Enforcing Jessica's Law proves complicated
10-28-2007 California:
Implementing a state law aimed at protecting children from sex offenders is proving complicated, local corrections officials report.
Seventy percent of California voters approved Proposition 83, also known as Jessica's Law, last November, putting into place tough regulations for sex offenders - including prohibiting them from living within 2,000 feet of parks or schools.
"It's a complex situation. So much is going on with this law," Solano County Chief Probation Officer Isabelle Voit said.
The law applies only to offenders who have been paroled or put on probation since last November. In one of many court cases that have sprung up in the wake of Prop. 83, a federal judge ruled this spring that the 2,000-foot rule could not be applied retroactively.
Those 2,000 feet, less than half a mile, may not seem far. But with more than 25 parks in Vallejo and 23 public schools, not including private schools, preschools and day care facilities, much of the city is off limits for offenders.
Statewide, about 3,500 parolees must adhere to the new law, with hundreds more being paroled every month.
Of the approximately 200 sex offenders on probation countywide, about 20 of those are subject to regulation by Jessica's Law, and about 15 of those people will have to move, Voit said.
Officials cited concerns about displaced offenders becoming transient or unstable - and therefore more difficult to supervise.
"We hope that won't happen. We want them to have some stability," Voit said.
The county has hired an additional probation officer to meet the new law's demands, but no extra funds were provided by the state, officials said.
Among the questions raised by the new law is who will monitor offenders once they are off parole or probation. The issue has come up more quickly than anticipated, corrections officials said.
Prop. 83 requires offenders to wear GPS anklets for life, but the state is yet to purchase the needed devices.
Currently, there is no penalty for violating the 2,000-foot rule once the offender is no longer under supervision by a probation officer. ..more.. by SARA STROUD/Times-Herald staff report
October 31, 2007
From law to reality
October 30, 2007
First Defendant in the Nation Charged with Increased Sex Offender Penalty
10-22-2007 Utah:
An Idaho man who moved to Utah last year had the dubious distinction of being the first defendant in the nation charged with violating a federal law that increased the penalty for failure to register as a sex offender.
John Henry Gill, however, no longer is being prosecuted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell on Oct. 15 threw out the charge, ruling that this new, tougher law did not apply to Gill at the time he made Utah his new home.
The next day, in an unrelated case, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell dismissed a charge brought against Keith David Wilson because his move to Utah from South Dakota also predated the date the act went into effect.
The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2006. One of its provisions, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), increased the maximum punishment from one year imprisonment to 10 years for failing to register after a move to a new state.
A few months later, a new rule made the tougher punishment also apply to offenders who committed their sex crimes before July 2006 and then failed to register. That rule was enacted in February 2007.
Gill moved to Utah in the fall of 2006, and Wilson in September 2005. Both Cassell and Campbell agreed that SORNA did not apply to them at those times, and that the increased penalty cannot be imposed retroactively for failure to register in a pre-February 2007 move.
The men might not be off the hook, however. Cassell stressed that Gill still faces possible punishment under Idaho's sex offender registration law.
"While the federal law may not have applied at that time, state criminal statutes may still cover many of these offenders if they failed to follow state registration requirement," Cassell wrote in his decision.
U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman said his office is considering whether to appeal the decisions.
He added: "While there may be some initial issues litigated as a new law comes into use, we will continue to aggressively pursue these cases in the future."
Court records show that Gill, 48, was convicted in Idaho in 2003 of possession of sexually exploitative material and was released from prison in March 2006 after serving time for the offense.
Wilson served a sentence for raping a child and was released from a South Dakota prison in 1999. ..more.. by Pamela Manson, The Salt Lake Tribune
See also SexCrimes blog discussion on the Gill case.
APA defends stance against the sexual abuse of children
Concern over APA journal article prompts Congress to question the association's position.
July/August 1999 The Monitor
APA has strongly reaffirmed its long-standing condemna-tion of child sexual abuse in response to a political controversy sparked by an article in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin.
The article, "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," by Bruce Rind, PhD, graduate student Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, PhD, examined 59 studies of college students and concluded that the harm done to the victims of sexual abuse was less then generally believed.
The study also suggested that some victims, especially the males, seemed not to have suffered especially intense psychological harm through the years, and in some cases even reported the experiences as neutral or positive.
The authors of the study also argued that the term "child sexual abuse" uncritically lumped all victims together--whereas, they said, the level of potential damage differed greatly in the case of a very young girl raped by her father and a "mature" teen-ager sexually involved with an adult. Citing a need for research clarity, the authors suggested these specific cases should be labeled with "value neutral" terms such as "adult-adolescent sex" or "adult-child sex."
The article's findings point to the conclusion that there is hope for victims of child sexual abuse, says Gary VandenBos, PhD, APA executive director for publications and communications.
"Society will not always be effective at preventing it," he says. "Victims and their families need to know that when the unthinkable happens, the victim is not destroyed forever. Psychotherapy can help. Time will help."
Congressional concerns
In March, critics of the article, including House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and several Republican members of Congress, along with national family-oriented organizations and radio host Laura Schlessinger, argued that the article sanctioned pedophilia, and that APA, by allowing it to be published, was doing the same.
In May, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) proposed a House resolution condemning the article and, by association, APA for publishing it. The proposal quickly gained co-sponsorship and it appeared that if the resolution was brought before the House it would pass.
In response to the House resolution, Raymond D. Fowler, PhD, APA's chief executive officer, wrote to DeLay to clarify APA's position on child sexual abuse and to outline APA's intentions regarding the article and the controversy it created.
"We take very seriously the responsibility of maintaining a rigorous and independent peer-review process for our 37 scientific journals," Fowler said in his letter to DeLay.
Fowler told DeLay he had asked for an independent expert evaluation of the scientific quality of the article--a step he called "unprecedented in the association's history of scholarly publishing."
He promised to make the results of that study known. The review is expected to be final sometime this fall.
"Clearly, the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare and protection issues," he wrote. "It is the position of the association that sexual activity between children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable...children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults."
One criticism of the article was that those charged with child sexual abuse might use in their defense the fact that APA, by inference, supported the findings. Fowler, however, told DeLay "there is no defense for child sexual abuse. It is always wrong."
Speaking out against abuse
To ensure that APA's position is known to courts, public policy officials and parents, Fowler said the association has instituted a five-point plan. In addition to sending the article out for independent evaluation, the plan includes:
Publishing a special "Psychology in the Public Forum" section in a future issue of American Psychologist to examine the methodological challenges and contributions of research on child sexual abuse.
Preparing amicus briefs that can be adapted in any court to challenge any effort to use the data in the article--or any other study--to condone or "normalize" sexual interactions of any type between children and adults.
Creating and distributing nationwide this fall a brochure for parents and caregivers on how to protect against child sexual abuse.
A clear affirmation of APA's Board of Director's condemnation of sexual abuse of children.
Along with the plan, Fowler told DeLay, "We do not support the 'normalization' or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."
In a press release issued shortly after reading Fowler's letter, Delay said "I cannot express fully my deep appreciation and pride for the APA's bold actions today.... I congratulate the American Psychological Association for publicly clarifying its opposition to any adult-child sexual relations, denying pedophiles from citing APA studies in a legal defense and re-evaluating the social, legal and political impact of its editorial board's decisions when publishing scientific studies."
Fowler has met with several key members of Congress to discuss APA's position and efforts opposing child abuse, along with the proposed congressional resolution.
In light of APA's vigorous stance against any kind of abuse of children--particularly sexual abuse of children, "It would be unfortunate," said Fowler, "if a single article was weighted more than the 20-year record of the work we've done in this area."
Fowler also noted that while APA publishes thousands of research articles every year, that does not make them APA policy.
"APA's policies are set by the Council of Representatives and are based on many more factors than a single article," he explained. "The nature of research and science is that much of what is published is later refined or even disproven by other research. The critical thing is not the controversial nature of the statements, but whether they hold up to further research."
Because APA publishes more than 3,000 articles each year, identifying those that are of interest to the public or that have public policy implications is difficult. Journal editors are asked to be aware of those variables and to alert APA's Public Affairs Office to articles in press that should be the subject of a press release or other information for the public.
"A responsible scientific and professional organization has an obligation to be sensitive to the policy implications as well as the scientific integrity of its publications," said Fowler. "There is no reason APA cannot do both and be fully respectful of academic freedom and editorial independence." ..more.. by Sara Martin, Monitor staff
A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples
2003
ABSTRACT
Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported. ..more.. by Bruce Rind, Department of Psychology -and- Philip Tromovitch, Graduate School of Education -and- Robert Bauserman, Department of Psychology University of Michigan
Murdered in the United States: Registered Sex Offenders & Others
10-29-2007 National:
Folks will be happy to know we have completed converting the stories behind every case of a registered sex offender, or a person accused of a sex offense, that have been murdered or killed in the United States, and have entered their stories in our blog and listed them on our complete list. Now, some folks have preferred our old listing while others wanted the stories, so we have decided to keep both and tie them together.
