Why We Need the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

A very interesting question: Which is more effective at preventing sex crimes, SORNA -or- the Maryland state registry (actually any state registry)?

12-21-2012:

On December 23, 2009, 11-year-old Sarah Haley Foxwell was snatched by a nighttime intruder from her home in Wicomico County, Maryland. That intruder was Thomas Leggs, Jr., a convicted sex offender. After brutally raping her, Leggs murdered Foxwell and deposited her burned and lifeless body in a field near the Maryland–Delaware border, where it Sarah was found on Christmas Day.1

Leggs, who was ultimately convicted of this heinous offense, was able to avoid scrutiny in Maryland because, although listed in Delaware’s registry as a “high-risk” sex offender, Leggs was deemed to be “compliant” in Maryland.

While it is impossible to say with any certainty, this tragic result might have been avoided had Maryland been in compliance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which, despite strong public support, remains controversial.

..Source.. From: An Exchange Over The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) by Andrew J. Harris, John G. Malcolm, Jill Levenson

Josh Gravens, Subject of Observer Feature, Removed from Sex Offender Registry

Listen to him tell his story CLICK HERE

12-7-2012 Texas:

The Texas Observer’s June cover story, “Life On the List,” looked at what happens when children are placed on Texas’ public sex offender registry. It centered on Josh Gravens, who at age 12 had sexual contact with his sister, was handed over to the Texas Youth Commission for more than three years, and has been listed in the public registry ever since.

Before agreeing to be interviewed for by the Observer, Gravens had never discussed his ordeal with anyone who didn’t strictly need to know. Gravens had never been an activist. He had struggled privately, moved from place to place, job to job.

Each time he started to build a life, he’d be fired, threatened, or evicted after a couple of years when something called attention to his presence on the registry. As of November 15, though, the 25-year-old married father of four is, for the first time since he was 13, not on the list.

Flight risk: Airline policy profiles men as sex offenders

8-16-2012 Global:

Are you a man? You might be a pedophile - at least according to Virgin Airlines. An upstanding male passenger was asked to move seats on a Virgin flight from Australia recently and was informed it was because of the airline's policy prohibiting men from sitting next to unaccompanied children. Virgin is not alone. Apparently many international airlines, including British Airways, have this policy in effect because according to their reasoning, the "overwhelming majority" of sex offenders are male.

"We're trying to prevent child victimization. We know the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are male, so by removing that situation you're lowering the risk," said John Shehan of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States.

At first I tried to figure out the problem with a man next to a kid on a flight. How do you molest a stranger in public? It seems like the same risk of getting randomly stabbed - should we all be seated four feet apart on flights? And if men can't sit next to kids on flights, should they be banned from sitting next to them at restaurants or passing by them at the mall? Should we put blinders on all men, bind their hands and cover women and children in beekeeper suits? Sarcasm, of course. When I first heard of this story I was confused about what, exactly, was the risk of a man sitting next to a child in a highly regulated environment like a flight. No one has lighters or blades on flights anymore, shall we worry about letting men carry candy? And what is a good pedophile when stripped of his scary white van??

Former prison guard describes hostile atmosphere for sex criminals

12-20-2012 Pennsylvania:

A former State Correctional Institution Pittsburgh prison guard testified against an ex-colleague at trial today, saying that officers created a hostile atmosphere for sex crime convicts, but that he did not personally witness physical abuse.

Former corrections officer Curtis Hoffman worked SCI Pittsburgh's F Block, where, according to inmate testimony, sex criminals were singled out for hazing and sometimes physical abuse. Tory Kelly, 41, of Aliquippa, is on trial on 14 counts ranging from simple assault to official oppression.

Another former officer, Harry N. Nicoletti of Coraopolis, faces trial next month on 89 counts.

Mr. Hoffman testified under a grant of immunity from prosecution that also covered his testimony, twice, before a grand jury.

He said that Mr. Nicoletti would perform most of the new inmate orientations on F Block.

Mr. Nicoletti would "say, 'You look like an [epithet] child molester. You'd better tell me or I'm going to go on the computer and find out,'" Mr. Hoffman testified.

Mr. Hoffman said that Mr. Kelly was not assigned to F Block, but would frequently come there.

Mr. Kelly "bragged about his escapades," Mr. Hoffman said. "He always talked about fighting. ... The only complaints I heard with reference to him were inmate workers or staff who said they were tired of him bragging about beating up inmates."

Under cross examination by defense attorney David Cercone, Mr. Hoffman said he never saw Mr. Kelly strike an inmate, nor did he recall seeing the defendant interact with any of the four prisoners whose allegations form the basis of the trial.

He portrayed supervision of F Block as lax.

"It's commonplace for supervisors to approach the block, sign the log book and leave," he said. But within the prison there was broad knowledge of the singling out of sex crime convicts on F Block, he said.

The prosecution then rested and the defense will begin, and possibly complete, its case this afternoon. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge David Cashman is handling the nonjury trial.

Some time shortly after the completion of this trial, Mr. Kelly faces a separate trial on five counts related to allegations that he tried to intimidate Mr. Hoffman. ..Source.. by Rich Lord / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Thinking the Unthinkable

12-16-2012 National:

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with....at what age did your child....were there any problems with...has your child ever experienced...does your child have....”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map). Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/05/us-number-mentally-ill-prisons-quadrupled)

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140167676/nations-jails-struggle-with-mentally-ill-prisoners)

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all. ..Source.. by The Anarchist Soccer Mom

California opts out of federal sex offender law

10-5-2012 California:

California is sticking with its own first-in-the-nation sex offender registry instead of complying with a 2006 federal law that sought to create a seamless 50-state tracking program.

The state Department of Justice says state legislators made no attempt to meet the federal standards set by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act despite the threat of a loss in federal grant money.

Experts questioned the value of the federal law and said California’s cost of complying would far exceed the lost federal funding.

State justice officials said California stands to lose nearly $800,000 this year. The grant money previously had been used for drug enforcement but would have been diverted to sex offender management, registration and victim notification programs under the federal law. Only the state’s portion of the grant will be lost, the department said; grants to local law enforcement are unaffected.

The California Sex Offender Management Board, which advises the governor and Legislature, estimated in 2008 that it would cost the state at least $32 million to comply with the federal law, not including the cost of incarcerating offenders who failed to comply with the new federal registration regulations.

The bulk of the cost, about $25 million, would have been for local law enforcement agencies to assess and more frequently re-assess offenders’ risk of committing new crimes to meet the federal requirements, the board projected.

The board, made up of law enforcement and treatment experts, also said California’s registration system was superior to that required by the federal law.

The federal law requires that an offender’s perceived risk of committing a new crime be based solely on his or her previous crime, while California relies on a range of indicators. They include the offender’s criminal history, age at the time of the offense and the type of victim.

The board said the federal requirement “is far less reliable” than California’s method.

The federal law also would require California to begin publicly naming many juvenile sex offenders on its Megan’s Law website, which the state board said was counterproductive. It also would have had to add several additional crimes to the list of those requiring criminals to register as sex offenders.

“California should absorb the comparatively small loss of federal funds that would result from not accepting the very costly and ill-advised changes to state law and policy required by the (federal) Act,” the board said in its 2008 report. ..Source..

Texas won't participate in national sex offender registry

10-6-2012 Texas:

Six years after a bill establishing a national sex offender registry was signed into law, Texas and most other states are not participating.

Texas officials say the national registry is too costly, and it's willing to risk losing about $1.4 million in grant money that would help local agencies enforce the law.

State lawmakers say the grant money is far less than the estimated $38  million it would cost to modify the state's registry program.

"We couldn't afford the national program," said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. "The local law enforcement doesn't have the money, and the state doesn't have the money."

Nearly three dozen states have failed to meet all the conditions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act because of concerns about how it works and how much it would cost. Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, California and Nebraska have opted out of the national registry.

Members of the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee made the decision following an interim meeting two years ago. Local law enforcement officials testified against complying with the act, saying it would add more sex offenders to the state's already extensive registry.

70,000 registered

About 70,000 sex offenders were registered as of August, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

The federal law, named after a boy kidnapped from a Florida mall and killed in 1981, was supposed to create a uniform system for registering and tracking sex offenders. However, soon after President George W. Bush signed it, many states realized they would have to overhaul their sex offender registration programs to comply.

States were required to comply by 2009, but the U.S. attorney general gave states an extension to July 2011 after many objected to a requirement that all juveniles 14 and older who had committed aggravated sexual assaults register for 25 years.

Texas juveniles are required to register for 10 years after they leave the juvenile system. The state, however, gives judges discretion to waive or remove a juvenile from the register. They also can defer a decision until after the juvenile successfully completes therapy. Those options would be removed under the federal law.

Other concerns

States also have concerns because the federal law categorizes offenders by crime and not by the risk they pose.

To comply, Texas would have to add certain offenses that require registration under the federal law. The state also would have to eliminate its use assessment to determine each offender's risk to the community. Offenders are registered as either low, moderate or high risk.

Allison Taylor, executive director of the Council on Sex Offender Treatment, testified that Texas has been working to narrow the sex offender registry to dangerous sex offenders and the federal law would undo this work. The growing registry has made it difficult and costly for local law enforcement to maintain the registry and monitor sex offenders, she told the committee.

Proponents of the federal law had hoped it would ease the risk that states with less-stringent registration would become havens for sex offenders.

Whitmire said the state's system is effective, but lawmakers will need to figure out how to ensure that only most dangerous offenders are on the list. Many offenders are registered because they had consensual sex with a minor, he said.

Texas lawmakers also should consider repealing language that prohibits de-registering low-risk offenders, he said. Adult offenders are required to register for life.

Decision supported

Ana Yáñez-Correa, executive director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, said the state made the right choice to ignore federal law. Texas is probably one of the toughest states on sexual offenders, so there's no need to waste money changing the system, she said.

The penalty for not complying is 10 percent of Byrne grant funds, given to law enforcement agencies for crime prevention.

Texas and the other four states that have decided not to honor the law still have the option to reapply for withheld money.

The 29 states that are in partial compliance have asked to have their withheld money released to help them meet conditions of the law. ..Source.. by Renée C. Lee

Indiana sex offender registry full of inaccuracies

Article cited by the Court of Appeals in Schepers, et al v. Ind. Dept. Corrections

4-21-2012 Indiana:

INDIANAPOLIS — Inaccuracies in Indiana's online sex offender registry that show offenders living in places that no longer exist or include outdated information undermine the registry's purpose and make it difficult to protect the public from sexual predators, state lawmakers and national experts say.

But fixing the registry won't be easy. No statewide entity is responsible for overseeing accuracy, and though the Indiana Sheriffs' Association provides general guidelines, the state's 92 counties are responsible for entering and updating information, The Indianapolis Star reported (http://bit.ly/zRpGDa ).

As a result, the registry lists a convicted rapist as living at what is now a vacant lot and shows offenders at addresses that now house day-care centers or are years outdated because the offenders are in jail, the newspaper found.

Officials acknowledge the inaccuracies are problematic.

"We don't want somebody that would have a hostile attitude toward these kinds of people thinking that there was a sex offender living there and harassing them," said Lt. Robert Hanna of the Marion County Sheriff's Department, which administers the county's published list of sex offenders.

Efforts to correct the registry, however, have been stymied by the state Supreme Court's decision nearly three years ago to create a group known as "Wallace offenders."

The term was coined after Richard P. Wallace was convicted in 1989, before the registry existed. The justices ruled unanimously that putting him on the registry was retroactive punishment and unconstitutional.

Hundreds of other offenders are in similar situations, including in Marion County, where about 20 percent of those on the registry are considered Wallace offenders. They no longer have to update their information when they move, yet their names remain on the registry because they often fail to petition the courts to be removed.

Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said the inaccuracies were troubling.

"The value of the public registry as a child protection tool is that the information is accurate," she said.

State lawmakers say an outdated registry is no better at preventing crime than a weapon that won't shoot straight.

"You wouldn't rely on a gun that wasn't accurate, would you?" said Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Hanna said he plans to ask the registry's information technology people to see whether they can fix the mapping inaccuracies but said officials made a conscious decision to keep the names of Wallace offenders on the public registry.

"If they want their name and face removed from the registry," Hanna said, "they can go to court and obtain the necessary order to get that done."

Not every county has taken the same approach. Allen County removes all of its Wallace offenders from its portion of the state registry.

"We're certainly not going to publish an address that's wrong," said Detective Cpl. Mike Smothermon of the Allen County Sheriff's Department, "or an offense that doesn't require registration."

Smothermon said Allen County doesn't keep Wallace offenders on the registry in part because it would be "doing the general public a very big disservice by publishing an address that you're not verifying."

In Vanderburgh County, offender registration coordinator Mike Robinson said he lacks the resources to figure out who qualifies as a Wallace offender, much less remove their names or addresses.

"It would be a total monopolization of my time," he said.

State lawmakers plan to meet this summer to discuss ways to make the registry more consistent from county to county. A bill that passed the House unanimously this past session was aimed at preventing counties from removing people from the registry, said Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte.

Dermody said he worried that if Indiana took offenders off the registry, the state would become a "welcoming ground" for similar offenders from other states.

The bill failed in a Senate committee.

Steele, the committee's chairman, said he worries that the registry one day will be clogged with so many offenders and so much outdated information that users will become overwhelmed and "quit using it."

"And then," Steele said, "we've defeated our purpose." ..Source.. by CourierPress.com

FBI: Child sex offenders turn violent, suicidal

This news item will be tied to our "Deaths in the United States under sex offense laws" report later this month.

6-18-2012 National:

Gray Alan Combs Jr. was shot to death after he threatened Fairfax County police with a sword last month.

Willis E. Coley, 27, of Alexandria, hanged himself in August.

George N. Kiriacon, 50, committed suicide in a truck in New Carrollton.

The common thread among these three men is that all had been charged with child sex crimes shortly before their violent and/or self-destructive actions.

The FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service have documented a disturbing trend in which those confronted with charges of child abuse react by attacking others or harming themselves.

Law enforcement authorities say they are seeing more incidents as police have increased efforts to apprehend those who produce, distribute and view child porn. Over the past 20 years, federal child sex pornography cases have increased 330 percent -- from 481 in 1999 to 2,069 in 2009.

Ronald Hosko, special agent in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office's Criminal Division, said he noticed the phenomenon in 2008, as an inspector for the FBI's Inspection Division, where he reviewed deadly shooting incidents around the country. Subjects pulled a weapon as FBI agents knocked on their doors to ask questions or execute a search warrant, putting the lives of themselves, family members and the agents in danger.

"It's a life-changing event," Hosko said. "At that moment, their world is collapsed around them. And they think the only way out is at the point of a gun."

A new FBI study found that in 106 cases where an individual committed suicide after he became aware that he was being investigated, 54 killed themselves within 30 days of being contacted by law enforcement. About half of the sample did not have a prior criminal history.

Combs was wanted for producing child pornography. Coley was two weeks away from being indicted on federal child pornography charges. Kiriacon was found dead a day after the public disclosure that a 15-year-old boy had accused him of abuse.

"This is a different type of suicide. This is a suicide motivated not so much by depression but by desperation," said Dr. Michael Bourke, chief psychologist with the U.S. Marshals Service's Behavioral Analysis Unit. Bourke had been studying this issue after the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006, which authorized the Marshals Service to track down sex offenders who are unregistered or have violated the terms of their registration.

Many of the suspects seemed to have led normal, responsible lives, experts said. Suddenly, they're facing the shame of being exposed, being ostracized by their family and friends, they're looking at spending a long time behind bars, where it's commonly held that the most reviled inmates are those serving time for child sex abuse.

A 2005 study in the United Kingdom found child sex offenders who had no other criminal records were 183 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.

This is the actual source: "Suicide and murder in child murderers and child sexual abusers." Pritchard C.; Bagley C.. Source: Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Volume 12, Number 2, 1 September 2001 , pp. 269-286(18)Found after many hours of searching.

The FBI and the U.S. marshals are refining their tactics for approaching subjects, such as determining if the target has a gun and using a force team to make arrests or serve warrants. ..Source.. by Scott McCabe

PART-IV: Behind Closed Doors: The Adam Walsh Act Way, now the States are following?

Revised 6-20-2012 Thanks to a reader's sharp eye re: The Alabama Factor. Revised 8-28-2012 New Indiana court decision supporting my discussion. See Red highlights near end.

5-29-2012 National:

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: The Adam Walsh Act way. (see earlier AWA Morphism) Yes folks, that is the way it has been since the inception of this harmful devious law, even a good portion of federal lawmakers were cut out of the constitutional process which enacted AWA.

This is PART-IV of our Four Part Series focusing all things relevant to the AWA/SORNA Tier Assignment System (TAS). If you haven't read PART-I it is HERE, or PART-II HERE or PART-III HERE.

Here we will dig into the "State Process" for assigning tiers, raising legal questions, and this should -in principle- support findings of the WIDENING THE NET: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System first mentioned in PART-I, and likely the 637 Risk Assessment study as well. What follows may open the door to -WHY higher tiers result- from the AWA way of tier assignment. Once the "whys" are known that may open doors to attack the system! With that said, onward.

---

PART-IV "How are states implementing the Lawmaker contrived SORNA Tier System?

---

Folks, hang on this is not over! Remember, Sen. Hatch said, we (Lawmakers) stuck it to them!

What Does SORNA's Tier Assignment System Actually Say:

42 USC 16911 Section 111: (1) SEX OFFENDER.—The term ‘‘sex offender’’ means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.

(2) TIER I SEX OFFENDER.—The term ‘‘tier I sex offender’’ means a sex offender other than a tier II or tier III sex offender.

(3) TIER II SEX OFFENDER.—The term ‘‘tier II sex offender’’ means a sex offender other than a tier III sex offender whose offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year and— .... [Summarizing, the state is required to compare its sex crime statute elements, to various federal sex offense statutes, searching for the closest match]

(4) TIER III SEX OFFENDER.—The term ‘‘tier III sex offender’’ means a sex offender whose offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year and— ... [Summarizing, the state is required to compare its sex crime statute elements, to various federal sex offense statutes, searching for the closest match]

This state matching process (Tier Assignment System) is the subject of our discussions below. It is impossible to go through an example of exactly how a tier level is determined, suffice to say it is/can be complex, esp. when a state statute has many elements. See 42 USC 16911 link if you want to try it. Instead we will review the process conceptually and point to places (flaws) which question the legality of the process. Such may render the process unconstitutional or at least violate established law.

We started by reviewing the AWA Compliant states to see how many sex crime statutes each of them had. States with a few sex crimes statutes (ex: Alabama) will quickly finish the process. However, states with many sex crime statutes (ex: Michigan) will take much longer. In addition, the chance for errors, conflicts and the like is increased with the number of statutes to review. Immediately Alabama presents us with something highly unusual.

The Alabama Factor: The SMART Office has declared Alabama compliant. Compliance includes the state's choice of how tiers are assigned. In Alabama, everyone registers for a LifeTime (Sec. 15-20A-3(b))! No need to assign tiers, everyone is Tier-3, problem solved. Or is it?

The tier system is supposed to be based on the crime committed (the AWA way), so by the SMART Office permitting this system aren't they saying to the state, the higher you can push tiers, the better we like it. You (the State) can use this system of assignment and we will declare you compliant. Fairness, if one can suggest that the AWA way is fair at all, is bypassed by allowing The Alabama factor. And many, likely most, of Alabama registrants have been cheated out of whatever fairness is available in the AWA way. (UPDATE 6-20) In addition, in SORNA there are ways to reduce tiers for some with clean records ( 42 USC 16915(b) ), but not for Alabama registrants who qualify.

Allowing this method defeats the overall AWA premise of making all states consistent, so that, registrants are viewed -by virtue of their tier setting- to have committed the same level of crime no matter where they may move to in the nation! The Smart office apparently believes in further punishment! Cheating registrants out of whatever fairness exists in the AWA way! And falsely labels many Alabama registrants in the public eye! Are there other states like this?

UPDATE 6-20-2012: Because AWA/SORNA is a federal law it has to be equally applied to all states that enact it. If the SMART Office (USAG) permits the Alabama Factor to be considered "compliant" then it immediately raises equal application of the law issues with other states -considered compliant- who use a different tier assignment system (TAS).

Further, since Ohio's Supreme court declared the SORNA/TAS unconstitutional, and the SMART Office has not now declared Ohio -out of compliance- we have another equal application of the law issue.

Finally, are there other sections of SORNA that command all states -do the same thing- or suffer further lawsuit under the equal application of federal law claims? Maybe lawyers need to take a second, third and fourth look at this!

The following represents what logically would be expected to happen, and shows where something might be questionable, improper or flatly illegal. Given the absence of documentation of exactly how -each state- performed / accomplished this in compliant states, this is the best we can do; remember, this is a hypothetical but a logical perspective of the process.

State 'Team' for determining "Tiers v Statutes": Because of the complexity of the process, states have had to setup a Team (Presumably a proper mix of Republicans and Democrats. I doubt Lawmakers were included in the team), to actually perform the comparisons and arrive at tiers for individual state statutes. It is unknown if there were standards for who is allowed to be on such a team (task force) (i.e., a job description of sorts), which could raise issues of personnel bias and prejudice as to specific crime type/s (esp. if a member was a former victim of such crime). Nothing in Administrative Law (Michigan was checked) was found addressing any such -Ad Hoc- Task Force. To our knowledge, the final tier assignments and process has not been audited, nor is there a federal or state requirement for such.

