Wednesday, December 11, 2013

MA - Court overturns escort's sex offender label

Dude, WTF?
Original Article

Sexism anybody?


BOSTON - The state's highest court on Wednesday overturned the classification of a former escort service manager as a low-level sex offender, finding that the state's Sex Offender Registry Board should have considered research showing women are less likely than men to commit new sex offenses (Ruling).

The woman, who wasn't identified in the court's ruling, pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal charges stemming from her management of an escort service from 2000 to 2002, including one count of transporting a minor to engage in prostitution and one count of sex trafficking of children. She served 17 months in prison while awaiting trial before pleading guilty.

In 2008, the woman requested funds to hire an expert witness, arguing that the board's guidelines didn't encompass scientific research on female sex offenders. Her request was rejected by the board.

A hearing officer eventually found that she should be classified as a level one sex offender, the lowest level of offender, considered the least likely to reoffend and the least dangerous.

She appealed that decision, but a Superior Court judge upheld the board's ruling. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the woman's request for direct review.

In its ruling Wednesday, the SJC agreed with the woman that the hearing examiner abused his discretion by denying her request for funds for an expert witness who could testify on the subject of how infrequently female sex offenders commit new crimes when compared with men.

"We conclude that it was arbitrary and capricious for (the board) to classify Doe's risk of re-offense and degree of dangerousness without considering the substantial evidence presented at the hearing concerning the effect of gender on recidivism," Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court.

The court sent the case back to the board.

Catherine Hinton, the woman's lawyer, said the ruling means the board can now either grant the woman's request for expert witness funds and a new hearing or relieve her of the requirement to register as a sex offender.

"Our position is that she should not have to register as a sex offender at all," Hinton said.

"She was arrested nearly three years after she had voluntarily ceased the criminal conduct at issue. She had already addressed her substance abuse problems and had already left the prostitution business," she said.

In a statement, the board said it will comply with the court's order.

The court also said the board is required to ensure that its guidelines are based on "the available literature."

"We do not purport to suggest a frequency with which the guidelines must be updated, but caution that guidelines that fail to heed growing scientific consensus in an area may undercut the individualized nature of the hearing to which a sex offender is entitled, an important due process right," Lenk wrote.

See Also:


Mark said...

According to the SJC gender is the issue because the court went on to say this:

The guidelines that SORB uses to
make these findings were last updated in 2002; the "available literature"
cited is largely between fifteen and twenty years old, see 803 Mass Code. Regs.
§ 1.40, and is based almost exclusively on observation of male sex offenders.
Such emphasis on males is not necessarily surprising, given that the sex
offender population is overwhelmingly male. See Cortoni, Hanson, & Coache,
The Recidivism Rates of Female Sexual Offenders Are Low: A Meta-Analysis, 22
Sexual Abuse 387, 388 (2010) (Cortoni, Hanson, & Coache) (meta-analysis of
ten studies carried out in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and
United States). The bottom line, is gender, and recidivism folks in Massachusetts!!!! IN short, the SJC has in effect that men cannot keep it in their pants compared to females. JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO.: 205614 V SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD, SJC-11328

Mark said...

Yet, another one in blue. Let me ask this to all who can answer this: if there is this global sex offending against women and children and I mean a flood, a deluge of it, perhaps in the thousands - is it really a psychological problem and all of these "victimizers" when apprehended, are in need of treatment because it is a psychological problem? In my view, there are just too many of these crimes to be a claim of a psychological disturbance. Got a response?

Mark said...


Mark said...

Children's live are ruined? What about any adult caught in the registry tentacles of the web? Oh, of course, they are adults - silly me.

Mark said...

Hey Lisa: why don't you just go and melt the ice at the skating rink and the kids will skate and play elsewhere. Or better yet, perhaps if you can, if you dare, to examine the loathing hatred and spite you have for one convicted sexual offender? I bet there are very deep seated issues that you have never tackled before - get it?

Loneranger said...

when you say all one can not say it is as there are to many variables.However when you place age requirements on consenting partners and then say if one is not of age and the other is the one that violates that rule must have a problem as they violate the law. Given most sex is with in the brain logically speaking they have a mental problem. Now if the law didn't place age restrictions that were a social restriction and call it an act against nature when nature is trying to be controlled most of this would go away.A mental problem? Yes in many cases it is but only defined by the laws of the land at the time as most cases involve a minor dictate they could not give consent when in fact they did in the real world. So as long as they can use this to prosecute no matter what the real circumstances are then yes the older of the two had a mental problem as they didn't follow the law and just say no. So the reason they didn't is seen as a disorder.

So is it really or are they trying to say it is because they need to follow the letter of the law? Given there are to many variables to make a blanket statement and include all then no it is not a mental problem for all. A bad choice yes. When we look at the consequences for a bad choice and still make it then yes there might be something wrong with the persons thinking. So as long as the courts are going to try and control nature females under the age of consent will continue to be involved and laws enforced.

It does look like an epidemic as the situations that are created with over reaching laws paints this picture. A hundred years ago girls were married at 14. Now until they turn 18 they are owned by the state and shouldn't even think about sex as if they are involved with the wrong partner they might as well have put a gun to his head and most should know this by now. that in itself is something to think about.

tom said...

LOL Yeah I was 20 years old when I was put on the registry does this include me? After all I was not old enough to drink! But old enough to do 4 years in the pen getting raped in there for 4 years was that what they all had in mind? I mean does the punishment fit the crime? I am 46 years old now have no job no life and am at my very end to tell you all the truth. I wish they would have just killed me since 1990 I have been a sex offender no end in site for me my life? Was over at the age of 20. I can not wait till I am dead. Oh and yeah they also make getting health care impossible as well. I have yet to even get any health care since I was 20 years old people! Yeah I hate this life I really do! When will they just come get me and do what is needed to be do?

Viva said...

Two thoughts...

1. As a profession, Law Enforcement are the most dangerous of them all to our women and "children".

2. It is absurd that a 16-year old person cannot make decisions regarding their own sexual behavior. Especially in a place that lets them legally drive and work, and routinely prosecutes and sentences them as adults.

getting closer to the street said...

Fear or cowards . Intelect is very thin in this area . Another frozen human of what may be injustice from time served . Phil Mc Coleman is a big middle aged man , who is afraid of the shadows . Logic and concern should be first . Not fear . Observe with dignity and intelect . As a leader of trust and direction . Parents teach your kids not to talk to strangers , and let the police do their job . Phil don't these kids have cell phones . We did'nt when we were kids , but we survived .