5-25-15 Michigan:
Michigan's law — and some others across the nation — have come under fire as overly broad, vague and potentially unconstitutional, a Free Press article last Sunday explained. Research also suggests registries do little to protect communities and often create ongoing misery for some who served their sentences and are unlikely to re-offend. Readers mostly agreed:
The Michigan sex offender registry clearly does little to protect the public. People listed on the registry, who are often a low risk for re-offending, are frequently subjected to prejudice and discrimination that makes it impossible for them to become productive members of the community. The registry continues a cycle of punishment for them and their families far beyond the prison sentences they have already served. Many people on the registry not only are unable to obtain housing and employment, but are also subjected to rejection, harassment and even violence.
Enlightened public officials would be well advised to reform the registry so that it lists only truly high-risk persons and only law enforcement can access it. Then, thousands of ex-offenders would be free from the oppression that now defines their lives and have a chance to become productive citizens.
Julian Gordon
Waterford
How come there is no registry for offenders who kill people, batter their partners, inflict serious bodily harm on others or commit crimes with firearms?
Violent offenders tend to be repeat offenders. Where are our virtuous legislators on this issue? They kill and injure many more people than sex offenders, but there is no violent offender registry.
Mark Dobias
Via Freep.com
The problems addressed in the article and responses to those problems by our leaders serve as a microcosm to the problems and issues affecting Michigan and the U.S. in general. No longer is there room for open, honest conversation on issues, whether it's a sex offender registry, global warming, health care, racism, violence, transportation, road repair, auto insurance and myriad other issues facing this nation.
Facts, studies and science are largely ignored in favor of touting the long-held beliefs of a party, leadership and personal convictions in spite of contradictory facts or science. This demagoguery on issues has not served the public. It's time for a change in leadership, problem-solving and politics.
Susan Peters
St. Clair Shores
It keeps the paranoid people safe. The rest of us really don't care. Teach your kids how to be safe and to never talk to strangers. Choose to live in safe areas with good schools. Don't be paranoid. It's a sad way to live.
Buddy Osborne
Via Freep.com
Does Michigan's sex offender registry keep us safer? Absolutely not. It and others of this ilk are simply "feel-good" laws that have been totally abused. They are rushed into existence in an emotional and very political maneuver and are meant to extract revenge on a particular class of criminal.
The broad net that is cast, however, together with today's "zero tolerance" mentality, have meant that they are implemented in unfair and blatantly idiotic ways. They are a maintenance nightmare and virtually impossible to be complied with, even if a person wishes to.
Related: Does Michigan's sex offender registry keep us safer?
Above all that, they are totally ineffective. It gives a very false sense of security. Most everyone knows this, but these are primarily revenge laws, so they remain.
Lyle Bialk
Via Freep.com
If these people are so dangerous they must be on a list to warn citizens of their existence, why aren't they locked up? If they're safe enough to be in society, why do we need a list at all?
Andrew Leonard
Via Freep.com
The law, at the very least, alerts us to the presence of sexual offenders in our neighborhoods. If I had to complain about the law, it's the standards as to why a person has to register for indecent exposure, such as peeing outdoors, that can get you on the registry.
Chris Thomas
Via Freep.com
The real issue here is a lack of forgiveness. People who have appointed themselves as arbiters of "justice," and then get zero-tolerance laws passed that are unjust. The cases shown in this article show why this is a bad law, a law that is cruel punishment and is not about justice, but about revenge. We have too many laws on the books today that are intent on destroying people and are in no way shape or form about seeking justice for actual victims of actual crimes.
Dennis Neylon
Via Freep.com
Nobody deserves to be punished for their entire life for something that happened when they were a stupid teenager.
Heidi Meyers
Via Freep.com
I keep hoping our legislators will do something to improve the unacceptable rules that now control the sex offender registry. There is so much injustice as it now stands. Lives have, and will continue to be, ruined unless deep changes are made. Hope isn't going to do it. Courageous action will.
Are our legislators afraid to tackle this important problem? Will making an attempt jeopardize their staying in office or getting re-elected? I surely hope not, but that is how it appears. Please, don't be afraid. Step up and be counted. Let principle win out, not staying in office.
Margaret Betts
Birmingham ..Source.. by Detroit Free Press readers
May 25, 2015
Sex offender registry does more harm than good
January 5, 2011
Registering the Wrong People
1-5-2011 New York:
Sex offender registries aren’t necessarily a bad idea.
For whatever reason, there are certain people who get off on molesting little kids or raping people, and who are not likely to be rehabilitated by a stint behind bars. It’s how their sex drive is wired. If they get caught and go to prison, they’re not any less likely to stop doing it when they get out. That’s not how sex drives work. So they often reoffend. To minimize this, we put their names on a list, make them register with the local police department, impose restrictions on where they can live and what they can do. They’re basically on extremely limited parole for the rest of their lives.
Their lives are basically over. The stigma is the worst our society can dish out. There’s a fat chance of pursuing any meaningful employment or making something useful of one’s life. The best that can be said for such an existence is that it’s not prison.
Of course, with people who have demonstrated a clear and present danger, for whom there is a real and realistic concern that they will victimize another child if given half a chance… well, their interests don’t weigh so much any more.
But are these people really the ones who get registered?
Here in New York, a 17-year-old kid can wind up on the registry for having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. A jerk can be registered for grabbing someone’s ass. Stuff that has nothing to do with sex, like even the mildest forms of unlawful imprisonment, gets you marked a sex offender. A harmless loser will find himself on the registry for calling up a call girl. There really isn’t any rhyme or reason to it any more.
These are not things that have anything to do with the policy underlying sex offender registries. There is zero concern that the people who commit such offenses pose a present threat of molesting kids or committing rape. It’s an unthinking response. It’s a panicked “oh my God think of the children” shouted by people who aren’t actually thinking of the children.
It’s a huge expansion of governmental power, for no good reason. It’s one of the worst penalties the state can impose, and it’s mandated for some of the most minor offenses we’ve got. Clearly, something is wrong.
Fortunately, when the criminal law is stupid, or would have an unjust result, prosecutors have the discretion to do the right thing. We give prosecutors enormous powers to decide whether to charge a crime, what to charge, and what plea and sentence most cases will get. With that power comes the discretion to use it wisely.
So prosecutors have the discretion not to charge registry crimes. Or to take pleas to non-registry crimes, when no policy is served by putting a particular defendant on the registry. But oftentimes, that’s not what happens. An overblown crusader might insist on a registry offense, because by God they’re offended at what happened and want as much punishment as the law will allow. Some prosecutors have a big-government, big-brother attitude — the arrogant belief that they know what’s best, and the best thing is to have long-term intense supervision of someone whose conduct, though not dangerous, offended their sensibilities. But more prosecutors simply don’t think it through at all. They don’t know what the underlying principles are, they don’t understand the purposes and the real-life effects, and they don’t care. Right or wrong, it’s a registry offense, so on the registry you go. They fail to exercise their discretion at all (and by so doing, they abuse that same discretion, hardly ethical conduct).
So, unfortunately, when the criminal law is stupid, or would have an unjust result, you can’t count on the prosecutor to do the right thing.
New York isn’t alone in this. It has become a routine injustice across the United States. People who have no business being on a sex offender registry wind up there, and their lives are destroyed.
And it’s really a civil bit of bureaucracy, not a criminal punishment, so the same protections don’t apply. Ex post facto nonsense is perfectly fine. And there’s no need for due process to determine actual risk, before taking away one’s liberty.
A few years back, in Michigan, there was that case of Justin Fawcett. A teenager, one of many seduced by a teenage girl who described herself as a sexual predator. He was over-charged to begin with by a prosecutor who thought that “consensual” sex among promiscuous teenagers was a felony worthy of putting the kid on the registry till well into middle age. Only after public uproar did the prosecutor back down and agree to a non-registry deal. The deal was struck, the kid got probation, and he went about getting his life back. It was tough, but he was doing it. Time passed. Then the news came out that the state was going to put him on the registry anyway. He’d be a registered sex offender for the next 25 years. He’d only been alive for 20. His life was over. So he killed himself.
Was there any reason for his life to be over like that? Was he a predator, a child molester, a rapist? Nope. Was he someone we needed to worry about, someone who posed a threat to the safety of others? Nope. Was there any reason for him to be on a registry? Nope. No reason other than the fact that an unthinking government said this particular act gets you on the registry.
That was back in 2004. Michigan may have changed its rules somewhat since then, but New York and others are still just as bad or worse.
We’re registering a lot of the wrong people. For the wrong reasons. ..Source.. The Criminal Lawyer
September 9, 2010
More on the 'unintended consequence'
9-9-2010 California:
A readers tells a story about the nightmarish reality of our sex-offender laws
Regarding your cover story about homeless sex offenders [“Unintended consequence,” Sept. 1]: Thank you for bringing some of these issues to the forefront.
Most families suffer right along with their loved ones who happen to get caught up in the nightmare of a sex offense. While some offenses do deserve punishment and the removal of those who are a risk to society, every situation differs from the next. Yet, our society clumps them all together in a similar net.
Back in 2002, our son had a brief relationship with a girl who claimed to be 19, in El Dorado County. They did not have sex. When he discovered that she had lied about her age, he refused her calls and told her to leave him alone. He changed his phone number.
A year later, on the day he was awarded full custody of his young son, he was arrested. I had been an educator for Poway School District for more than 20 years at the time. What followed is too long a story, a total nightmare, but it included such corruption on the part of the Sheriff ’s Department, the attorneys and the court system that we will never recover. I ended up leaving a career that I loved.
Our son spent three years in prison. Upon his release, he somehow managed to get a transfer to be able to live with us. However, my family was then threatened and harassed by our neighbors. And while living here, we were unable to see our grandchildren and some of our friends.
I would lie in bed at night and wonder, “Could my husband get shot while doing yard work?” “Would some nut try to hurt one of us?” Then, Chelsea King’s death occurred. The Kings lived only a few streets from our home. My heart was broken for her family, and yet, somehow I believe our system might have contributed to her death. Could it be that the homelessness, the ridicule, the constant stress might have pushed someone mentally unstable over the edge? Now, we are being punished yet again for a unimaginable senseless crime of another. And our son would have not been charged at the time if we happened to live in another state. So, in California, you are considered the worst of the worst, and in another state, your offense is not considered a crime and you are a free man. And, I cannot help but think that if these laws were in place 40 years ago, my own husband could have suffered the same fate. I met him on his return from Vietnam. I was 17, and he was 22.
Every single member of our family has been effected. Every single member is punished. We are outcasts and lepers. The children in these families suffer the most. While saying the state is protecting children, they are destroying thousands of innocent lives. Our grandson now lives with a man who got a 15year-old pregnant. Same time frame, same county, but was never charged. Our grandson lives with this man, yet is not allowed contact with his own father, the man who loves and cherishes him.
We have since moved our son to another location. The costs associated with this are ruining us financially. He cannot find a job, wears GPS, must attend classes at parole, (they schedule these classes in the middle of the day, so how do they expect them to even have a job?) and we, as a family, can never be together. And that, is the hardest thing of all. ..Source.. Name Withheld
Mistaken Identity Labels Innocent Man a Sex Offender
This implies that, all registrants have to do to bring down the registry is, use names of other people in the public or politicians as aliases causing them to be arrested. That alone shows why the system is ridiculous.9-9-2010 Washington:
Dan Wheeler is trying to clear his name after a sex offender stole his wallet and used his identity.
Dan Wheeler has been wrongly labeled a sex offender and it all happened after his wallet was stolen. Cops say the thief, who actually is a registered sex offender, used Wheeler's name as an alias, and now the other guy's crimes are mistakenly linked to Wheeler.
Wheeler says he never knew the identity switch took place until a cop pulled him over near his home outside Seattle. Wheeler said, "Next thing I know he's listening to the radio and puts his hand on his gun and says "Put your hands on the car. You are under arrest.' I say for what? He says 'We have a warrant for your arrest.' "
Wheeler proved it was a case of mistaken identity, but it didn't stop there. The judge says 'Cleared.' Great, but it's still on my record," said Wheeler. So why can't Wheeler get the sex offender label and the other guy's name removed from his record?
Washington state police tell INSIDE EDITION whenever a criminal uses an alias that name stays in the system permanently just in case the crook uses that alias again. Bob Calkins of the Washington State Patrol said, "If we didn't connect those in the record, that person could continue to use his name and continue to build a duplicate record that would be very difficult to differentiate from the real."
Amazingly, Wheeler has kept his sense of humor about a very unfunny situation that may never go away. "All I can do is laugh and shake my head and think, you know, I'm screwed for life," said Wheeler. ..Source..
September 5, 2010
Is Sex Offender Listing Too Tough For Some Offenses?
9-5-2010 Iowa:
A Drake University law professor questions the stringent punishment of being listed on the sex offender registry in the case of a 24-year-old non-licensed youth counselor convicted Wednesday for kissing a 16-year-old.
“Her chances for employment just dropped to zero,” Robert Rigg, also director of Drake’s Criminal Defense Program, said after the verdict came in. “Everybody in the world will know. It’s the kiss of death.”
Two legislators defend the sex offender laws they helped revise, saying they're not harsh because they protect children.
“Those laws prevent harm to a child who already is a victim,” Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, and chairman of Judiciary Committee, said Thursday regarding counselors, therapist or social workers who have inappropriate contact with clients.
Amanda Jones, a former Four Oaks youth counselor, was convicted by a jury in Linn County Associate Court Wednesday for sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist for kissing a 16-year-old client who was in residential treatment for behavioral issues in June 2008.
The teen testified he initiated the kiss that happened at Four Oaks, but after the incident, he never replied to e-mails sent by Jones, who wanted to pursue a romantic relationship.
Jones faces up to a year in prison. She also will be listed on the sex offender registry for 10 years and be ordered to the 10-year special parole after serving her sentence. She will be added to the list of about 110 women out of 5,164 sex offenders on the registry.
Mark Brown, Jones’ attorney, said Wednesday he believes the registry laws are too harsh for the lesser sex-related offenses and he will ask the court for a deferred judgment, which would eliminate the mandated 10-year special parole.
“I think the legislators should have trust in the judges to decide who should be placed on the registry in cases like this,” Brown said.
Rigg said the legislators decided they wanted to be the “super judge.”
“This is a common criticism of mandatory sentences – it doesn’t take into account the facts and circumstances of individual cases," he said. "The mandatory sentencing is addictive – once you have it, you get hooked. No politician is going to change it because they would lose the next election. They would be a friend of pedophiles. They get politically stuck in it.”
Rigg said the judges in these cases are concerned about the lack of flexibility in the law, so the only one left with any power or control in a situation like this is the county attorney or prosecutor.
“If you think about it, there’s no downside for them,” Rigg said. “If they win, great. If they lose, they can say they did their best and they don’t look soft on sex offenders.”
Rep. Clel Baudler, R-Greenfield, who worked on the bipartisan revision of sex offender laws, said Jones “got a bargain.”
“She was undoubtedly pursuing this juvenile,” Baudler said. “I was for tougher laws as in the federal guidelines (based on risk factor) 15 years, 25 years and life.”
The lawmakers made the decision to stay with 10 years of less serious and life for more serious and violent offenders, he said.
Baudler, a former state patrol officer, said there was some discussion about giving judges the discretion regarding the registry requirement, but that idea was shot down because after considering how crimes are charged and then how they are pleaded down, the legislators opted against it.
Kreiman, also a practicing attorney, said Jones’ actions were wrong and the laws aren’t too harsh for someone like her to be on the registry for 10 years.
“These (offenders) need to be monitored. If she has a proclivity for this, she could go to the next place to work with kids,” Kreiman said.
The registry may seem unfair for someone who is convicted for a minor sexual offense if it’s a one time incident, but “the problem is we don’t now who’s going to re-offend,” Kreiman said.
There is a provision in the law which would give someone who may not have that tendency to re-offend a “slim chance” to shorten their time on the registry, Kreiman said.
Ross Loder, legislative liaison for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, said the modification provision in the law enacted in 2009 allows an offender to ask a district court judge to modify or shorten their time on the registry, but there is stiff criteria that must be met.
Loder said the offender must have: a recommendation from a probation or parole officer; be released from jail or prison; have approval from assigned community based corrections; must be on the register so many years based on level of offense; and must complete sex offender treatment and risk assessment, ranking as low risk to re-offend.
“There have been no successful modifications since (the law) went into effect,” Loder said. “There may be some in the works now…. those are ones with minor offenses committed as juveniles.”
Loder said the number of women on the registry has remained about 3 percent of the total for the last decade or so.
The Iowa registry started in 1995, and major revisions were made in 2002, 2005, 2009 and this year. ..Source.. Trish Mehaffey, Reporter
May 13, 2010
Opponents: New sex offender laws won’t help
5-13-2010 Illinois:
Bills would ban sex offenders from parks, require lifetime registration
Two state bills beefing up Illinois’ sex offender laws await only the governor’s signature to become law. But some groups say the legislation would waste money and fail to prevent future sex crimes.
Senate Bill 3084, known as the retroactive sex offender registration bill, would require lifetime registration for certain sex crimes committed more than 15 years ago. Under the new law, certain sex crimes committed at any time in the past would require registration, which could create as many as 10,000 new sex offenders, according to Laurie Jo Reynolds, a Chicago-based corrections reform advocate. Reynolds organized Tamms Year Ten, a coalition of groups advocating reform at the Tamms supermax prison in southern Illinois, and was recently named a Soros Justice Fellow by the Open Society Institute for her work on the unintended consequences of sex offender legislation.
Reynolds says the proposed law would put an enormous financial burden on the Illinois State Police, who monitor sex offender registration, requiring them to analyze old records to see who is required to register and then track down previous offenders. Meanwhile, Reynolds says the law would likely not prevent future crimes.
“It would take a tremendous commitment of state police resources to enact this law, and many of the people targeted are low-risk and have been law-abiding for decades,” she explains. “If someone had committed a new sex offense in the last 15 years, they would already be on the registry. We need a smarter registry, not a bigger one.”
Becky Palmer, senior vice president of clinical programs at Alternative Behavior Treatment Centers in Mundelein says the law would force newly-registered child sex offenders to move because Illinois bans child sex offenders from living within 500 feet of schools, playgrounds or certain other areas.
“Because of the housing restrictions many incarcerated sex offenders cannot find adequate or law-compliant housing, therefore, many are serving their parole behind bars and are being released into the community unsupervised and not receiving the necessary mental health services,” Palmer says, adding that between 93 and 97 percent of sex crimes are incest or are committed by someone the victim knows.
Note: Given that fact, it means the new law would affect VICTIMS where the offender has been reintegrated into the family. This is nothing more than insanity by money hungry politicians!
“Housing restrictions clearly would not have prevented these sexual assaults or increased public safety,” she says.
Senate Bill 2824 would ban registered sex offenders from forest preserves, conservation areas and public parks. Craig A., a registered sex offender who asked that his full name not be used to protect his employment, says he was forced to register as a sex offender after downloading inappropriate photographs of underage girls. Craig, who is a musician and sports enthusiast, says he could no longer perform concerts at public grandstands or play tennis at public parks if the bill passes, and it would instead remove the support network that keeps many offenders from reoffending.
“Therapy ordered by probation teaches us to get involved in things like park district leagues to create a support group of friends and give us more positive things in our lives,” he says. “This law will separate registered sex offenders from their supportive friends and place them into more isolation.”
Laurie Jo Reynolds says current laws and the proposed changes waste state resources on tracking low-risk offenders, such as high school kids caught having consensual sex with an underage partner.
“If we want true harm reduction, we should support risk-assessment, treatment, supervised release and other evidence-based practices which are smart on crime,” Reynolds says. “You just can’t expect reasoned sex offender policies from legislators in an election year.”
Annie Thompson, a spokeswoman for Gov. Pat Quinn, says the legislation will be reviewed when it is received by his office. ..Source.. Patrick Yeagle
May 5, 2010
Facebook vigilante who outed 6,000 paedophiles is 'attacked by shamed offenders' (and he's set to name 8,000 more)
This man claims he is not a vigilante, but notice, he is taking the law into his own hands, and even violating the rights of many. The court records are secretly accessed and not available to the public, so where does he get the right to do this?5-5-2010 United Kingdom:
Is similar vigilantism the next step here in the U.S.?
Paedophiles named and shamed on a vigilante website have attacked its creator in the street, it was claimed today.
Chris Wittwer, who put the names and photos of 6,000 convicted sex offenders on Facebook, says he has been attacked three times near his home in Exeter by people he has put on the site.
He also claims he has received threats to his life and is now constantly concerned for his safety after launching his internet campaign.
‘Three people have attacked me in the last few months directly as a result of names I have put on there,’ he said.
‘They are on the sex offenders register and live in Exeter.’
Mr Wittwer, 34, says he includes people who have been charged on the list but not yet convicted for an offence.
But he said that he did not want to wrongly put anyone on the list. He said he compiles the list, which includes photographs and where the offenders live, from press releases, court records and the sex offenders register.
He then cross-references the name of a sex criminal against the national sex accessing the sex offenders register and court records which are not available to members of the public.
He would not reveal how but said he had secret sources and has another 8,000 names to go on the site.
‘I get lots of names and find out which court they were at,’ he said.
He set-up the page two-and-a-half years ago and has attracted 18,000 followersfrom all over the country.
He spends three or four hours a day doing it and is currently setting up a dedicated website.
Mr Wittwer claimed the government does not do enough to inform people about sex offenders living in the community.
‘I don't condone any violence,’ he said. ‘I am not a vigilante.
‘People can see who is in their area and keep their children away from them. There is more justice served by what I am doing than any court or jail can ever do.
‘What I am doing is a serious deterrent for people who have done it, are thinking of doing it or re-offending. ..Source.. Daily Mail Reporter
May 2, 2010
Megan's Law doesn't work
5-2-2010 New Jersey:
For the past 15 years, the public has been left with a false sense of security. A federally funded study has determined that Megan's Law does not work.
Conducted by independent psychologists along with staff from the state Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, this comprehensive study looked at 21 years of sex offense rates. It confirms in New Jersey what other studies have found elsewhere. Megan's Law "has no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual reoffenses."
Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual reoffenses, Megan's Law:
Fails to positively impact sex offender rearrest rates,
Fails to change the type of reoffenses or first time offenses that occur, or
Fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.
As the state agency charged with representing those required to register under Megan's Law, the state public defender agrees completely with the study's findings and with its ultimate conclusion that "given the lack of demonstrable effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable."
What is equally remarkable is that other research cited by the New Jersey study, as well as our own experience, shows that Megan's Law can be "counterproductive" to public safety. Notification laws have been found to isolate offenders from normal relationships, undercut their opportunities for housing and employment and subject offenders to threats and assaults.
In some instances, the willingness and ability to obtain treatment can be negatively impacted by Megan's Law. As a result of these factors, the study's researchers determined the unintended consequences of Megan's Law may be to increase the risks of recidivism rather than to protect the community.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of the law's ineffectiveness, advocates for the law nevertheless seek to justify its continuance by claiming that its purpose was never to reduce reoffense rates, but was only "designed to provide parents and communities with information" concerning the whereabouts of a sexual offender living in their neighborhood. However, this practice is meaningless unless it brings about the positive result the Legislature clearly intended when the Megan's law was passed to reduce "the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders."
