Well the first meeting was held in Bangor on Tuesday. I spoke with a reporter from channel 7 news and she played one quote from me asking how children would be protected when most Former SOs would be at jobs during the day when children where at school or the playground and not there a night where the RFSOs would be at home sleeping. Plus I was able to correct the reporters misinformation of a 60% recidivism rate. She used the the 3-5% rate found in most studies conducted by the US Department of Justice's own studies. So I think I had a least a small bit of influence with the one reporter.
Tonight I decided to see what I could find out about the woman who is pushing for this ordinance. Her name is Angela Hoy and she is a writer. She also has a blog here: http://vbac.angelahoy.com/. She is sadly misinformed and is pushing her hatred of RFSOs because two members of her family were molested. She would like to hear from people who have questions and read her blog. She can be written to at angela@writersweekly.com. I am planning on sending her an e-mail with correct information in it, especially the part about why anyone would oppose herordinance. So I encourage everyone who reads this to also write to her, nicely but firmly. There are further meetings on this proposal on August 10th at the next city council meeting. I also encourage you to write e-mails to the city couselors and to follow the e-mails with a letter.
Showing posts with label Former Offenders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Former Offenders. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
One Family's Story
I am in the process of collecting people's stories. My plan is to collect as many as I can and make up a booklet that can be used when communitcating with Lawmakers and others. The other day I was sent this story. These kinds of unintended consequences are the very reason I am fighting for change. We need laws that actually do something to protect kids like educational programs, therapy and support. If you want to contribute to my project please send an e-mail to me at ladyfurebear@yahoo.com. Thanks
My husband was 18 when he had consensual sex with a 17 year old at a campus party that was at his dorm. The 17 year old said that she went to the college, but in fact she was in highschool. While at the campus party there was booze and the two had some drinks and eventually had sex. The party got raided because, one it was in a dorm and involved several rooms, and two there was alcohol present. When the police showed up, they were searching for the person responsible for providing alcohol for minors. All ID's were being checked. While my husband and the female were sleeping in one of the rooms, the police showed up and asked for their ID's. When it was discovered that the female was 17 and that they were having drinks, the state picked up the case for having sex with a minor. She did not want to press charges because she admitted to drinking and having sex. But, since it was against the law the case was picked up by the state and my husband got convicted for five years probation, commuinty service and 5 years registration. After three years, they passed the new sex offender laws ( The Adam Walsh Act) and he was grandfathered onto the registry for life. It has been almost 15 years later and he is still paying for his crime. We have been married for 14 years and have three children. He is not allowed to have lunch with them unless they are moved to a secluded room and monitored by administration. In some states where we have moved to, they required community notification and had residency restriction laws. These Laws cause humiliation and others then pass judgments on him and us as his family. He has had to turn down jobs because of theresidency restriction laws and we have had to "settle" for neighborhoods that are not near any school or daycare. I do not have the priviledge of choosing where I want to live, so that we live in a great neighborhood or one that allows my kids to go to a good school. These laws violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put forth by the United Nations. They don't differentiate betwwen dangerous and non-dagerous former sex offenders. We deserve to be allowed the chance to provide the best lifestlye we can, like any other family is able to do. It is time to reform these laws so that it only reflects those who are dangerous, not to the many who have no earthly desire to rape or molest a child. I can assure you my husband is not looking for his next victim, he just wants to get on with his life with his family at his side.
