8-22-2009 California:
ACRAMENTO - A law that was enacted to protect children from sex offenders, may be putting kids more at risk.
Jessica's Law came about following the rape and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Florida, by a sex offender.
The law increased sentences for sexual predators and bars them from living within a half mile of schools and parks.
But restrictions on where offenders can live, is forcing more of them on the streets.
"We were fearful that the numbers would go up when Jessica's Law came into effect because the residency restrictions made whole parts of California impossible for offenders to live," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, of California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
In July of 2000, the total number of sex offenders registered as transient in California, was around 2,000.
The number registered as transient this month... nearly 4,500 - almost a 10 percent increase since last month, and a 119 percent increase since July 2007. ..Source.. by Rowena Lugtu-Shaddox
Saturday, August 22, 2009
CA- Homeless Sex Offenders on the Rise
KY- What to do when you feel your child’s bus stop may be by a sex offender’s home
Parents have nothing to worry about if their child's school bus stop is near a registrants home, or near a murderers' home. Why you ask? Well, since the parent or other appointed adult is always with the child, whats the problem? Yes parents, its against the law to leave your child unattended anywhere, if you don't believe this, check with local Child Protective Services (CPS).
8-22-2009 Kentucky:
Children often stand anywhere from ten to thirty minutes at a bus stop waiting on their bus to pick them up. This bus is taking them to their safe place for the day. But what do you do when your child’s bus stop is not safe? This has recently been an issue here in Jefferson County Kentucky when a local news channel first reported a story.
One bus stop was right by a registered sex offender’s home. The parent did not feel comfortable with his child having to stand there and wait for the bus. He wanted the stop moved down the street on the path the bus was already taken but was told no. This story has a happy ending, but what should you do to protect your child?
First thing you need to do is search the local sex offender registry . You can click on the radius map link on the left and put in your child’s bus stop address. This will show you any registered sex offenders within a one mile radius.
You can even click on the name of the offender to view the type of sex offense and age of the victim. If you have concerns, you can contact Jefferson County Public Schools. They will listen to your concerns and discuss them with you. Remember, riding the bus is a dependable way to get your child to and from school everyday! ..Source.. by Jennifer Harp
MA- Victims' Advocates Say Kids at Risk After Massachusetts Ruling on Sex Offenders
It appears here the general public and lawmakers are not gifted with logic, but seem to be full of biases, predjudices and sound bites. Because GPS, is not intended to PREVENT CRIMES, children are no more at-risk from someone wearing GPS than from someone not wearing a GPS device. That is exactly what the manufactures of GPS will tell you.
8-22-2009 Massachusetts:
A Massachusetts court ruling that sex offenders convicted before 2006 cannot automatically be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device has put every child in the state in danger, a victims' rights group says.
In the 4-3 ruling on Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that retroactively forcing sex offenders convicted more than three years ago to wear the tracking devices violates state and federal constitutions.
Debbie Savoia, vice president of Community Voices, a victims' rights group, said the ruling is a "slap in the face" to every sex crime victim in the state and a threat to public safety.
"I'm very angry," she told FOXNews.com. "It's all about the criminal's rights. What about the victims?"
Savoia saw the effects of the state's highest court's ruling Wednesday when she attended a hearing for Ralph Goodwin, who was convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and raping a 7-year-old boy. Goodwin was released on probation earlier this year after the state determined he was no longer dangerous.
Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman was asked by prosecutors to require Goodwin to wear a GPS device on his ankle while he lives in Lowell, and Tuttman said she was "legally prohibited" from forcing him to wear the tracking device.
"He's an extremely dangerous man, and the fact that he's not being monitored 24/7 is an issue," Savoia said. "I feel like every kid in Massachusetts is in danger. His crime was absolutely horrible.
"I've spoken to the [boy's] mother, and the pain in that woman is horrific and the fear is he'll do it to another child, and he probably will."
Middlesex District Attorney Gerald Leone Jr., who sought GPS monitoring for Goodwin, was also disappointed by Tuttman's decision.
"GPS monitoring of convicted sex offenders is an important, preventative tool to monitor the whereabouts of defendants who have preyed on victims and demonstrated a likelihood of reoffending," Leone said in a statement. "[Wednesday's] decision does not alter our opinion that it remains within the court's discretion to impose GPS monitoring for this class of criminal offenders, nor will it deter us from continuing to argue for this monitoring for other sexual offenders in the interest of public safety."
Coria Holland, spokeswoman for Probation Commissioner John O'Brien, said "every sex offender case" is currently being reviewed as a result of the court ruling.
Massachusetts currently monitors 82 sex offenders with GPS devices. An additional 221 sex offenders in the state are wanted for violating conditions of their parole. In 2006, the state passed the GPS provision as part of several changes to its Sex Offender Registry Law. Among the changes: homeless sex offenders must register every 45 days, rather than every 90 days, and the most egregious sex offenders are prohibited from living in nursing homes.
Jeannine Mercure, Goodwin's attorney, could not be reached for comment on Thursday. She had objected to the GPS request, arguing that Goodwin receives psychiatric counseling and is visited by a nurse daily to ensure he takes required medications.
Goodwin's neighbors in Lowell told FOXNews.com they were "shocked" by the court's decision.
"If I had children, you bet it would concern me," said one woman who asked not to be identified.
"What this guy did, he's got a serious problem and that doesn't just go away. We have lots of kids in this development." ..Source.. by Joshua Rhett Miller
SC- Parents Severely Beat Alleged Child Molester
8-22-2009 South Carolina:
Terry Gibbs, 54, Has Heart Attack After Beating
NEWBERRY COUNTY, S.C. -- A Newberry County man was severely beaten by the parents of three children who the man is accused of sexually molesting, and he was then dropped off at a detention center where he suffered a heart attack.
Officers said they saw the man, later identified as Terry Hugh Gibbs, 54, of Newberry, being put out of a vehicle at the Newberry County Detention Center on Sunday night. Gibbs told officers he had been beaten because he had sexually assaulted three children, all under 10 years old, to whom he is related.
The officers called an ambulance to the detention center. A short time later, Gibbs had a heart attack and was transported to a Columbia-area hospital for medical treatment
Newberry County sheriff's investigators learned that after one of the children told a relative about the alleged assault, the other children came forward. Gibbs was beaten by the parents of all three children.
Police said they have since learned a fourth child, also a relative of Gibbs, was also molested. Investigators said that there is no indication that any other children who were not related to Gibbs were molested.
Gibbs remains hospitalized. The Newberry County Sheriff's Office said that Gibbs will be charged with at least four counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on child when he is released.
Investigators said "while they certainly empathize with the parents, it is important to discourage anyone from taking the law into their own hands."
No charges have yet been filed against the parents who committed the assault. According to Major Todd Johnson, the case is under review by the Newberry County Sheriff’s Office and the results will be forwarded to Eighth Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace and staff for final determination. ..Source.. by WYFF4.com
TN- Nashville Rescue Mission ejects (MALE) sex offenders during renovations
8-22-2009 Tennessee:
A $5.4 million renovation to the Nashville Rescue Mission's shelters for men and women will mean beds for dozens more families struggling with homelessness.
It also means that for the next four months, registered sex offenders are no longer welcome at the city's only year-round shelter for transient homeless men, and they probably will be sleeping on Nashville's streets.
Last week, women and children were moved from the Rosa L. Parks Boulevard shelter and relocated to the men's mission on Lafayette Street while renovations at the women's shelter are under way. The mission decided male sex offenders had to leave.
Homeless men who are not sex offenders will be allowed to stay in another part of the building while the women and children are there.
Nearly half of the roughly 120 sex offenders in Nashville who list themselves as homeless are registered as residing at the rescue mission, according to data from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The mission decided to evict anyone registered as a sex offender, out of concern for the safety of the children staying there.
"The children are the innocent bystanders in this," mission spokesman Cliff Tredway said.
Tredway is pretty sure the mission was the only place in town allowing sex offenders to stay the night, and he realizes the roughly 60 men who have stayed recently at the mission are probably sleeping on the streets.
He said it was a difficult decision for the organization, which prides itself on believing that God is a God of second, third and fourth chances. "This is the exact opposite of our message, and that bothers us," Tredway said. "But we feel very comfortable with children being the motivating factor behind this decision."
The sex offenders will be welcome to return to the mission in December, when the women and children return to the North Nashville location and new transitional housing also under construction.
The police department advised the mission that anyone who is prohibited from living with children would be violating the terms of their probation, Metro police spokeswoman Kristin Mumford said, but the mission leadership decided on its own to rule out all sex offenders.
"Those on the sex offender registry who are homeless do need to report once a month," Mumford said. "We're still actively making sure than any individual on the sex offender registry complies." ..Source.. by Kate Howard
NH- Court Throws Out Sex-Offender Residency Restrictions
8-22-2009 New Hampshire:
Dover has until the end of the month to appeal a recent court ruling.
The Dover District Court has thrown out the city’s ordinance that restricts where sex offenders are allowed to live.
The case hinged on Dover’s failure to prove that its policy actually improved child safety.
But supporters say- while the effectiveness of residency restrictions may be somewhat limited- the ordinance is a key tool.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
Back in 2003 Matt Mayberry was campaigning for City Council.
There it is folks, election on the backs of sex offenders!
He kept hearing Dover residents complain that sex offenders could live too close to where children congregate.
That didn’t make sense to Mayberry.
TAPE: they’ve created a drug free zone. They’ve created a firearm free zone around schools....that was the thought process. You would not put a beer in front of an alcoholic. Why would you allow someone convicted of sexual crimes against children to live across the street from hundreds of children.
There is the problem with their reasoning, they are basing it on a MYTH, a false belief that everyone previously convicted of a sex crime will lust after and attack a child, if seen!
If there was any truth to that we would not have registries because all of them would be perpetually in prison.
Also, it would be nice to know how mans gun offenses there were in school zones before and after that law, the same for drug offenses; but no one has done such studies, wonder why.
Mayberry started to work with the city’s police chief on a way to limit where sex offenders could live.
And in the fall of 2006, the Dover City Councilors unanimously adopted a provision that barred any registered sex offender from living within 2500 ft., nearly half a mile, of a school or day-care center.
Four communities, Tilton, Boscawen, Franklin and Northfield soon followed suit.
Last year the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and New Hampshire Legal Assistance sued Dover.
Lawyers argued that the ordinance violated a person’s equal protection rights under the state Constitution.
TAPE: Dover based its public policy on an illusion.
That’s Barbara Keshen, of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.
Keshen says if the government takes away someone’s rights in the name of a greater public good then the government’s got to prove the policy works.
But she says, Dover officials couldn’t do that.
TAPE: there’s no evidence, there’s no statistics, there’s no studies, there’s no reports that actually back that up.
Actually, the city did present statistics.
They just didn’t persuade the Dover District Court.
It didn’t help that prosecution for sex crimes against children went up in Dover the year after the city adopted its ordinance.
The court ruled against Dover saying it didn’t produce any evidence the restrictions protected minors.
That opinion is hardly unique.
The state of Iowa relaxed a similar law this year after law enforcement complained it drove offenders underground.
In 2008, Manchester and Derry shot down proposed ordinances after police raised similar concerns.
TAPE: I would say 9 out of 10 peer reviewed studies find that they generally don’t work.
Bridgewater State College Professor Richard Wright teaches Criminal Justice.
Wright says researchers have discovered a series of unintended consequences that come with these sorts of policies.
TAPE: residency restrictions really do undermine an offenders capacity to re-enter society and not offend. You are taking away their family. You are taking away a stable form of housing....you may be affecting their opportunities for employment.
Despite the well-documented drawbacks, ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live are popular.
Newsweek magazine reports that 30 states and hundreds of cities and counties have embraced such laws.
Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein for one thinks the policy helps make his city safer.
The chief admits he’s got no empirical evidence.
But he thinks the restrictions mean fewer sex offenders will call Franklin home.
TAPE: let’s make up a couple of numbers for just a moment. Let’s say there are 10 registered sex offenders who want to move to Franklin. And of the 10, 2...decide no I am not going to hassle myself...then we are that much safer...we are not going to worry about them.....so part of the secret to the success of Franklin’s local ordinance is that other communities don’t have the ordinance and that sex offenders will go to those communities, not Franklin’s....well....I don’t wish that on any other city or town, that’s not the point of good law enforcement...or good lawmaking, but it is a reality. And yes that is what will happen in a significant number of the cases.
In some places, the result of such laws are sex offender ghettos.
For example, in Miami more than 70 offenders with no place else to go, live under a causeway in makeshift tents.
Ultimately, Professor Wright argues if the goal is to reduce sex crimes against children, forcing people away from society only puts children in greater jeopardy.
TAPE: it’s far easier to point the finger, to blame and say these sex offenders are horrible people, evil animals....they are not fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, boyfriends. It’s far easier to make the problem this abstraction that can be solved by demonizing people and isolating them.
What gets lost, says Wright is that society too quickly treats all offenders alike.
But statistics show80- 90% of sexual assaults against kids are done by someone kids know.
That means the likelihood that some stranger is stalking random children from their apartment across the street from a playground is rare.
Not rare enough for Dover’s Matt Mayberry.
TAPE: from bringing forth this ordinance people came forward to me and talked about how they were molested...and they knew the perpetrator, but how it just destroyed their lives. And I thought that...if that 10% if I can help keep them out of the crosshairs just a little bit longer, than this is worth it.
The city of Dover has until the end of the month to decide if they will appeal their case to the state Supreme Court.
Officials have asked attorneys to evaluate their chances of winning.
If the case doesn’t make it to the state’s highest court, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union says it will look for another case in an effort to win a ruling that outlaws the practice. ..Source.. for NHPR News, I’m DG.
IN- Indiana court lets sex offender park ban stand
So, this means the lower appellate court decision stands: CLICK to read
8-22-2009 Indiana:
Indianapolis - The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to overturn an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from parks in the Indianapolis suburb of Plainfield.
The court declined to hear the case by a 4-1 vote, letting stand without comment a state Court of Appeals ruling upholding the 2002 ordinance.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had sought a ruling to clarify the court's stand on such local ordinances. The court has generally declined to strike down laws restricting the activities of sex offenders but has found constitutional problems with enforcement in certain cases.
Plainfield town attorney Mel Daniel said officials were pleased with the decision released on Thursday.
ACLU attorney Ken Falk said the group might now drop a lawsuit over a similar ordinance in Greenwood. ..Source.. by WTHR.com
NY- FALLS FORUM: Sending off sex felons
8-22-2009 New York:
The highly publicized debate over the housing of registered sex offenders will be up for further discussion during a public forum Monday.
Organized by City Council candidate Candra Thomason, the forum is scheduled for 6 to 8 p.m. at the Niagara Falls Library and will include a panel of speakers representing various groups concerned over the placement of offenders in residential neighborhoods and in close proximity to schools.
Obviously we have someone here who -is looking to get elected on the backs of sex offenders- but knows nothing about them. Thomason's comments below shows nothing but hate and prejudice, ignoring facts and evidence. "Harm's Way" is the cry, well 95% or more of new sex crimes are committed by someone NOT on the registry. Obviously children are safer staying away from society rather than former sex offenders. If elected, will all decisions be based on personal hatreds and prejudices?
“The answer, ‘they’ve got to live somewhere’ is not acceptable,” Thomason said. “The only answer is to get them completely out of our neighborhoods and place them where there is no residents or schools. We don’t want to see children in harm’s way. This has been a hot issue for some time.”
