Ohio over-reactionary yet again

[dannyboy]

Bill targets sexual predators (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS01/706140328/1077/COL02)

Solicitors of children would get mandatory jail time

BY SHEILA MCLAUGHLIN | SMCLAUGHLIN@ENQUIRER.COM

Sexual predators who use the Internet to try to lure children into having sex - even if it's a police sting - would face mandatory jail time under a bill introduced in Columbus on Wednesday.

The proposal by Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, comes three days after The Enquirer published an exclusive story saying that men caught in local and national predator stings were receiving little, if any, jail time. That's because some judges think the stings amount to a victimless crime.

Schaffer said the Enquirer article "really helped to pinpoint the problem."

"Even though we have nationally renowned sting operations in Ohio for catching these predators before they can cause harm to a child, our laws are not strong enough for holding these predators accountable," he said.


The Enquirer's analysis of 46 cases in Hamilton, Butler, Warren, Greene and Darke counties from 2003-06 showed that almost one-quarter of the men received probation and that a majority of others received a month in jail.

Schaffer's proposal would require at least one year in prison for first-time offenders convicted of enticing children under 13 online and requires a six-month jail term for online solicitation of teens age 13 through 15. The law also would apply to stings where police pose as teens. The required jail time is doubled for second offenses.

"This technology is a wonderful thing," Schaffer said of the Internet. "But, like anything else in life, when the dark side gets a hold of it... boy, we've got to protect our families."

The men usually troll the chatrooms on Web sites such as Yahoo and MySpace, police said.

They build up trust with the child, offer presents, and eventually lure the child to a clandestine meeting to engage in sex.

Police locally have beefed up online predator stings in the last five years, arresting more than 141 men.

Lt. Jeff Braley, who has arrested 32 men in Internet stings since November 2005, said Schaffer's proposal would help but not a cure-all.

That's because restricting an offender's Internet access is impossible, even though most sentences ban them from computer use.

"At least it's giving us a little headway," Braley said of Schaffer's proposal.

"There's no way in the world you are ever going to be able to restrict their access to the Internet. That would be a complete answer. But this is going to prohibit them from doing it for six months or a year."

Schaffer's bill isn't the first time legislators have tried to increase punishment for the online crime.

Similar legislation introduced in the House in March 2006 never made it out of the Criminal Justice Committee for a vote.

Ohio first strengthened its importuning laws involving solicitation by phone or computer in 2001 to make the crime a felony, and required convicted offenders to be registered as sex offenders.

[dannyboy]

Hmm...instead of mandatory jail time, how about mandatory counseling? Like we have such an abundance of jail space already. :rolleyes:

[markalot]

Well, I have to admit you have a good point.

If we throw them in jail for a short time just for soliciting odds are pretty good they'll do it again. Of course I might suggest we lock them up for good, after all we've identified them through the sting, now get them off the street.

[Duemellon]

Well, I have to admit you have a good point.

If we throw them in jail for a short time just for soliciting odds are pretty good they'll do it again. Of course I might suggest we lock them up for good, after all we've identified them through the sting, now get them off the street.They don't mention that most of those caught, this is their 1st offense & many, their 1st attempt.

They need counselling, not jailtime. If they want to fish for possible offenders by advertising & aggressive interaction, then they need to realize they're inviting people to behave differently. That's why people who wouldn't normally do stuff like that do so. Simply put, they need counselling.

Now, if a repeat-pre-sonsent-offender is busted doing this, that's a diff story.

[dannyboy]

In some of these cases, the cops doing the sting are actually doing the soliciting. I do think in some cases there is some entrapment going on. I don't think it's fair that police are allowed to break the laws they are sworn to uphold just in order to have another tool at their disposal to do their job.

[aqualou]

if the mandatory trend continues we could have robot judges . . . that would be cool. :rolleyes:

[gwar469]

Bill targets sexual predators (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS01/706140328/1077/COL02)


what's this Bill guy's last name, so I know who to look out for.

[epeolatry]

In some of these cases, the cops doing the sting are actually doing the soliciting. I do think in some cases there is some entrapment going on. I don't think it's fair that police are allowed to break the laws they are sworn to uphold just in order to have another tool at their disposal to do their job.

I totally agree.

