advertisement

Bills target sex offenders retroactively

Thursday, February 28, 2008 | 12:13 p.m. CST; updated 11:19 p.m. CDT, Monday, July 21, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — Sex offenders are in the cross hairs of the General Assembly this year with numerous pieces of legislation coming from both parties that aim to restrict the rights of people on the Missouri Sex Offender Registry.

The centerpiece of these efforts is a bipartisan joint resolution proposed in the Senate that would make the registry retroactive, which would force sex offenders who committed crimes before the enactment of the registry to sign up. If the legislation passes, voters would vote on the issue in November.

Aims of the resolution have widened following a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that upheld a previous court decision. A Missouri law that restricted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school was ruled unconstitutional because of attempts to apply the law retroactively.

The resolution is being co-sponsored by Sens. Maida Coleman, D-St. Louis, and Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, and awaits a vote on the floor. A new clause in the legislation would also allow the law to be applied retroactively when restricting sex offenders from residing near schools or child care facilities.

The intent of the bill is to “make sure that whether sex offenders committed their crimes in 1972 or 2008, they will be required to register,” Crowell said.

John Coffman, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said attempts to bypass laws banning retroactive laws violate “a pretty basic rule of constitutional fairness.” He said the ACLU-EM thinks any restriction applied retroactively, whether civil or criminal, is unfair.

The joint resolution is one of myriad bills aimed at curbing the rights of sex offenders.

Bills restricting sex offenders from living in college residence halls and near public schools or from loitering near public parks, swimming pools and child care facilities have sprouted up this session. Other bills would make sex offenders disclose their e-mail addresses and prevent them from serving as a coach or trainer for youth sports teams.

Coffman said the emergence of sex offender language this year is no surprise.

“I think we’re seeing a lot of these type of bills because it’s an election year,” Coffman said. “Representatives want to do something to show the public that they’re trying to protect them.”

Coffman said a lot of the bills taken individually might be reasonable, but taken as a whole, they might be not easily enforceable and could needlessly punish sex offenders after they have already served their time.

Rep. Mark Bruns, R-Jefferson City, chairman of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee and an author of some of the bills, said he supports Crowell and Coleman’s legislation. He also said the legislature should “be careful where we tread” because of issues of constitutionality.

Bruns said bills like the one that would ban sex offenders from living in college or junior college residence halls would be a simple and easy step that could be taken to protect students from sex offenders. Bruns said the college could just enter the name into the registry.

“Seems like a simple enough idea to me,” Bruns said.

Rep. Gary Dusenberg, R-Jackson County, is the sponsor of a bill that would tag the driver’s licenses of sex offenders with a special marking. A highway patrolman for 26 years, Dusenberg said he thinks a special identifier on a sex offender’s driver’s license would throw up a red flag if there were a child in the car and that it could be discreet.

“It wouldn’t be embarrassing,” Dusenberg said. “It would only be known by law enforcement.”

Coffman said he worries that a marking could be a “scarlet letter” for sex offenders.

The bill is awaiting relegation to a committee, where the issue would be further examined.

Bruns and Dusenberg both said that because of sex offenders’ high recidivism rate, they should attract special restrictions and that it’s nearly impossible to cure them.

Dusenberg said the state spends more than double to incarcerate sex offenders than it does regular inmates and still has little to show for it.

“Spending money on the sexual predator unit, it’s like throwing money in a river, as far as I’m concerned,” Dusenberg said.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Otis P. Funkerwinkle February 28, 2008 | 4:49 p.m.

This is great! Now that were not concerned with constitutional issues why don't we make parking tickets a thousand dollars each and make them retroactive back 50 or 6o years. That could generate enough money to eliminate the income tax. Hell, and while where at it, how about a tax on horses! We can go back a long ways on that one.

(Report Comment)
Jennifer Cross February 28, 2008 | 5:13 p.m.

Bruns and Dusenberg both said that because of sex offenders’ high recidivism rate, they should attract special restrictions and that it’s nearly impossible to cure them. I wonder where they get their scientific facts and empirical data from? Must be from Wendy Murphy and Bill Oreilly. I suggest these individuals do a search and not get their data from the entertainment news medis.
The fact is that according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice 3.5% recidivist rate for first time offenders for a repeat sex crime. N.Y. last year released their scientific rates with a 2.1%. California Dept of Corrections recently released their report and said less than 4% for first time offenders. So, if 90 to 95% all all first time sex offenders NEVER commit another sex offense, than what are we doing qasteing Billions upon Billions of our tax dollars monitoring and making life hell for 90 to 95% who will not ever reoffend. We can certainly do better than this. We can pretty much tell who will re-offend. For instance, someone who did not know their victim. They as a group have a high rate of reoffending. But instead we pass laws that Do More Harm than Good." These laws in effect endanger our children and protect no one.
Please read the HRW Reporthttp://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/usdom16819.htm

Posted by on Feb 28, 2008 at 5:08 p.m

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements