Monday, April 22, 2013

ME - Bangor council restricts where sex offenders may live

Original Article


By Nick McCrea

BANGOR - In a 6-3 vote Monday night, the City Council passed an ordinance that bans some sex offenders from moving to within 750 feet of a publicly owned property frequented by children.

When the council first voted on the ordinance 28 months ago, Councilor David Nealley was the only councilor to vote in favor of the ordinance. This time around, he was joined by Councilors Joe Baldacci, Pauline Civiello, James Gallant, Charlie Longo and Benjamin Sprague.

Councilors Susan Hawes, Patricia Blanchette and council Chairman Nelson Durgin voted against the ordinance.

The residency restriction applies to individuals convicted of Class A, B or C sex offenses committed against a child under age 14. Offenders in that category who live within a 750-foot boundary won’t be required to move. However, if they did move, their residence would have to be outside the restricted zone, and they could not move back into a restricted area. That’s the most restrictive ordinance allowed under Maine law.

Bangor residents who spoke at committee and council meetings had voiced support for the ordinance.

David Green of Dunning Boulevard, who helped revive the proposed ordinance, said it would “make Bangor a less attractive destination for sex offenders,” pointing out that 21 of Bangor’s 141 registered offender registrants are from out of state and more than 60 percent of them are from outside Penobscot County.

The effectiveness of such ordinances across the country has been called into question in studies in Iowa, Colorado, California, Florida and other states. Most studies argue that the restrictions don’t have any effect, and some say they create a false sense of security in communities and decrease safety.

Councilors who voted against the ordinance, both in 2010 and again in 2013, argued that the proposal was nothing more than a feel-good ordinance.

In Minnesota, the state’s Department of Corrections conducted studies in 2003 and 2007 and found that there was no evidence that residential proximity to schools or parks affected recidivism rates, as people who offend tend to do so away from their own neighborhoods. The department’s research also found that pushing high-risk sex offenders to rural or suburban areas resulted in less access to services and supervision.

National studies indicate that more than 90 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone who knows the child, oftentimes in the offender’s or victim’s home, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Other studies indicate that sexual predators seldom offend in their own neighborhoods and target children away from their homes.

Shawn Yardley, the city’s director of health and community services, said during Monday’s meeting that while the ordinance seemed to be “well intended,” it could give parents and the public a false sense of security by indicating to parents that it’s safe to send their kids to a park because there aren’t any sex offenders in the area. Councilors Blanchette, Durgin and Hawes have echoed those same concerns, pointing at the ineffectiveness outlined in the studies.

Even some councilors who voted in favor of the ordinance Monday conceded it might not have tangible effects, but argued that it sent a message and took a step toward solving growing problems in the city.

Nealley and Sprague each said they “struggled” with their positions on the ordinance based on questions of efficacy.

Probably they’re right,” Nealley said of the case studies’ findings, but he added that he didn’t believe doing nothing was the right move for the city.

Gallant pointed out that one of the studies states that “only” 7 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers. He said the use of “only” was troubling, as was the 7 percent figure.

Even if we could save 7 percent — only 7 percent — it would be a good idea,” Gallant said.

Other councilors said that if the ordinance prevented one incidence of sexual abuse of a child, it would be worthwhile.

We need to make our families here in Bangor our No. 1 priority,” Civiello said, arguing that the passage of the ordinance would send a message to residents and outsiders, much like the disruptive property ordinance and support of a bill that would reduce the city’s share of methadone patients.

Also during Monday’s meeting, the council voted to place a 180-day moratorium on quarries in the city after year-old concerns about noise and ailing property values suddenly re-emerged during committee meetings in March. Councilors said they would like to come to a solution well before the 180 days are up.

See Also:

LA - Former deputy (Ernest Billiot) receives 10 year sentence

Ernest Billiot
Original Article

What about having to register as a sex offender when he gets out?


A former Delcambre Police Officer will spend 10 years in jail after he was found guilty of sexually abusing a woman in his custody.

Ernest Billiot was sentenced Friday for the second degree kidnapping and sexual battery of a woman he detained while on duty in February 2008.

Billiot will serve 10 years in prison at hard labor for both charges at the same time without the possibility of parole or probation.

During the trial Billiot admitted to the judge he abused his power.

See Also:

OH - Appeals Court Reverses Sex Offender’s Conviction, Can’t Be Reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act

Original Article


By Jenna Gant

The Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled April 18 that a sex offender from California who moved to Ohio cannot be reclassified as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act.

[name withheld] was required to register his address annually for a period of ten years when he first moved to Ohio under the former Megan’s Law. In July 2007, the attorney general reclassified [name withheld] under the Adam Walsh Act, which required him to register his address every 90 days for life.

[name withheld] failed to register in July 2010 and was indicted on a single count of failing to register his address. [name withheld] tried to get the charge dismissed, arguing that his 2007 reclassification was unconstitutional under the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Bodyke (PDF), which held that the attorney general’s reclassification of an offender from Megan’s Law to the Adam Walsh Act “violated the separation of powers doctrine because it would allow the executive branch to review a decision made by the judicial branch.”

The state argued that [name withheld]'s case is different than Bodyke because [name withheld]'s classification was made in California and not in Ohio.

Administrative Judge Melody J. Stewart wrote in the appeals court’s unanimous decision (PDF) that the Eighth District Court of Appeals has “repeatedly rejected the argument that there is a distinction between in-state and out-of-state offenders.”

Judge Stewart found that [name withheld]'s case is also not affected by the December 2012 Ohio Supreme Court decision State v. Brunning (PDF), in which the court held that “despite an offender who was originally classified under Megan’s Law being wrongly reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act, the state could still maintain a prosecution for a violation of the reporting requirements as long as the alleged violation also constituted a violation of Megan’s Law.”

Judge Stewart noted that Brunning was charged with failing to comply with a change of address requirement that was the same under both Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act, while [name withheld] is required to register annually for 10 years under Megan’s Law, compared to every 90 days for life under the Adam Walsh Act.

Judges Mary J. Boyle and Tim McCormack concurred in the April 18 opinion that reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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

Original Article


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.

Sex Offender Issues - Photo Slideshow