Sunday, November 23, 2008

GPS keeps close eye on sex offenders

View the article here

It still doesn't matter, monitoring someone 24/7 will not prevent someone intent on committing a crime from doing do.  This is just the ground work for the Big Brother state, which will eventually monitor everyone, wait and see.

11/24/2008

With just one click, an enlarged map of Seoul’s northern districts popped up and lines of seven different colors appeared. They marked the week’s movements of a recently paroled child molester. The colored lines indicated that he usually stayed near his home and workplace, but took a long distance trip outside Seoul on Wednesday.

“If we think the trip is suspicious, we can immediately call him and ask him what he is doing out there,” said Park Jun-jae, head of the Justice Ministry’s central sex offender monitoring center. “Alarm bells also ring when he goes near kindergartens and schools. Then, we would call him to warn that he has entered a restricted area. If he continues to stay there, probation officers will be dispatched to the site.”
- Yeah, and by then, the crime could be already committed!

The central monitoring center for GPS-tracked sex offenders is located at the ministry’s Seoul Probation and Parole Office in Huigyeong-dong, Seoul. At the center, nine officers rotate on three shifts, watching 14 screens 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, tracking the movements of those wearing the anklets.

“We know where they are with only a 45-second delay,” Park said. “This is reality, not a Hollywood movie.”

Following the brutal molestation and murder of an elementary school girl in Yongsan, central Seoul, by a neighbor in 2006, people began calling for the placement of electronic anklets on sex offenders to reduce recidivism. The National Assembly laid the legal groundwork for the system in April 2007.

Under the law governing the electronic anklet system, the devices will be placed on repeat sex offenders with more than two convictions when they are released from prison after serving their terms. The anklets will also be attached to one-time convicts whose victims were children younger than 13.

“Because sex crimes are heavily punished, no eligible convicts have completed their prison terms yet,” said Park. “So those wearing the anklets right now are sex offenders who were released on parole and who agreed to wear the monitoring devices as a condition of their parole.”
- So what happens if they do not agree to wear the devices?

According to the Ministry of Justice, 53 sex offenders were released on parole from 22 jails nationwide in September on condition they wear the anklets. The ministry said the anklet will remain in place for up to 10 years after the offender is released from prison. The device allows the ministry to monitor the offender’s whereabouts 24 hours a day.

“After the initial 53 people began wearing the anklets in September, 25 more were released on parole with the devices,” Park, the monitoring center head, said. “We think the total number of sex offenders on parole under our monitoring system will reach 200 by the end of this year, and 1,000 next year.”

The government spent 9.7 billion won ($6.5 million) to develop the tracking system, which is more advanced than those used in other countries including the United States, Park said. “The National Geographic Information Institute will complete a three dimensional map of the country by 2010. By using such a map and our system, we will be able to tell which sex offender on parole is on which floor of a building.”
The number of sex crimes - including rape, statutory rape, child molestation, sexual assault and prostitution - jumped from 7,120 in 1997 to 13,573 in 2006, according to the Korea Institute of Criminology, which based its statistics on the Supreme Public Prosecutors’ Office data.

The institute said the recidivism rate has also grown for sex crimes. While 12.1 percent of sex crimes were committed by repeat offenders in 1997, the rate went up to 14.3 percent in 2006, the institute said.
- Do they count any crime as recidivism, or another sex crime?

The National Police Agency’s findings are even more staggering. According to the 2006 Police White Paper, 8,084 rapists were arrested and 4,397 of them, or 54.4 percent, were recidivists.
- So how do you define recidivism here?  Some technicality, some other non-sexual crime, or another sex crime?

While it still remains to be seen if the newly introduced GPS tracking anklets can reduce sex crime recidivism or not, Park of the central monitoring center said the system certainly protects society by preventing attacks on second and third victims.
- How does a GPS device "prevent" another crime?  If some offender is intent on committing another crime, they will do so, regardless of GPS or not.

A 29-year-old sex offender who was released on parole was arrested earlier this month, and he was wearing the electronic anklet at the time he committed the crime,” Park said. “Many people became skeptical of the monitoring system, saying that the crime still took place even though he was being monitored. But that’s a very wrong perspective.”
- Yeah, you see, the crime was still committed, regardless of the person wearing GPS. When you treat someone like an animal, and they have no hope for ever getting back into society without Big Brother watching their every move, and preventing them from getting a job or home, that breeds more crime, and it will occur, that is common sense!  I don't think it's the wrong perspective, it's reality!  GPS is a waste of money, and if someone is so dangerous that they need monitoring 24/7, then why are they out of prison in the first place?

According to the Sangju Police of North Gyeongsang Province and Park, the alleged crime took place on Nov. 4. Under the influence of alcohol, the suspect lured a coffeehouse waitress to a rooftop in his neighborhood and raped her.

“The method of the crime was very similar to the suspect’s 2003 crime,” a Sangju Police official said. “We questioned him, but he strongly denied the charges. He insisted on the alibi that he was with one of his friends.”

But the suspect’s claim was proven false by the GPS tracking record of his whereabouts at the time of the crime. “We provided the record of where he was down to the second,” Park said. “He then confessed. With such indisputable evidence, there is no room for a lie. The investigation was simply so much easier and effective.”

Citing a New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services’ April 2008 report, Park said it is a myth that the GPS tracking system alone can prevent all repeat sex crimes.

“This is a very effective system to track down sexual predators,” Park said. “It helps an investigation. It also plays a psychological role to sex offenders to restrain their urge to commit another crime because they are aware that they are being watched.”
- Ok, I agree with some of this.  So if we want to prevent crime, why don't we put GPS on ALL citizens?  Then, from what you've said, that GPS works, then we'd not have anymore crime, correct?  No, of course not, crime will still occur, period!

Park, however, said the electronic anklet is not an omnipotent tool to prevent crimes.

This is not a mind control device, but the public tends to believe it is,” Park said. “It provides very important assistance to what we do to reduce crime in our society, but GPS tracking alone cannot resolve all the problems.”
- Well, the only way to prevent future crimes against children, since 90% or more of all sexual crimes occur by someone they know, like family or friends, then the only way to prevent this, is to take the kids away from their parents.  That is the only way to prevent sexual crimes, and even then, you have to take into account the place the kids go, and who is monitoring them.  No matter what you do, crime will occur, it always has and always will.

While admitting some of the program’s shortcomings, Park noted that the electronic anklets can be better utilized for corrections purposes.

“Don’t just associate the electronic anklet with sex crimes. It is a system that allows us to benefit from technological advances,” Park said. “Think about what Paris Hilton had on her ankle for location tracking after she was released from jail.

“Instead of keeping every offender behind bars, we can make better use of this monitoring system by placing anklets on petty criminals or accidental offenders,” Park said.
- Why not place a GPS device on all criminals?  Or all citizens?  Then when a crime is committed, go pick them up, and take them to jail.  Then, if it works like you said, crime would drop drastically...  But, like I've said before, prison is a business, and if we had no crime, many people would be out of a job, and we don't want that, do we?  So we only pick on certain folks, so we can continue to have crime, thus money!   Why not do it for all criminals?  So it's fair?  And doesn't discriminate!



OH - THE ADAM WALSH ACT ON APPEAL

View the article here

11/2008

Ohio’s first sex offender registration statute was enacted in 1963 at former R.C. Chapter 2950. The first major revisions were enacted in 1996 in what was referred to as Megan’s Law, which included registration and community notification requirements. Megan’s Law was a federal law passed in 1996 that authorized local law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living or working in their communities. Ohio had 15,716 registered sex offenders as of May 30, 2007.

The most recent development occurred when Ohio adopted the Adam Walsh Act, AWA, effective on January 1, 2008. This changed the former law in several significant ways.

Prior to the AWA, trial courts were required to determine whether sex offenders fell into one of three classifications: (1) sexually oriented offender; (2) habitual sex offender; or (3) sexual predator. The sexual predator classification required a finding by the court, following a hearing, that the defendant had committed a sexually oriented offense and was likely to commit another sexually oriented offense in the future. In reviewing a sexual predator determination, an appellate court reviewed the determination under a civil manifest weight of the evidence standard. A trial court’s determination would not be disturbed if it was supported by some competent, credible evidence.

The AWA abolished the requirement that the trial court conduct a hearing and find that the offender was likely to commit another sexually oriented offense in the future. The Megan’s law prior classifications of sexually oriented offender, habitual sex offender and sexual predator were replaced with new classifications. The AWA automatically places sex offenders into one of three tiers based solely on the offense of which they were convicted. Tier III includes the most serious sex offenses, such as rape and sexual battery. The AWA also requires the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify, by tier based on the offense committed, all offenders who were classified prior to its enactment.

The AWA also increased the registration and community notification requirements of sex offenders. Under the former law, sexually oriented offenders and habitual sex offenders were required to register with the county sheriff where they resided once a year for ten or 20 years, respectively, and sexual predators were required to register every 90 days for life. Under the AWA, Tier I offenders are required to register once a year for 15 years; Tier II offenders must register every 180 days for 25 years; and Tier III offenders must register every 90 days for life. As to community notification, under Megan’s law, the sheriff notified the offender’s adjacent neighbors, local schools, and day care centers of the offender’s name, address, and conviction. Under the AWA, the sheriff must give this notice to all residents, schools, and day care centers within 1,000 feet of the offender’s residence. As with Megan’s law, the registration and notification requirements of the AWA are retroactive in that they apply to offenders whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the statute.

Finally, the AWA prohibits all sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school or day care center. It allows the owner of property who lives within 1,000 feet of such institutions or the local law director to file for an injunction to enforce this provision.

There are now pending in our court about 40 cases wherein the appellants assert various constitutional challenges to the AWA. They include challenges based on the AWA’s alleged violation of the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution and the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution; procedural and substantive due process; and the separation of powers doctrine.
- Read the constitution...  It states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Now, it doesn't say, except for sex offenders, or, except to "protect" the public from sex offenders, now does it.  The laws are unconstitutional, but, we have a corrupt government now, so anything is possible.  And at the top of the Bill of Rights it says:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

And these laws ARE abuse of power!  Other items of interest:


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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And you can read more abuses of power, here.

To date, the Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Appellate Districts See, State v. Desbiens, 2d Dist.No. 22489, 2008-Ohio-3375 (no ex post facto or substantive or procedural due process violation); In re Smith, 3d Dist. No. 1- 07-58, 2008-Ohio-34 (no ex post facto, retroactive clause, or separation of powers violation); State v. Longpre, 4th Dist. No. 08CA3017, 2008-Ohio-3832 (no ex post facto or retroactive clause violation); State v. Holloman-Cross, 8th Dist. No. 90351, 2008-Ohio-2189 (no ex post facto violation); In re G.E.S., 9th Dist. No. 24079, 2008-Ohio-4076 (no ex post facto or separation of powers violation). Each of these courts relied on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 1998-Ohio-291 as precedent. In Cook, the Court held that, although Megan’s Law is retroactive, because the purpose of its registration and notification requirements was to protect the public from released sex offenders and the law was remedial and not punitive, it did not violate the ex post facto clause or the retroactivity provision. To date, no Ohio Appellate District has found the AWA to be unconstitutional.

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently held that an amendment to Megan’s Law which, like the AWA, prohibited sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, could not be applied retroactively because the former statute was not expressly made retroactive. Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St.3d 165, 2008-Ohio- 542. As a result, the Court held it could not address whether the residency restriction violated the prohibition of the Ohio Constitution against retroactive laws. Since the AWA also does not expressly provide the residency restriction is retroactive, it would appear that Hyle is precedent to a similar challenge under the AWA.

In State v. Ferguson, Slip Opinion No. 008-Ohio-4824, the Supreme Court held three other amendments to Megan’s Law do not violate the ex post facto and retroactivity clauses: (1) the provision that the former sexual predator classification and duty to register remain for life; (2) the provision that offenders are required to register with the sheriff where they work and go to school, in addition to where they reside; and (3) the provision that any information required to be provided in the registration process be included on an internet database. Since these provisions survive in nearly identical form in the AWA, it appears that Ferguson will be precedent to similar challenges made to the AWA.

In light of the aggressive manner in which these issues are being appealed, I would expect the Ohio Supreme Court will rule on them in the near future.



Child's molester rarely a stranger

View the article here

11/23/2008

By Megan Gildow and Emanuel Cavallaro - Staff Writers

Springfield - In his years of prosecuting sex crimes in Clark County, Andy Wilson has tried many accused child molesters.

Only two of those were strangers to the victim.

The majority of the time, it's someone the victim knows, Wilson said. Statistics back him up: More than 90 percent of child molestations are committed by someone who knows the child, like a relative, neighbor or family friend, according to research.

Legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school was passed by lawmakers in 2003 to keep convicted sex offenders away from areas where many children gather, partly to keep them from having the opportunity to establish a relationship with a child.

The law can apply to schools, day care centers and even parks.

But supporters and opponents of the ban continue to battle over whether it does any good. Both sides say they are trying to reduce the likelihood that sex offenders will commit new crimes.
- The only way to truly protect children, is to remove them all from their own family, period!

At least 18 sex offenders in Clark County and two in Champaign County live within 1,000 feet of schools. They committed their offenses or moved to their current homes before July 31, 2003, the date a state law went into effect. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this year that residency restrictions don't apply to them.

In New Carlisle, one neighbor of a registered sex offender filed a civil lawsuit in an attempt to force the man and his family out of their home.

The sex offender, who agreed to speak with the News-Sun if his name was not used in this article, said he is a threat to no one.

"I've done everything that the sheriff has asked of me. I have done everything that the attorney general has asked of me," the sex offender said. "I want him (the neighbor) to leave me and my family alone."

But a bill introduced in the state legislature might bolster his neighbor's claim.

House Bill 607 would make residency restrictions apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they committed their offenses.



OH - Child's molester rarely a stranger

View the article here

11/23/2008

By Megan Gildow and Emanuel Cavallaro - Staff Writers

Springfield - In his years of prosecuting sex crimes in Clark County, Andy Wilson has tried many accused child molesters.

Only two of those were strangers to the victim.

The majority of the time, it's someone the victim knows, Wilson said. Statistics back him up: More than 90 percent of child molestations are committed by someone who knows the child, like a relative, neighbor or family friend, according to research.

Legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school was passed by lawmakers in 2003 to keep convicted sex offenders away from areas where many children gather, partly to keep them from having the opportunity to establish a relationship with a child.

The law can apply to schools, day care centers and even parks.

But supporters and opponents of the ban continue to battle over whether it does any good. Both sides say they are trying to reduce the likelihood that sex offenders will commit new crimes.
- The only way to truly protect children, is to remove them all from their own family, period!

At least 18 sex offenders in Clark County and two in Champaign County live within 1,000 feet of schools. They committed their offenses or moved to their current homes before July 31, 2003, the date a state law went into effect. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this year that residency restrictions don't apply to them.

In New Carlisle, one neighbor of a registered sex offender filed a civil lawsuit in an attempt to force the man and his family out of their home.

The sex offender, who agreed to speak with the News-Sun if his name was not used in this article, said he is a threat to no one.

"I've done everything that the sheriff has asked of me. I have done everything that the attorney general has asked of me," the sex offender said. "I want him (the neighbor) to leave me and my family alone."

But a bill introduced in the state legislature might bolster his neighbor's claim.

House Bill 607 would make residency restrictions apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they committed their offenses.