Worcester child molester’s sentence reduced; law changed after assaults occured

3-8-17 Massachusetts:

WORCESTER — A city man sentenced to 10 to 11 years in state prison last week on child sexual assault charges was re-sentenced Wednesday, after it was brought to the court's attention that one of the charges he was convicted of was not law when the assaults occurred.

David W. Thompson, 46, formerly of 5 Malden St., was found guilty Feb. 23 by a Worcester Superior Court jury on charges of child rape aggravated by age difference, two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child and dissemination of matter harmful to a minor. He was convicted of sexually assaulting the female victim on various dates between July 6, 2006, and July 5, 2008, when she was 7 or 8 years old.

Child rape aggravated by age difference carries a minimum-mandatory 10-year prison term and Judge Richard T. Tucker sentenced Mr. Thompson March 2 to 10 to 11 years with probation to follow.

Mr. Thompson's lawyer, Walter A. Rojcewicz Jr., said officials from the state Department of Correction later alerted the court that the aggravated child rape law did not take effect until October 2008, months after the last date listed in the indictments against Mr. Thompson.

Judge Tucker vacated Mr. Thompson's 10- to 11-year sentence for aggravated child rape Wednesday and re-sentenced him to a prison term of 8 to 10 years on what he said was the "lesser included" offense of child rape.

Assistant District Attorney Kristin J. Salvatore asked Judge Tucker Wednesday to reinstate the original sentence of 10 to 11 years on the child rape charge, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but no minimum-mandatory prison term. Mr. Rojcewicz recommended that his client be sentenced to 5 to 6 years.

Mr. Rojcewicz also told Judge Tucker he planned to file a motion for a new trial based on a text that one of the deliberating jurors sent after the trial to a friend who happens to be an assistant district attorney in the same office as Ms. Salvatore. Mr. Rojcewicz said the text, which was immediately brought to the court's attention, called into question the juror's impartiality and the degree of attention he paid to the evidence in the case. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts court decision allows for sex offenders to challenge classification

See also: Sex-offender registry change draws fire

1-12-16 Massachusetts:

A decision made in the state's highest court is causing information of hundreds of sex offenders to no longer be available to the public.

"I'm not going to say that there's no public safety concern whatsoever, but we're going to do the best we can to honor the courts' decision," said Kevin Hayden, chairman of the Sex Offender Registry Board.

The ruling will allow for some sex offenders to challenge their classification as either level two or level three sex offenders. During the challenge, information about where they work and live will no longer be made public.

"The reason we have a sex offender registry is so that victims and parents can find out where sex offenders live and where they work, where they go to school...so that they can keep themselves safe," said State Rep. Shaunna O'Connell.

O'Connell said reducing access to that information on the state's sex offender registers puts victims and families at risk.
In December, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided sex offender classification needed to be proven to a “high degree of probability.”

So all pending sex offender cases and cases under the appeals process will get the benefit of that higher burden of proof. Information about level two and level three sex offenders, or high risk offenders, is currently available online.

"The sex offender registry is constantly attacked so that sex offenders can hide," said O'Connell.

"We're talking about 500 cases possibly more that have to be given new hearings," said Hayden.

Sex Offender Registry Board will conduct all the new hearings and Harden explained that once they're given new hearings, those offenses will enter into an unclassified status. At that point, the individual is taken offline.

"What we actually have today is not a fair and accurate representation of who actually a high risk, moderate risk or a low risk," said Eric Tennen, a criminal defense attorney. ..Source.. by Kerry Kavanaugh

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules Amended Sex Offender Registration Law Ex Post Facto

12-4-2015 Massachusetts:

On July 12, 2013, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill requiring the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) to amend registry requirements for defendants classified as level two and level three sex offenders, under G.L. c.6, §§ 178D and 178K. Level two offenders are deemed only a moderate risk for reoffending, and prior to the new law, the Board was barred from publishing those offenders’ registry information online. Lawmakers deliberately sought to change that policy, and enacted a law that allowed the Board to retroactively post on the Internet information about level two sex offenders.

The move promptly resulted in a class-action suit on behalf of level two sex offenders in Massachusetts, who claimed the law constituted an ex post facto violation. On July 5, 2013, even before the governor had signed the bill into law, the plaintiffs filed a brief requesting class certification, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief enjoining the SORB from publishing registry information about level two sex offenders online.

Lower courts sided with lawmakers, but the state Supreme Court reversed the previous rulings, stating, “We conclude that the amendments [to the bill] are retroactive ... but that such retroactive application would violate State constitutional due process.”

Massachusetts currently has over 11,000 sex offenders registered with the SORB. Of those, only 21.7 percent – or 2,422 level three offenders – are subject to online publication. If the new policy was permitted, that number would immediately jump to 8,496. Constitutional protections prohibit the enactment of ex post facto laws that reach backwards and increase punishment for persons who have already been convicted.

The state Supreme Court recognized that “those offenders who did not challenge their level two classification ... because they specifically relied on their accurate understanding that a level two classification did not carry the consequence of Internet publication of their registry information, would now be subject to exactly that” if the law were allowed to stand.

The Court remanded the case and directed the lower courts to enter an order certifying the plaintiffs as a class and prohibiting the online publication of information related to level two sex offenders convicted prior to July 12, 2013. See: Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 467 Mass. 598, 6 N.E.3d 530 (Mass. 2014). ..Source.. by Gary Hunter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

High court dismisses Mannal challenge

What is the standard for finding the right Politician to represent us? The one who lies the Least? Heaven help us..

See also: Law banning lies about political candidates is struck down by top Massachusetts court

8-7-15 Massachusetts:

Ruling finds law barring false statements in elections invalid

BOSTON — The state’s highest court ruled Thursday that a 1946 law forbidding false statements in elections is unconstitutional and ordered that a criminal complaint sought by state Rep. Brian Mannal against the treasurer of an opposing political action committee be dismissed.

The statute on which Mannal based his challenge is “inconsistent with the fundamental right of free speech” and "chills the very exchange of ideas that gives meaning to our electoral system," Associate Justice Robert Cordy wrote in the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision.

There were no dissenting opinions.

Mannal sought a criminal complaint in Barnstable District Court in October against Melissa Lucas, chairwoman and treasurer of Jobs First Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee. The committee had targeted Mannal, a Centerville Democrat, in his re-election campaign against Republican Adam Chaprales and mailed brochures to voters saying he had filed sex offender legislation in hopes of representing more court-appointed clients, or “helping himself” as an attorney.

“Brian Mannal chose convicted felons over the safety of our families,” a mailer said. “Is this the kind of person we want representing us?”

Mannal said Lucas had knowingly published false statements about him in violation of the 1946 law, which makes such statements a criminal offense if they are designed to help or defeat a candidate or influence voters about a ballot question. Lucas countered that the law was an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and unsuccessfully tried to block the case in federal court.

The case was then transferred to Falmouth District Court, where an assistant clerk-magistrate found probable cause to issue a criminal complaint against Lucas, who, if convicted, could have faced up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine.

Lucas again appealed and the case went to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The challenge quickly became seen as a First Amendment issue, drawing the support of civil liberty advocacy groups and media organizations across New England.

“There may be some folks who interpret this as a win for the First Amendment, and that may well be the truth, but I also think it’s a sad day for democracy when the First Amendment is used as a tool to effectively manipulate voters with false statements,” Mannal said after the high court ruling was released Thursday.

“Melissa Lucas will not be charged with a crime, but that doesn’t mean that (PAC) didn’t do anything wrong.”

Cordy argued in the ruling, however, that Mannal, who went on to win the election by 205 votes, was able to use the language of the law as a tool to stifle political debate.

“A political candidate was nonetheless able to use those statements as the basis for an application for a criminal complaint,” he wrote. “The candidate then used the application as a political tool not only to discredit the statements but also to persuade the PAC to refrain from airing a political advertisement shortly before the election.”

Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe and Attorney General Maura Healey issued statements in support of the high court's ruling.

"The SJC ruled that Melissa Lucas cannot be prosecuted under a 1946 statute consistent with the right to free speech, which is the same result our office sought in this appeal. We appreciate the court’s careful examination of the constitutionality of law and the clarity it has now provided moving forward,” Christopher Loh, a spokesman for Healey, wrote in an email.

O'Keefe said he believed the law to be unconstitutional, but decided that instead of not prosecuting Mannal's complaint, to write a letter to the high court, requesting review.

"I thought the better course of action was to have the Supreme Judicial Court make a decision which would establish precedent going forward," O'Keefe said.

Andy Sellers, a clinical fellow at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, which represented the New England First Amendment Coalition in the case, said the decision was a win for free speech because the law, which was rarely enforced, had language that was vague and could have been used to unjustly punish reporters quoting a potentially defamatory statement or writers of satire.

“There were very few scattered cases where this has been used before,” he said. “It is odd. It’s a very strange law that feels very out of harmony with how we think about political speech today.”

The law, he said, was intended to limit “caustic political debate.”

“That can only come from within ourselves,” he said.

In December, Lucas filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court against Mannal and former Attorney General Martha Coakley seeking relief from the charges and attorney’s fees. Mannal countersued on grounds of defamation and asked that First Jobs send a letter “detailing their wrongdoing” to all registered voters in his district, as well as permanently disbanding its committee, among other forms of relief, according to court documents.

“A civil lawsuit is still pending," Lucas’ attorney, Peter Horstmann, said Thursday. "It remains to be seen if either party will stand down at this point.” ..Source.. by Haven Orecchio-Egresitz

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court to weigh law barring false statements in campaigns

5-2-15 Massachusetts:

BOSTON — When state Rep. Brian Mannal noticed flyers accusing him of putting the interests of sex offenders over families last year, the Barnstable Democrat saw more than just the rough and tumble of Massachusetts politics.

The flyers, Mannal said, broke the law.

Just weeks before Election Day, Mannal sought a criminal complaint against the treasurer of the political action committee responsible for the flyer — Melissa Lucas — citing a 1946 state law barring the publishing of false statements about candidates designed to affect their election chances.

On Thursday, the state's highest court will hear arguments about whether the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

The case is galvanizing a range of groups — from the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union to local newspaper publishers — each of which filed briefs with the Supreme Judicial Court, urging it to rule the law unconstitutional because they say it restricts free speech.

Attorney General Maura Healey's office is defending the law, arguing it helps the state safeguard elections from deliberately fraudulent statements meant to skew the outcome. At the same time, Healey's office says the law doesn't apply in this case.

For Mannal, the flyer paid for by the Jobs First PAC easily crossed the line.

The flyer pointed to a Mannal bill that would have notified indigent sex offenders of their right to a public defender. The flyer said Mannal "wants to use our tax dollars to pay defense attorneys like himself to help convicted sex offenders."

Mannal says he's not certified to handle sex offender cases.

"They intended to mislead and confuse voters about my character ... to effectively steal an election," Mannal said.

Assistant Attorney General Amy Spector urged the court to uphold the law but dismiss the charges against Lucas.

Spector said the language on the flyer amounted to opinion, not fact. The law, however, is critical to helping the state protect elections from fraud, she wrote.

"The statute directly serves the Commonwealth's interest in preserving the integrity of elections by punishing verifiably false factual statements that are designed to, or tend to, influence votes in an election," Spector wrote.

A lawyer for Lucas, Peter Charles Horstmann, declined to comment and said he's advised Lucas against commenting publicly.

In a brief filed with the court, however, Horstmann argues Lucas had no role in drafting or distributing the brochures. He also argues that the law violates First Amendment protections of free speech and is "constitutionally overbroad, vague and seeks to regulate protected opinion."

Even if the statements on the flyer were determined to be false, Horstmann wrote, "the best remedy for false political speech is truthful speech, not state suppression."

Horstmann also said that by filing the criminal complaint just weeks before the election, it was Mannal who chilled the free speech rights of the Jobs First PAC. He said the PAC pulled a radio ad because of Mannal's complaint.

Mannal faced Republican Adam Chaprales, of Barnstable, in the November election.

Mannal named Lucas in the lawsuit in part because her name appeared on the PAC's official filings with the state; the PAC was an independent group that was not allowed to coordinate with Chaprales' campaign.

Penalties for violating the law include a fine of not more than $1,000 dollars or six months in jail.

Among those weighing in on the lawsuit is the New England First Amendment Coalition, which includes lawyers, journalists and historians.

The groups said the law could put publishers on the hook.

"Newspapers routinely carry letters to the editor, advertisements, and other forms of third-party media," the group wrote. "Under one reading of (the law), a newspaper could be responsible for any and all falsehoods in those pieces."

The ACLU also urged the court to rule the statute unconstitutional, warning of a chilling effect that could arise "both from the threat of criminal prosecution, penalties and associated stigma, and from the need to spend significant time and resources to respond — burdens that are apt to fall as heavily upon truthful speakers ... as upon someone who knowingly makes false statements."

Mannal won re-election to a second term by a margin of a little over 200 votes. by Adam Chaprales

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lack of physical contact not a bar to offender status

3-30-15 Massachusetts:

A plaintiff who never made physical contact with an underage victim could still be classified as a sex offender (Tier 3), the Appeals Court has ruled in a split decision.

The plaintiff, John Doe, convinced a 12-year-old girl he met over the internet to meet him for sex, but was caught shortly before the meeting. Doe was found guilty ...Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Do Sex Offender Registries Reduce Recidivism?

2-24-15 National:

No. Or at least that is what the empirical evidence and research on this issue shows. But that doesn't mean we should not have them. The fact is that the registries don't really do anything to improve public safety. They just make people feel safer and in control; unfortunately this is a false sense of security.

Why Don't Registries Reduce Recidivism?

There is no reason to believe that a registry is going to do anything to reduce re-offending because registries don't address what drives someone to commit a sex crime. Put another way, sex offender registries probably don't work because they miss the mark on what works and what does not. Registries don't really address the behavior of sex offenders.

First of all, not all sex offenders are the same and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Sex offender is a category of criminal offending. It is not a homogenous group. Pediophiles are very different than someone guilty of a drunken rape, and both are very different than someone who is guilty of statutory rape. And then there are many more types of sex offenders. The way each type thinks is different. The likelihood of reoffending is different. The effectiveness and utility of treatment is very different for each. There is nothing to suggest that there is one solution to all these different problems.

Second, registries and community notification do not do anything to change the behavior of the sex offender. It is only useful in letting the public know who previously offended and where they live. With the exception of pedophiles and perhaps a serial rapist, past behavior does not really predict future behavior with most sex offenders, of which many are not pedophiles or serial rapists. Contrary to popular perceptions, considering that sex offender recidivism is very low, we would not expect that past behavior to predict future behavior.

Why Should We Keep Sex Offender Registries?

There is more to policy than just evidence-based practices. In politics and government administration, there is ever present concerns with effective policy and the optics of policy. Now, while I already discussed that registries are a false sense of security, that they take time away from what does work, and that there is no evidence that they reduce recidivism, there is reason to keep them. Parents and the public want to know who have committed sex offenses. And since all criminal records are public information, this information should not be suppressed. However, the public needs to start to understand that sex offender registries don't keep people safe. And the public also needs to realize that not all sex offenders are pedophiles. Most are people who will never re-offend ever again. The statistics are very clear about this.

What Should Be Done to Keep People Safe?

If depends. Are we talking about children, women, vulnerable populations or someone else?

---Children: Parents need to educate their children on what is appropriate touching and inappropriate touching, when boundaries are crossed, when to report that boundaries have been crossed, and to let children know that they won't get in trouble for reporting violations. Parents need to realize that the person most likely to sexually abuse their child is someone they know and trust, and someone who has regular contact with their child. It is not only important for parents to educate their children, but schools need to educate their students because sometimes the abuse is happening at home. And parents and educators need to be properly trained how to identify when a child is being victimized.
---Women: Self defense courses, common sense about what is risky behavior and what is not, i.e. going out alone at night, carrying and being trained in the use of pepper spray and tasers, drinking a drink at a nightclub that has not been under constant surveillance and therefore has not been tampered with, and much more.
---Vulnerable populations: Populations such as the elders, patients and the disabled, to name a few, need to also be educated on boundaries being crossed and the need for victims to report, for cameras to record residential areas, and for staff to be properly trained how to identify when someone is being victimized.

In addition to the person, the individual and the guardian being the first and best line of defense against sex offenders, we need to include who is a pedophile in our classification of the Sex Offender Level. In some states, pedophilia as a DSM diagnosis, is not included as a variable when determining who is a level 1, 2 or 3 sex offender. We need to make sure that we empirically evaluate the effectiveness of correctional treatment programs aimed at reducing sex offending. There is a lot that can and should be done. The point of this article is not to get into all of that; that point of this article is to highlight that sex offender registries don't reduce sex offender recidivism.

Politicians and community leaders need to educate their constituents about what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, in my experience as a politician, and even before I entered politics when I was working in corrections, I have observed that too many people use what I call "numbers on a page" -- shoddy statistics with little to no real methodology. Or they make an appeal to emotion or an appeal to logic and what sounds to make sense (albeit logic and sound bites that are devoid of any substantive evidence). Only after that display of leadership can we expect a shift in our thinking about what we can and should be doing to keep people safe from sex crimes.

In Conclusion

Sex offender registries don't reduce recidivism. The research is very clear on this. We are never going to be able to eliminate sexual abuse and criminal offending. But we can and should take effective steps to reduce the crimes from happening. I am not pro-sex offender; that is not my position and not what I think. My concern is that we need to move away from all feel good measures that offer nothing more than a false sense of security, and take time and energy away from offering the public proven evidence-based interventions. ..Source.. by Paul Heroux who is a state representative from Massachusetts.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ousted head of sex offender board files suit against governor

12-31-2014 Massachusetts:

SALEM — The former chairwoman of the state's Sex Offender Registry Board, who was ousted in September, has fired back with a lawsuit accusing Gov. Deval Patrick of retaliating against her because of her position that his brother-in-law should have been required to register as a sex offender.

Saundra Edwards of Lawrence, a veteran sex crimes prosecutor, was hand-picked by Patrick to lead the agency in November 2007.

