Repeal or reform: Should the registry exist in any form?

Over the years, there has been a rather large divide within the grassroots campaign to reform sex offender laws, regarding the registry itself. Some people believe that the sex offender registry should merely be reformed to reflect only those registrants deemed a high risk to society, while others, like myself, believe the registry should not exist in any form. Sometimes the argument can be a rather heated, sometimes to the point that activists have left the movement altogether.

I have told my story many times over the years and I have confessed on numerous occasions that joining the grassroots campaign to end the sex offender registry was not my first choice of careers. When I first got out of prison back in 2003, my only goals were to find my own residence and a job, keep a low profile, and not "rock the boat." In two years since my release, I had achieved what I set out to do, and things were starting to look up. In 2005, all that changed – I was targeted by local politicians who believed the city of Cincinnati was becoming a sex offender Mecca. The city reclassified individuals from out-of-state as sexual predators. With my reclassification team a civil suit to force me out of a residence that was pre-approved by the Sheriff's office. That was when I decided to fight back.

I got my start in 2004 on my now-defunct website called "sex criminals," a site that debated the need for sex offender laws, and even that long ago, the subject was hotly contested. It was barely a year removed from the US Supreme Court decisions of Smith v. Doe and Doe v. Connecticut Department of Public Safety. In both cases, the registry was upheld. 

It is a bit ironic that my first year of college began in 1994, the same year the Jacob Wetterling Act created the first national sex offender registry in existence. The Wetterling Act created a private registry for law-enforcement officials and a select number of other individuals to access in the event of a missing child. While the concept of a sex offender registry dates back to the 1930s, the modern era of predator panic coupled with the containment model of justice helped morph and expand the sex offender registry to its current monstrocity.

In 1996, just two years after the Wetterling Act, Megan's Law made the registry public. As the result of one high-profile case, the registry has been expanded. Over the years, this scenario has written repeated time and time again. Whereas the Wetterling Act was limited to those deemed high-risk, such as repeat or extremely violent offenders, the public registry has expanded to include a number of minor or nuisance offenders, such as people who urinate in public, teens who have had consensual relations with one another or have sent naked pictures of themselves to others, and in some cases, people who have not even committed sex crimes. With the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, legislators ensured that even more people would be ensnared in lifelong registration schemes.

The registry has expanded many times over the years, and often is justified by a number of myths and a few rare but tragic high-profile cases. Currently, Massachusetts and Oregon, two states that if only previously listed high-level offenders on their public registries, are considering expanding the public registry. This news story from Massachusetts is typical of the mentality to ever expand the registry:

"State lawmakers from both political parties are lining up behind bills to allow limited public access to information on Level 1 sex offenders and give the state Sex Offender Registry Board new power to update risk levels assigned to such convicts. The proposed changes are driven by the case of John Burbine, a Wakefield man and Level 1 sex offender who was charged late last year with sexually abusing more than a dozen children at his wife’s unlicensed day care business."

The situation in Massachusetts serves as a reminder that it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. If we merely reform the registry rather than repeal it, then we're only one high profile case away from a return to the full-scale registry. In recent memory, we have witnessed the same pattern with other laws, such as gun control. After a rash of school shootings such as Littleton or Columbine in the 1990s, a number of restrictions severely limiting gun rights were passed. As the years passed, these laws fell out of favor, but in the wake of more recent shootings such as Sandy Hook and the "Batman movie" shooting in Colorado, there is a renewed push for further restrictions.

In Oregon, the public registry is being expanded while at the same time providing an opportunity for high-risk offenders to come off the registry sooner. On the surface, it sounds like a feasible option:


"It's a bill that would add about 400 sex offenders to the 800 currently listed on Oregon's public website. That's out of the 18,000 sex offenders required to register with the state...The crimes include first-degree rape, sodomy, sex abuse, sexual penetration, child pornography, encouraging child sex abuse, compelling prostitution and kidnapping.  If House Bill 2549 passes, the offenders convicted of those crimes can ask to be taken off the state's registry within as few as five years after they're done with probation or parole."

Personally, I feel as if the Oregon bill should pass without expanding the registry whatsoever. Some people may ask, "What is a mere 400 people if it benefits all registrants in the long run?" If you are one of the 400 people that the law potentially impacts, then you already know the answer. Social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence are all directly linked to public disclosure on a sex offender registry.

