5-2-2009 Georgia:
A Georgia legislative bill designed to keep convicted sex offenders off school boards was was signed into law on April 30 by Governor Sonny Perdue.
SB 14, co-sponsored by state Senator John Douglas (R-Social Circle), will become effective July 1.
"I am delighted Governor Perdue has signed our bill to prevent those on the state or national sex offender registry from seeking or holding a position on a local board of education," Douglas said. "Representatives Doug Holt and John Lunsford joined me in working for passage of the bill and now we can assure the people of Newton County and the other 179 Georgia school systems that this is a problem that will not surface again."
Douglas previously said he was spurred by a 2008 incident where a convicted sex offender, Horace Don Gresham, attempted to run for a school board seat in Newton County.
Gresham recently entered a not guilty plea to charges of felony count of false swearing and one felony count of false statement. The charges stem from a question on qualifying paperwork he filed to run for a seat on the Newton County Board of Education last year. On it, he indicated he did not have a previous felony conviction of "moral turpitude." In fact, Gresham had been convicted of felony sodomy in DeKalb County in 1988 and served just under 10 months of a one-year sentence at Rivers State Prison before being released on May 14, 1989. In addition to one year in prison, Gresham was also ordered to serve 11 years on probation, making him ineligible to seek office until 2010.
Gresham chose to continue to seek office even after his past convictions came to light. He withdrew his candidacy by letter moments before a special hearing in from of the Board of Elections to decide his eligibility. ..News Source..
May 2, 2009
GA- Governor signs bill prohbiting sex offenders on school boards
LA- Jindal's sex offender ideas scaled back after blunt questions from House speaker
To obtain a copy of the letter, try contacting the AP journalist to see if they will reveal it.
5-2-2009 Louisiana:
BATON ROUGE, La. -- Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has scaled back plans for toughening sex offender laws.
House Speaker Jim Tucker and another lawmaker sent Jindal an unusually blunt letter questioning whether the proposals were constitutional and how they would be paid for in a tight budget year.
Tucker is a Jindal ally on most issues. Representative Ernets Wooton is chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee. The letter amounts to a long list of problems in Jindal's plans to crack down on sex offenders -- a topic that has remained a favorite of Jindal's since his 2007 election campaign. It was written in February. The Associated Press obtained a copy.
Wooton said his committe staff poured over the proposals and found problems with their purpose, costs and constitutionality.
In January, Jindal's office said the governor wanted to ban "sex offenders from being around children, period." Tucker and Wooton's letter questioned how the state could entirely ban convicts from being in the presence of minors, in such places as jobs.
Jindal is now backing nine sex offender bills. Nne of them prohibits sex offenders from being in the presence of children. Instead, the governor is backing a measure that strengthens already strict laws regarding convicted sex offenders working in public schools.
A Jindal spokesman characterized the Tucker-Wooton letter as part of the back-and-forth process of developing legislation. ..News Source.. by WWLTV.com
CA- California's juvenile injustice system
The editorial blow was from 4-29-09 and speaks about the unjust juvenile justice system. One day after the editorial was published one person ( ANTONIO DE JESUS NUÑEZ ) mentioned received a court opinion declaring that the system is unconstitutional.
5-2-2009 California:
The state sentences children as young as 14 to life without parole. A state Senate bill would bring some sanity to the situation.
Children, even really bad ones, are different from adults. That basic truth is the foundation of our juvenile justice system, which seeks to protect society from violent youth while recognizing that they haven't yet developed an adult's brainpower, resistance to peer pressure, judgment and thus moral capacity. It's the underpinning of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Roper vs. Simmons, which banned execution of inmates for crimes they committed as children.
That doesn't stop California from locking up children as young as 14 for life without even the most remote possibility of parole. There are more than 200 such offenders living out their lives in prison here, with no chance -- despite any maturing, any repentance, any burgeoning awareness of the wrongness of their actions -- of asking for parole, even decades into adulthood. That's costly, cruel and foolish.
Knowing they will live and die in prison, people who acted in the rashness of youth have no hope of returning to society, and therefore no reason to learn, or grow, or mature, or reform. But surely their example will dissuade other youth from crime? Nonsense. Kids who can't imagine next year can't imagine life in prison and can't be expected to make decisions based on something as obscure to them as parole.
Consider, as well, cases such as Antonio Nunez of South Los Angeles, who at 14 was in a car with two adults when someone in the vehicle fired at police. No one was injured, but the boy was sentenced to life in prison forever. It's not an unusual story in this city, where adult gang members recruit teens to help them out and take the fall. Dickens would have a field day.
SB 399, by state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), would give a few of California's youth imprisoned without parole some very narrow hope of a future. It would permit a judge, at least a decade after the sentencing, to consider substituting a sentence of 25 years to life. The inmate would still have to serve a quarter of a century before even being eligible to ask for parole.
Even this modest, sane and humane reform could fail in Sacramento on the specious assertion that the state would be unable to bear the cost of an occasional additional parole hearing; we will instead continue to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a lifetime of imprisonment because of the actions of a teenager. No wonder California can't manage a prison system or balance a budget.
Of all the nations of the world, only the United States permits life without parole for children. Even here, a growing number of states have banned the practice. California should too, but in the meantime, Yee's bill is a sane start. ..Editorial Source.. by Los Angeles Times
VT- ACLU eyes Barre sex offender case
5-2-2009 Vermont:
BARRE – The clock is ticking on Christopher Hagan, and the Vermont Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is seriously considering representing the man who recently ran afoul of Barre's controversial "Child Safety Ordinance."
Barring some legal relief, Hagan, 29, has until next Friday to vacate the Kent Street apartment where he has been living with his wife, Amy, and their two small children for more than a month.
Shortly after his wife signed the lease, Hagan, who was convicted of having what he claims was "consensual sex" with a 15-year-old girl a decade ago, learned of the Barre ordinance that creates residency restrictions for sex offenders living in the community.
Early last month Hagan was told that the apartment where he was staying was located within 1,000 feet of two local playgrounds and he would have to move.
According to Allen Gilbert, executive director of the ACLU-Vermont, that suggestion became a demand on April 23 when a brief notice drafted by Police Chief Timothy Bombardier was hand-delivered to Hagan, informing him he had 15 days to relocate. If Hagan refuses, he could face civil fines of up to $500 a day under the ordinance.
Gilbert confirmed Friday that he has conferred with Hagan and expects to decide some time next week whether the organization will intercede on his behalf.
"We're reviewing Chris' case to see how we can best help him," Gilbert said, noting time was of the essence.
"If we're going to try and help him stay in that apartment we have to do something by the end of next week," Gilbert said. "The clock is ticking."
According to Gilbert, ACLU-Vermont, which questioned the constitutionality of the Barre ordinance when it was first proposed last year, is now taking a closer look at the local law and whether it unfairly infringes on Hagan's rights.
Gilbert has said ordinances like the one on the books in Barre and another subsequently adopted in Rutland could potentially violate rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments, as well as Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Gilbert said ACLU-Vermont is evaluating the most promising arguments that can be made on behalf of Hagan and others like him, and assessing the chances of a successful challenge.
"We'll be looking at all options from possibly doing nothing up to filing a lawsuit," Gilbert said.
Although Hagan has referred all comment to Gilbert, he recently expressed frustration about an ordinance that he believes should only target dangerous sex offenders like child molesters, pedophiles and rapists.
Hagan, who has admitted and paid for a mistake he made when he was 19, said he is none of those things and resents being told where he can and can't live.
Gilbert said that is perfectly understandable.
"This is a guy who's working hard to pull his life back together and whose family is very supportive of his efforts," he said. "It would be a shame if his wife and two kids, along with Chris, had to leave the apartment because of something that happened a long time ago, he now regrets and is trying to get beyond." ..News Source.. by David Delcore TIMES ARGUS STAFF
FL- Defense: Perverted Justice denies access to computer evidence
Based on our readers comment about PJ having more than one computer we reviewed some very old DVDs of the show, and sure enough, they have more than one computer. Given the scope of what they were doing it is very logical to think they would have multiple systems to make sure everything is captured. Any later forensic analysis would be a very big job and likely to shut them down for some time. Further, such a review may show how they have gotten other evidence of the chats they have posted on their site, and it could have been done illegally. Only a proper forensic analysis could find the truth. Hats off to our reader.
5-2-2009 Florida:
BUNNELL -- Charges against a former police officer snared in a Dateline NBC "To Catch a Predator" sex sting in Flagler Beach should be dropped, in part, because a vigilante group didn't allow its computer to be examined, according to a court document.
While Perverted Justice acted as an agent for police and "essentially conducted the entire investigation" leading to the arrest of 21 men, the vigilante group is not following rules that would apply to police and are meant to ensure fair trials, states a motion filed by an attorney for Todd Spikes.
Spikes, 43, was fired from his job as a police officer in Florala, Ala., after his arrest during the December 2006 sting. Spikes is charged with attempted lewd or lascivious battery, two counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition, and computer pornography and child exploitation.
Spikes' attorney, Ted Zentner, said he and defense attorneys for other defendants sent a forensic computer expert "pursuant to a court order" named Richard Connor to Kentucky to examine chat logs. But Perverted Justice denied Connor access to its computer server.
"Perverted Justice has continuously engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to thwart the defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments," Zentner's motion argues.
In an e-mail response Friday, someone identified only as a Perverted Justice administrator rejected those claims.
"It's a baseless, desperate accusation by a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty. We have participated in hundreds upon hundreds of convictions across the country and have had our evidence examined by hundreds of defense attorneys."
Did the group deny Connor access to its computer?
"Nope" was the single-word response.
Prosecutors oppose Zentner's motion as well as similar ones by attorneys for other defendants and plan to respond accordingly, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the State Attorney's Office.
Stetson University law professor Bruce Jacob doesn't think Zentner's motion will succeed in having the charges dismissed, but he does think Zentner has a point about the Perverted Justice computer.
"If it had been the police department and the defendant needed to get access to records or computer access to help prove his case, certainly he and his attorney would have to be allowed to do that," Jacob said. "If the computer might hold any information that could assist in the defense, it ought to be turned over to the defense."
Jacob said that, instead of dismissing the charges, it's more likely a judge would order Perverted Justice to allow access to its computer. If Perverted Justice continues to deny access, then the judge might dismiss the charges.
"We don't know what the computers show," Jacob said. "Certainly those computer records could have been doctored, parts of the conversation could have been left out."
Spikes of DeFuniak Springs, which is near Florida's border with Alabama, was arrested after he tried to meet a decoy who was posing as a 13-year-old girl, police said. According to a police report, Spikes planned to start a sexual relationship with the teen's mother so he could continue seeing the girl.
Spikes drove to the decoy house but then drove away without getting out of his sport utility vehicle, police said. Spikes was pulled over a few blocks away by Flagler Beach police. Police said they found handguns, an assault rifle and a shotgun -- all loaded -- in his SUV.
Investigators said they also found pornographic DVDs, condoms, an anchor and a rope, a floating fishing light, handcuffs, a bulletproof vest, two police scanners and video cameras and digital cameras. ..News Source.. by FRANK FERNANDEZ, Staff Writer
May 1, 2009
FL- Bill to aid tracking of career criminals hits dead end
5-1-2009 Florida:
TAMPA - A bill that could give police the authority to arrest anyone who hinders their efforts in tracking career criminals will not pass the Senate today.
Similar to the Jessica Lunsford Act, the bill would allow police to charge with a third-degree felony anyone who gives them false information about a career criminal's whereabouts.
A companion bill passed in the state House of Representatives on Monday. The Tampa Police Department, which worked with Rep. Michael Scionti and Sen. Victor Crist on drafting the bill, hoped it would move out of committee to be voted on by the Senate later today.It was not discussed on the Senate floor.
"We'll try it again next year. It's a good idea," police Maj. Sophia Teague said.
Detective Rick Cochran, who suggested the legislation, coordinates regular checks on sexual offenders, sexual predators and career criminals. Career offenders are adjudicated as such by the court system if, for instance, they commit a certain offense such as rape, robbery or murder within three years of their release from prison.
Such offenders have to register their addresses each time they move, Cochran said.
Tampa officers occasionally drop by the registered addresses to ensure the information is up to date, should the person need to be found in the future.
Cochran said he meets roommates or relatives on the sex-offender or predator checks who occasionally are evasive about the person's whereabouts. That evasion disappears once he cites the Lunsford Law, noting he can arrest them for giving false information.
"Once I let them know that part of the statute, they'll come clean and say, 'Well, I'm not going to jail. He doesn't live here,'" the detective said. ..News Source.. by VALERIE KALFRIN | The Tampa Tribune
CA- Fresno drops GPS sex offender plan
5-1-2009 California:
City's initiative to monitor beyond parole on uncertain legal legs.
An hour after she took office in January, Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin announced her first major initiative -- a plan to use GPS devices to track the city's convicted sex offenders even after they finish their parole.
Thursday, Police Chief Jerry Dyer said that the plan was being dropped because of doubts about its legality. The city will now wait until state law can be changed. In the meantime, his department will free two detectives for stepped-up monitoring by traditional methods.
"It ended up being a much bigger and more volatile issue than we anticipated," Swearengin said.
Using federal grants, Dyer said the Police Department will hire two retired officers to handle sex-offender registration and related data-entry duties. That will free the two detectives who now do that work to focus on monitoring compliance with the registration rules.
Swearengin said the new approach was "really the backup, but we think it will get us where we need to be."
Dyer said the original plan was first thought to be legal based on information his department had received from state parole agents, who use GPS devices to monitor convicted sex offenders on parole.
"They sent us letters that, in essence, said prior to the removal of the GPS we would be happy to meet with you so that when we take our device off, you can put your device on," he said.
But before moving ahead with the plan, which would require a new city ordinance, Dyer said he briefed state Attorney General Jerry Brown. After a series of conversations between Brown's staff and the city, the two sides concluded that the law on GPS tracking of sex offenders did not clearly allow the city to take over that duty from parole agents.
"It's vague, subject to interpretation," Dyer said. "Although [Brown's office] didn't issue a formal written opinion, they felt that if we went forward we would certainly be a test case" in a lawsuit challenging the practice.
"It wasn't worth the risk," Swearengin said.
Dyer said that the city is now working with the original author of Jessica's Law, which authorizes GPS tracking by parole agents, to make revisions that would allow the city to proceed with its original plan. ..News Source.. by Russell Clemings / The Fresno Bee
NE- High court rules on rapist parole
5-1-2009 Nebraska:
LINCOLN — Accused rapists are entitled to a jury trial to determine whether they have committed a crime that warrants parole supervision for the rest of their lives, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The high court, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Kenneth Stephan, ruled that the Nebraska Legislature increased the punishment for certain sex offenders when it passed a 2006 law requiring lifetime parole supervision for those convicted of raping a child younger than 12 or of raping someone under threat of serious violence.
That means a judge cannot require lifetime parole supervision unless a jury has found the accused guilty of an aggravated offense.
The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the first-degree sexual assault conviction of Abram L. Payan, 24, in the 2007 sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. Judge Steven Burns sentenced Payan to 18 to 25 years in prison and ruled that he had committed an aggravated offense calling for lifetime parole supervision.
Although Payan's jury had not found specifically that the crime involved the "threat of serious violence," witnesses said the girl was raped at knifepoint.
"On this record, any rational jury which convicted Payan of the sexual assault would have also concluded that it was committed through the use of force or the threat of serious violence," Stephan wrote in concluding that a new trial was unnecessary.
Friday's decision contrasts with a 2004 ruling by the court that lifetime sex offender registration is a civil regulation designed to protect the public, not a punishment. Registration requires those convicted of certain sexual offenses to report their place of residence to their county sheriff. The Supreme Court has said the registration law is intended to help prevent recidivism and to help law enforcement solve future sex crimes.
Lifetime parole supervision, however, requires more constitutional safeguards than lifetime sex offender registration, the high court determined.
Those under parole supervision not only must regularly report to a parole officer, they also can be restricted on where they live and work and on their choices of friends and leisure activities. They can be required to submit to medical or psychiatric treatment and be forced to take drug or alcohol tests or a lie detector examination. If they don't comply, they can be returned to prison, the court observed.
"The term 'parole' has a distinctively penal connotation," Stephan wrote. ..News Source.. by LESLIE REED, WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
Hate crimes HR 1913 (Various issues under the bill)
There just might be a problem with adding "Sexual Orientation" as a new basis for hate crimes. The debate on this is heated! Further, the issue of "Religious Speech" possibly being curtailed, I think is overblown. So far the discussion on that issue seems to misconstrue normal discussion into hateful speech and thus being prosecuted for such.
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009:
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP END VIOLENT HATE CRIMES?
US House Roll Call Vote
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex and often speculative.
Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted.
Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.
One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting America, not dividing our country.
.The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of criminal investigation.
Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill.
In addition, the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.
In 2000, the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not extend to "noneconomic, violent criminal conduct" that does not cross State lines.
Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or national origin constitutes a "badge" or "incident" of slavery, the subject of the 13th Amendment.
Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments. Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last 10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were determined to be motivated by bias.
This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police?
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The issue of pedophiles etc. came into the discussion during consideration of a "Transexual Amendment" to the hate crimes bill, and that amendment was voted down:
Rep. Steve King [R-IA]: I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership in opposition to this issue and for yielding.
The gentleman, the previous speaker, just said this bill only punishes violent crimes. I take you to the language from the bill. Here's the definition of a crime of violence. It means an offense that has, as an element, the threatened use of force against the property of another. If one threatens to use force against the property of another--this is verbatim from the section that is referenced in the existing code--property crimes are included in this, threats against property crimes are included in this. Hate crimes, the definition of hate crimes in the Federal statutes means a crime when the perpetrator selects property because of the property owner's actual or perceived sexual orientation.
This isn't just violent crimes. It is in some of the Federal segment of it but not in the assistance that goes to local governments. And in local governments it also states in the bill that any local jurisdiction's hate crimes ordinance or legislation can be supported by supporting the prosecution of the local hate crimes legislation that's there.
And so whatever local jurisdiction may determine is a hate crime is covered under this bill. It might be a city, a county, a municipality; it might be a parish, it might be a State. It might be San Francisco's ordinance that says, Thou shalt not discriminate against the short, the fat, the tall, or the skinny. That is hate crimes ordinances that could be prosecuted with Federal assistance under this bill. The short, the fat, the tall, the skinny. That will cover some regular people, I think.
And so I would ask this: Why are you dividing us? Why are you pitting Americans against Americans? That's a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. This divides us and pits Americans against Americans. And the definitions in this bill are broad, ambiguous and undefined anywhere with any consensus, even among the professionals that deal with this on a daily basis.
In the committee, I asked specifically the question, "What is the definition for sexual orientation?" The answer that I got back from the gentlelady from Wisconsin was, "This bill only covers homosexuality and heterosexuality." Now it presumably excludes bisexuality, but in the rule debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said, "No, no. Here's what we have," and he read through a whole list of philias, he called it.
There are 547 specific paraphilias that are listed by the American Psychological Association. About 30 of them have been read into this RECORD. I've got a list of these 30 philias. Among them pedophilia--the obsession with children--which specifically was excluded from the bill when I offered the amendment by the Judiciary Committee.
So, Mr. Speaker, we're going down the path here of no one really knows. Am I going to buy into the statement made by the very senior member of the Rules Committee who says I want to protect all philias whatsoever no matter what the proclivity? And many of them are perversions, Mr. Speaker. We're going to grant that protected status to people who are actually breaking the law if they act on their particular sexual orientation, or are we going to limit it to--as the gentlelady from Wisconsin says--homosexuality and heterosexuality, not bisexuality.
I tried to explain this to the press as they asked me questions. And finally my answer became, "If this sounds confusing and gibberish, it is." And it leaves it open to any judge, any lawyer, anyone for anything that is in their head or might be their plumbing or might be in the perception of the perpetrator as well as, and/or, the perception of the alleged victim.
There is no precedent for this in law, this broad, broad idea that we're going to punish what is in the head of the perpetrator by dividing what may or may not have been in the head of the victim. That's where this legislation takes us.
Why are they dividing us, Mr. Speaker?
I oppose this legislation.
