|
| Welcome to Gimeweb.com
|
The Wrong Sex Offender Laws |
|
Research
|
|
Friday, 14 November 2008 |
|
Legislators ignore studies and reports that give enlightenment into the effacacy of sex offender legislations and laws. The citizenry accept sex offender laws because they are sold a false bill of goods by those in positions of power and trust, and all they receive is the drum beats of hate, creating the Hate Group mentality amongst the citizens, where hate over shadows sound reasoning and truth, favoring omissions of fact, which in turn creates the mindset of the vigilante. Peoples lives are destroyed and not many care, and why not? Since twisted reasonings is all that the majority knows, then the destruction occurs through brain washing. If a lie is told enough times as truth, it will evidently become truth in the minds of the targets, the citizens. Political leaders constantly lie and deceive and we all know it, and in everything that political leaders do they do with a view to their re-election and political stature, at the expense of human dignity and human lives. Human Rights Watch, the foremost civil rights organization in the world, now sees in America that which is typically seen in other parts of the world, gross violations of civil rights, and constitutional protections of the citizens against the abusive powers of the state [local and state governments, and includes the federal government in the same definition]. It is a long battle against twisted reasoning and hate. America has gone through irrational reasoning and the hate group mentality several times throughout its history, with collective state practiced racism being the most recent in history on a large scale. But there have been other hate group mentalities generated in recent years against illegal immigrants, people who engage in same sex sexual relations, and also in recent times, the person who is labeled a sex offender. America and Americans apparently love to hate, otherwise why do they gravitate so readily to the hate group mentality? The deprivation of life, liberty, happiness, and Due Process of law, all on a grand scale based on myth, lies, omissions of fact, and overt deception. Read on and become educated. Perhaps you might become awakened and will stand against the lies and deceptions of the political leaders, and that includes your own. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 14 November 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
State-by-State Compliance |
|
States and the Adam Walsh Act
|
|
Tuesday, 11 November 2008 |
|
ADAM WALSH ACT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA) STATE-BY-STATE COMPLIANCE Prepared by: Alisa Klein, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Last Update: October 29, 2008 | State | State Legislation or Statute | Submitted to SMART Office? | Extension Request Submitted to SMART OFfice? | Status | Info Supplied By | | ALABAMA | | | | | | | ALASKA | | | | Alaska has not submitted any SORNA legislation and has just recently appointed an AG in the Department of Law to analyze the situation and make recommendations regarding whether or not (and how) Alaska will implement. Awaiting the SORNA final guidelines before drafting legislation. | Roseanne Munafo, LPA Criminal Justice Planner Offender Programs Alaska Department of Corrections Ph: (907) 269-7416 Fax: (907) 269-7421 | | ARKANSAS | | | | | | | ARIZONA | SB 1628 (passed April, 2007) | | As per Leslie Hagan (SMART Office) on 10/29/08, AZ has submitted to the SMART Office a request for extension. | Requires youth sex offenders to only be placed in treatment programs of similar age and developmental maturity level; requires a court hearing for any youth prosecuted as an adult to determine if youth should be transferred to juvenile court.; allows for an annual probation review hearing for youth sex offenders under age 22 who are in the adult system; allows transferred youth to be removed from the registry. UPDATE October, 2008: Arizona has submitted to the SMART Office a request for implementation extension. | | | CALIFORNIA | | | | Considering what the costs will be. No legislation yet. | | | COLORADO | | | | A compliance committee made up of all the stakeholders is currently studying what it would take to implement AWA in CO. Doing a cost-benefit analysis of implementation and then will make recommendations to the Governor's office and legislature. There has been no legislation run or passed as of yet and we don't anticipate any in 2008. | Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky
Program Director
Office of Domestic Violence & Sex Offender Management
Colorado Dept of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80215-5865
Voice: 303-239-4447
Fax: 303-239-4491 | | CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | DELAWARE | SB 60 | | | Passed compliance legislation. Wholly adopted SORNA provisions. | | | WASHINGTON DC | | | | | | | FLORIDA | SB 1604 HB 665 | | | Mostly adopts provisions of the SORNA, but not retroactive prior to July 1, 2007. | | | GEORGIA | | | | So busy with their state residence restriction and other bills that they haven’t addressed the SORNA yet. | Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D. Highland Institute | | GUAM | | | Yes, extension request submitted to SMART Office. | | As per Leslie Hagan, SMART Office, on 10/29/08. | | HAWAI’I | | | | Will be addressing SORNA but most likely not the juvenile piece. A work group, the Sex Offender Registration Team (SORT), is in place to study the possibilities for SORNA implementation. 7/17/08 update from Barry Coyne: Hawaii legislature and the AG set up committee to evaluate the impact of SORNA, it will report back to the legislature prior to the opening of the 2009 session in mid-January. SORNA implementation on hold for now. | Leanne N. Gillespie
SOMT Coordinator
Sex Offender Management Team
Department of Public Safety
919 Ala Moana Blvd., Ste. 401
Honolulu, HI 96814
ph. (808) 587-1249
fax (808) 587-2568 | | IDAHO | | | | | | | ILLINOIS | | | | SB 121 passed in 2007 which challenges juvenile provisions of the SORNA: allows juveniles to petition to be removed from registry after a full hearing, 2 years for misdemeanor offense; 5 years for a felony offense | | | INDIANA | | | | | | | IOWA | | | | | | | KANSAS | | Kansas has submitted chunks for compliance such as the website, and some of the sex offense statutes. However, Kansas has not passed legislation and has not submitted a full compliance package to the SMART Office. UPDATE: October 10, 2008: Kansas submitted a request for extension to the SMART Office. | October 10, 2008 – Extension request submitted to SMART Office. | Working on substantial legislative changes to come closer to compliance with SORNA. The state attorney general, based on information provided by the state’s Offender Registration Working Group, will not pursue the adult retroactivity portion or the juvenile requirements of the SORNA. Kansas will exceed SORNA’s registration requirements by having all sex offenses except for sexual battery register for life. Sexual battery will require a 15-year registration. Also, ALL offenders will be required to report in person quarterly. | Erik D. Wood Section Chief Licensing, Registration, and Missing Persons Kansas Bureau of Investigation (785) 296-8200 | | KENTUCKY | | | | | | | LOUISIANA | HB 970 R.S. 15:540 et seq | Yes; not in compliance. | | SMART Office responded. LA not in compliance. SMART Office says the state has to change state codes regarding sexual assault to be in compliance. Also said tiering has to be fact-based rather than based on elements of the state offense. Also said LA not in compliance vis a vis tribal nations. Supreme Court ruled that retroactivity did not violate expo facto. United States Supreme Court is set for Argument on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 regarding Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana a Jefferson Parrish sex offender on death row. | Emma DeVillier Assistant Attorney General LA State Attorney General’s Office Criminal Division P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 Telephone: 225-326-6284 | | MAINE | | | | As of 4/10/09 - currently has legislation pending to remove offenders from the registry for some offenses committed between 1982-1992. Also have pending in the courts five challenges to the entire registry based on Doe v District Attorney et al, 2007 ME 139, a decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued last fall that called into question the constitutionality of our Sex Offender Registry based on State constitutional issues. The matter has been remanded for hearing. The state’s Criminal Justice Committee has put off consideration of whether or not to comply with Adam Walsh until next session (starting January 2009). Currently, no juvenile is included on the ME Registry unless they have been bound over as an adult. | Anne Jordan Commissioner of Public Safety State of Maine 207 626 3800 (207) 624-7241 | | MARYLAND | | | | January 2008 - proposed legislation (SB 24 – Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Task Force) to examine the need for a committee to be appointed to deal with AWA/SORNA implementation. As of 1/9/08 – bill is in First Reading - Judicial Proceedings. Maryland has not fully enacted legislation to implement the Adam Walsh Act. Our Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is likely to again introduce legislation during our upcoming session. Results from the past session: The Maryland General Assembly considered several bills relating to sex offender registration in 2008. Two bills concerning juveniles being subject to the sex offender registry were withdrawn. Senate Bill 56/House Bill 18 (both passed) require that, in addition to any aliases, the registration statement of a person required to register with the State's sexual offender registry include the registrant's former names, electronic mail addresses, computer log-in or screen names or identities, instant-messaging identities, and electronic chat room identities used by the registrant. The bills also add (1) a copy of the registrant's valid driver's license or identification card; and (2) the license plate number and description of any vehicle owned or regularly operated by the registrant as items that must be included in a registration statement. Senate Bill 629/House Bill 761 (both failed) would have applied the State's sex offender registry provisions retroactively to include a person convicted on or after October 1, 1995, of certain sexual offenses committed before that date. The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) submitted two departmental bills relating to sex offender registration. House Bill 1538 (failed) would have made changes to notification and registration provisions so as to conform to the SORNA. DPSCS also sent the provisions of this bill to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking of the U.S. Department of Justice ("SMART Office") for a ruling as to compliance with SORNA. As the 2008 session was ending, the SMART Office advised DPSCS that these proposed changes would not have put Maryland in compliance with the proposed regulations/guidelines. The other departmental submission, House Bill 1450 (failed), would have made substantive and organizational changes to provisions governing the extended supervision of some sexual offenders (as provided under Chapter 4 of the 2006 special session) and provided for the registration of homeless sexual offenders. | Kevin Wade Pat Flanigan Acting Area Director Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Montgomery County | | MASSACHUSETTS | | | | MA Executive Office of Public Safety is (EOPS) is the lead agency for compliance with AWA; they have not decided on their strategy yet, but are leaning towards compliance. The MA District Attorney Association did a comprehensive opinion on what parts of the AWA violate the State's constitution and issued a paper on this ( e.g., retroactivity, immediate notification without adequate due process, etc.). No forward movement yet at the legislative side (that we know of). MATSA and MASOC very involved in trying to influence the outcome. And have issued a position paper asking to forgo the Byrne Grant funds because AWA does NOT make our communities safer. And if move forward the recommendation is to remove juveniles from AWA and add in a number of safety components that will actually work. Several state constitutional issues have been identified as counter to the provisions of the SORNA, including the right of sex offenders to a due process hearing to determine risk level. | Joan Tabachnick
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
| | MICHIGAN | | | | The MI Senate had legislation introduced for compliance early on, but it didn’t go anywhere. Waiting for the final guidelines to move in a definitive direction. The House has created a subcommittee to address existing registry issues and SORNA compliance but no bill has yet been introduced. | | | MINNESOTA | | | | Minnesota is awaiting publication of the final guidelines and needs to better analyze the cost of implementation; currently considering how implementation would affect current sex offender registration system. There are no plans at this time to introduce AWA-related legislation in the 2008 session. | Harry Kennedy Minnesota State Sex Offender Policy Coordinator 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55108-5219 651-361-7232
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
| | MISSISSIPPI | HB 1015 | Sent in compliance package but it was not approved. | | Passed SORNA compliance bill but it does not address retroactivity, nor is it in compliance as far as the requirements re: juveniles. | | | MISSOURI | SB 714 | | | Passed SORNA compliance bill March 2008. | | | MONTANA | SB 156 | | | SB 156 passed in early 2007 addresses some aspects of the SORNA compliance, but not all. Montana legislature meets for only 90 days every two years. Next legislative session is just before the July 2009 substantial compliance date. No SORNA-specific legislation has been drafted yet. June 11, 2008 decision in Montana’s US District Court (Waybright v. U.S.) that SORNA is unconstitutional. The decision about the federal law reads: “enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 16913, which requires all sex offenders to register regardless of whether they travel in interstate commerce, is not a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Constitution. I therefore declare 42 U.S.C. § 16913 unconstitutional.” | Andy Hudak
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
| | NEBRASKA | LB 957 | Compliance package submitted to the SMART Office. | | | As per SMART Office staff at the July 2008 SMART Symposium in Baltimore. | | NEVADA | AB 579 | Submitted their compliance package to the SMART Office. No answer yet. | | AB 579 was passed May 31, 2007, enrolled on June 1, 2007, approved by governor on June 13, 2007, and codified in Chapter 485 of the NRS on June 14, 2007. Becomes effective July 1, 2008. NV appears to be closest to substantial compliance of all the states that have passed compliance legislation. On June 24, 2008, NV ACLU filed a federal lawsuit asking for a temporary stay in the law. September 11, 2008 -
http://www.lvrj.com/news/28232419.html
Las Vegas Review-Journal
PERMANENT INJUNCTION: Offender statute restricted
U.S. judge rules law can't be applied retroactively
By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
REVIEW-JOURNAL
A federal judge issued a permanent injunction Wednesday that bars the state of Nevada from applying its new sex offender law retroactively.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan said the law, as applied to 12 sex offenders represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, is unconstitutional.
"Many of the plaintiffs here were convicted years ago and have paid their debt to society," the judge said.
He said the law, which would change the way Nevada classifies sex offenders, would subject the plaintiffs to additional penalties -- "not because of anything that they have done."
Mahan likened that scenario to the Legislature passing a law that says anyone ever convicted of burglary must now serve five more years in prison, even though they have been law-abiding citizens since their release from prison. That would be neither fair nor constitutional, he said.
The judge stressed that his ruling would have no effect on existing laws that require the registration of pedophiles or laws that restrict their movement or housing.
Deputy Attorney General Binu Palal said he did not know whether his office would ap | | |
|
|
Home 
