Would a man get such a sentence? Or, is the judge taking into consideration that, registering as a sex offender for 10 years is sufficient punishment? Note: This is following being sentenced to prison and appeal based on prosecutor's remarks, then case was remanded for a new trial; the result is below.
12-2-2008 West Virginia:
Mindy Keesecker will spend a month in jail.
PRINCETON- -- It's a month behind bars for a Princeton mother convicted of sexually abusing a teen boy.
In Mercer County court this afternoon, Mindy Keesecker was sentenced to two one-to-five year prison terms. But both were suspended.
Instead, she'll spend the next 30 days in jail.
She'll be on probation for five years and will have to register as a sex offender for the next ten years. Investigators say Keesecker had a relationship with a teen boy while serving as a church group chaperone.
She pleaded guilty in November to two counts of first degree sexual abuse(Sexual abuse occurs when a person subjects another person to sexual contact without their consent, and that lack of consent is due to physical force, threat or intimidation.). ..News Source.. by WVNS
December 2, 2008
WV- Mercer County Woman Sentenced on Sex Charges
PA- New identification technology used by police criticized for being potentially invasive
12-2-2008 Pennsylvania:
Since 1991, law enforcement has worked to develop more and more comprehensive listings of sex offenders not only to aid its investigations but also to protect citizens. After the initial success of Minnesota's Sex Offender Registration Act, the nation as a whole has worked to continuously improve a detailed, national registry of sex offenders, most notably as of late with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. This series of legislation has benefited not only law enforcement agencies, but also various individuals and organizations, ranging from Boy Scout troops to daycare centers, in their attempts to screen out convicted offenders.
While the benefits of the creation of a national database have been undeniably beneficial in many ways, detractors point out that not all the results have been positive.
Criticisms range from the creation of legal situations involving double jeopardy to the negative psychological effects on the offenders themselves, and have garnered much attention from civil rights groups. Such groups, especially the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have recently been concerned with the recent, localized implementation of a new method of tracking sex offenders: iris scanning.
Quick, relatively simple, although yet unproven and legally unconfirmed, iris scanning technology has been recently developed by BI2 Technologies in Plymouth, Ma., enabling law enforcement agencies to scan the eyes of convicted sex offenders and place those images in a database that would potentially be nationally available.
Unlike usual fingerprinting identification, this type of identification provides dozens more unique points of identification that cannot change over time or be altered in any way, including Lasik surgery.
Several sheriffs' offices in Massachusetts, New Mexico, California, and other areas have already invested in this type of technology and are beginning to build up their own databases to be integrated with those currently in existence. Established laws have already created widely accessible databases with extensive amounts of information on registered offenders. In Pennsylvania, registered sex offenders' names, photos, and addresses can be found by anyone with access to the internet at _____. The convicted persons can be searched for by their names or simply by the geographic area they live in.
While the Web site publishes a disclaimer that the information is only to be used for "community safety purposes" and not for intimidation or harassment, objectors claim that making this information so readily available poses more problems, especially the "unconstitutional" addition of punishment via public shame.
Organizations like the ACLU are quick to point out that these concerns could only be aggravated by the addition of a database of iris scans. They suggest that police could potentially use the iris scanning technology to quickly access individuals' information, then decide how to proceed in various situations based on knowledge of past criminal records.
Quick to point out the potential for parallels between our law enforcement agencies and those depicted in Steven Spielberg's 2002 film "Minority Report," critics of iris scanning are wary of the many ways in which such technology could be abused to the detriment of convicted criminals and ordinary citizens alike.
As such technology is adopted more widely, the question of how much individual privacy Americans are willing to give up in favor of open information rises to the forefront, as it seems to with nearly all recently-developed security measures. ..News Source.. by Karrin Randle
Murphy: ‘Hounddog’ is child porn, not art
12-2-2008 National:
When it first erupted at the Sundance Film Festival a couple of years ago, the controversy around the movie “Hounddog” struck me as both important and potentially harmful.
Important because folks were talking about how the movie hurts children in the erotic way it portrays child sex abuse, and harmful because the criticism brought more attention to the film.
Now that it’s been released in theaters nationwide, child advocates have been dealing anew with the dilemma: informing the public about why the film is harmful, and thus stoking even more public curiosity, which means more exposure for the filmmakers.
I’m willing to take the risk that I might make more money for the creators of “Hounddog.” I don’t care. In fact, I hope to incite as much negative attention as possible, even though it will mean extra people lining up to see the film.
The movie centers on the terrible life of a 12-year-old impoverished child living in the South. In one scene, she’s shown being raped by an adult male. The movie doesn’t imply that she’s being violated, or convey the idea through dialogue. It’s a shot of the child, partially naked, actually being brutalized, though it doesn’t reveal any private body parts.
Good, you’re thinking — not too graphic, right?
Wrong.
The film is worse because instead of body parts, it focuses on the child’s face; contorted and terrified while her body is being torn apart by a filthy 200-pound man.
Some say this is exactly the right way to portray child rape. Get as close as possible to the feelings of the victim. Let the audience see the empty stares, the terror and the loss of innocence dripping away in the child’s silent tears.
It’s good to show the child’s pain. It helps the viewer develop empathy.
Very wrong.
“Hounddog” doesn’t evoke empathy, it exploits and eroticizes human suffering.
By depicting a child’s pain and connecting it with the viewer’s non-visual awareness that it’s caused by sexual activity, the filmmaker becomes a child pornographer. Tying together unwanted pain with sexual stimulation is exactly what makes pornography so destructive in our culture.
Anti-pornography advocates, like me, have no problem with erotic material. Most of us aren’t prudes or anti-art. We love all things sex. But when adult pleasure is caused by a human being’s suffering, it’s pornography. Period. It isn’t art or sex. Ever.
In fact, the porn in “Hounddog” may be worse than what we think of as real child pornography, which requires little imagination because it’s all there in full view.
When a filmmaker engages the audience to use imagination, as in “Hounddog,” the impact on the human psyche is far greater. Victoria’s Secret gets it. And Alfred Hitchcock understood this brilliantly — the idea that it’s even more titillating, and thus sells better — to cover up the sexual details just enough for the user to rev up and feel the effects of his imagination at the moment when violence meets stimulation.
Which brings us back to “Hounddog” and the creepy people who rush to the theater to see such a movie not for the story or the acting, but because they feel titillated reading the reviews that describe a suffering child being raped.
What kind of person finds pleasure looking at a child’s face, twisted in pain during a brutal act of violence?
What kind of person is excited to watch a little girl’s eyes become vacant in ultimate acceptance of a vicious sex act?
What kind of person thinks it is enjoyable to watch a child’s spirit dying at the hands of force and power she can’t possibly prevent?
I don’t know for sure. But I’m certain some of them will be our neighbors and friends, and they will claim to be in line to see movies like “Hounddog” because they live sophisticated or avant garde lives, high above the rest of us plebes, which is why they can appreciate a film that dares to push the envelope, blah blah blah.
Sure.
I’ll be there, too. Not buying a ticket but taking pictures of the people in line. These are the folks we need to worry about.
Forget sex offender registries. We should be looking more closely at the “regular people” who cover their inclinations with good jobs, picket fences and a bit too much respect for edgy art. ..Source.. Opinion of: Wendy Murphy is a leading victim’s rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston and radio talk show host. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu.
December 1, 2008
FL- Filmmakers examine marginalized' lives of sex offenders
While I think it is a good idea to let the world know the harms done by sex offender laws, I totally disagree with the title of the film as it conflicts with the message of the film. So the question is, what are the filmmakers saying? A reader mentioned "irony" but in my opinion calling folks out of their name is not irony nor should it be.
12-1-2008 Florida:
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The Palace Mobile Home Park has become a sort of modern-day leper colony. Tucked beside a liquor store off Interstate 275, the trailer park is a haven for sex offenders, with about 100 of its residents on the state's registry.
It is also the subject of a documentary film by a group of Central Florida filmmakers. Titled "Scum of the Earth," the film takes a generally sympathetic approach to its subjects, whose crimes involved children.
One subject molested his daughter, whom he's now not allowed to contact. Another claims she was sexually abused by family members and years later molested a 3-year-old girl she was baby-sitting.
The title, meant as irony, sums up society's view of sex offenders. The film explores how the Palace became a sanctuary for these outcasts.
Clustering of sex offenders is a natural outgrowth of restrictions on where they can live, said Jill Levenson, an assistant professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton who specializes in sex-offender issues. Communities throughout the state have restricted offenders from living too close to schools, day-care centers and bus stops.
"This public policy of fear and revenge is really making the problem worse," said filmmaker Phyllis Redman, who has a background in social work. "Yet it's continuing to be implemented primarily because of public fear."
Her husband, Eric Breitenbach, a fellow filmmaker, acknowledges that many people might find the subject matter tough to watch. When he has brought up his latest project in group settings, "you can hear a pin drop in the room ... You can tell people are immediately worried or turned off or apprehensive about watching or even considering watching a film like that."
Breitenbach and Redman, who live in Deltona, Fla., often focus on those Redman describes as "marginalized." Their critically acclaimed film "When Pigs Fly" chronicled a Flagler County, Fla., woman's battle to save domestic pigs from death. The production team also includes Gary Monroe, a DeLand, Fla., photographer.
When the group started its most recent project, a mental-health counselor at the Palace encouraged his clients to tell their stories on film. It would be cathartic for them, said therapist Don Sweeney, and educational for those who might choose to watch.
By opening up on camera, "I wanted people to see that I'm still a human being," said Robert Smith, who spent time in prison on charges of lewd or lascivious battery on a child. Smith said he molested a 10-year-old girl at his son's party. Smith said he doesn't remember the crime because "I got pretty blitzed" beforehand.
People credit — or blame, depending on their point of view — a woman named Nancy Morais for creating this haven for sex offenders. Morais, whose son is a convicted sex offender, began offering services at the Palace for sex offenders when she was managing the park. The group she founded, called Florida Justice Transitions, has its headquarters there. At the Palace, "I think they feel safe," said Sweeney, who runs group-therapy sessions there. "They don't have to worry about vigilantism, people hating them, putting them down."
Redman said their subjects suffer with shame, guilt and remorse. In the course of filming, one went back to jail for missing by one day a deadline to register as a sex offender. One attempted suicide. Another faces eviction from the park.
"All of these guys are really hanging in the balance," Redman said. "The tougher society makes it on them, the more likely they will not be successful, whatever that means: re-offend, return to addictions or commit suicide or become homeless."
The Palace has its share of problems, although law enforcement officials say it's rare for park residents to get rearrested for sex crimes. Sweeney said drugs and prostitutes are prevalent. Earlier this year, a transient visiting friends at the park murdered a pregnant woman whose fiance lived there, according to news reports. And there is occasionally tension between the sex-offender residents and their neighbors.
"It's hell here," said one woman who had complained to management that an offender in the park had harassed her.
Residents pay several hundred dollars a month to live — often with roommates — in tiny mobile homes packed tightly along narrow streets. Many of them are well-kept, landscaped and decorated with items such as pink flamingos. An American flag hangs in front of one home.
Harold Cooney's home has a ramp for his wife's electric scooter. The living room is decorated with angel figurines and filled with wooden and glass furniture that seems out of place in its cramped surroundings. A small sign over the door reminds him not to forget to wear his electronic monitoring device when he leaves the house.
Now 76 and battling leukemia, he served prison time in 2006 after police caught him masturbating on a Web camera, thinking a 14-year-old girl was watching him on the Internet. It was actually a law enforcement officer.
Cooney and his wife, Ruth, consider themselves parental figures to many of the men. She said her husband's arrest turned out to be a blessing in disguise because they have been able to help so many men at the park.
"If it wasn't for this place," she said, "I don't know where these people would go." ..News Source.. by Greenville Online.com
VT- Vermont Sex Offender to be Released After 3 Years
12-1-2008 Vermont:
BURLINGTON, Vt. — A sex offender whose lenient sentence for molesting a child led to a crackdown on punishment for sexual predators in Vermont will likely be released from prison next month, state corrections officials say.
Mark Hulett is due for release Jan. 2, but will remain under the state Corrections Department's supervision for life and could return to prison if he commits another offense or violates conditions of his release.
Judge Edward Cashman was criticized by lawmakers and Gov. Jim Douglas when he sentenced Hulett, then 34, to 60 days for sexually assaulting the daughter of a family friend numerous times during a four-year period beginning when she was 6.
Cashman, now retired, said he had wanted a short prison sentence so Hulett could get the sex-offender treatment that the Corrections Department would not provide behind bars. After the department changed its policy, the judge lengthened the sentence to three years.
"He is going to complete his treatment, and he is on track to be released in January, provided he can find approved housing," Brian Kearns, Hulett's caseworker, said recently.
Finding housing could delay Hulett's release, said Andy Pallito, the acting corrections commissioner. Hulett must live in an area without large numbers of children; must not live near schools and other facilities where children gather; and must avoid friendships with people who have children.
The outcry over Hulett's sentence in 2006 led Vermont to crack down on punishment for sex crimes, including new mandatory minimum sentences for some offenders.
"We've seen far more punitive sentences, longer terms of incarceration, as a result of the Hulett matter," said Chittenden County State's Attorney T.J. Donovan.
"Sexual violence against children has become more of a priority not only for law enforcement but for the Legislature, which is a good thing," he said. "It made the Legislature talk about a very difficult process that we go through every day, which is to do justice, and that can be very difficult for the people involved." ..News Source.. by FOX News
IA- New sex-offender tracking rule sought before U.S. deadline
12-1-2008 Iowa:
It could be the perfect opportunity to kill Iowa's controversial law restricting where registered sex offenders can live and completely rewrite the rules aimed at tracking violators.
State lawmakers' reason for this politically risky move? Iowa is under a deadline to update its laws anyway so that they match a stricter federal law.
Sex offenders, including some as young as 14, would have to stay on the online public registry at least five years longer, reveal more personal information about where they work and go to school, and face more supervision from law enforcement.
Iowa must comply with these federal provisions by July or lose up to $450,000 for law enforcement activities.
Some Iowa lawmakers think this is the chance to toss out the controversial 2,000-foot state rule restricting where sex offenders can sleep, and pass a new law banning them from school grounds and child care centers unless they have written permission.
"Scrap what we have because it's not working," said Republican state Rep. Clel Baudler, a former state trooper who lives in Greenfield.
Even if other lawmakers and victim advocates agree with that, some are leery of certain provisions in the federal law, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
State Sen. Keith Kreiman said the provisions would cost Iowa law enforcement more in time and money. He wants to be sure the provisions would actually make children safer from sexual violence before he votes for them.
"When you're adding additional burdens on state and local taxpayers, you'd better make darn sure what you're doing is going to result in better public safety," said Kreiman, a Democrat from Bloomfield who heads the judiciary committee in the Iowa Senate.
The Iowa Department of Public Safety will finalize a draft bill today, said Ross Loder, a state employee who lobbies for the department.
One of the most controversial provisions in the bill would require some Iowa juveniles as young as 14 years to be on the sex offender registry, with their photo, address and crime committed available for public inspection.
But it would only be for certain serious sex crimes such as those involving force, Loder said. Currently, Iowa judges have the option of waiving registry listing for any youth up to age 17 for any sex crime.
If Iowa complies with the federal law, some youths' names could circulate on the Internet for years, which would "basically stigmatize them for life," said Elizabeth Barnhill, executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
"Clearly there are some juveniles that are very dangerous, but there are many who were also themselves victims and they're very amenable to treatment," she said.
Registry laws that are "more draconian" may send more offenders underground, away from treatment and law enforcement monitoring, Barnhill said. Whereabouts are unconfirmed for 134 of the 5,083 sex offenders on the Iowa registry.
Fewer victims may report abuse "if they know their uncle or stepfather ... will be on the registry for life, and they're probably going to be unemployed and your family's going to have to move," Barnhill said.
"Oh, dear!" said Gaileen Phelps, a Sioux City mother, when she heard about the proposed requirements. "We've just been praying so hard they'd lessen the rules."
Her son, Stephen Phelps, 45, is set to drop off the registry in 2012, but under the new law, he'd stay on until at least 2017 and have to report more personal information such as his Social Security number, e-mail addresses and car license plate.
Gaileen Phelps said her son fondled an 8-year-old girl when he was drunk, then flew to Hawaii to confess to the girl's father and beg forgiveness. He reported himself to law enforcement officials, was convicted in 1994 of second-degree sexual abuse, and served eight years in prison.
Stephen Phelps is not employed. He can't live with his mother because her house is too close to a child care center, so he lives on an acreage outside the city.
"How do you expect these people to become productive citizens if they're continually harassed and treated with disdain?" Gaileen Phelps said.
The existing 2,000-foot rule is "extremely bad public policy," and lawmakers shouldn't make the same mistake in passing more bad policy on sex offenders, said Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.
"Several courts already have declared portions of the Walsh act unconstitutional, and state legislatures around the country are beginning to defy its mandates. Iowa's leaders should do the same," Stone said.
But, Loder said: "If Iowa were to stand out and say, 'We're not going to comply,' is the implication that we're going to be kind of like an island for offenders who don't want to be in this national system?"
The federal law does not require Iowa to repeal its 2,000-foot rule, which is a political third rail. But it would provide lawmakers some cover if they want to do so, supporters said.
"If they're afraid of political ramifications, I can assure them that anything we move forward with is better than what we have now," Baudler said.
By current state law, there are 2,000-foot rings around some schools and child care centers where no sex offenders can live. The proposed legislation would replace the residency restriction with "exclusion zones," which would limit where sex offenders may be present or loiter.
Offenders couldn't step foot on the grounds of a school or child care center without prior written permission, and they couldn't loiter within 300 feet.
Child abuse experts say it's a myth that children are most vulnerable to attacks by strangers who approach them at a school, playground or other public place. In reality, about 80 percent to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by a person known to the child's family, such as a teacher, family friend or relative, said Steve Scott of Prevent Child Abuse Iowa.
Nevertheless, Scott supports replacing the 2,000-foot rule with the plan that keeps offenders off school and child care grounds without permission.
"It makes more sense than the existing law, but we don't have data to support the need for it," he said.
Even in cases of sexual attacks by strangers, there are examples that the 2,000-foot rule doesn't work. It did nothing to stop James Carson Effler Jr. in 2005, shortly after the law took effect. The 32-year-old convicted sex offender grabbed a 20-month-old girl at the downtown Des Moines library, locked her inside a bathroom and sexually assaulted her.
Lawmakers tried to slip a provision into a last-minute catch-all bill last session that would have banned sex offenders from child care centers without permission. It passed the Iowa House, but was scissored from the standings bill in the Iowa Senate.
There may be less wariness about replacing the 2,000-foot rule now that House Republicans have a new leader and the Democratic force in the House is even stronger, with 56 instead of 53.
"If it's going to happen, we need to have both Democrats and Republicans agreeing it's the right route to go," said House Speaker Pat Murphy.
As for the provisions of the Adam Walsh act, state Rep. Kurt Swaim, a Bloomfield Democrat, said he thinks it's likely lawmakers will comply.
"I don't know that I do anticipate a lot of resistance," said Swaim, chairman of the judiciary committee in the House.
If lawmakers don't comply, Iowa will lose up to $450,000 in federal money that pays for drug task forces and overtime for law enforcement officers. The amount depends on the federal budget for the grants and on whether the sanction is applied to grants for both the state and local governments.
Some lawmakers, including Kreiman, said they feel little urgency to meet the federal deadline.
The Legislature convenes Jan. 12. ..News Source.. by JENNIFER JACOBS
The choice for Iowa lawmakers is to update state laws to match a stricter federal law on sex offenders or be docked federal money for law enforcement activities. Some advocates are leery of some of the provisions in the federal Adam Walsh act, which could be expensive to enforce, and they hope lawmakers choose not to comply. Some of the highlights of a new draft bill state lawmakers will consider:
REGISTRY UNIFORM WITH OTHER STATES: Iowa's posted registry information would have to match federal standards. The idea is to provide one integrated national sex offender registry. The current national registry, at www.nsopr.gov, is just a portal that pulls varying information from 50 separate state registries.
WHAT OFFENDERS MUST REVEAL: Iowa sex offenders would have to publicly reveal not only where they live, but also where they work and where they go to school. They would publicly share their nicknames and license plate numbers and descriptions of vehicles they operate, including watercraft and aircraft. They would also have to give authorities their Social Security number, telephone number, e-mail addresses, address of temporary lodging when away for three or more days, Internet user names and employer name - but none of that would be published on the registry.
JUVENILES ON THE REGISTRY: Iowa juveniles as young as 14 would be required be on the sex offender registry. But it would be only for certain serious sex crimes - those involving force, the threat of force or where the juvenile drugged or rendered the victim unconscious. Currently, Iowa judges have the option to waive registry listing for any youths up to age 17 for any sex crime.
