Advertise your website below and on the left of our blog today

  • Is that a Sexual Predator hiding behind that badge? (08/16/2013)
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label SORNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SORNA. Show all posts

Thursday, May 9, 2013

MA - Foxborough Selectman Implores Judiciary Committee to Approve Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act

James DeVellis
Original Article

05/09/2013

By Jeremie Smith

Foxborough selectman James DeVellis testified Tuesday at the State House to offer his perspective - as the town’s elected official – of the merits for Massachusetts to enact the Adam Walsh Act (Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act).

Foxborough selectman James DeVellis was in Boston Tuesday testifying before the Judiciary Committee at the State House on behalf of the town and the victims of the [name withheld] sex abuse case to implore the state to enact the Adam Walsh Act (Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act).

I informed the Judiciary Committee of the [name withheld] issue that we are dealing with [in Foxborough] and the three questions that I was asked by [name withheld] victims,” DeVellis said.

DeVellis said the first two questions victims asked him were “how can a member of our community molest and rape probably hundreds of kids over decades without notice or action?” and “how do these victims come to the authorities years ago and be told either [statute of limitations] has expired or [name withheld] is in Florida now and out of jurisdiction?

We later came to find out [name withheld] continued on [in Florida] where he left off in Foxborough and as a teacher in Florida was caught doing it there with very little notification back and forth,” DeVellis said. “Both these questions Foxborough is struggling with but it is in the past and I am not looking for answers from the Judiciary Committee on these two questions.”

What DeVellis is looking for is the answer to the victims’ third question to the town, “What [are Foxborough officials] going to do to help assure this can never go undetected again in our town?

DeVellis hopes the answer includes the Commonwealth enacting the Adam Walsh Act.

I implored the Judiciary Committee to approve the Adam Walsh Act so our police, teachers, selectmen and parents have the tools to protect our kids in the most efficient way possible with the help of reporting and labeling sex offenders,” DeVellis said.

DeVellis explains Adam Walsh was a young boy abducted at a Florida shopping mall and later found murdered.
- And it was never proven he was sexually abused or that an ex-sex offender did the crime either.

In summary, the Act, which is also referred to as SORNA (Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act) allows states to categorize, track, notify and in the end protect our children at a higher level throughout the country,” DeVellis said. “Many states have enacted this but Massachusetts has not.”

See Also:



Thursday, April 25, 2013

NM - State sex offender act modified

Original Article

04/25/2013

By Laura London

Lawmakers amended the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act during the Legislature’s 2013 session, closing some loopholes and clarifying issues.

HB 570 (PDF): Sex Offender Tiers, Registration & Information, effective July 1, was discussed at the New Mexico Association of Counties legislative update April 10 at the Socorro County Annex.

HB 570 makes many changes to SORNA, including redefining “out-of-state registrant” to mean anybody who establishes a residence in New Mexico while required to register as a sex offender in another state, according to the summary of the bill included with its fiscal impact report, which is posted on the Legislature’s website.

District 15 Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto said the bill cleans up some legal equivalency issues regarding out-of-state sex offenders who move to New Mexico. He explained New Mexico has certain specified crimes that will get a person on the sex offender registry, as do all other states. However, if another state’s specified crime doesn’t really have an equivalent under New Mexico law, an offender listed on that state’s registry may not have to register in New Mexico.

Ivey-Soto said HB 570 was partly inspired by the case of [name withheld], who had to register as a sex offender in California but not in New Mexico.

According to the New Mexico Supreme Court opinion filed in [name withheld]'s case in December 2012, [name withheld] had been convicted on a misdemeanor statute in California for “annoying or molesting” minors due to his inappropriate touching of several boys, and he had to register as a sex offender. [name withheld] then moved to New Mexico in 2006, and in 2008 was charged with failure to register as a sex offender in Las Cruces.

The district court in Las Cruces denied [name withheld]'s motion to dismiss the charge, according to background information included with the Supreme Court opinion, but the state Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the California “annoying or molesting” statute was not equivalent to New Mexico’s criminal sexual contact of a minor law under SORNA; therefore, [name withheld] was not required to register upon moving to New Mexico.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in December and sent the case back to district court, stating in its opinion there was not enough record of [name withheld]'s actual conduct to determine whether it would have been considered a registrable offense in New Mexico.

And so, we dealt with some of the equivalency issues,” Ivey-Soto said. “We also dealt with the time frame for having to register if you move here from another state.”

Ivey-Soto said the bill requires offenders to register for the same amount of time as required in their old state, or for as long as they would have to register had they been convicted in New Mexico — whichever time period is longer.

And part of this, of course — all the states are competing so that no one is a haven for sex offenders,” Ivey-Soto said. “So part of it is we want to put as many disincentives as possible.”

For offenders moving to different addresses within New Mexico, Ivey-Soto said the law tightens up the period of time they have to update their registration with law enforcement. They previously had 10 days to update any changes in their information with the local sheriff’s department; now they have five days.

Ivey-Soto said the bill also expands the list of information law enforcement has to collect from sex offenders, as well as standardizes the list so all sheriff’s departments collect the same information. He said that previously different sheriff’s departments were collecting different details according to what each considered relevant.

HB 570′s fiscal impact report states sex offenders must provide the sheriff’s department not only a current address, but the physical and mailing address, as well as the address of every place where the offender habitually lives; the names, email addresses, monikers or other self-identifiers the offender uses on social networking sites; telephone numbers; professional licenses; license plates or other identifiers, plus descriptions of any vehicle owned or primarily operated by the offender, including aircraft and watercraft; name and address of any school or institution of higher education the offender attends; and copies of the offender’s passport and immigration documents.

Ivey-Soto said the bill also clarifies that a sex offender’s place of business — if the business has contact with children — must be posted along with the offender’s other information on the state’s sex offender registry website.

Ivey-Soto said the law should save money for the state, as well as time for sheriff’s departments, since it directs the state Department of Public Safety to send a first-class letter to each sex offender’s last known address two weeks prior to their reporting deadline. He said this will hopefully increase compliance by reminding offenders of their reporting deadline.

The other thing it will do, if you move — guess what — the letter gets returned,” Ivey-Soto said. “And that’s a whole lot cheaper than sending a squad out to knock on everybody’s door … and we can identify a lot quicker who may have absconded.”


Monday, April 22, 2013

OH - Ohio Public Defender’s Office says sex offender registry doesn’t improve public safety

Original Article

04/12/2013

Ohio will begin tracking arsonists this summer through a new registry similar to the one used to track sex offenders.

