3-6-2010 New Hampshire:
Investigator Poses As Teen To Friend Students At Local High School
LANGDON, N.H. -- Some parents and students are upset that a high school used students' Facebook photos and information to teach a lesson on Internet safety in a school assembly.
Fall Mountain Regional High School Principal Thomas Ronning said Investigator Jennifer Frank of the Plymouth State University Police Department logged onto Facebook and represented herself as a teenager from the region. Frank managed to get more than 300 students to befriend her on the site.
By doing so, she was able to obtain personal information and photographs of students, and some of it was displayed in the assembly.
The principal said all of the information collected was already shared by students and available on the Web.
But parent Steve Fortier said some students were targeted and humiliated. He said he understands the dangers the school was trying to warn students about, but he said using students' actual Facebook pages went over the line.
Fortier said he thinks the pictures and information shown should have been generic or about teenagers no one knew.
"That lesson is a very important one," he said. "I just question the use of actual students from the school to make that point."
Ronning said he stands by his decision, saying a similar presentation was made at Stevens High School in Claremont. He said that in that case, 400 students befriended the investigator.
"This is information shared by the students, put out there, and Investigator Frank brought it all forward, saying 'Do you want your birth date out there? Do you want your address out there?'" Ronning said.
Fortier said that he believes students should have been talked to privately, rather than having their information displayed in the assembly. He said he's also upset parents weren't told what would happen. The ACLU said the lesson and the school crossed a line.
"I am opposed to schools monitoring and disciplining students for activities that occur off the school grounds," said Claire Ebel of the ACLU. "I think it's inappropriate."
Ronning said that if he gets the opportunity, he would do it again. He said he wants to teach students that if they have 1,300 "friends" online, they don't always know those people personally and shouldn't be sharing personal information with them. ..Source.. WMUR New Hampshire 9
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Parents Upset When Safety Demo Uses Facebook Info
Children committing sex crimes against children
3-7-2010 Tennessee:
PUTNAM COUNTY -- They are children who have committed serious crimes, and their victims are other children. And it's an epidemic, Juvenile Court officials say. They are talking about child sex offenders, children raping other children.
"We currently have three child rape cases on the Juvenile Court docket, and there have been so many of these cases in the past couple of years," said Greg Bowman, administrator of the Juvenile Court here. In the current three cases, which are unrelated, a 16-year-old boy is charged with two counts of rape of a child under 13, a 14-year-old boy is charged with rape of a child under 13, and a 17-year-old is charged with rape of a child under 13.
"Unfortunately, this type of case is becoming an epidemic, and the offenders seem to be getting younger all the time," said Juvenile Court Judge John Hudson. Asked for his opinion on the cause of this increasing problem, the judge said, "It's Internet access -- and the fact that the traditional family structure of the previous generations doesn't seem to exist any more."
Administrator Bowman said he finds Internet access and cable TV channel access play a big role in the problem, exposing children to sights and activities from which children used to be sheltered.
What about the parents of these children who are charged with sex offenses?
"Many seem to be in denial or unaware of what's going on with the children," Judge Hudson said. He said the problem of children committing these type offenses is much more widespread than it once was and said, "They come from all types of homes and socio-economic levels -- it's across the board."
What happens to these children in court? "They get evaluated for psychological and mental health issues, and we develop a treatment plan in each case," Bowman said. Some offenders are sent away to inpatient sex offender treatment programs which can last for months or years, depending on "the level of their issues," he said.
Some offenders react to being caught and brought to court in a "remorseful way," while others seem indifferent, he said. The cases come to the Juvenile Court usually through the investigative work of Child Protective Services and law officers assigned to work "all types of child abuse cases," Bowman said.
The purpose of the Juvenile Court is to rehabilitate children, but this court also has a duty to "protect public safety," he said. Children in court for any reason make a sad spectacle, but cases in which the victims are also children are doubly painful for those who work in this system.
And to see these cases continue to increase is a problem that Juvenile Court officials worry deeply about. "I don't know what the solution is," Judge Hudson said. ..Source.. Mary Jo Denton, Herald-Citizen Staff
New Jersey Has Not Complied with Federal Sex Offender Law
3-7-2010 New Jersey:
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 set forth uniform standards for tracking sex offenders in all 50 states. As the July 2009 implementation deadline approached, only one state, Ohio, had complied. The U.S. attorney general signed an across-the-board extension until July 2010 for all states, including New Jersey, to bring their sex offender reporting systems into conformity with federal requirements. Failure to do so would subject the states to loss of 10 percent of their allocations under Title I, Part E, Subpart 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
When it comes to sex offender laws, the nation looks to New Jersey for direction. That's because New Jersey's Megan's Law was the first such law in the nation, a model for other states and the federal government. But with the federal mandate looming, the underpinnings for the AWCPSA sex offender registry provisions seem to be eroding. A federally-funded study conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey Department of Corrections, released last February, found that Megan's Law does not effectively deter sex crimes, but does impose a tremendous cost upon taxpayers -- $5.1 million in New Jersey in 2007. Earlier studies reached the same conclusion as the 2009 Rutgers study.
As reported by NewJersey.com, critics of the studies, such as the mother of Megan Kanka, the murdered little girl after whom Megan's law was named, point out that the studies addressed the recidivism rates of offenders. The critics contend that stopping recidivism was never the purpose of Megan's Law, which instead was designed as an information tool for parents.
When it comes to the AWCPSA-required expansion of its sex offender registry, New Jersey faces some of the same issues as other states, including the required inclusion of children convicted of sex crimes in the federal database and application of notification requirements to crimes committed before registration was mandated.
The state's public defenders expressed concern in 2007 that an expanded sex offender registry in New Jersey will impede the efforts of convicted sex offenders to maintain employment and housing and may increase the likelihood of sex offenders and their family members suffering harassment. The public defenders' association notes that the federal rules would expand the audience receiving reports of sex offenders in a jurisdiction to include housing authorities, social service agencies, background check providers and volunteer organizations where contact with children is possible. The inclusion of employer name and address in the public database can be expected to lead to job losses, the public defenders said.
The federal law requires changes to New Jersey law in other areas as well, including the classes of people who must register and the crimes for which they must register. Under New Jersey law, for example, exhibitionism and possession of kiddie porn are not covered offenses, whereas they are under the federal statute.
JusticePolicy.org points out that for New Jersey, as for every other state, the initial cost of AWCPSA compliance outweighs its potential loss of federal funds for noncompliance. New Jersey's first-year outlay of $14,088,206 would vastly exceed the $516,071 it stands to lose if it fails to implement AWCPSA. If you have questions about New Jersey laws regarding sex offenders, the sex offender registry or the new federal requirements, please speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area for more information. ..Source.. David T. Schlendorf Law Offices
Sex offender registry changes proposed
We urge folks to support and lobby New Hampshire lawmakers on behalf of an 11th hour effort to take HB 1628 off the House consent calendar for the March 10 House floor session and retain it in the House for the rest of 2010. The innocuous sounding bill asks the Department of Safety to devise voluntary guidelines for community notification of neighbors when a sex offender moves in. Such notification frequently causes vigilantism. Instead of sending HB 1628 to the Senate, the House would ask the Criminal Justice Committee to deal with its subject matter as part of a comprehensive study of the sex offender internet registry, risk assessment, and community notice.3-7-2010 New Hampshire:
Editor's note: This is one in an occasional series about state legislation regarding sex offenders.
Several bills being proposed in the state House of Representatives would make adjustments to the state's sex offender registry.
The measures come after Gov. John Lynch signed a bill into law in 2008 that brought the state into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which required the state to implement a tiered registry.
Since then, lawmakers have proposed bills that would add offenses to or otherwise adjust the registry. The latest round of bills range from requiring those who murder children to register for life to changes such as requiring the registration of sex offenders' watercraft.
The bill proposing the lifetime registration of child murderers, House Bill 1647, has received some heat for a provision that would restrict residency. The bill would require any person convicted of first- or second-degree murder against someone under 18 to register for life on the Department of Safety's list. It also would restrict paroled child murderers and certain sex offenders from living within 25 miles of the victim or victim's family.
Two Lakes Region lawmakers proposed the bill in response to convicted child killer Raymond Guay moving to New Hampton, where two aunts of his victim live about two miles from his residence.
State Rep. Fran Wendelboe, R-New Hampton, is the primary sponsor of the bill and said Guay's case is the perfect example of why such a law is needed. Guay killed a 12-year-old Nashua boy in 1973 and was sentenced to 18 to 25 years in a federal prison.
Probation officials notified New Hampton selectmen about Guay moving to the town, but the board's legal counsel told the board not to release the information because of liability.
Wendelboe said authorities have always believed Guay's intentions against the boy were sexual assault, but since he was never charged with sexual assault, he was never required to register on the list that would allow the public to track him.
"The community wasn't informed when he moved into the community, and there was a lot of outrage," she said.
During a January hearing in Concord, most were in favor of the provision of the bill that called for those convicted of murder against a child to register on the sex offender list.
However, the part calling for the residency restriction came under fire because of recent issues regarding such restrictions, including a District Court ruling that Dover's sex offender ordinance barring offenders from living 2,500 feet from a school or day care was unconstitutional.
Wendelboe said it was not the intent of her bill to include sex offenders as well as murderers in the 25-mile-radius, and she is considering rewording that portion of the bill or dropping it.
"There's not many people that murder, but it would be a nightmare if sex offenders were included," she said.
Wendelboe said once changes are made to that part of the bill, she is confident it will pass.
"We're not the first state to do this," she said. "Children are the most vulnerable of the population. Anyone who murders a child is in a different category."
The bill is due to reach the House floor on March 10.
Another piece of legislation, House Bill 1642, would bring the state into further compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. The bill has passed the House and now will come before the Senate.
Assistant Attorney General Ann Rice said there were some elements left out of the law, and this is a chance to correct that. The bill adds the language "accomplice to, or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit" under sex offense crimes that would require a person to register as a sex offender.
The bill would also require an offender to provide the state with the make, model, color and license plate or registration of any vehicle, watercraft or aircraft owned and operated by the offender, as well as the location where such equipment is regularly kept. The current law only required this for vehicles such as cars.
Other bills have a longer road ahead of them. One, House Bill 111, asks not to include Tier 1 offenders on the public list of registered offenders, but rather on a private list, which the state used to have before its registry was modified to fit the Adam Walsh Act. Tier 1 includes offenses such as sexual touching and violation of privacy.
The bill was proposed in early 2009 by Rep. Jennifer Brown, D-Dover, and was placed in interim study, where it remains.
Brown said she has no problem with Tier 1 offenders registering with police but doesn't think they should be on the public list because it puts them under the same umbrella as other sex offenders.
"They just don't belong in the same place as the real bad guys because they get looked at that way by the public," she said.
Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, said House Bill 111 is one of multiple bills pertaining to sex offenders that has been placed in interim study. Pantelakos said these bills seek to making adjustments to the tiered system and the goal of putting them into study is to better organize them and bring them back as one bill.
Pantelakos is not a supporter of the Adam Walsh Act.
"I think each state should address things as they go along," she said.
She supports House Bill 111 because she thinks it separates those "who made a stupid mistake" from sexual predators.
Another bill being studied is House Bill 1601, which proposes that those convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault against adults, not just those who offend against children, be required to register on the Department of Safety's public list.
Other sex offender bills proposed in the House include:
House Bill 1508, which would prohibits those convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault or felonious sexual assault against children from initiating contact with the victim and includes all forms of communication. Anyone guilty of this would face a Class A misdemeanor. This bill passed the House on March 3 and now goes on to the Senate.
House Bill 1628, which would require the commissioner of the Department of Safety to develop guidelines to be used by local law enforcement agencies for providing neighborhood residents notification of the release of a sexual offender. This bill is recommended by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and has a March 10 floor date in the House. ..Source.. AARON SANBORN
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Face to Facebook
AT very least what the police did here violated the Terms of Agreement of Facebook, by setting up multiple false names, to talk to children. Then disclosing to the entire school private information which was gathered under false names. Was there anything else that she targeted? Usually the focus of this type of presentation is sex offenders on the Internet which wasn't mentioned but who were those humilated, and what information humilated them? As fragile as teenagers are I hope none do anything hurtful to themselves as a result of this!3-6-2010 New Hampshire:
Opinions mixed on school’s social networking warning
LANGDON — There, on a screen in front of half of Fall Mountain Regional High School’s population, were students’ Facebook profiles. Their photos. Their writing. Their personal life for all to see.
For some students, it was an embarrassing, revealing moment.
For those who had set up Wednesday’s presentations, that was part of the desired reaction.
“I noticed students understanding the real dangers of putting their information out there,” said Fall Mountain Principal Thomas H. Ronning.
The goal was to show students how easy it could be for a stranger to get their information online, and how that information could be used against them and their families.
The presentations — one for freshmen and sophomores, one for juniors and seniors — were run by Jennifer Frank, an investigator with the Plymouth State University Police Department, who has worked on and spoken about social network safety concerns for a few years, she said.
Frank set up a Facebook account purportedly as a local teenager.
“What she does is she goes online and she befriends students,” Ronning said. “And then after that she ended up getting information that students openly divulge.”
That information includes birthdays and addresses. It includes phone numbers that can be used to find out addresses through online mapping sites.
A person, be it someone interested in finding the student or a burglar wondering when a house will be empty, could get that knowledge from a student’s Facebook page, Ronning said.
“That information can be used by anybody, and in this case Investigator Frank got the information,” Ronning said. “She could’ve opened up credit cards in their name. She could’ve been a sexual predator and found out when they were home alone.”
Steve Fortier, an Alstead resident and parent of a Fall Mountain student, said he understands why the presentation was done, his problem was with how it was done.
“I share the same concerns as the school and the intentions that they brought,” Fortier said. “But where it crossed the line for me is in the use of humiliation and degradation.”
Fortier said his daughter was not among those whose Facebook profiles were posted for all to see. But an employee of his — Fortier is executive director of the Meeting Waters YMCA in Vermont — was shown drinking a beer.
“It’s my understanding that it was not shared in context,” Fortier said. “This was an 18-year-old who went to Canada.”
Drinking ages vary in Canada, and in some places can be as low as 16 with parental guidance.
The presentation could’ve been done using fake Facebook postings “or drawing from a national pool of stupid Facebook posts made by kids and adults,” he said. “In this case, they used kids from our own school to make their point without any parental or teen approval.”
Bridgette Aumand of Walpole, a junior at the school, was one of those kids.
She says she was shocked to see a photo of herself used in the presentation — especially because she thought she was too smart for a stranger.
