Advertise your website below and on the left of our blog today

  • Is that a Sexual Predator hiding behind that badge? (08/16/2013)
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label PFML. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PFML. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

NY - Sex offenders challenge Suffolk law

Original Article

See the video at the link above. The videos below are from older articles.

05/20/2013

WOODBURY - Two registered sex offenders are challenging a Suffolk law that calls for closely watching the online activity of convicted offenders.

The Community Protection Act (PDF) allows Parents for Megan's Law to act for police by monitoring offenders' online activity.

According to Newsday, offenders say the law violates their civil rights.

See Also:



Wednesday, February 27, 2013

NY - Letter: Don't hire victims group to police

Original Article

02/26/2013

USA FAIR (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry) is a not-for-profit corporation formed by family members of people on the sex offender registry. We believe that the vote by the Suffolk County Legislature to disperse registrants from two trailer camps to existing homeless shelters makes sense ["Legislators to shut trailers, order new checks by police," News, Feb. 6].

What would make even more sense, in the broader effort to improve sex offender management, would be to repeal the residency restrictions that have contributed to this homeless problem in the first place. Hopefully, the courts will do this soon.

What does not make sense is to sign a three-year, $2.7 million contract with Parents for Megan's Law, a victims' advocacy organization, to intensify checks on Suffolk's 1,016 registered sex offenders. This organization has no sex offender management experience. Advocates for victims play an important role in our democratic process, but they should not be given quasi-policing powers.

If the Suffolk County police need help to do this important job, why not use the money to add officers?

However, if Suffolk County really needs to outsource this task, County Executive Steve Bellone should conduct a competitive bid process. Only then will the taxpayers know if the most qualified organization was hired at the best price.


Tuesday, February 19, 2013

NY - USA FAIR Demands Laura Ahearn of Parents for Megan's Law Retract NAMBLA Smear

Original Article

02/19/2013

By Shana Rowan

USA FAIR, Inc. (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry) today demanded that Laura Ahearn, Executive Director of Parents for Megan's Law, immediately retract a statement she made to "Riverside Local" reporter Denise Civiletti that Shana Rowan, USA FAIR's Executive Director, is a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The accusation was made in an article published Friday, February 15th regarding the recent $2.7 million sole-sourced contract (PDF) awarded by Suffolk County to Parents For Megan's Law to help monitor the more than 1,000 former sex offenders residing in the county.

When asked to respond to USA FAIR's concerns about the propriety of a private victims’ advocacy group being granted quasi-policing authority and its lack of law enforcement or sex offender management experience, Ahearn responded that Rowan was "part of NAMBLA." When Ahearn was asked for proof, she responded, "Just search her name on the Internet."

"The allegation that I am an advocate for man-boy love would be laughable, if it weren't so slanderous. I have never been part of NAMBLA. I find pedophilia to be repulsive and I have always supported age of consent laws. For Ms. Ahearn to take an accusation made on an anonymous hate-site on the web and repeat it without any independent verification only underscores why USA FAIR believes she is unqualified to administer the Suffolk County contract. Monitoring former offenders requires objectivity and placing a high value on evidence, neither of which Ms. Ahern has demonstrated by her unfounded personal attack," said Rowan.

"Rather than respond to our legitimate concerns about Parents for Megan's Law's qualifications to have been awarded this contract, Ms. Ahearn chose to repeat a lie about me and to tell a half-truth about my fiancé, stating that he "raped a six year old child". Yes, his offense did involve a six year old child, but Ms. Ahearn conveniently left out that he was 12 at the time and also the victim of sexual abuse. To Laura Ahearn, context does not matter if it fails to serve her cause," concluded Rowan.

Rowan became active in sex offender law reform when she became engaged to a longtime friend she first met in high school who is on the registry.


PA - Law change means some will be registered sex offenders for life

Original Article

02/18/2013

Late in 2002, [name withheld] of Hazleton pleaded guilty to molesting a 7-year-old girl and was sentenced to serve one year in prison and register as a sex offender for 10 years.
- And anything beyond this is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

His 10 years on the registry would have expired on May 15, but a little more than a year ago the law changed.

Now [name withheld] must register as a sex offender for life.
- And that is unconstitutional additional punishment!  Imagine, if they can do this, then they can change any law and re-punish you for something you did years ago.

"What I can't understand is how can they do this? If you are already under Megan's Law, how can they add to that? That's very upsetting," [name withheld] said.
- Because they claim it's regulatory and not punishment, which we all know is a load of BS!

The U.S. Constitution bans ex post facto laws - those that take effect after the fact.
- And so does the states constitution (section 17).

However, in challenges to the sex offender registry under Megan's Law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the registry is a regulatory law, not a criminal law, so the ex post facto rule doesn't apply.

An update to Megan's Law in Pennsylvania that Gov. Tom Corbett signed on Dec. 20, 2011, changes the registration requirement from 10 years to life for some crimes, including indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, to which [name withheld] pleaded guilty. The law now requires offenders to register for 15 years, 25 years or life depending on how their crime is categorized.

Some offenders who completed their time on the registry before the law changed must re-register.

Others who never had to register when their cases were adjudicated must go on the registry. An Altoona attorney told his local newspaper, the Mirror, in December 2012 that at least three people who accepted pleas keeping them off the register want to negotiate new deals or challenge the new law that requires them to register.

The attorney, Thomas M. Dickey, did not return a telephone call asking for an update on those cases.

"I'm looking for a sexual offender to challenge this as ex post facto," Shelly Clevenger, assistant professor at Illinois State University, said.

Clevenger is studying the retroactive law in Illinois, where sexual offenders face additional restrictions.

"We have some strange laws. Sexual offenders can't go to a public park, be on a walking trail, operate a food vehicle. The state is starting to legislate what offenders can and cannot do," she said.

Does the law work?

In her dissertation for a doctorate in criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in May 2012, Clevenger studied the effectiveness of Megan's Law in Pennsylvania. The law takes its name from Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl who was sexually abused and murdered in New Jersey in 1994.

"Overall, the results of the current study, coupled with results from previous studies which have examined the effectiveness of Megan's Law, indicate that the legislation has not been effective in reducing and/or preventing rape, sex offenses and/or the murder of children," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.

Since Megan's Law took effect in 1996 in Pennsylvania, the incidences of rape, other sex crimes and murder of a person younger than 13 decreased in urban areas, Clevenger's study found. But in suburban and rural areas, rape and sexual offenses increased, according to her study.

Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law in Stony Brook, N.Y., said case statistics alone don't measure the effectiveness of the law. Creating a registry for sex offenders made people more aware of sex crimes. That might have caused people to report abuse instead of keeping secrets, Ahearn said.

Instances where the registry prevented a crime don't show up on statistics, but parents who consulted the registry have prevented children from playing where an offender lived, she said.

"There's plenty of anecdotal evidence," Ahearn said.

