Monday, February 3, 2014

Should victims have a say in sex offender legislation?

Victim testifyingOriginal Article

02/03/2014

By Shelomith Stow

During a trial for any offense against a person, and most definitely when the charge is of a sexual nature, the testimony from the victim is the strongest factor in conviction. At sentencing, much credence is given to victim impact statements. When an inmate is eligible for parole, statements from the victim can make the difference between parole being granted or not.

But how about when former victims are involved with legislation affecting persons totally unrelated to the harm done to them and with the potential to affect persons far into the future? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet with the victims of sexual crime, it happens. Lauren Book (Video) has built a career by being involved with legislation, not only that which is appropriately focused on prevention but also that which targets registered sex offenders even though her abuser was not on the registry.
- Don't forget her father Ron Book (Video).

One has only to look at the alphabet soup listing of bills and legislation named after children who were murdered to see the impact that victims' families have. Yet the legislation pushed by these people do not target those who murder but rather those who commit sexual offenses, and there is no evidence that the motivation for the most notorious of these, the Adam Walsh Act, was even connected to a sexual crime.
- And the original intent of the Adam Walsh Act was for anybody who abuses children not just sexual crimes, and Adam's murder was never proven to be sexual in nature or who actually done the crime, yet they blamed Ottis Toole.


3 comments :

Mark said...

“Until now,” wrote Dayton, “the State’s tactic to avoid
releasing … "offenders after they had served their criminal sentences has
been to commit them to a ‘treatment program’ … . In practice … these
civil commitments have turned into virtual life sentences.” The Governor's candor aside. The true and actual object of sexual civil commitment is to keep them until they. . . . And most, if not all civil commitment centers provide "just enough" so-called therapy to keep it constitutional. In short, the experts have no answers; even after so-called treatment it is a "flip" of the coin as to whether or not a repeat offense will occur. From my experiences legally in an unmentioned Commonwealth state, I encountered some of the most hateful, self-righteous, pompous, incompetent medical, psychological, and psychiatric staff in my legal world that were containing men that will either die locked up, and/or turn into a useless white mouse. Yes, the crimes that were committed by committees are very serious but, the states in true reality, do not give two SH___TS about them at all, and just cringe, and hate having to fund monies to these facilities for anything but to keep it minimally constitutional. I had listened to "nasty" comments from the state's state house personnel all the way down the line with respect to the attitudes that were disseminated PROUDLY about sexual offenders and civil committees as though God the Father would pin a medal on the chest's of these pernicious persons. So, in my view, Minnesota will toss more money at the problem as the cost of tax payer $$$$$$.

Anonymous said...

A due process hearing is needed before civil commitment is carried out. You know, one where a person can actually have a chance to defend himself. Even if it's found after a due process hearing he can be kept longer, they need to actually try to treat him and prepare to release him into society.

amelia said...

I see hour blog as im searching for hope of a release for our neighbors son... he is not the worst of the worst! he should not be in msop and im sure others also should not be there- some wise-acre found a way to makemoney off mn tax payers with a questionable group of people! all these"clients" hostages have a file that is available to the public! i would welcome a site to post their files! anyone reading my neighbors file would wonder y he, not the 33 yr old woman dating him at 16 or the 18 yr old woman sleeping with him mentioned in his file are still free yet he is sitting prison time for raping them at 18? he need to be set free! he has been punished for other peoples crimes since before 2001. his 20's have been stolen! maybe they should reevaluate all the prisoners - not just the ones that offended the worst with multiple rapes- some do not belong!!!