Original Article
01/20/2013
By Michael Zoorob
When lawmakers crafted laws to combat sexual violence, they probably never expected that children as young as 10 would end up on public sex offender registries. Law enforcement probably never expected that they would have to notify neighbors that a 13-year-old sex offender lived nearby. Yet that is the reality of America’s sex offender registration laws: Though the judicial system tends to distinguish between youth and adult offenders, 35 states subject minors convicted of sex crimes to the same registration, notification and restrictions as adults. Seven states require juveniles to stay on the registry for life. These crimes aren't always violent, either: A recent Human Rights Watch report notes that teens have found their way onto sex offender registries for benign acts like sexting, public urination and consensual sex with other teens.
In fact, 36 percent of all sex offenders who victimize children are themselves juveniles — and more than half of these juvenile offenders are 14 years old or younger, according to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Justice. It is understandable that laws should be created to curb sexual violence — but imposing the stigma of longtime and sometimes lifelong sex offender registration on juvenile offenders creates unnecessary harm both to them and their families. Juvenile offenders often experience emotional problems, difficulty securing employment, social ostracization and difficulties at school. There are, incredibly, cases of teens being barred from attending school due to their presence on sex offender registries because they sexted, the act of which the law considers child pornography. As adults, these offenders can expect restrictions on their residency, employment and mobility, and a significant minority will be fired, harassed, assaulted or even murdered because of their sex offender status.
Registration may also hinder crime rehabilitation of youth offenders. Depriving juvenile offenders of access to education, employment, religious services and healthy relationships — all common consequences of sex offender registration — could actually raise the probability that these children become lifelong delinquents. Unfortunately, registration requirements may deter families from reporting sex crimes committed by their child against a sibling for fear of the legal consequences, thus denying access to rehabilitative services.
Registration of juveniles has also been shown not to reduce sex crime. Studies by Elizabeth Letourneau of the University of South Carolina have found that registering juvenile offenders neither reduced overall rates of offenses nor reduced recidivism. This makes sense. It’s hard to argue, for example, that public safety was enhanced by the eviction of a 26-year-old married woman from her home in Georgia because a daycare center opened nearby. Her crime was that she had oral sex with a 15-year-old when she was 17.
- The same applies to adults. Sex laws do nothing to reduce recidivism.
Moreover, juvenile offenders are distinct from their adult counterparts. Children who commit sex crimes, even violent ones, usually do so as a way of “acting out,” not because they eroticize aggression. Consequently, psychologists have found that rehabilitation is very effective for juvenile sex offenders, and very few juvenile offenders re-offend as adults. Most studies find the recidivism rate of juvenile sex offenders to be less than 5 percent.
- Recidivism rates are the same for adults as well.
Sex offenders deserve special opprobrium in our society. But we shouldn't let our visceral disgust with sex crimes bar us from making sensible public policy. Children are not miniature adults, and the law should not treat them that way.
- Search:
- Site
- ACLU
- Legislature
- Other
Search this site only:
Search all ACLU sites:
Search all state legislatures:
Search other related sites, or Google:
| Recommended: | State News: |
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label UrinatingInPublic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UrinatingInPublic. Show all posts
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
CA - Twilight Actor Bronson Pelletier Takes Public Pee in LAX Terminal
Labels: California , CrimeCelebrity , OffenderMale , PublicLewdness , UrinatingInPublic , Video
This is clearly public indecency, so the question is, since it's an airport, and I'm sure kids were present and probably saw it, will he be arrested and put on the sex offender registry, or will he get slapped on the wrist because he's a celebrity? I think we all know the answer to that question, and judging from the link below, we were right. What about the public indecency?
See Also:
See Also:
- 'TWILIGHT' ACTOR Charged with Public Intoxication
- 'TWILIGHT' ACTOR - WHIMPERING ARREST VIDEO ... It's a Pisser
- 'TWILIGHT' ACTOR - I'm NO Airport Urinator!
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
OK - Piedmont Boy, 3, Gets $2,500 Ticket For Urinating In His Front Yard
Labels: 03YearsOld , OffenderChild , Oklahoma , UrinatingInPublic , Video
Original Article
11/06/2012
By Havonnah Johnson
PIEDMONT - A three year old gets his mom in trouble with the law when he gets a ticket from police. Now the little boy's mother will have to pay thousands of dollars for what the toddler did in their own front yard.
The toddler is being potty trained, and he wasn't near the facilities, so he unzipped.
We are told before he could pee, a Piedmont police officer stopped him. It's a bathroom break that cost mom $2,500.
We all know the saying, boys will be boys. Dillan decided to be a big boy, stop what he was doing, so he wouldn't wet his pull-up.
"Dillan pulled down his pants to pee outside, I guess and the cop pulled up and asked for my license and told me he was going to give me a ticket for public urination," said the boy's mother, Ashley Warden.
"I said really, he is three years old, and he said it doesn't matter. It is public urination. I said we are on our property and he said it's in public view," said the boy's grandmother, Jennifer Warden.
But they point out the street is actually quite rural, yet the Wardens who live on two and half acres say this one officer parks at the end of their street daily. So they asked why.
"It's a public street and he wants to, so he can," Jennifer Warden said.
So the Wardens filed a complaint with the department.
"I am disappointed that the officer thinks this is what he needs to do with my tax dollars is sitting and harassing our family," Jennifer Warden said.
Warden said as a courtesy, the officer wrote down the cost of ticket. Warden plans on fighting the ticket since she says her son didn't actually finish the act.
Our calls to the police department went unreturned.
The police department didn't accept the Warden's complaint. They have a court appearance set for next month.
We're told a judge can throw out the ticket.
See Also:
11/06/2012
By Havonnah Johnson
PIEDMONT - A three year old gets his mom in trouble with the law when he gets a ticket from police. Now the little boy's mother will have to pay thousands of dollars for what the toddler did in their own front yard.
The toddler is being potty trained, and he wasn't near the facilities, so he unzipped.
We are told before he could pee, a Piedmont police officer stopped him. It's a bathroom break that cost mom $2,500.
We all know the saying, boys will be boys. Dillan decided to be a big boy, stop what he was doing, so he wouldn't wet his pull-up.
"Dillan pulled down his pants to pee outside, I guess and the cop pulled up and asked for my license and told me he was going to give me a ticket for public urination," said the boy's mother, Ashley Warden.
"I said really, he is three years old, and he said it doesn't matter. It is public urination. I said we are on our property and he said it's in public view," said the boy's grandmother, Jennifer Warden.
But they point out the street is actually quite rural, yet the Wardens who live on two and half acres say this one officer parks at the end of their street daily. So they asked why.
"It's a public street and he wants to, so he can," Jennifer Warden said.
So the Wardens filed a complaint with the department.
"I am disappointed that the officer thinks this is what he needs to do with my tax dollars is sitting and harassing our family," Jennifer Warden said.
Warden said as a courtesy, the officer wrote down the cost of ticket. Warden plans on fighting the ticket since she says her son didn't actually finish the act.
Our calls to the police department went unreturned.
The police department didn't accept the Warden's complaint. They have a court appearance set for next month.
We're told a judge can throw out the ticket.
See Also:
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Pariahs among us: Sex offender laws in the 21st century
Labels: GPS , Halloween , HumanRightsWatch , lawSuit , MassHysteria , National , RomeoAndJuliet , Story , Suicide , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
Why is it that those outside the US can see the draconian nature of these laws, but we cannot?
10/14/2012
By Charlotte Silver
Stringent sex offender laws in the United States destroy lives and do little to mitigate repeat offences.
Maybe it is not so surprising that all we can think to do with a subject we are simultaneously obsessed with and repulsed by is publicise it at every opportunity.
Sex crimes: The only kind of offence in the United States that compels all convicted perpetrators to register their name, address, date of birth, fingerprints and a photograph on a public website.
And what constitutes a sex crime? The breadth of this damning classification is alarming and includes public urination, consensual teen sex, sale of sex and exposure of genitals (including in the case of children) - as well as violent rape.
One poignant example of the irrationality and senseless devastation of overreaching sex offender laws is the story of Evan B, as told by (PDF) Lara Geer Farley. When Evan was in high school he was arrested for exposing himself to a group of his female peers. A court sentenced him to four months in prison, but after he was released he was obliged to register as a sex offender. The stigma drove Evan to drop out of school, leave his home in Salina, Oklahoma and move to Tulsa, where the arduous requirements associated with his sex offender status meant that he could not maintain employment. A month before he should have turned 20, Evan shot and killed himself.
And this: A comprehensive Human Rights Watch report, published in 2007, draws attention to the common case of teenage boys aged 15, 16, 17, who have consensual sex with their teenaged girlfriends, finding themselves charged with pedophilia. They will be labelled and publicly registered as "pedophiles" for the rest of their lives.
In some states, boys as young as 10 who expose themselves to their female friends or relatives are forced to register as a "sex offender" before they understand what sex - or exposure - is.
Why is it that those outside the US can see the draconian nature of these laws, but we cannot?
10/14/2012
By Charlotte Silver
Stringent sex offender laws in the United States destroy lives and do little to mitigate repeat offences.
Maybe it is not so surprising that all we can think to do with a subject we are simultaneously obsessed with and repulsed by is publicise it at every opportunity.
Sex crimes: The only kind of offence in the United States that compels all convicted perpetrators to register their name, address, date of birth, fingerprints and a photograph on a public website.
And what constitutes a sex crime? The breadth of this damning classification is alarming and includes public urination, consensual teen sex, sale of sex and exposure of genitals (including in the case of children) - as well as violent rape.
One poignant example of the irrationality and senseless devastation of overreaching sex offender laws is the story of Evan B, as told by (PDF) Lara Geer Farley. When Evan was in high school he was arrested for exposing himself to a group of his female peers. A court sentenced him to four months in prison, but after he was released he was obliged to register as a sex offender. The stigma drove Evan to drop out of school, leave his home in Salina, Oklahoma and move to Tulsa, where the arduous requirements associated with his sex offender status meant that he could not maintain employment. A month before he should have turned 20, Evan shot and killed himself.
And this: A comprehensive Human Rights Watch report, published in 2007, draws attention to the common case of teenage boys aged 15, 16, 17, who have consensual sex with their teenaged girlfriends, finding themselves charged with pedophilia. They will be labelled and publicly registered as "pedophiles" for the rest of their lives.
