Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Editorial from The Guide
By French Wall
Sixty-five years ago , German Nazis made it compulsory for Jews to wear a yellow Star of David. Holocaust survivor Victor Klemperer, writing in I Will Bear Witness 1933-1941: A Diary of the Nazi Years, recalls the introduction of the mandatory Star as the darkest moment of the entire Nazi regime.
Klemperer suffered countless indignities, saw and endured horrific abuse, and heard of unspeakable atrocities throughout the Nazis' rise to power and their subsequent subjugation of much of Europe. One of a handful of German Jews who escaped the round-ups and deportations to the death camps (his wife Eva was an "Aryan," thus deferring his fate), Klemperer miraculously survived the firestorms following the Allied incendiary bombing of Dresden and then months on-the-run as a destitute and starving displaced person. And yet he remembers the mandate requiring display of the "Jewish Star" with singular abhorrence.
What was it about a bit of "yellow cloth, at the center in Hebrew-like lettering [the word] 'Jew,' to be worn on the left breast, large as the palm of a hand" that seemed worse than beatings, worse than confiscation of all one's property, worse even than the fate awaiting those who disappeared after a visit from the Gestapo?
The Star was meant to mark its wearer as "other," a non-citizen. The Star signaled to hooligans and vigilantes that its wearer was a sanctioned target for torment. The Star made it impossible for its wearers to go about any civic life without constant fear of violence and death, for themselves and any of their companions. The Star meant abandonment by employers, neighbors, and friends-- all legitimately fearful of what their association with a known "enemy of the Reich" would mean to them and their families. The Star signaled that its wearer was a de facto "outlaw," fair game for anyone wanting to indulge their sadism or anti-Semitism.
In short, the Star was mean to denote that its wearers were sub-human, deserving no more consideration or legal protection than "the vermin" that they-- according to relentless state propaganda-- were.
It may be true that those ignorant of history are destined to repeat it, but current events confirm that knowledge of history is no guarantee of avoiding repetition of past tragedies.
Enter a post office, police station, registry of motor vehicles, or other civic office in today's United States and you will likely be confronted with posters of so-called "sex offenders," required to register, often for life, with the state. Faces, addresses, and employment locations are all prominently displayed. You will read signs telling you that even more information about these men (and women, mostly garden variety prostitutes) can be found on the internet, part of the new nationwide effort supposedly to protect the Homeland and its children from such "predators."
But of course, "protection from predators" is not the goal of sex-offender registries, any more than "protection from Bolshevism" (the stated excuse for promulgation of the 1941 Yellow Star regulation) was the Nazis' purpose. If public safety were truly the goal, why list those whose "crime" was offering a blowjob-for-hire to a willing adult? Or those who were caught masturbating in the woods near a highway rest stop? Or those who never violated another's consent nor did any physical harm? If "protection" were the real aim of tracking and publicizing offenders and their whereabouts, wouldn't it make more sense for registries to list arsonists rather than flashers? Why should society need protection from those who suck teenagers, but not from those who kill them?
No, the goal of sex-offender registries is not protection-- just the opposite. Sex-offender registries, like earlier Yellow Star regulations, are intended to create outlaws stripped of jobs, housing, family, and friends. Such state-created monsters can then be targeted for vigilantes' violence and self-serving politicians' self-righteous invective.
Today's sex-offender registries signal, as did the 1941 Yellow Star decree, a breakdown in the rule of law. For those fighting to rebuild a US Constitution and Bill of Rights so shattered in these past years, no greater sign of progress will be than the abolition of sex-offender registries and their odious effects.
Published: The Guide; www.guidemag.com
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thanks to Old Man in Maine who created this and let me use it with his permission. Makes you think doesn't it?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
but it creates work for the State. One of the big concerns lately is the budget, if we start costing the state money maybe they will be more willing to reconsider the registry as a whole. My contact is planning on sending this request out on a monthly basis. It's a small step but one everyone can take with just a few minutes time and a postage stamp.
Monday, July 25th, 2009
Maine Dept. of Public Safety
Anne H. Jordan, Commissioner
45 Commerce Drive
Suite 1, 104 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0104
Request for Information Pursuant to Maine Revised Statues, Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1: Freedom Of Access and under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. subsection 552.
Dear Commissioner Jordan:
Pursuant to Maine Revised Statues, Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1: Freedom Of Access and under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. subsection 552, I am requesting access to any and all files related to the State Sex Offender Registry for one xxxxxxxxx, myself.
I respectfully submit this request in consideration of events here in Maine and Nationally where individuals using State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry Information have used said information to locate and find Registered Former Offenders to then commit acts of violence, property damage and even the murder of Registered Former Sex Offenders and/or their family members. The State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry has put my family and I in danger and the release and disclosure of the requested information is paramount in taking steps to identify and protect myself, my family and my property from individuals who would use the State sponsored and supported information to harm myself and/or my family.
The information I am requesting includes any and all requests submitted to the State of Maine and/or State of Maine Sex Offender Registry for copies of and/or for requests for information on xxxxxxxx, myself, by anyone including, but not limited to, the general public, State Agencies, Agents of any State, Federal or any other Governmental Agency. Discovery should include any and all the names, position or title, addresses, phone numbers, ISP (Internet Service Provider) address if requests and/or viewing of xxxxxxxxxx's information was facilitated by electronic means such as, but not limited to, computers, Palm Pilot, cell phone, of other means not requiring interpersonal contact for requesting information and/or viewing xxxxxxxxxxx‘s State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry information.
If there are any fees for searching for or copying the records, please let me know before you work on my request. [Or, please supply the records without informing me of the cost if the fees do not exceed $20.00 (twenty dollars and no cents) which I agree to pay.] Any or All files, records and/or information may be provided electronically/digitally via email or DVD when and where possible and to pursue environmental goals to reduce waste.
If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.
Optional: If you have any questions about handling this request, you may telephone me at xxxxxxx
Monday, July 20, 2009
All of this is another unintended consequence of the Registry. The registry is supposed to be about protecting children isn't it? Well what about this child? Wasn't his life worth protecting? Who protects the families of Former Sex Offenders? Did this child, whose only crime was that his father committed a sex offense not deserve to live a long peaceful life free of harassment? Or do we just chalk this young life up to 'collateral damage'? The Registry is a call to the crazies and self-righteous, a call to take the law into their own hands. To many the only good Former Sex Offender is a dead one. It doesn't matter what actually happened, that a person was judged in a court of law, given a sentence, did their time and abided by all other terms and conditions placed on them. Now they have a life long brand placed on their lives and the lives of anyone that loves them, rents a house to them or employs them. One that gives them no hope of reprieve no matter how much time has past. One that gives vigilantes a legitimate target for their hatred. They no longer can hate Jews, blacks, gays or even handicapped people so now our Government has declared it's open season on Former Sex Offenders.
Read this article here it talks about the use of the registry by vigilantes.
Atlanta Teen Killed in
Updated: Monday, 20 Jul 2009, 7:19 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 20 Jul 2009, 6:00 PM EDT
- Edited By: Leigha Baugham | myfoxatlanta.com
ATLANTA (MyFOX ATLANTA) - A 13-year-old from Atlanta was murdered while visiting family in Florida. Police said the boy was shot in the face early Monday morning by someone lurking around his family's home.
Thirteen-year-old Lloyd Robinson, Jr. had just finished 7th grade and was spending the summer with his dad before heading back to school.
"It's just a total period of pain for me and I wish this on nobody. I fear burying my kids and I am making funeral arrangements for my son and I shouldn't be," said the teen's father, Lloyd Robinson, Sr.
Daytona Beach police said there was a knock on the door at the Robinson's home just after 4:00 a.m. A woman asked for someone who wasn't there and the teen's father told the woman to go around to the glass door. When Robinson, Sr. tired to open the door a man came around the side of the house and fired two shots inside.
One bullet grazed Robinson, Sr., the other one killed his son.
"It's very sad they would come into a house and shoot and kill nothing but a child," said Martha Hamilton.
Robinson Sr. said he is a registered sex offender and it is possible someone went after him because of those charges, but he said it was probably a case of mistaken identity.
Police said there was no motive in the case.
Chief Michael Chitwood said he was pretty sure that it wasn't a random shooting, and the woman and the shooter were looking for Robinson, Sr., but killed his son instead.
The teen's mother drove from Atlanta to Daytona Beach Monday. The teen was originally supposed to return to Atlanta Sunday morning, but decided to stay a little longer.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Too many tears in the good-on-paper Jessica's Law
Thank you so much for the editorial "Murphy's Law: Bad legislation comes back to haunt the author" (July 6, Page A-7). Jessica's Law is one of those feel-good laws that looks good on paper, but those of us who provide treatment realize it makes absolutely no sense.
For instance, Jessica's Law says that sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school or a park, which means they cannot spend the night there, however, they can be there during the day. When are children in parks and schools?
Another issue related to Jessica's Law is rather than having offenders in treatment, ankle bracelets were placed on all parolees at the cost of $1,500 per unit, plus $150 per month monitoring fee, which squandered all the treatment funds. The problem with placing ankle bracelets on child molesters is that they do not go off when they are around a child. Given that 90 percent of molestations happen at home, all we will know is that the offender was home, but not that they are with or around a child.
In fact, there was a case in Washington where a sex offender murdered a 13-year-old girl while wearing an ankle bracelet. The probation officer's response was "we knew where he was, we did not know that he was with a child, or that he was murdering a child at the time."
In contrast, over the 30 years we have been providing treatment for sex offenders, we have a less than 1 percent reoffense rate among our offenders. For the very same amount of money the offenders could be in treatment rather than on an ankle bracelet.
The analogy would be something along the lines of if you had cancer and both treatments were the same cost, would you rather have the treatment where you have a 99 percent chance of the cancer going into remission or have the treatment that will simply tell you that the cancer is spreading?
The new blunder on the horizon is that offenders will have to take lie detector tests twice a year to monitor their treatment. In some instances it can be very helpful. Unfortunately, research has shown unless the lie detector administrator is very talented, the sex offender can pass the test. That means the treatment providers would be getting a false positive indicating that this person is absolutely honest and is not thinking about children or in any way going to act out again, which gives the offender a free pass to reoffend.
It is about time that we started talking to the people who have worked in the field over the past 30 years and look at what the research shows us is effective for sex offender treatment rather than doing knee-jerk, feel-good legislation which does not protect our children.
Again, thank you for your editorial that is starting to expose this ineffective use of government funds.
Johnson is clinical coordinator and owner of Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Services and sponsor of Parents United of Stanislaus Inc.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Free-Range Kids or How I learned to stop hoveringlink to article here
Author Lenore Skenazy discusses her parenting approach, including letting her 9-year-old take the subway by himself
-Julie Ryan Evans
How long do you think it would take your child to get abducted by a stranger if you just left him standing on a street corner unattended?
24 hours? 100 hours? A couple of weeks?
Not even close.
It would take 750,000 YEARS to happen, according to statistic probability. This is just one statistic that Lenore Skenazy, author of Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry, points to when discussing the overprotective, overparenting that many of us (myself included) are practicing today.
Skenazy drew international attention after granting a request to her 9-year-old son, Izzy - to let him get home from someplace by himself, by subway. In New York City. She left Izzy in the handbag department of Bloomingdale's with a subway card, a map, $20 for emergencies and a bunch of quarters in case he had to call home. (Quarters because, ironically, they didn't trust him not to lose a cell phone!)
"The subway station is right under the store, so Izzy got on, no problem, and came home about 45 minutes later, ecstatic with independence," she says. "I'm a newspaper columnist so a few weeks later, on a slow news day, I finally wrote about his little adventure. Well, I thought it was little."
Two days later, a media frenzy erupted, and suddenly she was defending her decision to media around the world. Some called her "America's Worst Mom".
But beyond the sensational headlines and initial outrage of a few, there were many parents that related to and agreed with Skenazy's approach to parenting. She started a blog on the topic www.freerangek ids.com, which morphed into her book.
"The basic premise of Free-Range Kids is that, despite what you hear and read and see and get totally clobbered over the head with in the media, we CAN give our children the kind of freedom we had as kids," Skenazy explains. "The real world is a lot safer than the one on TV, and many of the ‘childhood dangers' we worry about turn out to be infinitesimall y small - like the risk of getting cancer from baby bottles, or being seriously injured by a merry-go-round, or, of course, being abducted by a stranger."
As she throws out "cancer from baby bottles", I gasp, then laugh at how much angst I've had over baby bottles since my daughter's birth five months ago. And I think how I don't even let my nearly 6-year-old son go to the mailbox by himself, yet when I wasn't much older than him I left the house in the morning on my bike with a pack of kids. We rode to the cemetery, ran through the neighborhood, played in an old abandoned shooting range, walked along the railroad tracks and didn't come home until the street lights came on. Does anyone let their children do these kinds of things anymore? I don't know anyone who does, and I have a hard time imaging EVER letting mine.
But Skenazy says we should, and that holding them back in our efforts to protect them is actually harming them.
"Constant hovering actually gives kids the message: You are never safe without me around - a message that makes kids feel scared and vulnerable," she says. "We need to remember how competent and capable our children can be, and how much confidence they gain when we allow them to do things by themselves. Most of us remember the first taste of being a grownup, when we did something all by ourselves, but in the interest of keeping our kids safe, we're talking that self actualization away from them."
But what about all the dangers lurking out there, the abductions and accidents and missing children? It's a different world out there, right?
Yes, Skenazy says, but different in a good way. She says the world is safer today than it was when many of us were growing up, and she has the stats to back it up. She says crime has been plummeting - by as much as 50 percent - since the early 1990s. So if you grew up in the 70s or 80s your children are statistically safer than you were.
And some of the "truths" we think about the dangers are just flat out unfounded. Did you know that there has NEVER been a case in which a stranger poisons a child's Halloween candy? Not even once! Yet think of all the time you've spent pouring over your children's loot, perhaps even making them go to a mall because it's safer? (totally guilty here!)
In her research she called the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (you know, the organization who put the pictures on the back of milk cartons), expecting them to push back on her theories. Instead, they supported them vehemently. She says the center interviewed children who had been abducted and got away, and found that it was their confidence and a feistiness that allowed them do things like kick and scream and, ultimately, get away. "That comes from being out in ‘the wild' a bit," she says.
She blames the media for much of the parental paranoia today and the fact that in the interest of ratings they saturate us with the sensational stories that pull at our biggest emotions - over and over again. Those images get imprinted on our brains and soon she says, we can't cross a parking lot without thinking about Carlie Brucia being abducted. But there are trillions of kids out there that are just fine about whom we're not thinking.
She says the kiddie safety industry is also part of the problem in their promotion of things like helmets for babies learning to walk to special baby Kleenex. "We're so anxious to keep the child alive, that if someone says they need it, we jump to say OK." As well, she says "books and magazines put out all these things you can do wrong, under the guise of advice, but really they're just instilling fear."
Holding handsSo is she just tougher than the rest? Didn't she get the same worrying gene most of us possess? "Please, tell me you worry about something?" I pleaded with her.
"I always have and always will worry about cars: when we're in them, when we're near them and I just hate thinking about when they'll be driving ‘em," Skenazy says. "I'm not at all immune to worry. In fact, I think of myself AS a worrier. Just a little less so, since researching the book."
But shouldn't we do everything we can to keep them safe? Accidents do happen.
"I do believe in trying to keep kids safe - I love safety! I'm a helmet/seat belt fanatic! But when once in a while weird accidents happen, I find it sad that we blame the parents and tell them the should have been more vigilant - as if there is no such thing as fate or bad luck or, well, accidents. And as if it is a reasonable thing to ask parents to watch their children - literally, sit there and watch them - every second of every day until they are 16 or so."
Sounds so simple, right? Skenazy doesn't assume that you can just stop worrying; after all, that's just part of the parenting gig. In her book she offers practical, graduated steps for parents to try (Free-Range Baby Steps, Free-Range Brave Steps and One Giant Leap for Free-Range Kind Steps), acknowledging that all children are different and that there are no hard-and-fast timetables.
I find myself repeatedly referring to and thinking about this book, this approach, as I go about my daily parenting. It has made me laugh at myself a little bit more when I find myself telling my son I don't think he should go in the pool because it hasn't been cleaned in a few days and perhaps some of the leaves that have fallen in it may harbor some kind of bacteria ("Hello, what about lakes?!" my husband offers); and it makes me loosen my grip a little on the imaginary safety reins that permeate my every decision. My children just may not have to hold my hand forever, after all.
The Adam Walsh Act
A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy Initiative?
Naomi J. Freeman
New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany
Jeffrey C. Sandler
University at Albany, New York
Available for purchase at http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0887403409338565v1
With the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), states are required to standardize their registration and community notification practices by categorizing sex offenders into three-tier levels in the interest of increasing public safety. No empirical research, however, has investigated whether implementation of the AWA is likely to increase public safety. Using a sample of registered sex offenders in New York State, the current study examined the effectiveness of the Adam Walsh-tier system to classify offenders by likelihood of recidivism. Results indicated that the AWA falls short of increasing public safety. In fact, registered sex offenders classified by AWA as Tier 1 (lowest risk) were rearrested for both nonsexual and sexual offenses more than sex offenders in Tier 2 (moderate risk) or Tier 3 (highest risk).
The current study tested the ability of the tier system, as stipulated in SORNA, to predict sexual recidivism among a group of registered sex offenders in New York State. The results cast doubts on the ability of the SORNA provisions of the AWA to increase public safety. More specifically, results showed that those offenders classified as Tier 1 (lowest risk) were rearrested for both sexual and nonsexual offenses more quickly than both Tier 2 (moderate risk) and Tier 3 (highest risk) offenders and were rearrested for sexual offenses at a higher rate than Tiers 2 and 3 offenders. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, the results indicated that many other risk factors supported by empirical research would be better predictors of future sexual offending than the SORNA tier level. Given the results of the current study, the enactment of SORNA may give community members a false sense of security. That is, community members may believe they are safe if no Tier 3 offenders are residing in their neighborhood when, in fact, Tier 3 offenders are not at increased risk to reoffend. As such, SORNA appears unable to accurately identify high-risk offenders and, therefore, increase public safety.
This lack of any observed association between crime of conviction and sexual recidivism may be due to the fact that crime of conviction may not be an accurate indication of the type of offense that was committed. Because convictions in sexual offenses are often elusive—whether as a result of lack of evidence, victim’s hesitation to testify, credibility of the victim, or characteristic s of the defendant—prosecutors may be more likely to offer a plea bargain in sexual offense cases to secure a conviction. As such, it is possible that crime of conviction does not accurately reflect the offense that was committed and, therefore, may be a poor predictor of future risk of reoffending. Thus, it is unsurprising that, as the current study found, other easily obtainable risk factors would be better predictors of recidivism and offer a more accurate risk criterion for the classification of sex offenders.
States had until July 2009 to fully implement the regulations outlined in the AWA.7 Yet, a recent analysis conducted by the Justice Policy Institute (2008) noted that, in all 50 states, the costs of implementing SORNA far outweigh the costs of losing 10% of Byrne funding. In fact, the Justice Policy Institute estimates that in 2009 alone, New York State would spend US$31,300,125 for the implementation of SORNA, whereas forfeiting 10% of its Byrne funding would only result in a loss of US$1,127,984.
Given the large fiscal implications of implementing SORNA, as well as results of the current study which indicate that the tier system does little to accurately predict which offenders will reoffend and which will not, perhaps states should reconsider
the implementation of SORNA. Rather, if states are wedded to registration and community notification practices despite the empirical research that indicates the ineffectivenes s of such laws to impact rates of sexual offending (e.g., Petrosino &
Petrosino, 1999; Sandler et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2005; Zevitz, 2006; Zgoba et al., 2008), then perhaps the public would be better served if the scarce resources surrounding sex offender management were limited to the offenders who pose the greatest risk to the public’s safety (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Given the results of the current study, which indicate the lack of ability for the tiered system under SORNA to accurately identify offenders at high risk of sexual recidivism, the AWA would, in fact, target the strongest sanctions against those least likely to recidivate, while giving lesser sanctions to those most likely to recidivate (i.e., Tier 1 offenders).
Currently, the provisions outlined in SORNA do not discriminate between those sex offenders who can be rehabilitated and those who may continue to sexually offend. Yet, in recent years much has been learned about risk factors related to sexual recidivism, and a growing number of actuarial risk assessment instruments have been developed to identify those high risk sex offenders who pose the greatest threat to public safety. The two most well-known risk assessment instruments used for the prediction of sexual recidivism among male sex offenders are the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) and the MnSOST-R (Epperson et al., 1998), both of which have been shown to have moderate predictive accuracy in numerous international samples of sex offenders (Knight & Thornton, 2007). Although these risk assessment instruments do not account for all factors that could be associated with recidivism, they provide a moderate prediction of recidivism and allow for a means to distinguish sex offenders based on risk (usually into categories of low, medium, and high risk). In fact, results of the current study suggest that individual items found on these instruments are significantly associated with recidivism for a group of sex offenders in New York State. Specifically, the presence of prior sexual offenses, the number of previous sentencing dates, having male victims, and being younger (all items on the Static-99) were all related to an increase in the likelihood of sexual recidivism. Although some sex offenders are extremely dangerous and pose a threat to public safety, others present a low risk and can be effectively managed in the community with appropriate levels of supervision and treatment. Thus, the registration and community notification provisions of the AWA may be more effective if actuarial risk assessment instruments that measure both static and dynamic factors are used as a way to identify those most at risk to reoffend (see Levenson & D’Amora, 2007) instead of the currently proposed three-tier system based solely on crime of conviction. Not only would this approach prevent low-risk offenders from receiving the same sanctions as high-risk offenders, it would also conserve resources and allow registration and community notification practices to be directed at those most at risk to reoffend. Targeting intervention programs and legislative initiatives to specific types of sex offenders will more effectively reduce the likelihood of recidivism, ultimately increasing public safety, and will conserve the limited resources aimed at sex offender management strategies.
The idea behind the enactment of the AWA, to standardize registration and notification procedures nationwide, appeared to address limitations of the current system. In reality, however, the three-tiered system, as outlined in SORNA, fails to increase the effectiveness of current registration and community notification practices. In fact, as indicated by the results of the current study, the system proposed in SORNA actually decreases the ability of states to predict which sex offenders will sexually reoffend and which ones will not. More specifically, the use of almost any empirically based risk factor would yield more accurate predictions than the SORNA tier level, which is based solely on crime of conviction. Although no risk prediction system can accurately predict sexual recidivism 100% of the time, the results of the current study indicate that SORNA is almost completely ineffective at categorizing sex offenders based on risk of sexual recidivism. As such, it appears enactment of the AWA (and, therefore, SORNA) would not only cost states more money than they would lose if they were not to enact it, but also that such enactment would unlikely increase public safety.
There is, however, a broader question surrounding the ability of any sex offender registration and notification law to increase public safety. Specifically, several recent studies (e.g., Petrosino & Petrosino, 1999; Sandler et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2005; Zevitz, 2006; Zgoba et al., 2008) have found registration and notification laws to be ineffective methods of reducing sexual victimizations . Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that these types of laws are increasing recidivism, as the unintended consequences of these laws may aggravate stressors known to be associated with sexual reoffending (Freeman, in press). Winick (1998) argued that
by denying them [sex offenders] a variety of employment, social, and educational opportunities, the sex offender label may prevent these individuals from starting a new life and making new acquaintances, with the result that it may be extremely difficult for them to discard their criminal patterns. (p. 556)
Given that the SORNA provisions increase the reporting requirements as well as the public distribution of housing and employment information, it is possible that the enactment of the tier system, as outlined in SORNA, may actually increase reoffending rates of convicted sex offenders. As such, perhaps it is time to replace these wellintended, yet ineffective, public policy initiatives (e.g., registration, community notification) with ones that are scientifically supported.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
I know this is old news to some but I just had this story e-mailed to me. I have long feared that one of the next steps down the road was to identify someone in a visual manner as an RSFO. Now I found that in fact it is going on. It isn't enough that RFSOs names, photos and addresses are posted on the internet making them subject to harassment and other stigmas. Now when they are the lowest points in their lives and many have incurable illnesses when they go to the Mayo Clinic, they now have to wear an bracelet that will let everyone know their RFSO status. We are becoming a NAZI nation! If you read your history you will see that the Nazi's started identifying those they felt where undesirable with those who they considered to be sexual deviants. They forced them to wear Pink Triangles. I will have my shipment of Pink lapel pins in any day now. Please consider buying one and wearing it in protest. Tell the government they have gone to far. No matter where you stand on sex offenders this should not be tolerated. Once the government takes the rights away from any class of citizen it won't be long before they find others who they must protect the people from. Just like the Nazi's did in WWII, It started with sexual deviants, then political dissidents and finally ended with the Jews. Who will be the next group? Will it be you???
Also see post Pink triangles and Swastikas
October 13, 2008
Sex Offenders Required to Wear Blue Wristbands at Mayo Clinic
Convicted sex offenders who are receiving care at the Mayo Clinic will now be required to wear blue wristbands in order to identify them. The rule also applies to other 'predatory offenders.' From Rochester Post-Bulletin:
Convicted sex and other predatory offenders getting care at Mayo Clinic now must wear blue wristbands as a way to identify them.
That's the newly revised policy implemented to inform employees of the offender's status, said Adam Brase, Mayo Clinic spokesman.
A year ago, state lawmakers added the health care facility notification requirement to the state's predatory offender registration law. Now, facilities are developing policies to comply.
"It's so new we are going along and feeling our way to make sure we are doing it right,'' said Rochester police Lt. Al Kuehl, who coordinates predatory offender notification for the department.
Kuehl told members of the Olmsted County Safety Council on Thursday that convicted predatory offenders who are required to register with law enforcement now also must notify health care facilities of their status when being admitted for treatment. That includes hospitals, nursing homes, residential, mental and chemical dependency treatment facilities licensed as health care facilities. The facilities then must make sure employees are aware of the offender's status. Except for hospitals, other licensed facilities must also notify other patients, or the patient's next of kin or emergency contact.
Mayo's policy requires a hospitalized predatory offender to wear a Mayo-provided blue wristband next to their ID wristband, so that employees who have contact with the patient will know he or she is a predatory offender, Brase said. Offenders will be housed in private rooms.
Kuehl predicts more changes next year as lawmakers debate changes that might be necessary under the Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act passed by Congress. That establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders.
Predatory offenders, as defined in Minnesota, aren't just convicted sex offenders. They include some people convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution.