CT- Sex offender violates probation by contacting previous Newington victim

I am posting this article to show why the "Classification System" mandated by the Adam Walsh Act will never work. Now, ignore what the man in the article did and everything about recidivism, and focus on what the treatment provider, David D'Amore, says.

NOTE: AWA classifies registrants based on their crime committed (years before, 5-10-20-30-40-50 years ago), accordingly, initially every single classification will be wrong. Here is why, D'Amore (treatment provider) identifies those things (by example/s) that cause a classification to change over time, dynamic factors. AWA makes no provisions for this.

Now, while D'Amore's examples would likely increase a registrant's classification level, it is also true, that the absence of those KNOWN DYNAMIC FACTORS for a period of time, should REDUCE a classification level. Again, AWA makes no allowences for this.

Under AWA, Offenders are stuck in time, the past, and again the public is bamboozzled by lawmakers. Finally, billions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted, AND more importantly, children will not be made safer.

All eyes and resources will be focused in the wrong direction, again.
However, it seems that the Rational Offender Registry may very well be the answer, even though it does not yet exist.

6-21-2008 Connecticut:

Whispering Rod Road resident David Yescott chatted online with the girl before they met in a Newington park. He took her back to his Unionville home. At the time, he was 29. She was 14.

Yescott, now 35, made headlines in 2002 when he was arrested in three cities for luring two young teenage girls into sex meetings after talking with them on the Internet.

Six years later, Farmington's only registered sex offender was arrested again June 1 on charges he violated probation by sending the same Newington victim his photo on her cell phone.

Court records reveal he had been told not to frequent telephone-dating services where he found the Newington girl, now 20 years old. His risk level also was bumped up to "high risk" after probation officials discovered he had been with 10 adult women he met on the chat lines within six months of his release from prison.

His sex offender treatment was discontinued in April after probation officials learned of the photo. He is being held on $150,000 bond for the four violation-of-probation charges he racked up for contacting his victim.

State sex offender treatment officials said Yescott is part of a small minority of offenders who engage in criminal sexual behaviors while in treatment and under supervision.

"The rate is actually far lower than most people imagine for those who are in treatment and under supervision," said David D'Amore, director for the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior. "The recidivism rate for those offenders still in treatment and under supervision is 1.7 percent. The overall rate after treatment and supervision is between 13 [percent] and 30 percent."

The center is the largest provider of outpatient sex offender treatment in the state. All of their clients have been referred through the criminal arrest process through probation or parole. While D'Amore could not speak specifically to Yescott's case, he did say that often treatment providers try to nip possible problems in the bud with increased treatment and supervision before an arrest needs to be made.

"For most people it's not actual sexual behaviors but other factors, like drinking or substance abuse, that could potentially lead to the sexual behaviors that need to be stopped," D'Amore said.

"It's not unusual for people to be moved up and down the risk scale based on what we call 'dynamic' risk factors such as drinking or losing a job," D'Amore explained. "For most people, changing the risk level will change their treatment and supervision, which helps the problem without them engaging in the sexual behaviors."

Yescott served three years of prison time for having sexual contact with at least two underage girls he met on the Internet. Police have never disclosed the details of the encounters. He was released in September 2006.

As part of the sentence for both cases, Yescott was assigned probation for 10 years as a registered sex offender with special conditions that included no contact with his victims, no computer access to the Internet and no romantic involvements of any kind without reporting the relationship to his probation officer.

He was required to submit to sex-offender evaluation and treatment and could not seek work with minors or hang out where they do.

According to court documents, Yescott was attending outpatient treatment, including a sex-offender group. But by March 2007 - about six months after his release from prison - he was deemed "high risk" after probation officials learned he had nearly a dozen sexual encounters with adult women without telling anyone, the warrant for his June 1 arrest said.

Probation officials also learned that he met many of the women through telephone chat lines where he would solicit dates. He was told not to go back to the chat lines and was assigned more intense sex-offender treatment, which court documents said he successfully completed.

But on April 4, Newington police got a call from the now 20-year-old victim he had brought to Farmington in 2002. She told police she was using a telephone chat line and a man called "Dave" had responded to her profile.

When she called him back, he said he wanted her to come over and he would cook for her. When she asked what else they would do he said, "whatever happens, happens" - the exact words Yescott had said to her six years before.

On April 4, "Dave" sent a photo of himself to her cell phone - confirming her suspicions that it was the man she knew as her "molester," David Yescott. Newington police confirmed Yescott's identity through the phone number he used for the chat line.

They alerted probation officials, who questioned Yescott during a scheduled meeting April 7.

When confronted with the incident, Yescott said he was unaware the woman was one of his victims. The 20-year-old said when she called "Dave" back, her name and her father's name would have appeared if he had caller ID. He later admitted he may have had contact with the woman accidentally.

Yescott was taken into custody by Farmington police June 1 for violation of probation. Since the original cases were adjudicated in Derby, Yescott appeared Tuesday in Derby Superior Court, where he was released so he could be arrested Wednesday in Waterbury Superior Court on three more violation-of-probation warrants.

After learning of the April 4 incident, Yescott was discharged by his treatment providers, citing he "did not ask for assistance in controlling his risky behavior ... it is apparent to treatment staff that Mr. Yescott has a very concrete sexual offending cycle which he cannot seem to break."

Yescott is being held on $150,000 bond until his next appearances in both courts. It is unclear if the Waterbury cases pertain to the contact with the Newington victim or are connected to other incidents. The cases have been transferred to the Waterbury felony-level court. ..News Source.. by Lisa Backus, Journal Register News Service