No Sex Offenders Need Apply

HR-5722: "International Megan's Law"

2008-05-11T15:16:00.000-06:00

The site just mentioned below has a serious item posted on it: Bill HR-5722, "International Megan's Law" which apparently calls for notifying the destination country that an American registered sex offender is headed to, for any purpose including vacation.

The site's owner correctly notes that if this bill passes, the destination countries will prevent the registered sex offender from entering.

This cuts off the one right a lawyer friend called the one right to preserve above all else -- the right to leave. The walls are rising...

Bookmark this site

2008-05-11T15:10:00.000-06:00

Researching some material a few days ago I ran across this very interesting site:
(http://www,geocities.com/voicism): "News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues"

The Sex Offender Hoax: America´s Screwed Up Priorities

2008-03-28T20:50:00.000-06:00

Article by Jessica Lee. Appeared on "American Chronicle" and subsequently pulled (are they bowing to the forces of Political Correctness and practicing self-censorship? I don't know). It took some digging to find this cached version. Now I'm not a Ron Paul For President fan (I WANT him as a presidential cabinet member, though), and the link at the end of this post refers back to the posting that "American Chronicle" yanked, so beyond that point you're on your own. But Ms. Lee makes a lot of sense here.

I have voted on a lot of sex offender legislation but the latest development makes me ashamed to be an American.

At a time when most of us are struggling to put gas in our cars and food on our tables Texas has completed a 1.2 million dollar upgrade to list employers of sex offenders on registries. This is not to protect anyone but to insure that people fail. We have actually found a way to reach a new low.

Even the Mafia would not use such under handed tactics as those being used here. The government feeds this information to the public knowing full well that it will be used in the exact fashion as intended. Employers will not want nor do they deserve to be listed on a sex offender registry so this is a huge step up for increasing lawlessness. It tends to make law abiding citizens want to gag.

These efforts are due to the requirements of the Federal Adam Walsh Act and being in compliance will bring millions of dollars to the individual states. The truth is that the Feds don´t have the millions of dollars to give the states. If they did it would still not be enough to keep this program afloat. It will end up costing us millions and that is a well known fact.

We are in a hard economic crunch. Many of us don´t care where sex offenders work. We are more concerned with gas for the car, food for the table and roofs over the heads of our families. Since we have all of these extra millions why are Medicaid and Medicare constantly being cut? It is evident that that our poor and elderly are not a concern. Hot button issues are needed for reelection but that is wearing thin. We have spent fortunes for empty promises and have succeeded in creating an even bigger mess.

In England sex offender issues are not used as political brick bats. There is no law against it but the British have a code of ethics that is completely lacking in the United States. Their leaders are united in keeping children safe and it puts our system to shame. They don´t have the problems that we do and politicians aren´t trying to out-tough one another by exploiting kids. When it comes to a choice between buying food and paying for a sex offender registry I will opt for the food every time.

Four thousand solders have given their lives and many more are maimed from trying to protect their dysfunctional homeland. How demoralizing it must be to put one´s life on the line for a nation of people who fear sex offenders more than foreign terrorists and home is a corrupt place that is being gutted from within by our American brothers and sisters.

Our foreign debt has far exceeded our worst expectations and chunks of the core of America continue to be sold to the Asians and the Arabs. As America crumbles into decay there seems to be only one certainty. We are a sinking nation that will go down with a death grip on sex offender laws but some of us won´t have current information. Cable TV and Internet services are being canceled in record numbers because of reduced budgets. Those extras are useless in a vagrant society where an alarming number of families are losing their homes.

Sex crimes are serious and are committed by less than 5% of the population. Something is very wrong if authorities can´t handle this without putting out hit lists in the form of public registration. Our entire way of life has changed because of a problem that tends to originate within the home. Less than one half of one percent of these crimes includes strangers, stalking, abduction and death.

Having recently lost a child I understand the feelings of rage and horror but the rest of the world is not responsible for my loss. I would never leave a child alone in the Sears toy department and don´t know any parent who would. But, as my child´s caretaker, a couple of things done differently could have changed the outcome. That is something I have to live with and I will not be pointing fingers at people who had no involvement. Our country is incredibly short on personal responsibility.

There are many among us who will jump at the opportunity to aid and abet in making more people jobless, homeless and hopeless but I am not one of them. My soul is not for sale.

There are vigilante groups online that thrive on blaming everyone else for their personal problems. These are nasty people so if you know the identity of Stitchess77, Daydreamer of Oz, Jacey, Violet Leaves or Boycott_Amazon I would appreciate your input. There are subpoenas waiting to be served.

On April 15th there is a Take Back America Rally being held on the west lawn of the Whitehouse. Ron Paul will be leading the charge so make your voices heard! more.. by Rebecca Lee

Sex Offender Neighbors Seek Tax Breaks

2008-03-16T19:46:00.001-06:00

SOUTHBURY, Conn. — Neighbors of a convicted sex offender are seeking tax breaks on their homes.

Some two dozen homeowners in the Fox Run Drive area believe their property values dropped last fall when David Pollitt moved to his sister's home in their neighborhood.

They tried but can't force Pollitt to move out, so they have asked the town to reduce their property tax assessments by as much as 17 percent.

They argue the presence of a registered sex offender has lowered the sale price of their homes.

Pollitt, 54, was released in October after more than 24 years in prison for a series of rapes.

Carolyn Nadeau, president of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, said the request may be the first of its kind in the state.

"I've never had an instance like this," she said. "Any number of times there are distractions that people feel negatively impact their property values, such as unsightly blight, but we haven't seen this."

The company that revalued all properties in Southbury last fall rejected the residents' plea for help. The new values took effect Oct. 1 and Pollitt didn't move to the neighborhood until Oct. 12.

Residents plan to take their case to the Board of Assessment Appeals in March.

Mark Lynch, who lives next door to Pollitt's sister in a house assessed at $243,080, believes residents deserve a break.

"If I wanted to sell my house tomorrow morning, how many people would want to buy it?" Lynch said.

Homes are assessed at 70 percent of their fair market value for tax purposes.

Woodbury real estate agency owner Joyce Drakeley said her agents would tell a client if a house was in a neighborhood with a sex offender, but the issue has not come up. Sex offenders must register with the state and the registry, including addresses, is available online.

"Buyers are not coming in and saying, 'Tell us if there are sex offenders in the area,"' she said. "I think it would affect the housing price if the buyers knew who was in the area. [The seller] has fewer people to sell to."

No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US

2008-01-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

Human Rights Watch has published an interesting report called No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US. I've only read the summary and not the entire report (yet), but it points out the many problems with sex offender laws in this country.

I'm not sure that the report adequately observes the fact that the laws were originally sold to the public along with a completely false premise that for its longevity puts the Energizer Bunny to shame. But the conclusion in the summary, "...legislators will have to show that they have the intelligence and courage to create a society that is safe yet still protects the human rights of everyone" is laughably and incredibly naive.

Legislators are sheep -- if they're not following the herd they're trying to see where the herd is going so they can look like they're leaders. And, as they have and continue to do with sex offender laws in this country they run right over cliffs without a thought to what they're doing. This blog has long since noted the moral cowardice of the Iowa legislators too fearful to undo the nasty mess they created, yet other legislatores continue to propose running over the very same cliff -- how's that for intelligence?

Another Megan's Law murder

2007-12-11T23:56:00.000-07:00

Once again, Megan's Law has facilitated a murder.

Megan's Law, which allows the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders to be listed on the Internet, is often criticized for its theoretical ability to facilitate vigilante violence.

The Los Angeles Times reports on a killing in Lake County, Calif., in which prosecutors are investigating the possibility that this very fear may have come true for the first time in the state.

Convicted rapist Michael Dodele had been free just 35 days when sheriff's deputies found him dead from stab wounds last month in his mobile home. They quickly arrested his neighbor, 29-year-old construction worker Ivan Garcia Oliver, who made "incriminating comments, essentially admitting to his attacking Dodele," police said.

Oliver pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, burglary and elder abuse on Nov. 30.

A neighbor of Oliver's said that two days before the killing, he "told every house" in the trailer park that he found Dodele's name listed on the Web site of convicted sexual offenders, and was uncomfortable living near him.

... Oliver said he had a son who was molested in the past and he took action to protect the child.

"Society may see the action I took as unacceptable in the eyes of 'normal' people," Oliver said. "I felt that by not taking evasive action as a father in the right direction, I might as well have taken my child to some swamp filled with alligators and had them tear him to pieces. It's no different."

As it turned out, Dodele was not actually a child molester. His records show he sexually assaulted adult women. ...

Charlene Steen, a psychologist who examined Dodele ... blamed the messenger. "I think [Oliver and Dodele] are both victims of the Internet," she said.

Steen needs to get a grip... or maybe she has a good point. If Oliver is a "victim of the Internet," then perhaps Megan's Law should be repealed to prevent further such innocent victims.

But in reality, Oliver has taken Megan's Law to the point desired by many Americans, as evidenced by many a comment on sex-offender news articles online using the very same justification Oliver used. A lot of people would turn Oliver loose with a commendation; to them the end justifies the means. They should pray they don't live long enough to see their philosophy become predominant (if it isn't already).

Ohio to pay more for less safety [Adam Walsh Act strikes]

2007-11-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

Early adopters take the arrows... and expenses. Good luck Ohio, you bought that pig in a poke.

Sex-offender law may task sheriff’s offices
NEWARK — Changes to Ohio’s sex-offender laws likely will expedite the judicial process, but they could bog down law enforcement, local officials said.

On Jan. 1, the labels of sexually oriented, habitual and predator will be gone and replaced with a three-tiered system. Classification hearings will be a thing of the past because offenders will be designated as Tier I, II or III — Tier III has the strongest notification requirements — depending on the crime they are convicted of.

The legislation passed by the Ohio General Assembly this summer will be retroactive, meaning all 33,000 sex offenders in Ohio could be affected, said Jennifer Brindisi, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.

Although the switch to tiers will remove an additional hearing from the prosecutor’s schedule, it could require many more visits with offenders for those in charge of the registry, said Detective Brock Harmon, of the Licking County Sheriff’s Office.

“We are anticipating it’s going to be a lot busier because of the new laws,” he said.

Harmon, who is the sole detective in the office charged with keeping up sex-offender records, said with the changes he potentially could have a rapist now classified as a sexually oriented offender, the lowest level under the active tags, automatically become a Tier III offender. This adjustment would, among other changes including lifetime registration, require the offender, who checked in annually as a sexually oriented offender, to meet with Harmon every three months, he said.

More responsibility could lead to increased infractions, Harmon said.

...

He added that it is possible that defendants facing a lifetime of registration as a sex offender might choose to fight the charges instead of working with the prosecution and pleading guilty.

...

Oswalt said he does expect to see the law challenged in higher and local courts, but added he does not have much sympathy for those affected by the modifications.

“If you don’t think you should be a Tier III offender, you shouldn’t have committed the crime,” he said.

This is so pathetic, but then again it seems Ohio has yet to see a "sex-offender" law not worthy of passage.

I hope Ohioans will be happy when somebody who appears to authorities to be truly dangerous and likely to re-offend gets labeled a "Tier 1" due to his prior conviction. And then re-offends.

Or when their limited law enforcement resources get eaten up tracking the very large number of new "Tier 3s" who were formerly determined to be "Level 1", least likely to re-offend.

Or when a whole bunch of those formerly Level 1s, now Tier 3s, decide to drop off the map because it's way too much "in your face" and law enforcement has to go looking for them -- and remember, it's roughly $25000/year to incarcerate each one of those you catch, over and above the expense for prosecution. Money that won't be spent on prosecuting those whose crimes actually hurt people, as opposed to evading registration. (Which is not to say that evading registration doesn't create a danger in itself -- it can, so why encourage it?)

But the most pathetic remark in this article belongs to Oswalt: “If you don’t think you should be a Tier III offender, you shouldn’t have committed the crime,” he said.
Has he ever heard about the antiquated, archaic, irrelevant notion of ex post facto law? Guess not because he, and many others, haven't.

Homeless sex offenders' isolation can add to problem

2007-11-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

Elliott Bloom, a convicted sex offender, lived in his car for nine months this year, parked on a street corner in Miami.

"I just pulled the chair back to sleep," says Bloom, 30, a chef-in-training who was convicted two years ago for having sex with a 15-year-old girl.

He had a tough time finding an apartment because state law bars him from living within 1,000 feet of places children gather, putting most of Miami off-limits. He listed his address on the mandatory registry of sex offenders as "transient.

In Richmond, Va., Keith Francis registered his address as "under Canal Bridge." Francis, 51, convicted in Florida in 2001 of luring a minor he met online, says, "I put plastic down and have a few blankets."

Francis works temporary jobs but says he doesn't have enough money for an apartment. He says he could probably go to a homeless shelter, but, "I used to be a Boy Scout. I like to camp outside."

Nationwide, thousands of sex offenders like Bloom and Francis are registering as homeless or giving police vague addresses such as highway mile markers.

Some blame the residency restrictions that keep offenders away from youngsters. Others cite lack of money or rejection by landlords after background checks reveal their criminal record. "As sex offenders are more and more in the media, people are starting to think twice before renting to them," says Patty Morris, supervisor of sex offender compliance at the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

'The modern-day lepers'

Many sex offenders lack jobs or family support, says Jo Ellyn Rackleff, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Corrections. She sees more of them becoming homeless, and that worries police.

"A homeless sex offender is a much more dangerous sex offender," says Elizabeth Bartholomew of the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation.

They are less likely to receive mental health care and substance abuse treatment and are more difficult to monitor, says Jill Levenson, a sex-crimes policy analyst at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

"Being homeless is also demoralizing," Levenson says.

Sex offenders are likely to behave better if they have a stake in their community and "something to live for," says psychiatrist Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. Sex offenders are increasingly being shunned and isolated. "They are the modern-day lepers," he says.

David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, says research on criminals suggests that having an unstable home makes them more likely to commit another crime.

"How much it increases the risk is hard to say," says Finkelhor, who questions the value of residency restrictions. "Homelessness and all the stresses that go along with it is more of a risk factor than being in a neighborhood with children."

At least 27 states and hundreds of cities have passed laws in the past decade to restrict where sex offenders live.

The laws don't necessarily keep sex offenders away from kids, says Florida's Rackleff. "What people don't realize is these offenders are in our communities," riding buses and walking around, she says.

"It's a waste of resources to check where they're sleeping," says Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. He says sex offenders may sleep in one place and spend their days elsewhere. He says it is better to monitor where they go.

States are increasing their use of electronic devices, often attached to an ankle or belt, to monitor sex offenders. California has 2,300 Global Positioning System units for paroled sex offenders but plans to have10,000 for all parolees by June 2009, says Bill Sessa of the California Department of Corrections.

Housing in Washington, D.C., is so expensive that a third of parolees lack permanent housing, and many homeless sex offenders considered high-risk are tracked with GPS devices, says Leonard Sipes, spokesman for the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency.

Keeping track by satellite

"We need to know where these offenders are," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. He says the effect of residency restrictions has varied nationwide, but states are putting more resources into tracking sex offenders.

States report widely varied information on online sex offender registries. Many states allow sex offenders to be homeless but require them to report a location, even if it's a shelter or "under a bridge."

"People will use homelessness as a way to evade monitoring," says Melissa Roberts of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

Several states see a rising number of homeless sex offenders. In Connecticut, 46 are registered as homeless or at shelters, up from fewer than a dozen three years ago, says Sam Izarelli of the state's sex offender registry.

"I've seen an increase in homelessness," says Paula Stitz, manager of Arkansas' registry. "It's difficult for a lot of these sex offenders to find a place to live." She says one person lived in a van under the Broadway Bridge in Little Rock for two years.

In Miami, Bloom says he and his pregnant girlfriend finally found an apartment that complied with state and local residency restrictions and moved in last week. He may not be staying long. Unless the therapist he sees as a condition of his probation gives approval, he will have to move out once the baby is born.

But isn't the boost politicians get for passing such laws, saying they're making us all much safer, worth it all?

New sex-offender law faces opposition [OK & Adam Walsh Act]

2007-10-28T21:13:00.000-06:00

So in a classic case of not looking (or thinking) before you leap, Oklahoma lawmakers complied with the federal Adam Walsh act in order to save $200k - $300k of federal funds dangled before them. Looks like they bought a pig in a poke.

A three-tiered ranking system takes effect Thursday.

New restrictions for sex offenders -- including a three-level ranking system that designates how long they must register -- take effect Thursday.

However, some of those who are on the front lines dealing with sex offenders believe that Oklahoma's law is having an adverse effect and needs further changes.

''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,'' said Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team.

Lopp is also a member of the review board established by the new law to categorize the sex offenders into three levels.

''I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''

Categorizing offenders: Lawmakers changed the state law to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act, said Jim Rabon, who oversees sex offender registration
for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

What the federal law calls a ''tier system,'' the new state law calls a ''numeric risk level.'' The risk level is determined by the type and severity of crime for which the offender was convicted and the number of convictions that person has, he said.

Level One offenders will register for 15 years; Level Two offenders will register for 25 years; and Level Three offenders will register for life.

As in the previous version of the law, those who are categorized as ''aggravated'' or ''habitual'' sex offenders will also be required to register for life.

Rabon said the committee that set up the levels reviewed cases of people beginning prison and probation between July 2006 and June 2007 and determined that most sex offenders fall into the highest risk category.

The review revealed that 78 percent of the sex offenders fall in Level Three, 3 percent in Level Two and 19 percent in Level One.

Based on those numbers, Tulsa Police Sgt. Gary Stansill, who has spent more than 20 years investigating sex crimes in Tulsa, said he believes that the Oklahoma law is too broad.

Under the law, he said, an 18-year-old who is convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 15-year-old and someone who is convicted of groping an officer during an undercover sting would both be registered sex offenders for life.

''The least number of people should be in the worst tier, but the most number of people are going to be in the worst tier under the new law,'' Stansill said.

Federal law mandates that any state that does not adapt to the Adam Walsh Act will receive up to a 10 percent reduction in federal grant money. Based on past funding, that might amount to a loss of about $200,000 to $300,000 for Oklahoma, Rabon said.

The loss in funding is part of the reason the state has moved to comply with the federal law, he said. Another reason is consistency.

''We do recognize that if all of the states' registration systems are similar, that does make it easier to track offenders when they move from state to state,'' Rabon said.

He said it is important that people realize that Oklahoma has what he believes is one of the best sex offender registration systems in the country.

By that, he means a lot of information is available on the Department of Corrections Web site that is easy for the public to access and local law enforcement agencies to update. He said Oklahoma has a low percentage of delinquent offenders compared to other states.

The residency debate: Lopp said he doesn't believe that the offense-based assessment is the the best way to categorize offenders. He thinks a tiered system is a step in the right direction but that it should be based on the risk of the individual.

Some states have refused federal funds so they can continue to develop risk-based assessments, he said.

A risk-based assessment could then correspond with the residency restrictions, which have created headaches for law enforcement agencies across the country.

Stansill said residency restrictions have driven sex offenders underground in Tulsa.

The controversial state law that went into effect last year has put 90 percent of the city off limits for sex offenders by prohibiting them from living within 2,000 feet of playgrounds, parks or child-care facilities. They were already prohibited from living within that distance of a school.

The new law does loosen the residency restrictions slightly by specifying that offenders are precluded from living near only child-care centers -- and not including day-care homes, which are numerous.

Before the residency laws, Tulsa had about 540 registered sex offenders at the peak. As of Sept. 20, 329 were registered here, Stansill said.

''If I really thought it would really do some good, then I would be all for it (the residency restrictions). Then we could focus on the people who don't want to register -- who have no good excuse for not registering -- because they are the people who are likely to be re-offending.''

The new law that takes effect Thursday requires police to register sex offenders even if the offenders intend to move into restricted areas. Previously, Tulsa police would tell an offender to look for another place to live and then come back to register.

''If I register those people, does that give them the right to live there?" Stansill questioned. "Or are we supposed to register them and turn about and work a case against them for violating the residency law?''

Stansill said sex crimes detectives are already overloaded with sex offender law violation cases.

From 2006 to 2007 Tulsa police have investigated 228 sex offender registration violation cases. During the same time period, they investigated 275 rape cases.

Forcing offenders to move from place to place because of residency laws could do more harm than good, Lopp said.

''When you keep making these people move, you are disrupting their stability; you are disrupting their jobs; you are causing an immense amount of stress on that population,'' Lopp said.

''What do we know about re-offense? Stress, job instability, living instability increase the chance of re-offense.''

Authorities say research shows that where sex offenders live is not a factor -- that most of them know their victims and that attacks often occur in the victims' own homes. But Rabon said there is more than one side to the argument about residency restrictions.

''The other side of that is that between the DOC and all of the local law enforcement agencies, . . . everybody works hard trying to locate them and keep the addresses current,'' he said.

That results in Oklahoma having a high rate of compliance, Rabon said. Of 5,462 registered sex offenders statewide, 870 are classified as delinquent, meaning their locations are unknown.

''When the residency restriction went into effect, we saw the delinquent number bump up a little bit, not a huge number,'' he said.

Meanwhile, Lopp hopes the committee works to encourage state and federal legislators to change the laws to make them more effective.

''What ultimately is going to have to happen to change this law is the community is going to have to get in touch with legislators and tell them, "This is not helping; this is making things worse,' " Lopp said.

Correctamundo! But we'll see if the Oklahoma legislators more courageous than the Iowa legislators who know they did wrong, but dare not attempt to fix it (as noted on this blog). I'm betting they won't be.

Halloween assertion

2007-10-27T19:56:00.000-06:00

Prove me wrong:

On Halloween, more trick-or-treater children have encountered razor blades in apples/candy (I read of one such, do not know if it is true) than have been snatched/assaulted by registered sex offenders.

(I expect the latter number to be zero, unless some parents have been totally indifferent or near-criminally negligent.)

Shadowed by the past

2007-10-21T19:15:00.000-06:00

Excerpt:

... One one side: the federal Adam Walsh Act. Passed this year, it mandates greater constraints on sex offenders, requires states to place juvenile offenders on public registries, establishes a tiered registry system based on the crime and requires states to maintain registries online, with detailed information down to the license plate numbers of any car the offender uses. States could lose federal funding if they don't comply.

On the other side: a call to completely overhaul, if not eliminate, sex offender registries as they are now. In September, an international human rights organization issued a 146-page report that concluded registries "may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders." It cited Maine's two sex offender murders as an example. ...

I haven't heard about this "international human rights organization" report, but am interested. Any reader know of this?

Another perspective on sex offenders

2007-10-21T19:06:00.000-06:00

Read it all:

By Tim Walden

Sunday, October 21, 2007

I'm becoming disgruntled with the inaccurate and unfair media attention former sex offenders are receiving. I understand the stigma and political sensitivity, as I understand a parent's desire to protect a child, but at what point does the unjustified witch hunt end and the truthful recognition of fact begin?

During the campaign for Jessica's Law, I began doing research. On the Department of Justice Web site, I found a report entitled "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994," November 2003.

This is what I learned.

Fact: "Compared to nonsex offenders released from state prison, sex offenders had a lower overall re-arrest rate."

Fact: "Released sex offenders with one prior arrest (the arrest for the sex crime for which they were imprisoned) had the lowest re-arrest rate for a sex crime, about 3 percent."

Fact: "Following their release in 1994, 209 of the total 9,691 released sex offenders (2.2 percent) were re-arrested for a sex offense against a child."

Fact: "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5 percent (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the three-year follow-up period."

Fact: "Released child molesters with more than one prior arrest were more likely than those with only one arrest in their criminal record to be re-arrested for a new sex crime (5.7 percent compared to 3.2 percent). The same was true of statutory rapists (5.3 percent compared to 3.5 percent)." A statutory rapist is an individual who had illegal consensual sex with a minor.

These statistics are documented evidence that former offenders pose very little threat to our community, although it's politically taboo for politicians or the Department of Corrections to admit it.

Research has shown that where an offender lives is unrelated to where he/she commits a crime. A predator can find a potential victim regardless of where they live.

...

Bet it won't work

2007-10-13T13:49:00.000-06:00

From this news item:

Officials say they will have access to more information about sex offenders in Tennessee. Offenders will have to wear tracking bracelets around their ankles.

The system will alert officials if the offender goes near a school or routinely visits areas where he or she does not live. Officials will be alerted if the offender removes the tracking device. ...

Easily circumvented. There are places where, even if these are real-time tracking devices (unlike the less expensive and more common trackers that upload every 24 hours), they are disconnected from the network. Think of areas where you have no cellphone signal, for example. All the sex offender has to do is locate such an zones where the tracker is disconnected (very easy to find, if you know what you're looking for), enter it, cut off the tracking device, wrap it securely in foil, dispose of it and disappear.

Given the prevalence of such zones, it's highly unlikely the police will be called out every time a unit drops off the network. (Think of the police being called on you every time your cellphone signal drops.)

Just more wasted taxpayers dollars in the pursuit of false security. The only winners here are the demagogue politicians who pushed this.

Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

2007-10-13T13:43:00.000-06:00

From blogger Sarah Tofte, who gets it:

Sex offender laws may be doing more harm than good. That is the conclusion Human Rights Watch came to after two years of intensive research into sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws in the United States. Our research convinced us that politicians failed to do their homework by enacting popular laws without seeking expert

Instead of an informed debate about how sexual violence ravages this country, politicians and the media have largely focused on child victims of truly horrific crimes by previously convicted sex offenders -- like the murders of Megan Kanka, Polly Klaas, and Jessica Lunsford. Horrific yes, but uncommon, which means the laws are designed to tackle only a tiny minority and fail to address the full picture of sexual violence.

A growing number of child safety and rape prevention advocates agree that current laws are not working. For example, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), a state-wide coalition of 84 rape crisis centers and sexual assault prevention programs, had this to say about residency restriction laws: They "waste valuable resources on sex offenders who are unlikely to reoffend, while leaving a deficit of treatment, supervision, and focus on offenders who we know should be receiving more intense scrutiny."

Two popular myths about child abusers underlie many of our sex offender laws: first, that our children have most to fear from strangers, and second, that sex offenders will inevitably repeat their crimes. But the data tell a different story. More than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than most people believe -- authoritative studies show that three out of four do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.

Furthermore, focusing much of our public policy resources on restricting the rights of former sex offenders will do very little, if anything, to protect the 87 percent of victims of sexual violence who were abused by someone who had no previous sex crime conviction.

Residency restriction laws, in place in 20 states, are based on another popular belief about former offenders -- that keeping them away from places where children gather will reduce their risk of re-offending. But there is no evidence these laws diminish crimes against children and some to suggest the opposite.

A recent study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections analyzed 224 sex offender recidivists to see if where they lived had an effect on their crimes. The study found that residential proximity had very little impact on a recidivist's opportunity to re-offend. Many took pains to drive far from their neighborhoods in order to re-offend. More than half (113) came into contact with their victims through "social or relationship proximity" to the child. The most common example was that of a male offender who found his victim(s) while socializing with their mother.

The main impact of residency restrictions may be to drive former offenders underground, away from families, police supervision and the help that can stop them re-offending. As an Iowa sheriff pointed out, "We've taken stable people who have committed a sex crime and cast them out of their homes, away from their jobs, away from treatment, and away from public transportation. It's just absolutely absurd what these laws have done, and the communities are at greater risk because of it."

Law enforcement officials and sex offender treatment providers repeatedly told Human Rights Watch that isolating former offenders is counter-productive. Existing parole and probation laws already permit law enforcement agencies to place restrictions and conditions on former offenders when appropriate.

All registered sex offenders must provide a home address, but because of the restrictions, some do not have a home. Police in Iowa, which has seen residency restrictions backfire, have resolved this conundrum by allowing individuals to register as homeless, if they specify a location. So users who go to Iowa's online registry will find addresses listed as "on the Raccoon River between Des Moines and West Des Moines," "behind the Target on Euclid," and "underneath the I-80 bridge." I visited some of these "addresses." The areas are industrial, polluted, noisy, full of debris, and, in one case, right next to an active railroad track.

As a Des Moines police officer explained, "We don't expect that the registrants are actually living under the bridge, it's just one of the few places where they are legally allowed to admit they are living, and so they list that as their address, and go live someplace else."

Since the law took effect in Iowa, police have lost track of hundreds of former offenders.

Even online registries, where the personal details of offenders, but not necessarily the nature of their crime, are accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, may not be that useful. Some were convicted of non-violent offenses, others were children when they committed their crime. Police already have the duty to inform neighbors when an offender who might pose a threat moves in.

But it's one thing to say parents should be told there's a dangerous man living next door -- which they should -- and quite another to let anyone browse the registries to see who's listed, regardless of any need to know. Unfettered access to registry information can and does lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders. That doesn't protect anyone. More effective would be to ensure that police actually pass on potential threats to the relevant community.

We deserve laws that protect everyone from sexual violence. Former offenders need laws that allow them to rebuild their lives -- because when they succeed in safely rejoining their communities, we are all made safer. State and federal legislators should end residency restrictions and reform online registry and community notification laws so they target high-risk offenders.

It's not surprising that those who know something about the nature of sexual violence in the United States have started to criticize the way the laws treat former sex offenders. But it's a shame that politicians don't seem to be listening to the experts who could help to craft laws that might actually prevent sexual violence.

Some good comments, too.

Logical extension

2007-10-13T13:31:00.000-06:00

We deserve to know if any offender lives nearby

After reading the excellent series by Matthew Tully, "Life on the edge," I started thinking: We require sex offenders to list where they live and work, ostensibly because this protects society. So why do we not require it for all criminals?

Don't we deserve to know if there is a drug dealer living down the street? What about people convicted of violent crimes using guns and knifes or even their fists?
Drunken drivers usually re-offend. Want to know if there is one driving down your street before you let your kid play there? Gang members often return to gangs after prison, so why not list where they live and work? What about burglars, robbers, arsonists and murderers?
The recidivism rate for sex offenders is lower than for many of these other criminals, especially for those who obey the law and register. So if we require these people to tell us where they live, if we limit where they may live or work, then it only makes sense to extend this logic to everyone ever convicted. Or are the politicians only interested in sex crimes?

Nick Ames

Indianapolis

Maine Court puts needed halt on sex offender hysteria

2007-09-30T19:47:00.000-06:00

Internet registries can punish sex offenders but may do little to protect children.

Pillory was the name of a punishment device used in Colonial times. Usually made from two hinged boards with holes cut for the head and hands, this technical upgrade to the stocks was used to expose convicts to public scorn.

In his novel, "The Scarlet Letter," Nathaniel Hawthorne described one of the machines, and said, "There can be no outrage, methinks ... more flagrant than to forbid the culprit to hide his face for shame."

In our times, "pillory" has become a verb meaning "to lay open to ridicule, public shame and abuse." It is a word that could be used to describe what happens to a person whose name and photograph appears on an Internet sex offender registry.

In an important ruling this week, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court opened Maine's sex offender registry law to legal challenge. This opinion should force the public and all levels of government to reconsider the effectiveness of online registries as a weapon against sexual violence.

COURT'S RULING

The unanimous court found that restrictions on where a sex offender can live and work flow from public notification. That makes the registry a form of punishment that should be imposed selectively as part of a criminal sentence, and not applied indiscriminately through civil law.

The Legislature's Criminal Justice Committee will meet next month to review the law in light of the court's opinion. The lawmakers should realize what two of the judges found: Amendments to the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act made over the last seven years have turned a reasonable law- enforcement tool into a vindictive weapon against one class of criminal.

Lawmakers should especially reconsider their decision to make the mandatory registration retroactive, applying it in some cases to people who have lived quiet, law-abiding lives for years since completing their sentences.

This is not about being nice to sex offenders or ignoring the often-lifelong damage caused by their crimes. It is about justice and public safety.

Maine's online registry, and others like it in almost every state, does little to protect children and others from abuse because it can drive offenders underground, making them harder to track. Most sex crimes against children are committed within households, and a public registry does not provide information that would protect many of those victims. In fact, it could give their parents a false sense of security.

The main purpose of the online registries appears to be punitive. While the criminal justice system imposes punishment, the state should also focus attention on education and other areas that could prevent crime.

Maine passed its notification law in 1995. At that time, it required people convicted of gross sexual assault when the victim was under the age of 16 to register as part of their sentence. By law, the information was given to "certain police agencies and to members of the public who the department determines appropriate to ensure public safety."

LAW AMENDED

Subsequent amendments to the law have been driven by federal programs that tie changes to the registry to access to federal crime-fighting dollars.

In 2001, the law was made retroactive for people sentenced for crimes committed as far back as 1992. Registrants had to report every 90 days to a local police station for fingerprinting.

A 2003 amendment put the information online, including the registrant's address, place of employment and photograph. In 2005, the registry was made retroactive to crimes committed as far back as 1982.

Stephen Marshall, a deranged Nova Scotia man, used the state's Web site to target the two Maine registrants he murdered on Easter Sunday 2006.

Shortly after those killings, a man known in court papers as "John Doe" challenged his order to register.

He had been convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a 12- year-old relative more than 20 years earlier, and had no subsequent sexual offenses. Doe said his wife would leave him to protect her children if his name and address appeared on the registry. He was also afraid he would lose his job and his neighbors would force him to move away.

All of this would be imposed without any evidence other than his conviction that he would pose a threat to another child.

His case was dismissed because a pair of court decisions, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and one from Maine's, appeared to have settled the issue in favor of the registry.

But in its ruling this week, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said the registration law had been so drastically changed through its amendments, it has become something entirely different. The opinion sends the Doe case back to the Superior Court.

LAWMAKER'S TASK

In the meantime, lawmakers should consider what the registry has become over the last 12 years. Rogues' galleries on the Internet perpetuate myths about sex abuse, and do little to protect victims from the real dangers.

If public notification is a form of punishment it should be viewed that way and made part of a sentence.

Lawmakers should also consider if it isn't a type of punishment, like the pillory, that we put aside long ago.

You really don't have to go far beyond the comments on this article to understand that the general populace sees through the pretense that these laws aren't additional punishments -- and supports the pretense. However, it's highly likely that these very same folks will be the ones squealing the loudest when the denial of liberty and privacy to others that they supported gets applied to them. And there are so many agendas out there, it will.

A disaster waiting to happen

2007-09-07T19:51:00.000-06:00

Absolutely incredible. Parents abdicating ALL responsibility:

Zina Linnik's neighbors demand change

TACOMA - Dozens of residents in the city's hilltop neighborhood gathered at Peace Lutheran Church on Thursday to demand that all sex offenders be swept out of the community.

...

"I don't think we have to watch our kids everyday. When I was growing up, they didn't have to watch me everyday, " said Oscar Freeman, a parent. "The police should be up here, doing more patrolling."

...

There's a clinical word likely to be applied to the Freeman children.

It's "victim."

A win for "ex post facto"

2007-09-07T19:16:00.000-06:00

Longtime blog readers know that I am very down on the "ex post facto" element of many of the sex-offender laws being passed, and why not? If the government can encroach on somebody's rights after the crime, well, then that right was never really there to begin with and what was taken away from one for whatever person can be taken from another for another purpose.

If governments can dictate today where some people cannot live, based on a prior conviction, it's really a very small step to dictate where they CAN live. (And you can bet it will always be Not In My Back Yard.) There are many people living today who have seen this happen before -- it's just a matter of against whom the hue & cry is being raised. And if the outsiders are made unpopular enough... well, I see signs that maybe it's not going to go that far in this country.

In any event Ohio, which has lately been on the forefront of "beat up the sex offenders" (who've done their time, and federal judicial stats say a significant number will never re-offend at all, much less with a sex offense), got slapped back a little according to this report.

Don't get me wrong -- two strikes are two too many, and if you've got a prosecutor more ethical than Nifong I'm not going to quibble about what you get for a sentence. But all the exclusion zones, branding, Mr Yuck license plates and all the rest, it's all lazy and sleazy politicians with no concern for their constituency grabbing for the easy issues. And so what if it increases recidivism, causes more crimes? It can't be laid directly to their account.

CLEVELAND (AP) — A federal judge struck down part of a law barring convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, saying offenders can remain in their homes if their crimes were committed before the law went into effect.

In a decision Tuesday, Judge James S. Gwin in Akron ruled that the law cannot be applied to anyone who committed a crime before July 31, 2003, the effective date of the Ohio Legislature's ban.

...

Douglas Powley, chief city prosecutor in Akron, said Wednesday he hopes lawmakers can craft a law that can withstand a constitutional challenge.

Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh plans to appeal the ruling.

Sex Offenders VS Child Safety

2007-09-03T19:26:00.000-06:00

Shirley Lowery

September 3, 2007

The laws enacted to monitor and control sex offenders are extraordinary. I think we can all agree to that. The general public believes these extraordinary laws are justified. The faces of murdered children, killed by sexual predators, are flashed on the TV urging us to "consider the children." And who could resist? Who would want to? Surely it is justified to face the threats to our children.

But what are those threats really? Is there a way to know?

Actually, yes...

- U.S. Department of Justice, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Throwaway Children.
<

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_overview.pdf

This report states that in 2002 an estimated 1,325,600 kids went missing. 797,500 were reported as missing.

628,900 of these children were identified as runaway/throwaway kids.

Of the other 528,100 children their parents didn't even bother to file a report.

Yet the we hear the constant scream of "if it saves one child". Oh, there are so many more than that who need to be saved so let’s look at where the danger lies.

Out of 1,315,600 missing kids 115 were snatched in the sense that everybody is worried about. And that includes kids that were snatched for ransom, and kids that were snatched by a disturbed or distraught person who wanted a child of their own, so how many are left that were snatched and killed by the sex offenders that are hiding behind every tree? That's what we're really worried about, right? Actually, the report tells us that number is 40 but let’s be generous and use the entire 115 who were snatched out of the 1.3 million who went missing.

You will find that less than 1/100th of 1% were snatched but the number that people care about and are willing to spend our resources on is much lower. To qualify for an outcry there must be a combination of sex, violence and death.

Page 11 of the report states that "…40 missing children who were stereotypically kidnapped and killed (an estimated 35) or were still missing (approximately 5) at the time of the study." Yes, that is too many. But are we going to ignore all the others to concentrate on less than 1/200th of 1%?

Now, it is a sad fact that there are more children who die each year than just these 40. Many more. How many more and how are they dying?

Center for Disease Control

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

A quick look at Top Ten deaths in minors in 2002 shows that there were 17,759 kids who died (excluding infant mortality).

Of those:

1296 were shot to death by someone,

145 were stabbed to death,

89 were strangled,

37 were burned alive,

17 were poisoned,

603 shot themselves,

559 hung themselves, and

6132 were killed in traffic accidents.

This tells us that in 2002:

Your child was 1400% more likely to hang themselves than be snatched and killed by a sex offender.

Your child was 1500% more likely to shoot themselves than be snatched and killed by a sex offender

Your child was 3200% more likely to be murdered by firearm by someone besides a sex offender.

Your child was 4000% more likely to be shot, stabbed, strangled, burned alive or poisoned than snatched and killed by a sex offender.

Your child was 15300% more likely to be killed in a car crash than snatched and killed by a sex offender.

We find more information here.

The American Journal of Psychiatry

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1578

- Among children under age 5 years in the United States who were murdered in the last quarter of the 20th century, 61% were killed by their own parents: 30% were killed by their mothers, and 31% by their fathers

Paying to register? Stupid idea

2007-08-25T19:48:00.000-06:00

Some sheriffs consider sex offender fee

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Some Indiana counties are looking to charge convicted sex offenders an annual fee to register their addresses as required under state law.

Supporters of the fees say they would provide police agencies with much-needed money, while critics say they might be unconstitutional and could discourage some offenders from registering.
The sheriffs in St. Joseph County, which includes South Bend, and Bartholomew County, which includes Columbus, said the fees -- $50 each year and $5 for an address change -- would only cover a portion of the costs their departments face to process the registrations and track offenders.

"The cost has to come from somewhere," St. Joseph County Sheriff Frank Canarecci said. "I would classify it as a user fee. I think those who use government services should pay."
Susan Hancock, executive director of St. Joseph County Community Corrections, said she worried such a fee would hurt the registry's purpose of informing the public of sex offenders' whereabouts

"My concern is that there may be an unintended consequence and that some of these guys say, 'Oh gosh, I don't have the $50, so I just won't register,"' she said. "We do have the reality that some of these individuals do not have the money to pay for a meal, let alone pay a fee."
The $50 and $5 charges are the maximum allowed under Indiana law.

...

Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, said he questioned whether such fees were constitutional as the $5 fee for changing one's address would essentially penalize people for moving.

This one comes from time to time, and has not withstood whatever tests it has come against.

A good thing, in my humble opinion, because such "fees" will be highly counter-productive. First off, enacted ex post facto they're a trigger to the dutifully registered convicted sex offender that life will get worse for him no matter what he does.

Second, they impose an economic burden that can invite backlash. Perhaps, instead of taking waste materials like old furniture or old computers to the local dump/recycling center (where charges are imposed), such materials get deliberately dumped roadside. (Worse, such backlash in itself will further isolate the would-be ex-offender from a feeling of being a member of society, not a contribution to rehabilitation.)

Third, this invites resistance -- especially where it applies lifelong. Can't afford it anymore? Take the easy way out. The quality of the provisions are quite poor but you get lifelong "three hots and a cot, free health-care, etc." -- and you can get it by saying "I can't afford it" and give up your "home" under that bridge.

I'm just waiting until some enterprising politician thinks he he can "drive out the sex offenders" by raising the registration fee to a few thousand dollars per quarter. If the initial "fee" assessment stands, it is going to happen, be assured of that! You have to look no further the Georgia and Iowa on residency zones to see that. (And how much they want to but cannot, back off on those laws.)

Crime figures show sex offender laws don’t work

2007-08-25T18:39:00.000-06:00

...

Every state has laws intending to protect children from repeat offenders such as Gorczyca, but crime figures show those laws just aren’t working. What’s more, residence laws in some states, which push offenders out of their homes, put children at greater risk since the offenders disappear from police sight.

Since 1996, all states have required sex offenders to register their addresses with local police. That’s when “Megan’s Law” was enacted, after a girl in New Jersey was snatched, raped and murdered by a neighbor no one knew had committed sexual attacks on two young children. The Adam Walsh Act of 2006 updates those registration guidelines nationwide, ranking offenders by severity of their crimes.

More than half the states also impose residence restrictions through state law or local ordinance designed to deliver predators from temptation.

...

Levy and others who’ve drafted similar laws in statehouses and town halls nationwide say they only want to keep predators as far from children as possible.

Problem is, residency laws don’t deliver. Crime numbers in states that have such bans don’t reflect any clear-cut decrease in sex offenses or crimes against children after the laws are enacted. Most molestations are tracked back to perpetrators children already know and trust, with precious few resulting from “stranger danger.” And the residence restrictions for sex offenders are proving expensive, costing taxpayers in lawsuits, enforcement and drops in property value.

Nor do strict residence laws that relegate offenders to society’s fringes hold sex offender numbers down, since the count keeps growing. And the laws don’t determine where sex offenders will settle once released from prison, despite their supporters’ claims that absent residence laws, a state or town becomes a pedophiliac haven.

Alaska leads all 50 states in sex offenders per capita. The northern state of 670,000 has 630 offenders per 100,000 residents, and no residence laws.

But neither does Pennsylvania, at the bottom of that same list with 62 offenders per 100,000 residents -- about a 10th of Alaska’s rate.

Kansas also has no residence law for sex offenders and settles near the middle of the list. The state averages 144 sex offenders per 100,000 residents, which places Kansas 29th overall.

Some states have begun debating the laws’ effectiveness.

Prosecutors in Iowa called last year for its 2,000-foot law to be repealed, saying the stricter the ban, the more offenders end up shirking the registry outright and disappearing once released from prison.

“It’s a form of banishment,” said Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago who runs the blog Sex Crimes (http://sexcrimes.typepad.com). “You’ll find in Iowa a motel where all sex offenders live. We’re starting to get ghettoization, which is very new in America. We don’t have these sorts of ghettos of criminalization that way. The United States has a long history of resisting banishment.”

Yet other legislators continue to draw ever-widening circles around parks, schools, playgrounds - even bus stops - where convicted offenders may not live and sometimes may not loiter.

In June, Nevada became one of the latest states to push through a law that bars the most dangerous offenders from entering a safety zone around kid hangouts: schools, daycares and video arcades.

In Florida, where a 1,000-foot state rule bars pedophiles from schools and parks, many counties and municipalities widened the circle to 2,500 feet. In Miami, that left only a swath of land for five offenders under a bridge, where they lived with state approval.

And Marlborough, Mass., enacted its law in June - finalized as a 1,000-foot loop around schools, parks and daycares where sex offenders can’t live, plus a 500-foot “safety zone” where they can’t loiter.

But a Colorado study found that molesters who reoffended didn’t live any closer to schools or childcares than those who didn’t abuse again. Sex offenders in that state can live wherever they choose.

“Placing restrictions on the location of … supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from reoffending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism,” the study stated.

Random stranger attacks on children grab headlines but account for only about 10 percent of sexual assaults on kids, according to the Department of Justice.

Only about 100 of 60,000 annual sex assault reports involve abduction by a stranger.

Most state laws don’t distinguish between serial rapists and repentant mooners. Very few states - including Massachusetts - allow offenders a chance to prove they’re no longer a risk.

Illinois saw a jump from 1,187 sexual offenses against children in 1999, the year before its residence laws began, to 1,871 offenses in 2005, the most recent year the state police released statistics.

Iowa made 279 sex crime arrests the year before it began restricting where sex offenders could live, but 322 in 2005.

So the state, with prosecutors’ approval, is backtracking.

“(We) believe that the 2,000 foot residency restrictions … do not provide the protection that was originally intended,” the leading state prosecutors association (www.icaa.org) said in 2006.

“We do know that people who have offended and have undergone good treatment, have jobs, have stable living situations and have family and other support will not reoffend,” said Corwin Ritchie, the organization’s head. “And that’s why we don’t want them living under bridges, in motels with dozens of other sex offenders, without jobs, without treatment and all those other things we know are effective in preventing recidivism.”

To challenge residence bans as unconstitutional banishment and ongoing punishment, offenders have sued. Suits dragged on in Iowa and Ohio, and continue in Georgia and Missouri. Those ruled on have deemed any retroactive law unconstitutional.

Residence laws end up backfiring because they push sex offenders away from support, said Jill S. Levenson, a professor who’s studied sex offender behavior.

Offenders often search for victims far from their hometowns so they are less likely to be recognized, Levenson wrote.

Housing restrictions increase isolation in sex offenders and add to financial and emotional problems, according to a study Levenson published in 2005. Half the offenders questioned said they had to move, and more than 40 percent couldn’t live with family anymore - and that stress makes it harder to resist temptation, Levenson concluded.

But the laws are popular among voters and politically tricky to oppose.

Kansas shot down a residence ban and prohibited local laws, citing Iowa’s troubles. After Iowa enacted its residence law, police lost track of 400 offenders who gave fake addresses or moved without telling police, compared with 140 the year before.

As states sign on to the federal Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (they have until July 2009 to do so or lose federal money), sex offenders nationwide will be ranked according to the same criteria, and then told to register for 15 or 25 years, or for life, depending on the severity of their crimes.

Meanwhile, in 12 states, offenders must register for life, no matter how trivial the crime. In other states, offenders who insist they pose no danger to society - those caught having sex with teens a few years younger - say their years of registration are solely for punishment.

The mother of a Texas teen, who ended up convicted of sexual assault after a Romeo-and-Juliet romance soured, can’t believe her son is classed alongside dangerous rapists.

“The effects of the lifetime sex offender status will never end,“ she said. “Did my son break the law? Certainly. Should he be punished? Definitely. But should his consequences be the same as those for a violent, forced rape or an offense against a young child? Is using a lifetime of resources to monitor someone like this a sensible use of taxpayer money?”

Even a Massachusetts mother whose three children were repeatedly molested by a trusted family friend, said she’d rather see money spent on housing or treating dangerous offenders than monitoring lesser criminals who never touched a child.

“Where are they going to live?” asked the mother of three who wanted to be known only as “Jane.”

“None of us wants them here. I don’t want them living next to me. No, we don’t want them near daycares and schools, but it doesn’t prevent them from going to a mall,” she said of laws passed in towns near hers.

“You know, we somehow feel comfortable, but we don’t really know where they are. … It’s a false sense of security.”

Giving up liberty... for what?

2007-08-13T18:31:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the long absence. Vacation followed by another computer crash, but at least the "password issue" was better in hand this time and I am back.

Listening to the radio today, it sounds like the region I live in today is about to undergo big attempts to implement the laws that have been failing or worse, elsewhere in the country. There's no doubt that a lot of folks will be lured into such counterproductive measures.

No matter how much liberty they give up in the process, in exchange for the false promise of a little more security.

For example, if it is legal for a locale to arbitrarily zone out convicted sex offenders, why can it not also zone out convicted drink-drivers (there aren't many arterials where I live, so the probability of encountering some may be increased)? Murderers? Thieves? Meth-makers? Speeders? Car-thieves (victim of that more than once, and once is Too Often!)? Many landlords might like to advertise to potential occupants of their rental units that the units are in a Convicted-Offender-Free Zone!

...with the appropriate disclaimers in the really fine print, and woe the poor sap who buys into it. Just like the victims, their husbands, parents and boyfriends who buy into the promise of "sex-offender non-residency" laws.

As I've said before on this blog, these law only create "target-rich environments."

(Hm! On a hunch I revisited the Bureau of Justice Statistics Report "Sex Offenders and Offenses" and on Table 2, printed page 21, it turns out that of those imprisoned in state prisons for "rape and sexual assault" 48.2% are black, 48.1% white, 3.7% "other". Given the study results in "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1997", the same year as the previous study, one finds the race breakout: black = 42.0%, white = 40.6%, hispanic = 15.7%. It seems obvious that Hispanics will be lumped in with white if their category disappears, therefore the sex-offender laws are disproportionately racist against blacks. Or at least there might be those who would argue such.)

Be careful of your vote: Kosiur would expand sex offender laws

2007-07-14T17:38:00.000-06:00

Looks like another politician, Ed Kosiur of Schenectady County, NY, is trying to ride The Easy Issue. Click on the title to see the whole article:

The new law, described by some Kosiur campaign ads as the toughest in the state, bans all levels of sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, daycare center, playground, swimming pool, park, or youth center.

It doesn’t just prohibit sex offenders from moving into those locations, it’s [SIC] in fact requires all the ones currently living in those places to move. It leaves only a small portion of the town of Duanesburg for sex offenders to live within county borders.

This blog has long since noted the massive failure of such laws. End result: registered sex offenders slip away and the state incurs massive expenses 1) trying to track every single one of them dowm, 2) incarcerating them for months or years after doing so, and 3) supporting their families (if they have such, I don't have numbers on the proportion who do) on welfare during their incarceration.

But if that's what New York voters want, they're welcome to pay for it.

The FBI: how much more hysterical can they get?

2007-07-14T17:13:00.000-06:00

I have to say I was almost literally rolling on the floor laughing then I read this article:

FBI: Sex Offenders Could Exploit Free WiFi (Per the site's request, I am providing only the link, not the content.)

So. Free WiFi can "attract dangerous criminals"? I guess so (clearly the FBI is not concerned about non-dangerous criminals). And terrorists too. But you know, free anything will attract the same folks, along with everyone else.

(sarcasm:) Is the FBI saying that nothing should be free?

Sex Offender Laws Pummeled

2007-07-07T10:00:00.000-06:00

Good news, for once! (And if I've been quiet for a while, it's because I'm researching and writing my opposition comments to the Department of Justice guidelines for the Adam Walsh act.) Thank you Amanda Rogers and the American Chronicle.

EX OFFENDER LAWS PUMMELED AS GAP BETWEEN BEING TOUGH ON CRIME AND BEING SMART ON CRIME WIDENS

Washington D.C.: In a desperate attempt to keep the flow of misinformation alive, John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted - who has always sought vengeance over prevention (and makes a ton of money doing it) assembled a small group of parents whose children have been murdered, whether by a registered sex offender or not and went to Capitol Hill last week to push for yet even more ineffective and blatantly vindictive laws in the name of a handful of murdered children.

The group called “The Surviving Parents Coalition,” enlisted the services of a PR (public relations) firm. This is important to note as, in the words of Eugene Kennedy, quoted from the New York Times: “You call in public relations operatives when the truth won’t do.”

The coalition's PR company: (R.M.S. PR) sent out a press release that the group would be meeting with a few “fools on the hill” last week in Washington urging them to “declare war on sex offenders.” Declare war? There was also to be a press conference. To date, I have seen only one single article covering this event - evidence that Mr. Walsh and his entourage have pushed the envelope too far. Vengeance against 600,000 plus people for the actions of the handful responsible for the despicable crimes which took the lives of these parents’ children cannot continue. The silence upon Capitol Hill last week spoke volumes and sends a clear and powerful message: It is no longer enough for the American people for elected officials to look “tough” on crime. The American people want legislators to be “smart” on crime - to focus on prevention, not retribution.

Across the nation, a growing number of top mental health experts, law enforcement agencies, and victim advocacy groups are becoming fed up with costly, ineffective, and counter-productive sex offender laws, and they are speaking out. The over-inflated balloon of hype and hysteria which has been the platform for creating and passing much of the legislation is deflating as factual data on the issues surrounding sex crimes comes to the forefront.

For example, ALL of these laws focus on former registered sex offenders who statistically are responsible for a miniscule 3% of new sex crimes. That means that 97% of new sex crimes will be commited by someone who is NOT a registered sex offender. To put it in perspective, out of the 400 Dateline "To Catch A Predator" stings only 4 out of the over 400 caught were actually registered sex offenders. So then, WHY are all these laws only targeting those on the registry that pose the lowest risk to society?

The tide is turning and lawmakers who don’t want to be left holding the bag for the miserable failures that have been created in the name of protecting the public are taking notice. With the exception of the three "fools on the hill" that are still trying to make a name for themselves via deception and who have obviously not done their homework. Those lawmakers being: Senator Joe Biden-(D) DE, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz-(D) FL , and Congressman Al Green-(D) TX.

Multiple states across the nation are delaying and in some cases even outright refusing to comply with the Federal government’s mandate of the Adam Walsh Act passed last year in a closed door session, at the bequest of Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

Community notification laws, residency restrictions, and all the other “one up man-ship” policies that have been set into law to date haven’t protected a single child and it has cost the American people dearly. These laws have torn a huge hole in the fabric of our society. ALL of these laws have been based on a handful of tragic and brutal crimes, some involving someone with a previous sex offense and some not. America’s children have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than by having their child abducted. The crimes are horrific but they are in fact, extremely rare. The majority of sex crimes are not committed by strangers or even registered sex offenders, yet that is who John Walsh and others constantly focus on when lobbying for laws against everyone and anyone with a past sex charge, whether for Romeo and Juliet relationships or kids caught playing doctor. Everyone has been lumped together and publicly slandered by vote hungry politicians and the ratings hungry media, trying to convince us that everyone on the sex offender registry is a child molesting, incurable pedophile capable of murdering a child at any given moment. Bullshit. If all registered sex offenders posed that kind of threat to the public, we’d be neck deep in the bodies of murdered children just by walking out our front door. Think about it.

