Let the Burden Fit the Crime: Extending Proportionality Review to Sex Offenders

Original Article (PDF)

03/2014

By Erin Miller

Draconian restrictions on the activities and privacy of convicted sex offenders are a new, and troublesome, trend. In 1994 and 2006, following a national dialogue about crimes against children sparked by several high-profile incidents, Congress passed two laws requiring states to register and regulate sex offenders residing within their borders. States and municipalities soon caught on, and deepened restrictions. In the last five years alone, local governments have forbidden sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of schools; “be” within 500 feet of parks or movie theaters; enter public libraries; drive buses or taxis; photograph or film minors; and use social networking websites like Facebook. Others have required sex offenders to advertise their status on driver’s licenses or social networking profiles; wear GPS bracelets at their own expense; notify local police when present in any county within the state for longer than ten days; provide notice to all new neighbors within a roughly quarter-mile radius when they move; and pay up to $100 annually to maintain sex offender registries. These burdens typically last for a decade or for life, depending on the jurisdiction and the type of crime committed.

Read the entire story here

WI - 7th Circuit upholds $100 annual sex offender registry (extortion) fee

Original Article

01/28/2014

By Bruce Vielmetti

The $100 that Wisconsin sex offenders must pay every year for being listed on a registry is not an unlawful fine, a federal appeals court has ruled. But the court did not address other lifetime conditions of Wisconsin sex offender registration because it found the challengers lacked standing.

The decision (PDF) by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling by a Green Bay federal judge, and also thwarted the plaintiffs' request to proceed as unnamed. Instead, the court added their names to the case.

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach had ruled the $100 fee amounted to a fine and therefore was an unlawful "ex post facto" punishment for the two plaintiffs, who had been convicted before Wisconsin adopted the sex offender monitoring law.

_____ and _____ remain subject to not only the annual $100 fee, but also many other lifetime requirements and restrictions of the sex offender registry, even though they now live in Connecticut and Florida, respectively, and never intend to return to Wisconsin.

_____ was convicted in 1993 and served four years in prison plus six years of probation. _____ was convicted in 1985 and served five years, then again in 1993 and served one year. Each is now subject to lifetime registry in Wisconsin.

But if that's true, the court wrote, they would likely never face any real consequence of violating those restrictions, such as changing their name, or photographing children, or not reporting a change of address, because Wisconsin admits it has never tried to enforce completely out-of-state violations of the restrictions.

_____ and _____ do have standing to complain about the annual re-registration and fee, but the court said those aspects of the law are not punitive, and therefore not prohibited "ex post facto" law. Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion for a panel that included Judge Diane Sykes and Judge Frank Easterbrook.

"The fee is intended to compensate the state for the expense of maintaining the sex offender registry," Posner wrote. "The offenders are responsible for the expense, so there is nothing 'punitive' about making them pay for it, any more than it is 'punitive' to charge a fee for a passport."

On the issue of the plaintiffs' request for anonymity, the court noted that while the plaintiffs contend they've been subjected to shunning and harassment for being on the offender registry, which is public, the court generally opposes secrecy. In this case, judges didn't see how any additional harm from being named as plaintiffs could outweigh the disruption to their personal lives they say they already have suffered.

KS - Attorney general appeals offender registry ruling

Original Article

01/23/2014

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

WICHITA (AP) - The attorney general urged the Kansas Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a district judge's decision that allowed a child molester's name to be removed from the state's offender list.

The lengthy filing (PDF) by the Kansas Attorney General's Office outlines, for the first time publicly, the state's arguments against the ruling last year by Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks. The judge ruled that the offender registry law was unconstitutional, saying it ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary.

The ruling applied to a 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County Sheriff's Office seeking to end his registration requirement. However, a ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court would affect others on the registry whose reporting requirement was retroactively lengthened by a 2011 amendment to Kansas Offender Registration Act, or KORA.

Christopher M. Joseph, the Topeka attorney representing the Lenexa man, said a ruling by the high court could affect thousands of people. His client isn't named in court documents.

