MD - Ruling could scrub quarter of sex offender registry

Original Article

06/30/2014

By Ian Duncan

One-fourth of the names on Maryland's sex offender registry could be removed after the state's top court expanded Monday on an earlier ruling that adding offenders from before the list was created violated the state constitution.

The Court of Appeals declared last year that the state could not require the registration of people who committed their crimes before October 1995, when the database was established. State officials removed the one name in question in that case but maintained that federal law required them to keep older cases in the database.

On Monday, the judges ruled in that case and another one that federal law doesn't override the state constitution.

"Where we have declared the retroactive application of Maryland's sex offender registry to be unconstitutional, the State must remove [the men's] information from the registry," Judge Clayton Greene Jr. wrote for the court.

Those who say the registries are punitive and do little to protect future victims hailed the ruling, but victims' advocates expressed disappointment. They see the registry as a useful tool to alert families to potential predators in their midst.
- You don't need the registry for that!  "Potential" predators are all around you, so are "potential" murderers, etc!

As many as 1,800 of the state's 8,000 registered sex offenders could be affected by the decisions, and other cases are pending that could expand the number of people whose names are scrubbed.

Maryland requires people convicted of certain sex crimes to register for 15 years, 25 years or for life, depending on the severity of their conviction, and publishes a searchable online database of those on the list.

Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling means Maryland will now need to look at other ways to track dangerous offenders.

"We cannot rely on the registry," she said. "We need to take other steps."
- You can't rely on the registry even without this case!

Nancy S. Forster, an attorney who argued the cases on behalf of the two men, said the court made clear that its decision should apply to anyone who was required to add their names to the registry even though their crimes took place before its creation.

She pointed to language in Greene's ruling, noting that the constitutional issue applies not just to the men who had sued but also "individuals similarly situated in Maryland."

"I believe this means that the state absolutely must remove these people automatically, without each individual having to go to court seeking removal," she said. "If the state does not remove them automatically, I will contemplate the need for a lawsuit."

David Paulson, a spokesman for the Maryland attorney general's office, said the state's lawyers will review the decision before offering legal advice to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, which manages the list.

The state's high court was considering challenges brought by two men, who are identified in court records as John Doe and John Roe.

Doe is _____, a former teacher who pleaded guilty in 2006 to a single court of child sexual abuse for a 1984 incident involving a 13-year-old student. John Roe has not been identified, but according to court records he was convicted of third-degree sex offense in 1997 for conduct involving a 14-year-old victim.

The ruling last year was on _____' case alone. It examined state laws from 2009 and 2010 that made registering a requirement even for those convicted before the creation of the database.

The court ruled that requiring people to go back and register amounted to punishing them twice, a violation of the state's constitution.

After losing that case, officials reluctantly agreed to remove _____ from the registry but vowed to keep on fighting.

They took the fight back to court, after a trial court judge ordered the removal of _____' name from state and federal databases, and argued that federal law required that they keep the offenders' names on the list.

The Court of Appeals rejected that view.

OK - Sex registry law needs overhaul

David Slane

Original Article

06/04/2014

By David Slane (Law Firm)

In 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature approved a new law that required all sex offenders be classified under a three-tier system that placed offenders in a specific category depending on the nature of the sex crime.

However, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) went a step further and made the new registration law retroactive to 1998. However, in June 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the retroactive application of the rule was unconstitutional.

The court’s landmark ruling allowed more than 2,000 sex offenders to remove their names from the statewide registry because their registration requirements had either expired or would be prolonged by the 2007 law.

The law has left everyone scratching their heads about what’s next. The current registration system makes no sense and leaves plenty of room for debate about fairness and public safety.

It makes sense for the state Legislature to return to the drawing board and start over on this law.

Some people are on the registry because they urinated in a public street, and they’re not sex offenders. State officials need to stop wasting time and precious resources on those registrants. For the record, indecent exposure convictions and other low-level offenses require 15 years of registration.

Instead, devote the majority of resources to the high-risk offenders who need the most intensive supervision and strictest registration requirements the state can offer. The high-risk offenders should be required to check in daily, which would give the public a higher level of security.

Level 2 offenders, those who pose a moderate danger to the community, must register for 25 years. Meanwhile, Level 3 offenders, those who pose a serious danger to the community and are likely to engage in criminal sexual conduct, must register for their lifetime.

Part of the problem is that DOC officials, when implementing the system, tossed most of Oklahoma’s sex offenders into the Level 3 category. They didn’t want to take the heat to make an honest assessment of each case.

Changing the system will take a groundswell of public support. Still, reform of any kind might cause consternation for most state lawmakers who have never seen a sex offender law they didn’t like. It’s popular to be tough on crime, which includes drunks who urinate next to their car.

It’s time for Oklahoma legislators to stop thinking about re-election and polls and study what works and doesn’t work with the sex offender registration system.

One solution is to remove the registration assessment out of the hands of DOC only and rework the procedure to include trial judges, district attorneys and defense attorneys. That would provide a higher level of fairness while ensuring public safety. A broken system gives parents and the community a false sense of security while really protecting no one.

When most people think of a sex offender, they think of a baby raper or serial rapist. But the truth is most sex offenders are convicted of nothing even similar. We need to stop painting every sex offender with the same broad brush and look at individuals for what they did and act accordingly.

While high-risk sex offenders need to be closely supervised, it’s critical for others who have completed their sentence to be given a second chance at life.

NH - State's sex-offender registry overreaches

Original Article

05/20/2014

The N.H. Supreme Court is pondering the fate of a man convicted, several decades ago, of sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter. The man has served out his prison sentence, undergone years of counseling and been deemed “rehabilitated” by the court. Now in his 60s, he is disabled.

None of which would be fodder for the state’s highest court, except that since he was released from prison in 1990, the state has repeatedly enacted laws calling for those convicted of sexual assault against children to register with the police, so a legal — and public — eye can be kept on them. And yes, such laws include those who were sentenced long before the new laws were enacted.

The man now before the Supreme Court seeking relief from these laws has been dubbed John Doe to protect his anonymity. It’s ironic that Mr. Doe can hide his identity from the public in court, because the reason he’s there is that he can’t hide it anywhere else. Thanks to these laws — both state and federal — John Doe and others must allow not only the police to know where they are, they must let everyone know, by keeping their current address in a database accessible to anyone online.

And in many cases, they must do so for life. There is no mechanism for getting off the list, and failure to keep the information updated carries harsh penalties in itself.

If all this seems over the line of reasonable punishment, in many cases we agree. However, the state has argued inclusion on this public online registry is not a punishment, but a regulatory matter.

We think that reasoning is absurd. Clearly, it is a punishment, tantamount to those on the list being forced to wear a large letter “P” pinned to their chests in public.

And while belling the cat may be a good idea for those whose crimes indicate they will continue to pose a threat, there are some crimes designated as sexual in nature that may not, such as public urination.

This is not to ignore the real danger posed by sick minds — the hardcore predators who will never be rehabilitated. Given the recidivism rates involved in sexual assault cases, especially those victimizing children, there’s a lot to be said for keeping the public informed of legitimate threats. There does need to be some way for the public to be informed.
- What recidivism rate?  You mean that sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any other ex-felon?

Hearing the arguments of the John Doe case earlier this month, the justices seemed taken aback by the logic of the laws. One argued a paraplegic on the registry who now poses no threat to anyone could himself become a victim of vigilantes who look up his address online. If that seems far-fetched, consider the case of Stephen Marshall, who in 2006 killed two men whose names and addresses he’d looked up on Maine’s sex-offender registry.

We, too, worry that inclusion on a public registry could make a target of people who have otherwise served their sentence for crimes committed. We hope the court’s review will result in a close look at the state’s sex-offender registry, including how long someone who has been deemed rehabilitated by the courts should be on it and whether the list of crimes for which one qualifies needs to be culled.
- It also puts the lives of family members (innocent people) in danger as well, not just the ex-offenders!

MA - Retroactive Application of Sex Offender Law Rejected

Original Article

04/01/2014

By Amaris Elliott-Engel

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has declared unconstitutional the retroactive application of the state's amended sex offender registration law. The ruling came in a proposed class action brought by all level-two sex offenders in Massachusetts (Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board).

State law was amended July 12, 2013, to require the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board to publish in its registry information about defendants given a level-two or level-three classification. Previously, the board was barred from publishing on-line information about level-two offenders—those deemed at moderate risk of reoffending. While legislators intended the change to the registration regime to apply retroactively, the state’s court of last resort said that would violate due process under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- And if it's unconstitutional for Level 2 & 3, so is it for Level 1's as well.

“The practical consequence of the recent amendments is that offenders whose degree of dangerousness, according to SORB, was not so substantial that Internet publication of their information was needed to protect the public safety would now be subject to Internet publication of their registry information,” the court said.

“And further, those offenders who did not challenge their level-two classification … because they specifically relied on their accurate understanding that a level-two classification did not carry the consequence of Internet publication of their registry information, would now be subject to exactly that.”

The court remanded the case for an entry of an order certifying the class and permanently enjoining the board from publishing information about any offender finally classified as a level-two sex offender on or before July 12, 2013.

“Of the 11,171 sex offenders registered with SORB as of July 12, 2013, registry information is currently available on the Internet only for the 2,422 level-three offenders, a group that comprises approximately 21.7 per cent of registered sex offenders,” the court said. “Were the recent amendments to become effective, the number of offenders whose registry information is publicly available would rise to 8,496, approximately 76.1 per cent of the sex offenders registered with SORB.”

OK - Convicted sex offender sues to stay in his home

Original Article

02/18/2014

By Cydney Baron

PRYOR - A convicted sex offender has sued the district attorney and city of Pryor over housing dispute.

_____ bought a home near Jefferson Elementary School in Pryor before the sex offender law was passed which would prevent him from living within 2,000 feet of the school.

He was convicted of a child sexual offense in 2008. When he was released from prison in 2013, law enforcement told him he could not live in his house because of it’s proximity to a school.

_____’s position is he owned the home before the sex offender law took effect and he believes he should be able to live in the home.

_____, represented by attorney Gerald Lee, filed a petition for a declaratory judgment Feb. 7 listing the defendants as District Attorney Janice Steidley, the City of Pryor Creek and Pryor Police Department.

The petition states that _____, the plaintiff, “acquired his home on Nov. 8, 2000,” and lived there until Jan. 14, 2009.

According to Lee's request, on Aug. 8, 2008, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to possessing “material involving the sexual exploitation of minors/possessing a visual depiction.”

_____ was released from prison Aug. 10, 2013, according to the judgment.

“After Plaintiff's release from custody of the City of Pryor, by and through the Pryor Police Department, told the Plaintiff in August 2013 that his home is within 2,000 feet of Jefferson Elementary School and that he could not reside in his home pursuant to Title 57 O.S. Section 590A.”

The title in question states it is “unlawful for any person registered pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act to reside within 2,000 feet of any public or private school,” and that “it is a penal statute by reason of the statute states any person who violates the residency restriction is subject to imprisonment and fine,” all according to the request. The title became effective in November 2003.

_____ then wrote the district attorney's office, requesting the district attorney agree that _____ could reside in his home.

“The District Attorney's Office has not offered any written response to the Defendant's Attorney's letter. The only response from the District Attorney's Office was a verbal response from the Assistant District Attorney stating that the plaintiff could not reside in his home in reliance on opinion of the Oklahoma Attorney General,” Lee's petition states.

Further , it states that no state shall pass an ex post facto law. That means a law written “after the fact” will not apply.

“The Plaintiff is unable to obtain or purchase another residence due to the fact that Plaintiff is 71 years old, has health problems, he is permanently, physically disabled, and his only income is his state retirement and social security benefits,” the petition states.

Online court records describe this case as a civil case in which relief sought exceeds $10,000, though no monetary amounts were listed in the official request.

In a declaratory judgment, a judge will decide how the law relates to this case. Lee believes the declaratory judgment will be _____ should be allowed to stay in his home.

FL - Questions Linger Over Jimmy Ryce Act's Prevention Of Violence

Original Article

02/13/2014

By RICK STONE

Juan Carlos Chavez's inadvertent legacy to the people of Florida was a piece of legislation now known as the Jimmy Ryce Act, in honor of the nine-year-old boy Chavez raped and murdered in 1995. It was one of those crimes so heinous that it inspired action.

Under the Jimmy Ryce Act, the state waits at the prison gates to intercept sex offenders when they’re released. If experts determine the ex-convict is likely to commit a new violent sex crime, the experts can go to court and ask a jury to confine the offender in what's called a "civil commitment center" to be treated until considered safe for release.

"I think the community is a lot safer because of this," says Audrey Frank-Aponte, Miami-Dade County's chief sex crimes prosecutor. "The fact that these violent sex predators are not on the streets and are detained at the civil commitment center gives me great comfort, not only for my own circle and my own close friends and associates, but also the community."

But whether community safety has actually improved under the Jimmy Ryce Act has recently been disputed. A recent Sun-Sentinel newspaper investigation cast doubt on the state's ability to identify potential re-offenders. Over the last 14 years, it found, nearly 600 released sex offenders deemed harmless enough to skip the confinement and treatment were convicted of new rapes, child molestations and 14 murders.

The Florida Legislature is expected to tighten up the law this spring but questions remain about the treatment that occurs, supposedly to neutralize the violent sex predators there, inside the civil commitment center in the Desoto County town of Arcadia.

John Selden, an assistant public defender in the judicial circuit that surrounds Daytona Beach, works almost exclusively on Jimmy Ryce cases. He says the treatment his clients receive is a one-size-fits-all type that doesn't recognize the variety of sexual predation.

"The respondents in these groups fall into two groups, pedophiles or child molesters and rapists," Selden says. "Those are two rather distinct and different groups because they have different motivations and different reasons for what they do. But that same program is applied to both types of individuals."

For legal reasons, the quality of the treatment program at the civil commitment center is less important than the fact of its existence. Since locking up people again after they've already completed their prison sentences appears to violate the Constitution three different ways, it's important for Jimmy Ryce commitments to be construed as civil processes, like Florida's Baker Act, and not criminal, which would trigger due process issues as well as problems with the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses.

How do you tell the difference between a civil commitment and an illegally extended prison sentence? Civil commitments have three main features: They do not punish. They isolate the individual to protect himself and the public, and -- importantly -- they provide treatment.

In a case called Hendricks vs Kansas, the U. S. Supreme Court reviewed a Kansas law almost identical to Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act. It found all of those elements and declared Jimmy Ryce-style commitments to be civil and, therefore, constitutional.

So is the treatment anything more than a thin veil over obvious constitutional flaws in the Jimmy Ryce Act? That's a hard question for Jill Levenson, who treats sex offenders and studies them at Lynn University, because she says there are harm reduction methods that work even on hard-wired, unchangeable personality traits like pedophilia. "Many individuals with the disorder of pedophilia can learn strategies for managing their behavior, controlling their thoughts and becoming more aware of the harm that is caused by sexual abuse," Levenson says.

Prosecutors agree that while sex offender treatment is legally necessary to make the Jimmy Ryce Act constitutional, it doesn't get at the root cause and it can't change child molesters and rapists into normal people anymore than normal people can be turned into predators.

"It's accepted in the world of criminology the sexual offenders are the least curable," said Miami-Dade- State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. "They haven’t really found a cure for these kinds of crimes."