11-7-2010 New York:
A Brooklyn man who threatened to accuse the adult son of a convicted sex offender of sexually assaulting his son unless he was paid over $100,000 was charged today with attempted grand larceny, according to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office.
Simon Taub, 61, allegedly got the message to Meyer Lebovits that he planned to inform the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office that Lebovits sexually abused his son.
Lebovits notified the DA’s office about the threat and an investigation began.
The investigation came to a head in July, when Lebovits forked over $75,000 to Taub. Shortly after the transaction, Taub was arrested.
Lebovits, 31, the son of Baruch Lebovits, who is serving a 32-year prison sentence for sexually abusing a Borough Park teen, declined to comment Friday when reached on his cell phone.
His lawyer, Arthur Aidala, refused to discuss the case.
If convicted, Taub faces up to seven years in prison.
Taub has made headlines before. He and his wife, Chana, divided their Borough Park home with a wall as they went through a bitter divorce. ..Source.. EDMUND DeMARCHE
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Brooklyn man charged with extorting son of convicted sex offender
Tennessee not a magnet for unregistered fugitives
Though Tennessee ranks ninth among all states for the number of arrests of unregistered sex offenders, it is not the magnet for fugitive sex offenders that some other states are. Most unregistered sex offenders arrested in Tennessee will have committed their original sexual offense in state.
Since 1995, Knox County Criminal Court has processed 425 cases of failure to register as a sex offender. Of those, 263 have resulted in convictions.
Over 15 years they have arrested 425 folks, and only 263 were convicted, that means 38% were arrested unnecessarily; even though not convicted I'm sure they paid a price for the illegal arrest. In real numbers that county has 17 folks a year convicted for failure to register; 1.5 per month. Yup, thats a good reason to call in the U.S. Marshals, local police cannot handle arresting 1.5 folks per month. Lord help us, who is doing the hiring in this county.It was not immediately clear why there are not more convictions for an offense that would seem clear-cut: A convicted sex offender either has or has not registered.
Prosecutors say many cases may simply be pending a final adjudication.
"It is usually a fairly easy case to prove," said Randall Kilby, Knox County assistant district attorney general.
Sometimes a case can hinge on where the convicted offender's actual residence is, especially if the offender is living and registered in one jurisdiction but sometimes stays in another jurisdiction and claims legitimate reasons for doing so.
"One case I had to dismiss was on a man who had pled guilty to statutory rape in another state," Kilby said. "But he had been placed on diversion, completed it, and the charge was dismissed. So he was not even required to be on the registry."
Not all sex offense convictions require registration. In Tennessee, whether someone convicted of statutory rape has to register depends upon the age of the victim and the difference in ages between the victim and the offender.
Knox County Assistant District Attorney General Steve Sword, who prosecutes many sexual offense cases, said that in his experience many convicted offenders who do not register are not necessarily scheming to re-offend.
"The ones that stay local and get busted (for not registering), they are mostly just stupid," Sword said. "They are not so much trying to avoid detection, they are just continuing to do what they have done all their lives - not follow the rules."
But offenders who move around and do not register "are likely to continue doing what they do. They will usually cross state lines. And we usually catch them doing some other crime. Unfortunately, sometimes, they are messing with kids again." ..Source.. by Jim Balloch
Saturday, November 6, 2010
School buses test fingerprint scan
Now, in the winter when kids have gloves on, will that tie up the bus making routes longer in time? Vendors never mention the logical thing that might destroy a sale.11-6-2010 California:
School districts are turning to high-tech solutions — from fingerprint scans to electronic cards — to track kids on school buses and keep them from getting off at the wrong stops.
The latest: A fingerprint scanning system, approved this month for testing at the Desert Sands district, northeast of San Diego. Students will be scanned as they get on and off the bus.
"Kids get lost. It happens in every school district, every year," says John DeVries, president of Global Biometrics Security, which developed the Biometric Observation Security System (BOSS) that's being tested.
It happened Oct. 13 when a Prince George's County (Md.) school employee took a 5-year-old student to the wrong bus and the student got off several blocks from home. "That just shouldn't happen," says district spokesman Darrell Pressley. He says the district is now considering a system.
With BOSS, students' fingerprints are scanned and sent to a database. When they get off, they provide a "check out" print. An alarm sounds if the child tries to get off at the wrong place.
The fingerprints are not stored, DeVries says. They are converted into a series of numbers that cannot be used to re-create the print, he says.
Margaret Gomez of Palm Springs, Calif., whose daughter, then 6, was let off a bus about a mile from her home three years ago, supports the idea. "Anything is better than what they have in place now," she says.
Other tracking systems include the ZPass from Seattle-based Zonar Systems, which uses a programmed card carried by students or tied to a backpack. It is in about 30 districts, including North Kansas City Schools and Illinois School District 128 in Palos Heights, company executive Chris Oliver says.
Paul Stephens, of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, says tracking students is reasonable, but the data could fall into unauthorized hands. "What if a child predator was able to get access to this?" he says. ..Source.. by Trevor Hughes and Michelle Mitchell
Search ends for sex offender
Here we have a case of someone who likely told Tennessee, he was going to move, then maybe a few days later changed his mind. However, the system used by police has a clear error in it, or someone dropped the ball. Error after error by the police and they will never admit it.11-6-2010 Tennessee:
The search for a Tennessee sex offender believed to be in Bryant has ended, according to Jackson County investigator Paul Smith.
Smith said Thursday morning that ___, 35, of Hamilton County, Tenn., has legally registered as a sex offender in Tennessee.
"We are no longer seeking him," said Smith.
Authorities had been searching for ___ in the Bryant area after being notified from Tennessee officials he was moving into the area.
By Alabama law, ___ would have been required to register as sex offender within seven days of moving into the state. ..Source.. by DeWayne Patterson
U.S. marshals, local agencies work together to nab sex offender 'absconders'
It makes no sense for a local officer to call in the U.S. Marshals (at salaries of thousands of dollars), to make an arrest one county away, when she can do the same with a FREE phone call to LE of the neighboring county to make the arrest. Maybe its to allow her to get the arrest rather than the other county police? This is a game being played by LE, actually a misuse of taxpayer money.11-6-2010 Florida:
Further, look at the number of police doing these addresse checks, and how many times of the yaer they do it, the cost is prohibitive for the want of a address where the person sleeps for a few hours of the night. And, there are no studies to show this reduces crime or recidivism. What a waste!
When Detective Suzanne Woodward of the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office tracked a convicted sex offender in Fort Pierce wanted for “re-offending” (allegedly climbing into a 14-year-old girl’s bedroom window) into Indian River County, she didn’t have to call in local authorities to arrest him.
Like many sheriff’s deputies in Florida — and several along the Treasure Coast — who work sex cases, Woodward is “cross deputized” by the U.S. Marshals Service, which tracks down convicted sex offenders and sexual predators who go missing after serving their time behind bars.
The cooperation between federal and local authorities is necessary, Woodward said, because “there’s no doubt that there’s a high rate of recidivism with sex offenders. Of course, there are those who never offend again; but I’ve been working with sex crimes for 20 years, and I’ll be the first to tell you that a large portion of the people we put away (like the Fort Pierce “re-offender” she arrested in Indian River County) come back around.”
Again we see law enforcement either, unwilling to accept factual studies on recidivism, or using personal beliefs without any authority to back up her assertion, likely to sensationalize the circumstance.Registered sex offenders and sexual predators are required by law to provide contact information to local authorities within two days after they are released from prison or move into a new jurisdiction. The offenders’ contact information is then regularly checked by sheriff’s deputies.
In Indian River County, for example, sex offenders are checked at least twice a year and sexual predators, who are more serious offenders, are checked at least four times a year, said Detective Sgt. Thom Raulen supervisor of the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Sex Offender Management Unit.
Having a couple of sheriff’s deputies in each county on the Treasure Coast also deputized as U.S. marshals for purposes of keeping track of sex offenders “helps cut through a lot of red tape,” Woodward said. “The biggest benefit for me is that I can work across jurisdictions when I’ve got an ongoing investigation into an absconder.”
Woodward said the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office has two deputies devoted to keeping track of sex offenders and sexual predators. In Indian River County, Raulen works with Detective Eric Flowers, who is cross-deputized with the U.S. Marshals Service.
Rhonda Irons, Martin County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, said that agency “has detectives assigned to monitor (and) track sexual offenders (and) predators. Predominantly in the past, the absconders have been offenders who moved to a new location, failed to notify of their new address and were quickly apprehended by local law enforcement.”
Besides regular checks, sex offender tracking units with the sheriff’s offices typically conduct surprise sweeps, often with help from U.S. marshals, a few times a year.
“We’ll call in a few of our other detectives and uniformed officers,” Raulen said, “as well as some (Vero Beach) officers, in an attempt to check on all the sex offenders and predators in the county. It keeps it in the back of their minds that we can come out to check on them at any time.”
Added Woodward: “You go banging on someone’s door at 3 a.m., that’s a surprise check.”
This is harassment no matter how you look at it, totally unnecessary except maybe a case or two.As an example, Glen Wilner, assistant chief deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in West Palm Beach, which oversees sex offender tracking operations on the Treasure Coast through a satellite office in Fort Pierce, noted that Operation Safe Neighbor in St. Lucie County on March 30 through April 1 resulted in 75 compliance checks, three sex offender arrests and two new cases of absconded sex offenders.
“Our operations for compliance checks are important,” Wilner said, “because we capture updated offender information such as updated vehicle and family information, updated contacts and employment listings, updated e-mails, phones and addresses as well as updated pictures of offenders. This is critical information that is captured and logged and later used against the offender should they abscond.”
Raulen said he reaches out to the marshals for assistance “if we have a sex offender who has absconded or has a new charge against him, and we can’t find him after a diligent search,” adding that there’s no jurisdictional turf war when it comes to tracking down sex offenders.
“We welcome the assistance of the U.S. Marshals Service and any federal agency,” he said. “It’s a great benefit to us and to the citizens of the county to have their manpower, equipment and technology to help us out. And when we’ve asked for it, we’ve never been denied some level of assistance.”
Woodward said the assistance is a two-way street.
“They help us, and we help them,” Woodward said. “They may send us four, five, six guys to help us with our checks; and when another jurisdiction is doing its checks, we go help them.”
Irons said the Martin County Sheriff’s Office “works collaboratively with the (marshals service) on many occasions regarding fugitives.”
The goal, Woodward said, “is the safety of our kids. We can’t watch these offenders 24 hours a day, but we do try to control where they are.” ..Source.. Tyler Treadway
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Adam Walsh Act Parasite has Infected Michigan Lawmakers...
11-5-2010 Michigan:
The AWA parasite has crept into Michigan, likely carried by the SMART Guidelines (they really do exist, although named by someone who obviously wanted to play a joke on registrants) for the Adam Walsh Act; the parasite has infected the minds of lawmakers and turned on the insanity switch.
Two bills have been introduced outlining the changes Michigan lawmakers WILL MAKE and they will be effective 4-1-2011. No this is not a April Fools joke, unless lawmakers chose that date to say, "here we stick it to registrants again," and they WILL get away with it, again.
The bills are: S-1560 (The meat of the changes are in this one) and S-1559 (this has to do with the Petitions some folks [only certain folks were eligible] used to be able to use to get off the registry).
Why do I use the word INSANE? Well, because it is well known, that the AWA is to be interpreted as the floor and not the ceiling, meaning States must do the minimum AWA requires, but are also allowed to go beyond AWA requirements. Michigan is somewhere in outer space with their new requirements.
Before reviewing the bills, mainly S-1560 the meat, here are some terms that are critically important:
When considering the following, think about what one does in a normal day, then think about being a registrant and having to worry about how officials will construe, or misconstrue, some of the following:I could write a book on where this bill is open for misconstruction, but I am ending with this one:
"immediately" which is defined as within 3 business days, but, business days are not defined nor are they listed anywhere. Defining "business days" is important because, if left undefined, and in the hands of a rouge official, it could mean what they want, just to get a registrant back in jail.
"to be used" this is the insidious one, used in many ways. ex: A registrant wants to offer their opinion on a news story or blog, most folks know that, when one signs up as some sites require, before being allowed to comment, registrants will have to give their REAL e-mail address. Then when they actually enter their comment, they are allowed to chose a any Internet ID or Anonymous is used as default. So, what does a registrant chose? If anonymous, then everywhere on the Internet that "anonymous" is used, it is a registered sex offender speaking. Does this example show Lawmakers know nothing about the Internet or how it works? Or, are they using the idiosyncrasies of the Internet to entrap registrants. The latter is more likely, and especially true in the hands of a rouge official, there are many. "to be used" is used in several places, and each leaves one with thinking about entrapment.
Another example of "to be used," is with respect to residences. Here I think (am assuming, grrr) that they are speaking about homeless folks, it says, "information under this subsection shall identify the location or area used -or- to be used by the individual in lieu of a residence." Here I will take a pot-shot, Thomas Pauli homeless and rejected from shelters in the dead of winter (temperatures below zero), he looked for anywhere to get out of the cold, he found a junkyard. Could he have predicted beforehand (i.e. to be used) that he would take up residence there? He froze to death there, and this bill does NOTHING to handle such circumstances. NOTHING! Is insanity an incorrect word for me to use about this bill?
Note: The Michigan Supreme court anounced on 11-4-2010 that they will hear the case about Michigan's homeless folks, up from a lower court.Another example of "to be used," and this one is a Prosecutor's dream provision:
(E) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ANY PLACE OF TEMPORARY LODGING USED OR TO BE USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL DURING ANY PERIOD IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS AWAY, OR IS EXPECTED TO BE AWAY, FROM HIS OR HER RESIDENCE. INFORMATION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL INCLUDE THE DATES THE LODGING IS USED OR TO BE USED.Is there any doubt that is a entrapment provision? And this information must be provided when the registrant FIRST registers (that is how the bill is worded).
"routinely used" Again "routinely used" is not defined, and leaving such open allows it to be construed several ways. Routinely used is also used with respect to Internet restrictions. By the way, how does one register "part of a telephone number" read it closely? Maybe a 7 or 10 digit phone number, but what if one must first dial a "1" is that part of the phone number? The bill refuses to be precise allowing for misconstructions.
(H) ALL TELEPHONE NUMBERS REGISTERED IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ROUTINELY USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL."alleged social security number" Now, this is again, undefined. How does one use an "alleged SS number," I cannot think of a circumstance. If they meant a fictitious one, or one that is not assigned by Social Security Administration then there is a way to describe such, but left undefined who knows how that will be interpreted, especially for women who get married or have changed theirs because of domestic violence circumstances.
(11) THE REGISTRATION PERIODS UNDER THIS SECTION EXCLUDE ANY PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR COMMITTING A CRIME AND ANY PERIOD OF CIVIL COMMITMENT.
Everyone has complained about AWA being applied retroactively, but here is Michigan's latest trick: The "Registration Term" does not BEGIN until the sentence (including any parole or probation period) has been completed. Clearly they got the idea from how civil commitment works, following a sentence. And why is Michigan even mentioning "civil commitment" when they do not have such in their laws, YET?Finally, not one word on how to handle folks who are disabled and cannot follow registry requirements. Folks do get old and become infirm, and some do wind up only having a short time to live; the registry requirements are not relaxed even then. Plain insane!
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: I may do a Part-2 on this bill as I see more egregious things in it.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The ODDEST bill I have ever read, what is it?
11-4-2010 Michigan:
In Michigan, a unnamed Senator, is proposing a bill (S-1556) which says, verbatim:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "right of publicity act".Thats the whole bill, nothing more, except what it means, here we go, Newspapers can never mention the name of nor print a picture of a lawmaker without his/her written consent, during his/her lifetime -OR- for 50 years thereafter.
Sec. 2. As used in this act, "right of publicity" means a property right in the name or likeness of an individual.
Sec. 3. An individual who is a public figure has a protected right of publicity. The name or likeness of an individual who is a public figure shall not be used for commercial profit during his or her lifetime or for a period of 50 years after the date of the individuals death without the written consent of the individual or his or her successor in interest.
Clearly newspapers are a for-profit business, and how many other businesses are for-profit? Think about this.
Now, as we all know, laws frequently have unintended consequences, and I can think of one I'll bet this unnamed lawmaker didn't think of before proposing this law:
Sex offender registries, clearly make registrants public figures, in fact, the registry intent is to make those registrants well known to the public, would anyone disagree?
And, and, lawmakers often speak about certain registrants, don't they, do they do that to keep their jobs? And,if so are they profiting? Maybe thats over the edge.
OK all you for-profit businesses, in Michigan, sex offender registrants -throughout the entire nation- can never be named or their likeness shown by a Michigan for-profit business, in anything they profit from.
Hummm, is law enforcement a for-profit business, or are they established to lose money?
Am I right about this, how do you read the proposed law, let me know.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Door hangers highlight sex offenders
Even law enforcement differs in opinions, whether tags are "Smart -or- Not Smart" OR are tags just another form of harassment for the majority? As to worrying who lives around you, sex offenders should be the least of your worries.11-4-2010 Texas:
You can't miss Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage's new message to the county's 750 registered sex offenders.
Gage is using bright red door hangers to let offenders know that law enforcement officers are checking up on them, and that they need to comply with sex offender registry laws.
"Our message to the sex offender is very clear: Comply with the laws or you're going to end up in jail," Gage said in announcing the new program, which is already in effect.
The high-visibility hangers are left behind when no one answers the door during a "compliance check" at an offender's place of residence.
State sexual offender registry laws require offenders to provide current information about their residence, vehicle and place of employment.
The door hangers were purchased with the help of the Sheriff's Office Citizen's Academy Alumni Association.
They are a distinct improvement over the previous practice of leaving business cards, said Lt. Dan Norris, a spokesman for the sheriff's office.
"There is no doubt what that door hanger means: Law enforcement was there to do a compliance check," Norris said. "It also would be an alert to anyone on the street who may see one."
At least one county law enforcement official says he won't be routinely using the new door hangers, although he said they can be a "useful tool" in some cases.
Montgomery County Precinct 3 Constable Tim Holifield said he doesn't want to tip off offenders that they are being watched.
"Leaving a notice that I'm looking for somebody may not always be the best thing," said Holifield, a constable in heavily populated south Montgomery County since 1997. "We want to find the people, not just leave a note for them."
Constables in Montgomery County assist the Sheriff's Office with compliance checks.
Holifield said he makes repeat visits, or goes to the offender's place of employment, if they don't answer the door.
"Our job is compliance," he said. "I'm not going to rely on them to find me. It's my job to find them."
Alerting neighbors
Holifield said any tool or technique to keep tabs on sexual offenders has its place, however.
"There are times when the placard could be very useful … like when a new family may be living there and not realize that a registered sex offender is using their address," he said.
Norris said enlisting the help of the public in keeping track of registered sex offenders is part of the door-hanger program.
"Protection begins with knowing your surroundings and knowing who is nearby." ..Source.. by KAREN HASTINGS, CHRONICLE
Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules
Before everyone jumps for joy, this is the trial court, and the decision will likely be appealed. With that said, the decision is very likely a solid one with all facts taken into consideration, and from comments below, the judge is very attuned to what makes the public safe, and what does not, and has made that his priority in the decision!11-4-2010 California:
Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and homelessness, a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders can live from parks or schools.
Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza issued the 10-page ruling after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court, arguing that the legislation known as Jessica's Law was unconstitutional.
He said the court had received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared by the public defender's and alternate public defender's offices.
"The court is not a 'potted plant' and need not sit idly by in the face of immediate, ongoing and significant violations of parolee constitutional rights," Espinoza wrote.
Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.
Before the law passed, those residency requirements were imposed only on offenders whose victims were children.
Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities.
Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.
The California Supreme Court ruled in February that registered sex offenders could challenge residency requirements in the law if it proves impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.
State corrections officials said Wednesday that they could not comment on the specifics of Espinoza's ruling, but said they would continue to ensure residency restrictions are imposed in cases where there is a valid reason to continue enforcing them.
"There are other tools that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can and will continue to use to further public safety, including residency restrictions specific to each offender," said the agency spokesman Luis Patino.
In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that the Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." The judge noted that in 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in the city of Los Angeles. By September of this year, that number had jumped to 259.
"Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County actually undermines public safety." wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising judge of the Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."
LAPD officials said they were reviewing the court decision and had no immediate comment on its specifics.
Last month, in a briefing for the Los Angeles Police Commission, Det. Diane Webb, who heads a unit responsible for tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders, said there are about 5,100 registered sex offenders living in the city.
Of those, about 20%, or approximately 1,020 people, are on parole for felony crimes and are prohibited by state law from living near a school or park where children gather, Webb said.
She said that some of the city's sex-offender population has come to Los Angeles from surrounding cities that have passed additional sex-offender laws that make it next to impossible for offenders to find a place to live and push them to look elsewhere, but that Los Angeles does not have any additional laws on its books, making it a feasible destination. ..Source.. by Andrew Blankstein
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Online Privacy
11-2-2010 North Carolina:
U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington made a noteworthy ruling last week that protects the rights of consumers in their online activities. The ACLU sued the North Carolina Department of Revenue in Seattle over the state’s attempt to obtain sales information from Amazon.com. The state wanted to know everything that each North Carolinian purchased on Amazon over the last year. The ACLU argued the requests for information made by the state are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of internet users to free speech, anonymity, and privacy.
In Amazon.com, LLC v. Kenneth R. Lay, Judge Pechman ruled that North Carolina’s demands violated the Constitution and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. She wrote: “The First Amendment protects a buyer from having the expressive content of her purchase of books, music, and audiovisual materials disclosed to the government . . . The fear of government tracking and censoring one’s reading, listening, and viewing choices chills the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
The fact that the state had sought personally identifiable information about each buyer and the item he or she purchased was unnecessary and an overreach by government. While not a criminal case, the analysis by the Court provides a good analysis of the privacy rights of individuals in the context of on-line activities that might be helpful in federal criminal practice. ..Source.. by Jaime Hawk
Sinking Ship
Prisons Try to Improve Mental Health Services; They Cut Them Instead
THERE ARE 13,982 inmates currently residing in all 14 of Oregon's prisons. Of those prisoners, 6,844 (or 49 percent) have a diagnosed mental illness.
Concerned about the treatment of inmates who have both a mental illness and a drug addiction, the state mandated in January that prisons double their mental health programs' staffing ratio to one staffer for every 10 inmates. Ironically, the move backfired.
Anticipated cuts of up to 25 percent of its budget thanks to the financial crisis, the Oregon Department of Corrections says it will be too expensive to double its mental health staff. Instead, it is cutting the entire transitional treatment program for prisoners suffering from co-occurring mental illnesses and drug addictions. The result will be devastating, say public defenders and mental health advocates.
"It's going to increase the number of people who relapse when they reenter the community," says Bob Joondeph, executive director of Disability Rights Oregon.
"People are going to cycle back [into prison]," agrees Chris Bouneff, the executive director of the Oregon chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
Three Oregon prisons currently provide 157 beds for the treatment program, which lasts six months or longer and involves group therapy, drug and mental health treatment, and life skills that help prisoners manage their addictions and illnesses. Prisoners are also referred to treatment programs and other services outside of prison.
The department of corrections stopped accepting new inmates into the program this month, and will shut it down by the end of the year.
"Almost all of our clients have co-occurring disorders," says Heather Ackles, Metropolitan Public Defender's alternative sentences advocate. The need for the program is dire, she says. "It's really a shame."
Doubling its mental health staff represented a "huge expense," says Jana Russell, the administrator of the department of corrections' behavioral health programs. Instead of increasing the program's funding, the program's resources are being reallocated to "the highest need," Russell says.
"We had to make some very big and important decisions about how to manage this population," she says.
Russell is not happy about the cut, but states that her first priority is funding treatment for inmates while they are prisoners, rather than programs that help inmates transition back into civilian life.
Russell says mentally ill inmates in Oregon's prison system frequently inflict self-harm, attempt suicide, and experience psychosis.
"The first priority is keeping staff safe, and services that allow people to reenter and not re-offend are second," says Joondeph of Disability Rights Oregon.
It's possible the program will be restored in the future, but the department of corrections could not provide information on how much more money would be needed to reinstate the program, or even how much the program currently costs to run.
Putting together a line-item budget for the department of corrections' mental health and drug addiction treatment programs would be an "administrative nightmare," says Martha McDaniel, the department's budget manager, and it would make the budget less flexible.
Meanwhile, inmates who would have been in the co-occurring treatment program will be housed with the general prison population, or in other mental health or drug treatment programs.
"The treatment won't be as broad," Russell admits.
But Joondeph and Bouneff are skeptical of how effective the care will be for inmates with co-occurring disorders.
Joondeph says, "The vast majority of people in the corrections system with mental illnesses have accompanying substance abuse issues. They need to be addressed together, equally." ..Source.. Amanda Waldroupe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
