a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Update: Reader “Ilah” has sent quite a few more my way.

• Report from Colorado SO Management Board, 2004 [pdf]
  
• Sex Offender Residency Restrictions, Jill Levinson, Ph.D., 2006 [pdf]
• Iowa County Attorneys Association Statement, 2006 [pdf]
• Statement of New Jersey Public Defender’s Office, 2005 [pdf]

Original post: Helpful reader “Oneandonly” points to two studies that conclude that residency restrictions have no impact on sex offenses. Unfortunately, neither one has a date on it, so I’m not sure how recent they are (In fact, the first one is available only via Google’s cache). Does anyone know of any other studies that are being conducted or have been conducted on the effectiveness of residency restrictions and sex offender registries?

This, I think, is a vital point in the discourse over the need for such measures. If they are found to be beneficial, then the argument against them loses some ground, but if they are found to make no difference or even worsen the situation, then obviously there needs to be a stronger push against them.

If you know of any such studies, leave a comment or send me an e-mail.

Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions, effectiveness studies

The judiciary committee, in a flurry of activity before the deadline, reported quite a few bills out of committee. Here’s a list of all relevant criminal justice bills reported out of committee this session:

• HB 5503 An Act Concerning Residency Restrictions for Registered Sexual Offenders
• HB 6285 An Act Concerning The Age of a Child with Respect to Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
• HB 7085 An Act Concerning the SOL for Prosecution of Certain Sexual Assault Offenses Using DNA Evidence.
• HB 7234 An Act Concerning Victim Services.
• HB 7313 An Act Concerning Domestic Violence.
• HB 7335 An Act Concerning Persistent Offenders.
• HB 7365 An Act Concerning the Procedure in a Capital Felony Trial.
• HB 7391 An Act Concerning Preventive Detention.
• HB 7406 An Act Concerning Youthful Offenders…
• HB 7408 An Act Concerning the Risk Assessment Board…
• SB 0170 An Act Concerning Pardons.
• SB 0708 An Act Creating a Violent Offender Registry.
• SB 0838 An Act Requiring the DNA Testing of Certain Arrested Persons.
• SB 1269 An Act Concerning the Quality of Legal Representation of Children and Youth in Juvenile Matters.
• SB 1322 Student Loan Repayment Assistance Bill for Public Defenders and Prosecutors.
• SB 1457 An Act Concerning Consensual Sexual Activity Between Adolescents Close in Age.
• SB 1458 An Act Concerning Jessica’s Law.
• SB 1479 An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Openness.

One of the sex offenders living under Florida’s Julia Tuttle Causeway motioned the court to allow him to return to jail. The court refused his request. The only article I can find on this has no further information on the judge’s reasoning for the denial and I think I understand the court’s hesitance to return someone to jail who has been paroled and has not yet committed a crime, but c’mon, something has to be done.

How long will these 5 men live under a bridge? A bridge, for cryin’ out loud! The state really needs to step up and do something here. Find a shelter for these men, preferably. At least Mr. Morales was nice enough to ask the judge. Next time, he might be forced to commit a crime to get back to jail and then we know what everyone will say.

Previous coverage:

• Florida housing sex offenders under a bridge.

HT: SexOffenderIssues

Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions, florida

Ever since Steve posted his opinion on what would be sensible registry and residency restriction legislation, I’ve been thinking about what I’d like to see implemented. Today, I have a few ideas.

1. Mandatory risk-assessment: Every inmate shall have his case presented to a risk assessment panel no later than 6 months prior to his or her release date. The panel shall consist of previously appointed individuals from the board of parole.

2. Criteria to be examined: The age of the offender; the age of the victim; degree of kinship (if any); prior sexual offenses; length of sentence; ties to the community; job experience; potential for re-employment; programs availed of during incarceration; allocution; victim statement, if any; conditions of probation.

3. Statutory exemptions: Offenders convicted of “statutory rape” where the sexual contact was consensual are automatically exempt from any registration and registry requirements.

4. Risk level scores to be assigned (tiered system): The risk assessment panel shall assign a risk level score to each offender. The scale shall be as follows: 1 - low level offender; 2 - mid level offender; 3 - high level offender.