The debate was thrust back into the spotlight earlier this summer after registered sex offender James A. McKinney was assigned to the Midtown Inn on Niagara Street in Niagara Falls despite the majority of his sex crimes taking place in North Tonawanda. Located only a few blocks away from Niagara Street Elementary School, the Midtown Inn housed at least eight Level 2 and 3 sex offenders at the time of McKinney’s placement.
Following a public outcry to have him moved from the Falls’ site, McKinney was relocated to North Tonawanda’s B-Cozy Motel, 1200 Niagara Falls Blvd. He will have to be moved again before the start of the new school year since the motel is too close to a daycare and a soon-to-be-open school.
Meanwhile, preparations are being made to move all remaining registered sex offenders out of the Midtown Inn and into another site at 918 Niagara Ave. in the Falls. That address is also in a residential neighborhood and is only about a half mile away from Abate Elementary School at 1625 Lockport St.
“We definitely have issues with that,” said Falls School District Superintendent Cynthia Bianco.
School attorney Maria Massaro will represent the district on Monday’s discussion panel. Also scheduled to participate are Sharon Szwedo and Ron Anderluh of the Niagara Street Business Association, Dorothy West, president of the LaSalle Preparatory School parents group, Niagara Falls Republican Committee Chairman Robert Krause and a representative from the city’s Human Rights Commission.
Thomason said state Sen. George Maziarz will be in attendance to make an opening statement. Residents can voice concerns during the meeting’s second half and Thomason is hoping Niagara Falls Mayor Paul Dyster and state Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte will be there to answer questions and provide an update on the relocation.
“We’re not playing a game here,” she said. “It’s time to resolve this problem.” ..Source.. by Rick Forgione
VT- Case highlights differences in sex offender laws
Differences as explained in the article will create a disaster with the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). Also, when a state "gets tough" because of some local crime (i.e. Brooke Bennett) and makes their laws more strict than equivalent laws in other states, that too will cause problems with AWA. These differences could also cause differences in Tiers when both folks committed the same crime.
8-22-2009 Vermont:
BENNINGTON -- A Buskirk, N.Y., man facing felony charges in Vermont for allegedly molesting a 12-year-old girl is now facing misdemeanor charges in New York for similar acts.
Different laws
in different states
Bernard C. Miner Jr., 40, of County Route 59A, pleaded not guilty in Bennington District Court in June to a felony count of sexual assault on a victim under 16 years of age and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
According to an affidavit filed by Detective Lawrence Cole of the Bennington County Special Victims Unit, the acts occurred between Feb. 1 and March 11 at a residence on Waite Drive in Bennington. Cole’s affidavit also mentions similar acts conducted by Miner against the same girl at a residence in Buskirk.
According to a statement issued by New York State Police, Miner was arrested and processed on Aug. 4 by state troopers out of the Greenwich, N.Y., barracks following a joint investigation into the Bennington incident by the unit and the NYSP. He was charged in New York with one count of sexual abuse in the second degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, both class A misdemeanors.
Miner was arraigned before Cambridge Town Justice Thomas Armet and released on his own recognizance to appear again in Cambridge Town Court.
In Vermont, the sexual assault charge carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine. The lewd and lascivious conduct charge carries a 2- to 15-year sentence and possible $5,000 fine.
Washington County (N.Y.) District Attorney Kevin Kortright said a Class A misdemeanor is the most serious level of misdemeanor in New York and it carries sentence of up to one year in prison and a possible $1,000 fine. Kortright said for New York to consider Miner’s acts a felony, the alleged victim would have had to have been under 11 years of age.
Bennington County State’s Attorney Erica Marthage said the alleged victim being under 16 years old is enough for a felony charge in Vermont.
"Some New York laws are tougher than Vermont laws, and some Vermont laws are tougher than New York laws," Kortright said, adding that in New York, serious sex offenders tend to receive longer sentences.
Marthage said she does not feel that New York’s sex offender laws are tougher than Vermont’s. She said that because of New York’s county court system, it is difficult for attorneys in New York to know which judges will be hearing which cases, which makes giving estimates on sentences difficult. Marthage said that is often why she is reluctant to turn cases of any kind over to New York, because she does not know how offenders that cross the border will be punished.
She said the different classes of misdemeanors and felonies make trying cases that involve both states difficult. Misdemeanors and felonies in New York can be class A, B, C, D, or E, with A being the most serious and E the least. "It has been very difficult to get a clear idea of which New York charges are felonies in Vermont and which ones are not," she said in an interview Wednesday.
Marthage said Vermont tends to see more convictions for sex offenders than other states.
Last July, Rensselaer County legislators Lester Goodermote and Stan Brownell, Republicans who represent Hoosick, Berlin, Grafton, Stephentown and Petersburgh, sponsored a resolution calling on Vermont to toughen its sex offender laws.
The resolution followed an incident in which two young girls in Hoosick, N.Y., reported to police that a man in a car had attempted to coax them into his vehicle and told them he was a police officer. The man was later identified by police as a Bennington resident and arrested.
Brownell and Goodermote released statements at the time, saying that Vermont has a responsibility to protect the entire region by having its laws be equal to neighboring states.
"I know Vermont has made some changes with its sex offender laws," Goodermote said in an interview Thursday. He said his sentiments are the same as they were last year and are that sex offender laws need to be tightened and the laws in both states need to be equal in strength.
"I don’t want to see somebody molest some poor kid," Goodermote said. "It can change their lives."
Vermont state Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that Vermont has passed a number of bills strengthening sex offender laws, including the creation of an aggravated sexual assault against a child charge that carries a 25-year minimum sentence. "We passed several strong bills that improved investigations," Sears said.
Vermont’s recent sex laws were passed in the wake of the killing of a Braintree girl, Brooke Bennett. ..Source.. by KEITH WHITCOMB JR.
Friday, August 21, 2009
OH- Husband falsely accused of child rape wins $1.2 million from ex-spouse
8-21-2009 Ohio:
The flier went out to neighbors in bold letters: CHILD RAPIST.
The text contained the name and address of the accused with more bold words: BE ALERT! PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN.
Rodd Sutton, formerly of Akron, was the target of the flier. It was another part of his contentious custody dispute that began more than 10 years ago with his ex-wife, Victoria Douglas.
Police and Summit County Children Services investigated the rape complaint in 2004, when Douglas alleged her husband had inappropriate contact with their daughter, now 10.
Authorities found the charges untrue, but that didn't stop the ex-wife from passing out the fliers to neighbors.
The husband, 46, then went on the offensive, suing his ex-wife and her mother.
A Summit County jury this month sided with Sutton, awarding him more than $1.2 million in damages for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sutton's attorneys, Tim Hanna and James Campbell, said collecting the settlement might be an issue, but the case is about more than money, they said.
''Maybe it's not about the issue of collecting,'' Campbell said. ''Maybe it's about the principal of vindicating this guy and showing you can stand up for what you believe in.''
Neither Douglas nor her attorney, Larry Shenise, were available for comment.
Paper consumes the dockets of the ex-couple's divorce and civil lawsuits with hundreds of entries and countless reams of motions filled with allegations of child abuse and drug use, as well as contempt of court findings against each side over visitation and other issues.
The case took a more public turn when Sutton sued over the fliers distributed to neighbors. It happened after complaints of sexual abuse lodged against the husband by the ex-wife in 2004.
Douglas, 44, made the allegations to Akron and Springfield police, Akron Children's Hospital and Children Services.
Each agency found no evidence of abuse.
Sutton's attorneys contend Douglas transferred a house in Lakemore from her name to her mother, Rosemary Douglas, to save it from possible loss in the defamation lawsuit.
A jury awarded Sutton $136,000 from his former mother-in-law for the property transaction. Victoria Douglas now resides in Florida with her daughter.
The case was heard by a jury and Judge Alison McCarty.
Campbell said the only question asked by jurors was whether they could give Sutton more money than he was seeking. ..Source.. by Phil Trexler
CA- Homeless Sex Offenders on the Rise
8-21-2009 California:
SACRAMENTO - A law that was enacted to protect children from sex offenders, may be putting kids more at risk.
Jessica's Law came about following the rape and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Florida, by a sex offender.
The law increased sentences for sexual predators and bars them from living within a half mile of schools and parks.
But restrictions on where offenders can live, is forcing more of them on the streets.
"We were fearful that the numbers would go up when Jessica's Law came into effect because the residency restrictions made whole parts of California impossible for offenders to live," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, of California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
In July of 2000, the total number of sex offenders registered as transient in California, was around 2,000.
The number registered as transient this month... nearly 4,500 - almost a 10 percent increase since last month, and a 119 percent increase since July 2007. ..Source.. by Rowena Lugtu-Shaddox
UT- Federal judge unleashes Utah's sex-offender registry
What the state did here is, ignore FREE SPEECH and addressed ANONYMOUS SPEECH. However, their answer (changing state laws) is contrary to a U.S. Sup court ruling on "anonymous free speech," even the state has no right to know what an individual has to say on various topics.
Utah now says, "yes we do have a right to know, to investigate sex crimes," but even that fails because they do not ask the general public to fess-up all their Internet ID's. This amounts to another state misconstruction, that, only former sex offenders will commit future sex crimes; and that is plain baloney!
8-21-2009 Utah:
Courts » A previous order found the list violated the First Amendment.
A federal judge on Thursday vacated an earlier decision that protected a sex offender from turning over his Internet names and passwords to Utah's Department of Corrections.
Judge Tena Campbell said the case against the state is moot because the Legislature has corrected the formerly overreaching sex-offender registry rules.
A man referred to in court papers as John Doe was convicted in military court of sexual offenses in 2005. He was later released from prison and forced to register personal information, such as his name and address, with the Department of Corrections' online sex-offender registry.
John Doe's crime did not involve the Internet, but a Utah law that took effect July 1, 2008, added registry requirements forcing Doe and other offenders to provide Internet screen names, passwords and Web sites where they are registered. The measure included e-mail, chat, instant messengers and social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.
Doe challenged the law, saying it violated his First Amendment right to free speech among other things. In 2008, Campbell agreed, ruling the new law was too restrictive.
Utah's Legislature has since amended the registry. Now Corrections only can use Internet identifiers to investigate sex crimes, and that information is now deemed private under state records laws. ..Source.. by Steve Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Not everything claimed to be child porn, is child porn
August 2009:
Here is the main company used by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to analyze pictures that are claimed to be child porn. The program they have developed is quite interesting. Pay particular attention to my highlight, as that drives UP the number of images. See also "Finding child porn and Daily Show clips... without hashes or keywords" by ars Technica
With that said: LTU Technologies: Making sense of visual content
Child Abuse Investigations
THE SITUATION:
Specialized police departments are storing, accessing and utilizing databases containing hundreds of thousands images. Child abuse investigations typically involve the examination of high volumes of seized visual assets (on hard drives, DVD-ROMs, etc.). The illegal, pornographic content found in these seizures is usually added to a centralized image database. However, the management, comparison, and search for evidence in these images is a time consuming and prohibitively large task that must be performed in situations where urgency is the key.
* Image-based search within a centralized data center
* Content-based search within large image databases
* Easy and intuitive access to visual assets
* Identification of series of images using visual comparison techniques
* Automatic comparison of large sets of images with a reference database
THE CHALLENGE
Transform unmanageable visual libraries into strategic assets in the field of investigation.
LTU was approached by several police organizations around the world to create a system to aid in the investigation of child abuse criminals and distribution rings.
Since the content managed by those organizations is sensitive and prohibited by law, it is necessary to create an internal, restricted-access system to automate the comparison of current seizures with the organization’s thousands of confidential, documented images.. A system is needed which facilitates the correlation between the elements found in current cases (hard-to-describe, undocumented, unqualified) with images, clues, and evidence.
THE SOLUTION
Implement LTU’s powerful image recognition application to increase the efficiency of the investigation process.
LTU implemented within several police organizations a specialized version of its LTU engine (Image-Seeker) application with an Autoscan function. These law enforcement agencies are now able to compare and match images, a task previously impossible with their manual procedures.
The LTU system has improved the investigation speed and success rate by giving the investigator ability to:* Compare recently seized images, about which little or no information is known, to a police database of images and videos that have identifiers or characteristics attached. By comparing visual clues, the investigator is able to identify the source of an image, links between known criminals and suspects, details about the location a picture was taken, and sometimes the people within the images.
* Match single images to a series of images or videos. Since images are often sourced from a roll or a video segment, there are rarely many stand-alone images. Investigators can now find and match a “missing link” image to its original series, or a similar series. This information provides investigators with insights into details about the camera used, the style of the photographer, and even camera angles which may reveal facial features not previously seen.
* Link apparently harmless images of children to a series that has been documented and captured as illegal. For instance, a photo from a recent seizure of a child smiling might actually be part and parcel of a porn series, which would have otherwise gone unlinked without an image similarity recognition system.
* Help identify similar features of images, such as clothing or backgrounds. This information allows the police to identify victims who have been abused repeatedly, but in different locations, for instance.
THE LTU IMAGE-SEEKER APPLICATION
Image-Seeker (now LTU engine) can be used for:
Direct implementation for organizations with large volumes of strategic visual data.
Integration with knowledge management and media asset management software via API's. LTU can provide consulting expertise on the integration of its software with other applications.
THE BENEFITS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Improve the fight against child abuse activities and help in dismantling image distribution rings.
Since several police organizations use the LTU system in current criminal affairs, the information that can be released to the public is restricted. However, feedback is positives and indicates that LTU technology has been instrumental in helping solve many cases. In one instance, images found in the seizure of a suspect were compared using LTU’s system to the police database. The results of the comparison revealed similar images, which contained the very suspect. The specialized police department concerned was able, therefore, to charge the suspect not only on possession and duplication charges, but on criminal participation charges, as well.
In current seizures, the police often capture more than 100,000 child abuse images in one location. Previously, investigators would have been unable to sort through or pull information from these images manually, and the images would have gone unused due to time restrictions. With LTU’s technology, the automated investigation system is now able to extract incriminating evidence from these images regarding the suspect in question, and potentially other participants.
..Source.. LTU Technologies: Making sense of visual content
MI- Cox: Ban Internet Child Sex Offenders from MySpace, Facebook, craigslist
Before reading this news article folks should know that, Michigan's Attorney General Cox is running for Governor in 2010 (4th paragraph down, and is in a bit of a financial quandary right now. see that article).
8-20-2009 Michigan:
LANSING – Attorney General Mike Cox and six state legislators today announced Internet child protection legislation which would ban convicted Internet child sex predators from social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook, require Internet child sex offenders to appear on the state sex offender registry, and mandate lengthier sentences for possession and distribution of child pornography.
Cox was joined by representatives of the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.
“Make no mistake, child predators are online and looking for their next victim,” said Cox. “As technology evolves, Michigan must use innovative methods to protect our children.”
Cox cited his office’s arrest of 246 arrests of Internet child sex predators since 2003 as ample evidence of the dangers children currently face online, including nine arrested in a Livingston County sting last weekend. While his office has taught the award-winning Michigan Cyber Safety Initiative program to more than 400,000 children, changes to state law are also needed to make the Internet a safer place for kids.
Also important to note, that he has not yet caught a registered sex offender in any of the stings he has done; zero. Attorney Cox, like so many in law enforcement, fail to review the cases as to who is committing the crimes, it is new sex offenders, persons who have never before committed a sex crime.
Cox announced the introduction of three bills:
·Banning registered Internet child sex predators from social networking websites, like Facebook, MySpace and craigslist, with a felony penalty for violations. (Sponsors: Sen. Bruce Patterson, Canton; Rep. Joe Haveman, Holland)
·Mandating that Internet child sex predators be placed on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. Current law contains a loophole that does not require Internet offenders register. (Sponsors: Sen. Alan Cropsey, DeWitt; Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker, Lawton)
·Increasing sentencing for possession and distribution of child pornography. The bill would require increased sentences for possession and distribution of multiple pornographic images. (Sponsors: Sen. Wayne Kuipers, Holland; Rep. Matt Lori, Constantine)
Note: Read the words carefully, then watch how the bills are written. 10 to 1, they will apply to everyone on the registry, not as worded above.
Sponsors and representatives of Michigan’s law enforcement community spoke out in support of the bills.
Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III: “Michigan’s prosecutors believe this is an important step in protecting our children…Behind every sickening photo, there is a child who is victimized. The Prosecutors Association strongly supports this provision.”
Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker: “The recent arrests in Howell are a clear indication that this legislation is imperative for the protection of Michigan’s children. If these disturbed individuals are this committed to preying upon vulnerable kids, we need to ensure the punishment is just as severe and that the public is aware they are predators.”
Sen. Alan Cropsey: “When I voted in 1994 to establish the sex offender registry, the internet as we know it didn’t even exist. Today, some of the most heinous sexual crimes against children are organized using computers. By adding internet predators to the sex offender registry, this bill will finally give all of us the notice we need to best protect our children.”
Terry Jungel, Executive Director of the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association: “We have always worried about predators entering our child’s bedrooms though an open window. Now that window is on our child’s computer.”
Rep. Matt Lori, a former sheriff, from Constantine: “The Internet is an essential part of everyday life for kids growing up today, but for all their computer savvy, children are still vulnerable to predators who hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to lure their victims.”
Rep. Joe Haveman: “As a father of four, I know firsthand how popular these social networking sites are with our youth. I believe it is important to keep sexual predators out of the cyberspace communities.”
Livingston County Prosecutor David Morse, on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan: “These bills to keep predators off of social networks are part of a focused effort to keep our kids safe on line. Together with the Attorney General, we are educating children and parents about Internet safety, conducting Internet stings to catch predators like the nine individuals just arrested by the AG’s Internet crime unit and the Livingston County Sheriff, and once we convict them, this legislation completes the circle by restricting their Internet access to children.”
Citizens can report suspected Internet child predators by calling the Attorney General’s Child and Public Protection Unit at (313) 456-0180. Parents and schools may also contact the Attorney General’s office for information on our award-winning educational program, the Michigan Cyber Safety Initiative (Michigan CSI), which has been taught to more than 400,000 Michigan children. ..Source.. by The Michigan News
TX- Commerce declines sex offender settlement
8-20-2009 Texas:
COMMERCE — In a split decision, the Commerce City Council voted to reject a settlement agreement regarding a lawsuit stemming from the city’s sex offender ordinance during the council’s regular meeting Tuesday night.
The council recessed into executive session to consider authorizing Mayor Quay Throgmorton to execute a settlement agreement resolving the John Doe 7 vs. the City of Commerce lawsuit.
In a 3-2 vote, the council rejected the settlement agreement. Council members Richard Hill, Tony Henry and Billie Biggerstaff voted to reject the settlement, while Throgmorton and council member Bob Monday supported the settlement.
The council has rejected proposed settlements regarding the lawsuit in April and June. To date, the city has spent approximately $73,000 in legal fees regarding the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in February 2008, with the plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction against the ordinance and asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and otherwise contrary to applicable federal and state law.
The city’s sex offender ordinance has been in place since October 2007, and the lawsuit was filed several months after its passage. There are 10 sex offenders listed on the city’s web site, www.commerce-tx.com.
The ordinance prohibits all sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, college, daycare facility, park or playground. The ordinance also restricts sex offenders from loitering in public within 300 feet of all of the above locations.
The case is scheduled for trial in August 2010. ..Source.. by CHAD BLACKSHEAR, Herald-Banner Staff
SD- Where is sex-offender committee headed?
Those folks that showed up and testified need to keep feeding lawmakers with statistics and show other damage caused by registries; use my blogs for source material, esp. the murder blog.
8-20-2009 South Dakota:
The Legislature’s interim committee studying South Dakota’s sex-offender registry has informally decided to meet four times rather than the original plan for three. The panel, chaired by Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls, needs the additional meeting so that the members can attempt to determine what they want to recommend to the full Legislature. Right now, the committee’s direction remains murky, with more ideas than an octopus could hold.
One key point, as Rep. Rich Engels, D-Hartford, reminded the panel is that South Dakota’s sex-offender registry law isn’t synchronized with federal law. South Dakota requires enrollment for offenses committed at age 15 and older, but the federal Adam Walsh Act sets the minimum age at 14. There are other differences which South Dakota also likely needs to rectify by July 26, 2010, or face a 10 percent loss of some federal anti-crime funding known as Byrne grants.
But much of the committee’s second meeting, which was held Tuesday, focused on the stories of offenders and their relatives who testified that being listed on the sex-crimes registry is an injustice that continues to damage them and their families years later. Many of the stories involved sexual acts between teens younger than 16 and older teen-aged or adult males.
“I think this committee is at a fork in the road,” is how Reuben Bezpaletz, the Legislative Research Council staff member assigned to assist the panel, tactfully described the situation when the public testimony wrapped up Tuesday. Bezpaletz suggested that the next meeting, now set for Monday, Sept. 21, be used by the committee to review approximately nine possible pieces of legislation, still to be drafted. After the Sept. 21 discussions, he said, a fourth meeting could then be used to reach consensus on what the committee will formally recommend to the full Legislature for consideration in the 2010 session.
One group whose voices haven’t been heard yet is victims and their families. Another group is the citizens who use the South Dakota registry to keep track of who’s living in their communities and neighborhoods. ..Source.. by Bob Mercer
FL- Creators of Tuttle problem can fix it -- now
8-20-2009 Florida:
Plenty of talk out there lately. Speeches. Promises. Threats. Sound bites on the evening news. Lots of stuff about solving the Julia Tuttle Causeway conundrum.
The Tuttle conundrum, you might have noticed, has not gone away.
Talk hasn't done a damn thing about putting sex offenders into actual housing. They're still forced to live like vagabonds in the middle of Biscayne Bay. ``I'm still here,'' Rene Mora observed from beneath the causeway Wednesday afternoon.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement classifies Rene Matamoros Mora as ``transient,'' an odd designation for someone who, at the state's insistence, has resided at the same wretched address for more than two years. ``I can't go anywhere else. It's those residency restrictions.''
Of course, you'd expect that from Mora, 55, who has been barred from the Miami housing market since he finished his 13-year prison stretch. But Attorney General Bill McCollum has joined the chorus, calling local residency ordinances that force sex offenders into homelessness ``very wrong.'' And Gov. Charlie Crist has finally offered up a tepid acknowledgement that something has gone amiss.
JUST BAD POLICY
Ron Book, the very lobbyist who originally pushed city and county commissioners to adopt the overreaching ordinances that chased sex offenders under the causeway (some have dubbed the homeless colony ``Bookville,'') now talks about ratcheting back the 2,500-foot restricted radiuses around schools, playgrounds, parks, etc.
Even Miami-Dade County commissioners have been uttering the unhappy sounds of politicians who realize their ill-conceived ordinance has created a stinking monument to bad public policy smack in the middle of Biscayne Bay.
All that, yet Rene Mora still sleeps there every night in his battered van, away from his wife and her apartment. And despite the talk, threats, promises and Ron Book's assertion that he can find legal housing for the sex offenders, there was no sign Wednesday that the Tuttle situation has improved.
Compared with six months ago, more homeless men reside there in ever worsening conditions. Trash now overwhelms the place. They still live without toilets or running water, and now the heat of a Miami summer cooks up a fetor of rotting garbage, human waste, dead fish and unwashed bodies. Tents and parked cars now line the berm on either side of the bridge -- putting the inanity of residency restrictions in plain sight for passing motorists.
WHY NO ACTION?
For two years now, this unsanitary affront to a civilized society has festered on Biscayne Bay. The Miami-Dade Commission could make it vanish instantly with a countywide ordinance pulling back the restrictions. But all we get is talk.
And lawsuits. The city of Miami has sued the state. The ACLU has sued the county. Sen. Dave Aronberg, who tried, futilely, the last two years to shepherd through legislation cutting residency restrictions to 1,500 feet while adding very tough sex-offender loitering laws, thinks certain ``cowardly'' political leaders ducked the issue and hoped, instead, that some judge will take the political heat.
So now we can wait for a judge to undo the Tuttle conundrum. Or wait until 2010, when Sen. Aronberg thinks his legislation -- and good sense -- will finally prevail.
Until then, expect a lot of talk. ..Source.. by FRED GRIMM
IL- Senger’s sex offender bill becomes law
8-20-2009 Illinois:
Legislation introduced by state Rep. Darlene Senger (R-Naperville) to make it easier for police departments to catch sexual predators targeting children was signed into law recently.
House Bill 1348 (now Public Act 96-0547) allows police departments to secure recorded phone conversations of child sexual predators easier and faster than they can today.
Senger worked with Rich Wistocki with the Naperville Police Department Computer Crimes Unit to craft this legislation. Wistocki, who works on the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, deals with hundreds of child exploitation cases and said Illinois is one of 12 states that ties the hands of law enforcement on these cases due to Illinois' two-party consent statute.
According to Wistocki, sexual predators often seek children out through social networking Web sites like MySpace and Facebook where they can hide or fake their identity. Then, the predator seeks to call the child on a cell phone in order to arrange a meeting.
Again we see a lawmaker who has no idea of who is committing these crimes. She automatically associates "sexual predator" with "registered sex offender" and if she would take the time to do research she would know there has not been any substantiated reports of RSOs targeting minors on any social networking sites. Further, current research shows that those targeting minors are people who have never before been convicted of a sex crime, hence her legislation is worthless. Finally, even those committing the crimes do not fake their IDs according to research. This is a legislator who has failed to do her homework beforehand.
"This new law is a huge victory for Internet investigators and advocacy centers who are involved in conducting child exploitation cases throughout the state," Wistocki said in a press release.
Gov. Pat Quinn also signed a series of legislation co-sponsored by Senger to strengthen laws against sex offenders, including:
House Bill 1314 (P.A. 96-0262) which makes it a Class 4 felony for a registered sex offender to access social networking Web sites during the period they are required to be registered as an Illinois sex offender.
House Bill 327 (P.A. 96-0236) broadens the number of sex offenders who can be ordered to wear GPS tracking as a condition of their parole.
House Bill 550 (P.A. 96-0362) provides that as a condition of mandatory supervised release, probation or supervision, a sex offender refrains from using computer scrub software that can erase evidence of a sex offender accessing a sexually explicit Web site. ..Source.. by From Staff Reports
iPhone app tracks sex offenders near you
8-20-2009 National:
EUGENE, Ore. --It’s called the Sex Offender Locator, and it is one of the iPhones latest applications.
The limited version, with just a few searches a day, is free. The expanded version is just a dollar.
It is one of the iPhones top-selling applications.
“I think it is something good for people to be aware of,” Beth Anne Burrowes said. She is the mother of a four year old.
"It is actually something I have wondered, if we ever moved, or even in my own neighborhood," she added.
It works by using GPS technology to find out all the sex offenders in your area after you input your location or another address.
KVAL News put it to the test and confirmed two named sex offenders as legitimate offenders with Oregon’s Sex Offender State Registry.
But it’s not 100 percent accurate. The applications itself even claims that just as state registry Web sites can sometimes make mistakes, this application should only be used as a guide.
The software vendor claims inaccuracy due to the registry, but is that true? Folks must remember that these applications are not working from the registry, instead are working from a copy of the registry. The copy could have been made months ago, there is no known update frequency to these PRIVATE data bases. Every iPhone application follows this same procedure, each making its own copy. Accordingly one could conceivably get different answers from different applications.
“I feel like everyone should be aware of the types of people in their neighborhood, obviously you can’t know everything but I feel like this should be known,” said Melanie Reicher, a parent.
What about murders, burglars, car thieves, domestic violence offenders, drug crimes esp. those selling drugs to kids in schools, etc., etc. I guess one day they too will have their own application?
..Source.. by Addison Taylor KVAL News
NY- Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger
223 Comments when I read this!
8-20-2009 New York:
Liskula Cohen is a Canadian-born model, best known for her appearances in fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, and Cleo. When she discovered that a blog called Skanks in NYC, hosted on Google’s Blogger, had been referring to her as “skank” and “old hag,” she decided to press Google (Google) to reveal the identity of the blogger through court, and the court has now decided in her favor.
One quote is enough to show the nature of the blog: “How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.” However, the blogger’s lawyer argued that these comments are his opinions and hyperbole – trash talk, if you will – but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden decided that “the thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman,” and that Cohen is entitled to sue the blogger for defamation.
This also means that Google will have to reveal the identity of the blogger in question; an important move that will set a precedent for future cases such as this one. The blogger in question has, without a doubt, been very offensive towards Cohen, as can be seen in the above quote. However, as we all know, the internet is full of offensive comments and broad negative statements of all kinds.
On the upside, this decision will make people think twice about posting offensive posts and comments about someone, as they’re no longer protected by a shroud of anonymity. On the other hand, it might trigger a flood of similar lawsuits, perhaps for trivial reasons, which can in turn have serious implications on everyone’s online privacy.
What do you think? Was Judge Madden’s decision the right one? Please voice your opinion in the comments. ..Source.. by Stan Schroeder
WI- 1980 murder suspect cleared of charges
8-20-2009 Wisconsin:
MADISON (WKOW) -- After 29 years behind bars, a man convicted of raping and murdering a UW student is cleared of those charges.
This month, a judge tossed out the conviction of Ralph Armstrong and blasted prosecutors. On Wednesday, the Dane County District Attorney's office said it will not appeal.
Dane County prosecutors thought they had their man. Ralph Armstrong, they said during the 1981 trail, raped and murdered Charise Kamps on June 24th, 1980. To the D.A., Armstrong was a likely suspect. He was seen with Kamps the night she was murdered, and he was a convicted sex offender on parole at the time.
Twenty-four years later, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned his conviction, based on new DNA tests.
In a statement, the D.A.'s office said it will no longer appeal, and insisted prosecutors "pursued the case in good faith" and "any errors...were the product of innocent mistake or oversight."
Armstrong's attorney, Jerome Buting, says that's not enough.
"Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like they're willing to accept much responsibility in the fact that this man spent 29 years in prison for a crime he did not commit," Buting said.
Armstrong maintained his innocence all along. "It's not my burden to find out who did," he said in 2005. "It's my burden of proof that it wasn't me."
Ralph Armstrong is not a free man yet. He was on parole in New Mexico when the murder happened -- so that parole was revoked.
He now has to return to New Mexico, where prosecutors could choose to make him serve out his sentence.
Armstrong's attorney says that is unlikely, since the violations were for drug and alcohol use.
Ralph Armstrong has already been transferred from prison to the Columbia County Jail. He is awaiting a transport from authorities in New Mexico. ..Source.. by Jeff Angileri
Court offers guidelines on when to unmask anonymous posters
8-20-2009 National:
A company that was accused of software piracy has turned around and sued the anonymous tipster that first leveled the accusation, accusing the John Doe of defamation. An appeals court has ruled the case may go forward, with firm guidelines on determining whether or not to unmask the tipster.
In the US, the right to free speech is construed as also protecting the anonymity of the person doing the speaking. Provided that the content, be it spoken or written, violates no laws, citizens have the right to fulminate in public fora without said public being aware of their identity. Courts have also extended this protection to anonymous Internet communications, and are now being asked to weigh in on a related issue: when do accusations of wrongdoing justify the removal of anonymity from the sources of anonymous statements made via the Internet.
The precedents that have been set so far have been a bit mixed. In cases involving defamation, a Virginia court has determined that plaintiffs need only to show that they have a "good faith basis" for their accusations in order to have an otherwise anonymous defendant named. In contrast, New Jersey courts have decided that each claim against a defendant has to be supported by evidence. The latest to weigh in is the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals, which is tackling a case in which a John Doe defendant lodged anonymous accusations of software piracy against a company, which has sued him for defamation. The DC court ruled that the case may proceed, and provided guidelines that the trial judge should use in order to determine whether the defendant should be unmasked.
The case started with an anonymous complaint submitted to the Software & Information Industry Association, which (much like the Business Software Alliance), allows anyone to finger institutions for using pirated software. In this case, the person who submitted the complaint suggested that a company that makes software for the Defense Department, Solers, Inc., was engaged in piracy. The SIIA sent Solers a threatening letter, suggesting it undertake an audit of its compliance and return the results.
Solers argued that it was in compliance, and requested the identity of the John Doe who had turned it in. When the SIIA declined to identify him, the company filed a complaint, alleging that the anonymous tip amounted to defamation, and that it interfered with the company's ability to do business. As part of the suit, Solers subpoenaed the SIIA, demanding it turn over all the information it had on John Doe. The SIIA went to court in an attempt to quash the subpoena. The presiding judge agreed, but Solers appealed, leading to the current decision.
The appeals court, noting that DC courts had no precedent for this situation, examined the varied decisions handed down in other areas. It found the Virginia standard—a "good faith basis" for the accusations—far too lax, given the importance that anonymity has been granted in the US. Instead, the court laid out guidelines that are far closer to the New Jersey standard: the court should: (1) ensure that the plaintiff has adequately pleaded the elements of the defamation claim, (2) require reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous defendant that the complaint has been filed and the subpoena has been served, (3) delay further action for a reasonable time to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a motion to quash, (4) require the plaintiff to proffer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claim that is within its control, and (5) determine that the information sought is important to enable the plaintiff to proceed with his lawsuit.
In short, the plaintiff has to provide evidence that its claims are reasonable and the identity of the defendant is needed before the suit could continue. The defendant should also be given the opportunity to attempt to block his or her unmasking in court.
As for the case itself, the decision to throw out the initial subpoena was made in part because Solers hadn't bothered to provide evidential support for its charges; given that there was no precedent to suggest it needed to do so, the Appeals Court ruled that it could go back and try to demonstrate its need to have the subpoena executed to the trial court.
The Appeals Court, however, recognized that the mechanism for submitting an anonymous tip was substantially different from that involved in most other precedents, which involved publicly accessible blog and forum posts. "For all that we know at this point," the Court wrote, "the transmission of his accusations was not substantively different from dropping a letter into the mail, making a phone call, or slipping a note under the door." The implication clearly being that an equivalent action would not justify having the subpoena executed. ..Source.. by John Timmer, ars Technica
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of Juvenile Life Without Parole
8-19-2009 National:
This coming term, the Supreme Court will consider the important companion cases of Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida. Together, they raise the question whether a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide offense committed by a juvenile offender violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
As a policy matter, I am sympathetic with the ultimate objective of reducing the severity of punishments in the U.S. However, as a legal matter, I will argue in this column that the Eighth Amendment case against juvenile life without parole is quite weak – given the Court’s precedents as well as the nature of the flaws inherent in harsh sentencing more generally.
The Policy Case Against Long Prison Sentences
To avoid my being misunderstood as a proponent of long sentences, let me emphasize here that I am not. In 1998, I interviewed recidivist child-molester Leroy Hendricks at his civil confinement program for sexually violent predators. One of the things he said that struck me as very insightful was that once a person has spent ten years inside a prison, he is extremely unlikely to be able, successfully, to re-integrate himself into free society. Life, as he put it, will have already passed that person by, the world having changed too much for him to catch up. This statement, if true, provides a pragmatic argument against long sentences for people who will someday have to rejoin the outside world. And what about sentences of life-imprisonment?
If someone will spend the rest of his life behind bars, we do not need to worry about re-entry difficulties. But we do, then, need to ask ourselves what the purpose of that confinement is. It is plainly retributive – a person who has committed a serious offense will, by design, suffer greatly by being deprived of both freedom and most contact with the outside world for the rest of his life. But is the desire to make the person suffer for his actions a sufficient basis for removing him from society for his entire life?
The answer would depend, it seems, on whether we believe that people change over time. If we think that a person who commits a murder at Time 1 remains precisely the same murderer-deserving-of-serious-punishment ten, twenty, and thirty years later, then it is sensible to have his punishment last for the entirety of his life. But if, on the other hand, we believe that people change over time – into different, perhaps more passive, reflective, or gentle people – then ruling out re-entry into society for them could be a mistake. It could prevent them from doing what it takes to redeem themselves after the injuries they previously inflicted and from growing into different sorts of people. It rules out the possibility of rehabilitation.
In addition to rejecting the rehabilitative role of punishment, a sentence of life imprisonment also imposes great costs on society generally, and on specific communities and families in particular. I still recall from when I lived in Manhattan that once a week, a few blocks from my apartment building, women and children – mostly members of minority groups – would line up for a long bus ride that had as its destination the penitentiary. These faithful family members of prisoners never gave up on their loved ones and though they themselves were innocent, they too suffered along with the people sentenced to serve time. An individual is not an island, and it is rarely possible to take one person out of commission without generating spillover effects on innocent others.
One answer to these concerns is to note that violent criminals may require incapacitation. That is, prison serves not only to punish and (in theory) to rehabilitate offenders, but also to prevent them from harming others. This objective of imprisonment is an important one. To the extent that we can predict future antisocial conduct, one important indicator is past behavior. A person who commits a violent crime has thus evidenced that he cannot be trusted with freedom.
This answer, however, ignores the fact that people do change over time. A man who is violent at the age of 25 is likely to slow down by the time he reaches 40. And it is difficult to imagine that, unless he belongs to the world of organized crime, he will continue to pose a threat to those around him when he reaches 60 or 65. One might even note that with the decline in testosterone over the male lifespan, the odds that such a man will behave violently diminish substantially, even when he begins in a very bad place. To rest sentences of life imprisonment on an incapacitation theory is therefore, in most cases, to ignore the realities of the human life cycle.
Life Imprisonment for Youthful Offenders
Though I have made clear above that I oppose long sentences in general and life imprisonment in particular, as a policy matter, I am nevertheless left strangely unconvinced by the arguments that have been marshaled to support the claim that juvenile life imprisonment violates the Eighth Amendment.
A principal argument, and perhaps the most powerful, made in fascinating detail in an amicus brief filed in the Sullivan and Graham cases by the AMA (American Medical Association) and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, has to do with brain development. As most of us probably suspected all along, adolescent brains are different from adult brains, and the result is that adolescents have a more difficult time controlling their impulses and regulating their own emotional states. They are also more vulnerable to the temptations of risk-taking behavior, the rewards of peer approval, and other potential triggers of anti-social conduct. As a result, the argument goes, adolescents who commit violent crimes are generally not as culpable (because they are not as capable of restraining themselves under a given set of circumstances) as adults who commit serious crimes. They are, moreover, more likely to evolve into better people later and therefore need not be incapacitated indefinitely.
One problem with this argument is that it proves too much. If the adolescent brain is functionally “impaired,” in an important sense, compared with the adult brain, then the Eighth Amendment should ban far more than life imprisonment for non-homicide offenses for juveniles: It should ban that punishment for all offenses committed by juveniles.
The distinction between homicide and non-homicide offenses becomes immaterial if the problem with sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment is their diminished capacity. A homicidal adolescent is no more able to control his impulses than a raping adolescent is to control his; the distinction between one crime and the other will likely have more to do with opportunity and surrounding circumstance than with capacity and thus culpability.
Thus, an argument against life imprisonment for juvenile non-homicide offenders is no less convincing as an argument against life imprisonment for juvenile murderers. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that the movement against life imprisonment of juveniles generally opposes both.
The specific selection of non-homicide offenses to limit the argument thus seems more of a marketing tool than a principled decision – and if the Eighth Amendment argument prevails in these cases, the next step would seem almost inevitable: advocates will claim that the Eighth Amendment necessarily bars life without parole for all juvenile offenders.
In addition, if juvenile offenders suffer from a diminished capacity to control their behavior, then sentences that fall far short of life imprisonment, too, could qualify as unduly harsh and unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. For example, any prison sentence for any offense by an adolescent that approaches the sentence for a parallel adult offender might appear to be disproportionate, given the likely disparity in relative capacity. Once again, the argument about juvenile capacity has no obvious stopping point at either non-homicide offenses or at life imprisonment itself.
A second problem with the argument about juvenile capacity is that it fails to capture what we know about adult offenders: Though youth is a corollary of crime, the adults who do commit anti-social acts appear to have much in common with adolescents. To put the point differently, though adults in general are different from adolescents, the adults who commit violent crimes may share far more with violent adolescents than they do with mature, well-adjusted adults. Violent crime frequently reflects a failure of impulse control, combined with an overly optimistic assessment of the likelihood of escaping ill consequences – traits that define adolescence. The sort of incapacity that plagues many youthful offenders is, for that reason, not likely to be unique to such offenders in the prison population.
To underline this second problem, we learn from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health that a quarter of prison inmates have a history of chronic mental illness that preceded their arrest. Adults who suffer from chronic mental illness presumably lack the capacity to exercise the self-control of a healthy and normal adult. The same may be true for the mentally retarded, though their prevalence in the prison population is lower. It is accordingly misleading to suggest that actual, incarcerated adult offenders could have readily exercised self-control in a manner unavailable to youthful offenders. Many people convicted of serious crimes could make a persuasive argument that their capacity to regulate their own behavior and to assess costs and benefits accurately is impaired. Yet such people routinely receive long and unforgiving prison sentences.
A third problem for the argument about minors’ diminished capacity is evident in noting the nature of the incapacity: According to the amicus brief referenced above (filed by the AMA and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry), “[t]he difference between adolescent and adult behavior … is not a function of adolescents’ inability to distinguish right from wrong … but rather from psychosocial limitations in their ability to consistently and reliably control their behavior.” (emphasis added).
Since Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, however, the prevailing approach to incapacity has centered on cognition – the ability to distinguish between right and wrong – and not on control. This is in part because it is difficult to distinguish in a reliable way between a person who could not control herself and a person who simply did not control herself. The diminished capacity of juveniles, then, is of the sort that has fallen out of favor as a basis for mitigating and excusing anti-social conduct (at least outside the death penalty context).
A fourth problem with the argument might seem, at first glance, to recommend it. By contrast to other sorts of offenders, minors who commit crimes may not, since Roper v. Simmons, be sentenced to death. This categorical exclusion of minors, like the categorical exclusion of the mentally retarded in Atkins v. Virginia, represents an acceptance of the idea that there are categories of people who simply cannot be sufficiently culpable to deserve the ultimate penalty of death. The Court’s embrace of this idea might appear to open the way for similar arguments about life imprisonment.
What makes this appearance deceptive, however, is that the Court’s ruling in Atkins rests firmly on the “death is different” idea, which treats life imprisonment as not simply distinct in degree from execution, but different in kind. Therefore, if youths and mentally retarded people fall short – even to a minor degree – of the capacities that adults of normal intelligence have, this is reason enough to rule out execution, in particular, for them. But one of the things that has allowed the Court to rule out execution for such people is the very availability of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
That is, to the extent that execution is meant to serve the function of incapacitating irredeemably violent people forever, the availability of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole provides a roughly equivalent substitute for that. Without this substitute, the inability to execute youthful offenders – in at least some cases – might appear far more threatening.
Death is Different
One possible response to the last point is that execution has long been unavailable for non-homicide crimes (with the possible exception of treason), and this helps account for why this case focuses on life for non-homicides (where one cannot claim the need for a functional substitute for execution).
Or, to make this argument more affirmatively, one could argue that because the most severe penalty available for offenses committed by a juvenile is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, this penalty should be reserved for homicide, just as – in the case of adults – the death penalty is reserved for homicide.
The main problem with this argument has less to do with logic than with Court precedent. In carving out special rules for the death penalty, including the rule establishing its unconstitutionality with respect to crimes less serious than murder, the Court has consistently relied on the idea that death is qualitatively different from any term of imprisonment. When litigants have attempted to move the Eighth Amendment proportionality principle from the death penalty context to that of incarceration, the Court has generally rejected the move in application.
In Rummel v. Estelle, for example, the Court in 1980 upheld a life sentence in a recidivist statute for a defendant convicted of three nonviolent property crimes (netting less than $300 total). The Court did strike down a life-without-parole sentence (for a recidivist offender convicted of writing a bad check) in Solem v. Helm a few years later, giving some hope that the Eighth Amendment could become a vehicle for invalidating long sentences. However, in 1991, in Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court upheld a mandatory sentence of life without parole for the possession of over 650 grams of cocaine, even as three Justices in the majority agreed with the dissent that some sentences might be so long relative to the seriousness of a crime that they would violate the Eighth Amendment. Finally, in Ewing v. California., the Court upheld the California “three strikes” law under which the petitioner was sentenced to 25-years-to-life for stealing three golf clubs worth $399 each.
None of these cases rules out the possibility that life imprisonment for a juvenile offender’s non-homicide crime violates the Eighth Amendment. Nonetheless, it seems counterintuitive for the Court to maintain that life imprisonment is constitutionally excessive punishment for a juvenile rapist, but constitutionally unobjectionable for an adult nonviolent property or drug possession offender. On the other hand, of course, the Supreme Court did grant certiorari in two cases of juvenile life-without-parole sentences in which the government won below, so it may – not for the first time – decide to take a counterintuitive approach in this instance.
My Hope
Despite what I have said here, I hope that the Supreme Court says that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional for non-homicide offenses committed by juvenile offenders. The reason for my hope is several-fold. First, it is high time that the Court actively embraced the principle that a prison sentence can be disproportionately lengthy, whether the measure of disproportion is capacity or whether it is the seriousness of an offense.
Second, life imprisonment without the possibility for parole is almost always a mistake, given the fact that people – both children and adults – change over time; the impact of such sentences on society, communities, and families; and the possibility of redemption. If the Court does strike down the sentences of the two offenders who brought their appeals, moreover, I predict that the Court will soon be willing to reconsider harsh sentences across the board. This is precisely because the arguments for distinguishing juvenile non-homicides as a special case are, indeed, as unpersuasive as I have argued that they are in this column. ..Source.. by SHERRY F. COLB
