What happened to news articles about sex offender issues?

7-2-2013 National:

It was just over 2 years ago that Google stopped their Google Reader service and I wrote about the effect that would have on sex offender advocacy; no need to repeat all the reasons news is needed for advocacy. Google Alerts kinda replaced Google Reader but does not have all the functions of Google Reader; Google Alerts are a really poor replacement but better than nothing (we have just over 100 setup).

Well here we are today wondering whats happening to News about issues surrounding sex offender laws and the registrants required to follow them? Where is the news? We are checking our Google Alerts when they show up, but, that is the problem, at best we are getting 3-5 a day when we used to get 100 or more.

Figuring the problem is Google Alerts we decided to try doing the Alerts by hand, a very time consuming task. Guess what the news just isn't being found in Google Searches, yes there are those which are very old or on topics like new crimes, and even those are few.

So it appears we have hit a slump in news, Journalists are just not writing about sex offender issues, so it seems. Has the world become complacent about these issues? Are articles written, if any, not generating enough income to spend time writing them? We just don't know.

Its summertime and that does account for slow news, but allowing for that, where do we go from here?

ACTION ALERT: Folks that do find a local article on sex offender issues, please forward the link so we can post for other folks. Please send links to eAdvocate@yahoo.com

We will keep readers updated on this essential topic. Stop back from time to time.

Thanks, we appreciate input, thoughts or suggestions.

PS: We are also monitoring Campus issues, and one issues is related to being drunk on campus. Well here is that big news today "'Drunk' squirrel reportedly causes damage in U.K. pub"

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Tracking non-compliant sex offender tricky

See back story: High-risk sex offender released in Burlington, homeless and Police: Richard Laws released into Burlington

UPDATE 4-11/12/14: Convicted sex offender, Richard Laws, re-arrested (Cited for driving on suspended license) and Convicted sex offender Richard Laws rearrested, released again 4-12: ACLU: Posters weaken Laws’ reintegration chances and 4-14: Family: Protect us from Richard Laws

4-10-15 Vermont:

Laws refused treatment that would have reprogrammed sex behavior

WATERBURY, Vt. —The whereabouts of Richard Laws, the untreated, homeless sex offender are being monitored closely. He's said to have visited Burlington, Barre and possibly Winooski since he was released.

"The more often we can receive updates the more accurate the information is," said Jeffrey Wallin, the director of the Vermont Crime Information Center.

Laws, labeled "high risk" and deemed "non-compliant" on Vermont's Sex Offender Registry, refused rehabilitative treatment in prison.

Tom Powell is a psychologist and the former clinical director for the state's Department of Corrections. He says the treatment available to sex offenders serving time is invasive, but virtually reprograms their behavior around sexuality.

"You can come out of one of those groups pretty beat up if you've gone in and not made an effort," Powell said.

Laws served his maximum sentence, but could have served less time if he participated in the therapeutic programming. His refusal to do so is a major factor of his high risk title.

But Powell said the likelihood Laws will re-offend is not much greater than someone who did get treatment.

"Sexual recidivism is actually a low rate re-offense. The average is about 15 percent across all populations treated and untreated, and people who have actually gone through treatment recidivated at a 5 percent or less rate over a follow-up period," Powell said.

Highly emotional cases like the kidnapping, sexual assault and death of Brooke Bennett, carried out by Michael Jacques in 2008, are part of the reason Powell said the state is extra cautious about sex offender reform.

"The hesitancy to take chances, and the desire for surety comes directly from the trauma that case imposed on Vermont's psyche," Powell said.

In actuality, Laws is one of almost 20 homeless sex offenders the registry said are currently living in the state.

"It is a fair amount of work for the registry to stay on top of those individuals and gather that information but we do it everyday, every business day and make sure that the covering agency has all the information the covering agency needs particularly if the individual doesn't check in," Powell said. ..Source.. by Hannah McDonald

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

DETROIT: Man accused in Family Dollar murders arraigned on sex-offender charge

If we review the registry issue we find, the registry did not (and could not have) protected folks in the public. He was listed as an absconder, but he was listed. So, now, given 1st degree murder charges which he will very likely be convicted of, why are we wasting taxpayer money prosecuting him for registry offenses? Why?

8-23-2013 Michigan:

Lavere Douglas-Lee Bryant, who is being held without bond on nine charges in the shooting deaths of two employees of a Family Dollar in Dearborn last month, was arraigned on six other charges Thursday morning.

Bryant, 34, is charged with five counts of failure to comply with sex offender reporting duties and one count of failure to register as a sex offender, and was arraigned before Wayne County Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas. His bond was continued at $500,000 cash, which is moot because he’s being held without bond in the Wayne County Jail on the murder charges.

A conference to coordinate scheduling the two cases is set for Aug. 30 before Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway.

Bryant was supposed to be arraigned Wednesday morning before Wayne County Circuit Judge James Chylinski, but because of a scheduling mix-up it was postponed by one day.

A Wayne County sheriff’s deputy in Chylinski’s courtroom Wednesday morning said Bryant was to be in 19th District Court at that time and the county case was postponed, but the preliminary examination of the evidence before 19th District Judge Sam Salamey on the murder charges previously was postponed to 9 a.m. Oct. 1 and 4 because of the county court date.

Salamey will rule at that time whether there’s enough evidence to send Bryant to trial on the murder charges in Wayne County Circuit Court.

When Bryant was arraigned on the murder charges before Salamey on July 24, the judge ruled that details of that case were to be sealed until the preliminary exam.

Bryant reportedly was arrested by Dearborn police the afternoon of July 19 — the day the sex offender reporting violation warrant was authorized by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office — at Magical Touch Car Wash, 6355 Greenfield Road, Detroit, where he was a customer. He was arraigned the next day, and waived a preliminary exam before 36th District Judge Alicia Jones-Coleman on Aug. 14.

The prosecutor’s office authorized the murder warrant July 24, and Bryant was arraigned before Salamey that afternoon.

Bryant is charged in the shooting deaths of Family Dollar employees Brenna Machus and Joseph Orlando, both 20. Orlando lived in Dearborn and Machus lived in Romulus.

Bryant is facing two counts each of first-degree murder and felony murder, and one count each of armed robbery, unlawful imprisonment, being a felon in possession of a firearm, felony use of a firearm and being a habitual offender-third offense.

Security footage from the store, 22631 Michigan Ave., showed a man police believe to be Bryant entering the store at 7:26 p.m. July 15, a little more than 90 minutes before closing time, waving and turning right. The man’s hood was pulled over his face.

The next morning, employees arriving for work found the store in disarray and Orlando shot in the head. Machus was missing and police believed all along she was in danger.

Machus was found shot in the head July 18 in a wooded area near the Rouge River, east of the Southfield Freeway and south of the railroad tracks and Michigan Avenue.

Bryant — who reportedly was fired this spring as an employee of the Family Dollar at 27335 Cherry Hill Road, Inkster — was arrested the next day.

Bryant pleaded guilty in 1999 to second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and a first-degree home invasion charge was dismissed in that case in Detroit. He was sentenced to five years’ probation and sex offenders’ therapy, and served just over two years’ probation, ending Nov. 30, 2001.

On Feb. 5, 2001, Bryant committed assault with great bodily harm less than murder in Oakland County. He was sentenced Sept. 13, 2001, to four to 10 years in prison and was discharged March 12, 2011, after serving the full sentence, which included roughly six months in jail while the case was in the court system.

During his 10 years, he was written up for more than 80 “misconducts,” including disorderly conduct, threatening behavior and assaultive behavior, according to the state Department of Corrections.

When he was discharged, Department of Corrections officials told Bryant that he had to register for the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry, which is run by the Michigan State Police. The Department of Corrections told the state police and Wayne and Oakland county sheriff’s departments of Bryant’s release, a spokesman said.

When Bryant was arrested by Dearborn police, his Sex Offender Registry status was “absconder,” and his page said he was “incarcerated-address unknown.” The last verification date was Jan. 11, 2001.

His status has since been changed to “compliant.”

Dearborn police had listed Bryant as a resident of the city, but he told the Department of Corrections upon his release that he’d be homeless. He also told Salamey at the arraignment he was homeless before saying he didn’t want to say his address with the media in the courtroom. Salamey granted his request. ..Source.. by Joe Slezak

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Reminder: Tracking State Legislation, All 50 states

7-30-2013 National:

Just a reminder, one of the FREE services we use to keep track of whats happening in Congress, has now expanded its FREE services to tracking state legislature bills.

This has been an excellent service and now you can use it to track state bills and Lawmakers too. They even have RSS Feeds.

Click on Picture.

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Criminal Records, NCIC Codes, and the Adam Walsh Act Tier Levels..

7-29-2013 National:

Earlier today was this article: T-Squared: Why We Unpublished Our Prisoner Database which pointed to errors in the coding of Texas criminal records. Some, unknown how many, were incorrectly coded as sex offenses involving a child.

The code is a NCIC code which apparently the state must insert -MANUALLY- before sending that record to the National Crime Information Center which keeps all crimes on record for law enforcement viewing. The FBI has this description of the NCIC Database.

"It’s been called the lifeline of law enforcement—an electronic clearinghouse of crime data that can be tapped into by virtually every criminal justice agency nationwide, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."

I guess that, based on the article, there are some number of Texas criminal records which are incorrectly coded in the NCIC Database; hopefully they are timely corrected.

My point here is, why is this coding done manually? And if so, is it done manually in every state?

Further research tells us, YES, it is done manually, and in every state; all by hand! So are there other errors? Likely there are, but how many? Unknown number!

We looked to see if any state had some sort of manual describing how they perform this process, there were several, but this Missouri Charge Code Manual shows the process best; even still an amazing spider web of details must be sorted out before deciding on the correct NCIC Code.

In the 2012-2013 Missouri Charge Code Manual, section "11 - Sexual Assault" pgs 17-19, and section "22 - Sexual Offenses" pgs 46-51.

It doesn't take a genius to see, that this is a VERY COMPLICATED process to determine the correct NCIC Code. And, since it is done MANUALLY it is likely ERROR PRONE (Texas article proves it is). Other states must face similar issues.

Where do we go from here? Lawmakers must do something to assure that records are correct, they are Law Enforcement's lifeline!

The Adam Walsh Act:
So, is that the end of this story? No way, maybe folks who follow sex offender issues will remember all the complaints about, how, under the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), many registrants ended up in HIGHER Tier levels than they should have. And in some states they even assigned tiers to registrants even though the state had not yet converted to AWA.

Well, consider this, do states have certain employees that work on sex offender records, when and if they change their laws? Is it possible these are the folks who also assigned NCIC Codes? We really do not know, but the fact that Texas has clearly shown the potential for error, is it time for verification of all criminal records by states? Esp NCIC Codes?

Answers, answers, what are the correct questions? One thing is certain, under AWA there are many in Tier III that claim they do not belong there. Did the state use the NCIC code in their determination of Tier Levels?

Time for folks to start asking questions?

For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: Here we addressed "sexual offense" records, but there could be other non sex offense errors as well. Good luck finding them.

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Now Google Alerts affect sex offender advocacy

7-14-2013 National:

This story is a followup to What does the death of Google Reader mean to sex offender advocacy? so folks know we are still searching for a replacement for the Google Reader system. But,we have learned something else which is quite bad.

If you have read my prior account you know that the "Words and Phrase Search" input to Google Reader came from another of Google's products, Google Alerts. We have used that for some time and will continue to do so in spite of what we have learned.

For unknown reasons the e-mail output from Google Alerts (GA) seem to have slowed to a trickle, and less, and we wondered why? So we contacted Google and received no response (not surprised). Then we contacted them again a few days later. They said they would look into it, but they also listed three possible reasons why we were not getting responses from GA. The first one took our breath away:

1. There are no new results for your search. Google Alerts only sends you email if new articles, webpages or blog posts make it into the top ten Google News results, the top twenty Google Web Search results or the top ten Google Blog Search results for your query. If the top results remain the same for a while, you won't receive email on your topic.

Well that certainly explains "trickle to none" that we have seen. And no where in any of the Product description or Help sections is this explained. In fact, it appears this began when Google Reader was killed off.

Why are so many topics falling in Google Ranking: Consider the way Google Reader worked: It did the searching of news, blogs and the web, based on input parameters from Google Alert. So as long as Google Reader was doing those searches daily for topics, those topics stayed HIGH in Google Rankings. Kill off Google Reader, and the number of daily searches drops dramatically, resulting in LOW rankings.

Where does this leave us? Well, if you look at your Alerts, you can click on them and see what is available at that moment, but doing this for the hundreds we had in the past is not a viable way to find topic articles, or possible new laws or ordinances, or all sorts of other topics we have been covering for years. So we will prioritize topics to provide the most relevant and if time is available, some others.

The BIGGER Picture:
Most advocates do not get into reading tech stuff, but there are hundreds and maybe thousands of journalists and bloggers who follow specific topics and are complaining. This is affecting topics nationally, Google Reader and Google Alerts was used extensively by these folks to find topics to write about.

Importance to Sex offender advocacy: If we are experiencing the effects of a lack of information, and we are, then advocates will not be able to address issue with lawmakers and other officials who are proposing new laws, ordinances and the like. Thus folks we advocate for, are affected without a chance to TIMELY voice their opinions and present evidence to the contrary. Courts would be the only way after something is made law, and that is expensive, time consuming, and generally yields poor results.

We are already seeing fewer stories being written by national journalists and bloggers, these are folks who rely on products like Google Alerts and Google Reader. Sure the super large News agencies have products they can rely on, similar to GA GR, but those products look for the smaller local stories which are now being cut off due to a lack of topic information.

We can only hope someone will come along with a similar combination of products which yield the same results as did Google Alerts and Google Reader, but in the meantime we will suffer. Timely Topic Information is needed for movement of topics nationally. The way we stand today, only local issues will be addressed, that is, if there are local advocates following them; but how many local advocates are there?

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

What does the death of Google Reader mean to sex offender advocacy?

7-2-2013 National:

Sex offender advocacy is based on knowledge of whats happening day to day, in various states, cities and towns across the nation. Where does the knowledge come from? It comes from local news items all across the nation on the Internet. The same is true of websites, blog postings and even court news items, the folks that run these sites post bits of information about whats going on in their local areas.

So how did all that local knowledge get to our our blogs? We used a service provided by Google called Google Reader (GR) which consolidated information we asked it to search for across the Internet. GR had a way to display what we searched for so that we could easily see, and review, items we thought important to our readers. Many other "Topic" blogs and websites also relied on the GR for current information.

After review and posting -to our topic and news blogs- what was important to our readers, just like other blogs did, readers were able to act on that information in a timely manner. An example, if a lawmaker in no-mans-town proposed a law affecting sex offenders in that area, or maybe in that state, our readers could timely plan to counteract such a law, once they knew what had been proposed.

Excepting for regular news websites and the like, it is most likely you have been getting credible and timely information from places that have used GR in some manner to gather information for their readers.

Today GR died, it was eliminated by Google. The service no longer exists, hence a GOODLY portion of our news gathering has been cut off. Built into GR were TWO specific essential functions: 1) a RSS Feed Reader, and 2) a Search function. No other RSS Feed Reader has a "Search" function like Google Reader had.

I'll attempt to explain GR's unique "Search" function: As to "words and phrases" GR got its input from another Google service Google Alerts (GA) which still exists today. However, the part of GA that created RSS Feeds based on "words and phrases" has been removed from GA. The ability to create RSS Feeds from words and phrases is the heart of pulling together news items from across the Internet. With the heart removed, and GR removed too, we lose the ability to gather vast amounts of news based on words and phrases.

Google Alerts still allows us to create "e-mails" from words and phrases. But to gather news for our advocacy it takes a combination of over 150 words and phrases (used by eAdvocate) for our topic and news blogs. Consider the time it now takes to read hundreds of e-mails, one-by-one, and then open the news item it mentions and review it for possible inclusion in our blogs. There are not enough hours in a day to do that, its that simple. That is not a viable method to cover the vast topics we have previously covered. However, we will use this method to cover what we can within time constraints.

So, with the closing of GR, sex offender advocacy has taken a BIG HIT, a step backwards. This hit means local information can no longer be widely distributed, excepting when readers mention a local story and we post them. Other sites we know of are similarly affected.

While news sites across the nation still provide RSS Feeds for their news stories, connecting with the millions of sites is simply not possible, if it were possible their stories would have to be filtered for any related to our advocacy which was previously done automatically through the combination of GA and GR.

Google said these services were not used much, but if you have read the news items on this topic since Google's announcement, you would know over a million sites have complained, but Google is firm, and now it is gone. Feedly, another RSS Feed reader, said they have converted over 500,000 folks from GR. We also are now using Feedly, but Feedly cannot handle the "words and phrases" searching that GR did. This AM all those words and phrases we converted to Feedly, are dead and we must now remove them. The same happened to another RSS Feed reader we are trying, The Old Reader.

For now we wanted folks to know why our past vast reporting on many topics, has come to a slow crawl until we find another way to do the words and phrases searching and automatic handling as GR did for us. We are sure you will see less on other similar sites over the next month or so; GR was the heart of topic information.

We will keep readers apprised and we search for a replacement. All thoughts are welcomed.

Thanks,
eAdvocate

PS: Today Yahoo has also stopped their Yahoo Alerts for blogs, saying folks can search their news. However, this is no answer to the needs of Topic sites.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION REQUEST: Seeking any research paper containing Victim - Offender stats

7-25-2012 National:

Recently I posted "Who are the Victims: A National Perspective" and have received some very interesting responses from it.

I am asking ANYONE who knows of a paper, research or study, or even articles referencing the topic of "Victim / Offender," to please forward a Link to whatever it is you know of.

I will be looking to expand on this topic in the future.

Any help is appreciated.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (Click to submit link/s or other information)

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act (AWRA) and Why It Should Not Become Law!

7-20-2012 National:

In my earlier Commentary I gave folks a chance to see the US House amendments that were proposed to be included in this Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act. There I didn't want to cloud folks thinking as to why AWRA should not become law.

There we saw Rep Bobby Scott's amendments that were passed, and they will chip away at the harmful effects of the Adam Walsh Act. Rep Scott knows all to well how harmful the Act really is. He is one of a handful of lawmakers trying to do something about this harmful law.

OK, so what does the underlying AWRA (HR 3796) actually want to do:

SEC. 2. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 126(d) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16926(d)) is amended to read as follows:

`(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017, to be available only for--

`(1) the SOMA program; and
`(2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program established under section 631.'.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 142(b) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16941(b)) is amended by striking `such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009' and inserting `$46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017'.

SEC. 4. DURATION OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN JUVENILES.

Subparagraph (B) of section 115(b)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16915(b)(2)) is amended by striking `25 years' and inserting `15 years'.

Three things:

• 1) Extend grants to states so they can enact SORNA;
• 2) Extend grants to find folks who haven't properly registered;
• 3) Change the term of registration for juveniles.

This is 2012, six years after the enactment of AWA/SORNA, only 15 states are in compliance. Isn't that enough of a signal that the majority of the states DO NOT want this law? Appropriating 20 million more, for the next five years, does not address why the states do not want to comply!

I'm going to jump to changing the term of registration for juveniles, from 25 years to 15 years. Putting juveniles on the registry has already ruined their lives and changing how long they have to register is not going to restore their lives. Assuming 18 + 15 = 32 years old, the better part of their lives are gone, their earning potential is destroyed on day one. The registry is a living hell for anyone, and psychologically affecting juveniles is cruel and unusual.

Now lets look at the 46.2 million per year to find folks who have not PROPERLY registered. Read Sec. 3 "REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS."

"Violations of Registration Requirements," it looks like Congress wants to send a Task Force out for any possible reason that violates registration laws, not just those who fail to register. Here we are talking about TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS, right?

Here is a typical address check in Georgia: "More than 40 law enforcement officers from multiple agencies hit the streets to track down 182 registered sex offenders. The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office does these big checks twice a year. ... "You want to make sure where they say they are living they are actually living there," Perkins said. "We verify the offenders five to six times a year and take a new picture and fingerprints once a year."

40 police officers rolling up to the front door of every registered offender. This has got to put the fear of God in the rest of his/her neighbors. Is this sane, all they want is an address, or to verify the address?

Excepting technical violations, which now seem to be included, the only way to violate SORNA or any state registry is, to fail to provide a proper address. Federal money, $46.2 million just for the Federal agents that go along on these address checks. This is unbelievable!

According to NCMEC National Sex Offender Map there are 747,408 registered former offenders. Congress, through this AWRA bill will be spending roughly $62.00 per registrant, per year, in Federal money alone, just to baby sit local police when they check an address. If ever there was a sign of insanity, this is it!

Please remember, U.S. Marshals or other Federal officials do not have jurisdiction to perform state address checks, and cannot act until there is a violation of law:

(42 USC 16941) SEC. 142. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall use the resources of Federal law enforcement, including the United States Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements. For the purposes of section 566(e)(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code, a sex offender who violates a sex offender registration requirement shall be deemed a fugitive.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to implement this section.

So, until local police tell them there is a violation of law, U.S. Marshals are expensive babysitters, or should be if they are following law! They are using taxpayer funds at a time when taxpayers need it just to live day by day.

Lets wrap this up, while I do feel the changes presented by Rep. Bobby Scott are needed, I do not feel the spending of money as shown above is warranted. Thats my opinion, and I would vote NO on this bill to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act. It is a failed law, and harmful to society in general.

Its time for folks to have their voices heard, contact your folks in Washington.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Changes in the Community Room - Lawyer Pages

7-4-2012 National:

We have added a new section specifically for lawyers who handle civil commitment proceedings, and you can find that page in the Topic List or here:
http://eadvocate-community.blogspot.com/2012/07/topic-lawyers-civil-commitment.html

Also, the old lawyers page has been removed and replaced by a new page, which you can find in the Topic List or here:
http://eadvocate-community.blogspot.com/2012/07/topic-lawyers-criminal-and-general.html

If you had bookmarked the old page please update with the new page.

Have a great 4th of July and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Blog Changes: States in / or not in Compliance w/SORNA

6-1-2012 National:

A few changes have been made, first a SPECIAL graphic will be used when a state, that is considered SORNA compliant, anticipates or actually makes a change in their law which might affect whether or not they are in compliance w/SORNA; that graphic is below.

Next, at the top of the two news blogs (soon all blogs) you will now see:

SORNA Compliance: States in Compliance States w/Questionable Compliance

The first link will take you to a page where we keep track of SMART Office announcements as to compliance. The second link will bring up all the news articles showing when a state, which SMART Office considers compliant, anticipates or actually makes some change in their law which then questions whether or not they are in compliance w/SORNA.

At this time we only show two news articles (Kansas and Missouri) and there is something else very unusual which we described in PART-IV of our series Behind Closed Doors "The Alabama Factor" as we have coined it. Alabama's mechanism for assigning tiers (ONE ONLY) we believe places them in question. See PART-IV for explanation of The Alabama Factor.

Finally, if anyone knows of other news items showing states IN COMPLIANCE, anticipating / enacting something into law, which would bring their compliance into question, PLEASE send me the link and I will post it for everyone to know about.

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION REQUEST: Seeking any research paper containing Victim - Offender stats

4-21-2012 National:

Yesterday I posted "Who are the Victims: A National Perspective" and have received some very interesting responses from it.

I will be posting something -in a week or so- which will again show the chart, and "Other Thoughts about the Chart" (from eyes other than mine). There is no doubt in my mind that at least two responses will be hair raising. Responses will not include the name or any other information about who submits a response; it will be kept confidential.

Coming back to today's request, I am asking ANYONE who knows of a paper, research or study, or even articles referencing the topic of "Victim / Offender," to please forward a Link to whatever it is you know of.

I will be looking to expand on this topic in the future.

Any help is appreciated.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (Click to submit link/s or other information)

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Has the state of Missouri voted to come out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act?

4-7-2012 National:

The buzz for the past week have been what the title of this post says, but is that correct or is something missing? It all seems to have started with this news article "Missouri House endorses changes to sex offender registry, allows petitions for removal" (I'm preserving the full article is at the end of this post).

Effectively the article says: The Missouri HOUSE passed a bill (HB 1700) which made changes to its sex offender laws. I see no mention of why its House did what it did, nothing zip. And, Missouri's Senate has yet to vote on that bill.

Assuming no Senate action, we need to look at what the House approved, and decide if there MAY BE a reason other than a purpose, to come out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act.

Missouri State Constitution:

Section 1. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 13. That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.

News Article citing this case: Part Of Missouri's Sex Offender Law Ruled Unconstitutional "He successfully argued it would be unconstitutional for the state to force his client out of his home. The judge writes "Section 566.147, as amended in 2006, violates Article 1 & 13 of the Missouri Constitution and Article 1 &10 of the United States Constitution as a punitive ex post facto law that is retrospective in operation that disadvantages those offenders who lived within 1000 feet of a school or day care center at the time of its amendment, like Plaintiff, and intends to criminalize Plaintiff's and other similarly situated offenders' residency." Judge Joyce writes "Section 566.147 as amended in 2006, violates the Due Process Clause of the Missouri and United States Constitutions by depriving Plaintiff and those similarly situated of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard." Judge Joyce writes "As a result of this court declaring and finding 566.147, as amended in 2006, unconstitutional under both the United States and Missouri Constitutions, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the state of Missouri Department of Corrections is hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing the law against plaintiff and all other similarly situated offenders...""

...

That Missouri law (Section 566.147) violated the Missouri Constitution, which has a strange provision, "or retrospective in its operation", that sometimes covers civil matters. Could the Missouri House changes be, because AWA would have made them out of compliance with their State Constitution?

OR, read what I propose...

Before answering that, what does the Adam Walsh Act have to say about changes that would violate a States Constitution?

The Adam Walsh Act 42 USC 6925: SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

(b) STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(2) EFFORTS.—If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction’s constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction’s constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction’s highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction’s interpretation of the jurisdiction’s constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.—If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction’s constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.

Hummmm, AWA will not allow a state to violate its own constitution, could that be why the Missouri House made the changes it did? Maybe the AWA changes would force Missouri to violate its constitution (violate the "or retrospective in its operation" provision like the above court case mentioned). Honestly, I really do not know WHY the Missouri House made those changes.

So, here I merely challenge the alleged reason the Missouri House made the changes it made, but also leave open, that, it could be to "come out of compliance." But, based on that news article there is not enough evidence -in these eyes- to support "coming out of compliance."

What do you folks think NOW? I'm all ears...

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

---

Missouri House endorses changes to sex offender registry, allows petitions for removal

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Republican-led Missouri House gave first round approval Tuesday to legislation that would allow some people eventually to be removed from the state's sex offender registry.

Sponsoring Rep. Rodney Schad said the registry must be sufficiently narrow to be a notification tool and not additional punishment. In recent years, lawmakers have expanded the public sex offender registry.

"We've piled on to the point that the registry no longer means anything to the public," said Schad, R-Versailles. "The public has become numb to the registry."

Under the legislation, several offenses no longer would require state registration, including promoting obscenity and furnishing pornographic materials. In other cases, people could petition a state trial judge to be removed if they meet certain requirements. Petitions for removal could be filed after 20 years for those convicted of particularly serious offenses such as forcible rape, forcible sodomy or child molestation — crimes that Schad labeled as the "seven deadly sins." People convicted of other sex offenses would need to wait 10 years before they could seek removal.

The local prosecutor, who would need to be notified by the person making the request, could present evidence suggesting some requirements for removal had not been met. Prosecutors also would need to make "reasonable efforts" to notify the victim of the sex offense of the dates and times for court hearings on the petition. Requests for removal would be granted unless the person has not properly registered, committed another offense requiring registration or failed to complete probation and sex offender treatment programs.

Lawmakers endorsed the legislation by voice vote during an evening session with few people watching from the public galleries. The measure needs another vote before moving to the state Senate. There was little apparent opposition to the measure, and Schad said the legislation was discussed at night to avoid conducting the debate in front of the many children who visit the state Capitol during the day on school field trips.

Besides allowing people to be removed from the registry, the legislation also would exclude juveniles who are required to register as sex offenders from the public list posted online.

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

REVISED: Oklahoma's attempt at separating certain former sex offenders from family relationships

This revision replaces Commentary dated 3-21-2012.

3-23-2012 Oklahoma:

Rep. Sanders of the House and Sen. Marlatt have introduced a bill (HB 3049) which effectively is attempting to separate certain former sex offenders from their family living situations. The bill is absent a reason why lawmakers feel this is necessary, there is no mention of any danger to the child in question; the bill leaves the reason to the imagination of the reader.

The bill has TWO parts to consider, first (Section B.), defines WHO cannot live with a minor child in the HOME. Secondly (Section D.), defines additional AREAS where certain sex offenders (the WHO above) cannot reside:

==========================================================
Defining WHO cannot live w/minor children in the HOME
==========================================================

(Section B.) It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act for any offense in which a minor child was the victim to reside with a minor child or establish any other living accommodation where a minor child resides.

Provided, however, the person may reside with a minor child if the person is the parent, stepparent or grandparent of the minor child and the minor child was not the victim of the offense for which the person is required to register.

There are a dozen or more scenarios of normal life that can be cited where an affected RSO would be living in violation of above provisions. Accordingly a few simple questions can determine if the RSO is living in violation:

1) Is the person a RSO whose victim was a minor?

2) Is the RSO the parent, stepparent or grandparent of the minor child?

3) Is the minor the victim of the RSO parent, RSO stepparent or RSO grandparent of the minor child in #2?

Not in violation if:
#1 is NO; or,
#2 is YES and #3 is NO.

Any other combinations of YES/NO represent violations.

Here are a few normal living arrangements which will technically violate the above:

A) A juvenile registered sex offender (JRO) living with his/her sibling, whether or not the sibling is the victim of the juveniles offense which caused registration;

B) Assume Scenario-A after the JRO turns 18;

C) Alice and James live together in common law. James is a register sex offender from an offense (minor victim) when he was a juvenile. Alice’s minor child from her first marriage live with them;

D) Mary and Greg are married and they have two underage boys (15 and 16) who were both convicted of sexual acts against the same minor girl at a party; both boys have to register and are registered;

E) George is 16 and a registered sex offender (victim was a minor) in living in a group home for kids with aggression problems. He is participating in a court ordered program with other juveniles;

F) Brad is 15 (a orphan) and a registered sex offender (victim was a minor) living at the local juvenile center with other juveniles.

It appears most of the daily living arrangements mentioned may not intentionally violate the bill. But look again at "C)." This is critical because it is typical of any of today's juvenile offenders, or other affected younger single person on the registry, a few years down the road. When they want to start a family, and thats what this bill is all about "Family Lives of RSOs." We cannot review this bill based ONLY upon today's living arrangements, we must look down the road.

RSOs with a minor victim will NEVER be able to cohabitate (i.e., move into a residence or establish any other living accommodation) with a woman/man who has a minor child from a previous marriage. Unless they get married beforehand (before cohabiting) and technically become a stepparent, BUT, will that be allowed or will CPS step in, which is happening all across the country.

Next we need to review the residency section of the bill, because what might appear to not violate Section B, could possibly violate Section D:

==========================================================
Residency Restriction: Defines Prohibited Area/s
==========================================================

(Section D.) Any person willfully violating the provisions of this section by intentionally:

1. Intentionally moving into any neighborhood or to any real estate or home within the prohibited distance; or

2. Intentionally moving into a residence with a minor child or establishing any other living accommodation where a minor child resides as specified in subsection B of this section,

shall, upon conviction ....

Undefined terms which make it impossible to determine if one would be living in violation of this section: "Neighborhood," "Real Estate," "Prohibited Distance" "any other living accommodation." The absurdity of this section can be seen in the following:

A) Is it at all possible for a RSO to know where s/he can reside if they DO NOT know the "Prohibited Distance" from the nearest home with a minor residing in it, or even know which homes have minors in them?

B) Do police know EXACTLY which homes have minor children residing in them, to determine if such is violated?

C) Babies are born everyday, would a RSO who owned a home have to vacate, move or sell if a new baby was born to a home near him?

Currently Oklahoma has a grandfather clause as to RSO residences and real estate owned, with distances to prohibited places, but it is based on RSO ownership of same before date of conviction. Here as to Minors (people) that grandfather clause would not work. The presence of a date of conviction in law is to prevent retroactive application. Here with family matters constantly changing, children are born daily and families move from home to home with children, there needs to be a different form of grandfather clause. Rights based on home ownership and rights based on family matters are different; family matters are superior rights which state law must protect through the courts!

D) "Real estate" might imply "Apartment above a store," "Apartment Complex," "Shelter," "Hotel/Motel" or what?

E) "Neighborhoods," in some areas of the nation neighborhoods have names, here it means?

F) "Moving into a residence" my concern here has to do with the word "move." I'm sure everyone is familiar with how courts have interpreted a "Move" under sex offender laws. A person is considered to have moved even if they are visiting for say a week, or staying temporarily at a motel for personal reasons (ex: family disagreement) or dozens of other scenarios. Section B already prohibits living with a minor, so why the need for "moving into a residence." It feels like something has been omitted here.

G) Applies to both Section B and Section D: "Any other living accommodation," here we see lawmakers trying to cover "anything else possible" to cover themselves. How vague can a law be and hold registrants accountable to it? This is a Prosecutor's dream to get convictions.

Section D does seem to be based on proof of "Intentionally" doing what the section proscribes, I'll give that to lawmakers. But, if ever a section of law was written vaguely this one takes the cake. The only good thing about it, is, no one could ever be convicted of violating this provision because it is so vague. There is no other way to construe Section D but void for vagueness, but thats my opinion. Yours is?

==========================================================
Addition Concerns with HB 3049
==========================================================

There is no doubt as written it affects formerly convicted and registered sex offenders, its retroactively applied, and that will always raise ex post facto concerns, and under certain living arrangements the law can be considered a bill of attainder. Oklahoma and US Constitutions.

Family rights are well established in all state laws and International law; guaranteed to everyone. Traditionally these rights cannot be divested except by judicial intervention. Anyone see anything in this bill allowing the courts to intervene? NO! Does due process have any meaning in Oklahoma?

Given the ambiguity and vagueness in this bill, allowing prosecutors to clarify these when a person is charged, is not smart! Prosecutors should not have any chance to convict someone of exercising their rights to live a normal family life?

The intent in this commentary is to make folks think, and get Lawmakers to do the same, no one is going to solve this with sound bites, only known legal Family Rights are at stake here, and before this bill, it took Judicial intervention to decide what is right and proper for all involved. This bill seeks to force paint-brush legislative thinking onto the RSO population and cutout courts!

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

What really is ALEC Exposed ??

3-2-2012 National:

Last evening on the Florida Action Committee TalkShoe show (which was really good) the topic of "ALEC Exposed" was brought up. What is it?

It is simply a company (or group if you will) that has certain talents and connections with folks in Congress and State Lawmakers.

Brief example of how they work: Lets say a few oil companies (or some other industry) want to get some law changed in a way that benefits them. They find a company like ALEC and have them write up a bill which can be presented in Congress or State legislatures. Then using ALEC's connections, they find lawmakers who will present the bill in either Congress or State legislatures.

Conceptually that is how they work, that is their basic function, they are part of the mechanism to get laws enacted. They are a service for a HIGH price.

Now, a second and very smart thing they do is this, they hold periodic meetings, invite various companies, find out what would benefit those companies, then they do what they do best, they write up a law, and the rest of the story is above.

Is any of this illegal? NO! Its simply the way this world works. Is it possible for a group of sex offender advocates to do what ALEC does? YES!

Unfortunately none of us have the resources or contacts which a company like ALEC has, so we do what they do, on a smaller scale. ALEC is big business, we know they exist, cannot beat them, but by testifying and contacting lawmakers we take baby steps in this lawmaking process.

Now, is it always possible to know who or what is behind various bills? No, not without researchers who can dig until they figure it out. Folks that is what The Center for Media and Democracy has done with a pile of bills.

Our Advocacy groups need to work on the smaller issues, and until we do, win a few, make contacts, and get a major following, we will never be able to overcome the ALEC's of the world. Our groups really are tiny alecs!

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: Yes, hate the fact that the world works with the ALECs. Remember, if you spend all your time going after them, you will not be effective locally.

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Advocate Tip: Anyone who knows someone in prison that has been harassed or attacked because of being convicted of a sex crime

1-13-2012 National:

If you know of someone in prison, who has been convicted of a sex crime, and has been harassed or attacked because of that conviction, here is an INSTRUCTIVE case on what MUST be done before filing a lawsuit.

The Case: Bristol v. Settle (Do Not think, well this is not in my area. This applies nationally. You MUST EXHAUST ALL Administrative Remedies before court)

From the case:

On April 2, 2009, five or six inmates at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute at Graterford entered the cell of plaintiff-appellant Michael Bristol, who was also an inmate there, called him a "child molester," and punched and kicked him for between 20 and 40 seconds. Bristol subsequently filed this case against Graterford Correctional Officer E.T. Settle, asserting an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and associated state-law claims, arising out of the April 2 attack.1 Bristol alleges that Officer Settle caused the attack by telling the other inmates that Bristol's cellmate was a child molester. He alleges, further, that, a week after the beating, Officer Settle came to Bristol's cell and informed him that the attack was intended for his cellmate, who had been convicted of a sex offense or offenses involving children.

Bristol appeals an order of the District Court granting summary judgment to Officer Settle and dismissing all of Bristol's claims. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will affirm.

The District Court first found that the undisputed facts establish that Bristol failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006), before an inmate may pursue a § 1983 claim concerning prison conditions. Specifically, evidence submitted by Graterford's Grievance Coordinator showed, and Bristol admitted, that Bristol never submitted any grievance related to the April 2 attack. The District Court also considered and rejected Bristol's argument that he was denied access to the grievance process, noting that, even accepting Bristol's assertion that he did not learn about the grievance process until after the attack, when he was at a different facility, Bristol never attempted to file a grievance or asked that his failure timely to file a grievance be excused.

On appeal, Bristol reasserts the argument that he should be excused from filing a grievance in this case, without citing any supporting caselaw or facts that the District Court failed to consider. Given the mandatory nature of the administrative exhaustion requirement, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007), and Bristol's failure to identify any basis on which we could hold that the grievance process was unavailable in his case, we agree with, and adopt, the District Court's analysis and conclusion on this point.

.......

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: California Sex Offender Registry Law: New change affecting former sex offenders REMOVED from the registry

11-2-2011 California:

Over the years California has excluded some folks from the public registry, by a procedure, court orders or operation of law. However, since Prop-83 California has made several subtle changes to its laws which have not been well publicized.

Today we need to notify ANY former California sex offender who HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED from the public registry, that effective 1-1-2012 those folks will be automatically RESTORED to the public registry unless they file for EXCLUSION following a new procedure that has been added to California registry law.

There is no doubt that this will come as a surprise to these folks, and likely they are not watching laws as changes are made, and they will be blind-sighted by this change. I can see they may even be harmed in some way, like lose a job or housing. This is why we need every Advocate to announce this to their memberships and get folks talking about this so those folks can do what is necessary to remain off the public registry.

Here is the change that lawmakers have tucked into registry law:

Penal Code 290.46(e)(4) Effective January 1, 2012, no person shall be excluded pursuant to this subdivision unless the offender has submitted to the department documentation sufficient for the department to determine that he or she has a SARATSO risk level of low or moderate-low.

A reasonable reading of that change tells us that, even after following the procedure, unless the former offender's SARATSO risk level low or moderate-low, they will be restored to the public registry. Yes, some will result in a higher risk level and they will again be harmed by the public registry.

The form to use is HERE and more about the SARATSO system is HERE.

Now, because it appears that information is required that would require offenders to reveal facts about their past crime, I STRONGLY SUGGEST you seek a lawyer to help you file what is necessary. A lawyer can tell you what should or shouldn't be revealed or how to say what is necessary. PROTECT you rights at all costs.

PLEASE pass this along to anyone in California so they can find these folks and tell them what they need to do. Get folks talking about this, to find these folks and protect their rights.

Thanks, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Many sex offenders unemployed, increasing risk of re-offending

7-5-2011 Oklahoma:

On a list of more than 330 registered sex offenders in Tulsa, nearly 40 percent are listed as unemployed, disabled or retired, records show.

Authorities say that it can be difficult for sex offenders to find a job. And with residency restrictions that make a majority of the city off limits, such instability can increase the risk of re-offending for some offenders.

"It is difficult to find employment just because of the misconceptions that every sex offender is a child molester or that every sex offender is a rapist and that is not the case," Tulsa Police Sgt. John Adams said.

"If they don't find employment and don't find housing there is not a lot else for them to do besides just hang out. If they can't find a job, they can't pay for counseling."

Law officers and legislators alike would like to see a study on Oklahoma's laws governing sex offenders to ensure that they are working as intended.

Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa, has requested an interim study on the issue at the request of law officers and members of the Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management.

Randy Lopp, a licensed professional counselor who is a member of the group, said the study was requested in the interest of public safety in Oklahoma.

He said that most people agree that there are definitely some sex offenders who require the strictest monitoring regarding where they live and work. However, not all of the offenders required to register fall into that category.

The law states that sex offenders cannot "work with or provide services to children or to work on school premises, or for any person or business who offers or provides services to children or contracts for work to be performed on school premises." It also prevents sex offenders from working on ice cream trucks.

Tulsa's list of sex offenders shows that many get jobs in the food industry. Lopp said that many of them also do landscaping, mowing and day labor.

"It is difficult for folks to find a job. We encourage people to keep trying and tell them that looking for a job is a full-time job. They are also often underemployed. Employers are just fearful of hiring any offenders, not only sex offenders," Lopp said.

"Obviously, the whole problem with the sex offender issue is trying to find a place to stay and a place to work is very hard. There is research out there that shows this creates a lifestyle instability," Lopp said. "That makes it difficult to maintain any kind of standard of living. If they can't be near family or support it increases the risks re-offending, rather than decreasing the risks."

Study urged on effects of federal law

Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa, has requested a study on the effects of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and its impact on Oklahoma's public safety.

Passed in 2006, the Act organizes sex offenders into three tiers, creates a national sex offender registry and instructs each state and territory to apply the same criteria for posting offender data on the Internet. That data includes the offender's name, address, date of birth, place of employment and photograph.

The request for an interim study was made to address these concerns, a letter from McDaniel shows:

The act requires that states have a tier system placing registered sex offenders in tiers. High-risk offenders must register for life, moderate-risk offenders for 25 years and low-risk offenders for 15 years. The act requires that the tiers be based on the offense of record, rather than risk of re-offense.

The act requires the registry to include the offender's place of employment. This could have an impact on the offender's ability to find stable employment. A lack of stable employment may increase the offender's risk to the community.

The act requires states include children as young as 14 on registries, often for the rest of their lives.

Failure to comply with the act would prevent Oklahoma from obtaining Byrne Justice Assistant Grant funding. However, The Justice Policy Institute finds that the first-year cost of implementing the act outweighs the cost of losing the grant.

The interim study may also address other issues such as residency restrictions, which has some unintended consequences.

..Source.. by Nicole Marshall

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Reading cut off after lawmakers offended by sex offender bill

If lawmakers, do not read or hear read, bills, how are they going to know whether or not to vote for the bill? Is this the first proof that lawmakers RUBBER STAMP sex offender bills without knowing what they say? Who is writing these bills if not lawmakers?

4-1-2011 Idaho:

Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, objected to the full reading of the sex offender registration bill, saying its language was offensive - it included wording about crimes of a sexual nature. “Having the clerk have to get up and read that, that's ridiculous,” Wood said. “I think it's cruel to her to make her read that, and it's certainly not something we want to go out on TV.” Wood added, “It's bad enough we have to deal with it in committee. Everybody doesn't have to have their nose rubbed in it.”

The reading continued, but then Rep. Stephen Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, rose and said he thought the full reading of this particular bill was “inappropriate,” and asked unanimous consent to waive further reading of the bill. This time, Democrats didn't object. The bill was then presented by its sponsor, Rep. Julie Ellsworth, R-Boise, and quickly passed on a unanimous vote. ..Source.. by Betsy

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How to co-mingle unrelated facts to support a premise.

11-17-2010 Florida:

The following story appeared on CBS News in Florida, you will note that the reporter consulted with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for facts; but do those facts support the premise, sex offenders target middle school children? First the relevant part of the story:

New Stranger Danger: Sex offenders target middle school-aged children

JUPITER, Fla.-- It's something many kids have to do, walk to and from school. But it's a passage of childhood filled with peril.

"It's very real, your child's life is in danger," says a man who just wants to be identified as Frank. He's a convicted sexual offender arrested and convicted for exposing himself to two middle-school aged girls in Boca Raton.

From experience, he knows children are in "More danger when they reach puberty, the predators know that."

"Most parents would assume that these sex offenders are actually going after younger kids, playground age if you will, but research just out shows they are actually targeting older kids.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says a startling amount of attempted abductions, 43%, now involve kids between the ages of 10 and 14. 38% of attempted abductions take place to and from school. And about the same number of cases,37%, occur between the hours of 2pm and 7pm.

The results were released in August after the between 2005 and 2010.

Armed with this new research, CBS 12 wanted to know if older school children would fall for the same old tricks. .... .... ... ..Source.. JUAN CARLOS FANJUL / CBS12.com

Begin: Notice that a convicted sex offender reveals he did commit the crime he was convicted of. What does that have to do with attempted abductions of children on their way to and from school (The premise of the article). For all we know he did that in the confines of his home, why is this fact missing?

Next, the NCMEC study about "attempted abductions," yes, the study did result in some facts, but nothing which points to any sex offender or sex offense occurring; but, thats what they want the reader to believe.

Now, if we jump back into the NCMEC website, where their Press Release speaks about the "attempted abductions," here is what it says:

Parents also need to understand that most of those who abduct children are not “strangers”. The phrase “stranger danger” is pervasive in our culture. However, teaching children to only be afraid of strangers is the wrong message. Children don’t get it. Children view a “stranger” as someone who is “ugly” or “mean”. If someone spends time talking to a child or is even just around a child they think they “know” the person and don’t view them as a stranger. Research shows that of the 58,000 non-family abductions each year 63% involved a friend, long-term acquaintance, neighbor, caretaker, baby sitter or person of authority and only 37% involved a stranger. The number of pure strangers is not insignificant but it remains far smaller than other offenders who have easy and legitimate access to children.

OK, the study talks about actual abductions, not attempted, and still not one mention of a sex offender being involved in any of them. Taking their comment the title of the story should have been "The majority of child abductions are by friends or acquaintances of the child."

The remainder of the original story shows how they setup -with parental approval- scenarios of kids walking to school and a actor trying to pick them up. i.e., attempted abduction. Guess what, while one of the kids did talk to the actor for a second, all of them simply walked away to the safety of their homes. Even that did not support the premise of the article.

So, after everything they said, and tried, what did they prove? Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada which leaves us wondering what was the point of the article?

All I can think of is, to put forth a premise that there is no support for. Ahhh, it does prove this, sex offenders are highly unlikely to be involved in such a crime.

Isn't it amazing how facts co-mingled creatively can permeate the public mind into thinking wrong doing on the part of sex offenders?

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...