In some states, boys as young as 10 who expose themselves to their female friends or relatives are forced to register as a "sex offender" before they understand what sex - or exposure - is.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Sex Offender Laws - Making money for everyone, even personal urinals?
Labels: Exploitation , National , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
07/13/2012
While selling GoPilots to tailgaters at an Eagles game a few months ago, I came across a few “40-somethings” sitting around having some fun. I approached them and told them about the GoPilot. One guy said “If only I had that last year I would’ve saved myself $14,000 in legal fees.” I looked at him confused and asked him to explain.
He said “One night after a few hours of drinking in Manayunk, we were driving home around 2 am. I had my friend who was driving pull over so I could pee. Well I got caught! A cop saw me and got me for indecent exposure. Months later, I received notification that it’s a sex crime. I spent $14,000 getting it knocked down to disorderly conduct which is just a misdemeanor, but man did that suck! I WISH I woulda had one of these last year!”
I was so surprised by this! I think it’s a bit far-fetched to relate “acting on Mother Nature” to a “sex offense” but unfortunately it is what it is! Unless you get a really cool cop and/or judge, you could really get screwed!
07/13/2012
While selling GoPilots to tailgaters at an Eagles game a few months ago, I came across a few “40-somethings” sitting around having some fun. I approached them and told them about the GoPilot. One guy said “If only I had that last year I would’ve saved myself $14,000 in legal fees.” I looked at him confused and asked him to explain.
He said “One night after a few hours of drinking in Manayunk, we were driving home around 2 am. I had my friend who was driving pull over so I could pee. Well I got caught! A cop saw me and got me for indecent exposure. Months later, I received notification that it’s a sex crime. I spent $14,000 getting it knocked down to disorderly conduct which is just a misdemeanor, but man did that suck! I WISH I woulda had one of these last year!”
I was so surprised by this! I think it’s a bit far-fetched to relate “acting on Mother Nature” to a “sex offense” but unfortunately it is what it is! Unless you get a really cool cop and/or judge, you could really get screwed!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
CA - Torturing Auburn's homeless sex offenders - A great idea?
Labels: California , Campground , GPS , Homeless , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
04/12/2012
By RLitchfield1
This is the fourteenth article in a series of articles written to promote the April 14th, 2012, charity showing of local film maker and Placer High School Graduate Ryan Frew’s documentary film about the homeless in Auburn, called, “Life is Mandatory.” The film will be shown at the State Theater in Auburn. The funds raised will be used to assist Auburn Area Homeless People. Written by local attorney, author, and Instructor at Sierra College, Bob Litchfield.
There will be no photographs of the two men I interviewed to write this article.
Nor will I publish their real names.
I made this decision to protect these homeless men, as they walk around Auburn.
We’ll call one of them Jack, and the other one Ernie.
Jack is a tall, Caucasian male, a bit on the pudgy side, wearing glasses, and looking a lot like your average businessman. He walks with a cane, because of a bad knee. His clothing is clean, and his personal appearance is much neater than that of most other homeless men I have met.
His friend, Ernie, is also very clean. Ernie is a fairly short, stocky black man. He is a good speaker. He also walks with a cane.
I was searching for homeless women or families to interview when I ran into Jack and Ernie. They heard that I was interviewing homeless people, and they sought me out. They are hoping that someone will advocate for their unique, and dire situation.
Jack and Ernie both wear ankle monitors. Both of them have recently been released from prison, and both are registered sex offenders... what they call “290 offenders.”
They are both homeless because our laws made them that way.
Both men were dumped here in Placer County on parole, after they got out of prison for sex offenses.
Neither one of them have any family or friends here.
They have no prospects of employment here.
Nor is there any shelter of any kind in this area that will take them in. Even the local Christian Program, The Gathering Inn, will not take them, because they are registered sex offenders.
But the conditions of Jack’s and Ernie’s parole require that they both stay here in the Auburn area for the next three to four years.
During all of that time, both men must wear an ankle monitor, which must be plugged in and recharged every day.
But these men do not have any home, any shelter, or even any place where they can go to plug in their ankle monitors to re-charge them.
Ernie says that this places the men in a position where they are forced by the justice system of break the law again, because one of the only ways that they can get their ankle monitors re-charged is to sneak into some commercial establishment and plug in, thereby committing the crime of stealing electricity (potentially a commercial burglary).
Jack is a tile setter by trade, and is originally from Arizona. He was here in Auburn when he committed his offense. But he would like to go back to Arizona, to be near his family. But the prison system dumped him here to serve his four years of parole. There is a program where the States of California and Arizona can swap former prisoners on parole, but Jack wasn’t even told where he was going to be paroled until he was freed.
Ernie used to work as a Chef at a restaurant in the Grand Canyon. He was in Modesto when he committed his offense. He was dumped here in Placer County to serve his parole because of a new law that requires sex offenders to be paroled a certain distance away from their victims.
I should point out that not everyone you might encounter in the Auburn area who is wearing an ankle monitor is a sex offender or a movie star. The justice system now uses ankle bracelets to monitor a lot of different kinds of offenders, because it is cheaper than feeding them in jail.
Jack and Ernie will have to wear their ankle bracelets all day, every day, for the next three or four years. It is possible to shower with the ankle monitor on, but the device cannot be submerged. Which means that for the next four years, neither one of these two men will ever be able to go for a swim, or to get into a bath.
Both men are on pain medications, which they are able to get from county health, and both are also on psychiatric medications.
The fact that they were homeless men adrift in Auburn, and that they are on psychiatric medications worried me a great deal, at first. Because I have been told by other local experts on homelessness that the homeless people in the Auburn area who are on psychiatric medications are only able to get examined and get their psychiatric medications adjusted once every six months.
But the medication situation for homeless sex offenders is not quite that perilous.
One of the men tells me that his psychiatric medication is for depression. He also tells me that they do not get their psychiatric medications through county health, but rather, through their parole officers and the parole system. Through the parole system, they are able to get their medications checked once every two months.
Jack was in prison for twelve years. Ernie was in prison for a little over five years.
Jack has been here in Auburn, homeless, for about two months. Ernie has been here, homeless, for about a year now.
Jack described his arrival in Auburn, and their current situation. “I arrived in Auburn, and by the time that they processed me out of the jail, it was about 3:00 P.M. They put on my ankle monitor and told me that it had to be recharged every day. They gave me $200, and told me to go to the County Welcome Center, which is one of the only places in Auburn where there are services available for homeless people."
“But the Welcome Center closes at 4:00 P.M. So, I got there just barely in time to find out anything. I didn’t know where I could go to get shelter, where I could go to get food. I didn’t even know where I could go to re-charge my ankle bracelet."
“I was at least able to get a sleeping bag. And someone told me about a relatively safe spot where I could sleep outside for the night. So, I slept outside that first night."
“The next day, I ran into Ernie, and he showed me some of the ropes with regard to how to survive on the streets as a homeless registered sex offender.”
Jack and Ernie usually do not camp anywhere near the other homeless men, because neither one of them do drugs or alcohol, and they do not want to be near the problems caused by drugs and alcohol. But they do have to camp outside every day, because there is no shelter, anywhere in Placer County, that will take in a registered sex offender.
Nor is there any campground, nor any piece of ground, anywhere in the Auburn area, where it is permissible for homeless people to camp. So, homeless people are forced to sneak around and camp at any remote location where they can get away with it, until the police come and roust them out of that spot, and they move somewhere else.
Ankle monitors or not, this wandering camping life does not strike me as a very good way to monitor registered sex offenders.
Jack says that he is disabled, because of his knee and back injuries. But he is not receiving disability. He is in the process of making application for disability. But in the mean time, he has no income at all.
Ernie has peripheral artery disease in his right leg, and has had two stints put in. He applied for disability, but his claim was rejected. Right now, he is attempting to appeal his disability claim. Until then, he is homeless and without income. He sleeps outside, on the ground, every night, in a tent, with two stints in his leg.
I ask Jack what message he would like to send to the world.
Jack says, “Get to know a person before you judge them for their past, because people do change.” Earlier, Jack had assured me that he was not the same person as the man who went to prison twelve years earlier.
I want to believe him. But I have heard all of the same news stories, television stories, and propaganda that you have heard, to the effect that sex offenders, particularly sexual predators, never really change, and that they will be repeat offenders for life.
I ask Jack what his response is to that general belief.
Jack tells me that those sex offenders whom you see walking free on the streets are very unlikely to be repeat offenders.
He says that before he was released, he had to be examined and pass written reports made by four different psychiatrists.
He says that sex offenders who cannot pass that kind of rigorous testing simply no longer get released. He says that this is especially true after the Garrido case.
Who can say for sure how accurate that information is?
Certainly not me.
But I do know that the registered sex offender list has been grossly abused by our justice system, and that there are men on the registered sex offender list who have nothing whatsoever to do with being sexual predators, and that those men’s lives are ruined.
Should a twenty-year-old boy who slept with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend be registered on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Should the youth pastor of a church who gets seduced by a troubled seventeen-year-old girl be registered on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Should a father who takes a troubled sixteen-year-old foster child into his home, and ends up being seduced by her be on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Maybe you think so. There is certainly a wide berth for disagreement on these kinds of emotional hot-button issues.
I have been told that a man can end up being placed on the registered sex offender list for just for stopping by the side of the road to urinate, and thereby exposing himself.
If we are going to make registered sex offenders out of every person who has ever committed some form of sexual indiscretion, and put ankle bracelets on them all, then let’s start with one of our past foothills district attorneys, or two or three of our local judges, or maybe the state legislators who used to sit with lobbyists at the bar in downtown Sacramento where the legislators were encouraged to pick out the prostitutes they liked from those swimming nude in the glass-walled swimming pool behind the bar... services happily paid for by the lobbyists.
Legislators aside, I have known many a good man and good woman during my lifetime who had his or her life ruined by a moment of sexual indiscretion. But we did not register all of them as sex offenders.
Back when we were kids in school, we were taught how barbaric it was that our Puritan ancestors would force an adulteress to wear a large scarlet letter “A” on her clothing.
We were also taught, and saw in our annual viewing of the movie about Moses, that it was barbaric to create a class of people who were outcasts from society because they were afflicted with leprosy.
We were taught that it was barbaric, and totally un-American for people in India to separate themselves into a caste system that included one class of people who were called the “untouchables.”
But now, when vengeance and punishment and sex is involved, Americans don’t seem to have any problem at all with creating a group of Americans whom we shall call “registered sex offenders,” and who shall be treated as outcasts, lepers, untouchables, and who shall wear the scarlet letter of the ankle monitor, and whose names shall be posted on the internet.
Do I exaggerate about these people being outcasts and untouchables?
Jack and Ernie tell me that there is not one single shelter in Placer County that will take them in, even for one night.
And remember that they are not permitted to leave Placer County.
They do not have a place to plug in their ankle monitors, which must be recharged every day.
Even if Jack and Ernie did have any money, which they do not, there is only one place that they know of, in all of Placer County, that is even willing to rent a room to them.
The cost of renting a room at that one place is $500 per person per month.
If Jack or Ernie ever do succeed in getting disability payments, those payments will be about $900 a month. So, more than half of their income would go to rent a room at the one place in Placer County that is willing to rent them a room.
In the mean time, they sleep in a tent... even on a cold day when the rain is pouring down in buckets, like it is today.
Last night, as I lay in my warm, dry bed, the rain beat down on the roof of my home like a constant drumming. I could not sleep. I laid there, thinking about the fact that Jack and Ernie were out there, somewhere, trying to sleep in a soggy tent.
There was no room at the Inn for them. There was not even an Inn available that would accept them.
We created this situation, with our own, well-intentioned laws.
But if we were to leave our dogs, our horses, or even our livestock out in weather like this with no shelter whatsoever, someone from the humane society or animal control would probably have us arrested.
We treat our dogs and our livestock better than we treat these human beings whom we have labeled as “registered sex offenders.”
Maybe, like me, you are one of those vindictive people who are thinking, or who have thought at some time or other in the past, “Good. Let these registered sex offenders suffer. Let’s punish them even more. They are not human beings like us. They are animals.”
Well, fine.
You can explain that kind of no-mercy reasoning to Jesus, when you finally meet Him face-to-face.
But in the mean time, I think that what we need here are a few, extraordinary Christians who have enough grace to get together and figure out some safe way that we can get Auburn’s homeless registered sex offenders some shelter from the rain.
This is a problem that is too big, and too complicated, for one person to solve by himself.
04/12/2012
By RLitchfield1
This is the fourteenth article in a series of articles written to promote the April 14th, 2012, charity showing of local film maker and Placer High School Graduate Ryan Frew’s documentary film about the homeless in Auburn, called, “Life is Mandatory.” The film will be shown at the State Theater in Auburn. The funds raised will be used to assist Auburn Area Homeless People. Written by local attorney, author, and Instructor at Sierra College, Bob Litchfield.
There will be no photographs of the two men I interviewed to write this article.
Nor will I publish their real names.
I made this decision to protect these homeless men, as they walk around Auburn.
We’ll call one of them Jack, and the other one Ernie.
Jack is a tall, Caucasian male, a bit on the pudgy side, wearing glasses, and looking a lot like your average businessman. He walks with a cane, because of a bad knee. His clothing is clean, and his personal appearance is much neater than that of most other homeless men I have met.
His friend, Ernie, is also very clean. Ernie is a fairly short, stocky black man. He is a good speaker. He also walks with a cane.
I was searching for homeless women or families to interview when I ran into Jack and Ernie. They heard that I was interviewing homeless people, and they sought me out. They are hoping that someone will advocate for their unique, and dire situation.
Jack and Ernie both wear ankle monitors. Both of them have recently been released from prison, and both are registered sex offenders... what they call “290 offenders.”
They are both homeless because our laws made them that way.
Both men were dumped here in Placer County on parole, after they got out of prison for sex offenses.
Neither one of them have any family or friends here.
They have no prospects of employment here.
Nor is there any shelter of any kind in this area that will take them in. Even the local Christian Program, The Gathering Inn, will not take them, because they are registered sex offenders.
But the conditions of Jack’s and Ernie’s parole require that they both stay here in the Auburn area for the next three to four years.
During all of that time, both men must wear an ankle monitor, which must be plugged in and recharged every day.
But these men do not have any home, any shelter, or even any place where they can go to plug in their ankle monitors to re-charge them.
Ernie says that this places the men in a position where they are forced by the justice system of break the law again, because one of the only ways that they can get their ankle monitors re-charged is to sneak into some commercial establishment and plug in, thereby committing the crime of stealing electricity (potentially a commercial burglary).
Jack is a tile setter by trade, and is originally from Arizona. He was here in Auburn when he committed his offense. But he would like to go back to Arizona, to be near his family. But the prison system dumped him here to serve his four years of parole. There is a program where the States of California and Arizona can swap former prisoners on parole, but Jack wasn’t even told where he was going to be paroled until he was freed.
Ernie used to work as a Chef at a restaurant in the Grand Canyon. He was in Modesto when he committed his offense. He was dumped here in Placer County to serve his parole because of a new law that requires sex offenders to be paroled a certain distance away from their victims.
I should point out that not everyone you might encounter in the Auburn area who is wearing an ankle monitor is a sex offender or a movie star. The justice system now uses ankle bracelets to monitor a lot of different kinds of offenders, because it is cheaper than feeding them in jail.
Jack and Ernie will have to wear their ankle bracelets all day, every day, for the next three or four years. It is possible to shower with the ankle monitor on, but the device cannot be submerged. Which means that for the next four years, neither one of these two men will ever be able to go for a swim, or to get into a bath.
Both men are on pain medications, which they are able to get from county health, and both are also on psychiatric medications.
The fact that they were homeless men adrift in Auburn, and that they are on psychiatric medications worried me a great deal, at first. Because I have been told by other local experts on homelessness that the homeless people in the Auburn area who are on psychiatric medications are only able to get examined and get their psychiatric medications adjusted once every six months.
But the medication situation for homeless sex offenders is not quite that perilous.
One of the men tells me that his psychiatric medication is for depression. He also tells me that they do not get their psychiatric medications through county health, but rather, through their parole officers and the parole system. Through the parole system, they are able to get their medications checked once every two months.
Jack was in prison for twelve years. Ernie was in prison for a little over five years.
Jack has been here in Auburn, homeless, for about two months. Ernie has been here, homeless, for about a year now.
Jack described his arrival in Auburn, and their current situation. “I arrived in Auburn, and by the time that they processed me out of the jail, it was about 3:00 P.M. They put on my ankle monitor and told me that it had to be recharged every day. They gave me $200, and told me to go to the County Welcome Center, which is one of the only places in Auburn where there are services available for homeless people."
“But the Welcome Center closes at 4:00 P.M. So, I got there just barely in time to find out anything. I didn’t know where I could go to get shelter, where I could go to get food. I didn’t even know where I could go to re-charge my ankle bracelet."
“I was at least able to get a sleeping bag. And someone told me about a relatively safe spot where I could sleep outside for the night. So, I slept outside that first night."
“The next day, I ran into Ernie, and he showed me some of the ropes with regard to how to survive on the streets as a homeless registered sex offender.”
Jack and Ernie usually do not camp anywhere near the other homeless men, because neither one of them do drugs or alcohol, and they do not want to be near the problems caused by drugs and alcohol. But they do have to camp outside every day, because there is no shelter, anywhere in Placer County, that will take in a registered sex offender.
Nor is there any campground, nor any piece of ground, anywhere in the Auburn area, where it is permissible for homeless people to camp. So, homeless people are forced to sneak around and camp at any remote location where they can get away with it, until the police come and roust them out of that spot, and they move somewhere else.
Ankle monitors or not, this wandering camping life does not strike me as a very good way to monitor registered sex offenders.
Jack says that he is disabled, because of his knee and back injuries. But he is not receiving disability. He is in the process of making application for disability. But in the mean time, he has no income at all.
Ernie has peripheral artery disease in his right leg, and has had two stints put in. He applied for disability, but his claim was rejected. Right now, he is attempting to appeal his disability claim. Until then, he is homeless and without income. He sleeps outside, on the ground, every night, in a tent, with two stints in his leg.
I ask Jack what message he would like to send to the world.
Jack says, “Get to know a person before you judge them for their past, because people do change.” Earlier, Jack had assured me that he was not the same person as the man who went to prison twelve years earlier.
I want to believe him. But I have heard all of the same news stories, television stories, and propaganda that you have heard, to the effect that sex offenders, particularly sexual predators, never really change, and that they will be repeat offenders for life.
I ask Jack what his response is to that general belief.
Jack tells me that those sex offenders whom you see walking free on the streets are very unlikely to be repeat offenders.
He says that before he was released, he had to be examined and pass written reports made by four different psychiatrists.
He says that sex offenders who cannot pass that kind of rigorous testing simply no longer get released. He says that this is especially true after the Garrido case.
Who can say for sure how accurate that information is?
Certainly not me.
But I do know that the registered sex offender list has been grossly abused by our justice system, and that there are men on the registered sex offender list who have nothing whatsoever to do with being sexual predators, and that those men’s lives are ruined.
Should a twenty-year-old boy who slept with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend be registered on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Should the youth pastor of a church who gets seduced by a troubled seventeen-year-old girl be registered on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Should a father who takes a troubled sixteen-year-old foster child into his home, and ends up being seduced by her be on the same list with rapists and child molesters?
Maybe you think so. There is certainly a wide berth for disagreement on these kinds of emotional hot-button issues.
I have been told that a man can end up being placed on the registered sex offender list for just for stopping by the side of the road to urinate, and thereby exposing himself.
If we are going to make registered sex offenders out of every person who has ever committed some form of sexual indiscretion, and put ankle bracelets on them all, then let’s start with one of our past foothills district attorneys, or two or three of our local judges, or maybe the state legislators who used to sit with lobbyists at the bar in downtown Sacramento where the legislators were encouraged to pick out the prostitutes they liked from those swimming nude in the glass-walled swimming pool behind the bar... services happily paid for by the lobbyists.
Legislators aside, I have known many a good man and good woman during my lifetime who had his or her life ruined by a moment of sexual indiscretion. But we did not register all of them as sex offenders.
Back when we were kids in school, we were taught how barbaric it was that our Puritan ancestors would force an adulteress to wear a large scarlet letter “A” on her clothing.
We were also taught, and saw in our annual viewing of the movie about Moses, that it was barbaric to create a class of people who were outcasts from society because they were afflicted with leprosy.
We were taught that it was barbaric, and totally un-American for people in India to separate themselves into a caste system that included one class of people who were called the “untouchables.”
But now, when vengeance and punishment and sex is involved, Americans don’t seem to have any problem at all with creating a group of Americans whom we shall call “registered sex offenders,” and who shall be treated as outcasts, lepers, untouchables, and who shall wear the scarlet letter of the ankle monitor, and whose names shall be posted on the internet.
Do I exaggerate about these people being outcasts and untouchables?
Jack and Ernie tell me that there is not one single shelter in Placer County that will take them in, even for one night.
And remember that they are not permitted to leave Placer County.
They do not have a place to plug in their ankle monitors, which must be recharged every day.
Even if Jack and Ernie did have any money, which they do not, there is only one place that they know of, in all of Placer County, that is even willing to rent a room to them.
The cost of renting a room at that one place is $500 per person per month.
If Jack or Ernie ever do succeed in getting disability payments, those payments will be about $900 a month. So, more than half of their income would go to rent a room at the one place in Placer County that is willing to rent them a room.
In the mean time, they sleep in a tent... even on a cold day when the rain is pouring down in buckets, like it is today.
Last night, as I lay in my warm, dry bed, the rain beat down on the roof of my home like a constant drumming. I could not sleep. I laid there, thinking about the fact that Jack and Ernie were out there, somewhere, trying to sleep in a soggy tent.
There was no room at the Inn for them. There was not even an Inn available that would accept them.
We created this situation, with our own, well-intentioned laws.
But if we were to leave our dogs, our horses, or even our livestock out in weather like this with no shelter whatsoever, someone from the humane society or animal control would probably have us arrested.
We treat our dogs and our livestock better than we treat these human beings whom we have labeled as “registered sex offenders.”
Maybe, like me, you are one of those vindictive people who are thinking, or who have thought at some time or other in the past, “Good. Let these registered sex offenders suffer. Let’s punish them even more. They are not human beings like us. They are animals.”
Well, fine.
You can explain that kind of no-mercy reasoning to Jesus, when you finally meet Him face-to-face.
But in the mean time, I think that what we need here are a few, extraordinary Christians who have enough grace to get together and figure out some safe way that we can get Auburn’s homeless registered sex offenders some shelter from the rain.
This is a problem that is too big, and too complicated, for one person to solve by himself.
Friday, March 2, 2012
FL - Charlie the pug, will be on the sex offender registry for life for urinating on a tree!
Labels: Florida , Registration , UrinatingInPublic
Charlie will be on the sex offender registry for life, must wear a GPS around his neck, and cannot live around any kids. His life is basically over!
![]() |
| Charlie the pug |
Thursday, November 3, 2011
OK - New Oklahoma Sex Offender Law Wont Affect Offenders, Authorities Say
Labels: Oklahoma , Residency , UrinatingInPublic , Video
![]() |
| Sgt. John Adams |
11/02/2011
By Lori Fullbright
TULSA - Oklahoma's sex offender law was changed slightly on Tuesday, but it doesn't affect one single sex offender in the state of Oklahoma.
Some would argue it wasn't the law, but the perception of it that needed to change.
The law now says if a man or woman is caught urinating in public, they should be charged with outraging public decency, which is a misdemeanor and doesn't require sex offender registration.
That's always been the case, but a lot of people believe you can be arrested for indecent exposure, which is a felony that requires registration. This new clarification might prevent anyone from slipping through the cracks.
"This will not affect us at all. it will not affect our registry with one single person," said Sgt. John Adams, Tulsa Police Department.
Sergeant John Adams says not one offender at the state level is affected by this new law clarification either. He says it's a big misconception that if you get caught urinating in public, you have to register as a sex offender. The fact is people lie.
"When someone gets arrested for indecent exposure, they don't want to tell their family and friends what they were doing, so they tell them, I was only peeing in public," Sergeant Adams said.
Sergeant Adams says a law change that would actually make citizens safer, is to change the safe zone around schools and parks from the current 2,000 feet, down to 1,000.
He says right now, about 95 percent of the city is marked out, so there's basically no place for sex offenders to live. He says they still live here, they just don't register anymore.
"This has caused more safety issues for our families than it's helped," he said.
He says there are around 200 sex offenders in Tulsa that authorities have no idea where they are and more than 800 statewide.
He believes by shrinking the safe zones, offenders will have more places to live, so they'll be more likely to register, especially if legislators also add prison time for failing to register.
"Even if they get caught, the standard punishment in Tulsa for failing to register is a suspended sentence. They know that," Sergeant Adams said.
- What about those off probation and parole?
He'd like to see lawmakers change that to a mandatory 5 to 10 years in prison. Then, he believes the sex offender registration law will do what it was designed to do: make families safer.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
FRANCE - French actor Gerard Depardieu was allegedly caught peeing in an airplane aisle
Labels: CrimeCelebrity , France , OffenderMale , UrinatingInPublic , Video
![]() |
| Gerard Depardieu |
08/17/2011
PARIS (AP) -- An airline passenger says her Paris-to-Dublin flight was delayed nearly two hours after celebrated French actor Gerard Depardieu urinated on the plane ahead of takeoff.
France's Europe-1 radio aired an interview with the passenger, identified only by her first name Daniele, saying that Depardieu appeared inebriated and announced "'I need to piss, I need to piss." The passenger said when the cabin crew told him to remain seated during takeoff, "he stood up and did it (urinated) on the ground."
A spokeswoman for City Jet, the Dublin-headquartered airline that operated the Tuesday evening flight, confirmed that such an incident had taken place. But spokeswoman Karen Gillo said Wednesday privacy issues prevented her from naming the passenger, who was escorted off the plane along with his two traveling companions and their luggage.
Calls for comment from Depardieu's agent went unanswered Wednesday.
One of France's most famous actors, Depardieu, 62, has appeared in more than 150 films, including 1986's "Jean de Florette" and 1990's "Cyrano de Bergerac," for which he was nominated for an Academy Award.
The actor is also a Paris restaurateur and the owner of a vineyard in Burgundy.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
TX - Labeling people sex offenders even if they did not commit a sex crime?
Labels: NonSexCrime , OffTheRegistry , Texas , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
Well, why are they labeling people sex offenders who did not commit sex crimes in the first place? Maybe to make the registry larger so they get grant money? Which by the way, the tax payers had to pay for. This is basically corruption IMO.
08/16/2011
By Mike Ward
After losses in court, state changes how it deals with those not convicted of sex crimes.
For more than three years, state parole officials fought to classify parolee [name 1 withheld] as a sex offender, even though he'd never been convicted of a sex crime.
Several courts said they couldn't do that without due process hearings. But little changed.
Then, in June, parole officials abruptly made an about-face. In short order, they removed the ankle monitoring bracelet that had tracked the East Texas minister's every move and then withdrew the "Special Condition X" designation from his parole, which required [name 1 withheld] to attend sex offender therapy sessions and list himself on a statewide database. And they did it without a hearing.
"I felt like a heavy burden was lifted," said [name 1 withheld], who said he can now attend church freely, go to work without having to stick to a restricted schedule and even have a computer with Internet access.
After years of fighting in court against giving parolees a hearing before they are classified as sex offenders, state officials have begun dropping the sex offender designations — in some cases without administrative hearings, according to parole attorneys.
Rissie Owens, chairwoman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Stuart Jenkins, parole director for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, who have steadfastly defended the past policy in court, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The change occurred after an 8-0 ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in May affirmed what several federal courts previously had ruled: The parole board cannot unilaterally decide whether to brand a prisoner as a sex offender if he or she has not been convicted of a sexual offense.
By officials' earlier estimates, as many as 6,900 of the 80,600 parolees could be affected by the change. To review those cases would require perhaps as many as 1,000 hearings a week — an impossible number, some parole officials had said.
The change caps more than a decade of court challenges, including at least five high-profile court decisions branding the action without hearings unconstitutional — including [name 1 withheld]'s suit, which drew a strong rebuke from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin in 2009.
Attorneys who have seen parolees' Condition X designations removed said the policy change is long overdue.
"This is a huge change," Austin attorney Gary Cohen said. "The law has been clear for years on this. But it just shows the institutional mentality of parole officials: Instead of doing the right thing, they resist and resist and resist and continue losing in court."
- Yes, they need to keep the prison business alive, and money flowing in, and what better way to do it, than to put people in prison unjustly, and label them a sex offender, which brings in more money.
"If they had (changed the policy) years ago, as they should have, they would have saved a lot of money and litigation."
- No wonder this country is going broke, due to corruption.
Bill Habern, a Riverside attorney who filed several of the cases that resulted in adverse decisions for parole officials, agreed.
"That May decision was the nail in their coffin," he said. "There are thousands of cases that could be affected."
The May decision, which harshly criticized parole officials for continuing to impose Condition X without proper hearings, involved [name 2 withheld] of Lubbock, who was convicted of injuring his two baby daughters and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
- This is what happens when you name a law the "child protection and safety act," and anyone who harms a child, is unjustly labeled a sex offender, even when sex wasn't involved. And this makes you wonder, how many REAL sex offenders are actually in this country? The last I checked there were over 700,000. I wonder if that number could be cut almost in half?
When he was paroled in October 2006, [name 2 withheld] was not placed under Condition X, according to court files. But when he moved to El Paso in 2008, his parole officer ordered it — and the parole board went along.
The classification occurred even though the prosecutor and the sentencing judge determined that there had been no sexual abuse of the girls, according to the May decision.
Parolees on Condition X have a much tougher time making it on parole than others. They are severely restricted in where they can live, what jobs they can take and where they can go. Many, like [name 1 withheld], have to wear monitoring bracelets that track their every movement.
Many fail on parole and end up back in prison.
- Exactly what they want, to keep the prison business alive and raking in the dough.
Over the past decade, parolees who years earlier had been caught urinating in public, or who faced sex-related charges from an angry ex-spouse who later recanted, were placed under Condition X.
Scott Pawgan, [name 2 withheld]' attorney, said that had his client been allowed a hearing before the parole board saddled him with Condition X, the details of his case could have been properly aired.
"He never had that chance," Pawgan said.
To properly place a parolee on Condition X, several courts have held, the parole board must provide a due process hearing in which the convict can review and challenge the evidence. The board must also make a finding that the parolee constitutes a threat to society by reason of a continued lack of sexual control and issue a report documenting the decision.
For those parolees like [name 1 withheld] who already have had Condition X removed, the change has brought new freedom while still on parole.
He said he recently purchased a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and is working with a prison ministry group to bring convicts still in prison to God and help them become law-abiding citizens once they get out.
"A lot of doors have been opening," he said.
Well, why are they labeling people sex offenders who did not commit sex crimes in the first place? Maybe to make the registry larger so they get grant money? Which by the way, the tax payers had to pay for. This is basically corruption IMO.
08/16/2011
By Mike Ward
After losses in court, state changes how it deals with those not convicted of sex crimes.
For more than three years, state parole officials fought to classify parolee [name 1 withheld] as a sex offender, even though he'd never been convicted of a sex crime.
Several courts said they couldn't do that without due process hearings. But little changed.
Then, in June, parole officials abruptly made an about-face. In short order, they removed the ankle monitoring bracelet that had tracked the East Texas minister's every move and then withdrew the "Special Condition X" designation from his parole, which required [name 1 withheld] to attend sex offender therapy sessions and list himself on a statewide database. And they did it without a hearing.
"I felt like a heavy burden was lifted," said [name 1 withheld], who said he can now attend church freely, go to work without having to stick to a restricted schedule and even have a computer with Internet access.
After years of fighting in court against giving parolees a hearing before they are classified as sex offenders, state officials have begun dropping the sex offender designations — in some cases without administrative hearings, according to parole attorneys.
Rissie Owens, chairwoman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Stuart Jenkins, parole director for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, who have steadfastly defended the past policy in court, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The change occurred after an 8-0 ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in May affirmed what several federal courts previously had ruled: The parole board cannot unilaterally decide whether to brand a prisoner as a sex offender if he or she has not been convicted of a sexual offense.
By officials' earlier estimates, as many as 6,900 of the 80,600 parolees could be affected by the change. To review those cases would require perhaps as many as 1,000 hearings a week — an impossible number, some parole officials had said.
The change caps more than a decade of court challenges, including at least five high-profile court decisions branding the action without hearings unconstitutional — including [name 1 withheld]'s suit, which drew a strong rebuke from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin in 2009.
Attorneys who have seen parolees' Condition X designations removed said the policy change is long overdue.
"This is a huge change," Austin attorney Gary Cohen said. "The law has been clear for years on this. But it just shows the institutional mentality of parole officials: Instead of doing the right thing, they resist and resist and resist and continue losing in court."
- Yes, they need to keep the prison business alive, and money flowing in, and what better way to do it, than to put people in prison unjustly, and label them a sex offender, which brings in more money.
"If they had (changed the policy) years ago, as they should have, they would have saved a lot of money and litigation."
- No wonder this country is going broke, due to corruption.
Bill Habern, a Riverside attorney who filed several of the cases that resulted in adverse decisions for parole officials, agreed.
"That May decision was the nail in their coffin," he said. "There are thousands of cases that could be affected."
The May decision, which harshly criticized parole officials for continuing to impose Condition X without proper hearings, involved [name 2 withheld] of Lubbock, who was convicted of injuring his two baby daughters and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
- This is what happens when you name a law the "child protection and safety act," and anyone who harms a child, is unjustly labeled a sex offender, even when sex wasn't involved. And this makes you wonder, how many REAL sex offenders are actually in this country? The last I checked there were over 700,000. I wonder if that number could be cut almost in half?
When he was paroled in October 2006, [name 2 withheld] was not placed under Condition X, according to court files. But when he moved to El Paso in 2008, his parole officer ordered it — and the parole board went along.
The classification occurred even though the prosecutor and the sentencing judge determined that there had been no sexual abuse of the girls, according to the May decision.
Parolees on Condition X have a much tougher time making it on parole than others. They are severely restricted in where they can live, what jobs they can take and where they can go. Many, like [name 1 withheld], have to wear monitoring bracelets that track their every movement.
Many fail on parole and end up back in prison.
- Exactly what they want, to keep the prison business alive and raking in the dough.
Over the past decade, parolees who years earlier had been caught urinating in public, or who faced sex-related charges from an angry ex-spouse who later recanted, were placed under Condition X.
Scott Pawgan, [name 2 withheld]' attorney, said that had his client been allowed a hearing before the parole board saddled him with Condition X, the details of his case could have been properly aired.
"He never had that chance," Pawgan said.
To properly place a parolee on Condition X, several courts have held, the parole board must provide a due process hearing in which the convict can review and challenge the evidence. The board must also make a finding that the parolee constitutes a threat to society by reason of a continued lack of sexual control and issue a report documenting the decision.
For those parolees like [name 1 withheld] who already have had Condition X removed, the change has brought new freedom while still on parole.
He said he recently purchased a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and is working with a prison ministry group to bring convicts still in prison to God and help them become law-abiding citizens once they get out.
"A lot of doors have been opening," he said.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
OK - Man arrested for urinating on a church, could become the next sex offender
Labels: OffenderMale , Oklahoma , UrinatingInPublic , Video
Original Article
09/18/2010
By Russell Carter
OKLAHOMA CITY - A metro man is facing serious charges after police claim he relieved himself on a church window in Downtown Oklahoma City. Along with urinating on the window police say 50-year-old [name withheld] continued to expose himself after being approached by an associate pastor who was worried about students in a nearby Sunday school class.
"Obviously we don't want anybody exposed to this type of action or incident and it was a good call by the pastor to contact us," said Sgt. Jennifer Wardlow with the Oklahoma City Police Department.
If [name withheld] is found guilty of indecent exposure he will have to register as a sex offender.
09/18/2010
By Russell Carter
OKLAHOMA CITY - A metro man is facing serious charges after police claim he relieved himself on a church window in Downtown Oklahoma City. Along with urinating on the window police say 50-year-old [name withheld] continued to expose himself after being approached by an associate pastor who was worried about students in a nearby Sunday school class.
"Obviously we don't want anybody exposed to this type of action or incident and it was a good call by the pastor to contact us," said Sgt. Jennifer Wardlow with the Oklahoma City Police Department.
If [name withheld] is found guilty of indecent exposure he will have to register as a sex offender.
Monday, August 2, 2010
CA - Family Of Girl Asked To Pee In Cup Speaks Out
Labels: California , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article
08/01/2010
SACRAMENTO - An outraged grandmother is speaking out after learning her 6-year old granddaughter was asked to urinate in a cup to help a neighbor [name withheld] pass a required drug test while on parole. The grandmother [name withheld] said, "As soon as I heard from my granddaughters friend mother, I came downstairs and told my daughter and it was on."
The mom [name withheld] called police after learning what happen to her little girl. Police arrested the neighbors [name withheld] and her longtime boyfriend, [name withheld]. [name withheld] said. "Who knows what else could have went on in there, they could have raped her for all I know."
[name withheld] now faces child molest, and they both face delinquency of a minor. Still the grandmother doesn't want the charges to stop. [name withheld] said, "I want felony charges, I want them both to face sex offender charges."
This granny and mom are also giving a warning to everyone to make sure your not in the same situation...watch your kids!!
- Do as I say, not as I do!
08/01/2010
SACRAMENTO - An outraged grandmother is speaking out after learning her 6-year old granddaughter was asked to urinate in a cup to help a neighbor [name withheld] pass a required drug test while on parole. The grandmother [name withheld] said, "As soon as I heard from my granddaughters friend mother, I came downstairs and told my daughter and it was on."
The mom [name withheld] called police after learning what happen to her little girl. Police arrested the neighbors [name withheld] and her longtime boyfriend, [name withheld]. [name withheld] said. "Who knows what else could have went on in there, they could have raped her for all I know."
[name withheld] now faces child molest, and they both face delinquency of a minor. Still the grandmother doesn't want the charges to stop. [name withheld] said, "I want felony charges, I want them both to face sex offender charges."
This granny and mom are also giving a warning to everyone to make sure your not in the same situation...watch your kids!!
- Do as I say, not as I do!
Friday, May 28, 2010
States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs
Labels: AdamWalshAct , Cost , National , NPR , RomeoAndJuliet , Sexting , UrinatingInPublic , Video
Original Article (Listen)
Map: Registered Sex Offenders By State
05/28/2010
By Alan Greenblatt
Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police. Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.
But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.
"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.
Video Link | Ohio Compliance
Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.
"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — deciding who represents the greatest risk."
The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.
The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as Chelsea's Law, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Contact) and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.
But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher (PDF), "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.
California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.
But Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (Contact), the Republican sponsor of Chelsea's Law, disputes the LAO's higher cost estimates for his bill and says that even the corrections department's projected $54 million cost in 2030 would represent a small fraction of the projected state budget and "can be absorbed."
"I disagree with the criticism that I hear that the costs are too high," he says. "It's absolutely not asking too much of government to protect children from violent sex predators."
At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses — including public urination, "sexting" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "Romeo and Juliet" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.
The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: They are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.
But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
"Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."
Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others.
"In criminal justice, there are people who you're mad at and there are people you're afraid of," says Fletcher, the California representative. "All of our focus is on people we feel are likely to reoffend."
Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders — moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.
And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The practical effect of the federal law would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.
The Justice Department's proposed changes would allow states more discretion about listing offenders as young as 14 on their registries, as well as offenders whose crimes predate the law's passage.
If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.
"This federal mandate is requiring all kinds of things that financially are near to impossible for states to implement," Klein says. "In these incredibly difficult fiscal times, with states near bankruptcy, it is extraordinarily hard for them to come into compliance, just for financial reasons."
The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.
"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences."
Map: Registered Sex Offenders By State
05/28/2010
By Alan Greenblatt
Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police. Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.
But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.
"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.
Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.
"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — deciding who represents the greatest risk."
Incarceration's High Cost
The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.
The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as Chelsea's Law, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Contact) and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.
But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher (PDF), "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.
California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.
But Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (Contact), the Republican sponsor of Chelsea's Law, disputes the LAO's higher cost estimates for his bill and says that even the corrections department's projected $54 million cost in 2030 would represent a small fraction of the projected state budget and "can be absorbed."
"I disagree with the criticism that I hear that the costs are too high," he says. "It's absolutely not asking too much of government to protect children from violent sex predators."
An Expanding List
At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses — including public urination, "sexting" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "Romeo and Juliet" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.
The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: They are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.
But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
"Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."
Can States Bear The Cost?
Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others.
"In criminal justice, there are people who you're mad at and there are people you're afraid of," says Fletcher, the California representative. "All of our focus is on people we feel are likely to reoffend."
Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders — moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.
And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The practical effect of the federal law would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.
The Justice Department's proposed changes would allow states more discretion about listing offenders as young as 14 on their registries, as well as offenders whose crimes predate the law's passage.
If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.
"This federal mandate is requiring all kinds of things that financially are near to impossible for states to implement," Klein says. "In these incredibly difficult fiscal times, with states near bankruptcy, it is extraordinarily hard for them to come into compliance, just for financial reasons."
The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.
"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences."
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
CO - Senate bill says public nudity is not a sex offense
Labels: Colorado , Streaking , UrinatingInPublic
Original Article04/20/2010
By Jessica Fender
Streakers, public urinators and others who bare themselves in public out of foolishness — and not for sexual gratification — wouldn't have to register as sex offenders if House Bill 1334 (PDF) continues its progress through the legislature.
The bipartisan bill attempts to sort the sexual deviants from the merely stupid, said sponsor Sen. Pat Steadman (Email), who said the man caught urinating behind a building hardly deserves to face the stigma of a sex- offender label.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday voted unanimously to approve the changes, and it next goes to the Senate for full consideration.
"What sort of inappropriate nudity should be treated as a 'that was stupid' offense, and what sort of things indicate that someone is a sexual perpetrator?" Steadman, D-Denver, posited.
The bill also adds public masturbation, now a petty offense under the public indecency statute, to the list of acts that constitute indecent exposure, a more serious charge that requires violators to register as sex offenders.
The masturbators would face up to 18 months in county jail instead of a maximum six-month sentence, if the bill passed.
Both district attorneys and public defenders supported the legislation, but questioned a change the committee approved.
Originally, the bill said that a person caught streaking or urinating in public more than once would have to register, but Steadman and the committee killed that section of the bill.
The lawyer groups said that deletion would prevent people who act out repeatedly through public nudity from getting evaluated and treated if necessary.
The sex-offender status lasts at least five years for those convicted of indecent exposure, after which time violators can petition to be taken off the sex-offender registry.
In the meantime, they face a number of restrictions, such as being banned from the schools their children attend, bill supporters said in committee.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, April 5, 2009
OK - Oklahoma sex offenders decry classification system
Labels: AdamWalshAct , JohnWalsh , Oklahoma , UrinatingInPublic
View the article here
04/05/2009
By JAY F. MARKS
The number of Oklahoma sex offenders saddled with lifetime registration has doubled since 2007, when state officials implemented a classification system to come into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
The law, named for the murdered son of "America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, increased the federal government’s role in dealing with convicted sex offenders.
Some local attorneys say it has resulted in harsher treatment of such offenders.
"These people are living just in absolute terror,” attorney Mark Bailey said. "The rules have been changed on them.”
- And changing the rules, after the fact, violates the Constitutions ex post facto clause, which is strictly forbidden by this document.
Bailey said he has been approached by a number of people with sex-related convictions in their distant past who recently have been notified they must register with authorities, most for the rest of their lives.
He said the stigma of being branded sex offenders keeps people from speaking out about the recently enacted registration requirements.
- And they need to get over the fear, and speak out, otherwise, more and more laws will be passed, violating their rights.
William Farmer isn’t so shy. He condemned the restrictions that have hampered one of his relatives for a decade, since he was convicted of indecent exposure in 1999.
Farmer said the man was drunk when he urinated on the side of his truck in the view of two women, but that shouldn’t brand him a sex offender.
- And many people out there, do not believe you can be labeled for the above. Well, you can!
"He is not a danger to society,” he said.
The Choctaw resident complained the state is not doing enough to differentiate between dangerous sex offenders and people who made a stupid mistake.
"They’re lumping them all in the same basket,” he said.
Lifetime registration
The law that went into effect in November 2007 requires authorities to evaluate everyone convicted of a sex offense since 1989, assigning each one a tier in the new classification system.
Tier 1 offenders must register for 15 years; tier 2 for 25 years and tier 3 for life.
Most of the state’s 6,000-plus convicted sex offenders fall into the latter category, state Corrections Department officials said.
- Yes, it is my opinion, that they always take the easy way out, and automatically put everyone into Tier 3. How many people in this state, have actually went before some board and been classified?
Sex offenders considered aggravated or habitual were subject to lifetime registration before the tier system was enacted, said Jim Rabon, who oversees the sex offender registration program. Those offenders used to make up about 40 percent, he said.
Now more than 80 percent are subject to lifetime registration.
Prosecutor Gayland Geiger, who heads the sex crimes unit in the Oklahoma County district attorney’s office, said the classification system is good in theory, but he doesn’t know if it is being used properly. Geiger said he has not seen any requests from offenders to have a judge review their status.
- Any registered sex offender (RSO) in this state, who has been designated some tier, and they do not agree with it, they need to take it back to court, and get it reviewed. Otherwise, they will continue! This is the problem, many do not detest or speak out due to shame, etc. Well, you need to get over that, and protest!
Bailey said there should be more tiers to encompass the range of people who committed crimes classified as sex offenses. Many are not sexually dangerous, he insists, but guilty only of bad behavior.
Bailey said the assessment is based on the charge of conviction, not the circumstances that led to it. It doesn’t consider how likely someone is to commit further sex crimes.
- And that is the problem. They do not look at a persons history, or anything. They just simply see their crime, and if it falls into some predetermined set of rules, then they are a tier 3, regardless of their dangerousness. And that harms the public, and offenders, because the public doesn't know who truly is a danger. They assume all are, which is incorrect!
"That’s not the way it’s supposed to be,” he said.
Oklahoma’s classification guidelines were created by a committee that included prosecutors, counselors and victim advocates.
- So what about sex offender experts, civil and human rights advocates? You see, this is a biased system! Do you really think a prosecutor or victims advocate are going to say someone is not dangerous? Of course not, they will put them ALL into Tier 3.
Tulsa counselor Randy Lopp said the state’s assessment tool meets the requirements of the Walsh Act, but he acknowledged it is not the best way to classify sex offenders.
Lopp, who is head of the Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management, said offenders should be classified according to their risk level rather than their offense of record.
"This belief is based on accepted research in the field that indicates (75) percent of sexual offenders are not re-arrested over a 15-year period,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Oklahoman.
Richard Kishur, an Oklahoma City counselor who specializes in treating sex offenders, said ideally sex offenders should be evaluated before they are sentenced, to determine if they are a risk to re-offend.
04/05/2009
By JAY F. MARKS
The number of Oklahoma sex offenders saddled with lifetime registration has doubled since 2007, when state officials implemented a classification system to come into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
The law, named for the murdered son of "America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, increased the federal government’s role in dealing with convicted sex offenders.
Some local attorneys say it has resulted in harsher treatment of such offenders.
"These people are living just in absolute terror,” attorney Mark Bailey said. "The rules have been changed on them.”
- And changing the rules, after the fact, violates the Constitutions ex post facto clause, which is strictly forbidden by this document.
Bailey said he has been approached by a number of people with sex-related convictions in their distant past who recently have been notified they must register with authorities, most for the rest of their lives.
He said the stigma of being branded sex offenders keeps people from speaking out about the recently enacted registration requirements.
- And they need to get over the fear, and speak out, otherwise, more and more laws will be passed, violating their rights.
William Farmer isn’t so shy. He condemned the restrictions that have hampered one of his relatives for a decade, since he was convicted of indecent exposure in 1999.
Farmer said the man was drunk when he urinated on the side of his truck in the view of two women, but that shouldn’t brand him a sex offender.
- And many people out there, do not believe you can be labeled for the above. Well, you can!
"He is not a danger to society,” he said.
The Choctaw resident complained the state is not doing enough to differentiate between dangerous sex offenders and people who made a stupid mistake.
"They’re lumping them all in the same basket,” he said.
Lifetime registration
The law that went into effect in November 2007 requires authorities to evaluate everyone convicted of a sex offense since 1989, assigning each one a tier in the new classification system.
Tier 1 offenders must register for 15 years; tier 2 for 25 years and tier 3 for life.
Most of the state’s 6,000-plus convicted sex offenders fall into the latter category, state Corrections Department officials said.
- Yes, it is my opinion, that they always take the easy way out, and automatically put everyone into Tier 3. How many people in this state, have actually went before some board and been classified?
Sex offenders considered aggravated or habitual were subject to lifetime registration before the tier system was enacted, said Jim Rabon, who oversees the sex offender registration program. Those offenders used to make up about 40 percent, he said.
Now more than 80 percent are subject to lifetime registration.
Prosecutor Gayland Geiger, who heads the sex crimes unit in the Oklahoma County district attorney’s office, said the classification system is good in theory, but he doesn’t know if it is being used properly. Geiger said he has not seen any requests from offenders to have a judge review their status.
- Any registered sex offender (RSO) in this state, who has been designated some tier, and they do not agree with it, they need to take it back to court, and get it reviewed. Otherwise, they will continue! This is the problem, many do not detest or speak out due to shame, etc. Well, you need to get over that, and protest!
Bailey said there should be more tiers to encompass the range of people who committed crimes classified as sex offenses. Many are not sexually dangerous, he insists, but guilty only of bad behavior.
Bailey said the assessment is based on the charge of conviction, not the circumstances that led to it. It doesn’t consider how likely someone is to commit further sex crimes.
- And that is the problem. They do not look at a persons history, or anything. They just simply see their crime, and if it falls into some predetermined set of rules, then they are a tier 3, regardless of their dangerousness. And that harms the public, and offenders, because the public doesn't know who truly is a danger. They assume all are, which is incorrect!
"That’s not the way it’s supposed to be,” he said.
Oklahoma’s classification guidelines were created by a committee that included prosecutors, counselors and victim advocates.
- So what about sex offender experts, civil and human rights advocates? You see, this is a biased system! Do you really think a prosecutor or victims advocate are going to say someone is not dangerous? Of course not, they will put them ALL into Tier 3.
Tulsa counselor Randy Lopp said the state’s assessment tool meets the requirements of the Walsh Act, but he acknowledged it is not the best way to classify sex offenders.
Lopp, who is head of the Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management, said offenders should be classified according to their risk level rather than their offense of record.
"This belief is based on accepted research in the field that indicates (75) percent of sexual offenders are not re-arrested over a 15-year period,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Oklahoman.
Richard Kishur, an Oklahoma City counselor who specializes in treating sex offenders, said ideally sex offenders should be evaluated before they are sentenced, to determine if they are a risk to re-offend.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
NH - Peeing In Public Now Carries Fine - New Law Makes Violators Eligible For $1,000 Fine
Labels: NewHampshire , UrinatingInPublic
View the article here
01/01/2009
CONCORD - Starting New Years Day, peeing in public becomes costly in New Hampshire.
The new law makes public urination or defecation a violation punishable by up to a $1,000 fine. To be guilty, the person would have to know the act would affront or alarm someone else.
The legislation was to correct a gap in the law. In the past, there was no state law specifically addressing public urination; it was prosecuted under a patchwork of local and state laws, indecent exposure among them.
Because indecent exposure is a sex offense, multiple convictions could land habitual public urinators on a sex offender registry, a penalty lawmakers felt was too severe for the crime.
And many uninformed people, insist that peeing in public does not land you on the sex offender registry, well, it does. This is just one state. You can see the others, by clicking the labels above.
01/01/2009
CONCORD - Starting New Years Day, peeing in public becomes costly in New Hampshire.
The new law makes public urination or defecation a violation punishable by up to a $1,000 fine. To be guilty, the person would have to know the act would affront or alarm someone else.
The legislation was to correct a gap in the law. In the past, there was no state law specifically addressing public urination; it was prosecuted under a patchwork of local and state laws, indecent exposure among them.
Because indecent exposure is a sex offense, multiple convictions could land habitual public urinators on a sex offender registry, a penalty lawmakers felt was too severe for the crime.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
IN - Peeling back sex offender label
Labels: Homeless , Indiana , OffenderChild , Story , UrinatingInPublic
View the article here
10/05/2008
By RICHARD JOHNSON - Local Columnist
A 12-year-old girl in the sixth grade became the envy of her friends when she became the girlfriend of a popular 14-year-old boy in the eighth grade. By the time she got to seventh grade, and he became a freshman in high school, they were having sex with one another.
Even though the mother of the girl was unhappy about the relationship, and did what she could to discourage it, her daughter's relationship with this boy, two years older than she, continued for a few years, until she was a sophomore in high school, and he was a senior getting ready to graduate.
That spring, her boyfriend turned 18, and became an adult in the eyes of the law. The mother of his 16-year-old girlfriend got a protective order to keep him away from her.
A couple of weeks passed, and one day the boy got a tearful phone call from the mother of his girlfriend. “I'm so sorry,” she sobbed into the phone, “I had no idea how much my daughter loves you. She's been miserable since I told her she couldn't see you anymore. I'm sorry I did this to both of you. If you want to come see her, you may.”
Not thinking, the boy hangs up the phone and rushes over to the girlfriend's house. They go up to her bedroom, and with her mother still in the house, they have a physical reunion. Why not? They've been doing so in the house with her mom right downstairs for years.
But this time, it's different. Momma calls the police, and he's arrested and taken to jail. When he gets to court, he's charged with violating the protective order that required him to stay away from his girlfriend, and because he's now an adult, he's also charged with having unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Here's the question; is he a sex offender?
Here’s another scenario. An older homeless man spends most of his time wandering around downtown. Sometimes he sleeps in the park; sometimes he sleeps in the weeds down by the river. He's a fixture in the community; everyone who works or lives downtown knows him, and considers him harmless.
He's in the park one afternoon, and has to go to the bathroom, so he does what he usually does; goes behind some bushes and pees. But this time, someone sees him do it, and calls the police.
He's charged and convicted of exposing himself in a public place. Here's the question again: is he a sex offender, or not a sex offender?
Both scenarios occur more often than you might think. Both the young man sleeping with his younger girlfriend, and the older man peeing in the park, were charged and convicted as sex offenders. Both are now required by law to register as sex offenders. But are they really sex offenders?
I believe that it is wrong for teenagers to be sexually active. As a minister of the gospel, I believe it is best if people wait to have sex until after they are married, and enjoy it only with the person they married.
But at the same time, in spite of whatever they might have been taught (or not) concerning the morality and the risks of being sexually active, we are dealing with two teenagers who are involved in a long-term sexual relationship that began when both of them were minors.
While I believe that their behavior is both risky and morally wrong, the question still remains. Is the boyfriend really a sex offender? You may not like this answer, but I believe the answer is no.
And what about the homeless man, relieving himself in the park? I doubt if there's a man alive who has never pulled over on an interstate highway or found some other outdoor spot to take care of an emergency. If that old homeless man is a sex offender, then so is every other male on the planet.
Sex offenses are among the most hideous and damaging crimes imaginable, especially when the victims are children. We are very angry at sex offenders, and rightfully so.
But one of the problems society is having trying to find a way to deal with sexual crimes, is that people like the two men I just described are being lumped in with far more dangerous predatory pedophiles.
The young man particularly will pay an especially heavy price, labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life, because he had a birthday that made him an adult.
Is it wrong for teenagers to be sexually active unless they are married? I believe that it is. But does the punishment in this case fit the crime? I believe it does not.
In addition to his duties as the Executive Director of Christian Formation Ministries, Richard Johnson does a lot of personal ministry. His organization has numerous volunteer opportunities available. For information, please e-mail richard@christian-formation.org, or call 812-945-0886.
10/05/2008
By RICHARD JOHNSON - Local Columnist
A 12-year-old girl in the sixth grade became the envy of her friends when she became the girlfriend of a popular 14-year-old boy in the eighth grade. By the time she got to seventh grade, and he became a freshman in high school, they were having sex with one another.
Even though the mother of the girl was unhappy about the relationship, and did what she could to discourage it, her daughter's relationship with this boy, two years older than she, continued for a few years, until she was a sophomore in high school, and he was a senior getting ready to graduate.
That spring, her boyfriend turned 18, and became an adult in the eyes of the law. The mother of his 16-year-old girlfriend got a protective order to keep him away from her.
A couple of weeks passed, and one day the boy got a tearful phone call from the mother of his girlfriend. “I'm so sorry,” she sobbed into the phone, “I had no idea how much my daughter loves you. She's been miserable since I told her she couldn't see you anymore. I'm sorry I did this to both of you. If you want to come see her, you may.”
Not thinking, the boy hangs up the phone and rushes over to the girlfriend's house. They go up to her bedroom, and with her mother still in the house, they have a physical reunion. Why not? They've been doing so in the house with her mom right downstairs for years.
But this time, it's different. Momma calls the police, and he's arrested and taken to jail. When he gets to court, he's charged with violating the protective order that required him to stay away from his girlfriend, and because he's now an adult, he's also charged with having unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Here's the question; is he a sex offender?
Here’s another scenario. An older homeless man spends most of his time wandering around downtown. Sometimes he sleeps in the park; sometimes he sleeps in the weeds down by the river. He's a fixture in the community; everyone who works or lives downtown knows him, and considers him harmless.
He's in the park one afternoon, and has to go to the bathroom, so he does what he usually does; goes behind some bushes and pees. But this time, someone sees him do it, and calls the police.
He's charged and convicted of exposing himself in a public place. Here's the question again: is he a sex offender, or not a sex offender?
Both scenarios occur more often than you might think. Both the young man sleeping with his younger girlfriend, and the older man peeing in the park, were charged and convicted as sex offenders. Both are now required by law to register as sex offenders. But are they really sex offenders?
I believe that it is wrong for teenagers to be sexually active. As a minister of the gospel, I believe it is best if people wait to have sex until after they are married, and enjoy it only with the person they married.
But at the same time, in spite of whatever they might have been taught (or not) concerning the morality and the risks of being sexually active, we are dealing with two teenagers who are involved in a long-term sexual relationship that began when both of them were minors.
While I believe that their behavior is both risky and morally wrong, the question still remains. Is the boyfriend really a sex offender? You may not like this answer, but I believe the answer is no.
And what about the homeless man, relieving himself in the park? I doubt if there's a man alive who has never pulled over on an interstate highway or found some other outdoor spot to take care of an emergency. If that old homeless man is a sex offender, then so is every other male on the planet.
Sex offenses are among the most hideous and damaging crimes imaginable, especially when the victims are children. We are very angry at sex offenders, and rightfully so.
But one of the problems society is having trying to find a way to deal with sexual crimes, is that people like the two men I just described are being lumped in with far more dangerous predatory pedophiles.
The young man particularly will pay an especially heavy price, labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life, because he had a birthday that made him an adult.
Is it wrong for teenagers to be sexually active unless they are married? I believe that it is. But does the punishment in this case fit the crime? I believe it does not.
In addition to his duties as the Executive Director of Christian Formation Ministries, Richard Johnson does a lot of personal ministry. His organization has numerous volunteer opportunities available. For information, please e-mail richard@christian-formation.org, or call 812-945-0886.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
GA - On-Campus Public Pee Contests At UGA May Have Serious Consequences
Labels: Georgia , OffenderMale , UrinatingInPublic
View the article here
09/30/2008
I’m not ashamed to admit to having some questionable judgment when ingesting large amounts of alcohol, but my idiot friends took the cake while tailgating for the UGA-Bama game.
After having to hit up the nasty messes known as porta-potties on numerous occasions on Saturday, they decided to find alternative places to go. It was hot, they were drunk, and most importantly, they were sick of waiting in lines when they HAD to go. So a few of them decided to just find places to go (usually between cars) and time themselves to see who went the longest. Both cool and classy, I’m aware.
While a friend finished timing his 1 minute, 7 second stream, he heard someone coming behind him. Unfortunately, it was a less-than-amused cop.
Although he got off with a warning, the cop informed us that during the GA Southern game he gave someone a ticket for public exposure under similar circumstances. The kid had previously been caught peeing downtown one night, and once again outside a party. That's three times and apparently there is a law that states if you are caught for public exposure on three occasions, you have to register as a sex offender. Yeah, like one of those guys you see on hidden-camera shows. The habitual public-pisser now can’t live within a certain number of feet of schools or even bus stops, and has to register his home location at all times. He relieved himself while drunk three times and now he’s publicly known as a sex offender. And it stays with you-undoubtedly influencing what job you get, where you can live, and most importantly, your social life.
So save yourself the embarrassment and either zip up, or at least adapt the public pee game to involve some sort of watchdog.
09/30/2008
I’m not ashamed to admit to having some questionable judgment when ingesting large amounts of alcohol, but my idiot friends took the cake while tailgating for the UGA-Bama game.
After having to hit up the nasty messes known as porta-potties on numerous occasions on Saturday, they decided to find alternative places to go. It was hot, they were drunk, and most importantly, they were sick of waiting in lines when they HAD to go. So a few of them decided to just find places to go (usually between cars) and time themselves to see who went the longest. Both cool and classy, I’m aware.
While a friend finished timing his 1 minute, 7 second stream, he heard someone coming behind him. Unfortunately, it was a less-than-amused cop.
Although he got off with a warning, the cop informed us that during the GA Southern game he gave someone a ticket for public exposure under similar circumstances. The kid had previously been caught peeing downtown one night, and once again outside a party. That's three times and apparently there is a law that states if you are caught for public exposure on three occasions, you have to register as a sex offender. Yeah, like one of those guys you see on hidden-camera shows. The habitual public-pisser now can’t live within a certain number of feet of schools or even bus stops, and has to register his home location at all times. He relieved himself while drunk three times and now he’s publicly known as a sex offender. And it stays with you-undoubtedly influencing what job you get, where you can live, and most importantly, your social life.
So save yourself the embarrassment and either zip up, or at least adapt the public pee game to involve some sort of watchdog.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Long-ago charge to cost man his home.
Labels: OffenderMale , PublicLewdness , Registration , Story , UrinatingInPublic
View the article here
03/21/2007
Publication: Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, FL)
DELTONA -- After the birth of his first daughter in 1986, Juan Matamoros decided to party. What he says he did afterward was not uncommon, but it has haunted him and his family for more than 20 years. Matamoros said he had to use the bathroom so badly he stopped to go on the side of the road. The incident landed him in jail and labeled him a sexual offender. It's also forcing the 49-year-old welder, his wife and their two young sons out of their home in Deltona, which last year imposed a strict ordinance on where sexual offenders can live. "It's been a nightmare, let me tell you," Matamoros said from the Volusia County Branch Jail, where he was sent last week for violating probation on a separate charge of cocaine possession with the intent to sell, a felony to which he pleaded no contest last year. Matamoros' troubles began with his arrest on Sept. 28, 1986, in the Boston suburb of Haverhill, Mass. He said he was riding home after bar-hopping with friends and couldn't hold it anymore. They pulled the car over in a residential area, and Matamoros got out and relieved himself. Matamoros said he was doing nothing sexual, just relieving himself. He wasn't alone, though.
Pleaded not guilty Three adults walked by and started screaming at him, he said. Matamoros, who is originally from Cuba, said he blurted an apology in the best English he could manage, scrambled into the car and headed home. Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people. Because of the age of the case and Massachusetts' strict laws governing court records, the Orlando Sentinel was unable to obtain records with more details about the incident, such as an arrest report filed by police or court testimony from witnesses.
The city of Deltona, however, provided a brief court docket that showed Matamoros pleaded not guilty to the charges but was convicted and given a 2-year sentence. He served 60 days in jail, followed by counseling and probation. He did not appeal the case. Paul Mishkin, the Boston lawyer who represented Matamoros in 1986, could not recall details of the case this week, but said it was clear the judge considered the incident very serious. "He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin. "A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You'd have to think there's evidence to support that." Sex-offender registration But Matamoros said he didn't do anything lewd and should not face the same restrictions as people who have raped women or molested children. "It was even at nighttime when this happened and I'm a dark man, so I doubt a person could have seen much of me," Matamoros said Thursday from jail. Matamoros was required to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts and later in Florida when he moved to Volusia County. Late last year, he moved into a house on Brady Drive in Deltona near three parks and a child-care facility, unknowingly violating a new ordinance approved by Deltona city officials that prohibits sexual offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, bus stops, day-care centers or parks.
Last week, the Volusia County Court found Matamoros guilty of violating the ordinance. He was fined $193 and ordered to move somewhere else by July 1, according to court documents. The court also found that even though he had registered as a sex offender with the state in November, he failed to re-register, as required, in February. Because he was already on probation for the drug charge, Matamoros was sent to jail. Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has been monitoring residential restrictions for sex offenders, said the organization may get involved in Matamoros' case. George Griffin, chairman of the group's Volusia/Flagler chapter, said he visited the Matamoros family last week. "We are just looking into it to see what the status is and verify some of the information ourselves," Griffin said. Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida ACLU, said Deltona's ordinance -- and many others like it in Florida -- is flawed because it ostracizes all sex offenders, even if they pose no threat to the public. "It's more about exploiting the fear of the community than protecting the community," Simon said. The National Association to Protect Children, which campaigns for protection against child predators, doesn't buy Matamoros' story. The agency's executive director, Grier Weeks, said some sex offenders offer that same explanation -- that they were just relieving themselves. "Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story." Matamoros isn't sure where he is going to move. He said it is unfair he has to leave while others who have been convicted of more serious crimes can stay because they were grandfathered in.
More than 100 sex offenders and four sexual predators reside in Deltona, according to a state database. Those living in the city before the new ordinance was passed are affected only if they move to a new place in the city that is too close to where youngsters gather. Protecting the public Most of the other 12 men Deltona plans to force from their homes have been convicted of crimes against children. Matamoros' wife, Laurie, said the situation has been humiliating. People think the worst of him, she said, because he is lumped in with all sorts of sex offenders. "My husband is a very private person anyway," she said. "For this to be out there this way and people to see him like that, it just tears him up." Deltona Mayor Dennis Mulder, said he initially worried the new residency rule would hurt people who had not abused children. He agreed that many people, especially men, sometimes urinate outdoors, but they usually try to conceal themselves.
But Mulder said he isn't bothered by Matamoros' problem. "Sometimes, although the law can feel unfair and can paint a broad brush," he said, "it's still there to protect the public, and that's what we've done."
Denise-Marie Balona can be reached at dbalona@orlandosentinel.com or 386-851-7916. Rebecca Mahoney can be reached at 386-851-7914 or rmahoney@orlandosentinel.com.
03/21/2007
Publication: Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, FL)
DELTONA -- After the birth of his first daughter in 1986, Juan Matamoros decided to party. What he says he did afterward was not uncommon, but it has haunted him and his family for more than 20 years. Matamoros said he had to use the bathroom so badly he stopped to go on the side of the road. The incident landed him in jail and labeled him a sexual offender. It's also forcing the 49-year-old welder, his wife and their two young sons out of their home in Deltona, which last year imposed a strict ordinance on where sexual offenders can live. "It's been a nightmare, let me tell you," Matamoros said from the Volusia County Branch Jail, where he was sent last week for violating probation on a separate charge of cocaine possession with the intent to sell, a felony to which he pleaded no contest last year. Matamoros' troubles began with his arrest on Sept. 28, 1986, in the Boston suburb of Haverhill, Mass. He said he was riding home after bar-hopping with friends and couldn't hold it anymore. They pulled the car over in a residential area, and Matamoros got out and relieved himself. Matamoros said he was doing nothing sexual, just relieving himself. He wasn't alone, though.
Pleaded not guilty Three adults walked by and started screaming at him, he said. Matamoros, who is originally from Cuba, said he blurted an apology in the best English he could manage, scrambled into the car and headed home. Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people. Because of the age of the case and Massachusetts' strict laws governing court records, the Orlando Sentinel was unable to obtain records with more details about the incident, such as an arrest report filed by police or court testimony from witnesses.
The city of Deltona, however, provided a brief court docket that showed Matamoros pleaded not guilty to the charges but was convicted and given a 2-year sentence. He served 60 days in jail, followed by counseling and probation. He did not appeal the case. Paul Mishkin, the Boston lawyer who represented Matamoros in 1986, could not recall details of the case this week, but said it was clear the judge considered the incident very serious. "He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin. "A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You'd have to think there's evidence to support that." Sex-offender registration But Matamoros said he didn't do anything lewd and should not face the same restrictions as people who have raped women or molested children. "It was even at nighttime when this happened and I'm a dark man, so I doubt a person could have seen much of me," Matamoros said Thursday from jail. Matamoros was required to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts and later in Florida when he moved to Volusia County. Late last year, he moved into a house on Brady Drive in Deltona near three parks and a child-care facility, unknowingly violating a new ordinance approved by Deltona city officials that prohibits sexual offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, bus stops, day-care centers or parks.
Last week, the Volusia County Court found Matamoros guilty of violating the ordinance. He was fined $193 and ordered to move somewhere else by July 1, according to court documents. The court also found that even though he had registered as a sex offender with the state in November, he failed to re-register, as required, in February. Because he was already on probation for the drug charge, Matamoros was sent to jail. Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has been monitoring residential restrictions for sex offenders, said the organization may get involved in Matamoros' case. George Griffin, chairman of the group's Volusia/Flagler chapter, said he visited the Matamoros family last week. "We are just looking into it to see what the status is and verify some of the information ourselves," Griffin said. Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida ACLU, said Deltona's ordinance -- and many others like it in Florida -- is flawed because it ostracizes all sex offenders, even if they pose no threat to the public. "It's more about exploiting the fear of the community than protecting the community," Simon said. The National Association to Protect Children, which campaigns for protection against child predators, doesn't buy Matamoros' story. The agency's executive director, Grier Weeks, said some sex offenders offer that same explanation -- that they were just relieving themselves. "Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story." Matamoros isn't sure where he is going to move. He said it is unfair he has to leave while others who have been convicted of more serious crimes can stay because they were grandfathered in.
More than 100 sex offenders and four sexual predators reside in Deltona, according to a state database. Those living in the city before the new ordinance was passed are affected only if they move to a new place in the city that is too close to where youngsters gather. Protecting the public Most of the other 12 men Deltona plans to force from their homes have been convicted of crimes against children. Matamoros' wife, Laurie, said the situation has been humiliating. People think the worst of him, she said, because he is lumped in with all sorts of sex offenders. "My husband is a very private person anyway," she said. "For this to be out there this way and people to see him like that, it just tears him up." Deltona Mayor Dennis Mulder, said he initially worried the new residency rule would hurt people who had not abused children. He agreed that many people, especially men, sometimes urinate outdoors, but they usually try to conceal themselves.
But Mulder said he isn't bothered by Matamoros' problem. "Sometimes, although the law can feel unfair and can paint a broad brush," he said, "it's still there to protect the public, and that's what we've done."
Denise-Marie Balona can be reached at dbalona@orlandosentinel.com or 386-851-7916. Rebecca Mahoney can be reached at 386-851-7914 or rmahoney@orlandosentinel.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)















