9-15-2012 New Hampshire:
The city of Franklin has dropped its legal fight to overturn a January court decision that found its ordinance restricting the residency of sex offenders unconstitutional. But the city will try other ways to keep sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places children congregate, Mayor Ken Merrifield said.
The city's appeal was scheduled to be heard by the state Supreme Court next week.
"We have conferred with our legal counsel, and we really had only filed the appeal to keep that door open," Merrifield said. "It really was never our most likely response to this. We recognized the expense would be tremendous, so the city council has opted not to keep that door open right now."
The decision means the city cannot enforce the residency part of the 2007 ordinance, which forbids registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds, athletic fields, public beaches, child-care facilities and municipal ski areas.
But Merrifield said the city can continue to enforce the other part of the ordinance prohibiting a registered sex offender from entering a school or child-care facility, unless specifically authorized by the school administration or child-care facility administrators.
The city adopted the ordinance in 2007. It wasn't challenged until 2010, when William Thomas, a Massachusetts sex offender, moved into a Franklin apartment.
Thomas had served three years in a Massachusetts prison nearly 25 years earlier for sexually assaulting a child. When he registered his new address with the Franklin police in 2010, he was told he had to give up his apartment because it was within 2,500 feet of a school.
A few weeks later, Thomas sued with the help of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the nonprofit, argued that the city could not restrict where a person lived without showing a compelling reason justifying the restriction.
In January Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler ruled against the city, saying the city had failed to show the restriction would actually protect children. Smukler also said in his ruling that the city failed to show that its infringement on a person's right to live where he or she wants meets "an important government interest," which in this case is the protection of children.
Keshen told the Monitor in April that she welcomed the city's appeal because she believed a win at the state Supreme Court would discourage other towns from adopting ordinances restricting where registered sex offenders could live.
Yesterday, Keshen said she was disappointed the high court won't get the case. But she thinks the lower court challenge of Franklin's ordinance, and Dover's before that, have been effective.
"It's been several years since Dover was decided," she said. "In that time, no city or town has tried to enact a residency restriction. I don't think New Hampshire citizens are going to be pursuing it. And now (with the Franklin appeal dropped) there is even more a reason for not doing so."
Currently, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have ordinances restricting where registered sex offenders can live. They were adopted before the Dover ordinance was thrown out. Those ordinances have not been challenged, but Keshen said they would be if she heard from a sex offender affected by ordinances in those communities.
Merrifield said yesterday the city may try to revise its ordinance in a way that passes constitutional muster. City officials may also ask the Legislature to pass a law allowing communities to restrict where a sex offender can live, he said.
Keshen said she doesn't believe either effort would be successful because there has been no evidence that residency restrictions protect children. She said the evidence shows otherwise.
Sex offenders tend to "go underground" and fail to register their address where ordinances exist because they can't find housing within the permitted areas. That makes it harder for the police to keep track of them, she said.
Merrifield said he continues to find it frustrating that the court found against the city because it did not sufficiently show a residency restriction would protect children. He said common sense answers that concern. ..Source.. by Annmarie Timmins
September 15, 2012
Sex offender residency case dropped
June 28, 2012
Minnesota abuse victims to pursue civil suit against London suspect
6-28-2012 Minnesota:
An attorney representing three Minnesota women who were molested when they were young says it's unfortunate their abuser won't be brought to the U.S. to face criminal charges.
Now, the attorney says, the only way the victims can hold Shawn Sullivan accountable is through civil court.
Sullivan, 43, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota in the 1990s. He is in London, and Britain's High Court won't extradite him, saying Minnesota's civil commitment law for sex offenders is too harsh.
Attorney Michael Hall III is representing the three Minnesota victims who sued Sullivan.
Defense attorneys wanted the lawsuit put on hold pending an extradition decision, but Hall says he now anticipates it will go forward.
Sullivan's civil defense attorney did not return a message Thursday, June 28. ..Source.. by Pioneer Press
April 10, 2012
Victim sues DOC in rape at South Bend Walgreens
4-10-2012 Indiana:
A woman who was raped in a Walgreens bathroom last year has sued the Indiana Department of Correction for mistakenly releasing the rapist from prison just days before he committed the crime.
The woman, named Jane Doe in court documents, alleges that prison officials failed to notice that Robert Kemp Jr. had an outstanding arrest warrant when they released him on parole on Dec. 29, 2010, after he completed his sentence for another crime.
Three days later, Kemp attacked the woman at Walgreens on Lincoln Way East, where she was working.
"The Department of Correction has a duty to all the residents of the state of Indiana to keep dangerous people away if they're supposed to be locked up," said the woman's attorney, Stan Wruble. "The state certainly would be negligent if they opened all the prisons and let everyone walk away. They are likewise negligent if they mistakenly let someone get out early."
Kemp was convicted last summer and is serving a 130-year prison sentence.
The woman is also seeking unspecified damages from the state of Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Walgreens Co. and Kemp.
All court documents related to the case are sealed from the public to protect the woman's identity. The lawsuit was filed in July. ..For the rst of the story: by MARY KATE MALONE
September 13, 2011
Michael DeWayne Walker: Lawsuit Over Child Rapist's Prison Death Allowed to Continue
9-13-2011 Texas:
Michael DeWayne Walker was serving a 21-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a child when he was put in a cell with Wilbert "Peanut" Hamilton in 2006.
Hamilton beat him to death, and Walker's parents have sued on the grounds that guards and prison officials knew Hamilton was a violent psychotic and that he was allowed to have steel-toed boots in his cell.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice employees have sought to have the suit dismissed on grounds of immunity, but federal judge Kenneth Hoyt has ruled the parents' claims can be heard.
There's a factual dispute over how long the beating went on -- Walker's parents say it lasted five hours, and guards should absolutely have been able to hear it, while the defendants in the suit say it was only a few minutes.
The guards also say there was no formal policy made clear to them that child-sex offenders should be kept isolated from the general prison population for their safety, or that the steel-toed boots had to be left in the prison work area and not taken into the cell.
In court documents, Walker's parents say Hamilton "was regarded as crazy and had a reputation for beating on his cellmates." They claim Hamilton warned guards he would kill Walker as they were putting him in the cell.
Putting him there violated their son's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, their suit says.
The guards say all proper procedures were followed.
Hoyt denied the guards' motion, saying, "genuine issues of material fact remain disputed regarding whether defendants violated Walker's Eighth Amendment rights." ..Source.. by Richard Connelly
July 28, 2011
Are Criminal Background Checks Unfairly Discriminatory?
It is possible, that out of the hearings, could come legislation that would require an employer to document specific reasons for not hiring a person, and maybe a requirement to send a letter to the applicant. Then if contested by an applicant, something would be documented. That would place the burden on the employer to give a fairer consideration of applicants. This would be a start!7-28-2011 National:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is holding a hearing today on an important topic for companies: Can they consider job applicants’ criminal histories in making hiring decisions?
The hearing will examine the law governing background screening and consider the extent to which individuals with arrest and conviction records face barriers in getting hired.
The hearing comes at a time in which an increasing number of employers are seeking criminal background checks out of security concerns, according to this item in the Washington Post’s Federal Eye blog. And some advocates, the Post reports, are pushing for legislation that would require certain employers to perform criminal background checks.
But the EEOC, as we noted in this earlier post, has in the past expressed concern that companies may improperly discriminate against minorities, who have been arrested at a disproportionate rate, when they screen out job applicants with criminal records. The agency has even sued some companies, alleging they have used arrest records improperly.
So, is background screening fair game for employers?
Paul Evans, a partner at Morgan, Lewis, offered the Law Blog some thoughts on the topic. “Employers have legal obligations to protect the safety of their customers and employees,” he said. Criminal record checks “allow employers to meet these obligations by ensuring that individuals with violent histories are not hired into roles, such as in-home service technician roles, that provide them with private access to customers and employees.”
Companies, he added, typically do not implement blanket prohibitions against hiring applicants with a criminal record. “In my experience, employers have well-reasoned criminal record check policies tailored to the jobs for which they are hiring,” Evans said.
An EEOC spokeswoman told the Law Blog that the agency is concerned that the employers may be prone to weed out applicants who have long-ago arrests that never led to a conviction. “It is of great concern to us that inaccurate information might be used to deny people employment,” she said. “This is also an economic concern for communities, because if ex-offenders are not given jobs the chances are that they may re-offend,” she added. ..Source.. by Nathan Koppel
October 28, 2010
The 10th Cir Court of Appeals issues decision on "Internet anonymous free speech" of Utah's sex offenders
UPDATE 3-10-2011: Many thanks to the reader for this important update: "The Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011. This does not mean that SCOTUS did agreed with the Tenth Circuit, it just means they will not hear the case. They are well aware that the White v. Baker decision out of Georgia says it is unconstitutional. There is a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Nebraska as well on this issue. A new lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2011 against New York's E-STOP as well."10-28-2010 Utah:
Folks may remember this case from 2008 where Utah had amended its registry laws to require registrants to turn over their Internet IDs, Passwords and any place on the Internet they visit.
Well Mr. John Doe, who was no longer on parole or probation or any other form of supervision, sued to stop the enforcement of the law against him. The Utah court did issue an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law against Mr. Doe because it felt his rights to anonymous free speech on the Internet were being violated by the new state law.
We now know that, following that decision the Utah legislature changed the law. The new law said, registrants still had to fess up the Internet IDs but not the passwords, and that information would be kept private and used ONLY for criminal investigations by the police. The Utah AG goes back into court and gets the Injunction lifted. Mr. Doe must comply.
Mr. Doe then takes the case to the Federal District court claiming, even this new law violates his rights to anonymous free speech on the Internet. The District court agrees with what the Utah AG said, and told Mr. Doe to provide the information asked for by the state.
Mr. Doe then appeals the District court decision to the 10th Cir Court of Appeals, which issued a decision today. The Appellate court rules, like the District court, that Mr. Doe's rights are not violated because, the state law says the Internet IDs will be kept private and used ONLY for criminal investigations.
Going back in time the news reports can be found HERE and HERE and HERE, and the court decisions HERE.
That ends the legal side of that case, and one would think thats where it ends. Not so Sherlock. Along comes the Adam Walsh Act, modified recently by the Kid's Act, and as to Internet IDs says the following.
ALL registrants of state registries, that includes Utah registrants when Utah enacts provisions of AWA, must submit Internet IDs, BUT, how AWA allows use of the Internet IDs appears to violate the 10th Cir Court of Appeals decision as to Utah registrants (or at least Mr. Doe).
AWA allows social networks to compare Internet IDs to their files (this happens by the U.S. Dep't of Justice giving all registrants Internet IDs to the social networks), to see if a state registrant has an account on the social network, and if so, that social network MAY kick the registrant of the social network site.
There is no doubt that, the federal government allowing ANY social network access to Internet IDs for their purpose, is not the same as, police using Internet IDs for the purpose of criminal investigations. Hence, as to Utah registrants, their rights will again be violated.
So far, to my knowledge, no Utah registrant has realized how AWA will use their Internet IDs, in violation of the 10th Cir Court of Appeals decision, and filed a new court case on this issue.
It is clear we have not heard the end of this issue, at least for Utah registrants.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Hint hint hint, if any reader knows a Utah registrant, you may want them to read the above.
December 27, 2009
Walmart reaches settlement in S.C. case involving sex offender
12-27-2009 National:
COLUMBIA -- A family's long legal battle against the nation's biggest retailer that helped spark stricter hiring practices companywide to protect child customers from employees with criminal histories has ended with a confidential settlement.
Walmart agreed last week to pay a girl an undisclosed sum after a worker who was a registered sex offender fondled her in July 2004 while she shopped with her little sister and a family friend in an Orangeburg store, according to court records.
Within weeks of that incident and similar ones, Walmart began conducting criminal background checks on new hires at its 3,500 stores, including Sam's Club.
A spokeswoman for Walmart's corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., Daphne Moore, would not discuss the Dec. 16 settlement Wednesday.
“I can just tell you the matter is resolved,” Moore said, declining to discuss the case or how the company has changed its employment practices.
The girl's parents said Wednesday they are glad Walmart changed its practices. But they worry the retailer will revert to cheaper hiring methods.
“We had to fight them, fight them, fight them,” Tarsha Perry said from the family's Jacksonville, Fla., home. “It was like dealing with a juvenile delinquent who kept doing things wrong.”
That's why the Perrys, who agreed to be named in this article, want South Carolina to enact a law requiring employers to pay for background checks.
That's unlikely, certainly not in the upcoming legislative session, said Laura Hudson, a veteran S.C. lobbyist for crime victims.
The Perry's two daughters had been spending summers in Orangeburg with their grandmother for years until the assault, Tarsha Perry said.
The fallout of Walmart's former practices continues to affect the Perry's now-17-year-old daughter, an accomplished high school senior.
She has yet to go out on a date with a boy by herself. She also is less outwardly affectionate toward her father, a physician, who used to hug her, tickle her and chase her and her younger sister around playing monster games.
“Now he has to ask for a kiss,” Tarsha Perry said. “Anyone gets too close to her, she still takes a few steps back.
“It stole her childhood,” she said of the aftereffects of the July 3, 2004, incident that was captured on the store's security video. The Perrys sued later that year.
Their eldest daughter's middle school years were difficult as she withdrew from students, missed school and got her first F, Tarsha Perry said.
In high school, the girl got into basketball, her grades returned to A's and B's and she became fluent in Spanish, her mother said. The teenager has grown stronger, more independent and wants to follow her father into medicine. Her younger sister wants to be a lawyer.
“They've got this mentality that they want to be in charge of things,” the 43-year-old mother said. “They want to call the shots.”
The younger daughter, now in eighth grade, saw the man fondle her sister's buttocks and was shaken by the experience, Tarsha Perry said.
The State newspaper generally does not identify people who are sexually assaulted.
The Perry's attorney, David Massey of Columbia, called the lawsuit and the settlement “a bloody fight the whole way. I'm glad it's resolved.”
“Walmart is now doing the right thing,” Massey said. ..Source.. Clif LeBlanc - The (Columbia) State
November 3, 2009
VT- ACLU suit challenges man's listing on sex registry
11-3-2009 Vermont:
MONTPELIER – A man who was apparently improperly included in the state's public sex offender registry has sued the state to have his name removed.
Identified only as John Doe in court records, the man was charged in 1999 with attempted kidnapping and attempted sexual assault. He was convicted in a plea agreement only of attempted sexual assault, but this year the state included him on the public sex offender registry, recently expanded by legislators.
However, the law did not include "attempted crimes" such as the one the unidentified man was convicted of among the offenses that warranted inclusion in the public registry, according to his suit and the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, which has taken on his case.
"The Department of Public Safety doesn't make the law. The Department of Public Safety has to follow the law made by the Legislature. There is absolutely nothing in the current law that is justification for putting our client or others in a similar situation on the registry. It is very clear they should not be on it," said Allen Gilbert, head of the civil liberties organization. "Vermonters have a right to be treated fairly by their government. They should not have to get a lawyer and file suit before the government does the right thing."
