counterproductive, as offenders become unable to find housing or employment.
Schwartz said they end up homeless or in very temporary shelters and drop off the radar screen.
“If they can’t find a job, they can’t pay for therapy,” Schwartz said. “They need appropriate therapy and they need circles of support and accountability to reintegrate back into communities. That’s something communities can organize for little money.”
She said communities can identify appropriate rental housing for offenders, who often make great tenants because they come with probation officers, must not be involved with drugs and must pay their rent on time. Communities also can offer jobs and welcome offenders into a church with appropriate safeguards.
Schwartz works in Maine prisons where she directs the RULE program, a therapy program for sex offenders.
The program is based on the principles of “responsibility” for the impact of their offenses on victims and community, “understanding” their actions, “learning” new patterns of behavior and “experiencing” new skills to live in a community.
“It’s all about no more victims,” said a participant in the RULE program who had come to the talk with Schwartz.
His presence reinforced the responsibility aspect of his prison therapy program as he encountered several audience members who remain victims of sexual offenses.
The audience, too, appeared to benefit from meeting face-to-face with a sex offender.
The “Breaking the Silence” group was formed more than a year ago as victims and families coped with allegations of sexual abuse by a mentor at Liberty School in Blue Hill. Howard Evans was charged last March with unlawful sexual contact and two counts of assault.
In August, he pleaded guilty to the charges.
Several audience members said issues raised by Evans’ unlawful behavior remain unresolved.
“More needs to be done for victims to rehabilitate them back into the community,” said one woman. “It takes a lot to speak out. There is re-entry for victims as well as offenders.”
Schwartz said forming groups to support victims is an excellent community response. She praised the “Breaking the Silence” group for its work.
The local support group will meet more frequently in response to a recent arrest of a Blue Hill man on three counts of unlawful sexual contact stemming from alleged incidents with a 10-year-old girl in 2004.
“Breaking the Silence will meet every other week,” said program organizer Hugh Curran.
The group meets at the Blue Hill Congregational Church. For information, call 667-4580.
http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18134&Itemid=1
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
"You Need a Miracle Tomorrow" Prov. 29:25
I understood God to say,
'You need a miracle tomorrow' Prov. 29:25:
Dear Lord, I thank You for this day,
I thank You for my being able to see and to hear this morning. I'm blessed because You are a forgiving God and an understanding God.
You have done so much for me and You keep on blessing me.
Forgive me this day for everything I have done, said or thought that was not pleasing to you.
I ask now for Your forgiveness.
Please keep me safe from all danger and harm.
Help me to start this day with a new attitude and plenty of gratitude. Let me make the best of each and every day to clear my mind so that I can hear from You.
Please broaden my mind that I can accept all things.
Let me not whine and whimper over things I have no control over.
And give me the best response when I'm pushed beyond my limits.
I know that when I can't pray, You listen to my heart.
Continue to use me to do Your will. Continue to bless me that I may be a blessing to others.
Keep me strong that I may help the weak...
Keep me uplifted that I may have words of encouragement for others.
I pray for those that are lost and can't find their way.
I pray for those that are misjudged and misunderstood.
I pray for those who don't know You intimately.
I pray for those that don't believe.
But I thank You that I believe that God changes people and God changes things.
I pray for all my sisters and brothers.
For each and every family member in their households.
I pray for peace, love and joy in their homes; that they are out of debt and all their needs are met.
I pray that every eye that reads this knows there is no problem, circumstance, or situation greater than God.
Every battle is in Your hands for You to fight.
I pray that these words be received into the hearts of every eye that sees it.
Amen!
'You need a miracle tomorrow' Prov. 29:25:
Dear Lord, I thank You for this day,
I thank You for my being able to see and to hear this morning. I'm blessed because You are a forgiving God and an understanding God.
You have done so much for me and You keep on blessing me.
Forgive me this day for everything I have done, said or thought that was not pleasing to you.
I ask now for Your forgiveness.
Please keep me safe from all danger and harm.
Help me to start this day with a new attitude and plenty of gratitude. Let me make the best of each and every day to clear my mind so that I can hear from You.
Please broaden my mind that I can accept all things.
Let me not whine and whimper over things I have no control over.
And give me the best response when I'm pushed beyond my limits.
I know that when I can't pray, You listen to my heart.
Continue to use me to do Your will. Continue to bless me that I may be a blessing to others.
Keep me strong that I may help the weak...
Keep me uplifted that I may have words of encouragement for others.
I pray for those that are lost and can't find their way.
I pray for those that are misjudged and misunderstood.
I pray for those who don't know You intimately.
I pray for those that don't believe.
But I thank You that I believe that God changes people and God changes things.
I pray for all my sisters and brothers.
For each and every family member in their households.
I pray for peace, love and joy in their homes; that they are out of debt and all their needs are met.
I pray that every eye that reads this knows there is no problem, circumstance, or situation greater than God.
Every battle is in Your hands for You to fight.
I pray that these words be received into the hearts of every eye that sees it.
Amen!
NOVENA
You were chosen to read this novena.
The moment you start to read this, say :
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily breadand forgive us our trespassesas
we forgive thosewho trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.
For Thine is the Kingdom,and the Power, and the Glory.Forever and Ever.Amen.
It shall be well with you this coming year.
No matter how much your enemiestry this year, they will not succeed.
You have been destined to make it,and you shall surely achieveall your goals this year.
For the remainder of 2008, and all of 2009, all of your agonies will be diverted,
and victory and prosperity will be in coming in abundance.
Today, God has confirmed the endof your sufferings, sorrows and painbecause HE that sits on the thronehas remembered you.
He has taken awaythe hardships and given you joy.
He will never let you down.
I knocked at heaven's door this morning, God asked me," My child! What can I do for you?"And I said, "Father, please protect and bless the person reading this message."
The moment you start to read this, say :
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily breadand forgive us our trespassesas
we forgive thosewho trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.
For Thine is the Kingdom,and the Power, and the Glory.Forever and Ever.Amen.
It shall be well with you this coming year.
No matter how much your enemiestry this year, they will not succeed.
You have been destined to make it,and you shall surely achieveall your goals this year.
For the remainder of 2008, and all of 2009, all of your agonies will be diverted,
and victory and prosperity will be in coming in abundance.
Today, God has confirmed the endof your sufferings, sorrows and painbecause HE that sits on the thronehas remembered you.
He has taken awaythe hardships and given you joy.
He will never let you down.
I knocked at heaven's door this morning, God asked me," My child! What can I do for you?"And I said, "Father, please protect and bless the person reading this message."
WE ARE VALUABLE
A well-known speaker started off his seminar by:
Holding up a $20.00 bill.
In the room of 200, he asked, "Who would like this $20 bill?"
Hands started going up. He said, "I am going to give this $20 to one of you but first, let me do this.
He proceeded to crumple up the $20 dollar bill.
He then asked, "Who still wants it?" Still the hands were up in the air.
Well, he replied, "What if I do this?" And he dropped it on the ground and started to grind it into the floor with his shoe. He picked it up, now crumpled and dirty.
"Now, who still wants it?" Still the hands went into the air.
My friends, we have all learned a very valuable lesson.
No matter what I did to the money, you still wanted it because it did not decrease in value. It was still worth $20.
Many times in our lives, we are dropped, crumpled, and ground into the dirt by the decisions we make and the circumstances that come our way.
We feel as though we are worthless.
But no matter what has happened or what will happen, you will never lose your value.
Dirty or clean, crumpled or finely creased, you are still priceless to those who DO LOVE you. The worth of our lives comes not in what we do or who we know, but by WHO WE ARE and
WHOSE WE ARE.
Holding up a $20.00 bill.
In the room of 200, he asked, "Who would like this $20 bill?"
Hands started going up. He said, "I am going to give this $20 to one of you but first, let me do this.
He proceeded to crumple up the $20 dollar bill.
He then asked, "Who still wants it?" Still the hands were up in the air.
Well, he replied, "What if I do this?" And he dropped it on the ground and started to grind it into the floor with his shoe. He picked it up, now crumpled and dirty.
"Now, who still wants it?" Still the hands went into the air.
My friends, we have all learned a very valuable lesson.
No matter what I did to the money, you still wanted it because it did not decrease in value. It was still worth $20.
Many times in our lives, we are dropped, crumpled, and ground into the dirt by the decisions we make and the circumstances that come our way.
We feel as though we are worthless.
But no matter what has happened or what will happen, you will never lose your value.
Dirty or clean, crumpled or finely creased, you are still priceless to those who DO LOVE you. The worth of our lives comes not in what we do or who we know, but by WHO WE ARE and
WHOSE WE ARE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
