HR-291 — Safe NOW Act of 2007

Sentencing Law and Policy and Sexoffenderissues both have posts up about this bill.  Professor Berman is intrigued with the idea that the bill isn't simply draconian, but instead uses empirical evidence to guide its classification system:

The bill purports to "establish a National Sex Offender Risk Classification Task Force to create guidelines for the establishment of a risk-based sex offender classification system for use in sex offender registries."

I do not know anything more about this bill, but it would seem to be the type of legislation that anyone interested in evidence-based sentencing — or concerned about the extremes of our modern sex offender panic — ought to support.

From the bill itself:

(1) IN GENERAL- The Task Force shall--

(A) create preliminary guidelines for the establishment of a risk-based sex offender classification system;

(B) administer the demonstration program under section 4; and

(C) create final guidelines for the establishment of a risk-based sex offender classification system that shall be made available to jurisdictions for use in accordance with section 7, and that shall be created using the information gathered through--

(i) the demonstration program under section 4; and

(ii) the activities of the working groups under paragraph (3).

This bill is largely designed to develop a risk classification scheme and report for sex offenders.  Obviously, the results of the task force in creating the scheme will determine its usefulness.  Overall, I think it is a good idea, with one important caveat.  Until very recently, the crackdown on sex offenders has been a state and local trend.  With the passage of the Adam Walsh Act and consideration of various other bills like HR-291, the federal government may be planning to take a much larger role in the punishment of sex offenders.  How one feels about the potential federalization of sex offender issues may determine what your opinion of this rather innocuous bill is.

Comments

[Kenneth J. Bond]

I have researched out the actuarial methods of evaluation currently in use. the system at one time used clinical approaches and it was found that they are in error some 2 out of three times. If you refer to the American Psychologcial Association guidelines as to the criteria for using actuarial devices, it can be demonstrated that actuarial devices are in error some 3 out of 4 times. Unless they are able to predict human behavior with accuracy, this will be impossible. If you can't predict what a wife can wear to church some 3 weeks in advance, she herself probably won't know. An example of this is that the developer of the MnSOST finally admitted that his device was right 60% of the time. That is no better than the toss of a coin. Other instruments are similarly flawed. If you desire a copy of my research report on this, please let me know. Ken

[rukidding]

My concerns lie in a) the federalization of just about anything during this administration, 2) the use of standardized assessment instruments, 3) the appointment of task force members by the AG who is clearly happy to violate civil liberties right and is focused on stronger penalties for all offenders, and 4) the loading of the task force with law enforcement and victim organizations which have shown themselves to be intractable where sex offender classification is concerned.

That being said, taking steps to adequately assess offenders is a good thing. However, the use of any risk assessment scales must be supplemented with actual assessment by unbiased human beings! All current risk assessment scales consistently overestimate the risk for younger statutory offenders. Extra risk points are assigned for young age, living at home, lack of education, and lack of job training/experience. The scales are targeted at offenders exhibiting pathology - not those who made an error in judgement with an underage teen.

Just not sure where I stand on this, as all of these issues are important to consider.