10-14-2017 Delaware:
LAUREL, Del. - The mother of a 13-year-old rape victim has filed a lawsuit against her daughter's rapist and the company who allegedly owns the haunted house, where she was assaulted last Halloween, in Delaware. The lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the company.
The Delaware Office of the Attorney General says 19-year-old James Williams, of Laurel, pleaded guilty to the charges of rape fourth degree and unlawful sexual contact second degree. The charges stem from an incident that happened at a haunted house, in Laurel.
In October 2016, Williams raped a 13-year-old girl at the Cemetery House Haunted House, in Laurel. Both Williams and the 13-year-old were apparently volunteering at the haunted house. In June, Williams was sentenced to 15 years in prison and will be required to register a Tier II sex offender. Williams' plea was secured by Deputy Attorney General Casey Ewart. ..Continued..
October 14, 2017
Victim's mother files lawsuit against company allegedly responsible for 2016 Halloween rape
April 10, 2015
Delaware debate: Should towns ban sex offenders?
4-10-15 Delaware:
There are more than 4,500 people on Delaware's sex offender registry – about 1 for every 200 citizens in the state.
In most of Delaware, sex offenders are not permitted to live within 500 feet of a school. But eight towns have written rules expanding that zone five or sixfold, effectively banning sex offenders from their borders.
Milton went the furthest, creating exclusion zones that prohibit sex offenders from living within 3,000 feet of schools, day care centers and public parks.
"The problem with the state law is it does not cover parks and Milton is loaded with parks," said Mayor Marion Jones.
Last year, when attorneys of sex offenders threatened to challenge Milton's more restrictive rules, the town scheduled a hearing to discuss changing the ordinance so there would be place in town where sex offenders could legally live.
But parents pushed back, they didn't want Milton to back down. The hearing never happened because the attorneys didn't follow through with their threat.
"If we were challenged in court, could Milton's ordinance hold up?" Jones said. "Because it's easy for these lawmakers to say, 'Listen, we don't mind if your laws are tighter than the states.' But when push comes to shove in a court of law, we're not sure if that can be upheld." But until that time, she said the town will keep it rules.
There are seven other towns with ordinances that go beyond the state standard. Bridgeville, Felton, Harrington and Houston are almost as restrictive as Milton, keeping those on the registry at least 2,500 feet from schools, playgrounds and other places frequented by children.
More than any other crime, "sex offender" provokes raw reaction and fear from parents. Yet with thousands on Delaware's sex offender registry and more being added every month (more than 1,000 have been added since 2008), municipalities struggle with what to do with the offenders while keeping its children safe.
Experts on the rights of sex offenders say the strategy of more restrictive rules is misguided. They say the laws go too far, treating all offenders in the same category and making it too difficult for them to live near the counseling and other services they need.
"There's been a lot of research over the last 15 years that really shows that all of these things we're really relying on as ways to protect ourselves from these guys are not having any affect," said Chrysanthi Leon, an associate professor at the University of Delaware's Sociology and Criminal Justice department.
She said the problem with more restrictive residency limits is that they can give a false sense of security. Often times, she said, the greater danger is from an offender yet to be caught.
"So we're focusing all this attention and all these resources on people we've already caught and punished when they in fact they don't present most of the risk of new offending," Leon said.
About 12 to 24 percent of sex offenders will re-offend, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management. But most of those offenses are not sexual or violent in nature.
Leon compared those stats to the findings of a 2002 study, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, that showed 46.9 percent of people released from state or federal prison were convicted of another crime within three years. The same study showed a 5.3 percent sex re-offense rate for sex offenders.
Richard Paredes is a Tier 3 offender, the most risky classification. He said the restrictions work against people like him who are trying to become independent after they get out of prison.
"What do you do," the 56-year-old asked. "If they stop you from getting a job, how do they expect you to make it to live?"
Paredes said he lives monthly off $189 in food stamps, a $90 check and his Medicaid. While thankful for what he gets, Paredes said he and others in his situation are often restricted by these rules from becoming self-sufficient.
Paredes was one of 24 men evicted in 2011 from the Harriet Tubman Safe House Inc., a transitional home on Wilmington's East Side that housed sex offenders until the state Attorney General's Office deemed the building was 500 feet from a learning center and preschool.
Paredes, a former teacher, was able to find housing and worked to open House of Freedom, a faith-based re-entry nonprofit that houses formerly incarcerated men.
He hopes to make a difference that way, despite being on the registry.
EXCLUSION ZONES ARE 20 YEARS OLD
In Delaware, sex offenders are divided into three classifications, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. Tier 1 is for those deemed least risky. There are more offenders in Tier 2 (2,750) than Tier 1 (865) and Tier 3 (957) combined.
Tier 3 is reserved for the most dangerous, a person convicted of first-degree rape, for example. But someone can land on Tier 1 if they are convicted in a federal court of taking a picture of a person's private area without their consent when the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Delaware enacted its first exclusion zones in 1995. More were imposed after the high-profile 2005 murders of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde. The two Florida girls were killed in separate incidents by registered sex offenders.
Ordinances began springing up in Delaware towns such as Dover, Bridgeville and Milton, which passed its sex offender residency law in November 2006.
Nationally, as these ordinances made it tougher for offenders to find housing, the laws were overturned through lawsuits.
New York's Supreme Court in February ruled that local governments cannot restrict where registered sex offenders can live. California Supreme Court last month rejected residence restrictions automatically imposed on all sex offenders, but said authorities would still be able to restrict where offenders live on a case-by-case basis, such as if a child had been a victim.
Former state Rep. Don Blakey, R-Dover, became supportive of standardizing Delaware's exclusion zones after listening to members of Delaware's Sex Offender Management Board, who included police, offender treatment providers and other members of the criminal justice system.
He said the "hodgepodge" of restrictions makes it difficult to track whether offenders are following the rules, based on where they live.
"There is no uniformity at all," he said. "I understand that the towns and the cities and the villages want to be independent, but we are creating a situation where no justice is served at all because a person doesn't know what to do."
But it was an election year, and Blakey felt his colleagues would not get behind such a measure. He lost his re-election bid and his proposal faded away.
"It's still there," Blakey said. "Somebody can pick it up. I don't know whether anybody will or not." He said he was told by members of the management board that they would bring it to the attention of legislators.
Election year or not, it is not a popular topic among lawmakers who know it could be a tough sell to parents, especially in towns where tougher restrictions are in place.
Terrence Nelson said he feels safe letting his kids, ages 2 to 13, play in Milton and would not be happy having to live by the state;s 500-foot standard.
"I definitely support the idea of them living 3,000 feet away from a school or a park," Nelson said as he watched his youngest son on a swing in Milton Memorial Park recently.
"I'm comfortable with the fact that I can have my kids walking around. I can have them out with their older sister and not really worry about them being approached by sex offenders or predators."
Brooke Pikolas is a mother who lives between Milton and Lewes who frequently checks the sex offender registry to see who lives near her and her child.
"As a mother, I have a 31/2-year-old, and I think it should be public knowledge where a sexual offender resides, especially if it's near a school," she said. "I'm for the strictest laws when it comes to that.
"I'm definitely aware of where we live and the sexual offenders in our area."
Several other parents in Milton interviewed for this story also said they approved of having the more stringent exclusion zones. But one, Lauren Price, 31, said the restrictions should be placed on offenders based on what they have done.
"It really depends on the circumstances of the sex offender," she said, adding she was not opposed to residency restrictions. The mother of three said laws are not a guarantee that your children will be safe.
"It's not so much the law, as the parenting," Price said. "As long as you are paying attention to your kids, the law shouldn't really be a huge impact on where your kids play or what your kids do."
STIGMA, RESTRICTIONS ARE FACTORS
Finding transitional housing for this population is "extremely" difficult, according to Delaware authorities. With about more than 4,000 registered sex offenders in the state, there needs to be a safe place where they can live and be monitored by law enforcement.
Yet stigma and residency restrictions make this difficult.
"In the work that I've done within re-entery, a lot of programs will not work with sex offenders because they are too difficult," said Jay Lynch, the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services point person on re-entry. "Not them per say, but the population."
Most re-entry programs are looking for people to succeed in the community. So when programs realize that a sex offender comes with such challenges, such as where they can live, the programs stay away from that population, Lynch said.
That's a big reason Doviea Lee opened Change Transitional House, where she can house up to 10 men in the 500 block of Sixth Street.
Lee hopes to some day open a transitional house for women, adding she doesn't see her residents as sex offenders, rather as individuals.
"I look at them as a person who needs home stability, needs to be able to get on their feet and move along," she said. "My heart allows me to do this on a day-to-day basis."
But that's not what the surrounding community thinks.
Several mothers across the street from the three-story house were shocked to learn sex offenders were living there. At least two mothers interviewed said their shock was more at not being informed that sex offenders were living there.
Tangier Lloyd, a mother of five children, ages 4 to 16, said she understands offenders need a place to live, but it was more of a concern that residents were not told.
"They have the right to be out there like the rest of us, but just let us know," she said.
For Tier 2 and Tier 3 offenders, schools and daycare centers are notified when an offender registers as residing, being employed or studying in the area. Additionally, for Tier 3 offenders, immediate neighbors are notified. Change provides housing for at least two Tier 3 offenders, according to the state's sex offender registry.
"Community notification is made by the police agency having jurisdiction over the offender's place of residency, employment, or study," the registry said.
Shayla Jones said if informed, neighbors could keep an eye on their children playing outside.
"My kids are going in the backyard," Jones said of her two children.
She said she would be looking up residents of the Change house: "Just keep looking them up so you know the faces and I'll tell my kids to stay away from them."
While the state does not have to authorize such homes, Wilmington Councilman Michael A. Brown Sr. said it would have been considerate of Change officials to let nearby residents know who was living there.
"They did it wrong and they went into a community that was already in despair," Brown said.
Joseph Eugene, 30, is one of the men living at Wilmington's Change Transitional House.
A TV and game console are parked next to his mattress on the wooden floor of his second-story bedroom. Two other mattresses rest against the wall. A box of Crystal Light, some Reese's Pieces and a bottle of pancake syrup lay on a nearby coffee table.
It may not be much, but for Joseph, a high risk sex offender, this shelter has allowed him to remain out of prison, he said. Before coming to Change, Joseph said it was difficult to find stable housing that helped him keep a job.
He'd stay at motels, but if he didn't have money for the week's rent he was out on the street making it difficult to stay employed and in compliance with the law.
"I've been here for almost a year and I have no problems," said Joseph. Change offers stable shelter and he now has a job as a dishwasher and has stayed out of trouble. "I got my job and that's when things started progressing." ..Source.. by Esteban Parra
July 11, 2014
Richard Korn acquitted of all child porn charges
Richard Korn has been acquitted of all child pornography charges against him.
After two days of testimony, Superior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston ruled that while Korn's computers had some 50 images of child pornography, prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Korn knew the images were there or ever viewed them.
According to computer experts, there was only evidence that one of the 50 images was ever viewed and on that basis Johnson dismissed 24 of 25 child pornography possession counts against Korn, a frequent candidate for elected office in Delaware.
As for the 25th charge, involving the lone image that was viewed, "the court finds it cannot be proven who was on the computer," said Johnston.
Korn's attorney, Thomas Foley, had argued that it was Korn's former wife, Magda, who had viewed the lone image.
When Johnston announced her decision Thursday afternoon, a tearful Korn shook hands with and then hugged Foley.
On his way out of the courtroom, Korn declined comment saying, "Not right now. I just want to go see my children."
Korn, 64, has two young children with his former wife, Magda, who testified against him at trial.
The criminal case began in December 2012 when Magda Korn, during a domestic dispute with Richard over what furniture she could take as she was moving out, brought police officers to their Hockessin home. During that incident, Magda Korn told an officer that Richard had child porn on his computer.
At trial, Magda Korn testified that in July 2013, as part of their ongoing divorce proceeding, she had been snooping for financial documents in an external hard drive belonging to Richard and came across an image of a nude teenager.
She said she did not go to police right away because she did not know if an image of a teenager was child pornography. She also said, though they were legally separated, she was living with Korn in the same house for financial reasons.
Foley argued this was the one and only time that an image of child porn was viewed and it was not by Richard.
Magda Korn testified she kept the hard drive hidden from Korn in the months that followed and turned it over to police in January 2013, after the domestic incident. She also testified that she divorced Richard after a stormy 10-year marriage because of his years-long addiction to pornography and because he had started to connect with other women through an internet dating site, sugardaddy.com.
Prosecutor Abigail Layton had argued that the circumstantial evidence that Korn knew about the images and had viewed them was strong. She pointed to several stories that had been saved on the computer that involved sex with children and evidence that Korn had subscriptions to newsgroups linked to child pornography.
After Johnston tossed out the charges, Layton said only that the state respected the court's decision.
Before his January 2013 arrest, Korn had been a candidate for state auditor, New Castle County executive and the Delaware General Assembly.
Only a judge heard the case against Korn because Korn waived his right to a jury trial. Also, on the morning the trial started, prosecutors reduced the charges against Korn from 25 counts of distribution of child porn to 25 counts of the lesser charge of possession of child porn. ..Source.. by Sean O'Sullivan
February 5, 2014
Milton Plans Public Hearing on Sex Offender Law
The Milton Town Council decided Monday night to host a public hearing on February 27th at 6:00pm to discuss an ordinance that would change the distance a sex offender can live to a school, day care or park. Currently the minimum distance is 3,000 feet. The council is considering lowering this to 500 feet.
The Delaware state minimum is 500 feet.
According to Mayor Marion Jones, local sex offenders have threatened to challenge the current law, leading the council to investigate its constitutionality. In such a small town with several schools, day cares and parks, the current minimum does not leave many options for sex offenders to live. Milton engineers drew up a map to show where the options are.
Fred Best, Principal at Mariner Middle School, says if the ordinance is changed, the school will be prepared.
"When you're talking 3,000, 500 feet that's not a huge difference for us as long as they're still 500 feet away and we know where they are, we know they're there," he explained. "We can take the necessary steps to keep our kids safe."
His wife, Nicole Best, thinks 500 feet is just too close.
"The thing I think that would make me uneasy is that if they... allowed the sex offender to be closer to the school," she said "At 500 feet you have a visual on the school."
An 8th grade teacher at Mariner, Dana Orton, feels the same as Nicole.
"I think 1,000 is a little more reasonable, 500 just seems a little close," Dana said.
Mayor Jones wanted to make it clear that the council is not championing sex offenders, rather questioning the legality of the situation. ..Source.. by Lindsay Tuchman
January 31, 2014
Sex offender restrictions ineffective
Regarding sex offender residency restrictions:
Patty Wetterling, whose son Jacob was kidnapped and never found, posted the following statement on the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center website: “Because residency restrictions have been shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to children, and may indeed actually increase the risks to kids, the JWRC does not support residency restriction laws.”
In 2009, the Broward County Florida Board of County Commissioners Sexual Offender and Sexual Predator Residence Task Force reported they had reviewed available research about the effectiveness of residence restrictions and “found no empirical evidence to indicate that these laws achieve their intended goals of preventing abuse, protecting children or reducing reoffending.”
The Minnesota DOC analyzed 224 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2002 who were re-incarcerated for a sex offense prior to January 1, 2006. There were only two where the offender contacted a juvenile victim at a park, and both offenders lived more than 10 miles away. They concluded that not one of the offenses would have been affected by any residency restriction.
In 2007, the Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board reported to the legislature: “Although resident restrictions appear to have strong public support, the Board found no evidence to support its efficacy. Kansas Department of Corrections Secretary Roger Werholtz stated: “Residence restrictions don’t contribute to public safety. “In fact, the consensus of experts in the field of sex offender management supported by available research and experience indicates they do just the opposite. “Right now, it appeares that the best alternatives are in the form of community wide education and training regarding steps that can be taken to educate parents . . .”
The California Sex Offender Management Board reported that 90% of people convicted of a sex crime have not been convicted of any sex crime before. The University at Albany [New York] School of Criminal Justice reviewed sex crime arrest records from the period 1984 through 2004 and found that more than 95% of those arrested had no prior convictions for any sex crime. More than 9 of every 10 who will harm a child cannot be on any registry or regulated by your law. They feel safer though and likely won’t be as vigilant.
I know you are concerned for the welfare of Milton’s citizens, but your ignorance of the realities and facts about sex offenders and residency restrictions threatens to place them at greater risk. ..Source.. by Paul Smith
July 1, 2013
Delaware lawmakers vote to give judges discretion regarding registration of juvenile sex offenders
7-1-2013 Delaware:
The state House has given final legislative approval to a bill giving Family Court judges the discretion to determine whether certain juvenile offenders should be declared sex offenders subject to inclusion on the state’s sex offender registry.
The bill applies to juvenile offenders who were under age 14 when the offense was committed or who were older than 14 but did not commit certain offenses, including offenses that require registration under the federal Adam Walsh Act.
The legislation also excludes crimes in which the victim is five years old or younger. The bill, which now goes to Gov. Jack Markell, also allows for the review of certain offenders who already are on the state’s sex offender registry. ..Source.. by Washington Post
July 2, 2012
NEWS RELEASE: Department of Correction Announces New Mental Health Services Provider
7-2-2012 Delaware:
Vendor will also provide treatment for substance abuse, sex offenders & DUI offenders
Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) Commissioner Carl Danberg announced today that Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. (Connections) will take over as the new vendor to provide mental health, substance abuse, sex offender, and DUI treatment to the state’s inmate population. Connections will take over these responsibilities effective today, July 1, 2012.
Connections signed a two-year contract, with the possibility of two, one-year extensions. The total vendor payment for the new contract is $11.9 million.
Five vendors submitted proposals in response to the RFP, including national, regional and local organizations.
“The RFP drew a nice response and we are pleased to have Connections join our team. We look forward to working with them to sustain high-quality mental health and substance abuse programs,” said Danberg. “Having a local company which is already working on re-entry issues in our state, and which has established ties to our communities, can only help individuals who are transitioning back into our communities from prison.”
The current mental health, substance abuse and sex offender treatment contract was awarded to MHM Services, Inc., in 2010. DUI treatment was added to the new contract following legislation implemented last year (House Bill 168 of the 146th General Assembly, signed in August 2011).
“After amicable discussions with MHM on the potential for extending the expiring contract, we mutually decided that putting out an RFP would be the best way to move forward in providing mental health and substance abuse treatment for Delaware’s incarcerated population,” said Danberg.
The DOC’s other medical vendor contracts, Correct Care Solutions and Correct Rx Pharmacy Services, Inc., were recently extended by one year each and therefore not placed out to bid. ..Source.. by WGMD.com
March 23, 2012
ACLU Opposing Dover's Sex Offender Ordinance
3-23-2012 Delaware:
DOVER, Del. (AP)- The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware is calling on the Dover City Council to oppose an ordinance that would place some living restrictions on registered sex offenders.
The group sent a letter to council members to oppose the proposal that would prevent registered sex offenders from living within 500 feet of licensed day care centers.
In the letter, the group's executive director says studies have shown that residency restrictions destabilize the lives of offenders by pushing them away from the support of family and friends.
The council could vote on the measure on Monday. ..Source.. by WBOC.com
September 10, 2010
Sex offender pamphlets anger the sex offender
Read all the way to the end, the cause may surprise you..9-9-2010 Delaware:
A Kent County sex offender became angry when a 25 year old Maryland woman was distributing pamphlets about a neighborhood Tier 3 sex offender – 41 year old Gary Biron of Dover – when Biron confronted her. Biron threatened to kill the woman and punched her in the face while waving a wrench at her. The woman was able to get away and call for help. When State Police arrived at Biron’s home – he resisted arrest and hit one trooper with a chair. Biron is charged with numerous offenses and is free on $4000 secured bond.
Dover-Wednesday September 8, 2010 around 3:00 p.m. Delaware State Police responded to the unit block of Richard Blvd Dover, Delaware. Delaware State Police was initially responding to a disorderly complaint, which turned violent.
Delaware State Police contacted a 25 year old Maryland woman and learned she was confronted by Gary Biron-53 of Dover as she was distributing pamphlets regarding his Sex Offender status. The victim was leaving the pamphlets in Biron’s neighbors mailboxes. The pamphlets were from the State of Delaware Sex Offenders website which is a public website which everyone has access to. The pamphlet was a print out from the Sex Offender’s website displaying Biron’s status as a Tier III High Risk Sex Offender.
The altercation then escalated with Biron grabbing a pamphlet out of the victim’s
hand and threatening to kill the victim. Biron next punched the victim in the face
with his fist. Biron also is alleged to have been brandishing a wrench in his other
hand at the time of the physical altercation.
The victim attempted to call 911; however Biron took the victim’s cellular phone and threw it to the ground causing damage to it. The victim next was able to drive away from the scene at which time she dialed 911 for emergency assistance.
Troopers after obtaining the victims version of the complaint, then attempted to
make contact with Biron at his residence to place him under arrest. Troopers
contacted Biron at the front of his residence and attempted to take him into
custody. Biron turned and ran back into his residence with two Troopers giving
chase. As the 1st Trooper a 43 year old male; 12 year veteran attempted to take
Biron into custody, Biron swung and narrowly missed striking the Trooper. Biron
next picked up a wooden chair and began to swing it at the 1st Trooper and 2nd
Trooper a 49 year old male; 21 year veteran both out of Troop 3. The chair struck the 2nd Trooper on the arm and chest. The 2nd Trooper sustained a minor bruise however did not require medical treatment. The 2nd Trooper was then able to take the chair away from Biron and he was then placed in handcuffs.
Biron was taken to Delaware State Police Troop 3 Woodside and charged with the over listed offenses. Biron was released after posting $4,000 secured bond through a bail bonds company.
NOTE: The relationship between the victim and defendant is that Biron dates the victim’s mother. The victim was upset over an unknown altercation between Biron and her mother. ..Source.. by WGMD.com
August 8, 2010
Delaware parole board split by chronic infighting
8-8-2010 Delaware:
Members say chairman oversteps his authority
Delaware's Board of Parole has been rocked by internal turmoil, its chairman facing allegations from board members that he released at least one inmate without a vote by the full board.
The split on the board got so bad that in late April, four of its five members asked a Superior Court judge to order board Chairman Dwight F. Holden to schedule hearings that the board had requested.
That dispute appears to have been settled without a court order, but the troubles within the board run deep, according to interviews with the five members and documents obtained by The News Journal.
Although the board is a small and somewhat obscure agency -- one that Gov. Jack Markell wants to abolish in a cost-cutting move -- it performs some vital functions. It decides whether certain serious criminals who've been behind bars for decades will be released from prison, and it is the only post-conviction venue that crime victims have to testify about the impact a criminal has had on their lives.
Board members charge that Holden, who as the board's sole full-time member also manages its administrative office, has overridden board decisions without statutory authority to do so. According to the Delaware Code, actions can only be taken with a majority vote of the board -- and to release certain serious criminals, a four-member majority is required. The law does not give the chairman power to override a decision.
But board members say Holden has told his office staff that while he is just one of five votes, his is the only vote that counts.
They also say he blindsided them by privately supporting Markell's proposal to fold the board's duties into the Department of Correction -- a plan that would have spared Holden's nearly $80,000-a-year job but gotten rid of his fellow board members, who are paid about $9,000.
Holden said he vaguely remembers ordering the release of one offender who was being held by mistake, calling that "a no-brainer." And he agrees the board has its problems -- but that's where the agreements end.
Holden blames the problems on meddling in office politics by part-time board members, some of whom "want to throw me under the bus."
"I don't think we'll ever get back to where we were. That may sound harsh," Holden said, adding that despite the divisions he is "taking the high road" and wants to resolve the problems.
"These are reasonable-thinking people," he said.
Red flags
The first inkling of trouble within the Board of Parole came June 26, 2009, when state Auditor R. Thomas Wagner Jr. issued the results of a special investigation prompted by a tip to his telephone hot line.
The audit found lax financial supervision and lack of employee oversight in the administrative office of the Board of Parole, one of the state's smallest agencies, with just six employees and a budget of only $501,200.
The audit also raised red flags in Markell's office.
From October through December, Joseph Hickey, a deputy human resources director from the Office of Management and Budget, was sent to work with board members and the staff to find out what was wrong and work out solutions.
"Meetings were initiated by Cleon Cauley, Deputy Legal Council, [sic] at Governor's request to address office issues," according to a document sent to Markell's office by a board member.
According to the document, which presents a timeline of troubling events within the office, Hickey, Holden and the board members reached an agreement that the board would stay out of office matters except "in extraordinary situations."
In turn, the agreement says, Holden manages the office, "seeks advice, consultation, and support from the Board ... [and] follows advice and recommendations for the Board."
But the agreement didn't hold for long, according to the timeline, documents filed in connection with the court case and interviews with board members. The court documents include minutes of board meetings that otherwise would be shielded from public scrutiny because the board is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
By March 24, the four board members had sent an e-mail to Holden that questioned his "inability or unwillingness to manage the issues that are important to the Board."
In the e-mail, the members questioned why Holden had not scheduled hearings they'd requested.
"Mr. Holden responded back that the Board is harassing him and he is boss," the timeline recounts. "Mr. Holden cc'd Governor Markell in his response."
Appeals pile up
Parole in Delaware was abolished for offenses committed after June 30, 1990, so the board has jurisdiction over a dwindling number of offenders who either are eligible or on parole.
But it has a number of other duties, one of which is to hear appeals of so-called tier designations for sex offenders convicted before 1994.
Under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Delaware is notifying residents who were convicted of sex offenses prior to 1994 that they must register as sex offenders. They also are given a tier designation -- which determines whether their names are put on the state's sex-offender website and whether their neighbors are notified.
"You were looking at people who had been out all these years ... they've never done another thing wrong, living a good life in the community and all of a sudden they get a letter in the mail: You're going to be Tier III, your picture on the Internet, your neighbors notified," said board member James F. Jestice.
Understandably, he said, many of those people appeal their designation in hopes of being designated Tier I, in which their names are placed on the registry but can be seen only by law enforcement. The designation isn't set until the appeal is decided.
Appeals began piling up, yet board members say Holden disregarded their requests to schedule additional hearings to deal with a growing backlog.
"We had a backlog of as many as 150 cases and we wanted to get them moving because it disrupted people's lives," Jestice said.
"Our chairman said that he didn't have to listen to us when we wanted more hearings so that we could get them caught up," Jestice said. "He just told us he was boss and he was getting tired of us harassing him."
Other board members said they never received a satisfactory explanation from Holden on why hearings weren't scheduled.
"He kept putting us off, putting us off," board member George H. Williamson III said.
Holden only scheduled more hearings after the four members had petitioned Superior Court President Judge James T. Vaughn Jr. to order Holden to do so. Vaughn has taken the case under advisement.
Holden said in an interview that he had a perfectly good reason for not instructing his staff to schedule the hearings.
"Everything is either generated from the Department of Correction or the attorney general's office. The AG's office had a couple young [deputy attorneys general] going out on maternity leave. Why schedule hearings if they're not going to be represented?" Holden said.
Asked how the board members were harassing him, Holden replied: "You know what it was? There was a series of e-mails going back and forth. I had expressed that the AG had a right to be present at the hearing, and they said they didn't care if the AG was there or not. Common sense says you shouldn't do that."
'Not a lawful order'
Holden's failure to order additional hearings was troubling enough to the other board members. But learning that he had ordered at least one inmate released without the board's OK was even more troubling, at least to the two members who agreed to speak about it.
When board member Jestice was asked whether Holden had overridden board decisions, he replied, "Hmm, that's touchy." He would not elaborate.
Asked the same question, board member William C. Pfeifer replied, "I'm not aware of that."
But Williamson and fellow member Joe F. Garcia said Holden has overstepped his authority by ordering inmates released without board approval.
Releasing an inmate from prison, a status known as Level V, to a supervision level where he is on the street -- Level III or lower -- requires a majority board vote. If the majority agrees, the chairman issues a board order.
The chairman also can issue what is known as a chair's order, but that is for procedural matters. The law states a board vote is needed to release an inmate.
"Recently he took a person from Level V to Level III, and then just recently -- and I questioned him on this -- he took [another] person from Level V to Level III," Williamson said.
Williamson said Holden told him he had done so once with a chair's order and once with a board order. There was no vote on either measure, Williamson said.
"Why this bothers us is if a person commits a crime or does something wrong while he's at this level, it is possible [it will] come back and haunt the board and even the state, who technically released him on what was not a lawful order," he said.
Board member Garcia said he knew of one case in which Holden ordered someone released despite a board vote against it. Both Williamson and Garcia said that case involved a sex offender.
"We are in the process of investigating this to see if he's been systematically doing this. If he has, he's got a lot bigger problems than not scheduling [hearings]," Garcia said.
"He plucked it off the list by himself, issued a board order releasing the person. ... We voted on the case. The vote was four of us voted to keep the person incarcerated and he released the person over our four votes, which is a majority," Garcia said.
"His response was, 'I don't remember the case,' " Garcia said. "When I say we're upset, we're very, very upset."
Holden also told The News Journal he could not recall the case.
'They want to rule'
Garcia and Williamson aren't the only ones upset. So is Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Smyrna. Ennis heads the Senate Adult and Juvenile Corrections Committee and serves on the Joint Finance Committee, where he voted to keep the Board of Parole independent.
"If one member of the board takes a position and puts out orders inconsistent with the board, I'm against that," Ennis said.
"There's no question that the system works with the majority of votes," Ennis said. "No one person should be able to make the decision."
Having a chairman act unilaterally to release an inmate also troubles Mary Faith Welch, a crime victim who sees the Board of Parole as the only barrier between her and the man who tried to kill her.
A former boyfriend shot Welch twice at near point-blank range with a .357 Magnum handgun in 1986. He is eligible for parole, and Welch has testified in his hearings that she fears he will stalk her again if he's paroled.
"I talk to the board as a whole, the board. I don't like the idea that one person can overrule the board," Welch said.
"I like the feeling that it's five people that are keeping me safe," she said. "It's not up to one person."
When told that board members charge he has overruled board actions, Holden said he couldn't recall having done so.
"I don't remember that. I guess they have better recall than I," Holden said.
But when Holden was told that two members said he'd released at least one inmate without board approval, he replied:
"I kind of think I know what you're alluding to, but I think it was something dealing with graduated sanctions."
The board uses graduated sanctions to deal with minor missteps by parolees, such as missing a curfew. A first offense might net a parolee a weekend in prison, while a second offense might be two weekends behind bars.
In this case, Holden said, an offender was supposed to spend the weekend in prison, but the Department of Correction erroneously held him into the next week.
"So yeah, I put him out on the street," Holden said, maintaining that he had authority to do so.
"He could've lost his job. Let's balance it out here," Holden said. "Here they are again, part-time board members, and I'm here all week."
"I think what's going on now is, they want a change. They want to rule, and I guess I'm just not following at this point."
A cost-saving proposal
When Markell proposed folding the board into the Department of Correction, he billed it as a cost-saving measure.
In addition to cost savings, the proposal also "was about instilling greater professionalism in the process," said Markell spokesman Brian Selander.
"Abolishing the board last session would've solved these problems, and we believe abolishing the board will solve these problems and it's something we'll continue to pursue in January," Selander said.
The recent bout of problems "just serves to make that point more clear," he said.
Ennis, the Senate committee chairman, said that is unfortunate.
"With the internal strife that's going on, it only weakens the position to keep the board," Ennis said, adding that he still sees "a clear need" for a Board of Parole that's independent from the Department of Correction.
Markell, asked whether he had confidence in Holden -- who serves at the pleasure of the governor -- replied in a statement:
"We are aware of many of the allegations and complaints made on each side of this issue. We expect that this News Journal review could raise even more. At this point, the administration is more focused on the permanent solution of abolishing the board than on short-term changes in membership or the chair."
'What's best for the state'
All five board members say they are committed to doing their best to serve the public by helping offenders and protecting victims.
Board member Pfeifer said he believes that with the hearing issue settled, the board will be able to move forward.
"We're getting along. We're very professional. There's no clashes at the meeting, none whatsoever," Pfeifer said. "I think this solves the problem."
The other members weren't quite so confident.
Holden said he thinks the best course of action would either be to expand the board's role or consolidate it within the Department of Correction.
The current board members, he said, "have a lot to offer the state if they use it like they used to. And I'm not being negative. I just want what's best and I don't want to sound like a politician. I want what's best for the state."
Holden said the experience has been so painful that he "just wanted to cry," and that he prays for guidance.
"I felt like I was going to walk away [from] this because I'm thinking, is it really worth it?" Holden said.
"And then some victim walks up to me and says, 'Thank you, Mr. Holden,' and I say, 'God, you got me there.' I just pray that it gets better." ..Source.. J.L. Miller
June 26, 2010
UD study says state wastes millions of dollars on treating low-risk juvenile sex offenders
6-26-2010 Delaware:
An examination of Delaware's approach to juvenile sex offenders finds the need for reform. Research released today shows the system costs taxpayers millions each year, treating many kids as high risk who simply do not fall into that category, while distracting the state from the truly risky offenders.
University of Delaware professor Chrysanthi S. Leon, J.D., Ph.D., will speak about the overuse of sex offender registration and residency laws in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 26 in the opening session of the conference of the national group, Reform Sex Offender Laws.
On Monday June 28, Leon and others will lobby Sen. Tom Carper and other members of Congress to amend the federal Adam Walsh Act, which can withhold funding from states that do not comply with its terms. At noon, Leon will participate in a press conference across from the Hart Senate Office Building, 245 2nd Street, NE. Leon and Smith College professor David L. Burton, Ph.D., authored, “Net Widening in Delaware: The Overuse of Registration and Residential Treatment for Youth Who Commit Sex Offenses,” which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Widener Law Review.
Last year, Delaware spent more than $5.1 million to send 62 youths out of state for treatment (FY09). In FY04, that expenditure was $2.9 million. These costs, Leon and Burton say, can only be justified if the youths are serious offenders who cannot be treated in the community and pose high risk of re-offense. But, the Delaware Youth Needs Evaluation, included in the article, shows they are low-to-moderate risk.
Leon and Burton argue Delaware's compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act goes far beyond what is necessary. The unintended consequences of Delaware's registration laws are forcing the state to pay for unneeded treatment out of state. In total, Leon and Burton write, “the juvenile sex offender registry is the exact opposite of evidence-based corrections.”
They say the law needs revision, using methods proven effective in other states. Doing so would not entail new costs to the system. In fact, it would likely provide a cost-savings by properly focusing resources. ..Source.. Newark Post
May 11, 2010
Offender registry called too strict
5-11-2010 Maryland:
Delaware's list includes juveniles as young as 9
Their youthful faces stare from the pages of Delaware’s online sex offender registry, some obviously scared, some scowling, some expressionless.
These are photographs of children who committed sex crimes. They are branded, a condemnation that can haunt them forever.
Delaware has some of the youngest sex offender registrants in the nation – one as young as 9 – according to backers of legislation that would give Family Court judges some discretion in deciding which juveniles belong on the registry and which do not.
In registering offenders who are younger than 14, Delaware’s registry system is more stringent than required by the federal Adam Walsh Act, a law that some states complain is too strict.
Advocates of the legislation cite research indicating that children convicted of a sex offense are unlikely to commit another one. Opponents cite studies that find just the opposite.
Due to political, legal and social concerns, the push to give Family Court judges a say in the matter has run into a wall of opposition.
Attorney General Beau Biden opposes the legislation. Election-minded legislators don't want to give opponents the opportunity to paint them as soft on sex offenders.
This is the problem in a nutshell, lawmakers who don't have the courage to speak the truth! They too fear the FEAR MONGERS like Delaware's AG.
Publicity about the abuse charges against pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley has made the issue of sexual offenses even more politically toxic.
"I can't even get it out of committee," said Rep. Melanie George, D-Bear, referring to the bill she introduced last year that would give Family Court judges the power to decide if children younger than 14 should be listed on the registry. It also would give them discretion to decide whether juveniles older than 14 should be listed if they are convicted of certain lower-level offenses.
'Made my life difficult'
A law like that might have kept "Kevin's" name off the registry. But thanks to what critics say is Delaware's one-size-fits-all system, he's a marked man.
Now in his 20s and living in another state, Kevin agreed to an e-mail interview on the condition that his real name and certain details of his case be withheld.
Kevin's name does not appear on the sex offender registry of his current state, but his Delaware listing is easily found on the Web.
All you have to do is Google me and the top hit is [my name on] Delaware's registry," Kevin wrote.
At age 13, Kevin was caught "messing around" with a younger child and was convicted of two misdemeanor sex offenses. "We were just kids," he said, describing the encounter as consensual but declining to go into detail. Juvenile records are sealed and not available for review.
Kevin's listing as a moderate-risk offender put him on the registry -- listings of low-risk offenders can be accessed only by law enforcement -- and being on the public registry has followed him into adulthood.
Like all registered sex offenders, Kevin must provide his name, date of birth, address, employer, driver's license number, Social Security number, professional licenses, passport, immigration status and school affiliations to the offender registry. He must update any change in these details of his life within three days or face a felony charge. His photo, name, physical description, address, car license number and crime are on display to anyone. There are restrictions on where he can live, and his status is a red flag on job applications.
"All this has done is made my life difficult. It's not like the public is being protected. I was just 13," Kevin said.
Kevin said the incident was his one and only legal offense. His name did not appear during a search of Delaware Superior Court and Court of Common Pleas records.
It's tales such as Kevin's that bother Lisa Minutola, chief of legal services for the Public Defender's Office.
Minutola has spoken with a few youth offenders whose names still appear on the registry years later, and "they definitely had horror stories of not being able to get employment, not being able to get an education," she said.
Age limits
According to Minutola, the Delaware registry has one person who was listed at age 9 who is now in his teens. Three individuals were placed on the registry at age 10, she said. The registry, which has 2,725 entries, isn't searchable by age.
The Adam Walsh Act does not require offenders younger than 14 to be placed on the registry; offenders ages 14 to 17 must be placed on the registry only if they commit certain serious offenses.
Only six states actually define the youngest age at which an offender must be registered, "which leaves open the possibility that even very young children who evidence sexual behavior problems may be subject to registration," according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Of the six states that do define the youngest registration age, North Carolina sets the limit at 11; Indiana, Ohio, Idaho and Oklahoma begin registering offenders at 14, and in South Dakota the minimum age is 15.
Twenty states -- Delaware is not among them -- have instituted special juvenile procedures or time limits that can remove a juvenile from the list once a set period of time has elapsed and no further offenses have occurred.
Minutola wants Delaware judges to have more freedom when the federal law does not apply.
"What we're asking is for those juveniles that Adam Walsh doesn't even require registration for ... that the court would have the discretion to have a hearing to determine whether or not the juvenile should be registered," she said.
That's not the way Biden sees it.
Biden took steps to strengthen Delaware's sex offender registry soon after he took office -- and he's not amenable to legislation he believes would weaken it.
"Juvenile sex offenders do re-offend," and that's why they belong on the registry, Biden said.
"The public needs to know. The public has a right to know," he said. "No one's been able to provide us any [examples of] so-called miscarriages of justice."
Only six to eight other states give judges discretion on placing juveniles on offender registries, said Deputy Attorney General Christina Showalter, adding that a judge would not have enough information on the offender to make such a ruling at the time of conviction.
According to Biden and Showalter, keeping juveniles off the registry or easing restrictions would threaten public safety.
"These are young predators," Showalter said. If they aren't placed on the list or their names are expunged, "they go on to be camp counselors, baby sitters ... and that's the most chilling part of this."
Grier Weeks, executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, agrees.
"There's always a debate about where the discretion should reside, with prosecutors or with the judiciary. I'm sure these lawmakers are well-intentioned and they see this as a problem," Weeks said.
"It's not a black-and-white issue. Are there juveniles who commit sex crimes who do not belong on sex-offender registries? Of course," Weeks said.
"But when they are prosecuted and convicted for very serious sex crimes, then what I would say is, there's a saying in criminal justice circles that the sex offender's greatest weapon is camouflage. When you get into discussions about expunging records and removing people from sex offender registries ... you're essentially trying to erase the record of something the public needs to know."
Conflicting studies
Biden and Showalter cite a number of studies showing that juvenile offenders are likely to re-offend. Perhaps the most persuasive is a 2007 study by the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center that tracked juvenile offenders who were released in 2001.
Of those offenders, 41 percent were arrested for a new sex offense within five years of release.
Nicole Pittman, an attorney and juvenile justice policy analyst with the Defender Association of Philadelphia and the National Juvenile Defender Center who is urging Delaware to modify its law, cites studies that some find equally persuasive.
For example, a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology tracked juvenile sex offenders from adolescence through age 26. Fewer than 2 percent were arrested for an adult sex offense by age 27.
Delaware's juvenile sex offender statute "is ruining the next generation," Pittman told a joint meeting of the state House and Senate judiciary committees on March 31.
"Delaware has the youngest registrants in the country, and when you say in the country, it means in the world," Pittman said. "Having offenders who are younger than 14 on the registry is problematic."
Pittman said recent studies indicate that juvenile sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5 percent to 14 percent -- substantially lower than the rates for other juvenile crimes, which range from 8 percent to 58 percent.
In 2006, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act, which contains a provision known as SORNA: the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
That act requires juvenile offenders as young as 14 to register for life if convicted of more-serious sex offenses. States that do not comply will lose 10 percent of their funding from the federal Byrne Grant anti-crime program.
Delaware revised its law in an attempt to comply with the act, but in doing so it "cast an overly wide net that will tragically engulf nearly all adolescent sexual behaviors, including those prepubescent-like, exploratory behaviors committed largely out of curiosity," Pittman said in a prepared summary of her analysis of Delaware's law.
Politics in play
If the recent studies indicating that juvenile offenders are unlikely to commit another offense are true, Delaware's law could run counter to the 2002 state Supreme Court decision in Delaware v. Sapp.
In that case, the court advised the General Assembly to keep in mind that the registry statute must be related to the government's interest in protecting the public from the danger of recidivism of sex offenders.
The court also noted that then-current studies indicated that sex offenders -- particularly those who target children -- were likely to offend again.
But keeping Delaware in compliance with SORNA while easing the statute when it comes to the youngest offenders is a difficult political task, particularly in an election year.
"It's a volatile issue. Dr. Bradley's case certainly puts these kinds of cases in the spotlight," Minutola said.
"But Dr. Bradley is clearly a case of an adult offender. He's different from the children that we're talking about," she said. "Unfortunately, that case is highly publicized and it certainly might make things even harder."
Rep. Tom Kovach, R-Brandywine Hundred, voiced the political difficulties facing legislators who might otherwise consider backing George's bill.
"How do we protect the public legitimately," Kovach asked during the joint judiciary committee meeting, and how can legislators explain to the public that they aren't being soft on sex offenders?
No one had an answer. ..Source.. J.L. Miller
May 3, 2010
Feds recognize Delaware's work to go after child predators
Another state that will be violating rights of their registrants using the Adam Walsh Act, the Act of entrapment!5-3-2010 Delaware:
Wilmington, Del. — Delaware has become just the second state in the country to achieve compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
This recognition by the federal government reflects the significant steps Delaware has taken in recent years to strengthen the fight against criminals who prey on children, Attorney General Beau Biden said.
The State Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Delaware State Police, and members of the General Assembly worked with the Department of Justice to enact legislation that brought Delaware into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, Biden said. The agencies has have an ongoing partnership to track offenders and investigate and prevent sex crimes.
“We will never stop fighting to get these criminals off the streets and away from our children,” Biden said.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently determined that Delaware has substantially implemented the provisions of the sex offender registration and notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Act aligns sex offender registry standards across the states and asks states to place the burden of proof on convicted sex offenders.
Anyone know what they are talking about here? Please e-mail me: eAdvocate
Biden created the Delaware Department of Justice Child Predator Unit and established the Delaware Child Predator Task Force in partnership with the Delaware State police. He has fought for tougher sex offender registry laws and led the effort to enact greater penalties for child pornography offenses. As a result of these efforts, over $1.3 million in federal grant funding has already been secured to expand Delaware’s fight against child predators.
Under current federal rules, states that fail to substantially implement these provisions by July 26 stand to lose 10 percent of their annual federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding.
Biden’s office is overseeing the prosecution of former Lewes, Del. pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley, who is accused of raping or sexually abusing 103 children at his office. ..Source.. Community News
April 23, 2010
A month out of prison, sex offender faces child porn charges
In cases like these of offenders recently released and who re-offend, this article is missing important information. While in prison did this man receive any form of therapy? The article fails to investigate because recidivism sells papers.4-23-2010 Delaware:
Consider this: In the California case of John Gardner -after he re-offended- we find that there was information in his background which showed he was a violent offender and the state knew about it and still released him.
In this Delaware case we do not know if the State provided any sex offender therapy which may have prevented him from re-offending after release. Signing a paper is not sex offender therapy, and the State does have a duty to public safety to do all it can to prevent recidivism; therapy may have been an option, if it was made available.
As politicians say, anything to save one child. Was therapy available?
A registered sex offender released from prison last month was arrested Wednesday on child pornography offenses.
New Castle County police charged _____, 34, of the first block of Castle Run Drive in Bear, with 10 counts of dealing in child pornography.
He is being held in the Young Correctional Institution after failing to post $100,000 secured bail.
According to court records, last month ____ signed a sex offender special condition form agreeing to have his computer examined by probation and parole officers.
A check of the computer’s hard drive revealed a video of a girl engaged in a sexual act with an adult, police said in court records.
Further examination revealed 10 files on the hard drive displaying children engaged in prohibited sexual acts.
Court records said ____ confessed to downloading child pornography on the computer’s hard drive and attempting to delete the images after he viewed them.
____ was convicted in February 2009 of fourth-degree rape of a victim between the ages of 16-17 years old, according to the Delaware Sex Offender Central Registry. ..Source.. TERRI SANGINITI • The News Journal
January 18, 2010
Effort to prevent sex crimes is misplaced
1-18-2010 Delaware:
The horrible crimes allegedly committed by Dr. Earl Bradley rightly incense us and elicit a passionate desire to do something. State Rep. John C. Atkins has proposed a bill that would require chemical castration, special license plates, and increased penalties for certain sex offenders. While his heart is in the right place, the proposal would not keep our loved ones any safer.
Chemical castration rarely works. Most people who commit sex crimes do so because of a variety of influences on their behavior, including the desire to express anger through violence. The hormones that cause and sustain sex drives may not play any role at all in the urge to commit a sex crime. Even when they do, they are better managed through other techniques, including cognitive behavioral therapy, which teaches offenders to choose different outlets and to avoid triggers. If sex crimes were as easy to control as simply removing the sex drive, we would have solved this problem long ago.
The handful of offenders who may require chemical castration are better selected by correctional professionals than by a broadly applied law. Currently, offenders in the community under supervision can have chemical castration as a condition of their release. Mandating a one-size-fits-all set of restrictions and conditions for a larger category of offenders will not increase our safety.
Special license plates and other restrictions are also useless. No research has shown that communities who keep an eye on known sex offenders are able to protect themselves from future crime.
Numerous recent studies have shown that sex offenders subjected to numerous restrictions on their ability to hold jobs and live in neighborhoods are more likely to abscond, making it impossible to keep track of them.
Convicted sex offenders are the wrong target for our efforts to prevent future sex crime. The people who have already been identified, convicted and sentenced to prison for sexual offenses are very unlikely to commit new crimes upon release. This is in part because Delaware has an excellent system of community supervision in place to keep tabs on known offenders. But it is also a statistical fact: Convicted sex offenders have very low recidivism rates. From 3 percent to 15 percent of such offenders will commit a new sex crime within five years of their release. This is very low compared with other categories of offenders.
Known sex offenders are not going to commit most of the sex crimes that will take place in the next year. Most will be committed by people we know and trust, who have NOT been previously detected. The Bradley case illustrates this. We are better off teaching our children to speak up about harmful behavior than by passing new laws that will focus our already stretched criminal justice resources on the wrong group.
But if we are committed to spending more money on the convicted population, we should invest in smaller probation caseloads and more programs for offenders in prison and in the community. Currently, no sex-offender treatment is available in our prisons and jails, and community resources are not much better. ..Opinion.. of Professor Leon teaches in the Sociology and Criminal Justice department at the University of Delaware, and is the author of the forthcoming book, "Chasing Sex Fiends: Sex Crime, Criminal Justice and Social Change since the 1920s."
November 20, 2009
DSP worker charged with covering for sex offender
11-20-2009 Delaware:
A civilian employee of the State Police is accused of intentionally entering false information into a database about a sex offender during the registration process.
Police say Finisha Mills was living with Michael Tilghman at the Persimmon Tree Apartments in Dover, and from July 27th to November 5th, Mills registered Tilghman, a Tier 3, or high-risk offender, as homeless.
Mills turned herself in Thursday at Troop 3 in Camden, and is out on bail pending a December 4th Common Pleas Court hearing on 8 counts of entering false information into the Delaware Justice Information System and one count each of official misconduct and conspiracy. ..Source.. Frank Gerace
November 12, 2009
DE- Ruling limits sex offender registry
11-12-2009 Delaware:
by SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal
Court says Minner pardon restored all of man's civil rights
For the second time this year, the Delaware Supreme Court has found that a person legally can be removed from the state's sex offender registry -- implicitly finding that the registry is not a permanent life sentence without exception and that the registry statute does not overpower all other state laws.
In this latest case, the justices ruled that a full and unconditional pardon by former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of a man convicted at 19 of having sex with a girl who was under 16, meant he no longer had to register as a Tier II sex offender.
The ruling was praised by the Delaware American Civil Liberties Union as a needed exception to the registry, but victim advocate Dana Harrington Conner expressed concern about the creation of another way off the state's list of sex offenders.
"There are exceptions to every rule. But when there is an exception, it can be abused. In this case, the abuse of an exception can have very serious ramifications," she said.
While the Delaware Attorney General's Office opposed removing Brian Heath from the offender registry, it signaled this week that it accepted the high court's decision and that Heath's removal did not threaten public safety.
Heath was convicted in 2000 of second-degree unlawful sexual contact for what attorney Charles M. Oberly III said was a consensual encounter between the then-19-year-old Heath and a 14-year-old girl.
Heath completed his probation, fulfilled his registration requirements and stayed out of trouble.
Oberly said Heath, who has since been married and has a child, could not obtain gainful employment and even had difficulty renting an apartment because he was listed on the sex offender registry.
"You would be better off being convicted of manslaughter than a sex offense to obtain a job [today]," Oberly said, adding that the job Heath was having trouble landing because of his status was as a truck driver.
Heath petitioned then-Gov. Minner for a pardon, which was granted in October 2008.
Prosecutors opposed Heath's removal from the registry, and a Kent County Superior Court judge agreed.
In the first case of its kind considered by the Delaware Supreme Court, the five justices unanimously ruled this month that a full pardon by the governor is designed to forgive an offense and restore a person's civil rights.
The court also noted that the pardon process is a rigorous one that includes a review for the "propensity for recidivism," and because that check determined Heath is no longer a threat to re-offend, there is no basis for keeping him on the sex offender list.
The justices also pointed out that the Delaware Attorney General's Office had a chance to object during the review process and did not do so, and the pardon board could have recommended, and governor could have granted, a conditional pardon, limiting the pardon's effect, but did not.
The court noted that the Heath decision was consistent with its ruling in May when it allowed two people who had been convicted of sex offenses when they were both less than 14 years old to be removed from the sex offender registry after a Family Court judge granted each of their requests to have their juvenile records expunged.
As in Heath's case, both argued that a listing on the registry had hindered their ability to get jobs, and in one appellant's case, go to school.
Jason Miller, a spokesman for Attorney General Beau Biden, said that while the state initially opposed Heath's request, "the court's decision clarifies the relationship between sex offender registry requirements and the scope of executive pardons. It allows for conditional pardons that would maintain the sex offender registration requirements in appropriate cases. We believe the court's ruling is consistent with protecting the public."
Conner, who also is a professor at Widener University School of Law in Brandywine Hundred, said there is "a lesson to be learned" from the decision.
She pointed out that there were a number of places where someone could have objected to Heath's pardon but did not. She said she could not speak to the specifics of the Heath case but said this should put state officials on notice about future pardon requests and their potential to affect the registry.
"My concern is with the process," she said, and that someone missed, or could miss in future, the opportunity to make an appropriate objection. "If we don't do our job, then someone will be removed [who shouldn't be]," she said, adding that the process should not be "pro forma."
At the same time, Conner said the two exceptions that the state Supreme Court has carved out represent a very small group -- people who receive unconditional gubernatorial pardons and people who receive Family Court permission to have their juvenile criminal records from before age 14 expunged. "The vast majority are going to remain on the registry indefinitely," she said.
Oberly said the process is not and was not "pro forma," noting that Minner granted few pardons.
He also said that while it was not raised in this case, there was the potential constitutional issue of the Legislature limiting a governor's power.
ACLU Delaware Executive Director Drewry Fennell, meanwhile, believes there should be more flexibility in allowing people to be removed from the list, not less.
She said one of the problems with the sex offender registry has been its "forever" nature. "There is no sense you can ever pay your debt to society and move forward after having changed," she said.
While state prosecutors argued that a listing on the registry was not a punishment -- but merely a record of a crime -- Fennell said the court clearly disagreed in this ruling, describing a mandatory listing as creating a "severe civil disability" for any person on the list.
"The sex offender registry is not just a means of keeping track of people, it is also a barrier to their reintegration into society, particularly for young people like Mr. Heath, who have been determined to not pose a threat to anyone," she said.
"Everyone who is on the registry should be evaluated at reasonable intervals, to determine whether or not they pose a public safety threat," she said.
Oberly said he did not think that the court's decision in Heath's case was a radical departure. "It was a common-sense determination," he said. ..Source..
August 4, 2009
Third Circuit finds 10-year Internet ban constitutional in child pornography case
8-4-2009 Delaware:
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Monday upheld [opinion, PDF] a 20-year prison sentence and a 10-year Internet ban imposed on a man convicted of receiving child pornography. Paul Thielemann, who pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography challenged his prison as well as the conditions of his supervised release, which restrict him from viewing sexually explicit material or using the Internet for 10 years. The court rejected the challenge the prison sentence, finding that it fell within sentencing guidelines. The court also rejected the challenges to the conditions of the supervised release, finding no violation of Thielemann's constitutional rights. Addressing the restrictions on viewing sexually explicit material, the court wrote:
We hold that there is a significant nexus between restricting Thielemann from access to adult "sexually explicit" material and the goals of supervised release, and that the restriction here is not overbroad or vague considering the content of the instant record. As such, First Amendment implications are not involved.
The court also found that the 10-year Internet ban "shares a nexus to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary in this case."
In January, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Congress acted beyond its authority when it enacted a law that allows indefinite federal civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" offenders beyond the end of their sentences. The Fourth Circuit was the first circuit court to rule on the constitutionality of 18 USC § 4248 [text]. Last August, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that computer and PO box use restrictions placed on those convicted of child pornography offenses are reasonable as long as they are reasonably connected to their conviction and are construed narrowly enough to allow legitimate computer and mail use. ..Source.. by Jaclyn Belczyk
April 16, 2009
DE- Sex abuser convicted of failing to register
4-16-2009 Delaware:
Judge reserves judgment on defense motion to acquit
WILMINGTON -- A federal jury Wednesday convicted 66-year-old Thomas Pendleton of failing to register as a sex offender.
The jury came back after about 30 minutes of deliberation Wednesday, following about a day of testimony Tuesday.
However, Chief District Judge Gregory M. Sleet reserved judgment on a defense motion that still could result in an acquittal for Pendleton.
At the close of the government's case, Assistant Federal Public Defender Eleni Kousoulis charged that prosecutors failed to prove their case as a matter of law.
Sleet told attorneys to submit briefs on the issue later this week and he will issue a ruling at a later date.
If Sleet does not throw out the conviction, Pendleton faces up to 10 years in prison at sentencing.
(eAdvocate Post)
According to court papers, Pendleton, a former bike tour operator, has multiple convictions for sex offenses involving children, including two in the United States, one in Latvia and one in Germany.
In court, Kousoulis made a simple argument -- Pendleton never had a permanent residence from January to March 2008, moving constantly on a cross-country trip to visit relatives, after his deportation from Germany and before he left on a flight to return to Europe.
And since he had no residence, under the law, he had no duty to register as a sex offender, she said.
Prosecutors Ilana Eisenstein and Edmond Falgowski, however, argued that Pendleton, a convicted sex offender, had a duty to register and knew he had to register.
Falgowski said because Pendleton declared Delaware as his permanent home -- though he only had a mail-drop in Wilmington -- he had a duty to register with Delaware authorities, which he did not do.
Falgowski cited Pendleton obtaining a Delaware driver's license and registering to vote in the state as Pendleton's declaration of residency. ..News Source.. by SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal
February 12, 2009
DE- Del. court upholds offender registry
To say that the Adam Walsh Act does not violate rights is to stick one's head in the sand and ignore the very meaning of the words "further punishments" simply because, as a judge, you can and no one dare question you. Here we see the political decision not any real analysis of the facts as it affects the majority of cases. This case is not a good example of what is wrong with the law, it is clear he skirted the state law and they chose to prosecute him instead under federal law. Obviously because he would get a longer prison sentence which may ultimately bite the state.
2-12-2009 Delaware:
Judge: Adam Walsh Act doesn't violate rights
WILMINGTON -- In a ruling hailed as an "important victory" for advocates and prosecutors, a federal judge in Delaware upheld a federal law designed to track sexual predators through a national registry.
Chief District Judge Gregory M. Sleet dismissed a challenge by convicted pedophile Thomas Pendleton to the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, finding Pendleton's argument that Congress overreached its authority in creating the registry was not persuasive. He also said a criminal case against Pendleton for failing to register should go forward, likely to trial.
The decision is believed to be the first time a court in the third federal circuit, which includes Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has ruled on a constitutional challenge to the registration requirement.
The Adam Walsh Act was named for the son of victim advocate and television host John Walsh, whose son was abducted and murdered 25 years ago. It requires convicted sexual predators to register with local authorities when they move into an area.
Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which helped craft the law with then-Sen. Joe Biden, said Sleet's ruling Tuesday was an "encouraging decision" and "right under the law."
Allen said the law was designed to stop sex offenders who pose a significant threat from traveling between states to evade local registration and notification laws.
Associate Professor Geoff Moulton of Widener University School of Law, said the ruling on this comparatively untested law was, "an important victory both for the [Adam Walsh] law, the Department of Justice and those people who advocated this legislation."
Several federal districts across the country have upheld the act, but at least one federal court in Florida ruled that Congress overreached in creating the registry.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ilana Eisenstein said prosecutors are pleased the ruling "will permit this case to go forward against a serial sex offender."
Assistant Federal Public Defender Eleni Kousoulis, who is defending Pendleton, said the constitutionality of the sex offender registry "is a recurring issue," among federal courts and hasn't been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. She said this case is likely to be appealed "if necessary."
Allen described Pendleton, 66, as exactly the type of person the act was designed to stop and the reason why a national registry, not a patchwork of state laws, is needed.
"I don't think I could have written a better example," he said.
Pendleton was arrested in Delaware last year after federal authorities charged that he improperly claimed the state as a permanent address when he had never lived here.
Instead, according to court papers, Pendleton traveled the country after he was expelled from Germany in 2006, after serving an 18-month prison sentence there for the sexual abuse of a minor.
According to attorneys, Pendleton researched his options and decided to claim Delaware as home because of an apparent loophole in the state law that did not require him to register here because his convictions had all been overseas or were more than 15 years old.
Before his conviction in Germany, he was convicted in Latvia in 2001, and served a 3 1/2-year prison sentence there for molesting two boys, ages 9 and 13. Prior to 1993, he had convictions in Michigan and New Jersey.
Delaware legislators have since passed a law designed to close that loophole.
Prosecutors allege that Pendleton, on his return from Germany, traveled through Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and California, often staying at youth hostels, and failing to register in any of those states.
U.S. marshals picked up Pendleton when he stopped by the false address he claimed as home in Wilmington to pick up his mail.
Pendleton's attorney asked Sleet to toss out the indictment against him, alleging the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act improperly draws its authority from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, regulating interstate commerce. She said Pendleton's actions had nothing to do with commerce. ..News Source.. by SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal
