Jessica Lunsford Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Jessica Lunsford Act (H.R. 1505 of the 109th Congress), is a proposed federal law in the United States which would, if adopted, mandate more stringent tracking of released sex offenders. The bill is modeled after the Florida state law known as Jessica's Law.
The bill is named for Jessica Lunsford, the nine-year-old Florida girl believed to have been abducted and killed in February of 2005 by convicted sex offender John Evander Couey. Her father Mark Lunsford was instrumental in bringing publicity to the issue of released sex offenders and played a major role in the events leading to the development of the act's being proposed as a law at the national level.
Contents |
[edit] Bill objectives
The bill, if passed, would reduce federal grant money under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. § 14071) and Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3765) to any U.S. State that doesn't conform its sex offender registration laws to the following:
- Require sex offenders who were convicted more than twice of failing to properly register as a sex offender to wear Global Positioning System devices on their ankles for five years following their release from prison, or for ten years for those deemed sexual predators, to better enable law enforcement personnel to track their whereabouts. Costs of tracking and monitoring offenders must be absorbed by each State.
- States must mail sex offender registration forms at least twice per year, at random times, to verify registrants' addresses. Any registrants who do not respond within 10 days must be considered non-compliant.
The bill was introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite R-Florida.
[edit] State-level counterparts
Jessica's Law is the general term which also applies to state-level versions, including the Florida law that inspired the federal Jessica Lunsford Act. For similar Florida and other state legislation, see "Jessica's Law".
[edit] Controversy and criticism
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
Critics of this bill have argued that it is based on skewed statistics. A proposed California version (Proposition 83, on the Nov 2006 ballot) is opposed by several prominent officials, including Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and California assemblymember Mark Leno, largely because of concerns that the 2000-feet "no-go" zone around schools requirement would be unenforceable, or that the law would lead to sex offenders moving from urban to rural areas. Another criticism is that the unprecedented restrictions would cause problems with securing employment, and finding a place of residence, making it harder to remain law-abiding, and lead such individuals not to register.
Because this law would be difficult to enforce, some officials fear spending excessive amounts to track those not complying with the law, or may fail to enforce the law altogether. Several district attorneys and their offices have publicly voiced their opposition.
Much controversy exists regarding how persons become labeled a sex offender. Most Americans believe that the registry lists convicted child molesters when in actuality, many offenders listed on the Registries have been convicted of poor-behavior-choice offenses, which involve no victim and no physical contact. An example of such would include online talk with an undercover police officer posing as an underage minor. Teenagers involved in a consensual sexual relationship, known as "Romeo and Juliet" relationships, with the male or female partner considered underage in the eyes of the law, are also listed as sex offenders on the nation's registries. Most charged persons lack adequate funding for a legal defense to fight such charges. The result is a plea bargain, which in some states, is followed by automatic sexual-offender registration regardless of judicial discretion, such as decreed by Florida Statute 943.0436 [1]. This means the power of a judge to impose a fair and just sentence for first time offenders has been legislatively — and quite effectively— been removed from legal due process. Registration is for life or 20 years, whatever comes first, and permeates every aspect of the registrant's life. Advocates believe politicians have run unchecked with this issue, due to guaranteed press coverage, easy votes and the guarantee of federal funding for law enforcement with the passage of one new sex offender law annually. An overhaul of the nation's registries through the incorporation of a tier level system is advocated as a method which would allow the public to more accurately determine the true risk of a registered offender living in their neighborhood while allowing law enforcement to better quality supervise those persons considered truly dangerous not only to children but also, to women and the elderly.
[edit] The civil rights of non-offending family members
[edit] Impact on offender's family members
Advocates indicate that the civil rights of convicted persons and their non-offending family members is forever affected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine [2] have brought new concerns to misue of the registry and to the safety of nonoffending family members. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. [3] which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced."
[edit] References
- Arthur A. Benson II. Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. (Case No. SC86573). May 2006.
- Carl Jones. "Porn Law Goes Too Far". Daily Business Review. April 10, 2006.
- Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. "Groups Propose Tier System For Sex Registry". May 2006.
- Rebecca Van Drunen. Confederation College. "Outcast Society: A Closer Look at North American Sexual Offenders in the Twenty-First Century". May 5th, 2006.
- Sharon Wilson. "Sex Offenders: The Other Side". Orlando Sentinel. 10/23/2005.
[edit] External links
- [4] Information site opposing proposition 83, Jessica's Law.
- Jessica's Law 2006 An organization supporting passage of this law.
- Controlling Sex Offender Reentry Article by Jason Peckenpaugh and Professor Joan Petersilia of California Prison Reform.
- Don't sign Jessica's law American Chronicle article critical of Jessica's law.
- SOhopeful International.[5] An organization supporting the strengthening of sex offender registries.
- Families in Social Crisis Legal Defense Fund, Inc, [6]
- Full text of the bill: [7]
