Shelby Cross Takes On Public Indecency By Videotaping Teens Having Sex

AL - Sex offender program for Russell County

Original Article
Read More About Offender Watch Here

See the email we sent (at the end) to this sheriff at "dbussey@rcso.org" on the lie they have on their Offender Watch web site. Hopefully they will change it, but I seriously doubt it.

08/31/2011

By Meredith Armstrong

Phenix City - The electronic Offenderwatch program is designed so that anyone can enter an address and instantly know where sex offenders live and work. That knowledge is something Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said his department is catching up on.

Sheriff Heath Taylor said, “Us getting on board with this is kind of following suit with everybody else around us that has offered this same program to their community already.”

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed a law that went into effect July 1st that puts tougher restrictions on sex offenders. The law now requires the offenders to register with the municipality where they live. In the past sex offenders were only required to register with the law enforcement of the county.

Taylor said, “The last thing I want to happen in this county is for a child to be offended by a registered sex offender and we didn't know who they were or where they were.”




Offender Watch and sheriff's continue to spread this lie!

The computer program also allows you to sign up for email alerts to get the latest information within your neighborhood. Sheriff Taylor said the program will bring awareness to the nearly 160 sex offenders in Russell County.
- The Offender Watch program comes with a generic presentation, which the sheriff departments never change, and it has the lie "50% of sex offenders re-offend," and you can read more about this here. And as expected, this county has the same lie, see photo. And here for more accurate recidivism studies.

The sheriff said, “I think that this type of program is going to allow our community to at least have some knowledge of the registered sex offenders that live in your community and live in your neighborhood.”

Part of the new law requires homeless sex offenders to check in with law enforcement agencies even though they don't have a permanent address.

The Muscogee County Sheriff's Department is using the same system. Their database said there are 273 registered sex offenders in Columbus.




Here is the email we sent to this sheriff's office:

I noticed on your Offender Watch web site, there is a presentation, which is here:

http://communitynotification.com/presentations/al/russell/russell.html

Why do you have the lie "50% of sex offenders re-offend?"

This is a known lie, and more accurate studies, which we have linked on our blog, can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/SOIRecidivism

Offender Watch comes with a generic presentation, the one you are using, and should be changed to be more accurate. We have documented this, on our blog, here:

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2010/06/urgent-offender-watch-spreading.html

Why do you not change this? This is just helping keep the sex offender moral panic and mass hysteria alive.

Also, why do you not have a WARNING, similar to the one embedded below, about misusing the registry to harass ex-offenders?



Sincerely,

Sex Offender Issues
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

CA - San Jose cop (Patrick D'Arrigo) arrested, facing charges he had sex with 2 teenage boys

Original Article

08/31/2011

By Sean Webby

A veteran San Jose police officer was arrested Wednesday on charges that he engaged in sexual acts with two teenage boys.

Patrick D'Arrigo, 44, was taken into custody by Gilroy police at the San Jose police department around 3: 30 p.m. and booked on charges of unlawful sex activity with a 15-year-old boy and a 17-year-old boy. The victims were not identified by police because of their ages. He is being held in lieu of $100,000 bail.

D'Arrigo, who was a campus officer at Leland High School in San Jose from 1996 to 2007, was indicted earlier in the day by a grand jury, sources told this newspaper.

Santa Clara County District Attorney's office had no comment in the case. But D'Arrigo is expected to be arraigned later this week.

"This is a difficult time in the department.'' said San Jose Police Chief Chris Moore. "I'm extremely concerned about the nature of the crime and it's my concern that there may be other victims.''

The chief asked any further victims and witnesses to immediately call their local police departments.

The Gilroy Police Department released little information on the case.

"We have a legal constraint to release further information,'' said Police Sgt. Chad Gallacinao. "But in the days to come we expect to release more.''

Gilroy police reportedly began to investigate D'Arrigo two years ago, according to sources.

In April 2009, the Gilroy police received information about D'Arrigo having parties at his home, providing alcoholic beverages to minors and having sex with them, sources said. During their investigation, the police identified the two minors as possible molest victims.

But no charges were filed.

Recently a witness came forward that prompted the District Attorney's office to bring the case to a secret grand jury, according to sources.

D'Arrigo, a Gilroy resident, was one of two San Jose police officers who allegedly covered up a 2008 DUI-crash involving Sandra Woodall, a former police officer.

Witnesses at the time said a belligerent and disoriented Woodall was openly admitting soon after the accident that she had been drinking. But both D'Arrigo and a San Jose Police sergeant said they saw no signs of intoxication. This despite the fact that medical personnel on the scene believed she was drunk and later told San Jose police investigators they felt the sergeant had tried to disrupt their attempts to determine her level of sobriety.

Later, at the hospital, D'Arrigo reportedly told the mother of the accident victim that it was too late to test Woodall for alcohol.

A grand jury decided not to charge either officer. After an internal police inquiry, then-Chief Rob Davis decided in 2009 to fire the two cops for failing to properly investigate the accident.

But following a length arbitration, they were reinstated last year and rejoined the force in December.

Any one who wishes to contact the Gilroy police department about the allegations against D'Arrigo can call 408-846-0350.

NY - Geneva can't pre-empt state SORA residency laws, says U.S. District

Original Article

07/05/2011

By Denise M Champagne

The city of Geneva cannot impose residency requirements for convicted sex offenders that exceed state law.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Telesca of the Western District of New York ruled last week that the state's Sex Offender Registration Act pre-empts the Ontario County municipality's local law. The suit was brought by [name withheld], 41, a Level 3 sex offender who notified the city of Geneva on April 26, 2010, that he had moved to a location within 500 feet of a playground.

[name withheld] was 29 on March 2, 1999, when he was convicted of first- degree sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl in St. Lawrence County and sentenced to up to nine years in state prison. He was released in 2007 and adjudicated by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services as a Level 3 sex offender. The state classifies Level 3 as having a high-risk of committing another sexual offense.

State law, as a condition of parole or probation, prohibits Level 3 sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18 from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

[name withheld] had served his time and was no longer under state parole or probationary supervision when he notified the city he had moved. The location of his new residence violated the city's ordinance, Chapter 285, passed April 2, 2008, which prohibits Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet from a school or 500 feet from a park, playground or daycare center, regardless of their parole or probationary status.

The city told [name withheld] he had 90 days to find new housing, according to the ordinance, or he would face a civil fine. [name withheld] challenged the local law. He was represented by Darius K. Lind and Jeffrey L. Hogue, attorneys with Legal Assistance of Western New York Inc.

Judge Telesca ruled there was a conflict because [name withheld]'s new residence was not prohibited under state residency restrictions that apply only to Level 3 sex offenders who are also subject to a sentence of probation or parole.

[name withheld] filed a complaint in state court, asserting that Geneva's Chapter 285 is pre-empted by the state SORA law and that his rights under the ex post facto, equal protection, due process and contract clauses of the Constitution were violated.

Based on the constitutional challenges, Geneva removed the complaint to federal court. [name withheld] did not object.

The city, represented by Harris Beach PLLC attorneys H. Todd Bullard and James P. Nonkes, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Geneva's law was a proper exercise of a local government's police power to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Judge Telesca ruled the local law is pre-empted by the state's "comprehensive, detailed and thorough scheme for regulating sex offenders" and that Geneva's law is invalid.

"New York courts have on numerous occasions dealt with the issue of whether a municipal ordinance is invalid because the state Legislature has pre-empted the area that the municipality had sought to enter," Judge Telesca wrote, citing Village of Nyack v. Daytop Vil. Inc., 78 N.S. 2d 500, 505 (1991). "The pre-emption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on a municipality's 'home rule' powers."

He notes because of the disposition, it was not necessary to rule on [name withheld]'s federal constitutional claims.

"Our office felt this was a pretty clear-cut issue in that the state had developed a pretty comprehensive plan for the management of sex offenders," Lind said. "We're happy with the results and how quickly the court recognized it. The question is if his constitutional rights have been violated, does he pursue some sort of suit for damages?"

Lind said the next step will be to determine the extent of harm [name withheld] suffered. He said the initial complaint included a claim for damages that he does not believe has been extinguished by Judge Telesca's ruling.

"This has really been about Mr. [name withheld] being able to live with his family and not have to move," Lind said. "His goal has never been to get any money from the city or anything like that. Whether or not we pursue it, we're going to have to determine that."

Lind said he can understand why local municipalities pass such restrictions, but that he doesn't think they are aware that there are restrictive rules that have been put in place by the state.

"To the extent that people are unhappy with them, they have to look to the state Legislature," he said. "When the state determines [sex offenders] can live back in society, our feeling is they should be able to live back in society. If people feel they still pose a threat, the state should pass more restrictive regulations."

That is what Geneva intends to pursue. City Attorney David Lee Foster said he doesn't believe it was the state's intention to pre-empt towns and cities from having their own statutes. He said state legislation usually allows local municipalities their own remedies.

Foster said he suspects the matter will be resolved either legislatively or on appeal, although the former resolution is more likely. He thinks the solution should eliminate pre-emption.

"Different-size municipalities have different issues," he said. "What would be OK for a dense population like New York City may not be acceptable for something like a small city in upstate. It seems to me that the Legislature did not intend to pre-empt this field."

Bullard said the city will not appeal. He said Geneva will redraft its resolution to make it more consistent with the court's ruling.

"There have been a lot of cases like this being raised across the state," he said. "Our intention is to protect children and we believe that our ordinance was reasonable. I think this is a very important issue and I think that it's something that Geneva holds at a higher light of great importance. Obviously, we weren't trying to stigmatize anyone or do anything improper."

Bullard said the state law should be broader and that municipalities should be able to craft legislation to protect their children and communities.

Hogue hopes the decision discourages other municipalities from pursuing legal action. He said Legal Assistance of Western New York is the only legal services provider in a five-county area so it does not take cases unless they have strong legal merit.

"When this city or another agency hears that we're taking a case, it means it made it through our triage process," Hogue said. "Our hope is that they'll pick up the phone and discuss the merits of the case with us and hopefully resolve the matter so we can go about helping other low-income people in our service territory."

Several local ordinances across the state have been struck down. Nassau County's law was ruled invalid in March by a federal judge for similar reasons. Judges in Albany, Rensselaer and Schuyler counties have also ruled similar laws were pre-empted by the state or unenforceable because they conflicted with state law.

Three counties in the Fourth Department -- Cayuga, Niagara and Seneca -- have their own sex offender residency restrictions.

"No one has challenged the local law in Seneca County," said County Attorney Frank R. Fisher. "When they do, we will deal with it appropriately."

Seneca County's law, passed in October 2006, prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 500 feet from a camp, daycare center, park, playground or school. Certain exemptions are allowed such as permitting people who already lived within the restrictions to remain.

IL - Paroled Sex Offender Can't Go Home

Original Article

08/30/2011

By Phil Rogers

Father says state's one-size-fits-all sexual predator laws should be changed

The Illinois prison system is grossly overcrowded. So why would the state keep an inmate in prison past his release date, when it could free up badly needed space?

The answer is that the inmate, [name withheld], must register as a sex offender, even though nearly everyone agrees that he poses no danger to anyone.

[name withheld] was convicted of having sexual relations with an underage 16-year-old girl. He was eligible for parole last month. But because his parents live within 500 feet of a preschool, he can’t go back home. And because he has nowhere to go, he remains in the Taylorville Correctional Center.

"There's over a thousand people just sitting in prison because they don’t have a place to live," said [name withheld]’s father, [fathers name withheld]. "The reports show he is not a sexual predator, and does not have a profile toward younger kids."

[name withheld] was diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder 10 years ago. His adoptive father, an Elmhurst insurance broker, said [name withheld]’s judgement is impaired, and he has trouble making good decisions.

"He has no impulse controls," the elder [name withheld] said. "It's permanent brain damage. It’s nothing that can be corrected by medicine of therapy."

Indeed, an expert on Fetal Alcohol disorders wrote a letter on [name withheld]'s behalf to Gov. Pat Quinn last year.

"Individuals with this condition do get in trouble because they don't understand legal boundaries," wrote Dr. Natalie Novick Brown, a doctor based in Everett Washington. “They typically learn from their (prison) experiences.”

"[name withheld]," she concluded, "is not likely to reoffend."

But the Illinois’ sexual predator law provides no exceptions. The law says that registered sex offenders cannot live within 500 feet of a school. And when the Elmhurst Police Department measured the distance from the corner of the [name withheld]’s lot to a nearby preschool, that distance came up as 452 feet. That puts the house 48 feet inside the exclusion zone.

Pointing at a red brick house two doors away, [name withheld] noted that his son could legally live as his neighbor, but could not move back into the family home.

"He could live two doors away. He could sleep two doors away, get up in the morning at six o'clock, come over here to have coffee, breakfast, lunch, dinner, watch TV, have a snack at night, walk back to the house at 10:30 and go to sleep, and that's legal," he said.

Dupage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin said the law does not give him any discretion to grant the [name withheld] an exemption.

"That’s something that needs to be handled by the General Assembly," Berlin said. "I can’t make an exception for him, or anybody else, because where do you draw the line? Who do you make exceptions for, and who do you deny the exceptions to?"
- So why do we even have judges anymore?  At one time, they had the discretion to approve or disprove someone's request.

There probably are some cases that are more egregious than other cases. But the law has to apply equally to everybody," he said.

[name withheld] disagrees. He contends Illinois' one-size-fits-all law is counterintuitive to the protection it attempts to provide. The law, he argues, should be risk-based, not a broad brush which applies to everyone, regardless of the crime.

His own state representative disagrees.

"We have to have a bright line test," said Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Addison Republican. "We cannot have a hodgepodge of laws that allow some individuals to be in a protected zone, while others are not."
- The sex offender laws are already a hodgepodge of unconstitutional laws and punishment. Just wait until your son or daughter is caught up in the laws you are advocating for, then I'm sure you will change your mind.

