MM-DD-YY Example:
Here is an example of a RSO case w/Solicitor General input:
SCOTUS: Nichols v. United States
Note: "Brief of Respondent United States" is the Solicitor General Brief.
Again, this is an example NOT a current case.
eAdvocate
Showing posts with label ( .News-eAdvocate Tips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-eAdvocate Tips. Show all posts
March 29, 2017
Example of RSO case w/Solicitor General input (EXAMPLE ONLY)
November 27, 2016
Sex Offender Research Information Center
11-26-16:
A New Researcher: Emily Horowitz
My name is Emily Horowitz, and this is my personal website. I am a sociologist, and the author of Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us (Praeger, 2015). I’m interested in promoting research to promote rational and reasonable approaches to laws that pertain to sex offenses. In particular, my work analyzes the way that panic, fear, and emotion rather than evidence and data, drives a vast array of increasingly harsh policies that govern those convicted of sex offenses. I am also a Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY, where I teach classes, run a lecture series for the Brooklyn community, and co-direct a program for the formerly incarcerated to complete college. ..Source..
July 22, 2015
What happened to news articles about sex offender issues?
7-2-2013 National:
It was just over 2 years ago that Google stopped their Google Reader service and I wrote about the effect that would have on sex offender advocacy; no need to repeat all the reasons news is needed for advocacy. Google Alerts kinda replaced Google Reader but does not have all the functions of Google Reader; Google Alerts are a really poor replacement but better than nothing (we have just over 100 setup).
Well here we are today wondering whats happening to News about issues surrounding sex offender laws and the registrants required to follow them? Where is the news? We are checking our Google Alerts when they show up, but, that is the problem, at best we are getting 3-5 a day when we used to get 100 or more.
Figuring the problem is Google Alerts we decided to try doing the Alerts by hand, a very time consuming task. Guess what the news just isn't being found in Google Searches, yes there are those which are very old or on topics like new crimes, and even those are few.
So it appears we have hit a slump in news, Journalists are just not writing about sex offender issues, so it seems. Has the world become complacent about these issues? Are articles written, if any, not generating enough income to spend time writing them? We just don't know.
Its summertime and that does account for slow news, but allowing for that, where do we go from here?
ACTION ALERT: Folks that do find a local article on sex offender issues, please forward the link so we can post for other folks. Please send links to eAdvocate@yahoo.comWe will keep readers updated on this essential topic. Stop back from time to time.
Thanks, we appreciate input, thoughts or suggestions.
PS: We are also monitoring Campus issues, and one issues is related to being drunk on campus. Well here is that big news today "'Drunk' squirrel reportedly causes damage in U.K. pub"
September 24, 2014
This Flowchart Tells You When to Worry About Anything
Stress can be terribly damaging. Although it's normal to get stressed every so often, much of what we worry about doesn't come to pass. This illustration could help keep things in perspective.
"Don't worry, be happy" and "Keep calm and carry on" might seem trite, but actually following this advice isn't easy. Lift Run Bang reminds us that we can make a conscious choice not to create more stressful situations or let things irritate us:
In the end, we all end up in the same place. How we choose to live our life is for the most part, entirely up to us. No, we can't choose our parents, and we don't often get to control certain environments. And life often presents us with situations that we didn't ask for, or were entirely out of our hands. However, we do get to decide how we are going to react to those situations, and how much we decide we are going to let it effect us, and stress us.Of course, we will face real problems and serious issues that we should be concerned about and that will worry us. But for 90% of the other non-issues we worry about, consult the flowchart above. ..Source.. by Lifehacker
Life is indeed a bitch sometimes. There's no getting around that. We do get to decide however, the extent we are going to bitch about it, and act like a bitch about it. That's entirely up to us. Or we can say getting flipped off by a dude in a minivan really isn't a big deal in the grand scheme in life, and simple be on our way.
August 17, 2014
MICROSOFT ALERT for PCs: After Blue Screen of Death reports, Microsoft says to uninstall recent patch
I am posting this to let folks know about this problem, but as the warning does say, it is not happening to everyone. What to do is UNKNOWN right now. You may need technical help to fix if you suffer this problem....8-17-2014 National:
On Friday, Microsoft recommended uninstalling a recent security update following reports that it caused Blue Screens of Death.
ComputerWorld reports that the patch—MS 14-045—was first announced on August 12 before it received further attention on Friday. The patch intended to fix three issues including one in the Windows kernel. But soon after it was initially released, a Microsoft support forum thread sprung up with tales of "Stop 0x50 errors," aka blue screens. (ComputerWorld notes the thread has surpassed 50,000 views within the week.)
Microsoft's updated information page for the patch includes an official, relatively detail-free explanation:
Why was this bulletin revised on August 15, 2014?
Microsoft revised this bulletin to address known issues associated with installation of security update 2982791. Microsoft is investigating behavior associated with the installation of this update, and will update this bulletin when more information becomes available. Microsoft recommends that customers uninstall this update. As an added precaution, Microsoft has removed the download links to the 2982791 security update. For instructions on how to uninstall this update, see Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 2982791.
Following the link to the uninstall information, Microsoft identifies the 0x50 error and re-emphasizes that investigations are ongoing. In their view, the issue could also be the result of three prior updates: ....CONTINUED.... This is a must read for anyone with a PC.
August 13, 2014
Rasmussen Report: Jury's Out on Whether Megan's Law Is Protecting Children
Rasmussen Reports says one thing, see below, but a Lawmaker interprets it his own way. See HERE (Duplicated below in green)8-13-2014 National:
Update: Mention of "consistent with findings in 2007" is actually incorrect. The 2007 Rasmussen Reports concerned "civil commitment" and had nothing to do with Megans' Laws (Registries)
Twenty years after going into effect, most Americans are not sure if Megan’s Law has actually done anything to reduce the number of children attacked by sex offenders, although they remain strongly supportive of a public registry for these criminals.
Megan’s Law, named for a young girl who was raped and murdered in New Jersey in 1994, requires anyone convicted of a child sex crime to register and have that information publicly available in their neighborhoods. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% of American Adults favor such a registry, consistent with findings since late 2011 following the major child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University. Only seven percent (7%) oppose such a registry. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The survey of 1,000 American Adults nationwide was conducted on August 7-8, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. ..Continued.. by Rasmussen Reports
Lawmakers Interprets Above Report as follows:
National survey says Megan's Law is effective...
A new Rasmussen poll out that asked the question: Is Megan's Law working in the Lone Star state. Megan's Law is named for a young girl who was raped and murdered in New Jersey in 1994. It requires anyone convicted of a child sex crime to register and have that information made public .
The national telephone survey found that 84% of American adults favor such registry. State Representative of District 84, John Frullo, has introduced legislation to protect children from sexual predators. He said every state has to abide by that law.
He said it's important for parents to know who your neighbor is.
"Texas loads all of its information into a database and that information is then uploaded and available. Last thing you want to be is a state that doesn't require sex offenders to register because guess where they're all going to move," said Frullo.
Frullo said he's currently working on legislation that would increase the punishment for sex offenders who don't report on the registry, because they've stolen someone's identity. ..Source.. by Fox34.com
Area around Little League World Series targeted for Megan's Law sex offender compliance checks
Carefully notice, non compliance rates: 5/164=3% and 150/6,000=2.5% respectively. Interesting...8-13-2014 Pennsylvania:
WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — Pennsylvania law enforcement authorities say they've conducted checks of registered sex offenders who live near where the Little League World Series is about to get underway.
The U.S. Marshals Service said Wednesday the canvass this week of the homes of 164 offenders within 20 miles of the baseball tournament in Williamsport found five potential violations.
Pennsylvania's version of Megan's Law requires certain offenders to register through the state police and report changes of address and other information.
The checks are part of a program called Operation Safety Net, which began four years ago. So far it has resulted in more than 6,000 unannounced compliance checks and generated more than 150 arrests.
The checks occurred Monday and Tuesday and were conducted with the help of local and state officers.
The Little League World Series begins Thursday. ..Source.. by StarTribune
May 31, 2014
Costs Associated with Sex Offender Laws: Federal costs where and spent on what?
May 2014:
Every so often I will dig into something and show folks what I've found; well this is one of those times. Recently I reported that the Federal Government created anew website to let the public know what is being, or has been, dolled out with respect to various federal topics: see All of the US government's spending will soon be available on one website.
A few important notes:
Note 1: This website is all about what the federal government SPENT, not what was appropriated when a law was enacted. So, if you start with "The Adam Walsh Act" and expect to get the costs of that act, state and federal, you WILL NOT get that from this website. You will get the federal monies dolled out under the "Adam Walsh Act" and nothing more. Its all about how the federal government tags the money it gives out.Next lets follow one search I did, and the results the site showed which was astonishing:
Note 2: Now assume you searched for "sex offenders" and it does provide you with certain figures, I've tried, but do not expect the site to combine these numbers with Adam Walsh Act figures. The federal government tags money by the law or issue under which money is dolled out.
Note 3: Document every step you take with the website because it is easy to get kicked out to not relvant information and that is frustrating.
The site is USASpending.gov and I typed in the search box Sex Offenders.This website is a treasure trove for researchers. Unfortunately there is no "Master Topic List" that I could find so its hunt and peck time, maybe too frustrating for some. Its all about the way the federal government breaks down money it spends.
On the right side of the screen under "by Type of Spending" click on GRANTS and give it a minute or so to redisplay what it finds. There are other check boxes one can explore at a later date, some not relevant to sex offenders and should be ignored, but for now chose the GRANTS.
Now below the map, on the left side, it will DETAIL who got what and the GRANT information. Very interesting. But here is where it gets more interesting, see this just below the map?
Look closely where that pic shows "Summary View" and click on it, wait a few seconds for it to redisplay what it finds. What it displays absolutely takes a researcher's breath away.
Here is what caught my eye, scroll down to Assistance Data Only, notice that the Center for Effective Public Policy received $10,828,476 click link to see who they are. This is a non profit getting money to talk about what should be done, they do not put their findings into operation, they just talk about them. And check out their "Resource Centers" many are very familiar. The point being money -millions if not billions by now- are going to places to simply talk about policy. And we wonder why the U.S. debt is in the trillions?
OK, the other information on the Fed site leads us to a whole other world of thought. Enjoy pondering and you'll never know what else you can find there, use creative thinking.
Hummm, I wonder if there is anything for the Second Chance Act?
Good luck and happy researching.
October 8, 2013
Many Teens Admit To Coercing Others Into Sex
Is kissing always sexual? How often do folks kiss when they don't want to, just to be friendly?10-8-2013 National:
Almost 1 in 10 high school and college-aged people have forced someone into sexual activity against his or her will, a study finds. The majority of those who have done it think that the victim is at least partly to blame.
The results come from a multi-year study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was designed to look for the roots of adult sexual violence. Most adult perpetrators say they first preyed on another while still in their teens.
In adulthood, more than 1 million people are the victims of rape or sexual assault each year, according to the National Institutes of Justice. Domestic violence affects more than 2 million adults a year.
A multiple-choice online survey conducted in 2010 and 2011 asked 1,058 teenagers and young adults, ages 14 to 21, whether they'd ever "kissed, touched, or done anything sexual with another person when that person did not want you to?"
Nine percent said yes. Eight percent had kissed or touched someone when they knew the other person did not want to. Three percent got someone to give in to unwilling sex. Three percent attempted to rape the person, and 2 percent completed a rape. (The numbers don't add up because some perpetrators admitted to more than one behavior.)
This may be the first survey to ask questions like these, and the researchers caution that because of the relatively small number of youths involved, the results aren't definitive. But they are certainly chilling.
"I don't get creeped out very often," says Michele Yabarra, lead researcher of the study, which was published online in JAMA Pediatrics. "But this was wow."
When asked who was to blame, half of the perpetrators said the victim was completely responsible; one-third said it was their own fault. "If half of the perpetrators felt the victim was responsible for this, we need to do something," Ybarra, who is president and research director of the Center for Innovative Public Health in San Clemente, Calif.
Sixteen seems to be the age when sexual coercion becomes a real possibility, at least for boys. Almost half of the study participants said they first forced someone to have sexual activity when they were 16. But by age 18, girls had become much more involved in preying on others, to the point where they were almost as likely to be perpetrators as were boys.
Three-quarters of the victims were in a romantic relationship with the perpetrator.
The coercion used was almost always psychological, not physical. The most common tactics for forcing or trying to force sex were guilt, deliberately getting the victim drunk or arguing with or pressuring the victim. Five percent threatened to use physical force, and 8 percent did. The survey used the federal Bureau of Justice definition of rape, which includes psychological coercion as well as physical force.
The survey also looked at media use and found that perpetrators of sexual violence were more likely to watch violent X-rated materials than were the others.
By now most parents reading this are probably ready to hide. But Ybarra tells Shots these numbers show that parents need to act and well before their children are 16.
"We absolutely need to have conversations with our kids about what healthy sex is and what unhealthy sex is," she says. Parents could say, "'If you have to convince your partner, maybe that's not the right way to have sex.' Even simple messages like that are important." ..Source.. by Nancy Shute
See also Sexual violence common among teens. Feeling responsible isn't.
September 18, 2013
ICE Arrests Sexual Predator While 3,000 Deportable Alien Sex Offenders Released
Less than 36 hours after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) announced the availability of its new Operation Predator smartphone app to solicit information from the public about wanted child predators, a Michigan man profiled in the app was arrested.
Meanwhile, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigatory and audit branch, disclosed in an audit report that according to ICE, of the 59,347 aliens under an order of supervision as of September 2012, 2,837 (5 percent) were deportable aliens who’d been convicted of a sex offense” who had been released from detention.
GAO explained in its report, which was redacted because it contains law enforcement sensitive information, that there are circumstances in which criminal aliens who have been ordered deported from the United States -- including those convicted of a sex offense -- cannot be removed. For example, a criminal alien may not be removed because the designated country will not accept the alien’s return, GAO determined.
This untenable situation exists largely because of the decision of the US Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis that imposed strict limits on ICE’s ability to detain aliens beyond six months after the issuance of a final order of removal if removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
And “in these instances,” GAO informed lawmakers, the “ICE-Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate [ICE-ERO] may release the alien into the community under an order of supervision,” but then fails to inform local law enforcement of the person’s whereabouts or fails to keep track of the person altogether.
In July 2012, the House Committee on the Judiciary released a report that said thousands of illegal and criminal immigrants released by federal authorities as a result of the Obama administration’s lax immigration policies have gone on to commit more crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and child molestation.
The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) contained an analysis of crosschecked data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee subpoenaed the agency following the Obama administration’s announcement to stop deporting certain illegal immigrants flagged by Secure Communities, a law enforcement program that identifies illegal immigrants arrested and booked in local jails.
The data provided to the committee by DHS included 276,412 records of charges against illegal and criminal immigrants identified by Secure Communities between October 27, 2008 and July 31, 2011. There were 159,286 unique individuals in the database and 205,101 unique arrest incidents.
Of those released, CRS found that about 17 percent of illegal and criminal immigrants, or 26,412, were rearrested on criminal charges. These 26,412 recidivists accounted for a total of 42,827 arrests and 57,763 alleged violations.
The categories of crimes charged include nearly 8,500 DUI (14.6 percent), over 6,000 drug violations (10.9 percent), more than 4,000 major criminal offenses (7.1 percent), which included murder, assault, battery, rape and kidnapping, nearly 3,000 theft (4.9 percent), and over 1,000 other violent crimes (2.1 percent), that included carjacking, child cruelty, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking and torture.
These crimes committed by both illegal and legal immigrants included 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, and 542 sex crimes.
Of those persons rearrested, nearly 30 percent, or 7,283, were illegal immigrants. Since 46,734 illegal immigrants were released, this means the recidivism rate of this group was 16 percent. Although these illegal aliens should have been deported, under Obama administration immigration policies they were released them back into US communities.
The crimes charged against these illegals included nearly 2,000 DUIs (11.9 percent), over 1,400 drug violations (8.8 percent), and more than 1,000 major criminal offenses and violent crimes (6.9 percent) including murder, assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking and torture.
The crimes committed by illegals included 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes.
In its 5-4 decision in the case of Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite detention of deportable illegal aliens for greater than six months is unconstitutional unless there is “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
“Freedom from imprisonment lies at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,” said Associate Justice Stephen Breyer in the majority opinion. Breyer was joined in this opinion by Justices J.P. Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
But in the dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that, "Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned, an alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissable alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right."
Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed, saying, "the authority to detain beyond the removal period is to protect the community, not to negotiate the aliens' return … An alien's admission to this country is conditioned upon compliance with our laws, and removal is the consequence of a breach of that understanding."
Justices Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist also dissented from the majority opinion.
Because of the risk that some individuals previously convicted of a sex offense may pose, in July 2006, Congress passed -- and the President signed -- the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) that provided a new set of sex offender registration and notification standards, including criminal penalties for those who fail to comply with these standards. ..continued.. by Anthony Kimery
July 24, 2013
ALERT UPDATE: Sen Vitter requests that -his amendment- attacking sex offenders NOT be read into the record
7-24-2013 Washington DC:
CHECKED: 8-5-2013 Thomas still not updated w/amendments mentioned below.Yesterday we reported that Sen. Vitter (his website) presented an amendment affecting certain sex offenders in a new bill S-1243. At that time we did not have the details of the amendment, but in the Congressional record we found where he presented the amendment (see below).
Pay particular attention to the fact, that, he asks the clerk to "dispense with reading the amendment" i.e., to not read it into the record. He doesn't want the public to know what it says!
Thankfully the clerk reads some part of it to give us an idea of its intent, but we still do not have the exact wording to properly analyze it. In addition, the bill text on Thomas was not updated to reflect what it says either. So below is all we have to report.
Note: ONE Senator voted AGAINST this amendment, Senator Rockafeller of West Virginia. He should be commended for standing up against this harmful amendment. His contact information is at the link.Till I know more.
eAdvocate
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1744
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I now call up Vitter amendment No. 1744 to the appropriations bill currently before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. VITTER] proposes an amendment numbered 1744.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used to provide housing assistance benefits for an individual who is convicted of aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)).
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I hope this is viewed universally as a commonsense, bipartisan amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment through the rollcall vote which we will have. It is very simple, very basic, and I think very appropriate. It says that for the most serious crimes that exist--violent crimes, crimes against women and children, very serious crimes by anyone's definition--these will be disqualifiers for Federal housing assistance.
I bring this amendment for two simple reasons. First, I think this should go hand in hand with committing those extremely serious crimes. Again, we are not talking about threshold crimes. We are not talking about first-time drug offenses. We are talking about aggravated sexual abuse, murder, sexual exploitation of children, violence against women.
Those are the four big categories, very serious, very violent crimes. Usually, these are crimes focused on some of the most vulnerable in our society, such as children and abused women. I think it is very reasonable and common sense to say these crimes have very serious consequences. One of those--the most obvious is a stiff jail sentence, in some cases life. But one of those consequences is also going to be the Federal taxpayer is not going to give you housing or give you help for housing.
There is a second equally, maybe more, important reason to support this commonsense disqualifier. It is to protect those other folks who need and use Federal housing assistance and help clean up what historically have been areas that actually congregate violent crime in some of our worst social problems, in Federal housing projects.
I grew up in New Orleans. This has been a perennial problem in New Orleans. But I am happy and proud to say
[Page: S5823] GPO's PDF
it is a problem that has been getting better, being solved bit by bit, particularly post-Katrina. Similar to most major American cities, in the 1950s and 1960s, huge housing projects began to be built and began to grow in New Orleans. They were, unfortunately, centers of some of the worst of some of our social ills, particularly violent crime and drug abuse.
And that is because we had a policy which actually congregated--and I hope that wasn't the intent--the worst of those problems in these housing projects. Of course, that fed on itself and made many of these problems even worse and certainly subjected innocent folks trapped in those housing projects to some of the worst problems of our big cities.
In New Orleans, since Katrina, we have taken significant steps to get away from that. We have instituted new policy. They are less dense--these housing projects--and there are more mixed income; not 100 percent of the folks in these projects are subsidized. It is usually a mixed approach so that there are some market based, some partially subsidized, some heavily subsidized, but less dense environments. So we have taken specific steps to try to learn from the horrible mistakes we made in Federal housing projects particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s.
This commonsense test fits in exactly with that approach, and it says we are not going to subject people in these centers of subsidized housing to the worst violence and the worst social problems we have. We are not going to congregate violent criminals, drug abusers, and others in these housing projects.
So that is the second compelling reason to support the Vitter amendment. Keep in mind the innocent folks in those housing projects who get some subsidized housing help. They deserve better. They do not deserve to be subjected to the worst of the worst, these horrible social problems that in the past we have actually congregated in public housing projects.
So, again, I hope this is viewed as it should be, as a commonsense amendment and one that deserves wide bipartisan support. I would also note it is extremely similar to an amendment that passed on the recent farm bill without controversy--the same basic rule with regard to the Food Stamp Program. So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this straightforward, reasonable amendment on the rollcall vote we will, hopefully, have soon.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Louisiana for his amendment. It would restrict criminals who have been convicted of certain violent or sex crimes from receiving housing assistance through HUD's public housing choice neighborhood and tenant- and project-based section 8 programs.
Public housing authorities and private property owners who provide assistance under these programs are already required under Federal law to deny admission or assistance to individuals who are subject to lifetime registration on a sex offender registry under a State program. However, when you move to the next stage, strangely enough, it is discretionary.
Under current law, prior violent criminal activity may be grounds for the denial of assistance for public housing and the section 8 programs, but it is not required to be grounds to deny that kind of assistance. That is exactly the point that Senator Vitter is trying to make. So his amendment would tighten the current law to make it very clear that under certain categories--aggravated sexual abuse, murder, and murder in the second degree, sexual exploitation, and other abuse of children and violence against women--individuals convicted of those crimes would not qualify for public housing assistance under the programs that I have mentioned.
As Senator Vitter said, this is a commonsense amendment. It will help to make housing safer for the law-abiding citizens residing there. He has targeted serious crimes, and I think his amendment should be adopted. I am going to support the amendment, and I will be urging its adoption.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
...
ALERT: Sen Vitter has again -passed an amendment- attacking sex offenders in another bill
7-24-2013 Washington DC:
On 7-23-2013 Sen. Vitter (his website) presented an amendment on the senate floor which attacks some or all sex offenders; since I do not yet have the details of the amendment I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it deals with Housing (HUD). It appears this is his way of doing things so no one from the public knows about it until it has been accepted; his MO!
The Senate was working on S-1243 "Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations," an appropriations bill, and I am quite sure Vitter's amendment was inserted into that bill.
Later today, hopefully the clerk will update Thomas and we can then tell exactly what he did.
The Senate voted on the amendment and it passed 99-1; that is how I was made aware of his actions.
Till I know more.
eAdvocate
July 10, 2013
Top Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Talk to the Police
7-10-2013 National:
From James Kirk Piccione, a Lawyer
REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you.
If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.
If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.
Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.
This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough
or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.
REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.
People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense. A better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.
REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.
This kind of thing happens all the time. A person who is completely innocent and who is trying to vehemently assert their innocence will go overboard and take it a little bit too far and deny some insignificant fact, tell some little white lie, because they want to sound as innocent as possible. But if the police have evidence of that lie, it makes your entire statement look like a lie. The prosecutor will ask: “Why did he lie to the police? Why indeed would he lie to the police, unless he were guilty?”
That little white lie could be used to destroy your
credibility at trial.
An example would be a man who is questioned about a murder. He wants to sound innocent. He wants to sound non-violent. He is, in fact, innocent. So he denies everything. He denies the killing. He denies being in the area where the killing occurred on the night that it occurred. He denies owning a gun, and denies that he has ever owned a gun in his whole life. But it Turns out that this last statement is not true, And the police can prove it. He did at one time during his life own a gun. Now he has told a lie and the police have caught him and things will only go downhill from there. Although he is innocent of the murder, he has told a lie that will be used to destroy his credibility at trial and could be the cause of his conviction.
REASON #4: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.
For example, a suspect is being questioned about a murder. He is truly innocent of the murder. But in the course of explaining his innocence, he makes the statement that he never liked the victim, because the victim was not a nice guy. A statement like that could be used to prove motive.
Or in the course of the statement, the suspect might admit that he was in the area of town where the murder was committed at the time it was committed. Although he’s innocent and although this statement is true, the prosecutor could use that statement to suggest that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime, which looks very bad in front of a jury.
REASON #5: Even if you were innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, and you don’t give the police any information that can be used against you to prove motive or opportunity, you still should not talk to the police because the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.
What if the police officer remembers something wrong? What if he remembers you said “X” when actually you said “Y”? If the police officer takes the witness stand and contradicts your statements at trial, it will kill your credibility. You can take the witness stand and say “I never said that!” But it’s your word versus a police officer. Who’s the jury going to believe? Who will the jury assume is lying to save his own skin? Who will the jury believe is lying because he’s really guilty? You guessed it. YOU!
REASON #6: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth, and your entire statement is videotaped so that the police don’t have to rely on their memory, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.
Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning A suspect about a homicide. And the suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”
When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama, suggesting that suspect has had a Freudian slip, and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.
REASON #7: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth in your statement, and you give the police no information that can be used against you, and the whole statement is videotaped, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).
Suppose the police have a statement from a witness who claims to have seen the suspect in the area where the crime was committed at the time of the incident. Suppose further that this witness is actually wrong, but has made an honest mistake. The suspect then gives a statement to the police in which he says he was nowhere near the area where the crime took place at the time of the incident. By giving the statement, the suspect has now created a conflict between his own statement and the statement of this witness. By itself, the statement of the witness that he or she saw the suspect in the area at the time the crime was committed is not that useful. But by giving this statement, and creating a conflict with this witness’s statement, the suspect has now made this relatively minor witness into the government’s star witness.
The jury will hear the conflict and will assume that the suspect is lying and wonder why.
So even if you tell the complete truth, you’re putting your cards on the table without first seeing what evidence the government has. And if the government has some bit of evidence which, through some honest mistake, contradicts part of your story, you set yourself up to be portrayed as a liar by giving a statement without first knowing what evidence the government has.
REASON #8: The police do not have authority to make deals or grant a suspect leniency in exchange for getting as statement.
People tell me all the time that they gave a statement to the police because the police told them that they would be better off if they confessed, better off if they admitted what they did wrong, better off if they cooperated. The police will make vague statements that things will go easier on the suspect if he simply admits what he did wrong. The police will also make vague statements suggesting that they will do what they can to help the suspect, that they will put in a good word for the suspect, if the suspect will just come clean.
Number One thing to remember: The police do not have authority to make deals, grant immunity, or negotiate plea agreements. The only entity with that authority is the District Attorney in state court and the U.S. Attorney in federal court. Despite their claim that they are trying to help you, the only help police are providing when they take your statement is giving you rope with which to hang yourself.
REASON #9: Even if a suspect is guilty, and wants to confess, there may be mitigating factors which justify a lesser charge.
Mitigating factors are rarely brought out by the police in an interview. Normally, police want to focus on the facts that will suggest the suspect has committed the most severe crime possible. In fact, the suspect may have committed a lesser grade of offense. And if given the opportunity to talk to an attorney first, the attorney may be able to explain to the suspect what facts are important in establishing that he is guilty of a lesser grade of an offense, and not a higher grade. A confession presented in this context to the District Attorney’s office might result in a lesser charge and a more appropriate and fair penalty.
REASON #10: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.
If you tell your story one time at trial and you tell the truth and you’re innocent, there’s very little the prosecutor can do by way of cross examination. But if you’ve told your story twice, once at trial, and once previously in a statement to the police, many months apart, the chances are very high that, even if you are telling the truth, some little details in your statement are going to change.
A good cross examiner will pick up on these changes and will relentlessly question you about them in an effort to make it look like you are lying.
So for all these reasons, whether you are guilty or innocent, whether you want to confess or want to exonerate yourself, whether you’re poorly educated or the most eloquent speaker in the world, you should NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, give a statement to the police when you have been detained as a suspect.
June 19, 2013
ALERT: US House Farm Bill attacking certain sex offenders
6-19-2013 Washington DC:
The US House Farm Bill HR 1947 was all but done and ready for a floor vote, with no affect on sex offenders. Then on 6-17-2013 TWO lawmakers went before the House Rules Committee asking to ADD Amendments to the House Farm Bill, both were permitted to add the amendments. See them below.
I strongly suggest that BOTH amendments (46 and 131) be OPPOSED as I am sure there are former/ex sex offenders that may have a drug history too. We need to contact our Washington DC Representatives ASAP as the House will be voting on their Farm Bill soon.
Please remember this is the HOUSE version of the Farm Bill, and not the Senate version (which has its' own problems). This post will be updated as needed, when we hear more, so bookmark it and come back often.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (Hat Tip to FedCURE)
AMENDMENT 131 TO
RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 113-14, H.R. 1947
FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013
OFFERED BY MR. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4033. NO OPT-OUT REGARDING INELIGIBILITY OF FELONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES.
Section 115(d)(1)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 862a(d)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘with respect to assistance provided under paragraph (1)’’ before the period at the end.SEC. 4034. FIVE-YEAR MINIMUM INELIGIBILITY OF FELONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES.