DURATION ON THE REGISTRY: Some Iowa sex offenders would be on the registry longer - 15 years instead of 10 years. That's because the federal law lumps sex offenses into three "tiers." They require 15 years, 25 years or a lifetime on the registry. Iowa law currently has two tiers: 10 years or life.
OLD CASES ON THE REGISTRY: The federal provision is retroactive to old cases. That means some sex offenders who were convicted long ago, even before the creation of Iowa's registry in 1995, would now have to begin registering. It would apply only if a conviction today would trigger a lifetime on the registry. Also, old sex offenses would trigger a listing if the offender is convicted of a new indictable crime of any kind.
FACE-TO-FACE CHECKS: Sex offenders on the registry would have to appear in person at their county sheriff's department - either once a year, every six months or every three months, depending on the severity of their offense. They would have to update all relevant information. The sheriff's department would have the option to get a new photograph if the offender's appearance has changed.
Source: Iowa Department of Public Safety and federal Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking
TX- Parents sue school over sex offender check system
The costs to perform this menial task is astronomical, see end of article.
12-1-2008 Texas:
AUSTIN — A background check system used by many Texas schools to spot visitors who are sex offenders is being challenged by two parents who say the process violates their privacy and other rights.
Yvonne and Larry Meadows are suing the Lake Travis school district over a computer system that checks visitors against a sex offender database by scanning their driver's license. Visitors who don't consent can be turned away.
The federal lawsuit filed in November is believed to be among the first legal challenges to the policy in Texas. Houston-based Raptor Systems, which performs background checks for Lake Travis and 5,000 other schools nationwide, said it was unaware of similar lawsuits.
The Meadowses say the computerized checks violate their constitutional rights, including freedom to associate with their children at school and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Neither are listed in the national sex offender database.
Yvonne Meadows said she objected to Bee Cave Elementary School scanning her license because she was concerned about identify theft and a private company collecting her personal information.
"Raptor sold (their system) on this 'registered sex offenders, we need to be on guard,' idea but it was primarily a visitor management system," Meadows told the Austin American-Statesman in its Monday editions.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
Lisa McBride, the lawyer for the Lake Travis school district, said the district thinks its system is reasonable and fully complies with state and federal law.
Yvonne Meadows said she was refused access to school events unless her license was scanned. She filed a grievance asking the school to instead check her status against the Justice Department's online sex offender database, according to the lawsuit filed in Travis County.
The district denied the grievance, and Meadows asked the state education commissioner to review the decision. The review is pending.
Other Raptor clients in Texas include the Dallas school district and Southside school district in San Antonio.
The Austin school district has the Raptor system in most campuses, paying the company $182,000 in startup costs and an annual $50,000 service fee.
-Well, they say there is a sucker born every minute. Hummm, could a PC w/Internet access to the National Sex Offender registry do the same thing? Best Buy sells such systems for $500-800 each.
..News Source.. by Chroin.com
VT- State panel's bumpy road could bring changes
12-1-2008 Vermont:
MONTPELIER — State Sen. Richard Sears says he had trouble getting straight answers — or in one case, any answers — when his Senate committee held hearings recently on Vermont's response to sex crimes.
Now, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants legal and procedural changes to make those answers easier to get, in part by protecting those who come forward to testify.
After 12-year-old Brooke Bennett of Braintree was abducted, raped and slain, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin asked Sears to convene a series of hearings in the summer and fall to study how Vermont handles people charged with sex crimes.
In particular, lawmakers wanted to know how the girl's accused killer, Michael Jacques, 42, a twice-convicted sex offender, came to be released from prison after serving only four years in a 1992 kidnapping and rape and was later released from probation.
But after the hearings, Sears — a Bennington Democrat — and other committee members said they were troubled by some of what they heard and didn't hear as the committee took testimony from law enforcement and corrections officials, victims' advocates, prosecutors and others.
Among the problems encountered in eight full-day hearings and five public hearings around the state that drew more than 150 witnesses:
— Deputy Orange County State's Attorney Robert DiBartolo refused a committee request to testify about his role as prosecutor in a court hearing in which the state Department of Corrections Department officials recommended that Jacques be dismissed from probation.
— Some committee members questioned the truthfulness of testimony by Richard Kearney, a probation officer who supervised Jacques at the time he was recommended for release from probation.
