Sunday, May 11, 2008
Ohio's AWA act?
I got an interesting certified letter from my County sheriff yesterday. It seems under Ohio's new AWA act I am tardy with my new registration requirments and if I do not get to the sheriff's office by Thursday I will be charged with a felony.
HHHHmmmm this doesnt sound like a civil action to me it sounds downright criminal. Also the letter reads that I have been convicted and classified as a tier 2 sex offender.
Now I remember my conviction 8 years ago where I signed a paper stating that I had to register as a sexually Oriented offender for 10 years.I even remember filing my challenge to re classificagtion under the AWA act last December but I must have blocked out all of this other due process this letter implies I have had.
My crime has also changed from attempted corruption of a minor to unlawful sexual conduct with a Minor withjout any explanation or notification. I am honestly perplexed as to what criteria they used to give me such a bump in rank as I look at others on my county list that have the same crime listed next the their names they are still classisified as tier 1.
In any case I guess I had better go see my local donut chomper so that this civil case does not end in a felony conviction. What a country
HHHHmmmm this doesnt sound like a civil action to me it sounds downright criminal. Also the letter reads that I have been convicted and classified as a tier 2 sex offender.
Now I remember my conviction 8 years ago where I signed a paper stating that I had to register as a sexually Oriented offender for 10 years.I even remember filing my challenge to re classificagtion under the AWA act last December but I must have blocked out all of this other due process this letter implies I have had.
My crime has also changed from attempted corruption of a minor to unlawful sexual conduct with a Minor withjout any explanation or notification. I am honestly perplexed as to what criteria they used to give me such a bump in rank as I look at others on my county list that have the same crime listed next the their names they are still classisified as tier 1.
In any case I guess I had better go see my local donut chomper so that this civil case does not end in a felony conviction. What a country
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Ohio's AWA Champion Forced to admit SEXUAL misconduct in office
Ohio attorney general admits to affair with employeeBy JULIE CARR SMYTH – 1 day ago COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio's attorney general admitted an extramarital affair with an employee Friday, soon after three of his aides were fired or forced out after an investigation found evidence of sexual harassment and other misconduct.Leader of both parties were critical of Attorney General Marc Dann, one of several Democrats swept into office in 2006 after a scandal over state investments sullied Republicans. He apologized to his wife and supporters but promised not to step down."I'm embarrassed. I have taken responsibility for what I've done," he told reporters.Dann had lived with two of the aides at an apartment during much of his first year in office and some of the alleged harassment by one of the aides occurred there."I did not create an atmosphere in my public and personal life that is consistent with the important mission of the Office of Attorney General ...," Dann said. "I am heartbroken by my failure to recognize the problems being created and by my failure to stop them."Ohio GOP deputy chairman Kevin DeWine called for Dann's resignation, saying he turned the attorney general's office into a "raunchy frat pad."Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland said the investigation showed a "double standard" with Dann staying while some employees were let go.Dann, 46, said the affair was consensual and refused to disclose the name of the employee. He said the relationship came during a difficult time in his marriage, but that it "was wrong and I deeply regret it."Dann's scheduler, Jessica Utovich, with whom he had a close relationship in which they often used profanity, nicknames and teasing when e-mailing each other, resigned voluntarily, said Tom Winters, first assistant attorney general. He did not give a reason.When interviewed for the sexual harassment investigation conducted by assistant attorneys general, Dann said Utovich stayed overnight at an apartment he shared with the two aides for a variety of reasons that he would not discuss. During her interview, Utovich would not say whether she ever stayed overnight at the apartment during her interview.Utovich and Dann's wife, Alyssa Lenhoff, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.Both aides Dann lived with were fired after the results of the investigation were released Friday. Investigators found that Anthony Gutierrez, who led Dann's general services office, violated sexual harassment policy, and Leo Jennings, Dann's former communications chief, is accused of trying to get a worker to lie when interviewed under oath.Investigators say Edgar Simpson, Dann's policy chief, was forced to resign for failing to address inappropriate behavior. Simpson had knowledge of Gutierrez's history of policy violations, the investigation report said.Dann emerged into state politics as an appointed state senator with a small private law office, and became the face of the Democrats' charge against a scandal over state investments that contributed to the Ohio GOP's devastating election losses in 2006. He defeated a better known and more experienced Republican.As Ohio's top law enforcer, he has taken on the nation's largest insurance brokerage, the mortgage lending industry, student loan providers, MySpace and the big three credit rating agencies, among others. His crime-fighting led to comparisons with New York's Eliot Spitzer, who became governor after he was attorney general and recently resigned in a prostitution scandal.Dann had removed himself from the sexual harassment investigation.Gutierrez was accused by two women he supervised — Cindy Stankoski and Vanessa Stout, both 26 — of making unwanted advances and vulgar remarks.Stankoski said she went to the apartment near Columbus shared by Dann, Gutierrez and Jennings for pizza and drinks. She said she fell asleep drunk at the condo and when she awoke, her pants were unbuttoned and Gutierrez was lying next to her in his underwear.When it was apparent Stankoski had too much to drink, arrangements should have been made to get her home, investigators said.Stout alleged that Gutierrez repeatedly asked her for sex, suggesting she "owed" him for helping her land a state job.The investigation also found that Gutierrez violated policies that prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The report detailed an incident where Gutierrez allegedly was drinking with other employees while driving a state vehicle.The matter is now under investigation by the State Highway Patrol.Rex Elliott, the attorney for Stout and Stankoski, said both women feel vindicated."There are questions that go all the way to the top of that office about how the leader of that office allowed this environment to persist," he said.Messages left for Gutierrez's attorney, Sam Amendolara, were not immediately returned. No phone listing for Simpson could be found.Dann is the third high-ranking official around the country to be marred by sexual scandal in recent months. Spitzer resigned abruptly in March after revelations that he had been a customer of a high-end call girl service. And Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is charged with perjury, misconduct and obstruction of justice for accusations that he tried to hide a long-term romantic relationship with his former chief of staff. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3k2Ps5iqvjW-e9pCQ9OoaIajAFQD90DN6Q80
Hello Mr Dann: I am one of the RSO'S that you were trying to further punish with your premature politically motivated passage of the AWA act.
You will have to excuse my choice of words but I can only tell you that I sit here in "orgasmic Joy" as I watch YOUR PUBLIC HUMILATION being forced to admit that you had at least one sexual affair outside of your marriage.
Also your claim that you will not resign warms my heart because it means days or even weeks of watching you squirm under the pressure.
There are claims that your office was more a frat house rather than the top law enforcement office of the state. Your career is OVER MR DANN and this will haunt you for the rest of your life.
I am a zealous advocate for former offender rights and my name and address has appeared in the local newspapers a few times as a result of that.
Mr Dann? You are the talk of the state in local pubs as well as all legal circles churches and everywhere else in the state of Ohio. You will ALWAYS be known as the PERVERT Attorney General.
How does it make you feel now that everyone knows about your personal failures as a man? You will not have to go down and register anywhere Mr. Dann but it warms my heart to know that you will never get past this scandal as long as you live. You have no idea the pain and shame that are in store for you , but I do.
Abandon all hope you are a disgrace to the Office and you know it. You will eventually resign in humiliation and you know it. You will FOREVER be remembered for this event and it brings cheer to my heart.
Hello Mr Dann: I am one of the RSO'S that you were trying to further punish with your premature politically motivated passage of the AWA act.
You will have to excuse my choice of words but I can only tell you that I sit here in "orgasmic Joy" as I watch YOUR PUBLIC HUMILATION being forced to admit that you had at least one sexual affair outside of your marriage.
Also your claim that you will not resign warms my heart because it means days or even weeks of watching you squirm under the pressure.
There are claims that your office was more a frat house rather than the top law enforcement office of the state. Your career is OVER MR DANN and this will haunt you for the rest of your life.
I am a zealous advocate for former offender rights and my name and address has appeared in the local newspapers a few times as a result of that.
Mr Dann? You are the talk of the state in local pubs as well as all legal circles churches and everywhere else in the state of Ohio. You will ALWAYS be known as the PERVERT Attorney General.
How does it make you feel now that everyone knows about your personal failures as a man? You will not have to go down and register anywhere Mr. Dann but it warms my heart to know that you will never get past this scandal as long as you live. You have no idea the pain and shame that are in store for you , but I do.
Abandon all hope you are a disgrace to the Office and you know it. You will eventually resign in humiliation and you know it. You will FOREVER be remembered for this event and it brings cheer to my heart.
Monday, March 24, 2008
State-funded therapy for sex offenders halted
Psychologist, sheriff call cuts dangerous By Carl Chancellor Beacon Journal staff writerPublished on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 Recent cuts to Ohio's prison budget means the state has stopped paying for counseling services for paroled sex offenders across the state, including the more than 800 supervised sex offenders living in Akron. Those cuts are a great concern to Dr. James A. Orlando of Summit Psychological Associates, which at any given time treats between 125 and 200 sex offenders in Summit, Stark, Portage, Tuscarawas and Mahoning counties. ''This is a dangerous situation . . . It's a serious public safety issue,'' said Orlando, a trained clinical psychologist. Orlando said the decision by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to no longer pay for the treatment of paroled sex offenders beginning in March,means that there are high-risk sex offenders, who represent a very real danger to children and adults, walking the streets of Akron unchecked. ''They are being left to their own devices not to re-offend. If we don't find a way to manage them in the community, there are going to be more sex offenses and more people are going to be victimized,'' Orlando said. As part of trimming the department's $1.7 billion-plus budget for 2008 by $71 million, it was decided to no longer pay for the counseling and treatment of paroled sex offenders. ''The cuts came without any warning. We got a letter on Feb. 28 that said on March 3, the program would be cut,'' Orlando said. As a consequence, his and other counseling agencies across the state are scrambling to provide crucial treatment services to paroled sex offenders. ''We've set up a sliding scale and are offering minimal co-pay (options),'' Orlando said. The hope is if the treatment programs are as affordable as possible, sex offenders will voluntarily seek treatment for their conditions. However, Orlando is dubious. He said many paroled sex offenders are unemployed and find it difficult to find jobs because of their felony records. ''They just can't pay for treatment,'' Orlando said. He said the state payment of about $35 per client for a group counseling session made it possible for sex offenders to go into treatment. Orlando said he plans to approach county mental health boards for possible funding. Summit County Sheriff Drew Alexander shares Orlando's concerns. ''Without treatment, the odds go up that they are going to re-offend,'' Alexander said. He called the situation a real ''Catch 22.'' ''They are told that as a condition of parole they have to seek treatment, but the state is no longer going to pay for it . . . I'm just dumbfounded. I don't understand it,'' Alexander said. Budget cuts Linda Janes, the ODRC's deputy director of the division of parole and community services, said the cuts were an unavoidable consequence of budget constraints. ''As part of our cost-savings effort we've cut all external treatment contracts statewide,'' Janes said. She said the department previously spent roughly $1.3 million a year funding external treatment programs for sex offenders. ''We feel absolutely awful about the cuts but it's a consequence of the budget crisis,'' Janes said. She said the ODRC has taken a ''multifaceted'' approach to cost-cutting, which in addition to eliminating external contracts, includes making staff cuts and other cost-savings initiatives. One of those initiatives, Janes said, has been to shift the task of counseling paroled sex offenders to the department's Adult Parole Authority. ''We are in the process of training in-house staff now to provide that treatment. Hopefully, that will begin in May,'' Janes said. She said sex offenders on parole will be able to go to adult parole offices, which are located in every county, for treatment and counseling. Coping strategies Summit Psychological Associates and Orlando have for more than 20 years been providing sex offender treatment, which is modeled on the Alcoholic Anonymous approach. ''Since 1984, we've been teaching sex offenders to recognize high-risk factors and we help them develop strategies and behavioral controls to allow them to live out the rest of their lives without re-offending,'' Orlando said. Still, Orlando admits that there is no way to cure a sex offender. He said the group therapy sessions provided by his agency, which initially are offered weekly and then on a monthly basis, teach offenders behavioral controls that make it much less likely they will re-offend. Orlando said the ''heart of sex-offender treatment'' is to give offenders the tools to control their urges. ''Even though you (an offender) will still have deviant desires, you won't act on it,'' Orlando said. ''But right now we have a situation where these guys are getting out of prison with no training and without the tools to know how to cope with their urges . . . Without treatment, all we are doing is increasing the likelihood that some little girl or little boy is going to be molested, that someone is going to be victimized, that someone is going to be hurt,'' Orlando said. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carl Chancellor can be reached at 330-996-3725 or cchancellor@thebeaconjournal.com.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Mark Lunsford Forced to question his father about Jessica after child porn Found
Today at 09:46:08 AM
Has anyone else noticed how the media has completely ignored the fact that child porn was found on Mark Lunsford's computer? I guess a story like that might blemish this crusader for the children? Watch this clip as Mark is forced to question his own father about Jessica's death. The grandfather was the main suspect before those geniuses found Jesse's body. If it bleeds it leads? If you can add sex to violence and turn criminals into hero's in the name of ratings then this is a true case of media deception.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pgi8e4gPY&feature=relatedAlso check out this Florida cops views on stranger danger.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIqBSGFfIP4&feature=relatedI watch the news everyday why has it taken me years to learn this information? Here is another clip that tugs at the heartstrings. Of course it is a tradgedy that this innocent child was raped and murdered but how long will these knee jerk do nothing laws be the rule instead of the exception. Child pornography was found on Mark Lunsfords computer. Mark Lunsford is sueing the police department for Millions to cash in on his daughters death. A true champion? This is a sad commentary on our dumbed down country.
Today at 09:46:08 AM
Has anyone else noticed how the media has completely ignored the fact that child porn was found on Mark Lunsford's computer? I guess a story like that might blemish this crusader for the children? Watch this clip as Mark is forced to question his own father about Jessica's death. The grandfather was the main suspect before those geniuses found Jesse's body. If it bleeds it leads? If you can add sex to violence and turn criminals into hero's in the name of ratings then this is a true case of media deception.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pgi8e4gPY&feature=relatedAlso check out this Florida cops views on stranger danger.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIqBSGFfIP4&feature=relatedI watch the news everyday why has it taken me years to learn this information? Here is another clip that tugs at the heartstrings. Of course it is a tradgedy that this innocent child was raped and murdered but how long will these knee jerk do nothing laws be the rule instead of the exception. Child pornography was found on Mark Lunsfords computer. Mark Lunsford is sueing the police department for Millions to cash in on his daughters death. A true champion? This is a sad commentary on our dumbed down country.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Second Chance Discussion Forum NOW OPEN!!!
Come one come all. The 2nd chance Forum is again up and running. We welcome any and all comments and opinions and Haters are more than welcome.
Please stop and Join the blog I welcome everyone to come in and learn, vent ,contribute , rebuke or just plain read whats going on. It only takes a minute to sign up so come and be part of the solution.
Thank You
Brendan
http://www.rightsandlaw.net/forum2/
Please stop and Join the blog I welcome everyone to come in and learn, vent ,contribute , rebuke or just plain read whats going on. It only takes a minute to sign up so come and be part of the solution.
Thank You
Brendan
http://www.rightsandlaw.net/forum2/
Saturday, March 15, 2008
20/20 PETRA LOONEY MELTDOWN CAUGHT ON VIDEO
Even though my opinion is biased because of my status and personal horrible experiences with the ever changing RSO punishments I could not make up such a damning and revealing interview as this vigilante leader has provided free of charge. Those of you that have law enforcement and/or mental health experience please note the body language inappropriate giggling and fidgeting displayed by this mentally unstable person. I bet she thought she was going into the usual biased hatchet job interview where she would be depicted as a crusader for children.Funny how she fidgets and wilts under the weight of honest questions. Watch her eyes and body language as she squirms knowing she is finally being exposed as the liar she is. Here is the link to the interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SIsAZ6GSmM
ABC'S 20/20 HITS HOME RUN WITH RSO SEGMENT
I had to watch it twice. I am still reeling in disbelief at the fact that a national news program has finally taken on this issue backed up by something close to the real statistics along with balanced journalism.
This is the first real departure from the norm. This is the first time that I know of where something close to the “other side” of the story has been presented and aired instead of the usual “hatchet job” that we have become so used to.
They held Petra Looney’s feet to the fire and simply made a rational comparison between her site and Jan Kruska’s site Operation Awareness and the insanity hate and venom “CLEARLY” showed thru.
The segment also showed another vigilante who picks and chooses who she decides to print flyers about then she takes it upon herself to pass them out. John Walsh, Marc Klass, Mark Lunsford, and so many others have taken out their hate and bloodlust upon the RSO community becoming the very monsters they say they are crusading against and it is FINALLY EXPOSED.
I think Jan stand’s a very good chance of winning her lawsuit because she has the documented facts on her side. I will go as far as saying that I feel the tide is starting to slow as the sex offender Goldmine starts to tap out.
Mark Foley co sponsored the AWA act that is slated to become law in all 50 states. Then gets busted sending sexual solicitations to teenaged boys online? New York’s governor who was so tuff on prostitution is now fully exposed and busted committing the same crimes he has rallied against?
Thousands of Teenagers across America are now on the RSO list their young lives forever altered because someone was 2 weeks below the legal limit?
I loved the interview with the father that regretted beating up a teenaged boy stating that if he had it to do over he would tie a rope around his neck and drag him down every highway.
The hate and venom along with the political gold that these cases bring was “FINALLY” exposed as the Arizona lawmaker was interviewed. He was clearly unconcerned about the collateral damage that these laws create but seemed a little stunned about actually getting called on it.
It was a true victory to watch the facts finally discussed and to watch a national news magazine finally question what has been sold as facts by the likes of Mark Foley and others was truly refreshing.
Please visit http://www.operationawareness.com/ for video clips and more about cases shown on 20/20 as well as the other issues concerning us in the RSO community.
This is the first real departure from the norm. This is the first time that I know of where something close to the “other side” of the story has been presented and aired instead of the usual “hatchet job” that we have become so used to.
They held Petra Looney’s feet to the fire and simply made a rational comparison between her site and Jan Kruska’s site Operation Awareness and the insanity hate and venom “CLEARLY” showed thru.
The segment also showed another vigilante who picks and chooses who she decides to print flyers about then she takes it upon herself to pass them out. John Walsh, Marc Klass, Mark Lunsford, and so many others have taken out their hate and bloodlust upon the RSO community becoming the very monsters they say they are crusading against and it is FINALLY EXPOSED.
I think Jan stand’s a very good chance of winning her lawsuit because she has the documented facts on her side. I will go as far as saying that I feel the tide is starting to slow as the sex offender Goldmine starts to tap out.
Mark Foley co sponsored the AWA act that is slated to become law in all 50 states. Then gets busted sending sexual solicitations to teenaged boys online? New York’s governor who was so tuff on prostitution is now fully exposed and busted committing the same crimes he has rallied against?
Thousands of Teenagers across America are now on the RSO list their young lives forever altered because someone was 2 weeks below the legal limit?
I loved the interview with the father that regretted beating up a teenaged boy stating that if he had it to do over he would tie a rope around his neck and drag him down every highway.
The hate and venom along with the political gold that these cases bring was “FINALLY” exposed as the Arizona lawmaker was interviewed. He was clearly unconcerned about the collateral damage that these laws create but seemed a little stunned about actually getting called on it.
It was a true victory to watch the facts finally discussed and to watch a national news magazine finally question what has been sold as facts by the likes of Mark Foley and others was truly refreshing.
Please visit http://www.operationawareness.com/ for video clips and more about cases shown on 20/20 as well as the other issues concerning us in the RSO community.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
COP SEX OFFENDER OF THE DAY
Ex-Reserve Deputy Charged With Child Seduction
Police: Man Admitted Inappropriate Contact With Boy
POSTED: 7:35 am EST February 29, 2008
LEBANON, Ind. -- A former Boone County reserve deputy is accused of seducing a child in an incident at his home last week.
Randy Wise (pictured), 31, faces one count of child seduction. Authorities said he admitted performing a sex act on a 16-year-old boy, 6News' Renee Jameson reported.
The teen told investigators that he met Wise at a church and spent the night at his rural Lebanon house last Friday after working with him at a school concert.
IBSYS.ad.AdManager.registerPosition
"The boy is telling us that Mr. Wise, while the boy was sleeping on the couch, started to fondle him … and had him touch him in inappropriate places," said Boone County sheriff's Maj. Mike Nielsen.
Wise resigned as a reserve deputy at the Boone County Sheriff's Department last May. He also once worked at Witham Hospital in Lebanon.
"That is one of the most disturbing things about this case -- that it was against a child and it was somebody that the public has entrusted, used to entrust, to be a police officer in Boone County, to be an EMT, to be a paramedic," Nielsen said. "There's basically no trust there anymore."
Before he bonded out of jail on Monday, Wise told police that the victim had told the truth, that he was sorry and that there are no other victims.
"I can tell you that if we continue this investigation and we find more allegations that have taken place, we will present those to the prosecutor's office," Nielsen said.
Police said they have no indication that additional crimes took place, but they are continuing to investigate.
If Wise is convicted, he could face up to three years in prison.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15446840/detail.html
Police: Man Admitted Inappropriate Contact With Boy
POSTED: 7:35 am EST February 29, 2008
LEBANON, Ind. -- A former Boone County reserve deputy is accused of seducing a child in an incident at his home last week.
Randy Wise (pictured), 31, faces one count of child seduction. Authorities said he admitted performing a sex act on a 16-year-old boy, 6News' Renee Jameson reported.
The teen told investigators that he met Wise at a church and spent the night at his rural Lebanon house last Friday after working with him at a school concert.
IBSYS.ad.AdManager.registerPosition
"The boy is telling us that Mr. Wise, while the boy was sleeping on the couch, started to fondle him … and had him touch him in inappropriate places," said Boone County sheriff's Maj. Mike Nielsen.
Wise resigned as a reserve deputy at the Boone County Sheriff's Department last May. He also once worked at Witham Hospital in Lebanon.
"That is one of the most disturbing things about this case -- that it was against a child and it was somebody that the public has entrusted, used to entrust, to be a police officer in Boone County, to be an EMT, to be a paramedic," Nielsen said. "There's basically no trust there anymore."
Before he bonded out of jail on Monday, Wise told police that the victim had told the truth, that he was sorry and that there are no other victims.
"I can tell you that if we continue this investigation and we find more allegations that have taken place, we will present those to the prosecutor's office," Nielsen said.
Police said they have no indication that additional crimes took place, but they are continuing to investigate.
If Wise is convicted, he could face up to three years in prison.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15446840/detail.html
Saturday, March 1, 2008
James Barbour Pleads Guilty to Endangering Welfare of a Minor
By: Brian Scott Lipton · Jan 3, 2008 · New York
James BarbourActor James Barbour has pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of "endangering the welfare of a minor," in relation to an incident that happened with a 15-year-old female fan during the run of the 2001 Broadway musical Jane Eyre, according to the Associated Press. He is expected to receive a 60-day jail sentence and three years of probation on February 29.
Barbour originally pleaded not guilty to nine counts of engaging in criminal sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. According to AP, Barbour has now admitted he sexually touched the girl when she visited him backstage and when she visited his apartment at a later date. He will not have to register as a sex offender, since the new charges are misdemeanors.
Barbour most recently appeared on stage in Florida in the world premiere of A Tale of Two Cities. His other Broadway credits include Assassins, Carousel, and Beauty and the Beast.
{As some of you know I have been taking a few days off after the death of my father. I had actually shed tears of shame today because I know that it is now impossible to live in a world where my name has been cleared"so to speak" in the eyes of my father.
My father was the ONLY one that was in my corner, due or die, thru my conviction and all the witch hunts that followed. It is true that he may have underestimated what I had done being naturally biased but that shrinks and pales in comparison to what Is now passing as justice in our country.
This man committed a very similar crime but because he had connections and a good Attorney he got a pass. This is not a letter to bitch and whine about his good luck this is an open letter for the doubters and haters to TAKE A LOOK at the DOUBLE STANDARD slapping you in the face.
If you cheer my pain I say "drink your fill" on my pain and despair and eat your pound of flesh.
I am one of those evil sex offenders and deserve any injustice that comes my way?
Fine, Just remember this!!
I am someones son. My father served his country defending the constitition that is now being shit upon. My father grew up in a country where people did not expect the "government" to be their babysitter.
My father grew up in a country where a man could make a mistake, was held accountable for that mistake, then was square with the house again.
Justice in our nation, now, more than ever comes down to who you know and how good Your Attorney is. What happened with the 15 year old girl back at his apartment? Who will speak for this "innocent child"? Will "Dateline" do a special?
Drink your fill on my pain and heartache just dont be suprised when the Gestapo comes knocking on your door one day soon because you drink and drive or are not a right wing christian or your a muslim or you have the bad genes.
Do not complain as you walk the plank onto the train to go off to the camp.
As with all great societies America is declining in fact it is dying but we are all to busy watching wrastling and nascar to see it
To the haters I say this!
I accept your hate and your venom but you can shove your sympathy up your ass.
It is honestly I that pity you}
James BarbourActor James Barbour has pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of "endangering the welfare of a minor," in relation to an incident that happened with a 15-year-old female fan during the run of the 2001 Broadway musical Jane Eyre, according to the Associated Press. He is expected to receive a 60-day jail sentence and three years of probation on February 29.
Barbour originally pleaded not guilty to nine counts of engaging in criminal sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. According to AP, Barbour has now admitted he sexually touched the girl when she visited him backstage and when she visited his apartment at a later date. He will not have to register as a sex offender, since the new charges are misdemeanors.
Barbour most recently appeared on stage in Florida in the world premiere of A Tale of Two Cities. His other Broadway credits include Assassins, Carousel, and Beauty and the Beast.
{As some of you know I have been taking a few days off after the death of my father. I had actually shed tears of shame today because I know that it is now impossible to live in a world where my name has been cleared"so to speak" in the eyes of my father.
My father was the ONLY one that was in my corner, due or die, thru my conviction and all the witch hunts that followed. It is true that he may have underestimated what I had done being naturally biased but that shrinks and pales in comparison to what Is now passing as justice in our country.
This man committed a very similar crime but because he had connections and a good Attorney he got a pass. This is not a letter to bitch and whine about his good luck this is an open letter for the doubters and haters to TAKE A LOOK at the DOUBLE STANDARD slapping you in the face.
If you cheer my pain I say "drink your fill" on my pain and despair and eat your pound of flesh.
I am one of those evil sex offenders and deserve any injustice that comes my way?
Fine, Just remember this!!
I am someones son. My father served his country defending the constitition that is now being shit upon. My father grew up in a country where people did not expect the "government" to be their babysitter.
My father grew up in a country where a man could make a mistake, was held accountable for that mistake, then was square with the house again.
Justice in our nation, now, more than ever comes down to who you know and how good Your Attorney is. What happened with the 15 year old girl back at his apartment? Who will speak for this "innocent child"? Will "Dateline" do a special?
Drink your fill on my pain and heartache just dont be suprised when the Gestapo comes knocking on your door one day soon because you drink and drive or are not a right wing christian or your a muslim or you have the bad genes.
Do not complain as you walk the plank onto the train to go off to the camp.
As with all great societies America is declining in fact it is dying but we are all to busy watching wrastling and nascar to see it
To the haters I say this!
I accept your hate and your venom but you can shove your sympathy up your ass.
It is honestly I that pity you}
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
JOHN WALSH'S "FALSE" STATISTICS EXPOSED
Spreading "1 in 5" Number Does More Harm Than Good
Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday February 26, @10:19AM
From the think-of-the-children dept.
Regular Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton has some opinions on child safety online and the use of fear mongering. Here are his thoughts. "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has been running online ads for several years saying that "Each year 1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online", a statistic that has been endlessly repeated, including by vendors of blocking software and by politicians who often paraphrase it to say that 1 in 5 children "are approached by online predators".
While others have quietly documented the problems with this statistic, lawmakers still bring it out every year in a push for more online regulation (pre-emptied this year only by the topic du jour of cyberbullying), so it's time for anti-censorship organizations to start campaigning more aggressively against the misleading "1 in 5" number. That means two things: framing the debate with more accurate numbers, and holding the parties accountable for disseminating the wrong ones -- and that means naming names, including those of organizations like the NCMEC that are normally beyond reproach." Read below for the rest.
I have no doubt that on balance, the world is a better place because of the NCMEC and what they've done, and God knows how I'd feel about them if they'd helped me find a lost child. But the good things they've done shouldn't be viewed as political capital that they can withdraw against in order to be above criticism for spreading the "1 in 5" meme. The longer they go on implying to parents that there is a 1-in-5 chance their kid will be asked by an adult to meet in person for sex, the more I think it tarnishes their whole legacy. (The NCMEC did not respond to contact requests for this article.) First, what the 1-in-5 number actually means.
It originated with a study done in 2000 by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, which surveyed 1,501 Internet-using youth age 10 through 17.
The actual relevant findings of the study were as follows:
The 1 in 5 figure was the number that had received at least one instance of unwanted sex talk (including from other teenagers), or sex talk from an adult (whether wanted or not), in the past year.
The proportion of respondents who received a sexual flirtation from an adult, followed by a request to talk on the phone or meet in person, was about 1%.
The number of survey respondents who actually befriended an adult online and then met the adult in person for sexual purposes, was zero.
Specifically: About 19% of respondents said had received a "sexual solicitation or approach" (my emphasis), and "sexual solicitations and approaches" were defined as: "requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult".
That means any unwanted sex talk, including from other teens, even if limited to one occurrence in the entire previous year, would cause a respondent to be included in the 19% figure (which, when you define it that broadly, actually sounds pretty low). To say that those 1 in 5 minors were "sexually solicited" -- literally, asked for sex -- is simply false.
The actual proportion of respondents who reported that someone made sexual overtures and asked to talk on the phone or meet in person -- what the study called an "aggressive sexual solicitation" -- was 3%, and 34% of those requests were known to have been made by adults. And even this overestimates the proportion of minors who were truly "sexually solicited", because all it means is that an adult started out by talking to them sexually, and then made some request for offline contact, which could have merely been asking for a phone number. So the scenario that comes to mind when hearing that "1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online" -- of being approached sexually by an adult and asked for an in-person meeting -- had actually happened to no more than 1% of respondents, and probably much fewer than that.
And this is just considering the percentage of youth who received solicitations, not taking into account how they responded. Out of 1,501 youth surveyed, none of them reported actually meeting an adult in person for anything that they described as sexual contact. Two teens in the study had "close friendships" with adults that the authors wrote "may have had sexual aspects". One 17-year-old boy had a relationship with a woman in her late twenties that he described as "romantic" but not sexual, and they never met in person.
Another 16-year-old girl became close to a man in his thirties, and they met in a public place, but she described the relationship as non-sexual, and she declined to spend the night with him. (While these could still be considered "close calls", it's worth noting that even if the 16- and 17-year-olds had actually had a sexual relationship with their adult friends, that would have in fact been legal in many U.S. states, and in any case it's not what most people think of when they hear about "children" being "sexually solicited online".)
Of course all of this depends on the accuracy of the answers that the youth gave to the surveyors. But the "1 in 5" figure was based on the youths' stated responses as well. People who cite the study can't have their cake and eat it too, taking the "1 in 5" number as accurate but discounting the fact that none of the teens surveyed reported a sexual relationship with an adult they met online. These were the data that were available in 2000, when the "1 in 5" number started being spread. The authors of the original study followed up with a 2005 report, "Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later", in which the corresponding statistics were:
1 in 7 respondents received unwanted sex talk or sex talk from an adult, at some point in the past year.
The proportion of respondents who received a sexual flirtation from an adult, followed by a request to communicate offline, was again about 1-2%. (4% of respondents reported a sexual flirtation plus a request to correspond offline. The new study reported that 39% of all sexual solicitations were made by adults, but did not say what proportion of "aggressive sexual solicitations" -- which included requests for offline contact -- were made by adults.)
Out of 1,501 respondents surveyed in 2005, two did report an in-person meeting that led to a sexual crime -- one was a 15-year-old girl who met a 30-year-old man in person and had consensual sex with him, and another was a 16-year-old girl who went to a party with an older male she met online who later tried to rape her. But even these incidents (which were both reported to law enforcement) do not mean that the Internet is a more dangerous environment for youth with regard to interaction with adults. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's own Web site links to a study -- also by one of the authors of the "Online Victimization" report -- which found that when all types of abuse are counted, 20% of females experience some type of sexual victimization before adulthood, compared to 2 out of 750 female survey respondents in the "Online Victimization" study who reported sexual abuse by someone they met online.
The NCMEC has updated their Web site to say that "one in seven youths (10 to 17 years) experience a sexual solicitation or approach while online", although the banner ads still say 1 in 5. But I think the 1-in-7 versus 1-in-5 is hardly worth nit-picking, when the real problem is that the statement "1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online" is written in a way that virtually guarantees it will be mis-heard and passed along as a statement involving "online predators" or "pedophiles".
"Authorities Say 1 in 5 Children Has Been Approached By Online Predators" reads the sub-heading of a story on ABC news. "20% of children who use computer chat rooms have been approached over the Internet by a pedophile" says an online safety site sponsored by the Albemarle County government in Virginia. "One in five kids in America are approached by online predators" says a Congressman's press release.
The NCMEC itself never says that 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 children is "approached by a pedophile", merely that they are "sexually solicited online". I still think this is false because that is not the proportion of minors who are literally solicited for sex, but suppose that you expanded "sexual solicitation" to include all sex talk, so that the statement was "technically true".
That still misses the point, because the issue shouldn't be seen as a game where sides try to make their statements as alarmist as possible while still being "technically true", like the kid with his petition to ban "dihydrogen monoxide".
If you say something that is virtually guaranteed to get passed along as a wrong and alarmist statement about "pedophiles", aren't you at least partly responsible? Why, then, does the NCMEC do it? Their site does have a "Donate" link, but it's very low-key, and the site generally seems to steer first-time visitors towards actions that they can take with regard to their own children. So I'm not cynical enough to think the "1 in 5" statistic is a campaign to scare up donations; I think they really do believe they are doing good by getting people to believe that number and to take action based on it.
The problem is that there is such a thing as too much worrying and too much overprotection. Sites like Facebook are often used to organize parties and events and send out venue changes, just because that's the most efficient way to do it, and if your parents ban you from getting on Facebook, you'll miss out on simple things like that. What good does that do for anybody? Critics of overprotection often say that overly sheltered kids may rebel later on and get themselves in worse trouble, and that's often true, but so what even if they don't?
Your quality of life is still worse off if you're the only one in your peer group who can't get updates about your friends' parties. And your parents' quality of life will be worse if they're constantly wringing their hands thinking that there is a 1 in 5 chance their kid will be propositioned online by a pedophile.
So I would urge the NCMEC to reconsider what they're telling people. Regarding the "1 in 5" meme that's already out there, it's spread so far that it's probably too late for the NCMEC to put the genie back into the bottle. But any anti-censorship group participating in a debate about online safety should put the real statistics forward, and since many in the audience will have heard the "1 in 5" figure somewhere, take a minute to knock it down as well. You don't have to commit political suicide by calling out the NCMEC specifically for spreading the "1 in 5" number, but put the right numbers out there. Unfortunately the subject of child safety is such that wrong information, from any source, is unlikely to be criticized if it's erring on the side of caution, but some memes die faster than others.
Microsoft's resource page about "online predators" says that "if you find pornography on the family computer" -- not child porn, but regular pornography -- that could be a warning sign that "your child is the target of an online predator".
I think that's a wildly irresponsible thing to be telling parents, but fortunately the meme does not seem to have spread beyond that one page, which probably not one parent in a thousand will ever actually read.
Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday February 26, @10:19AM
From the think-of-the-children dept.
Regular Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton has some opinions on child safety online and the use of fear mongering. Here are his thoughts. "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has been running online ads for several years saying that "Each year 1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online", a statistic that has been endlessly repeated, including by vendors of blocking software and by politicians who often paraphrase it to say that 1 in 5 children "are approached by online predators".
While others have quietly documented the problems with this statistic, lawmakers still bring it out every year in a push for more online regulation (pre-emptied this year only by the topic du jour of cyberbullying), so it's time for anti-censorship organizations to start campaigning more aggressively against the misleading "1 in 5" number. That means two things: framing the debate with more accurate numbers, and holding the parties accountable for disseminating the wrong ones -- and that means naming names, including those of organizations like the NCMEC that are normally beyond reproach." Read below for the rest.
I have no doubt that on balance, the world is a better place because of the NCMEC and what they've done, and God knows how I'd feel about them if they'd helped me find a lost child. But the good things they've done shouldn't be viewed as political capital that they can withdraw against in order to be above criticism for spreading the "1 in 5" meme. The longer they go on implying to parents that there is a 1-in-5 chance their kid will be asked by an adult to meet in person for sex, the more I think it tarnishes their whole legacy. (The NCMEC did not respond to contact requests for this article.) First, what the 1-in-5 number actually means.
It originated with a study done in 2000 by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, which surveyed 1,501 Internet-using youth age 10 through 17.
The actual relevant findings of the study were as follows:
The 1 in 5 figure was the number that had received at least one instance of unwanted sex talk (including from other teenagers), or sex talk from an adult (whether wanted or not), in the past year.
The proportion of respondents who received a sexual flirtation from an adult, followed by a request to talk on the phone or meet in person, was about 1%.
The number of survey respondents who actually befriended an adult online and then met the adult in person for sexual purposes, was zero.
Specifically: About 19% of respondents said had received a "sexual solicitation or approach" (my emphasis), and "sexual solicitations and approaches" were defined as: "requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult".
That means any unwanted sex talk, including from other teens, even if limited to one occurrence in the entire previous year, would cause a respondent to be included in the 19% figure (which, when you define it that broadly, actually sounds pretty low). To say that those 1 in 5 minors were "sexually solicited" -- literally, asked for sex -- is simply false.
The actual proportion of respondents who reported that someone made sexual overtures and asked to talk on the phone or meet in person -- what the study called an "aggressive sexual solicitation" -- was 3%, and 34% of those requests were known to have been made by adults. And even this overestimates the proportion of minors who were truly "sexually solicited", because all it means is that an adult started out by talking to them sexually, and then made some request for offline contact, which could have merely been asking for a phone number. So the scenario that comes to mind when hearing that "1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online" -- of being approached sexually by an adult and asked for an in-person meeting -- had actually happened to no more than 1% of respondents, and probably much fewer than that.
And this is just considering the percentage of youth who received solicitations, not taking into account how they responded. Out of 1,501 youth surveyed, none of them reported actually meeting an adult in person for anything that they described as sexual contact. Two teens in the study had "close friendships" with adults that the authors wrote "may have had sexual aspects". One 17-year-old boy had a relationship with a woman in her late twenties that he described as "romantic" but not sexual, and they never met in person.
Another 16-year-old girl became close to a man in his thirties, and they met in a public place, but she described the relationship as non-sexual, and she declined to spend the night with him. (While these could still be considered "close calls", it's worth noting that even if the 16- and 17-year-olds had actually had a sexual relationship with their adult friends, that would have in fact been legal in many U.S. states, and in any case it's not what most people think of when they hear about "children" being "sexually solicited online".)
Of course all of this depends on the accuracy of the answers that the youth gave to the surveyors. But the "1 in 5" figure was based on the youths' stated responses as well. People who cite the study can't have their cake and eat it too, taking the "1 in 5" number as accurate but discounting the fact that none of the teens surveyed reported a sexual relationship with an adult they met online. These were the data that were available in 2000, when the "1 in 5" number started being spread. The authors of the original study followed up with a 2005 report, "Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later", in which the corresponding statistics were:
1 in 7 respondents received unwanted sex talk or sex talk from an adult, at some point in the past year.
The proportion of respondents who received a sexual flirtation from an adult, followed by a request to communicate offline, was again about 1-2%. (4% of respondents reported a sexual flirtation plus a request to correspond offline. The new study reported that 39% of all sexual solicitations were made by adults, but did not say what proportion of "aggressive sexual solicitations" -- which included requests for offline contact -- were made by adults.)
Out of 1,501 respondents surveyed in 2005, two did report an in-person meeting that led to a sexual crime -- one was a 15-year-old girl who met a 30-year-old man in person and had consensual sex with him, and another was a 16-year-old girl who went to a party with an older male she met online who later tried to rape her. But even these incidents (which were both reported to law enforcement) do not mean that the Internet is a more dangerous environment for youth with regard to interaction with adults. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's own Web site links to a study -- also by one of the authors of the "Online Victimization" report -- which found that when all types of abuse are counted, 20% of females experience some type of sexual victimization before adulthood, compared to 2 out of 750 female survey respondents in the "Online Victimization" study who reported sexual abuse by someone they met online.
The NCMEC has updated their Web site to say that "one in seven youths (10 to 17 years) experience a sexual solicitation or approach while online", although the banner ads still say 1 in 5. But I think the 1-in-7 versus 1-in-5 is hardly worth nit-picking, when the real problem is that the statement "1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online" is written in a way that virtually guarantees it will be mis-heard and passed along as a statement involving "online predators" or "pedophiles".
"Authorities Say 1 in 5 Children Has Been Approached By Online Predators" reads the sub-heading of a story on ABC news. "20% of children who use computer chat rooms have been approached over the Internet by a pedophile" says an online safety site sponsored by the Albemarle County government in Virginia. "One in five kids in America are approached by online predators" says a Congressman's press release.
The NCMEC itself never says that 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 children is "approached by a pedophile", merely that they are "sexually solicited online". I still think this is false because that is not the proportion of minors who are literally solicited for sex, but suppose that you expanded "sexual solicitation" to include all sex talk, so that the statement was "technically true".
That still misses the point, because the issue shouldn't be seen as a game where sides try to make their statements as alarmist as possible while still being "technically true", like the kid with his petition to ban "dihydrogen monoxide".
If you say something that is virtually guaranteed to get passed along as a wrong and alarmist statement about "pedophiles", aren't you at least partly responsible? Why, then, does the NCMEC do it? Their site does have a "Donate" link, but it's very low-key, and the site generally seems to steer first-time visitors towards actions that they can take with regard to their own children. So I'm not cynical enough to think the "1 in 5" statistic is a campaign to scare up donations; I think they really do believe they are doing good by getting people to believe that number and to take action based on it.
The problem is that there is such a thing as too much worrying and too much overprotection. Sites like Facebook are often used to organize parties and events and send out venue changes, just because that's the most efficient way to do it, and if your parents ban you from getting on Facebook, you'll miss out on simple things like that. What good does that do for anybody? Critics of overprotection often say that overly sheltered kids may rebel later on and get themselves in worse trouble, and that's often true, but so what even if they don't?
Your quality of life is still worse off if you're the only one in your peer group who can't get updates about your friends' parties. And your parents' quality of life will be worse if they're constantly wringing their hands thinking that there is a 1 in 5 chance their kid will be propositioned online by a pedophile.
So I would urge the NCMEC to reconsider what they're telling people. Regarding the "1 in 5" meme that's already out there, it's spread so far that it's probably too late for the NCMEC to put the genie back into the bottle. But any anti-censorship group participating in a debate about online safety should put the real statistics forward, and since many in the audience will have heard the "1 in 5" figure somewhere, take a minute to knock it down as well. You don't have to commit political suicide by calling out the NCMEC specifically for spreading the "1 in 5" number, but put the right numbers out there. Unfortunately the subject of child safety is such that wrong information, from any source, is unlikely to be criticized if it's erring on the side of caution, but some memes die faster than others.
Microsoft's resource page about "online predators" says that "if you find pornography on the family computer" -- not child porn, but regular pornography -- that could be a warning sign that "your child is the target of an online predator".
I think that's a wildly irresponsible thing to be telling parents, but fortunately the meme does not seem to have spread beyond that one page, which probably not one parent in a thousand will ever actually read.
VIGILANTE'S UNITE!! JOIN "CHILD WATCH 12" AND INCREASE RATINGS
Target 12 Child Watch: Sex Offender Loophole
Updated:
Feb 26, 2008 10:39 AM EST
Target 12 Child Watch: Sex Offender Loophole
Web Extra: Target 12 Child Watch
Check All Clear All
(WPRI) -- A sexual predator is just days from getting out of prison and he'll never have to register as a sex offender.
He falls into the crack of a legal loophole. Because of the way the law is written in Rhode Island, certain sex criminals will never have to register with police when they're released from the Adult Correctional Institution.
Target 12 Investigator Tim White has been tracking these sex offenders for more than a year. He has the details on this latest release.
In just 5 days (March 1, 2008), a man who sexually assaulted three young girls, will walk away from the ACI a free man.
Wherever he ends up calling home the police won't be able to tell you anything about this sex offender. So we will.
His name is Dino Dalessio. Convicted on multiple counts of sexual assault and child molestation you would think when he gets out of prison this weekend, he'll have to register as a sex offender. Think again.
Alan Goulart, Chief of the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office Criminal Division says, "it is troubling, what's troubling is law enforcement doesn't have a tool that will allow them to know where a sex offender is."
His crimes are disturbing. Dalessio was sentenced for 5 counts of sexual assault and 2 counts child molestation. Prosecutors say he raped three girls known to him, several times from 1984 to 1989. The youngest victim was only 10 years old when Dalessio was finally arrested by the Providence police.
But despite this record, wherever he goes, he won't even have to register with that town's police department.
Goulart says, "They need to be better managed right now."
Alan Goulart with the Attorney General's Office sits on a legislative commission designed to fix this problem.
Under state law anyone who was convicted of a sex crime before 1992, does not have to register as a sex offender. The courts ruled the law is not retroactive.
Goulart says, "There will be some legislation that will be enacted which will look at all those problems including the retroactive application of the statute."
The question now is, where will Dalessio live when he gets out? That is unclear. But Target 12 Child Watch combed through public records and we can tell you where he's called home in the past. He's lived in Johnston near the Providence line, and most recently in Warwick, not far from the airport.
In an ironic twist Dalessio was convicted of his sex crimes in June of 1991. Had the trial wrapped up just six months later, when the sex offender registry went on the books, it would have been a different story.
This is not the first sexual predator we've told you about who falls into this legal loophole, and it won't be the last.
We'll keep track of these offenders, and let you know when they get out.
For more information you can read Rhode Island's laws regarding sex offender registration and community notification
You can also check the names and faces on the Rhode Island's Sex Offender website Massachusetts residents can find information on their sex offender registration laws here and search for registered offenders here
{Yes and don't forget to check here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism and here http://www.2nd-chance.info/ and here http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/ The "hoople heads" in our society are perfectly willing to depend on "for profit news businesses" to keep their children safe.
It is so much easier to tune in and watch "SHOCK TV" rather than to take 1 hour and educate yourself to the real dangers child of sexual abuse. Is this station so desperate for ratings they have to "create" the news?
I am certainly not trying to say that the so called "sex offender" registry's in general are not flawed. Despite the media's relentless struggle to gain ratings with sex offender hype the truth is coming out more and more. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/SNOBull3.pdf/$file/SNOBull3.pdf
Shock TV is more and more going the way of the horse and buggy as the freedom of the internet reveals the truth for those that CHOOSE to seek it out.
http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7923213
Updated:
Feb 26, 2008 10:39 AM EST
Target 12 Child Watch: Sex Offender Loophole
Web Extra: Target 12 Child Watch
Check All Clear All
(WPRI) -- A sexual predator is just days from getting out of prison and he'll never have to register as a sex offender.
He falls into the crack of a legal loophole. Because of the way the law is written in Rhode Island, certain sex criminals will never have to register with police when they're released from the Adult Correctional Institution.
Target 12 Investigator Tim White has been tracking these sex offenders for more than a year. He has the details on this latest release.
In just 5 days (March 1, 2008), a man who sexually assaulted three young girls, will walk away from the ACI a free man.
Wherever he ends up calling home the police won't be able to tell you anything about this sex offender. So we will.
His name is Dino Dalessio. Convicted on multiple counts of sexual assault and child molestation you would think when he gets out of prison this weekend, he'll have to register as a sex offender. Think again.
Alan Goulart, Chief of the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office Criminal Division says, "it is troubling, what's troubling is law enforcement doesn't have a tool that will allow them to know where a sex offender is."
His crimes are disturbing. Dalessio was sentenced for 5 counts of sexual assault and 2 counts child molestation. Prosecutors say he raped three girls known to him, several times from 1984 to 1989. The youngest victim was only 10 years old when Dalessio was finally arrested by the Providence police.
But despite this record, wherever he goes, he won't even have to register with that town's police department.
Goulart says, "They need to be better managed right now."
Alan Goulart with the Attorney General's Office sits on a legislative commission designed to fix this problem.
Under state law anyone who was convicted of a sex crime before 1992, does not have to register as a sex offender. The courts ruled the law is not retroactive.
Goulart says, "There will be some legislation that will be enacted which will look at all those problems including the retroactive application of the statute."
The question now is, where will Dalessio live when he gets out? That is unclear. But Target 12 Child Watch combed through public records and we can tell you where he's called home in the past. He's lived in Johnston near the Providence line, and most recently in Warwick, not far from the airport.
In an ironic twist Dalessio was convicted of his sex crimes in June of 1991. Had the trial wrapped up just six months later, when the sex offender registry went on the books, it would have been a different story.
This is not the first sexual predator we've told you about who falls into this legal loophole, and it won't be the last.
We'll keep track of these offenders, and let you know when they get out.
For more information you can read Rhode Island's laws regarding sex offender registration and community notification
You can also check the names and faces on the Rhode Island's Sex Offender website Massachusetts residents can find information on their sex offender registration laws here and search for registered offenders here
{Yes and don't forget to check here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism and here http://www.2nd-chance.info/ and here http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/ The "hoople heads" in our society are perfectly willing to depend on "for profit news businesses" to keep their children safe.
It is so much easier to tune in and watch "SHOCK TV" rather than to take 1 hour and educate yourself to the real dangers child of sexual abuse. Is this station so desperate for ratings they have to "create" the news?
I am certainly not trying to say that the so called "sex offender" registry's in general are not flawed. Despite the media's relentless struggle to gain ratings with sex offender hype the truth is coming out more and more. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/SNOBull3.pdf/$file/SNOBull3.pdf
Shock TV is more and more going the way of the horse and buggy as the freedom of the internet reveals the truth for those that CHOOSE to seek it out.
http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7923213
Friday, February 22, 2008
RAPIST SEX OFFENDER "COP OF THE DAY"
Cop accepts guilty plea
BY SHARON COOLIDGE
A Cincinnati police officer accused of raping a woman who had summoned help pleaded guilty today to two charges of sexually battery, ending his trial after nearly two weeks.
Sgt. William Simpson, 47, was accused of raping the woman after he was sent to her home after her boyfriend beat her.
Under the terms of the deal, Simpson will serve six months in jail, spend five years on community supervision and get treatment as a sex offender. In addition, he resigned from the department this morning and agreed not to seek reinstatement.
Prosecutors originally charged Simpson with three counts of rape and three of sexual battery.They said today they agreed to the deal to spare the victim for having to testify again.Simpson’s lawyer, Merlyn Shiverdecker, kept the woman on the stand for three days last week and asked her repeatedly about the incident and sexual positions.The woman agreed with the plea deal.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080222/NEWS01/302220019
{Clearly one of the fastest growing groups in the RSO community are members of law enforcement. Check my previous posts }
BY SHARON COOLIDGE
A Cincinnati police officer accused of raping a woman who had summoned help pleaded guilty today to two charges of sexually battery, ending his trial after nearly two weeks.
Sgt. William Simpson, 47, was accused of raping the woman after he was sent to her home after her boyfriend beat her.
Under the terms of the deal, Simpson will serve six months in jail, spend five years on community supervision and get treatment as a sex offender. In addition, he resigned from the department this morning and agreed not to seek reinstatement.
Prosecutors originally charged Simpson with three counts of rape and three of sexual battery.They said today they agreed to the deal to spare the victim for having to testify again.Simpson’s lawyer, Merlyn Shiverdecker, kept the woman on the stand for three days last week and asked her repeatedly about the incident and sexual positions.The woman agreed with the plea deal.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080222/NEWS01/302220019
{Clearly one of the fastest growing groups in the RSO community are members of law enforcement. Check my previous posts }
NEW LOOK AT SOME OLD STORY'S
Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child's Death?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."
In the article "Day of the dad: paedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?
Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."
Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.
A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.
She stated, "As I grabbed for the shoe, I missed and was shocked to touch what felt like a leg. I pulled the leg upwards." The dead child emerged.
Abby's case may be extreme but it hinges on a question that commonly confronts everyone who interacts with other people's children. Is it possible to touch a child in a non-abusive manner without risking terrible repercussions?
Before moving to this question, however, it is necessary to consider a related issue that arises in almost every discussions of Abby. Is Clive Peachey legally or morally responsible for her death?
For several reasons, I argue that he is not. First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the nursery staff who became her guardians. Abby was in no immediate danger when Peachey saw her and he contacted the police upon later hearing a 'missing child' report.
Arguably, if he had phoned the police immediately, Abby would have been dead long before they arrived. Moreover, by coming forth, Peachey has accepted the damage to his life that comes with the public disgrace of saying "I drove past her."
Important information in judging Peachey is missing. For example, if Peachey has a family, he may have been reluctant to place his reputation or livelihood at risk. He may have balanced possible harm to his own children against helping a stranger's child.
Peachey's fears have precedence on this side of the Atlantic.
Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.
The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.
Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.
Again, Barnaby is an extreme case. But ordinary people make decisions on how to interact with children based on such high profile stories.
The effect on average people in non-extreme situations can be partially gauged through a study conducted by Dr. Heather Piper at Manchester Metropolitan University: "The Problematics of 'Touching' Between Children and Professionals." Piper examined six case-study schools through interviews with teachers, parents and children regarding the propriety of touch.
Commentator Josie Appleton reviewed the study, "Reported cases include the teacher who avoided putting a plaster [bandaid] on a child's scraped leg; nursery staff calling a child's mother every time he needed to go to the toilet; a male gym teacher leaving a girl injured in the hall while he waited for a female colleague."
One school reportedly kept an account of every 'touching incident.' They stated, "We write down a short account and date it and put which staff were present and at what time, we then explain it to the parent and ask them to read and sign it."
Appleton observed that this is more in keeping with "police logs than teaching children."
The last words encapsulate the problem.
Touching a child, even to render medical assistance, has become a potential police matter.
Child abuse must be addressed but it is worse than folly to punish those who help children. Our society is creating Clive Peachey -- decent men who will walk away from a child in need.
Abby Rae died not only from drowning but also from bad politics.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada
{ This post contains 2 stories that both deal with current events. The first is about a man driving down the street in the UK who sees a child wondering alone. His first thoughts are to stop and see if the girl is alright but then it hits him. Someone might think I am trying to abduct her? I might get in trouble or even arrested if I stop to help. and besides? her parents are probably near by. The girl is later found dead after she wandered into a pond. THIS IS WHAT IT HAS COME TO!!!
More children are killed by lightning each year than abducted and murdered by strangers yet the focus remains on the 5% of known offenders that might commit another "NON MURDER" offence against a child.
In our country the problem is several times worse. Story #2 which is truly unbelievable a man swervs his car because a girl steps out in front of him. He grabs her arm and starts yelling at her. He is charged with unlawful restraint of a child which makes him a sex offender in Illinois. While I was doing reasearch for this commentary I ran across the story of yet another dangerous "SEX OFFENDER"
I had to track down the actual court documents in this case because I just could not believe this was true. A 13 year old girl gets pregnant from her 12 year old boyfriend. She gets charged with a sex crime??? On appeal SHE LOST the case??
The Judge said he was sympathetic to her situation but and this is a quote "the law is there not only to protect children from adults but to protect them from eachother" I could not make this case look any more ridiculous if I tried.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_zc123005.pdf
Now we in the RSO community have had some victories in the past few weeks and news on average is finally starting to look at the statistics as all of the studies that keep growing on a daily basis.
http://www.casomb.org/docs/CSOM%20Full%20Report.pdf
The new scoop story will some day headline that the current laws are a farce. That the leveling off of reported sex crimes are a direct result of families chosing not to report crimes based on the draconian laws that now rule the day which promise only assured mutual destruction for offender and offendee.
The California report is in which states that 9 out of 10 sex crimes are comitted by people the victim knows. Whether adult or child? Stranger danger? The Lie is oficially dead!! }
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."
In the article "Day of the dad: paedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?
Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."
Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.
A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.
She stated, "As I grabbed for the shoe, I missed and was shocked to touch what felt like a leg. I pulled the leg upwards." The dead child emerged.
Abby's case may be extreme but it hinges on a question that commonly confronts everyone who interacts with other people's children. Is it possible to touch a child in a non-abusive manner without risking terrible repercussions?
Before moving to this question, however, it is necessary to consider a related issue that arises in almost every discussions of Abby. Is Clive Peachey legally or morally responsible for her death?
For several reasons, I argue that he is not. First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the nursery staff who became her guardians. Abby was in no immediate danger when Peachey saw her and he contacted the police upon later hearing a 'missing child' report.
Arguably, if he had phoned the police immediately, Abby would have been dead long before they arrived. Moreover, by coming forth, Peachey has accepted the damage to his life that comes with the public disgrace of saying "I drove past her."
Important information in judging Peachey is missing. For example, if Peachey has a family, he may have been reluctant to place his reputation or livelihood at risk. He may have balanced possible harm to his own children against helping a stranger's child.
Peachey's fears have precedence on this side of the Atlantic.
Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.
The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.
Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.
Again, Barnaby is an extreme case. But ordinary people make decisions on how to interact with children based on such high profile stories.
The effect on average people in non-extreme situations can be partially gauged through a study conducted by Dr. Heather Piper at Manchester Metropolitan University: "The Problematics of 'Touching' Between Children and Professionals." Piper examined six case-study schools through interviews with teachers, parents and children regarding the propriety of touch.
Commentator Josie Appleton reviewed the study, "Reported cases include the teacher who avoided putting a plaster [bandaid] on a child's scraped leg; nursery staff calling a child's mother every time he needed to go to the toilet; a male gym teacher leaving a girl injured in the hall while he waited for a female colleague."
One school reportedly kept an account of every 'touching incident.' They stated, "We write down a short account and date it and put which staff were present and at what time, we then explain it to the parent and ask them to read and sign it."
Appleton observed that this is more in keeping with "police logs than teaching children."
The last words encapsulate the problem.
Touching a child, even to render medical assistance, has become a potential police matter.
Child abuse must be addressed but it is worse than folly to punish those who help children. Our society is creating Clive Peachey -- decent men who will walk away from a child in need.
Abby Rae died not only from drowning but also from bad politics.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada
{ This post contains 2 stories that both deal with current events. The first is about a man driving down the street in the UK who sees a child wondering alone. His first thoughts are to stop and see if the girl is alright but then it hits him. Someone might think I am trying to abduct her? I might get in trouble or even arrested if I stop to help. and besides? her parents are probably near by. The girl is later found dead after she wandered into a pond. THIS IS WHAT IT HAS COME TO!!!
More children are killed by lightning each year than abducted and murdered by strangers yet the focus remains on the 5% of known offenders that might commit another "NON MURDER" offence against a child.
In our country the problem is several times worse. Story #2 which is truly unbelievable a man swervs his car because a girl steps out in front of him. He grabs her arm and starts yelling at her. He is charged with unlawful restraint of a child which makes him a sex offender in Illinois. While I was doing reasearch for this commentary I ran across the story of yet another dangerous "SEX OFFENDER"
I had to track down the actual court documents in this case because I just could not believe this was true. A 13 year old girl gets pregnant from her 12 year old boyfriend. She gets charged with a sex crime??? On appeal SHE LOST the case??
The Judge said he was sympathetic to her situation but and this is a quote "the law is there not only to protect children from adults but to protect them from eachother" I could not make this case look any more ridiculous if I tried.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_zc123005.pdf
Now we in the RSO community have had some victories in the past few weeks and news on average is finally starting to look at the statistics as all of the studies that keep growing on a daily basis.
http://www.casomb.org/docs/CSOM%20Full%20Report.pdf
The new scoop story will some day headline that the current laws are a farce. That the leveling off of reported sex crimes are a direct result of families chosing not to report crimes based on the draconian laws that now rule the day which promise only assured mutual destruction for offender and offendee.
The California report is in which states that 9 out of 10 sex crimes are comitted by people the victim knows. Whether adult or child? Stranger danger? The Lie is oficially dead!! }
WISE MAN SAY ONLY FOOLS RUSH IN!!
Jessica's Law may increase crime risks
State officials say danger of sex offenders may rise as legal provisions lead to more homelessness.
By Michael Rothfeld, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 22, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- -- The law voters passed to crack down on sex offenders could actually be increasing the danger such offenders pose by driving them into homelessness at a significant rate, members of a state board said Thursday.In the 15 months since voters approved Jessica's Law, which restricts where paroled offenders may live and requires electronic monitoring of their whereabouts, the state has recorded a 44% increase in those registered as transients, according to a report released by California's Sex Offender Management Board.
Jessica's Law keeps dying man in limbo
Sex offender is free -- and reduced to a riverbed
The law prohibits ex-offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places where children gather, but it lacks adequate definitions of such places, the report says. And in some counties and cities, the law's residency restrictions make large swaths of housing off-limits.Unresolved questions about major parts of the law make it impossible to determine whether the state is safer now from sex offenders, panel member said. Some said the law could be making things worse.
Tom Tobin, the board's vice-chairman and a psychologist, said that homelessness removes offenders from their support systems, such as family members, which increases the chances they will commit new crimes."I see homelessness as increasing overall risk to public safety, and as a very, very undesirable consequence of probably a well-intended law," he said.Officials on the panel said in interviews that many parts of the law, which involves harsher sentencing for sex offenders, were not complicated.
But many California locales are not fully enforcing it because of confusion about who is covered by it and how it should be applied, according to the report, which is the first formal look at the workings of the controversial measure, approved as Proposition 83 in November 2006. The 15-member board was created by lawmakers and the governor to examine how the state handles sex offenders.
There are 67,710 registered sex offenders in California communities, the report says. The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has identified 4,345 offenders on parole that it says are subject to the law, but members of the state panel said it is unclear who else may be because the law is vague. The number of transient sex offenders who could be homeless or moving from house to house increased from 2,000 more than a year ago to 2,879 today. "If they're transient or if they're homeless, that might actually bring their risk [of re-offending] up quite a bit," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, the board's chairwoman and the director of a victim-assistance group in Sacramento.
The report pointed out that what enforcement there is generates millions of dollars in costs to the cash-strapped state.California's corrections agency is spending an estimated $20 million a year to monitor more than 3,000 paroled sex offenders by global positioning system satellite technology. That is a fraction of those who would eventually have to be watched. The law also reduced from two to one the number of past sex crimes that requires an offender who leaves prison to be evaluated by a mental health expert.
The purpose is to determine whether he or she is a "sexually violent predator" and eligible for commitment to a mental hospital. The new evaluations increased costs to the state from $3 million to $27 million, the report said. But confinements did not markedly increase, Brown-McBride said.The report suggests that the public misunderstands the best way to protect against sex offenders.
It cited studies showing that residency restrictions in other states did not reduce the number of new crimes committed by sex offenders.And it cited a national survey that found nine out of 10 sex crimes are committed by acquaintances or relatives of victims, undercutting the notion that keeping them away from schools and parks makes a difference.Brown-McBride said the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the law's sponsors, need to answer basic questions before statewide enforcement is possible. In addition to the issue of definitions -- what constitutes a park, for example, and which agencies should monitor offenders -- the questions include the law's failure to identify which offenders are covered.
State corrections officials, the state attorney general, local law enforcement agencies and others have differing interpretations.The state Supreme Court is also weighing a challenge to the law from some sex offenders who say it is unconstitutionally being enforced retroactively against them based on old crimes.In a statement, the governor's office said that he welcomed the report's "valuable analysis and recommendations to help deal with some needed adjustments to Jessica's Law."michael.rothfeld@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-offenders22feb22,1,745143.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
State officials say danger of sex offenders may rise as legal provisions lead to more homelessness.
By Michael Rothfeld, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 22, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- -- The law voters passed to crack down on sex offenders could actually be increasing the danger such offenders pose by driving them into homelessness at a significant rate, members of a state board said Thursday.In the 15 months since voters approved Jessica's Law, which restricts where paroled offenders may live and requires electronic monitoring of their whereabouts, the state has recorded a 44% increase in those registered as transients, according to a report released by California's Sex Offender Management Board.
Jessica's Law keeps dying man in limbo
Sex offender is free -- and reduced to a riverbed
The law prohibits ex-offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places where children gather, but it lacks adequate definitions of such places, the report says. And in some counties and cities, the law's residency restrictions make large swaths of housing off-limits.Unresolved questions about major parts of the law make it impossible to determine whether the state is safer now from sex offenders, panel member said. Some said the law could be making things worse.
Tom Tobin, the board's vice-chairman and a psychologist, said that homelessness removes offenders from their support systems, such as family members, which increases the chances they will commit new crimes."I see homelessness as increasing overall risk to public safety, and as a very, very undesirable consequence of probably a well-intended law," he said.Officials on the panel said in interviews that many parts of the law, which involves harsher sentencing for sex offenders, were not complicated.
But many California locales are not fully enforcing it because of confusion about who is covered by it and how it should be applied, according to the report, which is the first formal look at the workings of the controversial measure, approved as Proposition 83 in November 2006. The 15-member board was created by lawmakers and the governor to examine how the state handles sex offenders.
There are 67,710 registered sex offenders in California communities, the report says. The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has identified 4,345 offenders on parole that it says are subject to the law, but members of the state panel said it is unclear who else may be because the law is vague. The number of transient sex offenders who could be homeless or moving from house to house increased from 2,000 more than a year ago to 2,879 today. "If they're transient or if they're homeless, that might actually bring their risk [of re-offending] up quite a bit," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, the board's chairwoman and the director of a victim-assistance group in Sacramento.
The report pointed out that what enforcement there is generates millions of dollars in costs to the cash-strapped state.California's corrections agency is spending an estimated $20 million a year to monitor more than 3,000 paroled sex offenders by global positioning system satellite technology. That is a fraction of those who would eventually have to be watched. The law also reduced from two to one the number of past sex crimes that requires an offender who leaves prison to be evaluated by a mental health expert.
The purpose is to determine whether he or she is a "sexually violent predator" and eligible for commitment to a mental hospital. The new evaluations increased costs to the state from $3 million to $27 million, the report said. But confinements did not markedly increase, Brown-McBride said.The report suggests that the public misunderstands the best way to protect against sex offenders.
It cited studies showing that residency restrictions in other states did not reduce the number of new crimes committed by sex offenders.And it cited a national survey that found nine out of 10 sex crimes are committed by acquaintances or relatives of victims, undercutting the notion that keeping them away from schools and parks makes a difference.Brown-McBride said the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the law's sponsors, need to answer basic questions before statewide enforcement is possible. In addition to the issue of definitions -- what constitutes a park, for example, and which agencies should monitor offenders -- the questions include the law's failure to identify which offenders are covered.
State corrections officials, the state attorney general, local law enforcement agencies and others have differing interpretations.The state Supreme Court is also weighing a challenge to the law from some sex offenders who say it is unconstitutionally being enforced retroactively against them based on old crimes.In a statement, the governor's office said that he welcomed the report's "valuable analysis and recommendations to help deal with some needed adjustments to Jessica's Law."michael.rothfeld@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-offenders22feb22,1,745143.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
HOW MEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE OBLITERATED BY FAMILY COURT
How Men's Constitutional Rights Are Obliterated in Family Courts
There is a very simple trick, used all too frequently in family courts, that will almost always ensure the immediate elimination of a man's constitutional rights. Read more to find out if it can happen to you.
by Jake Morphonios(Libertarian)
In acrimonious divorce and child custody disputes emotions are tense and tempers flare. Buoyed by litigious attorneys, each side engages in strategic maneuvers to gain the greatest legal advantage. Sometimes a parent, fearing a loss of control or custody over a child, crosses the ethically acceptable bounds of legal warfare.
An unfortunate but all too frequently used tactic by mothers is to accuse the father of sexually molesting their child. The mere accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights and launch a criminal investigation.
Even when no evidence is found to substantiate the allegation, family law courts typically "err on the side of caution" and award full custody to the mother. While national statistics reveal that the majority of all child sex abuse reports are legitimate, when such claims are made by a mother in the context of custody litigation, an estimated 77% of allegations are determined to be unfounded (Tong, 2002).A false child sex abuse allegation made during child custody litigation is a destructive legal stratagem.
Throughout the world, child sexual abuse is considered the ultimate crime. Not even murder generates the kind of raw emotional reaction that results from the sexual abuse of a child. Society acknowledges the innocence of children and responds to child abusers with extreme prejudice. The power of the accusation alone is often enough for public opinion to impeach the character of the alleged child abuser and guarantee legal victory for the mother. According to Jeffery M. Leving (1997), a leading father’ rights attorney, "the use of false sexual abuse allegations to win custody suits has become almost a standard tactic among disturbed mothers and unethical divorce lawyers" (pg 148).The accused may spend years rebuilding his reputation from the monumental damage caused by the accusation.
To investigate the effect of a false child abuse accusation, a child custody survey was conducted; the group was evenly divided between males and females. A scenario was presented in which a divorcing couple was contesting custody of the children. It was stated that both parents were fit and proper. The question posed regarded what custody arrangement would be in the best interests of the child. An overwhelming 94% of respondents indicated that joint legal and physical custody, shared between parents, would be in the child’s best interest, with 78% of respondents indicating that a 50/50 time sharing agreement was appropriate. Another scenario was presented.
In the second scenario the father has been accused by the mother of sexually molesting their child. The Department of Social Services and the police conducted an investigation and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the father committed sexual abuse. The question of custody is again asked.
As a result of the unsubstantiated accusation against the father, 79% of the same respondents stated that sole legal and physical custody should be granted to the mother. Only 15% of respondents felt that the father should be permitted a minimum of 50% visitation with the children. In the final survey question regarding the respondent’s personal opinion of child molesters, 42% stated that they should be "locked away for life" and 48% responded that they should "burn in hell".
Why do so many mothers file false sexual abuse allegations during custody cases? They work. False accusers in this type of case rarely face prosecution.
The judicial system, likewise, responds to alleged child abusers swiftly and aggressively. Unfortunately for many falsely accused fathers, truth and justice are often niceties which are frequently ignored. Leving (1997) writes, "Based on well-meaning ‘better safe than sorry’ policy, abuse investigators often accept an abuse charge as fact and consider the accused abuser guilty until proven otherwise" (pg 150).
This is a significant problem. The US Constitution guarantees that accused persons are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. In this type of case, however, constitutional safeguards are abandoned. The burden of proof falls upon the accused to prove a negative, or, to conclusively show that an alleged event never occurred. This reversal of constitutional jurisprudence sets a dangerous precedent and ensures the conviction of many innocent men. The destructive power of a false child abuse allegation has been termed "the nuclear option" by law professionals (Tong, 1997).
Once this nuclear bomb is dropped, all hope of civil reconciliation is lost. The custody battle escalates into a bitter war.
The prevalence of false accusations is a matter of debate. Disagreement over the proper ratio of false abuse statistics may range anywhere from 20% to 80%.It can be extremely difficult to correctly track the ration of true to false accusations because of the problem in identifying the intent of the accuser.
In some instances a mother genuinely believes abuse has occurred. In other instances the mother may not be sure and simply doesn’t know what to do other than to file an allegation of abuse. However, when one considers all factors, including the number of retracted allegations, recantations and the preponderance of cases proven to be dishonest, a fair estimate settled upon by many studies is an average of 77% (Brennan & Brennan, 1994).
False reports of sexual abuse against children are often first reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) or some other governmental social service agency. A safety assessment is conducted by a CPS or social worker (Ney, 1995). During this brief assessment standard questions are asked of the mother regarding the alleged event. At the end of the assessment, even if no proof of wrongdoing is presented, procedure requires the social worker to recommend that full custody be given to the mother as a safety precaution until a full investigation is concluded.
This assessment is included in an official complaint and presented to a district court judge. The judge will typically grant an Emergency Ex-Parte Order giving the mother temporary sole custody of the children and restrain the father from having any contact with his children, even when no additional evidence beyond the mother’s word exists. A hearing date is set and the legal battle begins.
The mother gains immediate advantages over the father. First, by giving the mother full custody of the children the court is setting a precedent that will be hard for the father to overcome. Most family court judges believe in maintaining the status quo, and subsequently order the children to continue residing with the mother rather than changing the children’s residence to that of the father (Hardwick, 2004).A second advantage for the mother is that the children are unable to communicate with their father and a process of alienation begins. The more time that passes without contact, the greater the alienation. During this period of alienation, a child may be coached by the mother to support the allegation against the father.
After the Emergency Ex-Parte Order has been granted, an investigation of the allegation begins. As part of the investigation, the child is examined by a medical doctor for physical signs of sexual abuse. It is rare that evidence is discovered. The child is also seen by social workers who use items such as anatomically correct dolls to try to encourage the child to talk about what happened.
Even when the child states that nothing happened, the investigation continues. After a series of interrogations, which often serve to reinforce the false story in the child’s mind, the child may eventually say something or play with the dolls in such a way as to cause the social worker to suspect abuse (Tong, 1992).As part of this ongoing investigation by both CPS and local law enforcement, the reputation of the father is constructively destroyed by the investigation. Family relationships become strained. Employers tire of granting time off work to accommodate the father’s frequent court hearings. Social relationships are damaged, often never to be repaired.
The very process of being investigated causes many men to give up and grant the mother everything she wants from him. Sadly, many fathers are so traumatized by the horror of the process that they commit suicide (Seidenberg, 1997).False abuse expert, Dean Tong (2002), says of the emotional state of the accused:Sleep is forever elusive, night-terror becomes common-place and depression is a constant companion.
Rarely is there any support to be found within the community and rarely is there any sympathy for the falsely-accused. Throughout it all, you must bear the title "abuser," until you prove otherwise, if you can. Disorientation, denial, shock, confusion, anxiety, and disbelief are constant. Lack of concentration is a chronic problem, exceeded only by the frustration of being denied the right to see your children.
Immediately, the father finds himself in a maze of confusing litigation. He spends thousands of dollars to retain an attorney. Police often request the father to take lie detector tests. Even though he submits to and often passes several polygraph tests, it does him little good as the tests are not admissible in court. A single attorney is rarely sufficient to provide an appropriate defense in this type of case.
Thousands of dollars must be spent to retain psychologists and other expert witnesses in the fields of sexual abuse. In an attempt to prove their innocence, many fathers submit to invasive psycho-sexual testing, such as the penile polygraph. In this particular test sensors are placed around the penis and variety of video images are displayed to the father, such as children playing in water or little girls in bathing suits.
The subtlest of sexual responses while looking at images of children will condemn the father. The cost of testing, attorneys, expert witnesses and other legal fees in this type of case often exceeds $50,000.The father sometimes has to mortgage his home and sell his assets to afford a sufficient defense. Naturally, little money is leftover at the end to use in a custody case.
In most court districts throughout the United States, judges run for office as any other politician. If a judge takes, or fails to take, an action that leads to the abuse of a child by an alleged child abuser, his political career may be over. Political expediency is a strong, yet unspoken, factor in emotionally charged cases such with child sexual abuse (Seidenberg, 1997).
When a father has been falsely accused of molesting his child, even when no evidence substantiates the claim, he often loses custody of his children because the court decides to "play it safe". The father may not go to jail, but the temporary order preventing his access to his children is frequently made permanent.
By no fault of his own, the father has lost his children, all because a mother chose to fight dirty in court. For the unfortunate father who loses his criminal case, he is locked away. Sentencing for child molesters is typically longer than sentencing for murder (Seidenberg, 1997).Men convicted of child molestation are constant targets of prison abuse by fellow inmates. Fathers, unjustly incarcerated, become bitter and less productive members of society.
The father is not the only victim in a false child sex abuse allegation. Children are also victimized. Not only does the child have to submit to numerous interrogations and invasive tests to determine if abuse occurred, but needless therapy is often prescribed. The child, knowing at first that nothing happened, is subjected to counseling that reinforces the story that abuse has occurred. In time, many children grow to believe and accept that their fathers molested them. The emotional trauma is life-long.
This phenomenon has become so common that psychologists have given names to the syndromes that result from false abuse claims, including Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Sexual Abuse in Divorce (SAID).The allegation is, in itself, a form of child abuse (Wexler, 1990).The loss of self-esteem, the destruction of the father-child relationship, the mental and emotional damage and premature sexualizing of the child are all very real results of a false abuse accusation. Children who grow up believing they were sexually abused often develop deviant sexual interests and proclivities. No child should be treated so heinously by parents embroiled in a legal chess game.
A false child sexual abuse allegation, while usually ensuring the legal victory for the mother, is destructive to all parties involved. Child molestation is a terrible crime and false accusations play on the natural prejudices of society to the extent that victory can almost be guaranteed for the accuser. The loss of fathers in the lives of their children has many negative consequences for society as a whole.
Laws need to be passed that protect the rights of the accused as in any other type of trial. Penalties for false accusers must be created and imposed. Social workers, judges, and others involved in the investigation of this type of allegation must be taught the syndromes that affect children when a false abuse claim is made. Sexual abuse claims made in the middle of custody proceedings must be viewed with some skepticism. Judges must be made aware of the usefulness of certain scientific tests, not currently admissible in court, which may help to vindicate the accused.
Finally, an emphasis on more stable families will lead to fewer divorces, and, therefore, fewer false abuse claims. Until these, and other, reforms take place, innocent children will continue to be used as pawns in a senseless game of legal strategy.
References:
Brennan, Carleen, & Brennan, Michael (1994).Custody for Fathers: A practical guide through the combat zone of a brutal custody battle.Costa Mesa, CA: Brennan Publishing.
Hardwick, Charlotte (2004). Win Your Child Custody War.New York, NY: Pale Horse Publishing.
Leving, Jefferey M. (1997).Fathers’ Rights: Hard hitting and fair advice for every father involved in a custody dispute.New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ney, Tara (1995).True and False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment & case management.New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Seidenberg, Robert (1997).The Father’s Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle: A Tour through the Predatory World of Judges, Lawyers, Psychologists & Social Workers, in the Subculture of Divorce. Takoma Park, MD: JES Books.
Tong, Dean (1992).Don’t Blame Me, Daddy: False accusations of child sexual abuse. Norfolk, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Co.
Tong, Dean (2002).Elusive Innocence: Survival guide for the falsely accused. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers.
Wexler, Richard (1990).Wounded Innocents: The real victims of the war against child abuse. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Jake Morphonios is a civil rights advocate and North Carolina State Coordinator for Fathers 4 Justice - US. The political opinions of Mr. Morphonios do not represent those of Fathers 4 Justice. Neither Mr. Morphonios nor F4J-US provide legal advice or assistance with individual cases.
Fathers seeking support or information, or other parties interested in becoming involved in the father's rights movement may contact Mr. Morphonios at: jake.morphonios@nc.f4j.us
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2788.html
There is a very simple trick, used all too frequently in family courts, that will almost always ensure the immediate elimination of a man's constitutional rights. Read more to find out if it can happen to you.
by Jake Morphonios(Libertarian)
In acrimonious divorce and child custody disputes emotions are tense and tempers flare. Buoyed by litigious attorneys, each side engages in strategic maneuvers to gain the greatest legal advantage. Sometimes a parent, fearing a loss of control or custody over a child, crosses the ethically acceptable bounds of legal warfare.
An unfortunate but all too frequently used tactic by mothers is to accuse the father of sexually molesting their child. The mere accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights and launch a criminal investigation.
Even when no evidence is found to substantiate the allegation, family law courts typically "err on the side of caution" and award full custody to the mother. While national statistics reveal that the majority of all child sex abuse reports are legitimate, when such claims are made by a mother in the context of custody litigation, an estimated 77% of allegations are determined to be unfounded (Tong, 2002).A false child sex abuse allegation made during child custody litigation is a destructive legal stratagem.
Throughout the world, child sexual abuse is considered the ultimate crime. Not even murder generates the kind of raw emotional reaction that results from the sexual abuse of a child. Society acknowledges the innocence of children and responds to child abusers with extreme prejudice. The power of the accusation alone is often enough for public opinion to impeach the character of the alleged child abuser and guarantee legal victory for the mother. According to Jeffery M. Leving (1997), a leading father’ rights attorney, "the use of false sexual abuse allegations to win custody suits has become almost a standard tactic among disturbed mothers and unethical divorce lawyers" (pg 148).The accused may spend years rebuilding his reputation from the monumental damage caused by the accusation.
To investigate the effect of a false child abuse accusation, a child custody survey was conducted; the group was evenly divided between males and females. A scenario was presented in which a divorcing couple was contesting custody of the children. It was stated that both parents were fit and proper. The question posed regarded what custody arrangement would be in the best interests of the child. An overwhelming 94% of respondents indicated that joint legal and physical custody, shared between parents, would be in the child’s best interest, with 78% of respondents indicating that a 50/50 time sharing agreement was appropriate. Another scenario was presented.
In the second scenario the father has been accused by the mother of sexually molesting their child. The Department of Social Services and the police conducted an investigation and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the father committed sexual abuse. The question of custody is again asked.
As a result of the unsubstantiated accusation against the father, 79% of the same respondents stated that sole legal and physical custody should be granted to the mother. Only 15% of respondents felt that the father should be permitted a minimum of 50% visitation with the children. In the final survey question regarding the respondent’s personal opinion of child molesters, 42% stated that they should be "locked away for life" and 48% responded that they should "burn in hell".
Why do so many mothers file false sexual abuse allegations during custody cases? They work. False accusers in this type of case rarely face prosecution.
The judicial system, likewise, responds to alleged child abusers swiftly and aggressively. Unfortunately for many falsely accused fathers, truth and justice are often niceties which are frequently ignored. Leving (1997) writes, "Based on well-meaning ‘better safe than sorry’ policy, abuse investigators often accept an abuse charge as fact and consider the accused abuser guilty until proven otherwise" (pg 150).
This is a significant problem. The US Constitution guarantees that accused persons are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. In this type of case, however, constitutional safeguards are abandoned. The burden of proof falls upon the accused to prove a negative, or, to conclusively show that an alleged event never occurred. This reversal of constitutional jurisprudence sets a dangerous precedent and ensures the conviction of many innocent men. The destructive power of a false child abuse allegation has been termed "the nuclear option" by law professionals (Tong, 1997).
Once this nuclear bomb is dropped, all hope of civil reconciliation is lost. The custody battle escalates into a bitter war.
The prevalence of false accusations is a matter of debate. Disagreement over the proper ratio of false abuse statistics may range anywhere from 20% to 80%.It can be extremely difficult to correctly track the ration of true to false accusations because of the problem in identifying the intent of the accuser.
In some instances a mother genuinely believes abuse has occurred. In other instances the mother may not be sure and simply doesn’t know what to do other than to file an allegation of abuse. However, when one considers all factors, including the number of retracted allegations, recantations and the preponderance of cases proven to be dishonest, a fair estimate settled upon by many studies is an average of 77% (Brennan & Brennan, 1994).
False reports of sexual abuse against children are often first reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) or some other governmental social service agency. A safety assessment is conducted by a CPS or social worker (Ney, 1995). During this brief assessment standard questions are asked of the mother regarding the alleged event. At the end of the assessment, even if no proof of wrongdoing is presented, procedure requires the social worker to recommend that full custody be given to the mother as a safety precaution until a full investigation is concluded.
This assessment is included in an official complaint and presented to a district court judge. The judge will typically grant an Emergency Ex-Parte Order giving the mother temporary sole custody of the children and restrain the father from having any contact with his children, even when no additional evidence beyond the mother’s word exists. A hearing date is set and the legal battle begins.
The mother gains immediate advantages over the father. First, by giving the mother full custody of the children the court is setting a precedent that will be hard for the father to overcome. Most family court judges believe in maintaining the status quo, and subsequently order the children to continue residing with the mother rather than changing the children’s residence to that of the father (Hardwick, 2004).A second advantage for the mother is that the children are unable to communicate with their father and a process of alienation begins. The more time that passes without contact, the greater the alienation. During this period of alienation, a child may be coached by the mother to support the allegation against the father.
After the Emergency Ex-Parte Order has been granted, an investigation of the allegation begins. As part of the investigation, the child is examined by a medical doctor for physical signs of sexual abuse. It is rare that evidence is discovered. The child is also seen by social workers who use items such as anatomically correct dolls to try to encourage the child to talk about what happened.
Even when the child states that nothing happened, the investigation continues. After a series of interrogations, which often serve to reinforce the false story in the child’s mind, the child may eventually say something or play with the dolls in such a way as to cause the social worker to suspect abuse (Tong, 1992).As part of this ongoing investigation by both CPS and local law enforcement, the reputation of the father is constructively destroyed by the investigation. Family relationships become strained. Employers tire of granting time off work to accommodate the father’s frequent court hearings. Social relationships are damaged, often never to be repaired.
The very process of being investigated causes many men to give up and grant the mother everything she wants from him. Sadly, many fathers are so traumatized by the horror of the process that they commit suicide (Seidenberg, 1997).False abuse expert, Dean Tong (2002), says of the emotional state of the accused:Sleep is forever elusive, night-terror becomes common-place and depression is a constant companion.
Rarely is there any support to be found within the community and rarely is there any sympathy for the falsely-accused. Throughout it all, you must bear the title "abuser," until you prove otherwise, if you can. Disorientation, denial, shock, confusion, anxiety, and disbelief are constant. Lack of concentration is a chronic problem, exceeded only by the frustration of being denied the right to see your children.
Immediately, the father finds himself in a maze of confusing litigation. He spends thousands of dollars to retain an attorney. Police often request the father to take lie detector tests. Even though he submits to and often passes several polygraph tests, it does him little good as the tests are not admissible in court. A single attorney is rarely sufficient to provide an appropriate defense in this type of case.
Thousands of dollars must be spent to retain psychologists and other expert witnesses in the fields of sexual abuse. In an attempt to prove their innocence, many fathers submit to invasive psycho-sexual testing, such as the penile polygraph. In this particular test sensors are placed around the penis and variety of video images are displayed to the father, such as children playing in water or little girls in bathing suits.
The subtlest of sexual responses while looking at images of children will condemn the father. The cost of testing, attorneys, expert witnesses and other legal fees in this type of case often exceeds $50,000.The father sometimes has to mortgage his home and sell his assets to afford a sufficient defense. Naturally, little money is leftover at the end to use in a custody case.
In most court districts throughout the United States, judges run for office as any other politician. If a judge takes, or fails to take, an action that leads to the abuse of a child by an alleged child abuser, his political career may be over. Political expediency is a strong, yet unspoken, factor in emotionally charged cases such with child sexual abuse (Seidenberg, 1997).
When a father has been falsely accused of molesting his child, even when no evidence substantiates the claim, he often loses custody of his children because the court decides to "play it safe". The father may not go to jail, but the temporary order preventing his access to his children is frequently made permanent.
By no fault of his own, the father has lost his children, all because a mother chose to fight dirty in court. For the unfortunate father who loses his criminal case, he is locked away. Sentencing for child molesters is typically longer than sentencing for murder (Seidenberg, 1997).Men convicted of child molestation are constant targets of prison abuse by fellow inmates. Fathers, unjustly incarcerated, become bitter and less productive members of society.
The father is not the only victim in a false child sex abuse allegation. Children are also victimized. Not only does the child have to submit to numerous interrogations and invasive tests to determine if abuse occurred, but needless therapy is often prescribed. The child, knowing at first that nothing happened, is subjected to counseling that reinforces the story that abuse has occurred. In time, many children grow to believe and accept that their fathers molested them. The emotional trauma is life-long.
This phenomenon has become so common that psychologists have given names to the syndromes that result from false abuse claims, including Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Sexual Abuse in Divorce (SAID).The allegation is, in itself, a form of child abuse (Wexler, 1990).The loss of self-esteem, the destruction of the father-child relationship, the mental and emotional damage and premature sexualizing of the child are all very real results of a false abuse accusation. Children who grow up believing they were sexually abused often develop deviant sexual interests and proclivities. No child should be treated so heinously by parents embroiled in a legal chess game.
A false child sexual abuse allegation, while usually ensuring the legal victory for the mother, is destructive to all parties involved. Child molestation is a terrible crime and false accusations play on the natural prejudices of society to the extent that victory can almost be guaranteed for the accuser. The loss of fathers in the lives of their children has many negative consequences for society as a whole.
Laws need to be passed that protect the rights of the accused as in any other type of trial. Penalties for false accusers must be created and imposed. Social workers, judges, and others involved in the investigation of this type of allegation must be taught the syndromes that affect children when a false abuse claim is made. Sexual abuse claims made in the middle of custody proceedings must be viewed with some skepticism. Judges must be made aware of the usefulness of certain scientific tests, not currently admissible in court, which may help to vindicate the accused.
Finally, an emphasis on more stable families will lead to fewer divorces, and, therefore, fewer false abuse claims. Until these, and other, reforms take place, innocent children will continue to be used as pawns in a senseless game of legal strategy.
References:
Brennan, Carleen, & Brennan, Michael (1994).Custody for Fathers: A practical guide through the combat zone of a brutal custody battle.Costa Mesa, CA: Brennan Publishing.
Hardwick, Charlotte (2004). Win Your Child Custody War.New York, NY: Pale Horse Publishing.
Leving, Jefferey M. (1997).Fathers’ Rights: Hard hitting and fair advice for every father involved in a custody dispute.New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ney, Tara (1995).True and False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment & case management.New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Seidenberg, Robert (1997).The Father’s Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle: A Tour through the Predatory World of Judges, Lawyers, Psychologists & Social Workers, in the Subculture of Divorce. Takoma Park, MD: JES Books.
Tong, Dean (1992).Don’t Blame Me, Daddy: False accusations of child sexual abuse. Norfolk, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Co.
Tong, Dean (2002).Elusive Innocence: Survival guide for the falsely accused. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers.
Wexler, Richard (1990).Wounded Innocents: The real victims of the war against child abuse. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Jake Morphonios is a civil rights advocate and North Carolina State Coordinator for Fathers 4 Justice - US. The political opinions of Mr. Morphonios do not represent those of Fathers 4 Justice. Neither Mr. Morphonios nor F4J-US provide legal advice or assistance with individual cases.
Fathers seeking support or information, or other parties interested in becoming involved in the father's rights movement may contact Mr. Morphonios at: jake.morphonios@nc.f4j.us
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2788.html
OHIO'S RESIDENCY RESTRICTION STRICKEN DOWN "HARD"
Sex Offender Who Owned Home, Committed Crime Before Residency Law Passed Not Required to Move
2-20-2008 Ohio:The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that, because a 2003 state law barring certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school does not expressly provide that its provisions apply retrospectively, the statute does not apply to an offender who bought his home and committed his crime before the law took effect. The 6-1 decision was authored by Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer.Because the Court found that the residency statute does not apply retroactively, the justices did not reach or decide the issue of whether such a law, if expressly made retroactive by the legislature, would violate the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws that infringe on an individual’s substantive right.The case involved a challenge by Gerry Porter to R.C. 2950.031, a state law effective on July 31, 2003, that prohibits certain sexually oriented offenders from “establishing a residence or occupying residential premises” that are within 1,000 feet of any school property.
Porter purchased a home in 1991 where he lived with his family for 14 years. He was required to register as a sexually oriented offender following his conviction of a sexual battery charge in 1999. Following the legislature’s enactment of the sex offender residency statute, Green Township chief legal officer Francis Hyle sought a court injunction to force Porter to move out of his home because a portion of his property was within 1,000 feet of school premises.
Porter opposed the injunction, arguing that the residency statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issued an injunction requiring Porter to move out of his house. On review, the 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the trial court. However, the 1st District also certified that its decision in this case was in conflict with a 2006 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals, Nasal v. Dover, in which that court found the residency restriction was unconstitutional because it retroactively infringed on a sex-offender’s vested right to live in a home he had purchased before the “1,000-foot rule” became law in 2003. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case to resolve the conflict between appellate districts.
Writing for the majority in today’s decision, Chief Justice Moyer noted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Van Fossen v. Babcock and Wilcox Co. (1988) and State v. Consilio (2007) have established a two-part test for reviewing challenges to the retroactive application of a law.
Under this test, we first ask whether the General Assembly expressly made the statute retroactive,” Moyer wrote. “If it has, then we determine whether the statutory restriction is substantive or remedial in nature. ... We do not address the question of constitutional retroactivity unless and until we determine that the General Assembly expressly made the statute retroactive.”Applying the first prong of the test, the Chief Justice cited a rule of statutory construction set forth in R.C. 1.48 that “(a) statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation (i.e., to apply only to events that take place after the effective date of the law) unless expressly made retrospective.” He wrote: “In order to overcome the presumption that a statute applies prospectively, a statute must ‘clearly proclaim’ its retroactive application. ... Text that supports a mere inference of retroactivity is not sufficient to satisfy this standard; we cannot infer retroactivity from suggestive language.”In analyzing R.C. 2950.031 under that standard, the
Chief Justice rejected arguments by Mr. Hyle that statutory language referring to a person who “has been convicted of” specified categories of sexual offenses and prohibiting such a person to “occupy residential premises” clearly indicated legislative intent for the restriction to apply to a convicted sexual offender who committed his offense and lived in his house before the residency law was enacted. He pointed to wording in two other Ohio statutes as examples of clear and unequivocal language indicating the legislature’s intent that those laws be applied retroactively.
“Both former R.C. 4121.80(H) and former 2950.09(C)(1) expressly make their provisions applicable to acts committed or facts in existence prior to their effective dates. In addition, R.C. 4121.80(H) expressly proclaimed its applicability in spite of contrary preexisting law by including the phrase, ‘notwithstanding any provisions of any prior statute or rule of law of this state,’” wrote Chief Justice Moyer. “These examples demonstrate that the drafters of legislation know the words to use in order to comply with the Ohio Constitution and the requirement created by the General Assembly (R.C. 1.48). The text of R.C. 2950.031, by contrast, does not feature a clear declaration of retroactivity in either its description of convicted sex offenders or its description of prohibited acts.
The statute does not proclaim its applicability to acts committed or facts in existence prior to the effective date of the statute or otherwise declare its retroactive application. In the present case, the absence of a clear declaration comparable to the two excerpted above precludes the retrospective application of R.C. 2950.031.” Chief Justice Moyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Maureen O’Connor concurred in judgment only.Justice Terrence O’Donnell dissented, stating that in his view the plain language of R.C. 2950.031 does clearly indicate legislative intent: 1) that the 1,000-foot residency restriction be applied to sex offenders regardless of whether their crimes were committed before or after the effective date of the statute; and 2) that covered offenders be barred both from “establishing a residence” and from “occupying residential premises” that are within 1,000 feet of a school after July 31, 2003 – regardless of whether an offender “occupied” those premises before the law was enacted.“If the General Assembly had intended only to prohibit individuals from establishing a residence within 1,000 feet of a school after its adoption of this statute, it did not need to also prohibit those individuals from occupying residential premises – but, it did so,” wrote Justice O’Donnell. “The General Assembly, in choosing to prohibit both the establishment of a residence and the occupation of a residential premises, intended to preclude present and future conduct regarding the location of a residence of persons described in this statute; and it did so by using language to preclude both establishing a residence or occupying one.
Justice O’Donnell added that, having found clear legislative intent that the challenged statute be applied retroactively, he would go on to hold that the 1,000-foot residency restriction is remedial rather than substantive in nature, and therefore that retroactive application of the statute to require Porter to vacate his home did not violate Porter’s rights under Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. ..more.. Full court decision:ContactsDavid A. Singleton, 513.421.1108, for Gerry Porter. Paula Adams, 513.946.3228, for Green Township Law Director Francis Hyle and the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office.William P. Marshall, 614.466.8980, for Amicus Curiae Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-542.pdf
2-20-2008 Ohio:The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that, because a 2003 state law barring certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school does not expressly provide that its provisions apply retrospectively, the statute does not apply to an offender who bought his home and committed his crime before the law took effect. The 6-1 decision was authored by Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer.Because the Court found that the residency statute does not apply retroactively, the justices did not reach or decide the issue of whether such a law, if expressly made retroactive by the legislature, would violate the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws that infringe on an individual’s substantive right.The case involved a challenge by Gerry Porter to R.C. 2950.031, a state law effective on July 31, 2003, that prohibits certain sexually oriented offenders from “establishing a residence or occupying residential premises” that are within 1,000 feet of any school property.
Porter purchased a home in 1991 where he lived with his family for 14 years. He was required to register as a sexually oriented offender following his conviction of a sexual battery charge in 1999. Following the legislature’s enactment of the sex offender residency statute, Green Township chief legal officer Francis Hyle sought a court injunction to force Porter to move out of his home because a portion of his property was within 1,000 feet of school premises.
Porter opposed the injunction, arguing that the residency statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issued an injunction requiring Porter to move out of his house. On review, the 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the trial court. However, the 1st District also certified that its decision in this case was in conflict with a 2006 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals, Nasal v. Dover, in which that court found the residency restriction was unconstitutional because it retroactively infringed on a sex-offender’s vested right to live in a home he had purchased before the “1,000-foot rule” became law in 2003. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case to resolve the conflict between appellate districts.
Writing for the majority in today’s decision, Chief Justice Moyer noted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Van Fossen v. Babcock and Wilcox Co. (1988) and State v. Consilio (2007) have established a two-part test for reviewing challenges to the retroactive application of a law.
Under this test, we first ask whether the General Assembly expressly made the statute retroactive,” Moyer wrote. “If it has, then we determine whether the statutory restriction is substantive or remedial in nature. ... We do not address the question of constitutional retroactivity unless and until we determine that the General Assembly expressly made the statute retroactive.”Applying the first prong of the test, the Chief Justice cited a rule of statutory construction set forth in R.C. 1.48 that “(a) statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation (i.e., to apply only to events that take place after the effective date of the law) unless expressly made retrospective.” He wrote: “In order to overcome the presumption that a statute applies prospectively, a statute must ‘clearly proclaim’ its retroactive application. ... Text that supports a mere inference of retroactivity is not sufficient to satisfy this standard; we cannot infer retroactivity from suggestive language.”In analyzing R.C. 2950.031 under that standard, the
Chief Justice rejected arguments by Mr. Hyle that statutory language referring to a person who “has been convicted of” specified categories of sexual offenses and prohibiting such a person to “occupy residential premises” clearly indicated legislative intent for the restriction to apply to a convicted sexual offender who committed his offense and lived in his house before the residency law was enacted. He pointed to wording in two other Ohio statutes as examples of clear and unequivocal language indicating the legislature’s intent that those laws be applied retroactively.
“Both former R.C. 4121.80(H) and former 2950.09(C)(1) expressly make their provisions applicable to acts committed or facts in existence prior to their effective dates. In addition, R.C. 4121.80(H) expressly proclaimed its applicability in spite of contrary preexisting law by including the phrase, ‘notwithstanding any provisions of any prior statute or rule of law of this state,’” wrote Chief Justice Moyer. “These examples demonstrate that the drafters of legislation know the words to use in order to comply with the Ohio Constitution and the requirement created by the General Assembly (R.C. 1.48). The text of R.C. 2950.031, by contrast, does not feature a clear declaration of retroactivity in either its description of convicted sex offenders or its description of prohibited acts.
The statute does not proclaim its applicability to acts committed or facts in existence prior to the effective date of the statute or otherwise declare its retroactive application. In the present case, the absence of a clear declaration comparable to the two excerpted above precludes the retrospective application of R.C. 2950.031.” Chief Justice Moyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Maureen O’Connor concurred in judgment only.Justice Terrence O’Donnell dissented, stating that in his view the plain language of R.C. 2950.031 does clearly indicate legislative intent: 1) that the 1,000-foot residency restriction be applied to sex offenders regardless of whether their crimes were committed before or after the effective date of the statute; and 2) that covered offenders be barred both from “establishing a residence” and from “occupying residential premises” that are within 1,000 feet of a school after July 31, 2003 – regardless of whether an offender “occupied” those premises before the law was enacted.“If the General Assembly had intended only to prohibit individuals from establishing a residence within 1,000 feet of a school after its adoption of this statute, it did not need to also prohibit those individuals from occupying residential premises – but, it did so,” wrote Justice O’Donnell. “The General Assembly, in choosing to prohibit both the establishment of a residence and the occupation of a residential premises, intended to preclude present and future conduct regarding the location of a residence of persons described in this statute; and it did so by using language to preclude both establishing a residence or occupying one.
Justice O’Donnell added that, having found clear legislative intent that the challenged statute be applied retroactively, he would go on to hold that the 1,000-foot residency restriction is remedial rather than substantive in nature, and therefore that retroactive application of the statute to require Porter to vacate his home did not violate Porter’s rights under Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. ..more.. Full court decision:ContactsDavid A. Singleton, 513.421.1108, for Gerry Porter. Paula Adams, 513.946.3228, for Green Township Law Director Francis Hyle and the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office.William P. Marshall, 614.466.8980, for Amicus Curiae Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-542.pdf
PERVERTED JUSTICE FEELING THE "STING" AGAIN?
Perverted justice?
A Sourtheast Portland-based online group blurs the lines between profits and justice
By: Nick Jaynes
Issue date: 2/16/07
Section:Media Credit: Evan Soares
Xavier Von Erck and his Southeast Portland-based online group Perverted Justice are perverted all right. Formed in 2003, the ironically named group, which is mostly staffed by volunteers, trolls internet chat rooms looking for "would be" pedophiles and induces them to commit a crime.
The men are enticed into having sexually explicit conversations with what they believe to be underage girls. If the Perverted Justice member, posing as a minor, is good enough, they'll convince the man to meet them at a decoy house where law enforcement agents will be waiting to arrest them.There is no denying that pedophiles are terribly sick individuals who should be strongly punished for any offenses they commit. But where does one draw the line between a fantasy and an actual illegal offense?
Perverted Justice, with the help of law enforcement agencies and recently NBC and other news organizations, has made that judgment call. Once a person-usually a man-intends to commit a lewd act upon a child, they are in violation of the law and can then be arrested and prosecuted. It seems a fair enough idea that pedophiles be apprehended before they have the opportunity to harm a child. But are the men that Perverted Justice is helping catch and prosecute actually criminals?
Many believe they are not. In a recent article in The Oregonian, Lynn Davenport, a former child protective services worker, suggests that few of the men that are caught through Perverted Justice have ever abused a minor. It is also suggested that these stings divert attention and resources away from real child abuse. So what it breaks down to is these men have pedophilic desires, they find themselves in a position to potentially act on them and are enticed to do so.
But they never actually harm a child. One could assume that without provocation most of these men would never have acted upon their perverse attractions.Law enforcement stings of this type are becoming more popular throughout our country. In some cities, there are officers who go undercover and pose as couples and park in front of a convenience mart or such and leave their car running while they go inside. Sometimes someone will take the bait and get into the car and attempt to drive off. This is when tens of police swarm and arrest the perpetrator.
It's bad enough that people who are provoked into crime are being punished in place of the opposite. And these sorts of sting operations beg questions from the public like: Don't our law enforcement agencies have anything better to do than to trick people into committing crimes? Aren't there enough criminals out there, ones who don't need to be tempted into crimes by undercover officers, to arrest?
The answer to those questions presumably is that stings of this type are feel-good operations for police. They get to go out there into the criminal element and get their hands dirty. They play the role and at the end of the day they're the good guys. They can actively feel like they made a difference and were able to get one more criminal off the streets.
Never mind they might have caught someone who may have gone their entire life without committing a crime of that nature. That without that one single perfect instance that the police have created and provided for them the person may have remained completely law-abiding. But since they actually did commit the crime, regardless of police involvement, they can be prosecuted.
Whether you agree with that reasoning or not there is something more sinister to Xavier Von Erck's Perverted Justice group and their new affiliates NBC and MSNBC. With shows like To Catch A Predator the networks have proven that there is a profit to be made off of the depiction of the bait and then capture of these men. Even our local Fox affiliate news station here in Portland, Fox12, has teamed up with Perverted Justice to produce segments in their evening news that boils down to nothing short of petty harassment.
In these segments called "Operation Cyber Sting" a Fox12 news crew will be waiting with police at a decoy home and when the man is arrested he is forced in front of bright lights and cameras as a reporter attempts to interview them about the offense. This is when the departure from criminal justice into irresponsible and distasteful entertainment occurs.
Whether Perverted Justice was started with the best intentions or not is irrelevant. Its message has been corrupted and perverted by money. Xavier Von Erck, a man who admits to not liking children at all, could be commended by his intentions but should instead be ashamed for what his organization, through affiliation with NBC and others, has devolved into.
A profit should not be derived from the capture of criminals, especially when the moralistic lines can be so differently interpreted. These operations, in the views of many, are blurring the lines between true guilt and intention. Not only that but they compromise our justice system's founding belief that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Believe it or not there was a time when integrity used to be valued more highly than money. But those days are apparently long since dead.
{OUCH!!! There have been several articles over the past weeks and months that are growing downright "Hostile" toward "Baron von geek" and his band of merry pranksters at perverted Justice.
I guess suicide and lawsuits are not the stuff of "must see TV"? Is this yet more evidence that the "sex offender" ratings boom is coming to an end?
When Journalist turns on Journalist/entertainer have we reached some crossroads? NBC has been paying out Millions to advertiser's because of recent low ratings. I bet there have been more than a few meetings that discuss how they want to do more stings with PJ to change the trend but they are now forced to weigh that against pending and potential lawsuits and at least one suicide.
PJ has thrived by hiding out on the net as they attack from a distance. The problem is that many people are now standing up to their tactics and flushing the "cyber troll's" out of their hiding places and holding them accountable thru lawsuit's civil and criminal. PJ's leader "Baron von geek" does not do well in an open forum.
He prefers to attack anyone that oppose's or even questions him about his tactic's on a personal level thru the internet away from the preying eyes of the law or the general public. He will send out his minion's to post flyers in your community that proclaim that you are a pedohile.
They will call and harass your place of employment as well as any friends and/or family that they can track down in order to silence you. Can anyone else smell the fear in the air?
More and more media outlets are coming out against PJ as well as some very courageous advocates that have had to suffer thru the PJ attack machine if they "DARE" to question the tactics or methods of Perverted Justice.
It's like watching a cornered animal lash out in desperation. Baron von nerd is not a confident childrens advocate he behaves like a spoiled child who's every whim has been indulged but now has to make his own way in the real world.}
http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2007/02/16/Opinion/Perverted.Justice-2724679.shtml
A Sourtheast Portland-based online group blurs the lines between profits and justice
By: Nick Jaynes
Issue date: 2/16/07
Section:Media Credit: Evan Soares
Xavier Von Erck and his Southeast Portland-based online group Perverted Justice are perverted all right. Formed in 2003, the ironically named group, which is mostly staffed by volunteers, trolls internet chat rooms looking for "would be" pedophiles and induces them to commit a crime.
The men are enticed into having sexually explicit conversations with what they believe to be underage girls. If the Perverted Justice member, posing as a minor, is good enough, they'll convince the man to meet them at a decoy house where law enforcement agents will be waiting to arrest them.There is no denying that pedophiles are terribly sick individuals who should be strongly punished for any offenses they commit. But where does one draw the line between a fantasy and an actual illegal offense?
Perverted Justice, with the help of law enforcement agencies and recently NBC and other news organizations, has made that judgment call. Once a person-usually a man-intends to commit a lewd act upon a child, they are in violation of the law and can then be arrested and prosecuted. It seems a fair enough idea that pedophiles be apprehended before they have the opportunity to harm a child. But are the men that Perverted Justice is helping catch and prosecute actually criminals?
Many believe they are not. In a recent article in The Oregonian, Lynn Davenport, a former child protective services worker, suggests that few of the men that are caught through Perverted Justice have ever abused a minor. It is also suggested that these stings divert attention and resources away from real child abuse. So what it breaks down to is these men have pedophilic desires, they find themselves in a position to potentially act on them and are enticed to do so.
But they never actually harm a child. One could assume that without provocation most of these men would never have acted upon their perverse attractions.Law enforcement stings of this type are becoming more popular throughout our country. In some cities, there are officers who go undercover and pose as couples and park in front of a convenience mart or such and leave their car running while they go inside. Sometimes someone will take the bait and get into the car and attempt to drive off. This is when tens of police swarm and arrest the perpetrator.
It's bad enough that people who are provoked into crime are being punished in place of the opposite. And these sorts of sting operations beg questions from the public like: Don't our law enforcement agencies have anything better to do than to trick people into committing crimes? Aren't there enough criminals out there, ones who don't need to be tempted into crimes by undercover officers, to arrest?
The answer to those questions presumably is that stings of this type are feel-good operations for police. They get to go out there into the criminal element and get their hands dirty. They play the role and at the end of the day they're the good guys. They can actively feel like they made a difference and were able to get one more criminal off the streets.
Never mind they might have caught someone who may have gone their entire life without committing a crime of that nature. That without that one single perfect instance that the police have created and provided for them the person may have remained completely law-abiding. But since they actually did commit the crime, regardless of police involvement, they can be prosecuted.
Whether you agree with that reasoning or not there is something more sinister to Xavier Von Erck's Perverted Justice group and their new affiliates NBC and MSNBC. With shows like To Catch A Predator the networks have proven that there is a profit to be made off of the depiction of the bait and then capture of these men. Even our local Fox affiliate news station here in Portland, Fox12, has teamed up with Perverted Justice to produce segments in their evening news that boils down to nothing short of petty harassment.
In these segments called "Operation Cyber Sting" a Fox12 news crew will be waiting with police at a decoy home and when the man is arrested he is forced in front of bright lights and cameras as a reporter attempts to interview them about the offense. This is when the departure from criminal justice into irresponsible and distasteful entertainment occurs.
Whether Perverted Justice was started with the best intentions or not is irrelevant. Its message has been corrupted and perverted by money. Xavier Von Erck, a man who admits to not liking children at all, could be commended by his intentions but should instead be ashamed for what his organization, through affiliation with NBC and others, has devolved into.
A profit should not be derived from the capture of criminals, especially when the moralistic lines can be so differently interpreted. These operations, in the views of many, are blurring the lines between true guilt and intention. Not only that but they compromise our justice system's founding belief that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Believe it or not there was a time when integrity used to be valued more highly than money. But those days are apparently long since dead.
{OUCH!!! There have been several articles over the past weeks and months that are growing downright "Hostile" toward "Baron von geek" and his band of merry pranksters at perverted Justice.
I guess suicide and lawsuits are not the stuff of "must see TV"? Is this yet more evidence that the "sex offender" ratings boom is coming to an end?
When Journalist turns on Journalist/entertainer have we reached some crossroads? NBC has been paying out Millions to advertiser's because of recent low ratings. I bet there have been more than a few meetings that discuss how they want to do more stings with PJ to change the trend but they are now forced to weigh that against pending and potential lawsuits and at least one suicide.
PJ has thrived by hiding out on the net as they attack from a distance. The problem is that many people are now standing up to their tactics and flushing the "cyber troll's" out of their hiding places and holding them accountable thru lawsuit's civil and criminal. PJ's leader "Baron von geek" does not do well in an open forum.
He prefers to attack anyone that oppose's or even questions him about his tactic's on a personal level thru the internet away from the preying eyes of the law or the general public. He will send out his minion's to post flyers in your community that proclaim that you are a pedohile.
They will call and harass your place of employment as well as any friends and/or family that they can track down in order to silence you. Can anyone else smell the fear in the air?
More and more media outlets are coming out against PJ as well as some very courageous advocates that have had to suffer thru the PJ attack machine if they "DARE" to question the tactics or methods of Perverted Justice.
It's like watching a cornered animal lash out in desperation. Baron von nerd is not a confident childrens advocate he behaves like a spoiled child who's every whim has been indulged but now has to make his own way in the real world.}
http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2007/02/16/Opinion/Perverted.Justice-2724679.shtml
NH "JUST SAY'S NO" TO DO NOTHING RSO RESIDENCY PROP
Aldermen reject sex-offender housing ban
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Manchester – Aldermen yesterday said no to a proposal that would have banned registered sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places frequented by children.
The measure was unanimously rejected by the Public Safety, Health and Traffic Committee at the urging of the city's police department.
Deputy Police Chief Marc Lussier and officers in the juvenile division argued the restrictions would not prevent offenders from committing another crime, and could drive some offenders into homelessness.
"Having residency restrictions is not going to be the answer," Sgt. Scott Fuller said.
Leo Pepino, the former alderman who has lobbied hard for a measure that would keep offenders away from children, said he plans to take the fight directly to the full Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
"I'll keep working to get a couple more (votes)," he said yesterday.
The committee's vote was yet another defeat for anti-crime activists who hope to restrict the number of places where registered sex offenders can live. A similar proposal in Nashua was recently vetoed by the outgoing mayor, Bernie Streeter.
At least five communities in New Hampshire have adopted residency restrictions in recent years. Officials in Derry have said they would consider a proposal to keep offenders out of certain neighborhoods after it was revealed a man convicted many years ago of killing a child was living near a school. The man has since moved out of the state.
Pepino said the scare in Derry should convince people that restrictions are needed.
"If they had had a residency (restriction) like this, he wouldn't have been there in the first place," Pepino told the aldermen.
Roughly 300 sex offenders on the state's registry are living in Manchester, police said. Fuller said the department currently requires each offender to come by the station twice a year to update his or her registration.
In addition, he said, officers in the juvenile division try to stop by each offender's home as many as three or four times each year to confirm he or she is living at the listed address.
With a compliance rate of 97 percent, Fuller said, "the current system is working." Police say as much as 90 to 95 percent of all sexual assaults are committed by people who know the victim.
In seven years with the juvenile division, Fuller said, no more than four convicted offenders were arrested for committing another sex crime. In all cases, he said, the victim was known to the assailant.
"There are very few stranger attacks, per se," he said.
All five members of the public safety committee voted to receive and file. Members are Bill Shea, Russ Ouellette, Dan O'Neil, Jim Roy and Peter Sullivan.
"I don't think the citizens and young people of Manchester can be protected more than what our police department is already doing," O'Neil said.
Committee members said they hope to find extra money for the police department, so officers can do more compliance checks than they already do. Fuller said the department currently averages about 15 compliance checks a week, depending on its case load.
{Well the tide is definitly starting to turn. Small towns with small budgets and small police forces all across the country have had to do the math as they are faced with passing costly proposals.
The problem is they simply cannot afford to "grandstand" so that some alderman can get re elected. Also in some "rare" instances the small town city counsel actually goes to the sheriff or chief and ask, what do you think? This kind of small town government has to be efficient.
They have the facts and statistics now in regards to RSO recidivism as well as the opinion of their town sheriff, then they weigh the facts against whatever political gain might be achieved come re election time then they add the cost of implementing a program that will do absolutely "NOTHING" to protect anyone from anything.
More and more RSO restrictions are going down in flames in small town's that have to face facts. The RSO political "goldmine" has finally tapped out and the vacuum will slowly have to be filled with common sense and truth.
My local sheriff's deputy thinks that the RSO laws make no sense however the state's sheriff's association endorsed the passing of the AWA act. Was my deputy in the minority? I am afraid that the answer can be found if you simply follow the money.
The AWA act could potentially lead to the hiring of hundreds of extra sheriff's throught the state which means more influence and power at the state level not to mention a growing union base and a larger slice of the budget pie.
It has nothing to do with the opinions of the deputy's that are charged with enforcement and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children safer.
It's to bad that the taxpayers of my state have to pick up the tab for politicians that are far from the cutting edge when it comes to programs that waste money and accomplish nothing. The Political gold has panned out but their just to far behind the curve to see it.}
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Aldermen+reject+sex-offender+housing+ban&articleId=f989f87b-ee21-42f2-93a4-0de7bba7035e
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Manchester – Aldermen yesterday said no to a proposal that would have banned registered sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places frequented by children.
The measure was unanimously rejected by the Public Safety, Health and Traffic Committee at the urging of the city's police department.
Deputy Police Chief Marc Lussier and officers in the juvenile division argued the restrictions would not prevent offenders from committing another crime, and could drive some offenders into homelessness.
"Having residency restrictions is not going to be the answer," Sgt. Scott Fuller said.
Leo Pepino, the former alderman who has lobbied hard for a measure that would keep offenders away from children, said he plans to take the fight directly to the full Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
"I'll keep working to get a couple more (votes)," he said yesterday.
The committee's vote was yet another defeat for anti-crime activists who hope to restrict the number of places where registered sex offenders can live. A similar proposal in Nashua was recently vetoed by the outgoing mayor, Bernie Streeter.
At least five communities in New Hampshire have adopted residency restrictions in recent years. Officials in Derry have said they would consider a proposal to keep offenders out of certain neighborhoods after it was revealed a man convicted many years ago of killing a child was living near a school. The man has since moved out of the state.
Pepino said the scare in Derry should convince people that restrictions are needed.
"If they had had a residency (restriction) like this, he wouldn't have been there in the first place," Pepino told the aldermen.
Roughly 300 sex offenders on the state's registry are living in Manchester, police said. Fuller said the department currently requires each offender to come by the station twice a year to update his or her registration.
In addition, he said, officers in the juvenile division try to stop by each offender's home as many as three or four times each year to confirm he or she is living at the listed address.
With a compliance rate of 97 percent, Fuller said, "the current system is working." Police say as much as 90 to 95 percent of all sexual assaults are committed by people who know the victim.
In seven years with the juvenile division, Fuller said, no more than four convicted offenders were arrested for committing another sex crime. In all cases, he said, the victim was known to the assailant.
"There are very few stranger attacks, per se," he said.
All five members of the public safety committee voted to receive and file. Members are Bill Shea, Russ Ouellette, Dan O'Neil, Jim Roy and Peter Sullivan.
"I don't think the citizens and young people of Manchester can be protected more than what our police department is already doing," O'Neil said.
Committee members said they hope to find extra money for the police department, so officers can do more compliance checks than they already do. Fuller said the department currently averages about 15 compliance checks a week, depending on its case load.
{Well the tide is definitly starting to turn. Small towns with small budgets and small police forces all across the country have had to do the math as they are faced with passing costly proposals.
The problem is they simply cannot afford to "grandstand" so that some alderman can get re elected. Also in some "rare" instances the small town city counsel actually goes to the sheriff or chief and ask, what do you think? This kind of small town government has to be efficient.
They have the facts and statistics now in regards to RSO recidivism as well as the opinion of their town sheriff, then they weigh the facts against whatever political gain might be achieved come re election time then they add the cost of implementing a program that will do absolutely "NOTHING" to protect anyone from anything.
More and more RSO restrictions are going down in flames in small town's that have to face facts. The RSO political "goldmine" has finally tapped out and the vacuum will slowly have to be filled with common sense and truth.
My local sheriff's deputy thinks that the RSO laws make no sense however the state's sheriff's association endorsed the passing of the AWA act. Was my deputy in the minority? I am afraid that the answer can be found if you simply follow the money.
The AWA act could potentially lead to the hiring of hundreds of extra sheriff's throught the state which means more influence and power at the state level not to mention a growing union base and a larger slice of the budget pie.
It has nothing to do with the opinions of the deputy's that are charged with enforcement and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children safer.
It's to bad that the taxpayers of my state have to pick up the tab for politicians that are far from the cutting edge when it comes to programs that waste money and accomplish nothing. The Political gold has panned out but their just to far behind the curve to see it.}
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Aldermen+reject+sex-offender+housing+ban&articleId=f989f87b-ee21-42f2-93a4-0de7bba7035e
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Lest We Never Forget
Liberty is Never Completely Free
