Jun
24

Reforming Sex Offender Legislation

I'll be speaking this weekend at a conference in Washington, D.C., devoted to the reform of sex offender legislation. One hundred or so folks from around the nation are gathering to brainstorm on what to do about a body of law that is often harsh and indiscriminate. I should have reached out to readers here long ago for suggestions, but I didn't. If you have suggestions, please leave them in the comments section here. There's still time for me to amend my remarks.

My sense is that relief must come in the form of legislative action. The courts are simply ill-equipped to do much good. There are rare victories, such as the Ohio ruling by the state Supreme Court removing offenders from the sex offender list because the registration requirement violated the state's separation of powers doctrine. But this rare legal victory can be undone simply by drafting new requirements through the appropriate branch of government. Politics is where relief will come, not the courts.

What I see behind closed doors is frustration among judges and prosecutors in the following areas:

1. Requiring prison time and making felonious the violation of so-called Romeo and Juliet laws. These statutes typically involve claims of statutory rape between a minor and a suitor close in age. Consent is not a defense in these cases, and prison is mandatory. My sense is that there is support for legislation eliminating the requirement for prison time in such cases. It might also make sense to downgrade the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor to avoid the disabling effect of a felony on a young person's career chances.

2. Elimination of mandatory prison time for Internet-related crime in which there was neither attempted nor actual physical contact with another person. Many states and the federal government now require prison sentences for possession of even a handful of pornographic images of children. Judges often despair over the rigidity of statutory schemes requiring imprisonment of defendants in which there are no tangible victims proximately related to the possessory offense.

3. Increased accessibility to diversionary programs for those accused of child pornography offenses. Connecticut, for example, recently enacted a new psychiatric accelerated rehabilitation program. This program permits folks to submit to a period of probation and to get treatment for mental illness. If the applicant successfully completes the program, the criminal case is dismissed. The only problem with this law is that lawmakers have decreed that it is inapplicable for those accused of possession of child pornography.
This legislative decision should not trump medical judgment.

4. Elimination of mandatory prison time for non-violent sex offenses. Lawmakers can easily and constructively express social disapproval of deviant conduct by rewriting these statutes to create a presumption in favor of prison time. But this presumption should be rebuttable for good cause shown.

5. The current mania over sex offender registries is little more than moral panic. The overwhelming majority of sex offenses are committed against victims by family members or caregivers with direct and consensual access to the victim. Sex offender registries are fueled by fear of stranger danger. Putting a man who abused a family member on a public registry merely stigmatizes an offender who little danger to the community at large. There should be a broader use of law-enforcement only registrations. These lists should not be disseminated to the public.

There is traction for these ideas among judges and prosecutors. When no one is watching, and they are free to speak their mind, judges and prosecutors are often in despair about a law too rigid in conception, and too inflexible in implementation to serve the ends of justice.

What other options have you heard mentioned behind closed doors?

Comments (4)
Posted on June 30, 2010 at 8:31 pm by Anonymous
To Norm and "Guy said," I agree with what you said...
To Norm and "Guy said," I agree with what you said about young people and the so called Romeo and Juliet laws. This can distroy someones life forever. When I was in my teens I always dated guys that were older than me. When I was 17 my boyfriend was 20. I don't think in this type of consentual sex anyone should be labled as a sex offender and have to register. As far as the other things you said, I as the parent of a child who was sexually assaulted by a stranger would have to disagree. This has destroyed my childs life forever and effected our family like you'll never know. I think true sex offenders should have to register and not have the right to petition their name off of the registry. Even if they are caught with just a handful of child pornographic photos. I don't care, I want the rest of there lives ruined like they've ruined my childs.

Posted on June 27, 2010 at 8:36 pm by Anonymous
I agree with all of your suggestions as well. My ...
I agree with all of your suggestions as well. My son is a sex offender for "online solicitation" yet never intended to meet her and actually thought she was a completely different person for quite some time. Once he found out she was not "legal", he told her NO, WE CANNOT MEET, yet he went to prison because he was forced to take a plea or serve half a century in prison, all for talking online with a teenager 2 months shy of being legal to chat. My son was in his early 20's at the time. He's suffered greatly trying to work and pay his bills, been harassed, been forced to quit a job, the list goes on and on. Young men are in great danger in the U.S. and it's a problem that could so easily be solved. Stop putting consensual cases/non-violent cases/non-contact cases/internet cases as misdemeanors and get them some counseling if they need it but this prison time and registry has got to go. I have 3 other sons and it is terrifying what can happen to them. I warn them to just stay away from girls - they are too dangerous! Isn't that sad? Young people can't even be normal young people anymore.

Posted on June 25, 2010 at 12:02 am by Guy
Agree with all of those. I would also add that the...
Agree with all of those. I would also add that there should be some procedure by which a registrant could be able to petition the judiciary to remove his or her name from the registry.

Posted on June 24, 2010 at 5:51 pm by Anonymous
thank you for trying to attend! renate ilvoices.co...
thank you for trying to attend! renate ilvoices.com
For Display:
What is the month?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video