6-15-2011 National:
Sex offender laws represent the triumph of outrage over reason.
“If we had been aware of his record,” says Maureen Kanka, “my daughter would be alive today.” She is referring, in a statement on the website of an anti-crime group she founded, to Jesse Timmendequas, a neighbor in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, who raped and murdered her 7-year-old daughter, Megan, in 1994. Three months later, the state legislature enacted Megan’s Law, which created a publicly accessible registry of sex offenders.
“Without the registry,” says Shirley Turner, “he would still be alive today.” She is referring, in a 2006 interview with Human Rights Watch, to her 24-year-old son, William Elliot. He was murdered that year by a pedophile-hunting Canadian gunman who found his name and address in Maine’s online database of sex offenders. Elliot’s crime: When he was 19, he had sex with his girlfriend, who was three weeks shy of 16, the age of consent in Maine.
The panic that followed Megan Kanka’s murder produced an alarm system that often fails to distinguish between dangerous predators like Timmendequas, who had a record of assaulting little girls, and nonviolent lawbreakers like Elliot, who posed no discernible threat to the general public. They are all mixed together in the online registries of sex offenders that every state is required to maintain as a condition of receiving federal law enforcement funding—a mandate imposed by another Megan’s Law, enacted by Congress in 1996.
Registration only rarely leads to murder, but it routinely ruins relationships, triggers ostracism and harassment, and impedes education and employment. These burdens are compounded by state and local laws that ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks, day care centers, and other locations where children congregate. Such restrictions, which often apply even if an offender’s crime had nothing to do with children, can be so extensive that entire cities are effectively off limits. In Miami local residence restrictions have given rise to a colony of more than 70 sex offenders who live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, a bridge that crosses Biscayne Bay.
Some sex offenders, including nonviolent ones, will not live to see the underside of a bridge because they receive sentences that keep them behind bars until they die. Two decades of ever-more-punitive legislation have produced sentencing rules so bizarre and byzantine that the punishment for possessing images of sexually abused children can be more severe than the punishment for sexually abusing them. And even prisoners who complete their sentences may not go free, since the federal government and about half of the states have laws authorizing the indefinite civil commitment of sex offenders who would otherwise be released.
American policies regarding sex offenders mark them as a special category of criminals for whom no stigma is too crippling, no regulations are too restrictive, and no penalty is too severe. This attitude, driven by fear and outrage, is fundamentally irrational, and so are its results, which make little sense in terms of justice or public safety. Like the lustful predators of their nightmares, Americans pondering the right way to deal with sex offenders seem captive to their passions.
‘I Am on the Registry for Having Premarital Sex’
The public branding of sex offenders through online registries is a reaction to horrible, highly publicized crimes, such as Megan Kanka’s murder, in which strangers abduct, rape, and kill children. But this sort of crime is exceedingly rare. Data from the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that more than 90 percent of sexually abused minors are assaulted by relatives or acquaintances—people they trust. (According to the same survey, strangers commit just one in four sexual assaults on adults. They commit only 14 percent of sexual assaults reported to police.) Furthermore, according to a 1997 Justice Department study, nearly nine out of 10 people arrested for sex offenses have no prior convictions for this category of crime, so they would not show up in sex offender registries.
Meanwhile, the people on sex offender lists may pose little or no threat. A 2007 report by Human Rights Watch found that “at least 28 states require registration as a sex offender for someone convicted of having consensual sex with another teenager, if the offender was either age 17 or two years older than the other party.” Eleven states set no minimum age difference. “It’s one thing if you are a 40-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old,” says the report’s co-author and editor, Jamie Fellner, senior adviser to the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch. “It’s another thing if you’re a 17-year-old boy having sex with your 16-year-old or 15-year-old girlfriend. Registration as a sex offender is just completely inappropriate there, does nothing to promote public safety, but ruins lives.”
A man who was convicted of statutory rape when he was 16 for having consensual sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend told Human Rights Watch: “We were in love. And now we are married. So it’s like I am on the registry for having premarital sex. Does having premarital sex make me a danger to society? My wife doesn’t think so.”
The Human Rights Watch report also found that at least five states required registration for offenses related to adult prostitution, at least 13 required registration for public urination, and at least 32 required registration for exposing one’s genitals in public. And from the information given in a registry, which typically is limited to a vague legal description of the offense, it is often hard to tell what someone did to end up there. “Without any further information, it is difficult to provide reasonable steps that people can take to help keep themselves safe,” says Maia Christopher, executive director of the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers. “Just knowing that there is someone living next door to you who’s committed a sexual offense doesn’t necessarily give you enough information to know what you’re supposed to do about it.” In fact, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Connecticut’s sex offender registry in 2003, it did so partly because the state expressly disavowed any claims about the “current dangerousness” of the people in its electronic pillory, which meant they did not have a due process right to a hearing on that question.
Consider the case of Tony Washington, a promising college football player whose professional career was derailed by a conversation-stopping offense he committed almost a decade ago: At the age of 16, he had consensual sex with his 15-year-old sister. A 2010 profile of Washington in ESPN magazine explained the context of this forbidden liaison: a troubled, dispiriting childhood in the rougher sections of New Orleans, where Washington was constantly threatened by violence and had few sources of emotional support. Although he overcame a deprived background to become a star player at Abilene Christian University in Texas, his taboo-breaking transgression has deterred professional teams from drafting him and will mark him until the day he dies.
If you search for Washington’s name in the Texas sex offender registry or the U.S. Justice Department’s nationwide database, you will see photographs, a physical description, his date of birth, and his home address. His offense is listed as “prohibited sexual conduct,” which most people, given the context, will assume refers to some sort of predatory crime. Few people will bother to look up the Texas statute explaining that consensual sex with several different kinds of relatives, including adopted siblings and first cousins, qualifies for this label, triggering the same lifelong registration requirement that applies to rapists and child molesters. (On its face, the law even covers sex between first cousins who were legally married in one of the 25 states that allow such unions.) Whatever you may think of Washington’s crime, it hardly marks him as a public menace whom women and children should fear, let alone as someone who will be a danger to others even when he is old and infirm.
Washington’s case illustrates another way in which the legal treatment of sex offenders is unusual. Although the records of juvenile offenses typically are sealed, sex registration is public, and it applies even to people who, like Washington, committed their offenses as teenagers or children. According to The Dallas Morning News, the sex offender registry in Texas, where Washington lives, includes about 4,000 people who were minors when they committed their crimes, a quarter of whom were under 14. Human Rights Watch interviewed the father of a 10-year-old boy accused of touching his 5-year-old cousin’s genitals. “My son doesn’t really understand what sex is,” he told the group, “so it’s hard to help him understand why he has to register as a sex offender.” This policy of tarring minors as sex offenders undermines a central aim of the juvenile justice system by burdening people with the mistakes of their youth for the rest of their lives.
‘No Area in Town Is Available to Live In’
For the remainder of this article: by Reason Magazine
June 15, 2011
Perverted Justice
May 3, 2011
Long Beach may settle sex offender's legal claim
5-3-2011 California:
COURTS: City Council will weigh $115,000 in damages for 2008 arrest of Maurice Allen.
LONG BEACH - A registered sex offender is set to receive $115,000 from the city of Long Beach after a judge ruled that police violated his civil rights.
The ruling in November and the damages settlement, which the City Council is expected to approve today, appear to be the first of their kind in California as a result of what law enforcement and state officials say is a loophole in sex offender registration laws.
However, a bill working its way through the state Senate would give law enforcement agencies stronger powers when checking on sex offenders' residency status, making such legal challenges more difficult.
In the Long Beach case, police went to the residence of registered sex offender Maurice Allen on June 23, 2008, to confirm that he lived at the address he had provided to law enforcement, as required under California Penal Code 290, according to Deputy City Attorney Theodore Zinger.
When Allen refused to provide proof of his residence, such as a utility bill, officers arrested him for obstruction of justice. Allen sued, alleging that his civil rights had been violated.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Judith Vander Lans ruled Nov. 15 that Allen's civil rights had been violated because he wasn't on probation or parole. While Penal Code 290 requires local enforcement agencies to confirm sex offenders' residency status, it doesn't require offenders to provide proof of residency.
"No notice is given to registrants that they could be detained without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and be required to answer questions and/or provide proof of residency under threat of arrest during a random compliance check," Vander Lans says in her written ruling.
Zinger said that the city's interpretation is that state law does allow police to take action in such a case.
"I don't think it was a mistake on our part," Zinger said. "Our position was that we had the implied right (to arrest Allen) pursuant to the statute. The statute required us to go out there and make sure he's staying where he's supposed to be staying."
The city didn't appeal the ruling, however, and agreed to settle with Allen on damages rather than have the court decide how much money should be paid out.
Police spokesman Sgt. Rico Fernandez said police officials are still reviewing the case to determine what policy changes need to be made, but the officers who had arrested Allen have been told about the court ruling.
Fernandez noted that the arrest of a sex offender for not showing proof of residency is rare and that officers will continue to monitor offenders.
"Compliance checks are still going to continue," Fernandez said.
Soon, residency checks may no longer be a legal concern for law enforcement agencies throughout California.
State Sen. Curren Price, D-Inglewood, introduced legislation in February that would require registered sex offenders to provide proof of residency when asked by law enforcement personnel who are investigating compliance with sex offender registration laws.
Under the bill, SB 756, failure to provide proof of residence to police would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a county jail. The bill is in the Senate's Public Safety Committee.
Fahizah Alim, communications director for Price, said that the senator hadn't been aware of Long Beach's civil rights case and didn't know of any similar lawsuits by sex offenders in California. ..Source.. by Paul Eakins, Staff Writer
September 17, 2010
Most Favor Jailing Sex Offenders Indefinitely
9-17-2010 National:
Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans say corrections systems should be allowed to hold sex offenders indefinitely if they believe the offender will strike again, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 15% think corrections systems should not have that power. Another 15% aren't sure.
Similarly, 72% of Adults say the names of convicted sex offenders should remain on a public registry even after they have fulfilled their sentences and parole or probation periods. Sixteen percent (16%) disagree, and 12% are undecided.
Americans overwhelmingly favor public registries for sex offenders like the ones that are now standard in all 50 states. Eighty-three percent (83%) support such registries, with only seven percent (7%) opposed.
The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on September 13-14, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
But adults waver when asked about cases involving teenagers of a similar age. Sixteen is the legal age of sexual consent in most of the country, but it can run as high as 18 in some states.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans agree that it should be against the law for a 17-year-old boy to have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. Forty-seven percent (47%), however, do not think such a relationship should be illegal. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure.
Yet only 11% believe a 17-year-old boy who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend should be listed on a sex offender registry. Eighty-one percent (81%) oppose such a listing.
Women believe more strongly than men that corrections systems should be able to hold sex offenders indefinitely if necessary and that offenders should stay on a public registry even after satisfying their legal sentences.
Adults with children living with them are more likely to favor stricter consequences for sex offenders than those without children in the home.
Eighty percent (80%) of Americans believe parents should teach their children about sex. Just 11% think it's up to the schools to teach them.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) believe children are being exposed to more sex and violence today than they were 25 years ago. ..Source.. by MyFOX New York
September 12, 2010
How the label of “sex offender” brands for life
9-12-2010 Texas:
With the click of a button on the Texas Department of Public Safety website, individuals can investigate the 500 registered sex offenders in Harris County. Many are living in northwest Houston, dining at our favorite eateries, shopping at the local centers and even holding positions within our neighborhoods.
Since 1984, Dr. Jerome Brown has treated nearly 400 sex offenders in Harris County, with many trickling in from all areas of the community.
Some believe offenders can never be cured of their sexual urges and that they’re either in between crimes or haven’t been caught in their act with a child.
However, Brown said that’s a myth, based on the ideal of a classic pedophile, that is widely held but simply isn’t true.
“Most sex offenders are not pedophiles; probably 80 percent are opportunist that are at the wrong place at the wrong time,” he said. “Many don’t do it because they’re drawn to children sexually. They just use bad judgment about their sexual impulses.”
Many offenders are court-ordered to register as a sex offender once a year and enlist in a treatment program. The span in the treatment groups depends on the offender, with some staying indefinitely and others spending a few years.
“It depends on the individual’s progress,” Darla Temple, supervisor of the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said. “We’ve seen people in treatment for ten years and then we’ve seen people in it for three to four years. Their sign of progress is up to the treatment provider.”
In the center where Brown works, individuals most show the ability to empathize with their victims, plan and manage their lives without the abuse of drugs and alcohol and avoid certain sexual activities that would impede them from self-control.
Labeling someone as a sex offender for life is problematic, according to Brown. Studies on the topic have only been released in recent years, however, the research does not indicate that tagging individuals as sex offenders is effective, he said.
“It’s actually more detrimental because they have trouble living a normal life. They’re permanently on the outside,” Brown said. “This can often be destructive because he’ll give up and won’t try to do or make his life better.”
He said there’s no indication that having offenders live further from certain areas or withstanding 500 feet from children reduces sexual offenses. In fact, he has met many offenders that have never performed a second offense, he said.
However, several in the community have a peace of mind knowing that they can always view those on the sex offender registry. Some attackers don’t have to annually register; however, the title of sex offender is never swept away from their criminal records.
