ACTION ALERT: Congress considers bills (Affecting Registered Sex Offenders) behind closed doors without advising the public of content of bills

3-27-2012 Washington DC:

Nary a day goes by that I do not learn some new hidden facet of Congressional procedure used to keep the Public from knowing what they are doing. Openness is not in their dictionary. Then again, maybe this is just me learning what many others already know.. OK here goes..most folks know I search the Thomas website for any bill affecting sex offenders or their families and let folks know about them.

Well, I was alerted of a bill a while back that would affect many former sex offenders and was told it is in the works in Congress. Accordingly I scanned the Thomas site till my face was blue and could not find anything referencing what I was told.

I found it, but at the same time I found a procedure used by Congress which prevents the general Public from knowing what they are working on. That Comes First! Apparently they are allowed to work on a bill "WITHOUT ASSIGNING a BILL a NUMBER," and by not assigning it a number there is no way the Public will ever know the bill exists. No number means its not entered into Thomas website; that website is the Public's way of knowing and following whats going to ultimately affect them. Congress is then allowed to do whatever with the bill without being troubled by Public Opinion or Public input, until the last second and the result is the Public is blindsided and does not have time to PROPERLY respond or shape the bill fairly.

OK, so much for Congressional trickery! Today, this news article "Section 8 bill roils housing reform debate," is discussing Public Housing Reform; what I had been looking for. TWO Lawmakers are mentioned, each of which have supposedly authored bills affecting Section 8 Housing (Public Housing for folks who cannot afford today's average rental costs.)

Now if you were to search Thomas for bill by Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio you will find HR 4145 Section 8 Reform, Responsibility, and Accountability Act of 2012. But if you search for bills by Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill. there is nothing affecting Section 8 Housing.

But the article also says Rep. Biggert's bill was approved by the Committee she is Chairman of; The House Financial Services subcommittee (Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity). With that clue I went to that committee website, and under "Hearings/Legislation" > "Markups" I found the following, notice two bills have no number and a third one does, those with no number do not appear in the Thomas website! CLICK to see for yourself.

The one affecting CERTAIN former sex offenders is "Affordable Housing and Self-Sufficiency Improvement Act of 2012" which contains the following:

SEC. 108. SCREENING OF APPLICANTS.

(c) REMOVAL OF SEX OFFENDERS.—Section 578 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 13663) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following new subsection:

a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of federally assisted housing—

(1) shall prohibit admission to such housing for any household that includes an individual who is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program; and

(2) shall terminate assistance to, and any lease or right to occupancy of such housing by, any household that includes any individual who is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program.

Now before we go further we need to understand what 42 USC 13663 is, Title says: "Ineligibility of dangerous sex offenders for admission to public housing." Under that law Public Housing was supposed to prohibit ADMISSION of an application if anyone in the Household was required to register for a "Lifetime." However, it does not require anyone who is already in public housing to be EVICTED.

This new bill will change that and also EVICT folks who fit the criteria, and are living there already. Today, under HUD, anyone required to register for a "LIFETIME" is automatically, without any form of hearing, considered a "DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER."

Background on HUD use of "Lifetime Requirement" and "Dangerousness" label: Honestly I do not know an exact date when HUD began using the "Lifetime Registration" requirement nor when they attached a "dangerousness" to those folks, but I have studied and commented on this for several years now. And, the obvious problem is, in the past, lifetime registration was found by some assessment of the facts of a person's case; a hypothetical projection of further recidivism, using a tool of some sort, etc.. In other words, the person was reasonably assessed in some fashion before attaching a "lifetime requirement" and the hypothetical "dangerousness" belief; effectively due process was employed.

And, if you look closer at the current version of 42 USC 13663(d)

42 USC 13663(d) Opportunity to dispute: Before an adverse action is taken with respect to an applicant for federally assisted housing on the basis that an individual is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program, the public housing agency obtaining the record shall provide the tenant or applicant with a copy of the registration information and an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and relevance of that information.

Currently lifetime registrants are allowed to present rebuttal evidence for consideration, to thwart eviction process, before a final decision (due process). All this disappears if this 2012 bill becomes law; and remember, the bill evicts the registrant and any HOUSEHOLD members. Not only is the registrant further punished based on past crime, so is any family. Clearly FAMILY rights are at issue!

Evolution of State Registries: As states enacted registry laws (early-mid 1990s), many states had some form of assessing registrants and assigning levels; those levels represented a hypothetical risk of further recidivism. And all states only required certain former offenders to register. As time went by more and more offense types were required to register. States also increased the term of registration, and some went to lifetime for everyone required to register, in that state. In essence, with no further registrant conduct, formerly convicted were being scooped under the registration umbrella. The giant legislative octopus was in action, based on the same high profile cases. Today's number of registrants (unverifiable) over 700,000 (NCMEC); with many states including those still in prison.

Enter the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) in 2006: While there is nothing in this 2012 bill which even mentions AWA, there is something in AWA that comes into play with the affected HUD registrants. These folks WILL BE EVICTED and forced to live on the streets or otherwise fend for themselves; Big Brother in action. One more disaster caused by AWA.

How, you ask? AWA retroactively applies its own legislative created classification system; AWA effectively turns back the clock and assigns a level (I-II-III) based on the crime committed, at the point the crime was committed. AWA throws away any rehabilitation the registrant may have had through prison programming, treatment and other community and programming.

AWA forces the world to think registrants are TODAY as bad as they WERE when they first committed their crime; 5-10-15-20-30 years ago. Lawmakers designed AWA to hide any rehabilitation that registrants may have had. Any assessments that had been done by Professionals are also tossed; AWA starts the clock over as if the crimes were committed yesterday.

The effect of the AWA re-classification system in this 2012 bill is this, many registrants' levels have been raised (which previously had been reduced by their years of rehabilitation [prison time, programming and treatment]). A significant number of registrants are now (clocked backwards in time) to level III which also requires "Lifetime Registration." The very thing that triggers the EVICTION provision of this 2012 bill.

Who are the affected registrants: These are folks who are most in need of assistance, generally older folks whose working years are past or because of today's registry laws, prevented from working. They legally completed Public Housing applications and were assessed needy of these services, and with no further conduct on their part, are to be evicted. Look in the mirror, is this you, or is it your parents, who will support them if evicted? Right, most will end up homeless and on Welfare Rolls with society paying for a far greater portion of their support than if they were allowed to stay in Public Housing.

Does this make sense?

Today we need every former offender and their families to be contacting their representatives in Congress, asking them to vote NO when this comes before them for a vote. And to those who feel, this is not my fight, well, it is a issue which all will face someday! Vote NO, tell your in Washington DC reps; VOTE NO!

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

© eAdvocate March 2012, All Rights Reserved!

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...

Summary of Bills in Congress Affecting or Related to Sex Offenders or Sex Offenses

6-17-2010 Washington DC:

A quick note to let folks know that we have UPDATED our "Summary of Bills in Congress Affecting or Related to Sex Offenders or Sex Offenses."

Due to improved searching capabilities on the Thomas website we were able to find and add 17 more bills. Most of these bills do not seem to directly affect sex offenders, but a few do enact provisions to exclude sex offenders from various federal service jobs.

A few improvements and changes were made in the summary:

1) We added "date separators" so folks know exactly what we have added;

2) We added a section at the beginning which shows all relevant bills in Congress we have identified;

3) We also will not be reviewing bills affecting Tribes and have noted that, in addition to Immigration and Appropriation bills.

Thomas, Congressional Website Tip:
Thomas has a wonderful section where folks can learn about the legislative process, its called "From a Bill to a Law" and there are two commentaries, I recommend the first one.

Understanding the "legislative process" is critical for advocates. Advocates, to be effective in getting changes in bills, must always target the folks who are in control of a bill at the moment, and contact them to effect changes. i.e., Once a bill is introduced in Congress, it is always sent to some committee, that committee is to review the bill -make changes they deem necessary- then send the bill to the floor, where it may/will be debated.

Committees always have more bills than they can handle, and rarely do they FAST TRACK one (but it does occur), so contacting the committee members with your thoughts is always best. Unfortunately, unless a committee member is your Rep. or Sen. you will not be able to e-mail them, but there is always the phone or a FAX to their office; numbers are on their individual websites.

Know where the bill is: Every bill summary (ex: HR 5072) has the following on the right: Major Congressional Actions, All Congressional Actions, All Congressional Actions with Amendments (With links to Congressional Record pages, votes,reports). The one that has a link will lead you to a list of everything that has occurred with that bill. Look to see what committee is currently working on the bill, contact them to have your voice heard. Sometimes a bill is sent to multiple committees based on its content.

After a bill comes out of committee, to the floor where it may/will be debated, then contact everyone to try to get changes you are seeking.

I specifically chose HR 5072 FHA Reform Act of 2010 as an example because, something very unusual occurred last week with that bill. In summary, when the bill was first introduced -in April- there was nothing in it affecting sex offenders. The bill went to committee and came out of committee still nothing affecting sex offenders.

However, when it got to the House floor and was being debated, a lawmaker proposed an amendment, that amendment affected certain sex offenders, and within a short time, the bill was voted on -including that amendment, and immediately sent to the Senate where it is today (6-17-2010). There was no opportunity for the public to make suggestions to change and eliminate the portion that affecting certain sex offenders.

The main bill is fine and important to folks all across the nation, so many are losing their homes in foreclosures, this bill will help them. But, the tiny little amendment will actually harm and prevent anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor from ever getting a FHA loan. There was no way to stop this as the bill was FAST TRACKED once it hit the House floor. But, now it is in the Senate in a committee, and if folks follow what I mentioned above, it may be possible to get the Senate to eliminate that portion of the bill.


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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Citing Statistics: Where to draw the line?

2-20-2010 National:

CORRECTION: Clarifying the original post as to the Ethicist's commenter.

Over at the Ethicist, the Ethicist responds to a reader's 2-4-10 question.

First the 2-4-10 question:

Should the Sex Offender Be Invited?
I am thinking about organizing a 30th reunion for my elementary-school “graduating” class. One classmate is a registered sex offender whose presence may discourage other people from attending, especially with their kids. Should I invite him? Make the event adults only? Inform others of his offense? Public records show that his misdeed was committed 13 years ago. He received probation, and there’s no indication of any subsequent crime. I would regret excluding him or violating his privacy, but I’d feel bad withholding information that other classmates might want. What to do? NAME WITHHELD, TEXAS

The Ethicist's response to above: Do nothing. It’s often the best thing. Some parents might be uneasy about this fellow, but to respond to that anxiety would be catering to prejudice, not forestalling danger. There’s information about my former classmates I want — their infidelities, their plastic surgeries, their P.I.N.’s — but it doesn’t follow that I’m ethically entitled to it.

If the classmate constituted a threat to anyone, you might have to act. But data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that the recidivism rate for sex offenders, contrary to widespread misconceptions, is far lower than for many other criminals. Nor need you fear that having committed one sort of crime, he is apt to commit another. The bureau reports, “Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense.”

Given these facts, your vague knowledge of his long-ago crime, the light sentence he received and the many years he has gone apparently without being rearrested, you should leave him in peace rather than subject him to the scrutiny and scorn of his classmates. He has paid his debt to society; you ought not extract a further toll by exiling him from ordinary social interactions. (Nor should you hang him, even in Texas.)

Now the Ethicist's 2-18-10 post:

The Ethicist: Should the Sex Offender Be Invited?

The Ethicist's "Commenter" said the following:
In response to a reader who asked whether to invite to a reunion a classmate who is a registered sex offender, Randy Cohen (the Ethicist) said to “do nothing” in order to not be “catering to prejudice.” Is the dissemination of public-record information about a person who has proved to be a danger, perhaps to children, now deemed equivalent to denying a woman equal pay based on her gender or denying an African-American a loan based on the color of his skin?

Cohen also says, “Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that the recidivist rate for sex offenders, contrary to widespread misconceptions, is far lower than that for many other criminals.” I assume this fact comes from the November 2003 Department of Justice study “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994.” The study, a good one, looked at 9,691 released sex offenders in 15 states. Nearly half of those released were imprisoned for child molestation — and 60 percent of those for molesting a child younger than 13.

Cohen does accurately cite the study, presumably to demonstrate that advocating for the monitoring of sex offenders is wrong, if not hysterically wrong. Sorry, Mr. Cohen, a poor analogy: a murderer or a sex offender with half the recidivism rate of, say, a car thief is a bit more dangerous to society.

More important, the same study also confirmed that compared with non-sex offenders released from state prisons, released sex offenders were four times as likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

So sex offenders may not do enough shoplifting to keep up with the general prison population, but when it comes to doing what they do, they are many times as likely to do it again. Attorney, Board Member, Holly’s House Inc., a Child and Adult Advocacy Center. COMMENTER

eAdvocate Suggests: What else should the Commenter have included?

First notice that the Commenter fails to show the crimes committed by non sex offenders released from prison, a significant number. In addition, while the study does say -four times more likely- the study also says, that non sex offenders commit six(6) new sex crimes to every one(1) committed by a released sex offender. See Chart-1 below. Where there any persons invited that were once in prison, no matter what their crime?

Secondly, most folks accept that Dep't of Justice study, its hard to refute. So what else does that study tell us? That the majority of sex crimes -over that 3 year period- were committed by released non sex offenders (someone who has never before been convicted of a sex crime). So, which group of persons is more likely to commit a sex crime, if one is committed at the party? Did it even occur to the woman that there might be someone else dangerous on her list, other than the former sex offender?

Thirdly, that same study (citing 73,116 cases as proof) showed us that, the most likely person (96.5% of the time) to commit a sex crime against a child under 18 is, a person who is in the daily life of the child. see Chart-3. Were any of these persons at the party?

Finally, the Commenter quotes 60% of those sex offenders released were convicted of a crime against a child. However, he doesn't suggest that the woman find out if the person she wants to invite is in that group.. And, this is critical, of the non sex offenders released who went on to commit a new sex crime, 40% of them were crimes against a child. see chart-2 below. Again, are there any persons on her guest list who have ever been in prison before?

It is a shame that, with respect to that Dep't of Justice study, folks only look at what points to "sex offenders" and ignore what other evidence that study revealed. Advocates need to cite more than the recidivism rate.

eAdvocate

---

---

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Not just guilty or innocent

2-14-2010 National:

Two recent Alford pleas raise questions on exactly how this legal move works

It is a legal curly-que of sorts and it has happened twice in Lawrence County within the last 30 days: A man walks into court and agrees to surrender his freedom, while still maintaining he didn’t do what they allege he did.

Experts said the Alford plea of guilty is not as widely known as other legal pleas.

What is it?

In most plea agreements, a person comes to court and admits their guilt in exchange for a less-than-maximum sentence. The crime is acknowledged. The criminal is punished and a trial is avoided.

In an Alford plea, the person accused of a crime accepts a plea offer from the prosecutor even though the person insists they did not commit the crime they are accused of committing.

Lawrence County Common Pleas Judge Charles Cooper said an Alford plea is “really an acknowledgement from the defendant that while he or she did not commit the crime, the evidence that would be presented at trial is such that the defendant is concerned he or she would be convicted regardless of what they know in their own mind to be the case and they want to accept a certain sentence the prosecutor’s office has agreed to recommend.”

Attorney Chris Delawder agreed.

“They’re saying they’re not guilty of the crime but it is so risky to proceed to trial where you could be found guilty,” Delawder said.

An Alford plea differs from a “no contest” plea as well. In a no contest plea, the defendant agrees with the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution.

“In a no contest, you’re not contesting the facts of the case. You’re saying, ‘if based on the facts of this case the court finds that’s a crime you can find me guilty but I won’t say I’m guilty,’” Assistant Lawrence County Prosecutor Mack Anderson said.

“With a no contest plea, occasionally the person is found not guilty,” Attorney David Reid Dillon said.

“If the judge thinks the facts are not sufficient for a conviction he or she is supposed to find the person not guilty. In the Alford plea, this is not the case. In the Alford plea there is usually strong evidence against the defendant.”

Cooper said the Alford plea is used in less than 2 percent of the cases he has handled. Fellow Judge D. Scott Bowling said he has seen three or four Alford pleas in the last 2 ½ years.

The judge does have discretion in deciding whether to allow an Alford plea.

Anderson pointed out that the Alford plea is relatively new.

“It’s probably 20 years old. No contest pleas have been around the long time.”

He said he suspects it is not used more often because some defendants don’t know about it.

Who has used it and why?

The two cases that recently ended in an Alford plea were that of Floyd McCann, accused of shooting a neighbor, Mark Robinson, in January 2009. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

If he had been convicted he could have gotten 16 years in prison. McCann had maintained that while he shot Mark Robinson, he did not intentionally or knowingly commit the act.

“Rightly or wrongly the defendant maintained his innocence as it related to culpability,” Bowling recalled.

McCann’s attorney, William Eachus, maintained the shooting was an accident.

But the prosecution maintained McCann had to have known if he was randomly firing a gun in an area where other people lived, there was the possibility he had to have known he could have shot someone.

“The key word there to prove is ‘knowingly,’” Anderson said. “You have to look at the definition. If you’re acting in such a manner that it is likely to cause a certain result it meets the definition of ‘knowingly.’ And this shooting did result in someone being hurt.”

The other case was that of Jesse Scarberry, charged with complicity to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

He was accused of arranging for his 27-year-old girlfriend to have sex with his 13-year-old son as kind of a hands-on sex education course.

He entered an Alford plea and got four years in prison and must register as a sex offender for the next 25 years.

Dillon represented Scarberry and acknowledged in court that Scarberry believed while he was not guilty of the crime, he would accept the four-year prison sentence rather than taking his chances in a jury trial where he may be found guilty and sentenced to more time in prison.

Dillon also recalls another incident early in his career that ended with an Alford plea. He was representing a man accused of arson.

The man, who was mildly mentally challenged, was taken by a local law enforcement agency and hooked up to a copy machine that the man thought was a lie detector.

The suspect didn’t know the copier had been loaded with preprinted paper that would, at the touch of a button, hurl an accusation of guilt.

“They (the police) would ask him a question and then a paper would come out saying ‘liar,’” Dillon recalled. The man then made “ a confession of sorts,” Dillon said. The police used the man’s confession to pursue a case against him.

“With all the charges, if he had been found guilty of all of them, it would have come up to something like 20 years,” Dillon said. “They offered him a year.”

The accused arsonist took the offer.

“The downside could have been much worse,” Dillon said. “He was likely to be convicted and that’s why we used it in that case.”

Pros and cons

Anderson said in spite of protestations of innocence, an Alford plea ends the same way other plea agreements and many trials end: With the criminal going to prison.

“They’re getting the same time as they would have if they had stood and pleaded guilty,” he said.

Bowling said an Alford plea can save the victim from the ordeal of a trial and having to re-live the incident that produced the criminal charges in the first place.

“That’s worth a lot, especially in sexual abuse cases and case where emotions are going to run high on both sides in the courtroom,” Bowling said.

Cooper, who was once an assistant prosecutor, said the Alford plea can leave unanswered issues for some people.

First, prosecutors deal with victims and some victims may perceive it as a slap in the face for the person who committed a crime against them to accept a deal without ever having admitted their guilt.

In the McCann case, the victim, Mark Robinson, was in agreement with the outcome to avoid a trial, authorities said.

Also, an Alford plea opens up questions of remorse, or lack thereof, a key factor in sentencing.

Does the Alford plea in a criminal case affect a victim’s proceeding in a civil case? Maybe, maybe not. Suppose a man is assaulted and criminal charges are lodged against the attacker.

The victim also has the right to sue the assailant for damages in civil court to recoup money for medical expenses.

If the defendant is found guilty or avoids a trial and pleads guilty to the criminal charges, that outcome in criminal court is almost always used in civil proceedings.

However, an Alford plea in a criminal case does not make it impossible to win a civil case but that is one less item in your favor when seeking civil remedy.

Cooper said people who enter Alford pleas may still appeal certain parts of their case, such as evidence against them that was deemed admissible in the lower court but may not be found so at the appellate level.

Who is Alford?

The Alford plea is named for Henry Alford, a North Carolina man who was indicted for first-degree murder in December 1963.

His attorney spoke to several witnesses and concluded, based on their statements, Alford was guilty and would probably be convicted in a trial.

The attorney recommended Alford plead guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder to get a lesser sentence, but left the decision to Alford, who did in fact plead guilty to the lesser charge but maintained in court he was innocent and was pleading guilty only to avoid the death penalty, which he could have gotten if he had been convicted of the first-degree murder charge.

The judge sentenced Alford to 30 years in prison and Alford appealed on the constitutional ground that his plea was “the product of fear and coercion,” in violation of his constitutional rights and the judge should not have accepted his plea for that reason.

A federal appeals court agreed.

But in 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is not unconstitutional for a judge to accept a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence, hence the Alford plea of guilty. ..Source.. Teresa Moore | The Tribune

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Coined Terms

HALLOWEENITIS:
Halloween-itis is a coined term used to describe a mental abnormality often occurring in public servants and politically aspiring persons who can pass this psychological disorder onto others, generally occurring around holidays and elections.

The disease is characterized by abnormal delusional visions of perceived horrific events creating an aura of public fear; these doomsayers get their rewards by painting a picture of "the sky is falling" and alienating the public.

Significant harm is caused by people so afflicted because the objects of their obsession are persons which society already looks down on (including their family members), and the collateral harm caused society is truly a tragedy.

Halloweenitis is a subset of offenderitis, and both are incurable social diseases because these people refuse to face reality, or facts and statistics which prove them wrong, they discount these facts and statistics because in their minds they only see horrific events in everyday life circumstances.

Those afflicted with Halloweenitis, fear based, focus on denial of civil rights of other persons under the pretext of public safety.

OFFENDERITIS:
Offender-itis is a coined term used to describe a mental abnormality often occurring in public servants, politically aspiring persons, and others who can pass this psychological disorder on.

People so afflicted perceive that, others who may or may not have a previous criminal conviction are all highly dangerous to the general public. The disease is characterized by abnormal delusional visions of perceived horrific events creating an aura of public fear; these doomsayers get their rewards by painting a picture of "the sky is falling" and alienating the public.

Significant harm is caused by people so afflicted because the objects of their obsession are persons which society already looks down on (including their family members), and the collateral harm caused society is truly a tragedy.

Offenderitis is an incurable social disease because these people refuse to face reality, or facts and statistics which prove them wrong, they discount these facts and statistics because in their minds they only see horrific events in everyday life circumstances.

Those afflicted with Offenderitis, which is fear based, focus on denial of civil rights of other persons under the pretext of public safety.

Main Page of Definitions

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...