[bankstreet]

These guys who get caught must be dumb as dirt. Don't they know there are no minors on the internet looking for sex with old men. If there is some kid who says they want to hook up with you it is really the police. I think Dateline pretty much proved this. I mean really, are there a large number of cases where old men are meeting minors for a good old fashion sex romp? Maybe the cops should be focusing their efforts elsewhere.

[classicgrrl]

the odds of your stupid brat getting "solicited" on the net is pretty damned low. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by your drunk, drugged, unemployed boyfriend are MUCH higher. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by a FAMILY MEMBER are 1 in 5.

Instead of trying to put everybody and their brother in jail that will *maybe* effect a very tiny population - why don't we take that taxpayer money and start or shore up state wide programs to assist families in knowing what to look for when their stupid brats have been fucked up or are in the midst of being fucked up. And perhaps targets these programs to demographics who are likely to have their stupid brats fucked up. And maybe include programs to help the stupid brats who have been fucked up. And include programs and policies to turn the heads of the mommies and daddies who ignore the fact that their stupid brats are getting fucked up under their god-dammed noses in their own god-dammed house.

or solve the whole problem in one fell swoop by forcing those folks who want to be mommies and daddies to take a "how to not fuck up your stupid brat class" before they have the stupid brats to start with; after all, idiots who fuck up stupid brats are partially created by dumbasses who can't/won't/don't know how to parent.



sorry, I feel better now.

[classicgrrl]

These guys who get caught must be dumb as dirt. Don't they know there are no minors on the internet looking for sex with old men. If there is some kid who says they want to hook up with you it is really the police. I think Dateline pretty much proved this. I mean really, are there a large number of cases where old men are meeting minors for a good old fashion sex romp? Maybe the cops should be focusing their efforts elsewhere.

I think most folks who actually get on the net and do this are not sexual predators - they are wanting an adult on the other end to PLAY a child. Most probably have no interest in trying to have sex with a 12 year girl.

Sexual Fantasy enacted on the web. and yes, the police should be focusing their efforts elsewhere - see my rant above.

[epeolatry]

the odds of your stupid brat getting "solicited" on the net is pretty damned low. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by your drunk, drugged, unemployed boyfriend are MUCH higher. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by a FAMILY MEMBER are 1 in 5.

Instead of trying to put everybody and their brother in jail that will *maybe* effect a very tiny population - why don't we take that taxpayer money and start or shore up state wide programs to assist families in knowing what to look for when their stupid brats have been fucked up or are in the midst of being fucked up. And perhaps targets these programs to demographics who are likely to have their stupid brats fucked up. And maybe include programs to help the stupid brats who have been fucked up. And include programs and policies to turn the heads of the mommies and daddies who ignore the fact that their stupid brats are getting fucked up under their god-dammed noses in their own god-dammed house.

or solve the whole problem in one fell swoop by forcing those folks who want to be mommies and daddies to take a "how to not fuck up your stupid brat class" before they have the stupid brats to start with; after all, idiots who fuck up stupid brats are partially created by dumbasses who can't/won't/don't know how to parent.



sorry, I feel better now.

Why apologize? You make a really good point.

[yoshomon]

Word to classicgrrl. Internet predator hysteria is ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to "make the children safer". It's part of a wider pattern of pedophile hysteria in this country, which is usually just cover for homophobia or supporting the prison-industrial complex.

[the happy prole]

the odds of your stupid brat getting "solicited" on the net is pretty damned low. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by your drunk, drugged, unemployed boyfriend are MUCH higher. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by a FAMILY MEMBER are 1 in 5.

Which is also why the whole sexual offender registry and associated hysteria is stupid. Don't look at the strangers five blocks away, look at the people in you trust in your house and around your kids. That's the real danger.

I also agree that some of the police tactics used are entrapment. And the danger here is that even if you think it's okay in one instance because sexual offenders are that dangerous, there's nothing stopping cops from doing it to pursue any other "crime.'

I'm also not even sure what the problem is with internet sex. You're not really physically coercing anyone. If someone doesn't like it, they just log off. I mean really, isn't it just two people masturbating while typing? If you're 14 and want to get off, you look at some fake pictures on a magazine or the net and do your thing. And you probably have a fake conversation in your head while you do it. Totally legal and no one thinks you're not corrupted for life or suffering any sort of damage. All that's happening here is you are having a fake conversation not in your head with someone's fake picture. I don't see how it's that different.