Thomas Tremblay, commissioner of public safety, said he believes lawmakers meant to include attempted crimes like the one in this case. But the language of the law does not make that clear, so his department has – for now – removed the man's name and that of three others in a similar situation from the public registry, Tremblay said.
"There is a potential argument to be made that (those convicted of) attempts should not be on the registry," Tremblay said. "For the time being we have removed him from the registry."
Those offenders will remain on the law enforcement registry that is not public but is used to monitor sex offenders who have served their sentences and are in the community.
But Tremblay said the Douglas administration will ask lawmakers to consider changing the law.
"We will be looking for the Legislature to clear up the language concern. It is my understanding that is something that will be dealt with first thing when they return in January," he said. "It has been my view and the view of the governor that we want to provide families with as much information as they can. Our goal has been to include as many sex offenders as possible on the registry."
The case is not the first issue to arise with the state's newly expanded registry laws. Through an apparent oversight, offenders who have been convicted in other states were not required to register in Vermont, a provision that is likely to be added, Tremblay said.
The situation with attempted sex crimes involves a somewhat different issue.
While lawmakers meant to include those convicted out of state, but omitted them through a drafting error, there was no specific and definitive discussion about whether attempted sex crimes should be dealt with in the same way, said Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
For now, the law does not provide for those like John Doe to be included, Lippert added.
"I don't think it was a correct reading of the law at this point in time," he said of the public safety department's interpretation.
But lawmakers next session will "very likely" consider whether those convicted of attempts at sex crimes should be included in the registry, Lippert said.
"Some convictions for attempt are very serious," Lippert said. But such crimes do have a lower standard required than the sex crimes that now make an offender eligible for inclusion on the public registry.
Public safety must be protected, but it should also be remembered that offenders are put on the public registry for crimes they have already been convicted and punished for, Lippert added.
"We are reaching back in time with these convictions," he said.
Gilbert said that the ACLU's client wrote a series of letters trying to get his name off the registry when he realized the law did not require his inclusion, but got little response from the department before filling his lawsuit.
Gilbert said it's appropriate that the petitioner in the case not be named.
"He wants to be unnamed for the same reason the registry is unfair," Gilbert said. "The notoriety attached to having your name and crime literally available to anybody in the world doesn't serve justice and rehabilitation."
It is also important for the goals of the case to grant that anonymity, according to the legal fillings by Doe and the ACLU.
"Were Doe forced to divulge his identity in order to gain the respondent's compliance with state law that exempts Doe from public naming on the public registry, the respondent would be free to continue ignoring its governing statutes, knowing that Doe and most other affected individuals would rather keep quiet than risk the increased opprobrium that litigation under their real names will bring to both them and their family members," according to the request for anonymity in the court documents. ..Source.. by Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau
September 15, 2009
Violent Crime Fell in 2008, F.B.I. Report Says
9-15-2009 National:
WASHINGTON — A young black man being shot to death by another black man who is an acquaintance continues to be the most “typical” homicide in the United States, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigations report released on Monday that showed an overall drop in violent crime for the second year in a row.
The F.B.I. figures show that nearly as many black people as white were homicide victims in 2008, even though 80 percent of Americans are white, compared with 13 percent who are black, according to Census Bureau figures.
To put it another way, based on census figures for white and black men of all ages, a black man was roughly six times as likely to be a homicide victim as a white man in 2008.
Of the nearly 17,000 homicide victims last year, 6,782 were black and 6,838 were white, the F.B.I. said, with men several times more likely to be victims than women. Several hundred other victims were classified as belonging to other races or as race unknown.
Of the more than 16,000 people arrested for homicide in the United States in 2008, 5,943 were black and 5,334 white, with several thousand other suspects classified as belonging to other races or as race unknown.
For both whites and blacks, men ages 17 to 30 were the most “typical” victims and killers. Over all, men were several times more likely than women to be the victims and the killers.
Justifiable killings by the police or civilians, suicides and deaths due to negligence are not included in the homicide statistics.
While the estimated number of all violent crimes in the nation declined for the second year, property crimes also fell over all in 2008, the sixth straight yearly drop in these offenses.
The information, based on data sent to the F.B.I. from police agencies, is explained in detail in the report, “Crime in the United States,” which is offered with caveats.
Aware of the temptation to rank cities or regions according to how safe they are, the F.B.I. cautioned that “these rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region.” The report continued, “Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.”
As Bill Carter, an F.B.I. spokesman, said Monday, the agency does not “cite any specific reasons” for crime rising or falling.
“We leave that up to the academics and the criminologists and the sociologists,” Mr. Carter said.
The F.B.I. data released Monday showed that 23.3 percent of murder victims were slain by family members, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances, while only 22 percent were murdered by strangers. Of last year’s homicides, 9,484 involved firearms, 6,755 of which were handguns, the F.B.I. said.
In each of the four violent crime offenses, the 2008 rates were down from 2007. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropped 3.9 percent; aggravated assault declined 2.5 percent; forcible rape declined 1.6 percent; and robbery was down 0.7 percent. The figures are based on offenses per 100,000 people.
Burglaries rose 2 percent in 2008, and larceny-thefts went up three-tenths of 1 percent. But motor vehicle theft dropped 12.7 percent.
The 2008 violent crime rate was 454.5 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 2.7 percent decrease from the 2007 rate), and the property crime rate was 3,212.5 per 100,000 persons (a 1.6 percent decrease from 2007).
Crime statistics can vary, depending on who is doing the counting. Information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which like the F.B.I., is a Justice Department agency, is based on surveys of households and individuals, instead of relying on police data. On Sept. 2, the statistics bureau said its figures showed that violent crime was unchanged in 2008 and that property crime was down slightly.
And the F.B.I. report released on Monday, while packed full of statistics, is based in part on estimates, since some of the more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies that participate in the F.B.I. survey could not or did not provide complete totals for the year. Hence, while 14,180 homicides were documented in 2008, the F.B.I. estimated the actual number at just over 16,700.
While Mr. Carter of the F.B.I. declined to discuss crime trends, he speculated that better medical care in recent years has spared some assault victims from being listed eventually as homicide victims. ..Source.. by DAVID STOUT
August 26, 2009
NJ- Westville Sex Offender Ordinance Declared Un-Constitutional
8-26-2009 New Jersey:
To come into compliance with the state law, Westville Borough Council repealed Ordinance #12-07 entitled “Sex offender residency restriction.” The state had ruled the restriction was un-constitutional.
Many governing bodies previously had passed the same type of ordinance that restricted where known sex offenders may live.
Now, most of them have also repealed the ordinance that was put in place to protect children and adults in the community.
“If we did not repeal the law that we did pass several years ago, the borough may have been sued by certain individuals,” said Council President, Michael Ledrich, who presided over the Wednesday, August 12 meeting in the mayor’s absence. ..Source.. by Sara Martino, NEWS Correspondent
August 25, 2009
NH- Dover won't fight for curbs on sex offenders
8-25-2009 New Hampshire:
Dover – Police will not appeal a district court ruling last month that struck down a city ordinance restricting sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or daycare.
“The Dover Police Department has decided not to appeal the Court’s decision in State v. Jennings. Chances of success on appeal are only fair based upon the ruling in this particular case,” police said in a statement issued this morning.
“The Dover Police Department will continue to provide aggressive enforcement of the sex offender registration laws and to provide educational programs to provide for the safety of citizens of all ages. Dover will continue to have its fair share of citizens with criminal records, but with proactive law enforcement, Dover will continue to be a safe place to live, to work and to raise a family.”
The decision means that although Dover’s ordinance is nullified, similar ones from several towns across the state can continue. An appeal to a higher court likely would have led to a precedent-setting ruling that could have either strengthened or quashed sex offender residency ordinances statewide.
