Tuesday, February 5, 2013

CA - 5 year old female giving oral sex in school bathroom scandal at first lutheran Carson School

OH - You & The Law "Sex Offender Laws" (Part 1)

Video Description:
Learn about Sex Offender Laws on this episode of "You & The Law" with guest host Matthew Arntz, Esq., and guests Judge Mary Kate Huffman and Jim Dare, Deputy Court Administrator.

See Also:

NY - An expensive dilemma indeed

Original Article



Talk about the space between a rock and a hard place.

Riverhead has been fighting Suffolk County's stupid "trailer policy" for homeless sex offenders for more than six years — ever since the county acknowledged it was stuffing 20 or so men into a work trailer in the parking lot of the county jail to spend the night on cots.

County government repeatedly lied to us about the trailer: It was going to be moved around the county. It was secure. The homeless sex offenders were not going to be free to wander our downtown streets.

All a bunch of malarky.

When East End legislators were finally able to get enough votes in the legislature to close the trailers, then-county executive Steve Levy blocked implementation of the legislature's alternative plan to establish small-group shelters in nonresidential areas throughout the county.

Now, our new county executive, who promised us last May he'd close the trailers by the end of 2012, says the way to shut them down is to implement a new plan that will address the county's total population of registered sex offenders — not just the 40 homeless men.

All well and good. But now that I've had a "sneak peak" at the legislation that the county executive is going to lay on the table at today's general legislature meeting — along with a certificate of necessity, which allows the legislature to vote on it immediately — I'm feeling stuck in that space between a rock and a hard place. As a taxpayer.

I want the trailers shut down as much as anybody. I am appalled that our county government thinks it's acceptable to dump all of the homeless registered sex offenders in the entire county in downtown Riverhead. (To be fair, the county set up a second trailer in Westhampton, when the one at the jail became overcrowded, so there is, at least, one other community sharing the burden.) I am even more appalled that the county has been spending $1.5 million a year to taxi these men back and forth to their "home" social services office every day. That $1.5 million buys no rehabilitation services, treatment, training or anything else.

County legislators would rather waste this ridiculous sum on carfare than vote to allow homeless sex offenders to be sheltered in their own districts. Can you really blame these politicians? Residents go ballistic when they hear about homeless sex offenders in their neighborhoods. I do, you do, we all do. So let's face it: voting to establish a shelter for homeless sex offenders would be political suicide. So they'd rather waste millions on carfare than make the tough decision to adopt a reasonable plan.

As long as we're talking tough decisions and reasonable plans, let's look at why the homelessness problem among sex offenders exists to begin with. Look no further than the county legislature. It adopted residency restrictions for registered sex offenders so strict, it created the homelessness problem. Many of the men sleeping in the trailer have homes but can't live in them because of the county law, which bans them from residing within a mile of a school or day care.

Again, the legislature opted for political expediency over sound public policy, ignoring facts and statistics kept by the law enforcement agencies, and adopted residency restrictions that serve no legitimate purpose — except, I guess, appeasing their constituents.

Every residency law like Suffolk's has been thrown out when challenged in court. Suffolk's law is also before a judge and will undoubtedly meet the fate it deserves. It's a stupid law, without purpose if you take a few minutes to become informed of the facts about registered sex offenders. But that's apparently too much to ask of lawmakers nowadays.

Which brings us to the law being offered by the current county executive today.

Suffolk police chief James Burke and Parents for Megan's Law executive director told the legislature's public safety committee last week, "When you adopt this plan, you will be providing Suffolk County's most vulnerable with the toughest monitoring, enforcement and community support program in the nation."
- Yeah, every state and every politicians says stuff like this, they all think their laws are the toughest.  It's like it's a race to see who can be the toughest while actually doing nothing.

But what does it really do to address the problem of sexual crimes, particularly sexual crimes against children?

Not a whole heck of a lot, actually. It deals only with sex offenders who have already been caught and convicted, people who are already on the sex-offender registry. All well and good, but sexual crimes against children committed by people previously convicted and already registered represent only 5 percent of sexual crimes against children.

Got that? Ninety-five percent of sex crimes against kids are committed by people who are not on the sex offender registry. They are committed by people who are family members or friends of the families of the abused children.

