A helpful reader directs us to a Florida Senate Report entitled: Fiscal, Policy, and Legal Considerations Regarding State Compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. From the report's Background section:
The [Adam Walsh Act], of which [the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act] is a part, is the latest in a long line of federal legislation affecting states registration/notification laws, and attempts to make all of these states laws uniform with respect to requirements (or "minimum" standards) that Congress has judged to be necessary to be included in states laws. It appears that the AWA has generated significant debate and controversy. Illustrative of this controversy, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has described the AWA as an "unfunded mandate," a "one-size-fits-all approach to classifying, registering and, in some circumstances, sentencing sex offenders," and legislation that was "crafted without state input or consideration of state practices."
In 2007, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation to revise Floridas laws to comply with SORNA (SB 1604 and some provisions of SB 1004, the Cybercrimes Against Children Act of 2007). SB 1604 adopted many, but not all, of the requirements of SORNA, including perhaps the most debated requirement of SORNA: the registration of some juveniles adjudicated delinquent of certain sex offenses. In the 2008 Legislative Session, bills were filed but not passed in both chambers (SB 1698 and HB 1333) to adopt additional requirements of SORNA. HB 1333 contained the latest revisions, and therefore, is discussed in this brief. This legislation will need to be re-written if the Legislature intends to substantially implement SORNA, since it was drafted prior to release of the final SORNA guidelines ("guidelines") by the U.S. Attorney General.
If legislators decide not to substantially implement SORNA then Floridas registration/notification laws can be shaped by legislators without the need to consider whether those laws will substantially implement SORNA and ensure full JAG funding. The JAG funding penalty to ensure SORNA compliance is only federal leverage if a state determines that it must have full JAG funding. Legislators would be free to determine which, if any, SORNA requirements to adopt, and could even reconsider and remove SORNA requirements previously adopted, depending on their determination of the states best interests.
It is uncertain if non-compliance with SORNA could be used as state leverage for Congress to reconsider at least those requirements that have generated the most debate or controversy, but it seems intuitive that Floridas decision not to comply with SORNA would be of significant concern and importance to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justices Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART), which administers the SORNA standards. Florida has one of the largest pools of registered sex offenders in the country, so Floridas non-compliance with SORNA might call into question whether the AWA can, in fact, establish "a comprehensive national system for the registration" of sex offenders (SORNA § 102), one of its declared purposes.
In 2007, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation to revise Floridas laws to comply with SORNA (SB 1604 and some provisions of SB 1004, the Cybercrimes Against Children Act of 2007). SB 1604 adopted many, but not all, of the requirements of SORNA, including perhaps the most debated requirement of SORNA: the registration of some juveniles adjudicated delinquent of certain sex offenses. In the 2008 Legislative Session, bills were filed but not passed in both chambers (SB 1698 and HB 1333) to adopt additional requirements of SORNA. HB 1333 contained the latest revisions, and therefore, is discussed in this brief. This legislation will need to be re-written if the Legislature intends to substantially implement SORNA, since it was drafted prior to release of the final SORNA guidelines ("guidelines") by the U.S. Attorney General.
If legislators decide not to substantially implement SORNA then Floridas registration/notification laws can be shaped by legislators without the need to consider whether those laws will substantially implement SORNA and ensure full JAG funding. The JAG funding penalty to ensure SORNA compliance is only federal leverage if a state determines that it must have full JAG funding. Legislators would be free to determine which, if any, SORNA requirements to adopt, and could even reconsider and remove SORNA requirements previously adopted, depending on their determination of the states best interests.
It is uncertain if non-compliance with SORNA could be used as state leverage for Congress to reconsider at least those requirements that have generated the most debate or controversy, but it seems intuitive that Floridas decision not to comply with SORNA would be of significant concern and importance to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justices Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART), which administers the SORNA standards. Florida has one of the largest pools of registered sex offenders in the country, so Floridas non-compliance with SORNA might call into question whether the AWA can, in fact, establish "a comprehensive national system for the registration" of sex offenders (SORNA § 102), one of its declared purposes.
I think the Florida report is an excellent example of the considerations (political and economic) that every state will examine in deciding whether AWA compliance makes sense. Ultimately, I think some tinkering by Congress might be in order.
Recent Comments