Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Joy Behar Show: Where should sex offenders live?

Our comments left on the video:

  1. Why do you always have female feminists on the show pretending to be "experts?" Why don't you get the REAL experts in on the discussion?
  2. And what's up with the "No home for pedophiles" banner? Very few, probably less than 5% are true pedophiles, yet you, the biased media, cannot see beyond that and think all sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile predators hiding behind a bush, waiting to pounce on your kids. You are the problem!!!!


FL - German news report on the Florida homeless sex offenders forced to live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway

This is old news, but I am posting it due to the captioning added by someone. See more videos here, and more related posts here.


Jane Valez-Mitchell and Mark Lunsford discuss Amazon.com book about pedophiles

Video Description:
Instead of ignoring free speech and burning books, people should have saw this as an opportunity to use this as a guide for what to look for to help protect yourselves.

As much as people hate it, it is free speech. If you don't like it, don't purchase the book.


CA - Jessica's Law Challenged - Portions ruled unconstitutional

Video Description:
Like I've said a thousand times, the residency restrictions do not deter or prevent any crime, nor does the online registry (hit-list)! The residency restrictions just force people into homeless and joblessness, like mentioned, and do not work.

If someone is so dangerous they need additional punishment and monitoring after prison, which they should have received help while in prison, then they should have been sentenced to a longer time in prison. If someone murders any human being, they should be in prison until the day they die, IMO.

Visit the other channels we have linked on our channel, for more of the homeless nightmare, and the moral panic/mass hysteria, lies and deceit spread by the media (for ratings) and self-serving politicians (for votes).


INDIA - Woman to face trial for lodging false rape case: Delhi high court

Original Article

11/16/2010

The Delhi high court today refused to quash a false criminal case of rape lodged by a Delhi police woman employee against a man to ensure that she faces prosecution later for falsely implicating him.

"If a prosecutrix makes false statement of an offence punishable with minimum period of 7 years imprisonment, she must be made to face the consequence of registering a false FIR against an innocent person," said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, dismissing a petition by a Delhi-based property dealer Karan for quashing of the FIR against him.

Justice Dhingra dismissed the petition despite his plea that the woman has admitted to making false accusations against him early this year and they have reached an out-of-court settlement of the issue.

"I consider that an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code being punishable with minimum sentence of seven years cannot be looked at so lightly," Justice Dhingra said.

"The prosecutrix cannot be allowed to turn around and say that she made a false statement and that now she has compromised the matter," he added, refusing to quash the FIR, and leaving it to the trial court to acquit the man and initiate prosecution against the woman instead on charges of perjury.

"The court cannot allow quashing of such FIR when neither the prosecutrix is being punished for making false statement nor the accused is brought to book for the offence of rape," he said.


UK - Sex offender ruling could lead to compensation claims

Original Article

11/16/2010

More than 1,300 convicted sex offenders could be able to claim compensation from the Scottish government after a landmark hearing in Edinburgh.

The case was brought by a sex offender known as Mr A, who was convicted 17 years ago while he was still a child.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled his human rights were breached by a requirement to remain on the sex offenders register for life.

The court awarded Mr A £1,000 in compensation from the government.

The government agreed to change the sex offenders register laws following a separate UK Supreme Court ruling.

Having served four years' detention, Mr A was placed on the sex offenders register and ordered to report regularly to police for the rest of his life.

He appealed against the reporting requirement, arguing there was no prospect of a review of the order, even if the risk he posed to the public diminished.

At a hearing at the Court of Session earlier, the government accepted that an order for Mr A to report to police for the rest of his life did not allow him to appeal if he posed less of a risk to the public

That appeal was rejected, but in a separate case before the UK Supreme Court, judges ruled that keeping an offender on the register for life was incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

As a result, the Scottish government was forced to amend the sex offenders legislation in October, allowing offenders to challenge the restrictions placed on them by the courts.

Outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Mr A's solicitor Tony Kelly said many others may be in the same position.

Mr Kelly said: "There are going to be lots of people thinking about the affect this is going to have on their particular circumstances, lots of people who are in a similar boat and will similarly be able to challenge the particular application of these provisions to them."

"Those who are subjected to the indefinite notification requirement can take forward the challenge on similar terms."


CA - Stop the sex offender fear-mongering

Original Article

11/16/2010

By Michael P. Judge

The Jessica's Law residency restriction leaves some offenders homeless and does nothing to protect children. A Los Angeles judge was right to order its suspension.

Some critics of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza's order temporarily staying enforcement of the sex offender residency restrictions of Jessica's Law (PDF), reported by The Times on Nov. 5, are exploiting the legitimate fears of decent people. These critics ignore the reality that these particular residency restrictions apply to all paroled sex registrants, most of whom have never harmed a child, and do not effectively protect our children. In fact, by creating a crisis of homelessness (Florida, Georgia) among sex registrants, broad residency restrictions actually endanger our community. Ordinarily, the recidivism rate among the vast preponderance of sex offenders is low. Why destabilize them and create a far greater risk of reoffending? Indeed, Espinoza's order came after the defenders of the residency restriction failed to offer any evidence or argument to the contrary.

To be clear, a separate residency law prohibits the small group of sex offenders who have actually victimized children and are designated as "high risk" from living near schools. Moreover, all parolees required to register as sex offenders continue to be monitored by GPS bracelets at all times; Espinoza's order did not revoke or change those restrictions. Those who claim that as the result of the court order child predators will now be living near schools are misleading the public.

The real effect of the order is that people like William Baker (name changed) will be permitted to have a roof over their heads. In the 1970s, Baker committed a sex offense against an adult and served an appropriate prison sentence. Baker is now completely blind and unable to care for himself. After the passage of Jessica's Law, Baker was not permitted to live in the room his sister provided both him and his wife; like nearly all residential units in Los Angeles, Baker's resident was within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Instead, Baker had to move every two hours all day to prove that he was not "residing" anywhere near a school or park. Baker would ride public transportation all night to get some sleep and remain compliant with the residency restriction.

Forcing individuals like Baker into homelessness not only does nothing to protect children, it also comes at a great financial cost to taxpayers. The best way to manage parolees is to have them in stable housing where they can be treated, managed and monitored. In the wake of Jessica's Law, the state has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in Los Angeles County alone to subsidize expensive motel rooms and crowded rental units in the tiny slivers of compliant residential land. The vast majority of those who receive these subsidies could otherwise live with their own families at no cost to the taxpayer.

And this state money could easily run out, starting a public witch hunt in earnest. In fact, very recently a residential treatment center was firebombed and shot up because one or more assailants assumed that sex offenders resided there.

Let's focus on sound practices based on fact and law and move away from the political fear-mongering that is as counterproductive as the residency restriction itself. The alarmism could unleash uncontrollable vigilantism (YouTube). This is a case highlighting the crucial importance of judicial independence. Espinoza's ruling was based on clearly established legal precedent; it was righteous, and he was courageous.


TX - Are Sex Offender Restrictions Too Restrictive?

Original Article

11/15/2010

HOUSTON - A California judge has struck down part of that state's "Jessica's Law".

Specifically, that part says sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of place where children congregate or gather. The judge says that part of the law is unconstitutional.

Critics of the law say some sex offenders are having such a difficult time trying to find a place to live, they become homeless. That makes it harder for the state and law enforcement to keep track of them.

What does that mean for Texas which has similar restrictions on sex offenders? We invited attorney Stanley Schneider and Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Brent Haynes to talk about the topic.


VA - Three more (Damon J. Silvestro, Eric B. Harris, Thomas W. McCall) charged with attempting to harm Hopewell sex offender

Original Article
Related Story

11/16/2010

By Mark Bowes

Hopewell - Three friends of a Hopewell man charged last week with misusing information on Virginia's sex-offender registry to harass and attack a sex offender were arrested during the weekend on related charges, state police said.

Damon J. Silvestro, 20, of Colonial Heights, Eric B. Harris, 25, of Hopewell, and Thomas W. McCall, 21, also of Hopewell, were each charged with attempted aggravated malicious wounding by mob, a felony, and misdemeanor hit-and-run driving.

State police said the three men participated in an Oct. 16 incident in Hopewell that was initiated by Daniel R. Narron (pictured), 19, who is accused of harassing, following and then striking with his vehicle a Hopewell man listed on the sex-offender registry. Narron accosted the alleged victim based on information he obtained from the registry website, police said.

According to police, Narron and his three friends confronted the sex offender, a man in his 50s, outside a Hopewell convenience store after he drove up on his moped. After harassing him about being a sex offender, the man drove away on his moped, and Narron, accompanied by his three friends, followed him in a 2000 Lincoln Navigator, police said.

As they approached Atlantic Street and Hill Avenue, Narron struck the man with his vehicle and fled the scene, police said. Narron's three friends left with him, according to police.
- I sure hope he is charged with attempted murder?

The man, who was not injured, called Hopewell police, who requested that Virginia State Police investigate the case. Charges were brought against all four men after consulting with the Hopewell commonwealth's attorney's office.