Monday, February 8, 2010

FL - Lauren's Kids Walk in my Shoes (Daughter of Ron Book)

Just look at the hate in Ron's face above. I'm surprised he's not foaming at the mouth!

This is good Lauren, but remember, offenders need support, love and everything else you mentioned as well, not just hate, rage and anger directed toward them. You claim to be a religious person, so are you really?

I also was abused by a family member when I was a young kid, but do you see me taking my aggression out on all offenders in the community? No! I do not live on aggression, hate and anger. I went to therapy a long time ago, and it worked wonders in my life. I know many will not believe that, and that is their choice, but I know, and God knows, that I have changed. I am also a sex offender, who committed one stupid act back in 1988. So, would you allow someone like me to walk in this walk, or would you continue to shun me, because of what you "think" I "may" do?

If all offenders were the evil monsters you and your father continue to make them out to be, then everyone in society would be a victim, but they are not. Why is that?

Why do you continue to vent your hate and anger on offenders, who had nothing to do with your sexual abuse? Why? I do know how you feel, some what, believe me! When I went to therapy and realized what had occurred to me, from the suppressed memories, I wanted to kill the person who did that to me. But, I believe in the word of God, and forgave the person who molested me, then moved on with my life. I chose not to dwell on the past, which I cannot change anyway. If we continue to tell victims they were "murdered" and will always suffer from their abuse, then they will. But that is a flat out lie! It takes longer to heal for some, but not for everyone. Life can change, you must pick yourself up and move forward, and stop letting the abuse dictate your life. It will if you let it! I chose not to!

Your father, Ron, is clearly still running on emotions of rage, hate and possibly guilt, for hiring the nanny who abused you. He continues to exact his revenge on others, by pushing for harsh unconstitutional laws. Why? To make himself feel justified in some way? When is Ron going to forgive himself? It was not his fault! The blame lies totally on the nanny. She should be punished for what she did to you, no question about that. But why punish all offenders in this country for something a few have done? Why? If we treated all criminals the way we treat sex offenders, what would that make us? We'd be no better than some third world country that beheads and hangs people in the public square.

You claim to be religious, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Do not judge someone based on their words, but on their actions! Lobbying for laws that make it nearly impossible to get a job or live anywhere except under a bridge, how is that solving anything? Your father is the head of the Homeless Trust for God's sake, and he's advocating for laws forcing people into homelessness. Sounds like a hypocrite to me.

Tell me, how would any residency restriction, registry or anything in these sex offender laws, protect you or anyone you know from abuse? It won't. We should be working on education and prevention, helping those who may have thoughts of abusing someone. Therapy does work, if it didn't, then we'd not have it for alcoholics, drug offenders, etc. I do not know all the answers, I wish I did, but we are going about all this in the wrong way, IMO. Simply locking someone up for life, does not solve the problem, it only pushes it a way so we do not have to deal with it. If a person is intent on committing a crime, they will. These laws just punish, and punish and punish but never help solve the problem!

Please read our Introduction or our thoughts on these laws, for more info.

I have sent this to Lauren on YouTube, I wonder if she will reply? I doubt it!

Video Link | YouTube Channel

Video Link

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

Megan Fox's Motorola Super Bowl Commercial - Promoting sexting?

Video Link

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

SSRN - The Adam Walsh Act and the Failed Promise of Administrative Federalism

The Adam Walsh Act and the Failed Promise of Administrative Federalism

Wayne A. Logan
Florida State University College of Law
George Washington Law Review, Vol. 78

For advocates of federalism, these are uncertain times. With hope of meaningful judicial federalism having largely receded, and Congress persisting in its penchant for intrusions on state authority, of late several scholars have championed the capacity of executive agencies to enforce and preserve federalism interests. This paper tests this position, providing the first empirically based critical analysis of administrative federalism, focusing on the recently enacted Adam Walsh Act, intended by Congress to redesign states’ sex offender registration and community notification laws. The paper casts significant doubt on the accepted empirical assumptions of administrative federalism, adding to the limited evidence amassed to date on state influence on agency rulemaking, and provides an important cautionary tale for future agency-based criminal justice mandates that will likely come to pass.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

IN - Sex registry changes

Original Article


The Indiana and federal constitutions are clear – no ex post facto law shall ever be adopted. Like it or not, there are no exceptions for especially heinous crimes such as child molesting.

Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that requiring someone to register as a sex offender for a crime committed before the sex offender registry requirement was created is an ex post facto law – one that makes an act committed before the law was adopted punishable as a crime.

The Allen County Sheriff’s Department, rightly, began removing from the local registry the names of people who committed sex crimes before the 1994 law was adopted. But the Indiana Department of Correction, which maintained a statewide registry, did not.

The department was taking advice from the attorney general’s office, which apparently took note of language in the court ruling that seemed to suggest it applied only to the convicted offender who filed the appeal.

Now, however, the attorney general’s office is rightly interpreting the ruling as Allen County has – that it applies to all those whose crimes occurred before 1994. The attorney general still is requiring offenders to seek a court order to be removed from the state registry.

As a result, courts are being inundated with requests to be removed – many filed by defendants pro se, without an attorney.

Few Hoosiers want to see the criminal justice system go out of its way to make life better for convicted sex offenders. However, the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws serves to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. Constitutions prohibit such laws because a basic premise of the law is that it establishes rules of behavior citizens must follow. Citizens cannot follow rules that are applied retroactively.

The sex offender registry has received some criticism, been enhanced by the legislature and last year was essentially altered by the court.

Such adjustments are not unusual for a far-reaching, relatively new law. More changes will likely occur.

The law that remains still requires people convicted for sex crimes committed since 1994 to register their addresses with authorities, who make that information available to the public. The law and its underlying purposes remain valid and valuable.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

GA - DNA database bill should be deep-sixed

Original Article


By Bob Barr

A few years back, I hosted a nationally-syndicated radio program, modestly called “Bob Barr’s Laws of the Universe.” One of the laws most frequently cited during the three years I hosted the weekly show, was Law Number Three: “No matter how much information government has, it always wants more.” This came to mind recently as I read of a piece of legislation introduced in the Georgia General Assembly by Rep. Rob Teilhet (Email), a Democrat from Smyrna and a candidate for state Attorney General.

Teilhet’s bill, HB 1033, would vastly expand the size of the DNA database already maintained by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, by empowering the state to take a DNA sample from any person who is arrested for any felony. I suspect many laypersons will wildly cheer such legislation, as yet another way to “get tough” on criminals and prevent crime. I am sure candidate Teilhet hopes the voters will perceive his legislation in such light.

It is, however, more than a little troubling that an attorney seeking to become Georgia’s top lawyer charged with protecting the civil liberties of all persons in our state, would cavalierly dismiss the serious constitutional concerns embedded in a law mandating that a person not convicted of any offense whatsoever should be forced to surrender their DNA to the government.

Supporters of this and similar measures that have been enacted in other states (including, of course, California), claim that collecting DNA samples can help solve crimes and possibly aid in identifying persons who have other charges pending against them. All that may be true; but if we start gauging the powers sought by government to gather evidence from and about individuals, against nothing more the possibility that doing so might help law enforcement, then the ink with which our country’s and our state’s constitutions were writ, might as well have been penned with disappearing ink.

A person arrested for an alleged offense has not yet been proved to have done anything wrong. He’s had no day in court, no chance to defend himself, and been afforded no opportunity to challenge the charges against him. Arrest in our state as in many others, can rest on a foundation no stronger than a fellow citizen’s opinion; perhaps one bearing a grudge. All those important, time-honored and constitutionally-based limits on government-coerced evidence are undercut by forced collection of a person’s most private information at the start of the process rather than at the end.

While Rep. Teilhet obviously has read the current law in Georgia regarding collection of DNA samples from felons (since his proposal refers to the existing statute), perhaps others who might support his bill are not yet familiar with the already-extensive database of DNA information maintained by Georgia. For example, anybody convicted of a serious offense of a sexual nature, as well as anyone incarcerated for a felony or those on probation for serious offenses, is already required to give their DNA to the state.

Teilhet, like other DNA-database advocates, attempts to sooth his critics by claiming the legislation he pushes provides adequate protection against improper use or dissemination of the DNA information, and for removing the information if a person is not later convicted. Closer examination of the current law and of Teilhet’s proposed expansion of it, however, shows clearly the “protections” are inadequate. Information collected now or under Teilhet’s legislation would be available to virtually any law enforcement or prosecution agency requesting it. And, removing the information from the database if the person is later exonerated depends solely on the person himself having the knowledge and resources to seek such remedy, rather than being the responsibility of the government itself to correct its mistake.

HB 1033 is a constitutional wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not become law.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

MD - Do harsher sex offender laws really work?

Original Article



After the recent kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Sarah Foxwell in Salisbury, Md., an alleged sex offender by the name of Thomas Leggs was charged with kidnapping and burglary. Little Sarah's body was found badly burned on Christmas Day 2009.

Do sex offender registries really work? Consider the following:

Leggs already was listed on both the Delaware and Maryland sex offender registries.

Leggs was one of 172 sex offenders in Wicomico County. The sheriff's department had conducted at least seven routine checks on this individual. Each time, he was in compliance with the law.

His criminal history, however, suggests some serious problems.

In 1997, he was convicted of a third-degree sex offense involving a 12-year-old girl and sentenced to five years, with all but six months suspended.

In 2001, Delaware registered him as a "high risk" sex offender after he was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl on Rehoboth Beach. He served minimal prison time.

Most recently, in October 2009, he was charged with breaking into a home where a 21-year old female alleged she observed him standing next to her bed at 4:10 a.m. with his shirt off and his pants down to his knees.

Did the sex offender registry program in Delaware and Maryland work?

Only after the crime was committed did the registry possibly assist law enforcement personnel in the apprehension of a suspect. It did not prevent the crime.

If sex offender registries make you feel safer in regard to the well-being of your children, consider another tragedy in California.

In 1991, Phillip Garrido was listed on California's sex offender registry and restricted from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Maryland does not have this requirement.

Garrido also previously had been convicted of kidnapping and rape and had been sentenced to 50 years for this crime in 1976, but released early.

Even in consideration of the above, he still allegedly managed to kidnap 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard off her bicycle on a California street, in broad daylight, and keep her locked in a shed behind his house for some 18 years while repeatedly raping her and fathering two children with her.

The California sex offender registry did not prevent this crime nor did it quickly help in the apprehension of the sex offender.

If you believe a sex offender registry makes your children safer, you should think again.

Some other information you might find even more alarming:

  • There are more than 5,250 registered sex offenders in Maryland.
  • 1,032 of these offenders are incarcerated.
  • 158 of these offenders are missing from where they should be living.
  • 4,117 of these offenders acted against children.

If sex offender registries seem to be the wave of the future, should we also demand other registries for murderers, arsonists, thieves, etc.?

Certainly, as we get tougher with laws, I don't believe any employer will go out of their way to hire one of these offenders, do you?

If the offender then has difficulty getting a job in society, what might he or she do with a little extra recreational time on their hands?

Perhaps educating the public, both adults and children, to the potential dangers and behaviors of sex offenders might be more helpful.

If convicted as a sex offender involving children, perhaps the law should read the offender is not permitted to visit or live in a house where there are kids. Any violations of this release condition automatically will return the offender to prison.

I am afraid that tougher laws might sound really good and help get people really excited and elected, but the practicality and enforcement of them in preventing crimes in the neighborhood is slim to none.

Also, when the released prisoner has difficulty finding employment and adjusting to society because of a name on a registry, one should not be too surprised if that person returns to crime, sorrow visits a different community and another murder finds its way to the headlines of a local newspaper.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln