RI Legislation
As of July 2, 2009, ProJo.com reported that there are five pieces of proposed sex-offender legislation that are waiting approval from either the House or Senate. If passed, the bills would have the following effects:
1. All sex offenders living in the state for more than two weeks must register with the local police.
2. Any sex offender who knowingly enters onto a playground, daycare center or school will be guilty of a felony.
3. Any sex offender who appeals his or her Sex Offender Classification Level must wear a GPS tracking device while the appeal is pending.
4. Any sex offender who rents residential property must disclose to all prospective tenants that he or she is a registered sex offender.
5. All sex offenders must reimburse their local communities for the cost of notifying the public about their existence.
Keep an eye out to see if any or all of these bills get passed, and feel free to discuss what effect you think they would have on sex offenders and the Rhode Island community.
Update (9/23/09): Yesterday, the Providence Journal reported that the State of Rhode Island will have a year’s extension to comply with the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), which was originally set for compliance in 2010. SORNA will require each state to track sex offenders living in their state (even those who are off probation and those who have been exempted from registering with the State), and post each offender’s photo, home address, work address and license plate number on the state’s website.
In addition, Rhode Island will have to amend its current sex offender statutes to comply with SORNA, including a complete revamp of its Sex Offender Classification Levels. Under SORNA, each state will be required to classify an offender’s risk level based solely on the crime they are convicted of, as opposed to current State law, which considers a variety of factors in assessing an offender’s risk of re-offending.
Another change would be that juvenile sex offenders (those over 14-years old who commit a sex crime against a child under 12-years of age) would also fall under the registry requirement. In fact, minor offenders would have to update their registration information every four months for at least 25 years, if not for the rest of their lives.
Finally, SORNA would require Rhode Island to broaden the number of crimes that require registration, lengthen the time that sex offenders would be required to register, and increase the amount of information provided to the public about each offender.
If the State fails to comply with SORNA, it could lose 10% of its federal funding for various law-enforcement initiatives. According to the Providence Journal, that could amount to up to $500,000.
Currently, there have been at least 100 legal challenges to SORNA.
What are your thoughts on the changes that would take place in complying with SORNA?
Update (3/14/10): Georgia Bill Would Outlaw Abortion Discrimination?
According to a March 13th FoxNews.com article, there is a bill currently pending in the Rules Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives that would make it illegal for health care providers to “solicit, perform or accept funding for abortions they know are prompted by the baby’s race or gender.” While pregnant women who seek the abortion would not be held liable, the provider could be sentenced to a fine of up to $25,000 and a prison term of up to 10 years.
According to supporters of the bill, abortion clinics are set up in lower-class black neighborhoods to try and encourage black women to abort their babies. In fact, supporters of the bill have put up a billboard in Atlanta, which reads: “Black Children Are An Endangered Species – TooManyAborted.com.”
Loretta Ross, the national coordinator of SisterSong (a group supporting abortion rights), was quoted by the article as fearing that the bill will have a “chilling effect” on lower-class minority communities “that are already suffering from a lack of health providers.”
Certainly, statistics suggest that lower-class minorities have less access to birth control and sufficient sex education. Yet is the solution to scare health care providers from providing abortions to women of color? Would the bill not have the effect of scaring quality health care providers from performing abortions, thereby leaving minorities to seek out abortions from more questionable doctors and clinics?
What do you think of the Georgia bill? Do you think that health care providers are trying to make black children an endangered species by enticing black women to have abortions? Or are there simply more abortion clinics set up in urban areas because more lower-class minority women are choosing to have abortions? What do you think the “solution” is?
Update (4/25/10): Governor Schwarzenegger Endorses “Chelsea’s Law”
No surprise here: The California Legislature has already introduced a bill entitled “Chelsea’s Law” to crack down on sex offenders. The bill was inspired by the crimes committed by John Albert Gardner, who recently pled guilty to two murders of teenage girls (one of whom was named Chelsea).
Assembly Bill 1844 includes a “one-strike-and-you’re-out” policy for those committing certain sex crimes against children. If “Chelsea’s Law” is passed, those offenders would be sentenced to a life sentence (without the possibility of parole).
The bill also proposes to criminalize sex offenders (and revoke their parole) if they are found in a park “where children gather” (unless they were granted prior permission to be there from the proper authorities).
Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly endorsed the bill, stating that it is his job “to make sure that we have the right laws in place that will keep our children safe.”
Liberty Sanchez, a representative of the California Public Defenders Association, spoke out against the bill, pointing out that the Legislature should not be taking a blanket-approach to such a complex issue. Sanchez argued that by treating all sex offenders the same, the state will be wasting limited resources and doing little to deter new crimes.
A CNN contributor (and former sex-crimes prosecutor) recently suggested on HLN that all sex offenders should be put on a deserted island so that they can molest each other.
What do you think of the proposed “Chelsea’s Law”? Do you think it makes sense to treat all offenders convicted of a sex crime against a child the same? Should society lock them all up and throw away the key? Should sex offenders be prevented from even walking through a park “where children gather”?
Update (5/2/10): Sex Abuse Education Starting in Pre-K?
A recent article from the Daily Herald, a newspaper out of suburban Chicago, has detailed the story of Erin Merryn (an alias she is using to protect the identity of her family), M.S.W., a former victim of childhood sexual assault and a current advocate against sexual assault.
Merryn has helped to create/promote proposed legislation (to be entitled “Erin’s Law”), which would mandate “age-appropriate curriculum on sexual abuse for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade.”
According to Merryn, waiting to teach minors about sexual abuse until high school is too late. To protect those most susceptible to child sexual assault, education needs to start even before elementary school.
The article seems to suggest that the “education” would include teaching children how to report sexual abuse when their abuser (usually someone that they know) tells them to keep quiet.
What do you think of the proposed legislation? Is pre-kindergarten too soon to be discussing sexual assault with children? Or is education about the realities of sexual abuse by a family member or friend necessary to help child victims get the help they need? Do you think that this will encourage more false allegations, or help the truth come to light?
Update (5/27/10): RI HJC hears testimony on proposed Adam Walsh Act
Last night, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on H8152, a bill sponsored by Rep. Palumbo that would implement the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (the federal law Bush signed off on that would completely re-vamp sex offender registration and notification).
Besides basic errors that exist in the bill (such as listing major felonies as “Tier I” offenses, which are supposed to be sex offenses punishable by up to one year imprisonment (i.e., misdemeanors, not felonies), and listing the state offense for statutory rape as a “Tier I” while the federal offense is listed as a “Tier II”), the entire concept not only violates a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights; it also fails to protect the public.
Currently, the Rhode Island Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“SORCNA”), though significantly flawed, considers 15 factors as well as an offender’s conviction(s) for sex offenses in determining what risk he/she has to re-offend. Level I offenders are said to pose a low risk; Level IIs are said to pose a moderate risk; and Level IIIs are said to pose a high risk. Some of the factors include the facts of the specific sex offense (whether violence or force was used, how many victims were involved, whether the offender and victim knew each other), whether the offender participated in sex offender treatment, what (if any) support system the sex offender has in place to ensure/reduce the risk that he/she will re-offend, and whether the offender has a mental abnormality or psychological profile that would make him/her more likely to re-offend (e.g., if he/she suffered from pedophilia).
H8152 seeks to eliminate the current system and classify sex offenders on a strict offense-based system. If you commit crime X, you’re classified as Tier Y. There’s no consideration of the facts of the crime. There’s no consideration of the offender’s mental history, whether the offender has sought treatment, nothing. Oh, and to comply with federal law, the State has to include all those convicted of false imprisonment and kidnapping as “sex offenses.” That means that if a mall security guard keeps some teenagers locked in his office until the police can get there, and the guard is charged and convicted of false imprisonment, that guard will have to register every 90 days for the rest of his life as a sex offender. Granted, RI currently includes kidnapping and false imprisonment of a minor as “sex offenses,” but at least under the current law, the offender can show that he’s not a “sex offender” and can hopefully at least be classified as a Level I (who only has to register once a year for 10 years).
So why is Rhode Island trying to comply with the Adam Walsh Act? Easy: money. If R.I. doesn’t implement the required provisions of the Adam Walsh Act by next summer, it will lose over half a million dollars in federal grant money. Oh, and of course, to “streamline” our sex offender registration laws in Rhode Island, since the State has apparently been seen as being “hum drum” in punishing and monitoring sex offenders.
The bill is offensive, and takes step back in terms of protecting the public from the real threats that high-risk sex offenders pose. Instead, it lumps in very different people charged with the same crime and treats them all the same. It ignores the fact that 9 out of 10 sexual assaults against children are committed by someone the victim knew before the offense. It removes any incentive for the offender to participate in sex offender treatment. It’s going to increase the number of “Tier III” offenders living, working and going to school in our state, and scare the public into thinking their children are constantly at risk (which the State will encourage the public to think by providing “reverse 911″ notifications to the public any time a sex offender steps into their city or town). This will lead to increased harassment of “sex offenders” and their family members; lead to more “sex offenders” being physically abused and/or raped in prison; lead to more “sex offenders” losing their jobs, their homes, and their sanity. And they’ll have no recourse. No appeal. No hearing. In short, no due process.
Sound good?
Update (6/14/10): On June 11, 2010, the Rhode Island Legislature adjurned for the summer, and did so without passing H 8152 and S 2897. Stay tuned for the next round of hearings when the Legislature is back in session.
Update (6/17/11): On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Attorney Kate Godin testified for the fifth time in the last two years on the issue of Rhode Island implementing the Adam Walsh Act (“AWA”). In her testimony before the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance, Kate cited several social, fiscal and constitutional reasons why the AWA would actually harm the citizens of Rhode Island.
Watch Kate’s testimony in full here: http://youtu.be/qBeecyiINQ4 (please note the original airing of this testimony was on Capitol TV, the television production department of the Rhode Island General Assembly)
Update (9/25/11): RI SOCNU Doesn’t Allow for Listing of Secondary Address
Recently, Attorney Godin represented a registered sex offender who was being charged with failing to notify the police and SOBR of an address change. The facts were that the offender lived and listed an address in one town, but was occasionally staying overnight at another address in a different town. The offender had phone records proving that he called each city/town’s police department before spending time at the second address, pieces of mail showing he was receiving mail at the listed address, and two witnesses swearing under the pains and penalties of perjury that he had been living at the listed address.
The State and the Court recognized that the offender was still living at his listed address, but noted that the RI SOCNU does not allow an offender to list more than one address as his/her residence. Apparently, the State’s suggestion is that until the statute is amended to allow offenders to list vacation homes and/or secondary addresses, offenders should not spend any nights at any other address but his/her listed address.
Attorney Godin plans to fight the statute soon, either in court or at the State House. But in the meantime, are offenders really not supposed to stay at more than one place, ever? In Massachusetts, offenders are allowed/required to list all addresses where they spend more than a few days per month or more than two weeks per year. That helps protect not only the offender from bogus felony failing to register charges, but also arguably the community, so that the police and interested individuals are aware that the offender is spending time at more than one location. It also helps protect offenders who are transient or homeless, who cannot always guarantee they will have permanent housing throughout the year.
What do you think of Rhode Island’s SOCNU law, which is silent on the issue of a secondary address? Do you think offenders should be able/required to list more than one residence? If not, what concerns you about the issue?
Update (3/29/12): Contributing to Delinquency of Minor – bill introduced to up age of “victim”
Currently, under R.I.G.L. § 11-9-4, anyone who contributes to a minor under 16 years old committing a crime or committing any “vicious or immoral conduct” can be charged with a misdemeanor.
Besides the fact that the statute, as it currently reads, is incredibly unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, now some state senators are trying to get that age to be increased to under 18 years old. See 2012 S 2581.
So what does that mean?
Most significantly, it means that even if the minor is above the age of consent to engage in sexual acts (i.e., over 16 years of age), the person they have sex with can still be charged with a crime.
It could also mean that if two 17-year olds are standing outside, and one of them helps the other light a cigarette, both could be charged with encouraging or aiding the “immoral” behavior.
Parents, if you take your nearly 18-year old child to a concert at Twin River and you pass through the casino, you could be arrested.
It also means (arguably) that juveniles can be charged with contributing to the delinquency of their peers. If a group of high school seniors are “wander[ing] about the streets of any city or town in the nighttime without being in any lawful business or occupation,” their parents (and arguably maybe the teenagers themselves) can be charged with a misdemeanor and face a punishment of up to a $500 fine or imprisonment of up to one year.
The bill will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee tonight. Let’s see where it goes from there!
In today’s age, with children acting the way they do (with little to no negative influence from adults), do you think that Rhode Island should increase the age from minors under 16 to minors under 18? Why or why not?
For more information about legal representation of those charged with sex crimes, please visit: http://katherinegodinlaw.com/areas-of-law/sex-crimes/
Katherine E. Godin, Esq.
The Law Office of Katherine Godin, Inc.
615 Jefferson Blvd.
Warwick, RI 02886
Phone: (401) 274-2423
Fax: (401) 489-7580
Email: kg@katherinegodinlaw.com
Website: http://www.katherinegodinlaw.com
