Sex offenders challenge law
Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram
That leaves at least 361 objections from
Defense attorneys Laura Perkovic and Kenneth Lieux both argued that the law, which took effect at the beginning of the year, unfairly applies the new registration requirements retroactively.
“There is additional punishment,” Perkovic said. “This is all punitive.”
Under the new law — known as Adam’s Law for Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old
Lieux said the state and federal constitutions prevent additional criminal sanctions from being imposed after someone has already been convicted and sentenced for a crime.
The law would be fair if it only applied to those who committed sex crimes after it took effect, critics have said.
Assistant County Prosecutor Robert Flanagan said the law wasn’t a criminal sanction and reflected only a minor change.
“It’s like changing a name from Coke to Pepsi,” he said.
Visiting Judge William Coyne, who will decide the cases, disagreed.
“That’s not necessarily accurate,” he said. “It’s more than just changing a name.”
Coyne also rejected Flanagan’s argument that the only thing he should consider in the hearing was whether the sex offenders had been properly notified by the state, saying he would at least consider the constitutional arguments of the sex offenders.
Flanagan also argued that the changes were designed to protect the public from sex offenders, not sex offenders from the embarrassment of community notification.
Lieux said the state was effectively breaching the contracts it entered into with his clients when they agreed to plea bargains in their cases. He said if the law is allowed to stand and punish sex offenders whose cases were already concluded, it means the state could impose harsher and harsher penalties on sex offenders at a later date.
“What’s to say the legislature won’t do something more draconian in the future?” he said.
Lieux and Perkovic also complained that the state hadn’t followed the law when it notified the state’s approximately 30,000 sex offenders of the changes. Instead of using registered mail, as the law required, they said the state used certified mail.
According to the U.S. Postal Service, certified mail costs $2.65 plus postage and provides a receipt that the addressee has received the letter. Registered mail is a more secure means of sending mail and costs $9.50.
Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, whose office sent the notification letters, said the state complied with the law because state law defines the two types of mail as being the same thing.
“We are complying due to the definition under
Coyne said the state had made an effort to comply with the spirit of the law and he wouldn’t consider that a reason to overturn the changes.
Flanagan said Coyne plans to hear about 25 cases per month.
It’s a pace that could drag the hearings well into next year.
Contact Brad Dicken at 329-7147 or dicken@chroniclet.com.
| |
|
Filed by Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram March 19th, 2008 in Local and State. Popularity: 7% |
 Email this story
 Print this story
Read comments and discuss this story
Report an innappropriate comment
|
In order to comment, you must agree to our user agreement
and discussion guidelines.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you aren't already registered, click here. If you are registered, click here to log in.
Comments
Comment from
JZ
March 19, 2008, 7:15 pm
I,m certainly not pro-sex offender, however, the federal government is way out of line again. Witholding federal funds if states don,t comply with a feel good get tough on crime walsh act. Let,s be fair and objective. Not all sec offenders are the same. Some are the 22 year old having consexual sex with say a 16 year old, some are the 26 year old teacher having consensual sex with an 18 year old student which wasn,t a crime how ever many years ago and some are very henious rapes and of course any sexual molestation of a child. There are gradations. Again, I,m not condoning the first 2 examples as good behavior, but, to make some of these people register for life is as the attorney said draconian. Worst of all, the federal government uses our tax money as ransom to tell states how to govern. Just like work place drug testing or the feds will do the same thing. Democrats and republicans will both jump on this bandwagon just like the drug war etc. Politicians will be afraid to criticize the walsh act for fear of appearing that they coddle sex offenders or something like that. When will our state politicians do more to stand up against these federal intrusions. Like the DEA raiding marijuana clinics in california after citizens pass referendums and legislators in how many states have decriminalized it. Whether you think marijuana is ok or not it,s still an overbearing federal government dictating to states what to do. The Walsh Act is another example and about as bad a piece of legislation as it gets.
Comment from
corymeister732
March 20, 2008, 7:34 am
Brad Dicken describes some of the arguments made but does not say what the outcome of these case was?Were they just continued or what?
Dictating where a sex offender can live is like telling a convicted bank robber that he can not live 1,000 feet of a bank. Would that do any good? No! He’ll find a bank if he wants to rob it.
To be fair, we should be informed as to where ALL criminals live. Do you know how many Burglars live around you? No. There is no registry for them or any other x-cons that are released. Why not? Is it just open season on sex offenders?
I’m thinking this unfair law is good politics for an election year.
Comment from
maerd
March 20, 2008, 9:12 am
Got to tell you, the numbers for repeat sexual offenders is all over the place, although for child molestation as I understand it, there is no counsling or treatment that works. I’ve seen programs where the talk to convicted child molesters that they CANNOT CONTROL THEIR IMPULSES. Now whether this is true or not you know some of them including rapist and other sorts of sexual offenders are going to do it again. Some of them we will never know about. I don’t want to include the 21 year old in love and vice versa the 17 year old with all of this.
As for the teacher regardless of thier age it is wrong.That teacher is in a position of a educator, not a fornicator. They are just as bad. For all of you people who say this law is bad, why not let them live next to you or better yet in your home. (I pray that there are no childred in your home).
I DO NOT WANT THESE ANIMALS NEAR MY CHILDRENS SCHOOLS OR ANY OTHER SCHOOLS!!!!! Now it may be true that they just find another way, at least this is a step in the right direction. Life in prison or execution for two time offenses should be in order. Please look at this web site it is chilling.http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html
Comment from
maerd
March 21, 2008, 10:54 am
Also as far as losing the federal funding, I think the city of Elyria could use as much as that money as they can to fix the rest of the road craters in the city.
Comment from
DH
March 21, 2008, 2:53 pm
In response to maerd.
I think many agree that the John Walsh Act could be beneficial and by you stating that you “don’t want to include the 21 year old in love and vice versa the 17 year old with all of this” tells me that you agree that this Act should not include these types of cases. Unfortunately, they do. They include 21 year olds that dated minors and plea bargained so they can get on with their lives and not they are being re-sentenced and convicted for life.
Never heard the explanation about the difference between a rapist and one who commits molestation but it makes sense that the later cannot be treated and in this case they should never see parole.
I don’t think I would use the comparison between a sex offender and a burglar but why don’t we feel obligated to track murders. Their tendency to repeat is as high as that of a rapist.
To re-sentence those who have served their time I believe is unjust therefore unconstitutional. If we allow our state to get away with such unlawful practices for a price, who’s to say, that our very own freedom can’t be bought for a price.
Comment from
Jack Miller
March 22, 2008, 10:58 am
Well Stated Maerd! If I said what I would do to child molesters and rapists I would be banned from the site. There is no cure for sexual predators. I do agree 21 year olds going with a 17 shouldn’t be a prosecutable offense. I was 19 and my girlfriend, at the time, was 16. We ended up getting married and having three children together. If you want to be shocked at how many sexual offenders live in the 44035 area code (or any area), then use this site; http://www.familywatchdog.us/
Write a Comment