I was shocked at the disregard and outright rudeness shown to members of our group as we stood before the (Maryland ) Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 16 to oppose many bills (especially HB936/SB854 and HB736/SB434) aimed at sex offenders, with no real consideration for the lives of the vast majority of victims, and certainly none for the vast majority of nonviolent, low-risk offenders.

Members of the committee pointedly got up and walked out when we spoke. They made disparaging remarks and spouted hearsay as if it were evidence. We citizens, as well as many well-spoken professionals, presented the committee with solid facts and dire warnings about what has happened in other states with similar laws. We stressed that all of us agree that dangerous, repeat offenders (aka predators) should be locked up for life. But fewer than 3 percent of all offenders fit this category! These laws would indiscriminately scoop up children sending “dirty” pictures to each other, consensual lovers who are too far apart in age, flashers, child porn possessors (yep, even accidental,) and guys with vindictive ex-wives.

We presented the same facts in the House Judiciary Committee on February 23. Fewer Delegates were openly rude — but they weren’t listening, either. The amended bills they have passed are actually worse than the originals!

Both committees heard over and over again how public registration has failed to prevent a single predatory offense in any state using it. How the common mis-perceptions that “sex offenders” are incurable, guaranteed to re-offend, and always getting worse, are totally not backed up by any reliable research that has been done in the past 20 years. How people who committed an offense several decades ago, and have been law-abiding, productive citizens ever since, will find themselves placed on this public registry.

I can promise you, delegates and senators, that the whole state of Maryland will regret the day you vote these bills into law. Our children will continue to be raped and molested (mostly within their own homes, by people who have never been on the public registry), our citizens will continue to live their lives in fear (because they erroneously think they are surrounded by predators), and our state will discover, to its eternal shame, the incredible toll in human lives these bills will ultimately take.

You will see, to your regret, that we were right about the astronomical budget it will take to implement — and defend — these totally ineffective laws. The thousands of formerly law-abiding, free citizens who suddenly find their lives completely destroyed by a public registry are going to sue you for damages and fight until their cases reach the highest courts and these laws are struck down. They are heinous, unconstitutional, and protect no one.

Senators, delegates, we have made every attempt to appeal to reason. There will be absolutely no joy in saying “We told you so!” Instead, we will be weeping beside you.

Brenda Jones
Coordinator of Families Advocating for Intelligent Registries.

Hartford, Conn.- The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering whether officials can keep private the process by which certain sex offenders get onto a non-public registry. The dispute concerns Connecticut’s “restricted” sex offender registry, available only to police and courts.

By law, sex offenders can get on the restricted list if a judge decides they are not dangerous to the public and naming them would identify their victim. The Freedom of Information Commission and Department of Public Safety disagree over whether police must disclose when, where and by whom those court decisions were made.

Justices heard arguments Thursday from attorneys for both state agencies. A reporter for the Journal Inquirer newspaper of Manchester, which first sought the information, also spoke.

The Supreme Court has not said when it expects to rule.

The Ohio Supreme Court has delivered a setback to efforts by state lawmakers to apply the tough new sex offender notification requirements laid out in the federal Adam Walsh Act. Lawmakers had intended for communities to be notified every time a sex offender in the most severe category began living, working or going to school in their neighborhoods. But the high court found that the state law’s language conflicts with that intention.

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the court ruled that sex offenders classified in the most dangerous category after the law took effect Jan. 1, 2008, can still avoid the new community reporting requirements under exceptions similar to those in Ohio’s old law.

The ruling leaves it up to a trial court’s discretion whether a newly classified sex offender’s whereabouts will be provided to neighbors, schools and certain volunteer organizations and businesses as provided by the new law, he said.

“The way the state of Ohio was arguing, it was that if you’re a Tier III sex offender you’re automatically having community notification; there’s no discretion whatsoever,” Prusak said. “But it’s not like they just left out a word or so. The way the entire statute is written, it’s giving the trial court that discretion.”

