Time for Alabama to join the 21st century and reform their backwards registry law

First off, what purpose does your interactive map serve? Someone in Bullock County might believe their county is a "sex offender haven," but in reality, few actually live there-- it is home to a state prison.

Second, Cam Ward has proven he is completely incompetent in regards to this topic. There aren't any legitimate studies claiming high recidivism rates, so it is obvious he is lying or just plain ignorant.

Third, Krystena Shuler's opinion means nothing. Her label as "victim" makes her in expert in nothing. And, if she feels the registry is a slap on the wrist, then she's even dumber than Ward. Her comments that fair laws increase recidivism are simply asinine, and simply shows not only her extremely low IQ, but her personal bias as well. Rep. Wood, you need to update your maps too, because most everyone else knows recidivism rates are low. We're in the 21st century, not the Antebellum era.

The reason these backwater bumpkins running the state haven't heard of facts like low recidivism rates is because these Trump loving hillbillies go home every night dreaming "the South will rise again" and these laws are the closest they can get to resurrecting Jim Crow laws.

As far as "mirroring" the federal law, Alabama's law doesn't resemble the federal law much because the federal law suggests a tiered registry.

Unfortunately, the registered citizens in Alabama lack the guts to stand up to the good ole boys like SCAM Ward in Montgomery, so it will be business as usual for the only booming industry down in Alabama, the ever-growing prison industry. Yee-haw!


https://www.annistonstar.com/free/as-some-states-reconsider-sex-offender-registries-an-alabama-resident/article_d8f12a3c-699a-11e7-a777-d71fa6cbf90b.html

As some states reconsider sex-offender registries, an Alabama resident argues the state’s for-life requirements are too much
Cameron Kiszla  7 hrs ago

A lawsuit before a federal appeals court may have broad implications for Alabama’s sex offender laws, which some critics claim are the harshest in the United States.

Montgomery resident Michael McGuire is suing the state of Alabama for relief from the residency restrictions, travel limits, sex offender registration and other punishments that accompany a conviction of a sexual offense. The case is before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

McGuire was convicted of sexual assault in Colorado more than 30 years ago, before many of the modern punishments around sexual crimes were enacted into law, and his argument hinges on constitutional protections against punishments created after a crime is committed.

After serving three years in prison and another on parole, he was released in 1989. He did not find himself in trouble with the law again until 2010, when he moved back to his native Montgomery to be closer to his mother and family.

Upon returning to Alabama, McGuire went to a Montgomery police station to confirm if, as a convicted felon, he was in breach of any state laws. It was at the station he learned he had to register as a sex offender.

He couldn’t live with his wife, mother or brother in Montgomery, because the state required him to stay away from kids, schools and daycares. Soon he was jobless and living under a bridge, with “Criminal Sex Offender” stamped in red letters on his driver’s license.

“He feels like he’s in prison again, a prison without bars,”  said Phil Telfeyan, McGuire’s lawyer. “He is restricted where he can live, where he can take jobs. It’s like being a permanent prisoner.”

‘Feel-Good Laws’

Alabama’s sex offender laws are among the most stringent in the nation. Home to more than 11,000 registered sex offenders, Alabama is among four states that put sex offenders on a mandatory registry for life and the only state that puts the sex offender stamp on a driver’s license.

And while there’s little sign the state’s voters want to ease up on those restrictions, policymakers in other states are beginning to question whether their registries are doing what they’re intended to do: make the public safer.

“Very few people on the registry are going to commit another offense, and it has nothing to do with the public knowing where they are,” Sandy Rozek, communications director for National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws, an organization that supports making sex offender registries accessible only to law enforcement.

Critics of registries say they’re based on a flawed perception of how often sex offenders reoffend and where they come into contact with their victims.

“They’re kind of ‘feel good’ laws,” said Emily Horowitz, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in New York. “We’re all deeply disturbed when harm is done, especially sexual harm, and they came out of emotionally charged, high profile instances.”

She pointed specifically to a study by Ira Mark Ellman, a professor of psychology and law at Arizona State University, and Tara Ellman, who looked at sex offender recidivism in their 2015 study “Frightening and High.” They found the most common statistic, that up to 80 percent of sex offenders reoffend, is a baseless accusation that has been repeated to the point of being held as fact, even by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The likelihood of re-offense declines for each year after release without a new sex offense, even for offenders initially considered at the highest risk to re-offend,” the Ellmans wrote in their study.

Horowitz said that 95 percent of children who are sexually abused are hurt by someone they already know, making these lists highly unnecessary.

“They also destroy lives of people who served their time, were sentenced and are trying to get their lives together,”Horowitz said. “I’m not against punishment, but registries are like banishment, it’s beyond punishment. It’s forever.”

Only California, South Carolina and Florida also require permanent registry for every sex offense, and California is moving towards a tiered system that would allow those at a low risk for recidivism to have their names removed from the public registry if they remain offense-free for 10 or 20 years, depending on their crime.

“The state’s sex offender registry has lost significant value over time because it contains so many low-risk offenders with decades-old offenses,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said in an emailed statement. “Our bill will improve public safety by creating a tiered system that will allow investigators to focus on those offenders who pose the greatest risk.”

Protecting victims

Lawmakers in California may be looking to change their state regulations regarding sex crimes, their counterparts in Alabama are not pushing for similar reforms in most cases. Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, said that Alabama’s policy makers created the state’s statutes to mirror the federal guidelines, and while they have created a path for people convicted of consensual statutory rape to be removed from the registry, he doesn’t see any support for removing Alabama’s lifetime registration requirement for most sex offenders.

“For every statistic that points one way, you can get a statistic and point the other way,” Ward said. “From what I can tell from people I talk to around Alabama, they are sympathetic to things like expungement on property crimes and they want to reduce recidivism, but for the most part, I haven’t heard anyone saying I wish sex offenders would catch a break.”

Ohatchee resident Krystena Shuler, who in 2009 encountered the man who pleaded guilty to raping her eight years earlier, agreed with Ward and said that the criminal justice system in Alabama is already too lax on sex offenders.

“He admitted his guilt and they slapped him on his hand, and that didn’t do any good,” Shuler said. “I have horrible complex PTSD, and it affects not just me, but my family.”

Shuler also said the current punishments for sex crimes are not deterring all sex offenders, and she fears that sex crimes will increase if the punishments are lowered further.

“I think more than them trying to bring forth things to make it — however they’re saying it — fair or whatever, I think it makes them far more likely to reoffend,” Shuler said. “These people are raping people knowing that they’re going to have to register as a sex offender, and if that doesn’t scare them, they shouldn’t be mad about the punishment.”

Calhoun County Sheriff Matthew Wade said that he believes the sex offender registry to be a valuable resource in protecting victims of sexual assault.

“Most people I know of on the sex offender registration are truly sex offenders, and they need to be on it,” Wade said. “I’m not willing to do away with tracking sex offenders in my community. I want to know where they are to protect the people of Calhoun County as best I can. If I can help to protect just one citizen, I call that a success.”

Former state Sen. Bill Armistead was the sponsor of the original bill to create a sex offender registry in Alabama. He said that while unintended consequences must be addressed, the focus on sex offender registry laws should be on the victims and their families.

“If we err, we need to err on the side of innocent families and make sure they’re aware of the dangers of a pedophile living close to a school, for instance,” Armistead said. “We should always continue to look to improve that legislation on behalf of the families, but we also need to look at unintended consequences going forward.”

Rep. Randy Wood, R-Saks, agreed with Armistead and said that some sex crimes, like the so-called “Romeo and Juliet” cases of teenaged couples having consensual sex when one partner is old enough to be charged with statutory rape, might warrant some leniency when it comes to lifetime stays on the registry.

“If some young person made a mistake and it was a one-time deal, I think they need to be held accountable for several years and make sure they’re not going to do it again, but I would always keep an open mind and look at the situation,” he said.

However, Wood believes that a permanent listing on the sex offender registry is in Alabama’s best interests when it comes to most sex offenders.

“If there’s any way to rehabilitate anyone on any crime, they need to be rehabilitated, but our information shows us that they can’t be rehabilitated,” he said.

A way forward

Michael McGuire’s attorney Phil Telfeyan said his client is still homeless, still jobless and still must walk miles to his wife's house for visits, which are limited in duration by residency laws.

Telfeyan doesn’t believe Alabama is moving in the right direction, which is why McGuire is suing the state for retroactive punishment. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits both Congress and individual states from changing the punishments of crimes that were committed before the laws were enacted, which McGuire and Telfeyan feel apply to this case.

“Alabama sought to punish folks, and the theory doesn’t work,” Telfeyan said. “The surest way is to get people to turn their life around, get into a stable job and stable housing, and the Legislature has actually made those things harder.”

SMART Office review of Alabama's SORNA requirement

http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/sorna/Alabama.pdf

If you wanted to know Alabama's review of their registry by the Federal "SMART" Office, well, here you go.

McGuire v. Strange, Case No. 2:11-CV-1027-WKW(WO), (US Dist. Ct, MD AL, Northern Div, 2 Feb. 2015)

A recent decision in US District Court has declared portions of the state's registry law unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Specifically, it declared two requirements of the state registry unconstitutional as applied in the following two situations:

(1) in-town homeless registrants to register (or check-in) on a weekly basis with two separate law-enforcement jurisdictions as provided by § 15-20A-12(b) in conjunction with § 15-20A-4(13) and
(2) all in-town registrants to complete travel permit applications with two separate law-enforcement jurisdictions as provided by § 15-20A-15 in conjunction with § 15-20A-4(13).

Unfortunately, the court still regards registration, residency restrictions, employment proximity restrictions, and the imposition of fees "nonpunitive" taken individually; however, the Court's decision leaves open the possibility that given the proper argument and evidence, the Court could indeed determine Alabama's sex offender registry law, taken as a whole, could be declared punitive. It simply was not the case this time.

