Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Goodbye to sex predator classifications

Probably the only thing I've whined about more frequently than the idiocy of the current sentencing laws and decisions is the idiocy of the current laws and decisions on sexual predator designations.  Well, it turns out that beginning next year, I won't have as much to whine about.

Why?  Because on January 1, 2008, Ohio's new sexual offender classification system takes effect.  Instead of a risk-based system -- one which attempts to gauge the chances of recidivism of an offender -- it becomes an offense-based system:  an offender's classification, and duty of registration, is based solely on the type of sexual crime committed.  It basically sets up three classifications:  "Tier I sex offender/child victim offender," "Tier II...," etc., with 15-year, 25-year, and lifetime registration requirements, respectively.  Voyeurism will land you on Tier I, rape on Tier III.  What's more, the new law scraps the recently established Juvenile Sex Offender Registry and Notification System; anyone 14 or over gets placed on one of the three tiers.

The motivation for this was money:  it brought Ohio into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, and when Congress passed that act, it stipulated that any state which enacted the law by July 27 (Ohio's was signed by the governor on June 30) would get a 10% bonus in grants created by the Walsh Act.

Turns out that's 10% of nothing:  Congress hasn't appropriated any money for the Act.

One would think that the logical starting point for a massive revision in sex offender registration would be some empirical research into how the current system is working.  If one thought that, though, one would be wrong.  What research has been done has not shown that sex offender registration laws have any effect whatsoever on the one thing they're supposed to affect:  the incidence of sex crimes.  In fact, as I mentioned several months ago, there's some basis for believing that they're actually counterproductive, in that they force sex offenders "underground," making them that much harder to track.

I'll have more on this as the new year gets closer.  I'm looking forward to it every bit as much as you are.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech