By Wendy McElroy
On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."
In the article "Day of the dad: paedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?
Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."
Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.
A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.
She stated, "As I grabbed for the shoe, I missed and was shocked to touch what felt like a leg. I pulled the leg upwards." The dead child emerged.
Abby's case may be extreme but it hinges on a question that commonly confronts everyone who interacts with other people's children. Is it possible to touch a child in a non-abusive manner without risking terrible repercussions?
Before moving to this question, however, it is necessary to consider a related issue that arises in almost every discussions of Abby. Is Clive Peachey legally or morally responsible for her death?
For several reasons, I argue that he is not. First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the nursery staff who became her guardians. Abby was in no immediate danger when Peachey saw her and he contacted the police upon later hearing a 'missing child' report.
Arguably, if he had phoned the police immediately, Abby would have been dead long before they arrived. Moreover, by coming forth, Peachey has accepted the damage to his life that comes with the public disgrace of saying "I drove past her."
Important information in judging Peachey is missing. For example, if Peachey has a family, he may have been reluctant to place his reputation or livelihood at risk. He may have balanced possible harm to his own children against helping a stranger's child.
Peachey's fears have precedence on this side of the Atlantic.
Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.
The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.
Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.
Again, Barnaby is an extreme case. But ordinary people make decisions on how to interact with children based on such high profile stories.
The effect on average people in non-extreme situations can be partially gauged through a study conducted by Dr. Heather Piper at Manchester Metropolitan University: "The Problematics of 'Touching' Between Children and Professionals." Piper examined six case-study schools through interviews with teachers, parents and children regarding the propriety of touch.
Commentator Josie Appleton reviewed the study, "Reported cases include the teacher who avoided putting a plaster [bandaid] on a child's scraped leg; nursery staff calling a child's mother every time he needed to go to the toilet; a male gym teacher leaving a girl injured in the hall while he waited for a female colleague."
One school reportedly kept an account of every 'touching incident.' They stated, "We write down a short account and date it and put which staff were present and at what time, we then explain it to the parent and ask them to read and sign it."
Appleton observed that this is more in keeping with "police logs than teaching children."
The last words encapsulate the problem.
Touching a child, even to render medical assistance, has become a potential police matter.
Child abuse must be addressed but it is worse than folly to punish those who help children. Our society is creating Clive Peachey -- decent men who will walk away from a child in need.
Abby Rae died not only from drowning but also from bad politics.
Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child's Death?
Ailing sex offender chokes to death at clinic
DOVER, DELAWARE — A 22-year-old Huntington's disease victim who was denied a bed in a state health care facility because he was a registered sex offender choked to death Monday at a Dover mental health clinic.
Family members said they were told that Joseph Heverin, 22, whose muscle control had deteriorated to the point where he often fell and had to be put in a wheelchair, choked to death on a sandwich at Dover Behavioral Health Systems.
"He was dead when he got to the hospital," said Heverin's brother, Paul Vrem.
Vrem said he learned of his brother's death after driving to Dover Behavioral to pick him up for a dental appointment.
"They told me that he had choked on a grilled cheese sandwich and that they were administering CPR," Vrem said.
DBHS chief operating officer William Weaver and other clinic officials did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment.
Colin Faulkner, director of public safety for Kent County, said paramedics were dispatched to Dover Behavioral Health shortly before 12:30 p.m. in response to a report of a person choking.
"It would appear that he went into cardiac arrest, full arrest, as the result of an unresolved choking incident," Faulkner said.
Jay Lynch, a spokesman for the state Department of Health and Social Services, confirmed Heverin's death.
Heverin's mother, Dianne Vrem, said Dover Behavioral officials kept family members in a waiting room until Heverin had been taken away by ambulance, and that Kent General officials also refused her request to be with her son.
"I just wanted to hold him and let him know that his mom was there," she said.
A spokeswoman for Kent General did not immediately return a telephone message Monday afternoon.
Last week, Heverin was the subject of an Associated Press article describing the bureaucratic limbo in which his criminal past and his disease — an incurable, degenerative neurological disorder that also killed his father and other family members — had left him.
Officials at Dover Behavioral, a short-stay psychiatric facility where Heverin had been admitted last summer for treatment of depression, had sought and received court permission to discharge him, arguing that he is not mentally ill. He remained at the facility as his guardianship case worked its way through the court system.
Even though a court declared Heverin "a disabled person" who was "unable to act in his own best interest," health and social service officials refused to place him in state-run long-term care facility. They argued that he was neither developmentally disabled nor mentally ill.
The primary reason for their opposition, however, was that Heverin was a registered sex offender. He had twice been convicted of unlawful sexual contact, incidents that his supporters believe stemmed from the effects of Huntington's disease, a hereditary disorder that has been linked with inappropriate sexual behavior.
Dover Behavioral officials said they had tried repeatedly for more than a year to find placement options for Heverin, but no facility was willing to take him.
Kristopher Starr, an attorney appointed as a fact-finder in Heverin's guardianship case, submitted a report earlier this month excoriating state officials for refusing to place Heverin in a skilled nursing facility, at least not until he is "bedridden."
"They finally got what they wanted; they won't have to deal with the problem anymore," Paul Vrem said Monday.
Sex-offender law ignores real harm, Human Rights Watch
Sarah Tofte is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch
State lawmakers will need to decide whether to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act on sex offenders or lose federal money for law enforcement. The choice for states is to dramatically increase their registration and community-notification requirements for convicted sex offenders by 2009 or lose significant federal law enforcement grant money.
It doesn't seem like a difficult choice. Who wouldn't want to support laws targeting convicted sex offenders and be paid for it? Yet legislatures from Arizona to Illinois to Rhode Island are leaning against implementing the law. Because once you get past the painful emotions and look hard at the problem of child sexual abuse, it turns out that sex-offender registration and community-notification laws might not actually prevent sexual violence.
Sex-offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex-offense convictions.
The Adam Walsh Act doesn't tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat juvenile sex offenders differently from adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that young sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation - and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor's veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.
In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child-safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.
The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.
Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law - but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex-offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
Unnecessarily expansive community-notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, "No one believes I can change, so why even try?"
Sarah Tofte is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch and the author of "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." E-mail her through HRW at hrwnyc@hrw.org.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080225_Sex-offender_law_ignores_real_harm.html
Neighbors Seek Tax Break for Living Near Sex Offender
FOXNews.com
SOUTHBURY, Conn.
Neighbors of a convicted sex offender are seeking tax breaks on their homes. Some two dozen homeowners in the Fox Run Drive area believe their property values dropped last fall when David Pollitt moved to his sister's home in their neighborhood. They tried but can't force Pollitt to move out, so they have asked the town to reduce their property tax assessments by as much as 17 percent. They argue the presence of a registered sex offender has lowered the sale price of their homes.
Pollitt, 54, was released in October after more than 24 years in prison for a series of rapes. Carolyn Nadeau, president of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, said the request may be the first of its kind in the state. "I've never had an instance like this," she said. "Any number of times there are distractions that people feel negatively impact their property values, such as unsightly blight, but we haven't seen this."
The company that revalued all properties in Southbury last fall rejected the residents' plea for help. The new values took effect Oct. 1 and Pollitt didn't move to the neighborhood until Oct. 12. Residents plan to take their case to the Board of Assessment Appeals in March. Mark Lynch, who lives next door to Pollitt's sister in a house assessed at $243,080, believes residents deserve a break. "If I wanted to sell my house tomorrow morning, how many people would want to buy it?"
Lynch said. Homes are assessed at 70 percent of their fair market value for tax purposes. Woodbury real estate agency owner Joyce Drakeley said her agents would tell a client if a house was in a neighborhood with a sex offender, but the issue has not come up. Sex offenders must register with the state and the registry, including addresses, is available online. "Buyers are not coming in and saying, 'Tell us if there are sex offenders in the area,"' she said. "I think it would affect the housing price if the buyers knew who was in the area. [The seller] has fewer people to sell to."
Paedophile will pay, even in death: NSW A-G
Posted Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:00am AEDT
The New South Wales Government says it will continue to pursue convicted paedophile Robert 'Dolly' Dunn over his refusal to repay authorities the compensation that has been paid to his victims.
NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says 14 of Dunn's victims have received more than $250,000 in compensation from the Victims Compensation Tribunal.
Mr Hatzistergos says the tribunal has issued an order to recoup the money from Dunn but says that he is challenging the demand.
Prison authorities say Dunn is gravely ill in jail but Mr Hatzistergos says the case will still be pursued should Dunn die before it is resolved.
"We'll pursue the issue to the extent that we can in relation to any property that Mr Dunn has in order to be able to obtain compensation," he said.
He says Dunn continues to protest against his requirement to repay the money.
"The reality is that this man should just pay up and shut up," he said.
"His protestations of innocence have been rejected by all the courts who have previously dealt with the case and his refusal to pay insults the victims who have already suffered from his evil deeds."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168376.htm
Study finds publicity about online “predators” who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate
Online “Predators” and their Victims: Myths, Realities and Implications for Prevention and Treatment
Media stories about “online predators” using the Internet to gain access to young victims have become a staple of news reports since the late 1990s, when youth Internet use became widespread. Much of the publicity about these cases depicts online molesters who use the Internet to lure children into sexual assaults (e.g., Blustein, 2007; Boss, 2007; Crimaldi, 2007; Kelly, 2005; Lowery, 2007). In the stereotypical media portrayal, these online child molesters lurk in Internet venues popular with children and adolescents (e.g., Appuzzo, 2006; Ginz, 2007). They use information publicly divulged in online profiles and social networking sites to identify potential targets (e.g., Medina, 2007; Rawe, 2006; Schrobsdorff, 2006). They contact victims using deception to cover up their ages and sexual intentions (e.g., Crimaldi, 2007). Then they entice unknowing victims into meetings or stalk and abduct them (e.g., Filosi, 2007; Minaya, 2006; Rawe, 2006). Some news reports suggest that law enforcement is facing an epidemic of these sex crimes perpetrated through a new medium by a new type of criminal (e.g., Bahney, 2006; Filosa, 2007; Manalatos, 2007). Needless to say, these reports have raised fears about Internet use by children and adolescents and about the safety of specific online activities such as interacting online with unknown people, posting profiles containing pictures and personal information, and maintaining web pages at social networking sites.
The reality about Internet-initiated sex crimes – those in which sex offenders meet juvenile victims online – is different, more complex, and serious but less archetypically frightening than the publicity about these crimes suggests. Entire Document
Authors: Janis Wolak, Crimes against Children Research Center & Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire; David Finkelhor, Crimes against Children Research Center & Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire; Kimberly J. Mitchell, Crimes against Children Research Center & Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire; Michele L. Ybarra, Internet Solutions for Kids, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
Connecticut considers special sex offender identification
Newsday.com By SUSAN HAIGH
HARTFORD, Conn. In addition to height, weight, address and willingness to be an organ donor, more driver's licenses across the nation include another piece of information _ whether the carrier is a registered sex offender. It's part of a growing effort by state policy-makers to help police keep better tabs on pedophiles, rapists and others who must sign up with state-run, offender registries and compel them to comply with restrictions on their whereabouts. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell this month proposed a new law requiring registered sex offenders to obtain a driver's license or state identification card that includes a code identifying them as a sex offender. "It just gives the police department another tool, something else they can use," she said. A similar law took effect in Florida on Aug. 1. In that state, IDs feature the number of each state statute that the offender violated on the bottom right corner. Florida officials hope to finish updating the cards of sexual offenders and predators by this month. "If you didn't know about the statute, you wouldn't know what that is," said Ann Nucatola, a Florida Department of Highway Safety spokesman. Other states make the carriers' crimes more clear to an untrained eye. An Oklahoma law that took effect in November calls for driver's licenses and ID cards to display the words "sex offender" in three places. Offenders are required to renew the cards annually. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Delaware also have laws requiring registered sex offenders to carry identification that identifies their status, the U.S. Government and Accounting Office said. West Virginia and Kansas both require state ID cards or licenses to include the information, but don't require offenders to obtain the IDs. In Connecticut, it's uncertain if Rell, a Republican, will succeed in pushing the bill through the Democrat-controlled legislature. Some lawmakers are already suggesting the proposal goes too far and could hamper offenders' efforts to find jobs and housing after leaving prison. "It's so far-reaching," said Rep. William Dyson, D-New Haven, who has worked to pass legislation that helps ex-offenders reintegrate into society. "We don't put a brand on murderers, people who've killed someone." Rell said the designation would be as innocuous as the code that identifies if a driver should wear corrective lenses. "It's not like, you know, the scarlet letter or anything like that," she said. "If you have some identifying tool on that driver's license, how different is that than anything else that's already on there now?" Dyson said it won't take long for the public to know what the designation means. "I'm not about the business of defending sex offenders. But what does that do to all us eventually?" he asked. "We're going to create this colony of people that are going to be so far outside the mainstream." ___ AP Political Writer Susan Haigh has been covering the Connecticut statehouse and political scene since 1994. Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Treatment of sexual offenders debated
By Morning Sentinel staff, Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel, Augusta, Maine
WATERVILLE -- It didn't take long for residents of a South End neighborhood to learn they had a sex offender living among them.
Within days of being notified that a 37-year-old offender had moved to Waterville, police officers last month went door to door, armed with colorful leaflets describing crimes against the victim, a child under the age of 8.
Under Maine law, most sex offenders must tell police where they are living and when and where they move -- for the rest of their lives. They also are listed on the Maine Sex Offender Registry.
And police, in turn, must notify the community of the offender's presence.
But the law does not dictate how law enforcement gives that notice. They can post a flyer in the town office or at the general store or do as Waterville police did and pass out leaflets.
So, is it ethical to make a public display of a community's sex offenders?
Is doing so punishing someone twice?
Is it even a good idea?
GOOD INTENTIONS?
Some professionals say the practice of publicly posting the names and pictures of sex offenders amounts to double punishment and unfairly -- even dangerously -- targets an offender who has served his prison sentence.
Others, especially law enforcement officers, say the community is alerted to a potential threat and is therefore a safer place to live.
Bob McArthur, a retired professor of philosophy at Colby College, said that while intentions usually are good, there is potential harm to the person on the registry who may be refused housing, denied employment and could become a target of vigilantes.
"It's clear that there's a potential harm and the question is, can you justify this because of some potential good," McArthur said. "It's trying to figure out what the good is of these additional notifications."
He said the sex offender notification process started with Megan's Law, enacted by Congress in 1996 after 7-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey was raped and killed by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender.
McArthur said he does not believe public disclosures, including the registry, discourage repeat offenders.
"The usual claim in defense of a registry is, first of all, that the crimes are against children and we have a higher obligation to protect children than we do property or adults," he said.
"Secondly, that there is a greater likelihood of repeat offense from such individuals than other crimes -- that's the twin justification that is used in support of the sex registry idea."
At the China Village General Store, co-owner Belinda Winn said she posted a notice of a resident sex offender who had moved to town, but then took it down after people objected.
"We had it up for a couple of weeks," she said.
"Some people didn't like it. They didn't want to see their neighbor up there. We took it down after we felt all of our regular customers saw it."
Mike Spaulding, constable for the town of Benton, said he first began posting images of registered sex offenders last fall at the request of the Kennebec County Sheriff's Department.
At first, Spaulding said, it was the printed photograph and case details of just one Benton resident.
"Then, there were concerned citizens who told the selectmen that they wanted them all to be posted, regardless of the nature of the crime," Spaulding said.
He said the decision to post the names and pictures at the town office came after a selectmen's meeting in October.
There are now six posters of Benton's registered sex offenders.
"This is happening more and more," Spaulding said.
"I personally feel every case has to be taken on an individual basis."
Spaulding said the postings are not intended to be additional punishment, but the safety of the town's children has to be a top priority.
"Community protection comes first," he said.
CIVIL LIBERTIES AT STAKE?
Zachary Heiden, legal director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, disagrees.
Heiden said that if people cannot find meaningful work or a decent place to live because their picture is hanging in the local post office or general store, they are going to be forced to live outside of the community and perhaps on a path toward breaking the law.
"We all want our neighborhoods to be safe, but distributing photos of convicted individuals can actually make us less safe," Heiden said. "The goal of our criminal justice system should be to turn people who break the law into people who obey the law.
"Instead, it seems like these officers are trying to marginalize people who have been convicted and served their sentences, which would make it more likely that they will commit crimes again."
He questioned the fairness of singling out sex offenders from other criminals for greater punishment.
"We do not, for example, have a burglars' registry or a robbers' registry and those crimes are serious," he said.
Colby College philosophy professor Justin Steinberg took the idea a step further, saying that more harm than good can come from public postings of registered sex offenders.
He said privacy rights come into play early in the discussion.
"We, as a society, value autonomy and privacy and it would seem that in order to justifiably override these values, there must, minimally, be clear social benefits to doing so," Steinberg said.
"In this case, the consequences are not so clear."
Steinberg acknowledged that repeat offender rates can be high among certain kinds of sex offenders, but public postings might not do any good.
"My understanding is that there is not much evidence to suggest that these warning systems do much to protect individuals," he said. "While such efforts might encourage vigilance and safety, I suspect that they generally do little more than inspire unnecessary fear in a community and a more acute sense of ostracism on the part of the offender.
"In short, my guess is that more harm than good comes from publicizing this information."
Kennebec County Sheriff Randall Liberty said individual towns decide whether to post sex offenders' information.
"I believe that it's important to inform neighborhoods of sex offenders because the potential victims are often defenseless," Liberty said.
"The parents need to be informed of the surrounding potential threats. Although offenders have served their time, they most often struggle not to reoffend."
When a registered sex offender has been convicted and subsequently released from custody, county detectives do a background investigation.
"They make a recommendation to the sheriff as to the threat level to the community," Liberty said.
"If based upon the facts of the case, I believe that the offender is a potential threat, I direct my deputies to notify the neighbors. The postings include the town offices."
VIGILANCE IS THE KEY
Ronald Raymond, a retired chief deputy for the Kennebec County Sheriff's Department and now a volunteer sex offender resource officer for the county, said a town office, the school system or the local post office are the best places to begin with the notification process.
Again, whether to display or distribute the flyers is up to the store owner or town official and it is not required by law.
It is then up to each of those entities to determine how they want to handle that information. Some slip the paperwork into a file; others post them on the wall, he said.
In Somerset County, Sheriff Barry DeLong said his office will notify residents if the sex offender is being released from the Somerset County jail.
But generally, he said, he and his staff rely on the Maine Sex Offender Registry to spread the word in Maine's third-largest county.
The list is effective, police say, because parents, school officials and daycare providers know who is living in their town.
Raymond took over last summer and had 87 registered sex offenders in the city of Waterville alone, he said.
"When we were able to maintain and accurately keep up with the list because of the manpower, the list rapidly went down to 56 or 57 -- that's because of constant critiquing -- you're on them all the time, you go out and check on them."
Some leave town, some are arrested and the list dwindles, he said. Because they are under a microscope, there are fewer who stick around.
"The program that the sheriff and the Waterville police chief came up with proved to be very valuable in terms of maintaining the list and that's the key to the whole sex offender registry -- maintaining the list accurately," Raymond said.
"As a parent and a citizen we feel much more comfortable knowing who our neighbors are and what their background is so that allows us to participate in keeping our kids safe."
Waterville Police Chief Joseph Massey, who is a selectman in neighboring Clinton, said both communities print out flyers on registered sex offenders and distribute them in neighborhoods where a sex offender has moved.
"Whenever we get someone who is required to register or let us know of an address change, we have a detective who takes that case, researches it, researches the original offense, where it was, what the crime was, was there violence involved, how young the children were and take a look at where they are going to be living," Massey said.
He said the notification area may be expanded if the offender's crime was particularly serious or if he or she lives in a neighborhood with a heavy concentration of children.
"I think it's important that you know if there's a sex offender living beside you," Massey said.
Doug Harlow -- 861-9244
dharlow@centralmaine.com
The New American Witch Hunt
Los Angeles Times
By Richard B. Krueger
Richard B. Krueger is a psychiatrist and an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Demonizing sex offenders by passing tough, mindless laws rather than treating them makes little sense.
INCREASINGLY, legislation dealing with sex offenders is being passed that is punitive, untested, expensive and, in many cases, counterproductive — demonizing people who commit sexual offenses without offering any empirical information that the new laws will reduce sexually violent crime.
Last week, for instance, New York became the 19th state to enact so-called sexually violent predator legislation. This legislation provides for the indefinite "civil commitment" of sexual offenders who have served their time in prison and are about to be released.
The legislation was passed despite a lack of evidence that such laws actually reduce sexual violence and despite recent reports of warehousing and chaos in some programs and relentlessly rising costs in others.
It is just one example of the kind of punitive laws being passed across the country. Other measures include increasingly strict residency restrictions (such as those imposed by Proposition 83 in California, approved by the voters in November), more stringent rules for community notification regarding sexual offenders and monitoring by GPS (also mandated under Proposition 83, with cost projections of $100 million annually, according to the state's legislative analyst).
In many states, politicians are eager to pass such legislation, which is enthusiastically supported by the public. Indeed, ask citizens what they think and you're likely to hear that they support laws to "get rid of perverts" who, in the eyes of many people, "deserve what they get."
This is not new. In general, dispassionate discussion of sexuality is difficult, even more so when it comes to sexual crimes. Ebbs and flows of public attention and vilification have often occurred in this country.
In the 1930s and '40s, castration was practiced in California, where sex offenders and homosexuals received this "treatment." Also, the first generation of sexual psychopath laws was passed during this time, mandating indefinite commitment for sexually violent predators. In the 1980s, society was roiled by a series of high-profile day-care-center abuse cases (such as the McMartin case and others that proved later to be unfounded). In the 1990s, there was a media uproar over supposed "ritualistic" and "satanic" sexual abuse.
These days, the pendulum continues to swing further toward the punitive end of the spectrum, with ever more draconian sentencing and post-release conditions. Under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, signed into law by President Bush in July, all sex offenders will be listed on the Internet, making information on offenders, regardless of whether they belong to a low-, medium- or high-risk category, publicly accessible; this includes people, for example, whose only crime is the possession of child pornography.
Obviously, this makes it increasingly difficult for ex-offenders to obtain residences or jobs — the mainstays of stability — and it subjects them to ongoing vigilantism and public censure. Although notification may make sense for some, it does not make sense for all.
In California, the most recent debate has been over whether Proposition 83, the law passed last year banning registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, can be retroactively applied to the 90,000 offenders who have already been released from prison. (Two federal judges ruled last month that it may not.)
What is being created is a class of individuals that is progressively demonized by society and treated in such a way that a meaningful reintegration into society is impossible.
Yes, sexual abuse is a serious matter. Yes, individuals who commit sexual crimes should be punished. Unquestionably, a small percentage of sex offenders are very dangerous and must be removed from society. What's more, we know that sexual crimes are devastating to victims and their families and that we must do all we can to protect ourselves from "predators."
But demonizing people rather than treating them makes little sense, and passing laws that are tough but mindless in response to political pressure won't solve the problem either.
The reality is that, despite the popular perception to the contrary, recidivism rates for sexual offenders are among the lowest of any class of criminals. What's more, 90% of sex offenders in prison will eventually be released back into the community — and 90% of sexual offenses are committed by people known to their victim, such as family members or trusted members of the community — so rehabilitation is critical. It is not possible, affordable, constitutional or reasonable to lock up all sex offenders all of the time.
Society's efforts to segregate sex offenders are backfiring, resulting in unintended consequences. Homelessness is increasing among sex offenders, for instance, making it harder to monitor them and causing some law enforcement officials to call for a repeal of residency restrictions.
One of the greatest challenges to workable civil commitment programs is that offenders are so feared that, when they are ready to be reintroduced into society, no community will accept them — so instead they remain institutionalized indefinitely, creating ever-increasing costs without an end in sight.
Why has this demonization occurred? One reason is that offenders are hot news, and the more heinous the sexual crime, the more the media focus on it. Thus, our minds create a stereotype of egregious evil with respect to all sex offenders. We no longer distinguish between the most egregious cases and the others, despite the fact that the most terrible crimes represent only a small proportion of all sexual offenses.
But there are less serious crimes, and we should acknowledge that. Possession of child pornography is categorically different from a sexual assault. So is exhibitionism. The wife of a man who committed a hands-off crime involving possession of child pornography put it this way: "Each of these horrendous crimes drives another nail into our coffin."
Another reason for the demonization is that society has failed to fund research on the treatment and management of people convicted of sexual crimes — despite the fact that states are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unproven programs for treatment and containment.
The current public discourse on sex offenders is, therefore, without a base of empirical studies. Psychiatry, psychology and our national research institutes have eschewed involvement with such research.
No one is suggesting that sexual crimes should go unpunished or that some of the newer approaches — such as medication, intensive community supervision or even carefully considered civil commitment — are without value. What is becoming clearer, however, is that the climate in the United States makes reasonable discussion difficult.
What can be done? Some scholars, in an effort to interpose rationality between public fear and legislation, have suggested the concept of "evidence-based legislation." This is analogous to "evidence-based medicine" and would call on legislative bodies to inform their proposed laws with the best available scientific evidence — something that is rarely done now.
What is happening now with individuals who have committed sexual crimes is the modern-day equivalent of a witch hunt. Our images of the worst determine what we mete out to all sex offenders. It is time to reexamine our approaches and develop empirically based, scientifically sound measures and treatments to bring rationality back to this discussion.
Oswego schools restrict sex offenders' access to buildings
Parsons Sun, N.Y.
The safety of children in school has become a top priority for districts across the nation in recent years.
Magnetic door locks, cameras inside and out, visitor check-in and IDs, officers on campus and emergency crisis plans have been implemented.
Students in many schools are still exposed to danger, said Oswego USD 504 superintendent Terry Karlin. Only a handful of schools in the nation have adopted plans to protect children from sex offenders, he said.
While some states (Kansas excluded) have laws stating that sex offenders cannot live within 500 to 1,000 feet of a school, most states, including Kansas, have no laws keeping sex offenders from entering schools or attending school events.
Because some sex offenders are parents, creating laws that do not disenfranchise them from their rights as parents is a concern. But so is protection of other children, Karlin said.
Idaho adopted laws limiting sex offenders' access to schools, protecting both offender parents' rights and students' rights.
Labette County has 44 registered sex offenders living inside its borders, according to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and 15 of those list an Oswego address, although nine are residents of the Labette Correctional Conservation Camp. Because of this, the USD 504 board voted this week to implement a policy restricting sex offenders' access to school property.
"Obviously, we have known sex offenders that live in the district and obviously we have some that have children," Karlin said. "Coffeyville school district has a similar policy."
Although not every person required to register as a sex offender poses a threat to students, Karlin said, by law the district is not allowed to isolate or distinguish between one offender or another based on their violations, so the district had to make its policy all encompassing.
"If they are going to be on our grounds, it will be under the supervision as outlined," Karlin said.
The policy states: "The board prohibits registered sex offenders from entering any district school building, being on the grounds of any attendance center or in any district-owned vehicle used to transport students to and from school or to and from any school-related activity unless such registered sex offender is a parent or guardian of a student enrolled at a particular school and fulfilling responsibilities as follows:
"1. Attending a conference at a school with school personnel to discuss the academic or social performance and/or progress of his/her child.
"2. Participating in a student review conference wherein decisions may be made with respect to his/her child's needs regarding special education services; or
"3. Attending a conference to discuss other student issues concerning his/her child such as discipline, retention or promotion.
"When it is necessary for a registered sex offender to be involved in parent responsibilities as stated above the offender will first notify the superintendent to request permission to be on school property. If permission is granted, the superintendent will inform the building principal who will then schedule the time and place as appropriate for the conference or meeting," the policy states.
"If a sex offender desires to be on school property or enter any school building for any reason other than stated above, including attending programs, concerts or school activities, the offender must first notify the superintendent to get special permission. Each such request will be considered individually and permission granted or denied based on the nature of the offender(s) conviction(s), the age of the students involved, and the district's ability to provide adequate supervision during the time the offender will be on school property.
"Upon entering any building, the sex offender will report directly to the principal's office to sign in and be recognized as a visitor to the building.
"If such conference or meeting is during school hours, the offender must always remain under the direct supervision of a school official.
"Any sex offender that violates any terms or provisions of this policy will be immediately referred to local law enforcement for prosecution."
To ensure it knows exactly who is registered as a sex offender, the district visits the KBI Web site frequently.
"If a parent or guardian has a record, we are generally aware, and we take precautions," Karlin said.
All those listed on the site living in the district or with children attending school in the district will be sent a copy of the district's new policy, Karlin said.
"We will rigorously enforce this policy," Karlin said, "We take our responsibility for the security of our students and staff seriously."
Although the majority of sex offenders in the county have registered addresses in Parsons (25 of the 44), USD 503 superintendent Deb Perbeck said the district has no board policy in place prohibiting sex offenders from participating in their child's education.
The board also has no policy preventing any other sex offender from visiting the building or going to school events, but Perbeck said, "We have quite a bit of security at our buildings and strong adult supervision of our students at events so we know where they are and what they are doing."
[Ed: Obviously, this law is essential to prevent the thousands of children who are abducted from school buildings each year. What's that? There have been NO abductions from school by stranger pedophiles that anyone can recall? Well then, it's still essential to SEND A MESSAGE that we will be lying in wait for the first pedophile who attempts to do this! And we can never have too many laws on our books.]
Shannon Lee Graling
PAROLED SEX OFFENDER ARRESTED AT MOTEL WITH BOY.
Earn a degree in Criminal Justice online! A.A.S. and B.S. degrees.
www.kaplandegrees-online.com10 Rules Losing Belly Fat
I Found the 10 Rules to Lose Belly Fat, and I Lost 9 lbs every 11 Days
www.FatLoss4Idiots.comC2 TASERS
Guaranteed lowest prices for C2 Model TASERS and holsters!
www.WyoR.com/taser
Byline: Lee Quarnstrom Knight Ridder Tribune News Wire
Police and a parole officer in Santa Cruz, Calif., were feeling good Thursday after thwarting what they believe was an attempt by a convicted sex offender sex offender n. generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution. In mosst states convicted sex offenders are supposed to report to local police authorities, but many do not. (See: rape, molestation, sexual harassment, pornography) to molest a 10-year-old boy.
``We saved this kid. I tell you, I slept well last night,'' California Parole Agent Nick Brautovich said the day after the arrest of Shannon Lee Graling.
Using information Brautovich said he received Wednesday from a confidential source, police arrested Graling, 42, as he tried to check into a beach-area motel with the boy. Graling, also known as Edward Neal, was booked into Santa Cruz County jail on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender.
Brautovich, who had been Graling's parole agent after the Santa Cruz man had been paroled from state prison on a child-molestation molestation n. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape. (See: pedophilia, rape) conviction, said he got in touch with police after he received the tip that Graling and a boy were about to check into a motel.
Officers said Graling had befriended the boy's mother, a local resident who was unaware of his history of sex offenses.
``He had taken the boy to the boardwalk,'' Brautovich said. ``Police arrested him as he was trying to book a room'' at the Westwind Motel not far from the popular beachside amusement park.
Police Sgt. Tom Watson said Graling had failed to register as a sex offender - as required by law - after moving out of a residence where he had lived since 1994, when he had completed his parole from state prison. During the six months or so that he was not registered, said the sergeant, Graling apparently spent some time in Portland, Ore.
Watson said he is contacting Portland police to see if Graling had registered as a sex offender in the Oregon city.
Watson said the failure-to-register charge was filed because Graling had apparently not yet had the opportunity to molest the boy.
``I think we saved this child,'' Watson said. ``That is our first responsibility in a case like this. Now we hope we can convict Graling, but at least we think we averted a case of molestation.''
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Son Convicted in Mother's Murder Kills Sex Offender In Prison
A California State Prison inmate, who as a Rocklin teenager was convicted of strangling his mother and keeping her in a back room while he partied, is suspected of fatally stabbing another inmate Thursday. Steven Matthew "Matt" Schultz, now 28, is suspected of stabbing Shannon Lee Graling, 53, in the neck with a homemade weapon at the Folsom facility, according to a prison representative. Graling was transported to an area hospital where he was pronounced dead. He was serving 400 years plus 25-years-to-life for child molestation offenses. In 1999, a Placer County jury found Schultz guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his mother, 40-year-old Barbara Schultz, two years earlier. Schultz was 17 at the time. His mother’s body was found chained to a propane tank and weighted down in a rock quarry. Schultz was sentenced to 25-years-life in prison.
[Ed: One more murder of one more sex offender whose blood is on the California Department of Corrections' hands. The C.D.C. remains indifferent and unconcerned at the suffering and violence suffered by those convicted of sex crimes, particularly those involving children. In this, as well as many other respects, they closely resemble the more savage of those whom they imprison.]
N.Y. Senate passes legislation to require more information from sex offenders about how they use the Internet
Poughkeepsie Journal
The New York State Senate has passed legislation to require more information from sex offenders about how they use the Internet, said Sen. Steve Saland, R-Poughkeepsie.
The Senate passed the Electronic Security and Targeting of On-Line Predators Act that would provide a number of protections so the public, especially children, can use the Internet more safely.
“Throughout my career I have made the protection of children one of my highest priorities. I passed similar legislation in the Senate last year and I am pleased the attorney general recognized the importance of this issue by putting forward this omnibus bill to help make the Internet a safer place and give parents more peace of mind when their children are online,” said Saland.
The bill would extend current laws regarding how the State tracks sex offenders from geographically to also tracking their Internet usage. For example, the current Sex Offender Registration Act requires sex offenders to register their Internet accounts – this bill requires them to register all their Internet accounts including all their chat names and screen names, and requires them to notify the Division of Criminal Justice Services whenever they change their identifiers. The information would then be available to social networking sites, such as MySpace.com or Facebook.com so they can take steps to prevent convicted sexual predators from accessing certain online services.
Just as convicted sexual predators are restricted geographically, such as not being allowed near schools, e-Stop would restrict predators from using the Internet under many circumstances. It would also authorize courts to impose Internet restrictions on sex offenders on probation.
“It is no longer enough to keep convicted sexual predators away from schools and day care centers, and track where they live and work. We must now protect children in the virtual world too. Young people can be trusting and have no idea their Internet ‘friend’ could be a convicted sex offender trolling the Internet looking for his or her next victim. As it stands now, anyone with a computer can instantly have access to millions of trusting children and these children need the best protection we can provide. The Internet may be a virtual world but this bill puts real protections in it,” Saland said.
The bill has been sent to the Assembly for consideration.
[Ed: Just in case any of our readers hadn't been reading the tea leaves in recent months, passing laws to require sex offenders to divulge all of their email addresses, i.s.p.'s, instant messaging accounts, etc. is the new, new thing in legislative heroics. Lawmakers have adapted what has by now become a tried and true method for grabbing headlines as well as the moral high-ground: Inventing a danger (Internet predators) then inventing myriad "remedies" (more laws) to determine the most effective way to... raise their poll ratings. That it does nothing to stop any crime and does cost huge amounts of money to taxpayers, strips sex offenders of what little is left of their civil liberties and privacy and diverts law enforcement attention away from actual crimes, seems not to occur to many of their constituents. ]
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/NEWS01/80214044
Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches U.S. Agents Seize Travelers' Devices
[Ed: This story comes days after this writer, returning to the U.S. from Asia, was detained by U.S. Customs for an hour and a half while they conducted an extensive search of my laptop and its hard drive, my digital camera and all the images from ten memory cards, as well as everything else in my suitcases and on my person. Throughout this, they asked very probing and intrusive questions ("Have you always been a bachelor? How come you've never married? Who did you associate with during your trip? Do you plan on traveling again soon?"). Needless to say, they found nothing. During that time I was not allowed to use my cell phone to let friends know that I was still stuck inside (they were waiting outside the terminal, wondering if I had missed the flight). The whole time, I wondered what my rights were and if I was truly obligated to answer all their questions. For the record, I'm a U.S. citizen. So just what is the penalty for not answering their questions and since when do they have the right to forbid me from telephoning? On what authority are they authorized to read all the documents in my computer, read private correspondence and copy all contact information for friends, clients and family?
It's important to note: I learned a long time ago not to take a defensive or challenging tone with these people. I answer every question and unzip every bag with the utmost politeness. While in Customs another fellow, a Pakistani, I think, who was being searched next to me, was caught bringing in 50 cartons of cigarettes. I asked the officer conducting my search offhandedly what the penalties for him would be. His answer? "It all depends on his attitude. If we don't like his attitude, then it'll be very expensive for him". I wonder what they would have made of Thomas Jefferson's attitude?]
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 7, 2008; A01
Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased.
A few months earlier in the same airport, a tech engineer returning from a business trip to London objected when a federal agent asked him to type his password into his laptop computer. "This laptop doesn't belong to me," he remembers protesting. "It belongs to my company." Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself.
Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had "a security concern" with her. "I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight," she said.
The seizure of electronics at U.S. borders has prompted protests from travelers who say they now weigh the risk of traveling with sensitive or personal information on their laptops, cameras or cellphones. In some cases, companies have altered their policies to require employees to safeguard corporate secrets by clearing laptop hard drives before international travel.
Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Asian Law Caucus, two civil liberties groups in San Francisco, plan to file a lawsuit to force the government to disclose its policies on border searches, including which rules govern the seizing and copying of the contents of electronic devices. They also want to know the boundaries for asking travelers about their political views, religious practices and other activities potentially protected by the First Amendment. The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts.
The lawsuit was inspired by two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics. Almost all involved travelers of Muslim, Middle Eastern or South Asian background, many of whom, including Mango and the tech engineer, said they are concerned they were singled out because of racial or religious profiling.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman, Lynn Hollinger, said officers do not engage in racial profiling "in any way, shape or form." She said that "it is not CBP's intent to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny" and that a laptop may be seized if it contains information possibly tied to terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography or other criminal activity.
The reason for a search is not always made clear. The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which represents 2,500 business executives in the United States and abroad, said it has tracked complaints from several members, including Udy, whose laptops have been seized and their contents copied before usually being returned days later, said Susan Gurley, executive director of ACTE. Gurley said none of the travelers who have complained to the ACTE raised concerns about racial or ethnic profiling. Gurley said none of the travelers were charged with a crime.
"I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days," said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. With ACTE's help, she pressed for relief. More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation.
ACTE last year filed a Freedom of Information Act request to press the government for information on what happens to data seized from laptops and other electronic devices. "Is it destroyed right then and there if the person is in fact just a regular business traveler?" Gurley asked. "People are quite concerned. They don't want proprietary business information floating, not knowing where it has landed or where it is going. It increases the anxiety level."
Udy has changed all her work passwords and no longer banks online. Her company, Radius, has tightened its data policies so that traveling employees must access company information remotely via an encrypted channel, and their laptops must contain no company information.
At least two major global corporations, one American and one Dutch, have told their executives not to carry confidential business material on laptops on overseas trips, Gurley said. In Canada, one law firm has instructed its lawyers to travel to the United States with "blank laptops" whose hard drives contain no data. "We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said.
The U.S. government has argued in a pending court case that its authority to protect the country's border extends to looking at information stored in electronic devices such as laptops without any suspicion of a crime. In border searches, it regards a laptop the same as a suitcase.
"It should not matter . . . whether documents and pictures are kept in 'hard copy' form in an executive's briefcase or stored digitally in a computer. The authority of customs officials to search the former should extend equally to searches of the latter," the government argued in the child pornography case being heard by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
As more and more people travel with laptops, BlackBerrys and cellphones, the government's laptop-equals-suitcase position is raising red flags.
"It's one thing to say it's reasonable for government agents to open your luggage," said David D. Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University. "It's another thing to say it's reasonable for them to read your mind and everything you have thought over the last year. What a laptop records is as personal as a diary but much more extensive. It records every Web site you have searched. Every e-mail you have sent. It's as if you're crossing the border with your home in your suitcase."
If the government's position on searches of electronic files is upheld, new risks will confront anyone who crosses the border with a laptop or other device, said Mark Rasch, a technology security expert with FTI Consulting and a former federal prosecutor. "Your kid can be arrested because they can't prove the songs they downloaded to their iPod were legally downloaded," he said. "Lawyers run the risk of exposing sensitive information about their client. Trade secrets can be exposed to customs agents with no limit on what they can do with it. Journalists can expose sources, all because they have the audacity to cross an invisible line."
Hollinger said customs officers "are trained to protect confidential information."
Shirin Sinnar, a staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, said that by scrutinizing the Web sites people search and the phone numbers they've stored on their cellphones, "the government is going well beyond its traditional role of looking for contraband and really is looking into the content of people's thoughts and ideas and their lawful political activities."
If conducted inside the country, such searches would require a warrant and probable cause, legal experts said.
Customs sometimes singles out passengers for extensive questioning and searches based on "information from various systems and specific techniques for selecting passengers," including the Interagency Border Inspection System, according to a statement on the CBP Web site. "CBP officers may, unfortunately, inconvenience law-abiding citizens in order to detect those involved in illicit activities," the statement said. But the factors agents use to single out passengers are not transparent, and travelers generally have little access to the data to see whether there are errors.
Although Customs said it does not profile by race or ethnicity, an officers' training guide states that "it is permissible and indeed advisable to consider an individual's connections to countries that are associated with significant terrorist activity."
"What's the difference between that and targeting people because they are Arab or Muslim?" Cole said, noting that the countries the government focuses on are generally predominantly Arab or Muslim.
It is the lack of clarity about the rules that has confounded travelers and raised concerns from groups such as the Asian Law Caucus, which said that as a result, their lawyers cannot fully advise people how they may exercise their rights during a border search. The lawsuit says a Freedom of Information Act request was filed with Customs last fall but that no information has been received.
Kamran Habib, a software engineer with Cisco Systems, has had his laptop and cellphone searched three times in the past year. Once, in San Francisco, an officer "went through every number and text message on my cellphone and took out my SIM card in the back," said Habib, a permanent U.S. resident. "So now, every time I travel, I basically clean out my phone. It's better for me to keep my colleagues and friends safe than to get them on the list as well."
Udy's company, Radius, organizes business trips for 100,000 travelers a day, from companies around the world. She says her firm supports strong security measures. "Where we get angry is when we don't know what they're for."
Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.
Rule by fear or rule by law?
SF Chronicle SubmissionsLetters to the EditorOpen ForumSunday Insight
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director. Full Story
Jessica's Law hits enforcement roadblocks
Interpreting residence rules, finding financing difficult
By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY Herald Salinas
The realities of Jessica's Law have hit home for a Gonzales man convicted of sexual battery against his ex-girlfriend at Hartnell College. The case demonstrates some of the difficult issues confronting local authorities over application of the law. Passed by 70 percent of voters in November 2006, Jessica's Law requires lifetime electronic monitoring of sex offenders paroled from prison and prohibits all registered sex offenders — even those never sent to prison — from living within 2,000 feet of a "school or park where children regularly gather."
For an increasing number of sex offenders in the state, that means registering with law enforcement as a "transient" because there is no place for them to live legally, especially in urban areas.
For 22-year-old Samuel Almanzar, it means leaving the Gonzales home where he was raised and which his family has owned since 1953. His single mother, recently diagnosed with a serious heart ailment, must decide whether to sell her parents' home or send her son away.
"I would be hard pushed to think of (a location within city limits that complies) under these restrictions," said Marcia Parsons, deputy chief probation officer for Monterey County. "There are a lot of issues with Jessica's Law that really, really need to be ironed out."
Money needed for monitoring
Powers said, local law enforcement and probation departments were "extremely alarmed" that once offenders complete terms of release and are no longer supervised by state parole officers, "by default, 'We're going to have to go and supervise for life all registered sex offenders.'"
Local authorities wanted to know where the funds would come from to cover the costs of equipment and personnel.
Sen. George Runner said Almanzar's biggest problem isn't going to be finding a home. "The biggest challenge for him is people can look up his name and address on any computer and see he's a registered sex offender," the senator said.
Public notoriety is low on the list of worries for an increasing number of sex offenders who have been forced to register as transients and take to the streets when they are unable to find compliant housing.
The Oakland Tribune profiled an East Bay man with a wife and three children who lived in the family's apartment during the day but wandered the streets and slept on bus-stop benches at night to comply with residency requirements.
Defense lawyer Bengston questioned the logic of forcing sex offenders into rural areas or homelessness, where it's more difficult to watch them. And statistically, she added, "The residency requirement really doesn't seem to have anything to do with keeping children safer. There is no nexus between living near a park or school and molesting a child."
Ed Freeman, district administrator of the state parole department's Central Coast division, agreed.
"There's a perception that most of the child molesters are this individual who cruises the street and snatches a kid out of a bus stop, and that's just not the case," he said. "Most are coaches, teachers, uncles, stepfathers for sure, that know the child. The number of predatory individuals is probably less than 5 percent.
"When you pass a law like that and drum up the fear of the public, you're only getting half-truths out there," he added. "People go out to the polls and pull their ballot form and they're not well informed."
Full Story
Protect children from sexual violence: Don't adopt the Adam Walsh Act
By Sarah Tofte
As state legislatures begin their 2008 sessions, lawmakers will need to decide whether to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act on sex offenders or lose federal money for law enforcement. The choice for states is to dramatically increase their registration and community notification requirements for convicted sex offenders by 2009 or lose significant federal law enforcement grant money. It doesn't seem like a difficult choice. Who wouldn't want to support laws targeting convicted sex offenders and be paid for it? Yet legislatures from Arizona to Illinois to Rhode Island are leaning against implementing the law. Because once you get past the painful emotions and look hard at the problem of child sexual abuse, it turns out that sex offender registration and community notification laws might not actually prevent sexual violence.
Sex offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not reoffend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex offense convictions.
The Adam Walsh Act doesn't tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children age 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat child sex offenders differently than adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that child sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation - and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor's veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.
In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.
The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.
Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law - but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
And there are other costs to implementing the act. Subjecting convicted sex offenders to community notification for the rest of their lives may do great harm - both to the individuals and to community safety. Offenders included on online sex offender registries endure shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment and even vigilante violence. Their families suffer as well.
Unnecessarily expansive community notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, ''No one believes I can change, so why even try?''
Every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. Promoting public safety by holding offenders accountable and by instituting effective crime prevention measures is a core governmental obligation. But states can address the real problem of sexual violence by refusing to adopt the Adam Walsh Act - and then limiting their registration and community notification laws to individuals identified as posing a real risk to the community.
SARAH TOFTE is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch and the author of No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S. Readers may write to her at HRW, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10118-3299; Web site: www.hrw.org.
Posts
