Sex offender registry bill seeks change
4/18/09 | 16 comments

Sex offender registry bill seeks change


Baldacci stresses importance of safety over modifications
By Eric Russell
BDN Staff

AUGUSTA, Maine — Debate resumed Friday among legislators on whether Maine should modify the state’s sex offender registry laws, but lawmakers received a clear message that the governor might not support some of those changes.

“The governor will oppose any changes that remove offenders from the registry without addressing risk,” said Maine Public Safety Commissioner Anne Jordan, who testified on behalf of Gov. John Baldacci.

Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison, told the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that his bill aims to remove any language from state law that characterized the sex offender registry as punitive. It also would give courts more discretion on which restrictions sex offenders should adhere to as opposed to the current approach, which is essentially one size fits all. Finally, LD 568 addresses offenders who committed crimes between 1982 and 1992, but were then added to the sex offender registry after changes to state law in 2005.

“By changing the definition [of registrants], we punished people [retroactively],” Sykes testified, explaining that under his bill, some registrants would be removed.

That was the major sticking point for Jordan, who testified on the governor’s behalf against the bill.

Jordan later echoed the same concerns about Sen. Stan Gerzofsky’s bill, LD 1157, which is similar but recommends a few more changes than Sykes’ version and also would result in offenders being removed from the registry.

The public safety commissioner took the governor’s position on the issue a little further during the discussion on the Brunswick Democrat’s bill.

“The governor feels strongly about the safety of children and he thinks the public needs access to that information,” she said. “Until a better system to judge risk is created, the governor believes we should stick with what works.”

Compounding the problem — both sides agreed — is that creating a risk assessment model would require additional resources at a time when none is available.

Friday’s debate was reminiscent of a similar discussion last year around a bill, LD 446, that looked very much like LD 1157 and LD 568. That bill passed through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and then through the House and Senate. But for the same concerns Jordan expressed Friday, the governor pocket-vetoed the bill by not signing it after the Legislature had adjourned.

Members of the committee appeared frustrated with Jordan’s — and the governor’s — stance during Friday’s public hearing, particularly after they spent most of the day hearing from people who supported changes.

Janette Bragdon of Searsport testified on behalf of her father, Clyde Nickerson, who was convicted of statutory rape in the early 1980s. She said her dad, then 19, had consensual sex with his girlfriend, who was under the age of 14. The girl’s doctor found out about the conduct and reported it. Nickerson was convicted and spent time in jail, followed by probation and a spot on Maine’s sex offender registry. Because Nickerson’s crime was a relatively minor sex offense, he was only required to remain on the registry for 10 years. However, when the laws changed in 2005, Nickerson received a letter saying he had to register once again.

Bragdon said her dad has been ridiculed and even threatened for a crime that should be long forgotten.

A woman who identified herself as Jane Doe testified on behalf of her son, who was convicted of a similar crime several years ago. She admitted that her son made a mistake and that he should pay for that mistake, but she also said sex offender laws have gotten out of hand.

“He’s serving a jail sentence, but the registry will be the real punishment,” she said. “The public always assumes the worst.”

Peter Lehman, a sociologist from Thomaston and a former sex offender, has studied sex offender registries in Maine and across the country and said a lot of misinformation exists. Recidivism among sex offenders, Lehman said, is not as high as people think and, in fact, is much lower than almost every other serious crime.

Alysia Melnick, a public policy counselor with the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said the changes made in 2005 that required offenders to essentially re-register for old crimes is almost certainly unconstitutional. Indeed, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is in the process of debating that argument.

The committee briefly discussed creating a so-called tiered system, which other states have done, that creates categories for types of offenders. Relatively minor offenders would still register, but only police would have access to the information.

In the end, though, the discussion steered back to risk. Commissioner Jordan was willing to concede that no risk assessment model is going to be perfect, but right now nothing exists.

Rep. Sykes said he hopes the governor is willing to come up with a way to address what he feels are needed changes to the registry, but he was not overly optimistic.

“It seems like there are a lot of roadblocks to where we want to go,” he said.

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold a work session on May 6 to decide whether one or both of the bills move forward to the full Legislature.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
16 comments on this item
On 4/18/09 at 11:33 AM, sblizzard wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I think its sad the the Govenor is blocking these bills. I am a convicted sex offender who is now 34. When I was 19 , I had a 15 year old girlfriend that I was convicted for. I have had full custody of my daughter and son for the past 9 years and won a Maine Acedemic award and a full scholarship for college. Funny thing is, I get a signed letter from the Govenor saying how nice it is to have such a great productive person as a part of Maine. I have had detectives, I have registered with, and judges not agree with someone like me being under public notification or anyone with my level of offense. It is a waste of time and money for the State for them to have to register the low level offenders every 3 months, but they cant do anything about it. I agree that there are many that should be on the list that the public should know about. But there is a big difference between a pedatory pedophile and a statutory case. The registery is not a bad thing, it just needs to be streamlined. The Govenor needs to STEP UP and agree that there will be liability in no matter what direction he goes in. IS MAINE AWARE THERE IS A FEDERAL MANDATE THAT EVERY STATE INACTS A TEIR SYSTEM? It is sad that there is always going to be a few, with any offense, that screws up and makes the rest look bad. That is part of life though and no matter how much laws people make, until someone can see into the future, nothing can prevent certain things. Educating the public is the key, not the registery. Teach people to see the signs and dangers. By putting 1000 people on the list, it is allowing the the real dangerous ones to hide amoung a mob. By the time you get through the first 300, they all look the same. So it makes the registry useless cause you dont really see who you need to see. I hope that makes sense. I have tried to make my opinion as unbias as possible.

Report abuse
On 4/18/09 at 12:59 PM, AlabamaMainiac wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

sblizzard,

I hope that you use your college scholarship to learn how to write. This is the most disjointed comment that I have read in many years.

Report abuse
On 4/18/09 at 6:15 PM, Gallowsman wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

The Governor is a fool and no matter what he says he is helping Registered Offenders. You see, these bills he is apposing are to try and circumvent and nulify the upcoming Supreme Court Cases that, by all information available, the State is going to lose. These laws the Governor is fighting would change the laws in minor ways to try stop the Court from ruling the Registry unconstitutional or at least leave it somewhat intacted. Without these changes the whole registry scheme in Maine is at substancial risk of being ruled invalid and unconstitutional which will let all 2700 registered offenders walk free permanently. So all the Registered Offenders in Maine will be Thanking the Govenor for his "backdoor" support to get the Registry dismantled.

Support the bill Govenor and a few Registered Offenders will be exempt from Registration and it will survive, maybe. Do nothing, and they all will be exempt from Registering most assuredly. That are your only two choices here.

Report abuse
On 4/18/09 at 7:04 PM, wheelie207 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

The Govenor does not have an open mind to understand whats going on and what needs to be done. He is like some people and think that all offenders are dangerous and most are not and others are. He needs to do something soon or risk losing the whole offender list. He could save the list by just dropping the added part that was added to include the years 1982 - 1991....

If he won't do anything, say goodbye to the list. I'm sure there are those in the added years that will or could commit another crime and then they will have to be on the present list...

Do the right thing Govenor.

Report abuse
On 4/19/09 at 12:26 AM, altair wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Just because the governor's name is Baldassi doesn't mean he should act like a dumbassi when it comes to these laws. They haven't worked, and Maine had a double murder that proved these laws are only useful for gun toting vigilantes. If anything, they should abolish these laws altogether. The smartest thing Maine did was take down the registry after the double murder; too bad they reinstated it after the dust settled from that tragedy. But the registry is useless, and the Walsh Act is going to make it worse!

See more here:

http://www.oncefallen.com/registriesrevisited.html

Report abuse
On 4/19/09 at 3:33 PM, RenMike00 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

So what they should do with the registry is define specifically what the crime was. Instead of saying gross sexual assault let people know what this a 40 year old with an 8 year old or was this a 19 and 15 year old. What do you all think??

Report abuse
On 4/19/09 at 10:55 PM, Phoenix wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I agree RenMike00. Specific details on the individuals should be given. Another thing that can be done is giving each offender a detailed test to see if they are likely to re-offend. Although this could be very costly, I think it is a very good way to determine this accurately, otherwise it would just be speculation. The tests may be deemed unconstitutional but I think it is the best way to find the real pedophiles!!

Report abuse
On 4/27/09 at 8:56 AM, sblizzard wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I agree. Keep the registery, but define the offense. As for your comment ALabamaManiniac, your immaute and need to grow up. I could careless if my spelling or punctuation are correct in a blog. Seems I hit a nerve with you. Have some issues?

Report abuse
On 4/27/09 at 10:15 AM, Amazed wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

First of all, I would like to say that I am not a sex offender so my comments are not biased. I also feel that the registry needs to be streamlined and that sex offenders should be categorized accordingly. There is a huge difference between a 15 year old having sex with a 19 year old and a 19 year old having sex with a 12 - 14 year old (or younger), especially when that is the only incident that an individual may have ever had. These people are thrown into the mix with the severe sex offenders who have molested young children once or even several times.

How about having classifications from one (1) to five (5). I've checked the sex offender list (and do fairly frequently), to see what sex offenders may be living in my area or near the our local schools. Should an individual be a 19 year old "offender" who had a 15 year old girlfriend, and happens to now be living near a school, I would not feel compelled to make a fuss, however, if an individual is a repeat child molester, that's an entirely different story. The state really needs to differentiate and categorize these people. I want to know which offenders are truly a threat to those who live near schools and/or live near me and the young children in the neighborhood. Not all offenders on the registry are truly sex offenders.

Report abuse
On 4/27/09 at 10:17 AM, Amazed wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Phoenix~ Your idea about giving a detailed test is not entirely out of reach... if these offenders want to be tested, they should have to pay for the testing themselves... the state shouldn't be responsible.

Report abuse
On 4/27/09 at 10:18 AM, Amazed wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I believe we should have a registry for those who sell drugs too, they shouldn't be able to live anywhere near a school!

.

Report abuse
On 4/27/09 at 11:07 AM, Louise wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

There are other sites to check out the list of offenders. Try familywatchdog.us A much better site to get info. I just got done checking a certain town where my grand-daughter lives, unbelievable there can be 23 living in a very small town. Seems like they know where to go! On this site you get details, alias's, convictions and a map of where they live. If you click on the name, a photo comes up That's about all anyone needs to know to keep their family safe! Just follow the directions, it's very simple.

Report abuse
On 4/28/09 at 7:20 PM, Gallowsman wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Amazed, you are right. Drugs kill thousands of our children daily and yet we don't have a clue if a convicted drug dealer is living near where our children play and sleep. And while we are at it. How about drunk drivers. Just this last week they have killed eight children and an untold number of innocent adults. According to the CDC, Drunk Drivers kill over 2600 children each year and yet we have no clue about these offenders who have the HIGHEST REOFFENSE rate of all criminals. Yet we only have a public Registry for Registered Former Sex Offenders who, by all the studies, reports and all the professionals in this field agree, are the least likely to re-offend and are the least likely to harm anyone in the future. While most Drunk Drivers have at least three DUI arrests and conviction before killing some innocent family just out for a day on the road. Pragmatically, a Registered Former Sex Offender makes a far safer neighbor than drug dealers, who also bring along their gang related violence, or a Drunk Driver who usually kills their victims on the way to their own homes in our neighborhood streets where our children play.

But sadly, no one cares about the thousands of children that will die from drug related deaths nor the several thousand kids that will die from the habitual Drunk Driver, there are no political outcry for these children because there is no votes to be had. Votes and the media determine Legislators' worth of a child's life, nothing more.

Report abuse
On 4/28/09 at 9:11 PM, unsscarred wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

sblizzard is right and AlabamaMainiac is just an ignorant flamer who can't add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Report abuse
On 5/5/09 at 11:25 PM, suetiggers wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

WHY MEN WHO ARE NOT DANGEROUS DO NOT BELONG ON THE SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRY

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

People on the registry(far too many innocent or not dangerous) have been murdered, committed suicide, had their homes set on fire, been evicted, lost their jobs,etc.etc. Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life. One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.

Eighty-seven percent of people who were arrested for sex crimes had not previously been convicted of such an offense, according to a 1997 study. Just 14 percent of all sexual assault cases involved strangers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

These are examples of who is on the dreaded registry:

1. Romeo and Juliet liasons, false accusations of vindictive teens against an older teen (18 or 19)

2.False accusation by vindictive parents in child custody cases and/or family feuds- There are more of these than most people would believe. There are many reports of people who admit to having lied about being molested when they were younger. Now they would like to have the person wrongly convicted on their testimony set free.

3.mutual consensual sex- but being 3 yrs. and 1 day older than the willing teen (can bring and has brought multiple felony indictments)

4. Sex between consenting teen prostitute (who looks older and even may have lied about her age) with an adult male

5. Criminal charges that later are dropped for insufficient proof but not appealed in time, so still on registry

From all I have read, the number of true pedaphiles who are actually dangerous is relatively small. But check out the registry. You're liable to see people who look like your mailman, grocery clerk,etc.etc. And ones who look like they fit the profile could be the least guilty and vice verse. But the numbers are growing exponentially. And as long as politicians and the media can make hay (or reputations) out of this issue, it will breed fear and hysteria and ruin men (mostly) and their families lives who do not deserve to have this happen ! Where are the churches on this issue? Where are people who say they care about justice? Watch MSNBC’s Witch Hunt brought to anyone who wants to learn by Sean Penn and two courageous filmmakers.

And if you really have an open mind and care about justice, check out R.S.O.L. http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/groups/lobbyhandbook.php

Report abuse
On 6/15/09 at 2:46 PM, notmyrealname wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

We don't need the government to assess the risk of the offenders for us. Keep the system how it is, add ALL known sex offenders regardless of the reason and simply provide detail on the nature of the crime. Not "sexual battery 2nd degree less than or equal to 16" PLAIN ENGLISH.

Example: Consensual sex between 16 year old boy and his 14 year old girlfriend

Then I will determine the risk for myself and my children. It's as simple as that and does not require acts of congress or new laws or anything. Just simply explain the crime.

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.