A law passed last year by the General Assembly will require people convicted of arson-related offenses to register at their local sheriff's office each year for at least 10 years. Failing to register will be a felony.

Supporters tout the measure as a tool for law enforcement. Critics argue, among other points, that the registry will be a burden for sheriffs already charged with keeping the sex-offender registry.

"The sex-offender registry has been around for a long time, and the research that's out there says that it has no positive impact on the public safety," Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Defender's Office, told The Plain Dealer. "And, if anything, it might have a negative impact on public safety because it creates this administrative burden."

The registry has been around for almost 20 years and has been public for more than 15. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, required convicted sex offenders to record their address with local law enforcement. Megan’s Law, added in 1996, allowed the information to be given directly to the public. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), passed in 2006, set registration standards that widened the reach of registration for the entire nation.

PolitiFact Ohio knew the subject could be an emotional one. We asked Borror how the claim is supported that the registry does not improve public safety.

She referred us first to the website of the Public Defender's Office, which links to a number of reports, and to a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, from May 2010, which was dedicated to sex offender issues.

Criminal Justice and Behavior published 10 academic studies related to sex offenses, focusing on the question of whether public policies concerning sex offenders enhance the safety of children and communities.

The journal found that the subject is consistently one of the leading policy issues on legislative agendas. It concluded, however, that "sex offender policies are often inconsistent with empirical evidence about sex offender risks, recidivism, reintegration and supervision...."

"Legislators cite the news media and the views of their constituents -- not research evidence -- as their primary sources of information about sex offenses and offenders," the journal said.

One of the published studies, by criminologists with the University of Massachusetts, Lynn University and the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, focused on Ohio and Oklahoma, two of the first states to meet federal guidelines set by SORNA. Those guidelines classify offenders into one of three categories determined by solely by convicted offense. (Previously, judges determined what risk offenders posed and assigned them to one of three registration categories.)

Drawing on data from more than 28,000 cases in Ohio and from other research, the study’s conclusions "shed doubt on the public safety utility of the SORNA classification system." It found that a disproportionate number of offenders were classified as high risk, placing greater burdens, perhaps unnecessarily, on law enforcement personnel and budgets.

"From a public safety perspective," the study found, the SORNA classification guidelines hurt the ability of the system "to effectively discriminate between those who pose a substantial risk to society and those who pose minimal risk," and also contradict evidence about the risk of repeat offenses for both adult sex offenders and juveniles.

Another report, from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, studied sexual offenders who were jailed for failing to register with local law enforcement agencies. It found that the failure to register was not a predictor of repeated crime, other than future failure to register.

An analysis of adult arrest data from 1990 to 2005 in South Carolina found that sex offender registration laws did have a deterrent effect on first-time adult offenders, but no effect on juveniles and no effect on recidivism.

Borror also pointed us to a 2009 study from the state of New York’s Office of Mental Health that specifically compares a risk-based classification system (which Ohio used to have) to the offense-based registration system, which Ohio has now.

It concluded that the current system "falls short of increasing public safety," citing five earlier studies that found registration and notification laws were "ineffective methods of reducing sexual victimizations."

It also noted there is evidence that such laws actually lead to more criminal behavior by aggravating the factors linked to it -- an unintended consequence of reducing or denying employment, educational, social and housing opportunities.

"Although well intended, such laws have done little (if anything) to increase public safety and may in fact be lowering it," the study said.

(A 2007 report by the non-government organization Human Rights Watch detailed the harassment of registered offenders because of online community notification.)

We looked further and found a 2008 report (PDF) funded by the U.S. Justice Department examining the original Megan's Law in New Jersey.

"Despite widespread community support for these laws," it said, "there is virtually no evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing either new first-time sex offenses (through protective measures or general deterrence) or sex re-offenses (through protective measures and specific deterrence)."

"Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable," it said.

Another study (PDF), by J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan Law School and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia Business School and the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined data from 15 states over more than 10 years.

They found that registering sex offenders does reduce sex crime, especially among victims with a personal connection to offenders, most likely because of better police monitoring. They also found, however, that making the registry information available to the public has the opposite effect and increases crime.

"There is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers," the study said. "We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results suggest that community notification deters first-time sex offenders, but may increase recidivism by registered offenders by increasing the relative attractiveness of criminal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists showing that notification may contribute to recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and, as a result, making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive."

"We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is the reduction of recidivism," the authors concluded.

The federal Government Accountability Office evaluated the effects of SORNA in a report issued earlier this year.

The GAO noted that law’s purpose is to protect the public from sex offenders, but found "analysis of the act’s effect on public safety has been limited."

Positive effects included "improved monitoring of registered sex offenders" and better information sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Negative consequences found by the GAO included a lack of consideration of the risk of repeating sexual offenses in classifying offenders; a disproportionate increase in the workload of law enforcement agencies, and increased problems for registered sex offenders to find work or housing.

What conclusion can we draw about Borror’s statement for the Ohio Public Defender’s Office, that research shows the sex offender registry has no positive impact?

We found that research has been done generally on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws.

We found that studies indicate the laws have no clear effect on recidivism, or repeat offenses, which is their intended target, and are ineffective in assessing and managing risk.

Although there is some indication that registration and community notification may deter first-time adult offenders, the studies find that the deterrence doesn’t extend to juveniles -- and that community notification likely increases repeat sex crimes and other crimes.

With that information needed for clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.


Monday, April 1, 2013

MO - Public Safety or Endless Punishment? Should sex offenders be listed on a public registry for life?

Original Article

04/01/2013

By Virginia Young

[name withheld] fears he will forever occupy a shameful sliver of cyberspace known as the sex offender registry.

Type in his name in the state’s search engine, and you can see where he lives and works, the cars he drives, along with the crime he committed more than a decade ago: Possession of child pornography — then a misdemeanor.

The registry, [name withheld] said, has cost him jobs, prompted neighbors to distribute fliers about him, and led to his arrest on a trespassing charge last fall when dropping his teenage son off at school.

At 25, my life basically was over,” said [name withheld], now 36.

[name withheld], however, sees hope in proposed changes to the registry that legislators are debating in Jefferson City.

A diverse smattering of groups — from law enforcement officials to victims advocates — have argued that the current registry, which requires most offenders to register for life, is too much of a blunt instrument.

They’re all lumped into one category and they all get a life sentence,” said Rep. Don Phillips, R-Kimberling City.

Phillips, a retired highway patrolman, is sponsoring a bill that would keep minor offenses off the registry and allow nearly a third of the roughly 14,000 people on the registry to petition for removal from the list within the next 20 years.

A more far-reaching proposal, sponsored by Rep. Dave Hinson, R-St. Clair, would give all offenders on the list a chance to petition for removal from the list eventually. How long they have to wait would be determined by individual “risk assessment reports” done by mental health professionals.

Both bills have made it out of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, leaving Republican legislative leaders to decide which bill to present to the full House.

Some lawmakers have qualms about loosening requirements for the registry. Rep. Kenneth Wilson, R-Smithville, and a former police chief, said he “spent a career defending the public, and I think we’ve absolutely ignored a segment of our public, that being the victim.”

The proposals come at time when states across the nation are taking hard looks at their registries.

Most are moving toward more stringent requirements to comply with federal guidelines, said Wayne Logan, a professor at Florida State University’s law school.

There is a lot of flux right now,” said Logan, author of the book, “Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America.”

Logan said research into the effectiveness of public registries is limited, and offers mixed results.

One recent study showed that while registries can serve as a deterrent, Logan said, they can also promote recidivism by making life too difficult.

They can never get out from that shadow,” he said.

Eleven years ago, [name withheld], a former Marine, had gotten in the habit of downloading large files of heavy metal music at work from the then popular file-sharing service called Morpheus.

But one day, a human resources officer at his company summoned him to a conference room where two detectives were waiting.

He was informed that images of children in sexual acts had been found on his computer. [name withheld] claimed it was accidental. The images, he said, were embedded in the music files he downloaded and he had no knowledge of their existence.

But prosecutors didn’t buy his story. [name withheld] was charged twice — once in St. Louis County and once in St. Charles County, where police found different images on a disc that he had brought home from work.

[name withheld] pleaded guilty in both instances in exchange for probation and suspended imposition of sentence. The crime, he was told, would never go on his record.
- They always tell you this to get you to plead guilty, even if you are innocent.  Never do this, take it to jury trial.

I was young,” [name withheld] said. “I was naïve. I was scared.”

He now wishes he would have fought the charges.

Daniel Pelikan, the St. Charles County judge who presided over [name withheld]'s case, wrote in his order that “although the defendant did not intend to download and transfer the images to the compact disc, the discs were in the defendant’s custody and control.”

A few years later, new state and federal laws required [name withheld] to register as a sex offender.

Kim Kilgore, a St. Louis County assistant prosecutor who has specialized in sex crime cases for the past 10 years, said one of the images depicted a 4-year-old. And, she pointed out, they were found in a secret, password-protected file. Kilgore also said that according to a Hazelwood police report, [name withheld] admitted downloading the images.

I don’t have a problem with him being on the sex offender registry,” she said.

But should he be on it for life?

I think it’s a hard decision,” she said. “As a mom, why not? As a prosecutor, it’s very burdensome for the state to maintain a registry.”

TRIMMING THE LIST
To winnow the registry’s rolls, both bills (HB-462 and HB-589) in the Missouri House would group sex offenders into three tiers. But they would use different criteria.

Phillips’ bill would rely on the severity of the criminal charge.

People who fall in the least serious tier — convicted of crimes such as second-degree endangering the welfare of a child — could petition to get off the registry after 10 years. The second tier — those convicted of crimes such as second-degree statutory rape — could seek removal after 25 years.

The third tier would include people convicted of crimes such as forcible rape and sexual trafficking of a child. They could never get off the registry, unless they were juveniles when convicted. In that case, they could petition after 25 years.

The requests would be filed in the circuit courts where offenders were convicted. To be considered for removal, they could have no additional convictions or pending charges for sexual offenses or felonies, and they would need to have completed probation and parole, as well as a sex offender treatment program.

The Missouri Highway Patrol, which manages the list, calculated that Phillips’ bill would allow the immediate removal of about 631 people dubbed “Romeo and Juliet” offenders — generally older teenagers who had consensual sex with a minor. They would be exempted from registering if the victim was at least 14 years old and the offender was not more than four years older than the victim.

The patrol says an additional 1,111 offenders could petition immediately for removal. Over the next five years, 284 more people would be eligible. Over 20 years, 2,480 more could apply.

At a hearing in February, Phillips’ bill drew support from groups as diverse as the Missouri Sheriffs Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and Missouri Kids First, a statewide organization that works to prevent child abuse.

This is a very thoughtful response,” said Emily van Schenkhof, who lobbies for Missouri Kids First. “It really does protect children but highlights a public policy problem” with the registry.

Under the bill, juveniles convicted of sex crimes would still have to register but would not be part of the public list on the Internet.
- Nobody should be a part of an online shaming hit-list, it should be taken offline and used by police only!

County sheriffs lined up behind the bill, saying they have limited resources to track the growing list of offenders. Phillips’ bill “would make it easier to concentrate on the more dangerous offenders,” said Andrea Luntsford, a detective with the Boone County Sheriff’s Department.

MENTAL HEALTH TESTS
The alternative approach — Hinson’s bill — would use mental health exams to determine where offenders should fall in the three tiers. People deemed low-risk could apply to get off the registry in five years. Even people in the most serious tier would be eligible after 25 years, instead of facing lifetime registration.

Supporters of Hinson’s bill said it would inject science into the process and provide more meaningful information to the public, which has become numb to the registry because it includes so many people who are not real threats.
- Inject science?  If you did that in the first place, then you'd not have the registry or residency laws, since science & many studies show that they do not do what you think they do.

Sister Mary Ann McGivern, who represented the Missouri Association for Social Welfare at a recent legislative hearing, said many people on the list are unlikely to pose a risk. Some exposed themselves or peeked through windows, she said. Others possessed child pornography or had sex with a younger girlfriend when they were 18.

The registry is “a lifetime punishment for a set of behaviors most of us don’t understand,” said McGivern, who is a Sister of Loretto from St. Louis.

Critics said a new state bureaucracy would be needed to handle the risk assessments required under Hinson’s bill. A fiscal note said the cost to the state was “unknown but considered to be significant, exceeding $100,000 per year.”

Also, the state would no longer be in compliance with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, so Missouri stands to lose federal grants. Those grants have provided $637,905 over the last three years. Much of the money funded grants to sheriffs to buy items such as digital cameras and computer equipment.

Hinson countered that sex offenders would shoulder the cost of the mental health appraisals, which he estimated would likely be “no more than a couple hundred dollars” apiece.
- And that's a couple hundred dollars many of them do not have, due to the laws you are pushing!

He also pointed to a study that estimated the current sex offender registry costs the state and local governments nearly $5 million — for example, by sending people who fail to register back to prison.
- In many cases we've seen, people get more time in prison for failure to register than the original crime.

To fight for Hinson’s approach, some offenders and their families have organized a group, St. Peters-based Missouri Citizens for Reform, and hired a lobbyist.

This is the only crime in America that’s punished endlessly,” said Sharie Keil, a member of Citizens for Reform.


Sunday, March 17, 2013

Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects

The following was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission. The name has been abbreviated for their own protection.

By RF:
An eye opening "study" by GAO. Reveals the overall failure of implementating the AWA across the entire country. Most interesting here is the fact that "SORNA, when passed in 2006, required DOJ to conduct a comprehensive study on SORNA’s effects, which could help address current research gaps." But DOJ cites no funding for the study. DOJ has money, even unclaimed Byrne JAG funds from states that have not implemented SORNA, available to implement more SORNA programs BUT NO MONEY TO GATHER FACTS ON THE EFFECTS OF SORNA ONCE IMPLEMENTED!


Original Article (PDF)

What GAO Found
The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that 19 of the 37 jurisdictions that have submitted packages for review have substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Although the SMART Office has determined that 17 of the jurisdictions that submitted packages have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the office concluded that 15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the SORNA requirements; the office has not yet made a determination for 1 jurisdiction that submitted a package. A majority of nonimplemented jurisdictions reported that generating the political will to incorporate the necessary changes to their state laws and related policies or reconciling legal conflicts are among the greatest challenges to implementation. For example, officials from 27 nonimplemented jurisdictions reported reconciling conflicts between SORNA and state laws--such as which offenses should require registration--as a challenge to implementing SORNA. Officials from 5 of 18 jurisdictions that responded to a survey question asking how DOJ could help address these challenges reported that the SMART Office could provide greater flexibilities; however, SMART Office officials said they have offered as many flexibilities as possible and further changes would take legislative action.

A few studies have been conducted on the effects of certain SORNA requirements on jurisdictions and registered sex offenders, but GAO did not find any that evaluated the effects on public safety following SORNA implementation; stakeholders reported both positive and negative effects as a result of implementing the law. Officials from 4 of 12 implementing jurisdictions who responded to the survey reported that one benefit was improved monitoring of registered sex offenders. Stakeholders also reported that SORNA resulted in enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders between criminal justice components, in part through the use of certain databases that enable jurisdictions to share information with one another. Stakeholders and survey respondents also identified negative or unintended consequences of implementing SORNA. For example, officials from three of five state agencies and all eight of the local law enforcement agencies GAO interviewed stated that their workload has increased, in part because of the increased frequency at which sex offenders must update their registration information as a result of the act. Officials from a majority of the public defender and probation offices also said that SORNA implementation has made it more difficult for registered sex offenders to obtain housing and employment, which can negatively affect their ability to reintegrate into their communities. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is statutorily required to study SORNA's effectiveness in increasing compliance with requirements and the effect of these requirements on increasing public safety. As of December 2012, DOJ had not requested the funding to conduct this study and the funding had not been appropriated. NIJ officials stated that NIJ does not proactively request funding for specific studies, but waits for Congress to decide when to appropriate the funding. Neither DOJ nor the Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided written comments on this report.

Why GAO Did This Study
Studies estimate that about 1 in every 5 girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are sexually abused. In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration standards for all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the District of Columbia, and certain Indian tribes. SORNA established the SMART Office to determine if these jurisdictions have "substantially implemented" the law, and to assist them in doing so. The deadline to implement SORNA was July 2009; given that none of the jurisdictions met this deadline, DOJ authorized two 1-year extensions. This report addresses: (1) To what extent has the SMART Office determined that jurisdictions have substantially implemented SORNA, and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced? (2) For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders?

GAO analyzed SMART Office implementation status reports from September 2009 through September 2012. To identify any challenges, GAO surveyed officials in the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia; GAO received responses from 93 percent (52 of 56) of them. The survey results can be viewed at GAO-13-234SP GAO visited or interviewed criminal justice officials in five jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, chosen to represent a range in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents. Their perspectives are not generalizable, but provided insights.

For more information, contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov.


Friday, March 15, 2013

Third Circuit panel discusses at length all the problems with SORNA

Original Article

03/14/2013

The start of the Third Circuit panel's lengthy opinion today in US v. Reynolds, No. 08-4747 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (PDF available here), explains the current mess that is certain federal sex offender registration laws better than I could. Here goes (with footnotes removed):

This case returns to us after the Supreme Court’s review in Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012). Remand requires that we reach the merits of Reynolds’s claim that the regulatory rule upon which his indictment was based was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). This claim gives rise to three questions:


  • (1) What is the appropriate standard of review of an agency’s assertion of good cause in waiving the APA’s notice and comment requirements?
  • (2) Did the Attorney General have good cause to waive these requirements in promulgating a rule governing the retroactivity of the Sex Offender and Registration Notification Act’s (“SORNA”) registration requirements?
  • (3) If the Attorney General lacked good cause to waive the requirements, was Reynolds prejudiced by the failure to comply with the APA’s notice and comment requirements?

The courts of appeals are divided on each of these questions. On the first question, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have determined that the arbitrary and capricious standard is the appropriate standard for reviewing the Attorney General’s actions, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have not stated a standard but appear to use de novo review, and the Ninth Circuit has explicitly avoided the question. On the second question, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have held that the Attorney General had good cause to waive notice and comment, while the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held that he did not. On the final question, the Fifth Circuit has held that the Attorney General’s lack of good cause does not prejudice defendants, while the Sixth Circuit has held that it is prejudicial.

We conclude that we need not decide the appropriate standard of review today because the Attorney General’s assertion of good cause cannot withstand review even under the most deferential standard available. We also conclude that the Attorney General’s lack of good cause is prejudicial to Reynolds. Accordingly, we will vacate Reynolds’ conviction.


Monday, February 25, 2013

RI - State Rep. pushes new sex offender bill

Original Article

02/25/2013

By Chris Raia

Rep. Palumbo calls for offense-based tier system

PROVIDENCE (WPRI) - A state Representative has introduced a bill that would create a much more rigid sex offender registry in Rhode Island.

State Rep. Peter G. Palumbo (D - Cranston) has been actively pushing bills that increase transparency of convicted sex offenders, and he is working now to enact a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification act (SORNA).

SORNA would create an offense-based tier system, classifying offenders according to the risk they pose to their environments. It would also make sex offender information public via a notification website with search capabilities and a function that enables users to receive email alerts when sex offenders commence residence, employment or school attendance within the state.

"As long as there is one sex offender out there that we cannot account for, there is the potential for great harm, the potential for another victim," said Rep. Palumbo.
- True, but what about all the other ex-felons who are not on some online shaming list like murderers, gang members, drug dealers, DUI offenders, etc?  Based on the facts, they are more dangerous than ex-sex offenders who have one of the lowest recidivism rates out there.

Currently, local law enforcement agencies are responsible for provide notification on the whereabouts and activities of registered sex offenders. SORNA would give that responsibility to one central agency: The R.I. State Police.

"By making one central agency... responsible for this process will free up local law enforcement resources and save communities money," said Rep. Palumbo.

Supporters of the bill include Attorney General Kilmartin, Rep. John DeSimone (D - Dist. 5, Providence), Rep. Raymond Johnston, Jr. (D - Dict. 61 - Pawtucket), Rep. John Carnevale (D - Dist. 13, Providence) and Rep. Donald Lally, Jr. (D - Dist. 33, Narragansett).


Friday, February 15, 2013

NJ - State Fails to Follow Federal Sex Offender Laws: Report

Original Article

SORNA is just a bill to set the minumum standards, it's not a law you must past, it's recommendations.

02/15/2013

By David Chang

According to the report, 19 jurisdictions, including New Jersey, have implemented few or none of the requirements.

New Jersey is one of 19 states that are not in compliance with a federal act meant to streamline sex offender laws.

In 2006, Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration And Notification Act (SORNA) to strengthen and standardize requirements for sex offender registration. Congress imposed a deadline of July, 2011 for states to adopt and implement the requirements of the act. Several states however, including New Jersey, failed to meet that deadline, according to a report last week from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

According to the report, only 19 of 56 jurisdictions (50 states, 5 territories and the District of Columbia) have "substantially implemented" the act. Only 18 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the requirements. Finally, 19 jurisdictions, including New Jersey, have implemented few or none of the requirements.

NJ State Senator Joe Vitale says as long as he’s chair of the state’s Health and Human Services Committee, New Jersey will never adopt SORNA. Vitale claims the state already has tougher requirements than the federal law, including door to door notification when a tier-three offender moves into a neighborhood.

The process that currently exists in New Jersey actually works,” said Vitale. “We assess offenders before they leave to determine what their likelihood is of reoffending. That would no longer happen under SORNA.”

The penalty for not implementing SORNA is a 10 percent reduction in Justice Assistant Grant (JAG) funds, which can be spent on a variety of local programs. If New Jersey doesn’t come into compliance with SORNA however, it will lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal funding. Vitale says that’s a price worth paying if it means keeping a system that keeps families safe.



Monday, January 14, 2013

PETITION - Abolish the Public Sex Offender Registry. It is harmful to families and children

Sign the petition here

Not everyone who is on the Public Sex Offender Registry has molested a child or raped someone.

People deserve a second chance. Being on the registry gives NO SECOND CHANCE.

The National Public Sex Offender Registry, Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, (SORNA) and the Adam Walsh Act are counterproductive to the safety of families and children in society.

The Public Sex Offender Registry so stigmatizes all who are placed upon it that they cannot: Secure Employment, Secure Housing, nor Protect their innocent children from being traumatized by the stigma.

It has also create vigilantism toward the individual, their family members, and their children on the registry. It does not protect anyone and the recidivism rate is is less than 5%.


Thursday, January 3, 2013

SD - South Dakota continues to ignore constitutional rights and grand stands to make themselves look like they are actually doing something!

Marty Jackley
Original Article

01/03/2013

PIERRE - Federal authorities recently certified that South Dakota’s Sex Offender Registration continues to implement the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Attorney General Marty Jackley says sex offender registration and community notification are an important part of his office’s work to improve the safety of the state’s citizens. He says in coming years, the state will continue to enforce registry compliance. South Dakota completed the renewal process in November and the Department of Justice has reaffirmed the status.

South Dakota was the fourth registry in the nation to be certified. The compliancy rate in the state is 98.5%. The A.G.’s office says that 3,052 sex offenders reside in the state with just 47 identified instances of non-compliance. State law requires those convicted of sex crimes to register as a sex offender within three business days of coming into any county to live. Sex offenders must re-register every six months. The Attorney General’s office works closely with local law enforcement and prosecutors to update the registry.

Last year, the state entered into agreements with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to become registered entities of SORNA. The agreements allow the tribes to maintain their own offender registries and have their sex offender’s data submitted electronically to be included into the South Dakota Sex Offender Registry.



The following is the comments we left on the article, which we are sure will be deleted, that is why we are posting them here.

And they continue to ignore their oath of office to defend the Constitutional rights of everybody, including ex-sex offenders, just to help themselves look "tough" on crime while actually doing nothing.

The sex offender registry is nothing more than an online hit-list for vigilantes to use to target ex-sex offenders and their families for harassment, or worse, and it's been known to happen, and is increasing:

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/09/human-rights-issues.html

The registry doesn't protect anybody or prevent crime, and neither does the residency restrictions, which only force people into exile, homelessness and joblessness.

And if you really wanted to protect children, then, like the Adam Walsh CHILD PROTECTION and Safety Act suggests, you'd put all criminals who harm children on the registry, not just those that include sex of exposure of some form.

Why not have a registry for all criminals so we can all have the right to know where all the criminals live around us? If it saves one child, isn't it worth it?

Or are you just using ex-sex offenders as today's scapegoat, and to help yourselves look "tough" on crime and make money for those who exploit sex, children and criminal records for their own personal gain?

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/search/label/Offendex


Sunday, December 16, 2012

PA - For young sex offenders, a new Scarlet Letter

Original Article

12/16/2012

By Laurie Mason Schroeder

Young sex offenders will soon face some long-lasting, potentially public consequences under a change in the law that goe‘s into effect this week.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) requires teens convicted of serious sex offenses to be registered in a database for 25 years. Previously, only adult sex offenders were registered.

Currently, the online registry can be accessed only by police and other law enforcement agencies. But with the trend of colleges and employers seeking more and more personal information about potential students and employees, juvenile advocates fear that the new law might mark a teen for life.

