Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Even the FBI knows the media & politicians distort the truth!

Original Article

By Ashli-Jade Douglas

Child Abductions - Known Relationships Are the Greater Danger

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), every year, more than 200,000 children are abducted by family members. An additional 58,000 are taken by nonrelatives with primarily sexual motives. However, only 115 reported abductions represent cases in which strangers abduct and kill children, hold them for ransom, or take them with the intention to keep.1

Media news outlets have portrayed that abductors primarily consist of strangers or registered sex offenders (RSO), which has proven invalid in the past 2 fiscal years (FY). When a child is reported missing, members of the media advise parents to check sex offender registries to prevent their child from possible abduction or sexual victimization. However, FBI reporting indicates that RSOs are a minimal part of the problem. In FY 2009, an RSO was the abductor in 2 percent of child abduction cases; in FY 2010, this figure dropped to 1 percent.2

Although parents teach their children to stay away from strangers, most neglect to teach them not to allow anyone, even someone they know, to take them without parental consent. Additionally, children frequently are instructed to obey elders without question, adding to their vulnerability to offenders known to the child victim.

Over the past 4 years, the FBI has seen a decrease in abductions committed by a stranger or RSO. However, it is important to note that abductors with sexual intentions are, in fact, sexual offenders who have not yet been identified and, therefore, are unknown to local law enforcement agencies.

A majority (68 percent) of the child abduction cases the FBI’s Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) team has assisted in has resulted in the identification of an offender who had a relationship with the child victim.3 Moreover, an RSO was involved in only 10 percent of the investigations, 5 percent of who knew the victim.

In FY 2009, 63 percent of child abduction cases involved an offender known to the victim; only 1 percent were RSOs.4 In FY 2010, 70 percent of child abduction cases resulted in the identification of an offender who had a known relationship with the victim; less than 1 percent of the abductors were RSOs.5

RSOs contribute to a miniscule part of the child abduction problem. In contrast to media reporting, the number of cases involving a registered sex offender is decreasing. In addition to the FBI reporting, NCMEC has revealed that there were no RSOs involved in AMBER Alert cases in 2009.6

Although abductors can vary in age, race, or physicality, the FBI assesses with high confidence that the majority of child abductors involved in FBI child abduction cases, CARD team deployments, and AMBER Alerts have a relationship with the child victim. Moreover, despite media reporting, the FBI confidently assesses that the majority of child abductions are committed by persons with a relationship to the child they abduct.

See Also:

  1. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, press release, May 18, 2009; http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=4046 (accessed April 26, 2011).
  2. For the purpose of this article, the author defines abduction as “the initial report of a child taken without the knowledge of a parent or guardian.”
  3. The FBI’s Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) team was established in 2009 to provide FBI field offices with a resource team of additional investigators with specialized experience in child abduction matters. These regional teams provide rapid, on-site response to provide investigative, technical, and resource assistance during the most critical time period following a child abduction. In 2009, the team had the most deployments since its inception.
  4. Based on FBI investigations.
  5. Ibid.
  6. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2009 AMBER Alert Report; http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/2009AMBERAlertReport.pdf (accessed April 26, 2011).

Ms. Douglas is an intelligence analyst with the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.

A Moral Defense of Plea Bargaining

Original Article

Michael Young
affiliation not provided to SSRN

May 26, 2011

This paper argues that the critics' best case fairly stated against plea bargaining fails in its own terms to show that plea bargaining is necessarily unjust or injustice-tending. Critically, this paper argues against plea-bargaining's critics without resorting to the typical pro-plea-bargaining arguments about efficiency or the value of choice. Plea-bargaining may be efficient as a means of deterring crime and saving prosecutorial resources, but, even if so, that fact would not redeem plea-bargaining if it were, as the critics claim, unjust. Or, plea-bargaining may realize the defendant's rational choice, but where it is sensible to ask whether those very choices should be in the first place thrust upon the defendant, an appeal to choice in this way begs rather than answers the moral question raised by the critic. If it is to be answered at all, the moral case against plea bargaining must be answered in the terms of the critics' real moral concern without resort to the usual poor arguments, and this paper provides that better moral answer by focusing on several key critical arguments. Specifically, this paper offers original arguments challenging the critical claims that plea bargaining leads to the conviction of too many innocents (the "innocence problem"); that it is necessarily coercive or tending towards coercion; and that it inequitably leads to the unlike treatment of like cases (the "trial penalty" problem).

CA - New Cerritos ordinance bans sex offenders from city parks, libraries

Original Article


By Phillip Zonkel

CERRITOS - Registered sex offenders won't be allowed in city parks or many other public facilities under an ordinance approved last week by the City Council.

Gary Berg, the city's director of community and safety services, told the council Thursday that passing the ordinance isn't going to prevent crime and enforcing it is problematic.

Nevertheless, the council passed the ordinance 4-1. Council members Jim Edwards, Bruce W. Barrows, Carol K. Chen and Mark E. Pulido voted in favor of the ordinance. Councilman Joseph Cho was the dissenting vote.

The council must vote again on the ordinance on a second reading at its Aug. 23 meeting. If the council approves it, the ordinance would go into effect 30 days later.

The proposed ordinance would ban registered sex offenders from any city park and several city facilities - the Civic Center, the library, the Center for the Performing Arts and the Senior Center.

Registered sex offenders have the option of asking permission from either the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or the city's director of community and safety services to enter any of these facilities, according to the proposed ordinance.

The four council members said they supported banning registered sex offenders from all public places as a means of protecting the public.

Councilman Cho asked Berg what information he had to justify supporting the ordinance, such as the number of child sex crimes committed at parks, how many children have been kidnapped in public places or if the parks or Civic Center are dangerous places.

"We have no information to suggest we have a problem in our parks," Berg said.
- Of course you don't, you pass laws, not based on facts, but emotions, to help yourselves look good to the sheeple who will believe anything you say.

He also said enforcement of the proposed ordinance is problematic.

In reality, deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department don't know the faces of all registered sex offenders and would have to wait for someone to report an incident to them before they could investigate, Berg said.

"These unenforceable laws don't make children safe," Cho said. "They are designed to make politicians look tough on crime and to make people feel good."

The council began discussing the idea of an ordinance last October after municipalities in Orange and Los Angeles counties passed similar measures.

In October, Los Alamitos passed an ordinance setting up "child safety zones" that ban sex offenders from city parks and playgrounds. Los Alamitos modeled its law after a measure passed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, adopted nearly a year ago.

The county ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for a registered sex offender to enter - without permission of the Sheriff's Department - county recreational areas where children regularly gather.

After studying the issue at its Jan. 18 meeting, Cerritos' Community Safety Committee recommended to the council an ordinance that only restricts registered sex offenders convicted of sex acts involving minors. Committee members were concerned that a broader ordinance might be vulnerable to a lawsuit, according to the staff reports.

However, at its Feb. 2 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to the council an ordinance banning all registered sex offenders from entering city parks.
- It's because they have also drank the kool-aid and believe that all sex offenders are pedophile predators who are all just hiding behind bushes in parks just waiting for a kid to come by.