OHIO
Law designed to toughen registry could result in fewer juveniles being labeled as sex offenders
Every year, more teens are added to Ohio's sex offender registry, slapped with labels that will follow them past their 18th birthday and mark them as potential threats to their neighbors.
But if teen sex offenders are indeed dangerous, how come they're being locked up far less often than in the past? The answer might be a 2008 law that was designed to crack down on sex offenders, but could have the opposite effect when it comes to juveniles.
Data from the Ohio Attorney General's Office and the Department of Youth Services shows that for every two juveniles made to register for the first time in 2008 and 2007, one kid was locked up for a sex offense. However, in 2009, only 88 minors were locked up for sex offenses while 290 entered Ohio's registry network. The overall population in Ohio's juvenile prisons has declined as well, but the percentage of inmate youths committed for sex offenses is at its lowest in at least five years.
In 2006, 193 juveniles were placed into custody for a sex crime. Admissions for rape numbered 120 that year. The vast majority were not forcible sexual assaults, but sex acts between two teens where one of the parties was younger than the age of consent, or 13.
This past year, 50 of the 88 lock-ups were for rape, a 240 percent decrease in that offense from three years earlier. The number of age-of-consent rapes by teens dropped from 72 in 2006 to 34 in 2009.
This is despite Ohio's implementation in 2008 of the Adam Walsh Act, the federal government's uniform policy on sexual offender registry. Or maybe because of it, according to some in the judicial system. The Adam Walsh Act requires anyone 16 or older who is convicted of a sex crime to be added to the state's sex offender registry. As a result, some judges and prosecutors are changing charges to avoid registration requirements they say are too harsh to be applied uniformly to every juvenile.
Usually, that means "sex" disappears from the sex crimes. For example, a sexual imposition charge can turn into an assault because both deal with unwanted contact. Or a pandering obscenity allegation for "sexting" – sending lewd images of minors with a cell phone – can morph into a charge that punishes the teen for using a cell phone in a criminal act. "There are lots of charges that capture the essence of what you're seeing without putting the extra word in that says, 'This is sex,'" said Judge Steven Michael of the Jackson County Juvenile/ Probate Court.
But even convictions for a sex offense in the lowest tier – Tier I – can be a way to avoid teenage transgressions following offenders into adulthood.
The law allows for judges to lower classification after a juvenile's incarceration or probation is completed. So if a judge designates a teen a Tier I offender and orders him to complete six months of probation, the label can be removed a half-year later. If they're still younger than 18 at that point, the teen successfully avoided inclusion on the online, publicly accessed registry.
A snapshot of the registry database in each of the past three Decembers shows the ranks of Tier I offenders have grown significantly. In December 2007, the state attorney general's office was watching 148 teens in that lesser designation. By Dec. 15, 2009, the state had 290 Tier I teens to monitor. The number of teens who committed more serious sex crimes has trended only slightly upward.
Fairfield County Prosecutor David Landefeld said he thinks each child defendant's case should be looked at individually to determine if labeling is necessary. "I don't know that you need a sledgehammer to take care of that when a tack hammer might very well be sufficient," he said. His office has made some cases change from a sex offense to a disorderly charge when the situation has called for it, he said.
Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Bambi Couch Page, who handles much of the department's sex crime caseload, said there are cases where the consequences of a sex offender label that extend past the secrecy of juvenile court might be the wrong thing to do. Defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges "don't necessarily want this person at age 14, 15, 16 stuck in these categories that have a lifelong effect," Page said. "There has been a whole lot of maneuvering in the juvenile system."
Michael, also who is president of the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges, said the law, if applied to the letter, would cost good kids who exercised bad judgment a chance to realize their potential as citizens. "(A teen's) judgment is being formed during those years and they're going to make some stupid decisions," he said. "I think that's why you're starting to see prosecutors and judges and players in the system having a real conversation around what we are really seeing. Is this someone a sex offender? A dangerous person that we really do need to make other people aware of?"
Dr. Brad Hedges, who heads the nonprofit Mid-Ohio Psychological Services in Lancaster, said the law "is doing a lot of damage." Hedges said this type of legislation doesn't take into account that counseling for juveniles with sexual behavior issues is far more successful than for adults. A 2006 report by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers stated that with appropriate short-term outpatient treatment, juvenile sex offenders are at no greater risk to commit another sex offense than any other child receiving mental health assistance.
The Adam Walsh Act was crafted with the best intentions, but might be creating a second set of victims, Wyman said. If teens aren't a danger to others, she said, they shouldn't be labeled as sex offenders well into adulthood.
A well-publicized example is sexting, which would be construed legally as the felony charge of pandering obscenity involving a minor. "Sexting opens the doorway for virtually every teenager in America to become a sex offender," Wyman said.
A bill was introduced in April by Cincinnati-area Rep. Ron Maag, R-Salem Township, to reduce sexting by teens to a first-degree misdemeanor. It was co-sponsored by Rep. Gerald Stebleton, R-Lancaster, who could not be reached for comment, and currently is languishing in the House's Criminal Justice Committee.
At its heart, Adam Walsh and its predecessors – the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law – are designed to protect children. They, along with Adam Walsh, are named for victimized children.
Michael said laws crafted in the spirit of protecting our most vulnerable can go too far because of their near-universal appeal.
Supporting sex offender legislation, or any law that purports to be tough on crime, rarely hurts re-election prospects, lawmakers said.
"I'm not familiar with anyone ever losing an election because they were too tough on crime," said Rep. Dan Dodd, D-Hebron. "You're not going to lose support by going too far ... sometimes that does create bad law."
Russ Zimmer
21 February 2010
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100221/NEWS01/2210301
