Residents want sex offenders banned from town

It is quite clear this town needs someone who understands law, banishment -after sentencing- is unconstitutional. Further, there isn't a lick of proof that residency laws protect anyone. I do believe thats what the judge said in the Colonie decision. PS: I don't like laws or ordinances that are not based on evidence, can we ban folks who make such laws?

11-30-2009 New York:

LAKE LUZERNE -- Residents on Davern Drive want sex offenders out of their neighborhood and away from the town.

This is what they told town officials when they stood up at the last Town Board meeting and a recent Town Board workshop.

Residents Thomas Condon, Joseph Catoggio and Clinton Freeman spoke at the last Town Board meeting, according to unofficial minutes, and said they learned of a Level 3 sex offender living at the Bayview Motel on Davern Drive.

Level 3 is assigned to offenders with the highest risk of repeat offense and who are deemed a threat to public safety.

The sex offender was paying for the accommodations with funds received from the Department of Social Services, residents said.

A petition signed by some 15 neighbors was also presented to officials, urging them to pass legislation limiting sex offenders from moving into town.

But Town Supervisor Eugene Merlino said he’s not sure the town can do that.

"There’s not much the town can legally do," he said, adding that the district attorney’s office told him if sex offenders they have served their time, they can live anywhere.

The minutes from the Nov. 9 Town Board meeting point to discussion of a local law in Colonie that was thrown out by the courts after it was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.

But Catoggio told the board that Colonie had recently adopted a new law that requires businesses to get a license from the town before they can house sex offenders. That way, they are regulating businesses rather than the offenders themselves.

Catoggio asked the town’s attorney to look into a similar law for Lake Luzerne.

Merlino said he would work with Department of Social Services to ensure that neighbors don’t find out about sex offenders after they have moved into a neighborhood.

"We don’t want to find out after the fact," he said.

In the case of Davern Drive, the Level 3 sex offender is the first resident at the Bayview Motel since it was purchased and renovated in 2006.

The 1950 motel on the Hudson River had been empty for years before that, Merlino said.

"As a hotel owner, I would never take them in my house," he said. But for business owners struggling to survive, he continued, providing lodging for a sex offender can pay the bills.

"This is income for them," he said. "But it hurts the surrounding neighborhood." ..Source.. Post Star.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Dunn v. The State: A Picayune Ruling

11-29-2009 Georgia:

Derrick Todd Dunn can't catch a break, and the good people of Georgia will make sure he never does.

Dunn was convicted of statutory rape in 1996. In other words, he had sexual contact with a person deemed unable to give consent. This can mean any number of things. Did he make love to the girl next door? Or was the act sinister? The reported decision, Dunn v. The State, Georgia, Supreme Court, S09A1369, doesn't say. It simply reports that he is a sex offender, and, in Georgia, that means he might be guilty of no more than a criminal offense with a minor.

Don't be offended when I say "no more than a criminal offense with a minor." I am not in favor of child molestation. But it does pay to recall a little history. Laws currently on the books reflecting the age at which a person can give consent to sexual contact are comparatively recent. It was not until the late 1880s that the Women Christian Temperance Union began to agitate for laws raising the age of consent from 10, which was current in many states, to 18. By 1920, the age of consent was 16 to 18 years old in nearly every state.

We simply do not know why Derrick Todd Dunn is required to register. I am willing to bet that it was due to consensual contact with a woman near the age of consent, however. I say this because he is out of prison now. A truly shocking crime would have carried a far greater penalty.

Mr. Dunn must register as a sex offender wherever he lives in Georgia. If he moves, he must register anew with local law enforcement within 72 hours. ..For remainder of ruling see:.. Defending Sex Crimes

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for child-porn convicts

11-29-2009 National:

In a nationwide series of hearings, members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission have heard from federal judges seeking reduced sentences for a group of defendants one would think unlikely to get sympathy from the bench: possessors of child pornography.

From New York to Chicago, and recently in Denver, federal judges have testified before the commission, which sets federal punishments, that the current sentencing structure for possessing and viewing child pornography is too severe.

The commission has made reviewing child-pornography sentencing guidelines a priority of its work, which will end in May and could include a change to the guidelines to allow shorter sentences for future offenders.

Judges, for the most part, have based their argument on a belief that some of the defendants who view child pornography have never molested a child or posed a risk to the community and may be better served by treatment rather than prison.

As federal guidelines now stand, the number of images and the way the contraband is obtained enhance prison terms. A first-time offender with no criminal history can be sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.

In the Colorado case of Dale Ilgen, federal agents found 1,627 photos and 23 movies depicting prepubescent children being sexually abused by adults.

Ilgen admitted he downloaded the contraband and pleaded guilty, and now prosecutors are seeking to lock him up for six to eight years.

But the 50-year-old Parker man is fighting for a probationary sentence below the guidelines set by the commissioners and Congress.

Ilgen will learn the outcome of his case Feb. 4 when he appears in U.S. District Court in Denver for sentencing.

His attorney, Matthew Golla, says there is no proof his client is a risk to the community and that he has some physical and mental impairments that make prison an unsuitable option for him.

"Throughout the course of this case, whenever discussions arose surrounding the potential advisory guideline ranges, Mr. Ilgen at times crumbled into a ball on the floor of counsel's office unable to communicate," Golla wrote in a motion for a lesser term.

Precedent for probation

Golla also argues that Ilgen did not molest a child and there is no evidence he intends to do so.

"For at least one year and possibly longer, the defendant, in the privacy of his small condominium, used a single computer to download child pornography," Golla wrote. "He never chatted with anyone on the Internet regarding the images he possessed, never used the material to entice a child, nor did he produce, distribute, or trade any of the images. Mr. Ilgen has never had inappropriate contact with a child."

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, who is presiding over Ilgen's case, has previously granted two defendants in similar cases probation rather than incarceration, drawing the ire of prosecutors.

Several medical problems

Ralph Rausch and Leslie Wilkinson got probation — with lifetime supervision — because both men suffer from severe medical impairments and the judge felt placing them behind bars would be unreasonable and detrimental to their survival.

Rausch was awaiting a kidney transplant, and moving him to the Bureau of Prisons may have knocked him off the list. Wilkinson is a paraplegic with limited use of his arms, and Kane had similar concerns about the quality of health care in the prison system and the expense.

"We do not see producers (of child porn) or the parents who sell their children or the stepfathers who attack them," Kane told the commission in October. "What we see are the men on dialysis confined to a wheelchair who spends all of his time confined already and no economic analysis of what it would cost to keep this man in prison."

Kane testified there is no empirical research referenced in the sentencing schemes to indicate whether long prison sentences will stop defendants from re-offending or help them overcome their compulsions by the time they get out of prison.

And Kane is not alone. Federal judges from Hawaii, New York and Oklahoma have made similar gripes to the commission.

"It is too often the case that a defendant appears to be a social misfit looking at dirty pictures in the privacy of his own home without any real prospect of touching or otherwise acting out as to any person," U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron of Oklahoma City said in her testimony to the commission. "As foul as child pornography is, I am unpersuaded by the suggestion that a direct link has been proven between viewing child porn and molesting children."

Federal prosecutors in Colorado declined to comment on the Ilgen case or the testimony of federal judges.

But Colorado U.S. Attorney David Gaouette criticized Kane's decision in the Rausch case when he testified before the commissioners.

Gaouette also said that the Bureau of Prisons has medical facilities to care for defendants like Rausch and Wilkinson who have impairments when they enter the prison system.

"Cases like this suggest that the current state of the federal sentencing system increasingly favors judicial discretion over uniformity, consistency and certainty," he said.

In 1995, federal defendants convicted of possessing child pornography were sentenced to an average of 15 months in prison, Ilgen's attorney wrote in court documents. By 2007, first-time child-pornography offenders were receiving 102 months in federal prison.

Crime fight targets Internet

In the early 1990s, the U.S. Justice Department established the Innocent Images initiative to combat the emerging availability of child pornography on the Internet.

Before online access, purveyors of the contraband relied on sending the images through the postal system, which meant there was limited access to the material.

Ernie Allen, president and chief executive of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said some judges don't realize possessing the images revictimizes the children in the photographs and fuels a growing online business.

"There are too many judges who continue to provide token sentences for what we consider to be serious crimes," Allen said. "These are images of prepubescent children, growing numbers of them infants and toddlers, and they trade with each other for purposes of arousal and breaking down the inhibitions of other children."

Allen said educating the judiciary about the impact of child pornography on victims is key.

"We are not in favor of disproportionate sentencing or disparities, but the problem here is too many judges who simply do not recognize how serious these crimes are," he said.

Looking for treatment

Bernie Mrugala, whose son Shawn Mrugala is serving 10 years in prison for possessing a vast child-pornography library, said treatment over incarceration should have been an option for his son.

"I think the thing we really have to do is figure out why. What is different about him that drives him to that? What personality traits? What is the issue here?" Bernie Mrugala said. "To put somebody in jail for 10 years may not be enough if we do not get to the crux of the matter.

"We need the power of the courts to be on our side to help maintain and control the problem to the point where this kid can be beneficial to society."

Shawn Mrugala, 33, was working as a network engineer making $60,000 a year when he got caught downloading child pornography.

His father compared his son's compulsion to drug addiction that needs treatment.

"I don't know if sending them to prison is the way to protect children, and I am more concerned about when my son gets out," Bernie Mrugala said.

"I don't think he is getting treated to the point he wouldn't do it again." ..Source.. Felisa Cardona, The Denver Post

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Nearly 100 Removed From Maine Sex Offender List

11-29-2009 Maine:

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) ― Maine officials say nearly 100 people have been removed from the state's sex offender registry two months after of a new law went into effect changing the registry's rules.

People convicted of sex offenses dating back to 1982 were previously listed on the registry. But after court challenges, the Legislature changed the law so that people convicted of offenses between 1982 and June 30, 1992, no longer had to be on the list if they didn't have any subsequent felony-level offenses.

Matthew Ruel, director of the State Bureau of Identification, told the Kennebec Journal that as of last week, 245 people had submitted applications seeking to be taken off the registry, with nearly 100 of those being removed. ..Source.. WBZ CBS38.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

With no place to stay, he could go to prison

Winter is coming and folks would not want to see a repeat of last year, where Michigan's Tom Pauli froze to death because he did not have a place to stay due to residency laws.

11-29-2009 Georgia:

He’s a handy, articulate and well-dressed 27-year-old man. Friends say he’s a hard worker with his head on straight — the problem is Otto Jabar Orr is also listed as a sex offender.

The crux of the problem is Orr wants to work within the system, and while the restrictions placed upon him chafe, he’s willing to work. But with unemployment rates at more than 10 percent, jobs are scarce. For someone branded as a sex offender, they’re almost nonexistent.

No job equals no residence, and for Orr no residence equals going back to prison.

“I have to find a place by the end of this month,” Orr said. “But, right now it’s hard for me to find a place without a job.”

It’s not a matter of wishing to comply. It’s a matter of being able to comply with the stringent legal requirements in harsh economic circumstances.

“I did that for a long time. I had a job but then got laid off,” Orr said. “And now no one is hiring, especially me with a criminal record and all.”

There’s no halfway house, no homeless shelter, even the friends who would gladly take him in are bound by the legal restrictions of the registry.

He could remain at his current “temporary residence,” but it is within 1,000 feet of a church, a violation of his probation, and Roger Covington — president of a local prison ministry — agreed to let Orr live in his home, but he’s a convicted felon, and that kind of association is also a violation of his probation.

“It makes me upset. I’m trying, but the only thing that keeps me focused is God,” Orr said. “Sometimes I feel like giving up, but I feel like he won’t let me down, and I keep pushing myself every day.”

The 27-year-old said he’s been clean and arrest-free since 2005. Compliance with a job and a residence was difficult, but doable. The problem is after two years of working for a bakery, he was recently laid off.

Since then he’s been applying for jobs and hitting the pavement. But bad decisions made early in life don’t go away.

Changing times

No one is saying Orr is an angel. He’s been in and out of the courtroom — convicted of several other crimes such as drug possession, obstruction and theft by taking.

But his current entanglement with the legal system began at 18 when he pleaded guilty to a statutory rape charge filed against him when he was 17. Although the sex was consensual, the girl was underage.

When the prosecutor offered eight years of probation — he took it. At that time he didn’t have to register as a sex offender. There was some initial counseling but no registration.

A year later Orr was back in court on a drug possession charge.

This time he went to prison, and upon release in 2005 his parole officer told him the law now required him to register as a sex offender.

“I talked to them but couldn’t push the issue, I just didn’t have any money — only the $35 they gave me when I got out,” he said.

Since 2006, Orr’s particular case would be considered a misdemeanor — with no stipulation of registering in the sex offender database. But that change came too late for Orr. He, and many like him, committed what is now a misdemeanor but face a lifetime stigma of being a convicted felon and even worse — a sex offender.

“The system isn’t designed to help. I did wrong, I know I did,” Orr said. “But I’m still serving time every day. … By not knowing what I signed up for, I messed up my life.”

The law concerning statutory rape was amended July 1, 2006. It made consensual sex between teens (at least 14 years old) and a person no older than 18 a misdemeanor punishable by no more than a year in prison and no sex offender registration.

But the legislature did not make the law retroactive.

The sex offender registry is kept with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and according to Georgia law a person classified as a sexual offender must comply with the requirements of registration for life.

Those laws limit where offenders can live and work.

Those who have completed their incarceration or probation for at least 10 years can petition the Superior Court to be released from the registration requirements, according to Georgia Code 42-1-12 (g).

If the court decides the offender does not pose a substantial risk of future offenses, the court can release the person from registry. But for those in Orr’s situation, 10 years as a registered sex offender may mean a life term.

‘Ghetto pastor’

He’s not without help or friends, there are several who’ve stepped forward asking if they could help Orr. But with limited resources, time is running out.

Louise McCluskey, pastor of the Glorious New Jerusalem Church on West 12th Street, said she first met Orr through his grandmother and the self-described “ghetto pastor” said she saw injustice in his plight.

Here was a hard-working man whose faith had made a change in his life, she said, but his circumstances were dire.

That’s never mattered to McCluskey, who has run many prison ministries and is known for walking in among the convicts and making friends.

“You’ve got to love people. Jesus hung out with the thugs. Did you know that?” she said. “This church welcomes offenders regardless of what the law says. The church is a haven to set people free and help them to get to know Jesus.”

She found a residence for Orr to stay until the probation office saw a church in the area, invalidating the residence as a permanent place. His probation officer said Orr could stay there temporarily but gave an end of November deadline for him to move out.

Both McCluskey and Orr say the probation office has worked with him repeatedly, letting him stay out a little later to attend church and striving to help him stay out of prison. But the legislators made the law, and probation officers are sworn to uphold it.

“He has a good probation officer,” McCluskey said. “It’s the law that needs to change.”

But at this point what he needs is a job. He’s done house maintenance, some construction work and refurbished a home for the church on Harvey Street.

“He has worked diligently to restore that house, and it would be a good place to house others like him. But, guess what, there is a church at the corner,” McCluskey said.

He’s not picky at this point. Orr said he’d take any type of job. It’s not money or donations he needs. It’s a job and the ability to live under his current circumstances and hopefully provide for his three children.

For anyone with work available, McCluskey said they can reach her at 706-409-2908.

Although McCluskey said she has faith that God will make changes, she says people must still work for that change.

She speaks with a voice of experience and the surety of someone who has seen miracles happen.

She doesn’t expect people to make a change for the better 100 percent of the time. “When they want to change they’ll change,” she said.

“It isn’t about in here,” she said, gesturing toward the church. “It’s about out there,” she said, pointing toward the streets. ..Source..
by John Bailey

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jessica’s Law too vague to enforce?

This is what results when lawmakers refuse to represent all of their constituents and ignore constitutional protections. Lawmakers want chaos because it satisfies their individual hatreds, biases and prejudices. Lawmakers misuse their powers costing taxpayers far more than doing what is right by all constituents. Further there isn't a single piece of evidence which shows that ANY residency law enhances safety within communities.

11-29-2009 California:


Most local offenders too close to schools, parks

More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.

Jessica’s Law, which was approved by California voters in November 2006, toughened sanctions against sex offenders and bars them from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In San Diego County, 1,266 of 1,731 offenders whose addresses are made public by the state live in those restricted zones, according to an analysis by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative journalism unit based at San Diego State University.

That finding surprises virtually no one in law enforcement. They say the law is vague and has holes, making it nearly impossible to enforce.

For example, the law doesn’t specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed. There are no penalties for violating the restrictions.

“The initiative itself was so badly written, no one knows how retroactive it is,” said Tom Tobin, a clinical psychologist and member of the state Sex Offender Management Board, an advisory group that includes law enforcement and other professionals who deal with sex crimes.

A reader points out that the above is incorrect because the residency laws are NOT RETROACTIVE per decision: Doe-v-Schwarzenegger 2-22-2007 (Hats off to our reader, proof that the media does a bad job on research)

Four registered sex offenders, two of whom live in San Diego County, have challenged the residency restrictions, and their case is before the California Supreme Court.

The four men were paroled after Jessica’s Law passed, but their most recent crimes were not sex offenses. Parole officers told them they had to move from restricted areas near schools or parks or be sent back to prison.

Ernest Galvan, who represents the men, said the law is retroactive punishment. Laws that restrict a person’s rights must be based on a “compelling state interest,” he said.

Attorneys for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation say voters intended to create “predator-free zones,” so the law applies to all registered sex offenders.

The court’s ruling is expected in February.

Dozens of municipalities across the state that have approved their own ordinances are awaiting the court’s decision before moving to enforce them. In San Diego County, six cities have enacted ordinances that restrict where convicted offenders can live or loiter: San Diego, Chula Vista, National City, La Mesa, Santee and San Marcos. The county of San Diego and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District — which oversees Santee Lakes — also have ordinances. Each makes a violation a misdemeanor.

Nearly all of those cities increased the number of restricted areas, barring convicted offenders from living or loitering near playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks and other places where children congregate. The Chula Vista City Council, however, eased the state restrictions, barring offenders convicted of crimes against children from living within 500 feet of a city park or a school that serves students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

Leonard Miranda, a Chula Vista Police Department captain who helped craft the city ordinance, said a 2,000-foot restriction leaves only small pockets in the city where offenders could live.

“It was impractical,” he said.

More than 90 percent of convicted sex offenders listing addresses in Chula Vista are in violation of the state residence restriction, while none violate the municipal ordinance.

Glenn Isaaks, an agent in the department’s sex-offender-registration unit, said few police or sheriff’s departments have the resources to enforce a 2,000-foot restriction.

“We’re budget-strapped as it is,” he said. “It would be a burden to have to do that.”

While the legality of Jessica’s Law is debated, law enforcement experts are examining the larger question of whether residence restrictions reduce crime. About 7 percent of sex offenses against children are committed by someone already convicted of a child-sex crime, according to a 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Justice. That means that in most cases, child-sex offenses are being committed by someone who isn’t on a registry.

And while residence restrictions are aimed at keeping strangers away from children, strangers commit a small percentage of child-sex offenses. The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office doesn’t track how many child molestations are committed by strangers, but the Justice Department study found that 93 percent of offenders are related to or know their victims.

“Often, we’re horrified when we hear about children snatched off the street,” said Phyllis Shess, director of sex-offender management in the District Attorney’s Office. “That is statistically very rare.”

In one aspect, Jessica’s Law has increased concerns about public safety. Since it took effect, more registered sex offenders have identified themselves as transient and are harder to track.

Among California parolees — the only population of sex offenders for whom the residence restrictions have been consistently enforced — the number listed as transient has gone from 88 in November 2006 to 1,056 in June 2008, an increase of 1,100 percent, according to a Sex Offender Management Board report in December 2008.

Tobin said sex offenders in an unstable environment, such as homelessness, are more likely to commit another crime.

“Why would we want to, with no apparent good reason, increase the risk of re-offending?” he asked. “The reality is we’re pushing people to the brink.”

In January, the Sex Offender Management Board issued recommendations, including one to “rethink residency restrictions.” It stated, “The vast majority of evidence and research conducted to date does not demonstrate a connection between where an offender lives and recidivism.”

Some officials in other states agree. Iowa legislators this year revised the state law banning convicted sex offenders from living near schools or day-care centers after law enforcement officials complained that it was difficult to enforce and increased the number of transient offenders. Now, only violent sex offenders can’t live in those areas.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who sponsored California’s initiative, said the law improves monitoring because it requires all registered felony sex offenders to wear a GPS device. However, only sex offenders on parole — about 15 percent of registered offenders statewide — are wearing the devices.

Local law enforcement agencies are supposed to take over GPS monitoring after sex offenders are off parole, but none has done that, said Lindon Lewis, a San Diego County GPS unit supervisor with the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Local officials are waiting for the state Supreme Court ruling, and they say they need funding before they can start monitoring, he said.

The law requires sex offenders to pay for GPS monitoring, but if they can’t, the state pays. For the 6,782 sex offenders on parole statewide, it cost $10.2 million to activate the devices, plus $14.9 million a year for monitoring.

Runner said the law shouldn’t be scaled back because of cost.

“How much does it cost when a child gets raped?” he asked.

Most officials who handle aspects of sex offenses say changing the law is a politically charged proposition.

“Who is going to stand up and say something that can be construed as, ‘Let’s go easier on sex offenders’?” Tobin said.

It’s not clear what may happen after the court issues its ruling, but if law enforcement agencies begin enforcing residence restrictions, that could launch another logistical challenge: where to put convicted sex offenders, especially in urban areas. A San Diego County District Attorney’s Office study in 2007 concluded that residence restrictions eliminated 72 percent of the residential parcels in the county.

The Watchdog Institute found that in San Diego, where more than one-third of the county’s convicted sex offenders list addresses, 85 percent are in violation of the state’s residence restrictions. The city ordinance adds further restrictions, barring registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of day-care centers, arcades, playgrounds, libraries and attractions that include the San Diego Zoo and SeaWorld. It also bars them from loitering within 300 feet of those places.

The city hasn’t enforced its ordinance, passed in 2008, because of the pending case. Officials in the City Attorney’s Office also wouldn’t discuss enforcement plans because the case isn’t resolved, said city attorney spokeswoman Gina Coburn.

Moving the registered sex offenders who violate residence restrictions isn’t a simple solution. Finding housing for convicted sex offenders still on parole is difficult, state corrections officials say.

Residence restrictions have a “kind of intuitive appeal,” said Tobin, of the Sex Offender Management Board. “But if ‘not in my backyard,’ then where?” ..Source.. Denise Zapata and Kevin Crowe, watchdog institute

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

When Prisoners Phone Home

Corrections purpose? Recidivism is caused by? Justice means? I'm confused!

11-28-2009 New York:

New York State’s highest court has rejected the last vestiges of a lawsuit by families of inmates who claimed that the prison system overcharged them for telephone calls from their loved ones. The good news is that this suit — and an accompanying lobbying effort — has already succeeded in reforming a terribly unfair system.

New York, like many states, used the phones in its prisons as a profit center. MCI, which provided the phone service, agreed to pay the prison system 57.5 percent of the fees it charged for prisoners’ collect calls. The state then allowed MCI to charge outrageously high rates: 16 cents or more a minute plus a $3 surcharge for every call. Families paid as much as $300 to $400 a month, according to one advocacy group.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a public interest legal organization, and prisoners’ families sued in 2004, charging that the exorbitant rates were unconstitutional. The suit rightly embarrassed New York politicians. In January 2007, Eliot Spitzer, the state’s newly elected governor, announced that rates would be substantially lowered. The Legislature later made it illegal for the Department of Correctional Services to accept revenue in excess of its reasonable costs for operating an inmate phone system.

What was left for the New York State Court of Appeals to decide was whether family members were due refunds. They contended that the excessive fees were an illegal tax that violated inmates’ equal protection rights. This week, the court, by a 5-to-1 vote, rejected the suit.

The decision is regrettable. But even the majority noted that the plaintiffs had strong arguments that the high rates were bad policy because they made it difficult for inmates to maintain family and community ties, and that released prisoners who lack these ties are more likely to return to a life of crime.

That is a message other states should heed. Prison systems may not have to subsidize these calls, but they should not be using them to balance their budgets. When prisoners cannot afford to keep in touch with their wives, husbands, parents and children, everyone pays. ..Source.. NY Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Arrests up, monitoring down

11-28-2009 Nevada:

Number of freed sex offenders overwhelming agencies that supervise them

The August rescue of Jaycee Dugard from the California property of a registered sex offender is among a number of recent cases nationwide that are demonstrating the difficulties faced by parole and probation officers. Included in the recent cases is the arrest of a registered sex offender in Cleveland after a woman accused him of rape. Police found the bodies of 11 women at his home.

The Washington Post reported that both Phillip Garrido, the alleged kidnapper of Dugard, and Anthony Sowell, the Cleveland man now accused of homicide, were supervised by parole officers. Nevertheless, both suspects went years before raising suspicions. Garrido allegedly kidnapped Dugard in 1991, 18 years before being arrested.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says there are more than 716,000 registered sex offenders in the country. The Post reported this week that the number represents a 78 percent increase since 2001, when the Bush administration began a crackdown on child pornography and sex offenses — a crackdown that is continuing under the Obama administration.

Here we go again with that 716,000 factoid, find the truth here.

We fully support this initiative, but we believe it should accompany an equivalent increase in parole and probation officers. Law enforcement agencies charged with tracking the increasing number of offenders who are paroled or sentenced to probation are severely understaffed.

The Post reported that the Justice Department is hiring 81 more prosecutors for sex cases, and that federal funding for task forces that bring sexual assault charges in state courts rose this year from $16 million to $75 million.

At the same time, funding for parole and probation officers is being cut by nearly every state, including Nevada, even though the monitoring of freed sex offenders is required by law. Ernie Allen, president of the missing children’s center, told the Post: “The burden on probation and parole officers is going to explode.”

Before that happens, Congress and the states should devise new funding plans so parole and probation officers are proportionate to the number of offenders they must supervise. ..Editorial.. by The LawVegas Sun

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

A new standard being quoted: "Over 716,000 Registered Sex Offenders," but is it true?

11-28-2009 National:

There is a new comment being quoted in several news articles:

There are more than 716,000 registered sex offenders nationwide, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 78 percent increase since 2001" SOURCE: 11-23-09 AP article "Tracking sex-crime offenders gets trickier"

However there is a problem with that number, if one reviews what is posted on NCMEC it shows 686,515 (Verified 11-28-2009). It appears someone or many are trying to develop a NEW SCARE tactic, a factoid, likely to be used to help lawmakers enact new legislation.

I guess it is possible that NCMEC has done a new TELEPHONE survey and hasn't yet posted their NEW findings, not like them though. However, the numbers being posted are BLOATED in a few ways:

1) Page one of the NCMEC source (LINK ABOVE) says "39 states provided numbers WHICH INCLUDED those still in prison." So, why does the public need to know numbers of those still in prison?

2) Most states are also showing numbers (and addresses) of those who have been deported, died, moved to another state, and duplicates galore. James Carlson, a Florida Journalist, wrote "Ghosts in the machine" which revealed the hidden truths behind the bloating of the Florida registry and that has been found to be true of other states.

3) A bit of history: When the Adam Walsh Act was being formulated, in the Senate version (S-1086 look in S-1086 RS Version, because it is not in their final version) was Section 106, which stated:

S-1086-ES SEC. 106. PARTICIPATING STATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES.

(c) Publication of Number of Offenders Registered-
(1) IN GENERAL- Every 6 months, the Attorney General shall collect from each State information on the total number of covered individuals included in the registry maintained by that State.

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND CONTENTS- The Attorney General shall--
(A) release information under paragraph (1) to the public in a manner consistent with this title; and

(B) include in such a release the number of individuals within each tier and the number of individuals who are in compliance with this title within each tier.

(3) DOUBLE-COUNTING- In reporting information collected under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that offenders are not being double-counted.

That section was DROPPED by Congress and NOT INCLUDED in the Adam Walsh Act! Congress does not want folks to know the truth, bloated numbers MUST PREVAIL to keep fueling the hysteria!

In closing, the opposition also claims there are 100,000 missing sex offenders, well the truth about that number is here. Hummm, are there 100,000 missing OR are there really a few HUNDRED THOUSAND GHOST NUMBERS?

eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Monitor Sex Offenders Better

Here we go again, the false belief that monitoring former offenders -now every 30 days rather than every 90 day- will (or could have) somehow PREVENT further sex crimes. Knowing where folks live (or really where they sleep a few hours of the day) in no way is PREVENTION or a deterent. Sowell was properly registered and monitored according to law, and checking on him every 30 days would not have uncovered the fact that he was (alleged to be) murdering women. Law enforcement is touting -sounds good pretexts- and not real prevention; lawmakers will follow the same path which equals NO REAL PREVENTION!

11-28-2009 Ohio:

Anthony Sowell murdered 11 women in his Cleveland home before a potential victim escaped and notified the authorities, police say. The killings went on for years. Sowell kept the bodies at his home, where decomposition generated an odor some neighbors blamed on a nearby factory.

Had more of Sowell's neighbors known he was a convicted sex offender, more questions about the odor might have been asked.

But though Sowell was on the state's sex offender registry, he was not monitored closely. He had regular contact with police, but they were not allowed to enter his home without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

A bill introduced in the General Assembly would provide additional safeguards against people like Sowell.

Offenders in the state's Tier III category, the most serious for sex offenders, would be monitored more closely if the bill is enacted. Instead of verifying such an offender's address every 90 days, as now required, the period would be shortened to 30 days. At least once every three months, police would have to have face-to-face contact with such offenders.

Perhaps most important, residents of communities would have to be notified if Tier III offenders move into their neighborhoods.

We do not believe sex offenders should be stereotyped or persecuted. But the frequency with which we carry reports of offenders who, after being released from prison, commit new offenses is distressing. More needs to be done to protect Ohioans from sexual predators who manage to blend into neighborhoods and continue committing crimes.

We urge Ohio lawmakers to approve the new legislation, which then should be signed into law by Gov. Ted Strickland. ..Editorial by.. The Intelligencer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

San Bernardino sheriff's unit tracks registered sex offenders

I find it amazing that because of the Garrido case (who was properly registered while committing crimes, and monitored by many agents from different jurisdictions) that law enforcement still wants folks to believe that, knowing where registrants sleep -a few hours of the day- is MOST IMPORTANT to preventing new sex crimes.

The amount of time, money and resources that go into keeping a list of places where former offenders sleep -a few hours of the day- and ZIP into REAL PREVENTION proves this efforts real purpose is JOB SECURITY and nothing more; a stimulus program for employment of law enforcement officers.

All the justifications mentioned are nothing more than -sounds good pretexts- and will not prevent new sex offenses. In fact, non sex offenders released from prison commit 6 new sex crimes to every one committed by a previously convicted sex offender in the same time period following release. Non sex offenders released from prison are NOT MONITORED by law enforcement like sex offenders are. Source: Department of Justice. Lawmakers IGNORE this truth which proves PREVENTION is not their goal!

11-28-2009 California:

Not long ago, more than a quarter of San Bernardino County's sex offenders weren't meeting the terms of their registration.

Whether an offender's listed address was simply out of date, or he had gone completely underground, officials often lacked the time or resources to keep up.

Then came Jim Black.

Almost two years ago, the Sheriff's Department created a position for the retired San Bernardino police officer that focuses only on ensuring the area's offenders are in full compliance with their registration.

Since then, the county has trimmed its out-of-compliance registrants -- those off authorities' radar -- to well under 10 percent. That beats the state average and equals the success of Riverside County, which has an entire task force devoted to the issue.

"It's a never-ending battle," Black said. "It can be difficult to find these guys."

An up-to-date registry is important because law enforcement often makes the list one of its first stops when investigating child abductions and sexual assaults.

Working with deputies in the sheriff's Crimes Against Children detail, Black searches state and federal databases daily and coordinates collaborative sweeps and random home visits to stay ahead of a historically transient population.

The roughly 6 percent rate of sex offenders now out of compliance at any given time in either Inland county is less than half of the state average and a small fraction of those who have eluded officials in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

"They know they cannot rest on their haunches," said Ron Garcia, director of Riverside County's multi-agency Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement team. "We will show up at their houses to make sure they're residing where they're supposed to."

Creative adaptations

While Riverside County's team continues to be aggressive in its compliance efforts, Black and San Bernardino County's staff have adopted creative ways to bolster their effectiveness.

On days when state courts are closed because of furloughs, bailiffs have been asked to conduct sex offender checks. Black has posted fliers of the most wanted out-of-compliance sex offenders on the sheriff's Web site.

And next month, the department is expected to unveil a more detailed database for tracking the population.

Soon, Black hopes to be able to coordinate multi-agency operations that can identify sex offenders who slip through the cracks in smaller jurisdictions, such as Redlands, where detectives responsible for monitoring have many other duties.

"That way, we can make 100 or more checks at once and not have a Jaycee Dugard living in someone's backyard," Black said.

The case of Dugard, kidnapped when she was 11 and forced to live in captivity with a convicted rapist for almost 20 years, has heightened attention on the ways registered sex offenders are tracked once they are released from prison.

California's version of Jessica's Law, passed in 2006, allows local jurisdictions to enact ordinances greatly limiting where a sex offender can reside, restricting areas near parks, schools, day-care centers and bus stops.

Long-Term EFFECT

Last week, Black went over the issue with a class of deputies and officers from other departments, noting the many ways that offenders can violate their registration terms.

They include not listing every address where property is owned or not checking in every 30 days if an offender's address is listed as "transient."

The state-appointed Sex Offender Management Board issued a report last year stating the number of registrants listed as transients increased 60 percent from June 2007 to August 2008.

Jay Adams, a psychotherapist and advocate for more mental health treatment for sex offenders, said that the increased residency restrictions can result in more homelessness among offenders, and feared it would lead to increased recidivism.

"If you destroy all their contact with the community, their family relationships and their ability to get work, you're actually making them more dangerous," said Adams, a former Patton State Hospital therapist and contributor to the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

Black, however, said that his unit has not seen any negative effects in the communities that have passed ordinances based on Jessica's Law.

"They still find places to live," he said. "I haven't seen a drastic increase in transient registrations in our county."

No Harassment

Black said that when he teaches deputies how to conduct compliance checks, and counsels citizens on how to deal with the public information available about sex offenders, he stresses that harassment is not part of the equation.

"If a sex offender gets harassed, threatened or terrorized, they're going to go underground and we're not going to know where they're at," he said. "And knowing where they're at is paramount."

Most San Bernardino County sex offenders found to be out of compliance have simply moved out of the area without notifying authorities, although some are found to have recently died.

Only a small fraction of the less than 10 percent not accounted for have disappeared.

When that occurs, prosecutors will issue felony arrest warrants that typically lead to more prison time. Black said he doesn't understand why anyone would take the risk.

"It's filling out a piece of paper, and it's a crime not to do so," he said. "It doesn't make sense to me." ..Source.. PAUL LAROCCO, The Press-Enterprise

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offender HQ

11-27-2009 Connecticut:

Hartford has the biggest concentration of registered sex offenders, many of them living in homeless shelters, in all of Connecticut

There are approximately four times as many registered sex offenders living on Laurel Street in Hartford as there are in the entire city of Greenwich.

Laurel has 19 offenders on one block.

Greenwich has five. Total.

At the McKinney Shelter on Huyshope Avenue, there are 29 registered sex offenders, about half of whom committed acts against minors. Seven are listed as non-compliant, meaning they've failed to verify their addresses, as required by law.

Madison Avenue has 17 registered offenders. Park Street has 26. There are similar concentrations of sex offenders throughout the city, from Albany Avenue to Wethersfield Avenue. None of this is lost on Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts. He formed a sex offender unit two years ago after noticing the number of offenders being released.

"We can't prohibit them from coming to the city, but we are responsible for keeping track of them," said police spokeswoman Nancy Mulroy.

"[Hartford] is being used as a dumping ground to put people nobody else wants," she said. "I just know that 500-plus sex offenders aren't originally from Hartford."

That may be, says Bill Carbone, who oversees probation for sex offenders as executive director of the Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division. But state officials have little choice. Homeless shelters in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport are often the only housing option for sex offenders newly released from prison.

"It's a problem," Carbone said. "The reason you have so many that initially end up in shelters is we do not have families that are willing to have them move back in."

Carbone has been pushing for the past several years for the state to build housing — on state land — specifically for sex offenders. He says about $3 million was allocated a couple of years ago, "but due to budget cutbacks, it's never been spent." And even if he could spend the money, Carbone knows it would be very hard to find a site where he wouldn't run into a storm of protest.

"I think everybody is facing the same issue with sex offenders," said Carbone. "In most states they're doing the same thing we're doing, which is using the shelter system."

Lt. Mark Tedeschi is commander of the police department's juvenile investigative division, which houses the sex offender unit that keeps tabs on the 537 offenders listed on the registry for Hartford. "We have the greatest amount of sex offenders in Connecticut, roughly 10 percent [of the total number of offenders] reside in our city," he said.

Tedeschi says police divide the city's 18 square miles into four districts: the northwest district, where Laurel Street is located, has 115 out of 537 sex offenders; the northeast district has 112; the southwest district has 157; and the southeast district has 153.

There are no restrictions in Connecticut on where registered sex offenders can live unless specified in their parole or probation, said Detective Victor Otero, commander of the sex offender unit. Offenders are required, however, to verify their addresses every three months so police know where to find them. If they don't, they're non-compliant and subject to arrest, like the seven offenders listed as living at McKinney.

"We go out and do compliance checks," said Otero, adding the majority of registered offenders are not on probation or parole, "so nobody is watching over them."

The northwest district, where Laurel Street is, has the highest compliance among registered sex offenders of any district, at 98 percent. The others have compliance percentage rates in the mid to high 80s, Tedeschi said.

City residents are often surprised that sex offenders live nearby. Gwendolyn Turner, a social worker at the Community Renewal Team at 211 Laurel St., said she had no idea 19 sex offenders lived on the street. Her center serves 75 children. But Nancy Pappas, director of external affairs for CRT, said children arrive and leave with their parents and are monitored constantly by center staff.

"CRT has programs to help folks, not specifically sex offenders, but people who've had time in prison," Pappas said. "It would be hypocritical of us to say, 'OK, well, we have 78 classrooms of Head Start and you can't be near any of them.'"

A woman living on Laurel Street, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Advocate to share an e-mail she sent on Sept. 28 to 311@hartford.gov, the city's help line: "Why are the standards in Hartford so low?" she wrote. "I live on Laurel Street, and besides all the prostitutes and drug addicts and people breaking in vehicles, there are 19 registered sex offenders within the 270-330 block, 8 of them living in one building at 270 Laurel Street, some with charges against children, some without. How is that even possible?"

Nearly a month later, on Oct. 20, the woman received a reply from 311.com, telling her the best way to address the issue was to discuss it with the Asylum Hill Neighborhood Revitalization Zone, her local community group. She decided not to bother.

"I didn't even know it existed," she said of the NRZ. "It seems like it would be a waste of time, just somewhere for people to complain."

Otero sympathizes, but says he isn't sure what could be changed. He points out residency restrictions have only driven sex offenders underground, making the situation worse.

"Every place is within 1,500 feet of a school or a playground or a church," said Otero. "Where would these people look for housing?"

That was exactly the problem for Phil Palmieri, a registered sex offender living in New Haven. Palmieri, 37, was convicted in 2006 of sexual assault in the second degree for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He says he met her online, but not on MySpace or any of the other social networking sites. Palmieri says he was under the mistaken impression that the age of consent was 15, but as it turned out, he didn't even wait for that milestone.

"I did the typical dumb male thing. I thought with the wrong head and here I am," Palmieri said.

Released in 2008 after two years in prison, he's on probation for the next 10 years and is currently living in the Duncan Hotel on Chapel Street because he says he couldn't live anywhere else. He works as a bellhop to help pay his $200 weekly rent.

"It's a roof over my head and it's not a homeless shelter, but it's only a step above," Palmieri said. "Anywhere you're going to live has to be approved by probation, and quite frankly they don't care if you end up homeless." Parole officials wouldn't approve his moving back in with his parents because their apartment complex is near minors.

Palmieri calls his liaison with a 14-year-old girl the biggest mistake of his life, but says he can't move on, because the state won't let him.

"These people don't believe you can learn your lesson on your own," Palmieri said. "They believe they have to be monitoring you."

In fact, the new sex offender online registry launched by Gov. M. Jodi Rell makes it easier for the general public to monitor registered sex offenders. It sends e-mail alerts when offenders move to your neighborhood. Police will be able to search the database using a physical description by August 2010.

"With this registry process we know where they reside," Tedeschi said. "Any time there's a sex crime, pedophile or adult, we have a place to start and at least initiate the elimination process when we deal with sex crimes." ..Source.. Daniel D'Ambrosio

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Father putting his life back together after daughters recant stories of molestation

11-27-2009 Texas:

"Paul Parks" spent almost three years in prison for molesting his two young daughters. He spent another 15 years living with the stigma of being a registered sex offender.

All because of what they now say is a lie.

Last year his now-adult daughters changed their story and he was exonerated. Such recantations are not unusual, but being declared innocent by the courts is rare.

For Parks, who requested a pseudonym as he pulls his life back together, his moment came when a Dallas judge concluded that his daughters' recantations were credible. In April, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals set the convictions aside "on actual innocence grounds."

The 54-year-old father of nine, paroled in 1994, got a call at work last spring telling him that after 25 years of hoping and praying, his name was cleared.

"It feels like I've got my life back, like I was suffocating and I came back to life," he says.

"I didn't want to die with a lie."

Once a lawyer, now a truck driver, he celebrated by asking his boss for time off to attend the wedding of one of the two daughters who accused him of molesting them.

Parks' case is every man's nightmare: to be accused of molesting your own daughters and to have no way to prove you didn't do it. Even now, he's aware that without conclusive evidence, like in the flurry of DNA exonerations in recent years, some people will always wonder if he's guilty.

Unlike the dozens of recent DNA exonerations, prosecutors fought the effort to clear Parks. They called old witnesses and questioned his daughters, because in recantation cases, proof of innocence is murky.

Assistant District Attorney Christine Womble, who handled the final hearing, says she has "mixed feelings" about the court's decision clearing Parks. "I had questions after talking to the girls prior to the hearing – and I still have questions."

Domestic difficulties

The lie began during a bitter custody battle. The primary evidence against Parks was the testimony of his daughters, backed up by his two ex-wives, "June" and "Kathy."

The two women did not return calls for comment. The daughters who testified against him declined to comment through his attorney. The Dallas Morning News examined the transcript from Parks' exoneration hearing and other court appeals related to his case.

Parks and his first wife, June, met in college. He served in the U.S. Marines and received a law degree from Western State University College of Law in California. But he and June separated after six years of marriage and three daughters.

When he dropped his wife off at school one day, he whisked away his three daughters to Dallas to start over. June claimed he kidnapped them; Parks said she refused to accompany him. They divorced in 1982, but June had no idea where he'd taken the children.

The next year, Parks married a Dallas neighbor, Kathy. They divorced 14 months later. When that union soured, court testimony indicates Kathy phoned June to tell her where the girls were. She suggested asking whether they had been abused.

June alerted authorities, who swiftly removed the girls from Parks' home.

"I just went crazy," Parks said. "I guess I told them, 'This is ridiculous. I'm not that type of person.' "

At a custody hearing in Dallas the abuse charges were deemed not credible, Parks says. Ike Vanden Eykel, one of Texas' premier divorce attorneys, remembers his client's steadfast denials, and how he offered to take any test and answer any question. "He never wavered."

But June's attorney pressed for criminal charges, which were filed in May 1985. The girls moved back to California with their mother in a joint custody agreement.

Parks moved back to California with the woman who later became his third wife, Michelle, to be closer to his daughters.

But June raised the abuse allegations again when she sued for full custody in California.

There, a psychological report stated Parks "did not present a personality profile consistent with that of a child molester" and noted that the girls may have been "coached."

Again, the abuse claims went nowhere, and Parks expected them to be dropped in criminal court. He exhausted his savings and was assigned a public defender.

To his dismay, Judge Gerry Meier, a no-nonsense jurist, decided to try the case – immediately. "We were ready for the dismissal," Parks said. "But we weren't ready for the trial."


Girls testify
From behind the defendant's table, Parks watched his life unravel.

According to court papers, Parks' first ex-wife said he talked to the girls like lovers, telling them to "give me some of your hot kisses."

His second ex-wife testified that Parks walked around in front of his daughters nude, with an erection; showered with them, French-kissed them and discussed their genitalia in crude terms. Parks said it wasn't true.

Peggy Nichols, a Texas Department of Protective Services social worker, testified about her interviews with two of his daughters – here called "Cindy" and "Nancy" – after removing them from their father's care. Parks' youngest daughter, who was 3 at the time of the alleged abuse, was not part of the case.

At first, Cindy, 6, and Nancy, 4, denied to Nichols that any inappropriate touching had occurred, court records show.

But by the time of the trial, three years later, they'd faced repeated questioning by Nichols and been shuffled from a shelter to foster homes then back to their mother, who also peppered them with questions. The girls' stories changed.

From the big wooden witness chair, Nancy said her father "molested me."

Watching his daughter, Parks wondered, "Where in the heck did they get that big word?"

Under questioning, Nancy added details in more childlike language.

Cindy said their father told them "not to tell anybody" what happened.

Parks says the girls wouldn't look at him during their testimony. "They made them into nothing but little robots there on the stand," he says.

Parks could do little. He wanted to introduce records from family court to show the allegations had been previously discredited, but says the judge didn't give him time to do so. He denied the abuse, but without evidence it was his word against theirs.

The jury believed the two little girls. And Parks didn't help himself in the sentencing phase.

He said therapy wouldn't help because he hadn't done anything wrong. When a prosecutor asked if he thought incest was normal, he said he didn't know.

He shrugs helplessly when asked about that now. "I was tired and depressed," he says. "They tripped me up ... I do not advocate [incest]."

The damage was done. Parks received two 10-year terms.

"I just wanted to sit there and die," he says.

The appeal became well known among Texas lawyers because it decided the issue of when extraneous evidence could be admitted. State courts concluded the testimony about Parks parading around naked should not have been introduced because the legal question was whether he had inappropriately touched the girls, not other conduct.

But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also ruled that the mistake was harmless because the other evidence was so strong.

In 1992, Parks went to prison.

That's when Michelle finally told their children that their father was going to prison for a crime he didn't commit. "It might be awhile before Daddy comes back," she said.


'Life dismal'

In prison, Parks worked in the leather factory, and helped inmates with their cases. He studied the Bible and sang in the choir.

Michelle found work at a day care and in other low-paying jobs. She sold the car, but lost the house when she fell behind on the mortgage. Relatives took the family in.

When he walked out of prison after 2 ½ years he found that being a registered sex offender "makes your life dismal," Parks says.

He couldn't live with his family, so Michelle arranged for him to rent a nearby duplex.

After several months, parole officials allowed him to move home. He eked out a living doing odd jobs. Then a relative helped him find factory work. When that factory closed, he became a truck driver.

Though he was prohibited from contacting his children from his first marriage, Michelle tried to locate the girls, sending letters to possible addresses. She received no response.

Then the phone rang one day in 2001. Nancy, now 21, was on the line. One of Michelle's letters had reached her. She wanted to talk to her father.

" 'No, no – I can't get on the phone,' " a panicked Parks said. "It's a violation of the rules."

Michelle says both women were puzzled by his refusal to talk. Separated from their father at an early age, they didn't even realize he'd gone to prison, Parks says.

Michelle says they thought their father had abandoned them.

"Do you not remember saying Daddy molested you?" she asked.

They remembered, but said they did it to please the adults pressing for answers. "Daddy didn't do that," they told Michelle.


'Complete lie'

According to court transcripts, the sisters – now an elementary school teacher and a child therapist – had discussed clearing their father's name before. But that's no easy task.

"It's a common misperception that all you've got to do is take their written statement, 'He didn't do it,' and Daddy walks out of jail," says Bill Allison, co-director of the Actual Innocence Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law.

But judges are skeptical of such claims. They want to preserve the finality of convictions and are suspicious of the witness's credibility, Allison says. "At some point the witness is not telling the truth – either then or now."

Some children, even as they become adults, worry that they or their other parent could face perjury charges, if they change their stories.

Parks' attorney, Gary Udashen, says he assured the daughters that their father was not interested in pursuing charges against anyone else. Kris Wise, who oversees such cases for Dallas County, said the district attorney also had no interest in further prosecutions.

Reassured, the women swore in affidavits that their father did not molest them, and in 2008 they traveled to Dallas for a hearing.

"It was glorious," Parks says of their reunion after more than a decade.

In court the next day, Cindy and Nancy testified.

"Somebody had created this story and, over time, we were just coached and coerced to saying a complete lie," Nancy said, according to the court transcript.

Cindy testified that, "After being questioned and asked about it so many times, it's kind of like you feel like just giving in ... They're not gonna listen to me, so I might as well just tell them what they want to hear."

She also denied that her father ever "walked around the house naked," saying he was "very modest."

Nancy said she didn't feel guilty for testifying against her father.

"I was a child," she replied. "And the way I looked at it, I was manipulated and taken advantage of, so I can't say that I feel guilty."

Womble didn't re-call Parks' former spouses to the stand. During his original trial, they'd never testified that they witnessed any sexual abuse. "The primary question is whether these girls lied," Womble said.

Allison, the expert on such cases, says it's unfair to call adults who recant their childhood testimony liars.

"They are giving in to pressure from adults ... it is not a lie to them. They have no idea of consequences ... they're children."

Parks' attorney also presented a new psychological report saying the testimony of the women as children was not credible, but their recantation was.

Writ master April Smith recommended Parks be cleared. Judge Susan Hawk says she "signed off on it without hesitation."


Getting reacquainted

A few weeks after charges were dropped, Parks was pulled over by a police officer while driving his younger children to school – a forbidden activity for registered sex offenders.

Luckily, he had a copy of the judgment in his car and was free to go.

Today, he's enjoying even more freedom. He can camp with his son, decorate the porch on holidays, even visit amusement parks.

Parks hopes to get a fresh start with several hundred thousand dollars in compensation money that he'll get under state law for being wrongfully convicted.

He and his two oldest daughters are getting to know one another again through weekly phone calls. To make up for the years he missed, they presented him with photographic scrapbooks of them at various stages of their lives.

Parks says he never blamed his daughters.

"I was never really angry at them for something somebody else did to them. I felt like they were raped mentally."

Prosecutor Wise says "you don't always have to have somebody to blame. Obviously a mistake was made, at some point or the other, but it wasn't a mistake that was maliciously made ... I think everybody fully believed at the time that they were telling the truth." ..Source.. DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawmakers Scrap Physician Sex Offender Issue

11-25-2009 Michigan:

LANSING, MI (MPRN) - Shelli Weisberg is from the American Civil Liberties Union. She told lawmakers last week that Michigan's sex offender registry merely lists people convicted of a crime, and doesn't use judgment to determine how dangerous they may be.

She says the bill would prevent any adolescent who made a mistake that put them on the list from receiving a proper education or job in the medical field.

"And you know what," says Weisberg, "when we don't have education and we don't have jobs and we don't have treatment for these people listed as sex offenders, they have one thing left to do: Enter a life of crime."

The lawmaker who sponsored the bill says he was shocked to discover a doctor who molests or rapes a patient could still practice medicine in Michigan.

The House panel dealing with the bill is not expected to continue any discussion when lawmakers return from Thanksgiving break. ..Source.. Laura Weber

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Computer program helps the state keep tabs on sex offenders' online browsing

RemoteCom is rather interesting because they do not charge the local jurisdiction anything for performing this monitoring service (article claims there is some kind of contract between RemoteCom and the State). However, they do charge the probationer $35.00 a month. This arrangement is bothersome and may implicate rights of probationers, as there doesn't seem to be any court order to allow violation of the private rights of the probationer. Especially since the computer is within the home, and the monitoring is NOT DONE by the supervising agent. This needs to be investigated by the ACLU. It appears this service is REAL-TIME capture, but, not REAL-TIME alerting of supervising agents; weird.

11-25-2009 Georgia:

The state renews its contract with RemoteCOM to monitor ex-convicts' online activity.

ATLANTA - Keeping convicted sex offenders from getting into trouble over the Internet once they're released can be a difficult task, but Georgia's Department of Corrections is using technology to help.

Probation officers, each with 50 or so felons to supervise, would have a chore to manually screen all the online activity during their monthly surprise inspections of the ex-convict's homes. The special conditions sex offenders agree to when they are granted probation permits the inspections, and a new state law requires the offenders to turn over their user names and passwords, but enforcing the conditions can be tricky.

So, the Corrections Department just renewed its contract with a Texas company, RemoteCOM, that monitors the online activity electronically at no cost to taxpayers. The offenders who get permission to use the Internet agree to pay RemoteCOM $35 per month and to put a company software program on their home computer.

The software blocks access to prohibited pornographic Web sites and chat rooms. It also scans permitted applications, such as e-mail, for key words that could suggest a violation.

RemoteCOM hires off-duty police officers to manually inspect the activity their software alerts them to. For example, a reply to an e-mail that wasn't originally sent from the monitored computer would be a clue that the offender had used another computer in violation of the rules.

RemoteCOM estimates 10 percent of convicted sex offenders get sent back to prison for violating their online rules.

The Corrections Department oversees 6,200 sex offenders on probation, but only about 20 are monitored, according to department spokeswoman Sharmelle Brooks.

"There have been no violations from locations that use the system," she said.

One reason is because the offenders know they're being watched and don't do anything online that they wouldn't want to do in public, according to RemoteCOM President Robert Rosenbusch.

"We are trying to create a perception of containment on their computer," he said. "We want to put them out into the public. This is not something they would want to do in the public library."

RemoteCOM agrees to send its experts to testify for free in the case of a violation to any of the multiple states and counties it works with. Rosenbusch said it's never had to testify in the company's five years because defense attorneys always have recommended a guilty plea once they've seen the evidence the company's computer compiles.

The Corrections Department isn't the only state agency supervising convicted sex offenders. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles oversees 365 sex offenders who have been released early and are serving the balance of their sentences on parole. It doesn't use a monitoring service, relying instead on regular polygraphs, therapy sessions and inspections by parole officers, said Richard Oleson, program manager for sex offender and electronic monitoring.

"If there's something we're not seeing, the polygrapher and the therapist might advise us," he said. "Our procedures are pretty good." ..Source.. Walter C. Jones

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Huelett's Mother Wants to Know Why Son Remains Jailed

11-24-2009 Vermont:

A Vermont sex offender whose case attracted national attention is still behind bars nearly one year after he became eligible for release and his mother says it's unfair.

Corrections officials say Mark Hulett is still behind bars because he refuses to co-operate with prison policy, but his mother doesn't believe it.

"It's hard thing, a very hard thing to take,you know. But they gotta give him a chance," said Carol Hulett.

It's hard for Carol Hulett to control her emotions when she talks about why her son Mark remains behind bars when he is eligible for release.

"You know. Other people have been given a second chance. He needs that. Not just for him. But for me,too," she said.

Mark Hulett's prison problems began four years ago when he was sentenced for sexually molesting an eight-year-old girl. Prosecutors wanted a minimum of eight years. But Judge Edward Cashman instead imposed a 60-day prison sentence. The judge wanted Hulett in and out of of prison quickly so Hulett could take part in sex offender treatment that was not available behind bars.

The 60-day sentence triggered a storm of of controversy and scathing criticism, much of it from Fox cable host Bill O'Reilly.

The Governor ordered a prison policy change to make sex offender treatment available behind bars. In response, Judge Cashman re-sentenced Hulett to serve at least 3 years in prison. Hulett completed the therapy program and became eligible for prison release more than a year ago. But he remains behind bars.

"He needs to be able to get out there and show people he's going to do the right thing cause I know he will," said his mother.

Carol Hulett believes her son has been singled out so the state can show the nation that Vermont is tough on child molesters.

"This offender is being treated no differently that any other offender in our system," said Vermont Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito.

Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito says Hulett is one more than 700 of Vermont's 2,200 inmates who continue to be held beyond their minimum release for a host of reasons. Pallito says 165 of them, including Hulett, continue to be held because they have not secured acceptable housing.

Is it any wonder why state budgets are going out of sight. Vermont should be implementing a reentry program to help offenders find appropriate housing, rather then making offenders find housing from BEHIND BARS! Talk about a system DESIGNED to cause folks to fail, here it is!

Pallito says Hulett insists on returning to the Williston home he co-owns with his mother where he lived when he committed his crimes and that's unacceptable.

"You're setting up the same circumstances that were in place before the offender committed the crimes in the first place. So one of the things we looked to do is find a more appropriate residence than where they came from, particularly one they weren't in before when they were acting in a criminal way," said Pallito.

"Why are they not looking into the potential that he's here with his mother? Someone who could direct him a little bit. I mean he does have a mind of his own, but I'd be willing to do what it takes to get him down the right path," said Carol Hulett.

Corrections Commisioner Pallito says living with his mother is simply too risky because Hulett's Williston home is next to a church school and just a few miles from his victim's home. They say if Hullett remains unwilling to help them help him find an acceptable residence they are prepared to keep him behind bars for his maximum sentence of ten years. ..Source.. Brian Joyce - WCAX News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

OF MYTHS AND MONSTERS: THE PLAGUE OF SEX OFFENDER PANIC

11-24-2009 National:

Ignorance is not always bliss, nor is knowledge power. Even in this so-called “Age of Information,” we rely on Mass Media to think for us, reminiscent of the scene from the film “Wall-E,” where we let computers do everything for us. We forget Mass Media is a big business, and relies on sensational stories for ratings and advertising dollars. One of the most tragic stories we can think of is a murdered child, and every one of these tragedies keep us glued to the televisions in fear and anger. Fear sells, sex sells, and sex offenders sell.

The media reports covering the Somer Thompson case stated they were “interviewing 160+ nearby sex offenders” (interviews of registrants are typically standard operating procedure for Law Enforcement, as it was the original intent of the sex offender registry). Then the Mass Media suggested we check the maps at Family Watchdog; after all, if Oprah endorses it, it must be good. Alarmed by “blood red” dots and statistics with huge numbers implying a global epidemic, the average reader comes to the conclusion to be hyper-vigilant while watching the red blips on the radar. After all, they’re “always on the verge of re-offending” and “we’re powerless to stop them,” Mass Media says.

“Knowledge” brings “fear," but not always “rational fear.” It depends on what you find in your search for answers. In our fear and anger, we search for a solution to what bothers us; after all, our myriad of laws aimed at registered former sex offenders were birthed from reactions to tragedies. Every law in place targeting sex offenders, from publicly accessible registries, to laws dictating where registrants live and work, to laws dictating who a person can date, came on the heels of one of these high profile but rare tragedies. These tragedies spark public outrage, which in turn calls for a demand for some new panacea for our fears; politicians are pressed into action, creating new laws or expanding existing laws to cater to their constituents; without a single debate or “nay” vote, the new “panacea” passes and the world is at ease. At least until the next high profile tragedy hits the national airwaves.

When I was a child (as young as age 8 as I had an older brother), it was not uncommon to walk down to a friend’s house down the street to play, or go into the woods to play “War,” or to even be home alone while mommy and daddy went to town to run errands. We were taught to do chores around the house, how to answer the phone and take messages, and what to do in emergencies (like how to call 911). Those responsibilities I was taught as a child is now called “child abuse and neglect,” which will land you on a registry under the Adam Walsh Act.

I watched society slowly change over the years, beginning with the death of Adam Walsh in 1981. At first the changes were small; we were taught “secret passwords,” “don’t talk to strangers,” “walk with a buddy.” Then the sensational media reports of “Satanic ritual abuse” in America’s daycares began (which eventually turned out to be false), followed by the high-profile disappearances of Jacob Wetterling and Megan Kanka, which led to a public registry of persons convicted of “dangerous sex crimes.” Rather than grant us the “rational knowledge” to protect ourselves, we became even more fearful. Helicopter moms and dads hover over the child’s every move; only under the watchful eye of the parent can the child surf the web, play in the yard, or attend public social events. Now, little Johnny cannot go play by himself, lest he be kidnapped or molested.

Fear tends to hide the truth from us. Most of what our society believes about sex offenders is not true. Below are just a few of the beliefs we were taught that are either misleading or completely untrue:

• Epidemic of rape-murders: The Somer Renee Thompson case is a tragedy indeed, but is a very rare tragedy. In the NISMART-2 study from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, only 115 “stereotypical kidnappings” occurred in the year of the study, with only 45 of those cases ended in death or were permanently missing [1]. Your child has a far greater chance winning a multi-million dollar lottery or dying of Swine Flu than dying at the hands of a registered sex offender.

• All registered sex offenders are pedophiles: Pedophilia is a mental disorder and is exceedingly rare; only a very minute portion of sex offenders are “true pedophiles.” To make matters worse, our zeal to fight this “epidemic” has led to some other tragedies—Teens landing on registries for consensual sexual relations with their peers or “sexting” (sending naughty pictures of themselves to their boyfriends). The Dallas Morning News recently complied a list of over 4000 Texas registrants who landed on the registry as juveniles, some as young as age 10 [2]. Another recent case in Utah involved a 12 year old boy and 13 year old girl on the registry for “sexually assaulting” each other [3].

• Sex offenders are highly likely to re-offend: Studies have consistently shown sex offenders, as a whole, have a far lower rate of re-offending than any other crime type. Even long-term studies by reputable researchers found low rates of recidivism (between 2%-10% in most studies as long as 15 years) [4]. For every ultra-rare tragedy like Somer’s, there are thousands of “blood red dots” on that registry who have no involvement with that case, or another case, for that matter.

• Most sex crimes are committed by sex offenders: The registry leads people to believe sex offenders are the only ones committing sex crimes, but stats show the vast majority of sex crimes (between 87% and 96%) are committed by someone not on a publicly accessible registry [5]. Furthermore, the people most likely to molest a child are the immediate family members or closest acquaintances of the child, nearly all of them are likely not on a public registry, either [6].

• Sex offenders cannot be cured: Many treatment programs are available, and studies show treatment works, reducing recidivism rates by at least half or more [7]. Unfortunately, treatment programs for sex offenders are rarer than the tragedies which spawn sex offender legislation.

• Sex Offenders have 117 victims on average: The stat is a misinterpretation of a result from a study with relied on self-reporting and polygraph examinations, which came on the heels of the ill-fated Daycare Abuse scare of the late 1980s/ early 1990s [8]. Again, while some pedophiles have had many victims, the vast majority of sex offenders have had one victim, not counting the cases involving streaking, public urination, or consensual teen relations.

Actually the "117 victims" is a stat not from the study mentioned above (Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs), instead it is from one cited by virtually all law enforcement, law makers and public speakers. It is Abel, Gene G. The Evaluation of Child Molesters: Final Report to the Center on Antisocial and Violent Behavior. Rockville, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health, 1985. NIMH Grant MH33678-01, "The Evaluation of Child Molesters," May 1, 1980 - April 30, 1983 (extended to July 31, 1985). Principal Investigator.

• Tougher sex offender laws are the solution: Sex offender laws come with a heavy price; vigilante violence, homelessness and unemployment, social ostracism, and stress are just a few of the negative consequences facing not only those forced to register, but also those loved ones who support the registrant [9]. The city of Miami recently made international headlines for forcing recently released former offenders to live under the The Julia Tuttle Causeway, with powerful lobbyist and head of the homeless trust Ron Book spearheading the movement to keep them there [10].

Our society is so plagued by myths, mistruths, and misconceptions, I could write a book about it. Actually, I did write a book, entitled “Once Fallen,” a look at the “other side” of this issue, along with a free fact based site on sex offender laws and issues (www.oncefallen.com). Over the course of my research, I found we have forsaken programs that work in favor of fear-based and anger-based legislation. Even Patty Wetterling, who lobbied for a national sex offender registry, has stated we have gone too far with our laws and are in serious need of reform [11]. Exploitation of children goes far beyond abuse, as many organizations are selling fear and anger to the masses while reaping the benefits. There is no incentive to offer a rational solution to this crisis, because a solution means loss of business.

Sadly, many churches and “Christians” also jump on the bandwagon; many churches deny services to sex offenders, who are also in need of God’s giving grace and salvation. Recently, the Jefferson Hills Christian Church in Imperial, Missouri sponsored a series of billboards asking, “What’s Forgivable?” The general consensus in the local media was only sex offenders were unforgivable [12]. Some even stated sex offenders deserve “The Mark of Cain.”

But the Bible is very clear on forgiveness, on God’s giving grace, on repentance, and penance. With the exception of Christ, virtually every great Biblical hero fell short and committed great sins. Even mighty King David had one of his most faithful servants killed to hide the fact he impregnated his servant’s wife. God gave punishment, but after David repented God granted mercy and favor upon him. God even granted mercy to the first biblical villain, Cain; the “Mark of Cain” was not a scarlet letter, but a mark of protection from would-be vigilantes exacting revenge for his crimes. Cain was also allowed a wife and founded a city.

Few people, Christian or otherwise, have given much thought to dealing with sex offenders in the community outside of fear and loathing. In 2006, a man used the Maine registry to execute two registrants, one of whom was a 19 year old who had consensual relations with a 16 year old. Across the country, in Washington, a similar double murder of registrants had occurred in 2005 [13]. The wife of a man accused of possessing child porn died in a fire set by the man’s neighbors in Tennessee in 2007 [14]. In 2008, a Washington woman with a decade long history of violent assaults and drug crimes was canonized for an unprovoked assault with a baseball bat on a registrant, who was age 14 when he was listed on the state registry. People across the country sent this woman money and protested the woman’s meager 90 day sentence for assault with a deadly weapon [15]. Message boards are filled with death threats and hatred, even on Christian sites, even this very site. None of these acts have helped to solve the issue, instead, giving more incentive for registrants to disobey the laws.

If we want to address sex crimes in America, we need an honest approach. We need to seriously consider what truly works, not what simply feeds our anger and fear and makes us “feel good.” We forget sex offenders are also human beings, capable of remorse and redemption. We forget how easily we can fall into our own sins, all of which is the same in the eyes of God.

There are ways to address this issue from a realistic standpoint. We may not be able to stop every tragedy from happening, but we prevent much more sexual abuse by looking at the issue honestly. We must put aside our preconceived notions and our emotions and stick with what works. The right knowledge is power. Prevention and education programs do indeed exist, which addresses sexual abuse from a realistic and rational standpoint (such as the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center and Stop It Now!). We need to educate our youth on sexual responsibility and accountability, and not just from a fear mongering perspective. Sex education must include discussions on sex crime laws. We also need to have a balanced and healthy view of sex, meaning we can teach sexual responsibility in a tasteful manner without simply saying, “Don’t have sex or you’ll go to hell or jail.” Remember, we are a culture that needs disclaimers on coffee cups lest we burn our laps. We also need to actually talk about sex; these days when a person is struggling with sexual idolatry, they have almost nowhere to turn. Our society shuns sexual deviancy so much, even mental health professionals who work with sex offenders or deviants are shunned.

Prevention is only part of the solution; proper rehabilitation of the sex offender is a must. Of those who do re-offend, two-thirds of them will do so within the first two years of release. Thus, transitional homes and support networks (such as www.sosen.org) are keys to reducing already low recidivism rates. Social ostracism and denial of services, housing, employment, and support has already proven disastrous for our society; all those approaches achieve is reinforcing faulty belief systems of those struggling with sexual idolatry and giving ample incentive to disobey the law. A Rand Corporation study has shown every dollar spent on prevention and rehabilitation programs save up seven dollars that would otherwise be spent on running offenders through the justice system [16].

Most importantly, we need to honor victims by helping victims of sex crimes overcome the crimes committed against them. These days, if a victim forgives his or her attacker, many people look at them like they are crazy. What good does keeping victims thinking about what happened to them and the guilt and anger they feel rather than dealing with those feelings? The result is many more lives remain broken rather than healed, making them lifelong victims rather than “Thrivers.”

In our narrow focus on the “Registered Sex Offender,” we tend to forget the big picture. Appeals to emotion rather than reason helped create a legal system of perpetual brokenness for victims, offenders, and the community alike. So has the illusion of “innocence.” Your child is innocent until he is thrust into the criminal justice system for crossing a line he or she never addressed or even knew about. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is it an excuse for breaking the law. McDonald’s will give you a disclaimer for hot coffee in a cup. Yet no one is giving your child disclaimers on our legal system. If you don’t learn to be honest with your children about sexual issues, who will? ..Source.. by Derek Warren Logue, Civil Rights Advocate, Author of “Once Fallen” and Website OnceFallen

References
1. http://hawaii.gov/ag/mcch/main/faqs/files/nismart2_overview.pdf

2. http://www.dallasnews.com/database/2009/sexoffenders.html

3. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

4. http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf; http://www.oncefallen.com/Recidivism101.html

5. Jeffrey C. Sandler, Naomi J. Freeman, and Kelly M. Socia, “Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 14, No. 4, Nov. 2008; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf, page 11

6. Janus ES: Failure to Protect: America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2006

7. http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf; http://www.vcsc.state.va.us/sex_off_report.pdf

8. See http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html, Myth #7

9. John Q. La Fond, "Preventing Sexual Violence." APA 2005; http://ccoso.org/Vilification.pdf

10. See http://www.oncefallen.com/juliatuttlecauseway.html

11. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/06/11/sexoffender1/

12. http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=183424&catid=3

13. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/national/main1501271.shtml

14. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/national/main3262871.shtml

15. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/40457662.html#idc-container

16. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/policy/html/treatwork.html

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...