Here is how the statistics break down:
57 registered sex offenders minding their own business murdered, 24 of them in prisons and jails;
7 registered sex offenders were involved in domestic or other incidents, and were killed;
*17 people, non sex offenders, were accused of a sex offense and murdered;
9 registered sex offenders were accused of a new sex offense and were murdered;
*12 people, non sex offenders, were falsely accused of sex offenses and were murdered;
3 registered sex offenders were falsely accused of a new sex offense and were murdered;
5 innocent bystanders were murdered;
1 person was murdered when they were attacking a registered sex offender's home;
1 person in prison was falsely labeled as a sex offender and was murdered.
-------
112 persons murdered in 103 incidents
*: Explanation: 29 non sex offenders were accused of sex offenses and murdered. 12 of those cases reveal facts that they were falsely accused, the facts of the remaining 17 cases are too skimpy to conclude anything about them, we can only say they were murdered.
Note: Our listings have been divided into Murdered in the US and Murdered in Foreign Countries. Foreign Countries is the next project.
Our complete list is here and our stories blog is here. Please keep us informed of any new incidents you read about.
Thank you,
eAdvocate
October 28, 2007
New sex-offender law faces opposition
A three-tiered ranking system takes effect Thursday.
10-28-2007 Oklahoma:
New restrictions for sex offenders -- including a three-level ranking system that designates how long they must register -- take effect Thursday.
However, some of those who are on the front lines dealing with sex offenders believe that Oklahoma's law is having an adverse effect and needs further changes.
''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,'' said Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team.
Lopp is also a member of the review board established by the new law to categorize the sex offenders into three levels.
''I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''
Categorizing offenders: Lawmakers changed the state law to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act, said Jim Rabon, who oversees sex offender registration for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
What the federal law calls a ''tier system,'' the new state law calls a ''numeric risk level.'' The risk level is determined by the type and severity of crime for which the offender was convicted and the number of convictions that person has, he said.
Level One offenders will register for 15 years; Level Two offenders will register for 25 years; and Level Three offenders will register for life.
As in the previous version of the law, those who are categorized as ''aggravated'' or ''habitual'' sex offenders will also be required to register for life.
Rabon said the committee that set up the levels reviewed cases of people beginning prison and probation between July 2006 and June 2007 and determined that most sex offenders fall into the highest risk category.
The review revealed that 78 percent of the sex offenders fall in Level Three, 3 percent in Level Two and 19 percent in Level One.
Based on those numbers, Tulsa Police Sgt. Gary Stansill, who has spent more than 20 years investigating sex crimes in Tulsa, said he believes that the Oklahoma law is too broad.
Under the law, he said, an 18-year-old who is convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 15-year-old and someone who is convicted of groping an officer during an undercover sting would both be registered sex offenders for life.
''The least number of people should be in the worst tier, but the most number of people are going to be in the worst tier under the new law,'' Stansill said.
Federal law mandates that any state that does not adapt to the Adam Walsh Act will receive up to a 10 percent reduction in federal grant money. Based on past funding, that might amount to a loss of about $200,000 to $300,000 for Oklahoma, Rabon said.
The loss in funding is part of the reason the state has moved to comply with the federal law, he said. Another reason is consistency.
''We do recognize that if all of the states' registration systems are similar, that does make it easier to track offenders when they move from state to state,'' Rabon said.
He said it is important that people realize that Oklahoma has what he believes is one of the best sex offender registration systems in the country.
By that, he means a lot of information is available on the Department of Corrections Web site that is easy for the public to access and local law enforcement agencies to update. He said Oklahoma has a low percentage of delinquent offenders compared to other states.
The residency debate: Lopp said he doesn't believe that the offense-based assessment is the the best way to categorize offenders. He thinks a tiered system is a step in the right direction but that it should be based on the risk of the individual.
Some states have refused federal funds so they can continue to develop risk-based assessments, he said.
A risk-based assessment could then correspond with the residency restrictions, which have created headaches for law enforcement agencies across the country.
Stansill said residency restrictions have driven sex offenders underground in Tulsa.
The controversial state law that went into effect last year has put 90 percent of the city off limits for sex offenders by prohibiting them from living within 2,000 feet of playgrounds, parks or child-care facilities. They were already prohibited from living within that distance of a school.
The new law does loosen the residency restrictions slightly by specifying that offenders are precluded from living near only child-care centers -- and not including day-care homes, which are numerous.
Before the residency laws, Tulsa had about 540 registered sex offenders at the peak.
As of Sept. 20, 329 were registered here, Stansill said.
''If I really thought it would really do some good, then I would be all for it (the residency restrictions). Then we could focus on the people who don't want to register -- who have no good excuse for not registering -- because they are the people who are likely to be re-offending.''
The new law that takes effect Thursday requires police to register sex offenders even if the offenders intend to move into restricted areas. Previously, Tulsa police would tell an offender to look for another place to live and then come back to register.
''If I register those people, does that give them the right to live there?" Stansill questioned. "Or are we supposed to register them and turn about and work a case against them for violating the residency law?''
Stansill said sex crimes detectives are already overloaded with sex offender law violation cases.
From 2006 to 2007 Tulsa police have investigated 228 sex offender registration violation cases. During the same time period, they investigated 275 rape cases.
Forcing offenders to move from place to place because of residency laws could do more harm than good, Lopp said.
''When you keep making these people move, you are disrupting their stability; you are disrupting their jobs; you are causing an immense amount of stress on that population,'' Lopp said.
''What do we know about re-offense? Stress, job instability, living instability increase the chance of re-offense.''
Authorities say research shows that where sex offenders live is not a factor -- that most of them know their victims and that attacks often occur in the victims' own homes. But Rabon said there is more than one side to the argument about residency restrictions.
''The other side of that is that between the DOC and all of the local law enforcement agencies, . . . everybody works hard trying to locate them and keep the addresses current,'' he said.
That results in Oklahoma having a high rate of compliance, Rabon said. Of 5,462 registered sex offenders statewide, 870 are classified as delinquent, meaning their locations are unknown.
''When the residency restriction went into effect, we saw the delinquent number bump up a little bit, not a huge number,'' he said.
Meanwhile, Lopp hopes the committee works to encourage state and federal legislators to change the laws to make them more effective.
''What ultimately is going to have to happen to change this law is the community is going to have to get in touch with legislators and tell them, "This is not helping; this is making things worse,' " Lopp said.
October 27, 2007
Ex-prison workers challenge update of sex-offender law
10-18-2007 Ohio:
Two sex offenders are challenging the constitutionality of a new state law that changes the classification, registration and notification requirements imposed on sex offenders, arguing that the changes cannot apply retroactively.
Lawyers with the Cincinnati-based Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed suit Monday in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the sex offenders, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, the Ohio Public Defender and the Columbus-based Equal Justice Foundation.
At issue is Senate Bill 10, signed into law by Gov. Ted Strickland this year and carrying changes that will be effective Jan. 1. It brings Ohio into compliance with the federal law known as the Adam Walsh Act, named after a 6-year-old Florida boy kidnapped from a shopping mall in 1981 and murdered.
The state and federal laws classify sex offenders in three tiers, based on the crime for which the offender was convicted and without considering the likelihood of re-offending.
Current state law requires less registration time -- 10 years is the current minimum -- and classifies sex offenders based on their likeliness to commit another sex crime.
The sex offenders suing are two female former prison workers who pleaded guilty to having consensual sex with inmates. Both were designated sexually oriented offenders, the lowest classification, now requiring 10 years' registration.
The changes in law mean both will be reclassified and required to register for the rest of their lives.
Lawyer David Singleton argued that neither is a community danger. "Labeling them the 'worst of the worst' offenders dilutes the purpose of the registry and will subject them and their families to public hostility and ridicule," he said in a news release.
This is the second constitutional challenge of the state's sex-offender laws that Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, has filed with the state Supreme Court.
The high court heard oral arguments last week on a challenge to the state law forbidding registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. A sex offender who was forced in 2005 to leave the home he bought in 1991 because it is too close to a school argues that the 2003 law cannot apply retroactively.
mlane@dispatch.com
The two women object to reclassification and lengthier registration required as of Jan. 1. ..more.. by Mary Beth Lane,
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
October 26, 2007
Sheriff seeks money to monitor sex offenders
10-25-2007 North Carolina:
The Pitt County Sheriff's Office is seeking money to improve sex offender registration and tracking in the county.
Sheriff officials have applied for an Adam Walsh grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to pay for the hours needed to verify addresses of registered sex offenders living in Pitt County, said Melissa Larson, grants administrator with the Pitt County Sheriff's Office.
The grant is to help jurisdictions comply with requirements of the Adam Walsh Child and Safety Act of 2006. Passed on the 25th anniversary of the kidnapping and murder of 7-year-old Adam Walsh, the legislation is designed to protect the public from violent sex offenders via a more comprehensive, nationalized system for the registration of sex offenders. The act calls for state conformity to various aspects of sex offender registration including verification, access to and sharing of information.
There are 206 registered sex offenders in Pitt County, according to the latest State Bureau of Investigation's registry report. That total is the ninth highest among the state's 100 counties.
The county has one officer responsible for verifying and registering offenders.
If a jurisdiction doesn't comply with federal requirements within three years of its implementation, it gets a 10 percent reduction in other law enforcement assistance grants, the act says.
Larson said Pitt County is in compliance with federal requirements, but the additional funding would allow them to improve their procedures.
"We are actually ahead of the game as far as compliance," Larson said. "We just want to be able to take it one step further. A lot of agencies in the nation don't have the resources or the funds or maybe just don't see it as an issue, but the Pitt County Sheriff's Office, we take that stuff seriously. We want to be sure we are going above and beyond to protect our kids."
Along with providing for overtime hours, the grant also would help the sheriff's department develop educational materials and make the community more aware of the dangers associated with personal Web sites such as MySpace and Facebook.com, Larson said.
"We would like to encourage parents to keep a closer eye on how children are portraying themselves online because that could be a gateway for sex offenders," Larson said.
An upgrade in software for the department's records management system also would be funded by the grant, Larson said.
Sex offender registration must occur before an offender is released from imprisonment or within three days of a nonimprisonment sentence, federal law states. Changes in registry information must be reported in that time period as well.
Offenders are restricted in how close they can live to certain facilities such as child care centers and schools.
Larson said she applied for the grant about two weeks ago after getting approval from county commissioners last month.
If awarded, Pitt County Sheriff's Office will receive $37,070 in federal funds and a $12,357 county match. ..more.. by Brock Letchworth, The Daily Reflector
Sex offender tracking system goes statewide in Tennessee
10-25-2007 Tennessee:
A high-tech tracking device helps cops keep a closer eye on convicted sex offenders who live in your neighborhoods.
Your Tri-Cities News Source told you earlier this year about a pilot program in eleven Tennessee counties using global positioning technology to track offenders. Now, that program is going statewide.
News Channel 11's Melinda Perkins was there as officers in our region learned to use the new system.
Tennessee Probation and Parole officers used to rely on spot checks to monitor sex offenders. Now, with the click of a mouse, officers all over the state can check up on them anytime. Tuesday, officers in our region learned how to use the technology.
"We can pull it up on a map and see that their vehicle is actually moving through. We can tell what speed that vehicle is going through," Bob Henshaw with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parolesaid.
Every offender on the program wears a G.P.S. bracelet. The bracelet communicates with a monitoring center in Nashville. That's how offenders are tracked. Still, officers say they can't track everything.
"It doesn't prevent crime, it just helps us supervise those that we are charged with supervising better it's a tracking device. It's not a crime prevention device," Henshaw said.
The tab for tracking isn't cheap. The cost: $8 dollars a day per offender. That's about $240 per offender each month. For SullivanCounty alone that comes to $86,400 a year to track 30 sex offenders on the G.P.S. system. The offender pays a portion of that money, $50 dollars a month. The rest comes from the state. In all, it's a $1.9 million price tag, but officers say your safety is worth the cost.
"It's just another tool that the officers can use in the field to help with supervision and that protects the community," Susan Shettlesworth with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole said.
The new G.P.S. monitoring program is already expanding. Probation officers will use G.P.S. to track sex offenders and violent offenders in Tennessee. Officers use criteria like criminal history and victim information to determine which violent offenders to track. The new system goes into effect immediately. ..more.. by TriCities.com
Parent and Teenager Internet Use
October 2007
Parents today are less likely to say that the internet has been a good thing for their children than they were in 2004. However, this does not mean there was a corresponding increase in the amount of parents who think the internet has been harmful to their children. Instead, the biggest increase has been in the amount of parents who do not think the internet has had an effect on their children one way or the other. Fully, 87% of parents of teenagers are online -- at least 17% more than average adults.
Parents check up on and regulate their teens' media use, not just in terms of the internet, but with television and video games as well. However, those rules lean slightly more towards the content of the media rather than the time spent with the media device.
In looking at parents and teenagers together we found that teens are likely to view technology devices more positively than their parents. Parents and teens tend to own a similar number of technology devices (2-3), but the type of devices differ. ..more.. by PEW
Court orders Wilson freed in teen sex case
10-26-2007 Georgia:
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The Georgia Supreme Court on Friday ordered that Genarlow Wilson be released from prison, ruling 4-3 that his sentence for a teen sex conviction was cruel and unusual punishment.
Wilson, 21, was convicted in 2005 of having oral sex with a consenting 15-year-old girl when he was 17.
He has served more than two years in prison.
Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein, told CNN she is working to gain his quick release, which could come sometime Friday. She said she called the prison warden, who informed Wilson.
"We've been praying for it every day," Bernstein said of the court's decision. "We want him home."
Bernstein added that the ruling shows "the courts do work." She said Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett, is "overjoyed."
A spokesman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker said there will be no further appeals. Watch what has to happen before Wilson goes home »
"I respectfully acknowledge the court's authority to grant the relief that they have crafted in this case," Baker said.
"I hope the court's decision will also put an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case."
Friday's decision came after a protracted legal battle that has galvanized international attention and drawn the involvement of civil rights leaders. Partly as a result of Wilson's conviction, state legislators changed the law to make such consensual conduct between minors a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
"The release of Genarlow Wilson by the Georgia Supreme Court is a significant victory in redressing the reckless and biased behavior of the criminal justice system that now operates in many states across the union," the Rev. Al Sharpton said.
"The bad news is that his young life was so unfairly interrupted with time that no state court can recover for him," Sharpton added. "This is why the Justice Department and federal government must review state courts that willfully and almost without pause violate the civil rights of people, particularly young black men around this country."
Wilson was an honor student, a football star and his high school's homecoming king before his conviction.
Prosecutors offered him deals, but he and his attorneys rejected them, saying anything that leaves a record for him as a registered sex offender is unfair.
At the time of Wilson's conviction, Georgia law made the crime punishable by 10 years in prison. Changes in the law made such conduct "punishable by no more than a year in prison and no sex offender registration," the Georgia high court noted.
But those changes were not made retroactive, so they did not apply to Wilson.
The high court upheld the decision of a Monroe County judge. In a 48-page opinion, the court said the "severe" punishment Wilson received and his mandated sex offender registration make "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment."
The case revolves around a 2003 New Year's Eve party outside Atlanta when Wilson engaged in the sex act with the girl.
Under the now-changed Georgia law, Wilson was convicted of felony aggravated child molestation. He was acquitted on a second charge of raping a 17-year-old girl -- who prosecutors maintained was too intoxicated at the party to consent.
The 10-year sentence was mandatory under the law.
In the decision, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote that changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."
"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children," the court's majority found.
"For the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of 10 years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime," the majority opinion concluded.
The dissent noted that the Georgia Legislature had made clear that the changes in the law were not to be applied retroactively.
Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice George Carley said, "The General Assembly made the express decision that he cannot benefit from the subsequent legislative determination to reduce the sentence for commission of that crime from felony to misdemeanor status."
The majority countered that it was not applying the 2006 amendment retroactively, but instead factoring that "into its determination that Wilson's punishment is cruel and unusual," the court said in a news release.
The court said this kind of decision is unusual: "The majority opinion points out that this court rarely overturns a sentence on cruel and unusual grounds. But twice before, it did so following a legislative change."
The Monroe County Superior Court judge also ruled that Wilson's punishment was cruel and unusual and voided it on constitutional grounds.
The judge reduced the sentence to one year and said Wilson should not be put on Georgia's sex offender registry, as the old law required.
Wilson's jubilant attorneys had hoped that ruling would free him from state prison. But shortly after it was handed down, Georgia's attorney general announced he would appeal that decision, a move that kept Wilson behind bars.
The Georgia high court said unanimously that the decision to deny Wilson bail was correct.
Wilson's plight drew pleas for his release, including from former President Carter, himself an ex-Georgia governor, and even some jurors who convicted him.
Legislation that would make the change in Georgia's child molestation law retroactive to free Wilson failed to win approval earlier this year. ..more.. by CNN's Mary Lynn Ryan contributed to this report.
First Defendant in the Nation Charged with Increased Sex Offender Penalty
10-22-2007 Utah:
An Idaho man who moved to Utah last year had the dubious distinction of being the first defendant in the nation charged with violating a federal law that increased the penalty for failure to register as a sex offender.
John Henry Gill, however, no longer is being prosecuted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell on Oct. 15 threw out the charge, ruling that this new, tougher law did not apply to Gill at the time he made Utah his new home.
The next day, in an unrelated case, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell dismissed a charge brought against Keith David Wilson because his move to Utah from South Dakota also predated the date the act went into effect.
The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2006. One of its provisions, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), increased the maximum punishment from one year imprisonment to 10 years for failing to register after a move to a new state.
A few months later, a new rule made the tougher punishment also apply to offenders who committed their sex crimes before July 2006 and then failed to register. That rule was enacted in February 2007.
