Thursday, April 14, 2011

GA - Judge allows sex offender (son of FBI agent) to live near playground

Original Article


By Jeff Chirico

CARTERSVILLE - A CBS Atlanta investigation has revealed Bartow County Superior Court Judge Shepherd Howell signed an order allowing a registered sex offender to live near a playground and public pool. Usually registered sex offenders are forbidden from living within 1,000 feet of public areas where children congregate.

Matthew W. Meadows (not on Bartow registry either, but is on GBI registry), of Cartersville, pleaded guilty in February to nine counts of possessing child pornography. He was sentenced to probation and later allowed by Howell to live in Meadow's parents' home. The home is three doors from the playground in the Waterford subdivision.

Heather Nicholas, a mother of three, said her girls often play and swim at the park. "What was [the judge] thinking?" she asked.

CANADA - Penile tests of young sex offenders invasive

Original Article

This is widely used by almost all therapists.  It's like the lie-detector, it's junk science, IMO.


A controversial method of testing sexual arousal in young offenders should not be reinstated, says B.C.'s representative for children and youth.

The tests, in which young male sex offenders were shown sexual images while penile sensors were used to measure their arousal, were used to judge their likelihood of reoffending.

Children and Family Development Minister Mary Polak halted the so-called phallometric testing last year, after children's representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond first raised concerns ahead of her report.

On Thursday, Turpel-Lafond issued her report, saying the penile sensors are invasive and the clinical evidence suggests the results are unreliable.

'It was used as part of the arsenal of the sex offender treatment program, and upon really close evaluation, including us using an expert panel, we discovered that the evidence isn't there to support it," she said.

Ethical issue

Turpel-Lafond also questioned the ethics of the program, also known as PPG testing.

"There are legitimate concerns about the ethics of this procedure and whether it is an appropriate procedure for the treatment of sexually offending youth, particularly in absence of any evidence as to its effectiveness in improving the outcomes of treatment," she wrote.

"Like many medical interventions, PPG is an invasion of bodily integrity and privacy. An individual’s constitutional right to liberty and security of the person is a vital consideration whenever programs are provided to vulnerable populations. The representative is not satisfied that the practice for obtaining consent to PPG testing was as rigorous as it could have been, given the especially intrusive nature of the testing," she wrote.

Turpel-Lafond says she also has concerns about giving the invasive tests to young people who may themselves have been victims of sexual abuse, and she recommends the testing not be reinstated unless it can be shown to be effective and not harmful.

"The lack of evidence of harm to youth is not a justification for the use of the tool. In fact, in exceptional circumstances where a procedure is used that is as intrusive as the PPG, until there is evidence of no harm PPG testing should not be used in the treatment of sexually offending youth," she wrote in her report.

Youths shown images of children

During the testing, a youth would attach a device to his penis that would measure physical sexual arousal. Medical technicians in another room then played images of adults having sex, followed by images of partially naked children and infants, as they monitored the youth's level of arousal.

"The pre-test stimulus set was a segment from an adult sexual education video showing a man and woman engaged in consensual intercourse, with a voice-over describing the mechanics of the acts and the response," said Turpel-Lafond in her report.
- I am willing to bet, anybody hooked up to this device, would be deemed a sexual offender.

"The test stimulus material was a video of a set of still photographs, ranging from infants to young adults, shown in underwear or bathing suits. One photograph shows a naked baby with genitalia blanked out. The photographs were shown with a voice-over of a male youth describing various scenarios suggestive of deviant and coercive sexual acts, but not containing sexually explicit language," said the report.

The youth's genitals were covered by a sheet during the testing, and the youth was monitored behind one-way glass to determine the effect.

MI - YouTube Prankster Talks About 2-Month Jail Sentence: Scary to Know People Think ‘You’re a Sick Person’

Original Article


By Jonathon M. Seidl

21-year-old Michigan man Evan Emory did something for a few giggles. But because it was a vulgar something that involved kids, he’s now been sentenced to two months in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling, and fines and costs. What did he do? He made a fake video that made it look like he was singing a very inappropriate song to some young school children.

It’s a sentence that has sparked a lot of controversy. Some say its ridiculous he‘s getting jail time for an event that didn’t even occur. Others say he’s getting off too easy. Amid the arguments and the impending jail time, Emory says the idea of the nation thinking he’s a “sick person” is the scariest thing. He sat down with FOX 17 and apologized before going to jail:

I was really afraid of being on the sex offender list, but from the letters I was receiving from people I was more afraid of getting raped in prison because I know they don’t treat sex offenders too kindly in prison,” Emory told Fox 17.

He won’t be going to prison, but rather county jail. He can also leave during the day for work. And he won’t be put on the sex offender list.

Still, “There are people out there who think of me as some child molester and so that’s terrifying,” he said.

Mediaite explains exactly what Emory did — details that have caused much disagreement:

21-year-old Evan Emory of Michigan has been sentenced to two months jail time after filming and posting a video featuring him singing a sexually explicit song to elementary school students. The only thing is, Emory never did that. He actually sang an appropriate (and apparently well-received) song to the kids and edited in the other song (which the kids never heard) later for a comedy video.

Hyper Vocal adds more:

The footage of the children was recorded in January when Emory performed a clean song for the class. It was only later that Emory returned to the empty classroom to record a vulgar song, which he edited with clips of the children and posted to YouTube in mid-February.

On Tuesday, Judge William C. Marietti of the Muskegon County 14th Circuit Court sentenced Emory under a previously arranged plea deal to 60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17. All for a comedy attempt gone awry

WOOD-TV reports on the sentence:

Singer arrested over YouTube video:

CANADA - Public may be tuning out high-risk sex-offender alerts

Original Article


By Douglas Quan (Twitter)

Police agencies across Canada say "compelling" circumstances and "grave" concerns for public safety occasionally require them to notify the public about certain high-risk sex offenders who've been released from prison.

Such warnings, they say, enable the public to take "suitable precautionary measures."

But do citizens really care?
- It's like those loud and obnoxious commercial that scream at you, eventually you just tune them out.

A new study out of the U.S. suggests there is "no statistically significant" relationship between receiving a sex-offender notification and adopting "self-protective behaviours" and that such notifications may be an "inert" crime-prevention tool.

The findings are contained in an article being published next month in the journal Criminology and Public Policy. Author Rachel Bandy, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Simpson College in Iowa, writes that while residents overwhelmingly support public alerts, survey results show they "simply are not motivated by notification to change their personal safety habits."

Bandy also writes the alerts may create a perception the biggest threat comes from strangers when, in reality, most sex-abuse victims know their perpetrator.

Several police agencies across Canada have issued warnings in recent weeks about convicted sex offenders taking up residence in their communities.

Chicken Little
Police in Abbotsford, B.C., warned of a 24-year-old man convicted of raping an 84-year-old woman.

Regina police warned of a 52-year-old man with a history of committing violent robberies and sex offences against women of all ages.

Calgary police warned of a 46-year-old man with a history of sexually assaulting female children and adults.

The notifications typically are accompanied by a mugshot of the offender, an outline of the conditions of their release — a prohibition on alcohol or illegal drugs, for instance — and stern warnings to the public not to undertake any form of vigilantism.

Officials say they issue the alerts in the most exceptional cases and only after carefully reviewing an offender's case history and consulting with parole and corrections staff and other experts.

Members of the public now know that if they see these people on the street, it's best not to approach them, officials say.

"It allows people to be aware and make choices with the knowledge that they have," said Lara Guzik, a Regina police spokeswoman.

The notifications also sends a message to the offender, said Calgary police Sgt. Rich Veldhoen.

"It informs and lets the individual know he's not an anonymous past offender, a faceless individual with a dangerous past," he said. "He's being held to account."

All Criminals Registry
Abbotsford police spokesman Const. Ian MacDonald said he understands notifications can be seen as intrusive on someone who is seeking a fresh start. But if that person has a propensity for sexual violence and strong likelihood of re-offending, police are duty-bound to tell the public.
- So if this were true, then they would do the same for other criminals who are dangerous!  Like murderers, gang members, drug dealers, DUI offenders, etc?

MacDonald added the public can serve as an extra set of eyes to ensure high-risk offenders comply with their release conditions.
- Yeah, right. We all know, many will result in harassing the person and possibly worse.

But do people really pay attention?

After arousing initial interest in the public, sex-offender notifications tend to fade from the collective memory, said Stacey Hannem, an assistant professor of criminology at Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario.

"I understand the public wants to be informed, but sometimes this information provides an illusion of security that is not really there," Hannem said.
- The sex offender laws are nothing more than punishment, after the fact, and it's turned into a modern day moral panic, helped along by the media and politicians who skew the facts for their own advantage.