Dover stopped enforcing its ordinance shortly after Judge Mark Weaver ruled last month that it violated the state constitution’s equal protection rights. Weaver said the city had to prove its ordinance was “substantially related to an important governmental objective.”
“In this case, the state offered no such evidence,” Weaver wrote.
Former Dover resident Richard Jennings was charged with violating the city ordinance in November 2007 because his Locust Street home fell within a restricted zone.
Jennings sued the city last year with the help of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The case was heard in Dover District Court in September 2008, but a ruling was only issued earlier this month.
Jennings’ was expected to be a test case that could set a larger precedent, but that appears very unlikely now.
In his ruling, Weaver repeatedly said the city did not show how restricting where sex offenders live would protect children. He noted that the city did not seek input from experts when it passed the ordinance in 2005, but instead relied upon testimony from former police Chief William Fenniman.
Weaver also said police had not proven that the city children have been any safer since the ordinance went into effect.
“Without any evidence to relate the passing of the ordinance to its stated purpose, the state cannot meet its burden,” he wrote.
Dover was the largest New Hampshire municipality to restrict where sex offenders could live, though others, including Manchester, had considered similar ordinances.
Other communities that continue to restrict where sex offenders can live include: Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen. ..Source.. by CLYNTON NAMUO
August 22, 2009
NH- Court Throws Out Sex-Offender Residency Restrictions
8-22-2009 New Hampshire:
Dover has until the end of the month to appeal a recent court ruling.
The Dover District Court has thrown out the city’s ordinance that restricts where sex offenders are allowed to live.
The case hinged on Dover’s failure to prove that its policy actually improved child safety.
But supporters say- while the effectiveness of residency restrictions may be somewhat limited- the ordinance is a key tool.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
Back in 2003 Matt Mayberry was campaigning for City Council.
There it is folks, election on the backs of sex offenders!
He kept hearing Dover residents complain that sex offenders could live too close to where children congregate.
That didn’t make sense to Mayberry.
TAPE: they’ve created a drug free zone. They’ve created a firearm free zone around schools....that was the thought process. You would not put a beer in front of an alcoholic. Why would you allow someone convicted of sexual crimes against children to live across the street from hundreds of children.
There is the problem with their reasoning, they are basing it on a MYTH, a false belief that everyone previously convicted of a sex crime will lust after and attack a child, if seen!
If there was any truth to that we would not have registries because all of them would be perpetually in prison.
Also, it would be nice to know how mans gun offenses there were in school zones before and after that law, the same for drug offenses; but no one has done such studies, wonder why.
Mayberry started to work with the city’s police chief on a way to limit where sex offenders could live.
And in the fall of 2006, the Dover City Councilors unanimously adopted a provision that barred any registered sex offender from living within 2500 ft., nearly half a mile, of a school or day-care center.
Four communities, Tilton, Boscawen, Franklin and Northfield soon followed suit.
Last year the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and New Hampshire Legal Assistance sued Dover.
Lawyers argued that the ordinance violated a person’s equal protection rights under the state Constitution.
TAPE: Dover based its public policy on an illusion.
That’s Barbara Keshen, of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.
Keshen says if the government takes away someone’s rights in the name of a greater public good then the government’s got to prove the policy works.
But she says, Dover officials couldn’t do that.
TAPE: there’s no evidence, there’s no statistics, there’s no studies, there’s no reports that actually back that up.
Actually, the city did present statistics.
They just didn’t persuade the Dover District Court.
It didn’t help that prosecution for sex crimes against children went up in Dover the year after the city adopted its ordinance.
The court ruled against Dover saying it didn’t produce any evidence the restrictions protected minors.
That opinion is hardly unique.
The state of Iowa relaxed a similar law this year after law enforcement complained it drove offenders underground.
In 2008, Manchester and Derry shot down proposed ordinances after police raised similar concerns.
TAPE: I would say 9 out of 10 peer reviewed studies find that they generally don’t work.
Bridgewater State College Professor Richard Wright teaches Criminal Justice.
Wright says researchers have discovered a series of unintended consequences that come with these sorts of policies.
TAPE: residency restrictions really do undermine an offenders capacity to re-enter society and not offend. You are taking away their family. You are taking away a stable form of housing....you may be affecting their opportunities for employment.
Despite the well-documented drawbacks, ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live are popular.
Newsweek magazine reports that 30 states and hundreds of cities and counties have embraced such laws.
Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein for one thinks the policy helps make his city safer.
The chief admits he’s got no empirical evidence.
But he thinks the restrictions mean fewer sex offenders will call Franklin home.
TAPE: let’s make up a couple of numbers for just a moment. Let’s say there are 10 registered sex offenders who want to move to Franklin. And of the 10, 2...decide no I am not going to hassle myself...then we are that much safer...we are not going to worry about them.....so part of the secret to the success of Franklin’s local ordinance is that other communities don’t have the ordinance and that sex offenders will go to those communities, not Franklin’s....well....I don’t wish that on any other city or town, that’s not the point of good law enforcement...or good lawmaking, but it is a reality. And yes that is what will happen in a significant number of the cases.
In some places, the result of such laws are sex offender ghettos.
For example, in Miami more than 70 offenders with no place else to go, live under a causeway in makeshift tents.
Ultimately, Professor Wright argues if the goal is to reduce sex crimes against children, forcing people away from society only puts children in greater jeopardy.
TAPE: it’s far easier to point the finger, to blame and say these sex offenders are horrible people, evil animals....they are not fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, boyfriends. It’s far easier to make the problem this abstraction that can be solved by demonizing people and isolating them.
What gets lost, says Wright is that society too quickly treats all offenders alike.
But statistics show80- 90% of sexual assaults against kids are done by someone kids know.
That means the likelihood that some stranger is stalking random children from their apartment across the street from a playground is rare.
Not rare enough for Dover’s Matt Mayberry.
TAPE: from bringing forth this ordinance people came forward to me and talked about how they were molested...and they knew the perpetrator, but how it just destroyed their lives. And I thought that...if that 10% if I can help keep them out of the crosshairs just a little bit longer, than this is worth it.
The city of Dover has until the end of the month to decide if they will appeal their case to the state Supreme Court.
Officials have asked attorneys to evaluate their chances of winning.
If the case doesn’t make it to the state’s highest court, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union says it will look for another case in an effort to win a ruling that outlaws the practice. ..Source.. for NHPR News, I’m DG.
August 4, 2009
NH- Court shoots down Dover sex offender ordinance
8-4-2009 New Hampshire:
DOVER — A registered sex offender has won his battle against the city's sex offender ordinance after a district court judge ruled it unconstitutional.
District Court Judge Mark Weaver issued a ruling Friday that stated Dover City Code, 131-20, which prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center, is unconstitutional because it violates Richard Jennings' equal protection rights.
The ordinance came under challenge last year by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, which filed a motion to dismiss the ordinance on behalf of Jennings.
As a result of the decision, the city will no longer enforce the ordinance, Police Chief Anthony Colarusso said this afternoon.
"We're disappointed in the ruling and at this point we're weighing our options on whether or not it should be appealed to the Supreme Court," he said.
The city has 30 days to decide whether or not it will appeal the decision. In that time, Colarusso said he would be consulting with City Attorney Allan Krans, City Manager Mike Joyal and the state Attorney General's Office. ..Source.. by Aaron Sanborn
N.H. Civil Liberties Union sues Dover over sex offender ordinance
3-26-2008 New Hampshire:
CONCORD — The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union sued the City of Dover on Wednesday, alleging that its ordinance banning registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day-care center is unconstitutional, subjecting them to “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable restrictions” on their movement.
“This is the first case of its kind in the state,” said Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.
The suit was filed in Strafford County Superior Court in Dover on behalf of Richard Jennings, 41, who had pleaded guilty to felonious sexual assault in 2000 and received a sentence of two to four years at the New Hampshire State Prison.
At the time of the offense, the victim was 15, and thus Jennings is required to register as a sex offender for life.
In October, Jennings, his girlfriend and her 13-year-old daughter, moved from their apartment in Portsmouth to a more affordable apartment in Dover. When Jennings went to register his new address, as he is required by law to do, he was charged with being in violation of the city code. A hearing on that violation is scheduled for June 3 in Dover District Court.
Phone messages left at home for Dover Mayor Scott Myers and City Attorney Allan Krans were not immediately returned Wednesday night. The City Council was meeting Wednesday night; Keshen said she had not yet heard from anyone representing the city.
The 2,500-foot restricted area “encompasses virtually the entire downtown area of Dover, where all of the affordable housing is located,” the lawsuit says. The enforcement of the code “will serve to effectively banish Richard Jennings from the City of Dover because its geographic restrictions substantially impair his ability to find a residence there.”
As a result, Jennings can no longer live at the Dover address and is now living with his parents. If he were to return, he’s subject to a $500 fine for a first offense, then a $1,000 fine for subsequent offenses.
Keshen said there are six other ordinances in New Hampshire that restrict sex offenders from residing within a 2,500-foot radius of a school or day-care center; there are others with lesser distances.
Jennings, a carpet layer, has suffered, “and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury, in that he has been and will continue to be, deprived of his constitutional rights not to be subject to additional or greater punishment than allowed by law at the time the criminal act was committed,” the lawsuit said.
Jennings served his time and is at a low risk to re-offend, the lawsuit said. He has not been charged with any other sexual offense and he successfully completed an outpatient course of sex-offender counseling, the suit said.
The ordinance applies to all offenders across the board whether they are at high risk or not, Keshen said. Further, she said, the law diverts attention and resources away from those people who are the most likely to offend against a child — a family member or trusted friend of the family.
“If you really wanted to do something that would be effective in controlling sex offenders then you would maybe put them on GPS systems, you’d give them specialized treatment,” Keshen said. “You’d do assessment of future dangerousness upon release from prison; there’d be categories of risk; there’d be pre-release planning relative to housing and employment and all of that involves funding and it involves a development of expertise,” she said.
Keshen said when Dover’s code went into effect in 2005, the city had 45 registered sex offenders. Last year, there were 35, so some of them either no longer live in Dover or have been discouraged from registering, she said.
The suit comes as state lawmakers are working on a bill that would better identify and track those listed in the state’s sex offender registry. ..Source.. by Kathy McCormack
July 15, 2009
NY- Local sex offender law shot down
7-15-2009 New York:
Judge says Albany County residency law is invalid because state statute preempts it
ALBANY -- A state judge has struck down the Albany County sex offender residency law, declaring it invalid because it's preempted by state statue, and, in effect, halting enforcement of it.
The long-awaited ruling by Acting State Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough -- signed Friday and made public Tuesday -- paves the way for the three-year-old county law that prohibits convicted Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools or child care facilities to proceed to the next phase of the legal challenge.
Both county lawmakers who support the measure and Albany attorney Terence Kindlon who challenged such laws in Albany, Rensselaer and Washington counties want to see the issue played out in the state's appeals courts.
McDonough's ruling comes just days after a decision by Acting State Supreme Court Justice Henry Zwack in Rennselaer County that knocked out that county's law on the same basis -- that state statute preempts the local law. The Rensselaer law was tougher, restricting residency to 2,000 feet of a school or day care center.
The Albany Police Department's Children and Family Services Unit has been enforcing Albany County Local Law No. 8 since its passage by the County Legislature in July 2006. The three convicted sex offenders on whose behalf Kindlon sued the county were all charged with violating the law, a misdemeanor.
"We haven't had a chance to read the ruling, and, obviously, it's something we want to talk with the district attorney about regarding further enforcement down the road," city police spokesman Detective James Miller said Tuesday.
Attorney Kathy Manley, an associate of Kindlon's who worked with him on the lawsuits, said, "It's becoming more and more clear that the counties and towns can't pass their own laws, when it's up to the state to act ..."
"Now the law is invalid in Rensselaer and Albany counties, so it can't be enforced," she added.
Manley said local laws push people "into motels away from treatment, away from services where they can walk and away from families."
County lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want an appeal.
"I'm really let down over this," Albany Democrat Daniel McCoy said. A city firefighter and father of three, he was a lead sponsor of the measure after learning a convicted sex offender lived near his kids' elementary school.
He said the next step is to appeal immediately to the Appellate Division.
"I'm gong to ask the county attorney tomorrow to start an appeals brief," McCoy said, noting he's also "going to check with the state Senate and Assembly to see what they have and what bills may contain sex offender legislation."
Christine Benedict of Colonie, Republican minority leader, agreed. She favors an appeal and a review of the state law. "I think that the state should take another look at theirs."
She said the original law proposed by former Gov. George Pataki "was really strong," and it passed the Senate but not the Assembly. Eventually, a watered-down version passed both houses.
Benedict favors the town of Colonie's proposal that would limit the number of sex offenders a hotel or motel could house. That measure is slated to be introduced at Thursday's Town Board meeting.
In his legal papers, Kindlon argued state law trumps those enacted by local governments. Counties throughout the state have adopted residency laws, and earlier this year a state judge struck down a Rockland County law.
McDonough, in his five-page ruling, said arguments by the three sex offenders "demonstrate that the state has expressed a desire to legislate in the field of sex offender monitoring, regulating and management, thereby preempting and prohibiting localities from doing so."
County lawmakers, on the other hand, argued state law applies only to sex offenders who are on parole or probation, while the county law applies to all convicted offenders, including those who no longer are under supervision.
"We took the position that the state didn't address those unsupervised sex offenders, and therefore the local ordinance, we viewed, as not preempted by the state legislation but supplemental to it by embracing those unsupervised sex offenders," said Albany attorney Thomas J. O'Connor who represented the county.
McDonough found the lawmakers' "argument to be unpersuasive" that state law doesn't apply to sex offenders no longer under supervision. The judge referred to a set of laws, enacted by the state legislature in September 2008 and which took effect in January. A review of the so-called Chapter 568 "reveals that it also addresses the residential status of certain 'unsupervised sex offenders,'" the judge wrote.
Specifically, the state laws address the "residential status of level two and level three offenders who are seeking shelter assistance from local social service officials," and is in no way limited to those on parole, probation or subject to post-release supervision.
"It is therefore manifestly clear that the Legislature enacted legislation that significantly impacts the residential status of both supervised and unsupervised level two and level three sex offenders," the judge decided.
O'Connor said he had to discuss the possibility of an appeal with county officials. It's a matter "that is appropriate for the courts to determine because there are reasonable people on both sides of the issue," he said.
O'Connor was certain, though, that enforcement has to cease. "It's been declared invalid, and until, or if and when it's reversed, we have to respect Judge McDonough's decision," he said.
Legislator McCoy wants the Court of Appeals, the state's top tribunal, to have the final say. "Hopefully, they will overturn the lower courts, and if they don't, I will lobby the hell out of the Senate and Assembly to pass a law that applies to everybody and protects our children." ..Source.. by CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer
April 30, 2009
Female Sex Killers: The Devious Predators
4-30-2009 National:
They are the world’s most elusive hunters. Using their looks, their status, and their personalities, female sex killers can be the most difficult to catch. I have studied serial killers all of my adult life and am the only profiler to interview a large group of female serial killers and create their profiles. I work with police on such cases around the United States, and from first- hand experience, I can attest to the fact that female rape murderers are clever.
Though rare, such predators are more common than the general public knows. Why? In most instances, when a female rapes and kills a victim, the act is done in conjunction with a male partner. As such, when caught, the females play innocent and blame the male. This strategy has proven highly effective over the years because people are hesitant to believe that a woman could rape and murder. But it does happen, and sometimes, the female will act alone.
Out of all the interviews I have done with male and female serial killers, the only offender who ever made me uncomfortable was a female sex killer. She had a long history of violence and killed with no remorse. What made her unique is that she was very open about her love for drawing blood using knives, and she said if she ever got out of prison, she would kill again.
These offenders are a unique breed in that they have a real taste for hurting helpless victims. They enjoy the feeling they get when using objects to rape. In fact, female rape killers will often use jagged instruments when they attack. These women are especially brutal with female victims, and almost always, they will mutilate the genitalia. Such women have told me that they chose to hurt their victims so viciously because it turned them on. Like their male counterparts, it was sexually exciting.
To capture their prey, these women use a rouse to trick their victims who are always smaller in size. They use their gender as a cover for their evil intentions because most people find it hard to believe that the fairer sex could rape and kill a child. However, children are not their only victims. Such offenders have been known to target adults since everyone is less wary of a woman. This allows these super predators access to almost any type of victim.
The killers are drawn to traditionally “feminine” jobs such as nursing, caregiving, teaching, or the sex trade. These fields give them natural cover to get close to victims. Like their male counterparts, female sex killers fantasize about rape and murder. However, unlike men, women tend to be less selective about the type of victims they choose. For instance, male sex killers typically prefer certain types of victim such as 20-year-old blondes. But for the women, victim age and gender are less important than opportunity. Female predators search for that which is easy to get. If she works in a nursing home, she may go after the elderly and rape them in their beds. If the woman works as a prostitute, she will target customers. If she teaches, she often sets her sights on students. These women crave what is familiar to them, and they watch their prey over time to assess how easy it would be to attack.
The killers tend to have spotty work histories as well as a string of failed relationships. They dabble in sexual relationships and will try everything from lesbianism to child molestation. Emotionally they find it hard to be “centered,” and family will cover for the women when they engage in strange behavior. In looking at their backgrounds, their life pattern tends to be as follows:
Loneliness
Child abuse (victim of)
Fantasy
Acting out (violent against animals & other children)
Sexually promiscuous
Psychopathic behavior (stealing, fire setting, lying)
Attaching to steady figure (older male)
Increased time alone
Practicing violence
Kidnap
Kill
The interesting part of this pattern is that when looking back, it is easy to see how the women progressed. And there is almost always someone who knew about the increasingly dangerous behavior but did nothing to stop it. There is a tendency in families to hide problems, and those that produce female rape murderers are no exception. The crimes are so aberrant that even those close to these women find it hard to believe that their child/friend/spouse could do such things. The women are well aware of this and use it to their advantage. At every turn, they will plant doubt into the minds of those who question. They will act strange on purpose to try to confuse people. Then they turn on the water works and cry to appear innocent. The thing that tends to be consistent with these killers is that people around them will say that the women were “strange” or “unusual.” Others will even say that the women made them feel uncomfortable at times, but again, because of their gender, people are reluctant to be suspicious.
Once caught, the women go to emotional extremes and will do everything from attempting to seduce investigators to acting out in an almost psychotic like way. When female rape murderers are cornered, they are more likely to talk than other female killers. However, their ‘confessions’ will be self serving and filled with lies. They will be flamboyant and spin tales of their own horrific abuse in order to garner sympathy. However, make no mistake, such women are devious and know exactly what they are doing. They use the rarity of their crimes to hide the truth of what lies beneath their façades. These types of crimes are actually becoming more common, so parents must become educated about this ‘newer’ predator that is stalking their children. As awareness grows, expect to see the discovery of more of these types of crimes. When society realizes what has been hiding in its midst, an innocence will be lost, but protection will be gained. People will be shocked when they discover what happened in the Sandra Cantu murder case. But the horror will provide the necessary wake-up call and education that parents need in order to be forearmed in the future. ..News Source.. by Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D., heads the Violent Crimes Institute, and is author of The New Predator, Vulture and the soon-to be published Disturbed: Terrorist Behavioral Profiles.
March 26, 2009
TX- Judge rules child killer unfairly labeled sex offender
3-26-2009 Texas:
Convict deserves hearing on whether he lacks sexual control, judge says.
Convicted child killer Raul Meza deserves a hearing on whether he lacks sexual control, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling gives Meza a chance to shed the sex offender restrictions that have helped keep him confined for more than six years at a Del Valle facility for parolees.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel found that state parole officials imposed the sex offender restrictions on Meza, 48, without first providing him advance notice of the allegations against him and without a hearing, written notice of their decision and other due process rights.
Yeakel's findings brought an end to Meza's due process and equal rights lawsuit against the state, which went to trial last year. But it could lead to a flurry of lawsuits filed in Austin federal courts challenging how parole officials have imposed sex offender restrictions on other parolees, lawyers familiar with the subject said.
Calls for comment to the Texas attorney general's office, which represents parole officials in court, were not returned. Meza's lawyers declined to comment.
Meza was convicted of murder in the 1982 killing of 8-year-old Kendra Page in the playground of a Southeast Austin elementary school, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later received another four years for having a weapon in prison. During last year's civil trial, lawyers said he admitted during sex offender counseling that he also sexually assaulted the girl.
Under the state's mandatory supervision law, which has since been changed, he was released in 1993 when his time served and good-behavior time equaled the length of his sentence. He was put on parole, then returned to prison in 1994 after a curfew violation.
In 2002, he was transferred to a minimum security section of the Travis County Jail when his time served and good behavior credit again equaled the length of his sentence.
Meza's lawyers with the Texas Civil Rights Project sued state prison and parole officials, saying that his parole conditions were so tough, they essentially would lead to his incarceration in Del Valle until his sentence expires in 2017. They said Meza is being treated differently from other parolees in his situation because of the high-profile nature of his crime.
For example, Meza could not move into the community unless he found a place to live and job to help pay for it. But he was only allowed to use a job search facility for parolees for four hours a week and was escorted by a parole officer to job interviews, according to testimony in last year's civil trial.
The sex offender conditions on his parole required him, among other things, to attend counseling and prohibited him from working near places where children congregate.
"Meza's sex-offender status and related stigma have likely contributed to his inability to secure employment," Yeakel wrote. "Despite state witnesses' assertions that they would 'love' for Meza to find a job ... the state informs Meza's potential employers that he is a sex offender."
Lawyers for parole officials said the restrictions were necessary to keep the community safe.
Yeakel dismissed Meza's claims that he is unfairly being treated differently than similar parolees, saying he did not consider them given his decision on the sex offender restrictions. Meza could re-file those claims.
He based his ruling on Coleman v. Dretke, a 2004 case decided by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was brought by Tony Ray Coleman, who, like Meza, was not convicted of a sex offense but was subject to sex offender restrictions while on parole.
In that case, the 5th Circuit ruled that the sex offender label is so serious that the state needs to hold a hearing before imposing it — and even then, the state could only tag Coleman as a sex offender if he were found to "constitute a threat to society by reason of his lack of sexual control."
Following that ruling, Texas officials began sending some parolees, such as Meza, a letter from a parole officer informing them that the state was reviewing their sex offender restrictions and inviting a written response. A parole board panel then decided in secret whether to continue the restrictions; the parolee wasn't told what information was used to make the decision.
At Meza's trial, parole officials said that providing a full hearing — where a parolee or his lawyer could challenge the information given to the panel — would be too costly and time consuming.
Yeakel disagreed.
"Despite the state's notice to Meza, without the state informing him what evidence would be used against him, Meza was unable to prepare an informed response to the state's position," Yeakel wrote. "Adversary hearings could assure that all relevant issues are considered."
Yeakel's ruling is significant because for the first time it lays out what type of due process rights are expected under the Coleman ruling, said Bill Habern and Richard Gladden, who assisted Meza's lawyers and have filed a series of cases challenging the state's imposition of sex offender restrictions on parolees.
Yeakel's ruling is now law in the Austin federal court, they said.
Gladden said that thousands of Texas parolees who were not convicted of a sex offense but have sex offender restrictions on their parole now have strong standing to sue state parole officials in the Austin court. If the state does not change its practices, those lawsuits could prove costly, they said.
Though Yeakel's ruling did not address Meza's remaining legal challenges to his confinement, the judge seemed to encourage parole officials to ease his restrictions.
"The court is certain that the state will use the hearing and review process," he wrote, "to re-evaluate all of Meza' parole conditions ... and consider such reasonable changes as will enhance Meza's opportunity to safely reintegrate into society." ..News Source.. by Steven Kreytak, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
February 6, 2009
No quick fixes, but child-porn users can be reformed, experts say
2-6-2009 Canada:
Despite the disturbing rate of repeat offenders, experts believe that some sex offenders - child-pornography enthusiasts included - can learn to control their criminal appetites.
But it takes years rather than months, they say.
"If you do it in the right way and target the right things, you can pretty much guarantee that you can reduce the re-offence rate," says Bill Marshall, who has treated thousands of sex offenders over the past 40 years and is director of the internationally acclaimed Rockwood Psychological Services in Kingston.
Yet he also emphasizes that there's no quick fix.
"Whenever I go into court, and it's always on behalf of the Crown, the judge often says, 'How long a sentence does this man need to get effective treatment?' And I always say, 'Give him less than three years and he's not going to get effective treatment.' "
Child-porn crimes, however, rarely incur such sentences. Far more common is a provincial jail term, meaning less than two years.
Both Dr. Marshall and Peter Collins, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto who lectures widely on treating sex offenders, reject the notion that child-porn users are innately different from other pedophiles, or that their activities serve as a kind of safety valve.
And a landmark piece of research published two years ago for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, dubbed the Buttner Study, bears them out.
The survey questioned several hundred convicted child pornographers who had no criminal record for contact offences against juveniles.
In therapy and confidential surveys, a full 85 per cent of the pool admitted that they had, in fact, physically abused children.
They simply hadn't been caught.
"All the evidence that we have on these guys is they have the same kind of features and background," Dr. Marshall said.
So can child-porn users be reformed? Probably, both specialists say.
"They can be treated if they're motivated," Dr. Collins said.
"But pedophilia is a deeply ingrained erotic preference." ..News Source.. by TIMOTHY APPLEBY
December 8, 2008
OK- OKC molester removed from treatment, sent to prison
12-8-2008 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY — A convicted child molester has been sent to prison after a judge learned the treatment center where he was living was located near a city park.
District Judge Virgil C. Black on Friday ordered 58-year-old Claude Stanley Fontenot be removed from the Avalon Correctional Services' Carver Center in south Oklahoma City and sent to prison. Fontenot has been at the center since being sentenced Oct. 15 on two counts of child sexual abuse.
At Friday's hearing, Black said he could no longer allow Fontenot to stay at the center because it violates a state law that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park.
The two victims, now teens, were in the courtroom. The girls' mother said she's relieved Fontenot is going to prison.
"That's what we've wanted all along — to see him behind bars," she said.
Attorney Josh Welch said sending his client to prison for three years after he was sentenced to the Carver Center violates the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution.
Welch said he hopes to have Fontenot released within 30 days and keep him out of jail while his case is under review.
Fontenot initially was sentenced to three years at the Carver Center and 17 years of probation and was required to register as a sex offender. The Carver Center, on south May Avenue, is 813 feet from Ted Reynolds Park. District Judge Virgil C. Black said at the time Fontenot was sentenced, no one involved in the case realized the center's proximity to the park. ..News Source.. by Tulsa World
August 5, 2008
NJ- Officials push for limits on residency
The Court of Appeals decision striking down residency laws is found here:
8-5-2008 New Jersey:
Cherry Hill officials have appealed to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to preserve their ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live, a move that could impact more than 100 towns with similar laws.
Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt on Monday said the recent court decision that struck down a township ordinance prohibiting offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and other areas where children gather was unjust and undermines the concept of home rule.
"I believe letting an offender live near children is like giving a bottle of vodka to an alcoholic," Platt said. "I am asking the Supreme Court to think about the innocent children in our society instead of the sex offenders rights."
A three-judge panel ruled last month that the state's Megan's Law already governs how sex offenders should be treated. It requires sex offenders to register with authorities and have their housing approved by parole officers, among other conditions.-That is an excellent comment Mr Mayor, and in fact, is the very reason why the Supreme court killed all local residency laws for RSOs.
Think about this, does anyone know of a law which prevents "alcoholics" from living near a place that sells alcohol? No, well why should there be a law which prevents (don't jump to misconstructions now) former sex offenders from living where they want or where housing is available.
It is a misconstruction to believe RSOs are trying to live close to schools etc for the purpose of committing further crimes. It is also a miscontruction to believe any criminal offender -after reentry into society- will to live near the type of place that was the source of their crime. These misconstructions abound.
Do we need laws to prevent domestic violence offenders from living near any families, or alcoholics from living near any establishment that sells alcoholic beverages, drug offenders from drug stores, DUI offenders from any place where there is a car, etc. etc,.
In their decision, the appellate judges said the Legislature intended for the state law to be a "comprehensive framework" for controlling and supervising the lives of offenders.
But Platt said it is "fatally flawed" since it does not address residency restrictions.
"I believe allowing sex offenders to live near a place where our children play, learn and worship is unacceptable," he said.
-Mr Mayor, have you forgotten what your own statutes say? Residency laws are denying RSOs housing options which is specifically prohibited under your state laws (see below):
New Jersey Statue: 2C:7-16 Authorized use of disclosed information; prohibited uses.The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, which has represented sex offenders in similar cases, has said the residency restrictions run the risk of destabilizing offenders and increasing the risk of recidivism.
5. a. Any information disclosed pursuant to this act may be used in any manner by any person or by any public, governmental or private entity, organization or official, or any agent thereof, for any lawful purpose consistent with the enhancement of public safety.
b.Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to this act to commit a crime shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree. Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to this act to commit a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offense shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense and shall be fined not less than $500 or more than $1,000, in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed.
c.Except as authorized under any other provision of law, use of any of the information disclosed pursuant to this act for the purpose of applying for, obtaining, or denying any of the following, is prohibited:
(1)Health insurance;
(2)Insurance;
(3)Loans;
(4)Credit;
(5)Education, scholarships, or fellowships;
(6)Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment, unless for a purpose consistent with the enhancement of public safety; or
(7)Housing or accommodations.
d.Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of misuse of the information disclosed pursuant to this act, the Attorney General, or any county or municipal prosecutor having jurisdiction, or any person aggrieved by the misuse of that information is authorized to bring a civil action in the appropriate court requesting preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or group of persons responsible for the pattern or practice of misuse. The foregoing remedies shall be independent of and in addition to any other remedies or procedures that may be available under other provisions of law.
e.Evidence that a person obtained information about an offender from the Internet registry within one year prior to committing a criminal offense against that offender shall give rise to an inference that the person used information in violation of subsection b. of this section.
"We think the appellate decision showed that the law in this area is clear," said Tom Rosenthal, a spokesman for the office. "We're hopeful the Supreme Court will agree with the Appellate Court and deny the petition."
It's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case - one that, if heard, would be watched closely by municipal officials across the state.
In neighboring Gloucester County, ordinances in two towns, Monroe and Franklin townships, have been challenged by sex offenders who claimed they were being punished twice for their crimes.
Monroe had held off on enforcing the local law pending the Appellate Court decision.
Solicitor Charles Fiore said the township council has not yet determined how to move forward.
Locally, however, an official in one Salem County township said he would still enforce his local ordinance if an offender moved into the community.
"We really hadn't had an opportunity to enforce it, but we will if it takes place," said Pete Voros, mayor of Pittsgrove, where no sex offenders currently live, according to the New Jersey Sex Offender Internet Registry.
The case in Cherry Hill was combined with a challenge in Galloway Township, where officials are reportedly appealing the decision as well.
In Cherry Hill, two sex offenders living in a motel with the approval of their parole officers challenged their violation of the local law.
In Galloway Township, a student at Richard Stockton College challenged the ordinance after moving on campus.
The laws in both towns prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, day cares, playgrounds and other areas where children gather. ..News Source.. by Trish G. Graber
June 15, 2008
AZ- Treated sex offenders seldom re-offend
6-15-2008 Arizona:
Her nightmare started just after 5 p.m. Nov. 10, 1980.
She was taking a welding class at Pima Community College's downtown campus and had just pulled into the parking lot when Aaron Dean Davis ran up to her car.
"Lady, I just killed a man, get me out of here," he yelled at her as he pulled out a knife.
Davis forced her back into the car. They drove for miles. When they got close to the college's West Side campus, he forced her to stop in a nearby wash.
There, Davis beat and raped her. When it was over, he had her drop him off near Congress and Granada.
Davis was caught, convicted and sent to prison in August 1982.
With his sentence now up, Davis wants his freedom. The Pima County Attorney's Office is trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
For the past 10 years, Arizona prosecutors have had the power to have convicted sex offenders committed to the state hospital past the end of their prison terms if they believe the person remains a threat.
Once that happens, the only way out is to convince a judge he is no longer a danger.
There are indicators that a program that puts former inmates into the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center is having the desired effect on these most threatening of sex offenders.
Of the 104 men who have been through the program and released, two have been re-arrested. That compares to a 15 percent rate of repeat violations for sex offenders overall, according to Sergio Martinez, a forensic psychologist who evaluates convicts to see if they should be placed in the program.
But the security of keeping those sexually violent predators off street has a price.
The Arizona Department of Corrections spends $61.74 a day for each prisoner. The cost to treat a sexually violent person in the state's Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center is $325.71.
Since the first convict was committed under a new law in 1998, 110 such predators, all men, have been sent to the state hospital for treatment after the end of their sentences. Another 65 nearing their release dates are being evaluated for commitment.
The 104 who have been released spent an average of three to four extra years in state custody — the longest six years.
The process of having sex offenders committed starts at the state prison. When they are within 180 days of being released, prison officials send those they believe may require civil commitment to either Martinez or Dr. Barry Morenz, a forensic psychiatrist, for evaluation.
If they believe the defendant has a mental disorder that makes it "highly probable" he'll commit another sexually violent act, they notify the county attorney.
A hearing before a judge is held, at which the defendant's attorney can submit evidence from other doctors who believe his client isn't sexually violent. If the judge believes there is "probable cause" the defendant is a threat, the individual is transferred to the Arizona State Hospital for an evaluation by another doctor.
If that doctor agrees with the first, a jury trial is held. If a jury determines a defendant is sexually violent, he becomes a resident at the treatment center.
Martinez said being found sexually violent requires not just a conviction. In addition, the individual must be diagnosed with certain types of mental disorders and lack the ability to control his behavior, and the judge and a doctor must agree it is "highly probable" he will commit another sex crime.
Of the more than 600 prisoners he has evaluated in eight years, only about 5 percent qualify, Martinez said.
In Davis' case, Pima County Superior Court Judge Nanette Warner ruled Davis is a sexually violent person. But his attorney, Assistant Pima County Public Defender Donald Klein, is contesting her decision. A hearing is scheduled for June 23.
Once someone is committed, individual and group counseling sessions designed to help the "resident" understand what arouses him, how to manage his deviant thoughts and how to avoid those situations are mandatory, said Dan Montaldi, a psychologist and chief evaluator at the treatment center.
Gradually, "residents" earn more access to the community, although they may be kept under surveillance or required to wear GPS monitors — sometimes living in group homes, taking jobs or attending school.
While sexually violent people cannot be cured, the intensity of their deviant thoughts and their urge to act upon them can be lessened, Montaldi said, making them less likely to re-offend than those who receive no treatment at all.
"Treatment is one of the factors that can reduce the recidivism rate, but it depends on the quality of the program," Martinez said.
Everyone committed to the treatment center has the right to be evaluated annually under Arizona law, Montaldi said.
During those evaluations, prosecutors and doctors have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a resident's mental disorder hasn't changed. If they can't prove it, a judge must release that person.
Five times in the program's 10 years, doctors and prosecutors felt a resident was still dangerous and were overruled by judges, Montaldi said. Two of the five have been re-arrested, although neither for a violent sexual crime, Montaldi said. None of the five were Pima County cases.
On the flip side, Montaldi said there are residents who never ask to be discharged.
"There are a few who are well-behaved here, but they themselves feel they are a danger to the public and want to protect society," Montaldi said.
Deputy Pima County Attorney Kathleen Mayer, who once headed the office's sex-crimes unit, believes the program keeps high-risk offenders off our streets.
Mayer recalls one convicted sex offender who bragged in prison about committing thousands of kidnappings and rapes, including the pitchfork death of a 14-year-old girl. When it came time for him to be released, and he was going through the evaluation process to be committed, his DNA matched a San Francisco cold case involving a 14-year-old rape and murder victim, Mayer said. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to prison in that case.
Defense attorney Brick Storts said that when the state started committing sexually violent people, the program was "draconian," but it has improved a great deal since then. No longer is it run like a prison, Storts said.
In addition, prosecutors have become much more discriminating about whom they try to commit, Storts said.
Part of the change stems from Arizona and U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting the number of people eligible for the program, such as a state ruling it must be "highly probable" the person will re-offend, not just "possible" or "probable."
In addition, more and more sex offenders are being sent to prison, but also being placed on lifetime probation, Mayer said.
If a sex offender made a plea deal agreeing to lifetime probation following prison, it would be ethically improper to seek a civil commitment, Mayer said. The offender is going to be monitored just as closely and required to seek treatment as a term of probation anyway.
Also, some prisoners are admitting they are sexually violent as part of a plea deal that guarantees them a shot at a less-restrictive program, such as being considered for placement in a group home, Montaldi said.
One of Assistant Pima County Public Defender John O'Brien's clients did exactly that, was eventually discharged from the program and has had no subsequent run-ins with the law.
"From his point of view, it works," O'Brien said. "He gradually earned greater freedoms, got to go on day trips and even got a job."
John Cooper, chief executive officer for the Arizona State Hospital, said Arizona is far more advanced than many other states in terms of treatment, assessment and integration of sex offenders.
Many other states are simply building more prisons, Cooper said. ..News Source.. by Kim Smith,
Arizona Daily Star
