Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated
6-25-2012 National:
On June 12, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued Notice H 2012-11 State Registered Lifetime Sex Offenders in Federally Assisted Housing, which reiterates statutory- and regulatory-based responsibilities to prohibit admission to federally assisted housing for individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program, and supersedes Notice H 2009-11.
The new policies stem, in part, from a 2009 OIG audit, which estimated that 2,094 to 3,046 assisted households included a lifetime registered sex offender.
This notice clarifies regulations concerning admissions and strongly recommends additional steps to prevent individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program from receiving federal housing assistance.
The notice further specifies that owners/agents who erroneously admitted prohibited participants after June 25, 2001 must evict that household member or terminate assistance for the entire household.
READ MORE HERE Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Something funny on a Friday...
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/
Read more: The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children's Movie | Cracked.com
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/#ixzz1yXPsg4N4
The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children's Movie
One of the most beloved and oft-quoted moments in the ridiculously beloved and oft-quoted film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is the sequence in which the unbalanced candymaker displays his newest invention: lickable wallpaper. As the children and their guardians go to town on the wallpaper, Wonka declares: "Lick an orange. It tastes like an orange. The strawberries taste like strawberries! The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!"
We laugh, because "snozzberries" is obviously a fanciful, fictional word, and nobody knows what they really were. Except that Roald Dahl, the book's author, knew exactly what snozzberries were: They're dicks. Snozzberries are dicks. Willy Wonka made those kids lick dick-flavored wallpaper.
It turns out the guy who thought a story about an insane recluse casually murdering a group of children had a pretty fucked up sense of humor.
In 1979, Dahl decided to revisit snozzberries in his adult novel My Uncle Oswald. The equally witty and disgusting story revolves around Oswald Hendryks Cornelius, the titular uncle and "greatest fornicator of all time." Along with his sexy accomplice Yasmin Howcomely, he devises a complicated get-rich-quick scheme that involves Howcomely seducing Europe's most famous men and then selling used condoms full of their spent semen to women wishing to birth famous progeny. Please take some time to remind yourself that this book was written by one of the world's most beloved children's authors.
The term "snozzberry" comes up when Yasmin Howcomely recounts her experience with George Bernard Shaw:
"How did you manage to roll the old rubbery thing on him?"
"There's only one way when they get violent," Yasmin said. "I grabbed hold of his snozzberry and hung onto it like grim death and gave it a twist or two to make him hold still."
"Ow."
"Very effective."
"I'll bet it is."
"You can lead them around anywhere you want like that."
"I'm sure."
"It's like putting a twitch on a horse."
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written in 1964, 15 years before My Uncle Oswald revealed that the wallpaper was made to taste like the head of a penis. In the strictest sense of the term, we're pretty sure this makes Willy Wonka a pedophile. And honestly, we're not that surprised.
Anthony Scibelli is a handsome stand-up comedian and comedy writer.
Read more: The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children's Movie | Cracked.com
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/#ixzz1yXPsg4N4
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Attention All Wisconsin Lawmakers!!! - This is a MUST READ for you all.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv35n2/v35n2-1.pdf
Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe?
Laws purporting to protect the public may be increasing sex offender recidivism rates.
By J.J. PResCott
J.J. Prescott is professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
This article summarizes and expands on the paper “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?” by Prescott and J.E. Rockoff, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2011).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv35n2/v35n2-1.pdf
Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe?
Laws purporting to protect the public may be increasing sex offender recidivism rates.
By J.J. PResCott
J.J. Prescott is professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
This article summarizes and expands on the paper “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?” by Prescott and J.E. Rockoff, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2011).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv35n2/v35n2-1.pdf
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Wisconsin Woman Abused Process in Sex Offender Fight
Wisconsin Woman Abused Process in Sex Offender Fight
POSTED: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 --- 11:40 a.m.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A state appeals court says a Grafton woman abused the legal process when she filed a complaint against a sex offender's family.
Barbara Patterson put up fliers in 2009 announcing her neighbor, Wanda Keller, had decided to let her sex offender son move in. The Keller family began receiving prank phone calls and drivers started gawking at their house.
After the family warned Patterson they planned to sue her, Patterson filed a complaint alleging family members threatened her.
The family filed a lawsuit alleging invasion of privacy, defamation and abuse of process.
A judge dismissed all three claims, but the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that Patterson did abuse the process, saying she exaggerated her threat claims.
Patterson's attorney didn't immediately return a message.
AP-WF-06-20-12 1600GMT
Copyright 2012: Associated Press
From the court http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=83843
From the court http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=83843
Friday, June 15, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Just a Few Words About the Wisconsin Recall
I have gotten several messages about our recent recall election here in Wisconsin. Some criticizing the re-election of Scott Walker. For those that do not live in the state of WI and do not pay the taxes here know far less than the media has told you about life here.
Also those that believed that a mistake was made re-hiring Walker to finish the term he started do not realize the progress our state has made in balancing our budget and LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS as a state. Unlike our parent Federal Government which seems to be like a college kid with a pocket of No Credit Limit Credit Cards, spending like there is no tomorrow and assuming that money grows on trees. The opponent that was up against Walker was the ex-mayor of Milwaukee, WI. In his first year as mayor he raised the city's taxes by 45%, also along side that increase the unemployment rate increased by 28%. This is not a track record ANYONE would like to see repeated at the state level.
All politicians have skeletons, the vast majority of them can not be trusted because one has to make a lot of promises to get to that level of politics and to suceed in that arena. This does not mean I condone their flaws, but when one is looking at the BIG PICTURE, they have to realize that you will never get everything you want out of a politician. It just isn't humanly possible. So while I may not agree with out Walker has conducted business throughout his life or how he does certain things now, but when picking between the lesser of two evils, he does more for the economy (you know money makes the world go 'round) than Barrett ever could. Besides Walker's political party wasn't the one that ran off and hid in a neighboring state to avoid having to do their jobs. Could any of you just not show up for work, still get paid, and expect to have your job when you returned? Those representatives should have lost their jobs, like anyone else would have.
Wisconsin Law Reform is about reform but not for one party or another, but for the people, for they are the government, not those overpaid politicians, they just aren't worth it.
Also those that believed that a mistake was made re-hiring Walker to finish the term he started do not realize the progress our state has made in balancing our budget and LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS as a state. Unlike our parent Federal Government which seems to be like a college kid with a pocket of No Credit Limit Credit Cards, spending like there is no tomorrow and assuming that money grows on trees. The opponent that was up against Walker was the ex-mayor of Milwaukee, WI. In his first year as mayor he raised the city's taxes by 45%, also along side that increase the unemployment rate increased by 28%. This is not a track record ANYONE would like to see repeated at the state level.
All politicians have skeletons, the vast majority of them can not be trusted because one has to make a lot of promises to get to that level of politics and to suceed in that arena. This does not mean I condone their flaws, but when one is looking at the BIG PICTURE, they have to realize that you will never get everything you want out of a politician. It just isn't humanly possible. So while I may not agree with out Walker has conducted business throughout his life or how he does certain things now, but when picking between the lesser of two evils, he does more for the economy (you know money makes the world go 'round) than Barrett ever could. Besides Walker's political party wasn't the one that ran off and hid in a neighboring state to avoid having to do their jobs. Could any of you just not show up for work, still get paid, and expect to have your job when you returned? Those representatives should have lost their jobs, like anyone else would have.
Wisconsin Law Reform is about reform but not for one party or another, but for the people, for they are the government, not those overpaid politicians, they just aren't worth it.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Tide is Turning
New York Court: Viewing Online Child Porn Is Legal
By Alex Fitzpatrick
Viewing pornographic images or video of underage children on the Internet is legal, according to aNew York State appeals court in one part of a decision about the fate of a college professor whoseInternet browser had more than 100 such images stored in its cache.
The court's decision found that looking at child pornography on the Internet without downloading it to a hard drive isn't the same as "possessing" it, which New York State law prohibits.
[More from Mashable: Twitter Stands Up to Court Order for Occupier’s Data]
"Merely viewing web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in his majority opinion. "Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen."
The prosecution in the case, wrote Ciparick, failed to prove that Kent was aware of the existence of a web cache, making it impossible for him to have knowingly downloaded -- and therefore possessed -- the child pornography to his browser's cache.
[More from Mashable: U.S. and China Team Up to Stop Cyberattacks]
Professor James D. Kent, an assistant professor at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., was given a one-to-three year sentence for possession of child pornography in 2009.
Kent took his computer to a student IT specialist for a virus scan after complaining that it was running slowly. The scan detected the pornographic material in Kent's web browser. He maintains that somebody else used his computer to view the material.
The court dismissed one of two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and two of the 143 counts of possessing child pornography with which Kent was originally charged. It upheld the other counts, which were tied to a folder on Kent's machine filled with thousands of images of child pornography.
Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Kent's lawyer, told msnbc.com that the real problem in the case is "legislation is not keeping up with technology," as the court system serves only as an umpire applying the rules as passed by lawmakers.
All judges in the case expressed intense disapproval of child pornography.
Monday, May 7, 2012
News and Updates....
First
for news...
GREEN
BAY, WI (WTAQ) - A new proposal would eliminate the city of Green Bay’s sex
offender residence board. Any sex offender that wants to move to the city
must register and get approval through the board. However, current
ordinances are so restrictive that sex offenders can’t live within a majority
of the city. Police say that has lead to an increasing number of sex
offenders going underground and in non-compliance. It was also
discovered that the state corrections department was not working with the city
officials and were finding sex offenders places to live and not even telling
the board. Green Bay Police Chief Jim Arts is behind the new proposal
that would cut down on restrictions. The sex offender residence board
meets today at 2:30 p.m. to begin what it likely to be a high contentious
debate.
And now for Updates....
Recently
the Department of Community Corrections updated their Sex Offender Supervision
Manual, it is now updated with the new laws that have come out since 2004.
While the manual still says 2004, if you look at the individual pages and
the information contained within, it has been updated.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Your Mug Shot.... Online....
Mug Shot Mania:The Legal and Policy Issues Surrounding Private Websites’ Postings of Arrest Photos
Many people find themselves arrested and hauled into a police station to have their “mug shots” taken. In the past, these mug shots remained in police departments’ files. Industrious reporters might track down a particular mug shot to publish alongside a newspaper article or TV story, particularly if an alleged crime was serious or the alleged perpetrator was a celebrity. But that was the extent of the publicity.
Then, with the advent of the Internet, we began to see celebrity mug shots posted online—on sites like “the smoking gun.” Apparently, the public likes to see celebrities looking less than perfect—tired, disheveled, and down on their luck—and to find out the often embarrassing charges against them, such as driving under the influence (DUI), drug possession, or soliciting a prostitute.
But now, the mug shots of not just celebrities, but also ordinary people, can be found online, in “mug shot galleries.” The arrestees’ alleged crimes include misdemeanors such as shoplifting, as well as other, more serious offenses. The postings are the work of for-profit companies, which have made their mug-shot galleries easily searchable, retrievable, and downloadable. This new reality can create a host of headaches for the arrestee—and particularly for the person against whom charges are dropped, who is acquitted at trial, or who is otherwise exonerated.
In this article, I will examine this new commercial trend, and discuss its legal implications and some potential policy solutions. I’ll also discuss a new trend of police departments’ posting certain mug shots on Facebook—a practice that has garnered criticism.
Generally, people who find their mug shots on the web must pay significant sums to get their photos taken down. Some deem the payment akin to extortion: You have to pay huge sums to protect your reputation. Others deem it fair play: If you are arrested, then you suffer the consequences. Some complain that rich people can pay to get their mug shots taken down, while people of modest means cannot—and therefore are subject to greater public scrutiny, over a longer period of time, for their arrests.
In the Past, Mug Shots Were Private; Now They Can Become Very, Very Public, and Removing Them Is Costly
It used to be that mug shots were kept well out of view. Although mug shots have long been public records in many states, they often were hard to access save for veteran journalists who knew how to find them. The photos were often locked up in file cabinets in a police station, for example, which kept them largely out of the public’s view. Now, however, those same photos are uploaded to the Internet on many county or sheriff websites. And that new reality has given rise to two new online businesses: (1) the mug- shot publication website, and (2) the mug-shot removal website. Ironically, some websites practice both aggregation and removal.
The interaction of these two seemingly different types of websites may be more direct than first meets the eye. Companies like RemoveSlander.com will offer consumers a way to remove their mug shots online. For $399, Remove Slander will remove a mugshot that is featured on a popular — but seemingly unaffiliated — site Florida Mug shots. (It costs $699 to remove a mug shot from multiple sites.) The company gets the mug shot taken down by paying part of that fee to the mug shot site’s owner. Although the two sites seem to have no corporate relationship with each other, they are each part of an interlocking symbiotic system: Each allows the other to thrive.
Another web reputation company, Internetreputation.com, offers a removal service for BustedMugShots.com, which is one of the most extensive databases of mugshots online. All mug shots and arrest records listed on BustedMugShots.com come from booking records that are available in the public domain. Internetreputation tells the public, “Without convenient mugshot databases like BustedMugShots.com, you would have to search for your mugshot and arrest record on the official website of the county jurisdiction that you were arrested in.” The site further warns that BustedMugShots is “proficient in search engine optimization, and will stop at nothing to attract more traffic to their website, and potentially to your mugshot.”
They also warn consumers that “[b]ecause a mugshot provides a glimpse of how you looked after being arrested, these dreaded photos are often more damaging to a person’s image than a simple background check, which only provides details of the charges. Whether you had your picture taken after a DUI, domestic battery, or a simple traffic stop, there’s a good chance you didn’t look too friendly in the process, and prospective employers, coworkers, relatives, and friends may change their opinions about you after seeing such a picture.”
In some circumstances, it may be possible to have your photo removed if you are acquitted or exonerated—but the policies and practices of sites regarding that issue are by no means consistent or transparent. And some sites may still maintain arrest information if it pertains to a serious violent crime arrest that has not resulted in an acquittal.
The mug-shot companies are emerging in states such as Florida that have broad public record laws, which allow individual mug shots to be easily obtained and posted online. When it comes to these photos, most states consider the photo of an arrestee’s image—be it tired, bruised, unshaven, or the like—to be a public record.
All this openness isn’t necessarily bad. It provides information to the public about those who are arrested for crimes. The surrender of privacy, some argue, is a worthwhile price to be paid for accountability. But what about the price to be paid by those who want to keep their public records much less public?
A government-operated website that posts mug shots will include everyone from a particular county or locality, whereas a private mug shot website may be highly selective—depending on who pays or has the ability to pay for the privilege of not being included. Now, there are companies—even ones owned and operated by teenagers—that use aggregation software to collect the mug shots from more than 60 searchable law-enforcement websites Local law enforcement may post the photos on their web page—and they do not worry about the optimization of Google search results for those photos. When aggregated on private for-profit mug-shot sites, those photos can become a valuable database. But these sites are incomplete. They omit the faces of all those who have the financial wherewithal to pay for their mug shot’s removal, and do so. Only the wealthy and well-informed get to limit their brushes with the law to the relative obscurity of a single county website.
Thus, while all Florida mugshots are public in theory, some are more accessible than others. Companies can determine which mug shots stay hidden behind police CGI search tools and which will feature prominently in Google searches, based on the fees paid by their customers. If the law makes a record public, then it should be visible on equal grounds. Rich people’s arrest photos should be just as public—or private—as poor people’s. But that’s not the current reality—far from it.
Most people get their information on arrest records via a Google search, not by a public-records request to a local police department. This allows for the casual searcher, to type in the names of anyone they find interesting, just to see what might come up. In theory, every arrest photo remains public. But in practice, a paying client’s photo will vanish when it disappears from a Google search, because the top search results are coming from private companies, not police departments. It’s as if the only local newspaper in town were to be paid to omit a particular name from its weekly police blotter.
The best access to public records—be they mugshots or other local government records—shouldn’t be through a site that will protect the privacy of only certain paying customers. It should be through a government site that includes all mug shots, and is concerned not with profit, but with accuracy and proper context. Moreover, if there is a public interest in keeping all mug shots and arrest records equally public, authorities may want to consider prohibiting the use of such records for purely private and commercial use—with legitimate journalistic uses constituting an exception.
The Privacy Issue: When Mug Shots Appear on Google Searches
Beyond the equities of the current system, there are also issues with respect to arrestees’ privacy. We would do well to remember, here, that the arrestees have yet to be tried and convicted, and thus still enjoy a presumption of innocence.
The high cost of getting one’s arrest out of a Google search is also concerning in terms of the limited choices that members of the public actually have. ABC News recently reported that when Laura—a Florida teacher who asked that her last name not be used—was arrested for DUI last year, she was horrified to Google herself and find links to pages displaying her mug shot. Ultimately, Laura decided to pay the $850 to have her mug shot removed from the private websites whose results dominate Google searches. “I was feeling proactive and figured I would do whatever it took,” Laura told ABC News.
Laura also told ABC that some of the websites offered a “combo deal” to remove photos from more than one site, but she only used services that guaranteed removal from a specific website. She also said that she had to badger at least one site repeatedly, to get a response to her request for removal.
Mug-shot websites might be paralleled to the databases that have been created due to Megan’s Law, a 1994 federal statute that is solely focused on sex offenders, requiring that their images, information, and whereabouts be provided to communities. Various states have created their own Megan’s Law sites with the hope of empowering communities with knowledge and current information on offenders. However, there is a very major difference between Megan’s Law databases and mug shots: Megan’s Law applies only to convicts, and only convicts are listed in its databases.
The ACLU’s Objection to Police-Operated Mug-Shot Websites, Including Sites on Facebook
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also taken strong issue with police-operated mug-shot websites, arguing that the use of social-networking sites as a venue for arrest records could violate constitutionally-guaranteed due process rights. “The police frequently arrest people who do not deserve to be arrested, and in today’s Internet environment having your picture posted on a Web site is something that can stick with you for the rest of your life,” said Jay Stanley, the Public Education Director for the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program.
Other concerns include the risk that police will inadvertently post the photo of an arrested undercover officer, or a member of a witness-protection program. And inaccurate information might serious harm employment decisions, after potential employers Google the person and find the arrest record.
One police department, in Reedsburg, Wisconsin (pop. 10,000) is even going so far as to put suspects’ mug shots on its Facebook page. Although over 2,300 people have “liked” the page, others don’t like the practice of posting such information before a trial and conviction have occurred. Some also are concerned about offensive comments being made about the mug shots on Facebook.
In the age of the Internet, mug shots will likely only get more and more public and ubiquitous. We should consider possible types of regulation, while also keeping First Amendment concerns in mind. Perhaps the government ought to regulate private companies whose businesses of posting mug shots and removing them for a fee have too strong a resemblance to extortion for our society to tolerate. And perhaps mug shots of arrestees should be posted with a disclaimer reminding the Internet user that the person in the photo has not yet been—and may never be—convicted of any crime.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
So the real numbers are starting to come out...
Released April 2, 2012
Newswise — Do an online search for sex offenders living in your neighborhood and you may be alarmed by how many you find. But a new study of sex-offender registries in five states shows that they overestimate the number of offenders actually living in the community by as much as 60 percent.
"Websites that list sex offenders may make it seem that there are a lot of them living among us. It makes it hard for the public to discern risk," said Alissa Ackerman, assistant professor of social work at the University of Washington Tacoma. Improving the accuracy of sex-offender registries also means "better use of law-enforcement resources to watch the people who actually need to be watched," she said.
Ackerman is lead author of a study examining sex offender counts compiled by Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York and Texas – states with large sex-offender registries. She obtained the counts from last year's state records, which are available to the public.
Ackerman discovered that the registries include people who are not actually living within the community, such as individuals who have died, been deported, are in jail or have moved out of state. Across the five states in the study, she found that only 43 percent, or 114,690 out of 201,135 sex offenders listed, were actually living in the communities designated by the registries.
By state, Ackerman found:
- Florida had the greatest discrepancy, reporting 56,784 sex offenders when only 22,877 – a 60 percent difference – were living in Florida communities.
- New York, at 52 percent, had the second-highest discrepancy, listing 32,930 offenders in the registry with just 15,950 living in the community.
- Florida had the greatest discrepancy, reporting 56,784 sex offenders when only 22,877 – a 60 percent difference – were living in Florida communities.
- New York, at 52 percent, had the second-highest discrepancy, listing 32,930 offenders in the registry with just 15,950 living in the community.
- Illinois had a 48 percent difference, with 25,088 registered offenders and 13,066 actually residing in the community.
- Georgia had a 36 percent difference, 20,212 listed on the registry and 7,201 living in the community.
- At 25 percent, Texas had the lowest discrepancy, with 49,786 actual residents from the 66,121 sex offenders listed.
- At 25 percent, Texas had the lowest discrepancy, with 49,786 actual residents from the 66,121 sex offenders listed.
The study will be published in an upcoming issue of theJournal of Crime and Justice.
States differ in data collection and reporting procedures, and that can lead to inflated numbers and make it difficult for the public to distinguish the level of risk, Ackerman said. For instance, states vary in whether they include all levels of sex offenders. New York lists only levels 2 and 3, the offenders most likely to commit sexual crimes again. Florida, on the other hand, lists all offenders regardless of risk level.
"Registries are helpful if they are properly and accurately maintained and include only those individuals living in the community," Ackerman said. "Then we are able to discern risk in our communities and the public can be better aware of offenders living near them."
She added that more than 90 percent of victims know their offender, and listed family members, stepparents, close friends and acquaintances as common perpetrators. "We look at strangers on the sex offender registry websites, but it's really the people who we know who we need to worry about."
Co-authors of the study are Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and Andrew Harris of the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Finally... This is good news!
Missouri House endorses changes to sex offender registry, allows petitions for removal
CHRIS BLANK Associated PressJEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Republican-led Missouri House gave first round approval Tuesday to legislation that would allow some people eventually to be removed from the state's sex offender registry.
Sponsoring Rep. Rodney Schad said the registry must be sufficiently narrow to be a notification tool and not additional punishment. In recent years, lawmakers have expanded the public sex offender registry.
"We've piled on to the point that the registry no longer means anything to the public," said Schad, R-Versailles. "The public has become numb to the registry."
Under the legislation, several offenses no longer would require state registration, including promoting obscenity and furnishing pornographic materials. In other cases, people could petition a state trial judge to be removed if they meet certain requirements. Petitions for removal could be filed after 20 years for those convicted of particularly serious offenses such as forcible rape, forcible sodomy or child molestation — crimes that Schad labeled as the "seven deadly sins." People convicted of other sex offenses would need to wait 10 years before they could seek removal.
The local prosecutor, who would need to be notified by the person making the request, could present evidence suggesting some requirements for removal had not been met. Prosecutors also would need to make "reasonable efforts" to notify the victim of the sex offense of the dates and times for court hearings on the petition. Requests for removal would be granted unless the person has not properly registered, committed another offense requiring registration or failed to complete probation and sex offender treatment programs.
Lawmakers endorsed the legislation by voice vote during an evening session with few people watching from the public galleries. The measure needs another vote before moving to the state Senate. There was little apparent opposition to the measure, and Schad said the legislation was discussed at night to avoid conducting the debate in front of the many children who visit the state Capitol during the day on school field trips.
Besides allowing people to be removed from the registry, the legislation also would exclude juveniles who are required to register as sex offenders from the public list posted online.
___
Sex offenders is HB1700
Online:
Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov
Monday, March 19, 2012
Jury said it was ENTRAPMENT...
Jury said Menasha man entrapped in Perverted Justice sting
APPLETON — For four days, Appleton police officers
monitored the bust house on E. Fremont Street.
Behind the scenes, volunteers for the Perverted Justice Foundation Inc. — made famous by Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" — posed as children, chatting online with Wisconsinites.
The volunteers, who initiated the 2010 sex sting, gave police profiles of 72 people they thought likely to turn up and have sexual contact with a minor. Four showed.
Their cases went to court — the last wrapped up March 12 — but one man's jury trial punched a hole in Perverted Justice's claim, still maintained on its website, "Hundreds upon hundreds of convictions... zero successful entrapment defenses. Zero."
Entrapment occurs when police lure people into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn't have done.
"Anyone who knows the law will never make the entrapment argument towards these crimes, because people who know the law understand that these people are predisposed to commit these crimes. It's why they hit us up to begin with," says the Perverted Justice website.
Wyn Adkins, 29, of Menasha, was not predisposed to having sexual contact with a child, his attorney, Kevin Musolf, maintained in arguing his client was entrapped. The jury agreed.
Jurors found Adkins not guilty of a felony charge of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime.
"(Sexual contact) was something they put in his head," Musolf said.
Adkins, 29, was depressed, with anxiety and self-esteem issues, Musolf said.
Denise Moss — who was posing as 15-year-old "Cami" — told him he was nice, cute and had a nice smile. When the two discussed meeting, Moss baited him by asking: what's on your mind; what if we get bored; what should I wear?, Musolf said.
"She keeps throwing the hook out to him and eventually he bit," Musolf said. "What they did to this particular person is just that they took it too far. … I think in this case they were just frustrated that out of 72 people, only four showed up."
Behind the scenes, volunteers for the Perverted Justice Foundation Inc. — made famous by Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" — posed as children, chatting online with Wisconsinites.
The volunteers, who initiated the 2010 sex sting, gave police profiles of 72 people they thought likely to turn up and have sexual contact with a minor. Four showed.
Their cases went to court — the last wrapped up March 12 — but one man's jury trial punched a hole in Perverted Justice's claim, still maintained on its website, "Hundreds upon hundreds of convictions... zero successful entrapment defenses. Zero."
Entrapment occurs when police lure people into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn't have done.
"Anyone who knows the law will never make the entrapment argument towards these crimes, because people who know the law understand that these people are predisposed to commit these crimes. It's why they hit us up to begin with," says the Perverted Justice website.
Wyn Adkins, 29, of Menasha, was not predisposed to having sexual contact with a child, his attorney, Kevin Musolf, maintained in arguing his client was entrapped. The jury agreed.
Jurors found Adkins not guilty of a felony charge of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime.
"(Sexual contact) was something they put in his head," Musolf said.
Adkins, 29, was depressed, with anxiety and self-esteem issues, Musolf said.
Denise Moss — who was posing as 15-year-old "Cami" — told him he was nice, cute and had a nice smile. When the two discussed meeting, Moss baited him by asking: what's on your mind; what if we get bored; what should I wear?, Musolf said.
"She keeps throwing the hook out to him and eventually he bit," Musolf said. "What they did to this particular person is just that they took it too far. … I think in this case they were just frustrated that out of 72 people, only four showed up."
Protocol followed
Perverted Justice tries to prevent entrapment claims by never messaging anyone first.
"Rather we sit, wait, and allow them to knock upon our
online 'door,'" its website states.
Moss followed protocol but the jury assumed she was "out to catch people," said Outagamie County Assistant Dist. Atty. Andrew Maier, who prosecuted all four cases.
"(Adkins) just made a very sympathetic defendant. At the end of the day, he got up there and looked very neat and very mild … and they bought it," Moss said. "In my eyes, and in the eyes of the prosecution … he had to drive to the house, he had to get dressed, get his keys, drive down the road — there were many places he could have turned around. It wasn't like I was saying, 'Come here, come here, you can do it.' That's not entrapment; that's just not entrapment."
Moss, 39, who lives near Olympia, Wash., has volunteered for Perverted Justice for about six years. She joined the organization to protect her kids and others. Although she's not paid for her work, she says it's her full-time job.
"It's all for the greater good. … At the end of the day we make a difference, and you can't get any better than that," Moss said.
Despite the Wyn Adkins outcome, Moss said the sting turned out pretty well and had a good impact on the Fox Valley.
She remains adamant that she didn't coerce Adkins' actions and the defense was not successful.
"She's wrong," said Neenah attorney Robert Bellin, who represented another man charged in the sting. "It goes to show. Look at what they say on their website to what the actual practices are — I think you'll find a lot of contrasts there."
Adkins was the only man caught in the sting who pleaded not guilty. The others — two from the Fox Valley, one from Racine — pleaded no contest to their charges, including Neil Frank, who Bellin represented.
Frank was sentenced last Monday to three months in jail with work release privileges and five years of probation with a stayed jail sentence of nine months. If he errs during his jail time or probation he'll return to jail for nine more months.
Frank, 27, of Kimberly, was convicted of felony possession of child pornography and resisting or obstructing an officer. The two other men — Michael L. Krezinski, 28, of Racine, and Ryan J. Gidlof, 23, of Neenah — were each convicted of child enticement-sexual contact.
Moss followed protocol but the jury assumed she was "out to catch people," said Outagamie County Assistant Dist. Atty. Andrew Maier, who prosecuted all four cases.
"(Adkins) just made a very sympathetic defendant. At the end of the day, he got up there and looked very neat and very mild … and they bought it," Moss said. "In my eyes, and in the eyes of the prosecution … he had to drive to the house, he had to get dressed, get his keys, drive down the road — there were many places he could have turned around. It wasn't like I was saying, 'Come here, come here, you can do it.' That's not entrapment; that's just not entrapment."
Moss, 39, who lives near Olympia, Wash., has volunteered for Perverted Justice for about six years. She joined the organization to protect her kids and others. Although she's not paid for her work, she says it's her full-time job.
"It's all for the greater good. … At the end of the day we make a difference, and you can't get any better than that," Moss said.
Despite the Wyn Adkins outcome, Moss said the sting turned out pretty well and had a good impact on the Fox Valley.
She remains adamant that she didn't coerce Adkins' actions and the defense was not successful.
"She's wrong," said Neenah attorney Robert Bellin, who represented another man charged in the sting. "It goes to show. Look at what they say on their website to what the actual practices are — I think you'll find a lot of contrasts there."
Adkins was the only man caught in the sting who pleaded not guilty. The others — two from the Fox Valley, one from Racine — pleaded no contest to their charges, including Neil Frank, who Bellin represented.
Frank was sentenced last Monday to three months in jail with work release privileges and five years of probation with a stayed jail sentence of nine months. If he errs during his jail time or probation he'll return to jail for nine more months.
Frank, 27, of Kimberly, was convicted of felony possession of child pornography and resisting or obstructing an officer. The two other men — Michael L. Krezinski, 28, of Racine, and Ryan J. Gidlof, 23, of Neenah — were each convicted of child enticement-sexual contact.
Costs for police
The Adkins trial didn't diminish the reputation of Perverted Justice, Maier said, but it did expose pitfalls in the large stings.The organization has become a victim of its own success, he said, adding that jurors think cases will be like an episode of "To Catch a Predator" — but the crimes are rarely that simple.
Instead, cases are logistically complicated by the distance between the two people chatting online, Maier said.
Moss, based in Washington, might not be familiar with the state laws of Wisconsin, he said.
"Sometimes they're stretched too far with volunteers who are three time zones away from a person here," Maier said.
Before the October 2010 sting, Appleton police worked with Perverted Justice on individual cases. A volunteer from the organization chatted with people and if she determined someone was a potential sex offender, she called police and asked how to proceed, Maier said.
"Now they're doing whatever they want and police are sitting in the background waiting for results," Musolf said.
The goal of Perverted Justice is good, but decoys need to be better trained and police need to be more involved, he said.
Bellin has handled similar cases outside of Outagamie County where the stings were run by police detectives, not Perverted Justice.
"The cases handled by detectives seemed to do a better job at identifying potential offenders instead of trapping someone who may just be curious or stupid," Bellin said.
Soon, the Fox Valley might have resources to run its own online stings, Maier said. When Perverted Justice began nearly a decade ago, it was taking on computer crime that most police jurisdictions didn't have the ability to tackle.
The organization allows police to be proactive in hunting for sex offenders without being a financial burden on an agency, Moss said.
"If we chat for 40 hours and there's an arrest, there's 40 hours the police weren't billed for," she said.
Nonetheless, stings cost local law enforcement.
The 2010 sting lasted from a Thursday to Sunday. At any given time, there were four to seven officers working the case, Appleton police Capt. Todd Freeman said. Because police didn't know how many people would show up at the bust house, officers were constantly on patrol.
Appleton formed a task force of 12 officers and two supervisors for the Perverted Justice sting, and a total of about 20 police worked on it, Freeman said.
While most of the monitoring was done during officers' normal shifts, it did require some overtime and the department spent $6,450 in overtime pay on the investigation, he said.
The department likely would not run another large-scale bust with the foundation but would continue to work with Perverted Justice on smaller-scale investigations, he said.
There was a lot of discussion about whether all the time and manpower was worth catching four people, Sgt. Chad Allaback said.
"But, you know, it's four that — had this been an actual contact with a child — would have committed significant felonies and significant sexual assaults," he said.
The sting also raised awareness of online predators in the Fox Valley, Allaback said.
"For better or worse, Perverted Justice has developed a reputation of being a little vigilante at times and a little over-aggressive," Maier said. "I think that they do fairly difficult work and step in the places where law enforcement can't — or just haven't — stepped yet."
Wisconsin got a C- and they are not the worst...
Grading the Nation: How accountable is your state?
The tales are sadly familiar to even the most casual observer of state politics.
In Georgia, more than 650 government employees accepted gifts from vendors doing business with the state in 2007 and 2008, clearly violating state ethics law. The last time the state issued a penalty on a vendor was 1999.
A North Carolina legislator sponsored and voted on a bill to loosen regulations on billboard construction, even though he co-owned five billboards in the state. When the ethics commission reviewed the case, it found no conflict; after all, the panel reasoned, the legislation would benefit all billboard owners in the state — not just the lawmaker who pushed for the bill.
Tennessee established its ethics commission six years ago, but has yet to issue a single ethics penalty. It’s almost impossible to know whether the oversight is effectively working, because complaints are not made available to the public.
A West Virginia governor borrowed a car from his local dealership to take it for a “test drive.” He kept the car for four years, during which the dealership won millions in state contracts.
When representatives of a biotech company took Montana legislators out to dinner, they neither registered as lobbyists nor reported the fact that they picked up the bill. They didn’t have to — the law only requires registration upon spending $2,400 during a legislative session. And in Maine, one state senator did not disclose $98 million in state contracts that went to an organization for which he served as executive director. The lack of disclosure was not an oversight; due to a loophole in state law, he was under no obligation to do so.
The stories go on and on. Open records laws with hundreds of exemptions. Crucial budgeting decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of power brokers. “Citizen” lawmakers voting on bills that would benefit them directly. Scores of legislators turning into lobbyists seemingly overnight. Disclosure laws without much disclosure. Ethics panels that haven’t met in years.
See the rest here
The tales are sadly familiar to even the most casual observer of state politics.
In Georgia, more than 650 government employees accepted gifts from vendors doing business with the state in 2007 and 2008, clearly violating state ethics law. The last time the state issued a penalty on a vendor was 1999.
A North Carolina legislator sponsored and voted on a bill to loosen regulations on billboard construction, even though he co-owned five billboards in the state. When the ethics commission reviewed the case, it found no conflict; after all, the panel reasoned, the legislation would benefit all billboard owners in the state — not just the lawmaker who pushed for the bill.
Tennessee established its ethics commission six years ago, but has yet to issue a single ethics penalty. It’s almost impossible to know whether the oversight is effectively working, because complaints are not made available to the public.
A West Virginia governor borrowed a car from his local dealership to take it for a “test drive.” He kept the car for four years, during which the dealership won millions in state contracts.
When representatives of a biotech company took Montana legislators out to dinner, they neither registered as lobbyists nor reported the fact that they picked up the bill. They didn’t have to — the law only requires registration upon spending $2,400 during a legislative session. And in Maine, one state senator did not disclose $98 million in state contracts that went to an organization for which he served as executive director. The lack of disclosure was not an oversight; due to a loophole in state law, he was under no obligation to do so.
The stories go on and on. Open records laws with hundreds of exemptions. Crucial budgeting decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of power brokers. “Citizen” lawmakers voting on bills that would benefit them directly. Scores of legislators turning into lobbyists seemingly overnight. Disclosure laws without much disclosure. Ethics panels that haven’t met in years.
See the rest here
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Internet stings: Does the fantasy defense hold water?
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/03/internet-stings-does-fantasy-defense.html
Scott
Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector, was among the most vocal in
insisting that the Bush administration fabricated its claims of “weapons of mass
destruction” in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Ritter didn’t receive much public gratitude for his efforts to avert a costly and destructive war. Instead, he lost his career and his life gradually unraveled. Sinking deeper into depression, he fled into chat rooms, where he arranged rendezvous with adult women willing to watch him masturbate. At first, the meetings took place in cars or out-of-the-way places. Later, he switched to using a webcam, according to a profile by Matt Bai in the New York Times Magazine.
Then came that fateful day
in February 2009 on which, in a Yahoo chat room for adults, he conversed with
“Emily.” Although she told him she was 15, Emily was actually a small-town
police officer, trolling for sexual predators online.
After doing his usual thing of masturbating in front of the webcam, Ritter announced he was signing off to take a shower.
Not so fast, retorted the officer:
"Nah," Ritter typed back. "Your not 15. Yahoo is for 18 and over. It’s all fantasy. No crime."
"I have your phone number and I will be getting your IP address from Yahoo and your carrier," the officer responded. "We can do this 2 ways call me and you can turn yourself in at a latter date or I’ll get a warrant for you and come pick you up."
Ritter turned himself in.
At his trial, he testified that he never for a moment believed he was talking to
a minor; he assumed he was chatting with a bored housewife pretending to be 15.
Unfortunately for Ritter, jurors were told of his two prior arrests in similar cases, for which he was never prosecuted. In both cases, undercover police had lured him into meetings with fictional teenage girls. His claim that he knew that he was actually talking to undercover police in both cases likely strained the credulity of jurors, who convicted him in the case of “Emily.”
After hearing testimony from a government evaluator who called Ritter a sexually violent predator, the judge sentenced him late last year to a prison term of 18 months to five and a half years.
Had it not been for his two earlier cases, Ritter’s defense might not have been all that far-fetched. After all, it worked for Darryl Plumridge of Queensland, Australia back in 2007.
Just like Ritter,
Plumridge engaged in online chat with an undercover police officer posing as a
teenage girl, in this case a 13-year-old with the screen name of “Erin Princess
Baby.”
His defense was simple, according to a forthcoming article in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: “He claimed that he knew the person with whom he was communicating was an older male and he was simply role playing.”
At trial, he testified that the covert police operative inadvertently supplied various content cues as to his true age and gender. For example, he signed off by saying "see ya later alligator," something no self-respecting 21st-century girl would say. Even more tellingly, he accidentally said he ("she") was at the office when "she" was supposed to be home from school, a glaring error that "she" immediately corrected.
Plumridge was acquitted.
Study: Can people see through online deception?
Criminologist Robyn Lincoln of Bond University and forensic psychologist Ian R. Coyle, a Gold Coast practitioner and associate professor of law who testified in the case, decided to conduct a study to test the plausibility of Plumridge’s defense. Given the flat nature of internet communication, lacking in physical or tonal cues, can people actually deduce the true age and gender of someone who is pretending to be someone else?
Bottom line? Yes, they often can.
Lincoln and Coyle randomly assigned 46 students as either "deceivers" or "receivers." Each volunteer participant was met off-site and individually led to one of several private study locations, to avoid encounters with other participants. Deceivers were instructed to play the role of a 13-year-old girl. Receivers, in contrast, were misled to believe that they might be talking with individuals ranging in age from young children to the elderly. The pairs then chatted with each other for 30 minutes.
Despite the deceivers' best efforts, the majority of receivers were able to correctly identify the age and gender of the person with whom they were chatting, within a five-year bandwidth. None of the receivers believed they were talking to someone under the age of 16.
Thus, the claims of Plumridge and Ritter, that they knew they were chatting with adults but ignored that reality for purposes of fantasy role-playing, appear to have some scientific basis.
As law enforcement officers increasingly partake in trolling the internet for sexual predators in their spare time, it is probably only a matter of time before the Bond University study is introduced into court as evidence.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Internet stings: Does the fantasy defense hold water?
Ritter didn’t receive much public gratitude for his efforts to avert a costly and destructive war. Instead, he lost his career and his life gradually unraveled. Sinking deeper into depression, he fled into chat rooms, where he arranged rendezvous with adult women willing to watch him masturbate. At first, the meetings took place in cars or out-of-the-way places. Later, he switched to using a webcam, according to a profile by Matt Bai in the New York Times Magazine.
After doing his usual thing of masturbating in front of the webcam, Ritter announced he was signing off to take a shower.
Not so fast, retorted the officer:
"U
know ur in a lot of trouble, don’t you? I’m a undercover police officer. U need
to call me ASAP."
"Nah," Ritter typed back. "Your not 15. Yahoo is for 18 and over. It’s all fantasy. No crime."
"I have your phone number and I will be getting your IP address from Yahoo and your carrier," the officer responded. "We can do this 2 ways call me and you can turn yourself in at a latter date or I’ll get a warrant for you and come pick you up."
Unfortunately for Ritter, jurors were told of his two prior arrests in similar cases, for which he was never prosecuted. In both cases, undercover police had lured him into meetings with fictional teenage girls. His claim that he knew that he was actually talking to undercover police in both cases likely strained the credulity of jurors, who convicted him in the case of “Emily.”
After hearing testimony from a government evaluator who called Ritter a sexually violent predator, the judge sentenced him late last year to a prison term of 18 months to five and a half years.
Fantasy defense
succeeds in Queensland
Had it not been for his two earlier cases, Ritter’s defense might not have been all that far-fetched. After all, it worked for Darryl Plumridge of Queensland, Australia back in 2007.
His defense was simple, according to a forthcoming article in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: “He claimed that he knew the person with whom he was communicating was an older male and he was simply role playing.”
At trial, he testified that the covert police operative inadvertently supplied various content cues as to his true age and gender. For example, he signed off by saying "see ya later alligator," something no self-respecting 21st-century girl would say. Even more tellingly, he accidentally said he ("she") was at the office when "she" was supposed to be home from school, a glaring error that "she" immediately corrected.
Plumridge was acquitted.
Study: Can people see through online deception?
Criminologist Robyn Lincoln of Bond University and forensic psychologist Ian R. Coyle, a Gold Coast practitioner and associate professor of law who testified in the case, decided to conduct a study to test the plausibility of Plumridge’s defense. Given the flat nature of internet communication, lacking in physical or tonal cues, can people actually deduce the true age and gender of someone who is pretending to be someone else?
Bottom line? Yes, they often can.
Lincoln and Coyle randomly assigned 46 students as either "deceivers" or "receivers." Each volunteer participant was met off-site and individually led to one of several private study locations, to avoid encounters with other participants. Deceivers were instructed to play the role of a 13-year-old girl. Receivers, in contrast, were misled to believe that they might be talking with individuals ranging in age from young children to the elderly. The pairs then chatted with each other for 30 minutes.
Despite the deceivers' best efforts, the majority of receivers were able to correctly identify the age and gender of the person with whom they were chatting, within a five-year bandwidth. None of the receivers believed they were talking to someone under the age of 16.
Thus, the claims of Plumridge and Ritter, that they knew they were chatting with adults but ignored that reality for purposes of fantasy role-playing, appear to have some scientific basis.
As law enforcement officers increasingly partake in trolling the internet for sexual predators in their spare time, it is probably only a matter of time before the Bond University study is introduced into court as evidence.
The study, "No one Knows you’re a Dog on the
Internet: Implications for Proactive Police Investigation of Sexual Offenders,"
has been accepted for publication in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.
Correspondence may be directed to the first author, Robyn Lincoln.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)