Showing posts with label Child "Offenders". Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child "Offenders". Show all posts

Just Who Are the "Sex Offenders"?

These National Center for Juvenile Justice findings clearly show that the vast majority of "sex offenses" against children are committed by kids themselves.

How inconvenient for the Crusaders!



Remember Kids; the Cops are NOT Your Friends!

Preteen's family forever changed by call that led to rape case

Is it really such a surprise when the same cops and prosecutors who destroy the lives of adults are just as willingly to destroy the lives of children?

And just WHEN did it become illegal for kids to have sex with other kids?

I think a lot of us were shocked to find out that kids were being arrested, forced into "therapy", incarcerated and forced to register as sex offenders for the crime of experimenting sexually with their friends.

Why is this being tolerated? Why aren't demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience taking place to protest this disgusting PERVERSION of our legal system?

How is it that adults who have even the slightest physical contact (sometimes not even intentionally sexual) with kids are permanently incarcerated and marginalized but cops, prosecutors and therapists can commit atrocities against children and never be held criminally, or even civilly, accountable? Hell, they don't even lose their jobs!

Yes, I am convinced; there IS evil in this world and much of it is committed by the self-righteous, self-proclaimed "child-savers" whose actual goal is to inflict great pain and suffering upon others. These are a power-hungry, sadistic breed who achieve their orgasms through the personal destruction of human beings, including kids.

So, let's stop being surprised that such evil exists and that our tax dollars sustain it. Let us start by standing up to these monsters who walk amongst us, unimpeded and unrestrained by any sense of humanity or decency or rule of law.

What "Treatment" Looks Like for Kids Accused Of Sexual Abuse

There is an extremely creepy "therapy" program in Phoenix, Arizona for kids accused of child sexual abuse. The same discredited voodoo pseudo-science that is widely reviled by legitimate mental health professionals as it is used on adults is being used on kids, many of whom are as young as ten. These "treatments" include:
  • being forced to inhale ammonia fumes as "aversion therapy" while viewing "deviant" pornography
  • having the circumferences of their penises measured to see what arouses them sexually and to ensure that they don't have "inappropriate" responses.
  • group degradation sessions in which the "therapists" attempt to destroy the child's sense of self so that it might be later recreated in the image their tormentors would prefer them to have.
If this doesn't outrage you, I can't imagine what could.

*Note: Dear Reader, after looking at this story again I realized that the date of the original story in the Arizona Republic was dated July 1992. I have no idea if the conditions under which child offenders are being treated in Phoenix Arizona are now better or worse than they were in 1992. I suspect that the authorities have become more sophisticated in covering their asses but remain just as indifferent to the emotional well-being of kids.

Alabama Legislators Further Endear Themselves to Ignorant Constituents

Alabama Senate passes bill to require: weekly registration for homeless sex offenders, sex offenders convicted of having sex with siblings to move out of the house AND charging sex offenders a $250 registration fee whenever they register.

Much like the Chinese government who charge the family of executed criminals for the cost of the bullet required to blow-out their brains, Alabama joins other states who insist that the cost of sex offender registration must be borne by the sex offender him (and occasionally her-) self. In this case, Alabama will charge R.S.O.'s $250 for the privilege of being degraded citizens with starkly fewer rights than anyone else, including those guilty of homicide or attempted murder.

Presumably, the homeless R.S.O. would be hit especially hard in the pocketbook if they are having to register once a week. Let me guess: the State will run a tab continuously on that person which will likely lead to an eventual conviction for failure to pay. Hah! Another neat trick to get sex offenders back into prison which is what all of these bills are really about.

This seems to be Constitutionally problematic given that sex offender registration is ostensibly in aid of protecting the public and not a form of punishment. But somehow, I don't think that our current Supreme Court would see it that way.

As for forcing siblings out of the same home where one is the "victim" and the other the "perpetrator", I guess it should be quite obvious that they are talking about kids living in a family home. In other words, the family will be forced to split apart.

Now that's family-friendly, isn't it?

6 Year Old Boy Charged With Sexual Assault In Madison Wisconsin

Who on Earth believes that this is a healthy and appropriate response to two small children, literally, playing "doctor"? Well, apart from the Taliban, apparently the prosecutor, Madison Wisconsin District Attorney, Lisa Riniker, does.

Several questions immediately spring to mind:

Is Grant County so flush with taxpayer money that the police and district attorney have uncovered and prosecuted all other, more serious, crimes in their community and are now free to pursue six-year-olds?

Also, let's assume for the moment that Lisa Riniker is sincere in her stated aim of getting the six-year-old boy the "help" he needs (although from past knowledge of prosecutors, sincerity is not one of their stronger traits). What will that "help"consist of? And "what" will he be "helped" with? His sexual curiosity?

Will that "help" actually end up hurting him?

How will this intervention of "help" affect his future emotional well-being?

There were two children involved in playing doctor, both a little girl and a little boy. How was it that the boy was singled-out for prosecution?

It should be manifestly clear that the anti-sex crusade begun decades ago has mutated and expanded to claim ever more victims, including the very children it professes to be "saving".

"Inappropriate" behavior has now become "criminalized" behavior with need of "qualified" taxpayer-funded "intervention" and categorization, if not outright imprisonment and permanently degraded citizenship.

Some of us said, more than a quarter of a century ago, that this was the path along which we were being taken by a bizarre and hateful alliance of right-wing, religious fundamentalists and bitter, power-hungry, female supremacists who had, as their common interest, the hatred of human sexuality.

And, sure enough, it is now easy to see the progression that this movement has taken, with a gradual erosion of rights extending to ever-greater numbers of victims.

One final question: where will this end?

the story: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_c13c6a62-72b8-11e0-8659-001cc4c03286.html

Oak Park police charge boy who allegedly made sex-ranking list

This sort of First Amendment protected speech, juvenile-obnoxious though it may be, would have warranted nothing more than a parental or school principal reprimand in times past.

Now, it's the sort of behavior that is treated as a criminal offense and will, no doubt, eventually require registration as a sex offender.

The "Zero Tolerance" society now deems a schoolboy's creation and dissemination of a list ranking schoolgirl's attractiveness (or other attributes unspecified in the news piece) as a criminal act warranting criminal sanction. Why are we not surprised that the net the hysterics have cast is growing so wide as to ensnare even the kids themselves? Could it be that they are running out of victims, err.. "victimizers"?

the story:
http://www.suntimes.com/5294285-417/oak-park-police-charge-boy-who-allegedly-made-sex-ranking-list.html

18 Y.O. Sentenced to 34 Years For Sex When He Was 11-16

Ed: Of course, in this article, they refer to him as a "man" even though the sex he was convicted of having occurred from when he was eleven until he was sixteen, a fact the writer fails to note. Was force or coercion elements in their commission? WHO KNOWS? And, you know what, there's no way to tell. It happened over a period of five years, has not gone on for several years, and prosecutors and therapists routinely lie and manipulate "victims".

Let there be no doubt that anyone can go to prison in this country if a child complainant says (or is MADE to say) that they were sexually abused. The fact that the alleged perpetrator was, himself, a kid, is all the more tragic and gives lie to the pretense that this hysterical, vicious, sex-hating movement is driven by a concern for children. The people who have brought upon our society this state of affairs should be deeply ashamed and, themselves, banished from the rest of us.

Bethlehem man faces 34 years in prison for sexually assaulting boy, girl

A Northampton County judge called a Bethlehem man "a sick individual" as the judge sentenced him to 34 years in state prison for sexually assaulting two children starting in 2003.

“You have many rehabilitative needs,” Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano said to Josue Gonzalez this morning. “It is my hope that you will receive the treatment that you so desperately need.”

Giordano sentenced Gonzalez, 18, of the 600 block of Hess Street, to 11 years to 34 years in state prison for two counts each of felony sexual assault and indecent assault.

Gonzalez will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life under Pennsylvania’s version of Megan's Law.

Looking at the facts of the case, Giordano said he was astounded Gonzalez was not deemed a sexually violent predator. Assistant District Attorney Patricia Broscius said it was Gonzalez’s age that led to the board’s ruling, with which she also did not agree.

Gonzalez started assaulting the boy in 2003 when the victim was 6 years old and continued until the boy was 11, prosecutors said. The boy is now 12.

Bethlehem police interviewed the boy at school, and he said Gonzalez initially offered to play games with him if Gonzalez could have sex with him, prosecutors said.

When the boy refused, Gonzalez raped him, prosecutors said. The abuse continued over five years, and Gonzalez repeatedly raped the boy and forced him to perform sex acts, prosecutors alleged.

The girl told police Gonzalez started assaulting her around the time she was 6 years old in January 2007 at her home and Gonzalez’s home.

A worker from the county’s Children Youth and Families division said both victims are receiving intensive sexual abuse treatment.

Gonzalez sobbed as he apologized to his victims, who were not in the courtroom, and his family.

“I know what I did was wrong,” said Gonzalez, who was wearing a white plastic rosary and an orange prison jumpsuit.

School Uses Secret Cameras To Record Teens In Bedrooms

"...the government school district issued laptops to students and the district could activate the webcam and use it to spy on students anytime the computer was turned on".

"told by Assistant Principal that he "was engaged in improper behavior in his home." As proof of this improper behaviour the school showed him "a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the School District.""

read entire piece here

Breakdown of Michigan juvenile sex offender cases by age


Ed: Almost 8% of Michigan's registered sex offenders are juveniles.

