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 SSRN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SSRN. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2013

SSRN - On Emotion, Juvenile Sex Offenders, and Mandatory Registration


Original Article

Catherine L. Carpenter
Southwestern Law School

November 10, 2012

3 Journal of Race, Gender, & Policy 1 (2013, Forthcoming)

Abstract:
It is both unremarkable and true that juveniles are different from adults. United States Supreme Court decisions over the past decade have highlighted the extent of the differences. Yet, played out against the backdrop of sex offender registration laws, the conversation takes an abrupt turn. Rather than differentiating between adult and juvenile offenders, federal sex offender registration laws require juveniles convicted of certain sex offenses to face the same onerous registration and notification burdens as their adult counterparts.

Tracking the shift in sex offender registration models from “likely to reoffend” to “conviction-based" assessment, this article argues that “conviction-based” assessment is an unstable proposition when applied to child offenders for two fundamental reasons. First, juvenile offenders lack intentionality and purpose that adult offenders possess, thereby diminishing the value that a conviction carries. Further, and more importantly, studies reveal that the commission of juvenile sex crimes does not portend future predatory behavior, raising the question of the purpose of registration for this class of offenders.

Ultimately, the legislative push to require juvenile sex offenders to suffer serious register and notification burdens demonstrates convincingly the pitfall that impacts the entire debate over sex offender registration. Emotional rhetoric controls the legislative agenda, even in the face of compelling arguments to the contrary.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: sex offender registration, juvenile sex offender, mandatory registration, SORNA


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration


Original Article

Heather Cucolo
New York Law School

Michael L. Perlin
New York Law School

2012

Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, Fall 2012
NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #33

Abstract:
(View the PDF) The public’s panic about the fear of recidivism if adjudicated sex offenders are ever to be released to the community has not subsided, despite the growing amount of information and statistically-reliable data signifying a generally low risk of re-offense. The established case law upholding sex offender civil commitment and containment statutes has rejected challenges of unconstitutionality, and continues to be dominated by punitive undertones. We have come to learn that the tools used to assess offenders for risk and civil commitment are often inaccurate and that meaningful treatment for this population is often unavailable and ineffective. Yet, society continues to clamor for legislation confining this cohort of offenders for “treatment,” and, ostensibly, protection of the community, and legislatures respond quickly to these calls. This “reform legislation” often includes strict and demeaning post-release restrictions that track offenders and curb their integration into society. These “reforms” continue to show no benefit either to the public or to the individual offender. The absence of meaningful and effective treatment during confinement, combined with inhumane conditions upon release, make it far less likely that this cohort of individuals will ever become productive members of society. Only through therapeutic jurisprudence, a focus on rehabilitation, and a dedication to treating sexual offenders humanely, will it be possible to reduce recidivism and foster successful community reintegration.

This article takes a new approach to these issues. It examines sex offender laws, past and present, looks at this area of sex offender commitment and containment through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens, and suggests basic policy changes that would optimally and constitutionally minimize re-offense rates, while upholding and protecting human rights of all citizens. It highlights the failure of community containment laws and ordinances by focusing on (1) the myths/perceptions that have arisen about sex offenders, and how society incorporates those myths into legislation, (2) the lack of rehabilitation offered to incarcerated or civilly-committed offenders, resulting in inadequate re-entry preparation, (3) the anti-therapeutic and inhumane effect of the laws and ordinances created to restrict sex offenders in the community, and (4) the reluctance and resistance of courts to incorporate therapeutic jurisprudence in seeking to remediate this set of circumstances. It concludes by offering some modest suggestions, based on the adoption of a therapeutic jurisprudence model of analysis.


'They're Planting Stories in the Press': The Impact of Media Distortions on Sex Offender Law and Policy


Original Article

02/19/2013

Heather Cucolo
New York Law School

Michael L. Perlin
New York Law School

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #55
NYLS Clinical Research Institute Paper No. # 33/ 2012

Abstract:
(View the PDF) Individuals classified as sexual predators are the pariahs of the community. Sex offenders are arguably the most despised members of our society and therefore warrant our harshest condemnation. Twenty individual states and the federal government have enacted laws confining individuals who have been adjudicated as “sexually violent predators” to civil commitment facilities post incarceration and/or conviction. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, offenders who are returned to the community are restricted and monitored under community notification, registration and residency limitations. Targeting, punishing and ostracizing these individuals has become an obsession in society, clearly evidenced in the constant push to enact even more restrictive legislation that breaches the boundaries of constitutional protections.

The advancement of technology and mass media communication have spawned a constant influx of information about sexual predators. News headlines and Internet webpages are dedicated to reporting on and highlighting sexual crimes and their infamous perpetrators. There is little disputing that the newest surge in legal attention and efforts to contain sexual predators stems from the mass dissemination of sexual offender media stories available to the general public. Thus, we cannot discuss our national obsession with sexual offenses and offenders without considering how the role of the media has framed our conceptualizations of offenders and influenced resulting legal decisions and legislation.

The public perception of what constitutes a “sex offender” is undoubtedly linked to the media’s portrayal of these types of heinous crimes. The media’s attention to high profile, violent sexual offenses has been shown to elicit a panic and fear of rampant sexual violence within our communities. This, in turn, places extreme public pressure on legislators to enact more repressive legislation and on judges to interpret such laws in ways that insure lengthier periods of incarceration for offenders. The media’s portrayal of a “largely ineffective” criminal justice system heightens fear; fictionalized portrayals of crime on television dramas may lead viewers to believe that “all offenders are `monsters’ to be feared.” The media, in short, shapes and produces the reality of crime, as it influences “factual perceptions of the world.” A “moral panic” has developed primarily due to the media’s depiction of a “sex offender” in the news and newspaper articles. As a result of the incessant media coverage, the general public has conceptualized what it believes to be the prototype of this “monstrous evil” – a male who violently attacks stranger young children .

This paper is not the first inquiry into the media’s influence on public perceptions and moral panic: the media’s influence on sex offender policy, legislation and public opinion has been highlighted in depth throughout much of the literature and academic writings. The other discussions have generally focused on the media’s role as a precursor to the enactment of sex offender legislation, the upholding of sex offender laws in the courts, and as a significant influence on the continuation of moral panic. But what has not been looked at significantly, is whether and how the media coverage and presentation of these issues has been transformed over the past two decades, and what effect, if any, this has had on public perception. What if the media has begun to shift away from simply highlighting and describing the feared beast and has begun to focus more on the problematic results of laws and legislation? Would that, in turn, have an effect on public perceptions and inevitably on the formation and enactment of laws and judicial decisions?

Slowly and somewhat recently, it appears that the tone of the media’s portrayal of sex offender issues has begun to shift. In addition to highlighting salient and horrific sexually violent offenses and contributing to community outrage, the mainstream media has increasingly begun to report on significant concerns surrounding the conceptualization, treatment and containment of the sex offender population. News articles – published in popular newspapers and media sites – more readily dedicate information to expressing expert opinions (that were previously embedded in articles dedicated solely to describing heinous crimes and community outrage), reporting on statistics that question the factual basis of our perceptions, questioning the efficacy of the laws designed to protect the community, and touching on the cost of human rights violations resulting from our laws.

This article will consider the role of the media in sex offender issues and further theorize whether the shift in media presentation has affected public perceptions of sex offenders and whether it has had any impact on recent legislation and the future enactment of sex offender laws. As part of this inquiry, we will employ the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence in an effort to assess the broader societal impact of these media depictions.

