SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
21–652 PDF
2005
PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 2005, AND THE PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 2005
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2318 and H.R. 2388
JUNE 7, 2005
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 109–33
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 2005, AND THE PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 2005
21–652 PDF
2005
PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 2005, AND THE PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 2005
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2318 and H.R. 2388
JUNE 7, 2005
Serial No. 109–33
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
RIC KELLER, Florida
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel
ELIZABETH SOKUL, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel
MICHAEL VOLKOV, Deputy Chief Counsel
BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
JUNE 7, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin and Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
WITNESSES
Ms. Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
The Honorable Charlie Crist, Attorney General, State of Florida
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mrs. Carol Fornoff, Mesa, Arizona, mother of a murdered child
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. John Rhodes, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Center for Sex Offender Management, ''Recidivism of Sex Offenders,'' May 2001, available ar http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.pdf
Dennise Orlando, 'Sex Offenders,'' Special Needs Bullentin No. 3, September 1998
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, State of Ohio, ''Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases,'' April 2001, available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten—Year—Recidivism.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, ''Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994,'' November 2003, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf
U.S. Sentencing Commission, ''Report of the Native American Advisory Group,'' November 4, 2003, available at http://www.ussc.gov/NAAG/NativeAmer.pdf
Jan Looman, Jeffrey Abracen, and Terry P. Nicholaichuk, ''Recidivism Among Treated Sexual Offenders and Matched Controls,'' Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 15 No. 3, March 2000
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Letter from the Honorable Jon Kyl to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (June 9, 2005)
Senator Jon Kyl, Introduction of the Streamlined Procedures Act, Congressional Record, pages S5540-S5543
The Streamlined Procedures Act Section-by-Section Analysis, submitted by the Honorable Senator Jon Kyl
S.1088 the ''Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005,'' submitted by the Honorable Senator Jon Kyl
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, ''Criminal Offenders Statistics,'' available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Letter from John Rhodes, Assistant Federal Defender to Bobby Vasser, Minority Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 2005, AND THE PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 2005
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005
House of Representatives,
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Mark Green (acting Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. GREEN. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome everyone to this important hearing to examine the national epidemic of crimes against our Nation's children. In recent months, our country has been shocked and outraged by a series of brutal attacks against our children. Two of these recent brutal attacks were committed by criminals in Florida. Nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted, raped and buried alive and eventually died. And 13-year-old Sarah Lunde was brutally murdered. Both of these young girls were murdered by convicted sex offenders.
Just 2 weeks ago, also in Florida, a missing 8-year-old girl was found buried under rocks inside a trash bin. A 17-year-old was later charged with attempted murder and sexual battery of the young child. These tragic events in Florida occurred after a disturbing series of events in other parts of the country.
In Iowa, Jetsetta Gage, a 10-year-old girl, was abducted from her Cedar Rapids home last March and raped and murdered by a sex offender convicted of prior lascivious acts with a child. In Los Angeles, a 58-year-old suspect was charged this past April with child molestation charges and is accused of victimizing numerous young boys over a 25-year period. In that same month in California, three men were convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious teenage girl as they videotaped the brutal sexual attack on a pool table at the home of the millionaire father of one of the offenders.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last month, an Oregon judge sentenced a sex offender to eight additional years in prison for sexually abusing a woman when she was 4 and 5 years old. The offender was already in prison for molesting a 3-year-old boy after abducting the 3-year-old and his 1-year-old brother. The record shows that he has a history of rape, molestation and torture going back to the age of 7, attacking family members, school teachers, setting fires, and torturing animals.
Or take the case of infamous child molester, Larry Don McQuay, who was released from prison in Texas. He claimed to have molested more than 200 children and vowed to kill the next child he molested. McQuay served 8 years of a 25-year sentence when his release was mandated under Texas law, and he is now back in the community.
Sadly, these are just a few examples of the brutal acts of violence and exploitation of our children occurring each and every day. Consider these facts: Statistics show that one in five girls and one in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach adulthood, yet less than 35 percent of the incidents are actually reported to the authorities. According to the Department of Justice, one in five children receive unwanted sexual solicitations online, 67 percent of all victims of sexual assault were juveniles, and 34 percent were under the age of 12. One of every 7 victims of sexual assault was under the age of 6.
I have introduced two bills, which are the subject of today's hearing, H.R. 2318 and H.R. 2388, each of which addresses the problems of sexual exploitation of children and crimes of violence against children respectively. These measures include mandatory minimum penalties which reflect the seriousness of the violent crimes and sexual exploitation of children.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. Under H.R. 2388, for Federal crimes of kidnapping, maiming, or aggravated sexual abuse, a sex offender will be subject to a 30-year mandatory minimum. For assaults resulting in serious bodily injury, that is nearly killing or permanently disabling a child, sexual offenders will face a mandatory minimum of 20 years. And for all other crimes of violence against a child, offenders will face a 10-year mandatory minimum penalty. Similarly for sexual exploitation crimes, offenders will face increased mandatory minimum penalties depending on the severity of the crime, the age of the victim, and the circumstances of the offense.
In 2003, Congress enacted the PROTECT Act, which sought to restrict the ability of Federal judges to grant downward departures in cases involving sex crimes and exploitation of our children. The data shows that while in effect, the law was working and the number of unwarranted downward departures was falling. Since the Supreme Court's decision in United States versus Booker, which rendered the Federal sentencing guidelines advisory, the need for mandatory minimum penalties in certain areas has become even more critical. Congress has an institutional right to prescribe the sentencing of criminal defendants to reflect the will of the people.
Mandatory minimum penalties are favored overwhelmingly by the American public because they are not willing to entrust Federal judges to act in a consistent manner when sentencing sexual predators for sexual abuse and exploitation of our children. Some on the bench will be attempted to coddle sex offenders, to ignore the rights of the law-abiding public to live free from crime in the neighborhoods and seek to deviate from sentencing guidelines with what they feel is reasonable.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the absence of the mandatory sentencing guideline scheme, mandatory minimum penalties are the only way in which Congress can ensure that fair and consistent sentences to these dangerous sexual predators are handed out at the Federal level. Congress must act now and must do so to protect our Nation's youth from sexual predators in our communities and online on the Internet. We simply have no greater resource than our children. It has been said that the benevolence of a society can be judged on how well it treats its old people and how well it treats its young. Our children represent our Nation's future. I am anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses and now yield to the Ranking Minority Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate you convening this hearing. But as usual, every 2 years we are pontificating about child crimes and dramatically increasing Federal sentences, and we are doing so despite the fact that crimes against children prosecuted in Federal Court constitute a miniscule percentage of such crimes and represent none of the horrendous crimes against children that have been in the media in recent months. There is no evidence that Federal prosecutions of crimes against children has any significant impact on these horrendous State crimes against children, nor do we have any evidence that either State or Federal law for crimes against children are too lenient. Indeed, we recently dramatically increased Federal sentences for crimes against children in the PROTECT Act. We have not had enough time or enough cases to determine whether or not these draconian increases in Federal sentences has had any effect on crime.
We are moving forward dramatically increasing Federal sentences, also in the worst possible way, through increased mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences only affect those offenses or those offenses or those who have a role in an offense which would warrant a less severe sentence, since those who warrant the mandatory minimum or even a more serious sentence get those under the sentencing guidelines. I call attention to the recommendations released today by a group of bipartisan philosophically diverse scholars and high level current and former public policy makers, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, and former Deputy General Phil Hayman indicating that sentencing policies should provide for proportionality and sufficient flexibility to reflect differences in the role and background of the offenders.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These increases are occurring at a time when the evidence from the Department of Justice is that for sex offenders the recidivism rate is lower than other offenders in general with a 5 percent recidivism rate for new sex offenses and a 3.3 percent recidivism rate for child molesters recidivating with a new offense of that nature. I will ask this study and four others from other sources be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows in the Appendix]
Mr. SCOTT. Also the evidence reveals that the low recidivism rate is cut in half with sexual abuse treatment. While recidivism is bad, 3 to 5 percent rates with the prospect of that being cut in half do not suggest that the situation is hopeless, yet there is nothing in any of these bills to ensure treatment for these offenders who seek treatment or are already receiving sentences and will be leaving prison soon. The bills before us suggest that it is better to wait for the victimization to occur and then apply draconian penalties.
One of our speakers at an earlier hearing on the subject, criminologist and law professor Frank Zimmer of the Berkeley School of Law pointed out that treating all offenses and offenders the same and mandating life sentences for repeat offenders regardless of the crime, may actually endanger more children than it helps. He expressed the concern that putting the offender in the position of concluding that once a crime is completed or attempted, he is facing a minimum of a life sentence, he will more likely conclude that the best chance of avoiding detection would be to kill the victim and the witness.
Certainly, this question should be considered against the conventional justification for harsh mandatory minimum sentences of forcing co-defendants to testify against their partners in crime since these crimes are more often than not carried out by lone offenders. We also know that greatly increasing Federal sentences would disproportionately affect Native Americans simply because they are more likely to fall under Federal jurisdiction whereas those who are committing the horrendous crimes giving rise to this Federal sentencing frenzy actually fall under State jurisdiction.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are also doing so without consulting the Native American tribal authorities as we have in the past, when we dramatically increase sentencing, such as we did with three strikes and you are out and the death penalty and the 1994 crime bill. There is no evidence that Native Americans have asked that offenders on tribal lands be treated more harshly than offenders in State courts now right next to them, and it simply appears that having politicians being able to prove how tough they are on crime in an election year is more important than giving plain fairness to Native Americans and respecting their tribal sovereignty.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the bill before us exacerbate the already horrendous Federal sentencing scheme. For example, under the PROTECT Act, we provided a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence to transport a minor across State lines or international lines to commit any criminal sex offense involving a minor. This bill increases that mandatory minimum to 30 years. This means that an 18-year-old high school student who transports a minor or causes a minor to travel from Washington D.C. to Virginia to engage in consensual sex, thereby committing the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor would be subject to a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence. One can only imagine how many times this law was violated in this area during prom season and what possible sense does it make to mandate a 30-year sentence? And if our goal, Mr. Chairman, is to reduce incidents of child abuse, we have to look at the cost effectiveness of these initiatives. If we are going to sentence somebody to a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison, we have to look at the cost and what we could have done with that similar amount of money in child abuse prevention programs.
Under H.R. 2388 it appears that a mere fist fight between teenagers if one is under 18 and is even slightly injured would require a mandatory minimum sentence, even if the younger teen was the instigator. The provision limiting habeas corpus jurisdiction will only increase litigation and delays and increase the risk that innocent people will be put to death.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several of the 159 people that were exonerated of their crimes in the last 10 years, including some on death row, received exoneration more than 20 years after their conviction. I look forward to the testimony and enlightenment of our witnesses on the bills before us and thank you for convening the hearing.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. It is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses appearing before it. I would ask the witnesses to stand and raise their right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. GREEN. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative, please be seated. We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. I will introduce three of the witnesses and then turn to Mr. Keller of Florida for an introduction of our fourth. Our first witness is Laura Parsky, the deputy assistant attorney general of the criminal division at the United States Department of Justice. In addition to serving at the Department of Justice, Ms. Parsky has served as director of the international justice and contingency planning at the National Security Council. She graduated from Yale University and obtained her law degree from Bolt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. Following law school, Ms. Parsky clerked for the Honorable D. Lowell Jenson of the United States District Court for the northern district of California.
Our second witness is Carol Fornoff. Mrs. Fornoff is a mother of seven in Mesa, Arizona. In 1984, Mrs. Fornoff's 13-year-old daughter Christy Ann was brutally murdered by a criminal who is still on death row awaiting another round of habeas review. We look forward to Mrs. Fornoff's testimony regarding this horrible tragedy before the Subcommittee today.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our third witness will be Mr. John Rhodes, assistant Federal defender and branch chief of the Missoula branch office in Montana. Mr. Rhodes previously served a temporary duty assignment with the defender services division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Prior to working at the defender services division, he served 6 months as special counsel and visiting Federal defender at the United States Sentencing Commission.
Previously, Mr. Rhodes worked as a State public defender and as an associate with Dorsey and Whitney. Mr. Rhodes is a graduate of DePauw University and Harvard Law School.
Mr. Keller.
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased today to introduce to the Crime Subcommittee, my friend, Charlie Crist, the Attorney General for the State of Florida. Attorney General Crist has been a real champion in Florida when it comes to cracking down against child molesters by making sure they serve longer sentences and by using innovative technology to track their whereabouts. As a State Senator from '92 to '98, Mr. Crist sponsored the stop-turning-out-prisoners legislation, which requires criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their criminal sentence.
In November of 2002, Mr. Crist was elected Florida's first Republican Attorney General. For the past 2 1/2 years, Attorney General Crist has led the fight to establish longer prison sentences for criminals who sexually molest children and to require tracking devices once they do get out. Attorney General Crist understands that the best way to protect young children is to keep child predators locked up in the first place, because someone who has molested a child will do it again and again and again.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, earlier this year, two young Florida girls, 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde were abducted, raped and killed. Both men who confessed to these horrific crimes were convicted sex offenders and career criminals. Mr. Crist takes these crimes personally and has traveled here to Washington today to help do something about this nationwide problem. Mr. Attorney General, we are honored to have you with us today. We applaud your efforts to protect the young people of Florida and we look forward to your testimony today.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Keller. We do have written testimony from each of our witnesses. We would ask if possible to limit their testimony to 5 minutes. And we will begin with Ms. Parsky. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA PARSKY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. PARSKY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on sexual crimes against children and two legislative proposals to address this critical topic. As we all know, crimes against children are terrible and reprehensible acts. In addition to the tragedy of violent crimes against children, the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is particularly horrific, and this horror is often exacerbated by child molesters who memorialize their repugnant crimes in photographs and videos.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We, as a Nation, must stand together to fight against these crimes and must explore every avenue for strengthening Federal laws in this area. Therefore, I commend you for holding this hearing today. One of the most prevalent manifestations of the growing problem of child exploitation and sexual abuse crimes is the escalating presence of child pornography. There has been explosive growth in the trade of child pornography due to the ease and speed of distribution and the relative anonymity afforded by the Internet. The distribution of child pornography has progressed beyond exchanges between individuals and now includes commercial ventures. We should be ever mindful that each image of what we call child pornography graphically depicts the sexual abuse of an innocent child.
Further, once on the Internet, the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender and are perhaps used to whet the appetite of a pedophile to act out the deviant fantasies of the image on yet another child thereby continuing the cycle of abuse. Child pornography offenses as well as other child exploitation offenses involving enticement of minors to engage in illegal sexual activity, travel to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor, or transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity often implicate interstate or foreign commerce, and, therefore, are often prosecuted under Federal law. While sexual abuse of children is typically prosecuted under State law, child sexual abuse on Federal lands such as a military base or an Indian territory may be prosecuted under Federal law. Accordingly, Federal laws prohibiting sexual abuse has an important role in combating these crimes.
Sexual crimes against children are a growing problem. For example, the number of Federal child pornography cases has more than tripled from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2004. Child abuse and neglect cases are also increasing. Accordingly, a Federal legislative response is warranted and important. The Department of Justice is working hard to combat child exploitation and sexual abuse crimes. For example, the criminal division's child exploitation and obscenity's section already has generated more than a 445 percent increase in its caseload over the past 2 years. The Department has also made great strides in responding to the misuse of advancing technologies in child exploitation offenses. In August 2002, the Department created the high tech investigative unit comprised of computer forensic specialists equipped to ensure the Department's capacity to prosecute the most complex and advanced offenses against children committed online. In addition, the Department focuses its efforts on investigations that have the maximum deterrent impact, including nationwide child pornography operations that involve hundreds or thousands of offenders.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department also targets advancing Internet technologies to keep pace with the criminal exploitation of technology in the realm of crimes against children and works toward the critical goal of identifying the victims depicted in images depicted in child pornography. Several examples of these efforts are detailed in my written statement. A chilling example of the important work the Department is doing to fight child exploitation is the case of United States versus Mariscal prosecuted in the southern district of Florida. In that case, defendant Angel Mariscal was sentenced last September to a 100-year prison term following his conviction on seven counts involving the production of child pornography and related offenses. Mariscal traveled repeatedly over a 7-year period to Cuba and Ecuador where he produced and manufactured child pornography including videotapes of himself sexually abusing minors, some of them under the age of 12.
More than 100 victims were filmed exposing their genitals and/or engaging in sexual activity with the defendant and at least two adult female co-conspirators. Mariscal further endangered these minors by being HIV positive. Thankfully none of the identified victims has yet tested positive for HIV.
After videotaping the children using a camcorder, the defendant imported the tapes, reproduced them onto CD ROMS or VHS in Miami and distributed the CD ROMS and VHS tapes throughout the United States by mail or Federal Express. Mariscal's arrest has led to the prosecution of many of his U.S. customers through the coordinated efforts of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The Department of Justice deeply appreciates recent legislation that Congress has passed to combat child exploitation crimes such as the PROTECT Act. This extremely useful legislation includes provisions that imposes mandatory life imprisonment for defendants who commit two or more sex offenses against minors, permits supervised release for up to life for child exploitation crimes, and makes it a crime to travel in foreign commerce and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor regardless of whether that was the purpose of the travel.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department is still reviewing the bills that are being discussed in today's hearing. We are grateful to the Committee for pursuing additional legislation to combat these terrible crimes and look forward to working with you on this and any other legislation that will help protect our children from violence and sexual exploitation. I thank you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you today. And I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Parsky follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA H. PARSKY
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on sexual crimes against children and two legislative proposals to address this critical topic, H.R. 2388, the ''Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005,'' and H.R. 2318, the ''Protection Against Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 2005.'' Generally, H.R. 2388 would mandate minimum sentences in all cases involving violent crimes against children, while H.R. 2318 would mandate minimum sentences in cases involving the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children.
As we all know, such crimes against children are terrible and reprehensible acts. In addition to the tragedy of violent crimes against children, the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is particularly horrific, and this horror is often exacerbated by child molesters who memorialize their repugnant crimes in photographs and videos. We all, as a nation, must stand together to fight against these crimes and must explore every avenue for strengthening federal laws in this area; therefore, I commend you for holding this hearing.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the most prevalent manifestations of the growing problem of child exploitation and sexual abuse crimes is the escalating presence of child pornography. There has been explosive growth in the trade of child pornography due to the ease and speed of distribution, and the relative anonymity, afforded by the Internet. The distribution of child pornography has progressed beyond exchanges between individuals and now includes commercial ventures. We should be ever mindful that each image of what we call child pornography graphically depicts the sexual abuse of an innocent child. Further, once on the Internet, the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender and perhaps used to whet the appetite of a pedophile to act out the deviant fantasies of the image on yet another child, thereby continuing the cycle of abuse. Child pornography offenses, as well as other child exploitation offenses involving enticement of minors to engage in illegal sexual activity, travel to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor, or transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity often implicate interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, these offenses are often prosecuted under federal law. On the other hand, sexual abuse of children is typically prosecuted under state law. When a child is sexually abused on federal land such as a military base or in Indian territory, depending on the circumstances, the offense may be prosecuted under federal law. Accordingly, federal laws prohibiting sexual abuse have an important role in combating these devastating crimes, even though most sexual abuse cases are prosecuted under state statutes.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ARE A GROWING PROBLEM
Crimes against children such as child exploitation and sexual abuse are unfortunately a growing problem. For example, according to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, in Fiscal Year 1997, 352 cases were filed by the Department of Justice charging child pornography crimes (18 U.S.C. Sections 2251–2260), and 299 convictions were obtained. In Fiscal Year 2004, child pornography charges were filed against approximately 1,486 defendants, and approximately 1,066 convictions on such charges were obtained.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nationwide, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' 2003 report on child maltreatment, an estimated 906,000 children were victims of child abuse or neglect. Approximately 20 percent of these victims were physically abused, and approximately 10 percent were sexually abused. Moreover, according to that report, Pacific Islander children and American Indian or Alaska Native children are among those experiencing the highest rates of victimization. As the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States may cover many of these children, a federal legislative response to violence against children and child sexual abuse is warranted and important.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS AGGRESSIVELY FIGHTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
The Department of Justice is working hard to combat child exploitation and sexual abuse crimes. For example, the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) already has generated a more than 445% increase in its caseload, including child pornography cases and investigations, handled in the past two years. In addition to increasing the sheer number of investigations and prosecutions brought by our attorneys, the quality and import of the cases has increased substantially, with a focus on producers and commercial distributors.
The Department of Justice has also made great strides in responding to the misuse of advancing technologies in child exploitation offenses. In August 2002, the Department created within CEOS the High Tech Investigative Unit (HTIU), which consists of computer forensic specialists equipped to ensure the Department's capacity to prosecute the most complex and advanced offenses against children committed online. The HTIU renders expert forensic assistance and testimony in districts across the country in the most complex child pornography prosecutions conducted by the Department. Additionally, the HTIU currently receives and reviews an average of more than 200 tips per month from citizens and non-governmental organizations, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and initiates investigations from these tips.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department focuses its efforts on investigations that have the maximum deterrent impact. For example, CEOS is currently coordinating 17 nationwide operations involving child pornography offenders. These are significant investigations of national impact. Nearly each one of the 17 involves hundreds or thousands, and in a few cases tens of thousands, of offenders. The coordination of these operations is complex, but the results can be tremendous. By way of example, the FBI is currently investigating the distribution of child pornography on various ''member-only'' online bulletin boards. As of March 19, 2005, the investigation had yielded 180 search warrants, 75 arrests, 130 indictments, and 61 convictions.
Quickly advancing Internet technologies present many challenges to investigators, and the Department is determined to keep pace with the criminal exploitation of technology in the realm of crimes against children. As child pornographers have started using peer-to-peer file sharing networks to distribute their images, national enforcement initiatives against peer-to-peer offenses have been launched. These initiatives encompass operations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and state and local Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. Since the fall of 2003, these initiatives collectively have resulted in more than 1000 investigations, 350 searches, and at least 65 arrests.
The Department also works toward the critical goal of identifying the victims depicted in images of child pornography, so that they can be rescued and protected from further abuse. One method for achieving this goal is already underway. The FBI Endangered Child Alert Program (ECAP) was launched on February 21, 2004, by the FBI's Innocent Images Unit and is conducted in partnership with CEOS. The purpose of ECAP is to proactively identify unknown subjects depicted in images of child pornography engaging in the sexual exploitation of children. Since ECAP's inception, seven ''John Doe'' subjects have been profiled by America's Most Wanted, and with the assistance of tips from viewers, five have been identified. More importantly, 31 victims (so far) in Indiana, Montana, Texas, and Colorado have been identified as a result of this initiative. All of the victims had been sexually abused over a period of years, some since infancy. CEOS is working with the field to identify suitable targets for this program, and we will continue to ensure that this program is utilized to its maximum potential.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A chilling example of the important work the Department is doing to fight child exploitation is the case of United States v. Mariscal, prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida. In that case, defendant Angel Mariscal was sentenced last September to a 100-year prison term, following his conviction on seven counts relating to the production of child pornography and related offenses. Mariscal had traveled repeatedly over a seven-year period to Cuba and Ecuador, where he produced and manufactured child pornography, including videotapes of himself sexually abusing minors, some under the age of 12. More than 100 victims were filmed exposing their genitals and/or engaging in sexual activity with the defendant and at least two adult female co-conspirators. Mariscal further endangered these minors, because he is HIV-positive; thankfully, none of the identified victims has yet tested positive for HIV. After videotaping the children using a camcorder, the defendant imported the tapes, reproduced them onto CD-ROMS or VHS tapes in Miami, and distributed the CD-ROMs and VHS tapes throughout the United States by mail or Federal Express. Mariscal would advertise these items by mail, and in 2002, the child pornography sold for anywhere from $595.00 to $995.00 per item. Customers were also given the option of writing their own fantasy script. Mariscal's arrest has led to the prosecution of many of his customers across the country due to the coordinated efforts of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and CEOS.
RECENT LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN THE DEPARTMENT'S FIGHT AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION CRIMES
The Department of Justice deeply appreciates recent legislation that Congress has passed to combat child abuse and child exploitation crimes, such as the PROTECT Act. We have found that legislation extremely useful and have used it effectively, as shown by the following examples.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section 106 of the PROTECT Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §3559(e), imposes mandatory life imprisonment for a defendant convicted of a federal sex offense in which the victim is a minor, if the defendant has a prior sex conviction in which a minor was the victim, unless the sentence of death is imposed. In United States v. Albert J. Kappell, prosecuted in the Western District of Michigan, the defendant was sentenced in March 2004 to life imprisonment for his conviction on nine counts of sexual abuse of two young girls, ages six and three. The victims, who are Native Americans, are enrolled members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Kappell, a non-Indian, repeatedly abused the young girls, including with acts of penile and digital penetration, during a four-month period in which he lived with the girls' mother. Because Kappell had been previously convicted of sexual abuse against a minor in 1982, he was sentenced to a mandatory life term of imprisonment pursuant to this new sentencing provision of the PROTECT Act.
Section 101 of the PROTECT Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §3583(k), permits a term of supervised release of any number of years up to the life of the defendant for child exploitation crimes. In United States v. Larry N. Cole, prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas, the defendant was sentenced in January 2004 to more than six years in prison and court supervision for the rest of his life for possessing over 300 images of child pornography on several computers. A life term of supervised release was imposed under the PROTECT Act in recognition of the recidivist nature of Cole's conduct.
Section 105 of the PROTECT Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §2423(c), makes it a crime to travel in foreign commerce and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, regardless of whether that was the purpose of the travel. This is a critical improvement over the previous law, under which the government had to prove that the perpetrator traveled for the purpose of engaging in a sexual act with a minor. The maximum penalty for this new offense is 30 years' imprisonment. In United States v. Michael Lewis Clark, prosecuted in the Western District of Washington, United States citizen Michael Lewis Clark was arrested in June 2003 in Cambodia for sexually abusing two Cambodian boys, ages 10 and 13. Clark was charged with engaging in illicit sexual conduct after travel in foreign commerce. The case was the first such prosecution under the new provision of the PROTECT Act. Clark had flown to Cambodia in May 2003, but he had also spent considerable time in Cambodia over the previous five years. The investigation revealed that Clark targeted boys ranging from 10 to 18 years of age along the river front area of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and would pay the boys for engaging in sexual contact with him. Clark pled guilty and was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment. He currently has an appeal pending.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 2388 AND H.R. 2318
Both H.R. 2388 and H.R. 2318 would impose additional mandatory minimum sentences for child exploitation and sexual abuse crimes. The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum sentences in appropriate circumstances. In a way sentencing guidelines cannot, mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal behavior, determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to merit these penalties, by clearly forewarning the potential offender and the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing such offenses. Moreover, mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public safety. In the context of sexual abuse crimes against children, this can be particularly important. Finally, in cases involving multiple offenders, mandatory minimum sentences provide an indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest incentive for defendants to cooperate against the others who were involved in their criminal activity.
In addition, H.R. 2318 effectively would restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts to entertain a first petition for federal habeas corpus review, in cases involving the murder of a child, to the same grounds that now govern their ability to consider second or successive petitions for federal habeas corpus review filed by any state prisoner. Thus, in state cases involving the murder of a child, federal habeas courts would no longer be able to review any exhausted federal constitutional claim; rather, federal courts would only have jurisdiction to consider habeas claims based on (1) new rules of constitutional law that have been made retroactively applicable by the Supreme Court, or (2) newly discovered evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that, but for the existence of a constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense. Although we are currently analyzing this provision, we have two preliminary concerns.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, while we agree that those who murder children should be punished without undue delay, we note that other murderers would not be covered by this provision. We ask the Subcommittee to consider whether other categories of condemned murderers should be subject to accelerated federal habeas review as well. We also ask the Subcommittee to consider whether the laudable goal of accelerating habeas corpus review for child-killers would run the risk of diverting judicial resources so that the already-long delays in providing federal habeas review for other murderers, particularly those under sentences of death, may be inadvertently lengthened.
Second, we note that this provision would only cover habeas claims under Section 2254 and not claims for post-conviction relief under Section 2255. We ask the Subcommittee to consider whether it would be appropriate to consider applying the same procedures for child killers in federal custody.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the Department of Justice shares your goals of protecting children from violence and sexual exploitation and looks forward to working with you on H.R. 2388 and H.R. 2318. We deeply appreciate the legislative tools that Congress has already provided law enforcement in our fight against these awful crimes and your commitment to consider additional measures that would aid us in our efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. Attorney General Crist.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. CRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Scott. I want to thank Congressman Keller for his kind introduction and I want to say hello to my friend Congressman Feeney. On behalf of the State of Florida and the many State Attorneys General, I thank you for the opportunity to address a problem that is as horrific as it is pervasive. The problem of sex crimes against children has been a blight on society for far too long, but it seems to have exploded onto the national consciousness as a result of a series of recent high profile cases.
Sadly, several of these cases have occurred in my own State. I believe this is more a consequence of our State's appeal to newcomers than it is an indication of any systemic problem unique to Florida, but it has made us acutely aware of the complexities of the issue. Florida is home to some 34,000 registered sex offenders, approximately 5,000 of whom are classified as sexual predators. The odds are that in every neighborhood in every city, there is a sex offender living down the street. It is highly likely that every Floridian, and probably every American, drives past the home of a sex offender on a regular basis without even knowing it.
I believe it is no accident that our founding fathers stressed the importance of safety and security by placing in the very first line of the United States Constitution the mandate that the very purpose of our Government is to, ''ensure domestic tranquility.'' Little we do as public servants will really matter if we do not do something to prevent our most innocent citizens from falling victim to the unspeakable horrors committed by sex offenders and sex predators. The experts tell us that someone who has molested a child will do it again and again.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Child molesters are dangerous, and they will remain dangerous as long as they can roam unimpeded in our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches, our synagogues, and our playgrounds. To make a meaningful difference, I believe we will have to employ a multi-faceted strategy embracing a wide range of approaches, including prevention, education, tracking, and enforcement. Beginning with the tragic abduction and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in Sarasota only 16 months ago, Florida has taken numerous steps to protect children from the monsters who would prey upon them.
There is still much work to be done, but I believe these initiatives represent an important first start. The best way to eliminate sex crimes against children, of course, is to prevent them from happening in the first place. We may never be able to totally eliminate the predators who commit these deviant acts, so we must do what we can to keep young boys and girls from becoming their victims. In Florida, we have directed our prevention and education initiatives at both parents and children. One of our most important steps was taken 3 weeks ago with the help of an outstanding corporate citizen, Pitney Bowes. On May 17, Pitney Bowes' chairman and CEO Michael Critelli and I unveiled an enhanced State website that for the first time, it lets parents and other Floridians zero in on registered sex offenders who live nearby. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement maintains a database of 34,000 registered sex offenders and sexual predators, one of the largest of its kind in the Nation. For the past 10 years, a website maintained by that agency has allowed Floridians to search for sex offenders as well as predators. This has been an extremely useful service, but it was limited. Parents could find out which sex offender were registered to live in the same town or zipcode, but unless a parent was familiar with every street in that zipcode, it was not always possible to know just how close the offender might live.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now thanks to user-friendly software developed by Pitney Bowes and donated to the State of Florida, parents can find that out. When we announced the new system, we did a sample search to see if any registered sexual offenders lived near our State Capitol. We found out that within 3 miles, 96 sexual offenders resided. Thanks to our new website search parents and others throughout Florida will be able to pinpoint the addresses of these registered sex offenders. Our other program for children was launched last October when we introduced the Escape School program to Florida. At hour-long programs conducted at public schools throughout the State, we have had the opportunity to better empower children as to how to escape the possibility. As I said earlier, the case of Carlie Brucia which occurred in Sarasota 16 months ago, an 11-year-old girl being abducted from a carwash parking lot was played over and over again on national television. That was followed by a case that occurred including the Jessica Lunsford case where Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite has led the effort, along with Congressman Mark Foley, to try to stop those kinds of things from happening on a national level and I applaud their effort.
There was another case that got a lot less play. This occurred in Deltona, Florida, Volusia County. It affected 6 innocent Floridians who were beaten to death with baseball bats in the wee hours on August 6 of last year. Those cases involving Carlie Brucia, Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde in the Tampa Bay area where my family resides, and the 6 innocent Floridians in Deltona, Volusia County, Florida, all had a common theme and a common thread. The common thread was that each and every one of these cases had somebody who had already been in prison in Florida. They had served their time and gotten out, they had been placed on probation, given a second chance, been on the privilege of probation—it is a privilege that our criminal justice extends. They all violated probation. At the time they violated, they go before a judge, and the judge has to make a determination of whether or not that person should go back to jail or stay free.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regrettably, in each and every one of those cases, the judges decided to let them stay out. And in Sarasota, he saw Carlie Brucia, in Citrus County, Jessica Lunsford, in Hillsborough County, Sarah Lunde, and in Deltona, Volusia County, those six innocent Floridians. We must do more to make sure we lock these bad people up and protect the citizens of our State and our country.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, General Crist.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crist follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLIE CRIST
Good afternoon Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of the State of Florida and the many state attorneys general, I thank you for this opportunity to address a problem that is as horrific as it is pervasive.
The problem of sex crimes against children has been a blight on society for far too long, but it seems to have exploded onto the national consciousness as a result of a series of recent high-profile cases. Sadly, several of these cases have occurred in my own state. I believe this is more a consequence of our state's appeal to newcomers than it is an indication of any systemic problem unique to Florida, but it has made us acutely aware of the complexities of this issue.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Florida is home to some 34,000 registered sex offenders, approximately 5,000 of whom are classified as sexual predators. The odds are that in every neighborhood, in every city, there is a sex offender living down the street. It is highly likely that every Floridian—and probably every American—drives past the home of a sex offender on a regular basis without even knowing it.
I believe it was no accident that the Founding Fathers stressed the importance of safety and security by placing in the very first line of the U.S. Constitution the mandate that the very purpose of our government is ''to insure domestic tranquility.'' Little we do as public servants will really matter if we do not do something to prevent our most innocent citizens from falling victim to the unspeakable horrors committed by sex offenders and predators.
The experts tells us that someone who has molested a child will do it again and again. Child molesters are dangerous, and they will remain dangerous as long as they can roam unimpeded in our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches, our playgrounds.
To make a meaningful difference, I believe we will have to employ a multi-faceted strategy embracing a wide range of approaches including prevention and education, tracking and enforcement.
Beginning with the tragic abduction and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in Sarasota 16 months ago, Florida has taken numerous steps to protect children from the monsters who would prey on them. There is still much work to be done, but I believe these initiatives represent an important start.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
The best way to eliminate sex crimes against children, of course, is to prevent them from happening in the first place. We may never be able to totally eliminate the predators who commit these deviant acts, so we must do what we can to keep young boys and girls from becoming their victims.
In Florida, we have directed our prevention and education initiatives at both parents and children.
One of our most important steps forward was taken three weeks ago with the help of an outstanding corporate citizen, Pitney Bowes. On May 17, Pitney Bowes Chairman and CEO Michael Critelli and I unveiled an enhanced state website that for the first time lets parents and other Floridians zero in on registered sex offenders who live nearby.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement maintains a database of 34,000 registered sex offenders and sexual predators, one of the largest of its kind in the nation. For the past 10 years, a website maintained by that agency has allowed Floridians to search for sex offenders and predators.
This has been an extremely useful service, but it was limited. Parents could find out which sex offenders were registered to live in the same town or zip code. But unless a parent was familiar with every street in the zip code, it was not always possible to know just how close the offender lived.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, thanks to user-friendly software developed by Pitney Bowes and donated to the State of Florida, parents can type in their home address—or, if they prefer, their child's school address, church or any other place they choose—and see how many sex offenders live within one mile. If they wish, they can expand the search up to five miles.
The new system crosses zip code and city or county lines, so it lets you know if sex offenders or sexual predators live close by, even if they live in a different zip code or county. It will tell how far away the sex offender lives, and can even produce a map so parents can figure out alternate routes for their children to travel safely. With a few more clicks, an internet user can visit our state Department of Corrections web site and pull up a mug shot, prison history and other information about any sex offender they find in their neighborhood.
When we announced the new system, we did a sample search to see whether any registered sex offenders lived near the State Capitol in Tallahassee. Much to our surprise, we found that there are 96 sex offenders living within three miles of the Capitol—with the nearest one just three-tenths of a mile away.
Thanks to our new search website, parents and others throughout Florida will be able to pinpoint the addresses of registered sex offenders and predators, virtually anywhere in our state.
Two other important elements of our prevention efforts are aimed at the children themselves.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year our office placed a link on our home page for NetSmartz, an interactive educational safety resource that teaches kids and teens how to stay safer on the Internet. NetSmartz was put together by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and is aimed at children ages 5 to 17.
As adults, we all immediately recognize the risks to children associated with the Internet. But the harsh reality is that, despite our best efforts, children will explore the online world without an adult to supervise them. That is why it is especially important that children learn that people they first ''meet'' on the Internet should never be considered a friend. They must learn what kinds of questions and pictures are inappropriate, and to tell a trusted adult if they are ever approached online with such information.
NetSmartz offers helpful information through age-appropriate interactive lessons. It can reach children in a way most adults cannot. This makes it another valued facet of our efforts to use a combination of prevention and education, tracking and enforcement to stop sex offenders from threatening our children.
Our other program for children was launched last October when we introduced the Escape School program to Florida. At hour-long programs conducted at public schools throughout the state, experts teach children how to make smart, safe choices in potentially dangerous situations. We want children to know how to do whatever it takes to get away from someone who might harm them.
To date, our office has conducted 25 Escape School programs attended by some 4,669 Florida children and parents. We hope no Florida child is ever forced to rely on the skills taught at Escape School. But it is comforting to know that so many children have had the opportunity to learn the techniques, just in case.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TRACKING
The February 2004 murder of Carlie Brucia shocked the nation. Millions of Americans saw the horrifying security camera video of this precious 11-year-old girl being abducted from a parking lot, and all of Florida mourned when it was learned that Carlie had been killed.
That sadness turned to anger when it was learned that her accused killer was a man whose history showed a propensity for violent crimes. He had violated terms of his probation—but had not been reincarcerated for these violations.
The months that followed Carlie's murder brought reports of more terrible crimes against young Floridians by perpetrators who had histories of criminal violence.
These awful incidents came to a head with the murders earlier this year of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde. The men who confessed to abducting, raping and killing each girl were convicted sex offenders. The man who said he killed Jessica was a probation violator who registered with local authorities as required by law—but then moved to a mobile home 150 yards from Jessica's home without telling anyone.
Jessica's father, Mark Lunsford, is a true American hero. Just weeks after his beloved daughter was ripped from his life forever, this quiet, unassuming man was in Tallahassee promoting legislation to make sure no other Florida father had to endure the anguish he was still experiencing. The result was the Jessica Lunsford Act, which establishes longer prison sentences for criminals who sexually molest children and requires tracking devices once they do get out.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This measure could not have become law without the extraordinary efforts of Mark Lunsford, as well as ''America's Most Wanted'' host John Walsh—himself a Floridian whose son was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered. Governor Jeb Bush also deserves praise for quickly signing this bill into law.
As helpful as the Jessica Lunsford Act may be, I believe it does not go far enough to stop sex offenders from violating probation and victimizing more young children. Using ankle bracelets with GPS technology to track sex offenders will let us know where they are, but it will not prevent them from committing more crimes. The only way to make sure they do not ruin the lives of more young children is to keep them locked up in the first place.
We know the people who are committing these horrible crimes. They are people who already committed crimes. They are people who, at least in Carlie and Jessica's cases, violated the terms of their probation. To stop these people, I will continue pushing the Florida Legislature to change the law in order to require that violent felons who violate probation be returned directly to jail unless a judge holds a hearing and determines that the offender does not pose a danger to the community.
Tracking bracelets are good—but prison bars are better.
ENFORCEMENT
All indications are that Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde were careful, intelligent girls, yet they were still abducted from their own homes. There are some things that education programs simply will not prevent. Ultimately, our ability to limit the activities of sex offenders who prey on children will depend on enforcement and prosecution.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just last week, my office won a conviction against a 52-year-old man who tried to use an Internet chat room to lure a 13-year-old boy to his home to engage in sexual activity and to view child pornography. Unfortunately for the man, the 13-year-old boy turned out to be an undercover officer, and now this sex offender faces up to 75 years in prison.
Local law enforcement throughout Florida, and I am sure throughout the nation, has done a remarkable job responding in the wake of so many terrible incidents. Allow me to give you an example from the small North Florida town of Green Cove Springs, population about 5,600.
Police Chief Gail Russell made a decision that sex crimes against children would be a priority. In the past 18 months, the police department has arrested 14 'travelers' in cases where a child has left home or been targeted by an adult, via the Internet, to leave home. The police department has identified and referred 10 cases to other jurisdictions, one of which involved 20 potential child victims in other states. One computer seized through the department's efforts contained 3,000 pornographic images of children and 1,000 videos.
This is a clear example of what even a small police department can do when it makes sex crimes against children a priority. But they cannot do it alone. I am pleased that last month, the Florida Legislature agreed to establish a Cyber Crime Unit within the Attorney General's Office. This small but dedicated unit will target internet crimes against children and will work closely with local law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
We at the state level will do whatever we can to support these efforts. But in today's mobile and electronic society, sex crimes know no political boundaries. That is why we are so encouraged to see your subcommittee, and the entire Congress, giving serious consideration to national legislation to address this issue.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the aftermath of Carlie Brucia's death, Congresswoman Katherine Harris offered a significant proposal to create a national sex offenders registry. I enthusiastically support establishment of such a system, and offer the full assistance of my office to bring this to fruition. For a state like Florida, which attracts so many from other areas, a national registry would make it much easier for local law enforcement agencies to learn when sex offenders from other places move into our state.
I am also gratified by the strong commitment shown by other members of Florida's Congressional Delegation, especially Representatives Mark Foley and Ginny Brown-Waite, to finding workable solutions to this most difficult problem.
We also support the Department of Justice's work coordinating efforts to link various state offender databases. Short of a full-fledged nationwide registry, such a system of inter-connected state databases would be a meaningful help to local and state agencies. The Department's participation in joint local-state-federal operations, including two Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces in Florida, has been indispensable in bringing offenders to justice.
As I said earlier, we cannot rely on one single approach, or one single level of government, to successfully target sex crimes against children. We must maintain and expand prevention initiatives, tracking activities and enforcement efforts. We must fight the battle at the local level and the state level.
But in the end, the success of these efforts will depend on the overall coordination and resources that can come only through a nationwide commitment to wiping out this blight.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the well-being of American youth at stake, no amount of commitment can be considered too much.
I commend this subcommittee for its interest in this important issue, and I look forward to working with you as we craft meaningful national legislation to protect America's children.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this hearing and to help ensure that the legacies of Carlie Brucia, Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde and so many other innocent victims of sexual predators will serve to prevent other such tragedies in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. GREEN. Mrs. Fornoff, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF CAROL FORNOFF, MESA, ARIZONA, MOTHER OF A MURDERED CHILD
Mrs. FORNOFF. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My husband Roger and I are here today to tell you about our daughter Christy Ann Fornoff. Christy was our youngest daughter. She was a loving child, very gentle. She often seemed to make friends with the kids at school who weren't so popular. She was very dear to us. In 1984, our family was living in Tempe, Arizona, and Christy was 13-years-old. Christy Ann and her brother Jason both held jobs as news carriers for the Phoenix Gazette, a local newspaper. Roger and I believed that jobs like this would teach our children responsibility while also helping them earn a little money.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After dinner on Wednesday evening, May 9, 1984, both Christy Ann and Jason had been invited to go jumping on the trampoline. Jason went but Christy had just had a cast removed from her ankle. So instead, she went to collect on her newspaper's route at the apartment complex near our home. Christy delivered papers at the complex everyday. It was two, just two short blocks from our house. Nevertheless, it was getting dusk, so I went with her. She rode her brother's bike while I walked alongside with our little dog. At the first apartment that Christy visited, I was stopped by a neighbor who wanted to talk about our cute dog.
Christy went on to the next apartment alone, and I followed a few minutes later. When I got there, the bike was outside, but there was no Christy. I started calling her name, but there was no answer. Our dog started to get so nervous. After a few minutes I ran home and came back with my daughter's boyfriend. We went to the apartment and asked. They said Christy had been here, but she had left about 10 minutes ago. While I knew that Christy wouldn't leave her brother's bike, I ran home again. My husband had just arrived at home and I told him that Christy was missing. He immediately called the police and then went to the apartment complex and began knocking on doors. Outside of one apartment, people standing nearby told him, don't bother knocking on that door, that is the maintenance man and he is looking for Christy.
Shortly after, the maintenance man joined Roger in the search for Christy. That night, police helicopters with search lights examined every corner of our neighborhood. Our son drove up and down everywhere in the area on his motorcycle. Christy's newspaper collection book was found over a fence by the apartment complex but no one found Christy. Two days later, a policeman knocked on our door. Christy's body had been discovered wrapped in a sheet lying behind a trash dumpster in that apartment complex. We were absolutely devastated. We had began hoping against hope and couldn't believe that our beautiful daughter was dead. Christy's body was taken to a morgue so an autopsy could be performed.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On Sunday, which was Mother's Day, we were able to view Christy's body. Mother's Day has never been the same since. 10 days after Christy's body was found, the maintenance man at the apartment complex, the same man who had been looking for her that night, was arrested for her murder. Christy had been sexually assaulted and suffocated. There was blood, semen and hair on Christy's body that was consistent with that of the maintenance man. Vomit on Christy's face matched vomit in the maintenance man's closet. Fibers on Christy's body matched the carpet and a blanket in the man's apartment. And police found Christy's hair inside of the apartment. We knew who had killed our daughter. In 1985, the maintenance man was convicted of Christy's murder and sentenced to death.
The conviction was upheld in a lengthy opinion by the Arizona Supreme Court. The killer raised many more challenges but his last State appeals were finally rejected in 1992. By that time, we already felt that the case had been going on for a long time. It had been 7 years. We couldn't imagine that the killer would have any more challenges to argue. But in 1992, the killer filed another challenge to his conviction in the United States district court. That challenge then remained in that one court for over 7 years. Finally in November 1999, the district court dismissed the case.
Few years later the Federal Court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court for more hearings. Today, the case remains before that same Federal district court. It has now been over 21 years since Christy was murdered. By this fall the case will have been in the Federal courts for longer than Christy was ever alive. I cannot describe to you how painful our experience with the court system has been. I cannot believe that just one court took over 7 years to decide our case. We want to know will his conviction be thrown out? Will there be another trial? I cannot imagine testifying at a trial again. And would they even be able to convict this man again?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been 21 years. How many witnesses are still here. Is all the evidence even still available. Could this man one day be released? Could I run into him on the street, a free man, the man who assaulted and killed our daughter. The court has turned this case into an open wound for our family, a wound that has not been allowed to heal for 21 years. Why would we want a system that forces someone like me to relive my daughter's murder again and again and again.
My daughter's killer already litigated all of the challenges to his case in the State courts. Why should we let him bring all the same legal claims again for another round of lawsuits in the Federal courts? Why should this killer get a second chance? My daughter never had a second chance.
When you and your colleagues are writing laws, Mr. Chairman, please think about people like me. Please think about the fact that every time there is another appeal, another ruling, another hearing, I am forced to think about my daughter's death. Every time I am forced to wonder if only Christy hadn't had the cast on her ankle. If only she could have gone on the trampoline that evening, she would still be alive today. Every time I hear a helicopter, I am terrified. I think of the police helicopters searching for Christy on the night that she disappeared. Every time I hear a motorcycle, I think of my son searching for Christy. Every time that the courts reopen this case, I am forced to wonder, why didn't I go with Christy to that second apartment. Why did I let that neighbor stop me to talk?
Every time I am forced to think about how scared my little girl must have been when she died. I urge you Mr. Chairman, to do what you can to fix this system. And my family and I have forgiven our daughter's murderer, but we cannot forgive a justice system that would treat us this way.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mrs. Fornoff. I appreciate you coming here and the courage it took for you to tell your story.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Fornoff follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL FORNOFF
CF0001.eps
CF0002.eps
CF0003.eps
CF0004.eps
CF0005.eps
CF0006.eps
CF0007.eps
CF0008.eps
CF0009.eps
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CF0010.eps
CF0011.eps
CF0012.eps
CF0013.eps
CF0014.eps
CF0015.eps
CF0016.eps
CF0017.eps
CF0018.eps
CF0019.eps
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Rhodes, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN RHODES, ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDER, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF MONTANA
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I have been a Federal public defender in the District of Montana for over 7 years. Before that I was a State public defender where I specialized in serving as a guardian for teenage rape victims. In my current job as a Federal defender, I have defended hundreds and hundreds of individuals accused of Federal crimes, including Indians from six of Montana's seven Indian reservations. I represent my clients from their initial appearances before United States magistrate judges through the conclusion of their cases, including appeals.
The Major Crimes Act brings reservation offenses normally prosecuted in State courts into Federal courts, including crimes of violence such as homicide, arson, assault, and sex offenses. My practice includes defending Indians in Major Crimes Act cases, particularly in assault and reservation sex offenses. First and most importantly, I want to emphasize that although Native Americans are not named in these bills, the bills will have the greatest impact on reservation communities. At least half of the Federal sex abuse cases arise on reservations. Indian communities believe that disparate punishment results from Federal prosecution of reservation offenses. The statistics show that they are right. Compared to punishment for the same crimes prosecuted in State courts, Indians prosecuted in Federal Court receive longer sentences. The Native American advisory group convened by the Sentencing Commission to look into the impact of the guidelines in Federal sentencing on reservations concluded that Federal sentences for sexual abuse and assault are longer than those for offenses in State court.
H.R. 2388 would impose long, mandatory minimum sentences that the affected tribal communities, including the victims, may not support. For instance, under the bill, if two teenage boys got in a fight and one of them was under 18, the person who was over 18 could end up doing at least 10 years in prison. Many of the reservation offenses are committed within the family and all of them are committed in small towns and rural areas.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The tribal communities are well aware of the offenses that happen on their reservations and the resulting Federal prosecutions. The tribes should be consulted regarding the appropriate punishment for these crimes, particularly because of the tribal emphasis on rehabilitation and community healing. I thus recommend that the Congress convene hearings in Indian country and apply what is learned from the tribes that are going to be impacted by this legislation to deter sex offenses and crimes of violence. My personal experience teaches that the current penalties and guideline calculations achieve the severe punishment that is appropriate for the most culpable defendants.
In April 2003, Congress enacted the PROTECT Act, which dramatically increased the punishment for sex offenders by imposing mandatory minimums, a two-strikes-you-are-out provision, enhancing the guidelines and limiting judicial discretion. In October 2003 the Sentencing Commission increased sex offense punishments in the guidelines consistent with the PROTECT Act. In November 2004, the Commission again dramatically increased punishment for sex offenses. These laws direct and require harsh sentences when appropriate. Even before the PROTECT Act, one of my reservation clients received a 33-year sentence in a sex offense case. Under current guidelines, his sentence would likely be longer.
At the other extreme, a child pornography client of mine prosecuted before the PROTECT Act has successfully his term—has completed his term of supervised release, graduated from sex offender treatment, and is living with his wife and two children and working. Under current law, he would still be serving a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. Under the proposed bill, he would be serving a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence. Unnecessarily imprisoning such citizens punishes their families, their communities, and the taxpayers and erodes the respect that anchors our criminal justice system. That is the unintended consequence of otherwise well intentioned mandatory minimums.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Such measures are not necessary when severe punishments already exist. We have attached to our written testimony excerpts from five studies. The first study dated November 2003 is a report from the Bureau of Justice statistics. It studied over 270,000 prisoners released by 15 States in 1994. The study found that, compared to non-sex offenders, sex offenders had a lower overall re-arrest rate. The other four studies document that sex offender treatment reduces recidivism by more than half. We request that you direct the Bureau of Prisons to establish more than just one sex offender treatment program.
As you may know, currently, there is only one program for sex offenders in the entire Bureau of Prison system and that is in Butner, North Carolina. That is particularly problemmatic for my clients who are from small towns or rural ranch areas and certainly have not been very far from their home, let alone across the country. There is a demand for treatment that brings us here today and that is why the Bureau of Prisons should be directed by yourselves to meet that demand and establish more treatment programs. Finally, the availability of habeas corpus review exonerated 159 wrongly convicted individuals as documented by the Innocence Project. Many of those exonerated spent decades in prison.
Their life was at issue. Finality, while important, must never come at the price of certainty. Taking someone's life is a hollow virtue without certainty. That is what the great writ protects. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee. I and the Federal public and community defenders have a wealth of experience in Federal sentencing generally and in the sentencing of Native Americans particularly. We would be happy to answer any questions or respond to any requests for further information.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhodes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN RHODES
JR0001.eps
JR0002.eps
JR0003.eps
JR0004.eps
JR0005.eps
JR0006.eps
JR0007.eps
JR0008.eps
JR0009.eps
JR0010.eps
JR0011.eps
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JR0012.eps
JR0013.eps
JR0014.eps
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Rhodes, and thanks to all of our witnesses for coming here and testifying today. I will begin the questioning. Ms. Parsky, you note that mandatory minimum penalties can be an appropriate tool. Can you elaborate this in the context of child exploitation and sex abuse crimes.
Ms. PARSKY. Certainly. One of the things that is particularly useful about mandatory minimum sentences is that they serve the important purpose of deterrence and they send a very strong message not only to potential offenders, but also to the public at large that the community takes these crimes really seriously and that, if they are caught and if they commit this conduct, that they will be spending a very long time in jail. And, in addition, one other element that is important to keep in mind about mandatory minimums that is particularly pertinent to the sexual abuse crimes is that they incapacitate particularly dangerous individuals and protect our communities from those individuals being on the streets. And that is important to keep in mind when you are looking at mandatory minimums in this context.
Mr. GREEN. General Crist, can you describe how the Florida Sex Offender Registry works and what the role is that you see in coordinating in these areas with Federal law enforcement?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CRIST. I wanted to make a correction. I think when I was describing the four cases that I did I wanted to make sure I said that the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of each of those crimes was a probation violator. The way the registry works, people have to register, and have their names attached once they are found guilty. Let me give you a more precise description. To be a subject of a Florida sexual offender registry, a person must qualify and be designated as such. There are three ways to be designated a sex offender in Florida. The first is to commit a qualified crime in the State, two, commit a crime in another jurisdiction that meets Florida sex offender criteria, or three, be designated a sex offender in another jurisdiction. Someone designated as a sex offender must register with the State within 48 hours of establishing residence. When registering, the offender must provide his or her name, Social Security number, physical characteristics, residence, employment or school information, and fingerprints.
Within 48 hours of registering, sex offenders must also register with the driver's license office, identify himself as a sex offender, and obtain a license or identification card. They must maintain this registration for life unless they receive a full pardon or the conviction is set aside.
Mr. GREEN. Mrs. Fornoff, in your written testimony, you give an interesting statistic: Nearly 100 of the death row inmates in California have been there for over 20 years. Have you been in touch with any of the families of the victims of those cases? And if so, can you tell us what you have learned from them?
Ms. FORNOFF. I have not been in touch with any of those particular victims. In fact, I wrote a letter to support the family of Jessica. I happened to be in Florida at the time and of course it knocks us out when some other little girl has been taken. And I try to write a letter to the family and tell them we have gotten through, we will never get over the death of our child. And we work with parents of murdered children in Arizona. And so I have been supportive of them in that way.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. Ms. Parsky, you heard Mr. Rhodes' testimony, his position that these laws have a disparate impact on offenders, Native American offenders. Do you have any response to that in terms of the percentage of crimes or victims that might come from those areas?
Ms. PARSKY. I don't have particular numbers with me today, but there are a couple of points that are important to keep in mind with respect to some of his arguments. The first is that I think we need to keep in mind that the victims on Indian reservations need the same amount of protection as the victims anywhere else. And the Federal Government in its enforcement of its laws and the Federal legislature in its creation of laws sends a powerful message to the Nation about what conduct we find reprehensible. We at the Department of Justice deal with a lot of different Federal laws that protect children.
I mentioned child pornography, but also travel for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with children, sex tourism, other laws that involve interstate or foreign commerce or Federal property. So all of those laws are something we are looking to enforce and enforce in a way that is going to send a strong deterrent message to the community.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Scott, questions?
Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Parsky, in H.R. 2388, it talks about Federal crime of violence. What is that? What is a Federal crime of violence. Page 2, line 3 of the bill.
Ms. PARSKY. As I indicated in my written testimony, the Department is still taking a look at the legislation that has been tabled here today, and we don't have a position. This is not an Administration bill, so I can't tell you what was intended by the language that is in the bill here.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. You are not testifying in support of H.R. 2388?
Ms. PARSKY. Our position is we are still reviewing it and we are anxious to work with the Committee to provide legislation that is going to have an important effect in this area.
Mr. SCOTT. Are you testifying in favor of H.R. 2388?
Ms. PARSKY. We don't have a position yet.
Mr. SCOTT. Federal crime of violence is not a term of art for which you know the definition?
Ms. PARSKY. I am not in a position to testify here today to as to what was the intent of the definition in the bill.
Mr. SCOTT. If it included fist fights under line 23, fist fights involving school yard fist fights in which there are no injuries, 10 years mandatory minimum isn't the kind of thing you are testifying on behalf of today?
Ms. PARSKY. The purpose of my testimony today is to let you know that we are very supportive of strong legislation in this area, that we do support mandatory minimums in appropriate circumstances, and that we are anxious to work with this Committee to craft appropriate legislation here.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. You indicated that mandatory minimums create a deterrence?
Ms. PARSKY. That's correct.
Mr. SCOTT. Do you have any studies to support that statement?
Ms. PARSKY. I don't have studies with me, but I can tell you we would be happy to go back and look for some that would address that issue.
Mr. SCOTT. You're aware that the Judicial Conference categorizes mandatory minimums as a violation of common sense?
Ms. PARSKY. I'm not aware of that quotation.
Mr. SCOTT. Every time we consider a bill that has a mandatory minimum in it, the Federal Judicial Conference, Chief Justice Rehnquist presiding, writes us a letter to remind us that mandatory minimums—because if it is the appropriate sentence—it can be imposed, and if it doesn't make any sense at all, then it has to be imposed anyway, and, therefore, mandatory minimums often violate common sense.
Mr. GREEN. Is that a question?
Mr. SCOTT. It's a quote from the letter of the Judicial Conference. How does the child pornography part of the other bill—H.R. 2318 doesn't change substantive law, it just changes the penalties, is that right?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PARSKY. That's how I read it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Crist, for these cases that you mentioned, do you have any indication that State laws are not sufficient to deal with the cases that you have recited?
Mr. CRIST. Simply by the fact that they have happened, I would answer in the affirmative.
Mr. SCOTT. Sorry.
Mr. CRIST. I said simply by the fact that they occurred, I would answer yes. They are insufficient. I think they are getting better.
Mr. SCOTT. How much more time would they get under the bill than under your Florida law?
Mr. CRIST. Under your bill?
Mr. SCOTT. Under the bill.
Mr. CRIST. I don't know what the time frame would be that would be different. We are trying to encourage even more severe legislation, more appropriate legislation in Florida and would encourage you to do the same in Washington.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Could you remind me what penalties were imposed on the cases that you mentioned.
Mr. CRIST. In each of those cases, the individuals that were charged with the crime were out on probation at the time. They were free.
Mr. SCOTT. And what do they get under Florida law and what would they get under the bill?
Mr. CRIST. The new Jessica Lunsford Act that we just passed does have a minimum mandatory, and that would be 25 to 50 years.
Mr. SCOTT. How many of those cases that you recited would be in Federal jurisdiction?
Mr. CRIST. I don't know that any of them.
Mr. SCOTT. So this bill wouldn't make any difference at all?
Mr. CRIST. I didn't say that either. They might.
Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Parsky, if there is Federal jurisdiction on these cases, is there concurrent State jurisdiction for prosecution in these cases, in any cases for which there would only be Federal jurisdiction?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PARSKY. I think it is hard to answer that question, because it really is quite fact-specific. It depends on the particular statute. These two bills address a number of Federal statutes, some of which might involve conduct that crosses over State line. There would be some conduct in each State that potentially could be prosecuted by the State but there would also be an interstate travel aspect that would bring it under Federal law.
Mr. SCOTT. Does that mean that there is State jurisdiction in just about every one of those cases?
Ms. PARSKY. It is hard to say. There are several different statutes implicated. And some of the statutes may involve both State violations and Federal violations and some statutes it may be limited to Federal.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Lungren, questions.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus on the habeas corpus aspect of this. Mr. Rhodes, you made a statement that the report you talked about exonerated a number of people. I would like to correct the record, it didn't exonerate them, which means innocence. For whatever reason, including finding technicalities in those particular situations, their particular sentences or convictions were overturned.
And I appreciate your testimony, but I am tired for the last 25 years of hearing people talk about exoneration or innocence when that is not the case. When I was attorney general of the State of California, we probably handled more habeas cases than any office in the country. Not only because we are the largest attorney general's office, but because we happen to be in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is famous for its judicial activity and its reversal.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For one term, I remember the Supreme Court reversed 21 out of 22 cases from the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Fornoff, when we usually focus on these things, we as lawyers focus on the fact that there are specific bases that will allow the Federal Court to come in and so forth. And you heard some mention that some people were exonerated 20 years thereafter. You have brought to us the testimony of the other side of the fact, which are the family members who sit there and wait and wait and wait and wait.
In 1992, I was at San Quentin when we had the first execution in 26 years of Robert Alton Harris, who had murdered two teenagers. Wasn't sexual. It was just plain meanness. He laughed as he killed them. He told one kid to stand like a man and take it and then later on, ate their half eaten hamburgers and laughed at his brother who wasn't able to do it. Robert Alton Harris, who had gotten a short-term sentence for an earlier killing, who had raped in prison and had been out a short period of time when he murdered these individuals.
And that night, the Ninth Circuit seriatim had habeas after habeas after habeas granted for stays of execution four times, the only time in the history of the United States. It so offended the idea of justice that the United States Supreme Court withdrew jurisdiction in that case for all Federal courts except themselves.
That has only happened one time in the history of the Nation and that was that night. And the reason we have tried to reform habeas corpus is because as Mr. Rehnquist has said, the jury in our system is supposed to be the main event, not a second chance Monday morning quarterbacking by Federal courts 20 years thereafter who didn't have an opportunity to see the witnesses testify. And, if you believe in our jury system where you have juries who actually have the opportunity to see witnesses and be able to see them as they testify and make a judgment as to whether they are saying something that is honest or not, you understand what we are talking about when we have a distortion of the system.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With habeas corpus, which assumes that the Federal courts somehow have greater wisdom than the State courts. I can never understand it. We had a Federal judge in California who became the chief justice of the California Supreme Court and suddenly because he no longer had the Federal robes but had the State robes, he wasn't as wise as these Federal judges who 20 years thereafter loved to have these hearings.
I have been there and seen these evidentiary hearings when they bring psychiatrists on 20 years after the event to give us an idea of what they think the person was thinking about 20 years before when the person performed the terrible act. Let's be serious about what we're talking about here in terms of habeas reform. I'll grant you Mr. Rhodes when a case is set aside it is set aside for a reason, but that does not equal innocence. And frankly, it is in my judgment misleading to suggest that we have saved people from dire straits because they weren't guilty, when, in fact, it was set aside for various reasons.
I would just ask you, Ms. Parsky, you have raised some concern in your written statement about the habeas provisions that are contained in the bill before us, suggesting that by limiting it to those who murder children, it might run the risk of diverting judicial resources in a way that Federal habeas review for other murders might inadvertently be lengthened.
To me, that is not a criticism of the bill so much as a suggestion that maybe we ought to look at broader habeas reform. Is that the position of the Justice Department?
Ms. PARSKY. Well, as I indicated, we are still in the process of reviewing the bill, but we had hoped to at least provide some suggestions for things that the Committee might want to consider, and that was one of the points we thought should be considered; is that we certainly acknowledge that child murderers are particularly heinous offenders and that they should be looked at carefully, but that there are also other heinous offenders that are currently in custody.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so the only point of that comment was to bring it to the attention of the Committee so that you may consider that. Likewise, with the second point that we made, was just to bring the issue to the attention of the Committee, if that in fact was——
Mr. LUNGREN. The concern I have——
Mr. GREEN. The gentleman's time has expired. He may finish his point.
Mr. LUNGREN. The concern I have is this: When my office worked with the Congress a decade ago to get the reforms of habeas corpus, we got little, very little, support from the Justice Department at that time. In part because it really is a problem affecting State court convictions, and we didn't get the attention from the Justice Department at that time because that was not in their bailiwick.
All I am asking, does this Justice Department understand that even though these are not cases from Federal Court, these are cases originating in State court convictions, we need the assistance of the Justice Department in understanding the concerns people like Mr. Crist have when we are dealing with these cases? That is my only point.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Feeney.
Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all the witnesses' testimony. The gentleman from California focused on habeas. I'd like to focus on minimum mandatories and sentencing guidelines.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think my Attorney General put it very good, that convicted pedophiles that are a danger to their community are well covered by ankle bracelets, but we are better off if they are behind bars. In his testimony, he says that.
Mr. Rhodes talked about the guidelines as part of the PROTECT Act, and you refer, on page 7 and 8 of your testimony, to what has been referred to by Senator Kennedy and others as the Feeney amendment that talks about making it more difficult to depart downwards and give out lenient sentences for people preying on children in Federal offenses.
And by the way, I'm glad that Feeney is finally known as a noun, other than referring to a human being. I look forward to it one day being a verb, you know, like he or she got Feenied.
But the problem with Feeney is that after Fanfan and Booker, which were some of the most nonsensical opinions I have ever read by our Supreme Court, nobody knows what the status of the guidelines are. And as you point out on page 8 of your testimony, the downward departures under Feeney are limited and have to be spelled out in the guidelines. We don't know if the guidelines are anything other than mere suggestions, and we have got some courts deviating downwards on a 2 percent basis; in other courts, some Federal crimes, deviating downward as much as 62 percent of the time. So there is little or no uniformity from one jurisdiction to another, often from one court to another, and it is a big problem.
After Booker and Fanfan, where, by the way, only two of the nine Justices said the guidelines themselves were unconstitutional per se, the five justices that threw out the guidelines only had a majority because of the situation where greater sentences are given without jury involvement. Scalia and Thomas, for example, think the guidelines themselves are constitutional.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But then the court went on in the remedial phase with a different five-member majority and totally threw out the guidelines as being anything other than mere suggestions to Federal courts.
So, Mr. Rhodes, much of your argument, matter of fact the whole basis of your argument in point three, the sentencing guidelines reflect the seriousness of the crimes. To the extent that we don't know what the status of the guidelines are, how can they be a deterrence in any way, shape, or form, let alone protect people, if the Supreme Court has now said that the guidelines, specifically the Feeney amendment, designed to protect children, are not mandatory in any way, shape, or form?
Mr. RHODES. First——
Mr. FEENEY. You don't like minimum mandatories. You like the guidelines, other defense lawyers didn't. The guidelines are now almost meaningless.
Mr. RHODES. First, the Booker and Fanfan decisions did not address the Feeney amendment or the PROTECT Act. In fact, conspicuous by its absence is there was no reference in any of the opinions to 18 USC 3553(b)2.
Mr. FEENEY. Well, that's true, but they addressed the whole issue of guidelines, which is largely what your testimony regarding the PROTECT Act and Feeney relates to, the guidelines. And the guidelines are in a state of real limbo. I think everybody would acknowledge that right now.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RHODES. The decisions addressed the guidelines for all offenses other than sex offenses. Now, there is an issue playing out in the district courts and the court of appeals as to whether Booker and Fanfan should also be applied to sex offenses and, in those cases, whether the guidelines should be advisory.
Even with the guidelines being advisory following the Booker and Fanfan decisions, I believe the impact of the Feeney amendment is still being felt and is being effective in Federal sentencing.
Mr. FEENEY. If I can, I appreciate that, and maybe you will have time to elaborate in the second round, but, Ms. Parsky, Mr. Scott, I think, is correct on two points. Number one, we don't know whether or not there is real deterrence in this type of crime. One of the reasons people don't underreport their income to the IRS is that they are deterred. But to the extent that these are crimes that people really cannot help themselves, deterrence may not work. But separation from society works, and society, in my view, has a right to retribution. So there are at least three reasons for minimum mandatories, especially if the guidelines don't work.
And with respect to Mr. Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference position that minimum mandatories defy common sense, can you tell us your opinion whether or not some of the lenient decisions handed out by our Federal judges and the effect that they have on repeat perpetrators that Attorney General Crist and Mrs. Fornoff referred to, does it make common sense to have judges be the ultimate arbiter of whether or not a pedophile should be given a second chance in society in each and every case?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PARSKY. I think there may have been a few questions in there, but I'll address a couple of points quickly. The first, with respect to what kind of impact mandatory——
Mr. FEENEY. When the clock turns yellow, you get as many questions in as possible.
Ms. PARSKY. With respect to what effect mandatory minimums have in the Federal system, I can tell you that there are many areas where, when a particular Federal district starts taking cases and making them Federal, you hear about the impact on the community, because there can be very stiff penalties because there is truth in sentencing, because there have been these sentencing guidelines that provide for determinant sentencing. And that's something that's been a very important tool in order for us to really bring down crime rates to one of the lowest points in, I think, 20 years. And mandatory minimums are a big part of that because we need a way to assure that consistency.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, does that lowest crime rate in 20 years relate to offenses against children?
Ms. PARSKY. I don't know exactly what the breakdown is, but I can get that for you. I think it's a general crime rate.
Mr. GREEN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Keller.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for the Attorney General, who is out of the room right now, but I will direct my question to Mrs. Fornoff, and I'll just boil it all down for you.
We have a fork in the road here in Congress. The issue is what to do about child sex-offenders who repeatedly molest children. Do we protect other kids by locking these child predators away in a prison cell for at least 30 years? Or do we coddle these criminals by providing them with more money for rehabilitation and treatment and allow a judge to have the discretion to let them out of prison after 6 months or a year?
Some of those in the lock-them-up camp, such as myself, believe that that is the only way to protect children. Under existing law, if you are convicted of aggravated sexual abuse for children, you can be sentenced from zero years to life. Under this bill, there would be a 30-year mandatory minimum. Under the new Florida law, there would be a 25-year mandatory minimum.
The other side, as articulated by Mr. Scott and one of the panelists, is that philosophically divergent scholars and liberal Berkeley law professors disagree with us.
Let me ask you: Do you have a position as to what camp you are in, as someone who has been through this tragedy?
Mrs. FORNOFF. Yes. Yes, I do.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KELLER. What is your position?
Mrs. FORNOFF. I do not believe that pedophiles can be back on our streets. I believe they need to be locked up. Because I do not believe that it has been proven that you can help them.
Mr. KELLER. Thank you.
Ms. Parsky, let me direct that question to you. I know Justice isn't taking a formal position on this. Do you have any reason to believe that, if we only spent more money on rehabilitation and treatment, that we would have repeated child molesters get out of prison and go on to lead a perfectly normal life without any risk to our young people?
Ms. PARSKY. What our approach to this problem has been is that we need to apply every available tool to try to prevent the problem. In some appropriate circumstances, preventive and rehabilitative services may be appropriate, but you also need to have very stiff penalties. And you need to have the ability to put people behind bars for long periods of time when they clearly pose a risk to the community.
So we have tried to approach this from all different angles so that we are providing the most for our communities in terms of protection, in terms of punishment, and in terms of deterrence.
Mr. KELLER. As you look at this bill and decide, as the Justice Department looks at this bill and decides what they think of the merits, do you understand the concern that Congress has that under the current penalty for aggravated sexual abuse, the crime can be sentenced at zero to life; that we're a little uncomfortable with that discretion for a judge?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PARSKY. As I've said, we are taking the entire bill into consideration, but I certainly understand the need in this area for consistency and fair but harsh punishments.
Mr. KELLER. Right.
Mr. Rhodes, you have the hardest job here today, and I am not going to get up here and prance around with any hard questions, but one of the things you mentioned is you cite some sort of recidivism statistic. And I just have to tell you, as someone from Florida who has lived through this tragedy in the past few months, I don't think those statistics are going to give any comfort to the parents of Jessica Lunsford or Sarah Lunde, who just had their children abducted, raped, and killed by people who had done it before.
Can you understand the frustration Congress has with that position?
Mr. RHODES. Certainly. That is why I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony I used to be the guardian for teenage rape victims, girls who were typically groomed by their stepfathers for sexual relations. So I know that side of the situation.
But I also know that I have many clients who are convicted sex offenders who are living successfully in the community. To me, it doesn't make sense for them or the communities to lock them up forever, because that doesn't seem to be justice. And it doesn't do them any favors, and I don't believe it does the community any favors.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I, again, emphasize the aggravated sexual abuse and the aggravated sexual contact cases come off of reservations overwhelmingly. And I think it is imperative that Congress consult the tribes and the communities to see what they think is best.
Mr. KELLER. If you had a three-time child molester live next door to you, who had had the appropriate rehabilitation and treatment, would you be comfortable leaving your little girl alone with him?
Mr. RHODES. I can honestly say one of my clients, who was convicted of child pornography, just got out of prison. My wife is pregnant, if he moved next door to us, that would be fine by me.
I would also add, I mentioned in response to some earlier questions that the PROTECT Act provisions, many of them still are very effective in Federal sentencing, in particular the two-strikes-you're-out provision at 18 USC 3559(e). Also, in the guidelines, there is a variation of the two-strikes-you're-out-provision at section 4(b)1.5.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent just to ask one question to Mr. Crist, who was not here for my questioning?
Mr. GREEN. Without objection.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Crist, the issue before us is, what do we do with these repeated child sex offenders? Do we lock them up in a prison, or do we instead give them more money for treatment and rehabilitation and allow a judge to have the discretion to let them out after 6 months or 1 year?
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You outlined in your testimony the tragedy of the killings of the 9-year-old girl, Jessica Lunsford, and the 13-year-old, Sarah Lunde. Can you elaborate on the criminal histories and sex offender status of the two men charged with those heinous crimes?
Mr. CRIST. Yes. In both of those cases, the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator had a history of violence. It seems to me, and what we have tried to propose in Florida, and certainly would be encouraged to do here, is along the lines of what I know both you and Congressman Feeney believe in; that is we need to do first things first, and that is to protect our citizens.
I mean, they had violent histories. They had served their time. They had, in essence, paid their debt to society and gotten out and been placed on probation, but then they violated the privilege of probation. Some would argue that it was minor, but nevertheless violated. At that point, we knew that something was going wrong. They went before the judge. The judge had the opportunity to make one of two decisions: Let them continue on that privilege and roam the neighborhoods of our State, or have the opportunity to have them reincarcerated to protect the citizens of our State.
Unfortunately, they chose the former. They decided to let them stay out. We in the Attorney General's Office this year proposed legislation that in essence would have said they had to go back to jail if they violated the second chance given to them by our criminal justice system, in order to do the first thing that is in the first line of the Constitution: To insure domestic tranquility—to protect people, to make sure that law-abiding citizens are afforded the protection that they deserve and expect. And that really is the whole purpose to have Government in the first place.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think their backgrounds coupled with what the solutions can be in addition to the Feeney amendment, to what Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite has done, Congresswoman Katherine Harris and Mark Foley and so many others from Florida—because of the Florida experience, if you will, I think we have probably a heightened interest and concern about what has happened.
I appreciate the question.
Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Waters has joined us. Questions, please.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I am sorry I could not be here earlier, but I do commend you for having this hearing. This is a problem that I think most Americans are absolutely pained about, what appears to be the growing abuse of children. And even though I am opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing, and I think we are taking all discretion away from judges to make decisions and to know all the circumstances and to take them into consideration. If I ever was to support mandatory minimum sentencing, it would be in this area.
But I want to raise a question of Ms. Parsky, and this is going to be a very sensitive question. I am concerned about those people who know about crimes against children, these sexual abuse cases, who do not seem to have a responsibility to report what they know, particularly concerned about the organized church and the fact that we are hearing over and over again that the hierarchy in the Catholic Church. For example, have known about abuses, and they have transferred priests from one parish to another parish, and this has been going on for years.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is a subject that people don't like to touch. They don't like to talk about it, but I do. I want to talk about it. What is the responsibility of the head of the organized religion in a supervisory or managerial role, who knows about the abuse, sexual abuse of children, and they do not report it to the authorities, they do not report it to the justice system at all, they simply transfer the abuser to another location? What do we have in law to protect young children that are in these situations?
Ms. PARSKY. Well, I appreciate your question, because I think part of what brings us here today is a sense of community responsibility; that it's a Federal responsibility; that it's a State responsibility; and that those who are in religious organizations or any other type of organization also have a responsibility to protect our children.
I can't speak to the different State laws that might apply to that kind of situation. I can point you to 18 U.S.C. Section 2258, which penalizes a failure to report a child abuse crime if there is someone who is engaged in a professional capacity or activity, be it on Federal lands or in a federally-operated facility. But in addition, I would assume that there are many States that have many other types of reporting requirements for those who are in some sort of professional capacity where they have an additional responsibility.
Ms. WATERS. So does this not cover—this law does not cover the church?
We have another case that was just revealed to us that you may know about, just a few days ago, about an operation that's been going on for some time in a church where children are being sexually abused. It was just revealed last week. I believe it was in the national media. Are you familiar with that?
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PARSKY. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
Ms. WATERS. Okay. Well, let me just say that the law you pointed to does not in any way cover what I am attempting to describe. The law does not cover the cases that we all heard about in the Catholic Church.
Ms. PARSKY. Since I'm not familiar with the circumstances you are describing—this is a particular Federal statute. But I would also urge you to look to State law for some of those circumstances.
Ms. WATERS. Let me ask, in addition to all of the concerns that we have, as we look at creating mandatory minimums, is there anyone else concerned about sexual abuse of children by organized religion or any other organizations that people in supervisory or managerial positions keep secret and do not report to the law? Anyone else concerned about that?
Mrs. FORNOFF. Excuse me, I am.
I'm Carol Fornoff, and I'm a parent and a grandparent. And in our State of Arizona, we have had so many of these cases. And the laws weren't written, I guess, then. But now, I know, as far as the church, the Catholic Church, they have really stepped up to the plate, and I believe that it will not happen again. But it is a sorrowful thing that it did.
Ms. WATERS. You mean that there is something that happened inside the church where they are taking responsibility. But you don't know of anything in your State? Have they produced any new State laws?
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. FORNOFF. I believe they have, because our bishop was just taken out of the bishopric because of ignoring the priest that had done these things.
Ms. WATERS. Did he go to jail?
Mrs. FORNOFF. He did not. He is not in jail.
Ms. WATERS. Just stripped of the title.
Mrs. FORNOFF. Yes.
Ms. WATERS. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentlewoman.
Again, I thank all the witnesses for coming and testifying today, as well as all those who have attended the hearing. Thank you very much.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I understand you are not going to have another round of questions, but I would like to alert Ms. Parsky that we'll be asking for a prison impact statement on the legislation, pursuant to the code section that allows us to get a prison impact statement, and would appreciate it if she would try to conduct a cost-benefit analysis comparing the cost and benefit of the cost and benefit to the rehabilitation programs that they have at one prison on dealing with child sexual offenders.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. And to that end, let me say, in order to ensure a full record and out of consideration of the important issues that have been testified to today, the record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions that a Member wants to submit, should be submitted within that same 7-day period.
This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 2318, the ''Protection Against Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 2005,'' and also H.R. 2388, the ''Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005.''
Again, I thank everyone for their cooperation and attention, and the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT C. ''BOBBY'' SCOTT, RANKING MEMBER SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY HEARING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual, every two years, we pontificate about crimes against children and dramatically increasing federal sentences. We are doing so despite the fact that crimes against children prosecuted in federal court constitute a very small percentage of such crimes and represent none of the horrendous crimes against children that have been in the media in recent months. There is no evidence that federal prosecutions of crimes against children has a significant impact on these horrendous state crimes against children, nor that either state or federal laws for crimes against children are too lenient. Indeed, we recently dramatically increased federal sentences for crimes against children in the PROTECT Act. We have not had time for enough cases to be sentenced under these increases to even evaluate their effect, if any, before we are back again proposes more draconian increases in federal sentences.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are moving forward in dramatically increasing federal sentences in the worst possible way - through greatly increased mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences only affect those whose offense or role in an offense warrant a less severe sentence, since those who warrant more already get more under the sentencing guidelines. I call attention to the recommendations released today by a group of bi-partisan, philosophically diverse scholars and high level current and former public policy makers, led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and former Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann, indicating that sentencing policies should provide for proportionality and sufficient flexibility to reflect differences in role and background of offenders.
And these increases are occurring at a time when the evidence from the Department of Justice is that sex offenders recidivate at a lower rate than other offenders, in general, with a 5% recidivism rate for a new sex offense and a 3.3% rate for child molesters recidivating with a new offense of that nature. I will ask that this study and 4 others from other sources, be made a part of the record. Also, the evidence reveals that this low recidivism rate is cut in half with sexual abuse treatment. While any recidivism is bad, 5% and 3% rates with the prospect of being cut in half certainly does not suggest the situation is hopeless. Yet, there is nothing in this bill to ensure treatment for those offenders who seek treatment or who are already serving sentences and will be leaving prison soon. The bills before us suggest that it is better to wait for the victimization to occur and then apply draconian penalties.
One of our speakers at an earlier hearing on this subject, Criminologist and professor of Law Frank Zimmer of the Berkeley School of Law, pointed out that treating all offenses and offenders the same and mandating life sentences for repeat offenders, regardless of the crime, may actually endanger more children than it helps. He expressed the concern that putting an offender in the position of concluding that once a crime is completed or attempted, he is facing a minimum of a life sentence, will likely cause him to conclude that his best chance of avoiding detection and a witness against him is to kill the victim. Certainly this question should be considered against the conventional justification for harsh mandatory minimums of forcing co-defendants to testify against their partners in crime, since these crimes are more often carried out by lone offenders.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also know that greatly increasing federal sentences will disproportionally affect Native Americans simply because they are more likely to fall under federal jurisdiction, whereas those who are committing the horrendous crimes giving rise to this federal sentencing frenzy actually fall under state court jurisdiction. And we are doing so with no consultation with Native American tribal authorities as we have in the past when we have dramatically increased sentencing, such as we did with the ''3 strikes you're out'' law and the death penalties in the 1994 Crime Bill. There is certainly no evidence that Native Americans have asked that offenders on tribal lands be treated more harshly than offenders in the state courts right next to them. It simply appears that having politicians able to prove how tough they are on crime in an election year is more important than plain fairness to Native Americans and respect for their tribal sovereignty.
Finally the provisions of the bills before us exacerbate an already horrendous federal sentencing scheme. For example, under PROTECT Act provisions, we provided a 5-year mandatory sentence to transport a minor, or to travel, across state or international lines, to commit any criminal sex offense involving a minor. This bill increases that mandatory minimum sentence to 30 years. That means that an 18 year old high school student who transports or causes a minor to travel, from DC to Virginia to engage in consensual sex, thereby committing the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, would be subject to a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence. One can only imagine how many times this law is violated in this area during prom season. What possible sense does it make to mandate 30 years for this type case?
Under H.R. 2388, it appears that mere fist fights between teenagers, if one is under 18 and is even slightly injured, require a mandatory minimum sentence, even if the younger teen is the instigator.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the provision limiting habeas jurisdiction will only increase litigation and delays and increase the risk that innocent people will be put to death. Several of the 159 people who were exonerated of their crimes over the past 10 years, including some on death row, received that exoneration after more than 20 years.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony and enlightenment of our witnesses on the bills before us. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE
The problem of violence against children and sexual exploitation of children has been highlighted by recent events involving brutal acts of violence against children. Recent examples include: (1) the abduction, rape and killing of 9 year old Jessica Lunford (who was buried alive); (2) the slaying of 13 year old Sarah Lunde, both of whom were killed in Florida by career criminals and sex offenders. In Philadelphia, four defendants were charged with the stabbing and killing of a 15 year old girl, who they then threw into the Schuykill River. All of these tragic events have underscored the continuing epidemic of violence against children.
In addition, the sexual victimization of children is overwhelming in magnitude and largely unrecognized and underreported. Statistics show that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach adulthood, yet less than 35 percent of the incidents are reported to authorities. This problem is exacerbated by the number of children who are solicited online - according to the Department of Justice 1 in 5 children (10 to 17 years old) receive unwanted sexual solicitations online.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Department of Justice statistics underscore the staggering toll that violence takes on our youth (DOJ national crime surveys do not account for victims under the age of 12, but even for 12 to 18 year olds, the figures are alarming). Data from 12 States during the period of 1991 to 1996 show that 67 percent of the all victims of sexual assaults were juveniles (under the age of 18), and 34 percent were under the age of 12. One of every seven victims of sexual assault was under the age of 6.
While I strongly support the idea of protecting our children for being sexually exploited, I am not in favor of mandatory minimums. Both H.R. 2318 and H.R. 2388 impose unnecessary mandatory minimals and for this reason I can not support either bill.
CENTER FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT, ''RECIDIVISM OF SEX OFFENDERS,'' MAY 2001, AVAILABLE AR HTTP://WWW.CSOM.ORG/PUBS/RECIDSEXOF.PDF
CFSOM0001.eps
CFSOM0002.eps
CFSOM0003.eps
CFSOM0004.eps
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CFSOM0005.eps
CFSOM0006.eps
CFSOM0007.eps
CFSOM0008.eps
CFSOM0009.eps
CFSOM0010.eps
CFSOM0011.eps
CFSOM0012.eps
CFSOM0013.eps
CFSOM0014.eps
CFSOM0015.eps
CFSOM0016.eps
CFSOM0017.eps
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CFSOM0018.eps
CFSOM0019.eps
CFSOM0020.eps
DENNISE ORLANDO, 'SEX OFFENDERS,'' Special Needs Bullentin No. 3, September 1998
SNO0001.eps
SNO0002.eps
SNO0003.eps
SNO0004.eps
SNO0005.eps
SNO0006.eps
SNO0007.eps
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SNO0008.eps
SNO0009.eps
SNO0010.eps
SNO0011.eps
SNO0012.eps
SNO0013.eps
SNO0014.eps
SNO0015.eps
SNO0016.eps
SNO0017.eps
SNO0018.eps
SNO0019.eps
SNO0020.eps
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, STATE OF OHIO, ''TEN-YEAR RECIDIVISM FOLLOW-UP OF 1989 SEX OFFENDER RELEASES,'' APRIL 2001, AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.DRC.STATE.OH.US/WEB/REPORTS/TEN—YEAR—RECIDIVISM.PDF
TYR0001.eps
TYR0002.eps
TYR0003.eps
TYR0004.eps
TYR0005.eps
TYR0006.eps
TYR0007.eps
TYR0008.eps
TYR0009.eps
TYR0010.eps
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TYR0011.eps
TYR0012.eps
TYR0013.eps
TYR0014.eps
TYR0015.eps
TYR0016.eps
TYR0017.eps
TYR0018.eps
TYR0019.eps
TYR0020.eps
TYR0021.eps
TYR0022.eps
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TYR0023.eps
TYR0024.eps
TYR0025.eps
TYR0026.eps
TYR0027.eps
TYR0028.eps
TYR0029.eps
TYR0030.eps
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, ''RECIDIVISM OF SEX OFFENDERS RELEASED FROM PRISON IN 1994,'' NOVEMBER 2003, AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.OJP.USDOJ.GOV/BJS/PUB/PDF/RSORP94.PDF
DOJ0001.eps
DOJ0002.eps
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DOJ0003.eps
DOJ0004.eps
DOJ0005.eps
DOJ0006.eps
DOJ0007.eps
DOJ0008.eps
DOJ0009.eps
DOJ0010.eps
DOJ0011.eps
DOJ0012.eps
DOJ0013.eps
DOJ0014.eps
DOJ0015.eps
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DOJ0016.eps
DOJ0017.eps
DOJ0018.eps
DOJ0019.eps
DOJ0020.eps
DOJ0021.eps
DOJ0022.eps
DOJ0023.eps
DOJ0024.eps
DOJ0025.eps
DOJ0026.eps
DOJ0027.eps
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DOJ0028.eps
DOJ0029.eps
DOJ0030.eps
DOJ0031.eps
DOJ0032.eps
DOJ0033.eps
DOJ0034.eps
DOJ0035.eps
DOJ0036.eps
DOJ0037.eps
DOJ0038.eps
DOJ0039.eps
DOJ0040.eps
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DOJ0041.eps
DOJ0042.eps
DOJ0043.eps
DOJ0044.eps
DOJ0045.eps
DOJ0046.eps
DOJ0047.eps
DOJ0048.eps
U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION, ''REPORT OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN ADVISORY GROUP,'' NOVEMBER 4, 2003, AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.USSC.GOV/NAAG/NATIVEAMER.PDF
NAAG0001.eps
NAAG0002.eps
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NAAG0003.eps
NAAG0004.eps
NAAG0005.eps
NAAG0006.eps
NAAG0007.eps
NAAG0008.eps
NAAG0009.eps
NAAG0010.eps
NAAG0011.eps
NAAG0012.eps
NAAG0013.eps
NAAG0014.eps
NAAG0015.eps
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NAAG0016.eps
NAAG0017.eps
NAAG0018.eps
NAAG0019.eps
NAAG0020.eps
NAAG0021.eps
NAAG0022.eps
NAAG0023.eps
NAAG0024.eps
NAAG0025.eps
NAAG0026.eps
NAAG0027.eps
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NAAG0028.eps
NAAG0029.eps
NAAG0030.eps
NAAG0031.eps
NAAG0032.eps
NAAG0033.eps
NAAG0034.eps
NAAG0035.eps
NAAG0036.eps
NAAG0037.eps
NAAG0038.eps
NAAG0039.eps
NAAG0040.eps
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NAAG0041.eps
NAAG0042.eps
NAAG0043.eps
NAAG0044.eps
NAAG0045.eps
NAAG0046.eps
NAAG0047.eps
NAAG0048.eps
NAAG0049.eps
JAN LOOMAN, JEFFREY ABRACEN, AND TERRY P. NICHOLAICHUK, ''RECIDIVISM AMONG TREATED SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND MATCHED CONTROLS,'' Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 15 No. 3, March 2000
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE JON KYL TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (JUNE 9, 2005)
SENATOR JON KYL, INTRODUCTION OF THE STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, PAGES S5540-S5543
THE STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE JON SENATOR JON KYL
S. 1088, THE ''STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT OF 2005,'' SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF STATISTICS, ''CRIMINAL OFFENDERS STATISTICS,'' AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.OJP.USDOJ.GOV/BJS/CRIMOFF.HTM
BJS0001.eps
BJS0002.eps
BJS0003.eps
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BJS0004.eps
BJS0005.eps
BJS0006.eps
BJS0007.eps
BJS0008.eps
BJS0009.eps
BJS0010.eps
BJS0011.eps
LETTER FROM JOHN RHODES, ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDER TO BOBBY VASSER, MINORITY COUNSEL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
FDM0001.eps
FDM0002.eps
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FDM0003.eps
FDM0004.eps
FDM0005.eps
FDM0006.eps
FDM0007.eps
FDM0008.eps
FDM0009.eps
FDM0010.eps
FDM0011.eps
FDM0012.eps
FDM0013.eps
FDM0014.eps
FDM0015.eps
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FDM0016.eps
FDM0017.eps
FDM0018.eps
FDM0019.eps
FDM0020.eps
FDM0021.eps
FDM0022.eps
FDM0023.eps
FDM0024.eps
FDM0025.eps
FDM0026.eps
FDM0027.eps
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FDM0028.eps
FDM0029.eps
FDM0030.eps
FDM0031.eps
FDM0032.eps
FDM0033.eps
FDM0034.eps
FDM0035.eps
FDM0036.eps
FDM0037.eps
FDM0038.eps
FDM0039.eps
FDM0040.eps
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FDM0041.eps
FDM0042.eps