But seven years later, and with just months left in his term, Patrick told reporters he'd lost confidence in Edwards over several issues, in particular, her position on his brother-in-law's status as a sex offender. He also characterized Edwards' departure as a firing despite her having been allowed to submit a resignation.

Edwards and her attorneys say those "defamatory" statements, and her termination, were motivated by Patrick's "wrongful, personal interest in retaliating against and punishing" her for putting the interests of the public ahead of the interests of the governor's family.

The suit was filed Wednesday in Salem Superior Court by Edwards' attorneys, William Sheehan and Thomas Flannagan. In addition to naming Patrick as a defendant, it seeks damages from the state.

Sheehan was not immediately available for comment.

“The complaint is currently being reviewed by the governor’s legal counsel, and we will have no further comment given the pending litigation,” said Patrick spokeswoman Jesse Mermell.

By the time Edwards arrived at the Sex Offender Registry Board, the issue of what to do about the Bernard Sigh case was already a topic of concern within the Salem-based agency.

Sigh, who is married to Patrick's sister, pleaded guilty in 1993 to a charge of "spousal rape" in California, admitting to an "act of sexual intercourse with my wife against her will by means of force," Edwards' lawsuit says. Sigh served jail time and probation following the conviction, then moved to Massachusetts in 1995.



Story

Print
Create a hardcopy of this page
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:12 pm

BY JULIE MANGANIS STAFF WRITER

The sex offender registry requirement took effect in 1996, but Sigh did not register. Then, in 2006, during Patrick's campaign for governor, the Boston Herald revealed Sigh's prior conviction and his failure to register.

As a result, according to the Edwards lawsuit, Sigh was notified in December 2006, of the registration requirement. He challenged it, arguing that spousal rape was not the same as rape.

According to the Edwards lawsuit, a board member named Shawn Jenkins was initially assigned to handle the Sigh matter. But "for reasons unknown to" Edwards (who was not yet at the agency), a hearing officer, A.J. Paglia, "took the extraordinary step of removing the case from ... Jenkins to conduct the hearing himself."

At the time, the suit says, the agency was awaiting a review by the Attorney General as to whether "spousal rape" could be considered an equivalent offense to rape in Massachusetts, and Paglia's supervisor advised him not to do anything more than rule on preliminary motions.

The suit says that "in direct contravention of his supervisor's order," Paglia began a hearing on Aug. 1, 2007. He also allegedly ignored an order not to issue a decision pending the outcome of the AG's review, and violated policy by issuing a verbal decision following the hearing, in which he concluded that "spousal rape" is more akin to the Massachusetts charge of indecent assault and battery and, as a result, Sigh did not have to register.

Approximately two months later, Edwards was appointed chairwoman of the sex offender board.

The suit said she was advised of the Sigh case and that it "was a problem due to the erroneous legal conversion by Paglia of spousal rape to indecent assault and battery."

The following May, Paglia requested a meeting with Edwards, during which, the suit says, he raised the matter of the Sigh case. She said she discussed the elements of the crime of rape with Paglia, who is not an attorney, and told him, "rape is rape" and that his legal conclusion in the Sigh case was wrong.

Later that day Edwards spoke with the agency's general counsel and the Executive Office of Public Safety about the Sigh matter, then decided that a written decision would be issued and that an emergency regulation would be enacted so that a hearing officer's errors of law could be corrected in future cases, the suit says.

She also required that all staff, including Paglia, undergo training in conducting hearings and on the elements of Massachusetts sex crimes.



Story

Print
Create a hardcopy of this page
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:12 pm

BY JULIE MANGANIS STAFF WRITER

According to the suit, Paglia, rather than complete the training, resigned and sued her and the agency, claiming that he had been subject to retaliation as a whistleblower. That suit was settled for a reported $60,000 in July.

"During her entire tenure at the SORB, (Edwards) received excellent reviews from her supervisors and was applauded for her accomplishments and productive changes and initiatives she introduced to the agency," the lawsuit says.

But on the evening of Sept. 15, she was told to attend a meeting the following morning with several top public safety officials and Kendra Foley, the governor's director of boards and commissions.

Edwards's suit says she was taken to an office, where she met with Foley; the governor's lawyer, Pat Moore, and a human resources person from the Office of Public Safety.

She says in the suit that Foley told her "As you know, you serve at the governor's pleasure. He has decided to replace you as chairperson of the Sex Offender Registry Board."

Edwards says that when she asked if there was a problem or if she had done anything wrong, "Ms. Foley admitted that the plaintiff had done nothing wrong, but reiterated that the plaintiff's employment was terminated."

In hopes of avoiding the "stigma of being terminated from a highly visible public position," Edwards asked if she could instead resign, the suit says. Public Safety undersecretary Sandra McCroom told her that if she submitted a resignation letter that day, it would be accepted, the suit says.

Nearly a week later, after returning from an overseas trip, Patrick was confronted by reporters about the sudden departures of Edwards and her executive director, Jeanne Holmes.

"Patrick, falsely and maliciously, told the press he had fired the plaintiff because she had interfered with a quasi-judicial officer's performance of his duties," the suit alleges.

The suit quotes Patrick's comments to reporters, including a statement that the "final straw" was the settlement of the Paglia lawsuit, and that it "involved some inappropriate, at least, maybe unlawful, pressuring by the chair and the executive director of a hearing officer to change the outcome of a case."

The governor also again expressed his anger at the disclosures about his brother-in-law and sister back in 2006 to reporters, saying, "the Republican Party, sorry to say, aided by the Herald, nearly destroyed their lives."

The suit seeks unspecified damages, including lost salary and other compensation to be determined by a jury. ..Source.. by Julie Manganis

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Harassment via Internet a crime, SJC rules

Case info including briefs

12-24-2014 Massachusetts:

Decision upholds convictions of pair who targeted neighbors in Andover

The state’s highest court ruled Tuesday that people who use the Internet to harass someone can be prosecuted under existing state law, a decision that upheld the conviction of an Andover couple who were linked to false ads on Craigslist and who filed a fake claim of child abuse against a neighbor.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, whose office prosecuted the case, said the ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court was the first time the panel clearly authorized law enforcement to use the state’s antiharassment statute in cybercrimes.


“Cyberharassment is becoming more prevalent in today’s society and the victims in this case were tormented by the defendants,’’ Blodgett said. “This case sends the right message that it is a crime, and a serious one.”

The 7-0 ruling left intact the harassment convictions for William P. Johnson and his wife, Gail M. Johnson, who wanted to subdivide and develop land in Andover, but were opposed by an abutting neighbor, James J. Lyons Jr., and his wife, Bernadette, along with other neighbors.

That dispute preceded the harassment campaign by the Johnsons, the high court said.

As part of the harassment, William Johnson called in a false allegation of child abuse against James Lyons with the state Department of Children and Families, according to the SJC.

“They literally tried to have our kids taken away from us,’’ James Lyons, who is now a state representative, said in a telephone interview. “These people invested time and money to torture my wife, my boys, and myself.’’

Robert S. Sinsheimer, an attorney for the Johnsons, said in a statement that they were disappointed by the SJC’s decision and were considering their legal options. The Johnsons lived on the same street as the Lyons family.

“Where the sole purpose of the defendants’ speech was to further their endeavor to intentionally harass the Lyonses, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote in the ruling.

According to the SJC ruling, during a 35-day period in 2008 the Johnsons enlisted a longtime friend and handyman, Gerald Colton, who sent the Lyonses an e-mail falsely claiming that James Lyons “stole the innocence of a young man,” and posted fake ads on Craigslist.

One of those ads said that the Lyonses were giving away golf carts for free, prompting dozens of people to show up outside the couple’s home.

“The Craigslist postings were the equivalent of the defendants recruiting others to harass the victims and the victims alone,” Cordy wrote. “The defendants cannot launder their harassment of the Lyons family through the Internet to escape liability.”

Another ad said the family was selling a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and told interested parties to call after 10 p.m., generating many nighttime calls that continued for months, the ruling said.

One e-mail that Colton sent to the Lyons family from a fake account, the SJC said, read, “Remember, if you aren’t miserable, I ain’t happy! Let’s Play.”

Colton had testified for the prosecution and said that William Johnson had told him he had sent James Lyons a letter accusing him of molesting a teenager, which was false. The Johnsons were convicted in Lawrence District Court in late 2011. William Johnson was sentenced to 18 months behind bars; his wife was given a six-month sentence to serve.

Alan M. Dershowitz, a prominent attorney and retired Harvard Law professor, said it is rare for defendants to receive jail time for such conduct, adding that the Johnsons’ behavior was particularly egregious.

“Was the [SJC] opinion too broad? I think time will tell,” Dershowitz said. “I would hope it would be applied in a very narrow way.”

The ruling does not appear to encroach on the free speech rights of Internet users, according to Harvey A. Silverglate, a criminal defense lawyer and civil libertarian who has written extensively on First Amendment issues.

“I don’t think this opinion imposes a risk of squelching protected speech on the Internet,” Silverglate said. “It isn’t very hard to figure out that what these people were doing is very threatening, and it’s not the kind of speech that a civilized society wants to tolerate.”

Sameer Hinduja, a criminology professor at Florida Atlantic University and codirector of the Cyberbullying Research Center, said online harassment is not confined to young children and adolescents.

Hinduja pointed to a recent Pew Research Internet Project study that found that 40 percent of adult Internet users have experienced online harassment.

“I agree with the court’s decision, absolutely,” Hinduja said.

“You have really crazy sorts of things being done [in the case]. It’s really willful, it’s really intentional. . . . I like that [the SJC] labeled it criminal conduct.”

Hinduja said laws barring online harassment are necessary, even if they do not always deter offenders. “We do need to have laws for egregious situations to send a message in our society, with the social contract that we all agree to, that this is unacceptable,” he said.

Martin G. Weinberg, a Boston defense lawyer who has litigated cybercrime cases, said in an e-mail that the ruling helps define criminal conduct in the realm of Internet communications.

“Judges nationwide, from the Supreme Court to the state courts, have an historic challenge of taking a Bill of Rights written in the 18th century and making it meaningful in a very different world of computers and technology,” Weinberg wrote. ..Source.. by John R. Ellement and Travis Andersen

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Planned Parenthood Is Operating a Pedophile Protection Racket, Says Pro-Life Group in Investigative Report

12-8-2014 Massachusetts:

Over 60 court cases reveal that girls as young as 10 were taken to Planned Parenthood facilities and other clinics for abortions and birth control by their sexual abusers, but because staff failed to report the crimes, the girls were subjected to years of ongoing sexual abuse.

Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, a national pro-life organization that has compiled these cases, said they reveal that Planned Parenthood is "operating a nationwide pedophile protection racket."

Some girls were even taken back to the same clinics by the pedophiles who were abusing them for repeat abortions, yet the staff still failed to ask questions or file a report with local law enforcement.

In Florida, the National Abortion Federation even paid $200 toward the cost of an abortion for a 12-year-old girl who was 24-weeks pregnant by her 34-year-old abuser.

Life Dynamics and Priests for Life are calling for a criminal investigation of late-term abortionist Michael Benjamin who performed the abortion on the 12-year-old rape victim at his Florida clinic without reporting her case to law enforcement. They're also calling for an investigation into two abortion clinics where the girl was taken by her abuser, and the National Abortion Federation which also violated mandatory reporting statutes.

According to a statement from Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, a staffer at the Florida clinic was asked why no one reported that a 12-year-old girl was pregnant, and she commented: "Maybe we've been hardened with so many kids coming in." ..Continued.. by Melissa Barnhart

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Panel studies science of sex offenders

12-1-2014 Massachusetts:

A legislative commission tasked with reducing the rate at which sex offenders reoffend is “reviewing the science” about the best way to manage sex offenders ahead of a presentation Wednesday that may suggest changes to state law.

“I think there’s an indication that we could use better instruments in predicting the risks of recidivism,” said state Sen. William Brownsberger, Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and co-chair of the Special Commission to Reduce the Recidivism of Sex Offenders, which he said is “encouraging a more consistent, modern, statistical approach to identifying who’s likely to reoffend.” He said he was unable to provide further details of the presentation.

Concern on Beacon Hill about sex criminals reoffending was heightened two years ago when John Burbine of Wakefield — who was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child in 1989 and was classified as a Level 1 sex offender — was charged with sexually abusing 13 infants and toddlers, while he cared for them at his wife’s unlicensed day care in Wakefield. Burbine committed suicide in jail in March before he could face trial.

The 15-member recidivism commission, which began meeting in September, is charged with studying “the most reliable protocols for assessing and managing the risk of recidivism of sex offenders,” and developing the state’s “authorized risk assessment protocols for sexual offenders.”

Brownsberger said the commission has been “reviewing the science about what has been demonstrated to be most effective,” and will hear Wednesday from experts “who’ve been doing the research on what kinds of approaches have the best predictive power.”

“What we’ve done so far is learned about some of the science of risk assessment and we’re going to move on to learn about some the science of management of risk, which are two different things,” Brownsberger said. He said the goal is to make recommendations in the next six months to a year. ..Source.. by Jack Encarnacao

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts Governor Says Brother-In-Law’s Case Was Factor In Sex Offender Board Shake-Up

See also: Patrick details why he cut 2 members of Sex Offender Registry Board

9-22-2014 Massachusetts:

Gov. Deval Patrick said Monday that a number of factors, including the handling of a case involving his own brother-in-law, led to the decision to dismiss two top officials at the state’s sex offender registry board.

The governor, in his first comments since returning from an overseas trade mission, cited a “cumulative loss of confidence” in the board, which tracks and classifies sex offenders.

That loss of confidence resulted in the dismissal of board chairman Saundra Edwards, who was relieved of duty last week. Executive Director Jeanne Holmes was placed on leave.

Patrick pointed to what he called a failure to update regulations and cited cases where the board’s decisions were reversed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

“The final straw was a settlement of a lawsuit which happened not quite a year ago now that involves some, inappropriate at least maybe unlawful, pressuring by the chair and the executive director of a hearing officer to change the outcome of a case,” Patrick told reporters Monday.

That case involved his brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh, who was convicted of raping Patrick’s sister Rhonda Sigh in California in 1993. The issued surfaced during Patrick’s first run for governor in 2006.

The hearing officer filed a lawsuit in 2008 alleging that he was demoted after he raised concerns that Edward, Holmes and others were trying to influence his decision that Sigh not have to register as a sex offender. He also said Edwards and Holmes prevented him from releasing his decision and attempted to rewrite it. After he released his decision, the officer said his duties were diminished and he resigned in 2008.

The case was scheduled for trial in May, but the sex offender board agreed to settle before the trial with a $60,000 payment to the hearing officer. That settlement was finalized in April.

Patrick said the administration undertook a “months-long process of reviewing candidates” before announcing the decision to replace Edwards with Anne Conners, an investigator for the state Department of Early Education and Care.

A message left for Edwards was not immediately returned Monday.

In an unrelated case, the Supreme Judicial Court last year overturned the classification of a former escort service manager as a low-level sex offender by the board, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the board not to consider “the substantial evidence presented at the hearing concerning the effect of gender on recidivism.”

During the 2006 race, Patrick said Sigh pleaded guilty to the crime and served a short prison sentence in California.

In 1995, a year after his sister moved to Milton, she reconciled with Sigh and the couple has raised their two children, according to Patrick.

The public revelation of the 1993 incident struck a personal chord for Patrick. In 2006, the then-candidate said the couple’s children were unaware of the incident until the stories were printed.

On Monday, he said the revelations, “nearly destroyed their lives.” ..Source.. by Bob Salsberg

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board Chair, Executive Director Abruptly Dismissed

See also: 2 top Sex Offender Registry Board execs suddenly ousted

9-17-2014 Massachusetts:

There’s been a shake-up at the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board. According to NECN, board chair Saundra Edwards has been relieved of duty, and executive director Jeanne Holmes has been placed on administrative leave.

Gov. Deval Patrick appointed Edwards to the position in 2007. Previously, she was a prosecutor for the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office.

In a press release, Public Safety and Security Secretary Andrea Cabral announced that Anne Conners, an investigator for the Department of Early Education and Care, will replace Edwards. Kevin Hayden, the board’s general counsel, will serve as its interim executive director until Conners finds a permanent replacement.

The Sex Offender Registry have not yet responded to requests for comment as to why Edwards and Holmes were dismissed. ..Source.. by Sara Morrison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

SJC upholds GPS monitoring of sex offenders

8-26-2014 Massachusetts:

The state’s highest court has rejected a challenge to the state law that requires GPS monitoring during probation for people convicted of certain sex offenses involving a child.

The court said the law gave judges no discretion on whether to impose the GPS monitoring during probation, and the Legislature had good reasons for enacting the law.

“Permissible legislative objectives concerning criminal sentencing include deterrence, isolation and incapacitation, retribution and moral reinforcement, as well as reformation and rehabilitation. ... The provisions of [the law] reasonably can be viewed as serving many, if not all, of these goals,” the court said in an opinion written by Justice Barbara Lenk.

“The Legislature permissibly has determined that the risk of being subjected to GPS monitoring might deter future or repeat offenders. The Legislature similarly was free to conclude that enabling police to track the movements of all convicted sex offenders would promote the security and well-being of the general public,” the ruling said.

The court ruled in the case of Jose Guzman, who was convicted of dissemination of visual material depicting a child in a state of nudity or sexual contact, one of the sex offenses involving children that require GPS-monitored probation. A lower court judge had declined to order the GPS monitoring, but the high court said that was a legal error.

The court rejected Guzman’s claim that the law violated due process rights. It also said there wasn’t enough information brought forward to rule on his claim that the law violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court noted that it did have concerns about GPS monitoring during probation when it is required “regardless of any individualized determination” of a person’s dangerousness or risk of reoffending.

But the court said that that debate had “already been settled on the floor of the Legislature.” ..Source.. by Martin Finucane

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Mandatory minimum sentences are 'unconstitutional,' Pa. court says

8-22-2014 Massachusetts:

Locals charged with crimes involving drugs, guns or sex abuse could be due relief at sentencing, according to a high-court ruling.

A Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion has deemed mandatory minimum sentences “unconstitutional,” a ruling which could have major impact on countless cases here and across the state.

The high court made the statement Wednesday in its ruling of a Montgomery County case involving a man, James Newman, who received a mandatory 5-year sentence for possession of drugs and a gun.

The high court vacated that sentence, while calling the current “practice” of mandatory minimum sentencing unconstitutional.

Five justices agree with Justice Kate Ford Elliott on the entirety of her opinion.

Three other justices agree on the Montgomery County case, but not the full scope of Elliott’s opinion.

Local legal professionals say the opinion essentially quashes the current mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.

Will ruling affect repeat offenders, including two local sex offenders recently sentenced to life?

“This removes a huge amount of power from the district attorney,” Lancaster defense lawyer Chris Patterson said, “and restores it to the (judges).”

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said the ruling is “terrible” for locals. He hopes the state Supreme Court will take action on the issue.

“In the short term, this is a huge blow to public safety and will have widespread ramifications for the law-abiding citizens of this county,” he said.

It isn’t clear if the ruling will apply to past cases. Locals say defendants still on active appeal can get relief and others also could qualify.

Federal cases will not be affected, locals said.

Mandatory minimum sentences are often implemented in armed robberies, sex offenses and crimes involving possession of drugs and guns. They are also invoked in crimes against infants and the elderly.

Essentially, the high court ruled that when a mandatory minimum sentence is utilized based on "elements" of certain crimes — such as the gun being present in the Newman case — a jury must determine if those elements are proven.

Regarding sentencing, the ruling brings much more discretion to judges.

“A lot of people didn’t like them,” local attorney Jeffrey Conrad said of mandatory minimums, “because you [take away] the judge’s authority.”

The ruling “recommits to the judges the ability to do what (they) want,” Conrad said. “Of course, the (defendants) will be happy.”

That doesn’t sit will with Stedman.

“Anytime you have a decision in which the people celebrating are convicted armed robbers and people who sell drugs to children,” he said, “I’m not sure there is much to say other than it is beyond disheartening.

“We are not talking about retail theft and forgery defendants here.”

Lancaster defense lawyer Michael Winters said he expects the decision to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Upon first review of the ruling, locals said, it likely won't impact mandatory sentences for drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes. Currently, those convicted of vehicular homicide while DUI face mandatory 3-year prison terms.

That mandatory is part of state sentencing law, which is different from scenarios affected by the ruling, locals said.

The state court based its opinion on a U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 2013, locals said.

That decision essentially states that a jury must rule on “elements” of a crime, such as whether a drug dealer was in possession of a gun.

While some see the ruling as a positive, Stedman said the negative impact could be widespread. He expects a population spike at Lancaster County Prison.

“(It) will undoubtedly increase as many drug dealers and robbers who would otherwise go to state prison will now get county sentences,” he said. “But, this is what the court has ruled and we will have to adjust and hope the (state) Supreme Court makes it right.” ..Source.. by Brett Hambright

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court lets teacher convicted of child pornography keep retirement benefits

8-19-2014 Massachusetts:

Massachusetts' highest court has ruled that a former high school teacher convicted of child pornography charges can keep his retirement benefits.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday that Ronald T. Garney should still receive benefits of nearly $2,400 a month because his crimes were not connected to his former job. He was a ninth-grade science teacher in Amherst and was arrested in 2006 for the purchase and possession of child pornography.

Garney pleaded guilty in December 2007 to purchasing and possessing child pornography after authorities found images of child pornography and videos on his home computer.

He was sentenced to 2½ to 3 years and ordered to register as a sex offender.

The Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement System gave him benefits until 2009 and later. ..Source.. by The Republic

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Massachusetts Court voids Lynn sex offender ordinance

7-19-2014 Massachusetts:

Ruling declares only state can enforce residency requirement

LYNN — Sex offenders can legally live wherever they choose, according to a court ruling that nullifies the city’s sex offender ordinance.

“A decision came down last week that no city can enforce a sex offender residency requirement,” said city attorney James Lamanna Friday.

Lamanna said the decision stated that because the state has such complex laws regarding sex offenders that only it could approve a residency requirement and thus far it has not done so.

Lynn’s sex offender ordinance had barred any Level 2 or Level 3 sex offender residing in the city from living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or other private or public recreation facility. In 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of five registered sex offenders challenging the legality of the restriction. At the time there were about 15 Level 3 sex offenders living near a school or park.

Lamanna said letters were drawn up notifying violators they would have to move but when the ACLU filed its suit the letters were put on hold. “So we never enacted the ordinance,” he said.

ACLU officials argued that the restrictions “extend to most of the geographic areas of the city and virtually all of its available housing,” thus putting an unfair burden on the individuals.

ACLU Legal Fellow Miriam Mack said one of the largest flaws in the city’s ordinance and others like it is that it does nothing to protect or prevent. What it does do is drive sex offenders underground, into homelessness or into another community that has yet to establish a sex offender residency requirement, she said.

The state has a comprehensive scheme to track and monitor sex offenders aside from just the registry, she added.

The Sex Offender Registry Board is a state agency that classifies offenders according to risk. A Level 3 sex offender has been classified by the state as most likely to re-offend and most dangerous to the public. A Level 2 is someone with a moderate risk of re-offending.

According to the Lynn Police Department’s website there are currently 88 Level 3 sex offenders registered as living or working in the city of Lynn.

Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy said the verdict does not surprise her. When the ordinance was first established she cautioned that it would not hold up to legal scrutiny.

Ward 1 Councilor Wayne Lozzi was hopeful in 2012 that the ordinance would hold up in court; now he is frustrated.

“It leaves us to once again rely on our legal department to research and determine what would pass legal muster,” he said. “We have to do everything and anything to protect our children.”

However, Lamanna said there is not much action the council can take unless it decides to file a home rule petition asking the state to allow the ordinance to stand and there is a chance that lawmakers might get involved.

Legislators willing to look at amending state law to allow cities and towns to establish their own residency requirements have approached representatives for the city, Lamanna said.

“They’re not local legislators, but they are interested in making changes,” he said.

Lozzi said he liked the idea of the issue being taken on by the state but he would prefer it if the state would make its own ruling.

“I would encourage the state to do this so we could satisfy that concern but make it more uniform rather than have different communities each have their own rules,” he said. “That way it would pass legal muster with everyone.” ..Source.. by Chris Stevens

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

National Geographic photos not child porn, court rules

7-9-2014 Massachusetts:

The state’s highest court has tossed out a child pornography case against a convicted child rapist who had photocopies of pictures of naked children from a National Geographic magazine, a sociology textbook, and a naturist catalogue in his state prison cell.

The state Supreme Judicial Court said that the photos allegedly kept by sex offender John D. Rex did not constitute a “lewd exhibition” so they weren’t covered under the state’s law banning child pornography.

The court noted previous decisions that had found that “nudity alone is not enough to render a photograph lewd.”

“There is nothing remotely sexual, either explicitly or implicitly, in any of the photocopies,” the court said after reviewing the pictures.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Francis X. Spina, agreed with a Superior Court judge who had dismissed a Norfolk County grand jury indictment against Rex that charged him with seven counts of possession of child pornography and seven counts of being a habitual offender.

“As a matter of law, no grand jury could conclude that the seven photocopies constituted a ‘lewd exhibition’” under state law, the court said. “It follows therefore that the grand jury were not presented with any evidence to support a finding of probable cause to arrest the defendant for possession of child pornography.”

The court noted that the photos came from materials that are readily available to the general public, though perhaps to niche audiences. And it noted previous court decisions that found “child pornography is not created when the [viewer] derives sexual enjoyment from an otherwise innocent photograph.”

Rex, 43, is an incarcerated Level 3 sex offender who has been convicted of eight sex charges, including rape and abuse of a child, according to the state’s sex offender registry.

In a statement, Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey said the SJC ruling runs counter to federal law where judges have ruled images can be considered child pornography when there is evidence that the image was cropped to emphasize the nude child.

Rex cropped the images just that way, Morrissey’s office said in a statement.

“We see this decision as an unfortunate departure from federal case law,’’ Morrissey said. “A Norfolk County grand jury found that the images possessed by Rex were lewd, and the case law prior to this suggested strongly that decision was appropriately made by a jury of citizens.’’ ..Source.. by John R. Ellement

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court: Child abductor does not have to register as sex offender

6-18-2014 Massachusetts:

A state appellate ruled that a man who served 20 years in federal prison for abducting a small girl — and allegedly raping her — does not have to register as a Level 3 sex offender because his conviction was based solely on kidnapping charges.

The man, identified as “John Doe” in the ruling, challenged a Sex Offender Registry Board’s decision to force him to register with the state, arguing it didn’t have jurisdiction over him because it was a federal offense.

The board, in turn, argued the conviction represented a so-called “like conviction” of aggravated rape under state statute because it was based on allegations the man forced a 9-year-old girl from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, where he physically and sexually assaulted her.

The man was convicted in federal court in 1987 and ordered to serve 75 years. He was paroled in 2006 after nearly 20 years behind bars.

But an appeals court shot down the state’s argument in a decision today, ruling that nothing in the language of federal kidnapping statute directly jibes with the state’s laws on rape.

It also noted the federal record was “largely incomplete,” and included only scant details on the crime itself.

“We recognize that Doe’s conduct could have supported an indictment, prosecution, and, based on the limited record we have of the Federal proceedings, conviction for aggravated rape,” associate judge Scott L. Kafker wrote for the three-judge court. “Had such a prosecution been undertaken and such a conviction achieved, registration would have been required.

“But that was not the crime for which Doe was indicted and convicted,” he added, “nor the inquiry that we are required to undertake.”

The court said the state was basing its arguments on excerpts from the trial transcript and parts of the federal criminal complaint, but “these clearly and impermissibly speak to the underlying conduct.” ..Source.. by Matt Stout

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

OUR OPINION: Legislature must address sex offender loophole now

6-14-2014 Massachusetts:

The decision handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday that will likely vacate the lifetime parole of nearly 300 sex offenders, while technically correct, is alarming.

The decision handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday that vacates the lifetime parole of nearly 300 sex offenders, while technically correct, is alarming. We appreciate and support the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Brad Jones who intends to file legislation to correct what the court saw as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.

In its decision, the SJC found that the 1999 law, which grants the Parole Board the ability to impose new sentences on offenders who violate the terms of their parole, is in violation of the state constitution. Writing for the majority, soon-to-be Chief Justice Ralph Gants argued that the power to sentence rests within the judiciary’s domain only. The Parole Board falls under the executive branch. This is high school civics 101 though it wasn’t caught until Level 2 sex offender Casey Cole challenged it on his appeal.

According to Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz, “... The defendant had never provided any change of address to the authorities, as he was required to do. He was sentenced to a six-month probationary term and lifetime parole. When he discovered the requirements of lifetime parole, he filed a motion to correct his sentence claiming that the imposition of lifetime parole was illegal.”

The 1999 law as written by the Legislature with the very best of intentions erred. Sex crimes are different than others because of the high rates of recidivism – Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren’s study put it at 52 percent for some offenders – and the profound trauma it causes to victims. We expect the current body of lawmakers to correct the mistake and apparently it will take little effort to do so.

To his great credit, Gants laid out in his decision specific instructions as to how the Legislature could enact legislation that would invest a judge with the authority to decide “whether a sex offender has violated a condition of supervised release, and whether a new or suspended term of imprisonment should be imposed.” We hope this is an indication of the sort of wisdom and Soloman-like justice he’ll serve in his role as chief justice.

The beauty of the law as intended was to monitor those whose crimes have been proven to result in a high rate of recidivism. Society has neither the funds nor the space to incarcerate every repeat offender for small infractions – such as failure to register as a sex offender in the town in which the offender lives and works. It strikes a reasonable compromise for society and the rights of offenders.

As we saw when the law that criminalized upskirting – taking photos under women’s and girls’ skirts – was struck down by the courts, the Legislature can act with lightning speed when it’s so moved. It took only a day from the SJC decision for the Legislature to send a bill to Gov. Patrick’s desk. Let it be so moved with this as well.

We urge the lawmakers to act before the July 31 deadline. ..Source.. by The Enterprise

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...