When Clevenger conducted research for her doctorate, she wasn't expecting crime rates to move in different directions in urban and rural areas. When thinking about the results, she noticed that the drop in urban crimes coincided with a national trend. She reasoned that Megan's Law might have enticed offenders to move from urban areas to suburbs and rural areas.

"That was the best theory I could come up with," Clevenger said.

Assorted laws in municipalities around the nation set distances from schools, playgrounds or other public places where sex offenders may not live.

Clevenger said residence rules and competition for rental housing in cities might have led some sex offenders to move from urban areas to suburban or rural areas.

Life on the registry

In Hazleton, [name withheld] said he cannot go to events at the Wiltsie Center at the Historic Castle, such as the George Thorogood concert on March 10 that he would like to attend.

"We can't even go to church," he said, citing a city law.

[name withheld] hasn't had a job since his release from prison, and he said that's common for people on the registry.

"Very few of us are able to work. Employers won't hire. They don't want their businesses on the registry," [name withheld] said.

He receives disability payments.

"I've been trying to get off disability and find a job. I'm never going to be able to. Nobody's going to hire me," [name withheld] said.

His criminal record includes a conviction for arson in 1999. Two years ago, workers at the office of state Rep. Tarah Toohil said [name withheld] harassed them. In 2005, [name withheld] was charged with failing to report a change of address to the registry.

Megan's Law requires offenders to report address changes within 48 hours. Under current law, if [name withheld] misses that deadline, he can be charged with a felony and sentenced to prison for up to 10 years.
- So if it's regulatory and not punishment, then why would he be sentenced to 10 years in prison, more than what his actual crime received (1 year)?  Sounds like additional punishment to us.

Four times a year, he must report to a police station to update his information on the registry. Police take a new photo of him, note his address, emails, workplace and whether he is enrolled in a school or college or owns a vehicle or boat.

"If I go on vacation, I have to register in that state and tell Pennsylvania police that I'm going there. So I don't go nowhere," [name withheld] said.

No one has ever harmed him because he is on the registry. A note on the website for the registry says anyone who intimidates or harasses a person on the registry can be prosecuted or be liable in a civil lawsuit.
- Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it does, all the time, as seen here.

Still, [name withheld] remains fearful.

"You don't know what vigilante is out there. I don't trust nobody. All my trust is gone," he said.

Proactive parents

Parents have different fears when trying to protect their children.

The registry provides a starting point by listing people who are potential threats because of their past actions.
- It only lists some people, ex-sex offenders, not all criminals who have or may harm children, like murderers, gang members, drug dealers, DUI offenders, kidnappers, etc.

"There are pedophiles on the registry and people on the registry that you should look out for," Clevenger said.

But she said the registry can breed a false sense of security. Parents should realize that not every offender is on the registry, nor are offenders likely to be strangers, Clevenger said.

The case of Jerry Sandusky underscores that sexual offenders can avoid detection for years while remaining off the registry. Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, is serving a prison sentence of 30 to 60 years for abusing at least 10 boys during a 20-year span.

The registry started to prevent strangers from abducting children, as happened to Megan Kanka. Her death outraged the nation, but the circumstances of her case are relatively rare.

Most children are abused by someone whom they know, Clevenger and Ahearn said.

"The fact that most crime(s) of this nature (are) not committed by a stranger, but by an intimate, who likely does not appear on the registry, suggests that this legislation was passed without any attention to the facts and realities of sex offenses," Clevenger wrote in her dissertation.
- Of course they ignored the facts.  If you go back and review the history, and the many recidivism studies, you will see the law doesn't jive with the facts.

Ahearn said Parents for Megan's Law recommends several strategies to reduce child sexual abuse. Her group staffs a 24-hour hotline. Members lead education programs for parents and children from preschool to high school. The group counsels victims.
- And now, in New York, they are also being contracted to MONITOR ex-sex offenders!

"When the victim is provided services, they are more likely to participate in the criminal justice system and less likely to be revictimized," Ahearn, the director, said.
- Do you have facts to back this statement up?  Or you just assume we will believe you?  Like domestically abused men/women who move from bad relationship to another, We're sure your statement is not exactly true, it's just an assumption on your part.

She said the group also supports police. Through a new program with Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., the group will hire retired police to verify addresses of people on the registry.

Ahearn favors having offenders stay on the registry for life and believes they also should have individual monitoring plans. People who comply with the registry requirements have a lower rate of repeating crimes, she said.
- Ex-sex offenders in general have low recidivism rates, and there is no study or evidence to back up her assumption.

Local laws that keep offenders from living in sight of children reduce temptation to commit further crimes, Ahearn said. The local laws, she said, will vary among communities because of population densities, but shouldn't be so restrictive that courts will overturn them.
- Again, her opinion doesn't make it a fact.  Show us a study to prove that Ms. Ahearn!  She's also making the usual blanket statement making it appear as if all ex-sex offenders are out drooling over children, which is false.  Many have not touched a child in any way, yet she makes it appear as if all are child molesters.

"You want to avoid a registered sex offender having his backyard against the backyard of a day care or a school," Ahearn said.
- What if the ex-sex offenders crime didn't involve a child?

She referred to sex offenders as pied pipers who befriend children and parents while setting the stage to abuse a child.
- You see, she thinks all ex-sex offenders are child molesters.  That would be like saying all humans are murderers because a couple are.  It's the same logic!

"Most child sexual abuse happens with somebody in an existing, trusted relationship," Ahearn said. "That doesn't mean the relationship is known by parents."
- What about the ex-sex offenders who had nothing to do with children but their crime was against an adult? Stop assuming all ex-sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile, predators who are lurking behind every corner just waiting to jump on your child, that is absurd!


Sunday, February 17, 2013

NY - Here comes the attack!

Original Article

02/16/2013

By Shana Rowan

USA FAIR is engaging the media on the inappropriate $2.7 million contract that Suffolk County is awarding to Parents For Megan’s Law to monitor former sex offenders.

Extreme ideological victims advocate groups should not be paid public funds to monitor the very people they demonize. It sets a disturbing precedent that we do not want to see spread across the country.

This is the first time that Parents For Megan’s Law has been directly challenged by the family members of people required to register and its Executive Director, Laura Ahearn, has responded by falsely accusing me of being a member of NAMBLA. Ahearn made this baseless accusation to “Riverhead Local” in an article on Suffolk County’s new misguided approach to sex offender management. You can read it HERE.

This is the “big smear” directed at anyone who was ever involved with RSOL – an organization that supports age of consent laws and was never affiliated with NAMBLA. The mere notion that parents and spouses of registrants are activists to promote man-boy love would be laughable – if it wasn’t so slanderous.

Yet, this attack on me only underscores USA FAIRs concern with Laura Ahearn being given a quasi-policing role. Law enforcement needs to deal in facts and evidence and Ms. Ahearn has a poor history with both. We have tried to get her to take down misleading recidivism statistics from her website to no avail – and now she makes a damning false attack on me based on a blog post by “Evil-Unveiled” an anonymous vigilante hate group. That is not the behavior of a fair minded and objective person who should be entrusted with monitoring other people’s lives.

We will continue to shine the light on this contract, which was sole-sourced by Suffolk County without any opportunity for an open or competitive process – because as they say… sunshine is the best disinfectant.

You can read this contract HERE (PDF).


Friday, February 15, 2013

NY - New sex offender bill signed, but questions persist

Original Article

02/15/2013

By DENISE CIVILETTI

County Executive Steve Bellone has signed a bill passed last week that ends "clustered" housing of registered sex offenders, putting an end to the two trailers used to shelter the county's homeless sex offenders. The legislature's minority leader, Republican John Kennedy of Nesconset still questions why the new law had to be pushed through so quickly and wonders aloud whether the $900,000 annual contract granted to a private contractor should have been subject to a competitive proposal process.

Though hailed by Suffolk Police Chief James Burke as "the most comprehensive law in the nation" for dealing with registered sex offenders — as well as by East End legislators delighted that the seven-year saga of the county trailers in Riverside and Westhampton will finally come to an end — both the law and the process by which it was enacted have drawn sharp criticism.

Civil rights advocates question the constitutionality of vesting a private entity with quasi-law enforcement authority to undertake intensive home surveillance of registered offenders. Others, including the legislative minority leader, Republican Jack Kennedy of Nesconset, are troubled by the hasty adoption of the law and the $900,000-a-year contract it awards to a the Stony Brook-based Parents for Megan's Law group, without first soliciting competitive proposals.
- It's a conflict of interest!  This is like having drug dealers help solve the "war on drugs."

The county executive pushed the bill through the legislature in a single day, submitting it to lawmakers on the morning of their Feb. 5 general meeting. It was called for a public hearing and submitted to a vote that very afternoon.

That flies in the face of democracy and sound public policy, according to the director of the Suffolk chapter of the N.Y. Civil Liberties Union.

"The bill was introduced, updated, subject to a public hearing and voted on within three or four hours," NYCLU Suffolk director Amol Sindha said in an interview this week.

Bellone's office issued a certificate of necessity, which allows the legislature to forgo its normal committee process in deliberating a bill. The CN, as it is known, is "a time-sensitive request" by the county executive on a resolution that requires "immediate consideration," according to the county's website.

But use of a CN is a sensitive subject around the horseshoe in the legislative auditorium — and one that doesn't sit well at all with Kennedy. At last week's meeting, Kennedy questioned the need to circumvent the committee process. He was joined in his reservations by members of the Republican caucus. In the end, they all voted to approve the measure.
- So with them all passing the bill, even though they bypassed the process, they are setting a precedent that we are sure, will be used more and more to bypass congress.  This is a dangerous situation!  If they had an issue with how the bill was put forward, they should've not passed it, and told the author to follow the standard process!

This week found the minority leader second-guessing himself in that decision.

"There is much ambiguity in the administrative code and the county charter," Kennedy said in a phone interview Wednesday. "We have, in essence, empowered the county executive to utilize this. But it clearly is supposed to be for a situation that's emergent," Kennedy said.

This was not such a situation, but instead was one of political expediency, he said.

Then why vote to approve? Lawmakers, including Kennedy, passed the measure unanimously — by a voice vote.
- Exactly!

Kennedy said both Bellone and Parents for Megan's Law executive director Laura Ahearn lobbied hard to get legislators on board with the bill and approval by CN. Kennedy said he knew most, if not all, other legislators would support Bellone's effort on this hot-button issue.
- Yeah, they just follow the leader, no questions asked!

"There was a sense of inevitability," Kennedy said.


And he did not want to stand alone in opposition to a bill that would be embraced by the public as a "get tough" law on sex offenders. Such opposition comes with a price tag, as he learned the hard way, he said. Kennedy cast the lone no vote on the county's residency restrictions law for registered sex offenders. It was a hugely unpopular vote and he lost the support of his party because of it. He found himself in a tough primary battle to win nomination for re-election.
- Yes, he didn't have the balls, and doesn't want to upset those who vote for him.  This one paragraph sums it all up!  Don't rock the boat!

"It was no fun," said Kennedy, who reiterated his belief that the residency law is unconstitutional. That issue is currently before a court and officials acknowledged last week the county is likely to lose the case — as has every other municipality that's enacted restrictions on where registered sex offenders can live.

"We put this feel-good pablum out there for the public, making them think they'll be safer," Kennedy said. "And now we've spent a tremendous amount of taxpayer money to defend bad legislation." The Republican leader said he's concerned the county is going down the same path with the new law, dubbed the "Community Protection Act."

Of particular concern, Kennedy said, is that the law empowers a private organization with responsibility for verifying the home addresses of the county's registered sex offenders.

Equally troubling, Kennedy said, is the approval of a $2.7 million, three-year contract with a private entity without details of the contractor's responsibilities being disclosed to lawmakers and without submitting the contract to any sort of competitive process, Kennedy said.

"Bellone will say they're a sole source provider and bring it before the waiver committee," Kennedy said. That will allow the administration to circumvent the county's procurement policy that otherwise requires the county to issue a request for proposals for all contracts in excess of $25,000 (PDF), he said. "That's the only way they could thread the needle."

"I wouldn't deem Parents for Megan's Law the only entity in Suffolk County to do what the contract requires," Kennedy said. "And we don't even know what that is. There's nothing defined yet," he said. "But there are other victim services agencies in this county."
- A private company should not be doing this.  It's a law enforcement issue and that is why the police have jobs, to enforce the laws.

"By local law and after public debate, the county has satisfied the procurement guidelines under state and local law for this type of contract," Vanessa Baird-Streeter, a spokesperson for Bellone said in an email yesterday.

The public had an opportunity to comment on the measure at both a presentation given to the legislature's public safety committee on Thursday, Jan. 31 and at the general meeting the following Tuesday, Feb. 5.

But the bill itself was not available to the public until the afternoon of the Feb. 5 hearing. It was not posted on the legislature's website until after it was adopted.
- Exactly, so how can anyone comment on a bill they haven't even read yet?

"To call it a public hearing is essentially a farce," NYCLU's Sinha said.

Others, like Kennedy, are troubled by the bill's lack of specifics about the duties of Parents for Megan's Law under the $900,000 annual contract.

Forensic psychologist Bill O'Leary, who, under contract with the state, works with registered sex offenders, points out that 95 percent of sex crimes against children are committed by people who are not on any registry.

"If we really want to protect our children from sexual predators, we need to address that instead of focusing all our resources on the registered offenders who re-offend, which represents a statistically small portion of those crimes," O'Leary said in an interview.

O'Leary made the same argument to lawmakers at the hearing last week, pleading with the legislature dedicate resources to prevention through education, and by strengthening its child protective services unit, which has suffered budget cuts.

"If there's money to be spent, that's where the county should spend it," O'Leary said at the hearing.

He got no response from lawmakers at the meeting.

The new law, in the section authorizing the contract with Parents for Megan's Law, lists six types of services the organization will provide. Item six reads: "the provision of community and prevention education."

Kennedy, who complained at last week's meeting that the bill did not have the proposed contract attached to it, which he said was the norm, reiterated that complaint in an interview with RiverheadLOCAL this week.

"When you look at the research, it's frightening — the small number of sex crimes committed by registered offenders, as opposed to people not on any registry. Yet we're still so focused on the registry," Kennedy said.

"It's missing the forest for the trees."

Riverhead Assessor Mason Haas, who spoke on behalf of the town in support of the bill at the hearing, agreed more emphasis should be placed on prevention and education.

"There's no doubt it needs to be tweaked," Haas said. But as a longtime advocate for closing down the homeless-offender trailers, Haas said the new program represents the local community's best shot at making that happen.

During a break in the public portion of last week's meeting, Haas engaged in a discussion with O'Leary about education and prevention initiatives needed and Parents for Megan's Law might do in that regard under the new contract.

Haas suggested the two speak with Ahearn, who was also in the lobby of the Hauppauge auditorium. Ahearn refused to discuss it in the presence of O'Leary, Haas said.

O'Leary said he was not surprised. He said Ahearn has refused to talk with him, or respond to his calls or emails for some time.

Laura Ahearn
Ahearn acknowledged her refusal in an interview this week.

"It's my understanding he has a practice in which he provides services to sex offenders," Ahearn said. In her opinion, she said, he has no place in a county program monitoring sex offenders, counseling victims or crafting education and prevention programs.
- And you have no place in monitoring them either!  The contract should be null and void.

"I'm sure if he [O'Leary] wants to expand his efforts he has the wherewithal to go out and find grant funding to do it," Ahearn said.

"If you saw the presentation, if you took the additional time to listen, you know the program includes significant victims services and prevention initiatives," Ahearn said.

Parents for Megan's Law would be hiring "additional prevention staff" to undertake those services, she said.

In a presentation to the county legislature's public safety committee on Jan. 31, Ahearn outlined a "sex offender tracking and community support eight-point plan." Under the new program, the organization would establish a 24-hour hotline providing access to a trained specialist, she said. An education supervisor will "conduct extensive outreach to schools and community organizations and train per-diem prevention educators to conduct sexual abuse, abduction and rape prevention workshops and Internet safety programs. The group will also enhance its existing crime victim advocacy support programs," she said.

The slide presentation given by Ahearn and the Suffolk police chief can be viewed here.

O'Leary said he does not understand how an effective program to prevent sexual crimes could be undertaken without consulting any mental health experts on the criminals themselves. He said he has expressed that sentiment to the county executive and was hoping for a meeting with him.

The county's process in crafting and adopting the new law was "not informed decision-making," O'Leary said. "It's not defining the real problem and putting the solution ahead of defining the problem."

O'Leary said the general public is terrified of registered offenders. "As the father of two young children, I completely relate," he said. "But that fear is largely misplaced. The real threat comes from trusted relatives and family friends. People you know. They are the people who are far more likely to molest your child. It's a difficult thing to come to terms with. But if we really want to prevent abuse, we need to teach parents and children where the real threat lies and teach them how to recognize warning signs. We don't need to use scare tactics and we certainly shouldn't lead people to believe the main threat is from people on a registry."

Advocates for reforming registry laws argue that's exactly what the registry laws and groups like Parents for Megan's Law do.

An organization called USAFair, established in 2012 by family members of registered sex offenders to advocate for the reform of registry laws, faults lawmakers, the media and groups like Parents for Megan's Law for what they say is exaggerating the likelihood of a registered offender re-offending.

"A 2010 survey by the Center for Sex Offender Management of the U.S. Department of Justice found that 72 percent of Americans believe that the sex crime recidivism rates are 50 percent or higher, with a third believing it is more than 75 percent. Only 3 percent believe it is less than 25 percent - even though actual recidivism rates are considerably below 25 percent," USAFair said in a Feb. 4 press release. "New studies are constantly confirming low recidivism, with the latest being released last month (PDF) showing a recidivism rate in four states of 10 percent after 10 years, with rates dropping sharply with years of offense-free tenure in the community."

USAFair faults Ahearn's group in particular, arguing that the Parents for Megan's Law website misrepresents recidivism statistics.

"USA FAIR has been attempting to get Parents for Megan's Law to take down misleading statistics from their website that reinforces the 'big lie' of high sex offender recidivism," the organization said in a statement. "Numerous studies, including a landmark 2003 study by the U.S. Justice Department have found that sex offenders actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the criminal justice system, about 5.3 percent."

Shana Rowan
Shana Rowan, a USAFair founder, said she wrote to Ahearn in December seeking changes to statistics on the PFML website that she says misrepresent the results of a study on repeat offenders. Ahearn never replied to the letter.

"As executive director of Parents for Megan's Law, Laura Ahearn has shown herself to be a zealot who has built a career demonizing the very people she is now to be charged with monitoring. She has perpetuated the myth of high sex offender recidivism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to enrich her organization," Rowan said.

Ahearn dismissed Rowan's criticism, pointing to Rowan's engagement to a registered offender who she said "raped a six year old child." Ahearn also said Rowan is "part of NAMBLA," the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Asked for documentation, Ahearn said, "Just search her name on the Internet."
- That is defamation!  Just because something is on the Internet doesn't mean it's true, and she didn't want to show where she got that BS from, which we know where she got it from.  It's all BS and we hope she takes you to court and wins!


Rowan categorically denies that she has ever in any way been associated with NAMBLA. A website called evil-unveiled has a page about her with her name in the URL, and it's the top hit in a Google search of her name. The page says she is a member of "the new NAMBLA" a name the website gives to "activists" seeking reform of registry laws, allegedly so that they can have sex with children.

"I think it's very telling that she [Ahearn] would resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issues on the merits," Rowan said this week.
- We agree.  It's the usual Ad Hominem attack.

Rowan said as the recipient of signifcant public funding — Parents for Megan's Law's 2011 federal tax return reports the group received more than $946,000 in government grants in 2011, the lion's share of its total revenue of just under $1.1 million — the group should be held accountable for providing accurate information to the public. "That was really all we were seeking," Rowan said. "The new deal with Suffolk County is a whole other subject," she said.

"Parents for Megan's Law has no experience in sex offender management - none," Rowan said, questioning how the county could "sole-source such an important and costly contract without even considering truly qualified parties - such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, who are mental health professionals and sex-offender policy researchers." Rowan said the vote by the legislature was "a political attempt to purchase Laura Ahearn's support for the controversial proposal at great cost to the taxpayer."

Asked to respond to the criticism of USAFair, Baird-Streeter, the county executive's spokesperson said, "No comment."


Saturday, February 9, 2013

NY - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - New sex offender monitoring law approved by county legislature; DSS trailers to be shut down

Original Article

02/06/2013

By DENISE CIVILETTI

Legislation establishing a new monitoring and enforcement program for Suffolk's registered sex offenders — ending the use of the trailers in Riverside and Westhampton — sailed through the county legislature Tuesday.

The measure won the unanimous approval of legislators present, in a 15-0 by acclamation, despite the reservations of some lawmakers that the bill, which hadn't been delivered to the legislature in final form until 12:30 that afternoon, had not been properly vetted.

Legis. Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk) who had fought a losing battle with fellow lawmakers and the Levy administration to get the trailers removed, called the new plan "by far the best opportunity we've had to get the trailers closed down since this nightmare began." He said he believed yesterday's action means the trailers will be closed "in a matter of months."

County Executive Steve Bellone, who last May promised to have the trailers closed by the end of 2012, worked very hard to secure support for the new plan in the legislature, Schneiderman said. But the South Fork legislator, whose district encompasses both the Riverside and Westhampton hamlets where the county department of social services trailers are place, did not expect it to be unanimous. His face lit up with a grin as his colleagues seated around the horseshoe in the crowded legislative auditorium one by one expressed support.

"It's very gratifying after all this time to finally have a solution that's not only promising for the whole county but a big win for the East End," Southampton Town Councilwoman Bridget Fleming said after the vote. Fleming, fellow councilman Chris Nuzzi and Southampton Town Supervisor all attended the meeting and spoke in support of the bill at the hearing.

Riverhead assessor Mason Haas, a Jamesport resident who's been an outspoken opponent of the trailer in Riverside since 2006, also spoke in support of the measure at the hearing. Haas said he was speaking as a representative of the Riverhead Town Board, which had its regular semi-monthly meeting that afternoon in Riverhead and did not make the trip to Hauppauge.

A contingent of Riverhead and Southampton residents filled the auditorium. Many spoke in support of the bill, focusing on its language requiring "no more than one hard to place individual shall be placed at any location and to the extent practicable, clustering in any one community should be avoided."

Civic leaders from other parts of Suffolk asked the legislature to slow down and send the bill to committee for deliberation.

Sandra Thomas of Wheatley Heights complained about the lack of community input and said she believed, despite language about avoiding "clustering" of homeless registered sex offenders, it was unavoidable.

"There are not enough single men's shelters" in the county to have one offender per shelter, as has been discussed, Thomas said. Housing multiple offenders in a single shelter is unavoidable, she said. And minority communities are bound to bear a greater burden, she said.

"Minority communities and comminuties of color that already bear a lot of social ills are going to bear even more," Thomas said.

Alice Cone, of West Babylon, president of Belmont Lake Civic Association, said minority communities "are already overwhelmed with group homes, homeless shelters, and halfway houses...and cannot absorb any more."

Bayview Pines resident Carl Iacone said his "diversified" community of Flanders has "just as many homeless shelters and group homes."

"There is a cluster of sex offenders," Iacone said, "and it's in our neighborhood. Nobody on this board wants them. Nobody sitting in this audience wants them. Yet we've had them for six years," Iacone said. "Don't keep the whole burden on the people in the Flanders area."
- Get rid of the residency restrictions and most of the problem will go a way.  The residency laws are what is creating the clustering in the first place.

The "Community Protection Act" was introduced yesterday by County Executive Steve Bellone, accompanied by a certificate of necessity asking the legislative body to consider it immediately, circumventing the normal legislative committee process.

"The Suffolk County Police Department has crafted the most comprehensive sex offender monitoring, verification and enforcement program in the nation in order to protect our families and this program should be implemented without delay," said the certificate of necessity signed by Deputy County Executive Jonathan Schneider.
- Why is he wanting to quickly push this through bypassing the process?  Maybe to save his own reputation since he made promises years ago to shut them down?

Legislators John M. Kennedy (R-Nesconset) and Rick Montano (D-Brentwood) questioned the need for acting on the measure the same day it was introduced, without review, hearing and vote by the public safety committee. Suffolk Police Chief James Burke and Parents for Megan's Law executive director Laura Ahearn presented the plan to the Public Safety Committee on Thursday, but there was no legislation then pending — or, apparently, even drafted — at the time.

Amol Sinha, director fo the Suffolk Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, during a public hearing , faulted the county for "the harried way this law is being pushed through the legislature," which he said was acting without taking adequate time for deliberation, debate and input from experts in sex offender management. Sinha said the new law is "grounded in misinformation about sexual assault and the context in which such crimes take place."
- Well, they've seen this current president and previous presidents bypass congress and hurry to get things pushed through, and we allow that to happen, so this is a slippery slope, and the more it's allowed, the more it will be used!

"The unfortunate reality is that most sexual violence is committed not by strangers, but by acquaintances and family members, most of whom are committing a crime for the first time. According to the Department of Justice, 85 percent of all sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim," Sinha said. "The New York Office of Sex Offender Management reports on its website that 94 percent of people arrested for sexual offenses in New York State had no prior conviction. That means that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for sexual crimes in New York are not subject to the types of notification and monitoring that the county is proposing, because they are committing a crime for the first time."

Bill O'Leary, a forensic therapist who works with registered sex offenders under contract with law enforcement agencies, including the departments of parole and probation, made the same argument to legislators during the public hearing. He said he also said the same things to the county executive and police chief.

"What is the number of sex crimes in Suffolk County committed by registered offenders?" O'Leary asked. "I can't get an answer to that." O'Leary said he is not an advocate for registered offenders, but wants to see the county take action to prevent sexual crimes by education and strengthening its child protective services unit, which he said has suffered budget cuts. "If there's money to be spent, that's where the county should spend it."

The bill authorizes a new contract with Parents for Megan's Law, a private nonprofit organization, of up to $900,000 per year for three years.
- This is a major conflict of interest.  This is like letting identity thieves guard peoples identities.

Under the terms of the legislation, the group is to enhance its website and email notification system, improve community reporting of violators, develop a smart phone app for community reporting and make home visits to verify, twice a year, the residence addresses listed in the state registry for all of Suffolk County's registered sex offenders. The group will also compile a database of employment addresses for the county's level 3 offenders.

The bill also requires the group to conduct "community outreach and education" for the purpose of preventing sexual crimes.



Another Suspicious Statistic from Parents for Megan’s Law

Laura Ahern
Original Article

02/09/2013

I have written previously about how the organization, Parents for Megan’s Law, has used distorted and misleading statistics. They have been in the news recently about this. I decided to explore another statistic they have referenced: “The average serial child molester has between 360-380 victims in his lifetime.” The source of that statistic seems to be South Carolina Forcible Sex Crimes. (1999). Summary, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Columbia, SC. (That reference is listed at the bottom of the page).

That statement and indicated source is all over the Internet. The trouble comes when you actually try to find the source document. One finds that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division does publish an annual Crime in South Carolina Book in which they report the yearly statistics for various categories. The first year for which this annual compilation is available is indeed 1999. The difficulty deepens when one finds that this document does not have a category for “Forcible Sex Crimes.” It does have a category for rape and a category for “Other Forcible Sex Crimes.” When one looks up that section, there is no “Summary” which includes the statement, “The average serial child molester has between 360-380 victims in his lifetime.” There also is no way to compile such a statistic from the data presented.



NY - County votes to close ex-sex offenders only housing and forcing them back on the streets?

See Also:



NY - USA FAIR Calls Suffolk County Contract with Parents for Megan’s Law Government-Sanctioned Vigilantism

Original Article

What the hell is this? Allowing Parents for Megan's Law to be paid to monitor sex offenders? That is a conflict of interest! That is like allowing identity thieves to protect your identity!

02/05/2013

USA FAIR, Inc., a national organization founded by family members of former sex offenders, today strongly opposed the proposed contract between Suffolk County, New York and Parents for Megan’s Law, a not-for-profit private organization, to provide monitoring of people required to register with the sex offender registry.

Under the contract, Parents for Megan’s Law would be responsible for monitoring registrants in what Suffolk Police chief James Burke called "the toughest monitoring and enforcement program in the nation" for dealing with the county's more than 1,000 registered sex offenders. The organization would be paid $2.7 million over 3 years.

Suffolk County has every right to implement as tough a program as its legislators desire, so long as it is permissible by law. However, the monitoring of sex offenders has traditionally been a law enforcement function throughout the country. To outsource this important task to a private organization with a history of demonizing the very people they are contracted to monitor is unprecedented and unwise. It amounts to government-sanctioned vigilantism,” said USA FAIR Executive Director Shana Rowan.

According to Rowan, “Parents for Megan’s Law and its Executive Director, Laura Ahearn, have promoted the myth of high sex offender recidivism, a falsehood that is contradicted by every major study, including a landmark study by the U.S. Department of Justice that found that sex offenders actually have one of the lowest re-offense rates of any offender group in the criminal justice system.”

Laura Ahearn has shown herself to be a strident ideologue on sex offender issues, not open to a dialog with the former offender community and their family members. USA FAIR has repeatedly tried to get her to take down misleading statistics form her organization’s website and she has failed to even respond to our requests. Our only conclusion is that the “big lie” of high recidivism serves her agenda and her finances.”

USA FAIR raised particular objections to County Legislator Jay Schneiderman’s (I-Montauk) desire to see this $2.7 million contract hastily approved today by circumventing the normal committee process, which Rowan called a “rush to judgment without due diligence that will undoubtedly lead to unintended consequences and future lawsuits.”

Rowan concluded, “Law enforcement should be performed by objective and well trained professionals - not issue advocacy ideologues.”



Wednesday, February 6, 2013

NY - Laura Ahearn - "Sex Offenders That Are Complying With Registration Have Lower Rates of Recidivism"

Sex offenders in general already have a low recidivism rate, if you'd look at the facts instead of believing what you think is right.

Video Description:
Laura Ahearn, Executive Director of Parents for Megan's Law, talks to Richard French about the new sweeping sex offender law that has been passed in Suffolk County, New York.

See Also:



NY - The Folly of Residence Restrictions for Sex Offenders

Original Article

02/06/2013

By Jacob Sullum

The New York Times reports that 40 or so sex offenders in Long Island's Suffolk County live in two government-supplied trailers, one of them located in the parking lot of a prison, largely because residence restrictions make it almost impossible for them to find a legal home after they are released:

In New York State, laws prohibit sex offenders on parole or whose victims were younger than 18 from residing within 1,000 feet of schools or other child care facilities. In 2006, Suffolk [County] passed a law extending the distance for all sex offenders to a quarter mile. Southampton [a Suffolk County beach town] later stretched that to up to a mile.

As I explained in a 2011 Reason article about sex offenders, there are several problems with such rules:

There is no evidence that residence restrictions prevent crime and little reason to think they would. Sex offenders are free to move around over the course of a day, and residence restrictions do not even notionally prevent them from finding victims more than 1,000 feet, a quarter mile, or a mile from their homes. Furthermore, data from the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that more than 90 percent of sexually abused minors are assaulted by relatives or acquaintances, not by strangers who happen to live near a playground or school.

Residence restrictions are indiscriminate. The rules are supposed to be aimed at people who pose a special threat to children. Yet New York's law applies to all sex offenders on parole, whether or not their crimes involved minors. Even a sex offense involving a minor, which triggers lifelong residence restrictions under New York's law, does not necessarily mark someone as a menace to children. An 18-year-old who had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, for instance, is not exactly a child molester. The same might be true, depending on the details, of the Southampton trailer dweller who was convicted of "disseminating pornography among minors."

Residence restrictions promote recidivism. By effectively banishing sex offenders from most (sometimes nearly all) of a city or county and forcing them to live together in trailers, in cheap motels, in campgrounds, or under bridges, often far from therapy and employment opportunities, the restrictions impede reintegration and rehabilitation, making new crimes more likely. They also undermine the registration systems championed by the same people who support residence restrictions, since it is hard to keep tabs on homeless sex offenders.

Even some advocates of residence restrictions concede they have gone too far:

"When you propose a law restricting sex offenders to 1,000 feet from any bus stop, that's just not going to work," said Laura A. Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law and the Crime Victims Center, who lives on Long Island. "You have to be reasonable."

Since their costs are clear and their benefits are unproven at best, it is hard to see how any residence restrictions count as reasonable. All they seem to offer is emotional satisfaction and a false sense of security.


Tuesday, February 5, 2013

NY - An expensive dilemma indeed

Original Article

02/05/2013

By DENISE CIVILETTI

Talk about the space between a rock and a hard place.

Riverhead has been fighting Suffolk County's stupid "trailer policy" for homeless sex offenders for more than six years — ever since the county acknowledged it was stuffing 20 or so men into a work trailer in the parking lot of the county jail to spend the night on cots.

County government repeatedly lied to us about the trailer: It was going to be moved around the county. It was secure. The homeless sex offenders were not going to be free to wander our downtown streets.

All a bunch of malarky.

When East End legislators were finally able to get enough votes in the legislature to close the trailers, then-county executive Steve Levy blocked implementation of the legislature's alternative plan to establish small-group shelters in nonresidential areas throughout the county.

Now, our new county executive, who promised us last May he'd close the trailers by the end of 2012, says the way to shut them down is to implement a new plan that will address the county's total population of registered sex offenders — not just the 40 homeless men.

All well and good. But now that I've had a "sneak peak" at the legislation that the county executive is going to lay on the table at today's general legislature meeting — along with a certificate of necessity, which allows the legislature to vote on it immediately — I'm feeling stuck in that space between a rock and a hard place. As a taxpayer.

I want the trailers shut down as much as anybody. I am appalled that our county government thinks it's acceptable to dump all of the homeless registered sex offenders in the entire county in downtown Riverhead. (To be fair, the county set up a second trailer in Westhampton, when the one at the jail became overcrowded, so there is, at least, one other community sharing the burden.) I am even more appalled that the county has been spending $1.5 million a year to taxi these men back and forth to their "home" social services office every day. That $1.5 million buys no rehabilitation services, treatment, training or anything else.

County legislators would rather waste this ridiculous sum on carfare than vote to allow homeless sex offenders to be sheltered in their own districts. Can you really blame these politicians? Residents go ballistic when they hear about homeless sex offenders in their neighborhoods. I do, you do, we all do. So let's face it: voting to establish a shelter for homeless sex offenders would be political suicide. So they'd rather waste millions on carfare than make the tough decision to adopt a reasonable plan.

As long as we're talking tough decisions and reasonable plans, let's look at why the homelessness problem among sex offenders exists to begin with. Look no further than the county legislature. It adopted residency restrictions for registered sex offenders so strict, it created the homelessness problem. Many of the men sleeping in the trailer have homes but can't live in them because of the county law, which bans them from residing within a mile of a school or day care.

Again, the legislature opted for political expediency over sound public policy, ignoring facts and statistics kept by the law enforcement agencies, and adopted residency restrictions that serve no legitimate purpose — except, I guess, appeasing their constituents.

Every residency law like Suffolk's has been thrown out when challenged in court. Suffolk's law is also before a judge and will undoubtedly meet the fate it deserves. It's a stupid law, without purpose if you take a few minutes to become informed of the facts about registered sex offenders. But that's apparently too much to ask of lawmakers nowadays.

Which brings us to the law being offered by the current county executive today.

Suffolk police chief James Burke and Parents for Megan's Law executive director told the legislature's public safety committee last week, "When you adopt this plan, you will be providing Suffolk County's most vulnerable with the toughest monitoring, enforcement and community support program in the nation."
- Yeah, every state and every politicians says stuff like this, they all think their laws are the toughest.  It's like it's a race to see who can be the toughest while actually doing nothing.

But what does it really do to address the problem of sexual crimes, particularly sexual crimes against children?

Not a whole heck of a lot, actually. It deals only with sex offenders who have already been caught and convicted, people who are already on the sex-offender registry. All well and good, but sexual crimes against children committed by people previously convicted and already registered represent only 5 percent of sexual crimes against children.

Got that? Ninety-five percent of sex crimes against kids are committed by people who are not on the sex offender registry. They are committed by people who are family members or friends of the families of the abused children.

"You're more likely to find a picture of the person molesting your child in a family photo album than in a sex offender registry," says Shana Rowan, executive director of USA Fair, Inc., a nonprofit organization advocating reform of sex offender registry laws.

So does it really make sense, then, to spend $900,000 a year — the amount the county will pay the Parents for Megan's Law group under the new plan — to better monitor already-registered sex offenders? Sure, it makes more sense to spend that kind of dough on monitoring 1,000 registered sex offenders than on taxiing 40 homeless ones around the county. But it seems to me just another example of lawmakers doing something (expensive) that sounds good to constituents but really doesn't address the core issue.
- So the state is paying Parents for Megan's law to monitor offenders instead of police?  Sounds like a conflict of interest to me!

What does the county plan to do to about the 95 percent of sex crimes committed against kids by people unknown to law enforcement? No mention of that by either the police chief or the victims' advocate last week. And, sadly, no legislator asked the question, even after psychologist Bill O'Leary, who spends his life treating sex offenders, raised the issue.

O'Leary told me in an interview he believes the best thing the county could do to prevent the 95 percent of sex crimes against kids by perpetrators who haven't yet been caught is to beef up the child protective services unit. Hire more CPS investigators. Instead, the county cut CPS.

So back to that spot between a rock and a hard place.

Close the dumb trailers by approving a law that spends nearly a million bucks a year to do something that won't — can't – put a dent in the real problem? Or reject the law, knowing full well that the political stalemate that's kept the trailers open will continue — at least until a court throws out the residency restrictions that made most of those men homeless in the first place?

And they wonder why people have lost faith in government.

Before we start yelling about how bad government and politicians are, we should look in the mirror. I think our knee-jerk, govern-by-sound-bite government — at every level of government in this republic – is the government we've got because it's the government we deserve. We're content to be hysterical and ill-informed about so many issues. Sex offenders is just one of them. Unless we own up to that and start putting time and effort into being an informed electorate, we don't have the right to demand anything more.

See Also:


Thursday, January 31, 2013

NY - County to unveil new public safety plan on convicted sex offenders today in Hauppauge

Original Article

01/31/2013

By DENISE CIVILETTI

Excerpt:
Residents of Riverhead and Westhampton who've been waiting more than seven years for the county government to relocate the homeless sex offender trailers "temporarily" placed in their communities learned one thing at Wednesday night's community meeting on the topic: they'd have to wait one more day to find out what County Executive Steve Bellone intends to do about it.

Bellone, who missed a self-imposed Dec. 31 deadline to close the trailers — a pledge made last May at a press conference in Southampton Town Hall — earlier this month promised to deliver his plan to close the trailers to the legislature by month's end.

Residents at Wednesday night's meeting learned Bellone's plan will be unveiled Thursday morning at 9:30 — in Hauppauge.

Bellone did not attend the meeting, held in the legislative auditorium at the county center in Riverside. He sent a representative to sit in "as an observer," who did not speak to the public.

County Legislator Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk), who called the community meeting, said he spoke with the county executive Wednesday morning and what he learned of the plan sounded good, though he was not provided with a lot of detail, he said.

Schneiderman said he was told the plan would be detailed by Suffolk County Police and Laura Ahearn, executive director of the nonprofit organization Parents for Megan's Law at a meeting of the legislature's public safety committee in Hauppauge set for 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning.

"Obviously I would have liked to have had the information sooner, in time for this meeting," Schneiderman said. "It's hard to comment on a plan I haven't seen," Schneiderman said. "I was with the county executive today and I tried to get as much information as I could. I don't have the details other than I'm told there will be no more than one homeless sex offender in any one community," Schneiderman said.

See Also:



Thursday, May 3, 2012

KS - Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

Original Article

05/02/2012

By Shaun Hittle

A September Journal-World investigation of Kansas sex offenders who fail to register when crossing state lines prompted a federal agency to take action and led to several arrests, said Tom Lanier, a chief inspector for the U.S. Marshals Service.

Last year, a Journal-World investigation found that more than 160 Kansas sex offenders who left Kansas were not registered in other states. Failing to register after moving to other states is potentially a federal and state crime.

Following the investigation, the Journal-World furnished the Marshals Service — tasked with enforcing sex offender laws across state lines — with a list of unregistered offenders.

We went painstakingly through the list,” said Lanier, who is in charge of the Sex Offender Investigations branch, which includes Kansas.

They were quickly able to narrow the list down, Lanier said. Some of the offenders had died or moved to states with different registration laws that did not require them to register.

For the past several months, the Marshals Service has been investigating 22 of the cases identified by the Journal-World. Those investigations led to two arrests, while two additional sex offenders were arrested for other offenses and could face additional failure-to-register charges.

The Marshals Service is actively searching for several other offenders who have failed to register, but the agency asked that those names not be released.

In addition, two of the offenders, [name withheld] and [name withheld], are currently serving in the U.S. Army. Lanier said that the Marshals Service contacted the Army in both instances and that the Army is aware of both men’s sex-offender status. Calls to the Army for comment were not immediately returned.

Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said the KBI, which is responsible for the Kansas Sex Offender Registry, sends letters to states notifying them that a registered sex offender is entering their state. But after that, it’s somebody else’s responsibility.

It’s up to (the new state and the offender) to do,” said Smith when interviewed about the issue in September.

There could be cases where an offender moves to one state, then to another, but that information isn’t necessarily communicated among states, Smith said.

That’s exactly the problem, said Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan’s Law and the Crime Victims Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for more accountability in sex offender registries nationwide.

We’ve established a law that requires society’s most cunning of criminals to register on an honor system,” Ahearn said.
- And you established a law based on lies, misinformation and personal feelings.  The registry doesn't protect anybody or prevent crime, neither does residency restrictions, it's all about ex post facto (unconstitutional) punishment, and to see how far people are willing to eradicate others rights for temporary "safety!"  It's the same with the TSA stuff and losing personal rights based on a boogieman, you lose your rights for a placebo to make you feel safe when you never will be.

Inconsistent laws among states make keeping track of sex offenders a complicated endeavor, a situation Lanier and the Marshals Service is all too familiar with.

There’s 50 ways of doing business out there,” Lanier said. “Nobody really has a clue how many (sex offenders) have to register.

In some cases, an offender in one state may not be required to register in another state. That means some clever offenders are engaged in “state shopping,” where offenders move to a state where registry laws may not be as strict.

That’s not uncommon,” Lanier said.


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

NY - Editorial: Homeless sex offender trailers have got to go

Original Article

I guess they'd rather the ex-offenders, who are made homeless due to the draconian laws they are creating, to sleep out in the cold and freeze to death? (Example)

12/15/2010

Things are happening in downtown Riverhead. The Hyatt Place hotel at Atlantis Marine World is beginning to take shape; Dark Horse restaurant at the prominent corner of Peconic Avenue and East Main Street is lit up and alive at night; and a renovated Grangebel Park, complete with a new amphitheater and other amenities, is set to open in time for Christmas.

Here’s what’s not happening. The construction trailer that sleeps almost two dozen homeless sex offenders is still parked across Route 24 from Grangebel Park. For about 3 1/2 years, it has sat there, outside the Riverside jail. Not only does the trailer draw sex offenders to the area, it attracts negative attention — just what a beleaguered downtown Riverhead doesn’t need in otherwise promising times.

But this is the season of perpetual hope, so here are a few reasons to be hopeful the Riverhead area will get some relief in 2011:
- Hope for whom?

  • The trailers are illegal. A state administrative law judge, after hearing complaints from sex offenders about a lack of showers and toilets, ruled that the trailers must have such facilities. Southampton Town officials acquired a restraining order blocking the county from placing a larger trailer with running water next to an existing trailer for sex offenders in Westhampton. As for the trailers near the jail, they are in Southampton Town, too, but they’re also in the Riverhead sewer and water districts, so the Riverhead Town Board can reject any requests to hook up a trailer to provide water and toilets. The county hasn’t made such a request yet, but it has to do something to legalize the situation or it will be sued. Maybe soon it will finally face facts and remove the trailers.
  •  

  • Some western Suffolk lawmakers appear ready to vote in favor of a plan to place homeless sex offenders across the county in several smaller shelters in industrial areas. That’s a good sign. Western legislators had seemed content to spend gobs of money forever to taxi sex offenders from as far west as Amityville to the East End trailers each night — no matter how impractical, inhumane and outright unfair that might be. Two Huntington lawmakers even proposed a bill to make the trailers in Riverside and Westhampton permanent.

    Legislator Ed Romaine, whose district includes Riverhead, has sponsored a bill to contract with a vendor to operate shelters, no more than one per town or legislative district, that would have running water and house no more than six offenders. Mr. Romaine believes he has 10 votes, good for a majority of the Legislature’s 18 members.
  •  

  • If for some reason the year ends and the county’s policy for housing homeless sex offenders remains in limbo, residents can trust their local civic advocates and elected leaders to keep pushing until the trailers are gone. It also helps that powerful lobbyist and Parents for Megan’s Law founder Laura Ahearn, who had previously been in favor of the trailers, is now calling for the smaller shelter system.

Riverhead area residents have said repeatedly, “Share the burden” and “We’ll take our own.” They recognize that sexual predators are a societal problem that will always exist here and everywhere, but they also recognize it’s inherently wrong to ship all the county’s homeless sex predators to one town. For those who disagree, just look to the words of then-deputy commissioner of social services Greg Blass, who in 2007, when the trailer system was launched, told The New York Times that the trailers would be rotated throughout the county, because sex offenders “have tended to locate permanently in places where they were placed in temporary shelters. This [rotating the trailer locations] lets us avoid making any one area a haven for sex offenders.”


Wednesday, June 23, 2010

NY - Is Your Child's Lifeguard a Sex Offender?

Original Article (Listen)

The better question would be, since studies show that most sexual assaults happen by family or close family members and/or friends, is: "Is your mother, father, brother, sister or other family member a sex offender?" Also, why only child jobs? What about the bag boy/girl at the local store? Or the neighbors kid, father, mother, or their bus driver. The list is endless. Anywhere a kid goes, someone could potentially be a sex offender. When will this mass hysteria and moral panic end? The laws are bankrupting the country, and do not work, period. But you keep living in Wonderland.

06/21/2010

NEW YORK -- State laws nationwide prohibit sex offenders from working as school teachers and coaches, but most laws don't cover jobs like karate instructors, youth coaches, or dance instructors in the private sector.

Current federal law, known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, leaves it up to states to decide where convicted sex offenders can be employed.

Under the law, there are no restrictions on a laundry list of list of child-related careers that aren't on the government's payroll, such as dance instructors, magicians, carnival workers and children museum workers.

Sen. Charles Schumer (Contact) of New York wants to change that.

He's proposing a national measure that would ban sex offenders from these and other jobs even when their employer gets no public funds, which has provided the jurisdiction for some laws restricting sex offenders.

Schumer is working with Laura Ahearn, who is the executive director of Parents for Megan's Law.
- Well there is your problem.  They are fear-mongers who post bogus statistics.

The proposal follows press reports of convicted sex offenders working as referees and karate coaches in New York.

In February, authorities discovered that a popular karate school in Queens, N.Y., was being run by a convicted child molester who had been convicted nine years ago of abusing an 11-year-old girl.

While the convict was labeled a "level 2 offender" who is considered at "medium" risk to repeat his offense, he was only required to register where he lives, not where he works.
- So, has he committed another sex crime?

Earlier this month it was discovered that two convicted sex offenders had been hired as high school basketball referees in New York City.
- So, have they committed any other sex crime?

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a part of the U.S. Department of Justice, between 12 and 14 percent of sex offenders are known to have repeated their crimes.
- More studies here, which show recidivism as low as 3.5%.

The data does show, however, that many sex crimes go unreported and the statistic could be low.