Tuesday, November 5, 2013
The politicians pushing these draconian laws, the media and other organizations don't care about facts! They need to continue the fear campaign to keep the money rolling in, and to keep people distracted from the REAL problems in this country! Sex offenders are today's scapegoat!
By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.
Violent criminals reform.
And now -- drum roll -- the authors of the most widely used actuarial tool for assessing sex offender recidivism are conceding that even sex offenders cross a "redemption threshold" over time, such that their risk of committing a new sexual crime may become "indistinguishable from the risk presented by non-sexual offenders."
Tracking a large group of 7,740 sexual offenders drawn from 21 different samples around the world, the researchers found that those who remain free in the community for five years or more after their release are at drastically reduced risk of committing a new sex offense.
The offenders identified as at the highest risk on the Static-99R saw their rates of reoffending fall the most, from 22 percent at the time of release to 8.6 percent after five years and only 4.2 percent after 10 years in the community. Based on their findings, the researchers say that risk factors such as number of prior offenses are time-dependent rather than truly static or never-changing.
So where is the ACLU on this? No other criminal has to pay a fee to maintain a registry or their criminal records, so why force ex-offenders to pay an extortion fee?
LANSING - Sex Offenders will have to pay a fee to maintain the sex offender registry in Michigan. On Tuesday Governor Snyder signed into a law a measure that charges registered sex offenders $50 a year for as long as they are required to be on the sex offender registry. The law was sponsored by Senator Rick Jones of Grand Ledge.
"This law will help reduce taxpayer costs to maintain Michigan's sex offender registry," Gov. Rick Snyder said in a statement sent to the media. "By requiring registered sex offenders to pay an annual fee to fund the registry website, law enforcement will be able to direct more of its resources to public safety."
- The tax payers and idiotic politicians are the ones who want the registry and draconian laws, so they should be the ones who pay this fee. You don't force other criminals to pay an extortion fee!
Previously, registered sex offenders only had to pay a one-time fee, which only provided enough revenue to cover about 10 percent of the cost to maintain the state's sex offender registry, according to the Governor's office.
- We though this is what the Byrne Grants were for?
MONTGOMERY - There may be sexual predators sleeping in the home next door to your children because of a loophole in the sex offender registration laws.
Blaine Hoffman and his family have been living in Kettering for more than a decade. Their neighborhood is quiet, family-friendly, and until spring of this year sex offender-free.
"That's how we found out. The sheriff's officer was parked outside of our house updating the registration address. Otherwise we wouldn't have known," Hoffman said.
A sex offender had moved in with his girlfriend, right across the street.
"For a father and a husband, it's very concerning," Hoffman added.
Records show the offender registered his girlfriend's address as his primary residence, but only at first. Following pressure from the neighborhood watch for him to move out, he did, sort of. He registered a different primary address with the sheriff's office. But Hoffman says the guy was still spending a whole lot of time at his girlfriend's house, which was then considered by authorities to be a secondary address, which means it's not searchable online.
"The detective said that as long as he notifies them that this is an address where he can be found, there's nothing we can do," Hoffman said.
"The secondary addresses are not published online. However, if a person has a concern, all they have to do is contact us at the sheriff's office," said Montgomery County Sheriff's Sgt. Julie Stephens.
The sheriff's office says offenders can have secondary addresses in any neighborhood. However, they aren't required to give deputies those secondary addresses. But it is highly encouraged.
"If they're there three or more nights a week, we're going to want that as a secondary address," Stephens said.
But in order for you to find out if a sex offender has a secondary address in your neighborhood you'll have to call the sheriff's office. A secondary address won't come up in the sex offender registry online search.
"If they have a concern about their safety they definitely need to call us and let us follow up on it and figure out if that's a place that the person hasn't told us about it or if it's a place where that person doesn't need to be," Stephens said.
"I get that they have cousins and friends that they could be hanging out with. But we're talking about people that are staying weeks on end and for all intents and purposes residing there. That's alarming," said Hoffman.
In an attempt to prevent offenders from skirting the law, sheriff's deputies periodically check up on them. They even inspect the offender's home to make sure they have clothes and toiletries inside, basically searching for evidence that the registered primary address is legitimate.
However, law enforcement officers admit, they need the public's help, and encourage you to give them a call if you suspect an offender is lying about where he lives.
By Shana Rowan
The Sheboygan Press Nov. 2 article on Sheboygan’s sex offender ordinance did an excellent job of examining residency laws from various perspectives. As an advocate for evidence-based sex offender policies and fiance to a registrant whose crime was committed as a minor, I applaud the paper’s integrity.
As discussed in the article, years of research on residency restrictions have found no evidence that they reduce sexual recidivism or prevent new crimes. At best, Sheboygan's ordinance has done nothing to influence recidivism one way or another. At worst, however, it has been counter-productive to public safety. The ordinance does not target those who pose the most risk to commit child sexual abuse (95 percent of all child victims are abused by a family member, friend or acquaintance.)
It also doesn't target registrants who cannot find housing due to the ordinance, and have violated it by not reporting an accurate address, or have become homeless or transient. Law enforcement, departments of correction, treatment providers to both victims and offenders, and public policy researchers have all denounced residency laws as well-intentioned but detrimental to society.
Why do city council members believe they somehow know better? Research on sex offender laws is extremely accessible and the public must begin educating itself rather than relying on lawmakers to deliver the truth, since “it’s working” is clearly a subjective assessment.
By Will Bassler
An article in the Denver Post on November 3, 2013 was titled “Unintended effect of 1998 Colorado law: More sex offenders in for life”. This article brought to light that Colorado has not been offering treatment, as is required by law to people who have been sentenced for crimes. These people can only be released after receiving effective treatment and the state is not offering that treatment supposedly because of facilities and financial issues.
I responded back to the writer of the article, in hopes that he would do a follow-up article showing that the state of Colorado is not only acting irresponsibly but they are also opening themselves up to multimillion dollar lawsuits based on prior federal court decisions.
In reading your recent story in the Denver Post “Unintended effect of 1998 Colorado law” I thought about posting a response in the comments section , but realized my response would be way too long, especially considering I would be using direct quotes from a federal case stating that the state of Colorado cannot use the excuse of the necessity of funds, facilities or staff to justify lack of treatment. Also, the fact that in the same case the federal court has stated that just because someone commits a crime you cannot declare them mentally ill and require them to be in treatment.
The second part of this is the fact that there is a constitutional issue here that most people don’t want to deal with. Because of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country you’re allowed to dislike, even outright hate, a person or group that is all well and good. You have that right under the Constitution, what you do not have is the right force your ideas or Moral values, on other individuals. Just because of your dislike or fear of a group of people this does not give you the right to take away their constitutional protections. As soon as you start doing that you are destroying the very fabric that this country was built on and you become as un-American as somebody in another country burning an American flag or flying a plane into the World Trade Center. Think about it, if you want to retain your constitutional rights you have to fight to make sure that everyone keeps theirs, even the people that you dislike or hate.
Consider this information from federal cases.
Terre des Hommes - An international charity which concentrates on children’s rights based in the Netherlands has created a virtual 10-year-old girl “from the Philippines” named “Sweetie.”
Sweetie was designed to track down, and hopefully convict, online pedophiles who use “webcam child sex tourism.”
I’m not sure where Terre des Hommes got these numbers, but they state at any given moment there are least 750,000 pedophiles online. That’s a staggering number of nonces with webcams, IMO.
- Hmm, 750,000 pedophiles? Yeah right! That number is very close to the number of sex offenders in the USA, but a majority of them are not pedophiles!
The more the evidence (PDF) shows otherwise, the more places pop up wanting sex offender residency restrictions and "child-safe zones."
Almost every day brings another town or another county proposing some sort of restriction limiting where those on the registry can legally live, go, or work, or placing some special conditions on their being there.
The concept of a "child-safe" area, just like all areas of restrictions to those on the registry, is flawed at the core. It makes assumptions that are untrue. One is that those who abuse children are strangers seeking out places where children congregate. This is true of the tiniest fraction, less than 1% most data shows. Virtually all child sexual abuse is committed by those close to the children in their lives, specifically their family members, their peers, and their authority figures.
|Shana Rowan with ATSA's Jim Brandt|
By Shana Rowan
For the first time, USA FAIR was an exhibitor at the ATSA Annual Conference held this year in Chicago from October 30th through November 2nd. This is the largest annual gathering of people involved in sex offender treatment and management.
I am pleased to report that the reception we received was fantastic. So many people visited our table that I had to order reprints of our hand-out materials! The conference participants were genuinely excited to see that family members of registrants were showing up to become a part of the fight for reasoned based laws.
Many attendees asked how they could get involved to work with us and indicated that they would refer their clients to us. Several state chapter representatives of ATSA expressed a desire to strategize with us on how to achieve reform and asked about USA FAIR giving presentations before their chapters.
I was joined by a strong team of reformers, including Gail Colletta and Barbra McClamma of Florida Action Committee.
None of this would have happened, of course, without the generous donations of USA FAIR members.
It has been brought to our attention that the victim here is a RSO (registered sex offender), but we have no idea if that is indeed true and that he was shot due to being on the registry, but it makes you wonder. If this is true, then why are the police holding that information back? They and the media usually jump at the occasion to splash their name all over the place, so why is this different, except that is may be vigilantism?
ODESSA - A 19 year old is recovering after being shot in front of his home.
Odessa police say they responded about 8:15 Sunday morning on the 900 block of Rebecca Road.
Officers say _____ was seriously injured and rushed to a local hospital.
Police don't have a detailed description of the shooter, they're only saying he's a Hispanic male in his thirties.
If you have any information about this shooting you're asked to call Odessa Crime Stoppers.
- Odessa Police Investigating Shooting, One Person Sent to the Hospital
- Police looking for suspect in south side shooting
- Odessa Police Looking For Suspect Involved in Morning Shooting