about 4 years ago - No comments
Columbus Day edition! From the Columbus Dispatch: Challenges to residency restrictions and “sex offender ghettos”. Mark Bennett has a copy of Phil Russell’s plea agreement. Robert Guest takes an in-depth look at written plea agreements and what you have to agree to give up. CDW discusses Catholics usually being disqualified from sitting on death juries…
about 4 years ago - 16 comments
(click on image for full size) In my post last night about Danbury’s desire to expel all sex offenders from its shelter, a helpful readers points to this NYT article about a homeless sex offender in Georgia who could be facing life in prison for failing to register. The offender, Larry W. Moore Jr. of…
about 4 years ago - 4 comments
Here are some stories from last week to make this Monday morning more palatable: Southern Crim Law has compiled advice to new criminal defense attorneys from several bloggers in the form of responses to questions every newbie might have. In Florida, sex offender status will be listed on licenses. May it please the Court, Scott…
about 4 years ago - 1 comment
A judge in Kentucky has ruled that residency restrictions cannot be applied to sex offenders that were convicted before the law went into effect. Jefferson District Judge Donald Armstrong Jr. dismissed the cases of three Louisville men charged with living too close to schools and a youth treatment center, ruling that the law is unconstitutional…
about 4 years ago - No comments
The Jumpstart is back after a one-week hiatus for reasons unknown. Take these with your morning coffee: The big story for the next two days will be the impending execution of Troy Davis, who might just be actually innocent. CDW has been doing a wonderful job of collection information and educating us about Davis. I…
about 4 years ago - 1 comment
After residency restrictions went into effect in Tippecanoe County, 28 sex offenders have been asked to move their homes. One of them, John Doe, is saying no. John Doe was convicted in 1988 and released from jail in 1992. Since then, he has no arrests. He has lived at his current address for 7 years.…
about 4 years ago - 3 comments
The New Haven Independent has this piece on some legislation discussed during the recently concluded legislative session. Notable among the bills mentioned was one to eliminate the offense of “sale within 1500 feet of a school zone”. Another bill People Against Injustice and other grassroots groups around the state supported would have removed 1,500-foot “drug-free…
about 4 years ago - 4 comments
So goes the headline of this Boston Globe story. Nearly three years after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state could post the names, addresses, and photos of the most dangerous sex offenders on a public website, sex offenders released from prison now often end up in homeless shelters, where it is difficult to…
about 4 years ago - 1 comment
So, as promised, here is the post on what happened to all those criminal law related bills that were voted out of committee. The ones that became law: HB 7313 An Act Concerning Domestic Violence. SB 1458 An Act Concerning Jessica’s Law. SB 0170 An Act Concerning Pardons. The ones that died, only to fight…
about 4 years ago - 6 comments
The Courant had this article over the weekend, chronicling the efforts across the state to deal with sex offenders after release. The debate in Stafford was feisty and political.First Selectman Allen Bacchiochi, a Republican, had proposed an ordinance that would ban convicted sex offenders from public parks and recreation areas. At the selectmen’s May 10…
about 4 years ago
Clarification: John Doe isn’t asking to be found “no longer a sex offender,” he’s petitioning to have the new “offender against children” label removed. The OAC label is fairly new, and is assigned based upon conviction alone, regardless of when the conviction occurred. The law also permits an OAC for its removal after ten years of offense-free living in the community.
Even that law is a constitutional mess, though. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld retroactive registration a few years ago because, according to the state’s argument (mirroring the successful SCOTUS argument), inclusion on the registry was not an indication of dangerousness, and thus there was no due process violation. However, the OAC label is automatically assigned, and to get it removed the registrant must prove he/she isn’t dangerous. The registrant must disprove something the state has said it doesn’t need to prove.
So even if John Doe is successful in proving he isn’t a danger to the community, he will remain on the public registry and still be subject to all other requirements. No appeals process exists for that.
about 4 years ago
Ilah, thanks for the clarifications. Don’t know how I messed that up.
about 4 years ago
Easy to do, and in this case, the more you know about the laws the easier it is to get them confused. Indiana also made the legislative decision to apply the “Sexually Violent Predator” label to certain crimes retroactively, and some of those crimes also make a registrant an OAC. And both SVP and OAC are subject to some of the same restrictions.
There is a seperate process to get the SVP label removed, so I suppose one could get the OAC label removed but not SVP, or SVP removed but not OAC, and then there wouldn’t be a difference in the restrictions.
Just to make it more interesting, the law now says that anyone who wasn’t incarcerated, or on probation/parole in 1994 can apply to have pre-2007 requirements/restrictions rather than the current ones–even if they have the label of SVP or OAC.
All of that was in the same bill. All of them, in one place or another, overlap and sometimes contradict each other.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3097"]Easy to do, and in this case, the more you know about the laws the easier it is to get them confused. Indiana also made the legislative decision to apply the “Sexually Violent Predator” label to certain crimes retroactively, and some of those crimes also make a registrant an OAC. And both SVP and OAC are subject to some of the same restrictions.
There is a seperate process to get the SVP label removed, so I suppose one could get the OAC label removed but not SVP, or SVP removed but not OAC, and then there wouldn’t be a difference in the restrictions.
Just to make it more interesting, the law now says that anyone who wasn’t incarcerated, or on probation/parole in 1994 can apply to have pre-2007 requirements/restrictions rather than the current ones–even if they have the label of SVP or OAC.
All of that was in the same bill. All of them, in one place or another, overlap and sometimes contradict each other.[/quote]
Sigh.
So I’d be correct in assuming that the SVP restrictions are stricter than the OAC restrictions?
about 4 years ago
Not neccessarily. SVP is the same for OAC in most non-registration issues. But SVP must report to LE at least four times a year, and submit to at-home and at-work verification four times a year, with most SVPs getting at-home verification visits on a monthly basis. (And that applies to those who aren’t on probation or parole. Those folks have to meet the registration/verification stuff AND their parole/probation checks.)
Additionally, anyone designated SVP must submit a travel itinerary to law enforcement in their county of residence if they’re going to be absent from them home for 72 hours or more. (That would include hospital visits, too.) And they must inform their destination county of their arrival. As far as I can tell, that law has also been applied retroactively.
Just to muddy the waters even more, (!) SVP used to be used solely for registrants who had been determined by a court and clinical examination to have a mental abnormality that made it likely to reoffend. SVP still covers that, but now so much more. Prior to the law’s change, there were fewer than 50 SVP in the state. Now the public has no way to know who those folks are.