AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers changed the state’s sex offender registry law earlier this year, but it still falls short of the minimum requirements in the federal Adam Walsh law. That will again reduce the state’s grant under the federal Justice Assistance Grant program by 10 percent.
“We have been told by the SMART (U.S. Justice Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking) Office that the changes do not meet their requirements under the Adam Walsh Act,” said Matt Ruel with the State Bureau of Identification, which oversees Maine’s registry.
Last year, the total grant to the state under the program was more than $1.3 million. Because Maine did not meet Walsh Act requirements, the federal government withheld 10 percent of this money. Maine then applied for permission to use the penalty money for improvements to the existing registry. That request was approved.
“We will be asking again to do that so I can’t say what the penalty will be this year,” Ruel said.
Ruel said the federal program was funded for the first six months of the federal budget year that started Oct. 1, and could be significantly cut in the second half of the year as part of deficit reduction legislation.
The five-year-old Adam Walsh Act was named after a Florida boy who was killed 30 years ago by a sex offender. The law requires the states to develop registries that will feed data into a national sex offender database. It requires juvenile offenders to be on a registry, and that has been a non-starter for Maine lawmakers.
“We are headed down the path that is the best for Maine,” said Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. “There are some areas that our committee has very much objected to around juveniles and juvenile sex offenders.”
Plummer said Maine is not the only state to reject the strict requirements under the federal law. Only 16 states have met the requirements as interpreted by the Justice Department. Five states have rejected the law and are losing the 10 percent penalty money.
“From what we were told in committee, it would cost us far more to implement a registry with juveniles than the penalty we are getting in lost federal funds,” he said.
Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick the Democratic senator on the panel and a former co-chair of the committee, agrees with Plummer.
“We were told it would cost a lot not only to create a new registry, it would cost a lot to maintain it,” he said. “What we are doing now, the adult offenders, is what we should be doing and not expanding it to kids.”
Gerzofsky said the new law that has just taken effect was the result of years of work by committee members to craft a measure that works for Maine. Both Gerzofsky and Plummer expect changes will be proposed in the new Legislature, as they have been in during every session for a decade.
The State Supreme Court is considering a case that challenges the registry law, arguing it violates the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed. That lawsuit does not apply to the new registry law, which separates offenders into three categories. Those who must register and send any address changes to the state for 10 years, those who must register for 25 years and a group who must register and update their whereabouts for life.
Ruel hopes Congress will make changes to the law and abolish the penalty for states not meeting every requirement. The House-passed reauthorization measure for the law eliminates the juvenile registry requirement that offenders register for life. It also creates a new grant program to help the states treat juvenile sex offenders.
But, the Senate has taken no action on the bill except to refer it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not meet again until after the November elections.
Our Governor and our politicians regardless of what party they are in, should be ashamed of themselves that they have allowed this to happen once again. While improvement may have been made in small areas to help with domestic abuse, our state is still light years behind dealing with child molesters and sexual predators compared with the rest of the country. Remember when Maine used to be a great place to raise your kids? Well apparently that isnt the case.
The State of Maine is dangerous, yes…
…to complacent parents.
… and very dangerous to young men on it because their girlfriends parents hate him,
… then they get murdered because they are on it.
Am I wrong about the danger there, in any way ?
Aren’t those the fruit that this thing actually bears ?
The crew in Augusta is asleep at the switch on multiple dimensions both with regard to sexual offenders/predators and domestic violence. All forward movement on domestic violence homicide in Maine during the last 15 months has been created by citizens and several elected officials in the House of Representatives. Very little of that improvement has been created by the Governor and none of it has been created by the AG.
Proof of that is here: http://www.maine.gov/ag/children_families/domestic_violence.html Page down about 2/3 of the way on that page and you will see that the last report posted by the AG was in 2006, six long years ago. The very dramatic redulction this year in Domestic Violence Homicides in Maine has actually occured in spite of…and not because of…actions by the Covernor and AG. THAT is very sad.
There needs to be a commitment to fixing the issues with the sex offender issues. And then there needs to be action to honor that commitment. This should not be an issue that continues year after year.
If some 16 or 17 year old is messing with kids under 14 he or she should be treated as an adult…Stop coddling theses brats and thugs…That’s why we have most of the problems we have…Jesh…
Absolutely!
I wouldn’t exactly call a 16 year old, who is dating a 14 year old, a pedophile.
Really??? What’s the difference between a guy who is 16 or 18?? Or 20 ?? Or 30 ect.?? Either of which is a full grown man having sex with a CHILD under the age of 14 , which is illegal in Maine..Atleast for now anyway…..Why bother having any age limits at all then ??? But that is the end game isn’t it ???
Unless it’s a female teacher w/ a student.. then she can claim ‘We are in love..” and get 30 days suspended by our pathetic judges here in Maine..
The Pope says 12 is ok, and he is the most conservative person in the world.
Actually that would be legal. At age 19 I was having sex with 14-year-olds and it was perfectly protected by Maine law. You might want to do some research on age of consent in Maine. It’s legal to have sex with 14- and 15-year-olds as long as the adult isn’t more than 5 years older. After that the absolute age of consent is 16.
Actually that would be legal. At age 19 I was having sex with 14-year-olds and it was perfectly protected by Maine law. You might want to do some research on age of consent in Maine. It’s legal to have sex with 14- and 15-year-olds as long as the adult isn’t more than 5 years older. After that the absolute age of consent is 16.
We will always have sexual problems, and they will increase, as long as we as a society allow girls to dress sexually, as they do today. Sex is here to stay and I see very little concern over trying to stop it. A much greater concern for me, is to find a way to stop killing the unborn.
What are we at now, about 54 million and counting. If I was a child again, I would much rather be exposed to sex at a early age, then killed.
I agree…With that short little skirt she is just asking for it right ?? 12 or 20 , what does it matter ??? (sarcasm off)
All are entitled to an opinion, I respect your right. Most men are subject to a certain amount of sexual awareness at the site of a good looking young girl, regardless of age,
exposing the majority of their bodies, especially when one considers they are doing this for what reason?. Their are a few, so called men , who are not very concerned about what they do, in that they are more interested in young boys. To each his own.
Really? Another Tea Partier heard from.
You would rather be exposed to sex early on and then killed?
Where did you learn to read my friend. Try again, and leave out the ‘and’. But if you would choose to be aborted (killed), you are entitled to you opinion.
My mother taught me to read, my friend. Here is an exact quote copied and pasted from your post: ” If I was a child again, I would much rather be exposed to sex at a early age, then killed.” Your exact words. “…then killed.”
And I’m sure that he meant “…than killed” rather than “then.” I believe it is a proofreading issue, not a desire to be killed young after being exposed to sex.
Yes, Shelly you are correct. I know what he meant, but I went with what he wrote. Many folks confuse ‘than’ and ‘then’. My belief is his misstatement was Freudian and not particularly a proofreading issue.
Poor Freud, the things he is blamed for….
I agree, Hobo1a, sex is here to stay.. if only we could make it go away.. sigh.. my ex sure did her part..
Are you sure, others might disagree with you.
Your comment is positively deranged. That goes for all who have ‘liked’ it.
As always Congress makes rules that States do not have money to put in place, unfortunately. I guess we can always increase the cig, or alchol tax.
So,even if it costs the state money, it would be money spent to prevent another child from becoming a victim. Nevertheless Maine lawmakers object.
How about starting a registry of which Maine lawmakers object ? to getting tough on sex offenders.
I think instead of paying a federal income tax it should go to the State, This way the State doesn’t have to worry about losing funding on anything the Federal Government uses money to force States into doing.
What a bunch of ninnies! “it cast too much to make and implement a registry” How much do you think it cost a victim? How much do you think it cost the state to treat the victims who suffer this abuse? How much do you think it cost the state to house the abusers when they finally do get caught? If their opportunities are limited because of public awareness then the amount of damage will be less, thus the expense to the state will be less. How about a course in common sense required for all state house members and politicians? That would save the state more money than we could count!
I understand where you are coming from, and I could agree in part if any of the many millions spent on the registry included anything at all for education and prevention programs and/or for victims’ services. Sadly, everything is focused after the fact, on punishment of those who offended, and that does nothing to prevent future abuse and offenses or to help victims. Very few, once caught, will re-offend; it has little to nothing to do with the public registry; it has to do with the shame and guilt most offenders have always felt. Those who don’t, the few who are unable or unwilling to change, do need stringent sentences and stringent monitoring if and when released, and that would be so much better accomplished if they were the only ones the focus was on. And that would be accomplished just as well with a law enforcement only registry, not a public ones.
I wonder if it is just possible that, in addition to looking at costs, Maine legislators have also looked at statistics and research studies and know that there is no safety benefit to be derived from a public registry. The AWA is flawed legislation. It is based on the premise that those who sexually molest children come from the ranks of those already registered. That is untrue. It is based on the premise that most on the registry will re-offend and are dangerous. That is a lie. Assuming that those in the SMART office can read, they choose to ignore the experts and the research. If your own legislators are not ignoring them but are instead making an attempt to craft laws that are based on need, on evidence-based research, and on what will actually make communities safer, you are several steps ahead of much of the rest of the nation.
Kind of the same thing as the War on Drugs, A failure that does nothing, but it looks like something is being done. Kind of reminds me of prayer actually, how to look like your doing something without actually doing anything.
LOL; I would have to differ with you on the power of prayer and faith, but that would be a different discussion on another venue.
a server in the state building, with backups, and a computer specialist to maintain it.. hmm that does’nt seem too expensive.. then modify existing software (adult offender registry system), add in the “minor sex offender registry”, have juvenile corrections add their “clients”, and report the registry weekly to a federal server database… I don’t see the issues here.. just laziness.. most of this registry could be run through maine’s juvenile corrections system..
The changes made recently mean is to my ex is no longer a “lifetime registrant.” In fact, he was changed to 10 years and in August dropped off the list entirely. How does something like that protect Maine children?
