Child molester (Registrant) in Macomb County stopped from leaving country

9-6-2013 Michigan:

A convicted Macomb County child molester was stopped last week at an airport in his attempt to fly to Europe in celebration of his 25th wedding anniversary because he failed to notify operators of the sex offender registry.

He was arrested Aug. 28 by Michigan State Police minutes before he and his wife were to board a Delta flight at Detroit Metropolitan Airport headed for Amsterdam, and ultimately to Prague. He was to return Sept. 9.

“He said they were going on a 25th wedding anniversary cruise that he paid $16,000 for,” said MSP Trooper Craig Tuer, state coordinator for the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. “He wasn’t happy. He was in disbelief.

“I don’t think those school children (he was accused of molesting) would’ve been happy” if he was allowed to break the rules and go on the trip.

He was formally charged Friday in 46th District Court in Southfield with failure to provide the registry of his plan to leave the country at least 21 days prior to departure and failure to provide a copy of his passport. The felonies are punishable by up to four years in prison.

His attorney, Kenneth Karam, said his client did not intend to skirt the law.

“If there was any violation, it certainly wasn’t willful,” Karam said. “This was a long-planned vacation. It wasn’t something he was trying to hide. Everything was in his own name.

“The Registry Law is complicated. I think he complied, but we’ll see.”

He said the incident “was disconcerting, to say the least,” to him and his wife, who are both retired.

Tuer said when an offender reports his intent to leave the United States, the MSP informs that country, which can choose to reject the person. He said some countries typically ignore the warning while others will turn away a convicted sex offender.

He pled no contest in 2005 to one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in a plea agreement with Macomb County prosecutors. He was sentenced by Macomb County Circuit Judge Mary Chrzanowski to five years probation, with the first year in the county jail. Fifteen additional charges of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and another five counts of attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct were dismissed as part of the deal. The offenses carried a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.

Warren Consolidated Schools and officials were sued by 10 girls in 2006 and one additional girl later in U.S. District Court in Detroit. Each settled the case for an undisclosed sum that they will begin receiving at age 18.

William Seikaly, who represented the victims, said “the general consensus” among the girls and their parents was that he “got off easy in the criminal case.”

“Like the victims in cases of this type, they have been deeply affected and haunted by what occurred,” Seikaly said. “Many of them resented the fact that he never suffered any serious consequences for his behavior.”

The settlement was to pay for compensation and psychological treatment for the victims, Seikaly said at the 2007 settlement hearing, court documents say. ..Source.. by JAMESON COOK

Reworking Sex Registry

Need to ID and Review the 2007 case spoken about in this article!

1-8-2011 Maine:

State and federal laws appear to be on a collision course when it comes to sex offenders. Federal laws have become increasingly strict and demanding, while the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has raised serious concerns about some requirements in existing state law.

Balancing these two pressures will make the work of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee especially difficult in this realm.

On the federal side, the pressure comes in the form of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, legislation signed in 2006 aimed at conforming state rules for sex offenders. A key provision of the law requires a three-tiered system based on the severity of the crime and age of the victim. Those in tier III must meet every three months with designated officials.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court expressed concerns about such a requirement in Maine’s law.

In 2007, the court raised significant questions about the state’s sex offender registry. The court was especially concerned about changes made in recent years to require Internet posting of personal information about offenders, to restrict where offenders can live and to require fingerprinting every 90 days for offenders convicted since 1982. The case was brought by a man who said the registry violated his rights by imposing punishment that did not exist when he pleaded guilty in the 1980s to a crime against a family member.

The changes have made the law significantly more punitive and intrusive, changing the nature of the sanctions from civil penalties to a retroactive increase in criminal penalties. The justices suggested this retroactive increase violates the Maine Constitution. The court said it needed more information before ruling on the merits of the case and sent it back to Kennebec County Superior Court, where it remains pending.

A year before the court ruling, two men on the registry were killed by a man from Canada who reviewed their information on the state’s sex offender website, the most popular in state government.

What two justices called “shaming and branding” often leads to social isolation and depression, which could impede rehabilitation and cause some to re-offend. The registry requirements may thus be harming, rather than protecting, public safety.

That is the crux of the problem that the Criminal Justice Committee must deal with. At what point does a sex offender registry — and its many requirements — change from a helpful tool to a detriment?

Failure to comply with the Adam Walsh Act would mean a loss of federal funds. But the fact that only three states and two Native American tribes are currently in compliance shows that there are many problems with the federal law.

In recent years, lawmakers have addressed some legal concerns by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Some sex offenders can now petition to be removed from the registry requirement if they were sentenced after Jan. 1, 1982, and before the 1999 sex offender law. The Legislature also has considered adopting a tiered system with stricter requirements for the worst offenders.

The bottom line is that the state’s registry should satisfy public safety objectives without unnecessary negative consequences. ..Source.. by Bangor Daily News EDITORIAL