Drunk Drivers - A New Approach

If Drunk Drivers Were Treated like Sex Offenders 

Nobody likes sex offenders. People aren't very fond of drunk drivers, either. Drunk drivers have a much higher recidivism rate than sex offenders, and are much more likely to kill or injure someone than sex offenders. 

So let us imagine, for a moment, that they are given similar treatment.

2003
You are caught running a red light. The policeman who pulls you over discovers you  been drinking, and arrests you for drunk driving. The judge sentences you to a $1000 fine and 60 days in jail. Recognizing your drinking problem, you participate in a voluntary alcohol treatment program, join AA, get sober, and never drink again, let alone drink and drive.


2005
Drunk driving tragedies have been in the news a lot over the past year, and the public wants to toughen up on drunk drivers. A law is passed requiring anyone convicted of drunk driving after the year 2000 to be put on a non-public registry for five years from the date of their conviction. The registry exists so if there are any hit-and-run accidents, the police know who to check out as suspects first. You are now required to report to the police station once a year to give them your address, driver  license number, license plate numbers, and vehicle descriptions. You must report any changes in information within 5 days. If you fail to report, you can expect 2 years of incarceration on a felony charge.  Thank goodness you only have to do this for two more years!

2007
As a reaction to an especially messy drunk driving incident that got many people up in arms, everyone convicted of drunk driving after the year 2000 is restricted from living within 1000 feet of the nearest bar or store which sells alcoholic beverages. Your state legislature also decides that its RDDs (registered drunk drivers) will need to be on the police registry for ten years from the date of their conviction. This takes a big bite out of the state budget, so RDDs are expected to pay $500 per year to offset the cost. Your house is within range of two liquor stores. You have to move far out of town, forcing you and your wife to find new jobs. It's a scramble and Santa isn't as generous this year. Your children, who had to change schools mid-year, are not happy. Now you are stuck on
that registry until 2013!

Early 2008
The national government has imposed a minimum of 2 years in prison for any drunk-driving charge, and a maximum of 10 years if there has been damage to property or personal injury. Failure to register now carries a stiffer penalty of 5 years in prison, with no parole in either situation. RDDs originally convicted of personal injury incidents must now re-register four times a year, at a cost of $250 per visit. Failure to register carries the same penalty as a new offense. Your family celebrates the fact that this time, the changes do not affect you. 

Mid-2008
Thanks to politicians who all want to look tough on Drunk Drivers, living restrictions are expanded to include any place where people congregate to drink. All RDD-owned vehicles must have pink license plates so others will know that a possibly drunk driver is behind the
wheel. Another federal law forbids any current RDD from owning certain types of vehicles. No studies have actually confirmed this, but it is believed that people who own these vehicles are more likely to drive while intoxicated.

You own one of these restricted vehicles. You are allowed a month to sell it or face a felony charge and two years  incarceration. You lose a lot of money in the process, and can only afford to buy a clunker. You also have to move again, because there is a Kiwanis Club just over the hill. The only place that qualifies is a run-down trailer park filled with other RDD's (registered drunk drivers). Your kids and wife are frequently harassed by schoolmates and neighbors whenever they drive anywhere, and the car is often vandalized.  The kids are regularly getting into fights at school, and your oldest shows signs of serious depression.

Early 2009
Two studies have shown Drunk Driving accounted for nearly 260 child deaths each year, and 700 serious child injuries. The federal government, in an effort to protect these poor children, passes the Cindy Sweet Act, named after a child who became a paraplegic after one such incident, which mandates that all states create a public, web-based registry listing ANYONE who has had ANY type of alcohol-related conviction since the year 2000. This registry includes the RDD's home and work addresses, his/her photograph, description of his/her vehicle and of course the vehicle license plate numbers that have been convicted of personal injury charges must install breathalyzers, at their cost, into each vehicle they drive, that send radio reports back to their local police station for monitoring. A positive breathalyzer is grounds for immediate arrest. You lose your job, because your employer refuses to be listed on the registry, and nobody else will hire you in spite of your excellent employment history. The road to the trailer park is lined with signs like Baby Killers and Beware! Child Murderers!  Others are much cruder. Your eldest tries to commit suicide, and is placed in a treatment center. Unable to take any more of this, your spouse packs up the younger kids and moves out, with your blessing. You move into a two-bedroom trailer with five other RDDs, to conserve what little money you manage to earn from odd jobs.  Interestingly, not one of your trailor-mates have ever driven drunk. But they all get the same treatment.


2010
Penalties for new offenses, and for failing to register, have doubled. RDDs are no longer allowed to drive on the interstate, for public safety reasons. The breathalyzer-and-license-plate requirements are expanded to include any vehicles owned by family members, because the RDD might have access to them. Also, all these vehicles must have a GPS installed for law enforcement to track whether it is safely parked in your driveway or parking lot between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m., since those are the hours most bars are open.
The new requirements have caused you and most of your trailer-mates to lose what little income you make, because you had night jobs. In desperation, everyone chips in to buy two bottles of good rum the first drink any of you have had since your convictions. Passing around the bottles, you all get roaring drunk, climb into your breathalyzer-enhanced vehicles, turn on the engines, and wait. Within minutes, police arrive and take all of you into custody. You are guaranteed to be in prison for five years or more. But at least you
are warm, and dry, and have steady jobs.

Maine Supreme Court Listens to Thirteen Mainers Seeking Removal from Sex Offender Registry

by WABI-TV5 News Desk - September 14th 2012 06:02pm - Read more Regional News

Maine's highest court listened to arguments yesterday seeking to remove certain names from Maine's sex offender registry.

Attorney Jim Mitchell represents thirteen people on the list who served their sentenced before the registry was created in 1999.

Maine's Supreme Court also heard from Deputy Attorney General Paul Stern yesterday.

He says it's important to keep the names on the list because it's not fair to guardians who might be moving next door or working with someone who could still be a danger to their children, but Mitchell says the convicted sex offenders he represents are being punished retroactively.

"If something wasn't criminal when you did it, you can't come back a year later and say 'Now we're making it criminal, so we're gonna prosecute you.' No we don't treat people that way."

"There's no reason to believe somebody who was convicted of a serious sex offense or multiple sex offenses in the 1980s is any more safe than someone who was convicted of a sex offense today."

Mitchell says there's a chance this matter could go back to trial again, but he's hoping the court will make a decision.

http://www.wabi.tv/news/33416/maine-supreme-court-listens-to-thirteen-mainers-seeking-removal-from-sex-offender-registry

Study: Program For Sex Offenders Is Reducing Crime

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) - Sex offenders who are enrolled in a new mentoring program through the Department of Corrections are 84 percent less likely to return to prison, according to a new study.
Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability started in 2008, working with level 2 sex offenders who have a moderate risk of re-offending.

Each offender about to be released from prison is matched with a group of four to seven volunteer mentors, in an effort to prevent new crimes. Volunteers in the program receive training and support from the Department of Corrections.

They work with offenders to help them find jobs, housing, treatment and other resources as they return to their communities.

The program relies on volunteers, which saves money for taxpayers, according to a press release.
Officials say every dollar that’s spent on the program is estimated to have a return savings of $1.82.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/12/study-new-program-for-sex-offenders-reduces-crimes/

Why the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry Doesn’t Work

Why the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry Doesn’t Work

In 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act came into law, which birthed a national registry for sex offenders. Convicted sexual offenders were organized into three tiers, depending on the severity of their offenses. After release from prison, offenders would be obligated to report their residence address at specific intervals. This information was shared with state governments, so that law enforcement officials could monitor parolees and ex-convicts. Neighbors could be warned if a sex offender lived nearby.

The idea behind the law was straightforward: sex offenders often commit similar crimes. By keeping track of these offenders, police could prevent future crimes.

Six years later, the results are in: the program doesn’t work.

See the rest here :Why the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry Doesn’t Work

Megan's Law 10 Year Case Study

Megan's Law 10 Year Case Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The research that follows concerns the various impacts of community notification and registration laws (Megan’s Law) in New Jersey. Although this report includes a variety of interesting findings and many ideas that will be explored upon post grant period, this research was embarked upon, in general, to investigate: 1) the effect of Megan’s Law on the overall rate of sexual offending over time; 2) its specific deterrence effect on re-offending, including the level of general and sexual offense recidivism, the nature of sexual re-offenses, and time to first re-arrest for sexual and non-sexual re-offenses (i.e., community tenure); and 3) the costs of implementation and annual expenditures of Megan’s Law. These three primary foci were investigated using three different methodologies and samples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Megan's Law as a case study in Political Stasis

INTRODUCTION

Sex offender registration and community notification laws constitute a remarkable political success story.  While only a handful of state had registration law of any kind as of the late 1980's both registration and notification laws, focusing almost exclusively on convicted sex offenders, were in effect nationwide.  To students of the field, the laws--often enacted unanimously and without meaningful debate--serve as object lessons in legislative panic.  Unlike earlier panics, however, including those relative to sex offenders, the panic has not dissipated. Indeed, registration and community notification laws have endured and been significantly expanded upon during the past decade, despite research findings casting considerable doubt on their utility and public safety efficacy.

Watertown Daily Times | Sex offender sent to prison for not registering Facebook page

Watertown Daily Times | Sex offender sent to prison for not registering Facebook page

LOWVILLE — A certified sex offender was sentenced Friday in Lewis County Court to state prison time for not registering a Facebook page.

Anthony D. Pignone, 32, of 7171 Murphy Road, Port Leyden, is to serve 1½ to 3 years in prison on a charge of failure to register or verify as a sex offender, to which he pleaded guilty June 22. Pignone, a second felony offender, also was ordered to pay $325 in court fees.

He was accused in January of failing to register a Facebook page opened under the name of Anthony Campany.

This is New York, but it happens in Wisconsin too.  People going to prison for things where tax dollars are spent to house them.  People that had businesses and jobs, that WERE paying taxes and now are forced to start all over again.  This is not a "justice system" this is nothing short of a debacle of our "legal system".

Prison? for not registering a business website?  Disappointing and absurd.

Failure to Inform Defendant of Mandatory Sentence Could Be Prejudicial | State Bar of Wisconsin

Failure to Inform Defendant of Mandatory Sentence Could Be Prejudicial | State Bar of Wisconsin

LA - FCI Oakdale staff (Gonzales & Childers) harassing inmates? | Sex Offender Issues - News, studies, videos and articles about sex offender laws

LA - FCI Oakdale staff (Gonzales & Childers) harassing inmates? | Sex Offender Issues - News, studies, videos and articles about sex offender laws

By Anonymous:
I am so furious right now I am shaking all over. My son just called me from Oakdale, FCI. He had some articles clipped to send to me and was called into the office over them. The officers said the articles he had was perfectly legal but they were curious why he had them saved. The "officers" (Gonzales and Childers) questioned him. He told them that I had a group in [withheld] and I worked with many national groups and he often sends me things and I send him stories as well. The agent shoved him and told him he was a piece of s*** and that no such groups exist. He continued to call him a liar and that there is no activist or groups for RSO's and he is making it up. He has to go back after lunch in this man's office. I am so upset and terrified right now.

To read more click the link above...

The Kick Them All Out Project - The Citizen's Jury Handbook

The Kick Them All Out Project - The Citizen's Jury Handbook

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams, Second President of the United States

Section I A Handbook For Jurors

Jury Duty
You Are Above The Law
Jury Rights
Law Of The Land
Communist Manifesto
Give Up Rights?
Jury Tampering

Section II Give Me Liberty

Patrick Henry Shocked
Jury of Peers
Freedom For William Penn
Jefferson's Warnings

Section III
Original Documents

Links To Summaries of Documents

Summary of the Declaration of IndependenceSummary of the Constitution of the United StatesSummary of the Amendments to Constitution of the United States

Links To Full Documents

The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution
The Bill of Rights

Our America with Lisa Ling - Labeled for life - YouTube

Our America with Lisa Ling - Labeled for life - YouTube

Legislature postpones measure extending statute of limitations for child sex abuse claims - Metro - The Boston Globe

Legislature postpones measure extending statute of limitations for child sex abuse claims - Metro - The Boston Globe

Call/write your State Senators, this is not a good bill, to lift the statute of limitations could open up families to be punished over and over again.  Let your representatives know you are against this bill!

Miranda Waivers Don't Override Immunity for Probationer's Compelled Testimony | State Bar of Wisconsin

Miranda Waivers Don't Override Immunity for Probationer's Compelled Testimony | State Bar of Wisconsin

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

August 19, 2012 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently clarified that a probationer’s compelled, incriminating testimony cannot be used to prosecute new crimes, even if the probationer waived his Miranda rights before subsequent police interrogation.

Under Wisconsin law, sex offenders can be forced to take lie detector tests while on probation or parole. At the direction of his probation officer, sex offender Joseph Spaeth took a lie detector test in 2006, admitting to improper contact with minors.

Believing he violated conditions of probation, the probation officer contacted the Oshkosh police, which took Spaeth into custody on a probation hold. Officers read Spaeth his Mirandarights, including his right to remain silent, but Spaeth agreed to speak with the officers.

Spaeth’s subsequent statements implicated him in sexual assaults with minors. Police could not confirm any sexual assaults with the minor children at issue or their parents. But prosecutors used Spaeth’s testimony to charge him with four counts of sexual assault of a child.

Spaeth filed a motion to suppress his statements, which was denied.

Ultimately, Spaeth pled no contest and was convicted on four counts of child enticement. He was sentenced to five years in prison and 10 years of extended supervision.

Spaeth appealed, and the appeals court certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court “to clarify if a statement made to law enforcement following a probationer’s honest accounting to an agent may become a ‘wholly independent source’” that can be used to prosecute a crime.

Compelled, Incriminating Statements Immune

Following Fifth Amendment jurisprudence on the issue, a Wisconsin Supreme Court majority (6-1) in State v. Spaeth, 2012 WI 95 (July 13, 2012), ruled that Spaeth’s compelled, incriminating, testimonial statements could not be used as evidence against him for criminal acts.

“Spaeth’s statement to officers is subject to derivative use immunity and may not be used in any subsequent criminal trial,” wrote Justice David Prosser for the majority, which reversed the convictions because the statements should have been suppressed.

The majority explained that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – and Art. I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution – protect individuals from self-incrimination. In general, a person must first assert the Fifth Amendment privilege to be protected by it.

Thus, police must give persons in custody notice of their Miranda rights, and admissions that occur after Miranda rights are waived are generally admissible. But an exception applies when a person is compelled to testify, as Spaeth was compelled through a lie detector test.

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the government can compel testimony but must grant a corresponding right of immunity.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court explained that the Department of Corrections has the authority to compel sex offenders to take lie detector tests. But incriminating statements can only be used “for purposes relating to correctional programming, care, and treatment of the offender.”

“This limitation on use of the compelled statements is constitutionally required,” wrote Justice Prosser, noting that immunity must be extended to compelled statements under Kastigar, as explained in State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225, 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977).

“We see this case as one involving compelled, incriminating, testimonial evidence,” Justice Prosser wrote. “As a result, Spaeth’s statement to police may not be used in any criminal proceeding because the statement was not derived from a source wholly independent from the compelled testimony. It was derived from compelled testimonial evidence.”

The majority rejected the state’s argument that Spaeth’s statements to police were “sufficiently attenuated” from the admissions to his probation agent, thus making them admissible.

“The attenuation doctrine – as normally understood to include such factors as the passage of time between improper police conduct and, say, a confession – is simply inapplicable when police are following up compelled, incriminating, testimonial statements,” Justice Prosser wrote.

The decision does not prevent law enforcement from investigating “legitimate independent sources” not derived from a compelled statement to pursue criminal prosecution, the majority explained. Compelled statements can also be used to revoke probation or parole, it noted.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson concurred but wrote separately based on a concern that Justice Patience Roggensack’s sole dissent “makes some strong statements of law that appear to break from precedent and does so without the benefit of briefs or argument.”

Justice Roggensack concluded that Spaeth’s statements were not incriminating or compelled, although the state conceded that argument, and his statements to police were voluntary.

“Spaeth made no record from which a court could conclude that his statements to [the agent] were anything other than voluntary statements,” she wrote. “Therefore, the confession to law enforcement should not be analyzed as the fruit of incriminating, compelled testimony.”

Wisconsin community denies sex offender's move back home | Milwaukee Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Wisconsin community denies sex offender's move back home | Milwaukee Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Sentencing Law and Policy: "Are Our Sex Crime Laws So Radical They Deter Reporting?"

Sentencing Law and Policy: "Are Our Sex Crime Laws So Radical They Deter Reporting?"

Wisconsin Law Too Hard on 17-Year-Olds? - US Politics Today

Wisconsin Law Too Hard on 17-Year-Olds? - US Politics Today

Opponents of Wisconsin's criminal codes argue that the laws are too hard on 17-year-old offenders.

July 11, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- At age 17, you are too young to vote. You also can't buy alcohol or cigarettes, and your access to some common household items -- like over-the-counter medications containing ephedrine and chemicals like benzene -- could be limited. If you are 17 and commit a crime, though, you will face the same consequences as an adult. Why is that important? Because the juvenile justice system focuses on rehabilitation, while the adult criminal justice system emphasizes punishment instead.

The different goals of the two justice systems mean that an identical crime could have very different consequences depending on where the case is tried. The disparity was highlighted in the notorious case involving a 17-year-old Wisconsin boy accused of attempted murder after allegedly stabbing his father and brother. His family and legal counsel argued that the boy's mental health issues, history of sports-related head injuries, drug abuse and young age necessitated keeping his case in the juvenile justice system so that he could get the treatment he needed. The court -- bound by the 1996 law that automatically puts 17-year-old defendants in the adult criminal system -- had no choice, and charged him as an adult.

While young Kirk Gunderson's case was pending in criminal court, he was held in solitary confinement in the LaCrosse County jail. He killed himself without ever having his case heard by a jury.

Details of Wisconsin's "Categorical Exclusion" Law

Critics argue that this tragic story is one of many underscoring the negative consequences of the law. Wisconsin is one of few states to take this approach, referred to as "wholesale age exclusion," by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The law was passed in Wisconsin in 1996, and completely closes the door of the juvenile justice system to defendants age 17 or older, ensuring that charges will be brought against those offenders in the adult criminal system.

Proposed Legislation to Change Current Law

Research by the Department of Corrections found that 17-year-olds held in adult prisons had a noticeably higher recidivism rate than both fellow juveniles released from juvenile detention and adults released from adult prisons. The Campaign for Youth Justice notes that over the past five years, 15 states have adjusted statutes to rise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and keep young offenders out of adult jails.

In fact, Wisconsin's neighboring states, Illinois and Indiana, have already made similar changes. State Rep. Fred Kessler of Milwaukee is once again -- for the third time -- pushing for Wisconsin to join in these changes and remove the arbitrary 16-year-old age limit for juvenile justice.

The proposed legislation may lead to changes in Wisconsin's criminal justice system. These changes will hopefully help juvenile offenders, but it might make navigating through the system even more difficult. As a result, if you or a loved one is charged with a crime, it is wise to seek the counsel of an experienced Wisconsin criminal defense attorney to better protect your rights.

Article provided by Kohn & Smith

Visit us at www.kohnandsmith.com

Statute of limitations on child sex abuse: 'It will inevitably increase the possibility of fraudulent claims' - mcall.com

Statute of limitations on child sex abuse: 'It will inevitably increase the possibility of fraudulent claims' - mcall.com

Do Sex Offenders Re-Offend? - Avvo.com

Do Sex Offenders Re-Offend? - Avvo.com

Sex Offense: the Most Heinous of All Crimes?

That's the way each night's serving of Law and Order, Special Victims Unit begins. Sex offenses are the most heinous crimes imaginable and in some cases they may be. But I would have thought genocide, pervasive and inescapable racism, war, torture and terrorism might place higher on the list of heinous crimes. Maybe it's because we as individuals can do little about these large issues but we can persecute sex offenders. Are they really the most heinous of all criminals?

2

Sex Offense Is a Very Broad Category of Different Crimes

A sex offense requiring lifetime registration resulting in an almost out right ban on participation in society covers crimes in California that range from indecent exposure to oral copulation with a child under 10 (PC 288.7(b)) Certainly someone who exposes himself in an attempt to induce a sexual response is not an exemplary character. He is not, however, the same type of person who would rape or sodomize a child. Our laws punishing sexual offenders make no distinction between the offenses and each sex offender becomes a pariah for life.

3

Are Sex Offenders Always Repeat Offenders?

The evidence that one sexual offense is an indicator of sexually predatory behavior for a lifetime is unsupported by any scientific evidence. An adult who has sex with a 17 year old minor is not certain to repeat that act, particularly if the two are close in age. The strongest evidence that such people are incorrigible comes from tabloid newspapers that prey on public fears. The laws addressed to recidivism are based on two false assumptions. The first is that every sex offender always re-offends and the second is that our children's greatest danger comes from strangers. Both propositions are worthy of P.T. Barnum who said that no one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people.

4

Who Does Your Child or Daughter Really Have to Fear?

Every statistic and every study shows that 99% of the sexual offense are committed by family members or close friends of the victim. Every sex case that I have handled involved children left in harm's way from an immediate family member. Although there are famous cases involving strangers who prey on children the number is minuscule compared to the the number of offending fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins. The simple truth is that persecuting those who have had a sex crime in their past does very little to limit the spread of sexual molestation in this country or any other.

In the news by Karen Franklin PhD: Groundbreaking research: One out of every 10 rape convictions wrong?

In the news by Karen Franklin PhD: Groundbreaking research: One out of every 10 rape convictions wrong?

As a young man, Michael Jones pleaded guilty to back-to-back attempted molestations of two girl strangers. However, he adamantly maintained his innocence while in prison and on parole. He said his lawyer had coerced him into pleading guilty by threatening him with life in prison if he went to trial. Michael was one of a handful of Black people in a rural white community; both of the little girls were white. He was identified when police brought him to the station and showed him to the girls. There was no lineup procedure with foils; he was the only choice the girls were given. On the basis of his two convictions, government evaluators diagnosed Michael with pedophilia and recommended civil commitment. 

As a teenager, Paul Smith tried to molest a younger boy. He was arrested at the scene and confessed. He disputed only one point in the victim’s statement: that he had threatened the younger boy with a gun. Police searched his home and found no gun. Pre-conviction polygraph testing indicated he was being truthful when he denied having a gun. Over the ensuing years, however, clinicians in sex offender treatment programs hammered at him to admit that he had used a gun. Government evaluators said Paul’s “denial” and “minimization” of his gun use influenced their recommendation for civil commitment. 

In cases such as these, I am consistently struck by the naïveté of clinicians and forensic evaluators alike, who accept police reports and especially victim accounts as the gospel truth. From my former career as a criminal investigator, I can attest to the fact that even impartial observers with no conscious motivation to distort are never 100 percent accurate in describing events they have witnessed. As Daniel Schachter so clearly articulates in Seven Sins of Memory, distortion is the nature of the human animal. It is even more likely to occur in situations involving high levels of stress, fear and emotionality. 

So I was happy to see that the issue of false convictions for sex offenses is getting some much-needed and long-overdue attention. Or, let me qualify that: Happy about the empirical research, but less than thrilled with a theoretical article on the psychological dynamics underlying false accusations. Let me take those up one at a time. 


READ the rest

In the news by Karen Franklin PhD: Groundbreaking research: One out of every 10 rape convictions wrong?

One in four teenagers sexting nude pictures; more likely to be sexually active | News - Home

One in four teenagers sexting nude pictures; more likely to be sexually active | News - Home

University of Texas researchers followed the texting and email habits of hundreds of teens

Published On: Jul 02 2012 05:19:58 PM EDT

More and more teenagers appear to be sexting; in fact, as many as one in four teenagers is sending a nude picture of themselves in an email or text message.

University of Texas researchers studied the sexting habits of 948 teenagers.

More than half of the teenagers, about 57 percent, said they were asked to send a sext with many bothered by having been asked to do so.  Thirty-one percent said they had asked for a sext and 28 percent said they sent a naked picture of themselves through a text or email.
Researchers said teenagers who had done sexting were also more likely to have been dating and to be sexually active than those who did not sext.

Kate Eshleman, a Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital psychologist, agrees with their findings.

"A lot of kids have engaged in this behavior. Either asked, been asked, or sent. And then what they also found is that kids that are engaging in this behavior are at an increased likelihood to be engaging in other physical sexual activity," said Dr. Eshleman.

Dr. Eshleman said kids need to understand the potential consequences of sexting and that parents need to be involved in teaching them that.

"Educating the parents so that they know and then leaving it up to the parents, as well as other providers: teachers, pediatricians, that sort of thing to educate the children as well," said Eschleman.

Researchers said their results suggest teenage sexting is prevalent and can indicate a young adult's sexual behavior.

The study was published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

Over a quarter of teens are sexting - Chicago Tribune

Over a quarter of teens are sexting - Chicago Tribune

July 02, 2012|Genevra Pittman | Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More than one-quarter of Texas teens have sent naked photos of themselves through text or email, according to the latest study on so-called "sexting."

Researchers found 10th and 11th graders who sexted were more likely to have had sex, and girls who'd sent naked photos of themselves also had a higher chance of engaging in risky sex, including having multiple partners and using drugs and alcohol before sex.

Parents "should be talking to their kids about it, if nothing else for a conversation about sexual behaviors and a conversation starter about risky sex," said Jeff Temple from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who led the new study. He added that the new findings show more teens are sexting than previous studies suggested. Because his team used an ethnically-diverse sample of public school students, Temple said he expected their results to be more on-par with national trends in sexting.

In a survey of 948 teens from seven different Houston-area schools, 28 percent said they had sent a naked photo of themselves via text or email and 57 percent said they'd been asked to send one. Most teens, especially girls, said they had been at least "a little bit" bothered by a request to send a naked picture.

More teens who reported sexting had also had sex: 77 percent of girls and 82 percent of boys who'd sent a naked photo of themselves had started having sex, compared to 42 percent of girls and 45 percent of boys who'd never sexted.

Boys who sent their own pictures were no more likely to have "risky" sex than those who abstained from sexting. But more girls who sexted reported having multiple sex partners in the last year - 56 percent, compared to 35 percent who didn't sext - and more of them also used drugs and alcohol before sex.

Temple and his colleagues wrote in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine that it was impossible from the surveys to tell which came first, the sexting or the risky, in-person sexual behavior. But they add that asking teens about sexting might give pediatricians and parents a hint about their other sexual behaviors as well as help to start a conversation about safe sex.

According to one study published last year based on telephone interviews, only one percent of youth had sent a sexually-explicit photo or video, and between six and seven percent had received one (see Reuters Health story of December 5, 2011.)

Temple said the preteens and teens surveyed for that research may have been whiter and wealthier than the United States on average - and they might not have been completely truthful over the phone, which could have skewed the estimates. He said the new findings, suggesting a much higher rate of naked-photo sending and receiving, point to a possible need to reconsider consensual teen sexting as a serious crime.

"If we extrapolated this 28 percent to nationwide, that's millions of kids that are prosecutable for child pornography," he told Reuters Health. Resources might be better spent teaching kids about safe sex or addressing the problem of cyber bullying, for example, than trying to crack down on teens that have sent or received naked photos consensually, according to Temple.

'It's not working': Debate over Green Bay sex offender ordinance intensifies | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com

'It's not working': Debate over Green Bay sex offender ordinance intensifies | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com

US~Observer - New Hampshire legalizes jury nullification

US~Observer - New Hampshire legalizes jury nullification

Please visit the link above, it is an excellent article.

If It Saves One Child

If It Saves One Child

By Shelly Stow

Published: 07/02/2012

It would be difficult today to find a person who had no idea what the sex offender registry is. It would be equally difficult to find someone with only a passing interest who didn’t feel that it is a good thing to have. It started in most states as a law enforcement tool identifying repeat, sexually violent child predators. It now has an estimated 700,000 names on it and encompasses acts as varied as consensual teen sex, taking and sending a photo of one’s own breasts, and rape. And even though many with much more than a passing interest, including most research studies and experts in the field, are pronouncing the shaming roster to be an ineffective tool in fighting sexual crime, the battle cry of its supporters still resounds whenever the subject comes up: “If it saves one child…!” “If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children. There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child. “If it saves one child….” Children themselves are registrants on sex offender registries. Nine years old is apparently the youngest at which children have been put on the registry (Delaware; Michigan). (1) Several states, including but not limited to Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, register children as sexual criminals at ages ten and eleven. By the time twelve is reached, it isn’t even a rarity. And the fifteen year old who is the child victim for having consensual sex with an eighteen year old partner becomes a predator and registered sex offender when his or her partner is fourteen. In Wisconsin last year a district attorney did everything he could, and bragged about it, to have a six year old prosecuted and targeted for sex offender registration for “playing doctor.”(2) Three year olds caught looking at and touching each other in a daycare bathroom were reported and investigated for “sexual fondling.”(3) Some of these children, after several years of being on the registry and treated as monsters, have committed suicide. The registry didn’t save any of these children; it destroyed them. “If it saves one child….” Children do need saving. According to the Justice Dept. and the CMEC, many thousands are sexually abused and molested every year. We pour everything into the registry, millions of dollars and uncountable hours. State after state has voiced complaints about the cost of keeping up with the ever-increasing expenses and strain on limited manpower hours to satisfy the requirements of the registry. The federal government, knowing this, has offered huge financial incentives to states to bring them into federal registry compliance. However, this is futile; the registry is not the answer. Children aren’t sexually abused and molested by nameless, faceless people on the registry. They are abused and molested by their family members and acquaintances, by those they know and trust and love, by those they see and interact with on a daily basis, often by those they live with. By the most conservative estimates, this is true for 94 out of every 100 children who are molested. The latest figures from the Justice Department's Bureau of Juvenile Justice show these startling facts: for sexual crime against a child six or under, 58.7% is committed by family members, 39.7% by family acquaintances, and 1.8% by strangers; the registered sex offenders who are in that stranger pool are so few that it is virtually incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule. Keeping the focus on those on the registry keeps us from dealing with these facts. It keeps us looking in another direction, and it leaves us nothing in the way of resources with which to deal with it. “If it saves one child,” isn’t good enough. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, need saving. When and how and with what will we save them? http://michiganmessenger.com/34538/juveniles-well-represented-on-mich-sex-offender-registry http://www.examiner.com/article/wisconsin-da-says-6-year-old-is-a-sex-offender-for-playing-doctor http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/285802/3/State-investigators-looking-into-alleged-fondling-at-pre-school Shelly Stow is a member of Reform Sex Offender Laws [RSOL] and Texas Voices, the Texas affiliate of National RSOL.

VIDEO REPORT: Court Upholds Individual Mandate In Health Care Law

VIDEO REPORT: Court Upholds Individual Mandate In Health Care Law

I think that this is important because this is just one more infringement on our freedoms.  Did you know, that taxing income is unconstitutional?  That it was brought about as a 'temporary' measure to help during the New Deal, not so temporary any more now is it.

They tax a lower middle class person 30% of their wages right off the top, put it in an account to collect interest and consider it a favor to give it back to you when you are owed a refund at tax time.  But if you didn't pay in enough throughout that same year they will penalize you with interest, when they offer none of the money they made off of the contributions that you put forth when you earned your paycheck.

In the past four years our federal government has squandered the taxes they have stolen from us, and still want more.  They blame everyone else but themselves for the financial problems we are in, where is the integrity in our government, where is the accountability and where is this stuff they like to call transparency?  It has been appearing for some decades now that those statements are all smoke and mirrors.

Fellow citizens the house lights have been raised and the show is over, it is time to vote out all incumbents and vote in a new guard.  We are the people of this United States and it is time for us to take back our country!

Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated

Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated

6-25-2012 National:

On June 12, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued Notice H 2012-11 State Registered Lifetime Sex Offenders in Federally Assisted Housing, which reiterates statutory- and regulatory-based responsibilities to prohibit admission to federally assisted housing for individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program, and supersedes Notice H 2009-11. 

The new policies stem, in part, from a 2009 OIG audit, which estimated that 2,094 to 3,046 assisted households included a lifetime registered sex offender.

This notice clarifies regulations concerning admissions and strongly recommends additional steps to prevent individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program from receiving federal housing assistance.

The notice further specifies that owners/agents who erroneously admitted prohibited participants after June 25, 2001 must evict that household member or terminate assistance for the entire household.


READ  MORE HERE Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated 

S. 671: Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011

Something funny on a Friday...

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/

The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children's Movie

By:Anthony Scibelli 06-18-2012 499,181 views

3digg

One of the most beloved and oft-quoted moments in the ridiculously beloved and oft-quoted film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is the sequence in which the unbalanced candymaker displays his newest invention: lickable wallpaper. As the children and their guardians go to town on the wallpaper, Wonka declares: "Lick an orange. It tastes like an orange. The strawberries taste like strawberries! The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!"

We laugh, because "snozzberries" is obviously a fanciful, fictional word, and nobody knows what they really were. Except that Roald Dahl, the book's author, knew exactly what snozzberries were: They're dicks. Snozzberries are dicks. Willy Wonka made those kids lick dick-flavored wallpaper.

It turns out the guy who thought a story about an insane recluse casually murdering a group of children had a pretty fucked up sense of humor.

In 1979, Dahl decided to revisit snozzberries in his adult novel My Uncle Oswald. The equally witty and disgusting story revolves around Oswald Hendryks Cornelius, the titular uncle and "greatest fornicator of all time." Along with his sexy accomplice Yasmin Howcomely, he devises a complicated get-rich-quick scheme that involves Howcomely seducing Europe's most famous men and then selling used condoms full of their spent semen to women wishing to birth famous progeny. Please take some time to remind yourself that this book was written by one of the world's most beloved children's authors.

The term "snozzberry" comes up when Yasmin Howcomely recounts her experience with George Bernard Shaw:

"How did you manage to roll the old rubbery thing on him?"

"There's only one way when they get violent," Yasmin said. "I grabbed hold of his snozzberry and hung onto it like grim death and gave it a twist or two to make him hold still."

"Ow."

"Very effective."

"I'll bet it is."

"You can lead them around anywhere you want like that."

"I'm sure."

"It's like putting a twitch on a horse."

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written in 1964, 15 years before My Uncle Oswald revealed that the wallpaper was made to taste like the head of a penis. In the strictest sense of the term, we're pretty sure this makes Willy Wonka a pedophile. And honestly, we're not that surprised.

Anthony Scibelli is a handsome stand-up comedian and comedy writer.

Read more: The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children's Movie | Cracked.com 

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/#ixzz1yXPsg4N4

Attention All Wisconsin Lawmakers!!! - This is a MUST READ for you all.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv35n2/v35n2-1.pdf


Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe?
Laws purporting to protect the public may be increasing sex offender recidivism rates.
By J.J. PResCott


J.J. Prescott is professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
This article summarizes and expands on the paper “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?” by Prescott and J.E. Rockoff, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2011).


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv35n2/v35n2-1.pdf

Wisconsin Woman Abused Process in Sex Offender Fight

Wisconsin Woman Abused Process in Sex Offender Fight

POSTED: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 --- 11:40 a.m.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A state appeals court says a Grafton woman abused the legal process when she filed a complaint against a sex offender's family.

Barbara Patterson put up fliers in 2009 announcing her neighbor, Wanda Keller, had decided to let her sex offender son move in. The Keller family began receiving prank phone calls and drivers started gawking at their house.

After the family warned Patterson they planned to sue her, Patterson filed a complaint alleging family members threatened her.

The family filed a lawsuit alleging invasion of privacy, defamation and abuse of process.

A judge dismissed all three claims, but the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that Patterson did abuse the process, saying she exaggerated her threat claims.

Patterson's attorney didn't immediately return a message.

AP-WF-06-20-12 1600GMT

Copyright 2012: Associated Press

From the court http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=83843

Former Calumet Co. D.A. Ken Kratz reaches plea deal in sexting case

Former Calumet Co. D.A. Ken Kratz reaches plea deal in sexting case

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT? - Auburn Journal

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT? - Auburn Journal

Truths, Authority and Factoids: There are over 8 Million people who regularly commit sex offenses and will escape the registry!

Truths, Authority and Factoids: There are over 8 Million people who regularly commit sex offenses and will escape the registry!

Just a Few Words About the Wisconsin Recall

I have gotten several messages about our recent recall election here in Wisconsin. Some criticizing the re-election of Scott Walker. For those that do not live in the state of WI and do not pay the taxes here know far less than the media has told you about life here. 


Also those that believed that a mistake was made re-hiring Walker to finish the term he started do not realize the progress our state has made in balancing our budget and LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS as a state. Unlike our parent Federal Government which seems to be like a college kid with a pocket of No Credit Limit Credit Cards, spending like there is no tomorrow and assuming that money grows on trees. The opponent that was up against Walker was the ex-mayor of Milwaukee, WI. In his first year as mayor he raised the city's taxes by 45%, also along side that increase the unemployment rate increased by 28%. This is not a track record ANYONE would like to see repeated at the state level.

All politicians have skeletons, the vast majority of them can not be trusted because one has to make a lot of promises to get to that level of politics and to suceed in that arena. This does not mean I condone their flaws, but when one is looking at the BIG PICTURE, they have to realize that you will never get everything you want out of a politician. It just isn't humanly possible. So while I may not agree with out Walker has conducted business throughout his life or how he does certain things now, but when picking between the lesser of two evils, he does more for the economy (you know money makes the world go 'round) than Barrett ever could. Besides Walker's political party wasn't the one that ran off and hid in a neighboring state to avoid having to do their jobs. Could any of you just not show up for work, still get paid, and expect to have your job when you returned? Those representatives should have lost their jobs, like anyone else would have.

Wisconsin Law Reform is about reform but not for one party or another, but for the people, for they are the government, not those overpaid politicians, they just aren't worth it.

New Organization and Website - For the Collateral damage of these Laws

http://projecteffects.wordpress.com/