Monday, September 2, 2013

NC - Court right to rule not all sex offenders same

Shana Rowan
Shana Rowan
Original Article

08/30/2013

By Shana Rowan (USA Fair, Inc.)

To the editor:

In the age of information, there is no excuse for ignorance of nearly two decades’ worth of studies on sex-offender policies and profiles. Sadly, the statements made by law enforcement and District Attorney Ernie Lee in an Aug. 20 article headlined, “Law enforcement weighs in on appellate decision” — regarding the repeal of North Carolina’s social media ban for sex offenders — don’t reflect that.

The judges in the case clearly stated that the law was overly broad because the ban applied to everyone convicted of any type of sex offense, without regard to whether or not they posed a risk to re-offend, had used a computer to commit their initial crime or had a child victim.

Why would law enforcement support a law that wastes valuable resources on no-risk offenders while truly dangerous individuals fall through the cracks?

According to a 2008 report (PDF) by the American Psychological Association, “the publicity about online ‘predators’ who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate.” The report goes on to say that the majority of victims in cases where social media was involved were willing participants in Internet-initiated sexual activity, but too young to legally give consent. The cases rarely involved violence and 75 percent of victims engaged physically with their offenders more than once.

A tremendous number of arrests for “soliciting minors” stem from law enforcement sting operations who entice potential offenders with non-existent teenagers.

Lastly, social media has become an integral part of connecting with friends and loved ones, keeping up on and discussing the news, and even obtaining employment. We should be encouraging former sex offenders to re-integrate healthily, not create additional obstacles. Lack of stability and access to loved ones have both been shown to increase the risk of re-offense.

Given the conclusive reports of low sex-offender recidivism and high prevalence of crimes committed by first-time offenders, we agree with the court’s ruling. While we can all agree that one re-offense is one too many, and that predatory behavior towards minors must be stopped, it is counter-productive to pour precious resources into defending a law that in reality will do almost nothing to prevent future victimizations.


1 comment :

ex-SO said...

Im pretty sure I know him. I know him from the inside. When I met him, he was on his second tour of duty with the FLDOC - the letter A appear after his DOC#. He claim he was there on a technical violation of his probation. True or not, I dont know, and really did not care. I only knew him for a few months.

I think it was during this time that his vigilantism may have started. When you are on the inside, it tends to warp and twist you mind. You ponder how to can beat your wrap, or how you will dodge the system once you are released. I had many such dreams myself. It was a way to pass the time.

Anyways I met Mr. Clay as we were on the same work detail together. We had conversation, we shared information and ideas. I never suspect what he was about to do to me. It would be 2 years later when i figured it out. Generally, Im a trusting person, and work opposite of alot of people. I will give you trust almost immediate, and watch for you to throw it away. He never did directly......smooth operator.

One particular day Mr Clay said to meet him at a specific light pole on the field after lunch. He would be late cause he had a medical. I did not think anything of it. After lunch when yard was called I went to the light pole and sat down and waiting. boredom quick set in so i doodled in the sand.

I was the only one there at the light pole, so when i noticed three COs approaching, I stood up, dusted myself off and met them.....I was even polite and ask how I could help them.

What you doing?
sitting here waiting for an inmate, sir.
What was you digging for?
Digging, sir? by this time the other two COs were digging under and around the light.
I wasnt digging for anything, sir. I was doodling in the sand while I waiting for another inmate, sir.

I watched as the COs kicked clawed and felt around the lightpole.

Heard you was looking for a shank?
No, sir. I have no enemies here.

and about that time they pull an 11 inch shank out from under the concrete pad of the light pole. I was handcuffed, questioned, went to DR court, was found guilty, sentence to 30 days in The Hole.

Charge: Possession of a weapon.

Oh great, now I have a weapons charge to go along side my SO charge.

I fought the charge. Even took it to court. I had a partial victory from it. It came out during the hearing someone flew a kite saying where i would be, and what i was buying. But it was the reports of the COs and the video surveillance that showed I wasnt digging for anything. Just sitting there, doodling in the sand. The judge ordered the DR remove from my DOC jacket.

I never saw Mr Clay again. But like i said, it would be a couple of years later when the light bulb went off. Mr Clay asked me to meet him there, and a kite was flown.

Remember. The best revenge is living well.