The Team's State Contrived Process performed BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, the AWA way! Further, this undocumented contrived process is not pursuant to state administrative law, nor can the result be contested, by an individual or anyone else. However, presumably it was/is somehow under control of the state legislature (Legislative Branch). The only possible public input -if the tiers are enacted into law- would come from whatever public hearings are normally held by a state when enacting a law, assuming a law is enacted showing the tier results. You can bet notice of such hearings was minimal clearly not allowing the public time to consider what was done nor provide any reasoned input, especially since the process is not documented for public knowledge.

Processing Glitches/Conflicts/Questions (PGCQ): No system is without a conflict, glitch or question after starting a project, so when they happened, who was assigned to resolve them? The Team? A Lawmaker? A Republican or Democrat mind? Important, yes, those views are often opposite each other. Were these even documented, for later audit review?

Key flaw A in Process- 'Closest Match': When comparing two dissimilar systems trying to find equality, it is more likely an unequal result will be the final answer. Accordingly, PGCQ must be put into action to find the answer. Will the answer go HIGH (Higher tier) or LOW (Lower Tier) a inherent problem when matching dissimilar systems. And further magnified by the fact, that here matching is not like matching numbers, instead legal words and phrases which often have special meanings, and often differ between systems, here federal and state/s.

Key flaw B in Process- 'Evolution of Laws': All state sex offense statutes are compared to federal statutes (The AWA/SORNA way), with tier levels assigned to each state statute. The comparison is by statute numbers not by the individual circumstances of a person's crime, that is never reviewed. In PART-I we discussed "the Evolution of Laws" and how laws evolve, mostly becoming more onerous over time. Now, by comparing the past statute of conviction, to today's federal statutes, the evolution of the state statute of conviction, if any, is erased, and the person's resulting tier can be higher than it should be. This is also true of today's federal statute. i.e., it too may have been less onerous at the time the state crime being compared to was committed, but this process ignores such evolution/s, such a result can result with a higher tier than it should be.

Key flaw C in Process- 'Courts Interpret Statutes': Interpreting statutes has always been the job of courts; the Judiciary. Here we see, possibly the first time in history, a reinterpretation of certain statutes by someone or group other than a court of law. Now, if a PAST court case has interpreted a sex offense statute that is now part of this process, has the Task Force blended in or ignored such PAST court cases, and sometimes multiple cases? Again, we do not know, nothing is documented that can be verified.

Ohio's Supreme court recently held, that, it was a violation of the Separations of Powers for the Executive Branch to change what a court has done (earlier assigned a level to a registrant). Well this -Ad Hoc- process is being performed by the Legislative Branch and possibly, if past related court cases are being ignored (Judicial Branch), also a violation of the Separations of Powers?

Now, if such PAST court cases were considered, then it seems that there MUST be documentation of such, so that later court cases know who did what, and when such cases were reinterpreted? Shepards will not show what has been done administratively when such is not done pursuant to administrative law or a court case.

Further, when courts construe statutes their decisions, they may change or establish rights, statutory and/or constitutional, does this Task Force have jurisdiction to affect those rights? We think not! A audit might be in order to find rights so affected.

Key flaw D in Process- 'Strict Statutory Construction': 42 USC 16911 (3) and (4) above are quite clear on this point "whose offense is punishable by imprisonment for MORE THAN 1 year and__." Well that should help some folks with sentences under one year, but we have found some with -under 1 year sentences- in Tiers II-III. How is this possible? The best I can come up with is this, see that "and" following "1 year" whoever performed the comparison, are you ready, will have created their own form of statutory construction.

They started review of the "and," even though they had a statute with less than 1 years punishment, when they should have ignored the "and" portion. Something in the "and" review made them say, anyone with this type of conviction must be registered no matter what, and thats likely how certain folks ended up with higher tiers, possibly for the rest of their life. How many of these folks are on when they should not be, Lord only knows. Remember, the process is not documented for public knowledge. (Not even a simple flow chart)

Assuming their reasoning totally honorable absent personal influences, maybe they hit some sort of conflict or glitch, was such documented and handled according to PGCQ? If audited they may find some, but audits are not likely to check every single statute to see if it was done correctly. This alone shows the importance of documenting conflicts and glitches for later review. Maybe if there are Advocates reading this and know of such folks, you can at least point them to the procedure below and let them make the waves that may uncover how this was done, and possibly find others with similar circumstances, and help others in the process.

Key flaw E in Process- 'Rehabilitation': Rehabilitation is negated by TAS. When a judge sentences a person to jail, prison, probation or whatever else the judge feels is appropriate, s/he does so expecting that the person will be rehabilitated by that sentence. Assuming no further conduct on the part of the registrant, this TAS process retroactively eliminates rehabilitation and forces registrants to live in a limbo for the remainder of their lives.

Considering that this process concerns sex offenders judges frequently require that therapy be part of that rehabilitative process, and the state through the Parole Board or other state agency, requires that, a report showing successful completion of therapy; that report is likely to indicate a risk of reoffense. That is a state decision at the time and this tier assignment process today may be changing that state decision in violation of the civil Doctrine of Laches (civil equivalent to ex post facto clause). Further, the US Supreme court in McKune v Lile 536 US 24 (2002) had this to say about the importance of therapy:

"When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault. See Sex Offenses 27; U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997). States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988) (“[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%,” whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%. “Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals”). (Note: Recidivism rates in that case were based on 1983 stats, since newer stats show even lower recidivism rates around 3.5%)"

In PART-III we mentioned a study Congress seeks to have done, "Sec.634 Comprehensive Examination of Sex Offender Issues." The effectiveness of "treatment programs in reducing recidivism" is supposed to be done, and the results posted annually on the Internet for public view. Here is what makes no sense, if the U.S. Supreme court in McCune v Lile has already recognized that, treatment can reduce recidivism, why do another study to prove what already has been proven? Then comes the question, if the study results are supposed to be made public -on the Internet- for everyone to see, it follows, that rehabilitation is something which is supposed to be made public.

So why does the Adam Walsh Act, SORNA TAS, in violation of US Supreme court beliefs, turn back the clock and wipe out the efforts of the states in rehabilitating past offenders, and the efforts of the offender as well? The AWA way is to remember the crime and forget the rehabilitation! Is it due process or ex post facto, or other constitutional noise I hear? Whatever it is I hear, its certainly further punishment and placing registrants in a false light before the public eye! Do registrants have an actionable false light claim warranting damages?

State process for assigning tiers to individual registrants: Whatever state agency has responsibility for the registry was likely responsible for assigning tiers to individual registrants. It is very likely that a computer program was used to actually set tier levels in individual registrant records. So without notice to the registrant, on one day registrants were no risk, and the next day the have a risk designation, and it is placed on the public registry. The public is shocked by this and it causes further hysteria. The media now refers to registrants using words like predators SVPs and the ilk, further publicly stigmatizing registrants and their family, if any.

Appeal of Tier Level: If registrants contact registry folks they will likely be told there is no appeal, your tier is what it is, for the rest of your life! SORNA does allow a select few to petition for lowering their tier level, but that is not an appeal of an incorrect tier. If a registrant truly feels their tier level is incorrect (erroneous) and has some way to prove such here is what they can do. AWA has a built in process for correction of errors:

42 USC 16918 SEC. 118. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH THE INTERNET.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this section, each jurisdiction shall make available on the Internet, ...
(e) CORRECTION OF ERRORS.—The site shall include instructions on how to seek correction of information that an individual contends is erroneous.

Correction of Erroneous Info (i.e.,Appeal) Pointers:

1) DO NOT proceed verbally (i.e., by phone), if you do you will have nothing in writing for a later court action if necessary;

2) If you do have reasonable proof that an error has occurred, that you seek the advise of a lawyer, explaining what you want to do. Show them what is written into SORNA (above) its possible they are not aware of SORNA's 'error correction' system (not every compliant state has followed this section [yes another problem];

3) Be forewarned, once you start this process there are time limits, lawyers know them and they must be met.

Once you get a decision, you will be stuck with it for the rest of your life. This procedure gives you ONE SHOT you WILL NOT get another, so be prepared!

UPDATE 8-28-2012:
Indiana sex offender list violates due process: court

A federal appeals court said Indiana's sex and violent offender registry unconstitutionally violated the due process rights of thousands of registrants because it did not give them a chance to fix mistakes.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Schepes -v- Indiana DOC) in Chicago rejected arguments by the Indiana Department of Correction that it was not directly responsible for errors in the registry, which contains about 24,000 names, and that registrants had other procedures to challenge mistakes.

Concluding that erroneous labeling as a "sexually violent predator" implicated a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, the 7th Circuit noted that Indiana had recently begun letting current prisoners challenge pending registry listings, but gave other registrants no such opportunity.

"The policy provides no process whatsoever to an entire class of registrants -- those who are not incarcerated," and is therefore "constitutionally insufficient," Circuit Judge Diane Wood wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Tuesday's decision reversed a December 2011 ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indianapolis. The 7th Circuit sent the case back to that court, and encouraged the parties to agree on procedures to fix registry errors.

The office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, which represented the Department of Correction, is reviewing the decision, spokesman Bryan Corbin said.

State legislators this month began hearings on possible changes to the registry, after the Indiana Supreme Court had in 2009 found some restrictions unconstitutional, he added. ..Source.. by Jonathan Stempel

So, PART-IV comes to the end, for now! Raising more issues unanswered, and that was the intent. It is time for legal minds to crack the tier assignment system as it is causing more harm than anything in history. Lawmakers have not taken the time to review evidence and research and hopes that they will, well it won't keep them in office so there is little chance they will. The best way is through the courts which has the power to change history, now it is up to the lawyers to convince them.

Sixteen states are considered compliant: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming with Ohio spending more time and money on court actions than all the others combined. Maybe their budgets need to allot more money for courts.

However, with that said, I still urge folks to get to their legislatures, fight for whatever steps that can be had. And, in states which are not yet compliant, folks may wish to raise many of the issues found in this series, somehow get lawmakers to document their tier assignment system, and ask for it to be audited. There are far too many registrants ending up in the upper tiers than should be.

And, as always, I am open to other thoughts and opinions, if you have any send a e-mail.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: Some have asked, do I agree with the tier system? No way, consider, ranking dangerousness into 3 tiers, when the offense statutes probably identify many many many more, what does three tell you? Someone or many are misclassified!

PPS: A sequel is likely as more curious facts have come to light, but thats for another time.

© SOResearch May 2012, All Rights Reserved!

PART-III: Behind Closed Doors: The Adam Walsh Act Way, now the States are following?

5-26-2012 National:

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: The Adam Walsh Act way. (see earlier AWA Morphism) Yes folks, that is the way it has been since the inception of this harmful devious law, even a good portion of federal lawmakers were cut out of the constitutional process which enacted AWA.

This is PART-III of our Four Part Series focusing all things relevant to the AWA/SORNA Tier Assignment System (TAS). If you haven't read PART-I it is HERE, or PART-II HERE.

---

Why were certain sections of the Adam Walsh Act never codified into law?

---

Why is this section important to Tier Assignment? Well, it isn't but in research often one thing leads to another. In PART-II Sec 637, which relates to tiers, I wanted to add a link to the codifed law, as I usually do. Guess what, (Sec. 637), wasn't codified into law, could they have forgotten or is there something else going on, it certainly would not surprise me, AWA has been mostly behind closed doors. i.e., keep the public from knowing or providing input.

The table below (w/links added) is from Title VI Sub C original AWA (HR 4472 109th Congress) it is under "Text of Legislation" version 5, final version passed by Congress. Although Sec. 637 is in AWA it was not codified into law. Discussion continued following table.

TITLE VI--GRANTS, STUDIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY SAFETY Subtitle C—Grants, Studies, and Other Provisions

42 USC 16981	Sec. 621. Pilot program for monitoring sexual offenders.
18 USC 3621	Sec. 622. Treatment and management of sex offenders in the Bureau of Prisons.
42 USC 3797ee 42 USC 3797ee–1	Sec. 623. Sex offender apprehension grants; juvenile sex offender treatment grants.
42 USC 16982	Sec. 624. Assistance for prosecution of cases cleared through use of DNA backlog clearance funds.
42 USC 16983	Sec. 625. Grants to combat sexual abuse of children.
42 USC 3765	Sec. 626. Crime prevention campaign grant.
42 USC 16984	Sec. 627. Grants for fingerprinting programs for children.
42 USC 16985	Sec. 628. Grants for Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.
42 USC 16986	Sec. 629. Children’s safety online awareness campaigns.
42 USC 16987	Sec. 630. Grants for online child safety programs.
42 USC 16988	Sec. 631. Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program.
42 USC 16989	Sec. 632. Fugitive safe surrender.
42 USC 16990	Sec. 633. National registry of substantiated cases of child abuse.
??????	Sec. 634. Comprehensive examination of sex offender issues.(Time limit for completion: 5 years after AWA enacted with yearly reports)
42 USC 16991	Sec. 635. Annual report on enforcement of registration requirements.
??????	Sec. 636. Government Accountability Office studies on feasibility of using driver’s license registration processes as additional registration requirements for sex offenders.(Time limit for completion: 2-1-2007)
??????	Sec. 637. Sex offender risk classification study.(Time limit for completion: 18 months after AWA enacted)
??????	Sec. 638. Study of the effectiveness of restricting the activities of sex offenders to reduce the occurrence of repeat offenses. (Time limit for completion: 6 months after AWA enacted)
??????	Sec. 639. The justice for Crime Victims Family Act.

Take note, ALL FOUR sections in YELLOW above, have not been codified into law. Why? Before we tackle that see this update of PART-II.

UPDATE to PART-II: Sec 637 Risk Assessment Study
I have received notice that -under a grant- the study has been completed
and is to be published 3rd quarter this year.
Yes, its nice to know it has been completed, but, how that happened proves my point "Behind Closed Doors" (or via some unwritten process) is the AWA way. i.e., keep the public from knowing what is happening.

Of course it needs to be noted that this is 2012, and sec 637 was supposed to be completed within 18 months of enacting AWA (lets say 1-1-2008) and it is now 4+ years after the fact. And since it has yet to be published means Congress has not received the report 637 commands. While none of this the fault of those who completed the study, one would think Congress would amend AWA to let the public know when AWA is not going to be followed, as originally written! Maybe thats asking too much. (PS: I did check later Congresses for any references to Sec. 637 and found zero).

Now, at this point we know Congress has permitted the USAG to construe the Adam Walsh Act, so I'm going to guess thats the source of the problem. Even with that, there is a BIG difference between construing the law and changing what it says. There is only one way to construe "get it done by such and such a date" and permitting it to be done years after what is stated in the law! Readers draw your own conclusions! So lets get on with more breaking news.

Important is, that since Sec. 637 was completed through a grant, we are now left wondering why the four in yellow were not codified into law, I doubt we will find an answer either. Does that raise the issue of legal validity?

Moving on, excepting Sec 639 which is not at issue here, notice this, all the sections in yellow, after completion of research and analysis may very well render a BIG DARK CLOUD over a good portion of SORNA; and such studies would be costly to do, and add costs to implement, again, after the fact. AWA is certainly breaking the pocketbook in many ways!

Lets take a minute to look at Sec. 634:

SEC. 634. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The National Institute of Justice shall conduct a comprehensive study to examine the control, prosecution, treatment, and monitoring of sex offenders, with a particular focus on—

(1) the effectiveness of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in increasing compliance with sex offender registration and notification requirements, and the costs and burdens associated with such compliance;

(2) the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification requirements in increasing public safety, and the costs and burdens associated with such requirements;

(3) the effectiveness of public dissemination of sex offender information on the Internet in increasing public safety, and the costs and burdens associated with such dissemination; and

(4) the effectiveness of treatment programs in reducing recidivism among sex offenders, and the costs and burdens associated with such programs.

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The study described in subsection (a) shall include recommendations for reducing the number of sex crimes against children and adults and increasing the effectiveness of registration requirements.

(c) REPORTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.— Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Institute of Justice shall report the results of the study conducted under subsection (a) together with findings to Congress, through the Internet to the public, to each of the 50 governors, to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, to territory heads, and to the top official of the various Indian tribes.

(2) INTERIM REPORTS.—The National Institute of Justice shall submit yearly interim reports.

(d) APPROPRIATIONS.— There are authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.
.

Anyone want to take a stab at why this one hasn't seen the light of day? Or is it in progress behind some door? Assuming it is -in progress- I wonder -WHERE on the INTERNET the ANNUAL report- is, after all the command is, let the public know on the Internet! This is 2012, 6 years after enactment of AWA, and 1 year or so beyond the -complete in 5 years- command! Do I need to learn how to construe, the AWA way?

OK, there are two directions I can take now: 1) Assume that there is some undocumented way these studies are completed WITHOUT public knowledge (i.e., behind closed doors as has been the way) and contrary to the command of Congress; or 2) Explore alternate motives for what was written in AWA in 2006? While "1)" is the most likely true, then why omit codifying a law which would let the public know whats going on? One questions leads to another. So now to alternate motives.

Alternate Motives for Studies in Yellow: So, what other earthly purpose could these serve, if beforehand, they were never going to be codified into law? Well consider this, in the year/s or so before AWA/SORNA was being considered there was a tidal wave of objections, on all sorts of issues, and many continue today. I wonder, could these sections have been added (Behind closed doors as so much of AWA has been) to temporarily pacify those who were objecting? i.e., get those opposing AWA to thinking, things can be fixed later on by compromise with the USAG (who is responsible for most of them).

Was that movement getting too strong? Could that movement have stopped HR-4472 in 2006? Nope! HR-4472 was sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner and coupled with other legislation which no lawmaker in their right mind would vote against, this was going to be law no matter who objected or the proof they presented that this was wrong! Another trick of Congress, a form of coerced agreement. Now I wonder if there is some Congressional procedure or rule, that can block a section of a law from being codified? Still wondering about that.

Several organizations have analyzed AWA and published reports, and if you read their reports you find, they have assumed these yellow sections are there and the command of Congress carried out. ex CRS Report for Congress: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis (April 6, 2007); Legislative Analysis: The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 by The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV); Letter from Connecticut Senior Attorney to its Legislature: FEDERAL LAW ON CLASSIFYING SEX OFFENDERS see end of letter explaining Sec. 637 deadlines to Congress (1-27-2008); and others. Bet they never checked to see if sections were codified.

So, here in PART-III I've raised more issues and no answers. Well folks, thats how AWA is, "issue laden" maybe so it can be read multiple ways, don't know for sure. What we do know now is, that the 637 Risk Classification study is completed (can't wait to see it). And knowing who was involved it may point to a much fairer system, but time will tell and that is only if Congress adopts its recommendations.

As to other issues raised here, well if anyone who can shed some light on them, please let me know. Right now everyone can draw there own conclusions. Maybe after raising all these questions we will learn more about the inner workings of Congress. Maybe!

Why codify some sections and let others kinda meander around, maybe taken care of, and maybe not, the public is kept blind! That just bugs me..

After Memorial day, look for Part-IV, How are States implementing SORNA's Tier Assignment System? That one may cause indigestion and worries for some lawmakers.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

© SOResearch May 2012, All Rights Reserved!

PART-II: Behind Closed Doors: The Adam Walsh Act Way, now the States are following?

5-24-2012 National:

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: The Adam Walsh Act way. (see earlier AWA Morphism) Yes folks, that is the way it has been since the inception of this harmful devious law, even a good portion of federal lawmakers were cut out of the constitutional process which enacted AWA.

This is PART-II of our Four Part Series focusing all things relevant to the AWA/SORNA Tier Assignment System (TAS). If you haven't read PART-I it is HERE.

---

What is the purpose of Section 637 "Sex Offender Risk Classification Study" of the Adam Walsh Act?

---

Why study risk assessment systems, if, you have already have implemented a "Tier Assignment System" which for all intensive purposes is a "offense based risk assessment system" but haven't named it as such? i.e., a wolf in sheeps clothing (See PART-I). To lessen the impact on registrants? That will never happen, lawmaker intent has always been to further punish, and find a way to make it look like the public is being protected. This has been recognized in many news articles for some time. Assuming one could be found (less or more onerous) the costs of changing rom what was first implemented would be prohibitive.

To this writer it is clear, that, when AWA was crafted behind closed doors, before enactment of AWA those few lawmakers -and anyone else present- MADE the decision as to what Tier Assignment system was to be used, and wrote it into AWA. They simply did not want to wait up to -18 months after enactment of AWA- for the study results, then do something.

But the following Section remained in AWA:

SEC. 637. SEX OFFENDER RISK CLASSIFICATION STUDY.

(a) STUDY.—The Attorney General shall conduct a study of risk-based sex offender classification systems, which shall include an analysis of—

(1) various risk-based sex offender classification systems;

(2) the methods and assessment tools available to assess the risks posed by sex offenders;

(3) the efficiency and effectiveness of risk-based sex offender classification systems, in comparison to offense-based sex offender classification systems, in—

(A) reducing threats to public safety posed by sex offenders; and
(B) assisting law enforcement agencies and the public in identifying the most dangerous sex offenders;

(4) the resources necessary to implement, and the legal implications of implementing, risk-based sex offender classification systems for sex offender registries; and

(5) any other information the Attorney General determines necessary to evaluate risk-based sex offender classification systems.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to the Congress the results of the study under this section.

(c) STUDY CONDUCTED BY TASK FORCE.—The Attorney General may establish a task force to conduct the study and prepare the report required under this section. Any task force established under this section shall be composed of members, appointed by the Attorney General, who—

(1) represent national, State, and local interests; and

(2) are especially qualified to serve on the task force by virtue of their education, training, or experience, particularly in the fields of sex offender management, community education, risk assessment of sex offenders, and sex offender victim issues.

Why request something that really has no purpose? Why? Why? Was there some skullduggery going on? So many questions!

OK, given that it was Rep. Paul Gillmore (Ohio) who first presented the idea of classifying registrants, in the 109th Congress, I looked back to his bill HR-4815 introduced on 2-28-2006 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee headed by Rep. Sensenbrenner. Rep. Gillmore's bill called for a "The Task Force shall consist of 20 members" (No need to discuss the merits of the Task Force membership, see list in Footnote below) and creation of Guidelines. I can see why his bill was not accepted by the committee, esp. with suggestions that appeared "Fair" in it "(D) opportunities available to sex offenders (especially those who are not under court supervision) to change their risk-based classification, including voluntary participation in sex offender treatment and monitoring programs; and (E) any negative consequences that have resulted from Megan's Law (Public Law 104-145; 110 Stat. 1345), and steps that might be taken to reduce such negative consequences." Such is not the direction the committee wanted to go. So, the bill's suggestions were ignored.

So then I wondered if, in the next Congress (110th) did lawmakers pick up on Sec. 637 and do something? Here is what I found, in the 110th Congress on 1-5-2007 Rep. Gillmore introduced "HR-201 Safe NOW Act of 2007" and on 2/2/2007 the bill was Referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. It appears the bill never came out of that committee. Rep Paul Gillmore died on 9-5-2007, and no one picked up the ball on this Congressional mandate! Clearly he stood alone on trying to create a somewhat fair risk assessment system for registrants.

So where does all this leave us? It leaves us with Sec. 637 still in AWA, and its very presence means Congress wanted to do something different -as to a tier assignment system- within 18 months of enacting AWA. Or, Sec. 637 was a ruse, in AWA to make readers think, something better may be coming. Which I do not know, but I know Congress wanted the TAS changed!

So we know the entire "Tier Assignment System" within SORNA, IS NOT the system that Congress ultimately envisioned!
Their choice, according to Sec. 637, was one chosen by a 20 member "Task Force" of professionals who are especially qualified to serve on the task force by virtue of their education, training, or experience, particularly in the fields of sex offender management, community education, risk assessment of sex offenders, and sex offender victim issues. Sec. 637(c)(2). And we know today, the Command of Congress in Sec. 637(b) "REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to the Congress the results of the study under this section. has not been done to the best of my knowledge. Should any reader know otherwise I'd certainly appreciate a link to that reference!

The current lawmaker contrived TAS system in SORNA, and everything that flows from it, is not protecting the public (news reports and Advocates abound on this topic), nor is it protecting registrants (hundreds of registrants have been killed under various circumstances, some innocent and some registry related)(over 500 have committed suicide)(and over 140 other persons, not offenders, some law enforcement, have died) under sex offender laws. Congress and State lawmakers are ignoring the ways these laws, including SORNA TAS, are affecting registrants and their families, and the general public, and people are dieing as a result.

The Ohio Supreme court has also declared the SORNA TAS system unconstitutional, as to certain of their registrants; this will likely be true in any state which previously had a risk assessment system. There are reports of significant increase of registrants, considered low risk being pushed into high risk under SORNA/TAS, and with no further conduct on the part of the registrant. Term of registration has been increased, up from 10 years to 15-25-life; and there is nothing in AWA/SORNA/TAS that says, these parameters cannot be changed again, in the future. Never forget, there was a law before AWA, then AWA replaced that, so whats coming in the future? Finality -for past offenders- seems to be illusory.

A recent news item from West Virginia explains one BIG reason they do not intend to implement SORNA:

Federspiel said the federal law would change the current procedure and require significantly more manpower. For example, those who are tier three offenders are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives and must update their registration every three months. Tier One offenders must register for 15 years and tier two offenders are required 25 years. "It really comes down to do we want to change our law to mirror the federal law and is it worth the cost?" Federspiel said. Federspiel said compliance with the federal law would require more offenders to update their registration more often. "Changing from a yearly registration to quarterly would have quadrupled the amount of registration taking place," Federspiel said. "We just don't have the troopers to do that. "We have roughly 3,000 on the registry and not nearly enough troopers." News report HERE

One must remember, you cannot spend a billion dollars for a flyswatter, you must take the time to evaluate costs versus risk, if any. Law enforcement in the states needs to be increased just to keep up with the extra verifications required by SORNA/TAS (Yes, by upping a registrant's tier, it also means more police interaction, up to a lifetime), and that is not considering financial costs for registrants, lawmakers seem not to care about that.

Issues abound because they are tied in one or another with the SORNA/TAS system.

Think about it, why has the Sec. 637 study been ignored?

Stay tuned for Part-III, Sections of the Adam Walsh Act never codified into law?

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

© SOResearch May 2012, All Rights Reserved!

---

Footnote:

CREATION OF GUIDELINES- In creating the guidelines required under this subsection, the Task Force shall consider (One member from each of the following)

the Safe NOW Project	the National Association to PROTECT Children
Parents For Megan's Law, Inc.	the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
the National Sheriffs' Association	the National Association of Police Organizations
the American Probation and Parole Association;	the American Psychological Association
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers	the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children	the Office for Victims of Crime
the Center for Sex Offender Management	the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
the Federal Bureau of Investigation	the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
three representatives of the academic community who specialize in risk assessment of sex offenders	.

...

Behind Closed Doors: The Adam Walsh Act Way, now the States are following?

UPDATE 6-1: Found another word not used, PUNISH and added to missing words below

5-23-2012 National:

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: The Adam Walsh Act way. (see earlier AWA Morphism) Yes folks, that is the way it has been since the inception of this harmful devious law, even a good portion of federal lawmakers were cut out of the constitutional process which enacted AWA.

In this Four Part Series we will focus on things relevant to the AWA/SORNA Tier Assignment System (TAS) and nothing more. Those who have followed my "Behind Closed Doors" Commentaries on AWA know digging into and documenting the inner workings (err. trickery) of Congress is always a long eye-opening ride.

Before I begin I note that a study has already been completed which proves that the Adam Walsh Act system of Tier Assignment does have a tendency to assign folks to higher Tiers, the study is: WIDENING THE NET: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System (table 3 is a clear example of what is happening) by Andrew J. Harris, University of Massachusetts Lowell and Chirstopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and Jill S. Levenson, Lynn University. I take no issue with anything they say, but for me it didn't answer the "Why" tiers went UP? That issue led me to this series.

Before AWA/SORNA registrants, either lived in a state where there was no risk assessment system, or they lived in states which had a risk assessment system, both decisions by those state lawmakers that such was, or was not, needed. Accordingly, registrants risks were either assessed or not assessed, that being the law at the time. Accordingly, the "Doctrine of Laches" may very well apply if the state changes its position as to registrants, without further conduct on registrants' part.

The law at the time, is the key to follow and keep in mind, as we provoke minds to study issues.

Evolution of Laws: Simply said, laws evolve, today they say this and tomorrow they say that, then in the future they may say something else. In essence laws are generally tweaked based on, something new that has occurred; and lawmakers have a tendency to tweak to make laws more onerous over time. They call it, closing loopholes (i.e., fixing what former lawmakers forgot or didn't think of); more onerous over time. What a law says today may not be what it says 1-2-3-4-5-10-20-30-40 years from now.

Criminal law, a person must be charged based on what the law was, at the time of the offense. The offender's dangerousness, as it were, is determined at the time s/he was prosecuted. Sentencing, followed by serving the sentence, is supposed to make the person whole with society again, rehabilitated (save any collateral civil consequences, at the time). The length of that sentence, and appropritate punishment, was determined by a judge and the law at that time.

Finally, as laws are tweaked, they often affect/establish constitutional or other rights, rights that cannot or should not be violated. This is a specially important consideration when reconciling state and federal laws, and what can or cannot be applied to a person.

State Sex Offender Registration: Along comes sex offender registration, applied retroactively -in most states- with some having retroactivity exceptions, and courts have ruled -without finding any wording in law- that lawmakers meant no further punishment for those required to register. According to courts, registration's alleged purpose is to protect society from possible recidivists, not to further punish registrants, and that registration is civil in nature (Note: One state even prohibits retroactive application of civil matters (Missouri)). Further that the majority of the states HAVE NOT enacted any form of risk classification of registrants as part of the criminal process (decisions of lawmakers of those states at the time) (Ohio an exception) nor have they today.

The majority of the states, including Alaska and Connecticut (who both ended up in the US Supreme court over registration in 2003), had disclaimers on their websites -at the time- which stated something like this, registrants are not considered dangerous (none are so classified) but are listed by virtue of their having committed a sex crime in their past. So, at the time excepting in states with existing classification systems, registrants were not to be considered dangerous (so sayeth past individual state disclaimers, at the time). Is "Latches" an issue today?

In summary, only a select few of the states have lawmakers felt it necessary to perform risk assessments and declare certain registrants as dangerous. Other states -in their website disclaimers- have actually said, registrants have not been assessed as being dangerous, instead are listed by virtue of their former conviction. Decisions by past lawmakers.

Questions that need to be explored:

PART-I) Why does SORNA not contain any of these words: Risk, Dangerousness, Classification, Punish and Offense Based?

PART-II) What is the purpose of Section 637 "Sex Offender Risk Classification Study" of the Adam Walsh Act?

PART-III) Why were certain sections of the Adam Walsh Act never codified into law?

PART-IV) How are States implementing SORNA's Tier Assignment System?

---

PART-I "Missing Words: Risk, Dangerousness, Classification, Punish and Offense Based"

---

The Adam Walsh Act: In 2006 the federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA)was enacted and declared to be retroactive. Title I of AWA (Sex Offender Registration (SORNA), has a tier assignment system, what federal lawmakers VERBALLY call an "Offense Based" tier assignment system (TAS) but "offense based" is not mentioned within SORNA.

Yes, such system makes the public think registrants' crimes were JUST COMMITTED. Offense based systems will always take a person's mind back in time to when the offense was committed 1-2-3-4-5-10-20-30-40 years ago. SORNA's TAS, today, negates the purpose of a judges sentence, rehabilitation, and hides same from public knowledge. And SORNA/TAS adds to burdens nonexistent at the time of the crime. SORNA/TAS is clearly cruel and unusual, esp. since no other crime type is so handled. Since SORNA and its TAS often change the "Legal Status" between registrants and the state, is it possible that there are actionable rights, constitutional or otherwise?

SORNA's Tier Assignment System (TAS): I don't think there is a form of punishment more cruel than this system and its hidden method of labeling a registrant, so that, the person is held to ridicule and further harmed by society, no matter what they do or where they go. And for years beyond the term of their sentence, to the point of civil death in the community; harmed in ways never known in history. And, any family is also dragged into the harming process.

Purpose of the TAS: Everything you thought you knew is about to change, truths revealed, this is an expose of its real -but hidden- purpose. It is cunning, devious, cruel, and genius at the same time; its real purpose is not what it seems.

Given the absence of "classification, risk, dangerousness, punishment or 'offense based'" then tier assignment purpose has to be other than flagging registrants as dangerous or a risk. Right?

In AWA/SORNA it says, tier assignment is used to inform registrants when they are required to verify their information, in person(42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916).
But, the absence of those words is the clue to the trickery. The hidden (unstated) purpose of "Tier Assignment System" is a gotcha "Classification, Risk, Dangerousness" "Offense Based" system, cleverly designed to further punish registrants in the community where registrants live, work and go to school.

Why omit the words classification, risk, dangerousness, punish and offense based? It is to get around any inference that might lead to a ex post facto clause claim. The absence of those words will likely lead courts to say, its civil not criminal, hence not ex post facto -which requires further punishment to be shown-, and you cannot directly see the further punishment in the wording of SORNA.

Until you fully analyze SORNA/TAS and its -intended effects- you will not see this subtle and onerous gotcha system. The gotcha is, that, Lawmakers through TAS do not inflict further punishment, TAS is DESIGNED so that registrants are further punished by the community where registrants live, work and go to school. It took Lawmaker genius (many lawyers) to design this gotcha system, and TAS also effectively TAKES AWAY from registrants, and public view, registrants' efforts at rehabilitation during serving of their sentences. This places registrants in a PERPETUAL FALSE LIGHT before the public eye, many for the rest of their lives; if that isn't further punishment, nothing is.

Senator Hatch, when interviewed on the Nancy Grace show on 7-16-2006 (aired 7-18-06) had this to say:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Well, the bill [HR-4472] really puts the screws to those who are sexual predators, and you know, sexual offenders. You know, we have around 500,000 ....

Yes, Sen. Hatch along with Ken Valentine, a Secret Service Agent from the White House, appointed to Sen. Hatch staff for unknown reasons, were all behind closed doors crafting the Adam Walsh Act. The most cunning and devious law in American history.

Absent the Words, Public Perception: There is no doubt the SORNA/TAS system is a risk based classification system of a devious kind, resulting in a dangerousness rating, even though such words are purposely omitted. Historically the public has been primed to believe "Levels" meant levels of dangerousness, because some states previously had traditional risk assessment systems, which arrived at a assigned dangerous level of 1-2-3 (meaning likelihood of re-offense). Now with the coming of SORNA/TAS tiers and all the political hype, and the media, tiers are now believed to have the same meaning/purpose as levels. Levels 1-2-3 = Tiers I-II-II.

In a recent news article Target 8 News had this to say:
"One of ___' rape victims says he's dangerous and belongs on the list as a predator, though she'd rather see his name in an obituary. But there is nothing on the registry that actually says Tier 3 is the most dangerous. That's something you have to figure out for yourself." "Michigan sex offender tiers confusing" (5-8-12 by Ken Kolker)

SORNA/TAS does not command lawmakers or others to explain the real meaning and purpose of Tiers, as it is written into SORNA (a system of notifying registrants when they are to report to verify their information (42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916)). Lawmakers allow the public misconstruction to continue. Why? Because it suits the purpose of further punishing registrants, without lawmakers saying, that is what TAS was designed to do.

Think about it, why omit those words if thats what is being described in SORNA?

Stay tuned for Part-II, The Risk Classification Study.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

© SOResearch May 2012, All Rights Reserved!