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.
Showing posts with label Adam Walsh Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adam Walsh Act. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Friday, November 20, 2015
Cleveland.com - Sex-offender registry requires reboot in Ohio and the nation: editorial
This is a pretty good editorial from cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/sex-offender_registry_requires_reboot_in_ohio_and_the_nation_editorial.html
Sex-offender registry requires reboot in Ohio and the nation: editorial
By Editorial Board
on November 19, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 created an all-inclusive state-by-state registry of convicted sex offenders.
Known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title 1 also attempted the impossible: to protect the public, particularly children, from convicted sexual predators who had done their time and were now back on the street.
It was well-intentioned, codifying rules that mandate states monitor and track sex offenders by having them publicly register their addresses.
Parents, guardians, caregivers, and anyone else can access those records online, or by contacting their local sheriff's department, to see where released sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods.
States were given three years to implement the registry. Noncompliance with the federal law would be punished by a 10 percent cut in millions of dollars of annual federal criminal justice funding.
Ohio, which had a less-rigid sex-registry law already, complied -- creating what critics now call a one-size-fits-all behemoth of a sex registry that wrongly limits judicial discretion, penalizes young people and costs sheriff's departments hundreds of thousands of unneeded dollars to monitor.
You might think that all advocates for rape victims would support the practice of forcing sex offenders to publicly register their addresses after their release from prison. But you would be mistaken.
In fact, SORNA – as the federal registry law is known colloquially -- is today under attack by the very people who advocate for the rights of survivors and victims of sexual assault as well as the judiciary that rules on the consequences of such predatory behavior.
"It's like using an Atom Bomb when a stick of dynamite would do the job," said Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Michael Donnelly.
"It creates this false sense of security," said Sondra Miller, head of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center.
Even the Ohio Supreme Court has weighed in, declaring sections of the state's version of SORNA unconstitutional, according to assistant state public defender Brooke Burns. In 2012 the court ruled that imposing automatic lifetime registration requirements on juveniles was cruel and unusual punishment.
In a 5-2 opinion, the court said the punishment violates the Ohio and United States constitutions because it is cruel and unusual, and because it violates a defendant's right to due process.
"A 19-year-old and his 15-year-old girlfriend have consensual sex," Donnelly said. "He gets labeled as a sex offender for life. He should be punished for violating the law [the age of consent is 16 years old in Ohio], but he's not necessarily a predator."
The registry also misleads the public into believing that the majority of sexual assaults are committed by strangers, Miller said. "Most sexual assaults are committed by family members and acquaintances."
It's not that the registry serves no purpose, Miller said, but its Draconian approach to public safety blunts its effectiveness.
"There are serious sex offenders, predators that the public needs to be protected from, and they are diluted in a sea of individuals who don't pose a threat," Donnelly said.
There also is no "wiggle room," as Burns describes it, for judges to use discretion in determining who gets put on the registry. "The law has to be applied as written."
The time is ripe for a common-sense, evidence-based reboot of Ohio's version of SORNA, and a redo of the federal requirements, as well.
In Ohio, a recent bipartisan legislative criminal-reform initiative provides the vehicle to re-examine Ohio's sex-offender registry.
The Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee has been tasked with reviewing state criminal statutes and making recommendations that enhance public safety and the just and equitable administration of justice.
Its 24 members include judges, public defenders, prosecutors, politicians and criminal justice advocates.
The committee has broken into working groups to study different sections of the criminal code, said Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Ohio Public Defender. One group is focused on sex-offender registration and notification reform.
There are some 19,400 sex offenders registered in Ohio, according to the state Attorney General's office. In Cuyahoga County, the sheriff's department tracks about 3,300 sex offenders.
The criminal-justice-reform committee is scheduled to deliver its report to the General Assembly by August 2016.
"I've offered to provide testimony and statistics to the legislature to return discretion to the courts," Donnelly said. "And I'll get 15 other judges to join me."
He argues that courts have access to psychiatrists who are experts on assessing sex offenders and their proclivity for recidivism.
New legislation that did not restrict judicial discretion could allow those risk assessments to be argued in open court, Donnelly said. "Then the process is transparent and evidence-based."
Judicial discretion returns accountability and justice to the process without compromising public safety.
The committee should recommend that such legislation be enacted.
And the federal government -- and Congress, if needed -- should make sure Ohio's federal criminal justice funding is not docked because of such a common-sense improvement to the state's sex-offender registry.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/sex-offender_registry_requires_reboot_in_ohio_and_the_nation_editorial.html
Sex-offender registry requires reboot in Ohio and the nation: editorial
By Editorial Board
on November 19, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 created an all-inclusive state-by-state registry of convicted sex offenders.
Known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title 1 also attempted the impossible: to protect the public, particularly children, from convicted sexual predators who had done their time and were now back on the street.
It was well-intentioned, codifying rules that mandate states monitor and track sex offenders by having them publicly register their addresses.