"You're more likely to find a picture of the person molesting your child in a family photo album than in a sex offender registry," says Shana Rowan, executive director of USA Fair, Inc., a nonprofit organization advocating reform of sex offender registry laws.

So does it really make sense, then, to spend $900,000 a year — the amount the county will pay the Parents for Megan's Law group under the new plan — to better monitor already-registered sex offenders? Sure, it makes more sense to spend that kind of dough on monitoring 1,000 registered sex offenders than on taxiing 40 homeless ones around the county. But it seems to me just another example of lawmakers doing something (expensive) that sounds good to constituents but really doesn't address the core issue.
- So the state is paying Parents for Megan's law to monitor offenders instead of police?  Sounds like a conflict of interest to me!

What does the county plan to do to about the 95 percent of sex crimes committed against kids by people unknown to law enforcement? No mention of that by either the police chief or the victims' advocate last week. And, sadly, no legislator asked the question, even after psychologist Bill O'Leary, who spends his life treating sex offenders, raised the issue.

O'Leary told me in an interview he believes the best thing the county could do to prevent the 95 percent of sex crimes against kids by perpetrators who haven't yet been caught is to beef up the child protective services unit. Hire more CPS investigators. Instead, the county cut CPS.

So back to that spot between a rock and a hard place.

Close the dumb trailers by approving a law that spends nearly a million bucks a year to do something that won't — can't – put a dent in the real problem? Or reject the law, knowing full well that the political stalemate that's kept the trailers open will continue — at least until a court throws out the residency restrictions that made most of those men homeless in the first place?

And they wonder why people have lost faith in government.

Before we start yelling about how bad government and politicians are, we should look in the mirror. I think our knee-jerk, govern-by-sound-bite government — at every level of government in this republic – is the government we've got because it's the government we deserve. We're content to be hysterical and ill-informed about so many issues. Sex offenders is just one of them. Unless we own up to that and start putting time and effort into being an informed electorate, we don't have the right to demand anything more.

See Also:

WI - De Pere sex offender ordinance may be dropped

Scott Crevier
Original Article


By Maria Amante

The De Pere City Council may repeal an ordinance tonight that restricts where sex offenders may live within the city.

Alderman Scott Crevier requested the ordinance be repealed after a state Department of Corrections official’s testimony before the board last month, advocating repeal of the ordinance.

The whole idea behind our sex offender registry is flawed,” Crevier said. “We’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. We don’t have a problem with reoffense in our community. It’s not our problem to solve.”

The council will consider the request at its meeting at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.

Jed Neuman, supervisor of the Department of Corrections Sex Offender Unit, said such ordinances compromise what agents can do, making it more difficult for corrections agents to track offenders.

The ordinance prohibits offenders from living within 500 feet of places where children congregate.

Crevier and Police Chief Derek Beiderwieden have been longtime opponents of the ordinance, speaking against it since before it was on the books.

Beiderwieden was unavailable for comment Monday.

Crevier said some offenders who live in De Pere may report a different address to avoid violation of the ordinance.

Evidence shows any reoffenses that happen do not normally happen where the offender lives,” Crevier said. “No evidence shows that having them live somewhere else makes it any better. Having our ordinance has not reduced the number of sex offenders living in our area.”

If repealed, the council would provide the chief of police an advisory board to determine an appropriate level of public notification of designated offender residency in the city.

Several offenders were “grandfathered” in before the ordinance, allowing them to keep their residences even if they were in violation, Crevier said. Several more received exceptions from the council.

We can have an ordinance that doesn’t do anything... have an ordinance that’s not effective, but having an ordinance that makes problem worse is my concern,” Crevier said. “That’s what (Corrections) is telling us, that it compromises (their) ability to supervise those people. I want to help them keep us safe.”

See Also:

OK - Sex Offenders Challenge Registry Rules In Oklahoma Supreme Court

Original Article


OKLAHOMA CITY - Attorneys for three men who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws say they are a form of punishment and are unconstitutional.

The attorneys made the charges on Tuesday during oral arguments before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Their clients were convicted of various sex crimes in other states and want to stop the state from placing their names on the sex offender registry.

Each case challenges the state's attempt to make its sex offender registration rules retroactive.

Two of the men claim they are exempt from the rules because their crimes pre-date the creation of the registry in 1989. The other was required to register for 10 years when he was sentenced and is challenging the state's attempt to make him register longer following legislative amendments to the registry rules.

GA - Lawmaker introduces bill to ban sex offenders from driving school buses

Original Article


By Christopher King

ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - A state lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban anyone on the sex offender registry from getting a new license to drive a school bus or a charter bus.
- Once again, putting all ex-sex offenders into one group, those who harm children, which is not true. If a person commits a crime that did not involve a child, then they should be able to drive a bus.

"It would be a total restriction on any transportation of children," said State Rep. Paul Battles.

Battles has introduced a bill that would bar anyone on the sex offender registry from getting a new commercial driver's license and driving certain types of commercial motor vehicles.

That means a convicted sex offender would not be able to drive a school bus or a charter bus.

Battles said his bill would add another layer of safety for children.
- And more discrimination against those whose crime didn't involve children!

"This just protects them against the possibility of someone committing another crime," Battles said.

Page Pate, a legal and constitutional expert, said the bill takes the current law a step further, but is not needed.

FL - City Council seeks public input on sex offender laws

Original Article

Once again, they are putting all ex-sex offenders into one group, someone who harms children, which is a flat out lie and deceitful. If the law affected those who committed their crimes near schools or a park, then it would make more sense, but this affects everybody.


FORT MYERS - The Fort Myers City Council is considering tougher restrictions on registered sex offenders. If passed, sex offenders must stay at least 300 feet from parks and schools. The question is whether the proposed rule is too strict or exactly what is needed to protect the city's children.

Tonight, the city is holding a public hearing and wants to know what people think.

Currently, state law prohibits a sex offender from living less than 1,000 feet from public places where children might be present. This ordinance would add an extra layer to that, specifying that an offender can't be present 300 feet from a school, park, daycare, etc. Civil rights groups have complained the proposed rule is too strict, leaves few options for sex offenders and is essentially a way to get them back into jail. Some residents say they don't have much sympathy for that argument.

This rule mimicks one that is already in effect in Lee County.

The public hearing on the matter will take place at the 4:30 City Council meeting, and that portion of the agenda is set to take place after 5:00 p.m.

See Also:

MT - Bill would require violent and sexual offenders to submit DNA

Original Article

This is just nothing but grandstanding, in our opinion. If he really wanted to help put a dent in crime, he'd get the DNA of ALL ex-felons and even all citizens, from birth. Then if a crime is committed where DNA is available, they can test it, then find the person.


By John S. Adams

HELENAAttorney General Tim Fox urged members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to move a bill aimed at cracking down on sexual and violent offenders who move to Montana from other states.

Fox, along with representatives from the state crime lab and law enforcement and local prosecutor groups, testified in favor of the measure, which would require sexual or violent offenders who move to Montana to submit a DNA sample to a state DNA database.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Cliff Larsen, D-Missoula, said current laws contain a “loophole” that leaves crimes unsolved.

When a sexual or violent offender from another state is released from supervision, that offender is able to move to Montana and register as a sexual or violent offender, but that offender does not have to provide a DNA sample to be entered into the state database,” Larsen said. “This loophole affects public safety in that only by having these DNA profiles in the Montana state DNA database can many heinous unsolved cases be solved and can future crimes be prevented.”

Montana is one of four states that doesn’t require such sampling.

Fox said without the new legislation in place, law enforcement officers may be unable to solve many of the cold cases that are in the Montana state DNA database.

Fox said DNA sampling has lead to arrests in convictions in other states. He cited an example from Wyoming, in which authorities solved a 1990 rape case after a registered violent offender submitted a DNA sample to Wyoming’s state DNA database.

Fox said the victim was sleeping with her young child in bed at home when she was assaulted and raped at knife point. Investigators developed a DNA profile of the perpetrator based on biological evidence from the crime. The perpetrator was imprisoned in another state for an offense which, at the time, did not require a DNA sample be submitted for database storage. When the perpetrator was released from prison, he moved back to Wyoming, where he was required to submit a DNA sample when he registered as a sexual offender. When authorities entered the DNA profile into the database, it connected him to the 1990 rape case.

This common-sense change not only gets Montana up to speed with most other states, but may lead law enforcement and prosecutors to criminals who should be in prison for unsolved crimes and prevent them from committing future harm against our children or other members of society,” Fox said.

No opponents testified against the measure Monday. The bill is expected to clear the committee later this week.