MI- Grand Rapids police check up on sex offenders

7-25-2009 Michigan:


Grand Rapids (WZZM) - There are thousands of sex offenders in west Michigan. Friday night WZZM 13 News followed Grand Rapids Police as they tracked down 45 offenders who haven't complied with state law. Each one is required to register with the local law enforcement every three months.

WZZM followed two officers. The first check was on Caulfield Street SE.

"I take medicine that sometimes I get confused," said one offender.

Investigators say they hear all kinds of excuses. The most common is, 'I forgot'.

"He says he has a calendar where he keeps track of it but he just plumb forgot. So the citation is obviously to remind him. He's ordered to appear in court and if he doesn't a warrant could be issued for his arrest," said Detective Dan Adams accompanied by Officer Kelly Swanson.

At the second house, the person in question was not home. Officer Swanson informed a relative the offender needs to register at the police department.

"He's in Georgia," said the man's uncle. 'Did he move to Georgia? asked Officer Swanson. "Yup, probably about a month ago."

"A warrant could be issued for his arrest, not only is he violating his reporting duties, now there could be other possibilities in violation of his reporting duties he could be facing," said Det. Adams.

Three teams of officers set out to make contact with 45 non-compliant sex offenders.

"We're not picking on people, it's not a scarlet letter, it's because of the high rate of recidivism, and the dangers of the predatory behavior that we really do need to keep track of where they are living and make sure we know where they are," said Adams.

Here we have the police who have no idea of what the state's recidivism rate really is and spreads incorrect claims of high recidivism to the media.

..Source.. by Lambrini Lukidis Reviewed By: Nick Monacelli

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MI- DOC looks at releasing some prisoners

5-5-2009 Michigan:

Local prosecutor says letting sex offenders out is dangerous (This prosecutor has no idea what the actual recidivism rates are for Michigan sex offfenders.)

TUSCOLA COUNTY (WJRT) -- (05/05/09)--Major budget cuts were announced Tuesday in state government.

No prisons are being closed in these latest moves, but the Department of Corrections continues to look at releasing prisoners who have served their minimum time.

One group of prisoners the DOC is looking at is sex offenders.

The Department of Corrections says those convicted of sex crimes are being looked at for release if they have served their minimum prison sentence.

One prosecutor says this is dangerous.

"They are the type of offenders that give us the greatest concern," said Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark Reene.

Reene is seeing plenty of requests for the release of inmates to reduce the prison population.

"They are by the vast majority sex offenders," Reene said.

The Department of Corrections is looking at nearly 12,000 inmates who have served their minimum sentence.

"Sex offenders are a special population within our prison system that has one of the lowest parole rates," said the DOC's John Cordell.

According to Cordell, sex offenders have a first-time parole rate of about 25 percent, where the rest of the prison population is around 70 percent.

"We as an agency need to ensure that they are receiving fair consideration for parole," he said.

Reene says he believes sex offenders need to serve closer to the maximum time.
"It's been proven time and time again that individuals engaged in that behavior certainly aren't going to stop doing so," he said. "They are notorious for recidivism."

The DOC plans on reinvesting money for more parole officers to supervise sex offenders once they are released.

Reene says the cost-cutting move by reducing the prison population could prove more costly.

"Can you put a price tag on a child who is victimized by somebody who is released? I don't think there is a price tag on this," he said.

Reene plans on meeting with the Department of Corrections to voice opposition over the release of some of those inmates.

The DOC says it will listen. ..News Source.. by Terry Camp

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Recidivism rates falling

4-11-2009 Indiana:

Rehab programs contribute to decrease in repeat offenders

Changing the thinking patterns of criminal offenders is one key to keeping them from reoffending, prison officials say.

From looking at the number of repeat offenders in state prisons, it must be working, as the recidivism rate over the past three years has declined, the Indiana Department of Correction reported.

Officials at the IDOC have studied and monitored Indiana’s recidivism rates for four years and found the overall recidivism rate has gone down for the third consecutive year, falling to 37.4 percent.

DOC officials attribute the improving recidivism numbers to their focus on the successful re-entry of offenders.

At the Miami Correctional Facility, offenders are offered multiple programs aimed at rehabilitation, said public information officer Ann Hubbard.

Hubbard said the DOC tries to make its prisons more than just a place to house criminals. If they choose, inmates can work on issues such as substance abuse and anger management. They can take classes on fatherhood and on character and faith development.

“You can see a change in men who get involved in these programs,” Hubbard said. “They change their way of thinking. They realize there is more to life than just themselves, and they realize what they’ve done to other people.”

(eAdvocate Post)

To ensure an offender leads a lawful life once released, DOC tries to instill the tools needed for success outside prison walls. Hubbard believes that approach is good for all Indiana communities.

“We have to do something,” she said. “These people in here, most are going to get out, and if we don’t do something to better their lives and improve the quality of their lives, they’re certainly not going to improve the quality of our lives when they get out.”

The IDOC defines recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three years of their date of release from a state correctional institution. An offender is included in this study when he is released via one of the following avenues — Community Transition Program, probation, parole or discharge.

Once released, an offender is verified as a recidivist if he returns to the institutional custody of the IDOC for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision.

For offenders released in 2005, only 37.4 percent had returned to prison by 2008, which is lower than the 2007 recidivism rate of 37.8 percent, according to the IDOC.

Rates for 2005 and 2006 were 39.2 percent and 38.6 percent, respectively. During those four years, the demographics of the offenders studied remained consistent.

In addition, one statistic regarding a class of offenders stands out — the recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05 percent, one of the lowest in the nation.

In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low, said IDOC’s chief communications officer Doug Garrison.

Garrison added that sex offenders often wind up back in prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, but he said instances of them returning to prison for committing a new sex crime were extremely low.

These improving recidivism numbers demonstrate the IDOC’s focus on the successful re-entry of offenders in recent years is beginning to pay off.

“Even though conventional wisdom would have us believe that recidivism is inevitable, I firmly believe that the hard work and dedication of IDOC staff has proven that the successful re-entry of offenders is more than possible,” said IDOC Commissioner Edwin G. Buss. “The third consecutive decline in Indiana’s recidivism rate is good for all, offenders, IDOC staff members, and Indiana taxpayers alike.”

Hubbard acknowledged that some inmates will end up back in prison because they never had intentions of stopping their criminal behavior. Because of that and other factors, she said, the recidivism rate will never reach zero.

“You’re always going to have your bad apples,” she said. ..News Source.. by MIKE FLETCHER, Tribune staff writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- JOHNSON: We need a change in approach to sex offenders

11-16-2008 Indiana:

Most people seem to believe that sex offenders have a higher re-offending rate than any other category of criminal. A figure I hear tossed around a lot says that 95 percent of sex offenders will commit another sex crime if they get the chance.

If this is true, then it is evidence that most sex offenders — almost all of them — will continue to commit sex crimes. If this is true, then it means that most sex offenders can’t help their behavior. They will never change. They are beyond help.

If sex offenders really cannot and will not change, then society is justified in wanting to lock them up and throw away the keys. After sex offenders serve their time and get out of prison, it is right that they should be required to register on a database for the rest of their lives. Again, this sounds fine to me; at least, it would if that 95 percent re-offending rate was true.

It is not true. A study done by the U.S. Bureau of Justice in 1994 says so.

Click on pic for actual recidivism rates of both released sex offenders and non sex offenders (who went on to commit first time sex offenses).

There were 9,691 male sex offenders released from prison in 1994, representing two-thirds of all sex offenders released from custody that year. This was not one of those studies where they interview 100 people and then stretch their conclusions to cover 100,000 people. This was an excellent study with a huge sample, whose conclusions can be trusted.

For those of you who might be interested and can read PDF files, I can e-mail you the entire 49-page study. Just e-mail me and ask for it. For those who may not have the time or inclination to wade through the whole thing, let me highlight a few of its conclusions.

First, only 5.3 percent, or 517 men, of released sex offenders tracked in the study were arrested again for another sex crime. Only 3.5 percent, representing two-thirds of those arrested, were convicted. While I absolutely agree that 3.5 percent is still 100 percent too many, it’s a whole lot smaller than that 95 percent figure so many of us throw around.

The 9,691 men in the study included 4,295 child molesters. Of these, 3.3 percent, or 141 men, were arrested again for another sex crime involving a child; again, hardly 95 percent. Half of the child molesters were 19 years of age or younger when they committed their crime. And 60 percent of their victims were children 13 years of age or younger.

The study goes on to show that released pedophiles with more than one arrest for molesting a child were three times as likely — 7.3 percent to 2.4 percent — to be arrested again for child molesting than those with only one prior arrest. This seems to indicate that the sooner pedophiles are caught, the less likely they are to re-offend.

Finally, sex offenders (including child molesters) were less likely to be re-arrested for any kind of crime after their release than non-sex offenders — 43 percent for sex offenders versus 68 percent for non-sex offenders.

OK, we’ve got some figures and statistics to look at here, but so what? How does this help us prevent sex crimes? How does this help us stop sex offenders from re-offending? How can we find a way to reduce the number of victims, especially children, who are being abused by some very sick people?

For starters, if we’re going to reduce sex crimes, then we ought to have good intelligence and gather the best information possible. We need to understand the true nature and actual scope of the problem. We need to deal with facts, so we can develop a plan of action based on those facts. The figures given in this study help us get there.

As long as most people believe that 95 percent of sex offenders will re-offend; as long as too many of us think that sex offenders cannot and will not change; as long as we lump all sex offenders into one category and fail to take the exact nature of each offense into consideration; as long as we let our emotional responses to a truly heinous crime drive our public policy (especially our anger and outrage); and as long as we think that putting every sex offender into a public database will solve our problem: We will not be ready to craft an effective response to this tough and emotional issue.

Almost every day, someone asks me, “What can we do about sex offenders?” That’s too short a question, and the answer is quite long — too long for one column.

For the moment, let me just say that something can be done. Change is in the air, and a change in our overall approach is needed. But before we can start discussing solutions, we’ve got to get the rest of the facts out on the table.

In the weeks ahead, I will do my best to bring facts to this public forum in the hope that our community can find a reasonable and effective way to deal with sex offenses, and the people who commit them.

In the meantime, please don’t shoot the messenger. ..News Source.. by RICHARD JOHNSON, Local Columnist

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

AK- New Sex Offender Recidivism Statistics Out Of Alaska

Spring / Summer 2008 Alaska:

A recent study of sexual offenders released from incarceration in Alaska shows that for the three years after the offenders left prison in 2001, the rates of recidivism for sexual offenders were, by most measures, no higher than for offenders in general. The study, which was done by the Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center, a subdivision of the Justice Center, compared recidivism for sexual offenders released from prison in 2001 with a random sample of non-sex offenders also released in 2001. The analysis used the three measures most commonly used to determine recidivism: incidents of remand to custody, rearrest, and reconviction on any new offense. The results are similar to those found in an earlier study done by the Alaska Judicial Council. (See Alaska Felony Process: 1999, Alaska Judicial Council, 2004.)

The following analysis is based on data from the Departments of Corrections and Public Safety and the Alaska Court System. The Alaska Department of Corrections released 232 male sex offenders in 2001. This analysis focuses on offender recidivism over the three-year period following release. Recidivism is calculated for remand—reentry to prison as a result of probation/parole/technical violations, rearrest, or reconviction for any type of crime. Overall recidivism rates and frequencies for all sex offenders and for a randomly sampled cohort of other types of offenders also released in 2001 are presented. Also given are rates according to the types of sexual offense involved in the original conviction: sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor.

Overall, during the three-year period, 70 percent of all offenders were remanded (68% of sex offenders and 72% of non-sex offenders), 61 percent were rearrested (54% of sex offenders and 68% of non-sex offenders), and 40 percent were convicted on some charge (39% of sex offenders and 35% of non-sex offenders).

For the categories of sex offense, 63 percent of those convicted of sexual abuse of a minor were remanded, 50 percent were rearrested and 36 percent were convicted of another offense—although not necessarily a sexual offense. For offenders convicted of sexual assault, the rates were 79 percent, 63 percent, and 45 percent respectively.