5. Low level offenders shall be required to register for only 2 years, but the registration will not be publicly available and shall not have any residency restrictions imposed on them.

6. Mid level offenders shall be required to register for 5 years and will not be permitted to reside within 1000 feet of schools or playgrounds. Mid level offenders will also not be permitted to work where they will come in contact with minors under the age of 16.

7. High level offenders shall be required to register for 20 years and will not be permitted to reside within 2000 feet of schools or playgrounds. These offenders shall also not be permitted to work where they will come in contact with minors.

8. All offenders shall be permitted to return to their existing residences if they have resided there for more than 5 years prior to the date of the offense, unless the victim of their offense lives within 2000 feet.

9. The registration of all mid-level and high-level offenders shall be available to the public.

10. Requirements for obtaining information: Any member of the public seeking information on mid-level and high-level offenders shall be required to provide a name, valid address and proof that a child under the age of 16 resides in their home.

11. The Department of Corrections shall be charged with the task of ensuring that all sex offenders are given adequate training in vocations that does not require contact with minors.

12. Parents will be charged with the task of educating their children about not talking to strangers and not getting into strangers’ cars.

13. Penalty for misuse: Anyone using publicly available information to threaten, harass or injure a released sex offender shall be guilty of the offense corresponding to their actions, or a Class D felony, whichever is greater.

Ugh. I had more, but I received a phone call and now I’ve lost my train of thought. Anyway, what do you guys think? A little crazy? Too liberal?

CT seems to be in the grasp of a storm to pass as much sex offender legislation as it can this session. Another bill proposed yesterday is aimed at making details of convictions more easily available.

Connecticut lawmakers are considering a number of bills that would provide more information about sex offenders and control where they can live.

Barbara Bonin, of Sterling, has three children all under the age of 6. When she moved to Sterling’s Oneco neighborhood near the Rhode Island border, she wanted a safe place to raise her children.

“We looked at the school system here … We looked for the sex offenders. We looked for the crime rates,” Bonin said.

At the time, no sex offenders lived near her home. Bonin said the neighborhood has recently changed and that she was asked if she recognized a man in a photograph. She didn’t recognize the man but was curious.

She learned that the man in the picture, Michael Rose, is a registered sex offender.

“I was very upset,” Bonin said. “I was beyond upset.”

So she has a right to live there, but he doesn’t. Here’s another dangerous idea: tying sex offenders into housing markets. This is added incentive for towns to pass residency restrictions prohibiting sex offenders from living within their boundaries.

As to the bill itself, I think it might have some value. For example, in the case that is the focus of the story:

Currently, the registry only lists Rose’s offenses as a sex assault in the third-degree. To find out the specific charges, you have to pay $25 to the state police for a criminal history.

Eyewitness News paid the fee and learned that Rose has been arrested eight times since 1981 on a variety of drug and sexual assault charges. No where in his rap sheet does it indicate any charges involving a minor.

I have a new idea! If you want information about sex offenders (or more specifically those convicted of offenses involving minors) you have to register with your name and address and provide proof that you have a child under the age of 16 living in your house. How’s that?

Technorati Tags: connecticut, legislation, sex offenders, residency restrictions

Worcester, MA is concerned about the impact of neighboring towns’ sex offender residency restrictions. Worcester’s Councilor-at-Large, Kathleen Toomey, is asking the city manager to report on what the impact on the city could be.

Ms. Toomey said, “I’m concerned about the impact on Worcester. … If those were enacted, does that mean that they would be moving to Worcester if they were not welcomed in their existing communities?“Worcester already has a fair number of existing sex offenders. I don’t want us to have to take any more than we have to.”

She seems cognizant of many of the problems associated with residency restrictions, including the fact that law enforcement finds it difficult to keep track of offenders forced to move out of their homes.

Ms. Toomey said she does not know what the city should do about the potential impact of sex offenders coming here.“I’m not asking for anything,” she said. “I understand there’s a fine line between civil rights and protecting the citizens of the community.” Ms. Toomey said she is aware that some police fear that restrictions on where sex offenders can live could drive them underground and make them harder to keep track of.

“I’m looking for information and a discussion,” she said.

If people get overly restricted where they live, Ms. Toomey said, it would be natural for them to move to a city the size of Worcester, where they could blend in anonymously.

Technorati Tags: massachussetts, residency restrictions, sex offenders

The Judiciary Committee today considered HB 5503: An Act Concerning Residency Restrictions For Registered Sexual Offenders. I am saddened by this news. The requirement is 1000 feet from schools or day-care facilities. However, exceptions exist:

The provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply if (1) the person has established a residence within one thousand feet of such property prior to the effective date of this section, or (2) the school or facility is newly located on or after the effective date of this section within one thousand feet of such person’s residence.

In a  state this small, I wouldn’t be surprised if this effectively precluded offenders from living in any cities.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, residency restrictions, sex offenders

Today saw two prominent sex offender issues blawgers voice their opinions on what sensible laws should be:

• SexCrimeDefender
• Sex Offender Issues

Steve Smith writes:

I think the chief evil of 90% of the current laws is the utter lack of effort to separate out true predators from one-time mistakes.

Most of his suggestions correctly center around differentiating between “high risk” and “low risk” sex offenders.

ZMan! opines:

If we must keep the online registry, then only those who are deemed high-risk should be on the registry, all others should be removed from the online portion of the registry. I’d rather see the registry be removed off line completely, but I know that will not occur.

Instead of making buffer zones, designate places sex offenders cannot go to. This way, at least they can walk or drive without violating some law.

Therapy should be mandatory in prison and jail for ALL criminals deemed to need it. If they do not get the treatment, then they will remain in prison or jail.

I do not agree with his last point that therapy should be mandated or offenders remain incarcerated. Civil commitment comes with its own issues and the ability of the state to effectively incarcerate someone beyond the term of their sentence at the excuse of “therapy” is something I cannot sign on to.

Technorati Tags: sex offenders, solutions, residency restrictions

Steve Smith, who commented here on my violent offender registry post has elaborated his position further on his own blog in response to a comment there. He writes:

1.  I do not believe it does the defense bar and its allies in the blogosphere and elsewhere to blindly rail against any and all sex offender (or violent crime registries if this law goes any further) registries.  The registries are clearly here to stay and wishful thinking is not making them go away.

2.  The defense bar is going to be more effective assisting lawmakers in crafting RATIONAL registry laws in the first instance rather than swinging blind hay makers in the vain hope something will dissuade lawmakers from a “popular” course of action which has so far been upheld by the courts.

3.  In my role as a citizen I think its entirely possible for a rationally crafted registration law to be of some use in alerting the public to dangers of which it may otherwise be unaware.  I am critical of somewhat random categories of crimes being held up as a rational method of categorization rather than a scientific look at the probabilities a particular individual poses a danger.

There’s more. Go to his site to read the full post.

He does make some valid points. Obviously, sex offender (or any other offender) registries are here to stay, as are residency restrictions. I don’t think anyone in the blawgosphere is delusional about that. However, just because they’re here to stay doesn’t mean that people vehemently opposed to them should temper their criticism because of that reason alone.

The second argument he makes is a valid point going forward. Unfortunately, it assumes that lawmakers would have been amenable to anything other than draconian legislation were it not for the “ruckus” created by the defense bar in many situations.

His third argument is one that many in the defense bar are already advocating. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting New Jersey’s study on the efficacy of Megan’s Law in the state. New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, does have a tiered system.

In summation, I will repeat what I said in my earlier post: I am not altogether against offender registries, though there has to be more of an evaluation process and the flasher does not need to be in the same category as the child molester.

However, I am and will be firmly against residency restrictions, for I believe they are another form of punishment.

This is a great time of year. The legislature is in session and new bills are being proposed. Via the OLR, I see that one such curious bill is Senate Bill 708 - An Act Creating A Violent Offender Registry. Yes, this bill proposes a registry akin to the sex offender registry for violent offendes. The offenses are:

1. murder (including felony murder and arson murder),
2. first-degree manslaughter,
3. 1st-degree manslaughter with a firearm,
4. 1st–degree kidnapping of a minor,
5. 1st–degree assault, or
6. conspiracy or criminal intent to commit any of the above crimes.

