ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

International

H.R.4573 – International Megan’s Law Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar (Updated – reintroduced as HB515)

UPDATED WITH VOTE: WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives today passed legislation to extend Megan’s Law beyond American borders.

The bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), would require the U.S. to tell other countries when convicted sex offenders are traveling there. It would also try to set up reciprocal notification systems so the U.S. is told when convicted sex offenders travel to this country. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report said that at least 4,500 U.S. passports went to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008. Full Article

US Congress House Bill 515

Status: (Introduced) 2015-01-22 – Referred to House Judiciary

Bill Title: To protect children from exploitation, especially sex trafficking in tourism, by providing advance notice of intended travel by registered child-sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child-sex offender is seeking to enter the United States, and for other purposes.

Bill Info

——————-

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 645.
Type of Action: Calendars
Action By: Senate

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4573

Contacting your Senator:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    I have emailed my objections of HR4573 to 5 senators. I sent them the facts about RC.

    • sérviam

      If you can (and I urge everyone), write an actual letter and mail it to the congressional office in Washington and to the district offices in the state. And try to get as many relatives, friends, and other supporters to write as well. They pay more attention to snail mail than to email.

  2. Dr

    If this passes there is no way they can say that life time registration is not punitive. I have a child related crime and so far I’m on the vigilante hit list for life, my spouses family lives in the Philippines .this means I would never be able to visit them again? I did plea to any of this. It’s all punitive for me. When I pled guilty to my crime back in1993 the judge said I would have to register with the police only once unless I move. No restrictions at all. Look at it now, wow how could they think it is constitional to keep adding on more and more, does anyone know what double jeopardy is?

    • Tired of hiding

      Imagine that…the government lying!

      Well, I was told the same thing in 1999 and being innocent, I figured that it was something I could live with rather than face the possibility of a bunch of red-necks (a jury of my peers – sure right) voting to lock me up.

      Well, they have added about 100 new punishments to the contract of the plea I agreed to…anything I can do about it? Sue for breach of contract? Call my congressman (joke)…expect actual justice in Amerika?

  3. Dr

    They better not make this retroactive . If so we need a class action suit against all of it.

    • Joe

      What on earth makes you think this will not be retroactive?

    • td777

      It’s already retroactive, remember, our government has already acting like it was already passed for a year.

  4. JBCal

    Intl Megan’s Law Action: “12/11/2014: Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Menendez without amendment.”

    Robert Menendez is the senator accused by multiple sources of visiting underaged prostitutes in the Dominican Republic on several occasions. (Travel on private jets and staying in private villas no less.)

    Washington hypocrisy at it’s best.

    • Timmr

      Hypocrisy, yes, but a well known tactic of passing off a gun to an innocent bystander and then pointing a finger at him, when the cops arrive at the murder scene.

  5. Bluewall

    Yes its punitive… My court order and release had no mentioning of registering… Come to find out the Federal doesn’t order registration… But the states take it on themselves to force me to be added to their lists…

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Your notice of the requirement to register is NOT part of sentencing. However, the court generally will notify you at that time about registering.

      If you were never notified in any manner by anyone that you have to register — and otherwise have no knowledge of your registration requirement — then you cannot be convicted for failure to register. They must show that you had knowledge of your registration requirement. Of course, being here and talking about it shows you do have knowledge of your registration requirement. 🙁

      But yes, you are right, the states, and most especially California, add on plenty of offenses to registration for which the federal government does not require registration. For one thing, the feds don’t require registration for any misdemeanor, but California does for several misdemeanors. In fact, many felonies that bring on registration in California do not bring on registration under the federal standard.

      Related to this bill, since the end of last year, the feds have been sending information to other countries to which you are traveling for ALL registrants, not simply those who would have to register under the federal Adam Walsh Act. That is, since last year, they have been letting the states set the standard for international relations, different international standard depending on what state you are in; this bill seems to throw that out the window, instead going by the federal standard, and only for offenses related to children.

      Since you say the feds don’t even require registration for your offense, I believe this bill means the feds would no longer be sending information when you travel. If this bill fails, then they will continue what they have been doing and send information about you, which will get you sent back when you arrive at the other border.

      • td777

        Actually, when I was sentenced in 2009, the sentence did include lifetime registration.

        • Joe

          I am willing to bet every last penny (which is not many) that you were SENTENCED to jail, prison, probation, parole, whatever, and ORDERED to register for the rest of your natural life under PC 290.

          Same thing? But oh no. Makes all the difference in the world.

  6. Timmr

    I sent off letters to Congress last time. Maybe we need another angle. People don’t care about the low re-offense rate, or that this is ex post facto punishment for registrants. Besides the lip service to ex post facto punishment in the courts, the publics all for it. Maybe we can focus on the bureaucracy this has created, the money spent on tracking people who have nothing to do with re offending. Maybe as someone has suggested, here, this law will KEEP sex offenders in the country. That should disturb those who want us out. And then what sort of precedent will this send when other disfavored groups become candidates to be on the green list? Environmental activists, pro choice or pro life activists, radical libertarians or progressives; once they have a record, some government official can consider them dangerous, and flag them when traveling.

  7. Tired of hiding

    For all practical purposes this is already being implemented as you may have noticed the increase in the topic of RSO being denied entry (myself included only last September). The mechanism is already in place…tested…and working perfectly. This is is just a formality really.

    The battle is lost.

    Like some of you, I was in denial and tried to maintain a posture of optimism but as the years have gone by and I have witnessed the decline of the America in the erosion of the constitution which is the very fiber the country had been based on, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that not only is the battle lost but the entire war.

    Those who are still in denial will argue with me and more power to you. Denial is a powerful illusion but ultimately you will see that it is just that – an illusion.

    Lee

  8. A

    If I’m not mistaken, Hasn’t this pretty much already been implemented? I’ve already read many horror stories of folks traveling to other countries and being put right back onto the return flight to the U.S.A. Prison system. We, as citizens, are already detainees. Honor is merely a word, not a verb. Not with puppets in higher offices. 🙁

  9. Erich

    Does anyone have ideas on how this would play out with the possibility of the tier system?

    • Tired of hiding

      Don’t worry about the tier system in any of this. The ONLY thing that would have an effect on is if your face shows up on the internet…you will still be a registered sex offender and you will still NOT be allowed to travel out of the USA.

      It will make nearly ZERO change in reality.

      No, a person is either in jail, on probation, or FREE.

      A sex offender is NEVER FREE but on life time probation with no freedom of movement (even within the borders of the USA) and MUST report his/her location for LIFE!

  10. Double A

    I was convicted of a crime where the young woman in my case was 17 and half years old. She was my girlfriend until she was 20. Everything she claimed we did was after she was 18. In over 30 states the crime I was convicted of would not have been a crime. Age of consent in many other countries I am sure are lower than those of the states. It would be ridiculous if I could not travel because of some law that some politician(s) created to boost their approval rating.

    I think they need to create laws and websites comparable to Meagan’s Law for politicians because I believe they ruin more lives than RSOs.

  11. j

    More ex-post facto punishment disguised as from what I can tell – gross denial and obfuscation of available risk and recidivism statistics.

    The authors of this bill certainly would not want to clear the air by introducing such sobering facts that would at least start to remove the covers from hyperbole these laws are essentially based on.

    These laws are witch hunts at best and more accurately an extreme violation of constitutional rights against a new class of “citizens” created under the auspices of fear mongering taken to a new height by aspiring and bottom feeding political opportunists. They know the playbook all too well; generate fear, create a lie and make it a big one. The rest is up to human nature and the resultant behavior which the constitution was supposed to protect ALL American citizens from.

  12. td777

    I’m kinda at the point where I see this is just a formality. It has already been in practice keeping us from traveling for a year now.

    • A

      Exactly my point TD! It’s already being done.

    • Vickie Henderson

      Keep in mind that there is at least one, very significant, difference between practice now and the IML: it CRIMINALIZES the very act of attempting to leave the country without giving the government advance notice and, essentially, seeking its permission. So, instead of traveling out of the country and simply being refused entry, under IML you would be refused entry and then arrested and charged with a felony in the U.S. on your return.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        There is NOTHING in this bill that brings criminal sanctions against the one traveling — or against anyone. This is simply about who will have sex offender information sent to the destination country — that’s all.

        This is specifically and deviously created so as the US is NOT stopping you from traveling — for it cannot do so under the U.S. Constitution. However, the ulterior motive is to send information that will definitely get you rejected by the destination country. But it is that destination country taking that action, and they are not subject to the US Constitution.

        Thus, the result is that your ability to travel is blocked, but it is a foreign country blocking that travel; all the US is doing is sending information.

  13. Anonymous Nobody

    Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but this bill looks like a serious positive, not a negative. As Tired of Hiding said above, they have been doing this since at least last December. Registrants have been reporting they have been getting sent back upon arrival in ALL countries. And they report this is being done to ALL offenses, even simply misdemeanors. At least one registrant said the only info sent to the receiving country was that he “was traveling to their country for the purpose of committing a sex crime.”

    This bill seems to greatly reduce the reach of what they have been doing. This bill seems to limit this only to those whose offenses involved children. Until now, they have been doing it to every registrant, no matter the charge.

    This bill seems to say it will not be done any more once the registrant passes the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act to the end of registration. That would seem to mean that California registrants, who have to register for life, would no longer be subject to this once they reach the time frame that the Adam Walsh Act would allow them to stop, although they can’t stop because of California law.

    These are major plusses. If I am reading it right, this is far better than the tier system CA RSOL has been lobbying for, as it conforms to federal, which the California tier proposal does not. This bill does not even require application for the end to this, it just automatically ends after you pass the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act — unlike the proposal for tiers, under which a bureacracy would be created and you would have to file an application to stop — and any time you have to file, that will be a point to create trouble and add crap on later on.

    This appears to immediately take many registrants out from under this crap. And many others can look forward to an end to it after less time than they would be in the proposed California tiers.

    I think it is wrong to do this to anyone, at least anyone no longer on parole. Still, this looks like a bill to support as making for a much better situation than is in place now. This bill stops this from being done to a LOT of registrants.

    • steve

      “These are major plusses. If I am reading it right, this is far better than the tier system CA RSOL has been lobbying for, as it conforms to federal, which the California tier proposal does not.”
      Wrong there is also lifetime registration for some so it is not better. California’s tier proposal would be fine if they gave people due process who aren’t currently high risk but will become high risk because of the bill.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        This has nothing to do with whether you have to register. This is solely whether the federal government will send information to other countries when you travel. And it seems to say that regardless of whether you are still registering, if you have passed the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act to stop registering, then your information will not be sent to other countries.

        Without this law, they currently are sending information on ALL registrants, whether the federal government requires them to be registering or not, even for offenses for which the federal government does not require registration — no matter the offense, no matter how long ago. This law limits it to only offenses involving children, and of those, only to those still under the federal time frame to have to register, not the state’s lifetime requirement.

        • Harry

          If, there no law in place. What authority is the government powers using to execute these alerts? If, they doing this without authority it is breach of power. The government needs to sued for damages and for fraud.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          I do not know what authority they are doing it under. But they have been doing it since at least last December, maybe a bit earlier than that. There have been threads on this Website ever since then about it, people trying to figure out the details.

          The threads all year indicate this is being done to ALL registrants, for all offenses, not just those who would have to register under federal standards and time frames and not just to those whose offense involved children.

          You need to realize this background in order to see that this bill actually seriously scales back what they are doing. If this bill fails, then information will continue to be sent on ALL registrants, not simply those whose offenses involved children and who are not yet at the tiered time frame in the Adam Walsh Act to be able to stop registering — regardless of whether their state requires them to continue registering.

        • Eric Knight

          Unfortunately, the federal government standards will not become the “standard” but create minimal criminal statutes for prosecution upon unsuccessful entry for some individuals. This will NOT alleviate the return of those whom don’t fall under the new standard. IML simply creates the mechanism to throw registrants into jail, not just deny them entry into foreign countries.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          There is nothing in this bill — or any other law — that makes it illegal for a registrant to travel to another county. Where are you getting this idea that you can be prosecuted when you return? There is no such action, no one has been or will be prosecuted for traveling abroad. This bill does not even prohibit registrants from traveling abroad — it is the foreign country that does that.

          The only law involved in travel and sex offenses is one that makes it a US crime if you travel to another country to commit a sex offense. But this law does nothing to spark that law; you have to commit an offense in another country to trigger that law, not simply travel for business or sightseeing.

          If your travel sparks any need to go in and inform your local police agency, then you would have to do that; but that is not a bar to your travel, simply a requirement to notify. I’m not sure one would need to notify anyway, unless actually adding a residence in another country maybe.

        • David Kennerly

          It’s being done under ADMINISTRATIVE authority granted to DHS under the AWA. This is where departments get to exercise extraordinary latitude in interpreting a general mandate from Congress. IML will NOT be an improvement unless it also removes the very onerous provision of charging unauthorized attempts to travel as serious felonies and removes the broad discretionary power of DHS and the State Department to do whatever the hell they want.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          There is no law requiring a registrant to get permission to travel abroad; not unless they are on parole. A registrant does not need “authorization” in order to travel abroad. Even under the latitude you speak of, that is a restricted latitude in that they do not have the ability to make up new criminal laws, such as requiring a registrant to get authorization to travel or face criminal sanctions.

        • David Kennerly

          Broad ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY granted to DHS and State Department by Congress in the AWA.

          Administrative law is one of the creepiest and most pernicious abrogations of the Constitution today.

        • Harry

          Why not challenge the Administrative Authority under Constitutional issue of separation of power? The Executive Branch is making laws beyond any actual law(s) by congress.

    • It is what it is

      The glaring problem I see with this bill is that no link is made between registered sex offenders and international sex trafficking.

      The bill begins by throwing out statistics about “Megan’s Law” and registered sex offenders in general. It then goes into throwing out random statistics about international sex trafficking.

      BUT, it never connects the two with data showing what percentage of those engaging in sex crimes overseas are previously convicted offenders.

      It would seem to me that studying this and obtaining these figures would be basic due-diligence before embarking on an expensive, sweeping law that will severely negatively impact the civil rights and ability to travel for an entire class of people.

      It’s extremely irresponsible that the government is trying to shove this thing through when they don’t have statistics to prove it would curb the thing they are trying to prevent.

      It shouldn’t be surprising though; As with all the SO statutes we have in this country, efficacy has not been high on the priority list – political pandering and hysteria have been the primary concerns.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        What you miss is that they embarked on this more than a year ago! It already is happening — a LOT worse that what is in this bill. This bill will rein things in. This does not expand anything, quite the opposite, it only reins it in. This bill is to do a LOT less of this than they have been doing for more than a year now.

        This is not something new. This is making what they have been doing a lot less.

        • It is what it is

          I’m not sure if your response was supposed to be to my post or if it was a mistake, but I did not say anything contradictory to what you are saying. I never wrote that this isn’t already happening. I never wrote that this is new. What I wrote is that this, like other sex offender laws, is not based on any tangible evidence that it will in any significant way minimize international sex trafficking cases, which is supposedly the entire point of it per the government.

          Just because this thing may have some aspects that are better than the current process doesn’t mean it’s good. If you expect me to excuse a poorly written law in which basic due diligence wasn’t done on behalf of the politicians writing it simply because it has some possible improvements over what they have been doing I won’t do it. People who have served their time and completed their parole/probation should be able to travel freely PERIOD.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Yes, that post did get into the wrong spot. Sorry.

          I agree that it is wrong to do this to anyone — at least anyone no longer on parole. But at least this bill would take even those people it applies to out from under it after they reach the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act, instead of for lifetime as is now the case for those in California, since the US currently is going by much tougher state standards for registration, not by the federal standard.

        • David Kennerly

          It’s called ‘rose-colored’ glasses and is also indicative of a trend amongst RSOs to find something positive in what their government is doing even when there is nothing positive at all.

          For one thing, Chris Smith, the AUTHOR of IML, EXPLICITY STATED that his goal with this bill is to prevent pedophiles from travel. Period! How much nastier does it have to be before some here begin to see this horrendous bill for what it is?

          I attribute it to a low-consciousness that we need to address as a community.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          First, Chris Smith is not the law. His interests are irrelevant. Nonetheless, he is saying he is after ONLY pedophiles, not all registrants.

          Currently, ALL registrants are getting hit with this. This bill limits it to only pedophiles. And even those, not for life, as currently is happening to all California registrants. This bill limits this to the time frames in the federal AWA, not to the time frames some state might impose, so even pedophiles do not have to suffer it for life.

          This is a far better improvement of the law than the proposal for tiers in California that everyone here thinks is so great. This bill takes a LOT of registrants out from under this crap. And those who still are subject to it will not be subject to it for life, only for the time frame in the AWA. That is, every registrant is better off with this bill than the current situation.

        • Timmr

          Do you mean pedophiles or people who commit crimes with a child as the victim? There are people diagnosed as pedophiles, who commit no crimes, and non pedophiles who commit child related crimes. The definition is really important.

        • David Kennerly

          That’s pure speculation. We do not have enough to go on. And IML provides for CRIMINALIZING the ATTEMPT to leave the country without permission.

          That’s a pretty damned big and brutal club.

          That isn’t the case for those registrants from NON-SORNA states.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          I have read that bill. There is NOTHING in it criminalizing anything. It does not even mention any need to get permission to travel abroad! No registrant needs permission to travel abroad, unless they are on parole of course. You’re spreading false rumors.

        • mike

          This is because a law already exists that states a RSO must notify proper authorities 21 days before travel outside of the country. so you already in a scene are asking.. they cant stop you because of the 14th amendment so this gives them ample time to contact the country you are going to and make false claims so that you are denied by them sending you back home. then if any of your registration info is remotely inaccurate at all.. you will be charged with a Felony.. this law will only make the process easier. I dont know if you are not required to register in your state if this could apply.

        • Joe

          There is no such 21-day advance notification requirement in California. One could argue that traveling to another state makes one subject to SORNA. But there is no intra-state commerce if one travels to a foreign country on a direct flight out, and back.

          And 21 days is apparently not needed to transmit the toxic notification. This must be happening between the check-in counter and landing at the destination – even if that is only a few hours away.

          I agree with @Nobody. There is nothing in this bill criminalizing any travel or asking for permission to do so. All this does is formalize the status quo.

          And, hopefully provide a legitimate target in a court of law about the hideous practice.

  14. anonymously

    I see nothing positive in HR 4573. Upon furthur reading, this appears to not terminate automatically, but as mentioned in the sunset clause, would terminate on the last day of registration, which , in California , means never. If denying RC’s right to travel when Int’l Megans Law has not passed both Houses of Congress is the tactic of implementation of draconian laws, and then use the logic that since it’s already being done and the sky is not falling, and then pass a law legalizing the status quo (of course, the initial implementation is a quiet watered down version) and no one questions this tactic, I think we’ll see a lot more of this tactic in the future. We need a mechanism to stop those in power from abusing this tactic of implementing draconian laws first , followed by legislation which then legalizes what is already being done and then ramp it up, since they found some loopholes in the their chronologically illegal implementation that would be “common sense” not to address.

    Did I read correctly that Bob Melendez is the pointman on this?

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Read it again: It is the last day of registration for the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act. That is very different than simply the last day of registration. And it says that simply after that date, the information will not bee sent — that is automatic.

      If the Adam Walsh Act says you don’t have to register after 10 years, but Californa has lifetime registration, well, this bill says that after 10 years the feds will not send your info to other countries any more.

      Currently, they ARE sending it for lifetime — they are not now paying any attention to how long, are simply sending it on every last registrant, no matter how long ago the offense, no matter what the offense was, even for offenses not covered by the Adam Walsh Act.

  15. anonymously

    Or no, it’s Chris Smith. Upon furthur reading, it looks like Chris Smith likes to export bad ideas all over the globe, as in his attempts at exporting the War on Women all over the globe, in the form of trying to stop women’s abortion rights all over the globe. I think the world would be helped more if this guys career of 34 years in Congress would end.

  16. commenter

    The 113th Congress has adjourned for 2014.

    http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2014/12/17/113th-congress-adjourns-for-2014/

    “The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday January 6, 2015,” said Sen. Angus King (I-ME) to a nearly empty Senate chamber just before midnight; King, who is allied with Democrats, will be in the minority when the 114th Congress convenes that day.

    It looks like H.R. 4573 will transition to “Sine Die” at least for now. It will probably be back in 2015.

  17. Anonymous Nobody

    Read it again: It is the last day of registration for the time frame in the Adam Walsh Act. That is very different than simply the last day of registration.

    If the Adam Walsh Act says you don’t have to register after 10 years, but Californa has lifetime registration, well, this bill says that after 10 years the feds will not send your info to other countries any more.

    Currently, they ARE sending it for lifetime — they are not now paying any attention to how long, are simply sending it on every last registrant, no matter how long ago the offense, no matter what the offense was, even for offenses not covered by the Adam Walsh Act.

  18. USA

    This is truly a very sad situation. As of today, I’m married to a woman of Asian descent and her parents still reside in Asia. They are both almost 80, no longer capable of traveling and my in-laws. So, in essence, unless the laws are altered or some tiered system in California is instituted, I will never see them again! These are people whom I consider family members! Furthermore, what if they die? I can’t attend the funeral? I’m 19 years after being arrested/Battery/wobbler/Summary Probation/Reduced to a Misdemeanor and Expunged/no issues prior/past! Its nuts. As of today, I’m still required to Register, but according to the law, never been convicted of a crime. I will be moving to LA for a year/long story and going to attempt to obtain a Certificate of Rehab again. I attempted this in OC/LA is where the issue occurred, but OC is highly political and the Judge eventually stated (6 years ago) that he couldn’t find a reason to deny the motion, but it wasn’t enough? Please wish me luck and feel free to advise. Has anyone heard of a Sex Offender receiving Summary Probation? I did!

    • JBCal

      USA- Yes, you should really think about “form shopping” for a COR. OC is probably the worse county in the state and many other are easier. That there is such a big variation and degree of judicial discretion is part of the problem on COR’s. My lawyer has extensive background with COR’s all over California and he says that San Bernardino county is by far the easiest choice in Southern Cal.

      Of course there is a chance (?) that a CASOMB tiering bill will be introduced and passed in 2015 for relief in your case as soon as 2016. Maybe.

    • It is what it is

      My advice to you is if you qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation, then apply. Don’t put it off. Even if you have been turned down before – I put it off for a long time but when I finally did it the process was not bad. In fact, getting my wobbler reduced to a misdemeanor was far more difficult than getting the certificate of rehab. because the DA argued against the reduction whereas the DA actually worked WITH me to get the certificate of rehab (they do a background check and they didn’t offer any “opinion” on how the judge should rule – they just collected all my background data). You are bound to have a much better experience in LA than you did in OC, but my recommendation is to literally get the ball rolling tomorrow with a lawyer because who knows when they will try to tighten the restrictions, make more draconian and idiotic laws, etc. The way things go if you drag your feet it might become even more difficult or even impossible to even apply for one.

  19. anonymously

    I wouldn’t assume non-AWA state RSO’s would get the benefit of the AWA timeframe since the AWA timeframe relies on AWA tiering levels, which non-AWA state RSO’s have not been designated. Also, I believe I read in HR 4573 that it does not preclude the authority of Angel Watch from sending out the notices on anyone they want. HR 4573 lays the groundwork for more ramped up legislation to detail whats to be done like fill the loopholes and begs states to come up with their own versions. Instead of limiting a bad , II wouldn’t assume non-AWA state RSO’s would get the benefit of the AWA timeframe since the AWA timeframe relies on AWA tiering levels, which non-AWA state RSO’s have not been designated. Also, I believe I read in HR 4573 that it does not preclude the authority of Angel Watch from sending out the notices on anyone they want. HR 4573 lays the groundwork for more ramped up legislation to detail whats to be done like fill the loopholes and begs states to come up with their own versions. Instead of mitigating a bad practice, I see this as a foundation for more restrictive draconian legislation.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      All states are AWA states. AWA is a minimum. It does not preclude states from making things harsher, it only bars them from letting things be easier. California chooses to make things harsher, by such things as lifetime registration and making many more offenses subject to registration.

      Your other comments have merit. However, if what you say were so, then this bill would be 100% irrelevant, as this is already being done to ALL registrants, and for Californians, for life. This bill would do zero if it meant that what has been going on for over a year could continue. In which case, it should not even matter to those opposing this bill, as they already are subject to worse and would continue to be subject to that — nothing would change. As such, there would be nothing to lose by this bill being adopted, but people would at least have a chance to see whether it does limit things to no more than it says!

  20. anonymously

    Please disregard the first 5 and 1/2 lines of my post, The first 5 and 1/2 lines are repeated. the post should start …..’I wouldn;t assume non-AWA states’…..

  21. anonymously

    Anonymous Nobody, not meant to pile on, but I have an additional comment…

    “Since you say the Feds don’t require registration for your offense, I believe this bill”

    You mean it’s not a Federal crime, what you are referring to and would not require federal registration. That may be so. It’s when you are calling the AWA, the Federal standard that gets confusing when the AWA is a federal standard for mandating states to require certain things.The defacto standard for states is to not be AWA. So, its not like non-AWA states are being hold-outs.

    The AWA tier 1 includes all “sex offenses” which do not fall into tier 2 and tier 3 of AWA. In the AWA, “Sex offenses” is defined as any crime with a sexual element , but not consensual sex crime between adults (also,consentual of someone over age 13 and the other person not 4 years older is not considered a sex offense). So, in other words, consentual prostitution between adults would not be considered a tier 1 sex offense, but everything else would be considered a tier 1 sex offense under AWA, that the state requires registration for. So just because the crime is not a Federal crime doesn’t mean AWA state RSO’s are not in their states tier 1 and required to register for at leat 10 years and fall under the AWA for that time. I think the only thing positive about AWA compared to non-AWA states is the time frame. Other than that, it’s insane ramped up arbitrary punishment and appears to cost over a billion dollars. Also, it uses a child murder victim’s name for specific parts of it, such as the ‘victims name’ definition of a sex crime. Or naming a federal webiste after a murder victim. You would think its a murderer registry.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      The quote you stated was not me talking about me. It was me responding to the other poster, who did not state his offense, only said the feds do not list it as one required to register.

      And, as per my comment above, all states are AWA states — that is a minimum requirement from the feds, and all the states are meeting it. States can do more than that, just not less — or they lose a substantial amount of federal funding. (States are allowed to give up that money and not have registration — and only inn that case would they be non-AWA states! But of course, none are willing to give up that money.)

      • Katharine

        Not true. In fact, most states are non-AWA states. Fewer than 20 states are fully AWA compliant. Texas, for example, decided years ago that complying with AWA would cost them more than the Byrne grant money they would forfeit by not complying.

        As for length of registration, many states use risk-based tiering, whereas AWA uses conviction-based tiering. Someone who has a very low risk may be a tier 1 registrant in his own state, and therefore subject to, say, a ten year registration; but by AWA standards, he is is a tier 2 based on his conviction and therefore must register for 25 years. As I understand it, under this bill, his 10-year state registration is meaningless if he wishes to travel abroad, and he will not be able to do so 25 years. So sure, IML may be an improvement for those in California who are registered for life, but for many around the country, it will make things worse, much worse.

        There is nothing positive about this bill. It will not lead to a reduction in sex trafficking. It is additional punishment for registrants and their families who just want to enjoy a Mexican beach vacation or visit the cultural treasures of Europe. Basically, it’s a human-rights disaster. But to uninformed, knee-jerk idiots everywhere, like our congressional representative, it looks great on paper, and I fear nothing will stop this juggernaut in 2015.

        • steve

          “As for length of registration, many states use risk-based tiering, whereas AWA uses conviction-based tiering. Someone who has a very low risk may be a tier 1 registrant in his own state, and therefore subject to, say, a ten year registration; but by AWA standards, he is is a tier 2 based on his conviction and therefore must register for 25 years.

          Which is what California’s tier system will be..conviction based=bad

  22. erich

    Can we try something here for at least the holiday season. Don’t post negative comments. For those of us under stress of recent troubles, it only depresses us more. Let’s just take a moment a pray for any kind of positive direction our situations can take. Let’s make this forum a place of inspiration and hope. Thx for letting me speak.

    • Tired of hiding

      Praying does nothing to change a situation – ONLY action will make change.

      Also, ignoring negative situations do nothing to turn them into positive situations – ONLY action will make change.

      Sex offender registration is an unfair, unpleasant, and totally negative situation so if you are depressed by it then best to avoid reading this board during the holiday season because it doesn’t change just because the holidays are happening.

      For a registered sex offender each day is a struggle and a reminder that the system is not fair and the time of year doesn’t change that FACT.

      • Harry

        I repect your position for not praying. However, I who do pray and can testify of positive results of thereof. I do agree with you that action is, also require. Actually Faith is prayer in action. Season’s Greetings to you.

    • td777

      Sad to see all the God haters are still hating, even this close to Christmas. I, for one, will continue to pray AND act.

      • Tired of hiding

        I am NOT a “god hater” as you so rudely label me. I am simply an individual who is rational and stating facts and recommending action that can actually result in change.

        Happy Holidays to you and yours!

        Lee

    • Timmr

      Here’s an inspiring thought. 15 years ago, when I got on the list, there was no place one could hear people saying negative things about the registry. Kind of like you never said anything against the Iraq war or you would be considered un patriotic; if you said anything against the regitry, you were considered anti child. Now the complaints are there, louder and more fact based, and it’s the people who are for the registry who are looking like they care nothing about families and children — especially family and children of registrants. Silence is not golden. Speaking truth does make some people angry enough to change things. And that is happening more and more. You can bury these feelings with drugs or religion, but in the end the anger will still be there, and you’ll end up hating yourself. That’s depression. Take that anger and add it to the forces fighting these laws, if only to stand up and say this sucks, I am not going to take it anymore.

      • Harry

        “The pen is mighter than the sword”. Send those notes, letters, comments to anyone and everyone, even the anti-sex offender groups. All mountians are move and removed by constant movement of water. Constant pounding of the truth will move these mountains of unjust laws against RC. Write, write, and write to make right.

      • The Anon

        Yes, I do believe that the tide is turning, slowly, but turning. Here’s hoping that the next 15 years see even greater change!

  23. Dr

    I agree , will said

  24. anonymously

    AWA came about in 2006. I think all 50 states had registration well before the AWA was hatched. I’d be interested to read up on in what order the states started their registry. I know, as you’ve stated Anonymous Nobody, that California was the first. And I have been inspired by your knowledge of the history of this stuff. But I do question what offenses AWA states do not require registration for, that non-AWA states do require registration for, other than prostitution among adults? The reason I mention prostitution among adults is because the AWA explicitly states in its definition of a ‘sex offense’ that would make someone register in at least AWA tier 1, that a sex offense is not a consentual sex crime among adults, or a consentual sex crime with one person over age 13 and the other being less than 4 years older. I mention this because its written in the AWA. I think I read somewhere some states require registration for solicitation of prostitution with adults. So, is that your only example of a crime some non-AWA states require registration for? Or in other words, Is there any crime in California that requires registration, that AWA states do not require registration for? I don’t think so. Lastly, I just read 17 states are AWA, 2 territories and 70 Indian Tribes. If a state does not want to comply and be an AWA state, they do not get 10% of their Byrne money. States are not mandated to be AWA states. They just don’t get 10% of the Byrne money, which I have read is not much money and Nevada may be hurting its economy by recently becoming an AWA state, since it costs more than that money to be AWA compliant.

    I find it offensive that Chris Smith is trying to shove parts of the AWA on all states, even ones that don’t comply with AWA, like California. Will other parts then follow? And some here have said the IML criminalizes attempts to leave the country. I’m guessing this criminalization of attempting to leave will be passed later by the states, like maybe an added line in the state registration to be initialed. And it would say that you are required to report any travel plans. You don’t report travel plans, boom, failure to register charge.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Look not for what offenses it says do not require registration, look at what offenses they say do require it. Anything not on that latter list does not require registration under AWA. If it does not say a particular offense requires registration, then it does not. It doesn’t need to say that that offense does not need registration. I don’t believe any misdemeanors are not the list requiring registration. And various lower level felonies too. You want an example, well California requires registration even for misdemeanor indecent exposure; that is not in AWA.

  25. anonymously

    Being very inspired by this subject, I went back to see the laws in a AWA state and looked to one of the harshest states, Florida. Florida has registrants registering for life. Anonymous Nobody, you are correct that the AWA is a minimum and Florida has gone past the minumum time frame outlined in the AWA. So, on the time frame issue, the AWA is not an improvement since it only sets a mimimum. If it set a maximum ceiling, then it would be a positive in this respect. And also, any crimes not requiring registration in AWA states that require it in non-AWA states, if they exist, is not because of the AWA minumum standard, but is because of the state’s choosing. After these considerations, I completely dislike the AWA, whereas before I thought it had something positive going on its time frame.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      We are not talking about whether AWA is an improvement. We are talking about the bill to inform foreign countries when you travel, and that is linking to the time frames in AWA, not the time frame in Florida or any other state.

      No, I don’t like AWA either. But what has been going on for more than year now with foreign traveler is a LOT worse, and this bill would at least limit it to the AWA standards. I don’t think it should be going on at all, but at least this limits it alto over what they are doing now.

  26. Erich

    Could we get some legal minds to chime in, because a lot of these comments are pure speculation and someone that can speak “legal” talk could clear a lot of this up. Just my thoughts. Does the carsol or national organization have people that focus on these international b.s. laws? Again , class action……….. Let’s go people, time for this train to leave the station!

  27. erich

    Could you guys please stop the conspiracy babble and start looking toward answers. All some of you do is complain and whine. Stop it! Let’s turn this forum into constructive thought, we all know its screwed up, pointing it out every comment doesn’t change it. Let’s combine forces and look for solutions.

    • Tired of hiding

      The very reason that myself post some “strongly opinionated” posting is simply to show that it is possible to not be broken and have to hang your head in shame. In addition, this forum is often the ONLY PLACE to some have to vent their frustrations being trapped in this nightmare.

      As for change…well, let’s see, if you will check out the “international travel” thread on this forum there are perhaps half a dozen who have publicly stated that they are willing to join a class action suit to take this on. I myself am one of them.

      The site admin has my email address and is authorized to give it out. I have yet to be contacted. Do I have the money to hire an attorney and get this ball rolling – frankly NO, I do not. I actually struggle to keep the lights on in the apartment I was lucky enough to find to rent!

      Have I posted endlessly about the ACLU or some civil rights attorney who would take the case on for whatever reason – love of the law, perhaps they have a relative who is a RSO, perhaps they simply want to do the right thing and take on the system.

      Well, no takers have come forth to represent those of us who are ready and waiting to take action and “combine forces” as you state to attempt to prevent yet another nail in the coffin of our civil liberties!

      • Harry

        ACLU does good work for many classes of people pertaining to civil rights issues. However, when it comes to RC issues the ACLU is clearly hesitative, at best.

  28. WantstoHelp

    For everyone who is actively trying to make a difference with registration laws and issues–for those are doing more than venting–you really should check out this link:

    http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-114th-congress-begins-today-january.html

  29. Joe

    Rep. Smith is nothing if not persistent. The is the how manieth time he has thrown this out there? It would appear that all this current bill does is formalize the procedure currently in practice. And with that makes it a tangible target in a court room.

    If you go back all the way to the first iteration of this so called International Megan’s Law, like 2008 or so, it contained provisions where registrants permanently living abroad had to check in (in person) at a US Embassy in the foreign country (typically in the capital) every 6 months or so. This could be a day-long trip.

    Insanity. But if it saves one child…

    • commenter1

      Does this bill eliminate the authority for the U.S. Secretary of State to make an RSO’s passport valid for only 1 year? I thought that provision was in past versions of this bill.

      • Joe

        I do not see the 1-year limitation in the bill text. Like I said, this has been whittled down from its first iteration in about 2008 or 09 to where it all it does is formalize the status quo. And ‘recommend’ the president lean on other countries to reciprocate with notices of their convicts visiting the US. Which, of course, is absurd, as out of the just over 200 countries in the world about 10 have a sex offender registry and fewer require travel notices. Those are pretty much the “Five Eyes” (US, UK, Canada, AUS, NZ).

        Rep. Smith appears to be a prototypical politician. It should be noted that the murder of Megan Kanka is listed as the first reason to justify this bill but child murderers, of course, are free to travel as they wish. Sheesh.

        If you have not yet read it, this here is very enlightening:

        https://all4consolaws.org/2014/06/international-megans-law-rso-travel-issues/

  30. anonymously

    With Chris Smith’s Nazi scheme to harness the free movement of his despised class of registrants, Smith vainly publically invokes Christianity while propagandizing registrants as a worldwide threat that he is saving the world from, just as Hitler did with Jews in Germany. Gypsies, political opposition, registrants, communists, etc were all targets, although I believe Hitler only stopped the Jews from leaving Nazi Germany. Chris Smith is relentless in his quest to spread his Nazism ( IML to box in his despised class of registrants ) and War on Women ( trying to outlaw abortion in foreign countries ). Chris Smith is a clearinghouse for legislation and is padding his pockets left and right with money I would imagine from the victims rights movement and rightwing Nannystaters like himself, which he has every right to do. But, lets keep in mind this guy is in it for the money and power and can’t possibly believe U.S. registrants who account for under 2% of new sex crimes would be any other proportion responsible for international sex crimes. This Nazi is ranked fifth for getting out the most bills in all of Congress. So if the initial HB1515 becomes law, look for many more amendments with new arbitrarily restrictive additions, as if the initial one is not harsh enough.