Gill moved to Utah in the fall of 2006, and Wilson in September 2005.
Both Cassell and Campbell agreed that SORNA did not apply to them, at those times and that the increased penalty cannot be imposed retroactively for failure to register in a pre-February 2007 move.
The men might not be off the hook, however. Cassell stressed that Gill still faces possible punishment under Idaho's sex offender registration law.
"While the federal law may not have applied at that time, state criminal statutes may still cover many of these offenders if they failed to follow state registration requirement," Cassell wrote in his decision.
U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman said his office is considering whether to appeal the decisions.
He added: "While there may be some initial issues litigated as a new law comes into use, we will continue to aggressively pursue these cases in the future."
Court records show that Gill, 48, was convicted in Idaho in 2003 of possession of sexually exploitative material and was released from prison in March 2006 after serving time for the offense.
Wilson served a sentence for raping a child and was released from a South Dakota prison in 1999. ..more.. by Pamela Manson, The Salt Lake Tribune
October 25, 2007
Jessica's Law makes life difficult for parole agents
10-25-2007 California
Wearing a black shirt and a badge on a chain, parole agent Jerry Ramirez pulled his state-issued hybrid into a San Leandro apartment complex Tuesday to check on a few men.
The sprawling, two-story complex at the elbow of Interstates 880 and 238 is billed as a "quiet, resort-like setting" where "your home blends into the lush landscape of curving pathways, manicured lawns, shady trees and shimmering waterways."
The sales pitch fails to mention this: More and more, the neighbors are registered sex offenders fresh out of prison.
As state officials reckon with one of the nation's toughest new anti-predator laws, Ramirez and other agents who oversee Alameda County's paroled sex offenders say the 840-unit complex is one of few places they've found that their cash-strapped charges can call home.
Agents in Bay Area counties face a similar dilemma from Proposition 83, a 2006 ballot measure that forever bans newly released sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a
school or park where kids "regularly gather."
Prop. 83, or Jessica's Law, also requires them to wear GPS anklets for life, though the state has yet to buy the 9,000 devices needed to fully enforce the law with parolees. Still unsettled is how they will be tracked, and by whom, once they leave parole, as hundreds already have.
In Alameda County, parole agents point to a handful of eligible motels in Newark, Hayward and Oakland. Ramirez said he discovered the San Leandro apartment complex when a parolee who lived there asked him to check if it complied with Jessica's Law.
GPS device in hand, Ramirez found that it did, and passed word to other parolees who received 45-day notices to move or face a possible return to prison. Or at least parts of it did. As the crow flies, two schools across the freeway sit too close to some of the complex.
"I kind of drew a line," said Ramirez, who supervises 20 of the county's high-risk sex offenders. "It gets a little crazy. You can live there, but only in these certain buildings."
For parole agents and policy-makers across the state, some devilish details are beginning to emerge from a law that 70 percent of voters passed in November.
Agents in the East Bay say the law has complicated their work, uprooting some sex offenders from stable housing, turning some transient and slowly concentrating many into a handful of spots.
Parole agents check potential housing by GPS and mark off nearby schools, parks, and "obvious day cares," said Ramirez. Prop. 83 does not define a school or a park. Would ballparks such as the Oakland Coliseum count?
"Politically, at this point, if the city tells us it's a park, we're not going to touch that," said Guillermo Viera-Rosa, who supervises sex offender parole officers in the county. "The areas that tend to be compliant are really devoid of anything like that. They're industrial areas, rural areas . . . You can't underestimate the limitations."
In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, more than 150 sex convicts now fall under Jessica's Law, state officials said.
Statewide, about 3,500 parolees must comply with the law, with 400 to 700 new parolees each month.
Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court blocked the state from forcing four parolees to move and agreed to consider constitutional objections to the ballot measure.
A federal judge this spring ruled that the 2,000-foot rule could not apply retroactively to about 90,000 registered sex offenders who were living freely in communities before the law passed. But if they land back behind bars, for whatever reason, the state says they fall under the new restrictions.
Jason Beasley, released in 2004 after 14 months in prison on a conviction for rape of a minor, was on parole, living at his mother's house in San Lorenzo when police stopped him for driving under the influence. He spent three months in jail.
When he got out, his parole officer fitted him with a GPS anklet and ordered him to move. He packed up his guitar and settled into the complex with the manicured lawns and shady trees.
"I was living good, with family . . . I was saving up money," said Beasley, 28. "I think it's a good law.
"Some people need it, but . . . it doesn't make sense to apply it to every sex offender."
Beasley's mother, Kathy Berry, said she spent a month scouring the East Bay for compliant housing until Ramirez suggested the San Leandro complex.
"It was totally insane. You cannot turn around without a school or a park or a preschool," she said.
"He can still come to my house and visit, but he can't live there. So what's the difference?"
Ramirez said those paroled for non-sex crimes make up about a third of his Jessica's Law cases.
State officials said last week that about 500 offenders have since left parole with no one to track them. Local officials have nothing in place — no GPS units, no system, no money — to do the job.
"The issue of who would take responsibility for sex offenders when they were no longer under our authority is something everyone anticipated would have to be resolved," said corrections spokesman Bill Sessa. "I don't think anyone anticipated it would come to a head so quickly."
State and local officials are just starting those discussions, said Suzanne Brown-McBride, chairwoman of the state Sex Offender Management Board. "Clearly there is pressure for people to get some clarity on this. It cuts to the heart of where state control ends and where local control begins," she said.
Viera-Rosa said he thinks Californians never understood the impact of their vote.
"The voters really did something spectacular here," he said. "These are heavy, heavy laws that control liberties and behaviors that would have been fought in the Legislature for decades, and in one fell swoop, it's done."
One indication of what local jurisdictions could face arose Tuesday, when agents visited a motel along Interstate 880 in Hayward where one parolee told them he had found a place. He paid for a room but there were no signs that he actually stayed there.
"He did come into compliance, but the story doesn't end there. If it was as simple as getting them into compliance, we'd win every time," said Viera-Rosa. "They have to stay in compliance for the rest of their natural lives."
In tracking a small population of sex offenders, the GPS devices help.
On Tuesday morning, Ramirez curbed the hybrid in downtown Oakland, settled a laptop on his knee and pulled up a map with blue dots and a red "X." The dots tracked where "KMJ" was all morning.
The red X showed where he stood.
Ramirez found him basking in the sun below a Chinatown archway in gray sweats, a sport bag across his shoulder and a GPS anklet bulging under a white sock. Fresh out of prison after 10 years on an arson conviction, KMJ fell under Jessica's Law from an earlier rap for what he called "basically copping a feel."
With a week to leave a downtown shelter that fell within one of the banned zones, he was struggling to find a place to stay.
"I didn't see it coming. I didn't know about it," he said of the new law. "Downtown Oakland is the center of resources. It's dotted with schools." Ramirez offered a suggestion.
"We've got a hotel we can put you in. It's way out in Newark," he said.
"I can commute. That's fine," the parolee replied.
It wouldn't matter. Ramirez searched the convicted arsonist's bag and found a small Bic lighter, violating a condition of his parole.
That night he was back in jail, leaving a room free at the Newark motel. ..more.. by John Simerman, STAFF WRITER
Really that dangerous?
10-25-2007 Arizona:
Tiano Monteilh, 21, a resident on the 1800 block of East Second Avenue, pleaded guilty to charges that he had consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl when he was between the ages of 18 and 20.
Two of the charges, attempted sexual abuse with a minor, are considered dangerous crimes against a child.
Upon his release from jail, he was placed on probation for the rest of his life, and he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
On Oct. 15, in accordance with a 2006 law, he was the first person in Coconino County outfitted with an electronic device that allows his probation officer and surveillance officer to know exactly where he is 24 hours a day.
If he tries to take the device off, his probation officer will be contacted. If he gets too close to a school or a park where children frequent, his probation officer will be contacted. If he gets more than 100 feet from his tracking monitor, his probation officer will be contacted.
"Anyone who has been convicted since November 2006 for dangerous crimes against children gets one," said Rick Day, probation officer.
The purpose of the law, according to information from the office of Gov. Janet Napolitano, is to give law enforcement agencies more updated information on sex offenders to protect the public.
According to the law, "Beginning November 1, 2006, after conviction of a dangerous crime against children ... if a term of probation is imposed, the court shall require global position system monitoring for the duration of the term of probation."
Monteilh, because he's on probation for the rest of his life, must wear the device the rest of his life.
Day said the law also covers crimes that are not sexual in nature. For instance, if a child is in a home where meth is being manufactured and is physically injured, that is considered a dangerous crime against a child.
Kathy Soper is a surveillance officer. She is responsible for making spot checks on probationers' locations in the city.
She said that the device does not take the place of regular surveillance duties and the probationer's requirements, which include periodic visits to the probation department and a whole list of appointments and meetings.
Currently, Monteilh is on the highest level of supervision, which is, in essence, house arrest. He must have permission to leave his home for specific reasons -- like a job, or to get to a probation-required appointment.
"So far, the person's been out of custody and very compliant," Day added.
Within the next four years, two more probationers who will be living in Coconino County are scheduled to be fitted with the tracking device, Day said.
Soper said that in the probation field, staff believe that the new law was meant to focus primarily on dangerous sex offenders and other people who endanger children's lives. In some cases, Soper said without being specific to Monteilh's case, probation staff believe the statute is excessive.
Allen Gerhardt, Coconino County Public Defender, said that his office, which originally defended Monteilh, has been in contact with Monteilh's family to discuss options regarding the new law.
Gerhardt said the language of the law is vague as to when an offender qualifies to have the law applied. Additionally, he said that Monteilh's offenses were committed well before November 2006, which could mean the law does not apply to Monteilh.
For more information on sex offenders in the Flagstaff area, visit the Arizona Sex Offender Web site at az.gov/webapp/offender/main.do.
Larry Hendricks can be reached at 556-2262 or lhendricks@azdailysun.com.
The following are some of the crimes considered in Arizona to be dangerous crimes against children under the age of 15:
-- Sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of a minor.
-- Molestation of a child, continuous sexual abuse of a child.
-- Attempted first-degree murder.
-- Kidnapping.
-- Sex trafficking.
-- Child prostitution.
-- Child abuse.
-- Involving or using minors in drug offenses.
-- Manufacturing meth under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.
-- Source: Arizona Revised Statutes, 13-604.01
How the device works
The device, called an Active Miniature Tracking Device, is about twice the size of a pager that lodges into a base unit tied into a telephone line while the probationer is at home, according to information from the device's manufacturer, Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. An ankle transmitter serves as an electronic tether to the device that allows the probationer to move about 100 feet from the device.
If the probationer leaves home, he has to take the device with him. The probationer's activity is monitored at a site in Yavapai County. The monitors contact the probationer's probation officer whenever a warning sounds.
The cost of the device is $1,200, with the base unit another $350 and the tether another $100. The devices are paid for by the Arizona Office of the Courts currently, said Rick Day, a probation officer for the county Adult Probation Department. The client must sign a statement making him responsible for all costs associated with fixing or replacing the unit.
The unit's signal is transmitted to the monitoring station, and that data is able to be monitored on a computer screen at the probation department. The device monitors times at locations, speeds the probationer travels, and when he gets too close to "hot spots" like schools or parks. The device knows how long it should take for the probationer to get past a hot spot, and if the probationer lingers, a warning will sound at the monitoring site, Day said.
-- Larry Hendricks, Assistant City Editor ..more..
October 23, 2007
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis
April 6, 2007
Summary
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, (P.L. 109-248, H.R. 4472), emerged from Congress following the passage of separate bills in the House and Senate (H.R. 3132 and S. 1086 respectively). The act's provisions fall into four categories: a revised sex offender registration system, child and sex related amendments to federal criminal and procedure, child protective grant programs, and other initiatives designed to prevent and punish sex offenders and those who victimize children.
The sex offender registration provisions replace the Jacob Wetterling Act
provisions with a statutory scheme under which states are required to modify their registration systems in accordance with federal requirements at the risk of losing 10% of their Byrne program law enforcement assistance funds. The act seeks to close gaps in the prior system, provide more information on a wider range of offenders, and make the information more readily available to the public and law enforcement officials.
In the area of federal criminal law and procedure, the act enlarges the kidnaping statute, increases the number of federal capital offenses, enhances the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment and other penalties that attend various federal sex offenses, establishes a civil commitment procedure for federal sex offenders, authorizes random searches as a condition for sex offender probation and supervised release, outlaws Internet date drug trafficking, permits the victims of state crimes to participate in related federal habeas corpus proceedings, and eliminates the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses and crimes committed against children.
The act revives the authorization of appropriations under the Police Athletic Youth Enrichment Act among its other grant provisions and requires the establishment of a national child abuse registry among its other child safety initiatives.
This report is available in an abridged version, without footnotes and most
citations to authority, as CRS Report RS22646, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Sketch, by Charles Doyle. ..more..
Legislative Analysis: The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV) did not take a formal position in support of or in opposition to the Adam Walsh Act as a whole. However, NAESV is concerned that the political discussion surrounding sex offender management issues, both on the national and state level, has become greatly skewed towards efforts to increase penalties for offenders and create more restrictive offender management programs in lieu of addressing the underlying issues which lead to sex offending behavior. While offender accountability and management are important factors in how our communities respond to sexual violence, it is critical that these issues do not replace or diminish efforts to provide victims with rights and services and to prevent future victimization. NAESV would like to stress the ongoing and critical need to provide victims with substantive rights, increase funding for direct victim services, increase funding for rape prevention education, and to pursue other victim and prevention focused policy initiatives.
What follows is an analysis of the Act that may help you with both the implementation of this legislation in your state as well as state legislation related to sex offenders. Summaries of each title are followed by notes for advocates and, where appro priate, NAESV’s position on particular aspects of the Act. NAESV also has a position statement on sex offender management issues that can be found on our website (www.naesv.org). ..more..
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice Objects to The Adam Walsh Act
David J. Karp, Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: OAG Docket No. 117
Comments in Opposition to Interim Rule RIN 1.105--AB22
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced rule. For the reasons that follow, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice recommends that the interim rule be withdrawn. Further, the Coalition strongly urges the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress to revisit the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and work diligently to craft legislation that protects and defends all of our nation’s children and youth, including those who are victims of sexual abuse and assault, as well as children and youth who are adjudicated for sexual offenses.
Introduction
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) is a representative national nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. Created in 1984, CJJ comprises Governor-appointed State Advisory Groups (SAGs) charged to fulfill the mandates as well as the spirit of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Working together with allied individuals and organizations, SAGs seek to improve the circumstances of vulnerable and troubled children, youth and families involved with the courts, and to build safe communities. Today, more than 1,500 CJJ members span the U.S. states and territories, providing a forum for sharing best practices,
innovations, policy recommendations and peer support.
There is not just one but rather fifty-six different juvenile justice systems across the nation and the U.S. territories, each with its own structure, laws, policies and service-delivery models. To varying degrees, each jurisdiction has proactively taken steps to protect its citizens from repeat sexual offenders, and our members are eager to partner with the federal government to better hold offenders accountable, protect vulnerable populations and improve the overall public safety for communities across the nation. In the spirit of this partnership and per your invitation, we take this opportunity to comment on recent policies that we believe unnecessarily hinder the states, territories and federal government from achieving these goals together.
Our comments primarily address the Attorney General’s interim determination that Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Act), also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), applies retroactively to all sex offenders as defined by the Act regardless of when they were convicted. We, however, also take this opportunity to express our grave concerns with and opposition to the overall applicability of Title I to children and youth who have been adjudicated within the juvenile system and not convicted as adults.
SORNA Should Not Be Applied Retroactively to Children and Youth Adjudicated within the Juvenile Court System In articulating his rationale for retroactivity, the Attorney General acknowledges that he is determining “the applicability of SORNA’s requirements to virtually the entire existing sex offender population . . . regardless of when they were convicted” (emphasis added).
Respectfully, the Attorney General greatly underestimates how difficult it would be for the states to apply the mandates of the Act retroactively. In order to comply, each state would first have to review thousands if not tens of thousands of case files to determine which children and youth fall under the mandates of the Act.
Given that many states either still lack the information technology to store these files electronically or only recently obtained this ability, taking this first step towards compliance would mean conducting a paper review of thousands if not tens of thousands of case files. Next, each state would have to locate and notify each child still living in that state, which presents its own set of difficulties. Poor and low-income children and youth are disproportionately represented in our nation’s juvenile justice systems, and a constant challenge for poor and low-income families is frequent relocation of their residence. Case managers have a difficult time monitoring children and youth who are currently juvenile justice-involved, let alone children and youth who have been discharged and no longer required to report to the agency.
Moreover, retroactivity does not take into account those children and youth who have moved out-of-state. Currently, state juvenile databases are not linked to nor do they communicate with juvenile databases in other states. Thus, a likely scenario could include a child who was adjudicated in one state, but has subsequently moved to another. It is unlikely that the first state has a forwarding address for the child, and equally unlikely that the second state is aware that the child is now in its jurisdiction.
Finally, despite the Attorney General’s determination that retroactive applicability of the Act does not violate the ex post facto protections of the U.S. Constitution, CJJ asserts the retroactivity runs afoul of fundamental fairness. At the time of disposition, neither the judge nor the juvenile nor the prosecuting or defending attorney were proceeding with the expectation that the child’s adjudication would trigger the additional sanction of registering for 25 years to life as a sex offender.
Based on such reasons, CJJ asserts that it is impractical and burdensome for the states to comply with SORNA retroactively. In addition, for states to attempt to manage such a burden, they will be forced to take on additional costs—or to consider use of federal juvenile justice appropriations in a manner would be entirely at odds with the core prevention, early intervention and system improvement goals for federal appropriations to states and localities under current federal juvenile justice laws.
SORNA Should Not Be Applied to Children and Youth Adjudicated Within the Juvenile Court System Practical considerations and burdens stated, CJJ also asserts that it is bad public policy for SORNA to be applied to children and youth adjudicated within the juvenile s ystem, retroactively, or otherwise.
First, SORNA as applied to children and youth is not in accord with the Act’s public safety objective of “protect[ing] the public from sex offenders and offenders against children,” in that it will expose certain children to adult offenders. Just as members of the public will be able to access the registry via the Internet and identify offenders in any and every community, adult offenders who are still inclined to offend will be able to access the registry via the Internet and identify adjudicated children and youth in any and every community.
Moreover, the young person’s exposure will not be limited to the Internet. Pursuant to SORNA, four times a year these children and youth will have to report to a centralized location to provide certain updated information--bringing them into the physical presence of others and making abusive and unlawful actions much easier for those adult offenders who are so inclined to target vulnerable children and youth.
Second, SORNA as applied to children and youth assumes a clear distinction between the children who are abused and children who abuse, which is not always the case. It is common knowledge among juvenile experts and practitioners that children who commit sexual abuse against others are far more likely than the general population to have been physically, sexually, or otherwise abused themselves. Research cites that between 40% and 80% of sexually abusive youth have themselves been sexually abused, and that 20% to 50% have been physically abused (Center for Sex Offender Management, 1999). These facts are critical to consider when policy decisions are made regarding a national sex offender registry. To be clear, CJJ strongly agrees that children who abuse others sexually must be held accountable for their actions and closely attended to, in order to ensure that they do not re-offend and that they receive the treatment they need to heal and overcome these harmful proclivities. Exposing such children and youth through a public registry, however, is counterproductive.
Third, research does not support the application of SORNA to children. According to the National Center of Sexual Behavior of Youth, a training and technical assistance center developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the recidivism rate among juvenile sex offenders is substantially lower than that of adults (5-14% vs. 40%), and substantially lower than rates for other delinquent behavior (5-14% vs. 8-58%). The Center also found that juvenile sex offenders are more responsive to treatment than adults and that they are less likely than adults to re-offend given appropriate treatment. In other words, children whose conduct involves sexual abuse and acting out—even when assaultive—do not pose the same threat in terms of duration or severity to public safety as do adults. Children and youth, therefore, do not need to be subjected to the same restrictions.
Fourth, the research does not support the application of SORNA to children and youth. According to the National Center of Sexual Behavior of Youth, a training and technical assistance center developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the recidivism rate among children and youth who commit sexual abuse is substantially lower than that of adults (5-14% vs. 40%), and substantially lower than rates for other delinquent behavior (5-14% vs. 8-58%). The Center also found that children and youth who commit sexual abuse are more responsive to treatment than adults and that they are less likely than adults to re-offend when provided with appropriate treatment. In other words, children and youth do not pose the same threat to public safety as adults and do not need to be subjected to the same restrictions.
Fifth, SORNA as applied to juveniles flies in the face of some of the core purposes, functions and objectives of our nation’s juvenile justice systems in that it strips away the confidentiality and the overall rehabilitative emphasis which form the basis of effective intervention and treatment for youthful offenders. This stripping away of confidentiality as it applies to children under the age of 18 cannot be taken lightly. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that children and youth implicated by the Act have not been convicted of a criminal offense, by deliberate action of the states’ legislatures and prosecuting authorities.
Rather, they have been adjudicated delinquent and, by virtue of that adjudication, have been found to be amenable to treatment and deserving of the opportunity to correct their behavior apart from the stigma and perpetual collateral consequences that typically accompany criminal convictions. Subjecting juveniles to the mandates of SORNA interferes with and threatens child-focused treatment modalities and may significantly decrease the effectiveness of the treatment.
Sixth, SORNA as applied to children and youth will disrupt families and communities across the nation because SORNA does not just stigmatize the child; it stigmatizes the entire family, including the parents and other children in the home. Similarly, the mandates and restrictions associated with SORNA impact not only the child, but the entire family, particularly in terms of where registrants can live, e.g., prohibitions against living within so many feet of a school or a park. In its efforts to support families as the fabric of strong communities, the federal government must be careful not to promulgate policies and promote practices that unnecessarily introduce or exacerbate tensions in the home, the school and between members of the same community, particularly where those tensions center on children and families who need and can benefit from appropriate treatment.
Seventh, SORNA as applied to children and youth could have a chilling effect on the identification and proper treatment of children and youth who exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior in that families will be more inclined to hide problems and not seek help for a troubled child or youth if they are aware of the potential long-term consequences of their child being not only labeled but also being required to register for life as a sex offender.
Finally, as a due process matter, the Act does not make clear exactly who should be held accountable and sanctioned if a child under the age of 18 does not comply. Minors, even those adjudicated delinquent, are still dependent upon adults, and children subject to SORNA would be dependent on adults to help them comply with the Act. Neither the interim rule nor the Act speak to how the state is supposed to respond, i.e., who the state is supposed to arrest, prosecute and punish, when a child’s parent or guardian fails to or refuses to provide the child with the assistance s/he needs to comply with the Act.
For all of these reasons, CJJ asserts that it is bad public policy for SORNA to be applied to children and youth adjudicated within the juvenile system and strongly urges the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress to revisit the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and work diligently to strike a more compassionate and productive balance between victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, and child victims of sexual abuse who sadly exhibit abusive behaviors.
Conclusion
In closing, we reiterate the eagerness of the states to partner with the federal government to hold offenders accountable, protect vulnerable population and improve the overall public safety for communities across the nation. For the aforementioned reasons, however, we believe that the Act and the interim rule unnecessarily hinder us from achieving these goals together. We therefore urge the Attorney General to withdraw the interim rule, or alternatively, to exclude juveniles in its application.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Interim Rule for the Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 and we trust that our comments will be given serious and thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Nancy Gannon Hornberger
Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Acting for the whole of the organization and its Board.
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice was incorporated in 1985 as a national association of state juvenile advisory groups. ..source..
American Bar Association Opposes the Adam Walsh Act
Attn: Mr. David J. Karp, Senior Counsel
Office of Legal Policy
Room 4509, Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
RE: Comments on the interim regulations to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-248), the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA); OAG Docket No. 117
On behalf of the American Bar Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed captioned interim regulations that would apply SORNA retroactively to juvenile offenders.
ABA juvenile justice policy is set forth in 20 volumes of IJA-Juvenile Justice Standards (“Standards”) developed by the Association in conjunction with the Institute of Judicial Administration. The Standards call for individualized treatment that is fair in purpose, scope and not arbitrary. These goals are set forth in the
Standard Relating to Disposition:
The purpose of the juvenile correctional system is to reduce juvenile crime by maintaining the integrity of the substantive law proscribing certain behavior and by developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior. This purpose should be pursued through means that are fair and just, that recognize the unique characteristics and needs of juveniles, and that give juveniles access to opportunities for personal and social growth.
The Standards set forth clear parameters for juvenile justice sanctions: the definition and application of sanctions should address public safety; give fair warning about prohibited conduct; and recognize “the unique physical, psychological, and social features of young persons.”1 The Standards, as well as accepted research in developmental science, recognize that juveniles are generally less culpable than adults, and that their patterns of offending are different from those of adults.2 Thus, ABA policy supports sanctions that vary in restrictiveness and intensity, and are developmentally appropriate and limited in duration.
Given the goals of the juvenile justice system and the transitory characteristics of juvenile offenders, ABA policy also limits the way juvenile records are compiled and disseminated. The Standards frown on “labeling” offenders, require very careful control of records, and prohibit making juvenile records public. In addition, “[a]ccess to and the use of juvenile records should be strictly controlled to limit the risk that disclosure will result in the misuse or misinterpretation of information, the unnecessary denial of opportunities and benefits to juveniles, or an interference with the purposes of official intervention.”3 This is so because most adolescent anti-social behavior is not predictive of future criminal activity.
Most importantly, ABA policy prohibits collateral consequences for delinquent behavior: “No collateral disabilities extending beyond the term of the disposition should be imposed by the court, by operation of law, or by any person or agency exercising authority over the juvenile.” 4 Lifetime registration violates this Standard and is detrimental to both rehabilitation and crime prevention.
The ABA opposed those provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that apply to juvenile offenders. A large percentage of “sex offenses” occur within families and do not rise to the level of sexual predation that is the target of the Act. The "Lifetime Registration" provisions of the Act are likely to have a chilling effect on the reporting of these crimes and will reduce admissions (guilty pleas) to the charges in the cases that do get reported. Concerns about the prospects of the retroactive application of the Walsh registration provisions already are having an adverse effect across the country with respect to admissions and delinquency adjudications in sex offense cases. As a consequence of its "Lifetime Registration" provisions, the ultimate impact of the Walsh Act here will be far more contested proceedings in these cases; far fewer delinquency adjudications; and far fewer juveniles getting the treatment they need. In addition, the fact-finding and guilty plea (admission of guilt) processes in most juvenile courts have fewer safeguards than in the adult system. Adjudications for sex offenses tend to lack the precision required by ABA policy (See Standards Relating to Adjudication). Furthermore, sex offending in adolescence has limited correlation to adult sex offending (the number of false positives close to 90 percent).5
Because the Adam Walsh Act is inconsistent with ABA juvenile justice policy and because we believe the statute is overbroad in this respect, we urge you to draft the regulations so as to not further broaden the reach of the act and to minimize the harm that will result from application of the statute. The clearest way to accomplish this is to reject retroactive application of the Act to those who were under 18 at the time of their offenses. To the extent possible, the regulations should also provide a reasonable method for low-risk offenders to petition to be removed from federal and state sex offender registries. Finally, the ABA also suggests that the Department of Justice urge Congress to reconsider whether the Act should apply to juvenile offenders.
Sincerely,
Denise A. Cardman ..Source..
AP: Sex abuse laws can fail school kids
10-22-2007 National:
Every school has rules governing teacher behavior. Every state has laws against child abuse, and many specifically outlaw teachers taking sexual liberties with students. Every district has administrators who watch out for sexual misconduct by teachers.
Yet people like Chad Maughan stay in the classroom.
Maughan got in trouble twice for viewing pornography at schools in Washington state but was allowed to keep teaching. Within two years, he was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl in his school.
Legal loopholes, fear of lawsuits and inattention all have weakened the safeguards that are supposed to protect children in school. The system fails hundreds of kids each year, an AP investigation found. It undoubtedly fails many more whose offenders go free.
State efforts to strengthen laws against sex abuse by teachers have run into opposition from school boards and teachers unions. In Congress, a measure that would train investigators and create a national registry of offenders hasn't even gotten a hearing. Few leaders recognize -- let alone attack -- a national shame.
"Instead of ignoring it or fighting it, why don't you get ahead of it?" says Ted Thompson, executive director of the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children.
An Associated Press investigation identified 2,570 cases from 2001 to 2005 in which teachers were punished or removed from the classroom for sexual misconduct. The allegations ranged from fondling to rape. Reporters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia gathered the cases from state agencies with responsibility for teacher licensing.
Even accounting for population differences, states vary widely on how many teachers they discipline and how rigorously, the investigation showed. That reflects the patchwork nature of the laws and rules that aim to protect schoolchildren. Each state takes its own approach to background checks, fingerprinting and reporting abuse.
While states have taken halting steps toward accountability in recent years after decades of widespread neglect, there are still many gaps.
Some states check fingerprints against records only in their own states, not the FBI databases, so they miss offenders from other states. Others only check for violations when teachers are newly hired, missing veteran teachers who have run afoul of the law since they were first hired.
"You can fingerprint them all you want and nothing's going to come up," says John Seryak, a longtime Ohio middle school teacher who now trains teachers to spot when a colleague is abusing kids.
School systems also have made an attempt at weeding out wrongdoers. For the past 20 years, educators have shared information with other states about teachers who've run into administrative trouble.
The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification created the list, and Roy Einreinhofer, its executive director, says protecting children is one of the group's top goals.
But the list has its flaws.
It only provides identifying information such as names, birth dates and Social Security numbers, nothing describing a teacher's past problems, leaving it up to a state agency or a hiring school district to dig deeper. Also, the list is not publicly available.
"There are some liability issues involved there," Einreinhofer says. "It just serves as a flag saying you need to check this person further."
Created in 1987, the list contains names of some 37,000 teachers who have had license problems, which includes all misbehavior, not just sexual.
Similar piecemeal efforts have often run into resistance, from lawmakers reluctant to tackle the subject, from teacher unions concerned with privacy and due process, and from school boards worried about court fights.
In Washington state, Maughan's case led to a law that clarified the definition of sexual misconduct and required school districts to share information.
Maughan had been suspended from one job for looking at pornography on school computers, but the district said only that he had used "poor judgment." At the second job, he was reprimanded for viewing pornography, and told administrators he had an addiction and was getting counseling.
In 2005, school employees found a paper bag containing a 14-year-old girl's red lace underwear and a sexually explicit note from her to Maughan. The teacher pleaded guilty to rape.
State Sen. Don Benton, who fought for the law that followed the arrest, said "we had tremendous resistance from the teachers union when it came to personnel files.
"We have to tell school districts, 'Look, you have a duty and a responsibility. As parents we are entrusting you with our children to take extra steps to ensure that the people you hire are safe.'"
In Minnesota, the state school board association -- allied with two church groups -- has lobbied against a bill that would give victims of child sex abuse more time to bring civil claims. Schools, like churches, could be held liable if they failed to stop abuse that they should have known about.
"Schools have nothing to fear unless they either actively participated or covered up grave misconduct," says House Majority Leader Steve Smith, a Democrat pushing the measure.
Some union officials argue that the dangers are overstated.
"We're turning some of this now into a modern-day witch hunt and making it very difficult for teachers to have to say, 'I'm not one of those.' It's the wrong signal to send," says Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. His state this spring declared it a crime punishable by up to six months imprisonment for a teacher to have sex with a student even if he or she is above the age of consent.
Advocates argue what's needed is a coordinated national approach. But there has been virtually no momentum there.
A report ordered by Congress and released in 2004 examined previous studies and surveys of teacher sexual misconduct and sent a troubling message. It estimated that some 4.5 million students out of 50 million in American public schools "are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade."
But that report, compiled by leading expert Charol Shakeshaft, head of the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University, was largely ignored.
This year, U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, a Florida Republican, proposed legislation to create a national public registry of convicted offenders in schools, better training of investigators, and a national hot line for reports of sexual abuse in school.
It still hasn't received a hearing.
"It clearly is a problem and it appears to be growing," Putnam says, yet he is dismayed by the lack of concern. "You'd think the teachers association, the school boards, the principals -- you'd think all of them would be on board to protect children."
Those who have fought for years to try to raise awareness of the issue see incremental gains, and the AP analysis found a steady increase in teachers removed from the classroom from 2001-2005. But advocates are despairing, not satisfied.
"We are mandated to send our children to school. Yet our schools are not being mandated to keep our children safe," says Terri Miller, president of SESAME, Inc., which stands for Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation. "That is a horrendous problem, and that needs to be fixed."
She shares Putnam's enthusiasm for a new national registry and hopes for federal leadership that would force states to make their laws more uniform.
Others emphasize training as the best way to prevent abuse.
Some newly minted teachers graduate from college, have sex with a student and then say "What's wrong with that?" says Einreinhofer, at the national teacher certification group.
And more training is needed at the nation's public schools themselves.
For the past year in Rhinebeck, N.Y., administrators, teachers, students and parents have gone through a series of programs to recognize problem signs -- teachers who get too personal with students, who "groom" students vulnerable to abuse, who test the boundaries by an inappropriate comment or touch.
The school community has been remarkably engaged and committed, says Bill Berard, the lawyer who taught the lessons.
Yet the training came as punishment. It was ordered as part of the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit, after former Rhinebeck High School Principal Thomas Mawhinney was accused of sexually harassing female students for years.
It often takes such scandals to inspire changes.
The AP investigation raised questions about an abusive teacher in Virginia who got a new job after being suspended for sexually abusing three girls. He molested two female students at the next school before the state finally acted on the earlier trouble and revoked his license.
Now, Virginia's Board of Education intends to seek legislation to tighten the background check and disciplinary process. "From now on, forever, we're going to ask ourselves, 'Can we do a better job?'" board President Mark E. Emblidge says.
The most powerful tool for change is money, says Thompson with the national child abuse prevention group.
That means dropping statutes of limitations that serve as barriers to lawsuits for all childhood sex abuse, he argues. Nothing motivates institutions more than the threat of paying out a big settlement.
Also, he says, it's the right thing to do: "Should somebody who raped a child be free and clear because the clock ticked?"
To victims' advocates, the problem is not just teachers who look the other way when one of their own misbehaves. It isn't only school prinicpals who choose a quiet solution to a problem. Lawmakers, judges, the media and even parents have all shown a great deal of reluctance to recognize and deal with sex abuse when it surfaces.
The nation needs to change its attitude toward teacher sexual misconduct, and child abuse overall, much in the way it changed its perspective about drunken driving in the last 25 years, Thompson says.
"Societally, we have a problem," says Mary Jo McGrath, a California attorney who has worked on teacher sexual abuse cases for three decades. "Our inability to think that kids might be in danger, our inability to think that the nicest teacher on the block might be an offender -- those things keep us uneducated. I'm passionate that people wake up." ..more.. by Robert Tanner, AP National Writer
October 22, 2007
Report: Sexual Misconduct Plaguing U.S. Schools
A 50-state, 5-year survey" is an interactive graphic that lets you track teacher sex-abuse cases at the state - and even county - level.
