Juvenile Sex Offender Update An Update on JSORN in ohio

SB 10 Enacted in 2007 First in the Country Fast Juvi. Provisions Immediate Scrutiny 14 SCO Decisions 2 Pending We were the first state to enact AWA/SORNA, with the promise of federal funding (which never came). MAJOR Bill Provisions Tiered system Offense based classifications Retroactive application to all persons previously classified, currently incarcerated, and prospective. The juvenile provisions were drafted four hours before passage of the entire bill. First in time also meant first in challenge – we have had 14 merit decisions from the Supreme Court of Ohio, plus hundreds from lower courts of appeal.

Cases Bodyke (2010): people who were already registering before 2008 could not be classified under the tiering system of SB 10. Williams (2011): people whose offenses occurred before 2008 could not be classified under the tiering system of SB 10. DJS (2012): Williams applies to children too. Bruce S. (2012): Williams also applies to children who were subject to classification between the enacted and the effective dates of SB 10. Gingell (2011): a person who was not lawfully classified under SB 10 cannot be held responsible for violating SB 10.

Cases J.V./Jean-Baptiste/J.B. (2012): limitations on the rights of courts to classify juveniles who were eligible for registration. If the child is not classified prior to turning 21, the court loses jurisdiction to classify. If the child is not classified prior to the termination of his case, the court loses jurisdiction to classify.

Cases C.P.: the automatic mandatory lifetime classification of certain juveniles as PRQJORs is unconstitutional. Juveniles are not subject to automatic/offense-based classification Juveniles cannot be subject to mandatory lifetime registration Juvenile registrants cannot have their registration published on eSORN (even after they turn 18)

Cases I.A. (2014): for discretionary registrants (first time 14- and 15-year-old juvenile offenders) classification can occur at disposition or upon release from a secure facility. D.S. (2015): the extension of a juvenile’s registration duties beyond the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court is not unconstitutional.

Cases in Other States Following Ohio’s cases… Nevada and Arkansas West Virginia Pennsylvania Nevada and Arkansas: due process violation found where the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to determine a child’s classification West Virginia: Found that because children are not adults, the sting of a criminal punishment could not be applied to a juvenile adjudication Pennsylvania: Broadest decision to this point – ultimately outlawed registration for all juveniles retroactively and prospectively – due process; right to reputation.

So, What’s Left? Post-Litigation Landscape Impact of Registration Research Implications

The Post-Litigation Landscape Who Must Register? All youth 16 or 17 at time of offense All youth 14-17 with a prior adjudication 14-17 year old serious youthful offenders who are found delinquent of one of six enumerated offenses Who Might Register? First time 14 and 15 year old offenders Court must consider factors in R.C. 2152.83(D) prior Who Will Not Register? - Youth who were under 14 at time of offense

The Post-Litigation Landscape Importuning Compelling prostitution Rape Unlawful sexual conduct Pandering obscenity involving a minor Sexual battery Voyerism Pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor Aggravated murder with sexual motivation Sexual Imposition Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material Murder with sexual motivation Gross Sexual Imposition Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when offender is four years older than victim Unlawful death or termination of pregnancy as a result of committing a felony with sexual motivation Gross sexual imposition with victim under 13 Kidnapping of a minor to engage in sexual activity Child enticement with sexual motivation Child endangering Kidnapping of minor, not parent Pandering obscenity Kidnapping with sexual motivation Gross sexual imposition with (B) specification Menacing by stalking with sexual motivation Abduction with sexual motivation Felonious assault with sexual motivation

The Post-Litigation Landscape Registration Level Frequency of Registration Duration of Registration Tier I Annually Ten years Tier II Every 180 days Twenty years Tier III Every 90 days Until death PRQJOR Until Death

The Post-Litigation Landscape JUVENILE ADULT Tier level is in the court’s discretion No residency restrictions Not posted on the web Community notification only applies to certain Tier III JORs Only registers in the county where they live Can petition to have registration modified or removed Is a “juvenile offender registrant” even after turning 18/21 Tiers are offense based Residency restrictions apply Posted on eSORN Community notification applies to all adult registrants Registers where they live, work, and attend school Cannot petition to have registration removed

The Post-Litigation Landscape How public is registration? No more PRQJOR (no youth should be on eSORN) In re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446 Tier III: Judicial discretion Tier I, II, and III: All registrant information is available via public records request R.C. 2950.081

The Hearings Discretionary Registrants Mandatory Registrants End-of-Disposition Petition for Declassification R.C. 2152.83(B) R.C. 2152.82 and 2152.83(A) R.C. 2152.84 R.C. 2152.85 14-15 Years Old and First Offense 16-17 Year Old and Repeat Offenders Required by Statute Requested by Registrant At disposition For repeat offenses, occurs at disposition Upon discharge from probation or parole At three- and five-year intervals Or upon release from secure placement For first offense, occurs upon release from secure placement Mandatory registrants can step down to a lower tier All registrants can come off the registry Court can decline to hold a hearing Court must hold a hearing Discretionary registrants can come off registry Tier cannot be increased Court uses discretion for tier determination

HYPO At 12 years old, Julie was charged with gross sexual imposition for allegedly touching her 5 year old sister. She admitted to the offense and was placed on probation. Ten months later she was charged with statutory rape of her nine-year-old cousin. The court imposed a commitment to a community corrections facility; and, after a year, she was released. Upon her release from the CCF, the court held a hearing and imposed a tier II classification on Julie. Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?

HYPO Yes: Julie was not eligible for classification. Her first offense occurred when she was 12. Even though she picked up a subsequent charge, it occurred when she was either 12 or 13. Since children under 14 are not eligible for registration. The juvenile court did not have authority to classify her.

HYPO Evan admitted to three counts of rape and one count of gsi for acts that occurred when he was 13. He was not adjudicated delinquent for those offenses until he was 14. He was committed to DYS. While in DYS, he admitted to three more offenses, involving three other victims. They all occurred prior to the offenses for which he was serving his commitment. Do the new offenses make him eligible to be a registrant?

HYPO No. The code requires classification for repeat offenders if they have a “prior adjudication.” Even though Evan was 14 when he admitted to the other offenses, he is not eligible for classification for two reasons: 1) he was under 14 when his prior offenses occurred; and 2) even though he committed prior offenses, they were simply prior offenses that had not been charged, not prior adjudications. The code envisions mandatory registrants being youth who commit a new offense following an adjudication, not youth who had unreported priors that are discovered during treatment.

HYPO DeMarco was adjudicated delinquent of a sexually oriented offense following a sexting scandal at school. He was 15 at the time. He was placed on probation; and, one year later, when he was 16, he was charged with the forcible rape of a peer. He was sent to DYS without being classified. When he was released, the juvenile court held a classification hearing and found him to be a tier III. Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?

HYPO Yes. Because DeMarco was a repeat offender, his classification should have occurred at disposition for the rape.

The Impact of Registration True or False Registering juveniles protects public safety. FALSE

The Impact of Registration “Holding children appropriately accountable for harmful behavior and providing them with evidence- based treatment can reduce their likelihood for future offending. Subjecting them to registration cannot.” - Elizabeth Letourneau, et. al.

The Impact of Registration Punishment Impedes reintegration Interferes with Employment Housing Education

The Impact of Registration National study conducted by Johns Hopkins in 2017 found that youth on the registry experienced: Isolation Depression Denial of access to social opportunities Interference with school Being removed from their families and friends Suicidal thoughts/ideations Threats of physical violence

The Impact of Registration Also, the study reflected the following data about youth, aged 12-17 who are on sex offender registries: Worse outcomes on four of five mental health scales 4x as likely to have suicidal thoughts/ideations 2x as likely to experience sexual assault from others as a result of being on the registry

Children who commit sex offenses are at a The Research True or False Children who commit sex offenses are at a high risk to reoffend. FALSE

The Research Research has found that: Youth who commit sexual offenses are different from adults who commit sex offenses Youth who commit sex offenses have the lowest recidivism rate of all youthful offenders An Ohio-based study in 2010 reflected a recidivism rate as low as 4-10% for Ohio youth

The Research A recent meta-analysis of studies found that, regardless of severity, 97% of juvenile offenders never reoffend. A recent national study found that, after release from incarceration, a juvenile offender who has not reoffended in the first five years has less than a 2.5% chance of reoffending

The Research Effectiveness 2016 Caldwell Study Punishment Only Future oriented Future Orientation Multi-System Interventions Needs-Based and Strength-Based Treatment Punishment Only

Why the Myths? A lack of understanding about the nature of juvenile sexual offending. A lack of understanding of the assessments used to evaluate youthful offending risk.

ASSESSMENTS ERASOR: Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offenders J-SORRAT-II: Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth J-SOAP-II: Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol

J-SOAP-II – the most common “A checklist to aid in the systemic review of risk factors identified in professional literature as being associated with sexual and criminal offending. It is designed to be used with boys in the age range of 12 to 18 who have been adjudicated for sexual offense, as well as nonadjudicated youths with a history of sexually coercive behavior.” (J-SOAP-II Manual, 2003)

How it is scored 23 items, split into 4 scales Each item is a risk factor scored 0, 1, or 2. 0 = apparent absence of item 1 = presence of some info that suggests presence of the item, but it is “too sketchy” to justify a score of 2 2 = clear presence of item

J-SOAP-II Summary Score Static Score is the majority of the score (32 items vs. 24 items) Total: Avg. score= 21, no offending Avg. score= 30, did reoffend (J-SOAP-II Manual, 2003)

Items from Scales 1 & 2 1 2 Prior legally charged sex offenses Number of sexual abuse victims Male child victim Duration of sexual offense history Degree of planning in sexual offense(s) Sexualized aggression Sexual drive and preoccupation Sexual victimization history Caregiver Consistency Pervasive anger School behavior problems History of conduct disorder before age 10 Juvenile antisocial behavior (age 10-17) Ever charged/arrested before age 16 Multiple types of offenses Physical assault history and/or exposure to family violence 1 2

Resources Human Rights Watch: Raised on the Registry – available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/05/01/raised-registry/irreparable-harm-placing- children-sex-offender-registries-us Harris, A.J., Walfield, S., Shields, R.T., & Letourneau, E.J., Collateral Consequences of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Results from a Survey of Treatment Providers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 1-22 (2015). Letourneau, E.J., et. al, Effects of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration on Adolescent Well-Being: An Empirical Examination, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2018, Vol. 24, No. 1, 105- 117 (2018) (first published in 2017). Caldwell, M.F. (2016, July 18). Quantifying the Decline in Juvenile Sexual Recidivism Rates. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Elizabeth J. Letourneau et al., The Influence of Sex Offender Registration on Juvenile Sexual Recidivism, 20 Crim. Just. Pol’y Rev. 136 (2009).

Questions?

MORE QUESTIONS? Also, feel free to contact us at www.opd.ohio.gov Brooke M. Burns – brooke.burns@opd.ohio.gov 614.466.5394