Section 115(d)(1)(B) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 862a(d)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, except that such period may not be less than 5 years after release from confinement with respect to benefits described in subsection (a)(1)’’ before the period.SEC. 4035. PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY OF OFFENDERS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
(a) AMENDMENT.—Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(r) PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN OF OFFENDERS.—No member of a household who is otherwise eligible to participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be eligible to participate in the program as a member of that or any other household if such member is convicted of rape, robbery, murder, or treason.’’.(b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply to a conviction for conduct occurring on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.
AMENDMENT 46 TO THE RULES COMMITTEE PRINT
OF H.R. 1947
OFFERED BY MR. HUDSON OF NORTH CAROLINA
At the end of subtitle A of title IV (page 346, after line 17), insert the following new section:
SEC. 4033. TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by section 4009. is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(s) TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.—‘‘(1) Nothing in this Act, or in any other Federal law, shall be considered to prevent a State, at the full cost to such State, from—‘‘(A) enacting legislation to provide for testing any individual who is a member of a household applying for supplemental nutrition assistance benefits, for the unlawful use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving such benefits; and‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, term ‘controlled substance’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act ((21U.S.C. 802).’’.
‘‘(B) finding an individual ineligible to participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program on the basis of the positive result of the testing conducted by the State under such legislation.
...
June 3, 2013
No food stamps for murderers and sex offenders under new farm bill?
6-3-2013 National:
A farm bill amendment is supposedly aimed at curbing rampant welfare fraud and abuse, but advocacy groups see it as another setback for the recovering incarcerated population.
An amendment to the pending farm bill that would deny food stamps to convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles is receiving stiff opposition.
Sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), amendment 1056 would ban food assistance through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) for life for anyone ever convicted of certain offenses, also reducing benefits for the person's children and family members.
SNAP, which is overseen by the Department of Agriculture, has doubled in cost since 2008 because of the economic recession. In 2012, 46.6 million Americans participated in SNAP at a cost of $78.4 billion.
Vitter, who is currently traveling, couldn't be reached immediately for comment, but his spokesperson Luke Bolar told MSN News that the amendment had been accepted by the Senate. Bolar said that final passage of the new five-year farm bill — which sets policies for farm subsidies and food stamps — could come this week.
Currently, there is a lifetime ban on food stamps for convicted drug felons only, although Bolar said that "many states have opted out of or modified that ban."
'WIDESPREAD FRAUD AND ABUSE'
The amendment "would establish a complete ban in the program for anyone who's committed a violent rape, a crime of pedophilia or murder, and there would be no opt-out for states," Vitter said when introducing the amendment.
Bolar said the driving force behind the amendment was an audit from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office on the federally funded Louisiana food stamp program from 2010-2012, which found that there were duplicates and overpayments of millions.
The results show that more than $1.1 million was issued to 1,761 people who were in prison, 322 people gained benefits even though their wages exceeded $50,000, and 3,060 people used $2 million worth of benefits in a state other than Louisiana, according to a press release from Vitter's office.
Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP are criticizing the amendment, saying that it would impose even more hurdles for members of the incarcerated population who are already struggling to re-enter society.
"This hastily considered amendment is unjust, cruel and counterproductive," wrote research and advocacy group the Sentencing Project, which says that of those in prison, about one in six were convicted of offenses the amendment targets.
"Most of these individuals will one day be released," the project says. "Over time, the food stamp ban would be felt by well over a million people, with communities of color disproportionately affected. This loss of food assistance would be in addition to the felony drug ban already in effect."
OPPOSITION SPEAKS OUT
Nearly three dozen criminal justice and civil rights groups signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid arguing that the amendment would "impose a burden on thousands of seniors, children, and working families hardest hit by the nation’s economic downturn."
"Because it is retroactive, an elderly person who long ago completed his or her prison sentence could lose SNAP benefits under this amendment," the letter states. "A grandmother who decades ago was implicated in a violent crime could lose food stamps for her household … A family working to make ends meet upon a relative’s re-entry from prison could be denied a lifeline and plunged further into poverty."
The letter points out that those with criminal records already have to jump through thousands of federal, state and local hoops to gain employment, education, housing and public benefits.
Conservative website Breitbart.com applauded Vitter's amendment, writing: "Thank God we can all agree that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to feed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles."
Vitter also introduced an amendment to end the free government cell phone program for low-income subscribers, which has been referred to as "Obama phone."
"I think the entire program is an entitlement mentality gone wild ... that we have started the notion that folks are entitled to the government, the taxpayer, providing them almost everything under the sun," Vitter said while introducing the amendment, contending that it had also resulted in rampant waste and abuse.
That amendment has yet to receive a Senate vote. ..Source.. by Riya Bhattacharjee of MSN News
June 2, 2013
Should Murderers and Rapists Get Food Stamps?
6-2-2013 Washington DC:
Last week, the Senate accepted by unanimous consent an amendment to the pending farm bill that would ban convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (a.k.a. food stamps). Introduced by Louisiana Republican David Vitter, the amendment has received condemnation from the left and at least one round of applause on the right.
My initial reaction was “A few undesirables will lose a taxpayer-financed handout—so what?” But the more I thought about the amendment, the less I cared for it. For starters, the amendment appears to be politically motivated. Vote against it and a Senator can expect to see a negative campaign add from his or her next opponent. That’s probably why the amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent instead of being formally voted on in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
More importantly, what does it accomplish? In terms of budgetary savings, it probably won’t save taxpayers much money. In addition to doing little to curb the size of government, it does nothing to rein in the federal government’s scope. I believe that it is not a proper role of the federal government to fund and/or administer anti-poverty programs. At most, such concerns should be the domain of state and local governments. Ideally, poverty relief would be completely handled by charities and other private organizations. The Vitter amendment, however, is just another example of the Beltway’s one-size-fits-all mentality.
So should an individual convicted of a horrible crime who has paid his or her dues to society be denied assistance? Some would say yes, others would say no. The left has a case when they argue that denying assistance to an ex-criminal could have the unintended consequence of incentivizing further criminal activity. But the right also has a case that, hey, that’s our hard-earned money being taken from the government and being handed over to people who made awful choices.
The diversity of opinion points to a fundamental problem with the government trying to act like a charity: the country gets stuck with whatever the politicians conjure up. Contrary to what youngsters are led to believe in school, our elected officials are not altruistic, enlightened beings. In reality, federal efforts to alleviate poverty will always be undermined by the self-serving nature of politics. And even when approached with the noblest of intentions, bureaucratic sclerosis and the undue influence of special interests will ultimately undermine a program’s effectiveness and efficiency.
Personally, I would have no problem donating to a charity that helps struggling ex-cons who need to put food on the family table. Perhaps other people wouldn’t feel as comfortable and would instead direct their donations toward charities that only serve, say, hungry women and children who were the victims of violent crime. That’s the beauty of choice, which stands in stark contrast to the ugly, coercive alternative of the political system. ..Source.. by Tad DeHaven, CATO Institute
May 31, 2013
The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear
5-31-2013 National:
The fraud, abuse, and waste in food stamps is disgusting. This program was meant to be a hand up and has been turned into handouts that create a dependence on government.
Check it out:
A recent US News & World Report article set out to unveil the “facts” about food stamps.
What are the so-called “facts”?
For one, the article claims that the food stamps program is not “bloated,” but rather, the surge in participation and spending is a result of the program “doing what it’s supposed to do.”
But what is it “supposed to do”?
Food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it is now called) were designed to ensure that Americans without the ability to provide for themselves are able to receive basic nutrition. However, application loopholes and policy changes over the past decade or so have allowed recipients to bypass income and asset tests, meaning many people are receiving food stamps who would not have been eligible under the program’s original purposes.
One of the changes in eligibility requirements is “broad-based categorical eligibility.” This type of eligibility means that an individual who receives any service under another welfare program, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—even something as small as a TANF brochure—can be deemed eligible for food stamps. A full 50 percent of all food stamp recipients now enroll in the program through this broad-based categorical eligibility procedure. ...continued... by Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser
'Murderers, rapists, pedophiles' to be banned from food stamps
5-31-2013 National:
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have agreed to a proposed amendment to cut funding and add new restrictions for the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly referred to as food stamps.
According to a whole raft of studies, the program has been the difference between millions of poor and working poor individuals and families eating or not eating. These proposed cuts amount to more than $20 billion over 10 years in the House version, with 2 million people cut from the program entirely.
According to TheRoot.com, these cuts and bans do not go far enough for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). Vitter has added insult to injury by introducing an amendment that would bar anyone convicted of a violent or sexual crime from receiving food stamps--for life.
There were no objections to Vitter's amendment. And the Obama White House has indicated that it expects to support the new restrictions.
Interestingly, the federal government already bans for life anyone convicted of a drug felony under a law passed in 1996.
But that law was so damaging that 16 states and the District of Columbia exercised their right to opt out of the ban, and 24 states have a modified restriction. Only 10 states fully comply with the original version.
Vitter would have us believe that his amendment applies only to "murderers, rapists and pedophiles." In truth, it will impact youth offenders and those who have already served long sentences as well. And, absolutely no consideration whatever is given to any felon who has successfully been rehabilitated.
Because blacks and Hispanics are already far more likely to be incarcerated, they will be far more affected by this law.
This law reflects a policy that is meant to deliberately further marginalize people coming out of prison. Mark Clements, who was tortured by Chicago police into a confession, spent 28 years wrongly imprisoned, breaks it down in real terms. Quoted in the Socialist Worker, he said the proposed amendment:
“....is just going to hurt people who are already hurting, and their families, too. People need help when they get out of prison. A few dollars in your pocket to get some food in the cabinets--that's important. People just don't know how hard it is for ex-offenders to get jobs in this economy. And now this little bit of help will be taken away? This is just wrong-headed.”Michelle Alexander has defined and described the stigma of the “prison label” better than most in her book "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” She wrote:
“In many respects, release from prison does not represent the beginning of freedom, but instead a cruel new phase of stigmatization and control. Myriad laws, rules and regulations discriminate against ex-offenders and effectively prevent their meaningful re-integration into the mainstream economy and society.”Ex-offenders find it that much more difficult to find work in an already difficult economy. As Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote:
“It's also possible that the amendment could contribute to recidivism. Ex-offenders often have difficulty finding jobs that pay decent wages. The amendment could pose dilemmas for ex-offenders who are trying to go straight, but can neither find jobs nor, as a result of the amendment, obtain enough food to feed their children and families.”
In 2012, the average monthly benefit for people in the SNAP program was $133.41. Not much, but a critical amount for people living with nothing or close to nothing.
But the really devastating effects of this law will affect not only certain ex-offenders directly, but their children and family members as well.
Christine Thomas is a California prison activist. She has has worked in a public defender's office in California for more than 25 years and identifies the broader social inequalities behind this measure:
“When the Wall Street banksters take this country for the crime of our lifetime, they have the victims paying the restitution, while we give them bonuses and watch them laugh all the way to their offshore investments, vacation homes and never-ending luxuries. When poor people are accused of a crime, they're going to be denied food for the rest of their life. And no one will stand up for them--Republicans and Democrats alike--and say that this is immoral.”Timothy Smeeding is director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Research on Poverty. He has called the amendment “ridiculous.” “It doesn’t save anyone any money,” he told MSNBC. “It just makes sort of a political statement that we don’t forgive people for crimes once they pay their dues. We’re just going to punish them forever.”
Smeeding argued that this law will make it more difficult for convicted felons to meet their basic nutritional needs and would encourage recidivism.
And, of course, there are the very real health risks involved in basically starving people. A Yale University study looked at the ban on former drug offenders receiving food stamps. That study found that those affected "are at greater risk of engaging in dangerous sexual risk behaviors in order to obtain food," according to a report in the Yale News. The study also found that "released drug offenders, particularly women and mothers, are turning to prostitution and other behaviors that put them at risk for HIV and other negative outcomes in order to obtain food."
Earlier this year, the New York Times called for lifting the bans on denying food -- food -- to people convicted of felony drug offenses. "It is already clear that the bans are counterproductive and that it is time for states that have not completely lifted them to do so," the Times wrote.
Instead, Vitter, together with Democrats and Republicans, and the White House, propose to expand the ban, apparently because once a person commits a felony, he or she loses the right to feed himself or herself directly.
Instead, when they re-offend (as two out of three will) and are sent back to prison, the state (through its private contractors) will be happy to provide, at the absolute lowest cost possible, a barely subsistence level of nutrition.
Opinion
I have an idea:
Let's amend and extend Sen. Vitter's amendment to its logical exclusion. Okay, we already deny food, shelter, education, housing, and jobs to ex-offenders, right?
Let's also deny them water. Or better yet, water and oxygen -- and be done with the whole damn issue. ..Source.. by Herbert Dyer, Jr.
May 28, 2013
Legislative auditor finds fraud in food stamp program
Folks need to review the Louisiana Auditor's Report and you will find that, persons with sex crimes had NOTHING to do with the problems LA had with their food stamp program. In fact, the report points to 84 drug offenders abusing the system in one way or another! The full LA Audit Report is HERE.5-6-2013 Louisiana:
In Sen. Vitter's Press Release regarding the Amendment he mentions the LA Auditor's Report as his basis for his Amendment 1056, but there is NO correlation with the problems the LA Auditor found and anyone with a sex crime in their background. So What is his reasoning behind this Amendment? This Washington Post article may lend a clue: Vitter’s efforts in the Senate outlast the shadow of his scandal
About $1.1 million in federal food stamp money was spent over the past two years by people who were incarcerated and not eligible for the program, the state Legislative auditor found in a report released Monday. The audit encouraged the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services to do a better job policing its own databases and other records to root out fraud.
More than 80 convicted drug felons who were not eligible for the program received $107,864 in benefits in 2011 and 2012. People convicted of felony drug offenses must wait a year from their release from prison before they can receive food stamps, according to the report.
DCFS could prevent these problems from recurring by checking people who sign up for the program against data from the Louisiana Department of Corrections, the report suggested.
The auditor also found signs of potential fraud that should be more fully explored. This included more than 3,000 of the state's 866,335 recipients who spent all of their benefits in other states, an indication that they perhaps no longer live in Louisiana and might be double dipping. These participants spent $2 million last year.
Another example of potential fraud were 154 cases identified by the auditor that involved a recipient using a benefit card in Louisiana and within an hour spending the food stamp money in another state.
"DCFS takes seriously our responsibility to be good stewards of the resources provided," Secretary Suzy Sonnier said in a statement released on Monday. "DCFS is reviewing all the cases cited in the report for potential fraud and will work with authorities to prosecute those who have purposely tried to defraud the system."
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as the program is now called, is a federal program managed by state agencies. In Louisiana, DCFS determines who is eligible, giving out benefit cards that each month are loaded with a family's allotment of money. Those benefits range from $200 for a single person to $1,202 for a family of eight.
The Louisiana program had $1.4 billion in expenditures in 2012.
In a written response to the report, Sonnier said her agency will get better documentation about prisoners from the corrections department to prevent the kind of fraud detailed in the report. Sonnier also pledged to expand the agency's data analysis.
Auditors found a few problems that could be examined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which certifies the stores allowed to accept food stamps and is responsible for monitoring potential fraud at the retail level.
Investigators found two stores where participants travel long distances to shop, a sign of possible problems. "According to DCFS, participants who travel long distances to certain retailers may do so because they know that certain retailers will traffic benefits," the report stated.
They also found a couple smaller stores, including a donut shop in New Orleans, with numerous purchases over $100. One small grocery store in Monroe had 7,787 transactions where participants spent more than $100, receiving $1.64 million.
In her letter, Sonnier said that DCFS will refer the auditor's findings to federal authorities, as well as the Louisiana Inspector General. ..Source.. by Laura Maggi, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
May 25, 2013
No food stamps for people convicted of violent crimes
5-25-2013 Washington DC:
On Wednesday, the 2013 Senate Farm Bill was amended by to make those convicted of certain violent crimes ineligible for SNAP (Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, popularly known as food stamps. The amendment was passed by unanimous consent, meaning that neither Republicans nor Democrats objected to the bill.
The new eligibility requirements were proposed by Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, who at the same time introduced another amendment designed to end the so-called “Obama phone” program which helps low-income Americans obtain cell phones. The Senate’s Farm Bill—a large piece of legislation passed once every few years to regulate, fund and subsidize various programs related to agriculture and food production—already included language that would cut food stamps by about $4.1 billion.
“Under current law, there is a lifetime ban for convicted drug felons, though many states have opted out of or modified that ban,” reads a statement from Vitter’s office. “Vitter’s amendment would extend the lifetime food stamp ban to dangerous sex offenders and murderers.”Timothy Smeeding, director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Research on Poverty, called the amendment “ridiculous.”
“It doesn’t save anyone any money,” he told MSNBC. “It just makes sort of a political statement that we don’t forgive people for crimes once they pay their dues. We’re just going to punish them forever.” He argued that making it more difficult for convicted felons to meet their basic nutritional needs would encourage recidivism.
There’s research that supports Smeeding’s claim. Researchers at Yale University have found that making drug offenders ineligible for food stamps puts them “at greater risk of engaging in dangerous, sexual risk behaviors in order to obtain food,” according to the Yale News. Many former drug offenders in states where they are ineligible for food stamps “are turning to prostitution and other behaviors that put them at risk for HIV and other negative outcomes in order to obtain food.”
The bill could also have other unintended consequences. For example, “the amendment would mean lower SNAP benefits for their children and other family members,” writes Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The House Farm Bill includes yet more draconian cuts to SNAP benefits. Last week, the House Agriculture Committee approved legislation which would cut $20 billion in SNAP funding over the next decade. ..Source.. by Ned Resnikoff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
