Bars For Life: LGBTQs and sex offender registries

Original Article

05/08/2013

By Yasmin Nair

In 1977, Anita Bryant launched her crusade against a recently passed Dade County, Fla., ordinance that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As the leader of a coalition named "Save Our Children," Bryant and her supporters tapped into an old perception of gays as sexual predators of children.

In a now-famous statement, she declared, "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children." Bryant's campaign led to the repeal of the ordinance but paradoxically also became the beginning of the end of her career, alienating her from some conservatives and liberals alike.

In the years since Bryant's campaign, there has been a palpable shift in cultural responses to gay and lesbian issues, with several polls indicating greater support for issues such as marriage equality. But the figure of the gay man in particular as a sexual predator still haunts culture and continues to re-emerge.

In 1955, Boise, Idaho, erupted in a sex scandal where nearly 1,500 men were questioned about allegedly having coerced underage young men into sexual acts. There was no such sex ring, but countless lives were scarred forever.

This April, as the gay marriage debate reached the U.S. Supreme Court, two married gay men in Connecticut, George Harasz and Douglas Wirth, decided to fight charges that they had sexually abused children in their care. In a sign of how differently such cases are still treated in the mainstream press, the website Gay Star News' headline stated, "Gay couple accused of child abuse go to trial to clear their names." New York's Daily New headline ran, "Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial."

Since 1977, sex offender registries (SORs) have been instituted in every U.S. state, ostensibly to prevent sexual abuse of minors and others by tracking everyone convicted of sexual abuse.

But according to a growing number of critics across the political spectrum, SORs have also increased so much in scope, by including even acts like public urination in the category of sex crime, that they've become virtually meaningless. In addition, SORs place so many residential and vocational restrictions on offenders that larger numbers are unable to return to society with places to live and stable systems of support.

In Illinois, registered sex offenders cannot live within 500 feet of any school buildings or have trade licenses. Illinois also mandated in 2011 that the licenses of medical and health professionals convicted of sex offenses can be permanently revoked without a hearing. Increasingly, many offenders across the country simply end up homeless.

The term "sex offender" is rarely uttered at gay and lesbian public events, raising as it does an old and timeworn stereotype that still causes fear because of its automatic association with terms such as "pedophile" and "sodomite." To date, none of the major gay and lesbian organizations has explicitly taken a position on issues concerning sex offender registries.

But there are in fact gay sex offenders on the registry, and there have always been widely sensationalized cases of alleged and real sexual abuse of children by men who also identify as gay.

Tracing the specific effects of sex offender registries on LGBTQ people reveals that both terms, "LGBTQ" and "sex offender," are fraught with multiple tensions and definitions. For instance, not all people convicted for sex offenses are LGBTQ, but the sexual acts, such as oral and anal sex, which place them on the registries are defined as "crimes against nature" in certain states.

The circumstances in which LGBTQs find themselves on sex offender registries both challenge the applications of such terms and hark back to older and still-prevalent ideas about sexual minorities.

The fact both sex offenses and sex offenders fall into such diverse and disparate categories also explains why it has been hard to mobilize a concerted political movement against the prevalence of SORs.

Read the rest of the article

---

TX - Sex offenders oppose social network disclosures

Original Article

03/19/2013

By Eva Ruth Moravec

Six registered sex offenders testified before a state House committee Tuesday, claiming a proposed bill requiring them to reveal their history on social networks would be ineffective and overly restrictive.

“This bill would cost me my job,” [name withheld], 49, told the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. “Who is protecting my children? My children got kicked out of karate class because someone saw me on the registry, because their daddy wears what is in effect a gold star.”

[name withheld], a database administrator, was convicted of sexual crimes against two girls, ages 8 and 9, in the 1990s. The crimes placed him and five others who testified before the committee on the state's sex offender registry. The list is available to the public on the Texas Department of Public Safety's website.

House Bill 23 (PDF), authored by Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, would require registrants to disclose information like details of the offense, employment information and personal identification information, on their online social networking profiles.

“It's on the DPS site now, where as few people as possible can see it,” Martinez Fischer said to the committee. “I have a concern that it's OK to have a registry, but heaven forbid if it works, we have a problem. I don't know if that's the right public policy.”

The bill intends to give the registration law a technology upgrade — when the registry was mandated in 1991, social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter didn't exist.

Computer usage is prohibited for offenders on parole or probation, said Bexar County First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg during the committee meeting.
- I find this very unlikely.  Maybe for some on probation / parole, but I'm sure it's not all like this article leads you to believe, but I could be wrong.

Computer identification information that includes any social network profiles is required by registrants, but that information isn't necessarily tracked, Herberg said.

“Our probation officers have a massive caseload and don't have time to monitor Facebook. Often times, these things only rear their heads when we find out about them through an offense,” he said.

The item was left pending in committee.

A Facebook spokesman declined to comment on the bill, but said the company's policy bars convicted sex offenders from joining.

If Facebook gets a complaint about a convicted sex offender using the site, staff will verify their sex offender status, “and then immediately disable their account and remove their all information associated with it from Facebook,” the policy states.
- Yeah, they discriminate against people, but what if a person is found to be a gang member, drug dealer, murderer or identity thief?  Just because someone wears the label doesn't mean they are using Facebook for criminal means.

---

NY - New York Continues To Punish All Ex-Sex Offenders For The Deeds Of One Person!

Original Article

12/19/2012

By Owen Good

New York State, whose "Operation Game Over" earlier this year banned more than 3,500 registered sex offenders from services like Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network, has booted another 2,100 from online gaming after bringing THQ, Funcom and NCSoft to the cause.
- Just imagine if congress passed laws to say all DUI offenders could not drive anymore simply due to one person driving under the influence and hurt someone.  This is the same thing.  They are punishing all ex-sex offenders for the deeds of one person.

Eric T. Schneiderman, the state's attorney general, announced the bannings earlier this morning. They coincide with state law requiring convicted sex offenders to register all email addresses, screen names and other online personae with the state. The state then turns that information over to its Operation Game Over partners, who purge the convicted sex offenders from their rolls.
- And even requiring their email addresses and other online info is a violation of their rights, but hey, the Constitution means nothing anymore, so anything goes.  Just remember that when they come to violate your rights!

Many states have sex offender registries, with requirements covering email addresses and the like, but New York State says it is the only one working to have offenders removed from online gaming services. The initiative was inspired by this case, in which a 19-year-old met a 12-year-old boy over Xbox Live, arranged a meeting with the child, and then sexually abused him. The offender was sentenced earlier this year to six months in jail, making his lifetime permaban from online gaming a more lasting and potentially worse punishment.
- Exactly, they are punishing all ex-sex offenders due to one man's deeds!  No other group of offenders do they do this with, it's basically discrimination.

In addition to THQ, NCSoft, Funcom, Microsoft and Sony, publishers such as Gaia Online, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Disney Interactive Media Group and Warner Brothers are working with the state.

---

AUSTRALIA - Young woman avoids jail for stabbing sex offender

Original Article

If a man did the same, many years later, he'd still be sent to prison for attempted murder, yet women are almost always given a light sentence.  Also, if a cop was threatened with a knife, they'd shoot the person and be justified.

10/15/2012

By Loukas Founten

A former promising cyclist has been given a suspended jail sentence for stabbing an official who sexually abused her as a teenager.

Former Cycling Australia official [name withheld] was given a suspended sentence in 2009 for numerous child sex offences.

The South Australian Supreme Court heard his victim, who is now 20, went to [name withheld]'s house at Kilburn in northern Adelaide in September last year and stabbed him on the doorstep when he refused to come outside to talk to her.

The young woman pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious harm to [name withheld] and assaulting his wife, Christine.

The court was told the woman was a committed and talented cyclist at 16 and met [name withheld] in a group cycling training session in 2008.

The pair developed a sexual relationship which lasted about five months until the girl told her mother and police were called in.

Justice Anne Vanstone said there was a direct connection between the offences committed against the woman and the offences she committed.

But Justice Vanstone said people had a right to feel safe in their own homes.
- Well, with the sentence you gave this woman, do you think people will feel safe?

"You found the suspension [of Mr [name withheld]'s sentence] too much to bear and attempted suicide by overdose," she said.
- Something is not being told here.  It says above they developed a relation ship, so I assume the sex, if any, was consensual, even though she was underage.  I doubt it was "life altering," since she consented.  It's probably jealousy, that is why she also attacked the wife, but those are only assumptions.

"It is clear that the effect of Mr [name withheld]'s offences against you have been catastrophic."
- Which offenses?  The consensual sex or the fact that he is now married with another woman?

Despite the fact the woman carried the knife with her, Justice Vanstone said she could not find that the attack was premeditated.
- What?  Of course it was premeditated!

"On the front doorstep you tried to get Mr [name withheld] to come outside. You had the knife behind your back. You told him you wanted to talk about your relationship," she said.

Lunged with knife

Justice Vanstone said when Mr [name withheld] refused to move outside, the woman lunged at him and stabbed him in the torso, then waved the knife at [wife name withheld].
- Why would she attack the wife?  Jealousy?

Justice Vanstone said the offending was extremely serious because of the potentially lethal consequences.

She said but for rapid medical intervention, Mr [name withheld] would have died.

"Two of Mr [name withheld]'s children witnessed these events," she said.
- Wow, all this, and the judge basically slapped her on the wrist?

"In addition, the offending occurred on the threshold of the victims' home where they are entitled to feel safe and secure."
- And yet you basically let her get away with it.

"The entire situation for both families has been disastrous."

Justice Vanstone jailed the woman for a minimum of 18 months but suspended the sentence and imposed a $500 three-year bond.

The woman is also prevented from making contact with [name withheld] and his family.

Before she left the court the young woman told the judge she had learnt her lesson.

"I intend to get on with my life and I'll never commit a crime again," she said.

"I've been punished very hard and I just want to get on with my life."

Mr [name withheld] and his supporters were present in court but did not comment on the outcome as they left the building.

---

MO - Women Sex Offenders in the Ozarks Tend to Get Lighter Sentences Than Men

Original Article

10/05/2012

By Joanna Small

A US Department of Justice study shows female sex offenders tend to get more lenient sentences than men who commit the same or similar crimes, and the same goes for perpetrators in the Ozarks.

SPRINGFIELD - There's not a lot of hard data about this but there are anecdotes. Courts tend to be more sympathetic towards women offenders. Their sexual crimes are rarely violent and most often statutory with older teenage victims. One mother tells us that shouldn't matter.

"Our boy is a hero for going through the court system."

We first talked to this Ozarks mother a year and a half ago when [name withheld] faced three counts of felony statutory rape in two Ozarks counties for having sex with a 14-year-old.[name withheld] 's set for sentencing on two of the counts at the end of the month.

"Being she's a woman I don't know if it's going as hard as if she was a man. I feel like a man gets put in jail right away and she should have been put in jail right away," the mother tells us.

Instead [name withheld] posted a $10,000 bond, twice, and moved just five miles from the family. And she'll stay there if she gets probation as her attorneys have requested.

"It's been really hard; I would not wish this upon an enemy. My family was all torn apart."

Mom may be right to be concerned. A ten-year long study of the US Department of Justice shows female sex offenders tend to get lighter sentences. Although the same percentage of offenders for both sexes tend to do jail time, women typically do less. Men's sentences are between 6 and 31% longer than women's for the same or similar crime.

"I think if you look at the community there are still stereotypes that women don't pose as much a threat as men," explains Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson.

Maybe that's why then 23-year-old teacher [name withheld] got five years probation for having sex with a student in three different counties. Only after probation violations and failing to register as a sex offender twice was she sentenced to prison time.

[name withheld], charged with raping and sodomizing a 10-year-old boy for two years, got seven years. Patterson says the offenders gender is moot when he seeks a sentence, yet: "There's a misperception that males are not as traumatized by sex acts performed or by psychological effects after."

"Because it happened to be a woman with a boy the world tends to pat a boy on the back and not have that much sympathy for him, but at the same time he's a child and she's an adult," the mother from the beginning of our story concludes.

We took a look at a few similar statutory rape and sodomy cases in the Ozarks where the offenders were men. [name withheld] is serving 20 years in prison for sex acts with a child under 14-- remember [name withheld] got seven.

[name withheld] got four years for sex with a 14-year-old, while [name withheld] originally got probation.

Patterson also tells us many sex offenders were themselves victims at one time in their lives, and women abused as children tend to elicit more sympathy in sentencing than men who were abused.

See Also:

• Female sex offenders reveal cultural double standard

---

AUSTRALIA - Virgin Airlines seems to think men sitting next to kids are possibly pedophiles?

Original Article

08/10/2012

By Bridie Jabour

UPDATE: A public backlash has prompted Virgin Australia to announce it will review its policy barring men from sitting beside unaccompanied children on flights.

The company was today widely criticised after a Sydney fireman reported his experience of being asked to swap seats because he was sat beside two unaccompanied boys.

It strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes

- Doesn't surprise me one bit. And John Walsh doesn't want men to baby sit either, they might molest someone.

After this morning defending its policy, the airline this afternoon announced via Twitter it was reviewing its stance.

"We understand the concerns raised around our policy for children travelling alone, a long-standing policy initially based on customer feedback," @VirginAustralia said.

"In light of recent feedback, we're now reviewing this policy. Our intention is certainly not to discriminate in any way."

A Virgin spokeswoman said the policy was shared by Qantas, Jetstar and Air New Zealand.

Earlier today Fairfax Media reported the story of Johnny McGirr, 33, who said he was flying home from Brisbane in April when he took his seat next to two boys he estimated to be aged between eight and 10.

He was assigned the window seat but sat in the aisle seat so the two boys could look out the window.

However, a flight attendant approached him just as passengers were asked to put on their seatbelts, asking him to move.

Mr McGirr said when he asked why, he was told, "Well you can't sit next to two unaccompanied minors."

"She said it was the policy and I said, 'Well, that's pretty sexist and discriminatory. You can't just say because I'm a man I can't sit there,' and she just apologised and said that was the policy."

"By this stage everyone around me had started looking."

Mr McGirr said the attendant then asked a fellow female passenger, "Can you please sit in this seat because he is not allowed to sit next to minors."

"After that I got really embarrassed because she didn't even explain. I just got up and shook my head a little, trying to get some dignity out of the situation," he said.

"And that was it. I pretty much sat through the flight getting angrier."

Mr McGirr pointed out that he works as a fireman in Newtown in Sydney and was trusted in his job to look out for the welfare of children.

"[The attitude of the airline] is 'we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile', and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes," he said.

A spokeswoman for Virgin Australia this morning confirmed the policy and said while the airline did not want to offend male passengers, its priority was the safety of children.

"In our experience, most guests thoroughly understand that the welfare of the child is our priority," she said.

The spokeswoman said staff usually tried to keep the seat empty but, when that was not possible, a woman was seated next to the child.

"Virgin Australia takes the safety of all guests very seriously and, in the case of unaccompanied minors, we take additional steps to ensure their flight is safe and trouble free in every respect."

Mr McGirr, who wrote to Virgin to complain, said the policy was flawed.

"[It's] blatant discrimination that just because I'm a male I can't sit there," he said.

"They apologised that it happened on the flight and said it shouldn't have happened then but my issue is not with the mistakes made there; my issue is with the policy in general."

"The majority of sexual assaults are [also] committed by men. Does that mean that we can't sit next to women? Should we just have a seat by ourselves and that way women and children will be protected?"

Mr McGirr said he understood the children were vulnerable when not with an adult but said that fears about crimes committed by a small minority of people should not rule society.

Mr McGirr said Virgin should either allocate a chaperone for children to sit with them for the entire flight, have staff do regular checks on the children to see if they were all right or ask parents to purchase the seat that is vacant so it is always left empty.

Among other Australian airlines, budget carriers Jetstar and Tiger Airways do not accept unaccompanied minors on their flights, though the two airlines have different definitions of what constitutes a minor.

Qantas, which does allow unaccompanied minors over the age of five to travel on its flights, has not returned calls requesting information on its policy on seating male passengers next to unaccompanied children.

Online outcry

Criticism of the airline swelled online today, with the story attracting more than 700 comments across Fairfax Media news sites by 4pm.
- Isn't it ironic, when something doesn't affect you, then you are okay with it, but when you are affected, then you raise hell.  Now you understand why ex-sex offenders raise hell over the cruel and unusual punishment they are forced to live with, unconstitutionally.

More than 44,000 readers nationwide responded to an online poll asking whether the airline’s policy was fair, with 87 per cent agreeing the rule was ‘‘sexist and suggests all men are potential pedophiles’’.

Twitter users were quick to voice their poor opinion of the policy under the hashtag #VirginDiscrimination, while Facebook users also responded with criticism.

One person wrote on Virgin Australia's Facebook page: ‘‘As a male school teacher, it saddens me that men are turned away from being a positive role model for children, because people have the attitude ‘male = potential molester’.’’
- Welcome to the new society, which the ignorant sheeple, media and politicians helped created, for the children of course!

Another Facebook user wrote the policy was ‘‘disgracefully discriminatory’’, while another user said it was a ‘‘stupid load of nonsense’’ that insulted half the country’s population.

However, some on Facebook jumped to the airline’s defence, with one mother saying she appreciated the policy.
- So did any men jump in defense of it?

‘‘I do recall once at check-in the seats being changed around so that my children were not seated beside a man. But it was done very discretely [sic] and you know what, as a mum I was comfortable with the decision,’’ she wrote.
- Of course women are going to be okay with it, it doesn't affect them. This is like some female having female issues, and the reporter asking a man about it, it's stupid and doesn't make rational sense!

While Virgin Australia was adamant that it was not alone in implementing such a policy, Qantas has not responded to repeated attempts to clarify its position from Fairfax Media today.

However, the BBC reported Qantas and Air New Zealand had a similar policy in 2005, after a businessman successfully sued British Airways on the grounds of sex discrimination after he was moved away from an unaccompanied child on a flight.

Video Link

---

CANADA - Educating children better than banning sex offenders on social media in Canada

Original Article

07/04/2012

By Gillian Shaw

Educating children is a better way to protect them from online predators than banning sex offenders from social media sites or forcing them to disclose their crimes on social networks, says an online-safety spokeswoman.

Merlyn Horton was commenting after recent moves in the U.S. to use legislation to crack down on Internet sex predators.

In Indiana last week, a federal judge upheld a law banning registered sex offenders from accessing social networking sites used by children, including Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and others.

In Louisiana, legislation has been passed requiring sex offenders to list their crimes in their social networking profiles.

And Facebook is calling on Canada to open up its sex offender lists — which the public cannot access — to social networks to help them keep sex offenders off their sites.

But the difficulty of verifying identities on the Internet makes such efforts pointless, says Horton, executive director of the B.C.-based Safe OnLine Outreach Society, which educates children, parents and educators about online risks.

“Can you bar somebody from having a Facebook account? What if they have an account under a name they make up, under their brother’s name, or under the name of someone they pay to let them use their name on a Facebook profile?” said Horton.

“Identify verification is one of the biggest problems; it’s a huge issue online.”

For predatory pedophiles, social networks and the Internet are an “open avenue,” she said, adding resources would be better directed to educating youth rather than trying to enforce bans or requiring Internet users to disclose crimes.

Horton noted there have been cases in Canada where individuals have been barred from using the Internet because of their crimes against children. But instead of through legislation, this has been done through conditions on parole or bail release, she said.

Even then, people can find ways to easily circumvent the restrictions.

“I remember a particular case I got called on,” she said. “The guy was accessing and luring children through the public library.”

Terms of service for various social networking sites vary, with ones like Twitter stipulating that users can have an account only if they “can form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction.”

Facebook’s terms of service specifically ban convicted sex offenders. By email, Facebook said it has been working with U.S. attorneys-general to run lists of registered sex offenders against its user base.

If someone on a sex offender registry is a likely match to a user on Facebook, law enforcement is notified and the account is disabled, the statement said.

In the U.S., citizens can access lists of registered sex offenders. However in Canada, where the National Sex Offender Registry isn’t made public, it’s impossible for Facebook to carry out similar searches for sex offenders among Canadian users.

“We believe that in order to achieve a safer Internet, governments should give consideration to new and more effective ways to share information about registered sex offenders with social networks,” Facebook wrote in response to The Sun’s question about whether it is able to search out sex offenders signing on to its site in Canada. The statement said the model has been widely deployed by the attorneys-general of several U.S. states “and led to the removal of such individuals from these services.”

---

Female sex offenders protected by the criminal justice system

Original Article

05/30/2012

Female sex offenders receive lighter sentences for the same crimes than males says a study recently published in Feminist Criminology, a SAGE journal and the official journal of the Division on Women and Crime of the American Society of Criminology.

Embry and Lyons looked at the sentences that male and female sex offenders received for specific sex offenses and found that even after the implementation of sentencing guidelines to ensure equality in sentencing, on average male sentences were between 6% and 31% longer than female sentences for the same or similar crimes.

"It appears as if the criminal justice system actually treats women more leniently than men," wrote Randa Embry and Phillip M. Lyons, Jr., authors of the study.

The researchers explained this disparity by discussing the American idea that "women are weaker and, therefore, must be protected at all times regardless of their status as victims or offenders."

Embry and Lyons analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Corrections Reporting Program from the years 1994 to 2004. Sex offenses included rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, child sexual assault, and forcible sodomy.

"This leads to the supposition that women, regardless of the departure from social and gender norms committed in concurrence with the offense for which they are being sentenced, continue to be viewed as individuals who should be protected by the justice system," wrote the researchers. "Obviously, as a social institution, the criminal justice system is reluctant to break those social norms and gender roles in response to atypical gendered behavior."

View the PDF document here

---

NY - More than 3,500 NY sex offenders have online video-gaming accounts yanked

Original Article

Not all ex-sex offenders are using online gaming sites to "troll" for someone to molest, and is more reason why you should use an alias! So, are they also going to ban bullies and other people who do actually troll and harass kids and adults?

04/05/2012

By CARL CAMPANILE

UPDATE:

• Exclusive: The Secret Behind The Xbox Sex Case

More than 3,500 convicted New York sex offenders had their online video-gaming accounts yanked to protect kids from predatory acts under an agreement announced today by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Under the "operation game over" initiative, manufacturers who operate online video-gaming networks, like the one for "Call of Duty," have agreed to cross check their customer accounts with the New York state sex offender registry to remove predators trolling game sites. The companies participating include Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Warner Brothers, Disney, Blizzard Entertainment and Electronic Arts.

"We must ensure online video game systems do not become a digital playground for predators," Schneiderman said.
- Then why don't you add something into the controls to allow someone to report someone and block them instead of just following a long with the hysteria?

The attorney general praised the manufacturers for their cooperation. When he informed them there were sex offenders on their networks and asked the companies to remove them, they agreed to do so.

WARNING: Video contains adult language!

Video Link


Video Link

---

IL - Discrimination

Original Article

12/07/2011

By LaDonna Utley

Here's a question for you. How can we expect society to give offenders a 2nd chance or gain employment when IDOC won't even do that? As a sex offender there are very few jobs that one can have within the prison system. These inmates who want to work and rehabilitate themselves aren't given the opportunity to do so.

Sex offenders can't have most jobs "becasue there might be a female CO working that day". They can't get work release or have any job that pays anything decent. Well, if you call $30 a month decent. DJ was only allowed to work in property or food services.

Rehabilitation is a joke. IDOC does not do anything or offer any services that are based on rehabilitating offenders. They are just a number in the system. If not for the fact that DJ is one of the few people who could actually look at his behaviors and realize how wrong they were and be observant of other's behaviors and see how unhealthy they were, he would not be the man he is today. Lucky for him and me he is one of the few who actually can look at himself and see what needed to change and actually follow through on making those changes.

Everyone is capable of change but they have to want to and be willing to really look at themselves and be open to acknowledging what's wrong before moving forward. Not everyone is willing. There is a difference between capable and willing.

Point is when these people have served their time and released back into society they continue to face discrimination by society. Society hears the term sex offender and they automatically think that person is bad. People aren't bad, but they do make bad decisions. If they recoginze their bad behavior and have changed, why should they not be given a 2nd chance? Why can't it start within the prison system to give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated?

I know most people will say "they committed a crime and should have to pay for it". Yes, crimes need to be punished. But simply punishing people for their crimes does not prevent them from recommitting once they have served their time. If we concentrated more on rehabilitating inmates while incarcerated then the reoffense rate would be much less.

Society and the justice system wants to impose harsher laws and restrictions but that does nothing to solve the problem. We should be looking at ways to prevent the abuse before it happens, not just impose a harsh punishment once the damage is done. Why should we lock the barn door after the horse escapes?

DJ and I believe that if we educated more people about prevention we would see a much lower rate of abuse. No, it won't stop those who are truly sick and just want to hurt people. You will never avoid that completely but wouldn't it be worth a try even if it saved just 1 child? Statistics show that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually abused. If we could reduce that by educating parents, teachers, and everyone else wouldn't it be worth it? The cycle has to stop somewhere. DJ was abused himself as a child and while that's no excuse, it does show a cycle of abuse. When will it end? Thank God DJ has been able to see his mistake and make real changes.

I know there are those out there who are judging him still and now I am being judged for standing by him. Go ahead and judge. You don't know DJ or me and I really don't care. I know the wonderful man he IS, not the monster they say he WAS! He is the most incredible man I've ever known and I will always stand by him. I hope that by telling our story we can help just one other person. It only takes one to get the ball rolling.

---

AL - Sex offenders banned from Facebook?

Original Article

08/16/2011

BIRMINGHAM (WIAT) - With nearly 700 million users on Facebook, the social networking giant has made it easier to get in contact with just about anyone.

But when used by the wrong people, it can be downright dangerous.
- Sure, and so can all the other billions of web sites. Are we banning people from those as well?

Newly signed laws in Illinois and Louisiana ban sex offenders from using all social networking sites.

Although it's an effort to protect children, some groups say these restrictions violate sex offenders rights.

“For the government to ban access to virtually all information on the Internet is overreaching, and opens the door to further government intrusion on everyone’s First Amendment rights," says Louisiana's ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman.

People like Alvin Carter agree.

"I don't think you can just go around just banning certain people because once you start with them it's just gonna be a matter of time before you move on to another group."

While it's not illegal in Alabama for a sex offender to have a Facebook account, a law signed in July requires them to register email addresses cell phone numbers and any identifiers they would use on the internet.

However not every offender obeys the law.

"If they're using false or different names or identifiers or things of that nature, then yes it can be very dangerous."
- The claims of false use of identifiers have not been proven, it is nothing more than a false premise to justify this law.

Sgt. Jacob Reach works with the Jefferson County Sex Offender Unit. He says it's important to stay on top of these offenders to ensure they don't strike again.
- You are assuming all sex offenders will re-offend, see statement below, which is false. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all other criminal, and yet those with higher recidivism do not have an online registry for them!

"It is very well proven that these type of offenders have a tendency to reoffend. And the sole purpose of the law is to continue to protect the children and keep kids safe throughout the community," adds Reach.
- Well Mr. Reach, you are wrong. See the link above, which disproves your statement. You are just saying the same thing everyone else does, repeating sound-bites you've heard over the years, without proof. Do you care to show me the proof of your statement? I did above, if you care to read a little.

If the Sex Offender Unit finds out an offender has an account that hasn't been registered, they'll be hit with a Class C felony, and face court process and prosecution.

Video Link

---

FL - Entire Florida community goes vigilante to kick out all sex offenders?

Original Article

So, if this is allowed to pass, who is next? Blacks? Jews? Other criminals? You can call it whatever you like, but it's discrimination, pure and simple. And where the HELL is the ACLU on these draconian sex offender issues?

08/09/2011

By Joseph Freeman

Homeowners voting on rule that would keep sex offenders from living there

Residents of a gated community in southwest Orange County are voting on whether to prevent registered sex offenders from living there — a move that attorneys are calling highly unusual.

The new homeowners-association rule would bar offenders from living in Keene's Pointe, a community of about 1,000 single-family homes just south of Windermere.

Russ Blackwell, president of the Keene's Pointe Homeowners Association, went to Windermere's Town Council meeting Tuesday night to answer questions about the proposal. Although Windermere has no say in the matter, Blackwell said he went as a courtesy because the two communities are neighbors.

The proposed rule would prevent a sex offender from living within 2,500 feet of a playground or a school bus stop — limits that would keep offenders out of the entire community. The rule would not keep offenders from owning property in Keene's Pointe, however. It would not be retroactive and would apply only to future property transactions.

The new rule would be "very rare" for homeowner associations, said Tara Lyn Barrett, who specializes in community association law for the Orlando firm Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta.

In most cases, residency rules for sex offenders are "regulated enough by state and local ordinances," Barrett said. "We represent about 60 associations, and not one of our convenants says anything in regard to that."

Blackwell said the idea came about when residents discovered that a sex offender was living in the community, even though no incidents took place.

"There are a lot of children in Keene's Pointe — a lot of playgrounds and bus stops," he said.

Windermere officials listened with interest to Blackwell explain the proposal, and seemed willing to explore adopting one of their own. Town Council members directed Police Chief Mike McCoy to research what other municipalities have passed. McCoy said that one issue to think about is enforcement. Would there be a fine? An arrest? He did think it was a "very good thing for the city of Windermere to have on the books."

The election in Keene's Pointe began late last week, and homeowners can vote online or by mail. Results are expected at the association's annual meeting Nov. 17.

Local governments in Florida, such as Winter Park and Ormond Beach, have passed similar distance restrictions. Courts have supported them, even when the ordinances have exceeded the state law that keeps convicted sexual predators from living within 1,000 feet of any school, day-care center, park or playground.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement maintains a database of sexual offenders that provides searchable information by name and neighborhood.

A Third District Court of Appeal ruling in May 2010 found that a Miami-Dade County ordinance prohibiting offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school was "not invalidated by Florida law and therefore remains in full force and effect."
- That is because the corrupt government is ignoring the constitution, and people's rights, so they "look tough" on crime while actually doing nothing.  And where are all the so called "constitutional" experts and civil/human rights organizations?  When are they going to take these draconian laws up to the Supreme Court of the US?

"The Legislature has not clearly pre-empted local regulation of the field of the post-conviction conduct of sexual predators," the ruling stated.

Although cities and counties have passed ordinances going beyond the state law, it has been virtually unheard of for homeowner associations in Florida to do the same.

"This is an emerging trend in municipal government and starting to be addressed in associations,as well," said Neal McCulloh, the attorney for Keene's Pointe who drafted the rule. "We're probably going to raise this to all of our clients."
- Yeah, if this keeps up, pretty soon grocery stores, malls, hardware stores, and everyone else will start discriminating and not allowing certain people in their businesses, and they will start screening you at the front door, to make sure you are not a thief or some other criminal.

---

LA - Laws On Sex Offenders, Abuse Of Elderly Strengthened

Original Article

07/14/2011

BENTON - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was in Bossier Parish on Wednesday, where he signed a series of bills dealing with sex offenders, human trafficking and abuse of the elderly.

One bill signed by the governor at a ceremony at the courthouse prohibits registered sex offenders from getting on social networking sites like facebook and chat rooms.

Another new law makes the penalties for sexually abusing the elderly and the disabled the same as the penalty for abusing children. Currently, a person convicted of sexual battery or sexual battery of the infirm faces up to 10 years in prison. The minimum sentence for sexual battery of a child under the age of 13 is 25 years.

Scarlet Letter

Jindal also signed a bill passed by the Legislature that makes it a violation of a sex offender's registration requirements if they fail to have a driver's license or identification card with "sex offender" labeled on it.

Louisiana's previous human trafficking laws criminalize the actions of the human trafficker, but do not address the actions of a person who knowingly facilitates the crime. Another new law equalizes the penalty for the person who helps the human trafficker.

---

WI - Small Wisconsin city of Niagara won't let husband live with wife

Original Article

06/01/2011

By Bruce Vielmetti

Couple alleges misuse of sex offender rules

Like many Wisconsin communities, Niagara passed an ordinance in 2009 restricting where registered sex offenders can live.

And when [name withheld], 29, tried to move there last summer from Appleton, city officials cited the ordinance as the reason why he could not join his wife in the tiny former mill town on the Upper Michigan border.

Now in a federal lawsuit, the couple accuses Niagara and its city council members of violating the couple's civil rights, as well as racial harassment and discrimination.

[name withheld] is African-American.

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court: When he began preparing to move to Niagara, where his wife, [name withheld], 38, already resides, [name withheld] was told by city officials that he was prohibited from living with her because he is a registered sex offender.

The lawsuit contends that Niagara's ordinance targets any offender whose victim was 14 or younger, and that [name withheld] was 16 and the victim 15 at the time of his offense. The couple appealed under the ordinance, and was again denied.

Rules being altered

They then notified the city that they intended to use an exception under the ordinance for any offender moving in with certain family members, including spouses, who have lived in the residence at least two years.

The city council then proposed amending the ordinance to eliminate the exception, according to the [name withheld]' suit, an action the couple says was retaliatory, discriminatory and intended to specifically deny them from living together in Niagara.

The Niagara ordinance prohibits designated offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, day care, park, trail, church "or any other place designated by the city as a place where children are known to congregate."

[name withheld] lives on _____, which runs through the town of about 1,700. Neither she nor her husband could be reached for comment. Their attorney, Michael Menghini of Green Bay, did not return messages.

None of the city council members named in the lawsuit returned a message sent via the city clerk.

Reached at home, one of them, Glenn Lantagne, referred a reporter to the city's attorney.

The attorney, Kim Coggins of Marinette, also declined to comment, saying the lawsuit would be turned over to Niagara's insurance carrier.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages from the city council members, and a declaration that Niagara's sex offender residence ordinance is unconstitutional.

---

OH - Ohio Discrimination

Discrimination comes from a hate part of us. Do you think you discriminate? Really? Discrimination has been around forever, back even when Mary and Joseph were looking for a place to give birth! Do you remember people having to set on the back of the bus? We fought that. Do you remember people owning people. Lincoln fixed that. Do you remember not be able to state your sexual preference? We fought that. Do you remember being a non-violent sex offender and everyone opening their hearts to you? Maybe some day!!

Video Link

---

Have You Experienced Discrimination? Take this survey

Click here to take the survey

Employment Discrimination against People with Criminal Records

Have You Experienced Discrimination?

People with criminal records face widespread employment discrimination. Many employers now do routine background checks. Firing or refusing to hire someone because of his or her criminal record can violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under some circumstances, particularly where an employer fires or refuses to hire someone based on an OLD conviction that is UNRELATED to the job sought. An employer's blanket ban on hiring ALL people with convictions runs a substantial risk of violating Title VII.

The ACLU Women’s Rights Project, in conjunction with ACLU affiliates in Oregon, Alaska, Michigan, Georgia, Hawaii, and other states, is launching an initiative to tackle the ways in which people with criminal records are barred from rebuilding their lives through employment. We seek to challenge barriers to employment by enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and by engaging in advocacy and public education to take down barriers to employment for people with criminal records.

For more information about employment discrimination against people with criminal convictions, please click here.

Please contact us if you recently have been fired or denied a job because of an old or minor conviction that is not related to the job that was lost.

The information you provide in this questionnaire will be kept confidential unless we contact you and obtain your permission to share it with others. Please provide detailed responses where necessary. Thank you.

---

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

---

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A LABEL AND NOT BASED ON ACTIONS!

Various web sites, like MySpace and Facebook, and discriminating against sex offenders, simply due to a label. Now, let's look at the definition of discrimination from Merriam-Webster:

Definition:

1) A: the act of discriminating B: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2) the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3) A: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually B: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment (racial discrimination)

And here is what is said on Wikipedia:

Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. It is usually associated with prejudice. It can be behavior promoting a certain group (e.g. affirmative action), or it can be negative behavior directed against a certain group (e.g. redlining). The latter is the more common meaning.

And the legal definition says that discrimination is based on Race, Age, Gender, etc.  But, IMO, discrimination,  regardless of Race, Age or Gender, is still discrimination.  And sites are now discrimination against sex offenders, simply due to a label, and not on the merits of if the person is actually doing something wrong.  If an offender was actually doing something illegal, and talking with children in a sexual manner, then I would have no problem with kicking that person off the site.  This is the same discrimination that has been used against many dispised people, like Blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hispanics, you name it.  DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION!

So, based on this, and what these sites are doing, what site will be affected next?  When will it stop?  When they come for you, what will you say then?

---