My husband was 18 when he had consensual sex with a 17 year old at a campus party that was at his dorm. The 17 year old said that she went to the college, but in fact she was in highschool. While at the campus party there was booze and the two had some drinks and eventually had sex. The party got raided because, one it was in a dorm and involved several rooms, and two there was alcohol present. When the police showed up, they were searching for the person responsible for providing alcohol for minors. All ID's were being checked. While my husband and the female were sleeping in one of the rooms, the police showed up and asked for their ID's. When it was discovered that the female was 17 and that they were having drinks, the state picked up the case for having sex with a minor. She did not want to press charges because she admitted to drinking and having sex. But, since it was against the law the case was picked up by the state and my husband got convicted for five years probation, commuinty service and 5 years registration. After three years, they passed the new sex offender laws ( The Adam Walsh Act) and he was grandfathered onto the registry for life. It has been almost 15 years later and he is still paying for his crime. We have been married for 14 years and have three children. He is not allowed to have lunch with them unless they are moved to a secluded room and monitored by administration. In some states where we have moved to, they required community notification and had residency restriction laws. These Laws cause humiliation and others then pass judgments on him and us as his family. He has had to turn down jobs because of theresidency restriction laws and we have had to "settle" for neighborhoods that are not near any school or daycare. I do not have the priviledge of choosing where I want to live, so that we live in a great neighborhood or one that allows my kids to go to a good school. These laws violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put forth by the United Nations. They don't differentiate betwwen dangerous and non-dagerous former sex offenders. We deserve to be allowed the chance to provide the best lifestlye we can, like any other family is able to do. It is time to reform these laws so that it only reflects those who are dangerous, not to the many who have no earthly desire to rape or molest a child. I can assure you my husband is not looking for his next victim, he just wants to get on with his life with his family at his side.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Interesting Constitutional Question Raised by Crimal Justice Committe
These past few weeks I have attended several work sessions and listened to many others. The Justice Committee has been working on trying to bring Maine SORNA Registry into compliance with Maine's Constitution. In a recent case Maine's Supreme Court ruled that certain aspects of the SORNA Registry are unconstitutional, That it is in fact not a civil scheme but one that is punitive in nature and that people convicted between 1992 & 1999, who had to register as part of their sentence who then had time added to their registration requirements; when the laws were later changed, were in fact having their sentence added to. This is called ex post facto which means after the fact which both the State and our Nation's Constitution have said cannot be done to anyone for any reason. Also the Court ruled that the every 90 days in person registration at the local police station is punitive and must be changed. Janet Mills Maine's Attorney General gave the committee several options for dealing the these issues. The simplist one would be what they called a rolling registry which would mean that each person would have to comply with the laws in place at the time the offense was committed. Admittedly a logistical nightmare for the state but simplest and fairest solution of all. Bit it also would mean that many people would simply no longer have to register. Instead,what has evolved during their discussions with various experts is they plan expand the waiver program they implimented last year to include those from 1992 to 1999, previously the only people who could take advantage of this were people convicted between 1982 to 1992, those who had the registry imposed on them when they changed the laws in 2005 and made them retroactive to include people all the way back to 1082. This is a simple plan that only allows people who quailify to apply and it is either granted or denied with no room to apeal the decision. They would then add a second step that is more involved, you would get a hearing in front of a judge and could present evidence showing that you are no longer a risk to society. At this stage they are debating the wording and what would be exceptible to show your risk level. This will they hope get them off the hook with the Court and keep the most people on the registry. Never mind the fact that the people we are talking about have served their time and been living in society trying to live an offense free life for 10 to 20 years.
The thing that has come up that bothers me the most is they have decided to exclude anyone who has an out of state conviction. In other words if you are a current resident of Maine no matter how long you have lived here you could not take advantage of either oppurtunity they are considering. Why is this? How can they have two different classes of people? Does the State's Constitution only apply to people who committed their offense here in Maine but not to those who made a mistake outside of Maine but is now a resident? Well I think I can answer why they are trying to do this whether or not it is Constitutional or not. From the very first work session the state was made " We don't want Maine to become a "HAVEN STATE". They are fearful that if word gets out that Maine has easier registry requirements that hoards of former offenders will flock to Maine looking to get off the registry. If they are so fearful of this happeneing why not place some kind of residence rerequirement. Such as former offenders must live in Maine for a certain length of time, for instance say after living here for at least 5 years and if you are eligable according to all other requirements before you could apply. Instead they are trying to interpet the Constituion two different ways.
I wonder how many people are even concerned with this or are even bothered in any way? Does anyone realize that one the Constitution can be twisted to suit different agendas that their rights are in danger as well. There is a reason the statue outside courts are shown as blind, it is that justice should be blind it must apply to those we dislike as well as those we like, or we all stand to lose in the long run. What will it take to get people to notice? Once we have lost our rights it is too late to get them back again.
The thing that has come up that bothers me the most is they have decided to exclude anyone who has an out of state conviction. In other words if you are a current resident of Maine no matter how long you have lived here you could not take advantage of either oppurtunity they are considering. Why is this? How can they have two different classes of people? Does the State's Constitution only apply to people who committed their offense here in Maine but not to those who made a mistake outside of Maine but is now a resident? Well I think I can answer why they are trying to do this whether or not it is Constitutional or not. From the very first work session the state was made " We don't want Maine to become a "HAVEN STATE". They are fearful that if word gets out that Maine has easier registry requirements that hoards of former offenders will flock to Maine looking to get off the registry. If they are so fearful of this happeneing why not place some kind of residence rerequirement. Such as former offenders must live in Maine for a certain length of time, for instance say after living here for at least 5 years and if you are eligable according to all other requirements before you could apply. Instead they are trying to interpet the Constituion two different ways.
