Saturday, May 28, 2011

How to "look tough" while doing nothing, except eradicating rights and ignoring your oath of office!

IL - Is Illinois reaching the tipping point on its sex-offender registration rules?

Original Article

Pretty soon, this will be what I have suggested before, an "All criminals registry."



SPRINGFIELD - The Illinois House just now passed a measure that expands the reach of the state's sex-offender registration list, adding conspiracy, "luring,'' unauthorized videotaping and other offenses, and forcing people who are on the list to stay there for longer.

There's nothing unusual about that in Springfield, where filing bills to toughen the list is practically an annual requirement for any lawmaker who wants to look tough on crime. What was different this time were some of the voices that rose against it—and the 91-21 (PDF) vote on a topic that usually gets near-unanimous support.

The sex-offender registration list is an on-line portal where convicted sex offenders have to register so the public knows where they are once they're out of prison. In addition to providing that information, sex offenders are subject to numerous rules regarding where they can live, work and even stand.

The bill that passed this morning (SB1040, PDF) would expand the range of crimes that will land a person on the list, to include a series of attempted crimes and conspiracy. And it would expand the minimum time on the list for misdemeanor offenders from 10 to 15 years.

The usual response to these types of bills in Springfield is one tough-talking floor speech in favor after another. And there was certainly some of that. "If it was your son or your daughter walking to school, you'd want to know who was trying to lure them," said Dennis Reboletti, R-Addison.

But with increasing concern lately that the requirements are going from tough to impossible, some lawmakers piped up in ways that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

"We're making it impossible for them to live anywhere, we're making it impossible for them to work anywhere, we're making it impossible for them to go anywhere," said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Des Plaines. "We need to take a step back."

Nekritz is a liberal Democrat, but concern about this latest expansion wasn't limited to that wing.

"You're making this more and more onerous for people to comply" with the registration list, warned Rep. Bob Pritchard, R-Sycamore, a conservative stalwart.

Another, Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, R-Park Ridge, acknowledged that "most of us will vote for it because it looks bad if you don't," but she expressed concern about the annual proliferation of "layers" of new laws regarding the list.
- It's people like this that make me sick.  You all took an oath to DEFEND the Constitution, which includes EVERYONE, yet you are ignoring that oath to "look tough" instead.  How pathetic!

Pritchard and Mulligan both ended up voting "yes," and the bill is now on its way back to the Senate for a concurrence vote. It will almost certainly pass, but the issue is clearly becoming less cut-and-dried than it used to be.

IL - GA Unanimously Approves Dillard, Franks Bill Requiring License Revocation for Sex Offender Docs

Original Article


By Amy Barry

Legislation that would ensure doctors convicted of a sex crime would permanently lose their licenses to practice medicine in Illinois is one step closer to becoming law.

On May 18, Senate lawmakers unanimously approved House Bill 1271 (PDF), sponsored by State Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) and Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo); the legislation now heads to Gov. Pat Quinn for consideration.

I’d like to thank Rep. Jack Franks, former House member—now Chicago Alderman—Will Burns, and my Senate colleague Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) for their hard work on this legislation,” said Sen. Dillard. “I was shocked when I opened the Chicago Tribune and read that doctors accused of sexually assaulting their patients didn’t lose their licenses, even after being found guilty of their crimes. It is wrong to allow a convicted sex offender to treat patients, and today we are one step closer to outlawing that practice in Illinois.”

Dillard said that currently a health care worker could go to jail for sexually assaulting a patient, but unbelievably they would not immediately lose their license to practice medicine. That would be changed under House Bill 1271, which requires the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) to permanently revoke the license of a health care worker who has been convicted of a sex crime.
- So, if they have the Scarlett letter, you are just going to automatically revoke their license, even if they have not committed a sex crime related to their practice?

There are few relationships more private and important than a doctor and their patient, and as lawmakers we must do everything possible to keep patients safe,” Franks said. “Under this new legislation, the general public will have the peace of mind in knowing when they go to the doctor, they are not walking into a dangerous situation involving a sex offender. I applaud all my fellow lawmakers who worked to pass this bill.”

Dillard pursued the legislation after reading Chicago Tribune investigative reports revealing 16 Illinois doctors had been convicted of sexual offenses, but none of the men’s licenses were permanently revoked. He noted that two of the doctors continued to practice medicine.

It’s disconcerting that Illinois’ regulatory process allows these predators to continue working with patients, despite having violated the law, their code of ethics, and the public trust. It’s absurd that a convicted sex offender could potentially treat children as patients, yet they would not be allowed to drive a school bus,” Dillard said. “For too long there has been a disconnect between law enforcement and state regulation of doctors. House Bill 1271 bridges that gap and inserts common sense and decency into the system.”

MI - Court: Sex-offender list is not cruel punishment

Original Article

Update: See this blog post from eAdvocate

This is easy to say when you do not have to live by the draconian laws. Ruining a kids life at 15 by forcing him to register for life at 18 is cruel and unusual punishment!


The Michigan appeals court has overturned a Washtenaw County judge and said a young man who committed sexual misconduct at school must be on the state's sex-offender list.

Judge Darlene O'Brien said registration in the case was cruel punishment that violated the Michigan Constitution, but the appeals court disagreed.

A man identified in court papers as T.D. was 15 in 2006 when he was accused of putting a chokehold on a girl and exposing her breast while another boy tugged on her belt. T.D. was placed in a youth home and completed therapy.

He was required to register when he turned 18. The appeals court says it's not punishment but a way to inform the public even if the risk of another offense is low.

T.D.'s lawyer may appeal.

Supreme Court sets aside ruling on child abuse interviews

Original Article


By David G. Savage

It voids a 9th Circuit ruling from an Oregon case that would have required social workers and police to get a warrant or parental permission before interviewing a child about suspected sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court set aside a controversial ruling that would have required child care workers and police officers to obtain a search warrant or a parent's permission before speaking to a child at school about possible sexual abuse at home.
- So now, they can at any time, question a child about anything, without you present!

The justices had been urged by a broad coalition of school officials, state lawyers and the Obama administration to reject the ruling. It "threatens to eliminate an essential tool for the detection and prevention of child abuse," said Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal.
- In that case, why not just remove all rules and allow the corrupt government do anything they wish anytime they wish?  We are heading in that direction.

The justices took that advice Thursday, but did so in a roundabout way. They dismissed the Oregon lawsuit where the rule had arisen and voided everything that had grown out of the case.

The case began in 2003 when police arrested a man on suspicion of sexually abusing a young boy. The boy's parents said they suspected the man had also molested his own daughter.

Assigned to investigate, Bob Camreta, a caseworker for the Oregon Department of Human Services, went to the 9-year-old girl's elementary school with a police officer, and took the child out of class to interview her. The girl told Camreta she had been abused at home, and the father was indicted on sexual abuse charges. However, she recanted, and the charges were dropped.

Sarah Greene, the child's mother, filed suit, alleging the caseworker and the police officer violated her constitutional rights by interviewing her daughter without her permission and refusing to allow her to be present during physical examinations of her daughters. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed, saying the "traditional 4th Amendment protections" apply when children are interrogated by police at school and so search warrants would be required.

In Thursday's decision, the Supreme Court said it could not rule squarely on the issue for several procedural reasons. Nonetheless, the justices said they had decided to "vacate the part of the 9th Circuit opinion" that requires search warrants.

OH - Diversion rather than prison granted after Heath woman has sex with teen boy

Original Article

Would a man get the same special treatment? I doubt it!


By Jessie Balmert

NEWARK — A Heath woman who had sex with a 15-year-old boy and his relative who encouraged the relationship have a chance to avoid prison.

[name withheld], 38, and his neighbor [name withheld], 26, pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and were placed into a diversion program run through the prosecutor’s office.

If [name withheld] and [name withheld] successfully complete the program, they would not be convicted, face prison time or have to register as Tier II sex offenders.

But Licking County Common Pleas Court Judge Thomas Marcelain said their actions were a stretch for the program that was established for individuals in serious relationships made illegal by their age difference.

Although the two weren’t typical candidates for diversion, the program was an appropriate choice, Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt said.

There will be some odd cases,” Oswalt said.

[name withheld], was interested in [name withheld], but when she refused his advances, he repeatedly asked if she would have sex with his young relative, said [name withheld]’s attorney, Rob Calesaric.

On Oct. 17, [name withheld] needed a ride and [name withheld] offered one. [name withheld] told the 15-year-old boy [name withheld] would be a good sexual partner, Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Brian Waltz said.

[name withheld] and the 15-year-old boy had sex in the back of Green’s extended cab truck while [name withheld] drove around Licking County, Assistant Prosecutor Tracy Van Winkle said.

I think what he (the boy) was looking for here was to please ([name withheld]),” Van Winkle said.

[name withheld] also helped the teenager sneak out while a relative was sleeping so the boy could have sex with [name withheld] at her home, between Oct. 17 and Nov. 30, Waltz said.

[name withheld] warned the boy not to tell anyone because they could get in trouble, Waltz said.

A relative contacted Heath police after noticing something wrong with the teenager. When interviewed, the boy told police about the sexual conduct, Van Winkle said.

[name withheld] gave no explanation for this actions. [name withheld], who is treated for bipolar and borderline schizophrenia, was in a “weak mental state” during her interactions with the teenager, Calesaric said.

I think she can avoid being put in this position again,” Calesaric said.

Licking County Common Pleas Court Judge David Branstool accepted [name withheld] into diversion Tuesday, at the recommendation of the prosecutor’s office, defense attorney Andrew Sanderson and the teenage victim.

This is what (the victim) wants to see,” Waltz said.

[name withheld]’s guilty plea will be suspended for three years as he completes the diversion program. If he violates the terms of diversion, he could face six years in prison, Branstool said.

You got a lot of time on the shelf here,” Branstool warned.

[name withheld] appeared in front of Marcelain on Wednesday. She shouldn’t be more culpable for the incidents than [name withheld] who instigated the relationship and drove them around, Marcelain said.

On that basis alone, I will hold your guilty plea in abeyance for three years,” Marcelain said. She faces two years in prison if she violates diversion.

The judge questioned whether the prosecutor’s office would offer a male offender diversion.

I don’t think you would,” Marcelain said.

Van Winkle said the situation, not the defendants’ genders, warranted diversion. A trial would have been “extremely traumatic” for the boy, she added.

It’s a bizarre case,” Calesaric said.