The Legislature's perceived effectiveness of the law served as a cornerstone to its passage. The recent study's findings telling us the law does not reduce sexual reoffenses, and worse, may be counterproductive, require a change in course.
In 2007, New Jersey reportedly spent $3.9 million with, as the study found, no appreciable benefit to public safety. Given our current budgetary shortfall this money could have been, and now should be, put to much better use by investing it in efforts that will actually protect New Jersey's children.
We agree with several of the report's recommendations calling for sex offender therapy to be provided in state prisons (which does not now occur), affordable treatment for sex offenders living in the community, and effective parole and probationary supervision commensurate with a realistic individualized assessment of an offender's risk level.
Other interventions known to be effective should be emphasized. We know that making a successful transition from prison reduces sex offender reoffense rates. To accomplish this, as a report published just this year by the Counsel of State Governments emphasizes, resources would be better spent "to ensure that sex offenders re-entering communities have appropriate and sustainable housing options"
to assist them during their pivotal transition back into the community.
According to the counsel's report, efforts to further stability after incarceration by way of jobs and housing can reduce reoffense levels. This pragmatic approach is crucial to protecting our communities.
We owe the public much more than continuing to rely on a policy that has been proven as accomplishing little else but the creation of a false sense of security. ..Source.. MICHAEL BUNCHER • For the Courier-Post
January 8, 2010
Survey: State lawmakers support sex registry changes
1-8-2010 South Dakota:
PIERRE -- Many state lawmakers support a plan to change South Dakota's registry of sex offenders so those convicted of less severe crimes get a chance to get their names removed from the list, according to a survey by The Associated Press.
Nearly two-thirds of the legislators responding to the survey said they would support the measure, which was written by a legislative study panel.
House Republican Leader Bob Faehn of Watertown said he expects the bill to pass because lawmakers have noted for many years that it's unfair to treat those convicted of less serious crimes the same as those convicted of rape and other more serious crimes. He said both kinds of convicts appear side-by-side on the current registry of sex offenders, which is posted on the Internet.
Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls said he also thinks the Legislature will approve the measure because lawmakers feel the length of time convicts spend on the registry should vary according to the severity of their crimes.
"I think it's a reflection that this is one area of the law where one-size-fits-all is a bad rule," Heidepriem said.
Under current law, nearly all those convicted of sex offenses must remain on the registry for life. The current law allows people to ask for removal from the registry after 10 years, but only if they were adjudicated as a juvenile or convicted of statutory rape when younger than 21. The crime also cannot involve a victim younger than 13.
The study committee's proposal would create a three-tiered registry so those convicted of less severe crimes would have a chance of getting their names removed from the registry after a certain period.
Those convicted of rape or other severe crimes would remain on the registry for life. Those convicted of crimes on the middle tier, such as possession or sale of child pornography, would have to be on the list for at least 25 years. People convicted of less severe crimes, such as indecent exposure or statutory rape, would have to register for at least 10 years.
Officials have said South Dakota now has more than 2,500 sex offenders on the registry.
The study committee was told that about 1,200 have been removed from the registry since 1994, the vast majority because they moved out of the state. About half the juvenile sex offenders were removed after last year's state Supreme Court decision that found the law unfairly treated juveniles differently than adult offenders. ..Source.. Chet Brokaw
January 7, 2010
An ‘ornery’ judicial view of Mich. sex offender laws
1-7-2010 Michigan:
Retiring judge says 'root problem is that our registry includes so many more people than it needs to include'
Retiring Van Buren County Circuit Judge William C. Buhl is a rarity among Michigan’s mostly reserved black robe set.
“When things bother me, I get tired of people talking and saying this is horrible and not doing anything about it,” he said near the beginning of an in-depth interview covering his frustrations with the state’s sex offender laws.
In his southwest Michigan county, after nine elections — and never even drawing an opponent in any of them — you might think Buhl is mostly immune to the political considerations of taking on an unpopular cause. And you’d be right. But that immunity to the raw political consequences of his views has also convinced him that he has no choice but to speak his mind.
“I figure after all these years on the bench, people actually sometimes listen to you,” he mused. “I’ve got a voice and I can speak out when others can’t.”
It’s not that his fellow jurists are mute, Buhl added, just that when it comes to criticizing how Michigan handles sex crimes and especially the state’s burgeoning sex offender registry, most other elected judges legitimately worry about losing their jobs if they do likewise.
That same temerity goes for elected lawmakers, Buhl said. He cites an educational event for legislators in Lansing sponsored by the Coalition for a Useful Registry last spring. Buhl sits on the coalition’s professional advisory board. The March event featured several different information stations, each one aiming to give state senators, representatives and their staff a better understanding of how the current system works — and its shortcomings.
“I heard repeatedly, ‘Oh, we’ve got to go slow on this. We can’t do very much. Oh, it’s poison. We just don’t dare,’” Buhl said in a mocking tone. “They’re all just scared to death of it.”
Raw politics
It’s that fear that has pushed lawmakers to include anyone convicted of any of the state’s criminal sexual conduct laws on the online registry, as well as many other enhancements since the registry was created in 1994. Today, the state’s registry stands as one of the country’s broadest and most inclusive.
He said he’d like to narrow the scope of offenses that currently land individuals on the registry for a minimum of 25 years — and he said he’s not alone.
“I think that I speak for a majority, the vast majority of the judiciary,” Buhl asserted.
The reason Buhl speaks for a mostly silent majority of elected judges in Michigan — if you believe his assertion — can be summed up in one word: politics.
“It’s just scary stuff when it comes to people going to the polls and opponents will happily exploit any position you take on it that can be twisted to look like you kinda like pedophiles,” he said.
In fact, that’s what he says happened to former State Rep. Alexander Lipsey. In 2002, Lipsey, a Democrat, was defeated in an election for a Kalamazoo-based seat in the Michigan Senate by Republican Tom George, now a candidate for governor.
“George’s supporters were beating up Lipsey because he voted against going public with the registry,” Buhl recalled, noting that George himself refrained from the attack. Buhl said Lipsey was right to vote against the catch-all registry, but that didn’t matter in the end. “They unfairly accused him of being on the side of child molesters and he was defeated.”
Five years later, Lipsey was appointed to a vacant circuit judge position in Kalamazoo by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, but that Senate race became part of what Buhl calls his personal “growth process” on the flaws with the current law.
A view from the bench
The cases that regularly came to his courtroom were also part of that process. He describes one that he said made the biggest impression on him.
“I had a 17-year-old who was socially immature with a 15-year-old girlfriend that was just in love with him. And she pursued him. And the parents on both sides didn’t want them together. But despite their wishes — and this girl was far more mature than he was — they got together, and then, of course, had sex,” Buhl said.
The boy was given probation for violating the state’s criminal sexual conduct law, but was still required to be placed on the housing- and employment-denying online sex offender registry for a quarter century. “I thought, what a travesty. This kid can’t even get a job at McDonalds.”
Since then, he’s seen many similar cases. “When we have people married to their victims, with children that are a product of their crime, and they have to worry about whether they can go watch their kids’ soccer games at school, it just struck me as just wrong,” he said. “And the more I saw it, the angrier I got about it.”
Fast forward to a current case on the judge’s docket — one that also makes him angry but for a different reason.
“I have a guy right now pending sentence on his seventh failure to register,” he said, noting that registered offenders must check-in quarterly with law enforcement or face further penalties. “I finally said, ‘I want to know what he did to get on the registry.’ Well, it turns out he was a 13-year-old sexually abused child that asked a six-year-old to touch his penis. And he went through the juvenile system, was treated and has never had a sex-related offense since.”
He added that “there’s no indication that he’s a sexual predator or anybody to worry about but he is a blithering idiot that will fail to register again.”