Still, others have joined the chorus that some kind of reform in the law is needed.

"When we paint all offenders with the same brush, we lose the effectiveness," said John Maki of the John Howard Association, a prison reform group. "We need to propose a better solution."

Maki notes that by some estimates, upwards of 90% of sex crimes take place between family members.

[name withheld] is scheduled to be released next summer, and his father says he is trying to find somewhere for him to live which would provide the structure experts say he needs.

"They'll release him and they don’t care where he lives. But he still couldn’t live at home."

TX - Young Love Gets Help From Law Change

Original Article

08/30/2011

By Geena Martinez

MIDLAND - Imagine being a teen and having to register as a sex offender for life.

All because you and your high school sweetheart decided together to have sex.

Now some changes are being made to a controversial law to keep these kids from being stuck with a label that ruins their lives.
- And that same label ruins adult lives and families as well.

It's called the Romeo and Juliet law, and after Thursday, the law is going to change so officials can focus on tracking down violent sex offenders instead of teens who made a bad decision.

It's a modern take on the Shakespeare classic. Two lovers torn apart, not by their parents but by the law.

"It can be two people that want to have sex with each other but because of their age, the law says that's not permissible," Midland County Asst. D.A., Stephen Stallings, said.

Right now, Texas law says it's illegal if an adult has sex with a minor who's at least three years younger than them.

Once convicted, that person is required to register as a sex offender. But now part of the law is changing but only for couples who have no more than a four year age gap.

"As an example, if you had a 19-year-old girl and she was having sex with a 15 and a half year old boy, that's considered sexual assault," Stallings said. "They're within four years of age, they're more than three years apart so it's still an offense."

But starting September 1st, the person could petition in front of a judge to have their name taken off the sex offender registry.
- This is good, but why must the offender, who shouldn't be on the list in the first place, waste more of their hard earned money to get off the list?  Is this a free thing to do?  And are the police going to tell all ex-offenders who come in to register about this new law?

Stallings said this change is meant to distinguish between sexual predators and teens who simply made a mistake.

"Boys and girls are going to be boys and girls," Stallings said. "They're still wrong, they've still committed an offense but they're not likely to reoffend."
- And neither are the vast majority of adult ex-sex offenders on the list.

Some in the Tall City think this is a good thing.

"It takes two to tango," Resident, Anthony Tijerina, said. "When you hear pedophile or sex offender, you think 'oh they messed with a little kid.' You can't really judge anybody if you don't know both sides to the story."
- This man proves what many have said for years, as soon as someone hears "sex offender" they think the person had sex or raped a child, which is not always the case, but, due to the media, politicians and so called "child advocates", this lie has been spread for years.

"I have a daughter that's in high school and if she's ok with it and it's consensual, I guess I would have to be ok with it too," Resident, Joshua Graham, said. "Kids are far more advanced than we were in high school."

While many agree it's good to focus on the repeat offenders, others think teens should know better.

"When you're older it sounds right, 20 and a 24-year-old but when you're 16, you don't need to be with a 20 year old," Resident, Paige Johnson, said.
- I'm sure that when you were 16 you did not believe this.

However, Stallings said kids will be kids.

"The legislature has come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be in the same category as those folks and I think that's the right thing to do," Stallings said.
- And all ex-sex offenders on the list should not be all lumped into the same group either.  Most people these days think sex offender, child molester, pedophile and predator are all the same thing, and they are not.

Right now, Stallings said it's not clear whether this change will affect young people who have already been convicted and had to register as a sex offender.
- It should, and they should have been discussed beforehand.

WA - Washington's Screwed-Up Sex-Offender Registry

Original Article

08/31/2011

By Jonathan Kaminsky

How leaving cops to sort out who's dangerous can change lives in an instant.

Eighteen years ago, "Joseph" did something extremely stupid. Early on a July morning, and by his own telling so tweaked out on meth that he had lost his grip on reality, the then-23-year-old crawled through the window into the bedroom of what had been his childhood home and curled up next to the current occupant, a 12-year-old girl, leaving only after she startled awake and turned on the light.

It is an incident that "Joseph", who like other registered sex offenders in this article has been granted anonymity in exchange for freely sharing his story, has quite literally never lived down. Now 41, he resides in the shadow of Mount Adams in southwestern Washington with his common-law wife of five years, their 3-year-old daughter, and her children from two previous relationships, ages 5, 13, and 14. Most afternoons and evenings, while his spouse is at work, it is his responsibility to look after the kids.

On a recent afternoon, the older ones stay in their rooms while the younger two—"Joseph's" daughter and the boy he has raised since he was four months old—compete relentlessly for his attention, treating him as equal parts authority figure and jungle gym.

"Joseph", who wears his hair pulled back in a ponytail, has a long, brown beard flecked with gray and a timeworn face hinting at a past discordant with the loving tone he takes with his children today. A convicted car thief and truant at 15, he spent the bulk of the next six years in juvenile detention. By 21, he'd been nabbed twice on burglary charges. In 1993, after pleading guilty to lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor under 14 for the incident in his old bedroom, he spent more than four years in prison, a stay extended by at least three suicide attempts.

After getting out, "Joseph" attempted to turn his life around. A stint at community college ended with an associate's degree, a pile of student loans, and an accusation, in 1999, that he'd stalked another student. The incident resulted in a parole violation, but no criminal charges.

His most recent arrest, for grabbing an ex-girlfriend's arms and shaking her chair, resulted in a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. That was in 2003.

He has not reoffended sexually.

"[Joseph] is a great guy, but he's manic-depressive," says the former girlfriend, a psychology professor at the community college he attended, who broke off their five-year relationship in 2005. When he's manic, she says, "he's very forceful, but not in a destructive way." During one episode, she recalls, he spent a weekend sanding down all her floors.

Whether you believe "Joseph" is a man who has overcome his checkered past or a danger to the women and children around him, one thing seems beyond debate: He did not go from being one of these things to the other within the past 18 months. Except, in the eyes of the law, that is exactly what happened.

In February 2010, "Joseph" received a letter from the Klickitat County Sheriff's office. Four years earlier, he'd moved from California, registered as a sex offender, and was made a level 1, the lowest risk to reoffend in Washington state's three-tiered sex-offender classification system. Now, the letter informed him, a county sex-offender panel had revisited his file, and he would become a level 2. The change was not trivial. Previously, only cops and those requesting specific information about him would be aware of his sex-offender status. Now his name and photograph would go up on the public sex-offender website, along with the block he lived on, and police would have the option of going door-to-door to alert his neighbors.

"Joseph's" case highlights a simple but persistent flaw in Washington state's pioneering sex-offender community-notification system, which was born more than two decades ago in the wake of a horrific crime. State corrections officials place risk levels on many of Washington's approximately 20,000 registered sex offenders, the overwhelming majority of them male. But the final decision on the offender's level—and, by extension, whether the public knows he is an offender—resides with the sheriff or the police chief where the offender lives. In some cases, there are delays before files are properly reviewed. In others, sex-offender levels are raised in ways critics say arbitrarily drive offenders out of some areas of the state and into others, including Seattle. In addition, critics contend, the decentralized system adds uncertainty to the lives of sex offenders, increasing the risk they pose to others.

For "Joseph", his new status has had real consequences. Shortly after he became a level 2, he was fired from his job—in part, he believes, because of the level change. With the 5-year-old he's raised as his son set to begin kindergarten in the fall, he worries the boy's classmates will tease him for having a sex offender for a father.

"If it was just me, I wouldn't care," he says. "But I have little ones to take care of."

Earl Shriner was on the prowl the Saturday evening in May 1989 that he came across fair-haired, 7-year-old Ryan Hade riding his bike in the small park near both their homes in south Tacoma. Dragging the boy out of view into a nearby woods, Shriner tied a noose tight around his neck and raped him repeatedly. Before leaving him bloodied, caked in mud, and semiconscious near a drainage ditch, Shriner cut off Hade's penis.

LA - Exoneree John Thompson on Prosecutorial Misconduct

Video Description:
John Thompson served 18 years in Louisiana prisons -- including 14 years on death row -- before he was exonerated in 2003.

He sued the Orleans Parish Attorney's Office in civil court and won a settlement, but the decision was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. He spoke with Innocence Project staff and students in June 2011 about his case and the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.

IL - Level 3 sex offender hopes public registry will end for the rehabilitated

Original Article

08/30/2011

A Level 3 registered sex offender hopes that one day the law will change, and he doesn't have to be a publicly registered sex offender for the rest of his life.

Research from the University of Chicago has found that while sexual offender data bases may make people feel safer it doesn't necessarily improve the safety of the community.

"I found that the sex offenses, the rates of rape instances, did not decrease after we started the registries, and after we started public notifications via the internet," Amanda Agan tells 97.3 KIRO FM's Ross & Burbank Show.

When you force a person to be registered as a sex offender is the reaction of the offender, 'what do I have to lose?'

Erik Mart tells 97.3 KIRO FM's Ron & Don Show, that while he hasn't had a problem re-offending, he has heard some have that reaction of desperation.

Mart says that the public registry makes it difficult for offenders who have been rehabilitated to carry on with a normal life. "It's extremely difficult to find a job and housing and to have a good relationship, all the things that make stability for a person."

He said he's been judged by the community he lives in, but wishes people would put the shoe on the other foot. "A person is more than the mistakes they make. If we were all judged by our mistakes we'd all be in trouble [...] People perceive that sex offenders are not human," he says, "I'm as human as anyone else [...] I would like to live a good life."

According to Mart, the registry is an ongoing punishment. "My registry is for my lifetime, but I'm hoping that one day it will be removed." He says that if he's demonstrated his rehabilitation that he'd like to no longer publicly register as a sex offender since he's not a risk to the community.

Mart said he went through sex offender treatment that included group therapy and polygraph testing. Additionally, Mart said he believes that those at risk to reoffend, usually aren't a risk to the community, because they're still locked up. "People that are very severe usually stay in prison."

Mart has a blog where he discuss life as a rehabilitated offender and his experiences working with other rehabilitated sex offenders that hope to make good out of their life, even though some would rather, force them out of town, "just for their label."

Sayings

If you have a saying you'd like to see here, then leave a comment and we will create an image from your comment, then add it here. Please keep it as short as possible. You can also view all the images on Picasa.

Slide Will Show Up In A Few Seconds


Video from the initial sayings we had

Video Link

NM - APD Kills Suspect - Witness Describes Officer-Involved Shooting

Original Article

08/30/2011

By Astrid Galvan

Police say the robbery suspect shot this afternoon was armed with an AK-47, was a suspect in three armed robberies and was a registered sex offender.

The suspect has been identified as 31-year-old [name withheld].

The incident started when police tracked [name withheld] down to arrest him on an armed robbery warrant. [name withheld], who police said was featured in Crime Stoppers this weekend, walked to an open field between 60th and 61st streets near Central.

SWAT was called on scene, as were crisis negotiators who spent about 15 minutes trying to get [name withheld] to surrender.

[name withheld] was carrying a bag and it was apparent to officers that there was a rifle in it, Police Chief Ray Schultz said. [name withheld] had his hand inside the bag, Schultz said. Officers even heard [name withheld]cycle” the rifle. A SWAT sniper shot [name withheld] at least twice, the chief said.

Schultz said [name withheld] was wanted in three armed robberies, two of which took place in businesses. He also said [name withheld] has a violent criminal past and is a registered sex offender.

NM - Surveillance photo shows officer (Bert Lopez) having sex, in uniform, in public, on the hood of his car!

Original Article

Updates:
Cops: Sex officer didn't commit crime
State cop gets ax over sex scandal

08/29/2011

By Eddie Garcia

KOB Eyewitness News 4 has obtained surveillance pictures of a State Police officer (Bert Lopez) having sex with a woman on the hood of a car in broad daylight.

State Police aren't saying anything about the photos, but KOB Eyewitness News 4 is pressing for answers.

Two weeks ago KOB reported a story about an officer caught on camera having sex while in full uniform, an act shown on security camera at the Santa Fe Canyon Ranch.

KOB has blurred out the woman's image, but you can see it's during daylight hours and the officer is still wearing his utility belt.

The Santa Fe Sheriff's office released the pictures to KOB after we filed a public records request. They say they also gave them to State Police over a week ago.

We got reaction from people who saw the photos.

"It's an inappropriate use of time," said Cate Campbell of Albuquerque.

"Inappropriate use of our tax money, I mean we pay these guys," added Jacob Powers.

Albert Loma said if charged and found guilty, the officer should be fired.

"With that kind of judgment you don't want him carrying a weapon," said Loma. "I think it's an embarrassment to the state patrol, they should be ashamed."

Others say it hurts the reputation built by good officers.




Bert Lopez
"I expect them to be the mark. State Police should be the standard to which other police departments hold themselves to," said a man identifying himself as Jeremy.

KOB knows the name of the officer - however, since he has not been charged with any crime, we have chosen not to release his name.

State Police will not comment about the pictures or any internal investigation against the officer, saying it is an ongoing personnel matter.

On Monday, they turned down an on camera interview, saying they need more time to gather the information we're asking for.

So far no officer faces any charges.

The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws


Original Article

Catherine L. Carpenter

Southwestern Law School

August 25, 2011

Abstract: (View the Document)
More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary.

This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation.

Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.

OK - A landmark ruling in the state of Oklahoma declaring some sex offenders can be removed off the Sex Offender Registry

Video Description:
A landmark ruling in the state of Oklahoma declaring some sex offenders can be removed off the Sex Offender Registry. David Slane & Associates have been leading the charge to help Registered Sex Offenders who qualify for the program, get their lives back.

DE - Task force not getting to root of society's view of sex offenders

Original Article

08/28/2011

By HARRY F. THEMAL

Lt. Gov. Matt Denn has been handed a formidable assignment by Gov. Markell: chair of a Justice Reinvestment Task Force. Denn says it will consider whether more money should be directed into crime prevention, in such areas as drug treatment and assisting released inmates.

It's that last goal that became so clearly crystallized this month when police action forced the eviction of released sex offenders from one of the few havens they can find.

Denn told the Delaware Law Weekly his 18-member task force intends to speak with "policy experts, prosecutors, public defenders, parole officers, corrections officers, judges, law enforcement officials, advocate organizations and crime victims."

Remarkably missing from that list are men and women still incarcerated or who have been released. Their viewpoint must certainly be considered before any guidelines can be formed for reducing our prison population, paying less for enforcement and reducing recidivism.
- Recidivism is already low, period, and passing more and more feel good laws that really do absolutely nothing to prevent crime or protect anybody, except exile and turn ex-offenders into homeless nomads, just so the public can feel better, is not the way to go about it! But, we all know the prison system is a major cash cow, and they need to keep people flowing into the system to make billions of dollars, at our expense, while pretending to be doing something, just so they can continue getting corrupt politicians voted into office, so they can look good.

The failure of Vice Chancellor John W. Noble to allow some breathing space for legal issues involved in the eviction, by granting a temporary restraining order, is evidence how hard-ball authorities are playing. What would have been lost by debating some of the issues before the sex offenders had to find new housing.

The men being ousted from the rooming house in the 700 block of Buttonwood Street are joined by the American Civil Liberties Union in raising serious questions about the evictions from a home Wilmington police said was seven feet closer than a 500-feet restriction. (A few General Assemblies ago a bill failed to pass that would have extended that to 1,300 feet.)

Title 11, Section 1112 says offenders involved with a sexual offense "upon a child under 16 years of age" may not loiter or live within 500 feet of a school. That's defined as "any preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school or any other institution which has as its primary purpose the education or instruction of children under 16 years of age."
- And how many people have actually been to any of these places to commit a sexual assault?  I am willing to bet very few, if any.  Again, most sex crimes are committed in the victims own home, by their own family, or close friends, not some stranger coming to a school.

Did the day care center in the Christina Community Center fall within that definition? Didn't Edgar Woodlen Jr.'s rooming house exist before it was established? Has the day care lost its license, making this entire action moot? Does the law's definition include a home where individuals care for a few children, a question Noble also pondered? All questions remaining to be determined in court.

Woodlen tells me the affected residents have found places to live but that he is looking to buy another safe house where he can rent rooms as he has been doing since 2003.

The suit says he has a waiting list of 14 looking for a place to live. He says he does not charge any ex-felons, including the sex offenders, any rent for the first 30 days while the man tries to find the ground under him. Then rents range from $350 to $500, if they can afford it, but often if the former prisoners are not getting disability payments, they have no source of income.

Getting a job to earn rent and buy food is always tough for ex-cons, but in these economic times even many people without any criminal record cannot find work. Woodlen says he helps the men with their problems.

Denn's task force needs to consider these problems. Are there enough community resources for released offenders, and again not just those convicted of sexual crimes, to find a place to live outside of that 500-foot barrier? If the task force report hopes to recommend how to relieve the pressure on our prisons, then it must suggest what should be done to show a path forward for the ex-cons, and particularly the sex offenders already shunned by society and often their fellow inmates.

The designation given sex offenders and the requirement they register and be publicly listed should also be examined. There are now three levels of offenders, depending on the nature of their crime, ranging from various degrees of rape to sexual exploitation of a child to possession of child pornography. As Roger Lancaster, author of "Sex Panic and the Punitive State, " wrote in the Aug. 21 New York Times, "Our sex offender laws are expansive, costly and ineffective -- guided by panic not reason."

OK - Oklahoma, banishment and forcing ex-offenders from their homes and family - That is state sanctioned punishment!

This just goes to show you, it's all about forcing the problem out of the state and to make it another states problem. It's pure punishment and forced exile! Just remember those in congress, God is watching, and we will all be judged by our deeds!

FL - National Registry for Atheists

Original Article

This is just pure insanity, and coming from a "Christian?"

08/29/2011

By Brian Simmons

Would it be right to have atheists register online who they are, where they work, and where they reside like the "National Registry" is for sex-offenders? An article posted this morning by PZ Meyers articulates that Pastor Mike from Florida is making a push for a "National Registry" for atheists in order to let people, mainly Christians, know where these people reside and work in order to witness to these "lost souls" and to boycott their businesses so to not "feed" Satan. Arlington, Texas has over 300,000 residents, but is it right for people to know those that are atheist where they live and work?

Pastor Mike equates atheists to sex-offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc. He sees no difference in making atheists apart of these kinds of groups in order for informational purposes for people to know where these atheists are. He explains that the reason to have such a registry is to inform the public for the same purposes that there are registries for sex-offenders and ex-convicts. Yet, he does not see why people might oppose this.
- And I'm sure others can see Pastor Mike as the same he's describing others as.  This is NOT what Jesus taught!

The United States First Amendment to the Constitution is set up to protect freedom of speech and religion. By creating such a national registry for a religious practice violates that right. What did these people do other than thinking that there is no God to deserve being treated like ex-cons and sex-offenders? Jesus Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself. How would this registry allow such Christians to live out that commandment? Pastor Mike wants this registry to know who are atheists in order to witness to them and tell other Christians to boycott their businesses. Harassment is not loving people like Christ said to love.

This would breed discrimination and hate in our country more and more. Atheists and Christians are already at odds in the general sense with a few known faces. However, if atheists were to have a national registry, the hate and discrimination would grow, not just between atheists and Christians, but also among various religious groups. If you have the chance, please let Pastor Mike know that this is a violation of Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and that he needs to reevaluate the commandment to love, not hate.

NY - Sex offender’s attorney argues ordinance

Original Article

08/29/2011

By Mike Regan

NORTH TONAWANDA — An attorney representing a convicted sex offender who is suing the City of North Tonawanda and Niagara County to challenge an ordinance barring him from living within 1,320 feet of a school, playground or daycare center said the law is overly severe.

Kathy Manley, of Kindlon Shanks and Associates in Albany, said the ordinance exceeds the state residency restriction of 1,000 feet.

It would be nice if the state enforced this, but that’s really not how it works,” she said. “This is about the fact that localities, counties and towns are not able to regulate sex offenders. It’s something that the state has to regulate because otherwise you have every town and county making harsher and harsher laws. It pushes them underground.”

Manley said she has overturned similar ordinances in Albany, Rensselaer and Washington counties, with one more pending in Saratoga County. She argues laws that overstep state restrictions simply push sex offenders from one locale to another, which can allow for them to go into hiding.

It is possible, that’s what happened in Iowa,” she said. “They put away more people than they really needed to monitor. It basically banished people from the whole state. They ended up changing the law. It was way too harsh.”

Manley’s client, [name withheld], is due to be released in January. He has been imprisoned on his most recent charge at the Gowanda Correctional Facility since November 2006. [name withheld] also was convicted in 1992 of molesting two boys, ages six and 10.

He’ll be monitored, registered and required to report every 90 days,” she said.

Manley said she could not get into specifics regarding where exactly [name withheld] would like to live, though she did believe it would be with a relative.

I don’t know if he could find anything else,” she said. “There’s somebody there he would have been approved to live with. This comes down to not wanting people to lose all their rights.”

Manley also challenges claims by North Tonawanda attorney Shawn Nickerson, who said sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism.
- That is not true, and I am getting sick and tired of people not investigating the facts, but just repeating the same lies they've heard over and over.

There’s actually much lower rates for most sex offenders than for the average criminal,” she said. “I feel like if we start allowing some groups of people to lose their rights, others will follow. We’re protecting everybody’s rights.”

It will likely be several months before the lawsuit is brought to court, Manley said.

IL - Stateline Neighborhood Mob Works to Keep Sex Offender Out

Original Article

08/29/2011

By Stephen Johnson

LOVES PARK (WIFR) --One Stateline neighborhood is fighting to keep a convicted sex offender from moving next door.

They are doing everything from holding group meetings to placing signs with strong messages in their front yards.

Park Hills Resident Brenda Haws said, "I just about fell down I couldn't believe it. It's scary, we have to do something. This just isn't safe."

Two weeks ago she received news that a sex offender would be living in her neighborhood this coming fall. Members of the Park Hills Neighborhood in Loves Park came together for a meeting this afternoon to discuss how they can protect themselves and their children with a felon living among them.
- I'm sure you have more than this one person who is a felon, in your neighborhood.

Parks Hills Resident Tonya Redding said, "It's a very free neighborhood for these kids to run around in and ride their bikes: it's scary"

Winnebago County States Attorney Joe Bruscato spoke at the meeting, answering several questions from the concerned community, ranging from sex offender laws to actions the neighborhood can take to maintain its safety.

Those who formed the informational meeting took charge by sending out flyers to over 500 homes in the area, by selling yard signs reading "registered offenders not welcome,” and possibly even barring his move to the neighborhood altogether.

By state law, no sex offender can live within 500 feet of a school, church or park area--the group says they'll do everything they can to make that a reality.

Dangerous People: An international discourse

Related article by Dr. Karen Franklin of "In The News"
Her review of the book

Description:
Experienced legal academics and mental health professionals explore the current approaches to “dangerousness” and preventive detention. The defining characteristics of those deemed dangerous by society vary according to culture, place, and time, and the contributors to this text have gathered to analyze the policies and practices related to current out-groups such as sex offenders, suspected terrorists, and young offenders in the United States, Scotland, England, and Australia. Dangerous People is the result of their research, workshopping, and writing. The text is organized logically and begins with a section on Parameters that explores the international human rights and legal limitations related to preventive detention schemes. It moves on to Policy, where contributors examine legislative policy, and Prediction, or risk assessment, especially in terms of violent crimes in youth. The section on Practice focuses on recent schemes to prevent re-offending. This text is indispensible as a resource that deals with the practical issues surrounding preventive detention and supervision schemes, the assessment of the risk of future harm in offenders, and different programs and sentencing options for high-risk offenders with mental illnesses. It contains case examples that bring real-life issues to light and sets forth an agenda to provide effective ways to protect communities from harm.

FL - Officer (Richard Cannon) Facing Sex Charges Involving Minors, Still In Jail

Original Article
Earlier Story
Former JSO Officer Richard Cannon Faces More Sex Crime Charges

08/29/2011

25-Year JSO Veteran Arrested Last Week On Charges Involving Minors

JACKSONVILLE - A Jacksonville police officer facing sex charges against minors remained in jail Sunday.

A judge postponed Richard Cannon's bond reduction hearing.

The 25-year veteran and now-former officer is charged with six counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor and one count of capital sexual battery on a minor.

Two of the counts of lewd and lascivious acts were on a victim older than 12 but younger than 16, according to a police report, while the other four, along with the capital sexual battery charge, were on a victim younger than 12, according to the report.

Neighbors in Cannon's Northside neighborhood who knew the 47-year-old said they were surprised and concerned by the allegations.

"I've talked with him a few times. He seemed to be a decent person," neighbor Tommy Hatcher said. "Never dreamed of anything like that happening."

"My daughter actually gets off the school bus a few houses down, you know, and it concerns me," neighbor Julie Clark said. "I've tried looking him up on the jail records and I can't find him anywhere."

There is no word yet on when Cannon will have his bond hearing.

Court officials expect it will not be for another week.

Offender Registry Is Punitive

Sent in via contact form. If you have a story you would like to tell us about, then please use the "Contact Form" to send us your story.

By Anonymous:
The registry is punitive. I am the wife of a registered sex offender (RSO) We have two children ages three to seven. Due to my husbands offense twenty nine years ago with a teenager when he was 21, we have been harassed. I was evicted from an apartment in 2004 for having an RSO live with me. In 2005 we were evicted for living within 1000' of a school, although the measurements rated anywhere from 964 to 1064'. We were told to put up Halloween signs so our kids didn't get to celebrate for a couple years. My husband cannot pick up our children at school. We or he was barred from the park so now our kids cry why we cant stop at the park when daddy is driving. My husband cannot be listed as an emergency contact for winter emergencies for school. If our kids get stranded, and I can't get there, they are stranded. My husband was friends with a family where a teenage girl liked him and he got involved. He admits he shouldn't have. The 30th anniversary of that offense will soon come up. The sentence has been dismissed over 14 years ago. He has to register. People harass us, he has been evicted five times and I was party to two of those times. Most of the harassment comes in the form of law enforcement, who we support, who have to come out to verify an address, or make sure he is in compliance. They have apologized to us and said they have to do this. In other words, the police seem to be tired of it and apologetic. The real attacks are really not the police. They are managers of apartments, or housing units, or schools who see an RSO lives there. They use the courts to attack us and make us move. They used excuses like only my husband had to move, not I, but in the meantime that insinuates separation and in one case while I was due to give birth to our first child. Please make sure this gets to attorneys and the supreme court of the US. I have proof the SOR is punitive. I as a non-offender and my children are victims of this mismanaged law.

OFF TOPIC - Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? - Putting a price tag on life (Episode 02)

OFF TOPIC - Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? - The Moral Side Of Murder (Episode 01)

Child predators: Is our punishment misguided?

Original Article

08/29/2011

By Janice D’Arcy

The chilling abduction this weekend of a 5-year-old Fairfax County girl has stunned every parent who has heard about it. The girl was apparently kidnapped from her home and assaulted while her parents slept. Police said this weekend it remained unclear whether the little girl was sexually assaulted. Her parents only realized she had been taken after their daughter made her way back home and told them she’d been hurt, according to The Post story.

Cases like this are the reason we’ve created a system to not only punish but also track child predators. You’d better believe any sentient parent would want to know if a lunatic like this one is lurking nearby.

That reaction, George Mason University cultural studies professor Roger N. Lancaster says in a new book, has led us down a dangerous legal path.

Lancaster’s “Sex Panic and the Punitive State,” (University of California Press, 2011) argues that our reaction to rare child abductions and stranger abuse has created a system that is grossly unjust.

He and I had an e-mail exchange on the subject last week, before the Fairfax abduction. Given the news, it’s an especially raw, but also relevant, time for Lancaster to explain why he thinks we need to reconsider our child predator laws. Here’s our back-and forth:

Q: In “Sex Panic,” you make the case that our sex offender registries are neither fair nor effective. Many parents appreciate these lists both for a sense of security that a sex offender will not be living nearby and that they can determine where “predators” are. What’s wrong with keeping registries? Do these lists give parents a false sense of security?

Lancaster: The unknown person living somewhere in the neighborhood isn’t the main risk to children’s safety and well-being. Most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members, close relatives or someone known to the family. Stories of abduction, rape, and murder by strangers excite the worst fears. But these are exceedingly rare events — comparable to the chances of being struck by lightning. And only a very small percentage of sex crimes are committed by repeat offenders, which does suggest that the registries mislead parents.

But I’d suggest that instead of giving a sense of security, false or otherwise, what the registries actually do is to stoke unnecessary parental anxieties. They foster perpetual dread: It becomes everyone’s duty to be constantly alert to remote dangers. Sociologists who’ve studied these practices talk about how they undermine trust, create a culture of fear and fuel a rage to punish. This is bad for adults. And many who have studied the subject think that this is bad for children as well. . . . A study in the U.K. found that excessive fear of predators has contributed to keeping kids indoors, producing a sedentary lifestyle, obesity and other health risks.

Q. You compare the recidivism rate of sex offenders to perpetrators of property crimes. As a society, isn’t it of a higher concern to try to prevent the recidivism of sex offenders (and murderers?)

Lancaster: The goal of preventing recidivism for brutal, violent crimes, including the abuse of children, is obviously a higher priority than, say, preventing recidivism by shoplifters. But recent studies have found no evidence that current sex offender laws and procedures reduce recidivism or that they reduce the number of victims.

The point is that we have an ever-expanding, ever more expensive apparatus — which has never shown to be effective — for managing a problem (sex offense recidivism) that is small in numbers and has declined since the 1980s.

Q. In terms of fairness, why should we be concerned that punishments for child sex offenders are harsh? Aren’t these criminals the worst of the worst?

Lancaster: I’d make two arguments here, one based on principle, the other based on practice.

On principle, the legitimacy of law rests on the premise that punishments are proportionate, that judgments are dispassionate and that laws and penalties are announced prior to events, not tacked on afterwards. These are not liberal or modern ideas; they go back to the founding of rational law, to the ancient Greeks. Reasonable people might disagree over what might count as harsh or excessive, but they shouldn’t disagree over the idea that law should not punish more than is necessary.

In practice, it is not only the “worst of the worst” who’ve been swept up and entangled in sex offender laws. Some of the registrants had consensual relations with near-adults. Others appear to have been falsely accused and accepted a plea bargain. Some were themselves minors who had consensual sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends. A random sample of one state’s listings shows that two-thirds of the registrants were convicted of non-violent first offenses — and their crimes may have involved no physical contact.

The idea that violent repeat offenders ought to be “incapacitated,” as they say when speaking of long prison terms, is one thing. But what we have in practice is a system of perpetual punishment for a growing host of lesser offenses. . . . So I have argued that it’s time to revisit our laws, which are founded on unreasonable fears and a boundless rage to punish.

Q. Strictly speaking in terms of child sex offenders, what might be a better approach?

Lancaster: You could start by comparing U.S. practices with British practices. The British have sex offender registries, too — but a far smaller portion of the population is listed, and yet a smaller portion of registrants are deemed high risk. In England and Wales the ratio of registered sex offenders to the general population is 46 per 100,000; in the United States the ratio is more than 4.5 times greater: 228 per 100,000. The overwhelming majority of British registrants are classified as “Level 1” (on a three-level scale); they are said to pose minimal public risk and are subject to minimal supervision. And the registries are a closely guarded secret, available only to police, parole officers and authorities who might be involved in supervising an ex-convict’s doings. So we could start by scaling back the lists, taking them out of the public domain and professionalizing the supervision process. There’s no evidence whatsoever that this would compromise public safety.

Where a person previously convicted of a sex offense lives or works has no bearing on whether he commits more crimes. But variants of “Jessica’s Law” evict sex offenders from living, working or sometimes even walking within 1,500, 2,000 or 2,500 feet of a school, park, bus stop or place where children might gather. Such laws uproot sex offenders and their families; they scatter them to remote or rural locations. We should rethink this approach, which resembles techniques of governance in authoritarian or even totalitarian states.

While pruning back punitive or excessive measures, I’d also take some positive steps. I’d start with better counseling services for the victims of abuse. But part of what has happened in the last 30 to 40 years is that children have been viewed in terms of threats to safety but not in terms of their overall well-being. Obviously, there’s a lot of work to be done to improve education, nutrition and exercise.

Q. What else might parents want to consider about sex offender registries and child sex offenders?

Lancaster: Parents might be concerned that in a culture ruled by fear, their children could get caught up in sex offender laws. Young children have found themselves on sex offender registries and not invariably for brutal acts. Minors who had sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends have been labeled sex offenders. Teens have been prosecuted for “sexting.” When thinking about crime and punishment, it’s a good idea not only to think of the stranger somewhere in the neighborhood but of the son or daughter in the house.

What do you think? Does Lancaster have a point?

Follow evidence, not gut feeling, on sex offenders

Original Article

08/28/2011

By Gareth Cook

Far from protecting children from predators, public notification can increase recidivism

The most disturbing experience I’ve had in some time was a visit to a state government website.

On the screen was a list of all the dangerous sex offenders who live or work near my house. All I had to do was enter my zip code, and a list of profiles popped up. For each, a criminal history was displayed in stomach-turning legalese - “indecent assault and battery on child under 14 years of age.’’ The offender head shots were even more alarming: some appeared openly deranged, others vacant, but all had the distinct aura of pure evil.

The profiles are posted online as part of a national effort, nearly two decades old, to warn the public about sex offenders. The registries are expanding, and some states are moving to track other types of criminals. You can even get an iPhone app that shows offender addresses. This is an effort I have always supported. I have kids. But recent research suggests that publishing the personal details of sex offenders is not only ineffective, but could lead to more sex crimes.

Our current policy of publicizing personal information about offenders is rooted in two particular cases. In 1989, an 11-year-old boy named Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped at gunpoint by a masked man in Minnesota. Jacob has never been found, and the crime never solved, but it inspired a federal law that requires states to set up registries to track certain classes of criminals, including sex offenders.

Then in 1994, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl was lured into a house by a neighbor who offered to show her a puppy. The neighbor, a convicted sex offender, then raped and murdered her. The case inspired “Megan’s Law’’ in New Jersey and a federal provision requiring states to publicize details on released sex offenders.

The rationale is straightforward: People who have been warned can take precautions. Crimes will be prevented.

Yet a 2008 study of New Jersey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found no evidence that the measure reduced sex crimes and suggested that “the growing costs may not be justifiable.’’

Now an even more ambitious pair of studies, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, suggests notification laws are an empty comfort.

One study of 49 states found that posting sex offender information on the Internet had no effect on the incidence of rape. Another analysis took the home addresses of all the sex offenders living in Washington, D.C., and compared them with reports of sexual abuse. The researcher, Amanda Agan of the University of Chicago, found no correlation. A sex offender on the block doesn’t affect the crime rate. Or, put another way, knowing that a sex offender lives nearby tells the public nothing about the actual risk of a sex crime.

The second study found that public notification laws do serve as a deterrent, slightly reducing the number of first-time sexual offenders. That makes sense: Nobody would want their photo and personal details published that way.

However, public notification can also bring an even larger increase in recidivism. Putting a person on a public registry, with their photo and home address, subjects them to harassment and makes it more difficult for them to reintegrate into society - to find and keep a job, or find a place to live. Small punishment, you might say, given the crimes. But the effect, starkly put, is to reduce the rewards for living honestly. On average, write the scholars J.J. Prescott and Jonah Rockoff (PDF), public notifications increase sex offenses by about 1.6 percent, and the effect worsens as more criminals are included.

The question we must answer is, what do we want for these people, after they have been released? There is an emotional response, of course: a life of everlasting punishment. Then there is a more reasoned one: do whatever it takes to minimize the chance of more crimes. We should follow the evidence, however counterintuitive or distasteful it might seem. There are former sex offenders living in your midst, and it’s better you not know where they live.

OFF TOPIC - The sermon on the mount and the Lord's prayer

OFF TOPIC - Listener - Wooden Heart

UK - Concern over sex offender prison plans

Lynn Hammond
Original Article

08/27/2011

By Ross Findon

A child safety watchdog has raised concerns about plans to turn over Island prisons to sex offenders.

Prison sources this week confirmed they were looking to house only sex offenders in the three jails of HM Prison Isle of Wight.
- This is good, IMO. Then their won't be as many assaults on someone simply due to a label.

Currently, Albany is the main sex-offender prison with some others housed in Parkhurst.

Lynn Hammond, of Isle of Wight Parents Action Group, raised fears about large numbers of sex offenders, particularly paedophiles, being grouped together and about offenders staying on the Island after release.
- Come on! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it wasn't for these prisons, they'd be in other prisons just as well. So her "fear" is unjustified, IMO.

"They won’t want to go back to their old community. They will be looking for a fresh start."
- Wow, imagine that, a fresh start!

"Saving money should never come into a decision like this, when children’s lives could be at risk," she said.

Nigel Hawley, chairman of the Isle of Wight Independent Monitoring Board, said he believed it was unlikely prisoners would be released from here as most finished their sentences from Category D jails, of which there were none on the Island.

Island MP Andrew Turner said he would be writing to Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke for further details of what was proposed and the reasons behind it.

"Only those with genuine connections to the Island before their imprisonment should be released here," said Mr Turner, who said he wanted to meet with HMP Isle of Wight governor James Shanley.

Department of Ed rewrites the Constitution, at the expense of men

Original Article

08/27/2011

By Carey Roberts

If college administrators were turning a cold shoulder to rape victims and female students were dropping out like flies, the recent Department of Education sex mandate might begin to make a little more sense.

But here we are. The once-unthinkable has become a Brave New World reality, in which a bewildered Alice quakes before an arrogant Queen proclaiming, "Sentence first — verdict afterwards."

Let's say you're a student at Cal State-Monterey Bay. There, any sexual "innuendoes made at inappropriate times, perhaps in the guise of humor" can get you into trouble with university administrators. At Alabama State University, any "behavior that causes discomfort, embarrassment or emotional distress" is deemed to be harassing.

You may wonder if such vague definitions are constitutional, and indeed they are not.

In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that only behavior that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and...so undermines and detracts from the victims' education experience" can be considered to represent sexual harassment."

Nonetheless, such far-reaching concantations of student misconduct have become the norm. According to a recent survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 67% of top American colleges have enacted speech codes that are unconstitutional under First Amendment standards.

Which means if your son utters a gratuitous "son of a bitch" remark, that could land him in a load of trouble. And a professor teaching a course on 19th century erotic art could be accused of inflicting embarrassment on overly sensitive students — a concern that recently compelled the American Association of University Professors to demand the DED Office for Civil Rights withdraw the regulation.

Or let's say a student and his new-found paramour share a celebratory glass of Pinot Noir and indulge in a frolic of consensual sex. Surprise! The Office for Civil Rights directive astonishingly dictates the woman (or man) is unable to give consent "due to the victim's use of drugs or alcohol."

We're not talking about a drunken lovefest or even getting a little tipsy — the mere "use" of alcohol now renders the person a "victim."

It gets crazier, because university disciplinary committees originally were set up to hear cases of cheating or plagiarism, not adjudicate cases involving potential criminal misconduct that arise from murky 'he-said, she-said' disputes.

So now it's your day in court, so to speak. Knowing that the accusation is utterly baseless, you didn't bother to engage an attorney to argue your case. You plan to cross-examine your former girlfriend on your own behalf.

Sorry, the Department of Education will have none of that. The delicate-as-a-wallflower victim is now deemed too distraught to answer your questions.

In the past, such cases were decided under the "clear and convincing" standard of proof, which means the lay jury needed to be about 75% sure that wrong-doing had occurred. But now, the college must comply with the "predominance of the evidence" standard, which only requires a 51% level of proof.

Fortunately, the disciplinary committee found you innocent of the charges. Now you can go back to your normal routine, hoping your classmates will stop giving you those dirty looks.

Hold on, Joe, because your ex- can still appeal the decision. Double jeopardy is prohibited under criminal law, but in the DED's Alice in Wonderland universe, she gets a second bite at the apple.

Such Kangaroo Court proceedings do not take place in a vacuum.

Student orientation programs alert doe-eyed coeds to the looming specter of date rape. Women's studies programs hold frenzied "Take the Night" marches. Faculty members indulge in diatribes about "rape culture." And at Arizona State University, students are ominously warned to "avoid parties where males greatly outnumber females."

The effects on the falsely accused can be far-reaching. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial lamented, "Not only is he likely to be expelled, but he may well be barred from graduate or professional school and certain government agencies, suffer irreparable damage to his reputation, and still be exposed to criminal prosecution."

In short, the Department of Education DED Office for Civil Rights is working to remove the constitutionally rooted due process rights of the accused.

Fortunately, the solution is simple. We take away their money.

The Office for Civil Rights enjoys a $103 million budget, including a cushy $730,000 for employee awards and overtime. Right now Congress is searching high and low for ways to trim the federal deficit. I say we cut their budget to $50 million.

And for good measure, we'll mandate the remaining OCR employees to take a course in Constitutional Law 101.