1-31-2015 Wisconsin:
Throughout the years I have written articles pertaining to many topics that affect the overall safety of our communities. From theft and fraud prevention to animal bites and cold weather preparation, there is never a shortage of issues in which helpful information can be shared.
This week I would like to cover some information regarding sex offenders and the guidelines that govern their re-integration into our communities.
By state statute definition, a person who must register is any individual who has been convicted of a charge as defined in Wisconsin State Statute 301.45. These crimes involve sexual assault and include a variety of specific offenses.
While these types of offenses have been committed throughout history, it was in 1997 that the Sex Offender Registry and the Community Notification Law went into effect, thus providing a means by which law enforcement and the community can work together to better inform and ultimately prevent further offenses from occurring.
While no issue has the potential to create more anxiety, it is important to note that the recidivism rate among these offenders is only 8.8 percent and that a majority of the cases (86-94 percent) were committed by either family members or close acquaintances.
One of the most frequently asked questions I receive when conducting a notification is “Why here?” Many are not aware that there is in fact a state statute requirement that upon discharge from the correctional facility, the offender must return to the county of conviction.
While many times this will allow the offender close access to follow-up counseling as well as resources from family or friends, this is not always the case and many times efforts are made to place the individual in the environment that will facilitate their return to a normal life and minimize the potential for re-offense.
What is important in this entire process is that we share information, and then just as importantly use that information responsibly to bring awareness to the community while not infringing upon the basic rights of the individual who is the subject of the notification.
We must also understand that the knowledge of past offenders and their whereabouts is just part of the prevention in these types of crimes. We must be vigilant in regards to those who have contact with our children throughout the year. As stated earlier, most sex offenses involve victims who are known to their offenders, and thus prevention must include careful screening of all those entrusted with the care of our kids.
Many organizations have implemented child protection protocols, which may involve courses that have to be completed prior to any work involving children. ..Source.. by Sheriff Matt Joski
January 31, 2015
Sheriff: Why sex offenders live in our communities
July 16, 2009
NY- How to control sexual offenders
7-16-2009 New York
Really, now. How much clearer could it be to all those well-meaning county legislators and town officials across New York, so determined to protect their constituents from convicted sex offenders, that the legality of doing so is going to be determined in a state court, not a local meeting hall?
Kudos to Acting State Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough for overturning an Albany County law that would have banned more serious sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools or child care facilities, even after completing parole or probation. He did so on the sensible grounds that what the county did is superseded by state law.
This most sensitive of issues may soon enough be before the highest court in New York. From the Court of Appeals, we would hope, will come the strongest message yet that preventing sex offenders from preying upon more victims is best achieved by the uniformity of statewide regulations and services, and not the more scattershot approaches of much smaller jurisdictions.
Judge McDonough's ruling cites arguments against the now moot Albany County law by three sex offenders. He wrote that their objections "demonstrate that the state has expressed a desire to legislate in the field of sex offender monitoring, regulating and management, thereby pre-empting and prohibiting localities from doing so."
Yet here's the Colonie Town Board, with a proposed law on its agenda tonight that would impose a limit on how many convicted sex offenders could live in a given motel or hotel in the town
What would that achieve, exactly -- beyond, that is, sending troubled and potentially dangerous people from the cheap motels of Central Avenue to similar lodging elsewhere? Or, worse, underground?
How would the Colonie proposal achieve what its proponents say it would, namely aid the well-being of motel and hotel guests in general?
The perpetrators of sex crimes are pawns in policies that pit citizens against citizens and governments against governments. Laws intended to monitor them instead can drive them away, from their families and from available treatment.
Three times this year, in Rockland County, Rensselaer County and now Albany County, courts have said that regulation of sex offenders is effectively determined by laws that the state Legislature passed last year and took effect this year. If they're insufficient, the Legislature can strengthen them.
Here's Albany County Legislator Daniel McCoy, who pushed for the law there, calling for tougher and more sweeping state laws. That's a more constructive approach to such an unsettling problem. No one's interests are served by regional competitions, of sorts, to see who's more intolerant of sex offenders.
The issue:
Another local law is overturned in court.
The Stakes:
The state needs a uniform system for sex offenders. ..Editorial.. by TimesUnion.com
June 18, 2009
MI- Sex offenders create controversy in Detroit prisons
6-18-2009 Michigan:
It’s not often that inmates object to the release of other prisoners, but it’s happening in Detroit. Some inmates at the Ryan and Mound prisons have told me they’re upset that the two east-side Detroit prisons have been turned into re-entry sites for what they call “tree jumpers” and other sex offenders.
To make room for these inmates, prisoners already there are getting transferred — “riding out” — to prisons over the bridge and out in the sticks. In some cases, these prisons are hundreds of miles from their loved ones and families, who often don’t have vehicles or the resources to get there.
There’s a racial side to this, too. Historically, inmates at Mound and Ryan have been mostly African American, with families living nearby. These prisons were spots that Detroit inmates would try their best to get to and, with good conduct records, often did. Now, those inmates are getting moved elsewhere, and Ryan and Mound, they say, are filling up with sex offenders who are mostly white.
Inmates at Mound and Ryan have told me they’re worried about children. It’s clear that sex offenders are at the bottom of the inmate hierarchy. Many inmates have the same feelings and biases toward sex offenders as do other people.
The Michigan Department of Corrections, looking to reduce its population by 3,500 this year, is taking a hard look at all of the 12,000 inmates who have served their minimum sentences and are eligible for parole. Michigan prisons hold thousands of inmates who have served their sentences and could be safely released.
But the Parole Board is NOT taking a special look at sex offenders, which make up about 20% of the state’s nearly 50,000 inmates. It's true, though, that many inmates past their earliest release date are sex offenders. The reason is simple: Up to now, the Parole Board turned down almost every sex offender that came before it -- no matter what. So there’s a backlog of inmates with sexual offenses who are eligible for release, and are rated a low risk to re-offend.
Recidivism rates for sexual offenders are, as a whole, actually lower than those for other categories of crimes. Pedophiles make up only a small share of sexual offenders. Even a 17-year-old boy who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is categorized as a sex offender and put on the sex offenders’ registry for life.
The Department of Corrections probably could have avoided this controversy if it hadn’t chosen Mound and Ryan — the only prisons in Detroit — for statewide re-entry sites. Most of the men in those prisons had families here. Maintaining family ties is important to rehabilitation and successful re-entry. ..Source.. by JEFF GERRITT
May 7, 2009
NM- Group offers help for sex offenders
There is something very disturbing about comments of the Sheriff, instead of inciting the public (proven by the reader comments at the news site), the sheriff is supposed to be neutral and maintaining order when handling all issues under the guise of the Sheriff's dep't. In fact, his comments and stance may very well violate various federal laws (42 1985 & 1986 )as well as the state registry law (see warning).
5-7-2009 New Mexico:
The Bernalillo County sheriff is blasting an unusual letter that offers to help hundreds of Albuquerque-area sex offenders.
A group wants to provide emotional support along with help finding housing and jobs.
Some convicted sex offenders say they can't escape punishment for their crime because they have to appear on public sex offender websites. Many claim they can't get work or find a place to live because of the stigma.
