Review of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

December 2008 Washington DC:

Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2009-001, Office of the Inspector General

Results of the Review

SECTION I: DEPARTMENT EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT SORNA

Although the Department prepared a memorandum in 2006 regarding implementation of SORNA, we determined that the memorandum reached only one of several Department components involved in implementing SORNA. Moreover, we found that the Department has no current plan to guide the components’ efforts to implement SORNA requirements. At the component level, OJP has issued software to all jurisdictions to connect sex offender public registries to the NSOPR portal, as required by SORNA, and OJP’s SMART Office also has continued to assist jurisdictions to implement enhancements to jurisdiction sex offender registry systems. However, the SMART Office took 2 years to issue implementation guidelines to the jurisdictions, and not all jurisdictions have used the software to connect their public registries to the NSOPR portal.

The United States Department of Justice: Final Guidelines for the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

July 2, 2008 National:

Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–248), the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), contains a comprehensive revision of the national standards for sex offender registration and notification. The SORNA reforms are generally designed to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification for the protection of the public, and to eliminate potential gaps and loopholes under the pre-existing standards by means of which sex offenders could attempt to evade registration requirements or the consequences of registration violations.

Section 112(b) of SORNA (42 U.S.C. 16912(b)) directs the Attorney General to issue guidelines to interpret and implement SORNA. The Department of Justice published proposed guidelines in the Federal Register on May 30, 2007, for this purpose. See 72 FR 30209 (May 30, 2007). The comment period ended on August 1, 2007.

Note-1: Section 112(b) of SORNA actually says:
(b) GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General shall issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement this title.

Note-2: The only Rule issued was to make SORNA retroactive (Feb 28, 2007), why wasn't that a Guideline? (Because Guidelines have no force of law, and Rules do. This subtle difference forced states to make their laws retroactive, and very likely in violation of state constitutional ex post facto prohibitions.)

Note-3: While it is true that Congress can vest powers to a lesser agency, as it did here to the DOJ (USAG), Congress itself DOES NOT have the power to violate State Constitutions, therefore, is the action by the USAG (to force states to make their laws retroactive) legal? i.e., Congress cannot vest what it does not have, in fact, the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment actually stands in the way of such action. (See also doctrine of nondelegation )

These final guidelines provide guidance and assistance to the states and other jurisdictions in incorporating the SORNA requirements into their sex offender registration and notification programs. Matters addressed in the guidelines include general principles for SORNA implementation; the jurisdictions responsible for implementing the SORNA standards in their programs; the sex offenders required to register under SORNA and the registration and notification requirements they are subject to based on the nature of their offenses and the extent of their recidivism; the information to be included in the sex offender registries and the disclosure and sharing of such information; the jurisdictions in which sex offenders are required to register; the procedures for initially registering sex offenders and for keeping the registration current and the registration information up to date; the duration of registration; and the means of enforcing registration requirements.

A summary of the comments received on the proposed guidelines follows, including discussion of changes in the final guidelines based on the comments received, followed by the text of the final guidelines.

..For the remainder of these FINAL Guidelines..(PDF) (Text Link) by DOJ

State appeals sex offender law ruling

10-31-2008 Nevada:

The Nevada attorney general's office will appeal a federal judge's decision that bars the state from applying a new sex offender law retroactively.

The attorney general's office filed a notice of appeal this week with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Judge James Mahan's September decision.

Mahan ruled that a new sex offender law, Assembly Bill 579, was unconstitutional because it would punish convicted sex offenders who had paid their debt to society.

The law changes the way Nevada classifies sex offenders. Instead of categorizing them by risk to re-offend, the law categorizes sex offenders by the crime they were convicted of.

"Our mandate is to defend the laws of the state of Nevada. We will pursue that mandate," said Binu Palal, deputy attorney general.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and attorney Robert Langford challenged the law on behalf of about a dozen sex offenders.

Maggie McLetchie, staff attorney with the ACLU of Nevada, said she was disappointed with the attorney general's decision to appeal Mahan's decision. She said an appeal will be costly for the state, which is already facing budget woes. She said the ACLU has already billed the state about $140,000 in legal fees for the sex offender case.

"Our hope was to sit down and work collaboratively with the attorney general's office and legislators on this issue," she said. "There are ways to work this out and further public safety goals."

ACLU Executive Director Gary Peck said the law the attorney general's office is supporting isn't enhancing public safety. He called the appeal "a colossal waste of time, energy and money." ..Source.. by DAVID KIHARA, REVIEW-JOURNAL