I wonder how many people are even concerned with this or are even bothered in any way? Does anyone realize that one the Constitution can be twisted to suit different agendas that their rights are in danger as well. There is a reason the statue outside courts are shown as blind, it is that justice should be blind it must apply to those we dislike as well as those we like, or we all stand to lose in the long run. What will it take to get people to notice? Once we have lost our rights it is too late to get them back again.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Schedule for the Upcoming Week
Note that the sessions we are concerned with are on Tuesday and Thursday @ 1pm. It is so important for us to show up at everyone of these public sessions. I will be there as oten as I can.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Good News Concerning Upcoming Legistative Bills
Well I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago. The review committee has rejected all 5 of the bills that were introduced for this session. There is some rumblings that there maybe a committee formed that is going to review all bills that weren't accepted, so we still may have to fight one or more bills this session. And we also need to keep an eye out for emergency bills being introduced that concern changes to Sex Offender laws. But for now things seem to be quiet.
Friday, September 18, 2009
We have a mailing address now!
Today I set up CFC Maine's very own post office box. I can be reached by writing me at Citizen's For Change Maine or CFC ME, PO Box 611, Bridgton, Maine 04009. This means we can start our letter writing campaign and have a valid address to be reached at for those that do not have access to the internet. Thanks to those who gave so generously at our first meeting. Their donations allowed us to pay for the mailbox and we have purchased some stamps to get started. To anyone else who would like to assist us with the letter campaign donations of stamps would be greatly appreciated. Also I am looking for suggestions on how to write a letter, to be sent out to those on the registry and their families, that would gain their trust and that would motivate them to get involved. Has anyone else sent out letters in the past? What worked and what didn't? Looking forward to hearing from you all.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
CFC Maine mentioned in article
State law set to change city's sex offender ordinance
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/american_journal/news/article_e2946838-9e46-11de-8b21-001cc4c002e0.htmlPlease feel free to leave comments
Westbrook police Detective Dan Violette says there's a reason the number of sex offenders living and working in the city hasn't changed much in the past two years.
Since the City Council adopted one of the strictest ordinances in the state prohibiting registered sex offenders from living or working in most of the city, Violette has had to force people out of their new apartments and make them quit their jobs.
According to the detective, who said he spends about 25 percent of his work week keeping track of sex offenders in the city, about 37 registered sex offenders live in Westbrook and an additional 16 work there.
"The number hasn't fluctuated very much," Violette said.
But that could change when a new state law goes into effect Saturday, nullifying Westbrook's ordinance.
The City Council will vote Monday on whether to adopt the state's new maximum allowable restrictions on where sex offenders can live. If passed, the 2,500-foot buffer zones around all places children frequent will be replaced with 750-foot restricted areas just around schools. And that only covers residency. The state law says that towns and cities cannot restrict where sex offenders can work.
In a gesture showing their disapproval of the state law, Gorham town councilors last week refused to change the town's restrictive ordinance in order to comply. However, it's still in question what the town's police department will be able to enforce once the law goes into effect.
Though Violette said he'll still spend the same amount of time monitoring sex offenders in the city and notifying neighbors and employers of their whereabouts, the state law takes away some of his authority over sex offenders and a safeguard for Westbrook children.
"It's given me more tools to help make sure sex offenders were in compliance," he said about the old law.
DRAWN TO WESTBROOK
There are no demographics that encompass all sex offenders, Violette said, but because a lot of employers don't want to hire registered sex offenders, many, regardless of their backgrounds and skills, don't have steady sources of income.
"You're a convicted felon. That makes you ineligible to work in a lot of places," Violette said.
Because of that, he believes the amount of low-income housing in Westbrook draws more sex offenders. Though Portland is probably the most attractive city in the area for jobless sex offenders because of its shelters and support services, he said, "we're ripe for the picking as far as increasing our numbers."
However, some say that keeping people out of jobs and homes because of their sex offender status is unconstitutional.
Jane Cantral, who runs Maine Citizens for Change - a local affiliate of the national group Reform Sex Offender Laws - said she and her boyfriend Calvin Shelton, a registered sex offender, didn't have an easy time finding a home in this area of the state.
"We're trying to buy a house and we're looking at maps," said Cantral, a Bridgton resident who was herself the victim of a sex offender.
"It sounds good as a knee-jerk reaction, but if you really thought about it, how much sense does it make?" Cantral said.
She pointed to the fact that students are not in school at night, when most sex offenders are in their homes. She also noted that kids are better looked after in schools and day cares than they are the rest of the day.
"I don't think residency restrictions are needed at all," she said.
Cantral hopes that more efforts will be made on educating parents and children and treating sex offenders rather than on making local or state laws that she believes are ineffective.
IS LESS MORE?
But success is measured in different ways when it comes to sex offender laws.
Violette said he scans the state's sex offender registry about once a week to see if there are any new registered sex offenders living or working in Westbrook. During the past two years, he said, he's had to ask about a dozen people to leave their jobs, usually because of their proximity to day cares. Though he's gotten mixed reactions from employers - some thank Violette for making them aware of the charges, others would rather to keep the workers regardless of them - the sex offenders themselves tend to comply quickly.
"Almost every time, they quit right way," he said.
Other than the case of one registered sex offender Violette had to repeatedly chase out of a Spring Street apartment, he said the same willingness to obey the ordinance was true of sex offenders trying to move to the city. He said he's had to turn down about five or six sex offenders who tried to move into restricted areas of the city from out of town and another half-dozen who wanted to move within Westbrook.
Overall, Violette estimated that about 20 additional sex offenders would be living or working in the city today if it weren't for the ordinance.
"It was working," he said.
PEACE OF MIND
One woman who was an outspoken advocate of the Westbrook ordinance when it was adopted said she plans to speak up again at the council meeting Monday.
Jen Wescott, who has two family members that were sex crime victims, said even with the ordinance in place, as a mother and a day care owner, she's on constant alert, keeping an eye on who's around. The city's law offered extra protection.
"It gives you a little more sense of security," Wescott said.
But creating a false sense of security is one of the arguments opponents have against residency restrictions.
"They have a tendency to drive offenders underground," Sen. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, who sponsored the bill, said in June, when the law was passed. "Then you don't know where they are, which is a more dangerous situation."
Those who support less-stringent residency resrictions say the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people known to the victims - which was the case with Wescott's family members and with Cantral, as well.
While Cantral argues that over-reaching restrictions violate the rights of former criminals who have paid their debts to society, Wescott and Violette both believe that additional protection against sex offenders can only help to keep kids safer.
"Any buffer you put between a sex offender and our vulnerable children, I think that's a good thing," Violette said.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CFC Maine Meets
We are having our first planning session for CFC Maine next Saturday September 12th at 10:30am in Gorham. We will be discussing and setting forth our goals for the upcoming year. If I haven't contacted you about this meeting yet please consider attending. We want everyone interested in promoting change to RFSO laws to join us. RFSOs, family members and the general public are all invited. There are many jobs that can be done without being in the public eye. We need to plan the best way we can exploit the current climate asking how things should change to prevent more crimes like the recent one with Kaycee. Email me at ladyfurebear@yahoo.com if you want more information. Hope to see you there.
One of many articles pointing out RFSO laws don't work....
America's flawed sex offender laws
The Jaycee Dugard case illustrates how America's sex offender registries hurt efforts to stop repeat sex crimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/05/jaycee-lee-dugard-sex-offender-laws
Americans have been doing some soul-searching about our approach to monitoring convicted sex offenders since the recent discovery of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Dugard was kidnapped in California at age 11 and held captive for 18 years in Phillip Garrido's garden. He managed to hide his secret prisoner from the police even though he was a convicted rapist and his name appeared on the public sex offender registry.
In the past, news of a horrific crime committed by a convicted sex offender inevitably led to widespread calls for increasing the scope of sex offender registration and community notification laws. Over the past 15 years, the US has expanded its registration and notification schemes to include an estimated 674,000 convicted sex offenders. Some remain on the public list for the rest of their lives, regardless of the seriousness of their offence, the current threat they might pose or their progress toward rehabilitation . The effectiveness of such laws has rarely been questioned, and they enjoy widespread public support.