Lawmakers are (finally) doing their homework. They are finally beginning to pour over the numerous reports which government agencies and mental health experts have compiled and that the taxpayers have paid for regarding recidivism, types of offenders, factual data and the negative consequences of the plethora of ill thought out legislation.

Sex crimes are down? That’s no surprise. I wonder how many cases will never see the light of day because family members fear the wrath of these laws and keep sexual abuse “within the family” to themselves instead of reporting it? How is this protecting children or helping to solve the problem?

The ever growing group of organizations and individuals who have read the mountains of data and oppose laws like community notification, residency restrictions, and the Adam Walsh Act include, but are not limited to:

Patty Wetterling

Nancy Sabin

The Jacob Wetterling Foundation

Franklin Zimring, law professor University of California at Berkeley

Scott Poland, past president of the National Association of School Psychologists

Robert Prentky, a psychologist and nationally renowned expert on sex offenders in Bridgewater, Massachusetts

Kansas department of Corrections

Iowa County Attorney’s Association

Colorado Department of Public Safety

Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Minnesota Department of Corrections

NACDL

Montana Treatment Association

California Coalition on Sex Offending

Therapy Key

SATA

ETAY

My5th.org

NAESV

American Bar Association

JJAG

Dr. Jill Levinson PhD

Dr. Fred Berlin

I don’t know what’s worse, someone who exploits a child sexually or someone who makes a career out of exploiting their own child’s tragic death for personal gain at the expense of thousands of others (and their families,) who had nothing to do with the perpetration of these heinous crimes.

Amanda Rogers - 7/03/2007

What would Jesus do?

2007-07-06T10:45:00.000-06:00

What would Jesus do? What these self-labeled Christians are doing? What a sweet, sweet witness they make to the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. John Calvin would be ever so proud of these, his spiritual progeny.

Protestors: Sex offenders must move out

Protestors want sex offenders to move out of a cluster of apartments that sit very close to their church.

TAMPA - Instead of relaxing, some Tampa residents were marching on Independence Day.

Members of the John Calvin Presbyterian Church held signs and chanted outside the home of a man who owns an apartment complex next to the chapel. The apartments cater to convicted sex offenders.

"We want them to move on," said Bea Dreier, as she held a picket Wednesday morning. "Let's find another place for them."

The congregation is especially concerned because the church plans to open a day care facility late this year or early next year.

...

Landlord Chris Stover says he was doing business on the location prior to the church's application for a day care facility. He says the church is being irresponsible opening the day care center so close to his business.

...

ALABAMA VOICES: Emotion makes bad laws

2007-07-06T10:40:00.000-06:00

It seems one has to be close to the issue in order to see the reality. Cindy, dear, you're speaking to a deaf audience.

ALABAMA VOICES: Emotion makes bad laws

By Cindy Blair

In my opinion and in the opinion of sex offenders who have been convicted of a sex offense in Alabama, the sex offender notification law is a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as their human rights.

Once a person serves his or her time, pays their debt to society, he or she should be able to live a productive, honest and free life unless he or she breaks the law again. The sex offenders notification law prevents this.

This law dictates where sex offenders can live and work. This actually destroys any chance of sex offenders being able to live a normal life. They cannot obtain gainful employment. It makes it next to impossible for a sex offender to find a place to live.

The lawmakers and courts say that this is not punishment, but it is. It also violates a ex-sex offender's basic human rights and constitutional rights. The sex offender notification act affects people whose crimes were 25 or 30 years ago. This is creating laws after the fact.

Two bills offered in the recent legislative session were trying to make it even harder for sex offenders to live. This legislation is trying to stop two sex offenders from living in the same place. If sex offenders could find a place to live, they would not have to live in the same place.

The bills want to stop sex offenders from living close to senior citizens. This does not make sense. Senior citizens are very rarely victims of sex crimes. A lot of sex offenders are senior citizens themselves. Are they going to stop them from going to a nursing home, too?

I would like for one of these politicians to explain just where a sex offender is supposed to live. Maybe they expect them to do like they are doing in Florida and live under a bridge.

I would like to see the public wake up to what the politicians are doing. They are getting on the sex bandwagon just to get votes. Sex sells products on television, in advertising, in the newspapers and billboards on the side of the highway.

Now the politicians want to use sex offenders to get elected. It does not matter to them that they are destroying people's lives. Every sex offender has a family. Do they think the sex offender notification law only affects the sex offender? Families are being destroyed because of this law.

The way sex crimes are portrayed on television is not the real world. Only a very small percent of the sex offenders would fall under actual violence. Movies and programs that show actual violent sex crimes sure help the politicians out.

Sex offenders are not being treated fairly under the Constitution. The ones making laws are not using rational thinking. Most of the laws pertaining to sex crimes are made from personal feeling and the wrong information about sex offenders. Sex laws are not passed according to what is right under the Constitution, or even what makes sense.

Some sex offenders deserve what they get. However, how can all sex offenders be held liable for another person's actions?

I am not upholding sex crimes. I very well do empathize, as well as sympathize, with victims of sex crimes. In this state anyone convicted of a sex offense is automatically a sexual predator. It does not even matter if he or she is a first-time offender.

If some of our so-called educated people making laws and running this state would do a little research, they would see that not all sex offenders are the same. Even the ones convicted of a crime pertaining to children are different.

What is really obscured is that hardly any sex offender has a trial. They are coerced into pleading guilty. Most do not even know that by pleading guilty they are being placed under the sex offender notification law. The sex offender notification law is being applied to people who pled guilty to a sex crime more than 20 years ago.

Is the sex offender notification law protecting the public? We hear of new sex offenses all the time, but not because of the already convicted sex offenders. Putting restrictions on the already convicted sex offenders will not stop sex crimes.

If the families and friends of sex offenders will stop voting for the politicians who are pushing for more restrictions on sex offenders and try to vote for the ones who look at sex crimes in a rational sense, then maybe ex-sex offenders will have the opportunity to return home and live productive and law-abiding lives.

Cindy Blair, a homemaker and relative of a sex offender, writes from Ohatchee.

Oh, what a tangled web...

2007-07-06T10:29:00.000-06:00

Allouez WI responds to Green Bay's residency rule -- not by trying to change state law to prohibit sex-offender non-residency zones (which have proven to be be nothing but trouble for states that have enacted same) but by enacting an unworkable rule of its own.

ALLOUEZ — Village Trustee Randy Gast is pitching a novel idea for dealing with sexual predators moving to Allouez.

Gast’s “reciprocal sexual predator residency restriction” is a response to Green Bay’s strict policy on where sexual offenders can relocate. The city’s ordinance prevents registered sex offenders from relocating to within all but about 12 percent of the city. And much of that 12 percent is uninhabitable.

“I don’t think that residency restrictions are the way to go,” Gast said.

Faced with nowhere in Green Bay to live, sex offenders will move south to Allouez, he said.

“I was very troubled by what Green Bay has done,” Gast said. “We’re right next door to Green Bay; it puts our people at risk and could potentially affect our property values.”

Gast’s plan doesn’t involve setting residency restrictions in Allouez, but it does impose on the offender moving to Allouez the restrictions of the municipality in which the offender was convicted.

In other words, if a sex offender convicted in Green Bay decides to move to Allouez, he or she would be subject to Green Bay’s residency rules. If a perpetrator from an area without restrictions moved to Allouez, then Allouez’s rules would apply, if Allouez were to adopt its own restrictions or adopt zones off-limits to offenders.

The proposal is limited to municipalities in Brown County that have residency restrictions on record. Offenders from outside the county would not be affected.

Gast’s proposal is different and separate from the draft ordinance that Hobart officials plan to take action on Tuesday, which establishes restricted zones.

Gast said that if the board were interested in the idea, he’d want it to be referred to the county’s multijurisdictional task force on sex offenders for further study.

Gast’s plan drew skepticism from fellow board members, and Allouez police officer John Flannery expressed concerns about enforcement.

Trustee Bill Sweasy said Gast’s plan had a lot of appeal at first but that it’s “fraught with difficulties” when it comes to enforcing, calling it “a big dog with no teeth.”

“If you have (offenders) from four different jurisdictions, you have five different rules for each of them,” Sweasy said. “With officers busy enough as it is ... how would they ever know who’s where and what applies to whom?”

Even if the board doesn’t like it, Gast said he plans to bring it back to the table in future meetings.

“As far as it not having teeth, that’s always a problem with ordinances,” Gast said. “I just think it’s wrong for Green Bay to put its large geographical boundaries out of limit for sex offenders, and I have this suspicion that we’re going to have to bear the burden of more than our share of (offenders) living here because of it.”

More on "sex offenders getting together"

2007-06-19T18:19:00.000-06:00

It would be funny if this didn't come out of a high government agency.

Reading further, they want to post residential and work addresses for sex offenders on the Internet. Okay, many places do this already but some at least blank out the last few digits of the house number. Not that this always works; in running some experiments on a locale that does such, looking at multiple on-line databases I was able to obtain some down-to-the-last-digit street addresses.

But work addresses? Given a work address, a name and a phone book one could be on the phone to them in very short order. Even with a "blanked" address (requiring a short drive down the street, or reference to yet another on-line database) it would take only a few innocuous phone calls before making contact.

Are these government employees even thinking? I don't claim to be the brightest lamp on the street, but I figured this much out. The more you reveal to the public, the more those who are intent on being sex re-offenders, may be able to find each other.

In other words: increased revelation MAY result in increased protection; it also MAY result in an increase and propagation of circumvention strategies.

Unintended consequences (email addresses)

2007-06-16T16:58:00.000-06:00

Reading through the proposed national guidelines for sex offender registration I had to laugh when I read the following:

On the other hand, some forms of public disclosure of this type of information—such as including sex offenders’ e-mail addresses as part of the information in their individual listings on the sex offender websites, which also include their names, locations, etc.—could raise serious concerns about unintended consequences and misuse. Posting of the information in this form could provide ready access by sex offenders to the e-mail addresses of other sex offenders, thereby facilitating networking among such offenders through the Internet for such purposes as: exchanging information about or providing access to child victims for purposes of sexual abuse; recruiting confederates and accomplices for the purpose of committing child sexual abuse or exploitation offenses or other sexually violent crimes; trafficking in child pornography; and sharing ideas and information about how to commit sexual crimes, avoid detection and apprehension for committing such crimes, or evade registration requirements.

The public safety benefits of public access in this context may be realized, and the risks and concerns addressed, by not including remote communication routing addresses or information that would enable sex offenders to contact each other on the individual public website postings of registrants, but including on the websites a function by which members of the public may enter, e.g., an e-mail address or phone number and receive an answer whether the specified address or number has been registered as that of a sex offender. In the case of a concerned parent as described above, for example, this could enable the parent to ascertain that the e-mail address of an individual attempting to communicate through the Internet with his or her child is the address of a sex offender, but without providing sex offenders access to listings showing the e-mail addresses of other persons who may share their dispositions to commit sexual crimes.

How naive! It has been proposed to give or sell such lists to public networking siteowners, or verify via the alternate method given above.

But it would be so easy for registered sex offenders to use this. Set up a public networking site and get the list. Okay, they'll close that loophole, no doubt.

But the address verification method is also usable. Let's say somebody sets up a sex-offender-only networking site calling it, oh, UnitedSexOffenders.com. (It's to be a safe harassment-free space for registered sex offenders trying to go straight, okay? Forget the Dept. of Justice's silly, silly hyperventilation -- geez, if you don't want sex offenders sharing ideas, why do you lock them up for years together?)

All he has to do is to advertise USO and use the address verification method to keep the general public out... and the deed is done.

Best host it outside the country though, because the screeching and wailing that will ensue when it's discovered by the public will be incredible.

How to force a sex offender out

2007-06-05T19:36:00.000-06:00

Turns out to be real easy:

1) Pass a "non-residence zone law"

2) File for a daycare.

(S)he's now illegal and screwed, no matter the intentions. Guess what: it's happening all over the country. Coming to a (grateful and welcoming) locale near you.

Until the chickens come home to roost.

BIG TROUBLE AHEAD (action needed)

2007-05-23T17:56:00.000-06:00

From the U.S. Department of Justice:

Department of Justice Announces Proposed National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today released proposed National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, as required by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

These proposed Guidelines detail the minimum national standards and offer key guidance to the states, the District of Columbia, territories, and federally recognized Indian tribes, as they implement their sex offender registration and notification policies. By providing an effective and comprehensive national system, the proposed Guidelines will strengthen law enforcement’s ability to track and monitor sex offenders. Complementing the release of the proposed Guidelines, the Attorney General also announced $25 million in assistance for communities to implement these proposed Guidelines and take other steps to guard against sex offenders.

“Too often, sex offenders continue to harm children even after a previous conviction,” said Attorney General Gonzales. “By establishing minimum national standards, these proposed Guidelines will assist all levels of government in working together to more effectively monitor sex offenders, and will equip parents to better protect their children from unwittingly interacting with sex offenders.”

Today’s announcement comes as the Department marks the one-year anniversary of the launch of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative designed to protect children from online sexual exploitation and abuse. ...

Okay. We have politicians weighing in on The Easy Issue, deluding parents into thinking they'll somehow be safer so they can let down their guard. (It will be a hard awakening for some.)

The bad news is here. It's long and complex, but a necessary read. This is a MAJOR expansion of Megan's law. A few selected points ("SORNA" by the way, is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006):

As noted in the rulemaking document for the cited regulations, the application of the SORNA standards to sex offenders whose convictions predate SORNA creates no ex post facto problem “because the SORNA sex offender registration and notification requirements are intended to be non-punitive, regulatory measures adopted for public safety purposes, and hence may validly be applied (and enforced by criminal sanctions) against sex offenders whose predicate convictions occurred prior to the creation of these requirements. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).” 72 FR 8894, 8896 (Feb. 28, 2007).

Very nicely done. "Intended to be non-punitive" translates directly to "non-punitive" (George Orwell, you were so visionary!), and it's for "public safety purposes" (hmmm... where have I heard that before? A few times back in the 20th century?) so it's okay.

Now note in the following a rather extreme increase in the jacking up of offense levels. No longer is it tied to ANY measure of likelihood of re-offense, it is tied directly to the conviction. This isn't about public safety, it's about punishment.

V. CLASSES OF SEX OFFENDERS

Section 111(2)-(4) of SORNA defines three “tiers” of sex offenders. The tier classifications have implications in three areas: (i) under section 115, the required duration of registration depends primarily on the tier; (ii) under section 116, the required frequency of in-person appearances by sex offenders to verify registration information depends on the tier; (iii) under section 118(c)(1), information about tier I sex offenders convicted of offenses other than specified offenses against a minor may be exempted from website disclosure. ...

Registration information is another cute element. They're wanting pretty much everything except your bank account and credit card numbers (and how long until they demand that too?). And look at the really specious reasons they want for various things: "may help in investigating crimes", "may help to discourage them", "to facilitate communication between registration personnel and a sex offender in case issues arise relating to the sex offender’s registration" (that's for *requiring* cellphone numbers), "it is valuable to have information about other places in which sex offenders are staying, even if only temporarily."

VI. REQUIRED REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Section 114 of SORNA defines the required minimum informational content of sex offender registries. It is divided into two lists. The first list, set forth in subsection (a) of section 114, describes information that the registrant will normally be in a position to provide. The second list, set forth in subsection (b), describes information that is likely to require some affirmative action by the jurisdiction to obtain, beyond asking the sex offender for the information. Supplementary to the information that the statute explicitly describes, section 114(a)(7) and (b)(8) authorize the Attorney General to specify additional information that must be obtained and included in the registry. This expansion authority is utilized to require including in the registries a number of additional types of information, such as information about registrants’ e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and the like, information concerning the whereabouts of registrants who lack fixed abodes or definite places of employment, and information about temporary lodging, as discussed below.

And there's more. Professional licenses?!?

# EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION (§ 114(a)(4), (a)(7)):

* EMPLOYER NAME AND ADDRESS (§ 114(a)(4)): ...

* OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION (§ 114(a)(7)): ...

* PROFESSIONAL LICENSES (§ 114(a)(7)): ...

VEHICLE INFORMATION (§ 114(a)(6), (a)(7)): ...

Every single vehicle a registered sex offender might ever drive today or in the future. Oh yes. This includes boats and aircraft. I guess if you're a registered sex offender and an airline captain, you're out of a job and out of luck. But let's look on the bright side; you'll have a whole better access to children flipping burgers in that burger joint than you will sitting in an airplane cockpit in front of a whole planeload of people.

For the next item, talk about a total waste of time and money. You have these already. Even if the photo taken in the "registration" environment is older than 102.3 hours, you already have drivers' license or state ID photos. Dragging these folks down for renewals will be immensely destructive of any rehabilitative efforts (meaning you're encouraging them to go straight and be productive and law-abiding citizens).

# CURRENT PHOTOGRAPH (§ 114(b)(4)): ...
# FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS (§ 114(b)(5)): ...

Finally, there is the information REQUIRED to be published on websites:

* The name of the sex offender, including any aliases.
* The address of each residence at which the sex offender resides or will reside and, if the sex offender does not have any (present or expected) residence address, other information about where the sex offender has his or her home or habitually lives. If current information of this type is not available because the sex offender is in violation of the requirement to register or unlocatable, the website must so note.
* The address of any place where the sex offender is an employee or will be an employee and, if the sex offender is employed but does not have a definite employment address, other information about where the sex offender works.
* The address of any place where the sex offender is a student or will be a student.
* The license plate number and a description of any vehicle owned or operated by the sex offender.
* A physical description of the sex offender.
* The sex offense for which the sex offender is registered and any other sex offense for which the sex offender has been convicted.
* A current photograph of the sex offender.

It goes on and on. My prediction: If this passes you will see formerly-registered sex offenders go underground en masse, turning to "predatory behaviors" (robbery and murder) in order simply to survive.

This may sound really good to John Walsh, who exploits the death of his murdered son (nobody knows who or why)for financial andpublicity gains, and for politicians looking for an easy boost in the polls but it's a bad, bad deal for the American public. The latter will pay the penalty for this law.

But there is good news. One can act:

The proposed Guidelines and a frequently asked questions sheet about them are now available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/guidelines.htm. This posting will soon be announced in the Federal Register, and the public will have until Aug. 1, 2007, to comment on the proposed Guidelines. The Department urges all interested parties to consider the proposed Guidelines carefully and submit comments to assist in the release of final Guidelines. Comments may be submitted to GetSMART@usdoj.gov.

Read it, digest it, pass it on and respond.

Banned from the Internet. Totally!

2007-05-22T17:40:00.000-06:00

As with the preceding post (below), I suspect I have to say "My bad" again. The predominant provisions of this bill apply to those under supervision or who used the Internet as an element of their crime ("luring", or worse).

New Jersey moves closer to banning sex offenders from Internet

RENTON, N.J. - New Jersey is closer to barring released sex offenders from using the Internet.

An Assembly committee on Monday approved the proposal along with others to combat sex offenders. The Internet ban was approved by the Senate in March and can now be weighed by the full Assembly.

"Every day we see reports on television of sick people taking advantage of the Internet to prey on our children," said Senate President Richard J. Codey, the bill's sponsor. "The time has come to pull the plug on these criminals."

Under the plan, convicted sex offenders would have to submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of their computer equipment, install equipment on their computer so its use could be monitored and inform law enforcement if they have access to a computer. Those caught using the Internet would face 18 months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Sex offenders caught using the Internet to solicit a child would face a mandatory five years in jail, rather than three years imposed under current law.

Also, online dating sites would also have to notify New Jersey residents whether they do background checks, a proposal opposed by Internet companies such as Yahoo!, AOL, eHarmony and Match.com. ...

The plan might pass muster if it's not applied retroactively, that is, to those whose offense (real or alleged) predated the law. Otherwise it's really difficult to see this one as surviving a court challenge, but in today's environment where even the Bill of Rights apparently doesn't apply to certain citizens, er, subjects anymore, anything could happen.

The rest of it, I'm in favor! Increase the penalties for "luring", by all means. And if ANY website is going to do background checks of any kind, it ought to notify those about to sign up.

Note to self: the media are increasingly unreliable reporters of news. Check the bills first!

What Constitution? (warrantless searches)

2007-05-22T08:08:00.000-06:00

My bad, I think. The only bill I could on this indicates that this is for sex offenders on parole, and thus under supervision, where the rules are different. It just surprises me that they need warrants to search a parolee's premises, but what do I know? I guess they do.

In any event I now understand the ACLU's position.

It seems there is no depth to which lawmakers will not descend when it comes to sex offender legislation. Not even the Constitution will stand in their way -- and when lawmakers are brazen enough to attempt to violate the Bill of Rights all I can say is, "America, it was nice knowing you."

N.C. lawmakers rush to pass sex-offender bills

RALEIGH — Grier Weeks has scorn for politicians who go after sex offenders with what he describes as trendy gimmicks.

“Given the choice of say, putting a GPS gadget on them and putting them on the Internet, and actually doing something,” the Asheville child advocate said, politicians “will go for the gadget every time.”

...

[Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe] last year succeeded in banning sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day care center, and requiring repeat offenders to be monitored with an ankle bracelet linked to the Global Positioning System.

This year he’s supported efforts to make those rules more strict, including writing warrantless searches of sex offenders into law.

“We’re going to tighten the law on them,” he said. “I have no mercy on sex offenders.”

The state American Civil Liberties Union chapter said it’s satisfied with the version of that bill that passed the House. ...

~~Not even the ACLU can be relied upon anymore.~~

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

~~If this bill passes and stands, the 4th Amendment is dead.~~

Why you DO NOT collect sex-offender e-mail addresses

2007-05-17T18:40:00.000-06:00

Somebody left an interesting comment to the previous posting. The commenter apparently didn't read this blog's history because I did comment on this last December (to tell the truth I had to dig back into the archive to be sure). But in any event I followed the given link and found this:

Subject: Special Offer to Registered Sex Offender

Dear Registered Sex Offender,

You receive this unique, special, and valuable, offer because
when we checked our lists of email addresses against online lists
or lists held by our social networking site of registered sex
offender email addresses your address matched.

As you are registered sex offender we are certain you will be
interested in our extensive offerings of natural photography of
highest quality and art, conveniently categorised and hiding
absolutely nothing. It is all at very low price.

All transactions are handled discreetly through our offices in
Moscow. After you register with us, for low one-time fee you will
receive special software used to unwrap your previews and purchases
which arrive inside strongest encryption for your privacy.

You may choose to have your purchases e-mailed to you or for even
more privacy you choose to download them from your choice of
servers we maintain in other countries. Servers change from time
to time so we update your list upon receipt of your purchase,
wrapped similar to your purchases for your privacy.

To register for our service send us e-mail from account that you
received this note. Send it to register@art-of-beauty.com.ru and
give us e-mail address to contact you.

We look forward to doing business with you and in prospect of
this have attached samples for your pleasure.

Sincerely,
Art Of Beauty

You know, the more I look at this the more I think somebody read this post and responded. "Offices in Moscow"? But if so they'd be beyond the reach of U.S. law.

A Price on Their Heads

2007-05-07T19:04:00.000-06:00

Shirley Lowery
May 6, 2007

Immaturity, drugs and alcohol use impair judgment. Reckless driving, cheating on a spouse, robbing a convenience store, hurting the feelings of a loved one, causing physical pain to someone they hold dear or acting out in a sexual inappropriate way are a few examples of impaired judgment. Most of these actions result in a victim. What separates the sick and incurable from the ones who can move on with their lives?

It is well documented in Texas that the drug task forces were paid “per head” for arrests. Guilt or innocence was not a consideration. The federal government was footing the bill.The same thing is being done with sex offenders. Arrest a “sex offender” and the government check is larger.

Florida is one of the states that keep the deceased, the deported and the incarcerated on the registry. All states require visiting sex offenders to register. Many of the “missing” sex offenders simply went home but padding the registries is a game the states play with the feds.

The feds play their own games too. They hold states hostage by depriving them of 10% of their federal funding if any of them fail to meet federal mandates on sex offender registration. States are also encouraged to be creative and add their own tweaks to the mandates.

The federal government paid for a study on sex offender recidivism that no politician seems to be aware of. It plainly states that the recidivism rate for child molesters over a 3-year follow up period is 3.3%. Out of 1000 arrests for sex crimes an average of 33 will have a previous record. Why was nothing done to prevent the 967 new offences?

The BJS did another study in 2003 that involved all crimes. The percentage per thousand per person or household is as follows:

Rape/sexual assault- 0.8

Rape/attempted rape- 0.5

Attempted rape/assault- 0.2

Sexual assault- 0.3

This information is specific and shows 98.2% of crimes committed in this nation are of a non-sexual nature.

Sources: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Bureau of Justice Statistics

filename: cv0301.csv

www.sosen.info

link

Study: Child sex attacks decreased before passage of Megan's Law

2007-05-06T19:57:00.000-06:00

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ Researchers conducting a study of Megan's Law have found that child sex assaults were decreasing even before the landmark legislation was passed in 1994.

The new federal study is trying to determine whether Megan's Law _ named after a suburban Trenton girl who was raped and murdered by a sex offender living in her neighborhood _ is worth the millions of dollars spent by local and county government to notify residents when a convicted sex offender moves nearby.

The law, one of the first of its kind in the nation, requires sex criminals to report to authorities where they are living. It has been a model for dozens of similar laws throughout the country.

Researchers found that sex attacks against children began to decline three years before Megan's Law took effect in 1994 and have continued downward, raising concern that the law may not have influenced the decline.

"We don't know whether Megan's Law really works," Phillip Witt, a consultant to the study, told The Philadelphia Inquirer for Sunday newspapers.

The study cost $38,252 and is being conducted by the state Department of Corrections. It is expected to be completed early next year.

According to data compiled by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, sex offenses against children fell 49 percent between 1990 and 2004.

"Megan's Law is riding the coattails of the natural downward trend," said Kristen Zgoba, a Corrections Department researcher who is heading up the study. "Is it worth the amount of money and manpower we're pouring into it?"

To maintain an Internet registry of about 11,300 sex offenders, of which about 2,190 are regarded as high risk, the state pays seven full-time employees between $35,000 and $52,000 a year. Door-to-door notifications can cost thousands as well.

But at least one person says the benefits of knowing if a sex offender lives nearby far outweighs the cost.

Maureen Kanka, Megan's mother, said she believed the law named after her daughter will outweigh the scrutiny.

"If I had known there was a pedophile living across the street, Megan would be alive and well today," she said. "Is the law perfect? No. Does it make a difference? Absolutely."

link

New links

2007-05-04T18:30:00.000-06:00

Added some new links in the sidebar.

Blogger is dropping content - click thru on links

2007-05-02T18:51:00.000-06:00

Penny-wise Yet Pound-foolish

2007-05-02T18:47:00.000-06:00

Desperate People Do Horrific Things

2007-05-02T18:38:00.000-06:00

Follow by Example - Britain Denies Public Outcry for Public Sex Offender Registry

2007-05-02T18:33:00.000-06:00

Terry Brown

April 29, 2007
Earlier this month the British Government announced that it has rejected public demands for “Sarah’s Law,” a body of legislation modeled after Megan’s Law in the United States, which makes the law-enforcement accessible sex offender registry available to the general public.

Lawmakers in our Motherland decided that rather than implementing knee-jerk laws, as we have seen throughout state and federal legislative bodies here in the U.S., they would take the more intelligent approach and conduct impact studies based on leading expert opinions on the issue of sexual abuse before enacting proposed bills into law. After long and careful review they decided that the experts were right and that public access to this information would not only have little impact on public safety but what impact it would have would be counterproductive and would actually increase danger to communities.

This decision speaks volumes, and Americans would do well to take heed and demand changes in U.S. laws to reverse the social time-bomb that presently exists here at home. One U.S. lawmaker said it best when he stated that the public is simply too emotional when it comes to this issue to make rational decisions with regard to such laws and that such a mentality equated to “political impotence.”1

The overwhelming factor in the British decision to keep the sex offender registry out of the public eye has been, “the fear of vigilantism and of driving sex offenders ‘underground.’” The strongest statement in this regard was, “We cannot open the sex offenders register to the vigilantes who do not understand the difference between pediatricians and pedophiles. ”

Without question the public access to the sex offender registry not only promotes vigilantism, but it also makes it nearly impossible for those on the register to find gainful employment and stable housing accommodations. This is increasingly the case with each new mechanism dreamt up by lawmakers attempting to further their political careers by profiting from this political cash cow. Recently there have been requirements introduced forcing registrants to include their place of employment as well as their on-line identifications, and such information will inherently keep employers from hiring any person on this register.

We have reached the point that people are being court-ordered to live under bridges giving a sort of macabre symbolism to the troll under the bridge, and when these people plea to the courts to put them back in prison rather than having to live such an existence the courts have effectively told them, “No, now get back under that bridge.”

There are reasons that the bedrock principles of our justice system came into existence. These bedrock principles are what made our system the best in the world. To simply throw them out the window is not only senseless, it is dangerous. The notion that the punishment must fit the crime and the notion that once a debt has been paid to society the person be allowed to resume some sense of normalcy must be restored in the United States of America or catastrophic chaos will most certainly ensue.

I encourage every American voter to pick up a pen or a telephone and communicate with your lawmakers and demand that they introduce responsible legislation that will truly work to protect our communities. We must have balance and consideration of expert opinion in our laws in order to maximize all our safety, in order to accomplish this goal we must remove emotion from the equation.

1 'Blunkett pledges to target sex offenders,' The Guardian, October 2, 2002

The Wasp - An Allegory of Registered Sex Offenders in the U.S.

2007-05-02T18:20:00.000-06:00

The Wasp - An Allegory of Registered Sex Offenders in the U.S.

Terry Brown

April 25, 2007

I just came in from cleaning the pool. While I was doing so a wasp flew around looking for a drink. He was minding his own business just going about his daily activities trying to survive and not bothering anyone.

Immediately I became irritated by his mere presence. Unknowingly, he carried on his back a reputation created by those few wasps of the millions in our airways who have stung a fellow human. Immediately, instinctively I wanted to stop him before he had the opportunity to inflict that same pain upon me. In my mind his mere presence represented a threat to me.

I used the long reach of my skimmer pole to cast a net over him and force him below the water. As I held him there, basking in the glory of my ability to control my own destiny by ridding the world of one more threat, I noticed several of his brethren flying around also seeking a cool and refreshing beverage. After several minutes I decided he must be dead, and even if he wasn’t it was sort of pointless as there were simply too many of them to kill them all. I pulled the skimmer up and laid it on the deck of the pool in its usual spot.

I then laid on my chaise lounge to soak up some rays and enjoy the relaxation of the music. I didn’t give that insignificant wasp a second thought.

Just when I started to doze into unconsciousness I felt a sharp pain on my foot and looked down to find a dripping wet wasp walking around with his wings raised as if in a fighting posture. This wasp had just stung me!

I said to myself, “hmmm, guess I asked for that.”

I noted this link a few days ago (I've been busy). It looks like he has more to say and I'll be checking that out, but this piece leaves me wondering. We've been quite busy "tightening up," "getting tougher," and exercising a whole lot of other euphemisms for beating up on ex-cons of the registered sex offender variety. When will things come to the breaking point, when will one say "enough is enough" and give in to the temptation to engage in some major "resistance"?

By their fruits shall ye know them

2007-04-28T12:48:00.000-06:00

Okay, this one is outside this blog's charter. But hypocrisy must out...

Churches slam doors on sex offenders

Christian, Muslim and Jewish congregations are struggling over whether to let sex offenders worship in their midst. Few have mercy.

...

Click through and read. I wonder how many of those who try to outdo each other on bullying registered sex offenders stand up in church and pray "I thank you that I am not like one of those" and come away feeling justified and sanctified?

The Cowardice of Iowa's Legislators

2007-04-28T12:29:00.000-06:00

Legislators will make no changes in sex offender laws

Iowa lawmakers are deciding against taking action on some controversial issues in their push to complete the work of the 2007 Legislative session and adjourn this weekend.

Iowa's law enforcement community has been complaining about the state law which says sex offenders may not live within 2000 feet of a school or daycare. Legislators are leaving that law intact, however, to the disgust of retired state patrolman Clel Baudler, a Republican from Greenfield who is a member of the Iowa House.

Baudler says legislators are afraid their 2008 opponents will use it against them. "Because of politics, everybody's scared of postcards coming saying, 'You're weaker on crime than I am,'" Baudler says. ...

They made a nasty mess and now they won't fix it. What high-minded noble people are Iowa's legislators.

Until the First Murder (in Wisconsin)

2007-04-28T12:23:00.000-06:00

The Angry Offender

2007-04-28T12:18:00.000-06:00

A new blog(site?) worth looking at is The Angry Offender. Thanks to anonymous for the link.

Maine Brain Freeze

2007-04-19T18:51:00.000-06:00

Must be the cold weather Maine's been experiencing lately. Bunch of dumb legislatiion seems to be making its way through the legislature:

Legislators will begin a marathon review of proposed changes in the state’s sex offender law when they return from spring break next week, including the constitutionally thorny issue of prohibiting where offenders can live once they get out of jail.

The scores of bills proposed stem largely from the case of convicted sex offender, Joseph Tellier, who was released from prison in 2004 after serving 15 years for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a then 10-year-old girl. He strangled her until she was unconscious and left her for dead on a remote road in Limerick.

After his release from prison, Tellier moved from town to town in York County, dogged by community protests. At least four towns have passed restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live as a result of the case, and the Legislature is now being asked to decide on rules for the entire state.

On the opposite side of the issue are bills dealing with sex offender rights, particularly rules regulating what has to appear on the state’s sex offender registry, which currently lists the names and addresses of people in Maine, who have records of sex offenses. The registry is supposed to let people in a community know if an offender is living near their home.

This week marks the anniversary of the murder of two registered sex offenders on Easter Sunday of last year. They were gunned down by a Canadian man police say had used the state’s on-line registry to locate the men at their homes and kill them. The gunman later killed himself.

The mother of one of the slain men testified before legislators last year that the registry had killed her son.

“Their addresses should not be listed there for vigilantes to come to their home and murder them,” she said weeping. “If you change this law, it might save lives.”

“We are going to work our way through this rather complicated minefield,” said Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Cumberland County, who chairs the Criminal Justice Committee that will recommend law changes to the full Legislature. Diamond said his hope is to narrow down proposals by mid-May into several law changes that will then be voted on by the full Legislature.

Diamond said residency restrictions have to be better defined.

“There’s a constitutional question, and they don’t even address the real problem,” he said, which is “trying to keep violent sex offenders away from children.”

He said most limit the distance a sex offender can live from a school or playground, but don’t say to the sex offender, “you can’t hang out there.”

Diamond has his own bill in that would create a new crime of loitering in a child safe zone. A person who has been previously convicted of committing a crime against a person under the age of 14 may not enter, work in, loiter at or remain in a child safe zone, under his plan.

Child safe zones are defined as 200 feet from a public or private elementary or secondary school, a child care facility, an athletic field, park, playground or recreational facility or other place where children typically gather.

We saw how stupid ideas like this worked really, really well just this week in Virginia Tech, where they wanted people to "feel safe." Diamond wants parents to "feel" their children are safe because they're in "child safe zones." There's an extremely explicit and perhaps technical name for the children of such parents.

Victims.

But hopefully these won't end up dead, unlike the "children" (and that's how they behaved) of VA Tech.

The bill also requires the court to use electronic monitoring to keep track of high-risk sex offenders during their probation.

No argument here.

Diamond also is sponsoring a bill to deal with changes in the sex offender registry.

It calls for a tiered risk assessment so people can determine the seriousness of the offender’s crime, their risk of re-offending and the likely danger they pose to the community.

Diamond said under the proposal there would be a high, medium and low-risk list, with information on low-risk offenders available only to the police or the public by going through the police.

Who is listed on which list would be determined by a forensic board made up of a psychiatrist, psychologist, a member of a sex offender community treatment program, a prosecutor from the state Attorney General’s office and a defense attorney.

Diamond's on to something here, I have to say. He misses one thing: a task force, or supervisory board, or whatever you want to call it, that does a periodic review (every two years?) of the assessments of the board's decisions, with suggestions or stronger on alterations to the criteria used by the board, based on analyses of recidivism vs. the board's rating system. Close the loop, introduce feedback, and you might keep the car on the road and out of the weeds.

Diamond said right now the public can’t discern the level of risk of a released offender from the registry.

“They shouldn’t have to,” he said. “We should make it clear.”

Hearings on proposed sex offender bills will begin next week at the Statehouse and the schedule through the rest of April includes:

• April 23: An Act to Strengthen the Crime of Gross Sexual Assault as it Pertains to Persons Who Furnish Drugs to Victims, sponsored by Sen. John Nutting, D-Androscoggin; An Act to Rename and Specifically Identify Sex Crimes, sponsored by Rep. Michael Vaughan, R-Durham; An Act to Reduce the Amount of Good Time that May Be Awarded to Certain Offenders, sponsored by Sen. Diamond; ... An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Probation and Supervised Release for Sex Offenders, sponsored by Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham.

• April 27: An Act to Create Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Persons Convicted of Certain Sex Offenses Against Victims Under 12 Years of Age, sponsored by Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples; An Act to Take Into Account the Crime that Facilitated a Sexual Assault, sponsored by Rep. Patsy Crockett, D-Augusta; An Act to Provide for Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators and to Prohibit Sex Offenders from Residing Together, sponsored by Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Penobscot.

A potential for trouble here, although Colorado(?) has already done the same. What about members of the same family? What about a married couple (from the 80s & 90s witchhunt -- they do exist)? What about group homes/work-releases? I haven't read the bills, so maybe they've dealt with these. But I bet they haven't.

• April 30: An Act to Prevent Certain Sex Offenders from Having Contact with Persons Less than 14 Years of Age, sponsored by Rep. Patsy Crockett, D-Augusta; An Act to Place Lifetime Restraining Orders on Violent Sex Offenders and Predatory Sex Offenders, sponsored by Rep. Lawrence Jacobsen, R-Waterboro; An Act to Prevent Sex Offenders from Areas Around School, sponsored by Rep. Margaret Craven, D-Lewiston; An Act to Ensure the Safety of the Public and of Victims of Sexual Assault, sponsored by Rep. Lawrence Jacobsen, R-Waterboro; An Act to Amend the Laws Governing the Establishment of Residency for Convicted Sex Offenders After Release From Prison, sponsored by Sen. Richard Nass, R-York County; An Act to Require as a Condition of Probation for Sex Offenders the Approval of a Residence by a Probation Officer, sponsored by Rep. Patsy Crockett, D-Augusta; An Act to Allow Municipalities to Designate Safe Zones to Protect Children from Sex Offenders, sponsored by Wesley Richardson, R-Warren; and, An Act to Create Safe Zones and to Increase the Use of Electronic Monitoring of High-Risk Sex Offenders, sponsored by Sen. Diamond.

Hard to say where to begin; this session is fraught with counterproductive stupidities. Based solely on their titles there are only two acts which have even the possibility of achieving the goal of improving, as opposed to decreasing, public safety.

Can't win for losing (and that's the way they want it)

2007-03-27T09:22:00.001-06:00

Counties burdened with sex offenders
MONTGOMERY, AL | Officials in counties with state prisons say they are being burdened by an unexpected side effect of the Community Notification Act, which requires sex offenders to give authorities a valid address 45 days before their sentence ends.

Under the act, failing to give a residential address that isn’t at least 2,000 feet away from a school or childcare facility is a Class C felony. And offenders whose addresses don’t comply must remain jailed in the county where the violation occurred until they have a valid address.

That usually means offenders -- and their costs -- are transferred to county jails, said Sonny Brasfield, assistant executive director for the Association of County Commissions of Alabama.

“They’re released from the state prison and as they walk into the parking lot, a sheriff’s car is already there to pick them up and take them straight to the jail," he said. “The law makes no provision for them to come back and say 'Sorry, I didn’t know my address was bad.’"

“They’re not going back to inmates to say this address doesn’t work -- there’s not a way for the inmate to correct his problem," Brasfield said.

County officials say there needs to be some recourse for inmates who are homeless or unknowingly give an address that has become invalid while they were incarcerated. Inmates who are homeless are considered violators and charged with felonies because they don’t have a valid address to give.

Ron Smith, chairman of the Bullock County Commission, said so far seven inmates have been taken to the county’s jail under the act and the same has happened in St. Clair and Barbour counties, which are home to other state prisons.

Smith said something needs to be done soon to change the act.

“I think that’s unconstitutional because what are we holding them on? Suppose they never find a good address?" Smith said. “Suppose he was staying with his mother and God forbid his mother died? Now he doesn’t have a place to go. We get no money for housing the state inmates and for a poor county like us, we’re going to suffer."

Inmates taken to the county jails are kept there until they have a date to go before a grand jury on the felony charge.

Bullock County Sheriff Raymond Rogers said jail officials worked with family members and community assistance programs to get valid housing arrangements for four of the seven sex offenders who have been affected by the act at his jail. The remaining three are homeless and are still in the Bullock County Jail, he said.

“The longest one I ever kept in my jail was for four months," Rogers said. “Their loved ones don’t want them. I have to keep calling the county they live in trying to help them find a place. It’s kind of like the jail is turning into a halfway house and we don’t have the people or the money for that."

Prisons Commissioner Richard Allen said the corrections department is aware of the problem and he’s offered to keep the sex offenders in the state prisons while they wait for their grand jury appearance.

But Attorney General Troy King, who pushed hard for passage of the act last year, said a better idea is to force all sex offenders to serve their full sentences instead of giving them less time for good behavior and parole.

King acknowledged the problem would still exist once the offenders served their full sentence, but said it would give them more time to find a valid address. He said the cost of keeping them in county jails is worth it to keep sex offenders off the streets longer.

“We put people in prisons to punish them. I think most people would say if I can keep a predator away from my children, away from hurting my grandchildren by paying to keep them in prison, I’ll pay to keep them in prison," he said. “Yes, we’re spending (taxpayer) money, but I don’t think anybody would say that’s not a good investment."

Allen said plans are already in place to expand programs that help inmates transition from prison to life outside the corrections system. Part of the program will be assisting inmates with housing and that will help them avoid giving addresses that aren’t in compliance, he said.

Bullock County attorney Johnny Waters said he’s eager to see what will be done to resolve the problem.

“You may have a man who’s been in prison for 15, 16 years on a rape charge. Now his family’s disowned him, momma and daddy says he can’t live with us, and he’s got no other family. He doesn’t even hardly have bus fare to get home," Waters said. “What does somebody in that scenario do? Nobody can answer that question for me. He’s basically thrown to the wind.

“There’s pros and cons to the law. Mainly it’s to keep people protected and I can understand that side of it. But on the other side you’ve got a person trying to do right. Somewhere there’s got to be a better answer."

And there you have it. Attorney General Troy King said it most clearly, it's all about "keep[ing]sex offenders off the streets longer." Who needs a constitution when the laws can be written so you've got no chance of winning? Being homeless can now earn you a felony rap, complete with prison time, in Alabama.

Sweet.

Spamming the e-mail registries

2007-03-26T10:11:00.000-06:00

It's an easy guess that the e-mail registries several states are so eager to set up are going to end up with a whole bunch of e-mail addresses that don't belong to registered sex offenders.

Consider the woman who breaks up with her boyfriend and wants to get back at him in some way. All she has to do is to look up the postal address (online) of some registered sex offender and then send a letter to the police purportedly from this registered sex offender saying, "I am using this new e-mail address" and giving ex-boyfriend's e-mail. The police will dutifully enter the e-mail in the registry and... bingo! The ex is locked out of any social networking sites he belonged to, or wants to belong to.

And the laws have no provision for taking his e-mail address out of the registry.

Expect to see a LOT of e-mail addresses of folks who aren't registered sex offenders winding up in these registries. And guess what happens when work e-mails get registered?

How stupid can you get? [MS]

2007-03-16T20:38:00.000-06:00

Most of the country considers Mississippi the home of stupid, poorly-educated folk. I'm not about to say why I think this is wrong, but news items such as the following certainly are no contributor to my position:

Sex Offender Bill (it's "for the children," don'cha know?)

A new bill to protect Mississippi's children from pedophiles is waiting for the Governor's signature .

Sex offenders now have to turn over their computer online identity and their screen name or username to the Department of Public Safety.

Convicted offenders also have to notify DPS within three days of any changes in their address, name, or employment.

DPS also keeps the offenders palm prints on file.

Ooh! This is, like, REALLY going to stop a convicted and dutifully registered child sex offender from.. acquiring a second (or third, or fourth, or four hundred thirty-second...) e-mail address for the explicit intent of engaging a minor? Make the penalty instant execution and maybe I'll believe these folks, but otherwise it's a whole bunch of worthless grandstanding.

This also dumps on those who are trying to regain their place in society (and I grant you, some proportion of convicted sex offenders aren't, but the government's own statistics say that's not all of them) -- with a possibility of re-offenses (and new victims) by those who otherwise wouldn't.

But it really doesn't matter. I am sure Mississippi lawmakers know their market far better than I do, and if they're engaged in destructive pandering it is a clear sign they think they have an easy sell among their shee... I mean, citizens.

Another source of information

2007-03-11T20:56:00.000-06:00

Found a few days ago. (Link is in the Title.)

The new American witch hunt

2007-03-11T20:49:00.000-06:00

INCREASINGLY, legislation dealing with sex offenders is being passed that is punitive, untested, expensive and, in many cases, counterproductive — demonizing people who commit sexual offenses without offering any empirical information that the new laws will reduce sexually violent crime.

Last week, for instance, New York became the 19th state to enact so-called sexually violent predator legislation. This legislation provides for the indefinite "civil commitment" of sexual offenders who have served their time in prison and are about to be released.

The legislation was passed despite a lack of evidence that such laws actually reduce sexual violence and despite recent reports of warehousing and chaos in some programs and relentlessly rising costs in others.

It is just one example of the kind of punitive laws being passed across the country. Other measures include increasingly strict residency restrictions (such as those imposed by Proposition 83 in California, approved by the voters in November), more stringent rules for community notification regarding sexual offenders and monitoring by GPS (also mandated under Proposition 83, with cost projections of $100 million annually, according to the state's legislative analyst).

In many states, politicians are eager to pass such legislation, which is enthusiastically supported by the public. Indeed, ask citizens what they think and you're likely to hear that they support laws to "get rid of perverts" who, in the eyes of many people, "deserve what they get."

This is not new. In general, dispassionate discussion of sexuality is difficult, even more so when it comes to sexual crimes. Ebbs and flows of public attention and vilification have often occurred in this country.

In the 1930s and '40s, castration was practiced in California, where sex offenders and homosexuals received this "treatment." Also, the first generation of sexual psychopath laws was passed during this time, mandating indefinite commitment for sexually violent predators. In the 1980s, society was roiled by a series of high-profile day-care-center abuse cases (such as the McMartin case and others that proved later to be unfounded). In the 1990s, there was a media uproar over supposed "ritualistic" and "satanic" sexual abuse.

These days, the pendulum continues to swing further toward the punitive end of the spectrum, with ever more draconian sentencing and post-release conditions. Under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, signed into law by President Bush in July, all sex offenders will be listed on the Internet, making information on offenders, regardless of whether they belong to a low-, medium- or high-risk category, publicly accessible; this includes people, for example, whose only crime is the possession of child pornography.

Obviously, this makes it increasingly difficult for ex-offenders to obtain residences or jobs — the mainstays of stability — and it subjects them to ongoing vigilantism and public censure. Although notification may make sense for some, it does not make sense for all.

In California, the most recent debate has been over whether Proposition 83, the law passed last year banning registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, can be retroactively applied to the 90,000 offenders who have already been released from prison. (Two federal judges ruled last month that it may not.)

What is being created is a class of individuals that is progressively demonized by society and treated in such a way that a meaningful reintegration into society is impossible.

Yes, sexual abuse is a serious matter. Yes, individuals who commit sexual crimes should be punished. Unquestionably, a small percentage of sex offenders are very dangerous and must be removed from society. What's more, we know that sexual crimes are devastating to victims and their families and that we must do all we can to protect ourselves from "predators."

But demonizing people rather than treating them makes little sense, and passing laws that are tough but mindless in response to political pressure won't solve the problem either.

The reality is that, despite the popular perception to the contrary, recidivism rates for sexual offenders are among the lowest of any class of criminals. What's more, 90% of sex offenders in prison will eventually be released back into the community — and 90% of sexual offenses are committed by people known to their victim, such as family members or trusted members of the community — so rehabilitation is critical. It is not possible, affordable, constitutional or reasonable to lock up all sex offenders all of the time.

Society's efforts to segregate sex offenders are backfiring, resulting in unintended consequences. Homelessness is increasing among sex offenders, for instance, making it harder to monitor them and causing some law enforcement officials to call for a repeal of residency restrictions.

One of the greatest challenges to workable civil commitment programs is that offenders are so feared that, when they are ready to be reintroduced into society, no community will accept them — so instead they remain institutionalized indefinitely, creating ever-increasing costs without an end in sight.

Why has this demonization occurred? One reason is that offenders are hot news, and the more heinous the sexual crime, the more the media focus on it. Thus, our minds create a stereotype of egregious evil with respect to all sex offenders. We no longer distinguish between the most egregious cases and the others, despite the fact that the most terrible crimes represent only a small proportion of all sexual offenses.

But there are less serious crimes, and we should acknowledge that. Possession of child pornography is categorically different from a sexual assault. So is exhibitionism. The wife of a man who committed a hands-off crime involving possession of child pornography put it this way: "Each of these horrendous crimes drives another nail into our coffin."

Another reason for the demonization is that society has failed to fund research on the treatment and management of people convicted of sexual crimes — despite the fact that states are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unproven programs for treatment and containment.

The current public discourse on sex offenders is, therefore, without a base of empirical studies. Psychiatry, psychology and our national research institutes have eschewed involvement with such research.

No one is suggesting that sexual crimes should go unpunished or that some of the newer approaches — such as medication, intensive community supervision or even carefully considered civil commitment — are without value. What is becoming clearer, however, is that the climate in the United States makes reasonable discussion difficult.

What can be done? Some scholars, in an effort to interpose rationality between public fear and legislation, have suggested the concept of "evidence-based legislation." This is analogous to "evidence-based medicine" and would call on legislative bodies to inform their proposed laws with the best available scientific evidence — something that is rarely done now.

What is happening now with individuals who have committed sexual crimes is the modern-day equivalent of a witch hunt. Our images of the worst determine what we mete out to all sex offenders. It is time to reexamine our approaches and develop empirically based, scientifically sound measures and treatments to bring rationality back to this discussion.

It's long past time we had some studies of the (in)effectiveness of all this legislation.

Sex offenders in churches

2007-03-07T15:40:00.000-07:00

What can a church congregation do when one of their number is a convicted sex offender who says church attendance is important for his rehabilitation? A Reno, Nev. congregation is grappling with just that issue.

According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, clergy and members at Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd are in a quandry over how to protect their children while following Christ's example of welcoming sinners.

"Clearly, we are called to love," said the Rev. Rebecca Schlatter, associate pastor. "But is it safe to love this particular person up close?" ...

First, one needs to recognize that the statistics on recidivism rates one sees tend to be either completely false ("they all repeat over and over") or misleading (many "recidivist" crimes are actually something else completely, not sex offenses). This is no reason to relax, however -- there are a few who do repeat, over and over.

But there is a solution. Several years ago an outfit called Prisoners for Christ Outreach Ministries (http://www.pfcom.org) developed a protocol for churches bringing a sex offender into their midst. I do not know what has happened with it, but it would seem that by now it's been tried and even refined.

Welcome a sex offender into your church family? Probably one of the best things you can do for his rehabilitation -- not to mention his soul. But use the protocol.

Revealed at last: the true purpose of sex offender laws

2007-02-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

I've long suspected that a good bit of sex offender legislation has been less about public safety than about legislatively beating up convicted sex offenders, but what with all the poorly-written legislation (and poorly-considered, as this blog has been recording), it's been hard to prove.

No more.

The folks in the Show-Me State have now shown us conclusively that it is the latter:

Bill would refuse lottery wins for sex offenders

Jefferson City — Registered sex offenders could try their luck at the Missouri Lottery but they wouldn't be able to score a prize under legislation proposed by a Marshfield lawmaker.

Republican Sen. Dan Clemens introduced legislation that would prevent registered sex offenders from winning money in the Missouri Lottery.

The proposal comes about one month after a registered sex offender scored the $14 million jackpot in Florida.

"We thought that was a bad idea," said Gus Wagner, Clemens' chief of staff.

Under the proposal, names of lottery winners would be checked against law enforcement databases.

Registered sex offenders would have to forfeit their winnings to the Missouri Children's Trust Fund, a foundation devoted to preventing child abuse.

The legislation now awaits a committee hearing.

I was told that when this state's sex offender registration and notification law was passed, word flashed around the state prisons that this was but the first step towards the death camps. I think time has probably disabused that notion but laws such as this, laws that having nothing whatsoever to do with public safety but everything with telling the registered sex offender, "We've got you down and out now, and we're just going to keep on kicking you until you snap," will not help. Inferring from what the experts have said about other laws, this law is likely to create more, not less, victims.

Thank you very much, Republican Senator Dan Clemens of Missouri.

Editorial: Sex Offenders in Exile

2006-12-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

Of all the places that sexual predators could end up after prison, the worst is out of sight, away from the scrutiny and treatment that could prevent them from committing new crimes. But communities around the country are taking that risk, with zoning laws that banish pedophiles to the literal edges of society.

There is a powerful and wholly understandable impulse behind laws that forbid sex offenders to live within certain distances of schools, day care centers and other places that children gather. Scores of states and municipalities have created such buffer zones, then continued adding layer upon layer to the enforcement blanket.

This has placed a heavy burden on law enforcement agencies, which already must struggle to meet exacting federal and state requirements for registering and monitoring the ever-growing population of released sex offenders, many of whom must be tracked for life. Lawmakers have shown no hesitation in piling on the administrative load, but frequently are less quick to pay for additional people to do the work.

As the areas off limits to sex offenders expand to encompass entire towns and cities, if not states, the places where they can live and work are shrinking fast. The unintended consequence is that offenders have been dispersed to rural nowhere zones, where they are much harder to track. In confined regions like Long Island, they have become concentrated in a handful of low-rent, few-questions-asked areas — an unintended and unfair imposition on their wary neighbors.

