Sexually-Related Offenses - Essay Example

Criminal Justice -Sex Offenders- Introduction Sexually-related offenses are offenses which have been monitored thoroughly because of the dangers that offenders pose on society in general. These sexual offenders have been known to serve their sentence and then when released, are likely to go back to committing sexual offences. Hence, various legal provisions have been passed in order to monitor the movements of these sexual offenders. Various states have addressed the registration and/or publication of a database of convicted sex offenders who are returned to parole of probation supervision. This paper shall focus on Florida’s provisions on the registration and/or publication of a sexual offenders’ database. An overview of Florida’s state laws which impact on sex offender registration and publication of residence information shall be presented through this paper. Other pertinent points of discussion shall be featured in the discussion below. Florida’s states regulations that is specific to registration of the sex offender Florida’s state regulations which are specific to registration of the sex offender include the following laws: 775.21 The Florida Sexual Predators Act; 794.065 or the Unlawful place of residence for persons convicted of certain sex offenses; 943.042 or the Toll-free telephone number; internal notification; sexual predator and sexual offender information; 943.0435 or the Sexual offenders required to register with the department; penalty; 943.04351 or the Search of registration information regarding sexual predators and sexual offenders required prior to appointment or employment; 943.04352 or the Search of registration information regarding sexual predators and sexual offenders required when placement on misdemeanor probation; 943.04354 or the removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender or sexual predator in special circumstances; 943.0515 or the Retention of criminal history records of minors; 943.44353 or the automatic notification of registration of registration information regarding sexual predators and offenders; 944.606 or sexual offenders notification upon release; 944.607 or the Notification to Department of Law Enforcement of information on sexual offenders; 947.1405 or the Conditional release program; 948.30 or the Additional terms and conditions or probation or community control for certain sex offenses; 985.481 or the sexual offenders adjudicated delinquent, notification upon release; and 985.4815 or the Notification to Department of Law Enforcement of information on juvenile sexual offenders (FDLE “Related Information”). Procedural guidelines related to the implementation of the registration/publication program Based on The Florida Sexual Predators Act, the sexual predator must register at the sheriff’s office in the county where he seeks to establish his residence within 48 hours after establishing permanent or temporary residence in Florida (Florida Sexual Predators Act). He must then provide the police department with the following information: name, social security number, age, sex, date of birth, height, weight, hair and eye color, photograph, address of legal residence and address of current temporary residence, within the state or out of state including rural route address and post office box, date and place in employment, date and place of conviction, fingerprints, brief description of crime/s (Florida Sexual Predators Act). In cases where the place of address is a motor vehicle, trailer or a mobile home, the sexual offender must provide the police with a written notice of the vehicle identification number, license tag number, registration number, and color scheme of the mobile home (Florida Sexual Predators Act). In cases where the place of residence is a vessel or houseboat, the predator must provide the police department with the hull identification number, the manufacturer’s serial number, the name of the vessel, the registration number, and the boat or houseboat’s color scheme (Florida Sexual Predators Act). In instances when the predator is enrolled, employed or has a vocation within an institution of higher learning, he must provide the department with his name, address, county of each institution, campus attended and current enrollment or employment status (Florida Sexual Predators Act). Other data like criminal and corrections records, nonprivileged personnel treatment records, and evidentiary genetic markers also have to be provided to the police (Florida Sexual Predators Act). The cost of the registration/publication is borne by the offender himself. The sexual offender is asked to register before sentencing, or before entry of the order of disposition. The probation officer shall give the offender the registration form and shall require the offender to pay the registration fee (Florida Sexual Predators Act). Through the following link, the registered sexual offender in Florida may be accessed http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/homepage.do and through the following link, the sexual predators in my Zip code may be accessed http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/searchNeighborhood.do?actionPerformed=neighborhoodSearchMain What are the penalties for noncompliance? Violators of the registration act commit a felony of the third degree and therefore may be punished by death or life without parole as may be decided by the courts and by the circumstances of the case (Florida Statutes 775.082). They are also liable to fines depending on the type of felony committed: $15,000 when conviction is that of a life felony; $10,000 when conviction of that of a felony of the first or second degree; $5,000 in cases where the conviction is a felony of the third degree; $1,000 in instances when the conviction is a misdemeanor of the first degree; and $500 when the conviction is for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation (Florida Statutes 775.083). Are there Constitutional challenges? In the case of Joshua Smith v. State of Florida, the appellant argues that the lower court erred in declaring him to be a sexual offender and in rejecting his contention that section 943.0435 of the Florida Statutes 1998 is unconstitutional on the basis of violation of procedural due process. The lower court emphasized on their previous rulings wherein they ruled that the sex offender registration law did not violate procedural due process (Smith v. Florida, p. 15). They declared therefore that the rights of the respondent to due process of law have not been violated. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that the “statute requiring registration of sex offenders did not deny defendant procedural due process” (Smith v. Florida, p. 15). On further appeal with the Supreme Court, the latter ruled that the appellant’s contention that the imposed registration as a sex offender has no merit. The court has already rejected this contention in previous cases. “For purposes of appellant’s argument that a hearing is required before the stigma of sexual offender status is imposed, the two statutes are indistinguishable because they both require an automatic determination if one of the enumerated crimes has been committed, registration for life, and criminal prosecution in the event a defendant fails to register” (Smith v. Florida, p. 15). The decision of the lower court is therefore reversed in part and remanded. The following link discussed the merits of this case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2004/801-1000/04-807_JurisIni.pdf Have the laws regulating sex offender lifestyle gone too far? If so, in what way? The laws which regulate sex offender lifestyle have not gone too far in regulating sex offender lifestyle because when we consider the rights which would likely be violated by the Sex Offender Registration Act, there does not seem to be any clear violation thereof. A person’s right not to be deprived of his life, liberty, and property without due process of law is one of the relevant rights which a sex offender may claim. A sex offender abrogated his rights to be afforded primary protection under the Bill of Rights in favor of the state when he committed his offense. When we consider the government interest of keeping track of these possible repeat offenders, the application of the Bill of Rights in favor of the sexual offenders cannot take precedence or priority. The laws have not gone too far because these criminal laws, like all other laws, are set-up in order to deter the commission of crimes. Considering that the target of these sexual predators are often innocent and unsuspecting children, it is within the best interest of everyone concerned, including the offender, to have a monitoring policy in order to prevent crimes. Parents and school authorities have a right to know if there are sexual predators in their neighborhood so that they can take the necessary precautions in order to protect their children. Moreover, for sexual offenders who are really reformed or rehabilitated by their prison sentence, the provisions of the law would only serve as a mere inconvenience. Once their innocence and non-involvement in possible sexual offenses in the neighborhood is established, they can easily go about their normal lives; they can easily prove their innocence; and the law would not serve as a restriction to their rights at all. U.S. Supreme Court cases In the case of Connecticut v. Doe, the respondent John Doe was convicted as a sex offender and subject to the Sex Offenders Act or Megan’s Law. He filed this case in accordance with Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983 on behalf of himself and other similarly situated sex offenders claiming that the law violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; that he is not a dangerous sex offender and that Megan’s Law deprives him of liberty interest without notice of an opportunity to be heard (Connecticut v. Doe). The District Court granted summary judgment to the respondent for his due process claim; the court also certified a class of individuals subject to the Law and enjoined the law’s public disclosure provisions (Connecticut v. Doe). Such decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA also requested certiorari in order to determine whether the CA properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticut’s sexual offender registry (Connecticut v. Doe). The CA also decided that Megan’s Law deprived the respondents of the liberty interest and that the law violated the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court decided that the registration is based on previous convictions, not based on dangerousness or lack of it (Connecticut v. Doe). “Indeed, the public registry states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous” (Connecticut v. Doe). Moreover, mere injury to reputation does not constitute deprivation of a person’s liberty to interest. The case also raises a procedural challenge of the Connecticut Law which prompts the court to treat it as a procedural question. Questions as to the substance of the law must be brought forth as substantive queries (Connecticut v. Doe). The decision of the CA was therefore reversed in its orders to stop Sexual Offender Registration. The following leads to the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1231 In the case of Smith v. Doe, respondents were convicted of aggravated sex offenses and were later released from prison after completing rehabilitative programs for sex offenders. They were covered by the Sex Offenders Registration Act and therefore required to comply with the registration requirements of the law. They now brought this action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 wanting to declare that the act was void as it violated the Ex Post facto Clause, of the US Constitution Art. I, §10, cl. 1 (Smith v. Doe). The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment. The Court of Appeals declared that the legislative body intended the Act as nonpunitive, but its effects were punitive despite the intent of the legislature. It therefore held that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Supreme Court must now decide “whether the registration requirement is a retroactive punishment prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause” (Smith v. Doe). The Supreme Court held that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive; its retroactive application therefore, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court also decided that in order to assess the intent of the legislature being punitive in its passage of the law, “only the clearest proof will suffice to override that intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty” (Smith v. Doe). The court also decided that the intent of the legislature is nonpunitive; since the intent of the restriction is an incident of the State’s power to ensure public health and safety (Smith v. Doe). The law shall be considered in its intent to exercise regulatory power – not a purpose to add punishment (Smith v. Doe). The respondents were also not able to show, with the showing of clear proof, that the Act’s effects negate Alaska’s intent to establish a civil regulatory scheme. The question being brought about by the respondents is on whether or not the legislative body made the proper choice in addressing the problem which it wants to fix; the question is on whether or not the regulatory means which have been chosen are reasonable considering the nonpunitive objective of the law. The Act complies with the nonpunitive objective. The decision of the CA is therefore reversed “because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause” (Smith v. Doe). The following link leads to the discussion of the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-729 Works Cited Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe. Scripts. 5 March 2003. FindLaw. 03 April 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1231 Doe, J., et.al., v. James Moore. Opinions. 6 June 2005. US Courts. 03 April 2010 from http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410279.pdf Florida Laws and Related Information. Legislation. 2007. 03 April 2010 from http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/FloridaLaws.jsp#775.21 Florida’s Sexual Offenders and Predators. Homepage. 2010. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 03 April 2010 from http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/homepage.do Neighborhood Search. Offender. 2010. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 03 April 2010 from http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/searchNeighborhood.do?actionPerformed=neighborhoodSearchMain Smith v. State of Florida. p. 15. 2004. Florida Supreme Court. 03 April 2010 from http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2004/801-1000/04-807_JurisIni.pdf Smith et al. v. DOE et al. Scripts. 5 March 2003. FindLaw. 03 April 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-729 The 2009 Florida Statutes. 775.083. Online Internet Site of Florida Legislature. 03 April 2010 from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=943.0435&URL=Ch0775/Sec084.HTM The 2009 Florida Statutes. 775.082. Online Internet Site of Florida Legislature. 03 April 2010 from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=943.0435&URL=Ch0775/Sec082.HTM Read More