If I have a porno site with a webcam of me doing whatever and some kid watches it and jerks off did I just solicit sex with an underage victim? Does the fact that he lied and checked the "yes" box on a porn site mean that no damage was done, whereas if there is no "yes" box he's screwed up for life?

Having said all that, if you arrange for a physical meeting with someone you think is under the age of consent and you show up and act shady, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever arresting you for solicitation, nor with with a mandatory minimum six months or one year jail term.

[PeterABnny]

or solve the whole problem in one fell swoop by forcing those folks who want to be mommies and daddies to take a "how to not fuck up your stupid brat class" before they have the stupid brats to start with; after all, idiots who fuck up stupid brats are partially created by dumbasses who can't/won't/don't know how to parent.[/rant]



I would have mandated intelligence tests so stupid people don't breed and further pollute the gene pool, but I guess your way works, too. :D

[PeterABnny]

I think most folks who actually get on the net and do this are not sexual predators - they are wanting an adult on the other end to PLAY a child. Most probably have no interest in trying to have sex with a 12 year girl.



Don't be too sure of that, CG. You might be surprised. Perverts are, by definition, just that.

[classicgrrl]

Don't be too sure of that, CG. You might be surprised. Perverts are, by definition, just that.

Perverts are, by definition, what society deems them to be.

I've been called a Pervert. :rolleyes:

[dannyboy]

Perverts are, by definition, what society deems them to be.

Yes. The definition of perverts will always be in a state of flux depending on how open or repressed a culture is sexually.

[crazyroommate]

the odds of your stupid brat getting "solicited" on the net is pretty damned low. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by your drunk, drugged, unemployed boyfriend are MUCH higher. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by a FAMILY MEMBER are 1 in 5.

Instead of trying to put everybody and their brother in jail that will *maybe* effect a very tiny population - why don't we take that taxpayer money and start or shore up state wide programs to assist families in knowing what to look for when their stupid brats have been fucked up or are in the midst of being fucked up. And perhaps targets these programs to demographics who are likely to have their stupid brats fucked up. And maybe include programs to help the stupid brats who have been fucked up. And include programs and policies to turn the heads of the mommies and daddies who ignore the fact that their stupid brats are getting fucked up under their god-dammed noses in their own god-dammed house.

or solve the whole problem in one fell swoop by forcing those folks who want to be mommies and daddies to take a "how to not fuck up your stupid brat class" before they have the stupid brats to start with; after all, idiots who fuck up stupid brats are partially created by dumbasses who can't/won't/don't know how to parent.



sorry, I feel better now.

Amen! Why do we blame EVERYONE but the parents these days? It all starts at home. I also realize that you can't control/see everything your child does but you have to at least freaking talk to them also.
And Jail is not the answer. I second that we need to council these folks.

[PeterABnny]

Yes. The definition of perverts will always be in a state of flux depending on how open or repressed a culture is sexually.


Possibly. But a 45-year-old guy getting off on watching - or engaging in - sex with an unwilling 5-year-old girl shouldn't be considered normal behavior in any culture, should it?

[dannyboy]

Possibly. But a 45-year-old guy getting off on watching - or engaging in - sex with an unwilling 5-year-old girl shouldn't be considered normal behavior in any culture, should it?
Well, right or wrong, pedophila was a relatively common practice in ancient Greece and Rome. If a 45 year old engages in unwilling sex with a 5 year old, that, to me, has gone beyond the realm of sex into a display of power and I would equate it to physical assault.

[dannyboy]

From today's Enquirer (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NEWS01/307260011)

Restricting sex offenders

BY GREGORY KORTE | GKORTE@ENQUIRER.COM

Can the state tell a convicted sex predator where he can and cannot live – even after he’s served his sentence?

That’s a question likely to be taken up this fall, as the high courts in both Ohio and Kentucky are set to hear arguments in two local appeals arguing that it’s unconstitutional – and bad public policy – to prohibit where sex offenders can live.

Both Ohio and Kentucky restrict sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, some day care centers and, in Kentucky, public playgrounds.


Lawyers for the sex offenders say the residency restrictions constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto law because they retroactively punish a sex offender for something he’s already served time for.

In the Ohio case, Gerry R. Porter Jr. is fighting to stay in his Green Township home, which is 983 feet from St. Jude’s School.

Convicted twice for illegal sexual contact with two family members, Porter argues that the law is unconstitutional because he owned his home and was convicted before the law was passed in 2003.

Porter describes the law as “stupidity.” It says he can’t live in his home with his family, but has no problem with him living in an apartment three miles away “with 10 or 12 kids who live in the same building,” Porter says.

He also can, and does, attend sporting events at his son’s school. “I sit there in the cafeteria and have doughnuts with the kids,” he says, noting that he never goes unchaperoned for his own protection.

Two Hamilton County courts called the law “a reasonable method to prevent recidivism and to protect a particularly vulnerable population.”

But in Miami County, a three-judge appeals court ruled the opposite: that forcing a sex offender to move from a home that he has owned since before his conviction is an unconstitutional violation of his property rights.

The Ohio Supreme Court will break the deadlock after it hears oral arguments in October.

A similar situation presents itself in Kentucky. Most courts have upheld the law, but Kenton County District Judge Martin J. Sheehan threw out cases against 11 sex offenders.

“If what we seek is to protect children from sex offenders, how do we accomplish that aim by imposing a 1,000-foot residency restriction around schools, playgrounds, day-care facilities and the like?” Sheehan said.

“If the offender is still permitted to visit and linger in such areas for protracted periods, so long as he does not sleep there, what actual protection have we provided our children?” he wrote.

The commonwealth attorney wants the Kentucky Supreme Court to tell Sheehan he’s wrong; the court has not yet accepted jurisdiction.

The cases are likely to be just as much about the wisdom of the law as they are about their constitutionality.

Increasingly, some critics – even including sheriffs, prosecutors and victim advocates – argue that sex offender laws may be ineffective – and perhaps even counterproductive – because they separate offenders from their families and could make them more likely to reoffend.

And they say some sex offenders, faced with the threat of eviction, are likely to simply stop registering.

[fedsmack]

Word to classicgrrl. Internet predator hysteria is ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to "make the children safer". It's part of a wider pattern of pedophile hysteria in this country, which is usually just cover for homophobia or supporting the prison-industrial complex. True, but it makes good TV! I say more stories about pervs with a stu-stu-stu-stuttering problem showing up at a 14-year-old's house ready to watch her get it on with a dog! (while flipping channels this week I actually caught this story on MSNBC Investigates).

[Duemellon]

...a 14-year-old's house ready to watch her get it on with a dog!Interesting question indeed...

Which one should we be prosecuting (if that were a real occurance) between the 14-year old & the dog?

[Chespo]

Which one should we be prosecuting (if that were a real occurance) between the 14-year old & the dog?Depends... is the dog black or white?

[Neil]

I'm not gonna be content over all this until they find child porn on Chris Hansen's computer.
http://www.itsevansville.com/img/attachments/justin_williams/hansen_chris_2005_sm.jpg

[the happy prole]

See, I actually have no problem with what happened to that Porter guy. That's what should happen. You have improper sexual contact with your family members, then we remove you from your family members.

There's no way we can shield someone from every single kid they might run into, but we can at least identify the most likely targets. That's why the registry is dumb. Okay, you can't live within X feet of a school, or Y feet of a playground. But no matter where you live outside of prison, you will have very easy access to kids.

If he wants to make the case that the law doesn't make sense because he's equally likely to abuse any kid he runs into, then I think he should still be in prison.

[dannyboy]

See, I actually have no problem with what happened to that Porter guy. That's what should happen. You have improper sexual contact with your family members, then we remove you from your family members.

But isn't that what time served in the correctional system is for?

[the happy prole]

No, not necessarily.

Look, let's say you get caught for DUI. We could throw you in prison to prevent you from driving ever again, or at least until we feel you won't drink and drive again.

Or we could simply put a key lock in your car. Or outfit you with a SCRAM (henceforth known as a "Lohan") and put you in an ASAP/drinking awareness program. You have your freedom. It's cheaper than housing you in prison. And it prevents you from doing the thing we're really worried about-- which is drinking and driving.

So let's say for a sexual assault case the max sentence right now is 10 years. The state could decide to up that sentence to 11 years and no one would really have a problem with it. If instead they say "10 years and you stay away from kids for 1 years" that seems to be LESS restrictive of people's rights. So I have a hard time saying that's unconstitutional.

I think it's good for both offenders and society, if we can pursue alternatives to prison time. I just think the sexual offender registry as it currently exists is stupid for about 100 different policy reasons.

[classicgrrl]

I think it's good for both offenders and society, if we can pursue alternatives to prison time. I just think the sexual offender registry as it currently exists is stupid for about 100 different policy reasons.

I think it is stupid because it doesn't work.

[dannyboy]

I think it's good for both offenders and society, if we can pursue alternatives to prison time. I just think the sexual offender registry as it currently exists is stupid for about 100 different policy reasons.
That's the big "if" though. So much of the mindset when it comes to our criminal justice system is about penance over actual rehabilitation.

[the happy prole]

I wouldn't argue with that. I just think it's a separate issue.

Like here in Virginia, there is no parole. You get assigned a 10 year bid and after five you really look like you're a changed man, it doesn't matter. You don't get a chance for an early release to a halfway house with six months with six months of monitoring. You're either in prison or out. And mostly in. I'm not sure that's a better situation.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I think the sexual offender registry is ten kinds of stupid. I think it's largely because a certain segment of the population really couldn't give a shit about sexual offenders. If they had their way, they'd just give them the death penalty. But they can't get the death penalty right now, because a certain segment of the population thinks that's too harsh. Neither side wants to budge. And neither side wants to really talk about the issue intelligently.

And so what happens is that they just brand them. And then no one takes responsibility. Like exactly what happened in that other thread. A city goes "Nope, we don't want 'em. You take 'em." And every single place does the same thing and then there's no place for them to go-- or more likely they end up someplace that can't stop them from coming. Classic NIMBY. It doesn't even really protect anyone, it just makes people feel like they did something.

[dannyboy]

They declare themselves homeless- truthfully or not (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566592/)

The Associated Press
updated 5:21 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct. 31, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Hundreds of California sex offenders who face tough new restrictions on where they can live are declaring themselves homeless — truthfully or not — and that’s making it difficult for the state to track them.

Jessica’s Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally.

Some who have had trouble finding a place to live are avoiding re-arrest by reporting — falsely, in some cases — that they are homeless.

Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day-to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need.

“We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous,” said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

Laws drive offenders underground

Similar laws in Iowa and Florida have driven offenders underground or onto the streets.

“They drop off the registry because they don’t want to admit living in a prohibited zone,” said Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the association of Iowa prosecutors.

The organization tried unsuccessfully in the past two years to persuade lawmakers to repeal the state’s 2,000-foot residency restriction.


“Most legislators know in their hearts that the law is no good and a waste of time, but they’re afraid of the politics of it,” Ritchie said.

The problem is worsening in Florida as about 100 local ordinances add restrictions to the state’s 1,000-foot rule, said Florida Corrections Department spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger. Sixteen homeless offenders are now living under a Miami bridge, while another took to sleeping on a bench outside a probation office.

“As society has imposed restrictions, it becomes almost impossible for them to find places to live,” Plessinger said.

Distance laws common

Twenty-two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 feet to 2,000 feet, according to California researchers. But most impose the offender-free zones only around schools, and several apply only to child molesters, not all sex offenders.

California’s law requires parolees to live in the county of their last legal residence. But in San Francisco, for example, all homes are within 2,000 feet of a school or park.


“The state is requiring parolees to find eligible housing in San Francisco, knowing full well there isn’t any,” said Mike Jimenez, president of the California parole officers union. “It will be impossible for parole agents to enforce Jessica’s Law in certain areas, and encouraging ‘transient’ living arrangements just allows sex offenders to avoid it altogether.”

State figures show a 27 percent increase in homelessness among California’s 67,000 registered sex offenders since the law took effect in November 2006. Since August, the number of offenders with no permanent address rose by 560 to 2,622.

“This is a huge surge,” said Deputy Attorney General Janet Neeley, whose office maintains the database. “Any law enforcement officer would tell you we would prefer to have offenders at addresses where we can locate them.”


Strict regulations

Offenders who declare themselves homeless must tell their parole officer each day where they spent the previous night.

Those who declare themselves homeless are still legally bound by the 2,000-foot rule; they cannot stay under a bridge near where children gather, for example. But it is more difficult for parole officers to keep tabs on them.

Parole officers said some offenders are registering as homeless, then sneaking back to homes that violate the law. That’s easy to do because fewer than 30 percent of transient offenders currently wear the Global Positioning System tracking devices required by Jessica’s Law.

“If they tell you that they were under the American River bridge, we’re going to take that at face value,” said Corrections Department spokesman Bill Sessa, referring to a homeless hangout in Sacramento.

During a recent sweep in the Oakland area, parole officers discovered that two of the five offenders they checked weren’t living in the temporary shelters they had reported as their new homes. Neither had been issued a GPS device.

GPS bracelets phased in

Department spokesman Seth Unger said parole agents are starting to make the homeless a priority in issuing the GPS ankle bracelets, which are still being phased in.

R.L., a 42-year-old sex offender who lives near Disneyland in Southern California, said he registered as homeless after his parole agent told him two potential homes were too close to schools or parks.

“I finally asked, ‘Where do you want me to live?’ He said, ‘You have a car, don’t you?”’ said R.L., who asked that his full not be used because of the stigma surrounding sex offenders.

The law was named for 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a convicted sex offender near her Florida home in 2005.

The author of Jessica’s Law, state Sen. George Runner, said “90 percent” of it is working well. But he conceded that some portions need to be fixed.

“When the voters voted for this, they decided that they didn’t want a child molester to live across the street from a school,” said Runner, a Republican from Lancaster in Los Angeles County’s high desert. “If that means that in some areas that needs to be 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet, then I think that we still accomplish what it is the voters wanted.”

[dannyboy]

“Most legislators know in their hearts that the law is no good and a waste of time, but they’re afraid of the politics of it,” Ritchie said.

I think that pretty much sums up this whole issue.

[dannyboy]

link (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS01/712300387/1077/COL02)

Sex offenders say it's unfair; backers sending a message

BY SHARON COOLIDGE | SCOOLIDGE@ENQUIRER.COM

Ohio's 25,000 sex offenders got a big surprise earlier this month when the state told them that, starting Jan. 1, they will have to register longer than they had previously thought, and in many cases they'll have to register more often.

Nearly one third will go from registering addresses with the sheriff's office in the county where they live annually for 10 years to having to register every 90 days for life.

Most others will have five years tacked onto their 10-year reporting requirement, according to the Ohio Attorney General's Office.

The tougher requirements - although controversial - are designed to keep better tabs on sex offenders, a group that moves often and frequently crosses state lines.

The closer scrutiny comes at a price, because registrations will nearly double, creating more work for sheriff's offices, which are charged with making sure the addresses are correct and tracking down those who don't register.

In passing the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, state lawmakers say they are making communities safer. But critics say it's a false sense of security, because most offenders are people the victim already knows.

State Sen. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, who introduced the law, said tracking sex offenders keeps everyone safer.

"This law sends a very strong message that our state has zero tolerance for sex offenders," said the father of three. "If you commit these violent crimes, we will take you off the streets for a very long time, and if you get out we will continue to monitor your whereabouts."

But David Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center who works to reform the criminal justice system, said there's probably no more unconstitutional law in state history.

Amelia Orr, executive director of Community Counseling & Crisis Center in Butler County, which handles that county's rape crisis program, called the registry a scare tactic that gives people a "superficial sense of security."

CHILDREN INSPIRE LAW

The Adam Walsh Child Protection Act - named for Adam Walsh, 6, who was kidnapped from a Florida department store and killed in 1981 - was signed into law by President Bush in July 2006. It calls for national conformity on varying sex offender laws across the country.

States are now being called on to implement the new guidelines. Ohio is one of six states to pass the legislation.

Kentucky is still reviewing its options, said Kentucky State Police Lt. Phil Crumpton. "It's quite an extensive project, we're working our way to compliance," he said.

In the past, judges decided how long and how often a convicted sex offender had to register on the likelihood that person would re-offend. Judges could choose one of seven designations, which required a minimum 10 years of registration and went as high as a lifetime registration.

Lists of offenders could be found online - searchable by county or ZIP code. In the worst cases, communities would be notified.

Now, designations will be based on what charge a person faced.

Minor sex offenders can face once-a-year registration for 15 years, but people convicted on the most serious charges like rape and sexual battery must register every 90 days for life.

Unlike most laws that apply going forward, the changes affect offenders dating back to 1997 when the state registry was created.

The law allows sexual offenders to file a court challenge to their new designation.

About 18,000 of the state's 27,000 offenders live in Ohio's 88 counties, the rest are serving prison terms. With 1,959 on the sex offender registry, Hamilton County has the second highest number of offenders behind Cuyahoga County.

"The goal is to create uniformity among the states and close loopholes when offenders move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction," said Assistant Ohio Attorney General Erin Rosen.

For instance, in the past, people convicted in other states of child pornography flocked to Ohio, where that crime didn't require registration. The revamped law makes it a registration-required offense, Rosen said.

LIFETIME REGISTRATION

Holli Burd, 34, a North College Hill mother, thought her 10-year registration requirement would be up before her 14-month-old daughter starts school.

But, the new law means Burd, convicted in Warren County of sexual battery in 2002 for having sex with a 14-year-old boy, will have to register for life.

Burd said she cried when she heard about the extended registration. "It's like they're coming back and punishing me all over again, but worse," she said.

Burd said she would have pleaded not guilty if such a restriction was attached. "I understand there are people out there that must be monitored on a daily basis, but I am not one of them," she said.

In her case, she said the sex was consensual and she thought the victim was older. She sees it as part of her old life. She has since married and had a child.

Burd is pinning her hopes on a challenge the Ohio Justice & Policy Center is helping her file.

Once convicted rapist Sidney Souffrance is released from prison he'll be in the same predicament. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge David Davis sentenced Souffrance to seven years in prison on a rape charge for raping a high school student at his home. Davis designated him a sexually oriented offender.

Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutor Megan Shanahan, who prosecuted the case and still remembers how the victim shook in fear as she testified, applauded the changes. "These people need to be kept on short leashes," she said. "The fact that we'll know where Souffrance is for the rest of his life is fantastic."

CHALLENGES AHEAD

Not everyone thinks the changes are a good idea. The Ohio Justice & Policy Center, a Cincinnati-based non-profit agency, filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court in October challenging the retroactive portion of the law.

The court determined last week that the lawsuit had to be first filed on a county level. Center officials are looking for the right venue, but will re-file soon, Singleton said.

"There's probably no more unconstitutional law in the history of the state than what the legislature has done with the Adam Walsh Act," Singleton said.

"We think tying registration duties to offenses (makes) registration part of the punishment and you can't punish retroactively," Singleton said. "It's unconstitutional on a number of grounds."

Sheriff's offices are grappling with how to handle the swelling tide of sex-offender registrations.

Margarita Mergy, assistant coordinator of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office sex offender program, said her office will see all of Hamilton County's 1,959 sex offenders between Jan. 1 and June 1.

She expects about 800 will have to register longer and more often. In the past, about 350 registered every 90 days, all involve an in-person check by a deputy.

"It will be a lot more work," she said.

Currently about 3,000 in-person address checks are done each year, a number that will likely double, she said. "That's somebody's pay, gas, wear and tear on vehicles along with officer safety issues," she said.

She wondered where the money to pay for the work will come from. "That question has not been answered yet," she said.

[classicgrrl]

sherrif's offices will absolutely NEVER keep. it isn't possible.

you cannot sign laws like with no monies towards compliance and expect it to happen.

I think Dannyboy has the right idea - every person who is having sex needs to sign up as a registered sex offender.

[frizgolf]

This country's strange Puritanical approach to sex is what drives the sex offender underground in the first place.
If we were more open about sex and talked about it more often, we wouldn't have as many offenders. Treatment and understanding are more effective than punitive measures.

[TripleShockPowa]

the odds of your stupid brat getting "solicited" on the net is pretty damned low. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by your drunk, drugged, unemployed boyfriend are MUCH higher. the odds of your stupid brat getting fucked up by a FAMILY MEMBER are 1 in 5.

Instead of trying to put everybody and their brother in jail that will *maybe* effect a very tiny population - why don't we take that taxpayer money and start or shore up state wide programs to assist families in knowing what to look for when their stupid brats have been fucked up or are in the midst of being fucked up. And perhaps targets these programs to demographics who are likely to have their stupid brats fucked up. And maybe include programs to help the stupid brats who have been fucked up. And include programs and policies to turn the heads of the mommies and daddies who ignore the fact that their stupid brats are getting fucked up under their god-dammed noses in their own god-dammed house.

or solve the whole problem in one fell swoop by forcing those folks who want to be mommies and daddies to take a "how to not fuck up your stupid brat class" before they have the stupid brats to start with; after all, idiots who fuck up stupid brats are partially created by dumbasses who can't/won't/don't know how to parent.

HARUMPH! I move to add this to the constitution!

I can has ammendment? Kthxby!