The Quiet Man

Here, the whole Gospel message with attributes. This is quite a lesson, I wish a touch of this kindness would be bestowed on those who have to register as sex offenders along with their families.

2-28-2010 National:

Carl was a quiet man. He didn't talk much. He would always greet you with a big smile and a firm handshake. Even after living in our neighborhood for over 50 years, no one could really say they knew him very well.

Before his retirement, he took the bus to work each morning. The lone sight of him walking down the street often worried us. He had a slight limp from a bullet wound received in World War II. Watching him, we worried that although he had survived the war, he may not make it through our changing uptown neighborhood with its ever-increasing random violence, gangs, and drug activity.

When he saw the flier at our local church asking for volunteers for caring for the gardens behind the minister's residence, he responded in his characteristically unassuming manner. Without fanfare, he just signed up.

He was well into his 87th year when the very thing we had always feared finally happened. He was just finishing his watering for the day when three gang members approached him. Ignoring their attempt to intimidate him, he simply asked, "Would you like a drink from the hose?" The tallest and toughest-looking of the three said, "Yeah, sure," with a malevolent little smile. As Carl offered the hose to him, the other two grabbed Carl's arm, throwing him down. As the hose snaked crazily over the ground, dousing everything in its way, Carl's assailants stole his retirement watch and his wallet, and then fled.

Carl tried to get himself up, but he had been thrown down on his bad leg. He lay there trying to gather himself as the minister came running to help him. Although the minister had witnessed the attack from his window, he couldn't get there fast enough to stop it. "Carl, are you okay? Are you hurt?" the minister kept asking as he helped Carl to his feet. Carl just passed a hand over his brow and sighed, shaking his head.

"Just some punk kids. I hope they'll wise up someday." His wet clothes clung to his slight frame as he bent to pick up the hose. He adjusted the nozzle again and started to water.

Confused and a little concerned, the minister asked, "Carl, what are you doing?"

"I've got to finish my watering. It's been very dry lately," came the calm reply.

Satisfying himself that Carl really was all right, the minister could only marvel. Carl was a man from a different time and place.

A few weeks later the three returned. Just as before their threat was unchallenged. Carl again offered them a drink from his hose. This time they didn't rob him. They wrenched the hose from his hand and drenched him head to foot in the icy water. When they had finished their humiliation of him, they sauntered off down the street, throwing catcalls and curses, falling over one another laughing at the hilarity of what they had just done.

Carl just watched them. Then he turned toward the warmth giving sun, picked up his hose, and went on with his watering. The summer was quickly fading into fall. Carl was doing some tilling when he was startled by the sudden approach of someone behind him.

He stumbled and fell into some evergreen branches As he struggled to regain his footing, he turned to see the tall leader of his summer tormentors reaching down for him. He braced himself for the expected attack.

"Don't worry old man, I'm not gonna hurt you this time." The young man spoke softly, still offering the tattooed and scarred hand to Carl. As he helped Carl get up, the man pulled a crumpled bag from his pocket and handed it to Carl.

"What's this?" Carl asked.

"It's your stuff," the man explained. "It's your stuff back. Even the money in your wallet."

"I don't understand," Carl said. "Why would you help me now?"

The man shifted his feet, seeming embarrassed and ill at ease. "I learned something from you," he said. "I ran with that gang and hurt people like you. We picked you because you were old and we knew we could do it. But every time we came and did something to you, instead of yelling and fighting back, you tried to give us a drink. You didn't hate us for hating you. You kept showing love against our hate." He stopped for a moment "I couldn't sleep after we stole your stuff, so here it is back." He paused for another awkward moment, not knowing what more there was to say. "That bag's my way of saying thanks for straightening me out, I guess." And with that, he walked off down the street.

Carl looked down at the sack in his hands and gingerly opened it. He took out his retirement watch and put it back on his wrist. Opening his wallet, he checked for his wedding photo. He gazed for a moment at the young bride that still smiled back at him from all those years ago.

He died one cold day after Christmas that winter. Many people attended his funeral in spite of the weather. In particular the minister noticed a tall young man that he didn't know sitting quietly in a distant corner of the church.

The minister spoke of Carl's garden as a lesson in life. In a voice made thick with unshed tears, he said, "Do your best and make your garden as beautiful as you can. We will never forget Carl and his garden."

The following spring another flier went up. It read: "Person needed to care for Carl's garden." The flier went unnoticed by the busy parishioners until one day when a knock was heard at the minister's office door. Opening the door, the minister saw a pair of scarred and tattooed hands holding the flier. "I believe this is my job, if you'll have me," the young man said.

The minister recognized him as the same young man who had returned the stolen watch and wallet to Carl. He knew that Carl's kindness had turned this man's life around. As the minister handed him the keys to the garden shed, he said, "Yes, go take care of Carl's garden and honor him."

The man went to work and, over the next several years, he tended the flowers and vegetables just as Carl had done. In that time, he went to college, got married, and became a prominent member of the community. But he never forgot his promise to Carl's memory and kept the garden as beautiful as he thought Carl would have kept it.

One day he approached the new minister and told him that he couldn't care for the garden any longer. He explained with a shy and happy smile, "My wife just had a baby boy last night, and she's bringing him home on Saturday."

"Well, congratulations!" said the minister, as he was handed the garden shed keys. "That's wonderful! What's the baby's name?"

"Carl," he replied.

That's the whole gospel message simply stated. ..Source.. Sermon Illustration Library copyright © 2006-2010 by Scott Severance

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Danaher: Common sense on nudity

2-28-2010 Colorado:

How about if we bring some common sense to the streaking and sex offender registration issue? On one hand we have some who claim that running around without any clothes on is a form of protected "speech," and on the other, current law requires that we brand those incarcerated for participating in the World Naked Bike Ride or the Naked Pumpkin Run with the same label that a rapist earns. I think both extremes are extreme.

In addition to thinking running around nude is a form of free speech, according to Judd Golden of the Boulder Chapter of the ACLU, "There is a long history of nudity in political and social protests." I agree that getting naked has been associated with protests. But I would argue that it's a form of civil disobedience. And like other forms of civil disobedience -- sitting in the road of the entrance to Rocky Flats nuke plant, chaining oneself to the door of an abortion clinic, or tree sitting -- it likely results in an arrest, often for a public nuisance violation.

I just don't buy the argument that prohibiting public nudity "threatens individual rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights" as stated by Golden. And I agree with Boulder city officials who state: "Public displays of nudity at events and in crowds have the tendency to create a crowd mentality that can lead to other law-enforcement problems. If left unchecked, these issues will often lead to other disorder-type crimes, as the crowd believes that disorder is the norm, especially in circumstances where alcohol is consumed."

At the other extreme, in our zeal to prevent another child from being molested, we are throwing the sex offender label at anyone who is convicted of any sex crime, no matter how minor. In Colorado, as in many other states, conviction of an indecent exposure crime was added to the list of those having mandatory sex offender registration. The list also includes things like child molestation, abduction and rape. And registration is for life. Giving streakers and rapists the same label is absolutely irrational.

The idea of a sex offender registry is that those identified can't be rehabilitated and therefore pose a danger to the public. And, logically, alerting an ex-con's neighbors and potential employers is a reasonable thing to do. Imagine that you had a toddler in a neighborhood with a repeat child molester living a few doors down. Or that you owned a day care, or ran a youth camp and were hiring help. You would like to know if you were making the children in your care accessible to a predator.

Adding streakers' names to the registry is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it isn't fair to the offender to have to live with such a shameful -- not to mention, inaccurate -- tag, forever. Second, because so many convicted of minor crimes are being added to the registry, the label is rapidly losing its significance. Nationwide, the sex offender registry is approaching 1 million people. But only a fraction of those are dangerous.