In the case of rearrest for a new sex offense, there was a slight but statistically insignificant difference between the sex offender group—3.4 percent—and the non-sex offender group—1.3 percent.

Note: Table-4 below shows specific rates for rearrest of BOTH 232 sex offenders (3.4%) and 232 non sex offenders (1.3%) released from prison in Alaska in 2001. It is important to note that non sex offenders were rearrested for sex offenses when released from prison. Recidivism in Table-4 is defined as committing a sex offense following release.

In 1994 the Department of Justice did a study of 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994 (2/3rds of all sex offenders released nationwide that year). In that study the DOJ found that, 5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested and 1.3% of the non-sex offenders were rearrested for a sex offense following release from prison.

Most interesting here is, both studies show virtually the same rates for both sex offenders and non sex offenders, and the studies are 7 years apart. Further, sex offender registries were implmented after the 1994 study and there is no change in recidivism rates as the result of sex offender registration and public registries.

Here we are in 2008 and no state legislature nor Congress has done a single thing about the fact that, non sex offenders released from prison go on to commit sex offenses, even in the face of hard facts.

Even more egregious is, in the 1994 study, while the percentages look better for non sex offenders (1.3%) the reality is, because there are far more non sex offenders released (262,420 in 1994) that translates to 3,328 sex offenses; sex offenders committed 517 sex offenses. A 6 to 1 ratio, why are lawmakers so blind, is prevention really their focus? eAdvocate

Methodology

The Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) provided the Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) with a data set of all releases from DOC facilities in 2001. SAC personnel filtered the set for state statutes that identify a sexual offense and require registration on the state’s sex offender registry. Once the sex offenders were identified, an equivalent number of offenders from the remaining pool were randomly sampled to provide a comparison group. Current and past information on status, movements, court cases, etc. involving the offender was also obtained from DOC.

The Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) provided the SAC with criminal histories for the sampled offenders and the Alaska Court System provided record access to court records through the web-based interface, Court View (CV).

For this report, only first release cases were used—that is, if an offender was initially released some time prior to 2001 and returned for some reason, such as a probation violation, and then released again in 2001, that case was excluded. Also, some offenders were released more than once during 2001. The first release constituted the base measure; a subsequent release was an indication of a new arrest event.

In the rare instances of discrepancy, the date of the first event was used in the analysis. For instance, DOC and CV might have had the same date for an arrest/filing that did not appear in the criminal history. This situation generally indicated a remand to custody that did not get reported as a new court case and resulted in incarceration under the original court case—such as for parole, probation, and technical violations.

Demographics

Table 1 shows racial categories for the groups of offenders. Alaska Natives constituted 49 percent of the sex offender group and 46 percent of offenders overall. Whites were 32 percent of sex offenders and 39 percent of the overall offender pool. Table 1 also presents the breakdown for the two sex offense categories.


Table 2 shows a comparison of age and number of prior arrests and convictions for the groups of offenders. The average age of the sex offenders was significantly lower than that of the non-sex offenders. For the two sex offender categories, however, there was no significant difference in age.An analysis of prior convictions shows a significant difference between sex offenders and non-sex offenders for any prior conviction but not for sex offense convictions. The non-sex offenders had significantly more prior convictions than the sex offenders.


Rearrests for Any Crime

Table 3 shows recidivism rates for remands, rearrests, and reconvictions for the sex offenders and non-sex offenders. Non-sex offenders were more likely to be rearrested than sex offenders but for remands and convictions there was no significant difference between sex offenders and non-sex offenders.

Table 3 also shows the recidivism rates for the two sex offender categories. Those originally incarcerated for sexual abuse of a minor were less likely to be remanded than other sex offenders, less likely to be rearrested, and less likely to be reconvicted.

Rearrests for a Sex Crime

Table 4 shows the recidivism rates for the sex offenders and non-sex offenders for new sex crimes. While there is a slight difference in rearrests—3.4 percent for the sex offender group vs. 1.3 percent for the non-sex offender group—this difference is not statistically significant.

Table 4 also shows the equivalent analysis for the sex crime category grouping. Again, there is a slight but non-significant difference between the two groups.

..Original Research... by Alan McKelvie is the director of the Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Megan’s Law and the misconception of sex offender recidivism

2008

Introduction

Legislatures cite the so-called high recidivism rate of sex offenders to implement Megan’s Laws to justify laws requiring sex offenders to register and having their information being disseminated to the community. However, whether people convicted of sex crimes actually possess a dangerous risk of recidivism remains doubtful. This paper will critically question the justification of reliance on recidivism studies by both state and federal legislatures in implementing Megan’s Laws.

Part II outlines the history of Megan’s Laws and presents the claims of recidivisms made by the legislatures. Part III first demonstrates how Megan’s laws do not take in account the variation in recidivism rates among studies. It then shows how studies do not represent the actual majority of those convicted of sex crimes. Finally, this part analyzes the harm created by Megan’s Laws that outweighs any beneficial value on the community when an offender has a low recidivism rate. Part IV confutes potential opponents’ arguments that because sex offenses are underreported, the actual recidivism rates could be higher and that it is better to err on the safe side for children’s sake. Part V concludes that the discrepancy of studies suggests that compulsory notification laws are overbroad by assuming high recidivism rates by all sex offenders. Because recidivism rates vary depending on the characteristics of the sex offenders, Megan’s Laws are justified only for selected types of offenders who commit particular sex offenses. The heavy burden put on those who pose little risk to society outweighs the usefulness of Megan’s Law for the other categories of sex offenders. ..The Rest of the Paper.. by Debra Patkin

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NY- In Courtroom 102, Focus Is on Sex Offenses

5-19-2008 New York:

THE sex cases that are heard in Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen’s courtroom are sad, disturbing stories of people accused of crimes like sexual abuse of children, rape or spreading child pornography. Courts throughout the land see such cases, but what makes Courtroom 102 in the Westchester County Courthouse here distinctive is that it handles almost nothing else.

In 2006, the state’s chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, created three pilot courts — in Nassau and Oswego Counties as well as Westchester — to handle felony-level sex offenses. The idea was that such courts might cultivate expertise among judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers who would become knowledgeable about the complexities involved — the likelihood of a suspect’s repeating a crime or the restrictions needed to prevent an offender from striking again.

Given that few issues raise more fears among Americans than the possibility of a predatory sex offender moving next door, the rationale for such a court seemed persuasive to many. The experiment has quickly been expanded to Suffolk, Brooklyn, Erie and Orange Counties.

On a recent morning, a 30-ish woman, Nilda Pagan, walked into Courtroom 102 with a quandary. She had been convicted of having sex five years ago with a 14-year-old boy and has been on probation since then on terms that require her to stay away from children under 18, except her own three. Now her 15-year-old daughter was about to give birth, and the county’s Probation Department denied Ms. Pagan the right to have this new grandchild live with her. Did that make sense? her lawyer asked.

Judge Cohen, a 59-year-old whose broad white mustache and dark hair graying at the temples make him look stately in his black judicial robes, found that restriction excessive and allowed the grandchild to live in Ms. Pagan’s home.

“I don’t see where breaking up a family serves any useful purpose whatsoever, not for the baby, not for the child and not for the defendant,” the judge ruled.

Then a teenager in low-slung pants was brought in for sentencing. His victim, a jeans-clad, ponytailed woman, stood at the next bench, and a prosecutor read a letter the woman had written describing how last year, while she was sleeping, the defendant, then 16, had broken into her apartment in Yonkers through an open window. She said he rolled over her while she was in bed, dragged her into the living room, then opened the door for two of his friends so the three could ransack the place.

The woman said in the letter that she had been raped, but none of the three men were charged with rape; the charges against them involved lesser sexual assaults. The woman told of having recurring nightmares and being afraid to sleep without a light.

“I have to live with this the rest of my life,” she wrote.

The defendant had already pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and misdemeanor sexual abuse, and Judge Cohen sentenced him to three years in state prison.

“You committed a big, bad crime — you entered someone’s house without permission,” the judge declared.

