Sexual offender registration laws - Term Paper Example

? This term paper intends to review sexual offender laws in general and sexual offences regulations of of Georgia in particular. Aim is to provide the overview with explanation of sexual offender registration laws, their implication to rights of privacy, due process, and protection against these laws retrospective nature with help of Supreme Court case law to seek plausible conclusion. Overview The origins of Megan's Law can be traced from parents/guardians right to know if a dangerous sexual predator moves into their neighborhood and to protect communities from sexual offenders. Megan was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a dangerous sexual offender living in their neighborhood. Her parents circulated a petition demanding immediate legislative action. The petition amassed over 400,000 signatures, and the law was passed in 89 days. In accordance with Megan's Law, federally known as The Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, amended in 1998 with Section 115 of the General Provisions of Title I of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (CJSA) provide that states are required to register sex offenders and perform community notification. However, each state differs in terms of how it administers the information/methods of registrations. In July 2006, the state of Georgia passed the most stringent sex offender law in the country. Lavenson (2005) notes that bill stipulates sex offenders to be prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, church, and anywhere where children are known to congregate, including parks, playgrounds, and bus stops and therefore, is not a practical solution. Geraghty (2007) points out that residence restrictions appeared to be based on the unverified proposition that offenders are more likely to target victims, particularly children, in the immediate vicinities of their residences or workplaces. Law was seen by critics as retrospective in nature and harsh. House bill 571, now enacted as sexual offenders; classification; change and enact provisions passed in May, 2010, by State of Georgia, addresses many problems of early stringent sex offender laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megans Law Crimes triggering sex offender registration A sex offender is a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled guilty to or pled Nolo contendere to a sex crime. A sex crime can but does not always include sexual intercourse .Under Georgia law, sec 5, revised paragraph 10, of sexual offenders; classification; change and enact provisions, sex crimes include: child sexual abuse, child molestation, aggravated child molestation, to entice children for indecent reasons, to sexually exploit children, transports a child to a location in order to molest the child, Sexual exploitation of a child downloading pornographic material of persons under the age of 18, child pornography, sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, rape and even kidnapping of a minor.(5) http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20092010/106632.pdf Regulations regarding sexual offender registration The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) is responsible for registration of sexual offenders in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12. Sec 20(a) provides that a sexual offender is an individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or any dangerous sexual offense under the laws of another state or territory, under the laws of the United States, Uniform Code of Military Justice, or in a tribal court of a criminal offense against a minor or a dangerous sexual offense. The term sexual offender is a broad term, with sexual predator being used to describe a more severe physical or repeat sexual offense (Travis, Jeremy). Sexually dangerous predator is defined in sec 21(a) as a person who was designated as a sexually dangerous predator between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 2006; or a person who is determined by the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board to be at risk of perpetrating any future dangerous sexual offense. So, who is required to register? Sexual offenders are also sometimes classified into levels, where the highest level offenders have the most aggravating crimes and thus, the most risk to the public and usually must register as a sex offender for their entire lives. Low level sexual offenders may serve only a probationary sentence and only register for 10 years as well as having fewer restrictions placed on them compared to higher level offenders. In the United States, whenever one of these crimes is committed, the persons responsible are considered a sex offender and are mandatorily required to register as a sex offender.   Especially in the United States the person, if convicted, is most likely required to register with the respective jurisdiction's sex offender registry, a county- or statewide database that is often public and accessible to everyone through the internet or other means. O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12 (e) regulate the registry of sexual offenders in Georgia. http://gbi.georgia.gov/00/channel_faq/0,2627,67862954_86708497,00.html Procedural guidelines related to the implementation of the registration/publication O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12 (f) provides “any sexual offender required to register under this Code section shall provide the required registration information to the appropriate official before being released from prison or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation…the sexual offender must maintain the required registration information with the sheriff of each county in which the sexual offender resides or sleeps; The sexual offender must renew the required registration information with the sheriff of the county in which the sexual offender resides or sleeps by reporting in person to the sheriff within 72 hours prior to such l offender’s birthday each year to be photographed and fingerprinted… and the sexual offender must continue to comply with the registration requirements of this Code section for the entire life of the sexual offender, excluding ensuing periods of incarceration. In addition to the requirements of registration for all sexual offenders, a sexually dangerous predator shall also report to the sheriff of the county where such predator resides six months following his or her birth month and update or verify his or her required registration information.” They are required to provide following information fingerprints, photograph, name, physical description and current address; place of employment, if any; the crime of which convicted and date of conviction; and the date released from prison or placed on parole, school information, supervised release, or probation. The penalties for noncompliance O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12 (n) provides that “any individual who is required to register under this Code section and who fails to comply with the requirements of this Code section….shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 30 years; provided, however, that upon the conviction of the second offense under this subsection, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 30 years” Persons  convicted of a dangerous sexual offense on or after July 1, 2006 are required to pay an annual registration fee to the sheriff of county where the person resides upon each anniversary. http://gbi.georgia.gov/00/channel_faq/0,2627,67862954_86708497,00.html www.klaaskids.org/st-geo.htm http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20092010/106632.pdf http://interopweb.com/Butts/ Constitutional challenges The recent court challenges argue that these laws violate three constitutional rights: the right to privacy, the right to due process and the right not to be punished after completing a sentence for a crime, i.e., Ex Post Facto. Let us illustrate it with a case. The challenge was brought by Jake Rainer, who committed a drug robbery in Gwinnett County in May 2000. Rainer and his co-defendants picked up a 17-year-old girl who was going to sell them some marijuana. Instead of making a deal, they drove her to a cul-de-sac, took the pot and abandoned her. Rainer pleaded guilty to robbery and false imprisonment. Because of the latter conviction, he now has had to register as a sex offender. Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Harold Melton rejected arguments that the provision, as applied to Rainer, was cruel and unusual punishment. Sex offender registry laws, Melton wrote, "are regulatory, not punitive, in nature”. But in her dissent, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein disagrees, finding the statute “unconstitutionally over-inclusive”. She states in the dissent. “I am a parent. I am a grandparent. I care about the children of this state. But I am also obligated to care about the constitutional rights of all those affected by its laws.” These challenges and human rights activists brought enactment of Sexual offenders; classification; change and enact provisions, which now offers some respite to sexual offenders by allowing them to petition Superior Court judges to remove them from the registry. http://oncefallen.com/CivilVCriminal.html Additional link to an additional link to the page displaying sex offenders who reside within Zip code 31757: http://services.georgia.gov/gbi/gbisor/ControllerServlet?cmmd=search&searchType=all&fname=&lname=&streetname=&city=&zip=31757+&county=&gender=A&incarc=A&x=69&y=14 Are these laws constitutional? It has been successfully argued that disclosure of offenders' addresses online violated their privacy rights. Therefore, the state's online registry now divulges offenders by county, not by street address. Sexual offenders continue to be punished even after they serve their sentence by disclosure of their act/names to public. Sexual offenders; classification; change and enact provisions became effective on May 21, 2010, was aimed to address criticisms on early law’s neglecting right to life, privacy, protection against retrospective nature, due process etc. Now, it allows registered sex offenders who committed their offenses before June 4, 2003, to live wherever they choose. The new law also deletes a requirement that persons on the registry must provide their email addresses, user names and user passwords to law enforcement officials as part of the required registration information. The new law also allows sex offenders to petition a superior court for release from registration requirements and any residency or employment restrictions. But, in most cases, the person must have completed all prison, parole, supervised release and probation for the offense which required registration. More than a year has passed since Georgia eased restrictions on its 20,000 sex offenders and made it easier to be removed from the registry since the law was signed in May 2010. Because the law is relatively new, little precedent has been established for these cases. New law has certainly answered few criticisms and can be termed as constitutional now. http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/search/label/.Georgia http://www.llrx.com/features/sexoffenderresidency.htm Case Law These cases are picked because their ratio discusses very important legal question that rose by enactments of these stringent laws. In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences in “Comstock v State”. The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress’s power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I? Section 4248 of Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was debated. The challenge to the civil commitment law was brought by five prisoners. In November 2006, six days before Mr. Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Mr. Comstock was a sexually dangerous person. Previously, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., unanimously ruled that none of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution empowered it to authorize such civil commitments. But the decision was stayed, and Mr. Comstock has remained confined in a federal prison. At the argument of the case later, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the law was needed “to run a criminal justice system that does not itself endanger the public.” Justice Kennedy added that the majority did not pay enough heed to the 10th Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote “The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime , sex-related or otherwise ,does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” The Iowa law took effect on July 1, 2002, but was almost immediately challenged in federal district court. The plaintiffs were three named sex offenders who contended that the law was unconstitutional on its face. The case was certified as a class action, on behalf of other sex offenders to whom the law would apply. In many cities, the law would effectively limit sex offenders to small areas of residency. In small towns, a single school or child care center could mean that the entire town was off limits. Expert witnesses on both sides testified to their beliefs in the expected efficacy of the law. The district court enjoined enforcement of the law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including: The law was unconstitutional because it was an ex post facto law for anyone convicted before July 1, 2002; It violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights; It infringed on fundamental rights to travel and decide how to conduct their family affairs. In a ruling dated April 29, 2005, three judges from the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with each ground relied upon by the district court, and ruled that the law was not unconstitutional on its face. The court ruled that there exists no constitutional right to "live where you want." Some states have used civil commitment proceedings to remove habitual sex offenders from society for extended periods of time. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) that such laws do not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20100208_citron.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/sex-offenders/residency-restrictions-for-sex-offenders.html Conclusion Though, one side of the argument states that laws aren't punitive, on the other hand once people enter into a plea and agree to something, one can't come back years later and change it. In my humble opinion, laws need to conform to the constitutional rights of due process and right to privacy. According to Alder (1993) “Laws have gone an extra mile to create a negative impact on lifestyles of offenders”. What about an offender who really wants to be part of society. He has not only completed his term but is really sorry for what he has done. Society shall not close its doors on them. Retrospective nature of these laws needs to be looked into by the policy makers. Likewise more funds should be allocated to the correctional facilities and psychological treatment of sex offenders. They cannot be segregated and out casted from the society. Though extreme caution has its virtues to society but their induction in society as productive members is a real challenge, America faces today. Work Cited Levenson , Cotter. “The impact of sex offender residence restrictions.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 49.(2005): 168–178. Print Geraghty, S. “Challenging the banishment of registered sex offenders from the state of Georgia”. A practitioner's perspective. 42. (2007): 513–529. Print Travis, Jeremy. Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community. New York: Basic books, 1997. Print Find law. Thomson Reuter, n.d. web. 9 Sep. 2011. Adler, Matthew. The Sex Offender. New York, New York: 1994, Read More