Maine Legislature Considers Modified Sex Offender Registry

From the Bangor Daily News:

. . .

Maine’s online sex offender registry was controversial even before April 2006, when a young Canadian man stalked and killed two men whose names and addresses he found there. It didn’t matter what crimes they committed; they were monsters in Stephen Marshall’s eyes.

But since the deaths of William Elliott, 24, of Corinth and Joseph Gray, 57, of Milo, Maine’s legislators have felt increasing pressure to improve the registry.

"In truth, those [killings] put the pressure where it needs to be — on us," said Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, co-chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Diamond and his colleagues in Augusta spent part of last week outlining plans for legislation that would create a tiered system for online registrants, similar to what other states have done.

"The registry is a very emotional issue for some people and I’ve certainly gained a lot of knowledge about this," said Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison, the ranking minority member on the committee. "What we’ve learned most is that there are some offenders that should be on the registry for life, but others should not, and certainly [Elliott] fits into that category," Sykes said.

William Elliott was a 19-year-old when he had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor and served a brief sentence, but was required to register as a sex offender.

. . .

Under a tiered system, however, offenders like Elliott would be in the lowest-risk class and their names would be on a "silent" registry accessible only to public safety officials. A second tier, whose names would be available to the public on request, would apply to offenders who committed nonviolent felony sex crimes. The most serious offenders — child rapists, for instance — would fall into the third tier that could be accessed by anyone at any time.

The details haven’t been made final, Diamond said, but the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will ultimately develop legislation centered on the tiered system for the next session.

Both Diamond and Sykes support a tiered system, although Sykes said it should be based on the type of conviction. Gov. John Baldacci, however, has said he thinks risk assessment of offenders should be the criterion for the tiers.

"Risk assessment is too subjective and can be challenged in court ad nauseam," Sykes said. "If the governor is insistent on risk assessment, I’m wary of that."

. . .

Committee members have studied the registry at length. Last year, the committee developed LD 446, an Act to Improve the Use of Information Regarding Sex Offenders to Better Ensure Public Safety and Awareness. That bill did not propose a tiered system but limited the circumstances under which sex offenders who were convicted of a crime between 1982 and 1992 would be included in the registry. The change was meant to address concerns that the registration law retroactively increased an offender’s punishment.

Ultimately, Baldacci couldn’t get over the fact that the change would have allowed nearly 600 offenders to have their names removed from the registry. He refused to sign the bill in late April, a tactic known as a pocket veto, which effectively negated months of work by committee members.

. . .

This year, Maine legislators must consider the federal Adam Walsh Act, which establishes basic guidelines for sex offender registries. Failure to meet the federal requirements by the summer of 2009 would deny the state 10 percent of certain federal law enforcement grant funds.

Comments

[Jeff Paul Internet Millions]

I wanted to read your post but was not able to view it. How can I view your post?

[Tried By Conscience]

It would seem to me, given the loss analysis, that they'd be better off losing the federal funds. That way they not only do not spend multiple millions on the tracking system (due to indigent offenders) but they also don't have to defend the law against multiple lawsuits.

In addition, they don't have to take the flak for passing a law that is clearly targeting a single class of persons for further punishment.

It might be useful, for instance, to look at the Federalist papers 57, in order to understand the limitations intended on this particular type of legislation, as well as the discussions of ex-post-facto and attainder under federalist 84.

In addition, the separation of the criminal and civil courts in Federalist 83, as well as the definition of civil law a the time of the Constitution. (Estate and escrow court, torts, and contract law)

Add to this that civil law could not be punitive, or cause the creation of punishment for actions done (restorative damage only save in willful and malicious action) and it makes ex post facto in civil law utterly nonsensical.