DOCSLIB.ORG

National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference Papers presented by Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper Donna M. Uzzell Criminal Justice Information Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference April 1998, NCJ-168965 Papers presented by Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper Donna M. Uzzell U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Eric C. Johnson, Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communications, edited the proceedings. Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant, provided layout and design assistance. The federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, National Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 96-BJ-CX-K010, awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright © SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1998. The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. ii Contents Foreword, v Introduction, vii Keynote address Patty Wetterling The Jacob Wetterling story, 3 Nature and management of the problem Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Sex offenders and offending: Learning more from national data collection programs, 8 Federal panel: Wetterling Act/Megan’s Law compliance issues Marlene Beckman Panel introduction, 15 Lisa Gursky Sorkin The trilogy of Federal statutes, 16 Donna Feinberg Justice Department guideline changes and clarifications, 19 James C. Swain Applying for a compliance deadline extension, 22 Federal panel members Panel question-and-answer session, 24 Federal funding support Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Federal funding support for sex offender registries, 31 FBI panel: Interim and permanent solutions Emmet A. Rathbun History and current status of a national sex offender registry, 37 Ralph C. Thomas The impact of the Lychner Act, 40 Overview of current State laws Elizabeth A. Pearson Status and latest developments in sex offender registration and notification laws, 45 Litigation issues Dena T. Sacco Arguments used to challenge notification laws — and the government’s response, 50 Pending legislation Robert R. Belair Status of Federal legislation on sex offenders and changes to current laws, 54 Panel of the States: Systems for the registration of sex offenders Floyd Epps Review of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, 59 Kathy J. Canestrini The method of risk assessment used for the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, 61 Doug Smith California’s history of sex offender registration requirements and response to new Federal mandates, 64 Donna M. Uzzell The Florida sex offender registration and notification system, 68 iii Kirk Lonbom The Illinois registration and notification system for sex offenders, 72 Mike Welter Development of the Illinois sex offender registration and community notification program, 75 The local responsibility Norm Maleng The local responsibility for control and prosecution of sex offenders: Behind Washington State’s history of landmark sex offender laws, 81 Panel of the States: Enacting legislation Rep. Mike Lawlor Creating effective sex offender legislation requires collaboration between lawmakers and justice agencies, 87 Sen. Florence Shapiro The big picture of sex offenders and public policy, 92 Panel of the States: Community notification and verification practices Roxanne Lieb The State of Washington study of the efficacy of notification laws, 101 Scott A. Cooper Community notification and verification practices in three States, 103 Contributors’ biographies, 109 Appendix, 117 iv Foreword Americans have become deadlines risked losing 10 percent National Conference on Sex increasingly angry in recent years of their appropriation from the Offender Registries, held July 16- in response to a series of violent Federal Edward Byrne Memorial 17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington. and highly publicized sexual State and Local Law Enforcement This publication presents the assaults, primarily against children, Assistance Program, which proceedings of that 2-day committed by individuals with provides funding for State and local conference. extensive prior sexual offense crime eradication efforts. The conference featured histories. This outrage has been Compliance was complicated by presentations by Federal officials intensified by the perception, the fact that both Megan’s Law and who explained the requirements of justified or not, that systems the Lychner Act amended portions the registration and notification traditionally used by justice of the Wetterling Act, creating statutes in detail and who answered agencies to monitor law-breakers confusion as to whether the the questions of State returned to the community do not requirements of one statute representatives. Representatives adequately protect the public from superceded those of another. There from several States presented that unique category of individual were also questions as to whether information on programs that their known as the sex offender. the registration and notification States had implemented in response Seeking to address the public’s programs, once implemented, to the Federal requirements. concern, the U.S. Congress would survive constitutional Elected officials provided a established three statutes that challenges based on claims of legislative perspective to the collectively require States to excessive punishment, invasion of proceedings, and experts updated strengthen the procedures they use privacy and denial of due process. participants on the status of legal to keep track of sex offenders: the Another hurdle was the growing challenges to registration and Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against number of individuals who fell notification programs. Children and Sexually Violent under the statutes’ requirements. Many of the problems and issue Offender Registration Act (enacted According to data compiled by the areas identified in these in 1994), the Federal version of Bureau of Justice Statistics, the proceedings were subsequently “Megan’s Law” (enacted in 1996), number of sex offenders jumped addressed or ameliorated in Federal and the Pam Lychner Sexual 300 percent between 1980 and legislation and regulations. Offender Tracking and 1994. In 1994, there were The issue of sex offending is as Identification Act (also enacted in approximately 234,000 sex sensitive and emotionally charged 1996). offenders under the care, custody or as any faced by society. The In brief, the statutes require control of corrections agencies — federally required programs are States to establish registration 60 percent under conditional relatively new or redesigned programs so local law enforcement supervision in the community — approaches to controlling sex will know the whereabouts of sex on any given day. offenders, and a period of time offenders released into their States experiencing difficulty must elapse before quantitative jurisdictions, and notification meeting the compliance deadlines study can be conducted to ascertain programs so the public can be were given the opportunity to whether they are effective. I hope warned about sex offenders living request 2-year, “good-faith-effort” these proceedings serve during this in the community. (The Lychner extensions. Forty-two of the 56 period as a valuable reference tool Act also requires the creation of a States and territories required to and also as a contribution to the national sex offender registry, and comply with the statutes requested ongoing debate over the methods it requires the FBI to handle deadline extensions. It appeared the used to control sex offenders. registration in States that lack States needed guidance and “minimally sufficient” programs.) clarification to help them comply The States were assigned a with the registration and difficult task. They were given until notification statutes. September 1997 to comply with the To assist the States, the Bureau Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law, of Justice Statistics, along with and until October
Recommended publications
  • New Members 110Th Congress

    New Members 110Th Congress

    1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005-3586 (202) 289-3903 FAX: (202) 371-0197 wpllc.net New Members of Congress Listed below are the newly elected members of Congress. Where available, we’ve included information on their backgrounds and from their campaign platforms that indicates an interest in education issues. Members are grouped by state, which are listed alphabetically. Senate Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) Defeated: current Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R) Stance on Education Issues: Cardin believes “that educating our children must be a priority at every level of government.” Cardin opposes school vouchers and pledges to work “towards making college more affordable, repairing our schools, standing up for our teachers’ needs, and the federal government fulfills its promises to fund important educational programs for our children.” His campaign web site emphasizes quality teachers in every classroom, the affordability of college, safe and healthy schools and adequate funding for NCLB, Head Start, and special education. Education Connection: Cardin’s wife, Myrna, was an educator, teaching fourth grade, later tutoring a student with dyslexia as a volunteer member of the Board the Dyslexia Tutoring Program, and then served for eight years as the Executive Director of the Maryland Association of Non-Public Special Education Facilities. More information can be found at: http://www.bencardin.com/issues?id=0004 Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Defeated: Rep. Mark Kennedy to replace retiring Sen. Mark Dayton (D) Stance on Education Issues: Klobuchar believes in fully funding NCLB and will fight to improve early childhood education. Her campaign web site also asserts her commitment to adequate access to grants and loans for higher education, citing in the skyrocketing costs of college tuition.
  • View Reentry Strategy Document

    View Reentry Strategy Document

    CT Reentry Collaborative Rob Hebert, Bridgeport Sue Gunderman, Hartford Dana Smith, New Britain Char Dornne Bussue, New Britain Earl Bloodworth, New Haven Donald Robinson, New Haven Kia Baird, Southeastern CT John Duca, Southeastern CT Jeremy Kosbob, Stamford Beth Hines, Waterbury Brittany Caruso, Windham Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy Andrew Clark Director Renee LaMark Muir Senior Research and Policy Analyst Mary Janicki Senior Research and Policy Analyst John Noonan Senior Budget and Policy Analyst Daryl McGraw Research and Policy Analyst The CT Reentry Collaborative would like to extend thanks to the Office of Policy and Management’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division for its assistance in both convening the meetings of the Reentry Strategy Workgroup and in the development of this document. We would also like to thank The Tow Foundation for generously supporting the production of this report. www.ctreentry.org www.ccsu.edu/imrp June 28, 2018 Under Secretary Mike Lawlor Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue, MS#52CJP Hartford, CT 06106-1379 Dear Undersecretary Lawlor, The leaders of the CT Reentry Collaborative would like to thank you for all the work that has been done around criminal justice reform and reentry under Governor Malloy’s administration. We feel there have been many positive changes impacting thousands of individuals who have returned home or been diverted from incarceration. Connecticut is leading the way when it comes to these reforms. With that being said, the CT Reentry Collaborative, a stakeholder in this process, is concerned about the continuity of this progress with the introduction of new executive branch administration that may be wholly unfamiliar with the current strategic objectives and strategies for reform.
  • Jason D. Sinnett V. State of Indiana

    Jason D. Sinnett V. State of Indiana

    MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jason D. Sinnett Theodore E. Rokita Branchville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Catherine E. Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Jason D. Sinnett, March 26, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1406 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan M. Appellee-Plaintiff. Brown, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D02-1808-F5-5640 Mathias, Judge. [1] Jason D. Sinnett appeals the Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Sinnett argues that the trial court imposed an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 1 of 8 impermissible double enhancement when it sentenced him for both Level 5 felony auto theft—enhanced to a Level 5 because he had a prior unrelated felony auto theft conviction—and for being a habitual offender. [2] Concluding that the trial court did not err when it sentenced Sinnett, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] In August 2018, Sinnett was charged with Level 6 felony auto theft and Level 5 felony auto theft because Sinnett had a prior unrelated auto theft conviction. Specifically, the State alleged Sinnett was convicted of auto theft in 2013 under cause number 29C01-1307-FC-5883.
  • Habitually Offending the Constitution: the Cruel and Unusual Consequences of Habitual Offender Laws and Mandatory Minimums

    Habitually Offending the Constitution: the Cruel and Unusual Consequences of Habitual Offender Laws and Mandatory Minimums

    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GMC\28-1\GMC102.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-NOV-17 13:27 HABITUALLY OFFENDING THE CONSTITUTION: THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL CONSEQUENCES OF HABITUAL OFFENDER LAWS AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS Abigail A. McNelis* INTRODUCTION Lee Carroll Brooker will die before seeing another day of free- dom.1 At the age of seventy-six years old, the disabled veteran cur- rently sits in prison, waiting out the remainder of his days, serving a mandatory life sentence for a non-violent drug charge.2 In 2011, Brooker received a life sentence for a marijuana conviction.3 As a veteran suffering from chronic pain, Brooker grew marijuana plants behind his son’s home.4 Brooker intended the marijuana only for per- sonal use.5 During an unrelated home search, police recovered less than three pounds of marijuana plants, which included unusable pieces such as stalks and vines.6 On July 20, 2011, Investigator Ronald Hall of the Dothan Police Department obtained written consent from Brooker’s son, Darren, to search the family home.7 Darren consented to the search in connec- tion with an investigation into stolen bicycles.8 While searching the house, investigators discovered a smaller growing operation in an upstairs bedroom.9 Investigators decided to search outside the prem- ises, and Brooker confirmed the presence of additional plants behind the home.10 The multiple investigators on the scene discovered sev- * Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, J.D. expected, 2018. 1 See Ex parte Brooker, 192 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2015). 2 Editorial, Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana, N.Y.
  • Long-Term Missing Child Guide for Law Enforcement

    Long-Term Missing Child Guide for Law Enforcement

    Long-term missing child guide for law enforcement: Strategies for finding long-term missing children Long-term missing child guide for law enforcement: Strategies for finding long-term missing children 2016 Edited by Robert G. Lowery, Jr., and Robert Hoever National Center for Missing & Exploited Children® www.missingkids.org 1-800-THE-LOST® or 1-800-843-5678 ORI VA007019W Copyright © 2016 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. All rights reserved. This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-MC-CX-K001 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. This document is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or professional opinion about specific facts. Information provided in this document may not remain current or accurate, so recipients should use this document only as a starting point for their own independent research and analysis. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. CyberTipline®, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children®, 1-800-THE-LOST® and Project ALERT® are registered trademarks of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. LONG-TERM MISSING CHILD GUIDE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT - 2 Contents Acknowledgments.....10 Letter from John Walsh.....15 Foreword by Patty Wetterling.....16 Chapter 1: Introduction by Robert G. Lowery, Jr......18 Quick reference.....18 We are finding more long-term missing children now.....19 Are we doing enough?.....21 Chapter 2: Overview of missing children cases by Robert G.
  • Lifetime Supervision Fact Sheet Feb 19

    Lifetime Supervision Fact Sheet Feb 19

    HB 473/SB 280 CRIMINAL P ROCEDURE - S EX O FFENDERS - L IFETIME S UPERVISION Improving Maryland’s ability to reduce sex offender recidivism in our communities Sex Offender Supervision: Mandatory Lifetime Supervision will Maryland’s Success Story During the 2006 Special Session, the Maryland General ♦ Reduce violence against children and others by Assembly passed HB 2. expanding Maryland’s successful supervision and management of our most serious sex offenders Within months of enactment, DPP had established and trained specialized sex offender management and ♦ Extend proven supervision strategies to sex enforcement teams throughout Maryland offenders released in our communities Today, 83 special agents manage 2300 sex offenders ♦ Protect the public from false reliance on lifetime registration by ensuring lifetime supervision of our Agents use state-of-the-art technology to augment most serious sex offenders supervision: • Clinical Polygraph Examination ♦ Aid law enforcement in effectively monitoring and • Computer Monitoring (of offender’s computer enforcing offenders through state-of-the art activity) technology • GPS tracking ♦ Send offenders who violate lifetime supervision 231 offenders are on GPS today. Since the program’s back to jail and out of our communities inception in February 2009, 1300 offenders have been on GPS. During the 18 months from July 2008 through December 2009: HB 473/SB 280 Summary: Between 87% and 94% of sex offender cases closed ♦ Requires courts to sentence certain serious sex each month were closed in satisfactory status or by offenders and multiple offenders to lifetime revocation in response to a technical violation. supervision In other words, these offenders were not convicted of ♦ Requires lifetime supervision to be consecutive to new offenses while under DPP supervision.
  • Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons

    Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons

    Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons July 2, 2007 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34068 Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons Summary The 109th Congress passed legislation (P.L. 109-248) that allows the federal government to civilly commit “sexually dangerous persons.” Civil commitment, as it relates to sex offenders, is when a state retains custody of an individual, found by a judge or jury to be a “sexually dangerous person,” by involuntarily committing the person to a secure mental health facility after the offender’s prison sentence is done. In 1990, the state of Washington passed the first civil commitment law for sexually dangerous persons. Currently, 18 other states and the federal government have similar laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in Kansas v. Hendricks and Kansas v. Crane, ruled that current civil commitment laws are constitutional. The civil commitment of sex offenders centers on the belief that sex offenders are more likely than other offenders to re-offend. However, data on sex offender recidivism is varied. Data show that the recidivism risk for sex offenders may be lower than it is typically thought to be; in fact, some studies show that sex offenders recidivate at a lower rate than many other criminals. Other studies show that, given time, almost all sex offenders will commit a new sex crime. Most discussions about recidivism examine ways to decrease recidivism; for example, by providing sex offenders with treatment. Research on the efficacy of sex offender treatment is promising, but it cannot prove that treatment reduces recidivism. Cognitive-behavioral techniques appear to be the most promising type of treatment for sex offenders, although some research indicates that offenders who receive a diagnosis of psychopathy may be less amenable to treatment.
  • States Can Shorten Probation and Protect Public Safety Wide Variations in Policies and Term Lengths Across States Point to Opportunities for Reform Contents

    States Can Shorten Probation and Protect Public Safety Wide Variations in Policies and Term Lengths Across States Point to Opportunities for Reform Contents

    Report Dec 2020 States Can Shorten Probation and Protect Public Safety Wide variations in policies and term lengths across states point to opportunities for reform Contents 1 Overview Data methods 3 4 Probation lengths across the U.S. Probation lengths in 2018 4 Change in probation lengths since 2000 4 Probation population and term lengths 8 Data limitations leave unanswered questions 8 9 Probation length and recidivism Most people who were arrest-free for their first year on probation could have safely spent less time on supervision 9 States should analyze data to determine potential probation reductions and policies 14 15 State probation statutes Maximum felony probation lengths 17 Maximum misdemeanor probation lengths 17 Extensions of probation can exceed statutory maximum sentences, driving up term lengths 18 Early discharge offers opportunity to shorten probation terms 19 Statutes do not always predict probation lengths 21 Discretion 21 22 Recommendations 22 Conclusion 23 Appendix A: Supplemental data 24 Appendix B: Methodology 27 Endnotes The Pew Charitable Trusts Michael Thompson, vice president Yolanda Lewis, senior director Team members Jake Horowitz, director Tracy Velázquez, manager, research External reviewers This report benefited from the insights and expertise of David Muhammad, executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, and Michelle S. Phelps, Ph.D., associate professor, department of sociology, University of Minnesota. Neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse the report’s findings or conclusions. Acknowledgments This report was prepared with the assistance of the following current and former Pew staff members: Monica Fuhrmann, who conducted the analyses and wrote the draft; Kyleigh Clark-Moorman, Jacob Denney, Ellen Dinsmore, and Michael Williams, who assisted with content development and data analysis; Jessie Mandirola, Jen Sirko, Alan van der Hilst, and Henry Watson, who provided research support; and Dan Benderly, Jennifer V.
  • Dearborn-Local-Rules.Pdf

    Dearborn-Local-Rules.Pdf

    CRIMINAL RULES LR15-CR-1 BAIL In all criminal matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Dearborn Circuit Court, Dearborn County Superior Court No. 1, and/or Dearborn Superior Court II, in which an arrest has been made and misdemeanor, felony or murder charges are pending, the following bond schedule shall apply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. A. A PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL OFFENSES IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO POST BAIL WITHOUT PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE A JUDGE AT AN INITIAL HEARING AND THE BOND SCHEDULE DOES NOT APPLY 1. Any person charged with Murder; 2. Any person charged with any Class A, B, or C Felony or Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Felony; 3. Any person charged with a crime involving Domestic Violence which shall include the felony or misdemeanor offenses of Domestic Battery, Strangulation, Battery on a Child, Intimidation, Confinement, Invasion of Privacy or Stalking 4. Any person arrested for Resisting Law Enforcement, Battery on a Police Officer, or Escape from Home Detention Program; 5. Any person arrested for Non-Support of a Dependent Child; 6. Any person charged with Habitual Offender or is shown to have two (2) or more prior felony convictions; 7. Any person currently on probation or parole; 8. Any person currently on Southeast Regional Community Corrections Road Crew, Work Release, or In Home Incarceration; 9. Any person currently on release on bond for a Level 1,2,3,4,5 or 6; or A, B, C, or D Felony offense; 10. Any person charged with Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated who has two (2) or more prior Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated convictions; 11.
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence Without Parole Is Disproportionate Elizabeth M

    Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence Without Parole Is Disproportionate Elizabeth M

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 11 Issue 4 Fall Fall 1983 Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate Elizabeth M. Mills Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth M. Mills, Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1372 (1983) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/83/7404-1372 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 4 Copyright C 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printedin US.A. EIGHTH AMENDMENT--CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: HABITUAL OFFENDER'S LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE IS DISPROPORTIONATE Solem v. Helm, 103 S. Ct. 3001 (1983). I. INTRODUCTION In Solem v. Helm,' the Supreme Court, for the first time, held a sen- tence of imprisonment to be cruel and unusual because it was dispropor- tionate to the crime committed. The Court overturned a life sentence without parole imposed under a recidivist statute on a defendant who had been convicted of seven relatively minor felonies. The Court held that the sentence was disproportionate and thus violated the eighth 2 amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Jacob Found September 4, 2016 Almost 27 Years After the Abduction

    Jacob Found September 4, 2016 Almost 27 Years After the Abduction

    Authorities confirm: Jacob found September 4, 2016 Almost 27 years after the abduction of Jacob Wetterling just outside St. Joseph, a long trail of investigation appears to be near its end. The Stearns County Sheriff's Office confirmed Saturday evening that Wetterling's remains have been found. The Ramsey County Medical Examiner and a forensic dentist identified Wetterling's remains earlier in the day. nvestigators and prosecutors are "reviewing and evaluating new evidence" in the investigation and more detailed information is expected to be provided early next week, according to the sheriff's office. Danny Heinrich, a person of interest in the case, cooperated in the investigation, according to reports that first came from KSTP-TV. Jacob's mother, Patty Wetterling, said Saturday morning that her son's remains have been found. ?All I can confirm is that Jacob has been found and our hearts are broken. I am not responding to any media yet as I have no words,? she said in a message to KARE-TV. Authorities recovered unidentified remains this week after Danny Heinrich, who is a person of interest in the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling, agreed to cooperate and provide information, according to authorities. In a message to the St. Cloud Times, she said "we will have words at some point." Stearns County Chief Deputy Bruce Bechtold and County Attorney Janelle Kendall declined to comment Saturday. Bechtold is the lead investigator in the Wetterling case. Several messages left for Sheriff John Sanner were not immediately returned. The FBI is not in the position to confirm any details regarding the matter, said Kyle Loven, chief division counsel at the Minneapolis office.
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

    Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 34 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 Denijal Hrbenic, No. CV 14-02251- PHX-JAT (DMF) 9 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 v. 11 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior U.S. District Judge: 15 Denijal Hrbenic filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) challenging his convictions in the Maricopa County 17 Superior Court. (Doc. 8) He entered a plea on one count of molestation of a child (victim 18 I.R.); one count of attempted molestation of a child (victim E.K.); and one count of 19 attempted molestation of a child (victim F.H.). (Doc. 17-1 at 44) He was sentenced to 17 20 years’ imprisonment on the first count and to lifetime probation with sex offender 21 registration on the second and third charges. (Id. at 48-49) As is explained below, the 22 Court recommends that Hrbenic’s Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 23 I. BACKGROUND1 24 The allegations that led to Hrbenic’s plea agreement and convictions were that he 25 engaged in sexually deviant behavior with three minor girls. (Doc. 17-6 at 48) The 26 presentence report indicates the allegations included that Hrbenic: touched a minor 27 28 1 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are derived from the exhibits submitted with Respondents’ Answer, Doc.