And so it went in sex offenders court on a day devoted largely to motions, sentencing and hearings. Keith Gaiser, a goateed man who had served time for rape, was sentenced to one year in jail for failing to register with the police as a sex offender when he moved to a new neighborhood. Shawn Rutledge, 37, was sentenced to six months in jail and five years on probation after pleading guilty to second-degree burglary for sneaking into a group home for mentally retarded adults in Lewisboro and having a sexual encounter with a 39-year-old resident. He was severely reprimanded by Judge Cohen for minimizing his involvement and blaming the victim.

“It was a violation of law and basically a violation of all we deem holy — taking advantage of a person in that condition,” the judge said.

Judge Cohen has been running the court since mid-January and already finds that hearing, say, five or six child abuse cases in an afternoon can be draining.

“If you let a guy out and he re-offends, there is a measure of personal responsibility, which every judge has in every case, but with sex offenses, the circumstances are very emotional,” he said. “I’m hoping that the justice that results from this type of specialized court is appropriate.”

There are some defense attorneys who question whether defendants are being treated fairly in these special courts. Diane Webster, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society of Westchester County, whose job it is to defend indigent suspects brought into Mr. Cohen’s court, complained that the state had not provided money for independent psychiatrists to evaluate offenders. Instead, she said, offenders are evaluated mostly by probation officers, who, Ms. Webster said, are not sufficiently trained in psychological issues and are part of law enforcement to boot.

Because sex offenders are lumped together in a single court, she said, distinctions are not always made between, say, a stranger who rapes someone and a 19-year-old charged with statutory rape for having consensual sex with an under-age teenager. The judicial machinery, she said, compels each offender to undergo probation with electronic ankle monitors, polygraph tests and limits on movement near parks and other places where children gather.

Ms. Webster said Judge Cohen had made strides to treat each case individually, but too often, she said, the Probation Department treats them all the same.

“It’s very rigid, which is the opposite of what a specialized court should be,” she said

Judge Cohen said the court does not dispense “cookie cutter justice” and noted that professionals received specialized training in understanding various kinds of offenders.

Rocco A. Pozzi, the county’s commissioner of probation and correction, oversees an agency that has 190 sex-offender cases under supervision. He said his department has been so accurate in deciding how extensively to monitor offenders that in the past three years only one offender has been rearrested for sex crimes.

One of Ms. Webster’s clients that day was Timothy Moore, 21, who had pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl when he was 19 and was sentenced to 10 years on probation. Ms. Webster argued that the terms were unnecessarily harsh because the sex had been consensual.

She also said that Mr. Moore was looking for work, but that when prospective employers learned about his monitoring bracelet they would refuse to hire him. Probation officials asked that he wear it for another six months. Judge Cohen split the difference at 90 days and said he would re-evaluate his order then.

Another case was disposed of — for now. ..more.. by JOSEPH BERGER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MI- Changing Parole Guidelines

3-19-2008 Michigan:

Yet another parolee in Jackson County is accused of a violent crime, and Sheriff Dan Heyns is enraged.

"It's a recurring theme," he says. "I'm at the point in my career where I've seen it so much, I don't have words to lend for it."

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark Blumer agrees.

"We have murders committed by parolees. We have assaults committed by parolees. We see it happen over and over again, and it's frustrating from the law enforcement standpoint," says Blumer.

So Jackson County law enforcement is calling for change.

"We recommend the parole department set new priorities for who they parole," Blumer says. "We need to recognize certain cases are more likely to recidivate."

"We're constantly re-evaluating our system," answers Russ Marlan, Department of Corrections spokesman.

But Marlan says no matter how many changes they make to the parole system, it's still hard to predict who will re-offend.

"We don't have a potion, we don't have a contraption that will correct them" into being law-abiding citizens after a life of crime, Marlan says.

He says in Michigan about 50 percent of prisoners are paroled, and about 50 percent of those commit another crime.

Only 11 percent of sex offenders are paroled, and 32 percent of them strike again.

Again, the MDOC spreads false information. see Recidivism Chart, reality! eAdvocate

Law enforcement says that's too much, but there's no obvious solution.

"It's a tough decision, I know that, especially considering budget issues," Heyns says. "But on the other hand, the government's role should be to protect citizens."

And they feel like their hands are tied when violent convicts are paroled onto their streets. ..more.. by Lauren Zakalik, Email Address: lauren.zakalik

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- Crime stats send a mixed message

3-6-2008 Massachusetts:

LYNN - While there's no mistaking Lynn's gang activity was constant in 2007, newly released statistics show notable declines in some of the city's crime and major increases in other areas.

The good news: motor vehicle thefts went down 38 percent in Lynn since 2006, while robberies decreased 26 percent and assaults dropped by less than one percent, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Rate statistics released by the Lynn Police Department this month.

However, the rate of forcible rapes went up 15 percent to one of its highest levels in two decades and larcenies (excluding motor vehicle thefts) went up 13 percent since 2006.

Five homicides were reported in Lynn in 2007, up from four in 2006.

"We had [five] last year, which is high," Lynn Police Chief John Suslak said.

Of the five murders, three were connected to domestic violence and two were gang or drug-related. The UCR statistics show a 31 percent drop in burglaries, from 980 incidents in 2006 to 681 in 2007. However, motor vehicle break-ins were included in the 2006 statistics but not in the numbers for 2007, which is why a significant drop is shown on paper.

Oftentimes when a serious crime is publicized, concerned Lynn residents say crime is getting worse.

"I don't think it has," Suslak said.

The police chief and long-time Lynn resident explains that from a historical standpoint, crime rates for 2007 are pretty average.

"Whatever you focus on, whether it's a shooting or a stabbing, it always looks like it's bad because ... what we're reporting is bad. But if you look at it, as far as historical averages, I think we're doing pretty well."

According to the UCR statistics, Lynn recorded 15 murders in 1994 - the most recorded homicides in one year between 1980 and 2007. The homicide numbers steadily declined until 1998, when only one murder was reported. Then in 1999, the homicide total jumped to six. Since 2000, the city has recorded between one and five homicides per year.

Thirty-nine rapes were reported last year - only two shy of a 20-year high. In 1988, the city recorded 41 rapes, which is the highest amount recorded in one year between 1980 and 2007.

"It's a concern to us," Suslak said. "We really can't pinpoint any one specific reason for the increase."

Suslak says one possibility for the high sexual assault rate has to do with more victims having the confidence to come forward and report a rape. The chief says it doesn't appear any repeat sex offenders committed the sexual assaults reported in 2007.

When asked what is the biggest problem the city faces, the chief responded, "gangs and drugs."

"A lot of the crime we see is related to one of those two," Suslak said.

Suslak says drug addicts committed a large portion of break-ins, while gang members or drug dealers involved in disputes often cause stabbings and shootings.

"We had 21 gang members shot in the city last year," Suslak said. "It was an unfortunate year."

But it could have been worse, and Suslak credits Lynn's participation in several law enforcement collaborations, including the North Shore Gang Task Force, that made it easier to track criminals who venture outside city limits.

"Our officers will go to Salem or Peabody and go to the mall, for example, and say that's a gang kid," Suslak said. "They're up here and you need to know they may be in your community trying to recruit."

The task force integrates detectives from Lynn and nearby local police departments, along with state and federal authorities to track gang activity. The Lynn Police Department's Gang Unit also forms relationships with community groups like Straight Ahead Ministries, NAACP, the Zion Baptist Church and Girls Inc.

"It makes sense for us to not only find out what's going on in the city of Lynn, but to find out what's going on in Swampscott, Revere and Saugus because those people come to our town too. If someone is an active drug user and doing street robberies in Salem, the next week they're doing them in Lynn," Suslak said.

Taking a pro-active approach to crime, Lynn police also helped form the "Teen Drop In Center" at Lynn Vocational Technical Institute, where local teens can play basketball every Saturday night.

Suslak announced in the interview that State Police designated Lynn as a future regional intelligence node - a "fusion center" where state and local law enforcement could map crime activity on the North Shore. Two other intelligence nodes are planned in the northeast region of Massachusetts, in Lowell and Framingham.

Besides gangs and drugs, Suslak says another serious crime problem is domestic violence. Officers now carry cards outlining what factors indicate a domestic violence suspect is at a high risk to re-offend, which include threats of murder or suicide, previous arrests for violence or access to weapons.

"We're trying to train our officers to identify high-risk indicators in domestic violence cases, but also so we can educate the [bail] clerks that might be inclined to release these individuals on bail. We might say 'look, we really need to try to hold on bail if we can,'" Suslak said.

The cards were inspired in part by the murder-suicide that took the lives of Xiomara Robles and Raymond Echavaria in a horrific elevator explosion on Market Street on March 14, 2007.

"I think every department likes to think they're doing what they can to try to prevent these [situations] from happening. The fact is, they still continue to happen," Suslak said.

Despite the constant need for law enforcement, Suslak says the department is dealing with a $250,000 budget cut in Fiscal Year 2008, including the removal of a traffic enforcement van and two patrol cars from each shift. Two officers were reassigned from the Special Investigations Unit to patrol duties for financial reasons, the chief said.

"The men and women here do an excellent job," Suslak said. "There is a concern about staffing levels we are trying to address. Everyone including the mayor is concerned about it as well. We're all trying to make due with our resources." ..more.. by Dan O'Brien / The Daily Item

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Legislator: Sex offender list is missing names

11-5-2007 Michigan

Michigan Department of Corrections Director and another refute state legislator as to what sex offender recidivism is and the effectivness of residency laws! Further, Rep. David Law misstates what the holding was in the U.S. Supreme court.

Michigan's sex offender registry isn't a complete list of dangerous predators.

Offenders convicted before 1995 aren't required to register.

Rep. David Law, RCommerce Township, wants to change that.

He said sex crimes against minors left an imprint on him during his time working in the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office.

Law's bill would require some individuals convicted on or before Oct. 1, 1995 to register. It would cover offenders who were age 17 or older when they sexually assaulted a child younger than 13.

"This bill is not about further punishing sex offenders - this is a matter of public safety," Law said. "The recidivism statistics of the most heinous sex offenders pose a significant threat to public safety and our children."

According to the Michigan State Police, the intent of the registry is "to better assist the public in preventing and protecting against the commission of future criminal sexual acts by convicted sex offenders."

Offenders are required to register if they reside, work or live in the state and have been convicted of specific sex crimes. The registry is a public record and includes the individual's name, photo, crime, physical description, last known address and aliases.

But not everyone sees the proposal as an efficient way to make the public and children safer.

Elizabeth Arnovits, executive director of the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, said the bill draws attention to an emotional issue but the registry isn't an effective policy. She said that laws such as sex offender reporting may make people feel more secure when, in reality, they accomplish little and make people less vigilant because they're lulled into a false sense of security.

"These laws are not making people safer," Arnovits said. "These things don't protect anybody."

Arnovits predicted the proposal would pass.

"It is an emotional and political issue," she said. "It will pass in a flash."

Patricia Caruso, director of the Department of Corrections, said the recidivism rates for sex offenders are extremely low, but because sexual assault is such an emotional issue, the facts are often ignored.

According to Caruso, laws that require offenders to stay a minimum distance from playgrounds and other areas with children are "meaningless and ineffective" because less than 1 percent of sex crimes against minors are committed by strangers.

She said most offenders are close friends or relatives of the victim.

Law said he's not very concerned about the rights of sex offenders because they "didn't have any regard for the rights of the victim when they molested them."

He also said the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld retroactive use of such registries.

What the US Sup ct held was, that in the case of Alaska's registration statute, it was not a ex post facto violation because the Alaska statute did not impose any punishment. However, at the time, there were no collateral attachments to registration in that state. Today there are various collateral attachments which the court may consider punishment if a case was presented to them today. Michiga's registration scheme has many collateral attachments and David Law now proposes another. eAdvocate

"As access to children gets easier due to emerging technology, we have to fight harder to protect our kids," Law said. ..more.. by GREGORY HERBERT, Of Capital News Service

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...