10-20-2007 National:
The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader's breast during recess. "I guess it was just lust of the flesh," he told his boss.
That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn't end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations.
When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004 — 40 years after that first little girl came forward — it wasn't a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents.
Lindsey's case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation's children.
Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love.
An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.
There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators — nearly three for every school day — speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.
Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.
And no one — not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments — has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms.
Those are the findings of an AP investigation in which reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators — the very definition of breach of trust.
The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.
Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct.
Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is that the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that's been apparent for years.
"From my own experience — this could get me in trouble — I think every single school district in the nation has at least one perpetrator. At least one," says Mary Jo McGrath, a California lawyer who has spent 30 years investigating abuse and misconduct in schools. "It doesn't matter if it's urban or rural or suburban."
One report mandated by Congress estimated that as many as 4.5 million students, out of roughly 50 million in American schools, are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade. That figure includes verbal harassment that's sexual in nature.
Jennah Bramow, one of Lindsey's accusers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wonders why there isn't more outrage.
"You're supposed to be able to send your kids to school knowing that they're going to be safe," says Bramow, now 20. While other victims accepted settlement deals and signed confidentiality agreements, she sued her city's schools for failing to protect her and others from Lindsey — and won. Only then was Lindsey's teaching license finally revoked.
As an 8-year-old elementary-school student, Bramow told how Lindsey forced her hand on what she called his "pee-pee." She was asked by a school official how it felt and replied, "Bumpy." Then she drew a picture that showed how Lindsey made her touch him on the zipper area of his pants.
Lindsey, now 68, refused multiple requests for an interview. "It never occurs to you people that some people don't want their past opened back up," he said when an AP reporter approached him at his home outside Cedar Rapids.
That past, according to evidence presented in the Bramow's civil case, included accusations from students and parents along with reprimands from principals that were filed away, explained away and ultimately ignored until 1995, when accusations from Bramow and two other girls forced his early retirement. Even then, he kept his teaching license until the Bramows took the case public and filed a complaint with the state.
Like Lindsey, the perpetrators that the AP found are everyday educators — teachers, school psychologists, principals and superintendents among them. They're often popular and recognized for excellence and, in nearly nine out of 10 cases, they're male. While some abused students in school, others were cited for sexual misconduct after hours that didn't necessarily involve a kid from their classes, such as viewing or distributing child pornography.
They include:
— Joseph E. Hayes, a former principal in East St. Louis, Illinois. DNA evidence in a civil case determined that he impregnated a 14-year-old student. Never charged criminally, his license was suspended in 2003. He has ignored an order to surrender it permanently.
— Donald M. Landrum, a high school teacher in Polk County, North Carolina. His bosses warned him not to meet with female students behind closed doors. They put a glass window in his office door, but Landrum papered over it. Police later found pornography and condoms in his office and alleged that he was about to have sex with a female student. His license was revoked in 2005.
— Rebecca A. Boicelli, a former teacher in Redwood City, California. She conceived a child with a 16-year-old former student then went on maternity leave in 2004 while police investigated. She was hired to teach in a nearby school district; board members said police hadn't told them about the investigation.
The overwhelming majority of cases the AP examined involved teachers in public schools. Private school teachers rarely turn up because many are not required to have a teaching license and, even when they have one, disciplinary actions are typically handled within the school.
Two of the nation's major teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, each denounced sex abuse while emphasizing that educators' rights also must be taken into account.
"Students must be protected from sexual predators and abuse, and teachers must be protected from false accusations," said NEA President Reg Weaver, who refused to be interviewed and instead released a two-paragraph statement.
The United States has grown more sympathetic to victims of sex abuse over recent decades, particularly when it comes to young people. Police have made pursuing Internet predators a priority. People convicted of abuse typically face tough sentences and registry as sex offenders.
Even so, sexually abusive teachers continue to take advantage, and there are several reasons why.
For one, many Americans deny the problem, and even treat the abuse with misplaced fascination. Popular media reports trumpet relationships between attractive female teachers and male students.
"It's dealt with in a salacious manner with late-night comedians saying 'What 14-year-old boy wouldn't want to have sex with his teacher?' It trivializes the whole issue," says Robert Shoop, a professor of educational administration at Kansas State University.
"In other cases, it's reported as if this is some deviant who crawled into the school district — 'and now that they're gone, everything's OK.' But it's much more prevalent than people would think."
The AP investigation found efforts to stop individual offenders but, overall, a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse. It starts in school hallways, where fellow teachers look away or feel powerless to help. School administrators make behind-the-scenes deals to avoid lawsuits and other trouble. And lawmakers shy from tough state punishments or any cohesive national policy for fear of disparaging a vital profession.
That only enables rogue teachers, and puts kids who aren't likely to be believed in a tough spot.
In case after case the AP examined, accusations of inappropriate behavior were dismissed. One girl in Mansfield, Ohio, complained about a sexual assault by teacher Donald Coots and got expelled. It was only when a second girl, years later, brought a similar complaint against the same teacher that he was punished.
And that second girl also was ostracized by the school community and ultimately left town.
Unless there's a videotape of a teacher involved with a child, everyone wants to believe the authority figure, says Wayne Promisel, a retired Virginia detective who has investigated many sex abuse cases.
He and others who track the problem reiterated one point repeatedly during the AP investigation: Very few abusers get caught. They point to several academic studies estimating that only about one in 10 victimized children report sexual abuse of any kind to someone who can do something about it.
Teachers, administrators and even parents frequently don't, or won't, recognize the signs that a crime is taking place.
"They can't see what's in front of their face. Not unlike a kid in an alcoholic family, who'll say 'My family is great,"' says McGrath, the California lawyer and investigator who now trains entire school systems how to recognize what she calls the unmistakable "red flags" of misconduct.
In Hamburg, Pennsylvania, in 2002, those "red flags" should have been clear. A student skipped classes every day to spend time with one teacher. He gave her gifts and rides in his car. She sat on his lap. The bond ran so deep that the student got chastised repeatedly — even suspended once for being late and absent so often. But there were no questions for the teacher.
Heather Kline was 12, a girl with a broad smile and blond hair pulled back tight. Teacher Troy Mansfield had cultivated her since she was in his third-grade class.
"Kids, like, idolized me because they thought I was, like, cool because he paid more attention to me," says Kline, now 18, sitting at her mother's kitchen table, sorting through a file of old poems and cards from Mansfield. "I was just like really comfortable. I could tell him anything."
He never pushed her, just raised the stakes, bit by bit — a comment about how good she looked, a gift, a hug.
She was sure she was in love.
By winter of seventh grade, he was sneaking her off in his car for an hour of sex, dropping in on her weekly baby-sitting duties, e-mailing about what clothes she should wear, about his sexual fantasies, about marriage and children.
Mansfield finally got caught by the girl's mother, and his own words convicted him. At his criminal trial in 2004, Heather read his e-mails and instant messages aloud, from declarations of true love to explicit references to past sex. He's serving up to 31 years in state prison.
The growing use of e-mails and text messages is leaving a trail that investigators and prosecutors can use to prove an intimate relationship when other evidence is hard to find.
Even then, many in the community find it difficult to accept that a predator is in their midst. When these cases break, defendants often portray the students as seducers or false accusers. However, every investigator questioned said that is largely a misconception.
"I've been involved in several hundred investigations," says Martin Bates, an assistant superintendent in a Salt Lake City school district. "I think I've seen that just a couple of times ... where a teacher is being pursued by a student."
Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.
"They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated," says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames — "passing the trash" or the "mobile molester."
Actions taken against teachers vary from state to state, but the AP found the number of state actions against sexually abusive teachers rose steadily, to a high of 649 in 2005. More states now require background checks on teachers, fingerprinting and mandatory reporting of abuse, though there are still loopholes and a lack of coordination among districts and states.
U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the last 20 years on civil rights and sex discrimination have opened schools up to potentially huge financial punishments for abuses, which has driven some schools to act.
And the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification keeps a list of educators who've been punished for any reason, but only shares the names among state agencies. The uncoordinated system that's developed means some teachers still fall through the cracks and move on to other teaching jobs.
Victims also face consequences when teachers are punished.
In Pennsylvania, after news of teacher Troy Mansfield's arrest hit, girls called Kline, his 12-year-old victim, a "slut" to her face. A teacher called her a "vixen." Friends stopped talking to her. Kids no longer sat with her at lunch.
So, between rumors that she was pregnant or doing drugs and her own panic attacks and depression, Kline bounced between schools. At 16, she ran away to Nashville.
"I didn't have my childhood," says Kline, who's back home now, working as a grocery cashier and hoping to eventually go to nursing school. "He had me so matured at so young.
"I remember going from little baby dolls to just being an adult."
The courts dealt her a final insult. A federal judge dismissed her civil suit against the school, saying administrators had no obligation to protect her from a predatory teacher since officials were unaware of the abuse, despite what the court called widespread "unsubstantiated rumors" in the school. The family is appealing. ..more.. by Associated Press