When Frank told the students which names she had been posing under, Bridgette said she breathed a sigh of relief: “I don’t add people I don’t know, or people who are a lot older than me, or a lot younger” to the list of people who can see what she posts, she said.
“If I don’t talk to someone (regularly) I’m not going to add them (as a friend) on my Facebook.”
But still, there she was on the screen, images that Frank had accessed because some of Bridgette’s Facebook friends weren’t as discriminating, and because her own privacy settings on the site weren’t as tight as she thought.
The site has a default setting that makes more information public than many people, including Bridgette, realize.
Immediately after school, Bridgette and her older sister, a senior at the school, sat down and tightened their Facebook security, and told their younger sister to do the same, she said.
Ronning said he heard a few complaints from parents and students about the presentation, but he also “overwhelmingly heard about the positive information that was shared.”
“I would do it again,” Ronning said.
Though she heard the message loud and clear, Bridgette agrees with Fortier that the point could have been made effectively without hurting students.
One post shown during the presentation was written by a student shortly after a breakup, she said.
“It was a really sad (entry), and to show that in front of 600, 700 students from our school ... That’s not right,” she said.
Names and faces should have been blurred so that the students would know their privacy settings weren’t strict enough, but their peers wouldn’t recognize them, she said.
“It was almost like a public punishment instead of an educational moment,” she said. ..Source.. David P. Greisman, Sentinel Staff
Lemon Creek (Correctional Facility) hosts sex offender treatment program
3-6-2010 Alaska:
The Department of Corrections has started the state's first sex offender treatment program in a prison in seven years at the Lemon Creek Correctional Center.
There has not been a similar program in Alaska since funding for sex offender treatment was cut in 2003 under former Gov. Frank Murkowski's administration. The Legislature last year approved roughly $200,000 for a pilot program for 24 inmates.
"It's a real comprehensive, intensive program and it's meant to run for roughly 18 months," said criminal justice planner Rose Munafo.
Fourteen inmates were transferred to Juneau last month and joined 10 offenders already at the prison in a separate secured living unit. The 24 inmates have undergone assessments and began group therapy last week, Munafo said.
"We do have offenders coming there that didn't start out in Juneau because for awhile that will be the only institutional program that we have and it's also in the most secure programming facility we have at this point in time," she said.
The 14 offenders transferred to Juneau will be sent back to the facilities they came from after completing the program, Munafo said.
"They are not allowed to be released in the Juneau halfway house or community unless that's where they came from," she said.
Most people don't have a real good idea of what sex offender treatment is supposed to do, Munafo said. It does not entail a "soft and warm therapist" that tries to make the offenders feel better about who they are, she said.
"One of the main things you do in sex offender treatment is learn as much as you can about that offender because they are never cured," Munafo said. "So in order to manage them you want to know as much as you can about them. That is what sex offender treatment does."
The DOC has laid out a five-year plan with the intention of expanding the program to other facilities up north in the future. Part of that plan hinges on the new $240 million Goose Creek Correctional Center being built in the Matanuska-Sustina Borough that is expected to open in 2012.
"Part of the problem we have getting offenders into programming is we're so overcrowded we can't get them moved," Munafo said. "So a lot depends on getting the new prison opened so we can move these people into the places they need to be."
According to the latest DOC figures released in December, there were 362 sex offenders in state-run correctional facilities and an additional 239 offenders serving time in a Colorado prison. There were 28 sex offenders incarcerated at LCCC prior to the transfer of the 14 more inmates to Juneau.
The department was highly selective of the 24 inmates chosen to participate in the new program.
"We looked at guys that we felt were serious enough offenders that they needed some treatment in an intensive place in the institution before they got out," Munafo said.
There were certain benchmarks the offenders had to meet to be allowed into the program. They did not want anyone that had failed in sex offender treatment programs in the past or had a history of disciplinary problems while incarcerated, Munafo said. They also wanted inmates that had an extended sentence in order to complete the 18-month program, she said.
The program is initially only for men. The department is hoping to expand the program next year to include treatment for women and people with chronic mental disabilities. As of December there were eight women sex offenders incarcerated in Alaska.
However, the future of the program is still uncertain. The DOC has requested funding for the program from the Legislature but the state's budget has yet to be finalized. ..Source.. by Eric Morrison | JUNEAU EMPIRE
Is the Adam Walsh Act entrapping registrants of state registries?
3-4-2010 National:
I doubt that any registrant of a state registry hasn't heard of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), but do they know about AWA requirements? I am not talking about what registrants read in the media or hear from politicians, or those other voices, I am talking about the specific requirements of AWA. If you are a registrant of a "state registry" have you been SPECIFICALLY told what AWA requires of you?
With that said:
How does AWA work and who is it applicable to:
Congress enacted AWA and within AWA are various Titles, each covering different subjects, the one state registrants need to be most concerned about is Title-I, SORNA which handles registration duties. Within SORNA are "various provisions" (i.e. parameters, do this and do that) which Congress wants State Legislatures to amend state laws to conform to.
It is important to understand that SORNA is a set of parameters for State Legislatures and not direct requirements for registrants of state registries, who must only conform to their ultimate state registry law.
The Department of Justice, through the United State Attorney General (USAG) and the SMART Office (which has created its own Compliance Check-List), interprets AWA and SORNA, then published Guidelines. These guidelines explain the parameters to state legislatures.
Once a state legislature decides which SORNA parameters they intend to use, sometimes interpreting them on their own, then state lawmakers will make changes to state registration law to include their decisions.
Now, remember, a state must only -substantially comply- with AWA, states do not have to follow AWA or SORNA to the letter.
How do state registration laws work?
State legislatures decide how they want to operate their sex offender registry (supposedly guided by SORNA Guidelines [i.e. parameters]) and enact laws to carry out their will.
Registrants -following their state registration laws- go in to register at a local police agency (or other assigned place). Registrants are given a form/s which has places for registrants to document the required information, and a place to sign the form/s, generally the form/s are also signed by the registering agency and forwarded to a central place where the information is entered into the state computer which ultimately creates the online registry for the public. The state keeps these forms.
Now, an important, but grey area, the form/s used by the states vary, and some states may use multiple forms.
Somewhere on one of the forms, or on the back of a form, is something which says everything a registrant has to do to stay in compliance. i.e., report annually or quarterly, report changes within 10 days, residence, schools, work addresses, etc. etc. etc. The registrant is required to sign forms.
These forms would be used in court, if a state had to prove what the registrant actually did, and, what the state told the registrant, were his/her duties. Now, as state laws change, if the change affects what registrants must do, states may require registrants to come in, or do this at next registration period, to let registrants know about the change/s. Registrants would likely have to sign new forms which the state keeps for any possible court action.NOW A QUESTION: I don't care what state you are in, if you are a registrant of a state registry, please get your forms out (I assume you have kept copies of every form used by the state and esp. those you are required to sign).OK, got your forms out? Look them over with a fine tooth comb for the words "Adam Walsh Act," didn't find those words? The reason they are missing from your forms is, AWA does not apply to you. Plain and simple.
Now, once a state changes its laws, supposedly to be in compliance with the AWA/SORNA parameters, then what the state law says becomes a mandate for state registrants to follow.
OK, lets move on to find the hidden AWA/SORNA mandates for state registrants. I know I said, there are none, but the hidden ones are the subject of this commentary because they constitute the entrapment I speak of.
SCENARIO: Moving from one state to another state:
Somewhere on your state forms are the following (it may be stated differently but both should be there in some fashion):1) "If you move to another state, you must notify us xx days before you move."
2) "And you must register when you get to the new state."
Obviously, should you fail to notify the state you are currently living in (#1) within allotted time frames, you then have violated your state registry law. The punishment is outlined in your state registry law (i.e., you have been notified and due process is satisfied by this notice).
However, your state cannot order you to do anything once you leave their physical borders (#2), your state has no jurisdiction in another state. For the moment just remember #2 above.
Now, assume you do move to another state and do not register, and you are caught . If you are arrested in the new state, the prosecutor can charge you for failing to register, upon conviction your punishment would be what that state registration law says.
But, you can also be prosecuted in federal court under the Adam Walsh Act. How, you ask? Here it is, AWA has a jurisdictional hook built into it, section 2250 (which is in AWA but not in SORNA section of AWA). That section says "If one does not register when they move to another state, then they may be punished up to 10 years in federal prison."
Hey wait a minute, you say. No one told me about that, and there is nothing on my forms either. Right, you have been entrapped by a cunningly worded -and constructed- Adam Walsh Act.
Federal courts are punishing registrants for failing to register in the new state, and nowhere are registrants told about this FEDERAL REQUIREMENT until they are charged in federal court. Federal courts are accepting -as sufficient notice- (#2 above), where the state told you to do something when you get to the new state, but you failed to do it.
Now there are folks who say, make sure you register and you will not face this. True, but my point is, this is an entrapment scheme that is being perpetrated on registrants that fail to follow, what seems to be, an innocuous statement made by the state.
Federal courts are using that innocuous state comment (#2 above) as a jurisdictional hook to get these folks into federal court. Why is there such a push to get folks prosecuted in federal court you ask?
Ahhh, a few reasons, first that the punishment for failure to register under state registry laws, is usually something low or probation, and it may even be a misdemeanor. (Note: there is -built into AWA- a mandate that states UP that punishment to at least one year in prison, and make it a felony). Under federal law (AWA) the punishment is up to 10 years in the Bureau of Prisons.
A second -far more egregious reason- is, that once a federal court punishes a sex offender for failure to register -as mentioned above- then they serve their time in the Bureau of Prisons (Federal prison).
Nearing the end of that sentence, the Warden of the facility where the person is held, has to make a decision, as to, whether or not -in his/her opinion, that the incarcerated person should be held PAST his/her sentence for a civil commitment hearing. And that civil commitment hearing could result in being civilly committed for the rest of ones life.
So, under state law that offender would likely be incarcerated for a short time, or placed on probation and when that is over nothing else happens, they are returned to society. Not so under federal law, is it any wonder why I call this ENTRAPMENT? (Note: This same entrapment scheme is also used in states which have civil commitment centers; be forewarned!)
HEADS UP: Hidden in AWA is a Federal Punishment (Sec. 141 sub-section 2250) of up to 10 years in federal prison for failing to register after crossing state lines, AND, hidden even deeper is a civil commitment hearing and possible civil commitment for the rest of ones life (Sec. 302 sub-section 4248).
Now, go back and look again at your state forms, where it says "And you must register when you get to the new state (#2 above)," do you see anything saying, that this is a AWA requirement, or that you would be punished federally, if you failed to follow what it says? This is the most egregious entrapment scheme I've seen in a long time; my opinion.
Finally, does one have a FEDERAL right to be told what is required of them, and to also be told, what the punishment is should you fail to do it? Apparently, as the courts are ruling, NO!
How is this happening? State tuned for:
Part-2: Did Congress Intend to Entrap Registrants?
Part-3: Is moving from one state to another the only way one can be federally entrapped?
Have a great day & a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate
Sex-offender monitoring OK'd
This is clearly -as applied to folks whose judgments have already been entered- an ex post facto violation, anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. In court -under those circumstances- this will go down like the Hindenberg. Each lawmaker who voted for it should be made to pay the legal costs to defend it. In other states similar laws have been held to be ex post facto violations.3-6-2010 Oklahoma:
The Senate bill would force some of them to wear electronic trackers after their release.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The state Senate passed a measure Wednesday that would require some sex offenders to wear electronic monitors after their release.
Senate Bill 2301 by Sen. Dan Newberry, R-Tulsa, passed by a vote of 37-4 after a lengthy debate. It now heads to the House.
The proposed law would require sex offenders who have completed their sentences but are considered Level 2 offenders to wear a monitoring device for 10 years, Newberry said.
Level 2 offenders include those convicted of facilitating, encouraging or offering sexual conduct with a minor or producing a child younger than 18 for prostitution.
The measure would require Level 3 sex offenders — those convicted of rape, forcible sodomy or incest — to wear the device for 15 years after their release.
The offender would be charged $75 a year to pay for the monitoring. The bill exempts indigent offenders from paying the fee.
After the monitoring period is completed without further legal troubles, a sex offender could petition a court to have the device removed, Newberry said.
Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-Hartshorne, who voted against the bill, said it seems that lawmakers are always passing legislation to make them appear tough on crime.
A vote against such a measure will be used against a lawmaker in the next re-election campaign, he said.
But "what does it do to stop people from reoffending?" Lerblance asked, adding that an electronic monitor won't protect someone from falling victim to a sex offender.
Newberry argued in response that an electronic monitor would reduce a sex offender's propensity to reoffend.
Sen. Steven Russell, R-Oklahoma City, voted for the bill but questioned whether it would violate the U.S. Constitution by imposing a punishment retroactively.
Newberry said the bill would make changes to the sex-offenderregistration statute. It would not resentence the offender, he said. ..Source.. BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
State agency won't renew sex offenders' licenses
I wonder how many murderers, domestic violence, thieves, central registry folks (child abuse), and even state workers have been allowed licenses? Accordingly, I push for easy access to all criminal data, wouldn't that be in the best interest of public safety?3-6-2010 Illinois:
A state regulatory agency won't renew the licenses of several professionals who had been convicted of a sex offense.
Licenses placed in refuse to renew status include: real estate brokers ......; real estate salespersons ......; and pharmacist ......
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation compared its more than 1 million licensees against the Illinois Sex Offender Database, after receiving a complaint in March 2009 about a real estate broker who'd been convicted of possessing child pornography.
"To ensure the integrity of our licensed professions, we work closely with other state agencies, such as the State Police," stated Daniel Bluthardt, director of the department's Division of Professional Regulation. "While the department has reviewed this type of data in the past, technological advances have improved our ability to match our licensees against other agencies databases and take appropriate disciplinary action when necessary."
While laws governing professional licenses in Illinois don't explicitly prohibit sex offenders from holding them, a department spokeswoman said provisions require that they inform the department about felony convictions.
The department investigated almost 600 licensees whose names appeared on the data base.
Each of the individuals were afforded due process, according to a department statement, and were given an opportunity for a hearing to determine whether they violated the laws and rules pertaining to their professions and whether they should be allowed to retain their professional licenses. ..Source.. LYNNE STIEFEL Sun-Times Media
Friday, March 5, 2010
2 Lake Michigan College students appeal
3-5-2010 Michigan:
The pair were suspended for being registered child sex offenders; hearing set for March 12
BENTON TOWNSHIP - Two of the three Lake Michigan College students suspended for being registered child sex offenders will have an appeals hearing March 12, a college spokeswoman said Thursday.
Laura Kraklau confirmed that two of the suspended students have filed appeals of last month's decision to bar them from campus, made when officials learned they were on the state's sex offenders registry.
The issue arose when one person seeking to sign up for classes identified himself as a registered sex offender for an offense involving a minor. Administrators checked the registry and found three students on campus who were on the list for crimes against children. The one who admitted to being on the registry was not allowed to register, and the three on campus were suspended between Feb. 11-15.
Under the college's new regulation, others on the registry for offenses involving children will be barred from the college's four campuses. The students are allowed to take classes online.
People convicted of sex crimes against adults are not barred from campus.
Because names remain on the registry for 25 years, the suspensions amount to expulsions.
LMC cited the presence of a child day care facility on the main campus in Benton Township as one reason for the decision to prohibit people whose offenses involve minors.
Kraklau said the appeals hearing would be "an internal process" that would not be open to the public. The appeals committee will be made up of two members of the Student Senate, two faculty members and an administrator, probably a dean, Kraklau said.
After hearing the appeals, the committee will have seven business days to reach a decision. While the hearings would not be open, Kraklau said the final decision might be made public.
The announcement about the new rule was made Feb. 17 on the college's Facebook page. There was no similar announcement about the student appeals.
Kraklau acknowledged that there were "strong feelings on both sides" on campus about the suspensions.
On the LMC Facebook page, Marie Edwards asked, "What is LMC doing to protect its adult students from rape?"
Jeannette Holton commented on the Facebook page that she believes that the sex offender registry "contains many, many people who are not a threat to the safety of others, including those who as teenagers had sex with a younger teenager."
Meanwhile, Holton pointed out, "a person who is on the sex offender registry for violently raping an adult is free to attend."
Berrien County Commissioner Gloria Gillespie, a licensed counselor since 1975 who has worked with the perpetrators and victims of sexual assault, is trying to set up a meeting with college officials "so that when they have to reach a decision they have more information."
She told the county health board Wednesday that she disagrees with the decision to bar these people from campus.
"I'm not an advocate of sex offenders. I'm an advocate of continuing education," Gillespie said. "Are we helping sex offenders by not helping them get an education?"
She said that a person can commit an offense at 11 and remain on the registry into his or her 30s, while there's no similar registry for murderers.
Health Board Chairman Duane McBride agreed that a clearer definition of what constitutes a threat is needed.
"A sex offender is different than a predator," McBride said.
The controversy is attracting national attention. The Chronicle of Higher Education posted an article on its Web site Thursday questioning whether Lake Michigan College's policy could withstand a legal challenge.
Gary Pavela, a legal consultant to colleges, told the Chronicle that the problem with the regulation is that it does not consider offenders on a case-by-case basis.
"The law is clear that there must be individual assessment," Pavela said in the article. "I think there is a legitimate legal question worthy of challenge." ..Source.. JOHN MATUSZAK - Assistant Local News Editor
California Case Shows Need for Death Penalty for Child Molesters
Does anyone know of a state, which under their murder laws, does not have the death penalty or life without parole, for horrific crimes like the recent one in California? Given that reality, why is Rep. Duncan's legislation needed at all? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what is the real purpose of this bill... eAdvocate see also.3-5-2010 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 3, 2010) – State Rep. Rex Duncan said today that a recent California headline shows why his legislation increasing the penalties for child molesters is needed.
San Diego County prosecutors plan to file charges against a convicted sex offender who is accused of the murder and rape of 17-year-old Chelsea King. Stricter penalties would mean fewer sex offenders on the street, Duncan said.
“My legislation increases the maximum penalty for a first offense to life without parole,” Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said. “The man charged in this case was a convicted sex offender and if he had received the sentence of life without parole, he would not have been capable of committing this terrible act.”
House Bill 2965, by Duncan, would expand the penalties for child molesters, allowing repeat offenders to face life in prison without parole or the death penalty. It would also increase the maximum penalty for a first offense to life without parole. The death penalty provision was carefully crafted to comply with recent court rulings.
“Not only would this convicted sex offender have been eligible for life without parole, but he could also face the death penalty for the charges he now faces,” Duncan said. “The death penalty is not only a punishment, but a way to deter individuals who would commit heinous crimes. The death penalty is reserved for the worst criminals and violent child rapist clearly fall into that category.”
Duncan’s legislation would also eliminate the “homeless defense” as an excuse for not registering as a sex offender and allow those convicted of failure to register to receive a 20-year prison sentence.
“Without a sentence of life in prison, most child molesters will victimize more children upon their release,” Duncan said. “By locking them up for the rest of their lives or putting these individuals to death, this legislation will increase public safety and better protect children.” ..Source.. Press Release
Sex offender, wife face charges
Just as a point of law, can there really be a law which prohibits "babysitting in the home of a registered sex offender"? i.e., ex: suppose a RSO owns a home but does not live there? How far will these laws go?3-5-2010 North Carolina:
Aberdeen, N.C. — A registered sex offender in Moore County has been charged with molesting a 5-year-old, and his wife has been charged with caring for children in the home when he was present, authorities said Friday.
____, 69, of 36141 U.S. Highway 1 in Aberdeen, was charged Sunday with second-degree sexual offense, sexual offense with a child, indecent liberties with a child, sexual battery and childcare in the home of a sex offender. He was being held Friday in the Moore County jail under a $5 million secured bond.
On Thursday, ____, 61, of the same address, was charged with babysitting in the home of a sex offender. She was given a $100,000 unsecured bond. ..Source.. WRAL.com
Porn: Good for us?
3-5-2010 National:
Scientific examination of the subject has found that as the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down.
Pornography. Most people have seen it, and have a strong opinion about it. Many of those opinions are negative—some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encouraging people to commit rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, they say, it contributes to the degradation of women. It harms the women who are depicted by pornography, and harms those who do not participate but are encouraged to perform the acts depicted in it by men who are acculturated by it. Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal.
Alternatively, others argue that pornography is an expression of fantasies that can actually inhibit sexual activity, and act as a positive displacement for sexual aggression. Pornography offers a readily available means of satisfying sexual arousal (masturbation), they say, which serves as a substitute for dangerous, harmful, and illegal activities.
Some feminists even claim that pornography can empower women by loosening them from the shackles of social prudery and restrictions.
But what do the data say? Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged “obscene”) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.
It’s not hard to find a study population, given how widespread pornography has become. The United States alone produces 10,000 pornographic movies each year. The Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry–lobbying group, estimates that adult video/DVD sales and rentals amount to at least $4 billion per year. The Internet is a rich source, with 40 million adults regularly visiting porn Web sites, and more than one-quarter of regular users downloading porn at work. And it’s not just men who are interested: Nelsen/Net reports that 9.4 million women in the United States accessed online pornography Web sites in the month of September 2003. According to the conservative media watchdog group Family Safe Media, the porn industry makes more money than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.
To examine the effect this widespread use of porn may be having on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured some variable such as changes in attitude or predicted hypothetical behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault. Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation.
Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined. Significantly, no community in the United States has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers.
In terms of the use of pornography by sex offenders, the police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.
Now let’s look at attitudes towards women. Studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators—female as well as male—essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes. No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography—by any definition—has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women.
There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography—just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm.
