Friday, April 10, 2009
By Kevin Krause - Reporter
Dallas County's juvenile department is seeing an alarming crime trend among young girls.
The number of misdemeanors committed last year by girls was up 73 percent since 1995. Assaults, for example, were up 47 percent. Disorderly conduct cases more than doubled.
Surprisingly, boys are becoming better behaved. Criminal cases filed against them during the same period were down in just about every category, according to juvenile department stats.
While girls are committing fewer felonies overall, the number of sexual assaults is creeping upward. The numbers, however, are not very big. Five girls entered the juvenile system in 2000 for sex offenses. That number peaked in 2006 at 11. It was down to six last year.
Still, the county is currently in need of a sex offender treatment program for girls.
The county had contracted with Totally Fit Ministries Inc. out of Harris County this fiscal year for residential sex offender treatment for girls. But the county suspended the contract in February after the state began investigating abuse allegations at the facility.
The juvenile department has therefore recommended that county commissioners hire 4M Youth Services Inc., out of Milam County, to provide this service for girls.
No action has yet been taken.
Sounds like some other folks we all know about!
By Mike Levine
Sexual predators who victimize children on the Internet are now becoming targets of a different kind of online predator – and law enforcement officials are hunting them all down.
In the past five years, federal authorities have arrested more than 11,000 "online predators," at least in part as a result of officers posing as minors on the Internet to attract would-be pedophiles. But the FBI is increasingly seeing cases of computer-savvy scammers posing as minors online to steal financial information or extort money from those would-be pedophiles.
- Does thing bring someone you know, to mind?
The FBI is currently investigating a man and woman in Miamisburg, Ohio, who allegedly engaged seven men, including a middle school teacher in New York, in sexually explicit conversations on the Internet and then "tricked" them into divulging personal information and financial records, according to court documents obtained by Fox News.
The man and woman also allegedly tried to extort money from some of the men by threatening to reveal the men's sexually explicit conversations online, according to the court documents.
"This is definitely not the first of its kind," one FBI official said. There have been "several instances where the same activity was done to blackmail would-be offenders into sending money to the perpetrators," he said.
In the Ohio case, the couple under investigation engaged "a large number" of men last year in sexually explicit conversations over the Yahoo! instant messaging service, according to court documents. The couple allegedly sent images of female models to the men, who believed they were talking to the girls in the photos. But the couple also sent files to the men that, once opened and executed, gave "full and unauthorized access to [their] computer system," according to court documents.
- And that is a MAJOR felony! So I hope they spend a very long time in prison!
"The subjects had gained access to the usernames and passwords to various Web sites accessed by the target males, including eBay, PayPal, and Deutsche Bank," court documents said. "The PayPal and eBay Web sites can store information about a user's bank accounts and credit cards. By gaining access to users' PayPal and eBay usernames and passwords, a subject could access and transfer funds from users' bank accounts and credit cards."
A Latin teacher at Edward Town Middle School in Sanborn, N.Y. was allegedly one of the couple's victims. The teacher had engaged in a sexually explicit conversation with someone he thought was a minor, but he was actually talking to what court documents called an "intruder."
"The intruder threatened to send a video detailing the conversations to ... Edward Town Middle School if [the teacher] failed to comply with the subject's demands," court documents said.
Shortly after the teacher told the "intruder" he did not have "sufficient resources" to comply with the demand, someone logged on to the school's internal system — using the teacher's username and password — and posted a link to the teacher's sexually explicit conversation.
The FBI has interviewed the teacher, but no federal charges have been filed against him, according to a search of court records.
In February, FBI agents raided the couple's home, after tracking the "intruder" to the home. Fox News has decided not to name the couple. In executing a search warrant, they seized computers and "computer related equipment," according to court documents.
FBI agents returned to the home last week, taking with them a desktop computer system that had a large "cartoon girl's face" on the front of it.
Charges have yet to be filed against anyone in the home, but a law enforcement official said charges could be coming.
It's unclear whether a motive in the case would be to obtain money or to punish pedophiles. But Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman in Washington, said extortion cases often target people who are "particularly vulnerable."
"In a case like this, I suppose exposing someone for being [involved with] child pornography fits that bill," he said.
Asked whether he thought authorities should be easier on those who target pedophiles and other criminals, Bresson declined to comment, insisting, "Those are more prosecutorial decisions."
- No, they should be harder on them. If they suspect someone of wrong doing, they should contact police, not stoop to extortion. That is a crime, and they should be brought to justice!
FBI officials in Washington and in other parts of the country didn't know exactly how many such cases they've worked on involving pedophiles being targeted online, but one official said "several offices" across the country have investigated similar crimes.
In 2002 the FBI arrested three men in Kentucky for extorting money from men who visited a "fake" child-pornography Web site, according to an FBI official.
The men hacked into their victims' computers and demanded money, insisting that if they didn't comply authorities would be notified that they visited a child-pornography site.
Twenty-one people from across the country sent the men money, totaling nearly $8,000 in two months, according to an Associated Press report at the time.
Attorneys for the three men said their goal was to target child pornographers and punish them.
- And they are not the law either! What they did was illegal, and they should be made an example of, IMO!
Video is available at the site.
By Jane Flasch
Greece - A former police officer accused of accepting sexual favors as a bribe has admitted to investigators he did have sex with the woman. Despite that admission, Gary Pignato still denies the criminal charges.
His statement to state police raises new questions.
Gary Pignato was interviewed twice on September 11, two weeks after the alleged incident.
Pignato states in documents obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle under the Freedom of Information Act, that they "drank a couple of beers, shot some pool, then had sex more than once"-- at his house.
The sexual encounter is at the center of the criminal charges which allege Pignato arranged for the sexual bribe while responding to a domestic call at the woman's home August 24.
The woman says she was coerced into sex; that Pignato threatened to report her for a violation of probation unless she agreed to meet him later that night. He says he went back to the police station, changed clothes and went to pick her up at the Mini Mart on McCall Road.
Pignato denies there was an agreement that she would be spared a police report and possible violation of probation arrest--however, an incident report was never filed that night.
Pignato said the woman was flirting with him...and asked if he would meet her later that night. He said the sex was consensual. He claims he never knew the woman was on probation when he responded to the original police call at her home.
But he refused to sign a written statement or take a polygraph.
The recorded call was made two weeks after the incident. By that time the woman had already filed a complaint with Greece Police, who turned the case over to state police. The question is whether Pignato was aware he was under investigation, and whether this call reflects that.
"You asked me what time I got done with work," Pignato says.
"I don't think so...you know better," woman says.
Pignato: "You're making it sound like I enticed you, or encouraged you or something, to do it.”
Woman: "Well you did."
Pignato: "Okay this conversation's over, bye."
Pignato is set to go to trial June 1. He is currently suspended from the Greece Police Department.
View the article here
By Pierce Harlan, Esq.
Sexual assault advocates in the United Kingdom are constantly lobbying for changes in the law to jack up the UK’s purportedly low conviction rate for rape. They invariably refuse even to entertain the possibility that the low rate is, in part, attributable to the fact that false rape claims are a significant problem. We have previously chronicled the prevalence of false rape claims on this website.
Sexual assault advocates also refuse to discuss a dirty little secret: some women in the UK likely lie about rape because they have a financial interest to do so. The UK compensates victims of non-forcible rape and even inappropriate touching over clothing. Consistent with the double standards so prevalent in this area, the UK does not compensate men who were falsely accused of rape, no matter how terrible their victimization.
As shown below, the UK’s compensation scheme is a microcosm of the modern day false rape problem: the government sticks its head in the sand and refuses even to acknowledge that the scheme it created provides an incentive for women to lie about rape. Moreover, that compensation scheme tells men falsely accused of rape that their injuries, no matter how great, are not as important as the injuries suffered by rape victims, no matter how slight.
The Compensation Scheme
The United Kingdom’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), funded by the Ministry of Justice, pays victims of “violent crimes” according to an established scheme of tariffs. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) sets forth the standard amounts paid for each category of crime. The Scheme is found here.
A payment will be made if the alleged violent crime was more likely than not to have occurred. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) ¶20) There is no necessity to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for conviction in UK criminal courts.
Who is Covered?
While the Compensation Scheme is designed to cover crimes of violence, an exception is made for non-forcible rape and other sexual crimes not involving violence. Payments are made for mental injury, including “temporary mental anxiety,” suffered by non-consenting victims of sexual offenses. (Criminal Injuries Compensation (2008) ¶9.)
Under the compensation scheme, non-consensual penile penetration warrants UK £11,000. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) Page 34.) Greater sums are allotted depending on the severity of the injury inflicted. A non-penetrative sexual physical act “over the clothing” warrants UK £1000. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) Page 34.) This, presumably, includes a single instance of inappropriate touching.
Who is Not Covered?
Victims of false rape claims are not covered. To verify this, I wrote to the CICA and asked if a false rape claim would be covered, noting that such claims often have the effect of mentally (not to mention financially) destroying the falsely accused. I received a prompt and professional response that included the following: “Under the terms of our scheme unfortunately this would not be covered. Under the terms of our scheme for eligibility, applicants need to be the victim of a violent crime.”
It is important to underscore the double-standard here: the victim of a single instance of a sexual act over the clothing is entitled to compensation, but a man falsely accused of rape who is arrested and jailed for weeks, months or even years, and who is subjected to untold mental agonies, the loss of his good name, and all manner of other indignities, is entitled to nothing. The victimization of men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their injuries, is regarded as less worthy of society’s protection than the victimization of non-forcible rape victims, no matter how slight their injuries. The grave inequity of this double-standard is morally grotesque.
Also not covered are the vast majority of boys who are statutorily raped by adult women. This is because victims of sexual offenses are not covered if they “consented in fact.” (Criminal Injuries Compensation (2008) ¶9(c).) This effectively rules out virtually all claims involving the statutory rape of a teen boy by an adult woman because the boy is typically a willing participant. The fact that the law has determined that boys are incapable of giving valid consent to engage in sexual acts with an adult is of no import to the CICA.
The Compensation Scheme Exacerbates the False Rape Epidemic
The premise of those who assert women don’t lie about rape is that women have no incentive to lie, and that the criminal ordeal a rape accuser is put through outweighs any possible benefit from lying.
This, of course, is not true, and the Compensation Scheme indisputably furnishes a monetary incentive to lie about rape. It is well to note two things: (1) the compensation paid for sexual offenses is scarcely insignificant; and (2) women lie about rape for far less rational reasons. In Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years, he found that 41 percent of all rape claims were not just false but actually recanted. Two of the three principal motivations for false claims identified by Kanin are the following: women lie to obtain attention/sympathy, and for revenge.
If significant numbers of women are willing to lie about rape simply to get attention or revenge, is it not all the more plausible that some women will lie for the more rational reason of obtaining a significant sum of money? The question scarcely survives its statement.
The problem of fraud in the Compensation Scheme in general has been evident for years. In 2001, the chief executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board blamed the growth in false criminal claims in general on a compensation culture. A CICA report published that year highlighted rampant fraud in the compensation system:
“Among the [fraudulent] cases is that of a woman who has been asked to repay £7,500 after falsely claiming she was raped by a tramp. Last year, a court found that Natalie Knighting, a 21-year-old with three children, had made up the story. She was jailed for six months.
“Ms Knighting had won compensation from the CICA for the second time. She had been awarded the same amount of compensation for sexual assault as a child. So far, the authority has been unable to recover any money from her.”
The government denies that the Compensation Scheme breeds false rape claims even though the CICA itself has acknowledged general rampant fraud as a result of this compensation culture, and even though significant numbers of women already lie about rape for far less rational reasons.
In a 2007 debate in the House of Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours questioned the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on this subject:
“My Lords, is it possible that one reason for high rates of false allegations and low rates of conviction for rape is that a minority—I stress that—of women make false allegations in order to win compensation which, in the case of rape, is £11,000? Why do we not move to the German system, where the state does not pay and where compensation follows civil action, as against the state paying? Surely the trauma of rape requires not state-funded windfalls but counselling services that really help victims.”
The Under-Secretary rejected the question out of hand:
“My Lords, a victim of rape should get both compensation and counselling and support. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As the noble Lord will know, it is very important that we make sure that where convictions are made, people can get some kind of recompense for the trauma and injury that they may have received. As for the reasons why people make false allegations, I do not agree that one of the primary objectives is to get £11,000. There may be very serious reasons why people do that, which we need to consider.”
While suggesting that the government should at least consider the reasons for false rape allegations, the Under-Secretary stuck her head in the sand and flatly refused to entertain the notion that women would lie about rape for anything as crass as money. It would have to be a more “serious” reason than that.
If one wanted to do a study of the false rape problem in the UK, he or she could use the CICA’s Compensation Scheme as a microcosm: the government enables women to lie about rape and then wonders why the conviction rate for rape is so low; and the Compensation Scheme tells men falsely accused that they are just unfortunate collateral damage in the war on rape, less worthy of the government’s protection than their sisters who have been raped.
This should scare everyone. When they can just up and change the Constitution, at any time, just to get around something, then you can bet, they will use it more and more, until the entire document is nothing what it once was. If you read the US and state constitutions, you will see, it FORBIDS ex post facto (retroactive) laws from being passed! It doesn't say you can do it, for certain reasons, it FORBIDS it period. And it was done, to limit the power hungry government!
The Missouri State Senate has passed – with only one Nay – a State constitutional amendment to be presented to the voters in November.
The amendment wants to allow retroactive laws in the matter of sex offenders. Previously, retroactive laws for criminal offenses had been were forbidden by the State (and the US) constitution.
The US Constitution still forbids retroactive laws; you cannot be punished for breaking a law that was passed after your crime, nor can you be additionally punished by such a law. Congress and the Supreme Court have gotten around that little hurdle. Congress piously intones that its intent is not ‘punitive’ but simply regulatory, like keeping a national database of drivers licenses or accredited doctors, and also – anyway – it’s an ‘emergency’. The Supreme Court has so far managed to agree (the link here is to the case of Smith v. Doe), a feat achieved by refusing to take note of the world outside the doors of their hallowed hall and with a sly mulishness refusing to take official ‘notice’ of reputable studies – including those done by the Department of Justice – that indicate the ‘sex offender’ class of offense has almost without exception a lower recidivism rate than any other crime category.
After all, if the Court ‘noticed’ that the aggregate sum of all pains attached to the ‘sex offender’ classification adds up to something rather close to wearing a colored star on one’s clothing, or if the Court ‘noticed’ that there is not at all as great a danger to ‘public safety’ as has been asserted by various ‘advocates’, then the whole pyramid would collapse like a Ponzi scheme.
The Missouri Senate, alas, had a problem similar being the town nearest the first crack in a shoddy levee: the Missouri Supreme Court recently declared that the ‘sex offense’ schemes were indeed ‘punitive’, and therefore could not be applied retroactively (i.e., to persons whose convictions or pleas ante-dated the passage of the first Registration laws in the State). So if a very large chunk of the entire sex-offense scheme was breaking loose (and who knew if that might not start a flood of more careful looking at just how useful or just these laws were in the first place?).
You would think that a body of legislators, faced with a decision declaring one of their laws not only unconstitutional but in violation of one of the most important safeguards erected against tyranny (either by monarch or mob) … then they’d retire for some sustained contemplation, perhaps with at least a shred of sackcloth and a pinch of ashes. But no.
They immediately whomped up the above-mentioned proposed amendment to the State’s constitution. Henceforth, the Constitutional protections carved into stone in court-houses all over the State and the entire nation would apply to all citizens – except sex-offenders. Although who can be sure that even that limitation might not be overridden at some point? History shows that once governments have gotten the taste of that sort of blood …
I think this is a remarkably revealing bit of behavior, and that its revelation extends beyond Missouri to all of our assorted legislators and legislatures, State and Federal.
The bad news is that a body of legislators would pass a law that would be so profoundly liable to a finding of unconstitutionality to begin with. Do they even think about these laws before they pass them? Do they even care any longer?
The good news is that a State Supreme Court (and it’s not the first; Alaska’s Supreme Court was, although the US Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe slapped them down with a hash of the above-noted ‘reasoning’) decided that its responsibility to protect and preserve the State constitution overrode the mania to pretend to protect citizens (yes, even ‘the children’) by diluting the constitution. The Missouri Justices are to be commended.
The bad news is that a bunch of legislators at any level would allow themselves to get mired in such a lose-lose situation: nobody is really protected in the short-term, and through the dilution of constitutional integrity the entire common weal is endangered in the long run.
But this is a classic example of what has happened to American politics in the past forty years. Not even at the height of McCarthyism, when the Russkies had the Bomb and Mao had China and spies were thought to be everywhere – not even then was there a concerted push by legislators to officially and permanently dilute the Constitution. Hell, the whole idea was that the American way of politics and justice was so superior to Communism that the Americans didn’t need to resort to such rotten red tactics. Of course, that was before Bush, Cheney and their posse of darkness insisted that chasing terrorists was “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business” that required (the words spoken with a macho flourish) ‘getting our hands dirty’ and “walking on the dark side”.
But Bush, Cheney and the posse of darkness were preceded by several decades of ‘revolutionary emergency’, during which a Constitution put together by a posse of ‘dead white males’ was suddenly declared to be oppressing huge numbers of ‘victims’ and had to be ignored forthwith for the sake of ‘justice’ or ‘equality’ or whatever nice-sounding word this or that ‘advocacy’ cared to come up with.
And the Democrats were the ones who opened the door to such a vampiric assault, in their either witless or cynical desperation to win new ‘voting demographics’ to their side. It was Tip O’Neill who devised the strategy of abandoning the old New Deal ‘base’ of workers and families, pandering to the demands of the new ‘demographics’ without asking any questions while quietly collecting cash from the corporations through O’Neill’s invented PACs.
Figuring that they could play the same game, the Republicans got aboard in Reagan’s first administration, pandering to their own ‘base demographics’ while collecting cash from corporations.
They figured, maybe, that they could go on like this forever: letting this or that Identity’s ‘advocates’ tear whatever chunks they wanted out of law and social policy and even the Constitution, while raking in the PAC dough in exchange for gutting regulatory laws and – essentially – the New Deal’s supervisory structure.
But history, like battle, is not a one-variable affair, let alone a static game. Pandering to demands but seeking ‘cover’ for what they were doing, pols at all levels welcomed ‘pain’ stories: for whatever ‘demand’ they were about to give in to, the pols could point to a passel of well-drilled persons-in-pain just outside the door; how could you expect an upright legislator to ignore that pain? How could you expect an upright legislator to allow something as ‘abstract’ as ‘law’ or ‘principle’ to slow down the pols’ dashing ride to the rescue?
But after a while the pols became trapped by their own game: once they had permitted ‘pain’ to trump any other consideration, then whoever claimed ‘pain’ had them all by – you should pardon the expression – the short hairs.
And if those ‘in pain’ demanded that constitutional protections be removed from those who were – or were at least perceived to be – causing the pain, then any pol who said Whoa was risking a gaggle of ‘pained’ demonstrators out in front of the office, with TV cameras and mikes.
And so ‘pain’ came to trump law and jurisprudence and even the Constitution. (And when 9-11 ‘happened’, Bush, Cheney and the posse of darkness instantly declared themselves ready to deploy the military to alleviate the pain of loss and humiliation … and you know how the rest of it goes.)
Nor were the media – once known as ‘the free press’ – any help. Inveigled into ‘advocacy journalism’ back forty years before, they had completely debased themselves through selective ‘noticing’ and ‘reporting’ (for what else is ‘advocacy’ except a highly focused selectivity?). And having done it for the Democrats, then as the Republicans began to generate their own dynamics in response to the ‘demands’ of the ‘pain’ that their own bases felt, there was nothing the press and media could do except hide behind ‘balance’, simply stenographize whatever one or the other side put out and let the citizens make of the mess what they could.
Nor, for that matter, are the lawyers who for decades now have been indoctrinated in law schools to the filthy concept that ‘law’ cannot be neutral, but must be an ‘advocate’ for this or that group, and ruthlessly so – allowing no ‘quaint’ Constitutional principles to stand in the way. What else, I ask, was any Fascist or Communist judge but ‘not-neutral’, an ‘advocate’ for whatever the government felt was ‘good’ for the people?
But fortunately, We haven’t yet reached that point.
So Missouri. Its justices, its pols, its people.
The bad news might be that the state pols are actually so ‘committed’ to the ‘pain’ that they are going to actually start dismantling the most fundamental and historic constitutional principles and protections. I can’t say that it’s an impossible scenario – not anymore.
The good news, though, might be that they want ‘out’, but without having to be photographed or recorded saying No to ‘pain’. So they’re going to fob the problem off onto the People of the Great State of Missourah. If the voters approve the amendment, then it’s going to take a rip-snortin’ Supreme Court Justice to continue defending the ‘quaint’ Constitutional principles.
And if the voters turn it down, then the pols are off the hook and can piously bleat that they are simply following the popular will (so please go away from in front of the office and take the cameras and your posters with you).
But the voters of that Great State need to understand: this is not about ‘sex offenders’. What they are facing in November is the first (as far as I know) instance of the most basic Constitutional principles being abridged in the service of that ‘pain’ which has been the cat’s-paw of decades of domestic assault on the entire American political vision, on the American Experiment itself.
After decades of domestic ‘war’ – on this, on that – We have become used to living in a ‘state of emergency’ where ‘pain’ must be addressed immediately, and no ‘law’ can stand in the way. That was precisely the justification given by Lenin and Hitler in their ‘revolutions’ (although Hitler, more apposite in a way to Our present situation, saw that the best avenue of assault is to subvert democracy ‘legally’ and put your own people into the government and the courts – no decent German citizen could take heart from seeing uniformed Brownshirts ‘elected’ to the Reichstag, climbing those marble steps in a jackbooted gaggle to take up their seats and ‘vote’ the Republic away under the guise of ‘saving’ it from pain).
Clearly the Missouri pols don’t grasp the unique Gift to world history and to the world’s peoples that was the Founding Vision of the United States, duly erected into a plan of self-government in the Constitution. But then, not only do their ‘bases’ not have a grasp of that sterling illumination, but many of them – especially on the ideological feminist Left – are actually committed to denying that historical reality root and branch, and ‘reforming’ it; what ‘good’, after all, can come from patriarchy, males, and whiteness? Oy. Nobody – not ‘victims’, not ‘oppressors’, not men, not women, not children – will benefit from the loss of the Constitutional structure. We are headed down a fatal path.
States are facing a July deadline to track sex offenders under a misguided federal law that casts too wide a net and is too harsh toward juveniles.
The Adam Walsh Act - named for a 6-year-old boy abducted and murdered in 1981 - makes it a federal felony for a convicted sex offender to fail to reregister after moving to a new state. It also raises the penalties in many states for offenders who never registered.
The law approved by Congress in 2006 is an effort to monitor more effectively an estimated 100,000 sex offenders who are not living where they registered. Many states, including Pennsylvania, already have sex-offender registries modeled after New Jersey's first-in-the-nation "Megan's Law."
- I have never seen this study of the so called "100,000" sex offenders missing. Anyone have a link to the REAL study, and not just hearsay from some organization who say this without backing up the number?
But states are finding the new federal law too cumbersome and costly to comply with. Of the 20 or so states that have submitted plans to Washington, none has been deemed in full compliance. Many others have asked the Justice Department for an extension of one or two years.
States that don't comply with the law risk losing some of their federal crime-prevention grants. Some state officials say the loss of grant money would be far cheaper than the cost of meeting all the new requirements for tracking offenders. California estimates that implementing the new law would cost the state at least an extra $38 million.
- And this is nothing but bribery. It will cost MORE to enact the laws, than to not.
Pennsylvania is still reviewing its options, said Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Gov. Rendell. The state should ask for a delay, to give Congress more time to address numerous concerns with the legislation.
For example, the law requires juvenile sex offenders age 14 or older to be on the registry - possibly for life - with their identities publicized. This provision flies against state laws that generally protect the identities of minors charged with crimes. And it ignores the data showing that juveniles are less likely than adults to commit another sex crime later in life.
Advocates for victims say the law could deter families from coming forward to report abuse, for fear of stigmatizing a youthful offender well into adulthood.
The national law is an overly broad response to high-profile, but relatively rare, cases in which a sex offender is released from prison, relocates to a new state, and preys on another victim. The vast majority of child sexual abuse cases don't result from "stranger danger." More than 90 percent of child victims are harmed by people known to them, most often people in their family.
The new requirements also raise an issue of illegally punishing parolees retroactively. In some states, sex offenders were told they would need to register for 10 years upon their release from prison. Now, they find out they could be on a registry for life.
States should base the monitoring of offenders on an individual's particular circumstances, such as his likelihood to commit another offense or his amenability to treatment. The federal government shouldn't force states to lump the worst criminals into a broad pool for tracking with others who don't pose the same danger.