Parents, guardians, caregivers, and anyone else can access those records online, or by contacting their local sheriff's department, to see where released sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods.
States were given three years to implement the registry. Noncompliance with the federal law would be punished by a 10 percent cut in millions of dollars of annual federal criminal justice funding.
Ohio, which had a less-rigid sex-registry law already, complied -- creating what critics now call a one-size-fits-all behemoth of a sex registry that wrongly limits judicial discretion, penalizes young people and costs sheriff's departments hundreds of thousands of unneeded dollars to monitor.
You might think that all advocates for rape victims would support the practice of forcing sex offenders to publicly register their addresses after their release from prison. But you would be mistaken.
In fact, SORNA – as the federal registry law is known colloquially -- is today under attack by the very people who advocate for the rights of survivors and victims of sexual assault as well as the judiciary that rules on the consequences of such predatory behavior.
"It's like using an Atom Bomb when a stick of dynamite would do the job," said Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Michael Donnelly.
"It creates this false sense of security," said Sondra Miller, head of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center.
Even the Ohio Supreme Court has weighed in, declaring sections of the state's version of SORNA unconstitutional, according to assistant state public defender Brooke Burns. In 2012 the court ruled that imposing automatic lifetime registration requirements on juveniles was cruel and unusual punishment.
In a 5-2 opinion, the court said the punishment violates the Ohio and United States constitutions because it is cruel and unusual, and because it violates a defendant's right to due process.
"A 19-year-old and his 15-year-old girlfriend have consensual sex," Donnelly said. "He gets labeled as a sex offender for life. He should be punished for violating the law [the age of consent is 16 years old in Ohio], but he's not necessarily a predator."
The registry also misleads the public into believing that the majority of sexual assaults are committed by strangers, Miller said. "Most sexual assaults are committed by family members and acquaintances."
It's not that the registry serves no purpose, Miller said, but its Draconian approach to public safety blunts its effectiveness.
"There are serious sex offenders, predators that the public needs to be protected from, and they are diluted in a sea of individuals who don't pose a threat," Donnelly said.
There also is no "wiggle room," as Burns describes it, for judges to use discretion in determining who gets put on the registry. "The law has to be applied as written."
The time is ripe for a common-sense, evidence-based reboot of Ohio's version of SORNA, and a redo of the federal requirements, as well.
In Ohio, a recent bipartisan legislative criminal-reform initiative provides the vehicle to re-examine Ohio's sex-offender registry.
The Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee has been tasked with reviewing state criminal statutes and making recommendations that enhance public safety and the just and equitable administration of justice.
Its 24 members include judges, public defenders, prosecutors, politicians and criminal justice advocates.
The committee has broken into working groups to study different sections of the criminal code, said Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Ohio Public Defender. One group is focused on sex-offender registration and notification reform.
There are some 19,400 sex offenders registered in Ohio, according to the state Attorney General's office. In Cuyahoga County, the sheriff's department tracks about 3,300 sex offenders.
The criminal-justice-reform committee is scheduled to deliver its report to the General Assembly by August 2016.
"I've offered to provide testimony and statistics to the legislature to return discretion to the courts," Donnelly said. "And I'll get 15 other judges to join me."
He argues that courts have access to psychiatrists who are experts on assessing sex offenders and their proclivity for recidivism.
New legislation that did not restrict judicial discretion could allow those risk assessments to be argued in open court, Donnelly said. "Then the process is transparent and evidence-based."
Judicial discretion returns accountability and justice to the process without compromising public safety.
The committee should recommend that such legislation be enacted.
And the federal government -- and Congress, if needed -- should make sure Ohio's federal criminal justice funding is not docked because of such a common-sense improvement to the state's sex-offender registry.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Ohio Supreme Court to hear case of Adam Walsh Act classification
The logic of the Ohio prosecutors should be appalling to any reasonable person in this state. They aren't interested in justice, but in ruining lives. Hopefully now that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the AWA is punishment, they'll take it a step further and admit the law is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL punishment.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/03/09/man-fights-designation-as-a-sexual-offender.html
Man fights designation as a sexual offender
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch • Monday March 9, 2015 6:07 AM
Travis Blankenship is marked with what one judge describes as an undeserved “scarlet letter” — that of a sex offender.
Blankenship was 21, working part time at a department store and a few hours away from receiving his associate’s degree at Clark State Community College in Springfield when he had an affair with a 15-year-old girl.
But the illicit relationship did not remain secret, and he was arrested. A psychologist found he was not a sex offender, did not require treatment and was unlikely to commit another offense.
A judge likewise did not consider Blankenship much of a threat, sentencing him in 2012 to serve 12 days of a six-month sentence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony.
But, under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, Blankenship automatically was declared a Tier II sex offender, requiring him to register his address, employment and other information with the sheriff for the next 25 years.
His public defender will argue before the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday that mandatory sex-offender registration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when it is “grossly disproportionate” to the offender’s character and crime.
Ohio prosecutors, including Franklin County’s Ron O’Brien, counter that sex-offender registration justifiably protects the public and is “not shocking to any reasonable person in this state.”
Blankenship is appealing a 2-1 decision by the Second District Ohio Court of Appeals that upheld his classification as a sex offender, which before 2007 required a hearing and allowed judges to make the call.
Judge Mary Donovan was the dissenter, writing, “He was punished with a scarlet letter of 25 years duration ... grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
“This classification carries significant restraints on Blankenship’s liberty and a social stigma that interferes with employability, travel and housing.”
Clark County Prosecutor D. Andrew Wilson counters that Blankenship’s conduct was “typical of grooming behavior by sexual predators.”
“Blankenship engaged in sexual intercourse with a young and impressionable 15-year-old girl when he was an adult. This is a clear violation of the law,” his office argues.
“Registration is by no means shocking. Rather it is a consolation and comfort to the families and victims of sexual offenses.”
O’Brien filed a friend-of-the-court brief, saying automatic sex-offender classification and registration is legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that offender registration does not constitute punishment, he said.
“If it’s not punishment, it can’t be cruel and unusual,” O’Brien said.
However, Katherine Ross-Kinzie, the assistant state public defender representing Blankenship, said the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s offender-classification scheme is punitive in nature.
“Decades of sex-offender registration requirements, restrictions, and consequences constitute cruel and unusual punishment for people like Travis,” she said.
In another case, the high court will hear arguments on Wednesday in the case of Dale Johnston, a Grove City man who spent seven years on Death Row after he was wrongly convicted of the 1982 murders of his stepdaughter and her fiance.
He is asking the justices to reverse a Franklin County Court of Appeals ruling that threw out a trial judge’s finding that he was illegally detained for the dismemberment slayings in Hocking County. Such a finding is required to allow Johnston to seek damages for wrongful imprisonment from the state.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/03/09/man-fights-designation-as-a-sexual-offender.html
Man fights designation as a sexual offender
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch • Monday March 9, 2015 6:07 AM
Travis Blankenship is marked with what one judge describes as an undeserved “scarlet letter” — that of a sex offender.
Blankenship was 21, working part time at a department store and a few hours away from receiving his associate’s degree at Clark State Community College in Springfield when he had an affair with a 15-year-old girl.
But the illicit relationship did not remain secret, and he was arrested. A psychologist found he was not a sex offender, did not require treatment and was unlikely to commit another offense.
A judge likewise did not consider Blankenship much of a threat, sentencing him in 2012 to serve 12 days of a six-month sentence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony.
But, under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, Blankenship automatically was declared a Tier II sex offender, requiring him to register his address, employment and other information with the sheriff for the next 25 years.
His public defender will argue before the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday that mandatory sex-offender registration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when it is “grossly disproportionate” to the offender’s character and crime.
Ohio prosecutors, including Franklin County’s Ron O’Brien, counter that sex-offender registration justifiably protects the public and is “not shocking to any reasonable person in this state.”
Blankenship is appealing a 2-1 decision by the Second District Ohio Court of Appeals that upheld his classification as a sex offender, which before 2007 required a hearing and allowed judges to make the call.
Judge Mary Donovan was the dissenter, writing, “He was punished with a scarlet letter of 25 years duration ... grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
“This classification carries significant restraints on Blankenship’s liberty and a social stigma that interferes with employability, travel and housing.”
Clark County Prosecutor D. Andrew Wilson counters that Blankenship’s conduct was “typical of grooming behavior by sexual predators.”
“Blankenship engaged in sexual intercourse with a young and impressionable 15-year-old girl when he was an adult. This is a clear violation of the law,” his office argues.
“Registration is by no means shocking. Rather it is a consolation and comfort to the families and victims of sexual offenses.”
O’Brien filed a friend-of-the-court brief, saying automatic sex-offender classification and registration is legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that offender registration does not constitute punishment, he said.
“If it’s not punishment, it can’t be cruel and unusual,” O’Brien said.
However, Katherine Ross-Kinzie, the assistant state public defender representing Blankenship, said the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s offender-classification scheme is punitive in nature.
“Decades of sex-offender registration requirements, restrictions, and consequences constitute cruel and unusual punishment for people like Travis,” she said.
In another case, the high court will hear arguments on Wednesday in the case of Dale Johnston, a Grove City man who spent seven years on Death Row after he was wrongly convicted of the 1982 murders of his stepdaughter and her fiance.
He is asking the justices to reverse a Franklin County Court of Appeals ruling that threw out a trial judge’s finding that he was illegally detained for the dismemberment slayings in Hocking County. Such a finding is required to allow Johnston to seek damages for wrongful imprisonment from the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)