Ultimately, there is no freedom that can’t be and isn’t misused. This can range from the freedom to bear arms to the freedom to bear children (just look at “Octomom”). But it doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted to prevent the abuses of the few. When people transgress into illegal behavior, there are laws to punish them, and those act as a deterrent. In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal—there’d be more people in prison than out. ..Source.. apted from “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” Int J Law Psychiatry, 32:304–14, 2009.
Milton Diamond is a professor in the department of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology at the University of Hawaii and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.
'PORN Detection Sticks' used to protect children
3-5-2010 National:
CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - The sordid side of the Internet is that teens and children who are even younger are potentially exposed to porn and sexually explicit images daily.
The younger you are, the more computer savvy you're likely to be and this is unsettling for many parents.
Moms, dads, and even businesses, are now using a new device called the PORN Detection Sticks to find hidden images on a computer.
"We have an agreement that he's only supposed to visit certain sites," said Keith Gray talking about his 13-year-old son's use of their home computer.
Like many teenagers, Gray's son is a whiz on the family computer. Despite their agreement, Gray wants to know what's online when his son surfs the net.
"When he's on the Internet, it's an open doorway to him and if I'm not there, and he's viewing materials, then I want to make sure that I can look at an archived record of it and make sure that everything he's seeing is appropriate," said Gray.
That's where the PORN Detection Stick might be helpful.
Private Investigator Nicole Bocra uses the technology developed by computer forensics companies which is now available to average consumers.
"The PORN Detection Stick will allow you to quickly identify any images and extract them off the computer," Bocra said.
Whether it's something left on a used computer you bought, something unknowingly downloaded, or racy images someone deliberately put on your personal computer, a Porn stick should find it.
"It uses different algorithms to identify flesh tone, to identify skin detection," said Bocra.
The device doesn't discriminate. The program will find images of a baby innocently bundled up, girls posing on the beach, Selma Hayek's head shot that shows a little more than just her face, or something more illicit.
Aside from the risk of a computer virus, children are being exposed at an alarming rate.
Bocra says 1,500 children were interviewed for a study and 25 percent said they had been exposed to sexual images. Twenty percent had received sexual advances online.
The chat stick might address concerns about your kids being contacted on Yahoo or MSN messengers.
"I think the chat stick will enable a parent to monitor what's going on with their kids and monitor who they're talking to without the children really being aware of it," said Bocra.
In about a minute, the chat stick can download all the chats cached on a computer.
Bocra showed us an example of a conversation a sexual predator might have with a child. It starts with an innocent question about a dog.Sexual predator: "Wow, I love dogs. Do you have a dog?"
Child: "Yes, I have a brown dog. His name is Coco."
Sexual predator: "Do you walk him everyday?"
Child: "Yes, everyday when I get home from school."
Sexual predator: "You're such a good girl. Does anyone walk him with you?"
Child: "No, just me."
One in three kids who goes online or enters a chat room is introduced to a pedophile.
Accessing possible conversations and knowing the language to look for can really empower a parent.
"The more tools as a parent that I have to protect my child from predators, from inappropriate materials being sent to him knowingly or unknowingly, I'm all for it," said Gray.
The PORN Detection Sticks cost about $130 and are 100 percent effective.
Bocra say you will be able to see every image a computer finds questionable enabling you to decide for yourself. ..Source.. WECT News 6
Sex offender registry solution?
A review of the bills presented leaves one to wonder if the average homeless person, without the aid of a lawyer, would ever be able to comply because such a person simply will not be able to understand the law. Further, changing the frequency of registration -for this subclass- opens up questions of discrimination.3-5-2010 Michigan:
Hardiman introduces new legislation
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - Sen. Bill Hardiman introduced legislation Thursday that may offer a solution to the sex offender registry loophole.
A state court earlier this year ruled homeless individuals do not have to register since -- by law -- the act requires those on the list to have a home.
Hardiman, R-Kentwood, introduced legislation to change the language of the law, allowing the homeless to be listed on the registry.
Rather than a residence, the area in which a homeless sex offender lives would be made public.
The purpose of the Sex Offender Registration Act was to help keep track of all sex offenders, said Hardiman in a news release. "We must fix this problem with the registry, so that all sex offenders are included in the system, whether they have a residence or not." ..Source.. WOODTV.com
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Chelsea King Case: Outrage Over Sex Offender Monitoring Reaches White House
First, the Adam Walsh Act has been funded ten times over through other bills, funding it yet again is not going to solve anything, except make someone look good!3-4-2010 National:
Secondly, there is nothing whatsoever, within the Adam Walsh Act (or prior similar useless laws) that could have prevented this terrible crime, had it been in place before the crime. AWA is a rewrite of past failures of lawmakers to accomplish something which can never be accomplished with such laws.
Lawmakers need to get this: TRACKING is not PREVENTION! Further, lawmakers need to focus on public safety, not making themselves look good to their constitutents.
John Walsh Said President Obama Vowed to Fund Federal Sex Offender Law
He was in court for just minutes, but the mere sight of the convicted sex offender charged with raping and murdering 17-year-old Chelsea King set off a fresh round of outrage that reached as far as the White House.
John Albert Gardner III, 30, pleaded not guilty Wednesday, but the community obviously had a very different opinion.
In the hours before his court appearance in San Diego Wednesday, someone spray painted his mother's garage with the words, "Chelsea's blood is on you -- move out." And neighbors screamed at two men who tried to paint over it.
"You're protecting somebody who has killed an innocent girl," one yelled. "Get out of here."
John Walsh, host of "America's Most Wanted," said he met with President Obama Wednesday to discuss child protection laws and funding for the Adam Walsh Act, signed three years ago by President Bush.
The law promised to create a national registry of sex offenders and keep closer track of the most violent of them, but it did not come with the funds needed to carry it out.
"President Obama said yesterday, 'As the father of two girls, John, I will get the Adam Walsh law funded,'" Walsh told "Good Morning America" today.
Walsh, whose 6-year-old son for whom the law is named and who was kidnapped and murdered in 1981, knows firsthand the grief King's parents are experiencing.
"They're in the worst place a parent could be," he said. "They look in that courtroom and see a guy who should have never been out on the streets."
King, a well-liked honors student, vanished after heading out for a jog in a semi-rural San Diego County park. Her body was found less than a week later, buried in a shallow grave near the shore of Lake Hodges, about a half-mile from her car.
But the outrage grew with the arrest of Gardner, a known violent sex offender who has since been charged with the December assault and attempted rape of 22-year-old Candice Moncayo in the same park where King's body was found.
"I think everyone asks the same question," Walsh said. "Why was this animal out on the streets?"
Do we still have a judicial system? At this point is this man guilty or innocent until proven guilty? John Walsh seems to have made up his mind. Yes, this is a terrible crime, but -foregone conclusions- AND -knee-jerk- reactions have no place in our democracy!
Residents Angry John Albert Gardner Was Allowed Out
"The law should be once you offend, you're done, you're toast, you're in the slammer or you are executed," one angry woman said as she stood among protestors outside the courthouse.
Former San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst was slightly more objective.
"I am of the view that people who do harm to teenage girls should go to Gitmo and stay there for the rest of their lives and be waterboarded," he said.
Authorities said Gardner may also be linked to the February 2009 disappearance of 14-year-old Amber DuBois, who vanished on her way to school, not far from where Gardner was living at the time.