Others say that’s not such a bad thing.

Certainly there are some juveniles, the predators, that you need to monitor,” said Robert Stanzione, Bucks County’s chief of Juvenile Probation. “I think this legislation was crafted with those individuals in mind.”

SORNA is a portion of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which was signed into law in 2006 (Video). The federal act goes a step beyond Megan’s Law, imposing longer and stricter registration requirements on sex offenders of all ages.

Under SORNA, sex offenders must provide more personal information and make periodic in-person appearances before law enforcement to update that information. It requires sex offenders to keep their registration current in each jurisdiction in which they reside, work or go to school, and increases the amount of information to which the public has access.

SORNA extends beyond the 50 states, requiring registration in most U.S. territories and on American Indian reservations. States that don’t enact SORNA laws lose federal crime-fighting grant money.

Certain juvenile sex offenders, those found delinquent of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault or conspiracy to any of the above, will now be registered sex offenders for 25 years, even though Juvenile Court supervision ends at age 21.

Stanzione said that fewer than five teens now being supervised by Bucks juvenile probation officers will be required to register. But he worries what will happen as word gets out that an adjudication to a sex offense — the juvenile court equivalent to a conviction — carries a 25-year consequence.

My concerns moving forward is what effect this is going to have on victims,” he said. “We’re going to see more cases where the kid is not going to admit to the crime, so we’ll have to have a hearing and the victims will have to testify. That’s going to be pretty traumatizing, as most of the victims are younger children.”

Lawyer Robert Mancini (Avvo, Facebook), who says juvenile defense accounts for about 30 percent of his practice, said the new law means that he’ll have to advise more young clients to fight their charges.



Sunday, December 2, 2012

FL - New study finds federal sex offender law not effective

Original Article

11/28/2012

By Jill Levenson

New data driven system called for in new report

According to a report released last week (PDF) by the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal tier-based sex offender registration and management system put in place in 2006 does not predict risk of recidivism by sex offenders and its authors point to the need for a system based on more empirical data.

Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act (called SORNA – Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act), passed by Congress in 2006, sought to improve and standardize sex offender registration and management procedures by requiring all states to implement the same three-tier classification system according to the offense of conviction—Tier 1 being the least serious and Tier 3 being the most serious. The system assumed that the more serious the offense the higher the risk of a repeated crime by the offender.

"The offense-based classification system adopted by the Adam Walsh Act was developed without empirical validation," said Jill Levenson, an associate professor of human services in Lynn University's College of Liberal Education and one of the researchers on the project. "Therefore the essential question is whether this classification system accurately represents the risk of re-offense and leads to more effective sex offender management."

The study (PDF), funded by the National Institute of Justice, collected data about 1,789 adult male sex offenders released from prisons in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey and South Carolina. The sex offenders were tracked for up to 10 years. After 5 years, 5.1 percent of them had been rearrested for a new sexual crime, and after 10 years, the sexual rearrest rate was 10.2 percent.

Tier level was not significantly associated with recidivism in New Jersey, Minnesota and South Carolina and was inversely associated with recidivism in Florida (PDF)—the only state in the study's sample that has been certified as substantially compliant with the federal Adam Walsh Act.

"We investigated whether SORNA tiers were correlated with risk assessments and recidivism rates. If SORNA designations correctly identify higher risk offenders, then we would expect cases with Tier 3 offenders to have higher risk scores and higher rates of recidivism," explained Levenson. "What we found, however, was that Tier 3 offenders were consistently associated with lower risk scores and lower recidivism rates."

The researchers concluded that actuarial risk assessment instruments, which are created by putting together risk factors found by research to correlate with reoffending, consistently outperformed the tier system mandated by federal law. The tiering systems already in use by the states also did a better job than SORNA tiers in predicting which sex offenders will go on to be rearrested for a new sex crime.

States that fail to comply with the law are penalized with a reduction in their federal criminal justice funding. So far, only 16 states have passed legislation complying with the federal requirements.

"The findings call into question the accuracy and utility of the federal classification system in detecting high-risk sex offenders and applying concordant risk management strategies," said Levenson. "If decision-making is to be driven by assigning offenders into defined risk classes, those categories must be determined by empirically-derived procedures so that they are more likely to correctly identify higher risk offenders. The public needs to be able to tell who poses the greatest threat to the community, and we need to make sure our limited resources are targeted toward those most likely to reoffend."

The team of researchers was led by Kristen Zgoba, director of research at the New Jersey Department of Corrections, and Michael Miner, a professor in human sexuality at University of Minnesota. The team also included Ray Knight of Brandeis University, Elizabeth Letourneau of Johns Hopkins, and David Thornton, who runs the Sand Ridge secure sex offender treatment center in Wisconsin. Read the full report online (PDF).


More on Levenson

Jill Levenson is an associate professor of human services at Lynn University and a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of experience treating sexual abuse victims, survivors, perpetrators and non-offending parents. Her academic focus is on sexual abuse and how offenders are categorized and treated.

Levenson is a nationally known expert on sexual violence and has become a respected authority on, among other things, laws aimed at protecting children while punishing, tracking and rehabilitating sex offenders. She has been quoted in national publications including the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, among others. She has published over 60 articles about sex crime policy and offender treatment.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

ME - Maine Commission Considers Colorado-Style Model for Sex Offender Registry

Original Article

10/30/2012

By A.J. Higgins

The state of Maine is taking steps to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, a comprehensive, nationwide sex offender registration system enacted back in 2006. The Maine Legislature has already passed a law implementing a three-tiered offender classification system to replace the existing two-tier model. The law also created a new commission to study risk assessment of sex offenders in an effort ot reduce recidivism. The panel held its first meeting today, and A.J. Higgins was there.

One mission of the nine-member Sex Offender Risk Assessment Advisory Commission is to study methods to predict the risk of recidivism for any given sex offender. As a starting point, lawmakers have directed the commission to take a good look at the expansive range of policies and standards adopted by the Colorado Sex Offender Notification Board.

"It's sex offenders A to Z in the state of Colorado," says Laura Yustak Smith, an assistant attorney general who will chair the Maine commission. The commission is looking at how the Colorado board makes policy on registration, as well as on treatment and supervision of sex offenders.

The new commission will assess whether a Colorado-style model could work in Maine - and Yustak Smith says there's not a lot of time to complete the work.

"We have a deadline of January 5th to report back to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee to provide them with a summary of how Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board functions," Yustak Smith says.

"I think Colorado has been ahead of the curve a bit," says Rep. Anne Haskell, a Portland Democrat and a member of the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Haskell sponsored the bill that created the Sex Offender Risk Assessment Commission and a new three-tier classification system for offenders that will become effective in January.

Under the existing system, offenders were classified as either 10-year registrants, or lifetime registrations. The new system adds a third option - a 25-year registrant. There are also categories based on the severity of the offense, which Haskell says is designed to bring Maine more into line with the federal Adam Walsh Act that set standards for monitoring sex offenders.

Haskell says her original bill lacked an adequate risk assessment component. "The original bill itself created within it a ranking based on the risk of reoffense," Haskell says. "As the committee began to look at that risk of reoffense, it became clear that there were not long-term studies on risk status in order to know whether or not they were going to be effective."

Elizabeth Ward Saxl, executive director of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, is also a member of the Sex Offender Risk Assessment Advisory Commission. She represents Maine's sexual assault support centers and hopes the commission can help answer a question she's posed to legislators for the last 10 years.

"How do we think comprehensively about risk assessment as part of how we manage sex offenders in our communities?" Ward Saxl says. "And it's a complex issue."

As of July, the U.S. Justice Department reported only 15 states had substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requirements of the federal Adam Walsh Act.



Wednesday, October 24, 2012

What will it cost states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)? (08/2008)

Original Article

Description:
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)1, which mandates a national registry of people convicted of sex offenses and expands the type of offenses for which a person must register, applies to both adults and children. By July 2009, all states must comply with SORNA or risk losing 10 percent of the state’s allocated Byrne Grant money, which states generally use to enforce drug laws and support law enforcement. In the last two years, some states have extensively analyzed the financial costs of complying with SORNA. These states have found that implementing SORNA in their state is far more costly than the penalties for not being in compliance. JPI’s analysis finds that in all 50 states, the first-year costs of implementing SORNA outweigh the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne Grant. Most of the resources available to states would be devoted to the administrative maintenance of the registry and notification, rather than targeting known serious offenders. Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses, and may even distract from more effective approaches.


New Diigo bookmark posted by IFTTT.



Friday, October 5, 2012

CA - California opts out of U.S. sex offender listing

Original Article

10/05/2012

By DON THOMPSON

Sacramento - California is sticking with its first-in-the-nation sex offender registry instead of complying with a 2006 federal law that sought to create a seamless 50-state tracking program.

The state Department of Justice says state legislators made no attempt to meet the federal standards set by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, despite the threat of a loss in federal grant money.

Experts questioned the value of the federal law and said California’s cost of complying would far exceed the lost federal funding.

State justice officials said California stands to lose nearly $800,000 this year. The grant money previously had been used for drug enforcement but would have been diverted to sex offender management, registration and victim notification programs under the federal law. Only the state’s portion of the grant will be lost, the department said; grants to local law enforcement are unaffected.

The California Sex Offender Management Board, which advises the governor and Legislature, estimated in 2008 that it would cost the state at least $32 million to comply with the federal law, not including the cost of incarcerating offenders who failed to comply with the new federal registration regulations.

The bulk of the cost, about $25 million, would have been for local law enforcement agencies to assess and more frequently reassess offenders’ risk of committing new crimes to meet the federal requirements, the board projected.

The board, made up of law enforcement and treatment experts, also said California’s registration system was superior to that required by the federal law.

The federal law requires that an offender’s perceived risk of committing a new crime be based solely on his or her previous crime, while California relies on a range of indicators. They include the offender’s criminal history, age at the time of the offense and the type of victim. The board said the federal requirement “is far less reliable than California’s method.

The federal law also would require California to begin publicly naming many juvenile sex offenders on its Megan’s Law website, which the state board said was counterproductive. It also would have had to add several additional crimes to the list of those requiring criminals to register as sex offenders.

California should absorb the comparatively small loss of federal funds that would result from not accepting the very costly and ill-advised changes to state law and policy required by the (federal) Act,” the board said in its 2008 report.


NC - State could lose grant money for not updating sex offender registry

Original Article

Video available at the link above.

10/04/2012

By Jeff Smith

CHARLOTTE - Eyewitness News has learned the state could lose more than $800,000 every year for not updating its sex offender database.

The state attorney general urged lawmakers Thursday to find the money to make the improvements.

A 6-year-old federal law requires states to upgrade their sex offender databases to be part of a unified, national tracking system. North Carolina hasn't even attempted to follow that law.
- No, SORNA doesn't require states to comply, they are simply guidelines.

Eyewitness News dug through documents explaining how some say becoming part of the federal sex offender database -- called SORNA -- better protects families by giving them more information about offenders in their communities.

Law enforcement sources said it would cost North Carolina $16 million to upgrade its registry software and reclassify nearly 13,000 sex offenders in the federal system.
- Exactly, it would cost more to comply with the bribery!

"At some point, when you have limited resources, you have to pick and choose and prioritize where you feel the spending is most important," said state Sen. Bob Rucho.

The SORNA database was designed to make it easier to track sex offenders across state lines, find out their places of employment and even the kinds of cars they drive.

However, 36 states have not spent the money to upgrade their sex offender registries and comply with the law. Many states said it's cheaper to lose grant money than overhaul their internet databases.

"There's a saying, 'You show me where your money is, and I'll show you where your heart is,'" said Kate Stahlman, who works with local women who've been abused and sold into sex slavery and prostitution. "Unfortunately, their heart is not with our children and not with women that are being raped and trafficked."
- Yeah, the usual attack instead of looking at the facts.  SORNA would not protect women or children and would not prevent a sex crime.

Stahlman said state lawmakers recently passed a $20-billion budget and was outraged they didn't consider finding the money to become part of the federal system.

"I guarantee if their daughter was raped or trafficked, they would find that $16 million," she said.

Rucho said North Carolina already effectively tracks sex offenders through an easy-to-use website, and there's no need to make drastic changes.
- Exactly, if it works, then don't touch it!

"It's an example of Washington deciding that they're so much smarter than the rest of us, deciding how they want it done, even though it isn't necessary for us to do," Rucho said. "We feel we have a system that is probably as good or better than what they're offering."

There are also concerns that the SORNA database goes too far and greatly expands the kinds of crimes that are considered sex offenses. It no longer affords any privacy protection to juveniles whose information and photos must be posted online.

The state Department of Justice said lawmakers haven't even drafted a bill to make the federal changes. Until they do, the state will lose $800,000 in federal law enforcement grant money every year.
- No wonder the country is going broke.  It's people like this who are causing it.  They want the state to spend over $16 million to save $800,000, that doesn't make any sense.


Monday, October 1, 2012

States Still Resisting National Sex Offender Law

Original Article

10/01/2012

By Maggie Clark

Six years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act, aimed at setting up a uniform national registry to track known sex offenders as they move around the country. The law offers states (bribery) federal funds to complete their part of the job, and 16 have secured Justice Department approval for doing it successfully. But most states have struggled to implement the law, and several have essentially abandoned efforts at compliance and left the federal money on the table.

States that did not implement their registries by July 27, 2011, face a 10 percent loss in federal justice assistance grants, which fund courts, crime labs, corrections and other law enforcement programs. The only way they can keep that money without meeting the deadline is to apply to use it for Adam Walsh Act compliance activities. Some 29 noncompliant states have agreed to do this.

But five states — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas — are simply saying “no” to the Adam Walsh Act, at least for now. They have neither complied with the law’s requirements nor applied to use their justice assistance grants to come into compliance. They have elected to forfeit 10 percent of their justice assistance funding for the coming year.
- All states should say no!  It costs too much and doesn't do what is intended.

We’re hoping that in the future, some of those five will indeed apply,” says Linda Baldwin, director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking within the U.S. Department of Justice. Not applying to use the grant monies for compliance is “not necessarily a refusal,” Baldwin says. States will get another chance to use their grants for compliance in 2013.

But by then, there may be changes to the federal law, which is named for a child who was kidnapped and later murdered in south Florida in 1981. (The registry provisions of the Adam Walsh Act are formally known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA.) In August, the U.S. House passed a reauthorization of Adam Walsh specifying that any penalty a state incurs for noncompliance with registry requirements won’t harm local law enforcement grants. The bill is waiting to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- It has never been proven that sex was involved in Adam Walsh's murder, nor that a sex offender committed the crime.  The original intention of the law was to punish people more harshly who abuse a child in ANY form, now it's all just about sex offenders, who had nothing to do with Adam's murder.

Why Won’t States Comply?

The reasons for noncompliance vary from state to state. In Nebraska, legislators were philosophically opposed to the law’s lifetime registry requirement for juveniles. Senator Amanda McGill, a member of the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, says that the law as currently written could put people on the registry who don’t really belong there.

We may be putting resources in to people that don’t need it,” says McGill, “and possibly ‘scarlet-lettering’ them.

Nebraska changed its sex offender registry in 2010 to attempt compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, categorizing offenders by their convictions, not by an individualized risk assessment, as had been done in the past. But the state has not met all the federal requirements, and is not currently attempting to meet them.

Implementing the Adam Walsh Act is a heavy lift: legislatures must enact changes to the state criminal code and, depending on the state’s policy before the federal law passed, place new groups of offenders onto the public registry. Nebraska’s change forced many offenders who’d already served their sentences onto the registry or increased the length of time offenders would be publicly listed.

I hadn't been in any kind of trouble since completing probation,” testified (PDF) [name withheld], a now-lifetime registered sex offender, at a hearing before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee last fall. [name withheld] was accused of having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 23, and pleaded no contest to second degree sexual assault of a minor with the assurance from his public defender that he would only face two or three years on probation and would not be subject to the public registry.
- So you see, they broke that contact, which is a violation of the contracts clause of the Constitution, and probably more.

I feel like I'm being punished again for the rest of my life," he said, "after serving my punishment and proving my worth by living righteously, being a good father and husband, and staying out of trouble.”
- That is exactly what is happening, ex post facto (unconstitutional) punishment for life.

Costs of Compliance

Another reason states are hesitant to comply is the price. While noncompliance does come with a penalty, it’s often dwarfed by the cost of adding more people to the public registry or staffing local law enforcement offices for the multiple check-ins per year that offenders must complete.

Texas estimated (PDF) it would cost the state at least $38 million to implement Adam Walsh, while the penalty would be only $1.4 million. California’s changes could exceed $30 million, and would result in “a less than robust sex offender registration process for the state,” says Tina Walker, chief of media relations for the California Emergency Management Agency. California still uses an individual risk assessment tool for all offenders to determine where they should appear on the registry, rather than relying on a particular conviction to determine placement, as the law requires.

There are both policy considerations and cost considerations [that come with compliance],” says Baldwin at the Department of Justice, “and in these economic times, anything that entails a burden is something that’s hotly debated.”
- Anything that has been proven not to work as intended should be hotly debated!

Arizona made its decision not to comply back in 2009, when a legislative committee found that compliance could cost more than $2 million. “Arizona’s existing sex-offender laws are believed to be sufficient,” says Matthew Benson, director of communications for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. “In fact, our state takes a more rehabilitative approach than SORNA when it comes to juvenile offenders.”

Arizona’s attitude reflects opposition to Adam Walsh compliance that might best be described as old-fashioned federalism. “I hear some states say they feel confident that their state registries do an excellent job of protecting public safety,” says Elizabeth Pyke, director of government affairs at the National Criminal Justice Association. “They agree with the importance of sharing information across states but don’t necessarily think all aspects of SORNA’s approach to registration are better than what they already have in place. So if implementing SORNA will make them overturn long-held policies, some states may prefer sticking with their own registry systems.”

Reaction in Congress

Even though only 16 states have met the Justice Department’s requirements for substantial compliance with Adam Walsh, most of the rest are active in monitoring sex offenders. All but six states are part of the SORNA Exchange Portal, a tool developed by the Department of Justice to help states share information about offenders who move from one state to another. The receiving state can access information about an offender, and alert the offender’s home state if he or she does or doesn’t arrive.

Participation in the portal achieves one of the goals of the Adam Walsh Act — creating a national information-sharing network. But it doesn’t get all the way there. Without full state compliance, the type of offender who shows up on any given level of the registry may still vary between one state and another.

On Capitol Hill, states’ concerns about the Adam Walsh Act are starting to be heard. U.S. Representatives Bobby Scott of Virginia and John Conyers of Michigan both referred to the act as an “unfunded mandate” to the states during testimony on its reauthorization earlier this year. In addition to modifying the penalty provisions, the reauthorization bill no longer requires that juveniles convicted of sex offenses publicly register for life, and allocates nearly $3 million in state funding for sex offender treatment for juveniles.

The House bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but won’t be considered there until at least mid-November, when the Senate returns following the elections.