Tougher Laws and Punishments for Child Molesters - Research Paper Example

?Tougher Laws and Punishments for Child Molesters Ohio’s Notification Process As a result of past court rulings, tougher laws and punishments have been enforced for child molesters. In an Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the judge granted a sex offender’s notification process to be blocked. In a similar ruling, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, Justice Paul Pfeifer, and Justice Maureen O’Conner unanimously ruled that sex offenders can request for their movement notification to be blocked. However, in the State of Ohio, sex offenders who are in the Tier III level will automatically have their addresses reported to the community by police officers. Even these violent sex offenders have the right to request for their notification process to be blocked. They can change addresses without the community or the police being notified of such move. The Adams Walsh Act, signed by President George W. Bush, is Ohio’s current sex offender registry law. The law took effect on January 2008, and it allows Tier III sex offenders to request for a local judge to waive their notification process upon proving that the sex offender is no longer a threat to the community. The sex offender will still be listed as a sexual predator and be required to provide an updated address every 90 days to the local sheriff’s office. Lawmakers intended for the notification process waiver for sex offenders convicted of crimes to apply to offenders who did not commit another crime before the new law applied. However, in July 2008, Stephen James McConville from Lorain County was convicted of rape and gross sexual imposition. He pleaded guilty and was convicted under the new law. He was listed as a sexual offender under the Tier III offender level. After the conviction, McConville requested for the judge to waive the notification of his address to the community. The judge in Lorain County agreed based on McConville clearing the law’s 11 step criteria. The judge stated that McConville was “unlikely to commit a sexually oriented offense in the future.” (Fields, n. pag.). The verdict was appealed by the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office on the basis of McConville not being eligible for his notification process to be waived because he convicted this crime after the law went into effect. According to the article, “The state was arguing anyone convicted after Jan. 1, 2008 was mandatorily and automatically subjected to notification and not subject to waiver. But the actual statute written by the legislature does not say that,” said McConville's attorney, John M. Prusak. “What the state was arguing is not in statute.” (Fields, n. pag.). The case was presented to the Supreme Court where there was a 7-0 ruling. The Supreme Court sided with the lower court and appeals court. The ruling was based on the court’s opinion on the strict reading of the law based on the legislator’s writing of the law. The ruling was based on the following argument, “The state's argument is not persuasive,” Justice Robert Cupp wrote for the court. “The language used in the statute pertains to those sexual offenders whose status is determined after the effective date" of the law.” (Fields, n. pag.). The case was argued for the State of Ohio by the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office. There was an attempt to reach the Assistant Prosecutor Billie Joe Belcher regarding the case, but he could not be reached. Cleveland Democrat, State Senator Shirley Smith introduced a bill to repeal the provision in the law that allows for sex offenders to have their notification process waived. Senator Smith’s decision to introduce a bill to repeal the provision was motivated by the case of Anthony Sowell. Sowell is an accused serial killer who is listed as a Tier III sexual predator. He would have been eligible to request for the judge to waive his notification process upon relocating from his Imperial Avenue home. Sex Offender Registration Laws In the case of Anthony Sowell vs. the State of Ohio, Anthony Sowell appeared in court, facing allegations of killing eleven women and attacking and raping other women in their homes on Imperial Avenue where he is registered as a sexual offender. Weeks of discovery in the Anthony Sowell case revealed eleven decomposing women at his home. This case prompted a new statewide legislation. State Senator Nina Turner proposed a law to intensify registration and monitor sex offenders convicted of committing gruesome crimes. In addition to this law, four other senators proposed laws that were being considered to revise the content of Ohio’s sexual offender registration and notification law process. Sex offender laws are costly for tax payers, and many question whether sex offenders become lost after registering. According to Sheriff Bob Reid in Cuyahoga County, sex offenders are deterred by the registration process and notification laws, and requiring them to register helps with investigations and raise awareness. Attorney General Richard Cordray agrees with sex offenders registering. He states that this is a useful tool to assist with keeping track of sex offenders’ locations. This measure has received positive, bipartisan political and popular support. Attorney General Richard Cordray understands the reasons why tragic cases such as Sowell’s case prompt lawmaking. Laws on Sexual Predators: A Timeline Sex offender laws in Ohio faced proposed changes in 2010. According to Cordray, “People want to have the satisfaction of responding to things. There is always pressure to have Joe Smith's Law or Becky Jones' law to help make sense out of a tragedy.” (Dissell, n. pag.). Cordray believes that this approach is useful. Studies have concluded that registration and monitoring laws have not reduced sex crimes, but the costs have risen. An analysis completed by the Plain Dealer revealed that sex offenders give inaccurate information regarding their location, and they tend to ignore residency restrictions. Repeat sex offenders did not commit the sex crime in the neighborhood where they are registered. The impact of sex offender laws has prompted coalitions of sexual assault victim advocates, public defenders, and local officials to urge Ohio to revise their system. The Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Megan O’Bryan spoke on the issue of laws for sexual offenders. O’Bryan states that these laws are well intended but misguided and limited. It creates a false sense of security for the community and places too much resources and energy into a select number of sex offenders. The laws have forced people to believe that attacks initiate from strangers. Most sexual assaults initiate from acquaintances, family members, and friends. O’Bryan believes that the public as well as lawmakers need to be educated on this issue, and more support needs to be centered on prevention of these crimes, education, and treatment for rape victims and sex offenders. Laws Established from Prior Cases Seven years passed since the gruesome rape and strangulation of a seven year old Megan Kanka from New Jersey. This case ignited a public stand to protect citizens from sex offenders. Megan Kanka’s parents discovered that their daughter’s killer was previously convicted of sexually assaulting another child. This case ignited a movement of a state and federal regulation in the 1990’s to handle the issue of sexual offenders. The purpose of establishing laws was to protect the people from sex offenders and force them to register their addresses with the police department. Ohio, along with a few other states, had prior sexual predator laws in place for sex offenders to register with the police. The “habitual sex offenders” law in Ohio was originally passed in 1963. This law forced sex offenders to register their addresses with the police, and they had to fingerprint and take photos. The only issue with this law is that this information was not public, and this law was difficult to enforce. The law was costly and not effective for preventing new crimes. Costs for Maintaining the Sex Offender Registry The New Jersey Department of Corrections and the Rutgers University examined the impact of the “Megan’s Law” through a federally funded study. The study revealed that the registration and notification process of sex offenders did not alleviate sexual offenses. The study also revealed that the number of cases has reduced, but the reduction took place before the Megan’s Law took effect. In the researchers’ conclusion, “Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable.” (Dissell, n. pag.). The cost to maintain this process cost at least $5.1 million dollars a year. Cuyahoga County Sheriff Reid did not provide the dollar costs for requiring sex offenders to register with their office. However, Sheriff Reid provided the following statement: “To comply with the laws, he has to pay salaries for deputies to register offenders, cars for them to drive and verify addresses, to update the office's website identifying offenders, and postage for sending out notification. The entire cost falls to the department.” (Dissell, n. pag.). Sex Offender Tiers The Adam Walsh Act and Ohio Senate Bill 10 have organized sex offender classification into three Tiers. The sex offender is placed in a specific tier based on the convicted offense, and it is not based on a sex offender’s likelihood to repeat the offense. The following information is Registration and Verification Rules for sex offenders: Tier I: registration duties last 15 years for adults, 10 years for juveniles; in-person verification at the county sheriff's office is required annually. Tier II: registration duties last 25 years for adults, 20 years for juveniles; in-person verification is required every 180 days. Tier III: registration duties last a lifetime for adults and for juveniles; in-person verification is required every 90 days. (Dissell, n. pag.). Authorizing Indefinite Sentencing for Sexual Offenders The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders who are considered “sexually dangerous can be kept in prison past their prison term. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision stating that Congress decision to allow indefinite sentences to “sexually dangerous” sex offenders was unconstitutional. According to Justice Stephen Breyer, “The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.” (Associated Press, n. pag.). In 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. It authorized the commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates, and it was named after the son of America’s Most Wanted television host John Walsh. Four men challenged the act. They were serving a sentence term of three to eight years in prison for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. These prisoners were held in prison two years after they were supposed to be released because the prison officials feared that they would become repeat offenders. A fifth prisoner challenged this act, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled against Congress decision to allow prisoners to stay past their prison term. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that Congress legislative power is sufficient to enact based on the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed, stating that Congress can only pass laws based on federal powers highlighted in the Constitution. Thomas continues, “Nothing in the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power.” (Associated Press, n. pag.). Prison Rehab The Supreme Court ruled that prison rehab could penalize prisoners for admitting to charges of a sexual crime that they initially denied committing. This decision came from the case of McKune vs. Lile. The ruling was overturned by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado on the basis that the rehab program requirements violated the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment protects prisoners against compelled, self-incrimination. Kansas’ state prison system has a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program, which requires prisoners to admit to their crime, reveal new details of the crime, and pass a lie detector test. This system causes the prisoners to risks receiving new charges for newly confessed details of the crimes and possibly facing perjury charges. If prisoners, who were housed in the minimum security unit because of good behavior, refused to participate in the program, they risked being sent back to maximum security prison. In addition, their pay would be reduced for prison work. The only thing not affected is a prisoner’s parole eligibility. The 10th Circuit Court ruled against this program and stated that self-incrimination was unconstitutional. Conclusion Tougher laws and punishments for child molesters have been established through the court system and law enforcement. Years of child molestation crimes have prompt the urgent need to solidify laws that protect society against sex offenders. The Supreme Courts and lower courts have argued sex offender laws for years to protect the community and review whether these laws violate sexual predators’ constitutional rights. These laws are intended for regulating current and potential sex offenders. Police officials require sex offenders to register their addresses through the sex offender registry and notification process in an attempt to make the community safer and aware about sex offenders living in their neighborhood. Works Cited Dissell, Rachel. “Do sex offender registration laws actually make us safer?” The Plain Dealer: n. pag. 13 Jun. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. Fields, Reginald. “Ohio Supreme Court rules sex offenders can request that notification process be blocked.” The Plain Dealer: n. pag. 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. Holland, Jesse J. “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the sexually dangerous can be incarcerated indefinitely.” Associated Press: n. pag. 17 May 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. “Supreme Court: Prison Rehab Can Require Confessions.” Facts On File World News Digest: n. pag. World News Digest. Facts On File News Services, 13 June 2002. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. “U.S. Supreme Court says sexually dangerous inmates can be kept in prison.” Associated Press. The Plain Dealer: n. pag. 17 May 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. Read More