Friday, April 24, 2009
By Nick Zeigler
HAMILTON - A 41-year-old woman from Middletown was found guilty today, April 24, of prostituting her 11-year-old to a sex offender.
The woman pled no contest to three counts of complicity to rape. She was subsequently found guilty and is expected to be sentenced to 10 years to life in prison in June.
The woman, who isn't being identified to protect the identity of her daughter, will be designated a Tier III sex offender.
Investigators said in the summer of 2007, the woman took her daughter three times to the home of _____, 33. According to statements read in court, the mother allowed _____ to have sex with her daughter.
_____ pled guilty last month to three counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition for having sex with the 11-year-old, as well as another 9-year-old girl. He is expected to get 18 years in prison when he is sentenced next month.
_____ pled guilty in 2001 to attempted rape and gross sexual imposition involving a girl younger than 13.
In taped interviews with police, the woman gave no reason for her actions, saying she was abused as a girl and was ashamed for letting her daughter down.
By JIM VERTUNO
Texas House lawmakers on Friday voted to boost the compensation the state pays to people who were wrongly sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit, and give them health insurance and pay for a college education.
The bill approved 136-1 raises the lump sum payout from $50,000 to $80,000 for every year spent in prison. It also provides a monthly annuity based on the same amount to give them a lifetime of income.
The measure also provides the exonerees with health insurance similar to what is provided to state lawmakers and pays for up to 120 semester hours at a college or university.
The bill now goes to the Senate, which is considering similar legislation.
DNA testing has exonerated 38, the most in the nation, according to the Innocence Project. Overall, Texas has paid about $9 million to 46 people who were wrongly convicted.
"This gives me new belief in the justice system," said Charles Chatman, who was 20 when he was convicted of a rape he did not commit and spent the next 26 years in prison before his release in January 2008.
"I'm overwhelmed," he said.
Chatman and about a dozen exonerees and their family members watched from the gallery as the House passed the bill on a voice vote with no debate.
Wiley Fountain said the annuity, education and financial counseling would have greatly helped him when he was released in 2002.
Fountain collected $390,000 — minus federal taxes — after spending 15 years for a rape he did not commit. But he's now broke and living on the streets of Dallas, recycling aluminum cans for 35 cents a pound. Fountain, 52, said he had no idea how to handle his money and his freedom.
"You're not used to all that, and then all of a sudden you've got it. You help this person, you help that person, trying to be nice. Then it's all gone," Fountain said.
While Fountain has already collected his lump sum payment, he will be eligible for the annuity and other benefits in the bill.
Rep. Rafael Anchia, the Dallas Democrat who sponsored the bill, said exonerees get less help then adjusting to their new freedom than a typical parolee.
"These exonerees were pushed out the door, told 'Congratulations, we'll see you later," Anchia said. "This bill cannot make people whole. There's truly no amount of money that can make people whole."
The bill is named the "Tim Cole Act" in memory of a Fort Worth man who died in prison in 1999 while serving time for a rape he did not commit. DNA evidence later showed he was innocent and a state district judge formally exonerated Cole earlier this month.
"We're very happy for them," said Cole's brother, Cory Session. "We knew it couldn't do anything to help Tim, but we wanted it to do something for them."
The bill would allow Cole's family to collect a lump-sum payment because he died in prison. It also allows a lump sum payment equal to $25,000 for every year someone wrongfully convicted was required to register as a sex offender.
The bill does have some restrictions. If an exoneree takes the money, they give up their right to sue the state. And they will lose the money if they are convicted of another felony.
The wrongful conviction payments bill is HB-1736.
View the article here
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST
ALBANY — Retired city Detective Stanley Nadoraski Jr. was released without bond Friday on charges he accessed child pornography on the Web, but he will not testify Monday as originally scheduled before lawmakers investigating the city's parking ticket practices.
Nadoraski's testimony in front of the Common Council became an afterthought this week when the former officer, critically wounded in a shooting in 1999, was arrested Wednesday on federal charges that could send him to prison for a minimum of five years.
After Nadorski appeared briefly in U.S. District Court, his attorney, Michael McDermott, said the council testimony was not "in the cards right now."
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials allege Nadoraski's credit card information surfaced as part of a larger investigation into child pornography Web sites and that he later admitted to having hundreds of the illegal images on his home computer.
Federal Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece freed Nadoraski, 40, of Colonie, from jail with numerous conditions — including that he remain confined to his home, submit to a mental health evaluation and stay off the Internet unless he agrees to a court-sanctioned monitoring regimen.
- How many average citizens get this kind of special treatment?
Treece required that Nadoraski's brother, Michael, who is a detective, stay with him. The judge also allowed Nadoraski to see his son.
"I think he's relieved to be able to get back to his home and his family," McDermott said.
Nadoraski's arrest stunned the city because he had just regained the public eye last month when he accused police Chief James Tuffey of not telling the truth in his testimony before the council about the police union's role in helping to shield selected people from parking fines.
Dressed in blue jeans and a long-sleeved blue T-shirt, Nadoraski appeared sullen as he sat in court Friday.
Nadoraski retired on disability after surviving the November 1999 shooting on while trying to arrest a suspect on North Swan Street.
Detective Thomas Shea, wounded in the same shooting, attended his former partner's court appearance Friday as did Officer Christian Mesley, a police academy classmate of Nadoraski's and currently president of the Albany Police Officers Union. Mesley has also questioned Tuffey's testimony and is still scheduled to testify Monday night before the council.
I see that Canada is making the same mistakes the US is!
By Michael Friscolanti
A not-so-secret briefing note
When Christopher Stephenson was a young boy—before he was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered by a notorious pedophile—his father would often tuck him into bed with a classic fairy tale: The Emperor’s New Clothes. A well-known children’s book, it tells the story of a pompous but gullible monarch who mistakenly hires two swindlers to revamp his kingly wardrobe. The result? The con men convince the emperor that they have discovered a gorgeous—but invisible—new material, and then promptly parade him around town in his latest “clothes.”
In Ottawa yesterday, as Christopher’s dad testified in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, he used that fictional fable to illustrate a very real point. “Mr. Chair, committee members,” said Jim Stephenson, sitting beside his wife, Anna. “In its present form, the [national sex offender registry] has no clothes, either. It is dysfunctional, and fails to properly protect Canadians from becoming victims.”
Sadly, Jim Stephenson is hardly the first person to criticize the fairy tale state of our sex-offender registry. The database has been described as everything from “a national embarrassment” to something straight out of a “Monty Python skit,” and a series of Maclean’s investigations uncovered a horribly broken system crippled by weak legislation, archaic technology and an utter lack of political will. But for the first time since the database was launched in 2004—and more than two years after the law mandated a Parliamentary review—MPs are finally taking a close look at the litany of problems plaguing the registry.
For two days (four hours in all) the Public Safety Committee heard from a variety of expert witnesses, from bureaucrats to police officers to privacy advocates. There was news (in five years, the registry has not solved a single crime). There was honesty (some offenders are “falling through the cracks,” said a senior RCMP officer). And, of course, there was the inevitable politicking (Conservative ministers repeatedly lamented the fact that Jean Chrétien’s Liberals didn’t foresee all these obvious problems when they first introduced the registry). However, it was Brydie Bethell, representing the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, who summed it up best. “This is not an easy issue,” she said. “This issue strikes at the core of our hearts, as human beings and as parents.”
Peter Van Loan, the Public Safety Minister, assured reporters this week that Stephen Harper’s government is already “consulting” with stakeholders and considering amendments that would toughen up the registry. (Of course, his predecessor, Stockwell Day, said the exact same thing—and nothing happened). Adding to the endless consultations, the parliamentary committee must now prepare yet another report for the government, including a series of specific recommendations. Until then, here are five essential things that they must consider:
1) HOW WE GOT HERE
Christopher Stephenson was 11 years old when _____, a convicted child molester with a heinous criminal record, abducted the young boy from a Brampton, Ont., shopping mall on Father’s Day weekend, 1988. Fredericks kept Christopher alive for 36 hours and assaulted him repeatedly before slitting his throat and dumping his body. A coroner’s jury later concluded that if police had access to an electronic registry of known sex offenders living in the neighbourhood, detectives might have knocked on Fredericks’ door while the boy was still alive. As Jim Stephenson testified today: “There would have been a very definite, different outcome. You talk about time being of the essence in an investigation like that? Police were on the scene within about three minutes of Christopher’s abduction. They responded very quickly, but did not have much information to go on. They had no information on sex offenders who were living in the community.”
Ontario, under then-Premier Mike Harris, launched a provincial sex offender registry in April 2001 (eight years ago this week). It’s called Christopher’s Law, in honour of Jim and Anna’s son. Anyone in the province convicted of a sex offence is automatically added to the database, and among the “state-of-the-art” features is a geo-mapping function that can pinpoint the names and addresses of every registered rapist and pedophile who lives near a crime scene. Harris offered Ontario’s software to the Chrétien government free of charge, but for a long time, the feds weren’t interested. And when Ottawa—under increasing pressure from provincial governments—finally did decide to build a nationwide sex offender registry, they didn’t want Ontario’s help. Instead, the federal Liberals ordered the RCMP to build a completely new system from scratch. Many of the current shortcomings can be traced back to that single decision.
2) REGISTRATION IS OPTIONAL
More than 19,000 names appear on the national registry, but if the RCMP had its way, there would be thousands more. Unlike in Ontario, the legislation that created the national registry (The Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA) does not make inclusion mandatory. A prosecutor must ask a judge to order a convicted sex offender onto the database, and according to statistics collected by the Mounties, almost half of all eligible criminals are spared the hassle of telling police where they live. “In some provinces, applications are diligently made, while in others, orders are not being sought for a variety of reasons,” testified Insp. Pierre Nezan, the RCMP officer in charge of the registry. “Someone convicted of molesting a child in one province may be ordered to the registry, while in another, they may not. Given the difficulty in determining which sex offender will re-offend and which will not, this means that some of the recidivists are falling through the cracks.”
When they first drafted the law, the feds feared a Charter challenge. Months before the national system went live, _____, a sex offender in Ontario, convinced a lower court judge that Christopher’s Law is unconstitutional because it paints all offenders—from flashers to rapists—with the same brush. The Ontario Court of Appeal later disagreed, but as Doug Hoover, a federal justice official, told the committee on Tuesday, the Supreme Court could still weigh in on the issue. In other words, if the federal government moves toward automatic inclusion, it may want to wait until the country’s highest court rubber-stamps the practice.
3) FLIP THROUGH THE ROLODEX
Police have a hard enough time monitoring offenders who are ordered to comply. The computer system is so primitive, and so hampered by restrictive legislation, that it can’t even keep track of the most basic fact of all: When is Joe Offender scheduled to check in?
Everyone in the system must report to police once a year, if they leave home for more than two weeks, or if they change addresses. But the RCMP has no legal authority (or a line in the electronic database) to record a person’s next reporting date. RCMP detachments across the country are literally forced to use separate hard-copy systems—a Rolodex, for example, or an Excel spreadsheet—to monitor compliance.
The Ontario system, on the other hand, is one-stop-shopping. It provides up-to-the-second statistics, and as soon as an offender is overdue, the computer issues an automatic red flag. Kate Lines, a chief superintendent with the Ontario Provincial Police, testified in front of the community on Tuesday and made a point of showing off her registry’s technical muscle. “As of 8:15 this morning,” she said, “there are 11,963 offenders registered in the Ontario registry with 278 currently non-compliant and under investigation.” Translation: the Ontario compliance rate is precisely 96.84 per cent.
Insp. Nezan of the RCMP said the national compliance rate is similar (94 per cent, he said) but conceded to the committee that it took a few days to collect those stats. The computer system is simply incapable of keeping track, and as Nezan warned, it will “be increasingly more challenging” as the registry expands.
The database lacks other crucial “administrative fields,” Nezan told the committee. The computer can’t alert police when a federal offender is released from custody and supposed to register—and even if it could, the Correctional Service of Canada refuses to share that information. For reasons that defy common sense, federal prison officials continue to insist that they do not have the legal authority to tell registry staff when a dangerous offender is back on the streets.
The cops also can’t record an offender’s vehicle information, including a licence plate number—or the fact that he may be dead. “Because of the specificity of the Act, we can’t add a little box—to be quite frank—that says ‘deceased,’ ” Nezan explained. “So if an investigator calls us and is looking for a potential list of suspects or persons of interest, we may inadvertently provide him a list of people and one of them may be deceased. They are essentially chasing a ghost. They are chasing their tails.”
4) NO PROACTIVE USE
This can’t be stated enough: the purpose of the registry is to help detectives locate potential suspects living near a crime scene. Unlike in the United States—where sex offender registries are available online, and are meant to allow the public to find dangerous people living in their neighbourhooods—the Canadian version is for police use only. The content is off-limits to only a select few officers, and not a single witness who testified this week lobbied for a U.S.-style system that welcomes harassment and, in some cases, vigilantism. Three years ago this week, a New Brunswick man famously drove across the border to Maine and murdered two men whose names and addresses were posted on the state’s Internet sex offender registry.
What police forces do want, however, is the power to use the national registry in a proactive fashion. As the law stands now, the database can only be accessed to help solve a crime, not prevent one. During his testimony, Nezan offered a troubling example of the registry’s limited capabilities. “There was a man in an elementary schoolyard taking pictures of children,” he said, not disclosing the location. “The staff who worked there didn’t recognize him as a parent, staff, reporter, or otherwise so they were alarmed by his presence. When they tried to approach him and confront him, he fled. They called the police, the police called the National Sex Offender Registry, but we couldn’t access the database because there had not been a sexual crime that had occurred. Those are the types of proactive uses that we would like to see expanded upon.”
5) IS THE REGISTRY REALLY WORTH THE EFFORT?
This is the critical question, the one that hovers over every debate about the national sex offender registry. After weighing all the pros and cons about proactive use or the Charter rights of child pornographers, the government must decide: Is the database actually effective? Even if it were a well-oiled machine, is it doing society any good?
The goal, remember, is to pinpoint possible suspects, not keep 24-hour track of every known sex offender. But as Insp. Nezan admitted during his testimony, the national registry has not solved a single crime since it was launched four-and-a-half years ago. “We think the results will come,” he said, optimistically. “But we need some important modifications, and it just takes more time.”
Here is Nezan’s logic: as more and more names are added to the list (a process that would be bolstered by automatic inclusion) the odds of catching a repeat offender would naturally increase. Yet even in Ontario, where the provincial registry is eight years old and includes every convicted offender, the database has solved only one crime. One. “This is a significant intrusion of an individual’s privacy—an intrusion that can only be justified on the grounds that it produces a clear and demonstrable public safety benefit that cannot be achieved through less intrusive means,” said Carman Baggaley, a strategic policy advisor in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. “Assessing the effectiveness of the scheme is very important. If it’s not effective, then the privacy intrusion is for naught. Sacrificing someone’s privacy in the hope that this may protect society is a dangerous precedent.”
Baggaley urged the committee not to recommend any changes to the system until a formal, third-party evaluation is conducted “into the effectiveness of the legislation.” He pointed out, quite accurately, that a 2007 report by the Ontario Auditor-General concluded that “even though sex offender registries have existed for many years and can consume significant public resources, we found surprisingly little evidence that demonstrates their effectiveness in actually reducing sexual crimes or helping investigators solve them, and few attempts to demonstrate such effectiveness.” A recent evaluation of the New York state registry reached a similar conclusion.
- And isn't it ironic, that even though all these professional carry out all these studies, the legislature continue to ignore the facts.
Brydie Bethell, representing defence lawyers, testified that there are already legal measures in place to rein in the types of repeat, loathsome offenders who pose the highest threat. Police chiefs have the power to warn the public if an especially prolific sex offender is back on the streets. Canada also has dangerous offender legislation, which allows for indefinite jail terms (think Paul Bernardo) and if that doesn’t apply, prosecutors can apply for Section 810 peace bonds, which impose strict bail conditions on newly released prisoners. Lumping every convicted offender into the same registry—from, in Bethell’s words, “drunken office party kissers” to convicted pedophiles—is not only a potential waste of resources, but an unfair infringement on those who pose a very low risk of re-offending. “We are here to strike the appropriate balance, to step back and look dispassionately at what we have, what’s missing, what’s needed, and why we are doing this,” she said. “It is an issue that requires us to balance individual and collective rights.”
Registry critics also like to point out that the stereotypical sex offence—ie. the lurking stranger who tortured and murdered Christopher Stephenson—is an infinitely rare occurrence. The vast majority of victims are abused by people they know and trust (an uncle, for example, or a babysitter) and not by a man in a trench coat lurking in the bushes. In fact, most people on the national database (82 per cent, according to Nezan) are first-time offenders. There is nothing a registry could have done to spare their victims or solve the crime. The Ontario registry, for instance, didn’t help Holly Jones, the 10-year-old Toronto girl who was kidnapped and murdered near her home in May 2003. Her killer, _____, had an impeccable criminal record and wasn’t listed on the registry.
There is, however, another side to the tragic Holly Jones case. No, the registry didn’t catch her killer, but it eliminated dozens of possible suspects in those crucial few hours after she went missing. Armed with a list of convicted offenders living in the neighbourhood, police were able to knock on doors, cross off names, and redirect limited resources to other potential leads. And what if one of those offenders was the perpetrator? What if Holly Jones had been saved by a sex offender registry? Would anyone be bickering about privacy intrusions or statistical analyses? “If we spend one minute of our time on this, one dollar of our money, and it saves one child or one youth, one woman or one man from becoming a victim, it’s worth our time and our money,” said Robert Oliphant, a Liberal MP on the Public Safety Committee.
The stats, by the way, work both ways. Although researchers have never proven that registries reduce crime, a 2006 study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy did find that sex offenders convicted for failing to register have 50 per cent higher recidivism rates. In other words, there registration has its benefits: those who are ordered onto the database, and check in as required, are less likely to re-offend.
- So you see, they are being arrested on technicalities, which should NOT be included in determining recidivism, you should only count other sex crimes.
“It is true that offenders who are truly motivated to perpetrate crimes of violence will usually do so,” Nezan says. “It would be disingenuous on my part to suggest that the national sex offender registry would always or even consistently prevent sexual crimes. But there have been cases with other registries where this very thing has happened. While we do not view the sex offender registry as the panacea for solving sexual crime, it nevertheless has a role to play and can support our efforts in identifying and prosecuting sexual crime offenders. More importantly, crime prevention should always be one of law enforcement’s primary goals.”
Jim Stephenson, who since his son’s death has found the courage to meet and counsel many jailed sex offenders, puts it this way: “They appreciate the fact that the sex offender registry reminds the sex offenders that somebody is watching. If that isn’t preventative enough, I don’t know what else can be suggested.” Other than quoting another fairy tale.
Senate File 340 | House File 711
Notice this man used "sexual predator" first, then says "all sex offenders" afterwards, making it appear all sex offenders are predators. Just the usual grandstanding to make the sheeple happy and to "feel" safe, all the while, doing nothing to protect anybody or prevent crime!
On Thursday, April 23, the Iowa Senate voted unanimously to toughen Iowa's sex offender laws. Below is the opening statement by the bill's floor manager, State Senator Keith Kreiman of Bloomfield, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Today we will vote to make Iowa's fight against sex offenders smarter, tougher, and safer.
This legislation is strongly supported by Iowa prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and victims rights groups.
It increases supervision of violent offenders, keeps sex offenders from hanging around schools and other places where children gather, and improves the safety of our communities.
Sexually violent predators and all sex offenders are required to supply more information to the county sheriff. This includes passport information, internet usernames, and information about the vehicles the offender owns or uses. Parents, school officials and the general public will have increased access to this additional information.
- Why did you have to put "violent predators" there? The law affects all sex offenders, so you could've just said "All sex offenders are required!" But instead, you had to insert the "predator" part to make yourself look better and further demonize all sex offenders, and make it appear as if all are predators. Politics as usual!
We keep the two-thousand foot law for those who have committed the worst crimes against children. We also prevent them from working any job that involves contact with children or dependent adults.
- No, the 2000 foot rule, applies to ALL sex offenders, and not all have committed crimes against children! And that last part should say "we also prevent them from having ANY job and ANY home!"
This legislation recognizes that regulating where a sex offender spends their days is as important as tracking where they sleep. It creates exclusionary zones around every place where children gather. For example, any one who has committed an offense against a child:
- Again, these laws affect all sex offenders, not just those who've committed a crime against a child. Just read the text of the bill, and you will see I am right!
- Cannot loiter within 300 feet of an elementary or secondary school.
- Cannot be at an elementary school or daycare center without the administrators written permission.
- Cannot work or volunteer at any school or childcare facility.
- Cannot loiter within 300 feet of any place intended primarily for use by children, such as a playground or sports field.
In short, the legislation before us will improve the safety of Iowa children by making our fight against sex offenders smarter, tougher, and safer.
- No it won't. It's just to make yourselves look better in the sheeple's eyes.
Good news! Our courts are going after child pornographers with a vengeance, using technology like cell phones and social networking sites to locate and trap these heinous criminals and throw the book at them. The only glitch in this admirable fight for justice? The “scum” appear to be our own kids.
Youthful hormones and high-tech communication have dovetailed as of late, and “sexting” is the result — racy pics teens send each other via cell phone. Think this dangerous and vile behavior is part of an edgy subculture? A recent survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned pregnancy claims that 20 percent of our teens are involved in “sexting” activities. “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity,” Einstein once said, making me wonder if he saw this one coming.
I’m shocked by how widespread this activity has become and grateful to live in a community filled with adults who are “on it” in a big way, from academic and home life consequences to strict monitoring of teen behavior. Still, I’m more shocked by the way the law has swooped in, labeling young, impulsive teenagers child pornographers.
Really? That’s how we fix this? A boy in Texas is arrested on child pornography charges for simply having a racy photo on his phone. A 14-year-old New Jersey girl posts explicit pictures of herself on MySpace and could be forced to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.
Even Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, is appalled. “This shouldn’t fall under Megan’s Law in any way, shape or form” the mother of the raped and murdered Megan Kanka declared, understanding that the MySpace exhibitionist needs help, not an avalanche of legal restrictions that will ruin her life forever.
Legislators in Vermont are trying to stop the madness, creating a bill that would remove the most serious legal consequences for “sexting” kids, such as a lifetime on the state’s Internet sex offender registry. Unfortunately, Vermont’s governor is disinclined to support such a bill, feeling that decisions about these charges should be left up to prosecutors.
Either Gov. Douglas hasn’t been reading the same stories I have, or he thinks the best way to deal with tech-crazed, impulsive teens is to brand them child pornographers and sex offenders. Makes me kind of wonder if our legal system has exceeded our humanity…
Making young teens register as sex offenders is foolish, but decriminalization is not the solution — especially for those who pass along sexual images without consent. Let’s not ignore the most relevant question: is this new and exploding behavioral trend good, bad or neutral for those involved and the public at large?
Many must believe it is neutral, or even trivial, if they prefer no systematic consequences. But it is flat-out wrong and dangerous, often with life-impacting consequences for those involved. Especially for the female subjects who are left with their reputation in tatters and future in doubt, while the teen male traffickers get off scot free. As Vicki Courtney, author of “Five Conversations You Must Have With Your Daughter,” e-mailed me, “Girls are often convinced to do this for the guys to get their attention. Then in a break-up situation the guys often use it against them later. If you legalize sexting, the guys come out as the clear winners. The girls pay.”
- Oh come on, it's always the woman is good, the man is bad. Males send out nude photos to females as well. So this is not a female or male issue, it's both! Must be some feminist!
One of the main reasons teens do this is that they don’t think it is a big deal. And how will they ever recognize that it is, without systemic consequences? Most of these same kids would never steal a DVD from a store. They may be tempted to, but they know it is wrong and that they’ll be caught and punished. Being 15 years old and stupid is no excuse.
Passing along someone else’s sexual image is far worse than stealing – yet Andy wants to make being “young and impulsive’” a legal free pass.
By contrast, Kari Glemaker, national director for iCare, pointed out in a recent interview that, “If you shoplift as a minor, there is still a consequence, just not as big as for an adult. Similarly, my county is looking to define sexting as a misdemeanor, without jail time if there is no other criminal background, possibly with a fine or community service, as well as awareness classes. To say there should be no legal consequence until age 18 is ludicrous.”
Andy and other parents agree that sexting is a big deal, but that we shouldn’t treat it as such. I say if we don’t treat it as such then teenagers will never realize it is a big deal.
You will notice, in the second video, they said sex offenders who cannot afford it, will not be forced to pay it, and if they tried to force some insane fee like this on me, I'd not be paying it, they can take me to court!