But that's where the group "Citizens for Change" is stepping in. The group is now offering to help sex offenders find housing and employment, along with emotional support.
East Mountain resident Alice Benson is sending out the letters. Her late husband was a pastor who counseled a sex offender, and she plans to continue his work.
She says the group is working to reform public registries. For instance, Benson says only violent sex offenders or serial pedophiles should be required to appear on public websites.
She says if someone molested a child years ago and has been crime-free for years they should be taken off the site.
Other members say public shame isn't the best way to keep the public safe. They say that can be done by successfully re-integrating sex offenders back into society.
Sheriff Darren White says the group is offering sympathy to the sex offenders, almost like they're victims.
"If this is an inconvenience for them, too bad. It pales in comparison to what they have done to their victims," Sheriff White said.
Benson says of the 500 letters sent out, about 20 people have expressed interest in learning more about the group. ..News Source.. by KOB.com
April 13, 2009
WV- Focus on Sex Offenders
4-13-2009 West Virginia:
WEIRTON - City leaders want convicted sex offenders to register with the police department 30 days earlier than they currently do, so City Council may pass an ordinance establishing that requirement.
Council will meet to discuss this proposed ordinance and other matters at 7 p.m. Monday in City Council Chambers on the second floor of the City Building, 200 Municipal Plaza.
"We want the same information that is currently required, but we want it earlier," City Attorney Vince Gurrera said of the ordinance that would take effect immediately upon passage if council adopts it Monday.
Gurrera said current law requires sex offenders to register with the city within 15 days after moving there, but the Weirton ordinance would compel those convicted for sex offenses to register 15 days prior to entering the city.
"This is not designed to be harder on anyone. We just feel that if a sex offender enters our city, they should have to register when they are coming instead of after they are already here," he said.
Hummm, is this something like Paul Revere "The British Are Coming,...." so everyone can get their guns out? If so, like biker gangs coming to town, the best way to handle this is have 500-1000 RSOs move in their town, on the same day, that ought to keep things busy...
The ordinance states: "This Council further finds and declares that persons required to register as a 'sex offender' and/or 'sexually violent predator' ... have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the state of West Virginia and city of Weirton's interest in public safety."
(eAdvocate Post)
The law would require sex offenders to give Weirton their names, addresses of where they will live, work or attend school, their Social Security numbers, full-face photos, a description of the crimes for which they have been convicted, fingerprints, information about any vehicles they own, information relating to their Internet accounts and any phone numbers they plan to use on a regular basis.
Potential penalties for violating these terms include fines from $250 to $1,000 and up to 30 days in jail.
Gurrera does not believe the ordinance will in any way violate the U.S. Constitution or its West Virginia counterpart.
"There is case law that I believe means this will be constitutional," he said. ..News Source.. by CASEY JUNKINS Staff Writer
April 6, 2009
IA- Bills shaped at Statehouse with doors shut
I will skip a major portion of the article to get to the portion about sex offenders:
(Post by eAdvocate) 4-6-2009 Iowa:
Some Iowa lawmakers want to require public officials to be more transparent about new policies they are considering. Others want to mandate that the state disclose more information about the state budget.
But when it comes to being open about their own actions, state legislators' approach has increasingly been: "Do as I say, not as I do."
Legislators are hammering out issues, particularly contentious ones, in private caucuses and "working groups" rather than in public forums at the Capitol.
Open-government advocates complain the approach - used frequently this legislative session - is antithetical to the democratic process, squelches public input and can result in bad policy.
For three months, one group of legislators has wrangled in secret over how to tackle dicey sex offender legislation - with a 2010 election approaching and powerful interest groups demanding action. Leaders of that group say they are waiting for party leaders and the governor to sign off on their ideas before making proposed law changes public.
(Posted by eAdvocate)
"They might just as well put a bubble around the Capitol and duct-tape the doors shut," said Marty Ryan, a longtime lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. "They're leading us to a bad, bad place."
JUMPING FORWARD to relevant SO discussions:
They also encourage committee chairs to assemble working groups to hash out touchy bills in private, especially if openness is perceived as possibly putting seats at risk at election time.
"Some people are like, 'What's with the behind closed doors?' " said Rep. David Tjepkes, R-Gowrie, one of 10 legislators involved in a working group on the sex offender bill.
Tjepkes said his group's subject matter is sensitive by nature, necessitating talk about specific offenders and their victims. But he admits there's political gravity in saying the wrong thing in a crowd.
"I'd be naive and stupid to say some things in public," he said. "That's putting a head on the chopping block just to have the competition chop it off for you."
The Iowa Constitution says the doors of the House and Senate "shall be open, except on such occasions as may require secrecy." In practical application, that has meant legislative leaders decide for themselves when they want to make public policy decisions in private.
City councils and boards of supervisors are prohibited from going into closed sessions except for reasons prescribed by open-records law, but there are no limits to the reasons legislators may give in deciding to meet privately before voting on a bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said it's true legislators are holding more private meetings, and it's debatable whether that's a good thing. The move toward more secrecy, he said, has followed a move toward more cutthroat politics in the last 20 years.
While sunlight is good, he said, "the politics of public discussion has also damaged our ability to move good policy."Case study: Secret plan for sex offender laws
One big drawback of such secrecy is becoming apparent this year: With just two or three weeks remaining in the session, the public is only beginning to hear details about major pieces of legislation - health care initiatives, tax plans, potential money for flood relief and new jobs - that stand to affect their lives.
A case in point: The sex offender working group has yet to hold a single public meeting on legislation to scale back the state's 2,000-foot residency requirement for sex offenders, create safe zones aimed at protecting children, and bring Iowa more in line with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
Legislators promise to unveil their measure for the first time this week in a public bipartisan subcommittee before it is voted on by the Senate.
Still, some people believe the hour may now be too late to hear from groups that have a major stake in the outcome and fix any problems in proposed legislation.
"I would be very concerned about the Legislature rushing forward ... without a measured look and input from groups with a major stake in what's happening," said Beth Barnhill of Iowa's Coalition Against Sexual Abuse. "We've made a lot of mistakes in Iowa."
States' efforts to comply with the Adam Walsh Act have caused controversy and headaches, so much so that Congress is reviewing the law. However, Iowa legislators have ignored a plea to have a multidisciplinary team evaluate implications for Iowa.
"It's a waste of state resources to implement strategies that don't work," complained Barnhill, who noted the state has already been given a year's reprieve to comply with the federal law.
Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, and Rep. Clel Baudler, R-Greenfield, acknowledged last week that they have been waiting to get Culver and all four caucuses in the House and Senate to agree on the legislation first.
"If (Culver's) not on board, everybody's gonna run like a chicken," Baudler said. "But don't worry, there's still time. People will have a chance to look at it."
Baudler acknowledged, however, that it was unlikely lawmakers would accept amendments after the amended bill goes public.
Ryan said that when lawmakers don't listen to experts and others with a significant stake, they come up with legislation like the 2,000-foot law - a highly controversial measure passed in 2002 that aims to reduce child sex abuse by prohibiting convicted offenders from living near child care centers and schools.
