2-25-2011 New Hampshire:
CONCORD – New Hampshire failed to create an intense supervision program for hard-core, violent and sexual offenders before releasing them from prison, several people charged at a public hearing Thursday.
The Senate Judicial Committee held a public hearing on a bill, SB 52 (click to view status and text), which would change two key components of the controversial SB 500. One would let the parole board recommit inmates for longer than 90 days if they re-offend and the other would prohibit the early release of inmates convicted of violent crimes or sexually violent offenses.
The bill's prime sponsor, Senate President Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, said his bill was intended to address the shortcomings in the law approved last year.
SB 500 became a hot-button issue during last year's gubernatorial campaign, with Republican John Stephen accusing Democrat Gov. John Lynch of sacrificing the public safety. Republicans vowed to change the law, while Lynch said he was open to fine-tuning the legislation.
After a lengthy study, state leaders backed a plan to release violent and sexual offenders who served their maximum sentences nine months early, but under "intense supervision" with social services such as alcohol and substance abuse counseling, as well as help with finding a place to live and a job, and other social services to smooth the transition out of prison.
Supporters say the plan should reduce the number of inmates, provide greater public safety and reduce the high number of inmates who return to prison after they are released.
But opponents claim the state never set up the network needed to supervise the inmates and instead released them into the communities to offend again.
Many of the politicians and law enforcement leaders who backed the bill urged the committee Thursday not to change the law, but said giving the parole board more discretion to incarcerate parole violators was probably a good thing.
Attorney General Michael Delaney urged the committee not to reverse direction, saying SB 500 would advance public safety, put a dent in skyrocketing corrections costs and reinvest those savings into community-based services.
He said without SB 500, prisoners who serve their maximum sentences are released without any supervision, treatment or protection for the public.
"These are the most dangerous people," said Delaney. "And yet they are the only people in the system allowed to open the gates and walk out scott-free and that has to change."
Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams said SB 500 was a step in the right direction, but took all discretion away from the parole board. When lawmakers limited the sentence for parole violations to 90 days, they created a right for inmates, he said.
He said the public expects the inmates to receive services and supervision when they are released.
"You can't expect the Department of Corrections to do more with less," he said. "New Hampshire did it on the cheap. We've let them out first and we'll supervise them later." The director of the Attorney General's Office's Victims' Assistance Program, Sandra Matheson, said victims were involved in developing the prison reform plan. They want to know where the inmates are and they do not when they finish their sentence and walk out the doors, she said.
"They can move next door to their victims," she said. "They're moving below the radar and not accountable to anyone."
Parole Board executive assistant, John Eckert, said the board agrees the supervised-release program improves public safety.
"Even if only for nine months, we're in charge of what they do. If you let them out without supervision, that's a scary thought," he said.
Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, backed the bill and suggested several changes.
Since the provisions went into effect in October, there have been headlines indicating it has impacted public safety he said.
"There have been enough examples between Oct. 1 and now to give one pause," he said. "The Corrections Department was not ready Oct. 1 by their own admission. You need to ask them if they are ready today." ..Source.. by GARRY RAYNO, New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
February 25, 2011
Bill curbs parole of sex offenders, violent inmates
February 5, 2011
Bill aims to fix Mass. 'harmful material' law
2-5-2011 Massachusetts:
BOSTON—Prosecutors would have to show that a suspected sexual predator purposely and knowingly sent obscene electronic messages to a minor under legislation aimed at fixing a loophole in Massachusetts law first exposed by the state's highest court a year ago.
The bill is the latest effort by lawmakers to reconcile free speech rights with the desire to protect children from predators who use modern day tools such as the Internet, sexually-explicit text messages or e-mails to entice their victims. A federal judge put on hold an earlier attempt to bring the law up to date, saying that the wording was too broad.
Under the proposal, a person who purposely disseminates harmful material to a minor could be sentenced to up to five years in prison. But the legislation stipulates that a person could not be prosecuted for sending an inappropriate electronic message "unless he specifically intends to direct the communication to a person or persons he knows or believes to be a minor or minors."
The specific intent clause is critical because it is designed to satisfy concerns expressed by free speech groups -- who won the backing of a federal judge last fall -- that the current law defines "harmful material" so broadly that it could be applied to websites that contain sexual material or nudity but are targeted at adults, not children.
On Feb. 5, 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the conviction of Mark Zubiel, a Beverly man who was accused of sending sexually graphic instant messages to someone he believed was a 13-year-old girl. The justices agreed with Zubiel's argument that "harmful material" banned under the law in effect at the time didn't include instant messages or other forms of electronic communication.
The Legislature quickly passed a bill amending the law to close the loophole. But the fix itself soon ran into trouble.
In October, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the changes. Internet content providers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and other groups argued in a lawsuit that the reworded law was so broad that it could effectively ban from the Internet material that may be considered "harmful to minors," but that adults have the right to view.
U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel agreed that would violate the First Amendment.
"The world is much different now with the Internet ... and social networks," said Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, who is co-sponsoring the bill intended to correct the law once and for all.
"Predators can reach minors through a whole different mode," she said.
Creem said the measure would address issues such as 'sexting' -- the texting of nude pictures -- to minors -- without interfering with the free speech rights of consenting adults.
"We think the bill will resolve the issues in the lawsuit," said John Reinstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
Reinstein cautioned, however, that the measure is only a proposal and must be passed by the Legislature before the suit is withdrawn. Plaintiffs have made clear they are not trying to block prosecution of sexual predators who use the Internet.
Attorney General Martha Coakley has listed the bill as one of her priories for the legislative session that began in January. ..Source.. by Bob Salsberg