Here is a brief summary of the recent decision, courtesy of eAdvocate:

http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.com/2015/02/mcguire-v-strange.html

If you want to read the entire case, click here:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4891458576553237023&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt

MICHAEL A. McGUIRE, Plaintiff,
v.
LUTHER STRANGE, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:11-CV-1027-WKW(WO).
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

February 5, 2015.

The section of most interest to us is Secion IV (findings of law) subsection f. Whether, in Their Necessary Operation, ASORCNA's Provisions are Excessive with Respect to the Provisions' Nonpunitive Purposes

But ASORCNA does not stop there. Rather, it supplements in-person registration, registration fees, residency and employment restrictions, and community-notification measures with additional provisions creating a scheme that regulates sex offenders far beyond the scheme in any other state. For example, excluding legislation aimed at sexually violent predators, no other state has a scheme whereby sex offenders are retroactively regulated for life through residency, employment, and travel restrictions. In fact, only one other state — Tennessee — employs residency, employment, and out-of-county travel restrictions, and it tempers the effects of these provisions, providing for partial retroactivity and allowing offenders who have successfully complied with the act for ten years to petition for termination of participation in the registration program. T.C.A. § 40-39-207. No other state requires dual registration or dual travel permits for in-town sex offenders, instead allowing registrants to report to any single local law enforcement agency -- whether municipal or county. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-22-102(4.5); 739 Ill. Comp. Stat. 150/1 § 2(d); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4902(m). Only five other states -- Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, and South Carolina — join Alabama in applying sex-offender regulations retroactively for the entirety of a registrant's life, but not one of those five states imposes travel restrictions, and only one of the five imposes residency and employment restrictions. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3821 et seq.; Del. Code Ann. § 4120 et seq.; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 846E-1 et seq.; Idaho Code Ann. § 18-8301 et seq.; S.C. Code. Ann. §23-3-400 et seq.

ASORCNA is the nation's most comprehensive sex offender regulatory scheme; it is designed to enhance public safety, prevent recidivism, and to protect vulnerable populations. Such a regulatory scheme, by its nature, will have a greater effect in its sum than when each of the scheme's individual components is examined in isolation, but that in and of itself does not make the scheme's cumulative effects unreasonable. That is not to say, however, that the features that overlay the entire scheme &mdash: no risk assessment, lifetime application, retroactive application for all-time, felony enforcement by the gross, border-to-border (rather than parcel-to-parcel), Ala. Code § 15-20A-11(g), residential and employment restrictions, and the chosen method of printing "SEX OFFENDER" in red lettering on the face of driver's licenses &mdash: are entirely nonpunitive and non-retributive. These provisions are, especially when considered in toto, in excess of every other scheme operating across the country, and such a stark comparison highlights areas where ASORCNA's effects have a very real potential to exceed their nonpunitive benefits. But that is not enough -- Mr. McGuire bears the burden of showing by the clearest proof that ASORCNA's provisions are excessive with respect to the Legislature's stated nonpunitive purposes, and Mr. McGuire has failed to carry that heavy burden, with two important exceptions.

First, Mr. McGuire has shown that the provision requiring double, weekly registration for in-town homeless offenders -- totaling up to 112 registrations in-person a year -- is excessive. No credible reason was given in support of this requirement. The argument that such a provision increases contact with law enforcement begs the question and falls into the State's misplaced view of unlimited effects being constitutional: If weekly double registration is good, then daily double registration would be sevenfold better? Considering the additional burdens of felony enforcement for violations, lifetime residential and employment restrictions, and lifetime travel restrictions (with yet more double-registration requirements), the weekly double-registration feature of the scheme for in-town homeless offenders is clearly excessive in relation to ASORCNA's stated nonpunitive purposes. Requiring a homeless individual to travel to two different law enforcement agencies to complete a substantially identical check-in process every week is so excessive in effect as to be punitive, especially in view of the combined weight of the other features on a homeless offender. And as established in Section C.II.c, infra, this requirement is a direct, affirmative disability or restraint.

Second, Mr. McGuire has shown that the provision requiring the completion of two identical travel permit applications prior to any three-day or more trip outside an in-town registrant's county of residence is excessive. Again, no credible reason was given in support of this duplicative procedure. While the State could again point to increased communication with law enforcement, as was discussed above, this is an instance of highly diminished returns coupled with substantially increased burdens. Additionally, § 15-20A-15(e) already requires the sheriff in the registrant's county of residence (not the municipal jurisdiction) to "immediately notify local law enforcement in the county or the jurisdiction to which the" registrant will be traveling, so it would be logical to conclude that the sheriff could also inform any applicable municipal law enforcement entity of the impending travel once a singular permit is completed. Ala. Code § 15-20A-15(e). When considering the double travel permit requirement in light of the other burdens borne by those subject to ASORCNA and the absence of any increase in benefit to ASORCNA's state nonpunitive purpose, the requirement is excessive to the point of being punitive.

As to all other of ASORCNA's provisions, Mr. McGuire has not shown that the Legislature's chosen regulatory means, individually or cumulatively, are clearly excessive in relation to the statute's nonpunitive purposes, and this factor does not point to a finding that ASORCNA as a whole is so punitive in purpose or effect as to negate the Legislature's stated intent. This finding is entered with serious reservations as to some features (especially the red-lettered branding of the face of required identification), but is consistent with the court's understanding of deference due to the judgment of the Alabama Legislature in regulating sex offenders in Alabama, and the State's discretion in implementing the various provisions of the scheme.

Chris Norwood defends his crappy pro-Adam Walsh Act article

Thank you ReFORM-AL readers for trying to educate this fool, Chris Norwood of the Daily Home, but he's stubborn as, well, an Alabamian, so he posted a response. Don't let up, slam this chump with the truth:

cnorwood@dailyhome.com

http://www.dailyhome.com/view/full_story/17936904/article-Our-View--Sex-offender-law-helps-balance-safety-and-justice-?instance=home_opinion

Our View: Sex offender law helps balance safety and justice

Mar 20, 2012 | 608 views | 1  | 0  |  | 

Response to a Sunday article about reforms in sex offender reporting laws drew some surprising responses in the comments section of this newspaper’s website.

Some of the changes were about doubling the number of times per year convicted sex offenders are required to register with law enforcement, and some dealt with ways in which some of the offenders can be relieved of the requirement to register altogether — such as an older offender who is living out his last years in a nursing home, or someone who was convicted of having consensual sex with an underage person, if the age difference was no more than four years. Exemptions may also be made for juvenile offenders after 25 years.

The increased requirement for registering not only increases the burden on the offenders, but also doubles the workload on those keeping tabs on the offenders.

Some of those commenting insist that most convicted offenders are not dangerous to others, and provide links to data that tend to support that argument. But even those numbers suggest that about 13 to 20 percent of child molesters reoffend, and 19 to 23 percent of rapists. While “most” don’t, those are still disturbingly high percentages.

Another mentioned the difficulty offenders have in finding employment and supporting themselves.

Also mentioned was an elderly man in Florida allegedly beaten to death because someone thought he was a sex offender in a tragic case of mistaken identity. The writer was one of several opposed to having registries.

States have online registries that allow people to check to see who and where registered sex offenders live based on name, city, zip code or county. Alabama’s registry can be found at http://dps.alabama.gov. At least one website, www.familywatchdog.us, offers an interactive map, based on the address entered that shows the residences of offenders in the area.

We think having those registries available can help people make better-informed decisions regarding safety in the community, but we are pleased to see exemptions being offered for some of the least dangerous offenders.

Another article with the obligatory "protects kids" catchphrases for the AWA

More AWA propaganda. Feel free to comment:

http://dailyhome.com/view/full_story/17921838/article-New-legislation-closes-loopholes--promotes-child-safety?instance=home_lead_story#cb_post_comment_17921838

New legislation closes loopholes, promotes child safety

by Chris Norwood

 March 18, 2012

According to the Alabama Department of Public Safety, there are 185 convicted sex offenders currently living in Talladega County, and 190 in St. Clair County. New legislation passed last year will change the way they have to live and double the number of times they must check in for verification of compliance.

According to Talladega County Assistant District Attorney Christina Kilgore, the state of Alabama adopted national standards for community notification in 2006, but the current version of the sex offender registration and notification act (SORNA) became law on July 27, 2011.

“The new act repealed several parts of the previous act to close some loopholes,” Kilgore said. “And the law itself states that its purpose is not to punish the offenders more, but to protect the public and promote child safety.”

One of the biggest loopholes closed by the new act involves sexually motivated offenses that may not normally be classified as sex offenses.

“Say you have a burglary in the first degree where someone breaks in and rapes the victim. They would be convicted of burglary in the first degree, which is not a sex offense. Under the new law, he would still be required to register once he got out of prison,” Kilgore said.

Another major change involves when an offender has to register. Previously, he did not have to until he was released from prison. Under the new law, he will have to register as soon as he is convicted or found guilty.

“We’ve already had a case here where that was an issue,” Kilgore said. “A man pleaded guilty and was out on bond, but he didn’t register.”

Convicted sex offenders must now register with the sheriff of the county and the police chief of the municipality (if applicable) where he lives, works or goes to school. Offenders cannot change their names unless the name change reflects a change in marital status or religion.

Under the old law, offenders were required to verify their residence only in their birth month and six months later. Under the new act, they have to check in during their birth month and every three months. If an offender becomes homeless, he is required to check in every week.

A convicted sex offender cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school, childcare facility, former victim or victim’s immediate family member (including grandparents, parents, spouses, children or grandchildren).

Under the old law, residence was established if the offender either stayed in the same place for three consecutive days or spent 10 or more days there in the same month. According to Kilgore, the new law adds “failure to spend three days away from the residence without notification unless the offender is incarcerated, in a medical facility or in a mental facility. If they’re planning on being away, they must also notify and complete a travel permit at least 21 days in advance.”

The new law also bars offenders from coming within 100 feet of any of their victims or their victims’ families, and adds college and university campuses to the places where offenders are not allowed to loiter. An offender must have a valid driver’s license or identification card.

The bill also strengthens communications between law enforcement agencies.

The other major change in the new law is that certain offenders can petition the court to be exempted. An offender who has become terminally ill or permanently immobile can petition the circuit court to lift the living restrictions. People who are convicted of consensual sex crimes (where there was no force but the victim was under age, such as rape or sodomy in the second degree) can also ask for exemptions. The law requires that the victim be at least 13 and the offender must be no more than four years older. The new law also provides employment relief in these cases, as well as for juvenile convictions after 25 years.

Offenders cannot work in schools, day cares or any vendor that supplies schools or day cares.

Records will be maintained for 75 years after the adjudication of the case, Kilgore said.

Lastly, the law bars harboring an offender who may not be compliant. “You can’t warn them or provide transportation, disguises or aid in counseling.”

Victims must notify the state Attorney General’s Office if they want notice of release and residence. 

In addition to one case where a defendant failed to register after pleading guilty, Kilgore said mainly what she has been seeing are “petitions for relief in consensual offenses. People are asking for relief that was not available under the old law, but none of them have had hearings yet. We’ll see other aspects of the law go into effect over time, too, but everyone was trained in the new act several months ago. It will definitely put more on the compliance workers in terms of workload.”

Investigator Owen Walton, who handles sex offender registration for St. Clair County, said he has definitely seen his own workload increase. “Adults are required to register every three months instead of every six, and they all have to register in Pell City. If you actually live in Pell City, you’re going to be checking in eight times per year. It’s still too early to say how effective this will be, but it’s a good tool. It lets us keep a closer eye on them, handle them better.” 

AL RSO Registry Fee Law

I recently added a registry fees fact guide to my main website at www.oncefallen.com. Thus, I thought I'd take the time to review the new Alabama registry fees law to clarify the fee issue:

Alabama: From the recently enacted SB 296: Section 22. (33a) An adult sex offender shall pay a registration fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10) to each registering agency where the adult sex offender resides beginning with the first quarterly registration on or after July 1, 2011, and at each quarterly registration thereafter. (b) Each time an adult sex offender terminates his or her residence and establishes a new residence, he or she shall pay a
registration fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10) to each registering agency where the adult sex offender
establishes a new residence. (c) If, at the time of registration, the adult sex offender is unable to pay the registration fee, the registering agency may require the adult sex offender to pay the fee in installments not to exceed 90 days.  The registering agency shall waive the registration fee if the adult sex offender has an order from the court declaring his or her indigence. In the event the adult sex offender is determined to be indigent, a periodic review of the adult sex offender's indigent status shall be conducted by the court to determine if the offender is no longer indigent. Further, if the offender is determined to be indigent by the sentencing court, nothing in this act shall prohibit the offender from being placed on a payment plan where the entire fee is collected in total. (d) The fees collected under this section shall be to the registering agency to defray the costs of sex offender registration, verification, and notification. (e) Any person who willfully fails to pay the required registration fee at the time of registration, or at the time at which the installment payment is due, shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction for willful failure to pay the required fee, the adult sex offender shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

 While I think the fees should be challenged in court (as discussed in my fact guide), it appears those of you who are concerned over registry fees should petition the court to be considered indigent and thus be free of paying the fees. This is something every registrant needs to pursue. 

One of my readers reminded me about the Federal "Poverty guidelines." Personally I find the numbers very low, as Alabama's poverty level is about $10,890 per year. However, I'm sure many of us hover around that line. even if you are above that line, I think you could still argue indigence, it is a matter of doing your math. For example, Gas is $3+ per gallon and most cars get maybe 20 miles per gallon on average (less in the city and if . Chances are just to go to work, you are filling up weekly at a cost of up to $100 to refill your tank. That's as much as $400 per month. You essentially have to argue your take home pay and your living expenses are so close paying for extra registration cases a financial burden.

I previously mentioned that Ohio had recently ruled their version of the Adam Walsh Act was indeed punitive. You may ant to utilize this case decision into your argument:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3374.pdf

Alabama's final version of the new SORNA law... all 100 pages of it

After seeing the new law I can see why there was some confusion in the media. While HB 378 got lots of attention, a similar bill, SB 296, was signed by the Governor and this is the law that passed in July 2011. Well, if you have a whole day to read it, knock yourself out. I will have my own analysis up soon. Until then, here is the link to the new law, all 100 pages of it.

http://www.interstatecompact.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VliFUF4LZIs%3d&tabid=292&mid=824&forcedownload=true

I recently updated my Adam Walsh Act page on my main site at once Fallen. Feel free to check it out:

http://www.oncefallen.com/AdamWalshAct.html

Alabama did not learn from Ohio's bad example

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana, The Life of Reason (1905-06)



Many people in Alabama are panicking over the revised Alabama SORNA law (which brought the state into Adam Walsh Act federal compliance) which took effect July 1, 2011, which has been covered here over the past few months. Alabama needed only look at recent history with Ohio's battle over the AWA (known in Ohio as SB 10) to see why the law was such a bad idea.


A recent editorial in the Columbus Dispatch explains it quite well (no surprise, I was one of the critics):


http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/07/31/ohio-sex-offender-registry-a-mess.html

Ohio sex offender registry a mess

Supreme Court has twice ruled it unconstitutional

By  David Eggert

The Columbus Dispatch Sunday July 31, 2011 9:15 AM

Four years after Ohio hurried to comply with a federal law by retroactively toughening the reporting and registration requirements for sex offenders, the state could be forgiven for having buyer’s remorse.

Ohio’s law has twice been declared unconstitutional, which opponents had warned would happen.

Thousands of sex offenders have been or will be reclassified — two times.

The funding the state stood to lose if it did not conform — typically hundreds of thousands of dollars a year — has been offset by millions spent complying with the law and defending against thousands of lawsuits.

“It was a colossal boondoggle,” said Jay Macke, an assistant state public defender.

And the issue remains unsettled, despite the Ohio Supreme Court striking down more of the law this month in a decision that could have implications across the country.

In 2007, Ohio adopted the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, part of a broader 2006 federal law named for Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old Florida boy who was abducted and killed in 1981.

It won unanimous approval from the legislature partly because there was a price for not going along – a 10 percent reduction in federal law-enforcement assistance grants. The federal government in 2009 applauded Ohio for becoming the first state to “substantially implement” the sex-offender law, which created a national system for the registration of sex offenders.

Ohio offenders were reclassified into three tiers based on the crime, no longer considering their likelihood of reoffending. They had to register for longer periods and report to authorities more often, and some once considered lower-level offenders were added to the registry for life instead of a decade.

The changes were applied retroactively to 26,000 sex offenders who committed their crimes before the law went into effect in 2008, something critics at the time said was blatantly unconstitutional.

It turns out they were right.

While the Ohio Supreme Court initially declined to step in and block the law from taking effect, it struck down portions of the law in 2010, reverting 19,000 offenders back to their status under Ohio’s previous sex-offender statute, Megan’s Law.

Then, about 7,000 offenders benefited from a major ruling this month that said the law could not change their punishment after the fact.

“When we name laws after people, it’s usually a mistake,” said Jeff Gamso, former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio who has fought Ohio’s retroactive sex-offender law. “ They’re driven by immediate passions and not by a whole lot of attention to what makes sense.”

Ohio, he said, has a lot of work ahead in deciding how to handle the fallout from the latest Supreme Court decision.

It is a crime for sex offenders to fail to register and verify their whereabouts. But some still listed on the registry would have come off by now under Megan’s Law, or possibly would not have had to register in the first place.

What if they were jailed for not registering or checking in with authorities under an unconstitutional law?

“The years of confusion continue,” Gamso said.

Attorney General Mike DeWine has another concern — making sure sex offenders affected by the latest ruling still have to sign up for the registry. His office began meeting with lawmakers last week to discuss their status.

DeWine said he is not sure yet whether new legislation will be needed.

“The court has told us what we can’t do, which we accept,” he said. “What we need to make sure is if they are still covered under the previous law.

“We have a duty to look at this and make sure we get it right.”

Sex offender George Williams of Cincinnati — one of thousands to challenge Ohio’s law — won the latest legal fight in the state’s high court. Now 23, he pleaded guilty to having unlawful sexual conduct with his 14-year-old girlfriend when he was 19.

For critics, Williams is the poster child for what is wrong with the sex-offender registry.

At the time of the crime, he likely would have been labeled a sexually oriented offender and been required to register for 10 years. However, under the Adam Walsh Act provisions, he was subject to 25 years.

Williams was sentenced to two months of jail and three years of community control, similar to probation. He and the victim had a child together, and she and her family wanted him to have contact with the child.

“If I have some predator living near me, I’d like to know that. But does this really get it done?” asked Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David E. Cain.

He questioned whether the public is served by a registry with tens of thousands of offenders on it. Tougher reporting requirements and more restrictions on where offenders can live make it more likely they will not comply and leave their whereabouts unknown, he said.

“I’m not sure it ever had a chance of doing what (legislators) intended, to make the state safer from sexual offenders,” Cain said. “They have the right intentions, but they don’t always think them out too well.”

deggert@dispatch.com

Yet more rules in the new SORNA law

This law needs to be fought. There are plenty of fees and it is obvious the intent is to circumvent previous laws that made it illegal to incarcerate individuals for being homeless.Until I can get a complete copy of the law AS PASSED, then I can't even say what other hidden rules there are. Why was the state legislature so quick to pass this bill and so quick to take it down after it was passed? Hm.

At any rate, this list is expanded from earlier reports. Once I get a full copy of the bill as passed (the final version) will post it up.

http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20110727/ARTICLES/307279990/1011/NEWS?Title=New-rules-for-sex-offenders

Key points of 2011 Alabama sex offender law

• Repeals earlier sex offender law passed in 2005, but incorporates parts of later laws.

• Requires adult sex offenders to remain in the state sex offender registry for life but makes exceptions for some younger offenders.

• Requires offenders to report plans to be away from home address for more than three days or any out-of-state travel.

• Requires day laborers to report when and where they will be on the job each day.

• Requires adult offenders to verify registration information every three months and pay $10 fee for updating.

• Requires homeless offenders to re-register and pay $10 updating fee every seven days.

• Requires offenders defined as sexual predators or convicted of violent sexual offenses to wear a global positioning device at a cost up to $15 per day.

• Allows offender to petition court for relief from lifelong reporting requirements if the offense was a crime only because of the victim’s age (consensual sex with a minor).

• Requires offender to register with local law authorities within three days after moving to county and/or attending school in county.

• Requires offender to update information within three days with every move or change in school.

• Expands information offender must give to law enforcement to include vehicle information, telephone numbers, Internet and email addresses, palm prints, passport/immigration documents and professional licenses.

More news about the new law to take effect July 1st

It seems this new law recently passed is even worse than previously thought. The Cullman Times reports even MORE new provisions to the newest law taking effect July 1st, 2011. The Day Labor law will effectively prevent registrants from obtaining employment, as most day laborers don't even know where they will work. Who will be able to afford the fees and GPS? It is obviously a ploy to incarcerate those on the list.

http://www.cullmantimes.com/local/x1277747145/Tough-new-sex-offender-law-goes-into-effect-July-1

A few other significant changes to the sex offender law include:

• Registered sex offenders who are homeless are required to check in once a week.
• Those who do day labor must provide local law enforcement with details about where and when they will be working each day.
• Sex offenders will have to pay a $10 fee every time they register. That same fee will also be charged for every move.
• A travel permit is required through local law enforcement if a sex offender plans to be away from their residence for more than three days or if they plan to travel outside the area.
• Those sex offenders who have been classified as sexual predators or convicted of sexually violent crimes will be required to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) for 10 years, at their own expense.
• Some youthful offenders and juveniles, those charged with more serious sex crimes, will have to register for a lifetime instead of 10 years.

State's sex offender laws get tougher

No surprise since no one is fighting anything there. No one has contacted me in support of this site since it began a year ago. If you don't voice your opposition when it is in session, it is harder to fight laws after they pass.

http://thedailysentinel.com/news/article_14e764b0-9798-11e0-9bc8-001cc4c002e0.html

State's sex offender laws get tougher

Posted: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:47 pm

By DeWayne Patterson

Gov. Robert Bentley recently signed legislation making Alabama's existing sex offender registration laws tougher.

"They needed to be tougher," said Jackson County Sgt. Investigator Paul Smith, who oversees the county's sex offender registration. "There's some really good changes. At the same time, it's going to double everyone in the state's workload, but that's not a bad thing."

Smith said, effective July 1, sex offenders must register quarterly or four times per year rather than only twice. Previously, a sex offender moving into Alabama had seven days to register. Smith said that's been changed to immediately.

Sex offenders will now also be required to pay a $10 fee each time of registeration or transfer of residence.

Smith said the new law also changes it from a misdemeanor to a felony for a sex offender to deface or alter an identification card.

It will also be a felony to harbor, assist conceal or withhold information about a sex offender. "We've been screaming about folks hiding offenders for years," said Smith. "Now, they can be charged."

Jackson County currently has 72 adult sex offenders, according to Smith, seven of which are currently incarcerated.

It really IS all about the money-- AL SORNA

The truth comes out-- it is all about the money. That, and trying to find lame excuses to lock up people who have completed their sentences. Considering how few actually have a job due to Predator Panic, how do they expect someone who has no job to pay $250? This law is unconstitutional. Make those who want this useless info pay the fees instead. I'd refuse to pay.

http://www2.wrbl.com/news/2011/jun/02/bill-tighten-ala-sex-offender-registration-heads-b-ar-1920918/

Bill to tighten Ala. sex offender registration heads to Bentley

The bill would require weekly registration from homeless offenders.

By Alison Flowers
Published: June 02, 2011

The Alabama Senate unanimously passed measures to tighten the state's existing sex offender registration law Thursday. The bill is now headed to Governor Robert Bentley's desk for approval.

The new requirements would prohibit a sex offender who abused a sibling from living under the same roof as the person they abused. Homeless offenders would have to register weekly with law enforcement until they secure a permanent address. All offenders would have to supply extra information to be made public, under the proposed law.

But the measure that Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones says is long overdue: the $250 offender registration payment.

"Every time an individual moves, we have to notify the area where they're moving, and there's an expense involved each time."

Federal law mandates the sheriff's office track sex offenders, an endeavor that involves software and fees.

"The public wants to know, and they need to know in regard to these individuals in their neighborhoods, but it can be an expensive proposition at some point," Jones said.

AL one step closer to passing SORNA

My guess is they are more motivated by money. It is unnecessary to add more registration requirements. They must not realize it will cost them more to implement this stupid law than reject it.

http://www.wncftv.com/localnews/House-Passes-Bill-to-Stregthen-Sex-Offender-Laws-122537014.html

House Passes Bill to Strengthen Sex Offender Laws

By Morgan Hightower

Members of the Alabama House of Representatives Tuesday voted to strengthen the state’s sex offender laws, passing a bill sponsored by Rep. Blaine Galliher (R-Rainbow City) that would close loopholes in current law and require more frequent and thorough registration of sex offenders in Alabama.

House Bill 378, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, would strengthen current law by requiring sex offenders to give local law enforcement more information when registering, including vehicle information, telephone numbers, Internet identifiers, email addresses, palm prints, travel documents and professional licensing information. Sex offenders would also have to register four times a year instead of the current requirement of two registrations per year.

Representative Galliher said updating Alabama’s sex offender laws will create better awareness of what sex offenders reside in the community, enabling the public to better protect themselves.
“Registration and notification laws protect the community and serve to deter sex offenders from future crimes,” Representative Galliher said. “Requiring more frequent and thorough registration will maintain better contact between sex offenders and law enforcement, providing police and sheriff’s offices with the tools they need to identify, monitor and track sex offenders. We’re looking out for victims, and giving our communities the resources they need in the law to keep families safe.”

The bill also closes a loophole that makes it difficult to enforce registration and notification requirements for homeless sex offenders by mandating that, until they obtain a permanent residence, homeless sex offenders must register with local law enforcement once a week. Another provision in the bill makes it a felony for a sex offender to contact or harass his or her victim.

House Bill 378 also brings Alabama up to date with federal sex offender law by ensuring that a comprehensive list of sex offenses is applicable to registration and notification requirements.

A similar bill has passed the Senate. Representative Galliher said he would work with the Senate Sponsor, Senator Cam Ward to combine the bills and ensure the strongest possible law ultimately passes.

(Information Source: Rep. Galliher's Office) 

Here is Blaine Galliher's info:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/representatives/housebios/hd030.html

State House:	Room 519-C 11 S. Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7674	District:	Post Office Box 4353 Gadsden, AL 35904-4353
Home Phone:	(256) 442-7517	Email:	blaine2@mindspring.com

Proposed law would tighten registration, work requirements

Great, just when I thought it would be a quiet year in AL, this crap happens: legislature to increase work restrictions from 1000 to 2000 ft and increase registration 6 months to 3 has been introduced. Blaine Galliher is the sponsor:

State House:	Room 519-C 11 S. Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7674	District:	Post Office Box 4353 Gadsden, AL 35904-4353
Home Phone:	(256) 442-7517

Email: blaine2@mindspring.com

Be sure to focus on the Judicial committee as well. ReFORM Alabama opposes this bill in every aspect excet the "Romeo and Juliet" provision. The intent is bring Alabama more in tune with the controversial Adam Walsh Act.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20110422/NEWS/110429914/-1/OPINION01?Title=Proposed-law-would-tighten-sex-offender-requirements&tc=ar

Proposed law would tighten sex offender requirements

By Lisa Rogers
Times Staff Writer

Published: Friday, April 22, 2011 at 9:27 p.m. 

Alabama already has some of the toughest laws in the United States for convicted sex offenders, but Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, has introduced legislation to make them even tighter.

The bill is out of committee in the House and Senate and could come up for a vote during this session.
“It brings the state into compliance with federal laws and strengthens the current law and closes some loopholes,” Galliher said.

Current sex offender laws are addressed in three or four sections of the state law's code books, but this bill places it all in one section.

“It makes it easier to read and comprehend,” Galliher said.

The law would prohibit an adult sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of the victim, rather than 1,000 feet, Galliher said.

It also adds a restriction prohibiting a sex offender from working within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility.

It requires juveniles who commit violent offenses to follow the same guidelines as adult sex offenders and prohibits the youthful offender laws from being a factor in those cases.

Sex offenders also would be required to verify registration every three months instead of six months.
Anyone who is homeless now will be required to check in with law enforcement every week.

The new law also makes it a requirement for all convicted sex offenders, regardless of when the offense or conviction occurred, to register for the rest of their lives.

It will require sex offenders to provide more information to law enforcement and the sex offender public registry website, such as their employers, license plate numbers, vehicle information, telephone numbers, Internet identifiers and email addresses. The public registry website also will require a criminal history of all sex-related crimes.

The sex offender now must register within three days of changing or updating any information or within three days of entering a county to live, work or attend school.

There is a substantial revision for the process that determines if someone is a considered to be a sexual predator. It no longer will be based on mental issues, but on the person's prior record.

The law also prohibits sex offenders from contacting or harassing their victims.

One of the loopholes the bill addresses is requiring all sex offenders to sign a form each time they register, stating they understand their responsibility.

There also is a new provision addressing consensual sex.

If there is no more than four years' difference in the ages of the juvenile offender and victim and the sexual contact is consensual, it is at a judge's discretion to determine if the offender must register as a sex offender.

Sheriff Todd Entrekin said the tougher law is going to create more work for the sheriff's office, but that is a problem he doesn't mind.

“It will push more of the sex offenders out into the county, because the 2,000-feet requirement will make it more difficult for there to be places that sex offenders can live in the cities,” he said. “But it's worth it. Anything we can do to keep up with these sex offenders, we're going to do our part.”

Copyright © 2011 GadsdenTimes.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.