To the reviewer: I am resubmitting, because I believe my previous submission (ke2-4fqx-wird) is not going to be posted because I am providing personal identifying information. The following is to avoid adding attachments, but the whole comment exceeds 5000 characters, therefore it is done in two parts, but I am attaching whole document in case.
This part one of two parts:
The following are prejudicial statements made in the proposed rule:
1) Page 49340, (left column, page center), : “….because sex offenders may, for example, provide false date of birth information in seeking employment that
would provide access to children or other potential victims. See 73 FR at 38057.”
Where are the statistics to support that example? Because registrants are more likely to commit fraud by falsifying a document more than the rest of the population? Falsifying a document is a separate crime. The DOJ is illegally trying to enforce fraud through registration.
2) Page 49340 (left column, 2nd paragraph) : “…By providing basic information about who a sex offender is, where he is, how he gets around, and what he is
authorized to do, these requirements implement SORNA and further its public safety objectives.”.
“He” is stated 3 times.That’s obvious sex discrimination, the pronouns must be corrected. And, specifically what are these “public safety objectives” that are
supported by statistics?
3) Page 49340 (center column, 1st paragraph) : “…The Attorney General has exercised the same authority to require telephone numbers—a requirement also
already appearing in the SORNA Guidelines—for a number of reasons, including facilitating communication between registration personnel and sex offenders,
and addressing the potential use of telephonic communication by sex offenders in efforts to contact or lure potential victims . See 73 FR at 38055.”
“Telephonic communication by sex offenders in efforts to contact or lure potential victims”, again, what statistics support that registrants are more likely than the rest of the population to do this? More unfounded prejudice.
4) Page 49340 (center column, last paragraph) “…Paragraph (c)(2) of § 72.6 requires a sex offender to provide information about temporary lodging while away from his residence for seven or more days. In the SORNA Guidelines, and now in this rule, the Attorney General has adopted this requirement because sex offenders may reoffend at locations away from the places in which they have a permanent or long-term presence, and indeed could be encouraged to do so to the extent that information about their places of residence is available to the authorities but information is lacking concerning their temporary lodgings elsewhere. The benefits of having this information include facilitating the successful investigation of crimes committed by sex offenders while away from their normal places of residence and discouraging sex offenders from committing crimes in such circumstances. See 73 FR at 38056.”
“… because sex offenders may reoffend…”, “could be encouraged ”, “…crimes committed by sex offenders…” Registration was specifically intended to be purely an administrative – civil function. Now, making a blatant prejudicial statement like those are outside the jurisdiction of the DOJ.
“…discouraging sex offenders from committing crimes…” the prejudice continues; “discouraging”; law takes care of discouraging, but the DOJ just has to go further by admitting in the open that it is not just registration but a vehicle of “discouragement”. Discouragement is an element of punishment which is unconstitutional for a collateral consequence of a conviction. The DOJ enforces law, it is not in the business of “discouraging”, that is specifically in the jurisdiction of the legislature and the Justice
department (sentencing) to provide that function.
All this points to the DOJ exceeding its jurisdiction to impose its prejudicial biased position, appealing to general public prejudice. The DOJ has to be put in check. Separation of powers is required.
I ask that the DOJ’s rules be revised and instructed to remove the above noted
prejudicial unconstitutional comments regarding motivation and tendencies, unless they provide specific statistics to support their prejudicial statements.
Go to my part two