First time offenders are required to register for 10 years and second offenders for life. Failure to register is a Class D felony.

Are residency restrictions for violent offenders far away? Will we have an ever growing class of citizens who will be forced to live in seclusion? Shades of Escape from L.A.

Seriously, what does this achieve. Look at the list of offenses. Murder - minimum sentence of 25 years. Most murders aren’t random crimes. What will you do? Cross the street when you see someone who was convicted of murder? 1st degree assault? Do people seriously believe that assault convictees walk around randomly assaulting people?

Between this and the sex offender registry, it leaves only the larcenies and related offenses and the drug crimes. I’d rather have a community notified of someone who was convicted of a robbery or burglary. The store owner has as much a right to know that a person convicted of hold-ups lives in the neighborhood.

Also, isn’t the central argument behind sex offender registries and residency restrictions that that class of people cannot be rehabilitated? Registry proponents frequently cite statistics that recidivism rates are the highest for that class of offenders. Is the tune changing? Are they all equally likely to re-offend? You can’t have it both ways.

Maybe the way to end this is to make records of all convictions (which are public information anyway) available on a website. I don’t know.

At some point, SCOTUS will have to address the Constitutionality of these registries and residency restrictions. We are heading toward a very fractured society.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, violent offenders, registry

Out of Maryland comes the news that legislators are considering shifting their focus away from residency restrictions. I cannot tell you how much this gladdens me. Finally the push against residency restrictions is beginning to pay off and hopefully more states will follow suit and try to cultivate legislation that will actually accomplish the goals they seek.

Sen. Norman Stone and Del. John Olszewski Jr. now say the focus of their bills is likely to move away from residential restrictions toward other legal remedies.

The possible changes come after studies conducted in states where similar laws have been passed or considered conclude that such restrictions have little effect.

In their current form, these bills would be standard fare - restricting how close sex offenders can live to “areas populated by children”.

Both Stone and Olszewski, however, say their bills may be altered to reflect the growing body of opinion in legislative and law-enforcement circles nationwide that residential restrictions are ineffective and, in some cases, counterproductive.

A report presented to the Florida legislature in 2005 was among the first to call residential restrictions into question, saying that statistics showed no decrease in the likelihood that convicted child sex offenders would commit new offenses, despite the presence of restrictions.

The Florida report went on to say that “such policies may ultimately be counterproductive,” noting that residential restrictions tended to cause many offenders to move into small-town and rural areas where they were poorly supervised by law enforcement authorities and had little or no access to psychiatric treatment, or drove them underground, where they were not monitored or treated at all.

Absolutely on point. The article also does a good job of highlighting other states where these laws are being questioned.

This analysis has been echoed in states like Texas, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota, where legislatures have rejected residential restriction bills, as have cities including Topeka, Kan., Maplewood, Minn., and Covington, Ky. Legislatures in other states, including Georgia and Oklahoma, are revisiting their residential restriction statutes.

However, it seems that Iowa is now being looked at as the vanguard of this movement. Lots more after the jump, so click on the link to read the full post.

Wednesday seems to be a busy day for legislators around the country. Here are the latest developments in sex offender related legislation from the nation:

Vermont:

• A civil commitment bill is being proposed, which would also require that high-risk offenders report to "the authorities" or face life imprisonment.

Alabama:

• House Bill 54, which would prohibit two or more convicted sex offenders from residing together in the same dwelling.

While people generally are allowed to live where they want, [State Rep. Robinson] said, “We can focus on the number of them living in one dwelling.”

• House Bill 55 would require notification of a sex offender’s address to everyone living within 2000 feet of that residence.
  

  “It’s strange that a (registered) sex offender can’t work within a certain boundary of schools and day care centers, but they are living across the street from the same children and senior citizens whom we are trying to protect,” Robinson said. Alabama law prohibits sex offenders from living or working within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility.

Georgia is proposing a host of changes:

• Senate Bill 249 includes a provision to allow for elderly and disabled people to petition the court to be exempt from the sex offender residency restrictions.
• The bill also removes school bus stops from the law as part of residency/work restrictions.
• The bill also changes how the 1,000-foot exclusionary distance is determined. The distance, as proposed, would be measured from the actual building, at its closest points, instead of the property line of the school, church, day care, park or area where minors congregate.
• The new legislation also increases the reporting requirements for sexual offenders.
• Failure to comply or provide false information is considered a felony punishable by imprisonment for no less than 10 and no more than 30 years. Conviction of a second offense is punishable by imprisonment for life.
• The bill also restricts where convicted sex offenders can work or volunteer and how close the place of employment can be to a school, childcare centre or church. The distance shall be determined by the location in which such individual actually carries out or performs the functions of his or her job.

Very interesting stuff all around, especially the proposed changes to to Georgia’s legislation. I’m curios to know how many other states measure the 1,000 (or 2,000) feet from the actual building itself and not the edge of the property that it rests on.

The NACDL recently adopted the report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force [.pdf]. The report is a great read and highlights many of the issues that the blawgosphere routinely discusses regarding sex offenders, sex offenses and civil commitment.

On mandatory minimums:

The ostensible purpose of lengthy mandatory sentences is to ensure the incapacitation of the offender in an effort to protect the community. The call for such sentences is based upon the belief that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated and will commit further sex crimes upon their release from incarceration or probationary sentences. It cannot be doubted that some sex offenders, just like some burglars, swindlers and robbers cannot or will not be rehabilitated and will commit subsequent crimes. However, the research demonstrates that sex offenders are far less likely to repeat their crimes once caught and punished. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are significantly lower than those for other offenses. A study conducted by the United States Justice Department revealed that only 5.3% of persons convicted of a sex crime will commit will be arrested for another sex crime and that only 3.3% of persons convicted of child molestation crimes will be arrested for another sex crime against children.5 These recidivism rates are substantially less than equivalent rates for other offenders. For instance people convicted of theft offenses were re-arrested the rate of 77% and motor vehicle thieves were re-arrested at the rate of 79 percent.6 The overall re-arrest rate generally for all people released from prison was 68 percent.7 The Canadian government has conducted more extensive studies which corroborate the finding that recidivism rates for sex offenders are far less than the recidivism rates for other convicts.8 Individual states which have studied recidivism have reached similar results.

Please see the report itself for citations.

On sex offender registration:

A “one size fits all approach to sex offenders,” as a group, is irrational. Requiring the same registration and community notification requirements of all sex offenders diminishes the ability of the public to ascertain the truly dangerous sex offender in the community.17 It also undermines the ability of the non-dangerous sex offender to maintain employment, family relationships and treatment programs. Many registered sex offenders report negative consequences, including physical assaults, resulting from registration and community notification.18 The determination of offender risk should be based upon the individual characteristics of the offender and not solely upon the offense of conviction.

It is great to see such a well thought out and detailed report on the issues plaguing sex offender laws in the country. However, I would have liked to see more about residency restrictions.

That is what the Ohio Supreme Court will decide this year. Gerry Porter, a registered sex offender, committed his offenses before the residency restrictions went into effect. He owns his home - which is 983 feet from an elementary school - and has lived there since 1991. Porter was ordered to move and the First District Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

Then last year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in Norwood v. Horney – the landmark eminent domain decision arising out of the city of Norwood’s taking of property for a retail and office complex – that property ownership is a “fundamental right” that “must be trod upon lightly.”

Porter’s lawyer, David Singleton of the Cincinnati-based Ohio Justice and Policy Center, argued that those property rights should also apply to sex offenders.

However, the Second Circuit, in another case, held that a sex offender could not be forced to move. The Supreme Court has taken this case to resolve that conflict.

Technorati Tags: megan’s law, residency restrictions

Using this table from USA Today, I created a map of the United States, showing states that have residency restrictions in force. However, I was using a trial version of the software and it printed a watermark right over the legend in bold. I’ve decided not to attach it to this post. So if someone wants to see the map, click on the link after the jump

What is interesting (and can be gleaned from the table itself) is that almost all of the 10 smallest states in the country do not have any residency restrictions in place. It seems that these states have realized (or perhaps not) the problems that would arise with implementing residency restrictions. As a colleague joked the other day, you cannot be arrested for possession of a narcotic in this state without also being within 1500 feet of a school, park, library… the same would go for residency restrictions for sex offenders.