Charges for man removed from sex registry a first
BY DAVID SHARP
PORTLAND -- A 66-year-old man charged this week with having child porn on his computer is believed to be the first person to face such allegations after being removed from Maine's sex offender registry, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Larry Smart is one of 304 people who have successfully petitioned to be removed from the sex offender registry since a new law went into effect in September allowing some offenders to be taken off the list, said Matthew Ruel, director of the state bureau of identification.
"This is the first case that we know of in which someone has allegedly re-offended," Ruel said.
Smart, from the western town of Mexico, was charged Tuesday night with possession of sexually explicit material showing a child under the age of 12, said Sgt. Glenn Lang of the Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit.
Smart, who remained at the Oxford County Jail on Thursday, was convicted of gross sexual misconduct with a teenage girl in 1985. He was removed from the sex offender registry last October.
Maine's sex offender registry drew national attention in 2006 when a 20-year-old Canadian man killed two men at random after selecting their names from the state's online registry.
Last year, lawmakers allowed some registered sex offenders to be removed from the registry upon their request, provided they complete their sentences, commit no additional crimes and meet other standards.
Since then, 709 sex offenders who committed crimes between 1982 and 1992 have petitioned to be removed from the list. Only 304 of them have met the necessary requirements, Ruel said.
Once removed from the list, offenders' names no longer appear on the registry and they no longer have to meet other requirements like registering with local police.
If Smart is convicted, he'll be put back on the sex offender registry. Smart, who could not be reached at the jail, has petitioned for a public defender.
Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, sponsored the legislation allowing certain offenders to petition to be removed from the list. Those with multiple offenses, or egregious offenses, are kept on the registry, along with those who went on to commit other felonies, whether or not they were sex offenses.
"We still feel we're being aggressive and holding people accountable," he said Thursday.
The Maine Legislature faces a March 31 deadline to further tweak the sex offender registry law in response to a December state Supreme Court ruling that said the original 1999 law requiring some offenders to be placed on a sex offender registry for life cannot be applied retroactively.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
13 COMMENTS
IMPistov said...
Once a sex offender, ALWAYS a sex offender! The only real cure for this "disorder" is life in the can or death. This idiot just proved what everyone but the liberals already knew. What a waste of money!
March 19, 2010 at 12:14 AM Report abuse
Jarody said...
Larry Smart wasn't so it seems.
March 19, 2010 at 1:21 AM Report abuse
micilio said...
Why is it so hard for people to see this...history repeats itself. There is no cure or current sentance strict enough. These folks arent drug addicts,there is no 12 steps for them, they have an evil in them.
March 19, 2010 at 5:54 AM Report abuse
lessgov said...
Attorney Mitchell should be proud.
March 19, 2010 at 7:20 AM Report abuse
paperbackwri said...
"This is the first case that we know of in which someone has alledgedly reoffended"...Really?? Well, unfortunately because of their shortsightedness, the suffering of children will play this out over and over again until they finally understand what child sexual abuse is all about.
March 19, 2010 at 8:01 AM Report abuse
Jackie67 said...
this is the first case where someone has reoffended?? only the first one to get caught!! once a pervert, always a pervert.
March 19, 2010 at 8:10 AM Report abuse
hillbilly said...
Micilio, you are the only one thinking here. Imp, what's the waste of money? Prosecuting this guy? You'd rather not? Oh, you think life in jail is cheaper? (death is unconstitutional except for treason and murder). More to the point, do any of you really believe that being on the register would have prevented this guy from having pictures on his computer? It's that meaningless bit of feel good legislation that is at issue here, not pictures.
March 19, 2010 at 8:36 AM Report abuse
ModerateOne said...
Here's a question. We rightfully want to crack down harder on these offenders. But, why do we ignore the organizations that promote, condone, or cover up this behavior? First the Catholic Church, now the Boy Scouts. Have these organizations been held accountable criminally? Have their tax exemptions been taken away? We are totally hypocritical in this area.
March 19, 2010 at 9:38 AM Report abuse
hillbilly said...
Moderateone, And what crime are the organizations committing? Their liability may be civil, and has been, but there is no criminal sanction and shouldn't be. Nor does the catholic church or boy scouts "promote" or "condone" sex abuse. Just because an offender has used those organizations for his purposes doesn't mean they are promoting his activities. Fortunately the law usually is rational, not emotional.
March 19, 2010 at 10:34 AM Report abuse
ontherun said...
ModerateOne: so it follows that if a cop beats his wife that the whole criminal justice system should be sanctioned?
March 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM Report abuse
ModerateOne said...
Hiding illegal acts committed as an official of your organization is criminal. Placing a known offender into a situation where they are likely to re offend is criminal. In my mind, that crossed the line into condoning illegal behavior, if not promoting it. Allowing children to be placed in contact with known offenders is certainly criminal. Hillbilly, it is people like you that make excuses for child molestation that allowed the problem to go on so long. And, ontherun, back to the analogy drawing board for you.
March 19, 2010 at 11:36 AM Report abuse
hillbilly said...
I made no excuses for anyone and will make none for you, just a request. Give me the statute cites for the crimes you think have been committed by any of the institutions you malign. Hint, the Maine criminal Code is Title 17-A. Oops, can't there aren't any there. Again, why is it when someone disagrees with the opinions expressed here they are personally and immediately attacked? If you can't debate facts, perhaps you should keep your opinions private.
March 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM Report abuse
wingnut said...
ModerateOne "Placing a known offender into a situation where they are likely to re offend is criminal" Great~only two places they can safely be placed: prison for life or six feet under. Again noone gives a sh*t about the rights of the victims!
March 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM Report abuse