Almost universally, law enforcement officials and experts say the law doesn't work. But Ryan said it was passed late in the session with too little debate.
"The only vote against it in the Senate was Sen. Johnie Hammond from Ames," Ryan said. "She predicted we would have colonies of sex offenders - and she predicted correctly."
Gronstal said that bill was a better example of the "radioactiveness" of dealing with some touchy issues with all eyes watching.
In the end, he said, it was almost impossible not to pass the legislation. "There was the sense that if you voted against the bill, you didn't care about protecting kids," he said.
..News Source.. by LEE ROOD
November 16, 2008
CO- State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law
11-16-2008 Colorado:
Low revenue forecasts and the state’s economic decline could hamstring a push by Western Slope Republican politicians to institute tougher minimum sentences and more oversight of sex offenders.
Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee said legislation supported by incoming Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and other Republican lawmakers to implement mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters from Jessica’s Law probably will command a steep price tag.
Sen.-elect Al White, R-Hayden, said the merits of implementing Jessica’s Law aside, the measure’s sponsors can expect a “hugely expensive” price tag to accompany their legislation.
White said any bill that increases mandatory prison sentences is sure to drive a multimillion-dollar price tag for the costs of building new prison beds as well as the ongoing expenses of housing and guarding inmates.
Under state law, anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child could face anywhere from two years up to life in prison.
Under Jessica’s Law, someone convicted of sexually assaulting a child 16 years old or younger would have a mandatory minimum 25-year prison term, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.
Penry and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed during the 2007 legislative session to implement mandatory 15-year minimum sentences for sex offenders, but the bill failed to clear the House Judiciary Committee.
McNulty said the bill’s price tag of more than $13 million in its first year contributed to the bill’s defeat.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he likes the idea of cracking down on sex offenders, but the lawmakers behind bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado need to figure out a way to fund their proposal.
“A lot of people have great ideas for spending money, but they don’t come up with ideas for what you cut,” said Pommer, who sits on the budget panel. “I hope if somebody is going to pitch this, they come and say, ‘This is what we want to cut.’ ”
He said lawmakers finding a funding stream is especially important with the economic downturn sapping the state’s tax revenue.
Colorado is one of eight states, including Wyoming, that have not implemented some form of Jessica’s Law.
Penry said if he and his colleagues encounter a fiscal stumbling block, they plan to push to implement Jessica’s Law, even if it takes more than one session.
“The fight to enact Jessica’s Law will be a marathon and not a sprint. … I don’t have any illusion that it will happen quickly or immediately,” Penry said. “It will probably be a multiyear fight to get it enacted, but it’s an issue we have to keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.”
Penry said having public sentiment on the side of enacting tougher sanctions for sex offenders will help.
Rep.-elect Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, who made bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado an issue during her campaign this year, said she plans to support the coalition in any way she can. ..News Source.. by MIKE SACCONE
October 3, 2008
CA- EDITORIAL: Reformed Sex Offenders Deserve Equal Opportunity
10-3-2008 California:
PCC has received much scrutiny since the Courier first reported that former PCC football player Darryl Stephens was arrested on a charge of assault on Sept. 2.
Subsequently, coach Kenny Lawler was put on administrative leave, and is now under investigation, bringing the issue of accountability to light.
Stephens' history as a registered sex offender, who is accused of violating his parole, raised an inevitable question: Why was he allowed to play as a Lancer?
The question turns on whether any registered sex offender should be allowed the same privileges as students without a criminal record.
We believe the answer can be found in something coach Lawler said in an interview:
"[Stephens] was a student athlete trying to rebuild and rehabilitate his life, and football was a part of that," he said.
Such a depiction could easily fit many people who attend community college - simply tag a different career to the end.
In that light, anyone who looks to readapt into society through his or her education, even registered sex offenders, deserves support.
Even more so when they have served a sentence and thus paid their debt to society, like Stephens.
What purpose does a community college serve if not for someone to restructure their life?
Under our current correctional system, people like Stephens are marked for life under Meagan's Law, severely limiting their choice in career.
Why continually punish someone who is seemingly getting his or her life together?
In a prepared statement by PCC officials, they stated that, "[PCC] does not condone the recruitment of players who have a record of sexual offenses."
If that were true, why did it take Stephens' arrest, numerous phone calls and stringent media coverage for the campus to take a stance?
ABC 7 News had a broadcast report - albeit the Courier was not properly sourced - from PCC featuring students' response when told there was a registered sex offender on campus - the typical one being shock and horror.
Such reactionary and emotional responses are what we would expect from someone who does not know all the facts.
Before that fateful day, Stephens was like any other student (except for the GPS ankle bracelet) who was given a chance to play football; who is to say he will not go on to have a successful career?
Trust the system and let students (sex offender or not) enter our facilities and make a life for him or her self. ..News Source.. by Pasadena City College News
September 19, 2008
MO- AGAINST THE GRAIN
9-19-2008 Missouri:
Local sex offenders a cause for concern
I got an email this week from Melinda Kidder, a private detective with a heart for children’s issues.
She told me she came across information on the Internet showing that sex offenders are living and working within 1,000 feet of Columbia schools, preschools and daycare centers. "Isn’t that illegal?" she asked.
"I’m working a child molester case right now, and it just wears me down," Kidder wrote. "Seeing that these guys and one gal are living close to schools is even more disturbing."
I was disturbed, too. I did a little digging in an effort to separate fact from fiction.
First, I looked at the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s Web site to cross-reference the names and addresses there with the ones listed by Kidder. Kidder had done her research on a Web site, FamilyWatchdog.us, and I wanted to go to the primary source.
This eliminated a sizeable number of the offenders. Turns out most of these men list multiple addresses, and the ones Kidder pulled were work addresses. Under Missouri Law, Chapter 566, the distance restriction only applies to the place where an offender "sleeps," not where he works or visits.
A random sample of sex offenders listed by Kidder found them working at a local college, car dealership, pizza parlor, hotel and fast food restaurant. All of these locations fall within 1,000 feet of schools, sometimes more than one.
But what about the rest of these folks? Of Columbia’s 109 registered sex offenders, at least eight appear to be living within 1,000 feet of schools, according to the home addresses listed by the Highway Patrol and Family Watchdog’s data of distances.
I called Detective Andrea Luntsford of the Boone County Sheriff’s Office and found that, surprisingly, in most cases the offenders are acting well within their rights. The law that mandates a 1,000 foot distance was enacted in June 2006, and any offender who committed his or her crime before then is not subject to it. Offenders convicted before 1995 don’t have to register at all for the same reason.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled on the issue in February, calling any other method of enforcement a "retrospective law" that would violate the state constitution. State Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, is beginning an initiative to allow retrospective enforcement against sex offenders, but he must first put the measure to a statewide vote.
Another lawmaker, state Rep. Mark Bruns, R-Jefferson City, plans to advance new legislation that would make it illegal for offenders to be physically present within 1,000 feet of daycare facilities, swimming pools or parks. Bruns also plans to push legislation that would apply the 1,000 foot restriction to the workplaces of offenders. The laws would make it nearly impossible for sex offenders to live or work in most populated parts of Missouri.
Reached by phone, Bruns said safety is his top priority. "For me and most of the people I know, a sexual offense is a different type of crime," he said. "Maybe they’ve done their time in an institution or as a prisoner or inmate, but there’s still that safety net we want to put up there. Anything we can do to keep them away from children we should strive to do that."
But will more restrictions make children safer? Luntsford, who said she already spends about 40 percent of her workday making sure sex offenders are compliant with state law, isn’t so sure.
"If they can’t find a place to live, then they either lie to me or they say they’re homeless or something," she said. "If they can’t find a place to live or a job, what are they going to do? If they’re just going to sit around all day, what do you think they’re going to want to do?"
Luntsford recently began sending deputies out to knock on offenders’ doors to check on their whereabouts. Her staff also must photograph offenders once a year, re-register most offenders every 90 days and testify in court when they are found to be "noncompliant,’ a felony offense. She and Boone County have rightly earned a reputation of being tough on sex-offenders, but experience has taught Luntsford that the distance restrictions don’t make for safer neighborhoods.
"As a rule, no" it doesn’t make people safer, she said. "It gives people a false sense of security. Just because the offender isn’t living there doesn’t mean the offender isn’t spending time there."
Missouri needs to adopt a tiered system like one put forth in the federal Adam Walsh Act, Lundsford said. The system would place offenders into different classes based on the seriousness of their offenses. That way, she said, her deputies could spend more time monitoring potentially dangerous offenders and less time with the relatively benign ones. Currently, Missouri places sexual offenses ranging from pornography charges to child rape all under the same umbrella; offenders must register for life.
"I’ve got a kid that had a 17th birthday party and, at some point after midnight, he had sex with an underage girl and now he’s an offender for life. Is he a John Couey? Do we really need to be that worried about him? Is he an Edward Duncan?" Luntsford said, referring to sexual predators who received national attention in kidnap-murder cases. "The system needs some work. I’ll be the first to admit that." ..Source.. Opinion of Tribune reporter T.J. Greaney
August 20, 2008
The dilution of a sex offender
8-20-2008 National:
Making the term apply to non-sex-offenders a scary proposition
The term "sex offender" has the tendency to, quite rightfully, strike fear in parents' hearts, cause countless Web sites to track registries (complete with searchable maps), and inspire the citizenry to distribute fliers and call public meetings. And we're not making light of any of it -- the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute estimates that two of every 10 girls and one of every 10 boys will be abused by the end of their 13th year.
It is terrifying, and often has a lifetime of repercussions for the victims.
That's why diluting the term by adding a whole host of criminals to the database is a scary proposition indeed.
And that includes naked priests.
This week, a court declined to downgrade the conviction of Rev. Robert Whipkey, 53, to a petty offense of public indecency. Whipkey, a Catholic priest who has been on administrative leave from the archdiocese since his arrest, was charged with indecent exposure after being caught running naked around the Frederick High School track last June.
It was 4:30 a.m. The witness was an off-duty police officer, who followed the man home, and confronted him there.
This week, a judge ruled that the conviction was constitutional.
"Given the nature of sex offenders and the risk they pose to the community, the court finds that, for those who knowingly expose themselves to the public, it is reasonable that they are given a higher level of sanctions and registrations," Weld County Judge Timothy Kerns said.
Whipkey will be sentenced in October. He faces possible jail time and registering as a sex offender.
Years ago, he had been investigated by the archdiocese for inappropriate behavior. But not charged. And a woman testified this summer that she saw him naked 20 years ago at a camp site. Again: Not charged.
There are problems with sex offender registries going on in Colorado and nationwide right now.
When our courts add, say, a 18-year-old student who has consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend in Georgia, or a man running naked around a Weld County school track at 4:30 a.m., they risk making the term obsolete, or at least weaker than it should be.
When you hear the term "sex offender" do you immediately think there's a risk to area children -- or does your mind start to wander toward how the term applies to a broad base of crimes, including streaking and urinating in public?
That's not to say these things are not crimes, because they are. Running around in the buff is illegal, and so is statutory rape, even when it's consensual. Lumping all of these crimes into the sex offender registry is, however, offensive.
All of it is available online, as well, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. And sites like www.familywatchdog.us have searchable maps. Sometimes they are rich with detail, including profile pictures. But they are often short on facts: Such as with what, exactly, the person was charged.
Information is a good thing, but it's incomplete. Individuals can obsess about which registered offenders may be close to their neighborhoods and parks, but our children would be safer if parents and guardians focused even closer to home. In the vast majority of abuse cases, the abuser is a close friend or family member. Looking for signs of abuse and talking about it with our kids is a better strategy than clicking on any map. ..Opinion Source.. Erika Stutzman : HT: Sex Crimes
July 29, 2008
China- Hong Kong releases a consultation paper for sex offenders
7-29-2008 China:
A Law Reform Commission (LRC) sub-committee today (July 29) released a consultation paper containing interim proposals on a sex offender register.
The sub-committee recommends, as an interim measure, the establishment of an administrative scheme to enable employers of people undertaking child-related work and work relating to mentally incapacitated people to check the criminal conviction records for sexual offences of prospective employees.
The check would reveal only convictions for a specified list of sexual offences. Convictions that are regarded as "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (Cap 297) would not be disclosed.
In the absence of legislation, employers will not be compelled to carry out such checks, and the application for a record check will have to be submitted by the job applicant himself. The public's views are sought on the proposals and whether they should additionally apply to existing employees.
In presenting the proposals, chairman of the LRC's Review of Sexual Offences Sub-committee Mr Peter Duncan, SC, explained that the scheme was intended as an interim measure which could be implemented quickly by administrative means without the need for legislation in order to respond to concerns which had been expressed by the public, the courts and the media.
Mr Duncan said the sub-committee's eventual aim was to devise a comprehensive scheme for the treatment, rehabilitation, risk assessment and management of sex offenders which would provide better protection to the community, particularly children, without unjustifiably infringing the privacy and other rights of the offenders (or their family members).
"That will take some time to complete and the sub-committee is putting forward this interim proposal for consultation and implementation in the meantime," he said.
The paper makes clear that the sub-committee does not favour the introduction of a register of sex offenders to which the general public has access, along the lines of those found in US jurisdictions. Instead, the sub-committee recommends that criminal records held by the police should be utilised for the purposes of screening job applicants for positions that give them access to children and mentally incapacitated people.
The scheme now operated by the police for providing Certificates of No Criminal Conviction would be modified and adapted to enable the proposed checks to be conducted. Any check will have to be initiated by the job applicant himself, and his consent will be necessary to allow the result to be revealed to the prospective employer. A "clean" check result would not be recorded in writing, but would be communicated verbally to the job applicant and his prospective employer.
Mr Duncan said that, with some limited exceptions, there was no system in place in Hong Kong which allowed employers to check relevant past convictions of a prospective employee, even with his consent.
A check can be conducted in relation to certain professions or areas of work where there are specific statutory provisions. For instance, there are provisions allowing criminal record checks of school managers and teachers registered under the Education Ordinance (Cap 279), child-minders under the Child Care Services Ordinance (Cap 243), and social workers registered under the Social Workers Registration Ordinance (Cap 505).
But Mr Duncan pointed out that there remained a wide range of people who have close contact with children during their work in respect of whom criminal record checks are currently not available. Examples include laboratory/computer technicians, support staff in schools, tutors, music teachers, sports coaches, staff in children's wards, and volunteer workers at youth centres and religious and other organisations.
The consultation paper stresses that, in formulating its proposals, the sub-committee considered the human rights and privacy aspects of the use of criminal conviction records to vet certain types of job applications. It points out that the scheme proposed is modest compared with those adopted in many other jurisdictions.
The consultation paper states that the recommendations are put forward for discussion and do not represent the sub-committee's final conclusions. The sub-committee invites and would welcome views, comments and suggestions on any issues raised in the consultation paper. The consultation period runs until October 31, 2008.
..News Source.. by HK Desk
July 19, 2008
AK- Civil suit best route to sex-offender help, court says
7-19-2008 Alaska:
TREATMENT IN PRISON: Convicts challenged Murkowski program cuts.
Judges in criminal cases cannot order the Department of Corrections to provide treatment for sex offenders in prison, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
In a case brought by the Alaska Civil Liberties Union and the Alaska Public Defender, the criminal appeals court acknowledged that prisoners have a right to rehabilitative treatment, guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution.
But a challenge to the department's refusal to provide such treatment is a broad policy question that should not be decided case by case in a criminal context, the court said.
The proper and efficient forum is a civil class-action suit, the decision issued Friday says.
The case, consolidating claims from three unrelated defendants, was filed after the Murkowski administration eliminated nearly all treatment programs in Alaska prisons, focusing instead on post-release monitoring.
In all three cases, each involving a man convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, a Superior Court judge added to his prison sentence an order that Corrections provide "meaningful sex offender treatment."
In the years since the appeals were filed, a new governor has taken office. Different people are setting policy for Alaska's prisons. With the change in administration has come a new attitude toward rehabilitation.
Current Corrections Commissioner Joe Schmidt said Friday that no one has to sue him to convince him sex offenders need treatment while they're locked up, and after.
"Doing nothing won't work," Schmidt said. "We know that to be a fact."
A post-release monitoring program is in effect, he said. It includes close supervision and lie detector testing. But there's no money for in-custody programs.
In her most recent budget, Gov. Sarah Palin included money to restart in-prison treatment, but the money for a sex offender program was taken out by the Legislature, Schmidt said.
"We asked for it this year. We are likely to ask for it next year," he said.
Jason Brandeis, staff attorney for the AkCLU, said his agency is willing to wait and see what Schmidt can accomplish before embarking on a class-action suit on behalf of untreated prisoners.
The right to rehabilitation is unique and important, Brandeis said Friday. "When the previous administration cut out treatment, it raised a lot of red flags."
Brandeis said he is "curious to see how the Legislature responds to the commissioner's request." ..News Source.. by SHEILA TOOMEY
July 17, 2008
VT- Governor’s official statement on a special session and Senate hearings on safe communities legislation
While the Governor's heart is in the right place as to Vermont's children his new policy to prevent future sex crimes is short sighted. Ignoring the unfairness of his policy towards sex offenders, the Governor is missing a greater threat towards children. The Dep't of Justice tells us that, released non sex offenders commit SIX sex crimes to every ONE committed by released sex offenders. Accordingly the focus on sex offenders is short sighted and leaves Vermont's children exposed to a greater threat than one from sex offenders.
7-17-2008 Vermont:
As public servants, our most important responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable. Children represent our greatest hope for a better tomorrow and it is heart-wrenching for all of us when we are confronted with cases of abuse — especially sexual abuse of children.
There has been a great deal of talk, finger-pointing and grandstanding regarding the tragedy of Brooke Bennett’s death. This does nothing to serve Brooke’s memory. This does nothing to address the failures of that particular case and, more importantly, it does nothing to protect children all across our state who deserve to grow up in a safe and loving community.
We must remember that the ultimate responsibility of Brookes’ tragedy lies with the person or persons who ended her life. As a society, our responsibility is to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent future victims.
This isn’t about one community or one case; this is about every child and every community. I will not rest until I can look every parent in the eye with the confidence that we have done everything possible to give them the tools they need to protect their children.
Last week, I called for an immediate aggressive internal investigation surrounding a probation officer’s 2004 recommendation that a judge grant Michael Jacques an early discharge from probation. Both the position of the probation officer and decision of the judge in that case couldn’t have been more wrong. I have demanded an overhaul of the department’s policies to ensure that no judge can irresponsibly use the misguided recommendation of a probation officer to release a repeat sex offender from probation.
I have ordered that under no circumstances will a probation or parole officer or any other individual, department or agency support the early release of any sex offender before they have served their maximum sentence.
Additionally, Corrections will work closely with Sen. Dick Sears and his committee to explore other improvements to protect Vermonters. The department has worked closely with Sen. Sears in the past and Vermonters expect that he will conduct his review with the same objectivity and thoughtfulness that have characterized his prior efforts.
To effect positive change at every level, we must thoroughly examine judicial decision-making in these types of violent sexual cases to ensure that dangerous sexual predators are never again released before serving their maximum sentence. To that end, I expect the judiciary will conduct a review to ensure that missteps are not repeated by judges in future cases.
Now we must look to the future — to steps we can take today to strengthen Vermont’s sex offender laws in every way possible. We must not put off action on those changes we can make immediately. I stand ready to call a special session to pass civil confinement, an expanded sex offender registry and a Vermont-style Jessica’s Law to enhance mandatory minimums. These proposals have already been deliberated at length and do not require additional testimony.
I have scheduled a meeting with legislative leaders of both parties and will urge them to support a one day special session for the sole purpose of considering these proposals.
My administration will be an active participant in Sen. Sears’ hearings and will work with him to advance a comprehensive package of reforms when the Legislature returns in January. I hope the Legislature will join with me in the same spirit of bi-partisanship to take immediate action in a one day special session to pass civil confinement, an expanded sex offender registry and enhanced mandatory minimums.
Children trust adults. That bond is the basis for every healthy successful family and community. When that trust is broken and is used to harm a single child, the fabric of our community is torn. It is our responsibility to join together to take action that reassures parents, families, and communities that we are doing everything possible to protect Vermont’s children. ..News Source.. by Jim Douglas of Middlebury is governor of Vermont.
July 15, 2008
VT- Governor says no parole or probation for sex offenders
Ah yes, a perfect society you seek, seems like I've heard that before Heil Governor!
7-15-2008 Vermont:
As public servants, our most important responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable among us from harm. Children represent our greatest hope for a better tomorrow and it is heart-wrenching for all of us when we are confronted with cases of abuse – especially sexual abuse against children.
There has been a great deal of talk, finger-pointing and grandstanding in recent days regarding the tragedy of Brooke Bennett’s death. This does nothing to serve Brooke’s memory. This does nothing to address the failures of that particular case and, more importantly, it does nothing to protect children all across our state who deserve to grow up in a safe and loving community.
We must remember that the ultimate responsibility of Brooke’s tragedy lies with the person or persons who ended her life. As a society, our responsibility is to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent future victims.
This isn’t about one community or one case; this is about every child and every community in our state. I will not rest until I can look every parent in the eye with the confidence that we have done everything possible to give parents the tools they need to protect their children.
Last week, I called for an immediate and aggressive internal investigation surrounding a probation officer’s 2004 recommendation that a judge grant Michael Jacques an early discharge from probation. Both the position of the probation officer and decision of the judge in that case couldn’t have been more wrong. I have demanded an overhaul of the department’s policies and practices to ensure that no judge can irresponsibly use the misguided recommendation of a probation officer to release a repeat sex offender from probation.
While that investigation is underway, and until a full report is issued by the Department, I have ordered that under no circumstances will a probation or parole officer or any other individual, department or agency support the early release of any sex offender before they have served their maximum sentence.
Additionally, I have asked Corrections to work closely with Senator Dick Sears and his committee to explore judicial and corrections improvements to protect Vermonters. The department has worked closely with Senator Sears in the past and Vermonters expect that he will conduct his review with the same objectivity and thoughtfulness that have characterized his prior efforts.
In order to effect positive change at every level, we must thoroughly examine judicial decision-making in these types of violent sexual cases to ensure that dangerous sexual predators are never again released before serving their maximum sentence. To that end, I expect the judiciary to conduct a similar review to ensure that missteps are not repeated by judges in future cases.
Now we must look to the future – to steps we can take today to strengthen Vermont’s sex offender laws in every way possible. We must not put off action on those changes we can make immediately. I stand ready to call a special session of the Legislature to pass civil confinement, an expanded sex offender registry and a Vermont-style Jessica’s Law to enhance mandatory minimums. These proposals have already been deliberated at length and do not require additional testimony.
I have reached out to the offices of the Speaker and President Pro Tem to request a meeting with them, the minority leaders and the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to urge them to support a one day special session for the sole purpose of considering these proposals. I would ask them to return for one day to give an up or down vote on these important reforms.
In the coming months, my administration will be an active participant in Senator Sears’ hearings and will work with him to advance a comprehensive package of reforms when the Legislature returns in January. I hope the Legislature will join with me in the same spirit of bi-partisanship to take immediate action in a one day special session to pass civil confinement, an expanded sex offender registry and a Jessica’s Law to enhance mandatory minimums.
Children trust adults. That bond is the basis for every healthy successful family and community. When that trust is broken and is used to harm a single child, the fabric of our community is torn. It is our responsibility to join together to take action that reassures the parents, families, and communities that we are doing everything possible to protect Vermont’s children. ..News Source.. by Rutland Hearld
June 7, 2008
Evidence on pedophiles doesn't support concerns
6-7-2008 Australia:
Emotion should not be the main determinate in managing sex offenders.
YESTERDAY it was reported that Australian Federal Police had arrested 70 people since April as part of Operation Centurion, the nation's biggest anti-pedophile investigation. A few days earlier, Derryn Hinch named two sex offenders released under the state's Extended Supervision Order scheme and was possibly in violation of a suppression order imposed by the courts.
While there is no information yet to suggest that any of the people recently arrested had previous convictions, both cases raise important issues about the management of sex offenders and the rights of victims and offenders as well as the broader interests of the community.
Sex offenders are often seen as the most dangerous kind of offender. Their crimes have a devastating impact on their victims. There is great community concern about the risk that if they are released they will commit more offences.
On the one hand are people who believe that sex offenders should never be released from prison. However, if released under some form of supervision, they are of the view that the community needs to know who these sex offenders are and where they live so that they can protect their children.
Sometimes that "protection" can be taken to extremes. In October 2006 the house of a suspected pedophile was burnt to the ground by people who were never caught. The demands for "naming and shaming" should not be another way of ensuring that sex offenders are never released into the community, regardless of expert and judicial assessments of the risks of reoffending.
On the other hand there are those who argue that the best way to protect the community from sex offenders who have finished their sentence is to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated. This is a difficult and emotive debate. But decisions about the best way to protect the community and to reduce reoffending should be based on evidence, not emotion.
Researchers and professionals who treat sex offenders have been studying the recidivism (reoffending) rates of sex offenders for many years and have amassed a large body of evidence.
And this evidence is clear: recidivism rates of sex offenders are much lower than people often think. Even the highest estimates of recidivism rates show that most sex offenders do not reoffend.
Last year the sentencing council asked its senior criminologist, Dr Karen Gelb, to examine the research on sex offenders and collect the best studies on recidivism and the treatment of sex offenders.
Many of the findings are well known, though sometimes counter-intuitive. First, it is known that the stranger is not the main danger. An Australian Bureau of Statistics study of victims of crime found that almost half of the victims of child sexual offences were sexually abused by a relative and about a third by an acquaintance. Only 11% were abused by a stranger.
A Queensland survey of prisoners convicted of offences against children found that 57% were living with the victim when they committed the offence.
Second, although ascertaining recidivism rates for sex offenders is highly problematic because many offences are not reported to police, surveys of victims and offenders and official statistics all point to the same conclusion - that reoffending among sex offenders is much lower than for other types of crime.
These results are similar in other parts of the world. Overall, about 14% of sex offenders go on to commit another sexual offence. Property offenders have a nearly 50% recidivism rate.
Third, the research also indicates that recidivism rates vary over time. Those who commit child sex offences against girls have a 9% recidivism rate over five years, which reaches 16% after 15 years. In relation to offences against boys, the rate varies from 23% after five years to 35% after 15 years. Offenders who are 50 or older when released from prison have lower recidivism rates than those under 50.
Finally, and again possibly contrary to public understandings, the evidence shows that sex offender treatment programs, especially those in the community, can significantly reduce recidivism rates. An analysis of many studies of the treatment of sex offenders has found that the average recidivism rate for treated offenders was 12% and for untreated offenders was 17%. Another study that focused on child sex offenders found that treated offenders had a 14% recidivism rate, compared to a 26% recidivism rate for untreated offenders.
We have to be careful about how we think of sex offenders, especially those who commit offences against our children. Yes, these represent some of the worst and most devastating crimes that have a life-long impact on the victims. These offenders must be appropriately punished for their crimes and the courts are handing down long sentences.
But in deciding on the best way to protect the community, we need to keep in mind what the evidence shows us: that sex offenders do not inevitably reoffend and that treatment of sex offenders, especially in the community, can have a significant impact. As The New York Times observed recently, the explosion of recent laws relating to sex offenders is as much about managing public fear as it is about managing actual risks and rehabilitating people.
Good decisions are not based on emotion alone. They are also based on evidence.
Arie Freiberg is chairman of Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council. ..News Source.. by Arie Freiberg
May 16, 2008
MI- Principal Allegedly Ignored Student Sex
What is this world coming too..
5-16-2008 Michigan:
PONTIAC, Mich. -- The principal of the Pontiac Alternative Leadership Academy at Bethune School was suspended Tuesday while officials look into allegations that she knew about sexual activity going on among her young students but failed to file a police report.
Damon Dorkins, the school board's president, is quoted in the Oakland Press as saying that alternative school principal Tammy Anderson "is not being punished for anything. She could be totally right in this."
The suspension was necessary while the investigation is conducted, she said.
Anderson is accused of not reporting an incident involving two 5-year-olds at the schools day care center.
"There was inappropriate touching between the two kids," said Pontiac Police Chief Val Gross.
The chief points out the children are OK. And he believes this sort of behavior is learned and they must look into why it happened.
Gross said by law, an incident of this nature should have been reported to Child Protective Services within 24 hours and failure to report to report such an incident is a crime.
The school's Superintendent, Calvin Cupidore said they are also conducting an investigation and he hopes to make the results public by next week.
"I want to put out to the community that the school board and this administration is about accountability," said Cupidore.
Since Anderson took the position two months ago, she has come under fire for another similar incident, said Cupidore.
Cupidore said when she found marijuana on two students; she threw it away instead of turning it over to the police as evidence. ..more.. by ClickOnDetroit
March 18, 2008
Garos Sexual Behavior Inventory (GSBI)
March 2008
This empirically derived measure helps clinicians detect disorders of sexual frequency and control--what are commonly referred to as "deviant," "impulsive," "compulsive," or "addictive" sexual behaviors. Validated with sex offenders, the new Garos Sexual Behavior Inventory (GSBI) is especially useful in forensic settings, where it can identify inmates with potentially deviant sexual interests and inform decisions about intervention and treatment.
Yet the GSBI is sufficiently versatile that it can also be used in couples counseling to uncover differences in sexual values, feelings, and comfort levels--differences that may be causing conflict within a relationship. In addition, the inventory is helpful with clinical groups known to have difficulty with sexuality: individuals with drug or alcohol problems, victims of sexual abuse, and those diagnosed with eating disorders.
Masking scales reduce the potential for defensive responding
Composed of 70 items describing various sexual attitudes and behaviors, the GSBI includes both Main scales and Masking scales, as well as an Inconsistent Responding index:
Main scales
Discordance: Overall sexual adjustment; shame, fear, or internal conflict about sexual behavior and interests
Sexual Obsession: Preoccupation with sex and sexual stimuli
Permissiveness: Attitudes and values about sex--conservative or unconventional
Sexual Stimulation: Level of comfort with sexual stimulation or arousal
Masking scales
Sexual Control Difficulties
Sexual Excitability
Sexual Insecurity
Items on the Masking scales focus on relatively common sexual difficulties, while those on the Main scales ask about more atypical behaviors. The former serve to obscure the latter, making them less obvious to the test taker and thereby reducing the potential for defensive responding. However, the Masking scales do have value in their own right. The information they provide is useful in couples therapy, personal development counseling, and other non-forensic applications.
A carefully designed test form protects privacy
Appropriate for adults 18 years of age and older, the GSBI can be completed in just 20 to 30 minutes. Items, written at a sixth-grade reading level, are easy to understand and answer. Clients simply indicate the extent of their agreement on a 5-point response scale. A specially designed AutoScore Form (titled Sexual Attitudes Inventory) protects the privacy of respondents. Test items do not appear on the AutoScore Form. Instead, they are printed on a separate reusable Administration Card, thereby ensuring that sensitive information remains confidential.
The test generates normalized T-scores for the Main and Masking scales, making it easy to compare scores across scales and across tests. Normative data are based on a nonclinical group, spanning ages 17 to 104, with roughly equal numbers of males and females. In addition, the test manual provides average scores for clinical and correctional subgroups--sex offenders, substance abusers, and sexual addicts.
Used with sex offenders or in couples therapy, the GSBI informs treatment decisions
In validation studies, the GSBI successfully differentiated incarcerated sex offenders from incarcerated non-sex offenders, indicating that it can reliably identify individuals who may engage in sexually deviant or offending behavior. The constructs measured by the GSBI are particularly relevant to disorders of sexual frequency and control.
Versatile and easy to administer, the GSBI measures sexual adjustment and behavior in people with varying degrees of psychopathology. It has proven useful to forensic specialists, mental health professionals, and marriage and family therapists. Whether the test is used with sex offenders or sexually incompatible couples, GSBI scores help clinicians select appropriate treatment. ..more.. by Sheila Garos, Ph.D.
March 14, 2008
AZ- Your Views: It's easy to hate sex offenders
3-14-2008 Arizona:
It's easy to hate sex offenders
Editor,
I am a counselor who has worked with sex offenders every week for years. I have put in more hours than anyone I know in northern Nevada working to help prevent new sex crimes in our state, so it is with an informed opinion that I read Mr. Lindberg's February 22, 2008, comments on the topic.
I can tell you that both he and the irresponsible decision-maker who posted such a self-serving rant did nothing to serve the community's interests in publishing such thinly veiled vigilantism.
I, too, am a businessman in the community; I, too, am a father and a grandfather. I, too, am outraged by the same events that horrify all of us.
But never in my wildest dreams did I ever think as a man that it would be right to glorify my own darker self-indulgent revenge fantasies in a public display of self-righteousness. Such violent fantasies are viscerally satisfying, but represent a childish approach to public policy.
First of all, the vast majority of convicted sex offenders are hardly up to the standard of "predator." Face it, the word "predator" is overused.
Consider: a 17-year-old teenager who turns 18 after a year of having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is guilty now of Statutory Sexual Seduction and is required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Consider: a pathetic drunk who, in his inebriated stupor, steals booze, gets in an altercation and then exposes himself to passersby is hardly worthy of the word "predator," yet he, too, will have to register for the rest of his life...as a sex offender.
Surely I am not the only one out there old enough to remember "Laugh In" and the actor in the trench coat who made us all laugh by exposing himself?
How have we been so easily manipulated to fear and hate what we once found pathetic or even humorous?
Many sex crimes are far more serious than these, but Nevada does an incredibly good job of incarcerating virtually forever those sex offenders who are not amenable to treatment or whose crimes are so horrific that we cannot abide their release.
Others who do not meet this level are released because their crime is hardly deserving of the death penalty--particularly at the hands of enraged family members wielding baseball bats as Mr. Lindberg suggests would be best.
Treatment does work. It's always sensational to seek out the naysayers and urban mythmakers who profess to know because the truth is far less titillating.
For the last six years the recidivism rate in our program has been hovering at 1%. That's a 99% success rate.
Just read about the next 100 sex crimes in our community (as easily found in the newspaper)--you'll find that over 95% were committed by first time offenders. It is not the previously convicted offender who poses the greatest risk, it's the unknown future offender.
By so stigmatizing sex offenders as Mr. Lindberg has done, we create vast public reservoirs of shame which contributes to our inability to even discuss sexual thoughts, feelings and behavior that might not be to Mr. Lindberg's liking.
If sex offenders are sick, an idea of Mr. Lindberg's that I agree with, then sex crimes are a public health problem. Like AIDS, cholera, smoking, and every other public health problem, our tools are information, education and rational thinking.
Getting mad and indulging in baseball bat fantasies is useless, self-defeating and counterproductive to community safety.
Like Mr. Lindberg. I am a conservative. I am a Republican, I own guns, I'm against abortion; but I do not see a problem with an overabundance of liberal judges as does Mr. Lindberg. Our judges in Nevada generally do a pretty good job--their knowledge of the offense and the law make it clear they are the ones to make the tough sentencing decisions.
What's really going on here though, if you stop and just think, is that we Americans have some sort of weird blind spot when it comes to sexual crimes.
Sure, as a parent, I'd like to know about the dangerous people in my neighborhood: but so long as we're outing sex offenders why wouldn't we list convicted drug abusers, meth manufacturers, those convicted of domestic violence, and why not all the drunks convicted of drinking in public and DUI?
Aren't all of these people dangerous to our children?
If we made such a list. of course. eventually we'd find it easier to list those good folk not on the other list...at least not yet.
It's easy to hate sex offenders. We've made it easy by using sex offender registries and public exposure to label them the way the Nazi's did the Jews with their yellow stars.
In this way, we've created the last class in society that it's politically fashionable to hate.
But since when has hate and fear ever informed public discourse?
When has hate and fear ever protected future victims from attack?
When has hate ever solved anything?
To jail the 300 men and women I've worked with over the last 10 years would have cost our state $90 million. Couldn't we do something better with that money?
Sex crimes are crimes of secrecy, and when the secret ends, the criminality generally ends with it.
We all need to be better informed about sex crimes and what is being done about them. To that end, I challenge the editors of this paper, and Mr. Lindberg himself, to sit in on a group therapy session of men previously convicted of sex crimes who are working to better themselves.
These men look forward to letting you see who they are and what they are doing--all they want is a chance to put their mistake behind them and build a life with their families.
Call me and I'll set it up.
P.S. You can leave the baseball bats at home, they're a very civilized crowd.
Sincerely,
Steven Ing
February 21, 2008
Inmate: Sex Offender Status Prevents Help
2-21-2008 Ohio:
A West Virginia penitentiary inmate claims his status as a sex offender is preventing him from participating in a program designed to help prisoners prepare for re-entry into society.
David McDonald, no known last address, appeared before Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht on Wednesday to ask for a hearing that would ultimately determine if he should be required to register as a sex offender and to have himself excluded from a West Virginia Department of Corrections directive.
According to the directive, sex offender status prevents prisoners slated for release from participating in re-entry initiatives.
McDonald’s attorney, William Gallagher, said the state’s sex offender registration law went into effect in 1999 and was made to be retroactive to include offenses committed prior to the law.
Gallagher said McDonald was convicted in 1987 of sexual abuse of an adult female and burglary in Harrison County and was sentenced to two to 20 years.
“He was brought to Ohio County and released in November of 2005,” Gallagher said. “He was not from the area and had no place to go but he had to register as a sex offender with no known address.”
McDonald was arrested in Ohio County and returned to prison in December 2006 after pleading guilty to two marijuana related charges. His first parole eligibility date on the marijuana conviction was this past week.
Gallagher said the parole hearing was canceled because McDonald was scheduled to appear before Recht on Wednesday. Recht denied a request by Gallagher for a hearing to determine if McDonald had been rehabilitated and did not need to be required to register as a sex offender.
In denying the request, Recht said he was in agreement with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals which did not say a person is entitled to a hearing to show rehabilitation. Gallagher also argued his client could not participate in re-entry programs designed to help a prisoner prepare for returning to society.
“A directive from the department of corrections says sex offenders cannot participate in re-entry initiatives,” he said.
However, John Boothroyd, an assistant West Virginia attorney general representing the parole board and department of corrections, said McDonald is participating in the re-entry programs.
If McDonald has a complaint, he should follow internal grievance procedures to get it resolved, Boothroyd said.
“Grievances are handled by a grievance counselor and can be appealed to the warden and, if necessary, to the commissioner of corrections,” he said.
Recht advised Gallagher to have McDonald go through the grievance procedure and return to circuit court if the matter is not resolved. Boothroyd said if the matter must return to circuit court he would want it filed in Kanawha County.
Gallagher said he would prefer the case be heard in Ohio County.
Recht said he was not sure, but believed the case should be heard in Ohio County since that is where McDonald had been sentenced in the marijuana case. ..more.. by FRED CONNORS
February 15, 2008
How close is too close? Sex offenders and bus stops
WCNC Investigators find dozens of CMS bus stops within 600 feet of sex offenders’ addresses
2-14-2008 North Carolina:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- When convicted sex offenders live near your kids’ school bus stop, how close is too close? Six-hundred feet? How about across the street?
And how many is too many? Three sex offenders within 600 feet? Four sex offenders? Five?
“He’s a convicted sex offender? I had absolutely no idea.”
That was one neighbor’s reaction at an apartment complex on Sharon Lakes Road, as the WCNC Investigators went knocking on doors -- looking for five convicted sex offenders with addresses on North Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry within 600 feet of the school bus stop at Sharon Lakes and Mereview Court.
Parents waiting for the afternoon school bus with their kids on board also had no idea.
“Five? Within this area?” asked one parent. “That’s terrible,” said another parent, shaking her head. “Freaking pitiful,” was the reaction of a third mom.
At the Sharon Lakes and Mereview bus stop, where buses for four different schools pick up and drop off children, the neighborhood sex offenders on the Sex Offender Registry include two men convicted of taking indecent liberties with minors. There’s also a convicted rapist who lists his home as an apartment right across the street from the bus stop.
“Why would a bus stop be here? And a sex offender right there?” asked one mom gesturing to the apartment behind her. “That's terrible.”
“He might be watching. That s**t is too close for comfort,” said another, who added she’s had problems with other adult men at this bus stop before.
WCNC: “This guy is watching your daughter?”
Parent: “Watching her.”
WCNC: “After she got off the bus?”
Parent: “After she got off the bus. My kids and the people in the neighborhood need to be protected. Because there's a lot of little girls over here.”
The WCNC Investigators found at least 23 other Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools bus stops that also had three or more convicted sex offenders living within 600 feet, according to their addresses on the Sex Offender Registry.
But a spokesperson for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools admitted that CMS didn’t know that the sex offenders’ addresses were so close to school bus stops -- until WCNC told them. That may be because CMS doesn't do what we did -- matching up the school system's own computer list of bus stop locations with the sex offender database available right on the Internet, then mapping both together to see how close they really are.
Instead, CMS issued a written statement, saying they are "not aware of any studies or evidence indicating that using this database or moving a stop one block further from a known sex offenders' home results in an actual improvement in student safety."
The statement says "such a move could inadvertently place a bus stop in a more dangerous location." And CMS adds that they "work closely with the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office to monitor sex offenders who live near schools, and to alert principals and parents of possible concerns."
But the parents whose kids wait at Sharon Lakes and Mereview every day say nobody alerted them.
“They should tell people a sexual offender lives in your area,” said one parent leaving the bus stop with her children.”
Another mom reacted angrily to finding out about the sex offenders from WCNC, instead of from the school system. She says the only thing worse than knowing there are convicted sex offenders nearby is not knowing.
“If they can't do anything about putting the bus stop any further, why aren't we informed? Why not? They would want to know if their kid was in the neighborhood with the bus stop with the sex offender. Yeah. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you? Wouldn't y'all?” ..more.. by JEFF SONIER / WCNC
