Senate Bill 616 was tie-barred to Senate Bill 617 and House Bill 4932.
Senate Bill 617 & House Bill 4932
Senate Bill 617 prohibits an individual required to be registered under SORA from living within a student safety zone and House Bill 4932 prohibits such a person from working or loitering within a student safety zone. Under both bills, a first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year's imprisonment, a maximum fine of $1,000, or both; a second or subsequent violation is a felony punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $2,000.
Under Senate Bill 617, the prohibition against living in a student safety zone does not apply to an individual who is a patient in a hospital or hospice located within a zone or an individual who resides within a zone because he or she is an inmate or resident of a prison, jail, juvenile facility, or other correctional facility or who is a patient of a mental health facility under an order of commitment. These exceptions, however, do not apply to a person who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within that student safety zone.
The prohibition against living in a student safety zone does not apply to an individual who is not older than 19 and attends secondary or postsecondary school and resides with his or her parent or guardian, or an individual who is not over 26 and attends a special education program and resides with his or her parent or guardian or in a group home or assisted living facility. These exception do not apply to an individual who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within the student safety zone. Such an individual, however, may initiate or maintain contact with a minor with whom he or she attends secondary or postsecondary school, or a special education program, in conjunction with that attendance.
The prohibition against living in a student safety zone also does not apply to an individual who was living within that zone on the bill's effective date. This exception does not apply to a person who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within the zone.
An individual who lives within a student safety zone and who is subsequently required to register under SORA must change his or her residence to a location outside the zone within 90 days after he or she is sentenced for the conviction that obligates him or her to register. This exception does not apply to an individual who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within the zone during the 90-day period.
The prohibition against working in a student safety zone does not apply to any of the following:
-- An individual who was working within a student safety zone on the bill's effective date.
-- An individual whose place of employment is within a zone solely because a school is relocated or is initially established 1,000 feet or less from the individual's place of employment.
-- An individual who only intermittently or sporadically enters a zone for the purpose of work.
Those exceptions do not apply to an individual who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within that student safety zone.
The prohibitions against living, working, and loitering do not apply to any of the following, unless an individual is convicted of more than one of the offenses described below:
-- An individual convicted as a juvenile of first-, second-, or third-degree CSC, or of committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit first- or second-degree CSC against a victim who was under 13 years old or third-degree CSC against a victim was at least 13 but under 16, if the individual was under 13 when he or she committed the offense and not more than five years older than the victim, or if the individual was at least 13 but under 17 when he or she committed the offense and not more than three years older than the victim.
-- An individual who was charged with committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit first- or second-degree CSC against a victim who was under 13 or third-degree CSC against a victim who was at least 13 but under 16, but was convicted as a juvenile of fourth-degree CSC or assault with intent to commit CSC, if the individual was under 13 when he or she committed the offense and not more than five years older than the victim or the individual was at least 13 but under 17 when he or she committed the offense and not more than three years older than the victim.
-- An individual who has successfully completed his or her probationary period under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act for committing a listed offense and has been discharged from youthful trainee status.
-- An individual convicted of committing or attempting to commit fourth-degree CSC against a victim who was at least 13 but under 16 and five or more years younger than the offender, if, at the time of the violation, the individual was at least 17 but less than 21 and not more than five years older than the victim.
Senate Bill 617 and House Bill 4932 both specify that they do not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed while violating the prohibitions against living, working, or loitering in a student safety zone.
MCL 771.2a (S.B. 129)
777.11b (S.B. 606)
28.725 (S.B. 607)
777.11b (S.B. 616)
28.733 et al. (S.B. 617)
28.733 et al. (H.B. 4932)
28.725 & 28.729 (H.B. 4934)
ARGUMENTS
(Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)
Supporting Argument
Children are among the most vulnerable members of society, and the State must do all it can to protect them from harm, especially in the places they gather on a regular basis, such as schools, and from predatory adults who work and volunteer in schools, or live or work near school property. Child victims of sex crimes can suffer ill effects for years. According to the Detroit News, they may lose trust in authority figures, experience compromised physical health, and perform poorly in school; later in life, the victims are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs and may have difficulty forming intimate relationships ("Schools, Granholm pledge to curb abuse by teachers", 4-25-05). Also, parents deserve the assurance that their children are not in danger from known sex offenders when they are at or near schools.
People with abusive tendencies toward children may seek employment and volunteer opportunities at schools, or live or work near them, because it can afford these individuals easy access to potential victims. This makes it imperative that known sex offenders are kept a safe distance from schools. According to the Detroit News, some states bar sex offenders from living near schools or other places where children gather and at least two cities (Miami Beach, Florida, and Binghamton, New York) have enacted restrictions that essentially prohibit sex offenders from moving in at all. Such a law has long been needed in Michigan. The Detroit News examined the publicly available compilation of Michigan's sex offender registry and found that approximately 1,900 of Michigan's registered sex offenders, or about one in 10 listed on the compilation, lived in close proximity to a school ("State's sex abusers live near schools", 5-26-05).
By banning sex offenders from living, working, or loitering near schools, the bills help to protect children and add to parents' peace of mind.
Supporting Argument
Widely publicized incidents around the country have emphasized the need to protect children from convicted sex offenders. In Florida, John Couey, a registered sex offender with a long criminal history, was accused of kidnapping and murdering a nine-year-old girl in February 2005. Police in San Jose, California, discovered that convicted sex offender Dean Schwartzmiller had kept handwritten lists of more than 36,000 suspected sex acts with boys. He had been arrested on child molestation charges in several states and, according an article on the KOMO-TV website, Schwartzmiller was characterized as a repeat offender by an Idaho court as early as 1978 ("Chilling List Could Lead To Biggest Molest Case Ever", 6-17-05). He reportedly frequented areas where young boys congregated, befriended them, used drugs and alcohol to lower their inhibitions, and then committed sex acts upon them. In Idaho, in July 2005, Joseph Edward Duncan III, a 42-year-old with a history of sex offenses against minors, was arrested and charged with kidnapping and sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl, kidnapping and murdering her nine-year-old brother, and murdering the children's older brother and mother, and the mother's boyfriend.
These cases and others like them highlighted the need for Michigan to take action to ensure the safety of the State's children from known sex offenders. Establishing student safety zones around schools will help to insulate Michigan's youths from known predators.
Response: The bills are an excessive reaction to media coverage of extreme cases. Each of those offenders violated sex offender registry requirements anyway, so adding more severe penalties for failing to meet registration requirements and restricting offenders' residential and employment opportunities would do little or nothing to deter child predators like them. Also, in the Florida and Idaho incidents, the children were taken from their homes, so a student safety zone would have been irrelevant. In the California case, though media reports suggested the man frequented areas where young boys gathered, such as schools, it is unreasonable to believe that a student safety zone would have kept someone like him from preying on children.
Supporting Argument
The sex offender registry and the publicly available compilation of information from the registry are important tools for the investigation of sex crimes and for parents and other informed citizens to protect children from harm. It is imperative that information in the registry and compilation is up-to-date and accurate in order for them to be effective. By prescribing enhanced penalties for repeat offenses of failing to comply with SORA's reporting requirements, House Bill 4934 will increase the incentive for registered sex offenders to check-in with law enforcement as required by law and may serve as a deterrent to registrants' being lax about reporting. This will increase the reliability of the information in the registry and compilation and enhance their effectiveness as a law enforcement and child protection mechanism.
Opposing Argument
Limitations on where sex offenders live and work are ineffective in preventing new crimes and may even lead to repeat offenses. According to the May 26, 2005, Detroit News article, experts on the issue of sex offenders "are increasingly worried fear is driving limits that do little to protect the public-and could make the situation worse". That article reported that the director of the Center for Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior in Connecticut feared that "pushing offenders out of their neighborhoods, and isolating them, may increase the risk that they may commit another crime". The article also cited a study prepared for the Minnesota legislature in 2003 that "suggested putting limits on school neighborhoods would force more offenders to move to suburban and rural areas", which simply could shift the perceived dangers of sexual offenders in the community from densely populated areas to more lightly populated areas.
According to an Associated Press (AP) article that appeared in the Detroit News, a co-author of a Florida study published in 2005 said that "psychological stresses" had been linked to criminals' committing repeat offenses, and experts cited in the article expressed a concern that the recent tightening of restrictions on sex offenders could add to their stress. Even without statutory restrictions on where a sex offender may live or work, these stresses can thwart sex offenders' attempts to reintegrate into the community. The AP article reported that 27% of 183 sex offenders surveyed in Florida said they lost work because a supervisor or co-worker discovered their past crime, 20% had to move because a landlord found out, 15% had to leave after neighbors complained, and 33% were threatened or harassed by neighbors ("Experts question wisdom of sex offender restrictions", 6-21-05).
In addition, there apparently is no evidence that limiting sex offenders' home and work locations by establishing protection zones is effective in preventing new crimes. In the May 26 Detroit News article, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who studied attempts to treat and control sex offenders characterized such legal limits as "...'futile, costly and ineffective gestures to falsely assure the community that they're going to be safe'". Also, the Minnesota study reportedly warned that state's lawmakers that there was no proof that residential limits would prevent new sex crimes.
Opposing Argument
Imposing limits on where a sex offender may live or work, in addition to criminal penalties already in law and the minimum five-year probation allowed by Senate Bill 129, moves from making a community safer to exacting retribution. Prohibiting an offender from living or working within 1,000 feet of a school may require that person to move away from his or her existing residence or to sever current employment (unless the person was living or working in the zone on the bill's effective date). This is an unfair punishment not only to the offender, but also to his or her family, including the offender's own children. The offender must either live separately from his or her family, or move everyone to a location that is not within a student safety zone. An offender required to leave a job may be forced to seek unemployment insurance or public assistance, depriving his or her family of adequate financial support and increasing the burden on the State's unemployment compensation system or social welfare programs.
Also, while the bills contain exceptions to the student safety zone restrictions, the exceptions are too narrow. Allowing student offenders not older than 19 or special education offenders up to 26 years old to continue to live within a zone will accommodate high school and special education students, but most college students who are offenders will not be allowed to continue living with their parents if they live within a zone or, presumably, even visit on weekends or during the summer. In addition, while the exemption for employees who enter a zone only intermittently or sporadically likely will allow employees such as pizza delivery or utility repair workers to enter and work in a zone, it probably does not cover employees like construction workers assigned to long-term projects at or near a school or landscapers with contracts to perform yard work in a zone on a regular basis.
Moreover, the bills do not recognize that large employers may be negatively affected by the working restrictions. For instance, in Lansing, until it recently closed, General Motors had a major facility that sat between a high school and an elementary school; Sparrow Hospital is directly across the street from a high school and a middle school; and a developer is constructing a major residential neighborhood on property that lies between a public high school and a parochial high school. These employers apparently will have to cull from their employment rolls any sex offender who is prohibited from working in a student safety zone, and it is unclear whether employers will be exposed to any criminal or civil liability if they fail to do so.
Opposing Argument
Efforts to protect children at school and other places where they congregate should not rely on sex offender registry information. Much of the information in Michigan's sex offender registry may be misleading, especially if the goal of the registry is to protect the public-particularly children-from sexual predators. Many of the people required to register are not, and never have been, a danger to the public. Senate committees heard testimony from relatives of men and boys who are required to be registered because they had sex with willing partners who were too young to consent legally to sexual relations. Since they pose no danger to schoolchildren, these registrants should not be prohibited from living or working near schools. Indeed, a Detroit News editorial called the effectiveness of the registry into question, saying it "amounts to ongoing punishment of people who have served their sentence and supposedly paid their debt to society". The editorial urged the State "to revisit the whole idea of stigmatizing some offenders well past their prison terms" ("Sex Offender Registry Is Vindictive Punishment", 2-2-05).
Also, the registry covers a broad range of offenders, many of whom did not commit acts against children, but the bills are not limited to those offenders who may be a danger to students. The May 26 Detroit News article reported on a man who lived within 1,000 feet of a school in Pontiac who was convicted in 1996 of second-degree CSC for an incident involving an adult female acquaintance. The man apparently had no history of child molestation and said that he baby-sat for his grandchildren and nephews. Prohibiting such an offender from living or working near a school serves no useful purpose in protecting children. As a Detroit Free Press editorial pointed out, "the bills do not take into account that not every convicted sex offender...is a predator or pedophile" ("Child Safety", 6-29-05).
In addition, the sex offender registry should not be relied upon to provide accurate information. According to a July 2005 Auditor General's report on a performance audit of the Department of State Police's sex offender registries, the Department did not always ensure the accuracy and completeness of data within the sex offender registries and did not verify registrants' names and addresses entered by local law enforcement agencies. The report's findings also stated that incomplete and inaccurate information could give the public a false sense of security. Unreliable registry information should not be used to determine residential and employment restrictions placed upon offenders.
Legislative Analyst: Patrick Affholter
FISCAL IMPACT
Senate Bill 129
To the extent that the bill increases the average lengths of probationary periods ordered, it will increase corrections costs. Local units of government incur the costs of misdemeanor probation, which vary by county. The State incurs the cost of felony probation at an average annual cost of $2,000. By creating additional conditions of probation, the bill also may make it more difficult for an offender to complete a probationary period without violations, thereby potentially increasing contacts with the criminal justice system and increasing related costs.
Senate Bills 606 & 607 and
House Bill 4934
The bills will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government. There are no data to indicate how many offenders will receive increased penalties for subsequent convictions of failure to report under SORA. An offender convicted of the Class F offense under the bills will receive a sentencing guidelines minimum sentence range of 0-3 months to 17-30 months. Local governments incur the costs misdemeanor probation and incarceration in a local facility, which vary by county. The State incurs the costs of felony probation at an average annual cost of $2,000, as well as the costs of incarceration in a State facility at an average annual cost of $30,000. Additional penal fine revenue benefits public libraries.
Senate Bills 616 & 617 and
House Bill 4932
The bills will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government. There are no data to indicate how many offenders will be convicted of violating the student safety zone prohibitions. An offender convicted of the Class F offense under the bills will receive a sentencing guidelines minimum sentence range of 0-3 months to 17-30 months. Offenders convicted of the Class G offenses will receive a sentencing guidelines minimum sentence range of 0-3 months to 7-23 months.
Fiscal Analyst: Lindsay HollanderAnalysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent. sb129etal./0506 |