Sen. Tim Grendell, chairman of the Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice, said Thursday he’ll introduce a bill to fix the offending language.

We must all contact Senator Grendell immediately to stop him from drafting a new law which will impose community notification on all offenders.
Senate Building
1 Capitol Square, Ground Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us

Sample letter:

“After today’s Ohio Supreme Court ruling, it would seem reasonable that Ohio lawmakers would understand that this “piling on” of sex offender laws does have its limits.

Four consolidated cases involving Senate Bill 10 are still under review by the Ohio Supreme Court, which challenge its constitutionality.

We urge you NOT to pursue yet another bill regarding Senate Bill 10, which will increase restrictions and constraints on sex offenders in this state.

Stop the piling-on of sex offender laws in this state!”

This posting is to clarify exactly what RC 2590.11 says as it relates to our previous report.
See previous post: Ohio Supreme Court – Ohio vs. McConville – Case No. 2009-0893 – 3/18/2010Case Summary

2590.11 (B)(2) :

(B) The notice required under division (A) of this section shall include all of the following information regarding the subject offender or delinquent child:

(1) The offender’s or delinquent child’s name;
(2) The address or addresses of the offender’s or public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrant’s residence, school, institution of higher education, or place of employment, as applicable, or the residence address or addresses of a delinquent child who is not a public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrant;

2590.11 (F)(2) :

(F)(2) The notification provisions of this section do not apply to a person described in division (F)(1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section if a court finds at a hearing after considering the factors described in this division that the person would not be subject to the notification provisions of this section that were in the version of this section that existed immediately prior to the effective date of this amendment. In making the determination of whether a person would have been subject to the notification provisions under prior law as described in this division, the court shall consider the following factors:
(a) The offender’s or delinquent child’s age;
(b) The offender’s or delinquent child’s prior criminal or delinquency record regarding all offenses, including, but not limited to, all sexual offenses;
(c) The age of the victim of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed or the order of disposition is to be made;
(d) Whether the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed or the order of disposition is to be made involved multiple victims;
(e) Whether the offender or delinquent child used drugs or alcohol to impair the victim of the sexually oriented offense or to prevent the victim from resisting;

The reporting on this case has been horrendous and inaccurate. This is not one of the challenges we have been following since November 2009 regarding retro-activity ex post fact, separation of powers, which should be decided soon. This is an important decision nonetheless. Although this a “slip” opinion (an initial notice which is subject to revision), it appears that this ruling relates only to community notification of those who were informed of their sex offender status after January 1, 2008.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that an exception to the community notification requirement for Tier III sex offenders set forth in current R.C. 2950.11(B)(2) applies to offenders who were first notified of their classification after Am Sub. S.B. 10 took effect on Jan. 1, 2008. In other words, even if you were reclassified after January 1, 2008, you are still permitted the exception to community notification. Community notification is the process of informing schools, neighbors, and daycare centers about the presence of a sex offender living in the area.

daytondailynews.com: Court: New sex offenders may avoid registry rules (misleading headline)
chillicothegazette.com:Court: New sex offenders may avert notification
WBNS: Ohio Supreme Court Rules New Sex Offenders May Avoid Registry (false headline)

The Ohio Supreme Court has delivered a major setback to efforts by state lawmakers to apply the tough new sex offender notification requirements laid out in the federal Adam Walsh Act.

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the high court ruled sex offenders notified of their status in the most severe category after Jan. 1, 2008, may avoid the new community reporting requirements under exceptions found in Ohio’s old law. That means word of newly registered sex offenders in the most egregious category may not be disseminated to all the volunteer groups, schools and businesses Ohio’s rewrite of the law intended.

In the majority opinion, Justice Robert Cupp agreed with lower courts that the wording of the law was clear in allowing the exceptions to continue to apply.

—————————————————————

The case involved Stephen McConville, who pleaded guilty in Lorain County in July 2008 to rape and gross sexual imposition. After a hearing, a trial court decided he was unlikely to commit future sexually oriented offenses and could therefore be exempted from ongoing community notification requirements.

The 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that McConville was eligible for the exemption even though he’d been classified as a Tier III sex offender after Jan. 1, 2008.

In the Ohio high court’s majority opinion, Justice Robert Cupp agreed with lower courts that the wording of the law was clear in allowing the exceptions to community reporting to continue to apply.

A legislative analysis of the Senate bill that contained the change advised lawmakers at the time that it “automatically replaces the period of time for which the offender or delinquent child had a duty “to register” (this is an inaccurate term - it should read “to be subject to notification”) prior to January 1, 2008.”

—————————————————–
Excerpts from Slip Opinion:
“We are asked to decide whether the community-notification
provisions of R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) apply to defendants who are notified of their
sexual-offender status after the effective date of the amendment of that section by
2007 Senate Bill 10, or whether R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) applies only to sexual
offenders whose status was determined under the legislation in effect prior to that
effective date. Because we conclude that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) applies to
defendants who are notified of their sexual-offender status after the January 1,
2008, effective date of the amendment of that section by Senate Bill 10, we affirm
the judgment of the court of appeals.

Based on the foregoing, we hold that the community-notification
provisions of R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) apply to defendants who are notified of their
sexual-offender status after January 1, 2008, the effective date of the amendment
of that section by Senate Bill 10.”

Case Summary:

“Effective Jan. 1, 2008, the General Assembly amended Ohio’s former sex offender classification scheme by adopting a new set of classifications based solely on the crime for which an offender was convicted. In the legislation adopting the new classification scheme, Am Sub. S.B. 10, the General Assembly included general provisions requiring that adults convicted of Tier III sex offenses and certain child sex offenders must register every 90 days for life with the sheriff in any county where the offender lives, works or attends school. The statute also requires sheriffs to provide notification including the residence and work addresses and a photo of the offender to specified parties in the surrounding community, including neighbors and nearby schools, day care centers, and victims of past sex crimes.

The legislation also included a provision, R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), stating that the community notification requirement for Tier III offenders “does not apply” to an offender if a court finds at a hearing, after considering 11 specific criteria set forth in that section, “that the person would not be subject to the notification provisions of this section that were in the version of this section that existed immediately prior to the effective date of this amendment.”

In this case, Stephen McConville pleaded guilty in July 2008 to rape and gross sexual imposition. At sentencing, McConville was notified that he would be classified as a Tier III sexual offender under the classification system established by S.B. 10. The trial court advised McConville of his registration and reporting duties pertaining to the Tier III classification. The court then conducted a second hearing for further review of the community-notification requirement. After considering the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), the trial court determined that McConville was “unlikely to commit a sexually oriented offense in the future, and that suspending the community notification requirements of R.C. 2950.11(F)(1) [was] in the interest of justice.”

The state appealed, arguing that the exception to community notification set forth in R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) was intended to apply only to persons who had been classified under the pre-2008 sex offender statute in a category that did not require community notification, but who were subsequently reclassified as Tier III offenders under the provisions of S.B. 10. The 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s holding that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) was applicable to offenders like McConville who were notified of their classification after Jan. 1, 2008. The state sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 9th District’s decision.

In today’s unanimous decision, Justice Cupp wrote: “R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) provides: ‘The notification provisions of this section do not apply to a person described in division (F)(1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section if a court finds at a hearing after considering the factors described in this division that the person would not be subject to the notification provisions of this section that were in the version of this section that existed immediately prior to the effective date of this amendment.’ The remainder of the statute details the 11 factors the trial court must consider to determine whether the sexual offender would have been subject to community notification under prior law. … This appeal presents a matter of statutory interpretation. As a general rule, the words and phrases of a statute will be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. … Moreover, there is no need for this court to apply the rules of statutory interpretation when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning.”

“The state’s argument is that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) gives the trial court the discretion to suspend the community-notification requirement in consideration of the statute’s limiting factors only when the sexual offender’s status was previously determined under the law in effect prior to Senate Bill 10. … We find that the language of R.C. 2950.11(F) is unambiguous. Accordingly, we do not find the state’s argument persuasive. The language used in the statue pertains to those sexual offenders whose status is determined after the effective date of R.C. 2950.11 as amended by Senate Bill 10. The provision is written in the present tense, referring to a ‘hearing’ at which a judge ‘finds’ certain facts. The 11 factors of R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) are similarly written in the present tense, indicating an evaluation presently taking place, and not one that has already occurred. In contrast to the state’s position, the language of the statue does not indicate that it applies only to those sexual offenders whose status had been previously determined under the provisions of former R.C. Chapter 2950. As a result, we decline to interpret the statute when no interpretation is required.”

Albany, GA - Under a new bill that has cleared the Georgia House, some low risk sex offenders would be able to get off the state’s registry.

The legislation would let certain inmates petition the courts to remove them from the state sex offender registry after completing their sentences, like the disabled, and so-called Romeo and Juliet statutory rape cases, in which the teens are close in age.

“As a person charged with statutory rape, instead of having to wait for the ten years that the law says they have to wait to have removal from the list, they can now petition the courts earlier,” said Dougherty County Sheriff Kevin Sproul.

“The Judge will make the final decision, but it will give them some guidelines to make the decision,” said Dougherty District Attorney Greg Edwards.

The legislation was introduced last year, and also makes other changes to bring Georgia’s tough sex offender law in line with court rulings. The vote was 165 to 1 passing the bill

Georgia House Bill 571 Excerpts :

Section6:

“Said article is further amended by revising subsection (g) of Code Section 42-1-12, relating to the State Sexual Offender Registry, as follows:

Section 9:
“(b)(1) If the board determines that a sexual offender should be classified as a Level II risk assessment classification or as a sexually dangerous predator, the sexual offender may petition the board to reevaluate his or her classification. To file a petition for reevaluation, the sexual offender shall be required to submit his or her written petition for reevaluation to the board within 30 days from the date of the letter notifying the sexual offender of his or her classification. The sexual offender shall have 60 days from the date of the notification letter to submit information as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section in support of the sexual offender’s petition for reevaluation. If the sexual offender fails to submit the petition or supporting documents within the time limits provided, the classification shall be final. The board shall notify the sexual offender by first-class mail of its decision on the petition for reevaluation of risk assessment classification and shall send a copy of such notification to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Corrections, the sheriff of the county where the sexual offender is registered, and the sentencing court, if applicable.”

“(c) A sexual offender who is classified by the board as a Level II risk assessment classification or as a sexually dangerous predator may file a petition for judicial review of his or her classification within 30 days of the date of the notification letter or, if the sexual offender has requested reevaluation pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section, within 30 days of the date of the letter denying the petition for reevaluation. The petition for judicial review shall name the board as defendant, and the petition shall be filed in the superior court of the county where the offices of the board are located. Within 30 days after service of the appeal on the board, the board shall submit a summary of its findings to the court and mail a copy, by first-class mail, to the sexual offender. The findings of the board shall be considered prima-facie evidence of the classification. The court shall also consider any relevant evidence submitted, and such evidence and documentation shall be mailed to the parties as well as submitted to the court. The court may hold a hearing to determine the issue of classification. The court may uphold the classification of the board, or, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual offender is not placed in the appropriate classification level, the court shall place the sexual offender in the appropriate risk assessment classification. The court’s determination shall be forwarded by the clerk of the court to the board, the sexual offender, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the sheriff of the county where the sexual offender is registered.”

Section 11:
“(b)(1) A petition for release pursuant to this Code section shall be filed in the superior court of the jurisdiction in which the individual was convicted; provided, however, that if the individual was not convicted in this state, such petition shall be filed in the superior court of the county where the individual resides.

A NOTE FROM A PUBLIC DEFENDER ABOUT SEX CRIMES & KIDS

“Dear Free-Range Kids: I work as a public defender and will attest that the vast majority of sex offenders do not have a record (at least of sex offenses). Out of the 100+ serious sex offenses my office has handled during the last 5 years, only 3 have involved defendants already convicted of a sex offense in the past. Meaning that (a) sex offenders are not being re-convicted in large numbers, and (b) most sex offenses are committed by people who are not on any registry.

And this lack of recidivism has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of access due to registries. The average child molester is a master manipulator. He will be able to convince people that this was all a big mistake and get access to children without much trouble. And anyone who is going to abduct, rape and kill a child is going to be completely undeterred by a registry. It’s more likely a result of the fact that most on the registry are there for consensual sex with a slightly under-aged person (too underage and it becomes molestation regardless) and they are unlikely to re-offend. You also mix in people who commit sex crimes against adults who aren’t a threat to children – rape of an adult and rape of a child are VERY different and you almost never see a crossover. This leaves you with a very small number of registered sex offenders who are likely to re-offend, or likely to commit a crime against a child.

Sex registries have the dual effect of improperly stigmatizing people and lulling people into a false sense of security. Sure, dad can check out mom’s new boyfriend. But his being on a registry or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever as to whether he poses a threat to a child. He could be a molester who has never been caught. He could be a public urination case that ended up on a registry. It seems as if the better choice would be to forget the registry all together and teach our children to protect themselves and keep the lines of communication open about sex so that they believe that they can come to us should something uncomfortable occur. — A Public Servant”

The Illinois case is Rosin v. Monken, an 8-page opinion where Judge Cudahy writes:

After he was required to register as a sex offender in Illinois, Mitchell Rosin brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants failed to give full faith and credit to the March 27, 2003 judgment of a New York court. In that order, the court accepted a plea agreement that did not require Rosin to register as a sex offender in New York. He contends that Illinois is constitutionally required to give effect to the New York judgment and thus cannot, on the basis of that order, force him to register as a sex offender within its jurisdiction. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the registration requirement in the New York order was merely stricken, which left the order silent on the subject. Since the plea agreement did not purport to prevent any state other than New York from registering Rosin as a sex offender, and because any such provision would have been ineffective even if it had been included, we affirm.

Sexual offenders would be banned from visiting or loitering near Illinois public parks, including state parks, under the provisions of legislation sponsored by state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, that is advancing through the Illinois General Assembly.

“Unfortunately, parks can be hard to patrol, making it hard to deter crime in these areas,” Dillard said. “However, hopefully by prohibiting sexual offenders from hanging around public parks, we reduce the number of people who are loitering in a potentially secluded environment where law enforcement officials aren’t likely to be.”

Child sex offenders are already prohibited from being in or loitering within 500 feet of a public park when children are present. Under Senate Bill 2824, convicted sexual predators and child sex offenders would be forbidden from being in or loitering within 500 feet of a public park.

Having been unanimously approved by the Illinois Senate, Senate Bill 2824 is now in the Illinois House for consideration.

Can you imagine how foolishly impossible it is to enforce such laws? Unless there is a well-known and recognized offender seen by a terrified neighbor, police would never be able to identify and enforce this ban in any park. This is not to mention the clear constitutional violations involved with banning citizens from public places, nor the statistical fact that over 90% of sex offenses against minors are committed by family or acquaintances of the victim

Synopsis As Introduced:
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is a Class 4 felony for any sex offender (rather than just a child sex offender) to knowingly be present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park or to knowingly loiter on a public way within 500 feet of a public park building or real property comprising any public park.

Senate Sponsors:
Sen. Pamela J. Althoff - Iris Y. Martinez - Emil Jones, III, Antonio Muñoz, A. J. Wilhelmi, Toi W. Hutchinson, Kirk W. Dillard and Martin A. Sandoval

House Sponsors:
(Rep. Jack D. Franks )