The Jessica Lunsford Act ( of the
109th Congress), was a proposed
federal law in the United States — modeled after the Florida state law — which, if adopted, would have mandated more stringent tracking of released
sex offenders.
Bill objectives The bill, if passed, would have greatly reduced federal grant money under the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 () and
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 () to any
U.S. State that failed to conform its sex offender registration laws to the following: • Sex offenders would have been required to wear
Global Positioning System devices on their ankles for five years following their release from prison, or for life for those deemed
sexual predators, to better enable law enforcement personnel to track their whereabouts. The costs of tracking and monitoring offenders would have been
absorbed by each State. • States would have been required to mail sex offender registration forms at least twice per year, at random times, to verify registrants' addresses. Any registrants who did not respond within 10 days would have to be considered non-compliant. The bill was introduced by U.S.
Republican Congresswoman
Ginny Brown-Waite from
Florida on April 6, 2005. It had 107 cosponsors and was referred to a subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee, but it was never voted upon (either by any committee or the full Congress), and it died when the 109th Congress finally adjourned.
Impact on offender's family members Advocates for convicted sex offenders claim that the civil rights of convicted persons and their non-offending family members is forever affected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders' home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although a series of vigilante-type murders in Maine in April 2006 have brought new concerns of misuse of the registry and for the safety of non-offending family members by private parties. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently awaits a decision from the
Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." ==See also==