OK - Sex registry law needs overhaul

David Slane

Original Article

06/04/2014

By David Slane (Law Firm)

In 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature approved a new law that required all sex offenders be classified under a three-tier system that placed offenders in a specific category depending on the nature of the sex crime.

However, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) went a step further and made the new registration law retroactive to 1998. However, in June 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the retroactive application of the rule was unconstitutional.

The court’s landmark ruling allowed more than 2,000 sex offenders to remove their names from the statewide registry because their registration requirements had either expired or would be prolonged by the 2007 law.

The law has left everyone scratching their heads about what’s next. The current registration system makes no sense and leaves plenty of room for debate about fairness and public safety.

It makes sense for the state Legislature to return to the drawing board and start over on this law.

Some people are on the registry because they urinated in a public street, and they’re not sex offenders. State officials need to stop wasting time and precious resources on those registrants. For the record, indecent exposure convictions and other low-level offenses require 15 years of registration.

Instead, devote the majority of resources to the high-risk offenders who need the most intensive supervision and strictest registration requirements the state can offer. The high-risk offenders should be required to check in daily, which would give the public a higher level of security.

Level 2 offenders, those who pose a moderate danger to the community, must register for 25 years. Meanwhile, Level 3 offenders, those who pose a serious danger to the community and are likely to engage in criminal sexual conduct, must register for their lifetime.

Part of the problem is that DOC officials, when implementing the system, tossed most of Oklahoma’s sex offenders into the Level 3 category. They didn’t want to take the heat to make an honest assessment of each case.

Changing the system will take a groundswell of public support. Still, reform of any kind might cause consternation for most state lawmakers who have never seen a sex offender law they didn’t like. It’s popular to be tough on crime, which includes drunks who urinate next to their car.

It’s time for Oklahoma legislators to stop thinking about re-election and polls and study what works and doesn’t work with the sex offender registration system.

One solution is to remove the registration assessment out of the hands of DOC only and rework the procedure to include trial judges, district attorneys and defense attorneys. That would provide a higher level of fairness while ensuring public safety. A broken system gives parents and the community a false sense of security while really protecting no one.

When most people think of a sex offender, they think of a baby raper or serial rapist. But the truth is most sex offenders are convicted of nothing even similar. We need to stop painting every sex offender with the same broad brush and look at individuals for what they did and act accordingly.

While high-risk sex offenders need to be closely supervised, it’s critical for others who have completed their sentence to be given a second chance at life.

In Defense of Rational Sex Offender Public Policy and Laws

Original Article

10/17/2013

By Christopher Zoukis

The past several weeks I have been researching the sex offender laws applicable for sex offenders living in Rhode Island and in South Carolina. While not surprising, the laws are anything but rational and they are certainly not empirically based. This goes across the board, not merely in Rhode Island or South Carolina but at both the state and federal levels.

The Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (Wikipedia) requires sex offenders to be classified in one of three tiers of supervision. Tier 1 sex offenders have lighter restrictions placed upon them (e.g., report to their sheriff's department every year, most likely be on the public sex offender registry, and comply with any state or local residency requirements), while Tier 3 sex offenders have extraordinarily onerous restrictions (e.g., report to their sheriff's department every 90 days, possibly be placed on GPS monitoring, have regular in-home and at work spot inspections, etc.).

On its face it looks as if sex offenders are monitored -- and have restrictions -- according to their risk of reoffense. After all, there are distinct qualifications for each tier assignment. But what is the difference between a Tier 1, Tier 2, and a Tier 3 sex offender? The answer to this, not surprisingly, is not much. There are some differences in offense conduct or frequency, but not many. To put this in context, there are very few Tier 1 sex offenders compared to the number of Tier 2 sex offenders. And there are fewer Tier 3 sex offenders than Tier 2 sex offenders. But most sex offenders are merely grouped together in the second tier category.

If we accept that most sex offenders will be placed in Tier 2, with those particular restrictions and registration protocols, then we are also accepting that the one-size-fits-most view be employed. This results in a dilution of effective sex offender community monitoring. Essentially, those with a higher risk and those with a lower risk, who are clumped into Tier 2 sex offender registration and monitoring requirements, will receive the same level of community monitoring, outpatient treatment, and communal notification. This seems like a foolhardy public policy decision, from both a public safety and fiscal perspective.

Ask yourself this, does it sound right to have someone who is known to sexually assault children or women at a bar on the same level of community monitoring as someone who freely downloaded child pornography on their computer? It doesn't sound right to me. In fact, the situation gets worse when you take into account that Tier 1 sex offenders are placed on the sex offender registry for fifteen years, Tier 2 twenty-five years, and Tier 3 for life.

Read the rest of the article

PA - Forum to address sex offender registration laws

Original Article

09/20/2012

By Jennifer Harr

A forum on Wednesday will address Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act, both of which deal with sex offenders, in an attempt to educate the public about how both work.

“This forum is a time for our community to ask questions,” Jacquie Fritts, executive director of the Crime Victims’ Center of Fayette County (CVC), said. “I’m a firm believer that the community needs to be eyes and ears and a protector for our neighbors. It only can be done as a community, and you can’t do it if you don’t have the information and the knowledge.”

The CVC and Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus, are co-hosting the forum in advance of the Adam Walsh Act, which goes into effect in January. The forum will be held at Penn State Fayette starting at 6 p.m.

Fritts said many people aren’t sure how Megan’s Law, the current law under which released sex offenders can be mandated to register addresses, works. And when the Adam Walsh Act goes into effect, there will be additional changes to registration requirements, including an increased length of time that a sex offender will be required to register.

The act also divides sex offenses into tiers, based on their severity, said Herbert Hays, a longtime member of the state’s Sexual Offenders Assessment Board. That board, established as part of Megan’s Law, sends examiners to interview people convicted of most sex crimes to determine if they fit into the category of sexually violent predators.

Such a designation, made by a judge following a hearing, leads to even more stringent reporting requirements for sex offenders.

The biggest change under the Adam Walsh Act, Hays said, is that it holds juvenile offenders more accountable by also requiring them to register as sex offenders.
- Juveniles should NOT be on a sex offender registry, especially one that is public, and the public registry, in our opinion, should be taken offline and used by police only.  It's becoming an online hit-list for vigilantes to use to target ex-offenders.

That act is much more strict than the Megan’s Law provisions, Hays said.

“From a professional standpoint, we as adults have a responsibility to protect our children from sexual offenders and sexual predators. The Adam Walsh Act, in my opinion, strengthens the law to protect children,” Hays said.

Hays will present information about Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act from 6 until 7 p.m. The second hour will be a panel-type discussion that includes representatives from local law enforcement, the district attorney’s office, Children and Youth Services and Penn State faculty.
- What about experts who have treated ex-sex offenders?

Susan Brimo-Cox, spokeswoman for Penn State, said the university is hopeful that partnering with CVC to present the forums will give the public a chance to become educated on important topics such as the laws that govern sexual offenders.

“Penn State Fayette is pleased to be able to provide a forum for community discussion again this year. This is an important topic and has far-reaching importance throughout the community,” Brimo-Cox said. “We want people in this community to get involved and learn about different kinds of abuse, how to prevent it and what to do if they encounter it.”

Over the next year, CVC and Penn State are going to host other panel discussions.

“We’re going to hit everything that effects our community,” Fritts said. “We’re really hoping to get community members at these discussions so they can get educated to find out who they need to talk to and what they need to do to keep our children, our neighbors, our seniors — everyone — safe.”

Fritts lauded Penn State Fayette for partnering with CVC to present the forum.

“Penn State has been real instrumental in working with us on educating people in general about child sexual violence and sexual violence. Our Fayette campus works well with the community, and always has,” Fritts said.