Since sex offender registries are expanded by rare high-profile tragic cases, the what is to stop us from contracting the registry as a result of high profile vigilante crimes, such as the double murder in Port Angeles, Washington of two guys on the sex offender registry? Where is "Gary's Law?"

It is often said a picture is worth 1000 words. Perhaps the following better illustrates my point better than any of my words could. Allowing the sex offender registry to exist has led to the monster it has become today.allowing the sex offender registry has led to this:

Wapello, Iowa

And this:

Bradford County, FL

And this:

Portland, OR

And this:

And this:

Pennsylvania

And this:

Louisiana

And this:

Alabama

And this:

Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender camp: Miami, FL 2009

And this:

Port Angeles, WA

Get the picture?

A few activists have tried justifying simple reform over repeal by looking at the few who re-offend. It is an established fact that sex offenders have an extremely low rate of re-offense. One thing the reformists tend to forget it is we are a long way from perfecting the art of determining who is a high risk and who is not. Even the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art actuarial risk assessment tests can predict who is going to re-offend about as accurately as a coin flip. In Massachusetts, the push to expand the public registry is the result of a Tier 1/ Low Risk registrant committing a series of crimes. Ultimately, trying to argue which registrants deserve to be on a public list is about like asking the individuals who rely on the "if it saves just one child" mantra which child deserves to be saved.

Since 2005, I have been a living example of how an individual can be wrongfully classified. The basis for bumping my tier level up from 1 to 3 was on the basis of coming from a state with lifetime reporting requirements for all registrants, whereas Ohio had a three-tiered risk assessment. In 2008, risk assessment tests were abolished in favor of the Adam Walsh Act, which places people in one of three tiers based upon the offense alone. As a result, the number of individuals on the highest here in Ohio more than doubled.

Because sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, there is no simple way to weed out the chaff from the wheat. There are fixated offenders, and there are situational offenders. There are people who have committed rape or sexual abuse; there are people who have engaged in conduct with a willing but underage participant; there have been people who have flashed others; there have been people caught urinating in a secluded the public area; others who had consensual adult relations in secluded but public areas; there have been teens who have taken pictures of themselves; there have been teens who have had consensual relations with each other; there are individuals placed on the public registry for crimes that were not of a sexual nature. Only a very small portion are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia, and not everybody who is a pedophile commits sexual offenses.

Some people feel we should merely fight to reform rather than repeal because they do not believe the registry will never disappear. I do not believe that argument. The main reason that these laws have passed in the manner they have was mainly because nobody was speaking up against them. In the past few years, the movement to reform sex offender laws has indeed succeeded in raising awareness and slowing down the momentum, and in some cases stopping, the myriad of tough on crime sex offender laws. We have encouraged a growing number of individuals to take a second look at these laws and understand the harm they are causing.

I have lived under the public registry for a decade. I have experienced firsthand the effects of social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence in my own life. Because I have this label, everything I do is considered suspect. The masses say is part of the punishment, the legislators claim it is not punishment. It certainly feels like punishment. The registry is unconstitutional, unethical, and causes social harm. Allowing it to exist is merely cutting one head from a hydra. Anything less than repealing the registry is not acceptable.

Of all the residency and proximity restrictions I've seen, this one takes the cake.

"White man says, 'Pass AWA or your federal aid and sovereignty go away.'
White man smoke too much crazy weed."

You may have heard about it by now, but during the RSOL conference some Native Americans brought their own tribal law they recently passed, and once I've seen it, all I could do was shake my head. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry, this is the most ridiculous residency restriction I've ever seen ever. Ever.

This is from the Laguna tribe of New Mexico, retyped verbatim as it is written on paper:

____________________________________________________________
Other requirements
section 15 – 17 – 10

I. prohibited areas for tier 1, two, and three sex offenders
a. Schools, public library, parks/village playgrounds, bus stops
II. prohibited areas for tier 2 and tier 3 sex offenders
a. The following is a list of social events that are considered prohibited areas, including but not limited to:

Public ( a.k.a. general public) means a population of individuals in association with civic affairs, or affairs of the village or villages..

1. Social events open to the general public
2. Village feasts
3. Craft shows
4. Fundraisers
5. Sporting events
6. Traditional and ceremonial activities
7. Organized walks or runs
8. Church
9. Grab days
10. Cultural enrichment classes at the Kawaika center
11. graduation ceremonies
12. Events advertised at the village meeting where everyone is invited
13. dances with in the villages
14. Plaza dances
15. Social dances at recreation halls

**Note: Sex offender participating in village meetings, grave digging, ditch work will be at the discretion of the village officials and communicated to the compliance officer.

The following opinion was drafted and approved by the sex offender compliance committee.
____________________________________________________________________

Now, let that soak into your mind for a minute.

I have seen many crazy laws over the years, but this one takes the cake. This law was hastily passed for the purpose of coming into full compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. The federal government has threatened Native American tribes with not only a loss of federal grant money, they threatened to take away their sovereignty in handling their own criminal justice affairs. But this is still overkill. It is sad to see a once proud nation of people debase themselves for the sake of a few American tax dollars.

Why the Cherokee Nation needs to reject the Adam Walsh Act

This was one of my four articles written for The Examiner before they decided to discriminate against me. So I'm republishing it here 

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk

Derek Logue

Cincinnati Crime Examiner

 "Once you're on a publicly accessible registry, your life is pretty much shot." -- US Representative Bobby Scott, during the March 10, 2009 Congressional SORNA Hearing

When I read the article "AG Office warns council on sex offender bill" in the Cherokee Phoenix,  I was disappointed to learn that the Cherokee nation is debating the issue of sovereignty versus passing a feel good law that will actually harm many native tribesmen.

The Adam Walsh Act was a stagnant bill until it was championed through Congress by John Walsh and Mark Foley in 2006. The bill bypassed standard Congressional procedure by abusing "Suspension of the Rules," which allows certain bills to pass through legislatures without a full debate or review. Those who voted on the bill did not even know what was in the bill.

The AWA imposes a negative penalty on those who refuse to adopt this bill. For states, this means facing a 10% of Federal law enforcement grants (known as Byrne/JAG). Apparently the negative penalty extends to sovereign tribes as well, as mentioned in your article. However, to give into federal demands would be willingly relinquishing that sovereignty anyway, as they are forcing a bad law upon your tribe.

As of February 2012, 15 states and 9 Native American tribes are "substantially compliant" with the AWA. However, of those 15 states, two of them, Missouri and Kansas, are reconsidering their compliant status. Some traditionally tough-on-crime states, like Texas, California, and Arizona, have publicly stated they have no plans to pass this law.

There are a few major criticisms of this law. The first major criticism is the AWA demands children as young as age 14 to be listed on the public registry. Teens caught in consensual relationships (known as "Romeo and Juliet," or R&J) or "sexting" have landed on public registries across the US. Second, the AWA is expensive, with costs of implementation far outweighing that 10% cuts the federal government imposes on those who refuse to comply.

A major part of the expense of the AWA comes from the reclassification of registrants. When Ohio and Oklahoma changed their registration laws in an attempt to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, the number of people who were listed on the highest tier, the "Tier 3" or "High-Risk" category rose dramatically overnight. In Oklahoma, that number jumped from about 25% to 78% overnight. They did nothing to warrant that change. While most states utilize risk assessment evaluations, the AWA uses an offense-based classification. In other words, the AWA classifies on the basis of how the crime is defined by the state. Instead of streamlining this process across the USA, it has made things worse.

During one congressional meeting in March 2009, a spokesperson for Louisiana stated that a teen having consensual relations with other teens would be forced to register for 25 years.

I should not even have to mention the destructive power of being listed on the sex offender registry. It is a social death sentence. People won't hire you, rent to you, or date you. If you have a wife and kids, they suffer with you. You live in fear of vigilante attacks or politicians passing the next feel-good law against you to pander for votes.

Rejecting the Adam Walsh Act is not about being "soft" but "smart" on crime. Education and prevention programs proven to reduce the prevalence of sexual offending in society do inded exist, like Stop It Now or the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. However, these level-headed programs are ignored in favor of revenge-motivated law enforcement and an industry that sells us a false sense of security.

This list is very expensive to maintain. The state of Ohio reported they spent over $10 million in legal defense and reclassification of registrants as a result of the Adam Walsh Act.Ohio spends $40,000 a month to Offender Watch just to maintain the oline registry. This does not even count the cost of complience checks or notification, just the cost of the registry. 