"The girls are the exact similar build," Maurice DuBois said of his daughter and King. "Both white girls, both five-five, both 130 pounds."
Detectives across California are now looking into other unsolved cases involving young girls and considering whether there are any more possible links to Gardner.
Gardner pleaded guilty in 2000 to charges of committing lewd and lascivious acts on 13-year-old girl in his parents' home. He served five years of a six-year sentence and was on parole until 2008.
........................
If the district attorney does not seek the death penalty, the charges carry a penalty of 25 years to life.
Psychiatrist Said Gardner Posed 'Continued Danger to Underage Girls'
Gardner's previous record as a convicted sex offender, prosecutors said, would be presented at trial.
Dr. Matthew Carroll, a court psychiatrist, who evaluated Gardner before his release from prison on the 2000 conviction, had pushed for the maximum sentence, as many as 30 years, and said Gardner "would be a continued danger to underage girls in the community."
Dr. Alex Kalish, a colleague, said Carroll was angry that his recommendations were ignored a decade ago.
"Dr. Carroll told the court that [Gardner] showed no insight and expressed no responsibility and that he is a danger. You can't make a stronger statement than that," said Kalish. "The guy is violent and a predator who shows no remorse.
"There was no effort to consider his report. Apparently the DA did what was expedient to get a conviction. It is frustrating that no one considered the psychiatric input. Why ask for it, if you don't consider it," Kalish said. ..Source.. MIKE VON FREMD, RUSSELL GOLDMAN and SARAH NETTER
Wisconsin video voyeurs can now go on sex offender registry
Bloating the registry: Will folks that read Playboy be next?3-4-2010 Wisconsin:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) Gov. Jim Doyle has approved a law that will allow judges to place video voyeurs on Wisconsin's sex offender registry.
It is a felony in Wisconsin to make a video recording of a nude person if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but until now those convicted have not been added to Wisconsin's sex offender registry.
The law signed by the governor Wednesday will give judges that option if the crime was sexually motivated and they believe it is in the public's interest.
Groups representing police chiefs and victims of sexual assault and domestic violence all supported the change. ..Source.. Fox21 News
Legal scholar warns about Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s failures
3-4-2010 Minnesota:
In 1996, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the state’s law permitting the indeterminate commitment of sexual predators was constitutional. In reaching that determination, then-Chief Justice A.M. “Sandy” Keith stressed that the program was primarily therapeutic rather than punitive.
Specifically, he cited evidence that patients enrolled in the state’s sex offender program could complete the four phases of treatment in a mere 32 months before being released back into society. Keith concluded that the appellant in the case, Dennis Linehan, had not offered any evidence that the treatment program “is a sham, or even that such treatment is ineffective.”
More than 13 years later, there would seem to be abundant evidence that the state’s therapeutic regime is a sham — or at least a failure. Despite the state’s assurance that patients could complete the therapy program in less than three years, not a single person has been released from what eventually became known as the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).
Consequently, the number of individuals civilly committed at facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter has skyrocketed. In 2000, there were 149 sex offenders enrolled in the program, according to the Department of Human Services, which runs the MSOP. By the end of 2009, the population had risen above 500. Within six years there are expected to be nearly 1,000 individuals committed by the state as sexual predators.
The costs associated with the program have grown almost as quickly. Since 2004, the budget for the MSOP has more than tripled, from $20.4 million to $64.8 million. It costs more than four times as much to house someone at the sex offender lock-up as it does to keep them in prison.
The continuous growth of the MSOP has become a point of contentious debate during the current legislative session. Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants $89 million for a planned expansion of the Moose Lake facility, which is expected to run out of beds within three years. Some Democrats have questioned the wisdom of continuing to pour money into a program that’s failed to produce any results, and the DFL-controlled Legislature didn’t include funding for the projects in the $1 billion bonding bill passed by the House and Senate last month. Pawlenty vowed to veto the measure, in part owing to the lack of funding for the sex offender facility. Democratic House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher used a parliamentary move to keep the bonding bill from reaching Pawlenty, hoping that a “cooling off period” would restart negotiations.
This latest funding debate over the MSOP once again raises questions about the program’s constitutional soundness. If the civil commitment statute was originally approved by the courts based on the premise that it was designed to rehabilitate the state’s most dangerous sexual predators, what happens if it’s unequivocally shown that the state has failed to follow through on that mission?
“We don’t know whether it has been able to rehabilitate anyone, because no one’s had the opportunity to try it,” says Eric Janus, dean of William Mitchell College of Law, who has spent more than a decade contesting Minnesota’s civil commitment statute in the courts. “What does that tell us about the real, true underlying purpose of the law?”
Most politicians — and more importantly, their constituents — aren’t particularly concerned about the constitutional rights of the state’s most heinous sex offenders. But the continuing failure of the MSOP to successfully rehabilitate individuals enrolled in the program raises the specter that the courts could eventually intervene. Ultimately that could threaten the very ability to indeterminately detain violent sexual predators.
“I think there’s some danger that, if the matter is presented properly, a court could now say that the constitutional foundation has crumbled,” says Janus.
There is some evidence that courts in Minnesota are growing skeptical of the sex offender program. Olmsted County District Court Judge Kevin Lund has repeatedly questioned the therapeutic intentions of the program. Two years ago he refused to commit a convicted sex offender on grounds that the MSOP had demonstrated no ability to rehabilitate individuals.
“These facilities are nothing more than detention facilities,” Lund wrote at the time.
Last year, the Olmsted County judge similarly granted an appeal in the case of Jesus Travis. Janus was enlisted to write a legal brief on the sex offender’s behalf. The gist of his argument was that the state had failed to follow through on promises to treat individuals enrolled in the MSOP.
“Travis now claims that the promises are bankrupt — systematically, pervasively, and intentionally,” Janus wrote. “Just as the courts inferred a non-punitive purpose from these fulsome promises, so now should the courts infer a punitive purpose from their betrayal.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals was unmoved by this legal argument. In June, the court rejected Travis’ appeal and sent the case back to Olmsted County.
There’s also been some recent legal heat for the MSOP in federal courts. Wallace Beaulieu, who is involuntarily enrolled in the program, originally filed a pro se lawsuit in 2007 arguing that his civil rights were being violated and that conditions at Moose Lake were tantamount to imprisonment. Among Beaulieu’s specific complaints: full-body strip searches and confinement in shackles. After a federal judge determined that Beaulieu’s complaints might have merit, the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was enlisted to recruit lawyers for the case.
“We’re not saying shut the program down,” says Teresa Nelson, an attorney with the ACLU. “We’re not saying release the plaintiffs. It’s not a challenge to the overall program. It’s a conditions challenge.”
Despite these recent legal tremors, the MSOP is highly unlikely to be invalidated by the courts anytime soon. Judges are no more eager than other public officials to stick their necks out for sexual predators, and there is abundant case law backing the legal soundness of civil commitment programs. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kansas statute passed constitutional muster, and it has ratified that viewpoint in multiple ensuing cases.
“It will have to be raised in the right context and at a time when the court feels receptive to re-examining its earlier decisions,” says Janus. “I don’t know when, if ever, that will be. There’s a huge amount of resistance to opening that can of worms.”
Another impediment to challenging the bedrock constitutionality of the civil commitment statute is cost. Such a legal battle would likely take years and is unlikely to look particularly enticing for an attorney working pro bono.
“It would be a very expensive undertaking,” says Nelson. “It would be very difficult. It’s going to require a lot of expert witnesses to fully review the program and the treatment that’s offered.” ..Source.. Paul Demko
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Sheriff Candidates At Odds On Sex Offender Statistics
While itsa true that 2 out of 5 is 40%, reality is that, you cannot use that 40% as to ALL registrants. I think that tells voters who should be in office, and who should not be there! Those TWO may be the only ones not properly registered.3-3-2010 North Carolina:
Reports Finds 40 Percent Of Offenders Unaccounted For
FORSYTH COUNTY, N.C. -- The two Republican candidates for Forsyth County sheriff are at odds over a recent WXII report suggesting that 40 percent of sex offenders in Forsyth County could be unaccounted for.
WXII aired the report on Feb. 16 after shadowing Forsyth County Det. Paolo Gargiulo, who heads the unit tasked with keeping track of the county's sex offenders.
In the report, a check of five Forsyth County registered sex offenders showed two out of the five weren't living at the address listed on record.
Gargiulo said that result is indicative of the general trend in the county, meaning around 190 of the nearly 500 registered offenders are ducking the law.
Sheriff's Department candidate Dave Griffith took no time capitalizing on the statistic in a news release announcing his candidacy for sheriff.
"A recent report that states 40 percent of sex offenders in Forsyth County are unaccounted for puts families at risk and is a cause for alarm," the release read.
Griffith elaborated during an interview with WXII this week.
"I've been in this business long enough to know that (the statistic) probably is correct, or very close to correct," Griffith said. Tracking sex offenders "is a difficult task. It's an extremely difficult task to do and I understand that. And the deputy that's assigned is doing a great job. But what I'm saying is that's not enough."
Incumbent Sheriff Bill Schatzman, who was first elected in 2002, said the statistic on sex offender absconders was much lower.
"I am not going to respond to what anyone says for political gain or for some type of advantage," Schatzman said. "What I will tell you is the facts. And the facts are that about three percent of our current registered sex offender program are out of pocket -- three percent."
He added that upon further investigation, only one of the two "possible red flag addresses" turned out to be an out-of-compliance offender, meaning 20 percent of the addresses WXII checked were wrong.
But Griffith, who was Shatzman's chief deputy until 2006, said he believes the statistic is closer to 40 percent.
Both agree that more deputies need to be assigned to sex offender unit. Griffith wouldn't say how many people he would assign to the unit if elected, but did say his No. 1 platform issue is sex offenders.
Schatzman said his main issue is drugs and gangs. ..Source.. WXII.com
Child porn found at sex predator rehab facility in SWFL
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out how CP is getting into a facility that is locked down and detainees have no access to things outside of the gates. Some employee is bringing it in, its that simple.3-3-2010 Florida:
Desoto County, Fla - Dangerous sex offenders locked up and looking at child porn!
It's a problem right now at the Florida Civil Commitment Center in Desoto County.
This is the fifth arrest at the facility in a little more than a month.
29 year-old Robby Burke was arrested after employees at the center found him hiding under a sheet watching child porn.
The center is considered a rehab facility for violent sex predators.
Burke is the now the fifth person in a month to be found with child porn at the facility, which has WINK News demanding answers.
"Problems with contraband is always an issue," said Suzanne Klein, from the Florida Civil Commitment Center.
Klein talked to WINK News by phone on Tuesday.
She tells us it's still unclear how five detainees at the center were able to get a hold of child porn.
"authorities are still investigating how the pornography is getting into the facility," she said.
Robby Burke was arrested last week after employees caught him watching a VHS tape with a Star Trek movie and several sitcoms on it.
But Burke's odd behavior had employees taking a closer look at the video.
That's when they found several images of young boys between the ages of 11 and 12 years-old performing sexual acts.
The tape also had more than 70 images of males engaging in sexually explicit situations.
Burke told authorities he got the tape from another resident.
Klein says they are sneaky when it comes to smuggling in child porn.
"They are very clever. Very bright individuals," she said.
Since January four other men at the facility, Derek Chapman, Fernando Viruet, Robert Grimsley and Ronald Hood have been caught with child porn.
Authorities found the images on Cd's, MP3 players, and flash drives.
"We're very concerned about getting it resolved," Klein said.
The Civil Commitment Center is a state funded but by run by a private company.
Residents at the facility do not have access to the Internet, which adds to the concern as to how they're getting a hold of child porn. ..Source.. Nick Spinetto, WINK News
A Bill to Compensate William Dillon for Wrongful Conviction of 1st Deg Murder and 27 Years of Incarceration
Although I am happy to see that Mr. Dillon is receiving compensation, I still have a small problem with this bill which I have highlighted. i.e., That the state believes Mr. Dillon had "no constitutional right to be free" from an illegal conviction?3-3-2010 Florida:
WHEREAS, William Dillon was wrongfully convicted of first
degree murder and imprisoned for 27 years, and
WHEREAS, even though the current State Attorney, an
assistant public defender at the time of Mr. Dillon’s
conviction, publicly stated that dog scent evidence should be
banned because it had not “reached the level of reasonable
scientific credibility,” the State of Florida allowed a
discredited dog handler to provide false and implausible
testimony improperly connecting William Dillon to the murder,
and
WHEREAS, the same dog handler provided false testimony
against Juan Ramos and Wilton Dedge, and
WHEREAS, in exchange for dismissal of a charge of sexual
battery on a child, a jailhouse informant manufactured false
testimony against William Dillon which improperly connected him
to the murder, and
WHEREAS, a key witness, after having sexual relations with
the lead investigating detective, was threatened with excessive
incarceration unless she falsely implicated William Dillon in
the murder, and
WHEREAS, the Circuit Court in the Eighteenth Judicial
Circuit granted the state’s motion to discharge William Dillon
from custody based on DNA evidence that excluded William Dillon
as the perpetrator of the crime, and
WHEREAS, William Dillon was released on November 18, 2008,
and
WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that the state’s
system of justice yielded an imperfect result that had tragic
consequences in this case, and
WHEREAS, William Dillon was subjected to severe physical
and sexual abuse during his wrongful incarceration, and
WHEREAS, William Dillon incurred severe and permanent
dental damage as a result of a lack of dental care while
incarcerated, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that, as a result of
his conviction and physical confinement, William Dillon suffered
significant damages that are unique to William Dillon and all of
those damages are due to the fact that he was physically
restrained and prevented from exercising the freedom to which
all innocent citizens are entitled, and
WHEREAS, William Dillon, before his wrongful conviction for
the above-mentioned crime, pleaded guilty to a nonviolent felony
when he was 19 years old, and
WHEREAS, because of his prior felony conviction, William
Dillon is ineligible for compensation for each year of wrongful
incarceration under chapter 961, Florida Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature is providing compensation to
William Dillon to acknowledge the fact that he suffered
significant damages that are unique to William Dillon and are
the result of his physical restraint and deprivation of freedom,
and
WHEREAS, the Legislature is providing compensation to
William Dillon based on a moral desire to acknowledge his
undisputed and actual innocence, not in recognition of a
constitutional right or violation, and
WHEREAS, the compensation provided by this act is the sole
compensation from the state for any and all present and future
claims arising out of the factual situation in connection with
William Dillon’s wrongful conviction and incarceration, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature apologizes to William Dillon on
behalf of the state, NOW, THEREFORE,
For the remainder of this bill: Florida Legislature