“We have 23 officers who have case loads of sex offenders. Certain offenses are life-term registration some, after 10 years, don’t have to register,” Temple said.
Brand said there needs to be a change in the risk assessment of sex offenders, with those on the highest level being monitored extensively and those on the lower end not being monitored at all.
“A 16-year-old who’s had sex with a 13-year-old is treated and often regarded as the same fixated pedophile that’s attracted to children, but they are different as night and day,” Brown said. “One is a kid that made a dumb mistake and the other is a very dangerous predator. Should they be treated the same?” ..Source.. by SATARA WILLIAMS
June 26, 2010
Sex Offenders, Lawyers and the Burden of a Voice
6-26-2010 Washington DC:
by Norm Pattis, from his blog: Defending Sex Crimes. (If folks wish to respond to Mr. Pattis please visit his blog and respond there. Thank you. eAdvocate)
Almost every time I stand in the presence of a group of people to talk about sex offenses and accused sex offenders I face the scorn of those assembled. Few crimes are as reviled. But today was different. I stood in the auditorium of a church in Washington, D.C., and faced a friendly group. Imagine, a hundred or so folks looking upon me with approval.
I was a guest of the second annual conference on the reforming sex offender legislation sponsored by a group called, appropriately enough, Reform Sex Offender Legislation. It felt good to be among friends. I know the sorrow they and their families have faced in the relentless and indiscriminate prosecution of these cases.
One thing is abundantly clear: Our laws fail to discriminate between and among the various forms of sex offenses. There simply is a difference between a violent sexual offender and a young man who looked at a few pornographic images of children online or engaged in consensual sex with a young neighbor close in age. But the law requires a one-size-fits-all response to these offenses once a person is released from prison: requiring everyone to register as a sex offender is draconian.
I said as much and more to an audience already persuaded. They've lived on the front lines of this war against over-criminalization and hysteria. I felt today like a prosecutor: preaching to the choir.
At the end of my part of the presentation, someone asked what it would take to get a committee or group of lawyers together from around the country to serve as an intellectual catalyst for change. I told the speaker that I thought there was such support, although it might not yet have taken shape in the form of a formal committee. "You are closer than you think," I said. "You might just be the foot; and I might just be the ass."
I'm sitting on a train thinking about that remark. I've never really trusted movement lawyers. The law is not philosophy. Individual clients come to me and I do not want to be encumbered to anything than the very discrete and tangible interests of my client. No two clients are alike, each brings his or her own menu of issues to the table.
But I wonder, just now. I responded to the call to attend the event because I had seen one client after another socially decimated by the law's unfeeling and unthinking rigidity. I believe reform of sex offender laws is necessary. At this stage, I do not think that there is much the courts are willing and able to do. Most judges adopt a form of intellectual cowardice when things get tense: Like junior officers in the Nuremberg dock, they plead that they were just following orders when they mete out justice with a sledge hammer. They blame legislators for the rules they are sometimes ashamed to enforce.
I believe the front lines of reform will come in the state legislatures. That is where ordinary family members of those harmed by over-harsh laws can tell their stories to those with eyes open to the truth. We say of federalism that the states are laboratories of change. I believe this to be true. I do not believe the federal government is a progressive instrument for change: Its scope is so broad it panders to the lowest common denominator. John Walsh is a hero on the national set; I for one find the 25-year wake for his murdered son to be maudlin.
I don't know whether I am willing to join a committee of lawyers dedicated to changing the law. In confessing this, I acknowledge a certain moral and intellectual cop out. I left a promising academic career at its inception due to a certain epistemological weariness. If there were no larger truths, what was there to teach? The practice of law has liberated me, if not from the dark ghosts inhabiting a dark world, then at least I am liberated from the paralysis and seeming nihilism that comes of a too close familiarity with the leavings of what I sometimes feel is a spent Western intellectual heritage.
But the good people I saw in Washington, D.C., today issued a challenge that echoes. What can be done, they asked, about the suffering their families and friends endure? Implicit in their question was a request for help. I've some soul-searching to do. It's been perhaps too easy to sit on the sidelines and toss gratuitous scorn at visions of the good. Even if there is no certainly as to what goodness requires, that does not prohibit one from opposing unintended consequences resulting in something just this side of evil. I am not saying that sex offenders ought not to be punished; I am simply saying that not all offenses are alike. Voiceless people need others to speak for them.
Whether to become such a voice is a hard question to contemplate. ..Source.. Norm Pattis