  31. cool CA RSO

    I think it congress have it their way. RSO will not be able to even leave their own STATES for life.
    It already becoming an hardship just LEAVING the state.
    Federal AWA laws applies to you once you leave the state line.

  32. Eric Knight

    This appears to be a done deal. It will easily pass in the Senate, and Obama will easily sign this bill, probably with huge hoopla proclaiming “bipartisanship at last!”

    The minute his signature goes on the bill, Janice should be at the Federal Court with a complaint and an injunction request post haste. Let’s pony up for THIS fight.

    • Timmr

      I’ll put my pony up for this one, when I get one. This is one more thing that makes the registration experience just that much more miserable. How much pain is needed to be inflicted on people to turn a regulation into a punishment under the law?

  33. 4sensiblepolicies

    Count me in with financial support for a class action suit. While it might be difficult to stop this government run-amok from providing a notification, the verbiage reportedly used thus far in these notifications is entirely without evidence to support the claim that the person may be traveling in order to commit a sex crime. Standardized form letters to this effect going out in advance of travel for every RC regardless of the individual circumstances surely constitutes an improper ex post facto restraint of freedom to travel (because of the biased and inflammatory language, containing the obvious intent to prevent the RC from being allowed entry). I believe this is ripe for lawsuit, especially if it becomes codified and is used (as it will be) without restraint or backed by evidence as to the intent of the traveler.

    • Eric Knight

      Not to mention the documented cases of registrants being rejected in the country they are travelling to, all based upon registration status, not just conviction. Indeed, calling it “International Megan’s Law” IMPLIES this is 100% driven by registry implications. To be blunt, this law should easily be beaten in most federal courts and the 9th Circuit.

      • Tired of hiding

        Having been a victim of this policy already back in September 08, 2014 I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I am more than willing to have my name used in any legal action taken against this latest punishment added to the ever increasing BS those of us who have lived letter perfect lives after paying our debt to society.

        Heck, some of us are even innocent and just got caught up in a system that once has you in it’s sights pretty much always gets you!

        I don’t care about getting to go to this or that park! Who cares!

        I don’t care about tiers that take decades to get off of! Who cares!

        I do care about the unjust abuse of an entire class of Americans yet not too many others seem to give a rat’s ass about!

  34. Alienated

    This law will not help anyone. How ignorant are these agencies? A sex crime will still happen and it won’t be from a 290 registrant. If someone wants to take the risk they will without regard to consequence if not already in the system. Another BS money sucking tactic that gives false security. Our government is not to bright.

    • Tired of hiding

      Not too bright? They are brilliant! They have conned an entire population into thinking that they have their best interests at heart and that the government works for them when nothing could be further from the truth!

      Politicians are the most vile, evil, twisted sociopaths you can imagine. The average politician has so many skeletons in his/her closet that they need a walk in!

      Usually the ones who crusade the strongest for a “cause” such as this lifetime punishment of American citizens labelled as “sex offenders” have the most twisted deviant sexual desires and thoughts of all!

      No they are brilliant and they use this hysteria for their own political gains and care nothing about children or justice at all.

      I have travelled to over 25 countries in my lifetime so far and I am ashamed to be an American at this time! These are dark days for America indeed!

  35. Harry

    I know this is a junk bill, however, we need to get on the keyboard and contact our representatives and use the opportunity to present the truth to these people. I know a number of them do not want to hear the facts however, there is a good chance we could change some minds. It would be helpful, if someone with excellent writing skills, would develop a short template with key facts so RC/family can use to write good letters/emails.

  36. David

    I found a link somewhere on this website to a D.O.J. or other federal agencies website that showed a graph of how many notifications were sent to different countries and how many RSOs had actually been refused entry to those countries as a result of the notification. It showed that the number actually refused entry was relatively small (something like 5%-10%, as I recall).
    So that website’s information seemed quite different from the anecdotal information being supplied here by RSOs.
    I’ll try to find the link.
    P.S.: But don’t get me wrong – I am 100% opposed to this and all the million-and-one add-on BS restrictions the politicians keep coming up with. It needs to STOP!

    • Tired of hiding

      The government put out false or inaccurate information?? Not possible!

      Come on…pure rubbish! I am certain it is higher than they report although after this has passed the number should be closer to 100% so to quote that typical presidential idiot George W. Bush, “Mission Accomplished”

      No challenge to this is going to make a bit of difference as they will maintain as they have all along that the information is “public record” and they are doing it as a precautionary gesture to the destination country who will be “free” and at their own discretion decide to allow you in or not with this inflammatory information “Likely to commit a sex crime while in your country”.

      • Harry

        The thing is that the Government is not sending same information to these countries about drug offenders and other offenders. They are just doing for the RC. Actually, in many of these countries have greater concerns with drug traffickers than they do with RC. This is where the Government need to prove to the court why this needs to be?

  37. Jo

    The next step will be confinement to your state. Its the next logical step as they seem to be able to do anything to us.

  38. J Connor

    What Americans, including RSO’s, have forgotten or, most likely, never been taught, is that the Federal government has no jurisdictions with the fifty states except for magazines, forts or other buildings/land that have been ceded to the feds by the states. No one is challenging AWA or anything else on these grounds.

    http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html

    http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta34003.htm

    • John

      Feds use the “interstate commerce” excuse to claim jurisdiction over RSO’s.

      • Tired of hiding

        Yes, whenever it’s convenient for those c-suckers they do whatever they want.

  39. anonymously

    Endless amendments to the AWA seem to come in the form of explicit word replacement within sentences of undefined context. It’s difficult to know what amendments are made to the AWA when the amendments to the AWA come in the form of …….replace the word ‘should’ with ‘shouldn’t’ in this sentence and replace ’10 years’ with ‘lifetime’ in that sentence and the sentence being amended is not explicitly stated what it will look like or what the old sentence being replaced said in the first place. This is the way AWA gets amended and I see no reason IML would not be amended in a likewise fashion. It requires a forensic examination to even know whats been done when it gets ramped up, and ramping up is certainly what these amendments are about, as I am sure these amendments are not corrections of typing errors or civil rights improvements for registrants.

