Great job by Ohio RSOL in this report.
Cleveland 19 News Cleveland, OH
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/33719861/state-committee-to-vote-on-sex-offender-registry-changes
State committee to vote on sex offender registry changes
Tuesday, November 15th 2016, 10:11 pm EST
Tuesday, November 15th 2016, 10:44 pm EST
Posted by Shelby Miller, Cleveland 19 reporter
CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) -
Does Ohio's current sex offender registry work? It's a question many people struggle to answer.
"That registry could create a false sense of security. It's not the only way to look at community safety," said Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence Executive Director Katie Hanna.
Just a few years after Ohio altered its sex offender registry, state Criminal Justice Recodification Committee members are set to vote on a new set of guidelines that could potentially allow judges to shorten or remove low risk re-offenders.
The proposal is scheduled to be voted on Thursday.
"What you're talking about is an 18-year-old boy who was a high school senior who had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend who's on the registry for 25 years," said Ohio Reform Sex Offender Laws Volunteer Barb Wright.
Wright said there are more than 20,000 registered sex offenders in Ohio.
"The law enforcement can't keep track of all the people," she said.
Ohio uses a three-tier offender system. People are placed in each tier based on how serious their offense is.
Tier I offenses include acts such as, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, voyeurism, and child enticement. Tier II offenses include acts such as, compelling prostitution, child endangering, and kidnapping with sexual motivation. Tier III offenses include acts such as, rape, sexual battery, and murder with sexual motivation.
The Tier classification system requirements are as follows:
Tier I: Sex offenders must register with the County Sheriff at least once annually for a period of 15 years. In addition, must register any change of residential address, place of employment, or enrollment in a school or institution of higher education.
Tier II: Sex offenders must register with the County Sheriff every 180 days for a period of 25 years. In addition, must register any change of residential address, place of employment, or enrollment in a school or institution of higher education.
Tier III: Sex offenders must register with the County Sheriff every 90 days for life. In addition, must register any change of residential address, place of employment, or enrollment in a school or institution of higher education.
Tier III sex offenders are also subject to community notification, which means upon a change of residential address, the County Sheriff will provide notice to a neighborhood within 1,250 feet of the sex offenders residential address. The County Sheriff will also provide notice to schools, registered day-care providers, and law enforcement agencies within the 1,250 ft. radius.
"Right now the registration process is very complicated and we want to make sure it's a system that those high risk offenders aren't falling through the cracks, that they're being monitored," said Hanna.
Hanna said the coalition hasn't taken a stance on the proposal because they want survivors involved.
"It isn't just about community safety, which is important to us, it's about survivor safety," she said. "We need to make sure survivors are at the center of this conversation, survivors who've been directly impacted by the violence that they've endured."
The 4,000 page proposal outlines a lot of issues, including whether or not registered sex offenders can live closer to spots, like schools, parks and playgrounds.
The possible change worries many people, but Wright said the current restrictions don't do much.
"The offender is out free to walk the streets, so the fact that he lives within 1,000 feet of a school is really irreverent as to if he spends any time there," she said.
Funding is also an issue with the proposal. Currently, Ohio gets about $8 million in JAG money, or Justice Assistance Grants, because of the Adam Walsh Act. Some victim services worry they'd lose funding with the proposal, but others said the state would be profiting because counties would be paying less overall within the sex offender registry.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
Proposed SO registry changes would be based on risk
A nod to Ohio RSOL
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/proposed-sex-offender-registry-changes-would-based-risk/P6Dm52UOWBAPf4kcVh8xgP/
Proposed sex offender registry changes would be based on risk
Katie Wedell Staff Writer
8:00 p.m Sunday, Nov. 13, 2016
Eight years after Ohio tightened its sex offender registration laws to comply with federal standards, a state committee is considering changes that could make it easier for sex offenders to get off the registry if they no longer are a threat to society.
Among other changes to Ohio’s criminal laws, the Criminal Justice Recodification Committee will vote Thursday on a set of changes already unanimously approved by the state’s Sentencing Commission, which is made up of county sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, victims advocates and lawmakers.
The proposals include going from an offense-based classification system, in which offenders are assigned to a tier and given registration requirements based on the criminal offense they committed, to a more risk-based system in which judges would have more discretion.
The proposed changes would also allow sex offenders the ability to petition for a change of status after years of good behavior or due to a change in their risk level due to advanced age or illness.
Continued registration requirements for elderly or disabled offenders was one issue this newspaper addressed in an October investigation into sex offenders living in nursing homes.
The investigation found that while some individuals did pose a threat to vulnerable nursing home residents, there were also cases of ex-offenders in need of care being turned away from homes because of the stigma of their registration status.
“A lot of the discussion when we initially presented this was, the person who is clearly no longer a risk,” said Blaise Katter, staff attorney for the committee.
Medical conditions and advanced age would be key components judges could look at when considering whether to release someone from registration requirements, he said.
“We’re trying to bring in some common-sense changes that will hopefully maintain, of course, the community safety, but address other issues to make the registry effective,” said Jill Beeler, appellate services director for the Ohio Public Defenders Office and a member of the committee work group that helped draft the proposed changes.
Hybrid system
Currently, judges sentencing convicted sex offenders must place them into one of three tiers based on their crimes. And based on the tier they are assigned, individuals must register their address with their local sheriff for 15 years to life.
Some states, including Minnesota and Massachusetts, have similar tiered systems, but use risk assessments to determine in which tier an individual belongs. Lower tiers carry fewer restrictions and are reserved for offenders who are not likely to reoffend.
Beeler said the system being proposed in Ohio is a hybrid of the two approaches. The recommended changes will go to the state legislature, where a bill would need to be drafted and approved to make them law.
The current tier system would be retained. Tier I requires annual registration for 15 years; Tier II is semi-annual registration for 25 years, and Tier III is quarterly registration for life.
Tier III offenders would still get mandatory registration for life, but there would be fewer charges labeled Tier III: aggravated rape or rape of a child; kidnapping a minor to engage in sexual activity; aggravated murder or murder with sexual motivation; and repeat offenses if already a Tier II or Tier III classification.
For lower-tier offenses, a judge would have discretion whether to impose registration.
Once placed into a tier, registered sex offenders would have the ability to petition to deregister or move down a tier after a specified number of years — between 5 and 15 depending on the tier. If these changes are adopted, those convicted under previous versions of the law would also have the ability to petition for a change of status.
“I think it’s a good compromise,” said Barb Wright, a member of the Ohio chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws. The group has seen the recommended changes and approves of them, she said.
“I think in some areas it does not go far enough and we’ve expressed our concerns,” Wright said.
She’d like to see more retroactive applications so that someone recently convicted under the current law would have recourse to get their registration status changed.
Another recommendation of the committee is to remove all residency restrictions, such as barring sex offenders from living near schools.
“Empirical data shows there is no evidence to support that residency restrictions impact public safety; conversely, restrictions place significant burdens on offender’s ability to establish a support network and housing in order to become a productive member of society,” according to a summary of the proposed changes provided to this newspaper.
The committee is also calling for the implementation of a statewide offender database system “to replace the patchwork county-by-county system that has significant flaws and gaps.”
This newspaper’s investigation found inconsistencies in the amount of information available to the public on the registry pages maintained by county sheriffs. Some nursing homes said the lack of information made it difficult for them to assess if someone applying to live there posed a risk.
State Rep. Jim Butler, R-Oakwood, who previously said he liked the idea of a more risk-based system and would like to see more detailed information available on the public registry, is eager to dig into the committee’s recommendations.
“There are some encouraging aspects such as judges having more discretion and looking at risk,” he said. “There’s a lot of detail that’s going to require a lot of vetting.”
Funds at stake?
When the Adam Walsh Act went into effect in 2006, states were given three years to update their laws to be in compliance.
Any states that missed that deadline and continued to be out of compliance faced an annual 10 percent cut in federal Justice Assistance Grants, used to fund local courts, crime labs, jails and other law enforcement programs.
Ohio was the first state to come into compliance with Senate Bill 10 in 2008. It moved the state from a risk-based system of classifying sex offenders to the current tier system that is based exclusively on the offense committed.
“I think there was a belief that many states would follow because there was a real motivation to move toward this offense-based system,” Beeler said.
Instead, Ohio is one of only 17 states currently in compliance with the federal law.
Beeler said there is a recognition by the committee that the proposed changes could take Ohio out of compliance and lead to a loss of federal funding.
“We feel like the cost of our current registration system is more than the dollars we would lose,” she said.
The money withheld from states that are not in compliance is split between the states that are, and paid in the form of bonus grants.
In fiscal year 2015, Ohio law enforcement agencies received a total allocation of $7.8 million in JAG money, plus a $106,000 bonus.
A loss of 10 percent plus the bonus would be about $880,000 annually, slightly more than the state spends each year on its share of 88 county sheriffs’ salaries.
“Those grants have actually been reduced over time,” Beeler said. “So 10 percent of that grant money is much less than the cost that we’re spending on our current system.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/proposed-sex-offender-registry-changes-would-based-risk/P6Dm52UOWBAPf4kcVh8xgP/
Proposed sex offender registry changes would be based on risk
Katie Wedell Staff Writer
8:00 p.m Sunday, Nov. 13, 2016
Eight years after Ohio tightened its sex offender registration laws to comply with federal standards, a state committee is considering changes that could make it easier for sex offenders to get off the registry if they no longer are a threat to society.
Among other changes to Ohio’s criminal laws, the Criminal Justice Recodification Committee will vote Thursday on a set of changes already unanimously approved by the state’s Sentencing Commission, which is made up of county sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, victims advocates and lawmakers.
The proposals include going from an offense-based classification system, in which offenders are assigned to a tier and given registration requirements based on the criminal offense they committed, to a more risk-based system in which judges would have more discretion.
The proposed changes would also allow sex offenders the ability to petition for a change of status after years of good behavior or due to a change in their risk level due to advanced age or illness.
Continued registration requirements for elderly or disabled offenders was one issue this newspaper addressed in an October investigation into sex offenders living in nursing homes.
The investigation found that while some individuals did pose a threat to vulnerable nursing home residents, there were also cases of ex-offenders in need of care being turned away from homes because of the stigma of their registration status.
“A lot of the discussion when we initially presented this was, the person who is clearly no longer a risk,” said Blaise Katter, staff attorney for the committee.
Medical conditions and advanced age would be key components judges could look at when considering whether to release someone from registration requirements, he said.
“We’re trying to bring in some common-sense changes that will hopefully maintain, of course, the community safety, but address other issues to make the registry effective,” said Jill Beeler, appellate services director for the Ohio Public Defenders Office and a member of the committee work group that helped draft the proposed changes.
Hybrid system
Currently, judges sentencing convicted sex offenders must place them into one of three tiers based on their crimes. And based on the tier they are assigned, individuals must register their address with their local sheriff for 15 years to life.
Some states, including Minnesota and Massachusetts, have similar tiered systems, but use risk assessments to determine in which tier an individual belongs. Lower tiers carry fewer restrictions and are reserved for offenders who are not likely to reoffend.
Beeler said the system being proposed in Ohio is a hybrid of the two approaches. The recommended changes will go to the state legislature, where a bill would need to be drafted and approved to make them law.
The current tier system would be retained. Tier I requires annual registration for 15 years; Tier II is semi-annual registration for 25 years, and Tier III is quarterly registration for life.
Tier III offenders would still get mandatory registration for life, but there would be fewer charges labeled Tier III: aggravated rape or rape of a child; kidnapping a minor to engage in sexual activity; aggravated murder or murder with sexual motivation; and repeat offenses if already a Tier II or Tier III classification.
For lower-tier offenses, a judge would have discretion whether to impose registration.
Once placed into a tier, registered sex offenders would have the ability to petition to deregister or move down a tier after a specified number of years — between 5 and 15 depending on the tier. If these changes are adopted, those convicted under previous versions of the law would also have the ability to petition for a change of status.
“I think it’s a good compromise,” said Barb Wright, a member of the Ohio chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws. The group has seen the recommended changes and approves of them, she said.
“I think in some areas it does not go far enough and we’ve expressed our concerns,” Wright said.
She’d like to see more retroactive applications so that someone recently convicted under the current law would have recourse to get their registration status changed.
Another recommendation of the committee is to remove all residency restrictions, such as barring sex offenders from living near schools.
“Empirical data shows there is no evidence to support that residency restrictions impact public safety; conversely, restrictions place significant burdens on offender’s ability to establish a support network and housing in order to become a productive member of society,” according to a summary of the proposed changes provided to this newspaper.
The committee is also calling for the implementation of a statewide offender database system “to replace the patchwork county-by-county system that has significant flaws and gaps.”
This newspaper’s investigation found inconsistencies in the amount of information available to the public on the registry pages maintained by county sheriffs. Some nursing homes said the lack of information made it difficult for them to assess if someone applying to live there posed a risk.
State Rep. Jim Butler, R-Oakwood, who previously said he liked the idea of a more risk-based system and would like to see more detailed information available on the public registry, is eager to dig into the committee’s recommendations.
“There are some encouraging aspects such as judges having more discretion and looking at risk,” he said. “There’s a lot of detail that’s going to require a lot of vetting.”
Funds at stake?
When the Adam Walsh Act went into effect in 2006, states were given three years to update their laws to be in compliance.
Any states that missed that deadline and continued to be out of compliance faced an annual 10 percent cut in federal Justice Assistance Grants, used to fund local courts, crime labs, jails and other law enforcement programs.
Ohio was the first state to come into compliance with Senate Bill 10 in 2008. It moved the state from a risk-based system of classifying sex offenders to the current tier system that is based exclusively on the offense committed.
“I think there was a belief that many states would follow because there was a real motivation to move toward this offense-based system,” Beeler said.
Instead, Ohio is one of only 17 states currently in compliance with the federal law.
Beeler said there is a recognition by the committee that the proposed changes could take Ohio out of compliance and lead to a loss of federal funding.
“We feel like the cost of our current registration system is more than the dollars we would lose,” she said.
The money withheld from states that are not in compliance is split between the states that are, and paid in the form of bonus grants.
In fiscal year 2015, Ohio law enforcement agencies received a total allocation of $7.8 million in JAG money, plus a $106,000 bonus.
A loss of 10 percent plus the bonus would be about $880,000 annually, slightly more than the state spends each year on its share of 88 county sheriffs’ salaries.
“Those grants have actually been reduced over time,” Beeler said. “So 10 percent of that grant money is much less than the cost that we’re spending on our current system.”
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Halloweenitis is now replaced with Electionitis with Mahoning Co. Sex Crimes Persecutor Natasha Natale & Rep. Sean O'Brien
I'd like to see some cases of kids being molested as a result of allowing registered citizens to vote in person. I voted at a school (it was closed for the day), and guess what? NOTHING HAPPENED! The only folks who got screwed is the voters as we had to decide which scumbag was the lesser of two evils.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/investigation-more-than-70-sex-offenders-are-registered-to-vote-at-cleveland-schools
INVESTIGATION: More than 70 sex offenders are registered to vote at Cleveland schools
Megan Hickey
11:45 PM, Nov 9, 2016
CLEVELAND -
While registered sex offenders in the state of Ohio are prohibited from living with 1,000 feet of a school or daycare facility, they are not prohibited from actually entering schools.
A News 5 investigation revealed that at least 77 Cleveland sex offenders are registered to vote in the city’s elementary and high schools.
The majority of those offenders were convicted of crimes against children. Most victims were between the ages of 11 and 14, with some victims as young as 5.
Unless a sex offender is currently under some form of community control, Ohio law is otherwise silent on a sex offender’s ability to enter schools and interact with children.
While Cleveland schools were closed Tuesday for the election, several parents noted that large groups of children continue to play on school property long after the final bell and on their days off.
“I really feel like that’s putting more than just kids in danger,” said Cleveland mother Mary Lawrence, whose daughter attends one of the more than 40 elementary and high schools where sex offenders are registered to vote.
Pat McDonald, Director of the Cuyahoga Co. Board of Elections, acknowledged that the issue has raised concerns from voters and some school superintendents.
“I would encourage them to vote by mail or come down here and vote in person to alleviate any potential conflicts or any potential issues,” he said.
But McDonald noted that he can’t actually require sex offenders to do so.
Ohio is one of a handful of states that allows convicted felons to vote, and unlike nearby Indiana and Illinois, does not have such voting requirements.
Former Mahoning County sex crimes prosecutor Natasha Natale told News 5 she considers it a perfect storm of bad conditions.
“It just takes a second for something to happen,” Natale said. “And even it if doesn’t happen at the school it could be something where you’re triggering that mechanism in their brain, where they’re going to leave and commit some subsequent act that could harm a child.”
Natalie is teaming up with Rep. Sean O’Brien (D-Bazetta), to draft a bill that would bar sex offenders from entering schools and daycare centers for any reason.
“It’s just not worth the risk, why put them in that situation?” said O’Brien, who plans to introduce the bill early next year.
O’Brien stressed that sex offenders would still be allowed to vote by mail or in person at the board of elections.
_______________________________________
Megan Hickey wasn't the only one who wrote such an article, however. Damon Maloney of WKBN 27 wrote the same fearmongering article in 2014. TWO YEARS AGO. Plagiarism, maybe?
http://wkbn.com/2014/11/04/polls-in-schools-new-laws-could-limit-who-gets-inside/
Ohio law doesn’t stop sex offenders from voting in schools
By Damon Maloney
Published: November 4, 2014, 12:06 pm Updated: November 4, 2014, 9:50 pm
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) – Where you vote depends on where you live.
Casting a ballot for a lot of people means going to a precinct located inside a school, during the day, when children are learning.
27 Investigates uncovered startling facts about some of the precincts assigned to registered sex offenders for Election Day. At least one local prosecutor and lawmaker believe the assignments can put children’s safety in jeopardy.
“That’s their turf and that’s where they feel safe,” said Natasha Natale, Mahoning County’s sex crimes prosecutor.
Ohio law doesn’t stop sex offenders from voting in schools. Yet, laws do ban many sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of child day care centers, pre-schools and schools.
Prosecutors say there is too much risk allowing registered sex offenders near or in schools where children are present.
“It’s illogical. It defies logic. I think we need to be pro-active and not wait for a situation where a child is victimized,” Natale said. “There is a recidivism rate that is concerning when it comes to sex offenders.”
Natale has prosecuted some of the most heinous sex crimes involving child victims in Mahoning County. She also has studied the method and operation of sex offenders.
“It can be subtle, slight, psychological… emotionally powerful,” Natale said. “Defendants have stated where it’s something to where it’s even impulsive. It’s something they have difficulty controlling.”
27 Investigates analyzed pages upon pages of Ohio’s sex offender registry and then voter registrations. According to the state’s registry, there are about 179 registered sex offenders in Youngstown. This election cycle, at least nine are registered voters assigned to a school precinct.
In Warren, at least 10 are assigned to a polling place located inside of a school. And In Salem, at least one is assigned to a school precinct.
27 Investigates found that some registered sex offenders have cast in-person ballots in recent years, but not necessarily at the polling place they’re assigned to now. Home addresses can change, which can move a person’s voting location. Precincts also can be dropped or added.
Natale has partnered with State Rep. Sean O’Brien, D-Bazetta, to tighten up what they consider to be a loophole in the law.
“We’ve sat down and talked about drafting a new law, which would put sex offenders where they would have to vote at the board of election or vote by absentee ballot,” O’Brien said.
Other states, including Illinois. require sex offenders to vote early or use absentee ballots. Natale and O’Brien said if Ohio followed in similar footsteps, it would protect voter rights and the peace of mind of families when their children leave home bound for a productive day at school.
O’Brien said it will most likely be next year before any type of legislation is introduced.
________________________________
There is a common factor in both articles-- Natasha Natale, Mahoning County’s sex crimes prosecutor. Who is this idiot? What education is she referring to? I think she's watching too much reruns of SVU, personally. And why is this poduck, backwater hillbilly persecutor even quoted? Does she have AG aspiration in the future once Mike DeSWINE is ousted? What I do know is she is an idiot.
Lets not forget Rep. Sean O'Brien, who has been pimping this bad legislation in both of these articles. Feel free to write him and tell him your thoughts on this issue.
Representative Sean O'Brien
District 63
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone (614) 466-3488
Fax (614) 719-3965
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/sean-obrien/contact
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/investigation-more-than-70-sex-offenders-are-registered-to-vote-at-cleveland-schools
INVESTIGATION: More than 70 sex offenders are registered to vote at Cleveland schools
Megan Hickey
11:45 PM, Nov 9, 2016
CLEVELAND -
A News 5 investigation revealed that at least 77 Cleveland sex offenders are registered to vote in the city’s elementary and high schools.
The majority of those offenders were convicted of crimes against children. Most victims were between the ages of 11 and 14, with some victims as young as 5.
Unless a sex offender is currently under some form of community control, Ohio law is otherwise silent on a sex offender’s ability to enter schools and interact with children.
While Cleveland schools were closed Tuesday for the election, several parents noted that large groups of children continue to play on school property long after the final bell and on their days off.
“I really feel like that’s putting more than just kids in danger,” said Cleveland mother Mary Lawrence, whose daughter attends one of the more than 40 elementary and high schools where sex offenders are registered to vote.
Pat McDonald, Director of the Cuyahoga Co. Board of Elections, acknowledged that the issue has raised concerns from voters and some school superintendents.
“I would encourage them to vote by mail or come down here and vote in person to alleviate any potential conflicts or any potential issues,” he said.
But McDonald noted that he can’t actually require sex offenders to do so.
Ohio is one of a handful of states that allows convicted felons to vote, and unlike nearby Indiana and Illinois, does not have such voting requirements.
Former Mahoning County sex crimes prosecutor Natasha Natale told News 5 she considers it a perfect storm of bad conditions.
“It just takes a second for something to happen,” Natale said. “And even it if doesn’t happen at the school it could be something where you’re triggering that mechanism in their brain, where they’re going to leave and commit some subsequent act that could harm a child.”
Natalie is teaming up with Rep. Sean O’Brien (D-Bazetta), to draft a bill that would bar sex offenders from entering schools and daycare centers for any reason.
“It’s just not worth the risk, why put them in that situation?” said O’Brien, who plans to introduce the bill early next year.
O’Brien stressed that sex offenders would still be allowed to vote by mail or in person at the board of elections.
_______________________________________
Megan Hickey wasn't the only one who wrote such an article, however. Damon Maloney of WKBN 27 wrote the same fearmongering article in 2014. TWO YEARS AGO. Plagiarism, maybe?
http://wkbn.com/2014/11/04/polls-in-schools-new-laws-could-limit-who-gets-inside/
By Damon Maloney
Published: November 4, 2014, 12:06 pm Updated: November 4, 2014, 9:50 pm
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) – Where you vote depends on where you live.
Casting a ballot for a lot of people means going to a precinct located inside a school, during the day, when children are learning.
27 Investigates uncovered startling facts about some of the precincts assigned to registered sex offenders for Election Day. At least one local prosecutor and lawmaker believe the assignments can put children’s safety in jeopardy.
“That’s their turf and that’s where they feel safe,” said Natasha Natale, Mahoning County’s sex crimes prosecutor.
Ohio law doesn’t stop sex offenders from voting in schools. Yet, laws do ban many sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of child day care centers, pre-schools and schools.
Prosecutors say there is too much risk allowing registered sex offenders near or in schools where children are present.
“It’s illogical. It defies logic. I think we need to be pro-active and not wait for a situation where a child is victimized,” Natale said. “There is a recidivism rate that is concerning when it comes to sex offenders.”
Natale has prosecuted some of the most heinous sex crimes involving child victims in Mahoning County. She also has studied the method and operation of sex offenders.
“It can be subtle, slight, psychological… emotionally powerful,” Natale said. “Defendants have stated where it’s something to where it’s even impulsive. It’s something they have difficulty controlling.”
27 Investigates analyzed pages upon pages of Ohio’s sex offender registry and then voter registrations. According to the state’s registry, there are about 179 registered sex offenders in Youngstown. This election cycle, at least nine are registered voters assigned to a school precinct.
In Warren, at least 10 are assigned to a polling place located inside of a school. And In Salem, at least one is assigned to a school precinct.
27 Investigates found that some registered sex offenders have cast in-person ballots in recent years, but not necessarily at the polling place they’re assigned to now. Home addresses can change, which can move a person’s voting location. Precincts also can be dropped or added.
Natale has partnered with State Rep. Sean O’Brien, D-Bazetta, to tighten up what they consider to be a loophole in the law.
“We’ve sat down and talked about drafting a new law, which would put sex offenders where they would have to vote at the board of election or vote by absentee ballot,” O’Brien said.
Other states, including Illinois. require sex offenders to vote early or use absentee ballots. Natale and O’Brien said if Ohio followed in similar footsteps, it would protect voter rights and the peace of mind of families when their children leave home bound for a productive day at school.
O’Brien said it will most likely be next year before any type of legislation is introduced.
________________________________
There is a common factor in both articles-- Natasha Natale, Mahoning County’s sex crimes prosecutor. Who is this idiot? What education is she referring to? I think she's watching too much reruns of SVU, personally. And why is this poduck, backwater hillbilly persecutor even quoted? Does she have AG aspiration in the future once Mike DeSWINE is ousted? What I do know is she is an idiot.
Lets not forget Rep. Sean O'Brien, who has been pimping this bad legislation in both of these articles. Feel free to write him and tell him your thoughts on this issue.
Representative Sean O'Brien
District 63
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone (614) 466-3488
Fax (614) 719-3965
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/sean-obrien/contact
Friday, October 21, 2016
Lawmakers: Sex offenders in nursing homes issue begs for answers
Ohio RSOL and Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com are mentioned in this article. However, I'm not happy that the reporter feels the need to add irrelevant details about Logue's background.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lawmakers-sex-offenders-nursing-homes-issue-begs-for-answers/ZirXSbeC0nIcdj7ykPkQqO/
Lawmakers: Sex offenders in nursing homes issue begs for answers
Katie Wedell Staff Writer
3:53 p.m Friday, Oct. 21, 2016
Laws on sex offenders in nursing homes
California: If a person on the sex offender registry is being released into a nursing home, the Department of Corrections or other government agency must notify the home. Otherwise, the registered offender must self-report before becoming a client of any care facility. Homes must notify all residents and employees.
Illinois: Nursing facilities must do a “needs” screening prior to admission that includes a mental evaluation and a criminal background check. That assessment is reviewed by a forensic psychologist who creates an “Identified Offender report” detailing risk level and security concerns. That report goes to the home, local police, an ombudsman and the Department of Public Health, which must track offenders in nursing homes and report to lawmakers annually. Sex offenders can’t have roommates in care facilities.
Iowa: A bill to require notification of nursing home residents about sex offenders died in legislature. Another to create a specialized facility for Tier II and Tier III offenders was introduced in 2015 but hasn’t moved out of committee.
Massachusetts: Law bars anyone classified as a level III offender — based on a risk assessment — from living in any care facilities. At least one resident has successfully challenged this law in court.
Minnesota: Registered offenders must notify nursing homes of their status. Additionally, a law enforcement officer must prepare a “fact sheet” for the facility stating the offender’s criminal history, risk level, and profile of likely victims. That sheet must be distributed to all residents if the offender is admitted.
Ohio: Nursing homes must check the sex offender registry before admitting a new resident and must notify other residents or their family members about the care plan for that offender.
Oklahoma: Passed law in 2008 to create specialized nursing home for offenders, but no bids were submitted and it was never built. Notification law requires homes to check registry, notify the state health department if an offender is moving in and post conspicuously a notification that a resident is a registered sex offender.
Oregon: Registered sex offenders must inform a nursing home of their status prior to admission.
Virginia: Care facilities must register with the state police to recieve notifications if a sex offender moves within the same or contiguous ZIP code; determine prior to admission if a potential resident is a registered offender; and have every resident sign an acknowledgement that they know how to check the registry. There is no law that requires a home to tell residents about offenders being admitted. In a fact sheet, the department of health said, “If a facility determines that a sex offender is already a resident of the facility, affirmative notice to other residents is not required by law; nor is it advised.”
Ohio lawmakers want to take a closer look at how the state monitors sex offenders living in nursing homes, and some advocates support changes to how those on the offender registry are classified.
“You brought a problem to light that I really didn’t think about. I just want to look at what other states are doing and what Ohio can do to protect the other residents of the nursing homes and also to protect the individual that’s (on the registry),” said state Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon.
A Dayton Daily News investigation published last week found that 136 sex offenders are living in 43 nursing homes in Ohio. The newspaper identified failures in the safety net intended to balance the needs of all patients with a responsibility to shield them from danger.
Others responding to the investigation said it’s a complicated issue in need of more study.
“The question is what do we do with these people,” said state Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering. “You obviously have people who are in need of nursing home care who happen to be sexual predators. And what is the alternative for them?”
The investigation explored an idea other states have proposed but none have implemented — creating specialized nursing homes for those on the sex offender registry.
Critics said that approach would isolate offenders from family and friends while creating a prison-like setting.
“I’m of the belief that when a person serves their time that should be the end of it,” said Derek Logue, who is on the Ohio registry for a first-degree sexual abuse conviction involving a juvenile in Alabama. He advocates for the rights of those on the registry through his website OnceFallen.com.
“(Registered citizens) should go to the same place everybody else gets to go,” when it comes time for nursing home care, he said.
State Rep. Jim Butler, R-Oakwood, said he’d like to explore changes that could address safety concerns without creating totally separate facilities, including potentially a higher licensure level for homes housing the most at-risk offenders.
Logue, who lives in Cincinnati, argues for doing away with the registry completely. Other advocates for reform say there are best practices that would decrease the number of offenders publicly labeled for life, while ensuring that those who pose the greatest dangers are properly monitored.
“I think the push has to be for more and better information on fewer registrants,” said Barb Wright, a member of the Ohio chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws.
Risk levels
The reform group has pushed for a model similar to those used in Minnesota and Massachusetts, where offenders are placed into tiers not based solely on their crimes, but on an assessment of a number of risk factors.
Minnesota assigns registered individuals to levels I (low risk of re-offending) to level III (high risk) based on an assessment performed when they leave prison or move in from another state.
A committee considers multiple factors including criminal history, behavior while incarcerated, and relationship to the victim. They also can consider “whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of re-offense, including but not limited to advanced age or a debilitating illness or physical condition,” according to the state statute.
An offender may appeal the decision or request that their risk level be changed after three years, so those who become ill or disabled can petition to get a lower level assignment.
Only those labeled as level III, or most at risk of re-offending, are listed on Minnesota’s online public registry and are subject to community notification.
According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, about half of all registered offenders living in the state have been assigned risk levels. Of those, approximately 57 percent are level I; 31 percent are level II; and and 12 percent (about 360 individuals) are level III.
“It’s sort of a problem I think we have with dealing with sexual predators in general. There’s such a wide range of behavior that what might be appropriate for one group is not appropriate for others,” Lehner said of the current tier system in Ohio, which puts offenders into tiers I through III based solely on the crime they committed.
Crime details
Ohio used to perform a risk assessment to determine whether a sex offender was likely to repeat an offense, said Wright. In 1997, Ohio began listing offenders according to offense.
Supporters of reform say these risk-based approaches would give nursing homes more information about a potential resident, while making sure that only those who pose the greatest risk to others are subject to the public stigma and collateral damages of the registry — including patients in need of care being rejected from nursing homes.
Rep. Butler said he’d like to see more details on the registry, including age ranges of victims.
In one case examined by this newspaper, a Stark County nursing home acknowledged it would have handled the care of a registered sex offender differently if staff had known that he previously attempted to rape a 92-year-old in a Cleveland facility. One week into his stay at the second home he raped an 85-year-old resident and is now in prison.
Butler also approves of a more risk-based tier system and said the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee currently is studying something similar. The committee is expected to make recommendations for changes to Ohio’s criminal code early in 2017.
“It’s better to have the judge or corrections officials, who know the situation, have the discretion so it’s not a cookie-cutter type approach,” he said.
Unsafe homes?
Roger Evans, of Brookville, said he’d never thought about the issue of sex offenders in nursing homes, but has seen how vulnerable his loved ones have become as they age while he’s navigated the complicated world of nursing facilities.
“We’re still working our way (as a society) through how to deal with aging,” Evans said.
His father spent the last year of his life in a VA nursing facility and his mother-in-law is currently a resident at Walnut Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Kettering.
Evans, 70, worries that the rising costs of high-quality facilities mean many without the economic means are left in understaffed, and possibly unsafe, homes.
The newspaper’s investigation found nearly half of the Ohio homes that currently house sex offenders have a rating of 1 (on a 5-point scale) on the Medicare.gov nursing home comparison tool. Lower ratings indicate repeated health and safety citations on state inspections and can indicate inadequate staffing levels.
Although there are many regulations in place designed to hold nursing homes accountable for quality care, Evans wonders how much monitoring actually is going on when most homes are understaffed.
“You’ve got 25-to-30 people on a floor and each of them needs, in some cases, 24-hour care,” he said.
Rep. Maag also questioned what can be done to make sure those who could pose a risk are properly monitored.
“OK, so I know this person’s a sex offender, I’ve notified the residents of the home, but it looks like there should be some other method of monitoring that patient to make sure they don’t (re-offend),” he said.
“That sounds good when they say they’re doing (hourly checks) but they’re not doing that, I’m sure, because they’re not getting paid for it.”
Staying with the story
I-Team reporter Katie Wedell conducted a months-long investigation that uncovered problems involving sex offenders living in nursing homes. We will provide updates on this issue as lawmakers explore potential changes to Ohio law.
Laws on sex offenders in nursing homes
California: If a person on the sex offender registry is being released into a nursing home, the Department of Corrections or other government agency must notify the home. Otherwise, the registered offender must self-report before becoming a client of any care facility. Homes must notify all residents and employees.
Illinois: Nursing facilities must do a “needs” screening prior to admission that includes a mental evaluation and a criminal background check. That assessment is reviewed by a forensic psychologist who creates an “Identified Offender report” detailing risk level and security concerns. That report goes to the home, local police, an ombudsman and the Department of Public Health, which must track offenders in nursing homes and report to lawmakers annually. Sex offenders can’t have roommates in care facilities.
Iowa: A bill to require notification of nursing home residents about sex offenders died in legislature. Another to create a specialized facility for Tier II and Tier III offenders was introduced in 2015 but hasn’t moved out of committee.
Massachusetts: Law bars anyone classified as a level III offender — based on a risk assessment — from living in any care facilities. At least one resident has successfully challenged this law in court.
Minnesota: Registered offenders must notify nursing homes of their status. Additionally, a law enforcement officer must prepare a “fact sheet” for the facility stating the offender’s criminal history, risk level, and profile of likely victims. That sheet must be distributed to all residents if the offender is admitted.
Ohio: Nursing homes must check the sex offender registry before admitting a new resident and must notify other residents or their family members about the care plan for that offender.
Oklahoma: Passed law in 2008 to create specialized nursing home for offenders, but no bids were submitted and it was never built. Notification law requires homes to check registry, notify the state health department if an offender is moving in and post conspicuously a notification that a resident is a registered sex offender.
Oregon: Registered sex offenders must inform a nursing home of their status prior to admission.
Virginia: Care facilities must register with the state police to recieve notifications if a sex offender moves within the same or contiguous ZIP code; determine prior to admission if a potential resident is a registered offender; and have every resident sign an acknowledgement that they know how to check the registry. There is no law that requires a home to tell residents about offenders being admitted. In a fact sheet, the department of health said, “If a facility determines that a sex offender is already a resident of the facility, affirmative notice to other residents is not required by law; nor is it advised.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lawmakers-sex-offenders-nursing-homes-issue-begs-for-answers/ZirXSbeC0nIcdj7ykPkQqO/
Lawmakers: Sex offenders in nursing homes issue begs for answers
Katie Wedell Staff Writer
3:53 p.m Friday, Oct. 21, 2016
Laws on sex offenders in nursing homes
California: If a person on the sex offender registry is being released into a nursing home, the Department of Corrections or other government agency must notify the home. Otherwise, the registered offender must self-report before becoming a client of any care facility. Homes must notify all residents and employees.
Illinois: Nursing facilities must do a “needs” screening prior to admission that includes a mental evaluation and a criminal background check. That assessment is reviewed by a forensic psychologist who creates an “Identified Offender report” detailing risk level and security concerns. That report goes to the home, local police, an ombudsman and the Department of Public Health, which must track offenders in nursing homes and report to lawmakers annually. Sex offenders can’t have roommates in care facilities.
Iowa: A bill to require notification of nursing home residents about sex offenders died in legislature. Another to create a specialized facility for Tier II and Tier III offenders was introduced in 2015 but hasn’t moved out of committee.
Massachusetts: Law bars anyone classified as a level III offender — based on a risk assessment — from living in any care facilities. At least one resident has successfully challenged this law in court.
Minnesota: Registered offenders must notify nursing homes of their status. Additionally, a law enforcement officer must prepare a “fact sheet” for the facility stating the offender’s criminal history, risk level, and profile of likely victims. That sheet must be distributed to all residents if the offender is admitted.
Ohio: Nursing homes must check the sex offender registry before admitting a new resident and must notify other residents or their family members about the care plan for that offender.
Oklahoma: Passed law in 2008 to create specialized nursing home for offenders, but no bids were submitted and it was never built. Notification law requires homes to check registry, notify the state health department if an offender is moving in and post conspicuously a notification that a resident is a registered sex offender.
Oregon: Registered sex offenders must inform a nursing home of their status prior to admission.
Virginia: Care facilities must register with the state police to recieve notifications if a sex offender moves within the same or contiguous ZIP code; determine prior to admission if a potential resident is a registered offender; and have every resident sign an acknowledgement that they know how to check the registry. There is no law that requires a home to tell residents about offenders being admitted. In a fact sheet, the department of health said, “If a facility determines that a sex offender is already a resident of the facility, affirmative notice to other residents is not required by law; nor is it advised.”
Ohio lawmakers want to take a closer look at how the state monitors sex offenders living in nursing homes, and some advocates support changes to how those on the offender registry are classified.
“You brought a problem to light that I really didn’t think about. I just want to look at what other states are doing and what Ohio can do to protect the other residents of the nursing homes and also to protect the individual that’s (on the registry),” said state Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon.
A Dayton Daily News investigation published last week found that 136 sex offenders are living in 43 nursing homes in Ohio. The newspaper identified failures in the safety net intended to balance the needs of all patients with a responsibility to shield them from danger.
Others responding to the investigation said it’s a complicated issue in need of more study.
“The question is what do we do with these people,” said state Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering. “You obviously have people who are in need of nursing home care who happen to be sexual predators. And what is the alternative for them?”
The investigation explored an idea other states have proposed but none have implemented — creating specialized nursing homes for those on the sex offender registry.
Critics said that approach would isolate offenders from family and friends while creating a prison-like setting.
“I’m of the belief that when a person serves their time that should be the end of it,” said Derek Logue, who is on the Ohio registry for a first-degree sexual abuse conviction involving a juvenile in Alabama. He advocates for the rights of those on the registry through his website OnceFallen.com.
“(Registered citizens) should go to the same place everybody else gets to go,” when it comes time for nursing home care, he said.
State Rep. Jim Butler, R-Oakwood, said he’d like to explore changes that could address safety concerns without creating totally separate facilities, including potentially a higher licensure level for homes housing the most at-risk offenders.
Logue, who lives in Cincinnati, argues for doing away with the registry completely. Other advocates for reform say there are best practices that would decrease the number of offenders publicly labeled for life, while ensuring that those who pose the greatest dangers are properly monitored.
“I think the push has to be for more and better information on fewer registrants,” said Barb Wright, a member of the Ohio chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws.
Risk levels
The reform group has pushed for a model similar to those used in Minnesota and Massachusetts, where offenders are placed into tiers not based solely on their crimes, but on an assessment of a number of risk factors.
Minnesota assigns registered individuals to levels I (low risk of re-offending) to level III (high risk) based on an assessment performed when they leave prison or move in from another state.
A committee considers multiple factors including criminal history, behavior while incarcerated, and relationship to the victim. They also can consider “whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of re-offense, including but not limited to advanced age or a debilitating illness or physical condition,” according to the state statute.
An offender may appeal the decision or request that their risk level be changed after three years, so those who become ill or disabled can petition to get a lower level assignment.
Only those labeled as level III, or most at risk of re-offending, are listed on Minnesota’s online public registry and are subject to community notification.
According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, about half of all registered offenders living in the state have been assigned risk levels. Of those, approximately 57 percent are level I; 31 percent are level II; and and 12 percent (about 360 individuals) are level III.
“It’s sort of a problem I think we have with dealing with sexual predators in general. There’s such a wide range of behavior that what might be appropriate for one group is not appropriate for others,” Lehner said of the current tier system in Ohio, which puts offenders into tiers I through III based solely on the crime they committed.
Crime details
Ohio used to perform a risk assessment to determine whether a sex offender was likely to repeat an offense, said Wright. In 1997, Ohio began listing offenders according to offense.
Supporters of reform say these risk-based approaches would give nursing homes more information about a potential resident, while making sure that only those who pose the greatest risk to others are subject to the public stigma and collateral damages of the registry — including patients in need of care being rejected from nursing homes.
Rep. Butler said he’d like to see more details on the registry, including age ranges of victims.
In one case examined by this newspaper, a Stark County nursing home acknowledged it would have handled the care of a registered sex offender differently if staff had known that he previously attempted to rape a 92-year-old in a Cleveland facility. One week into his stay at the second home he raped an 85-year-old resident and is now in prison.
Butler also approves of a more risk-based tier system and said the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee currently is studying something similar. The committee is expected to make recommendations for changes to Ohio’s criminal code early in 2017.
“It’s better to have the judge or corrections officials, who know the situation, have the discretion so it’s not a cookie-cutter type approach,” he said.
Unsafe homes?
Roger Evans, of Brookville, said he’d never thought about the issue of sex offenders in nursing homes, but has seen how vulnerable his loved ones have become as they age while he’s navigated the complicated world of nursing facilities.
“We’re still working our way (as a society) through how to deal with aging,” Evans said.
His father spent the last year of his life in a VA nursing facility and his mother-in-law is currently a resident at Walnut Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Kettering.
Evans, 70, worries that the rising costs of high-quality facilities mean many without the economic means are left in understaffed, and possibly unsafe, homes.
The newspaper’s investigation found nearly half of the Ohio homes that currently house sex offenders have a rating of 1 (on a 5-point scale) on the Medicare.gov nursing home comparison tool. Lower ratings indicate repeated health and safety citations on state inspections and can indicate inadequate staffing levels.
Although there are many regulations in place designed to hold nursing homes accountable for quality care, Evans wonders how much monitoring actually is going on when most homes are understaffed.
“You’ve got 25-to-30 people on a floor and each of them needs, in some cases, 24-hour care,” he said.
Rep. Maag also questioned what can be done to make sure those who could pose a risk are properly monitored.
“OK, so I know this person’s a sex offender, I’ve notified the residents of the home, but it looks like there should be some other method of monitoring that patient to make sure they don’t (re-offend),” he said.
“That sounds good when they say they’re doing (hourly checks) but they’re not doing that, I’m sure, because they’re not getting paid for it.”
Staying with the story
I-Team reporter Katie Wedell conducted a months-long investigation that uncovered problems involving sex offenders living in nursing homes. We will provide updates on this issue as lawmakers explore potential changes to Ohio law.
Laws on sex offenders in nursing homes
California: If a person on the sex offender registry is being released into a nursing home, the Department of Corrections or other government agency must notify the home. Otherwise, the registered offender must self-report before becoming a client of any care facility. Homes must notify all residents and employees.
Illinois: Nursing facilities must do a “needs” screening prior to admission that includes a mental evaluation and a criminal background check. That assessment is reviewed by a forensic psychologist who creates an “Identified Offender report” detailing risk level and security concerns. That report goes to the home, local police, an ombudsman and the Department of Public Health, which must track offenders in nursing homes and report to lawmakers annually. Sex offenders can’t have roommates in care facilities.
Iowa: A bill to require notification of nursing home residents about sex offenders died in legislature. Another to create a specialized facility for Tier II and Tier III offenders was introduced in 2015 but hasn’t moved out of committee.
Massachusetts: Law bars anyone classified as a level III offender — based on a risk assessment — from living in any care facilities. At least one resident has successfully challenged this law in court.
Minnesota: Registered offenders must notify nursing homes of their status. Additionally, a law enforcement officer must prepare a “fact sheet” for the facility stating the offender’s criminal history, risk level, and profile of likely victims. That sheet must be distributed to all residents if the offender is admitted.
Ohio: Nursing homes must check the sex offender registry before admitting a new resident and must notify other residents or their family members about the care plan for that offender.
Oklahoma: Passed law in 2008 to create specialized nursing home for offenders, but no bids were submitted and it was never built. Notification law requires homes to check registry, notify the state health department if an offender is moving in and post conspicuously a notification that a resident is a registered sex offender.
Oregon: Registered sex offenders must inform a nursing home of their status prior to admission.
Virginia: Care facilities must register with the state police to recieve notifications if a sex offender moves within the same or contiguous ZIP code; determine prior to admission if a potential resident is a registered offender; and have every resident sign an acknowledgement that they know how to check the registry. There is no law that requires a home to tell residents about offenders being admitted. In a fact sheet, the department of health said, “If a facility determines that a sex offender is already a resident of the facility, affirmative notice to other residents is not required by law; nor is it advised.”
Monday, October 17, 2016
Registrant in Ohio describes how he struggled to find a nursing home
I didn't write the headline below, and if you read my last post, I'm not really fond of this Dayton Daily News series. However, this story describes the difficulty in finding a nursing home while being forced to register.
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/convicted-rapist-says-his-care-hurt-by-his-offende/nsqzK/
Convicted rapist says his care hurt by his offender status
Sex offender who lives in Columbus nursing home talks about difficulties in getting housing.
NEWS By Katie Wedell - Staff Writer 14
Posted: 11:00 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 15, 2016
COLUMBUS — Carlos Campos has long suspected his status as a registered sex offender contributed to problems getting quality care.
Campos in 1979 was convicted of kidnapping, rape, attempted rape and having a weapon under disability.
In her testimony during his trial, the 15-year-old victim recounted how Campos and another man forced her into their car and assaulted her for two hours, according to news accounts. He spent 22 years in prison, followed by several additional stints for parole violations.
Campos, 68, is now a resident of Bryden Place, one of a handful of nursing homes in Ohio that house multiple sex offenders. He uses a wheelchair due to a gunshot wound to his spine in 1973, and has been in and out of nursing homes because of body sores that become infected.
He shares a room at the Columbus home where he has lived since August 2015.
Speaking from his bed in early September, Campos acknowledged Bryden Place wasn’t his first choice of nursing homes. It is far from his home in Wood County and he has other complaints about the conditions, care level and menu.
Still, he’s grateful they were willing to take him.
“No nursing homes in Wood County would accept me so they sent me here,” said Campos, who wanted to be closer to family in northeast Ohio. “But thank God I’ve got a place to stay out the weather. I’ve got hot water and soap to wash up and clean clothes.”
Offenders like Campos — some with far more serious medical needs — have few options in Ohio. As their numbers continue to grow, the state is faced with a vexing issue: how to balance providing care to those who need it while protecting a vulnerable population from someone in the next room or down the hall whose criminal history might include child molestation, sexual battery or rape.
At least one state — Oklahoma — tried creating specialized facilities for sex offenders in 2008 when its legislature passed a measure calling for bids to operate a secure facility that would keep offenders separated from other residents.
However, no bids were submitted and the facility wasn’t built, according to Wes Bledsoe, an advocate for quality nursing home care in that state.
In Ohio, about 44 percent of the 136 sex offenders living in nursing homes reside at just five facilities — two of them with an overall rating of 1 (far below average) or 2 (below average) on the 5-point scale Medicare.gov uses to compare nursing homes. Two others were given a rating of 3 (average) and one — Scenic Pointe Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Millersburg — received a 5, the highest rating.
Bryden Place, where Campos lives, has an 1 rating, though many of its cited deficiencies have been corrected, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which operates the website.
Bryden Place, with 18 registered sex offenders, has more residents on the registry than any other nursing home in Ohio.
The former Carlton Manor in Washington Court House previously had the largest sex offender population, but it was shut down in 2014 following multiple failed inspections.
Carlton Manor’s demise demonstrates the compounding issues homes fear can happen if they take in sex offenders, advocates for the nursing home industry say.
“The places that are going to be willing to take the difficult patients are those that may struggle to attract less difficult people,” said Peter Van Runkle, executive director of the Ohio Health Care Association. “What you find is that in addition to sex offenders, they probably have folks with other behavioral issues in those facilities. When the surveyors come in they’re going to find issues because of that population, so that causes them to get a bad survey, which drives down their star (Medicare rating).
“It’s a circular sort of thing.”
Some have suggested protective measures that include placing offenders on locked floors or in units used for dementia patients and others who are at risk of wandering off.
But others question whether such a precaution would put even more patients at risk.
“If a facility says we’ll take the sex offenders and we’re going to put them in our locked unit, well if the residents in the locked unit have dementia and are less able to report and prevent and defend themselves, I would think that would not be the right choice,” said Bev Laubert, Ohio’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
The ACLU of Ohio said separate, locked facilities are not a practical solution because the people housed there would be kept further from their home, friends and relatives.
Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU, said the offender database should be purged to eliminate the profiles of people who no longer pose a danger to others.
“What this really calls for is a change in our statewide sex offender laws,” he said. “There should be allowances … flexibility in the law that allows somebody, perhaps a judge, to go back in and revisit.”
Campos was told in August he no longer needs to register. His profile, including the details of his crime, has been taken off the Ohio online registry.
Campos said he didn’t mind complying with the registry requirements but feels the law shouldn’t continue to punish those who have served their time.
“They are made to keep you in check and make sure that you’re doing the right thing,” he said. “The laws weren’t made to adversely affect you.”
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/convicted-rapist-says-his-care-hurt-by-his-offende/nsqzK/
Convicted rapist says his care hurt by his offender status
Sex offender who lives in Columbus nursing home talks about difficulties in getting housing.
NEWS By Katie Wedell - Staff Writer 14
Posted: 11:00 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 15, 2016
COLUMBUS — Carlos Campos has long suspected his status as a registered sex offender contributed to problems getting quality care.
Campos in 1979 was convicted of kidnapping, rape, attempted rape and having a weapon under disability.
In her testimony during his trial, the 15-year-old victim recounted how Campos and another man forced her into their car and assaulted her for two hours, according to news accounts. He spent 22 years in prison, followed by several additional stints for parole violations.
Campos, 68, is now a resident of Bryden Place, one of a handful of nursing homes in Ohio that house multiple sex offenders. He uses a wheelchair due to a gunshot wound to his spine in 1973, and has been in and out of nursing homes because of body sores that become infected.
He shares a room at the Columbus home where he has lived since August 2015.
Speaking from his bed in early September, Campos acknowledged Bryden Place wasn’t his first choice of nursing homes. It is far from his home in Wood County and he has other complaints about the conditions, care level and menu.
Still, he’s grateful they were willing to take him.
“No nursing homes in Wood County would accept me so they sent me here,” said Campos, who wanted to be closer to family in northeast Ohio. “But thank God I’ve got a place to stay out the weather. I’ve got hot water and soap to wash up and clean clothes.”
Offenders like Campos — some with far more serious medical needs — have few options in Ohio. As their numbers continue to grow, the state is faced with a vexing issue: how to balance providing care to those who need it while protecting a vulnerable population from someone in the next room or down the hall whose criminal history might include child molestation, sexual battery or rape.
At least one state — Oklahoma — tried creating specialized facilities for sex offenders in 2008 when its legislature passed a measure calling for bids to operate a secure facility that would keep offenders separated from other residents.
However, no bids were submitted and the facility wasn’t built, according to Wes Bledsoe, an advocate for quality nursing home care in that state.
In Ohio, about 44 percent of the 136 sex offenders living in nursing homes reside at just five facilities — two of them with an overall rating of 1 (far below average) or 2 (below average) on the 5-point scale Medicare.gov uses to compare nursing homes. Two others were given a rating of 3 (average) and one — Scenic Pointe Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Millersburg — received a 5, the highest rating.
Bryden Place, where Campos lives, has an 1 rating, though many of its cited deficiencies have been corrected, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which operates the website.
Bryden Place, with 18 registered sex offenders, has more residents on the registry than any other nursing home in Ohio.
The former Carlton Manor in Washington Court House previously had the largest sex offender population, but it was shut down in 2014 following multiple failed inspections.
Carlton Manor’s demise demonstrates the compounding issues homes fear can happen if they take in sex offenders, advocates for the nursing home industry say.
“The places that are going to be willing to take the difficult patients are those that may struggle to attract less difficult people,” said Peter Van Runkle, executive director of the Ohio Health Care Association. “What you find is that in addition to sex offenders, they probably have folks with other behavioral issues in those facilities. When the surveyors come in they’re going to find issues because of that population, so that causes them to get a bad survey, which drives down their star (Medicare rating).
“It’s a circular sort of thing.”
Some have suggested protective measures that include placing offenders on locked floors or in units used for dementia patients and others who are at risk of wandering off.
But others question whether such a precaution would put even more patients at risk.
“If a facility says we’ll take the sex offenders and we’re going to put them in our locked unit, well if the residents in the locked unit have dementia and are less able to report and prevent and defend themselves, I would think that would not be the right choice,” said Bev Laubert, Ohio’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
The ACLU of Ohio said separate, locked facilities are not a practical solution because the people housed there would be kept further from their home, friends and relatives.
Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU, said the offender database should be purged to eliminate the profiles of people who no longer pose a danger to others.
“What this really calls for is a change in our statewide sex offender laws,” he said. “There should be allowances … flexibility in the law that allows somebody, perhaps a judge, to go back in and revisit.”
Campos was told in August he no longer needs to register. His profile, including the details of his crime, has been taken off the Ohio online registry.
Campos said he didn’t mind complying with the registry requirements but feels the law shouldn’t continue to punish those who have served their time.
“They are made to keep you in check and make sure that you’re doing the right thing,” he said. “The laws weren’t made to adversely affect you.”
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Dayton Daily News reporter Katie Wedell figures shaming nursing homes accepting registrants counts as investigative journalism
When the Dayton Daily News announced they were doing a "series" exposing registrants living in nursing homes, somehow I knew the series would end with the reporter feeling the need to list every nursing home in the state accepting registered citizens.
That in itself is an affront, but reporter Katie Wedell's reports get worse:
"Ohio has a duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens, many of them frail or disabled. But safeguards enacted to keep sex offenders in check are more difficult to enforce when the predator is down the hall.
A Dayton Daily News investigation found that 136 sex offenders are living in 43 nursing homes in Ohio, where an intricate safety net is supposed to balance the needs of all patients with a responsibility to shield them from danger."
"We uncovered stories about assaults and attempted assaults in nursing homes across the state – from a 48-year-old paraplegic who raped an elderly woman; to a man who paid a developmentally disabled woman 75 cents to perform sex acts on him; and even a 45-year-old sex offender who attempted to rape a nurse.
Some sex offenders in nursing homes are barely mobile and not capable of harming their neighbors, but many remain capable of committing crimes."
You know what is omitted from this report? Whether the other two cases she mentioned had anything to a registrant. (I'm willing to guess they were not.)
The bottom line: Shame on Katie and the Dayton Daily News for writing this crap. My worry is how this story might hurt the residents of these few programs willing to accept registrants no thanks to one of the featured guests in the report, Rep. Courtney Combs. Shame on him too.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Somewhat off-topic: Jury acquits Parma man who made fake Facebook page mocking police department
Someone really can't stand the Parma PD, so he make a page mocking them. The Parma PD, having even less of a sense of humor, arrested this guy and charged him with a felony. The jury's decision was a victory for free speech.
As part of the parody of the Parma PD, the following was posted:
And after the blogger's arrest, he posted this:
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/08/jury_acquits_parma_man_who_mad.html
Jury acquits Parma man who made fake Facebook page mocking police department
By John Harper, cleveland.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 12, 2016 at 10:17 AM, updated August 12, 2016 at 4:32 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The man charged with a felony for making a fake version of the Parma Police Department Facebook page in March was found not guilty Thursday.
Anthony Novak, who faced a felony after being arrested for creating a page mocking the department, walked out of the courtroom free after one day of testimony.
"Today I feel totally relieved," Novak said Friday. "I didn't realize how much stress this was creating in my life until it was over. I was pretty much nervous for five months."
A jury unanimously found that Novak didn't violate the state's disrupting public services law. Police and prosecutors argued that the page led to public confusion that distracted 911 dispatchers who took calls from people confused by the page.
Novak said he intends to sue the police department and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office over the case, claiming they violated his First Amendment rights.
"I absolutely want them to pay for this," Novak said. "The whole ordeal was absolutely ridiculous. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with something like this."
At trial, dispatchers testified that the department's call center received 10 calls about the Facebook page in a 12 hour period after the page went online.
Novak created and posted the fake Facebook page for less than a day in March. He copied the masthead and logo from the department's real Facebook page, then made subtle changes. It gathered fewer than 100 followers before he took it down.
In the about section he replaced the slogan "We know crime" with "We no crime." He copied a job posting on the page and rewrote a section to say "minorities are strongly encouraged not to apply."
Another post touted a law against feeding homeless people, and another advertised that the Parma Police Department would begin offering abortions.
Days later, police arrested him at a corner store in Parma and he was charged with disrupting public service, a fourth-degree felony. He spent three days in county jail and his electronic devices, including a laptop and two video game consoles belonging to both him and his roommate, were seized from his apartment.
A Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Novak in April, prompting criticism from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Defense Attorney Gary Vick said he focused on the police department's comments about the contents of Novak's posts, a narrative parallel to the department's assertion that the post distracted emergency resources.
"They claimed that those calls disrupted their dispatch function even though the function of dispatch is to take calls and deal with the public," Vick said.
Neither the arrest warrant issued or the Parma police press release announcing Novak's arrest in March focused on any disruption of police activity, Vick said. Instead, the news release touted derogatory comments directed at the police department from others online.
Novak's arrest led to a backlash against the department online. Hundreds posted comments denigrating the police department leadership for its decision to charge Novak in the case.
The department and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office now join a series of public agencies nationwide that have failed at prosecuting people over social media activity.
American Civil Liberties Union Attorney Elizabeth Bonham said she was surprised the case made it as far as it did.
"In terms of a criminal trial, this issue is so clearly protected by the First Amendment that the criminal proceedings shouldn't have even come this far in the first place," Bonham said.
There were never any attempts made to settle the case before trial, Vick said, and Novak never had an interest in settling.
As part of the parody of the Parma PD, the following was posted:
And after the blogger's arrest, he posted this:
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/08/jury_acquits_parma_man_who_mad.html
Jury acquits Parma man who made fake Facebook page mocking police department
By John Harper, cleveland.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 12, 2016 at 10:17 AM, updated August 12, 2016 at 4:32 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The man charged with a felony for making a fake version of the Parma Police Department Facebook page in March was found not guilty Thursday.
Anthony Novak, who faced a felony after being arrested for creating a page mocking the department, walked out of the courtroom free after one day of testimony.
"Today I feel totally relieved," Novak said Friday. "I didn't realize how much stress this was creating in my life until it was over. I was pretty much nervous for five months."
A jury unanimously found that Novak didn't violate the state's disrupting public services law. Police and prosecutors argued that the page led to public confusion that distracted 911 dispatchers who took calls from people confused by the page.
Novak said he intends to sue the police department and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office over the case, claiming they violated his First Amendment rights.
"I absolutely want them to pay for this," Novak said. "The whole ordeal was absolutely ridiculous. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with something like this."
At trial, dispatchers testified that the department's call center received 10 calls about the Facebook page in a 12 hour period after the page went online.
Novak created and posted the fake Facebook page for less than a day in March. He copied the masthead and logo from the department's real Facebook page, then made subtle changes. It gathered fewer than 100 followers before he took it down.
In the about section he replaced the slogan "We know crime" with "We no crime." He copied a job posting on the page and rewrote a section to say "minorities are strongly encouraged not to apply."
Another post touted a law against feeding homeless people, and another advertised that the Parma Police Department would begin offering abortions.
Days later, police arrested him at a corner store in Parma and he was charged with disrupting public service, a fourth-degree felony. He spent three days in county jail and his electronic devices, including a laptop and two video game consoles belonging to both him and his roommate, were seized from his apartment.
A Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Novak in April, prompting criticism from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Defense Attorney Gary Vick said he focused on the police department's comments about the contents of Novak's posts, a narrative parallel to the department's assertion that the post distracted emergency resources.
"They claimed that those calls disrupted their dispatch function even though the function of dispatch is to take calls and deal with the public," Vick said.
Neither the arrest warrant issued or the Parma police press release announcing Novak's arrest in March focused on any disruption of police activity, Vick said. Instead, the news release touted derogatory comments directed at the police department from others online.
Novak's arrest led to a backlash against the department online. Hundreds posted comments denigrating the police department leadership for its decision to charge Novak in the case.
The department and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office now join a series of public agencies nationwide that have failed at prosecuting people over social media activity.
American Civil Liberties Union Attorney Elizabeth Bonham said she was surprised the case made it as far as it did.
"In terms of a criminal trial, this issue is so clearly protected by the First Amendment that the criminal proceedings shouldn't have even come this far in the first place," Bonham said.
There were never any attempts made to settle the case before trial, Vick said, and Novak never had an interest in settling.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Federal appeals court upholds judge's lowest possible sentence in child-porn case
From Cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/06/federal_appeals_court_upholds.html
Federal appeals court upholds judge's lowest possible sentence in child-porn case
By Eric Heisig, cleveland.com
Follow on Twitter
on June 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, updated June 29, 2016 at 4:23 PM
CINCINNATI, Ohio — An appeals court on Monday rebuffed the U.S. Attorney's Office's attempt to overturn a Cleveland federal judge's decision to give the lowest possible sentence to a man who downloaded and shared child pornography.
U.S. District Judge James Gwin sentenced Ryan Collins in February 2015 to five years in prison after he polled the jury. The jury said that it thought Collins should serve a sentence of a little more than a year for his crimes.
The U.S. Attorney's Office appealed the sentence, saying it was improper for Gwin, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997, to give a sentence based on a jury poll. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected the appeal, saying that the judge gave many other reasons for the lower sentence.
The decision is a blow to federal prosecutors, who have expressed frustration over the basement sentence given to Collins, who refused to take responsibility after investigators found more than 1,500 child pornography files on his computers and evidence that he shared files with others.
In a statement, Acting U.S. Attorney Carole Rendon said, "Although we are disappointed with the 6th Circuit's decision and disagree with the sentence that was imposed in this case, we respect that the court has ruled on the matter."
(You can read the full decision here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2929497/Collins-Opinion.pdf)
Under federal law, a judge can sentence a defendant to up to 20 years in prison if he or she is found guilty of child porn distribution. The probation office had said a guideline sentence for Collins, a Dalton resident with no prior convictions, should be even higher.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan at sentencing asked Gwin to give Collins, 33, the maximum allowed.
But in an opinion authored by Senior Judge Ralph Guy Jr., the court ruled that judges are allowed to hand down sentences that are above or below the probation office's recommended guidelines if they disagree from a policy standpoint. Guy wrote that Gwin reasoned that the guidelines in this case show "how off the mark the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are."
Gwin's sentence is just one example of a larger discussion regarding mandatory minimum sentences and the way federal sentences are calculated.
The judge has also studied the disparity between the probation office's recommended sentence and what jurors feel is a just sentence. He wrote a paper for the Harvard Law & Policy Review, published in February 2010, that said juries in 22 cases recommended sentences that were significantly lower than the probation office's recommendations.
Robert Cheren, Collins' attorney, praised the 6th Circuit's ruling. He said Gwin's survey "was just one piece of the puzzle, and it was an important piece because it reflects community sentiment."
Collins is serving his sentence at a federal prison in Lisbon.
Updated with comments from Rendon and Cheren.
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/06/federal_appeals_court_upholds.html
Federal appeals court upholds judge's lowest possible sentence in child-porn case
By Eric Heisig, cleveland.com
Follow on Twitter
on June 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, updated June 29, 2016 at 4:23 PM
CINCINNATI, Ohio — An appeals court on Monday rebuffed the U.S. Attorney's Office's attempt to overturn a Cleveland federal judge's decision to give the lowest possible sentence to a man who downloaded and shared child pornography.
U.S. District Judge James Gwin sentenced Ryan Collins in February 2015 to five years in prison after he polled the jury. The jury said that it thought Collins should serve a sentence of a little more than a year for his crimes.
The U.S. Attorney's Office appealed the sentence, saying it was improper for Gwin, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997, to give a sentence based on a jury poll. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected the appeal, saying that the judge gave many other reasons for the lower sentence.
The decision is a blow to federal prosecutors, who have expressed frustration over the basement sentence given to Collins, who refused to take responsibility after investigators found more than 1,500 child pornography files on his computers and evidence that he shared files with others.
In a statement, Acting U.S. Attorney Carole Rendon said, "Although we are disappointed with the 6th Circuit's decision and disagree with the sentence that was imposed in this case, we respect that the court has ruled on the matter."
(You can read the full decision here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2929497/Collins-Opinion.pdf)
Under federal law, a judge can sentence a defendant to up to 20 years in prison if he or she is found guilty of child porn distribution. The probation office had said a guideline sentence for Collins, a Dalton resident with no prior convictions, should be even higher.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan at sentencing asked Gwin to give Collins, 33, the maximum allowed.
But in an opinion authored by Senior Judge Ralph Guy Jr., the court ruled that judges are allowed to hand down sentences that are above or below the probation office's recommended guidelines if they disagree from a policy standpoint. Guy wrote that Gwin reasoned that the guidelines in this case show "how off the mark the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are."
Gwin's sentence is just one example of a larger discussion regarding mandatory minimum sentences and the way federal sentences are calculated.
The judge has also studied the disparity between the probation office's recommended sentence and what jurors feel is a just sentence. He wrote a paper for the Harvard Law & Policy Review, published in February 2010, that said juries in 22 cases recommended sentences that were significantly lower than the probation office's recommendations.
Robert Cheren, Collins' attorney, praised the 6th Circuit's ruling. He said Gwin's survey "was just one piece of the puzzle, and it was an important piece because it reflects community sentiment."
Collins is serving his sentence at a federal prison in Lisbon.
Updated with comments from Rendon and Cheren.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Study shows certificates work to create job opportunities
Again, not really SO related but it is still relevant
http://ccresourcecenter.org/2016/05/25/new-study-suggests-certificates-of-relief-are-working-to-create-jobs/
Study shows certificates work to create job opportunities
May 25, 2016 Joshua Gaines
A new empirical study [CLICK HERE for the study] provides important evidence that “certificates of recovery/relief” can be effective in facilitating employment opportunities for people with a criminal record. Two University of South Carolina criminologists have concluded that employers in Ohio are willing to look beyond the criminal histories of job applicants who have been issued a Certificate of Qualification for Employment (CQE) from a state court. The study, which involved sending fictitious resumes to over 300 employers in the Columbus area, found that individuals with a felony drug conviction were more than three times as likely to receive a job interview or offer if they had received a CQE.
Although the study’s findings are described as preliminary, they fill an important gap in our knowledge of the effectiveness of Ohio’s CQE, and by inference of similar certificate schemes in other jurisdictions. Such schemes have to date been justified on the basis of assumptions and anecdotal evidence, with little hard data to vouch for their potency. The abstract follows:
Securing stable, quality employment is one of the most robust predictors of desistance from offending. Yet, obtaining gainful employment is difficult for ex-offenders due to the stigma of a criminal record. In recognition of employment-related barriers to re-entry, some state legislatures have created certificates of recovery/relief, which lift occupational licensing restrictions, limit employer liability for negligent hiring claims, and aim to ensure employment decisions about certificate-holders are made on a case-by-case basis. The present study presents the results of the first empirical test of the effectiveness of such certificates. Using an experimental correspondence design, fictitious applicants applied to entry-level jobs advertised in the Columbus metropolitan area using fabricated resumes with identical names, educational backgrounds, employment experience, and skills. Because the only differences between the resumes were the type of criminal record and the presence of a Certificate of Qualification for Employment (CQE), the results isolate the specific impacts of criminal records and certificates on employment opportunities. Results indicate that, for job seekers with a one-year-old felony drug conviction, having a certificate of recovery increases the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation or job offer more than threefold. Importantly, certificate-holders and their counterparts with clean criminal backgrounds were equally likely to receive an interview invitation or job offer.
These promising results, while only a small sample, suggest that certificates of recovery/relief may be an effective avenue for lessening the stigma of a criminal record for ex-offenders seeking employment. The findings are striking because even though an Ohio CQE removes mandatory collateral consequences and protects employers from negligent hiring claims, Ohio law (unlike New York’s) does not require employers to give CQEs any effect at all. It seems, then, that “forgiveness-based” models of criminal record mitigation, which acknowledge a person’s criminal history while appropriately contextualizing it, can do far more to enhance employment prospects than many have supposed. The results of the study may be surprising to those who favor a “forgetfulness-based” model, which relies on limiting public access to a person’s criminal history.
Similar judicial certificate schemes exist in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York (whose certificate has served as a model for many states), North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. Though the legal effect of these certificates varies widely from state to state, they are generally intended to serve as an official acknowledgment of rehabilitation that can be relied upon by employers. (Our 50-state comparison of the consideration of criminal records in licensing and employment, available here, provides an overview and comparison of the certificate laws of each state. Further detail can be found in individual state profiles.)
Although there is no federal certificate law, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson (now retired) crafted and issued his own Certificate of Rehabilitation earlier this year in lieu of expunging the conviction of a woman he had sentenced years earlier who was unable to find lasting employment. Judge Gleeson wrote in his order:
The forgiveness model, which preserves the public record of a conviction, is gaining favor in the reentry community for both functional and philosophical reasons. . . . Where expungement relief is unavailable or otherwise unhelpful, I believe a certificate of rehabilitation can significantly alleviate the collateral effects of a criminal record by emitting a powerful signal that the same system that found a person deserving of punishment has now found that individual fit to fully rejoin the community.
Although the University of South Carolina study gives reason for optimism that employers in states with robust certificate schemes are receiving these “powerful signals” and acting accordingly, the national picture may not be quite so rosy. Recent studies on the effectiveness of New York’s certificate scheme that were based on anecdotal and interview evidence suggest that the state’s certificates are falling short when it comes to encouraging employment opportunities, notwithstanding the independent effect given them in New York’s nondiscrimination law.
You can read more about Ohio’s Certificate of Qualification for Employment (and other Ohio relief mechanisms) in our Ohio guide to restoration of rights. Our 50-state comparison of the consideration of criminal records in licensing and employment, available here, provides an overview and comparison of the certificate laws of each state.
http://ccresourcecenter.org/2016/05/25/new-study-suggests-certificates-of-relief-are-working-to-create-jobs/
Study shows certificates work to create job opportunities
May 25, 2016 Joshua Gaines
A new empirical study [CLICK HERE for the study] provides important evidence that “certificates of recovery/relief” can be effective in facilitating employment opportunities for people with a criminal record. Two University of South Carolina criminologists have concluded that employers in Ohio are willing to look beyond the criminal histories of job applicants who have been issued a Certificate of Qualification for Employment (CQE) from a state court. The study, which involved sending fictitious resumes to over 300 employers in the Columbus area, found that individuals with a felony drug conviction were more than three times as likely to receive a job interview or offer if they had received a CQE.
Although the study’s findings are described as preliminary, they fill an important gap in our knowledge of the effectiveness of Ohio’s CQE, and by inference of similar certificate schemes in other jurisdictions. Such schemes have to date been justified on the basis of assumptions and anecdotal evidence, with little hard data to vouch for their potency. The abstract follows:
Securing stable, quality employment is one of the most robust predictors of desistance from offending. Yet, obtaining gainful employment is difficult for ex-offenders due to the stigma of a criminal record. In recognition of employment-related barriers to re-entry, some state legislatures have created certificates of recovery/relief, which lift occupational licensing restrictions, limit employer liability for negligent hiring claims, and aim to ensure employment decisions about certificate-holders are made on a case-by-case basis. The present study presents the results of the first empirical test of the effectiveness of such certificates. Using an experimental correspondence design, fictitious applicants applied to entry-level jobs advertised in the Columbus metropolitan area using fabricated resumes with identical names, educational backgrounds, employment experience, and skills. Because the only differences between the resumes were the type of criminal record and the presence of a Certificate of Qualification for Employment (CQE), the results isolate the specific impacts of criminal records and certificates on employment opportunities. Results indicate that, for job seekers with a one-year-old felony drug conviction, having a certificate of recovery increases the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation or job offer more than threefold. Importantly, certificate-holders and their counterparts with clean criminal backgrounds were equally likely to receive an interview invitation or job offer.
These promising results, while only a small sample, suggest that certificates of recovery/relief may be an effective avenue for lessening the stigma of a criminal record for ex-offenders seeking employment. The findings are striking because even though an Ohio CQE removes mandatory collateral consequences and protects employers from negligent hiring claims, Ohio law (unlike New York’s) does not require employers to give CQEs any effect at all. It seems, then, that “forgiveness-based” models of criminal record mitigation, which acknowledge a person’s criminal history while appropriately contextualizing it, can do far more to enhance employment prospects than many have supposed. The results of the study may be surprising to those who favor a “forgetfulness-based” model, which relies on limiting public access to a person’s criminal history.
Similar judicial certificate schemes exist in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York (whose certificate has served as a model for many states), North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. Though the legal effect of these certificates varies widely from state to state, they are generally intended to serve as an official acknowledgment of rehabilitation that can be relied upon by employers. (Our 50-state comparison of the consideration of criminal records in licensing and employment, available here, provides an overview and comparison of the certificate laws of each state. Further detail can be found in individual state profiles.)
Although there is no federal certificate law, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson (now retired) crafted and issued his own Certificate of Rehabilitation earlier this year in lieu of expunging the conviction of a woman he had sentenced years earlier who was unable to find lasting employment. Judge Gleeson wrote in his order:
The forgiveness model, which preserves the public record of a conviction, is gaining favor in the reentry community for both functional and philosophical reasons. . . . Where expungement relief is unavailable or otherwise unhelpful, I believe a certificate of rehabilitation can significantly alleviate the collateral effects of a criminal record by emitting a powerful signal that the same system that found a person deserving of punishment has now found that individual fit to fully rejoin the community.
Although the University of South Carolina study gives reason for optimism that employers in states with robust certificate schemes are receiving these “powerful signals” and acting accordingly, the national picture may not be quite so rosy. Recent studies on the effectiveness of New York’s certificate scheme that were based on anecdotal and interview evidence suggest that the state’s certificates are falling short when it comes to encouraging employment opportunities, notwithstanding the independent effect given them in New York’s nondiscrimination law.
You can read more about Ohio’s Certificate of Qualification for Employment (and other Ohio relief mechanisms) in our Ohio guide to restoration of rights. Our 50-state comparison of the consideration of criminal records in licensing and employment, available here, provides an overview and comparison of the certificate laws of each state.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Sex-Trafficking Stat Check: How 45 Toledo Teens Become '1,000 Child Sex-Trafficking Victims'
Turns out Ohio's claim of being a cesspool of human trafficking is untrue. I'm not surprised.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/26/sex-trafficking-stat-check-ohio-children#comment
Sex-Trafficking Stat Check: How 45 Toledo Teens Become '1,000 Child Sex-Trafficking Victims'
Officials claim that more than 1,000 Ohio children are "trafficked into the sex trade each year." Here's why they're wrong.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown|May. 26, 2016 8:05 am
Every year some 1,000 new children are trafficked for sex in Ohio, while an additional 3,000 remain "at risk" of being trafficked, according to U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty.
The Ohio Democrat was one of four federal lawmakers gathered Wednesday to talk about the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), a 2015 measure that they claim isn't getting enough respect from the Department of Justice (DOJ). For instance, the DOJ has not provided lawmakers with data that JVTA mandated concerning human-trafficking arrests and convictions. "We do need accurate data on this," said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner (Mo.) Wednesday. So, in the spirit of accurate data, I asked Rep. Beatty where her child sex-trafficking statistics came from.
I was told they came from a report commissioned by the Ohio Attorney General's office. The only such report comes from 2010 and was prepared by the Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission, a group commissioned by then-Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and comprised of two professors, the U.S. District Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and representatives from city and county law-enforcement units, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the nonprofit Not for Sale. And it is, to put it mildly, a mess.
"To identify the number of [Ohio] youth ... who are at-risk for child sex trafficking and have become victims in the sex trade, the research team identified risk factors that included" homelessness, running away from home, and other "vulnerability factors," the committee states in an executive summary. By youth, minor, adolescent, or child sex trafficking victims, the committee means "those between the ages of 12 and 17" who "traded sex for money, items, drugs, food, or a place to stay." Ultimately, the committee arrived at the very specific-sounding estimates of 2,879 American-born adolescents "at-risk" for sex trafficking each year in Ohio and "1,078 youth [who] have been trafficked into the sex trade over the course of a year."
Let's start by examining the latter figure, which is often presented—by lawmakers like Beatty and local media—as a reliable accounting of actual victims in Ohio. At the root is an FBI-led operation that took place in Toledo and its surrounding county between 2005 and 2009, called "Operation Innocence Lost."
A precursor to today's expanded "Operation Cross Country," Operation Innocence Lost was established "in 14 cities with the highest incidence of child prostitution," according to an 2005 FBI press release. The city of Toledo, located in Lucas County, was one of them. It's also a city with a decaying economy and one of the highest crime rates in the region. According to 2013 FBI crime data, it's the ninth-most dangerous metropolitan area in the Midwest, number one in Ohio, and 49th in the entire United States.
In the course of Operation Innocence Lost, agents from the FBI, the Toledo Police Department, and the Lucas County Sheriff's Office identified "60 minor victims of sex trafficking." Forty-five—an average of 15 per year—came from Lucas County. It's this number from which the committee extrapolated for all of Ohio. Using Lucas County population data, the researchers arrive at the conclusion that 15 per 24,965 Ohio girls ages 12 through 17—or 0.0006 percent—are "successfully recruited into the sex trade from Ohio each year."
With 337,961 Ohio girls in this age group overall, that 0.06 percent rate yields an estimate of... 202 per year. How do we get from there to 1,078 victims—especially considering that Toledo has (according to the FBI's own data) more violent-crime and underage-prostitution problems than almost anywhere else in Ohio? Simple: Rather than acknowledge that extrapolating from Toledo might yield an inflated statewide estimate, the committee multiplies the Toledo number by five.
The basis for this decision was a study from the University of Toledo of Lucas County minors engaged in prostitution. That study claims that every minor talked to by researchers knew an average of 5 more underage minors "that were not known to law enforcement, but who were engaging in the sex trade." From the committee report (emphasis mine):
Because of the underground social networks, many girls involved know each other by their street names or nick names. In actuality, they may be unaware of which girls are engaging the Innocence Lost Task Force and not engaging the Task Force. But because other communities in Ohio do not have a focused Innocence Lost Task Force, the team decided the estimates provided by the victims may be an accurate measure for other communities throughout Ohio. Therefore, in using this as a measure for Ohio, we find that there may be over 1,000 girls per year in Ohio that are involved in the sex trade.
For estimating the number of 12- to 17-year-old Ohio boys, the committee uses a somewhat different (and even sloppier) method. Because being gay, transgender, or a runaway are "risk factors" for male sex-trade involvement, and because three to five percent of the overall U.S. population identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, the committee decides that three to five percent of male runaways who go missing for more than two weeks probably become trafficking victims. This gives us an estimated 63 underage male victims, for a total estimate of 1,078 trafficked adolescents in the state.
If you can believe it, the committee's method for estimating "at risk" Ohio youth gets even less scientific and relies on even more half-baked assumptions.
Remember, the state claims that 2,879 American-born adolescents in Ohio are "at-risk" of becoming trafficking victims each year. To arrive at this conclusion, committee members "relied heavily" on the methodology from a 2001 study on the commercial sexual exploitation of children in the United States.
That study, conducted by Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, has since been widely discredited. The respected Crimes Against Children Research Center implored people to please stop citing its numbers. Its conclusions have been debunked by outlets such as The Washington Post. The study's own author, Estes, no longer stands by the research. And even the Ohio committee that relies heavily on it admits, in the same report, that the study is plagued by "many shortcomings and obvious flaws."
To arrive at a nationwide estimate of "at risk" youth, Estes and Weiner came up with 14 factors they said increased the chances of an adolescent entering or being forced into the sex trade. These included things such as involvement with child protective services or the foster care system, a personal history of depression, a recurrent illness in the family, being a member of a sexual minority, female gang involvement, living in communities where "pre-existing prostitution markets existed" or "a large number of street youths gather," and living in the presence of "sexually unattached and transient males including military personnel, truckers, conventioneers, and tourists."
Based on the estimated prevalence of these risk factors, Estes and Weiner claim that one quarter of one percent of all American youth are "at risk." With 675,922 minors between the ages of 12 and 17 in Ohio, a 0.25 percent risk rate yields an estimated 1,690 "at risk" Ohio adolescents.
But the committee doesn't stop there. Following in Estes' and Weiner's footsteps, they add to this number two separate (and equally dubious) estimates. Remember, the 0.25 percent risk rate was for all adolescents. Risk is higher, claimed the researchers, for homeless youth and runaways. How much higher? Estes and Weiner had declared that 35 percent of "endangered runaways"—defined as youth who leave home without permission and stay away overnight—risk commercial sexual exploitation if they are gone for more than one week. Using numbers on endangered runaways from Ohio, the committee gets an estimated number of 1,070 at-risk runaways.
They then turn to homeless youth. A 2001 study of 455 homeless youth in Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas found that around 20 percent said they had traded sexual favors for a place to stay. Applying this 20 percent calculation not to the number of homeless youth in Ohio but to the number of adolescents who went missing for two weeks or longer ("for the period of time the youth is gone, they are technically homeless," states the Ohio report) the committee concludes that 1,261 homeless Ohio minors are at risk.
To arrive at a final number, the committee combined these various estimates, for a total of 4,021. Because two of these figures were derived from the same population (runaways missing for more than two weeks), and the other from all Ohio adolescents, the committee admits there might be some overlap in their estimates. For no precise reason, they decide that 25 percent may be duplicates, and reduce the 4,021 estimate by a quarter. From here, they arrive at the conclusion that some 2,879 Ohio 12- to 17-year-olds are "at risk" of being victimized by sex traffickers each year.
Ohio Rep. Beatty is far from the only one to quote these figures, which appear routinely in Ohio media—including major city newspapers such as The Columbus Dispatch, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Dayton Daily News—and government statements as hard facts (i.e., "1,000 children are trafficked in Ohio each year"). But as someone leading an effort for better federal data on sex trafficking, Beatty might want to look a bit more closely at the data she herself cites, and demand better data from her home state.
The Dispatch and other outlets also claim that among these alleged 1,000 children who "fall victim to human sex trafficking" each year in Ohio, the average age is 12 or 13 years old. In fact, 12 was the very youngest age included in the Ohio Attorney General's study, and the youngest (and most rare) age of any minor recovered nationally throughout Operation Innocence Lost. A report from the Ohio Human Trafficking Commission that looked at identified, not theoretical, victims from Ohio in 2015 found a total of 203 alleged victims throughout the state. Around three percent were age 13 or younger, 11 percent 14- or 15-years-old, 15 percent 16- or 17-years-old, and 71 percent adults.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an associate editor at Reason.com.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/26/sex-trafficking-stat-check-ohio-children#comment
Sex-Trafficking Stat Check: How 45 Toledo Teens Become '1,000 Child Sex-Trafficking Victims'
Officials claim that more than 1,000 Ohio children are "trafficked into the sex trade each year." Here's why they're wrong.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown|May. 26, 2016 8:05 am
Every year some 1,000 new children are trafficked for sex in Ohio, while an additional 3,000 remain "at risk" of being trafficked, according to U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty.
The Ohio Democrat was one of four federal lawmakers gathered Wednesday to talk about the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), a 2015 measure that they claim isn't getting enough respect from the Department of Justice (DOJ). For instance, the DOJ has not provided lawmakers with data that JVTA mandated concerning human-trafficking arrests and convictions. "We do need accurate data on this," said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner (Mo.) Wednesday. So, in the spirit of accurate data, I asked Rep. Beatty where her child sex-trafficking statistics came from.
I was told they came from a report commissioned by the Ohio Attorney General's office. The only such report comes from 2010 and was prepared by the Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission, a group commissioned by then-Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and comprised of two professors, the U.S. District Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and representatives from city and county law-enforcement units, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the nonprofit Not for Sale. And it is, to put it mildly, a mess.
"To identify the number of [Ohio] youth ... who are at-risk for child sex trafficking and have become victims in the sex trade, the research team identified risk factors that included" homelessness, running away from home, and other "vulnerability factors," the committee states in an executive summary. By youth, minor, adolescent, or child sex trafficking victims, the committee means "those between the ages of 12 and 17" who "traded sex for money, items, drugs, food, or a place to stay." Ultimately, the committee arrived at the very specific-sounding estimates of 2,879 American-born adolescents "at-risk" for sex trafficking each year in Ohio and "1,078 youth [who] have been trafficked into the sex trade over the course of a year."
Let's start by examining the latter figure, which is often presented—by lawmakers like Beatty and local media—as a reliable accounting of actual victims in Ohio. At the root is an FBI-led operation that took place in Toledo and its surrounding county between 2005 and 2009, called "Operation Innocence Lost."
A precursor to today's expanded "Operation Cross Country," Operation Innocence Lost was established "in 14 cities with the highest incidence of child prostitution," according to an 2005 FBI press release. The city of Toledo, located in Lucas County, was one of them. It's also a city with a decaying economy and one of the highest crime rates in the region. According to 2013 FBI crime data, it's the ninth-most dangerous metropolitan area in the Midwest, number one in Ohio, and 49th in the entire United States.
In the course of Operation Innocence Lost, agents from the FBI, the Toledo Police Department, and the Lucas County Sheriff's Office identified "60 minor victims of sex trafficking." Forty-five—an average of 15 per year—came from Lucas County. It's this number from which the committee extrapolated for all of Ohio. Using Lucas County population data, the researchers arrive at the conclusion that 15 per 24,965 Ohio girls ages 12 through 17—or 0.0006 percent—are "successfully recruited into the sex trade from Ohio each year."
With 337,961 Ohio girls in this age group overall, that 0.06 percent rate yields an estimate of... 202 per year. How do we get from there to 1,078 victims—especially considering that Toledo has (according to the FBI's own data) more violent-crime and underage-prostitution problems than almost anywhere else in Ohio? Simple: Rather than acknowledge that extrapolating from Toledo might yield an inflated statewide estimate, the committee multiplies the Toledo number by five.
The basis for this decision was a study from the University of Toledo of Lucas County minors engaged in prostitution. That study claims that every minor talked to by researchers knew an average of 5 more underage minors "that were not known to law enforcement, but who were engaging in the sex trade." From the committee report (emphasis mine):
Because of the underground social networks, many girls involved know each other by their street names or nick names. In actuality, they may be unaware of which girls are engaging the Innocence Lost Task Force and not engaging the Task Force. But because other communities in Ohio do not have a focused Innocence Lost Task Force, the team decided the estimates provided by the victims may be an accurate measure for other communities throughout Ohio. Therefore, in using this as a measure for Ohio, we find that there may be over 1,000 girls per year in Ohio that are involved in the sex trade.
For estimating the number of 12- to 17-year-old Ohio boys, the committee uses a somewhat different (and even sloppier) method. Because being gay, transgender, or a runaway are "risk factors" for male sex-trade involvement, and because three to five percent of the overall U.S. population identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, the committee decides that three to five percent of male runaways who go missing for more than two weeks probably become trafficking victims. This gives us an estimated 63 underage male victims, for a total estimate of 1,078 trafficked adolescents in the state.
If you can believe it, the committee's method for estimating "at risk" Ohio youth gets even less scientific and relies on even more half-baked assumptions.
Remember, the state claims that 2,879 American-born adolescents in Ohio are "at-risk" of becoming trafficking victims each year. To arrive at this conclusion, committee members "relied heavily" on the methodology from a 2001 study on the commercial sexual exploitation of children in the United States.
That study, conducted by Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, has since been widely discredited. The respected Crimes Against Children Research Center implored people to please stop citing its numbers. Its conclusions have been debunked by outlets such as The Washington Post. The study's own author, Estes, no longer stands by the research. And even the Ohio committee that relies heavily on it admits, in the same report, that the study is plagued by "many shortcomings and obvious flaws."
To arrive at a nationwide estimate of "at risk" youth, Estes and Weiner came up with 14 factors they said increased the chances of an adolescent entering or being forced into the sex trade. These included things such as involvement with child protective services or the foster care system, a personal history of depression, a recurrent illness in the family, being a member of a sexual minority, female gang involvement, living in communities where "pre-existing prostitution markets existed" or "a large number of street youths gather," and living in the presence of "sexually unattached and transient males including military personnel, truckers, conventioneers, and tourists."
Based on the estimated prevalence of these risk factors, Estes and Weiner claim that one quarter of one percent of all American youth are "at risk." With 675,922 minors between the ages of 12 and 17 in Ohio, a 0.25 percent risk rate yields an estimated 1,690 "at risk" Ohio adolescents.
But the committee doesn't stop there. Following in Estes' and Weiner's footsteps, they add to this number two separate (and equally dubious) estimates. Remember, the 0.25 percent risk rate was for all adolescents. Risk is higher, claimed the researchers, for homeless youth and runaways. How much higher? Estes and Weiner had declared that 35 percent of "endangered runaways"—defined as youth who leave home without permission and stay away overnight—risk commercial sexual exploitation if they are gone for more than one week. Using numbers on endangered runaways from Ohio, the committee gets an estimated number of 1,070 at-risk runaways.
They then turn to homeless youth. A 2001 study of 455 homeless youth in Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas found that around 20 percent said they had traded sexual favors for a place to stay. Applying this 20 percent calculation not to the number of homeless youth in Ohio but to the number of adolescents who went missing for two weeks or longer ("for the period of time the youth is gone, they are technically homeless," states the Ohio report) the committee concludes that 1,261 homeless Ohio minors are at risk.
To arrive at a final number, the committee combined these various estimates, for a total of 4,021. Because two of these figures were derived from the same population (runaways missing for more than two weeks), and the other from all Ohio adolescents, the committee admits there might be some overlap in their estimates. For no precise reason, they decide that 25 percent may be duplicates, and reduce the 4,021 estimate by a quarter. From here, they arrive at the conclusion that some 2,879 Ohio 12- to 17-year-olds are "at risk" of being victimized by sex traffickers each year.
Ohio Rep. Beatty is far from the only one to quote these figures, which appear routinely in Ohio media—including major city newspapers such as The Columbus Dispatch, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Dayton Daily News—and government statements as hard facts (i.e., "1,000 children are trafficked in Ohio each year"). But as someone leading an effort for better federal data on sex trafficking, Beatty might want to look a bit more closely at the data she herself cites, and demand better data from her home state.
The Dispatch and other outlets also claim that among these alleged 1,000 children who "fall victim to human sex trafficking" each year in Ohio, the average age is 12 or 13 years old. In fact, 12 was the very youngest age included in the Ohio Attorney General's study, and the youngest (and most rare) age of any minor recovered nationally throughout Operation Innocence Lost. A report from the Ohio Human Trafficking Commission that looked at identified, not theoretical, victims from Ohio in 2015 found a total of 203 alleged victims throughout the state. Around three percent were age 13 or younger, 11 percent 14- or 15-years-old, 15 percent 16- or 17-years-old, and 71 percent adults.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an associate editor at Reason.com.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Ohio Republicans want to wipe out bipartisan prison watchdog agency
Not directly related to our cause but it is a cause for concern.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/05/24/republicans-want-to-wipe-out-bipartisan-prison-watchdog-agency.html#
Ohio Republicans want to wipe out bipartisan prison watchdog agency
By Alan Johnson
The Columbus Dispatch • Tuesday May 24, 2016 8:08 PM
An 11th-hour change by Ohio House Republicans would eliminate a bipartisan prison watchdog agency in business for nearly 40 years.
The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, established in 1977, would be abolished and replaced by the Joint State Correctional Inspection Committee in legislation expected to be approved Wednesday in the General Assembly.
The current eight-member committee has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. The new committee would be dominated by the majority party, now Republicans.
The CIIC inspects and reports on adult and juvenile prisons and investigates a broad range of issues, from staffing and medical care to prison violence and inmate gangs. The agency's findings have often exposed flaws in the state prison systems. The agency director is Joanna Saul, who has a staff of five.
The new committee could only perform prison inspections with specific approval from the speaker of the House and president of the Senate, a dramatic departure from the investigative autonomy the committee now enjoys. A majority of members would have to be present to make an inspection.
State Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, chairman of the House Finance Committee, said House and Senate leaders "feel like it's time to redefine this (agency), redirect its goals and narrow its focus."
Rep. Kevin Boyce, D-Columbus, complained about the change, saying it would "undercut what the CIIC was established to do."
Boyce said the Republican-directed change would "erase" what has always been a bi-partisan committee. He said the legislation should be considered in a separate bill, not jammed into unrelated legislation.
The CIIC has undergone several changes since it was created. Funding was eliminated for the agency in 2001 and restored in 2003.
ajohnson@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/05/24/republicans-want-to-wipe-out-bipartisan-prison-watchdog-agency.html#
Ohio Republicans want to wipe out bipartisan prison watchdog agency
By Alan Johnson
The Columbus Dispatch • Tuesday May 24, 2016 8:08 PM
An 11th-hour change by Ohio House Republicans would eliminate a bipartisan prison watchdog agency in business for nearly 40 years.
The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, established in 1977, would be abolished and replaced by the Joint State Correctional Inspection Committee in legislation expected to be approved Wednesday in the General Assembly.
The current eight-member committee has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. The new committee would be dominated by the majority party, now Republicans.
The CIIC inspects and reports on adult and juvenile prisons and investigates a broad range of issues, from staffing and medical care to prison violence and inmate gangs. The agency's findings have often exposed flaws in the state prison systems. The agency director is Joanna Saul, who has a staff of five.
The new committee could only perform prison inspections with specific approval from the speaker of the House and president of the Senate, a dramatic departure from the investigative autonomy the committee now enjoys. A majority of members would have to be present to make an inspection.
State Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, chairman of the House Finance Committee, said House and Senate leaders "feel like it's time to redefine this (agency), redirect its goals and narrow its focus."
Rep. Kevin Boyce, D-Columbus, complained about the change, saying it would "undercut what the CIIC was established to do."
Boyce said the Republican-directed change would "erase" what has always been a bi-partisan committee. He said the legislation should be considered in a separate bill, not jammed into unrelated legislation.
The CIIC has undergone several changes since it was created. Funding was eliminated for the agency in 2001 and restored in 2003.
ajohnson@dispatch.com
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Ohio court: sex offender registration law not retroactive
The only good thing about the AWA is that it allows some people to petition for removal from the registry after a number of years, while pre-AWA registrants lack that privilege. Ohio's Supreme Court already ruled the AWA could not be applied retroactively to classify registrants, so it cannot apply any of the good provisions retroactively, either.
http://wdtn.com/2016/05/18/ohio-court-sex-offender-registration-law-not-retroactive/
Ohio court: sex offender registration law not retroactive
Associated Press
Published: May 18, 2016, 12:35 pm Updated: May 18, 2016, 12:37 pm
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s Supreme Court says a 2008 law’s procedure allowing sex offenders to stop registering with authorities if they committed certain sexual offenses after the law was implemented doesn’t apply to offenders convicted under a previous law.
The court ruled 6-1 Wednesday in the case of Aaron Von, who moved to Ohio in 2011. Von cited the Adam Walsh Act that took effect in 2008 when asking a trial court to end registration requirements stemming from his conviction for sexually assaulting a child in Colorado in 1997.
Ohio’s highest court found Von is subject to requirements of the 1996 Megan’s Law that was replaced by the Adam Walsh Act in 2008. Megan’s Law didn’t provide for ending registration requirements.
Von’s attorney didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
Below is a lengthier explanation of the case:
http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2016/SCO/0518/150619.asp#.V0BhyvkrLIW
Sex-Offender Registration Termination Not Available for Pre-2008 Offenses
By Dan Trevas | May 18, 2016
The Ohio Supreme Court today ruled that a statutory procedure allowing sex offenders to terminate reporting requirements available to Adam Walsh Act (AWA) offenders who committed certain sexual offenses after the state’s 2008 implementation of the AWA is not available to Megan’s Law sex offenders who committed crimes prior to the 2008 implementation date.
A majority of the court voted to deny Aaron K. Von’s request to terminate his registration duties. He argued that even though he had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 1997 in Colorado, an Ohio judge could allow him to end his reporting requirements based on the 2008 Ohio law. Writing for the majority, Justice Terrence O’Donnell stated that Von was subject to the requirements of the 1996 Megan’s Law, which had no provision for terminating a sex offender’s duty to comply with registration requirements.
Von Sought Change When He Moved to Ohio
Von moved to Ohio in 2011 and registered as a sex offender, but did not specify his classification. He requested that a trial court terminate his duty to comply with sex-offender registration citing R.C. 2950.15.
The state opposed the motion, claiming that R.C. 2950.15, the AWA, applies only to sex offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2008. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2011 State v. Williams opinion, prosecutors argued the statute could not be retroactively applied to Von. Von was convicted under Megan’s Law, which was repealed and replaced by the AWA, and did not contain a process to terminate the registration requirements that is currently part of the AWA.
Under Megan’s Law, Von was first classified as a sexually oriented offender, but was later classified as a sexual predator. While seeking to terminate his reporting requirements, Von also attempted to stop the state from changing his classifications under the AWA from a tier one sexually oriented offender to a tier three offender because only tier one offenders can apply for termination of the reporting requirements.
The trial court denied his motion to terminate registration because it found that Megan’s Law had no provisions to end reporting requirements and that subsequent amendments to the state law to implement the AWA were not retroactive.
Von appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court in a split decision. The lead opinion concluded the law “expressly states that it applies to an offender regardless of when the offense was committed.” It indicated at the time of its ruling, the trial court had not yet determined if Von qualified as a tier one offender under the AWA’s classification but that if it did find him to be a tier one offender, it could consider the merits of Von’s argument that he is eligible to terminate his reporting requirements.
The state appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Application of Law Not Retroactive
Justice O’Donnell explained that the issue before the court was whether the procedures to relieve an AWA offender from the obligation to report applied to a Megan’s Law offender. The old law, designated as Megan’s Law, established a comprehensive system of classifying sex offenders into three categories: sexually oriented offenders, habitual sex offenders, and sexual predators. In contrast, the new law, the AWA, had new standards for sexual-offender classification and registration in conformity with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, and pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950 offenders were divided into tier I, tier II, and tier III sex or child-victim offenders.
Justice O’Donnell wrote that the Court in the Williams case examined a provision of the AWA that was expressly made to be retroactive and added a punishment for those convicted before the act’s adoption. The Court found that provision violated the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against the General Assembly’s passage of retroactive laws.
“Subsequently, we clarified only persons who commit their underlying offense on or after the effective date of the Adam Walsh Act can be constitutionally subjected to its requirements,” he wrote.
As noted by the appeals court, an “eligible offender” defined by R.C. 2950.15(A) does state that it applies to a person convicted or having pleaded guilty to a sexually oriented offense “regardless of when the offense was committed.” However, Justice O’Donnell emphasized the section also states that to be an eligible offender a person must also be a “tier I sex offender/child-victim offender.”
Justice O’Donnell pointed out that “regardless of when the offense was committed” provision does not by itself qualify an individual to be an eligible offender because the statute uses the conjunction “and,” which imposes the dual requirement that the person must also be a tier one offender, and Von has not been classified as a tier one offender.
Justice O’Donnell wrote that the provisions of the AWA cannot be constitutionally applied to sex offenders who committed their crimes before the 2008 effective date of the AWA.
“Notably, the legislature made no reference to Megan’s Law, which is indicative of its intent that those offenders are not eligible for termination of those registration duties,” he concluded.
The Court reversed the ruling of the Eleventh District, which held that Von had a right to seek to terminate his registration requirements. It affirmed the portion of the appeals court ruling that remanded the case to the trial court to determine the Megan’s Law classification for Von.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French joined the majority opinion.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.
Justice William M. O’Neill dissented without a written opinion.
http://wdtn.com/2016/05/18/ohio-court-sex-offender-registration-law-not-retroactive/
Ohio court: sex offender registration law not retroactive
Associated Press
Published: May 18, 2016, 12:35 pm Updated: May 18, 2016, 12:37 pm
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s Supreme Court says a 2008 law’s procedure allowing sex offenders to stop registering with authorities if they committed certain sexual offenses after the law was implemented doesn’t apply to offenders convicted under a previous law.
The court ruled 6-1 Wednesday in the case of Aaron Von, who moved to Ohio in 2011. Von cited the Adam Walsh Act that took effect in 2008 when asking a trial court to end registration requirements stemming from his conviction for sexually assaulting a child in Colorado in 1997.
Ohio’s highest court found Von is subject to requirements of the 1996 Megan’s Law that was replaced by the Adam Walsh Act in 2008. Megan’s Law didn’t provide for ending registration requirements.
Von’s attorney didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
Below is a lengthier explanation of the case:
http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2016/SCO/0518/150619.asp#.V0BhyvkrLIW
Sex-Offender Registration Termination Not Available for Pre-2008 Offenses
By Dan Trevas | May 18, 2016
The Ohio Supreme Court today ruled that a statutory procedure allowing sex offenders to terminate reporting requirements available to Adam Walsh Act (AWA) offenders who committed certain sexual offenses after the state’s 2008 implementation of the AWA is not available to Megan’s Law sex offenders who committed crimes prior to the 2008 implementation date.
A majority of the court voted to deny Aaron K. Von’s request to terminate his registration duties. He argued that even though he had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 1997 in Colorado, an Ohio judge could allow him to end his reporting requirements based on the 2008 Ohio law. Writing for the majority, Justice Terrence O’Donnell stated that Von was subject to the requirements of the 1996 Megan’s Law, which had no provision for terminating a sex offender’s duty to comply with registration requirements.
Von Sought Change When He Moved to Ohio
Von moved to Ohio in 2011 and registered as a sex offender, but did not specify his classification. He requested that a trial court terminate his duty to comply with sex-offender registration citing R.C. 2950.15.
The state opposed the motion, claiming that R.C. 2950.15, the AWA, applies only to sex offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2008. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2011 State v. Williams opinion, prosecutors argued the statute could not be retroactively applied to Von. Von was convicted under Megan’s Law, which was repealed and replaced by the AWA, and did not contain a process to terminate the registration requirements that is currently part of the AWA.
Under Megan’s Law, Von was first classified as a sexually oriented offender, but was later classified as a sexual predator. While seeking to terminate his reporting requirements, Von also attempted to stop the state from changing his classifications under the AWA from a tier one sexually oriented offender to a tier three offender because only tier one offenders can apply for termination of the reporting requirements.
The trial court denied his motion to terminate registration because it found that Megan’s Law had no provisions to end reporting requirements and that subsequent amendments to the state law to implement the AWA were not retroactive.
Von appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court in a split decision. The lead opinion concluded the law “expressly states that it applies to an offender regardless of when the offense was committed.” It indicated at the time of its ruling, the trial court had not yet determined if Von qualified as a tier one offender under the AWA’s classification but that if it did find him to be a tier one offender, it could consider the merits of Von’s argument that he is eligible to terminate his reporting requirements.
The state appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Application of Law Not Retroactive
Justice O’Donnell explained that the issue before the court was whether the procedures to relieve an AWA offender from the obligation to report applied to a Megan’s Law offender. The old law, designated as Megan’s Law, established a comprehensive system of classifying sex offenders into three categories: sexually oriented offenders, habitual sex offenders, and sexual predators. In contrast, the new law, the AWA, had new standards for sexual-offender classification and registration in conformity with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, and pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950 offenders were divided into tier I, tier II, and tier III sex or child-victim offenders.
Justice O’Donnell wrote that the Court in the Williams case examined a provision of the AWA that was expressly made to be retroactive and added a punishment for those convicted before the act’s adoption. The Court found that provision violated the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against the General Assembly’s passage of retroactive laws.
“Subsequently, we clarified only persons who commit their underlying offense on or after the effective date of the Adam Walsh Act can be constitutionally subjected to its requirements,” he wrote.
As noted by the appeals court, an “eligible offender” defined by R.C. 2950.15(A) does state that it applies to a person convicted or having pleaded guilty to a sexually oriented offense “regardless of when the offense was committed.” However, Justice O’Donnell emphasized the section also states that to be an eligible offender a person must also be a “tier I sex offender/child-victim offender.”
Justice O’Donnell pointed out that “regardless of when the offense was committed” provision does not by itself qualify an individual to be an eligible offender because the statute uses the conjunction “and,” which imposes the dual requirement that the person must also be a tier one offender, and Von has not been classified as a tier one offender.
Justice O’Donnell wrote that the provisions of the AWA cannot be constitutionally applied to sex offenders who committed their crimes before the 2008 effective date of the AWA.
“Notably, the legislature made no reference to Megan’s Law, which is indicative of its intent that those offenders are not eligible for termination of those registration duties,” he concluded.
The Court reversed the ruling of the Eleventh District, which held that Von had a right to seek to terminate his registration requirements. It affirmed the portion of the appeals court ruling that remanded the case to the trial court to determine the Megan’s Law classification for Von.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French joined the majority opinion.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.
Justice William M. O’Neill dissented without a written opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)