But this time around, there has been a different type of discussion. Rather than just calling for tougher sex offender monitoring laws, Americans are openly wondering if a new approach is needed to deal with convicted sex offenders who have re-entered the community.
Although Garrido's case is extraordinary, it illustrates the flaws in America's sex offender registration and community notification schemes. Experts in sexual violence say that placing all convicted sex offenders on a registry for life may do more harm than good. The public nature of the registry makes it nearly impossible for convicted sex offenders to re-enter the community with the kind of support system they need to reduce their likelihood of committing another offence. Low-level offenders who pose little risk to the community are monitored in the same way as high-risk offenders, diluting police resources to concentrate on those, such as Garrido, who pose a high risk of committing another offence.
Furthermore, focusing so much public attention and resources on convicted sex offenders ignores the reality of sexual violence in the United States. It is estimated that 87% of new sex crimes every year are committed by individuals without a prior sex crime conviction. And very few sex crimes move through the system – less than one-third of all reported rapes result in an arrest.
So pouring scarce resources into monitoring all convicted offenders means there is less money for programmes to prevent sexual violence and counsel victims and for the rape investigation units, rape evidence testing and other tools that could bring justice in these cases.
Because of such concerns, Human Rights Watch called in a 2007 report for a major revamping of America's sex offender laws. Registration should be limited to former offenders who have been individually assessed as dangerous, and only for as long as they pose a significant risk. Community notification should be restricted to those who genuinely can benefit from knowledge about dangerous former offenders in their midst.
Sex offender registration and community notification laws didn't cause Garrido's crimes, but they didn't help the police stop them, either. While Americans are starting to question the value of our extensive sex offender monitoring system, it remains to be seen whether these doubts will lead to real reform.
Once sex offender laws are in place, it is hard for politicians to repeal them, because they don't want to appear weak on the issue of sex offenders. If Britain wants to do more to prevent sexual violence, it should keep its sex offender registry narrowly focused, and use the savings in time, energy and resources to implement sexual violence prevention policies that will actually keep the public safe.
The Jaycee Dugard case illustrates how America's sex offender registries hurt efforts to stop repeat sex crimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/05/jaycee-lee-dugard-sex-offender-laws
Americans have been doing some soul-searching about our approach to monitoring convicted sex offenders since the recent discovery of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Dugard was kidnapped in California at age 11 and held captive for 18 years in Phillip Garrido's garden. He managed to hide his secret prisoner from the police even though he was a convicted rapist and his name appeared on the public sex offender registry.
In the past, news of a horrific crime committed by a convicted sex offender inevitably led to widespread calls for increasing the scope of sex offender registration and community notification laws. Over the past 15 years, the US has expanded its registration and notification schemes to include an estimated 674,000 convicted sex offenders. Some remain on the public list for the rest of their lives, regardless of the seriousness of their offence, the current threat they might pose or their progress toward rehabilitation . The effectiveness of such laws has rarely been questioned, and they enjoy widespread public support.
But this time around, there has been a different type of discussion. Rather than just calling for tougher sex offender monitoring laws, Americans are openly wondering if a new approach is needed to deal with convicted sex offenders who have re-entered the community.
Although Garrido's case is extraordinary, it illustrates the flaws in America's sex offender registration and community notification schemes. Experts in sexual violence say that placing all convicted sex offenders on a registry for life may do more harm than good. The public nature of the registry makes it nearly impossible for convicted sex offenders to re-enter the community with the kind of support system they need to reduce their likelihood of committing another offence. Low-level offenders who pose little risk to the community are monitored in the same way as high-risk offenders, diluting police resources to concentrate on those, such as Garrido, who pose a high risk of committing another offence.
Furthermore, focusing so much public attention and resources on convicted sex offenders ignores the reality of sexual violence in the United States. It is estimated that 87% of new sex crimes every year are committed by individuals without a prior sex crime conviction. And very few sex crimes move through the system – less than one-third of all reported rapes result in an arrest.
So pouring scarce resources into monitoring all convicted offenders means there is less money for programmes to prevent sexual violence and counsel victims and for the rape investigation units, rape evidence testing and other tools that could bring justice in these cases.
Because of such concerns, Human Rights Watch called in a 2007 report for a major revamping of America's sex offender laws. Registration should be limited to former offenders who have been individually assessed as dangerous, and only for as long as they pose a significant risk. Community notification should be restricted to those who genuinely can benefit from knowledge about dangerous former offenders in their midst.
Sex offender registration and community notification laws didn't cause Garrido's crimes, but they didn't help the police stop them, either. While Americans are starting to question the value of our extensive sex offender monitoring system, it remains to be seen whether these doubts will lead to real reform.
Once sex offender laws are in place, it is hard for politicians to repeal them, because they don't want to appear weak on the issue of sex offenders. If Britain wants to do more to prevent sexual violence, it should keep its sex offender registry narrowly focused, and use the savings in time, energy and resources to implement sexual violence prevention policies that will actually keep the public safe.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Burn Your “Sex Offender” Map
Great blog post on the Free Range Kids blog, in response to the articles I posted below from the Economist. The writer of this blog is one of the few voices of reason in these days of over protective parents. She has gotten tons of flack over letting her son take the subway in New York. She's well worth reading.
Burn Your “Sex Offender” Map
Read here on the Free range Kids Blog Posted on August 8, 2009 by lskenazy
Okay, here is some weekend reading to sink your teeth into. It’s an article from the Economist:
“Unjust and Ineffective: America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offdenders. Does It Work?”
The short answer is “No.” We are putting people on sex offender registries who do not belong there at all. People who peed in public. Streakers. Johns. Teenagers who had consensual sex. The registry does not discriminate between violet pedophiles and once-horny young folk who are now 30-year-old housewives, like one of the people profiled in the piece. Wendy Whitaker was 17 when she had sex (at school — dumb!) with her underage-by-three weeks boyfriend. She was arrested for it and her lawyer told her to plead guilty to get it over with. She did. But it was never over.
One of the plea bargain conditions was that she check in regularly with her probation officer. When she didn’t, she was thrown in jail for more than a year. She finished probation in 2002 but she’s still on a public registry that does not exmpain what she did. So, as notes the article, “it looks like she did something terrible to a helpless child.”
In all, according to the Economist, about 5% of the people on the sex offender registries pose a serious risk to children. Usually, when not in jail, these people end up wearing ankle bracelets. But when you pull up one of those Sex Offender Maps — really easy to do on the Web (and now on the iPhone!)– it looks like wherever you turn, there’s another child rapist. Which, of course, leads to more fear on the part of parents. That is understable. Our pig-headed insistence on lumping everyone together on these lists and never taking them off is not. Especially because — get this: “Registering sex offenders and warning their neighbors cost millions & had no effect on the number of sex crimes.”
No effect. One more quote from The Economist, which says that the sex offender laws, “get harsher and harsher. But that does not necessarily mean they get better. If there are thousands of offenders on a registry, it is harder to keep track of the most dangerous ones. Budgets are tight. Georgia’s sheriffs complain that they have been given no extra money or manpower to help them keep the huge and swelling sex-offenders’ registry up to date or to police its confusing mass of rules. Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married…. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who’s done something heinous.’”
From a Free-Range standpoint, it is appalling that these sex offender registries make it seem as if children are unsafe on any street. From a humanitarian viewpoint, it is appalling to think of our government is not ready to revamp the whole thing. Kids — and grown ups caught peeing in public — would all be safer. — Lenore
Friday, August 7, 2009
America's unjust sex laws
Second article
America's unjust sex laws
An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world
America's unjust sex laws
Aug 6th 2009
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14165460From The Economist print edition
An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world
| |
 | |
IT IS an oft-told story, but it does not get any less horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a paedophile enticed seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering to show her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the house across the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan’s parents had no idea of this. Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told their daughter to stay away from him.
In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, “Megan’s laws” had spread to every American state.
America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest of any rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are given long prison sentences. When released, they are put on sex-offender registries. In most states this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises to keep their children safe. Other countries are following America’s example, either importing Megan’s laws or increasing penalties: after two little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain has imposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.
Which makes it all the more important to ask whether America’s approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be stronger than the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians who wished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote against such laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically write themselves.
In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.
How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being “party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.
Several other countries have sex-offender registries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard to view. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sex offender: some states have a “click to print” icon on their websites so that concerned citizens can put up posters with the offender’s mugshot on trees near his home. Small wonder most sex offenders report being harassed. A few have been murdered. Many are fired because someone at work has Googled them.
Registration is often just the start. Sometimes sex offenders are barred from living near places where children congregate. In Georgia no sex offender may live or work within 1,000 feet (300 metres) of a school, church, park, skating rink or swimming pool. In Miami an exclusion zone of 2,500 feet has helped create a camp of homeless offenders under a bridge.
There are three main arguments for reform. First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer.
Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registers drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false sense of security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let alone convicted.
It would not be hard to redesign America’s sex laws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same list for life, states should assess each person individually and include only real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, names could be held by the police, who would share them only with those, such as a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from living in so many places should be repealed, because there is no evidence that they protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more intrusively—through ankle bracelets and the like.
In America it may take years to unpick this. However practical and just the case for reform, it must overcome political cowardice, the tabloid media and parents’ understandable fears. Other countries, though, have no excuse for committing the same error. Sensible sex laws are better than vengeful ones.
 |
|
| Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved. |
|
|
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Editorial- The Yellow Star
I had the please of meeting Mr Wall recently at the RSOL conference in Boston. He lives here in Maine. He sent me this editorial he wrote so I could share it with all of my blogspot readers. Any comments will be forwarded to the author. Thanks to Mr. Wall for allowing me to share this with all of you.
Editorial from The Guide
September 2006
The Yellow Star
By French Wall
Sixty-five years ago this September, 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
Editorial from The Guide
September 2006
The Yellow Star
By French Wall
Sixty-five years ago this September, 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
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Know who is looking you up on the Registry
Did you know that under Maine and Federal law you are entitled to request who has been viewing you on the Registry both online and through other means? They are required to provide this information to you. This is a letter a RFSO sent me to share with you. With the recent murder of the 13 year old of a Florida RFSO's son and the news that the Portland gunman's intended target was a RFSO, we need to be concerned for our family's safety. If everyone requests this information not only will we know who to point Law Enforcement to if something does happen
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
Sincerely,
xxxxxx
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
Sincerely,
xxxxxx
Monday, July 20, 2009
Atlanta Teen Killed in Daytona Beach, Vigilantes Kill 13 Year old
Those of us in Maine remember Chief Chitwood. He was always outspoken, love him or hate him he always called it like he saw it. Here a 13 year old boy is tragically murdered and he speaks out and links the murder with the boy's father status as a Registered Sex Offender. Cudos to Chief Chitwood for being brave enough to call a spade a spade and not let the powers that be sweep this terrible tragedy under the rug of 'mistaken identity'. I hope he pursues these criminals and brings their cowardly actions to trial.
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
Daytona Beach
Article here
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
Daytona Beach
Article here
Updated: Monday, 20 Jul 2009, 7:19 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 20 Jul 2009, 6:00 PM EDT
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.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Adam Walsh Act A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy Initiative?
An important new study has been released. Please read and forward to all members of your State legislature.
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
Abstract:
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).
Excerpt:
Discussion
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.
Conclusion
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.
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
Abstract:
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).
Excerpt:
Discussion
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.
Conclusion
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.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
RFSOs Must Now Wear Blue Armbands at Mayo Clinic
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
article here
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.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Ron Book Show Rescheduled
Notice to any wanting to call in or listen to the interview that was supposed to air on ARC tonight with Ron Book. He has asked to move the interview to Thursday night. So the show will be on ARC Thursday, July 2nd at 8:30pm. Please join us to hear him excuse himself for being part of making RSFOs homeless in Miami. Hope to see a lot of us there.
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/29521
Phone Number: (724) 444-7444
Call ID: 29521
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/29521
Phone Number: (724) 444-7444
Call ID: 29521
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Why There Won't Be a "Sandra's Law"....And Why There Should Be
Article written by "Jonathon" Recently sent to me by Mary of RSOL Virginia. It's extremely well written and thought provoking. Posted with permission. THanks Jonathon and Mary.
Why There Won't Be a "Sandra's Law"....And Why There Should Be
The details of Sandra Cantu's murder are as horrible and heart-rending as anything we have seen. Sandra's fate was as terrible as that of Adam or Jessica, and yet you will not see the pundits or Sandra's family campaigning for the passage of Sandra's Law.
The problem is that the circumstances of Sandra's murder do not lend themselves to simple solutions, or to posturing on the part of self-proclaimed protectors of children. Sandra was not killed by a registered sex offender (the police are to be credited for not jumping to that conclusion). No registry would have prevented her death. The circumstances of Sandra's murder are far more the norm for such things than are the "stranger danger" scenarios used to justify the enactment of the AWA or Jessica's Law.
Sandra was killed by someone whom she and her family trusted. Statistics show that about half of all child abductions are by a parent, and about a quarter are perpetrated by a friend or close associate of the family. These are the abductions most likely to result in the death of the child.
I recently decided to try my hand at writing model legislation to replace the deeply flawed Adam Walsh Act. I haven't gotten very far. The first question I asked was what the best statistics on sex offender recidivism actually are. To that end, I visited the National Sex Offender Management web site where I found a number of studies attesting to the fact that sex offenses are under-reported, and that "many" sex offenders have committed additional offenses for which they were not caught.
Many of the studies concentrated on rape and child molestation as the offenses of choice. Rape, before the national sex hysteria, was almost universally recognized as a crime of violence. It's about the violence and the domination, not the sex. As such, I would expect it to have recidivism rates approaching those of violent crimes in general, namely 50-75%. Child molestation, may indicate true pedophilia on the part of the perpetrator. As this goes to the heart of how the person is wired sexually, one may assume it to be resistant to change. This doesn't mean that pedophilia cannot be treated or managed, or that all pedophiles reoffend. It simply means that one may expect this to be a tough nut to crack. In fact, Dr Fred Berlin, a nationally recognized expert on sex offenses and sexual trauma (a REAL one, not a John Walsh) has had remarkable success in treating high-risk sex offenders, including pedophiles. To the best of my knowledge (and I have an advanced degree in psychological counseling), shaming and ostracism are not valid therapeutic tools for ANY condition.
Many of the studies claimed that, when unreported crimes are taken into account, sex offender recidivism may rise to the level of 30-50%. The statement that "all sex offenses are under-reported" must be viewed in the context that ALL crimes are under reported. This includes drug dealing, drunk driving, burglary, you name it. When under-reporting is factored in, sex offenses rise to recidivism levels approaching the LOWER limits of the percentage range for crimes of all kinds. About two thirds of all drunk drivers, for example, re-offend. This means they are RE-ARRESTED or RE-CONVICTED. Shall we assume that they are caught every time they get behind the wheel with a snoot full? What would be the "actual" recidivism rate for drunk driving if under-reporting is factored in?
Recidivism and danger to the community cannot be looked at in a vacuum. They must be considered as they related to the entire spectrum of illegal activity. Do we assume, as the announcer intones on Law and Order SVU that "sexually related crimes are especially heinous?" Are they really more heinous than selling your kid crack? Than running over him with your car when you are intoxicated? Than assault? Than murder?
Because of a need to precisely define what is a sex offense for purposes of study, most legitimate studies appeared to stay away from such things as Internet offenses. The term "sex offense" actually encompasses a vast and highly heterogeneous universe which, like the real universe, continues to expand. This suggests that the actual management of sex offenses and sex offenders may be a rather complex undertaking, not the "one size fits all" approach used by the AWA and other legislation.
Society (that means politicians and the press) has decided that we need a huge and costly - and publicly accessible - sex offender management system. They have decided that everybody needs to be on the list. Even as studies in New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere have demonstrated that Megan's Law has done nothing for public safety, there are those who will continue to cry, "if it saves one child, it will be worth it." Well, it hasn't saved one child. It is, however, taking funds and personnel away from programs that DO save children, and DO make their lives better. Virginia, for example, is cutting back on education while it continues to expand the registry. As the registry grows, and as more people on it are declared "violent" by legislative whim, more state troopers are spending their time monitoring sex offenders, not on the highway where their presence actually saves lives. In an era when states are running out of funds and cutting back on essential services, the registry remains fully funded, even as many politicians now privately admit that it has become next to useless.
Sandra's Law should be the replacement for the Adam Walsh Act. Sandra's Law would be based on facts and science, not myth and politics. Sandra's law would follow the principle recommended by most real experts, namely watch some people smarter, not all people longer. Sandra's Law would actually enhance public safety while allowing those who truly want to rehabilitate and to rejoin society to do so. In all likelihood, the size of the registry under Sandra's Law would be greatly reduced, and public access limited. Under Sandra's Law, ALL funds saved through restructuring the sex offender management system would be channeled into programs directly benefiting children.
Sandra's death was a terrible tragedy, and absolutely nothing we can do will change that. She deserves a legacy, too. Can you think of a better one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)