<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is a battle on sex offender registration brewing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:10:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act &#124; a public defender</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-54010</link>
		<dc:creator>The Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act &#124; a public defender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-54010</guid>
		<description>[...] far greater than was approved by SCOTUS in Alaska and CT Dept. of Pub Safety (as distinguished by Maine&#8217;s Supreme Court): once a year for Tier 1, every 6 months for Tier 2 and every 3 months for Tier 3, all in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] far greater than was approved by SCOTUS in Alaska and CT Dept. of Pub Safety (as distinguished by Maine&#8217;s Supreme Court): once a year for Tier 1, every 6 months for Tier 2 and every 3 months for Tier 3, all in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan @ Survive Prison</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-53984</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan @ Survive Prison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-53984</guid>
		<description>Pretty scary stuff...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty scary stuff&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-53273</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-53273</guid>
		<description>My case goes back to 1982, in Kentucky and I served time there and paroled in 1985, and did not involve a child. However in 2006, while living in Florida, I was forced to register which caused me to lose a job of where I was employed and was making over 100000 a year and I lost my home with it as well, I contacted Kentucky and Kentucky had told me I did not have to register in their state because my charge was long before the new law.. I left the state of florida and went back to kentucky. I contacted florida and asked them to remove me since I no longer lived in their state and was told they would not remove me. It is certainly a punishment added to me. I am sure there are others that are having this punishment added to them as well.. So all the years of moving forward and becoming productive citizens is being tossed into the trash..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My case goes back to 1982, in Kentucky and I served time there and paroled in 1985, and did not involve a child. However in 2006, while living in Florida, I was forced to register which caused me to lose a job of where I was employed and was making over 100000 a year and I lost my home with it as well, I contacted Kentucky and Kentucky had told me I did not have to register in their state because my charge was long before the new law.. I left the state of florida and went back to kentucky. I contacted florida and asked them to remove me since I no longer lived in their state and was told they would not remove me. It is certainly a punishment added to me. I am sure there are others that are having this punishment added to them as well.. So all the years of moving forward and becoming productive citizens is being tossed into the trash..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark in Jersey</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-52817</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark in Jersey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-52817</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Currently, Connecticut&#039;s Megan&#039;s Law is not as punitive as the Federal SORNA guidelines...&lt;/b&gt;

1.  In Conn. you get off the registry after ten (10) years. 

If SORNA was implemented, S.A. 4th degree (case of 18 Y.O. touching his 13 Y.O. girlfriend), in violation of §53a-73a, would require registration for (25) years (any sex offense involving a minor is at least a Tier II offense under SORNA), as would Public Indecency (§53a-186) around a minor.  In the case of a S.A. 2nd degree, even in the case of a &quot;consensual&quot; sexual situation (19 Y.O. has sex with 15 Y.O) in violation of §53a-71, this triggers a lifetime registration (penetration of a minor is a Tier III offense under SORNA).  

&lt;b&gt;2. Under SORNA, those that already completed their ten (10) year registration period (depending on the legislature&#039;s language) might have to re-register!  Those that never had to register, will, as it is retroactive, covering ANY and ALL past convictions!&lt;/b&gt;

3. In Conn., registration is done annually by mail.  SORNA would change that to in-person, at the police station, and as frequently as every 3 months (Some probation visits aren&#039;t as frequent!)

4. &lt;b&gt;Juveniles delinquents (over 14, adjudicated for a S.A. 1st-type offense) would have to register under SORNA, as well as (in all probability) those who received &quot;Accelerated Rehabilitation&quot;, as SORNA considers &quot;any penal consquences&quot; such as probation or diversionary programs a &quot;conviction&quot;, even if that conviction is &quot;vacated&quot; or &quot;set aside&quot;!&lt;/b&gt;

5. In Conn. there are ways to get off the registry by petitioning the court.  Common ways to get off of the &quot;public registry&quot; are found in §54-255:

For example, (c.)(1) applies to those under 19 who committed a &quot;statutory rape&quot; type of offense. Subparagraph (c.)(2) applies to those convicted of a S.A. 4th (touching only) type offense. Subparagraph (c.)(5) applies to those who &quot;...(A) served no jail or prison time as a result of such conviction...(B) has not been subsequently convicted [of a sex offense]...&quot;

&lt;i&gt;I.e. Most low-level offenders plead guilty to Risk of Injury under §53-21, where there is no mandatory minimum, and get probation only.  Thus if they were convicted under the &quot;old&quot; Megan&#039;s Law, they qualify for the 54-255(c.)(5) exemption.&lt;/i&gt;