It protects them because, first of all, he is as close to zero risk as a person can be or this wouldn’t be happening. In fact, since almost all sexual crime against children is committed by those not on a registry, he is quite likely less risk than a never registered guy on the street. But the main way it protects children is now he has a better shot at a decent job, decent housing, community and societal integration and support, and all of those things are closely correlated with staying on the straight and narrow and lowered risk.
When you look at what most people believe about those on the registry and what evidence-based studies and research shows to actually be true, you see a huge difference.
Google ‘myths and facts about sex offenders’ and you will see what I mean.
The state of Maine is a joke when it comes to dealing with sex offenders, they give them light sentences that feel’s like their slapping a child on the wrist for something wrong and then they are sticking them in area’s full of little kids especially in the bigger cities we need to isolate these scum and put them far away from the rest of us. 2 months for statutory rape because apparently maine thinks it’s ok for an older man or women to seduce and convice minors that its ok what they are doing when its wrong in every sense of the word
Completely agree. Maine’s record on sex offenders is not just shameful, it is criminal.
Most of that lax record is due to no action by d.a. Almy.
Wow…from the comments it appears that no one understands the article…the reason Maine is facing this penalty.
There is nothing wrong with our sex offender registry people….Maine is being penalized because it refuses to create a registry for minors.
The problem would be solved if they were never allowed out of prison cells for the rest of their lives.
No, it wouldn’t. Studies show that if every registrant were locked up for the rest of his life, reported sexual crime would decrease, at the very most, by 7%. Non-reported sexual abuse wouldn’t decrease at all. Almost all sexual crime against children and most against adults is committed by people in their lives on a regular basis, often close family members.
And that registry is what every state is going broke trying to keep up, what our federal government appears willing to put us into bankruptcy over, and what parents feels actually keeps their children safe.
Ah, an intelligent person. Thought they had all died some time ago. The most disturbing part of your post is the fact that in most cases, the Mothers are aware that their Child has been sexually molested, by either the Husband, or the current boyfriend. But unless the relationship is really over, she will not only not report this fact, but will actually defend them. That might be hard to believe, but consider, over 56 million Children have been aborted (killed), by these same caring, loving, Moms. Our members of the Legislature are aware of these facts, yet fiddle with a registry, to further punish those already convicted. instead of trying to find a way to solve this real problem.
And a great deal of non-reporting is because the rest of the family, while they may know what is going on, also know what will happen to the entire family if the breadwinner in put on the registry and the public shaming and humiliation if any member is. They aren’t just protecting husband and daddy–or Uncle Joe or Cousin Bob–they are protecting the total family.
The Registry is a rather blunt instrument even with the recently-enacted changes. Most convicted and subject to the Registry will never re-offend. Being on the Registry is far more continuing punishment than effective public protection. It is punishment borne as much by the offender’s family as by the offender themselves. If I had a better answer, I’d offer it.
Keeping the very young — frequently immature, inadequately guided about sexual matters by adults, and with hormones urging exploration and action — out of the adult system has been a wise decision by Legislators.
The Court review of the ex post facto registration requirement is likely to deem the sanction as being other than a punishment and thus constitutional. Deference to the political environment is seldom absent from constitutional evaluations in Maine’s high court.
Solomon is seldom around when we need him.
There is a large difference between adult sexual offenders (Those over 18) and younger offenders. It has been demonstrated that the younger variety can be cured. No such demonstration for adult offenders.
We treat children differently in court. Juvenile offenders do not have the same rights as adult offenders. Lawyers representing children may have no special expertise in that area, and often courts are not up to speed on the best facilities to place these juveniles.
Maine is almost unique in that judges have the ability to move ANY case (regardless of age) to adult court. In the case of a juvenile not ameanable to treatment, or a juvenile who repetedly re-offends (both rarities) the case could be moved to adult court where the juvenile could receive an adult sentence, including (but not limited to) placement on the adult registry.
You are pretty up to speed with the juvenile issue, Tux, but you need to read up on the effectiveness of treatment with adult offenders. Some programs have shown amazing results. Of course, there are always problems with the issue, such as who is forced into treatment when he shouldn’t be. Treatment addresses deviancy. 19 and 20 y o guys who have sexual relationships with 14, 15, and 16 y o girls are required in some states to register and to complete therapy, and that is ridiculous. Their relationships are illegal; they are certainly showing poor judgement, but they aren’t deviant. What on earth type of treatment would be appropriate to “straighten out” a 19 y o male who finds a 16 y o female sexually attractive?
Not the proper venue to go into all the spacifics, but I agre with you. Some States have a five-you year rule, and some states any juvenile relationships may (if you haven’t got a good lawyer) put you on the sexual predator registry.
I believe (having worked with these juveniles) that sex between children is not the same diviant behavior as sex between children and adult.
Be nice if we could get passed the hot tempers, and outrage and study the issue responsibally.
Amen to that!
Now, is the time to replace The Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not meet again until after the November elections.
In addition, just another inept agency taking from the tax payer and caring less.