


Bringing news from America's (or any country's) expanding sex offender gulags. Its purpose is to point out the many legal, civil rights, and economic problems with civil confinement, incarceration, banishment, and the legal justice system and to explore their alternatives. It does not condone illegal acts of any kind. We desire a society in which all of its members live safely and with their civil rights intact. If free speech offends you, please do read elsewhere.



Posted by
David
at
6/24/2011 05:02:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice
Posted by
David
at
6/21/2011 10:51:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Original Essay
School officials "demand" that all students return Yearbooks to Avoid Child Porn Charges.
Posted by
David
at
6/20/2011 03:24:00 PM
1 comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Child Porn Hysteria
Posted by
David
at
6/05/2011 01:43:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice
Posted by
David
at
6/04/2011 06:05:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice, Sex Registration
Posted by
David
at
5/19/2011 08:35:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Hysteria
Posted by
David
at
5/18/2011 09:02:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice
Posted by
Moderator
at
3/02/2010 06:57:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice
"...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".
Posted by
David
at
2/18/2010 05:40:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders"

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.
Posted by
David
at
2/10/2010 08:10:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders"
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.
Posted by
David
at
1/28/2010 09:23:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders"
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.
Posted by
David
at
2/05/2009 02:01:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Civil Commitment, Hysteria
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:
Posted by
David
at
2/03/2009 06:53:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Injustice
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.
Posted by
David
at
11/13/2008 03:10:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Mobility Restrictions, Occupational Restrictions, Residency Restrictions
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.
Posted by
David
at
11/13/2008 03:10:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Mobility Restrictions, Occupational Restrictions, Residency Restrictions
'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
Posted by
Moderator
at
12/27/2007 03:19:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Hysteria
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
Posted by
Moderator
at
12/27/2007 01:44:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Hysteria
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
Posted by
Moderator
at
10/20/2007 01:57:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Draconian Punishment, Studies/Statistics
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.
Posted by
Moderator
at
10/20/2007 02:50:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: Child "Offenders", Community Notification, Hysteria, Miscarriage of Justice