Sunday, December 15, 2013

NY - St. Lawrence County Sheriff office violating state law?

UPDATE: Someone sent us the link to the presentation that is accessed by clicking the image below, which is showing the "50%" statistic, but if you go to the sheriff web site and click the link there, it goes to another presentation that shows different statistics, which is here.

The St. Lawrence County Sheriff's office is posting Level 1 offenders on their web site and also posting the usual "50% of sexual offenders reoffend" nonsense. See our previous posts on Offender Watch lies and disinformation.

Click the image to view their presentation

This is what the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services posted on their website.

"By law, only Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders are listed on the public directory. This directory now posts multiple photographs of registered sex offenders, as they become available, to provide New Yorkers with additional information to keep their families safe."

So is the St. Lawrence sheriff department breaking the law?

We have a spreadsheet of many of these counties who use Offender Watch, and many have changed their bogus statistics, or at one time they did, so we will recheck them to make sure. If you want to see all the counties who use Offender Watch, go here. We've noticed they do not list New York as using their software, but they do, apparently!


Guest said...

The quote from the NYSDCJS that is referenced with this article is SLIGHTLY misleading .
(Mind you I'm NOT discounting this articles credibility.)
Here's why ..
While YES on the WEBSITE ITSELF it DOES in fact state that "by law only level 2's and 3' are listed on the public registry"
What they DON'T tell you (unless you call them directly and ask about it) Is that while yes in the MAIN NYSDCJS website THEY don't post information about Level 1's BUT the INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES (if they maintain their own registry website) CAN (if they so choose to) list any and all Levels of Sex Offenders.
What I HAVE noticed recently however ( at least in MY county and town/city) that most(if not all) Level 1 sex offenders HAVE been removed from the respective sites.
I don't know if this changed is due to new laws or what . But for many Level 1's I KNOW FOR A FACT this comes as a rather big "sigh of relief'.
Especially for some that have had a hard time finding jobs or have been "ostracized' by different communities do to them being listed on the local registries.

Mark said...

Virtually all of the sexual offenders from 1956, if still living will be going into the police stations with wheel chairs, oxygen tanks, walkers. And once again, this is the absolute irrevocable mind-set that this court, and the United States of America has displayed. And now offenders well into their 70's and maybe 80's will have to be published. I have said this before, you just cannot make this stuff up. I have not had an opportunity yet to examine the case decision, but I would stake my life on this, that that court used some of the most tortured reasoning to justify that pitiful decision.

Mark said...

It's amazing how the secret lives of people come out. Here is a guy who is rather handsome, had a good job, and probably a "trophy" wife, friends etc.. And now he is exposed because his "secret" personality and life got the best of him. This more common than one would expect.

Loneranger said...

You mention that the people will be in their 70's or maybe even 80's and this is true. In Oregon it has been a life sentence so this is seen frequently. One of the things they look at when predicting the numbers they will have on the registry at any given time is the projected number of deaths that would count as a reduction. Knowing that people don't live forever it is a sure thing that if they add the ones that are short timers for this life as it would seem. Their numbers could be manipulated to look like they have gone down after a few years. The fact that when a person ages they become even less likely to commit another sex crime then the already low stats so what would be the point to keeping someone on this for life anyway. Once you reach the point where you are no more dangerous or likely to commit a sex crime than anyone else there is really no reason to hang on to a person and say it's for public safety. So what would be the backlash to doing this? Would they be tossed out of their nursing homes? Would they come to the nursing home and arrest them for failing to register when they forget due to dementia?
I know of one case here in Oregon where the guy was in his 80's and the US Marshals on one of their campaigns cloaked as compliance checks was arrested for not registering. Have no idea as to what his circumstances were or his mental state. However they didn't either and hauled him in like some kind of trophy.
When they prosecute a child for some perceived sex crime it's wrong. When they harass the elderly it is also wrong. One might even call both abuse. At some point they need to get a handle on this and not take years of study and a supreme court decision to prove this is cruel and unusual. Really it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.