The story I wrote that was published earlier today focused on the number of juvenile sex offenders on the state’s burgeoning sex offender registry. But behind the big picture revelation — that nearly 8 percent of registered sex offenders in Michigan are juveniles — there’s a more detailed accounting of the state’s youngest sex offenders to be had.

What follows is a breakdown of the total number of sex offender cases by the age of the offender when the case was adjudicated, as provided by the Michigan State Police, the government agency charged with maintaining the registry. Here goes:

9 years old – 2
10 years old – 10
11 years old – 38
12 years old – 95
13 years old – 307
14 years old – 517
15 years old – 655
16 years old – 528
17 years old – 354
*18 years old – 85
*19 years old – 20
*20 years old – 7
*21 years old – 2
*22 years old – 0
*23 years old – 4
**Unknown – 1,364

*Individuals age 18-23 received juvenile adjudications likely because they were juveniles at the time of the offense but adults by the time of conviction.
**Individuals with a SOR conviction type listed as “Michigan Juvenile” but an unknown adjudication date.

If you take the time to add up the totals you’ll come up with 3,988 cases. That contrasts with the 3,563 total juvenile sex offenders that the above referenced news story mentions. So what’s the difference? According to Melody Kindraka, a public affairs representative with the Michigan State Police, there are some repeat offenders included in the smaller number — that is, juveniles who’ve had an adjudicated criminal sexual conduct case more than once.

Ruining Kids in Order to Save Them

The boneheaded logic behind treating "sexting" teens as child pornographers.

Radley Balko | Reason Magazine

That the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would even need to hear oral arguments in the case of Miller, et al. v. Skumanick last week is a pretty good indication that law enforcement officials in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania have lost their collective minds.

At issue in the case: Whether the U.S. Constitution permits prosecutors to charge minors who pose for nude or risque photos with child pornography. You read that correctly. In order to protect children from predators and child pornographers, the local district attorney is threatening to prosecute minors who pose for racy photos as if they were child pornographers.

Even within the context of the already hysterical overreaction to the "sexting" phenomenon, the facts in Miller are jaw-dropping. Of the three girls bringing suit, two were photographed at a slumber party wearing training bras. The third photographed herself baring her breasts, then sent the photo to a boy she'd hoped to make jealous. The girls aren't in trouble for distributing the photos, or even for taking them. They've been introduced to the criminal justice system merely for appearing in them.

Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick, Jr. gave the girls a choice. The first option was to face felony child pornography charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The second was to attend a series of Skumanick-chosen classes, which according to the Pennsylvania ACLU included topics such as "what it means to be a girl in today's society" and "non-traditional societal and job roles." The girls would also be put on probation, subject to random drug tests, and would have to write essays explaining why appearing in photos while wearing their bras is wrong.

Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively." He told the Wall Street Journal that by offering the girls the classes and probation instead of immediately hitting them with felony charges, "We thought we were being progressive."

Of the 19 minors Skumanick targeted, 16 chose the classes. The other three took Skumanick to court, where they won a restraining order. Skumanick appealed. To the credit of the people of Wyoming County, after 20 years in office Skumanick lost his bid for reelection last November. But his office continues to fight.

But this isn't just an isolated case of a renegade D.A. There have now been several cases across the country where young people who either pose for, snap, or forward provocative or nude photos of other minors are being charged or threatened with felony child pornography. In 2007, a state appeals court in Florida upheld charges of "directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child" and possession of child pornography charges against a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl for forwarding explicit photos of themselves having sex from her computer to his email address. The sex wasn't illegal. But the photos were. Incredibly, Judge James Wolf wrote in the majority opinion that "Mere production of these videos or pictures may...result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved. Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives."

The message to minors: These photos can ruin your lives, kids. And just to prove it, we're going to ruin your lives.

These cases are the natural culmination of two trends. The first is the continuing view among politicians that there's no punishment too severe for sex offenders. Moreover, to show how serious we are about sex offenders, we should broaden the class of people we classify under the label. And there needn't be any actual victims.

In 2006, Karen Fletcher, also of Pennsylvania, was convicted in federal court for writing fictional stories (and granted, they were disturbing stories) about sexual and violent crimes against children. Until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, the 1996 Child Online Protection Act criminalized images of adults made to look like minors, as well as digitally manufactured photos of minors who don't actually exist.

The second trend is the "for the children" excuse that no law ought to be questioned if its intent is to protect young people. The resulting paternalism is built in.

Put these together, and you get the intellectually vacant policy of prosecuting children for sexually exploiting themselves...in order to protect them from the people who might exploit them.

It isn't exactly clear from what or whom the authorities are protecting these teens. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case of a predator who tracked down, then raped, killed, or otherwise physically harmed a minor after viewing explicit photos of the child on the Internet or via images forwarded by cell phone. Perhaps it has happened. But given the media obsession with these stories, if it's happened with any frequency at all, we would have probably heard about it by now.

The harm here seems to be the possibility that somewhere, someone other than the intended recipient of these photos may be masturbating to them. That's an uncomfortable thought, sure. But it's difficult to see how that presents tangible harm to the minors in the photos, certainly not to the point where the minors themselves ought to be prosecuted. Anyone turned on by the photos in Skumanick's case could just as easily placate themselves with an old Sears catalogue—and with no resulting damage to the models who posed in it.

But the idea that an otherwise innocuous image can mutate into illegal child porn based on how it might be used by pedophiles is gaining currency. In 2006, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted on federal child porn charges for a website he ran featuring aspiring teen models. None of the models were nude, nor were any depicted engaged in any sexual activity. All of the models' parents signed off on the photos. But federal prosecutors argued the models struck "illegally provocative," "lascivious," and "coy" poses that could entice pedophiles. In 2002, Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida (yes, that Mark Foley) introduced the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act, which would have prohibited the sale of any photo of a minor. It failed, but crazy as Foley's bill sounds, it at least would have cleared up the ambiguity. As the website CNET reported in a story about Pierson, federal courts have made the definition of child porn so subjective, "judges and juries [are] faced with the difficult task of making distinctions between lawful and unlawful camera angles and facial expressions."

When applied to "sexting" cases, that also leaves prosecutors like Skumanick far too much leeway—enough, for example, for him to believe he can prosecute a girl photographed in a bikini because he finds the photo uncomfortably "provocative." But even when "sexted" photos are unquestionably explicit, there's no justification for criminal charges. Even the deterrent argument falls flat. Despite these high-profile cases, threats of prosecution, and public service announcements on MTV, surveys suggest that about 20-25 percent of young people college-aged and younger have taken or sent sent explicit photos of themselves. That number is rising, not falling.

The root disconnect, here, is that the law treats pre-pubescent sex crimes on par with crimes related to teenagers who are sexually mature. Fact is, teenagers become sexually mature years before it's socially or legally permissible to think about them that way. That they're then having sex is nothing new. Nor is the fact that teens make rash, emotional, spur-of-the-moment decisions. What's new is that they're able to document it all in ways that can quickly escape their control. What they need after the fact are responsible adults who can walk them through a poor decision, appropriately reprimand or punish them if necessary, but all while keeping things in perspective, and minimizing the long-term consequences for the teen. Dumping the kid into the criminal justice system has all the subtlety and precision of dropping an anvil on the problem from 40 stories above.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Sexually Violent Predator Legislation Introduced by Assemblymember Pedro Nava

Ed: But what do we do about the "worst-of-the-worst" politicians?

California State Assembly member Pedro Nava announces the introduction of legislation to protect victims and our communities from sexually violent predators.

"We need to make sure that the worst of the worst offenders do not inflict more harm on our neighborhoods," said Nava. "This measure provides vital protections to victims, their families and communities from sexually violent predators."

Harriet Salarno, Chair of Crime Victims United of California, said, "Crime Victims United of California commends Assemblyman Nava for his persistence in addressing issues of concern related to juveniles and sexually violent predators. The nature of sex crimes committed by juveniles provides good insight into the individual´s potential sexual and violent tendencies as an adult. Research seems to show that many sex offenders began their sexually abusive behavior as juveniles. AB 168 would provide the appropriate agencies charged with assessment of offenders with more information about SVP candidates to assist in more accurately assessing the threat they pose to the public."

Said, Jim Provenza, Special Assistant to Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, "AB 168 will permit sealed juvenile records of violent sex criminals to be reviewed by mental health professionals to help determine if the offender should be confined for mental health treatment at the end of his or her prison term. Without this law prosecutors will be unable to prevent the release of some sexually violent predators into our communities."

AB 168 - Sex Crime Disclosure Act

The Sex Crime Disclosure Act permits the courts access to the full history of sex crimes committed by the most violent sex offenders when prosecutors are trying to civilly commit them after their prison sentence has been completed. Records of these offenses contain sociological and psychological reports that are valuable tools for inspection and use in a Sexual Violent Predator (SVP) proceeding. By having this information available during an SVP proceeding, it will enable those who have committed the most egregious acts to be civilly committed and prevented from inflicting more harm on our communities.

AB 61 ? The Sex Crime Loophole Closure Act

Last week Assemblymember Nava announced the introduction of AB 61, The Sex Crime Loophole Closure Act, which will prohibit authorities from granting "deferred entry of judgment" to juveniles who have committed sex offenses. Deferred judgment can be used to "launder" or expunge egregious sex crimes from a juvenile´s record. This measure will stop the practice of sending juveniles straight to probation if they have committed egregious sex crimes.

Assemblymember Nava, Crime Victims United and the public safety community believe that these measures are necessary to provide more tools to keep the most violent predators off our streets.

Life Without Parole For Rape at 13 Cruel and Unusual?

A man who was convicted of rape at age 13 (he is now 33) and sentenced to life without parole is petitioning the Supreme Court to consider whether his sentence is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Sentencing Law & Policy has more. You may read his petition for a writ of certiorari here. From the New York Times:

In 1989, someone raped a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola, Fla. Joe Sullivan was 13 at the time, and he admitted that he and two older friends had burglarized the woman’s home earlier that day. But he denied that he had returned to commit the rape.

The victim testified that her assailant was “a colored boy” who “had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small.” She said she “did not see him full in the face” and so would not recognize him by sight. But she recalled her attacker saying something like, “If you can’t identify me, I may not have to kill you.”

At his trial, Mr. Sullivan was made to say those words several times.

“It’s been six months,” the woman said on the witness stand. “It’s hard, but it does sound similar.”

The trial lasted a day and ended in conviction. Then Judge Nicholas Geeker, of the circuit court in Escambia County, sentenced Mr. Sullivan to life without the possibility of parole.

“I’m going to send him away for as long as I can,” Judge Geeker said.

Mr. Sullivan is 33 now, and his lawyers have asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the question of whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment extends to sentencing someone who was barely a teenager to die in prison for a crime that did not involve a killing.

People can argue about whether the punishment in Mr. Sullivan’s case is cruel. There is no question that it is unusual.

According to court papers and a report from the Equal Justice Initiative, which now represents Mr. Sullivan, only eight people in the world are serving sentences of life without parole for crimes they committed when they were 13. All are in the United States.

And there are only two people in that group whose crimes did not involve a killing. Both are in Florida, and both are black.

Joe Sullivan is one; Ian Manuel, who is in prison for a 1990 robbery and attempted murder, is the other.

About 1,000 people under 15 are arrested on rape charges every year, according to Justice Department data. But none of them have been sentenced to life without parole since Mr. Sullivan was. Indeed, no 13-year-old has been sentenced to life without parole for any crime that did not involve a killing in more than 15 years.

Florida’s attorney general, Bill McCollum, waived his right to file a response to Mr. Sullivan’s petition to the Supreme Court, a sign suggesting that he considers the case insubstantial if not frivolous. Sandi Copes, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCollum’s office, declined to discuss the case.

Last month, the court indicated that it found the case more interesting than Florida does, requesting a response from the state. That probably means that at least one justice considered the case significant or difficult. But it is nothing like a guarantee that the court will agree to hear it.

On the other hand, the question of whether life without parole for juveniles is constitutional is the logical next step following the court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the death penalty for crimes committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that even older teenagers are different from adults. They are less mature, more impulsive, more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to change for the better over time.

Last year, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the court issued another ruling that helps frame Mr. Sullivan’s case. That decision said crimes against individuals that did not involve killing, including the rape of a child by an adult, may not be punished by death.

In 2007, after Mr. Sullivan had served almost two decades in prison, a Florida appeals court declined to have another look at his case. The Roper decision, the appeals court said, “established only one new constitutional right, the right for a juvenile not to be given the death penalty.”

Douglas A. Berman, an authority on sentencing law at Ohio State, said it was time for the Supreme Court and the legal system to widen its relentless focus on capital cases and to look at other severe sentences as well. Cases involving the death penalty receive careful review at multiple levels, he said. Life sentences can receive almost none.

Mr. Sullivan’s trial, for instance, lasted a day. He was represented by a lawyer who made no opening statement and whose closing argument occupies about three double-spaced pages of the trial transcript. The lawyer was later suspended, and the Florida Bar’s Web site says he is “not eligible to practice in Florida.”

There was biological evidence from the rape, but it was not presented at the trial. When Mr. Sullivan’s new lawyers recently sought to conduct DNA testing on it, they were told that the state had destroyed it in 1993.

“I absolutely believe he is innocent,” Bryan A. Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, said of Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Stevenson said he believed that one of the older youths who committed the burglary with Mr. Sullivan and who testified against him was probably the actual assailant.

But the point made by Mr. Sullivan’s brief to the Supreme Court is not that he is innocent. It is not even that he should be released after 20 years in prison. It is only that he should someday be allowed to make his case to the Florida Parole Commission.

“I don’t think it’s possible to say that a 13-year-old will never change and that life without parole is an appropriate punishment,” Mr. Stevenson said.

Aside from Mr. Sullivan’s case, it seems there is only one other appeals court decision about whether young teenagers may be locked away forever for rape. It was issued 40 years ago in Kentucky, and it involved two 14-year-olds. The court struck down the part of the sentences precluding the possibility of parole.

Juveniles “are not permitted to vote, to contract, to purchase alcoholic beverages or to marry without the consent of their parents,” the court said. “It seems inconsistent that one be denied the fruits of the tree of the law, yet subjected to all of its thorns.”

Sex offender statute becomes tormentor

Family’s ordeal shows how Ga. law goes way too far

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, October 31, 2008

Andrew Norton grew up in a brutish household. His stepfather beat him and his brothers and made them watch pornography with him. Norton was forced to sleep at the foot of the bed while his mother and stepfather had sexual relations. After the state eventually intervened and terminated parental rights, Norton was placed in a foster family when he was 13.

Norton, now a married man with two children of his own, has since found solace in his family and his church, where he has been an active volunteer. But the state of Georgia that was once his protector has become his persecutor. After driving him out of four homes in the past four years, state officials now want to drive him out of his church as well.

Back when he was 12 or 13, police allege, Norton committed a sex offense against his half brother (the case is still in dispute in court, roughly a dozen years later). Unless that case is resolved in his favor, Norton will be on the state’s sex offender registry for life. And that means that Norton has no life.

The General Assembly has decreed that anyone who commits a sex offense —- even a minor one —- can’t live near schools, churches, swimming pools, school bus stops, day-care centers, parks, rec centers or skating rinks, or work around schools, churches or day-care centers.

In 2005, Norton and his family were ordered to leave his in-laws’ house because a school was nearby. They moved to a trailer park where they spent $1,500 to render the mobile home safe for their young children, only to be required to move again because there was a swing set within 1,000 feet.

The Nortons then found a home in Austell, where they lived for 10 months before being told to leave because it was too close to a school bus stop. When they couldn’t find another home, the family was forced to split. Norton went to a motel, while his wife and children returned to her parents’ house. Then Norton had to uproot himself again when a church was built near the motel. The reunited family has since found a rental home that complies with all the prohibitions. But officials now want to boot Norton from his church, citing a ban in state law on sex offenders serving as church volunteers.

“During these difficult times, my church community created one of the few steady environments in my life,” Norton stated in his court declaration. “Does it mean that I cannot volunteer to participate in Bible study? Does it mean that I cannot read scripture aloud at church services?”

Norton shared his saga to bolster a legal challenge to the state’s sex-offender law filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights, which contends the law criminalizes religious practice. The case will be heard Nov. 13 in U.S. District Court. The state has already lost several other legal challenges to the overarching law. Just this week, the state Supreme Court threw out a provision of the law that made it a felony for a sex offender to be homeless. Under the law, if a sex offender could not list a specific home address at a local sheriff’s office, he or she could be imprisoned for life.

Under that same law, homeowners on the sex offender list could be forced to sell their homes and move if a day-care center or church moved in near them. The state Supreme Court struck down that provision last year as a violation of property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. In its legal challenge of the law, the Southern Center intends to argue that renters deserve the same protection.

In another inequity, the law makes no distinction between serious sexual predators and far less egregious sex-related crimes. For example, a 17-year-old who engages in consensual sex with a 15-year-old is subjected to the same severe and lifelong restrictions as a repeat child molester.

The most notable victim of that inequity was Douglas County teen Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years for having oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17.

A year ago this week, the state Supreme Court overturned Wilson’s conviction, freeing him after three years in jail. Today, he attends Morehouse College, where he hopes to play football next year. In its zeal to appear punitive, the Legislature has continued to enact hollow laws that do nothing to protect children from sex offenders. In 90 percent of such cases, the perpetrator is not a stranger who lives nearby, but a family member or family friend of the victim.

Federal law does require states to maintain registries of offenders convicted of sex crimes or offenses against children. That law also requires notification of schools, day-care centers and parents when sex offenders move into a community. However, Georgia lawmakers have carried their crusade far beyond what federal law and common sense dictate, passing the most drastic limits in the country on where offenders can live or work.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Georgia’s approach is its stubborn refusal to acknowledge gradations in the dangers posed by sex offenders. State lawmakers did establish a board of experts to evaluate sex offenders and rank them on the risks they pose to others, but in practice the state ignores those rankings altogether.

Of offenders evaluated thus far by the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, 65 percent qualify as Level One, which means they pose little threat, says therapist Susan Strickland, who chairs the board. The board opposes any residency or work restrictions for Level One offenders.

The board has categorized 30 percent of the offenders as Level Two, a category in which residency and work requirements are justified, according to Strickland. The remaining 5 percent of offenders are truly dangerous and should be subject to all restrictions as well as lifetime monitoring, she says.

A change in the law would allow police officers to concentrate their time and resources on tracking truly dangerous predators, some of whom have gone underground rather than comply with onerous registration rules. Instead, police find themselves hounding people such as Andrew Norton, who is trying to overcome his own heinous childhood and provide his children a better one.

Sex offender statute becomes tormentor

Family’s ordeal shows how Ga. law goes way too far

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, October 31, 2008

Andrew Norton grew up in a brutish household. His stepfather beat him and his brothers and made them watch pornography with him. Norton was forced to sleep at the foot of the bed while his mother and stepfather had sexual relations. After the state eventually intervened and terminated parental rights, Norton was placed in a foster family when he was 13.

Norton, now a married man with two children of his own, has since found solace in his family and his church, where he has been an active volunteer. But the state of Georgia that was once his protector has become his persecutor. After driving him out of four homes in the past four years, state officials now want to drive him out of his church as well.

Back when he was 12 or 13, police allege, Norton committed a sex offense against his half brother (the case is still in dispute in court, roughly a dozen years later). Unless that case is resolved in his favor, Norton will be on the state’s sex offender registry for life. And that means that Norton has no life.

The General Assembly has decreed that anyone who commits a sex offense —- even a minor one —- can’t live near schools, churches, swimming pools, school bus stops, day-care centers, parks, rec centers or skating rinks, or work around schools, churches or day-care centers.

In 2005, Norton and his family were ordered to leave his in-laws’ house because a school was nearby. They moved to a trailer park where they spent $1,500 to render the mobile home safe for their young children, only to be required to move again because there was a swing set within 1,000 feet.

The Nortons then found a home in Austell, where they lived for 10 months before being told to leave because it was too close to a school bus stop. When they couldn’t find another home, the family was forced to split. Norton went to a motel, while his wife and children returned to her parents’ house. Then Norton had to uproot himself again when a church was built near the motel. The reunited family has since found a rental home that complies with all the prohibitions. But officials now want to boot Norton from his church, citing a ban in state law on sex offenders serving as church volunteers.

“During these difficult times, my church community created one of the few steady environments in my life,” Norton stated in his court declaration. “Does it mean that I cannot volunteer to participate in Bible study? Does it mean that I cannot read scripture aloud at church services?”

Norton shared his saga to bolster a legal challenge to the state’s sex-offender law filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights, which contends the law criminalizes religious practice. The case will be heard Nov. 13 in U.S. District Court. The state has already lost several other legal challenges to the overarching law. Just this week, the state Supreme Court threw out a provision of the law that made it a felony for a sex offender to be homeless. Under the law, if a sex offender could not list a specific home address at a local sheriff’s office, he or she could be imprisoned for life.

Under that same law, homeowners on the sex offender list could be forced to sell their homes and move if a day-care center or church moved in near them. The state Supreme Court struck down that provision last year as a violation of property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. In its legal challenge of the law, the Southern Center intends to argue that renters deserve the same protection.

In another inequity, the law makes no distinction between serious sexual predators and far less egregious sex-related crimes. For example, a 17-year-old who engages in consensual sex with a 15-year-old is subjected to the same severe and lifelong restrictions as a repeat child molester.

The most notable victim of that inequity was Douglas County teen Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years for having oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17.

A year ago this week, the state Supreme Court overturned Wilson’s conviction, freeing him after three years in jail. Today, he attends Morehouse College, where he hopes to play football next year. In its zeal to appear punitive, the Legislature has continued to enact hollow laws that do nothing to protect children from sex offenders. In 90 percent of such cases, the perpetrator is not a stranger who lives nearby, but a family member or family friend of the victim.

Federal law does require states to maintain registries of offenders convicted of sex crimes or offenses against children. That law also requires notification of schools, day-care centers and parents when sex offenders move into a community. However, Georgia lawmakers have carried their crusade far beyond what federal law and common sense dictate, passing the most drastic limits in the country on where offenders can live or work.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Georgia’s approach is its stubborn refusal to acknowledge gradations in the dangers posed by sex offenders. State lawmakers did establish a board of experts to evaluate sex offenders and rank them on the risks they pose to others, but in practice the state ignores those rankings altogether.

Of offenders evaluated thus far by the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, 65 percent qualify as Level One, which means they pose little threat, says therapist Susan Strickland, who chairs the board. The board opposes any residency or work restrictions for Level One offenders.

The board has categorized 30 percent of the offenders as Level Two, a category in which residency and work requirements are justified, according to Strickland. The remaining 5 percent of offenders are truly dangerous and should be subject to all restrictions as well as lifetime monitoring, she says.

A change in the law would allow police officers to concentrate their time and resources on tracking truly dangerous predators, some of whom have gone underground rather than comply with onerous registration rules. Instead, police find themselves hounding people such as Andrew Norton, who is trying to overcome his own heinous childhood and provide his children a better one.

Children's rape case puzzling

'A problem most don't know about'

CHRISTIAN BOONE, Atlanta Journal Constitution

After announcing the rape charges leveled against three boys, ages 8 and 9, Acworth Police Capt. Wayne Dennard said he had "never seen anything like this."

And he's a seasoned cop.

The details are shocking enough. So are the potential repercussions, for the alleged victim — an 11-year-old playmate of the boys — and the accused.

Most startling of all: Sexual assaults committed by children, against children, are not as uncommon as parents want to believe, though some experts question whether boys as young as 8 are capable of rape.

"In my counseling center, we see lots of sexually aggressive children" said Dr. Julie Medlin, director of the Medlin Treatment Center, which treats both the victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse of all ages. "I can't tell you how common it is."

"This is a problem most people don't know about."

Sally Thigpen, statewide coordinator for Stop It Now! Georgia, a public health campaign targeting child sexual abuse, agrees the problem is a growing one. There's no single cause, she said. Some children may be repeating behavior they've experienced. Others may be influenced by repeated exposure to pornography. [Ed: This is a "boiler plate" explanation from abuse industry experts who've invested so much into the idea that children are asexual unless they have been "sexualized" by abuse or pornography, in defiance of both scientific evidence and common sense. They prefer to redefine childhood by enforcing their bizarre mass-amnesia on anyone who was once a normal child]. ...

A 1989 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found rates of false allegations made by children range between 2 percent and 8 percent. ...

Regardless of whether the accusations in the Acworth case are valid, Medlin said the problem of child-on-child sexual abuse is only getting worse.

"Porn is becoming more and more accessible, and children are like clay," she said. "At that young age, if they hadn't seen it, they may have never thought about it." [Ed: Of course! Being asexual and all...]

Intervention is key
[Ed: I would argue that intervention is, more often than not, DISASTER!]


"When you see this happening, you need to do something," Medlin said. "It's much, much easier to treat a younger child than a teenager or adult." [Ed: It's also much easier to screw them up permanently, a talent for which you therapists are most accomplished]. Full Story

Sex offenders getting younger, more violent

Kim Curtis, Associated Press

STOCKTON -- Courts have seen the number of sex offense cases involving juvenile offenders rise dramatically in recent years, an Associated Press review of national statistics found, and treatment professionals say the offenders are getting younger and the crimes more violent. ...

Robert Prentky, a psychologist and nationally renowned expert on sex offenders in Bridgewater, Mass., thinks the statistics are misleading.

"There aren't more kids, there are more laws," he said. "We now have fairly draconian laws with very harsh sanctions that apply to juveniles." ... Full Article

Do tough sex laws help or hurt?

State's crackdown easier to apply to strangers; 93 percent of offenders know victims
October 20, 2007, DIANE JENNINGS and DARLEAN SPANGENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News

"...As a sexual abuse survivor, the Dallas woman understands the emotional appeal of harsher sentences for child abusers. But she says the new get-tough Texas laws promise more than they can deliver because they won't affect the vast majority of sex offenders. "We're focusing on stranger danger," she said of the crackdown, which includes 25-year minimum sentences and the death penalty for some child rapists. "That's not who's molesting the vast majority of our children."" ...


"According to federal statistics, juvenile sexual assault victims know their perpetrator a staggering 93 percent of the time. Often, it's a family member. Frequently, it's another child. Rarely is it a stranger. " ...

"...it's actually very rare that that kind of political reaction [harsher penalties] makes for good public policy." ...

"Crimes in which a child is snatched by a stranger are extremely unusual, despite public paranoia. Of almost 800,000 missing children in a one-year period, just 115 were victims of a stereotypical kidnapping, and half of those involved sexual assault, according to the Department of Justice."...

""The new laws are "sheer demagoguery," said veteran Dallas defense lawyer Vincent Perini, noting that long sentences were already available."...

"...A third of all sexual offenses are committed by juveniles, according to the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment." ... "Legal challenges: Child-on-child sex crimes are incredibly difficult to deal with, said Shannon Edmonds, director of governmental relations for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. "Oftentimes, they occur within families. And the problem is trying to weed out the ones who are a danger vs. the ones who are just playing doctor." full story

Boys, 9 and 11, Charged in Sex Assault

Howell, Michigan
Two boys, ages 9 and 11, have been charged with forcing a 7-year-old boy to perform oral sex on them on a school bus.

The boys, charged in juvenile court, could be placed on Michigan's sex offender registry for life if they are convicted, The Ann Arbor News reported Tuesday.

The incident reportedly took place in May. The boys- accused of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct and gross indecency between males-are students at Howell Elementary School, about 45 miles northwest of Detroit.

Authorities will request an evaluation to determine whether the sexual contact was predatory or experimentation, Livingston County Prosecutor David L. Morse said.

The 11-year-old was released Friday on a $25,000 personal bond. He is required to be monitored by an adult at all times and is not allowed to spend the night at his mother's house if his two younger siblings are present.

The 9-year-old was charged in August, but the status of his case wasn't available Tuesday.

The 11-year-old's court-appointed lawyer said his client pleaded not guilty, and he called the court conditions excessive.

"In the blink of an eye, he went from being a boy to being a man before the court," attorney Carolyn Henry said.

The father of the 7-year-old reported the incident to police after catching his son performing oral sex on his younger brother at home, WHMI-FM reported. The 7-year-old later told police that the 9-year-old boy forced him to perform sex acts on him several times on the bus, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus reported.