— A Rutland teacher who worked with juvenile sex offenders was removed from his job weeks after testifying to the committee about his experiences dealing with the offenders, even though he made a point during his testimony of not identifying his employer.
Sears and committee vice chairman state Sen. John Campbell said one way to address those problems would be for legislative committees to be given more leeway in issuing subpoenas and taking testimony under oath.
Legislative rules currently allow committees to issue a subpoena if the full House or Senate — or both — passes a resolution calling for that to happen in a specific set of hearings, said Senate Secretary David Gibson and Cathleen Cameron of the House clerk's office.
But with the Legislature out of session this summer when the decision was made to hold the Judiciary Committee hearings, that option wasn't available.
In a 34-page report, the panel recommended making changes to law or legislative procedure that would "explicitly permit legislative committees to subpoena witnesses and establish a penalty for perjury before a legislative committee."
Vermont traditionally has had a more informal process, where people are invited to testify before legislative committees voluntarily and generally are not asked to do so under oath. There have been occasional exceptions to that rules, as when lawmakers investigated the death of David Carriger, an inmate at the state prison in St. Albans town during the 1990s.
Most states are like Vermont in taking the more informal approach, said Brenda Erickson, a senior researcher with the National Conference of State Legislatures. She provided a list of what states do when legislative committees wish to issue subpoenas or take testimony under oath.
Erickson said putting people under oath is "rarely used except under extreme circumstances." Lawmakers generally "want the public to come in and present their opinions, they want it to be a much more informal discussion among people."
Gov. Jim Douglas takes a dim view of the changes being recommended.
"These occasions are so rare that would require subpoena power, the governor's not convinced that the system as it currently exists is broken," said Heidi Mohlman Tringe, secretary of civil and military affairs. "He personally doesn't believe that such a change is necessary. Vermont has a citizen Legislature. It's a very civil, collegial atmosphere." ..News Source.. by Dave Gram
NC- Sex-offender law tougher
There has to be very ignorant people enacting and/or enforcing a law that prevents a person from freely exercising religious rights which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I find it hard to believe that a FULL legislature would not be aware of constitutional rights of every citizen, unless North Carolina is no longer a state of the United States. If such a law actually exists, there is a federal law (Title 42 sections: 1983 1985 1986) which permits persons so restricted to sue for damages and state employees have no immunity under such circumstances. This could make RSOs very rich, all NC RSOs should be visiting lawyers ASAP.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
12-1-2008 North Carolina:
Changes prohibit going to places kids might gather, raise questions about enforcement.
Neil Cagle was stocking shelves at his convenience-store job in Western North Carolina when a sheriff's deputy came by to tell him to quit going to church.
Cagle, 61, is a registered sex offender. Under his sheriff's interpretation of stricter rules on the state's 11,000-plus sex offenders, which take effect today, Cagle can no longer attend Sunday service because his church has a small nursery.
“I started going to that church when I was 12,” said Cagle, who did four years in prison for indecent liberties with a minor. Free three years, he said he tries to obey the law. “But every year they increase the things I can't do.”
To many, that's as it should be. But some experts warn the tougher law fails to distinguish between sex offenders most likely to reoffend and those determined to live clean lives.
Passed nearly unanimously and signed by the governor in July, the law aimed to bring the state into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
-Note: There is nothing in the Adam Walsh Act which prohibits RSOs from going to church. If this state legislature thinks so, then it is the most ignorant legislature in the nation..
The new law triples the time many offenders stay on the N.C. sex-offender registry to 30 years and requires they register in person within three business days of changing address. Starting today, it also makes them stay 300 feet from any place children might gather.
Depending on a sheriff's interpretation, that can mean not only day care centers, schools and youth camps – but also churches, malls and McDonald's Playlands.
Only 3.5 percent of sex offenders, according to one federal study, are sexual predators. Those need the closest monitoring, said Jill Rosenblum, a Chapel hill lawyer who has reviewed the issue. Under the new law, she worries, they may not draw enough attention because law enforcement will be so busy monitoring the others.
-I am quite sure the reporter has misquoted this, as the DOJ study says, 3.5% of sex offenders released from prison went on to be convicted of another sex crime within 3 years of release. The study says nothing about them being "sexual predators."
..News Source.. by Ruth Sheehan
