Kentucky governor restores voting rights of most felons

See Governor's Press Release

11-24-15 Kentucky:

FRANKFORT, Ky., Nov 24 (Reuters) - Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on Tuesday signed an executive order restoring voting rights to most felons in state in an action that he said will affect some 180,000 people.

Once felons have completed their sentences, including any probation or parole, and have made court-mandated restitution, they will have their rights automatically restored as long as they have no additional cases pending, Beshear said.

Previously, felony offenders needed to apply to the governor's office to have their voting rights restored. Now, Beshear said, the Department of Corrections will make the determination.

"The old system is unfair," Beshear said. "It's counterproductive. We need to be smarter in our criminal justice system. Research shows that ex-felons who vote are less likely to commit new crime and return to prison. That's because if you vote, you tend to be more engaged in society."

The outgoing Democratic governor, speaking to reporters in the state capital, said the order does not cover those convicted of violent, sex-related, bribery or treason crimes.

Kentucky is one of four states that requires its governor to sign off on the restoration of a felon's voting rights.

The issue has long been debated in Kentucky as the state House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, has passed a restoration bill 10 times in the last nine years only for it to die in the Republican-controlled Senate. However, the issue does have broad support as U.S. Sen. Rand Paul urged the passage of a bill that would have restored the right to non-violent felons.

However, even Republican officials who support restoring rights criticized the governor's approach.

"My issue with today's action is not about the restoration of those rights, but the fact once again this governor has chosen to usurp the authority of the Kentucky General Assembly through executive order," state House minority leader Jeff Hoover said in a statement.

Hoover questioned the legality of the governor's action, saying that an amendment to the state constitution was required.

Beshear responded by saying the state constitution gives him the right to restore voting rights.

Beshear has served two terms as governor and was prohibited from running for a third straight time. Earlier this month, Republican Matt Bevin won election and will be inaugurated next month.

A call to Bevin's office has not yet been returned. ..Source.. by MSN News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders having hard time finding places to live

8-9-15 Kentucky:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Advocates for sex offenders who need medical care say a state law that requires them to have a legal residence to go to before they're released from prison is keeping them behind bars because they can't find places to live.

The Courier-Journal reports (http://cjky.it/1KUu8ni) that Kentucky law requires sex offenders to provide in writing their planned residence during a five-year period of conditional release 180 days before they're released from prison.

But offenders like 40-year-old Michael Blaine Wolfe, who needs nursing care, are having a tough time finding places to stay.

Wolfe, who suffered brain damage in an accident as a teenager and uses a wheelchair, served his eight-year sentence for sexual abuse and should have been released from prison over a year ago. But he's still behind bars and could be for up to four more years.

The Corrections Department said none of the 310 places it has contacted to house Wolfe has been willing to accept him.

Another sex offender, Frank Boswell, who served out his sentence for rape and sexual abuse on May 25 and is "near death," according to his public defender, was able to find an approved placement last month at a nursing home in Henry County.

However, attorney Melanie Lowe said it is unfair to hold inmates after they've done their time solely because they can't find nursing care at a legal address. Sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center or publicly owned playground.

"It is so frustrating that they are just stuck," Lowe said.

Finding legal places to live for sex offenders, especially those who require medical treatment, is a growing problem nationally, experts say. Illinois keeps 1,250 parolees behind bars because of a shortage of housing, and most are sex offenders, the Chicago Tribune reported in January.

The MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University law school, which has fought unsuccessfully in court to end the practice, says it is discriminatory because most of the affected offenders are poor.

"If you have money, you rent an apartment where it is legal," said staff attorney Alexa van Brunt.

Kentucky State Sen. Brent Yonts, D-Greenville, sponsored a bill creating the conditional release for sex offenders in 1998. It was the year after an inmate who had recently been released from prison after serving time for sexually abusing two young cousins abducted, assaulted, stabbed and drowned a 16-year-old girl who lived in Yonts' district.

Yonts said in an interview that his primary goal was to keep something over the heads of offenders who disputed their crimes and didn't complete sex offender counseling in prison. He said he also wanted to ensure all sex offenders registered at a legal address.

Keeping infirm inmates in prison because they can't find places in nursing homes "is not what I originally contemplated," Yonts said.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said he is pushing for the state to contract with a secure nursing home that would treat sex offenders and other former inmates who require medical care. He believes the state could save as much as $10 million a year in reduced medical costs. ..Source.. by Kentucky.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

No place to live, sex offenders kept in prison

8-7-15 Kentucky:

Michael Blaine Wolfe III served out every bit of his eight-year sentence for sexual abuse and should have been released from prison more than a year ago.

But he is still behind bars and could be for up to four more years, with state taxpayers footing the bill for his medical expenses and incarceration.

The reason: He was charged with violating the terms of his conditional release from prison before he even got out, because he couldn’t find a legal place to live as a sex offender.

Wolfe, 40, who suffered brain damage in an accident as a teenager and uses a wheelchair, needs nursing care, and the Corrections Department says none of the 310 places it has contacted to house him has been willing to accept him. Only 15 said they would even consider it, the department says.

Wolfe is one of five inmates in Kentucky who have been “violated at the gate” — that is, found to have violated the conditions of their release before they even left the prison gates. One of them died in custody three months later.

Another, Frank Boswell, who served out his sentence for rape and sexual abuse on May 25 and is “near death,” according to his public defender, Melanie Lowe, found an approved placement on July 29 at a nursing home in Henry County.

Lowe said that as sex offenders age in the system, problems placing them will grow.

Finding legal places to live for sex offenders, especially those who require medical treatment, is a growing problem nationally, experts say. Illinois keeps 1,250 parolees behind bars because of a shortage of housing, and most are sex offenders, the Chicago Tribune reported in January.

The MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University law school, which has fought unsuccessfully in court to end the practice, says it is discriminatory because most of the affected offenders are poor. “If you have money, you rent an apartment where it is legal,” said staff attorney Alexa van Brunt.

Wolfe and other offenders are held after the sentences expire under a Kentucky law that tacks a five-year period of conditional release on sex offenders, during which they can be returned for violating sex offender residency laws or for other violations.

Lowe says that it is unjust to hold inmates after they’ve done their time solely because they can’t find nursing care at a legal address. Sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center or publicly owned playground.

Corrections Commmissioner LaDonna Thompson declined to respond to questions about the fairness of the law, but Lowe said some officials in the department aren’t happy with it.

She said those include the supervisor of sex offenders in the Office of Probation and Parole’s La Grange office, Bonnie Rawlings Greer, who Lowe said told her she thinks the practice is “unethical and immoral.”

Greer declined to comment, referring questions to a supervisor, who referred them to a department spokeswoman, who referred them to Mitchell.

Lisa Howard, an administrator with Probation and Parole, testified in a June 26 hearing that nursing homes are reluctant to admit sex offenders because of the potential liability and because it would place the home’s address on the sex offender registry.

On cross-examination, Howard conceded that the department stopped looking for placement for Wolfe after it formally charged him with a violation in July 2014.

Administrative Law Judge Eden Stephens found there was no probable cause that Wolfe violated the terms of his conditional release, according to Lowe, though she said the implications of the ruling are unclear.

Stephens apologized to Wolfe for the delays. “This has gone on far too long,” she said.

Kentucky law says that 180 days before sex offenders are to be released from prison, they must provide in writing their planned residence during their five-year period of conditional release.

Inmates are not told a way to find a residence, and to stop the state from charging them with a violation, it is "Planned Residence = COMMERCIAL PLACEMENT" (term used in Michigan and likely different in other states. States and parole officers are fully aware of this see HERE and this document used in Michigan) CP requires the state to find a place for the inmate. Yes, a in Illinois, its possible they cannot, but at least the inmate cannot be charged with another crime.

State Sen. Brent Yonts, D-Greenville, sponsored a bill creating the conditional release for sex offenders — originally for three years and later amended to five — in 1998. It was the year after an inmate who had recently been released from prison after serving time for sexually abusing two young cousins abducted, assaulted, stabbed and drowned 16-year-old Sarah Hansen, who lived in Yonts’ district.

Yonts said in an interview that his primary goal was to keep something over the heads of offenders who disputed their crimes and didn’t complete sex offender counseling in prison. He said he also wanted to ensure all sex offenders registered at a legal address.

Keeping infirm inmates in prison because they can’t find places in nursing homes “is not what I originally contemplated,” Yonts said.

Lowe said that providing medical treatment for prisoners in custody is also far more expensive for the state. Lowe would be eligible for Medicaid, which is paid largely by the federal government, but isn’t available as long as an inmate is locked up.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said that is one of the reasons he is pushing for the state to contract with a secure nursing home that would treat sex offenders and other former inmates who require medical care. He said the state could save as much as $8 million to $10 million a year in reduced medical costs.

Wolfe was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison in two cases, including one in which he improperly touched a 9-year-old girl over her clothes and another in which he had sexual contact with a girl under 12 through forcible compulsion.

He is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair, although he had those infirmities when he committed the crimes. Lowe said he has “trouble remembering anything,” and department records show he is unable to move from his bed to the bathroom.

McCracken Commonwealth’s Attorney Dan Boaz, who took office after Wolfe was prosecuted, said there should be somewhere he can go.

But Boaz also said that sex offenses have a profound impact on children, and that there is a “legitimate concern about re-offending.”

Lowe said Wolfe is too ill now to pose a threat and that inmates like him should not remain behind bars.

“It is so frustrating that they are just stuck,” she said. ..Source.. by Andrew Wolfson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard

Over his property? Humm, were they casing the place? Were they looking for pics to blackmail him? The point is, over his property -what are his rights-, and it will be interesting to see how the court rules..

See Also: There’s a Drone Flying Over My House. Can I Shoot It?

7-30-15 Kentucky:

The way William Merideth sees it, it’s pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.

Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.

"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people's yards and videotaping."

Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn’t recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight." "Are you the son of a bitch that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting."

The men backed down, retreated to their car, and waited for the police to arrive.

"His only comment was that he hoped I had a big checkbook because his drone cost $1,800," Merideth added.

The Kentuckian was arrested Sunday evening in Hillview, Kentucky, just south of Louisville and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. He was released the following day. The Hillview Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

A measured approach?

The report of the downed drone comes a month after Ars reported on a similar incident in Modesto, California. But in that case, the drone operator was flying his drone over his parents’ farm, and it was shot down by a neighbor.

Here, Merideth, who operates a local trucking company, said that he had seen "two or three" different drones in his backyard previously over the last year and was disturbed by their presence. "What recourse do we have?" he asked.

The 43-year-old man claimed that law enforcement officials, including the county jailer, told him privately that they agreed with his actions. "The people that own the drones and the people that hate guns are the only ones that disagree with what I did," he said. "Now, if I’d have had a .22 rifle, I should have gone to jail for that. The diameter of those things are going to come down with enough force to hurt somebody. Number 8 birdshot is not. Number 8 is the size of a pinhead. The bottom line is that it's a right to privacy issue and defending my property issue. It would have been no different had he been standing in my backyard. As Americans, we have a right to defend our rights and property."

So what’s next in this bizarre tale?

"We have a lawyer and there's a court date and then there's going to be a hearing," Merideth said. "It's not going to stop with the two charges against me, which I'm confident that we'll get reduced or get dismissed completely."

And what would Merideth like to tell this errant drone operator when he meets him again?

"I would just like [him] to get some education on his toy and learn to respect the rights of the people," he said. "It's fine and dandy, and I think it's cool there's a camera on it, but just take it to a park or something—he's not a responsible drone owner." ..Source.. by Cyrus Farivar

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

U.S. Marshal Service compliance checks

What a terrible waste of taxpayer money and resources; 13 agencies to check addresses of 84 registrants. Note that there is no mention of crimes being committed affecting any children, so for whose benefit was this? What was accomplished? How many homeless folks could be fed by the wasted money here?

4-29-2014 Kentucky:

BROOKSVILLE | Law enforcement officials met on Monday at Bracken County Judicial Center to review the results of a recent sex offender registry compliance check.

Operation Buffalo Trace began on April 15, with members of the U.S. Marshal Service and 12 police agencies participating in making sure registered sex offenders were living where their registry indicated.

Bracken County facilities were used as the command base for a five-county operation, officials aid

The Buffalo Trace area for the U.S. Marshals Service Eastern District of Kentucky includes Bracken, Mason, Robertson, Harrison and Pendleton counties, said Loren “Squirrel” Carl, U.S. Marshal.

“In all, 84 residence checks were completed, with a total of four arrests; three were for being non-compliant and a fourth was arrested on an outstanding warrant,” Carl said.

Two other offenders were charged with violating the sex offender networking statute which prohibits offenders from having Facebook accounts, Carl said.

“Whatever we do has a definite impact on the lives of the children,

Carl said. ..Source.. by Wendy Mitchell

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Registered sex offender wants permission to practice law in Kentucky

2-5-2014 Kentucky:

A University of Kentucky law school graduate who finished in the top third of his class is asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision barring him from taking the bar exam because he’s on the state sex-offender registry.

The court ruled unanimously in December that Guy Padraic Hamilton-Smith can’t apply to take the test until he goes off the registry in 2027 — when he’s 44 years old — because he is listed for possession of child pornography, which the court described as one the most “iniquitous of crimes.”

The justices said it would put the “character and integrity of the bar itself” at risk if Hamilton-Smith relapsed — or even if a client discovered he’s on the registry.

Supporters of Hamilton-Smith, who graduated in 2011 after competing on UK’s prestigious national moot-court team, said he’s done everything possible to rehabilitate himself since his conviction four years earlier on one count of possession of possessing materials portraying a sexual performance by a minor.

Therapist Susan Smith, who treated Hamilton-Smith and has worked with other sex offenders and victims for 22 years, told the the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions Character and Fitness Committee that Hamilton-Smith poses no threat to anyone and would make a “wonderful lawyer.”

Yvette Hourigan, director of the Kentucky Bar Association’s lawyer-assistance program testified said Hamilton-Smith, who works as a $16-an-hour clerk for Lexington law firm, has been “completely compliant, completely honest, completely forthcoming and completely credible.”

And UK law professor Robert Lawson, its distinguished former dean who taught several of his classes, told the committee that Hamilton-Smith made “the most honest, open disclosure” of his crime “that I’ve ever heard from anybody.” Lawson said he’s fit to be a lawyer.

The case, the first of its kind in Kentucky, pits the value of redemption against the potential embarrassment of the bar and Supreme Court, Lawson said.

He also said that if an applicant is automatically ineligible because of their listing on the sex-offender registry for a child pornography offense, the Character and Fitness committee should have had a written rule saying that so Hamilton-Smith “wouldn’t have spent three years and thousands of dollars getting a legal education.”

“That is why this is unfair,” Lawson said.

The chairman of the Character and Fitness Committee, Louisville lawyer Grant Helman, didn’t respond to a request for comment. But in court papers, the panel says that a would-be lawyer should be excluded from practice based on their mere presence on the registry for any crime.

“There is nothing ‘mere’ about it,” said its lawyer, Elizabeth Feamster.

The committee also noted that while Hamilton-Smith disclosed his conviction when he applied to UK, he initially omitted that he was on the registry. And it said that he testified he wouldn’t disclose his conviction and status to prospective client unless asked about it.

The case, which was first reported by the Associated Press, began in 2007, when Hamilton-Smith was in graduate school and his girlfriend found sexual images of children on his computer and reported him to police.

Hamilton-Smith was charged with three counts of possession and pleaded guilty to one count, for which he was sentenced to five years probation and placed on the registry for 20 years.

He admitted later that he was a sex addict and had been since he was 16. He said he downloaded so much porn of all types he had to delete some from his computer so he could add more, and that he probably had more than the three images of child porn with which he was charged.

In an interview, he said getting caught “probably saved my life” and that he decided to apply to law school because he had seen the “power of law to help people.”

He was rejected by the University of Louisville and Northern Kentucky University but accepted at UK, where he continued sex-offender counseling and signed a contract to be monitored by the KBA’s lawyer-assistance program.

He also amended his application — as allowed by UK — to disclose that he was a sex offender.

In an interview, he said he knew he might never be admitted to practice but decided to take a chance.

But the Character and Fitness Committee, the gatekeeper for the bar, twice rejected his application to take the exam, citing a number of factors.

It said he admitted that he had relapsed and viewed legal adult pornography, and that he couldn’t promise he wouldn’t relapse again. It said he disclosed his offender status to UK after a committee member lectured first-year law students about the importance of candor. And it said he’d been treated for depression and once came close to killing himself.

But the “elephant in the corner,” the committee acknowledged, was that his name is on the registry.

“An individual whose name is on the sex-offender registry cannot demonstrate the required character and fitness to be admitted,” it said.

In an unsigned opinion Dec. 19, the Supreme Court rejected the committee’s findings that being on the registry automatically disqualifies a candidate for the bar, saying every case should be examined individually.

But the court said that being listed for possession of child pornography — which in this case included depictions of the sexual exploitation and rape of children — did justify a disqualification.

“The purpose of character and fitness screening is to protect the public trust and safeguard the administration of justice,” the court said.

If Hamilton-Smith received a seal of approval, the justices said, “It would significantly mislead the public into believing that we vouch for his good character.”

Moreover, added the court, if a client hired him and later found out he was listed, it would justifiably lead him to question the character of all practicing lawyers.

Hamilton-Smith, who is now 30, blames only himself for his predicament. “I can’t claim innocence or mistake,” he said.

His lawyer, White, has filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling — to let his client take the exam sooner, perhaps in two to five years. White says the penalty is “overkill” and that the court needs to look more specifically at Hamilton-Smith’s crime and rehabilitation.

“He has vigorously and responsibly sought and found recovery,” White said.

Opposing the motion, the committee says the court got it right the first time.

Shelly Stow, a spokeswoman for Cambridge, Mass.-based Reform of Sex Offender Laws, which champions both public safety and the dignity of ex-offenders, said: “The purpose of punishment is to bring about rehabilitation, and in this case, it worked.”

She said Hamilton-Smith has tried to be a good citizen, so for the court to say that is not enough sends the wrong message.

“Do we want to make it as difficult as possible for an offender to re-assimilate,” she asked, “or or do we want to help him?” ..Source.. by Andrew Wolfson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender seeks admission to Kentucky bar

1-5-2014 Kentucky:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Guy Padraic Hamilton-Smith graduated in the top third of his law school class at the University of Kentucky, but the state Supreme Court blocked him from taking the bar exam because he is a registered sex offender.

In the first case of its kind in Kentucky, the court rejected Hamilton-Smith's bid and a move by the state Office of Bar Admissions to create and endorse a blanket rule that would have kept all registered sex offenders from gaining access to the bar.

"Rather, we believe the better course would be to allow any applicant for bar admission who is on the sex offender registry the opportunity to make his or her case on an individualized basis," Chief Justice John D. Minton wrote in the Dec. 19 opinion on Hamilton-Smith's case and the proposed rule.

Hamilton-Smith, who was convicted of a charge related to child pornography in 2007, has until Jan. 13 to ask the court to reconsider its decision. In an email, Hamilton-Smith referred Associated Press questions to his attorney, who said the reconsideration request will be filed.

Nationally, cases of felons seeking admission or re-admission to the bar are common. But situations of registered sex offenders attempting to do so appear to be rare. Beyond a recent rejection in Ohio and an ongoing case in Virginia, legal experts and those who work to rehabilitate sex offenders couldn't recall a similar situation arising in recent years.

But Shelley Stow of Reform Sex Offender Laws — a Massachusetts-based organization that seeks to ease restrictions on offenders and promote rehabilitation — said she wouldn't be surprised to see more cases out there. "It is so difficult for registrants to even get jobs and support themselves and function day to day, let alone pursue a law career," she said.

The Kentucky case brings up the question of how to treat someone who has admitted to criminal activity, wants to rehabilitate himself and serve others, but is still monitored by law enforcement, said Hamilton-Smith's attorney, Scott White, of Lexington.

"It's a highly stigmatized thing," White said.

Hamilton-Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a child in March 2007. He received a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, and was required to register as a sex offender for 20 years — until 2027.

After disclosing the conviction and sex offender status on his applications, Chase Law School at Northern Kentucky University and Brandeis Law School at the University of Louisville both rejected him in 2008. But the University of Kentucky College of Law accepted him in 2008 and he graduated in 2011.

Hamilton-Smith later competed on the National Trial Team and National Moot Court Team, and he had a piece published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal through the University of California law school.

Since graduating in 2011, Hamilton-Smith has held a non-lawyer position for Baldani, Rowland and Richardson. The Lexington firm has filed letters in support of Hamilton-Smith taking the bar exam, White said. But Hamilton-Smith still has not been cleared by the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions to take the exam that would allow him to practice law.

White called Hamilton-Smith "a classic sex addict."

"The classic example is somebody who just downloads buckets of pornography," White said. "In that download, there just happened to be child pornography."

In this case, Hamilton-Smith has gone through Sex Addicts Anonymous, despite a few admitted relapses with adult, but not child, pornography, White said.

White also said his client used law school as a redemptive and rehabilitative effort while owning up to his criminal conduct.

"He just hasn't let it define him," White said.

Elizabeth Feamster, director and general counsel for the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions, did not return phone and email messages seeking comment from AP. But in court filings, Feamster cited the seriousness of the charge as well as Hamilton-Smith's acknowledgement of sexual addiction and "destructive and harmful behaviors when it comes to sex and sexuality." Also, law school students are warned early in their legal education that behavioral issues could exclude them from being admitted to the bar, Feamster wrote.

Hamilton-Smith "was aware that he might be allowed into this profession," Feamster wrote.

For the justices, the nature of the crime defines someone lacking in the "requisite character and fitness" to be admitted to the bar.

"Indeed, our certification could significantly mislead the public into believing that we vouch for (Hamilton-Smith's) good character," Minton wrote. "Consequently, a client's subsequent discovery of the registry listing could then justifiably lead him to question the value of this court's certification of the good character of those who are permitted to take the bar examination." ..Source.. by BRETT BARROUQUERE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender registration prompts camping closure

9-18-2013 Kentucky:

ASHLAND, Ky. (AP) - A sex offender registering his home address as an Ashland park prompted city officials to ban overnight camping at all city parks.

The Independent reported (http://bit.ly/1ePv250 ) that the Ashland City Commissioners voted unanimously Thursday to give initial approval to prohibit overnight camping without prior special permission in city parks. The amended ordinances will need final approval to become law.

Ashland Police Chief Rob Ratliff says the move was prompted in part by a sex offender who had listed his address on the Kentucky State Police registry as Ashland's Riverfront Park.

Ratliff said the man was not the only individual spending the night in city parks.

Ashland Parks and Recreation Director Sean Murray said he felt the change was in the best interest of citizens and Ashland parks. ..Source.. by FOX19.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Nature of sex crimes limits registry's effectiveness

The farce in the theory is, those registered are only at the address for a few hours of the day and then are sleeping. How does knowing where they sleep protect anyone?

7-21-2013 Kentucky:

While sex offender registries do inform public about who might be living nearby, they don't warn people against more likely threat — the potential offender who is already in their lives

Sex offender registries were created as a response to several heinous crimes where the victim was attacked by an offender who had served time in prison and been released without the public's knowledge. The theory behind registries is that when people know where a convicted offender lives, they can take precautions to keep themselves and their families safe.

Sex offenders can potentially pose a threat; according to the head of sex offender treatment programs with the Kentucky Department of Corrections, recidivism rates for offenders can range between 7 and 14 percent — although recidivism rates are lower with inmates who have successfully completed counseling.

But while sex offender registries do inform the public about who might be living nearby, they don't (and can't) warn people against the more likely threat — the potential offender who is already in their lives. Most sexual assaults and instances of child sexual abuse are committed not by strangers, but by someone known to the victim.

But sex offender registries can provide a service. Aside from highlighting known offenders in the area, registries can be used as investigative tools for law enforcement in some instances. Child advocates say registries should be used by parents to know who is attempting to establish a relationship with their children — and as tools to teach children about how to establish boundaries against potential predators.

What is the registry?

The sex offender registry was formed through several laws — "Megan's Law" is the perhaps the best-known — that established tracking systems for convicted sex offenders and state and federal public notification systems of where convicted offenders reside. The goal of public notification systems such as Kentucky's sex offender registry website, is to provide information about residences of convicted sex offenders so, if people choose, they can monitor who they and their families interact with in their neighborhoods

Almost all sex-related crimes in Kentucky require a convicted person to be placed on the sex offender registry. All classifications of rapes and sexual abuse, incest, sodomy and first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor (illegal sex act) are included in the registry. People convicted of sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor, are not required to register.

In Kentucky, people convicted of sexual offenses that fall under the registration requirement are ordered to register either for 20 years or for life. Any change of address in that time period must be reported to the registry, which is maintained by the Kentucky State Police. Failure to inform the registry of an address change is a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

In addition to the address notification, the registry places prohibitions on where a convicted sex offender can live, if the person was convicted after 2006. For example, the registry forbids a convicted sex offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day care center. The registry does not prevent church attendance — although the Daviess County Commonwealth's Attorney's office does get calls from ministers who are unsure of the law.

"I get calls from churches about registered sex offenders — if they're allowed to go to church there," said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Van Meter, who prosecutes most of the sexual abuse cases in Daviess County.

Does the registry prevent sex offenses?

The effectiveness of the sex offender registry as prevention tool is hard to determine, because it's impossible to prove a negative. If an offender lives in a neighborhood for 20 years and does not commit a new offense, is it because the public was informed about the offender via the registry, that the registry had a deterrent effect on the offender, or that the offender benefited from counseling while incarcerated?

A 2001 study published in the University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics found there were fewer new offenses among convicted sex offenders when they were required to register with police departments, but their addresses were not posted on a publicly accessible website. The study, which used data from 15 states over a 10-year period, found new crimes by convicted offenders were reduced through better police monitoring of offenders.

On the other hand, the same study found making sex offender registries accessible to the public might increase the chance a person on the registry reoffends, because "when their information is made public ... the associated psychological, social and financial costs (of being included on the registry) make a crime-free life relatively less desirable."

While officials say the registries have some use, they are geared more toward helping a person investigate and take precautions against people they do not know. Incidents of sexual assault where the perpetrator was a stranger to the victim certainly do occur, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the perpetrator is someone the victim knows.

"I very rarely have what I'd term a stranger rape where the victim does not know the defendant," Van Meter said. "I do have those, but the majority ... are well-known" to the victim, Van Meter said.

"The registry does not prevent that," Van Meter said. "The registry would be more appropriate to the stranger situation, but at least 95 percent (of incidents) are not the stranger" variety, he said.

Registries might work as a deterrent to potential first-time offenders, Van Meter said.

"The knowledge of, if you commit a sex crime you're going to be on the registry and be a social pariah, I believe that is a deterrent," Van Meter said.

A study by University of Michigan professor J.J. Prescott reached a similar conclusion. Prescott estimated that the stigma of being on the registry deters 1.17 crimes per 100,000 people.

Others were not so sure; Dr James Van Nort, head of sex offender treatment programs for the Kentucky Department of Corrections, said he doubted that the anxiety of appearing on a registry deterred many sexual offenses.

"I would think going to prison would be more of a deterrent than being on a sex offender registry," Van Nort said.

Van Meter said that defendants think that being required to register was an additional punishment.

"Often times, the defendant will (offer to) accept a higher term of years in prison rather than register as a sex offender," Van Meter said."I believe it's considered a punishment by the victims as well — 99 percent of the time, that's a requirement (of the plea agreement). They want that registration."

How law enforcement use the registry

As a law enforcement tool, the sex offender registry does have some uses. Detective Brandon Sims with the Owensboro Police Department said detectives use the registry when they receive a complaint that a person convicted of a sexual offense is not living at the address on the registry.

"Part of my job as a juvenile detective is, if complaints are made against people (for noncompliance with the registry), myself and the other detectives look into that, which happens more often than people might think," Sims said.

In cases of sexual abuse, detectives do not need to consult the registry, because detectives already have access to a suspect's criminal history — such as whether or not they're a registered sex offender, Sims said. But detectives have used the registry to investigate other crimes.

"I know one instance where a detective was investigating a theft —we knew (the suspect) was a sex offender," so consulting the registry for the suspect's address gave detectives "a starting point on where to look," Sims said.

Detective Morgan Palmiter with the Daviess County Sheriff's Department said the registry has been used to solve reports of sexual abuse. In one case, a victim was able to identify her attacker by looking through the sex offender registry.

Like the police department, the sheriff's department also investigates complaints that a person in not living where they are listed on the registry, or is living within 1,000 feet of a school or day care center.

"There are times I myself check (the registry for the) area where I live, for my and my family's benefit," Palmiter said.

Educational tool

Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law and the Crime Prevention Center, a New York nonprofit organization, said the registry is important and people can use it to take precautions against potential predators in their area.

In addition, parents should use information from the registry, in an age-appropriate way, to educate their children about issues such as body privacy, boundaries and how to tell when someone behaves in a inappropriate way toward them, Ahearn said.

"What you want to be really careful about is not exposing (young children) to too much information," Ahearn said "We want to educate kids on circumstances and behavior that makes them feel uncomfortable and empower them to tell someone."

Sex offenders who target children will "groom" both the potential victim and the victim's parents by increasingly violating boundaries, Ahearn said.

"What parents need to look out for is if someone wants to spend more time with your children than with you," Ahearn said. "We teach parents they need to be careful about the role they let others play in their child's life —there's no reason someone should be offering to take your child along" to events, Ahearn said.

Parents should beware of people who give children gifts, Ahearn said. With teens, a predator will try to "conquer and divide" the teen from his or her parents, by telling the teen that their parents are being to harsh and limiting the teen's freedom, Ahearn said.

"A sexual predator seduces a child the same way they seduce an adult," Ahrean said. What's important is setting boundaries with people and enforcing them; for example, if someone offers a child a gift, the parent should accept the gift for them — which teaches the child not to accept gifts without the parent's permission, Ahearn said.

"They're developing a relationship (with gifts), and that relationship is not known to the parent," Ahearn said. "If you want to protect your child from sexual predators, you have to set out rules" and not let people push you into allowing them to interact with your child in a way you find uncomfortable, Ahearn said.

"One of (our) 10 rules is, ‘I wouldn't be too polite' " about protecting boundaries, Ahearn said. ..Source.. by James Mayse

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky Voices: Many reasons sex offenders not welcome in churches

The author of this article ought to know the research he quotes, and have read it too. The research he quotes is of folks who HAVE BEEN civilly committed and then released. Which is not the average registrant we would see in the community. The 2008 Wall Street article ought to be read in its proper context.

6-17-2013 Kentucky:

James Robert Ross, who described himself as a marriage-and-family therapist and as a "professional credentialed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to assess and treat sex offenders," berated his church leaders for not welcoming sex offenders and attempted to argue how wrong they were.

There's no intention here to play down the need of a convicted/released child molester for a strong spiritual grounding, but the church does not guarantee that. Ross would do well to deal with his client in Christian ministry one-on-one, just as Jesus did.

Expecting his church, which he did not name, to see things his way is from a practical standpoint a reach too far. The parents in that church have a common-sense approach and understand the law even mandates where a registered offender may or may not live or travel.

The initial problem leading to incarceration is bad enough, but the rate of recidivism is worse. A 2008 Wall Street Journal article quoted a recidivism rate of 52 percent, suggested in a widely published report by Dr. Dennis Doren, evaluation director at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wis.

In a Canadian study in the 1990s, the rate was set at 42 percent for offenders released 1958 to 1974, with 10 percent of the repeat crimes occurring 10 to 31 years after release. This long-term study in a relatively homogeneous population shows that child molestation capability may be a latent threat for decades.

Ross wrote that he had never heard of a child being abused in a church by a registered offender. Of course not. How many registered offenders go to church in the first place? Ross said the church's decision was based on either ignorance, irrational fear or both.

This is the kind of arrogance expected in the warm-fuzzy politically correct craze of today, in which nothing is either right or wrong, with the hoi polloi too dumb to understand their betters.

Ross made it clear that an offender attending church would be accompanied by "another responsible adult." That just about says it all. That's like saying that a released shoplifter or murderer couldn't attend church unless chaperoned by a policeman. Such is not the case, of course, and points up the need to take extensive measures to protect the most vulnerable — the children — in church and everywhere else.

Finally, Ross brings out the big gun, to wit, "What would Jesus do?" After all, sinners are to be welcomed in church, according to Christ.

But as a clinician, Ross deals with sick people. Would someone with smallpox be expected in church?

Should children be exposed to someone sick (or evil) enough to violate a child? Most folks probably think not, maybe about 99.99 percent of them. In any case, Jesus was not the wimp the PC crowd prefers. He made a whip and used it on the backs of people violating the temple and drove them out, not in. Later, shortly before he was crucified, he told his disciples to arm themselves.

So, does the whole column boil down to a disgruntled church member not getting his way? Who knows. But plain common sense and decency indicate that Ross' church deserved better than his condemnation of it. ..Source.. by Jim Clark

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Fayette sheriff investigating whether sex offenders were tipped to federal sweep

Surprise, surprise, but no surprise... So what, if the intent of checking is to make sure they are in compliance, and if they were tipped off, and if that caused them to be in compliance, whats the problem? Humm, it sounds like if they knew when you were coming, then compliance numbers would be better. Police do not seem to get the psychology behind compliance, its more important to scare the crap out of registrants, their families and neighbors.

1-22-2012 Kentucky:

The Office of the Fayette County Sheriff said it is conducting an internal inquiry into reports that deputies gave several sex offenders advance warning about a federal sweep last month.

The sheriff's office acknowledged the inquiry last week after the Herald-Leader filed an open-records request for Lexington Division of Police memos that detailed the allegations.

Jennifer Miller, spokeswoman for the sheriff's office, said she couldn't provide specific details about the inquiry until it was complete. She said the department was hopeful that the inquiry wouldn't take long.

According to the police documents, at least five Lexington police detectives assisting the U.S. Marshals Service in the compliance checks heard convicted sex offenders say they had been tipped off that the checks would occur in the early part of the week of Dec. 5.

"One of the offenders who thought we would be coming on the previous day went as far as to leave a note on the door for the (Marshals) service advising them they had to go to the store for food and would return shortly," one of the reports said.

The two-day sweep in Fayette County, called "Operation Bluegrass Corral," occurred Dec. 6 and Dec. 7 and was organized by the U.S. Marshals Service. The operation — carried out by Lexington police, sheriff's deputies, state police, FBI agents and the state probation and parole office — was intended to make sure that 262 convicted sex offenders were complying with housing and federal and state guidelines.

Lexington police accumulated several pages of documents, but city spokeswoman Susan Straub said it was not a criminal investigation of the sheriff's office.

The reports were prepared at the request of city Public Safety Commissioner Clay Mason, a former FBI special agent, because the issue was brought to him by former colleagues from the FBI, the Office of the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Marshals Service.

"There was discussion about some type of inquiry from the U.S. Attorney's office," Mason said, adding that the police reports were prepared in case a federal inquiry was launched.

Alerting sex offenders to a routine check does not appear to be a criminal offense, but officials say it's a problem.

"Personally, yes, I am concerned," U.S. Marshal Loren "Squirrel" Carl said Thursday. "I think it would concern any law enforcement agencies, specifically if sex offenders were tipped off."

During sweeps such as Operation Bluegrass Corral, officers check the addresses of convicted sex offenders to make sure they are living at their listed residences. Offenders who are on probation or parole are subject to a more extensive search of their homes by probation and parole officers, Carl said.

Compliance checks routinely turn up evidence of crimes, he said. During Operation Bluegrass Corral, one offender was arrested for having child pornography on his computer. In two other cases, which were referred to investigators with social services, children were present in homes where a registered sex offender lived.

Giving sex offenders advance warning about an upcoming check could give them time to delete pornographic images or send a child to stay with a relative or friend, Carl said.

In addition, he said, in previous compliance checks, marshals had found evidence of other crimes, such as drugs and guns.

"If you tip somebody off to the check, they're going to get rid of that," Carl said.

The documents

Included in the documents released to the Herald-Leader by the city was a letter Sheriff Kathy Witt sent to Police Chief Ronnie Bastin in which Witt asked the chief not to release the records.

"These documents, in and of themselves, have caused our office to begin an internal inquiry," the letter said. "Since the inquiry is a direct and sole result of these documents, I would ask that no one from your staff release these documents to any outside parties."

The city released the records, but its law department redacted the identities of the sheriff's deputies and the names and addresses of registered sex offenders.

The documents included eight reports from detectives who participated in the sweep.

Three detectives gave specific instances of sex offenders who said they were told about the compliance checks by deputies. Three other detectives said they did not encounter any sex offenders who were tipped off to the compliance checks.

Reports from two other detectives, David Flannery and Aundria Burkhart, were more vague. Flannery said he overheard a sex offender who said he knew the compliance checks were coming, but the offender did not specify who told him, and Flannery assumed that it was an attorney or probation officer.

Burkhart said she recalled speaking with multiple sex offenders who said a sheriff's deputy had told them about the upcoming checks, but she could not remember which offenders.

Federal checks happen intermittently, but a dedicated sheriff's task force performs daily checks on sex offenders. According to the documents, sex offenders said they had been warned by deputies during compliance checks a few days to a week ahead of the federal sweep.

A report by Detective Trevor Welch said three of four offenders living on one street "knew we were coming because they were told by a sheriff's deputy a couple days prior to our assignment."

The element of surprise

Spokesmen from the FBI headquarters in Louisville and the U.S. Attorney's office in Lexington said internal policies prevented them from confirming or denying whether they were investigating the matter, or from clarifying laws as they relate to specific cases. Carl also said he could not comment on any potential investigation.

Carl and David Beyer, former legal counsel for the FBI in Louisville, said law enforcement agencies typically don't warn sex offenders or people involved in other types of investigations to pending arrests, checks or searches because it could give the offenders time to "hurriedly destroy evidence" and it could put officer safety at risk.

"Every time we go out, we're in harm's way. That's our job and we know that," Carl said. "But if someone tips a convicted felon off ... they're prepared where we're caught off guard."

At a news conference announcing the completion of the sweep on Dec. 20, Witt said that no sheriff's deputies had alerted offenders to the sweep. She said questions from a Herald-Leader reporter were the first she had heard of the allegations.

"They would never do that. They would absolutely never do that," she said at the time. "In fact, I am shocked, because I have never heard that."

Miller said Wednesday that the sheriff's office had "no knowledge, no hint" at the time that the allegations existed.

During last month's news conference, Witt and Carl agreed that the element of surprise was instrumental to making sure sex offenders were compliant.

"It should be a surprise. It needs to be a surprise," Carl said. "We don't want them to know we're coming." ..Source.. by Josh Kegley

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Police perform compliance checks on hundreds of sex offenders

Note how the Marshals consider those in jail as "Out of Compliance." To often statistics are misconstrued by officials. SORNA actually exempts anyone in jail from any registration responsibilities. Also, note comment about offenders needing welfare.

9-13-2011 Kentucky:

Operation Cumberland Valley took place in seven Kentucky counties in late August. Police say more than 30 sex offenders were found to be non-compliant.

U.S. Marshals and police say they're focused on making sure people who committed sex crimes are behaving once they get out of prison.

That was the purpose behind a recent door to door check of sex offenders in southern Kentucky.

Out of 316 sex offender compliance checks for Operation Cumberland Valley, police say more than 30 sex offenders were found to be non-compliant, and four are now considered fugitives.

Operation Cumberland Valley took place on August 30 and 31, and involved U.S. Marshals and police from seven counties, including Pulaski and Laurel.

During a news conference Tuesday to announce the results, federal officials said more than 20 sex offenders were non-compliant, one was found with weapons, one turned out to be a fugitive wanted out of Indiana, and several were actually in jail on other crimes.

Officials say they still couldn't find four other sex offenders, who are now considered fugitives.

"The four.. two are move-ins from other states," Calvin Whitis of the U.S. Marshal's office said. "These sex offenders so many times are so mobile, they move from state to state to state."

Also this morning, officials said a large number of sex offenders from other states were found living in Kentucky.

U.S. Marshals say for whatever reason, it's easier for them to get on welfare in Kentucky than other states.

The U.S. Marshals service estimates nationwide, approximately 10 percent of registered sex offenders are non-compliant. ..Source.. by WKYT27News.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Attorney: Man Dealing With Poison Ivy, Not Masturbating

Should this attorney be convicted? Isn't this the kind of attorney every defendant dreams of?

11-21-2010 Kentucky:

Charles Licktieg Enters Not Guilty Plea In Case

LAGRANGE, Ky. -- A sex offender treatment supervisor for a Kentucky prison has been charged with indecent exposure.

Charles Lickteig II, 48, is now on administrative leave from the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange.

According to court records, Lickteig had stopped his vehicle at Lime Kiln Lane and U.S. 42 when a woman pulled up beside him. She claimed Lickteig's genitals were exposed and he was masturbating. She also said Lickteig looked at her and he knew she saw him.

Court records also said the woman later saw Lickteig at the same intersection and was able to get the license plate number to Lickteig's car and called police.

Licktieg was arrested on Oct. 14 and pleaded not guilty to second-degree indecent exposure.

Lickteig's attorney, Alex Dathorne, said Lickteig was also a police officer for eight years.

"So he's quite in tune with the seriousness of these allegations and also the embarrassment that goes with simply making the allegations," Dathorne said.

Dathorne said there may be a reasonable explanation for what is now a very serious charge.

"Sometimes, people who view things have a different perception as to perhaps what was actually occurring," said Dathorne.

Dathorne said his client was not sexually gratifying himself, but instead, Lickteig was trying to deal with a severe case of poison ivy.

"He's taking the charge, albeit a misdemeanor, extremely serious," Dathorne said.

His criminal case, more than a month after the incident, remains unresolved.

"If a resolution can be reached, then we will do so. If not, then it may be something we may very well have to resolve by way of a jury trial," Dathorne said.

A spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Corrections said Lickteig has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of his criminal case.

Lickteig has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Nov. 30 in Jefferson County District Court. No trial date has been set. ..Source.. by Andy Alcock/WLKY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Audit finds sex offenders living in homes for state-protected children

A couple of problems with this audit, first, only ONE of the matching addresses was actually verified to be the home of a RSO; and second, they failed to check to see if the RSOs were juvenile RSOs placed in the foster settings. One other point, there was no check to see if the address of licensed care setting was current, they could have moved since their license was issued.

10-1-2010 Kentucky:

A state audit released Thursday found 30 matches when comparing the addresses of Kentucky's registered sex offenders to the addresses of state-regulated child-care centers or homes.

In its response to state Auditor Crit Luallen, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services confirmed that sex offenders on Kentucky's registry lived in 12 of the 30 homes. The cabinet could not determine the residency status of eight sex offenders. And they found that 10 others were not living at the addresses identified, according to the audit.

Luallen's audit recommended that the cabinet start cross-checking the addresses of registered sex offenders with homes the state regulates.

Cabinet officials said Thursday they would immediately implement that procedure, checking at the time of application and when renewals or reassessments occur. Current procedures include criminal background checks for people participating in state-supported programs, but state law does not require cabinet officials to match the addresses with those on the sex-offender registry.

"The bottom line is that any time the state is responsible for the safety and security of children, we have to be sure that we are using every possible tool to guarantee that those children are secure," Luallen said in an interview Thursday.

Auditors twice compared the addresses — in June 2009 and in March 2010 — of registered sex offenders with the addresses of foster or adoptive homes, homes involved in kinship care — when relatives have temporary custody of a child — and in-home child-care providers who are registered by the state.

Children were not living at the majority of the homes at the same time as sex offenders, cabinet officials said in response to the audit.

If children were in homes with sex offenders, cabinet officials said, they took immediate action after seeing the audit.

As a result of the audit, two foster homes and seven in-home child-care providers have been closed, Department for Community Based Services Commissioner Patricia Wilson said in an interview Thursday.

Additionally, Wilson said the department took action involving two kinship-care homes. She would not discuss the specifics, citing confidentiality laws.

The cabinet has assured the well-being of all children in the cases, Wilson said.

"We do not believe that those children were harmed, and they are currently safe," she said.

Wilson said she could not say where the homes were located because of state and federal confidentiality laws.

The audit found that the Department for Community Based Services' initial response to the investigation's findings was deficient in determining whether a sex offender lived at a specific address. In every case but one, the state used food-stamp or driver's-license records instead of making home visits.

Although at least 21 of the 30 sex offenders with matched addresses were convicted of crimes against children under the age of 15, the initial cabinet review process did not include steps to make a definite determination whether the sex offender was or had been living at the matched addresses, the audit said.

"We had serious concerns about the cabinet's initial response," Luallen said Thursday. "During the first period of response over the last year or so, there were a number of the matches that were not followed up on ... . The cabinet felt that it was constrained in its existing legal authority. We thought they had the latitude to do more."

When the audit was reviewed at higher levels of management in the cabinet, the response was significant, and the end result has been positive, Luallen said.

The audit calls for stronger controls, such as a mandatory home visit by the state in cases when paperwork cannot determine whether a sex offender lives at an address. Since the audit, the cabinet has made home visits to all addresses matched in the audit, according to a news release from Luallen's office.

"The use of the sex offender registry will be a powerful additional aid to our staff to assure that sex offenders' whereabouts are known to assure that children are being cared for in safe settings," department commissioner Wilson said in her response to the audit.

Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement issued by the cabinet that he was "grateful" for the audit.

"My administration is committed to keeping our children safe, and this tool will help us lead the nation in these efforts," Beshear said.

As a result of the audit, the cabinet is working with Kentucky State Police to identify ways to streamline the sex offender registry match process to make it easier to compare addresses, officials said Thursday.

Also, a flier advertising the availability of the sex offender registry will be provided to all parents who apply for and are approved for child-care subsidies.

The audit also found that the cabinet's address records for 3,266 regulated child-care providers did not indicate a physical location. Wilson said physical addresses were in other cabinet files and they knew where the children were, but the physical addresses might differ from mailing addresses and might not appear on databases.

Wilson said the cabinet would explore ways to ensure that physical addresses and mailing addresses are recorded for those receiving benefit payments.
..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ky. Law Shields Some Sex Offenders From Registries

In all states juveniles are handled differently in the criminal justice system. However, this article suggests, if a juvenile is convicted of a sex offense, then they must be handled like an adult. What happened to reviewing the facts of a case before DECLARING the person GUILTY, which is exactly what is being suggested here. Further, simply being required to register and placed on the public registry DOES NOT automatically mean the person is dangerous, again suggested in this article.

9-20-2010 Kentucky:

(LOUISVILLE) -- Sex offenders -- their crimes are heinous, and the chances they will strike again are disturbingly high. Usually, sex offender registries let you know who to look out for. But WAVE 3 Investigator Eric Flack has uncovered one group of sex offenders whose identities are protected. In fact, someone from this list could be living right next door, and you would never know.

Sex offenders are seen as such a threat, such a danger to you and your children, websites allow you to find out where they are, right down to the street number.

But there is a group of sex offenders hidden from the public. A group of rapists, pedophiles and child molesters, that get special protection from the law.

Juvenile sex offenders.

Bridget Skaggs Brown, Commissioner of the Department of Juvenile Justice, says Kentucky's laws for Juvenile sex offenders are much less strict than the adult offenders.

In Kentucky, there are at least 232 sex offenders under the age of 18, and 38 in Louisville Metro and the surrounding areas. But because they are juveniles, their trials and records are closed to the public. All convictions are kept secret.

"People could be living next door to a sex offender, and have small children, and they won't know that," Brown said in an exclusive interview with WAVE 3.

She went on to say that problems in the system go even deeper than that. Under current Kentucky law, the maximum sentence a juvenile sex offender can receive is just three years in a youth detention center.

"That's not much," Brown admitted.

Three years for crimes that can carry sentences of up to life in prison for adults.

In 1993, Jeremy Gipson was 15 when he was convicted of raping a 7-year-old boy in Louisville. But secrecy laws kept Gipson's past hidden from everyone, including the parents of 12-year-old Jessica Thornsberry.

Two years after his rape conviction, when he was 17, Gipson raped, sodomized and strangled young Jessica, then dumped her body in Iroquois Park.

Unaware of his dark secret, Jessica's family willingly let her go to Gipson's home the night of the murder.

"Oh yeah, we're all bitter about it," said Jessica's grandmother, Louise Hume, in a 1998 interview. "And it doesn't get any easier."

Driven by cases like Jessica's, the Kentucky Coalition Against Sexual Assaults, a task force co-chaired by Brown, wants to strengthen the state's laws for juvenile sex offenders.

The proposal includes provisions to:

•Eliminate the 3-year limit on sentencing and treatment.

•Automatically waive the most serious cases to adult court.

•Adding juveniles convicted of the most serious sex crimes to the public sex offender registry.

The third provision is raising controversy, and Dr. Charles Thomas, a psychiatrist who treats sex offenders, has serious concerns.

"I really have a strong objection to treating youth who offended as adults," Dr. Thomas said.

He says while teens are capable of committing the same acts as adults, they are often unable to understand the seriousness and consequences of their crimes. Treat juvenile sex offenders like adults, he says, and you lose any chance to rehabilitate them.

"If you label youth who sexually offend with that scarlet letter, and if they are permanently stigmatized for the rest of their life with that, they are not going to have the opportunity to re-integrate back into society," Thomas said.

The debate hits home for Steve and Susie Hiland of Germantown.

"Anytime that there is somebody out there that can hurt your kids, that you don't know about, you're at a disadvantage," Susie said.

With four young kids, the Hilands say they are torn between the need to protect their own, and the need to preserve laws protecting juvenile sex offenders.

"Hopefully, most juveniles given a second chance, once they become adults, wont be recidivists," Steve said.

But those calling for change say: history proves otherwise.

"Just because they're a juvenile, doesn't mean they're not dangerous," said Brown.

The Kentucky legislature will have to vote on and pass any changes to the state's juvenile sex offender laws. That debate is expected to take place next year.

In 2003, Indiana changed its laws, and now puts juveniles convicted of sex offenses on its sex offender registry. Other states across the nation have done the same. ..Source.. Eric Flack

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky's Attorney General's Petition to the U.S. Supreme court on Residency Laws - DENIED

3-8-2010 Washington DC:

Posted at the US Supreme court, this date, on the docket for Kentucky v. Baker (09-775) is a note that the high court has DENIED the Kentucky AG's Petition.

It is not suprising that the petition was denied since it was based on the personal opinion of one person and not a mass of Kentucky courts in disagreement with each other.

Such means that Kentucky's residency laws -for the moment- will not be applied retroactively to those convicted before the date of enactment of the residency laws.

Now, what action will this cause in the legislature?

eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offender Residency Laws: Getting loser to Being Heard in U.S. Supreme court

Click Picture for Kentucky Update

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender's probation revoked

This is clear proof that sex offenders will not receive justice in a court of law. This man violated nothing, in fact, if the facts of the article are correct, he went beyond what was necessary to stay compliant. He was railroaded here!

1-6-2010 Kentucky:

COVINGTON - A judge revoked a registered sex offender's probation Tuesday after authorities said he broke his curfew on Halloween, communicated with convicted felons and purchased an inappropriate movie.

Garry R. Unthank, 27, of Independence must now serve the remainder of his five-year sentence. He will be eligible to appear before the parole board after serving 15 percent of that time.

Unthank already served six months after pleading guilty May 2006 to third-degree rape. He had sex with a 15-year-old girl he coached in basketball at Community Christian Academy in Independence.

Kenton Circuit Judge Patricia Summe had declined to revoke Unthank's probation on two prior occasions, once after he admitted smoking marijuana.

He got in trouble with authorities again when he failed to answer his door during a mandatory curfew for some sex offenders on Halloween.

Unthank's attorney, Robert Lotz, said his client was home but didn't think he was allowed to answer the door. Lotz produced mobile phone records that showed his client called the probation office within a couple of minutes of the knock on his door. Unthank said he was calling to ask whether he should answer the door but it was after hours and no one answered the phone.

While Unthank's probation agreement states he isn't to answer the door on Halloween, it also states he is to allow probation and parole officers into his home for spot checks on that day.

During a subsequent search of Unthank's home, a probation officer found two open envelopes from convicted felons. Authorities said that proved he had violated probation by communicating with felons. Lotz said they were unsolicited letters.

Also found during the search was the movie "Fired Up!," a comedy about two high school boys who ditch football camp for cheerleader camp.

Authorities said Unthank's probation banned him from owning children's movies or sexually explicit movies. It was rated PG-13 but Unthank purchased the non-rated version at Wal-Mart.

Unthank had been on home incarceration with an ankle bracelet pending the outcome of the revocation hearing. He was locked up in the Kenton County jail after the ruling. ..Source.. Jim Hannah

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky Asks Supreme Court To Review Sex Offender Law

See earlier stories: Here -and- Here -and- Here -and- HERE -and- Here -and- Here

12-23-2009 Kentucky:

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend the Kentucky Supreme Court's recent ruling which loosened restrictions on where convicted sex offenders may live.

Kentucky's high court ruled in October that the state's sex offender law, passed in 2006, was unconstitutional because it also applied to sex offenders whose convictions predated the law's enactment. The state high court recently denied Conway's request to suspend its own ruling while he appeals to the federal Supreme Court.

The law barred sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and other places where children congregate.

Kentucky State Police estimate about 5,500 offenders were affected by the law. ..Source.. WLKY.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Rick Pitino's accuser charged with false rape claim

12-8-2009 Kentucky:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- The woman accused of trying to extort money from Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino was charged Wednesday with retaliating against the coach by falsely claiming he raped her.

A federal grand jury in Louisville brought four new criminal charges against Karen Cunagin Sypher, including retaliation against a witness.
The FBI, Louisville police and prosecutors have said there was no basis for her rape allegations. She said the coach raped her in a criminal complaint filed after she was indicted in May on charges of trying to extort money from Pitino.

The grand jury also added two intent to extort charges and a second charge of lying to the FBI.

The sordid case became public in April when Pitino said he had told the FBI that someone had tried to extort money from him. Weeks later came the first indictment against Sypher.

Sypher has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of trying to extort money from Pitino and lying to the FBI. She is accused of demanding college tuition for her children, her house to be paid off and $10 million.

The coach subsequently told police that he had a consensual sexual encounter with Sypher in 2003.

A call to Sypher's attorney, James Earhart, was not immediately returned on Wednesday. Sports information director Kenny Klein referred questions to Pitino's attorney, Steve Pence. Pence did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

The new indictment adds allegations that Sypher had someone call Pitino on March 6 as part of an extortion plot. The indictment also alleges that Sypher had a threat mailed to Pitino on March 22.

The original indictment alleged that Sypher prompted threatening calls to on Feb. 26 and 28. The new indictment repeats that allegation.

The retaliation charge stems from a report Sypher filed with Louisville police in June. The indictment says Sypher made the charge knowing it would be harmful to Pitino.

The new lying to the FBI charge centers on statements attributed to Sypher that her relationship with a subject of the extortion probe was "strictly business." The grand jury charged that Sypher had an "intimate personal relationship" with the person.

Sypher's longtime friend, Lester Goetzinger, agreed to testify against her. In exchange, prosecutors agreed to clear his record of charges against him.

Prosecutors said Goetzinger left three voice mail messages on Pitino's cell phone between Feb. 26 and Feb. 28 at Sypher's request. Goetzinger's attorney, John Berry of Louisville, has said Sypher traded sexual favors in exchange for the calls. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...