Thursday, April 23, 2009

NE - Registered Sex Offender Assaulted

View the article here
More Vigilantism Here

Keep it up folks, you will help bring down the online registry and notifications, which is how it should be in the first place.

04/23/2009

By Jason Volentine

Lincoln police say a Level 3 registered sex offender was assaulted and his life threatened after neighbors found out he was living in the area.

Police Chief Tom Casady said this is the first case of an offender being assaulted in Lincoln he can ever remember.

Officer Katie Flood said the incident happened Tuesday just before 9:00 pm in the 3100 block of Dudley.

Flood said Steven Ouillette and Benjamin Huber found out _____, a Level 3 registered sex offender convicted in 1998 for an incident involving an 11-year-old girl, was living in their neighborhood.

Flood said Ouillette and Huber were angry with the situation and according to court documents the two men stood across the street for 1 to 2 hours yelling at him, calling him a child molester.

Court documents state Huber and Ouillette then crossed the street and tried to pick a fight with _____. Flood said Ouillette even said he was going to kill him and to stay away from his kids.

Flood said Ouillette then picked up a shovel and came at _____, who picked up a fire poker from his grill to defend himself.

Flood said _____ hit Ouillette on the arm and Ouillette swung the shovel several times at _____.

Flood said witnesses called police and officers arrived before anyone was seriously hurt.

Ouillette was arrested and was charged Wednesday with assault, disturbing the peace and trespassing. He entered a plea of not guilty and has a trial date set for May 26.

Huber was taken to detox and cited for disturbing the peace and trespassing.

However, Ouillette said the police got it wrong. He said he never made threats and only picked up the shovel to get it away from _____. He also said a cut on his finger and a deep bruise on his back are from when _____ hit him with a fire poker.

"I feel that nobody should be defending this guy. I mean, I might have been in the wrong a little bit calling him out like that, calling him a child molester, but he's a big guy. He's a really big guy. I'm 200 lbs. He had to grab two weapons to attack me with. I got to jail," said Ouillette.

Ouillette also says the other man cited, Benjamin Huber, was only trying to break up the fight and wasn't actually involved in the altercation.

_____ was at a neighbor's home Thursday afternoon, but was still upset about the situation and didn't want to discuss it. He said he doesn't understand why his past crime is being brought up when he's the victim in this case.

Flood said she hopes the fact that people were taken into custody will help diffuse the situation and deter other people from making similar attacks.

Chief Casady said there have been other incidents were registered sex offenders were harassed, but this is the first time to his knowledge that someone attacked an offender.

Two Videos - Click play to play both videos!


OH - Sex Offenders Must Pay To Register In Butler Co.

View the article here

Tell me, what other criminal has to pay a fee one to four times a year to be on a list they do not want to be on in the first place?  Usually when one pays a fee, it's something you wanted.

04/23/2009

New Policy Allowed Under Ohio Law, Sheriff Says

HAMILTON - Sex offenders will be required to pay each time they appear for their court-ordered registration, under a new Butler County policy.

Sheriff Richard Jones said that convicted sex offenders will be billed $25 for their initial registration, each time they register a new address with the court, or verify their current address.
- And people say crime doesn't pay.  It depends on how you look at it!

The policy, which goes into effect June 1, is allowed under Ohio law, Jones said, as long as offenders are not billed more than $25 per registration or $100 per year.

Convicted sex offenders who can show proof that their income falls beneath the federal poverty level may be granted a waiver, the sheriff said.

Fees collected under the new policy will be used to help offset the county's expenses for registration and notification of sex offenders, Jones said.


OH - Local sex offenders face tougher reporting rules

View the article here

04/23/2009

By Brad Bauer

About half of Washington County's 111 registered sex offenders are waiting on the state's Supreme Court to decide if tougher reporting requirements enacted last year will stand.

Washington County Public Defender Ray Smith said 50 to 60 local sex offenders challenged the 2008 law, which required all sex offenders to be reclassified under a new three-tier system.

That system mandates longer reporting times and increased community notifications for many offenders once considered low-level. Three local individuals set to fall off the registry this year are now subject to five additional years of reporting because of the change.
- And this is additional punishment, and the constitution strictly forbids ex post facto (after the fact) punishment, yet they continue to pass, or attempt to pass, unconstitutional laws!

"Judge (Susan) Boyer and (Ed) Lane both denied our motions that this should not apply to anyone convicted and sentenced prior to when this went into effect," Smith said. "The 4th District Court of Appeals also denied our motion. It's now up to the Supreme Court to decide if this is constitutional or not."

"I can't see how it can be constitutional. How can you change the rules in the middle of the game?" Smith said.

With the exception of those who have moved away, every person who was ever registered as a sex offender in Washington County remains on the sheriff's registry.

Prior to the change, Washington County had 20 sexual predators, the most serious offenders under the old system. There are now 42 individuals labeled in the "most serious" tier III category.

Smith said the new system lumps many low-level offenders in with the most serious offenders. The new law would require individuals who had previous reporting requirements for 10 years to report for life.

Under the old law, judges held special hearings and determined the level of restrictions for offenders on an individual basis. Restrictions are now mandated and based on the type of offense.

The Washington County Sheriff's Office is responsible for keeping tabs on all sex offenders who live, work or attend school in the county. It has become a full-time job for Deputy Patrice Tornes.

"It became full time last year when the new law went into effect," she said. "I began to notice it was taking more and more of each day."

Tornes said each day begins by mailing notices to offenders who are due for a required "in-person" visit to the sheriff's office to confirm or update information.

"I'll have five to seven (offenders) popping in on a daily basis," Tornes said. "Anytime there is an address change, e-mail address registered, job change or a vehicle registered to them or made available to them, we are required to know about it."

When upper-tier offenders move, it requires notifications to be mailed to anyone living within 1,250 feet.

"That's when we get the most calls and questions," Tornes said. "Depending on where they move, you're talking about anywhere from 100 homes to 30 homes."

Tornes said she does her best to answer calls from concerned residents.

"They want to know if (the offender) is allowed to live here, allowed to go to PTA meetings, allowed to have kids in 4-H or soccer," she said. "I got one call from a person who wanted to know why (an offender) was allowed to have kids."

Tornes said most people want to know what the offender did to be put on the registry.

"I don't give any information about the victim, but I tell them what I can about the crime," she said. "Unless these people have some kind of parole restrictions, they're pretty much allowed to carry on normal lives as long as they keep up with their reporting requirements."

Tornes said sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, but can pick up their child at a school or attend a game there.

Smith said there is no time line on when the Supreme Court could make a decision in the case.

At this time last year there were 90 sex offenders in the county.


GA - Court Overturns Ban on Sex Offenders working in churches


LA - 10-year-old child arrested on rape charge

View the article here

04/23/2009

BATON ROUGE (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy has been arrested on an aggravated rape charge after a reported sexual attack on a six-year-old boy.

Police say the suspect threatened the six-year-old boy with a pocketknife and said if he didn't give him oral sex, he would kill him. The ten-year-old boy has been placed in the East Baton Rouge Juvenile Detention Center.

Because both of the children involved are juveniles, police are not releasing any more details in this case. It is known the alleged attack happened at a home in the Scotlandville area.

The alleged incident has parents in the Southern Heights subdivision on edge. Emotions are running high as they are simply wondering how this could have happened. With neighborhood watch signs posted throughout the subdivision, some people say they feel as if there's always someone watching.

Sitting in his living room, John Knighten, president of the Southern Heights Property Owners Association, said there's a phrase he likes to share with others. "Be nosey neighbors," he said. The self-proclaimed "old timer" has lived in the neighborhood for nearly four decades. He said he keeps a close eye on the streets and an open ear to what's going on, but this is probably the most shocking incident he has come across.

Knighten says the whole ordeal has left many parents nervous. "They are very concerned because something like this could happen to one of theirs." Many questions have popped up since hearing about what is being described as a horrific crime. "How could this happen? Why did this happen? Where were the adults?" Knighten asks.


GA - Never strip search

View the article here

04/23/2009

By Kaffie Sledge

We don’t appear to be as serious about sex offenders as we like to claim we are. If we were, we’d find a way to outlaw strip searching in schools.

Regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court justices find regarding the Arizona case in which a 13-year-old girl suspected of drug possession was strip-searched, I am opposed to teachers and school administrators strip-searching students.

Teachers are trained to teach. If they suspect a certain student of drug possession or some other unlawful act, law enforcement should be called.

If all parties are doing what they have been trained to do, lines are less likely to become blurred.

There can be a seamless move from keeping the school safe for students to the Gestapo behavior of a frustrated teacher determined not to be outdone by some smart-aleck student. And lurking in there perhaps more often than we’d like to think is the teacher or administrator who has personal reasons for wanting to witness or participate in the strip searching of a child or adolescent.

A multitude of sins are committed against students by those who tell us they are trying to protect the students.

In 2002, an assistant principal at a San Diego, Calif., high school lifted girls’ skirts — in front of male students and other adults — to see whether they were wearing thong panties to a dance. (Ultimately demoted) Thong wearers were denied entry and told to go home and change, news services reported.

The assistant principal said she was concerned the combination of revealing clothing and suggestive dancing could lead to sexual assaults.

As it turned out, the assistant principal assaulted many of the girls before the boys had the chance.

Then there was the alleged strip-search of some of a class of seventh-graders at Russell County Middle School in 2004, when a teacher said about $12 was missing from her makeup bag.

The principal, assistant principal and a counselor allegedly took it upon themselves to conduct strip searches after the money was not found during searches of students’ pockets and purses. The students sued and reached a settlement in which the school system and the other plaintiffs denied the allegations, but agreed to pay $190,000.

The suit claims that the students were taken to the restrooms, where the searches took place. A female administrator accompanied the girls while the school’s principal accompanied the boys. In the restrooms, the students were asked to remove their shirts and drop their pants, according to the lawsuit. In some cases, they were told to move their underwear so that they were partially exposed, the suit states.

That would be a dehumanizing experiences. Stripping down to underwear; removing underwear or moving it to the side to reveal private body parts is inexcusable and should be unlawful — at least under the circumstances that seem to make the headlines.

It is never open season on students who have broken the law or are in violation of some school code.


IA - Missing: Courage, debate on sex-offender legislation

View the article here

It seems this reporter thinks sex offender and pedophile mean the same thing.  I've inserted "sex offenders" where it should be!

04/23/2009

The Iowa Legislature appears to be headed in the right direction on legislation that could make children safer from pedophiles (sex offenders). There are just two problems: Legislators may continue to be too weak-kneed to do the right thing, and the public has been virtually excluded from the discussion.

Lawmakers have a golden opportunity this session to repeal a state law that at the very least does nothing to protect children from pedophiles (sex offenders) and arguably makes the public less safe. But instead of having an open debate with a proposal on the table, key legislators have worked on a bill behind closed doors.

This is no way to bring the public along on a controversial issue of great importance. Iowans deserve to have an open discussion and to be trusted with the details. If there isn't time to do it right this session, then put it off for a year.
- Put it off for a year?  You are playing with people's lives.  The law needs to be repealed ASAP and fixed, so they can get on with their lives.

This effort began with a mandate from Congress that Iowa bring state law into conformance with a federal sex-offender statute, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Iowa legislative leaders saw this as an opportunity to amend the state's residency rule that prevents convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and other facilities that serve large numbers of children.

State and local law-enforcement officials and prosecutors, and even victim-advocacy groups, have repeatedly told legislators that the residency restriction does not prevent convicted pedophiles (sex offenders) from hanging around those facilities. And it so limits legal housing options that many offenders simply disappear from the radar screens of local law enforcement.

Yet political "leaders" are terrified that, in the process of rewriting the law in an effort to make children safer, they will be accused of being soft on crime.

Iowa has squandered enormous amounts of time and resources keeping track of sex offenders while political gridlock in the Statehouse prevented the state from taking steps that might really protect children from actual pedophiles (sex offenders). After all, sexual assaults are far more likely from a trusted family member or friend than a stranger lurking on a playground.

The first step must be to eliminate - not just modify - the 2,000-foot residency rule, and replace it with truly effective restrictions on convicted sex offenders.