"If the Supreme Court affirms the trial court's decision, the KBI will be forced to reduce the registration periods for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of registrants whose constitutional rights are also being violated," Joseph said Thursday in an email to The Associated Press.

The state law requires people convicted of certain sex, drug and violent crimes to register with law enforcement for between 15 years and life, depending on the severity of the crime. Kansas has 11,114 people now listed on the registry: 6,706 for sex crimes; 2,189 for drug offenses; and 2,219 for violent crimes, the KBI said Thursday.

The man at the center of the lawsuit pleaded guilty in 2003 to having indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years.

But the Legislature amended the law in 2011, extending the length of time such offenders must be registered to 25 years. The state then told the man, now a married father, that the law applied retroactively — meaning he had to remain registered until 2028.

Hendricks concluded the law was punitive, meaning it was a punishment that couldn't be retroactively enforced per the U.S. Constitution. The judge noted that the law requires offenders to register in person four times a year, pay a $20 fee each time and face a felony for failing to register.

In the state's appeal, Assistant Attorney General Christopher Grunewald argued the law wasn't punitive, but rather a law to protect the public. He said the penalty for failing to register was to ensure compliance not impose a punishment.

"Sex offenses are repugnant, and the risk of sex offense recidivism remains high — the Legislature chose to make sex offender registration a top priority," Grunewald wrote in the appeal. "The choice does not represent a judgment that registration is punitive, only that compliance is a paramount goal."
- That is a flat out lie!  Recidivism for new sexual crimes is low, below 5% in most studies.

The state also argued that the judge erred in refusing to throw out affidavits from the man and his wife that recounted how their children would come home crying after being teased at school, after being told their father was a "bad man," ''pervert" or "pedophile." The state contends most of that was hearsay, because the father had no personal knowledge of what his children's classmates told them.

The state's appeal also contends that the judge should not have considered research journals citing studies that confirmed offender registries cause significant employment and housing disadvantages.

Kansas also defended the public notification requirements. The law requires a notation of "RO" to be placed on the driver's licenses of a registered offender, which the district court called a "visible badge of criminality." It also requires law enforcement to notify the public about sex offenders in their vicinity, which the state contended advances the legitimate non-punitive purpose of public safety.

In addition, the appeal asked the Supreme Court to allow the man's name to be released, saying the public has an interest in knowing the identity of the person challenging a law that requires him to register as a sex offender.

Joseph, the man's attorney, objected.

"The apparent objective is to force Mr. Doe to dismiss his case in order to protect his family from renewed threats of violence and his property from further vandalism," the lawyer said. "It is sad that our Attorney General has resorted to such a tactic."

MI - Sex Offenders Assessed New $50 (EXTORTION) Fee

Original Article

So where is the ACLU on this? No other criminal has to pay a fee to maintain a registry or their criminal records, so why force ex-offenders to pay an extortion fee?

11/05/2013

LANSING - Sex Offenders will have to pay a fee to maintain the sex offender registry in Michigan. On Tuesday Governor Snyder signed into a law a measure that charges registered sex offenders $50 a year for as long as they are required to be on the sex offender registry. The law was sponsored by Senator Rick Jones of Grand Ledge.

"This law will help reduce taxpayer costs to maintain Michigan's sex offender registry," Gov. Rick Snyder said in a statement sent to the media. "By requiring registered sex offenders to pay an annual fee to fund the registry website, law enforcement will be able to direct more of its resources to public safety."
- The tax payers and idiotic politicians are the ones who want the registry and draconian laws, so they should be the ones who pay this fee.  You don't force other criminals to pay an extortion fee!

Previously, registered sex offenders only had to pay a one-time fee, which only provided enough revenue to cover about 10 percent of the cost to maintain the state's sex offender registry, according to the Governor's office.
- We though this is what the Byrne Grants were for?

MI - Legislation would force sex offenders to pay to be on registry (Poll available)

Original Article

Please click the link above and take the poll below the main video.

And to reiterate what eAdvocate said "A registry which merely shows where registrant's are for a few hours of the night when they are sleeping does nothing to protect the public. Politicians want the registry to further political goals!"

10/24/2013

LANSING (WNEM) - Legislation passed by the Michigan Senate in Lansing would require registered sex offenders to pay an annual fee to help maintain the state's sex offender registry.

Senate Bill 221's sponsor, state Sen. Rick Jones, said it is ready for the governor's signature.

"These are people who committed crimes," said Jones, R-Grand Ledge. "I do not believe that the hardworking taxpayers in Michigan should foot the bill for a registry of crimes they did not commit."
- So when are you going to force all other ex-felons to pay an extortion fee?

In a news release on Thursday, Jones cited other states such as Indiana, which charges $50 per year for a similar registry, and Illinois and Ohio, which charge $100 per year.
- Just because another state gets away with extortion doesn't mean you should follow them!

Currently, Jones stated the cost of maintaining the Sex Offender Registry database in Michigan is funded through a one-time $50 registration fee for offenders, even though the majority of offenders register for 25 years to life.

Jones stated in the release that during the past five years, the money collected from this one-time fee is less than 10 percent of the cost of maintaining the registry. Jones noted that as a result, law enforcement must divert taxpayer dollars that should be spent on putting more police officers on the streets.
- Well the tax payers are the ones who want this online hit-list so they should pay for it!

"Sex offenders can afford to pay a dollar or two per week to pay for the list," Jones said. "Taxpayers should not have to be burdened with this cost. The offenders should support this list as they do in neighboring states."
- We should also not have to pay taxes on a lot of other things, but I don't see you eliminating those taxes!

TX - Soules aims to keep parks free of sex offenders

Carlton Soules

Original Article

10/03/2013

By JOSH BAUGH

SAN ANTONIO - If a suggested ordinance targeting sex offenders in San Antonio becomes law, city parks would gain a 1,000-foot buffer zone to help keep children safe from potential predators, the plan's author says.

Councilman Carlton Soules' proposal would create “child safety zones” around city-run parks. Sex offenders would be banned from the zones and would be prohibited from loitering or establishing either a permanent or temporary residence within 1,000 feet. The pitch has unanimous support from the City Council subcommittee that oversees public safety policies.

Soules, who previously served on the city's parks board, said he has asked city staff to write a draft ordinance for review by the Public Safety Committee, which he chairs, before the full council can vote on the measure. The proposal would give police officers another “tool,” he said, to keep city parks safe.

“There have been a couple incidents in the last couple years of people exposing themselves to kids in parks,” Soules said Thursday.
- Okay, so how would this prevent that?  It won't!  If a person is intent on exposing themselves or committing a sexual crime in a park, they will!

Under the proposal, registered sex offenders who live within the proposed 1,000-foot boundary around parks would be “grandfathered in” and not forced to move. There would also be exemptions for minors and for adult offenders who were convicted as minors.

A registered sex offender could also petition Municipal Court for an exemption from the ordinance if, in its opinion, “undue hardship will result from compliance,” according to Soules' Council Consideration Request — a two-page city document that starts the process of creating an ordinance.

“As a home-rule municipality, the City of San Antonio has a constitutional right of self-government and a compelling interest to promote and protect the safety and welfare of its citizens,” Soules writes in the CCR. “For that reason, the city should work to create a Child Safety Zone around the city's park system where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers.”
- This will not protect anybody!  It's just the usual fodder for politicians to exploit to get votes or to look "tough" to the sheeple who believe it.

Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson, an advocate for ex-offenders' re-entry into society, questioned whether Soules' proposal could be effectively enforced.

“I would just say our best remedy for people who have violated our laws is, first, to secure faithfully our society, and (second), try to reduce recidivism,” he said. “The whole re-entry process is to try to stop people from being caught up in this cycle of repeat criminality.”

Soules says police officers responding to a call for help in a park today might not be able to remove a sex offender, unless that person had committed a crime on the property. Officers would have legal standing to remove the offender under the new rule.
- Come on!  If a person has called 911 for help, and if there is just cause, then the police can force the person from the park and to not come back or be arrested.  You don't need a law for this!

Soules has also asked city staff to determine how much the Police Department spends maintaining the local sex offender registry. The councilman plans to ask council to create a fee that offenders would pay upon registering, which they're required to do.