CA - Sexual offenses not a life sentence

Original Article

04/16/2013

By AMANDA ZIVE

Laws are always being made and revised when it comes to sexually-charged crimes. It’s a very difficult situation that many feel is preventable. The goal is an understandable one: protect the children.

The methods, on the other hand, are not.

Lumping together all felons, with sexually-charged crimes against them, is the first atrocity. Though classified as differing risk levels, the long term punishment for these crimes are the same. Sexual offenses range from child pornography, sexual battery and assault all the way to molestation and sexual annoyances.

The age of the offender, context of the offense, and even the severity of the action doesn’t deter the judicial system from giving these people lifetime punishments. Those who do properly register, even those with minor offenses, are barred from living in almost any busy city due to restrictions based on school, church and park locations for the rest of their lives.

But If the real aim is to protect children, than the studies done on offenders need to be taken into account.

According to the government-run Megan’s Law website, 90 percent of juvenile victims had known their assailant, while shockingly almost half the time it’s a family member doing the crime.

Barring all labeled a sexual deviants from living near schools is less helpful than banning family reunions for these people.

The reality is there is needed action. While a point can be made that sexually-charged crimes generally carry a lesser sentence than traditional violent crime, a gross stereotyping and lifelong damnation of all offenders isn’t going to help.

The attempt at crime prevention is valiant, but preventing criminals from moving on from their crimes hinders progression. If some of the efforts were shifted from punishment to rehabilitation, some convicts could successfully rejoin society as active members.

Unfortunately these people are rarely seen as mentally ill (which they often are) so they aren’t treated. Instead of identifying and treating the problem, we’ve resorted simply to removing it, seemingly forgetting that these felons are actually human beings.

A distasteful joke, or an inappropriate smack between coworkers could mean a lifetime of registering as a sex offender.

Clearly, something must be done to protect victims of this system: Those wrongfully accused, convicted of single offenses, or minor offenses must be offered forgiveness and a chance to rejoin a community.

In California, one is only awarded a life sentence in custody for murder or attempting it, or kidnapping with special circumstances like ransom. Yet, it is seen as just and fair to essentially imprison sex offenders for life by barring them from living near city buildings.

Sex offenders need to be treated the same as other criminals; a set amount of detention, a set amount of probation and the guarantee that with good behavior they can be forgiven.

Another flaw with these laws is how hard they are to enforce. With life terms, the registry of offenders is only ever going to grow.

Yet as of now, there is a constant increase of sex offenders not properly registering or reporting. When these members stop reporting, or remove GPS tracking anklets, they simply fall off of the grid entirely. With so many cases and such a heavy workload, officers often focus on the offenders they can locate.

Reasons for not reporting could include laziness, but it is a sign that the person is not willing to conform to what society demands of them for retribution. The punishment, if the assailant is located and detained, is generally a six-month sentence that is often reduced due to overcrowding; an empty threat and an unfit punishment.

Finally, these laws give a false sense of security to people with children who live near schools, parks or churches. Many are aware of these laws and feel safer knowing their neighbor isn’t a sexual deviant.

The truth is some offenders don’t report and statistics show offenders rarely abduct random children they don’t know.

These laws and restrictions, though they may be intended as prevention turn out to be nothing more than on-going punishments.

---

NE - Nebraska continues to change the rules and punishing families & children

Video Link

---

MO - Editorial: Time to retool sex offender registry

Original Article

04/02/2013

Replacing Missouri’s punitive and catch-all sex offender registry with a more selective list is the right way for the state to go in addressing a serious problem.

Two bills (HB-462, HB-589) that are working their way through the Missouri Legislature seek to replace the current registry, which does not give offenders in most cases an opportunity to be taken off it, with registries that would ultimately give many offenders on the list that chance.

One of the problems with the current registry is that it does not discriminate among the types of offenses that result in a person being scarred for life with the sex offender tag.

As a result, it diminishes public perception of the severity of the crimes committed by serious offenders by lumping them in with people who have committed less severe crimes.

One example of lesser crimes is the so-called “Romeo and Juliet” offender, which generally refers to older teenagers who had consensual sex with a minor, usually a younger teen. The Missouri Highway Patrol, which manages the sex offender registry, has calculated that about 631 people would immediately be removed from the list if one of the bills, sponsored by Rep. Don Phillips, R-Kimberling City, was signed into law.

The sex offender registry is not intended to be a blotch forever on the reputations of such people. The point of the registry is to allow government authorities — and citizens — to keep track of the residence and activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences, to make it more difficult for them to repeat their crimes.
- But statistics already show that ex-sex offenders already have a very low re-offense rate and are not likely to commit another related crime, if you'd look, and the online registry is nothing more than an online hit-list for vigilantes to use to target for harassment ex-offenders, their families and even innocent people, which many examples can be seen here.

Video Link

The information on the registry is available to the general public via a website maintained by the Highway Patrol. It includes the offender’s current address, place of employment, type of vehicle registered to him (an overwhelming number of offenders are hims) and the person’s criminal history.

Critics say the registry net is cast too wide, and they advocate the scalpel rather than the meat ax approach. Being listed on the registry can ruin people’s lives, making it difficult for them to get jobs, more likely to be harassed by neighbors and co-workers or to be targeted by law enforcement authorities.

An academic in the field, Wayne Logan, a professor at Florida State University law school, says there isn’t even agreement about whether registries serve as the deterrents they are intended to be.

Mr. Logan, who also has written a book about criminal registries and notification laws, was quoted in a front-page story in Monday’s Post-Dispatch by reporters Virginia Young and Stephen Deere. He said a recent study shows that while registries can serve as a deterrent, they can also promote recidivism by making life too difficult for the offender.

“They can never get out from that shadow,” Mr. Logan said.

The registry can be used to subject listed offenders to housing restrictions and parole or probation restrictions that don’t apply to others, such as being in the presence of minors, living in proximity to schools or day care centers, owning objects of interest to minors or use of the Internet.

Another reason to retool the registry is the cost of maintaining it.

Mr. Phillips, a retired highway patrolman, said his bill would keep minor offenders off the registry and would allow nearly a third of about 14,000 people currently on it to petition for removal within 20 years.

His bill has support from the Missouri Sheriffs Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and Missouri Kids First, a statewide organization that works to prevent child abuse.

County sheriffs who support the bill say they have limited resources to track the growing list of offenders and that by cutting back on the number of those on the list, they would be better able to concentrate on dangerous offenders.

The other bill that also has made it out of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee is sponsored by Rep. Dave Hinson, R-St. Clair. While it shares some of the same ideas for redesigning the registry, it is more far-reaching and would give all offenders a chance to petition for removal.

It also would require mental health exams and be too expensive to administer. Mr. Phillips’ bill, HB462, is the better approach.

While there seems to be legislative consensus that the sex offender registry needs work, the method of getting there has not yet been determined. With the state’s criminal code also in need of reform for many of the same reasons, it’s heartening to see that the Legislature realizes the blunt approach to crime isn’t always the best approach.

See Also:

• Missouri considering changing its sex offender registry rules

---

MN - Concern Over Minnesota's Sex Offender Program

Original Article

See the video at the above link.

03/05/2013

By Katie Eldred

A federal court is urging Minnesota to address its program that keeps sex offenders locked up, saying it may be unconstitutional.

A task force is now looking into this problem.

There are more than 18,000 convicted sex offenders in Minnesota. While many of them serve their sentence and are then freed to live among us, there are some who are too likely recommit.
- With any crime, there are always some who will commit a similar crime, but it's not the norm for ex-sex offenders, so stop pretending like it is.

"These are generally people of the highest absolute risk and people who have failed treatment many times," said Olmsted County Attorney Mark Ostrem.
- Wrong!  Study after study after study disproves this BS!

Ostrem has dealt with many of these cases. He says those high risk sex offenders are committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and sent to the prison like facilities in either Moose Lake or St. Peter.
- Glad you mentioned they are prison like, because that is exactly what they are, prison outside of prison, which is additional punishment, which is unconstitutional!

"A commitment like that to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program is an for an undetermined period of time," said Ostrem.

But now, there's a law suit against the state of Minnesota that has a federal judge questioning if this program is constitutional.

"These individuals that are committed have already served their sentence, in effect they are being sentenced for crimes they may commit," said Eric Magnuson.

Former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice, Eric Magnuson, is the chair of the task force that has been put together to look into this issue. He says the task force has several areas where the state needs improvement.

"How people get into the system, how they are treated in the system, and how they can be moved through the system all while keeping in mind the need for public safety at all times," said Magnuson.

While many of the offender committed require the secure and restrictive facility Magnusson says there are some who would do better in a less prison like environment. He says the biggest issue is a need for a less restrictive alternative facility.

The tasks force’s recommendations are out there, now it's up to the legislature to act. If the legislature doesn't act the federal judge will. And that could come with some serious consequences.

"It's in our best interest to address those problems ourselves and fix it ourselves, and not leave it to a judge," said Ostrem.

The task force has another meeting next Monday. The federal judge has given the task force until December of 2014 to solve this issue.
- 2014?  What about those who are suffering now?

---

'They're Planting Stories in the Press': The Impact of Media Distortions on Sex Offender Law and Policy

Original Article

02/19/2013

Heather Cucolo
New York Law School

Michael L. Perlin
New York Law School

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #55
NYLS Clinical Research Institute Paper No. # 33/ 2012

Abstract:
(View the PDF) Individuals classified as sexual predators are the pariahs of the community. Sex offenders are arguably the most despised members of our society and therefore warrant our harshest condemnation. Twenty individual states and the federal government have enacted laws confining individuals who have been adjudicated as “sexually violent predators” to civil commitment facilities post incarceration and/or conviction. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, offenders who are returned to the community are restricted and monitored under community notification, registration and residency limitations. Targeting, punishing and ostracizing these individuals has become an obsession in society, clearly evidenced in the constant push to enact even more restrictive legislation that breaches the boundaries of constitutional protections.

The advancement of technology and mass media communication have spawned a constant influx of information about sexual predators. News headlines and Internet webpages are dedicated to reporting on and highlighting sexual crimes and their infamous perpetrators. There is little disputing that the newest surge in legal attention and efforts to contain sexual predators stems from the mass dissemination of sexual offender media stories available to the general public. Thus, we cannot discuss our national obsession with sexual offenses and offenders without considering how the role of the media has framed our conceptualizations of offenders and influenced resulting legal decisions and legislation.

The public perception of what constitutes a “sex offender” is undoubtedly linked to the media’s portrayal of these types of heinous crimes. The media’s attention to high profile, violent sexual offenses has been shown to elicit a panic and fear of rampant sexual violence within our communities. This, in turn, places extreme public pressure on legislators to enact more repressive legislation and on judges to interpret such laws in ways that insure lengthier periods of incarceration for offenders. The media’s portrayal of a “largely ineffective” criminal justice system heightens fear; fictionalized portrayals of crime on television dramas may lead viewers to believe that “all offenders are `monsters’ to be feared.” The media, in short, shapes and produces the reality of crime, as it influences “factual perceptions of the world.” A “moral panic” has developed primarily due to the media’s depiction of a “sex offender” in the news and newspaper articles. As a result of the incessant media coverage, the general public has conceptualized what it believes to be the prototype of this “monstrous evil” – a male who violently attacks stranger young children .

This paper is not the first inquiry into the media’s influence on public perceptions and moral panic: the media’s influence on sex offender policy, legislation and public opinion has been highlighted in depth throughout much of the literature and academic writings. The other discussions have generally focused on the media’s role as a precursor to the enactment of sex offender legislation, the upholding of sex offender laws in the courts, and as a significant influence on the continuation of moral panic. But what has not been looked at significantly, is whether and how the media coverage and presentation of these issues has been transformed over the past two decades, and what effect, if any, this has had on public perception. What if the media has begun to shift away from simply highlighting and describing the feared beast and has begun to focus more on the problematic results of laws and legislation? Would that, in turn, have an effect on public perceptions and inevitably on the formation and enactment of laws and judicial decisions?

Slowly and somewhat recently, it appears that the tone of the media’s portrayal of sex offender issues has begun to shift. In addition to highlighting salient and horrific sexually violent offenses and contributing to community outrage, the mainstream media has increasingly begun to report on significant concerns surrounding the conceptualization, treatment and containment of the sex offender population. News articles – published in popular newspapers and media sites – more readily dedicate information to expressing expert opinions (that were previously embedded in articles dedicated solely to describing heinous crimes and community outrage), reporting on statistics that question the factual basis of our perceptions, questioning the efficacy of the laws designed to protect the community, and touching on the cost of human rights violations resulting from our laws.

This article will consider the role of the media in sex offender issues and further theorize whether the shift in media presentation has affected public perceptions of sex offenders and whether it has had any impact on recent legislation and the future enactment of sex offender laws. As part of this inquiry, we will employ the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence in an effort to assess the broader societal impact of these media depictions.

Part I will offer an overview of the major (media-centered) sex offender laws and legislation, focusing on the media accounts of the crimes upon which they were based. Part II will consider the impact of the media’s portrayal of offenders as the pariahs of society in the civil and criminal justice system; Part III will detail the proposed recent shift in media presentation and consider how, if at all, this shift has made an impact on new laws, legislation and court opinions. Part IV weighs these developments in the context of therapeutic jurisprudence, and considers its potential impact on dealing with the aftermath of the first decades of the media’s volatile influence on this area of law and policy. We conclude by offering several policy recommendations.

---

People Want Criminals to Suffer, Even If It Is “Useless”

Original Article

A large body of experimental research has sought to determine whether punishment is motivated more by instrumental considerations (deterrence, incapacitation, etc.) or by retributive urges. The various studies, although limited in important ways, have generally pointed to retribution as the primary factor in driving penal decisions in response to hypothetical fact patterns.

Add to this body of research an interesting new study Eyal Aharoni and Alan Fridlund, “Punishment Without Reason: Isolating Retribution in Lay Punishment of Criminal Offenders,” 18 Psych., Pub. Pol’y & L. 599 (2012).

Aharoni and Fridlund presented subjects with various versions of a hypothetical homicide case and then asked how much the killer should be made to suffer and what sentence should be imposed.

In the various versions, they cleverly manipulated the facts so as to add or subtract instrumental justifications for punishment. For instance, in one version, the legal proceedings were conducted entirely in private, thus supposedly eliminating general deterrence as a rational purpose of punishment. They also sought to manipulate the intentionality of the crime, stipulating sometimes that it was deliberate and sometimes that it resulted from a brain tumor. Since intentionality is thought to be a key variable in retributive judgments, this manipulation helps to isolate the effect of retributive purposes of punishment.

Consistent with earlier studies, Aharoni and Fridlund found that their subjects wanted the intentional wrongdoer to suffer and to receive a long sentence, even when punishment was useless (in the sense of lacking a deterrent or incapacitative justification).

The authors reached similar conclusions in a second, related study, in which subjects were presented with a single vignette in which punishment again lacked any apparent instrumental justification. Initially, more than 90% of the subjects favored punishment. An interviewer then sought to determine the reasons for punishment, which the interviewer rebutted. For instance, if a subject provided an incapacitative rationale, the interviewer would remind the subject that the offender had become permanently paralyzed after commission of the crime, which removed any threat of future dangerousness. Even after being talked out of any instrumental value to the punishment, more than 70% of the subjects continued to support punishment.

Read the entire article here

---

Sex-Offender Laws Doomed by Flawed Reasoning

Paul Appelbaum

Original Article

11/16/2012

By Aaron Levin

How to prevent convicted sex offenders from committing further crimes is a policy dilemma that has been met with punishing legal responses.

Laws and policies intended to control sex offenders are ineffective, expensive, unenforceable—and unlikely to be changed.

“These laws are preventive and punitive in intent and effect, motivated by a desire to contain but not to treat,” said Paul Appelbaum, M.D., the Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. Appelbaum spoke at APA’s 2012 Institute on Psychiatric Services in New York in October.

Sentencing of convicted sex offenders underwent a major change about 30 years ago, he explained. For most of the 20th century, sex offenders were given sentences of indeterminate length in hopes that they would become rehabilitated. With little evidence of efficacy using that approach, courts in the 1980s switched to “determinate sentencing,” with fixed prison terms.

“The change went from punishing the offender to punishing the crime,” said Appelbaum.

In addition, “sexually violent predator” statutes were passed in many states, reflecting a state of panic in the 1990s about sex crimes against children. They mandated civil commitment “in a treatment facility” once offenders had completed their prison sentences. Treatment might be offered, but was voluntary. As of 2010, 5,300 sex offenders were committed under these statutes.

The process also shifted a new burden onto mental health systems, filling beds needed for other patients and diverting funds from an already under-funded system.

Detention is expensive. A Minnesota study revealed costs of $120,000 annually per offender. Since none of the offenders in the state had been released since the program’s inception in 1994, costs can only go up.

“Still, this system was seen as akin to civil commitment and thus raised fewer constitutional issues,” said Appelbaum. The Supreme Court has upheld the system three times. “But is civil commitment a pretext for preventive detention, and is the mental health system the right place for that?” he asked.

Other Strategies Questioned

Confinement is not the only way that governments have attempted to restrict convicted sex offenders as a means of reducing recidivism.

State and federal laws call for registration of offenders and, as of July 2012, more than 700,000 were registered nationwide.

Community notification laws require that local jurisdictions be alerted to the presence of offenders and the information displayed on a Web site.

“Yet many of these laws cover non-contact offenses, or sex by underage teens, or even offenses by young children,” said Appelbaum. “Offenders are often harassed and find it hard to reestablish their lives, find a job, or receive mental health treatment.”

A third approach in 20 states and hundreds of cities restricts residency and workplace options to points at least 1,000 to 2,000 feet from schools, churches, day-care centers, or even bus stops.

“This has placed entire towns completely off limits,” said Appelbaum. “And is creating sex-offender ghettos a good idea? Maybe it’s better to not have them around each other.”

A study by Appelbaum and Jacqueline Berenson, M.D., found that 92 percent of registered sex offenders in Buffalo, N.Y., and 100 percent of those in Schenectady, N.Y., lived in restricted locations in those cities.

Clearly, these laws are not being enforced, reflecting a choice by police, said Appelbaum.

“The law doesn’t make sense to the police,” he said. “They see it more like jaywalking than homicide.”

Flawed Reasoning Underlies Laws

He listed a number of flaws in the thinking behind registration, notification, and residency laws. They are indiscriminate, based on weak premises, and are likely to be counterproductive, he said.

“For one thing, most sex offenses against children are committed by family members and friends, not by strangers,” he said. “and while the premise of such laws is that sex offenders are likely to re-offend, in fact only 13.4 percent do so, compared to 60 percent of felons in general.”

Although the laws are intended to protect children from sexual predators, many of the offenders did not commit crimes against children. There are no data indicating that they target children near where they live or work—and some anecdotal reports indicate that those are the last places they would commit their crimes.

Also disturbing is the dearth of research on the treatment of sex offenders, especially in the United States, Appelbaum noted.

“Medications like SSRIs, depoprovera, or lupralide are understudied and underutilized,” he said. “Treatment has been dominated by therapists who favor cognitive-behavioral therapy and resist medication.”

“This area is a major challenge for rational policy making, and there is little political support for change,” he said.

Ideally, it might be better not to create a new system but instead keep offenders within the correctional system while beginning treatment soon after they are incarcerated, Appelbaum suggested. A return to indeterminate sentencing might permit many to be released once they had responded adequately to treatment.

An abstract of “A Geospatial Analysis of the Impact of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Two New York Counties” by Appelbaum and Berenson in Law and Human Behavior is posted at http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1007/s10979-010-9235-3.

---

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Original Article

Monica M. Gerber
London School of Economics & Political Science - Methodology Institute

Jonathan Jackson
London School of Economics & Political Science - Methodology Institute

August 25, 2012

Abstract:
Public attitudes towards law-breakers shape the tone and tenor of crime-control policy. The desire for retribution seems to be the main motivation underpinning punitive attitudes towards sentencing, yet there is some confusion in the research literature over what retribution really means. In this paper we distinguish between retribution as revenge (as the desire to punish criminal offenders to retaliate a past wrong by making the offender suffer) and retribution as just deserts (as the preference to restore justice through proportional compensation from the offender). Results from an online survey (n=176) provide evidence of two distinct dimensions of retribution, but we also show that these two dimensions have different ideological and motivational antecedents, and have different consequences in terms of the treatment of criminal offender. We find that retribution as revenge is associated with the motivation to enforce status boundaries with criminal offenders, as well as ideological preferences for power and dominance (as expressed by social dominance orientation) and in-group conformity (as expressed by right-wing authoritarianism). Endorsement of retribution as revenge also predicts the support of harsh punishment and the willingness to deny fair procedures. By contrast, retribution as just deserts is mainly predicted by a value restoration motive and by right-wing authoritarianism. After controlling for revenge, retribution as just deserts predicts support for procedural justice in the criminal courts. We conclude with the idea that beliefs about proportionality and compensation work as a buffer against the negative effects of revenge.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Keywords: retribution, revenge, just deserts, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation

---

Unintentional Punishment

Adam J. Kolber
NYU School of Law; Brooklyn Law School

Legal Theory, Vol. 18, p.1, 2012
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-10

Abstract:
Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay close attention to the unintentional burdens of punishment. In two very important contexts — punishment measurement and justification — we use the term “punishment” to capture not only intentional harsh treatment but certain unintentional harsh treatment as well. This means that the widely accepted view that punishment is an intentional infliction requires substantial caveats. It also means that any purported justification of punishment that addresses only the intentional infliction of punishment is woefully incomplete.

---

MO - Missouri Committee Considers Changes to Sex Offender Registry

Original Article

02/15/2012

By Dick Aldrich

Jefferson City - A Missouri House committee is considering legislation that would greatly reduce the number of persons on the state's sex offender registry and restrict public information about those that remain.

The legislation, filed by Rep. Rodney Schad, R-Versailles, comes after hearings during the fall in several locations around Missouri, during which the House's Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee heard hours of testimony from registered sex offenders and their families about the undue burden faced by those on the registry.
- Good job folks!

Schad told members of the committee Wednesday that inclusion on the sex offender registry does little to rehabilitate those who need the help the most.

"In short, there's no evidence that the public is being protected by the public registry in its current configuration," said Schad. "With our public registry, the public is not able to sort out who the true threats to society are."
- And think about it, if all those who were found dangerous, by professionals, before sentencing, then they'd be civilly committed so they can get the help they need, then the online shaming hit-list could be taken offline and used by police only, like it originally was.

The legislation would create a graduated scale of sexual offenses for inclusion on the registry. There would be four levels of offenders and it would exempt some from public display on the sex offender website, although information on all persons convicted of sex crimes will be maintained in a database available to law enforcement.

Those convicted of more serious crimes will still be listed with their picture on the public site. But the offenders' work and or school addresses, and a physical description of the offender's car will no longer be included in the information available for public viewing.

"Unfettered online access to registry information facilitates, if not encourages, neighbors, employers, colleagues and others to shun and ostracize former offenders, diminishing the likelihood of their successful reintegration into the community," said Schad.
- Sure does, see here and here.

The legislation establishes a board to oversee the operation of the registry and the movement of offenders into the proper categories. While no one in the audience at the hearing spoke against the bill and its premise, a spokesperson for the Department of Public Safety did have reservations about the broad option.

"Changes should be done through the court room," said James Klahr, legislative liaison for DPS. "The courts are best equipped to deal with these cases, as opposed to an independent board."

But Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, a criminal defense attorney argued that judges in different locations are prone to making very different decisions based on the same evidence depending on the areas of the state they serve and whether or not they are elected or appointed.
- That is what we hire them for.  If we had cookie cutter laws, then we'd not need a lot of people in the injustice system.

"People who are in the position to remove citizens from the registry shouldn't have to worry about retaliation in the form of getting elected," said Colona. "And I don't know how else to do that other than removing the process from the judiciary."

There are currently more than 12,000 people on Missouri's sex offender registry. Their crimes run the gamut from rape and murder to consensual sex involving minors. Schad said previously that the number of people on Missouri's rolls has increased dramatically in the last four years as the state tries to keep up with increasingly stringent federal guidelines.

"We've grown in the last four years, about 4,000 offenders on the registry," said Schad after a hearing earlier this year. "That's just unacceptable. We may have ruined another 4,000 lives."
- I concur.

Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Tim McGrail, the administrator of the state's sex offender registry, said the legislation makes "dramatic changes" to Missouri statutes on the sex offender registry, saying that the state would be far out of compliance with federal sex offender regulations.

McGrail told the committee that law enforcement worries about offenders from other states coming into Missouri to take advantage of standards that are less than the states where they currently reside.

"They go looking for states that are less strict as far as the sex offender registry," said McGrail. "By passing this legislation, you'll open the door for many offenders from other states to move to Missouri."

The committee didn't take a vote on the bill, giving members time to contemplate changes to the bill before taking a final vote. A vote on the bill could come as early as next Wednesday, the next scheduled meeting of the committee.

---

CA - Sex offenders at state hospital protest ‘violent predator’ designation

Coalinga State Hospital

Original Article

09/21/2011

By Ryan Gabrielson (Twitter)

In one unit of Coalinga State Hospital, a few convicts ruled to be sexually violent predators are starting to publicly protest their indefinite incarceration.

More than 900 sex offenders are housed at the mental hospital in Coalinga, a small city along I-5 in Fresno County. The hospital houses criminals with assaults on their rap sheets and psychological conditions showing them to be a danger to society.

That population had been growing slowly for years. However, the California state auditor recently reported that courts have all but stopped [PDF] designating sex offenders as violent predators in the past two years, as fewer convicts have met the requirements.

And the prisoners in Unit 9 at Coalinga have been running a public relations campaign to prove they’re being wrongfully held. Some have set up websites; others are mailing reporters large manila envelopes stuffed with documents, from court transcripts to psychological evaluations.
- Here is another about Coalinga, and here.

And on Sunday, one attempted civil disobedience.

[name withheld], convicted of statutory rape in 2004, climbed atop an outdoor basketball hoop. For two hours, he refused to descend during what he describes as a demonstration against hospital conditions.

“We’re not supposed to be punished, but that’s exactly what they’re doing is they’re punishing us,” [name withheld] said in a phone interview yesterday. “They blocked off these windows and painted them black. They don’t let us leave.”

Police officers at the hospital fired a bean bag gun at [name withheld], according to multiple witnesses, knocking him to the ground. Staff had covered the concrete below with mattresses to cushion his fall.

The incident began during a fire alarm evacuation and ended without serious injuries, Deborah Ireland, a Coalinga hospital spokeswoman, said in a written statement. Because police used a weapon, the hospital is "conducting a use of force review to ensure proper procedures were followed," she wrote.

[name withheld] said he was on parole for the sex offense when, in 2008, he traveled to Mexico, violating his parole and returning him to the prison system.

In 2006, California voters passed Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83), which expanded the number of criminal offenses that can lead to a violent predator designation. Also, an offender previously had to have assaulted two victims to be ruled a predator; the proposition reduced that requirement to a just one victim.

The reasoning behind the law is that by holding the sex offenders indefinitely at the mental hospital, they are unable to commit additional sex crimes. A second component is that the prisoners can receive rehabilitation to reduce their risk.

However, a majority of Coalinga’s prisoners do not participate in treatment, KALW News reported earlier this year. In some cases, they resist because statements they give during counseling can become evidence against them in court.

Multiple prisoners in Unit 9 said they distrust the treatment offered and doubt it could help them earn freedom.

“We could be here 10 years, 20 years,” said [name withheld], who’s been housed at Coalinga for two years. “It’s hostility in a unit that’s supposed to be therapeutic.”

[name withheld], 44, broke into a woman’s home in 1991 and attempted to rape her, state Department of Mental Health records show.

Long after finishing his prison sentence for that assault, [name withheld] was convicted in 2006 of petty theft. The attempted rape 20 years ago then made it possible for the courts to rule [name withheld] a predator.

In 2009, the state’s psychologists diagnosed him as having an unspecified psychosexual disorder and antisocial behavior, the records show.

Video Link | More Videos Of Coalinga

Is Civil Commitment Just Modern Day Mental Hospitals?

Video Link

---

NY - Lawmaker (Richard Fontana) promises to build one more park in neighborhood, to further punish and exile ex-offenders

This just goes to show you, that politicians will do anything, even exploit ex-offenders and fear, to "look tough" on crime, and further their own careers. This would also be an ex post facto law which is unconstitutional, but I guess he doesn't care about the Constitution? What a dirt bag!

Original Video Description:
Some Buffalo mothers have been asking for help getting a sex offender out of their neighborhood. A lawmaker (Richard Fontana) came up with an idea months ago, but hasn't made it happen yet.

Video Link

---

OH - Video about the recent Ohio Supreme Court about the sex offender laws being punishment

Read more here


Video Link

---

OH - Ohio Supreme Court Declares Adam Walsh Acts Classification Scheme Punishment!

Original Article
See Also

07/13/2011

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, declared the classification and registration scheme in Senate Bill 10, Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, to be punishment (see PDF here). It is therefore unconstitutional to apply it retroactively. The case is State v. Williams, and it is available at the link above.

Hats off to those folks who have been fighting this cause in Ohio.

For now have a GREAT day and a BETTER tomorrow.

eAdvocate

Video Link

---

‘In Defense of Flogging’: Criminologist Makes ‘Brutal’ Case to Solve Prison Problem

Hitler did this, and so do many third world countries. Doesn't mean it's okay and we should do it. But, it would not surprise me if we did revert to sadistic means like Iran and other evil countries.

Video Link

---

IL - Is Illinois reaching the tipping point on its sex-offender registration rules?

Original Article

Pretty soon, this will be what I have suggested before, an "All criminals registry."

05/28/2011

By KEVIN McDERMOTT

SPRINGFIELD - The Illinois House just now passed a measure that expands the reach of the state's sex-offender registration list, adding conspiracy, "luring,'' unauthorized videotaping and other offenses, and forcing people who are on the list to stay there for longer.

There's nothing unusual about that in Springfield, where filing bills to toughen the list is practically an annual requirement for any lawmaker who wants to look tough on crime. What was different this time were some of the voices that rose against it—and the 91-21 (PDF) vote on a topic that usually gets near-unanimous support.

The sex-offender registration list is an on-line portal where convicted sex offenders have to register so the public knows where they are once they're out of prison. In addition to providing that information, sex offenders are subject to numerous rules regarding where they can live, work and even stand.

The bill that passed this morning (SB1040, PDF) would expand the range of crimes that will land a person on the list, to include a series of attempted crimes and conspiracy. And it would expand the minimum time on the list for misdemeanor offenders from 10 to 15 years.

The usual response to these types of bills in Springfield is one tough-talking floor speech in favor after another. And there was certainly some of that. "If it was your son or your daughter walking to school, you'd want to know who was trying to lure them," said Dennis Reboletti, R-Addison.

But with increasing concern lately that the requirements are going from tough to impossible, some lawmakers piped up in ways that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

"We're making it impossible for them to live anywhere, we're making it impossible for them to work anywhere, we're making it impossible for them to go anywhere," said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Des Plaines. "We need to take a step back."

Nekritz is a liberal Democrat, but concern about this latest expansion wasn't limited to that wing.

"You're making this more and more onerous for people to comply" with the registration list, warned Rep. Bob Pritchard, R-Sycamore, a conservative stalwart.

Another, Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, R-Park Ridge, acknowledged that "most of us will vote for it because it looks bad if you don't," but she expressed concern about the annual proliferation of "layers" of new laws regarding the list.
- It's people like this that make me sick.  You all took an oath to DEFEND the Constitution, which includes EVERYONE, yet you are ignoring that oath to "look tough" instead.  How pathetic!

Pritchard and Mulligan both ended up voting "yes," and the bill is now on its way back to the Senate for a concurrence vote. It will almost certainly pass, but the issue is clearly becoming less cut-and-dried than it used to be.

Video Link

---

DC - FBI and Department of Justice pushing for new sex offender island

Cristy Sheldon

Original Article

THIS IS OF COURSE SATIRE!

04/20/2011

By Charles Doppelganger

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Cristy Sheldon was one a nice, innocent young kid who loved to get on the Internet, despite her parents wishes, and chat with people online.

She recently became a victim of sexual abuse by a man claiming to be another 14 year old child, fitness buff, who loves to work out.

She met the man online

Cristy doesn't want anybody else to suffer the same fate as her, so she is now working with the Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Justice, to pass a new law to further punish all the evil, sick, perverted monsters roaming the cyber world. This will also prevent them from living under bridges like trolls, or in your backyard behind the bushes.

The law will be named after her, to honor her name, and will be called "Cristy's Law."

The law will force all states to comply, or they will lose their federal grant money that has been set aside by the NotSmart office.

The law has already passed the House, and next goes to the Senate.

Sex Offender Island

If passed, the law will convert Hawaii into a "sex offender" island where all people who have ever been convicted of a sex crime, of any nature, will be rounded up and shipped to.  This would include your grand parents, if they married under the age of 18, public urinaters, kids who have experimented with sex with someone their own age, if they are under the age of 18, and many other related sex crimes.

Click to enlarge

The law will also force the offenders to wear special clothing, to help identify them, if they ever escape.  The uniforms will be similar to what the Jews and others had to wear during Hitler's reign.  For example, their uniforms will be supplied with patches to help easily identify different classes of people.  Click the image to the right to see the patches they will have to wear (in red).

Sex Offender Mark

All offenders will also be required to get a tattoo or mark on their forehead, so if they ever escape and dispose of their uniforms, then people can still identify them easily.

The FBI stated this was not done to punish offenders, but to protect society and the children from those who wish to do them harm.  They are also considering putting other criminals on a similar online registry to further help protect society.

If you would like to voice your support for this new law, then visit the FBI's web site and click on the contact link.

The Department of Justice would also like to inform you on how to potentially identify a possible sex offender.  Below is a list of traits many share.

Typical Sex Offender

• Are they driving a van or ice cream truck?
• Do they usually wear long trench coats, even during the summer?
• Are they bald, grumpy all the time, and like to hang out in the bushes at parks or playgrounds?
• Are they, or have they, ever offered your kids candy, or want them to sit on their laps?
• Do they pretend to be kids online?
• Do they work at McDonalds or some other place with a playground?
• Do they like to dress up in bear costumes?
• Do they wear thick rimmed glasses?
• Do they live with their parents in the basement, and spend a lot of time on the computer?

These are just a few of the many things to look for to help protect your kids from sex beasts.

Heil Hitler!

So visit the above web sites, or come to the congressional building in Washington DC on May 15th, 2011, and let the people in congress know you support their proposed law.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Mein Führer

---

TN - Tennessee bill would shield juvenile sex offenders registry from public

Original Article

04/10/2011

By Beth Warren

In a controversy highlighted by several local cases, Tennessee lawmakers and officials across the nation are debating how to manage minors who commit rape and other violent sex crimes.

This week a Shelby County judge will decide what to do with Memphis' youngest known rapists, ages 7 and 9, who admitted luring a 2-year-old neighbor from her yard in August.

A previous Juvenile Court judge removed the boys from their families over concerns about their home environments. The case is being appealed Wednesday before a new judge.

A 15-year-old is awaiting trial in adult court on charges of raping and beating a 23-month-old girl last summer in Cordova.

The boys were among about 100 juveniles accused of violent sex crimes last year, said Larry Scroggs, the court's chief administrative officer.

"It's very disturbing," he said. "It reflects the environment and what they're exposed to."

Last week, a 14-year-old was charged with sexually assaulting a 2-year-old relative.

Many juvenile offenders first victimize siblings or cousins and later progress to attacking strangers, schoolmates, neighbors or dates, Scroggs said.

For the past few years, state lawmakers have fought over whether residents should have access to the names of these minors.

The debate centers on how to balance the public's right to know -- and protect children from sexual predators -- to a juvenile offender's right to a second chance.

A 2006 federal mandate initially required states to create a juvenile sex offender registry accessible to the public.

Yet, five years later, Tennessee and 45 other states have yet to comply, said Linda M. Baldwin, director of the federal Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART).

Due to the sluggish response, federal officials made the significant concession this year of allowing the registries to be private.
- All registries should be private, to stop harassment and vigilantism of sex offenders and their families.

And SMART officials, who are part of the U.S. Department of Justice, extended the deadline until July 27. After that, states not in compliance could lose millions of dollars in federal Byrne grants, dispersed to local law enforcement agencies.
- As shown in other posts on this blog, it will cost millions more to implement the laws, so they spend tens of millions to get a million or less of funds?

State Sen. Brian Kelsey, R-Germantown, is sponsoring a bill he feels will pass this year due to some major tweaks. He is working on the most significant change -- making the registry private.

That means, unlike the adult registry, the list would be accessible only to police, prosecutors, judges and court officials. Since offenders would have to update their address anytime they moved, it helps police track their movements.
- Like I said above, even the adult registry should be private, like it originally was.  Then you could just have one registry with all criminals on it.

Lawmakers initially debated a public registry, but critics quashed the measure.

Opponents said juveniles and their families would be ostracized at school, church, work and their neighborhoods. Being labeled a "sex offender" could hinder the minor's college and job prospects, said Linda O'Neal, executive director of the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth.
- It's the same for adults as well.  They cannot get jobs, homes, are harassed by neighbors, etc.

"For a young person going on a registry, they feel like their lives are ruined," said O'Neal, who lobbied to defeat bills for a public registry.
- Amen, the same applies for adults as well.

"For most of them it's not a calculated decision to do this. It happens."

The state's proposed registry would only encompass those age 14 or older who commit or attempt the following violent sex crimes: rape or aggravated rape; rape or aggravated rape of a child, if the victim is at least four years younger; or aggravated sex battery.

Judges would have discretion to keep juveniles off the registry.

The TBI has maintained a similar registry for adult offenders since 1995.

There are currently about 14,000 on the list, including more than 2,000 sex offenders in Shelby County.

Some minors, guilty of the most egregious cases, are already on the registry after they were sent to adult court and convicted as adults. Their names can be viewed by the public.

But most juvenile sex offenders are shielded from public scrutiny.
- All criminals should be shielded from public scrutiny.

That's because the state's juvenile code is designed around treatment, not punishment, with a mission to "remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior and to substitute, therefore, a program of treatment, training and rehabilitation."
- So again, another person admitting the adult registry is about punishment! This should be the goal for everyone, not just kids.

Similarly, national juvenile criminal records have long been considered sacrosanct, accessible only to prosecutors, judges, police and others in the criminal justice system.

But one teen, herself a victim of a juvenile sex offender, helped shatter that shield of silence.

Amie Zyla was age 17 in 2006 when she convinced lawmakers in her home state of Wisconsin to pass "Amie's Law," allowing police to notify neighbors if a potentially dangerous juvenile sex offender lives nearby.

Zyla, of Waukesha, Wis., was 8 when she was abused by a 14-year-old, who later went to prison for preying on boys. Zyla thought the boys could have been protected if the community had known of her abuse, said Brad Schimel, Waukesha County district attorney, who prosecuted Zyla's abuser.

Wisconsin already had a juvenile registry, but it initially was kept private.

Zyla's story motivated federal lawmakers to pass the federal mandate.

A key reason to create private registries is that juvenile sex offenders are much more amenable to treatment, compared to adults, said clinical psychologist Sidney Ornduff, who evaluates the Memphis minors.
- Many adults are as well, if you give them a chance.

"Children are not simply little adults," she said. "They're still developing."
- I agree, yet when they commit some crimes, they are all of a sudden adults, charged as adults.  It seems you hypocrites want it both ways.  Either they are or aren't adults.

With the proper mental health counseling and guidance, most minors are less likely to repeat their inappropriate sexual behavior, whether it's as minor as flashing someone or as serious as rape, said Ornduff, director of Juvenile Court's Clinical Services.
- Hell, most adults are less likely to commit another related crime, if you stop ignoring the facts.

Some studies show the national recidivism rate for adolescent sex offenders who receive treatment as low as 5 to 14 percent, according to the National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth.

Of 162 Memphis minors accused of sex crimes in 2009, only five -- or 3 percent -- have since committed another sex crime, according to a juvenile court study completed last month.

Tennessee lawmakers will take another vote on the proposed private registry this spring as a last attempt to meet the federal deadline.

---

CA - Protection or Punishment? New Sex-Offender Laws Prompting Questions

Original Article

See Also: The next frontier in restricting sex offenders

04/07/2011

By Ashby Jones

This much makes sense: You don’t want convicted sex offenders teaching in elementary schools, leading youth church groups or coaching Little League.
- Why not?  Not all sex offenders have harmed children!

But at what point are restrictions on sex offenders too onerous, too punitive, too blatantly unfair?

It’s a question some are asking in the wake of new restrictions approved out in Orange County, Calif. County supervisors there recently passed a law significantly restricting the movements of registered sex offenders, banning them from entering some beaches, parks and harbor areas. Click here for the LA Times story.

Writes the LAT:

Under the rules, sex offenders who visit any of dozens of public spaces without prior approval from county officials face up to six months in jail or a $500 fine. The ban covers some of the region’s top attractions including the Orange County Zoo, Irvine Regional Park, Newport Harbor and Dana Point Harbor.

The rationale for the law, as articulated by Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas: “We are setting up a safety zone by keeping parks and recreation zones safe from predators.”
- Not all sex offenders are child molesters or predators, and if a person is truly a predator, do you really think this would stop them?

But critics immediately expressed skepticism about the law, saying it would be difficult to enforce and seemed to be constitutionally suspect.

For instance, Franklin Zimring, a UC Berkeley law professor, said the law was overly broad and misdirected, because more than nine out of 10 sex crimes targeting children are committed not by strangers in a park, but by family members or acquaintances.

Jill Levenson, a veteran social worker and professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida, told the LAT that such laws should be tailored to avoid unintended consequences.

“There may very well be certain sex offenders who shouldn’t be in parks, but rather than a blanket law, that should be part of assessment … based on the risks and needs of individual criminal offenders,” she said.

---

OH - Lebanon council considers sex offender ordinance

Original Article

04/06/2011

By Tiffany Teasley

LEBANON - According to the Warren County Sheriff's office sex offender registry there are currently about 39 registered sex offenders living freely in Warren County.

"It's a wide concern for many and they're spread throughout the entire city," said Lebanon City Council member Matthew Rodriguez.

The number of registered sex offenders is part of the reason Rodriguez says council is considering an ordinance that would take state laws a step further, not only prohibiting sex offenders from living with 1000 feet of schools, but also limiting where they can hang out.

"Limit sex offenders within 300 feet of the permitted area, of public parks, public schools, churches," Rodriguez said.
- This is not about protecting children, IMO, it's about further punishment.  Kids "hang out" everywhere.  The mall, store, local street corner, skate park, creek, etc.  If a person has the intent on harming a child, nothing will prevent it.

Sex offenders who disobey the law could face a $500 fine or six weeks in jail, the goal is to create a 300 ft buffer zone to protect children where they would normally hang out and play.

"This aids in a tool for the police department, provided if there is a sexual predator, to place a very stern warning, or if there is sufficient evidence to proceed further," Rodriguez said.

Council is expected to vote on the measure at next week's city council meeting.

---