Showing posts with label sex offender laws. Show all posts

Friday, February 21, 2014

February 21, 2014

Bill would allow sex offenders at schools

2-21-2014 Georgia:

Brand new state Rep. Sam Moore (R-Macedonia) is pushing a sweeping law that would allow registered sex offenders to go anywhere they want — even to schools.

Moore, in his first week in office, has turned in a bill that would overturn the crime of loitering and make it so registered sex offenders who aren’t otherwise barred from going to schools or places children gather could go to those places freely.

“I am OK with that,” Moore said Thursday, adding that he meant only those who were off parole and not barred from those places. “The reason I’m OK with that is the assumption is they have done their time. If they’re still a danger to society, they should not be free. … Am I saying it’s not creepy? It’s definitely creepy.”

Moore is the sole signer on House Bill 1033, which also prohibits law enforcement officers from forcing residents to identify themselves under any circumstances. Moore said that is a practice that violates Fifth Amendment rights to silence and was the original intent of the bill.

According to Moore, loitering is the only law on the books that requires people to give their name, and sex offender provisions hinge on loitering.

Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison called the bill “simply insane.”

“In my 34 years of law enforcement I have never heard of such an insane law having been introduced,” Garrison said Friday. “Sexual predators are one of this country’s most violent (type of) offenders. If there’s any equal it would be an out-and-out serial killer.”

The sheriff said the thought of allowing sexual predators to “once again lurk around our parks, around our schools, around our swimming pools” is horrifying.

Cherokee Superintendent of Schools Dr. Frank Petruzielo also expressed concerns about the legislation.

“The School District is strongly opposed to any legislation that would allow predators the opportunity to endanger our students, which it appears this bill would do,” he said in an email Thursday.

But Moore said he isn’t hoping to put anyone in any danger and only wants to protect the Fifth Amendment.

If officers have any other grounds besides loitering to arrest a person, Moore said he has no problem with that and he has no problem with officers questioning people who are suspicious — he just doesn’t think people should be made to talk.

The sheriff said loitering laws can be valuable for law enforcement.

“It’s insane,” he said. “If you can’t check them, how are you going to know who they are? They could be wanted for murder down the street.”

Garrison gave the example of a woman who was murdered in a few years ago, after her killer had killed others before her. The man was found by police loitering near Lake Allatoona.

“We could not have checked him, because he was loitering,” he said. “He turned out to be serial killer. All the while he had killed people … (This) would have taken away our ability to stop asking who he was.”

Garrison also found fault with Moore’s argument that sex offenders off parole should be able to go anywhere, because a large majority of them aren’t on parole.

Former Cherokee GOP Chair Bob Rugg is another who is outraged over Moore’s proposal.

“I can’t imagine a bill like this even coming out of committee,” Rugg said Friday. “It just doesn't make any sense to me to eliminate that shield of protection (for children). From the way I read his own comments about it, he (thinks he’s) protecting the Fifth Amendment right to silence. That’s silly.”

State Rep. Scot Turner (R-Holly Springs) read the bill Thursday and said he had no comment. State Rep. Mandi Ballinger, a longtime victim advocate, said she had no comment Thursday, other than that she looked forward to committee discussions.

Moore said he understands the bill will be controversial, but he argued that not all sex offenders are criminals in the classic sense.

“One issue is it’s extremely easy to get on the sex offender list,” he said. “To be a registered sex offender, all you have to do is go pee on a tree.”

Also to be a sex offender, Moore agreed that someone could be a child rapist, but he said “If those people are a danger then they should be locked up.”

Moore also repeatedly stressed the purpose of the bill was only to protect the Fifth Amendment in Georgia, not to give sex offenders a pass.

“My intent wasn't to help out sex offenders and I didn't back down because of the political ramifications,” he said. “If that means I don’t get re-elected that’s what it means.”

Moore is up for re-election in the May primary.

In the end, Garrison strongly and repeatedly said Moore’s arguments defending the bill don’t matter.

“At the end of the day, it’s all irrelevant, because the speaker of the House has a little corner for people like Mr. Moore: It’s called the ineffective corner. It’s just an embarrassment he happens to be from Cherokee County,” Garrison said. ..Source.. by Joshua Sharpe

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Senator: Sex offender registry may need to be re-examined

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

New Colorado law may encourage sex offenders to register as homeless

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Notice the blame-shifting cover-up going on here. A State employee forgets to do their job, and somehow the registry needs changing to compensate for that, why not just get employees to do their jobs and be responsible. Oh yes, there is no proof that even if the State employee did their job, that it would have prevented this crime.

The above caption was copied from a news article, but really backs up what my point has been all along.........Having the sex offender registry, public or private, does not prevent crime. That would be like saying, there is less crime because we know the where a bouts of all felons. Its ridiculous and a waste of tax payers time and money to monitor ALL sex offenders.....Hey while we are at it....lets just monitor all felons so we can prevent crime!!!! NOT!

Once again I'm not saying we shouldn't keep tabs on these predators and violent offenders. But there is an efficient way to do it.

Sex Offender legislation sent to Council

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Thousands of Maryland Sex Offenders May ....

Friday, August 2, 2013

Letter to the U.S. Department Of Justice, Congressman, legislature and anyone who will listen.............

I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to read my letter. I am a very concerned citizen with some VERY SERIOUS issues with Escambia county sheriffs office and the FDLE. I have been doing extensive research on the sex offender registration program here in Escambia county for almost a year now, all due to the false arrest of a sex offender that was complying with the local as well as federal law.

1) I will start with the problem I found the FDLE official website that list Sex offenders in this county and all over Florida. I went to the website to check out how many sex offenders lived within a 5 mile radius of my address. I found 501. But once I started looking at the list, only 102 of the offenders were CURRENT. Why? This list is NOT current. Megan's law was put into effect so that the public was aware of where in the community these sex offenders are located so that we could better protect our children. It was also to aid law enforcement should something happen to a child in the area. But this is not the case here. And

2) The other problem I have is FDLE wants to go after the offender for NOT complying with the registration laws, yet they don't comply with federal regulations. Why is this being allowed? Why is FDLE and the sheriffs office allowed to give excuses and not be punished for there inadequacy? I believe the federal government needs to find a better system. They need to hold the counties accountable for their actions, just like the county holds the offender accountable.

3) The sex offender list has caused many widespread problems in the United States, such as vigilantes who takes matters into their own hands, which is exactly what a couple in N.C. has done. The way the registry is set up, it puts ALL sex offenders on this list, whether they are a threat to society or not. I have heard the deputies say that the system needs to be reevaluated. They think its a waste of time and money to monitor sex offenders who don't pose a threat to our community. If they didn't have to monitor these offenders, it would leave time and money to monitor the ones our community should fear.

4) Within the State of Florida, there are many cases where persons where prosecuted and convicted of sex crimes without DNA, and little to NO evidence except for the word of the accuser. There should be a full investigation into all allegations before a formal charge is made. In the case I've been reviewing, The defendant was charged with a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a minor. The mother stated that this person allegedly broke into her home through her 14 yr old daughters bedroom window tapped her on the shoulder and asked her to smoke a joint. How is this a sex act. And now these people prosecuted basically have a life sentence. Why? Because of the way the law is structured.

5) I found that in some cases, where someone being charged with a sex offense, the defendant was not counseled correctly as to the severity of the offense. The majority of these cases where handled by the Public defenders office, and in one case, no investigating was done by the ASA or the attorney on record. The defendant wasn't even informed he would have to register as a sex offender. This is a grave injustice. It's reasons like this that the sex offender laws need to be reevaluated. This point is only part of the fall out of the failing system. Not to mention the issue of double jeopardy.

6) The ASA is not knowledgeable in the sex offender laws, yet they prosecute defendants and ad lib the law when it is convenient. This is not about another win for them this is about the lives of possibly innocent people. And on the flip side the don't know enough and have let some of these dangerous people go, simply to offend again.

These are the main points I wanted to make and propose the following:

1) Have Escambia County and FDLE investigated and made to comply with the federal law of SORNA.

2) To rework the tiers of sex offenders. Low Level sex offenders should have to report to the sheriff office in the same manner as a release felon. The way I and many others look at it, what makes these offenders any less dangerous then a murderer or an armed robber. These people can be just as much treat to the public.

3) If a low level sex offender has been compliant for 5 yrs with no new SEX crimes he should be exempt from registering, not 10 years.

4) All predators and pedophiles should have to register for life.

Please consider making a change. Our Sheriffs office is already having to give up the job of running the jail because they are incompetent. I sincerely hope you will contact me in regards to this. I am working on a program for our community to help offenders as well as victims. I would like the opportunity discuss this further.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Missouri Legislators Threaten to Override Veto of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration Bill

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

GOVTRACK.US - Easily track the activities of the United States Congress

Motions filed for Ma'Lik Richmond

Attorney argues that sex offender classification is unconstitutional

STEUBENVILLE - An attorney representing Ma'Lik Richmond in his rape case in juvenile court is arguing a sex offender classification is unconstitutional because it subjects Richmond to double jeopardy.

Richmond, 16, of Steubenville in March was found delinquent of a charge of rape in connection with an incident involving an underage girl that happened last August.

Retired Juvenile Judge Tom Lipps sentenced Richmond and Trent Mays, 17, of Bloomingdale to a minimum of one year in a Department of Youth Services facility. Mays also was sentenced to another minimum of one year after he was found delinquent of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material for having a picture of the 16-year-old victim in an outgoing text message on his cell phone.

This was a letter sent to John Walsh....but I thought I should share it with everyone...

To: John Walsh
Have you ever considered that you are punishing innocent/undeserving people with YOUR crusade??? I was a victim from the time I was 5. One of my abusers was a police officer. When I told MY story it was ignored. Why is that???? So over the years I have followed all of these changes. What are the statute of limitations on these kind of crimes and should there even be one if one exists? And are these offenders any more of a threat then someone who murders? Oh, you say there are different levels of the offense? Shouldn't that apply to the sex offender? I understand that sex offenders need to be monitored BUT I see to much misuse of the system and the law enforcers NOT doing their job and punishing the offender following the rules. Where is their JUSTICE? I am looking to change these laws to help keep the focus where it needs to be, THE CHILDREN! I don't believe monitoring a person that has been mislabeled a SEX offender because he tapped a young girl on the shoulder a threat. Monitoring this type of person is taking away from the people we NEED to be watching and monitoring. THE PREDATOR. The law named after son was implemented for just that, THE PREDATOR. Not the person who had consensual sex. I believe too much time and money are wasted on these types of people. And lets not push aside all the problems Megan's Law has caused. What are we solving by publishing these people? I'll tell you....NOTHING. Murders to me are just as dangerous, yet they don't register. Why? The fear and stigma of a SEX OFFENDER should be used for those committing those heinous crimes, not for frivolous and erroneous accusations. I am starting a advocacy for those mislabeled offenders. I watched you on the View and love the new device, but what do you do for the people who can't afford them? I would like help forming this advocacy. I believe it will help everyone. As a women that has experienced all sides of the law, I want to help change this bad misconception of certain sex offenders, and strengthen the laws for those who violate it. I want to be the voice that I should have had.
I am looking for supporters. Anyone willing to lend their voice to my cause?

Monday, July 29, 2013

No Justice: Sex Offenses, No Matter How Minor or Understandable, Can Ruin You for Life

90 Sex Offenders Might Become Homeless in Miami-Dade Next Week.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Changes to Sex Offender Laws – Moving in the Right Direction?

The root of the ineffectiveness of the current laws is the tendency to base policies on our cultural disgust and fear of sex offenders rather than on a rational analysis of the best way to protect society. Empirical studies from Colorado and Minnesota show that residency restrictions have no correlation to lower re-offense rates, law enforcement agencies complain that bloated registries drain resources and hamper effective monitoring of more dangerous sex offenders, and countless examples exist of non-dangerous minor offenders whose lives have been deeply impacted or ruined by overly broad classification of sex offenders. However, the political will of the legislature is still being driven by public misconceptions, as several states consider imposing stricter requirements on sex offenders.

Oklahoma recently passed a law that bans convicted sex offenders from living with children. It sounds sensible—sex offenders were already restricted from living near schools—yet Oklahoma requires registration of those who commit indecent exposure (excluding public urination) or who crimes involving producing or distributing “obscene material,” which can include pornography depicting only adults. Pending legislation HB1193 would require an law enforcement agencies to notify the local newspaper of sex offenders designated as “habitual” or “aggravated.”

New York, which currently imposes no residency restrictions on sex offenders, is considering banning sex offenders from living within 1000 feet of a school, daycare or park. Even though 1000 feet is on the lower end of residency restrictions, this could be a difficult requirement in the New York City metropolitan area, especially for homeless offenders. Another proposal, S06073, could also have a disparate impact on homeless or transient offenders by requiring Electronic Home Monitoring (ankle bracelets) on offenders who fail to register two or more times. Homeless offenders are much more likely to have registration issues since they have no address to register, and often have mental health issues or other problems that limit their ability to comply.

A bill in Iowa would require nursing homes and assisted living facilities to conduct a sex offender registry check prior to the admission of any new tenants or patients, and then to notify all residents, the emergency contact of all residents, the facilities’ staff, and all visitors to the facility. While it makes sense to want to protect these more vulnerable populations, the nursing facilities covered by the bill have argued that this will impose an onerous burden on their time and resources.

Louisiana leads the charge in the current race to get tough on sex offenders, as Governor Bobby Jindal has made it one of the top priorities of his administration. He has already having signed legislation mandating longer prison sentences for sex offenders and authorizing chemical castration for rapists, in which hormone-limiting drugs are used to reduce libido and capacity for arousal. Although seemingly effective, chemical castration raises serious ethical questions when not undertaken voluntarily (it is reversible, unlike physical castration, but can pose serious health risks in some cases). And Louisiana isn't done—SB428 prohibits sex offenders from living within three miles of their victims and prohibits any form of communication with the victims or family members without their prior written consent. The goal of preventing traumatizing the victims is a noble one, but a three mile restriction in addition to the restrictions around schools and parks is going to create even more limited options, and in smaller towns could effectively result in banishment. Another popular proposal, SB442 seeks to ban sex offenders convicted of certain crimes (mostly involving minors) from social networking sites including Facebook. A legal challenge to a similar ban in Indiana has made the argument that this infringes on First Amendment rights by also preventing offenders from engaging in political, religious, or business-oriented activity on these sites, and a ruling is expected within a month.

The ideas behind these proposals are well-intented, and some could actually be good ideas within a more sensible overall regime. Yet as long as the registries remain bloated with low-risk offenders and our policies remain focused on punishment and stigmatization rather than prevention and rehabilitation, sex offender laws will continue to do more harm than good.

How Sex Offender Laws Fail to Protect the Public

Information Problems

Sex offender registries are perhaps the best-known aspect of sex offender regimes. Since the passage of the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, every state has been required by federal law to maintain a sex offender registry. By making the names and addresses of sex offenders readily available to the public, often with interactive maps, the goal is to empower people with information so they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves and their families.

However, this information does not really prove useful for enhancing safety. If there is a sex offender in your neighborhood, you can tell your kids to stay away from the creepy guy’s house, but that’s about it. Most sex offenders are not under house arrest, so unless you memorize every face pictured in the directory, you’re in the dark when you go to a public place. Furthermore, since most sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders who know their victims, not strangers who have previously been convicted, the registry could not have provided useful information for prevention in the majority of cases. However, this information is useful for community members who wish to engage in violent vigilantism or harassment of sex offenders. While most people don’t have much sympathy for sex offenders subject to harassment, innocent people have also been hurt due to mistakes or misunderstandings of the registry, such as this 78 year-old man who was beaten to death with a baseball bat because his name was similar to a convicted sex offender’s.

Another problem with some states’ registries lies in the overly broad classification of crimes as sex offenses. In at least ten states, you can earn the sex offender designation from fairly innocuous forms of public indecency like streaking, mooning, or urinating in public. None of the registries provide any factual details of the offenses, just the names of the crimes (and sometimes not even that). So if a registry lists the offense of indecent exposure, for example, the public has no way of distinguishing a high school prankster who streaks a football game from a creep who purposely goes to a playground and waves his member at children to achieve sexual gratification. Many registries also contain numerous purely statutory offenders who are often also minors at the time of the offense, such as a 17 year-old who engages in consensual sexual activity with his 15 year-old girlfriend. In many jurisdictions, this would be labeled “sexual assault against a minor,” which makes this person look like a greater threat than the circumstances suggest. By effectively diluting the sex offender registry with people who pose little threat to public safety, it is more difficult to identify and keep track of the high-risk offenders. California, as an extreme example, has the largest registry in the country with over one hundred thousand registered sex offenders. This is an overwhelming amount of information to sift through, and can make it appear a sex offender is lurking around every corner – just look at the map of Los Angles county. Rather than providing useful information, it just scares and furthers the misconception that the risk of sex offenses is increasing at an alarming rate.

THE UNFAIR LAWS AND CLASSIFICATION OF SEX OFFENDERS