Sex offender laws: What we have, what we need
*** UPDATED (sort of) with response from the Maryland court system.
Today, Gov. Martin O'Malley is set to unveil his legislative agenda for the year. His aides say it will include a proposal requiring lifetime supervision of certain sex offenders. Lawmakers are expecting dozens of sex offender reforms, after an 11-year-old girl was abducted and killed in Salisbury last month. A sex offender is a suspect in the crime.
But what laws do we already have on the books? And how useful are they. My Sunday story examined two get-tough laws that are years old but have barely been used. Some lawmakers who worked on those provisions are livid, but the governor's office says they are simply unworkable, if not illegal.
Here's what we're not using:
"Emergency legislation from 2006 called for extra supervision of certain sex offenders, ranging from three years to a lifetime. Not a single person has been subjected to that extension, despite predictions it would affect at least 475 offenders every year.
That same measure created an advisory board to recommend overhauls of the entire sex offender system and issue its findings at the end of last year. The 13-member board was to include members of the governor's cabinet and citizens appointed by him.
The board has never met, and no report was produced.
Another law, enacted Oct. 1, 2007, requires judges to order mental health evaluations of all child sexual abusers at the time of sentencing as a way to help differentiate one-time offenders from dangerous predators.
Just two such evaluations have occurred, a tiny fraction of the people convicted of sexual abuse of a minor."
One major question that I couldn't answer in the story: Why aren't judges ordering mental health evaluations for child sex offenders, as required by law? Those evaluations were supposed to help put sexual predators away for longer terms.
From the story:
"As for why just two mental health evaluations have been conducted on child sex offenders, despite the 2007 law requiring judges to order them, "We've sort of wondered why, as well," said W. Lawrence Fitch, director of forensic service for the state Mental Hygiene Administration.
Fitch said half a dozen psychologists on contract with the agency are trained to perform the evaluations. The state sentencing commission told Simmons that nearly 300 people have been convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in the past three years.
"We really don't know why we're not being called," Fitch said. "We can speculate ... it's possible the bench and the bar just don't know about the law."
The executive branch has no enforcement authority over state courts.
A spokesman for the Maryland court system did not return phone calls and e-mails requesting information Friday. Several Circuit Court-level judges, who did not want their names used, said they had no idea they were supposed to be ordering mental health evaluations of child sex offenders."
The court system spokespeople still haven't returned my calls. I'll let you know if they do.
*** "UPDATE"
Received this e-mail at 3:30 p.m. today (more than 72 hours after calling with questions):
Good afternoon,
Our comment is as follows:
"We are currently researching the issue."
Darrell S. Pressley
Deputy Director
Office of Communications and Public Affairs
Maryland Judiciary
Comments
Why bother to use old laws and procedures when you can constantly add new ones, thereby keeping yourself before the public eye as a legislator/state/entity who is concerned for children and therefore keeps pushing for more and tougher laws? If these legislators/states/entities truly cared for children and wanted to keep them safe, they would find out through valid studies and research what works and what doesn't and base all laws and legislation on that, not on what makes them look good and the public feel safe, especially when that feeling of safety is based on a lie.
Posted by: Shelomith Stow | January 25, 2010 9:32 AM
I believe that Maryland and other states have missed the point. The evaluation of a person’s threat to children is at the crux of the sex offender problem. If States did evaluations (For example Static-99, others) on people accused and convicted of sex offenses, the courts and law enforcement would be able identify and monitor high risk sex offenders accordingly... and not waste their time, money and expertise on offenders who are non-contact, non-violent, consensual offenders, in other words low risk, one time offenders.
Here is a quote from Journal of Criminal Jurisdiction who expresses the reason for all of the unworkable, unconstitutional, illegal laws that have been created.
“There is too much anger, hatred, and fear in our society today. We are socially paralyzed by the “monsters in the dark” we create as a way to hurt and discriminate against other."
"These negative, primal human emotions have caused people to push lawmakers to the brink of extremism in passing laws, especially those relating to “protecting our children,” that make no sense and never allow a person to pay their debt to society and move on to a productive lifestyle."
"Public safety policy is served by rational, reasoned debate—not fanaticism and extremism driven by fear.”"
Posted by: Tusau | January 25, 2010 9:15 PM
most competent lawyers do have pre sentence evals done but they are never reviewed because over 95% of cases are plea barganed.
The second issue is since evaluations can and be and are not private and covered by patient client information, this can be used as a fact finding for a persons civil commitment.
Just so you know, Civil commitment was added into the laws, but it can be used on anyone. It's not just for Sex offenders.
Case in point, Shiela Dixton serves 30 days in jail. if someone wanted to, they could then just civil commit her for 20 years. It's a dangerous overbroad law as it now stands.
Posted by: Tom | January 27, 2010 12:56 PM
My comment is that they definitely need to work on their laws for offenders,but I also wonder how many of these offenders are actual offenders and were not scared into taking a plea.My son was forced into taking a plea after going to court 3 years with no one showing up at court.The week before he was sentenced they were going to drop it,then all of a sudden they told us if he did not take the plea they would give him the max on all the other charges ,which were put off over and over half of which were nitpicking and should have been threw out.To bad we did not have money for a lawyer and had to settle with a court appointed one.They also said they were 99.9% sure he would not get time if he took the plea,they knew they were lying when they said that.Now his life is ruined over a girl pulling up driving a car when he was 18 and had a one night stand .Any 18 yr old boy this could happen to,he did not think with her driving that she could be under 16.Then right after that she was dating a boy the same age,yet he was never charged,and remember this girl nor any of her family ever came to court.So I just wonder how many other young boys have been forced to take a plea?The law for making people sex offenders needs to be checked into.
Posted by: r bird | January 27, 2010 5:03 PM