But a reasonable resolution may be within sight. If either of two different legislative measures -- one now in the Colorado General Assembly and one being considered by Boulder City Council -- becomes law, Boulder Police will finally have a reasonable way to deal with naked pranksters.

Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett is currently working with the state legislature to change the Public Indecency law to include Naked Pumpkin Run-type activities. As a result, such behaviors would be prosecuted under the Public Indecency statute -- a petty offense, most likely resulting in just a fine -- instead of the Indecent Exposure one, a class 1 misdemeanor, which requires registration. Garnett foresees little opposition to the passage of the measure.

On the city level, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner has helped write an ordinance that would allow the streakers to be prosecuted under the to-be-revised nudity ordinance. According to Chief Beckner, this change will reduce inequities in current law enforcement and bring some much needed common sense.

The ACLU thinks this is a step back to the Victorian era, where women had to cover their legs. Not to worry.

Thankfully there is a middle ground, between condoning public nudity and labeling pranksters as incurable. Let's encourage our elected officials to do the right thing. I bet it's even possible for us to do that without stripping down. ..Source.. Charlie Danaher

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Wary of predators -- and politicians

2-28-2010 Maryland:

Since June 2005, I have had some kind of contact -- telephone conversation, face-to-face meeting, e-mail exchange, letter exchange -- with about 5,000 convicted criminals or their relatives, counselors and friends. (The number might be closer to 6,000, but I stopped keeping count a couple of years ago.)

Some of the contact has been substantive, providing material for this column on the challenges facing ex-offenders in the transition from prison to free society.

A lot of the contact has been perfunctory -- the ex-offenders give me their names and addresses, and I mail them a list of companies that might hire them or agencies that might help them. (Note to those who have contacted me in the last six weeks: We are updating the list and will get it to you as soon as possible.) In my years of trying to steer ex-offenders to re-entry programs or jobs, I have heard every kind of story, from the 20-something East Baltimore heroin dealer who wanted to "stop sellin' poison to my people" to the West Baltimore father who wanted to get his son off the street and into an apprenticeship program.

The men and women who called here had been convicted of all kinds of crimes: armed robbery, aggravated assault, forging checks, possession with intent to distribute heroin -- and mostly the latter. Tired of prison, they wanted to find work not prohibited by law. It's hard to say how many were earnest, but most certainly seemed to be when they first contacted me.

And I was willing to help them, to the extent that I could.

But I haven't been so willing to help sex offenders.

About a year into writing columns on this subject, I started getting calls for help from middle-aged men who had been convicted of various degrees of sexual crimes -- possession of child pornography, assault, child molestation -- and I had a bad reaction. You might call it the creeps.

I didn't want to help them, but more importantly, I didn't think I could. While some Maryland companies have given jobs to recovering alcoholics, drug addicts, former drug dealers and car thieves, it didn't seem likely they would hire someone on the state sex offender registry.

Plus, those companies, all admirable for their willingness to give second chances, didn't deserve sex offenders at their door. So I wasn't about to refer any of them. My initial interest in all this was in getting drug dealers off the streets of Baltimore, not in helping middle-aged rapists and perverts find jobs.

I just didn't want to be associated with second chances for sexual predators.

I'm sure that would be the reaction of most people, even those of you who have expressed general sympathy for ex-offenders seeking employment. Most readers who've given an opinion about this agree that the United States needs more corrections in corrections, stronger re-entry planning and more opportunity for adults once released from our prisons.

But I doubt the majority feel that way about sexual offenders.

It's understandable. The nature of their crimes, especially those involving children, causes an acutely visceral reaction. Plus, public opinion has been stoked by grandstanding politicians for years. So we have online registries and community notification policies, in the name of public safety. We have federal laws on sexual offenders, too.

But beware, fellow citizens. This winter in Annapolis, we have dozens of new bills -- the count the other day was 75 and growing -- to toughen the many sexual offender laws that already exist. It's an election year, coming on the heels of the highly publicized kidnapping and murder of an 11-year-old girl, and filing a bill on sexual offenders is a tough-on-crime guarantee. The cry is, literally, "Do something!" And that, apparently, could mean anything: expand the online offender registry to include juveniles and anyone who committed crimes back in the 1980s and even the 1970s, eliminate good behavior credits for sex offenders in prison, and require lifetime monitoring of some offenders.

As I've admitted: I am neither sympathetic toward nor inclined to help sexual offenders. But we appear to be piling on, so that those who successfully change their thinking and their behavior might never get up and get going again. When so many politicians, including the governor, exploit an issue such as this, that's when I really get the creeps. ..Editorial.. by Dan Rodricks

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Senate votes to close McNeil prison

2-28-2010 Washington:

Legislature: Sex offenders would stay

The state Senate approved a spending plan Saturday that would shut down McNeil Island Corrections Center, leaving only sex offenders confined on the island.

Under the plan, the 1,200-inmate prison near Steilacoom would close by June 30, 2011.

The costs of its island location, including a separate water system and reliance on a ferry, have made McNeil a target for budget cutters. Closing it instead of another prison that had been proposed for closure is estimated to save $25 million.

Over in the House, Democrats’ spending plan calls for downsizing the prison by half, not closing it. That’s what Democratic senators originally proposed, but the Senate budget committee voted just before 11 p.m. Friday to close the prison entirely.

A Pierce County senator who railed against the closure said he’s counting on his area’s legislators with influence in the House to keep the proposal from becoming reality.

“Who is going to be guarding the sex predators, which are considered so dangerous that it is a life sentence, if they escape?” Republican Sen. Mike Carrell asked the committee.

The Special Commitment Center on the island houses sexually violent predators deemed by judges to be so dangerous they must be confined even though they’ve completed their sentences.

What security measures would exist at the center if the prison were abandoned still is being worked out, along with the logistics of running ferry transport and water and sewer systems that now are managed by the Department of Corrections, with help from cheap inmate labor. A consultant’s report last fall recommended against closing the prison, citing the cost of maintaining those services and the difficulty of providing security.

The Senate budget would provide money to support continued confinement of sex offenders on the island.

“Nobody’s suggesting that we simply leave them in the hotel all by themselves,” Republican Sen. Joe Zarelli said.

Sen. Craig Pridemore, a Vancouver Democrat, proposed shutting down McNeil instead of a prison in his area, Larch Corrections Center. Zarelli, from nearby Ridgefield, said Larch is more cost-effective.

The Teamsters, whose ranks include more than 500 McNeil employees, complained that closing the prison would mean lost jobs and lack of space for a prison population projected to grow, said Tracey Thompson, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 117.

“I understand the need in a time of significant budget deficits the need to be finding ways to reduce costs and find efficiencies,” she said, “but this seems like shooting yourself in the foot.” ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge Bans Activation Of Laptop Webcams

2-27-2010 Pennsylvania:

Lower Merion Schools Must Preserve Laptop Data

PHILADELPHIA - A federal court judge has ordered Lower Merion School District employees not to re-activate the laptop theft recovery program that is the focus of a high school student's cyber-spying claims.

Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins and his parents contend in their lawsuit he was disciplined as a result of a webcam image, and they had no idea the school-issued laptops were capable of taking pictures of students in their own homes.

Lower Merion officials have since said the laptop feature – used for recovery of stolen or missing laptops – was only utilized when schools were notified of missing computers, and the district has defended the actions of a Harriton assistant principal named in the suit.

The district said last week it stopped remotely activating the webcams, but the student's lawyer said that wasn't enough and sought an emergency temporary restraining order.

After a 2:30 p.m. hearing Monday went into recess for discussions abour language, the judge ordered shortly before 5 p.m. that the district and its "employees or agents are prohibited from remotely activating any and all webcams embedded in laptop computers."

Both parties stipulated to the wording of the order, which goes on to say the district won't contact anybody who could become party to the potential class-action lawsuit.

The district must preserve "all electronic data, files and storage media that pertain to the plaintiffs' claims."

And the two sides agreed to fully cooperate with any law enforcement and evidence preservation requests, which includes using a mutually-agreed-upon forensic consultant to make a mirror image of Robbins' hard drive, Fox 29's Sean Tobin reported outside the federal courthouse.

ACLU, U.S. Attorney Get Involved

Earlier in the day, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed its own paperwork with the court supporting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction.

The ACLU filed its "friend of the court brief," citing other cases in which the groups says courts have found such surveillance to be "Orwellian."

The Associate Press previously reported that the FBI is probing the matter, and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office is gathering information.

The FBI and Montgomery County District Attorney were already reported to be probing the matter, and now so is the regional U.S. Attorney's Office.

"Our focus will only be on whether anyone committed any crimes. At this point, very few facts are known," United States Attorney Michael L. Levy said.

The school district has already admitted and apologized for never letting students or parents know about the webcam technology.

In a Q&A document posted on the Lower Merion Web site Friday, the district superintendent admitted, "no formal notice" was given to students or their parents. In a questionnaire that accompanied the document, the superintendent said, "We regret that was not done." And in a Sunday night Web site posting, the attorney hired to review district practices, said, "to the extent any mistakes were made ... we will make recommendations for any needed changes."

The question is whether that admitted failure to notify is a smoking gun that will cost the district big time in a civil lawsuit.

Law Professor's Take

David Post, a Temple University law professor who specializes in Internet issues, told Fox 29 News, "The failure to get permission was just a colossal mistake on their part. I mean, there's no other way, as a legal matter, as sort of a moral matter, as a school administrative matter – somebody dropped the ball on that. I mean, we all make mistakes…"

Is that the kind of thing that could cost the district? "Oh, absolutely," Post said.

Post gave Lower Merion credit for admitting the failure to notify early and often, getting out in front of that part of the story. He noted the information would have come out sooner or later, and the admission sends the right message to parents.

Who Already Knew?

We know there was no formal notification by the district, there was a sense that some folks knew about it, anyway. Some students said they had a vague feeling they were being watched, and acted accordingly.

Fox 29 News called the president of the teachers' union, the Lower Merion Education Association, and asked whether Harriton teachers use district-issued laptops. The answer was "yes."

Asked whether those teachers knew the computers could be used as a remote camera, the answer was "no comment." ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Efforts to Close Loophole in Meghan's Law Underway in State Senate

2-27-2010 Pennsylvania:

(HARRISBURG) With strong bipartisan support, Senator Gene Yaw, R-Loyalsock, introduced Senate Bill 1231 which requires transient workers who have a record of sexual offenses to register with the state police every 30 days.

"This legislation amending Megan's Law which will address a problem noted in the Pennsylvania Superior Court's holding in the case of Commonwealth v. Wilgus," Yaw said. "In Wilgus, the Superior Court held that Megan's Law did not apply to sexually violent predators and sexual offenders who are homeless, because the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act did not specifically address transients or homeless persons."

"My legislation will overturn the court case by specifically including transients under Megan's Law. Once the legislation is enacted, sexually violent predators and sexual offenders who must register under Megan's Law will not be outside the law even if they are homeless," he added.

According to Yaw, currently, eight states possess registration requirements for transients. Just as in California, this legislation will require transients who are sexually violent predators to register every 30 days at approved registration sites. The duty to register every 30 days remains until the sexually violent predator establishes a residence.

It also includes provisions for victim notification and notification to the public over the Internet if a sexually violent predator or sexual offender who is required to register under Megan's Law becomes a transient or homeless person.

"In Lycoming County, an individual with a known record of sexual offenses in Ohio was recently released from prison because of this loophole," Yaw said. "This individual had been a worker at the Lycoming County Fair, last July. He was arrested for public drunkenness and eventually charged with failing to register with local authorities as a sex offender."

"I am extremely grateful for the support that I have received from my colleagues," Yaw said. "Currently, this bill has introduced with 22 cosponsors and I expect more to sign onto the bill before it is considered.

A companion piece of legislation has also been introduced into the State House. ..Source.. Sen. Yaw Press Release

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Report: Prosecutors charging DNA evidence with crimes

Given a crime scene likely has DNA from many folks who have been there beforehand, it seems this net will draw in many folks who have nothing to do with whatever crime was committed there. But, prosecutors simply do not care. ACLU should be jumping on this one!

2-27-2010 National:

In their effort to beat the statutes of limitations that prevent people from being charged with a crime after a certain amount of time has passed, prosecutors in some parts of the US are trying a new tactic: They're charging half-eaten food, saliva-crusted glasses or other inanimate objects with the crime.

That's because prosecutors now have DNA evidence as a way to get around statutes of limitations. One way to make sure a criminal doesn't get away by hiding long enough is to simply charge the DNA itself, and wait until the DNA is matched to an actual person.

Laura Bauer of the Kansas City Star reported Monday that prosecutors "in a few pockets of the country" have begun issuing "John Doe" arrest warrants that identify only a person's unique DNA signature. Once the arrest warrant on the DNA is in place, the statute of limitations on the applicable crime will no longer run out. Bauer reports:

Since 2002, Jackson County [Missouri] prosecutors have filed 28 John Doe complaints....

Whenever a burglary, robbery or vandalism with DNA evidence is nearing its statute of limitation, police alert [prosecutor Ted] Hunt’s office, and prosecutors file a no-name charge.

By filing these complaints, and charging the DNA instead of a named suspect, prosecutors put cases on hold until they know whose genetic fingerprint they charged. These cases otherwise wouldn’t be solved within the statute of limitations, and the suspects would be let off scot-free.

But it may be more than "a few pockets of the country" that are trying out this technique. According to the Web site of the district attorney for Denver, Colorado, "John Doe" DNA warrants have been used at least in California, Colorado, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.

“We may have 2 1/2 years left" on the statue of limitations, Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey told the KC Star. "It doesn’t matter, we file the case. ... We freeze everything in place. … Otherwise, the bad guy gets away.”

Last month, the Supreme Court of California ruled that no-name warrants based on DNA evidence are allowed under state laws. According to Kelly Lowenberg at the Stanford Law School blog, the court ruled that DNA-based warrants are specific enough to be constitutional, and that they do "stop the clock running" on statutes of limitations.

But while this new crime-fighting technique may be useful to prosecutors, it raises questions about the relevance of statutes of limitations on crimes in the age of DNA. Defense attorneys argue that statues of limitations exist for a reason -- if a person is charged with a crime after too long a period, it may be difficult to defend against the charges. "People’s memories fade" and "witnesses move and can’t be found," Bauer reports at the KC Star.

“If a defendant in a property crime is arrested 20 years after the fact, based on his DNA, he’s not able to defend himself effectively,” Kansas City defense attorney J.R. Hobbs told the KC Star.

And the likelihood of the long arm of the law reaching even further grows as DNA databases in the US and around the world expand.

Last year, the FBI announced it would start collecting DNA samples from people who weren't charged with a crime. Thus far, only people charged with an offense had their DNA taken. It's estimated that the FBI's database will grow at a rate of 1.2 million DNA profiles per year from now on, compared to a growth rate of about 80,000 per year prior to the new policy. The FBI already has an estimated 6.7 million DNA profiles on record.

Some civil rights advocates worry about the implications to privacy and personal freedom from a growing reliance among governments on DNA evidence. For instance, in the United Kingdom it was alleged last year that police forces were randomly arresting people simply to get their DNA on to the books. Some accused British police forces of racial profiling in that effort, noting that three-quarters of Britain's black males under the age of 35 are now on the DNA database.

The KC Star's Bauer notes that DNA is now being used in a much wider array of criminal investigations than has been the case in the past. While DNA testing was usually reserved for murder and rape investigations, its easy availability today means it is being used in robbery and even vandalism cases.

Denver police are so aggressive that they worked on a case in which a car window was broken and just $1.40 in coins were stolen.

A drop of blood was found on a car seat. When no match came up in the database, they went even further, checking for near-matches in what’s called a “familial DNA” search.

The name of a convicted felon came up. In the end, the felon’s brother was arrested.

..Source.. Daniel Tencer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Baltimore Sun Poll about Juveniles on the registry: Please particpate and pass on

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jaycee Dugard May Sue California Department of Correction

2-26-2010 California:

Nancy and Phillip Garrido Head to Court on Motion to Meet as 'Family'

Jaycee Dugard has filed documents suggesting she may sue the state of California claiming that state "lapses" allowed convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy to kidnap her as a child and hold her prisoner for 18 years.

Dugardfiled her notice of claim against the California Department of Correction. Her mother Terry Probyn and two minor children she bore to Garrido during her captivity have filed similar claims.

Dugard's lawsuit, according to The Associated Press, does not specify the amount of damages being sought except to say that it is in excess of $25,000.

Dugard's spokeswoman, Nancy Seltzer, told the AP that the family members haven't decided whether they'll file a lawsuit.

"We are simply preserving Jaycee Dugard's right to file a lawsuit at a later date, if that is something she decides is in her family's best interest," Seltzer said

Dugard was kidnapped in 1991 at age 11, and held captive in a warren of shacks and tents in Garrido's back yard for nearly two decades.

As a registered sex offender with a violent history, Garrido was not allowed to be around children, but corrections department officials who were responsible by keeping tabs on Garrido never noticed Dugard's presence and later never questioned the presence of two young girls at Garrido's house.

The claims became public on the same day that Phillip and Nancy Garrido were scheduled to appear in court for a judge to consider two motions prosecutors have slammed as outlandish.

The couple has requested to meet with each other in jail to discuss "family" issues and Phillip Garrido's attorney has filed a motion to force prosecutors into revealing the secret location where Dugard and her daughters have been living since their rescue last August.

Garridos' "Family" Requests Slammed by Prosecutors

Prosecutors have slammed both requests. The request of the Garridos for a jailhouse meeting was quickly pounced on by El Dorado County Sheriff Fred Kollar.

"The psuedo-family the Garridos want to discuss was created by the kidnap, false imprisonment and multiple rapes of a young girl, producing two children," the sheriff state in court documents opposing the Garridos' request.

"While it may be argued that a restoration of family values would improve the quality of American life in general, the assertion of family rights in a case where the 'family' was the produce of 29 alleged felonies is astonishing," the sheriff continued.

In the conclusion to the papers filed on behalf of the sheriff, Kollar states that "Garridos' invocation of the sanctity of 'family' is breathtaking in its audacity."

Among the concerns outlined in the sheriff's rebuttal are the discussion of escape plans, creation of phony testimony and plans by one inmate to coerce or control the other.

"The essence of being in jail is that you don't get to visit whoever you please, under the conditions you might prefer," the sheriff's motion read.

Prosecutors and the defense have been tight-lipped about the case as it inches forward in the courts, but a series of filings and tactics have made public a complicatedlegal tug-of-war.

Earlier this month, prosecutors released portions of a diary Dugard kept during the 18 years she was allegedly imprisoned in the Garridos' backyard in hopes of persuading the judge to keep Dugard's current location a secret in the face of Phillip Garrido's attempts to find her from jail.

The words were heartbreaking. Six years before Dugard was freed from the backyard prison, she wrote, "How can I ever tell him I want to be free. Free to come and go as I please ... free to say I have a

Jaycee Dugard's Plea to Be Free

"It feels like I'm sinking. ... This is supposed to be my life to do with what I like ... but once again he has taken it away," Dugard wrote in another entry, dated July 5, 2004. "How many times is he allowed to take it away from me? I am afraid he doesn't see how the things he says makes me a prisoner."

The district attorney has asked for a court order preventing the Garridos from having contact with her or her family. ..Source.. SARAH NETTER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lake Michigan College bans child-sex convicts

Other articles relevant to this issue: Indiana wants to trim cost of educating inmates (Note comment: Education reduces recidiviism) --- Some Question Why Sex Offender Still Can't Read (Note: Education affects sex offender therapy) --- Three State Recidivism Study (Note: The analysis of the data indicates that inmates who participated in education programs while incarcerated showed lower rates of recidivism after three years. For each state the three measures of recidivism, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration were significantly lower.)

2-26-2010 Michigan:

Those on sex-offender registry or on parole or probation for sex offenses against children can no longer take classes on campus

BENTON HARBOR - People convicted of sex crimes against children and listed on the state's sex offender registry will no longer be able to take classes on any of Lake Michigan College's four campuses, and three students have been suspended with the new rule.

The community college made the announcement Feb. 17 on its Facebook page after someone questioned the new policy.

Dana Marie Edwards posted this comment: "Why is LMC, an adult education facility, discriminating by denying education to students who happen to have a CSC on their record?" CSC stands for criminal sexual conduct.

In an unsigned response, LMC said: "In the best interest of those we serve, we've made the decision that students convicted of sexual offenses in regards to children will not be allowed to take classes on LMC campuses, but may take online classes."

School officials said the decision was made earlier this month after a prospective student tried signing up for winter semester classes at the Bertrand Crossing campus near Niles and informed school officials he was a registered sex offender and his victim had been a child. The age of sexual consent in Michigan is 16.

"(He) self-identified during that process that (he'd) been convicted of criminal sexual conduct against a minor," said college spokeswoman Laura Kraklau. "This brought to light that we could have other students enrolled who could have the same conviction on their record. So that's kind of what sparked it."

Kraklau said the prospective student wasn't allowed to register, and afterward three students were suspended between Feb. 11-15. She said the dean of students met with each student, "and that meeting is considered due process."

Kraklau said tuition money has been reimbursed. The winter registration period runs between October and Jan. 11. She said the rule change was made Feb. 7.

"There's not yet a (formal) policy regarding this issue," Kraklau said. "The college cabinet (upper-level college administrators) made a decision for the protection of children on the college's four sites to not allow convicted child sex offenders who are still on the sex offender registry and/or on probation or parole to be students on any of our four campus locations."

She said administrators used the "other prohibited misconduct" section of the student conduct code to enforce the new rule. That section states that either the assistant dean of college life or the executive dean of student services can, with the president's approval, stipulate other actions that can be considered misconduct.

Kraklau said school officials are calling the removal of the three students from LMC suspensions, which means they'll be allowed to take classes on-site once they're no longer required to register as sex offenders and are no longer on probation or parole. But because offenders are required to register for either 25 years or life under Michigan law, the suspensions are essentially expulsions.

Along with the Bertrand Crossing campus in Niles, LMC has campuses in Benton Harbor, Benton Township and South Haven. The ban does not include students on the registry who have been convicted of a sex crime against an adult.

Kraklau said child day care is provided at the South Haven and Benton Township campuses, but children also use the other campuses. As an example, she cited the Youth Robotics and Fabrication classes being offered at Bertrand Crossing. The classes began in January and are open to children as young as 5.

LMC declined to release the names of the suspended students, citing federal privacy laws. The Michigan sex offender registry lists 10 sex offenders attending LMC's various campuses. Of those, five committed a sex crime against a child. Kraklau said that of the five, only the three suspended were actually students enrolled at LMC. Using information from the registry, The Herald-Palladium could not reach the prospective student or the three suspended students for comment.

Officials with the U.S. Department of Education said they did not know if any other college or university bans people convicted of committing sex crimes against children. An official of a national association of college registrars and admissions officers also said he was not aware of any other such college policy.

It wasn't immediately known if LMC's rule change could make the college vulnerable to a lawsuit for possibly violating the three suspended students' civil rights.

But one lawyer said the college's rule is overly broad and could ban students who pose no threat to students or children.

Blanket policies a problem

Miriam Aukerman, a lawyer with Legal Aid of Western Michigan, based in Grand Rapids and with an office in St. Joseph, said she couldn't speak specifically about the cases of the three suspended students and the one prohibited from enrolling. But she said some potential students could be unfairly excluded from enrolling at LMC.

"What I would say is that seems to me to be a pretty shortsighted policy," she said. "Because if you're denying admission or expelling anybody who is on the registry, you're going to catch a lot of people. Clearly the intention here is to not have the individuals on campus who are potentially dangerous.

"But the registry is much, much broader than that. It includes people who are on for offenses that are 'Romeo and Juliet' offenses. And even if these are three individuals - I don't know anything about their circumstances - (whose) cases are not that, they're obviously precluding other individuals from attending who might be in that situation.

"There's also lots of people who are on the registry who adjudicated as juveniles," continued Aukerman, who helps offenders with obstacles in re-entering society, such as obtaining housing and work. "There are people on the registry who are on for offenses they committed when they were 9 years old.

"The sociological research shows that juvenile offending and 'Romeo and Juliet' offending is not predictive of subsequent sexual misconduct. It's very different from what we think about as the kind of predatory behavior that people are concerned about.

"And so the concern really is that what universities should be doing is making individualized decisions, looking at the specific circumstances of everybody's case and saying, 'Is this person a danger to the community? Is this person a threat to the safety on our campus?' And if someone is, then it seems a university can make an appropriate decision. But making blanket policies that deny education based on someone's registered status is lumping everyone together when these situations are very fact specific."

Not a college's job

Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said determining who can and who can't attend college based on aspects of their criminal history can become a slippery slope. The AACRAO is a nonprofit Washington, D.C.-based organization that lobbies on behalf of higher education.

Nassirian said the ban could also be viewed as additional punishment for the convicted and not as a stop-gap safety measure. He said he's not aware of any other college or university banning sex offenders whose victim was a child.

"We tend to believe that the judicial system and the criminal justice system are the appropriate venues for working out who ought to have access to higher ed and who should not if it is a matter either of privilege or a matter of safety," Nassirian said.

"We don't think we in higher ed are qualified to conduct threat assessments on individuals, because, frankly, we're not qualified and we're not good at it. We think there are different professions that focus on different kinds of threats. We have law enforcement, and then the judicial system for people who may have criminal tendencies that may put others at risk. And we have the mental health infrastructure in this country as well as the public health infrastructure in this country to conduct threat assessments with regard to emotional, behavioral or medical issues.

"But it would be as silly for us to suddenly enact a ban on the basis of our medical judgments that people who sneeze should not be admitted to our school because, of course, they would be carrying the bird flu or the swine flu or whatever the next plague may be, as it is for us to get involved in other matters that we don't know about," Nassirian continued.

"We think we should do our job. We think we should assess people academically and reach out to them, and make sure that people who are academically qualified to benefit from education do so. We leave these other matters to other competent authorities and, you know, frankly, I think that's the way it ought to be." ..Source.. SHAWN McGRATH - H-P Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender enclave being dismantled

Ron Book and his Trust could be in serious trouble, if, the source of his funding is FEDERAL HUD money. Federal HUD funding is not allowed to be used for most sex offenders: SEE HERE.

2-26-2010 Florida:

The make-shift shantytown under the Julia Tuttle Causeway -- once home to more than 100 sex offenders -- is finally being dismantled.

The people living under the bridge have been a major source of controversy for years, stirring up political debate over where sex offenders should be allowed to live after their release from prison.

On Friday, a handful of residents -- not all of them sex offenders -- wandered amid the piles of wood, mattresses, empty tin cans and shredded tents that was once home to the excommunicated community.

In recent days, the shacks have been torn down, as officials with the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust slowly relocate the offenders to apartments, motels and trailer parks with promises that their rent will be paid for up to six months.

``They are moving people out of here left and right,'' said Terry Morton, a sex offender who has lived in a camper parked in the bushes for about a year.

He said they are talking about relocating him to a campground, and others have been moved into local apartments and motels.

Still, as homeless people are moved out, others move in.

Liza, a homeless woman for the past six years, arrived a couple of weeks ago, hoping that she, like the others, could get more stable housing offered by Miami-Dade officials. She filed her paperwork earlier in the week.

``I'm ecstatic,'' said Liza, who is not a sex offender.

But she and others also worry about how they are going to pay the rent after the six-month grant period is over.

The homeless enclave grew as local municipalities approved strict residency requirements that leave sex offenders with few, if any, places to live.

Under state law, sex offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools, child-care centers, parks or other areas where kids congregate. Miami-Dade has stricter requirements -- a 2,500-foot ban.

Miami Beach's law, for example, prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, bus stop, park, playground ``and other places where children can congregate.''

In January, Miami-Dade commissioners passed a sex offender ordinance that repeals more than 24 different sex offender laws enacted by municipalities within the county's borders. The new law creates one standard that commissioners hope will balance the need to protect children while still giving housing options to sex offenders and predators.

The ordinance also creates a new provision that supporters say is a more workable and realistic solution to protecting children: child-safety zones.

Under the child-safety zones, sex offenders are prohibited from loitering within 300 feet of where children congregate. In other words, it restricts sex offenders from being near children, but doesn't leave them homeless.

Currently, about 30 sexual offenders still live under the causeway, mostly in thin tents and cardboard boxes. In most cases, the sex offenders were placed under the bridge upon their release from prison by the state Department of Corrections. ..Source.. JULIE BROWN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

No more registration requirements for certain sex offenders?

2-26-2010 Arizona:

PHOENIX -- A proposed law that would erase registration requirements for certain sex offenders convicted of less violent crimes will likely go no further this legislative session.

House Bill 2569 was pulled from consideration Thursday during a Judiciary Committee meeting after lawmakers decided the legislation needed more work.

"This is important," said the bill's creator, Rep. Cecil Ash, R - Mesa. "When you deal with a law concerning sex offenders, you want to make sure everything is right.

"My goal was to get discussion started on this," he said. "But some language in this version may be too broad."

As written, the bill allows sex offenders to stop registering if they've finished jail and probation and can prove to a judge that they're no longer a public safety threat.

Hummm, there is a problem here. If the law says, once you finish jail and probation, you are free to go, where in the law does it say "you are still a danger to society?" This is backwards, the state must prove the registrant is a danger, not that the registrant must prove he isn't....Are other crimes this way too?

Ash said he will convene a panel of lawmakers, prosecutors and others to re-craft the bill, fine tuning it for later this legislative session or next.

Just a few hearings into the bill, he was faced with opposition from several groups, including N.A.I.L.E.M., a group that tracks state laws.

"Let me tell you, if once a sex offender, always a sex offender," said Diane Neill, the group's director.

But Ash and other lawmakers said that misses the legislation's main point.

"I was getting asked, 'How could you think about releasing child molesters and rapists back into the community?'" Ash said. "And that's not the intent - at all."

The bill has bi-partisan support. And lawmakers said sex offense laws in Arizona treat all cases virtually the same whether it's a 19-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old, a person caught urinating in public, or a child rapist.

"To fix this problem, we have to narrowly tailor the law," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D - Phoenix.

That's why Ash said the intent of HB2569 is to draw a line between very serious sex offenses and less serious ones.

"There is a wide net that has been cast out," he said. "And it catches everybody in it."

In Arizona, there are more than 10,200 registered sex offenders. State requires them to register for life, including every time they change addresses. ..Source.. Dave Biscobing

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Legislators say state may need to ease local sex offender restictions

2-25-2010 Florida:

Leaders of Broward’s cities, towns and villages asked state legislators on Thursday not to scale back local restrictions on where convicted sex offenders may live.

But several Broward legislators said they were reluctant to go along with the municipalities’ request.

Most of the county’s local governments have imposed restrictions preventing registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of places such as schools, school bus stops, day care centers or parks where children congregate.

The result: few places for them to live, leaving pockets of homeless sex offenders.

The most notorious location in South Florida is a colony of homeless sex offenders living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami. Broward also has a large concentration in Broadview Park, an area near State Road 7 and Interstate 595, surrounded by Plantation, Davie and Fort Lauderdale. Officials have said the neighborhood has the highest concentration of offenders in Broward.

When the spring legislative session convenes next week, one issue on the agenda is preempting local rules on the residency restrictions, possibly overriding some local restrictions and imposing a 1,500 limitation instead.

State Rep. Hazelle Rogers, D-Lauderhill, said the tougher local restrictions sound good, but there are significant side effects.

“These folks, at some time they are out of the penal system. They are out. They’ve served their time and they have to live somewhere,” she said. “Where do we house these people? They have family members that live in our cities, in our counties. Should they live under a bridge?”

More important than such wide bans on sex offenders residencies, Rogers said, is making sure their activities are controlled and that “we know where they are at all times.”

State Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, said the current restrictions are “creating a bigger problem as we’re witnessing under the bridge in Miami.”

“We know where they’re sleeping, but we don’t’ know what they’re doing during the day,” she said. “Most of us have gut reactions against sexual predators. The lowest of the low in our communities. But to outlaw them so that other cities have to take them…. It is not right. We can’t have a knee-jerk reaction to this. This needs to be a thought out social policy.”

Another side-effect of the increasingly restrictive residency rules in cities, towns and villages is that the few remaining pockets of unincorporated Broward are becoming home to more and more sex offenders, said state Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach.

“They very often become rife with child predators,” he said.

State Rep. Martin Kiar, D-Davie, disagreed with his colleagues.

He said the local restrictions are designed to “make sure that these deviants are kept away from our children. These proposals in Tallahassee would weaken your ordinances.”

If the state overrides the city, town and village restrictions, setting a rule prohibiting sex offenders within 1,500 feet of schools and other kid-friendly places, Kiar said, “it will bring these deviants closer to our kids.”

Wilton Manors Mayor Gary Resnick, president of the Broward League of Cities, said as a matter of principle the state shouldn’t meddle in the decisions the local governments have made.

“The solution in every city is going to be very different,” he said. “A one-size-fits-all is not going to work here.” ..Source.. Anthony Man

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

High Court Loosens Rule On Questioning Suspects

2-25-2010 National:

The U.S. Supreme Court has created a new rule governing the repeat questioning of suspects without a lawyer.

Until now, if a suspect refused to talk without an attorney, police were supposed to leave him alone. Once the suspect was released, it was not clear whether police could make a second attempt at interrogation or how long they had to wait. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court set a bright line of 14 days. After that, police have to readvise a suspect of his rights, but if this time they can get him to talk without his lawyer, the confession can be admitted in court.

The Supreme Court's decision came in the case of a Maryland man name Michael Shatzer, who was in prison for an unrelated crime when police first tried to talk to him about allegations that he had sexually abused his 3-year-old son. When police advised Shatzer of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer, he refused to talk and asked for a lawyer. Police didn't contact him again.

Two and a half years later, with Shatzer still in prison, police reopened the case and tried again, only this time Shatzer answered questions and gave incriminating answers.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, ruled, though, that those incriminating statements could not be used at trial. The state court cited a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that, without exception, police must stop all questioning once a defendant has asked for a lawyer.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court said unanimously that rule does not last for "eternity." Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia conceded that it is unusual for the court to "set forth precise time limits governing police action," but he added, "it is not unheard of." And, said Scalia, a 14-day break in custody "provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody."

George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg, author of a leading text on criminal law, says the rule is a "good" one. It's "totally arbitrary and created out of whole cloth by a majority of the court," he acknowledged, but "it provides very clear guidance to the police" and "gives people a chance to be free from police coercion."

Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher says the decision illustrates how the court has moved away from worrying about the coercion of suspects. A generation ago, he says, the court would likely have been closely divided on this question. "It just shows how far to the right the constitutional jurisprudence has moved, at least in this field," said Fisher.

Both criminal law professors agree on one thing. As Saltzburg puts it, "The most surprising thing is that Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, because he's constantly criticizing the court for making up rules. And this 14-day rule is a complete judicial creation. It comes out of nowhere."

Justice Scalia didn't really dispute that. But he said it was a practical line for the courts to draw.

Two justices did not join the opinion in full. Justice Clarence Thomas thought there should be no limit on when police can requestion a suspect. And Justice John Paul Stevens objected to the 14-day rule as so short that it made police appear to "lie" when they promise a suspect initially that he has the right to an attorney. The simple solution, suggested Stevens, is to provide such an attorney before trying to requestion a suspect. But he agreed that the 2 1/2-year hiatus in the Shatzer case was sufficiently long that police acted properly. ..Source.. Nina Totenberg

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Illinois ponders ‘sexting’ trend

2-25-2010 Illinois:

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. — Even for state lawmakers who have gotten used to confronting strange new societal issues spawned by technology — cyber stalking, Internet gambling, texting while driving — this one is daunting:

What do you do about the 14-year-old kid who gets caught snapping lewd images of herself with her cell phone and sending them to her boyfriend, ultimately risking a worldwide audience?

Illinois lawmakers are pondering how to address the issue of "sexting," or producing, sending or receiving sexually explicit imagery via cell phone or the Internet. Some data suggest that as many as 30 percent of teens who use cell phones engage in it. State law has no way to address it, short of charging the children involved (including the self-photographer) as child pornographers, which would require them to register as sex offenders.

Now Illinois proponents are calling for the creation of other legal options that would allow authorities to intervene without filing criminal charges against minors. Two measures under consideration in Springfield would provide legal power to force minors into counseling, community service and other responses short of incarceration if they engage in sexting.

"This is a calibrated response to a growing social problem," Matthew Jones, legislative liaison for the Illinois state's attorney's appellate prosecutor's office, told legislators in support of the more sweeping of the two measures. It would give courts the authority to order counseling and other responses toward all the minors involved, including the original self-photographer.

In Missouri, proposed restrictions on "sexting" were dropped from a crime bill late in the 2009 legislative session, and the issue hasn't been debated during this year's session.

Illinois apparently has never charged a "sexting" minor as a child pornographer, but other states have, and it remains an option for prosecutors under Illinois law. Jones described the current proposal as a way to intervene that won't "make these kids sex offenders for the rest of their lives."

"Right now, it's all or nothing," he said.

But some critics say that going after the kid who takes a photo, and the boyfriend or girlfriend who receives it but doesn't disseminate it, is unnecessary and possibly harmful. They argue that sex education and other approaches outside the court system are the proper response.

"It's a misdirection of our resources ... to bring in (to court) someone who took a photograph of themselves," argued Lyn Schollett of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault. That group, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, is supporting a different "sexting" measure that would only address those who disseminate the images to third parties, leaving the original producer and recipient out of it.

"This is a serious issue ... (but) the person who takes a picture of herself should not be brought into a police station," said Schollett.

The issue has highlighted a part of cyber culture — and youth culture — that has clearly shocked and baffled the generally middle-aged lawmakers studying the problem. When one critic referred to some "sexting" as merely "a Romeo-and-Juliet thing," state Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, responded, incredulously: "I don't remember that from Shakespeare!"

In the typical scenario, as laid out for lawmakers in two hearings Wednesday, a teenager takes nude or semi-nude photos of himself or herself with a cell phone camera, then transmits them to a girlfriend or boyfriend.

In a secondary result — which appears to be practically inevitable in the world of teenagers — friends or other minors obtain and disseminate the image among their peers, generally without the consent of the person who produced the picture.

"You have a photograph that lives forever," said Jones, of the appellate prosecutor's office. "They have this naked picture out there that has serious consequences" for employment and personal lives.

At least two teen suicides nationally have been blamed on sexting activities that got out of control in the past year. A dozen states around the U.S. are considering various ways of dealing with the issue, ranging from educational programs to criminalization. Kentucky is currently considering levying fines on teens caught sexting.

Tyler Burnett, a junior at O'Fallon (Ill.) Township High School, said sexting may be popular at some schools in some parts of the country but not O'Fallon. Burnett said he could not be sure it never happens but said he had not heard about it.

A girl who is also a junior at O'Fallon said she had not heard of sexting among students there, either.

The measure that would address all participants in sexting is SB2513. It passed the Senate Criminal Law Committee Wednesday and now moves to the full Senate. The bill to address only third-party disseminators of the images is HB4583, and is awaiting a vote in the House Juvenile Justice Reform Committee. ..Source.. Kevin McDermott

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Will sex offender have to pay for old crimes?

2-25-2010 Maryland:

Fifteen years have come and gone since he was arrested, pleaded guilty and received five years' probation for the third-degree sexual offense of trying to solicit sex from a prostitute who was 13 years old. Larry -- a name I've given him for the purposes of this column -- served his probation and took part in weekly group therapy sessions at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Records indicate that he has not committed such a crime -- or any crime -- since then. "In fact," he adds, "I would say I've lived an exemplary life since then."

There aren't many sex offenders going public these days. Larry, who told his story provided I did not use his name, says he "came out of the woodwork" only because of what he (and others) see as election-year hysteria in Annapolis to toughen laws and regulations on sexual offenders, particularly those who victimize children. One of the dozens of measures in the legislature would expand Maryland's sex offender registry to cover cases from 15 to 25 years ago.

That means Larry's face and his record would appear where it doesn't now: on the Internet, for the entire world to see. "I hadn't really been paying attention to all this nutty, knee-jerk sex offender legislation," he says. "But I am now."

When he was arrested in 1995, he had been a consultant on several government-funded projects. He lost his security clearance, lost his job. He had a difficult time finding another. "Categorically turned down by many, many employers," he says.

So he took a lot of lousy jobs that didn't last. Finally, he found a good job commensurate with his education and training, but he's sure he would lose it if the General Assembly expands the offender registry.

Larry wrote an anonymous letter to the House Judicial Proceedings Committee. He had a friend deliver it for him. He gave me a copy. I told him I'd let him have his say in this space because an anonymous letter to an Annapolis committee probably never gets much attention.

"Over the past 15 years," he wrote the committee, "I have been continuously employed. I completed an advanced degree; and I have provided time tutoring and guiding adult students in my field. I am involved in an international program to improve technology in third-world countries. I have made valuable contributions using my artistic and creative side.

"I do not seek contact with children, and I usually go out of my way to avoid it. I do have several nieces whose lives I've been invited into with welcome arms. Friends have knowingly welcomed me into their homes.

"Rehabilitation has not been easy. I've worked extremely hard at it and succeeded at it. Were I to detect potential triggers, I know how to employ avoidance strategies involving family, friends and therapists."

Larry credits the group therapy sessions at UMMC with having the most effect on his thinking and behavior, and he thinks the state should spend its money on such programs instead of the costly expansion of its online offender registry.

"I attribute a certain amount of ease in rehabilitation to the fact that I was not subject to any post-probation placement on Internet sex offender lists or unsolicited neighborhood notifications. For example, my current employer, who I hope to be my long-term employer, would not have hired me, according to their policy, had I been on the state's sex offender list. If I get on such a list, who knows whether I'll keep my job? It's open season on you once you're on that list."

Larry believes he made a contract with the state 15 years ago -- a guilty plea in return for five years' probation, the court-ordered therapy and nothing more. "I have lived in a contract with the state of Maryland," he wrote. "Now the state of Maryland wants to impose stringent, retroactive reporting requirements on me and put my picture on the Internet, parading me like a circus freak. The state wants to humiliate me and set me back. The state wants to open me up to potential violence. The state is about to punish me for having done everything right for over 15 years." ..Source.. Dan Rodricks

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

High Court Considers Retroactive Effect of Sex Offender Law

2-25-2010 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON (CN) - The retroactive effect of sex offender registration laws was argued before the Supreme Court Wednesday in a case where an ex-convict moved but did not re-register. A law passed later required notification of every move and he was then found in violation of that subsequent law. "Mr. Carr was in violation of the law the instant it was passed, right?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked of the government lawyer.

Thomas Carr registered in 2006 as one of the nation's 700,000 sex offenders, but quickly moved from Alabama to Indiana, where he did not re-register.

Two years later, Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which sends sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they move between states and knowingly fail to update their registration.The law was passed after roughly 100,000 sex offenders fell off the radar, but Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on the reasonability of holding the offender to the new law.

But the bill left the Attorney General to decide whether the law should be applied retroactively, and he said it should apply to all sex offenders. The government therefore pursued Carr after it discovered him in Indiana when he was arrested in a fight.

Charles Rothfeld of Mayer Brown represented Carr. He argued that the law was written in the present tense and does not apply to the past. He said the law requires sex offenders to register before moving. Since the law was not in place before Carr moved, he could not have followed the law as it is laid out, Rothfeld said.

But Justice Samuel Alito pounced on Rothfeld's present-tense argument. "There are provisions of this very statute that use the present tense to refer to past conduct," Alito said. "So why doesn't that knock the legs out from under your textual argument?"

Alito then moved onto Rothfeld's timeline argument.

"There is nothing in the statute that says that those three events have to take place in a temporal sequence," he said in reference to the three steps of conviction, registration and moving.

Roberts set himself apart from the other conservative justices by seeming to advance Rothfeld's arguments while Rothfeld was still at the podium. "That's pretty unusual, isn't it, to have Congress say it's up to the Attorney General whether their laws apply prospectively or retroactively," he said to Rothfeld.

But Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to disagree. "Well, it's not as though he was authorized to make something a crime which wasn't a crime," he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor depicted what would happen if the Court ruled in Carr's favor. "The problem is that the people who had traveled previously and failed to register would no longer be subject to any registration process or presumably any punishment," she said.

She then noted that all states have registry requirements and suggested that the case shouldn't even be in federal court. "Why can't those states that the individual has moved to simply prosecute the person for a failure to register?" she asked.

Indiana law punishes sex offenders with up to three years in prison if they fail to register, which is seven years shorter than the federal government's maximum sentence.

Assistant Solicitor General Curtis Gannon represented the government. He argued that the law was meant to catch offenders who had fallen off the registry, including those who traveled before the act was adopted. He added that Carr did not re-register long after the law was passed, violating both federal and state registry laws.

Moving sex offenders are required to re-register within 10 days under both Alabama and Indiana law.

Gannon said that a decade after every state passed sex offender registration laws, 100,000 offenders still could not be found. "They were concerned about the persons who had fallen off the sex offender registry rolls," Gannon said of the government.

Justice Stephen Breyer warned the government lawyer, "This is a very close case. That tends to cut somewhat against you," he said, seeming to refer to a rule that cases on ambiguous laws be ruled in the defendant's favor.

Scalia even chimed in, suggesting the law only addressed moves after its implementation. "They use the past tense when they mean it," he said.

Sotomayor pointed to the ambiguity of the law, noting that while sex offenders are supposed to register, states don't necessarily have places to register, that it's not clear how much time offenders have to register or that they are expected to register the same way they did under the old system.

She asked the government lawyer, "Are you worried at all whether or not there might be a due process violation in all the indeterminate provisions of this law?"

Gannon replied that he didn't think there was a violation.

The federal government has required states to keep records of sex offenders since 1996, but discrepancies soon emerged in the classification of a sex offender, and in the data collected. The 2006 law was the legislature's effort to keep uniform and detailed files on the criminals.

The district court denied Carr's motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that he moved before the law was passed, and the 7th Circuit affirmed. However, the 10th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion on a different case over the same issue. ..Source.. NICK WILSON

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

U.S. Supreme court: USA -v- Carr Transcript of Oral Arguments

2-24-2010 Washington DC:

Today the U.S. Supreme court heard Oral Arguments in the case of USA -v- Carr. The complete transcript can be found HERE.

In case folks do not remember what the issue was:

Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant’s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA’s enactment.

Once I have read it I will make further comments.

But, for now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.

eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

More kids on registry; fewer being labeled

2-24-2010 Ohio:

Every year, more teens are added to Ohio's sex offender registry, slapped with labels that will follow them past their 18th birthday and mark them as potential threats to their neighbors.

But if teen sex offenders are indeed dangerous, how come they're being locked up far less often than in the past?

The answer may be a 2008 law that was designed to crack down on sex offenders, but may have the opposite effect when it comes to juveniles.

Data from the Ohio Attorney General's Office and the Department of Youth Services shows that for every two juveniles made to register for the first time in 2008 and 2007, one kid was locked up for a sex offense.

However, last year, only 88 minors were locked up for sex offenses while 290 entered Ohio's registry network. The overall population in Ohio's juvenile prisons has declined as well, but the percentage of inmate youths committed for sex offenses is at its lowest in at least five years.

In 2006, 193 juveniles were placed into custody for a sex crime. Admissions for rape numbered 120 that year. The vast majority were not forcible sexual assaults, but sex acts between two teens where one of the parties was younger than the age of consent, or 13.

Last year, 50 of the 88 lockups were for rape, a 240 percent decrease in that offense from three years earlier. The number of age of consent rapes by teens dropped from 72 in 2006 to 34 in 2009.

This is despite Ohio's implementation in 2008 of the Adam Walsh Act, the federal government's uniform policy on sexual offender registry. Or maybe because of it, according to some in the judicial system.

The Adam Walsh Act requires anyone 16 or older who is convicted of a sex crime to be added to the state's sex offender registry. As a result, some judges and prosecutors are changing charges to avoid registration requirements they say are too harsh to be applied uniformly to every juvenile.

Usually, that means "sex" disappears from the sex crimes.

For example, a sexual imposition charge can turn into an assault because both deal with unwanted contact. Or a pandering obscenity allegation for "sexting" -- sending lewd images of minors with a cell phone -- can morph into a charge that punishes the teen for using a cell phone in a criminal act.

"There are lots of charges that capture the essence of what you're seeing without putting the extra word in that says, 'This is sex'," said Judge Steven Michael of the Jackson County Juvenile/Probate Court.

But even convictions for a sex offense in the lowest tier -- Tier I -- can be a way to avoid teenage transgressions following offenders into adulthood.

The law allows for judges to lower classification after a juvenile's incarceration or probation is completed. So if a judge designates a teen a Tier I offender and orders him to complete six months of probation, the label can be removed a half-year later. If they're still under 18 at that point, the teen successfully avoids inclusion on the online, publicly accessed registry.

A snapshot of the registry database in each of the last three Decembers shows that the ranks of Tier I offenders have grown significantly. In December 2007, the state attorney general's office was watching 148 teens in that lesser designation. By Dec. 15, 2009, the state had 290 Tier I teens to monitor. The number of teens who committed more serious sex crimes has trended only slightly upward.

Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Bambi Couch Page, who handles many of the department's sex crime cases, said there are cases where the consequences of giving a juvenile a sex offender label that lasts into adulthood might be the wrong thing to do.

Defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges "don't necessarily want this person at age 14, 15, 16 stuck in these categories that have a lifelong effect," Page said. "There has been a whole lot of maneuvering in the juvenile system."

Michael, who also is president of the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges, said the law, if applied to the letter, would cost good kids who exercised bad judgment a chance to fully realize their potential as productive citizens.

"(A teen's) judgment is being formed during those years and they're going to make some stupid decisions," he said. "I think that's why you're starting to see prosecutors and judges and players in the system having a real conversation around what we are really seeing. Is this someone a sex offender? A dangerous person that we really do need to make other people aware of?"

Counselors are learning more about how to treat child sex offenders every day. They are not lost causes who need to be branded and kept away from other kids, said Penny Wyman, executive director of the Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies.

Counseling for juveniles with sexual behavior issues is far more successful than it is for adults.

A 2006 report by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers stated that with appropriate short-term outpatient treatment, juvenile sex offenders are at no greater risk to commit another sex offense than any other child receiving mental health assistance.

The Adam Walsh Act was crafted with the best intentions, but may be creating a second set of victims, Wyman said. If teens aren't a danger to others, she said, they shouldn't be labeled as sex offenders well into adulthood.

A well-publicized example is sexting, which would be legally construed as the felony charge of pandering obscenity involving a minor.

"Sexting opens the doorway for virtually every teenager in America to become a sex offender," Wyman said.

Legislators say sexting wasn't something that was anticipated when the law was drafted.

Maggie Ostrowski, spokeswoman for State Sen. Bill Harris, R-Ashland, said the Walsh Act was designed to protect kids from repeat sex offenders. Its application to child offenders should be up to the officials closest to the cases, despite the rigidity of the law for 16- and 17-year-olds.

"In his view, it's important to give our prosecutors the flexibility to prosecute cases and to accept pleas given the facts and circumstances of each case," Ostrowski said.

A bill was introduced in April by Cincinnati-area Rep. Ron Maag, R-Salem Township, to reduce sexting by teens to a first-degree misdemeanor.

At its heart, the Adam Walsh Act and its predecessors -- the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law -- are designed to protect children. Each is named after a victimized child.

Michael said that laws crafted in the spirit of protecting our most vulnerable can go too far because of their near-universal appeal.

Supporting sex offender legislation, or any law that purports to be tough on crime, rarely hurts re-election prospects, lawmakers said.

"I'm not familiar with anyone ever losing an election because they were too tough on crime," said Rep. Dan Dodd, D-Newark. "You're not going to lose support by going too far ... sometimes that does create bad law." ..Source.. RUSS ZIMMER • CentralOhio.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...