Juvenile Sex Offender 1
Topic: Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Notification (JSORN) Laws
Social Work 646-Social Welfare Policy
Fall 2007
Scope of the Problem
Over the past two decades, major policy changes have taken place regarding sex offenders in the United States. From 1980-1997, the number of persons incarcerated for sex crimes other than forcible rape grew sevenfold, which led to the creation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification, or SORN laws, which soon existed in all fifty states. These laws required convicted sex offenders, under penalty of further imprisonment, to register with the police in the community where they reside, and then as a supplement to this, to notify those living in the community of their residency. By 2002, thirty-eight states extended these laws to include juvenile sex offenders. Unfortunately, none of these states or Congress looked at any empirical data or policy analysis pertaining to the costs or benefits concerning JSORN (Zimring, 2004). In fact, “To date, there have been no attempts to measure the consequences of policy variation along these lines” (Zimring, 2004, p. 149). According to Letourneau and Miner (2005), what the research has shown is that juvenile sex offenders display similar characteristics to other juvenile delinquents, and “do not represent a distinct or unique type of offender” (p. 297) when compared to other juvenile offenders. In fact, they are quite distinct from adult sex offenders, who according to research are considerably more likely to reoffend. Research has shown very low recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders. In twenty-five studies reporting sexual recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders, the mean rate of recidivism was 9% (Caldwell, 2002). Research has also indicated evidence of a decline in juvenile sexual offending over the past decade, yet it was during this time that juvenile justice sanctions have in many cases intensified (Letourneau and Miner, 2005). Now, under pressure from the federal government to comply with the soon to be enacted Adam Walsh Act, JSORN laws are going to become much more punitive, and potentially devastating for those affected by them, both directly and indirectly. This paper will focus on the impact this act will potentially have on the State of Ohio.
Past Policy
Prior to 2002, there were no laws regarding registration and notification for juvenile sex offenders in Ohio. These laws only applied to convicted adult sex offenders. Juveniles arrested and adjudicated for sex offenses were either sentenced for a certain length of time to incarceration at ODYS, ordered to undergo treatment at a residential juvenile sex offender treatment program, or ordered to undergo home-based treatment, based on the severity of their offense. Upon successful completion of their sentence or program, the juvenile was integrated back into the community with no further sanctions imposed.
Current Policy
Beginning in 2002 in the state of Ohio, amidst growing concern among lawmakers that juvenile sex offenders needed harsher sanctions imposed on them, JSORN laws were put into effect. Under these laws, juvenile sex offenders can be required to register for ten years, twenty years, or for life, depending upon the severity of the offense for which they are adjudicated. In the majority of cases, the juvenile is first sentenced by a judge to a DYS facility or ordered to undergo treatment. The adjudicated youth then goes before the judge once again for a classification hearing. At this hearing, the judge makes a determination about how effective their treatment program was and about the juvenile’s likelihood to re-offend. The judge then decides whether the juvenile must be classified under JSORN, and if so, under which level (Beeler, June 14, 2007). Juveniles deemed sexually oriented offenders must register for ten years, whereas juveniles deemed to be habitual sex offenders must register for twenty years, and juveniles who have been adjudicated as sexual predators must register for life. Those juveniles who are fourteen years or older and are deemed not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system can be transferred to adult criminal court, provided that the child is charged with a crime that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult. Once transferred over to adult court, the child is then afforded all the due process protections entitled to all adult criminal defendants. Additionally, depending on the severity of the alleged offense, children as young as ten, at the discretion of a judge, can receive SYO, or Serious Youthful Offender dispositions. In this case the juvenile court imposes on the child both a traditional juvenile disposition and an adult sentence, but the adult portion may only be invoked if the child is convicted of any felony or first degree misdemeanor after reaching the age of fourteen (Beeler, June 7, 2007). The adult portion of the sentence may also be invoked if the child“engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk to the safety or security of an institution, the community, or the victim” (Beeler, June 7, 2007, p.2). Once again, a child who faces an SYO disposition is afforded all the due process protections entitled to all adult criminal defendants, and may not waive their right to counsel (Beeler, June 7, 2007). So as you can see, judges in the State of Ohio currently have many options at their disposal when dealing with juvenile sex offenders.
Proposed Policy
On July 27th, 2006, President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act into law. The Ohio General Assembly then passed Senate Bill 10, which proposes changes to Ohio’s JSORN laws that will take effect on January 1, 2008. Under the new law, first time sex offenders who were sixteen or seventeen years of age at the time of their offense will automatically be required to register, retroactive to January 1st, 2002. Additionally, juvenile sex offenders who were fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, or seventeenyears of age at the time of their offense, and were previouslyadjudicated delinquent for committing any sexually oriented offense, will automatically be required to register, retroactive once again to January 1st, 2002 (JSORN After 1-1-08, 2007). Under this bill, an adjudicated delinquent youth would be classified into one of three tiers, based on the offense, with a mandatory registration of either 10 years, 20 years, or life, respectively, based on which tier they fall under. While “the bill appears to allow for discretionary classification for 14 and 15-year olds who are first-time offenders…it may not be possible for a judge to reclassify or declassify a youth without first vacating the underlying adjudication” (Beeler, June 14, 2007, p. 3-4).
In her testimony to the Ohio Senate Judiciary Criminal Justice Committee on May 2, 2007, Jill Beeler, Supervisor of the Juvenile Section at the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, recommended that juvenile sex offenders be exempted from the public registry requirements of the Adam Walsh Act that SB 10 proposes, and she disclosed many reasons why. Research has shown that juvenile sex offenders are especially amenable to treatment, and “the juvenile court system is based on the fundamental belief that children can be rehabilitated” (Beeler, May 2, 2007, p. 3). This bill would be imposing an adult sanction on juvenile defendants, who do not receive, and under this bill, will still not receive all of the due process protections guaranteed to adult offenders, such as guarantee of representation by counsel, grand jury determination of probable cause, trial by jury, assurance that an elected judge and not an appointed magistrate will preside over the case, and adult protections, among others. In fact, over 65% of Ohio children facing delinquency charges are not even represented by a lawyer when they appear in juvenile court (Beeler, May 2, 2007).
Ohio already has a registry in place for juvenile offenders, which allows for a judge’s discretion in making the decision of whether or not a juvenile needs to register under JSORN. The judge is able to take into consideration the positive impact of treatment, as well as the well documented low recidivism rate of juvenile sex offenders, which is between 4-10 percent (Beeler, May 2, 2007). Under SB 10, judges’ discretion will be removed from the equation. Last but not least, in addition to the long term harassment and negative consequences that registration and notification will entail for a child with all of their personal information being available online, we also need to look at the public safety issues involved with the passage of this bill. Pedophiles, knowing that many juvenile sex offenders were themselves victims of sex crimes, and realizing that they are vulnerable to further abuse, may use the online registry to find potential victims. The purpose of this bill is to protect children, and yet it will be will be providing the names, pictures, and home addresses of children as young as fourteen online for any and all sexual predators to look at and track down for potential abuse (Beeler, June 7, 2007).
It is for all of the aforementioned reasons and more that several groups see many problems with and are proposing changes to the Adam Walsh Act and its application to juveniles. These groups include the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), Stop It Now!, The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), and the American Bar Association (Beeler, June 14, 2007). In conclusion, it is recommended that the public registry requirements apply only to those juveniles ages fourteen and older who are bound over to adult court or have adult portions of their sentences invoked, and that Ohio’s current JSORN system is retained “for those children who receive traditional juvenile dispositions and those children…who are successfully rehabilitated and do not have the adult portion of their sentences invoked” (Beeler, June 14, 2007, p. 4).
Key Organizations and Individuals
David J. Karp
Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509
MainJusticeBuilding
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC20530
Phone: (202) 514-4601
Fax: (202) 514-2424
Email:
Website:
Mark Dann
Attorney General
State of Ohio
30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor
Columbus, OH43215
Phone: (614) 466-4320
Email:
Website:
David Bodiker
State Public Defender
Jill Beeler
Juvenile Section Supervisor
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
8 East Long Street
Columbus, Ohio43215
Phone: (614) 466-5394
Email:
Website:
David Singleton
Executive Director
The OhioJustice & PolicyCenter (OJPC)
215 E. 9th Street, Suite 601
Cincinnati, OH45202
Phone: (513) 421-1108 x 101
Email:
Website:
Jeffrey Gamso
Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation
4506 Chester Avenue
Cleveland, OH44103
Phone: (216) 472-2220
Email:
Website:
Benson A Wolman
Chief Executive & General Counsel
Equal Justice Foundation
88 E. Broad St,, Suite 1590
ColumbusOH43215
Phone: (614) 221-9800
Email:
Website:
Nancy Gannon Hornberger
Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
1710 Rhode Island Ave., NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC20036
Phone: (202) 467-0864
Email:
Website:
Denise A. Cardman
Deputy Director
American Bar Association
740 Fifteenth St. NW
WashingtonDC20005
Phone: (202) 662-1761
Email:
Website:
Glossary
Adjudicated: “Referring to a minor, the term adjudicated refers to children that are under a court's jurisdiction usually as a result of having engaged in delinquent behavior… (Adjudication, 2007). Under Ohio law, a juvenile cannot be convicted of a crime, but rather can be adjudicated delinquent.
JSORN: Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Notification. This is the registry for juvenile sex offenders in the state of Ohio.
ODYS: Ohio Department of Youth Services, which “is the juvenile corrections system for the state of Ohio. DYS is statutorily mandated to confine felony offenders, ages 10 to 21, who have been adjudicated and committed by one of Ohio’s 88 county juvenile courts (General Information, 2006).
Bibliography
(2007). Adjudication. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from
(2006). General information. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from
(2007). JSORN after 1-1-08.Retrieved October 15, 2007 from
Caldwell, M.F. (2002). What we do not know about juvenile sexual reoffense risk.
Child Maltreatment, 7, 291-302.
Beeler, J. (2007). Senatebill 10 opponent testimony house criminal justice committee
June 7, 2007. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from
Beeler, J. (2007). Senate bill 10 opponent testimony house criminal justice committee
June 14, 2007. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from
Beeler, J. (2007). Senate bill 10 opponent testimony senate judiciary-criminal justice
Committee May 2,2007. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from
Letourneau, E.J. & Miner, M.H. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the
legal and clinical status quo.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 17 (3), 293-312.
Zimring, F.E. (2004). An American travesty. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.