U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

47–923 PDF 2009

SEX OFFENDER NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION 

ACT (SORNA): BARRIERS TO TIMELY COMPLIANCE BY STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Serial No. 111–21 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 40 

The Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, a Representative in Congress from Puerto 

Rico, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ..................................................................................................................... 42 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 43 

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 44 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Laura Rogers, previous Director of the Department of Justice SMART 

Office, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Ms. Emma J. Devillier, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Office 

of the Attorney General of Louisiana, Chief, Sexual Predator Unit, Baton 

Rouge, LA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Ms. Madeline M. Carter, Principal, Center for Sex Offender Management, 

Center for Effective Public Policy, Silver Spring, MD 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 59 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61 

Mr. Ernie Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 74 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77 

Mr. Mark Lunsford, father of Jessica Lunsford, the victim of a sex offense 

and murder, Homasassa, FL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 86 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 87 

Mr. Robert Shilling, Detective, Seattle Police Department, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit, Seattle, WA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90 

Ms. Amy Borror, Public Information Officer, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Columbus, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 104 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 107 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 145 

(1) 

SEX OFFENDER NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION ACT (SORNA): BARRIERS TO 

TIMELY COMPLIANCE BY STATES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Perluisi, Jackson Lee, Gohmert, 

Poe, Smith, and Rooney. 

Staff Present: Bobby Vassar, Minority Chief Counsel; Ameer 

Gopalani, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, Fellow, ATF Detailee; 

Karen Wilkinson, Fellow, Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; 

Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Majority 

Professional Staff Member; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and 

Kimani Little, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today. 

First of all, I want to apologize for being late. We had votes that 

we just completed, but I am pleased to welcome you here today to 

the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security on ‘‘Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

Act: Barriers to Timely Compliance by States.’’ 

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act, which included 

the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act, known as 

SORNA. That set forth a uniform national registration and notification system for sex offenders that required States, tribes, the 

District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to comply with its mandates by July 27, 2009, or lose 10 percent of its Byrne Grant 

money. 

With less than 4.5 months ago, not a single State, tribe, territory 

or the District of Columbia has been found to be in compliance with 

the provisions of SORNA. According to the Office of Inspector General, it is unlikely the jurisdictions will fulfill their requirements by 

July. The reasons for this situation appear to be many, but one 

thing is clear: Everyone has the same goal in mind, protecting the 

children and communities. There may be differences of opinion on 

2 

how best to do that, but we all agree that protection must be a priority. 

The purpose of this hearing is to learn more about why no one 

has been found to have met the requirements of SORNA and to determine whether congressional action is needed. The immediate 

question before us is whether Congress needs to extend the current 

deadline of July 27. Many States, organizations and individuals, including some of the witnesses here before us today, are urging us 

to do so, and hopefully, the information received today will help us 

answer this question. 

There are several issues that I hope our witnesses will help us 

address. One is the fact that SORNA requires juveniles as young 

as 14 to be placed on a public registry. This applies not only to juveniles who are tried as adults but also to those who are merely 

adjudicated of certain sex offenses in juvenile courts. Inclusion in 

the public registry is mandatory, even when the juvenile court 

judge does not believe it is appropriate. This requirement is contrary to our traditional criminal practice in treating juveniles differently from adults and focusing on their rehabilitation. Juvenile 

sex offenders have a low recidivism rate. In Virginia, data collected 

in 2006 found that none of the juvenile sex offenders released in 

2005 had been re-arrested for a sex offense. 

There are many groups and States that are urging Congress to 

change how SORNA treats juveniles. I would like to hear about 

any studies that address whether the mandatory inclusion of such 

juveniles in a public registry furthers our purpose of community 

safety and the effect that that inclusion has on the rehabilitation 

of juveniles. 

The juvenile adjudication procedures do not provide the same 

procedural protections as adult courts. For example, juveniles are 

not entitled to a jury trial, and placing juveniles adjudicated in sex 

offenses under the same registration and notification system as 

adults may raise constitutional questions, particularly when 

SORNA is applied retroactively. I am interested in learning of the 

legal challenges that have been made to this aspect of SORNA and 

the results of those challenges. I am looking toward to that statement also. 

SORNA classifies sex offenses into three categories. Depending 

on the nature of the offense, these classifications are critical because they determine what registration and notification procedures 

are required for the sex offender. Under the offense-based classification, the only consideration is the code section of the underlying 

offense. There appears to be a difference of opinion regarding 

whether SORNA’s offense-based classification is the best way to go. 

Some have argued that a classification system based on individual 

risk assessment provides greater protection to communities, and 

we would like to hear what people have to say about that. 

SORNA also applies to certain tribes. The National Congress of 

American Indians, which represents 250 tribes as members, has 

called upon Congress to amend SORNA. Their concerns focus on 

tribal sovereignty and the delegation of Federal law enforcement 

authority to States when no such delegation exists in other areas 

of law, and there is the lack of funding. We need to consider those 

concerns. 

3 

Now, there have been legal challenges to the constitution of 

SORNA that either have or may have the impact on the ability of 

States and others to comply with their requirements. We need to 

know about these challenges. It is certainly unfair to punish a 

State whose court has prevented it from implementing SORNA. If 

certain portions of SORNA have been found to be unconstitutional 

by courts, we need to know so we can address that problem. 

As States approach the deadline for implementation, some are 

looking hard at the cost of implementation. Some have estimated 

that it will cost California at least $37 million to implement 

SORNA, and the Byrne Grant it might lose if it does not implement SORNA will be approximately $2 million. In my home State 

of Virginia, the implementation of SORNA has been estimated to 

cost about $12 million while the loss of Byrne Grant money would 

be only $400,000. So I have been told that, after implementation, 

it will cost Virginia nearly $9 million a year just to maintain compliance. 

In addition to these implementation and operational costs, there 

are costs of litigation. For example, the State of Nevada passed a 

new sex offender registration law in an attempt to comply with 

SORNA. The constitutionality of these laws was challenged in 

court. The Federal District Court found that these new State laws, 

which were retroactive, violated the ex post facto, double jeopardy, 

due process, and Contract Clauses of the Constitution and permanently enjoined Nevada from enforcing its laws. Other courts have 

held the application of SORNA to offenders who cross State lines 

before this law’s enactment violates the ex post facto clause. 

At least six Federal District Courts have found SORNA to be unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress exceeded its authority 

under the Commerce Clause. No doubt these cases will be appealed. There are but a few examples of the hundreds of legal challenges that have been made in both State and Federal courts. 

These litigation costs have yet to be quantified. 

So, finally, the question is: How effective is SORNA in protecting 

our children and communities? Do we increase safety by requiring 

States to change their current registry system? What does the research show? Even in today’s economy, we will pay whatever it 

takes to protect our children and communities from these crimes, 

but we have to be sure that we are getting the best protection possible for the money the we spend. 

I am looking forward to hearing from all of our experts in this 

area and to working together to ensure that we develop the best 

approach for ensuring safe communities. 

I know that there are many people who wanted to be heard today 

but who could not be accommodated because of time and space limitations on the panel. We hope to continue this dialogue in the future and to provide all who wish to make statements an opportunity to be heard. 

To this end, several organizations and individuals, including the 

American Bar Association; the National Congress of American Indians; the Professional Advisory Board to the Coalition of a Useful 

Registry; Beata Roberts; Laurie Peterson; Charles McGonagle; the 

Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers; and the Mid-Atlantic 

Juvenile Defender Center have submitted written statements, or 

4 

transcripts, for the record. And without objection, these will be included in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


M-1.eps
5 


M-2.eps
6 


M-3.eps
7 


M-4.eps
8 


M-5.eps
9 


M-6.eps
10 


M-7.eps
11 


M-8.eps
12 


M-9.eps
13 


C-1.eps
14 


C-2.eps
15 


C-3.eps
16 


C-4.eps
17 


C-5.eps
18 


C-6.eps
19 


C-7.eps
20 


C-8.eps
21 


C-9.eps
22 


C-10.eps
23 


D-1.eps
24 


D-2.eps
25 


D-3.eps
26 


D-4.eps
27 


H-1.eps
28 


H-2.eps
29 


I-1.eps
30 


I-2.eps
31 


J-1.eps
32 


J-2.eps
33 


K-1.eps
34 


K-2.eps
35 


K-3.eps
36 


K-4.eps
37 


K-5.eps
38 


L-1.eps
39 


L-2.eps
40 

Mr. SCOTT. It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act to protect the 

public, particularly children, from sexual predators. The Adam 

Walsh Act included the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

Act, or SORNA, which was enacted to create a consistent and uniformed system of sex offender registries throughout the country. 

This system would enable law enforcement officials and the public 

to better track sex offenders. SORNA would also prevent offenders 

from eluding the authorities, especially when they move out of 

State. 

The deadline for compliance by the States with SORNA is July 

27, 2009. The act directed the Department of Justice to certify that 

States are compliant with SORNA, but it allows the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking—or SMART Office—to give States up to two 1-year extensions to comply upon request. To date, no State has been certified 

as SORNA-compliant, but a number of States have requested an 

extension. 

If a State does not comply with SORNA, the Department of Justice may penalize the State by eliminating 10 percent of the award 

of any Byrne JAG crime prevention grants for which the State may 

be eligible. Regarding the cost, some States have calculated that 

losing a portion of their Byrne JAG funds would be far less expensive than meeting SORNA’s requirements, just as the Chairman 

mentioned. 

However, considering that Congress has appropriated now $2.225 

billion in Byrne JAG funding for this year, compared with last 

year’s amount of $374 million, I would hope that many State officials are rethinking that position. Clearly, this huge increase of 

funding will do more to offset the cost of the State implementation 

of SORNA. 

Some States take issue with SORNA’s offense-based approach of 

categorizing sex offenders by their crimes and requiring individuals 

who committed similar crimes to have similar registration obligations. These States advocate a risk-assessment approach to registration that utilizes actuarial tools to predict recidivism by taking 

an individual’s criminal history, victim profile, and age into account. 

However, there is little consistency to these various programs. 

They are not uniform in the criteria they apply or in who performs 

the assessments. This creates discrepancies over which sex offenders should be tracked nationwide. 

Despite these discrepancies, risk-assessment States allege their 

approach is better than SORNA’s offense-based approach. Washington State uses the risk-assessment approach, but it cannot properly track Darrin Sanford, a convicted sex offender with a history 

of failure in registering as a sex offender. Sanford had been identified as a person with a high likelihood to re-offend, so much so that 

he was forced to wear a GPS tracking device. Although Mr. Sanford 

was under Washington’s highest level of supervision, this did not 

41 

stop him from assaulting and killing a 13-year-old girl in Walla 

Walla last month, a crime that he confessed to committing. 

Until there is some uniformity to these risk-assessment programs and they demonstrate a better track record, the most reliable approach is to track offenders by offense and to lock those up 

who fail to register. 

Some States and advocates claim that SORNA should not require 

that States register juveniles because they are more amenable to 

treatment and are therefore less likely than adults to become recidivists. I have great sympathy for that position. However, 

SORNA does not track all juveniles but only those who were tried 

as adults because of the severity of their offenses or juveniles who 

were adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense that involved the use 

of force, serious bodily harm or involved a victim who was drugged 

or under the age of 12. 

A number of lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of 

SORNA, as the Chairman mentioned. At least 18 Federal trial 

court judges have upheld SORNA, while three others have found 

it violated the Commerce Clause. However, the 12 Federal Appellate Circuits, three of them—the 7th, 8th and 10th—have addressed the Commerce Clause issue, and all have upheld the statute. At this point, the courts have determined that SORNA is constitutional. The suggestions that Congress water down or gut 

SORNA seem to be premature at this time. 

The first deadline has not passed, and all States can still seek 

extensions of time. Before we hastily pass judgment over the Adam 

Walsh Act, we must remain mindful of the need to effectively track 

sex offenders. We all know Mr. John Walsh for his decades-long efforts as an advocate for missing children and crime victims. As you 

know, Mr. Walsh has been a tireless supporter of the legislation 

being reviewed here that bears his son’s name. 

The 27-year-old investigation into the murder of his 6-year-old 

son, Adam, was closed by Florida police in December of last year. 

This, hopefully, brought some closure to the Walsh family. I would 

have hoped that Mr. Walsh could have served as a witness at this 

hearing, but he was unable to come today. He has, however, submitted a written statement to the Subcommittee in support for 

SORNA and for the other child protection laws in the Adam Walsh 

Act. 

I would ask unanimous consent that his statement be entered 

into the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH

On July 27, 2006, the anniversary of the abduction of my son Adam, I was proud 

to stand alongside President Bush in the Rose Garden, along with other parents 

who tragically lost their children to predators, for the signing of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act. My wife Reve ́ and I will always be grateful to the 

Members of both the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, for 

the way they all came together to pass one of the toughest child protection laws 

ever. 

This law was necessary because the patchwork of sex offender registries around 

the nation made it too easy for predators to slip through the cracks. There are about 

100,000 of these sex offenders who are not where law enforcement thinks they are. 

The lack of consistency among the state laws makes it easy for them to disappear. 

42 

These missing sex offenders could be preying on someone’s child at this very minute. 

We cannot allow this situation to continue. 

No one thought that the law named for my son would be an instant solution to 

this problem. We knew that this would be just the first step toward an improved 

system of keeping track of those who victimize our children. But enacting the Adam 

Walsh Act by itself wasn’t enough. States want to do a better job of keeping our 

communities safe but they are frustrated in trying to implement the Act because 

of the lack of funding or because there are specific provisions in the Act that they 

can’t comply with. We need more time to work out these problems before the states’ 

deadline for compliance, in July of this year. 

I know that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees want to give the 

states the federal funding they need, and I applaud Representative Mollohan, Representative Wolf, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for the efforts they’re making to include Adam Walsh Act funding in the 2009 appropriations bills. I urge Congress to make this funding a priority in our nation’s budget this year and every 

year. 

I thank the Members of this Subcommittee for bringing attention to the Adam 

Walsh Act and for helping to keep our children safe. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With that, I thank you. I thank the witnesses for being here. As 

the Chairman said, I think we all want to protect children. That 

is the bottom line. We just need to figure out the best way to do 

it. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, did you have a statement? 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

I thank you for holding this timely and important hearing on 

SORNA. Like you, I am eager to hear from our panel of witnesses, 

so I will be brief. 

SORNA, when it was enacted in 2006, established a national sex 

offender registry. As we all know, the goal was to ensure that convicted sex offenders could not evade detection simply by moving 

from a State or territory with stricter registration and notification 

requirements to a jurisdiction with less burdensome requirements. 

Accordingly, SORNA required each State and territory to modify 

its sex offender registration and notification systems to comply 

with extensive requirements set forth in the same. The deadline for 

compliance is approaching, July 2009. Failure to comply will result 

in a jurisdiction’s losing 10 percent of its Byrne grant funding. For 

many, perhaps most jurisdictions, the cost of compliance is likely 

to be greater than the amount of Federal funding that would be 

forfeited in the event of noncompliance. 

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me are the reasons cited by some 

of the States and territories for their noncompliance to date. In certain cases, the grounds given are not primarily related to cost or 

to other logistical impediments. Instead, the rationale offered by 

this these jurisdictions is rooted in their profound misgivings over 

some of SORNA’s substantive requirements. 

Let me say this from the heart and from my experience; I am a 

former Attorney General. What troubles me the most is that, clearly, this system is not working. When you have most, if not all, of 

the States not complying, it speaks for itself. So it sounds to me 

like we have no way other than extending this deadline, but it 

should not be simply for the purposes of extending it. We have to 

take a hard look at this and make sure it works. We definitely 

43 

need a national sex offender registry. We definitely need to prevent 

these types of crimes, the worst possible crimes I can think of. 

Certainly, we have to look at things such as, for example, the use 

of an offense-based classification system instead of one based on 

the assessment of future risk. We have to also look at the inclusion 

of certain juveniles who were not tried as adults, yet were treated 

as such for purposes of the registry, and the retroactivity aspects 

of this law, which have cost some legal challenges before the 

courts. 

So I am not happy. I would like the law to be enforced. I would 

like to prevent these crimes from happening. This registry makes 

all the sense in the world, but let us make it better. Let us extend 

the deadline, but I will listen to you, the witnesses, and hopefully, 

we can do it better the next time around. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The Ranking Member of the full Committee, the gentleman from 

Texas. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This past weekend, on Saturday afternoon, 13-year-old Esme 

Kenney, from Ohio, went for a jog in her neighborhood. She took 

her usual route along the water reservoir near her house. Tragically, Esme never made it home. Her body was found on Sunday 

morning. 

Local police have arrested 40-year-old Anthony Kirkland for her 

murder. Kirkland was previously convicted of sexually soliciting 

another 13-year-old girl. Just last week, a warrant was issued for 

his arrest for failing to update his address as a sex offender. 

Kirkland also is a suspect in two additional murders, one involving 

a 14-year-old girl and another involving a 45-year-old woman. 

When Esme’s family and friends grieve, there are a lot of questions 

that need to be answered: 

Why was a dangerous convict like Kirkland allowed to roam the 

streets? Would Esme still be alive if Kirkland had registered his 

current address? How can we prevent this from happening again? 

This sad story is all too real for one of our witnesses today. Following the murder of his own daughter, Mark Lunsford has begun 

a nationwide crusade to protect our children. He has fought for legislation to provide more stringent tracking to released sex offenders 

and has urged legislatures to adopt longer sentences for criminals 

who sexually abuse children. This type of legislation, often called 

Jessica’s Law in remembrance of Mr. Lunsford’s daughter, has 

been introduced or adopted in 42 States, a real credit to him. 

As we listen to the statement and consider congressional action, 

we must remember Esme, Jessica and thousands of other young 

child victims. We have a solemn duty to protect the most vulnerable among us. Congress should take additional steps to give law 

enforcement officials the tools they need to keep our children safe. 

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act to better protect 

children from sexual predators. A number of the Adam Walsh Act 

grant programs that were authorized to help States improve sex offender registration will expire at the end of this year. These programs were established to enable the Justice Department and 

State and local law enforcement agencies to track and to appreVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
44 

hend absconders from the sex offender registry, individuals like 

Anthony Kirkland. That is why I and others introduced legislation 

to reauthorize these programs for the next 5 years. I am hopeful 

that, after today’s hearing, many of our colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle will join us as well. 

One of the six programs reauthorized by this legislation is the 

Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program. This program provides grants to States, counties, cities, and Indian tribes 

so they can verify the addresses of registered sex offenders. Unfortunately, many of the Adam Walsh Act programs, including the 

Jessica Lunsford grant program, have received insufficient or no direct funding from Congress. Congress is willing to tackle the economic crisis and budget issues, but we should not lose sight of 

other congressional priorities. Keeping children safe from sexual 

predators is not about partisan politics. It is about children like 

Esme, Jessica, and the thousands of other child victims nationwide. 

Today we should begin a bipartisan effort that will help protect 

children tomorrow. It is my hope that, as a result of the sex offender registration legislation, fewer families will have to face the 

loss of a child in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Florida. 

Does the gentleman from Texas have a statement? 

Mr. POE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of you being here, especially Mark Lunsford and Ernie Allen for being here. 

In my former life, I was a trial court judge of criminal cases for 

22 years. I saw about 25,000 people work their way to the courthouse, charged with the worst crimes that can be imagined, and 

those crimes continue to occur, including that which occurred 

against Jessica. 

Mark, that is the reason you are here today. 

Those victims are prey. They are picked by some criminal. It 

crosses all races, all ages and both sexes, and they become prey. 

Some of them suffer death because of the crime. Some of those people who commit such bad crimes have done it before, and unless 

the law intervenes, they will do it again. We know all of the statistics that, when a child molester goes to the penitentiary, most of 

them get out, and most of them re-offend as soon as they can. They 

just do. 

Congress needs to be aware of the real world. Sometimes we forget about the real world because we are doing other things, but it 

happens to families throughout the country every day. I am disappointed that the States have not been able to comply with the 

requirements. It seems like bureaucracy is getting in the way of 

justice, and I am talking about the Federal bureaucracy. 

These people need to be registered, and we need to be able to 

track them wherever they go in the United States because they 

give up the right for us—or not for us to follow them when they 

commit that crime against a child, and Congress should make sure 

that we fund this program completely so there are no problems in 

the future. 

45 

It seems to me that we as a society are never going to be judged 

by the way we treat the rich, the famous, the important folks. We 

are going to be judged by the way we treat the innocent, the weak, 

the elderly, and the children. In some ways, we are the only voice 

they have, and it is important that Congress gets with the program 

and appropriates the appropriate money to track these sex offenders. 

The Adam Walsh Child Safety Act is one of the best pieces of legislation to ever come out of Congress, and now we need to make 

sure it is implemented so that it works. 

I would yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Does the gentleman from Florida have a statement? 

Mr. ROONEY. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. We will begin with our witnesses then. 

Our first panelist is Laura Rogers. 