Many offenders respond by going underground. In Iowa, the number of registered sex offenders who went missing soared after the state passed a law forbidding offenders to live within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. The county prosecutors’ association has urged that the law be repealed, for the simple reasons that it drives offenders out of sight, requires “the huge draining of scant law enforcement resources” and doesn’t provide the protection intended.

The prosecutors are right that any sense of security that such laws provide is vague at best and probably false. Just as it would feel foolish to forbid muggers to live near A.T.M.’s, it is hard to imagine how a 1,000-foot buffer zone around a bus stop, say, would keep a determined pedophile at bay. If children feel secure enough to drop their wariness of strangers, that would be a dangerous outcome. And of course, no buffer against a faceless predator will be any help to the overwhelming majority of child victims — those secretly abused by stepfathers, uncles and other people they know.

The problem with residency restrictions is that they fulfill an emotional need but not a rational one. It’s in everyone’s interest for registered sex offenders to lead stable lives, near the watchful eyes of family and law enforcement and regular psychiatric treatment. Exile by zoning threatens to create just the opposite phenomenon — a subpopulation of unhinged nomads off their meds with no fixed address and no one keeping tabs on them. This may satisfy many a town’s thirst for retributive justice, but as a sensible law enforcement policy designed to make children safer, it smacks of thoughtlessness and failure.

Dubious ideas behind sex offender crackdown

2006-12-18T14:56:00.000-07:00

2006/12/18
The Washington Post

The following editorial appeared in Saturday's Washington Post:

Increasingly, candidates for state attorney general nationwide have been campaigning on promises to crack down on online sexual predators, and understandably so. Youth and children are particularly vulnerable in Internet chat rooms and social networking sites, where the cloak of anonymity and a naive presumption that cyberspace is populated by kindred spirits can lead to damaging encounters and sexual exploitation. That is the impetus behind a proposal by Virginia's attorney general, Republican Robert McDonnell, to require convicted sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses, instant-messaging handles and other online identities so they can be blocked from preying on youth online. McDonnell's proposal is anchored in a legitimate concern; unfortunately, it rests upon some dubious assumptions both about sex offenders and the likelihood of effective enforcement.

The Virginia proposal tracks a federal bill dealing with the same theme offered this month by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. The idea, which other states may adopt, is to provide social networking sites the means necessary to screen known sex offenders. Already, MySpace.com has announced it would use Virginia's e-mail registry to stop convicted sex offenders from using the venue.

About a fifth of MySpace.com's users are under 18. But apart from anecdotal accounts, there is no evidence -- no studies, no statistics, nothing but inference -- to show that many of the loathsome predators who have victimized children and young people online are convicted sex offenders. Moreover, if a convicted child molester or rapist were intent on preying on unsuspecting innocents online, it would be easy to evade the proposed law by creating a new e-mail identity. Once a sexual predator decides that he is willing to risk prosecution and imprisonment for his crime, he is unlikely to balk over failing to register an e-mail address.

Every state has enacted a law requiring convicted sex offenders to register their whereabouts with authorities and in many cases prohibiting them from taking certain jobs (as coaches for youth teams, for instance) or from living close to schools. McDonnell argues that it is only logical to add cyber-addresses to the information that offenders must furnish to the authorities. Perhaps. But there is little reason to think that move will go very far beyond symbolism.

More unintended effects of e-mail registration

2006-12-18T14:33:00.000-07:00

There are going to be even more problems with registering sex offender e-mail addresses than already mentioned.

One is that this list of addresses is likely to be considered rather valuable by certain (kinds of) spammers, in particular the purveyors of pornography. After all, this list is highly self-qualified.

Given that a centralized list is constructed, as is proposed by federal and state legislation, it will be a target to be acquuired. And one doubts that the agency that maintains the e-mail address verifier (whether the address is known to be used by a registered sex offender) using this list will consider it as anything requiring lots of security.

But even then, even if the list itself is highly secured and the server that verifies e-mail addresses works as intended, the information in that list is still vulnerable. All a spammer has to do is to run his huge list of e-mail addresses (and whose e-mail address doesn't soon wind up on spammers' lists?) past the verifier and BINGO! he has a qualified list of sex offenders' e-mail addresses.

Soon after registered sex offenders will start receiving sex-oriented come-ons targeted specifically to them.

One possible result is a return to behaviors likely to result in re-offending -- creating even more victims in the process.

Forget collecting e-mail addresses -- THIS is what to do!

2006-12-13T19:45:00.000-07:00

Some are now clamoring to collect the e-mail addresses of registered sex offenders as a way to make MySpace safe. The stupidity of this has been noted by many:

- The registered sex offender looking for a new victim isn't going to worry about the comparative minor penalty for a unregistered e-mail address

- New e-mail addresses are really, really easy to get

- Unregistered e-mail addresses are really, really hard to detect

- A lot if not most of the registered sex offenders are likely not to (fully) comply (because it's onerous, it's stupid and really abusable), thereby putting them into habitual violation of the law; which will be corrosive in the long run and likely increase the number of victims

- About half the sex offense convictions every year are first-time, which means that even with full compliance, the number of threats is at best halved

So I was happy to see that a group has figured out the correct solution, and they did it some time ago!

Last month, the Web site Perverted-Justice.com posted news of the conviction of Sean Young, a Wisconsin man sentenced to 10 years in state prison for soliciting sex online from a 14-year-old girl. According to a transcript of an online chat posted on the site, at one point Mr. Young had asked the girl, identified only as Billie, what she was wearing. When she answered “sweats,” Mr. Young typed back that if she were his daughter, “i’d make u wear sexy clthes.”

Billie turned out to be an adult volunteer for Perverted Justice, an anti-pedophile group, and when Mr. Young drove to a house where he expected to meet the teenager for sex, he was arrested by sheriff’s deputies.

The conviction was logged as the 104th that Perverted Justice says it has been responsible for since 2003, a tally that as of yesterday had reached 113. What started as one man’s quest to rid his regional Yahoo chat room of lewd adults has grown into a nationwide force of cyberspace vigilantes, financed by a network television program hungry for ratings.

“It’s a kind of blog that has turned into a crime-fighting resource,” said Robert McCrie, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

Perverted Justice is best known for putting its online volunteers at the disposal of the television newsmagazine “Dateline NBC,” which has broadcast 11 highly rated programs in which would-be pedophiles are lured to “sting houses,” only to be surprised by a camera crew and, usually, the police.

Despite that publicity, the inner workings of Perverted Justice and its reclusive founder remain largely a mystery, even as the group has emerged as one of the most effective unofficial law enforcement groups in the country, a kind of Neighborhood Watch of the Net....

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

To make these places safer (note the 'r' -- they'll never be completely safe), put police and volunteers out to catch those, registered or not, who are going after children. You'll get a much better bang for the buck than "tissue-paper armor" protections like registering e-mail addresses.

Sex Offender Mania: Sex_Offender@gmail.com?

2006-12-11T13:36:00.000-07:00

It's always dangerous to proclaim, "This is the dumbest thing you'll read today" ... especially where politicians are involved, and double-especially where John McCain is involved.

Having said that, this is the dumbest thing you'll read today:

New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer and Arizona Republican John McCain, in a press release, said they planned to introduce a bill at the beginning of the 110th Congress in January that would require registered sex offenders to submit their active email addresses to law enforcement.

The legislation would enable social networking sites like MySpace to cross-check new members against a database of registered sex offenders and ensure that predators are unable to sign up for the service.

Under the proposed legislation, any sex offender who submits a fraudulent email could face prison.

And what, pray tell, is a "fraudulent" email? I have three perfectly functioning email accounts just for this blog. Which one would be the "legitimate" email account and which ones would be "fraudulent"?

Let's go back to basics: Two of the fundamental purposes of criminal law are deterrence and rehabilitation. Is a "fiendish" and "recidivist" sexual predator going to be deterred by this law? Of course not. And as for recidivism, wouldn't it make sense to give the truly compulsive sexual predator a zero-risk outlet for their compulsion? Isn't it better for a serial rapist to be obsessed with a porno magazine than an actual victim? Isn't surfing MySpace less dangerous than surfing a classroom or playground? The problem, at its core, is not perverts who surf MySpace, but perverts who use MySpace to hunt for real-time victims. The two groups are not the same. Why criminalize "use of MySpace" instead of "abuse of MySpace"?

More:

Under the planned legislation, registered sex offenders would be required to log an e-mail address with their probation or parole officers," according to McCain's press release. "Any offender caught using an unregistered email address would be in violation of probation or parole terms and face a return to prison."

Just one problem: what if the offender isn't on parole or probation? As 27B Stroke 6 points out, the people least likely to be on probation or parole will actually be the worst offenders -- the ones who were denied probation or parole and had to serve out their entire sentence.

And what about the First Amendment? -- Any law that forbids an otherwise law-abiding person to access the Internet (a form of speech) faces a significant hurdle. If MySpace (private property) wants to kick off child molesters, then that's their business and more power to them. But the government should not brandish its public sledge hammer for what really requires a private scalpel.

We should also remember that "sex offender" and "child molester" are not synonymous. Furthermore, different states define the term "sex offender" differently, meaning that similarly situated people in different states will be treated differently under this federal law. Which is itself a potential constitutional problem.

For now, that is. It appears inevitable that we will have a federal sex offender registry in one form or another at some point. There are just too many eager federal politicians for it not to happen. On the other hand, it also appears inevitable that some of the more torch-and-pitchfork provisions of some registries and red-lining programs are headed for due process challenges in court.

Stay tuned...

The MySpace sex-offender purge

2006-12-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

What did he expect?

MySpace announced today it will begin searching its 100 million-plus user list for people listed in a national database of sex offenders. [...]

That leaves just one real disappointment in this announcement: How MySpace plans to use the data. With all that information at its disposal, and a "24-hour-a-day dedicated staff" using it, MySpace could seriously enhance its policing. Instead, the company is taking a sophisticated database and wielding it as a blunt instrument, simply banning everyone on the list from registering or keeping a MySpace account, regardless of who they are or what they did.

Frankly, I'm not sure I'm fond of the idea of a company "policing" but that's neither here nor there. Once Kevin did his screen-scrape the writing was on the wall. A panicked public sure as hell won't countenance nuance, even if he is right as rain:

This is bad because, obviously, banning sex offenders won't keep them off MySpace: it'll just give them a reason to lie about their name or location, even if they aren't up to no good. (My survey found hundreds of past offenders, many with old or minor convictions, whose profiles reflected a seemingly normal life.) Now sex offenders who want to stay on MySpace will all be using false information from the start.

MySpace is essentially refusing an opportunity to detect and imprison active repeat offenders, by moving the entire superset of ex-offenders into the shadows. Does the convicted pedophile have lots of teenagers on his friendslist? MySpace won't know, because he'll be under same veil of anonymity as the flashers and peeping toms.

We know there are some ex-sex offenders who attempt to recidivate from accounts opened under their real names. If you believe they will now stay off MySpace, then the company's policy is good for safety. But if you think they'll simply start spelling their name a little different or lying about their ZIP code, then MySpace has lost the chance to take them off the streets.

MySpace is taking the easy way out. It may be good PR to be able to say that you don't allow past sex offenders of any stripe on your website, but the company should keep its eye on the ball: the goal isn't to keep a former flasher from blogging about his cat, it's to keep current pedophiles from pursuing children. MySpace could tell the difference, if it wanted to. A smart policing effort would use the sex offender database as one of many data points in keeping the site safe. Sometimes zero-tolerance is really tolerance.

LATER: The Times reports on the development, "If registered sex offenders sign up but do not give their real names, physical attributes, locations or post their real picture, they could elude detection. Similarly, there is a chance that people who are not sex offenders might be flagged by the system."

Isolating sex offenders won’t work

2006-12-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

“Sex offender” is a powerful term. We hear what they do, and many of us immediately respond with hatred toward them. We all want to make our society safe. We want our homes, schools and parks to be safe places for our children and ourselves.

So, we ban those who have committed sexual offenses from the parks, restrict where they live and limit the jobs they are able to do. All of this is being done under the illusion that we are doing what is necessary to protect ourselves from the predatory strangers.

Sounds right? Sounds just? But there is a problem with this thinking. Most sex offenders, especially child molesters, know their victims. They already have access to us and to our children in our homes, schools and parks because they are our parents, stepparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and friends.

Often it is those who are the trusted adults who groom the children to participate in abusive sexual behavior through acts of subtle seduction.

The real danger does not normally exist out on the street corners or playgrounds but inside our homes.

The individuals who commit these acts are attempting to address their needs for association, power and intimacy in inappropriate and sexualized ways. There are many reasons for this type of behavior. A key component in this process is that of isolation. Some of it is self-imposed; some promoted through restricted family life and some is the result of false beliefs about men’s rights in their own home.

To mandate the offender to a ghetto community that restricts an individual’s ability to find suitable housing, and where an individual is prevented from getting or maintaining employment after they have been incarcerated serves to exacerbate the isolation. This continued isolation makes it more likely that we are re-creating the conditions that led to the sexual offending behavior.

Solving the problem of sexual offending to make our homes, schools and parks safe involves a closer look internally to the values and beliefs we are promoting to our children and our families.

These values and beliefs ought to promote high self-esteem, an awareness of one’s surroundings and the ability to make healthy choices with regards to established boundaries. By empowering each one of us we will be able to provide an effective solution to the potential victimization of our children.

Thoughtful legislation, based on sound research, is needed to provide real safety rather then creating the illusion of safety brought on through legislated isolation.

Ronald J. Furniss is director of the Sex Offender Program at Family & Children’s Services. Stephen A. Jarrell is the executive director. They wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

MySpace: To make you feel safer we'll increase your risk

2006-12-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

Another brain-dead idea -- but a nice marketing gimmick for MySpace:

MySpace tool to help block sex offenders

NEW YORK -- The popular online hangout MySpace said Tuesday it will develop technologies to help block convicted sex offenders, the site's latest attempt to address complaints about sexual predators and other dangers to teens.

MySpace is partnering with Sentinel Tech Holding Corp. to build and deploy within 30 days a database that will contain the names and physical descriptions of convicted sex offenders in the United States. An automated system will search for matches between the database and MySpace user profiles. Employees will then delete any profiles that match.

Parents, school administrators and law-enforcement authorities have grown increasingly worried that teens are at risk on MySpace and other social-networking sites, which provide tools for messaging, sharing photos and creating personal pages.

About 12 percent of all MySpace's visitors in October were under 18, according to comScore Media Metrix. The tracking company counts Americans who visit the site at least once in a given month, so the proportion of teens may actually be higher based on time spent.

The aim of such sites is for users to expand their circles of friends - and critics say those circles sometimes come to include sexual predators. Wired News said a recent investigation turned up hundreds of profiles for convicted sex offenders.

Forty-six states now maintain registries containing more than 550,000 convicted sex offenders, each with its own rules on what information the public may obtain, as well as when and what can be done with it.

"How do you analyze those different databases and analyze them against our, right now, 135 million user profiles?" said Hemanshu Nigam, MySpace's chief security officer. "We came to the conclusion (that) there was absolutely no real way to do this in a real-time, scalable fashion."

Instead, Sentinel will build a search tool for MySpace using data from aggregators such as LexisNexis Inc.'s Seisint unit, said John Cardillo, the Miami-based company's chief executive. The database, to be updated monthly, will include details such as names, age, hair color, height, scars and tattoos.

The News Corp. site, however, won't be using Sentinel's technology to verify the ages and identities of users to ensure they're not adults posing as teens - a change urged by many lawmakers and law-enforcement officials.

Cardillo said his service would be ineffective for such a purpose given the site's large teen population. Children don't have public records the same way adults do, he said, so the technology can't rule out whether an adult is posing as a teen online.

"What we'd rather do at this point is solve problems we know we can solve," Cardillo said.

Image-recognition software and other techniques are being considered to identify sex offenders who do not use their real names. In the meantime, Cardillo said, the database technology won't catch everyone but "will be highly effective." He declined to elaborate or provide any quantifiable targets.

Nigam said MySpace would consider making the database, to be called Sentinel Safe, available to rivals.

Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety.org, credited MySpace for trying but said a database was no panacea.

"People who are registered sexual offenders will just not be themselves now (and) the people who they really need to protect kids from in most cases are not (convicted) sexual offenders," she said. "They are people who haven't been caught yet. It's a great PR (public relations) move but frankly I don't think it's going to make anyone safer."

In a statement, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal dismissed the database as ineffective without age and identify verification.

But Nigam said he sees the database as part of a larger strategy that includes education and partnerships with law enforcement. He also said governments ought to require sex offenders to register e-mails they use to help sites like his screen profiles.

"We have to do everything we can in every different angle," he said.

In June, MySpace adopted new restrictions on how adults may contact the site's younger users and request to view their full profiles, which contain hobbies, schools and additional personal details. That, too, was criticized as ineffective because adults may simply register as teens to skirt the restrictions.

Aftab warned parents not to reduce oversight of their kids.

"They see this, they may misunderstand and think it will keep sex offenders off the site," she said. "The fact that it sounds more effective than it really is, that's a big problem."

Credit to Aftab, he's figured this out; it's as dumb as the zones idea.

First, all this does is keep those registered sex offenders who have no intention of re-offending off MySpace. (I know, there are those who don't believe there are such, but the federal statistics show that only about half those released will return to prison, and not always for another sex offense.) Any other measure you make (other than barricading them in Internet-free ghettoes) is going to fail, just as the "you can't enter a school/park/whatever" laws.

Register e-mail addresses? How are you going to enforce that? It's so easy to get a new e-mail address, I've abandoned, lost or forgotten more than I can remember. (Oops -- I'm overdue for my monthly check-in on, um... Hotmail... but which address was it? Drat!)

Okay, I've got it! Let's make it a federal penalty with "life without" for a sex offender to 'possess' (whatever that means, have access to?) an unregistered e-mail address. Let's skip over the enforcement issue and attempt to enter the mind of a registered sex offender who's decided to find a victim (whatever he calls it) on MySpace. So. He goes to the library, internet cafe, or whatever and signs up for a new free Yahoo / Hotmail / Gmail /whatever e-mail account by which he can get to MySpace. Understand, he's already decided to commit a crime that in many locations will get him life anyway, if caught -- how's the unregistered e-mail going to stop him? (And is it a crime if he signs up in Mexico or Canada?)

Okay. That doesn't work. Unless we register e-mail addresses like we do guns. Everybody registers, proves their identity (um... can't use drivers' licenses for ID...). That might work. Unless he signs up in Mexico or Canada...

Looks like it's pretty difficult to keep registered sex offenders out.

But let's say you make it work somehow. What about the unregistered sex offenders, the ones who haven't been caught & convicted yet, the ones who make up about half the convictions every year? They're completely free to come and go. And the dirty secret MySpace doesn't want you to know is that they're on MySpace too. And probably even more of them than the convicted ones, because the unknown ones haven't endured any punishment. But they're there, and the moment you believe your child is any bit safer on MySpace due to these restrictions... the closer your child is to becoming a victim!

Lots of folks, from marketeers to politicians, are trying to make hay for themselves out of sex-offender hysteria. With the possible sole exception of the original registration law (it apparently has a small correlation to a reduction in the sex-crime rate), everything else is snake oil that will only bite those who buy into it.

Your child's safety, like your checkbook, is your responsibility. Give it to someone else and you will pay the price.

Residency laws for sex offenders under microscope: all laws do is prevent offenders from rebuilding lives

2006-12-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

Let's say the obvious,even if it's only at the end of the article:

Restrictions aim to prevent repeat crimes, but critics say all laws do is prevent offenders from rebuilding lives.

BY JENNIFER SMITH,
Newsday Staff Writer

December 2, 2006, 10:59 PM EST

One after another, the laws keep coming.

Across Long Island, communities concerned about the access sex offenders have to children have passed ever-tighter legislation restricting where convicted child molesters, rapists and other sex offenders can live. Nationally, 21 states and hundreds of municipalities have similar laws on the books.

But experts in sex-offender treatment and recidivism say there is little proof such measures keep communities safer or prevent sex offenders from striking again. In Iowa, for example, the number of registered sex offenders unaccounted for more than doubled after a strict residency law went into effect. And studies of supervised sex offenders in two other states indicated that where offenders lived had no impact on new sexual offenses they committed.

"There really isn't any empirical evidence to say they are a viable strategy for keeping communities safe," said Jill Levenson, a human services professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and a board member of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

More harm than good

Levenson and other experts say making it harder for sex offenders to find housing can lead to stress and instability, which can increase the likelihood they will re-offend.

Law enforcement officials caution that housing restrictions can result in clustering of sex offenders in certain areas. Long Island already has more than a dozen such clusters. The laws also can create more homeless or chronically transient sex offenders, making it harder to track them.

"We're trying to separate them from vulnerable people," said Joseph J. Abramo, the supervising probation officer for Suffolk County's sex offender unit. "But it does create stressors on them, and I hope it doesn't cause them to go underground or act out."

The Long Island laws are part of a national trend that began a few years ago and snowballed in the wake of high-profile crimes, such as the killing last year of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford by a sex offender in Florida, who lived nearby.

Earlier this year, Suffolk County passed a law forbidding sex offenders from living within a quarter-mile of schools and playgrounds.

Soon after, Nassau set the limit at 1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from public parks. In November, the Village of East Rockaway added places of worship, libraries and community centers to the zone.

And Long Beach is considering an even more stringent resolution later this month that includes school bus stops and the beach in the 1,000-foot marker -- essentially banishing sex offenders from city limits.

Lawmakers behind such bills say they are common-sense edicts that place limits on sex offenders who aren't supervised once off of probation or parole. While restrictions alone won't solve the problem, Suffolk bill's author, Legis. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor), said, "If we're serious about this as a society, wanting to protect our kids, we need to put our money where our mouth is."

Differences between them

But some question the assumptions that shape residency restrictions, which they call a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex problem.

"Not all offenders are the same, and not all offenders pose the same risk," said Charles Onley, of the Center for Sex Offender Management in Maryland.

The laws in Nassau and Suffolk apply to all registered sex offenders, whether they have abused minors or adults. And regulations, such as the residency laws, aimed at preventing strangers from preying on children do not address the vast majority of sex offenses, which statistics show are committed by those knowing their victims.

"A lot of these offenders are people who have access to your children or to you," said Onley, adding that overall, between 70 to 80 percent of sexual offenders, including repeat offenders, know their victims.

An FBI study found more than 92 percent of girls 17 and under and 95 percent of boys in the same age group reporting a sexual assault identified a family member or acquaintance as the culprit. "It's date rape, a priest, your uncle or granddaddy, the schoolteacher," Onley said. "It's not the guy hiding behind the bush."

While residency laws make less sense with respect to sexual abuse by non-strangers, Cooper said, they still would apply to cases where children are menaced by strangers.

Questioning the impact

Researchers are not so sure.

A 2004 report on sex-offender housing by Colorado's public safety department said distance markers from schools and parks may not deter recidivism."

A report the year earlier by Minnesota's department of corrections tracked 329 of the state's most serious sex offenders, knows as Level 3's. It found that the location of the homes of those offenders relative to places where children congregate had no bearing on their subsequent sex crimes.

Thirteen of the 329 re-offended. Two of the 13 did so after driving from their homes to parks several miles away.

"Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact," the report said.

That danger is not lost on local law enforcement officials faced with enforcing new residency restrictions. "While it's true they can't live there, there is nothing to say they can't be sitting in the park with a bunch of balloons and animals when the kids come," said Nassau County probation director John Carway.That was echoed by Florida sex offenders Levenson surveyed in a 2005 study on their attitudes towards that state's 1,000-foot proximity law. Most surveyed said the rule wouldn't impact their risk of re-offense.

Other sex offenders surveyed noted that despite such rules, there were still children in their neighborhoods. "What is the point if the houses on your same block are full of kids?" one respondent asked.

Local lawmakers who back residency limits often say high recidivism rates among sex offenders justify blanket restrictions. According to an oft-cited 1994 federal Bureau of Justice Statistics study, male sex offenders were four times as likely as non-sex offenders to commit a sex crime in the three years after their release from state prison. "Most sex offenders do not re-offend," said Karl Hanson, a senior research officer with Public Safety Canada who studied sex offenders for two decades.

On average, he said, sex offenders have a 10 percent to 15 percent recidivism rate five years after their release; that rate rises to about 20 percent after 10 years.

Those who support residential restrictions for sex offenders say the laws might not be perfect, but they're an improvement over the lack of supervision in New York for offenders no longer on parole or probation. "It's really a reaction to the lack of funding being allocated to monitor and supervise sex offenders for life," said Laura Ahearn, of the Stony Brook-based advocacy group Parents for Megan's Law.

But questions remain about the unintended consequences such laws can inflict.

"What we're seeing on a national basis is that, the more restrictive the residency requirements become, the more frequently sex offenders fail to comply and become 'whereabouts unknown' and drop off the radar screen," said Richard Hamill, head of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers.

In Iowa, the number of registered offenders with no known address more than doubled since a state law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility went into effect last year.

Suffolk and Nassau probation officials say it's too soon to tell if the new rules will cause people here to go underground. But they are concerned that shrinking areas of available housing will cluster sex offenders in neighborhoods that don't violate distance restrictions, such as one cluster in the Gordon Heights/Coram area -- if they can find a place at all.

"As more and more restrictions are put on people, where are the people going to live?" Abramo said. "It doesn't make problems go away by displacing them." As of October, there were 1,283 registered Level Two and Three sex offenders on Long Island.

Iowa's law -- one of the most stringent in the country -- has undermined rehabilitation of sex offenders by making it nearly impossible for them to find housing, jobs or sustain a family life, according to a statement this year from the Iowa County Attorneys Association. The prosecutors' group said Iowa's residency restriction compromised the safety of children.

It is not clear what will happen on Long Island, where distances are smaller and restrictions newly imposed. But those who treat sex offenders say the instability such rules can cause -- from constant evictions to the inability to live with family members whose homes lie within buffer zones -- can pose another threat to public safety.

"This is a population that doesn't deal well with stress," Hamill said. "When we create policies that cause them to lose their housing and lose their jobs, many don't respond well. And for some, committing sex offenses is a way of managing that stress."

To stay safe people shouldn't focus entirely on the Sex Offender Registry

2006-11-23T16:01:00.000-07:00

Finally somebody's beginning to figure things out:

GRAND RAPIDS -- "I haven't seen it stop a crime," said West Grand Neighborhood Organization Director and crime prevention organizer Nola Steketee. But, like a lot of people, she uses the Michigan Sex Offender Registry and likes it. "It's a great tool. I'm very glad that it's here."

According to a state audit last year, the Sex Offender Registry exists to help prevent convicted sex offenders from committing more sex crimes. The audit, however, didn't look at the question of whether or not it did.

Target 8 Investigators could find no government study asking hard questions about the Michigan Registry. So Target 8 Investigators took a look at the basic numbers.

We looked at State Police crime statistics from 1999, the year before the Registry went online, and 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. We combined the stats for rape and other sex crimes, excluding prostitution. We found that there were 147 sex crimes per 100,000 Michigan residents in 1999, and a small increase in 2004, 157 per 100,000.

That suggests the Registry has had little impact.

But "it's always tough to quantify crime prevention," said Michael Bouchard, the former Michigan legislator often regarded as the creator of the Registry. What he means is that it's impossible to know if a crime was avoided by someone acting on information contained in the Registry, or how many times that might have happened.

Bouchard, who recently lost a bid for a US Senate seat, believes the Registry has had an impact beyond what crime numbers might show. "I think it's helped raise the awareness within the community of the problem and the safety issues," he said, "and I think it also put a chilling effect in those offenders because they know there's a lot more attention given to him."

Neighborhood crime fighter Steketee said she has seen another byproduct of the Registry. "I've seen it make neighborhoods closer," she says. "I've seen it make groups of people get out of their homes and actually talk to their neighbors," which, she said, is what crime prevention is about.

The Registry is based on the popular idea that most sex offenders will commit more sex crimes once they get out of prison. But Target 8 Investigators read study after study with contrary results.

One study looked at 61 other research projects and found that the repeat rate for sex offenders is lower than that for other criminals in general. Some 13 percent committed another sex crime, compared to a repeat rate of 36 percent for all other crimes. If that's the case it may suggest why the crime rate at least appears unaffected by the introduction of sex offender registries.

It may be that most sex crimes are committed by people who have yet to be caught and so are not on any registry. We haven't yet found any research that directly addresses that question.

But the fact there are offenders not on any registry is a reason to put the existence of registries in perspective. "There are many potential sex offenders out there who have never been arrested yet and they're not on the list and they still pose a danger," said Tom Cottrell. He's in charge of the Grand Rapids YWCA counseling program that works with sex crime victims.

That means to stay safe people shouldn't focus entirely on the Sex Offender Registry.

On the Net:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Sex Offender Recidivism

10-Year Sex Offender Recidivism Follow Up (Ohio)

Sex Offender Recidivism (Iowa)

Sex Offender Recidivism (Washington state)

Critics say ban on sex offenders in parks too broad, unconstitutional

2006-11-16T15:11:00.000-07:00

That such a law is political pandering is evident near the end of the article.

Some young lovers would be exempt from a proposed law in Warren aimed at banning anyone on Michigan's sex offender registry from entering a city park or recreation building.

Amid deep and heated differences, Warren City Council members voted 5-4 late Tuesday making the public properties off-limits to most people on the dubious state list. An 11th hour amendment from Melinda Moore, the councilwoman spearheading the measure, exempts anyone who was between 17 and 21 years of age whose "victim" was not more than five years younger.

Those backing the proposed ordinance say it's simply about protecting children and women from predators.

"If we can keep one person, keep them away from a park and deter them from a child, it's worth it to me," said Moore, a mother of two teenagers.

Critics said that idea may be well-intentioned, but consider it overly broad, unenforceable and pandering to voters.

"I think we're shooting mosquitoes with a shotgun," said Councilwoman Kathy Vogt, an attorney who practices family law. "I don't think it is constitutional."

Joining Moore in approving the first of two "readings" of the proposed law were Mike Chupa, Donna Kaczor Caumartin, Keith Sadowski and council President James Fouts. Fouts had called Moore's legislation politically motivated and unsuccessfully suggested the ban be extended to prohibit drug dealers from Warren's two dozen city parks and two recreation centers.

In addition to Vogt, council members Mary Kamp, Carolyn Kurkowski Moceri and Mike Wiecek voted against the ordinance.

Kamp argued parents do not need an ordinance to contact police about anyone seemingly lurking in a park, and that anyone on the sex offender registry is not easily identifiable.

"They don't walk around with scarlet letters," she said.

Officials pointed out that the sex offender list has inaccuracies and called upon state lawmakers to revise the registry by separating pedophiles from others such as "Romeo and Juliet" offenders who willingly engaged in sexual activity.

Some consider it unfair to continue to punish those who engaged in sex with an underage person -- anyone in Michigan must be at least 16 years old to legally consent to sex -- and are sentenced to the registry for the rest of their lives, to be unable to take their child to a city playground or watch their son or daughter play in a sporting event.

Michigan law prohibits anyone on the sex offender list from going on school property.

Warren City Attorney George Constance said he considers the city's proposed parks ban an extension of that state law.

"I think it's defendable," he said, adding that 10 states prohibit sex offenders from residing near a school or recreation area.

The American Civil Liberties Union is watching developments closely.

"We do see it as unconstitutional. Our biggest concern with it is it continues to punish people well after they've served their sentence," Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU in Michigan, said Wednesday.

The state registry has more than 40,000 names. Weisberg said Warren officials would be unable to pinpoint which ones could be considered "predators." The greater fear, she suggested, might involve the over 8,000 absconders whose whereabouts are a mystery to law enforcement authorities.

Asked about Moore's amendment to exempt those who got on the list for acts committed between age 17 and 21, Weisberg said: "Who's to say within that age group you don't have a true predator?

"It's a false, feel-good kind of legislation that doesn't get to who is a true predator."

To avoid violating the state's Open Meetings Act, the only full exemption as proposed would apply to everyone on the offender registry if the person is attending a meeting of a public body at the city buildings.

The ordinance, which still must go through a second "reading" by the council to be enacted, also prohibits offenders from getting memberships at the Warren Community Center's fitness and aquatic center.

Parks and Recreation Director Henry Bowman said a notice to that effect may be posted on the building and the Owen Jax Recreation Center on Nine Mile Road. He doesn't anticipate ordering his staff to run names through the state registry Web site.

But they'll be alert for suspicious activity, he said.

"Our staff is trained to keep their eyes opened," the parks boss said.

"The last thing I'm looking to do here, and don't think that anyone is looking to do, is a witch hunt."

Warren Police Commissioner James Vohs called the ordinance a good one that could be applied in secondary fashion if an offender is suspected of wrongdoing at a park or recreation facility. He acknowledged that Michigan's third-most populated city is not experiencing recurring problems of sexual assaults by strangers on children.

"We have no plan for any kind of sweeps," the city's top police administrator said.

"If we can keep one person, keep them away from a park and deter them from a child, it's worth it to me," said Moore, a mother of two teenagers.

Well of course it's worth it to you. You aren't paying a thing. One could wonder if rapists and other criminals use the same rationale: "It's worth it to me."

Hey Kansas: Iowans say restricting sex offenders locations doesn't work

2006-11-16T15:00:00.000-07:00

But will Kansas listen? Don't hold your breath...

Key lawmaker: Proposal on sex offenders 'a bad deal'

TOPEKA, Kan. - Proposals for keeping sex offenders from living close to schools or day care centers may appear attractive politically, but they won't protect children, a key legislator said Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Vratil's assessment came a day after Iowa officials warned Kansas legislators against passing such restrictions, saying they actually put communities at greater risk.

Vratil, R-Leawood, and other members of a committee studying judiciary issues this summer and fall had a hearing Wednesday on whether the state should prevent sex offenders from living within a certain distance - such as 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet - of schools and day care centers. The study committee took no action.

The idea enjoyed some support early during the Legislature's 2006 session, but backing waned amid questions about whether it would have unintended consequences. Legislators eventually told cities and counties they couldn't impose such restrictions and decided to study the topic.

But with Vratil's opposition and negative reports from Iowa and other states, such proposals have less of a chance of passing next year.

"It sounds good on the surface, and that's why it's politically attractive, but when you really determine what the facts are and the experiences the other states have had, it's a bad deal," Vratil said Thursday during an interview.

Iowa officials told Kansas legislators that a 2005 law in their state had such consequences. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials there are working to get the Iowa statute repealed.

"The bottom line is, it doesn't protect children," said Pamela Dettmann, a senior assistant county attorney from Burlington, Iowa.

Supporters of such proposals contend sex offenders who are released from prison should be kept a safe distance away from places where children congregate.

But Iowa officials told the committee that their state's law forced sex offenders to live in remote areas where it is difficult for law enforcement and parole officials to keep track of them.

Also, they said, the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect last year.

In addition, some communities now have clusters of offenders living in motels or other places outside the residency restriction.

Dettmann also said that the law misdirects public attention toward offenders who are strangers to their child victims, when most sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance.

The Iowa officials urged Kansas legislators to direct their efforts to treatment of sex offenders and educational programs for young children instead of residency restrictions.

Georgia: going off the deep end again

2006-11-16T14:55:00.000-07:00

After the headaches caused by their zoning law, you'd think Georgia's state legislators would stop for a minute and consider what they're doing. But not Eric Johnson (R):

GOP bills target illegal immigrants, sex offenders

ATLANTA - Georgia Republicans are again taking aim at illegal immigrants and sex offenders, both popular targets in the last legislative session.

Eric Johnson, the state Senate's top Republican, introduced a bill Thursday to make it a crime for sex offenders to photograph anyone under age 18. State Sen. John Douglas, R-Covington, put forward legislation making property owned by a person in the country illegally ineligible for tax exemptions.

Both bills were filed in advance of the 2007 legislative session set to begin Jan. 8. Lawmakers were able to begin "pre-filing" legislation Wednesday.

Laws cracking down in illegal immigrants and sex offenders were centerpieces of the GOP agenda in the 2006 session.

Portions of Georgia's tough new law cracking down on where sex offenders can live, work and loiter have been challenged in the courts. A judge has blocked part of the law banning sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of bus stops.

Sara Totonchi, public policy director of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, said the plaintiff in that lawsuit is the perfect example of why the new law is not needed. Wendy Whitaker was convicted of sodomy for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old boy when she was 17.

"To think that someone like Wendy Whitaker could face prosecution for photographing her niece at a family picnic illustrates how absurd the debate on sex offenders has become in Georgia," Totonchi said. ...

CA's Prop 83 is not retroactive

2006-11-16T14:51:00.000-07:00

California makes the right call and avoids a whole lot of trouble:

Law on sex offenders narrowed

In response to a suit challenging residency limits, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer says the measure will not be enforced retroactively.

SACRAMENTO — A ballot measure restricting where sex offenders may live in California does not apply to thousands of ex-convicts who have served their prison time and are off parole, government lawyers defending the initiative in court said Wednesday.

The declaration, made in a legal filing, means a key provision of the measure that passed overwhelmingly in the Nov. 7 election will not affect many of the 75,000 former sex offenders living throughout the state.

It also means the first legal battle over Proposition 83 is essentially over before it began. Lawyers for a sex offender challenging the initiative's residency restrictions near schools and parks said they probably would dismiss their lawsuit soon.

"It appears to us that our client and thousands of other people who thought they faced banishment can now breathe easier," said attorney Dennis Riordan, who represents the Bay Area man who filed the suit.

But Riordan cautioned that he would drop the legal challenge — which has blocked enforcement of the residency ban — only after obtaining a binding agreement signed by Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and approved by a judge.

Passed by 70% of voters, Proposition 83 authorized a sweeping crackdown on sex offenders, giving California what experts called the toughest such law in the nation. As well as lengthening prison and parole times for repeat and violent offenders, the measure requires registered sex offenders to wear an electronic tracking device for life.

The most controversial provision bans offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Shortly after the election, the residency rule sparked a lawsuit from the Bay Area offender, identified as "John Doe" to protect his safety.

The suit said the initiative was unconstitutional because it slapped a new penalty on ex-convicts years after they had already been punished.

Convicted of a felony 15 years ago, the man had served his sentence, completed treatment and has led "a productive and law-abiding life" ever since, his lawsuit said. With the passage of Proposition 83, he "has effectively been banished from his community" as well as from residential areas in virtually every city in California, the suit said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, finding a "substantial likelihood" the plaintiff would prove his case, blocked enforcement of the residency limit. That prompted Wednesday's response from the attorney general.

In the court papers, Lockyer says "John Doe" does not have legal standing to sue because Proposition 83 is meant to apply prospectively, not to former offenders. To ensure the law applied retroactively, its authors would have had to expressly state — or make unambiguously clear — such an intent, which they did not, he said.

In addition, Lockyer noted, the initiative's sponsor, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) has repeatedly said that he never intended to uproot registered sex offenders already settled in society.

"We never planned for this to be retroactive," Dave Gilliard, campaign strategist for Proposition 83, said Wednesday.

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), one of the few lawmakers who took a public stand against the initiative, said that statement contradicted the impression left by some of the measure's ballot materials.

Leno said some arguments presented in favor of Proposition 83 clearly "talk about the tens of thousands of sex offenders living among us, saying they need to be banished and that they are so dangerous our children should not have to pass their homes on the way to school."

"So now they're saying it's only the sex offenders released in the future we have to worry about, not those among us?" Leno said. "If I were a voter who supported this, I'd be angry and confused."

Although Lockyer's declaration that the initiative does not apply retroactively will probably make the lawsuit moot, the attorney general did address the constitutional challenge it presented.

The residency ban does not constitute a new punishment, Lockyer said, but is instead a housing regulation that "strengthens community safeguards against potential future acts of child molestation."

Some sex offenders Wednesday expressed relief that they apparently would not be covered by the initiative.

Richard Adamson, 50, of Visalia said the stigma of his offense left him unemployed and unable to find housing for eight months after his release from prison. He now lives in a small apartment within 2,000 feet of a neighborhood park. Six other sex offenders live in the same complex.

"I looked at the map, and all but about 5% of Visalia would be off limits to me," said Adamson, who now works as a bartender. He is a former teacher convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor. "I have felt a lot of anxiety, waiting for that knock on the door telling me to pack up and move."

Sex offender laws need thinking out

2006-11-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

By Heber Taylor,
The Daily News

A lot of people are having second thoughts about new laws on sex offenders’ accommodation arrrangements. You should, too.

The topic is going to come up when the Texas Legislature convenes in January.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, among others, campaigned on a pledge to make some version of “Jessica’s Law” a priority.

Californians just passed Proposition 83, which effectively bans sex offenders from living in some cities.

The law, which already has been challenged in court, makes it a crime to live within 2,000 feet of any school or park.

League City, Santa Fe and Friendswood are among the cities in Texas that have adopted similar limits on where registered sex offenders can live.

The Texas state attorney general has been asked whether those limits are constitutional.

One of the problems is that, in some cities, all residential property is within 2,000 feet of a school or park. That means it’s illegal for a person on the registry to live in town.

Can you really ban a person from living in a city? And, if we decide that sex offenders are so heinous that they don’t have that right, can we ban people who committed other crimes from our cities?

And if so, which ones? Murderers seem a likely start. How about burglars? Where do you draw the line?

And, if we can ban people from a city, can we ban people from living in the state? As the Texas Constitution says no, how much further back do we have to step in drawing the line?

And what about the people who have served their sentences, learned their lesson and have never offended again?

There are people on the list of registered sex offenders who have done just that. They’re living here in Galveston County.

If they now live within 2,000 feet of a park or school, how should we treat them? Do we force them to sell their homes and move?

Do we consider them safe as long as they own the house — but then force them to leave town if they have to sell the house and can’t find another place that’s not too close to a park or school?

And how does the sale of a home change that person from a rehabilitated citizen into to a threat to society?

Californians were willing to spend millions to put global positioning system monitors on all sex offenders. Do we put the electronic bracelets on those who’ve paid their debt to society? Or is that punishing a person again for the same crime — after he’s served his sentence?

And what about those who committed sex offenses 60 years ago, have paid their debt to society and are now in nursing homes? And what if that nursing home is too close to a park? Do we call the ambulances to take them across the line?

During the election, the rhetoric against sex offenders was a great campaign issue.

But the rush to limit rights as they are now defined in the Texas and U.S. Constitutions is a dangerous game.

This process warrants far more thought than it’s been given.

False safety: Proposed Marlboro sex offender law misguided

2006-11-14T14:02:00.000-07:00

he Marlboro City Council wisely has postponed adopting a city ordinance that would place broad restrictions on the movements and residency of registered sex offenders.

The proposed ordinance, which the council first OK’d then agreed to reconsider on Nov. 20, would bar registered offenders from entering or loitering within 500 feet of and from living within 2,500 feet of any school, school bus stop, day care center, park, playground or public recreational facility used regularly by children.

As we have said before regarding similar laws recently passed in Fitchburg and West Boylston, the proposal is well-intended but only offers the illusion of safety.

Whether such laws have any positive effect is questionable. The vast majority of people who sexually assault youngsters are not shadowy strangers but rather relatives or family acquaintances well-known to the child. It is certainly highly questionable whether a sexual predator intent on assaulting a child will be at all deterred by a buffer zone.

As in Fitchburg, the proposal before the Marlboro council would put virtually the entire city off-limits to registered sexual offenders who have served their sentences and returned to the community. That raises serious constitutional questions.

In Massachusetts there are alternatives to drastic local legislation. The state’s sex offender registry is an excellent resource for parents, school officials and neighbors, and the Legislature is considering tougher sentencing guidelines to keep individuals likely to re-offend behind bars.

Such measures are not fail-safe, of course. But they are apt to be more effective than arbitrary, hard-to-enforce and possibly unconstitutional buffer zones.

Sex offender sweep nets 552 arrests statewide (costs state millions)

2006-11-11T13:53:00.000-07:00

DETROIT (AP) — Law enforcement officers arrested 552 people during a recent 14-day sweep of the state for violators of Michigan's sex offender registry law.

The effort also resulted in 622 additional arrest warrant requests, Michigan State Police said Thursday.

Offenders convicted of misdemeanors must verify their addresses once a year. People on the registry who move are required to report their new addresses within 10 days.

At least 125 law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices statewide were involved.

Operation Verify was Michigan's third coordinated sex offender sweep, The Detroit News reported Saturday. Since 2005, 1,800 people have been arrested.

Police focused on felons who failed to update or verify their address as required between Oct. 1 and Oct. 15. Officers also conducted nearly 4,000 random residence checks.

"Basically, we divide up the list and then go to the addresses that are listed with the offenders," state trooper Jeff Miazga said. "The checkup could be at any time during the day or night."

The Sex Offenders Registration Act requires those convicted of a felony to verify their addresses at a local law enforcement agency four times a year. Penalties for not complying range from a 93-day misdemeanor to a four-year felony.

Hm. This looks costly. In 2002 incarcerations cost Colorado $28000 per year per prisoner.

If the 552 get 90-day terms, that's $7000 times 552, or almost $4 million. In incarceration costs alone.

If the 552 get 4-year terms, that's about $64 million.

Of course, if they catch the other 622, those figures more than double. And that's before you factor in the enforcement and other incidental costs.

No comment on whether this is a good use of money.

"Punitive By Design and Effect"

2006-11-11T13:42:00.000-07:00

It didn't take long for California's initiative to come under fire:

Calif. Judge Blocks Rule on Sex Offenders

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 8 -- A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of a ballot measure designed to crack down on sex offenders, ruling the law was unconstitutional just a day after voters overwhelmingly approved it.

Jessica's Law, as it is known, prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, effectively banning parolees from many California communities. It also requires lifetime satellite tracking for some paroled sex criminals upon their release from prison.

More than 70 percent of voters approved the initiative Tuesday. Hours later, an unidentified sex offender filed the lawsuit, arguing that the measure should apply only to offenders who register after the law was approved.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and probably unconstitutional. She issued a temporary restraining order against the law's residency requirements, saying the plaintiff was likely to prevail. The judge also ordered a Nov. 27 hearing.

Supporters and critics of the measure had expected the residency rules to be challenged in court.

State law already limits where sex offenders can live, but the new rules would make it even harder to find homes for offenders released from prison. Most parolees currently are prohibited from living within a quarter-mile of a school, with a half-mile restriction imposed on high-risk sex offenders.

Ex post facto laws are pretty common in the world of sex offender legislation -- and every time they are upheld, everybody else's liberties are that much more diminished. I will note that in some countries (such as Switzerland), everybody is required to register their residence with the police. Imagine the outcry if some extreme-right government attempted such a law here... and yet... the groundwork is already laid and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Just repeat to yourself, "It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It can't happen here. ...")

It will be interesting to see where this case goes.

CA Proposition 83: A Fact Sheet for Voters

2006-11-01T11:12:00.000-07:00

CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

http://www.cjcj.org

Proposition 83: A Fact Sheet for Voters

Proposition 83, or Jessica’s Law, aims to become the toughest sex offender law in the nation by enhancing punishment and control measures of sex offenders in California. The initiative seeks to impose strict residency restrictions on known sex offenders and require lifetime GPS supervision of all registered sex offenders in the state. Its proponents encourage a yes vote, stating that California’s kids deserve the protection of its stringent provisions.

Although several organizations have voiced strong opposition to the law, including the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a group of 84 rape-crisis centers and sexual assault prevention programs and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the political interest in tough-on-crime measures has prevented thoughtful discussion on the efficacy, cost and realistic consequences of the initiative should it pass.

Given the serious nature of sex offenses, and the grievous, long-term consequences to sex offense victims, California voters may find security in the imposition of longer mandatory prison sentences and restrictive lifelong monitoring of sex offenders. Although it might seem these controls would procure greater public safety for California, the strategy may not address the real issues that underlie most sex offenses. To better understand Proposition 83 and its potential impacts on public safety, it is necessary to place the initiative in its proper context. This includes a consideration of the known facts about sex offending, the consequences similar laws have had in other states, and the serious impact Proposition 83 may have, if passed.

§ According to the U.S. Justice Department, each year there are 60,000 to 70,000 arrests on charges of child sexual assault in the United States. Of these, only about 115 are abductions by strangers. Approximately 90 percent of all child victims of sexual offending know the perpetrator. The perpetrator is not a stranger to the child. Proposition 83 addresses the infrequent situation in which the sex offender is not known to the child.

§ Electronic GPS monitoring may be useful for a limited, high-risk population of sex offenders, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) currently uses GPS supervision of serious sex offenders in pilot programs throughout the state. By requiring all felony sex offenders to wear electronic monitor anklets for life, Proposition 83 will effectively hide the most dangerous offenders among the masses of offenders under supervision.

§ There are approximately 90,000 registered sex offenders in California. Proposition 83 does not clearly state whether it will apply retroactively, thereby requiring electronic monitoring of all current sex offenders at a high cost to taxpayers. Lawmakers will have to clarify the law with a 2/3 majority vote should it pass.

§ Residency restrictions for sex offenders are already required pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3003(g)(1). A sexually violent predator and a serious paroled sex offender cannot live within one-quarter mile of a school, and a high-risk sex offender cannot reside within one-half mile of a school, daycare center, or any place where children gather. After implementing residency restrictions, the statewide prosecutors group in Iowa has urged their repeal because they impede the state’s ability to manage sex offenders. The residency restrictions in Proposition 83 are problematic for three important reasons:

o Known registered offenders are often forced into homelessness, thus becoming destabilized, more likely to offend, and more difficult to track.

o Police experience shows that residency requirements often result in the disappearance of offenders due to homelessness, limiting the ability of the police to effectively supervise sex offenders.

o Residency restrictions force offenders out of urban centers and into rural and suburban areas where smaller police forces, limited treatment and social programs, and scarce housing options make rehabilitation and supervision more difficult.

§ Among sex offenders, pedophiles who molest boys and rapists of women are among those most likely to recidivate. Proposition 83 applies to all registered sex offenders, casting the same net over the most serious offenders, and those who are amenable to treatment or unlikely to recidivate, despite limited resources and staffing.

§ CDCR has only 52 specially trained parole officers to supervise 2000 high-risk sex offenders. This means that each specially trained officer is responsible for a caseload of approximately 40 to 1. Proposition 83 will exacerbate this already difficult situation.

§ Studies in Colorado indicate that offenders who recidivate do not live closer to schools or childcare centers than non-recidivists, but that positive social support significantly lowers recidivism rates and rule violations. Proposition 83 will not foster access to positive support; on the contrary, social support may be challenged by residency requirements as offenders would be restricted from living with family who live within restricted zones.

§ Studies by the Minnesota Department of Corrections confirmed the myriad problems of residency restrictions, prompting the state to develop halfway and three-quarter-way houses to assist in the transition and treatment of sex offenders. These houses have promoted supportive networks within the community, thus stabilizing offenders and making recidivism less likely to occur. Proposition 83 does nothing to improve the chances for an offender’s successful transition into the community, thereby endangering long-term public safety.

After the passage of Senate Bill 1128 in September, a large portion of Proposition 83 was rendered redundant. The signed bill provides for enhanced sentences for child rape and electronic monitoring of serious offenders during parole. The most controversial and problematic provisions of Proposition 83 are all that remain, and California would do better to forego them.

Despite early support for Proposition 83, major California newspapers have now published statements in opposition to the initiative. The San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, and Sacramento Bee, among others, urge “no” votes based on their review of highly demonstrative evidence suggesting that Proposition 83 relies on fear-based politics and offers no effective contribution to improve California’s public safety. Editorials note that residency restrictions will force offenders into areas where housing and job opportunities are scarce, and electronic monitoring of all felony sex offenders will divert funds and attention away from the most serious offenders.

Only a week before the election, Proposition 83 is finally undergoing scrutiny by law enforcement and victims’ advocates. A leader of the California prison guard’s union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), indicated that he would not vote for the initiative. CCPOA President Mike Jimenez retracted his support for Proposition 83 because the CDCR is not prepared to implement lifetime GPS monitoring of all sex offenders and the residency restrictions would lead to a surge in the number of difficult-to-track homeless offenders. This comes after the CCPOA contributed $25,000 to support the proposition.

Law enforcement, victims’ rights advocates, and statewide media have recognized Proposition 83’s false promise of safety and are now advocating against the initiative. There are better methods proven to reduce recidivism among sex offenders. California should seek to implement these measures and avoid wasting its resources on Proposition 83.

Sources and Note:

Sources include the “The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices,” by Marcus Nieto and David Jung, California Research Bureau (August 2006), Iowa County Attorneys Association Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa, the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide, California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Public Policy Web site at http://www.calcasapublicpolicy.org, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Web site at http://www.cacj.org.

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that offers policy analysis, program development and technical assistance in the criminal justice field. For more information, please visit http://www.cjcj.org or contact Megan Corcoran at 415-621-5661, ext. 309.

No turning back (on sex offender laws)

2006-10-30T17:38:00.000-07:00

Iowa legislators rushed into passing draconian sex offender laws. Now they find those laws are making the public less safe, not more. But they can't turn back the clock, and they can't turn back the laws either. Seems they forgot the maxim: "Look before you leap."

Will California be next?

Sex crime residency laws exile offenders

Des Moines — Shortly after 8 each evening, David DenAdel kisses his wife and three kids goodbye and leaves his home in the peaceful suburb of Clive. A half-hour later, he pulls up at an unfurnished rental in a scruffy pocket of Des Moines, one of the few spots in the region where he can legally spend the night.

His children, ages 3 to 6, "think maybe I'm camping, but they really aren't sure," said DenAdel, 37, who pays $650 a month for the rental and $1,500 a month for the mortgage on his home. "It's not easy leaving them every night, but it's the law."

A little more than a year ago, Iowa began barring sex offenders such as DenAdel, convicted of sexual abuse on a 15-year-old girl, from living within 2,000 feet of a school or child-care center. Soon after, cities and counties passed even stricter rules, adding libraries, swimming pools, parks and bike trails to the protected list.

Now, much of urban Iowa is off limits to those whose past includes a sex crime against a minor.

As Californians prepare to vote next week on Proposition 83, which would impose a similar residency ban, Iowa is becoming an example of the unintended consequences of such measures.

Prosecutors, police officials and even victims rights groups say the crackdown has backfired, driving some offenders into rural towns and leaving others grouped at motels, campgrounds, freeway rest stops or on the streets.

Many have simply gone underground, authorities say, with more than twice as many registered sex offenders now considered missing than before the law took effect.

'Off the radar scope'

"These guys are off the radar scope, and we've got no idea where they are," said Bill Vaughn, chief deputy of the Polk County Sheriff's Department in Des Moines.

All around the Hawkeye State, police and sheriff's deputies say they are overwhelmed by the task of chasing down child molesters who violate the residency law. And although they don't often pity sex felons, authorities say the house-hunting challenge faced by the ex-cons is almost insurmountable.

"When they call and ask where they can legally live, my response is, 'Do you know anybody in Nebraska?' " said Des Moines Police Sgt. Barry Arnold. "It's a nightmare."

Iowa prosecutors agree. Their statewide association earlier this year declared the law a failure and asked the Legislature to pursue a different strategy to protect children from sex crimes.

The Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, representing victims, echoed that request. Executive Director Elizabeth Barnhill said Iowans are less safe now because sex offenders, facing banishment, are absconding in large numbers.

"Probation and parole supervisors cannot effectively monitor … offenders who are living under bridges, in parking lots, in tents at parks or at interstate truck stops," she said.

Despite such concerns, Iowa's Legislature has declined to overhaul the law. One member, Republican Sen. Larry McKibben, acknowledged that "things may not be working the way we'd hoped." But in an election year, he said, legislators would not support anything "making life easier for these pariahs."

"We live in a nasty political environment, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to take a vote that somebody could turn into a direct mail piece saying I was going soft on sex offenders," said McKibben, who led a legislative task force that studied the law's effect.

Iowa is among about 20 states and hundreds of communities that have adopted rules governing where released sex felons may live.

In California, Proposition 83 would ban registered sex offenders — including those whose victims were adults — from homes within 2,000 feet of a school or park and would allow local governments to adopt more restrictive rules. The initiative also would increase prison and parole terms for some crimes and require electronic monitoring of registered sex offenders for life, an added step that backers say would prevent some of the problems that have surfaced in Iowa.

According to maps prepared by the California Senate, Proposition 83 would bar sex offenders from living in much of Greater Los Angeles and virtually all of San Francisco, leaving only the less densely populated suburbs and rural areas open to them. Already, some local governments are adopting Iowa-like ordinances.

Although sexual assaults on children have declined nationwide in recent years, several disturbing crimes have stirred politicians into action. Among them was the February 2005 murder of a 9-year-old Florida girl, Jessica Lunsford. Police believe she was killed by a convicted sex offender working at her school.

Advocates believe forbidding offenders to live near schools decreases their access to children and thus reduces assaults. Critics say the residency laws are anchored in faulty logic because strangers are responsible for only about 10% of sexual attacks on minors. The vast majority of assaults on young victims are committed by people they know and trust, often family members.

"There is no evidence that residence restrictions prevent sex crimes or increase public safety," wrote Jill S. Levenson, a professor of human services at Florida's Lynn University, in a 2005 report to the Florida Legislature.

In Iowa, the residency law breezed through the Legislature in 2002 but was held up in the courts. The Iowa Supreme Court upheld it in 2005.

As a result, housing in 70% of Greater Des Moines, with a population of 522,450, became off limits to overnight stays by child molesters. After city and county officials added restrictions, more than 98% of Greater Des Moines' neighborhoods were covered.

Fearing they would become dumping grounds for sex offenders, officials in rural and suburban communities soon enacted their own laws. In some towns, the ordinances are so restrictive that remote cornfields are the only places a sex offender can legally live.

Des Moines police assembled a team of 30 officers to deliver eviction notices to 300 offenders living in illegal locations. Often, distances were in dispute, so officers used radar guns — the ones designed to catch speeders — to measure from front doors to the property lines of schools or day-care centers.

Among those on eviction lists were two offenders at a nursing home and another at a veterans hospital. Des Moines' downtown homeless shelter also fell within a protected zone, meaning about 30 offenders living there had to leave last winter, said the shelter's executive director, Jean Brown.

"So now they're living under bridges," Brown said. "Thank goodness my kids are grown. Because it's far more dangerous to have these guys out on the streets and desperate."

Uprooted, some of the 6,150 sex offenders required to register annually with Iowa's Department of Public Safety began listing unusual addresses. Bryan Etherington reports living at the "I-80 rest area, mile marker 119," in Waukee. A trucker who can no longer live at the home he shared with his elderly mother sleeps in his rig at the Flying J truck stop in Clive.

Perhaps the largest enclaves are in mobile home parks. One recent night on the outskirts of Des Moines, two state officers who supervise sex offenders on probation pulled into such a park to visit James Brake, 37, convicted of indecent contact with a child.

'There's nowhere else'

Approaching Brake's door, Officer Kurt Kness pointed to several preschoolers playing, unsupervised, in a mud puddle outside another rickety mobile home, parked about 20 feet away.

"The crazy thing is, you've got this guy in this trailer because there's nowhere else for him to live, but there are 8 million kids here, running all over the place," Kness said.

A few miles away, another colony of sex offenders has taken hold at the Palace Inn, a low-slung motel bordering a state highway. Yellow with purple doors, the motel is a place of troubled pasts and shaky futures, housing about half a dozen ex-cons.

Among them is Adam Lozano, 22, convicted at age 15 of lewd and lascivious conduct with two younger girls.

"I can't really seem to get ahead," said Lozano. "I know they're trying to protect people … but I think this law is causing a lot of mental strain."

Roger Wheeler, 43, is feeling that strain. A forklift operator, Wheeler lives with his girlfriend, Ruth Lilly, and their three children in a rented mobile home in rural Maxwell. Last week, his phone was disconnected because of a delinquent payment, and he was rushed to the hospital with chest pains, which doctors attributed to stress.

Wheeler served three years for a 1992 sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl he knew. Off probation now, he said he still attends group therapy once a month to talk about his problem "and how to keep living a healthy life."

The residency law is a big topic at the group sessions, Wheeler said, and, in his view, is the kind of thing "that can make people snap."

"These laws keep coming down, making it harder and harder to get by, and you just wonder all the time what's next," Wheeler said.

"Does telling a sex offender where he can or can't live make a difference? No. All somebody's got to do is get in their car and drive someplace."

"The initiative also would ... require electronic monitoring of registered sex offenders for life, an added step that backers say would prevent some of the problems that have surfaced in Iowa."

The backers are wrong. As I may or may not have noted before on this blog, the "electronic monitors" are incredibly easy to defeat with just one inexpensive, legal purchase at your local Safeway, Food Lion, or A&P (assuming the necessary material isn't already in your kitchen). There are ways, too, to delay for hours the hint that even a real-time GPS monitor is being foiled -- long enough to cut it off and disappear.

All these laws are going to accomplish is to make their targets think less on how they can rejoin society, and longer and harder about how to evade the exclusionary laws that society is leveling against them. I ask you: is that really a good idea?

Christopher Uggen: murder of washington sex offenders

2006-10-26T13:46:00.000-06:00

I've written at some length about the hyper-stigma that accompanies the "sex offender" label in the contemporary United States. Whenever I even hint that this stigma may hinder rather than help public safety, as in this AP story in June, I'm swamped with supportive calls and emails from sex offenders and their families and vaguely threatening or accusing mail from others. And, of course, breathless invitations to appear on cable news shows as "liberal punching bag o' the day." [Can you believe it, this guy actually thinks sex offenders have it too tough?] Now comes this story from the Seattle Times and Bellingham Herald:

BELLINGHAM — Last Friday night, a man claiming to be an FBI agent dropped in on three Level 3 sex offenders living together, supposedly to warn them of an Internet "hit list" targeting sex offenders. The man was not an FBI agent, but he may have been enforcing a hit list of his own creation. Two of the roommates were found dead early Saturday of gunshot wounds, and Bellingham police are investigating a crime that authorities say may be one of the nation's most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders. The killings also highlight a potential problem about Washington's 1990 law requiring sex offenders to register their addresses so the public can keep track of them.

Yes, if the story checks out as reported, I guess murder qualifies as a potential problem. Given the demonization of sex offenders, I'm certain that few will shed tears over these murders. I'm also sure that the vigilante had never read the Bureau of Justice Statistics report or large research literature showing low recidivism rates of sex offenders relative to other former prisoners. Yet our FBI imposter/wannabe was well-informed on two counts: (1) he knew that "level-three sex offenders" Hank Eisses, 49, James Russell, 42, and Victor Vasquez, 68 could be found at 2825 Northwest Avenue; and, (2) he knew the specific details of their crimes -- offenses that took place in 1997, 1994, and 1991, respectively. Clearly one cannot blame the print or broadcast media, or the state department of corrections, or local law enforcement, or the state legislature for the actions of an accused vigilante. Nevertheless, the case raises troubling questions about whether the policies of each institution are best serving the public interest. To my knowledge, there is no clear evidence of less new sex offending in communities that impose greater stigma. Lacking such evidence, I fear that the moral panic exemplified by current notification procedures is a net loss for public safety.

Even years before their scheduled release, both male and female prisoners have told me they feared "the internet" and public availability of information about them. Rest assured that the Bellingham murder story will quickly make the rounds of every TV room and sex offender unit in state penitentiaries. It is not a story of deterrence that will keep them from future crime. It is not a story of redemption or martyrdom that will give them strength as they work through the tough times. It is instead a story of the hysterical vigilante lying in wait, a story that embodies their fears about life after prison and their dim prospects for ever becoming a normal citizen in a community. And it makes them wonder why the hell they should go to treatment.

Ghettoes

2006-10-26T13:38:00.000-06:00

From the Wisconsin Radio Network: Where should sex offenders live?

A legislative study committee is trying to come up with proposed legislation regulating where sex offenders can live.

There is no state law spelling out where convicted sex offenders can or can not live according to committee co-chair state representative Garey Bies. Just a Department of Corrections policy which says they have to return to the county where the offense too place.

More and more communities want to set their own laws, such as Algoma where they want no sex offender to stay within 2-thousand feet of schools, playgrounds and churches.

But Bies says in larger communities that means there's almost no where for them to live and the rural communities don"t want convicted se offenders living there.

Just some of the questions the committee is trying to answer before proposing a bill in the next legislative session.

Towns should not push sex offenders too far

2006-10-25T10:21:00.000-06:00

A thoughtful editorial out of New Jersey's "Home News Tribune":

Maureen Kanka, the mother of the murdered girl who inspired Megan's Law, put it clearly and succinctly last week when asked about the rash of new municipal laws that strictly limit where convicted pedophiles can reside. "I think what these municipalities are doing is letting government know that we don't want sex offenders out on the street, period," Kanka said.

Who can disagree? Given the choice, there are few if any among us who would opt to have a sex offender in our midst, or frankly anywhere our children, grandchildren or friends' children might gather. There is a reason dozens of towns in the state have adopted so-called "pedophile-free" zones. There also is a reason the state has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict the rights of convicted sex offenders, including a law that allows it to keep the worst behind bars indefinitely.

Still, there are limits to what a government can and ought to do, and last week the state took a step toward reigning in the marauding municipalities.

It sued a South Jersey community that seeks not only to prevent convicted offenders from moving within 2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds, libraries, churches and parks, but also intends to make offenders who already live in those areas leave. The state has sued on behalf of a 76-year-old man with a mentally-ill wife, who for more than 35 years as lived about 2,100 feet from a lake where children sometimes swim. He was convicted in 2000 of abusing three young children, including two grandchildren who lived with him. The municipality says the man must move despite the fact that he is in poor health and of limited means: He and his wife live on a $1,200 monthly Social Security check.

Besides the question of whether we want to live in a society in which a municipality has the right to force a man to move from his longtime home after he has served his sentence and after a state authority has judged him fit enough to return to his residence, residents also need to ask whether the law makes sense. Experts warn that disrupting the lives of sex offenders is dangerous, since stress often contributes to their problems, but it doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that a community, and society as a whole, might be better off with a stable sex offender living near a lake than an angry, bitter, desperate one living 500 feet or so farther away.

In filing its suit, the state Public Defender's Office noted that Megan's Law already gives state parole officers the right to prohibit where sex offenders can live. Surely, if any government agency deserves the right to make a decision on behalf of the public, it ought to be an agency with some expertise and some perspective on the subject and the person involved.

Without that expertise and that dispassionate assessment, the local law becomes nothing more than exclusionary zoning, a race to push pedophiles out of "decent" places and into some sort of ghettos. Witch hunts are still witch hunts, even if those being hunted are hardly sympathetic. The municipalities ought to be stopped.

Sex offender residency plan draws fire in Ulster (NY)

2006-10-06T00:13:00.000-06:00

Whoa!

Residents slammed the Ulster County Legislature’s proposed law, which would restrict where some sex offenders can live, during Wednesday’s sparsely attended public hearing.

The proposed law would prohibit Level 2 and 3 sex offenders who have committed crimes against minors from living within 1,000 feet of primary and secondary schools and child care facilities.

Bill McKenna of Woodstock said the law would do more harm than good.

‘‘In the end all this is going to do is push them out of Kingston into other parts of the county,’’ he said.

The Woodstock town board member said the county needs to address the situation on many levels, not just residency.

Krista Barringer, director of the Ulster County Youth Bureau, said she would rather see programs that empower children to identify and avoid dangerous situations.

‘‘Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim or the victim’s family,’’ she said, implying the residency law only addresses the stereotypical stranger abduction.

Only three people spoke at the hearing. The Legislature will vote on the proposed law Oct. 11.

Hm. "Only three people spoke at the hearing." Interesting to see where this goes.

17 sex offenders in 1 spot offers object lesson

2006-10-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

Not the first jurisdiction to figure out that if you exclude them them from other locales, you end up with concentrations of sex offenders too toxic to tolerate. Geez, doesn't anybody peruse the Internet anymore?

Six miles north of Santa Cruz, in the rural enclave of Happy Valley, the residents are anything but happy these days. Their rage has everything to do with 17 tenants on an old estate that the actress Elizabeth Montgomery once bought for her parents.

And no, this story has nothing to do with entertainment or family pride. Montgomery's parents moved on long ago. In the sad remains of grandeur, the tenants in question are all sex offenders, the majority of them child molesters.

When the Happy Valley residents found out about the concentration from the Megan's Law Web site (www.meganslaw.ca.gov), they descended on the Santa Cruz County supervisors Tuesday with the fury of folks who had just learned that the bacteria of the black plague was dumped into their drinking water.

They had a litany of complaints: They said that sewage effluent still comes from the Happy Valley Villa and that the home doesn't meet building or health codes. By far the biggest lament, however, was that the state located that many sex offenders in their midst without alerting them.

``We have to protect ourselves,'' one Happy Valley resident, Alan Grattan, told the board. ``We can't wait for something bad to happen.''

Jessica's Law

The tale teaches lessons about the unintended consequences of Jessica's Law, the state ballot proposal that will make it all but impossible to house sex offenders in many urban areas.

But perhaps I get ahead of the story. It really begins with the property, a sprawling piece of land at 4573 Branciforte Drive in the hollows of the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Once an old mansion lined with classical statues and shielded by a wrought-iron gate, the property became a psychiatric hospital and then a group home that now houses 25 to 30 tenants. The suburban-style chalet attached to the main house has the run-down feel of a tired motel.

Although I left a note on the door of the current owner, Arlen Hafner, he didn't respond. The neighbors say Hafner sees nothing wrong with renting to sex offenders. They report that he's even offered to introduce them at a parents' picnic for Happy Valley School, 1.3 miles away.

That raises the question: Just what were state parole authorities thinking when they put that many sex offenders in one spot?

``I understand how the neighbors may feel,'' said Carolyn Graham, the assistant regional administrator of the parole office that covers Santa Cruz County. ``But with the knowledge and surveillance and attention we're giving the parolees at this location, we believe we have all the issues considered. By law, they're allowed to reside in that area.''

You can argue -- and some do -- that lumping that many offenders together offers convenience to law enforcement. Authorities can keep a better tab on offenders in one place rather than in 17.

Difficult to locate

What's more, it's difficult to find places for these guys to live. While it's rural, the Happy Valley Villa is close enough to provide access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation, counseling, parole, etc. And yes, I know most sex offenders commit their offenses on people they know well.

What is legal, however, isn't always politically wise. How would you feel if 17 sex offenders were located within a couple of blocks of your home? However safe authorities believe the situation is, you can't blame the neighbors for fighting it. ``We're just not going to let this go,'' said Laura Grattan, a mother of two who lives next door.

That's one reason I'm opposing Jessica's Law in November. If Proposition 83 passes, you can count on more pitched battles like this in rural areas. Given that the proposal's provisions about locating offenders near parks or schools would assure that urban areas like San Jose won't have many places to house them, that's a recipe for trouble.

Jessica's Law is revenge says Lunsford

2006-10-05T23:49:00.000-06:00

Score one for truthfulness, if not wisdom:

Nov. 7 vote unlikely final word on state sex-offender law
The Press-Enterprise, Inland Southern California, Oct 5, 2006

SACRAMENTO - In the 1 ½ years since the kidnap, rape and slaying of Florida 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, almost 20 states have passed laws in her name toughening penalties on sex offenders.

On Nov. 7, California voters will have their say.

Prop. 83, dubbed Jessica's Law by supporters, proposes the toughest sex-offender rules in the country. It would go well beyond the first Jessica's Law passed by Florida lawmakers in the months after authorities say sex offender John Evander Couey killed Lunsford in March 2005. Couey is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in February. He has pleaded not guilty.

All signs point to the initiative easily being approved. But opponents promise lawsuits challenging some provisions as unconstitutional.

Like laws approved in other states, Prop. 83 would increase penalties, reduce good-time credits and create new categories of sex crimes. Paroles would be lengthened for certain types of criminals, such as habitual sex offenders.

Some of those provisions were part of legislation pushed by Democrats to undercut Prop. 83's momentum. Gov. Schwarzenegger signed that bill, SB 1128, last month.

But Prop. 83 would go much further, imposing broad new rules for the state's estimated 90,000 registered sex offenders, almost 7,500 of whom live in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Felony offenders who served prison time -- the vast majority of those required to register -- would have to wear satellite-tracking devices.

In addition, the law would prohibit all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park where children gather, effectively excluding a Connecticut-sized piece of the state.

At least 40 percent of the Inland area, from Ontario to Palm Springs, would become off-limits. In Riverside, for example, much of the heavily populated Ramona and Magnolia Center neighborhoods would be exclusion zones -- and much of what remained outside lacks housing.

A review of more than 1,600 sex offender registrants in San Bernardino County found that 57 percent of them live within what could become restricted areas if Prop. 83 passes.

An August poll by the nonpartisan Field Institute showed three-quarters of likely voters backed the initiative, with only 11 percent opposed.

Underscoring the initiative's political potency, Schwarzenegger and his Democratic opponent in the election, Treasurer Phil Angelides, have lined up behind Prop. 83. So have the Republican and Democratic candidates for attorney general, as well as both major political parties.

There have been no television commercials or radio ads. The Yes-on-83 campaign has spent little in recent months beyond reimbursing donors who helped qualify the measure for the ballot.

"At this point we're not seeing the need to mount a million-dollar media campaign based on what's happening so far," said state Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who helped write the initiative with his wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster.

Legality Questioned

The November election probably will not be the last word on the initiative.

Opponents promise lawsuits challenging the legality of the residency restrictions.

Critics contend the initiative's exclusion zones would apply not only to future offenders and those still on parole, but also to tens of thousands of registered sex offenders whose convictions were long ago.

Forcing people to move would be an unlawful government taking of private property without compensation, opponents say.

"I think it is almost deceitful for (Prop. 83 supporters) to make the argument that it is not retroactive," said attorney Ted Cassman, a leader of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. "Had they intended this law only to apply to future convictions, they would have mentioned that."

In 2002, Iowa lawmakers passed residency restrictions for people who committed crimes against children. That law exempted offenders who had lived in their homes since the law took effect.

George Runner and other Prop. 83 supporters say it never was their intent for the initiative to be retroactive. The question might have to be settled in the courts, they acknowledge.

As for challenging any other parts of the law, initiative proponents say that past attempts to overturn major criminal justice laws, such as 1994's three-strikes, haven't succeeded.

Prop. 83 follows years of feuding between Republican lawmakers and Democrat-controlled public safety committees.

Democrats routinely killed GOP sex-offender bills because they said they were too punitive, expensive or unworkable. Republicans accused Democrats of putting public safety at risk.

Initiative Campaign

Last fall, Schwarzenegger, the Runners and other lawmakers announced a new push for a California Jessica's Law.

"It wasn't just a case of looking at Florida. It was more a case of looking at what's taken place in our Legislature," George Runner said.

Democratic leaders called the initiative bad policy that could turn certain parts of the state into dumping grounds for sex offenders. They proposed an alternative, SB 1128.

Among the bill's high-profile supporters was Erin Runnion, the mother of Samantha Runnion, an Orange County girl who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered in 2002 by a Lake Elsinore man.

Jessica's father, Mark Lunsford, has traveled the country to lobby for tougher sex-offender penalties. He supports Prop. 83.

"The idea was to make it very tough and make it very hard on sex offenders," Lunsford said in a recent interview. "It was basically designed to make their lives as miserable as we can because they've made our lives miserable."

Carrying out SB 1128 would cost the state an estimated $200 million a year. The Legislature's non-partisan fiscal analyst estimates that Prop. 83 would cost another $200 million annually.

If Jessica's Law passes, it would be left up to local officials to enforce its provisions. Both San Bernardino and Riverside counties already have created committees to carry out the law.

Some Inland officials have called for passing ordinances to augment Jessica's Law, putting more areas off-limits to sex offenders such as around bus stops and libraries.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department already has started planning its response if Prop. 83 passes, a spokeswoman said.

"The main goal will be to make sure everybody is in compliance," spokesman Arden Wiltshire said.

"It was basically designed to make their lives as miserable as we can because they've made our lives miserable": Sounds like Mark Lunsford, and a whole lot of Californians, want to add new punishments after the punishment supposedly ended.

As this blog has noted before, the end result will be massively higher non-compliance with the registration law, the knowledge by those in non-compliance that they are on the "outs" with society, and thus a greatly increased recidivism rate, not only for sex offenses but for many other offenses (US Dept. of Justice Statistics show that unlike all other offenders, sex offenders who "re-offend" have a significant tendency to commit other kinds of crimes).

Enlightened: "Cast a `no' vote on sex-offender proposition"

2006-09-22T10:17:00.000-06:00

Cast a `no' vote on sex-offender proposition

IT'S BASED LARGELY ON FEARS, NOT FACTS

Mercury News Editorial

Based on a Field Poll last month, Proposition 83, which would put additional restrictions and heavier penalties on sex felons, would appear to be a shoo-in Nov. 7. That would be unfortunate because it's grounded in fears, not on facts.

Proposition 83 has two main provisions. It would require anyone convicted of a felony sex offense to wear a satellite tracking device for life. And it would ban a sex felon from living within 2,000 feet -- about two-fifths of a mile -- from a school, park or other public place that a local government chooses to designate.

Before going with their gut -- after all, who wants any felon in their neighborhood? -- voters should give weight to Proposition 83's costs and listen seriously to second thoughts coming from Iowa.

Iowa was one of the first states to adopt Jessica's Law, which Proposition 83 models, after the death of Jessica Lunsford. She was the 9-year-old Florida girl who was murdered, allegedly by a convicted sex offender working as a laborer at her school.

Now, the prosecutors in Iowa who campaigned for the 2,000-foot protection zone acknowledge there's no correlation between children's safety and a felon-free zone (less than 10 percent of sexual abuse is done by strangers). But there have been unexpected consequences. Nearly all downtown areas in Des Moines are now off-limits to sex offenders because of where schools and parks are located; the same would be true in Los Angeles, San Francisco, downtown San Jose and most urban areas.

Pushing sex felons out of cities forces them into more suburban and rural areas. Doing so denies them low-cost housing, job opportunities and transportation. The result, according to the Iowa County Attorneys Association, is that more will go underground and fail to register; some have become homeless. Some sex offenders have married; the ban harms spouses and families.

The association concluded Jessica's Law created more problems than it solved, and favors repeal.

It makes sense to put Global Positioning System devices on high-risk sex offenders to track real-time movements or have a record of where they've been. It's used in California to monitor 1,000 of them, and more will be added with the signing into law this week of SB 1178, sponsored by Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, which makes permanent a pilot sex-offender GPS program.

But equipping every sex felon with a GPS device is expensive and diverts attention from those who need the most monitoring. The state legislative analyst projects the cost at $100 million a year within a decade, possibly more, depending if Proposition 83 is interpreted to apply only to new felons or to all 90,000 who must now enroll in the state sex felon registry.

Proposition 83 also would extend parole, now three to five years, to as long as 10 years for some sex offenders. And it would also enable the state to commit especially dangerous and non-cooperative high-risk sex offenders to indefinite stays in a secure mental hospital after prison. These are worthwhile provisions, and the Legislature should pass them into law next year.

But voters should heed the warnings from Iowa and vote no on Proposition 83.

The question is: Will they?

Cops: Arson (murder) plot targeted sex offenders

2006-09-21T08:59:00.000-06:00

A Mastic man pleaded not guilty to attempted-murder charges yesterday in an alleged plot to burn down a house where four Level 3 sex offenders lived, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said.

Spota said police detectives, acting on a tip earlier this month, sent an undercover officer to befriend Donald Keegan, a county employee and part-time landscaper who lives less than a mile from the home he planned to torch on Eleanor Avenue. The officer used a hidden camera with audio to tape Keegan, 36, in the backyard of the target home. "I'm going to be going to them from the back, but I'm going to be lighting the side," Keegan told the detective. "The main concern is, I don't know how to explain this: I want them dead."

Keegan planned to burn the house on the evening of Sept. 9, Spota said, using paint thinner and a road flare detectives found in the front seat of Keegan's Ford Mustang when they arrested him that night. Police, who wiretapped Keegan after getting the tip, searched his home and car after the arrest, and found a pit where Keegan did test burns to determine how fast the paint thinner would burn materials.

"He expressed very clearly not only to burn down the house, but kill the sex offenders," Spota said at a news conference yesterday. "Never should a person be taking the law into their own hands seeking to burn down a house, no matter who they are."

Keegan was charged in Suffolk County Court with nine counts, including second-degree attempted murder and second-degree attempted arson, both felonies with maximum prison terms of 25 years. Keegan is being held on $1 million cash bail or $2 million bond.

Keegan's attorney, Daniel Driscoll, of Bay Shore, entered a not guilty plea on each count.

Driscoll described Keegan as a "very hard-working family man who worked ... to support his young wife and 2-year-old daughter."

Spota said Keegan, who worked for Suffolk's Department of Public Works, falsified his county application by not indicating prior arrests, which included convictions for criminal possession of a weapon, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and two petty larcenies.

The home on Eleanor Avenue sparked outrage in recent weeks since the Mastic Park Civic Association went door-to-door to inform residents that sex offenders had moved in.

Some residents said they began keeping their children indoors after the news and launched a series of protests.

Last week, Suffolk police informed the offenders they had 45 days to leave the house because it was within a quarter-mile of a previously unnoticed educational site on the Poospatuck Indian Reservation, a violation of a new county residency restriction law.

The four offenders had been convicted of crimes ranging from forcible rape to sodomy.

Charlie Manolakos, the landlord of the Eleanor Avenue house, said the offenders had been harassed since they moved into the home in June.

"Much of the community has made threats against them ... I'm glad they caught him," he said.

Even residents who led the campaign to oust the offenders applauded Keegan's arrest.

"I was shocked that someone would do something so stupid," said John Sicignano, president of the Mastic Park Civic Association.

"I was SHOCKED! SHOCKED! that the villagers would do such a thing when aroused." Yeah, sure. Would have been far from the first time that a registered sex offender's house burned to the ground, or that a registered sex offender trying to live within the law was murdered.

Bet the jury lets this "hardworking man," with a wife and a 2-year-old daughter to support, off scot-free.

Sex Offenders Restrictions Could Have Dangerous Consequences

2006-09-21T08:52:00.000-06:00

(KCPW News) Forcing sex offenders to live 500 feet from schools, parks and public pools could have serious consequences, according to state corrections officials. A state lawmaker is proposing a law that would do just that. Sex Offender Unit Supervisor Jeremy Shaw says such restrictions can cause offenders to feel isolated, stressed and more likely to re-offend.

Shaw adds that distance restrictions also tend to drive offenders into suburban and rural areas where there are fewer law enforcement resources available to monitor them. He does estimate that there are 200 registered sex offenders currently living within one-thousand feet of schools in Salt Lake County. There are nearly seven thousand sex offenders currently on the state's registry.

"such restrictions can cause offenders to feel isolated, stressed and more likely to re-offend" -- but as long as some politician can continue to make hay over the issue, more women and children will continue to be sacrificed at the false altar of "I'm making you safer."

Still here

2006-09-13T16:24:00.000-06:00

There has been very little to report lately. More and more locales are enacting the feel-good but worse than useless residence zones, and a few the more dangerous no-work zones. In the meantime lawsuits are being filed against these laws, and some of those who've passed these laws now find they're having to do more and more to ameliorate against the effects of the laws, wrapping themselves ever tighter around the axle.

Sex offenders law is backfiring, driving them underground

2006-08-24T12:19:00.000-06:00

What did I tell you?

What are we going to do about sex offenders? While the hearts of Lt. Gov. Steve Pence and his task force were in the right place in trying to protect the public, what has happened in reality is the opposite.

The change in Kentucky's law has totally eliminated most social service agencies willing to work with offenders, because of the strict boundaries of where offenders may be housed or served.

House Bill 3 added the restriction of 1,000 feet from parks, as well as child care centers. There are 123 Metro Louisville parks and 17 more from Shively to St. Matthews.

Metro Parks alone encompass over 14,000 acres, and as the Mayor continues his vision to add even more parks and green space, sex offenders will be constantly moving in order to maintain the appropriate distance.

Some have had to move from permanent supported housing units, private apartments and even their own homes in order to meet the law's restrictions.

In 1994, Megan's Law was passed to keep the public informed of the whereabouts of sex offenders, but since housing options are so limited, there are few substance-abuse programs, shelters, mental health facilities or prison re-entry programs available to them.

Instead of knowing where the offenders are residing, new laws such as House Bill 3 are in essence driving them underground, and no one is really sure where they are living.

If an offender wants to seek help, it is almost impossible to serve him/her in Metro Louisville. Lack of services to help ex-offenders maintain stability only increases the likelihood the person may violate the law and be rearrested. ...

But all that's okay if the Mayor gets re-elected.

Fearmongers still feed on sex offender anxiety

2006-08-15T17:39:00.000-06:00

Michigan's online sex-offender registry is a grab bag of 39,000 residents prosecuted for everything from teenage promiscuity to violent sexual assault.

A bipartisan panel of Michigan legislators has been studying ways to make the registry more like the useful parental resource its inventors envisioned and less like the unwieldy instrument of persecution it has become.

But progress has been slow, and even as Lansing dawdles, local politicians are riding the public's anxiety over pedophilia to new heights of legislative lunacy.

The newest outbreak occurred last week in Warren, where City Council members directed their staff to draft an ordinance barring anyone on Michigan's sex-offender registry from the city's 20 public parks and two community recreation centers.

Sponsor Mindy Moore, a former Warren school board member elected to the City Council in 2003, says the park ban would supplement existing travel restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from venturing within 1,000 feet of a school.

Moore isn't the first politician to figure that few constituents will object to any new burden on people labeled as sex offenders, no matter how illogical or impractical to enforce. But I was astonished how little she knew about the 39,000 Michigan residents whose movements she proposes to restrict.

Moore uses the terms "child predator" and "registered sex offender" interchangeably, although most law enforcement officials agree that predators account for only a small percentage of registrants. In a phone interview Saturday, Moore said she had no idea how many people are on Michigan's registry, or what proportion have targeted minors.

"We can debate all day who should be on the sex-offender list," Moore said. "But my concern is who should be hanging around our parks." When I pointed out that most of those affected by Warren's park ban aren't considered child molesters, she responded: "If we can deter one predator from going to the park, it's worth it."

It's hard to think of any restriction that couldn't be justified with that sort of sweeping rationalization. Why stop at parks and schools? Should sex offenders who can't go within 1,000 feet of a baseball diamond be free to patronize ice cream parlors frequented by Little Leaguers? Should shopping malls and pizza parlors be off-limits? What about churches that provide meeting space for scout troops, or public libraries frequented by students after school hours?

In fact, many of those listed on Michigan's registry are nonviolent offenders at negligible risk of recidivism. Thousands are former youthful offenders trying to get on with normal lives despite restrictions that preclude them from attending their own children's parent-teacher conferences and make it difficult to find or retain jobs.

Moore and her kindred fearmongers offer no evidence that the restrictions they propose are cost-effective or narrowly tailored to protect children. The Warren City Council should rethink the park ban before the courts scuttle it on constitutional grounds.

Another risk of zoning laws

2006-08-07T18:01:00.000-06:00

This would be absolutely hilarious -- except for the increased risk involved:

Law on sex offenders logistical headache, Daily Times, Maryville TN

The purpose of the Child Protection Act of 2006 is obvious -- the law is designed to protect Tennessee's children.

However, one provision in the act is apparently making it more difficult to sentence, supervise and treat sexual offenders whose victims were minors.

Local concerns about sex offenders being treated next door to Fort Craig School of Dynamic Learning have been eliminated by the new law.

A provision in the law states that sex offenders whose victims were minors may not ``knowingly obtain sexual offender treatment or attend a sexual offender treatment program'' within 1,000 feet of the property line of ``any public school, private or parochial school, licensed day care center, other child care facility, public park, playground, recreation center or public athletic field available for use by the general public.''

The law immediately shut down the sex-offender treatment program operated by Bill Tillery, owner of Psychological and Counseling Services at 601 Charles St., on the corner across Lamar Street from Fort Craig School.

Tillery, a licensed clinical social worker, had been conducting two group sex-offender treatment sessions each week until an outcry from Fort Craig parents last spring. The parents were concerned that having sex offenders in such close proximity to the school posed a threat to their children. ...

Tillery can't meet with sex offenders at the probation and parole office in Maryville because that location on Home Avenue is within 1,000 feet of a public park, Maryville's Greenway Trail. ...

At present, sex offenders required to regularly report to their probation and parole officer cannot go to the Maryville office or to 20 or more offices across the state for those meetings. ...

''I cannot find any evidence that the location for treatment of sexual offenders has caused community harm,'' Tillery said. ``I can provide research to show that sex offenders not in treatment are 10 times more likely to re-offend. Making it so difficult for offenders to get treatment increases the risk to the children in the community.''

I am aghast at the really poor quality of Tennessee legislators. Surely somebody of reasonable intelligence would stepped back for a second to say, "Waittaminute, have we REALLY thought this one through?"

But it seems nobody did.

Figures. Shout "sex offender" and all reason flies out the window. Stupid, stupid, stupd.

And I bet not a one of them will have the honor to tell the public, "We goofed, we put your children at INCREASED risk, we apologize and will try to fix it."

High School To Use National Sex Offender Registry

2006-08-01T16:31:00.000-06:00

Another expensive scheme...

Bentonville High School plans to use a software program this fall that will allow school officials to check visitors' names against a national sex offenders registry.

The high school will ask visitors to show their driver's license or other state-issued photo ID. The license will be scanned into the system, which will check the person's name and birth date against a list of registered sex offenders from 47 states. If the system turns up a match, it also provides a picture of the registered offender.

If the visitor is registered as a sex offender and has no legitimate business at the school, that person will be asked to leave.

This is either going to be very expensive, or a colossal failure. In order to work what's needed is an independent and nearly instant check of the veracity of the license. Such is available, but at $2 a check this will eat into to the school's budget.

If the system merely checks the name & DOB against the registry, it will be very easily bypassed with a fake ID. And these guys have already been in prison so they'll know all about that.

Of course, this assumes that the visitor doesn't bypass the office altogether. Or the office can require ID tags on everyone -- another expense.

For the life of me, I cannot think of a single circumstance where such a system would have ever saved a child from an assault. But... it's their money to waste.

"Do you want them spread out or do you want them all in one place?"

2006-07-28T10:35:00.000-06:00

From Bangor, Maine: Restricting Sex Offenders

It's a natural reaction to not want sex offenders living in your neighborhood. However, consideration of laws restricting where offenders can live should be based on rational debate grounded in facts, not on emotions or imagined conversations between sex criminals. An examination of whether new statewide policies are needed would save towns from developing their own piecemeal rules.

Residents in Hampden are concerned that three sex offenders live at the Bangor Rescue Mission, which is located on the Meadow Road in Hampden. Rep. Debra Plowman has filed legislation to ban sex offenders from living together in the same dwelling or in the same multi-unit building. She worries that by living together, offenders can discuss their past crimes, making them more likely to commit new ones.

It is more likely that the men, if they even talk to one another, discuss everyday topics such as work, money concerns and sports. Also because sex offenders often feel shame at their crimes, they're not likely to talk about them, according to psychologists.

Studies have found that offenders with a system of support and jobs were less likely to commit future crimes. The three men in Hampden have jobs and are supervised by the Rev. John Bennett, who lives in the house.

Sex offenders aren't more likely than other criminals to re-offend. According to a Department of Justice study of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, 5.3 percent were rearrested for another sex crime within three years, while 68 percent of non-sex offenders were rearrested for another felony or serious misdemeanor during the same time.

Another Justice study found that 93 percent of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser and that most crimes happened in the home of the child, a relative, a neighbor or a friend.

Therefore, housing restrictions, which 18 states have, usually restricting offenders from living near schools, lead to a false sense of security. Worse, they tend to drive offenders into sparsely populated areas, where there is less supervision, access to treatment and fewer jobs. Offenders subject to probation can have restrictions on their living arrangements imposed by judges in Maine.

Restrictions also make it difficult for state and local officials to find housing for sex offenders. In California, one offender remained in jail for more than a year after his sentence expired because of restrictions and community outcry. In other parts of the state, offenders were living in cots in a parole office and the state was paying more than $300 a night to house offenders in motels.

Bangor police detective John Small, who maintains and updates the city's sex offender registry, succinctly framed the issue: "Do you want them spread out or do you want them all in one place?"

That is a question state lawmakers should answer.

Police suspect sex offender targeted in arson attempt

2006-07-27T17:40:00.000-06:00

Nothing new here:
Police suspect sex offender targeted in arson attempt

TROY, N.Y. (AP) _ An attempt to burn down a sex offender's home prompted an upstate district attorney to decry "vigilante justice" and promise prosecution of anyone involved.

Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis said Wednesday that convicted sex offenders have the right to live in local communities after they have served their sentences and should not be subjected to "any additional vigilante justice."

Dennis Duboy, 55, was asleep at his Lansingburgh home Monday night when a passer-by started banging on his door to let him know the house was on fire, said police. Duboy woke up in time to use a fire extinguisher to put out the flames around the door and a window. Police said an accelerant may have been used to set the fire. ...

Police are investigating whether the attempted arson was connected to Duboy's status as a sex offender. Duboy had complained recently about being harassed by his neighbors and had also reported a break-in at his home, police said.

Sex offenders' homes have been burning down for years now, and for all their bluster the police never solve the crime. (To be fair to the police, though, I suspect it's hard to point a finger at a particular with arson such as this.)

Court challenge nears for sex-offender residency law

2006-07-18T18:32:00.000-06:00

Court challenge nears for sex-offender residency law

LOWER TOWNSHIP —The first major challenge of a local sex-predator ordinance is drawing interest from both sides of the debate one month before the matter goes to court.

Steven Elwell, a sex offender registered under Megan's Law, is challenging the township's 2005 ordinance banning him from “residing or loitering” within 500 feet of public areas and 25 feet of school bus stops. Elwell's challenge is scheduled to be heard in Superior Court on Aug. 15.

Several parties, meanwhile, have drafted amicus briefs to weigh in on the issue. A brief supporting Elwell's case from the New Jersey chapter of The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has already been accepted by the court.

Steve Latimer, the association's attorney, argues that residency laws do not reduce the risk to children and can actually disrupt the lives of a registered sex offender's own family.

“There is no empirical data that says kicking people out of neighborhoods will reduce the risk that some kid walking down the street will be abused by a sex offender. If somebody wants to commit a sex crime, nothing stops him from getting in a car or on a bus,” Latimer said.

The association, which is a national organization with chapters in different states, also argues residency laws do not help rehabilitate a sex offender. Latimer said the association is partly made up of psychologists who treat sex offenders.

“It's counter-productive in terms of rehabilitation,” Latimer said.

The nonprofit New Jersey Crime Victim's Law Center has also prepared an amicus brief, although it has not yet been submitted to the court. Attorney Richard Pompelio said the brief makes a case that the township's law is constitutional.

Elwell's attorney, Frank Corrado, who is fighting the case with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, claims the local ordinance violates the New Jersey State Constitution. This includes constitutional protections of due process, ex post facto clauses and allegations that it amounts to double jeopardy as Elwell suffers for a crime he already paid for. Elwell served time in jail for having sex with a minor. Corrado also argues the state law pre-empts towns on the issue.

Pompelio disagrees. He argues municipalities have an enormous amount of authority when it comes to health, safety and welfare. Pompelio said the law must be reasonable. It can't ban a sex offender from living everywhere in a town.

Pompelio argues that if such laws were only done statewide, then it would send sex offenders away from dense urban areas and out into the suburbs.

“The only way this works is if municipalities do it, and they have to do it in a reasonable way. I think 500 feet is reasonable,” Pompelio said.

Pompelio acknowledged there is debate about whether such laws, which have been adopted by many towns in New Jersey, are effective. He said at least it gives parents peace of mind that their children are safe on the playground.

“At least we have the position of the crime victims supporting this ordinance. He (Elwell) was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a female minor,” Pompelio said.

Corrado said amicus briefs usually come at the appellate level, not in trial court, but he welcomed them.

“I expected the issue to generate amicus briefs. It's an important issue, and it should bring as many points of view as it can,” Corrado said.

If the court accepts Pompelio's brief, Corrado said he would respond to it, although he already disagrees with the view that towns should regulate where sex offenders live. He said the state already regulates residency for some Megan's Law offenders under CSL, or Community Supervision for Life rules.

“There are all kinds of statewide controls on where they can live and can't live. The probation officer approves their residences. Municipalities are pre-empted from additional regulations,” Corrado said.

Another problem, Corrado argues, is that towns have many different versions of residency laws. They vary on what are public areas and vary on how far away a registered sex offender must live.

“They should be consistent,” Corrado said.

Township Attorney Tony Monzo was happy to have support from the New Jersey Crime Victim's Law Center. He has tried to get other towns that have residency laws to join the case, but to no avail.

“This group says the entire ordinance passes all challenges. Based on our research, we feel the same way,” Monzo said.

The case before Judge Valerie Armstrong is drawing a lot of interest since it is one of the first to be litigated. Monzo said the only case that has come to a court decision thus far was in Iowa, where a state law establishing a 2,000-foot residency restriction was challenged. Monzo said it got to a federal appeals court and was upheld.

Many of the Iowa arguments were on constitutional issues, although Corrado noted his case is under the New Jersey State Constitution because it is “more protective of due-process rights” than the federal Constitution.

Lower Township Council in August 2005 banned Megan's Law registrants from “residing or loitering” within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, recreation area, day-care facility or school bus stop. The original zone was about 90 percent of the township.

In December, the ordinance was amended to 25 feet from school bus stops and 500 feet from other public areas. The new zone only covered about 20 percent of the township.

Elwell filed suit with his wife, Jennifer. They live in Middle Township but expressed interest in moving to Lower Township. Elwell was convicted of having sex with a student when he was a teacher at Lower Cape May Regional High School.

Drive-by shooting at sex offender's home

2006-07-13T11:25:00.000-06:00

Police investigate drive-by shooting at sex offender's home

ST. GEORGE, Utah - Police have no suspects and are seeking the public's help in identifying the perpetrator of a drive-by shooting at the home of a registered sex offender.

Police Sgt. Craig Harding said the resident was sitting in his home with his baby about 10 p.m. Monday when the front window was blasted.

"The front window was broken from top to bottom and there were holes from the pellets of a shotgun all around," Harding said. "The pattern was about 3 feet wide, making the shooter several yards away at the time of the incident."

Harding said the resident has had trouble before because of his history, but never as violent as this time.

"We cannot have vigilante justice," Harding said. "Whether or not a person is guilty or has received the right punishment is not up to the police or the neighbors, it is up to the court to decide.

"Right now, we are looking for the individual responsible for this aggravated assault and possibly attempted homicide," he said.

Possibly? POSSIBLY? Oh, come on. Don't tell me, the shooter just happened to be cleaning his shotgun a few yards away from the front window at 10 PM and it went off by accident.

The article notes the intended victim has encountered "trouble" before, though not this violent. Dollars to douughnuts he soon decides it's too much, um, "trouble" being registered and takes off.

Level II forever?

2006-07-12T10:15:00.000-06:00

If this blog has been quiet lately, it's because there's been nothing new to report.

However, I've been mulling over this issue of "Levels." In most places, it appears, sex offenders are graded into four levels. Yes, I said four! We know about Levels 1 to 3, but the 4s are those who get "civilly committed."

I don't know what goes into determination of category. One hopes there are processes of review and refinement going on, but if the states are handling that the way they do new sex offender laws, I doubt anything is being done.

But one wonders about the for-life classification. If, say, a Level 2 goes 20 years without a re-offense, is it not likely he has developed the skills to avoid re-offense that might make him a prospect to become a Level 1? What if a Level 3 becomes incapacitated, even paralyzed? Is he then still a Level 3?

Just asking the questions nobody else seemingly thinks to ask.

"New sex offender law all but unenforceable"

2006-07-05T11:36:00.000-06:00

New sex offender law all but unenforceable

Georgia’s new sex offender law, ostensibly designed to keep some of society’s worst elements far from where they can cause harm, is already a failure.

The law, which had been scheduled to take effect on July 1, is tied up in court already, a move that likely has law enforcement agencies across the state sighing with relief.

The law has good intentions. It prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a number of places where no one wants them: schools, day care centers, churches, etc. The problem is that once many municipalities began drawing 1,000-foot circles around everything the law enumerates, there were not many places left for sex offenders to live.

The new law prevents sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of school bus stops. There are more than 2,000 bus stops in Camden County. Once the county finishes drawing 1,000-foot circles around all of them, there probably won't be much real estate, if any, left over in Camden County for sex offenders.

And if there's no room in a mostly rural county like Camden, there won't be any in most of Georgia. This is likely what lawmakers intended when they wrote the law, but it's irresponsible lawmaking at best. [Likely?! It IS EXACTLY what they intended!]

Why?

The law is embroiled in a Constitution-level lawsuit and has had a temporary restraining order placed upon it by a federal judge, blocking its enforcement. The question is whether the law imposes an ex post facto — after the fact — punishment and is therefore unconstitutional is one that will be tied up in court for some time. It's likely the lawmakers knew this before passing the law, but were just hoping to score some points by appearing tough on crime, even though the law can't be enforced and, therefore, has no value.

There are other parts of the legislation that make sense and have the desired effect of clamping down on sex offenders. The law mandates a 25-year prison sentence for rapists and child molesters and requires sexual predators to be monitored by electronic tracking devices.

Perhaps the greatest danger of the new law is that it is so strict that sex offenders will simply stop registering with police departments as required. This registration is vital to helping law enforcement monitor the whereabouts of sex offenders and if sex offenders fail to use it, there is no law enforcement organization in Camden County with the resources to track them all. Other states that have enacted laws similar to Georgia have seen registration rates drop from more than 90 percent to less than 50 percent.

We are all for laws that increase safety for children, but this one needed a little more thought before being enacted.

Gee, do you think? This information was available, but they went ahead anyway.

"Sex-offender law flawed and geared toward politics"

2006-07-03T13:08:00.000-06:00

Sex-offender law flawed and geared toward politics

There are several provisions within the law that do more to put children at risk as well as attempt to provide a false sense of security. The public does not understand all the aspects of the Sex Offender Registry, and what is worse, 95 percent do not want to.

This is a highly charged topic and the media slant is parallel to public opinion of "Lock the child molesters away forever." The media does not give equal time to see the other side of the coin.

The most glaring problem with House Majority Leader Jerry Keen's proposed bill, now law, is treating every sex offender the same. There are three established levels of sex offenders within the state. The new rules apply equally to the accidental indecent exposure offender and the multiple child rapist. Who thinks justice is being served?

Keen and the majority of the House and Senate are just playing politics. What politician could vote against any bill that makes laws against sex offenders more restrictive? It would be political suicide to step up, be the voice of reason, and "defend" the rights of a sex offender. Even if you are attempting to limit the punitive effects of the law to the level 1 offenders, the press would jump all over it and report that House Rep. So-and-So is defending child molesters.

The part in the law about putting all sex offenders on the registry for life does nothing more than make the registry a joke in a few years time. The crimes that are added daily to what constitutes a sex-offender registry requirement will dilute the registry so much that it will be meaningless in monitoring the ones it was created for: rapists and re-offenders.

Many Georgia lawmakers admit that the law was not meant to have the effect Keen has voiced, and if they could, they would vote against it now. What is needed is the education of parents and children. A good parent can do more to prevent a sex offense against their child than all the laws in the state. But like so many other things, parents no longer seem to be responsible for, the state has to attempt to be a surrogate parent through legislation.

The law needs to be repealed and introduced next session. A new bill should be written with the advice of probation officers, sheriffs, sex offender counselors and maybe even an offender or two.

The most important part of any legislation is to protect without harm. It could be done but not with zealots like Keen trying to make a name for himself by trampling on the Constitution.

What can be done? Very little, as public opinion would strip sex offenders of all their rights. Many have said it is going to get worse before it gets better, and that trend seems to be happening all over the country. It will not be long before this witch hunt tries to round all the sex offenders up and ship them off to some island somewhere.

Oh wait, England did that with Australia. Maybe we could ship them all off somewhere and keep an eye on them. No, Wait, Hitler did that with the Jews.

As you can see, history will not judge these actions well.

John Shaw

Buford

Georgia dodges a bullet... for now

2006-06-30T10:01:00.000-06:00

As noted in Judge Temporarily Blocks Sex Law:

A Federal Judge today temporarily blocked the state of Georgia from preventing registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of school bus stops. The law was supposed to take effect Saturday. It prohibited sex offenders from living or loitering 1,000 feet from any public place where children could be. Opponents of the law claim it is too strict and sex offenders would have a hard time staying in the state. ...

Which, as noted a couple days ago, was the whole idea. NIMBY - not in MY backyard! ("But yours, hey I'm fine with that." The finest Georgian moral character.)

... "Either move out of state of they'll have a hard time finding a place to live in Georgia," says Hart County Sheriff Mike Cleveland.

He's referring to the nearly 11,000 registered sex offenders living in the Peach State. 34 live in Hart County. The new law would have banned them from living or loitering 1,000 feet from any public place that children might be. ...

There's another possibility you're not looking at, Sheriff Cleveland. They go underground. Now they're isolated, in unstable situations, in knowing violation of the law, under stress -- and VERY likely to reoffend.

Creating new victims.

Is this smart?

False advertising

2006-06-30T09:36:00.000-06:00

Just in case you might still think that laws restricting sex offender residency are a good idea, take a look at this article's title: Registered Sex Offenders may still be moving into "predator-free" zones.

"Predator-free zones?" There is BIG trouble waiting to happen in this dangerously sloppy thinking. Given that half the sex offense convictions handed down are first-time convictions (the crimes were committed by never-convicted sex offenders), this is rather akin to removing only half the mines from a minefield and then declaring it a "mine-free field" and a safe place to play.

What had I said about people who move into pricey communities whose covenants prohibit registered convicted sex offenders letting their guard down? You've got it right here. They think they're in "predator-free" zones and will continue to do so -- until the day they learn the awful truth.

But there's more:

GRAND RAPIDS -- People in a northeast Grand Rapids neighborhood discovered the unlawful move. A registered sex-offender had moved in to a Travis NE address a month after a law took effect that was supposed to keep him out. ...

In this case they found a registered convicted sex offender. But as earlier articles posted here note, these laws are creating a dramatic increase in the numbers of unregistered convicted sex offenders who decide it's become way too difficult to live lawfully and go underground.

Wasted effort

2006-06-28T12:15:00.000-06:00

A good idea but fatally flawed: Conference focuses on rehabilitating sex offenders

Experts say imprisoned sex offenders must be rehabilitated so they don't re-offend when released back into society.

The conference was held by the Center for Effective Public Policy, whose goal is to help corrections and community service agencies improve their way of re-introducing sex offenders to public life.

Secretary of Corrections Roger Werholtz thinks more attention should be paid to rehabilitating sex offenders.

“I think that's where we're going to get the biggest pay off, in terms of improved public safety, is lowering that level of negative behavior once they are released from prison,” said Werholtz said.

More than 150 people, mainly Kansas Department of Corrections staff, were on hand for the training.

Why do I say it's flawed? Because it took place in place in Kansas, where they are busy enacting laws to separate them from society when released. Such bullying post-release will negate any positive rehabilition. The conferees should have just stayed home.

The moral character of a Georgian

2006-06-28T10:12:00.000-06:00

...is on naked display here. 'Toughest' isn't justice:

If the purpose of HB 1059 was to run all the sex offenders out of Georgia, it will fail.

The law's chief sponsor, House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, R-St. Simon's Island, has said: "We want people running away from Georgia. Given the toughest laws here, we think a lot of people could move to another state... If it becomes too onerous and too inconvenient, they just may want to live somewhere else. And I don't care where, as long as it's not in Georgia."

Keen told colleagues in the Legislature that offenders unable to comply with the tough standards "will, in many cases, have to move to another state."

Will someone please tell Jerry Keen that will not be happening? His bill might look good on paper, and it might sound good to his constituents, but the Catch 22 -- make that Catch 1059 -- could theoretically put more children at risk than it protects.

On July 1, Georgia's new, more restrictive sex offender law goes into effect, unless a federal judge decides to extend to all sex offenders the same protection of an injunction issued Monday to eight who filed suit challenging the law.

One of the provisions of Keen's law: A registered sex offender's residence must not be within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, private or public school -- now including school bus stops -- or any area where minors congregate.

Sex offenders who can't find suitable places to work or live by July 1 have limited options: Go to jail or go underground. (My money is on few rushing to turn themselves in.)

What HB 1059 does is give the uninformed public a false sense of security, said Kyle Sandusky, a sex offender living in Marietta. "Because as a registered sex offender I can't get into a nice apartment complex or anything other than a flea bag roach infested motel," he said.

Sheriff's departments are responsible for measuring and certifying residences and registering sex offenders. From the beginning, many of them have complained the law gives sex offenders no way out. And that creates a great deal of stress.

Though 16 other states reportedly have laws similar to Georgia's new law, Georgia stands alone in restricting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a bus stop.

This law punishes families, Sandusky said. "The families of Georgia's offenders are not guilty of any crimes," he said.

"These offenders paid their debt to society and are trying to rebuild their lives. They have families, pay taxes and contribute to society in whatever way they can," he said.

Doesn't a proverb talk about keeping one's enemies close? Because sex offenders who are child molesters can pose such a life-altering threat to children, doesn't it make sense to keep them where we can see them?

I thought Georgia was in the Bible belt. I guess it isn't any more.