Folks, you need to watch this news report. Do not allow anyone you don’t know onto your “friends” list. They could be a Federal agent, spying on your activities and profile details
Video courtesy of SexOffenderIssues
Posts Tagged Support
baltimoresun.com: Legislature abandons reason, good manners in rush to pass sex offender bills.
I was shocked at the disregard and outright rudeness shown to members of our group as we stood before the (Maryland ) Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 16 to oppose many bills (especially HB936/SB854 and HB736/SB434) aimed at sex offenders, with no real consideration for the lives of the vast majority of victims, and certainly none for the vast majority of nonviolent, low-risk offenders.
Members of the committee pointedly got up and walked out when we spoke. They made disparaging remarks and spouted hearsay as if it were evidence. We citizens, as well as many well-spoken professionals, presented the committee with solid facts and dire warnings about what has happened in other states with similar laws. We stressed that all of us agree that dangerous, repeat offenders (aka predators) should be locked up for life. But fewer than 3 percent of all offenders fit this category! These laws would indiscriminately scoop up children sending “dirty” pictures to each other, consensual lovers who are too far apart in age, flashers, child porn possessors (yep, even accidental,) and guys with vindictive ex-wives.
We presented the same facts in the House Judiciary Committee on February 23. Fewer Delegates were openly rude — but they weren’t listening, either. The amended bills they have passed are actually worse than the originals!
Both committees heard over and over again how public registration has failed to prevent a single predatory offense in any state using it. How the common mis-perceptions that “sex offenders” are incurable, guaranteed to re-offend, and always getting worse, are totally not backed up by any reliable research that has been done in the past 20 years. How people who committed an offense several decades ago, and have been law-abiding, productive citizens ever since, will find themselves placed on this public registry.
I can promise you, delegates and senators, that the whole state of Maryland will regret the day you vote these bills into law. Our children will continue to be raped and molested (mostly within their own homes, by people who have never been on the public registry), our citizens will continue to live their lives in fear (because they erroneously think they are surrounded by predators), and our state will discover, to its eternal shame, the incredible toll in human lives these bills will ultimately take.
You will see, to your regret, that we were right about the astronomical budget it will take to implement — and defend — these totally ineffective laws. The thousands of formerly law-abiding, free citizens who suddenly find their lives completely destroyed by a public registry are going to sue you for damages and fight until their cases reach the highest courts and these laws are struck down. They are heinous, unconstitutional, and protect no one.
Senators, delegates, we have made every attempt to appeal to reason. There will be absolutely no joy in saying “We told you so!” Instead, we will be weeping beside you.
Brenda Jones
Coordinator of Families Advocating for Intelligent Registries.
freerangekids.wordpress.com: A Public Defender Discusses the Sex Offender Registry (& Why It’s Almost Worthless.
A NOTE FROM A PUBLIC DEFENDER ABOUT SEX CRIMES & KIDS
“Dear Free-Range Kids: I work as a public defender and will attest that the vast majority of sex offenders do not have a record (at least of sex offenses). Out of the 100+ serious sex offenses my office has handled during the last 5 years, only 3 have involved defendants already convicted of a sex offense in the past. Meaning that (a) sex offenders are not being re-convicted in large numbers, and (b) most sex offenses are committed by people who are not on any registry.
And this lack of recidivism has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of access due to registries. The average child molester is a master manipulator. He will be able to convince people that this was all a big mistake and get access to children without much trouble. And anyone who is going to abduct, rape and kill a child is going to be completely undeterred by a registry. It’s more likely a result of the fact that most on the registry are there for consensual sex with a slightly under-aged person (too underage and it becomes molestation regardless) and they are unlikely to re-offend. You also mix in people who commit sex crimes against adults who aren’t a threat to children – rape of an adult and rape of a child are VERY different and you almost never see a crossover. This leaves you with a very small number of registered sex offenders who are likely to re-offend, or likely to commit a crime against a child.
Sex registries have the dual effect of improperly stigmatizing people and lulling people into a false sense of security. Sure, dad can check out mom’s new boyfriend. But his being on a registry or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever as to whether he poses a threat to a child. He could be a molester who has never been caught. He could be a public urination case that ended up on a registry. It seems as if the better choice would be to forget the registry all together and teach our children to protect themselves and keep the lines of communication open about sex so that they believe that they can come to us should something uncomfortable occur. — A Public Servant”
courthousenews.com: Jehovah’s Witness Sex Offender Sues Ohio For Right to Go Door To Door.
Lawrence Bullard, a Jehovah’s Witness and a sex offender, is suing his parole officer and the Ohio Department of Corrections for his right to go door to door, stating that “the state is forcing him to choose between his faith and his freedom.”
Good for him. We hope he wins this lawsuit. More citizens should be suing the state over these laws and restrictions. We should be flooding the courts in every state and costing states millions of dollars in costs and restitution judgments.
Cincinnati - A Jehovah’s Witness who was convicted of felony attempted sexual abuse has sued the State of Ohio, claiming it unconstitutionally prohibits him from practicing his religion by proselytizing door-to-door more than once a month.
Lawrence Bullard says he should be allowed to proselytize door-to-door twice a week with other Witnesses, as their religion requires. He says he’s an exceedingly low risk to re-offend, and the circumstances prove it.
“On or about Dec. 16, 2001, after another break up, Lawrence went over to [his former fiancée's] house. He was angry at her, upset and confused. He let himself in when she was not home and hid in her closet waiting for her to come home.” When she arrived, he says, he “confronted her. And they argued. At some point, he forcibly kissed her and fell to the floor on top of her. He then put his hands down her pants, touching her pubic area.”
He says he “immediately realized that he made a serious mistake, in violation of both his faith and the law.” He says he called the police from the lobby of his ex’s apartment building, and waited there until they arrested him. After pleading guilty to the class E felony, Bullard says he was classified as a low risk, and sentenced to 10 years of probation and ordered to register as a sex offender.
In 2008, “because of his trouble-free adjustment to probation, he says, he “was placed on non-reporting status.”
Bullard, 37, says he has been married for 4 years. He says his religious practice of going door-to-door twice a week with Witnesses made him well-suited for a job in sales, which he eventually found with a roofing company. But when his parole officer in Ohio found out about his religious practices and his job as a door-to-door salesman, Bullard says, she forbade it. She asked him to sign a document agreeing not to go door to door, but he refused, citing his religion. Ohio then “requested a warrant for his arrest from New York.”
He says the request was ultimately withdrawn, and the Ohio Department of Parole allowed him to proselytize once a month. Bullard says his religion requires him to do it twice a week, and that he’s no risk because he will be accompanied by other Witnesses. He seeks a restraining order and injunction. He is represented by David Singleton with the Ohio Justice & Policy Center.
reporternews.com: Former ACU football player: I am registered sex offender.
Former Abilene Christian University football player Tony Washington disclosed during the NFL Combine in Indianapolis that he is a registered sex offender.
Washington, an All-American offensive tackle for the Wildcats the past two seasons, was convicted of having sex with his 15-year-old biological sister in May 2003 while a student at Alcee Fortier High School in New Orleans. Washington was 16 at the time and received five years probation. He didn’t serve jail time but he had to register as sex offender wherever he lived. He told scouts and college coaches the sex was consensual.
Washington, 24, told SportsFanLive.com: “I made a mistake at the age of 16 and for that, I am deeply sorry. I will not try and excuse or justify anything. I have worked extremely hard to do everything right so that I might have an opportunity to give back. I only hope that someone in the NFL will give me the same opportunity that Abilene Christian and Trinity Valley gave me.”
After his performance at the combine, Washington, who is 6-foot-7, 305 pounds, is considered to be a high-round draft choice.
With every-increasing numbers of Americans being labeled on the sex offender registries across the nation (estimated at 700,000 and growing each day) , these high profile cases should highlight the need for reform of the sex offender laws. The more people we put on sex offender registries, the more we dilute the stated purpose of the registries. We need to limit sex offender registration to only the most high-risk and repeat offenders. We must give first time offenders a chance to prove themselves and “work” their way off the registry. And we must allow judicial review of individual cases to establish risk levels (all of which the Adam Walsh Act does not allow).
free-press-release.com: Sex Offenders and their Supporters Lobby Georgia Lawmakers for Reform.
March 8, 2010 — Last weekend, sex offenders in Georgia took a step towards replacing the failed policy of registration and residency restrictions with a policy based on reason and with the goal of making their communities safer, actually protecting children, and restoring the nation’s international image for fairness and basic respect of human rights.
On Saturday, March 6, 2010, Georgians for Reform held a twelve hour conference in the Georgia State Capital. In attendance were more than 180 friends and supporters. Speakers included a District Attorney who participated in writing the original legislation creating the sex offender registry in Georgia, a Defense Attorney who addressed the ex post facto aspects of the registry, a lobbyist, a lawyer, and a sociologist who spoke about the wrong directions taken by the registry and its detrimental effects on both registrants and society as a whole. Several religious leaders also spoke about the challenges sex offender registrations pose to the faith community. Prison counselors and chaplains spoke on the reality of the registry for those incarcerated and released. Also in attendance was Paul Shannon, who helped establish Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), a national advocacy organization for sex offenders and their families.
Every speaker, including the attorney who participated in the original legislation, told those gathered that the registry is a failed policy and serves as an extension of criminal punishment–a violation of Due Process protections guaranteed to every American citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment.
To gather close to 190 people in conference, the majority of whom are not on the registry, in the state of Georgia, leaves little room for anyone to claim it can’t be done. Who now can claim that society has written off persons convicted of a sex offense, that these people have no support, that these people do not deserve the basic human dignity spoken of so eloquently in our own Declaration of Independence? Who can continue to support the hyperbole, ignoring the statistical facts presented by the United States Department of Justice, or the reality of systemic failure on the part of registry schemes from state to state?
The guiding principle of the Georgians for Reform conference was that no speaker would be asked to address their topic from the organization’s stated perspective. Each speaker was asked to address the conference from his own perspective about the registry and was not vetted in advance about that perspective as a contingency for invitation. Speakers were invited because they satisfied one of the criteria of conference presenters: professional status in law enforcement, the clergy, the legal field, the study of sociology, psychology, or in the practice of therapy.
That each of the speakers in attendance came to the same conclusion about the registry as a failed policy speaks very loudly.
Georgians For Reform is deeply disturbed by the failure of sex offender registries to prevent incidents of human suffering at the hands of people such as Phillip Garrido and Anthony Sowell (both cases of sexual predation and abuse by registered sex offenders). We mourn the loss of Chelsea King, and we believe that the failed registration policies are partially responsible for her loss and the terrible pain felt by her family and friends.
Georgians For Reform demands that these failed policies be eliminated and replaced with policies based on the best available and empirical evidence. Such action–and the development of reasonable policies–will make our nation’s communities safer, protect children, and protect the right of people to heal and move forward. More importantly, law enforcement agencies will be able to focus on the truly dangerous offenders in their local communities.
Georgians For Reform will continue to speak out against these failed policies and demand a reform that works towards making our communities safer, protecting our children, and respecting the dignity of human beings. We will no longer accept ‘feel good’ policies that protect no one, lend a false sense of security, and help foster an environment that makes our children and communities less safe.
From a reader of our blogs:
“There was a time when I did think the streets must be filled with sex predators hiding and waiting to pounce on their next victim. Then I decided to study the FACTS ! I was totally wrong.
It turns out that these lying, gutless, sycophant fops we elect have no respect for the constitution and allow illegal laws to be put on the books for money and public hype. [These are] senseless laws by the uninformed. Their inability to work out all the difficult problems of the laws they create will do to harm the accused and not give them a chance to a new start in life free of crime. They brand these people immediately . They can’t get a job, find a place to live or survive. They have a right to live. “
Many readers ask what they can do to help in this fight. Here is something you should do, today. With President Obama making news today in his support of the Adam Walsh Act funding ( see post below), we must do the following before the end of this week, if possible:
ConstitutionalFights spoke to a representative at the White House today who expressed interest in our concerns about the Adam Walsh Act and how it violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans. She gave potentially useful instructions on how to communicate effectively to President Obama on this issue.
She said to FAX A ONE PAGE OUTLINE summary sheet to 202-456-2461.
You can email but faxes will be MUCH more effective she said, because they receive millions of emails.
1. At the top of the page, put a clear subject line- re: Adam Walsh Act.
2. List clear concise bullet points, not narrative. She said outline form is much more likely to be read than a narrative story.
Now, I no longer use faxes, but I am sure many of you have access to fax machines. And there are some online alternatives to fax from your computer. So while this may result in a lower number of us sending a fax, if many of us do this, it could be effective (according to the secretary).
You know the bullet points to make: constitutional violations of Ex Post Facto/Retroactivity, Separation of Powers, Breach of Contract, ect, how it damages families and children of offenders, how it imposes life-long registration to many who committed a crime decades ago, ect..
Again, one page, in outline form! To download the sample outline below, download here: http://drop.io/whitehouseSORNA
Sample Outline:
Adam Walsh Act/SORNA : Destroying Families and Failing to Prevent Crime.
AWA/SORNA violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans by:
- imposing retroactive punishment for crimes committed decades ago
- breach of contract in plea agreements with states by increasing registration requirements, requiring new lifetime registration for many
- violating separation of powers provisions by disallowing a court review of individual cases
Correcting Myths:
- U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders 1994 (latest available): “5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime.”
“An estimated 3.3% of child victimizers 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison”
Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998).
- Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers”
- A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire): “The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances”
- The Crimes Against Children Research Center studies:
a) “various forms of child mistreatment and child victimization declines as much as 40-70% from 1993 through 2004, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault…”
b) ” sexual abuse started to decline in the early 1990’s after at least 15 years of steady increases. From 1990 through 2004 sexual abuse substantiations were down 49%”
- National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System:
a) “Cases of substantiated sexual abuse have declined approximately 39% nationwide from 1992 to 1999. Despite the dramatic nature of the decline, little discussion of the trend has occurred at either the national or the state level. ”
Legal Challenges:
- AWA/SORNA has been legally challenged in every county in Ohio and within every state. Many State and Federal Courts have ruled retroactive restrictions as unconstitutional.
- The Indiana Supreme Court ruled retroactive application of SORNA as unconstitutional - Wallace v. State (2009
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared in U.S. v. Juvenile Male, No. 07-30290 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2009) that part of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional as applied to former juvenile offenders:
- The Ohio Supreme Court currently has four cases under review to decide retroactive implementation of SORNA.
AWA/SORNA Damages Families:
- Registries list offenders whose crimes date back decades, and whom have led productive lives since
- Many of those on the registry were juveniles when the crime was committed
- Many of those on registry pose little or no threat to re-offend
- Public registries include home addresses and expose parents and their children to taunting and threats
- Employment, education and living opportunities are severely limited to families with a registered sex offender
- Socially stigmatizing Americans for a lifetime creates instability in their lives and actually increases chances of offending
Conclusion: We urge the President to repeal , or completely re-structure The Adam Walsh Act /SORNA to:
- remove retroactive application
- allow judicial review of individual cases
- allow a means to earn a way off the registry
- maintain registries for law enforcement use only, and not for public perusal
greenbaypressgazette.com: Green Bay sex offender ordinance takes financial toll on city.
Green Bay prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children gather. It’s an expensive ordinance and one that has raised questions about whether it’s worth the cost. The state spends more than $220,000 a year to house convicted sex offenders after they are released from prison at the state’s Transitional Living Program house, according to the Department of Corrections.
It also pays nearly $4,000 a month for each offender housed at the Brown County Jail after prison release who cannot find a place to live. It can become costly — convicted sex offender Geitano Schmidt, 50, stayed at the Brown County Jail for five months before he was approved to move.
Those costs include payments to an agency that drives offenders around to look for housing.
Green Bay’s sex offender residency ordinance prohibits sex offenders from living in nearly 90 percent of the city. The ordinance was approved in 2007 because of concerns that most of Brown County’s listed adult sex offenders lived in Green Bay. An analysis that year by the Green Bay Press-Gazette of the state’s Sex Offender Registry found 65 percent of adult sex offenders in the county lived in Green Bay.
The increased cost hasn’t translated into increased safety for city residents.
Authorities refer about 200 sexual-assault cases to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office, a number that hasn’t changed much since the ordinance passed. However, sex offenders refusing to register with the state has more than doubled since the city ordinance went into effect in 2007, according to the state Department of Corrections.
Authorities referred 41 cases of noncompliance to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office in 2009, according to the state corrections department. That number jumped from only 14 cases in 2007 and is more than the 38 cases referred in 2008.
“It’s a result of the residency restriction because convicted sex offenders can’t find a place to live so they would rather go underground,” said Tom Smith, Corrections sex offender registration specialist.
Noncompliance is a refusal to provide correct information, including an address. Refusing to register is a felony that carries a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison. “They’re giving up,” Smith said. “They want to comply but can no longer comply because of the restrictions that are held over their head.”
Safety zones and loitering ordinances around parks, schools and day cares are some alternatives to the city ordinance, Smith said.
Donna Ysebaert of Green Bay expressed concerns over copycat ordinances by surrounding municipalities and potential overcrowding at the Brown County Jail. She said if people support the ordinance, they can’t complain about taxpayers footing the bill.
Jed Neuman supervises 52 probation and parole agents in Brown County. The sex offender ordinance isn’t necessary, he said, since agents already require similar restrictions regarding housing and contact with minors. “They’ve had to become real estate agents. It really makes our jobs quite difficult,” he said.
Agents have to pick up offenders each morning when they stay at the Brown County Jail to help them look for housing, then drop them off each evening. Agents have reduced their caseloads to remain effective at protecting the public and rehabilitating the offenders, he added.
Gary Hein of Green Bay said the sex offender ordinance prevents people from being able to contribute to society. “They’re forcing them to be criminals because they have to lie about where they’re living,” he said.
Baltimoresun.com: Is state wise to treat all sex offenders the same?
I doubt it will be noted anywhere but here — because the bill was withdrawn Monday– but to give you an idea of the extent to which members of the Maryland General Assembly will go to protect “we, the public,” please consider House Bill 656. It would have prohibited convicted sex offenders from going to Maryland schools even to vote on Election Day.
I found this while searching through the dozens of bills that have been filed in Annapolis in this election year, ostensibly to tighten loopholes in the state’s sex offender laws.
HB 656’s sponsors included the following delegates: Impallaria, Boteler, Costa, Dwyer, George, Kach, Krebs, McComas, McDonough, Miller, Schuh, Shewell, Sossi and Stocksdale. (I would use their first names, but I don’t want to embarrass them.)
The bill, indexed under “sex offenses,” would have required “an individual who is a felon to vote only by absentee ballot.” It would have prohibited “a felon from voting at a polling place.” And it would have “limited a provision of law allowing specified registered criminal offenders to enter onto school property for the purpose of voting only to registered offenders who are not felons.”
That last reference - “specified registered criminal offenders” - is a reference to sexual offenders; they’re the ones we keep on an Internet registry that would grow larger, covering offenses that occurred up to 25 years ago, under legislation in the General Assembly this winter.
HB 656 would have protected Maryland schoolchildren even when they aren’t in school, Election Day. The bill got an unfavorable report after first reading and a hearing last month, and it was listed as withdrawn on Monday. So it’s not happening. But still, it provides more evidence of the strikingly transparent effort to score points with voters by exploiting public fears about the men and women among us convicted of sexual offenses. There are already numerous laws on the books restricting them from all kinds of activities - even their own children’s school events - and their names, photographs, addresses and offenses are listed on the state registry for the world to see. And still it’s not enough for the pols in Annapolis, who use the issue to prove their tough-on-crime bonafides.
Within the last week, I’ve received numerous comments from readers about this, and I’m surprised - and delighted -to report that the majority seem to see through the politicizing of this criminal justice issue. They question the effectiveness of the sex offender registries, and that includes some readers who are in law enforcement. There’s good reason for that — the majority of offenses, for instance, are committed by first-time offenders, and first-time offenders aren’t in the registry - but in the current hysteria, that doesn’t even seem to be a question in Annapolis.
Among those who’ve responded to my last two columns on this subject have been people convicted of sexual offenses, or their relatives — a constituency almost never heard from, and for practical reasons; they’re in the state’s sex offender registry and they have no desire to draw any more attention to themselves.
Sunday, I received an e-mail from a 56-year-old offender I’ll call Rick for the sake of this column. He asked not to be identified, saying he was concerned about the effect of further publicity on his teenage children and the reaction of his neighbors in a Baltimore suburb. He told me about his offense — sex with a minor in 2002, and a guilty plea on a third-degree sexual offense — and I checked it out. That has been his only crime, Rick said, and the records support him.
He, like other offenders, has been watching the news out of Annapolis as legislative leaders try to, among other things, expand the Internet registry to include older crimes and those committed by juveniles. Rick thinks that, instead of expanding the registry, the state ought to narrow its focus and concentrate money and resources on the most serious cases that pose the greatest risks to the public.
“Why can’t Maryland use the evaluation skills of professionals already in its employ and assign proper designation of recidivism danger to sex offenders?” Rick wrote in an e-mail.
“I completed all punishment and monitoring without incident. I haven’t had as much as a parking ticket, but due to a terrible decision on my part I am still paying, and will continue to pay, in ways that go far beyond my original sentencing. I completed the ordered sex offender treatment program and avoid any situation where I can be perceived as putting someone in danger.
“I cannot go to the park with my teenage children. I can’t join my local Y. I can’t go to my children’s school without getting written permission. I am on the registry for life, and now the politicos of our state are piling it on.
“We are not all monsters. Many are in loving relationships. Many have served their sentences, are honestly remorseful, have repented, and are trying to desperately move on with their lives and be productive citizens. All sex offenders are not serial offenders. They are not all predators.”
But right now we don’t seem to make much distinction and, if the registry expands, to comply with federal law, it seems reasonable to assume that money and resources will go into that effort rather than into performing the psychological triage to identify the real threats and make a real difference in public safety.
Since the Maryland Legislature removed this bill from their web site, we post here an image capture of the bill. Click on thumbnail image to view enlarged image.
Bill Synopsis:
Requiring an applicant for voter registration to specify whether the applicant is a felon; requiring that specified information concerning voting by felons be provided to an applicant for voter registration; requiring an individual who is a felon to vote only by absentee ballot; prohibiting a felon from voting at a polling place; and limiting a provision of law allowing specified registered criminal offenders to enter onto school property for the purpose of voting only to registered offenders who are not felons.