Questions raised over federal sex offender law – Part 2

During our last post, we briefly gave an overview of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and spoke about some consequences of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) portion of the federal law.

The federal sex offender registry has raised questions about sex crime punishment and rehabilitation and has grown state registries and burdened law enforcement departments.

Critics of sex offender registries have long questioned their effectiveness and believe registries can destabilize sex offenders. Those who support registries argue they provide public safety benefits.

A public policy consultant for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers says registries generally create roadblocks to successful sex offender treatment, supervision and management. The consequence can be isolation and offenders who return to a community need a strong support network built on family, religious institutions and work opportunities. A registry available to the public creates a stigma that inhibits work opportunities, living among families and creating faith-based relationships. The end result is that an individual may reach an emotional place where they are likely to reoffend.

There is also a misconception about the purpose of sex offender registries. Many people believe registration notification programs are meant to reduce future offenses; they are not. Public registries are instead meant to primarily be a law enforcement tool and a tool to help the public protect themselves according to the director of Ohio’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. In addition, registries do not list everyone who is a threat since all future offenders are not known to police.

Though critics and supporters of registries disagree about rehabilitation and future offenses, both camps agree that registries are important to help monitor truly egregious sexual offenders if they are allowed back into the community.

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.