Unfortunately, these exemptions only apply to those convicted on or before September 30, 1998. &lt;b&gt;SORNA is likely to eliminate ALL exemptions!&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;b&gt;.. But changes are coming, since Conn. will have to implement SORNA to some degree... and the registry will be so diluted with harmless offenders that it will be useless!&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Currently, Connecticut&#8217;s Megan&#8217;s Law is not as punitive as the Federal SORNA guidelines&#8230;</b></p>
<p>1.  In Conn. you get off the registry after ten (10) years. </p>
<p>If SORNA was implemented, S.A. 4th degree (case of 18 Y.O. touching his 13 Y.O. girlfriend), in violation of §53a-73a, would require registration for (25) years (any sex offense involving a minor is at least a Tier II offense under SORNA), as would Public Indecency (§53a-186) around a minor.  In the case of a S.A. 2nd degree, even in the case of a &#8220;consensual&#8221; sexual situation (19 Y.O. has sex with 15 Y.O) in violation of §53a-71, this triggers a lifetime registration (penetration of a minor is a Tier III offense under SORNA).  </p>
<p><b>2. Under SORNA, those that already completed their ten (10) year registration period (depending on the legislature&#8217;s language) might have to re-register!  Those that never had to register, will, as it is retroactive, covering ANY and ALL past convictions!</b></p>
<p>3. In Conn., registration is done annually by mail.  SORNA would change that to in-person, at the police station, and as frequently as every 3 months (Some probation visits aren&#8217;t as frequent!)</p>
<p>4. <b>Juveniles delinquents (over 14, adjudicated for a S.A. 1st-type offense) would have to register under SORNA, as well as (in all probability) those who received &#8220;Accelerated Rehabilitation&#8221;, as SORNA considers &#8220;any penal consquences&#8221; such as probation or diversionary programs a &#8220;conviction&#8221;, even if that conviction is &#8220;vacated&#8221; or &#8220;set aside&#8221;!</b></p>
<p>5. In Conn. there are ways to get off the registry by petitioning the court.  Common ways to get off of the &#8220;public registry&#8221; are found in §54-255:</p>
<p>For example, (c.)(1) applies to those under 19 who committed a &#8220;statutory rape&#8221; type of offense. Subparagraph (c.)(2) applies to those convicted of a S.A. 4th (touching only) type offense. Subparagraph (c.)(5) applies to those who &#8220;&#8230;(A) served no jail or prison time as a result of such conviction&#8230;(B) has not been subsequently convicted [of a sex offense]&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p><i>I.e. Most low-level offenders plead guilty to Risk of Injury under §53-21, where there is no mandatory minimum, and get probation only.  Thus if they were convicted under the &#8220;old&#8221; Megan&#8217;s Law, they qualify for the 54-255(c.)(5) exemption.</i></p>
<p>Unfortunately, these exemptions only apply to those convicted on or before September 30, 1998. <b>SORNA is likely to eliminate ALL exemptions!</b></p>
<p><b>.. But changes are coming, since Conn. will have to implement SORNA to some degree&#8230; and the registry will be so diluted with harmless offenders that it will be useless!</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samuel Storns</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-52805</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel Storns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-52805</guid>
		<description>I agree in your view about the Smith decision. It cites the fact that the law under scrutiny in that case did not make in person registration mandatory nor did it restrict where an individual may live or work. All sex offender laws today do all of that and more. They also cited overwhelming evidence that &quot;sex offenders&quot; have a higher rate of recidivism, which has been proven to be inaccurate. I find it interesting that the Alaska Supreme Court also struck down subsequent laws on EPF grounds.

I do believe there is a sex offender case before SCOTUS now.

This battle has been brewing for a decade or more.

The minute we let our governments pass laws like this that restrict freedoms retroactively of any group of people is the minute we are all in danger. We have essentially given our government free reign to pass any laws they wish by simply inserting the words &quot;to protect.&quot; That puts all of our liberties at risk moving forward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree in your view about the Smith decision. It cites the fact that the law under scrutiny in that case did not make in person registration mandatory nor did it restrict where an individual may live or work. All sex offender laws today do all of that and more. They also cited overwhelming evidence that &#8220;sex offenders&#8221; have a higher rate of recidivism, which has been proven to be inaccurate. I find it interesting that the Alaska Supreme Court also struck down subsequent laws on EPF grounds.</p>
<p>I do believe there is a sex offender case before SCOTUS now.</p>
<p>This battle has been brewing for a decade or more.</p>
<p>The minute we let our governments pass laws like this that restrict freedoms retroactively of any group of people is the minute we are all in danger. We have essentially given our government free reign to pass any laws they wish by simply inserting the words &#8220;to protect.&#8221; That puts all of our liberties at risk moving forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RWVNRAL</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-52800</link>
		<dc:creator>RWVNRAL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-52800</guid>
		<description>It would appear to me that the time has long since arrived where a viable, nationally visible, legal resource center dedicated to the cause of Sex Offenders ought to be established.  I wonder why the legal community doesn&#039;t pull together some key players in the general area of sex offense litigation to make this a reality.  With 700,000 registered sex offenders in the nation, certainly there is enough support for changes to these onerous laws in order to raise the money which would be necessary to support such an endeavor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would appear to me that the time has long since arrived where a viable, nationally visible, legal resource center dedicated to the cause of Sex Offenders ought to be established.  I wonder why the legal community doesn&#8217;t pull together some key players in the general area of sex offense litigation to make this a reality.  With 700,000 registered sex offenders in the nation, certainly there is enough support for changes to these onerous laws in order to raise the money which would be necessary to support such an endeavor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shelomith Stow</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2009/12/29/is-a-battle-on-sex-offender-registration-brewing/comment-page-1/#comment-52772</link>
		<dc:creator>Shelomith Stow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2632#comment-52772</guid>
		<description>It is good to see Maine courts joining other states that have recognized the unconstitutionality of these laws.  Hopefully their decision is also driven, partially at least, by recognition that these laws do nothing to protect the public but do much to harm families and children.  The next step is to remove from all registries everyone whose offense was consensual, non-contact, non-violent, victimless, or did not involve a child.  Only then when the registries reflect the truly dangerous, sexually violent rapists and child molesters will it be a tool that can actually help law enforcement rather than hinder them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is good to see Maine courts joining other states that have recognized the unconstitutionality of these laws.  Hopefully their decision is also driven, partially at least, by recognition that these laws do nothing to protect the public but do much to harm families and children.  The next step is to remove from all registries everyone whose offense was consensual, non-contact, non-violent, victimless, or did not involve a child.  Only then when the registries reflect the truly dangerous, sexually violent rapists and child molesters will it be a tool that can actually help law enforcement rather than hinder them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.416 seconds -->
