3-7-2009 National:
This week there will be the first hearing, of many more to come, on the Adam Walsh Act, SORNA Title.
Held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Their schedule and agenda is:
03/10/2009: 2:00 P.M. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Hearing on: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): Barriers to Timely Compliance by States
Video link to watch broadcast on this page:
One of those who will provide testimony is, The Adam Walsh Act Working Group (AWAWG) , a group of national and tribal organizations and experts whose goals are to protect children from sexual violence.
To the best of my knowledge AWAWG members are:
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
The Council of State Governments
CURE
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Justice Policy Institute
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Congress of American Indians
National Conference of State Legislators
National Criminal Justice Association
National Juvenile Defender Center
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
It is very likely, as a group, AWAWG, and others, were able to get Congress to convene this hearing because there are so many reports of states trying to come into compliance with and having difficulties with the SORNA section of the Adam Walsh Act. Anyone who has analyzed SORNA can see it results in consequences that leave one to wonder if it really protects the public as intended.
AWA also imposes costs on the states at a time when the entire nation is struggling as are sovereign Indian nations. AWA's retroactive requirement places extra burdens on law enforcement and on those required to register, including their families. Absent from AWA is, methods and protections for the aging population of registrants now required to register. Public safety is achieved by providing protections for both registrants, their families and the public and some of SORNA's provisions result in consequences that undermine the intent of SORNA.
Under SORNA many juveniles are required to register, and for significant periods of time. SORNA's consequences to juveniles are significant and there are questions as to whether these consequences where intended or are really necessary.
KEY POINT: Nothing in AWA or SORNA is based on evidence-based practices developed over time and prove that people can change given opportunity and therapy. SORNA's method of classifying registrants says peole do not change, 30 years ago we would not have the President we have today, does one need more proof that people can and do change!
Contacting Committee Members:
While I can understand that folks want to jump in and present individual positions and explain how SORNA affects them, it is actually best to wait to contact committee members. Committee members have an agenda and they will ignore everything else until the agenda is acomplished. Right now it is better to listen to what is presented at the hearing then, submit support or opposing arguments to committee members.
Too often when folks fail to follow the political way, great arguments are lost because they are presented at the wrong time; haste makes waste. Congress is likened to sports, learn how the sport is played and you become a player, ignore the rules and you become a spectator. Learning how Congress works is mandatory, unless your choice is to be a spectator.
Remember, this is a fact finding hearing, following this hearing various lawmakers will propose bills that result from what they learn at this hearing, and anything submitted to them following the hearing. People always remember BEST what they most recently heard, never forget that, good reason to submit information after the hearing.
When lawmakers introduce bills (each having its own hearing), then everyone will again get to submit further information for consideration. The March 10th hearing IS NOT the LAST OPPORTUNITY, no matter who tells you otherwise.
Committee member contact information and links are provided below.
Please pass this one so everyone can become a player.
eAdvocate
The Subcommittee members are:
DEMOCRATS
Hon. Bobby Scott, Chair (VI, 3rd District) - Tel: (202) 225-8351 (8354 Fax)
Hon. Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rico) - Tel: (202) 225-2615 (2154 Fax)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY, 8th District) - Tel: (202) 225-5635 (No Fax)
Hon. Zoe Lofgren (CA, 16th District) - Tel: (202) 225-3072 (No Fax)
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX, 18th District) - Tel: (202) 225-3816 (3317 Fax)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA, 35th District) - Tel: (202) 225-2201 (3854 Fax)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN, 9th District) - Tel: (202) 225-3265 (5663 Fax)
Hon. Anthony Weiner (NY, 9th District) - Tel: (202) 225-6616 (no Fax)
Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL, 20th District) - Tel: (202) 225-7931 (226-2052 Fax)
REPUBLICANS
Hon. Louie Gohmert (TX, 1st District) - Tel: (202) 225-3035 (226-1230 Fax)
Hon. Ted Poe (TX, 2nd District) - Tel: (202) 225-6565 (No Fax)
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VI, 6th District) - Tel: (202) 225-5431 (9681 Fax)
Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA, 3rd District) - Tel: (202) 225-5716 (226-1298 Fax)
Hon. J. Randy Forbes (VI, 4th District) - Tel: (202) 225-6365 (226-1170 Fax)
Hon. Thomas Rooney (FL, 16th District) - Tel: (202) 225-5792 (3132 Fax)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
SORNA Hearing in Congress - March 10, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
TX- Court says inmate can't draw on envelopes
3-6-2009 Texas:
HOUSTON — A convicted sex offender from Dallas has lost a court appeal of his challenge to rules that bar him from drawing pictures or writing messages on the outside of envelopes he mails from prison.
Robert Smithback, 29, who in 2002 began serving 45 years for aggravated sexual assault on a child under the age of 14, filed suit against Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials after corrections officers refused to mail envelopes on which he had drawn a cross or printed the words "Jesus," "LORD!" or "In God We Trust."
According to the ruling Thursday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smithback "decorates his envelopes in this manner to share his religious faith with those who come in contact with the correspondence."
Texas prison rules, however, say inmates can't embellish outgoing envelopes with illustrations or written messages.
In his suit, he argued the policy infringed his religious freedom and freedom of speech in violation of the Texas and U.S. constitutions and violated other laws covering religious freedoms.
A federal magistrate judge threw out the suit two years ago and Smithback, now an inmate at the Polunsky Unit near Livingston in East Texas, appealed the dismissal to the New Orleans-based appeals court.
In denying his claim, the appeals court also refused to award him unspecified compensatory damages.
The judges said that while the prison agency policies bar inmates from decorating the outside of envelopes, Smithback wasn't claiming the department was restricting in any way his religious exercise on materials within the envelope.
The policy "does not substantially burden Smithback's religious exercise," the court said. ..News Source.. by MICHAEL GRACZYK
NH- Sex offender residency limits don't make kids safer
3-6-2009 New Hampshire:
Bans turned out to be counterproductive
Next Tuesday Hillsboro voters will be asked to decide whether their town will join the handful of others in New Hampshire that restrict where convicted sex offenders may live. The voters should say No.
Sex offender residency restriction laws forbid convicted sex offenders from living near child-oriented places like schools or playgrounds. The theory is that if children are out of sight of sex offenders, they will be safe.
At first blush these laws might seem like a good idea. On the surface it makes sense that prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living near a school or playground might deliver them from temptation. But many experts have come to the opposite conclusion: These laws don't protect children and, in fact, might hurt them.
Why is that?
Sex offenders are least likely to re-offend when they reside in stable, supportive environments with friends or family or receive counseling or are closely monitored by probation and parole officers.
Laws that make it difficult for offenders to live with family or near their counselors destabilize them. When offenders are destabilized, they are at greater risk for re-offending.
By design, these laws push offenders out of the majority of affordable housing, forcing them to live in clusters at the outskirts of town. Since the stock of available housing is greatly diminished, many offenders can't find housing at all and are forced to live on the streets or under bridges, as was reported in Florida. Some offenders take the risk of living with their family and not registering.
Iowa was among the first states to enact sex offender residency restrictions. After years of experience with the law, the Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a statement supporting its repeal. The experiment with these restrictions, the county attorneys concluded, was a failure.
The law caused offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new location, to register false addresses or to simply disappear. The county attorneys cited offenders' families that "were unfairly and unnecessarily disrupted by the restriction, causing children to be pulled out of school and away from friends, and causing spouses to lose jobs and community connections."
Rehabilitation of offenders was jeopardized, putting the public at greater risk, and the information available to the public on the sex offender registry was unreliable and incomplete.
Victims' groups like the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence also reject these laws. They recognize that they do little to protect the victims of sexual assault. Molestation of a child by a stranger is extremely rare. How rare? Each year there are 60,000 to 70,000 arrests on charges of child sexual assault, according to the U.S. Justice Department. On average, about 115 of those arrests involve abductions by strangers.
Laws like these divert attention and resources away from the greatest source of abuse - family and close friends - and provide a false sense of security.
There are proven ways to make children safer from abuse. California is home to the nation's largest population of convicted sex offenders.
The California Research Bureau found that "intervention strategies that combine therapeutic treatment, risk assessment, specialized supervision, and global positioning monitoring have some effect on reducing sex offender offenses and recidivism rates." Restricting where sex offenders live does not.
..News Source.. by BARBARAH KESHEN For the Monitor
CA- Jury Deadlocks for Sex Offender Who Attacked News10 Crew
3-6-2009 California:
MODESTO, CA - A Stanislaus County jury failed to reach a verdict Thursday in the trial of a convicted sex offender who attacked several news media crews, including News10.
Darrin Kowomoto was arrested last November in Oakdale after assaulting news crews and making threats to kill them with a knife.
Eleven jurors voted to convict Kowomoto, but one juror refused.
A Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office spokesperson said they would re-try the case. Kowomoto will be held in custody.
News10 along with other media outlets attempted to get an interview after police held a community meeting to answer questions about Kawamoto, who moved back to the Oakdale area after finishing his parole last August.
Kawamoto, 44, was convicted in 1991 on two counts of sexual assault with force and was sentenced to 25 years behind bars. He was released on parole in 2004 after 13 years, eight months in prison.
With cameras running, Kawamoto attacked News10 reporter Cornell Barnard and photojournalist Damien Espinoza along with another television news crew when they went to his family's house to ask him questions.
At one point during the altercation, Kawamoto pulled out what appeared to be a box cutter and yelled threats as he slashed the air and tried to come after the news crews. He was restrained by a relative. ..News Source.. by Cornell Barnard
IA- New rules for sex offenders might be worse
3-6-2009 Iowa:
A problematic issue facing the Iowa General Assembly this year is the possible implementation of Title I (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006. In a nutshell, this federal act requires states to "substantially" comply with its provisions or lose up to 10 percent of federal funding from Byrne Memorial Grants.
A Byrne Grant is named after a police officer killed in the line of duty while protecting a drug-case witness in New York City. Congress named these grants in his memory, and the grants are specifically earmarked for eradicating drug-dealing offenses. The funds have nothing to do with sex offenders.
The Adam Walsh Act contains statutory requirements that states must enact to receive 100 percent of the state's allotment of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. States that don't "significantly" comply will have their grant awards cut by up to 10 percent. No one really knows what "significant" means. In any case, compliance with this act will cost more than the 10 percent grant money that could be lost through noncompliance. The grants are temporary, but changes to Iowa law will be permanent and cause long-term problems.
Many political people passionately, but erroneously, believe that the Adam Walsh Act is the answer for getting rid of Iowa's 2,000-foot residency restriction for sex offenders. This emotional response keeps the same people from seeing the many flaws in making this exchange. Sex offenders have difficulty finding a place to live. Under the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, sex offenders will have difficulty finding employment, locating a place to live (based upon enhanced notification requirements), furthering their education, and focusing on rehabilitation.
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requires sex offenders to provide the name and address of any place where the sex offender is an employee or employer, and this includes self-employment, volunteer work, transient work, etc. Although the act does not require the employer's name appear on the public Web site, it does require the employer's address. The cost to counties verifying this information will be burdensome at a time when government is trying to cut costs. Iowa law does not require registration nor verification of employment information.
Sex offenders attending school - and this applies to all students, college level, high school, and yes, grade school - must register in the jurisdiction of the school, as well as the jurisdiction where the student resides. Although Iowa law does require students attending a post-high school educational institution to register in the jurisdiction where they attend school, as well as their residential address, there is no such requirement for students in high school or elementary school.
License-plate numbers of all vehicles owned by a sex offender must be part of the information required for registration. This requirement includes the vehicles owned by the sex offender, but driven by a spouse, teenage child, mother-in-law, grandparent, etc. Iowa has no such requirement.
This act would be retroactive. Iowans who have completed their 10-year registration process without incident may have to begin the process all over again because of the nature of their crime. They could be required to now register for life.
The safety of children was overlooked as Congress enacted this legislation. Sex offenders complying with current Iowa law may be forced to go underground to survive. A report by the Fiscal Service Division of the nonpartisan Iowa Legislative Services Agency cites U.S. Department of Justice statistics that, in Iowa, 2008 data indicate that "approximately 98 percent of minor victims knew the offender."
Focusing limited resources on federally mandated sex-offender registration would be both costly and ineffective.
It is admirable that policymakers want to undo the damage done by the 2,000-foot residency restriction. The Adam Walsh Act is simply more bad policy based on emotional response. It selfishly enacts a false sense of security for adults, when Iowa should be finding better ways to educate and protect our children.
MARTY RYAN is the legislative director of the ACLU of Iowa. Contact: marty.ryan@aclu-ia.org ..News Source.. by MARTY RYAN
MA- DA's office raises awareness about 'sexting'
3-6-2009 Massachusetts:
PITTSFIELD — A high-tech trend known as "sexting," in which nude or sexually explicit photos are transmitted by cell phone or spread over the Internet, is prompting county officials to take proactive steps to combat the illicit activity before it takes root.
The district attorney's office, in conjunction with a local cable TV station, plans to produce anti-sexting programs that will begin airing in county schools this spring.
Sexting, a disturbing trend popular with a growing number of adolescents and teenagers, is not yet a problem in the 6,300-student Pittsfield school district, according to Superintendent Howard "Jake" Eberwein III, who hopes to keep it that way.
"We're not seeing it as a prevalent issue," he said, noting, however, that school officials are concerned about the growing phenomenon.
Meanwhile, at least one county high school has already had to confront the trend head-on.
"We're still dealing with an incident that occurred at one of the area high schools," said Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless, who declined to identify which one.
"I'm concerned about stigmatizing one school," said Capeless, if, indeed, sexting is also prevalent at other county schools.
More than a dozen local high school students were implicated in the sexting incident, which involved the circulation of explicit photos of a local girl, according to Capeless, who declined to provide further details. No one has been criminally charged in connection with the case.
"The primary thing we've sought to do in that case ... is to stop what was going on," said Capeless, adding that he would prefer to deal with such matters outside the criminal justice system. If need be, though, offenders could be charged with any of a number of felony crimes, Capeless said.
Despite the insistence of some teenagers that sexting is fun, flirtatious, and an easy way to test the romantic waters, so to speak, the issue of consent is moot, Capeless said.
"There's no consenting minors," he added.
Nationwide, 22 percent of teenage girls and 18 percent of teenage boys admit to electronically sending or posting nude or semi-nude images of themselves, according to a survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and Cosmogirl.com.
Many of the middle- and high school-age students surveyed in the recent poll say sexting is nothing more than a high-tech way to flirt. But law enforcement officials say this sort of flirtatious behavior could fall within the realm of criminal behavior, triggering possible child pornography charges that, upon conviction, would require a person to register with the state's Sex Offender Registration Board.
In Massachusetts, in fact, anyone who sends or receives explicit sexual images could run afoul of the state's tough child porn laws, all of which are felony offenses punishable by jail, fines or both.
In an effort to take a proactive approach to the growing problem, Capeless held a press conference at his office Tuesday morning to educate people about the dangers of the sexting phenomenon, which has received heavy media attention in recent weeks.
What's most disturbing, said Capeless, is the blasé attitude of those who engage in this sort of activity. "It concerns me a great deal," he said.
Sexting generally happens like this: An image — particularly a photo of a nude or partially nude minor — is typically transmitted from one cell phone to another, then further disseminated through e-mail and online social networking Web sites. If the image winds up on MySpace or Facebook, for example, it potentially can be viewed by thousands of people.
This sort of activity is happening all over the nation, including the Berkshires, according to Capeless, who hopes to end the trend with education. His office is producing anti-sexting programs with PCTV, a local public access station, with a goal of showing the videos at schools throughout the county this spring.
"What we're setting out to do here is to educate parents and kids about the very real and far-reaching consequences of this sort of behavior," Capeless said. "The audience we're really trying to reach is the parents."
The joint survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and Cosmogirl.com included responses from 1,280 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 13 and 26. Respondents were polled about their use of and attitude toward cell phones, computers and other digital communication devices.
Among the more disturbing results, according to Capeless, is the derelict attitude of respondents, 49 percent of whom admitted to sending sexually explicit messages and 56 percent of whom acknowledged receiving such messages.
Further, 33 percent of teenage boys and 25 percent of teenage girls say they have received nude or semi-nude images, while 33 percent of respondents between the ages of 20 and 26 say they have sent or posted images of themselves.
According to Massachusetts criminal law, sexting may violate child pornography laws ranging from "posing a child in a state of nudity or sexual conduct," "dissemination of pictures of a child in a state of nudity or sexual conduct," "possession of child pornography" or "dissemination of harmful matter to a minor."
More information is available on by logging on to the district attorney's Web site at www.mass.gov/berkshireda, then clicking on the "Crime Prevention" category. ..News Source.. by Conor Berry
PA- Easton Man Charged In Slashing Of Fellow Inmate
3-6-2009 Pennsylvania:
A Northampton County Prison inmate was arrested Thursday on charges he used a razor to slash another inmate who is awaiting trial in a 30-year-old homicide case.
Michael Anthony Garcia, 17, was charged with simple assault and harassment and sent back to county prison under $10,000 bail by District Judge Gay Elwell of Easton.
Garcia allegedly cut Robert W. White Jr., 51, on Feb. 9 in the forehead about five times, causing a 2-inch cut on the left side of his forehead, said Lt. Chris Naugle .
Garcia was in prison on aggravated assault charges, according to court papers. The details surrounding those charges were not available.
White, who was arrested last year, faces a capital homicide charge in the 1978 death of 21-year-old Virginia Morrell, who was found naked with her hands tied behind her back and her mouth and nose covered with duct tape.
White has convictions for sexual violence, including an attempted rape of a 20-year-old woman in Forks Township a few weeks after Morrell died. In 1982, he was convicted in Virginia of abducting and raping a 22-year-old woman, and attempting to maim or rape a 27-year-old woman.
At the time of her death, Morrell was living next door to White at an Ann Street apartment complex on Easton's South Side. White was arrested after an Easton detective began reviewing the case last year and matched White's DNA to a nightgown on which Morrell was lying.
When arrested, White was living in Virginia, where he was required to register as a violent sex offender. ..News Source.. by The Morning Call.com
OH- Mom Loses Daughter Over 'Sexting,' Demands Accountability
Normally I do not post suicides here, but, this is the first known case of a suicide over "Sexting." Everyone needs to get to these youngsters and make them realize how serious this issue is, and how it affects some folks. Since sexting is a sex offense I will be keeping track of these cases. Hopefully this is the only one.
3-6-2009 Ohio:
CINCINNATI -- More and more teenagers are getting caught "sexting," or sending racy, revealing or nude pictures of themselves on their cell phones. But when that picture gets in the wrong hands, it can be devastating. One local couple says "sexting" cost them their daughter.
Jessie Logan was 18 years old and about to graduate from Sycamore High School when a nude picture she sent to her boyfriend was sent to hundreds of students at schools around the Tri-State.
Last May, Jessie talked to News 5’s Sheree Paolello about how embarrassed and humiliated she was. She said she was being harassed and teased by other students, at home, at school and when she went out.
As she tried to explain what it was like, Jessie broke down crying. "I still get harassed and stuff,” she said. “I just want to make sure no one else will have to go through this same thing."
Jessie was trying to be strong. She wanted to warn other parents and kids. But Jessie's mom, Cynthia Logan, says the teasing turned to torture.
"She was called filthy names, things thrown at her,” said Cynthia. “Every single place she went they knew about that picture, they saw the picture. They knew about the picture! It's abuse. She was abused."
Cynthia says the moment her daughter’s private picture was sent out for everyone to see, things spiraled out of control. Jessie's grades plummeted, she started skipping school and Cynthia says when Jessie would go to school, she would hide in the bathroom to avoid being teased.
Jessie's family and friends knew how much she was struggling to move on but they had no idea how low Jessie had fallen. Two months after Jessie spoke with News 5, she went to the funeral of a boy who had committed suicide. After the funeral, she came home and killed herself.
Eight months later, that horrifying moment was almost unbearable for Cynthia to recall. “And I walked over into her room and saw her hanging. Her cell phone was in the middle of the floor."
Cynthia found her daughter hanging in the closet.
Images: Remembering Jessie Logan
What seemed like high school bullying changed this family forever. The last memory Cynthia has of her petite, blond-haired, blue-eyed, only child is a phone conversation that happened hours before Jessie took her own life.
Cynthia could hardly utter the words. “And she said ‘I love you madre.’ And I said ‘I love you baby and I'll see you soon.’"
Cynthia and her husband, Albert, say they are heartbroken and angry. They feel like something should have been done. They question why the five teenagers who continued to spread Jessie's picture and harass her were never charged.
"Almost eight months later, my daughter is buried in the ground. Are you kidding me? Where were you?" asked Cynthia as if the authorities were right in front of her.
Since Jessie’s death, authorities have started taking action against “sexting.”
Montgomery police have charged one teenage boy who sent a racy video to other students. And Wednesday, the Warren County prosecutor filed misdemeanor charges against two 15-year-old students at Mason High School, for sending out nude pictures over their cell phones.
The school resource officer at Sycamore said he tried to do something about Jessie’s case. He said he confronted the kids who were harassing Jessie and even took Jessie's case to the prosecutor to see if he could press charges. But he said that because Jessie was 18, there were no laws to protect her. He said he'd like to work with the Logans to have the laws changed.
Cynthia says the fault doesn't only lie with the police, but also with the school.
"To have a nude photo being disseminated throughout the school of your child, how would you feel as a parent?” she asked. “Wouldn't you want other parents to know?"
Adrienne James, the superintendent for Sycamore Schools said letters were not sent out to parents, but that the district did address the cell phone problem at a parent’s night school forum.
James also said no action was taken against the students because some attended school in a different district. She also explained that because Jessie took the picture at home and not on school property, there was little the school could do.
No explanation can comfort Cynthia or her family. She believes Jessie took her life to escape the relentless teasing and feels like the people who were supposed to protect Jessie, failed her.
"The police department didn't protect her. The school didn't protect her. She had no one,” said Cynthia.
Because Cynthia knows she can’t turn back the clock, she wants to change the laws. She says she wants “sexting” to stop and for the people involved to be held accountable.
Cynthia also wants every parent to know how dangerous this teenage trend is, so that no parent has to find their child the way she did or go on without them the way she must do now. ..News Source.. by Sheree Paolello
AZ- Accused jail killer also assaulted inmate in January
Yes, this is a bit confusing, Van Winkle beat up Summerlin (sex offender see video) in January, then this article goes on to show that Van Winkle murdered Cotton (non sex offender). Van Winkle's comment: "He's a sex offender. I had to do it," Van Winkle told officers."
3-5-2009 Arizona:
The man accused of beating an inmate to death in Maricopa County Jail last May brutally assaulted another inmate in jail in January, with both incidents occurring under the watch of the same detention officer.
Sheriff's officials released information about Pete Van Winkle's alleged January assault of Warren Summerlin on Thursday morning in response to an Arizona Republic records request.
Van Winkle is also accused of beating Robert Cotton to death on May 1, 2008, in the Fourth Avenue Jail.
Video surveillance of that attack showed a man officials said is Van Winkle attempting to drop Cotton's body onto a recreation yard one floor below. Detention officers moved Van Winkle to the jail's Special Management Unit, an area reserved for some of the county's most dangerous criminals.
Van Winkle was charged with Cotton's murder. Cotton was in jail at the time on drug and vehicle theft charges.
Warren Summerlin was housed in a state corrections facility until July, but was back in county custody while he was awaiting a plea agreement and re-sentencing his 1981 sexual assault and murder of a bill collector in Phoenix.
The two men should have never crossed paths, but Jack MacIntyre, a chief deputy with the Sheriff's Office, said a malfunctioning light bulb laid the groundwork for the January attack.
Summerlin was just finishing up his time in the recreation area that separates each cell in the Special Management Unit at about 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 8 when the detention officer opened the door to allow Summerlin back into his cell.
But the inmate stayed in the recreation area, MacIntyre said.
Unaware that Summerlin was still in the recreation area, the detention officer opened Van Winkle's cell door to allow him into the small exercise area the two cells share.
Within moments, MacIntyre said, the detention officer realized something was wrong.
"He heard it and went after it right away," MacIntyre said of the officer's response.
The officer sounded the alarm and within minutes, deputies arrived on the scene to find Summerlin lying on the floor, bleeding from his face and attempting to crawl out the door.
Van Winkle was standing nearby, his jail stripes covered in blood, the report states.
Detention officers secured Van Winkle and got medical attention for Summerlin.
"He's a sex offender. I had to do it," Van Winkle told officers.
The assault occurred less than a year after Van Winkle allegedly murdered Cotton.
The same detention officer was in the control tower for both incidents, a fact MacIntyre deemed a simple coincidence.
"He's the guy who wanted the lighting replaced. I think he feels worse than anybody," MacIntyre said. "He believed he had moved (Summerlin) back in the cell before he moved (Van Winkle) in."
MacIntyre said the officer followed jail policies and that the assault would have never taken place if facilities personnel had filled a request to fix lighting in the area, which was made more than a week earlier.
Summerlin was moved back to Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence within a month of his assault.
Van Winkle was locked down for 24 hours a day until recently, MacIntyre said, and he now resides in a cell on the Special Management Unit where only he can access his recreation area. ..News Source.. by JJ Hensley
Thursday, March 5, 2009
DC- Texas Representatives Introduce Resolution Asserting Sovereignty Under Tenth Amendment
3-5-2009 Washington DC:
Texas has joined the states’ right and Tenth Amendment movement by introducing House Concurrent Resolution No. 50, filed earlier this week by Republican state representatives Leo Berman, Brandon Creighton, and Bryan Hughes. H.C.R. 50 cites Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
“The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp,” the resolution declares, while “Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says, ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,’ and the Ninth Amendment states that ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’”
A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States…
H.C.R. 50 serves “as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers” and that “all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”
Finally, the resolution directs the Texas secretary of state to forward official copies of the resolution to president Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, the president of the Senate, Joe Biden, and all members of the Texas delegation to the Congress. In addition, there is an official request that the resolution be entered in the Congressional Record as a “memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.”
Texas joins Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia, states that have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are also considering such measures.
“While the ramifications of these resolutions are still uncertain, one thing is clear,” writes Barbara Minton. “People are sick and tired of the federal government’s usurpation of power not granted to it by the Constitution. They have had enough of fear based economic terrorism and underhanded promotion of policies and procedures that bypass public scrutiny and the will of the people.”
It should be noted that a resolution is a statement and not law and does not necessarily represent a consensus of a state legislature. “Still, the fact that two states, California and Georgia, have already passed their versions of state sovereignty may be setting the stage for secession down the road if the federal government continues to show its scorn for the Constitution. The Oklahoma resolution has already passed in the House and is awaiting vote in the state Senate to be codified,” writes Minton.
For more information on the Tenth Amendment and states’s right movement, see this Infowars resource page on the subject.
As should be expected, the corporate media has all but ignored H.C.R. 50, while Vince Leibowitz of Dallas-based Pegasus News calls the resolution “bizarre” and intimates that Berman, Creighton, and Hughes are insane. Leibowitz’s comments are a sad testament on how out of touch many Americans are when it comes to the Constitution and the increasing encroachments of the federal government.
On Friday, February 20, Rep. Leo Berman of District 6 will be on the Alex Jones Show to talk about the resolution and states’ rights. ..News Source.. by PrisonPlanet
IN- Two missing girls safe, man arrested in Mishawaka
3-5-2009 Indiana:
Two Elkhart girls that were missing Wednesday night have been found.
A 16-year-old girl and her 11-year-old sister were reported missing around 6:30 Wednesday evening after leaving with a man they met on MySpace.
Matthew Sanders, 26, met the teenager on MySpace, where Sanders poses as a 19-year-old, about two weeks ago.
On his MySpace page, Sanders has pictures of himself with the teenager. Sanders and the teen have reportedly met up several times since meeting on MySpace.
Sanders is originally from Washington state, where he has a warrant out for his arrest for residential entry and a drug offense.
A woman who Sanders used to be involved with, and who is the mother of one of his three children, tipped the teenager's mother off to Sanders' relationship with her daughter after he had told the woman of the relationship.
When the two girls were missing, the mother contacted the woman Sanders had been involved with, and she was able to help the police locate Sanders and her daughters.
The girls were found around 11:00 Wednesday evening in Mishawaka with Sanders.
Mishawaka Police had Sanders in custody but have since passed him over to Elkhart Police, where he is being held on the charges he faces in Washington. ..News Source.. by WNDU.com
UPDATE: Man arrested in case of missing Elkhart girls
Matthew Sanders, 26, of South Bend was arrested for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor in the investigation of two missing Elkhart girls on Wednesday. The girls were found safely at a Mishawaka home around 11:00 p.m. Wednesday night.
They were reported missing around 6:00 p.m. Wednesday by their mother who said the girls left with a man they met over the internet. Mishawaka Police found the girls, ages 11 and 16, at a home in the 1600 block of Homewood Road in Mishawaka.
Earlier in the evening, police reported they believed the girls left with Sanders. Sanders had an outstanding warrant from Washington State on burglary and drug charges.
According to Mishawaka Police, this type of incident is every parent's nightmare. A child meets someone on-line, who presents himself as one thing but turns out to be something much different. In this case the person was much older than what he admitted and had a criminal history. ..Source.. by FoxNews
DC- Capitol Hill Crime Summit Attracts Standing-Room Only Crowd
3-5-2009 Washington DC:
Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, moderated a panel of experts for “Smart on Crime Policies: Increase Public Safety, Reduce Costs, and Improve Lives,” a Capitol Hill Crime Summit held on March 3rd. Representative Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, convened the standing room only briefing, which also included panels on Prevention and Intervention, and Reentry and Collateral Consequences.
Mauer opened the “Sentencing and Alternatives” discussion with a question for United States District Court Judge Nancy Gertner, asking about the effect of mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Congress, in taking discretion away from judges.
“I don't know if anyone can understand what it's like to sentence a defendant to a sentence to which you know to be manifestly unfair,” said Gertner. “We've stopped making meaningful distinctions between offenders.”
Panelist and Co-Chair of the Sentencing Committee of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section and a member of the Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee, Jim Felman, stated that 94% of federal offenders are now sentenced to prison. Prior to the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines, more than 40% were routinely sentenced to probation, a punishment which dramatically impacts the course of the rest of a person's life. “As a defense attorney, I can tell you that probation is punishment. It simply isn't necessary to lock everyone up.”
Mauer also asked panelists, including Kemba Smith, who was commuted from a crack cocaine sentence in 2000, why there is still a need to address mandatory minimum sentences, in light of the recent changes in sentencing guidelines.
“The changes have been helpful, but they are not enough,” said Judge Gertner. “It really is a marginal change. We've run this experiment through in incarceration, and it hasn't worked.”
Jim Felman responded: “We may not have known what it looked like when we did it, but we sure know what it looks like now.” He referred to a USSC report which stated that crack sentencing reform is the single most important thing that could be done to make the system more fair.
Smith told how she was sentenced to 24 ½ years as a first-time, non-violent offender in prison, after she was held accountable for the entire amount of drugs involved in a conspiracy investigation of her abusive, older boyfriend, whom she had met as a college freshman. Smith, who received executive clemency from President Bill Clinton, expressed concern for other single mothers in prison who are serving excessive sentences for very limited involvement in drug conspiracies.
“I've watched this debate for a long time,” said Smith, who advocates for reform through her Kemba Smith Foundation. “I watched you all debate this from federal prison when I was incarcerated from 1994 to 2000. I really am hoping that something different will happen this time, and that it will start with the American people.”
Two additional panels on “Prevention and Intervention” and “Reentry and Collateral Consequences” were held in an effort to promote issues that deserve attention from policymakers.
Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), who has worked to increase parity in mental health funding, referred to the number of people incarcerated with mental health conditions as “an outrage.”
“We have criminalized a public health emergency,” he said. “We have re-institutionalized people into the criminal justice system. In my state we spend more on adult incarceration than on adult education.”
Walter Beglau, District Attorney for Marion County, Oregon, referred to prevention and intervention strategies as “the most effective tools we have in crime reduction.”
Brian Bambarger, Coordinator of Policy Research and Outreach, Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development at Penn State University, discussed the importance of investing in prevention and intervention early in youth in an effort to protect the child, as well as to improve public safety.
“There is a direct and immediate cost to crime, especially if we wait until crime occurs,” said Bambarger, adding that society also has psychological, moral and financial obligations to address risk factors for crime early. “The same things that put children at risk for drug use are the same things that put children at risk for violence.”
Diane Williams, president of the Safer Foundation in Chicago, spoke on the reentry panel from her experience working with individuals working to turn their lives around.
“There are no second chances out there,” said Williams. “The possibility of getting rid of collateral sanctions is almost non-existent in most jurisdictions. Is there a way that we will ever welcome people fully back to the community? I hope the answer is yes.” ..News Source.. by The Sentencing Project
OH- Sex offender rules House holds first hearing on two bills
3-5-2009 Ohio:
COLUMBUS -- Two bills that would increase penalties against sex offenders who live or enter areas near schools and other areas frequented by children had their first hearing in the Ohio House on Wednesday.
House Bill 11 would establish criminal penalties for individuals who live too close to schools, recreation centers and would establish a means for courts to remove those individuals from their residences.
House Bill 13 would prohibit certain sex offenders from being on school, pre-school or day-care center properties and would establish criminal penalties for those who break the law.
The Democratic sponsors of both bills spoke before the House's criminal justice committee Wednesday.
Rep. Tracy Maxwell Heard, from the Columbus area, offered HB 11 after hearing from constituents about the disproportionate number of known offenders who were allowed to live near schools.
Removing them from those premises requires a lengthy civil process, she said.
"(T)he violation itself is merely an infraction of a civil statute and therefore it requires a suit be brought, court dates, etc., and law enforcement has very little leverage to actually make a violator move until such time as a case is determined and the offender is deemed in violation," Heard said.
HB 13 is aimed at keeping sex offenders who have preyed on children away from schools, said Rep. Jennifer Garrison, a Democrat from Marietta and one of the primary sponsors of the legislation.
Offenders would be banned from school properties; any found guilty of breaking the law would face six-12 months in jail.
According to Garrison's testimony, "There are over 14,000 Tier III sex offenders residing in Ohio, including those currently serving sentences. And it is unconscionable that our children currently have no protection in their schools from those who would do them harm." ..News Source.. by Marc Kovac
AL- Rape Victim's Kin Beat Suspect With Pipe
3-5-2009 Alabama:
MOBILE, Ala. -- A rape suspect is in the hospital after police in Mobile say the alleged victim's relatives attacked him.
Police said 55-year-old John Berryhill is accused of raping a 13-year-old girl after he broke into her house on Dauphin Island Parkway. Around 3 p.m. Tuesday, three men attacked Berryhill with a metal pipe.
On Wednesday, police announced the three men who beat Berryhill are relatives of the rape victim.
Berryhill is charged with rape and burglary. He will be taken to jail once he is released from USA Medical Center.
A grand jury will decide whether the men who attacked Berryhill will face any charges. ..News Source.. by WSBTV.com
Defunding the Fight Against Sexual Predators
How people can be so proud that they have denied a class of citizens, regardless of their past transgressions, any say in the political process is beyond comprehension, but that is exactle what these folks are saying.
3-5-2009 National:
Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to the National Association of Attorney’s General this week. In that speech, he renewed the Justice Department’s support for the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act—passed by a wide margin in Congress—requires some convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities.
So far, so good, right? One problem: to date, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice 2010 budget gives $0 to implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, and $0 to the SMART Office which implements the Act.
There is more to this than meets the eye. It is no secret that there has been a small but vocal liberal chorus of opponents to the Adam Walsh Act. They do not think dangerous sex offenders should have to register with local authorities. Of course, they know that their opinion is an extreme minority opinion. They also know that no politician will publicly endorse convicted sex offenders.
That alone is a Constitutional violations, everyone is entitled to representation in Congress and every state legislature. Sex offender laws have so tainted the class that its true they no longer have a political representatives.
So, since the Adam Walsh Act passed in 2006, they have adopted a two-prong assault on the Adam Walsh Act.
First, they fought various provisions of the Act in court, attacking the retroactivity and juvenile provisions of the Act. There is nothing wrong with that, as many federal acts are challenged in court. Only so much can be done in the light of day, however.
Second, they are working secretly behind closed doors with key Congressman to gut the primary purpose of the Act entirely—minimum national standards for sex offender registration. They want to replace the conviction-based registration requirement system with a roll of the dice, so-called “risk assessments.”
A risk assessment “works” like this: a convicted sex offender sits down with someone who works on behalf of the government. That someone—trained or untrained— asks the convict a few questions about past history and future desires. After the oftentimes brief question and answer period, that someone may or may not verify the information provided by the convicted sex offender. That someone then decides whether or not the convicted sex offender poses a risk to society. If he does, then he might be required to register; if not, then maybe he doesn’t have to register. In other words, the evaluator is supposed to predict future behavior based on information provided by the convict himself. There is no consensus in professional literature on the accuracy of risk assessments at all. Yet this is exactly what opponents of mandatory conviction-based registration are urging Congressional leaders to adopt.
We wouldn’t even know about this behind-the-scenes shenanigans were it not for the former head of the SMART Office giving a speech last week to the Surviving Parents’ Coalition. In that speech (full text below) Director Rogers warns the Coalition of the attacks on the Adam Walsh Act, and the agenda of the far left.
Since the speech, members of the Surviving Parents Coalition—which includes household names like Ed Smart, Erin Runnion, Mark Lunsford and others- - -have given those “key” members of Congress an ear full why requiring convicted sex offenders to register makes sense.
Full text of remarks delivered by Laura Rogers, former Director of the SMART Office, to the Surviving Parents Coalition in February 17, 2009:
Good afternoon. I am honored to join you. It goes without saying that members of the Surviving Parents Coalition did not wish to be eligible to join this group. It is a sad statement indeed that in our society there is a need for an advocacy group such as yours. But make no mistake about it; we need you now more than ever. Why? Because we are at a fork in the road in terms of holding convicted sex offenders accountable. We can either move forward together or sit back, do nothing, and lose everything we have fought for.
My friends, we have progressed a great deal over the last two decades with respect to the registering and tracking of sex offenders. As many of you know, prior to the 1990’s there was no consistent sex offender registration and tracking system in the United States. It was a sex offender free for all. With the passage of the Wetterling Act and the successive amendments, much progress was made, including holding recidivist sex offenders accountable, requiring sex offenders to register where they resided, allowing for notification to school officials when sex offenders were present on campus, and the establishment of the National Sex Offender Public Website.
The ADAM WALSH ACT took the Wetterling Act to the next level. ADAM WALSH incorporated all of the subsequent amendments and enhanced sex offender registration and notification to include additional lessons learned, and established for the first time a new national minimum standard for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. ADAM WALSH creates a floor that jurisdictions must meet for sex offender registration and notification. This minimum standard was created to address the gaps and loopholes left by the Wetterling Act. Under Wetterling, there were areas in this country that were safe havens for sex offenders—places where there were no sex offender registration requirements and others where the existing laws were so lenient that sex offenders flocked to reside there. The standardized requirement to notify the residency address of a move did not exist, which resulted in misinformation on the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW).
But my friends, the progress we have made together is in jeopardy. We are now at a fork in the road. There are those in Congress and around this country who strive to undo the work that you and I have labored long and hard to achieve. As most jurisdictions in this country are working diligently toward implementation of SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA), there is an organized, well-funded movement to prolong the time period for substantial implementation of SORNA—to prolong the time period to put in place the minimum standards, to prolong the time period when you and I do not have the ability to identify sexual offenders who live, work and go to school within our midst.
Let me be blunt: We are engaged in a battle with those who believe that sex offenders should not be held accountable for their vicious acts, acts similar to those that brought each and every one of you here today. And make no mistake about it; we are in danger of loosing the battle.
Here is their game plan: attack the retroactivity provisions, withdraw the juvenile provisions of ADAM WALSH , then gut the Act and strip away mandatory registration for dangerous convicted sex offenders and then add a roll of the dice by adding risk assessments to the equation. I am here today to call for you to boost your already endless commitment to fight against those who seek to excuse the acts of sexual offenders and sexual murders.
The ADAM WALSH ACT establishes sound public policy. SORNA holds sexual offenders accountable based on the offenses they commit. Registration requirements are based on the solid evidence of the act that was committed and the crime for which the offender was convicted.
Let me address the topic of risk assessments. When Congress wrote the ADAM WALSH ACT, they specifically rejected the use of risk assessment tools as a method of determining the future dangerousness of a proven sexual offender. Yet opponents of the ADAM WALSH ACT want to replace registration with these unreliable risk assessments. Risk assessments, when used appropriately by a trained and qualified professional may provide some insight into the potential for recidivism of an adult—but no one—regardless of what crystal ball they look into—can determine if someone will again offend. Proponents of risk assessment tools as a measure to determine registration requirements for both adults and juveniles site the research. However, they completely ignore the experts who acknowledge that risk assessments are not a useful tool on juveniles.
According to Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, there are not enough qualified professionals in the United States to administer risk assessments to sex offenders. In fact there are complete states and jurisdictions that do not have a single qualified professional capable of administering a sex offender a risk assessment.
What do we see happening right now around the country? Washington State currently uses a risk assessment based system to classify sex offenders. While at the SMART Office, I spoke with a Washington state official who informed me that police officers administer risk assessment on sex offenders—the assessment consists of a check the box type format with little to no interview, no verification of information or expert training for the police officer administering the risk assessment. At best, when a risk assessment is administered by a trained expert such as a qualified psychologist it is at best a guess.
The opponents of sex offender registration, those who care more about empowering sex offenders than preventing the creation of more victims will argue that the recidivism rates of for example, incest sexual offenders is lower than other types of criminals—again, they rely on the research—research that I have no faith in—How do you measure the recidivism rate of sex offenders when we historically know that child molest victims have an incredibly low rate of disclosure, an extremely high rate of recantation and consequently low trial success?
You should know that opponents of registration have already met with elected officials here in Washington to get them to walk away from the ADAM WALSH ACT. Of course, no politician will publicly state that they are for child abuse and against holding perpetrators accountable. So they will add risk assessments, under the guise of making the ADAM WALSH ACT fairer, while at the same time gutting the mandatory registration requirements and juvenile registration. Unless you, and groups like you, pressure Congress to stick with ADAM WALSH, all of our work will have been for nothing.
The ADAM WALSH ACT is not perfectly constructed, but it sets a solid minimum standard for consistent sex offender registration across the country that is good policy. It goes without saying that those who crafted the ADAM WALSH ACT and SORNA did so with good intentions, but they did not consult professional child abuse prosecutors or those with frontline experience and knowledge. This is the reoccurring problem with politicians drafting sex offender legislation—a lack of practical experience and a shallow understanding of reality.
I was a frontline child abuse and child homicide prosecutor in San Diego for nearly a decade. While director of the SMART Office, I was responsible for the publication of the Final Guidelines. After a great deal of struggle within the Department we rectified the most challenging and problematic SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA) issues by structuring the Final Guidelines. Trust me; those changes were necessary.
For example, prior to the Final Guidelines, there was a significant amount of controversy regarding the registering of juveniles under SORNA. Under the Wetterling standards, juveniles were not required to register—at all. There were jurisdictions that individually and randomly required juvenile sex offender registration. With a comprehensive implementation of SORNA, all jurisdictions will now have the same minimum protection against forcible sex offenders that coincidentally happen to be juveniles. Congress created the juvenile registration system to include all juveniles 14 years or older, adjudicated delinquent who committed an act of a forcible sex crime, a sexual act against a person who is intoxication or purposefully drugged or sexual against a child under 12 years old.
However, under the Act, a 13 year old who has consensual sex with someone no more than four years older than them does not have to register. On the other hand, a 14 year old who doesn’t have sex, but merely fondles a person under the age of 12, must register for life. That makes no sense, yet that is the law that Congress passed. Prosecutors, juvenile advocates and many others thought that this application was wrong and counter productive. I changed that provision in the Final Guidelines, despite push back in the Department of Justice. I was able to rectify the issue, without asking Congress to amend the ADAM WALSH ACT by giving jurisdictions the discretion not to register juveniles who engage in non-forcible conduct with children simply based on the age of the partner.
This change was made based on a well thought out desire to make a reasonable and logical change to allow for a rational implementation of the SORNA.
Those who we are battling at the fork in the road want to move back to the Wetterling days where juvenile sex offender registration is completely discretionary. They don’t want any minimum national standard for those forcible sexual offenders who happen to be juveniles. But let me tell you about a true case - …
I ask you as parents, mom and dads, sisters and brothers, do you care if the rapist that lives next door to you is14, 17 or 19 years old?
Are you comforted by the fact that SORNA provides you the opportunity to know that such a heinous criminal lives next door, or works at the local ice cream parlor or goes to school with your daughter?
This is a renewed call to action. Since the passage of SORNA, some jurisdictions have been fighting implementation citing financial strain. They say that the ADAM WALSH ACT is an unfunded mandate. Let me be clear here: I am against unfunded mandates, but ADAM WALSH is not an unfunded mandate. Now in these current tough economic times, jurisdictions are screaming even louder. Those in Congress who have always opposed the tough on sex offender SORNA registration requirements, but signed on solely for good photo opt but never with the intention to give this law the teeth it needs, will use this economic crisis to cloak their soft on sex offenders stance and gut the current construction of SORNA.
But with the new economic stimulus package, there is now more than enough money to implement the requirements of SORNA. The stimulus package that the President will sign today provides significant increases in JAG Byrne Grant and COPS money—all monies that can be used to implement SORNA. Lack of federal financial support is no longer an excuse.
So what is the underlying reason for the resistance from the jurisdictions to implement SORNA? Often times it is simply a matter of being stubborn and not wanting the federal government to tell the jurisdiction what to do. I have been an eye witness to state officials who misinterpret the minimum requirements of SORNA for the sole purpose of exaggerating the cost of implementation to sway public opinion and government action against a path toward implementation of SORNA. California is a perfect example. One person in that state stands in the way of implementation. That needs to change.
Additionally, SORNA does not require duplication of ongoing State registration efforts—in fact ADAM WALSH specifically addresses there should be no duplication of efforts. Jurisdictions must look to see where information already exists—regardless if that is within their jurisdiction or another. DNA collected once by another jurisdiction does not then need to be recollected by a second jurisdiction–rather a simple linking to the records located elsewhere is sufficient.
While leading the SMART Office, I encouraged jurisdictions to be creative and use their scarce resources to redirect monies to more effectively monitor and track sex offenders. In speaking with jurisdictions I constantly encouraged novel approaches to implementation of SORNA—sharing of equipment to achieve the minimum standards of SORNA—for example, rather than purchasing digital finger and palm print machines, use those already present in the jurisdiction in use by another law enforcement facility. While some jurisdictions complain about the minimum requirements of SORNA, they ignore the significant flexibility that is provided for by the law. For example, nothing in SORNA requires that all registration activities occur in a single location. If necessary registration equipment is present in a jurisdiction at a location other than the registration site, then requiring sex offenders to visit multiple local locations to perfect a registration is perfectly acceptable. Individuals can have great negative or positive impact on the implementation process.
Communication between jurisdictions is mandatory—while at the SMART Office we implemented a secure communication system for all sex offender registry systems. We created and implemented a Tribal and Territory registry so that all remaining jurisdictions could utilize the communication system to enhance the national sharing of information. Make no mistake, these multimillion dollar systems were given to all registration jurisdictions—free of charge.
SORNA needs your support. The SMART Office has been fighting an uphill battle since the day its doors were opened in 2006—a battle for everything from adequate staffing to sufficient funding. In 2008, Congress provided a mere $4 million dollars to the COPS Office for sexual predator elimination activities and $850,000 for the national sex offender public website. You would think that this money would have easily found its way to the SMART Office. It did not. Congress has never directly appropriated any funds to the SMART Office for the important work that it does.
Support for the SMART Office does not seem to be increasing under the new administration. The SMART Office was the sole office for which an acting director was not appointed during the transition period. Future financial support for SORNA implementation is unsure.
Let me address the public relations battle we are up against. The Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice under the Bush administration never defended the Adam Walsh Act. Not only did they not defend it—-which should have been easy—-they prevented me and others from going on television and radio, to educate the public about the benefits of the Act. I can not tell you how many times I went to the communications office, asking, begging to be allowed to write articles, respond to blatantly wrong papers and statements regarding SORNA and sex offender registration. I was repeatedly turned down—prohibited from fighting back.
My friends, we are at a fork in the road –and we may lose the battle. The voice of the Surviving Parents Coalition is strong. I urge you to use your voice—to go up on the Hill and force our representatives to stick with the policies of the ADAM WALSH ACT. Tell Senator Leahy to ignore those who are urging him to gut it. Tell him, and others, that registration should be mandatory, that risk assessments are pure guesswork.
And ask yourself, if this law is gutted and changed as those who are soft on sex offenders desire, when this group gathers again next year, how much bigger of a room will be needed to hold all of the newly initiated members because Congress decided to walk away from mandatory sex offender registration.
Thank you. God bless you and the United States of America.
..Source.. by The Heritage Foundation
ID- Top Three Rules If The Detectives Want To Talk To You - Especially In A Sex Crime!
Talk about a coincidence, see prior post, then read this post.
3-5-2009 Idaho:
It is early on a Sunday morning and I am in my office working. Sometimes this happens - I wake up and after fifteen or twenty minutes I know that I am not going back to sleep, so off I go to do a little work. Today I am listening to a tape recorded "interview" by a detective. The suspect is charged with a sex crime. The officer has been nice and comforting along the way - taking his time to eke information out of the defendant - and in the end the defendant has sealed his fate. He has told the officer that he fell in love with a minor, and that of course led to sex, and that will lead ultimately to a criminal case. Sex crimes are in the news here lately, as a prominent local business man is currently on trial for having a sex party with two minors. I am not going to talk about his case - I did that under oath as a witness last week - but the question of just when it is permitted to have sex with a minor is frequently one I deal with. The answer is - drum roll please - NEVER! That's right friends and neighbors, not ever.
The law in Idaho FORBIDS a minor from consenting to sexual contact. Simply stated: a minor (someone under eighteen) cannot legally consent to any sexual contact. Idaho Code § 18-1508 prohibits "lewd conduct" with a minor under 16 years of age. Penalty - LIFE. And truly they mean it. You may not go to prison for life (you might), but your life will forever be changed if convicted. In addition to prison, sex offender treatment, victim restitution and lawyers fees, there is also a requirement that you REGISTER as a sex offender under Idaho Code § 18-8301 et. seq. If the victim of the crime is 16 or 17, it is still a crime if you (as the defendant) are more than five (5) years older than the victim (Idaho Code § 18-1508A), and the maximum term of imprisonment is twenty-five (25) years.
So if you are being investigated for any sex crime remember that the investigators are playing for keeps. Here are my top three rules if you are under investigation for any crime:
1. Guilty or innocent you cannot talk your way out of the investigation, so shut up! Remember that little "you have the right to remain silent" talk BEFORE the nice officer gets you the coffee. Sure, you may be guilty and there may be a time to confess, but don't do so at the station to the officer who says he just wants to "get your side" so it can be included in his report to the prosecutor. WAIT. Breathe deeply and tell him you do not want to make a statement. There will be plenty of time to spill your guts later.
2. The prosecutor is not your friend. I know prosecutors, and like many of them. They are almost always believers in what they are doing, sometimes to a fault. The same is true of most defense lawyers. Heck, my daughter is a prosecutor. But as one of my clients says, prosecutors are just cops with nicer suits. They are there as the state's lawyer in a case in which your liberty is very much at risk. Do not expect a break from the prosecutors. They may decide that you are a nice person but that will not be enough to convince them to "overlook" your indiscretion and dismiss the case.
3. You know that money you saved for a rainy day? Get it out and buy the best lawyer you can afford because "it's pouring" outside. Again this week I had the call from a young woman who is looking for an appellate lawyer because her husband is on his way to the big house. Who was his lawyer, I ask. He had a public defender, she says. "We decided to wait and see how the trial went before spending our own money." Bad call. That public defender may have been great, but he also may have had 60 - 80 cases he was managing. Money buys time - which is why I am here at 6:00 am on a Sunday morning. Time is the difference between winning and losing, sometimes. Sometimes there is nothing the best lawyers can do to get you acquitted. For example - if you are guilty of doing whatever they are investigating. But your money can buy that lawyer's time and effort to review the documents, learn the case, get to know you and your life and convey "you" to a judge or jury. I may not be the right lawyer for your case, but somewhere there is a lawyer who will work for you - maybe just to lessen the time you face - hire the best lawyer you can afford.
There you have it - back in the saddle again and now it's time to get back to work. Next time - what do we do about the confession? ..Source.. by Chuck Peterson, Idaho Criminal Defense Blog
ME- High court denies convicted sex offender's appeal
If it is true that, Boland was not in custody and talked to police about the facts of a THEN POSSIBLE crime (at the time of discussion), then this case should be a lesson to everyone that, they should not talk to the police without a lawyer present. Now, as to the victim, sometimes things happen (Boland's error) that make the outcome -here a long punishment- proper given harm to the child.
3-5-2009 Maine:
PORTLAND (March 5): The Maine Supreme Judicial Court denied Micah T. Boland's appeal Tuesday, March 3, ensuring he will serve his 22-year sentence for sexually abusing a child.
Boland, 31, formerly of Rockland, was the first person in Maine to be sentenced under Jessica's Law after a trial.
In August 2008, Justice Jeffrey Hjlem ordered Boland to serve 22 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of probation. Boland was convicted for Class A gross sexual assault after a jury-waived trial.
Boland was charged with the offense in March 2007 after he confessed to police that he had sexual contact with a 4-year-old girl left in his care while he stayed with her family in Liberty.
In 2006, the Maine Legislature enacted sentencing guidelines under Jessica's Law, which makes 20 years the base sentence for people convicted of sex crimes against children younger than 12 years of age.
The sentence may be raised or lowered depending on several factors, including the sex offender's background and criminal history and the impact of the crime on victims and their families.
While other people had previously been sentenced in Maine under Jessica's Law, those sentences came after plea agreements. Boland's sentencing was the first to come after a trial.
The memorandum of decision from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court indicated that Boland's appeal was denied for several reasons.
Boland contended that some of his statements to police should not have been used at his trial because he was not advised of his Miranda rights, which instruct a person that s/he has a right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning.
"Contrary to Boland's contention, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during two police interviews, because the record supports the court's determination that (1) he was not in custody when questioned without Miranda warnings being administered, and (2) he made the statements at issue voluntarily," stated the decision. "... Because Boland was not in custody when questioned, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel did not attach."
Boland also contended the victim, who was 5 at the time of the trial, was not a competent witness. And Boland also took issue with the fact that the victim's age was a factor considered at his sentencing.
"Also contrary to Boland's assertions, the trial court did not clearly err in finding the 5-year-old victim to be a competent witness ... Nor did it err in considering the victim's age as an aggravating factor at sentencing," the decision stated.
Jeremy Pratt of Camden represented Boland. Deputy District Attorney Eric Walker presented the case for the state. ..News Source.. by Tanya Mitchell, The Republican Journal Reporter
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
WV- Lawmaker Wants Barbie Banned in W.Va.; Local Residents Quickly React
Proof that all squirrels are not in trees.
3-4-2009 West Virginia:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Barbie could get an unwelcome present for her 50th birthday: outlawed in West Virginia.
A state lawmaker proposed a bill Tuesday to ban sales of the iconic Mattel doll and others like her.
The proposal from Democratic Delegate Jeff Eldridge says such toys influence girls to place too much importance on physical beauty, at the expense of their intellectual and emotional development.
A Mattel spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The Barbie doll officially turns 50 on March 9, and the toy maker has made big plans this year to mark the anniversary.
Barbie has had her foes over that half-century. Critics say the doll promotes materialism and an unnatural body image.
Here is the text of the bill as posted on the WV Legislature website:
H. B. 2918
(By Delegate Eldridge)
[Introduced March 3, 2009; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.]
A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new article, designated §47-25-1, relating to banning the sale of "Barbie" dolls and other dolls that influence girls to be beautiful.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended by adding thereto a new article, designated §47-25-1, to read as follows:
ARTICLE 25. BARBIE DOLLS.
§47-25-1. Unlawful sale of Barbie dolls.
It shall be unlawful in the state to sell "Barbie" dolls and other similar dolls that promote or influence girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development.
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to ban the sale of Barbie dolls and other similar dolls. ..News Source.. by Kallie Cart
Crisis of Faith
3-4-2009 National:
Carnal Knowledge
Sex panics make for bad law. It could be said that they make for bad science, too, except that what has driven some of the most notorious legal cases to emerge from such panics has been more a masquerade of science, a belief tricked out in the language of medicine and social science to distract from the mumbo jumbo at its core. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is set to be the latest arena to test that belief, taking up the admissibility of "dissociative amnesia," or "repressed memory," in a case that some powerful interests no doubt hoped was as settled as the grave.
The petitioner is Paul Shanley, a once famous "street priest" who became infamous in the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, was tried in 2005, convicted and sentenced to twelve to fifteen years in prison. Because the media, particularly the Boston Globe, were central to the allegations and the frenzy that provided the context, it has always been difficult to see the case plainly. But because justice, as opposed to its many stand-ins, is blind, imagine yourself or one you love as the defendant at the bar.
In October 2004 Dr. Daniel Brown, a Boston psychologist, took the witness stand in a pretrial hearing at Middlesex Superior Court and offered what would become the state's only foundation for its prosecution. There was no evidence in the case, just a claim that depended entirely on faith. Dr. Brown was in the courtroom to give it the imprimatur of science.
The accuser asserted that from the age of 6, in 1983, he had been raped and otherwise indecently assaulted by the defendant for three years in a busy church on Sunday mornings. Each assault, it was alleged, instantly erased his memory of what had just happened, so that the boy re-approached the defendant in a state of innocent unknowing, to be assaulted again, to forget everything again and again, and then move on in life without the slightest inkling of the experience until twenty years later, when it all came back to him.
Dr. Brown had appeared as a certified expert in courtrooms for years, stating that the mind's capacity for such "massive repression" was generally accepted as demonstrable fact in the psychological professions. That was always false. By 2004, however, as compellingly detailed in documents now before the Supreme Judicial Court, the literature in major scientific publications questioning the validity of repressed memory was weighty. Many of the therapists whose work Brown recommended had been disgraced, stripped of their licenses and revealed as dangerous frauds in successful malpractice suits.
Brown's own testimony had been rejected as unreliable by courts in New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Nevertheless, he was the expert favored by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and defense counsel offered not a single study or witness to rebut. Almost fifty years of research on memory and trauma, involving 120 studies and more than 14,000 people with documented experiences of rape, sexual abuse, torture, death camps, war or other horrors, reveals no evidence of repressed memory--that is, an inability to remember that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetting, infantile amnesia, intoxication or brain injury. Ignorant of that record, Judge Stephen Neel ruled that "the theory of repressed memory is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community." Thus, it was deemed admissible to buttress the criminal allegations.
When prosecutors first brought those, in 2002, there were four complainants, all friends or acquaintances, who reported identical experiences of sexual abuse, immediate memory loss and instantaneous remembering within a few days of one another. This quadruple "recovery" of memory began when one of them read an article in the Globe.
Although, as initially charged, the defendant was a man who had had "unnatural sexual intercourse" with four small children in the same period, at the same time on Sundays, in the same circumstances for years, there was never any physical evidence. No blood, no rips, no teary eyes or flushed faces or even dishevelment among the boys. None of the many people who were in the church every week when these crimes were supposedly happening, including the mother of one of the boys, ever noticed a thing. No one saw any of the boys alone with the defendant. No one corroborated essential details of their stories; in fact, many witnesses, including the accuser's mother-in-law, who was also on the scene every week, contradicted them.
Ultimately the DA dropped three men from the case, their shaky claims further burdened by mental illness, gambling, drug use, prison time and prior statements of being raped by family members. The last man standing had been in the Air Force and was a newly married fireman at the time of trial. Under oath he re-remembered some of his "memories" differently. The prosecution's expert witness, a confederate of Dr. Brown called Dr. James Chu, testified that this was perfectly consistent with dissociative amnesia. Every contradiction in the accuser's story, like every problem in his past, was only further proof of sexual abuse and of his sincerity.
Dr. Chu's testimony revealed the leap of faith at the heart of repressed memory belief. "There are patients who report no amnesia," he said, "and I don't know whether they in fact have no amnesia or that they just haven't yet remembered something that they forgot." Defense counsel floundered in the face of this purported scientific expertise. Dr. Chu admitted that the concept of the brain erasing all knowledge of a traumatic event until some mysterious mechanism unlocks the deep freeze of memory "doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense." He was relying on the stories patients told him, the symptoms from which a therapist can "construct meaning," as Dr. Brown had put it, and the studies based on people's self-reporting, without controls, methodological standards, error rates; in other words, without scientific validity.
In the absence of effective cross-examination or an informed defense, though, Dr. Chu's testimony conferred the aura of a scientific benediction. Use your "common sense," the prosecutor told the jury; believe the expert, believe the victim. She hadn't proved a thing, but the jury believed them.
Almost no one in the press questioned the "science." Scandal had been so profitable. After Roderick MacLeish Jr., a personal injury lawyer who brought a civil case on behalf of the four accusers, held a dramatic PowerPoint press conference in 2002, the Globe pronounced the priest "depraved" and went on to collect its Pulitzer for retailing MacLeish's most inflammatory claims. The immense documentary record on Shanley never supported them, so the Globe's reporters (and others from The Advocate to the New York Times to Vanity Fair) either never analyzed the documents independently or misrepresented them. Nor did they submit their interviews to the most basic checks of rational skepticism.
Shanley had had sex. He'd had sex with hustlers and teenagers and other men. And he, a priest, had lied about it. That anyone else might be lying, or confused, or seeking attention, or wanting money, or needing an explanation for the mess of a life only muddied up a good gothic tale. When the church defrocked Shanley and, against its attorneys' advice, settled the civil case, paying the accuser, Paul Busa, $500,000 and paying the troubled friend whose claims had set off the chain reaction of recovered memories, Gregory Ford, $1.4 million, it handed down one more pretrial guilty verdict. "Even if Shanley didn't rape those kids," went the common line, "he did something." Nobody knew, amid all the monster-making, that the DA had offered Shanley a deal: plead guilty and avoid prison. He refused.
When the Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in May, it will consider the issues that, without the impedimenta of panic and prejudice, always made this a case about due process and equal treatment under the law. Shanley's new lawyer, Robert Shaw Jr., is not asking the court to divine Busa's veracity or even to determine that the hypothesis of repressed memory is, finally, true or false. That, he asserts, is the function of scientific research. To date, the research shows that the hypothesis is unproven. And so long as it is unproven, it is inadmissible in court. Shaw argues that Shanley had ineffective counsel on this and other matters, and he is seeking a new trial.
This will be the first time a Massachusetts court fully considers the scientific, evidentiary basis for repressed memory. The Commonwealth is behind the curve. Since 1998 state courts have been dismissing repressed memory as junk science, and prosecutions based on it have become rare. In 2007 an Indiana court rejected Dr. Brown's testimony as misleading, and a federal judge threw out a $1.75 million verdict in a case that hinged on Brown's expertise. In a 2006 amicus brief, dozens of pre-eminent social science researchers stated, "Decades of research and scientific debate have clarified over and over again that the notion of traumatic events being somehow 'repressed' and later accurately recovered is one of the most pernicious bits of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry." Which is why Massachusetts matters beyond the fate of one man. People who may not believe in God or aliens believe in repressed memory, with no more justification and maybe less. The source of that belief is by now a tangled web, but one of its strands leads back decades to liberals and do-gooders, feminists and therapists in Massachusetts. Their ideas ruined hundreds of lives, and their acolytes, who cheered Shanley's conviction and were rewarded for abetting it, ought to be disabused of the pretension that they served something other than faith-based justice. ..News Source.. by JoAnn Wypijewski
