Concerns remain over status of sex offender law - News

PRINT THIS Popular

Jul. 18, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Concerns remain over status of sex offender law

ACLU frustrated with position change

By BRENDAN RILEY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARSON CITY -- Another revision of the Nevada attorney general's position on a new sex offender law has left critics of the law confused and glad that a federal judge has blocked enforcement of the law pending further review.

The latest position change was sent Thursday by Deputy Attorney General Binu Palal to Maggie McLetchie of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, prompting McLetchie to say the attorney general "is really falling down on the job."

Most Popular Stories

Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer

NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'

Police serve search warrant at Hell's Angels clubhouse

THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time

Second person dies after being restrained by police

Nevada to be last economy to recover from recession

Cada wins World Series of Poker championship

NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields

North Las Vegas motorcyclist killed in collision while racing, police say

Las Vegas police make arrest in 2008 slaying

Palal's letter Thursday said the attorney general wouldn't try to retroactively enforce a section of the new law barring certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school or day care facility.

That's a change from a letter sent Wednesday by Palal, telling McLetchie that no provisions of the new law, Senate Bill 471, would be applied retroactively.

"This is incredibly frustrating. It's impossible to get any clarity," McLetchie said, adding that given the confusion it's a good thing that a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Mahan prevents enforcement of the new law.

McLetchie said the ACLU supports tough laws against sex offenders, but also believes that provisions of SB471 can't be applied retroactively and in any case should apply to offenders convicted of the most serious crimes.

SB471 isn't the only new law dealing with sex offenders that's undergoing review. A related measure, Assembly Bill 579 dealing with juvenile offenders, will be analyzed by the Nevada Supreme Court, and the 2009 Legislature also is expected to study it.

The reviews follow a ruling by Clark County Family Court Judge William Voy that part of the law is unconstitutional. AB579, based on the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed in 2006, included many teenage sex offenders 14 and older with adults under requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.

The federal law, named for a 6-year-old who was abducted from a Florida shopping mall in 1981 and later found slain, cut off certain grant funds to states unless they included in their registries juveniles who committed sex offenses when they were as young as 14.

The registration provision has been criticized by Human Rights Watch, a leading human rights group, which says no juveniles, and no other offenders considered to pose low future risk, should be registered.

Lawyers for the Clark County juvenile public defender's office and for the ACLU of Nevada sought the ruling from Voy, arguing that the new law is unconstitutional.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	6 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Report abuse Kat wrote on July 18, 2008 12:30 PM: Wow Jack, who should society be more afraid of? "Hang them all" you say? Your lack of research and knowledge on this issue, while being bold enough to publically demonstrate inhumane thinking, lack of critical thinking,and illusion of grandeur seem to me to be characteristics commom among criminal capabilities? Let me share a story. Working with youth preparing for college, a young girl of whom I have known since she was 16, is today a sex offender. What about her? Raised in a good family, displayed solid work ethic,...all good things working in her favor. What happened? A week before Christmas 2006, she and her boyfriend, decided to drink alcohol and ended up having sex in the car, at night, at the mall. Stupid move? Yes. Should have known better? Yes. Should be punished? Yes, but condemned forever as a sex offender? I disagree. Had this happened when I was just out of high school, the biggest thing to fear would have been D-A-D! She was punished once through the courts and will continue to be punished through out her life time by anyone who looks no futher than the connotation of Sex offender. That's were I'm going...not every sex offender is a rapist nor child molestor. The guy that really had to go and stopped behind a closed business? Stupid, yes, but SEX OFFENDER and the fear brought to society? These laws are doing a great disjustice. Sex offender carries too large of group, tier system supports this vastness! Many classified as such should be classified as STUPID. Correct is the idea of protection, but laws need to be redefined and redevoloped. We should demand this from lawmakers. Fear the girl in this story? You wanted to hang her! Report abuse indigent wrote on July 18, 2008 10:14 AM: Under cover yesterday brings up some important factors. Setting aside the term 'sex offender', lets say a person with several DUI's who are now on the streets and restricted to having no driver's license suddenly faces a new 'retroactive law' requiring a GPS monitor for life. It could happen if this can happen. undr cvr wrote on July 17, 2008 01:32 PM: EX POST FACTO is key. A key word in the AG statement to be aware of is 'will apply only to future cases and not to those who have already paid for their crimes'. There are sex offenders who have had lifetime supervision added to their consequences after the sentence was served. Under the terms 'lifetime supervision', a sex offender is still 'in custody' under federal definition. At what point under the AG's statement is 'already paid for their crimes'? The focus here is 'tier 3'. Under the new law, the low level 'tier 1' and 'tier 0' non violent and often hands off offenders who have not been on the internet or notification lists are now subject to changes as thier tier levels have been changed as well...'EX POST FACTO' "We're not altogether clear what it means," ....When you are dealing with the State of Nevada, unless forced by the feds...any statement from Nevada officials is worthless. RightOn, "Nevada only changed the law so they would not lose $300k from the Feds if they didn't comply. It has nothing to do with trying to protect the public, but money...." The State of Nevada is not complying with Constitutional law on the indigent defense issue. Know this!! The State of Nevada doesnt honor contracts unless it is beneficial to special interests. Even at the expense of violating federal criminal statutes (as in the indigent defense Report abuse guess what jack wrote on July 18, 2008 09:48 AM: You and your IP address have now been registered as a potential threat to society by definition and are on the terrorist watch list. You comments exceed a danger to society posed by a majority of the registered sex offenders in question. Welcome to the new world order. Report abuse To Jack wrote on July 18, 2008 08:52 AM: Jack: The ACLU is protecting their rights; the same right we all have. You are a very angry person and only prompt people to become vigilantes. It is not about the actual sex offenders )of whom could be anyone). It is about the law and what Nevada is trying to do and make laws apply retroactively. You are very misguided as to who is on the registry. Please do your research before posting hateful remarks. Report abuse Jack wrote on July 18, 2008 08:06 AM: "This is incredibly frustrating. It's impossible to get any clarity," What a jerk. The American Criminal Liberties Union trying to help the filthy rapists again. I have a news flash for Mclecher ,this defender of pedaphiles and baby rapers, its very clear that when you rape kids you will run afoul of the law....when you assault women you will have issues the rest of your life. Guess the women and kids these dirt bags molest don't have problems later. My issue with these laws is that we should simply hang sex offenders, then they would'nt have to worry about registration and we would not need to worry about them! Report abuse Jack wrote on July 18, 2008 08:05 AM: "This is incredibly frustrating. It's impossible to get any clarity," What a jerk. The American Criminal Liberties Union trying to help the filthy rapists again. I have a news flash for Mclecher ,this defender of pedaphiles and baby rapers, its very clear that when you rape kids you will run afoul of the law....when you assault women you will have issues the rest of your life. Guess the women and kids these dirt bags molest don't have problems later. My issue with these laws is that we should simply hang sex offenders, then they would'nt have to worry about registration and we would not need to worry about them!