Part I will offer an overview of the major (media-centered) sex offender laws and legislation, focusing on the media accounts of the crimes upon which they were based. Part II will consider the impact of the media’s portrayal of offenders as the pariahs of society in the civil and criminal justice system; Part III will detail the proposed recent shift in media presentation and consider how, if at all, this shift has made an impact on new laws, legislation and court opinions. Part IV weighs these developments in the context of therapeutic jurisprudence, and considers its potential impact on dealing with the aftermath of the first decades of the media’s volatile influence on this area of law and policy. We conclude by offering several policy recommendations.


Saturday, September 8, 2012

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Original Article

Monica M. Gerber
London School of Economics & Political Science - Methodology Institute

Jonathan Jackson
London School of Economics & Political Science - Methodology Institute

August 25, 2012

Abstract:
Public attitudes towards law-breakers shape the tone and tenor of crime-control policy. The desire for retribution seems to be the main motivation underpinning punitive attitudes towards sentencing, yet there is some confusion in the research literature over what retribution really means. In this paper we distinguish between retribution as revenge (as the desire to punish criminal offenders to retaliate a past wrong by making the offender suffer) and retribution as just deserts (as the preference to restore justice through proportional compensation from the offender). Results from an online survey (n=176) provide evidence of two distinct dimensions of retribution, but we also show that these two dimensions have different ideological and motivational antecedents, and have different consequences in terms of the treatment of criminal offender. We find that retribution as revenge is associated with the motivation to enforce status boundaries with criminal offenders, as well as ideological preferences for power and dominance (as expressed by social dominance orientation) and in-group conformity (as expressed by right-wing authoritarianism). Endorsement of retribution as revenge also predicts the support of harsh punishment and the willingness to deny fair procedures. By contrast, retribution as just deserts is mainly predicted by a value restoration motive and by right-wing authoritarianism. After controlling for revenge, retribution as just deserts predicts support for procedural justice in the criminal courts. We conclude with the idea that beliefs about proportionality and compensation work as a buffer against the negative effects of revenge.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Keywords: retribution, revenge, just deserts, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Symposium: Preventative Detention: Sex Offender Exceptionalism and Preventive Detention


Corey Rayburn Yung

University of Kansas School of Law

September 4, 2012

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 101, No. 3, 2011

Abstract:
The emerging war on sex offenders, as typical of wartime mentality, has been marked by substantial deviations from established legal doctrine, constitutional protections, and the rule of law. Because of a high level of panic among the general population about sex offenders the use of preventative detention for sex offenders has received little attention or scrutiny. While the population of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has slowly decreased, the number of persons in state and federal detention centers dedicated to sex offenders has continued to climb. With the courts largely rubber stamping the federal civil commitment of sex offenders allowed under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) in 2006, the path has been cleared for an enormous expansion of sex offender detention.

Because of the limited attention given to these detentions, they represent a particularly dire threat to American liberties. The normal societal and institutional checks against government abuse embodied in the media, public, Constitution, and courts have essentially been removed. We authorize government to detain indefinitely those who are deemed “sexually dangerous” at our peril. Instead of waiting for someone to commit a wrong, the government acts to restrict liberty of persons who have yet to commit a wrong (but the government believes will likely do so in the future). The criminal justice system offers plenty of opportunities for the government to prosecute someone before harm is done using inchoate and conspiracy crimes. To go beyond those already broad tools, the circumstances should be highly exceptional, the danger should be real and imminent, and the net should be cast narrowly. In the case of sex offender civil commitment, the circumstances are no more dangerous than for other serious crimes, the risk is speculative based upon pseudo-science, and the net is far too broad. Because of these aspects of sex offender civil commitment laws, America should fundamentally reconsider its approach to fighting sexual violence. Laws like AWA, premised on myths that allocate substantial resources in a never ending war, do not create a just or better society.


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

A Moral Defense of Plea Bargaining


Original Article

Michael Young
affiliation not provided to SSRN

May 26, 2011

Abstract:
This paper argues that the critics' best case fairly stated against plea bargaining fails in its own terms to show that plea bargaining is necessarily unjust or injustice-tending. Critically, this paper argues against plea-bargaining's critics without resorting to the typical pro-plea-bargaining arguments about efficiency or the value of choice. Plea-bargaining may be efficient as a means of deterring crime and saving prosecutorial resources, but, even if so, that fact would not redeem plea-bargaining if it were, as the critics claim, unjust. Or, plea-bargaining may realize the defendant's rational choice, but where it is sensible to ask whether those very choices should be in the first place thrust upon the defendant, an appeal to choice in this way begs rather than answers the moral question raised by the critic. If it is to be answered at all, the moral case against plea bargaining must be answered in the terms of the critics' real moral concern without resort to the usual poor arguments, and this paper provides that better moral answer by focusing on several key critical arguments. Specifically, this paper offers original arguments challenging the critical claims that plea bargaining leads to the conviction of too many innocents (the "innocence problem"); that it is necessarily coercive or tending towards coercion; and that it inequitably leads to the unlike treatment of like cases (the "trial penalty" problem).


Friday, July 27, 2012

SSRN - Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration

Original Article

07/26/2012

Abstract:
The public’s panic about the fear of recidivism if adjudicated sex offenders are ever to be released to the community has not subsided, despite the growing amount of information and statistically-reliable data signifying a generally low risk of re-offense. The established case law upholding sex offender civil commitment and containment statutes has rejected challenges of unconstitutionality, and continues to be dominated by punitive undertones. We have come to learn that the tools used to assess offenders for risk and civil commitment still have indeterminate accuracy, and that the availability of meaningful treatment for this population remains uncertain in its availability and debatable as to its effectiveness. Yet, society continues to clamor for legislation confining this cohort of offenders for “treatment,” and, ostensibly, protection of the community, and legislatures respond quickly to these calls. This “reform legislation” often includes strict and demeaning post-release restrictions that track offenders and curb their integration into society. These “reforms” continue to show no benefit either to the public or to the individual offender. The absence of meaningful and effective treatment during confinement, combined with inhumane conditions upon release, make it far less likely that this cohort of individuals will ever become productive members of society. Only through therapeutic jurisprudence, a focus on rehabilitation, and a dedication to authentically treating individuals who have committed sexual offenses with humanity, will it be possible to reduce recidivism and foster successful community reintegration.

This article takes a new approach to these issues. It examines sex offender laws, past and present, looks at this area of sex offender commitment and containment through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens, and suggests basic policy changes that would optimally and constitutionally minimize re-offense rates, while upholding and protecting human rights of all citizens. It highlights the failure of community containment laws and ordinances by focusing on:
  1. the myths/perceptions that have arisen about sex offenders, and how society incorporates those myths into legislation,
  2. the lack of rehabilitation offered to incarcerated or civilly-committed offenders, resulting in inadequate re-entry preparation,
  3. the anti-therapeutic and inhumane effect of the laws and ordinances created to restrict sex offenders in the community, and
  4. the reluctance and resistance of courts to incorporate therapeutic jurisprudence in seeking to remediate this set of circumstances.

It concludes by offering some modest suggestions, based on the adoption of a therapeutic jurisprudence model of analysis.


Saturday, April 21, 2012

Unintentional Punishment



Abstract:
Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay close attention to the unintentional burdens of punishment. In two very important contexts — punishment measurement and justification — we use the term “punishment” to capture not only intentional harsh treatment but certain unintentional harsh treatment as well. This means that the widely accepted view that punishment is an intentional infliction requires substantial caveats. It also means that any purported justification of punishment that addresses only the intentional infliction of punishment is woefully incomplete.


Saturday, September 10, 2011

Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior


J. J. Prescott
University of Michigan Law School

Jonah E. Rockoff
Columbia Business School - Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

February 1, 2008

NBER Working Paper No. 13803
3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers
U of Michigan Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 08-006

Abstract:
In recent decades, sex offenders have been the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information on sex offenders be made public. Using detailed information on the timing and scope of changes in state law, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of sex offenses and the incidence of offenses across victims, and check for any change in police response to reported crimes. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among local victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers. We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism.


Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws


Original Article

Catherine L. Carpenter

Southwestern Law School

August 25, 2011

Abstract: (View the Document)
More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary.

This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation.

Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The Child Pornography Crusade and its Net Widening Effect


Original Article

08/24/2011

Melissa Hamilton

University of South Carolina - School of Law

Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 33, No.1. 2012

Abstract:
The criminal justice system’s effort to combat child sexual exploitation has taken on a primary and aggressive focus toward prosecuting those who violate child pornography laws. The deontological policy labels all child pornography offenders, whether they are producers or merely viewers, as morally bankrupt and a threat to the nation’s children. Yet the basis for the policy bears fundamental flaws, and this article explores them. The article first summarizes legislative efforts to bolster child pornography laws and lengthen sentences for violators. It then provides a synthesis of criminal justice initiatives that are expending substantial resources targeted toward investigating, prosecuting, and punishing child pornography offenders. The policy and the initiative rely on a presumption that child pornography consumers are in reality undetected pedophiles and child molesters who are at high risk of sexually abusing children.

This article challenges the presumption by comprehensively analyzing certain of the most commonly cited studies that purport to empirically support correlations between child pornography, pedophilia, and child molestation. It also highlights other empirical evidence, as well as some practical considerations, that instead tend to show that most child pornography offenders are at low risk of committing contact sexual offenses. In sum, the concentration on child pornography crimes appears to be a misinformed policy that fails to directly protect real children from harm.


Sunday, February 20, 2011

Public Safety, Individual Liberty, and Suspect Science: Future Dangerousness Assessments and Sex Offender Laws


Original Article

Melissa Hamilton
University of South Carolina - School of Law

Temple Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:
This article argues that the new preventive law focus in sex offender laws is largely ineffective and too costly to personal liberty. The application of sex offender laws involving civil commitment, sex offender registration, and residency restrictions is often based on an individualized analysis of future dangerousness, i.e., the risk the defendant will sexually recidivate. In assessing future dangerousness, experts and courts place heavy emphasis on the use of actuarial tools, basically checklists that mental health experts use to derive statistical estimates of risk. This article provides substantiation that actuarial tools, while enjoying the imprimatur of science, suffer from significant empirical faults. Yet courts are largely abandoning their gatekeeping roles in accepting the experts’ testimony using actuarial tool predictions of risk without critical review as required by the Daubert and Frye evidentiary standards. The paper theorizes that this is likely a pragmatic strategy considering the current political and public thirst for retribution against sexual predators. But, use of this empirically-challenged science exacerbates the practice of applying sex offender restrictions to inappropriately labeled individuals. Finally, this article takes advantage of the interdisciplinary trend of engaging social science with the law on expert evidence. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of future dangerousness opinions within the Daubert/Frye scientific evidence frameworks. The significance of the conclusion reached in this article is clear: if the law continues to rely upon suspect science that results in the wrong individuals being subject to liberty-infringing sex offender laws, then the drain on criminal justice resources will leave the truly dangerous offenders without sufficient supervision at the risk of public safety.


Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Prospects for the International Migration of U.S.-Style Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws



Florida State University - College of Law

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 34, 2011

Abstract:
Sex offender registration and community notification laws have proved enormously popular in the U.S. This is so even though the avowed sexual violence preventive benefits of the laws remain largely untested and unproven; indeed, it remains an open question whether the laws actually have anti-therapeutic and criminogenic effect. This paper, part of a symposium, examines why this data deficit has characterized the social and political evolution of the laws and considers the prospects for the migration of U.S.-style registration and community notification to other nations.


Thursday, May 6, 2010

SSRN - Public Safety, Individual Liberty, and Suspect Science: Future Dangerousness Assessments and Sex Offender Laws



University of Toledo College of Law


Abstract:
This article argues that the new preventive law focus in sex offender laws is largely ineffective and too costly to personal liberty. The application of sex offender laws involving civil commitment, sex offender registration, and residency restrictions is often based on an individualized analysis of future dangerousness, i.e., the risk the defendant will sexually recidivate. In assessing future dangerousness, experts and courts place heavy emphasis on the use of actuarial tools, basically checklists that mental health experts use to derive statistical estimates of risk. This article provides substantiation that actuarial tools, while enjoying the imprimatur of science, suffer from significant empirical faults. Yet courts are largely abandoning their gatekeeping roles in accepting the experts’ testimony using actuarial tool predictions of risk without critical review as required by the Daubert and Frye evidentiary standards. The paper theorizes that this is likely a pragmatic strategy considering the current political and public thirst for retribution against sexual predators. But, use of this empirically-challenged science exacerbates the practice of applying sex offender restrictions to inappropriately labeled individuals. Finally, this article takes advantage of the interdisciplinary trend of engaging social science with the law on expert evidence. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of future dangerousness opinions within the Daubert/Frye scientific evidence frameworks. The significance of the conclusion reached in this article is clear: if the law continues to rely upon suspect science that results in the wrong individuals being subject to liberty-infringing sex offender laws, then the drain on criminal justice resources will leave the truly dangerous offenders without sufficient supervision at the risk of public safety.


Monday, February 8, 2010

SSRN - The Adam Walsh Act and the Failed Promise of Administrative Federalism



The Adam Walsh Act and the Failed Promise of Administrative Federalism

Wayne A. Logan
Florida State University College of Law
George Washington Law Review, Vol. 78

Abstract:
For advocates of federalism, these are uncertain times. With hope of meaningful judicial federalism having largely receded, and Congress persisting in its penchant for intrusions on state authority, of late several scholars have championed the capacity of executive agencies to enforce and preserve federalism interests. This paper tests this position, providing the first empirically based critical analysis of administrative federalism, focusing on the recently enacted Adam Walsh Act, intended by Congress to redesign states’ sex offender registration and community notification laws. The paper casts significant doubt on the accepted empirical assumptions of administrative federalism, adding to the limited evidence amassed to date on state influence on agency rulemaking, and provides an important cautionary tale for future agency-based criminal justice mandates that will likely come to pass.


"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln


Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Federalism Challenges to the Adam Walsh Act



08/29/2009

Abstract:
This Note addresses two provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that have been challenged as violating principles of federalism: 18 U.S.C. § 4248, which provides for federal civil commitment of sexually violent predators, and 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A), which creates a new federal “failure to register” crime for federal sex offenders. Part I provides background information on the Adam Walsh Act and these two provisions. Part II examines the possible sources of constitutional authority for these provisions, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This Part explains that these two clauses provide the basis for most of the federal criminal law, and describes how they might be invoked to justify the Adam Walsh Act provisions at issue. Part III argues that neither provision is justified independently by the Commerce Clause. Finally, Part IV argues that neither provision is justified as a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s power to enact federal criminal laws. This is the chief rationale that the government has relied on in cases challenging the constitutionality of the civil commitment provision. Interestingly, the government has argued that the civil commitment provision is a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s power to criminalize both federal offenders’ past federal crimes and possible future federal crimes. This Note argues that neither provision is a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution the federal government’s power to prosecute, punish, or imprison individuals for past federal offenses. Furthermore, neither provision is a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution the federal government’s power to prevent future federal crimes. Because the provisions at issue exceed Congress’s constitutional authority, they are invalid and must be struck down. The Note concludes by suggesting how the provisions might be revised to pass constitutional muster.


"TThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (United States Constitution, Bill of Rights)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved


Thursday, September 10, 2009

Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function?



University of Chicago - Department of Economics

December 2008

Abstract:
I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C. with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.


"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved


Monday, August 24, 2009

Banishment of Sex Offenders: Liberty, Protectionism, Justice, and Alternatives



Pepperdine University - School of Law

Washington University Law Review, Vol.. 86, p. 1397, 2009
Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009/19

Abstract:
Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender and punish sex offenders through residency restrictions. These residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities in fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. Rather than being thrust into some wilderness, sex offenders are 'banished' to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders.

Banishing sex offenders through these residential restrictions impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of both sex offenders and our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. This Article also examines what methods from the environmental justice movement might be available to deal with the 'social justice' issue of sex offenders disproportionately burdening poor, minority communities. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that legislators should reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses.


"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved


Monday, August 17, 2009

The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders



The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders

The John Marshall Law School

August 16, 2009

Abstract:
This article addresses four central questions. First, what is the difference between normal law enforcement policy and a “war” on crime? Second, assuming such a line can be discerned, has the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (“AWA”) in combination with other sex offender laws triggered a transition to a criminal war on sex offenders? Third, if such a criminal war is emerging, what will be the likely effects of such a transition? Fourth, if such a criminal war is emerging with substantial negative consequences, can it be stopped?

By reviewing America’s history of criminal wars, primarily in the War on Drugs, the article identifies three essential characteristics of a criminal war: marshaling of resources, myth creation, and exception making. It concludes that the federalization of sex offender policy brought about by the AWA elevated law enforcement to a nascent criminal war on sex crimes. This change could have repercussions as substantial as the drug war has had on American criminal justice and society.

Excerpt - Exception Making
Just as in international wars, criminal wars are marked by deviations from normal codes of conduct. With the recent international War on Terror, there have been debates about the permissibility of torture, inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions, application of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the utilization of private corporations in acquiring personal information of citizens. The mentality of exception making in the War on Terror culminated in the oft-stated belief that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Thus, constitutional guarantees of liberty were to be sacrificed when policymakers perceived a threat to national security.

Similarly, in criminal wars, exceptions are crafted into normal law enforcement rules. In the constitutional context, it has been argued extensively that the War on Drugs has created a substantial set of exceptions to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the First Amendment’s protections for speech and free exercise of religion have also been subject to unusual exceptions due to the drug war. Even the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment has not been unscathed by the War on Drugs. The drug war also expanded federal criminal jurisdiction in ways that required another exception to the new federalism that emerged to temporarily revive the Commerce Clause as a means to limit federal jurisdiction.

Outside of the constitutional context, law enforcement was given a variety of weapons unique to the drug war context. The emergence of heavily armed SWAT teams, inter-departmental and inter-governmental coordination, aerial surveillance, and extensive sting operations are the result of the War on Drugs. Further, the growth of federal criminal law can largely be attributed to the desire to stamp out drug distribution and use in the United States.

This exception-making attribute of criminal wars has long-term effects beyond the immediate scenarios which were used to justify the exceptions. Once the government gained the exceptional tools used in the drug war, it was able to use those tools in other contexts as well. The constitutional and non-constitutional exceptions eventually became the rule. Now, SWAT teams are utilized in a variety of situations, the Fourth Amendment has lost its force in many cases, the federal government is free to pass criminal laws without any concern about the Commerce Clause, and undercover operations are used for any high-priority law enforcement project. What started as exceptions supported by “unique” circumstances have become tools available outside of the drug war context.



"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues, All Rights Reserved


Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Restorative Justice and Child Sex Offences: The Theory and the Practice



05/04/2009

affiliation not provided to SSRN

British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 48, pp. 359-378, 2008
UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2008-43

Abstract:
Restorative justice advocates have made a number of claims about the effectiveness of restorative justice in relation to sexual assault crimes, such as its ability to defuse power relations between the parties and heal the harm. This article examines whether or not restorative justice is one of the ways forward in the difficult area of prosecuting child sex offences by re-analysing some of the data reported in Daly (2006) and comparing restorative justice with other reforms to the sexual assault trial. It concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the view that there are inherent benefits in the restorative justice process that provide victims of sexual assault with a superior form of justice.