Unfortunately the media is using the wrong terms here, it is important to distinguish between "Prison and Civil Commitment." Compounding the problem is that New Hamshire civil commitment program is "Detaining" sex offenders in the state's "Secure Psychiatric Unit / Residential Treatment Unit" which happens to be in the State Prison at Concord.
6-7-2009 New Hampshire:
With the state's first sexually violent predator now confined, perhaps indefinitely, the state's new sexual predator law faces its biggest tests: How rigorous and effective will the state's treatment be, and will William Ploof, 49, have a fair chance of eventually earning his freedom?
To do so, he must persuade a judge that through treatment he is unlikely to commit more acts of sexual violence.
State officials have developed a five-page policy laying out the kinds of treatment sexual predators like Ploof will receive, and the director of the Department of Corrections' forensics and medical services division, Robert MacLeod, says he is committed to providing individualized, intense treatment.
"Any of the residents coming in here under (the new sexual predator law), I can assure you, will be treated appropriately according to medical models," MacLeod said. "It will not be punishment. It will be treatment. And as we move this program along, we hope that it will be successful for individuals."
Leo Keating, who oversees psychiatric care for sex offenders and others committed to the state's secure psychiatric unit, added to that: "If we are successful, the world will be a safer place."
But so far, New Hampshire's plan is untested because Ploof is the first offender to be committed under the new law, which took effect in 2007. The law allows convicted sex offenders to be held past their prison sentences for treatment if a jury believes they have a mental abnormality that makes them likely to re-offend.
In addition to New Hampshire's absence of a treatment record, there's no consensus nationwide on what treatment works best. In addition, there have been vastly mixed results among treatment facilities in the nearly 20 states with sexually violent predator laws. According to a 2007 study by Adam Deming, director of Indiana's sex offender management and monitoring program, only eight of 17 states surveyed had released an offender because they'd completed treatment and/or earned a recommended release from treatment staff. (Others were let out on legal or technical grounds.) And those eight states released few: Of the more than 3,600 civilly committed sexual predators nationwide in 2007, only 57 had been released, Deming reported in the fall issue of The Journal of Psychiatry and Law.
That concerns defense attorneys and civil rights activists.
"There are a lot of fancy words in (New Hampshire's treatment plan)," said attorney Michael Iacopino, past president of the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "and it looks like it will involve a lot of people's time and a lot of money. A whole lot of money."
Anatomy of treatment
The state's treatment policy, written by mental health, prison and legal officials from various state agencies, calls for an exhaustive intake examination as well as weekly, monthly and annual progress reviews.
MacLeod and Keating said the treatment provided to civilly committed offenders will differ greatly from the sex offender program offered at the prison. Whereas that program is the same for all offenders, treatment will be tailored to an offender's particular needs while confined under the new law.
"It's important that the treatment on day one is not set in stone," Keating said. "It really has to be developed around the population that we have. At this point, we have one convicted offender. If we had 25, there would be some differences in the way we'd interact with the population."
MacLeod put it this way: "A physician will develop a plan, and it will twist and turn in terms of someone's presentation as we work with them."
Treatment will be provided by medically trained staff inside the secure psychiatric unit, which sits inside the prison but is not run by the prison, MacLeod said. Staff will use a variety of industry-standard tests to monitor an offender's risk and arousal triggers, MacLeod said.
Tools will include a polygraph and a device that connects to an offender's genitals and measures his arousal to appropriate and deviant images. There will be individual therapy, but the plan calls for a heavy emphasis on group therapy and peer confrontation, something that will be difficult until there are more than one or a few sex offenders committed.
MacLeod and Keating said they will work around that by including Ploof and other sexually violent predators in other groups within the unit. The unit also houses residents suffering from mental illness or people found not guilty by reason of insanity. Often, Keating said, they share a need for help with anger management, emotion control and checking distorted thinking.
The treatment will be overseen by Keating's employer, MHM Services, a private company that also provides treatment for the male sex offenders in Massachusetts who've been civilly committed for treatment.
What does it cost?
MacLeod and Keating said they looked at the Massachusetts program, which developed from the state law passed in 1999, for an example. According to a 2007 New York Times survey of treatment programs throughout the country, Massachusetts was spending $30.7 million to confine and treat a little more than 105 sexually violent predators between the ages of 20 and 70.
The cost broke down to about $48,300 per prisoner. Only four offenders had been fully discharged, without ongoing supervision, when the story ran in March 2007.
The Times found that the cost of treatment programs varies widely among states, from $32,000 a year for each offender in Texas, which, unlike other states, treats them in the community, to $180,000 a year for each offender in Pennsylvania, where they are confined.
The price tag for New Hampshire isn't available yet, but it's bound to be more than the nearly $30,000 it costs the state a year to incarcerate a prisoner, experts said.
"The interesting thing will be, can the state maintain the program?" Iacopino said. "And if they don't, and anyone who's deemed a sexually violent predator is supposed to receive treatment and doesn't, they would have a valid right to sue the state of New Hampshire."
In 2007, the New York Times reported on a Florida facility's failure to adequately treat sexually violent predators confined to its care. The private contractor providing the care blamed the state, saying it had not budgeted enough money for proper treatment
The men in the Florida facility were having sex with one another or staff, assaulting staff and hiding knives in their rooms, the Times reported. One escaped on a helicopter that set down within the facility. In 2005, 35 percent of the offenders were not attending therapy, and only one of the hundreds committed had earned a recommendation for release, the Times said.
Iacopino and others said the state has to be ready to adequately pay for the law it passed.
"If our intention is to lock these people up for the rest of their lives, and that does appear to be some peoples' intentions, it's going to be a cost at least as much as incarcerating them, and in some states, twice as much," said public defender Mark Larsen, who is supervising the defense of sex offenders targeted for confinement and treatment under the new law.
Future cases
In August, a second sex offender, Thomas Hurley, will go on trial in Hillsborough County to face civil commitment. And state officials have been asked to assess another sex offender from Keene to see if he meets the definition of sexually violent predator.
It's those potentially high costs that concern Iacopino.
"I'm afraid of a future where we have these nice rules but where (sexually violent predators) will end up being warehoused," he said.
In New Hampshire, sexual predators such as Ploof are committed for up to five years at a time if a jury believes they suffer from a mental abnormality that makes them likely to commit more acts of sexual violence.
That's what a Hillsborough County Superior Court jury concluded about Ploof, 49, last week. He has served a 10-year sentence for sexually assaulting a boy twice in the 1990s and admitted to prison officials that he had 20 to 50 other victims, children included.
A state mental health expert testified that he believes Ploof continues to suffer from pedophilia in a way that makes him unable to control himself and that he's likely to commit more sexually violent acts.
Ploof or his treatment providers can petition the court anytime between now and five years for his early release if they believe treatment has made him safe to be in the community. If the petition comes from the provider, a court must hold a hearing on the request. If it comes from Ploof, it can hold the hearing or dismiss the request outright.
At the end of five years, Ploof will be freed unless prosecutors can persuade the court that he still suffers from a mental abnormality that makes him dangerous. If the court agrees, Ploof will be recommitted for up to five more years, a process that can be repeated indefinitely.
Ploof's public defenders will monitor his treatment and progress as much as they are able, Larsen said. He'd like Ploof and other offenders to have more rights before the court to request their early release and clearer language in the law allowing offenders' lawyers to intervene in their care if it is not adequate.
Larsen hesitated to guess what Ploof's experience might be like. He said he believes the state will find it challenging to create an effective program immediately - especially since there is such disagreement over what treatment is best and whether treatment helps.
"Nationwide, either they're not treating them or they don't have any effective treatment because people aren't getting out," Larsen said. "The jury is still out on what is effective treatment. It's not one of those areas where the answers are absolutely clear." ..Source.. by ANNMARIE TIMMINS, Monitor staff
Sunday, June 7, 2009
NH- Predator law faces big tests (Civil Commitment law)
NH- Sex offender to remain incarcerated (Detained in Civil Commitment)
Unfortunately the media is using the wrong terms here, it is important to distinguish between "Prison and Civil Commitment." Compounding the problem is that New Hamshire civil commitment program is "Detaining" sex offenders in the state's "Secure Psychiatric Unit / Residential Treatment Unit" which happens to be in the State Prison at Concord.
6-4-2009 New Hampshire:
Convicted child molester William Ploof will spend up to another five years incarcerated for treatment because a jury decided yesterday he remains a sexually violent predator who's likely to strike again.
The jury of four men and eight women returned its verdict about 2:30 p.m., after deliberating for about 6½ hours over two days. Ploof did not visibly react as the verdict was read. His public defenders, Lisa Wolford and Anthony Sculimbrene, are expected to appeal.
Ploof, 49, of Manchester, is the first person to be tried under the state's new sex offender law, which allows sex offenders to be held past their prison sentences if a jury believes they remain dangerous and are likely to re-offend.
Gov. John Lynch, who pushed for the new sex offender law, issued a statement yesterday afternoon applauding the verdict.
"I am pleased to see that this law is working," the statement said. "The safety of our children is our greatest priority as a state. This act has created a fair and comprehensive judicial process to evaluate sexually violent predators and ensure that these dangerous criminals are not released back into our communities without proper rehabilitation and treatment."
Ploof finished a 10-year sentence in 2007 for sexually assaulting a young boy twice in the 1990s. He's also claimed between 20 and 50 other victims, according to prison records. At trial, prosecutors Michael Valentine and Ross McLeod of the Hillsborough County Attorney's Office argued that Ploof is a pedophile who's unable to control his sexual urges and therefore likely to commit more acts of sexual violence.
The defense's expert witness, Dr. Luis Rosell, a psychologist from Iowa, disputed that assertion, telling jurors that even though Ploof never completed sex offender treatment in prison, he had learned enough to change his ways. Rosell said Ploof is no longer attracted to children, a requirement to be a pedophile, and is instead interested in teenage boys.
Valentine said he was glad that argument didn't persuade the jury.
"I am pleased with the jury's verdict," Valentine said. "Based on (Ploof's) extensive history of sexual assault and his inability to complete treatment, I think Mr. Ploof presented a very real danger to the community. I'm grateful that the jury saw through his expert's claims that Mr. Ploof had gotten what he needed from treatment even though he had failed to complete it and now was only interested in teenage boys."
Ploof quit the sex offender treatment program the first time and was kicked out the second time for grabbing another inmate sexually, according to prison records. That was largely why the county attorney's office filed a petition against Ploof seeking further incarceration and treatment.
Jurors could not be reached or declined comment yesterday afternoon. Ploof's public defenders declined comment immediately after trial and could not be reached yesterday afternoon.
After the jury was excused, Judge Gillian Abramson complimented all four attorneys on their "superb" lawyering and said jurors offered the same praise.
To keep Ploof behind bars, jurors had to conclude three things about Ploof: He suffers from pedophilia, the pedophilia makes him unable to control his urges, and he's likely to commit more acts of sexual violence.
Valentine and McLeod said they believe jurors took those requirements seriously and reached a verdict based on thoughtful analysis and not emotion or fear. Jurors sat through four days of testimony and remained attentive to the end, McLeod said.
And their questions during deliberations showed they were debating the case on legal grounds, McLeod said. Yesterday, jurors asked for definitions of "likely" and "probability," both of which related to their burden of proof.
Valentine said he hopes the verdict will persuade sex offenders in prison to take sex offender treatment seriously. Had Ploof completed the treatment during his sentence and earned parole, prosecutors would not have filed a petition to hold him longer, Valentine said.
Ploof was taken from court yesterday to the prison's secure psychiatric unit, where he's been held since 2007 awaiting trial. He will be evaluated and given an individualized treatment plan, according to the prison's policy for offenders committed under the new law.
During the next five years, prison officials can petition the court to release Ploof early if they believe Ploof has improved and is no longer a danger. Ploof can also submit a petition. A judge will decide the request without a jury.
If prosecutors believe Ploof remains a danger after five years, they can ask the court to commit him again for up to five more years. They can repeat that process indefinitely as long as they believe Ploof remains a danger and likely to re-offend. ..Source.. by ANNMARIE TIMMINS, Monitor staff
AK- Offender won't have to register
Old article but worth a read: This is a State Supreme Court decision based on state Constitution and therefore not precedent elsewhere; to our knowledge Alaska has not done anything about this, rightfully so.
7-28-2008 Alaska:
ALASKA SUPREME COURT: Convict argued law should not be applied retroactively.
An anonymous man who has been fighting Alaska's sex offender registration law since the mid-1990's when it was first enacted has finally won.
He doesn't have to register, but most others still do.
Known variously in federal and state lawsuits as James Rowe and John Doe, the unnamed man is a child molester who had been convicted, sentenced, done all his prison time and most of his probation by 1994 when Gov. Wally Hickel signed the registry into law. It was retroactive to 1984.
The law requires all convicted sex offenders to provide Alaska State Troopers with a current address and other identifying information, including updates from one to four times a year -- some for the rest of their lives. The information, along with the convict's record and physical description, are made accessible to the public, including online.
Doe-Rowe filed suit with others in federal court in Anchorage the day after Hickel signed the law. He argued it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it was unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated his right to privacy.
But his main argument was that the law was not in effect when he committed his crimes, that it was punishment applied to him retroactively. In general, retroactive laws are called "ex post facto" and are barred by both the U.S. and the Alaska constitutions.
It took years, but the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Doe-Rowe lost.
Alaska and other states with similar laws argued that they were not punishment, but merely regulations used to keep track of sex offenders for the protection of the public.
Each federal court that ruled on the case reversed the ruling of the previous court, an indication of how contentious the issue is. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the states, concluding the registration requirement was not an "ex post facto" punishment.
So Doe-Rowe started over. In 2005 he filed suit in state court, arguing that the Alaska Constitution offers stronger protection of individual liberties than the federal constitution.
Doe-Rowe lost in Anchorage Superior Court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a 52-page split decision issued Friday, the court voted 2-1 that forced public registration is punishment as well as regulation, and cannot be added retroactively to the sentence of someone who committed their crime before the law existed. Two justices did not participate in the case and Chief Justice Dana Fabe disagreed with the conclusion.
Justices Warren Matthews and Robert Estaugh particularly faulted the sweeping effect of the law, noting that it applies equally to all people convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the severity of the crime, the success of their rehabilitation, or their continuing danger to the public.
Ex-offenders lose jobs and housing because of the registry, the justices noted. There is no way to petition to be allowed to stop registering, or to limit registration information to legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Even someone who becomes physically incapacitated and therefore incapable of committing another offense must keep signing up, they said.
Although the aims of the registration law are "undeniably legitimate and important," Estaugh wrote, "Alaska's statute is excessive in relation to the state's interest in public safety."
In her dissent, Fabe said her colleagues did not offer convincing reasons for coming to a different conclusion than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's decision relieves Doe-Rowe of the obligation to register, but the law remains in effect for those convicted of covered crimes committed after August 1994, when the law took effect. ..Source.. by SHEILA TOOMEY
NJ- Legislators set to debate sex offender residency restrictions
In other words, the Legislature is trying to figure how to overrule the court's decision. What is so funny is, the court's decision is based on PRIOR legislators' thinking and laws enacted. The task: How to get around the ex post facto clauses?
6-7-2009 New Jersey:
Legislation that would allow New Jersey communities to impose residency restrictions for sex offenders will be debated Monday by an Assembly panel.
The Judiciary Committee also will consider a bill that would require mandatory ignition locks for all drunk driving offenses in the state.
The measure regarding where sex offenders could live comes just weeks after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks, or other places where children gather.
The proposed bill, A-641, would permit local measures that bar Megan's Law registrants from living up to 2,000 feet from such places.
And supporters say it would ensure that such ordinances couldn't be manipulated to create a zoning scheme that would effectively block sex offenders from living anywhere in a given town. ..Source.. by BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI
UN announces launch of world’s first tuition-free, online university
6-7-2009 Global:
A leading arm of the United Nations working to spread the benefits of information technology today announced the launch of the first ever tuition-free online university.
As part of this year’s focus on education, the UN Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technology and Development (GAID) presented the newly formed University of the People, a non-profit institution offering higher education to the masses.
“This year the Global Alliance has focused its attention on education [and] how ICT can advance education goals around the world,” Serge Kapto from GAID told a press conference at UN Headquarters in New York.
For hundreds of millions of people around the world higher education is no more than a dream, Shai Reshef, the founder of the University of the People, told reporters. They are constrained by finances, the lack of institutions in their region, or they are not able to leave home to study at a university for personal reasons.
Mr. Reshef said that this University opened the gate to these people to continue their studies from home and at minimal cost by using open-source technology, open course materials, e-learning methods and peer-to-peer teaching.
Admission opened just over two weeks ago and without any promotion some 200 students from 52 countries have already registered, with a high school diploma and a sufficient level of English as entry requirements.
Students will be placed in classes of 20, after which they can log on to a weekly lecture, discuss its themes with their peers and take a test all online. There are voluntary professors, post-graduate students and students in other classes who can also offer advice and consultation.
The only charge to students is a $15 to $50 admission fee, depending on their country of origin, and a processing fee for every test ranging from $10 to $100. For the University to sustain its operation, it needs 15,000 students and $6 million, of which Mr. Reshef has donated $1 million of his own money. ..Source.. by UN News Center
ME- Study reveals 'hidden homeless' in rural America
6-7-2009 Maine:
BRUNSWICK — The old, run-down trailer in the backcountry near Norridgewock wasn't much to look at, but it was home.
That was before the landlord died, setting in motion events that left Michelle DeStoop, Bobby Landry and their six children without a place of their own.
After losing their home, they sold their car to a junkyard when they couldn't afford to have it repaired. Without a car, they couldn't get around. Low on money, they lost their meager possessions when they couldn't pay the bill for storage.
Homelessness often means life in soup lines and on city streets, but as a new study commissioned by the state shows, it isn't confined to cities. It also can be found across rural areas, so concealed that some people are surprised it exists at all, the study finds.
"It's the hidden homeless," said Melany Mondello of the Shalom House mental health housing organization, who headed the study and a resulting 32-page report called "Cost of Rural Homelessness."
The study, commissioned by the Maine State Housing Authority, is believed to be the first study in the nation to provide a look at the costs of rural homelessness in a state. It concludes that providing "permanent supportive housing" — subsidized housing in combination with mental health, employment and other support services — for homeless people is less costly than serving them while they're without a home.
Moreover, the report sheds light on a segment of society that is often overlooked.
Many of the rural homeless stay at shelters — just like their urban counterparts — but some counties don't even have shelters, forcing the homeless to live in encampments, abandoned buildings, barns or cars. Many move from place to place, sleeping on a friend's or relative's couch or floor until they move on to the next person willing to take them in for a while.
All told, 1,200 people sought help at Maine's rural shelters last year, but the number of rural homeless is thought to be much higher. Of those who were looked at for the study, 97 percent had mental illness, 18 percent were alcohol abusers and 16 percent were drug abusers. Eleven percent were veterans.
DeStoop, 30, and Landry, 44, lived a simple life in the two-bedroom trailer they rented along Route 139 in Norridgewock, a town of 3,300 in central Maine. She worked in a dining hall at Colby College in Waterville; Landry, who is disabled and can't read or write, tended to things at home.
They lived next door to her mother's trailer and adjacent to an old roller skating rink that had been converted to a flea market. A farm down the road sold fresh produce in the summer months.
But when the trailer owner died, his heirs evicted them, removed the trailers and sold the property. At first, DeStoop and her family shared a house with her mother in Waterville. But after her mother moved out, it wasn't long before they followed — not able to pay the rent, heat and electricity on their own.
They bounced between her mother's and her grandfather's small apartments. But relationships can become strained when so many people live in such cramped quarters, so the family moved to Brunswick — where they eventually sought refuge at the Tedford Housing family shelter and have lived for eight months now. Moving an hour away meant DeStoop had to quit her job at the college.
Besides losing their home, their car and their possessions, DeStoop and Landry had three of their six children — ages 10, 8 and 6 — taken by the state and put into a foster home, she said. The other kids — ages 4, 5 and 8 — live with them at the shelter.
Last winter, Landry had to leave the shelter and spend more than three months on the streets because of a state investigation into their children's welfare. When he couldn't hook up with friends, he slept behind trash bins and in a gazebo on the town common, with a blanket to keep him warm.
He hit bottom in April when — in despair over his situation — he slashed his arm repeatedly with a razor blade to take his own life.
He was hospitalized overnight, and by coincidence was cleared by state investigators the very next day, setting the stage for his move back to the shelter, said Landry, the slash marks clearly visible on his arm.
"It's depressing. Very depressing," Michelle said. She later added: "You just keep your head up and keep on trying."
For the "Cost of Rural Homelessness" study, researchers looked at 163 people in all parts of Maine except Portland, the state's largest city, who were homeless and now live in permanent supportive housing. The study examined the costs of mental health care, physical health care, shelters, hospitals, jails and ambulance services while they were homeless and compared them to those same costs after they had housing.
The study found that the additional cost of the housing was more than offset by lower costs for the other services, said Nancy Fritz, Director of Homeless Initiatives at the Housing Authority.
For instance, people with the housing saw a 99 percent reduction in shelter costs, a 57 percent reduction in mental health care costs, a 32 percent reduction in ambulance service costs and a 95 percent reduction in jail costs. Physical health care costs rose by 9 percent, perhaps because people had easier access to doctors when they had housing.
Without housing, the average six-month cost to support the homeless was $18,629, according to the study; with the housing, the cost was $17,281, for an average savings of $1,348 per person.
"Yet there's a myth out there that when a person is homeless, it's not really costing us money. In fact, homelessness costs all of us money," Fritz said.
Even in Maine, a largely rural state with a population of 1.3 million people, the number of rural homeless are far outnumbered by the number of homeless in cities.
Nationally, there are about 675,000 homeless people on any given night. Of that figure, an estimated 9 percent — or just over 60,000 people — live in rural areas, said Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The Maine study will be presented at the Washington-based organization's annual conference this summer.
Rural homelessness presents challenges because there is less transitional housing, fewer employment programs, fewer social service agencies, fewer health care programs and the like than in cities, Roman said. At the same time, though, finding solutions for homeless people can be easier in rural areas, in part because the numbers aren't so overwhelming, she said.
"Take the extreme, say Los Angeles, that has a city's worth of homeless people, 60,000 or 70,000 homeless people. It's difficult to think what you might do about that," she said. "Whereas rural communities ... may have 10 or 12 homeless people."
Rhonda Fisher was once part of that hidden homeless.
Following a late-night fight fueled by drinking three years ago, Fisher's boyfriend booted her out of the home they shared in the small central Maine town of Fairfield. She ended up at the homeless shelter in Waterville, where she and four other women shared a bedroom.
Fisher, who is 42, had already been through hard times: She dropped out of school at 15. She's had six children, giving up three to adoption. She's been married four times. She takes medication for bipolar disorder and anxiety.
Still, she couldn't believe she was homeless — again.
Years ago, she and her husband found themselves homeless in Durham, N.C. Their money ran out not long after moving there from Maine in search of new surroundings and opportunities.
The Durham shelter had more than 100 people in it, she said, with 40 or more women packed into a single sleeping room. The shelter would lock the residents down at night. It was dirty. During the day, she had to walk the city streets until the shelter reopened. "It was almost like a jail," she said.
For two years now, Fisher has lived in a subsidized one-bedroom apartment in Waterville, and she works at a local fast-food restaurant.
Like Fisher, Michelle DeStoop is hopeful for the future. She's been told that she is near the top of the waiting list for subsidized housing and thinks she and her family could be in a home of their own this summer.
Any home is better than being homeless, she said.
Even a dilapidated trailer from the 1970s on a country road in the middle of nowhere.
"We were living there," she said. "We called it home." ..Source.. by Clarke Canfield
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Holding of the U.S. Supreme Court on Anonymous free speech
FL- Drawing of Jessica Lunsford is returned, so theft charge is dropped
6-6-2009 Florida:
SPRING HILL — At the request of Mark Lunsford, prosecutors Friday dropped a felony grand theft charge against a woman accused of stealing three large drawings from him, including one of his 9-year-old daughter, Jessica, who was kidnapped and killed in 2005.
Jeanette L. Viegas, 37, faced the charge for taking six items including the drawings, which were valued at $300 each, according to court records. The other drawings, given to Lunsford by a local artist, pictured him with Jesus and with former Gov. Jeb Bush at the signing of Florida's landmark Jessica's Law.
Before the March 4 incident, Viegas lived with Lunsford at a home on Elwood Road in Spring Hill, according to arrest reports. Lunsford told authorities they argued after he told her he was moving out. He spent the weekend in a hotel and came home to find the 16- by 20-inch charcoal drawings missing.
She sent him a voice mail sarcastically saying, "Thanks for the pictures, I'm taking them to Polk County," and a text message saying, "Everything of Jessie's belongs to me now," according to police reports.
Viegas admitted taking the drawings because she was angry at him and refused to return them, reports say. Authorities issued a warrant March 11 and arrested her at the Elwood Road home when she came to return the drawings.
In an interview Friday, Lunsford said he asked prosecutors to drop the charge — punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine —because the drawings were returned. He considered them "priceless."
"They got my property back," he said. "That's all I wanted."
His daughter went missing from his parents' Citrus County home in February 2005. Authorities found Jessica's body three weeks later, buried outside the nearby trailer of John Couey, a sex offender who in 2007 was sentenced to death for her murder. ..Source.. by John Frank, Times Staff Writer
CA- Man arrested at Murrieta hospital on rape charges
6-6-2009 California:
A man was arrested in a hospital emergency room where he had gone for treatment about an hour after a woman he allegedly raped bit off his tongue, police said.
Murrieta police were summoned to the apartment in the 24000 block of Hancock Avenue around 10:23 a.m. There they found a woman with injuries consistent with a violent assault, according to a police news release.
Officers found a severed tongue at the scene. Around 11 a.m., the suspect, 32-year-old Ronald McGowan, of West Covina, arrived at the Rancho Springs Medical Center in Murrieta, police said.
Police confirmed the suspect's identity and took him into custody. Doctors were unable to reattach the tongue, police said.
A registered sex offender with a previous rape conviction, McGowan specifically targeted the victim, police said.
McGowan was slated to be booked into Southwest Detention Center in French Valley on Friday evening on charges of rape, robbery and kidnapping with intent to rape, said Lt. Dennis Vrooman, a Murrieta police spokesman. ..Source.. by JEFF HORSEMAN, The Press-Enterprise
MA- Court gives sex offender another chance
6-6-2009 Massachusetts:
The state Appeals Court has given new life to a convicted sex offender’s effort to be removed from the state registry.
The man, who is referred to only as John Doe in a ruling issued Friday by the Appeals Court, was convicted of attacking and trying to rape a woman in Quincy in 1984 and was sentenced to a year in jail.
He wants to be removed from the state’s sex offender registry. The man argued that he had no prior convictions before the 1984 case, and hasn’t had any since. He says he poses no risk and shouldn’t have to continuing registering as a sex offender.
The sex offender registry board denied the man’s request, saying that although he only posed a “low risk,” he committed a sexually violent crime and therefore has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
The Appeals Court sent the case back to the registry, saying that the hearing examiner who considered the man’s case must elaborate on whether he poses any risk of reoffending or danger to the public. ..Source.. by Patriot Ledge.com
BOARD.
No. 07-P-1940.
April 2, 2009. - June 5, 2009.
Sex Offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 1, 2006.
The case was heard by Ernest B. Murphy, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Elizabeth Caddick for the plaintiff.
Jennifer K. Zalnasky for the defendant.
Present: Lenk, Sikora, & Wolohojian, JJ.
WOLOHOJIAN, J.
In the early morning of July 2, 1984, Doe came staggering out of a bar in Quincy and began to follow a woman whom he did not know. After she rebuffed his offer to walk her home, he pushed her into some nearby bushes. A struggle ensued during which Doe tried to kiss the woman, slapped her several times, hit her head against the ground, pinned her arms down, reached under her shirt, and tore her bra. The woman was able to break away, passersby called the police, and Doe was found hiding in the bushes. Doe was convicted (by plea) of assault with intent to rape and indecent assault and battery and was sentenced to one year in the house of correction.
Twenty-one years later, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) preliminarily classified Doe as a level two sex offender based exclusively on his convictions from the 1984 incident. Pursuant to G.L. c. 6, § 178L, Doe requested a de novo hearing before a hearing examiner, which he received. The hearing brought out the following additional information, none of which was controverted: Doe has no convictions other than those arising from the 1984 attack, and has had no criminal involvement of any sort since then. He began drinking in 1967, developed into an alcoholic, and had trouble controlling his anger and behavior when drunk. Shortly after the attack, he attended a detoxification program and recognized and addressed his alcoholism. He has not had a drink for more than two decades. The hearing examiner found that Doe expressed "sincere remorse for his behavior," and recognized the role that alcohol played in it. Doe has been continuously employed as a pressman for a Massachusetts newspaper since 1983, and has been a member of the pressman's union since 1977. He is currently on medical disability leave and has reduced mobility. He was married to his first wife for eleven years and had four children with whom he maintains good relationships. His second marriage produced a child with whom he also has a good relationship. His living situation is stable. In short, there was no evidence apart from the 1984 attack upon which to base a finding that Doe posed any risk of committing a sex offense. Based solely on the characteristics of that more than twenty year old crime, [FN1] the hearing examiner classified Doe as a level one sex offender.
Doe sought judicial review [FN2] in the Superior Court where, upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, judgment was entered in favor of SORB and his level one classification was affirmed.
Both before the hearing examiner and in the Superior Court, Doe argued (among other things) that he posed no risk of reoffense and, hence, should be relieved of any registration obligation under G.L. c. 6, § 178K(2)(d ), as amended by St.1999, c. 74, § 2, which provides:
"The board may, upon making specific written findings that the circumstances of the offense in conjunction with the offender's criminal history do not indicate a risk of reoffense or a danger to the public and the reasons therefor, relieve such sex offender of any further obligation to register." [FN3]
General Laws c. 6, § 178K(2)(d ), on its face excludes from its protection those who have been convicted of a "sexually violent offense," regardless of whether they pose any current risk of reoffense. Assault with intent to commit rape is a "sexually violent offense" for purposes of the section. G.L. c. 6, § 178C. Based on these provisions, SORB argued (both to the hearing examiner and to the Superior Court) that Doe, because he had been convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, was not entitled to the provisions of § 178K(2)(d ), was mandatorily "subject to lifetime registration," and "relief of registration is not an option." Doe argues that mandatory registration for those who pose no current threat to the public or risk of reoffense violates substantive due process. [FN4]
In Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 8725 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780, 793 (2008) (Doe No. 8725 ), the Supreme Judicial Court held that due process requires that a sex offender be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he poses no current risk of reoffense or threat to the public. [FN5] In other words, a sex offender cannot be required to register simply because he was--however long ago in the past--convicted of a sexually violent offense if he poses no current risk. Doe No. 8725 was not available to either the hearing examiner or the Superior Court judge at the time of their decisions. And, as a result, both the hearing examiner and the Superior Court judge understandably appear to have considered Doe ineligible to claim the benefit of G.L. c. 6, § 178K(2)(d ). [FN6]
Here, unlike in Doe No. 8725, Doe was afforded a hearing at which he was permitted to introduce evidence, including presenting witnesses. However, as noted above, it is not apparent that the hearing officer considered herself free to consider whether Doe--despite having been convicted of a sexually violent offense--was eligible to be relieved of all registration requirements if he demonstrated that he currently poses no risk of reoffense or current danger to the public. As noted above, SORB argued that Doe was automatically excluded from consideration under § 178K(2)(d ) and the hearing officer does not mention or discuss that section at all. The due process required by Doe No. 8725, supra, does not simply require that Doe receive a hearing, but that the hearing entail meaningful consideration of his claim that he presents no current risk of reoffense or threat to the public. See id. at 791-792, quoting from Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418, 449 (2001) (Marshall, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (person must be given "opportunity to show what he likely could: that he is not a danger to children or other vulnerable persons").
It is true that the hearing officer found that Doe presented a "low" risk to reoffend and a "low" degree of danger to the public and classified him as a level one offender. Therefore, it could be argued that the hearing examiner concluded that Doe had not shown that he presented no risk of reoffense or threat to the community. This inferential leap, however, is not sustainable where SORB argued that such a finding was legally foreclosed by the statute, the language of the statute appeared to support SORB's position, the record does not show that the hearing examiner considered the issue, and the hearing examiner did not have the benefit of Doe No. 8725 at the time she considered or decided the issue.
In light of the above, we conclude that the hearing examiner must explicitly consider, and make written findings pertaining to, whether Doe currently presents a risk of reoffense or danger to the public. In this regard, we note that the Supreme Judicial Court has emphasized that retroactivity and due process concerns are implicated where registration is required solely based on the characteristics of an offense committed more than two decades earlier:
"There is no dispute that sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation, and that the public interest in protecting vulnerable members of the community from sexual predators is a compelling one. But it is nearly impossible to conclude that this interest and the statute's defined purposes are served by imposing, without any opportunity for classification on an individualized basis, a registration requirement on a person who committed a single sexual offense more than twenty-four years before the board's imposition of the requirement, and whose demonstrable record since that time contains no evidence whatsoever of predatory sexual acts characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior."
Doe No. 8725, supra at 790 (quotations and citations omitted).
In order to avoid retroactivity concerns, registration can be required only based on an assessment "of the person's current level of dangerousness and risk of reoffense" (emphasis added). Id. at 787. Thus on remand, if the hearing examiner again concludes that SORB has met its burden of showing that Doe presents a "low" risk of reoffense or a "low" risk of danger to the public such that he must register, the facts upon which that assessment is based should be specifically found, particularly identifying any facts that postdate Doe's offense, as well as the evaluative process used to balance the characteristics of Doe's offense against Doe's life for the past twenty-five years. See Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966) (in determining whether substantial evidence supports a particular finding, a court should evaluate the evidence that detracts from the finding as well as that which supports it). SORB's burden is to show that Doe presents a "cognizable risk of reoffense," Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1211 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 750, 762 (2006), not merely a hypothetical or speculative potential risk. The term "low" must be given a reasonable interpretation; it should not be taken to mean "anything more than no."
In addition, the explanation of this evaluative process should also include the basis upon which the hearing examiner concludes (if she does so) that any predictive value can be placed on Doe's twenty-five year old offense, and to the extent that the offense has any predictive value, how that value is to be balanced and weighed against the totality of the other circumstances. These include, for example, the role alcohol may have played in the offense (and Doe's subsequent abstinence); the fact that Doe has no previous or subsequent history of sex offenses; his medical, vocational, and living situation; and any other factors that would bear on the predictive value of Doe's twenty-five year old crime. The hearing officer may find it helpful to receive expert testimony on these issues.
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing Doe's complaint, and remand the matter to the SORB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
FN1. Twenty-two years before the hearing examiner's decision; almost
twenty-five years ago today.
FN2. Pursuant to G.L. c. 6, § 178M, and G.L. c. 30A, § 14.
FN3. The section also provides that SORB "shall remove such sex offender's registration information from the registry and shall so notify the police departments where said sex offender lives and works or if in custody intends to live and work upon release, and where the offense was committed and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." G.L. c. 6, § 178K(2)(d ).
FN4. He also argues that he poses no risk or danger and that the hearing examiner's findings to the contrary were not supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons stated infra, we do not reach this aspect of Doe's appeal.
FN5. Doe No. 8725, supra, involved a sex offender who was required to register, like Doe in this case, solely because of a guilty plea more than twenty years earlier to a "sexually violent offense." Id. at 781-782. The sex offender in Doe No. 8725 challenged his automatic mandatory registration, arguing that automatic registration, without the opportunity of a hearing at which he could demonstrate that he posed no current risk of reoffense or threat, violates due process. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that "retroactive imposition of the registration requirement without an opportunity to overcome the conclusive presumption of dangerousness that flows solely from Doe's conviction, violates his right to due process under the Massachusetts Constitution" and, accordingly, that Doe No. 8725 was entitled to an opportunity to show "that he neither poses a risk of reoffense nor is a current danger to vulnerable members of our communities." Id. at 793.
FN6. The hearing examiner issued a lengthy written decision classifying Doe as a level one sex offender; however, her decision does not indicate whether she considered Doe's argument that he should not automatically be excluded from § 178K(2)(d ). The Superior Court judge made no findings or rulings in connection with the dismissal of Doe's complaint.
WA- Yakima cracking down on thong underwear
If your cleavage shows too much, you might be a sex offender!
6-6-2009 Washington:
The Yakima City Council is cracking down on what an ordinance delicately refers to as "cleavage of the buttocks."
YAKIMA — The Yakima City Council is cracking down on what an ordinance delicately refers to as "cleavage of the buttocks."
Responding to a proliferation of coffee stands with baristas wearing see-through clothing, thongs and other scanty apparel, the council this week approved minor changes to the city's indecent exposure law.
The Yakima Herald-Republic reports that Mayor Dave Edler had wanted the changes under the city's adult business ordinance. But city legal staff warned that trying to place coffee stands under that law could lead to legal challenges.
The change approved by the council means that anyone in public wearing see-through apparel, a thong or a G-string — regardless of whether they are working at a coffee stand — could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor violation. ..Source.. by Yakima City Council
PA- Police: Man stole Internet, solicited sex
6-6-2009 Pennsylvania:
Just in case you needed another reason to secure your wireless Internet connection: Pedophiles.
Gail Hoffmaster was getting her kids ready for school Wednesday morning when state agents knocked on the door of her Falls home.
Her first thought was that her husband was dead. The good news was that he was alive - and not a pedophile.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office could've thought otherwise, Hoffmaster said.
One of their neighbors was allegedly stealing the Hoffmasters' unsecured wireless Internet connection to solicit sex from an undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old girl.
When the AG's agents spoke to Hoffmaster that morning, they explained that they had arrested the neighbor and wanted to know about the family's computer.
"Thank God he was stupid enough to send (the undercover agent) a picture of himself," Hoffmaster said Thursday. "He could've destroyed my husband's life. And he lives right behind me in my own backyard."
On Wednesday morning, agents arrested Christopher Brian Mcgee, 39, of the 200 block of North Olds Boulevard in Falls.
Mcgee is now charged with three counts of unlawful contact with a minor and one count of criminal use of a communication device, namely the Internet, court documents show. A person with the same name and same birthday as suspect Christopher Brian Mcgee is listed as a sex offender on Michigan's online sex offender registry.
All four counts are third-degree felonies, each punishable by up to seven years in prison. District Judge Jan Vislosky sent Mcgee to Bucks County Prison in lieu of $750,000 bail. That means he needs $75,000 cash collateral to be released.
Mcgee lives directly behind the Hoffmasters, who reside on Cardiff Road.
"He did lean over my fence a couple of weeks ago and said 'hi' to my son," Gail Hoffmaster said.
The family got wireless Internet at their house more than a year ago. Hoffmaster admits that she and her husband, ages 33 and 35, respectively, aren't that Web savvy.
"My 10-year-old knows more than I do," she said.
So they didn't set up their wireless connection to require a password from anyone who wanted to log on. The connections, spread out like a radio signal, can be picked up by other computers as far as a few houses away.
It was in January when Mcgee first made contact with an undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old girl in an online chat room, court documents stated.
"Horndogg69761" asked the "girl" about her looks, if she had a boyfriend and what she did for fun, court records stated.
He allegedly asked for a picture of her, and one depicting a girl between 12 and 14 years old was sent.
"Don't take this the wrong way but damn . . . you are hot!" was his response, which included a photo depicting a man on horseback, according to police.
The conversations escalated and, on several occasions, Mcgee contacted the "girl" in the chat room and showed his genitals to her through photos and a Web video camera, court records stated. He also allegedly touched himself and asked the "girl" if she ever touched herself.
"Maybe ill (sic) have to visit your area sometime," he wrote in February, adding that she couldn't tell anyone about their relationship, according to court records.
Through their investigation, agents learned that "horndogg69761" had been registered under the name Chris Mcgee, court records stated. The agents found several addresses for Mcgee, but zeroed in on him at a house on North Olds Boulevard, court records stated.
They also matched his driver's license photo to the images he shared with the "girl" in the chat room, court documents stated.
However, the agents traced the Internet connection Mcgee used to the Hoffmasters' computer on Cardiff Road, which is only seconds away from Mcgee's address and within range of their wireless signal, court records stated.
The AG's office declined to comment on this investigation because it planned to announce the arrest publicly today.
Pedophiles have been known to use someone else's wireless connection to download pornography or solicit sex from children on the Internet, said Mike Marren, a sergeant in Bensalem's special victims unit, which prosecutes computer-based crimes and sex-offenders in the area.
And it's not just sex offenders you have to worry about, he said. Folks can steal your identity, financial information or even sell stolen goods or commit fraud on eBay using your computer and Internet connection, Marren said.
Criminals don't need computers anymore to do it, he said. They can use iPods, cell phones and even portable video game players.
The bottom line: Secure your connection.
"You wouldn't have a Mac card without a password or a voice mail without a pass code," Marren said.
It's usually just a matter of calling your Internet service provider. For instance, Comcast has a section of its Web site dedicated to security at security.comcast.net.
Count the Hoffmasters as one of the next families to secure their connection.
If only they had known before.
"I went around my neighborhood yesterday, and don't you know, every neighbor I spoke to didn't know that either," Hoffmaster said. "People need to be told."
Ben Finley can be reached at 215-949-4203 or bfinley@phillyBurbs.com.
Tips for wireless Internet security
Restrict access: Allow only authorized users to access your network. Each piece of hardware connected to a network has a MAC (media access control) address. You can restrict or allow access to your network by filtering MAC addresses. Consult your user documentation to get specific information about enabling these features. There are also several technologies available that require wireless users to authenticate before accessing the network.
Change default passwords: Most network devices, including wireless access points, are pre-configured with default administrator passwords to simplify setup. These default passwords are easily found online, so they don't provide any protection. Changing default passwords makes it harder for attackers to take control of the device.
Install a firewall: While it is a good security practice to install a firewall on your network, you should also install a firewall directly on your wireless devices (a host-based firewall). Attackers who can directly tap into your wireless network may be able to circumvent your network firewall - a host-based firewall will add a layer of protection to the data on your computer.
Maintain anti-virus software: You can reduce the damage attackers may be able to inflict on your network and wireless computer by installing anti-virus software and keeping your virus definitions up to date. Many of these programs also have additional features that may protect against or detect spyware and Trojan horses.
Source: The FBI and United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team ..Source.. by BEN FINLEY, The Intelligencer
Friday, June 5, 2009
MA- Mass. court: board must weigh sex offender’s acts
6-5-2009 Massachusetts:
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled the state must weigh the entirety of a sex offender’s life, including what role alcohol might have played in the original crime, when determining if he must register as an offender indefinitely.
The case involves a man convicted of assault with intent to rape in 1984 after leaving a Quincy bar. Since then the man, not identified in court papers, has given up drinking and stayed out of trouble.
The Sex Offender Registry Board argued the man should continue to register as a level one sex offender, but the man argued he no longer poses a risk.
The court ordered the board to reconsider their decision, taking into account the man’s life since his arrest, before determining that he is still a risk. ..Source.. by Boston Herald.com
NM- Court rules against NM in tribal sex offender case
6-5-2009 New Mexico:
SANTA FE (AP) - A New Mexico court has ruled the state's sex offender registration law does not apply to Indians on tribal land.
The Court of Appeals decision involved three Navajos. They were arrested separately in northwestern New Mexico outside the Navajo reservation for failing to register as sex offenders under a state law.
The three men lived on tribal land and did not work or go to school off the reservation. They each had been previously convicted under federal law of sex offenses against minors.
The court says New Mexico lacked the jurisdiction to enforce its sex offender registration law in Indian country.
The state arrests occurred before the Navajo Nation implemented its own sex offender registration law in April 2006. ..Source.. byABC News
Beaten man leaves hospital
6-5-2009 Pennsylvania:
The man who was pummeled by Kensington vigilantes for his alleged connection to the rape of an 11-year-old girl was released from the hospital yesterday as new allegations arose that he groped another woman the day he allegedly attacked the girl.
Jose Carrasquillo, 26, was released from Temple University Hospital about noon and taken into police custody at the Special Victims Unit where he was questioned about Monday's assault on the girl and other possible assaults.
Video footage released by police yesterday shows Carrasquillo on Monday walking on Kensington Avenue near Orleans Street alongside the girl and her sister, who was dropped off at a day-care center before the attack.
Police said the 11-year-old was on her way to Russell Conwell Middle School when Carrasquillo threatened to shoot her and then raped her in a nearby back yard.
Just an hour earlier, police say, Carrasquillo entered the cafeteria of Kensington High School for the Creative and Performing Arts - at Cumberland and Coral streets, about a mile from where the 11-year-old was approached - and groped a teenage girl, who later identified him as her attacker.
Authorities have not charged Carrasquillo in either case but say that they linked him through physical evidence to the yard off Westmoreland Street near Emerald, where the rape occurred.
Carrasquillo, being held on a parole violation for a drug conviction, is expected to be placed in protective custody when he is taken to a city prison, a police source said.
Charges will not be filed against those who beat Carrasquillo at Front and Clearfield streets until police intervened, police said.
But Jorge Zenquis, whose son, Michael, was misidentified as the rapist Tuesday and attacked by a mob, said that justice should be served by law enforcement only.
"Street justice, in my opinion, is not a good thing," said Zenquis, a disabled Vietnam veteran.
"They beat and kicked my son, while other people stood over him and said, 'That's what you get for raping little kids!' "
Police confirmed this week that Michael Zenquis was beaten by a group of people who then called 9-1-1. The officials said Zenquis was taken in for questioning and cleared of any connection to the rape case.
"I'm still traumatized," said Michael Zenquis, who plans to press charges against his assailants.
"I was accused of doing something I didn't do. I was embarrassed. They didn't need to take the law into their hands." * ..Source.. by DAFNEY TALES
TX- Texas blogger jailed after failing to turn PC over to judge
6-5-2009 Texas:
Fifty-three-year-old Lyndal Harrington blogged some nasty things about Anna Nicole Smith's mother, resulting in a defamation lawsuit. The court ordered her to turn over her computer for evidence; after failing to do so, Harrington was thrown in jail. The case highlights the delicacies of today's blogging world, as more and more people are sued for voicing their "opinions" online.
Don't mess with Texas, especially if you're a blogger on somebody's bad side. Houston-based blogger Lyndal Harrington was jailed last week for failing to turn over her computer as part of a defamation case involving the late Anna Nicole Smith. The 53-year-old grandmother claimed that her house was broken into and her computer was stolen after the court had subpoenaed it for evidence. US District Judge Tony Lindsay didn't buy the story, however, and jailed her for contempt.
Anna Nicole's mother, Virgie Arthur, first sued Harrington and a number of others after Harrington wrote blog posts at Rose Speaks, essentially claiming that Arthur had married her stepbrother and abused Smith when she was younger. Others named in the suit include three other bloggers, Howard Stern, CBS, and the father of Smith's daughter, Larry Birkhead. Supposedly, the group conspired to defame Arthur so that she wouldn't get custody of Smith's daughter (who, coincidentally, may inherit almost $100 million—we're sure that has nothing to do with it, though).
As part of the case, Harrington was ordered to turn over her computer for evidence, but she told the court she was unable to do so due to its being stolen. A police officer testified to the court that he believed the theft was staged, leading Judge Lindsay to call Harrington a liar and hold her in contempt of court. She was jailed the Friday before Memorial Day weekend for four days and ordered to produce the computer by July 2—or else. The problem? Harrington says she still doesn't have the computer. "I can’t turn over something I don’t have," she told the Houston Chronicle.
Despite all this, Harrington insists that she did nothing more than voice her opinion online and that she did not conspire with anyone. "I got into this because my business had fallen apart in this economy and it was something to do," Harrington told AFP. "I developed a lot of friendships with women who are retired or ill at home."
Bloggers have increasingly found themselves in hot water for voicing their opinions over the past few years—last year, the University of Washington released a report saying that the number of blogger arrests around the world had tripled since 2006. Media Blogger Association president Robert Cox seems to agree with this general trend, telling the Chronicle that lawsuits against bloggers have more than doubled every year for the past five years. "Bloggers have a tendency to believe myths—like that they are judgment-proof," he said.
As for Harrington, things aren't looking good—she says she can no longer pay for a lawyer to represent her, and clearly the judge in this case isn't showing any sympathy. If she doesn't have a computer to hand over come July 2, Harrington faces being thrown in jail again, and for who knows how long.
..Source.. by Jacqui Cheng
Internet use triples in decade; broadband surges
6-5-2009 Global:
It's official: The Internet is a part of daily life.
According to a new report by the Census Bureau, Internet use tripled from 1997 to 2007.
Sixty-two percent of U.S. households used the Internet from home; 18% did that in 1997.
Among those using the Internet in 2007, 82% did so using a high-speed connection. Just 17% used dial-up.
The rapid rise of broadband shows how quickly a ubiquitous technology like dial-up, which ruled the online world in the 1990s, can become outmoded, says Morton O'Kelly, chairman of Ohio State University's department of geography.
Other findings:
•Mississippi and West Virginia had some of the lowest rates of Internet use in 2007 — around 52%. Alaska and New Hampshire, where people live in a handful of cities, were among the highest, 76.1% and 74.6%, respectively.
•For individuals 25 and older with a bachelor's degree, 87% used the Internet.
Those without a high school diploma: 19%.
•69% of whites lived in a home with Internet use; so did 73% of Asians, 51% of blacks and 48% of Hispanics. ..Source.. by Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
Deadline extended for national sex offender registry compliance
6-5-2009 National:
BENNINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to extend a deadline for states to comply with federal sex offender registry requirements, something Vermont officials have been pushing for.
Compliance checks
The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it will extend the July compliance deadline contained in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, part of the Adam Walsh Act that was signed into law in 2006.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other members of Congress asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in March to consider such an extension because many states were having trouble complying with certain sex offender registry provisions.
The Adam Walsh Act requires full compliance within three years of the law's passage. But so far, no state has been able to meet the requirements mandated by SORNA.
And the registry and notification program requirements are costly for states that are facing growing budget concerns amid the economic downturn. States not in compliance faced financial penalties.
Leahy praised the Justice Department's decision. "Everyone wants to strengthen the tools and resources available to law enforcement to protect our children," he said. "Vermont and other states across the country are working to comply with the important provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This much-needed extension will provide needed time to meet those requirements."
State Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears, D-Bennington, said state officials have been working "very closely with Sen. Leahy's staff to try to get an extension." Even John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted, and the father of Adam Walsh, is in favor of the extension, Sears said.
The Vermont Legislature passed a law this year strengthening the state's sex offender registry, Sears said. The expansion of the registry will add more than 1,500 names to the list, and the home addresses of those convicted of certain sex crimes. But the state still does not meet all of the requirements of SORNA, Sears said.
"We did a lot of work, but recognized that we may need to make changes," he said. "I'm not sure how much we'll have to add to that," he said.
No state has been able to comply. In fact, Sears said, Nevada thought it had implemented the proper rules, only to have the state supreme court strike down its work.
Vermont and other states are pushing for new compliance rules to be written under the Obama administration's Justice Department.
"That really is the key focus point, working with the new attorney general to get the rules," Sears said.
The biggest hurdle for Vermont could be implementing the "level system," which requires sex offenders to be ranked based on the severity of their crime, according to Sears. Vermont uses three levels to rank sex offenders' risk of reoffending — low, moderate and high risk.
Sears said the federal system is problematic because "often times the crime doesn't indicate the risk to re-offend." Rather, someone who commits a lower-level sex crime could be more apt to commit the same or similar crime again.
"That's a concern from Vermont's point of view. We feel our system is a little better," he said. "We're hoping that we'll be able to meld the two together somehow." ..Source.. by NEAL P. GOSWAMI, Staff Writer
KY- Death row inmate challenges Ky.'s DNA testing law
6-5-2009 Kentucky:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A death row inmate has challenged Kentucky's DNA testing law, asking the state's high court to either overturn his conviction or allow for more detailed analysis of the evidence by the state or an outside lab.
Brian Keith Moore made the request Wednesday in an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court. A judge last year declined to overturn his conviction and sentence in a 1979 murder in which DNA testing was recently completed and did not definitively exclude Moore's DNA from the evidence.
The appeal presents the Kentucky Supreme Court with it's first opportunity to define how far a death row inmate can go in challenging his conviction through DNA testing.
Moore, 51, was convicted of kidnapping and shooting Virgil Harris of Louisville based in part on soil found on shoes and pants that prosecutors say the killer wore and matched dirt where Harris' body was found. He became the first Kentucky death row inmate to be granted DNA testing on evidence from a murder predating the science allowing the tests.
"This is not some theoretical or academic issue," said one of Moore's attorneys, public defender David Barron.
Prosecutors have 60 days to respond to Moore's brief. Shelley Johnson, a spokeswoman for Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, declined comment Thursday.
Kentucky's law allows death row inmates whose conviction predates the common use of the science to request DNA testing on evidence where the evidence is available. But, the law does not spell out whether state should be required to conduct more specific tests when the results are inconclusive or if evidence may be released for outside testing.
Moore's appeal focuses primarily on four points, while trying to raise enough doubts to halt the execution of the second-longest serving inmate currently on Kentucky's death row. Moore is not currently facing an execution date, but his direct appeals have ended.
Moore's attorneys want the Kentucky Supreme Court to either vacate his conviction or order a new trial based on DNA tests that showed someone else's genetic material on the clothes prosecutors say was worn by the killer. The tests didn't exclude Moore, but showed that more than one person contributed the DNA found.
If the court won't overturn the conviction, Moore's attorneys have asked for additional testing, either by the state or allowing defense attorneys to pay for an outside lab in an effort to see who's DNA is on the clothing.
Moore's attorneys say their client is potentially innocent and call the case a "real life who-done-it." They say another man, now deceased, actually killed Harris, then framed Moore for the crimes, but confessed to at least 10 people before he died. They say the DNA on the clothes points to that alternate suspect.
To date, six Kentucky inmates, including Moore, have requested DNA tests, although none of the testing has resulted in a conviction being overturned.
Sixteen people have been freed from death row across the country because of DNA evidence. The Innocence Project, a non-profit group that tries to use DNA evidence to exonerate people, said Nicholas Yarris of Pennsylvania served the longest on death row before being exonerated. Yarris was convicted in 1982 of beating, raping and killing a woman a year earlier near Chichester, Pa.
In granting the DNA tests, Jefferson Circuit Judge James Shake has said there was a "reasonable probability" that Moore wouldn't have been tried or convicted if DNA tests had been available at the time and had shown he didn't wear the clothes. Shake ordered testing on the shoes, pants and three other items. ..Source.. by BRETT BARROUQUERE
WI- Wis. Inmate Bound Over For Trial On Suicide Charge
6-5-2009 WIsconsin:
JUNEAU, Wis. (AP) ― Walters was charged in April with assisted suicide in the death of 20-year-old Adam C. Peterson. Peterson, a college dropout, was serving a life sentence for the 2008 stabbing death of Madison resident Joel Marino.
A Wisconsin prison inmate has been ordered to stand trial on charges that he assisted in the suicide of his cellmate, a high-profile killer.
Joshua Walters was bound over for trial following a preliminary hearing Thursday in Dodge County Circuit Court. No arraignment date was set.
Walters was charged in April with assisted suicide in the death of 20-year-old Adam C. Peterson. Peterson, a college dropout, was serving a life sentence for the 2008 stabbing death of Madison resident Joel Marino.
Peterson, a native of Sillwater, Minn., was found hanging from a bed sheet tied to his bunk bed on the night of Jan. 10.
If convicted, Walters faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. ..Source.. by WCCO.com
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Anatomy of a Child Pornographer
6-4-2009 National:
What happens when adults catch teenagers "sexting" photos of each other? The death of common sense.
On a chilly Tuesday morning in November 2007, 16-year-old Alex Davis was taking a shower before school when his mother, Betty, knocked on the bathroom door. There was someone downstairs, she said, a New York state trooper who had come at 7 a.m. to the family’s farm outside Rochester.
“She said, ‘I think it’s about Laurie,’ ” Alex recalls. “My stomach kind of dropped, and I thought, ‘This is not going to be good.’ ”
The previous Friday, after coming home from football practice with a few teammates, Alex had exchanged text messages with Laurie, a 14-year-old freshman (whose name has been changed in this story, as has Alex’s and his family’s). While his friends played Guitar Hero on his PS2, Alex, captain of the football, basketball, and tennis teams, read a message from Laurie saying she wanted to be a cheerleader.
“I said, well, I needed a cute cheerleader this year,” recalls Alex, a deep-voiced kid with an open face, dark eyes, and the synaptic quickness of a natural athlete. “And she said, ‘Oh, yeah? Well, is this cute?’ And then…”
And then Alex made what he now calls “that little two-second decision to mess up my whole life.” He opened photos Laurie took of herself with her cell-phone, in her bra and panties, and then just her panties. Alex texted back, asking for more and noting that the reception on his Verizon LG phone was crap. No problem, Laurie replied. She would send the photos to his email address. They soon arrived along with a bonus attachment: a video clip of Laurie performing a striptease. Alex was happy to receive the images and says Laurie seemed happy to send them, “like she was willing and she wanted to show more, I guess.” That might have been the end of it, had the files not, as digital files will, leaked onto the Internet. Within a day after Alex saw them, so did Laurie’s mother, who phoned Betty to say, “You need to talk to your son.”
So Betty and her husband Bill sat Alex on the stump that serves as a stool before the hearth of the home where three generations of Betty’s family have lived and asked Alex, a leader of their church youth group and recipient of several good citizen awards, what had happened. Alex told them. He said he was sorry and wanted to apologize. Betty called Laurie’s mother, who told her that an apology would be insufficient. Alex texted Laurie to ask what was going on. She answered that her father really wanted “to lay down the law.”
And now the law stood at Alex’s front door, asking on behalf of the Genesee County Sheriff ’s Department how the pictures came to be distributed. Alex explained that he had left the email inbox open on his Dell desktop. His buddy had forwarded the images to his own address. (According to Alex, he hadn’t shown the photos to anyone or posted them to his MySpace or Facebook pages, so he assumed this was how they made their way onto the Net. Later he would learn he was one of four boys who had received snapshots from Laurie and from whose computers the images had, like mononucleosis, spread exponentially.)
The trooper printed Alex’s statement on a printer he’d brought with him and watched while Alex signed it. Charges, he said, were pending.
Peer-to-Peer Flashing
Not far from the Davis farm stands the George Eastman House, a Versailles-size mansion in downtown Rochester that includes displays of the Eastman Kodak Company’s myriad photographic inventions, including the Brownie camera. Released in 1900, Brownies were designed for youngsters and marketed with the slogan, “So simple, they can easily be operated by any school boy or girl.” Pictorial ads of the time show young folks preserving memories of outdoor games and train rides.
Eastman likely never imagined that young people, empowered not only with cameras but mobile wireless network nodes, would instead shoot naked pictures of themselves and send them to friends, who often return the favor. We’re not talking about a few exhibitionistic teens, but millions of kids. In a 2008 TRU survey of 1,280 teenagers and young adults (all of whom had volunteered to participate), 20 percent of the teenagers and 33 percent of the young adults said they had transmitted nude or semi-nude photos or videos of themselves, a phenomenon the media have dubbed “peer-to-peer porn” or “sexting.”
This practice might be considered relatively harmless, the 21st-century version of “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine,” if it weren’t for federal and state laws that deal harshly with those who traffic in child pornography. The federal statute criminalizes the production, distribution, and possession of images depicting underage subjects engaged in sexually explicit conduct; depending on the charges, it mandates sentences of five to 30 years in prison. Because the technology that allows sexting is new, age-appropriate punishments have yet to be hammered out. Instead, laws designed to thwart middle-aged people who prey on children are being applied to the children themselves.
Sexting cases are piling up in courtrooms across the United States. Three Pennsylvania girls, ages 14 and 15, who took semi-nude pictures of themselves with their phones and sent them to their boyfriends are awaiting trial on charges of distributing child porn. (The boyfriends are charged with possession.) Last October a 15-year-old Ohio girl was taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention facility after sending nude photos of herself to classmates. “I wasn’t really thinking when I did it,” she told the court, which threatened felony charges that would require her to register as a sex offender, charges that were dropped when she agreed to have her cell phone and Internet use monitored. Two teenagers in Florida were not as fortunate: In 2007 a state appeals court upheld their convictions for producing child porn. Although the pair didn’t pass around the snapshots, which showed them engaged in an “unspecified sex act,” the judges found a “reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated.” Were that to happen, they observed, “future damage may be done to these minors’ careers or personal lives.” They did not say anything about the potential impact on their lives from a child pornography conviction.
Alex’s case isn’t even the first to arise in his part of the country. Genesee County, with a population of about 60,000, has seen “a dozen, 15 maybe” in the last two years, according to Assistant District Attorney Will Zickl. “I’m glad they didn’t have this technology when I was in high school,” he says. “Once you put your image out there, it’s out there. God knows where it can go. As computer-savvy and Net-savvy as kids are, they don’t think about that.”
Or maybe they do, and they just don’t care. While it’s hard to argue that it’s an awesome idea for teenagers to launch pictures of their genitals into cyberspace, the sheer number who do so suggests that they don’t share the concern for privacy that held sway over previous generations. When they close their bedroom doors, it is not necessarily to be alone. It might be to hook up with the whole world.
Better Than We Thought
The call that Tom Splain took from Betty and Bill Davis was not the first the attorney had received about a kid caught looking at dirty pictures. “At least in this case, the fricking sheriff didn’t send out a press release,” says Splain, a big man in a dress shirt and tie. Between answering calls from several clients and a judge, he relates an earlier incident in which an overzealous police chief acted as though he had a big cyber-crime on his hands. The official alerted a Rochester TV station, which splashed a mug shot of the boy—bangs in his eyes, cheeks spackled with acne—all over the 6 p.m. news.
If there’s culpability on Alex’s part, Splain says, it’s that he did what might be expected of a kid his age: He looked at the photos and asked for more. “The thing to bear in mind,” Splain adds, “is she sent him these pictures unsolicited. He’s [got] hormones galore—hey, yeah, holy cow! It’s Christmas morning!”
Alex deleted the files as soon he realized his and Laurie’s virtual encounter was about to have very real consequences, consequences Splain knew could be extremely serious. “We’re talking about C, D, and E-level felonies,” he says. “A C-level is a mandatory minimum three and a half years in state prison and up to 15. In our system, Alex wasn’t a juvenile. He was a youthful offender. If you’re 16 or older, you’re treated as an adult.” The Davises could have agitated for a charge against Laurie of disseminating indecent materials to minors in the second degree—a class E felony—but they declined, and they have had no further communications with her family.
(Contacted for this article, Laurie’s father would only say on the record, “This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children.”)
Adults who have been drawn into the drama of kids and their cell phones tend to be caught between the desire to punish and the reality that kids can flout conventional standards of decency, morality, or what-have-you and still grow up to be productive members of society. “Schools are really struggling at the policy level, as are the courts, to establish a body of case law and guiding legal principles for what is acceptable,” says Samuel McQuade, graduate program coordinator at the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Center for Multidisciplinary Studies. His 2008 Survey of Internet and At-Risk Behaviors, which polled about 40,000 upstate New York students, charts the online intersections between kids and sex, which are seemingly infinite. “The last thing we want to do for youth is to clog up our juvenile justice systems with the massive amounts of computer-enabled crime,” he says. “It’s not possible to do it, nor would you want to do it. The answer is through education.”
So far, that line of thinking has led to efforts of dubious value—McGruff the Crime Dog for the digital set. McQuade’s own organization, the Cyber Safety and Ethics Initiative, puts its energy into hanging posters promoting “good digital citizenship,” embedding ethical messages in school websites, and publishing a pamphlet called It’s Worse Than We Thought. Actually, it’s probably better. A recent study by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society suggests that the threats children face online, in particular from sexual predators, are no worse than those they encounter offline. This is in sync with other research, including the 2007 Pew Internet and American Life Project, which shows that when social networking, kids can tell a pervert from a potential friend.
Meanwhile, law enforcement officials are learning that the tough-guy approach can do more harm than good. Splain describes how one local D.A. is handling cases. “He’s like, ‘I get a call almost every day from the school resource counselor in Genesee [County], saying they’ve intercepted another phone with these pictures,’ ” Splain says. “They’ve taken the tack, we don’t want to hurt anybody. We want the school resource officer to intercede and put the fear of God in these kids. If there are further problems, let us know, but word is going out to the parents that the school is handling it internally.”
That isn’t what happened in Alex’s case. Three months after receiving the pictures, Alex was arrested. Splain called Bill Davis and asked him to bring his son to the station. There, the trooper who had taken the initial report at the Davis house joined the father and the attorney as Alex was being led away for fingerprinting. Splain recalls: “The trooper said to me, ‘Tom, when we were that age, we snuck a look at our dad’s Playboy and passed it around. What do they expect?’ ”
The Death of Common Sense
It’s 4 p.m. on a Friday in January, and the Davis home is a thoroughfare. Every five minutes, someone walks through the front door: a young Chinese woman who lives with the Davises while she spends the year teaching, several employees of the Davises’ large farms. Betty pours a cola in the kitchen beneath a plaque on the stove hood that reads, “Be still, and know that I am God,” before joining her husband at the dining table.
“The reason we’re sitting here is we’re hoping we can help somebody else through this,” says Bill, his overalls filled by a stout belly. “The girl moved to our school that year; she had been homeschooled up until then. Obviously, she was trying to fit in somehow, and she sent a picture to my son, and he asked for more.” He looks to Betty. “In our eyes, that’s fairly normal.”
Not that they were sanguine about it. “The last thing Alex wants to do is disappoint us, and he knew at that point, he had,” Betty says. “And the parents wanted some type of a punishment for the embarrassment.”
“If I were in their shoes, I’m not sure I wouldn’t have done the same thing,” Bill says, adding that, while he and Betty had never met Laurie or her folks, “I’m sure they’re a great family.”
What might have been settled quickly between the families—with apologies, or confiscation of cell phones, or a smack upside the head and the words, “What’s wrong with you?”—instead became a prolonged and anxiety-ridden ordeal. Bill and Betty worked assiduously to contain the damage and did everything Splain, their attorney, told them to do. They agreed to pay if Laurie needed counseling, for instance, a recollection that causes Betty to widen her eyes in incredulity. They took Alex to a sex counselor, a $350 meeting that ended with the counselor telling Betty what she already knew: “There’s no sex problem with your son.”
Then there were the things they could not control, such as the confiscation by police of the computer belonging to the dean of students at Alex’s school. The dean had requested the images in an effort to sort things out—but that made him a suspect, a turn of events that enrages Bill to the point that he appears to levitate in his chair. “They don’t make better people than this man,” he says. “I was worried he’d lose his damn job! There’s the death of common sense, is how I refer to it.”
And there was the ongoing specter of prosecution. The D.A. had yet to press charges, but the worst-case scenario was three felonies, including passing child pornography, which would require Alex to register as a sex offender. “How can you go to college?” asks Betty, the pitch of her voice rising as she recalls her fear and umbrage. “How can you do anything with this on your record?”
For several months, it looked as though it might all go away. Then, in February, Splain called to say that Alex would be charged. “The officer said I could bring [Alex] down at a time convenient for both of us,” says Bill, his voice thickening with tears. “So I waited for him after basketball practice, and we went there. We walked in the door, and when I tried to go in with [my son], an officer said, ‘No, you have to stay here.’ ”
Betty pats his hand. “Dad was scared,” she says.
“Yeah, Dad was scared,” he says. “Because Dad has common sense.”
Betty says she put her faith in God and knew it was going to be OK. Which, as these things go, it was: Alex was charged with endangering the welfare of a child, a Class A misdemeanor that doesn’t require serving time. If he stayed out of trouble for six months, the record would be sealed.
Aftermath
The walls of Alex’s room are covered with posters: former Dodgers pitcher Greg Maddux, eight-time NBA All Star Paul Pierce, and a lone shot of Britney Spears. Alex is willing, in the bashful way of a 17-year-old boy talking to a lady he doesn’t know, to discuss what happened.
“I didn’t pressure her into it or anything,” he says. Not that he didn’t appreciate the gesture or didn’t like the photos. “It was all right,” he admits. “It was good.” As for the images themselves, they were not shocking or unusual. His friends frequently show him sexy pictures sent by female friends of theirs. Now, though, he has a policy about looking. “I always ask my friends, how old is she?” he says. “My rule is, 18.”
Around Alex, the supposition that kids who swap naked photos shred social decency while laying waste to their own futures falls apart. If there’s blame to be assigned, he’s ready to take it. “It’s kind of like that for everything,” he says. “Like when I play basketball. If we lose, it feels like I did what I had to do but I still have most of the blame on me. I’ve learned to deal with it.”
And he would have dealt with it, whether it meant going to jail or delaying college (where he plans to study business administration, with the goal of helping run his family’s farms) or apologizing to Laurie’s parents. The latter doesn’t seem to be in the cards. When they see him, it seems to Alex they avoid eye contact, and he hasn’t been sure they want to hear anything from him, including that he’s sorry. “But I think one of these days I will apologize, just for how everything went down,” he says. “I don’t want her family to think I’m that type of kid.”
Alex pauses, broad-shouldered and loose-limbed, wearing sweats on a Saturday morning after winning the big game. While the photos may have been a big deal to the grown-ups, to him and Laurie they weren’t. “I mean, this is my senior year, and I just want to have fun with it,” he says. “I see her. She’s a star cheerleader. We don’t let it faze us.”
From his point of view, the problem wasn’t the pictures but the aftermath. “This is a 16-year-old boy and an almost 15-year-old girl going through their young adult lives here,” Alex says.
“I just wish the families could have handled it better. I mean, I would have been glad to mow their lawn all summer.”
After which, maybe, she could have mowed the lawn at his house.
Alex grins. “Exactly.” ..Source.. by Nancy Rommelmann
