Sunday, February 6, 2011

UK - Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Original Article

Hitler would be proud. This is nothing more than selective breeding, exactly what Hitler did.


By Martin Beckford

A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sex by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about “civil liberties and personal autonomy”.

The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man whom he lived with and told officials “it would make me feel happy” for it to continue.

But his local council decided his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.

Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

Under the judge’s order, the man is now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order.

The judge concluded: “I therefore make a declaration that at the present time Alan does not have the capacity to consent to and engage in sexual relations."

In such circumstances it is agreed that the present régime for Alan's supervision and for the prevention of future sexual activity is in his best interests.”

It is the latest controversial case to come before the Court of Protection, a little-known authority whose proceedings are held behind closed doors.

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life or death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves – such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception.

In the latest case, the man known as Alan was described as “sociable” and “presented as an able man” but who was “seriously challenged in all aspects of his mental functionality”.

He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court. Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus, although no police action was taken.

In June 2009 the town hall began court proceedings to restrict his contact with Kieron on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity, and an interim order was made to that effect.

Since then Alan has been subjected to close supervision to prevent any further sexual activity on his part,” except when he is alone in his bedroom.

However he told representatives of the Official Solicitor, who acts in the Court of Protection, to tell the judge “I want to kiss them again”.

Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.

He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

TX - Texas in final stages to allow some sex offenders to deregister from list

Original Article


By James Cannon

Texas is in the final stages of implementing a new program that will allow some sex offenders to deregister from the lifetime list, after an, as of yet, unspecified amount of time and counseling.

The Council on Sex Offender Treatment will meet Feb. 26 to discuss the final stages of establishing guidelines and protocol to evaluate low-level sex offenders. Once the training for the counselors are in place, a spokesperson said, within months, evaluation specialists will begin seeing potential candidates.

"This is a more common sense approach, we have to balance public safety with a limited amount of funds to ensure the maximum amount of public safety," said Allison Taylor, executive director for the Council on Sex Offender Treatment.

She said about 100 new names a week are added to the sex offenders list and database, and the cost of monitoring and managing the system are becoming untenable.

Taylor said the new program will allow deregistration evaluation specialists to categorize those convicted into risk-levels. By placing offenders in risk levels, she said, the government will be able to monitor those that need it the most, rather than spreading out the limited amount of resources on all offenders equally.

"Do we really need to monitor the 19-year-old convicted of having sex with his underage girlfriend the same way we would monitor a 40-year-old serial rapist, pedophile or murder, for instance," she asked. "We need to target predators and not kids caught in the criminal justice system because of the age of consent."

While Jed Davenport, the director of the Midland Judicial District's Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said it is commendable that the agency is trying to monitor higher-risk offenders more closely, he said he isn't sure allowing lesser-offenders to deregister will help the situation.

Although he said he will need to learn more about the program and meet with the district judges before he could form a complete opinion, but said he believes savings could be found elsewhere than at the expense of the database.

"People are now able to go to the online database to find out where sex offenders live in their neighborhoods and are able to be more careful and vigilant," Davenport said. "It's basically a sense of security, especially around Halloween, when parents and kids will be walking the streets."
- People should be careful and vigilant even if the registry never existed, it's called life.  And children are more at risk on Halloween to be hit by a car than sexually abuse by some stranger.

But not everyone convicted of a sexual offense will be able to deregister. Anyone convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping with intent, burglary with intent, continuous abuse of a child, prohibited sexual conduct or indecency with a child under 13 years old, will be unable to deregister.

Also, offenders must not be convicted of any crime for which imprisonment for more than one year could be imposed during the registration period; offenders must not be convicted of any sexual crimes during registration; the offender must complete all treatment and must have finished all supervised probation or parole.

Typically, the supervised release, probation and parole period for a sexual offender could take around 10 years before completion.

"Once things are put into perspective, like allowing sexters or someone caught in a consensual relationship with someone underage to deregister, while increasing supervision on hardened, serious criminals, people seem to agree," Taylor said.

John Walsh pushing for collection of DNA and posting the usual disinformation

Every day innocent people needlessly become victims of violent crimes. Most of these are committed by repeat offenders. By passing state legislation that enables law enforcement to collect DNA from felony arrestees, at the same time as fingerprints, your state can catch criminals sooner. That means you can prevent most of these crimes, save more lives, and provide more protection to the innocent.

So if they had the DNA of every single human being on file, how would that "prevent" crime or "protect" anybody? It won't. Just the usual disinformation to eradicate your rights, under the guise of safety. It might help arrest someone after the fact, but it won't prevent anything. And as usual, they attach a child's name to it, knowing the sheeple will pass it without questioning it. See the video below, and just listen to all the BS!!!!!!


MN - State may loosen grip on sex offenders

Original Article



The possible release of two violent rapists reflects growing legal concerns over indefinite detention.

In a rare step, state officials have recommended supervised release for two violent sex offenders who are under indefinite commitment at a state treatment center in St. Peter, according to documents and authorities familiar with the cases.

The recommendations -- the first of their kind in nearly 15 years -- reflect an emerging shift in thinking among officials in charge of Minnesota's controversial sex offender program. Created in 1994, it allows the state to hold offenders indefinitely -- for years, even decades -- at highly secure facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter.

Officials familiar with the cases contend that the state must find a new balance between ensuring public safety and acknowledging the rights of offenders who have submitted to long detention and completed therapy. The shift, which emerged from closed sessions last year, occurs against a backdrop of explosive growth in the program's population and costs. The state's offender population has tripled since 2003 -- to 605 people last year -- making Minnesota first per capita among states in confining sex offenders and third overall in offender population, behind California and Florida.

But officials, clinicians and legal experts say their main concern is that the program might not withstand new court challenges over the constitutionality of holding offenders for years without the prospect of release.

Nonetheless, the prospective release of [name withheld], 68, and [name withheld], 55, is sure to reignite debate over public safety and the effectiveness of therapy for violent, chronic sex offenders.

[name withheld] and [name withheld] have extremely violent backgrounds, with dozens of sexual offenses that include rape by knifepoint, and they are considered high risks for sexual recidivism, according to state documents. Each has previously failed sexual treatment programs, records show, and both have been diagnosed as psychopathic personalities. If released, they would be subject to covert surveillance, lie detector tests and GPS tracking via electronic ankle bracelets.

A new direction

In two closed sessions last year, a special review board of mental health experts appointed by the Department of Human Services concluded that [name withheld] and [name withheld] had progressed well enough after years of treatment to be provisionally discharged into strictly supervised halfway houses in the Twin Cities, according to sources and documents. The board consists of an attorney, a psychiatrist and a social worker or psychologist.

Their recommendation must be reviewed by a three-judge appeals panel appointed by the state Supreme Court. The judges will hear [name withheld]'s case in March and [name withheld]'s in April.

The professionals' recommendation seems to chart a new direction in state policy and offers fresh hope to offenders who have clinically progressed to a point where they are judged to be of manageable public risk.

In 2003, Gov. Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order stripping the Human Services commissioner of authority over such releases. That shifted responsibility for the difficult decisions to the judicial branch of government, but it left many offenders feeling that they had to overcome nearly impossible obstacles to release.

Pawlenty issued the order after the Star Tribune reported that state officials were seeking ways to allow some offenders -- deemed less dangerous after treatment -- to live in community halfway houses. [name withheld] and [name withheld] have sued the state in years past, arguing for release because they completed their treatment programs in a secured facility.

Attorneys representing offenders have argued that Pawlenty's order violated state law and interfered with the expertise of treatment specialists who rely on clearly delineated psychological and medical evaluations.

"It's clear this recommendation reflects a different policy,'' said Eric Janus, president of the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul and an expert on the legal issues surrounding sex offender release.

"The legitimacy of the program depends on a bona fide system for determining when individuals can be returned to the community with appropriate safeguards. A system that never returns anybody into the community is unconstitutional.''

In the last days of the Pawlenty administration, then-Human Services Commissioner Cal Ludeman filed a petition asking the high court to reconsider the review board's recommendations on [name withheld]'s release -- effectively putting his department at odds with its own panel of experts.

Last week, Deputy Commissioner Anne Barry said in a statement that the department is reassessing its position on the Ludeman petition, an indication that the department might change course and concur with its board of experts.