Archive for category Support

NFL Combine Player Admits to Being Registered Sex Offender

Mar 11

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments


reporternews.com: Former ACU football player: I am registered sex offender.

Former Abilene Christian University football player Tony Washington disclosed during the NFL Combine in Indianapolis that he is a registered sex offender.

Washington, an All-American offensive tackle for the Wildcats the past two seasons, was convicted of having sex with his 15-year-old biological sister in May 2003 while a student at Alcee Fortier High School in New Orleans. Washington was 16 at the time and received five years probation. He didn’t serve jail time but he had to register as sex offender wherever he lived. He told scouts and college coaches the sex was consensual.

Washington, 24, told SportsFanLive.com: “I made a mistake at the age of 16 and for that, I am deeply sorry. I will not try and excuse or justify anything. I have worked extremely hard to do everything right so that I might have an opportunity to give back. I only hope that someone in the NFL will give me the same opportunity that Abilene Christian and Trinity Valley gave me.”

After his performance at the combine, Washington, who is 6-foot-7, 305 pounds, is considered to be a high-round draft choice.

With every-increasing numbers of Americans being labeled on the sex offender registries across the nation (estimated at 700,000 and growing each day) , these high profile cases should highlight the need for reform of the sex offender laws. The more people we put on sex offender registries, the more we dilute the stated purpose of the registries. We need to limit sex offender registration to only the most high-risk and repeat offenders. We must give first time offenders a chance to prove themselves and “work” their way off the registry. And we must allow judicial review of individual cases to establish risk levels (all of which the Adam Walsh Act does not allow).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offenders, Supporters Lobby Georgia Lawmakers for Reform

Mar 8

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

free-press-release.com: Sex Offenders and their Supporters Lobby Georgia Lawmakers for Reform.

March 8, 2010 — Last weekend, sex offenders in Georgia took a step towards replacing the failed policy of registration and residency restrictions with a policy based on reason and with the goal of making their communities safer, actually protecting children, and restoring the nation’s international image for fairness and basic respect of human rights.

On Saturday, March 6, 2010, Georgians for Reform held a twelve hour conference in the Georgia State Capital. In attendance were more than 180 friends and supporters. Speakers included a District Attorney who participated in writing the original legislation creating the sex offender registry in Georgia, a Defense Attorney who addressed the ex post facto aspects of the registry, a lobbyist, a lawyer, and a sociologist who spoke about the wrong directions taken by the registry and its detrimental effects on both registrants and society as a whole. Several religious leaders also spoke about the challenges sex offender registrations pose to the faith community. Prison counselors and chaplains spoke on the reality of the registry for those incarcerated and released. Also in attendance was Paul Shannon, who helped establish Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), a national advocacy organization for sex offenders and their families.

Every speaker, including the attorney who participated in the original legislation, told those gathered that the registry is a failed policy and serves as an extension of criminal punishment–a violation of Due Process protections guaranteed to every American citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment.

To gather close to 190 people in conference, the majority of whom are not on the registry, in the state of Georgia, leaves little room for anyone to claim it can’t be done. Who now can claim that society has written off persons convicted of a sex offense, that these people have no support, that these people do not deserve the basic human dignity spoken of so eloquently in our own Declaration of Independence? Who can continue to support the hyperbole, ignoring the statistical facts presented by the United States Department of Justice, or the reality of systemic failure on the part of registry schemes from state to state?

The guiding principle of the Georgians for Reform conference was that no speaker would be asked to address their topic from the organization’s stated perspective. Each speaker was asked to address the conference from his own perspective about the registry and was not vetted in advance about that perspective as a contingency for invitation. Speakers were invited because they satisfied one of the criteria of conference presenters: professional status in law enforcement, the clergy, the legal field, the study of sociology, psychology, or in the practice of therapy.

That each of the speakers in attendance came to the same conclusion about the registry as a failed policy speaks very loudly.

Georgians For Reform is deeply disturbed by the failure of sex offender registries to prevent incidents of human suffering at the hands of people such as Phillip Garrido and Anthony Sowell (both cases of sexual predation and abuse by registered sex offenders). We mourn the loss of Chelsea King, and we believe that the failed registration policies are partially responsible for her loss and the terrible pain felt by her family and friends.

Georgians For Reform demands that these failed policies be eliminated and replaced with policies based on the best available and empirical evidence. Such action–and the development of reasonable policies–will make our nation’s communities safer, protect children, and protect the right of people to heal and move forward. More importantly, law enforcement agencies will be able to focus on the truly dangerous offenders in their local communities.