  40. anonymously

    The IML, like the AWA is a minimum standard, which means it only sets a minimum harshness level. It does not define a maximum harshness level, so that is unlimited. Florida is example of taking the AWA minimum and running with it. The IML does not improve anything and does not stop the notices being sent on non-‘AWA enumerated’ offense convicts. The authority to send notices on any RSO or anyone otherwise is not precluded by the IML, as stated in the IML. Just like the AWA sets a minimum, so does IML. And lets not forget IML will get amended endlessly like AWA does.

    AWA is a minimum set and doesn’t set a maximum. In the case of California requiring registration for indecent exposure, if California did become an AWA state, indecent exposure would still require registration. The only thing that would change is all the other draconian parts of AWA would be added. California’s harsh time frame would not change either. No one not mentioned in AWA would come off the registry. Is there actually a state that is AWA that does not require registration for indecent exposure? If so, I’d like to know what state or states are like that. I understand a state like that could hypothetically exist.

    IML mentions the AWA time frame. I could imagine part of one of the first amendments to IML being that if a registrant is not in an AWA state, then they do not get a AWA time frame and then the default time frame is lifetime.

    But, I do see some positive things on the horizon. John Roberts endorsed ObamaCare. So this means the ‘Umpire’ is open-minded and maybe will vote to overturn 2003 SCOTUS decision which today would yield a different result. It shows Roberts has an open mind. Then, the other 2 liberals who voted in dissent who are still on the court, Ginsburg and Breyer hopefully haven’t changed their minds and would feel even stronger that registration is punishment with todays circumstances. Just because Ginsburg and Breyer voted in favor of RSO civil confinement, I don’t think they are disqualified from being liberals, but you could make that case.

  41. David Bradford

    Another Bill being introduced. Not only will registrants be forced to remain in the US, but they’ll no longer be able to petition foreign born family members from living in the US, effectively destroying how many families in the process..

    1-31-2015 Washington DC:

    H.R.52 – Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2015 has been introduced by Rep Jackson-Lee of TX.

    There is no doubt this bill is complicated, as are the circumstances of any RSO who would be petitioning to bring his/her family to the U.S., but it appears this bill adds unnecessary roadblocks to hamper the petitioning process. The roadblocks are seen here. From the bill:
    Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary in the rest of this bill) to deny a family-based immigration petition by a U.S. petitioner for an alien spouse or child if:
    (1) the petitioner is on the national sex offender registry for a conviction that resulted in more than one year’s imprisonment,
    (2) the petitioner has failed to rebut such information within 90 days, and
    (3) granting the petition would put a spouse or child beneficiary in danger of sexual abuse.
    One of the purposes of this bill is to prevent a RSO from petitioning to bring a child or a woman with a child, for the wrong purposes; that is understandable. So to say the bill is BAD would be a mistake, it seems the timelines are unreasonable given U.S. RSOs are very likely strapped for money to hire lawyers.

    Personally a recommendation for appointment of counsel provision seems appropriate, but is missing from the bill. And more importantly to apply all such restrictions to anyone with other crime types. Human trafficking crimes are committed by all types of folks and felons.

    So its time to review the bill and see if you find other problems, then voice them to your representatives in Washington DC. Hopefully, with counsel, a RSO’s family can be brought to the U.S. and enjoy life here….

    http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2015/01/alert-bill-in-us-congress-affecting.html

    Dave in the Philippines

  42. Dr

    I heard that these laws were passed in two more commitiys

    • Robert

      Secretary of State John Kerry chiding Ireland for mis-use of child safety laws but no mention of the US using the same laws to violate the human rights of US citizens by preventing travel and being with their loved ones……..no doubts that US lawmakers do the same.

      Trafficking laws used to prosecute other offences – study

      No convictions for sex or labour trafficking in Ireland in 2014, US state department finds

      US secretary of state John Kerry presents the Trafficking in Persons Report. It urged Ireland to implement its trafficking law to ensure offenders were held accountable through convictions and dissuasive sentences. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
      Ruadhán Mac Cormaic

      Ireland is using anti-trafficking laws to prosecute crimes unrelated to trafficking, a US state department report has found.

      The Trafficking in Persons Report, an annual review of the problem, said there were no convictions for sex or labour trafficking in Ireland last year and urged the Government to do more to identify victims.

      It found that while the State fully complied with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, it “continued to prosecute a high number of non-trafficking crimes as trafficking cases, including child molestation cases.”

      It said potential victims of forced labour in cannabis production were prosecuted and imprisoned for crimes they may have been forced to commit.
      The report, drawing on information provided by State agencies and NGOs, shows the Irish authorities initiated 79 trafficking-related investigations last year, up from 56 in 2013. Some 46 suspected victims were identified, most of them victims of sexual exploitation.
      Of the victims, seven were believed to have been trafficked to work in Ireland, four were suspected of being forced to commit crime and one was thought to have been brought here to beg.

      The study found that, last year, most Irish prosecutions under anti-trafficking laws involved the sexual exploitation of children as opposed to trafficking as defined by the UN, though it noted the authorities prosecuted one suspected trafficker for the sex-trafficking of Nigerian girls. “The government sustained efforts to investigate trafficking offences, but did not convict any labour or sex traffickers,” the report says.

      Trafficking is an umbrella term for recruiting, harbouring, transporting or obtaining a person for compelled labour or commercial sex acts through force, fraud or coercion.

      The state department said the Irish law that banned trafficking conflated possession or creation of child pornography with human trafficking, which meant law enforcement statistics were “unreliable”.

      The report, published on Monday by US Secretary of State John Kerry, said Irish authorities reported a rise last year in suspected victims of forced labour, forced criminal activity and forced begging from eastern Europe, particularly Romania, as well as an increase in potential sex trafficking victims from Brazil. Ireland reported a fall in suspected victims from Nigeria.

      The report noted that victims had been found in domestic service, restaurants, car washing services and cannabis cultivation. “Some domestic workers, primarily women, employed by foreign diplomats on assignment in Ireland work under poor conditions and are at risk of labour trafficking,” it stated.

      The US report urged Ireland to implement its trafficking law to ensure offenders were held accountable through convictions and dissuasive sentences. It also recommended amending the law to allow asylum seekers who are victims to obtain work permits.

      Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/trafficking-laws-used-to-prosecute-other-offences-study-1.2299090

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey