|
Where Are We with SB 10?
The courts, State legislators and the community as a whole have witnessed the challenges with the new rules of implementing the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act in Ohio. In an effort to gain an unspecified federal bonus, this summer, Ohio passed the implementation of SB 10 that would reclassify sex offenders on stricter terms in a Tier level rating. The problems with the new rules as predicted by advocates opposing harsh and unreasonable language has included constitutional issues, the administrative costs for implementation and the uncertain future of teenage offenders.
The AWA new rule digs a little deeper to hold sex offenders to longer registrations periods and it removes the discretionary rights of judges.
The Ohio Public Defender’s Office (OPD), citing constitutional concerns about retroactive punishment, is asking judges to hold off on applying the rules to sex offenders who were convicted before the effective date of the legislation. Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove said that offenders already required to register under the old law will still have to follow the terms of the old law until the matter is resolved by higher courts.
Stark, Licking, Van Wert and Warren counties already have taken measures similar to Summit's to halt enforcement of at least parts of the law, said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio public defender's office in Columbus.
Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said the judges of his court are staying the reclassifications one case at a time, and shipping the cases to retired Cuyahoga County Judge William Coyne, who will hear them.
For more information on the OPD, visit the website at http://www.opd.ohio.gov/Adam_Walsh/AW_FAQ.htm for FAQ’s and http://www.opd.ohio.gov/Adam_Walsh/AW_juveniles_handout.pdf for basic information about AWA.
Letters to the Editor
Voices for Ohio’s Children Juvenile Justice Initiative encourage the community to educate legislators about the challenges of SB 10 and recommend changes to the rules. A sample letter to the editor (LTE) listed below will help you craft your personal message. Keep in mind when sending your letter the following tips:- Be mindful of the newspaper’s policy on letters to the editor. Most have a suggested or even strict word limit (usually around 250 or 300 words). Some now require letters to be submitted electronically.
- If possible, email your letter. This results in quicker consideration and more timely publication.
- You may need to email your letter in the body of the email message, as opposed to attaching it to your email as a Word or other document. Some papers will not accept emails with attachments.
- Be sure to include your contact information, especially your daytime phone number (most papers will call to verify you wrote the letter before they publish it) and the city you live in (so the paper knows you’re local). Some papers may require—but won’t publish—your full address.
To the Editor:
I write in response to the recent article/editorial/column on Senate Bill 10, Ohio’s attempt to implement the Adam Walsh Act (“Title of Article,” date of publication). I am a parent/treatment provider/advocate/etc. who works/lives with the effects of laws like SB 10 every day.
Include, if you wish, personal information (one or two sentences; probably no more than one paragraph) about the work you do, your experience as a parent, etc.
Include your opinion about the negative consequences of SB 10. Possible points to make:- The retroactive application of SB 10 is unconstitutional and is creating an expensive mess in our county courts.
- SB 10 ignores scientific research about the effectiveness of treatment and rehabilitation, and studies about the recidivism rates of sex offenders. Instead, it panders to public misconceptions and creates a false sense of security.
- SB 10, and too many other laws, ignores the differences between children and adults.
- Juvenile sex offenders are incredibly amenable to treatment and have recidivism rates of only 4–10%.
- Many juvenile sex offenders were victimized sexually, physically, and emotionally prior to committing their offense.
- Even adult sex offenders have recidivism rates that are significantly lower than the recidivism rates of other adult offenders.
- The Adam Walsh Act feeds off the misconception of “stranger danger.” In reality, nearly 90% of sex offenses are committed by a family member or other person known to the victim.
- The severe, mandatory penalties SB 10 imposes could result in fewer intra-familial sex offenses being reported. If that happens, the offender receives neither punishment nor treatment, and the victim receives no counseling.
- Severe restrictions like those SB 10 imposes only serve to destabilize former offenders who are trying to get their lives back on track.
- Offenders are significantly less likely to reoffend if they can find employment and stable housing, and have access to treatment. SB 10 makes these nearly impossible.
- We should be focusing our resources on proven methods of treatment.
- Before SB 10, Ohio judges would hear expert testimony and make a determination about which offenders were most likely to commit another offense, and only those offenders were labeled as “the worst of the worst.”.
- SB 10 eliminates judicial discretion in sex offender classification hearings.
- Under SB 10, the online registry of sex offenders will be flooded with thousands of people who are highly unlikely to ever commit another offense. This dilutes the effectiveness of the registry and provides only a false sense of security.
- SB 10 will result in former offenders unable to find jobs or homes and unable to access necessary treatment, leading to higher rates of recidivism. Higher recidivism means more victims.
- The state legislature rushed SB 10 into law without fully considering the costs and consequences.
- Congress mandated that the states implement the Adam Walsh Act, and the Ohio legislature mandated that the counties implement SB 10, but neither legislative body has allocated any money for implementation.
- SB 10 and the Adam Walsh Act may be good politics, but they are not good policy.
I encourage our state legislators and members of Congress to reconsider Senate Bill 10 and the Adam Walsh Act, and to enact laws that will truly improve public safety.
Your Name
Your Town
|