Georgians For Reform will continue to speak out against these failed policies and demand a reform that works towards making our communities safer, protecting our children, and respecting the dignity of human beings. We will no longer accept ‘feel good’ policies that protect no one, lend a false sense of security, and help foster an environment that makes our children and communities less safe.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of Ohio vs Nixon - Contract Clause Challenge

Mar 8

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges, Mission, Support, Why You Should Care | No Comments

NIXON v. STATE ; Bradley Nixon, Petitioner-Appellee,v. State of Ohio
2010-Ohio-767 - Appeal No. C-090219.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 5, 2010.

Ohio Justice & Policy Center, Margie Slagle, and David A. Singleton, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellant.

Download Decision (PDF)

DINKELACKER, Judge.

{¶1} On July 27, 2001, petitioner-appellee Bradley Nixon pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1). The court accepted Nixon’s plea, found him guilty of gross sexual imposition, and imposed five years’ community control. The sentencing entry stated that Nixon was “found to be a sexually oriented offender.” Under former R.C. Chapter 2950, Nixon was required to annually register as a sexual offender for ten years.

{¶2} In 2007, the General Assembly enacted Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (”Senate Bill 10″) to implement the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Senate Bill 10 amended various sections of R.C. Chapter 2950. Nixon was notified that he had been reclassified under Senate Bill 10 as a Tier I sex offender and that he was required to annually register with the local sheriff for 15 years.

{¶3} Nixon filed an R.C. 2950.031(E) petition to contest his reclassification, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10. After a hearing, the trial court granted Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition. The court found that reclassifying Nixon as a Tier I sex offender under Senate Bill 10 constituted a breach of his plea agreement and an impairment of an obligation of contract, in violation of Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and Clause I, Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, because his plea agreement was a contract with the state of Ohio that he would be obligated to register as a sex offender for only ten years.

{¶4} The state’s sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in granting Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition on the basis that his plea agreement constituted a contract that he would have to register as a sex offender for only ten years.

{¶5} Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and Clause I, Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution provide that no laws shall be passed that impair the obligation of contracts. “[A]ny change in the law which impairs the rights of either party, or amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by contract, is repugnant to the Constitution.”[ 1 ] Because plea agreements are contracts between the state and criminal defendants, principles of contract law are applicable to their interpretation and enforcement.[ 2 ]

{¶6} We held in Burbrink v. State[ 3 ] that the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements to a sex offender who had pleaded guilty to a sexually-oriented offense pursuant to a plea bargain under former R.C. Chapter 2950 did not violate the Contract Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, because when the offender entered his plea he had no reasonable expectation that his sex offense would never be made the subject of future legislation and no vested right concerning his registration duties. Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements are remedial, collateral consequences of the underlying criminal sex offense, and they do not affect a plea agreement previously entered between the state and the offender.[ 4 ]

(Once again, ignorant and uninformed judges refuse to find these restrictions and requirements as being the punishment that they clearly are.)

{¶7} We pointed out in Burbrink that, under former R.C. Chapter 2950, an offender who pleaded guilty to a sexually-oriented offense was by operation of law a sexually-oriented offender who had to register annually for ten years. By not requesting a higher sexual-offender classification, the state had fulfilled its part of the plea agreement.[ 5 ] Once the offender had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced, both he and the state had fulfilled their respective parts of the plea agreement, and no action taken after that time could have breached the plea agreement.[ 6 ]

{¶8} In White v. State,[ 7 ] we held, relying on Burbrink, that the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements did not constitute a breach of White’s plea agreement or an impairment of his right to contract where the April 19, 1999, entry withdrawing White’s not-guilty plea and entering his plea of guilty to sexual battery stated that he would be classified as a sexually-oriented offender rather that a sexual predator.

{¶9} We hold in this case that pursuant to Burbrink and White the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements did not violate the Contract Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because it did not impair Nixon’s rights under any contract with the state of Ohio that, under his plea agreement, he would be obligated to register as a sex offender for only ten years. The application of Senate Bill 10’s registration requirements did not constitute a breach of Nixon’s plea agreement or an impairment of his right to contract. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition. The assignment of error is sustained.

{¶10} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for the trial court to enter an order reflecting that Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements are applicable to Nixon as a Tier I sex offender.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Cunningham, P.J., concurs.
MALLORY, JUDGE, concurring in judgment only:

{¶11} I agree that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed in this case, but not for the reasons expressed by the majority. I would reverse the trial court’s judgment on the basis that the record does not contain sufficient evidence that Nixon’s ten-year registration requirement was a term of his plea agreement. The record simply does not support the trial court’s determination that there was an agreement between the state and Nixon as to his sexual-offender classification and registration requirements. Therefore, the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements does not impair any contract between Nixon and the state or violate his constitutional right to contract.

{¶12} There may be a case in which the record demonstrates that the terms of a plea agreement between the state and a sexual offender constituted a valid contract as to the offender’s classification and registration requirements. I do not foreclose the possibility that in such a case the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements may be an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations and a violation of the offender’s right to contract.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Message from One of the Converted

Mar 7

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

From a reader of our blogs:

“There was a time when I did think the streets must be filled with sex predators hiding and waiting to pounce on their next victim. Then I decided to study the FACTS ! I was totally wrong.

It turns out that these lying, gutless, sycophant fops we elect have no respect for the constitution and allow illegal laws to be put on the books for money and public hype. [These are] senseless laws by the uninformed. Their inability to work out all the difficult problems of the laws they create will do to harm the accused and not give them a chance to a new start in life free of crime. They brand these people immediately . They can’t get a job, find a place to live or survive. They have a right to live. “

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AWA/SORNA: Send Your Fax to President Obama

Mar 4

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

Many readers ask what they can do to help in this fight. Here is something you should do, today. With President Obama making news today in his support of the Adam Walsh Act funding ( see post below), we must do the following before the end of this week, if possible:

ConstitutionalFights spoke to a representative at the White House today who expressed interest in our concerns about the Adam Walsh Act and how it violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans. She gave potentially useful instructions on how to communicate effectively to President Obama on this issue.

She said to FAX A ONE PAGE OUTLINE summary sheet to 202-456-2461.
You can email but faxes will be MUCH more effective she said, because they receive millions of emails.

1. At the top of the page, put a clear subject line- re: Adam Walsh Act.

2. List clear concise bullet points, not narrative. She said outline form is much more likely to be read than a narrative story.

Now, I no longer use faxes, but I am sure many of you have access to fax machines. And there are some online alternatives to fax from your computer. So while this may result in a lower number of us sending a fax, if many of us do this, it could be effective (according to the secretary).

You know the bullet points to make: constitutional violations of Ex Post Facto/Retroactivity, Separation of Powers, Breach of Contract, ect, how it damages families and children of offenders, how it imposes life-long registration to many who committed a crime decades ago, ect..

Again, one page, in outline form! To download the sample outline below, download here: http://drop.io/whitehouseSORNA

Sample Outline:

Adam Walsh Act/SORNA : Destroying Families and Failing to Prevent Crime.

AWA/SORNA violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans by:

  • imposing retroactive punishment for crimes committed decades ago
  • breach of contract in plea agreements with states by increasing registration requirements, requiring new lifetime registration for many
  • violating separation of powers provisions by disallowing a court review of individual cases


Correcting Myths:

  • U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders 1994 (latest available): “5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime.”
“An estimated 3.3% of child victimizers 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison”

Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998).

  • Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers”
  • A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire): “The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances”
  • The Crimes Against Children Research Center studies:

a) “various forms of child mistreatment and child victimization declines as much as 40-70% from 1993 through 2004, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault…”
b) ” sexual abuse started to decline in the early 1990’s after at least 15 years of steady increases. From 1990 through 2004 sexual abuse substantiations were down 49%”

  • National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System:

a) “Cases of substantiated sexual abuse have declined approximately 39% nationwide from 1992 to 1999. Despite the dramatic nature of the decline, little discussion of the trend has occurred at either the national or the state level. ”

Legal Challenges:

  • AWA/SORNA has been legally challenged in every county in Ohio and within every state. Many State and Federal Courts have ruled retroactive restrictions as unconstitutional.
  • The Indiana Supreme Court ruled retroactive application of SORNA as unconstitutional - Wallace v. State (2009
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared in U.S. v. Juvenile Male, No. 07-30290 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2009) that part of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional as applied to former juvenile offenders:
  • The Ohio Supreme Court currently has four cases under review to decide retroactive implementation of SORNA.


AWA/SORNA Damages Families:

  • Registries list offenders whose crimes date back decades, and whom have led productive lives since
  • Many of those on the registry were juveniles when the crime was committed
  • Many of those on registry pose little or no threat to re-offend
  • Public registries include home addresses and expose parents and their children to taunting and threats
  • Employment, education and living opportunities are severely limited to families with a registered sex offender
  • Socially stigmatizing Americans for a lifetime creates instability in their lives and actually increases chances of offending


Conclusion: We urge the President to repeal , or completely re-structure The Adam Walsh Act /SORNA to:

  • remove retroactive application
  • allow judicial review of individual cases
  • allow a means to earn a way off the registry
  • maintain registries for law enforcement use only, and not for public perusal


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Outrage Reaches White House

Mar 4

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

ABCNews: Outrage Over Sex Offender Monitoring Reaches White House.

In the wake of John Albert Gardner III being charged today for the killing of Chelsea King, we find that he was already a registered sex offender, which once again shows how ineffective these registries are in preventing crime:

John Walsh, host of “America’s Most Wanted,” said he met with President Obama Wednesday to discuss child protection laws and funding for the Adam Walsh Act, signed three years ago by President Bush.

The law promised to create a national registry of sex offenders and keep closer track of the most violent of them, but it did not come with the funds needed to carry it out.

“President Obama said yesterday, ‘As the father of two girls, John, I will get the Adam Walsh law funded,’” Walsh told “Good Morning America” today.

Walsh, whose 6-year-old son for whom the law is named and who was kidnapped and murdered in 1981, knows firsthand the grief King’s parents are experiencing. ( again let us correct the myth, there was no sexual assault of this boy)
——————————————–
ConstitutionalFights spoke to a live person at the White House who expressed interest in our concerns about the Adam Walsh Act and how it violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans. Granted, these secretaries know nothing about the Act, but she gave potentially useful instructions on how to communicate effectively to President Obama on this issue.

She said to FAX A ONE PAGE OUTLINE summary sheet to 202-456-2461.
You can email but faxes will be MUCH more effective she said, because they receive millions of emails.

1. At the top of the page, put a clear subject line- re: Adam Walsh Act.

2. List clear concise bullet points, not narrative. She said outline form is much more likely to be read than a narrative story.

Now, I no longer use faxes, but I am sure many of you have access to fax machines. So while this may result in a lower number of us sending a fax, if many of us do this, it could be effective (according to the secretary).

You know the bullet points to make: constitutional violations of Ex Post Facto/Retroactivity, Separation of Powers, Breach of Contract, ect, how it damages families and children of offenders, how it imposes life-long registration to many who committed a crime decades ago, ect..

Again, one page, in outline form!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Green Bay Sex Offender Ordinance Takes Toll on City

Mar 2

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

greenbaypressgazette.com: Green Bay sex offender ordinance takes financial toll on city.

Green Bay prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children gather. It’s an expensive ordinance and one that has raised questions about whether it’s worth the cost. The state spends more than $220,000 a year to house convicted sex offenders after they are released from prison at the state’s Transitional Living Program house, according to the Department of Corrections.

It also pays nearly $4,000 a month for each offender housed at the Brown County Jail after prison release who cannot find a place to live. It can become costly — convicted sex offender Geitano Schmidt, 50, stayed at the Brown County Jail for five months before he was approved to move.

Those costs include payments to an agency that drives offenders around to look for housing.

Green Bay’s sex offender residency ordinance prohibits sex offenders from living in nearly 90 percent of the city. The ordinance was approved in 2007 because of concerns that most of Brown County’s listed adult sex offenders lived in Green Bay. An analysis that year by the Green Bay Press-Gazette of the state’s Sex Offender Registry found 65 percent of adult sex offenders in the county lived in Green Bay.

The increased cost hasn’t translated into increased safety for city residents.

Authorities refer about 200 sexual-assault cases to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office, a number that hasn’t changed much since the ordinance passed. However, sex offenders refusing to register with the state has more than doubled since the city ordinance went into effect in 2007, according to the state Department of Corrections.

Authorities referred 41 cases of noncompliance to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office in 2009, according to the state corrections department. That number jumped from only 14 cases in 2007 and is more than the 38 cases referred in 2008.

“It’s a result of the residency restriction because convicted sex offenders can’t find a place to live so they would rather go underground,” said Tom Smith, Corrections sex offender registration specialist.

Noncompliance is a refusal to provide correct information, including an address. Refusing to register is a felony that carries a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison. “They’re giving up,” Smith said. “They want to comply but can no longer comply because of the restrictions that are held over their head.”

Safety zones and loitering ordinances around parks, schools and day cares are some alternatives to the city ordinance, Smith said.

Donna Ysebaert of Green Bay expressed concerns over copycat ordinances by surrounding municipalities and potential overcrowding at the Brown County Jail. She said if people support the ordinance, they can’t complain about taxpayers footing the bill.

Jed Neuman supervises 52 probation and parole agents in Brown County. The sex offender ordinance isn’t necessary, he said, since agents already require similar restrictions regarding housing and contact with minors. “They’ve had to become real estate agents. It really makes our jobs quite difficult,” he said.

Agents have to pick up offenders each morning when they stay at the Brown County Jail to help them look for housing, then drop them off each evening. Agents have reduced their caseloads to remain effective at protecting the public and rehabilitating the offenders, he added.

Gary Hein of Green Bay said the sex offender ordinance prevents people from being able to contribute to society. “They’re forcing them to be criminals because they have to lie about where they’re living,” he said.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MD Legislators Try to Limit Voting Rights of Sex Offenders

Mar 2

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

Baltimoresun.com: Is state wise to treat all sex offenders the same?

I doubt it will be noted anywhere but here — because the bill was withdrawn Monday– but to give you an idea of the extent to which members of the Maryland General Assembly will go to protect “we, the public,” please consider House Bill 656. It would have prohibited convicted sex offenders from going to Maryland schools even to vote on Election Day.

I found this while searching through the dozens of bills that have been filed in Annapolis in this election year, ostensibly to tighten loopholes in the state’s sex offender laws.

HB 656’s sponsors included the following delegates: Impallaria, Boteler, Costa, Dwyer, George, Kach, Krebs, McComas, McDonough, Miller, Schuh, Shewell, Sossi and Stocksdale. (I would use their first names, but I don’t want to embarrass them.)

The bill, indexed under “sex offenses,” would have required “an individual who is a felon to vote only by absentee ballot.” It would have prohibited “a felon from voting at a polling place.” And it would have “limited a provision of law allowing specified registered criminal offenders to enter onto school property for the purpose of voting only to registered offenders who are not felons.”

That last reference - “specified registered criminal offenders” - is a reference to sexual offenders; they’re the ones we keep on an Internet registry that would grow larger, covering offenses that occurred up to 25 years ago, under legislation in the General Assembly this winter.

HB 656 would have protected Maryland schoolchildren even when they aren’t in school, Election Day. The bill got an unfavorable report after first reading and a hearing last month, and it was listed as withdrawn on Monday. So it’s not happening. But still, it provides more evidence of the strikingly transparent effort to score points with voters by exploiting public fears about the men and women among us convicted of sexual offenses. There are already numerous laws on the books restricting them from all kinds of activities - even their own children’s school events - and their names, photographs, addresses and offenses are listed on the state registry for the world to see. And still it’s not enough for the pols in Annapolis, who use the issue to prove their tough-on-crime bonafides.

Within the last week, I’ve received numerous comments from readers about this, and I’m surprised - and delighted -to report that the majority seem to see through the politicizing of this criminal justice issue. They question the effectiveness of the sex offender registries, and that includes some readers who are in law enforcement. There’s good reason for that — the majority of offenses, for instance, are committed by first-time offenders, and first-time offenders aren’t in the registry - but in the current hysteria, that doesn’t even seem to be a question in Annapolis.

Among those who’ve responded to my last two columns on this subject have been people convicted of sexual offenses, or their relatives — a constituency almost never heard from, and for practical reasons; they’re in the state’s sex offender registry and they have no desire to draw any more attention to themselves.

Sunday, I received an e-mail from a 56-year-old offender I’ll call Rick for the sake of this column. He asked not to be identified, saying he was concerned about the effect of further publicity on his teenage children and the reaction of his neighbors in a Baltimore suburb. He told me about his offense — sex with a minor in 2002, and a guilty plea on a third-degree sexual offense — and I checked it out. That has been his only crime, Rick said, and the records support him.

He, like other offenders, has been watching the news out of Annapolis as legislative leaders try to, among other things, expand the Internet registry to include older crimes and those committed by juveniles. Rick thinks that, instead of expanding the registry, the state ought to narrow its focus and concentrate money and resources on the most serious cases that pose the greatest risks to the public.

“Why can’t Maryland use the evaluation skills of professionals already in its employ and assign proper designation of recidivism danger to sex offenders?” Rick wrote in an e-mail.

“I completed all punishment and monitoring without incident. I haven’t had as much as a parking ticket, but due to a terrible decision on my part I am still paying, and will continue to pay, in ways that go far beyond my original sentencing. I completed the ordered sex offender treatment program and avoid any situation where I can be perceived as putting someone in danger.

“I cannot go to the park with my teenage children. I can’t join my local Y. I can’t go to my children’s school without getting written permission. I am on the registry for life, and now the politicos of our state are piling it on.

“We are not all monsters. Many are in loving relationships. Many have served their sentences, are honestly remorseful, have repented, and are trying to desperately move on with their lives and be productive citizens. All sex offenders are not serial offenders. They are not all predators.”

But right now we don’t seem to make much distinction and, if the registry expands, to comply with federal law, it seems reasonable to assume that money and resources will go into that effort rather than into performing the psychological triage to identify the real threats and make a real difference in public safety.

Since the Maryland Legislature removed this bill from their web site, we post here an image capture of the bill. Click on thumbnail image to view enlarged image.


Bill Synopsis:

Requiring an applicant for voter registration to specify whether the applicant is a felon; requiring that specified information concerning voting by felons be provided to an applicant for voter registration; requiring an individual who is a felon to vote only by absentee ballot; prohibiting a felon from voting at a polling place; and limiting a provision of law allowing specified registered criminal offenders to enter onto school property for the purpose of voting only to registered offenders who are not felons.

  • Sponsored by:
  • Delegate Rick Impallaria, District 7
  • Delegate Joseph C. Boteler, III, District 8
  • Delegate Robert A. Costa, District 33B
  • Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr., District 31
  • Delegate Ron George, District 30
  • Delegate Wade Kach, District 5B
  • Delegate Susan W. Krebs, District 9B
  • Delegate Susan K. McComas, District 35B
  • Delegate Pat McDonough, District 7
  • Delegate Warren E. Miller, District 9A
  • Delegate Steven R. Schuh, District 31
  • Delegate Tanya T. Shewell, District 5A
  • Delegate Richard A. Sossi, District 36
  • Delegate Nancy R. Stocksdale, District 5A

    • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Letters: Sex Offender Registration

    Mar 2

    Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

    Argusleader.com (SD): Letters: Sex Offender Registration.

    “I have been fighting the irrationality of sex offender registration in South Dakota for 14 years, and because state legislators don’t have the guts to do any deep down changes, I will have to fight the insanity until I’m not able to fight it anymore.

    For years I have asked for proof that registration prevents crime and have gotten none. I wrote to all but one of the state Judiciary Committee members. That makes 19. I testified over the phone this summer to the panel that studied this issue, and I’ll tell you that 99 percent of those who spoke to the panel testified for radical change. What we are going to get is next to nothing.

    Government is unresponsive to people. Maybe people have that figured out, and that’s why they don’t even bother getting involved in the process. I don’t blame them, but as for me, I’m addicted to fairness. I abhor double standards. I despise selective enforcement and arrogance.

    How logical is it to be on the sex offender registry for 15 years with no repeat offense and told you never can get off? How logical is it for us to give drunks second to infinity chances to go out and kill? It is absolute craziness to me.

    If you’ve been on the registry for 10 years with no repeat offenses, you should get a second chance. Period.

    The Constitution says nothing about categorizing one offense as worse than another.

    Deep down in my gut I know that my child’s chance of being killed by a drunk driver is a lot higher than her being abducted or molested.”

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    WI Bill to Override Local Sex Offender Restrictions

    Mar 1

    Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

    wtaq.com: Bill Aims To Create Statewide Sex Offender Residency Laws.
    greenbaypressgazette.com: Wisconsin bill may override local sex-offender residency rules.

    A new bill in the Legislature would create statewide limits on where sex offenders can live, and override more restrictive local laws like those in Green Bay. The city adopted strict residency rules in 2007. And that drove sex offenders out to the suburbs, where a few passed their own laws and most called for uniform state limits. De Pere will consider residency restrictions Tuesday.

    Assembly Republican Phil Montgomery of Ashwaubenon says there should be uniformity statewide – and it must spell out places where sex offenders can live. The vast majority of Green Bay is off limits to those offenders – and Common Council president Chris Wery defended its law, saying the city still has than its share of offenders. A statewide policy was proposed a few years ago, but it never got anywhere.

    State corrections’ officials generally oppose residency restrictions, saying they drive sex offenders underground just so they can find a place to live. The department’s Tom Smith say they’ve found offenders at homes in Green Bay while using De Pere addresses. And if they’re not using fake addresses, Smith says many don’t register with the state at all – which sex offenders are required to do by law.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,