|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Editorial 1-26-07 |
Michigan attempts to comply with federal law by introducing HB 4121
(Presumably the Adam Walsh Act, or one interpretation of it)!
|
|
1-24-2007 Michigan House Bill 4121:
Criminal procedure; sex offender registration; federal compliance with sex offenders registry; provide for. |
.Sponsor Phillip Pavlov
..more..
: by Phillip Pavlov
|
.Introduced on th 25th, in Michigan, is a bill (HB 4121) which allegedly is a Michigan attempt to comply with the Adam Walsh Act. Introduced by Phil Pavlov and so far, no other co-sponsors. I am assuming he is referring to the Adam Walsh Act as there is no other federal law requiring the information mentioned.
How does this legislator know what the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act are since the U.S.A.G. has not yet issued the necessary rules and guidelines called for by AWA? (42 USC 16912(b)) To me, this proves he has not read the Act, yet somehow feels qualified to interpret it into Michigan law?
Rather than getting to the essence of why I mention this bill, lets review the new additional information ALL registered offenders will have to provide under HB 4121:
(G) IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE OR IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE BELONGING TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE MAKE, MODEL, YEAR, AND REGISTRATION PLATE NUMBER OF EACH OF THOSE MOTOR VEHICLES.
THE DATABASE SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLETE CRIMINAL HISTORY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THIS ACT AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT (the Michigan State Police MSP).
(D) ALL CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL REGISTERED UNDER THIS ACT AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT (MSP).
(E) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S EMPLOYER.
(F) THE MAKE, MODEL, YEAR, AND REGISTRATION PLATE NUMBER OF EACH MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR THAT HE OR SHE IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE.
Does AWA require this information?
AWA does not require the "complete criminal record" of registrants (as shown by the Dep't - MSP) but does require the sexual offense causing registration to be included (42 USC 16914(b)(2)) -and- criminal history (all arrests and convictions, supervision status IF ANY, registration status, and outstanding warrants (42 USC 16914(b)(3)). AWA, as to vehicle information, only requires vehicle information of vehicles which the registrant "owns or operates." AWA says nothing about "permitted to operate" and there is a significant difference. 42 USC 16914(a)(6). Further, since the USAG has not yet released the rules and regulations for AWA, no one knows what the USAG will exempt from the public registry. 42 USC 16918(b)(4) and (c)(4).
Lets review a few of the problems of placing vehicle information on the Internet:
Scenario-1: Juvenile RSO living at home using the family care and whose original offense has nothing to do with a car. That vehicle information will be plastered on the Internet. Now suppose, Mom is taking her children to school, going to a PTA meeting, or a sports event, and someone spots the license number as belonging to a RSO. Is it likely the police will be called or a SWAT Team dispursed to the school and the school locked down?
Scenario-2: Same family car as above. Mom is shopping at the local mall parks car. Someone spots it as belonging to a RSO and vandalizes the car. Anyone who thinks this does not happen has their head stuck in the sand, see: Vigilantism where we have documented a spattering of the more egregious incidents.
Scenario-3: Using the same facts as in "1" and "2" above except the RSO is an adult and substitute spouse for "Mom." So, in essence what we have is, a family is constantly placed in harms-way by a law that has no purpose. Why do I say "no purpose" because, assuming the RSO is driving, knowing a RSO is in an area, proves nothing. Their state issued license permits them to drive anywhere.
Scenario-4: RSOs who have jobs where they must use the company vehicles, those vehicles will then be listed on the Internet. Those same vehicles may be used by other employees, hence, like the families above, placing them in harms-way. Additionally, based on maintneance schedules of employer vehicles, it is entirely possible for an employer to require his employees to use alternate vehicles at a moment's notice and cannot wait for the employee to go to the police to change his/her registration information. The net result is, employers will not employ RSOs, and the welfare roles will grow and the public will ultimately pay the price.
Courts released RSOs into the community after weighing the facts and did not order any form of stalking them, which is exactly what publicizing this vehicle information causes. Further, the public has already proved, by its own vigilante acts, that it cannot act responsibly when given such information!
Further, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention how many, previous sex offenders, and other persons accused of sex offenses, have been murdered by members of the general public: 83 recorded so far, all without a trial, and all innocent of any acts warranting death according to the law of the land.
I could go on with other scenarios but now lets get to why I think this bill is the worst thing since 7-Up.
Michigan uses a list of crimes (MCL numbers) to decide who goes on the public registry. HB 4121 is adding to that list, verbatim, "A VIOLATION OF SECTION 539D OF THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.539D." So, anyone who has been convicted of that crime (Installation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private place.) will now be DECLARED a sex offender and have to register as one.
There is nothing in HB 4121 that limits, those so convicted, to usage in a sexual sense. This legislator is just indiscriminately adding a MCL number. So, non-sex offenders will become sex offenders based on the whim of HB 4121.
Soon MySpace will be introducing "Zephyr" to allow parents to monitor their children's MySpace account: "MySpace developing parental-notification software." Spouses often install devices to detect cheating spouses, have any been convicted? How many private detectives have been convicted of that offense? Parents install cameras to watch baby sitters. In today's world fueled by "fear-mongering" everyone is watching everyone else.
How long will it take for people to realize, that if they can get someone convicted of that charge, they will then be declared a sex offender and lose right after right. Divorce courts will abound with false accusations and registries will swell like bloated whales.
There isn't one word in the Adam Walsh Act about folks that have been convicted of a charge like the one described in HB 4121. Clearly, this bill is rooted in preconceived notions and does not bring Michigan into compliance with anything, except preconceived notions and false beliefs.
We cannot forget that the USAG has not yet released the rules and regulations for AWA, no one knows what the USAG will exempt from the public registry. 42 USC 16918(b)(4) and (c)(4). Further, it is likely that vehicle information will be exempt from release to the public because it is protected by 18 USC 2721 which makes it a crime to release to the general public:
18 USC 2721(b) Permissible Uses.— .... may be disclosed as follows:
(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions.
Notice carefully the underlined portion which modifies all earlier references to "agency," only "private persons" working for an "agency." Clearly that excludes the general public.
Finally, vehicle information on the Internet would further stigmatize registrants and their families, and very likely cause an increase in their property being vandalized as well as placing folks in harms-way, this is not consistent with a maturing society, and protects no one, this is further punishment!
|
|
|
