Revisiting Alaska's Sex Offender Registration and Public Notification Statute

Originally published in the Alaska Justice Forum 25(1–2): 2–5 (Spring/Summer 2008)This article examines the background and judicial interpretation of Alaska's sex offender registration and public notification statute, the new federal requirements for state sex offender registries and public notice under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, and weaknesses in both Alaska's existing system and the enhanced requirements of the new federal legislation. These weaknesses include: * Absence of incentives for offenders to seek therapy or treatment; * Failure to provide for individualized risk assessment that would differentiate between those offenders who pose a negligible or very low risk of re-offending from those who pose a continuing public risk — a failure that causes unwarranted marginalization of low risk offenders and diminishes the overall effectiveness of the public notification system; * Public notice provisions so broad as to substantially impede offenders' reintegration into their families, their community, and the workforce, and potentially chilling family reporting; * Internet posting requirements associated with severe stigmatization and public harassment, and concomitant emotional destabilization and isolation of offenders — factors that may actually increase the risk of recidivism and community harm. * Because the Walsh Act conditions state receipt of Byrne Grant funds on compliance with its enhanced registration and notice requirements, there is little Alaska can do to remedy the above weaknesses and still remain eligible for Byrne funds. However, the article concludes with a recommendation for limited changes to our statute that would minimize, to the extent possible, its adverse effect on offenders' ability to find employment; omit the lowest risk offenders from internet posting requirements; and provide those incentives for treatment permissible under the Walsh Act

J Public Health Manag Pract

During 2013, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) received reports of 6 hepatitis A cases among food handlers. We describe our decision-making process for public notification, type of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) offered, and lessons learned. For 3 cases, public notification was issued and DOHMH offered only hepatitis A vaccine as PEP. Subsequent outbreaks resulted from 1 case for which no public notification was issued or PEP offered, and 1 for which public notification was issued and PEP was offered too late. DOHMH continues to use environmental assessments to guide public notification decisions and offer only hepatitis A vaccine as PEP after public notification but recognizes the need to evaluate each situation individually. The PEP strategy employed by DOHMH should be considered because hepatitis A vaccine is immunogenic in all age groups, can be obtained by local jurisdictions more quickly, and is logistically easier to administer in mass clinics than immunoglobulin.CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHS/United StatesU50 CI000899/CI/NCPDCID CDC HHS/United StatesU90 TP000546/TP/OPHPR CDC HHS/United States2020-01-09T00:00:00Z28166179PMC6951794706

CPAR Review Vol. 02, No. 04

Businesses and individuals registered with CPAR\u27s NEB-INDEX on-line computerized bulletin board and database service have access to the latest 1990 population figures prior to any public notification

Justice Center Research Overview; Vol. 4

Presents a brief history of sex offender registries and notification programs nationally and in Alaska; describes provisions of Alaska's registry/notification laws; and discusses recent research findings about the effectiveness of such laws and their impact on offenders

Structuring Relief for Sex Offenders from Registration and Notification Requirements: Learning from Foreign Jurisdictions and from the \u3cem\u3eModel Penal Code: Sentencing\u3c/em\u3e

This paper first discusses the scope of sex offender registration and notification under federal and state laws, and contrasts U.S. laws with those in other countries. Part III turns to the prevailing rationales for these laws and tests their empirical validity. It highlights the negative effect of registries and notification on criminal investigations, and the cost they impose on public coffers, public safety, and those labeled sex offenders. Part IV discusses a set of proposals to turn registries, which may serve a limited legitimate function, into more effective law enforcement tools while restricting public notification. This section outlines ex ante limitations on such laws, and then turns to mechanisms that would allow individual offenders to petition for their termination. This discussion provides the context for an analysis of the relief provisions set out in the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC): Sentencing, Article 7. The article concludes that to enhance public safety and reintegrate sex offenders, the United States would be better served by moving away from public notification, limiting registries, and investing more heavily in prevention and the treatment of convicted sex offenders

Does practice make perfect? Debate about principles versus practice in New Zealand local government planning

Legislation and practice are two arms of public policy planning. Legislation empowers or enables; practice is the articulation and implementation of legislative principle. In New Zealand there has been widespread debate in recent years about the relative importance of practice versus legislation in achieving planning outcomes under its key planning legislation, the Resource Management Act 1991. This paper proposes that the effectiveness and efficiency of planning practice may depend on a range of factors, some of which are beyond the control of planners, and outside of legislation. They include political priorities and the countervailing administrative responsibilities of the public agencies involved

State of Iowa Public Drinking Water Program 2003 Annual Compliance Report, June 2004

This report contains information about Iowa's public drinking water program for the calendar year 2003. Included in the report are descriptions of Iowa's systems, monitoring and reporting requirements of the systems, and violations incurred during the year. This report meets the federal Safe Drinking Water Act's requirement of an annual report on violations of national primary drinking water regulations by public water supply systems in Iowa

Maine Healthy Beaches Program 2016 Annual Report to U.S. EPA

Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) is managed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) and coordinated by the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMaine Extension). In 2016, this team worked with 28 local management entities to conduct routine monitoring, assessment, and public notification of water quality conditions for 60 beach management areas spanning Kittery to Mount Desert Island. MHB staff continued to build local capacity for well-informed beach management and to address pollution issues when they arose during the beach season

A Framework for Post-Sentence Sex Offender Legislation: Perspectives on Prevention, Registration, and the Public\u27s Right to Know

During a weekend in late July, 1994, Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old girl, was raped and murdered in Hamilton Township, New Jersey.\u27 When neighbors dis- covered that the perpetrator was a man who lived across the street from the little girl, and that this man was a twice-convicted felon who had served six years for sexual assault, their sadness turned to anger. Why, they asked, had they not been told? The question of what, if anything, to do with sex offenders after they have served their sentences is one of which few are without opinion. It is a complicated and contentious debate. Generally, statistics show a higher rate of recidivism by sex offenders than any other type of criminal All too often, the evening news informs the public of another child, who, like Megan, has been brutally victimized by a sex offender recently released from prison-a prison term he received for committing a similar offense. Angry, frightened parents are insistent on legislative change--change that will prevent such repeat attacks from occurring. An increasing number of jurisdictions has recognized the specific danger presented by repeat sex offenders by requiring them to register with the county sheriff following their release from prison. To many Americans, however, this is not enough. Many citizens now are demanding that law enforcement officials notify them of the release of sex offenders into their communities. A legislative model many states are examining is a new get- tough approach recently passed in Washington state-the Community Protection Act of 1990 (the \u27Washington Act ). The Washington Act requires sex offenders to register with their county sheriff upon completion of jail terms. A more controversial provision of the act authorizes law enforcement officials to release to the public information regarding freed sex offenders, including their names, ad- dresses, and the crimes of which they were convicted. The passage of the Washington Act, and similar provisions for public notification in Louisiana,, Tennessee, Alaska, and New Jersey\u27 evidence the growing belief among Americans that the best legislative solution to the problem of recidivistic sex offenders is public notification. Communities like Megan Kanka\u27s are urging state legislators to pass public notification provisions. The federal government also has responded to such pressure, requiring states to establish registration programs for sex offenders that may authorize the release of information to the public

Post Office and Retail Postal Facility Closures: Overview and Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] In common parlance, “post office” is used to refer to a wide variety of facilities operated by the United States Postal Service (USPS). In administrative practice, the USPS differentiates among several categories of postal facilities. Regarding one category of its facilities, the USPS announced in May 2009 that it was considering the closure of 3,105 of its 4,851 post office branches and stations. These facilities provide the public with postal services, such as stamp sales, post office boxes, and package shipping. Since the original announcement, the USPS has indicated that the number of possible closures may be more than 3,200. This report provides (1) information on this recent announcement; (2) historical data on the number of post offices and other retail postal facilities; (3) an explanation of the legal authorities relevant to retail postal facility closures; (4) a review of the retail postal facility closure processes, including data on public appeals of closures, and H.R. 658’s proposed alterations to the processes; and (5) a concluding discussion that suggests observations and possible issues for Congress. The USPS has cited financial duress as a reason for its proposed closure of up to 64% of its 4,851 post office branches and stations. According to the USPS, the post office branches and stations under consideration for closure are located in metropolitan areas. The USPS has not indicated whether any employees would lose their positions. Most postal employees are protected from layoffs by collective bargaining agreements. As of FY2008, the USPS had 36,065 retail postal facilities, including post offices, post office branches and stations, community post offices, and contract postal units. This is 16.3% fewer than existed in 1970 when the USPS was established as an independent establishment of the executive branch. The closure of 3,105 branches and stations would reduce the current number of retail postal facilities by 8.4%. By law, the USPS does not rely on appropriations to fund its operations. It must support itself through the sales of postal services. Congress has given the USPS considerable discretion to decide how many post offices to erect and where to place them. The USPS also is obliged to provide the public with adequate access to postal services. Both federal law and the USPS’s rules prescribe a post office closure process. The U.S. Postal Service must notify the affected public and hold a 60-day comment period prior to closing a post office. Should it decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Between FY1998 and FY2007, 25 of the approximately 676 post office closures were appealed to the PRC. The USPS uses an expedited version of this process to close post office branches, stations, and community post offices. On January 22, 2009, Representative Albio Sires introduced H.R. 658, which would require the USPS to employ the more lengthy post office closure process on all retail facility closures, and expand the current statutory public notification requirements. Federal law requires the USPS to arrange its delivery and service network to most efficiently serve the public. However, the proposed closures may raise a number of issues, including public participation in the closure process, the effects on postal workers, and the possible effects of closures on communities. Congress may wish to consider a variety of measures to address these possible issues. This report will be updated to reflect significant legislative action