It’s cases that that one, Buhl said, that clutter his courtroom and many others across the state.
Like other advocates for reform, Buhl said part of his efforts are geared toward playing defense, stopping what they consider to be bad legislation. He pointed to two examples from 2009.
The first was a proposal to redefine “school safety zones” to include all bus stops. Registered sex offenders are currently barred from living or working within 1,000 feet of such a zone. “That would have been a nightmare first to figure out,” he said, “because they change every year.”
The second example was a proposal to include all day cares as off-limits school safety zones to offenders.
“The way they defined day care would include almost every church that I’ve ever known,” he said. “If they include churches, they would basically render most communities, most municipalities off-limits for the registered sex offender.”
The current state-of-affairs gets worse, Buhl said, because “nobody goes back to the root problem here and the root problem is that our registry includes so many more people than it needs to include.”
Reforming the system
As for the judge’s wish-list of reforms, he pointed to three main ideas.
The first would institute a new process for evaluating — and treating — underage sex offenders.
“I think we ought to treat them like we do juvenile offenders,” he said. “Have them petition into a court that takes jurisdiction over them like we petition juveniles … and put them through an educational course as to the legal and the life affecting consequences of sex, of child rearing, of child support, of sexually transmitted diseases, and just force them to endure that. Then graduate them and that’s the end of it,” he said. “Because they’re gonna do it, they’re gonna be doing it.”
The “it” Buel is referring to is, of course, underage sex.
For other accused sex offenders, Buhl suggests a new screening process and “have people put on the registry only if they’re people we need to worry about” such as violent rapists or child predators. In other words, Buhl says, “narrow the sex offender registry to people who truly are people we fear.”
Beyond a better process, Buhl said Michigan should junk the school safety zones altogether.
“They’re silly little artificial rings that make it impossible to work with people,” he said. “We have all these people who can’t live here and they can’t work there.”
He said the employment and housing restrictions that go along with the school safety zones often make near impossible to make offenders employable, paying taxes and restitution.
Lastly, Buhl thinks lawmakers should reconsider the uncomfortable but legally significant differences between criminal sexual conduct and “penetration” — an automatic felony.
“I would treat sexual penetration the same way we treat sexual contact, and that is we don’t make it a crime when two 15-year-olds fornicate, we don’t make it a crime two 15-year-olds are all over each other sexually except for penetration,” he said. “The minute there’s any kind of penetration whatsoever, finger, doesn’t matter, bang, you’re into a 15-year felony. Whether it’s contact or penetration, when they’re under 16 it ought not be criminalized.”
Entering the last year of his judicial career, this self-described “ornery cuss” is crystal clear about the problems he sees, and the reforms he’d like to see. But that doesn’t mean he’s unaware of the long-shot odds reformers like him face.
In fact, he almost seems resigned to losing.
“We all know that it’s terrible and yet it won’t be changed,” he said with a sigh. “I figure, OK, I’m jousting with windmills. I know that the odds of getting anything done are so slim. But I can’t sit and do nothing,” he added. “I just can’t.” ..Source.. David Alire Garcia
January 4, 2010
Washtenaw County prosecutors review case against sex offender Matthew Freeman
1-4-2010 Michigan:
Washtenaw County prosecutors are reviewing the case against a man accused of living near a school after being convicted of having sex with a high school girlfriend one year below the legal age of consent.
Matthew Freeman, 23, of Pittsfield Township, who is required to register as a sex offender, is charged with a school safety zone residency violation.
County Assistant Prosecutor John Reiser said during a court hearing for Freeman this morning that prosecutors are reviewing the case after speaking with Freeman's attorney, David Goldstein.
The case was adjourned until Jan. 25. Reiser told 14A District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson that if prosecutors decide to drop the case, they'd ask that Freeman's presence at the next court hearing be waived.
Reached by phone this morning, County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller declined to discuss specifics of the case because it's pending.
"We agreed to adjourn the case to have a chance to do whatever legal research is needed," Hiller said.
Goldstein said during an interview last week that he asked prosecutors to review whether the charge is appropriate.
"In this particular case, my position is there is no violation here," Goldstein said. "I presented that to the prosecutor's office, and they're looking into it."
Goldstein declined to be more specific.
Freeman is accused of illegally living within 1,000 feet of Carpenter Elementary School. If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, he faces up to a year in jail.
Freeman has registered at the address of a family friend while the case is pending.
Freeman was playing basketball in his driveway Aug. 3 when a state trooper pulled up and determined Freeman was living 326 feet from the school, a police report said. Freeman had registered with Pittsfield Township police using his family's Dalton Avenue address 27 days earlier.
Freeman was sentenced to probation in 2003 after being convicted of having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 17. He pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with force or coercion. In Michigan, the legal age of consent is 16.
As a result of Freeman’s conviction, he is required to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
The girl's mother, Evelyn Scott, who pressed charges against Freeman in the 2003 case, recently wrote a letter on his behalf and said she wants him removed from the registry. ..Source..
January 3, 2010
An unfair stigma?
1-3-2010 Michigan:
For convicted sex offenders who have sought help, the state's public Sex Offender Registry can make it hard to leave the past behind
After being listed on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry for eight years, William believes he's earned a chance to resume a normal life.
Convicted of repeatedly exposing himself in public, a misdemeanor offense, he served jail time and completed a five-year probation term.
William (not his real name) continued getting the counseling he thought he needed and committed no additional offenses. To improve his employment chances, he obtained a bachelor's degree in computer science.
"I made a mistake, made some poor choices," the Berrien County man said. "I own what I did, and I believe I've fixed it."
But under state law, the married, 39-year-old Army veteran cannot have his name stricken from the police and public sex offender registries. He must remain listed until 2027.
With many employers unwilling to hire a person on the registry, the lengthy term could relegate him to a life with no job or being underemployed.
Being on the registry also limits where he can live and shuts him out of his son's school activities. Although his crime had nothing to do with children, he's subjected to the same restrictions as a convicted pedophile.
"It's miserable," William said. "I've had people leave church because I'm there."
He was on the management track and had been named employee of the month at his last job. A co-worker discovered that he was a listed sex offender, threatened to blow the whistle, and they were both fired, he said.
That was five years ago.
At a recent job interview with a large company, William was confident he'd landed the position. Told that a routine background check was required, he admitted to being listed on the registry.
William is waiting to hear from the company but doesn't hold out hope.
"I can't get hired," he said. "If somebody would give me a chance."
Promoting change
Critics of the state Public Sex Offender Registry charge that the law, while serving its intended purpose of telling where potentially dangerous predators live, can make it impossible for people who are not a threat to find jobs and put the past behind.
The state's one-size-fits-all approach requires anyone convicted of a "listed offense" to be on the register for 25 years, or life in some cases.
Listed offenses range from the most violent felony sexual assaults on adults or children down to indecent exposure, soliciting for prostitution or pandering. Three convictions of any combination of being a disorderly person or indecent exposure results in placement on the registry for 25 years.
Convictions for "Romeo and Juliet" offenses, where one of the partners in a sexual relationship is younger than 16, also requires listing.
Across the country, organizations are working for reform, attempting to get states to recognize the difference between predators and those unlikely to re-offend.
Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said the consequences of public listing on a registry are often not proportionate to the crime and seriousness of the offense.
There is little evidence that registries protect public safety, she said, and the effects on those listed are harsh and punitive, especially when they are juveniles.
"It's so because most sex assaults, especially on children, are done by friends or family members," she said. "We argue that if you want to protect children from being sexually assaulted, we need to do more as to what is bad touching and to address the treatment needs of people who have been victims."
According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, 34 percent of youth victims, those 0-17, were sexually assaulted by a family member and 59 percent were assaulted by acquaintances, leaving 7 percent in the study who were the victims of strangers.
State registries were originally set up to help law enforcement keep track of potentially dangerous and violent sex offenders. They were later expanded to provide information to the public, now by Web sites.
"It's the widespread use over the Internet that has negative effects, Velazquez said. "For law enforcement keeping tabs, it makes sense. But for people trying to live successfully in society, it makes sense for them to have jobs and decent living conditions."
Since registries were formed in the 1990s, the laws that govern them have been amended in many states. Zones have been set up around schools and in other areas to keep convicted sex offenders out.
Restrictions make some cities, among them Miami and San Francisco, nearly uninhabitable for sex offenders.
"We're basically pushing these people out to where there aren't any services," Velazquez said. "The idea is that we can banish them."
But if the criminal justice system determines that a person need not be in jail, she said, "we shouldn't make it impossible for them to live in the community."
Gloria Gillespie, a therapist who counsels sex offenders and victims of sex crimes, said the registration law stands in the way of people like William who are trying to move ahead.
"It's not set up to help sex offenders," she said. "It's set up to help the rest of us."
Gillespie, who has counseled William for years, said there is "no registry for murderers" or home invaders who may pose a greater risk than a sex offender.
She believes the registration law should be changed to allow shorter listing periods, based on behavior and other factors. The juvenile registry should exist only for police use, said Gillespie, a long-serving Berrien County commissioner.
Juvenile impact
For juveniles, the effects of being publicly listed can be particularly devastating, Gillespie said. Many youths get in trouble for what amounts to sexual experimentation, she said, and listing on the registry interferes with rehabilitation while doing little to safeguard the public.
The mother of a 17-year-old Berrien County youth, convicted of molesting girls he was supervising years ago, is concerned what public registration will mean for her son when he turns 18.
The offenses were committed when the youth was 12 and 14. He successfully completed probation as required by the sentencing judge, finishing a 200-hour public service requirement in 4-6 months, and has been on the nonpublic police registry since. He excels in school, where he plays several sports.
Gillespie said the youth's offenses, while serious and wrong, were exploratory in nature. He is not a predator, is unlikely to commit a new crime, but must stay on the register until he is in his 40s, she said.
"Juvenile murderers get off at 21 and they're not on any list," she said. "What's the purpose of this?"
The youth's mother said a lengthy registration requirement may sometimes be necessary, but is unreasonable in her son's case.
"I think the judges with the help of the counselors and probation officers who know these kids should be allowed to make the decision on how long they should be on the registry," the woman said.
"I know how remorseful he is," she said. "It's going to be a challenge for him."
St. Joseph lawyer Brian Berger, who represented the youth in court, said justice would be better served in such cases if judges had discretion in deciding when people could be taken off the registry.
"It's a huge problem that people who deserve a second chance don't get it," Berger said. "When you say 'sex offense' it's such a broad, broad range."
Offenders who commit violent sexual offenses should be on the registry for a long time, Berger said.
"But a guy in a bar who touches a woman and gets (convicted of ) fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct? He's a registered sex offender," Berger said.
Legislators take notice
Several bills pending in the state Legislature would amend the registry law, toughening it with measures that would expand the listed offenses to include attempted solicitation of minors over the Internet, and make it a felony for people listed for certain offenses from accessing social networking Web sites.
Another bill would expand the 1,000-foot school safety zones to include school bus stops.
A 2006 federal law, the Adam Walsh Protection Safety Act, will create even more reporting requirements and conditions. States were required to adopt the law this year or risk losing a portion of certain grants. No states complied and Congress extended the deadline to 2010.
The law requires states to participate in a national registry. It sets up registration requirements for people as young as 14, sometimes for life.
It would also create a three-tired system for sex offenders, requiring registration for 15 years, 25 years or life, depending on offense.
State Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee, said a subcommittee is reviewing Sex Offender Registry problems.
"There are some very compelling cases that ... don't rise to the threshold of a predator and shouldn't be on the register," she said. "Unfortunately, they get lumped in with the predators."
The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, is receiving testimony, Schuitmaker said.
In some cases, people learn after they plead guilty to certain crimes that they must register. The law does not provide for review by a judge.
"It's a tool, but there are cases that, just because of the broad scope of it and because no discretion is left to the judge, people do end up on it," Schuitmaker said.
"As a mother I want to know who the dangerous people are. I'm not concerned about the Romeos and Juliets."
In some states, registry laws recognize the difference.
Tennessee distinguishes between violent sexual offenders, who are required to register for life, and sexual offenders who may file a request to end registration requirements 10 years after any sentence ends.
Michael Sepic, chief assistant prosecutor in Berrien County, said some changes in the state law may be in order.
"A lot in law enforcement can agree that the consensual sex offender, charged as adults having sex with someone 13-15, isn't necessarily the type who needs to be on the registry," he said.
Most such cases, but not all, are teenagers in high school dating relationships, Sepic said.
But Sepic does not agree that the law should allow for a review of how long an offender should remain on the register.
"If you open the door to having a judgment call, a lot of people will question where the line is," he said. ..Source.. SCOTT AIKEN - H-P Staff Writer
December 23, 2009
Mother sent to prison for allowing kids near sex offender
Criminalizing relationships. Unless the judge prohibited such a relationship -as a condition of probation- this woman has done nothing wrong. There is zero evidence that the registrant would do any harm to the woman's child. He might have been convicted of peeing in the park, we simply do not know.12-23-2009 Michigan:
ADRIAN, Mich. — A Hudson woman was sentenced to prison Tuesday in Lenawee County Circuit Court for violating probation by exposing her children to a boyfriend who is a registered sex offender.
“I’m trying. I really am. I just made a horrible mistake,” said Kiley Jean Hartung, 31. She told the court she has been drug free for seven years and entered counseling after her children were removed by the Department of Human Services. Public defender Anna Marie Anzalone told the court that counseling is a better option than prison for Hartung.
“Exposing your children to a registered sex offender is more than just a little mistake,” said Judge Timothy P. Pickard. “You have been on probation since 2003 in this case and I’ve had enough,” he said before handing down a 2- to 14-year prison term with credit for 242 days served since her original conviction in a forged check case.
Hartung was sentenced to prison for a probation violation two years ago, but the sentence was reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals for exceeding state guidelines. ..Source.. Daily Telegram
December 22, 2009
Kari Norman turned in her husband for child porn
If anyone believes that the Adam Walsh Act is not more harmful than helpful, you folks are closing your eyes to the collateral damages caused by this law. Congress and State lawmakers, ignored in enacting AWA, and continue to ignore the disastrous collateral consequences of AWA, to those affected by the law. This is but one of thousands of stories showing the blind eye of lawmakers and it will continue into the next generation, and beyond!12-22-2009 Michigan:
She paid the price for doing right
Detroit --Kari Norman believes she did the right thing when she called Romulus Police to tell them she found child pornography on her husband's computer.
But she wouldn't do it again.
"I made that call on March 19. That's the day my life fell apart," said Norman, 40, who claims she lost her home and her financial security and attempted suicide before testifying against her husband last month in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Christopher Scott Norman, 42, was sentenced Dec. 10 by Judge James Callahan to serve three to five years for his conviction on 12 counts of child sexually abusive activity and using computers to obtain child pornography.
Law in Michigan bars spouses from being called to testify against each other -- except in cases involving domestic abuse and child pornography. Experts say more women are making the gut-wrenching choice between living with a difficult or even dangerous partner and living without support.
"He's in jail. He has food and a place to sleep. My son and I have nothing," said the Missouri native who landed in homeless shelters after her airline employee husband of just three months was jailed.
"I called the police and asked whether it was illegal to have what I found on the computer. They told me they'd have to look and before I knew it, I had six police officers standing over my shoulder looking at the computer telling me they needed to arrest my husband," she said. "I did everything they asked of me. I drove to the airport to pick him up like normal and brought him home to a dozen waiting police cars. I helped them destroy my life."
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, who has complained that she has little money to spend on much needed witness protection, said she can do nothing to help Norman.
"This illustrates that unlike television, a case is never over. There should be aftercare services for victims and some witnesses," Worthy said. "While this doesn't fit squarely into traditional witness protection, it shows the growing need for assistance after a trial is over in certain cases."
Beth Morrison is chief executive officer of HAVEN, a nonprofit organization in Oakland County that runs a shelter and offers care and counseling for victims of domestic assault. She said, "A lot of women make that tough choice. And for many, they eventually are very glad they did."
Morrison compared Norman's plight with the many women paralyzed by the choice of sacrificing their financial security and self-esteem to reveal a spouse's criminal incest.
"When a woman without a substantial support structure calls the police, her life can be completely disrupted. In that situation, you could lose your financial support, your home, your social status, your friends, your job," Morrison said. "I've heard a lot of women say the decision to take action like this was the most difficult and hardest thing they did in their lives, but it saved them their children."
Treated as hostile witness
Shortly before her husband was sentenced, Kari Norman and 12-year-old son Sam boarded a train for Kansas City. Her goal was to straighten out custody issues over Sam with his father, her previous husband in her hometown.
Then, Norman said, she wants to "disappear somewhere into America."
Kari Norman was treated as a hostile witness during the trial by both the prosecutor and her husband's defense lawyer.
The defense theory had been that she set him up, although her MySpace.com page still contains statements of dedication for her husband.
And despite the fact she is the one who alerted police, the prosecution accused her of trying to hide evidence, including marijuana she told police she found in the apartment and then hid from her husband.
"She got the squeeze from both sides," said Richard Krisciunas, the University of Detroit Mercy law professor and retired Wayne County assistant prosecutor appointed by the court to briefly represent Kari Norman.
"Statements she made to Romulus Police got taken out of context, but then she testified at the prelim that she loved him, and I think she said the same thing at the trial," Krisciunas said. "There was a lot going on here that was unusual, but in other ways common. I'm always amazed that witnesses like this come forward at all."
'I should have gotten away'
Norman is luckier than many because she has a mobile and marketable profession as a registered nurse, licensed to work in Michigan and Missouri. But she's frustrated.
"I'm tired of being the good wife. I should have ignored what I found and divorced him first. I should have gotten away from here and then turned him in later. I just didn't realize doing the right thing was going to be so wrong for me," she said.
Debbie McPeek, director of programs at Turning Point, the Macomb County shelter where Norman said she lived from Nov. 20 to Dec. 1, said, "There's always a price to be paid for speaking up and doing the right thing. Domestic violence survivors often pay that price."
McPeek said she has no personal knowledge of Norman's case and insisted every woman who comes to the shelter has a unique story.
"Some women don't act. Some are going to do what they need to do to survive one minute to the next," she said. "If they have social support, a buck available here and there to get out of town, parents or relatives to support them, they are more likely to report wrongdoing."
Turning Point serves about 500 people a year, half of them children with their mothers.
"People may not understand the decision process because these are not choices like deciding if I'm going to have a burger or salad for lunch," McPeek said. "It is very common to see these survivors who are isolated."
A whirlwind courtship
Kari and Christopher Norman married in January in Toledo, just two weeks after he discovered his middle school sweetheart on MySpace. She had recently divorced back home in a Kansas City suburb.
The Normans had been married for only three months when she said she discovered electronic folders on the household computer containing photographs from adult sex parties she said her husband and others organized through Craigslist at Metro Airport area motels.
Other files contained photos of children, toddlers to teens, nude and engaged in sexual activity -- material that Christopher Norman, a Southwest Airlines cargo operations worker, apparently downloaded from the Internet.
"I have nobody in Michigan, but I really don't have any family back in Missouri, either," Norman said. "In the movies, there are witness protection programs, but I guess that doesn't exist in real life. I know I have to find a way to make it on my own. It scares me." ..Source.. Doug Guthrie / The Detroit News
December 20, 2009
More than 200 sex offenders cannot be found
And there are no reports of any crimes being committed by an UNREGISTERED sex offender. Ahh, but, there are reports of sex crimes being committed by people NOT REQUIRED to register, what about them?12-20-2009 Georgia:
The state of Georgia has no idea where to find child molester Michael Jerome Madison.
It can’t locate Frederick Charles Zimmerman, either. Or Charles Eugene Mickler. Or nearly 250 other sex offenders from metro Atlanta.
Nearly one-tenth of the area’s registered sex offenders who are not in jail are listed as “absconded” — meaning that law enforcement authorities have lost track of them, despite a strict law intended to keep such offenders under close supervision and away from potential victims.
Nevertheless, some say the long list of missing offenders — rapists, kidnappers and molesters, as well as people convicted of engaging in consensual sex acts when they were minors — should cause no alarm.
“The people on the registry are not the ones to be concerned about,” said John Bankhead, a spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which maintains the sex offender registry. “It’s the ones who live right up under your nose. Stranger-on-stranger sex crimes do happen. But most cases involve people the victim already knows.”
Studies commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department suggest that children are more likely to be sexually assaulted by family members, baby sitters or authority figures such as teachers or coaches than by strangers. One analysis found that in 60 percent of cases in which boys were the victims and in 80 percent involving girls, the child knew the assailant.
Missing offenders worry advocates for the victims of sex crimes. Monitoring, they say, deters offenders from putting themselves in places and situations where they might go after new victims.
“It is a problem when you don’t know where they’re living,” said Stacie Rumenap, president of Stop Child Predators, a Washington-based group that has advocated for a nationwide offender registry. “If we can’t monitor a sex offender, how do we know what they’re doing? Law enforcement has to know where the sex offender is to be able to do their jobs.”
Here is a person who totally misunderstands the registry and monitoring. Knowing where a registrant sleeps for 5-6 hours of the day, is not monitoring the registrant for the rest of the day. As to everyone on the registry, there are 17-18 hours of the day that you do not know where they are or what they are doing anyway. Law enforcement cannot monitor -as you claim- a person when they are not sleeping, in fact, if they are sleeping no one is monitoring them, except maybe sheep jumping over a fence in their heads. There are far too many folks who have been brainwashed into thinking the registry does more than what it can do logically! Its a list of names and nothing more.
A controversial registry
Georgia’s sex offender registry, known for its restrictive rules governing where offenders can live, work or even loiter, has been controversial since its creation in 1994. This fall, authorities forced a group of homeless sex offenders to leave a makeshift camp behind an office park in Marietta — one of the few places, the men said, they could live without breaking the law.
A challenge to the Georgia law is under way in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Lawyers for a woman convicted for sex acts she performed as a minor contend that the state imposes unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary restrictions on sex offenders. The law forbids sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and day care centers, as well as from working or volunteering in any “area where minors congregate.”
That, the woman contends, could be anywhere.
The registry contained 17,743 names at the end of November, including almost 3,400 who were incarcerated, according to the GBI. Just 17 percent of the registered offenders live in the counties surrounding Atlanta. But of the 441 absconded offenders statewide, 57 percent come from the Atlanta area.
The difficulty in keeping track of offenders shows that the registry has done little to protect potential victims, said Sara Totonchi, associate director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, an Atlanta-based legal advocacy organization that filed the federal lawsuit.
“The residency restrictions are an enormous law enforcement drain that don’t yield the sort of results you would expect,” Totonchi said. “We’re expending all of these law enforcement resources on something that’s not proven to make a difference.”
Under the law, anyone convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or of what is described as a “dangerous” sex crime is required to register each year with the sheriff of the county in which he or she lives. Failing to register, providing inaccurate information, or not staying in touch with authorities can result in a prison sentence of 10 to 30 years.
About 300 Georgia inmates are serving time for failing to register as sex offenders, according to the state Department of Corrections.
Absolute waste of lives, taxpayer money to incarcerate, and by putting them in prison they cannot be paying taxes. This is stupidity to the nth degree, caused by a few who want to play god. Anyone ever hear of -community service-, no, not lawmakers.
Enforcing the law primarily falls to sheriffs and to probation or parole officers. It is not always a priority for law enforcement authorities, said the GBI’s Bankhead.
“It’s kind of difficult to keep up with,” he said.
The self-registration requirement “speaks to the irony of the law,” Totonchi said. “It’s purportedly a law enforcement tool. But the impetus on complying with it is in the hands of the people on the registry.”
Attempting to comply landed one offender in prison.
Derrick Todd Dunn, 33, of Calhoun, was on the sex offender registry for a 1996 conviction for a statutory rape he committed as a teenager. In January, he went to the Gordon County sheriff to report he had moved to a new address. He had been evicted, he told deputies, and then spent six nights in a motel waiting for his new place to be ready.
The deputies arrested him on the spot for failing to register his temporary address at the motel. A judge then revoked Dunn’s probation on the statutory rape conviction and sent him to prison. He is scheduled for release in November 2012.
“He was between residences,” Dunn’s lawyer, Chris Paul, said. “That’s what’s really disturbing. He dutifully went to the sheriff’s’ office, and on the basis of his admission they arrested him. This is really discouraging for offenders trying to comply.”
Last month the Georgia Supreme Court rejected Dunn’s appeal.
Out of sight
Just as the registry’s creation did not erase the specter of sexual predators poised to attack new victims, the threat of incarceration has not stopped hundreds of offenders from simply dropping out of sight.
In some cases, they comply with the law for years before disappearing.
Michael Madison, for instance, was convicted of child molestation and cocaine possession in Cobb County in 2000. In 2004, after serving most of a five-year prison sentence, Madison registered with the Cobb County sheriff as a sex offender. Madison, now 54, provided an accurate address to authorities for almost three years — but hasn’t been heard from since the summer of 2007.
Charles Mickler, 62, went on the sex offender registry in January 2008, three months after he was convicted in Fulton County for sexual battery. Sixteen months later, authorities discovered Mickler’s address in Sandy Springs was no longer valid.
Others flee almost immediately. Frederick Zimmerman, 62, of Decatur, remained at a verified address less than one month after he was released from prison in July 2006 after serving two years for aggravated sodomy.
Beyond the absconders, dozens of sex offenders from the Atlanta area are listed as homeless or are registered at addresses that would be difficult to locate.
For example, a 47-year-old convicted of aggravated assault with intention to rape now reports his address as the space beneath the bridge where I-20 crosses Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard in Atlanta.
Hundreds more offenders are registered at addresses that cater to transient populations, such as shelters for homeless people and drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities. In downtown Atlanta at the end of November, 67 sex offenders said they lived at the same shelter on Trinity Avenue. In DeKalb County, 21 offenders were registered at the same motel on Moreland Avenue.
The accuracy of the registry’s addresses most often comes into play when authorities canvass offenders following kidnappings or other serious, high-profile crimes.
For instance, police checked on about 450 offenders in North Georgia and in nearby North Carolina and Tennessee after a Blairsville woman, Kristi Cornwell, 38, disappeared while walking near her home on Aug. 11. South Georgia offenders were among the 150 interviewed in October after the body of a 7-year-old Florida girl was discovered in a Folkston landfill.
Neither canvass yielded clues or identified suspects.
“It’s something you do” in such cases, said Bankhead, the GBI spokesman. “You try to eliminate the obvious.”
Whereabouts unknown
These are among the more than 400 people listed as "absconded" on Georgia's sex offender registry, meaning law enforcement officials have no idea where to locate them. ..Source.. Alan Judd, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
December 15, 2009
New Sex Offender Law Prompts Mistaken Identity Concerns
Here we see one kind of error that can result from registry information (same name similar likeness), but this is rare. The worst error results from someone taking registry information, then posting it elsewhere on the Internet (Secondary Dissemination (SD)). What happens with SD is, that it is never updated, even though the actual registry is. All it takes is one person bent on revenge or vigilantism, using that SD information and the registrant no longer lives there; someone else -not on the registry- becomes the target and is harmed. Just pointing out what usually occurs, and not implying that the actual registrant should be targeted.12-15-2009 Nebraska:
Law Would Publicly List Every Convicted Offender
A new law set to take effect on Jan. 1 will require every sex offender is Nebraska to be listed on a public Web site, a change that will more than double the number of listed offenders, according to the Nebraska State Patrol.
State officials said the change is necessary to remain eligible for hundreds of thousands of federal dollars.
But some, including Dennis Dick, who shares a name with a sex offender, may find themselves being the target of mistaken identity.
Dick is a local basketball coach, father and church leader. He's not a convicted sex offender. But another Dennis Dick is a sex offender, convicted of sexual assault six years ago and recently released from prison.
The convicted Dennis Dick also lives in Omaha and even looks a little like the coach. The KETV NewsWatch 7 I-Team showed a photo of the convicted offender to the coach.
"Wow. Very similar," Dick said.
Someone sent the I-Team a clipping with a photo showing Dick sitting with his players.
The mailer was worried, and wanted the I-Team to investigate why Dick was allowed so close to children.
"It's just very, very, very disheartening to see that someone with the same name and similar appearance would be associated with me," Dick said.
It's a case of mistaken identity that's rare now but may soon become more common. Only those at high risk of re-offending -- about 1,400 people -- are currently on the public list. In 2010, every convicted sex offender will be listed, bringing that number to more than 3,000.
Nebraska State Patrol's Glenn Elwell said people checking the list must pay close attention to the offenders photograph and address to avoid wrongful accusations.
"Use the information for what it's worth and not just look at a name and go, 'Oh my gosh, my next door neighbor's name is John Doe. He's a sex offender!'" Elwell said.
The state patrol said it's already getting complaints on the new law, and it expects lawsuits to come forth to stop it from being implemented. ..Source.. KETV7.com
December 8, 2009
Maggart, Black To Push For violent Juveniles To Be Placed On Sex Offender Registry
12-8-2009 Tennessee:
State Rep. Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) and Senator Diane Black (R-Gallatin) said they will push for passage of legislation in January to place violent juvenile offenders on Tennessee’s Sex Offender Registry as required under the federal Adam Walsh Act.
The legislators introduced legislation today to place offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 years of age on the Registry.
“We are trying to protect children who are victims of this crime,” said Rep. Maggart. “The safety of children overrides concerns regarding information being available about the juvenile who must register as a result of being convicted of this violent crime. We are talking about rape, aggravated rape, aggravated sexual battery, rape of a child and aggravated rape of a child. These are serious adult crimes committed by a juvenile that most commonly occur with very young victims who must be protected.”
The adoption of this legislation would put Tennessee into compliance with the requirements for juveniles to be placed on state’s Sex Offender Registries under the Adam Walsh Act which was scheduled to go into effect in 2009, it was stated. 
Tennessee was awarded over $50 million in Byrne Grant funding last year, 10 percent of which could be in jeopardy unless the state adheres to these requirements. However, in June U.S. Attorney General Anthony Holder signed a one-year agreement to extend the deadline for states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, it was stated. Only Ohio has complied with the law thus far.
“Tennessee has made very good progress at protecting children against child sexual predators, but we have still have a hurdle to overcome by placing these violent juvenile offenders age 14 and older on the Registry,” said Senator Black.
“Although the risk of repeating the crime is not quite as high as adult sex offenders, it still presents enough of a threat to require placing these offenders on the Registry. We would like to believe that juveniles could not commit these types of horrible crimes. However, the fact remains that they do and children must be protected.”
“When there is this threat to the community, parents should have the right to know that the perpetrator has this history of sexual violence against children,” added Rep. Maggart. “Whether or not the perpetrator is 17 or 24 years old, child sexual offenders can be dangerous to children in the community and should be placed on the Registry as required by the Walsh Act. Hopefully, we will pass this legislation in the 2010 legislative session.” ..Source..
