Sex Crimes

Adam Walsh Act Articles in Arizona

A helpful reader sent me two articles that illustrate some of the problems for states in regards to the Adam Walsh Act.  First, there is the problem with the AWA's interference with state laws meant to decrease sexual violence:

Teen sex offenders would have their photos posted online under a new federal law that threatens to undo reforms state lawmakers pushed through last session.

During a legislative hearing Wednesday, Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said it might be worth opting out of the Adam Walsh Act and risk losing federal law enforcement funds.

Johnson led efforts to soften punishment for young, nonviolent sex offenders after hearing tearful testimony from constituents about teens as young as 14 prosecuted as adults and placed on lifetime probation for one-time incidents with a family member or a younger girlfriend.

The new state law, which takes effect next week, allows teens to have their cases sent back to juvenile court or have their probation lifted, and requires that they be placed in treatment with young people convicted of similar crimes. The law applies only to nonviolent, first-time offenders.

“To think that the Adam Walsh Act might wipe all that out is pretty hard to take,” Johnson said. “A lot of kids make mistakes ... (only) to have their whole entire life ruined, with no light at the end of the tunnel.”

The 2006 federal law is intended to protect children from violent sex offenders by creating a nationwide registration and notification system.

For the first time, those requirements will extend to juveniles, and be applied retroactively, as well as on tribal lands.

While probably not relevant to a court's finding regarding the commerce clause, the problems outlined above are certainly at odds with a system of federalism that values states as laboratories.  Arizona (which is hardly a state that coddles sex offenders) had chosen to support a different method of dealing with juvenile sex offenders than required under the AWA.  So, Arizona is forced to give up the federal funds or abandon its system of dealing with juvenile sex offenders.

A second problem concerns the dependency and obligations that federal funding creates:

Congress frequently offers million of dollars to entice state governments to carry out new policies. Over time, states have become completely dependent on these cash transfers and wouldn’t know how to operate without them. Earlier this year, the governor and the Legislature debated for months on how to use $10.6 billion in state taxes. In truth, the state will spend more than $26 billion this fiscal year, with nearly $12.9 billion coming from the federal government.

With the states hooked, the federal government now can dictate almost anything and the states generally go along to keep the money spigot flowing. Arizona wants its $500 million in federal highway dollars? Then the state must have a mandatory seat belt law. Arizona can’t get by without $40 million in federal funds that makes up two-thirds of its child enforcement budget? Then the state had better turn over employment records and other “private” information about its residents.   

Comprehensive Voice Stress Analysis

I know absolutely nothing about this technology, but a helpful reader sent me an article about its use in Arizona in sex crime cases:

Ratliff said that it would not be inconceivable for a "register only" offender to go as high as a level 2 or 3 depending on the re-evaluation from the risk assessment test.

Ratliff also uses CVSA, or Comprehensive Voice Stress Analysis, to help determine the truthfulness of statements made by registrants during the risk assessment evaluation.

He said it is a very effective tool in his opinion.

"I'm not real satisfied or confident in results from polygraph tests, but CVSA is an excellent tool in my opinion," he said. "It uses the same technology as the FBI and other prominent law enforcement agencies use, and I have great confidence in its accuracy."

Ratliff added that he has had great success using voice analysis in all areas regarding interviewing suspects and victims in sexual offenses.

He said, "I had this one case where a juvenile was alleging that a parent had molested them. I tested the parent and found no abnormalities in the voice patterns."

"But," Ratliff said, "When I tested the juvenile, there was noticeable variation in the voice patterns and I was able to determine, and get a confession that the parent had not molested the juvenile and the juvenile just wanted to ‘put a scare into' the parent as revenge for being punished."

Ratliff said the use of CVSA and other technology tools by the sheriff's department has made it possible for him to better categorize sex offenders, and consequently better protect the community to the best of his ability.

I have to say I'm a little scared that a police officer is using this cutting-edge technique in the classification of sex offenders (which determines the level of post-release restriction).  However, it probably isn't worse than lots of the statutory schemes which seem to totally disregard actual recidivism risk in classifying released offenders.

Update:  In the comments, Michael Connelly points to a Corrections Sentencing post about the technology.  I noticed I had the post saved (along with a couple of others from Corrections Sentencing) in my Bloglines account, but with so much travel lately, I forgot all about it.  Thanks for the pointer.

Baseline Killer Trial Begins with DNA Questioned

Trial begins for the Arizona serial predator whose nickname refers to the street around which his early sex crimes occurred.  The legal and factual sufficiency of DNA evidence and identification by surviving victims are at issue.

See the story.

Reason Article on Sex Offender Case

Sentencing Law & Policy beat me to the punch, but there is an interesting article in Reason online about sex offender policy and the Morton Berger case in Arizona.  From the article:

Under Arizona law, mere possession of pornography involving minors younger than 15 is punishable by a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Each picture is a separate offense, and the sentences must be served consecutively. That's how Morton Berger, a former high school teacher, received a 200-year sentence without parole: 10 years for each of 20 images on his computer.

While the production of child pornography involves sexual abuse, Berger himself did not victimize anyone. He arguably deserved criminal punishment for encouraging abuse, in his own small way, by downloading the resulting images (although it's not clear he paid for them). But 200 years?

That's far longer than the sentence Berger would have received anywhere else in the country. It's also harsher than Arizona's penalties for violent crimes such as rape and second-degree murder. For looking at pictures of sexually abused children, Berger was punished more severely than he would have been for committing an actual sexual assault on a child.

The Arizona Supreme Court, in a decision the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review, nevertheless concluded that Berger's sentence was not disproportionate enough to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." Constitutional issues aside, the penalty is plainly irrational.

The article being Reason is also notable because the periodical is mostly associated with libertarian and right-wing politics.  As I've argued before, fighting sex crimes really shouldn't be a heavily partisan issue because everyone is aiming for the same goal.  Unfortunately, the reality of the world makes such an understanding hard to realize.  I also recommend checking out Sentencing Law & Policy's post because it links to Professor Berman's extensive prior coverage of the Berger case.

Catching up with Arizona

A helpful reader pointed out that I didn't have a label for Arizona even though I have covered Arizona issues before.  So, I wanted to cover a couple of happenings in the state regarding sex offenders.  First, the Bandy case aftermath continues on.  Rachel Alexander, on a blog titled Intellectual Conservative defends the county's handling of the Bandy matter.  However, the last comment to the post says that Alexander is currently employed by the county attorney office that prosecuted the case.  I have no idea if that is true and there is no reply to that comment on the blog. 

Second, at a blog titled HotAzItGets, there is a post taking to task a few Arizona republicans for being too soft on sex offenders:

At a time when the country is becoming increasingly concerned  about sexual crimes committed against children, it is odd that  three Republican senators are trying to sneak through legislation that would make it harder to prosecute accused pedophiles, child
molesters and child pornographers.

I'm not sure I agree with the legal or policy assessments of the blog post, but it concludes by noting that the proposed legislation is apparently dead.

Third, here is an editorial questioning the efficacy of buffer zone policies in the state:

Despite this extensive experience elsewhere, Pombier and Mesa Vice Mayor Claudia Walters admitted to us they can’t point to any scientific evidence that distance buffers have reduced the number of sex offenders who repeat their crimes after a conviction.

And logic dictates that won’t happen. Increasing the distance from schools and day cares merely pushes offenders closer to parks, public libraries, movie theaters or other places where groups of children can be found. The opportunities for new victims don’t disappear; criminals unable to control their twisted desires will travel almost any distance to find them.

There’s even an argument to be made that such a bill could increase the risk to children. Schools and day cares provide the best possible adult supervision outside of our homes, which is why attacks by strangers almost never take place there. Children are in greater danger when playing outside a couple of blocks away or when hanging out at shopping malls and coffee shops where adult oversight is far more lax.