Life on the List
Does publicly posting names of convicted sex offenders actually reduce the number of sexual offenses?
Steve Yoder - April 12, 2011
You could say it started with three small-town Minnesota boys riding their bikes to a convenience store on an October night in 1989. As they were returning home on a dark stretch of road, a man stepped out of the darkness holding a gun. He told them to lie face down on the ground and then directed two of them -- Trevor Wetterling, age 10, and Aaron Larson, 11, to run into the woods and not look back or he'd shoot them. That was the last that they, or anyone, would see of 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling.
The subsequent fruitless search led President Bill Clinton to sign a law in September 1994 designed to help police quickly locate potential perpetrators of sex offenses. The Jacob Wetterling Act required states to create sex-offender registries accessible to police, though not to the public. But that same year, 7-year-old Megan Kanka of Hamilton Township, New Jersey, was lured across the street, then raped and murdered by a neighbor who -- unbeknownst to her parents -- had served six years in prison for aggravated assault and attempted sexual assault on another child. The Kankas maintained that, had they known a convicted sex offender lived nearby, they could have protected their daughter. So in 1996, Clinton signed Megan's Law, which required states to open up their sex-offender registries to the public.
Megan's Law launched America's practice of notifying neighborhoods of where sex offenders live. Though the law is well intentioned, it's not clear whether it has reduced the number of sex offenses; rather, public notification appears to destabilize offenders' lives, increasing the risk they'll commit another crime. There is also ample evidence that since the law passed, vigilantes have used sex-offender registries to threaten, harass, and inflict violence on hundreds of offenders and their families.
In the decade and a half since Megan's Law was passed, public-policy researchers, corrections officials, and treatment professionals have begun to recognize the faulty premises and poor outcomes the law has created. A few states, recognizing the problems with public registries, have tried to develop legal solutions that both protect offenders from abuse and reduce sexual violence. But a new federal law -- the Adam Walsh Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and set to take effect this summer -- threatens to shut down those innovations; states not found in compliance by July 26 will lose critical federal crime-fighting funds. At a time when criminal-justice policies are increasingly adopting a "smart on crime" approach grounded in research on what works, the legal treatment of sexual offenders is moving in the opposite direction.
***
"Jeff" isn't his real name. When he talks about the June day in 2005 that the beer bottle shattered his front window, his voice quavers. "I'm sorry -- all of this just makes me so angry," he says. He was convicted in 1995, as a 23-year-old, for having what he says was consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl he met in a bar. That onetime liaison came to light, Jeff says, when the girl became pregnant (he says DNA later showed he wasn't the father) and her parents reported the episode to the police, with the girl as a cooperating witness. He spent five years in prison, but even after his 2000 release, state law required that he be placed -- for life -- on the state registry, which shows his photo, address, and the details of his conviction.
Jeff says the bottle thrower on that June day was a neighbor -- someone with whom he'd been friendly -- who had found Jeff on the registry and appeared on his lawn with two biker buddies, shouting threats. When Jeff went out to talk to the group, the men formed a semicircle, pushing and spitting on him. He retaliated with punches, and the resulting fight ended with both sides bloodied and a hole in a wall when they pursued him as he retreated into the house.
A month later, Jeff recalls, his tool shed was broken into and the equipment for his logging business stolen. Not long after, a second neighbor plugged a culvert they shared so that Jeff's basement flooded in the next storm; Jeff says the man told him he'd done it "to get the sex offender out of my neighborhood." Jeff has changed his phone number a dozen times after repeated threatening calls.
In 2003, Jeff married a lifelong acquaintance who knew his history. She worked as a nurse at a hospital, and shortly after their marriage, a manager told her that she had to choose between her job and her husband. Jeff attributes their 2005 divorce to his status on the sex-offender registry: "We were looking at each other, and it was like, 'I'm destroying your life.'" Even the two girls he parents, ages 13 and 14 (one from a previous partner and the other for whom he serves as guardian), started being teased in school and were excluded from social, school, and church events. "What have my kids ever done to anybody?" Jeff says. "In reality, sometimes I wonder if maybe killing myself may not be the best thing I can do for them."
About 700,000 sex offenders appear on registries in the 50 states and other U.S. jurisdictions. But their crimes vary widely, from chronic violent sexual predation down to voyeurism and even public urination. Researchers estimate that the vast majority of these offenders are at low-risk for repeating their crimes. Nonetheless, the public is overwhelmingly concerned: In a 2005 Gallup poll, 66 percent of respondents said they were "very concerned" about sex offenders, while 36 percent said the same about terrorism.
Giving a nervous public instant access to the addresses and photos of sex offenders produces none-too-surprising results. Though no reliable national statistics exist on vigilante violence against sex offenders, a few studies indicate widespread abuses. In a 2005 study by University of Louisville criminologist Richard Tewksbury in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 47 percent of 121 sex offenders reported they'd been harassed as a result of being on a state registry, and 16 percent said that they'd been assaulted; among nearly 600 immediate family members of offenders that Tewksbury and Lynn University researcher Jill Levenson surveyed, 44 percent said they'd been threatened or harassed by neighbors as a result of their relative's sex-offender status, 27 percent that their property had been damaged, and 7 percent that they'd been physically assaulted or injured. A 2005 study in the same journal by Levenson and Leo Cotter, who directs a Florida sex-offender outpatient program, reported that 21 percent of 183 offenders had their property damaged by a person who found out about their status.
Recent incidents illustrate those findings. In April 2010, a man used a printout from California's sex-offender registry to try to rob the homes of two registered sex offenders in Grover Beach. In November, a registered sex offender from Orlando was assaulted in front of his home by three teens who told him they knew he was a sex offender; they punched and kicked him repeatedly and stomped his dog to death before running off. That same month in the Virginia town of Hopewell, police charged 19-year-old Daniel Narron with attempted murder for using his SUV to try to run down 52-year-old Rudolph Ellis, who is on Virginia's sex-offender list. Since 2005, at least six sex offenders nationwide have been murdered by people who used a state registry to track their victims.
The problems with the sex-registry laws are myriad, starting from their very premises. One of the basic assumptions behind Megan's Law is that parents who know that a sex offender lives nearby will take precautions; after a decade and a half, however, there's little research to show that's happened. A second premise is that sex offenders are somehow different from other criminals and can't change, but a 2003 study found that sex offenders had a three-year recidivism rate of 5 percent for another sex crime; that compares with a 47 percent rate for other criminals committing another crime. Finally, the law assumes sex offenders will be less likely to commit another crime if they know they're being watched. Again, the research is weak: In 2009, analysts at the Washington State Institute for Public Policy looked at seven studies on recidivism by registered sex offenders that had been conducted since the first registry law was passed. Two showed that being on a registry decreased recidivism, one showed an increase, three indicated no effect, and one didn't measure the effect. "Though the research differs somewhat from state to state and study to study, overall it does not appear that registries have resulted in a significant decline in sex crimes in general or in recidivistic sex crimes more specifically," says Levenson, perhaps the leading researcher on the effects of sex-offender registries.
Still, probably the biggest issue with registries is who gets on them and what happens to those who do. As originally conceived in the Wetterling Act, registries were to be accessible only to law enforcement. It was raw public pressure, rather than criminological research results, that turned those lists over to the public. And, like many policies driven by public furor, the enabling laws overreached. Today, most registries include offenders busted for a range of acts, from offensive or vulgar behavior to heinous crimes. A 2007 Human Rights Watch study reported that at least five states required those convicted of offenses related to adult prostitution to be registered, 11 states did the same for those guilty of public urination, and 25 did so for public exhibitionism. "Most people assume that a registered sex offender is someone who has sexually abused a child or engaged in a violent sexual assault of an adult," noted the study's authors. Registries, that is, create the impression that neighborhoods are thick with recidivist sexual predators, making it impossible for parents to discern who actually is dangerous.
Sex-offender registries also now include people who have committed no sexual crime: Forty-one states put those convicted of falsely imprisoning or kidnapping a minor on their sex-offender registries -- whether or not the crime was related to sex. Last March, for example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a 17-year-old boy who forced another 17-year-old to go with him to collect a drug debt could be made to register as a sex offender, though the crime involved nothing sexual. The court majority argued for the wider net because "Wisconsin's sex offender registration statute 'reflect[s] an intent to protect the public and assist law enforcement.'" As the dissenting justices noted, under that reasoning, convictions for violating most provisions of Wisconsin law could trigger mandatory sex-offender registration.
Sweeping everyone onto a single list produces some absurd outcomes. Fred Berlin, who founded the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins Hospital, worked with a patient in his 80s who had Alzheimer's and was living in a nursing home. The man also was on the sex-offender registry for fondling a child in his family. Berlin says the man's offense probably was related to the onset of his dementia. But that didn't stop the nursing home's neighbors, who found his name on the registry, from successfully demanding he be moved to another facility.
A raft of research shows that such disruptions increase offenders' risk of committing another sexual crime. For example, three studies conducted between 2000 and 2007 indicate that being listed on a sex-offender registry leads to a loss of positive community supports and to barriers in getting housing and employment, both problems linked to increased recidivism. Betsy Mata and her husband Jose know that well. They're co-pastors at Holy Ground Christian Fellowship in Anaheim, California, where they run a 12-step residential treatment program for sex offenders under a contract with the state parole agency. After a registered sex offender was convicted of murdering two teens 90 miles south of their facility, someone looked on the state registry and found out that the program was housing 11 sex offenders in two rented houses. Two hundred fired-up citizens attended a community meeting. Betsy Mata started getting threatening calls -- one caller said he'd castrate the men. When the story broke in The Orange County Register, one of the landlords canceled the program's lease, and the parole agency stepped in to shut down the second house to avoid the publicity. As a result, eight of the 11 men ended up on the street.
That outcome isn't surprising: A state task force report issued last November documented a 750 percent increase in California's population of homeless sex offenders since a restriction on offenders living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks went into effect four years ago. Last November, the Oklahoma town of Sand Springs took advantage of that state's 2,000-foot law by announcing plans to build a new town park close to a trailer park where 23 sex offenders live, which will force the offenders to move. Nationally, a 2008 U.S. Department of Justice report concluded that cases of offenders being forced into homelessness have been "widely reported."
Sex-offender policies, meanwhile, are growing ever more punitive, including tightened residency restrictions, lifetime placement on sex-offender registries for even minor offenses, and even the expanded use of the death penalty for certain non-homicide sex offenses. Treatment professionals say no other group of ex-convicts who have done their time are the target of such systematic vitriol. "Drunk drivers can be dangerous -- they get in cars and kill innocent people, but we still see them as human beings deserving of help," Berlin says.
***
In recent years, however, a few states have taken the lead in using their registries more judiciously in response to research showing the link between public notification and vigilantism and discrimination against offenders, including those who are lower-risk. One state leading that effort is Washington, which created the country's first public sex-offender registry, in 1990, after three highly publicized murders, two involving children. Washington has invested heavily since then in evaluating and improving its practices. Before an offender is released from jail, a multidisciplinary committee uses an actuarial risk-assessment tool to determine his likelihood of committing another crime, looking at factors like whether the offender has a history of sex offenses or has completed a treatment program. On that basis, offenders are placed into one of three tiers. Those in tier 1 -- judged the least likely to re-offend -- are listed on a registry accessible to law-enforcement eyes only. Those in tiers 2 and 3 must submit to the state's public registry, and police must distribute notification flyers in the offenders' neighborhoods before their release.
The police, though, do more than notify. Given resources by the state's association of sheriffs and police chiefs, local cops also educate. Before a tier-2 or -3 offender moves into a neighborhood, police hold a public meeting. A parole officer and a sex-offender treatment provider talk about the characteristics of the offender, how the neighborhood can stay vigilant, and how the parole officer monitors offenders. An advocate for sexual-assault victims offers context, including that most assaults are committed by people whom victims know, and discusses strategies parents can use to communicate with kids about what to watch out for. Police also make clear that harassing sex offenders often puts them more at risk of committing another crime. "We will not accept any vigilantism any more than we would accept a sex offender re-offending," a Seattle police detective said at one meeting. Having a team of presenters "allows the community to see that many players are part of sex-offender management," says Lindsay Palmer of the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center.
There are still problems -- tiering and community notification practices can differ from county to county -- but overall the state's results have been positive. After a 1997 state law mandated the current protocol for community meetings, the five-year recidivism rate for released felony sex offenders dropped by half (though researchers note that state and national crime rates generally fell during that period). A 2006 Washington State Institute for Public Policy study of recidivism among Washington's convicted sex offenders showed a re-offense rate of less than 3 percent, compared with the national rate of 5.3 percent reported in a 2003 U.S. Department of Justice study.
Other states that are instituting reforms also have shown promising results. Like Washington, since 1997 Minnesota has held community education meetings and included only higher-risk offenders on its state registry. A 2008 study of those practices showed lower recidivism rates for sex offenders subject to them than for matched comparison groups of sex offenders. In Vermont, the Department of Corrections launched a "circles of support" initiative in 2005 that links ex-offenders with trained community volunteers. Though the state hasn't yet formally evaluated the project's impact, the department's David Peebles says that offenders who participate have so far shown more success than others in reintegrating and avoiding new crimes. In Colorado, the head of the state sex-offender management board says the state's community-education efforts have helped reduce re-offense rates while avoiding vigilantism: A 2008 evaluation of 101 high-risk paroled offenders there showed a recidivism rate of less than 1 percent.
But innovative approaches like those could be undermined by the Adam Walsh Act. After passage of Megan's Law, missing-children's advocates became concerned about offenders using differences in state registries to slip across state lines to jurisdictions with looser requirements. They lobbied for a uniform national registry, and in 2006, President Bush signed the act, named for a 6-year-old boy kidnapped and murdered in 1981 by a serial killer. The law mandates a uniform structure for state registries and links them to create a single national registry. It also requires that states adopt identical risk-assessment systems that automatically classify offenders based on their crime of conviction.
The implications of that apparently technical change are enormous. According to an internal memo of Washington state's Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB), which develops guidelines for state practice, about 70 percent of the state's sex offenders are now classified as lower-risk, in tier 1, while the other 30 percent are grouped into the higher-risk tiers 2 and 3. The new law would roughly invert those statistics. Worse, the law would prohibit the state's practice of not making public the names and addresses of tier-1 offenders. According to SOPB member Brad Meryhew, within two months of implementing the law, neighborhoods would be flooded with notification flyers about high-risk sex offenders living in their neighborhoods -- offenders who previously were classified as low-risk under Washington's system. "The hysteria and the impact on people's lives would be astounding," Meryhew says.
That's a concern for one key advocate for missing children -- Patty Wetterling, Jacob Wetterling's mother. In 1990, she started the Jacob Wetterling Foundation to help communities protect children and teens. Wetterling believes the highest-risk offenders should never be released. But for others convicted of sexual crimes, she opposes get-tough laws like restricting where they can live. "We need to keep in mind the goal -- to have no more victims," she says. "If you go down that path, then you have to find the things that every human being needs in life. You need housing. You need a job. You need family support, community support. ... Everyone on the registry is somebody's brother, somebody's son, somebody's father."
Steve Yoder is a freelance writer and regular contributor to The Crime Report, a news site that covers criminal justice policy.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Here's an Idea - Cut the DOC and let the Unions keep their money
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42777
Thanks For Raising My Taxes--What Else Can I Do For You?
by Ann Coulter 04/06/2011
When Wisconsin Democrats fled the state in order to avoid voting on splendiferous public sector union contracts, did they happen to notice that the rest of the country is in the midst of a massive recession?
For years, Democrats have been using taxpayer money so that their buddies in public sector unions never have to know when there's a recession. People who are already suffering have to suffer more so that those who are doing pretty well don't have to suffer at all.
The high salaries and magnificent benefits paid to government employees are used to fund the public sector unions, which then funnel a portion of that money back to the Democrats, who vote for the pay packages of government workers. The unions function as a pass-through from the taxpayers straight to Democrats running for re-election.
As a result, taxpayers are paying people to continually raise their taxes.
In 2010, three of the five top campaign contributors to the Democrats were public sector unions. Service Employees International was No. 2 at $11.6 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, the National Education Association was No. 3 at $8 million, and the American Federation of Teachers was No. 5 at $7 million. (To put that in perspective, that's even more than the $1 million given to Obama in 2008 by his second-largest contributor, Goldman Sachs!)
Liberals don't love big government because they think it's efficient, compassionate, fair or even remotely useful. They support big government because they are guaranteed the support of nearly everyone who works for the government.
Public sector employee contracts are written by the union and rubber-stamped by Democrats -- and the taxpayers only find out years later that public school teachers are allowed to get a full year's pay for 30 days' work over three years after they retire -- as is the case in Green Bay, Wis., where one out of every 12 teachers retired this year to take advantage of the "emeritus" scam.
This is what all the commotion is about in Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker isn't even trying to eliminate collective bargaining for government workers' salaries. He only wants to eliminate collective bargaining over their conditions of employment, which has led to massive inefficiencies.
Thanks to union grievance procedures, the union representing school crossing guards filed a formal complaint over a sweet old man volunteering to get the kids across the street in Wausau, Wis. Warren Eschenbach, an 86-year-old retiree, had been volunteering each morning as a crossing guard at a school near his home. But according to the union, only a highly paid government employee should be permitted to do that job.
Fifth-grader Megan Sichterman, told WAOW, an ABC affiliate, "I was really sad because all the kids really like him. He's really nice to everybody, and I was kind of scared at the same time that we wouldn't see him on the corner anymore."
Even in the middle of the battle over collective bargaining rights for government unions, just last month the snowplow operators' union filed a grievance against Racine, Wis., to demand paid days off for snowplow operators ... after a snowstorm.
After a massive storm shut down the city for two days, snowplow operators thought they deserved two paid days off on account of all the snow, like other government employees got.
The snowplowers' union also filed a grievance against the city for hiring private plowing services to help with the snow removal. Perhaps it was that troublemaker Warren Eschenbach showing up with a snow shovel and volunteering to help clear the streets.
No government snowplow operators were laid off and plenty of them worked overtime after the blizzard -- but the union thought Racine should remain immobilized by snow for a week so that government snowplow operators could get even more overtime.
In the private sector, a company that capitulated to such ludicrous union demands would go out of business -- as would have happened to General Motors if the government hadn't taken it over. Offered substandard products at exorbitant prices, the consumer would buy from a competitor.
But with government, the consumer has no choice: We have to buy from the company store. Government employees will always have more passion and commitment about increasing their own salaries and perks than will the taxpayers, who have to worry about their own jobs and salaries. The public -- especially the taxpayer -- will always lose.
That is simply a fact about government jobs that can't be avoided. What doesn't make sense is to implement a system that invites this kind of mutual back-scratching between the Democrats and public sector unions -- to wit, collective bargaining where there is no "management," but only co-conspirators against the taxpayers on both sides of the bargaining table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.
Thanks For Raising My Taxes--What Else Can I Do For You?
by Ann Coulter 04/06/2011
When Wisconsin Democrats fled the state in order to avoid voting on splendiferous public sector union contracts, did they happen to notice that the rest of the country is in the midst of a massive recession?
For years, Democrats have been using taxpayer money so that their buddies in public sector unions never have to know when there's a recession. People who are already suffering have to suffer more so that those who are doing pretty well don't have to suffer at all.
The high salaries and magnificent benefits paid to government employees are used to fund the public sector unions, which then funnel a portion of that money back to the Democrats, who vote for the pay packages of government workers. The unions function as a pass-through from the taxpayers straight to Democrats running for re-election.
As a result, taxpayers are paying people to continually raise their taxes.
In 2010, three of the five top campaign contributors to the Democrats were public sector unions. Service Employees International was No. 2 at $11.6 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, the National Education Association was No. 3 at $8 million, and the American Federation of Teachers was No. 5 at $7 million. (To put that in perspective, that's even more than the $1 million given to Obama in 2008 by his second-largest contributor, Goldman Sachs!)
Liberals don't love big government because they think it's efficient, compassionate, fair or even remotely useful. They support big government because they are guaranteed the support of nearly everyone who works for the government.
Public sector employee contracts are written by the union and rubber-stamped by Democrats -- and the taxpayers only find out years later that public school teachers are allowed to get a full year's pay for 30 days' work over three years after they retire -- as is the case in Green Bay, Wis., where one out of every 12 teachers retired this year to take advantage of the "emeritus" scam.
This is what all the commotion is about in Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker isn't even trying to eliminate collective bargaining for government workers' salaries. He only wants to eliminate collective bargaining over their conditions of employment, which has led to massive inefficiencies.
Thanks to union grievance procedures, the union representing school crossing guards filed a formal complaint over a sweet old man volunteering to get the kids across the street in Wausau, Wis. Warren Eschenbach, an 86-year-old retiree, had been volunteering each morning as a crossing guard at a school near his home. But according to the union, only a highly paid government employee should be permitted to do that job.
Fifth-grader Megan Sichterman, told WAOW, an ABC affiliate, "I was really sad because all the kids really like him. He's really nice to everybody, and I was kind of scared at the same time that we wouldn't see him on the corner anymore."
Even in the middle of the battle over collective bargaining rights for government unions, just last month the snowplow operators' union filed a grievance against Racine, Wis., to demand paid days off for snowplow operators ... after a snowstorm.
After a massive storm shut down the city for two days, snowplow operators thought they deserved two paid days off on account of all the snow, like other government employees got.
The snowplowers' union also filed a grievance against the city for hiring private plowing services to help with the snow removal. Perhaps it was that troublemaker Warren Eschenbach showing up with a snow shovel and volunteering to help clear the streets.
No government snowplow operators were laid off and plenty of them worked overtime after the blizzard -- but the union thought Racine should remain immobilized by snow for a week so that government snowplow operators could get even more overtime.
In the private sector, a company that capitulated to such ludicrous union demands would go out of business -- as would have happened to General Motors if the government hadn't taken it over. Offered substandard products at exorbitant prices, the consumer would buy from a competitor.
But with government, the consumer has no choice: We have to buy from the company store. Government employees will always have more passion and commitment about increasing their own salaries and perks than will the taxpayers, who have to worry about their own jobs and salaries. The public -- especially the taxpayer -- will always lose.
That is simply a fact about government jobs that can't be avoided. What doesn't make sense is to implement a system that invites this kind of mutual back-scratching between the Democrats and public sector unions -- to wit, collective bargaining where there is no "management," but only co-conspirators against the taxpayers on both sides of the bargaining table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Former prison nurse at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution gets probation for sex with Sheboygan County inmate
Written by: Eric Litke
Gannett Wisconsin Media
A former prison nurse was sentenced Tuesday to three years probation but no jail time for having sex with an inmate at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution, in western Sheboygan County.
Laurie A. Blum, 45, of 82 Yacoub Lane, Fond du Lac, was sentenced by Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Timothy Van Akkeren after her attorney, friends and family described her as a gullible, trusting woman who was taken advantage of while suffering from depression and marital problems.
Blum was convicted earlier this month of felony second-degree sexual assault by correctional staff, a felony that carried a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.
Van Akkeren noted the statute was intended to prevent correctional staffers from abusing their power by forcing inmates to engage in sexual contact.
"This does not seem to be the stereotypical (case)," Van Akkeren said. "I am quite willing to believe this was a two-way street, and, if anything, that Mr. Anderson was grooming the defendant."
The inmate, Marlon M. Anderson, 36, of Milwaukee, told investigators that the relationship was consensual and Blum did no favors and sought no favors in exchange for the sexual contact.
But Anderson has since filed a civil lawsuit against Blum and KMCI alleging she smuggled in food to give him in exchange for sex and demanded he write letters to her, said defense attorney Christopher Eippert.
Van Akkeren said the civil suit appears to have "no merit," based on the original investigation by the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department.
A criminal complaint said Blum had sex with the inmate on six separate occasions in a prison exam room in December 2009 and exchanged sexually explicit letters with him.
She was found out after she called Anderson's cellblock to say goodnight.
Anderson was serving five years in prison on a count of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon.
Eippert said he has a history of attempting to manipulate prison employees.
Van Akkeren ordered that Blum serve 40 hours community service as a condition of probation.
The crime of which she was convicted requires lifetime registration as a sex offender, but Van Akkeren placed a hold on that requirement pending an appeal.
Eippert said he plans to appeal the conviction as well as the mandatory registration, which he said would do irreparable harm to Blum given the publicity it generates and the increasing number of communities with sex offender residency restrictions.
The prosecution had recommended Blum serve six months in jail in addition to the probation.
Eric Litke writes for the Sheboygan Press
Gannett Wisconsin Media
A former prison nurse was sentenced Tuesday to three years probation but no jail time for having sex with an inmate at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution, in western Sheboygan County.
Laurie A. Blum, 45, of 82 Yacoub Lane, Fond du Lac, was sentenced by Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Timothy Van Akkeren after her attorney, friends and family described her as a gullible, trusting woman who was taken advantage of while suffering from depression and marital problems.
Blum was convicted earlier this month of felony second-degree sexual assault by correctional staff, a felony that carried a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.
Van Akkeren noted the statute was intended to prevent correctional staffers from abusing their power by forcing inmates to engage in sexual contact.
"This does not seem to be the stereotypical (case)," Van Akkeren said. "I am quite willing to believe this was a two-way street, and, if anything, that Mr. Anderson was grooming the defendant."
The inmate, Marlon M. Anderson, 36, of Milwaukee, told investigators that the relationship was consensual and Blum did no favors and sought no favors in exchange for the sexual contact.
But Anderson has since filed a civil lawsuit against Blum and KMCI alleging she smuggled in food to give him in exchange for sex and demanded he write letters to her, said defense attorney Christopher Eippert.
Van Akkeren said the civil suit appears to have "no merit," based on the original investigation by the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department.
A criminal complaint said Blum had sex with the inmate on six separate occasions in a prison exam room in December 2009 and exchanged sexually explicit letters with him.
She was found out after she called Anderson's cellblock to say goodnight.
Anderson was serving five years in prison on a count of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon.
Eippert said he has a history of attempting to manipulate prison employees.
Van Akkeren ordered that Blum serve 40 hours community service as a condition of probation.
The crime of which she was convicted requires lifetime registration as a sex offender, but Van Akkeren placed a hold on that requirement pending an appeal.
Eippert said he plans to appeal the conviction as well as the mandatory registration, which he said would do irreparable harm to Blum given the publicity it generates and the increasing number of communities with sex offender residency restrictions.
The prosecution had recommended Blum serve six months in jail in addition to the probation.
Eric Litke writes for the Sheboygan Press
Appellate puts trial courts in tough spot
POSTED: Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 at 8:17 am
BY: David Ziemer
An April 1 opinion from the 7th Circuit creates a conundrum for state courts when criminal defense attorneys fail to follow the rules for submitting evidence the alleged victim in a sexual assault case has made false allegations before.
A trial court faced with that situation is caught between a rock and a hard place. If the court does not enforce the rule, the rule has no teeth; but if the court does enforce the rule, there is a good chance the defendant will have to be retried because counsel was ineffective.
Case law is clear that exclusion of such evidence violates the Confrontation Clause. Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001). In addition, under Wisconsin law, such evidence is specifically admissible under sec. 972.11(2).
However, pursuant to sec. 971.31(11), the defendant must file a pretrial motion seeking its admission.
Unfortunately, for Gordon E. Sussman, when he was charged in Wisconsin state court with repeated sexual assault of a minor and other charges, his attorney failed to file the required motion. The evidence of prior false accusations was thus excluded, and Sussman was convicted.
He then claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file the required motion under sec. 971.31(11), but the trial court denied the claim. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, even if Sussman’s attorney was deficient, it was not prejudicial.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review, and the federal district court denied habeas corpus relief. But the 7th Circuit reversed, in an opinion by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, holding that trial counsel was deficient for not filing a pretrial motion, and the deficiency was prejudicial.
The problem for Wisconsin state courts is that the holding guts sec. 971.31(11) of all its force.
Effectively, if the court enforces the procedural rule, and the evidence would otherwise have been admissible, counsel is deficient per se, and the defendant will have to be retried, provided the deficiency is prejudicial. But if the court permits admission of the evidence, just to avoid a retrial, the rule has no teeth.
The 7th Circuit called the evidence “crucial,” and therefore, Sussman was prejudiced. But there is nothing particularly unique about Sussman’s case. Evidence of prior false accusations of sexual assault is so powerful that it is likely to be deemed “crucial” in almost all cases.
Thus, the trial court has to guess, in the middle of trial, how prejudicial enforcement of the rule will prove to be. But in the middle of trial, the court is in a poor position to make that call.
What the Court Held
Case: Sussman v. Jenkins, No. 09-3940
Issue: Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to introduce evidence the alleged victim had made false accusations of sexual assault against others?
Holding: Yes. The failure to obtain admission of the evidence was deficient, the deficiency was prejudicial, and it was unreasonable for Wisconsin state courts to hold otherwise.
David Ziemer can be reached at david.ziemer@wislawjournal.com.
BY: David Ziemer
An April 1 opinion from the 7th Circuit creates a conundrum for state courts when criminal defense attorneys fail to follow the rules for submitting evidence the alleged victim in a sexual assault case has made false allegations before.
A trial court faced with that situation is caught between a rock and a hard place. If the court does not enforce the rule, the rule has no teeth; but if the court does enforce the rule, there is a good chance the defendant will have to be retried because counsel was ineffective.
Case law is clear that exclusion of such evidence violates the Confrontation Clause. Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001). In addition, under Wisconsin law, such evidence is specifically admissible under sec. 972.11(2).
However, pursuant to sec. 971.31(11), the defendant must file a pretrial motion seeking its admission.
Unfortunately, for Gordon E. Sussman, when he was charged in Wisconsin state court with repeated sexual assault of a minor and other charges, his attorney failed to file the required motion. The evidence of prior false accusations was thus excluded, and Sussman was convicted.
He then claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file the required motion under sec. 971.31(11), but the trial court denied the claim. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, even if Sussman’s attorney was deficient, it was not prejudicial.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review, and the federal district court denied habeas corpus relief. But the 7th Circuit reversed, in an opinion by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, holding that trial counsel was deficient for not filing a pretrial motion, and the deficiency was prejudicial.
The problem for Wisconsin state courts is that the holding guts sec. 971.31(11) of all its force.
Effectively, if the court enforces the procedural rule, and the evidence would otherwise have been admissible, counsel is deficient per se, and the defendant will have to be retried, provided the deficiency is prejudicial. But if the court permits admission of the evidence, just to avoid a retrial, the rule has no teeth.
The 7th Circuit called the evidence “crucial,” and therefore, Sussman was prejudiced. But there is nothing particularly unique about Sussman’s case. Evidence of prior false accusations of sexual assault is so powerful that it is likely to be deemed “crucial” in almost all cases.
Thus, the trial court has to guess, in the middle of trial, how prejudicial enforcement of the rule will prove to be. But in the middle of trial, the court is in a poor position to make that call.
What the Court Held
Case: Sussman v. Jenkins, No. 09-3940
Issue: Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to introduce evidence the alleged victim had made false accusations of sexual assault against others?
Holding: Yes. The failure to obtain admission of the evidence was deficient, the deficiency was prejudicial, and it was unreasonable for Wisconsin state courts to hold otherwise.
David Ziemer can be reached at david.ziemer@wislawjournal.com.
We are close to this in Wisconsin...
We have all heard on the news over the past year or so of California's financial crisis and the fact that they are beyond Bankrupt. They are now considering changing their tune on how to spend money in their state, leading them to reconsider their stance on how many people they want to have incarcerated.
Calif laws target career criminals, sex offenders
California has targeted career criminals, gang members and sex offenders with lengthy prison terms under laws and initiatives dating to the mid-1990s. In recent years, concerns over prison crowding and budget deficits have taken precedence.
—1994: California enacts "three strikes" law requiring 25 years to life in prison for third-time offenders. The law approved first by the Legislature, then by voters, also doubles felony sentences for second-strikers, those with a previous serious or violent felony conviction.
—1994: California enacts a "one-strike" law for aggravated cases of sexual assault. The law permits sentences of 15 years to life or 25 years to life for child molesters or rapists who have multiple victims, kidnap, bind or cause great bodily injury during their crimes.
—1997: California enacts "10-20-Life," one of the nation's toughest gun laws. The law imposes mandatory sentences of 10 years for using a gun, 20 years for firing a gun and 25 years to life for shooting someone while committing a violent crime.
—2000: Voters approve Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act. It increases penalties for gang activities and lets prosecutors decide to try juveniles as young as 14 in adult court for murder, sexual assault, arson, robbery and gang-related crimes without first arguing the case in front of a juvenile judge. The case must be filed in adult court if the youth is charged with aggravated sexual assault or capital murder. It increases penalties for home-invasion robberies, carjackings, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings.
—2000: Voters approve Proposition 36, requiring treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent first- and second-time drug offenders. At its height, the program kept about 50,000 offenders a year from going to prisons or jails, making it one of the nation's largest drug-offender diversion programs.
—2006: Voters approve Jessica's Law, and the Legislature approves two related bills, giving California some of the nation's toughest laws for released sex offenders. The measures increase penalties for offenses ranging from possession of child pornography to using the Internet to lure minors for sexual purposes. Jessica's Law also requires many sex offenders to wear satellite-tracked monitoring devices and prohibits them from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.
—2007: The state Senate Public Safety Committee adopts a formal policy against approving bills that would add to prison crowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
— 2008: Voters approve Marsy's Law, increasing crime victims' rights and extending the period between parole hearings, among other provisions. Previously, inmates serving life sentences were entitled to a hearing every one to five years. Marsy's Law permits hearings every three- to 15 years, although the provision is being challenged in court.
—2009: California enacts a law increasing early release credits for inmates and ending supervision for parolees convicted of less serious crimes. Both measures are designed to ease prison crowding and the budget deficit. The Assembly rejects creating an independent commission to review California's criminal sentences, despite support from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Senate.
—2010: California enacts Chelsea's Law, named after Chelsea King, a 17-year-old who was raped and murdered in a San Diego County park by a convicted child molester. It allows life without parole sentences for adults, including first-time offenders, who kidnap, drug, bind, torture or use a weapon while committing a sex crime against a minor. It increases other penalties for child molesters, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for people convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under 14.
—2011: Lawmakers approve Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to transfer responsibility for lower-risk felons and parolees to local governments. The change is part of his proposal to realign certain state and local government responsibilities as one way to reduce California's budget deficit. However, the switch will not take place unless local governments get increased funding, and Brown has been unable to place tax extensions before voters to provide the money.
Calif laws target career criminals, sex offenders
California has targeted career criminals, gang members and sex offenders with lengthy prison terms under laws and initiatives dating to the mid-1990s. In recent years, concerns over prison crowding and budget deficits have taken precedence.
—1994: California enacts "three strikes" law requiring 25 years to life in prison for third-time offenders. The law approved first by the Legislature, then by voters, also doubles felony sentences for second-strikers, those with a previous serious or violent felony conviction.
—1994: California enacts a "one-strike" law for aggravated cases of sexual assault. The law permits sentences of 15 years to life or 25 years to life for child molesters or rapists who have multiple victims, kidnap, bind or cause great bodily injury during their crimes.
—1997: California enacts "10-20-Life," one of the nation's toughest gun laws. The law imposes mandatory sentences of 10 years for using a gun, 20 years for firing a gun and 25 years to life for shooting someone while committing a violent crime.
—2000: Voters approve Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act. It increases penalties for gang activities and lets prosecutors decide to try juveniles as young as 14 in adult court for murder, sexual assault, arson, robbery and gang-related crimes without first arguing the case in front of a juvenile judge. The case must be filed in adult court if the youth is charged with aggravated sexual assault or capital murder. It increases penalties for home-invasion robberies, carjackings, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings.
—2000: Voters approve Proposition 36, requiring treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent first- and second-time drug offenders. At its height, the program kept about 50,000 offenders a year from going to prisons or jails, making it one of the nation's largest drug-offender diversion programs.
—2006: Voters approve Jessica's Law, and the Legislature approves two related bills, giving California some of the nation's toughest laws for released sex offenders. The measures increase penalties for offenses ranging from possession of child pornography to using the Internet to lure minors for sexual purposes. Jessica's Law also requires many sex offenders to wear satellite-tracked monitoring devices and prohibits them from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.
—2007: The state Senate Public Safety Committee adopts a formal policy against approving bills that would add to prison crowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
— 2008: Voters approve Marsy's Law, increasing crime victims' rights and extending the period between parole hearings, among other provisions. Previously, inmates serving life sentences were entitled to a hearing every one to five years. Marsy's Law permits hearings every three- to 15 years, although the provision is being challenged in court.
—2009: California enacts a law increasing early release credits for inmates and ending supervision for parolees convicted of less serious crimes. Both measures are designed to ease prison crowding and the budget deficit. The Assembly rejects creating an independent commission to review California's criminal sentences, despite support from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Senate.
—2010: California enacts Chelsea's Law, named after Chelsea King, a 17-year-old who was raped and murdered in a San Diego County park by a convicted child molester. It allows life without parole sentences for adults, including first-time offenders, who kidnap, drug, bind, torture or use a weapon while committing a sex crime against a minor. It increases other penalties for child molesters, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for people convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under 14.
—2011: Lawmakers approve Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to transfer responsibility for lower-risk felons and parolees to local governments. The change is part of his proposal to realign certain state and local government responsibilities as one way to reduce California's budget deficit. However, the switch will not take place unless local governments get increased funding, and Brown has been unable to place tax extensions before voters to provide the money.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Another Perspective on Following the Rules...
It was a normal day in Sharon Springs, Kansas, when a Union Pacific crew boarded a loaded coal train for the long trek to Salina.
Just a few miles into the trip a wheel bearing became overheated and melted, letting a metal support drop down and grind on the rail, creating white hot molten metal droppings spewing down to the rail.
A very alert crew noticed smoke about halfway back in the train and immediately stopped the train in compliance with the rules.
The train stopped with the hot wheel over a wooden bridge with creosote ties and trusses.
The crew tried to explain this to Union Pacific higher-ups but were instructed not to move the train!
They were informed that Rules prohibited moving the train when a part was found to be defective!
Just a few miles into the trip a wheel bearing became overheated and melted, letting a metal support drop down and grind on the rail, creating white hot molten metal droppings spewing down to the rail.
A very alert crew noticed smoke about halfway back in the train and immediately stopped the train in compliance with the rules.
The train stopped with the hot wheel over a wooden bridge with creosote ties and trusses.
The crew tried to explain this to Union Pacific higher-ups but were instructed not to move the train!
Now see what happened when they followed the Rules, would they have been better off if they had adjusted their procedure to the situation rather than applying these blanket regulations that obviously cost more than the part that was originally the issue.
'REMEMBER, THE RULES IS THE RULES!'
(Don't ever let common sense get in the way of a good Disaster! )
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Let's Put One in the Win Column!
http://diedoardolaw.com/9th-circuit/9th-circuit-could-end-retroactive-sex-offender-disclosure/
From the Law Offices of Christina DiEdoardo
9th Circuit Could End Retroactive Sex Offender Disclosure
Very interesting decision from the 9th Circuit this morning in Doe v. Harris where it asks the California Supreme Court to determine “Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.” When Mr. Doe (who is proceeding anonymously for reasons that will soon be obvious) pled guilty in 1991 to one count of committing a lewd act upon a minor, California Penal Code Section 290 required that he register with law enforcement, but that his registration records would not be accessible to anyone who wasn’t a peace officer. Since he avoided any jail time and got five felonies dropped, this doubtlessly seemed like a good deal.
….And then “Megan’s Law” and its progeny on the state and federal level, which require states to disclose parts or all of a registered sex offender’s data to the public, were passed. Worse for Mr. Doe and persons in his situation, Megans Law and its progeny are retroactive, sweeping thousands of people who pled guilty to registrable offenses within their nets of disclosure even though their pleas pre-dated the law.
When Mr. Doe sued to block disclosure of his information, the District Court found that since neither the People nor Mr. Doe’s attorneys made any reservation of rights as to future changes to PC 290, the parties must have based the agreement on the law as it existed in 1991 pre-Megan’s law and therefore blocked disclosure. The State appealed, leading to today’s certification question.
If the Ninth Circuit upholds the District Court, it could help thousands of people obtain relief from the retroactive effects of ever-stricter registration laws.
From the Law Offices of Christina DiEdoardo
9th Circuit Could End Retroactive Sex Offender Disclosure
Very interesting decision from the 9th Circuit this morning in Doe v. Harris where it asks the California Supreme Court to determine “Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.” When Mr. Doe (who is proceeding anonymously for reasons that will soon be obvious) pled guilty in 1991 to one count of committing a lewd act upon a minor, California Penal Code Section 290 required that he register with law enforcement, but that his registration records would not be accessible to anyone who wasn’t a peace officer. Since he avoided any jail time and got five felonies dropped, this doubtlessly seemed like a good deal.
….And then “Megan’s Law” and its progeny on the state and federal level, which require states to disclose parts or all of a registered sex offender’s data to the public, were passed. Worse for Mr. Doe and persons in his situation, Megans Law and its progeny are retroactive, sweeping thousands of people who pled guilty to registrable offenses within their nets of disclosure even though their pleas pre-dated the law.
When Mr. Doe sued to block disclosure of his information, the District Court found that since neither the People nor Mr. Doe’s attorneys made any reservation of rights as to future changes to PC 290, the parties must have based the agreement on the law as it existed in 1991 pre-Megan’s law and therefore blocked disclosure. The State appealed, leading to today’s certification question.
If the Ninth Circuit upholds the District Court, it could help thousands of people obtain relief from the retroactive effects of ever-stricter registration laws.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Will There Be Justice??
Mother: Joseph K. Baer didn't deserve brutal death
Written by: Suzanne Weiss - Herald Times Reporter
MANITOWOC — Joseph K. Baer may have been in and out of trouble much of his life, but he didn’t deserve to die the brutal way that he did, said his mother, LouAnn Baer of rural St. Nazianz.
The 37-year-old Manitowoc man’s body was found Saturday at a rural residence south of Brillion. Robert Saurbeir, 29, of Manitowoc, and James Loewe, 33, of Hilbert, are charged with beating him to death with several objects, including a metal pipe and hammer, during a night of drinking.
Baer was released from Manitowoc County Jail just two days before he was killed in Calumet County.
LouAnn Baer spoke Tuesday of her reaction when she was told of her son’s death on Sunday afternoon.
“I cracked. I cried and I cried. (Monday) didn’t help when they said they found a chain with blood on it and a hammer,” she said. “They claimed they were his friends.”
His death was any mother’s nightmare.
“I’m just imagining how he felt, being beaten to death,” Baer said. “I’m just imagining him saying stop, stop, stop. I can see him. I’m crying a lot. I’m angry and upset … he did not deserve to die like that. Nobody does. Nobody does.”
Joseph Baer grew up and lived in the St. Nazianz area most of his life, first with his mother and father and then, when they divorced in 1987, with his father, she said.
His father, who changed his name from Herbert A. Baer to Elvis A. Presley, died in 2004.
LouAnn Baer spoke of her son’s childhood.
“He was a sweet kid when he wanted to be but he had an awesome temper. He had to have it his way,” she said. “He had a hard time getting along and studying. He was a hyper child.”
Her son started his education at Riverview School and continued it in prison, she said.
“He was in detention and jail and prison all his adult life,” LouAnn Baer said. “I’ll grant you he was rowdy ….
In all, he could be a very, very sweet person. He wasn’t all bad. He was more misunderstood.”
Joseph Baer had an extensive criminal record, said Capt. Scott Luchterhand of the Manitowoc Police Department.
Most recently he was in jail on extended supervision starting Jan. 29, said Jason Jost, Manitowoc County Jail administrator.
According to Manitowoc County Circuit Court records, Baer was sentenced to prison on felony burglary charges in 1999 and again in 2006. Baer had other criminal convictions in Manitowoc County, including for theft, negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property.
Baer also was a registered sex offender, convicted on Jan. 2, 1992, of sexual assault of a child, according to Wisconsin Department of Corrections records.
Written by: Suzanne Weiss - Herald Times Reporter
MANITOWOC — Joseph K. Baer may have been in and out of trouble much of his life, but he didn’t deserve to die the brutal way that he did, said his mother, LouAnn Baer of rural St. Nazianz.
The 37-year-old Manitowoc man’s body was found Saturday at a rural residence south of Brillion. Robert Saurbeir, 29, of Manitowoc, and James Loewe, 33, of Hilbert, are charged with beating him to death with several objects, including a metal pipe and hammer, during a night of drinking.
Baer was released from Manitowoc County Jail just two days before he was killed in Calumet County.
LouAnn Baer spoke Tuesday of her reaction when she was told of her son’s death on Sunday afternoon.
“I cracked. I cried and I cried. (Monday) didn’t help when they said they found a chain with blood on it and a hammer,” she said. “They claimed they were his friends.”
His death was any mother’s nightmare.
“I’m just imagining how he felt, being beaten to death,” Baer said. “I’m just imagining him saying stop, stop, stop. I can see him. I’m crying a lot. I’m angry and upset … he did not deserve to die like that. Nobody does. Nobody does.”
Joseph Baer grew up and lived in the St. Nazianz area most of his life, first with his mother and father and then, when they divorced in 1987, with his father, she said.
His father, who changed his name from Herbert A. Baer to Elvis A. Presley, died in 2004.
LouAnn Baer spoke of her son’s childhood.
“He was a sweet kid when he wanted to be but he had an awesome temper. He had to have it his way,” she said. “He had a hard time getting along and studying. He was a hyper child.”
Her son started his education at Riverview School and continued it in prison, she said.
“He was in detention and jail and prison all his adult life,” LouAnn Baer said. “I’ll grant you he was rowdy ….
In all, he could be a very, very sweet person. He wasn’t all bad. He was more misunderstood.”
Joseph Baer had an extensive criminal record, said Capt. Scott Luchterhand of the Manitowoc Police Department.
Most recently he was in jail on extended supervision starting Jan. 29, said Jason Jost, Manitowoc County Jail administrator.
According to Manitowoc County Circuit Court records, Baer was sentenced to prison on felony burglary charges in 1999 and again in 2006. Baer had other criminal convictions in Manitowoc County, including for theft, negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property.
Baer also was a registered sex offender, convicted on Jan. 2, 1992, of sexual assault of a child, according to Wisconsin Department of Corrections records.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Aquitted....
Judge Throws Out Charges Against Moores
| Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:30 pm
| Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:30 pm
Charges against Bruce E. Moores, a registered sex offender and a former local radio personality, were dismissed Monday in Chippewa County Circuit Court.
Judge Jim Isaacson ruled there was no probable cause a felony was committed by Moores, who was accused of being a child sex offender working with children. Isaacson also dismissed at Monday’s preliminary hearing a misdemeanor count of bail jumping against Moores.
Isaacson made his ruling after hearing testimony from Chippewa Falls Police Officer Deb Brettigen, Jodi Voegeli of the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry and Theresa King, a worker at the Village of Terror.
A criminal complaint said Moores, 41, 2403 Tony Court - Apt. 3, Eau Claire had contact with children who appeared to be under 16 while working at the food and beverage booth at the Village of Terror, 2302 Nelson Road, Chippewa Falls. The attraction is on the grounds of the Chippewa Valley Renaissance Faire.
Isaacson ruled there was insufficient evidence to show that what Moores was doing constituted a violation.
The potential penalty for the felony charge was 12 years and six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. Moores also faced a potential $10,000 fine or nine months in jail on the bail jumping charge.
Moores was convicted of a sexual assault of a child on Nov. 23, 1992 for an incident that happened in March 1992.
Moores was represented by attorney Robert Thorson while the state was represented by Assistant District Attorney Wade Newell.
He worked for a time for Maverick Media, including doing news reports on WAYY-AM.
Although the Chippewa County charges against Bruce Moores were dismissed, the ex-disc jockey was found guilty in Dunn County of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
According to the criminal complaint, the 49-year-old was seen videotaping high school girls changing out of their uniforms after a volleyball tournament at UW-Stout’s Johnson Fieldhouse in August 2010. Moores told one of the girls he was working for a local advertising “shopper” newspaper.
The Dunn County News contributed to this report.
Judge Jim Isaacson ruled there was no probable cause a felony was committed by Moores, who was accused of being a child sex offender working with children. Isaacson also dismissed at Monday’s preliminary hearing a misdemeanor count of bail jumping against Moores.
Isaacson made his ruling after hearing testimony from Chippewa Falls Police Officer Deb Brettigen, Jodi Voegeli of the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry and Theresa King, a worker at the Village of Terror.
A criminal complaint said Moores, 41, 2403 Tony Court - Apt. 3, Eau Claire had contact with children who appeared to be under 16 while working at the food and beverage booth at the Village of Terror, 2302 Nelson Road, Chippewa Falls. The attraction is on the grounds of the Chippewa Valley Renaissance Faire.
Isaacson ruled there was insufficient evidence to show that what Moores was doing constituted a violation.
The potential penalty for the felony charge was 12 years and six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. Moores also faced a potential $10,000 fine or nine months in jail on the bail jumping charge.
Moores was convicted of a sexual assault of a child on Nov. 23, 1992 for an incident that happened in March 1992.
Moores was represented by attorney Robert Thorson while the state was represented by Assistant District Attorney Wade Newell.
He worked for a time for Maverick Media, including doing news reports on WAYY-AM.
Although the Chippewa County charges against Bruce Moores were dismissed, the ex-disc jockey was found guilty in Dunn County of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
According to the criminal complaint, the 49-year-old was seen videotaping high school girls changing out of their uniforms after a volleyball tournament at UW-Stout’s Johnson Fieldhouse in August 2010. Moores told one of the girls he was working for a local advertising “shopper” newspaper.
The Dunn County News contributed to this report.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
From Nebraska - Sex-offender list too inclusive?
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110323/NEWS97/703239876
Published Wednesday March 23, 2011
LINCOLN — Saying Nebraska's current sex-offender registry law unfairly punishes some minor offenders, a group of state senators wants to remove those offenders' pictures and addresses from a public list.
Supporters of the change include Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh, typically a hard-liner on crime who has said sexual predators should be banished to a remote island because they can't be rehabilitated,
Yet Lautenbaugh said it's unfair to hang a “scarlet letter” on minor offenders whom the Nebraska State Patrol had deemed at low risk of reoffending and who haven't committed repeat crimes.
“I don't think we should ruin their lives,” Lautenbaugh said.
Sen. Brad Ashford, also of Omaha, said, “We have to balance punishment with fairness.”
Lautenbaugh, Ashford and Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln on Tuesday spoke in favor of changing state law after testimony last week during a public hearing before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee.
Some of those testifying, including people whose criminal offenses occurred as long as 16 years ago, said their families were harassed and shunned because of past mistakes. Their occupations and reputations face ruin, they said, because their faces and addresses are listed on the state's sex-offender website.
Prior to passage of Legislative Bill 285 in 2009, only the names of sex offenders deemed by the State Patrol as most likely to reoffend were publicized.
Those who had committed minor offenses and were considered at low risk of reoffending — a Level 1 offender — were required to register with law enforcement agencies, but their information wasn't made public.
LB 285 included Level 1 offenders in new reporting requirements. The state posted their photos and addresses on a website. The photos are to stay for as long as 25 years, and in some cases, for life.
Ashford is having an amendment drafted that would remove from the website Level 1 offenders who committed offenses prior to the enactment of LB 285 and have not reoffended.
Anyone who committed an offense after that date would still have to comply with the more rigorous reporting requirements, and would be subject to having his or her name and photo publicly posted, Ashford said.
Coash said he didn't realize LB 285 was to be retroactive.
Omaha Sen. Pete Pirsch, who sponsored LB 285, said he opposes any return to the old system of having the State Patrol assess a sex offender's potential for reoffending.
“I'm not sure there's any scientific method to guess the capability of a sex offender to reoffend going into the future,” Pirsch said.
Pirsch said he wanted to see any amendments before to deciding whether to support them.
A Nebraska group for convicted sex offenders and their families called Families Affirming Community Safety has lobbied and joined a federal lawsuit to get the current state law reversed.
Rigorous tracking of minor, low-risk offenders diverts attention from true sexual predators, the group says.
The Legislature passed LB 285 to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, a federal measure aimed at apprehending sex offenders. It was named for Adam Walsh, the son of “America's Most Wanted” host John Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in 1981.
Contact the writer:
402-473-9584, paul.hammel@owh.com
Published Wednesday March 23, 2011
LINCOLN — Saying Nebraska's current sex-offender registry law unfairly punishes some minor offenders, a group of state senators wants to remove those offenders' pictures and addresses from a public list.
Supporters of the change include Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh, typically a hard-liner on crime who has said sexual predators should be banished to a remote island because they can't be rehabilitated,
Yet Lautenbaugh said it's unfair to hang a “scarlet letter” on minor offenders whom the Nebraska State Patrol had deemed at low risk of reoffending and who haven't committed repeat crimes.
“I don't think we should ruin their lives,” Lautenbaugh said.
Sen. Brad Ashford, also of Omaha, said, “We have to balance punishment with fairness.”
Lautenbaugh, Ashford and Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln on Tuesday spoke in favor of changing state law after testimony last week during a public hearing before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee.
Some of those testifying, including people whose criminal offenses occurred as long as 16 years ago, said their families were harassed and shunned because of past mistakes. Their occupations and reputations face ruin, they said, because their faces and addresses are listed on the state's sex-offender website.
Prior to passage of Legislative Bill 285 in 2009, only the names of sex offenders deemed by the State Patrol as most likely to reoffend were publicized.
Those who had committed minor offenses and were considered at low risk of reoffending — a Level 1 offender — were required to register with law enforcement agencies, but their information wasn't made public.
LB 285 included Level 1 offenders in new reporting requirements. The state posted their photos and addresses on a website. The photos are to stay for as long as 25 years, and in some cases, for life.
Ashford is having an amendment drafted that would remove from the website Level 1 offenders who committed offenses prior to the enactment of LB 285 and have not reoffended.
Anyone who committed an offense after that date would still have to comply with the more rigorous reporting requirements, and would be subject to having his or her name and photo publicly posted, Ashford said.
Coash said he didn't realize LB 285 was to be retroactive.
Omaha Sen. Pete Pirsch, who sponsored LB 285, said he opposes any return to the old system of having the State Patrol assess a sex offender's potential for reoffending.
“I'm not sure there's any scientific method to guess the capability of a sex offender to reoffend going into the future,” Pirsch said.
Pirsch said he wanted to see any amendments before to deciding whether to support them.
A Nebraska group for convicted sex offenders and their families called Families Affirming Community Safety has lobbied and joined a federal lawsuit to get the current state law reversed.
Rigorous tracking of minor, low-risk offenders diverts attention from true sexual predators, the group says.
The Legislature passed LB 285 to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, a federal measure aimed at apprehending sex offenders. It was named for Adam Walsh, the son of “America's Most Wanted” host John Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in 1981.
Contact the writer:
402-473-9584, paul.hammel@owh.com
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Check THIS out!
The newest edition to the website and the fight to reform the laws that do so much to persecute yet so little to protect, as was the platform on which all of these laws were passed.
Please welcome and follow this new writer of ours.
Through the Eyes of the Offender
Please welcome and follow this new writer of ours.
Through the Eyes of the Offender
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Hillary Clinton - Internet is Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace
I found this article this morning and thought that it was not only interesting but hopeful in our plight. Laws and the changes made to them are all about perspective and perceived value to the general public. She also implies that it is a fundamental right that shouldn't be taken away in the name of temporary safety.
Here is the article... Lets here what all of you think of it...
The State Secretary says that the Internet is an accelerant of the way to start political change and there is now a debate of whether the internet is a voice for suppression or liberation. With 2 billion of the earth population being online the internet has become the world’s Town Square, where people are assembling to connect with each other. And that presents a challenge, says Clinton.
“We need to have a serious conversation about what rules should exists and not exist and why.” She adds, “the freedom to assemble and associate is applicable to cyberspace.”
Clinton explains, “For the U.S. the choice is clear— we place ourselves on the side of openness. Internet freedom raises tensions like all freedoms do but the benefits outweigh the costs.”
Others have taken a different approach than the U.S. government, says Clinton. Some governments that arrest bloggers and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security but they are taking the wrong path, she asserted.
Talking about social network Clinton notes that they are now becoming a collaborative space for assembly and political expression. Walls preventing this interaction are far easier to erect than maintain, she warns. “And these actions incur opportunity costs for closed freedom of expression. When countries curtail internet freedom, they place limits on economic future.”
Freedom of expression is part of what fuels innovation in a country, Clinton says. She highlights China, where internet censorship is high but economic growth is strong. But she warns that the restrictions will have economic costs for China in the future.
“I urge countries to join us in the bet we have made, which is a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger countries,” she concludes. “Innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are shared and explored. The U.S. will continue to promote and internet where people’s rights are protected, and has found strong partners and organizations to support this initiative worldwide.”
http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/news/31152_clinton-urges-%E2%80%9C-open-internet-will-lead-stronger-countries%E2%80%9D
Here is the article... Lets here what all of you think of it...
Clinton urges: “an open internet will lead to stronger countries”
February 16, 2011 - 5:24am
Hillary Clinton spoke at George Washington University to address Internet Freedom’ and ways that the U.S. can ensure free internet access around the world. The speech was related to the measures taken by Egypt over the past weeks to restrict access in the country as many protestants were communicating to the world via Facebook and Twitter.The State Secretary says that the Internet is an accelerant of the way to start political change and there is now a debate of whether the internet is a voice for suppression or liberation. With 2 billion of the earth population being online the internet has become the world’s Town Square, where people are assembling to connect with each other. And that presents a challenge, says Clinton.
“We need to have a serious conversation about what rules should exists and not exist and why.” She adds, “the freedom to assemble and associate is applicable to cyberspace.”
Clinton explains, “For the U.S. the choice is clear— we place ourselves on the side of openness. Internet freedom raises tensions like all freedoms do but the benefits outweigh the costs.”
Others have taken a different approach than the U.S. government, says Clinton. Some governments that arrest bloggers and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security but they are taking the wrong path, she asserted.
Talking about social network Clinton notes that they are now becoming a collaborative space for assembly and political expression. Walls preventing this interaction are far easier to erect than maintain, she warns. “And these actions incur opportunity costs for closed freedom of expression. When countries curtail internet freedom, they place limits on economic future.”
Freedom of expression is part of what fuels innovation in a country, Clinton says. She highlights China, where internet censorship is high but economic growth is strong. But she warns that the restrictions will have economic costs for China in the future.
“I urge countries to join us in the bet we have made, which is a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger countries,” she concludes. “Innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are shared and explored. The U.S. will continue to promote and internet where people’s rights are protected, and has found strong partners and organizations to support this initiative worldwide.”
http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/news/31152_clinton-urges-%E2%80%9C-open-internet-will-lead-stronger-countries%E2%80%9D
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
From the News.... Something just doesn't seem right about this article...
Teen accused of possession of child porn will not face charges
A teenager who was charged with possession of child pornography after taking nude photos of herself and sharing them with another teen will not face sanctions under a deal worked out last week with the Marquette County District Attorney's office.
The charges will be dismissed if Vanessa Kranz, 17, doesn't break the law over the next 18 months, District Attorney Dick DuFour said Monday.
The deal avoids the awkward question of whether it's a crime for a child to possess pornographic photos of herself.
"I don't believe there is any case law one way or the other in Wisconsin" on that question, DuFour said.
"Ultimately, I don't know what a court of appeals or the Supreme Court would have decided."
DuFour called the deferred prosecution agreement "a reasonable way of resolving the case."
The criminal complaint said investigators found photos of Kranz, who was 16, on a flash drive belonging to
Brandon Simon, who is also charged in the case. The complaint said Kranz admitted taking explicit photos of herself last September, and Simon said Kranz had sent the photos to him.
Public Defender William Loring said neither he nor Kranz would comment on the agreement.
"I don't see how that can benefit her in any way, shape or form," Loring said Monday.
Simon, 18, is also charged with felony possession of child pornography. He will make his initial appearance Feb. 28, DuFour said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can think about is the boy that was SENT those pictures from her, he didn't know they were coming, he can't refuse something that hasn't arrived and if he doesn't know he is supposed to refuse them because by the time he would have known that, the pics were received by him and thus putting the scarlet letter on his chest for all to see.
She is guilty of the creation and distribution of Child Porn which according to federal law is punishable by a minimum sentence of 10 years in Federal prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry. The poor boy is guilty of her wanting him to see pictures of her.
This is what our laws have come to, tell me how can this be what 'the people' want to do to protect even one child when they are putting children in prison for things like this.
The charges will be dismissed if Vanessa Kranz, 17, doesn't break the law over the next 18 months, District Attorney Dick DuFour said Monday.
The deal avoids the awkward question of whether it's a crime for a child to possess pornographic photos of herself.
"I don't believe there is any case law one way or the other in Wisconsin" on that question, DuFour said.
"Ultimately, I don't know what a court of appeals or the Supreme Court would have decided."
DuFour called the deferred prosecution agreement "a reasonable way of resolving the case."
The criminal complaint said investigators found photos of Kranz, who was 16, on a flash drive belonging to
Brandon Simon, who is also charged in the case. The complaint said Kranz admitted taking explicit photos of herself last September, and Simon said Kranz had sent the photos to him.
Public Defender William Loring said neither he nor Kranz would comment on the agreement.
"I don't see how that can benefit her in any way, shape or form," Loring said Monday.
Simon, 18, is also charged with felony possession of child pornography. He will make his initial appearance Feb. 28, DuFour said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can think about is the boy that was SENT those pictures from her, he didn't know they were coming, he can't refuse something that hasn't arrived and if he doesn't know he is supposed to refuse them because by the time he would have known that, the pics were received by him and thus putting the scarlet letter on his chest for all to see.
She is guilty of the creation and distribution of Child Porn which according to federal law is punishable by a minimum sentence of 10 years in Federal prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry. The poor boy is guilty of her wanting him to see pictures of her.
This is what our laws have come to, tell me how can this be what 'the people' want to do to protect even one child when they are putting children in prison for things like this.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
From the Washington Times - An Editorial: Big Sister's police state
Full Article
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line. As if subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated x-ray scans and public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport.
Oceanside, Calif., resident John Tyner found this out after he posted on YouTube a video of his degrading encounter with TSA screeners. Mr. Tyner's catchy phrase, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," spread quickly, thanks to attention provided by the Drudge Report. TSA was not amused, and an official announced Monday that Mr. Tyner faces punishment for leaving the airport without submitting to the high-tech or low-tech molestation options.
The term is not used lightly. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2244, " 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade." It's no coincidence that TSA initiated sexual-contact pat-downs after fliers began to refuse the pornographic scanners. There can be no question that when threats of civil punishment are used to ensure compliance, those encounters with the TSA lose their status as a voluntary transaction. It's even more outrageous that these unnecessary searches are being conducted on children.
There's also no doubt that some rogue TSA agents seek self-gratification at the expense of passengers. In January, a TSA agent planted white powder in the bags of passengers, according to documents posted on the Smoking Gun website. Apparently, scaring members of the public into thinking they were being busted for smuggling drugs made for a good "joke." The new screening rules open yet more opportunities for the worst elements at TSA.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that anyone who has a problem with the state of affairs simply shouldn't fly. Unelected bureaucrats like Ms. Napolitano - known across the blogosphere as Big Sister - have no business making decisions that touch upon such a fundamental right as the ability of innocent citizens to travel freely. In Ms. Napolitano's view, Americans wishing to visit family and friends across the country exercise a privilege granted by the government. Air travel is no longer a free transaction between a member of the public and an airline.
Once freedom at airports is "locked down," it's inevitable that TSA will next target buses, trains and the Metro. After all, al Qaeda has attacked each of these modes of transportation in other parts of the world. Strict controls on internal travel is the hallmark of a police state.
No matter how invasive TSA searches become, there's no guarantee anything the agency does will prevent a terrorist attack. A balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society. These decisions cannot be made by Obama administration officials without involving the public in the discussions. Many Tea Party candidates standing for election earlier this month promised they were going to "take our country back." Stopping TSA would be a good first step.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line. As if subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated x-ray scans and public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport.
Oceanside, Calif., resident John Tyner found this out after he posted on YouTube a video of his degrading encounter with TSA screeners. Mr. Tyner's catchy phrase, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," spread quickly, thanks to attention provided by the Drudge Report. TSA was not amused, and an official announced Monday that Mr. Tyner faces punishment for leaving the airport without submitting to the high-tech or low-tech molestation options.
The term is not used lightly. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2244, " 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade." It's no coincidence that TSA initiated sexual-contact pat-downs after fliers began to refuse the pornographic scanners. There can be no question that when threats of civil punishment are used to ensure compliance, those encounters with the TSA lose their status as a voluntary transaction. It's even more outrageous that these unnecessary searches are being conducted on children.
There's also no doubt that some rogue TSA agents seek self-gratification at the expense of passengers. In January, a TSA agent planted white powder in the bags of passengers, according to documents posted on the Smoking Gun website. Apparently, scaring members of the public into thinking they were being busted for smuggling drugs made for a good "joke." The new screening rules open yet more opportunities for the worst elements at TSA.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that anyone who has a problem with the state of affairs simply shouldn't fly. Unelected bureaucrats like Ms. Napolitano - known across the blogosphere as Big Sister - have no business making decisions that touch upon such a fundamental right as the ability of innocent citizens to travel freely. In Ms. Napolitano's view, Americans wishing to visit family and friends across the country exercise a privilege granted by the government. Air travel is no longer a free transaction between a member of the public and an airline.
Once freedom at airports is "locked down," it's inevitable that TSA will next target buses, trains and the Metro. After all, al Qaeda has attacked each of these modes of transportation in other parts of the world. Strict controls on internal travel is the hallmark of a police state.
No matter how invasive TSA searches become, there's no guarantee anything the agency does will prevent a terrorist attack. A balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society. These decisions cannot be made by Obama administration officials without involving the public in the discussions. Many Tea Party candidates standing for election earlier this month promised they were going to "take our country back." Stopping TSA would be a good first step.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
TSA - Legal Molestation?
"Applying the findings to the TSA debacle, there is no way to reliably determine whether any one of those good folks staring at your child's naked body or fondling your breasts or genitals to see if you are a terrorist is getting off.
And criminal history background checks won't help, either, because the broad majority of sex offenses are committed by men who have never been arrested for a previous offense." - Karen Franklin Ph.D.
Full Article
There has been a great deal going on in the news about the new Full Body Scans that are now required at airports that already have the equipment. How can it be OK for a TSA agent to literally fondle anyone they so choose, when in any other setting the things they re doing would be not only arrestable but require a lifetime of public registration as a Sex Offender.
Karen's article tells how even with the registry, the background checks, that we will not avoid what the general public fears the most. Education is key, being aware is key, and knowing that when public molestation is deemed OK for someone to do if they work for Homeland Security, but not OK for a consenting teenage couple, then we are heading down a road that is almost too scary to keep your eyes open for. Next, trains taking those that disagree with the government to camps so a "Final Solution" can be implemented. (Sound familiar?)
_______________________________________________________________
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Positive Steps in the Public's Education
Read the comments at the end of the article, it seems that the public is beginning to see the light about the hype that surrounds any sex offense. What wonderful steps that have been made by the people.
Community angered after sex offender receives award
What I notice here that is speaking volumes to those of us that live in fear of being run down just because someone looked them up on the internet. There are no comments from the sex offender haters on there, not even congratulating the attempted murders.
Another small but remarkable step in the right direction of education of the General Public.
3 more charged with attempting to harm Hopewell sex offender
This is written by a Public Defender in California, informative.... Maybe California will be the first to see the err of the ways of supervising and monitoring sex offenders.
Stop the sex offender fear-mongering
More than 1,300 convicted sex offenders could be able to claim compensation from the Scottish government after a landmark hearing in Edinburgh.
Sex offender ruling could lead to compensation claims
Sex attacker’s £1000 win for rights breach
Progress?? Yes and No. Read the comments at the bottom, quite informative.
Six Myths Why We Can't Manage Sex Offender's Computer/Internet Use
Community angered after sex offender receives award
What I notice here that is speaking volumes to those of us that live in fear of being run down just because someone looked them up on the internet. There are no comments from the sex offender haters on there, not even congratulating the attempted murders.
Another small but remarkable step in the right direction of education of the General Public.
3 more charged with attempting to harm Hopewell sex offender
This is written by a Public Defender in California, informative.... Maybe California will be the first to see the err of the ways of supervising and monitoring sex offenders.
Stop the sex offender fear-mongering
More than 1,300 convicted sex offenders could be able to claim compensation from the Scottish government after a landmark hearing in Edinburgh.
Sex offender ruling could lead to compensation claims
Sex attacker’s £1000 win for rights breach
Progress?? Yes and No. Read the comments at the bottom, quite informative.
Six Myths Why We Can't Manage Sex Offender's Computer/Internet Use
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wisconsin Turns Over a New Leaf
When a person hears that the Dairy State, a formerly predominantly Democrat state, is now turned all red in favor of the Republican. For those of you familiar with politics and the leanings of each party, you are probably already starting to worry about what this change in guard will affect as far as the Sex Offender laws.
Needless to say I am not a fortune teller and I can not predict the future, but I do still carry a bit of faith that as long as people are not in groups when they are fed information they are far more likely to use reason and logic rather than sensational emotions to make long lasting and pertinent decisions for our state and its citizens. In short, I think that if we present it properly, both as individuals and to each body of our Legislature here in Wisconsin I do believe that we will make progress educating the several hundred folks in our state government along with the millions of citizens that live here.
I have been asked about the new Republican guard and how we would be better off with Democrats, but if that were the case, then where did all these laws here in Wisconsin come from, if the Republicans haven't had a majority in years, then it was the Democrats in office that 'did this'. Personally, I don't believe that either of them can do a satisfactory job in their positions mainly due to where their loyalties lie, which are not squarely with the voting public but somewhere in the pockets of people that are never mentioned. That does not take away the power of the people though, we all have the power to fire everyone of them from the President on down, because we are the voting public and like all other things that if not used and practiced will have a tendency to wither and die this right, this Constitutional right will go where our Inalienable rights went, although a great many of them are already gone.
Needless to say I am not a fortune teller and I can not predict the future, but I do still carry a bit of faith that as long as people are not in groups when they are fed information they are far more likely to use reason and logic rather than sensational emotions to make long lasting and pertinent decisions for our state and its citizens. In short, I think that if we present it properly, both as individuals and to each body of our Legislature here in Wisconsin I do believe that we will make progress educating the several hundred folks in our state government along with the millions of citizens that live here.
I have been asked about the new Republican guard and how we would be better off with Democrats, but if that were the case, then where did all these laws here in Wisconsin come from, if the Republicans haven't had a majority in years, then it was the Democrats in office that 'did this'. Personally, I don't believe that either of them can do a satisfactory job in their positions mainly due to where their loyalties lie, which are not squarely with the voting public but somewhere in the pockets of people that are never mentioned. That does not take away the power of the people though, we all have the power to fire everyone of them from the President on down, because we are the voting public and like all other things that if not used and practiced will have a tendency to wither and die this right, this Constitutional right will go where our Inalienable rights went, although a great many of them are already gone.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Ask Candidates About Openness
Anita Weier | member, Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council | Posted: Friday, September 3, 2010
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_151009ef-b43b-5cdf-a8d3-cbe0396e48f8.html
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_151009ef-b43b-5cdf-a8d3-cbe0396e48f8.html
Complaints about secrecy in government tend to come after important information has been withheld. Wouldn’t it make more sense to clear the path to open government early on -- before an official is elected?
With fall elections approaching, it is a good time to ask candidates what they would reveal -- or not reveal -- if and when they are in office.
Such questions are especially important in the case of candidates for district attorney, since their records were declared exempt from disclosure by the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 1991 ruling in Richards v. Foust.
At issue in that case was a request by an inmate named Harlan Richards to inspect the closed prosecutor’s case file of a criminal action against him. Dane County District Attorney Bill Foust failed to respond, and a circuit court judge ordered Foust to grant Richards access to requested records.
But the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately decided that prosecutors enjoy a common law exemption to the open records law. It ruled that the district attorney has broad prosecutorial discretion and that “access to data collected and placed into prosecutor files is not open to indiscriminate public view.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Shirley Abrahamson argued that “a prosecutor’s closed case files are records subject to the public records law.” She said the majority reached its decision based on open cases, not closed case files, and that there is no statutory or common law limitation on public inspection for closed case files, though documents can be withheld if releasing them would have a harmful effect on the public interest.
The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council contends police and prosecutors should restrict access only to records that compromise their ability to prosecute a case or the defendant’s right to a fair outcome. And all records should be presumed public, subject to a balancing test of the effect of disclosure on the public interest, at the conclusion of a case.
In 2005, while signing a Sunshine Week proclamation, Gov. Jim Doyle, a former state attorney general, made the same argument. He said that, even after the Foust decision, his office continued to treat prosecution files as open records.
“When I was attorney general, we lived by the basic balancing test, which is that, if there’s an investigative file and there is legitimate reason that it can’t be disclosed, then it can’t be disclosed,” Doyle said. “But certainly at the conclusion of the case, it should be a public record, again,” though certain sensitive information, like the names of an undercover informant, could still be withheld.
Doyle continued: “I don’t think anybody prior to Foust … thought that there was some kind of common-law exception to the public records (law).” But since the ruling, he noted, even police reports have become harder to obtain, if they become part of a prosecutor’s files: “(T)he police department sends the record up to a prosecutor and suddenly it’s all closed. And I don’t think that’s the way the law should be.”
Luckily, district attorneys still have the option of disclosing some information voluntarily, and some continue to do so. That is why all candidates for that post should be asked to commit to some level of openness with regard to their files.
Those running for other positions -- such as other county offices or the state Legislature -- should also be asked their stance on open government. It is in the public interest for citizens to be informed about government activities, to help them fulfill their responsibilities in a democratic society.
Your Right to Know is distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, dedicated to protecting open meetings and open records. Longtime reporter Anita Weier is a group member.
With fall elections approaching, it is a good time to ask candidates what they would reveal -- or not reveal -- if and when they are in office.
Such questions are especially important in the case of candidates for district attorney, since their records were declared exempt from disclosure by the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 1991 ruling in Richards v. Foust.
At issue in that case was a request by an inmate named Harlan Richards to inspect the closed prosecutor’s case file of a criminal action against him. Dane County District Attorney Bill Foust failed to respond, and a circuit court judge ordered Foust to grant Richards access to requested records.
But the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately decided that prosecutors enjoy a common law exemption to the open records law. It ruled that the district attorney has broad prosecutorial discretion and that “access to data collected and placed into prosecutor files is not open to indiscriminate public view.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Shirley Abrahamson argued that “a prosecutor’s closed case files are records subject to the public records law.” She said the majority reached its decision based on open cases, not closed case files, and that there is no statutory or common law limitation on public inspection for closed case files, though documents can be withheld if releasing them would have a harmful effect on the public interest.
The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council contends police and prosecutors should restrict access only to records that compromise their ability to prosecute a case or the defendant’s right to a fair outcome. And all records should be presumed public, subject to a balancing test of the effect of disclosure on the public interest, at the conclusion of a case.
In 2005, while signing a Sunshine Week proclamation, Gov. Jim Doyle, a former state attorney general, made the same argument. He said that, even after the Foust decision, his office continued to treat prosecution files as open records.
“When I was attorney general, we lived by the basic balancing test, which is that, if there’s an investigative file and there is legitimate reason that it can’t be disclosed, then it can’t be disclosed,” Doyle said. “But certainly at the conclusion of the case, it should be a public record, again,” though certain sensitive information, like the names of an undercover informant, could still be withheld.
Doyle continued: “I don’t think anybody prior to Foust … thought that there was some kind of common-law exception to the public records (law).” But since the ruling, he noted, even police reports have become harder to obtain, if they become part of a prosecutor’s files: “(T)he police department sends the record up to a prosecutor and suddenly it’s all closed. And I don’t think that’s the way the law should be.”
Luckily, district attorneys still have the option of disclosing some information voluntarily, and some continue to do so. That is why all candidates for that post should be asked to commit to some level of openness with regard to their files.
Those running for other positions -- such as other county offices or the state Legislature -- should also be asked their stance on open government. It is in the public interest for citizens to be informed about government activities, to help them fulfill their responsibilities in a democratic society.
Your Right to Know is distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, dedicated to protecting open meetings and open records. Longtime reporter Anita Weier is a group member.
Barely a Teenager and Now Marked for Life
http://inthesetimes.com/article/6334/barely_a_teenager_and_marked_for_life
Ten years after beginning treatment at Woodward Academy in Woodward, Iowa, Anthony, who asked that his last name not be published, finds it impossible to lead a normal life. Permanently associated with dangerous pedophiles and pathological rapists, his childhood mistake has hindered his ability to find work, housing and societal acceptance. Although he left Woodward when he was 18, Iowa’s residency restriction at that time—which barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school—forced him to leave his family’s home in Des Moines for a trailer with no electricity on land owned by his father in rural Osceola, Iowa.
Anthony’s plight could soon become common among all of America’s juvenile sex offenders, who in 2009 were responsible for one-third of all sex offenses against minors in the United States. Following the 2006 passage of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the federal government instructed all U.S. states and Indian territories to adopt a new sex offender registry system that includes juvenile offenders. But at the July 2009 deadline, not one state had complied.
Iowa has long required juvenile sex offenders to register their crimes online. And it is moving closer to the federally mandated system—in 2009 Iowa updated its laws to look more like SORNA. As other states consider compliance—the Justice Department has set a new July 2011 deadline—the impact of Iowa’s already strict registry system offers a window into what adulthood might look like for juvenile offenders around the country.
Therapeutic punishment
The new federal legislation organizes sex offenders into three tiers, categorized by the severity of their crime. The tier to which a defendant is assigned determines the punishment and duration of registration. The highest, tier III, covers the most heinous offenses. Anyone 14 or older who has sexually offended against a child 13 or younger is put in tier III, and required to register for life.
Critics of the juvenile registry system believe that tier III requirements are unnecessarily harsh when applied to all juveniles. Only 10 percent of young offenders will re-offend, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management. Yet young offenders who commit crimes against even younger peers are stuck in the most serious category.
Juvenile justice experts argue that therapy, not registration, is the most effective way to deter future offenses and that lifetime registration harms juveniles’ chances of reintegrating into society. All juveniles judged delinquent (the equivalent of being convicted in juvenial court) for sex crimes in Iowa are required to undergo treatment. Woodward Academy, the largest of three sex offender treatment facilities in the state, receives kids from all over the country.
“These kids are young enough that we can teach them right from wrong,” says Tonna Lawrenson, the academy’s program director. Woodward’s long-term sex offender treatment program treats juveniles whose offenses range from what experts call “Romeo and Juliet”-style statutory rapes (where the sex is consensual, but because of the participants’ ages, illegal) to flashing, fondling and forcing younger children to expose themselves.
As is the case with many teen offenders, Anthony’s act against his cousin was not random, but stemmed from his own childhood abuse. When he was nine, a 16-year-old boy sodomized him and threatened to kill his mother if anyone found out.
Children act out sexually for a variety of other reasons. Anthony Rodriguez, therapist and founder of The Men’s Center in Davenport, Iowa, is one of four sex addiction experts in the state and has worked extensively with sexually abusive youth. He says a lack of attachment between parent and child can cause children a great amount of anxiety—an anxiety that is relieved when they do something like look at pornography or touch someone inappropriately.
Lawrenson also sees many young offenders exhibit behavior she says is not natural, but learned. “I’ve never believed that a child is born to be a sex offender,” she says.
Stephen Draminski agrees. “They become what we call ‘sexually reactive,’” says Draminski, who leads a sex offender treatment group at the Robert Young Center in Rock Island, Ill. “They act out sexually in different ways, replaying their abuse over and over again.” He says poor social skills combined with sexual curiosity can also prompt an offense.
Draminski’s group therapy focuses heavily on empathy, teaches kids to manage destructive emotions, and promotes healthy relationships and sexual behavior. At Woodward, intensive one-on-one therapy allows kids to discuss things that might embarrass them in front of peers. In one of these individual sessions, Anthony finally revealed his own abuse to Lawrenson, years after it happened.
‘Big enough to commit the crime’?
Those opposed to lifetime juvenile registration suggest that it does not prevent future offenses, since sexual abuse is most often committed not by strangers but by someone in, or close to, the family. “Registration gives people a false sense of security, a false sense of hope,” says Randy Smith, who reviewed adult and juvenile sex offenders for courts in Chicago and Ohio.
But despite the efforts of advocates, the futures of young offenders like Anthony are in the hands of elected officials unlikely to oppose a law that claims to protect children from sexual abuse. Smith says, “A lot of sex offender laws come from the six o’clock news, from the random person who buries the kids in the woods.”
Iowa State Senator Jerry Behn, who authored the state’s original residency restriction in 2002, admits the law overreached when it applied to all sex offenders, rather than only dangerous pedophiles. But, Behn says, “anyone who votes to fix this now is going to be viewed as light on sexual predators.”
Erin Lovejoy, a detective who tracks sex offenders for the Des Moines Police Department, admits registration is more effective at quelling public fears than preventing offenses. “It’s not going to prevent an act from occurring by any means. Nothing will do that unless they’re locked up,” she says.
Anthony spent one year in prison after moving into his mother’s Des Moines home in 2007 to care for her as she died. This was a violation of Iowa’s harsh residency restrictions since she lived within 2,000 feet of a school. The 2,000-foot restriction was amended in 2009, but Iowa still prohibits registered sex offenders from working at or visiting places frequented by children, such as schools, public pools, libraries and fairs.
Iowa Associate Juvenile Judge Constance Cohen believes employment and residency restrictions should factor in successful treatment and behavioral change. She says, “If you paint with such a broad brush, it will eliminate opportunities for these kids.”
The new 2009 Iowa law also limits the power juvenile court judges once had to waive registration, thus bringing the state closer to compliance with SORNA. Cohen says this will force more juveniles to register whether or not they are at risk to re-offend. Behn, however, opposes judicial discretion. “If a person is big enough to commit the crime,” he says, “they’re big enough to pay for it.”
Those who work closest with juvenile offenders maintain that the negative effects of lifetime registration are well-documented. But it is politicians like Behn who set the rules for juvenile sex offenders. This means Anthony, who at 13—like so many others—was “big enough to commit the crime,” will spend the rest of his life paying for it.
Federal law requiring juvenile sex offenders to register as predators for life does more harm than good
By Caitlin Dickson
In 1999, Anthony, a 13-year-old boy who weighed 350 pounds, told his four-year-old cousin to expose herself. Anthony, now 24, swears he did not touch her. Nonetheless, her father pressed charges and Anthony was found delinquent for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, sentenced to sex offender treatment, and assigned a lifetime spot on Iowa’s public sex offender registry.Ten years after beginning treatment at Woodward Academy in Woodward, Iowa, Anthony, who asked that his last name not be published, finds it impossible to lead a normal life. Permanently associated with dangerous pedophiles and pathological rapists, his childhood mistake has hindered his ability to find work, housing and societal acceptance. Although he left Woodward when he was 18, Iowa’s residency restriction at that time—which barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school—forced him to leave his family’s home in Des Moines for a trailer with no electricity on land owned by his father in rural Osceola, Iowa.
Anthony’s plight could soon become common among all of America’s juvenile sex offenders, who in 2009 were responsible for one-third of all sex offenses against minors in the United States. Following the 2006 passage of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the federal government instructed all U.S. states and Indian territories to adopt a new sex offender registry system that includes juvenile offenders. But at the July 2009 deadline, not one state had complied.
Iowa has long required juvenile sex offenders to register their crimes online. And it is moving closer to the federally mandated system—in 2009 Iowa updated its laws to look more like SORNA. As other states consider compliance—the Justice Department has set a new July 2011 deadline—the impact of Iowa’s already strict registry system offers a window into what adulthood might look like for juvenile offenders around the country.
Therapeutic punishment
The new federal legislation organizes sex offenders into three tiers, categorized by the severity of their crime. The tier to which a defendant is assigned determines the punishment and duration of registration. The highest, tier III, covers the most heinous offenses. Anyone 14 or older who has sexually offended against a child 13 or younger is put in tier III, and required to register for life.
Critics of the juvenile registry system believe that tier III requirements are unnecessarily harsh when applied to all juveniles. Only 10 percent of young offenders will re-offend, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management. Yet young offenders who commit crimes against even younger peers are stuck in the most serious category.
Juvenile justice experts argue that therapy, not registration, is the most effective way to deter future offenses and that lifetime registration harms juveniles’ chances of reintegrating into society. All juveniles judged delinquent (the equivalent of being convicted in juvenial court) for sex crimes in Iowa are required to undergo treatment. Woodward Academy, the largest of three sex offender treatment facilities in the state, receives kids from all over the country.
“These kids are young enough that we can teach them right from wrong,” says Tonna Lawrenson, the academy’s program director. Woodward’s long-term sex offender treatment program treats juveniles whose offenses range from what experts call “Romeo and Juliet”-style statutory rapes (where the sex is consensual, but because of the participants’ ages, illegal) to flashing, fondling and forcing younger children to expose themselves.
As is the case with many teen offenders, Anthony’s act against his cousin was not random, but stemmed from his own childhood abuse. When he was nine, a 16-year-old boy sodomized him and threatened to kill his mother if anyone found out.
Children act out sexually for a variety of other reasons. Anthony Rodriguez, therapist and founder of The Men’s Center in Davenport, Iowa, is one of four sex addiction experts in the state and has worked extensively with sexually abusive youth. He says a lack of attachment between parent and child can cause children a great amount of anxiety—an anxiety that is relieved when they do something like look at pornography or touch someone inappropriately.
Lawrenson also sees many young offenders exhibit behavior she says is not natural, but learned. “I’ve never believed that a child is born to be a sex offender,” she says.
Stephen Draminski agrees. “They become what we call ‘sexually reactive,’” says Draminski, who leads a sex offender treatment group at the Robert Young Center in Rock Island, Ill. “They act out sexually in different ways, replaying their abuse over and over again.” He says poor social skills combined with sexual curiosity can also prompt an offense.
Draminski’s group therapy focuses heavily on empathy, teaches kids to manage destructive emotions, and promotes healthy relationships and sexual behavior. At Woodward, intensive one-on-one therapy allows kids to discuss things that might embarrass them in front of peers. In one of these individual sessions, Anthony finally revealed his own abuse to Lawrenson, years after it happened.
‘Big enough to commit the crime’?
Those opposed to lifetime juvenile registration suggest that it does not prevent future offenses, since sexual abuse is most often committed not by strangers but by someone in, or close to, the family. “Registration gives people a false sense of security, a false sense of hope,” says Randy Smith, who reviewed adult and juvenile sex offenders for courts in Chicago and Ohio.
But despite the efforts of advocates, the futures of young offenders like Anthony are in the hands of elected officials unlikely to oppose a law that claims to protect children from sexual abuse. Smith says, “A lot of sex offender laws come from the six o’clock news, from the random person who buries the kids in the woods.”
Iowa State Senator Jerry Behn, who authored the state’s original residency restriction in 2002, admits the law overreached when it applied to all sex offenders, rather than only dangerous pedophiles. But, Behn says, “anyone who votes to fix this now is going to be viewed as light on sexual predators.”
Erin Lovejoy, a detective who tracks sex offenders for the Des Moines Police Department, admits registration is more effective at quelling public fears than preventing offenses. “It’s not going to prevent an act from occurring by any means. Nothing will do that unless they’re locked up,” she says.
Anthony spent one year in prison after moving into his mother’s Des Moines home in 2007 to care for her as she died. This was a violation of Iowa’s harsh residency restrictions since she lived within 2,000 feet of a school. The 2,000-foot restriction was amended in 2009, but Iowa still prohibits registered sex offenders from working at or visiting places frequented by children, such as schools, public pools, libraries and fairs.
Iowa Associate Juvenile Judge Constance Cohen believes employment and residency restrictions should factor in successful treatment and behavioral change. She says, “If you paint with such a broad brush, it will eliminate opportunities for these kids.”
The new 2009 Iowa law also limits the power juvenile court judges once had to waive registration, thus bringing the state closer to compliance with SORNA. Cohen says this will force more juveniles to register whether or not they are at risk to re-offend. Behn, however, opposes judicial discretion. “If a person is big enough to commit the crime,” he says, “they’re big enough to pay for it.”
Those who work closest with juvenile offenders maintain that the negative effects of lifetime registration are well-documented. But it is politicians like Behn who set the rules for juvenile sex offenders. This means Anthony, who at 13—like so many others—was “big enough to commit the crime,” will spend the rest of his life paying for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)