Original Article
04/04/2013
By Erin Mulvaney
Texas lawmakers working to toughen laws that police the daily lives of sex offenders are taking their fight online with bills aimed at social media and the Internet.
"With the evolving technology and increasing number of cyber crimes and crimes committed against the vulnerable, the goal is to extend the same policy we have for sex offenders now to the Internet," said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio. "It's a good, old-fashioned case of being pro-active on crime."
- If that was the case, then he'd also make murderers, gang members, identity thieves, and other ex-felons announce their criminal past on their social profiles as well. Our opinion is this is just another politicians trying to make a name for himself by exploiting fear, children and ex-offenders.
To that end, Martinez Fischer filed House Bill 23 (PDF), which would require registered sex offenders who use social media to include their registration information, including offenses and home addresses in the profile information accessible to other users.
- And since Facebook has in their terms of service that ex-sex offenders cannot use their site, this is basically denying them the right to use social networks.
The bill is one of nearly a dozen filed in Austin this session, aimed at the roughly 72,000 registered sex offenders across Texas.
Among them are proposals to eliminate parole for repeat sex offenders and reinforce the authority of cities to restrict where registered sex offenders can live.
Since about 2005, Texas and other states have sought to tighten laws governing sex offenders' daily lives, mostly targeting mandatory minimum sentences and restricting where they can live and work. Such laws were passed before that year.
Opponents of such measures argue that registrants are unfairly being stigmatized and their rights restricted too broadly. Efforts should be focused on those likely to re-offend and to decrease the number of people on sex offender registries, said Mary Sue Molnar, executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice.
"I think there are always a few who believe toughening up sex offender laws will make a difference," Molnar said. "They are not looking at the real solution or the real problem."
- Search:
- Site
- ACLU
- Legislature
- Other
Search this site only:
Search all ACLU sites:
Search all state legislatures:
Search other related sites, or Google:
| Recommended: | State News: |
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label Exploitation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exploitation. Show all posts
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
AZ - Retired Mesa PD Sgt. (Russell Dean Millsaps) arrested for sexual exploitation of a minor
Labels: Arizona , ChildPorn , CrimePolice , Exploitation , OffenderMale , Video
![]() |
| Russell Dean Millsaps |
03/15/2013
MESA (AP) -- A retired Mesa police sergeant has been arrested on suspicion of sexual exploitation of minor.
Mesa police say 66-year-old Russell Dean Millsaps was taken into custody Thursday afternoon after a search warrant was served at his home.
They say the arrest was part of an interstate federal child-pornography investigation.
Details of the case against Millsaps weren't immediately released.
Authorities say Millsaps was a longtime patrol sergeant who retired from the Mesa Police Department in 1995 after working for more than 25 years as an officer.
Police didn't immediately know Thursday night if Millsaps had an attorney yet.
See Also:
Friday, January 18, 2013
DC - Exploiting children for political agenda, this is not new, and Obama is no exception!
Labels: Exploitation , GunControl , Obama , RegGunOffender , Video , WashingtonDC
Since people have been on this Earth and politics has been around, people have been exploiting children during emotional issues or disasters to push their own agendas, and Obama is no different. You would think that people would see through this by now! It's nothing more than "For the children politics." We see this used when pushing sex offender laws all the time.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
UT - Utah Sheriff Strikes Back At Mug-Shot Websites
Labels: CrimeVigilante , Exploitation , Extortion , Harassment , Utah
Original Article
01/09/2013
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder has become the latest lawman in the country to stop the practice of displaying mug shots online.
- Good, it's about time, all police departments should stop doing this, for the same reason, exploitation. Offendex.com comes to mind.
Winder says booking photos are being exploited by websites for monetary gain — they charge suspects high prices for removing their mug shots and sometimes fail to follow through.
Winder has removed booking photos from his metro jail’s online roster.
The practice has former inmates saying they are paying twice for their crimes. They say it does no good to pay one website operator for the removal of a mug shot when so many are trafficking in the same booking photos.
Utah County responded to the problem by shrinking the size of its online mug shots to prevent them from being easily duplicated on the Web.
See Also:
01/09/2013
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder has become the latest lawman in the country to stop the practice of displaying mug shots online.
- Good, it's about time, all police departments should stop doing this, for the same reason, exploitation. Offendex.com comes to mind.
Winder says booking photos are being exploited by websites for monetary gain — they charge suspects high prices for removing their mug shots and sometimes fail to follow through.
Winder has removed booking photos from his metro jail’s online roster.
The practice has former inmates saying they are paying twice for their crimes. They say it does no good to pay one website operator for the removal of a mug shot when so many are trafficking in the same booking photos.
Utah County responded to the problem by shrinking the size of its online mug shots to prevent them from being easily duplicated on the Web.
See Also:
Monday, December 10, 2012
CA - Prop 35: Sex Offender Act Could Have Unforeseen Privacy Consequences
Labels: California , Exploitation , Internet , Privacy , Prostitution , RegProstitution , Video
Original Article
12/08/2012
By Cristina Maza
In March of 2013, a new law will be implemented in the state of California that ensures that every time a sex offender creates an online profile he or she has to disclose this information to local law enforcement within 24 hours. While some may cheer that Proposition 35 (PDF), also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative, is a step forward to curb the impunity of sex offenders on the web, many have failed to consider the implications that a law like this could have for non-sex offenders.
As an article on this new law rightly pointed out, Proposition 35 will create a situation in which a select group of people will have their online anonymity prohibited and will be forced to publicly connect their online identity with their real life one. Given the uproar recently about Facebook’s privacy laws, people are obviously concerned about the fact that they are being forced to reveal their identities whenever they engage in any kind of online activity and that their personal details could be exposed without their knowledge.
While many may support the idea of online freedoms being revoked for those who have committed a heinous crime, it leaves one wondering whether it is only a matter of time before other social groups that law enforcement deem “threatening” are also forced to do the same. Where do we draw the line?
Recently, I wrote an article for PolicyMic about the important role the internet is playing in political mobilization and civic participation around the world. One of the main reasons that the internet has the heavy flow of traffic that it does, is because it is theoretically an anonymous medium through which people can engage in discussion about a variety of topics without having to reveal their identities.
Many times people avoid discussing politically charged issues face-to-face for fear of conflict. Removing the right to remain anonymous could adversely affect the way people use the internet for political or other forms of civic engagement.
A law like Proposition 35 not only highlights the ambiguity of online privacy laws, but puts a striking emphasis on the fact that our actual identities are increasingly connected to our online ones, whether we like it or not. While theoretically the viewing of child-porn may be curbed if online profiles are disclosed, isn’t it far more important to monitor the real life behaviour of sex offenders after they are released from prison than to ensure that they are buying the right type of online products from the right suppliers?
Somehow, I fail to understand how being aware of the Amazon user name of a sex-offender is making me, as a woman, any safer. Perhaps more energy should be put into therapy and rehabilitation than into enforcing a law that could create a precedent for violating the privacy of other citizens.
See Also:
12/08/2012
By Cristina Maza
In March of 2013, a new law will be implemented in the state of California that ensures that every time a sex offender creates an online profile he or she has to disclose this information to local law enforcement within 24 hours. While some may cheer that Proposition 35 (PDF), also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative, is a step forward to curb the impunity of sex offenders on the web, many have failed to consider the implications that a law like this could have for non-sex offenders.
As an article on this new law rightly pointed out, Proposition 35 will create a situation in which a select group of people will have their online anonymity prohibited and will be forced to publicly connect their online identity with their real life one. Given the uproar recently about Facebook’s privacy laws, people are obviously concerned about the fact that they are being forced to reveal their identities whenever they engage in any kind of online activity and that their personal details could be exposed without their knowledge.
While many may support the idea of online freedoms being revoked for those who have committed a heinous crime, it leaves one wondering whether it is only a matter of time before other social groups that law enforcement deem “threatening” are also forced to do the same. Where do we draw the line?
Recently, I wrote an article for PolicyMic about the important role the internet is playing in political mobilization and civic participation around the world. One of the main reasons that the internet has the heavy flow of traffic that it does, is because it is theoretically an anonymous medium through which people can engage in discussion about a variety of topics without having to reveal their identities.
Many times people avoid discussing politically charged issues face-to-face for fear of conflict. Removing the right to remain anonymous could adversely affect the way people use the internet for political or other forms of civic engagement.
A law like Proposition 35 not only highlights the ambiguity of online privacy laws, but puts a striking emphasis on the fact that our actual identities are increasingly connected to our online ones, whether we like it or not. While theoretically the viewing of child-porn may be curbed if online profiles are disclosed, isn’t it far more important to monitor the real life behaviour of sex offenders after they are released from prison than to ensure that they are buying the right type of online products from the right suppliers?
Somehow, I fail to understand how being aware of the Amazon user name of a sex-offender is making me, as a woman, any safer. Perhaps more energy should be put into therapy and rehabilitation than into enforcing a law that could create a precedent for violating the privacy of other citizens.
See Also:
- California Proposition 35, Sex Trafficking Initiative, Blocked By Judge
- Proposition 35 And Why Anonymity Is Good For You
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
UK - Explicit web pornography 'behind surge in schoolgirl sex abuse'
Labels: Exploitation , International , National , Porn , UnitedKingdom
Original Article
Everything can give people distorted views. TV, news media, music, you name it. Like we've said before, education is the key to helping put a dent in sexual abuse, not naming, shaming and posting people's photos and criminal records on an online shaming hit-list.
11/14/2012
Figures show that up to a third of sixth-form girls had been touched inappropriately by boys in their school.
Parliament was told that sex education should be made a compulsory part of the school curriculum as part of the Government's efforts to stop the exploitation of children.
Ann Coffey, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children, blamed the increasing impact of internet pornography, which she said was "distorting teenage boys’ views of sex".
"There is a problem that boys are accessing adult websites which gives them a distorted attitude," she told MPs during a Commons debate on the sexual exploitation of children.
"It gives them a sense of entitlement, which means they may touch a girl inappropriately and use bullying or coercive behaviour."
She said the more children were taught about sex and relationships, the easier they would find it to speak out if they felt they were being abused.
Too often children did not know they were being abused or had been sucked into an inappropriate relationship until it was too late, she said.
Better teaching in the area would give youngsters the confidence to spot the signs they were being groomed and alert the authorities.
Ms Coffey said: "To speak out, first children need to feel confident that what is happening to them is wrong and that is why sex and relationship education in schools is so important."
"They need to know, indeed they are entitled to know, about issues such as sexual consent, what sexual coercion and exploitation is and how to shape healthy relationships and respect for each other as well as alerting them to the signs that they are being sexually groomed."
- Well, when we live in a sexually suppressed society, what do you expect?
"This will give them the confidence to reject inappropriate relationships. This is important in relation to grooming by older men for sexual exploitation but also important in relation to sexually coercive relationships by their peers."
Ms Coffey said that with often explicit pornography available to boys over the internet, there was growing evidence of girls at school experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of their peers.
Ms Coffey's comments came as MPs debated the problem of the sexual exploitation of children in Britain following a motion tabled by the Tory MP Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon).
She said often girls were lured in to damaging relationships with their abusers, who would use threats, violence and intimidation to exert their power.
Ms Blackwood said: "We should be aware that this very high level of national media attention is artificially pushing up reporting levels."
"But if increased reporting doesn't lead to better prevention, detection and prosecution then the bravery of those who have come forward will have been for nothing."
"Identifying gaps in provision will not be enough to prevent that outcome. We also need to find practical solutions and make sure they are actually driven through on the ground."
Former children's minister Tim Loughton, who left the Government in September's reshuffle, said: "One of the scandals was the way children were not only told to shut up or not believed, in some cases they were threatened physically with violence if they carried on coming forward with their stories."
"That must not happen now."
Shadow Home Office minister Diana Johnson said: "Neither perpetrators or victims are easily defined, but we certainly know that certain groups are particularly vulnerable, and the reality is that young women from all different social groups are exposed to sexual violence and vulnerable to sexual exploitation."
"It's equally unwise to generalise about the perpetrators."
"In the media ... much has been made of the prevalence of grooming within certain Asian communities, but sexual exploitation extends far beyond any particular community or any city."
"By trying to identify typical perpetrators, we risk missing many others."
She pointed to the various ongoing inquiries into child abuse and echoed calls for an overarching investigation.
It is compulsory in England for primary and secondary schools to teach the biological aspects of sex education, but not necessarily the broader subject of sex and relationships.
See Also:
Everything can give people distorted views. TV, news media, music, you name it. Like we've said before, education is the key to helping put a dent in sexual abuse, not naming, shaming and posting people's photos and criminal records on an online shaming hit-list.
11/14/2012
Figures show that up to a third of sixth-form girls had been touched inappropriately by boys in their school.
Parliament was told that sex education should be made a compulsory part of the school curriculum as part of the Government's efforts to stop the exploitation of children.
Ann Coffey, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children, blamed the increasing impact of internet pornography, which she said was "distorting teenage boys’ views of sex".
"There is a problem that boys are accessing adult websites which gives them a distorted attitude," she told MPs during a Commons debate on the sexual exploitation of children.
"It gives them a sense of entitlement, which means they may touch a girl inappropriately and use bullying or coercive behaviour."
She said the more children were taught about sex and relationships, the easier they would find it to speak out if they felt they were being abused.
Too often children did not know they were being abused or had been sucked into an inappropriate relationship until it was too late, she said.
Better teaching in the area would give youngsters the confidence to spot the signs they were being groomed and alert the authorities.
Ms Coffey said: "To speak out, first children need to feel confident that what is happening to them is wrong and that is why sex and relationship education in schools is so important."
"They need to know, indeed they are entitled to know, about issues such as sexual consent, what sexual coercion and exploitation is and how to shape healthy relationships and respect for each other as well as alerting them to the signs that they are being sexually groomed."
- Well, when we live in a sexually suppressed society, what do you expect?
"This will give them the confidence to reject inappropriate relationships. This is important in relation to grooming by older men for sexual exploitation but also important in relation to sexually coercive relationships by their peers."
Ms Coffey said that with often explicit pornography available to boys over the internet, there was growing evidence of girls at school experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of their peers.
Ms Coffey's comments came as MPs debated the problem of the sexual exploitation of children in Britain following a motion tabled by the Tory MP Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon).
She said often girls were lured in to damaging relationships with their abusers, who would use threats, violence and intimidation to exert their power.
Ms Blackwood said: "We should be aware that this very high level of national media attention is artificially pushing up reporting levels."
"But if increased reporting doesn't lead to better prevention, detection and prosecution then the bravery of those who have come forward will have been for nothing."
"Identifying gaps in provision will not be enough to prevent that outcome. We also need to find practical solutions and make sure they are actually driven through on the ground."
Former children's minister Tim Loughton, who left the Government in September's reshuffle, said: "One of the scandals was the way children were not only told to shut up or not believed, in some cases they were threatened physically with violence if they carried on coming forward with their stories."
"That must not happen now."
Shadow Home Office minister Diana Johnson said: "Neither perpetrators or victims are easily defined, but we certainly know that certain groups are particularly vulnerable, and the reality is that young women from all different social groups are exposed to sexual violence and vulnerable to sexual exploitation."
"It's equally unwise to generalise about the perpetrators."
"In the media ... much has been made of the prevalence of grooming within certain Asian communities, but sexual exploitation extends far beyond any particular community or any city."
"By trying to identify typical perpetrators, we risk missing many others."
She pointed to the various ongoing inquiries into child abuse and echoed calls for an overarching investigation.
It is compulsory in England for primary and secondary schools to teach the biological aspects of sex education, but not necessarily the broader subject of sex and relationships.
See Also:
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
CA - No on Proposition 35 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery)
Labels: California , Exploitation , SexSlave , Slavery
Original Article
10/10/2012
The state already has laws to combat human trafficking. So why is this ballot measure necessary?
If reducing sex trafficking and forced labor were as simple as adopting a ballot measure that promised to deal with those predatory practices, there would be every reason to vote for the popular Proposition 35 (PDF). But the initiative system doesn't work that way. Voters must ask more than whether they would like to see those cruelties come to an end. They must be satisfied that the particular, far-reaching and inflexible penalties and procedures that would be enacted by this measure would help; that they are the best approach to solving an actual problem; and that actual progress would dwarf any unintended consequences.
Proposition 35 fails those tests. Voters should not be lulled into believing that by approving this measure they will be taking effective action against slavery and sexual exploitation. Even if well intentioned, this initiative falls well short of the mark. The Times urges a no vote.
Voter initiatives can be an important check on a legislature so captured by special interests or partisan politics that it fails to deal with problems as they arise. There is plenty of evidence that California's Legislature is too timid or cowardly to deal with a variety of problems, but human trafficking is not one of them. The state doesn't lack for effective laws to combat trafficking. It is among 21 states that have passed significant anti-trafficking legislation. California and federal law today severely punish abduction and pimping of minors (and adults, for that matter), false imprisonment, forced labor and rape. Just last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed two more important pieces of legislation, including a measure that will make it easier for prosecutors to seize traffickers' assets.
These laws were adopted after hearings and testimony, consultation with law enforcement and legal experts, drafting and redrafting. They are designed to take apart the problem systematically and in the context of other criminal laws. Although they deal with separate aspects of the trafficking problem, together they form a comprehensive and — importantly — evolving approach.
Ballot measures, by contrast, are notoriously inflexible, engrafting into law provisions that cannot be changed — without yet another initiative — as drafting flaws come to light, experience provides useful guidance and data pile up to show which practices are effective and which simply make us feel good.
Proposition 35 all too well displays the weaknesses of the ballot process. For example:
10/10/2012
The state already has laws to combat human trafficking. So why is this ballot measure necessary?
If reducing sex trafficking and forced labor were as simple as adopting a ballot measure that promised to deal with those predatory practices, there would be every reason to vote for the popular Proposition 35 (PDF). But the initiative system doesn't work that way. Voters must ask more than whether they would like to see those cruelties come to an end. They must be satisfied that the particular, far-reaching and inflexible penalties and procedures that would be enacted by this measure would help; that they are the best approach to solving an actual problem; and that actual progress would dwarf any unintended consequences.
Proposition 35 fails those tests. Voters should not be lulled into believing that by approving this measure they will be taking effective action against slavery and sexual exploitation. Even if well intentioned, this initiative falls well short of the mark. The Times urges a no vote.
Voter initiatives can be an important check on a legislature so captured by special interests or partisan politics that it fails to deal with problems as they arise. There is plenty of evidence that California's Legislature is too timid or cowardly to deal with a variety of problems, but human trafficking is not one of them. The state doesn't lack for effective laws to combat trafficking. It is among 21 states that have passed significant anti-trafficking legislation. California and federal law today severely punish abduction and pimping of minors (and adults, for that matter), false imprisonment, forced labor and rape. Just last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed two more important pieces of legislation, including a measure that will make it easier for prosecutors to seize traffickers' assets.
These laws were adopted after hearings and testimony, consultation with law enforcement and legal experts, drafting and redrafting. They are designed to take apart the problem systematically and in the context of other criminal laws. Although they deal with separate aspects of the trafficking problem, together they form a comprehensive and — importantly — evolving approach.
Ballot measures, by contrast, are notoriously inflexible, engrafting into law provisions that cannot be changed — without yet another initiative — as drafting flaws come to light, experience provides useful guidance and data pile up to show which practices are effective and which simply make us feel good.
Proposition 35 all too well displays the weaknesses of the ballot process. For example:
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Friend Verifier - Facebook App Doesn't Work
Labels: Defamation , Disinformation , Exploitation , MassHysteria , National , SocialNetwork , Video
We've installed and tested this application, and it doesn't work! Since ex-offenders are discriminated against on Facebook (See section 4, item 6), and elsewhere, many do not use their real names, and to be honest, neither should you! Even for those who do, it doesn't spot them, so this is another application which has good intentions, but is flawed and provides people with a false sense of security. We noticed they have other services, where you must pay, so, this is probably their way of getting to you, so you will use their other paid services, by exploiting the sex offender hysteria. When you allow the government to put criminal records online, it's only a matter of time before your personal records are also online. That is our opinion of course.
We posted a comment on their Facebook page, with a link to this post, and as expected, they posted the usual lies and slander, as seen in the photo below. This just shows the type of ignorance and biased people we are up against.
Video Description:
Friend Verifier is a Facebook App powered by Verify Anybody that allows you to scan your friends and pending friend requests on Facebook against the United States Sex Offender Registry.
- So what about all other criminal records? Wouldn't you like to know if one of your "friends" is a serial killer or thief?
We posted a comment on their Facebook page, with a link to this post, and as expected, they posted the usual lies and slander, as seen in the photo below. This just shows the type of ignorance and biased people we are up against.
![]() |
| Click the image to enlarge, if needed |
Video Description:
Friend Verifier is a Facebook App powered by Verify Anybody that allows you to scan your friends and pending friend requests on Facebook against the United States Sex Offender Registry.
- So what about all other criminal records? Wouldn't you like to know if one of your "friends" is a serial killer or thief?
Thursday, August 23, 2012
IN - Attorney general candidate seeks reform of child services dept., sex offender registry
Labels: Exploitation , Indiana , Video
![]() |
| Kay Fleming |
I am so sick and tired of politicians who will do and say anything, and exploit anything, just to get elected, and sex offenders are their sure fire way to get elected. Want to get elected? Just exploit children and sex offenders!
08/22/2012
By Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS - Democrat Kay Fleming (Facebook) promised Wednesday to lead reform of the Department of Child Services and seek improvements to the state's sex offender registry if she is elected Indiana attorney general.
During the past two months, the Indianapolis attorney said she has met with Hoosiers statewide who told her DCS isn't working as well as it should.
Fleming said she would use her position to help coordinate the child protection work of state and local officials "to ensure that children can be kept safe and resources are not squandered."
Also needing better oversight is Indiana's sex offender registry, Fleming said. The list is currently managed by the Indiana Department of Correction with input from each of the state's 92 counties and the Indiana Sheriff's Association.
"Many of our county officials are stretched thin as it is," Fleming said. "The AG's office has the resources to maintain this list, ensure that it has the information that law enforcement needs and ensure that it complies with federal requirements."
Fleming is running for attorney general against Republican Greg Zoeller (Attorney General, Facebook), who is seeking a second four-year term.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Sex Offender Laws - Making money for everyone, even personal urinals?
Labels: Exploitation , National , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
07/13/2012
While selling GoPilots to tailgaters at an Eagles game a few months ago, I came across a few “40-somethings” sitting around having some fun. I approached them and told them about the GoPilot. One guy said “If only I had that last year I would’ve saved myself $14,000 in legal fees.” I looked at him confused and asked him to explain.
He said “One night after a few hours of drinking in Manayunk, we were driving home around 2 am. I had my friend who was driving pull over so I could pee. Well I got caught! A cop saw me and got me for indecent exposure. Months later, I received notification that it’s a sex crime. I spent $14,000 getting it knocked down to disorderly conduct which is just a misdemeanor, but man did that suck! I WISH I woulda had one of these last year!”
I was so surprised by this! I think it’s a bit far-fetched to relate “acting on Mother Nature” to a “sex offense” but unfortunately it is what it is! Unless you get a really cool cop and/or judge, you could really get screwed!
07/13/2012
While selling GoPilots to tailgaters at an Eagles game a few months ago, I came across a few “40-somethings” sitting around having some fun. I approached them and told them about the GoPilot. One guy said “If only I had that last year I would’ve saved myself $14,000 in legal fees.” I looked at him confused and asked him to explain.
He said “One night after a few hours of drinking in Manayunk, we were driving home around 2 am. I had my friend who was driving pull over so I could pee. Well I got caught! A cop saw me and got me for indecent exposure. Months later, I received notification that it’s a sex crime. I spent $14,000 getting it knocked down to disorderly conduct which is just a misdemeanor, but man did that suck! I WISH I woulda had one of these last year!”
I was so surprised by this! I think it’s a bit far-fetched to relate “acting on Mother Nature” to a “sex offense” but unfortunately it is what it is! Unless you get a really cool cop and/or judge, you could really get screwed!
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
SC - Peter McCoy up for re-election so out comes the sex offender (vote getting) issues!
Labels: Exploitation , Politics , SouthCarolina , Video
He's up for re-election, so like clockwork, out comes the sure fire way to get elected, exploiting ex-sex offenders!
Sunday, July 15, 2012
GA - Want to get elected? Do what Dick Perryman does and attack someone everybody hates!
Labels: Exploitation , FearMongering , Georgia , Politics , Video
Politicians have for many centuries exploited fear and children for their own personal gain. Now, due to the moral panic spread by the media, politicians and others, they've added a new weapon to their arsenal, ex-sex offenders. When will the American people wake up and see these people will do and say anything to get your vote, even if it means exploiting others? It's politics as usual!
In the videos below, Mr. Perryman claims he will treat everyone the same, which is something we should NEVER do! People are not all the same! I guess all DA's are corrupt idiots because a couple are? Of course they are not.
And with him being a DA, he should know that you do not have to touch or have sex with a child to be given the label "child molester," but who cares about the facts, as long as they get elected, right?
In the videos below, Mr. Perryman claims he will treat everyone the same, which is something we should NEVER do! People are not all the same! I guess all DA's are corrupt idiots because a couple are? Of course they are not.
And with him being a DA, he should know that you do not have to touch or have sex with a child to be given the label "child molester," but who cares about the facts, as long as they get elected, right?
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
NY - Walden mayor Brian Maher exploiting fear to get elected to the Assembly?
Labels: Exploitation , FearMongering , NewYork , Playground , Residency , Video
![]() |
| Brian Maher |
07/10/2012
By Pauline Liu
WALDEN — News that a sex offender lives directly across the street from Walden Elementary School has struck a nerve among both residents and village officials.
"It's completely disgusting," said Lori Chapman, whose 7-year-old daughter attends the school.
The village will have a meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at Village Hall to consider a proposed law. A public hearing on the proposed legislation is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. July 24.
The proposal would be aimed at preventing Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders — those with a high risk of repeat offenses — from living within 500 feet of a school or day care center.
Mayor Brian Maher considers the plan a no-brainer.
"We are making every effort to ensure our children are protected and we hope to pass this law as soon as possible," he said.
- Well, when most people are abused by their own parents, this law, and all the others, will do nothing to prevent sexual crimes.
If the village board passes the law, it won't be the first in the area. The Town of Wallkill has had a sex offender residency law since 2007. Middletown has had a similar law on the books since 2008.
However, some laws that restrict where sex offenders can live have been struck down by the courts.
Walden is modeling its law after Otsego County's, which has been in place for several years. Though state lawmakers have been working on their own sex offender residency legislation, they have yet to pass a law.
"The state has not done enough on this matter," said Maher, who is running for Assembly.
- Well there you go! He's running for a better position, so of course he's going to bust out the sex offender issues!
Village officials also want to make the new law retroactive, so it can apply to 38-year-old [name withheld]. The Level 3 sex offender moved into a house at 90 Orchard St. about a month ago.
- Any retroactive law is an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional!
The home's property line is about 50 feet from the school playground. [name withheld] served five years in prison for sexually abusing a 5-year-old girl in Sullivan County in 2002. He also served three years probation.
[name withheld] registered with the Walden Police Department , as required, when he moved into the village. Then the police notified the community.
"There's grounds to make it (the law) retroactive," said Village Attorney Austin DuBois. "It's up to the board to decide if they want to take a more or less aggressive approach."
According to Village Manager John Revella, [name withheld] is renting a room in the house and has no lease. That would make the arrangement an illegal boarding house.
[name withheld], who works for a local medical transport company, said it won't be an issue because he's going to be moving out of Walden in September, before school starts.
- So, school is not even in session, but hey, no reason we can't take advantage of this situation to help ourselves out, right?
"If I'd known it was going to be this much of a problem, I would have stayed in Liberty," he said. "This is all because I live near a school."
Revella, who has two children of his own at the school, said the village will move ahead with the passage of the law even if [name withheld] moves out.
[name withheld]'s roommate, Jason Ralston, said [name withheld] has been fully rehabilitated.
"If he's served his time in jail, who am I to say there's anything wrong?" said Ralston. "I think people should mind their own business."
Friday, September 16, 2011
CANADA - Public sex-offender registries are dangerous
Labels: Canada , CrimeVigilante , Exploitation , FearMongering , Video
Original Article
Homicide victim (stabbed in the neck) a convicted sex offender
I could not have said it better myself! Amen!
09/16/2011
By Dan Gardner
Tim Hudak is the sort of politician who searches for the inchoate fears and hatreds that lie, unspoken, just below the surface of consciousness. When he finds them, he drags them up and waves them for all to see, hoping that ugly emotions will serve his political purposes. He is what an earlier generation would have called a “rabble rouser.”
- Aren't most politicians?
And so it was probably inevitable that Hudak would turn his attention to sex offenders.
- It's not unusual for politicians to exploit fear, children and now sex offenders for votes, it's been done for years!
In this secular society, sex offenders are as feared and hated as demons were in the Middle Ages. “Pedophiles watch our children from the shadows,” the U.S. attorney general said in a speech several years ago. “They lie in wait, planning to ensnare and violate the innocent.”
- Fear, sex and children sell! This is no different! If you watch most elections or political speeches, you will see them standing in front of children, or scaring you with bogus statistics, that is politics!
Simply say the words “sex offenders” and that’s the image that comes to mind: merciless monsters, lurking in bushes, waiting to snatch toddlers away from unwary mothers.
The overwhelming majority of child abductions and child abuse may be committed by family and friends of the victim. “Sex offender” may include a huge range of criminals, from the pedophile abductor to the flasher, the peeping tom, and the 18-year-old who has consensual sex with his underage girlfriend. And child abduction and abuse by strangers may be fantastically rare.
But none of that matters. We hear “sex offender” and we immediately think of soulless, depraved, ravenous beasts hiding in the shadows. We think of demons.
Which makes sex offenders superb fodder for politics.
“Every time you turn on the news, some kid is getting abducted, raped, and murdered,” a Louisiana state senator said in 2006. Happily for the terrified parents of Louisiana, the senator knew just what to do about this horrific threat to the innocent children of his great state: In the space of one month, the legislature passed 14 separate bills targeting sex offenders.
That’s been the story for 20 years all across the United States. Politicians terrify parents. Then they promise to save their children with some policy that is as intuitively attractive and emotional satisfying as it is unsupported by evidence. Draconian sentences. Harsh prison conditions. Forcing released offenders to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives. Forbidding them from doing a long list of jobs. Banning them from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and many other places.
Then there is the sex offender registry.
At first, only the police could use the registry. But access was expanded. And put online. Today, in most states, anyone can get any sex offender’s photo, address, and criminal record at the click of a mouse.
In 2000, a Canadian federal-provincial task force examined the evidence on sex offender registries. They don’t help, the task force concluded. No matter. We got one. Registries may be a waste of money but they’re great politics.
But Canadian politicians did not plumb the depths of American crime politics, much to their credit. Access to the sex offender registry is still restricted to police. And no major politician has proposed anything like the online festival of fear that is common in the U.S.
Until now.
“There are currently more than 14,000 registered sex offenders living in Ontario, but there’s no way for families to know if any of them live in their neighbourhood, near their child’s school, or next to the park where they play,” reads a press release from the Progressive Conservative campaign. Solution: a website where anyone can find any sex offender’s current address. Tim Hudak “will protect hard working families and children against those who would harm us.”
- Yeah right!
Actually, he will do no such thing. What he will do — if this and his other sleazy gambits get him elected — is further inflate an already exaggerated fear. He may also put more people in danger. But he will not protect hard-working families and children.
American experience shows the information in registries is routinely missing or inaccurate. Even if it weren’t, it’s irrelevant to most child abuse since family and friends are the culprits in most cases, and the kids are only too familiar with their addresses.
American experience also shows — to no one’s surprise, surely — that making convicted sex offenders’ addresses publicly available makes it very hard for sex offenders to reintegrate and live a law-abiding life. Combined with restrictions on where they can live, and what work they can do, searchable sex offender registries are an excellent way to ensure sex offenders remain unemployed, homeless, and likely to commit new crimes.
Searchable registries are also an open invitation to vigilantes.
- See here and here.
In the U.S, there has been harassment. Threats and beatings. Even murders. In one notorious case, a Nova Scotia man got the names, photos, and addresses of 32 registered sex offenders from the state of Maine’s website. He then drove to Maine and murdered two men before he was cornered by police and committed suicide.
The state took the website down. For two days. It’s very popular, after all. It’s what people want.
Is it what Ontarians want? I hope not. But I suspect I will be disappointed.
Homicide victim (stabbed in the neck) a convicted sex offender
I could not have said it better myself! Amen!
09/16/2011
By Dan Gardner
Tim Hudak is the sort of politician who searches for the inchoate fears and hatreds that lie, unspoken, just below the surface of consciousness. When he finds them, he drags them up and waves them for all to see, hoping that ugly emotions will serve his political purposes. He is what an earlier generation would have called a “rabble rouser.”
- Aren't most politicians?
And so it was probably inevitable that Hudak would turn his attention to sex offenders.
- It's not unusual for politicians to exploit fear, children and now sex offenders for votes, it's been done for years!
In this secular society, sex offenders are as feared and hated as demons were in the Middle Ages. “Pedophiles watch our children from the shadows,” the U.S. attorney general said in a speech several years ago. “They lie in wait, planning to ensnare and violate the innocent.”
- Fear, sex and children sell! This is no different! If you watch most elections or political speeches, you will see them standing in front of children, or scaring you with bogus statistics, that is politics!
Simply say the words “sex offenders” and that’s the image that comes to mind: merciless monsters, lurking in bushes, waiting to snatch toddlers away from unwary mothers.
The overwhelming majority of child abductions and child abuse may be committed by family and friends of the victim. “Sex offender” may include a huge range of criminals, from the pedophile abductor to the flasher, the peeping tom, and the 18-year-old who has consensual sex with his underage girlfriend. And child abduction and abuse by strangers may be fantastically rare.
But none of that matters. We hear “sex offender” and we immediately think of soulless, depraved, ravenous beasts hiding in the shadows. We think of demons.
Which makes sex offenders superb fodder for politics.
“Every time you turn on the news, some kid is getting abducted, raped, and murdered,” a Louisiana state senator said in 2006. Happily for the terrified parents of Louisiana, the senator knew just what to do about this horrific threat to the innocent children of his great state: In the space of one month, the legislature passed 14 separate bills targeting sex offenders.
That’s been the story for 20 years all across the United States. Politicians terrify parents. Then they promise to save their children with some policy that is as intuitively attractive and emotional satisfying as it is unsupported by evidence. Draconian sentences. Harsh prison conditions. Forcing released offenders to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives. Forbidding them from doing a long list of jobs. Banning them from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and many other places.
Then there is the sex offender registry.
At first, only the police could use the registry. But access was expanded. And put online. Today, in most states, anyone can get any sex offender’s photo, address, and criminal record at the click of a mouse.
In 2000, a Canadian federal-provincial task force examined the evidence on sex offender registries. They don’t help, the task force concluded. No matter. We got one. Registries may be a waste of money but they’re great politics.
But Canadian politicians did not plumb the depths of American crime politics, much to their credit. Access to the sex offender registry is still restricted to police. And no major politician has proposed anything like the online festival of fear that is common in the U.S.
Until now.
“There are currently more than 14,000 registered sex offenders living in Ontario, but there’s no way for families to know if any of them live in their neighbourhood, near their child’s school, or next to the park where they play,” reads a press release from the Progressive Conservative campaign. Solution: a website where anyone can find any sex offender’s current address. Tim Hudak “will protect hard working families and children against those who would harm us.”
- Yeah right!
Actually, he will do no such thing. What he will do — if this and his other sleazy gambits get him elected — is further inflate an already exaggerated fear. He may also put more people in danger. But he will not protect hard-working families and children.
American experience shows the information in registries is routinely missing or inaccurate. Even if it weren’t, it’s irrelevant to most child abuse since family and friends are the culprits in most cases, and the kids are only too familiar with their addresses.
American experience also shows — to no one’s surprise, surely — that making convicted sex offenders’ addresses publicly available makes it very hard for sex offenders to reintegrate and live a law-abiding life. Combined with restrictions on where they can live, and what work they can do, searchable sex offender registries are an excellent way to ensure sex offenders remain unemployed, homeless, and likely to commit new crimes.
Searchable registries are also an open invitation to vigilantes.
- See here and here.
In the U.S, there has been harassment. Threats and beatings. Even murders. In one notorious case, a Nova Scotia man got the names, photos, and addresses of 32 registered sex offenders from the state of Maine’s website. He then drove to Maine and murdered two men before he was cornered by police and committed suicide.
The state took the website down. For two days. It’s very popular, after all. It’s what people want.
Is it what Ontarians want? I hope not. But I suspect I will be disappointed.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
CANADA - What Police and Safety Experts Say About Hudak's Scheme
Labels: Canada , Exploitation , FearMongering , GPS , Politics , Quotes , Video
Original Article
All Related Articles
09/14/2011
TORONTO - Tim Hudak is at it again. He found a bumper sticker slogan and talking point to clutch to, but there's not much substance there. Here's what police and safety experts are saying about his latest scheme to put our communities at risk by driving sex offenders underground:
"We don't want these people to go underground as well, and the more public exposure they get—there's been a lot of debate about whether or not the public should have access to the registry. We believe not, because it could create more non-compliance, if you will, where people don't want to be exposed and all of that." - Julian Fantino, OPP Commissioner, March 20, 2008, Standing Committee on Public Accounts
"We believe the current protections, which leave the decision on the public release of information up to local police in those circumstances, are the appropriate approach... Some of you know that there is a substantial element in the community out there that lobbies me, and perhaps many of you, on the notion that the sex offender registry should also include public access, not just police access. I have determined and the government has determined that this is perhaps not wise." - Hon. Peter Van Loan, Public Safety Canada, October 22, 2009, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
"It's our responsibility to not only protect society but to create the conditions for all individuals to rehabilitate themselves. Rather than have offenders trying to stay ahead of information on the Internet, I'm satisfied we've found the appropriate balance." - Hon. Vic Toews, Public Safety Canada, March 29, 2011, London Free Press
"I don't think the public should have access to that information at all...If that weren't the general thinking, sex offenders would simply not register and say, 'Forget it, I am not going to put my name on a register if the people in my hometown have access to that registry… Public access would be self-defeating to the general public and to law enforcement officers in general." - Jim Stephenson, father of Christopher Stephenson, who the law creating the Sex Offender Registry in Ontario is named in honour of, June 7, 2011, Canadian Press
"If I could speak to that, I know a little bit about the U.S. registries. I've met a few colleagues down there. There are certain things that are nice, but they have other things that I think we should stay away from. For instance, from the RCMP's perspective, the public access is a mistake, but they do employ that down there." - Inspector Pierre Nezan, RCMP, April 21, 2009, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
"Those hyper vigilantes accessing the U.S. registries are doing more harm than good and creating hysteria. It has the reverse effect. It will drive these people underground and we won't know where the offenders are." - Staff Sgt. Adam Alderson, OPP, London Free Press, March 28, 2011
"Today, we have a premier sex offender registry in Ontario, with a 97% compliance rate, one of the highest rates of any sex offender registry in all of North America. The OSOR is not accessible to the public, and this contributes to the high offender compliance rate." - Superintendent Ron Gentle, OPP, April 14, 2011, Standing Committee on Justice
"We do not see a lot of re-offending. . . they all know they are being watched and that we have a great deal of information on who they are, where they live and who they associate with... the registry seems to be working." - Inspector Ron Van Dam, Sarnia Police Services London Free Press, March 15, 2011
"We know that in the U.S. experience, far fewer sex offenders will register because of the public access to the information. In Ontario, for example, the registration rates are relatively high in comparison because the registry is a law enforcement tool only. We support the continuation of that initiative." - Steve Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, April 15, 2010, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affair
Tim Hudak knows his scheme won't make communities any safer. Yet he clutches to the talking points anyway. Our community safety is more important than Hudak's cynical game.
All Related Articles
09/14/2011
TORONTO - Tim Hudak is at it again. He found a bumper sticker slogan and talking point to clutch to, but there's not much substance there. Here's what police and safety experts are saying about his latest scheme to put our communities at risk by driving sex offenders underground:
"We don't want these people to go underground as well, and the more public exposure they get—there's been a lot of debate about whether or not the public should have access to the registry. We believe not, because it could create more non-compliance, if you will, where people don't want to be exposed and all of that." - Julian Fantino, OPP Commissioner, March 20, 2008, Standing Committee on Public Accounts
"We believe the current protections, which leave the decision on the public release of information up to local police in those circumstances, are the appropriate approach... Some of you know that there is a substantial element in the community out there that lobbies me, and perhaps many of you, on the notion that the sex offender registry should also include public access, not just police access. I have determined and the government has determined that this is perhaps not wise." - Hon. Peter Van Loan, Public Safety Canada, October 22, 2009, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
"It's our responsibility to not only protect society but to create the conditions for all individuals to rehabilitate themselves. Rather than have offenders trying to stay ahead of information on the Internet, I'm satisfied we've found the appropriate balance." - Hon. Vic Toews, Public Safety Canada, March 29, 2011, London Free Press
"I don't think the public should have access to that information at all...If that weren't the general thinking, sex offenders would simply not register and say, 'Forget it, I am not going to put my name on a register if the people in my hometown have access to that registry… Public access would be self-defeating to the general public and to law enforcement officers in general." - Jim Stephenson, father of Christopher Stephenson, who the law creating the Sex Offender Registry in Ontario is named in honour of, June 7, 2011, Canadian Press
"If I could speak to that, I know a little bit about the U.S. registries. I've met a few colleagues down there. There are certain things that are nice, but they have other things that I think we should stay away from. For instance, from the RCMP's perspective, the public access is a mistake, but they do employ that down there." - Inspector Pierre Nezan, RCMP, April 21, 2009, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
"Those hyper vigilantes accessing the U.S. registries are doing more harm than good and creating hysteria. It has the reverse effect. It will drive these people underground and we won't know where the offenders are." - Staff Sgt. Adam Alderson, OPP, London Free Press, March 28, 2011
"Today, we have a premier sex offender registry in Ontario, with a 97% compliance rate, one of the highest rates of any sex offender registry in all of North America. The OSOR is not accessible to the public, and this contributes to the high offender compliance rate." - Superintendent Ron Gentle, OPP, April 14, 2011, Standing Committee on Justice
"We do not see a lot of re-offending. . . they all know they are being watched and that we have a great deal of information on who they are, where they live and who they associate with... the registry seems to be working." - Inspector Ron Van Dam, Sarnia Police Services London Free Press, March 15, 2011
"We know that in the U.S. experience, far fewer sex offenders will register because of the public access to the information. In Ontario, for example, the registration rates are relatively high in comparison because the registry is a law enforcement tool only. We support the continuation of that initiative." - Steve Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, April 15, 2010, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affair
Tim Hudak knows his scheme won't make communities any safer. Yet he clutches to the talking points anyway. Our community safety is more important than Hudak's cynical game.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
CANADA - Tim Hudak, exploiting ex-offenders, fear and children to get elected
Labels: Canada , Exploitation , FearMongering , GPS , Politics , Video
![]() |
| Tim Hudak |
Of course he is, he knows a good plan when he sees one, exploiting ex-sex offenders, fear, and the usual "for the children politics" to get elected! Politicians do it all the time, he's just joining the bandwagon!
09/14/2011
By Rob Ferguson
LEAMINGTON - Ontario’s police don’t like the idea but Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is sticking with his plan to make the province’s sex offender registry public if he wins the Oct. 6 provincial election.
Hudak sat with parents and grandparents in a children’s playroom at a community centre in this Lake Erie town near Windsor, where a convicted sex offender named Sarah Dahle was recently found living next to a school while on parole. She left for the London area last week after months of protest from Leamington parents.
“Our right to security for kids, should it come ahead of the right to privacy for child predators?” Hudak asked on his second day in the riding of Essex, which the Conservatives consider up for grabs after the sudden death of Liberal MPP Bruce Crozier a few months ago.
Hudak said he would make the registry public so that parents know where sex offenders are living in their communities and can take “responsible” action to protect themselves and their children.
“I’m not looking to harm them, I just want to know where they are,” said Paula Pimiskern, a mother of four who sat beside Hudak around a table as the issue was discussed before a phalanx of television cameras.
- What about all other criminals? Why aren't you also pushing to have them on an online registry so we all know where they live as well? You are just using the usual "vote getter" by exploiting ex-sex offenders and children to get elected, IMO.
“If we knew where, we would tell our kids not to linger.”
- And ever if you knew where, if a person is intent on harming a child, or anybody else, they probably will. This is just politics as usual!
OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis has warned making the registry public could lead to vigilante action — even killings — by citizens against convicted sex offenders living in the community.
“I totally disagree with Mr. Hudak on this,” Lewis said recently in a television interview. “In the U.S. states where they do it, it doesn’t necessarily lend itself to greater adherence to the legislation. We have almost 100 per cent compliance rate in this province with our sexual offender registry because they’re not online.”
There have been cases in U.S. states with public registries where “people have hunted people down because they saw their face on a registry and went out and killed them,” Lewis added.
In Ottawa, Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said it’s a little rich for Hudak to be carping on crime given his proposal to put work gangs of prisoners out in the community.
“He wants to take prisoners who are safe and secure away from the general population and release them into our communities…it puts our communities at risk,” McGuinty told reporters.
“Our police…tell us this particular approach is not going to lead to more public safety so I’m with them,” he added.
Hudak would also put GPS bracelets on sexual predators and other high risk offenders so police could monitor their movements, at a cost of about $50 million a year.
At a campaign rally in the nearby town of Kingsville on Tuesday night, Hudak lumped McGuinty and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath together in accusing them of “coddling” criminals as the Tories look to win the Essex riding which is held federally by Conservative MP Jeff Watson.
See Also:
- Putting GPS trackers on sex offenders ineffective says provincial NDP candidate
- Hudak sex offender plan may spark vigilantism, society says
Saturday, September 10, 2011
CANADA - Hudak sex offender plan may spark vigilantism, society says
Labels: Canada , CrimeVigilante , Exploitation , FearMongering , GPS , Video
![]() |
| Tim Hudak |
Earlier Story
09/09/2011
By Glen McGregor
An organization that helps rehabilitate convicted criminals is warning that PC leader Tim Hudak’s (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) plan to publish the names and addresses of sex offenders could lead to vigilantism (articles, videos).
The PC “Changebook” policy platform says a Hudak government would make Ontario’s sex offender registry publicly available over the Internet.
Hudak on Friday promoted the policy in media interviews, saying it would keep kids safe from “child predators.”
- No it won't, but it does make Mr. Hudak look "tough" on crime, using exploitation, fear and the same lies as American politicians have used for years. They will do and say anything to get elected or re-elected, and the sheeple should know that by now.
But the John Howard Society says it has serious reservations about publishing offenders names online.
‘We don’t think it would be particularly effective in safeguarding the public and might well, as we’ve seen in the U.S., jeopardize the safety of some of the individuals on the registry,” said Catherine Latimer, the organization’s national executive director.
“If people know who sex offenders are and where they are, it provokes citizens to not just protect themselves but, on occasion, take reprisals or do nasty things.”
Latimer says it is important that police and parole officials have access to this information, but making the names and addresses public would be a way of “asserting greater punishment on offences we don’t like.”
A spokesman for the Hudak campaign said protecting children is more important than the risk of vigilantism.
- I think you mean helping Mr. Hudak get elected, or re-elected, don't you?
“We think the rights of families and kids trump those concerns,” said Jason Lietaer in an e-mail.
Many U.S. states and counties publish online registries of convicted sex offenders who have been paroled or served their sentences. Most have names, photographs, addresses, descriptions of the crimes, and some even list license plate numbers and descriptions of the sex offenders’ vehicles.
- So just because the U.S. does it, doesn't mean it's the best thing to do, history has proven that.
The registries have compelled some municipal governments to restrict where sex offenders can live. The listings have also triggered harassment and, in some cases, violence.
- Yes it does, and you can see more for yourself, here and here.
A Nova Scotia who killed two sex offenders in Maine before shooting himself in 2006 was believed to have used the state’s online registry to track down his victims. The registry was temporarily shut down because of the incident.
In Washington State in 2005, a 36-year-old man turned himself into police and admitted he had shot and killed two child rapists. Police believed he had selected at least one of the victims from the county sheriff’s sex offender web site.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police maintains a national sex offender registry, and the Ontario government has its own database of people convicted of sex crimes. Neither is published online and both are out of reach of open-records laws.
- And this is how it should be, and how it was in the U.S. before the sex offender hysteria took a hold.
The PC platform also calls for sex offenders to wear GPS ankle bracelets so police can track them at all times.
To push its message, the Hudak campaign put out a press release this week flagging a case in Leamington, Ont, where convicted sex offender Sarah Dahle drew protests from her neighbours because she was living near a public school. Dahle later moved to London, Ont., though police there have not published her address.
“Ontario families face a clear choice between Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC Party who will post the names and addresses of registered sex-offenders like Sarah Dahle, or Dalton McGuinty who opposes informing local parents if a registered sex-offender is living in their community,” the Hudak campaign said in a press release.
- Yep, it's all about politics and elections, as usual!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
CANADA - Putting GPS trackers on sex offenders ineffective says provincial NDP candidate
Labels: Canada , Exploitation , GPS
Original Article
09/07/2011
As a former police officer with 20 years of experience in the justice system, along with extensive work in the area of investigation of sex abuse offences, against both adults and children, I feel compelled to speak out against Tim Hudak’s (Facebook, Twitter) policy on crime and punishment.
While it appears the idea of simply putting GPS trackers on sex offenders is going to make the community safer, this is in fact not the case. It would only cause more fear and alarm.
I strongly disagree with Hudak’s proposal for a number of reasons. The estimated cost of this idea as stated by the PCs is 51-million tax dollars, a huge price tag for a program that will do little to make the public safer. It’s also not clear if his proposal will result in conflicts, in regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (PDF, Wikipedia) and Human Rights issues, within the justice system and the courts. In other words, it may not even be constitutional.
Eventually the GPS tracker would be removed from an offender when their sentence is served or conditions are lifted in court. Realistically, a GPS tracker could not be placed on a sex offender forever, and eventually the sex offender will be living in our community without this level of monitoring. Money would be better spent to implement and develop programs and services in regards to reintegration and restorative justice; programs that have already been proven to increase public safety.
We need to have resources for offenders where adequate counselling and programs are focused on treatment and corrective behaviour. Not warehousing our young men in jails, or worse forcing them into “chain gangs,” a long abandoned and outlawed practice being promoted by Hudak
Our community’s safety depends on restorative justice circles, community justice programs, and reintegration assistance for offenders upon release with supervised conditions.
This issue is one that shouldn’t be left to the whim of a politician. There must be consultation with people working on the front lines. It’s important to consult with court judges, justice officials, the Ministry of the Attorney General, community interest groups, women’s shelters, sexual assault services, community mental health and addictions services, and police services, to name a few. These suggestions for remedial action are by far the best direction to take with due regard for all parties concerned.
09/07/2011
As a former police officer with 20 years of experience in the justice system, along with extensive work in the area of investigation of sex abuse offences, against both adults and children, I feel compelled to speak out against Tim Hudak’s (Facebook, Twitter) policy on crime and punishment.
While it appears the idea of simply putting GPS trackers on sex offenders is going to make the community safer, this is in fact not the case. It would only cause more fear and alarm.
I strongly disagree with Hudak’s proposal for a number of reasons. The estimated cost of this idea as stated by the PCs is 51-million tax dollars, a huge price tag for a program that will do little to make the public safer. It’s also not clear if his proposal will result in conflicts, in regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (PDF, Wikipedia) and Human Rights issues, within the justice system and the courts. In other words, it may not even be constitutional.
Eventually the GPS tracker would be removed from an offender when their sentence is served or conditions are lifted in court. Realistically, a GPS tracker could not be placed on a sex offender forever, and eventually the sex offender will be living in our community without this level of monitoring. Money would be better spent to implement and develop programs and services in regards to reintegration and restorative justice; programs that have already been proven to increase public safety.
We need to have resources for offenders where adequate counselling and programs are focused on treatment and corrective behaviour. Not warehousing our young men in jails, or worse forcing them into “chain gangs,” a long abandoned and outlawed practice being promoted by Hudak
Our community’s safety depends on restorative justice circles, community justice programs, and reintegration assistance for offenders upon release with supervised conditions.
This issue is one that shouldn’t be left to the whim of a politician. There must be consultation with people working on the front lines. It’s important to consult with court judges, justice officials, the Ministry of the Attorney General, community interest groups, women’s shelters, sexual assault services, community mental health and addictions services, and police services, to name a few. These suggestions for remedial action are by far the best direction to take with due regard for all parties concerned.
Monday, September 5, 2011
AZ - Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona
Labels: Arizona , Exploitation , Extortion , Fees
Original Article
People just do not understand, prison is all about making money! If this state is able to do this, eventually all states will follow, watch and see. And they say "crime doesn't pay?" Well, that all depends on how you look at it! Like registration fees, this is nothing but extortion and/or exploitation to make more money for the prison business!
09/04/2011
By ERICA GOODE
For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.
New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.
David C. Fathi, director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the fee “mind-boggling” and said that while it was ostensibly intended to help the state — the money will be used to repair and maintain the prisons — it could ultimately have a negative effect on public safety.
“We know that one of the best things you can do if you want people to go straight and lead a law-abiding life when they get out of prison is to continue family contact while they’re in prison,” he said. “Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish.”
One woman, whose brother is a prisoner at the Eyman complex in Florence, said that most of her family lives out of state, so the fee is an additional burden on top of the travel costs.
“What will happen is that people will just stop visiting,” said the woman, adding that most prisoners “live for” visits from relatives. Because some friends of the family still do not know of her brother’s incarceration, she asked to be identified only by her first name, Shauna. She was one of several dozen family members of inmates who complained to Middle Ground Prison Reform, a group based in Tempe, about the fee.
In a lawsuit filed last month against the Corrections Department, Middle Ground said the fee was simply a pretext for raising money “for general public purposes” and as such was unconstitutional because it amounted to a special tax on a single group.
Middle Ground has also filed suit over another provision of the law, which imposes a 1 percent charge on deposits made to a prisoner’s spending account.
Donna Leone Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground, said she thought that state legislators created the background check fee “out of sheer financial desperation” at a time when the state faces huge budget shortfalls.
“This was a scheme — in my mind, a harebrained scheme — to try to come up with the money,” she said.
Wendy Baldo, chief of staff for the Arizona Senate, confirmed that the fees were intended to help make up the $1.6 billion deficit the state faced at the beginning of the year.
- So basically the tax payers are paying for the governments mistakes?
“We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”
- So why must you continue to punish the down trodden? If you need the money, tax the rich, they have tons of money that prisoners and families do not! Hell, why don't all you in politics take a pay cut to help pay for your corruption and mismanagement of money?
Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.
Barrett Marson, a spokesman for the Corrections Department, said in an e-mail that it was the department’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.
Although there have been some calls and letters from potential visitors inquiring about the fee and how to pay it, no complaints had been reported from inmates, Mr. Marson said. The department has not determined whether the number of visitors to the prisons has changed since the charge went into effect, he added.
- Well, it's common sense that after a while, due to the economy, people will not be able to pay the extortion fee, so they will stop visiting loved ones, and those in prison, may, due to not being able to see family, and feeling all alone, may commit suicide, God forbid!
“Maintenance funds for our buildings are scarce in this difficult economic time,” he said. “A $25 visitation fee helps to ensure our prisons remain safe environments for staff, inmates and visitors.”
Ms. Hamm, the Middle Ground director who is also a retired lower court judge and married to a former inmate, said that an earlier proposal presented to a legislative committee would have imposed the background check fee on everyone who visited inmates, including babies and children. But in the end, the Legislature limited the fees to people over 18.
The law also allows the Corrections Department to waive all or part of the background check fee in certain circumstances — for example, when an applicant just wants permission to telephone an inmate.
Ms. Hamm said that research by her organization could not find any other example of a state prison system imposing a fee on visitors.
The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.
Another state agency, the Department of Public Safety, conducts free background checks for people who want to review their own records and who provide fingerprints, said Carrick Cook, a spokesman.
The Public Safety Department charges $20 for criminal background checks of people who are hired as volunteers for state agencies, and $24 for checks on paid state workers, both of which involve fingerprinting. A fingerprint clearance card, required for child care and foster care workers in Arizona, costs $65 for volunteers and $69 for paid employees.
Shauna, whose brother is at the Eyman complex, said she learned about the fee after she filed applications for her brother’s son, a Mormon missionary in Kentucky who wanted to visit his father, along with a friend and two other relatives.
She was told that the best way to pay the fee was electronically, through Western Union, but was unable to get the system to work, she said.
She was then advised to send a money order. Despite confirmation by United Parcel Service that the package had been delivered, the Corrections Department told her that the $100 payment — four $25 money orders for four visitors — had not been received, she said.
Another $100 payment was sent, and on Friday — months after she began the application process — she finally got confirmation of the payment from the department.
“I have now spent $200 of my own money to get family in,” she said, adding that it could take up to 60 days for the department to approve the applications.
People just do not understand, prison is all about making money! If this state is able to do this, eventually all states will follow, watch and see. And they say "crime doesn't pay?" Well, that all depends on how you look at it! Like registration fees, this is nothing but extortion and/or exploitation to make more money for the prison business!
09/04/2011
By ERICA GOODE
For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.
New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.
David C. Fathi, director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the fee “mind-boggling” and said that while it was ostensibly intended to help the state — the money will be used to repair and maintain the prisons — it could ultimately have a negative effect on public safety.
“We know that one of the best things you can do if you want people to go straight and lead a law-abiding life when they get out of prison is to continue family contact while they’re in prison,” he said. “Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish.”
One woman, whose brother is a prisoner at the Eyman complex in Florence, said that most of her family lives out of state, so the fee is an additional burden on top of the travel costs.
“What will happen is that people will just stop visiting,” said the woman, adding that most prisoners “live for” visits from relatives. Because some friends of the family still do not know of her brother’s incarceration, she asked to be identified only by her first name, Shauna. She was one of several dozen family members of inmates who complained to Middle Ground Prison Reform, a group based in Tempe, about the fee.
In a lawsuit filed last month against the Corrections Department, Middle Ground said the fee was simply a pretext for raising money “for general public purposes” and as such was unconstitutional because it amounted to a special tax on a single group.
Middle Ground has also filed suit over another provision of the law, which imposes a 1 percent charge on deposits made to a prisoner’s spending account.
Donna Leone Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground, said she thought that state legislators created the background check fee “out of sheer financial desperation” at a time when the state faces huge budget shortfalls.
“This was a scheme — in my mind, a harebrained scheme — to try to come up with the money,” she said.
Wendy Baldo, chief of staff for the Arizona Senate, confirmed that the fees were intended to help make up the $1.6 billion deficit the state faced at the beginning of the year.
- So basically the tax payers are paying for the governments mistakes?
“We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”
- So why must you continue to punish the down trodden? If you need the money, tax the rich, they have tons of money that prisoners and families do not! Hell, why don't all you in politics take a pay cut to help pay for your corruption and mismanagement of money?
Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.
Barrett Marson, a spokesman for the Corrections Department, said in an e-mail that it was the department’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.
Although there have been some calls and letters from potential visitors inquiring about the fee and how to pay it, no complaints had been reported from inmates, Mr. Marson said. The department has not determined whether the number of visitors to the prisons has changed since the charge went into effect, he added.
- Well, it's common sense that after a while, due to the economy, people will not be able to pay the extortion fee, so they will stop visiting loved ones, and those in prison, may, due to not being able to see family, and feeling all alone, may commit suicide, God forbid!
“Maintenance funds for our buildings are scarce in this difficult economic time,” he said. “A $25 visitation fee helps to ensure our prisons remain safe environments for staff, inmates and visitors.”
Ms. Hamm, the Middle Ground director who is also a retired lower court judge and married to a former inmate, said that an earlier proposal presented to a legislative committee would have imposed the background check fee on everyone who visited inmates, including babies and children. But in the end, the Legislature limited the fees to people over 18.
The law also allows the Corrections Department to waive all or part of the background check fee in certain circumstances — for example, when an applicant just wants permission to telephone an inmate.
Ms. Hamm said that research by her organization could not find any other example of a state prison system imposing a fee on visitors.
The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.
Another state agency, the Department of Public Safety, conducts free background checks for people who want to review their own records and who provide fingerprints, said Carrick Cook, a spokesman.
The Public Safety Department charges $20 for criminal background checks of people who are hired as volunteers for state agencies, and $24 for checks on paid state workers, both of which involve fingerprinting. A fingerprint clearance card, required for child care and foster care workers in Arizona, costs $65 for volunteers and $69 for paid employees.
Shauna, whose brother is at the Eyman complex, said she learned about the fee after she filed applications for her brother’s son, a Mormon missionary in Kentucky who wanted to visit his father, along with a friend and two other relatives.
She was told that the best way to pay the fee was electronically, through Western Union, but was unable to get the system to work, she said.
She was then advised to send a money order. Despite confirmation by United Parcel Service that the package had been delivered, the Corrections Department told her that the $100 payment — four $25 money orders for four visitors — had not been received, she said.
Another $100 payment was sent, and on Friday — months after she began the application process — she finally got confirmation of the payment from the department.
“I have now spent $200 of my own money to get family in,” she said, adding that it could take up to 60 days for the department to approve the applications.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Isn't child exploitation a crime? Guess it depends on who is doing the exploitation!
Labels: CrimeGovernment , Exploitation , Video
This is nothing but child exploitation and propaganda to push your own agenda. And it's from the Van Jones group. I thought child exploitation was a crime? Guess it only depends on who is doing the exploitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)

























