10-26-2009 Washington:
A Castle Rock sex offender who was banished from Cowlitz County last year has appealed his case to the Washington State Supreme Court.
Jack Irvin Sims was convicted last year of first-degree child molestation after he entered the home of family friends and washed the back of an 11-year-old girl while she was in the shower.
Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Jim Stonier allowed Sims to enter a program for first-time sex offenders, which suspended his sentence of 60 months-to-life, so long as he participated in a treatment regimen. But Stonier also banished Sims from Cowlitz County, saying his victim shouldn’t face the risk of seeing him in the community.
Smith, who has been living in Lewis County, first appealed his conviction to the Washington State Court of Appeals, saying the banishment was unconstitutional. In a ruling filed last month, the appellate court agreed, but in referring Sims back to the Cowlitz County court for sentencing, it also threw out his admission to the diversion program, which means Sims could face at least five years in prison.
In his brief to the state’s high court Smith’s attorney, John Hays, called the case “a significant question of constitutional magnitude.”
Hays argues that the appellate court’s ruling has a chilling effect on a defendant’s right to appeal an unconstitutional conviction. The reason, Hays wrote, is that Smith potentially faces additional prison time because the Appeal’s Court overturned his assignment to the sex offender diversion program. If a defendant can leave the Appeals Court facing a tougher penalty, Hays asks, why would he appeal in the first place?
The state’s high court is expected to take about five months to decide whether it will hear the case, Hays said Friday. ..Source.. by Tony Lystra
October 26, 2009
WA- Castle Rock man appeals banishment from county
October 8, 2009
Banning sex offenders from community is more dangerous
Thought: Which are folks more afraid of A) What a person knows; -OR- B) What a persons does not know? In other words, former offenders that you know where they live, or the stranger lurking in the streets or night? Decide!
10-8-2009 National:
I was horrified to read in the "National News in Brief" section on Sept. 28 of Georgia's encampment of sex-offenders. Barred from living anywhere else due to city ordinances, these people are literally being directed by probation officers to set up camp in the woods.
This is the logical outcome of a community dominated by fear, ignorance and revenge. Everybody wants to feel safe, but this approach will erase any possibility of ex-offenders resuming any semblance of societal life, and communities will be LESS safe.
In Rochester, we have had our own examples of attempts to ban sex offenders from most of the city. Two years ago the Olmsted County corrections department tried to establish a transitional home for sex offenders where they could be closely monitored. Between neighborhood protest and our city ordinance it became impossible. The home they hoped to use violated the ordinance banning sex-offenders from the area, and another legal residential area could not be found.
I implore my fellow community members to remember Georgia's extreme example of rounding up undesirables and forcing them to be homeless the next time you hear of an agency trying to establish a well-monitored, safe-housing option for those we so fear in our community. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that you will be safer if you can just push them outside your own backyard. ..Opinion.. of Stephanie Kilen, Rochester MN
July 23, 2009
MS- Miss. Appeals Court throws out banishment requirement for sex offender
7-23-2009 Mississippi:
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The state Court of Appeals has thrown out a lower court order that a McComb man be banished from Mississippi once his completes a 25-year sentence for a sex crime conviction.
Richard A. Simoneaux (SIM'-uh-noh) pleaded guilty in 2004 in Pike County to spying on and assaulting nursing home residents. Simoneaux pleaded guilty to attempted burglary, two counts voyeurism, sexual battery, sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult and burglary of a dwelling.
The trial judge sentenced Simoneaux to 30 years without parole with five years suspended. The judge also ordered Simoneaux to leave Mississippi once he is released from prison.
The Appeals Court rejected Simoneaux claims his pleas were not voluntary, that his attorney could have done a better job but agreed banishment was too harsh. ..Source.. by Channel3 News
May 3, 2009
GA- More than 500 people have been banished from Houston County
Banishment, good punishment or bad? Did you ever really think about it, what does banishment do? Well, it forces the offender to stay away from your community, or said another way, it forces the offender to go commit crimes in another county! In other words, the offender is left with no one to monitor them, no one to make sure they are not committing further crimes. Finally, should a county force their problems on someone else? You decide....Is not in my back yard a good way of handling an offender?
4-3-2009 Georgia:
WARNER ROBINS — More than 500 people have been banished in Houston County since 1998 when the District Attorney’s Office started tracking this sentencing option.
Still, that’s about one out of every 60 cases, comparing the 500 banishments to more than 30,000 cases for the same time frame, said Houston County District Attorney Kelly Burke.
That’s important, Burke said, because banishment isn’t designed to push off Houston County’s criminals to other counties, or it would be used all the time.
Instead, it’s only used in Houston County when it makes sense, he said.
For example, the 500th person to be banished from Houston County was 38-year-old Michael Denton from Atlanta who drove down to forge a check, Burke said. Denton was sentenced to five years probation in addition to being ordered to stay out of Houston County, the prosecutor said.
“He actually came down here to do the crime,” Burke said. “That’s why he was banished.”
Keeping a person out of the county where the crime was committed during the probationary period may actually help the offender, Burke said.
For example, banishment disrupts the network of a drug abuser or dealer, breaking the cycles of addiction and the criminal activity of buying and selling, Burke said.
“I believe banishment really works,” Burke said. “It provides a chance to get your life straight while on probation.”
A USEFUL TOOL
In the case of domestic violence, often the victim doesn’t want the abuser to go to jail but to simply be left alone, Burke said.
Banishment gives the victim peace of mind that they can safely go to a restaurant or to a child’s soccer game without the offender showing up and claiming they didn’t know the victim was at the restaurant or the game — a common scenario that plays out in restraining orders, Burke said.
The offender is simply not allowed to be in Houston County, and ignoring that order can violate an offender’s probation and send them to jail, the prosecutor said.
Also, in many cases, the offender may be responsible for child support, Burke said. Locking the offender up prevents the offender from earning a living, which isn’t beneficial to the offender or the victim, Burke said.
In Houston County, a system was set up through 911 in which a banishment restriction pops up on an individual much like an outstanding warrant when an officer runs a criminal history, Burke said. Although banishment is a condition of sentencing imposed by the judge, most cases in Houston County are resolved through a negotiated plea among prosecutors and defense attorneys in which banishment is a part of that deal, Burke said.
UNIFORM GUIDELINES?
Jim Rockefeller, a criminal defense attorney in Warner Robins, said banishment can be a useful tool with someone who is involved in some sort of network of gang activity or drug dealers.
However, wholesale use of banishment would result in simply shuffling people around the state, he said.
Also, if wrongly used, banishment can set up a person for failure by cutting them off from positive networks such as families and jobs, Rockefeller said.
Rockefeller said he believes it would be appropriate for the state General Assembly to develop uniform guidelines on the use of banishment.
Another option that judges might consider would be requiring banishment consideration to be part of arguments during sentencing hearings, rather than part of negotiated pleas among prosecutors and defense attorneys, Rockefeller said.
RARE IN BIBB
In neighboring Bibb County, banishment is rare.
“We have done it a few times since I’ve been in office but not a whole lot,” Bibb County District Attorney Howard Simms said. “Some of our judges don’t like it.”
Simms said he also has problems himself with the enforceability of banishment and other issues it creates, such as with child custody.
Superior Court Judge S. Phillip Brown said there are some practical considerations of why banishment wouldn’t work on a broad-based approach or as a routine matter.
What about doctor’s appointments, for example?, Brown said.
His concern is that banishment may set up an offender for failure when the justice system should encourage success.
Banishment could actually restrict a person from keeping his life together, Brown said.
For example, if a truck driver couldn’t drive in Bibb County without breaking his probation, that would restrict his employment, or if a carpenter worked for a contractor who took a job in Bibb County, the carpenter would have to violate his probation or lose his job, Brown said.
“You’re really putting someone at a severe disadvantage,” Brown said. “We’re not there to make it unnecessarily rough.”
Former Superior Court Judge Bryant Culpepper, an attorney in Macon, agreed that enforcement would be difficult.
A person who is known in Bibb County is easier to keep track of than if that same person moves to another county where law enforcement and the courts aren’t familiar with him or her, he said.
“Just the management of people’s time and where they go gets to be a burden after a while,” Culpepper said. ..News Source.. by Becky Purser
September 20, 2008
Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties, National Rights and the Dormant Commerce Clause, Environmental Justice, and Alternatives
9-11-2008 National:
Abstract:
Sex offender residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities because we fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. The practical effect of banishment through residency restrictions must be understood in the context that there are few places in modern day America to which a sex offender may be banished that is isolated from the rest of society. Rather than being excluded and thrust into some undeveloped wilderness, sex offenders are banished through residency restrictions to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Federalism concerns arise when states or municipalities attempt to exclude hazardous waste disposal from within the state, and judicial and legislative efforts to banish sex offenders to other states may also run afoul of Dormant Commerce Clause principles, which operate to discourage states from such protectionist activities.
Disproportionate siting of sex offenders into poor neighborhoods of color is also problematic and this overconcentration of offenders may result in lowered property values, segregation, and homelessness. The federal government addressed a similar issue when studies in the late 1980's reported that hazardous waste sites were being placed near poor and primarily minority neighborhoods. In addition to the public policy approaches taken to resolve environmental justice concerns, the Fair Housing Act has been considered an important litigation tool to address this indirect racism. This Article examines what methods from the environmental justice movement might be available to deal with this "social justice" issue of sex offenders disproportionately burdening the unwary in poor minority communities.
Banishing sex offenders through residential restrictions, both legislative and private, impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, rather than by strangers, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of the sex offenders and the rights of our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that state and local legislators should seriously reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses. ..Source.. by Shelley Ross Saxer, Pepperdine University - School of Law
Note: The risk assessment suggested here is unlike what is mandated by the Adam Walsh Act which is no more than grouping of offenders by the statutory-type of crime they have committed. Under the AWA there is no individualized risk assessment of registrants! eAdvocate
HT: Deep reflections on sex offender residency restrictions
July 15, 2008
WI- Tutor in Amery, Wis., student sex case is banished from community
This sentence is totally wrong for the circumstances of this case, the article's first sentence tells us why "had sex multiple times". Further, banishment should never be used as a punishment simply because it moves a local problem elsewhere and ignores the responsibility of the judge to protect, the local area and society as a whole.
Here the ties between the victim and the offender still exist, the next step we will hear about is, he runs to her and they elope to parts unknown.
It appears that this sentence lacks a component of "preventing it from happening again," (sex offender therapy at a minimum) which judges are also responsible for when choosing a sentence, here I see nothing. If this woman has a propensity for young men then what -within her sentence- would prevent her from finding another young person in the new community she is banished to?
7-16-2008 Wisconsin:
Wisconsin sex offender banished for 15 years after refusing to stay away from victim
An Amery, Wis., tutor who had sex with her daughter's high school classmate has been banished from her hometown.
Brenda K. Baillargeon, a mother of four who was once engaged to the 16-year-old boy she tutored, was ordered out of Amery on Thursday for the next 15 years.
The unusual order, part of a sentence that includes one year in jail, was made because she repeatedly violated past restraining orders by contacting the boy at his home, work and elsewhere in the western Wisconsin village of about 2,800.
-Any guy would get 5-10 years in prison, this is just wrong.
Polk County District Attorney Daniel Steffen said the sentence was just.
"It's not common," he said. "But where there's a clear victim and a threat, it is done."
A judge has discretion in sentencing and terms of probation, and given the actions of the former teacher's aide, the punishment could have been worse, a Hamline University School of Law professor said.
"She has found it difficult to discipline herself, so this is just another way of accomplishing that," said Robin Magee, who teaches criminal law and procedure.
The 40-year-old Baillargeon, who in March admitted to the relationship, also was ordered to have no contact with the boy the duration of the banishment. If she violates any part of the conditions, she will be sent to a state prison for at least five years, Polk County Circuit Judge Molly E. GaleWyrick said.
-Remember the movie "Catch me if you can" about the guy who was a master conterfeiter, here we will see eloping.
GaleWyrick granted Baillargeon work release, which means she can leave jail for up to 50 hours a week for work. But Baillargeon, who resigned her seven-year post as a teacher's aide during the investigation, is employed by her parents in Amery, so she will have to find another job, Steffen said. Court records say she now lives in Luck, Wis., some 20 miles north of Amery.
The judge said gender did not play into the sentence, which would have been the same for a man who had sex with a teenage girl.
"He relied on you to say stop, 'This is wrong.' He is blameless. You are not. You were 39 and he 16. It is not too much to ask what you were thinking," GaleWyrick told Baillargeon.
"I have never encountered a less likely felon," GaleWyrick said, noting she was a mother, had been employed with the school district, and had family and strong ties to the community. And "no criminal record, which in the law is significant."
Those factors weighed in her favor, but Baillargeon "clearly needs to be punished," the judge said, ordering her to have no contact with her victim, who is now 17, during her 15-year probation.
"You are going to prison if he contacts you and you respond," GaleWyrick said. "It's that simple."
As a convicted felon and a sex offender, Baillargeon can't vote or use firearms and must submit to polygraph and DNA tests, and register as a sexual offender. She must also pay restitution to the victim and his family, but the amount will be set at a later date.
Before entering no-contest pleas to sexual assault and child enticement as part of a plea agreement, Baillargeon faced 10 criminal charges and up to 31 years in prison.
Steffen said Baillargeon has failed to take responsibility or show remorse. But Baillargeon's attorney, Owen Williams, disagreed.
The boy remains interested in his former tutor and is "sorry for Brenda," he said. "She came to this relationship as a damaged person ... in a damaged state of mind as her marriage deteriorated."
Baillargeon remained stoic during the proceedings and never turned to face the victim's mother and family, even when she addressed them.
"It doesn't paint a good picture of me," she said of a blistering letter — read in court — that the boy's mother wrote detailing the damage to her son and family. "I do realize what I did, and I am very sorry for the hurt it has caused. I do apologize to you in public. I think that shows I am trying to be remorseful. I am not a sexual predator who seeks out young boys."
She, her family and attorney left court without comment. The boy's family, according to the court's victim advocate, said they were satisfied with the outcome.
The teenager's mother became suspicious about the relationship last fall — a relationship Baillargeon and the boy first denied to investigators. The mother obtained a restraining order, which Baillargeon repeatedly ignored.
She had sex with him at his home, at his grandfather's cabin, on a bench at a nearby park and at her cabin near Amery over the course of seven months, Steffen said.
Baillargeon also took him on trips and sneaked into his home in the early morning hours for sex, the court records said. He saved his summer earnings for an engagement ring, and after she got a divorce, they planned to marry and move to North Carolina, where he wanted to become a NASCAR mechanic.
Under Wisconsin law, marriage applicants must be 18. But 16-year-olds may marry with parental consent.
There have been banishments similar to the one imposed on Baillargeon, including the 1992 case of a 61-year-old Bloomington man who molested a 9-year-old girl. A judge ordered him to move permanently from the neighborhood or go to prison for more than five years.
In 2003, an Alaskan village of 110 grew tired of a troublemaker with a history of drunken violence and banished him. The Native Village of Perryville Tribal Council and a state judge told the man to leave and not come back. He was given a one-way ticket to Anchorage. ..News Source.. by Kevin Harter
July 1, 2008
GA- Ga. court upholds partial banishment for offenders
The unfortunate truth is this is the kind of STUPIDITY (or high court subtle message) that is needed to get this case to the U.S. Supreme court where BANNING such as this will be declared unconstitutional! Now, will the lawyers take this upstairs? Remember the excessive sentencing principle causing many cases to be overturned...
7-1-2008 Georgia:
ATLANTA (AP) -- Faced with the question of whether banishment for criminals in Georgia should be banned, the state's top court answered Monday with its own caveat: It depends on how far the ban extends.
The Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged with its 6-1 decision that banishing convicted criminals from the state is illegal, but it upheld a tactic by judges who ban them from living in all but one of Georgia's 159 counties.
That's what happened to Gregory Mac Terry, who was restricted from living everywhere in Georgia except rural Toombs County after he pleaded guilty in 1995 to charges he assaulted and stalked his estranged wife.
Defense attorneys call the strategy "de facto" banishment. Prosecutors say the orders are a way to rid criminals from populated areas and protect victims from repeat offenses. In Terry's case, they said, the restrictions are needed to protect his wife.
Writing for the majority, Justice Harris Hines said judges can legally skirt the ban on banishment when they restrict convicts like Terry from all but one county.
"It was Terry whose movements had to be curtailed, not hers, and a scheme that allowed her to move freely about most of the state without fear of Terry was appropriate," the opinion read.
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears said the judge's decision to allow Terry in Toombs County when he is released was "an act of grace and mercy."
The lone dissenter, Justice Robert Benham, said Terry will be forced to leave the state because he has no ties to Toombs County, which has 27,000 people in the southeastern part of the state. He concluded that the sentence "in fact results in de facto banishment from our state which is unconstitutional."
Terry was sentenced to 20 years in prison and 10 more years on probation after he violated a restraining order by sneaking into his estranged wife's home, then forced her into his car and threatened her with scissors.
During his sentencing, a judge added a condition that he be banned from all of Georgia except Toombs County when he was released on probation or parole.
The court's decision upheld the banishment sentence while Terry is on probation, but said only the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles can set conditions for parole.
Defense attorney McNeill Stokes said the banishment kept Terry in prison longer because he couldn't complete a work-release program in another county. Stokes called the strategy a "throwback to the dark ages." ..News Source.. by GREG BLUESTEIN
May 31, 2007
Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders
January 2007:
Abstract:
Across America, states, localities, and private communities are debating and implementing laws to limit the places of residence of convicted sex offenders. Twenty states and hundreds, if not thousands, of local communities have adopted statutes which severely limit the places where a sex offender may legally live. In this article, I trace these new laws to historical practices of banishment in Western societies. I argue that the establishment of exclusion zones by states and localities is a form of banishment that I have termed "internal exile." Establishing the connection to banishment punishments helps to explain the unique legal, policy, and ethical problems these laws create for America. Ultimately, residency restrictions could fundamentally alter basic principles of the American criminal justice system. While those supporting these laws have the interests of children at heart, the policies they are promoting will be worse for children and society. ..more.. (link at bottom of page) by COREY RAYBURN YUNG (His blog "Sex Crimes")
