Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues ©
Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues © |
|
| You are now in our -Newsroom Library-, for expanded Menu functions return to the News Home Page |
|
|
UPDATED 3-5-2007 Main Concerns are focused on: A) Theme and Intent of Bill: "Danger" and "Risk" are improper themes to attribute to ALL registered offenders in the nation.1) Registrants have been through the criminal justice system, and that system has released them, then they are no longer legally considered a danger or a risk. The US Supreme court in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (2003) held that because the State did not raise the issue of "dangerousness" no hearing was necessary before listing in a registry. However, this federal bill raises the "dangerous" issue and makes no provisions for a hearing before declaring registrants a danger;This bill cannot be used as an end-run around the judicial system. The Theme and Intent of the bill: The theme and focus here is to attribute "Danger" and "Risk" to all registrants. Attributing "dangerousness" to registrants without a hearing violates a "liberty interest," Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe: "We (High Court) granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticut's sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a "liberty interest," and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a pre deprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be "currently dangerous." Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme."Further, Congress in the Adam Walsh Act (42 USC 16911(5)(C) -and- 16911(8)), and the US Supreme court in Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (See Oral Arguments at end of this report) and even in that court's decision had special concerns about a specific sub-group of offenders, juveniles and certain types of cases (ex: Romeo and Juliet cases): Justices Souter and Ginsburg: "... I write separately only to note that a substantive due process claim may not be the only one still open to a test by those in the respondents' situation. Connecticut allows certain sex offenders the possibility of avoiding the registration and reporting obligations of the statute. A court may exempt a convict from registration altogether if his offense was unconsented sexual contact, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-251(c) (2001), or sexual intercourse with a minor aged between 13 and 16 while the offender was more than two years older than the minor, provided the offender was under age 19 at the time of the offense, § 54251(b). A court also has discretion to limit dissemination of an offender's registration information to law enforcement purposes if necessary to protect the identity of a victim who is related to the offender or, in the case of a sexual assault, who is the offender's spouse or cohabitor. §§ 54-255(a), (b). * (*To mitigate the retroactive effects of the statute, offenders in these categories who were convicted between October 1, 1988, and June 30, 1999, were allowed to petition a court for restricted dissemination of registry information. §§ 54-255(c)(1)-(4). A similar petition was also available to any offender who became subject to registration by virtue of a conviction.) The Experiment (verbatim from the bill): Safe NOW Act of 2007 (then CLICK on Summary) - "Establishes the National Sex Offender Risk Classification Task Force to create guidelines for a risk-based sex offender classification system.First, the underlined, in essence says, the registrants of five unknown jurisdictions will be forced to participate in an experiment, which will be made public through their respective registries while the experiment is carried out. Further, the final guidelines are discretionary, not mandatory, states can use them or ignore them. What happens to those forced to live under them in the experiment, certainly they will be more damaged in the public eye. Further, no one knows, at this point, what additional information may be required from registrants, and that may very well raise other privacy and legal concerns. Classification systems: I agree a classification system is desirable, IF, it is based on more than negative facts of a registrant's past history. Today, all risk-based classification systems I have reviewed are based upon the registrant's negative history, and a few factor in a registrant participation in sex offender therapy. A risk determination should be based on first, the past, but factor in, the present, positives since the crime, and guidelines must recognize that, every person's psychological and physical circumstances change as time passes. Graduated Classification Systems (GCS): When a person commits a crime and is found guilty the judge makes the first decision, guided by statutes and guidelines, whether the person can be put on probation or whether he goes to prison. i.e., generally controlled by the severity of the crime.Above are the classification concepts that are traditionally employed no matter where one is under state supervision in the nation, and given we do not have mass riots, we know these GCS systems work. Remember, that sex offenders are within the current working GCS systems today nationwide. Now, if I could write in a few short sentences the concept of a workable GCS system in use today, why could this bill not do that and make such the aim of the Committee and resulting Guidelines? It is my contention that omitting Congressional guidance (Congressional guidance is provided in the Adam Walsh Act by vesting powers to the USAG) was intentional because such a classification system has a beginning, an end, and a graduated middle, and that does not fit the current thinking of victim-centered persons (the USAG chosen committee) who believe in the misguided theory that "there is no cure." Those folks refuse to recognize that, there is no cure for anything related to the human body or mind, and that society accepts management for everything else, but will not accept that for sex offenders. Society wants all or nothing, but for, say, cancer or heart disease or many other maladies' of the body or mind, continues to search for an answer. Society has telethons and Congress appropriates funds to search for answers, and even appropriates monies for therapy programs for other types of offenders. i.e., drug offenders. Society has no tolerance for persons once they have committed a sex offense, even after prescribed punishment, society wants only isolation and uses legal pretexts which merely sound good to accomplish the isolation. Therapy programs and community grants are non-existent in Congressional bills which is contrary to an important US Supreme court case: McKUNE, WARDEN, et al. v. LILE (States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U. S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner's Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988)). Congress does nothing but track movements and create new crimes requiring registration. Committee Makeup, Prejudices and Leanings: HR 291 calls for the USAG to appoint, committee members of his personal choosing, from 20 pre-defined groups, agencies and non-profits in society. The committee is charged with developing dangerousness guidelines that will be applied to every person required to register. While it is true that the guidelines will not directly control everyday behavior of RSOs, the guidelines will affect how society perceives each registrant; as a more dangerous person. Society already treats anyone on a registry as a person that must be isolated in someone else's backyard. This is not good for society or registrants as it inhibits successful reentry into society. Accordingly, the collective mindset of the committee must focus on integration and not segregation, or isolation. Some of the listed groups are well known for their open stance against registered sex offenders making all sorts of claims against offenders, unsupported factoids, false beliefs and myths. Several of the organizations listed have no particular expertise beyond personal opinions, and are not experienced in creating guidelines. It is unlikely they will be objective due to their personal biases and prejudices. Accordingly, the committee needs to be balanced with a representative of the registrants and their families. Committee Representation Missing: Under Sec. 3(2)(E) the committee is charged with considering: "any negative consequences that have resulted from Megan's Law (Public Law 104-145; 110 Stat. 1345), and steps that might be taken to reduce such negative consequences."Sex offender registration systems have been in effect for over 10 years now and no entity has taken the time to implement a system to record the consequences of registration. Further, in reality there is no one appointed to the committee who could properly present to the committee what daily life is like for a registrant and their family, accordingly I am suggesting implementation of an Ombudsman on the committee, and appropriate questionnaires designed that they cannot be duplicated, and tallied by an independent firm to assure anonymity. Only a summarization of the results would be made available to the committee. Content of Questionnaires: (Note: Questionnaires need to be designed to thwart duplication or other fraudulent means, and be tracked from distribution through collection.) First, general questions about the RSO's crime. Questionnaires with questions targeted to the learn more about the specific population (See Distribution below) the person falls into. The intent here is to tailor questions, so that, the responses will enable lawmakers to make allowances in laws to handle life's special conditions and disabilities identified by that specific population. An "Employer Questionnaire" is also to be developed and used as shown below. Effectively the questionnaires are to be designed to learn about the real life consequences of these laws. Questionnaires will contain questions pertaining to vigilantism (real and subtle) suffered by the RSO or his/her family or by employers. (Undeveloped thought, if employers could be damaged by the laws, could landlords or other people that RSOs do business with (therapists, etc.), and should they be included?) Distribution of Questionnaires: All prenumbered questionnaire responses to be handled so as to protect the identity of the submitter FOREVER! This is necessary to prevent retaliation from persons who may be mentioned in the questionnaire, and the general public. Further, no questionnaire is to be distributed to any RSO listed in a state registry who, has died, moved to another state, been deported, or is incarcerated (unless specifically mentioned below), each state is to provide a tally of each of these groups to the committee. Any questionnaire mailed and returned because the registrant moved will be included in the tally of "G)" below as an unaccounted for registrant. Vigilantism Studies and News Articles: The committee shall consider news articles and any studies describing -all forms of hate and violence- against RSOs and their families. CLICK for some news articles already compiled. Collectively, this information will represent the balance missing from the committee, and act as the collective voice of registered sex offenders, their families, and employers nationally as to the consequences occurring from registration. Sec. (3)(b)(3) "Working Groups" shall be amended to include "Collective Work" as one more "Working Group" in the bill. Summarizing: There is quite a bit left out of the bill as introduced and needs to be included before implementation of a risk based dangerousness classification system, as this bill intends for all registered. Until such time I cannot support this bill. Above are the major issues as I see them! I am eager to hear from folks on this proposed addition to the bill as introduced. Finally, will this classification system REPLACE the Tiers established by the Adam Walsh Act, or be in addition to those tiers when it is phased into that Act? eAdvocate |
Sec. 3(b)(2) CREATION OF GUIDELINES- In creating the guidelines required under this subsection, the Task Force shall consider-- (A) empirically-based assessment tools available to assess the dangers posed by sex offenders; Sec. 3(b)(3) WORKING GROUPS- The Chair shall designate 5 working groups within the Task Force, each of which shall conduct one of the following activities: (A) Survey the methods of risk classification used by each jurisdiction, as of the date of enactment of this Act, and identify changes to such methods that jurisdictions could implement to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of sex offender registries. Unknown: the Chair _________________________ Victim Advocates:
Law Enforcement:
Research and Statistics:
Legal Representation:
Psychological Community:
Registrants and Their Families: (Missing from Bill) not specifically named
|
|
|
|