The public registry fails us because we have grown to rely on a list that only shows us at most 5% of the problem. About 95% of sex crime arrests are of people with no prior sex crime arrests. Furthermore, about 95% of those on the public registry never re-offend, but it has nothing to do with the registry. In fact, studies suggest the public registry may actually create an environment that makes people more likely to re-offend.

If the Cherokee Nation wants to protect children, don't adopt the Adam Walsh Act. If the Cherokee Nation wants autonomy from American interference, then don't adopt the AWA. 

Learn more about the dangers of the Adam Walsh Act by visiting Once Fallen's Adam Walsh Act fact guide.

The "SMART" Office needs to be sued for false advertising

When the Adam Walsh was passed into law in 2006, the so-called SMART Office was also created. I don't know why people are so fascinated with acronyms, but of all the acronyms, they chose one that has the least symbolism for a group dedicated to pimping a bad law, namely the Adam Walsh Act.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/index.htm
"SMART" stands for Sex-offender Monitoring, Apprehending, Registration, and Tracking office. So far, sex offender policies have been anything but smart. Maybe it is time we take a little look at this "SMART" Office and judge for yourself if this Office is as "SMART" as it claims to be.

“The SMART Office: Open for Business”

In a press release, The SMART office proudly proclaims it is "open for business." 

"In December 2006, the SMART Office officially opened for business when President Bush appointed Laura L. Rogers, a career prosecutor, as the Director. Ms. Rogers served as a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego, California for nine years, a Senior Attorney at the American Prosecutors Research Institute’s National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse for five years, the Director of the National Institute for Training Child Abuse Professionals for three years and an Adjunct Law Professor at George Mason School of Law for the past four years." This career description for Laura Rogers sounds awfully familiar. In fact, it reminds me of a certain loudmouth TV talking head who famously claimed she "never met a false rape claim" during the Duke Lacrosse case. But I digress.

The SMART Mission Statement:

To assure that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from preying on citizens through a system of appropriate restrictions, regulations and internment.

I love how they use the term "Internment." I immediately think of the Japanese Internment Camps of World War II. Could she have been alluding to the infamous Julia Tuttle Causeway debacle? Subsequent SMART Office Mission statements have removed the offensive word.

In 2009, Laura Rogers testified before the AWA Reauthorization Hearing in 2009. Lets hear her testimony for a minute:

Here we see Laura stumbling and fumbling and bumbling. It is clear she does not even understand how  the Adam Walsh Act even works. She was asked if a 19 1/2 year old and 15 year old having consensual sex would lead to being forced to register. Laura replied that it depends on how each state codes the law, or, as she put it, "there are a lot of issues that would have to be examined, depending on how its charged in a particular jurisdiction." Well, that defeats the purpose of the Adam Walsh Act, because the point of the law was making a "uniform standard" of sex offender laws across the US. She was asked again, and Laura fumbled more times than a butterfingered football player. Finally some speaker from Louisiana answered her question, 25 years on the registry for the scenario described.

It was not long before Laura Rogers stepped down and replaced with Linda Baldwin. Lets look at Linda Baldwin's bio:

Prior to joining the U.S. Department of Justice’s SMART Office, Ms. Baldwin served as a project manager for the New York State Unified Court System’s Office of Court Administration, where she planned and implemented ground-breaking problem-solving court initiatives on behalf of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Court Operations and Planning. During her seven-year tenure, Ms. Baldwin implemented and expanded statewide initiatives for New York State’s sex offense, mental health and drug treatment courts.

As part of her work on the New York State Sex Offense Court Initiative, Ms. Baldwin organized training programs designed to teach and promote best practices for managing the high risk population of sex offenders. She also led an effort to create the Initiative’s Mission Statement and Key Principles, which were designed to guide and promote uniformity among these courts. Ms. Baldwin personally provided technical assistance to the first five sex offense courts in New York State.

Prior to joining the New York State Unified Court System, Ms. Baldwin spent eight years in private practice, concentrating in commercial litigation, real estate and zoning law. She began her legal career as a law clerk for New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Gary S. Stein after receiving her law degree from Columbia University School of Law in 1993.

So she began in the field of  COMMERCIAL litigation and zoning law. What does that has to do with sex offenders, aside from residency laws? I've always wondered how people with no prior experience are given such jobs in the first place, but then again, politicians are rarely experts in the laws they pass. A look at those initiatives raise red flags-- polygraphs and "stakeholder meetings" (what ,can you buy stock in sex offender laws?) are issues of concern. Ironically, Baldwin's home state of New York has decided to opt out of Adam Walsh Act compliance.

The SMART Office website is up and down more often than a yo-yo. Their job is to pimp the AWA so I'm not surprised to find a lack of info on the AWA's shortcomings and rulings against it are mentioned on the website. I'm sure more hilarity will ensue with the Adam Walsh Act Reauthorization Act of 2011.

There is nothing smart about the SMART Office. They should be sued for false advertising. Better yet, I have a more fitting acronym:

Sex-offender
Trafficking
Under
Political
Influence
Department

The STUPID Office. Now that sounds about right.

We need to pass a law to ban named laws (or "Curling Legislation")

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: If you're naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it's probably a bad law. It means you're legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That's generally not how good policy is made. -- Radley Balko, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine

"Nannyslature...What do you do when a mother comes in and testifies that her son got sick because he drank water out of a creek? Do we have a new law saying you can't drink water out of a creek? That's why you can't drink water out of a creek! That's why we have water-treatment plants. Lewis and Clark got sick when they drank water out of a creek...We're taking care of you. You don't have any responsibility to have any common sense."-- Washington State Rep. Phil Fortunato

The Free Range Kids blog recently reported the latest knee-jerk law in response to a tragic case: Leiby's Law. If this law passes, homeowners and store owners can voluntarily  submit themselves to criminal background checks and, if cleared, get a large, bright green sticker symbolizing that location as a safe-haven for lost children. Really? A 2009 New York study noted that 95.9% of all arrests for any RSO, 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for child molestation were of first-time sex offenders. In addition, only one in four Americans (around 65 million people) have any form of criminal records. In short, the law will honestly prevent nothing. 

Named laws have been in vogue for a while. There is the Adam Walsh Act, Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, Sarah's Law (in the UK), the Jacob Wetterling Act, all directed at sex offenders. Laws named after people tend to be more knee-jerk responses that plow through legislature rather than common sense solutions which came after lengthy debate and rational focus to create narrow definitions to address the actual problem. This phenomenon does not seem to be limited to sex offender law. Below are a few examples of named laws on various subjects:

1. Texas's "Ashley's Law": This law increased penalties and registry requirements for sex offenders was named after seven-year-old Ashley Estell ,who disappeared from a park in 1993 and was strangled to death. Her body was found the next day by a roadside. A sex offender named Michael Blair was arrested and convicted on circumstantial and faulty evidence. Michael Blair was exonerated in 2008 when a series of DNA tests proved his innocence.
2. South Carolina's Chandler's Law: This law mandates ever ATV user under 16 take a $55 training coursewhile riding.While some of the law is indeed common sense, the criticism of this law is based on human nature, as noted in the linked article. First, "people will always be idiots." Second, "accidents will always happen." "Common sense doesn't always happen, and shit happens." In other words, passing more regulations won't prevent accidents. People are still free to ignore the new law.
3. NJ's "The Tyler Clementi HigherEducation Anti-Harassment Act": This law looks to prevent college bullying by dramatically expanding the scope of existing anti-harassment regulations.The newer law replaces a narrow definition of bullying with a broad and vague definition that suppresses a great deal of free speech. 
4. Laci and Connor's Law: This law which makes it a federal offense to harm a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman was named after Laci Peterson, who was 8 months pregnant when murdered, is heavily criticized as a backdoor attack on abortion rights.

 The current legal flavor of the week is Caylee's Law, inspired by the Casey Anthony Trial. The law was begun by those unhappy with the trial's outcome (she was found "Not Guilty" because of a ramshackle prosecution case who relied on emotion rather than facts to try his case). There was a law proposed by watchers on Nancy Grace and crime TV shows who lack understanding of the justice system. Five states, including Florida and Wyoming, are looking at drafting a "Caylee's Law."

So what is "Caylee's Law" and what will it do? Well, supposedly it will force parents to report their children missing within 24 hours or report a death within an hour. While it sounds like common sense, many articles are questioning the law and offering scenarios that may lead innocent people in jail. Is it truly "better safe than sorry" to panic and call the police every time a child cannot be immediately located? Consider THIS WYFF TV STORY as an example. The missing kid was hiding in his own room where he was "missing"-- K-9 units and Reverse 911 was utilized to find a child that never left his room. Many missing person's reports are resolved this way.

The real fuel for the Caylee's Law is partially our unsatisfied bloodlust for Casey Anthony's head on a silver platter. However, the other half is our faulty belief that mere laws made in haste will somehow prevent rare tragedies from occurring. The "curling parenting" generation is fueling many of these laws. Maybe we can refer to this trend as "Curling Legislation." Laws named after kids may have good intentions. After all, who wants to see a child seriously hurt or killed? However, at some point we must come to the realization we can only do so much in our society to prevent rare tragedies from happening.

Which is a better memorial? An ill-conceived law passed in anger and ignorance? Or an act that uses a rational approach to addressing the root causes of societal concerns? Honestly, we need to propose a bill that will ban the use of names in the bill. Please, just don't name it after anyone.

Old Helium.com article on why AWA is onconstitutional

I can't believe a two year old article i wrote is still up, and it is worth sharing. It was written way back in the beginning of 2008.

http://www.helium.com/items/837058-is-the-adam-walsh-act-about-sex-offender-notification-unconstitutional

Why the Adam Walsh Act is Unconstitutional

Congress knew the Adam Walsh Act was unconstitutional from the very beginning. The AWA began as the Child Protection and Safety Act of 2005, but stalled out in both the House and the Senate. Then John Walsh began his crusade to resurrect this stymied bill. During the lobbying campaign for the AWA, John Walsh had told critics that he suggested electronic implants in the anuses of sex offenders and "if they go outside the radius, explode it, and that would send a big message." His wife, Reve, suggested asking those stymieing the AWA if they molested kids or had child porn on their computers. (Lisa de Morales, "Summer Press Tour, Day 16: An Explosive Interview," Washington Post, Wed., July 26, 2006, C7). He gained the backing of disgraced Florida Congressman Mark Foley to help push this bill through a "special" legislative session. These special sessions are reserved for "emergency" provisions such as disaster relief, or any legislation expected to have no opposition. Thus, there was no hearing and no opportunity for opponents to challenge this law. Even Senator Kennedy was pressured to drop hate crime legislation he attached to the bill (ibid.). After the bill was passed, Attorney General was given the power of "interim rule" by Congress (violating Separation of Powers); interim rule allowed Gonzalez to bypass proper procedure. One of the provisions he passed was the retroactive application of the law (violating ex post facto).

The AWA, like all other sex offender legislation, has been argued the same way by those passing these laws, namely, that these laws are meant to be "regulatory/ civil" rather than "punitive/ criminal." This argument effectively bypasses all constitutional safeguards! However, when it has been successfully argued such laws are indeed punitive, there have been victories against sex offender legislation.

Ohio is one of the first states to pass the AWA. Much like their US counterparts, the state legislators held a closed-door "special" session. Under the new law "SB 10," many offenders would be reclassified, many raised to a Tier III. Also, those who were no longer required to register would have to continue registering for at least five more years. In Hamilton County alone, an extra 800 people would join the 350 already on Tier III (Sharon Coolidge, "Sex Offenders face tough rules" Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 29, 2007). As of this writing, over a thousand RSOs have filed litigation against the AWA. The Ohio Public Defenders' Office is handling many of these cases, as it is now considered a criminal matter. Among the arguments used in the possible class-action lawsuit is ex post facto, separation of powers, and double jeopardy.

To make it worse, the AWA attaches a penalty to states refusing to implement the AWA; a 10% cut in the Byrne grant (though Bush and Congress has just cut the grant significantly and is being debated). But many states such as Arizona have found the cost of implementing the law exceeds the amount that would be lost if they DON'T Implement the AWA (Sarah Tofte, "Protect children from sexual violence" Pasadena Star-News, Jan. 21, 2008). If the law was not controversial, then why must the federal government force the states to adopt it under penalty? Something is fishy here.

In short, the origins of the AWA are shady. The effect of the law is onerous and obnoxious to our constitution. Nothing seems or feels right about the provisions of this act. In the next few days, I will have a breakdown of the AWA at my website, www.oncefallen.com, for anyone interested in further research into the practical effects of the AWA.