Questions raised over federal sex offender law – Part 1

Last week was the deadline for U.S. states and territories to be in compliance with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The overall purpose of the federal law is the development of a national standard to keep track of those who have committed sex crimes. States were given five years to be in compliance with the law or face a 10 percent deduction in federal justice funding. So far, only 14 states are substantially in compliance with a portion of the law called the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The federal registration system has brought up questions on the effectiveness of rehabilitation and punishment.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is named after the six-year-old son of John Walsh, the victim advocate and host of America’s Most Wanted. The SORNA portion of the law has bolstered state sex crime registries by broadening the types of crimes eligible for registration and extending the registration time period for specific adult and juvenile offenses.

The federal registry rules have increased the number of people on sex crime registries by as much as 500 percent in some states. Controversial aspects of the federal registration law include registration for offenders who have already served their registration time period and registration of some juveniles who were formerly shielded from registration for rehabilitative reasons.

Critics of the new federal sex offender registration law say the system puts too many offenders on the list and overloads the resources of law enforcement. The federal registration system registers an offender based on the offense they committed rather than registering people based on risk. Because of the new system of registration, the number of offenders on Wyoming’s registry increased from 125 to 1,450.

Critics of the sex offender registry argue that just because someone is in compliance does not mean the person will not reoffend and therefore the system can create a false sense of security. Some law enforcement officials believe they spend too much time registering those who want to rehabilitate but do not have enough time to reach offenders out of compliance. Next time we will continue to explore the issue.

Source: CNN.com, “Five years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law,” Emanuella Grinberg, 7/28/11

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.