Officer: NH sex assault bill would shield pedophiles

1-19-17 New Hampshire:

CONCORD - New Hampshire lawmakers are considering a sexual assault bill that police and prosecutors warn would protect pedophiles and sexual predators but proponents say would prevent wrongful convictions.

The bill up for a hearing Tuesday would require victims of sexual assault to corroborate their testimony if the defendant has no prior related conviction. Existing law in New Hampshire and most other states doesn't require corroboration, and the bill doesn't define what counts as corroboration.

"It's really nothing short of the nation's first pedophile protection act," Sgt. Sean Ford of the Concord Police Department said.

Thirty six states don't require corroboration and most of the remaining states that do require it in limited circumstances, said Jennifer Long, chief executive officer of AEquitas, a group that provides resources for prosecutors on violence against women.

Opponents of the bill wore pink stickers that said "I believe victims," while supporters wore "Justice for Foad" tags, a reference to a New Hampshire psychotherapist who was convicted last year of molesting an underage client.

Republican Rep. William Marsh filed the bill after learning about Foad Afshar's case, now on appeal. Afshar maintains his innocence and several supporters who testified on behalf of the bill said they believe him.

Other supporters said the change will ensure doctors, teachers and others who deal with children can do their jobs without fear of being accused of assault and wrongly convicted.

"If the person charged is innocent, they will have little ability to defend themselves, as the only testimony is that of a young child who may not be able to provide a reliable story," Marsh said.

But opponents argue the change would silence victims, particularly children, and leave predators on the street. Experts said sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes and children typically come forward years after the assault, meaning potential evidence may no longer be available. They said that often times repeat offenders are not immediately convicted because children don't come forward.

"This is telling us that children will be turned away because they don't have a witness or DNA to their crimes. How sick is that? What message is this sending?" said a New Hampshire victim of sexual assault named Angie who testified only using her first name.

Prosecutors and police said investigators always search for evidence when building cases and often present it at trial. But they also said evidence doesn't exist in some child sexual assault cases and that the change would make it harder to pursue those cases. State statutes for other criminal offenses don't specifically require a victim's testimony to be corroborated for prosecution. They said requiring testimony only when a defendant does not have a prior conviction would set up a potentially unconstitutional two-tiered system for justice.

Marsh, the bill's sponsor, said corroboration could include an eye witness, physical evidence such as photographs or behavioral change in the child. But none of that is spelled out in the bill.

New Hampshire has in recent years passed a number of bills to update and strengthen its domestic and sexual violence laws.

"I truly believe in my heart that this is a step backward," former state Sen. David Boutin said. ..Source.. by Kathleen Ronayne Associated Press

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Audit Finds Improvements in N.H.'s Sex Offender Program for Inmates — But More Work Remains

See also: Few sex offenders released from prison on time, audit finds Staff juggles administration of therapy program! Effectively pushing clients past eligibility & out dates. Additionally see July Report: State lies about the huge backlog in the sex offender treatment program by Chris Dornin

11-18-16 New Hampshire:

A state audit finds that the Department of Corrections has successfully cut the time it takes inmates to complete sex offender treatment but there's still more work to do.

For those who’ve committed a sex crime, the state requires inmates to complete a six- to 18-month treatment program before they can seek parole. That population is currently at 654 but at times can be as high as 800 people.

Three years ago, only 16 percent of enrollees completed the program before their potential release date. Friday’s audit shows that number has risen to 88 percent.

Helen Hanks, assistant commission of the Department of Corrections, says the department has been working to improve the efficiency of the program but stresses there is only so much it can control.

“The data also affirmed for us what we have been testifying and sharing is that often times it’s the own individuals’ behavior in our institutions that interferes with enrolling them in a timely manner or even assessing them in a timely manner,” Hanks told lawmakers Friday.

The audit also found that the sex offender treatment program is following recommended practices but suggests the department come up with ways of measuring the program's effectiveness.

The last time the DOC tracked the recidivism rate of N.H. sex offenders was six years ago. Hanks says they'll immediately start monitoring this again. ..Source.. by Paige Sutherland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few sex offenders released from prison on time, audit finds

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Most sexual offenders in the state's prison aren't released when they've served their minimum sentences because they haven't completed a mandatory treatment program.

That's the finding of an audit released Friday on the Department of Corrections' sexual offender treatment program.

Men in the state prison for sexual offenses are required to undergo the treatment plan before seeking parole. Prison reform advocates have argued delays in the program unfairly keep people in prison and cost the state unnecessary money. The audit found delays are caused by inmate behavior and a failure to enroll people in treatment in a timely manner.

Roughly 750 men were in the state prison system for sexually related offenses as of May. Just 14 percent of prisoners included in the audit were released upon reaching their minimum sentences.

"Prisoners are entitled to ask for parole when the minimum sentence is two-thirds expired, and sex offenders never get to take advantage of that," said Chris Dornin, the founder of New Hampshire's Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform.

But lawmakers who heard the audit presentation said it should've focused more on the program's effectiveness at stopping people from re-offending after they leave prison. The audit found the program has no system to measure whether the program is reducing recidivism rates.

"All we're getting here is did they meet the timeline," Republican Rep. Neal Kurk said. "From a legislative point of view that's not the end goal."

Helen Hanks, assistant corrections commissioner, said the department will soon have better data because it is implementing an electronic records system.

The audit found New Hampshire has fewer staff members dedicated to the program than neighboring states with fewer offenders. New Hampshire has five full-time positions dedicated to the program for about 750 people, and not all positions are filled. Vermont, by contrast, has nine employees for 500 inmates.

Data in the audit show the program is getting better at putting inmates into treatment on time. The goal is to assess inmates to see what type of treatment they need 24 months before they are eligible for parole. In fiscal year 2016, 88 percent of inmates were assessed in that timeframe, up from just 16 percent in the three years before the audit began. But only 50 percent of eligible inmates were enrolled in treatment 18 months before reaching their minimum sentences.

Some inmates aren't enrolled on time or are kicked out halfway through the program because of disciplinary issues or refusing to be treated. by AP

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH House considers ban on sex offender residency restrictions

2-12-16 New Hampshire:

HB 1153 would prohibit towns or municipalities in New Hampshire from passing ordinances that restrict where registered sex offenders can reside. The bill is being considered by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday February 17. Currently, there are no state-level restrictions on where sex offenders may live.

Policies typically enacted by towns include barring sex offenders from living within a set distance of a school, day care center or playground.

The NH Civil Liberties Union has successfully challenged such ordinances in New Hampshire in the past, with courts striking down residency restrictions in Dover and Franklin, finding that there was no evidence that the restrictions increased public safety. Several other towns, however, still have residency restrictions in place.

Previous attempts at similar legislation include a 2014 attempt that passed the House but died in the Senate. A 2015 bill died in the House.

Another bill, HB 1390, would explicitly authorize towns to adopt sex offender residency restrictions.

Supporters of banning residency restrictions argue that such ordinances do not, in fact, make children more protected, and that the restrictions can make it very difficult for offenders to find a place to live and work, which increases the chances of recidivism. State police have also stated the laws drive offenders underground, making them more difficult to monitor.

Opponents argue that allowing cities and towns to set conditions on where sex offenders may reside helps protect vulnerable populations, and that towns should retain the right to decide for themselves if such a restriction is appropriate for their community. ..Source.. by LFDA Highlights

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawmakers consider bill to address sex offender registry removals

1-26-16 New Hampshire:

Supreme Court rules that some offenders can petition for removal

CONCORD, N.H. —A landmark New Hampshire Supreme Court decision has opened the door for more than 800 registered sex offenders to petition to be removed from the list.

In March, the court ruled that the lifetime registry requirement for crimes committed before 1994 was "overly punitive" but the ruling left it up to the Legislature to determine the process.

Since that Supreme Court decision, at least five tier-three sex offenders have petitioned to get off the registry list, but their victims have not been notified because a process is still not in place. A bill being considered by lawmakers aims to change that.

"I'm not longer that little girl who's afraid," said a woman who testified before the committee considering the proposal. "I'm here to speak for myself and all victims who are still afraid or who may not even know their offender has the opportunity to go before the court and petition to get off the registry."

The woman, who is not being identified by News 9, said she was molested two or three times a week. She said the assaults went on for years, and the man responsible recently petitioned to get off the sex offender registry.

"I swore I would never let anyone hurt me again, and yet he's here hurting me again," she said.

Senate Bill 468 would establish a process for the petition that includes a risk assessment and requires the court to notify the prosecutor, the victim or the victim's family, and permit those parties to be heard on the petition.

Proponents of the bill reminded lawmakers of the crimes tier-three offenders have been convicted of.

"The offenders are convicted of the most serious crimes: homicides, aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping and any offender convicted of more than two sexual offenses," said Lyn Schollett, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

In the case of the woman who testified, the child rapist fought his legal battle through a lawsuit under the name John Doe, testifying that the lifetime sex offender registry requirement prevented him from applying for subsidized housing.

Proponents said the bill would close a loophole.

"New Hampshire statutes already have provisions on the books for how tier one and tier two, those less serious offenders, go about petitioning the court to be removed," Schollett said. "That process is already laid out very clearly in the law."

John Doe is still on the sex offender registry. A Superior Court judge ruled in December that he must remain on the registry until he can prove he's not a danger to society.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is taking the bill under consideration. ..Source.. by Amy Coveno

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Monadnock legislators propose variety bills for 2016

How we define "vigilantism," the correct way!

1-6-16 New Hampshire:

Two constitutional amendments, prohibiting the use of flame throwers, establishing a registry of people convicted of heroin-related offenses, adding the production of hard cider to a brew pub license, and funding a statewide drug court program are among the bills Monadnock Region legislators have proposed for 2016.

They’ve also signed onto measures dealing with manufactured housing taxes, the minimum wage, abortion, gun control, creating an independent redistricting commission and not allowing the retroactive application of the sex offender registry.

Therefore, a sex offender required to register with the state would register based on the laws in effect at the time of the offense, not the laws currently in effect, according to the proposed legislation.

Rep. Cynthia L. Chase, D-Keene, is the prime sponsor on the bill dealing with the sex offender registry, which fellow Keene Democrat Timothy N. Robertson is co-sponsoring. Robertson has introduced versions of the bill during previous legislative sessions.

Chase said she supports the bill because sex offenders shouldn’t live in fear of being killed by vigilantes. She notes examples of a sex offender who was killed at his home in Keene and a Westmoreland man who was severely beaten for no reason at his home. The man lived near a registered sex offender, Chase said.

Law enforcement officials haven’t said if vigilantes were responsible for incidents, but a New Hampshire group called Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform issued a news release last year claiming that to be the case. ..Continue to other bills.. by Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Prisoner rights advocates push for audit of state’s [prison] sex offender treatment program

11-1-15 New Hampshire:

A group of New Hampshire lawmakers is requesting an audit of the state’s sex offender treatment program to address a purported backlog of inmates awaiting mandatory psychosexual therapy.

Chris Dornin, founder of Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform-New Hampshire, said dozens of incarcerated sex offenders are currently approaching their minimum release dates but will be ineligible for parole because they haven’t yet begun treatment, which can last up to 18 months.

A bill pushed by Dornin’s group calls for an analysis of the “reasons for, fiscal impact, and human impact of the backlog of prisoners currently waiting to take the sex offender treatment program,” during the last five years, according to an early draft.

“We know for sure this wait list includes many scores of prisoners in danger of missing their earliest parole dates,” Dornin said in an email, adding, “Those who stay inside the walls past their minimum sentences cost the state far more than they would in the community.”

The Department of Corrections acknowledged delays in recent years, because of understaffing, but said it is aware of none presently.

“We review the files of all inmates who need sex offender treatment services at least two years prior to their minimum parole date and we put them on a waiting list at that time,” spokesman Jeff Lyons said in an email. “As beds free up, they move into the treatment program. There is no backlog.”

There are 675 incarcerated sex offenders in the state, all but five of whom are men. The treatment program has the capacity for 96 of them.

Many of those hundreds of offenders are serving out long sentences, and Lyons noted that there are many reasons why someone might surpass his or her minimum release date beyond the treatment component, such as behavioral problems or other disciplinary concerns.

Dornin, however, said 59 offenders have reported they are “on track to miss their earliest parole date through no fault of their own.”

“We have the names of many others afraid to let officials know who they are,” he said.

While eligible prisoners must be screened within two years of their minimum release dates, the department is not required to provide them with treatment within that time, according to a 2012 staffing audit by the Legislative Budget Assistant.

That may have costly and dangerous implications, the audit asserted, as some languishing inmates may choose to forgo treatment altogether.

“If (sex offender treatment services) cannot be provided timely, sexual offenders may choose to serve out their maximum sentence, if completing SOTS does not have the potential to reduce their prison term,” it said.

The treatment centers focus on relapse prevention through cognitive behavioral therapy and lasts between six and 18 months, depending on the offender’s needs. Lyons said the program has been understaffed in recent years, but is now fully staffed with five employees – four therapists and one person in charge of screenings and aftercare.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Democratic Rep. James Verschueren, was unavailable for comment last week, but in an email to legislators earlier this month he said a constituent of his in Strafford County was an inmate and had “remained on the waitlist well beyond the time he should have entered the program.”

“He is part of what I am convinced is a large backlog of prisoners denied access to this obligatory treatment in a timely way,” Verschueren wrote.

Cosponsors said they hope a review sheds light on whether potential treatment delays have contributed to prison overcrowding, and if so, what can be done about it.

In the end, however, their legislation may prove unnecessary. Audit requests are usually made directly to a legislative oversight committee and then approved by the Joint Fiscal Committee, rather than through a proposed bill. Rep. Lynne Ober, a Hudson Republican and a member of the oversight committee, said the LBA has begun researching how long it would take to complete the audit and what exactly would be involved.

The committee could take it up later this year or in early 2016, Ober said. ..Source.. by Jeremy Blackman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

850 convicted sex offenders eligible to petition to get off state's criminal offenders registry

11-29-15 New Hampshire:

Approximately 850 convicted sex offenders and offenders against children are eligible to petition to get off the state's criminal offenders registry, after a little-noticed Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.

And that prospect has lawmakers, including Senate Majority leader Jeb Bradley, pushing for changes to state law.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Manchester man whose lawyers, including the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, successfully argued that the state law requiring that he register as a sex offender for life was unconstitutional.

The registry was not created until 1994, seven years after Norman St. Hilaire, whose court case was filed under “John Doe,” pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault against his stepdaughter.

His lawyers argued that lawmakers have amended the registry requirements many times over the years, making them increasingly burdensome. The state Constitution bans retrospective laws that are punitive, they said.

The state Attorney General's Office defended the registry law, arguing that while it might impose additional burdens, it does not increase the criminal punishment for previous convictions. And the state argued that the legislative intent was public protection.

The Supreme Court found that the law did, in fact, have a “punitive effect,” and that the lifetime registration requirement was particularly “excessive.” But the justices did not invalidate the law for individuals previously convicted.

Instead, the court ordered that “John Doe” must be allowed either a court hearing, or administrative hearing with judicial review, to demonstrate that he no longer poses a risk that justifies continued registration. And even if he doesn't prevail at that hearing, he has to be given “some reasonable opportunity” for further hearings while he remains subject to registration.

The court left it up to the Legislature or the Department of Safety, either by law or regulation, to establish the procedures for such hearings. “Unless and until alternative procedures have been established, the superior court shall conduct the hearings required by this opinion,” the order reads.

Trooper 1st Class Rebecca Eder-Linell is the unit commander for the state's Registration of Criminal Offenders, which includes sex offenders and offenders who committed crimes against children. She said there are about 850 offenders on the registry who were convicted in 1993 or earlier.

That's nearly one-third of the approximately 2,800 individuals on the registry.

And that's how many individuals are eligible to petition for removal from the registry as a result of the court order in the “Doe” case.

Request for legislation

Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, has submitted a Legislative Service Request for a measure establishing the process by which offenders convicted before 1994 can petition to be removed.

Bradley said he is working with the attorney general and the New Hampshire Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence on the legislation. He said the voices of victims “should be heard” as part of any process for offenders to ask to be removed from the registry.

“I think that is a very essential part of making sure that we've done everything that we can to protect victims,” he said.

Bradley said he respects the Supreme Court's decision. “And sometimes the court sends a message, if you will, with their decision for the Legislature to step in, and I think that's the circumstance here.”

“We want to protect the victims — and really protect any other future victims — and that should be first and foremost our policy objective,” he said.

Eder-Linell noted there's a distinction between the offenders list that is made public and the registry requirements.

The public list includes offenders whose victims were under 18, or had more than one conviction, she explained.

Proof needed

Under state law, lower-tier offenders can petition to be removed from the public list if they can show it will help in their rehabilitation.

But the Supreme Court order allows offenders convicted before 1994 to petition to be removed from the registration requirement altogether, she said.

And Eder-Linell said there should be a different standard for how those hearings are conducted. “The purpose behind coming off the public list is to help you rehabilitate and be integrated back into society, whereas not having to register at all, you need to show that you're no longer a risk at all to society,” she said.

Amanda Grady Sexton from the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said until lawmakers take action, there are no guidelines for how judges decide whether someone should come off the registry — including whether victims will be notified of pending hearings. “I think that is a grave public safety concern, in addition to being very harmful and counter to what we know of the rights victims have in the criminal justice system,” she said.

Removed from registry

At least two sex offenders already have successfully petitioned to be removed from the registry since the Doe decision.

Cheshire County Attorney D. Chris McLaughlin said a petition was filed in Superior Court there by a man convicted in 1989 of felonious sexual assault against his “too-young girlfriend.” He was 19; she was under 16.

The state did not object, and the man's name was removed from the registry, McLaughlin said.

He agreed there should be “standardized procedures” for courts to consider whether petitions should be granted.

Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway said his office objected to a petition for removal from the registry, filed under a pseudonym. But he said, “A hearing was held, and the order was granted.”

The case went back many years, and the victim could not be located or notified about the hearing, he said.

Asked why his office objected to the petition, Hathaway said, “One, I think there's a public policy that has been articulated by the Legislature that needed to be supported, and two is that it is the defendant's burden to prove that he's not a risk.

“And I am not inclined to assume that the defendant is not a risk.”

Many problems seen

Dr. Scott Hampton, director of Ending the Violence in Dover, has worked with sex offenders for 25 years. He said there are “huge problems” with the current assessment tools used to evaluate the likelihood of recidivism for such offenders.

Hampton likened them to the sort of actuarial assessments used in issuing life or auto insurance policies. “The problem is that victims are not attacked by statistical averages; they're attacked by sex offenders,” he said.

Also, Hampton said, recidivism — getting arrested again for the same crime — is not the same as re-offending.

In his experience, “The ones getting arrested, those are the ones who are ... not clever enough to avoid being detected.”

“We're not looking at the ones that aren't getting re-arrested,” he said.

Best procedure

To best assess whether someone should come off the registry, Hampton said, the state needs to evaluate whether he has truly learned what sexual consent and boundaries mean.

It's critical, Hampton said, to hear from the victim and others who know the offender “on how well they believe this person is able to apply those concepts and how safe they feel around this person.”

For Hampton, it's not about revealing the offender's name in public; it's about giving victims a voice.

“The number one thing that allows sexual violence perpetration to continue is secrecy,” he said. “It's all about secrecy, all about silence, all about people not knowing what's going on.”

There's another issue with the current system, Hampton said: “The problem with a public registry is it creates a false sense of security.”

The truth, he said, is that 80 to 90 percent of sex offenses are committed by someone the victim knows.?He remembers one former client, a middle school music teacher, who volunteered to chaperone a field trip to Washington, D.C., telling parents he'd be a strict watchdog over their kids.

“He had three victims that weekend.” ..Source.. by SHAWNE K. WICKHAM, New Hampshire Sunday News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted sex offender wants off registry 28 years after offense

11-14-15 New Hampshire:

Three months ago, a woman named Dawn was sitting at work in Washington, D.C., when she got a call from an investigator with the Merrimack County Attorney’s office. It was about her adoptive father, a man whom the courts here have come to refer to as “John Doe.”

Doe was convicted three decades ago of molesting Dawn when she was a young teen in Hooksett, once in 1983 at Lambert Park and again the next year at their home, where Dawn’s mother and three other children also lived. Now 65, disabled and essentially sequestered in a Manchester boarding house, Doe wanted off the public sex offender registry so he could access subsidized housing.

In fact, he had been trying to get off the list for years, and in a landmark decision this February, the state’s highest court ruled he should at least be afforded the chance to prove he’s no longer a predatory threat through a hearing in Merrimack County Superior Court.

“Once I heard those words, everything else was just a blur,” Dawn recalled this week, asking that her surname be withheld to protect the identify of her immediate family.

She knew nothing of Doe’s campaign, having left the state at 21 and trying hard since not to look back.

“I got off the phone with her, I went into the bathroom and sat on the floor for two hours and cried,” she said.

It was the beginning of an emotional new saga for Dawn, now 46 and married with children, and it could prove the first of several involving victims like her, whose perpetrators were convicted before the registry was created in 1993.

At least hundreds of public registrants – out of about 3,000 total – are newly eligible to seek the same relief as Doe, according to Marta Modigliani, staff attorney at the New Hampshire Department of Safety, which runs the registry.

“This is a new feature of our criminal justice system,” said Grafton County Attorney Lara Saffo.

‘Paid his debt’

Doe pleaded guilty to two felonies on Nov. 16, 1987, in exchange for a suspended 2½-year prison sentence. He was placed on probation and ordered to attend sex offender counseling, which he did weekly for two years. By August 1990, he had completed all the terms of his punishment.

“He had paid his debt to society,” his attorneys later wrote in a motion. “He was one of thousands of anonymous felons.”

Two years later, New Hampshire created a registry as part of a national crackdown on sex crimes. At first, only those convicted after 1992 had to enlist, and only law enforcement could access the information. But in 1994, the requirements were applied retroactively for six years, meaning Doe had to start registering annually for life.

He wouldn’t find out, however, until 2004, when he said police first informed him of the revision. He began reporting, and has every year since, according to his attorneys.

The law has been revised several times. Registrants are now required to check in with police every three months, are subject to surprise visits, must report any online accounts and have to notify landlords and employers of their offender status. A searchable database has been available online since 2002.

In 2005, Doe tried to move in with his son, but neighbors found out and sent an anonymous flyer to his landlord. The next year, he collapsed at a family gathering and was rushed to Elliot Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a severe abdominal aortic rupture. He has had trouble walking since, and experiences ongoing intestinal problems related to the rupture.

Doe began applying for federal public housing to accommodate his disabilities in December 2006, but he was denied because of his status as a lifetime sex offender. He and a sibling kept trying, however, and three years later were connected with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, which agreed to take his case. Bill Chapman, a prominent First Amendment attorney, later joined.

Chapman argued before the high court last year that Doe had been subjected to harassment and squalid living conditions because of the registry, despite having served his original sentence. He has had no new felony or sexual assault convictions since 1987, according to Chapman. (Chapman noted two minor offenses, however, including possession of a controlled drug and violation of a protective order involving an ex-wife.)

“He did this, he regrets this,” Chapman reiterated this week. “But it was 30 years ago.”

‘Pay this price’

In its decision earlier this year, the court said the law had become overly punitive to offenders like Doe, who were convicted before the registry’s creation and could not have known they would be subject to it at the time.

But its prescribed remedy, a superior court hearing – at least until lawmakers can come up with something better – was a surprise move, and each side has been busy preparing for a showdown in the months since. Doe’s attorneys had him submit to a pyschosexual evaluation, which, according to Chapman, showed him to be a low risk in each of three categories.

State and county prosecutors began combing through the original criminal case. But after so many years, many of the records were difficult, if not impossible, to find. When they contacted Dawn, she was flabbergasted that they hadn’t notified her sooner.

“He’s had four years to prepare for a case, and I’ve had three months to digest what is going on,” she said in an interview Wednesday, accompanied by victims advocates.

She agreed to fly up last month and give a statement, and insisted on testifying at the hearing, which was scheduled for last week. On Monday, however, Chapman notified the court that Doe had asked to call it off.

“He said, ‘This happened almost 30 years ago, I don’t want to put her on the stand,’ ” Chapman explained, adding that they would object to Dawn’s testimony anyway, on the grounds that it has no bearing on Doe’s condition or whether he poses a present threat.

“When he brought the suit, it was never part of the discussion, certainly never for us or the ACLU, that the victim would ever get drawn into the case at all,” Chapman said.

Dawn sees it differently. She is adamant that Doe remains a threat to children, and speculates that he and his lawyers called off the hearing for no other reason than they knew they would lose.

“Once they found out that I came to New Hampshire a month ago and poured my heart out about what happened to me, things changed real quick. (They) said, ‘Oh, we don’t want to bring her into this, we don’t want to hurt her feelings,’ ” she said mockingly. “Really? Cause this little girl’s feelings aren’t hurt anymore. I’m a grown woman, and I’m not afraid to talk about it.”

Dawn claims the abuse was far more pervasive than the convictions reflected. She said Doe sexually abused her thousands of times over a decade, starting as a toddler and continuing well into her adolescence. That was on top of constant verbal and physical abuse, according to her account.

Dawn said she disclosed the sexual abuse to a babysitter when she was 5, when the family lived in Manchester, but nothing happened. She said she told Hooksett police about it again when the criminal case opened, but that they told her it was out of their jurisdiction.

“As an adult now, I am mortified that he has two counts against him and nothing else, and he wants free housing from the state,” she said. “And I have to pay this price. I have to come back and pay this price. I have to be the one that speaks up for myself because 20, 30 years ago no one would.”

Doe still has a potential path forward. If he can prove that the Supreme Court’s decision effectively lifted his status as a lifetime registrant – because he can now petition periodically to get off the list – then he will become eligible for subsidized housing under federal law.

Chapman asked the superior court last week to acknowledge just that. State prosecutors said on Friday they would submit an objection by next week.

Widespread implications

Victim advocates and county prosecutors have a potentially bigger concern. The Department of Safety verified Friday that there are hundreds of publicly registered sex offenders whose convictions predate the registry’s inception.

State Trooper Rebecca Eder-Linell, who manages the registry, was unavailable to provide an exact estimate this week, but Modigliani and assistant safety commissioner Earl Sweeney said the decision has widespread implications.

“It is safe to say that a substantial number, probably several hundred, of the offenders on the registry were placed there once the law was passed, because it made them subject to the requirement,” Sweeney wrote in an email. “This seems to infer that they would be entitled to a Superior Court hearing and would bear the burden of convincing the court that they have not only complied with the sentencing requirements and is no longer a continuing risk.”

Two of six county attorneys who responded to calls Friday said they have received a petition similar to Doe’s since the Supreme Court’s decision, and nearly all the others said they are expecting them.

“I think you’ll see a lot more of these filings,” said Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway, whose office received one of the petitions from an offender with similar qualifications to Doe. That eventually went before a judge and was granted, Hathaway said, despite his objection.

The same thing happened in Cheshire County, according to the county attorney there, Chris McLaughlin. His office did not object, however, because the offender was a teenager when he committed the crime and his offenses were not aggravated, McLaughlin said.

Chapman acknowledged that the Doe case opens the door for other offenders. But he was skeptical that most would actually apply.

“In theory they’re right,” he said. “As a practical matter, there probably aren’t that many people.” ..Source.. by Jeremy Blackman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Dornin: Pay $50 a Year Forever ... Or Maybe Not

6-19-15 New Hampshire:

HB 587 would have abolished the annual fee former sex offenders pay to be listed in the state's online database.

Lawmakers killed a good crime bill this year.

Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform wrote and recruited sponsors for HB 587, which would have abolished the $50 annual “fee” the state charges citizens to register as former sexual offenders, often for the rest of their lives. The charge buys them the privilege of being publicly shamed on the State Police website. Failure to pay can get them arrested and theoretically sent to prison.

Our bill died on the House floor based in part on misinformation by state Rep. Dick Marston, R-Manchester, who posted the following blurb in the House calendar before the vote:

“There is a provision in the law that would currently allow the fee to be waived if the offender was unable to afford it. The (House Criminal Justice) committee determined that repealing the fee would have resulted in virtually eliminating the registry, which would be a disservice to the citizens of NH.”

Marston misled lawmakers, perhaps intentionally. Yes, eliminating the fee would cost the state the $93,400 a year it squeezes from registrants to pay for their scarlet letter. But the registry costs state and local government far more than that. The State Police testified they employ seven people full time to keep the registry up to date. The Manchester Police say they assign two full-time officers to track their 440 registrants on the State Police website. If that is a best practice, the rest of New Hampshire needs another eight or 10 officers full time to handle the remaining 2100 registrants. The total cost easily exceeds ten times what the state collects from registrants. ..Continued.. by Chris Dornin, Founder, CCJR

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Banish them to Franklin

3-14-15 New Hampshire:

Tilton voters have a chance Saturday to repeal their housing code that bars registered sex offenders from living near places where kids congregate. Citizens should vote yes in their own interest on article 5 to strike down a zoning rule that paradoxically endangers the public. It is also unconstitutional. There is a risk of expensive litigation if the warrant item fails.

Neighboring Franklin imposed the first of these New Hampshire residency restrictions and drove half their registrants out of town in the first year. Some people must have moved next door to Tilton, which soon passed a copycat housing code in self defense. Dover adopted a similar rule and drove half the registrants elsewhere. Lower courts have since struck down these restrictions in both Dover and Franklin. They violate fundamental property rights in barring a registrant from owning or renting most of the housing in town.

These codes are driven by dangerous misinformation: that sex offenders all have many victims, they feel no remorse, they are terrorists who attack strangers, they are incurable. In fact, prosecutors, cops, and children’s advocates widely oppose these restrictions because they erode public safety. Minnesota considered a statewide residency restriction, but studied the idea first. They looked at the records of 224 sex crimes to see if the offenders ever cased a playground or day care center to find a victim. It never happened. A Tilton-style code would have prevented none of those crimes.

The main threat to kids comes from people they already know and trust: their families, babysitters, clergy, teachers and coaches. Residency restrictions aim to stop the mythical mean stranger who watches the seesaw all day. But teens and other children commit nearly half the sexual abuse against children. These codes typically ban registrants from living in any of the low income housing. The registrant, who probably has no car, must live far from public transportation, employers, pharmacies, and treatment programs.

In short order, the person loses his job, stops taking meds and drops out of counseling. Residency restrictions thus destabilize former offenders by branding them, by making them unemployed and homeless, by costing them their families and support systems. Fewer than 5 percent of registered sex offenders commit a new sex crime in the first three years after prison. The rate plummets after that. They have the lowest repeat-offense rate of all former prisoners. You can learn more at our website, www.ccjrnh.org. (via e-mail) by Chris Dornin

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawmakers debate lifting sex offender residency restrictions

See also: It's time to abolish where sex offenders can't live

3-1-15 New Hampshire:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire's legislature is once again debating measures that would ban municipalities from restricting where sex offenders can live, even as some other states are making such restrictions tougher.

The legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is expected to send the proposals to the full House this week. The House last year supported the ban on residency restrictions by a vote of 231-97, but the Senate killed the bill by consigning it to an interim study.

New Hampshire state police support eliminating residency restrictions, saying they make it harder to keep track of offenders. Some citizens at a public hearing in January — the bills' only public airing — said they're adamantly opposed.

Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a Manchester Democrat, predicts the measure will again fail in the senate.

"We're talking about two significant situations — sex offenders and sex offenders against children — that touch the core of society," D'Allesandro said.

State Trooper Rebecca Eder-Linell, who maintains the state's sex offender database, says the restrictions make it harder to monitor the state's 2,700 sex offenders.

"They go underground," she said.

New Hampshire communities that have residency restrictions typically bar sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, playground and other places where children gather.

Derry Republican Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien vowed to vote against banning residency restrictions, saying most of her constituents "would consider it preposterous."

Derry resident David Lowe agreed.

"I'm appalled that anyone would introduce a bill like this," Lowe said. "We need to protect our kids."

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said five municipalities still have residency restrictions: Tilton, Holderness, Bridgewater, Northfield and Boscawen. Tilton will vote on whether to repeal its ordinance at this spring's town meeting.

"They don't work and they don't protect children," Chaffee said of the restrictions.

The civil liberties union won lawsuits that challenged the constitutionality of residency restrictions in Dover in 2009 and Franklin in 2012. The Franklin restrictions were struck down in 2012; Dover's in 2009.

New Hampshire's proposal to ban residency restrictions runs contrary to recent legislation in other states. Last year alone, Alabama, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Tennessee all added tightened residency restrictions. North Carolina, for instance, added Boys and Girls Clubs of America to the 1,000-foot zone where sex offenders can't live. Connecticut last year formed a task force to create zones to protect senior citizens.

"If you're forbidden from living where you have an opportunity to live ... you go back to living under a bridge," the bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Tim Robertson, a Keene Democrat, testified. He said the restrictions often prevent offenders from living with family members who can provide a support system.

Robertson is also sponsoring a bill that would eliminate the $50 fee sex offenders must pay to register with police annually or when they move. He says the fee discourages registration.

"A guy coming out of prison as a sex offender is going to have a hard time getting a job, a harder time finding some place to live," Robertson said. ..Source.. by Fosters.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

In Thursday's Sentinel: A local lawmaker sponsors bills to PROTECT convicted sex offenders

1-22-2015 New Hampshire:

A local lawmaker has sponsored several bills in the N.H. House of Representatives that would increase protections for people on the state's registry of sex offenders.

Rep. Timothy N. Robertson, D-Keene, said he was motivated by information about two recent local attacks that he said may have been committed by someone who targeted people listed on the registry.

Robertson said he said he believes this is a common problem in the state. "They have been found guilty, and they have served their time," Robertson said. ""They don’t deserve to be targeted for the rest of their lives."

One of the four bills he's introduced would "(prohibit) the use of sex offender registry information for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or threatening a registered sexual offender or offender against children, or any family member, employer or landlord of such person."

A representative from the Concord organization Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform, Chris Dornin, encouraged Robertson to sponsor that bill after he investigated the homicide of 48-year-old David E. Wheelock of Keene and an attack on a Westmoreland man that Dornin believes are connected.

Wheelock was killed in December 2013 at his house on Pearl Street in Keene.

He had been convicted of 28 counts of child pornography in October 2005, and those convictions are listed on the N.H. Department of Safety’s sex offender registry.

Authorities have not identified a suspect or a motive in the murder, but Assistant N.H. Attorney General Benjamin J. Agati said last month that they are considering a theory that Wheelock’s sexual offender status made him a target.

Dornin said the possibility that Wheelock was targeted for being on the registry indicated a threat to other registered sex offenders.

"It underscores how punitive the registry is, and the unfairness of charging someone (just to make them) a shaming and violence target," he said.

Dornin cited another case in which he believes an attacker mistook a Westmoreland man on the sex offender registry for his neighbor.

The victim, Walter Field, was attacked last year outside his house, and police said at the time that the assailant had been looking for another person.

The assault left Field with fractures to his face and damage to his left eye, according to N.H. State Police Sgt. Shawn M. Skahan, who investigated the crime.

During the attack, one of Field’s brothers overheard the assailant make statements that led police to conclude Field’s neighbor was the intended target of the attack.

Police did not release the neighbor’s name, citing safety concerns, but Dornin said he has spoken to the man, who he said is a registered sex offender. ..Source.. by MARTHA SHANAHAN Sentinel Staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial: Sex offender housing restrictions do more harm than good

4-1-2014 New Hampshire:

Of all the constituents that politicians want to help out, sex offenders probably rank at the very bottom of the list. But the New Hampshire Senate should summon the courage to do just that. By helping sex offenders, as strange as it sounds, the Senate will end up making life safer for everyone else.

At issue is legislation that would ban cities and towns from placing broad restrictions on where sex offenders may live. Several communities have attempted such restrictions, and lower-court judges have already struck down two as unconstitutional: one in Franklin and one in Dover. In both cities, local officials wanted to keep convicted sex offenders from living too close to places where children regularly gather: schools, day care centers and playgrounds. Several other communities still have such ordinances on the books, among them Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen.

The impulse to keep sex offenders away from kids via zoning is completely understandable. But there is strong reason to resist. And there is strong reason to set such policy at the state level, rather than leaving it to individual communities.

A growing body of evidence – gathered not just by civil liberties lawyers, but from law enforcement officers, public officials and child advocacy groups – suggests that residency restrictions are placebo pills at best and counterproductive at worst. Such ordinances give communities a false sense of security while driving sex offenders underground or into rural areas where they can’t access the services that give them the best chance at rehabilitation.

An Iowa study, for instance, showed that sexual-abuse convictions had remained steady since statewide residency restrictions went into effect five years earlier but that the number of sex offenders failing to register their addresses with local police departments, as the law required, had more than doubled.

And a study in the journal Federal Probation draws a clear link between housing instability – an obvious consequence of residency ordinances – and criminal recidivism. Instead, it suggests a strategy of identifying and carefully monitoring the highest risk offenders and creating stable lives for the rest through treatment and access to housing, jobs and services.

In New Hampshire, where most towns are small and housing options that aren’t close to playgrounds and schools are sometimes scarce, such ordinances also have the effect of pushing sex offenders out of one community and into the next in a desperate search for decent housing – hardly fair to them or to those communities.

That’s why state-level legislation makes sense.

The legislation banning communities from enacting or enforcing such residency restrictions has passed the House, but Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro expressed skepticism in an Associated Press interview that it would get through the Senate. “The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack,” Bradley said. “I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions – like in proximity of schools and day-care centers – will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings.”

But the court rulings, which so far do not include the state Supreme Court, are not the best argument to counter Bradley’s fear. More persuasive is that senators who truly want to protect kids and others from attacks from New Hampshire’s 2,500 registered sex offenders, are actually heading in the wrong direction with such restrictions.

When a sex offender has served his sentence, it is in everyone’s interest that he succeed on the outside. Passing this bill would help. ..Source.. by Concord Monitor

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH bill would ban limits on sex offender residency

3-29-2014 New Hampshire:

New Hampshire lawmakers are considering whether to bar municipalities from restricting where the state's more than 2,500 registered sex offenders can live in light of court rulings that found the restrictions are unconstitutional.

The House passed the proposed ban by a vote of 231-97 in February. The bill now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it faces an uphill battle.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged sex offender residency restrictions first in Dover, then in Franklin.

In the most recent ruling in 2012, a Merrimack County Superior Court judge said Franklin officials failed to show that barring sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, day care or playground protects children. A judge in 2009 struck down Dover's ordinance on similar grounds.

"Many individuals in law enforcement have said the restrictions have the opposite effect," said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. "They discourage sex offenders from registering and make it more difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them. It drives them underground."

Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen still have residency restrictions, Chaffee said.

"That's why this is really a state issue," Chaffee said. "When one town adopts these restrictions, it can push these individuals out of that city or town."

There were 2,566 registered sex offenders living in New Hampshire in December 2013, according to data compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. State law requires sex offenders to register with the police department of the town in which they reside but puts no restrictions on where they can live, leaving that to local governments.

William Thomas, 32, of Nashua, was convicted in 2010 of felonious sexual assault for having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 25. He maintains the sex was consensual. Since his conviction, he has found it difficult to find housing.

"I had that one mistake," Thomas said Friday. "It's not like I'm stalking little 3-year-olds. Trying to survive afterward has become harder than the original charge."

His sister offered to let him live in her home in Hudson, then discovered police had hand-delivered letters to her neighbors detailing Thomas' criminal conviction. His sister told him he could no longer live there because she feared her children would be bullied, he said.

Hudson police say they have no residency restrictions but confirm their practice is to deliver notices to residents when a sex offender moves into a neighborhood.

"Each city has its own strict rules," Thomas said. "It's like they set you up to fail."

Half the states have laws restricting where sex offenders can live. California's statute was recently found unconstitutional by an appeals court, and a higher court is likely to decide the question. In some places, tight regulations have made it nearly impossible for sex offenders to find a place to live. In 2007 in Miami, more than 100 sex offenders created a camp under a bridge because of strict limits on where they could live.

In the New Hampshire town of Franklin, Town Manager Elizabeth Dragon said its ordinance was amended to remove the residency restrictions after the court ruling. But she opposes a state law, saying other municipalities should have the opportunity to pursue a state Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the restrictions. Franklin withdrew its appeal of the lower court ruling.

"Something that works for one community may not work for another," she said.

Dragon also stressed that the court rulings could change if research links residency restrictions to public safety.

Tilton Police Chief Robert Cormier said his department is not actively enforcing the town's residency restrictions in light of the court rulings.

"The main focus here is really stringent registration and monitoring," Cormier said. "That's the biggest piece for us."

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, predicts the bill won't pass the Senate.

"The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack," Bradley said. "I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions — like in proximity of schools and day care centers — will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings."

Rep. Carol McGuire, a Merrimack Republican, said she co-sponsored the bill because she doesn't think residency restrictions are effective.

"Since other towns were trying to do the same thing, it seemed the sensible thing to do, to head them off at the pass," McGuire said.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan hasn't decided whether to sign the bill if it passes the Senate. Most Republicans in the House voted against the ban.

"The governor will listen to the views of law enforcement, local communities, advocates, victims and all stakeholders as the measure is considered by the Senate," Hassan spokesman Marc Goldberg said. ..Source.. by LYNNE TUOHY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill prohibiting sex offender living restrictions raises worry

See earlier post

3-8-2014 New Hampshire:

A bill prohibiting residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and offenders against children which was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month is causing concern among some legislators, who say the bill would strip communities of their ability to protect children.

HB 1237 is based upon two court decisions where judges found local ordinances restricting residency for offenders to be unconstitutional.

One of the cases cited came out of Dover District Court. In August of 2009, Dover's ordinance that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center was deemed unconstitutional by Judge Mark Weaver after a challenge by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Weaver found the city did not show a substantial relationship between the ordinance and the protection of children.

Judge Larry Smukler cited the same reason when he overturned Franklin's ordinance in 2012 at Merrimack County Superior Court. New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union also challenged that ordinance.

Rep. Jim Webb, R-Derry, contacted Foster's Daily Democrat to voice his concerns this week. He said the bill would force the 11 cities and towns with residency restrictions to allow sex offenders and offenders against children to live wherever they want, even if it is in an apartment above a day care. Webb said this strips local governments of their ability to protect children as they see fit.

Derry does not have residency restrictions for offenders.

Rep. Laura Jones, R-Rochester, said she also believes in local control.

“Because I support local control, I decided to vote against HB 1237,” Jones said.

Jones has a friend that lives in a town where there is such an ordinance and she said her friend reports it is effective and has protected children.

The Rochester representative said she performed her own research on court rulings in this area and found decisions made by judges are mixed.

Rep. Steve Beaudoin, R-Rochester, echoed Webb's concerns about the proximity of sex offenders to children and loss of local control.

“Though the courts have ruled that no town or city can restrict where a sex offender lives, I believe that if a city or town wants to challenge that they should be able to. As I see it, this law will prohibit that challenge,” Beaudoin said.

Supporters of the bill say that residency restrictions deprive registrants of their fundamental property rights and drive them underground.

“The research explains why banning offenders from most areas of a town forces them into homelessness, destabilizes them and concentrates them in the outskirts of town, far away from buses, services, jobs and mediators,” the bill's sponsor, Timothy Robertson, D-Keene, wrote on behalf of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for representatives to review when preparing to vote.

In an interview Wednesday, Robertson said that every molester is not the same.

“There are lots of cases where a 21-year-old didn't know the other person was 15,” Robertson said. “They simply came upon each other and got what they wanted.”

When asked if the bill would, in effect, allow an offender against children to rent an apartment above a day care center, Robertson said he doubts very much that a person with a day care center on their property would rent to anyone without checking the free public sex offender list which is posted online.

Robertson cited cases of people who are legitimate and successful business owners who are considered sex offenders and others who, even 30 years after the crime, have a hard time finding a job due to the discrimination they face.

Robertson pointed out that judges do have the discretion in individual cases to limit where a sex offender or offender against children can live.

HB 1237 will now go to the Senate, where a similar bill was tabled in 2010. ..Source.. by Kimberley Haas

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New Hampshire House Votes 231-97 To Prohibit Sex Offender Restrictions

2-21-2014 New Hampshire:

Twelve towns have passed ordinances to limit where sex offenders can live -- barring offenders from living near schools, or child-care centers.

But law enforcement oppose such bans. Renny Cushing of Hampton, a Democrat, told House colleagues that police know restrictions make monitoring offenders harder.

"The chiefs of police do not want to have a situation where you take away one of the tools they have which is to track where sex offenders are. And that’s also why the coalition against sexual and domestic violence is in support of this legislation."

The House has twice voted to ban such ordinances but the prohibition has never won support in the Senate.

Two courts have struck down local anti-sex offender ordinances.

In 2009 a judge in Dover ruled that the city had never shown a substantial relationship between its policy and protecting children.

In 2012 a Merrimack county judge ruled similarly in a challenge to an ordinance in Franklin. ..Source.. by Josh Rogers

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

House okays bill that would ban communities from limiting where sex offenders can live

2-20-2014 New Hampshire:

Communities could not adopt local ordinances to bar sex offenders from living near schools or in certain neighborhoods under a bill the House approved 231-97 Wednesday.

House Bill 1237 would align state law with two court cases that found local ordinances restricting where sex offenders could live unconstitutional: one in Dover and the other in Franklin.

Police groups supported the bill, saying local residency ordinances send offenders underground where they cannot be tracked.

But opponents say people deserve to know who is living in their neighborhoods or near the schools where they send their children.

As a long-time member of the Derry Zoning Board, Rep. Jim Webb, R-Derry, said communities can pass ordinances restricting land use and can say “yes’ and “no.”

But bill supporters said safe guards exist because the sex offender registry includes the names and addresses of those who are required to register.

Rep. Timothy Robertson, D-Keene, said that if a judge believes a sex offender should be barred from school property that can be part of the sentencing order.

Currently, 12 New Hampshire communities have ordinances restricting where sex offenders live, including several barring them from their borders.

Other legal challenges are expected to the ordinances.

During debate on the bill, Rep. Al Baldasaro, D-Londonderry, told of a sex offender who moved into a neighborhood in his community near a school.

“Once a sex offender moves in, it shut down the whole neighborhood,” Baldasaro said. “More and more sex offenders are moving into our state.”

But Rep. Robert Renny Cushing, D-Hampton, said with communities passing different ordinances there is the risk of creating a patchwork of restrictions.

“If you make it so there is no place for sex offenders to go,” Cushing said, “they will live under bridges so the thing you don’t want to happen, happens.”

Without a fixed address, he said, offenders are difficult to track, which is why there are registry requirements.

“If Manchester outlaws sex offenders from living in that community, they’ll sleep under bridges or in winter rentals in Hampton Beach,” Cushing said.

Police chiefs support the law and asked lawmakers not to take away one of their best tools, tracking where sex offenders are, he said.

The bill now goes to the Senate. ..Source.. by GARRY RAYNO, State House Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

House committee passes bill prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live

1-31-2014 New Hampshire:

A House committee easily passed a bill, 18-1, prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live yesterday, noting that judges have twice ruled residency restrictions unconstitutional. Still, lawmakers predicted a tough fight in the Senate, which has rejected similar bills before.

“There is a perception that this bill is being soft on crime,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who voted for the bill. “All of us who have heard (this debate) know the benefits of the bill. But we’re going to need to explain it.”

Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, cast the lone vote against the bill, saying he didn’t want to tell his constituents they couldn’t determine where sex offenders could and could not live.

As many as 11 communities have residency restrictions for sex offenders, said Rep. Renny Cushing, a Hampton Democrat. Londonderry is not one of them, according to the town’s website. Locally, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have such restrictions. Both Northfield’s and Tilton’s ordinances prohibit people convicted of sex crimes against children from living within 2,500 feet of schools, child-care centers and playgrounds. Boscawen’s ordinance was not available yesterday.

Tilton adopted its ordinance in 2007 and added this explanation to it: “Acknowledging that sex offenders who prey on children are at a higher risk of re-offending, the town of Tilton has a compelling interest and responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its children by restricting access to areas where there (is) a high concentration of children.”

However, two judges have found otherwise. In 2009, a district court judge in Dover ruled that city’s residency restriction invalid because the city had not shown a “substantial relationship” between the ordinance and the protection of children. In 2012, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler came to the same conclusion when the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union appealed Franklin’s ordinance.

Cushing, a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said the bill prohibiting residency restrictions is necessary because it will take costly legal fights to undo the 11 ordinances still in place across the state. “The simple thing that can be done is to pass a bill that incorporates the . . . courts’ decisions.”

Cushing also argued that restricting housing for sex offenders pushes them “underground,” in campgrounds, under bridges and to other places the police cannot monitor. He said communities are safer if the police know where sex offenders live and require yearly registration with the local police.

Baldasaro said he was concerned that if a sex offender moved into a Londonderry neighborhood, “everyone else wants to move out.” He added, “I want to support this bill, but I have to go back to neighborhoods in my district. Who is going to protect the neighbors?”

Rep. Larry Gagne, a Manchester Republican, responded to Baldasaro.

“My first term, I was pretty much a hard-liner,” he said. “I said, ‘Put (sex offenders) in outer space. Put them all on an island.’ But I changed my mind after a (police) sergeant came in and said, ‘If they go underground, we can’t find them.’ ”

Rep. Roger Berube, a Somersworth Democrat, questioned why the state Senate has rejected several similar bills from the House in previous years. “How can they get away with that?” he asked. “It doesn’t appear the Senate is actually listening to the . . . court.”

To that, Rep. Laura Pantelakos, chairwoman of the committee said, “Sometimes the Senate doesn’t listen to anybody.” ..Source.. by ANNMARIE TIMMINS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

House committee passes bill prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live

1-29-2014 New Hampshire:

A House committee easily passed a bill, 18-1, prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live yesterday, noting that judges have twice ruled residency restrictions unconstitutional. Still, lawmakers predicted a tough fight in the Senate, which has rejected similar bills before.

“There is a perception that this bill is being soft on crime,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who voted for the bill. “All of us who have heard (this debate) know the benefits of the bill. But we’re going to need to explain it.”

Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, cast the lone vote against the bill, saying he didn’t want to tell his constituents they couldn’t determine where sex offenders could and could not live.

As many as 11 communities have residency restrictions for sex offenders, said Rep. Renny Cushing, a Hampton Democrat. Londonderry is not one of them, according to the town’s website. Locally, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have such restrictions. Both Northfield’s and Tilton’s ordinances prohibit people convicted of sex crimes against children from living within 2,500 feet of schools, child-care centers and playgrounds. Boscawen’s ordinance was not available yesterday.

Tilton adopted its ordinance in 2007 and added this explanation to it: “Acknowledging that sex offenders who prey on children are at a higher risk of re-offending, the town of Tilton has a compelling interest and responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its children by restricting access to areas where there (is) a high concentration of children.”

However, two judges have found otherwise. In 2009, a district court judge in Dover ruled that city’s residency restriction invalid because the city had not shown a “substantial relationship” between the ordinance and the protection of children. In 2012, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler came to the same conclusion when the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union appealed Franklin’s ordinance.

Cushing, a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said the bill prohibiting residency restrictions is necessary because it will take costly legal fights to undo the 11 ordinances still in place across the state. “The simple thing that can be done is to pass a bill that incorporates the . . . courts’ decisions.”

Cushing also argued that restricting housing for sex offenders pushes them “underground,” in campgrounds, under bridges and to other places the police cannot monitor. He said communities are safer if the police know where sex offenders live and require yearly registration with the local police.

Baldasaro said he was concerned that if a sex offender moved into a Londonderry neighborhood, “everyone else wants to move out.” He added, “I want to support this bill, but I have to go back to neighborhoods in my district. Who is going to protect the neighbors?”

Rep. Larry Gagne, a Manchester Republican, responded to Baldasaro.

“My first term, I was pretty much a hard-liner,” he said. “I said, ‘Put (sex offenders) in outer space. Put them all on an island.’ But I changed my mind after a (police) sergeant came in and said, ‘If they go underground, we can’t find them.’ ”

Rep. Roger Berube, a Somersworth Democrat, questioned why the state Senate has rejected several similar bills from the House in previous years. “How can they get away with that?” he asked. “It doesn’t appear the Senate is actually listening to the . . . court.”

To that, Rep. Laura Pantelakos, chairwoman of the committee said, “Sometimes the Senate doesn’t listen to anybody.” ..Source.. by Annmarie Timmins

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New Hampshie's Bill seeks to fight sexual abuse through education

1-28-2014 New Hampshire:

In an effort to empower school-age children to recognize the signs of sexual abuse — and to break the silence surrounding it — Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, will introduce a bill Tuesday to establish a commission to study sexual abuse prevention education from kindergarten through grade 12.

Senate Bill 348 will bring together parents, educators, representatives of state education, health and law enforcement agencies, legislators, and experts from Sexual Assault Support Services of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence to make recommendations to the legislature.

“President Obama recently reported that 20 percent of undergrads are victims of sexual assault,” Watters said by phone Monday. “We need to start prevention at an earlier age.”

The White House Council on Women and Girls' “Rape and Sexual Assault: A New Call to Action,” reported earlier this month that nearly half of female survivors were raped before they were 18, and over one-quarter of male survivors were raped before they were 10.

College students are particularly vulnerable with one in five women sexually assaulted while in college, the report stated.

“As a father, I have my own feelings about these numbers,” Watters said. “Our neighboring states, Vermont and Maine, have passed laws or established commissions or task forces to provide age-appropriate education about sexual abuse.”

Watters said these laws were inspired by the advocacy of Erin Merryn for “Erin's Law,” first adopted in her home state of Illinois. The mission of Erin's law is to get education in all 50 states on the prevention of sexual abuse by empowering children with their voice instead of allowing sex offenders to silence them. 


Watters said the bill was drafted when he was approached by Jessica Paradis, a constituent from Somersworth. Paradis is a long-time volunteer at Sexual Assault Support Services, or SASS, who advocated for the bill.

SASS, based in Portsmouth, serves 42 cities and towns in Rockingham and Strafford counties. For more than 25 years, SASS has offered prevention programs in an effort to keep children safe from sexual victimization.

In 2009, SASS merged its prevention education efforts with A Safe Place and created a comprehensive Safe Kids Strong Teens program.

“But we are only reaching 10,000 children in grades kindergarten through 12,” said Kathy Beebe, executive director of SASS. “There are 40,000 school-aged kids in this coverage area.”

SASS has two full-time educators during the school year, AmeriCorps volunteers and interns who go out to the schools to administer the prevention curriculum. But SASS is at its capacity and doesn't have the resources to expand.

“We are excited at the possibility of this commission,” Beebe said. “It will explore the best practices for bringing more uniformity across the state, more awareness and possibly funding.”

Under Senate Bill 348, New Hampshire's Commission would study the current practices and legislation in other jurisdictions regarding sexual abuse prevention education in elementary and secondary schools.

It will also identify model evidence-based curricula for sexual abuse prevention education and make recommendations for utilizing trained professionals to implement this curricula as well as training for reporting of sexual abuse in schools.

“Teachers are already overburdened,” Watters said. “We will study who would be best for implementing this type of education.”

Along these lines, the commission would study opportunities for collaboration with state and local agencies, community-based organizations, and other public and private organizations to provide prevention education services. It will also examine potential funding sources.

Watters said Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, is interested in the commission and has been supportive of the bill.

The hearing for Senate Bill 348 is scheduled for Tuesday morning before the Senate Health, Education, and Human Services Committee. If the bill passes, a final report by the commission would be due July 1, 2015. ..Source.. by Suzanne Laurent

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...