1-9-7 National:
In the past few years, inequality perpetuated through the US carceral system has become a common topic of discussion and debate amongst academics, politicians, and the general public. Perhaps nowhere are these debates more salient than in the state of California, which houses the largest incarcerated population in the United States. In the most recent election, five out of 18 California ballot propositions addressed topics directly or indirectly related to incarceration; including the death penalty, felony sentencing, and ammunition possession. It seems we may finally be ready to talk about our prison problem.
Yet, as we begin to creep forward, and as we were reminded in the recent Presidential election, progress always has its limits. In my own research on incarceration and the law, I have found that these limits often lie in the regulation of sex offenders. Even as we reduce sentencing for drug, firearm possession, and other crimes, sex offender laws in the United States continue to expand and become more severe.
Since the 1996 passage of “Megan’s Law,” for example, all 50 states require sex offenders–including juveniles in 37 states–to register and provide their personal information (including pictures and home addresses) on publicly available databases, often for the duration of their lives.
Most of these registries do not differentiate between the severity of different sexual crimes—in other words, someone could be on the registry if they drunkenly urinate in public, or if they rape someone—yet clearly these crimes have different implications. Perhaps of even greater consequence than the registries themselves are the restrictions on work, travel, use of the internet, and housing that come along with sex offender registration. As the result of these restrictions, convicted sex offenders often wind up jobless and homeless, sometimes even mandated to live on the street. ..Continued.. by Rebecca DiBennardo, PhD Candidate, UCLA Sociology
January 9, 2017
Sex offenders are among the most harshly punished criminals in the state, but how often does the punishment fit the crime?
October 27, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to consider reviewing North Carolina
7 PM UPDATE: US Supreme court WILL REVIEW NC case!10-27-16 Washington DC, North Carolina:
The U.S. Supreme Court will
The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a state law in November that prohibits registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. In Packingham v. North Carolina, Lester Gerard Parkingham Jr., a registered sex offender in the state, was charged after Durham police found a Facebook page he created. He was convicted based on a post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”
If the Supreme Court took the case, it would determine the constitutionality of the law that makes it a felony for all registered sex offenders to access such sites, including YouTube and nytimes.com. ..Source.. by Melissa Boughton
October 21, 2016
Illinois Supreme Court upholds sex offender internet law
See also: Supreme Court reverses ruling on sex offender's internet use also: A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech10-21-16 Illinois:
SPRINGFIELD — A ruling by a McLean County judge that the state's sex offender registration mandate is unconstitutional has been reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court.
In a ruling released Thursday, the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Robert Freitag's July 2015 decision that a requirement that sex offenders report all internet sites they use violates their free speech rights.
Mark Minnis, 23, of Normal is charged with failure to register his home address with local police, missing the deadline by three days in August 2014. As part of his registration requirement, he disclosed two email addresses but did not list a Facebook and eBay account he uses, according to court documents.
Minnis' defense lawyer Stephanie Wong argued to Freitag that the law needs to be "more narrowly tailored" to protect a sex offender's free speech rights.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court decision, finding that the internet disclosure requirement "is tailored to avoid chilling more speech than necessary, or in other words, to lessen the number of unconstitutional applications."
The Supreme Court decision comes in response to an appeal of Freitag's ruling by the state.
In May arguments to the Supreme Court, Assistant Attorney General Joshue Schneider said the disclosure of online identities used by offenders and the forums they visit is needed "to protect the public from recidivist sex offenders."
The internet must be closely monitored by authorities, Schneider said, to make certain offenders are not taking advantage of potential victims.
Online venues "allow people to interact less cautiously," said the state prosecutor, adding that "the risks are magnified in some respects online."
Daaron Kimmell with the Office of State Appellate Defender, countered that free speech rights are lost in the enforcement of the statute that "bars free speech for too many people who present little or no risk." An evaluation of sex offenders, including offenders such as Minnis who were juveniles when the sex crime occurred, could more adequately determine a person's risk to offend again, Kimmell said.
The defense lawyer called Minnis' case "a great demonstration of how this system can go wrong."
Joining the defense with supporting briefs in favor of Freitag's interpretation was the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit group concerned with free speech and privacy in the digital world.
Minnis' case was sent back to the local court for proceedings that were put on hold after Freitag's ruling. ..Source.. by EDITH BRADY-LUNNY Lee News Service Writer
The case is People v. Mark Minnis, No. 119563.
October 9, 2016
Sex-offender registry adds costs without protecting public
10-9-16 South Carolina:
Columbia, SC Last month, a new chapter was written in one of America’s oldest real-life murder mysteries. The body of 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling was finally found, 27 years after his abduction. Jacob’s gun-point abduction shocked the nation and spawned a network of state sex-offender registries, South Carolina’s among them. But extensive research since then has raised serious questions about the effectiveness of such measures.
Jacob’s mother, Patty, lobbied Congress to pass the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, the same year the S.C. Legislature established a state registry. Since then, lawmakers have added layer upon layer of ever more burdensome requirements.
These laws are almost always trumpeted as “protecting children” and regularly cite the claim that “sex offenders often pose a high risk of re-offending” (S.C. Code of Laws, 23-3-400). However, a steadily growing body of evidence demonstrates that this premise is simply not true and that our sex-offender laws in fact do very little to protect children.
South Carolina now has more than 14,000 citizens on the registry; probably fewer than a thousand of those pose any real risk to the public. But you can’t identify them because the registry is cluttered with thousands of people whose crimes were committed decades ago, teens who had sex with other teens and countless minor offenses. Tier assignments confuse the issue further, giving the illusion of identifying the riskier registrants although they are unrelated to the risk of re-offense. ..Continued.. by Don Thurber
September 16, 2016
Pa. Supreme Court Further Restricts Sex Offender Registry
See also: A deal is a deal: Pa. Supreme Court blocks retroactive registration boosts for sex offenders9-16-2016 Pennsylvania:
The remains of Jacob Wetterling, abducted from a rural road in Minnesota 27 years ago, were found this month.
The abduction of the 11-year-old boy led to the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which required states to maintain sex offender registries and establish guidelines for the registries.
In October 1989, Wetterling was bicycling with his brother and a friend to a store near St. Joseph, Minnesota. During the ride, an armed man wearing a nylon mask abducted Wetterling. Investigators later learned that halfway houses in St. Joseph housed sex offenders after their release from prison. The Jacob Wetterling Act required states, including Pennsylvania, to establish stringent registration programs for sex offenders—including lifetime registration for certain offenders. The registration of sex offenders in Pennsylvania, known as Megan's Law, has had a tumultuous existence, including a number of revisions to comply with several successful challenges before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Last month, the state's high court further refined the state's sex offender registry. The Supreme Court made a ruling that will have an impact on determining which sex offenders will be considered lifetime registrants. The court narrowed the ability of the authorities to designate an offender as a lifetime registrant as the result of being convicted of multiple sex offenses in a single incident.
The history of Megan's Law is long and at times confusing. In 1995, Gov. Tom Ridge signed into law what has commonly been referred to as Megan's Law. Following its enactment there were several amendments to the law as a result of court decisions.
About a decade later, Gov. Ed Rendell signed into law Senate Bill No. 92, making significant changes to Megan's Law. Most notably, information on all registered sexual offenders would now be available to the public through the internet. Then in 2012, Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law Senate Bill No. 1183. The law also known as the "Adam Walsh Bill," brought the state into compliance with The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Pennsylvania joined a coordinated and comprehensive national sex offender registry.
Under the new law—known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)—registrants will be placed in one of three tiers based on their underlying offenses.
• Tier I. Registration for 15 years with required annual in-person reporting to the Pennsylvania state police and updated photograph.
• Tier II. Registration for 25 years with semiannual reporting requirements.
• Tier III. Registration for life with in-person reporting every three months.
There is a mandatory minimum sentence of two or three years in prison for the first failure to report and a five-year prison sentence for the first failure to provide accurate information to the state police.
The law also required that two or more convictions of Tier I offense would bump the offender to Tier III or lifetime registration.
The Supreme Court's decision last month will have a significant impact on which tier a sex offender will be assigned. The decision will also impact how prosecutors approach plea negotiating with sex offenders and the way defense attorneys explain to their clients the collateral consequence of a conviction.
In A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. 2016), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Kevin M. Dougherty held that "the statute SORNA 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9799.10-9799.41 requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise triggering a 10-year period of registration." ..Continue Sub.. by Matthew T. Mangino, The Legal Intelligencer
September 14, 2016
Michigan: Court goofed and should reopen sex offender case
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The attorney general's office is asking a federal appeals court to reopen a dispute over Michigan's sex-offender registry.
The court recently said Michigan is illegally treating many sex offenders as "moral lepers" by putting additional restrictions on them long after their convictions. But in a new filing, the state says the court overlooked a key decision from 2007 that should have led to a different result.
Before saying the 2007 TN case would change the court's decision, one has to compare the 2007 TN registry requirements with the MI amendments (made in 2006 and harsher ones in 2011).It's a case about electronic monitoring of sex offenders in Tennessee, a retroactive policy that was upheld by the court. The state admits that its lawyers also overlooked that decision.
In 2006, Michigan lawmakers restricted people from being near schools. More restrictions followed.
Miriam Aukerman of the American Civil Liberties Union says the appeals court rightly found Michigan's registry is "ineffective and unconstitutional." ..Source.. by Staff
Michigan asks federal court to revise opinion on sex offender registry rules
The state of Michigan wants a federal appeals court to take a second look at an opinion on the state's sex offender registry.
The U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion Aug. 25 saying Michigan's sex offender registry rules cannot be applied retroactively to thousands of sex offenders. The state Attorney General and Solicitor General offices filed a Sept. 8 request with the federal appeals court for a second opinion.
The original opinion said it's unconstitutional to impose new restrictions on people convicted before the state's registry law was updated in 2006 and in 2011.
Michigan began prohibiting registrants from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school in 2006. Five years later, lawmakers added requirements that offenders be divided into three tiers based on the seriousness of their crimes.
"The State seeks a panel rehearing to correct an error of law and to bring to this Court's attention a prior published and on-point opinion by this Court," the Sept. 8 filing states, claiming the court's opinion is in conflict with the 2007 case, Doe v. Bredesen.
The court held in that case that "continuous GPS monitoring and retroactive reclassification of an offender as a 'violent sexual offender' were not punitive and thus did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, using reasoning that is in strong tension with and in places contradicts this Court's August 25 opinion," the Sept. 8 filing reads.
A court battle on the issue began in 2015 in Michigan when the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Gov. Rick Snyder and Michigan State Police Director Col. Kriste Etue in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan.
The suit lists plaintiffs "John Does #1-5" and "Mary Doe" and claims the Sex Offender Registry rules had a significant impact on them.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland ruled last year that the changes made in 2006 and 2011 could be imposed retroactively. He ruled other portions of the law unconstitutional, but the 6th Circuit didn't rule on those provisions.
The August opinion sided with the ACLU.
"(Sex Offender Registry Act) brands registrants as moral lepers solely on the basis of a prior conviction," the panel's August opinion reads.
"It consigns them to years, if not a lifetime, of existence on the margins, not only of society, but often, as the record in this case makes painfully evident, from their own families, with whom, due to school zone restrictions, they may not even live."
For example, the August opinion states, some of the plaintiffs have had trouble finding a home in which they can legally live or a job where they can legally work, and the rules keep them from watching their children or grandchildren participate in school sports or other events, and from visiting playgrounds with them for fear of loitering.
The plaintiffs in the case, all of whom must register for life and some of whose offenses are decades old, include several convicted as teens of consensual sex with younger teens, the ACLU said.
"As the founders rightly perceived, as dangerous as it may be not to punish someone, it is far more dangerous to permit the government under guise of civil regulation to punish people without prior notice," the Aug. 25 opinion reads.
The case was argued in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January and the August ruling reversed that of the lower court.
Miriam Aukerman, an attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, described the court's August ruling as confirmation that the state's registry system is a failure.
"It turns out that an ineffective registry and an unconstitutional registry are the same thing," she said. "Both squander resources on those who aren't dangerous."
According to the ACLU, Michigan has more than 42,000 registrants, making it the fourth largest registry in the country, with the second highest registration rate per capita of any state. by Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com
September 7, 2016
Sex offender laws and the 6th Circuit’s Ex Post Facto Clause ruling
I wanted to add a few words to co-blogger Jonathan Adler’s posting about the recent 6th Circuit decision in Doe v. Snyder, in which the court voided application of the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on the grounds that it imposes retroactive punishment on previously convicted sex offenders in violation of the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws.
The decision is an especially important one, possibly signaling, in Mark Stern’s words over on Slate, that “the judiciary has finally begun to view draconian sex offender laws as the unconstitutional monstrosities they obviously are.”
Here’s the case, in a nutshell. The Michigan SORA is typical of the schemes in place in all of the 50 states. Beginning in the mid-’90s, states (with federal encouragement and financial assistance) began requiring all those who had been convicted at any point in the past of having committed a “sex offense” — typically defined, as in the federal statute (42 USC 16911), as “a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another”** — to provide a wide range of identifying information (names, addresses, places of employment, schools being attended, vehicle make and model, etc.) to law enforcement officials. This information was then placed in state-operated, publicly accessible sex offender registry databases. ..Continued.. by David Post
August 28, 2016
10 years after sex offender murders, questions linger about registry
One morning in March, Bangor police Detective Jeremy Brock and Officer Dustin Dow made their rounds. Two of their stops included the Ranger Inn on outer Hammond Street and a boarding house on Union Street.
Each week, Brock usually spends a day on such visits, checking that the 120 or so registered sex offenders in Bangor are living where they have said they’re living.
At the motel, the registrants they sought weren’t there. At the boarding house, the officers found a half-dozen registrants, most of whom were home and in compliance.
One registrant had moved from the second floor to the third but hadn’t re-registered. Brock sent him to the police station to change his address.
Occasionally, Brock finds that a registrant has used a fake address. Brock and Dow spent some time searching for 247 Center St., only to find no building with that number.
The detective rarely visits a registrant’s workplace.
During his compliance checks, Brock makes calls to the registry in Augusta to see whether his information matches state files. He maintains his own list, which is not public, with names and addresses of Bangor registrants.
Most often, they match.
“What we do ensures accountability,” Brock says. “As long as they are accountable, they can live their lives. A majority are no problem, but there are about 10 percent who have trouble turning their paperwork in on time.”
Brock’s routine is similar to actions other Maine police have taken since 2003, when the state’s sex offender registry first went online.
Then, as now, the online registry includes the name, birthdate, photo, town of residence, employer, college (if the registrant is a student) and the crimes for which they were convicted, whether in Maine or elsewhere.
Little has changed in the registry despite the events of 10 years ago, when two Maine men listed on the registry were murdered by someone they never had met in the early morning hours of Easter Sunday, April 16, 2006.
In the aftermath of the murders, Maine weighed questions of balancing the aims of the registry — protecting children from pedophiles — with the suddenly real prospect of having people who had served their conviction becoming targets of vigilante violence. Debate continues to this day.
Victims of sexual assault support online registries in the name of public safety. Experts and lawmakers say there is scarce evidence that registries serve to prevent future crimes. And registrants decry the listing as dehumanizing and isolating while also putting their safety at risk.
“The registry is an important piece to have in place,” Elizabeth Ward Saxl, executive director of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, says. “Every state has one, and if they didn’t, one state could become a haven for sexual offenders. The challenge is that we don’t have the research that tells us it significantly improves public safety.”
The online version of the Maine Sex Offender Registry was unveiled Dec. 1, 2003, and listed about 1,200 names of people convicted after June 30, 1992.
In announcing the website, then-Maine Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara noted, “it’s a violation of law to use the registry to harass anyone who appears in the database,” adding, “I think we can count on Maine people to act responsibly when given this information.”
By April 2006, when a troubled young Canadian named Stephen Marshall used the registry to find and murder Joseph Gray, 57, and William Elliott, 24, in their Maine homes, the two men were among 2,500 people listed.
Despite an extensive investigation, Marshall’s motive for the killings remains a mystery.
He crossed the border to visit his father in Houlton on Thursday, April 13, 2006. Then, either late Saturday or early Sunday, he slipped out a window with a rifle, two handguns and his laptop and drove away in his father’s silver Toyota pickup.
He stopped at the homes of four registrants before pulling into Gray’s driveway in Milo. At about 3 a.m., Marshall sprayed seven bullets through Gray’s living room window, killing him while his wife looked on in horror.
Five hours later, Marshall knocked on the front door of Elliott’s mobile home in Corinth. When Elliott answered, Marshall shot and killed him.
Later, Marshall apparently abandoned the pickup and rifle at Sawyer Arena in Bangor and then boarded a southbound bus at a downtown station.
At about 7:30 p.m, the police, scrambling to follow Marshall’s trail of clues, stopped the bus on a ramp leading to Interstate 90, a short distance from Boston’s South Station.
Marshall, sitting quietly about 13 rows behind the bus driver, shot himself with the same .45-caliber handgun he used to kill Gray and Elliott. On his laptop, Marshall had compiled a list of 32 names and addresses from the sex offender registry — including those of his victims.
Later, what came to be called “The Sex Offender Murders” sparked an emotional debate about the registry on how much information should be made public and for what types of crimes.
—
State Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, was chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee after the Marshall murders. That committee reviewed several proposed changes to the criminal code and sex offender registry
The longtime legislator and teacher also introduced more than 50 bills dealing with sex crimes and the registry.
Maine’s initial registry was simple, he said. In 1992, the law required those convicted of gross sexual assault against victims under 16 to register for 15 years.
But over the years, said Diamond, the registry has evolved into a complex system that determines how long an individual must register based on the age of the victim at the time of the offense, the nature of the crime and when it was committed.
In 1992, when the registry was created, a conviction for one crime required an offender to register. Today, 83 state and about a dozen federal crimes require a person to be listed on the sex offender registry.
In his 2012 book about sex crimes and the registry, “The Evil and the Innocent,” Diamond wrote that what started as “a well-crafted law” in Maine had become “twisted with unrealistic expectations, cumbersome regulations and too many federal interventions.”
The most demanding of those, according to Diamond, is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Named for famed “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh’s child, who was abducted and murdered in 1991, the law required each state to use a three-tiered system that requires registration for 15 years, 25 years or life, depending on the crimes and ages of the victims.
It was implemented fully in Maine at the end of 2013, in all aspects but one. Maine’s registry does not list juveniles unless they were convicted as adults. Listing juveniles goes against the juvenile justice system’s goal of rehabilitation, according to Diamond.
Along with scope, the expense and reach of the registry has also increased over the years. In 2015, the Maine registry was visited 1.5 million times and 4.7 million searches were completed.
The registry’s personnel cost is about $250,000 per year, according to Matthew Ruel, who heads the Maine State Bureau of Identification. That funds a staff of four people at the Department of Public Safety who work full time with the Maine State Police and local law enforcement agencies to make sure sex offenders are following the rules.
Legal changes have caused the total number of registrants in Maine to fluctuate. In 2009, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found a 2005 law making the registry retroactive to 1982 was unconstitutional. The court, however, did not address whether the registry itself was constitutional.
As a result, in 2010, people sentenced for crimes that required registration between Jan. 1, 1982, and June 30, 1992, were allowed to request their names be removed, dropping the total number of registrants from its all-time high in 2009 — 3,352 — to 2,956 in 2010.
Then, in a rare 4-3 decision in 2013, the court declared the registry was constitutional while also further narrowing retroactive registration. As a result, registration fell from 3,176 in 2014 to 2,841 in 2015.
Despite all the changes to the registry, the additional laws and increased enforcement, many observers say evidence the sex offender registry significantly improves public safety is lacking.
Last year, Andrew Harris, associate professor of criminology and justice studies at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, was awarded a $1 million grant from the National Institute of Justice to study sex offender registration and notification systems and how they operate.
It will be the first comprehensive, national assessment of how registry systems operate, how the information is translated into the realm of public safety and how the information is used by law enforcement and the public.
“I’m not convinced that alone the sex offender registries have a uniform impact,” Harris said in an interview. “You have to look at registries as part of a larger context that includes treatment, probation, supervised release and community support.”
“I think the registries have value,” he added. “But their public safety impact is more subtle than people think.”
—
The impact on registrants’ lives is not as subtle, according to some.
Augusta attorney Jim Mitchell, who represented 43 men who sued and won over being listed retroactively, said though the courts have said being on the registry is not a penalty, “it sure feels like one to them.”
“Well-rounded, happy citizens typically don’t get convicted of being sex offenders,” Mitchell said. “So, you start with people who are already a little bit outside the norm, and then you brand them and you publish it on the Internet and they can never be anonymous.”
“They have a very difficult time getting work and finding a place to live and getting along in society,” he said. “The question in my mind is what benefit does the public get in bringing that pain and harm on them?”
Failing to register is a crime, with penalties — for repeat offenses — of up to 10 years in prison. Yet law enforcement says finding offenders who failed to register is largely the exception, not the rule.
Ruell estimated between 2 and 5 percent of registrants fail to follow the rules. Brock, the Bangor detective, said he usually issues noncompliant registrants a court summons instead of arresting them.
State and federal law require law enforcement to notify communities when a sex offender moves into a town or neighborhood, but notifications are handled differently.
Most large cities and towns consider the listing on the sex offender registry as notification. Some small towns take additional steps: East Millinocket police Chief Cameron McDunnah, for example, has gone door to door delivering fliers and put a notice in an area weekly paper to let residents know a sex offender has registered in town.
Some fear the registry can deflect attention from real dangers.
The list may give the public some comfort about dangerous strangers, according to Ward Saxl, but statistically these are not the people most likely to sexually abuse a child. About 80 percent of sexual assaults are committed by relative or another person the victims know.
“It’s much easier to focus on the few offenders on the registry in your town and not focus on the fact that your next-door neighbor, uncle, soccer coach may in fact be a sex offender who’s not on the registry,” she said. ..Source.. by Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
October 27, 2015
Convicted NH Prep School Rapist Loses Bid to Bypass Sex Offender Registry
I can't believe a lawyer actually said what is reported here!10-27-15 New Hampshire:
Convicted NH preppie Owen Labrie didn’t want to have to add his name to the nation’s sex offender registry, like every other common rapist has to do.
Following the 19-year-old’s guilty sentence this summer on multiple counts of sexually molesting a minor at his elite preparatory school in Concord, he appealed the ‘luring’ by computer charge.
That one constituted a felony and therefore required him to be forever flagged as a risk to public safety on state and federal Registered Sex Offender lists which virtually anyone anywhere can access.
Labrie’s lawyers contended that both the computer conviction and RSO penalty was unjust because the law was intended for “older” offenders, not an upperclassman using technology to entice and rape an under-aged classmate.
The appellate didn’t agree though, pointing out in upholding Labrie’s felony-luring charge that he was legally an adult at the time of his “Senior Salute” assault of a 15-year-old child.
The court was likewise unsympathetic to his desire to remain an anonymous sexual predator once he completes his sentence, and reiterated there would be no exception made in the requirement that he register as such “for life.”
Prosecutors successfully defended the felony conviction, and argued that the added RSO punishment fit the crime Owen Labrie perpetrated last year against a freshman girl at prestigious Saint Paul’s School in Concord, NH:
“He used the Internet to exploit [victim's] youth and innocence in an attempt to lure her into sexual activities,” they firmly restated.
Labrie’s next legal strategy will be to obtain a probationary sentence -- as opposed to a possible 11 years in prison -- which will ideally be served in the form of a house arrest at his parent’s Vermont estate.
The prosecution, however, has already advised the court on at least one occasion that the affluent defendant is a “flight risk.” ..Source.. by Eponymous Rox
October 7, 2015
Keep Kids Off the Sex Offender Registry
10-7-15 National:
It’s time to rethink the wisdom of including juveniles on sex offender registries. There is abundant evidence—reviewed in a new paper from my organization (That article is nested below this one here) —that the social costs far outweigh the benefits.
Starting in the early 1990s, all 50 states and the federal government began setting up public sex offender registries. Today, 40 of them include people adjudicated juvenile delinquent. People on registries face any number of challenges, including severe restrictions dictating where they can live, where they can work, and whom they have to inform.
The social benefits of the registration process, to the extent that they exist, are mainly limited to a small deterrent effect, estimated to be about a one-eighth reduction in sex offense recidivism among those who committed offenses as juveniles. But scholar Richard Belzer, who conducted our study, finds the net social costs are between $40 million and $1 billion a year.
When it comes to notification laws, the evidence is even starker. There are no identifiable social benefits to applying notification laws to those who committed offenses as juveniles, while the social costs range from $400 million to $2 billion per year.
Registration and notification laws are meant to protect the people who live in the same community as the registered offender. But ironically, Belzer found these are the people who bear the brunt of the cost of these laws. When it comes to notification laws, neighbors are actually saddled with three-quarters of the social costs. Property values and rental rates go down, schools must shoulder greater responsibilities, and businesses suffer.
For some recidivist pedophiles, these restrictions may make sense. But they’re not sensible for those tried in juvenile court. While there certainly are teenagers who commit real sex crimes, they’re probably a minority of those who end up on registries. Many are teens who were found to have had consensual sex with other teens. Others end up on registries for minor misdeeds like streaking or exchanging nude selfies, leading to charges of child pornography.
We aren’t suggesting that registration laws be done away with altogether. But there are steps we can take from an economic efficiency perspective to lower the social costs incurred.
Ideally, we should exempt juveniles from the registry laws altogether. In addition, we should retroactively remove registrants from the list who committed crimes that would not have landed them on there today. It’s important to note that many jurisdictions already take extensive steps to keep juveniles off the registry. Those who were listed before these more relaxed policies were implemented should see the same consideration today.
Finally, even if states feel they must continue juvenile registration, judges should at least consider granting stays of notification pending future good conduct. Recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders are so low that they’re statistically indistinguishable from zero in many cases. Stays of notification would be cheap, easy, and require no changes in most state laws.
The juvenile justice system is based on second chances. In theory, its sanctions are supposed to be levied in the best interests of the accused. Requiring lifelong registration for juvenile offenders is economically inefficient. In addition, it undermines the ideals of forgiveness, second chances, and rehabilitation that are supposed to sit at the heart of juvenile justice. ..Source.. by Eli Lehrer
The costs and benefits of subjecting juveniles to sex-offender registration and notification (The FULL REPORT)
Every state and territory in the United States has registration and notification laws that apply to adults convicted of, and juveniles adjudicated delinquent for, certain sex offenses. Most jurisdictions enacted these laws on their own, but expanded them in response to the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (AWA).
Registration laws require offenders to appear in person to provide identifying information (e.g., fingerprints, DNA samples) and, at least once a year, to provide an updated current photograph. States vary with respect to the kinds of additional information they require, but the list is extensive. An in-person update also is required for any covered change in life circumstances. These include changes in residential, school, work or email addresses, screen names and even blog avatars.
The time allowed to complete each update is short. Failure to register or update an existing registration is itself a felony. Offenders may be covered by multiple states, each with its own rules and procedures. Notification laws make some of this information publicly available via the Internet.
Registration is calculated to produce about $200 million in social benefits per year. Social costs are calculated to range from $200 million to $2 billion, depending on the proportion of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. Thus, net benefits are calculated to range from -$40 million to -$1 billion per year, with present-value net benefits that range from -$2 billion to -$20 billion. This result depends on a small number of parameters. First, based on the best available study in the literature, which applies to all sex offenders and not just juveniles, registration is assumed to have reduced sex-offense recidivism by about one-eighth. This translates into an annual reduction of about 800 major sex offenses committed by juveniles.
Notification is estimated to produce no social benefits, with social costs per-year that range from $10 billion to $40 billion and present-value costs that range from -$100 billion to -$600 billion. About three-fourths of these costs are borne by sex offenders’ neighbors. This occurs because living near a registered sex offender – whether an adult or juvenile – has a substantial “disamenity” value. Costs imposed on juvenile offenders are calculated to range from $400 million to $2 billion per year. Costs on their families are calculated to add another 50 percent to these amounts. Additional costs on third parties are calculated as: $3 billion per year on employers for registry searches; $100-$500 million on employers for adaption and mitigation of employment issues; and $200 million to $1 billion on the public for registry searches.
Because notification cannot produce net benefits, the qualitative prospective benefit-cost analysis focuses on ways to reduce the social costs of notification. A number of reform alternatives warrant consideration to reduce the substantial net social costs of notification. These alternatives involve exempting certain fractions of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. High-quality risk assessment is necessary to minimize false positives. by Richard B. Belzer
September 20, 2015
After 20 years, sex offender registry’s success is mixed
9-20-15 Iowa:
WATERLOO | Iowa's Sex Offender Registry marked its 20th anniversary this year. Judging the list for effectiveness, though, depends less on longevity and more on users' expectations.
The law went into effect in 1995 and the state's website, ____, launched five years later.
As of Friday morning, the registry contained information on 5,111 convicted offenders. Of those, the most -- 626 -- live in Polk County. The lowest number -- four -- are registered in Adams County. Sgt. Steve Petersen with the Black Hawk County Sheriff's Office has been involved with Iowa Sex Offender Registry since its inception.
"The main idea behind the registry is to know where the registrant calls home. Now with Internet records on most of the registrants, that information is available 24/7/365 to anyone who wants to inquire about a certain person; inquire who lives in or near their neighborhood; and areas where their children frequent," Petersen said.
He added parents can also, if they choose, show children photographs of people on the registry.
Terry Cowman, a special agent in charge with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, oversees the registry. He supervises 13 civilian employees who verify and input data for the website as well as five special agents who investigate non-compliance issues.
"The value of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry I can sum up in two words: information sharing," Cowman said.
He notes anyone can go to a single source to find what may be important knowledge. From that, individuals can make decisions about how best to keep themselves and their families safe, according to Cowman.
"It's a good public information source," Petersen added. "It lets you know who's living in your neighborhood."
Deterrence not seen
The registry online, though, announces goals that are more ambitious: Protect the public. Deter offenders. Serve as an investigative tool for law enforcement officials.
On those points, the registry can claim less success, according to Petersen and researchers. Based on his experience, the list does little to prevent crime.
"I do not believe the sex offender registry laws have any deterrent to keep people from committing sexual abuse crimes -- any more than the penalties for the sex crime itself deters," Petersen said.
He added that's true for any criminal law. As an obvious example, Petersen noted murder is illegal, but people still commit murder.
A study published in 2011 in the Journal of Law and Economics supports Petersen's anecdotal observations.
Researchers J.J. Prescott at the University of Michigan and Jonah Rockoff at Columbia University determined laws that require sex offenders to register may, indeed, reduce the chances those people will offend again. However, the research also suggests when information about convicted sex offenders is disseminated to the public, offenders may, in fact, be more likely to commit additional crimes.
The Legislature in 2008 created the Sex Offender Research Council and charged it with research and policy analysis for sex offenses, offenders and prevention. Cowman is a member.
The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council cited Prescott and Rockoff's study in its annual report in 2014 to the Iowa General Assembly.
"Prescott and Rockoff argue that public notification may increase stress on offenders, leading to destabilization in their community lives. The social consequence of public registration may reinforce the notion that changing behaviors would not improve offenders' life circumstances," according to the report.
Another researcher, Amanda Agan at the University of Chicago, examined more than 9,000 convicted sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Half were in states with a registry, half were not.
According to Agan's comparison, those released in states with registration requirements were slightly more likely to offend again.
"Agan found little evidence to suggest that registries, or knowing where sex offenders lived or worked, improved public safety 'either in practice or potential,'" according to the Iowa Sex Offender Research Council's annual report.
According to the report, Agan's research and other studies suggest that "registries largely serve a symbolic versus an instrumental purpose."
Petersen, in his experience, finds that is true.
"I can't really say (the registry) has helped locate the unknown person who may have committed a new crime," he said.
"I know in a few major cases I have been involved with over the years, we have tracked down sex offenders in an area to determine if any had any involvement in the crime. None of those cases have been solved to date because we were able to develop a suspect from the sex offender registry database," Petersen added.
Hard to measure
Cowman, though, noted other studies support sex offender registries and their ability to deter re-offenses and protect the public.
"Protection and deterrence is still a viable part of our mission. It's just really, really hard to measure," he said.
Iowa's registry website attracts more than 1 million hits per month, suggesting very strong public interest. Information, including photographs, is updated every 30 minutes.
"We don't know what information a parent gleaned from that that helped a parent make a good decision," Cowman added.
The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council's annual report in 2014 noted what its members considered another reality:
"Despite evidence suggesting that registration policies do little to reduce sex offenses or improve public safety, sex offender registration and public notification are very popular," according to the report.
That, combined with federal policies, "will continue to influence state legislation and provide a political barrier to change," the report added.
Cowman believes the public wants the registry, is willing to pay for it and would resist any effort to restrict access or reduce the amount of available information.
"I think we would see a big uprising if that funding ever went away," Cowman said.
"To all of a sudden not be able to get the information ... to pull that away, I think there would be a strong push against that," he added.
In the end, though, Petersen reminds the registry is not meant to be a protective shield.
"There's nothing that I'm aware of out there that will do that ... ," he said, pointing out one of the registry's shortcomings.
"The registry information is only as accurate as the offenders make it when they report information to the registration points. It is up to the offender/registrant to remain compliant with the registry laws," Petersen said.
Residents should take responsibility for their safety, he said.
"People concerned about sexual crimes should be watchful of their children; know where their kids are; have some say on whom they hang around with; and listen to their children when they try to talk to them and don’t be hesitant to report suspicions," Petersen said.
He added teens, young adults and adults should be aware of their surroundings and who they hang out with and where.
"If they feel uncomfortable in a situation, then they should get away from it, call for help or get with others to help protect them," Petersen said.
"It is not always the people already convicted of sex crimes and registered as sex offenders to be the ones to watch out for, but more so those who are not yet known." ..Source.. by Dennis Magee
September 16, 2015
City receives $100,000 for sex offender monitoring
Unbelievable waste of taxpayer money: The numbers work out to $179.00 per registrant for the city, and $164,000 for the rest of the county. Talk about fleecing and bamboozling the taxpayers!9-16-15 Washington:
The city of Vancouver has received $99,600 in state funding to monitor registered kidnapping or sex offenders until June 30, 2016.
In July, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs awarded $264,000 in state funds to Clark County and its cities to enhance law enforcement monitoring of registered sex offenders, as required by state law. Police must provide face-to-face verification of a registered sex offender’s residence every three to 12 months, based on the level of offense.
The city and county must co-apply each year for funding renewal. The monitoring keeps the state’s registry database and public website current, and it serves as a deterrent for future crimes. Registry violations may result in arrest, prosecution and sentencing for any new offenses.
The Clark County Sheriff’s Office maintains the sex offender registry for the public website for all sex offenders in the county.
There are 556 registered sex offenders living in Vancouver city limits. Of those sex offenders, 419 are Level I (at low risk of re-offending in the community at large); 120 are Level II (at moderate risk of re-offending); and 17 are Level III (at high risk of re-offending and considered the most dangerous to the community), according to the Vancouver Police Department. ..Source.. by The Columbian
September 13, 2015
Iowa Sex Offender Registry marks 20th year
9-13-15 Iowa:
WATERLOO | Iowa's Sex Offender Registry marked its 20th anniversary this year. Judging the list for effectiveness, though, depends less on longevity and more on users' expectations.
The law went into effect in 1995 and the state's website, ____, launched five years later.
As of Friday morning, the registry contained information on 5,111 convicted offenders. Of those, the most -- 626 -- live in Polk County. The lowest number -- four -- are registered in Adams County. Sgt. Steve Petersen with the Black Hawk County Sheriff's Office has been involved with Iowa Sex Offender Registry since its inception.
"The main idea behind the registry is to know where the registrant calls home. Now with Internet records on most of the registrants, that information is available 24/7/365 to anyone who wants to inquire about a certain person; inquire who lives in or near their neighborhood; and areas where their children frequent," Petersen said.
He added parents can also, if they choose, show children photographs of people on the registry.
Terry Cowman, a special agent in charge with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, oversees the registry. He supervises 13 civilian employees who verify and input data for the website as well as five special agents who investigate non-compliance issues.
"The value of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry I can sum up in two words: information sharing," Cowman said.
He notes anyone can go to a single source to find what may be important knowledge. From that, individuals can make decisions about how best to keep themselves and their families safe, according to Cowman.
"It's a good public information source," Petersen added. "It lets you know who's living in your neighborhood."
Deterrence not seen
The registry online, though, announces goals that are more ambitious: Protect the public. Deter offenders. Serve as an investigative tool for law enforcement officials.
On those points, the registry can claim less success, according to Petersen and researchers. Based on his experience, the list does little to prevent crime.
"I do not believe the sex offender registry laws have any deterrent to keep people from committing sexual abuse crimes -- any more than the penalties for the sex crime itself deters," Petersen said.
He added that's true for any criminal law. As an obvious example, Petersen noted murder is illegal, but people still commit murder.
A study published in 2011 in the Journal of Law and Economics supports Petersen's anecdotal observations.
Researchers J.J. Prescott at the University of Michigan and Jonah Rockoff at Columbia University determined laws that require sex offenders to register may, indeed, reduce the chances those people will offend again. However, the research also suggests when information about convicted sex offenders is disseminated to the public, offenders may, in fact, be more likely to commit additional crimes.
The Legislature in 2008 created the Sex Offender Research Council and charged it with research and policy analysis for sex offenses, offenders and prevention. Cowman is a member.
The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council cited Prescott and Rockoff's study in its annual report in 2014 to the Iowa General Assembly.
"Prescott and Rockoff argue that public notification may increase stress on offenders, leading to destabilization in their community lives. The social consequence of public registration may reinforce the notion that changing behaviors would not improve offenders' life circumstances," according to the report.
Another researcher, Amanda Agan at the University of Chicago, examined more than 9,000 convicted sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Half were in states with a registry, half were not.
According to Agan's comparison, those released in states with registration requirements were slightly more likely to offend again.
"Agan found little evidence to suggest that registries, or knowing where sex offenders lived or worked, improved public safety 'either in practice or potential,'" according to the Iowa Sex Offender Research Council's annual report.
According to the report, Agan's research and other studies suggest that "registries largely serve a symbolic versus an instrumental purpose."
Petersen, in his experience, finds that is true.
"I can't really say (the registry) has helped locate the unknown person who may have committed a new crime," he said.
"I know in a few major cases I have been involved with over the years, we have tracked down sex offenders in an area to determine if any had any involvement in the crime. None of those cases have been solved to date because we were able to develop a suspect from the sex offender registry database," Petersen added.
Hard to measure
Cowman, though, noted other studies support sex offender registries and their ability to deter re-offenses and protect the public.
"Protection and deterrence is still a viable part of our mission. It's just really, really hard to measure," he said.
Iowa's registry website attracts more than 1 million hits per month, suggesting very strong public interest. Information, including photographs, is updated every 30 minutes.
"We don't know what information a parent gleaned from that that helped a parent make a good decision," Cowman added.
The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council's annual report in 2014 noted what its members considered another reality:
"Despite evidence suggesting that registration policies do little to reduce sex offenses or improve public safety, sex offender registration and public notification are very popular," according to the report.
That, combined with federal policies, "will continue to influence state legislation and provide a political barrier to change," the report added.
Cowman believes the public wants the registry, is willing to pay for it and would resist any effort to restrict access or reduce the amount of available information.
"I think we would see a big uprising if that funding ever went away," Cowman said.
"To all of a sudden not be able to get the information ... to pull that away, I think there would be a strong push against that," he added.
In the end, though, Petersen reminds the registry is not meant to be a protective shield.
"There's nothing that I'm aware of out there that will do that ... ," he said, pointing out one of the registry's shortcomings.
"The registry information is only as accurate as the offenders make it when they report information to the registration points. It is up to the offender/registrant to remain compliant with the registry laws," Petersen said.
Residents should take responsibility for their safety, he said.
"People concerned about sexual crimes should be watchful of their children; know where their kids are; have some say on whom they hang around with; and listen to their children when they try to talk to them and don’t be hesitant to report suspicions," Petersen said.
He added teens, young adults and adults should be aware of their surroundings and who they hang out with and where.
"If they feel uncomfortable in a situation, then they should get away from it, call for help or get with others to help protect them," Petersen said.
"It is not always the people already convicted of sex crimes and registered as sex offenders to be the ones to watch out for, but more so those who are not yet known." ..Source.. by Dennis Magee
August 30, 2015
Heitkamp Announces More Than $300,000 for Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring in North Dakota
Wonderful, now they can buy donuts as they bamboozle the public into thinking the registry does any more than show where registrants sleep for a few hours of the day/night. What a waste! How about working on other crimes HERE and HERE and HERE8-30-15 North Dakota:
Heitkamp Announces More Than $300,000 for Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring in North Dakota In the Senate and as N.D. Attorney General, Heitkamp Has Fought to Keep North Dakota Strong and Safe from Crime
BISMARCK, N.D. – U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp announced $333,000 in federal funding to assist the North Dakota Attorney General’s office in registering sex offenders and keeping North Dakotans safe.
“Our state will be able to use these funds to more quickly register and monitor those who pose a threat to our safety – and that’s good news for North Dakota,” said Heitkamp. “As North Dakota’s Attorney General and now as a U.S. Senator, I’ve fought to keep North Dakota strong and safe, especially as our state grows and changes. I’ll keep fighting to make sure North Dakota remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family.”
The U.S. Department of Justice awarded the grant to the North Dakota Attorney General’s office for sentencing, monitoring, apprehending, registering, and tracking sex offenders. The federal funds will be used to guarantee timely registration of sex offenders by the use of electronic submission, reducing local law enforcement staff time spent on registration. The grant will also improve the verification process, the timeliness of additional sex offender information sent in by mail, and the capabilities of record retrieval for all sex offender registration information.
Heitkamp today also announced $19,000 in funds through the Justice Department for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to prevent and control crime.
Heitkamp has made public safety and human trafficking top priorities in her Strong & Safe Communities Initiative, and focused on crime reduction and public safety during her time as North Dakota’s Attorney General as well.
To witness North Dakota’s crime challenges firsthand, Heitkamp rode along with the U.S. Marshal on the Fort Berthold Reservation in April, as law enforcement checked in on sex offenders. Heitkamp has also met with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and others to discuss human trafficking, and successfully pushed a bipartisan bill fighting human trafficking through the Senate in April.
Throughout the year, as part of her Strong & Safe Communities Initiative, Heitkamp has been meeting with North Dakotans to hear their feedback about new challenges from the state’s rapid growth, including the increases in digital challenges, movement of crude oil on the rails, human trafficking, drug-related crimes, as well as other issues. Through her discussions across the state, as well as with her Strong & Safe Communities Task Force, Heitkamp is working to make sure the safety of North Dakota families and communities is a top priority. ..Source.. by Attorney General, Heitkamp
August 28, 2015
Court Denies Challenge to D.C. Sex Offender’s Website on Registry Officials
A website that “registers” and posts photos of government employees who work in the District of Columbia’s sex offender registration office is protected by the First Amendment, a D.C. Superior Court held in a February 14, 2014 memorandum opinion.
Dennis Sobin, a convicted sex offender, is required to register every three months with the D.C. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), and his picture is posted on the District’s sex offender registry. Sobin, 70, spent over ten years in prison for using a minor while filming a pornographic movie, though he is not your run-of-the-mill pornographer.
Following his release he founded the non-profit Prisons Foundation and Safe Streets Art Foundation, which sell artwork created by prisoners. The foundations also maintain a D.C. art gallery and sponsor programs at the Kennedy Center; they have received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts and D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities. [See: PLN, March 2007, p.19].
Using his creative skills, Sobin designed a website called the Idiots Registry and posted a list of employees responsible for enforcing the District’s sex offender registry. “Here at www.idiotsregistry.info you will find the names of politicians and public figures who have encouraged the creation of, or have refused to denounce, government registration websites that target citizens for harassment,” the site proclaims.
In addition to posting employees’ names and photos, the website includes information about other registries, including a registry of Jews in Nazi Germany prior to World War II, and examples of opposition to sex offender registries in the U.S.
“In the tradition of Nazi registration of Jews and Gypsies and the Salem lists of alleged witches, modern government registries are unfair and un-American,” Sobin declared.
The Idiots Registry site includes photos of a number of CSOSA employees with insulting nicknames provided by Sobin, such as “Fat Man” Leonard Dunning, “Limp Dick” Edmond Pears and “Aunt Jemima” Yolanda Stokes. He distributed flyers containing the photos in the CSOSA office building.
The website was not well received by CSOSA registry specialist Stephanie Gray, who filed for a civil protection order and accused Sobin of stalking her. ..Continued.. by Prison Legal News
August 27, 2015
Collateral damage: Harsh sex offender laws may put whole families at risk
Research says that registries and residency bans leave children of sex offenders vulnerable to bullying, homelessness
When William Quarles, 38, bolts from his desk around 5:30 most weeknights, he’s up against his most important deadline of the day. Quarles is an audiovisual editor and social media manager at a Christian television studio in St. Petersburg, Florida. By the time he gets home, he and Ashley, his wife of nine years, have just over three hours to make dinner for their three children, squeeze in a half-hour of playtime, get the kids bathed and dressed for bed, and read to them for a few minutes.
At 9:30 sharp, William kisses Ashley, walks out the door and drives his van 12 miles to a spot at the end of a dirt road off Interstate 275. From there he calls her, and they read and pray together from the devotional Our Daily Bread before they fall asleep — Ashley at home and William in the back of the van. Every couple of hours, William wakes up sweating and turns on the engine to run the air conditioner.
William’s name and photo appear on Florida’s public sex offender registry. A state law bans him and most others on the list from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and child care facilities. The house the family rents lies inside a banned zone, so William can’t stay there between 10 at night and 6 in the morning.
With finances always tight and much of the city off limits, the Quarleses have struggled to find an affordable place to live. From May 2013 to May 2014, Ashley and the kids lived with Ashley’s sister in Lakeland, 60 miles from St. Petersburg. Ashley drove to the city every day for a job she had at the time. William stayed behind in St. Pete, sleeping in the van — a 2,500-foot residency ban for registrants in Lakeland and the surrounding county forbade him from living with the rest of the family.
When the commute became untenable, Ashley and the children moved back to the city into their current house, which belongs to their pastor. The pastor’s daughter lived there but was away on vacation for several months. That worked until October, when the daughter returned.
This time, the Quarleses wanted to find a place where William could live with them. They estimate that they researched 100 to 150 addresses. All either fell inside a forbidden zone or were rented by the time they applied. So after spending a week in a motel, from October to March of this year, they all became homeless. Ashley and the kids — ages, 7, 4 and 2 — camped out in the sanctuary of the church where William works, taking showers every other day at the YMCA.
They got a break in the spring when their pastor’s house again became available. He charges them only $800 a month, well below market. But because it’s inside a banned area, William still can’t live with them.
In 1996, Congress passed Megan’s Law, which allowed states to publicize the names of those convicted of sex offenses. A wave of federal and state laws followed that created online sex offender registries, broadened who is listed and restricted where registrants can live. ..Continued.. (Excellent article, loaded with statistics) by Steven Yoder
August 5, 2015
Judge open to new sentence in teen sex offender case
8-5-15 Indiana, Michigan:
NILES -- A judge under fire for his harsh sentencing of a 19-year-old Elkhart man who had sex with a 14-year-old Niles girl who lied about her age acknowledged in court Wednesday that the prosecutor in the case "went beyond" the man's plea agreement and that a new sentence may be justified.
Berrien County District Judge Dennis Wiley defended his original sentence, saying he considers each case on its own merit. But after some discussion in court that prompted Assistant Prosecutor Jerry Vigansky to hurry out of the courtroom, Wiley said he will further examine the case and issue a ruling soon on whether Zachery Anderson should be re-sentenced by a different judge.
Unlike when Anderson was sentenced in late April — including a stint in jail, 25 years on Michigan's sex offense registry and life without computers or anyone with so much as a smartphone — Wednesday's hearing was witnessed by a courtroom nearly packed with media and other onlookers.
Since mid-May, when The Tribune first reported on the issues raised in the case, Anderson and his parents have been featured by national media outlets, a civil rights group has offered to pay their legal expenses, and an online petition has drawn 150,000 signatures. Just in the last week, the case has been featured on CNN, CBS and ABC's "Nightline."
Meanwhile, Anderson's family is angry about the lack of a final decision.
"We're tired of the injustice," Lester Anderson, Zach's father, said after Tuesday's hearing. "We're patient people, but my goodness, I want my son to be able to move on."
Zach Anderson was living with his parents in Elkhart when he first encountered the girl on an 18-and-older section of the dating website Hot or Not. They agreed in December to meet, so he picked the girl up from her Niles home and drove to a playground nearby, where they had sex.
The girl later admitted to telling Anderson she was 17. In Indiana and at least 12 other states, a victim lying about her age is a defense against a statutory rape claim, but not in Michigan.
Anderson was ultimately ordered to spend 90 days in the county jail, five years on probation and 25 years on Michigan's sex offender registry.
Both the girl and her mother asked that Anderson not be punished. Michigan has a law whose intent is to show mercy on certain offenders older than 17 but younger than 21. The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act required that Anderson plead guilty to the sex offense and, had the judge agreed to take it into account, likely would have resulted in an expungeable conviction that avoided a listing on the sex offender registry.
Instead, Wiley denied Anderson HYTA status, in a lecture that has now been widely reported: "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior."
The Andersons' attorney, Scott Grabel, filed a motion to dismiss the plea agreement on the grounds that part of the deal included the prosecutor not opposing HYTA status.
Vigansky, the assistant prosecutor, did not explicitly oppose HYTA for Anderson, but he pointed out to the judge that he presided over two other, nearly identical cases earlier this year in which HYTA was not granted. He told Wiley he believed Anderson should receive a similar sentence.
Grabel told the judge Wednesday that what he is most seeking with his motion was for Anderson to be re-sentenced in front of a different judge.
"I do try to be consistent, but consistent in terms of following the law," Wiley said Wednesday, adding that he's heard even more "incidents with the Internet and sexual matters" than just the two Vigansky referred to. "Mr. Vigansky's remarks really did not influence my decision as to how I was going to sentence."
Of using the state's HYTA act that would grant leniency, Wiley said, "I've granted HYTA on a number of occasions for serious felonies. I chose not to do it in this individual case. I call 'em as I see 'em."
Anderson's first defense attorney twice pointed out inaccuracies in Anderson's pre-sentence report, which contained inaccurate information including statements that he was a predator with a history of seeking out young girls. Wiley had rescheduled the original date with the Department of Corrections investigator in the courtroom, asking for a new report.
Wiley said Wednesday that he would order a new pre-sentence investigation, referring to a "miscommunication" with the DOC.
"I subsequently found out that the DOC never received that request," Wiley said.
Anderson was released from jail a few weeks ago but he has to follow the rules of two states' probation departments and sex offense registries. He is working for his parents and living alone in a home they bought for him. He is not allowed to use a computer or smartphone, and he began participating last week in an ordered 12-week sex offender program.
One of Anderson's supporters introduced herself to the family before the hearing. Her son had a case similar to Zach Anderson's, having met a girl on the Hot or Not website who lied about her age.
She described her family's lack of money to hire an attorney to fight the restrictions.
"He just works," she said, wiping away tears, "and goes home and is by himself all the time." ..Source.. by Virginia Black
May 28, 2015
Woman convicted of sex on Manatee County beach to be released from jail
Absolute proof the registry is totally useless and Judges and Lawmakers have lost their minds as to who belongs on the registry. Its impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. i.e., who is dangerous? See also From Beach Sex to Public Urination: 9 Insane Things That Will Get You Labeled a Sex Offender5-28-15 Florida:
BRADENTON — A woman who was convicted of having sex on a local beach will not spend any more time in jail. On Wednesday, a Bradenton judge sentenced 20-year-old Elissa Alvarez to time served.
Alvarez and 40-year-old Jose Caballero were found guilty May 4 of lewd and lascivious exhibition for having sex in public, including in front of a 3-year-old child.
The Bradenton Herald ( tbtim.es/iws) reports that Alvarez accepted the stat-recommended sentence during a hearing scheduled to discuss setting a sentencing date. Defense attorney Greg Hagopian said she is embarrassed by the incident.
Alvarez, who's been in custody since May 4, was released Wednesday evening. Because she doesn't have a criminal record, her conviction was withheld. She still must register as a sex offender unless she appeals.
Caballero will be sentenced July . ..Source.. by Tampa Bay Times
May 24, 2015
Josh And Jim Bob Duggar: Can Either Be Prosecuted Now In Sexual Molestation Case, Or Placed On A Sexual Offenders’ Registry?
Josh Duggar, now 27 and married with three children, with another on the way, was the subject of a police investigation in 2006. He was then accused of “forcibly fondling” five different girls when he was a teen, according to Hollywood Life. Four were his sisters. He recently admitted to the molestations.
When his father, Jim Bob, found out about Josh’s fondling other youngsters, he turned him in to Arkansas State Police, according to In Touch. Jim Bob allegedly caught Josh leaving a young girl’s bedroom and learned something inappropriate happened.
However, a strange sequence of events prevented police and prosecutors from completing their investigation and possibly prosecuting. Shortly prior to 2005, the state trooper who originally took the report about Josh failed to follow up. That state trooper was later convicted on child pornography charges and is serving a 60-year prison sentence. His name is Joseph T. Hutchens, according to the Daily Mail.
When that trooper had difficulties, someone from the Arkansas State Police alerted the Child Abuse Hotline about the Duggar situation that had been sitting inactive. Then, the Crimes Against Children Division and Springdale Police Department became involved. However, by that time, the three-year statute of limitations that then existed had passed. Therefore, it would not have been possible to prosecute Josh even if the allegations warranted such. The investigation was therefore discontinued. A source familiar with the case stated the following, according to In Touch. ..Continued.. by Inquisitr
May 17, 2015
Does Michigan's sex offender registry keep us safer?
Here we go again folks trying to justify a list that does nothing more than show where registrants sleep for a few hours of the day/night. Somehow that translates to making society safer? The registry is nothing more than an end run around constitutional protections, further punishment, and only applied to former sex offenders... Politicians need a pawn so they designed a registry. see also How other states handle sex offender registries5-17-15 Michigan:
Experts say such registries can be counterproductive; courts question constitutional fairness.
It has been 10 years since Shaun Webb, a married father and caretaker at an Oakland County Catholic church, was convicted of groping a teenage girl over her sweater, a claim Webb vehemently denies.
Webb, then-37 with a clean criminal record, was convicted of misdemeanor sexual assault and sent to jail for seven months.
Though a misdemeanor, state law demanded Webb be listed on the same public sex offender registry as hard-core rapists, pedophiles and other felons. It has meant a decade of poverty, unemployment, harassment and depression for him. Under current state law, he'll be on the list until 2031.
"It's destroyed my life," Webb said from his rural home in Arenac County, where he now lives alone with his dog, Cody.
Webb is one of 43,000 convicted sex offenders in Michigan, most of which appear on the state online sex offender registry managed by the State Police. Each state has a digital registry that can be searched on the Internet with a total of about 800,000 names. The registries are widely monitored by parents, potential employers and cautious neighbors.
To be sure, registries in Michigan and across the nation help track violent sexual offenders and pedophiles who prey on children, and they're also politically popular and get lots of traffic online.
But Michigan's law — and some others across the nation — have come under fire lately as overly broad, vague and potentially unconstitutional. For example, Michigan has the fourth-highest per capita number of people on its registry and is one of only 13 states that counts public urination as a sex crime.
Research also suggests registries do little to protect communities and often create ongoing misery for some who served their sentences and are unlikely to re-offend.
Webb can't find anyone willing to hire him. In his old neighborhood, he was harassed by other residents who once put up flyers about him. A woman in Florida he has never met, a self-proclaimed vigilante, tracks his every move online, calling him names and taunting him as a child rapist.
The stress of it all destroyed his marriage, he and his wife say.
Even some early advocates have changed their minds about registries, including Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling, who went missing when he was 11 and was never found. Police suspect Jacob was abducted by a convicted pedophile who was living nearby unbeknownst to neighbors. No one was charged.
At the time, Wetterling lobbied passionately for a federal law authorizing registries and was at the White House in 1994 when President Bill Clinton signed legislation into law.
But she now advocates revisiting the laws, saying some juveniles and others who made mistakes are unnecessarily tarred for decades or life. "Should they never be given a chance to turn their lives around?" she said in a published 2013 interview. "Instead, we let our anger drive us."
But some legislators and law enforcement officials say registries are useful because they help keep track of potentially dangerous people. The supporters also dismiss the research, saying it's impossible to determine who might re-offend.
They caution against narrowing the definition in Michigan's law of who should be listed and are against adopting a new recommendation by some that defendants should be judged case by case by who is most likely to re-offend.
"The problem I have is should we go back and say only pedophiles have to register?" said state Sen. Rick Jones, a former sheriff who helped draft some of Michigan's sex offender registry laws. "Do we want violent sex offenders on the school grounds? Do we want public masturbators on the school grounds? I'm not prepared to change the way the list operates."
Many parents say the registries makes them feel safer.
Lori Petty, a legal secretary, has been logging on regularly over the years as she raised her two sons in Commerce Township.
"If they were going over to a friend's house to visit, I would look to see who lived nearby, if there was a high concentration," she said. "Not that there was anything I could do, but it helps to know."
Her sons are now 18 and 25, and she monitors the site less frequently, using it to see who may have moved close by, she said.
"I want to know who is living in my neighborhood."
Fundamental fairness
Sex offender registry laws were first passed in the 1990s following a string of horrific child murders. The registries were originally accessible only by police, allowing them to track the most dangerous offenders.
But lawmakers in Michigan and other states expanded the laws over the years — they are now public record and include teenagers who had consensual sex, people arrested for public urination, people who had convictions expunged at the request of their victims, and people like Webb who have no felony convictions.
Earlier this month, a Florida couple was convicted of lewd behavior after having consensual sex on a public beach. They will have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
In Michigan, most of those convicted of sex offenses are listed online and show up with just a few key strokes on a website managed by the Michigan State Police.
Webb's face, address, conviction, physical description, birth date and job location pop up if you plug in his name or the ZIP code where he lives. It does not give the circumstances of his arrest. The state's site gets about 227,000 hits a month.
Convicted sex offenders don't generate much public sympathy, but research in the last two decades shows they might not be very effective. And higher courts recently called registries harsh and unconstitutional, including a ruling last month that says parts of Michigan's law are vague and unconstitutional, making it impossible in some instances for offenders to know whether they are following the law.
For many, there is also a question of fundamental fairness when, for example, a 19-year-old is convicted of having sex with his underage girlfriend or somebody convicted of public urination is grouped on the same list as a serial rapist.
Despite the court rulings and the research, it's doubtful public sex offender registries are going away, although it seems apparent Michigan and other states might be pushed into making some changes.
A marriage destroyed
A big question, though, is whether Michigan's expansive definition of who should be on the sex offender registry is fair to people like Webb. After losing his job at the church and serving his time, he found himself unable to resume a productive life.
"I don't bother people. I keep to myself. I can't get a job," he said, struggling to keep his composure during a recent interview. "I'm just trying to live my life as best I can."
He moved up to Arenac County from Oakland County a few years ago and has been writing thrillers and true crime books he self-publishes and sells at book fairs and on Amazon.
It doesn't pay the bills.
He gets by on food stamps and help from family members who pay his rent. He has sometimes considered suicide. He takes antidepressants. Under Michigan law, the now-47-year-old Webb has to stay on the registry until 2031. He has committed no new crimes.
The then-15-year-old girl who made the claims against Webb was a family member of a cleaning crew that worked at the church and school. Webb had reported earlier he thought the crew had been stealing cleaning and school supplies. Weeks later, the girl claimed Webb had been molesting her in his office. He was charged with three counts and convicted of one.
The girl and her family are believed to have moved away. The Free Press was unable to locate her for this report.
Webb's ex-wife, Nancy, a teacher at the church school, said she believes he was wrongly accused — and that his conviction and registration as an offender destroyed their marriage.
"I never believed the accusations and was amazed that such totally unsupported claims would even be considered," she said in an e-mail to the Free Press. "These people I knew and spoke to many times. I went through the trial confused and frightened but confident that justice would prevail. I was shocked by the conduct of the judge and the prosecutor. Conviction, not truth, was their primary motivation."
She stood by him but, she said, "Shaun returned from jail a changed person. He couldn't work due to his criminal record, even though it's listed as a misdemeanor, and his sex offender status. He sank into depression, anxiety and alcohol. Financially drained and emotionally spent, it destroyed our hope and our marriage."
Most do not re-offend
Nationally, there are about 800,000 people registered as sex offenders across the 50 states.
Michigan is particularly aggressive, ranking fourth in the nation with the number of offenders on the registry, following only California, Texas and Florida. It also ranks fourth per capita, with 417 registrants per 100,000 citizens. It is one of only 13 states that count public urination as a sex crime, although two convictions are required before registration.
And Michigan continues to require registration for consensual sex among teenagers if the age difference is greater than four years.
In April, a U.S District Court judge in Detroit found Michigan's sex offender law unconstitutional on several fronts, noting it is so vague — including a provision that offenders can't live, work or "loiter" within a thousand feet of a school — that it is almost impossible to comply.
The law "makes it difficult for a well-intentioned registrant to understand his or her obligations," Judge Robert Cleland wrote. The sex offender law "was not enacted as a trap for individuals who have committed sex offenses in the past and who have already served their sentences. Rather the goal is public safety and public safety would only be enhanced by the government ensuring that registrants be aware of their obligations."
Cleland, in making his ruling, relied in part on the testimony of the state's own expert on sex offenders, Dr. Janet Fay-Dumaine, a psychologist at the state's Center for Forensic Psychology who assesses and treats sex offenders. Few, she testified, re-offend.
"It is extremely contrary to our cultural assumptions about sex offenders. It's hard for people to get their head around. Yes, there is a group of sex offenders that are a high risk of (offending again), but that's a very small number of sex offenders. Most do not (offend again). And this is a pretty robust finding in the literature."
Some say get tougher
Michigan legislators are reviewing Cleland's ruling and considering reforming the laws to make them compliant. Some, though, think tougher laws are in order. And they dismiss critics who say the registries cause unnecessary misery to those who have already served their sentences.
"I say if you do the horrible rape, or if you have sex with a child, you deserve the consequences," said state Sen. Rick Jones, who helped draft some of Michigan's sex offender registry laws.
Jones questions the research that shows sex offenders are much less likely to re-offend and that the majority of those on the registry pose no threat.
"I have 31 years of experience in police work, and as a retired sheriff in Eaton County I formed some very strong opinions that the science is still not clear for pedophiles. I believe it is society's duty to keep pedophiles from children so that the temptation isn't there. So I say you need to stay a thousand feet from schools."
Jones also discounts the idea that offenders should be treated differently, depending on their likelihood of re-offending. Minnesota, for instance, places offenders on its registry based on extensive risk assessment and psychological testing, not the crimes they committed.
Risk assessments
Miriam Aukerman, an ACLU attorney who filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Michigan's law, argues that Jones' views are not supported by the facts. She notes that the lawsuit includes a man forced to register after having consensual sex with his teenage girlfriend.
The pair are now together and have two children. Yet the man is prohibited from attending school functions for his children and has a hard time holding down a job.
"While many other states focus law enforcement resources on those who are actually a danger, Michigan's registry fails to separate those who are a risk from those who aren't. That's why it is one of the largest registries in the county," Aukerman said.
"Michigan's registry includes people like our client John Doe, who is on the registry for a relationship with the woman who is now the mother of his two children and whom he met at a club restricted to adults," she said.
"None of us are safer when the police have to monitor people like him who don't need to be monitored, and then don't have the time to effectively monitor the people who should be monitored. If we want to be safe, we need to give the police the tools they need. And that means a registry that uses risk assessments to determine who needs to be monitored and who doesn't."
Even national advocacy groups for survivors of sexual assault say overly broad public registries can hamper, rather than help.
"Sex offender registration can be useful for law enforcement agencies in their tracking of convicted sex offenders," according to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. "However, over-inclusive publication notification can actually be harmful to public safety by diluting the ability to identify the most dangerous offenders and by disrupting the stability of low-risk offenders in ways that increase their risk of re-offense."
Never another chance?
State and federal lawmakers have long grappled with how to keep children safe from predators, passing laws that, on first review, would appear to give police and parents tools to monitor the most reviled predators in the community.
Eleven-year-old Jacob Wetterling was abducted near his home in Minnesota in 1989 by someone police came to believe was a pedophile living nearby. Jacob has never been found. In 1994, Congress created the Jacob Wetterling Crime Act, requiring that sex offenders register with local police and verify their current names and addresses. The public did not have access to the information.
Then, in May 1996, the federal government demanded that those registries be made public, requiring states to list the names on the Internet. And in 2007, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Protection Act, expanding the reporting requirements of sex offenders, mandating that they also report where they work and attend school and increasing the length of time they stay on the registry. Some states, like Minnesota, refused to comply and were denied federal grant money.
While those laws may have helped parents rest easier, there is no evidence that they stopped sexual predators. And in some cases, offenders, ostracized and stigmatized, unable to rejoin society, turned to new, sometimes nonsexual crimes, research shows.
Patty Wetterling, Jacob's mother, is currently the board chair director for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and for many years supported the development of registries in all 50 states.
But in recent years, she has become a vocal critic of the registries, saying they are unnecessarily punitive and ineffective.
"People want a single solution, and that's been sold over the years. ... But we've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid, and different types of offenders who just screwed up," Wetterling said in an interview, published in 2013. "Should they never be given a chance to turn their lives around? Instead we let our anger drive us."
What the science says
A 2010 study by the American Journal of Public Health, examining sex offender laws nationwide and the best way to reduce recidivism, noted: "Research to date indicates that after 15 years the laws have had little impact on recidivism rates and the incidence of sexually based crimes."
Instead, the study found, "The most significant impact of these laws seems only to be numerous collateral consequences for communities, registered sex offenders — including a potential increased risk for recidivism — and their family members."
J.J. Prescott, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a nationally recognized expert on sex offender registry laws, agrees. He has done statistical analysis of the impact the laws have on crime rates.
"I believe that if a sex offender really wants to commit a crime, these laws are not going to be particularly effective at stopping him," he said, noting that there is no evidence that residency restrictions or "school safety zones" have had any positive impact on the rate of sexual assault on children, according to studies nationwide.
"The primary concern driving the passage and expansion of these laws is what people refer to as 'stranger danger.' People are worried about someone they don't know attacking them or their kids," he said. "But most offenders are well known to victims. Plus, there are so many ways for people to wind up on the registry. These aren't all rapists or child molesters. Urinating in public can be enough. Many are crimes without violence."
The registries have had an important unintended consequence, he said. The public shaming of sex offenders makes it almost impossible to re-assimilate them into the community as a productive citizen and, as a result, "we've effectively reduced the threat of prison.
"For some of these people, prison is a better option than trying to survive on the outside … or at least not significantly worse. These laws destroy what's valuable about someone's freedom: You're a pariah virtually everywhere, you can't live in most neighborhoods, and nobody wants to date, marry or socialize with you. You can't find a job because no one will hire a sex offender.
"All told, these laws take away their reasons for staying on the straight and narrow, for working hard to become a valuable member of a community. On balance, these laws may actually make it more attractive for convicted offenders to return to crime."
Prescott stops short of calling for an end to all sex offender registries, as some critics have. His research shows that limited registries open only to law enforcement "do work at reducing recidivism across all classes of offenders."
While his research also shows that the mere threat of having to publicly register may deter some potential offenders from committing their first crime, this effect is more than offset in states with large registries by higher levels of recidivism among those who have been convicted.
Politics and people
KG, a Macomb County man who asked that his name not be made public because of his wife and children, has no criminal conviction on the record, but he is on the public registry.
Ten years ago, his stepchild accused KG, a mid-level manager working for a car company, of inappropriate groping. Faced with the possibility of a trial that would include family members testifying against each other, he took the advice of his lawyer, and pleaded to a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. He did no jail time and was placed on probation.
"I thought it was in the best interest of my family," he said. "I didn't understand the ramifications."
His employer found out he was listed as a sex offender and fired him after 20 years. He got new jobs, but the registry caught up with him during background checks, and he has mostly been unemployed over the last decade. Not long ago, he testified before the state's judiciary committee on the need for reform.
"I explained what happened to me," he said. "I'm not a predator, I'm not a pedophile."
A few months ago, he sought to have his criminal history cleared. The stepchild who made the allegations wrote the court, asking that his criminal conviction be expunged. A judge agreed and removed the conviction.
Yet he still remains on the sex offender registry. The law doesn't allow even those who have had their criminal histories cleared to be removed from the list.
"I see this all the time," said Shannon Smith, a Bloomfield Hills attorney who has built her practice representing people charged with sex offenses. She represented KG in having his record cleared.
"So often the people who come to me are involved in touching that was misinterpreted, or kids who were involved in something. It's total overkill. This man is not a risk."
Smith estimates she has represented 200 or so people charged with sex crimes and some already on the registry. Some were facing new penalties for not following the complicated reporting requirements, not for committing new offenses.
"The law reads like dog food," she said. "The decision to place somebody on the registry should be based on risk assessment and judges should have more discretion."
Jennifer Zoltowski, a licensed psychologist who specializes in sexual disorders, does risk assessments for courts, helping to determine the likelihood an offender might re-offend. She evaluated KG and determined that he posed no threat, submitting her findings to the court..
"People hear the words sex offender and they immediately think pedophile," said Zoltowski, who has done more than 600 assessments since 2001. Many were done while she worked at the Oakland County Court Psychology Clinic. "There are too many people I've seen who really don't belong on the registry."
Zoltowski also runs a private practice treating sexual problems and says studies consistently show that many respond well to therapy, particularly juveniles. "But there is such a stigma attached that a lot of them won't seek help, or they're worried that they'll be reported to police."
Both Smith and Zoltowski belong to Michigan's Coalition for a Useful Registry, a group that meets four times a year to discuss the laws and lobby legislators for reform. The group includes attorneys, probation officers, a retired judge, and family members of those on the registry.
"It's really very political," said Smith. "And the public has such a misconception of who these people are."
Many in law enforcement though, believe that it is impossible to predict who will re-offend and that it's better to monitor too much rather than not enough.
"We know from experience that a Peeping Tom can escalate to violent crime," said Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, who drafted Michigan's first sex offender laws in the 1990s, as a state senator.
And regarding critics who say the laws are unnecessarily punitive and punish people who have already served their time, he said, "I don't care. In my mind, some of these people should not have been released to begin with." ..Source.. by L.L. Brasier
