Saturday, September 12, 2009

FL - Florida Man Wrongly Convicted Of Rape, Murder Freed After 26 Years In Prison

View the article here


Fort Lauderdale (AHN) – A Miramar, Florida man convicted of rape and murder in 1983 was released from the Broward County jail Thursday ending 26 years of wrongful imprisonment.

_____, 41, told reporters he was happy to be out of prison while exiting the prison together with his sister, brother and lawyer. However, he still has to wear a GPS monitor, obey an 11 p.m. curfew, undergo random drug test and report to a pretrial officer in accordance with a law on convicted sex offenders.

A judge ordered _____ released on Tuesday after the DNA found on the 58-year-old victim’s body did not match his DNA. Prosecutors agreed to his temporary release pending a reinvestigation of the case.

_____ was 15 when he was charged with raping and killing Ada Cox Jankowski. The victim’s body was found in the field of Miramar Elementary School.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

MI - Locking them up longer doesn't pay

View the article here
See Also


By Jeff Gerritt

Keeping people in prison longer has little or no impact on crime or the chances that offenders will go straight once released, a new report by the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending concluded. The report, “Denying Parole at First Eligibility,” at, should be required reading for politicians, pundits, policy makers and prosecutors, many of whom are exaggerating fears about increasing parole rates.

Michigan prisons hold nearly 50,000 inmates, which costs taxpayers $2 billion a year, more than the state spends on higher education. There are still more than 11,000 inmates in Michigan who have served their minimum sentence and are eligible for parole, costing taxpayers nearly $400 million a year. Practically all of them will eventually be released, even if they max out, or serve their maximum sentences.

The CAPPS study included information on more than 76,000 Michigan prisoners released between 1986 and 1999. They were tracked for four years to determine whether they returned to prison for a new crime or for a technical violation of parole conditions. The study also found that offenders convicted of homicide or sexual offenses — the people most likely to be denied parole — had the lowest recidivism rates, in keeping with national trends. Only 3% of sex offenders returned to prison for a new sex offense, for example. By contrast, recidivism rates were highest for those committing larceny, burglary and other money motivated crimes. Again, even for those who repeated crimes, it's not a question of whether to release them or not, but when: by law, practically all prisoners will get out eventually.

Nationwide, there is little, if any, correlation between crime and incarceration rates. My own view is that excessively high incarceration rates can actually increase crime by breaking down social and family networks, turning prison into a communty norm, and making people practically unemployable. The new CAPPS study should debunk another myth --- that locking up offenders longer than their sentences require effectively reduces crime or increases their chances of success. In some cases, longer incarceration probably pushes a person back to crime.

Michigan has one of the nation’s highest incarceration rates, mostly because it locks people up for longer stretches. That’s an expensive and ineffective policy that the state can no longer afford. “We must stop confusing the seriousness of a person’s past crime with the risk that he or she will commit a new one,’’ said Barbara Levine, executive director of CAPPS. Or, as Patricia Caruso, director of the Michigan Department of Corrections has said: we must stop confusing the people we’re mad at with those we’re afraid of.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say

View the article here


By Lynne Marek - The National Law Journal

Judges testifying before the U.S. Sentencing Commission in Chicago told the panel that sentences for people convicted of possessing child pornography have become too severe. The commission suggested it will review the relevant guidelines.

Chief Judge James Carr of the Northern District of Ohio and Chief Judge Gerald Rosen of the Eastern District of Michigan told the panel on Wednesday that sentencing for possession of child pornography, as opposed to manufacture or commercial distribution, may need to be changed. Many people convicted on the offense are not threats to the community, but rather socially awkward first-time offenders, they said.

"This is an area that requires the commission's close consideration and possible corrective action," Rosen told the panel, adding, "I know it's an awkward area for all of us."

In response, Commissioner Beryl Howell said that the issue "is on our priority list for the coming year." The commission will study what kinds of refinements might be made after reviewing the departures from the sentencing guidelines that judges have made in these cases, she said. Howell also noted that Congress has weighed in heavily in this area over the years.

The commission is holding a series of regional hearings in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act, which established the commission, to get feedback from judges, prosecutors, probation officers, public-interest lawyers, public defenders and others on federal sentencing practices. The Chicago hearing is the commission's fourth, after forums in Atlanta, Stanford, Calif., and New York. Additional hearings will take place in Denver next month; Austin, Texas, in November; and Phoenix in January.

Much of the discussion is centering on the impact of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which made the federal sentencing guidelines advisory as opposed to mandatory.

"I'm of the view that in many instances the sentences are simply too long," Carr said, referring specifically to the guidelines for child pornography possession, gun possession and drug possession.

Rosen emphasized that he doesn't condone possession of child pornography or understand it, but focused on the unfairness of treating one person sitting in his basement receiving videos over the Internet the same as a commercial purveyor of child pornography. In some cases, a person who has watched one video gets a maximum sentence that may be higher than someone sentenced for raping a child repeatedly over many years, he said. The average sentence for possession of child pornography in his district more than doubled, from about 50 months to 109 months, between 2002 and 2007, he said.

Factors that the judges must take into consideration in these cases, such as using a computer or engaging in file-sharing over the Internet, are inappropriately ratcheting up sentences, Rosen said. He suggested that the commission might want to take into account the volume of material in a case while making allowances for technology that may dramatically increase that volume.

7th Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, who testified with a separate group of appellate judges, agreed that the child pornography possession area might be ripe for review. He said it gives him pause when he sifts through a stack of sentences that includes a bank robber getting a 10-month sentence and a person convicted of downloading child pornography receiving a 480-month sentence.

"One wonders if we aren't facing some unreasonable and unjustifiable disparities," Easterbrook told the panel.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who oversees the Northern District of Illinois, will testify tomorrow that there "seems to be a striking dissonance" between judges and prosecutors in sentencing for child pornography and exploitation cases, according to his prepared remarks.

"Without taking an advocate's view on why it is so, it is plain as day there is a deep disconnect," he said in the remarks, which were distributed early by the sentencing panel. "I respectfully suggest that this is an area of sentencing that warrants further study and further education of all involved."

The Booker decision has "aggravated the situation concerning child pornography," Fitzgerald said in his prepared remarks. While mandatory minimum sentences in that area "are certainly strict," prosecutors may be reluctant to seek lower sentences when they expect, based on past experience, that judges will reduce whatever sentences they recommend, he said.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

FL - Police warn residents of felons living nearby

View the article here

You see, sex offenders was only the beginning, now more will follow. I think if they must alert of sex offenders, then it's about time they did it for all other felons as well. Now people will see what it's like to have the mob come after them, harass them, and who knows what else. But, I hope they do not discriminate, and they do this for ALL offenders, even ex-politicians in DUI or other crimes, as well as police, and all others. But, I'm sure they will pick and chose only certain people, which is wrong, IMO. They should do this for all felons. And think of the amount of money they are spending on ordering the paper, ink, and printing these flyers out? All at your expense! But, we reap what we sow!


TAMPA - Cops checking on sex predators is routine now-a-days, in fact, putting out their faces and names and addresses online and elsewhere is actually required by law.

But now we've learned, Hillsborough deputies are moving beyond sex offenders; they're going out telling folks they've got a felon for neighbors.

Here's what two detectives were telling folks in Pinehurst this morning.

"This is a known offender who lives in your neighborhood, we just wanted to provide you with that, so you kinda know what's going on," they said.

21-year-old convicted felon _____'s mug shot is the first to go door to door. Says Sargeant Brett Sauders of HCSO,

"If you see him out and about, you might just pay a bit more attention to him than you did the day before now that we've made you aware of his past," said Sergeant Brett Sauders of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.

_____'s family told them he was out looking for a job. They called the flyer harassment, but we couldn't find a neighbor who didn't want one.
- Funny how they scream and should for sex offender flyers, now it's all of a sudden harassment!  Well, you reap what you sow!

"I think its a very good thing, very good. Its nice to see that they're making moves to get bad people off the streets," said Jacquelyn Walker.

Yet this brand new tactic of taking crime to the neighbors, warning them about offenders in the neighborhood, doesn't sit well with the American Civil Liberties Union (Contact).

ACLU Florida Board member Mike Pheneger says while the practice is legal, there is a risk.

"This basically invites these people to go and hunt this guy down", Pheneger says, "and who knows what's likely to happen after that?"

"We're not putting their address on the bulletin, and we're certainly not trying to create that, all we're looking for is to put the information out, to create the awareness," Sgt. Saunders said.
- Yeah right, you are doing it to scare people.  Why not put their addresses on there?

Another neighbor who got the flyer, Alba Martinez, says it makes her feel safer. She says they had a motorcycle stolen recently.

Deputies say they'll be moving to other neighborhoods soon, going out door to door once a month.

Video Link

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

MD - Accuser recants, but stigma of rape charges remains

View the article here

And once again, the news article splashes his face on the article, and not the lady who falsely accused him of something he did not do.  Why?  This just shows you, if you tick someone off, all it takes is allegations to ruin your life!


By Kate Leckie

_____ is a mason by trade.

Until nine months ago, his only brush with the law was for a pair of hunting infractions, including failure to wear a fluorescent orange vest.

_____'s life took a nightmarish turn Jan. 3, when his former fiancée told police he'd raped her.

Driving down Bethel Road, _____ found himself surrounded by 12 to 15 police cars at the intersection of Fox Road.
- Wow, a little over kill don't you think?

He later learned his accuser told deputies to consider him armed and dangerous.

"They don't take that too lightly, I found," _____ said Friday as he discussed his struggle to put his life back together since he has had his record cleared.

_____, 29, spent eight weeks in jail before he was able to raise $25,000, the 10 percent of his $250,000 bail needed to be released.

Then on March 16, his accuser, Samantha Carter-drabczyk, contacted the Frederick County State's Attorney's Office and asked to discuss the case, according to court documents.

She recanted her rape allegations during a meeting that same day with four criminal justice authorities involved in the case: Assistant State's Attorney Lindell K. Angel; Rebecca Littleton, a victim-witness coordinator; Cpl. Jason West, a sheriff's office detective; and Wayne Moffatt, a state's attorney investigator.

According to court documents, Carter-drabczyk told the group she had been angry at _____ when she made the allegations in January. She told them the two had argued and then had consensual sex.

Moffatt asked Carter-drabczyk if she was coming forward to see justice done, according to the documents.

"Yes. For him," Carter-drabczyk told Moffatt. "He was falsely accused," deputies quoted her as saying in documents seeking charges against her.

During the meeting, Moffatt reminded Carter-drabczyk that _____ had been incarcerated awaiting trial because of three statements she made to separate police officers. Taking back her previous statements constituted the false report of a crime.

Carter-drabczyk told Moffatt she would face the consequences, according to the documents.

Now the 29-year-old Thurmont woman is awaiting trial on criminal charges herself: three counts of making a false statement to police, a crime punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for each conviction.

A pretrial conference is set for Sept. 25 in Frederick County Circuit Court.

On Thursday, Carter-drabczyk's lawyer, Assistant Public Defender Matthew J. Frawley, declined to comment on the case.

Thursday evening, Carter-drabczyk changed her story again, two weeks before her next court appearance.

"I'm not sorry I took it (the allegations) back," Carter-drabczyk said of her March 16 meeting with criminal justice authorities.

"I did it so my daughter's father wouldn't go to prison and serve 25 years to life," she said.

On Friday, when told of Carter-drabczyk's latest about-face, _____ laughed.

"I think it's pretty obvious that with all the thousands of dollars and all the time police had invested in this case, that if the evidence was there, the state would have picked up the charges against me," _____ said.

For _____, recovering his life as he knew it before his arrest has been slow.

"It's so frustrating," he said. "I didn't do anything wrong."

On June 16, _____ received a notarized letter from criminal justice authorities telling him the criminal charges against him had been expunged from court records.

When criminal charges against a defendant are expunged, prosecutors and police must destroy all documents related to the case. They cannot even acknowledge the previous existence of a case.

Still, _____ said his arrest has cost him countless jobs and at least $40,000 in legal fees.

Even though his record has been cleared, he's still required to pay about $460 a month on his bail.

The stigma from the allegations has left him humiliated.

Two of the deputies at his arrest were people he knew from attending Thurmont -area schools.

While held on charges of first-degree rape, second-degree assault and false imprisonment, _____ was kept in a cell block with men accused of robbery and attempted murder.

_____ said he plans to file a lawsuit against Carter-drabczyk to recover his financial losses related to the criminal charges.

He's also pursuing custody of their 4-year-old daughter.

Wednesday evening was the first time he'd been allowed to see the child in about a month, he said.

It was their daughter's birthday.

"It was absolutely great," _____ said. "I took her an ice cream cake and lots of nice presents. She loved them. Her Barbie laptop computer was her favorite."

Because _____ was successful in having his record expunged of the rape charges, Maryland court records now show no record of the January allegations against him.

But for _____, that doesn't go far enough.

"She's ruined my life, but I'm not here to trash her," he said of Carter-drabczyk.

"I've been cleared of the charges, and the public needs to know that. I need to get on with my life."

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

SCOTLAND - Sex Offender driven from his home by vigilante mob

View the article here


By Mark McLaughlin

A SEX offender has been hounded out of his Edinburgh home by a vigilante group of locals.

Ex-soldier _____, 61, had to be rushed out of Prestonfield Avenue under police protection and has now been re-homed.

It is thought trouble started when unfounded allegations were made against _____, who was jailed in 1993 for sex offences against a young girl.

Last week, his car was vandalised and he was harassed by a baying mob. He was taken away by the police only to be returned a few days later.

Trouble started again and the decision was taken to re-home him elsewhere in the city.
- Well, this doesn't solve the problem either.  It's only a matter of time before another vigilante mob comes out in force.  The police should be on the news stating that vigilantism will not be tolerated, and by them not doing so, only condones the vigilantism.

A local source said: "We heard about his history and that he'd recently been kicked out of Wester Hailes."

"Some of the neighbours decided to take action and the police were called to remove _____ from the house."

"He was brought back to the house by plain-clothes police officers from the sex offenders' unit a few days later, but on Thursday the neighbours came back and started banging on his windows."

"They must have been monitoring him because as soon as the disturbance started, two plain-clothes police officers stepped out of an unmarked car and identified themselves."
- So was any of the vigilantes arrested?

"The neighbours continued shouting and the disturbance got so bad that they had call for uniformed back-up."

"The neighbours aren't happy about a sex offender living amongst them."
- Well, when the media and politicians continue to spread lies, and the police do not do their jobs and arrest all the vigilantes harassing this person, then what do you expect?

"Because of what happened on Thursday, he'll definitely not be back at that house."

_____ was jailed in Aberdeen in 1993 after admitting using lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour towards a young girl.

The court heard the victim had been distressed and initially too frightened to tell anyone.

Upon his release from a six-year sentence, _____ moved to Wester Hailes, where he reportedly began living with a teenage girl.

Police then placed him under a sexual offences prevention order to prevent him having any further contact with under-age girls.

A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman confirmed that _____ was currently the subject of a prevention order.

He has been re-housed and his current whereabouts have not been disclosed.

She said: "Following concerns for the safety of an individual living in the Prestonfield area, and damage to a vehicle, police assisted in re-housing a member of the public."
- So instead of going after the vigilantes, for their harassment, you push this man out of his home, which he had every right to be living their.  Sounds like you have your priorities backwards to me!

"Inquiries are ongoing to trace the person responsible for the vandalism."

"Police do not discuss the security arrangements of any individual."

"Because this man is a registered sex offender, he is protected by law and we are not allowed to discuss his circumstances any further."

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

FL - Florida's Draconian Sex Offender Residency Rules

View the article here


By Law Offices of Mark L. Horwitz, P.A.

Florida's Ban Goes Too Far

Florida's sex offender residency requirements have received national attention recently -- not for their effectiveness, but as an example of how far states will go to punish convicted sex offenders.

Florida law prevents sex offenders from living closer than 1000 feet from schools, day care centers, parks and playgrounds. This type of residency restriction is not unique to Florida: At least 30 states have similar bans. But many counties and municipalities in Florida have opted to pass much more restrictive residency ordinances than the one imposed under state law.

Miami-Dade is one of the most egregious examples, with a law requiring sex offenders to live at least 2500 feet from any school, park, day care center or playground. The Miami-Dade ban has effectively eliminated any eligible housing for sex offenders within the city. As a result, more than 70 sex offenders have converged in a community living underneath the Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge.

There are more than 160 municipalities within Florida that enforce restrictions on where sex offenders can live that are more severe than the state law. Some areas have passed the ban in order to prevent their communities from becoming havens for sex offenders.

The push for the bans began in earnest after the 2005 rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford. Such horrific stories of young children being harmed by repeat offenders created a wave of fear across the state, with citizens demanding that their local governments take action to protect their children and prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Residency restrictions were determined to be one of the best ways to accomplish this goal.

The Problem with Residency Restrictions

There are several problems with imposing residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders. First is the inherent injustice of the restriction. Sex offenders are treated unlike any other criminals. Once they have served their sentence and been determined eligible to re-enter society, they are punished a second time for their crimes by being forced to register as a sex offender for life and by being restricted in where they can live.

This second punishment is even more severe when one considers the full scope of those who are defined as "sex offenders" under Florida law. Those who have been determined to be the most dangerous offenders are labeled as sexual predators. But sex offenders are defined much more broadly and include the 18-year-old who was charged with the statutory rape of his 16-year-old girlfriend. Even though the 18-year-old may not have spent even one day in prison for his crime, state law still will force him to suffer the stigma of being labeled a convicted sex offender -- a punishment much worse than the one imposed for the crime of statutory rape.

Second, residency restrictions have been shown not to work. State lawmakers and concerned citizens alike have effectively argued that the residency restrictions are necessary in order to protect children and prevent offenders from reoffending. But the problem is residency restrictions do not prevent either from happening. In the case of Miami's 2500-foot restriction, it only forces sex offenders to go "off the radar," where law enforcement officials cannot keep track of them.

Further, by providing them with at best limited living options, the residency laws actually prevent offenders from re-entering society. Many professionals, including mental health professionals, argue that the residency restrictions prevent offenders from settling into stable environments and give them little to no incentive to become productive members of society. It is under these conditions that offenders are likely to become re-offenders or commit other crimes.

The Future of Florida's Residency Requirement

Even the strongest supporters of residency restrictions for sex offenders are having second thoughts about the efficacy of the bans. State Attorney General Bill McCollum (Contact) has been vocal in his belief that the 2500-foot restriction in Miami goes too far. Lobbyist Ron Book, who personally traveled across the state to convince communities to pass stricter sex offender ordinances after his daughter was victimized, now believes there must be a better solution than forcing sex offenders into homelessness. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union (Contact) filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County in July, challenging the legality of the ban on the grounds that it impedes the state's ability to monitor sex offenders.

Regardless of the current political interest in scaling back the more restrictive bans like the one in Miami-Dade, it is unlikely that all residency restrictions will be lifted. Also, whether the political process will be able to do anything about the more restrictive measures imposed by communities across Florida, given the reluctance of politicians to be known as "soft on crime," is questionable.

It is still important, however, that we recognize the problems inherent with state and local sex offender residency restrictions, and that lawmakers are finally taking some action to remedy them.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved

NV - New means secured to fight child pornography

View the article here


By Catherine Cortez Masto (Contact)

During the 2009 Legislative session, an important step was taken to better protect children with the passage of Assembly Bill 88, a bill that makes two significant changes to Nevada law to combat the problem of child pornography.

This legislation was developed by the Technological Crime Advisory Board, which I chair. AB88 addresses the board’s concern with some of the challenges that exist for law enforcement in areas where the Internet is an integral part of the crime of child pornography.

The bill updates Nevada’s criminal statutes to account for evolving technology that has resulted in the widespread dissemination of child pornography over the Internet. AB88 makes it a felony to intentionally use the Internet to control images of child pornography for the specific purpose of viewing such material. This includes conduct such as searching for and locating Web sites with images of child pornography, opening and navigating such sites, and accessing and browsing child pornography online.

This is important because modern technology eliminates the need to download a file to a local computer for viewing. The Internet provides the ability to control photographic images or streaming video without actually downloading the material. In effect, child pornography can be “viewed” on the Internet without physically possessing an electronic file that produces video or still images.

While Nevada law provides criminal penalties against the production and promotion of child pornography, it is also important to target the audience for this material. Consumers of child pornography on the Internet share culpability in the victimization of the children involved, and now face criminal penalties for their conduct. Moreover, research indicates that as many as 85 percent of child pornography viewers and collectors eventually commit sexual offenses against children.

Computer technology allows law enforcement agencies to locate Internet sites that suspects visit and computer forensic examiners have the ability to determine where and when a suspect has used a computer to seek out, access and view child pornography online. With this new legislation, law enforcement officials can now bring these offenders to justice.

A second issue addressed by AB88 is the establishment of a civil cause of action for victims of child pornography who have suffered personal or psychological injury. This portion of the bill is based on a provision in federal law known as “Masha’s Law,” giving child pornography victims a right to seek civil damages in federally prosecuted cases. Nevada is just the second state to grant similar rights.

This new civil remedy applies to victims who, while under the age of 16, appeared in any film, photograph or other visual presentation engaging in specifically defined explicit “sexual conduct” and suffered personal or psychological injury as a result. This civil remedy allows victims of child pornography to recover damages against any person who promoted, possessed or used the Internet to view any images of the sexual conduct.

Recognizing that actual damages may be difficult to assess, the bill deems the amount of damages to be at least $150,000, plus attorney fees and costs. As with all causes of action, there are elements that must be proven. If they are all proven by a preponderance of the evidence (the evidentiary burden in civil matters), the defendant may be liable for damages.

While monetary damages cannot fully compensate for the trauma to child pornography victims, they can provide some measure of vindication while serving as a strong deterrent to the continued circulation of their childhood images. Further, in consideration of the significant privacy interests involved, a plaintiff may use a pseudonym in all court proceedings and records related to an action brought before the court. Also, it is not a sufficient defense that the defendant did not know the plaintiff or did not engage in the sexual conduct with the plaintiff.

It is often said that a society is judged by how it protects its most vulnerable members, including its children. Protecting children is a top priority of my administration. AB88 is an important step to better protect children in our state from exploitation and victimization in pornography.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

© 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved