Return
Home
Peyton
Tuthill
Pat
Tuthill
Media
ICAOS
Donations
Pat's
Manuscript
Speaking
Scholarships
Charity
Events
     
 
Submit your Position Statement

A “Shout Out” from Pat Tuthill – Urgent
 
The Interstate Compact Annual meeting and public hearing is Monday, November 2, 2009. All victim advocates, activist and organizations are needed to speak out by emailing me at tuthillfoundation@gmail.com and/or the National Commission Office. hhageman@csg.org.
Please read the summaries below and send content if you agree or modify and forward to me. Your voice will be heard and statement read at the National Commission Public Hearing on Nov. 2, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Your comments are important in determining public policy.
 
There are 6 proposed amendments presented here that impact victims’ rights and public safety. I have listed them in what I believe is priority order. Please respond to one or all and let your voice be heard. Proposed Amendments if passed will take effect January 1, 2010 in all states.
 
1. Oppose proposed amendmentAccountability for restitution under the Compact when offenders’ transfer will be eliminated. Definition of Supervision deletes “financial obligations” when it is the only condition of supervision. Keep Restitution in definition of “supervision.”
 
     I urge ICOAS commissioners to “not approve” the proposed changed to the definition of Supervision in the rules that will let offenders relocate to another state and increase the risk that victims will be further harmed and not receive their restitution. Offenders must be held accountable as was intended when your legislator voted for the Compact. I urge the commission to change Rule 4.108 and require the Receiving State more authority in monitoring the collection of restitution.   Victims fought very hard during the hearings in 1998 and 1999 and the presentations to legislators in all states to include restitution as a condition of supervision. The proposed is a step backward for victims’ rights. Please vote “no” to this change.
 
ICAOS Advisory Opinion states that monetary issues are considered supervision, but a rule that states that the receiving state is not responsible for monitoring those conditions is inconsistent.
 
2. Oppose proposed amendment Sex Offender Rule 3.101-3(c).
 
     The proposed rule proposal appears to be in conflict with the Sex Offender definition. The new proposal only covers offenders whose current offense is a sex offense. Offenders who had a previous sex offense, but are still required to register would not be covered in this change. The definition covers offenders sentenced to supervision and they are required to register as a sex offender. It does not state that it has to be the current offense. . States need to accept the responsibility for sex offenders in their state until a proper investigation is conducted for sex offender to return to the receiving state to ensure there are not victims or potential victims in the residence or nearby schools, parks. To pass this proposal jeopardizes public safety, vote “no.”
 
3. Oppose proposed amendment - Submission of Transfer Request to amend 3.102 and create 3.102 (c)
 
     While the concept of the proposed changes supports rehabilitation and successful re-entry, the language allows offenders who live in one state and work in another to travel between the states for employment while their transfer request is being investigated.
 
     First, the amendment does not address the issue of sex offenders who should not be allowed to travel until the investigation is complete.
     Secondly, Defining non-working hours is difficult to and will result in many interpretations across the country. Are working hours defined as daily? 
     Third, neither the receiving state nor the sending state has the resources to monitor the offender’s’ compliance with employment travel restrictions.
     The best solution is to have complete transfer packets and timely investigations to allow offenders to be properly transferred and states to maintain appropriate monitoring and supervision during the process. Please vote “no” to this amendment as proposed. 
 
4. Support concept but not as written. Mandatory transfers of military, families of military, and family members employed, and employment transfers – Rule 3.101-1.
 
     Paragraph (c) The proposed amendment adds to the list of mandatory transfers an offender who resides with a family member is involuntarily transferred to another state by their full-time employer,  
 
     Paragraph (d) Also added to the rule is language that reads if an offender who is involuntarily transferred to another state by his/her full-time employer shall be eligible for reporting instructions and transfer of supervision.
 
           The concept of this amendment is important to rehabilitation. An offender’s ability to financially support himself/herself is an important part of successful re-entry. However, many states expressed one of the biggest challenges regarding involuntary transfers is lack of supporting documentation that states the transfer is required for the offender to remain employed with their existing employer in similarly situated job and pay. What happens if the offender is allowed to transfer to the RS and then loses job within the year and has not support?
 
     Support the concept of the proposed amendment, but the language should include requirements that the offender have employer documentation confirming that the move is “involuntary” in that, the offender’s current position is eliminated in the SS by the employer and to continued employment in the offender’s current job or similarly situated job exist in the employer’s facility located in another state. Also, the documentation should include a statement from the employer that the new position is a full- time sustainable opportunity. 
 
5. Support amendment. Time allowed for investigations in the receiving state – Rule 3.104.
 
      The current rule requires in incomplete transfer application to be rejected. Depending on transfer circumstances some offenders may have been allowed to travel, with reporting instructions, to the receiving state, and then because the Compact office may have submitted an incomplete Transfer Request, the reporting instructions remain in effect for 15 days under and the offender remains under supervision of the RS allowing the SS time to order the offender to return to the SS or to resubmit a complete Transfer Request.
 
6. Support amendment Acceptance of offender; issuance or reporting instructions – Rule 3.104-1
 
     This amendment clarifies that RS’s responsibility to supervise the offender begins when the offender arrives and that the SS state should be notified.




| Crime Stats | Contact Us | Great Links | Hot Topics | Peyton Tuthill Award Recipients |
| Return Home | Peyton Tuthill | Pat Tuthill | Media | ICAOS | Donations | Pat's Manuscript | Speaking | Scholarships | Charity Events |
 
     



Copyright © 2017, The Peyton Tuthill Foundation, Inc.. All rights reserved.