California parole agency breaks up sex-offender encampment in Anaheim

Interesting how quickly Parole Agents solved the problem, when it caused them to park way away from the Parole office and walk to get to work!

5-7-2010 California:

On Wednesday, officials with the Parole Department relocated 30 to 40 paroled offenders who had been living in cars and RVs outside its office on Coronado Street, police say.

The beat-up station wagons and peeling RVs had been turning up outside the Coronado Street parole office in Anaheim for months, parked through the night. But in recent weeks it seemed they filled the whole block.

In Orange County, where more than a third of the paroled sex offenders are homeless, police estimated that 30 or 40 had taken to camping on the streets in this industrial stretch.

The situation appeared to stem from Jessica's Law, the 2006 statute that forbids sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or other places where children gather, severely limiting lodging options in densely populated cities.

"These people have difficulty finding residence, so they make do," said Anaheim police Lt. Julian Harvey.

The sex offenders are required to meet regularly with their parole officers, and those without a power source use the office to charge up the electronic ankle bracelets that monitor their whereabouts.

After media inquiries and business complaints, however, the state Parole Department cleared the block Wednesday night, moving the sex offenders to another location. Anaheim police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said the parole agency did not inform the Anaheim police where the offenders had been relocated.

"We had no clue they were doing that," Schmidt said Thursday. "Somebody made a quick, abrupt decision that we didn't know anything about."

The Parole Department did not return calls seeking comment.

On Wednesday afternoon, hours before the streets were cleared, a convicted 41-year-old child molester was sitting near the parole office in his vehicle, his belongings filling the back seat. He said he lost his lodging nearby after a Boys & Girls Club moved in down the block, putting him in violation of Jessica's Law. After four years in prison, he said he has been living in his vehicle for months and that nobody has hassled him.

The California Department of Corrections, which runs the Parole Department, "has been very good to us," he said. "They know we can't go anywhere." He said the sex offenders who camped there did not associate with each other because the law forbade it. He said he felt a measure of protection living near the parole office.

"All of us are safer than in the streets," he said. Still, he did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. He said he had heard a rumor that there might be a drive-by shooting targeting the campers.

According to the Parole Department, California has about 8,580 registered sex offenders on parole, about 2,000 of whom are classified as transient. Of Orange County's 302 registered sex offenders on parole, 119 are transient, and in Los Angeles County, the homeless represent 421 of 1,896 offenders.

"The bottom line is, they're going to be in the city some place," Kenneth Ford, the Parole Department's chief deputy regional administrator, said in an interview earlier this week. "We're trying to make them be compliant with the law. You're not going to find a lot of compliant housing for them."

Ford said the Parole Department had reached an understanding with the Anaheim Police Department that there were advantages to having the parolees at a specific location.

"If they were going to be transient, they wanted them to be transient in an area where they know they are," Ford said. "My understanding now is the area is not acceptable to the chief of police."

The Police Department insists it never had such an understanding with the parole agency. "We do not have any formal or informal agreement," Schmidt said. He added that although camping on a city street violates an Anaheim ordinance, police had refrained from citing the sex offenders in hope that a solution could be reached with the Parole Department.

Jerry Grinstead, who co-owns an emergency-vehicle business near the parole office, has watched warily as the overnight campers proliferated in recent weeks.

When a television news report identified the transients as sex offenders last week, however, his worries grew, especially because his granddaughter and daughter-in-law sometimes visit his office. On Monday, he said, he met with Anaheim police Chief John Welter and Mayor Pro-Tem Harry Sidhu to express his concerns.

Though the sex offenders have been dispersed, the company's co-owner, Travis Grinstead, said that he has seen some of them camped on the surrounding blocks in their vehicles.

The sex offenders are a shunned and hated fraction of the traffic at the parole office. On Wednesday afternoon, milling around the street in front of the office, a group of thickly tattooed ex-convicts were taking a break from mandatory drug rehabilitation class. They said they did not know where the sex offenders were, but it was best for them to keep out of sight.

"This is probably the safest block they could be on," said Richard Velasquez, 33, of Anaheim. But he added: "Don't get me wrong. If I find out there's one, I'm punching him in the face." ..Source.. Christopher Goffard, Los Angeles Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Sex Offender Known For Domino’s Video Kicked Off Local College Campus After Bill Signing

These laws get more absurd day by day. This one -as applied- shows there isn't anyone in the legislature that is thinking past the -sounds good theory- no one is considering the collateral effects of these laws. Was this intended? I doubt it but it shows how poorly research is done, if at all, in the legislature.

9-1-2009 North Carolina:

WILKES COUNTY, N.C. -- A woman who said she was turning her life around suffered a major setback when she was kicked out of school Monday following a bill signing in Raleigh.

Kristy Hammonds of Taylorsville is a registered sex offender. She made headlines in April when she and a co-worker at a Domino’s pizza restaurant in Conover were arrested on felony charges of tampering with food.

Hammonds and Michael Setzer are accused of posting a video on YouTube showing them tampering with the pizza they were making. Hammonds has said it was a prank. The case has not yet gone to trial.

Hammonds said after she walked out of a psychology class at Wilkes Community College on Monday, she was called into a meeting with the vice president of the college and a police officer.

They told her a new bill, part of the Jessica Lunsford Act in North Carolina, had been signed into law by Gov. Bev Perdue on Friday and that it does not allow her to attend college anymore because of her sex offender status resulting from a sexual battery case involving a teen.

“I started crying,” Hammonds said. “Where do I go from here?”

The Jessica Lunsford Act states that it is unlawful for a sex offender to be on premises where children regularly congregate, and some minors attend Wilkes Community College. Hammonds said she was given a copy of the bill during her meeting with the administrator.

Administrators said she was just one of several students who had to be kicked out because of the law.

Hammonds said she has attended the school for a year and wants to work in a medical field. She said she feels she should still be entitled to an education, even though she has made mistakes in the past. She said working at Domino’s was a temporary part of her life, while her education is part of a long-term commitment to turning her life around.

Wilkes Community College officials said there is nothing they can do because they have to follow the law. One of Hammond’s teachers said despite her past, she is an excellent student who seemed to be trying to do the right thing for herself and her children.

Not everyone has sympathy for Hammonds, however. One fellow student said she was glad to hear about the change in the law. She said she does not think sex offenders should be allowed to go to college.

Hammonds is scheduled to be in court on the Domino’s case next week. ..Source.. by 9WSOCTV.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ME- High court denies convicted sex offender's appeal

If it is true that, Boland was not in custody and talked to police about the facts of a THEN POSSIBLE crime (at the time of discussion), then this case should be a lesson to everyone that, they should not talk to the police without a lawyer present. Now, as to the victim, sometimes things happen (Boland's error) that make the outcome -here a long punishment- proper given harm to the child.

3-5-2009 Maine:

PORTLAND (March 5): The Maine Supreme Judicial Court denied Micah T. Boland's appeal Tuesday, March 3, ensuring he will serve his 22-year sentence for sexually abusing a child.

Boland, 31, formerly of Rockland, was the first person in Maine to be sentenced under Jessica's Law after a trial.

In August 2008, Justice Jeffrey Hjlem ordered Boland to serve 22 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of probation. Boland was convicted for Class A gross sexual assault after a jury-waived trial.

Boland was charged with the offense in March 2007 after he confessed to police that he had sexual contact with a 4-year-old girl left in his care while he stayed with her family in Liberty.

In 2006, the Maine Legislature enacted sentencing guidelines under Jessica's Law, which makes 20 years the base sentence for people convicted of sex crimes against children younger than 12 years of age.

The sentence may be raised or lowered depending on several factors, including the sex offender's background and criminal history and the impact of the crime on victims and their families.

While other people had previously been sentenced in Maine under Jessica's Law, those sentences came after plea agreements. Boland's sentencing was the first to come after a trial.

The memorandum of decision from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court indicated that Boland's appeal was denied for several reasons.

Boland contended that some of his statements to police should not have been used at his trial because he was not advised of his Miranda rights, which instruct a person that s/he has a right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning.

"Contrary to Boland's contention, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during two police interviews, because the record supports the court's determination that (1) he was not in custody when questioned without Miranda warnings being administered, and (2) he made the statements at issue voluntarily," stated the decision. "... Because Boland was not in custody when questioned, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel did not attach."

Boland also contended the victim, who was 5 at the time of the trial, was not a competent witness. And Boland also took issue with the fact that the victim's age was a factor considered at his sentencing.

"Also contrary to Boland's assertions, the trial court did not clearly err in finding the 5-year-old victim to be a competent witness ... Nor did it err in considering the victim's age as an aggravating factor at sentencing," the decision stated.

Jeremy Pratt of Camden represented Boland. Deputy District Attorney Eric Walker presented the case for the state. ..News Source.. by Tanya Mitchell, The Republican Journal Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- Prosecutors praise new sex-abuse law

9-27-2008 Massachusetts:

HYANNIS — When the Massachusetts version of "Jessica's Law" takes effect next month, it won't have the same tough sentencing requirements as the Florida legislation on which the act concerning child predators was modeled.

But the commonwealth's modified version will make it easier for law enforcement officials to prosecute sexual abuse crimes against children, Michael O'Keefe, Cape and Islands district attorney and one of the law's backers, said yesterday.

"A lesser sentence is better than no sentence at all," said O'Keefe, who is president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. He was speaking at the ninth annual conference of Children's Cove, which investigates sexual abuse cases on the Cape and Islands and provides treatment for young victims and their families. The conference was held at the Resort and Conference Center of Cape Cod.

Jessica's Law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and murdered in 2005 by a repeat sexual offender. In the original Florida version adopted by several states, the law establishes a 25-year minimum sentence for sexually abusing a young child and requires that paroled sex offenders wear a GPS positioning unit.

Other states, including Massachusetts, have passed a modified version of the law that raises the minimum sentence for some sexual offenses against children but gives prosecutors more leeway in working out plea agreements.

Flexibility an advantage
Many defendants would go free with a mandatory 25-year sentencing law, O'Keefe said. "We'll capture more perpetrators with the flexibility inherent in this law."

The problem is young children often make poor witnesses, particularly if they are called upon to face their abuser in court, he said.

Currently, many sexual abuse cases never go to trial, sparing the child and family the rigors of a courtroom battle. Instead, the prosecutors use evidence and expert interviews to work out a plea deal and a sentence for the perpetrator, who must also registered as a sex offender.

If people accused of sexually abusing a child are faced with a quarter century in prison, they are more likely to take a gamble and push for a trial, O'Keefe said. The fear is many families will end up withdrawing complaints rather than traumatizing a young child on the stand.

Prosecutors want to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to prosecuting child molesters, O'Keefe said. He said under a mandatory 25-year sentencing law, a grandfather with Alzheimer's who molests a child in a one-time incident would be subject to the same sentencing as a pedophile kidnapper.

Stronger version sought
Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich, supported a stronger version of Jessica's Law. But he said the modified version that passed this summer and is going into effect Oct. 22 "is better than if we didn't pass anything."

He is disappointed with the fact the law does not call for a 10-year minimum sentence for rape of a child by force.

"That's really the type of crime that deserves a minimum mandatory sentence," said Perry, a member of the Public Safety Committee.

The law does call for a minimum 10-year sentence for aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, but the simple use of physical force is not considered an "aggravating" factor, Perry said during a phone interview.

Aggravated indecent assault and battery is a new charge. Aggravating factors include using a dangerous weapon and committing the crime during a home invasion or while posing the child for nudity.

Also new is a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for a person committing indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 as a second offense, Perry said. He said legislators will be pushing for more stringent sentencing once their new session begins in January.

The Massachusetts constitution guarantees defendants the right to face their accuser, which means it's not possible for children to testify from behind a screen as happens elsewhere, said state Sen. President Therese Murray, who also spoke at the Children's Cove conference.

The way that Martha Coakley, the state attorney general, and the district attorneys put the law together "is the right way to go," Murray said. The convicted perpetrator will be automatically registered as a Level 3 sex offender and be tracked for the rest of his or her life, she said.

Jessica Lunsford's father, Mark Lunsford, urged Massachusetts to follow the Florida example, Murray said. But in the end he agreed to the modified version, she said. "He just said to me, whatever you can do, please do." ..News Source.. by CYNTHIA McCORMICK

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- Creem: Why I voted against Jessica’s Law

Hats off to a lawmakers who is willing to stand alone and fight overwhelming odds, and in fact, is correct on every postion she states. Further, pay particular attention to the "tucked in" provisons masked as "Internet age updates" which in fact allow the state to circumvent 4th amendment protections. Hopefully the ACLU will get involved and have those provisons declared unconstitutional.

7-29-2008 Massachusetts:

Being the only “no” vote on a crime bill named in memory of a little girl is a tough spot to be in for an elected official, but that is my situation after the Senate overwhelmingly passed Jessica’s Law. For 10 years, I have been deeply involved in reforming the state’s sex-offender laws, and we have made Massachusetts safer for children. Unfortunately, and in spite of its popularity, Jessica’s Law has serious flaws.

Jessica’s Law originated in Florida in response to the rape and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford by a convicted sex offender. Since then, more than 30 states have adopted some form of the law. Our version was largely developed by the district attorney’s and the attorney general’s office, and focuses on creating three new “aggravated” levels of existing sex crimes, which would now carry mandatory minimum prison sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years.

I am a longtime critic of mandatory minimum sentencing as a failed experiment of the “get tough” 1980s. Nearly 30 years of experience shows that mandatory sentencing does little to deter crime, unnecessarily ties the hands of judges and pointlessly fills prisons when less expensive — and more effective — sentencing alternatives exist.

In 1999, I successfully argued that convicted sexual predators should have lifetime parole supervision. A few years later, I helped create and fund a statewide intensive-parole program. To date, that program has a recidivism rate of zero. It can — and should — be expanded.

In addition to mandatory sentences, Massachusetts’ Jessica’s Law also included several other questionable provisions on administrative subpoenas, mandated reporters and proof of prior convictions.

Tucked away in the bill were two sections that were misleadingly touted as simply statutory updates for the Internet age. The change, however, gives prosecutors sweeping new powers to demand subscriber information from both telephone companies and Internet service providers. These expanded administrative subpoenas allow investigators to avoid the need for judicial or grand-jury approval, and ultimately to circumvent everyone’s Fourth Amendment protections.

Additionally, it did not simply add ISPs to the existing administrative-subpoena statute. It took the dramatic step of lowering the standard for obtaining information on phone users and applying that lower standard to computer users as well, opening the door to all sorts of prosecutorial fishing expeditions that current law would prevent.

This unwarranted invasion of privacy is even more alarming when you consider that Internet providers store far more personal information than telephone companies. Throw in the bill’s lack of disclosure requirements and its blanket immunity for providers, and the potential for abuse can easily be envisioned.

I cannot support this attack on privacy rights when less-invasive and equally effective means are available. Our liberties should never be sacrificed in the name of prosecutorial convenience.

For that same reason, I also objected to Jessica’s Laws provisions allowing the admission of court records as self-authenticating evidence of prior convictions. Such evidence will be admissible as prima facie evidence to apply mandatory minimum sentences to repeat offenders.

I see this as a violation of the federal and state Constitutional rights of a defendant to confront accusers, and I believe my position is supported by recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has barred similar efforts to offer evidence of prior convictions in lieu of witness testimony.

All too often we have seen the fallibility of state and federal record-keeping, especially when exempted from traditional and adversarial testing. This only reinforces the importance of the ability to confront opposing witnesses.

Finally, Jessica’s Law creates broad new mandatory sentences for so-called mandated reporters. There is no question that people who abuse a position of trust to sexually assault children are particularly abhorrent. Still, this bill was not carefully drafted and is ultimately too broad.

“Mandated reporters” engage in occupations or hold positions that have functions of trust such as physicians, teachers, child-care workers, certain court employees and religious leaders. If they have a “professional relationship” with a child they believe is the victim of abuse, they have a legal obligation to notify authorities. However, Jessica’s Law ignores the need for such a relationship when imposing new penalties. As I read the bill, any defendant who happens to be in a mandated-reporter occupation would face enhanced penalties — even if he had no prior relationship with the victim.

People who abuse a position of trust should face stiffer penalties, but this law seeks to create a new category of criminal based solely on occupation.

It’s never easy to stand alone — especially when the question is the safety of our children. Yet I stand by my vote, because Jessica’s Law is riddled with flaws and based on outmoded thoughts on criminal sentencing. I have argued for years that we need to be smart on crime — especially with offenders as insidious as sexual predators. Increased parole, thoughtful sentences, allowing judges to do their job and forcing prosecutors to respect civil liberties are all properly part of that effort. Unfortunately, Jessica’s Law is not. ..News Source.. by Guest Column/State Sen. Cynthia Creem

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Senate's version of Jessica's Law denied by House

7-8-2008 North Carolina:

RALEIGH - Working the Jessica Lunsford Act through the North Carolina legislative maze will take a bit longer.

The state House decided not to accept the Senate version of the bill, which would require a minimum of 25 years in prison of adults who rape a child younger than 13 years old.

One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Julia Howard, R-Davie, said supporters are prepared to work out the kinks in the bill.

"We will work through it and hopefully get everything resolved," Howard said.

The House action means that a conference committee made up of senators and representatives will be appointed to work out a final version of the law. If the committee is able to come up with a final bill agreeable to both the Senate and the House, both chambers will then have an opportunity to approve that final version.

For the bill to become law, the committee will need to come up with the final version and have it voted on soon since most legislative leaders have indicated that the 2008 session of the General Assembly is winding down. If the bill does not pass before the session ends, it will die.

In addition to requiring the prison time, the bill would also require that people convicted of such crimes submit to lifetime GPS monitoring once released from prison. It also forbids sex-offender registrants from going on the premises of places where children normally congregate, such as schools, children's museums and playgrounds.

That provision could create problems for people on the registry who are parents and need to pick their children up at school, or for people who need to go to schools and other places that serve as voting precincts.

Howard said that problem can be fixed by having such people on the registry give notice to the school superintendent that they were on the registry and would have a need to be on the school premises for legitimate purposes.

Stricter registration rules would also be in place for when sex offenders change addresses.

The Jessica Lunsford Act is named in memory of Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Gaston County native who after moving to Florida, was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a sexual predator in February 2005. John Couey, a registered sex offender, was convicted and sentenced to die for the crimes.

Police lost track of Couey. He was staying with his sister, who lived in the same neighborhood as Jessica. ..News Source.. by Barry Smith, Freedom Raleigh Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

KS- Jessica's Law not working the way many hoped

Jessica's law the way the public sees it is useless, eyes blinded by vengeance, there are many more factors to consider than VENGEANCE! Judges turn the law into a RATIONAL ONE with sentencing that is not likely to be overturned.

7-1-2008 Kansas:

WICHITA, Kansas, June 30, 2008 – Tuesday will mark the second anniversary of Jessica’s Law taking affect in Kansas.

The law mandates a minimum prison sentence of 25 years for first-time sex offenders when the victim is a child, a second offense means a mandatory 40 year prison sentence and a third results in life without parole. But it isn’t working the way everyone had intended.

Twenty-five-year-old Patrick Naputi was convicted of fondling nine boys while he worked at their Maize school. It was a crime that seemed tailor-made for Jessica’s Law signed by the governor two years ago allowing for 25 year sentenced on first-time sex offenses. Instead, Naputi was given just over 10 years.

"I'm not happy about it,” said Donna Roberts who pushed for Jessica’s Law.

Robert’s lobbied for Jessica’s Law because her daughter was a victim of a sex offender when she was a child. She and others are upset because the law allows judges to grant downward departures. In other words, the 25 year sentence is not mandatory. Instead, a judge can sentence the offender to less time for a variety of reasons including no prior criminal history.

In Naputi’s case his age, lack of criminal history and no physical injuries to the victims were factors in his reduced sentence.

"Why do we have these laws if we're not going to make them tough laws where there's no loopholes,” Roberts said.

"Jessica's law does have its problems it really and truly does,” said Sedgwick County District Judge Rebecca Pilshaw.

Judge Pilshaw and other legal officials understand the concern from victims, but say the law itself is flawed. Its iron-fist approach is clogging the court system with cases once handled in other ways – sometimes to protect victims.

"The over-arching affect of Jessica's law is more trials, more hearings, more preliminary hearings, more kids taking the stand,” said Deputy District Attorney Marc Bennett. “I'm sure proponents of the bill would say that's our job and we accept that. But there is a detriment to the kids when they have to go through these hearings."

Bennett admits the downward departures can be frustrating for prosecutors. As for giving judges leeway through sentencing, Pilshaw says it’s the right thing to do.

"It is very important that judges do not become robots that are guided by a statutory set of numbers that don't take into account the victim and don't take into account the defendant,” Pilshaw said.

Still, those pushing for more say battle lines have to be drawn with sex offenders. The issue now is how to put pressure on those offenders and not the legal system itself.

Sedgwick is not the only Kansas county struggling with Jessica’s Law. A Shawnee County judge is under fire by the D.A.’s office for departing from sentencing guidelines when he handed down shorter sentences in two child sex cases just last week. ..News Source.. by KSN.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- Massachusetts Lawmaker's Pledge to 'Rip Apart' Child Rape Victims at Trial Draws Fury

While I agree that "Jessica's law" is excessive in the fact that it removes discretion from the judge, and it should be struck down. However, with that said, I also believe that this lawyer needs to be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a court officer, if the bar permits such, if not he should be barred from practice for a significant period of time. Courtroom conduct should not incite riots and his comments most certainly would.

6-25-2008 Massachusetts:

A Massachusetts politician is weathering a storm of criticism after he said he’d have to torment young victims on the witness stand and “rip them apart” if mandatory sentences for sex offenders pass the state legislature.

Rep. James Fagan, who is also a defense attorney, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor over Jessica's Law, which would set such stiff minimum sentences.

“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.

“I appreciate that he’s a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary,” said Jones, who supported an original version of the bill. “It was excessive.”

The father of the Florida girl for whom Jessica's Law is named also blasted Fagan after hearing the comments.

Mark Lunsford, whose 9-year-old daughter was abducted and buried alive in a trash bag by a sex offender in 2005, told the Boston Herald on Tuesday that Fagan should take the rights of victimized children seriously.

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Lunsford told the paper. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”

Fagan came under fire last month. The bill that he opposed eventually passed the House and set mandatory minimum sentences of between 10 and 15 years for a set of different offenses against children ranging from assault to sexual crimes. A version is still pending in the state Senate.

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions." Those comments drew the ire of local activists.

But from a legal perspective, law professor Phyllis Goldfarb said Fagan was probably expressing a basic courtroom truth – that it is a defense attorney’s job to test the prosecution’s case, especially when mandatory penalties are on the line.

“It is fundamentally true … if the proof is coming almost exclusively through a child witness you may have to find a way to test it. That’s the attorney-client obligation there,” Goldfarb told FOXNews.com.

Goldfarb, who used to direct the Criminal Justice Clinic at Boston College Law School, said Fagan used some over-the-top language, but that he probably didn't relish the idea of cross-examining a child. She said it's just his job.

“You do have to challenge a witness,” she said. “Some people find ways of doing that that are loyal to their role as defense attorneys -- testing the proof (in ways) that aren’t abusive to a witness, but it's very hard.

“And I think being put in that hard position is what he seems to be railing against here, using language that’s probably a little bit hyperbolic.”

Lunsford will be in Massachusetts on Wednesday to push the state Senate to include mandatory prison time in the state's final version of Jessica's Law, according to the Herald. ..News Source.. by FOX News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Senate passes Jessica's Law to increase penalties for child molesters

Long term I see this as being declared unconstitutional under excessive punishment aspect!

6-12-2008 North Carolina:

RALEIGH - The state Senate on Wednesday unanimously passed Jessica's Law, which would make raping a child younger than 13 punishable by a minimum of 25 years and require offenders to submit to lifetime GPS monitoring once they are released from prison.

The bill is now just a couple of steps shy of becoming law. First it must go back to the House, which passed a similar version last year. If approved there, it will go to Gov. Mike Easley for his signature.

"It's like one strike and you're out," said Sen. David Hoyle of Gaston County, who shepherded through the chamber.

"The passage of this bill is a ‘do not enter' sign to North Carolina for sex offenders," said Rep. Tim Moore of Cleveland County, one of the bill's primary sponsors.

"No child should ever know the horrors that little Jessica Lunsford suffered at the hands of a despicable man and I am proud to honor her memory and her family with passage of this bill," said Rep. Debbie Clary of Cleveland County, another primary sponsor.

The Jessica Lunsford Act is named in memory of a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in Florida in 2005. Police had lost track of the sex offender, John Couey. He was staying with his sister, who lived in the same neighborhood as Jessica.

Couey has been sentenced to death for his crimes.

Jessica was a native of Gaston County. She lived in North Carolina until moving to Florida to live with her father.

Her father, Mark Lunsford, came to Raleigh last year to encourage lawmakers to pass Jessica's Law.

"I'm tickled to death that North Carolina is taking these steps and that they're headed in this direction," Lunsford said Wednesday. "I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product."

Lunsford said that it appeared that state legislators took the necessary time to make sure they got the law right.

"There is no Romeo and Juliet," Lunsford said. "There is no consensual sex. There is no reason to put your hand on a child under 13."

The law would apply to people at least 18 years old who rape or sexually assault a child younger than 13. Judges would have the discretion of sentencing the offender to life in prison or 25 years plus lifetime GPS monitoring upon release.

It would increase penalties for sexual exploitation of a minor and place more stringent requirements for people who have to register as sex offenders.

In addition, it makes it a crime for a person on the sex offender registry to go on the premises of places intended primarily for the use of minors, such as playgrounds, child- care centers, children's museums and schools.

Schools and child-care centers would also receive e-mail notification when a registered sex offender moves within a one-mile radius of the center or school.

The bill could go back to the House as early as next week. Moore said he expects the House to give the bill its final approval.

"We worked with the Senate on all the amendments," Moore said. "We agreed with all the amendments and supported all the amendments." ..News Source.. by Barry Smith, Freedom Raleigh Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Law May Cost 76 Workers Their Jobs

11-21-2007 Florida:

LAKELAND | The Polk County School District may have to fire up to 76 employees to comply with the Jessica Lunsford Act, which prohibits people who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses from working on school campuses with children.

Many of the people are janitors, bus drivers or maintenance workers who earn meager wages, have limited contact with children, and arrest records from old cases that stem from theft, robbery or vandalism.

That's why school officials and board members don't like the new law.

"These are likely our most vulnerable and lowest paid," said board member Brenda Reddout. "They are the least likely to find salary and benefits."

"It means you can't make a mistake when you're young," said Bruce Tonjes, associate superintendent. "It's upsetting to people who think they have put something behind them."

Board member Margaret Lofton said that officials should address the Legislature about the law.

"People who have been faithful employees for many years will be getting pink slips," Lofton said.

Board officials have notified the employees and are attempting to find some of them jobs at different hours that would eliminate their interaction with children.

Tonjes said many of the janitors and a paraprofessional enjoy working and talking with the students.

The Jessica Lunsford Act swept through the Legislature in 2005 after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped and killed near her Homosassa home. John Couey, the man convicted of killing her, is a registered sex offender.

The act may affect people like Martha Belmares, a school janitor with a nearly 30-year-old shoplifting transgression. Belmares, 52, was arrested in 1980 and charged with felony grand theft after she was caught shoplifting $110 worth of clothing from a Winter Haven department store.

For her crime, Belmares paid a $500 fine, served two days in jail and three years of probation.

Belmares was fired, but a hearing officer in June recommended restoring her old job as night janitor at Fort Meade Middle /Senior High School.

Because a hearing officer made the determination, School Board attorney Wes Bridges said that Belmares will not be one of the 76 fired.

After the Belmares case, Bridges had asked state Attorney General Bill McCollum to clarify whether the district must fire employees for criminal misdeeds committed years ago. The board also wanted to know whether it may grant exceptions to the law.

In response to Bridges' questions, McCollum did not grant any relief.

"I am of the opinion that all non instructional school district employees who are permitted access on school grounds when students are present, who have direct contact with students, or who have access to or control of school funds must meet level 2 screening requirements as described in section 435.4, Florida Statutes," McCollum wrote.

Tonjes said that human resources is working with each employee on a case-by-case basis. Like Belmares, the fired employees will be given the option to have a hearing before an officer.

The School District employs about 14,000 people.

Bridges called the statute "onerous."

"They could be model employees for 20 or 30 years but something could have happened in the '70s or '80s," Bridges said. ..more.. by John Chambliss can be reached at john.chambliss@theledger.com or 863-802-7588.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Victims of "Jessica's Law"

Parolees Without Rights (or Homes)
11-8-2007 California:

KB is not the most egregious victim of California's Proposition 83, or "Jessica's Law." Maybe that belongs to the guy who, when he was 17, was convicted of a misdemeanor statutory rape (consensual sex) with his 15-year-old girlfriend. That was his only "sex crime," but he recently violated parole for letting his global positioning batteries run out for a couple of days. The Board of Parole Hearings has decided that anybody who has to register as a sex offender, for any reason, be it the aforementioned or something worthy of serious prison time, who then violates parole for any reason after election day, 2006, whether or not the current commitment is the underlying sex offense, is subject to the new law. They somehow call this policy "prospective," not "retroactive," and therefore consistent with the law.

KB, now in his late 20s, was convicted of committing a sexual battery when he was 18. It basically means copping an unwanted feel but could be something conjured in a plea bargain. Because he's violated parole since November of 2006, he cannot live within 2000 feet of a park or a school. In other words, he can't live in San Francisco, but he has to live in San Francisco, where he is paroled. To get around this, everyone subject to the law is scrambling to register as "homeless."

He registers as a sex offender at a police station on the west side of town. His girlfriend lives on the east side of town. She says that the police from his registration station raided her apartment twice, without a warrant, yelling that they were looking for a "child molester." This freaked her out for two reasons: One, that she was dating a child molester (she has a small child) and the other being that she lives in some recently rebuilt and prettified housing projects with a zero-tolerance police contact policy. The raids, coupled with the idea that he was a child-molester, caused her to cut him out of her life, which created some angry scenes, documented in two angry and confused text-messages from him to her. After speaking to the building manager, she felt that she had to report KB to the police or lose the apartment. She walked into the police station and reported that he had threatened her and broke some unspecified "personal property." He was arrested at his parole office for threats and vandalism.

After his arrest, she spoke to his parole agent who told her there was nothing in his rap sheet that came close to earning the designation of "child molester." She says she only felt threatened in the context of the false designation and would not have gone to the police if not for the raids. He is now awaiting a hearing where, if she testifies, the charges should be dismissed unless we get a deputy commissioner who is personally offended by the insinuation that the cops acted in an unprofessional manner (it's been known to happen; we have to be careful).

A parolee does not have search-and-seizure protection. Most of the parolees who are forced to register as newly-homeless actually live somewhere, as the police well know, and some apparently feel it's ok to conduct warrantless searches on homes where they might be staying (they've also searched his mother's house). I couldn't say for sure whether or not these officers were aware that the vast majority of registered sex offenders have no criminal history with children, but I would think that their on-the-job experience would clue them in. It almost goes without saying that the law is horrendously overbroad, will drastically undermine readjustment and is probably completely ineffective. ..more.. by Marc Gardner is a defense lawyer in the Bay Area. He can be reached at: marcgardner@earthlink.net

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jessica's Law makes life difficult for parole agents

10-25-2007 California

Wearing a black shirt and a badge on a chain, parole agent Jerry Ramirez pulled his state-issued hybrid into a San Leandro apartment complex Tuesday to check on a few men.
The sprawling, two-story complex at the elbow of Interstates 880 and 238 is billed as a "quiet, resort-like setting" where "your home blends into the lush landscape of curving pathways, manicured lawns, shady trees and shimmering waterways."

The sales pitch fails to mention this: More and more, the neighbors are registered sex offenders fresh out of prison.

As state officials reckon with one of the nation's toughest new anti-predator laws, Ramirez and other agents who oversee Alameda County's paroled sex offenders say the 840-unit complex is one of few places they've found that their cash-strapped charges can call home.

Agents in Bay Area counties face a similar dilemma from Proposition 83, a 2006 ballot measure that forever bans newly released sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a

school or park where kids "regularly gather."

Prop. 83, or Jessica's Law, also requires them to wear GPS anklets for life, though the state has yet to buy the 9,000 devices needed to fully enforce the law with parolees. Still unsettled is how they will be tracked, and by whom, once they leave parole, as hundreds already have.

In Alameda County, parole agents point to a handful of eligible motels in Newark, Hayward and Oakland. Ramirez said he discovered the San Leandro apartment complex when a parolee who lived there asked him to check if it complied with Jessica's Law.
GPS device in hand, Ramirez found that it did, and passed word to other parolees who received 45-day notices to move or face a possible return to prison. Or at least parts of it did. As the crow flies, two schools across the freeway sit too close to some of the complex.

"I kind of drew a line," said Ramirez, who supervises 20 of the county's high-risk sex offenders. "It gets a little crazy. You can live there, but only in these certain buildings."

For parole agents and policy-makers across the state, some devilish details are beginning to emerge from a law that 70 percent of voters passed in November.

Agents in the East Bay say the law has complicated their work, uprooting some sex offenders from stable housing, turning some transient and slowly concentrating many into a handful of spots.

Parole agents check potential housing by GPS and mark off nearby schools, parks, and "obvious day cares," said Ramirez. Prop. 83 does not define a school or a park. Would ballparks such as the Oakland Coliseum count?

"Politically, at this point, if the city tells us it's a park, we're not going to touch that," said Guillermo Viera-Rosa, who supervises sex offender parole officers in the county. "The areas that tend to be compliant are really devoid of anything like that. They're industrial areas, rural areas . . . You can't underestimate the limitations."

In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, more than 150 sex convicts now fall under Jessica's Law, state officials said.

Statewide, about 3,500 parolees must comply with the law, with 400 to 700 new parolees each month.

Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court blocked the state from forcing four parolees to move and agreed to consider constitutional objections to the ballot measure.

A federal judge this spring ruled that the 2,000-foot rule could not apply retroactively to about 90,000 registered sex offenders who were living freely in communities before the law passed. But if they land back behind bars, for whatever reason, the state says they fall under the new restrictions.

Jason Beasley, released in 2004 after 14 months in prison on a conviction for rape of a minor, was on parole, living at his mother's house in San Lorenzo when police stopped him for driving under the influence. He spent three months in jail.

When he got out, his parole officer fitted him with a GPS anklet and ordered him to move. He packed up his guitar and settled into the complex with the manicured lawns and shady trees.

"I was living good, with family . . . I was saving up money," said Beasley, 28. "I think it's a good law.

"Some people need it, but . . . it doesn't make sense to apply it to every sex offender."

Beasley's mother, Kathy Berry, said she spent a month scouring the East Bay for compliant housing until Ramirez suggested the San Leandro complex.

"It was totally insane. You cannot turn around without a school or a park or a preschool," she said.

"He can still come to my house and visit, but he can't live there. So what's the difference?"

Ramirez said those paroled for non-sex crimes make up about a third of his Jessica's Law cases.

State officials said last week that about 500 offenders have since left parole with no one to track them. Local officials have nothing in place — no GPS units, no system, no money — to do the job.

"The issue of who would take responsibility for sex offenders when they were no longer under our authority is something everyone anticipated would have to be resolved," said corrections spokesman Bill Sessa. "I don't think anyone anticipated it would come to a head so quickly."

State and local officials are just starting those discussions, said Suzanne Brown-McBride, chairwoman of the state Sex Offender Management Board. "Clearly there is pressure for people to get some clarity on this. It cuts to the heart of where state control ends and where local control begins," she said.

Viera-Rosa said he thinks Californians never understood the impact of their vote.

"The voters really did something spectacular here," he said. "These are heavy, heavy laws that control liberties and behaviors that would have been fought in the Legislature for decades, and in one fell swoop, it's done."

One indication of what local jurisdictions could face arose Tuesday, when agents visited a motel along Interstate 880 in Hayward where one parolee told them he had found a place. He paid for a room but there were no signs that he actually stayed there.


"He did come into compliance, but the story doesn't end there. If it was as simple as getting them into compliance, we'd win every time," said Viera-Rosa. "They have to stay in compliance for the rest of their natural lives."

In tracking a small population of sex offenders, the GPS devices help.

On Tuesday morning, Ramirez curbed the hybrid in downtown Oakland, settled a laptop on his knee and pulled up a map with blue dots and a red "X." The dots tracked where "KMJ" was all morning.

The red X showed where he stood.

Ramirez found him basking in the sun below a Chinatown archway in gray sweats, a sport bag across his shoulder and a GPS anklet bulging under a white sock. Fresh out of prison after 10 years on an arson conviction, KMJ fell under Jessica's Law from an earlier rap for what he called "basically copping a feel."

With a week to leave a downtown shelter that fell within one of the banned zones, he was struggling to find a place to stay.

"I didn't see it coming. I didn't know about it," he said of the new law. "Downtown Oakland is the center of resources. It's dotted with schools." Ramirez offered a suggestion.

"We've got a hotel we can put you in. It's way out in Newark," he said.

"I can commute. That's fine," the parolee replied.

It wouldn't matter. Ramirez searched the convicted arsonist's bag and found a small Bic lighter, violating a condition of his parole.

That night he was back in jail, leaving a room free at the Newark motel. ..more.. by John Simerman, STAFF WRITER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Attorneys decry child molester law

9-16-2007 South Carolina:

AIKEN - It seemed like a good idea: a law that would harshly punish child molesters, especially repeat offenders.

But prosecutors in Aiken County say that since Jessie's Law went into effect last year, the tougher penalties have made getting convictions harder.

Before, accused child molesters would plead guilty more easily, Assistant Solicitor Brenda Brisbin said. That saved victims - often very young children - from having to testify, she said.

But now, defendants often force a trial rather than accept a minimum, mandatory sentence that could put them in prison for 25 years, force them to be tracked by GPS monitoring devices for life or send them to death row.

"When legislators pass these laws, they think they're getting tough on child molesters," Ms. Brisbin said. "That's what they say. But in reality, they're making it more difficult to get convictions on child molesters. We don't want them passing these laws."

In effect since July 1, 2006, Jessie's Law was named for Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered in 2005 in Florida by a convicted sex offender.

It increased the minimum sentence for someone convicted of raping a child younger than 11 to 25 years to life in prison, up from at most 30 years behind bars. Offenders convicted more than once of raping a child younger than 11 can face the death penalty.

People convicted of committing lewd acts on a minor are monitored by GPS for the rest of their lives, and sex offenders have to register twice a year.

Ms. Brisbin said her proof of how the law has affected her cases comes from what defense attorneys tell her.

"I don't have any record of people who say, 'I'm not going to plea because I don't want to wear a GPS device for life.' But we hear that all the time from defense attorneys," she said.

It's the same for people facing a minimum of 25 years in prison or the death penalty, she said.

Even defense attorneys don't like that provision.

"It's a bad thing," said Aiken's chief public defender, Wallis Alves.

If a client was accused of criminal sexual conduct with a minor before, she said, defense attorneys could work out a plea deal with prosecutors to get the charges dropped to committing a lewd act on a minor.

That would be difficult now that the client would have to wear a GPS tracking device for life, she said.

"The clients may not be willing to do that," Ms. Alves said.

She said she's OK with other provisions in Jessie's Law - the mistake of age section and the "Romeo" clause, which is meant to protect teens having sex with other teens.

She said she hasn't had one of her cases reach the point where Jessie's Law will affect her defense. But when that happens, she said, it will likely cause her some heartburn.

"Victims didn't have to come to court and testify" with plea bargains, she said. "Not everybody was happy, but now we can't do that."

Ms. Brisbin said that ideally, she would always have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. But she says it often comes down to what the child says and what the accused says.

"People seldom molest children in front of witnesses," she said. "That is the reality of child molestation. Fondling a child does not result in physical evidence. All you've got is a 5-year-old's word for it. And juries will not convict based on a 5-year-old's word."

Ms. Brisbin said that instead of increasing penalties for sex crimes, legislators should ask prosecutors what would really help them secure convictions: the ability to tell the jury when someone has a prior sexual assault conviction.

That's not permissible in South Carolina, she said, though other states allow it and it's a federal rule of evidence that hasn't been adopted by South Carolina.

Ms. Brisbin isn't convinced the harsher penalties will deter child molesters.

Statistics show most children don't report the abuse right away, if at all, she said, and most children are abused by family members.

That's why she also doesn't put much faith in sex offender registries.

"It provides a very false sense of security for people," she said, "because the fact is, few children are molested by the stranger down the street." ..more.. by Sandi Martin| South Carolina Bureau Chief

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...