In December 2006, she was appointed by President Bush to be 

the founding director of the newly established SMART Office of the 

Department of Justice, which was responsible for overseeing the 

implementation of SORNA. She served in that position until earlier 

this year. Prior to that appointment, she was the director of the 

National Institute for Training Child Abuse Professionals. She has 

also worked for the American Prosecutors Research Institute’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, and for the District 

Attorney’s Office in San Diego. She received her Bachelor of Arts 

degree from Santa Clara University and her Juris Doctorate from 

the California Western School of Law. 

After she testifies, our next panelist will be Deputy Attorney 

General Emma Devillier. She has worked in the Office of the Attorney General for Louisiana for 12 years. She currently serves as 

chief of the Attorney General’s Sexual Predator Unit and oversees 

the Sex Offender Registration and Notification system for the State 

of Louisiana. She has served as a Louisiana State representative 

and as an assistant district attorney prosecuting sex crimes. She is 

a graduate of Louisiana State University, having received a BA in 

foreign languages and a Juris Doctorate from LSU School of Law. 

Our next panelist will be Madeline Carter, who is the principal 

with the Center for Effective Public Policy, and is the founding director of the Center for Sex Offender Management. She has published widely on critical criminal justice issues, including offender 

reentry and sex offender management. She holds a Bachelor of 

Science degree and a Master of Science degree in criminal justice 

from the American University in Washington, DC, and has conducted postgraduate work in organizational development at Johns 

Hopkins University. 

Next will be Ernie Allen, who is the cofounder of the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He has served as its 

president and chief executive officer since 1989. He is also the 

founder of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and serves as its CEO. He has received numerous awards for 

his work in this field, and he is a graduate of the Brandeis School 

of Law. 

46 

Our next panelist is Mark Lunsford. He is the father of Jessica 

Lunsford, who, at the age of 9 years old, was the victim of a sex 

offense and was murdered. He is the founder of the Jessica Marie 

Lunsford Foundation, which advocates for tougher laws for crimes 

against children. He is a board member of Stop Child Predators 

and is a member of the Surviving Parents Coalition. 

Next will be Detective Robert Shilling, who is a 27-year veteran 

of the Seattle Police Department. He leads the department’s Sex 

and Kidnapping Offender detail and has instigated over 300 cases 

of sexual abuse. He serves on two INTERPOL groups, the 

INTERPOL specialist group on Crimes Against Children and the 

INTERPOL Sex Offender Management Theme group. He has received numerous awards and has authored a chapter on sex offender registry and community notification, published in the 

INTERPOL Handbook of Best Practices. 

Our final panelist will be Amy Borror, who is a public information officer with the Office of the Ohio Public Defender where she 

is the office’s primary contact for media and the public. Prior to her 

work, she has worked for the Ohio House of Representatives and 

the Ohio State Bar Association. She is a graduate of the University 

of Toledo. 

So we will begin with Ms. Rogers. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURA ROGERS, PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SMART OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ROGERS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. 

My statement this afternoon concerns progress in implementing 

the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and how this 

progress undermines some of the special interest groups’ and jurisdictions’ criticism of the law. 

Special interest groups and individual jurisdictions find fault 

with sections of SORNA. Those with myopic perspective often do 

not understand the significance of individual modifications that 

they seek. We must recognize that every jurisdiction is unique with 

distinct issues. No single modification to SORNA will resolve all of 

the hurdles to substantial implementation. 

As the SMART Office has and currently does, each jurisdiction 

must be worked with individually to achieve success. However, a 

significant hurdle of substantial implementation that can be solved 

is the lack of funding provided to support the jurisdictions and the 

SMART Office in their efforts. 

The facts show that sex offender registration and a public registry are highly valued by the public. In the calendar year of 2008, 

the National Sex Offender Public Web site had nearly 5 million 

users, and over 772 million sex offender sheets, or files, were hit 

on. SORNA provides a comprehensive system that gives our children and families access to the same minimum level of information 

regardless of where they live, work or go to school. 

I am going to focus on three issues today: the challenge to 

achieve SORNA compliance, the flexibility for jurisdictions with 

SORNA and the resources that are needed to fully achieve 

SORNA’s vital purpose. 

47 

My first point is that SORNA compliance is challenging, but it 

is achievable and it is on track. The fact that no jurisdiction has 

yet met substantial compliance does not mean that SORNA, as currently constituted, is too burdensome or unachievable. Congress set 

July 27 of 2009 as the initial compliance date. It also built in two 

1-year extensions, extending the final deadline to July of 2011. 

When I left office in January, no jurisdiction yet had achieved 

substantial compliance. However, several jurisdictions, including 

Ohio, had been working quickly and were extremely close to 

achieving substantial compliance years in advance of the deadline. 

Numerous jurisdictions have already demonstrated enough 

progress to be granted extensions. 

Jurisdictions still, realistically, have 2 years and 4 months to 

substantially comply with SORNA. The final national guidelines on 

sex offender registration and notification were only published July 

1 of 2008 by the SMART Office. Dozens of jurisdictions have already submitted new or amended legislation, compliance packages, 

tiering structures, extension requests, and other items for review 

to the SMART Office. The Attorney General, who was deemed by 

Congress to have the authority to identify compliance by the jurisdiction, delegated that responsibility to the SMART Office. 

Prior to my departure from the SMART Office, I put into formation the establishment of an appeals process for jurisdictions which 

disagreed with compliance decisions. During my tenure, we resolved all issues through simple discussion. I expect that this informal and pragmatic process will continue over the next 2 years until 

most, if not all, of the jurisdictions are in substantial compliance. 

My second point is that SORNA, as it has been implemented, offers significant flexibility to the jurisdictions. Though SORNA in its 

statutory language appeared somewhat inflexible, the SMART Office resolved many problematic issues and built greater flexibility 

into the system. The final guidelines reflect these efforts. 

An example: Initially, the juvenile registration requirement was 

highly problematic and did not make sense to many jurisdictions 

and to other stakeholders, including myself. Working within the 

confines of the law, the final guidelines allow jurisdictions complete 

jurisdiction now regarding registering juveniles who engage in the 

low-end ‘‘consensual’’ sexual activity. Now only older juveniles who 

are forcible rapists, are forcible sodomists and the like, are mandatory registrants under SORNA. Jurisdictions have complete discretion—I repeat, complete discretion—and are not required to register statutory rape-type offenders. 

Another example is the clean record example. As written, 

SORNA seemed to require mandatory implementation, thereby 

forcing jurisdictions to completely overhaul their already well-functioning registration systems that predated SORNA. This was clearly not SORNA’s intent. Through the guidelines, the SMART Office 

gave jurisdictions far greater flexibility and discretion. 

A final example is SORNA’s recordkeeping requirement. SORNA 

appropriately requires all information to be collected in a digital 

format or to be digitally linked. Many jurisdictions balked at the 

expense of reacquiring all existing fingerprint and palm prints in 

digital format. After consulting numerous subject matter experts, 

the SMART Office afforded all jurisdictions the flexibility to simply 

48 

scan existing ink prints, allowing them to avoid the significant 

costs of purchasing live-scan systems to achieve the same goal. I 

would add that this is one of the major cost items in California’s 

budget for implementation. 

As these examples demonstrate, SORNA, as it is being implemented, is far from an inflexible system that its critics paint it to 

be. 

My final point is that SORNA is affordable. Though it is affordable, far more resources are needed to achieve its promise. During 

my tenure, the SMART Office created, paid for and provided a secure communication portal system to all 253 SORNA registration 

jurisdictions to allow for full compliance with SORNA for immediate communication and information sharing. We created the Tribal and Territory Sex Offender Registry System, TTSORS, which we 

provided to each tribe and territory and an individual digital sex 

offender registry system fully connected to the National Sex Offender Public Web site. We created an automated community notification system to allow for proactive notification to the public 

when sex offenders register, and we provided mapping and other 

types of information. 

These points undermine the chief arguments raised against 

SORNA. SORNA is retroactive, but it does not require jurisdictions 

to proactively seek out sex offenders who are not currently registering but only those who are convicted of a new offense, who 

were convicted of a sex offense prior to SORNA. SORNA does not 

control where sex offenders live and go to school. It has nothing to 

do with residency restrictions. 

Finally, there is no workable alternative to the system like 

SORNA. SORNA requires registration based on the fact that the 

sex offender has already assaulted a real person. Risk-assessment 

tools remain available for treatment purposes but do not determine 

if a convicted sex offender should register or guess whether they 

will offend again. Rightly so, Congress recognized that risk assessments are not foolproof and are not useful for juveniles. Only a minority of jurisdictions use them for registration purposes, and an 

insufficient amount of trained professionals are available to administer these tools properly. 

I am happy to answer any questions you have regarding SORNArelated topics. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rogers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA L. ROGERS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE SMART 

OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify and submit this statement for the record. Until recently, I served as director of the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and 

Tracking (SMART) Office in the Depart of the Justice. Prior to my appointment, I 

prosecuted child homicide and child sexual abuse cases for over a decade at the San 

Diego District Attorney’s Office. In have tried over 120 jury trials as a prosecutor, 

and have a 92% success rate. Additionally, I served as a senior attorney for the National District Attorney’s Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child 

Abuse for 5 years where I trained front line child abuse prosecutors, police, doctors, 

first responders and others on how to investigate and prosecute child homicide (including shaken baby syndrome cases) and child physically and sexual abuse cases. 

After leaving NDAA, I established a consulting firm, the National Institute for the 

Training of Child Abuse Professionals (NITCAP), and continued to train frontline 

child abuse professionals in the United States and around the world. In short, I 

49 

have dedicated my entire professional career to protecting children, and holding perpetrators accountable. 

Protecting children is not a partisan, or political issue. It is simply the right thing 

to do. The Adam Walsh Act, which I had the privilege to help implement, is part 

of a larger framework in our country to protect children. It is not the only law designed to protect children, nor is it the most important law, but it is sound public 

policy. It should be supported by this body, financially and otherwise. Like many 

laws, it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. 

The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law on July 26, 2006. Since that day, there 

has been much progress throughout this nation in the implementation of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). However, the momentum with 

which this progress is being made stands to be undermined if special-interest 

groups’ and individual jurisdiction’s myopic criticisms of the law is allowed to 

change the statutory language of SORNA. Individuals who do not have a national 

perspective do not understand the significance of the jurisdiction-specific modifications they seek. 

Congress intended to give this country and its citizens a comprehensive system 

for sex offender registration and notification under SORNA. SORNA recognized that 

every jurisdiction is unique, with distinct systems and issues, and SORNA provides 

significant flexibility that will allow for the comprehensive nature of the Act to be 

achieved, while still requiring jurisdictions to meet or exceed equivalent minimum 

standards. 

Modification to SORNA will not resolve all hurdles to substantial implementation. 

Modifications to SORNA will create new and different issues. As the SMART Office 

currently does, each jurisdiction must be worked with individually to achieve success in a unique way. 

The facts show that sex offender registration and a public registry are highly valued by the public. In Calendar Year 2008, NSOPW had nearly 5 million users and 

over 772 million sex offender files were accessed. Currently SORNA provides a comprehensive system that gives our children and families access to the same minimum 

level of information regardless of where they choose to live, work and go to school. 

SORNA was created because of the fact that sex offenders do reoffend. It was never 

intended to reduce recidivism rates—because only sex offenders themselves can 

change this statistic. SORNA and the public registry are intended to allow families 

and individuals to inform themselves regarding which sex offenders, both adult and 

serious juveniles offenders lurks in their communities and, based on this knowledge, 

to allow for informed decision making to occur. SORNA is about accountability. 

This statement will focus on three issues: 

(1) the challenge to achieve SORNA compliance 

(2) flexability for jurisdictions within SORNA, and 

(3) the resources that are needed to fully achieve SORNA’s vital purpose. 

1. SORNA compliance is challenging but achievable and on-track. Currently, no jurisdiction has met substantial compliance. However, this does not mean that 

SORNA, as currently constituted, is too burdensome or unachievable. All this indicates is that the deadline for compliance has not yet arrived. 

Congress set July 27, 2009, as the initial compliance date. It also built in two oneyear extensions, extending the final deadline into July 2011. When I left office in 

January 2009, several jurisdictions had been working quickly and were extremely 

close to achieving substantial compliance years in advance of the final deadline. Numerous jurisdictions had already demonstrated enough progress to be granted an 

extension. Information on the SMART Office website reveals that several more jurisdictions have been granted since my departure. 

The reality is that jurisdictions still have two years and four months to substantially comply with SORNA. The Final National Guidelines on Sex Offender Registration and Notification were only published July 1, 2008. Dozens of jurisdictions have 

already submitted new or amended legislation, compliance packages, tiering structures, extension requests and other items for review to the SMART Office. Jurisdictions will work within whatever time frame is available. Extending the current time 

line will assure that many jurisdictions will delay in the process of substantial implementation. The issue of the necessity for an additional extension in addition to 

the two already provided for in SORNA is not yet ripe. 

The Attorney General is responsible for determining substantial compliance by 

the jurisdictions with SORNA, and that duty was delegated to the SMART Office. 

Prior to my departure from SMART, I was working with the Office of General Counsel to put into formation the establishment of a formal appeals process for jurisdictions which disagreed with compliance decisions. During my tenure, we resolved all 

50 

issues through simple discussion. I expect that this informal and pragmatic process 

will continue over the next two years until most or all jurisdictions are compliant. 

As a practical matter, the term substantial compliance means just that; complying 

with the minimum standards as required by SORNA. It does not, and has never in 

practice, meant total compliance. States such as Louisiana, whom I had the privilege of working with, have held an unreasonable and incorrect understanding of 

‘‘substantial compliance.’’ To ‘‘substantially comply’’ with SORNA, at jurisdictions, at 

minimum must require persons convicted of offenses included under SORNA to register in accordance with the minimum standards set by SORNA. 

Further, Congress included in SORNA a method to resolve any conflicts that 

might exist between SORNA and a jurisdiction’s constitution. Prior to my departure, 

only two jurisdictions had submitted potential conflicts to the SMART Office, and 

upon thorough review, neither met the requirements for relief under SORNA. 

2. SORNA offers significant implementation flexibility to jurisdictions. The statutory language of SORNA, with respect to certain sections was initially somewhat inflexible. Through the Final Guidelines, I resolved many problematic issues and built 

in greater flexibility to the system. The SMART Office received over 650 pages of 

comments to the Proposed Guidelines. Those comments were quite helpful and instructive. The open comment period, and the feedback we got during that timeframe, guided us in the drafting of the Final Guidelines. As a frontline child abuse 

prosecutor, I know how important it is for guidelines and regulations to assist practitioners, not hinder them. 

Of all of the issues, the most common refrain we heard during the public comment 

period to the proposed guidelines was the requirement that juvenile sex offenders 

register. Congress originally wrote the juvenile registration requirement to include 

registration of adjudicated juveniles 14 years or older who committed acts of rape, 

sexual acts against unconscious or intoxicated individuals and sexual conduct 

against children under 12 years old. As written by Congress, this section was highly 

problematic and did not make sense to many jurisdictions and other stakeholders. 

I found the provision particularly troubling. The comments provided during the publication of the proposed guidelines echoed the same concerns. Working within the 

confines of the law, I worked to ensure that the Final Guidelines allow jurisdictions 

complete discretion regarding registering juveniles who engage in low end ‘‘consensual’’ sexual conduct against children under age 12. Now, only older juveniles who 

are forcible rapists and the like are mandatory registrants under SORNA. 

Congress wisely provided jurisdictions complete discretion to not register statutory rape type offenders. Cases involving participants are at least 13 years old with 

a partner not more than 4 years older are not required to register under SORNA’s 

registration scheme. If consensual sexual activity does occur between partners with 

more than 4 years of separation, then prosecutors have several options: charge the 

case as a felony qualifying as a tier II offense under SORNA; charge the case as 

a misdemeanor;, or decide not to file the case. In many cases, the best result from 

a local prosecutor exercising wise discretion is not to file a case in the first case. 

SORNA does not require any prosecutor to file any case. In most cases, when 

charged most severely, the offender would be no more than a tier two-type offender, 

but often a tier one offender and therefore not necessarily required to be on a public 

registry. 

Another example is the clean-record example. The clean record exception allows 

tier one and adjudicated juvenile tier three sex offenders to discontinue their registration obligations after successfully completing four criteria as set out in the statutory language of SORNA. As written, SORNA seemed to require mandatory implementation by individual jurisdictions. Because some jurisdictions that have registration systems that far exceed the minimum requirements of SORNA, mandatorily requiring implementation of this exception would cause some jurisdictions to completely overhaul their already well functioning registration systems. Clearly 

SORNA’s intent was to allow great flexibility to the jurisdictions and not force already well functioning systems to revamp. Through the Final Guidelines, we made 

sure to give those jurisdictions far greater discretion and flexibility. 

A final example is SORNA’s recordkeeping requirement. SORNA appropriately requires all information be collected in a digital format or be digitally linked. Many 

jurisdictions balked at the expense of reacquiring all existing finger and palm prints 

in digital format. After consulting numerous subject matter experts, we afforded jurisdictions the flexibility to simply scan existing ink prints, allowing them to avoid 

the significant costs of purchasing live scan systems to achieve the same goal. This 

decision was made for two reasons; first, it was good policy; and two, this decision 

can significantly reduce the costs jurisdictions, such as Californias’ claim they must 

shoulder in order to be in substantial compliance. 

51 

These are just a few of the myriad examples of the flexibility that we built into 

the Final Guidelines. As these examples demonstrate, SORNA, as it is being implemented, is far from the inflexible system that its critics paint it to be. 

However, there is a significant hurdle to substantial implementation that can be 

solved by Congress: the lack of funding. Congress should provide resources to support the jurisdictions and the SMART Office in their ongoing efforts. 

3. My final point is that although SORNA is affordable, far more resources are 

needed to achieve its promise. During my tenure, the SMART Office created, paid 

for, and provided a secure communication portal system to all 253 SORNA registration jurisdictions to allow full compliance with SORNA for immediate communication and sharing of information. On January 20, 2009, we made available to relevant jurisdictions the Tribal and Territory Sex Offender Registry System 

(TTSORS), which provides each tribe and territory an individual digital sex offender 

registry fully connected to the NSOPW. In only a couple of months, tribes have embraced this opportunity and approximately 35 tribes are currently testing the software and three tribes have requested to be connected to the system. We created an 

automated community notification system to allow for proactive notification to the 

public when sex offenders register in a community, the ability to conduct an email 

address search, a several mile radius search map where sex offenders live, work and 

go to school and we renovated the NSOPW. We did this all with a limited amount 

of staff and money; imagine what we could have been achieved with adequate resources. 

Another controversial issue is the retroactivity of SORNA. Congress intended 

SORNA to provide a national blanket of comprehensive standards. The only way to 

achieve this goal is to require all sex offenders who are currently active in the legal 

system to be required to register. Blindly excluding all sex offenders convicted prior 

to July 2006 would significantly impact SORNA’s effectiveness. The United States 

Supreme Court has determined that retroactivity is constitutional, as it regulatory 

and is not a punitive measure. 

To clarify how the retroactive component works, SORNA does not require jurisdictions to proactively seek out sex offenders that have completed their registration requirements and that are not currently registering or on some type of criminal supervision (parole/probation). Only sex offenders currently registering, who are currently 

being supervised or who are convicted of another crime are captured under SORNA 

requirements. The retroactivity issue, though controversial now, will ultimately fade 

away as more sex offenders receive convictions post implementation. 

SORNA does not control where a sex offender lives, works or goes to school. It 

has nothing to do with residency restrictions which are all the result of state and 

local legislation. 

There is no workable alternative to a system like SORNA. SORNA is an evidencebased system that requires registration based on the fact that the sex offender has 

ALREADY been convicted of assaulting a real person. There is a movement afoot 

however, to remove the evidence based component of SORNA and replace it with 

a soft (and unproven) artifice called ‘‘risk assessments.’’ Congress wisely recognized 

that risk assessment tools should not used to determine if a convicted sex offender 

should register—by guessing whether they will re-offend. Rightly so, Congress recognized that risk assessments are not foolproof and are not useful for juveniles. However, ‘‘risk assessment’’ tools remain available for treatment purposes. Currently, 

only a minority of jurisdictions use them for registration purposes, and it should remain that way for good reason. For one reason, besides the obvious (they are not 

reliable) there are an insufficient amount of trained professionals available to appropriately administer risk assessment tools to all the sex offenders in the United 

States. 

SORNA is a strong law. It is part of the tool kit that child abuse professionals 

need to protect children. It provides for a standardized minimum level of sex offender registration and notification throughout the United States. SORNA is not 

meant to be a panacea for sexual abuse, assault, rape and sexual murders. It is 

meant to and does provide information that allows parents and others to make informed decisions regarding adult sex offenders and serious juvenile sex offenders 

who reside, work and go to school in their communities. The amount of use of the 

NSOPW demonstrates that the public has embraced the type of knowledge and information that SORNA provides. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts, and I am eager to work 

with the Congress on this important issue in the future in any way I can be of assistance. 

52 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Ms. Rogers. 

We neglected to point out the timing device that is on the table. 

We would like the witnesses to try to confine their remarks to 5 

minutes to the best of their ability. 

Ms. Devillier. 

TESTIMONY OF EMMA J. DEVILLIER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF LOUISIANA, CHIEF, SEXUAL PREDATOR UNIT, 

BATON ROUGE, LA 

Ms. DEVILLIER. I am here on behalf of Attorney General Caldwell 

and the State of Louisiana. I am grateful to the Chairman, to the 

Ranking Member and to the other esteemed Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify regarding the current barriers to the implementation of SORNA. We are very grateful for 

your commitment to exploring and to crafting the sex offender registration and notification policy that works to enhance public safety. 

I come before you this afternoon as someone who has been and 

is currently a front-line prosecutor and is a representative of an Attorney General who has 30 years of experience as a front-line prosecutor. We understand the difficulties involved in prosecuting child 

sex cases. We also understand how registration issues affect our 

ability to administer justice in those cases, and as parents, we understand that we want to know if a predator lives next-door to us, 

but we have to balance all of these interests. We believe very 

strongly that SORNA did not get it right. 

SORNA is not the pinnacle of good policy for sex-offender tracking. In fact, in some respects, it is not good policy at all. We all 

believe in mandatory sex offender registration and in child predator registration. The devil, however, is in the details. I am here 

to tell you why no State will be able to come into compliance with 

SORNA, as defined by the current Federal guidelines, by July of 

2009, and I am here to respectfully implore you to extend the deadline and to take a hard look at what it will take to have an effective public policy that will accomplish the goals of SORNA. It is important to remember that all States will lose millions of dollars in 

critical law enforcement funding through the Byrne Grant program 

when we do not meet the July deadline. 

Let us talk about some of those major goals. I encourage all of 

you to please ask me questions so I can expound upon this, but because of the limited time, I am going to have to hit the highlights. 

The final guidelines were not promulgated until June of 2008. 

That is 2 full years after SORNA was passed. The States, therefore, have only had since June 2008 to be finally told what it is 

they have to do. Louisiana has been working since 2006 and, actually, did not wait until the final guidelines came out to attempt 

compliance, and yet we still stand here today, having been found 

not to be in compliance. 

The second hurdle is that the guidelines, once we did get them, 

are impractical. Once the guidelines were published, it became 

abundantly clear that what was expected of the States by the 

SMART Office was impractical, ill-conceived, not advisable for the 

53 

good of the criminal justice system and, in some instances, was not 

required by the congressional act itself. Let me explain. 

One of the impracticalities is that it requires all child sex cases 

25-year registration or lifetime registration. This will definitely and 

has in Louisiana resulted in the lack of ability to get pleas in difficult child sex cases. Remember that registration of a sex offender 

presupposes that we have convicted that person. 

When you tell me that I have nowhere to go; I have a 7-yearold-child telling me, ‘‘Ms. Devillier, please do not make me go to 

trial. Please find a way to get this guy to plea,’’ and even though 

the courts have said this is regulatory and not punitive, defendants 

do not see it that way. When that 25-year registration or lifetime 

registration is an impediment to getting a plea in a difficult case 

that I believe I will lose or, because of which, I will re-victimize 

this child by putting him through a public trial, I have got to have 

somewhere to go. 

Right now, what is happening is that we are going to some prosecutors outside of sex crime offenses to get that plea and are just 

requiring registration as a condition of supervision. It is a real 

problem, and it does not effect the policy that you want to effect 

with SORNA. The requirement that tiering should be based on underlying facts which are not necessarily an element of the offense 

does not afford due process, and it limits the flexibility that prosecutors must have in dealing with tough cases involving traumatized child victims. 

The guidelines say we have to look at the actual age of the victim 

as to whether or not that is an element of the offense. How can 

that possibly afford due process? That ties my hands as a prosecutor in trying to get pleas. 

The third hurdle is that the SMART Office’s determination in the 

guidelines deemed the substantial compliance in the language of 

the act itself to be actual or strict compliance. Basically, they are 

telling us that you have to adopt every aspect of SORNA, or you 

are not going to be in compliance. This leaves no room for the 

States to maneuver around and to accommodate our unique criminal statutes and existing policies, laws and procedures with regard 

to sex offender registration, which many States have invested large 

amounts of resources developing. And I submit to you that it completely ignores the actual language of the act, which only requires 

substantial compliance and not actual or strict compliance. 

The fourth hurdle has been retroactive application of the act. 

This will interfere with obtaining pleas in non-sex-offense felony 

cases because it says, when a defendant comes back into the criminal justice system, you can renew his old registration requirements. It will affect being able to get pleas in other types of felony 

cases. 

And also, retroactive application will allow defendants whose 

plea agreement legally included waiver of registration because, before 1999, you could waive registration legally, it will allow them— 

the courts in Louisiana have rules that they can withdraw their 

pleas if you try now to make them do this, because that was an 

inducement for them to give up their right to a trial. 

In conclusion, A.G. Caldwell and I urge the Members of the Committee to consider an extension of the deadline for the States to 

54 

comply with the act, to establish task forces that invite those like 

me and the other members of this esteemed panel to talk to you 

about the issues involved and have the input. 

Even Ms. Rogers, the former director of the SMART Office, has 

admitted, even though the intentions of those who crafted the 

Adam Walsh Act were good, that they did not consult front-line 

prosecutors, like myself, in that process. Not to do so now would 

jeopardize the viability of the overall goal of SORNA, and it would 

put States at imminent risk of losing vital Byrne Grant dollars for 

worthy law enforcement programs beginning in July of this year. 

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions that would 

allow me to expound upon these comments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Devillier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMMA J. DEVILLIER

My name is Emma Devillier. I am here on behalf of Attorney General James D. 

‘‘Buddy’’ Caldwell, as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana 

where I serve as Chief of A.G. Caldwell’s Sexual Predator Unit. I come before you 

this afternoon as someone who has been a frontline prosecutor of sexual offenders 

for over a decade and also as a representative of A.G. Caldwell, who has thirty years 

of experience as a frontline prosecutor. It should first be said that A.G. Caldwell 

and I believe that establishing some uniformity among the states regarding sex offender registration laws is a worthwhile goal. Ultimately, a reasonable degree of 

uniformity will lead to increased compliance by offenders and fewer legal defenses 

for those who continue to be non-compliant. A.G. Caldwell and I also speak to you 

today as parents, who want to know if there is a predator next door. As prosecutors 

and parents, we understand what it takes to successfully prosecute sex offender and 

child predator cases, how registration issues affect the administration of justice in 

some of those cases and we understand a parent’s desire to have information that 

will allow them to protect their children against such predators. We, however, believe very strongly that SORNA, did not get it right. SORNA is not the pinnacle 

of good public policy where sex offender tracking is concerned. In fact, in some respects it is not good policy at all. When you look at what Louisiana has done to 

craft and implement a tough and targeted policy of mandatory sex offender registration which maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system and does not impede the administration of justice, it will become abundantly clear to you where 

SORNA falls short of the mark and why states are having difficulty adhering to it. 

We all believe in mandatory sex offender and child predator registration, but if 

we do not do it right we are helping the true predators go undetected. The devil 

is in the details. I am here to tell you why Louisiana has not and why other states 

probably will not come into compliance with the current legislation and to respectfully implore you to take a hard look at what it will take to have an effective public 

policy that accomplishes effective tracking of sex offenders and child predators while 

not impeding the administration of justice. 

A.G. Caldwell and I are grateful to Chairman Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking 

Member Louie Gohmert, and the other esteemed members of the subcommittee for 

the opportunity to testify regarding the current Barriers to Implementation of the 

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘SORNA’’) 

and for your commitment to exploring and crafting sex offender registration and notification policy that works to enhance public safety. 

The Office of the Attorney General of Louisiana suggest that the Subcommittee 

delay the July 27, 2009 enforcement date of SORNA and create task forces to examine the significant barriers to implementing the Act. This is not just an arbitrary 

suggestion. It is an informed and educated analysis developed over time. 

The Hurdles of Implementing SORNA in Louisiana 

I was the Assistant Attorney General responsible for coordinating Louisiana’s efforts to implement SORNA compliant legislation. In fact, I was one of the first Assistant Attorneys General in the country to work with the SMART Office when it 

first opened for business. Between late 2006 and mid-2007, my office worked closely 

with all stakeholders (District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Corrections officials, etc) to help 

craft Louisiana’s version of SORNA, House Bill 970, which passed in the 2007 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature which session concluded in June of 2007. 

55 

Because Louisiana was trying to comply within the first year of passage of the 

Adam Walsh Act, key members of the Louisiana Legislature and I had the dubious 

charge of trying to get SORNA compliant legislation passed before the release of the 

SORNA Final Guidelines. After passing HB 970 in the 2007 Regular Session, Louisiana submitted the legislation to the SMART office for determination of substantial compliance. Despite best efforts, in late fall of 2007, the SMART Office determined that though the State of Louisiana had made ‘‘substantial efforts to achieve 

compliance with SORNA’’, the State had ‘‘not achieved substantial compliance with 

SORNA.’’ Former Director of the SMART Office, Laura Rogers, stated that Louisiana had failed to enact all provisions of SORNA. 

In our Compliance Audit by the SMART Office, Louisiana was told that in some 

instances HB 970 had exceeded what is required by SORNA. By this time, Louisiana had no choice but to wait for the release of the final guidelines to be issued 

before making another attempt at full compliance. However, some, though not all, 

of the changes recommended in the compliance audit were enacted in the 2008 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature. The Final Guidelines were not released 

until July 1, 2008, after the 2008 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature and 

a full year after Louisiana had originally submitted HB 970 to the SMART Office. 

Additionally, Louisiana takes issue with the guideline’s interpretation of the substantial compliance language in the Act to mean actual ( strict) compliance is required. 

There is a huge difference in substantial compliance with the intended purposes of 

the Act, versus actual compliance with the poorly drafted and illogically formulated 

provisions of the final guidelines as hereinafter discussed. 

This entire experience has been difficult for several reasons. First, Louisiana received very little guidance from the SMART Office. Though Louisiana tried very 

hard to work with the SMART Office, we received no clear instruction or guidance 

on whether the legislation we were proposing was sufficient or even close to being 

in ‘‘substantial compliance’’ with SORNA. Second, the SORNA final Guidelines are 

not practical. We experienced great difficulty in determining which of our State’s 

substantive sex crimes belonged in which tier. The elements of Louisiana’s sex 

crimes do not fit neatly into the elements of each tier proposed by SORNA. The 

Final Guidelines do not take into account the elements of a sex crime that vary from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Third, it is quite obvious that the SMART office interprets ‘‘substantial compliance’’ to mean ‘‘actual’’ or ‘‘strict compliance. The SORNA 

Final Guidelines determined that SORNA offered jurisdictions a ‘‘floor’’ in which to 

comply, not a guideline. In this vein, Louisiana was even advised in its compliance 

audit by the SMART office that it would have to amend some of its substantive sex 

crimes in order to comply. Fourth, as a prosecutor who has specialized in sex crimes, 

I can tell you that SORNA’s offense-based (at least as interpreted by the SMART 

Office), retroactive system is overinclusive, overly burdensome on the state, exorbitantly costly, and will actually do more to erode community safety than to strengthen it. This is generally true, I am advised, not just for Louisiana but for most states. 

FIRST HURDLE: LACK OF TIMELY AND ACCURATE GUIDANCE

Louisiana seeks this extension because the implementation phase has been delayed by lack of proper guidance from the SMART office. As outlined previously, 

though perhaps through no fault of the SMART office, there were undue delays by 

the SMART office in responding to the request for guidance from Louisiana. Though 

our criminal statutes were outlined to the SMART office before the beginning of our 

legislative session in 2007, we did not get a response until well after the session 

was over. Additionally, this response was not a firm one as the final guidelines were 

not published until after the end of the 2008 legislative session. After reviewing the 

final guidelines, Louisiana believes in some instances they are ill conceived and are 

not practical or advisable for the good of the criminal justice system and Louisiana 

seeks this extension in order have an opportunity to discuss these issues with the 

Congress. Even former Director of the SMART office, Laura Rogers, in her recent 

comments to the Surviving Parents Coalition, agrees that though the drafters of the 

Adam Walsh Act had good intentions, ‘‘they did not consult professional child abuse 

prosecutors or those with frontline experience and knowledge.’’ Having been a legislator, I am acutely aware that even with the best intentions and the best attempt 

to consult all stakeholders, mistakes in the drafting of legislation is difficult to 

avoid, particularly when it is as comprehensive as the Adam Walsh Act. Those mistakes are inevitable and understandable. What would not be understandable is not 

addressing those mistakes once they become apparent. 

56 

SECOND HURDLE: GUIDELINES ARE NOT PRACTICAL

The final guidelines indicate that all state sex offenses must be ‘‘tiered’’ by comparing the state sex offense to the described federal offense to determine if the state 

sex offense is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense. This is fairly 

consistent with the AWA. However, the problem comes in the interpretation as to 

how that comparison is performed. The problem in trying to compare our offenses 

to the federal offenses is that the federal offenses differentiate seriousness based on 

facts not necessarily made elements in the State definition of the crime. 

To understand the problem you will first have to understand that the Federal 

statutes to which the state statutes are to be compared are distinguished between 

sexual acts and sexual contact and require categorization based on the method used 

(physical force/drugs) to complete the sexual act or contact and the age of the victim. 

For example the guidelines require that any offense which involves force and penetration must fall into tier 3 and require lifetime registration and any offense involving penetration or any type of sexual touching (through the clothes or otherwise) 

of a child under 12 requires lifetime registration whether or not force or drugs were 

used to accomplish the task. Given that requirement, in which tier should Louisiana’s indecent behavior statute be categorized? The indecent behavior statute in 

Louisiana requires lewd and lascivious behavior upon the person or in the presence 

of a child under the age of seventeen when there is an age difference of greater than 

two years between the child and the perpetrator. The elements of the indecent behavior do not necessarily include a sexual act (penetration or direct touching of the 

genitals) or sexual contact (fondling of genitals through the clothing). Indecent behavior could be accomplished by performing a sexual act in the presence of a child. 

A good prosecutor will not list the nature of the lewd or lascivious behavior except 

to state that it happened upon the person OR in the presence of a child and that 

the child was under the age of sixteen and the perpetrator was more than two years 

older. The prosecutor will always only plead the facts he necessarily has to prove 

because he will be held to whatever facts are alleged. 

The SMART offices compliance audit of Louisiana’s 2007 legislation stated that 

Indecent Behavior should not be listed as a tier I crime (requiring 15 years of registration) because it could involve a sexual act or contact with a minor. The audit 

stated that this crime should be listed as a tier II (requiring 25 years of registration) 

and, if the victim was under the age of 12, it should be listed in tier III (requiring 

lifetime registration). The audit and the final guidelines state that the age of the 

victim should be controlling as to the tier of the offense, whether or not it is an element of the offense. This is not enforceable. If the age of the victim is not in the 

bill of information how will you hold the offender accountable for a fact that has 

not been established in a court of law? The guidelines state that you will have to 

look at the underlying facts of the offense to determine the age of the victim. How 

does this possibly afford due process? Basically, the guidelines seem to be stating 

that we must allow some bureaucrat to determine what the underlying facts of a 

conviction were and then apply the appropriate tier to that offense based on the determination of this bureaucrat. We are essentially basing an offender’s future legal 

obligation to register on facts that have not been established in a court of law. Because SORNA requires that time period of registration and number of in-person renewals per year be tied to the elements of the offense of conviction, the Louisiana 

legislature thought it necessary to have a judicial determination of these facts. 

Therefore, we placed offenses in tier I which did not necessarily include the types 

of elements described in SORNA for tier II and tier III placement. The SMART office’s test was the opposite, if the elements of tier II or tier III were not necessarily 

excluded, then it should be placed into the higher tier. This means all offenses involving a child victim must require a 25 year or lifetime registration period. 

If no crimes against children are left in tier I, i.e., indecent behavior with a juvenile, prosecutors who run into difficulty with a reluctant and terrified victim will 

have to go outside of the sex offense statutes to accomplish a plea where there will 

be no resulting sex offender/child predator registration required. Even though the 

courts have ruled that registration is regulatory and not intended to be punitive, 

the courts did recognize that registration does have punitive effects. When these punitive effects interfere with getting a plea in a child sex case because the offender 

refuses to plead to anything that requires 25 year or lifetime registration and you 

have no sex offense in tier I that you can offer because your victim is seven and 

traumatized about trial, the prosecutor will go outside of the child sex crimes statutes to effectuate a plea. This is not based on laziness or not caring, it is based on 

the realities of what we, as sex crimes prosecutors, deal with on a regular basis in 

trying to seek justice while not re-victimizing the victim. 

57 

Registration is supposed to be a product of a conviction. In order to maintain prosecutorial discretion which is essential for the administration of justice, if registration 

is to be offense based, it must be based on the facts as alleged in the bill of information. If the facts in the bill of information leave doubt as to the specific act involved 

or the specific age of the victim which would establish that the offender’s actions were 

of the type described as a tier II or tier III offense, then the offense should be categorized in tier I. 

Sex cases involving minor victims are the most difficult cases to prove. Often your 

whole case comes down to the word of a child versus that of an adult. Many of these 

offenses are not reported until the perpetrator (often a family member) is separated 

from the victim through divorce or a change in living circumstances. There is rarely 

any physical evidence. The child is often reluctant to participate in a public trial. 

We cannot mandate sex offenders register until we convict them. Good public policy 

will not impede a prosecutor’s ability to get a plea is these most difficult cases. The 

current requirements of SORNA will impede this process much to the detriment of 

public safety and criminal justice. 

THIRD HURDLE: SMART OFFICE DETERMINATION THAT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

MEANS ACTUAL (STRICT) COMPLIANCE

Louisiana addressed some of its concerns outlined above by banking on the ‘‘substantial compliance’’ language of the act. The substantial compliance language, we 

thought, would allow us to leave certain child sex cases in tier I so that prosecutors 

would have a place to go in child sex cases in which the victim recants or indicates 

that a trial is not something they can handle and registration for 25 years or life 

was a deterrent to getting a plea as charged. Again, even though the courts have 

found that registration is not part of the punishment for a crime but is regulatory, 

offenders surely do not see it that way. It is particularly burdensome in Louisiana 

because we require, in addition to publication of the information on the registry, 

that the offender send a post card with his picture and the details of his conviction 

to all of his neighbors within a certain radius of his home. This must be done every 

time the offender changes addresses and every five years, whether or not the offender has a change of address. Additionally, we require offenders to carry a driver’s 

license or identification card with SEX OFFENDER in red letters across the bottom 

of the offender’s photo. Also, in Louisiana, no matter the tier of your first sex offense 

conviction, a second conviction will require lifetime registration. Still further, if the 

offense of conviction requires registration for any period less than life, the prosecutor upon showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender poses a 

substantial risk of re-offending, the court may order the offender to register for life. 

All of these additional provisions go far beyond what is required by SORNA. By determining that ‘‘substantial compliance’’ means strict compliance, the SMART office 

has taken away Louisiana’s ability to address the problems outlined above in a fashion that does no harm to the intent of the act. To the contrary, we believe that what 

Louisiana has done actually enhances public safety by maintaining prosecutorial 

discretion and targeting resources towards the worst offenders. Louisiana submits 

that no where in the Adam Walsh Act does the Act require strict compliance or suggest that these are minimum standards which must be adhered to religiously. Such 

a requirement is unrealistic and impractical. 

FOURTH HURDLE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE ACT

With respect to sex offenders whose convictions predate the enactment or implementation of SORNA, the Guidelines require that a jurisdiction register the following offenders: (1) those who are incarcerated or under supervision for the registration offense or for some other crime; (2) those who are already subject to a preexisting sex offender registration requirement; and (3) those who subsequently reenter the jurisdiction’s justice system for a conviction for some other crime, even a 

non-sexual offense. 

One of the practical problems with this retroactive provision is that it fails to give 

proper guidance to enable law enforcement to identify such offenders and to classify 

them in a tier. When the requirement of retroactive application of SORNA is taken 

into consideration, the problem of ‘‘tiering’’ offenses becomes even more evident. 

Even if the age of the victim or specific facts relating to the offense are put forth 

in the Bill of Information, law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcement of registration laws will spend countless man hours tracking down bills of information, 

often from out of state convictions, trying to ascertain the facts alleged in each bill 

rather than just looking at the criminal statute violated in the conviction to determine if it necessarily includes a forced sexual act or sexual contact with a child 

under the age of 12. 

58 

Retroactivity as required by the guidelines is also problematic in that it requires 

an offender who has long ago finished his legal obligation to register to register once 

again if he is subsequently convicted of any felony. States do have the discretion 

to give the offender credit for the time that has elapsed since he last registered, but 

that is small solace to an offender who under SORNA will have to register for life 

if convicted of the subsequent felony. Prosecutors have real concerns about the effect 

of this provision on the ability to get pleas in cases having nothing to do with a 

sex offense. For example, an offender who has a felony theft charge pending who 

twenty five years ago was convicted of indecent behavior with a juvenile under the 

age of 12, will, if convicted of the felony theft charge, have to register again for the 

rest of his life, under the current requirements of the guidelines. Louisiana, therefore, adopted a limited retroactivity provision making the new registration periods 

applicable to all sex offenders who were under an active obligation to register as 

of the effective date of the act. Retroactivity was also limited in Louisiana because 

prior to 1999, a Judge could legally waive sex offender registration and many did, 

as part of a plea agreement. There was real concern that convictions could be overturned if the new registration statute was made to apply to these offenders. There 

is Louisiana case law supportive of the offender’s right to withdraw his plea if the 

waiver was part of the plea agreement. 

Furthermore, I ask you, how will juveniles who never had an existing duty to register be subjected to the Act? How would we find them? Louisiana, therefore, adopted a prospective only application for a very limited number of juvenile offenders age 

14 and above adjudicated or convicted of only the most heinous acts—aggravated 

rape, forcible rape, 2nd Degree Kidnapping of a child under 13, aggravate kidnapping of a child under 13, aggravated incest involving penetration and aggravated 

crime against nature. 

Another issue stemming from the retroactive provision of SORNA is the ‘‘recapturing’’ of offenders. Once a jurisdiction enacts SORNA legislation, that jurisdiction 

is required to ‘‘recapture’’ and register ‘‘retroactive’’ sex offenders within the following time frames’’ Tier I offenders within one year; Tier II offenders within six 

(6) months; and, Tier III offenders within three (3) months. How is this to be accomplished? We can barely keep up with the ones we know about now given our limited 

resources. 

Compliance Issues Plaguing Other Jurisdictions 

I participate in a national sex offender management listserv and have engaged 

with other offices of Attorneys General through the National Association of Attorneys General to discuss issues related to SORNA implementation. Through this 

process I have learned that not only Louisiana but many other states are experiencing the same or similar difficulties as evidenced by the failure of any state to 

achieve substantial compliance as of this date. In addition to the above issues faced 

by Louisiana, discussions with other States through NAAG and otherwise, have 

raised other issues with regard to AWA compliance which need to be considered: 

1) Many States currently have risk-based assessment schemes to determine the 

length and conditions of registration rather than offense-based schemes in 

which they have invested lots of time and money and which they believe accomplish the same goal as the AWA but just arrives there through a different avenue. These States have indicated that, at least informally, the 

SMART office has indicated that they will have to switch to an offense based 

scheme or be deemed to be non-compliant. Massuchusetts has jurisprudence 

which establishes that sex offenders have a state constitutional right to a 

risk assessment before being placed on a public registry. 

2) Most other States have indicated similar problems with retroactivity as faced 

by Louisiana. 

3) Some States are concerned that the inclusion of the sex offender’s employment address and school address will impede reintegration of sex offenders 

into the community by making it much more difficult to obtain employment, 

de-stabilize offenders and be counter productive to public Safety. 

4) Some States are concerned that quarterly registration will divert law enforcement resources away from the more important public safety task of compliance checks to do less important administrative tasks. 

5) The requirement that the States get palm prints which can only be provided 

by agencies that use Livescan technology will prove too expensive and difficult for all registering agencies to acquire. 

6) Whether those States who allow a sex offender to be relieved of the obligation to register by obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation will, due to the 

59 

retroactivity requirement, have to revive those obligations. (The SMART office has now said any provisions to relieve an offender from registration before the allotted time periods in the AWA would not be in substantial compliance with the AWA) 

7) The significant cost of compliance versus the loss of Byrne funds. SORNA 

Compliance motivated by loss of Byrne Funds 

8) Some States have significant concerns about juvenile registration based on 

their constitutions, on public opinion or on their juvenile systems which are 

design to not permanently label a child in hopes of rehabilitation. 

Conclusion 

As a State AG, we support the idea of having more homogeneous sex offender registration laws across the nation. Louisiana specifically, submits that it has achieved 

‘‘substantial compliance’’ as required by SORNA because we disagree with the 

SMART office’s interpretation of that language in the ACT to mean strict compliance. However, any such federal attempt to help all state’s achieve this goal must 

take into consideration the varying states’ current substantive criminal statutes and 

the varying sex offender registration laws and policies with the goal of making enforcement of such laws when an offender crosses state lines more feasible. To ensure 

that federal legislation in this regard is based on sound public policy and that it 

will be effectively implemented, all stakeholders must be brought to the table. 

In addition to the issues highlighted above there are many more which need discussion. Not the least of which is SORNA’s inadequate provision of sex offender registration computer programs to jurisdictions. The program made available only addresses the needs of the central registry in each jurisdiction. SORNA fails to recognize that the central registries would have no information but for the information 

provided by local law enforcement agencies which actually register the offenders. In 

order to meet the time restrictions required by SORNA on transfer of registration 

information from the local sex offender registrar to the central registry, local law 

enforcement must have the ability to transfer this information electronically. No 

provisions in the act address this essential element. Louisiana has addressed this 

by imposing a fee on all felony probationers which is paid into a technology fund 

to support the implementation of a web-based program for the collection, storage 

and transfer of this data to our central registry at no cost to the tax payer. We not 

only believe we are substantially compliant with SORNA we believe we have far exceeded its goals. 

Respectfully, Attorney General Caldwell and I urge the members of this Subcommittee to consider an extension of the deadline for states to comply with the Act, 

the establishment of a task force comprised of prosecutors, law enforcement, state 

registries, corrections, experts in the field of sex offender management, victims and 

all other stakeholders in this complex issue to examine the practical effects of the 

Act on public safety and possible reform to address the concerns raised here and 

those recommended by the task force. Not to do so would jeopardize the viability 

of the overall goal of SORNA and would put states at imminent risk of losing vital 

BYRNE grant dollars for worthy law enforcement programs beginning July of 2009. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Carter. 

TESTIMONY OF MADELINE M. CARTER, PRINCIPAL, CENTER 

FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT, CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICY, SILVER SPRING, MD 

Ms. CARTER. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Scott, and Members of the Committee. 

I want to thank you for convening this hearing and for offering me 

the privilege of speaking to you. 

I want to acknowledge the enormous respect I have for the other 

witnesses at this table. Each of us comes to this table with a 

unique background. As a result, we may see this issue of sex offender management through a different lens and perhaps have divergent thoughts about the most beneficial public policy approach. 

60 

I am certain, however, that we all share the same goal, to prevent 

sexual victimization. 

I am a principal with a nonprofit organization. For 26 years, we 

have worked with government officials across the country to advance sound policy solutions in criminal justice. Twelve years ago, 

we were awarded funds by the Justice Department to establish the 

Center for Sex Offender Management. I am its director. 

Our mission is to prevent further victimization by improving the 

management of adult and juvenile sex offenders. We have worked 

with professionals throughout the country to understand and to 

translate research into practice. Our goal is to support efforts to 

end sexual violence. As a professional, as a mother, and as the victim of an attempted rape when I was a youth, I, like you, have a 

major stake in the safety of victims and of potential victims. I have 

five points to share that I believe can guide us in our collective 

thinking on this matter. 

Point one, sex offender policy and practice should be evidencebased. Today, following three decades of extensive research, we 

have a wealth of knowledge about the factors associated with reoffense risk and methods to intervene with and to reduce that risk. 

This research should shape our public policy because it can result 

in fewer new crimes. It has shaped practice in local communities 

across the country for more than a decade. The results are promising and in need of ongoing support and study. 

Point two, not all sex offenders are alike. One of the fundamental 

problems in our field is that we tend to paint all sex offenders with 

the same brush. Professionals have long recognized key differences 

among them. These differences relate to the types of crimes they 

commit, to the victims they target, to their risk for re-offense, and 

to the types of interventions that will most likely reduce their risk. 

These differences have important implications. For example, 

among adult sex offenders, while some are extremely dangerous, 

others can be safely managed in the community. Research further 

distinguishes adult sex offenders from juveniles who are developmentally quite different from adults. These findings suggest that a 

one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate. A more tailored approach is called for. I respectfully recommend that this Committee 

support further examination of the differences between these offenders and the interventions needed to prevent future crimes. 

Point three, risk assessment is an important tool in our management arsenal. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. We 

need a way to distinguish among offenders. Until recently, we had 

no choice but to categorize offenders primarily on the basis of the 

offenses they had committed. Risk-assessment instruments offer a 

scientifically based method to distinguish among individuals. 

Today, many States use actuarial tools to differentiate between offenders. I encourage you to establish a commission to examine the 

use of risk assessment to guide the tiering of sex offenders for the 

purposes of registration and notification. 

Point four, there is no silver bullet. We want desperately to find 

the silver bullet that will solve the problem, but there is no single 

answer to the problem of sexual violence. We have developed a 

comprehensive policy framework. It is built on research and a set 

of core values, the most fundamental of which is victim protection 

61 

and safety. It acknowledges that there are many elements involved 

in effectively managing sex offenders. Research suggests that some 

of the strategies are more powerful in reducing risk than others. 

For example, the evidence suggests that a combination of sex-offender-specific treatment and community supervision can increase 

public safety. Thus far, the research on registration and notification has not demonstrated similar results. More study is needed. 

From a public policy perspective, we should invest our limited resources in those strategies that show promise for reducing re-offense and, at the very least, be judicious in our investment in options that do not. 

Point five, we should use research and experience to build our 

approach to reducing victimization. We know from experience that 

we can hold offenders accountable while providing support and 

safety to victims. Most importantly, we know we can reduce the 

likelihood of new sex crimes. 

To achieve those goals, we must be deliberate. Some of the efforts 

in the past in the name of public safety have proven ineffective. We 

should let go of those. Others hold promise for recidivism reduction, 

and we should embrace these. 

Let me conclude by reiterating that my goal is to prevent future 

sexual violence. To this end, I endorse efforts to reconsider any provisions of SORNA that are not supported by research, to advance 

policy around those strategies that are evidence-based and to expand our national research agenda in the area of sexual violence. 

Congress can provide important leadership to the Nation on this 

critical issue. 

I and my colleagues across the country would be most pleased to 

partner with you to understand how best to implement these approaches strategically to end sexual violence. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Carter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MADELINE M. CARTER

Good afternoon Chairman Scott and members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Carter. I want to begin by thanking the Committee for convening this hearing 

and for offering me the privilege of addressing you. I also want to acknowledge the 

enormous respect I have for the other witnesses who are speaking today. Each of 

us comes to this issue with a unique background and set of experiences—including 

law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and victim advocacy. As a result we may see 

the issue of sex offender management through different lenses and perhaps have divergent thoughts about the public policy approach that will result in the greatest 

benefit. I am certain of one thing however: that we all share the same goal-to prevent sexual victimization. 

Let me begin by saying a few words about my background. I am a Principal with 

a non-profit organization in Maryland. For 26 years we have worked with state and 

local government officials across the country to advance sound policy solutions within the criminal justice system. Nearly 12 years ago we were awarded funds by the 

Justice Department to establish the Center for Sex Offender Management. I have 

served as its director since that time. 

CSOM’s mission is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization 

through improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders. Over 12 

years, we have produced nearly 40 policy and practice briefs and other resource documents; trained nearly 50,000 professionals; and provided training and technical assistance to officials in almost every state. We do not conduct original research ourselves. Our role is to assist policymakers and practitioners in understanding the research and translating its findings into policy and practice. 

I want there to be no misunderstanding about the purpose of our efforts. We do 

not view ourselves as advocates for anything more than sound policy approaches 

that result in safer communities. Our goal is to support efforts to end sexual vioVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
62 

lence. I personally am deeply concerned about the threat posed by sexual violence. 

I am a professional in this field and also the mother of two children. I pray they 

never experience sexual assault. I am a friend to many who have, and as a young 

teenager I was the victim of an attempted rape by an individual that was described 

to me by police as most likely a serial rapist. Like you, I have a major stake in the 

safety of victims and potential victims and the safety of our communities. 

I would like to share with you five points that I believe can guide our collective 

thinking on this matter. 

Point #1: Sex offender policy and practice should be evidence based. 

When empirical research is applied to both policy and professional practice it is referred to as evidence-based policy or practice. Today, we have a wealth of knowledge 

about the factors associated with recidivism risk, and methods to intervene with and 

reduce that risk. Important and extensive research regarding criminal offenders, including sex offenders, has been conducted over the past three decades. 

Within the context of this hearing it is not possible to reasonably review all of 

the significant findings, although I and perhaps some of my colleagues will touch 

upon a few major findings. The point I want to make at this moment, however, is 

an important and over-arching one: that there is a wide body of research that can 

and should shape public policy because it can increase public safety by reducing new 

crimes, including sexual offenses. 

This research has shaped practice in local communities across this country over 

the last decade or more. The results are promising and need ongoing support and 

evaluative study. 

Point #2: Not all sex offenders are alike. Perhaps one of the most illuminating 

research findings relates to the label ‘‘sex offender.’’ One of the fundamental problems in our field is that we tend to paint all sex offenders with the same brush 

when professionals in the field have long recognized key differences among these offenders. These differences relate to the types of crimes they commit and the victims 

they target, the pathways that lead to their abusive behavior, the degree to which 

they are motivated to change, their risk for recidivism, and the types of interventions that will most likely reduce their risk for reoffense. 

These key differences have important implications. For example, among adult sex 

offenders, research tells us that some are at higher risk to reoffend than others. 

While some are extremely dangerous others can be safely managed in the community. Research further distinguishes adult sex offenders from their juvenile counterparts: Juveniles are developmentally different, have lower recidivism rates, and 

seem to respond well to treatment. 

These research findings suggest that a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to sex offender 

policy is inappropriate. Instead, a more tailored and strategic approach is called for. 

I respectfully recommend that this Committee support further examination of the 

differences between juvenile and adult sex offenders, and the treatment, supervision, and other supports needed to prevent specific sub-populations of offenders 

from committing new crimes. 

Point #3: Risk assessment is an important tool in our management arsenal. If a one size fits all approach is not appropriate, we need a way to distinguish 

among sex offenders. Until recently, we had no choice but to categorize offenders 

primarily on the basis of the specific offense they had committed. Risk assessment 

instruments offer a scientifically-based method to distinguish important differences 

among individuals. While these tools are not perfect, they have been consistently 

demonstrated to be more reliable than professional judgment. 

Given the significant advances in research-both in terms of our understanding 

that sex offenders are not all alike, and in terms of our ability to distinguish sex 

offenders from one another through the use of risk assessment tools—a tailored approach to sex offender management, based upon risk to reoffend, should be employed to all of our sex offender management strategies. 

The road to moving the criminal justice system from an offense-based to a risk 

based system, not only for sex offenders but also with other offender types, has been 

a long one. Today, many states use actuarial risk assessment to differentiate between offenders; resource allocation and management strategies are deployed accordingly. I encourage this Committee to consider establishing a commission to examine the use of actuarial risk assessment tools to guide the tiering of sex offenders 

for registration and notification purposes. 

Point #4: There is no silver bullet. We want desperately to find the ‘‘silver bullet’’ that will solve this problem, but there are no silver bullets—there is no single 

answer to the problem of sexual violence. It is much too complicated for any one 

solution. 

CSOM has developed a model policy framework for sex offender management. We 

call it the Comprehensive Approach. It is built on solid research and a set of core 

63 

values, the most fundamental of which is that our efforts should focus squarely on 

victim protection and safety. The Comprehensive Approach acknowledges that there 

are many elements involved in an effective approach to protecting public safety: 

thorough investigative practices; appropriate charging and plea negotiations; informed sentencing; and management practices based in research around assessment, treatment, and institutional and community management. Among these elements are registration and notification. Research suggests that some of the strategies that we have at our disposal are more powerful tools in reducing recidivism 

than others. Admittedly the research is not yet complete; there is still much we do 

not know. But thus far, the evidence suggests that a combination of sex offender 

specific treatment and community based supervision can increase public safety by 

reducing new sex crimes. Thus far the research on registration and notification has 

not demonstrated the same results. Therefore, the research suggests that we cannot 

rely on this as our only strategy, and it also suggests that we should invest our limited resources in those strategies that show promise for greater public safety by reducing new sex crimes and, at the very least, be judicious in our investment in options that do not. 

Point #5: We should use the lessons of research and experience to build 

a better, stronger approach to reducing victimization. There was a time not 

too long ago when little was known about sex offenders. I still remember it well. 

When we established CSOM, the research was scant. The professional opinions were 

oftentimes in sharp disagreement. Our first step was to bring all the voices in the 

field together. With their help we identified promising practices, synthesized the research, and built an approach that offered the promise of reducing future victimization. As we have learned more, the approach has evolved. We still have more to 

learn. 

But some things we already know. We know that some of the efforts we have 

made in the past in the name of public safety have proven ineffective. We should 

let go of those. Others hold promise for recidivism reduction. We should embrace 

these. 

We know now from more than a decade of experience working with communities 

all across the country that we can hold offenders accountable; we can provide victims with support and safety, and partner with them in our efforts to increase public safety. Most importantly, we know from research that we can reduce the likelihood of new sex crimes and the harm that it causes. But to achieve these goals, 

we must be thoughtful and deliberate in our strategy. We must bring all of the 

stakeholders together. We must evaluate the extent to which each community’s efforts align with research. We must provide information and training to professionals; educate our communities; and fully invest in strategies proven effective. 

These are the lessons of more than a decade of work that guides us to meaningful 

solutions. These lessons are documented in several of the written materials I have 

supplied along with my testimony. I and my colleagues across the country would 

be most pleased to partner with you to understand how best to implement these approaches to sex offender management strategically on a national basis. 

In closing let me say that my first and only goal is to prevent future sexual violence. To this end, I support efforts to reconsider any provisions of SORNA that are 

not supported by research; to advance policy around those strategies that are evidence based; and to expand our national research agenda in the area of sexual violence prevention. 

Congress can provide important leadership to the nation on this critical issue. I 

thank you for your concern over this matter and look forward to joining forces with 

you to end sexual violence. 

64 

ATTACHMENT 


N-1.eps
65 


N-2.eps
66 


N-3.eps
67 


N-4.eps
68 


N-5.eps
69 


N-6.eps
70 


N-7.eps
71 


N-8.eps
72 


N-9.eps
73 


N-10.eps
74 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Allen. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted written statement. 

With your permission, I will summarize briefly. 


N-11.eps
75 

As you know, the National Center was honored to have been one 

of the organizations consulted by bipartisan congressional leaders 

on the Adam Walsh Act, and we believe strongly today that this 

is vital legislation to keep America’s children safe. 

We know how serious the problem is. We at the National Center 

have handled 667,000 reports of child sexual exploitation through 

our congressionally mandated cyber tip line. Our child victim identification program has reviewed in the past 5 years 21 million child 

pornography images and videos depicting the sexual abuse of children. Our analysis unit is receiving requests from State law enforcement, from the U.S. Marshal Service to help in the location of 

missing or noncompliant sex offenders. 

In our last survey of State sex offender registries a month or two 

ago, we found that there are today 673,989 sex offenders in this 

country required to register. Our estimate is that at least 100,000 

of those offenders are noncompliant, many of them literally missing. Many States do not know how many offenders are noncompliant or are missing. 

We also partner with ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an effort called Operation Predator, which has resulted in 

12,000 arrests nationwide, 85 percent of whom are noncitizen sex 

offenders, 6,300 of whom have been deported. 

Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act, and we were supportive 

for one primary purpose, and that is to create a uniformed, consistent national approach to this problem. There is a stunning lack 

of consistency, resulting in gaps and cracks in the system which 

the most serious offenders exploit. By requiring States to enact 

more uniformed State laws, we felt that this would prevent more 

offenders from forum shopping in order to remain anonymous. 

The States and jurisdictions are trying as you have heard. Working with the SMART Office, 38 jurisdictions have submitted materials for review. Twenty-three have been granted 1-year extensions. 

A few States have announced that they have implemented SORNA, 

but only the SMART Office is authorized to make an official determination of that implementation. 

Our premise, our message to this Committee today, is very simple: As essential and historic as we believe the Adam Walsh Act 

is, it is not going to be effective without the appropriations necessary to implement it. 

When we first discussed this legislation, a prominent sponsor, an 

advocate in the Senate, said, ‘‘This legislation is essential, but show 

me the money. If we do not fund it, it is meaningless.’’ 

From the beginning, everyone understood that these changes 

would be difficult and that the States would need help. The bill authorized that help and much more. The Congressional Budget Office scored a version of the act at more than $1 billion over 5 years. 

In the 3 years since its passage, virtually none of those funds have 

been appropriated. There has been some funding through the Iraq 

supplemental to the U.S. Marshals, and the SMART Office has provided some grants to help with compliance and some training as 

well as some support for juvenile sex offender treatment. It is important to note that the failure to appropriate the funds happened 

due to larger issues and conflicts completely unrelated to the Adam 

Walsh Act. 

76 

We are grateful to Chairman Alan Mollohan and to the Members 

of the House CGS Appropriations Committee and to Senator Barbara Mikulski and to Senator Richard Shelby, who have continuously provided seed money in the appropriations bills, but it has 

been 3 years since the passage of the Adam Walsh Act since there 

has really been an appropriation. The funding has not happened. 

Providing the funding, in our judgment, is the key to being able 

to implement this critical system fairly, objectively and thoroughly. 

However, with the compliance date looming and with essentially no 

funding having been provided to date, we believe it is imperative 

that Congress act to keep the Adam Walsh Act alive through extending the deadlines for compliance. We understand that resources are scarce and that there are many competing demands. 

However, it is hard to imagine a greater, more pressing priority. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

77 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN


EA-1.eps
78 


EA-2.eps
79 


EA-3.eps
80 


EA-4.eps
81 


EA-5.eps
82 


EA-6.eps
83 


EA-7.eps
84 


EA-8.eps
85 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Lunsford. 


EA-9.eps
86 

TESTIMONY OF MARK LUNSFORD, FATHER OF JESSICA 

LUNSFORD, THE CHILD VICTIM OF A SEX OFFENSE AND 

MURDER, HOMASASSA, FL 

Mr. LUNSFORD. My name is Mark Lunsford. 

I am Jessica Lunsford’s father. I turned in a statement explaining what happened to Jessie, and if you read through it, you will 

clearly see the failures in notification and registration and how my 

daughter’s death became. 

John Couey, convicted sex offender, arrested 23 times or more in 

his 46 years of life. He took my little girl, raped her and put her 

in a trash bag, alive, and buried her alive. I am sure that, when 

she was dying, she was crying for me. I can still hear her cries. As 

a parent, I will never be able to get over the grief of knowing that 

she was only 150 yards away from her own bedroom while I prayed 

for her. Her death was a result of a system that failed her and us, 

for if we had tougher laws for registration and good programs for 

notification, this may have prevented her death. 

Although John Couey was on probation, his probation officer did 

not even know he was a convicted sex offender. The Sheriff’s Department was advised by the Attorney General’s Office 3 months 

before the kidnapping to round up all the absconded sex offenders. 

John Couey was on that list but never arrested until the death of 

my daughter. 

Through tougher sexual offender registration and tracking systems, properly funded and enforced, may have protected my daughter and will protect other children. In Florida, the law is so slack 

that the public is only notified of sex offenders when they move, 

and that is at the discretion of each Sheriff’s Department how they 

notify you. The public is not notified when a sexual predator 

moves. So we need better notification for the public. We must know 

where every John Couey is so we can take the necessary steps to 

protect our children. 

In addition to the strict registration system, Congress must empower law enforcement to go after these guys. If law enforcement 

is not empowered and funded to go after these predators, the system fails us all again. Additionally, if we are not going to empower 

law enforcement, as has been the case in failing to fund the Adam 

Walsh Act, the registration and notification becomes that much 

more important so that fathers and mothers have the information 

they need to protect their children. 

How can we say that it will not work or does not work until we 

fund it properly and explore what tweaks we need to make to it? 

John Couey, a two-time convicted sex offender, on probation, 

wore a tracking device. During his time of wearing that tracking 

device, we always knew where he was at. He registered. He played 

by the rules. He did everything that he was supposed to do. In November, when they took the tracking device off of him, he had absconded. It is simple. You as legislators and all organizations, regardless of what organization you are with, all believe in one thing, 

and that is the rights of children. These children have the right to 

a safe and protected life, and until we implement the right funding 

and the right programs for notification and registration, our children will continue to pay the price. This is not fair. There is not 

87 

anything fair about it at all. Why do the children have to pay the 

price for our mistakes? Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lunsford follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK LUNSFORD


ML-1.eps
88 


ML-2.eps
89 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT SHILLING, SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SEX AND KIDNAPPING OFFENDER DETAIL, SEXUAL 

ASSAULT AND CHILD ABUSE UNIT, SEATTLE, WA 

Mr. SHILLING. Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, guests, I’m 

honored to be given the opportunity to testify today. My name is 

Bob Shilling, and I’m a 29-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department. I’ve spent the last 19 years as the detective in the Special Victims Unit, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail. I’ve written 

or coauthored 12 pieces of sex offender legislation that have been 

passed into law in Washington State, and testified on the Community Protection Act of 1990, which became the first community notification law in the United States. I’m the only municipal law enforcement officer in the United States who is a member of the 

Interpol Specialists Group on Crimes Against Children. I currently 

serve as Chair of the Sex Offender Management Theme Group. 

My experience protecting the public from sex offenders spans two 

decades. It is not a job to me, it is a passion. Perhaps my most significant experience related to this work comes from the fact that 

I’m a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The abuse spanned a 4- 

year period and, without question, marks the darkest days of my 

life. I have dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to stop sexual 

abuse not only in this country, but also around the world. 

Prior to becoming a detective in the Special Victims Unit, I, like 

many citizens, believed the only way to manage sex offenders was 

to put them on a distant island where they couldn’t victimize anyone else. My feelings were naive, yet a heartfelt response to a complex problem. My focus then and now has always been victim centered. What can we do to ensure that we don’t have additional victims? What can we do to stop sexual abuse before it happens? 

What has research taught us? How do we hold sex offenders accountable by making sure they have the tools to succeed once they 

are released from incarceration? 

Washington State has been in the national forefront of sex offender management and in ensuring public safety from sex crimes. 

We have an end-of-sentence review committee that looks at the 

risk each sex offender poses to the community prior to the release 

from prison. We have a highly regarded sex offender treatment program within the prison system and statewide certification of sex offender treatment providers in private practice. We do actuarial risk 

assessments on each of our sex offenders in an effort to identify 

those who are the most likely to reoffend. This helps put precious 

public safety resources where they are needed the most, monitoring 

the highest-risk offenders. 

We proactively educate our community about sex offenders. We 

want the public to be able to protect themselves from known sex 

offenders, as well as those who haven’t been caught yet. We also 

educate the community that it is in the best interest of public safety to be invested in the offender’s success when they are released. 

I’ve trained law enforcement officers from all over the world in 

the art of educating the community about sex offenders. I’ve stated 

you cannot do community notification without community education. To do so is like smoking a cigarette while standing in a pool 

of gasoline. Without education, there is misinformation. Misinformation leads to heightened anxiety, which in some cases leads 

90 

to vigilantism. The community deserves to know who the high-risk 

sex offenders are in the community, about the relatively low sex offender recidivism rates, and what research tells us. Citizens can 

and will act responsibly if we are honest with them. They are better able to protect themselves and their loved ones when we educate them about sex offenders. 

I ask that you consider how the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act, SORNA, impacts the public safety aims of effectively managing sex offenders in the community. The SORNA does 

not mandate community education as a component of community 

notification. This is a recipe for disaster and leaves citizens trying 

to sort out fact from myth, truth from emotion, and what to do 

next. This creates public safety concerns and does not have the citizens invested in offenders’ success. It has the opposite effect. 

The SORNA mandates offense-based tiering, which is a faulty alternative to actuarial-based tiering used in over 20 States. Citizens 

have grown used to level 1 sex offenders as being low risk, level 

2 moderate risk, and level 3 high risk. Under SORNA, most sex offenders will be Tier III. That will cause great confusion and anxiety 

for the citizens as they believe each of these offenders has a high 

risk to reoffend. 

That is just not true. Sex offenders differ greatly in their level 

of impulsiveness, persistence, risk to the community, and their desire to change their deviant behavior. The assigning sex offender 

tiers based on crime and conviction tells us very little about who 

this sex offender is and what his or her risk for reoffense may be. 

In Washington State, I have the ability to aggravate someone’s risk 

level if dynamic risk factors indicate an escalation in risky behavior. I won’t have that ability under SORNA. It is not an effective 

way of doing business with the public. 

Finally, I ask that you consider the retroactivity aspect of the 

SORNA. Research tells us that most sex offenders do not reoffend 

sexually over time. In the 2004 study done by the preeminent researchers Harris and Hanson, with a sample of 4,724 sex offenders 

over a 15-year follow-up period, 73 percent of sexual offenders had 

not been charged with or convicted of another sexual offense. 

Under the SORNA, law enforcement will be responsible for reviewing the criminal history of anyone brought back into the system, 

even for a nonsexual criminal offense. If they were once convicted 

of a sex offense, regardless of how long ago that conviction was, the 

offender will be required to register as a sex offender. This will be 

very labor-intensive and costly. Our time and efforts and resources 

are more effectively spent focusing on moderate- to high-risk sex offenders, not sex offenders who committed their crime 25 or 30 

years ago and have not reoffended in a sexual way. 

Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schilling follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB SHILLING

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Guests, I am honored to be given the opportunity to testify today. My name is Bob Shilling. I am a twenty-nine year veteran 

of the Seattle Police Department. I have spent the last nineteen years as a detective 

in the Special Victim’s Unit, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail. I have written 

or co-authored 12 pieces of sex offender legislation that have been passed into law 

91 

in Washington State, and testified on the Community Protection Act of 1990, which 

became the first community notification law in the United States. I am the only municipal law enforcement officer in the United States who is a member of the Interpol 

Specialists Group on Crimes Against Children. I currently serve as Chair of the Sex 

Offender Management Theme Group. 

My experience in protecting the public from sex offenders spans two decades. It’s 

not a job to me it’s a passion. Perhaps my most significant experience related to 

this work comes from the fact that I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The 

abuse spanned a four-year period and without question marks the darkest days of 

my life. I have dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to stop sexual abuse, not 

only in this country, but also around the world. 

Prior to becoming a detective in the Special Victims Unit, I like many citizens, 

believed the only way to manage sex offenders was to put them on a distant island 

where they couldn’t victimize anyone else. My feelings were naive, yet a heartfelt 

response to a very complex problem. My focus then and now has always been victim 

centered. What can we do to ensure we don’t have additional victims? What can we 

do to stop sexual abuse before it happens? What has research taught us? How do 

we hold sex offenders accountable while making sure they have the tools to succeed 

once they are released from incarceration? 

Washington State has been in the national forefront of sex offender management 

and in ensuring public safety from sex crimes. We have an End of Sentence Review 

Committee that looks at the risk each sex offender poses to the community prior 

to their release from prison. We have a highly regarded sex offender treatment program within the prison system, and statewide certification of sex offender treatment 

providers in private practice. We do actuarial risk assessments on each of our sex 

offenders in an effort to identify those who are most likely to re-offend. This helps 

put precious public safety resources where they are needed the most; monitoring the 

highest risk offenders. We proactively educate our community about sex offenders. 

We want the public to be able to protect themselves from known sex offenders, as 

well as those who haven’t been caught yet. We also educate the community that it’s 

in the best interest of public safety to be invested in the offender’s success when 

they are released. 

I’ve trained law enforcement officers from all over the world in the art of educating the community about sex offenders. I’ve stated: ‘‘You can’t do community notification without community education. To do so is like smoking a cigarette while 

standing in a pool of gasoline.’’ Without education there’s misinformation. Misinformation leads to heightened anxiety, which in some cases, leads to vigilantism. 

The community deserves to know who the high-risk sex offenders are in the community, about the relatively low sex offender recidivism rates, and what research tells 

us. Citizens can and will act responsibly if we are honest with them. They are better 

able to protect themselves and their loved ones when we educate them about sex 

offenders. 

I ask that you consider how the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 

(SORNA) impacts the public safety aims of effectively managing sex offenders in the 

community. The SORNA does not mandate community education as a component of 

community notification. This is a recipe for disaster and leaves citizens trying to 

sort out fact from myth, truth from emotion, and what to do next. This creates public safety concerns and does not have the citizens invested in offender success. It 

has the opposite effect. 

The SORNA mandates offense based tiering, which is a faulty alternative to actuarial risk based tiering used in over 20 states. Citizens have grown used to level 

one sex offenders being low risk, level 2 moderate risk, and level three high risk. 

Under SORNA, most sex offenders will be tier 3. That will cause great confusion 

and anxiety for the citizens, as they believe each of these offenders is a high risk 

to re-offend. That just is not true. Sex offenders differ greatly in their level of impulsiveness, persistence, risk to the community, and their desire to change their deviant behavior. Assigning sex offender tiers based on crime of conviction tells us very 

little about who this sex offender is and what his or her risk for re-offense may be. 

In Washington State, I have the ability to aggravate someone’s risk level if dynamic 

risk factors indicate an escalation in risky behavior. I won’t have that ability under 

SORNA. Their tier is their tier. It is not an effective way of doing business with 

the public. 

Research tells us that 90% of victims under age 12 knew their abuser. That number is 66% when the victim is between 18 and 29 years old. (Tjaden & Thoennes 

2000) Under the SORNA, all sex offenders will be subject to broad based Internet 

dissemination (community notification) regardless of risk. When we know that most 

victims of sexual abuse know their abuser, and in a large proportion of cases it’s 

a family member, Internet notification increases the likelihood that the victim will 

92 

be identified. Victims tell us that their greatest concerns are their family knowing 

about the assault (71%), and people outside the family knowing about the assault 

(68%). (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, Seymour (1992) Rape in America.) The last thing we 

want to do is create disincentives to victims and their families to report. 

Finally, I ask you to consider the retroactivity aspect of the SORNA. Research 

tells us that most sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. In a 2004 study 

done by the pre-eminent researchers Harris and Hanson, with a sample of 4,724 sex 

offenders over a 15-year follow-up period, ‘‘73% of sexual offenders had not been 

charged with or convicted of another sexual offense.’’ Under the SORNA, law enforcement will be responsible for reviewing the criminal history of anyone brought 

back into the system even for a non-sexual criminal offense. If they were once convicted of a sex offense, regardless of how long ago that conviction was, the offender 

will be required to register as a sex offender. This will be very labor intensive and 

costly. Our time, efforts, and resources are more effectively spent focusing on moderate to high-risk sex offenders, not sex offenders who committed their sex crime 

25 or 30 years ago have not re-offended in a sexual way. 

Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration. 

93 

ATTACHMENT 


O-1.eps
94 


O-2.eps
95 


O-3.eps
96 


O-4.eps
97 


O-5.eps
98 


O-6.eps
99 


O-7.eps
100 


O-8.eps
101 


O-9.eps
102 


O-10.eps
103 


O-11.eps
104 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Borror. 

TESTIMONY OF AMY BORROR, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, COLUMBUS, 

OH 

Ms. BORROR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. The Office of the Ohio Public Defender is, of course, 

concerned about the constitutional rights of our clients, but we are 

also concerned about obstacles that prevent our clients from leading crime-free lives. We work with law enforcement, prosecutors, 


O-12.eps
105 

victims groups, treatment providers and child advocates on this 

issue because we are all committed to a common goal: reducing the 

incidence of sexual abuse in our society. And personally, as someone who has several friends who have been victims of sexual abuse, 

I am concerned with not just the stated goals of policies aimed at 

improving public safety, but also with the practical effects those 

policies have on the safety of my loved ones. 

Without a doubt, the Adam Walsh act is well intentioned, but the 

practical effects of SORNA contravene the act’s well-intended goals. 

In the 15 months since Ohio enacted Senate bill 10, its attempt to 

implement the Adam Walsh Act, at least 6,352 petitions have been 

filed challenging the new law. Ohio’s courts of appeals have issued 

decisions in at least 59 cases. The Buckeye State’s Sheriffs’ Association estimates that the new law has increased sheriffs’ workloads by 60 percent. 

County courts and prosecutors have interpreted the new law differently, and many courts have stayed enforcement of the law until 

the Ohio Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality. 

The Adam Walsh Act, which is intended to create uniformity in 

sex offender registration across States, has instead resulted in tremendous variation across Ohio’s counties. Prior to adopting Senate 

bill 10, Ohio had a risk-based classification system. That had resulted in a registry that closely resembled what research tells us 

about sex offender recidivism. The vast majority of offenders were 

in the lower two tiers, and only 18 percent were labeled as sexual 

predators found by a judge to be likely to reoffend. Ohio’s registry 

now includes 54 percent of offenders in Tier III. 

Ohio’s old registry was potentially a useful public safety tool. The 

4,000 offenders labeled as sexual predators would rightly garner 

the most attention from the public and require the closest supervision by law enforcement. But now Ohio’s registry includes more 

than 12,000 people in Tier III. Their propensity to reoffend is not 

known, but the public will perceive them as dangerous, and law enforcement must expend tremendous resources to supervise them. 

Under Ohio’s old law, a person convicted of sexual imposition, a 

misdemeanor, might have been classified as a sexual predator if a 

judge found him likely to reoffend. Now, however, the judge is 

mandated to classify that person in Tier I. Instead of being able to 

properly label this high-risk offender, the court must instead wait 

until another offense is committed and another victim is created. 

Sex offender registration laws are supposed to be aimed at protecting the public from future crimes, but the Adam Walsh Act 

looks only at past offenses and labels offenders based on those, 

without considering what they’re likely to do in the future. One of 

the primary objections to the Adam Walsh Act is the requirement 

that the States apply the law retroactively, but the act itself was 

not retroactive. It delegated authority to the Department of Justice 

to determine its applicability to those convicted prior to the law’s 

enactment. 

Retroactive application presents separation of powers issues, as 

State legislatures, acting on a directive from the executive branch 

of the Federal Government, reverse decisions made by judges. And 

plea deals entered into before the act raise additional legal concerns. Applying the act retroactively subjects States to lengthy and 

106 

expensive constitutional challenges that could be avoided by applying the act prospectively only. 

The act’s inclusion of juveniles on the Internet registry is another 

cause of great concern. Neurological science shows us that children’s brains are physically different from adults’ brains. Treatment provided during this critical stage of development will impact 

the way a child’s brain develops. As a result, juvenile sex offenders 

are especially amenable to treatment and significantly less likely 

to reoffend. 

Many juvenile sex offenders are intrafamilial. In these situations, 

the offender and the victim receive much-needed treatment only if 

their parents seek help. Undoubtedly, many parents will be unwilling to ask for help if doing so resigns one child to a lifetime of inclusion on an Internet registry. As a result, neither the offender or 

the victim will receive the treatment they need. 

Including children on an Internet registry also puts those children at risk for being targeted for abuse. A pedophile could use the 

on-line registry to find victims, as the registry provides him with 

the names, pictures and home addresses for children as young as 

14. Many juvenile sex offenders were victims before they committed 

their offenses and are especially vulnerable to further victimization. 

The practical effects of the Adam Walsh Act contravene the act’s 

well-intended goals. An act intended to unify registries across the 

country has instead placed an incredible burden on courts and law 

enforcement and created confusion from one jurisdiction to another. 

A law aimed at protecting children from sexual predators instead 

places thousands of juveniles on an on-line registry and into harm’s 

way. A system meant to simplify sex offender classification has instead muddled the meaning of offenders’ designations and lets the 

public to only speculate about which prior offenders might pose a 

future risk. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Borror follows:] 

107 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMY BORROR


AB-1.eps
108 


AB-2.eps
109 


AB-3.eps
110 


AB-4.eps
111 


AB-5.eps
112 


AB-6.eps
113 


AB-7.eps
114 


AB-8.eps
115 


AB-9.eps
116 


AB-10.eps
117 


AB-11.eps
118 


AB-12.eps
119 


AB-13.eps
120 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for their testimony. 

We’ll now begin questions under the 5-minute rule, and I will 

recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Carter, you indicated that we should be using—making decisions based on evidence. What is the evidence and what works and 

what doesn’t work under SORNA? 


AB-14.eps
121 

Ms. CARTER. Excuse me. Did you say under SORNA, or just generally? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I start with SORNA. 

Ms. CARTER. Okay. I will start with SORNA. 

Well, unfortunately, there has been very little study of the issue 

of registration and notification. There have been a handful of studies conducted across the country, and some of them have slightly 

conflicting results, but overall they have not demonstrated to be effective in terms of reducing recidivism risk among offenders. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there any studies that show that notification or 

registration reduced the incidence of sexual abuse of children? 

Ms. CARTER. Can I defer to one of my colleagues? 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. 

Ms. CARTER. Detective, do you want to talk about the Washington study? 

Mr. SHILLING. There was a study done by the Washington State 

Institute for Public Policy that took a look at community notification and whether or not community notification worked. And what 

they found out is that it was statistically insignificant whether or 

not notification worked versus those who had reoffended without 

having been the subject of community notification. And so far that 

is the only study that I’m aware of that has been done taking a 

look at the actual aspects of community notification on whether it 

works or not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Rogers, what does notification—what does notification mean 

in the regulations? 

Ms. ROGERS. Community notification means that jurisdictions 

are required to make available to their citizens information when 

a sex offender comes into their community to live, go to school or 

work. 

Mr. SCOTT. And exactly how do you notify the community? 

Ms. ROGERS. It is up to the discretion of the community, to the 

jurisdiction how they want to do that. It can be done through email, registered mail, pamphlets, telephone. It is completely discretionary. 

Mr. SCOTT. When somebody moves into an area, how wide an 

area gets notified? 

Ms. ROGERS. Again, that wasn’t listed in the act. It is completely 

discretionary. 

Mr. SCOTT. The regulations don’t speak to that? 

Ms. ROGERS. No, they didn’t. What we did was we put together 

a system where every individual could register up to five addresses 

that were of interest to them, and they could receive notification 

up to a 4-mile radius around each of those addresses whenever a 

sex offender registered within that radius. 

Mr. SCOTT. So you could sign up for notification. Would everyone 

in the 4-mile radius get notified when the person moves into the 

neighborhood? 

Ms. ROGERS. Only the people who had signed up, if the community only had the community notification system that the SMART 

office set up. Many jurisdictions also have secondary systems of 

mailings, telephone, pamphlets, et cetera. 

122 

Mr. SCOTT. If somebody is registered, do they have a tracking device? 

Ms. ROGERS. It is not required under the act. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Shilling, you indicated a need to prioritize. What 

did you mean by that? 

Mr. SHILLING. We want to be able to target our resources toward 

the highest-risk offenders. They are the ones that have the greatest 

risk of reoffending. So using actuarial risk assessment models, 

we’re able to target those offenders who are at highest risk to reoffend and make more visits on them than what even SORNA requires. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there other things you can do other than notification and registration to reduce the chance that the children in the 

area and the neighborhood may be victimized? 

Mr. SHILLING. Well, one of the things that I am a very firm believer in is in community education. And I believe that is how we 

have the best chance of preventing some of this, so that when we 

go out and do community education meeting, citizens see what the 

red flags are. I have done many, many meetings where people have 

come up to me afterwards and said, wow, I wish I had this information before. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that just with known sex offenders who may be 

recidivating, or protecting yourself from sex offenders who might 

not have been already convicted? 

Mr. SHILLING. When we do community education, we do it on sex 

offenders in general. We want to protect them from all sex offenders, not just the ones that they know about. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

My time is expired. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Well, taking some things up in order, Ms. Rogers, why did it take 

the SMART office 2 years to produce the SORNA guidelines? It 

doesn’t sound very smart. 

Ms. ROGERS. The SMART office had no staff besides myself and 

a detailee from the U.S. Attorney’s Office until January of 2008. On 

my own I was implementing SORNA, providing national training, 

and sorting technical assistance and, with the help of Office of 

Legal Policy, writing the proposed guidelines. They went out for 

public comment for 71 days during the summer of 2007. They were 

complete and went into review through the Department of Justice 

for the final guidelines in February of—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Why were you so shorthanded all that time? 

Ms. ROGERS. I had no staffing FTEs. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You were shorthanded because you didn’t have 

staffing. Yeah, I might have guessed that. But why did you have 

no staffing? 

Ms. ROGERS. There were no available slots to hire anyone into. 

There was no funding. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. That’s the bottom line. 

Ms. Devillier, we had a crime hearing down in New Orleans a 

couple of years ago, and I was shocked at that time. And I’m glad 

you’re here because I’m curious if it is still going on. But having 

been a former judge, and we’ve got another former judge over here, 

I was shocked that there was a system in place in the Louisiana 

123 

criminal system that a defense attorney could contact a judge unilaterally, ex parte, and seek to get a bond lowered for his client. 

And if the judge lowered it so that the defendant could make it, 

then the court of the judge that lowered it got a cut of the bond. 

Is that still in place? I was kind of surprised that existed anywhere. Is that system still in place where the court can get a cut 

of the bond they lower? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. I really can’t speak to that. Are you speaking in 

Orleans Parish? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I understood it was a Louisiana law that allowed 

the ex parte communication and then the judge to get part of the 

bond. Or not the judge, no. It is the court. It is not the actual 

judge. But you’re not aware? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. I’m not aware. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, with regard to the Louisiana sex offender 

registry, what would you require in a Louisiana system if you were 

making the law that would be different from what the SORNA requires? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Thank you for that question. 

Louisiana has drafted legislation—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I’m asking you personally. You’re the witness 

here. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Well, I worked—I was one of the lead 

crafters—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So they did exactly what you wanted then? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. It is not exactly what I wanted. We tried to abide 

by some of the things that we didn’t necessarily agree with. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I’m asking exactly what you wanted. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. We have done in Louisiana the three tiers. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I’m asking exactly what you’d put in the registry if you were doing it. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. What I would say to you is that I cannot speak 

to risk assessment versus offense-based. I certainly agree that risk 

assessment has—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you had mentioned, then—if you can’t tell 

me, then let me ask you. You had said that you must look to the 

age of the victim, and even if that is not an element of the offense, 

does Louisiana require presentence investigation reports for a 

judge to consider in sentencing? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Well, it would depend on if there was a plea 

agreement. If there was a plea agreement, there would be no investigation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So you don’t require them in all cases then? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. I’m sorry? 

Mr. GOHMERT. They are not required in all cases? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In Texas, they were required in all cases. So there 

is no place that it would be part of the record what the victim’s age 

was? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, sir. That is not what I meant to say. If that’s 

what you took—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you said even when it is not an element of 

the offense, how is that due process? As I understood, it was a rheVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
124 

torical question. So you’re saying that in the record there would be 

no age even for the victim? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, sir. There would be—if the—in some cases 

the crimes in Louisiana don’t require the age to be put in the bill 

of information. What the bill of information would tell you is that 

the victim has not attained the age of, say, 16 or 15 or whatever 

the elements of the offense was. But my point there, sir, is that the 

guidelines require—whether or not it is in the bill of information 

or whether or not it is in—and I know that you having been a 

judge; you know the prosecutor will give a factual basis. So the age 

of the victim might be establishable not just through the bill of information, but through the factual basis. 

But my point was if you tie the tier to the actual age of the victim, you are tying my hands as a prosecutor to get a plea in a case 

when the 25-year registration period or the lifetime registration period is hampering a defendant’s willingness to plead guilty in a difficult child sex case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But if you do agree, how is that not due process? 

You said it wasn’t—or you said, how is that due process? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Well, because the age of the victim, if it is not 

alleged in the bill of information, it is not a fact that has been established in a court of law, because when—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. That’s what I’m saying. It could be established in 

the court of law. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. It could be. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I mean, even in a presentence report, the parties—if somebody objects to what is in the presentence report, either side can object. There is due process in that process, right? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Right. 

No. I agree. If it is in the record. There are circumstances where 

due process would be afforded because that fact would be in the 

record and established on the record. But I will submit to you that 

there are many instances where that fact is not in the record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions for Ms. Rogers. 

I kind of understood you to say or imply that a lot of States 

would be in compliance by July of this year. Is that so? Is that 

what you are—— 

Ms. ROGERS. No. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Okay. In your judgment or your expectation, how 

many States will be in compliance, roughly speaking, by July of 

this year? 

Ms. ROGERS. Taking into consideration I left office January 20th, 

I no longer am privy to the information coming into the office. 

There may be none. And the reason there may be none is because 

the guidelines came out in July of ’08; there is much to be done; 

there is little to no funding in some jurisdictions; but also because 

every jurisdiction, State, territory and tribe knows that they have 

two 1-year extensions available to them, and they are all taking advantage of that situation. They know they don’t need to be in compliance for 21⁄2 more years. As you push that compliance date down 

the line another year or 2 years, if this body decides to do that, 

125 

then you won’t see jurisdictions coming into compliance until that 

future date. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. So as of January 20th, your sense is that if we 

extend this deadline by, let’s say, a year, that you would have most 

of the States in compliance? Is that your sense? Based on what you 

know as of January 20th, based on what you know about what 

States were doing to comply, would you expect that States—most 

of the States, if not all, would be in compliance a year from July 

2009? 

Ms. ROGERS. I’m confused by your question because they already 

have two possible 1-year extensions to July of 2011. And I expect 

the jurisdictions of States and territories will be in compliance by 

that time based on my experience at the SMART office. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I see. What I was saying was if we extend the bar, 

the deadline we have, putting aside the fact that you can—the government can in its discretion extend those deadlines, if we just 

statutorily extend the deadline that we have right now, your expectation is that in about a year most States would be in compliance? 

Ms. ROGERS. I think it is more realistic to expect the July 2011 

date. I think there is a lot to be done by a majority of jurisdictions. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. So it is, like, about 2 years what you expect that 

we should wait for compliance to happen? 

Ms. ROGERS. I do. I believe that the discussion to extend compliance is not ripe yet. As the 2011 date approaches, I think that you 

should take stock of how the jurisdictions are doing. The more time 

you provide, the longer people will take to comply. It is human nature. But I do believe that based on the structure that is currently 

set, jurisdictions are recognizing that they must be in compliance 

by July of 2011, and that is what they are working to, keeping in 

mind, many States, territories and tribes don’t have legislative sessions annually. So there is a lot of roadblocks in the way that different jurisdictions have to get over in order to come into substantial compliance. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. With respect to funding, do you have any ideas of 

ways in which the Federal Government could be funding at least 

partial—you know, partially these efforts? 

Ms. ROGERS. I think that with the increased Byrne grant 

through the stimulus package, that will be a great benefit to the 

jurisdictions who receive Byrne grants. Most tribes do not, so that 

is problematic. Increased law enforcement will be very necessary. 

SORNA doesn’t require visitations to different tiers of sex offenders. That is a jurisdictionally implemented requirement. And so if 

jurisdictions want to monitor certain sex offenders more than others, that is their discretion and their choice. But SORNA doesn’t 

require it. 

But still more law enforcement to assist in registration procedures, address verification, which is, again, at the discretion of the 

jurisdiction, will be very helpful. Additional resources to allow for 

sex offenders to register quarterly, biannually or annually is necessary. Updating of computer systems and software to attach the 

National Sex Offender Public Website is beneficial. Some equipment will be necessary in order to facilitate the registration procedures. 

126 

But many jurisdictions need to assess what they currently do 

and then modify the programs that are antiquated or no longer 

working to transfer them into programs that are better and applicable under SORNA, and I think when you have that transfer of 

resources, that many jurisdictions haven’t considered, that you will 

find that it is not as expensive to implement SORNA as some jurisdictions say it is. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. So I take it that this would be through discretionary grant programs, additional or new discretionary grant programs under the Byrne grant umbrella? That’s how you would do 

it? 

Ms. ROGERS. I would suspect that that would be how the SMART 

office would do that at this point in time. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I have no further questions at this point, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions for 

all of you, but I only have 5 minutes, so make your answers short. 

Ms. Rogers, is the bottom line money, or is there something else? 

Ms. ROGERS. It is money, and it is also jurisdictions that feel 

they personally own the registration system they have, and they 

don’t want to modify it. And it is a myopic opinion by jurisdictions 

that what they have is best, not recognizing that their system is 

very different than all the other systems, and we don’t have a national standard. 

And I just need to add that prior to leaving the SMART office, 

the decision was made that Byrne grants would not be reduced for 

any jurisdictions as long as an extension was in force. So there is 

no Byrne grant reductions until July of 2011. 

Mr. POE. Ms. Devillier, is that the way you pronounce your last 

name? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Devillier. 

Mr. POE. Okay. I apologize. 

Do you actually try sexual assault cases? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Yes, I do. 

Mr. POE. How many have you tried? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Oh, good Lord, that is hard to say. But I’ve been 

handling sex crimes, been a prosecutor in total, but for the time I 

was a State representative, about 13 years. 

Mr. POE. Have you tried cases where a child sexual assault victim was murdered? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No. I have tried murder cases where children 

were killed. 

Mr. POE. Have you ever tried a sexual assault case where a child 

was murdered? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, sir. 

Mr. POE. All right. If I counted correctly during your testimony 

and the questions asked by Judge Gohmert, you made the phrase— 

or made the comment, this hampers me getting a plea. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Correct. 

Mr. POE. I have never understood why people who called themselves trial lawyers, either prosecutors or defense lawyers, spend 

most of their time trying to plead out cases rather than get justice 

127 

from a trial. That is just an observation. But it is an unfortunate 

phenomenon in our system where the goal is not justice, the goal 

is to get a plea. And I’m not so sure that those are the same. 

Mr. Allen, let me ask you your question, being in the position 

that you are in to keep up with missing and exploited children. 

And we’ve heard and we all know statistics can mean whatever we 

want them to mean, whether it is child sexual assault, child molesters reoffend at what percentage, whether it is 100 percent or 

23 percent. Based on what you know, what is your opinion about 

a person that commits a sexual assault against a child? No matter 

what happens to them, whether they go to prison or they are put 

on some kind of supervision, they are reoffending. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I think my view is that there is no more heinous act that can be committed. My view is that most of those offenders do it not as a matter of lapse of judgment, but as a lifestyle. And I think it is very important at a minimum that we know 

where they are and what they are doing. 

And the other thing I would want to add to that is it was never 

anybody’s suggestion that the Adam Walsh Act would be a panacea 

or the only legislation or the only apparatus in place to address 

these kind of problems. It doesn’t preclude treatment. It doesn’t 

preclude community education. What it was intended to do is to address what frankly we felt was a system in which there was a lack 

of communication, a lack of uniformity; the ability of the most serious offenders to game the system, to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction out of the reach and touch. And what it was intended to 

do was to build a system so that at least we know where these offenders are and what they are doing. 

Mr. POE. Would you agree there is a big difference in taking a 

risk on someone reoffending as a thief as opposed to someone that 

is a child molester? 

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely. And, in fact—— 

Mr. POE. Do you think 23 percent would be too high even with 

child molesters? 

Mr. ALLEN. No question. 

Mr. POE. The last question is to Mark. Thank you for being here, 

Mark. It is always hard for you to talk about Jessica. 

In my office I have the photographs of my four kids and my 

seven grandkids. And I have two pictures of other children that I 

think they are mine. One is Kevin Wanstrath, a 14-year-old that 

was murdered; and your daughter Jessie. I think it is there to remind me of why we are here. 

Do you think, Mark, based on these experts that have testified, 

based on what you have been doing, do you think we need to spend 

more money and effort to get the law enforced, or should we just 

back away with it because it is too hard? 

Mr. LUNSFORD. Well, I think what is going to happen—all right. 

If we back up because it is too hard, the children will pay the price. 

If we move forward and continue to try to figure out how we fix 

this problem, you might have a few people on the registry that 

might not belong there. So weigh it out. Do we register a man that 

might not be as guilty as we think he is, or do we let a child die? 

I mean, I think we have to go with going to go with more reg— 

better registration and notification when we have to. The only perVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
128 

son that is going to make a sacrifice is maybe somebody who 

doesn’t belong there. But if we don’t get tougher registration and 

better notification, another child will die. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing. And let me, first of all, of course, acknowledge 

my friend Ernie Allen and the work that we’ve done together, and 

to thank Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Smart who is in the audience, and Mr. 

Walsh, who have become the faces, even though there are many 

other parents, of what has to be the most heinous, if you will, call 

that you might have gotten based upon the most heinous act that 

anyone could do. 

I happen to believe in that phrase that where there is a will, 

there is a way. And frankly, Mr. Lunsford, I know that if someone 

was 14, you might be open-minded to some different framework, 

and I can tell that. But we were not in your shoes, but we lived 

your horrific experience, and let me just be very frank, I couldn’t 

get through the television to help you out. Once they described the 

individual who I truly believed has the rights—and certainly as sitting on this Committee, I wouldn’t want to deny that individual 

due process. But I couldn’t get through the television. Why? Because of their history, because of what they had done, and seemingly the ‘‘smirkness’’ of ‘‘I have done it again.’’ 

So I really think that we have to find the balance, and I think 

it is important that the post powerful Nation in the world still 

today, in spite of all of our challenges, that we are sitting here and 

could give the answer, that we can’t find a way. 

Let me quickly ask the State of Louisiana, are you in compliance 

now? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you working to come in compliance? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. We’ve been working since 2006, since the passage 

of the act, diligently to try to come into compliance. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What is keeping you from coming into compliance? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. What—because we believe that what the guidelines require for compliance is problematic in—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Such as? Such as? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. With regard—such as the requirement that you 

look at the underlying facts of the offense rather than the elements 

of the offense in order to decide what tier the person fits into. And 

the example I give is as a prosecutor, I have tried many child sex 

cases—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can you go quickly, because I have questions. 

Just give me one underlying factor. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. One underlying factor would be that the guidelines say you have to look at the underlying facts of the offense, 

whether or not it is an element of the offense, the age is the element of the offense, which ties my hands—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The age of the victim? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. The age of the victim is controlling. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If we gave you a staff person, and that person 

was funded, or a team of three, would that help you? 

129 

Ms. DEVILLIER. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That would not help you. What would help 

you then? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. We have issues with the policies or the actual requirements themselves that are in the guidelines. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Mr. Allen, I think you’ve been over 

those bills quite frequently. Is there anything that you think we 

should sacrifice in these legislative initiatives to help Louisiana? 

And they are just here being representative of other States that are 

not in compliance. Anything that you think that we should be looking at? 

Mr. ALLEN. A couple of things, Congresswoman. One is the act. 

As I hear the primary concerns that Ms. Devillier has, they are 

with the guidelines, not with the law. More with the guidelines 

than the law. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Which are the regulatory aspect of how 

they’ve been interpreted. 

Mr. ALLEN. Regulatory aspects can be addressed. 

Secondly, in the consideration of the law, there was a massive 

amount of compromise that took place. Certainly we are not opposed to modest changes—for example, I remember Senator Kennedy was concerned about provisions in the law that might conflict 

with State constitutional protections. So there is a provision in the 

law that where that something in violation of State constitution—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Tenth amendment. 

Mr. ALLEN [continuing]. That the State is able to comply otherwise. So I think there are minor changes that could be made. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You made a very good point. Let me pose this 

question to, I think, Amy Borror. And let me say this: I believe— 

I think the Chairman has presented himself very open-minded. Let 

me be open-minded, but with this framework. I’m not so sure that 

I would not be pushing to shorten the compliance time. I think that 

the longer you let the kid out of the house and don’t give him a 

curfew, they will be staying there even longer. And you can be assured that States are going to stay even longer past 2011. 

The assistant attorney general from Louisiana has indicated that 

I can could give her staff, I could give her everything, and she is 

not able to do it still. So there may be a reason to go back to the 

Department of Justice to asses these guidelines, these layers of elements. 

And I do think we have to consider the 14-year-old that is caught 

with a girl and gets listed as a sex offender, and that happens, and 

both of them get caught up, but the boy obviously usually is the 

one. And I see Mr. Lunsford understanding what I’m saying. And 

as a country sophisticated as we are, why can’t we handle that? 

Let me ask Ms. Borror what your ills are with where we are 

today at this point. 

Ms. BORROR. I think it is important to remember that the discussions we are having today about extending the deadline, just that 

enough—just that is not enough. The reason we are asking for this 

extension of the deadline is we believe there are issues underlying 

that need to be addressed, and we want the extension in order to 

give us enough time to address those. And to go back—— 

130 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is one of them the whole issue of juveniles, 

or is it guidelines as well, the way they have written the guidelines? 

Ms. BORROR. It is both. Several States, including Ohio, have concerns about the act’s application to juveniles. But I think the guidelines are a big part, too. The legislation, the Adam Walsh Act, required substantial compliance, And substantial compliance is generally recognized as somewhere between 51 percent and 99 percent 

compliance, more compliant than not, but not 100 percent. One 

hundred percent compliant is generally known as strict compliance. 

That is what is required by the guidelines, when the Federal legislation required only substantial compliance. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me—Mr. Chairman, if I might just 

finish. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. 

Mr. SCOTT. We are going to have another round if you wanted 

to. If it just another minute, we’ll give you another minute. If you 

want another round, we’re having another round. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll take the additional minute for reasons of having to be in a meeting in my office, 

but I thank the Chairman very much for his indulgence. 

I can’t let the State of Louisiana go by without carrying a 

message by it, and you’re very well representing the States. I’m not 

pointing out, but I couldn’t let you go by without saying to you that 

I am hoping that we have a chance to look at Jena 6 again, because 

I think that is certainly something that you could certainly fix for 

me. 

But let me just conclude on this point: Ohio has been doing all 

they could, as I understand, to be in compliance. To the panelists, 

I’m not necessarily—and I will probably overrun on this—wanting 

to give an extension. I am willing and I would like to see the guidelines clarified to help States like Ohio who are working every day 

to try to comply. 

The other aspect of it is I would like to give money on the enforcement side, but I would also like to increase the punitive measures, because we give States a lot of money. We give them the 

Byrne grants, and I don’t think there will be any fire under their 

feet unless they can see a larger amount of monies being lost, Federal funds, because they have not complied. 

And I end, Mr. Chairman, on the note of what Mr. Lunsford has 

said. What we don’t do here today and fix this problem, a child will 

be victimized tomorrow. That is not something that I want on my 

watch, and I want to thank all of you for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding to me, and I look forward 

to working with you and working with our panelists to get this 

right. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We’ll have another round of questions. Mr. Allen, you indicated 

that the State constitutional difficulties—did you say were an exception or could be? 

Mr. ALLEN. My understanding is it could be. 

Mr. SCOTT. So we would have to change the law to allow that to 

be an exception if the State couldn’t comply with SORNA because 

their supreme court essentially prevented them from coming into 

131 

compliance. That should be an exemption, but it is not now. Is 

that—— 

Mr. ALLEN. It is now. It was written into the original act. Specifically it is a request to Senator Kennedy. 

Mr. SCOTT. You indicated the recidivism rate. This isn’t really a 

matter of this particular hearing, but when we abolished parole, we 

had to let everybody out at the same time, ready or not, here they 

come; whereas under the parole system, you could essentially hold 

people, the ones you wanted to, about three times longer than average. Some would get out early, some would get out longer. But 

those who are still—by every calculation still a risk to society have 

to be sprung out like everybody else. And so long as we have this 

what I call half truth in sentencing, that is nobody gets out early, 

you also can’t keep them longer either. That is the other half of the 

truth. 

So one of the problems we have with the recidivism rate, particularly those by any calculation still pose a present danger to society, 

still have to get sprung out like everybody else. 

Ms. Rogers, we have had a couple of people indicate that there 

has been no evidence to show that the registration and notification 

have had the evidence of reducing crimes. Do you want to respond 

to that? 

Ms. ROGERS. I do. How do you measure how many children have 

not been abused? How do you conduct a study on that? How do we 

know how effective the registry is? What we know is that we had 

over 5 million hits to the registry last year, and over 772 million 

sex offender pages were accessed. So we know people are interested. We know that people want to protect themselves. We cannot 

do a study on how many children are now safe and alive. 

Mr. SCOTT. I’m hearing that you have no studies that show the 

reduction. Mr. Shilling suggested that there were studies showing 

where you had registration compared to where you didn’t have registration, and the difference was insignificant. 

Ms. ROGERS. There are currently studies at the SMART office 

funded through NIJ to identify the benefits of registration. Those 

are not completed. We funded those in 2007. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. You indicated that consensual sexual activity 

amongst teenagers was not a matter subject to registration? 

Ms. ROGERS. That’s correct. It is section 16115(c). 

Mr. SCOTT. And if a 19-year-old more than 4 years older than a 

15-year-old had consensual sex, that would require a lifetime registration? 

Ms. ROGERS. If there were more than 4 years between the two 

juveniles? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. One 19 and one 15. You add up the months, 

more than 4 years. 

Ms. ROGERS. That would require—that may require registration, 

yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. For how long? 

Ms. ROGERS. It would depend on the act. 

Mr. SCOTT. Consensual sex. 

Ms. ROGERS. Consensual sex between two—with a minor could 

possibly be a 25-year registration. It may not be a registrable offense, though. It depends. 

132 

Mr. SCOTT. Depends on what, more than 4 years older? 

Ms. ROGERS. It depends how it is charged in the jurisdiction. It 

depends on whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. If it is a misdemeanor, it is not a registrable offense. For 25 years, it would be 

a 10-year registration. 

Mr. SCOTT. But it would require registration? 

Ms. ROGERS. Most likely, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. This could be two high school students, consensual 

sex? 

Ms. ROGERS. Probably not, because there wouldn’t be more than 

4 years between two high school students. 

Mr. SCOTT. A 19-year-old and a 15-year-old. 

Ms. ROGERS. Then yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Mr. Devillier, you were asked about plea 

agreements, and sometimes it occurs to me that all the defendant 

knows is they did it; they don’t know that you don’t have a case. 

Do you have any cases where you are able to extract a guilty plea 

when, in fact, if you were forced to go to court, you couldn’t have 

gotten a conviction at all? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. What I do know, and I am very—I have lots of 

trials under my belt, and I’m very most happy when I’m in trial. 

My purpose for bringing out the plea agreement thing, sir, is, yes, 

there are—not that—I would not bring a case that I could not 

prove. The problem is you have a child. In child sex cases you 

will—you could have a 7-year-old child who is telling you—and 

their counselor is telling you to put this child through a public 

trial, you will further revictimize this child. It is not that you don’t 

have the evidence. It is that you don’t want to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Suppose your evidence is that she thinks it is the 

guy, but she is not sure? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Well, then that would be divulged under Brady 

to the defense, certainly. 

Mr. SCOTT. And could you get a conviction if the defendant—they 

know they did it? Would you be better off getting a plea and being 

finished with it than rolling the dice? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Judge, pleas are things that are definitely necessary, as I’m sure the judges know, to continue the criminal justice system to operate. If we had to try every case that we had, we 

would never get them all done. Sex cases involving minor victims 

are the most difficult cases to prove. Often your whole case comes 

down to the word of a child versus the word of an adult. Many of 

the offenses are not reported until much later. You rarely, if ever— 

you have sometimes physical evidence, but rarely do you have 

physical evidence. The child is often reluctant to participate. The 

family is not supportive. 

We cannot mandate sex offender registration until we convict 

them. So these are the most difficult cases to get a conviction on. 

So, of course, we are going to want to, as morally I’m going to want 

to, prevent this trial—I don’t want to revictimize this child by forcing them through a trial, And in that circumstance, I’m going to 

try to get a plea in that case. I’m just morally going to do that. And 

if I—if the defendant is saying, I’m not pleading to anything that 

makes me register for 25 years or life, then I’ve got to find somewhere else to go. 

133 

And I would just suggest that if we would just interpret the substantial compliance language in the act to mean substantial compliance, then, you know, Louisiana could leave some of those child sex 

cases in Tier I that would require 15 and give me some leverage 

in that process. But when you tie it specifically to the facts of my 

case, and I can’t get around those facts because you’re going to be 

looking at the underlying facts, it ties my hands as a prosecutor 

to get the plea. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Allen, you indicated that resources were scarce. 

The registration and notification isn’t the only thing that you’d like 

us to be doing. What other initiatives could we be enacting, and 

what kind of priority would they have in front of or behind spending this money on SORNA? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, first of all, the Adam Walsh Act contains a variety of initiatives that have not been funded and have not been 

implemented, including enhanced treatment for juvenile sex offenders, community education, and prevention programs and initiatives. SORNA is one title of a large bill. So I think those kinds of 

initiatives. 

One of the things, frankly, that we would like to see happen is 

to create greater specialization in this area. For example, the Dallas Police Department has what we believe is a model national program called SOAP. It is a Sex Offender Apprehension Program that 

aggressively and proactively goes after noncompliant offenders who 

represent the greatest risk. There was a provision authorizing 

funding for model units, specialized units in police departments 

around the country, not in the Adam Walsh Act, but in the PROTECT Act of 2003, that has not been funded. 

I think the whole area of greater specialization, greater focus on 

this problem—I want to reiterate what I said earlier: We do not 

think that the Adam Walsh Act or SORNA are the be-all and the 

end-all. 

And to your point about the lack of evidence that registration has 

reduced sexual crimes, my response to that would be the intent of 

this is less prevention than regulatory. I mean, that what the 

courts have said. The first sex offender registration act was passed 

in the 1940’s in California. So that it is not intended to be the answer to the sex offender problem, it is intended to try to create a 

system in this country so that we don’t send people forth and say, 

sin no more, commit no additional crimes, and there is no support 

or follow-up to keep those offenders from reoffending. 

The systems of supervision in this country, State probation and 

parole, by and large are overwhelmed. It is another area where the 

Congress could provide additional leadership and support. We really need to know where these guys are for their own protection, to 

keep them away from employment situations where they have easy 

and legitimate access to children, to keep them out of risky behaviors that increase the likelihood of reoffense. 

Mr. SCOTT. What kind of supervision are they under if they have 

just registered? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, under the Adam Walsh Act, far greater supervision than they get today. In most States, the current level of supervision is by mail. Somebody sends in a document that says, here 

is where I am, here is what I’m doing. There is no validation or 

134 

verification in that there is very little penalty, very little sanction 

for the failure to be compliant. So these horror stories, like John 

Couey, happened because there is a significant lack of supervision 

and oversight. That’s what this bill was intended to do, to deal 

with the system in this country that frankly is smoke and mirrors, 

in which there is registration without accountability, without 

meaningful oversight, without follow-up. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Shilling, did you want to comment? 

Mr. SHILLING. Well, I would just say that in the State of Washington, we actually go out and physically verify the address of 

every single sex offender when they have registered. And we go out 

on a regular basis. Sometimes they are the lower risk; sometimes 

it will be 6 months. If they are the higher risk, it can be anything 

from 90 days to once a week. But depending on the risk of the offender, we go out and physically verify their address. We don’t take 

their word for the fact that I’m living here, because sometimes that 

is a parking lot. We want to go see where they are living. We want 

to see the clothes in the house. We want to see that they are getting mail there. We want to see that that is exactly where they are 

living. 

Mr. SCOTT. Time has expired. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

I guess to follow up on that, it was the Seattle Times that reported that Darrin Sanford, convicted sex offender with a history 

of failing to register as a sex offender, confessed recently killing a 

13-year-old near Walla Walla, Washington. And Washington State 

does use this risk-assessment approach, and apparently he was 

under the State’s highest level of supervision. Are you familiar— 

do you know what went wrong in that case? How did he end up 

with this great supervision to be able to go out and reoffend and 

kill another child like this? 

Mr. SHILLING. Sir, he was listed as one of the highest risks to 

reoffend. And because of that, the Washington State Department of 

Corrections put him on electronic monitoring, and he committed his 

crime while he was under electronic monitoring, which is one of 

those things that, you know, we are saying, again, if you want to 

get somebody, if you want to commit a crime, it doesn’t make any 

difference whether you have electronic monitoring, whether you 

have an Adam Walsh Act or what you have, they are going to do 

it. So we need to be better at figuring out who these higher-risk 

guys are and giving them higher supervision. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In Texas, as a part of probation, I could lock 

somebody up no more than 2 years on probation. Is that a possibility under the probation in the high risk you’re talking about? 

Mr. SHILLING. We have a law that is called a recent overt act. 

So if they commit an act that appears to be a sex offense, we can 

have them brought into jail and held for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. All we need to show is there was a recent 

overt act. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, killing a 13-year-old ought to get you down 

the road for that. But, you know, we do have the risk assessment 

versus the offense-based. Mr. Allen, you’ve discussed this to some 

135 

extent, but what does your national center endorse when it comes 

to offense-based versus risk assessment? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, the issue is—I mean, there is an offense-based 

approach that is written into the Adam Walsh Act. And I think one 

of the big challenges is what is being done in the name of risk assessment across the country is wildly varying, and the whole question of whether it is based on factual information like offense as opposed to in some cases some States are trying to do clinical approaches where there are personal interviews. There is not a lot of 

evidence, frankly, that indicates that one is better than the other. 

And in my judgment, if the Congress is interested in approaching 

something like this, it should take the same kind of approach to 

create uniformity, because there aren’t enough experts and clinicians to do it in the optimum—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. We have had people come in and say they are so 

good at risk assessing, they can tell you basically who would be 

next to offend almost. And I think about the movie with Tom 

Cruise, Minority Report, where, you know, supposedly a futuristic 

society has gotten so good that we just arrest people before they 

commit the offense. 

So I feel like history is a good indicator as to future performance, 

and especially when it involves something as heinous as a sexual 

assault of a child. 

I am sensitive to things like the ex post facto argument. It seems 

like that could be a problem where somebody pleads guilty under 

an agreement that they do not participate, that that does create 

some ex post facto issues, I would think. 

And then I’ve been made aware of a divorce case where apparently sometimes the parents want to get after each other and do 

it through the kids and say, this 12-year-old offended with this 

other 11-year-old, and—so it stirs things up in the divorce. 

So I can understand all that and wanting to be careful about 

that, but if somebody is 12 and is alleged to have fondled an 11- 

year-old, is that something that would require registration under 

SORNA? 

Ms. ROGERS. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you clarifying that. 

But there is a lot of misinformation out there. 

I know that the Justice Policy Institute did what they call a 

study. Problems in there for me, it estimated Florida’s cost of implementation be about 29 million, but the State estimated its own 

costs would be about 3 million. It estimated about $200 million 

would be coming from the Federal Government when actually it is 

$2.225 billion. And then there is some extrapolation that doesn’t 

appear to be accurate. So it just seems like there is so much information that is misinformation. 

Like we established at the first, we all want the same goal. We 

don’t want another child like Jessica to ever have to suffer again. 

But we have got to get this right, and I appreciate my friend from 

Texas’s point that I hate to see this delayed too much longer. We 

may need to fix some things, there may be some things that need 

dealing with, but we really need to get people who are registered 

who are potential threats. And if they are not in prison, and they 

136 

are at high risk because of the offense they committed, then people 

need to know about it so they can protect their own children. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a letter here from Susan Russell that outlines what happened to her when she was sexually assaulted after she was kidnapped and beaten with a tire iron, was left to die in the wilderness of Vermont, and was rescued by five teenagers. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to include this into the 

record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

137 


Poe-1.eps
138 

Mr. POE. You know, we talk about the criminal justice system 

and what the purpose is. It would seem to me that it is twofold. 

One is that justice occurs for society, like victims, and also that justice occurs in the sense that we do not want offenders coming back 

in the system. Both of those things, I think, are the goal of what 


Poe-2.eps
139 

occurs in the courtroom. We have tried everything in this country, 

and most of the time crime issues are State issues only. 

You know, we started out with the stocks, and the public 

floggings, and the branding, and the hangings, and probation and 

jail, then suspended sentences, and therapy and counseling, and 

sending folks to prison. Yet here we are in 2009, in the State of 

Texas, with a large prison population. We know that, statistically, 

if you send somebody to the Texas penitentiary, 60 percent of them 

will reoffend with a felony within 3 years, will get caught and will 

go back. So we have to figure out a way to keep this cycle from continuing for all of the reasons you all have talked about, both from 

the offender’s point of view and from the victim’s point of view as 

well. 

It is too bad that Ms. Jackson Lee has left. We sometimes disagree on things. That is why she sits on the far left and I sit on 

the far right, but on the issue of we need to get it done now—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Actually, you are on the left. 

Mr. POE. But on the right from them. I have been accused of a 

lot of things, Mr. Chairman, but never of being on the left. 

I think that we do not have the time. People do what is expected 

of them. States do what is expected of them. If they are given more 

time, they will wait until the last minute to do it. That is why, 

when I was a judge and ordered community service, I learned real 

quick if you gave people 100 hours of community service, in the 

last week of their 5-year probations, they wanted to do their 100 

hours. That cannot get done, so I had to space it out and tell them 

how much they had to do each week. 

The same is true of legislation. I think, if we postpone the implementing of this, we are going to have the same problem. 

I will say that I think society has an interest in separating consensual sex among young people versus the kind of case that happened to Mark Lunsford’s daughter so that when society pulls up 

on the Internet registered sex offenders, they know these are not 

consensual acts by the offender, and that we have to do something 

to clarify that. 

We have picked an arbitrary year of 4. In Texas, it is 3. Maybe 

we ought to reexamine that whole issue about young people having 

consensual sex and then making the offender register for life. That 

is different than a stranger on stranger, an adult and minor child. 

I would just ask Mr. Allen: What do you think about that and 

about tweaking the law so that that is very clear? 

Mr. ALLEN. I think we are in complete agreement, the intent of 

this, and one of the reasons we and others argued for a tier-based 

approach is that we agreed with Ms. Carter in that all sex offenders are not alike. All sex offenders do not represent the same degree of risk or threat to the community, so the intent was to target 

the most dangerous, the most serious offenders. As I said earlier, 

we are not opposed to modifications that make this system work. 

Mr. POE. I will ask both the prosecutor and the defense attorney 

what they think, just your opinions. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Yes, sir. Let me point out that Louisiana has 

worked very hard at implementing and in trying to do what we 

thought Congress was asking us to do, and we believed that we 

140 

have achieved substantial compliance with what you were asking 

us to do. 

The problem is that the guidelines are now telling us, no, you did 

not do enough, and you need to do these things. Many States are 

taking issue with these things. So what you are asking us to do is 

to go to our legislature. Without extending the deadline, we have 

issues like the good issue you are bringing up now. 

Mr. POE. Do you agree with what I just said? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Yes, absolutely. 

What you are asking the States to do is to go forward with legislation when we are not sure that legislation is really what you 

want us to do. So that is why we are asking for breathing room, 

for a suspension of the time in order to get these issues ironed out 

with you guys so that we have a full understanding of exactly what 

it is you are asking us to do. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. I guess my real question is: Do any of you think that 

that is something that ought to stay in play? What do you think? 

Ms. BORROR. No. There definitely needs to be a distinction drawn 

between consensual acts and the violent, serious acts that we really 

want the registry to focus on. There are two reasons for that. One, 

you do not need to have those low-level offenders on the Internet 

registry. I believe that studies are showing that that actually increases the risk of recidivism and alienates them from their communities. 

Two, doing that dilutes the registry, and it dilutes the manpower 

of the Detective Shilling and of other law enforcement. They cannot 

focus on just those high-risk offenders. So we need to have just the 

high-risk folks on there so it is an effective public safety tool, and 

so that we are not making law enforcement chase all of these red 

herrings. 

Mr. POE. I think Congress needs to evaluate its priorities. Especially money should never get in the way of protecting children. So, 

if that is our obligation, Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to resolve that. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I do not think you are going to have much debate about that. As 

a matter of fact, the tiered system was offered as a result of an 

amendment I offered to the original bill that did not have any 

tiered system. The idea, as we just heard, is you chase over lowlevel people who get tripped by, as you have suggested, consensual 

acts amongst teenagers, are getting treated the same as the violent 

criminals, as the older adults preying on younger children. They 

need to be separated. 

Let me ask the panel: I think there is consensus that we need 

to get some kind of extension. There is a difference between taking 

issue with some things and just a simple extension. An extension 

of time, would that be sufficient? Is the problem then the regulations rather than the statute? 

Ms. Rogers, do you want to comment? Obviously, we need some 

time here. Would just a straight extension of time fix most of the 

problems? 

Ms. ROGERS. Sir, I just need to clarify that the Tier III sex offenders are only for violent, forcible offenses. A consensual sexual 

141 

act between a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old would not be found in 

that tier. 

Mr. SCOTT. A 19-year-old, more than 4 years senior? 

Ms. ROGERS. It has to be an aggravated sexual assault, a forcible 

sex crime, to be a Tier III. 

Mr. SCOTT. More than 4 years senior, consensual sex between a 

191⁄2-year-old and just a 15-year-old would not require registration; 

is that what you are saying? 

Ms. ROGERS. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, that is not what you are saying, or, yes, that is 

what you are saying? 

Ms. ROGERS. It would not require Tier III registration as a violent sex offender. It may require registration. It may not. If it is 

charged as a misdemeanor, it may not require registration. 

Mr. SCOTT. Once you get on this list, I mean, you are on the list 

as a sexual offender. What we have heard is that that can be counterproductive because once you are on a publicly accessible registry, your life is pretty much shot. 

Ms. ROGERS. But it also may be a charge that is not even included under SORNA and may not require registration. Not every 

sex offense is a registrable offense under SORNA. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. We said a 191⁄2- and a 15-year-old, consensual 

sex. Does a 19-year-old have to register in a publicly accessible registry of sex offenders? 

Half the people in the audience are nodding their heads ‘‘yes.’’ 

Ms. ROGERS. There are a lot of issues that would have to be examined. It would depend on how it is charged in that particular jurisdiction, if it is covered under SORNA, how the case is resolved. 

What I am telling you is there is a discussion that it would be as 

a violent sexual offender, and I just need to clarify this. 

Mr. SCOTT. However you have to register yourself, you are on a 

sexual offender register for an offense where there is a 191⁄2-yearold high school senior and a 15-year-old. Add up the months. It is 

more than 4 years. They get caught. Is that something where someone would have to be registered for at least a decade? 

Ms. Devillier, do you want to respond? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. I would love to, because Louisiana’s statute is 

just that—carnal knowledge. Some States refer to it as ‘‘statutory 

rape.’’ Ours is that we have been told by the SMART office, in our 

response for substantial compliance, that that carnal knowledge 

statute, which is exactly what you just described, requires Tier II— 

25 years of registration without relief. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I guess there are some of those issue we might 

have to deal with. 

Are you asking for a delay, Mr. Allen? How long do we need to 

delay? 

Mr. ALLEN. I think the answer is dependent on the ability of 

Congress to provide significant funding to help the States with 

compliance. I do not know whether that answer is 1 year or 2 

years. We have heard from a lot of the States. We do not pretend 

to be the SMART office or to have the knowledge—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But listening to people talk about the cost of compliance, about $30 million is for California. California is about 10 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
142 

cent of the Nation, so you are talking about several hundred million dollars. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, first of all, we do not believe that $30 million 

number is the right number. 

Mr. SCOTT. But we also heard about $12 million for Virginia. I 

mean, you are talking the same order of magnitude. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think there is $1 billion. I mean, the ultimate act 

basically says such funds as are necessary, but in the original scoring by the CBO, it talked about, as I recall, $1.2 billion over 5 

years. That included both building the law enforcement capacity 

and money to help the States comply. I do not know whether it is 

$1 billion or $100 million or what the number is, but what we hear 

from the States—and the issues you have heard today we certainly 

hear, and these are real issues—but overwhelmingly what we hear 

from the States is that the number one issue is the cost of compliance. It is simply going to cost more than the loss of the Byrne 

grant moneys justifies. So I think that is a very significant point. 

Mr. SCOTT. Part of that calculation is if they spent that kind of 

money, would they reduce the incidence of crime. I mean, I do not 

think there would be much question in the minds of States that 

they would go ahead and spend the money if they were convinced 

that it would have a significant impact on crime. If it does not have 

a significant impact on crime, then the question is whether they 

are going to lose more money or are going to gain more money. The 

discussion ought to be whether or not these are reasonable expenditures if your goal is to reduce these kinds of crimes. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think the answer is we do not have a choice but 

to do it. I mean, the reality is what Washington State is doing is 

what every State ought to be doing. They have been doing it since 

1991. They do follow-up. They do visits. A lot of other States are 

basically determining that the offenders are there because of a 

piece of mail. 

This is a protection initiative, not as much a prevention initiative, but I do think it will help reduce crime. We are not proposing 

to do this with other categories of criminal offenders. The courts 

have said this is regulatory, not punitive. 

The system in place today in most States—I am not suggesting 

Washington State or in some of the other States here—but in most 

States, the system just does not work, and there needs to be a commitment, whether it is with Federal dollars or with State dollars, 

to do meaningful follow-up and oversight of this category of offenders. Right now it is not being done in most of America. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there other responses? 

Ms. DEVILLIER. Mr. Chairman, are you talking about the extension now? Is that your question? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. 

Ms. DEVILLIER. What we would suggest is that the reopening of 

the guidelines might instruct the Committee as to how long of an 

extension needed to be had, and we certainly would recommend to 

the Committee that you have some task forces put together to instruct you on these issues that the States are having. 

Again, we are committed with you to having those appropriate 

sex offenders registered, those who have a risk of reoffending, but 

there are significant issues in here that need to be addressed 

143 

maybe not only with the guidelines, but some with the act, like the 

Ranking Member commented about the age limits. 

As to juveniles in this case, the guidelines say that we have to 

register juveniles. Someone gave the example of an 11- or a 12- 

year-old forcibly fondling an 11-year-old who does not have to register, but if it is a 14-year-old who does it to that 11-year-old, interfamilial, they will have to register. These are issues that States are 

grappling with. 

I would suggest to the Committee that we put together task 

forces and that we delay the implementation until we can get these 

issues resolved posthaste. We are ready, willing and able to work 

with the Committee, and we encourage you to get all stakeholders 

together to help you and us come to something that will lead us 

to some more uniformity, reasonable uniformity, about our sex offender policy in this Nation. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. ROGERS. Sir, with respect to the implementation by tribal jurisdictions, SORNA allowed for two 1-year extensions for tribes, 

and then that they comply within a reasonable time period, but 

there is no definition with respect to what that reasonable time period is. So even the SMART office, during my tenure, we were at 

a little bit of a disadvantage in knowing what to tell tribes with 

respect to their deadline for implementation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

If there are no other comments—last comment. 

Mr. SHILLING. Mr. Chairman, as I was sitting in Seattle yesterday pondering my testimony and waiting for a snowstorm to clear, 

I was watching CNN. I saw President Obama signing the stem cell 

research Executive Order. 

One of the things that he said is: That is why today I am also 

signing a Presidential memorandum directing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decisionmaking to ensure 

that in this new Administration we base our public policies on the 

soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their 

credentials and experience, not on their politics or ideology; and 

that we are open and honest with the American people about the 

science behind our decisions. 

When I saw that, it was like a light bulb went on. I thought: 

That is the whole reason for this testimony. That is the whole reason I am going to Washington, DC, because we are not saying get 

rid of the Adam Walsh Act. To the contrary, there are many good 

things about it, but there are also some things that really need 

some reworking. 

What I am asking you to do is set up a panel of experts to help 

you fix this so that it is workable and so that we can protect our 

children in the best way possible. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. A closing comment or closing questions from Judge 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is so ironic. You were sitting there, suffering 

the effects of global cooling in the snowstorm, listening to the discussion about science being so important in the discussion of stem 

cells, of which there are very varied opinions. So that is one of the 

144 

*Note: There were no additional questions submitted to the witnesses. 

problems we have here. There are very diverse opinions, and it is 

getting down to what are the facts, because opinions are like noses. 

All of us have one. We need to get to the real facts. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their 

testimony. Members may have additional written questions for our 

witnesses, which we will forward to you and will ask you to answer 

as promptly as you can so that the answers may be part of the 

record.* 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank 

you very much for your testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(145) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

146 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


Gohmert-1.eps
147 


Gohmert-2.eps
148 


Gohmert-3.eps
149 


Gohmert-4.eps
150 


Gohmert-5.eps
151 

f 


Gohmert-6.eps
152 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LAMAR SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY


Smith-1.eps
153 


Smith-2.eps
154 


Smith-3.eps
155 


Smith-4.eps
156 

f 


Smith-5.eps
157 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in convening today’s very important hearing on the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA): Barriers to Implementation 

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) became public law 

on July 27, 2006, as Title I of the Adam Walsh Act. It created a national registry 

for all sex offenders, and required States to participate in and comply with the requirements of SORNA or lose 10% of Byrne Grant funding. The deadline for compliance by States is July 2009, and to date not a single state has been found in compliance. SORNA authorizes the AG to give two one-year extensions upon request. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) website, twelve states, four Tribes, and 

Guam have received a one-year extension. My State of Texas is not one of them. 

In fact, a New York Times article recently reported that the DOJ admitted that 

as of December 2008, only four states, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana and Ohio, had tried 

to fully comply with SORNA. In January 2009, the DOJ denied Ohio’s application. 

Timely compliance by any state is doubtful. The Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) concluded last December that the States ‘‘will not fulfill their SORNA requirements by July 2009,’’ according to an evaluation by the Office of Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The purpose of this hearing is to explore and gather information about problems 

with implementation of SORNA, to consider whether Congress should extend the 

current deadline of July 2009, as urged by many including John Walsh—the father 

of the namesake of the Adam Walsh Act, and to seek alternatives to the present 

barriers. 

SORNA established a national sex offender registry with the hope that sex offenders could not evade detection merely by moving from one state to another. It also 

sought to eliminate discrepancies among state registration and notification systems 

that might hinder public safety. 

Under SORNA, each jurisdiction must change its own State sex offender registration and notification system so that it complies with detailed requirements set forth 

in SORNA. The information input into each jurisdiction’s registry is then merged 

into a national registry. If a jurisdiction fails to comply with SORNA, the jurisdiction loses 10% of its Byrne Grant funding. 

SORNA requires all individuals convicted of a sex offense to register. Sex offense 

is defined to include all criminal offenses with an element of sexual act or sexual 

contact with another. It also includes certain specific crimes against minors, which 

is defined to include offenses against a minor that involve kidnapping; false imprisonment; video voyeurism; solicitation to engage in sexual conduct; solicitation to 

practice prostitution; possession, production, or distribution of child pornography; 

and other listed offenses. 

There is an exception to the definition of ‘‘sex offense’’ for consensual sexual conduct if the victim was an adult (and not under the custodial authority of the offender at the time of the offense) or the victim was at least 13 years old and the 

offender was not more than four years older than the victim. A foreign conviction 

also is not considered a sex offense under SORNA ‘‘if it was not obtained with sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process for the accused under 

guidelines or regulations’’ established by the Attorney General. 

There are certain problems with SORNA that many seek to address. For example, 

SORNA requires juvenile sex offenders aged 14 and older to register, even when the 

juvenile was not tried as an adult, if the offense is comparable to or more severe 

than aggravated sexual abuse. For juveniles who fall within this category, registration and notification requirements are the same as for adults. 

Under SORNA, all sex offenders must report in person. The frequency and duration of these reporting requirements vary depending on a three-tier classification 

based solely on the offense of conviction. The length of the registration periods range 

from a minimum of 15 years to a maximum of life, and the frequency of reporting 

varies from every three months to once every year. 

Under SORNA, offenders must provide their name, social security number, home 

address, name and address of employer, name and address of school, license plate 

number and description of vehicle, and any other information required by the Attorney General. Each jurisdiction must provide a physical description of the offender; 

the text of the law defining the offender’s criminal offense; the criminal history of 

the offender; registration status and outstanding arrest warrants; a current photograph; a set of fingerprints and palm prints; a DNA sample; a photocopy of a valid 

158 

driver’s license or identification card issued by the jurisdiction; and any other information required by the Attorney General. 

SORNA does endeavor to protect certain information. For example, SORNA prohibits a jurisdiction from publicly revealing the identity of the victim, the social security number of the offender, arrests that did not result in a conviction, and any 

other information exempted from disclosure by the Attorney General. 

Each jurisdiction is given discretion on whether to publicize the name of the employer and school, and any information about a ‘‘tier I’’ sex offender unless convicted 

of a specified offense against a minor. A ‘‘tier 1’’ sex offender is an offender that 

does not fall within the definition of the other two tiers. It includes all misdemeanor 

offenses, as well as any other sex offense not otherwise listed. 

All other information must be input into the public registry. Each registry also 

must have search capabilities. 

SORNA imposes stringent notification requirements on jurisdictions. After each 

registration, including both the initial registration and each update, the official 

must notify: (1) the Attorney General; (2)law enforcement; (3) school and public 

housing agencies in each area in which the offender lives, works, or attends school, 

and each jurisdiction from or to which a change in residence, work, or schooling occurs; (4) any agency responsible for conducting employment-related background 

checks under section 3 of the National Child Protection Act of 1993; (5) social service entities responsible for protecting minors in the child welfare system; (6) volunteer organizations in which contact with minors or other vulnerable individuals 

might occur; and (7) any organization, company, or individual who requests such notification pursuant to procedures established by the jurisdiction. 

Finally, SORNA regulations state that it took effect on the date of enactment, 

July 27, 2006, and has retroactive application; it applies to all sex offenders, ‘‘including those whose convictions predate SORNA’s enactment. 

SORNA, with its goal of national uniformity, limits a State’s discretion on how 

to establish and run its own State registry. To comply with SORNA, States must 

change their own systems to comply with the federal system. The extent of that 

change depends on each State’s existing State registry program. As a result of the 

national ‘‘one-size fits all’’ approach, however, compliance appears to have become 

a complicated and costly endeavor, and certain States and State organizations have 

voiced concerns about SORNA or portions of SORNA. 

Existing barriers to and complaints about SORNA focus on five main areas, which 

often overlap: 

• SORNA’s use of an offense-based classification system instead of one based 

on risk assessments; 

• SORNA’s mandatory inclusion of certain juveniles as young as 14 years old, 

even when not tried as adults and merely adjudicated of offenses; 

• Mandatory retroactive application of SORNA; 

• Legal impediments to implementation; and 

• The high cost of implementing SORNA as compared to its benefits and the 

loss of Bryne Grant monies. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield the remainder of my time. 

f 

159 


A-1.eps
160 


A-2.eps
161 


A-3.eps
162 


A-4.eps
163 


A-5.eps
164 

f 


A-6.eps
165 


B-1.eps
166 


B-2.eps
167 


B-3.eps
168 


B-4.eps
169 


B-5.eps
170 


B-6.eps
171 


B-7.eps
172 


B-8.eps
173 


B-9.eps
174 


B-10.eps
175 


B-11.eps
176 


B-12.eps
177 


B-13.eps
178 


B-14.eps
179 


B-15.eps
180 


B-16.eps
181 


B-17.eps
182 


B-18.eps
183 


B-19.eps
184 


B-20.eps
185 


B-21.eps
186 


B-22.eps
187 


B-23.eps
188 


B-24.eps
189 


B-25.eps
190 


B-26.eps
191 


B-27.eps
192 


B-28.eps
193 


B-29.eps
194 


B-30.eps
195 


B-31.eps
196 


B-32.eps
197 


B-33.eps
198 


B-34.eps
199 


B-35.eps
200 


B-36.eps
201 


B-37.eps
202 


B-38.eps
203 


B-39.eps
204 


B-40.eps
205 


B-41.eps
206 


B-42.eps
207 


B-43.eps
208 


B-44.eps
209 


B-45.eps
210 


B-46.eps
211 


B-47.eps
212 


B-48.eps
213 


B-49.eps
214 


B-50.eps
215 


B-51.eps
216 


B-52.eps
217 

f 


B-53.eps
218 


E-1.eps
219 

f 


E-2.eps
220 


F-1.eps
221 


F-2.eps
222 


F-3.eps
223 


F-4.eps
224 


F-5.eps
225 


F-6.eps
226 


F-7.eps
227 


F-8.eps
228 


F-9.eps
229 


F-10.eps
230 


F-11.eps
231 


F-12.eps
232 


F-13.eps
233 


F-14.eps
234 


F-15.eps
235 


F-16.eps
236 


F-17.eps
237 


F-18.eps
238 


F-19.eps
239 


F-20.eps
240 


F-21.eps
241 


F-22.eps
242 


F-23.eps
243 


F-24.eps
244 


F-25.eps
245 


F-26.eps
246 


F-27.eps
247 


F-28.eps
248 


F-29.eps
249 


F-30.eps
250 


F-31.eps
251 


F-32.eps
252 


F-33.eps
253 


F-34.eps
254 


F-35.eps
255 


F-36.eps
256 


F-37.eps
257 


F-38.eps
258 


F-39.eps
259 


F-40.eps
260 


F-41.eps
261 


F-42.eps
262 


F-43.eps
263 


F-44.eps
264 


F-45.eps
265 

f 


F-46.eps
266 


G-1.eps
267 


G-2.eps
268 


G-3.eps
269 


G-4.eps
270 


G-5.eps
271 


G-6.eps
272 


G-7.eps
273 


G-8.eps
274 


G-9.eps
275 


G-10.eps
276 


G-11.eps
277 


G-12.eps
278 


G-13.eps
279 


G-14.eps
280 


G-15.eps
281 


G-16.eps
282 

f 


G-17.eps
283 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EVELYN FORTIER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, RAINN (RAPE, ABUSE & INCEST NATIONAL NETWORK) 

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to submit this brief statement for the record of today’s 

hearing. RAINN welcomes the opportunity to discuss Title I of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–248), also known as SORNA. 

Founded in 1994, RAINN is a non-profit organization. Its mission is to end sexual 

assault in the United States by improving services to victims, educating the public 

and leading national initiatives to prevent sexual assault, and ensure that rapists 

are brought to justice. We carry out this mission in three main ways: 

• First, we offer free and confidential crisis intervention services to victims of 

sexual violence through two national hotlines, in partnership with affiliated 

rape crisis centers and thousands of hotline volunteers and rape crisis personnel. RAINN created in 1994, and continues to operate—in partnership 

with over 1,100 rape crisis centers located in every state and the District of 

Columbia—the National Sexual Assault Hotline, which is accessible to victims 

as well as their friends and family members around the clock at at 800-656- 

HOPE. Several years ago we also launched the award-winning National Sexual Assault Online Hotline, which is now accessible online 24/7 at 

www.rainn.org. RAINN’s hotline programs are federally authorized under 

Section 628 of the Adam Walsh Act. 

• Second, RAINN engages in public education and outreach by which we reach 

millions of Americans every year. An example of one such activity is ‘‘RAINN 

Day,’’ our annual college outreach program, which operates on over a thousand of the nation’s college campuses each September. RAINN’s education/ 

outreach and technical assistance activities also are authorized under Section 

628 of the Adam Walsh Act. 

• Third and finally, we advocate for national policies and services that will benefit victims of sexual violence, for funding to support such services, and for 

legislation to ensure that sexual assailants are brought to justice. 

In recent years, the nation’s attention has been gripped by a series of wrenching, 

high-profile cases involving innocent young children and youths who were targeted 

by sexual predators in disturbing acts of violence. The cases of Adam Walsh, Jacob 

Wetterling, Jessica Lunford, Amie Zyla, and others immediately come to mind—stirring our emotions and provoking our outrage. Yet it is important to remember that, 

in addition to these gripping cases, there are hundreds of thousands more children, 

youths, and adults who also will suffer the life-shattering effects of a sexual assault. 

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men can 

expect to become victims of sexual violence during their lifetime. In 2007, there were 

some 248,300 victims of sexual assault. Every two minutes, someone in the United 

States is sexually assaulted. 

With this in mind, we offer the following comments about SORNA: 

A Public Registry Offers Valuable Information to the Public. The primary 

purpose of a public registry is not to reduce recidivism among sex offenders, but to 

inform. (While a public registry such as SORNA may have the additional benefit 

of deterring additional crimes by sex offenders [who know they are being tracked 

by law enforcement], it is not solely on this basis that SORNA should be evaluated.) 

A public registry exists for the community (so that parents can check it and take 

reasonable precautions to safeguard their children), and it also aids police in their 

efforts to identify and track convicted offenders on their beats. No public registry 

can offer 100% accurate information about sex offenders living in one’s community— 

because many sex crimes go unreported and the perpetrators will, therefore, evade 

detection—but having access to the information that a public registry provides is 

still of value. This is especially true today, with the proliferation of two-career families, who have less time to spend on activities outside of work or home (such as 

neighborhood block parties) which could lead to close personal relationships with 

other community members. 

SORNA’s Emphasis on Uniformity is Positive. Title I of the Adam Walsh Act 

creates a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders, defining three tiers of sex offenders (depending on the severity of their crimes). A uniform sex offender registration system, if implemented successfully by all jurisdictions, promises to eliminate inconsistencies in the various states’ laws. Before the 

passage of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress heard about legal loopholes that enabled 

sex offenders to ‘‘forum shop,’’ i.e., find jurisdictions with less stringent laws to 

evade sex offender registration and notification requirements. Prior to the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress also heard that as many as one in five sexVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\031009\47923.000 HJUD1 PsN: 47923
284 

ual offenders who were required to register would eventually go ‘‘missing’’ from the 

system. By encouraging uniformity across jurisdictions, the Adam Walsh Act should 

help prevent sex offenders from evading detection. The Adam Walsh Act also provides an avenue for states to share data about sex offenders, which is a positive feature of the Act. 

An Objective Offender Classification System Promotes Fairness. SORNA 

classifies offenders into three categories (tier I, tier II, or tier III), depending upon 

the severity of their crimes. For example, the tier III offender, considered the most 

serious of the three categories, will have committed an offense that is punishable 

by more than one year in jail and is at least as severe as certain listed offenses, 

and involves kidnapping a minor or occurs after the offender becomes a tier II offender. The tier III offender is subject to lifetime registration under SORNA. 

Some have argued that classifying offenders using an actuarial risk assessment 

system would be preferable to SORNA’s offense-based classification system. We 

note, however, that an offense-based classification system is far more objective than 

a risk-based assessment scheme. An objective system may be the best way to 

achieve fairness for all. Also, an objective system may also be far less costly to administer than a subjective, risk-based assessment system because the objective system does not obligate police departments across the nation to hire psychologists or 

other professionals to individually assess every offender’s risk after they have already been tried and convicted. 

More Research Is Needed Concerning SORNA and Juveniles. SORNA requires certain juvenile offenders aged 14 years and above to be on state and national registries with adult offenders. Some have argued that juveniles tend to have 

fewer victims and on average commit less serious offenses than adults and therefore 

need not appear on such registries. We would urge Congress to tread carefully before amending the Adam Walsh Act in this area. 

In revisiting the Adam Walsh Act’s treatment of juvenile offenders, Congress 

should consult with experts in child development and seasoned child sex crime prosecutors. It would be helpful to know, for example, whether juveniles who were tried 

as adults, or juveniles who have committed especially heinous violent offenses, are 

less likely than adults to re-offend? Moreover, is the risk of re-offending the same 

for the fourteen-year-old juvenile offender as it is for juvenile who is sixteen or 

above? 

In considering these and related questions, it also is important to remember that 

the risks of any miscalculation in this area will be borne by future victims, as well 

as their friends and family members. 

Congress Should Make Adequate Funding Available For the Walsh Act’s 

Implementation. The goals of the Adam Walsh Act have not been realized, and 

this is due in no small part due to the high financial costs of compliance with the 

Act. In order to achieve substantial compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, many jurisdictions must revisit their existing sex offender registration and notification systems and make significant changes to their existing systems. It is only fair that 

Congress provide the resources authorized under the Act to ensure its successful implementation. Providing adequate funding is vitally important to the successful implementation of the Adam Walsh Act. 

Congress Should Enact A Short-Term Extension of The Adam Walsh Act. 

Congress set July 27, 2009 as an initial deadline for SORNA compliance, but final 

guidelines for SORNA compliance were not published until July 1, 2008. Numerous 

jurisdictions have complained of hurdles—such as a lack of funding—that will impede their meeting the July 27, 2009 deadline. It is our understanding that no jurisdiction has achieved substantial compliance with SORNA to date. With this in mind, 

RAINN would not object if Congress were to institute a one-year extension of the 

Adam Walsh Act. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. We applaud 

the members of the subcommittee for taking the time to examine issues relating to 

SORNA’s implementation. 

Æ