Georgia's sex offender law blocks religious redemption

PERSONA NON GRATA: Omar Howard's parole officer told him he shouldn't give testimony during church services.

Lori Collins, an ordained minister from Henry County who found religion in prison, is no longer allowed to work with church groups that perform prison outreach.
Andrew Norton of Cobb County has been told he can't sing in his church choir or help set up for church events. Steven Lee Williams of Polk County is forbidden from playing drums at services.

Churches frequently invite College Park's Omar Howard to offer testimony about how God rescued him from a life of violent crime. Eventually, he hopes to join the ministry. For the time being, however, Howard risks a mandatory 10-year term if he so much as performs a Bible reading before a congregation.
This past Thursday, lawyers with the Southern Center for Human Rights argued in federal court that a new law unconstitutionally criminalizes religious practice by making it illegal for people on Georgia's sex offender registry to volunteer at a church. A judge's ruling is expected within weeks.
It was the latest challenge to a controversial law that targets registered sex offenders with wide-ranging restrictions and stiff punishments. Initially authored by state House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, R-St. Simons, and adopted in 2006, the law was overhauled by the Legislature this year after large chunks of it had been thrown out by various courts.
Even so, the chipping away continus. Last month, the state Supreme Court struck down a provision to send homeless sex offenders to prison for being unable to register a valid address with their county sheriff's office. The plaintiff in that suit, William James Santos, had spent a year in a Hall County jail and was facing a life sentence for failing to register his address – even though he didn't have an address.

If you think aspects of the sex offender law seem to defy common sense, welcome to the club.

"My parole officer doesn't understand it," says Howard, the would-be minister. "He told me it's safer just to stay away from church."

Howard, 34, admits he used to be a rough character. He spent 14 years behind bars for voluntary manslaughter, armed robbery and false imprisonment of a minor during a 1993 home invasion. That last charge landed him on the sex offender registry despite not having been convicted of a sex crime.

During his long incarceration, Howard got religion; he led Bible study and became a chaplain's aide. "My goal is to do full-time ministry," he says. "That was the only hope I had that got me through my time."
After entering probation last year, he devoted much of his time talking at churches about his experiences in an effort to warn at-risk young men away from the thug life. He's even spoken at the invitation of the Georgia Department of Corrections and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.

But as of July 1, when the newest incarnation of the sex offender law went into effect, Howard had to give up most of his church-related activities. The law offers no guidance as to what constitutes volunteering; His parole officer has told him to no longer sing in the choir or take part in revivals, seminars or prayer vigils. Howard still accepts invitations to visit churches, but he's limited to sitting in the congregation. Offering testimony is off-limits.

In a court brief, Howard complains that the law "interferes with my religious freedom and prohibits me from expressing my strongly held religious beliefs." He adds that none of his previous church activities involved being around minors unsupervised.
Also testifying, Andrea Shelton, founder and president of Heartbound Ministries, a prison outreach program, told Judge Clarence Cooper that "religion makes recidivism less likely" for all convicts. Shelton explained that most churches routinely perform background checks on would-be volunteers before giving them positions of responsibility. The chance that a church would give a registered sex offender free access to children is fairly slim, she said.

Permitting Howard, who volunteered at Heartbound in the past, to continue work with churches will allow others to "see that redemption is possible," added Shelton, her voice choking with tears. "Rehabilitation rarely takes place without redemption."
Ironically, Rep. Keen, whose law criminalizes religious volunteerism for sex offenders, is the former head of the Georgia Christian Coalition.

Collins, the Henry County woman, also took the witness stand to explain that, although she's ordained, her parole officer told her she can't even lead an adult prayer group in her home. Said Collins, who served three years in prison for sleeping with an underage boy: "I don't know what I can and cannot do."

That's the problem with the law, argued Southern Center attorney Gerry Weber: It's too vague.
"The law prevents 'volunteering,' but doesn't define what that is," Weber told the judge. "Law enforcement is making up the rules as it goes along."

The result is that enforcement is likely to vary greatly, depending on how each county's sheriff interprets the volunteering provision. In one Georgia county, a sex offender was prosecuted for playing the piano during services, Weber said.

It's no surprise that the revamped law lacks well-articulated guidelines for determining what behavior is illegal. Keen was never much interested in clarity or even enforceability. Back in 2006, he indicated that his goal was to make life so difficult, costly and perilous for sex offenders that they'd be forced to leave Georgia. Speaking at a Senate hearing, he said, "Candidly, senators, they will in many cases have to move to another state."

Certainly, Keen's law has succeeded in harrassing Wendy Whitaker, a Columbia County woman who was the subject of a CL cover story in July 2006 when she was ordered to leave her house because it was within 1,000 feet of a church-based child-care facility. That provision eventually was struck down.

Whitaker, lead plaintiff in the Southern Center constitutional challenge, was back in court last week. trying to keep her home. She'd moved back after the state Supreme Court struck down the law late last year, ruling the restrictions made it practically impossible for sex offenders to remain in their homes.

This time, Cooper ruled her lawyers failed to establish that the restrictions barring her from occupying her home rose to the level of banishment from the county. The judge appeared to be swayed by the argument that other sex offenders had managed to find some form of housing in Columbia County.

On the witness stand, Whitaker indicated that if she and her husband are forced to rent a place to live, in addition to paying their home mortgage, they'll likely face foreclosure. "It will be bad for us," she said.

Sex offender law mindlessly harsh

One-size-fits-all laws don't fit all cases, and this is one of them

Should the law punish a motorist who is ticketed for a broken tail light as harshly as it punishes a drunken driver with multiple offenses who's found guilty of causing a fatal crash?
Of course not. Traffic law violations, like other crimes, are punished according to the seriousness of the offense. But that's not necessarily true when it comes to Georgia's sex offender law. Just ask Wendy Whitaker of Harlem.

More than 10 years ago, when she was a 17-year-old high school student, she engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate. In 1997 she pleaded guilty to sodomy and was put on five years' probation.

Since then Whitaker has gotten married and been free of any hint of misconduct. Yet she still must register each year as a sex offender. Her photo appears on the sex offender Web site and she is subject to a Georgia law that prohibits convicted sex predators from living within 1,000 feet of places where children gather, such as schools, parks and day care centers.

Her Harlem home is within 1,000 feet of a day care center, which as of now means she'll have to leave that home this week. Federal Judge Clarence Cooper denied Whitaker's motion last week to halt enforcement of that part of the state law that would force her out.

Before she and her husband moved into their Harlem home a few years ago, the couple had to move several times because of the sex offender law. It's very difficult to find a place to live that's not within 1,000 feet of where children gather, a point Whitaker's lawyer made to the federal judge, but to no avail.

The main point ought to be that the sex registry law shouldn't apply to Whitaker. She's clearly not a pedophile who preys on teenagers, and it's a travesty of justice that she's being treated like one.

Adding to Whitaker's pain is that the law she was sentenced under was repealed by the legislature shortly after her guilty plea and was replaced by a law that is much lighter on teenagers having sex. Had she been sentenced under the new law, she would not have to register as a sex offender or move out of her home.

Clearly, the toughest provisions of Georgia's sex offender law should not apply to persons like Wendy Whitaker. Distinctions must be made between nonviolent sex offenders -- particularly those with no record of repeat offenses -- and potentially dangerous predators.

One-size-fits-all justice does not work in sex predator cases any more than it would in traffic cases. We want strong laws against sex predators, but not at the exclusion of common sense. Judges must have the authority to make distinctions between the severity of sexual offenses -- and impose punishment accordingly.

Georgia's children won't be any safer because Wendy Whitaker is forced out of her home. [Ed: I would add to this that we must begin talking about SPECIFIC ACTS that were alleged to have been committed. Sorry folks, but you're going to have to get over your squeamishness in discussing specific sex acts if you're going to take it upon yourselves to judge sex offenders. You want to understand risks posed by individuals? Learn what the specifics and the circumstances are, first. This also requires viewing assertions by District Attorneys with a great deal of skepticism.]

Sex offender killed outside game arcade

A North Miami man shot and mortally wounded Sunday night outside a children's amusement center in Lake Worth was a registered sex offender, according to state records.

Edner Eustache, 27, was shot at least twice in the ''upper part of his body'' at about 8:30 p.m. after a fist fight outside Fun Depot, 2003 10th Ave. North, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office said.


Eustache was flown to Delray Medical Center, where he died, said Teri Barbera, a sheriff's office spokeswoman.

Witnesses told deputies that three men were involved in the fight in the parking lot, and that two drove away in a white van and green car.

In February 2002, Eustache registered in Broward County as a sex offender who had assaulted a minor, according to Florida Department of Law Enforcement records.

In three arrests in Miami-Dade and Broward counties since December 2007, Eustache was charged with failure to obey state registration laws for sexual offenders. In the case of a Dec. 1 arrest by Miami-Dade police, he pleaded guilty to the charge, records show.

It was not immediately clear what Eustache was doing outside Fun Depot, where young people gather to play video games and laser tag.

Fun Depot general manager Eddie Naphan said he watched security camera footage Monday morning but did not see anyone who looked like the victim enter or leave the park's arcade in the hour before the shooting.

Naphan said the security cameras showed a car sitting by a trash bin in Fun Depot's parking lot.

''You can't see anything but headlights,'' he said.

As detectives paced outside Fun Depot, patrons continued to hit baseballs in the batting cages, which overlooked the crime scene.

''I've been around here for 20 years, and I can tell you we've never had an incident like this near this place,'' said Naphan, whose father opened Fun Depot in 1988..

Man tells of 'paedophile ordeal'

A man has told a court he was accused of being a paedophile by animal rights activists because of his company's links to an animal testing laboratory.

Vincent Howard of Biocair in Cambridge also said he was sent a hoax bomb.

Five defendants, from Hampshire, London and Newcastle, allegedly blackmailed firms connected to Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in Cambridge.

The five, said to have been part of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), all deny conspiracy to blackmail.

Heather Nicholson, 41, of Eversley, Hampshire; Trevor Holmes, 51, of Newcastle; Gerrah Selby, 20, of Chiswick, London; Daniel Wadham, 21, of Bromley, south London and Gavin Medd-Hall, 45, of Croydon, south London, are accused of being closely involved in a campaign, from 2001 until 2007, which targeted companies in Britain and Europe.

Three other people, Gregg Avery and Natasha Avery, both of Hampshire, and Daniel Amos, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail, Winchester Crown Court court was told.

Paint stripper

Biocair and its employees were targeted in 2004, jurors were told on Wednesday.

SHAC, which was based at near Hook, Hampshire, demonstrated outside the company's offices as part of a worldwide campaign to target suppliers or any company with a secondary link with HLS, jurors heard.

Biocair, a distribution company, did not deal directly with HLS but it did work for firms that had links with it.

Giving evidence, operations director Mr Howard said in September 2004 his and his partner's cars had paint stripper poured over them and tyres punctured.

He said letters were later circulated in the village where he lived in Cambridgeshire falsely accusing him of being a convicted paedophile.

'Completely bogus'

"There were 25 to 30 sent around the village, if not more, and it became fairly well known in the village and people offered to pass them on (to the police) without opening them up for forensics," he explained.

When asked how it had affected him, Mr Howard replied: "I was very lucky. I work long hours and I didn't have that many connections with the village.

"Whereas my partner was well connected with the schools and well known in the village, which helped a lot because she was able to contact the schools and say these letters were completely bogus."

The couple also received a hoax bomb through the post in April 2006, the jury heard.

"My partner was suspicious because there were inaccuracies on the address label," he explained.

"I probably unwisely asked her to lift up a bit and look inside. She saw a DVD case with wires inside and I started to come home straight away."

The trial continues.

JOHNSON: We need a change in approach to sex offenders

By RICHARD JOHNSON
News And Tribune – Indiana

— Most people seem to believe that sex offenders have a higher re-offending rate than any other category of criminal. A figure I hear tossed around a lot says that 95 percent of sex offenders will commit another sex crime if they get the chance.

If this is true, then it is evidence that most sex offenders - almost all of them - will continue to commit sex crimes. If this is true, then it means that most sex offenders can?t help their behavior. They will never change. They are beyond help.

If sex offenders really cannot and will not change, then society is justified in wanting to lock them up and throw away the keys. After sex offenders serve their time and get out of prison, it is right that they should be required to register on a database for the rest of their lives. Again, this sounds fine to me; at least, it would if that 95 percent re-offending rate was true.

It is not true. A study done by the U.S. Bureau of Justice in 1994 says so.
There were 9,691 male sex offenders released from prison in 1994, representing two-thirds of all sex offenders released from custody that year. This was not one of those studies where they interview 100 people and then stretch their conclusions to cover 100,000 people. This was an excellent study with a huge sample, whose conclusions can be trusted.

For those of you who might be interested and can read PDF files, I can e-mail you the entire 49-page study. Just e-mail me and ask for it. For those who may not have the time or inclination to wade through the whole thing, let me highlight a few of its conclusions.

First, only 5.3 percent, or 517 men, of released sex offenders tracked in the study were arrested again for another sex crime. Only 3.5 percent, representing two-thirds of those arrested, were convicted. While I absolutely agree that 3.5 percent is still 100 percent too many, it?s a whole lot smaller than that 95 percent figure so many of us throw around.

The 9,691 men in the study included 4,295 child molesters. Of these, 3.3 percent, or 141 men, were arrested again for another sex crime involving a child; again, hardly 95 percent. Half of the child molesters were 19 years of age or younger when they committed their crime. And 60 percent of their victims were children 13 years of age or younger.

The study goes on to show that released pedophiles with more than one arrest for molesting a child were three times as likely - 7.3 percent to 2.4 percent - to be arrested again for child molesting than those with only one prior arrest. This seems to indicate that the sooner pedophiles are caught, the less likely they are to re-offend.

Finally, sex offenders (including child molesters) were less likely to be re-arrested for any kind of crime after their release than non-sex offenders ? 43 percent for sex offenders versus 68 percent for non-sex offenders.

OK, we've got some figures and statistics to look at here, but so what? How does this help us prevent sex crimes? How does this help us stop sex offenders from re-offending? How can we find a way to reduce the number of victims, especially children, who are being abused by some very sick people?

For starters, if we're going to reduce sex crimes, then we ought to have good intelligence and gather the best information possible. We need to understand the true nature and actual scope of the problem. We need to deal with facts, so we can develop a plan of action based on those facts. The figures given in this study help us get there.

As long as most people believe that 95 percent of sex offenders will re-offend; as long as too many of us think that sex offenders cannot and will not change; as long as we lump all sex offenders into one category and fail to take the exact nature of each offense into consideration; as long as we let our emotional responses to a truly heinous crime drive our public policy (especially our anger and outrage); and as long as we think that putting every sex offender into a public database will solve our problem: We will not be ready to craft an effective response to this tough and emotional issue.

Almost every day, someone asks me, "What can we do about sex offenders"? That's too short a question, and the answer is quite long- too long for one column.
For the moment, let me just say that something can be done. Change is in the air, and a change in our overall approach is needed. But before we can start discussing solutions, we've got to get the rest of the facts out on the table.
In the weeks ahead, I will do my best to bring facts to this public forum in the hope that our community can find a reasonable and effective way to deal with sex offenses, and the people who commit them.

In the meantime, please don't shoot the messenger.

Opinion Mixed on Harlem Sex Offender Being Forced to Move

HARLEM, Ga.---A Harlem sex offender has to move after a daycare moves too close to her home. Wendy Whitaker took her case -- to fight the state residency restrictions on sex offenders -- all the way to the U.S. federal court. On Thursday, she lost, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Support is mixed for registered sex offender Wendy Whitaker. Some disagree with the decision and some are happy she must go. Wendy was caught having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old classmate when she was 17. Twelve years later, she's still paying for the crime.

A.L. Wells lives next to registered sex offender, Wendy Whitaker. He agrees with the federal court decision that she must move from her Harlem home. "Whether it happened six months ago, or six years ago or sixty years ago, it's immaterial. It is not something that should have ever happened to start with," says neighbor A.L. Wells.

"People don't understand, you know. They say, well you're a sex offender, you need to be kept track of. You know, look at what I did as compared to what I'm having to go through," Wendy told News 12 in an August interview.

Wendy pleaded guilty to sodomy in 1997 and served five years probation after having consensual oral sex with a classmate. The problem, Wendy was 17 -- the boy only 15.

It's a crime she's still forced to pay for, as a federal court recently upheld a decision to make her move. The AJC reporting that decision came because the judge says there are plenty of legal places Wendy can live. "It's embarrassing. I mean, I know what I did was wrong, I made a mistake but I was seventeen," says Wendy.

Georgia law restricts registered sex offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of where children gather -- like the day care center a few blocks from Wendy's home.

"You almost can't find anywhere to live, here in Georgia. The only reason I'm in Georgia is because I have this house that I own," says Wendy.

Wendy does have plenty of local support. Several of you have posted here on our website. Here's one of them:

"There needs to be a distinction between those who committed sexual assaults that were consensual and the violent non-consensual acts. This women and the boy were both teenagers. The laws should be designed to prosecute predators and pedophiles and not consenting adolescences." - Anonymous.

But Wendy's neighbor disagrees. "You can not condone it because if you do, it send the wrong message, it's okay. It's not okay," says Wells.

News 12 did try to speak with Wendy Whitaker to get her reaction to the recent decision. But she declined. On Monday, November 17th, the countdown to moving day begins. She'll have just 72 hours until she must be out.


Sex Offender -Had Sex With 15 Y.O. When 17-Forced to Move

HARLEM, Ga.---A Harlem sex offender has to move after a daycare moves too close to her home. Wendy Whitaker took her case -- to fight the state residency restrictions on sex offenders -- all the way to the U.S. federal court. On Thursday, she lost, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Support is mixed for registered sex offender Wendy Whitaker. Some disagree with the decision and some are happy she must go. Wendy was caught having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old classmate when she was 17. Twelve years later, she's still paying for the crime.

A.L. Wells lives next to registered sex offender, Wendy Whitaker. He agrees with the federal court decision that she must move from her Harlem home. "Whether it happened six months ago, or six years ago or sixty years ago, it's immaterial. It is not something that should have ever happened to start with," says neighbor A.L. Wells.

"People don't understand, you know. They say, well you're a sex offender, you need to be kept track of. You know, look at what I did as compared to what I'm having to go through," Wendy told News 12 in an August interview.

Wendy pleaded guilty to sodomy in 1997 and served five years probation after having consensual oral sex with a classmate. The problem, Wendy was 17 -- the boy only 15.

It's a crime she's still forced to pay for, as a federal court recently upheld a decision to make her move. The AJC reporting that decision came because the judge says there are plenty of legal places Wendy can live. "It's embarrassing. I mean, I know what I did was wrong, I made a mistake but I was seventeen," says Wendy.

Georgia law restricts registered sex offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of where children gather -- like the day care center a few blocks from Wendy's home.

"You almost can't find anywhere to live, here in Georgia. The only reason I'm in Georgia is because I have this house that I own," says Wendy.

Wendy does have plenty of local support. Several of you have posted here on our website. Here's one of them:

"There needs to be a distinction between those who committed sexual assaults that were consensual and the violent non-consensual acts. This women and the boy were both teenagers. The laws should be designed to prosecute predators and pedophiles and not consenting adolescences." - Anonymous.

But Wendy's neighbor disagrees. "You can not condone it because if you do, it send the wrong message, it's okay. It's not okay," says Wells.

News 12 did try to speak with Wendy Whitaker to get her reaction to the recent decision. But she declined. On Monday, November 17th, the countdown to moving day begins. She'll have just 72 hours until she must be out.

Everything You Know About Child Sex Offenders Is Wrong

In order for the public to begin to understand


1. Need to discuss specific sex acts.

Court upholds law barring single parents living with sex offenders

The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a law that bars single parents from living with sex offenders.


The case involves a Coralville woman who was found guilty of child
endangerment and sentenced to one year probation. The woman, Holly
Mitchell, lived with a convicted sex offender and let her children stay with the
man while she was at work.

Mitchell appealed her conviction, claiming the state's law is
unconstitutional because it treats people who are not married and living
with a sex offender differently than people who are married and living
with a sex offender.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected that argument, saying it's
reasonable to believe that an unmarried parent living with a sex offender poses a
greater risk to a child than a parent who is married to a sex offender. [Ed: Huh?]

Sex offenders sue for right to volunteer at churches

ATLANTA — Georgia’s registered sex offenders should not be prevented from volunteering in church, a legal advocacy group argued in federal court Thursday, saying a state law that went into effect in July is overbroad and violates their rights of freedom of association.

Lawyers for the Georgia Attorney General’s office, meanwhile, countered that the law preventing registered sex offenders from volunteering in church did not keep them from attending services or practicing their religion of choice.

And an attorney for the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association said the state’s 159 sheriffs just want some direction.

U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper heard arguments in a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights, which represents several plaintiffs who say their lives are suffering "irreparable harm" from Georgia’s sex offender restrictions, considered the toughest in the nation. 

Among the plaintiffs in the class action suit filed against Gov. Sonny Perdue is Janet Jenkins Allison, a former Huddle House manager from Dahlonega who was convicted of statutory rape when her 15-year-old daughter became pregnant. Allison was accused of not doing enough to stop her daughter from becoming sexually active and is now one of more than 16,000 people on Georgia’s sex offender registry, including 224 in Hall County.

Thursday’s court hearing was the first in more than a year for federal litigation that was first filed in 2006, when the Southern Center challenged a residency provision that prevented sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.

The bus stop provision is on hold under a consent order reached by the parties until a final determination can be made by the court.

This year the state legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which, among its provisions, prevents sex offenders from volunteering in church. 

Registered sex offenders already were prevented from working in churches because they are places where children congregate.

Joe Drolet, an assistant attorney general representing the state, told Cooper in Thursday’s hearing that sex offenders who have the appearance of working for a church, even if only volunteering, could use that perception of authority to take advantage of children.
Churches, Drolet said, "are places where that advantage for a sex offender is extremely great."

Lawyers for the Southern Center called several sex offenders to testify that they had been prevented from participating in church activities for fear of facing a prison sentence of 10 to 30 years.

"I have had to turn down requests to speak to church audiences," said Lori Sue Collins, a Henry County woman who was convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 15-year-old when she was 39. Collins said she was involved in prison ministries and felt "compelled" to tell her story of redemption to church groups, but now was prevented from doing so under the new law.

"It’s very depressing," Collins said through tears.

Omar Howard, a College Park sex offender who served 14 years in prison for false imprisonment and manslaughter, testified that he, too, was no longer able to tell church gatherings about being saved.

Howard acknowledged under cross-examination that the new law did not prevent him from worshipping in church.

Southern Center legal counsel Gerry Weber claimed that probation officers, sheriffs deputies and other authorities have been confused by what the new law means because the law provides no definition of "volunteer."

"Law enforcement is making up the rules as it goes," Weber said.

David Hudson, an attorney representing the Georgia Sheriffs Association, was present for Thursday’s arguments as an observer.

"The position of the sheriffs is this: They want to know what the law is, what they can enforce and what they cannot enforce," Hudson told the judge.

Among the arguments presented by the Southern Center in the past is that by having so many restrictions on sex offenders on where they can live, offenders may fail to register altogether and "go underground," or abscond, preventing sheriffs from knowing their whereabouts.

But Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland told the court that the rate of sex offenders who have absconded in Georgia has remained steady over the last few years, "which certainly seems to indicate that it’s not that difficult for these people to find a place to live."

Cooper took the matter of church volunteering under advisement and will rule at a later date. The judge also must decide whether the litigation can go forward as a class-action suit or whether the complaints from the plaintiffs are too varied and individualized to be brought as a group.

A Child's Word



Sex offender statute becomes tormentor

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

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, October 31, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex offender statute becomes tormentor

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

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, October 31, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex offender Darwin Brown charged with loitering near school

by Lisa Medendorp | The Muskegon Chronicle
Thursday November 13, 2008, 4:53 AM
Darwin M. Brown

A Norton Shores man who spent 13 years in prison for sexually assaulting an emotionally impaired boy has been arrested for "hanging out" near an elementary school.

Darwin Michael Brown, 44, of 5982 Lake Harbor, a registered sex offender, was arraigned Friday before 60th District Judge Maria Ladas Hoopes.

He is charged with being a sex offender loitering near a school, in this case Churchill Elementary, a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of up to a year in jail for the first offense. Bail was set at $5,000 and a pretrial hearing for 9:30 a.m. Dec. 12. Due to jail overcrowding, his bail was reduced Monday to personal recognizance, and he was released.

Norton Shores Detective Tony Nanna said police also executed a search warrant at Brown's home Nov. 6 as part of an ongoing investigation.

The arrest was the second in less than a month in Norton Shores of a registered sex offender for violating the student safety zone by coming within 1,000 feet of a school.

Jeffrey Thomas Partlow, 38, of Muskegon Heights was arrested Oct. 22 at his parents' home, 1637 Lawnel, which is near Mona Shores Middle School, 1700 Woodside.

Partlow, who allegedly resisted police at the time of his arrest, has been bound over for trial in 14th Circuit Court.

"The safety of our kids in the community is of the utmost importance to this department and this detective and will not be tolerated," Nanna said. "Anytime we get a complaint of a possible violation, we'll investigate fully."

The complaint about Brown came late last month from neighbors and school personnel at Churchill Elementary, 961 Porter, according to police.

Nanna said Brown was cutting trees in a wooded lot 328 feet from school property for about a week. He was helping a friend and was not there due to employment. "He admitted he was hanging out," Nanna said.

At the time, Brown was out on bond after being arrested for refusing to pay a one-time $35 fee for registering his address as a sex offender, police said.

Brown was released from prison last December after serving time for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was a part-time firefighter with Norton Shores when the incident with the 14-year-old boy occurred in 1994. Authorities said Brown used his position to lure the boy into several sex acts.

Boxer aide accused of distributing child porn


Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, November 13, 2008

(11-13) 10:26 PST WASHINGTON --

An aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has been charged in federal court in Virginia with receiving and distributing child pornography.

Jeff Rosato, 32, of Arlington, Va. was arrested Friday on a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Virginia. Boxer's office fired him the same day.

Rosato was released from custody pending a future court appearance and was told not to leave the Washington, D.C., area without permission. A judge ordered him not to contact any children or have access to computers and told him to undergo medical or psychiatric treatment.

Rosato's attorney, Patrick Anderson, was not immediately available for comment today.

In a statement, Boxer's communications director, Natalie Ravitz, said, "Sen. Boxer has zero tolerance for crimes against children, and the employee was immediately terminated. Our office is cooperating fully with the Department of Justice in this matter."

Rosato started as a legislative assistant in Boxer's personal office in 2005. Last year he became a senior policy adviser and counsel to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is chaired by Boxer.

He focused on issues including endangered species, water policy and oceans. His congressional salary was $101,020 last year.

He previously worked for Sen. Bob Torricelli, D-N.J., starting as a staff assistant in 2001.

On Friday, FBI agents searched his home and confiscated four laptop computers, a desktop computer and two external hard drives. One of the laptops contained 200 images of child pornography, FBI Special Agent Chad Gallagher wrote in an affidavit.

"Many of the images and videos depict prepubescent boys engaged in sexual acts," the affidavit said.

The computer also contained numerous Google Hello folders that Rosato had used to share child-porn images with an undercover detective who Rosato believed was a 13-year-old boy, the affidavit said.

From Jan. 2 to Jan. 23, Rosato sent the detective more than 600 files of graphic images during 15 online chats, Gallagher wrote. Evidence showed that Rosato had also been trading child porn with other Google Hello users, investigators said.

Authorities subpoenaed Google Inc. and Comcast to identify Rosato, the affidavit said.

Chronicle staff writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/13/BA5J143VAU.DTL

Sex offender calls her match with teen boy 'perfect'

Indianola Record-Herald

Indianola, Ia. - Shannon Michelle Rew faces up to 10 years behind bars and a lifetime as a registered sex offender, but the 37-year-old Indianola mother of three is unapologetic about her sexual relationship with a teenage boy.

"We both cared about each other. That's what the basis of our relationship was," she said. "Our sense of humor and our personalities were a perfect match."

Rew, who pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of third-degree sex abuse, said she and the boy "cared a lot about each other" and "kind of let emotions just take over," which prosecutors say led to an ongoing relationship that included pornography, explicit text messages and a sexual encounter in her van while she was free on bond.

"The fact that you went ahead and committed a subsequent offense of the same nature does not give the court a lot of confidence that you've learned anything in this matter," said Warren County District Judge Darrell Goodhue, who recommended that Rew be put on probation for life as part of her sentence.

Her name will be added to the Iowa Sex Offender Registry, and she will have to pay an as-yet-undetermined amount of money to the boy and his family.

"Everyone's making it out to be some big sexual relationship that we had," the self-described "soccer mom" said. "And that's not how it was at all."

Rew's story is similar to a number of high-profile U.S. criminal cases in recent years that have involved adult women and young boys. The most sensational centered on teachers and their male students, but a majority dealt with women who abused the children of friends or acquaintances. Last month, a 26-year-old New Oxford, Pa., woman who had sex with a 15-year-old boy she met at a fair was sentenced to six months of house arrest and four years of probation.

Experts say prosecutions of women in sex abuse cases have risen slightly in the past decade. Many believe sex scandals that involved Catholic priests put more focus on authority figures. Others say the trend reflects the erosion of a double standard applied to men and women, brought on by the growth of female prosecutors and police officers.

Rew said she and the boy met after her 16-year-old daughter dated him for about six months.

"He was a really nice kid, a really nice person," Rew said. "He would do anything for you. He was having a lot of personal problems and family problems to where he came to me a lot, you know?"

Warren County Attorney Bryan Tingle said Rew's alleged concern for the boy's welfare was questionable.

People who are charged with crimes try "to make excuses to justify their crimes and take the focus away from what they did wrong under our laws by focusing attention on the victims," he said. "She took advantage of an emotionally unstable individual. That's what a criminal does. He or she takes advantage of someone who is vulnerable or in a fragile state."

Rew was arrested Sept. 17 after her mother found explicit photographs of her daughter and the boy, court documents show.

The boy, who told police that he and Rew had sex "at least a dozen times," said Rew gave him a cell phone so the two could communicate. Rew said she gave him the phone after he threatened suicide.

"He was mostly upset about what happened with me. He didn't want me to think he was the one who turned me in ... so I told him that if he promised not to harm himself, I would find a way for us to talk," she said.

Rew was arrested again Oct. 16, after the boy's mother found explicit text messages that detailed sex the two had while she was free on bond.

Rew, a Des Moines native, graduated from Hoover High School in 1989. She spent nearly two years in business school and moved to Indianola in 2000 with her three children, ages 19, 16 and 9, after a divorce. Rew worked for seven years at a child care center, where co-workers described her as an upstanding employee.

"I was what you'd call a soccer mom," she said. "I pretty much worked full time and drove my kids everywhere."

Rew said she pleaded guilty to avoid a "touchy" trial and because she would rather start her prison term immediately and get back to her children as soon as possible.

"I've messed up my whole life, and I've messed up my kids' lives," Rew said. "I'm sorry for it. I just love them so much. I thought it was the best idea to go ahead and take the plea."

Tingle said that "anytime both sides can come to a resolution that seems fair, a resolution that is acceptable to the victims ... it is best in the case of a sexual assault or sexual abuse to avoid going to trial, because of the nature of allegations and the nature of testimony that would come out.

"I do know this plea agreement was all right with the mother and son," he said.

It is The Des Moines Register's policy not to identify victims of sex abuse.

Rew said she disagreed with the media's portrayal of her as a pedophile. She said she had never had a general attraction to young boys or sought out young boys for sex.

Rew said she never meant to hurt the boy or his family.

She said that if she had caused them pain, she regretted doing so, but that she wasn't sorry about the relationship.

"We had a really good time together, and I don't regret that. I just regret that because of what happened, everything that came out of it - I would never have done it if I knew that would be the case," she said.

"It's crazy. They can be 16, and you don't get charged with anything. They can be 15, and you get charged with life parole. Who's to say this 15-year-old isn't as mature as an 18-year-old?

"I don't think, when you care about somebody, that age really matters."

[Ed: It is true that women defendants in these cases receive vastly greater sympathy (see reader comments following the article) and usually far less severe sentences than when men are involved (especially when the minor is a boy). Rather than join the growing chorus of those who believe that this means that women need to be punished just as severely as men, however, I would propose that any punishment be commensurate to the degree of force or coercion employed in the offense.

Police check nude images on Tunkhannock students' phones

TUNKHANNOCK, Pa. (AP) _ Prosecutors say state police are investigating nude and seminude pictures on five cell phones seized from students in a northeastern Pennsylvania school district.

Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. says one of the phones confiscated from students in the Tunkhannock Area School District contained about 100 pictures.

Skumanick says male students were allegedly trading pictures of female classmates. He says the students with the cell phones ranged in age from 11 to 17.

Skumanick says state police are analyzing the phones to determine whether the pictures are of minors. If they are, he says the youths could face criminal charges including possession of child pornography.

[Ed:
A. Children and adolescents are sexual. Get over it!
B. Children and adolescents, being sexual, gravitate to sexually stimulating images for gratification just as adults do. And what do they find stimulating? In many cases, other children and adolescents!

So does it follow then that we reach the simultaneously absurd and logical conclusion that they should be prosecuted as "child pornographers"? If your own impulse is to charge children and adolescents as "child pornographers" then I would argue that it is YOU who are seriously deranged and possibly in need of institutionization.]

Mountain View Sex Offenders Warned After Attacks

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. -- Mountain View police Friday are investigating two separate attacks on registered sex offenders living in the city that police say may be connected.

The sex offenders attacked in each case were convicted more than 15 years ago for sex crimes against children, police spokeswoman Liz Wylie said. Both men have been problem-free and compliant since living in the city, she added.

The latest attack was carried out Thursday around 7:15 a.m. when a suspect used a wooden stick to force his way into the home of a registered sex offender living in the northern section of the city, according to police.

The suspect attacked the man, hitting him several times over the head before fleeing the area. The suspect indicated that he was attacking the victim because of the victim's sex offender status, Wylie said.

Wylie would not reveal what the suspect did to indicate his intent in attacking the victim.

"We're not sure if it will be important to the investigation," she said.

Police were unable to locate the suspect, and the victim, who suffered several lacerations to his head, was taken to the hospital for treatment.

Another attack was carried out last month, when on Oct. 19 around 9:40 a.m. a suspect armed with a bat left a Molotov cocktail device at the front door of a registered sex offender's apartment on the west side of the city, police said.

A witness approached the suspect, who indicated in some way that he was at the home because the resident is a registered sex offender, Wylie said.

The suspect, who took the Molotov cocktail device and left the scene, was not located, but police did locate two Molotov cocktails in the area.

In both cases the suspect was described as a man in his 20s standing about 6 feet tall wearing all dark clothing and a dark baseball hat.

However, in Thursday's attack the suspect was described as a white man in his 20s weighing about 170 to 175 pounds and in the Oct. 19 case the suspect was described as a Hispanic man in his 20s.

"(The description) is exactly the same other than race," said Wylie, who added that police are considering the possibility the crimes were carried out by the same man.

"We know people see things differently," she explained.

Police Friday had not yet released sketches of the suspects.

Investigators have called nearby police agencies to see if similar attacks had occurred outside of Mountain View, but no other attacks have been reported, Wylie said.

Both of the sex offenders who were victim to the crimes were convicted more than 15 years ago, an indication the young suspect is not likely connected to the victims' cases, according to Wylie.
"It doesn't seem likely he was involved (in their convictions)," she said.

Wylie said one of the sex offenders was convicted in Santa Clara County but did not know where the other had been convicted. She would not release further information about the men.

"Who they are might have a lot to do with why they were picked," Wylie said.

Investigators sent letters out to the estimated 80 registered sex offenders living in Mountain View, a figure that fluctuates frequently, according to Wylie. The residents have been warned to be extra vigilant with their safety and contact police if they see anything or anyone suspicious.

"We want to be sure they understand that we don't care about their status as a sex offender," Wylie said. "If they're a victim, they're a victim."

Paranoia, Not Sex Offenders, Are Greatest Threat to Trick-Or-Treaters

November 2, 2008

Boy Is Fatally Shot Trick-or-Treating

SUMTER, S.C. (AP) — A 12-year-old boy trick-or-treating with his family on Friday was shot from inside a home and killed, and his father and brother were wounded by the gunfire, the authorities said.

A suspect in the shootings, Quentin Patrick, was in custody, a jail official said. Mr. Patrick, 22, has been charged with murder and three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. The jail official said she did not know whether Mr. Patrick had a lawyer, and his telephone number was unpublished.

The family was headed home from a city-sponsored event here, when they decided to stop at a few homes to trick-or-treat, Police Chief Patty Patterson said. The father and his four children approached a home with a porch light on about 8:30 p.m., while their mother waited nearby in a vehicle.

At the door, family members said they thought they heard fireworks. The 12-year-old boy, his father and brother were all hit by the gunfire. The boy died at a hospital, Coroner Verna Moore said. The other two children were not hurt.

The boy’s father and brother were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The authorities have not released the identity of the family, and Chief Patterson would not release any more details about the shooting.

[Ed: The man who shot this youngster who was trick-or-treating, no doubt emotionally unstable, was as influenced by the irrational paranoia sweeping our nation - fear of the stranger - as all of our citizens and politicians who regard sex offenders as the greatest danger children face on Halloween, despite a complete lack of evidence to support such fears.

Pay attention! Your child is THOUSANDS of times more likely to be hit by a car, drown in a pool, or be shot by gang members, than to be sexually assaulted by strangers on Halloween. This obsession with "stranger danger" comes at the cost of your children themselves and is THE major contributor to the perilous erosion of trust and respect in our society.

Leaving aside for a moment the motivations of those who ostensibly wish to protect children, whether it be out of genuine concern for their well being or out of some dark and vicarious titillation derived from an obsession with children and sex, I urge you take the time and the effort to consider ACTUAL dangers to children and adolescents and instead express your concerns towards their remedy.]


Paranoia, Not Sex Offenders, Are Greatest Threat


Teacher ordered to stand trial over charges he abused teen

Salt Lake Tribune

In another case, the girl had sex with a West High counselor; 'I have lied a lot,' she says.

Is she a troubled teen who fabricated a story about sexual encounters with a teacher, or the victim of a predator who coerced her into a sexual relationship?

Both sides of that question were argued during a Tuesday preliminary hearing for a West High School teacher accused of sexually abusing a 16-year-old student. Jose Fanjul, 45, is charged in 3rd District Court with five counts of first-degree forcible sodomy and five counts of second-degree felony forcible sexual abuse in connection with allegedly having sex with the girl inside his classroom and at other locations. After listening to testimony, Judge Ann Boyden ordered Fanjul to stand trial on the abuse allegations, saying prosecutors presented sufficient evidence to advance the case. She set a Nov. 10 arraignment.

The case against the teacher will be the second for the teen accuser, who also had a sexual relationship with a West High guidance counselor before the alleged relationship with Fanjul. That prior relationship could become a factor in the case against Fanjul, because defense attorney Ken Brown questions whether the girl pursued a relationship with teachers. He said during Tuesday's hearing that the girl has a history of lying and had fabricated stories about her relationship with Fanjul. The girl testified she had lied to investigators and doctors during interviews about prior sexual behavior.

"You've made a habit of lying," Brown told the girl.

"Yes," she replied, but claimed she had been "under the influence of a predator" when changing her story. "I have lied a lot."

The girl struggled to answer many questions posed by Brown, often pausing before saying she didn't remember dates and some details about her time with Fanjul. But prosecutors maintain the girl is being truthful about her encounters with Fanjul, which began, she said, when she provided feedback on how to improve his teaching after he expressed frustration about the class performing poorly on a test. The two began exchanging e-mails about classwork, which later took on a sexual tone, prosecutors said. The girl testified she and Fanjul engaged in various sexual activities between March and July, both at his home and at school.

Several family members attended Tuesday's hearing in support of Fanjul, who is not in custody. The girl left West High School in late May and is undergoing counseling, her father said in court on Tuesday.


[Ed: One should always keep in mind, guilty verdicts in sexual assault cases are often based upon nothing more than the willingness of the jury to believe the alleged victim; no further evidence is required.]

Sex offender seeks Supreme Court ruling on park ban

Indiana Star

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union warn that if Plainfield's ban on convicted sex offenders in the town parks is allowed to stand, similar bans and permanent punishment could spread across the state.

The ACLU, representing a Marion County man identified only as John Doe, have asked the state's highest court to review a September ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals that upheld Plainfield's ban.

The state's high court is expected to decide by mid-November whether to accept the case or allow the appeals court decision to stand.

Plainfield's Town Council adopted an ordinance in 2000 that prohibits anyone on the Indiana registry of sex offenders from being in the town parks or recreation center.

In 2005, Plainfield police saw an Indianapolis man they recognized as a convicted sex offender in one of the town park facilities. He was with his young son. Police later told the man about the town's ordinance and told him not to return.

Court rulings have allowed Doe to remain anonymous even though his real name and criminal history are public and listed on the registry online. He has completed a prison term and probation.

The ACLU sued Plainfield in November 2005. Since then, the town's ordinance banning convicted sex offenders from town parks has been upheld in Hendricks Superior Court and the state Court of Appeals. So Doe and other sex offenders are still prohibited from Plainfield parks.

ACLU Legal Director Kenneth J. Falk said in the recent 19-page filing with the Supreme Court that Plainfield's ordinance, if allowed to stand, has the potential for far-reaching and statewide impact.

Greenwood, Lafayette and Michigan City have enacted similar bans. The ACLU has a suit pending against a Jeffersonville ordinance.

An Indianapolis ordinance passed two years ago was struck down in court as being too broad because the geographic areas of the ban covered most of the city.

Falk said the central issue in the appeal of the Plainfield lawsuit is whether access to the parks and recreational facilities is a legally defined "core value" for everyone in a community.

Plainfield claims convicted sex offenders do not have that right.

The ACLU claims that a permanent ban, even after an offender has completed prison and probation, is excessive punishment.

Sending Messages, Receiving None

It used to be that, as a society, we valued the analysis and recommendations of those whose knowlege and expertise surpassed our own.

Residency restrictions for sex offenders popular, but ineffective

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Despite research that shows sex offender residency requirements actually hamper the rehabilitation of offenders, jurisdictions across the country continue to pass them, including Allegheny County last year.

Experts say the laws, which prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, day care centers and parks, also don't work to help cut down on recidivism.

These types of residency restrictions have been passed in at least 30 states and thousands of municipalities nationwide. Even as prosecutors, criminal justice researchers and child advocates say they don't work, parents and legislators continue to push for the tough laws.

County Councilman Vince Gastgeb, R-Bethel Park, who was the primary author of the local bill passed in October 2007, said he wrote the law that parents wanted.

Mr. Gastgeb said he originally intended for the restrictions to apply only to offenders whose victims were children. But after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against the county this month, Mr. Gastgeb learned that the law actually applies to all registered sex offenders, no matter their victims' ages.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of six sex offenders who said they could not find anywhere to live because of the restrictions.

At the time the suit was filed, Mr. Gastgeb said he would amend the law so that it applied only to sex offenders whose victims are children.

But days later, he changed his mind.

"I do think it's legally sound, and I do think we'll prevail in court," Mr. Gastgeb said. "So a certain section of the county is off-limits. That's the way it is.

"There's plenty of places for people to live."

Even if there are "plenty of places for people to live," those who have studied the issue know that residency restrictions push sex offenders outside of metropolitan areas into rural communities.

That means less access to family, housing, employment and treatment programs, said Dr. Jill S. Levenson, a professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., who has been studying sex crime policy for six years.

"At first glance, these laws sound good in theory," she said. "But it's much more complex than that."

The visceral reaction of "not in my neighborhood," needs to be balanced with pragmatism, she said.

Part of the problem, she continued, is that residency restrictions are often one-size-fits-all.

They often don't distinguish among the types of crimes that have been committed, Dr. Levenson said. Just because someone is designated a sex offender under state law does not necessarily mean that that person is a sexually violent predator or a pedophile.

Further, studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Colorado Department of Public Safety have not shown any correlation between sex offender recidivism and living near schools or parks.

And though residency restrictions might prohibit a sex offender from living in a certain neighborhood, they can't keep such a person from sitting across the street from a playground.

"They really do nothing at all to stop sex offenders from having access to children during the day," Dr. Levenson said.

On the other hand, there is ample scientific evidence that shows residency laws do interfere with the reintegration of sex offenders into society.

"Criminal offenders who have stable housing, stable employment and support systems in their lives, those people are less likely to go on and commit new crimes," Dr. Levenson said.

Sex offender residency restrictions were approved in Iowa in 2002, though the law was put on hold pending the outcome of a court case. In 2005, the state Supreme Court upheld the law there.

Law enforcement opposition

Almost from inception, law enforcement entities have been fighting to get it repealed, said Corwin Ritchie, the executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association.

The prosecutors' group issued a policy statement on the issue, outlining what it sees as numerous problems.

In addition, residency restrictions have made it less likely for people charged with sex offenses to plead guilty, for fear that they will lose their homes.

That means that more cases must go to trial -- potentially causing additional trauma for victims -- or more offenders go free because sex crimes can be hard to prove.

Another important factor to be considered, Mr. Ritchie said, is the vast amount of resources being spent to enforce residency laws with few tangible results.

In Iowa, according to his organization, the state has lost track of more than half of its registered sex offenders since restrictions went into place, making the jobs of probation and parole officers much more difficult and time-consuming.

Also, Department of Justice research shows that at least 90 percent of children who are abused are victimized by someone they know and trust.

"[The incidence of] stranger danger is tiny," Mr. Ritchie said. "It's tragic, but its incidence is really, really small."

And despite public opinions to the contrary, research shows that sex offenders are among the least likely criminals to re-offend, Dr. Levenson said.

But in Iowa, legislators don't want to hear any of that, Mr. Ritchie said.

"We ran into the politics of it," he continued. "No one wants to be seen as soft on sex offenders.

"It's just politically untenable."

Soon after Iowa's law went into effect, a small panel of legislators who wrote it told Mr. Ritchie that they were wrong and that it should be overturned, he said.

But those same lawmakers said they would not be the ones to do it, he said. Instead, they left it up to the courts.

"They're a fearful bunch," he said. "They've done such a good job of selling it, they can't turn and go the other way."

Advocates for repealing Iowa's law came close two sessions ago, Mr. Ritchie said. They will take up the fight again in 2009.

"The general public doesn't really care if it's good public policy," Mr. Ritchie said.

Parents insistent

The decision by Mr. Gastgeb to write the local law was influenced by listening to many parents in Mt. Lebanon speak at community meetings.

They were outraged last year to learn that a convicted sex offender was living near Howe Elementary School in the Sunset Hills neighborhood.

Last week, parents there continued to support the residency restriction law.

"It would be very difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for sex offenders at all, having three children," said Kathy Graziano, who lives in the community.

One of the reasons she feels so strongly about the restriction is that the Mt. Lebanon School District does not have a busing system. Many students walk to and from school, she said, which makes them more vulnerable.

"There were children passing his residence at any time of the day," Ms. Graziano said. "We don't have buses . . . or designated adults that would be one more set of eyes."

She doesn't care if local sex offenders have access to housing or jobs.

"Then I suppose they should work out in a cornfield in the middle of Iowa," she said.

Another neighbor, Bill Crock, who has four children, believes the residency restriction should stick.

"From what I've read, these guys don't get better," he said. "It's a lifelong problem."

A teacher, who also lives in the community, was the only one to express mixed feelings on the issue.

She wouldn't give her name for fear of reprisal from her school district, but the woman said she felt sorry for the offenders.

Though the most important thing is to protect children, she also added that sex offenders do have to live somewhere.

That's a notion that Dr. Levenson backed up.

"When sex offenders become homeless, they do become more difficult for probation and parole to track," she said. "That, in itself, defeats the very purpose of Megan's Law."

Though most jurisdictions pass residency restrictions when they are introduced, the Kansas legislature in 2006 chose not to after listening to expert testimony during two days of hearings.

"This is not about sympathy for criminal offenders," Dr. Levenson said. "Housing instability is one of the strongest indicators of recidivism in the criminal justice literature."

If jurisdictions want to enforce some residency restrictions, Dr. Levenson suggests that it be done only after an evaluation is performed to assess the person's potential for future danger.

Parents should not rely simply on sex offender registries to keep their children safe, she said.

"With the reliance on sex offender registries, we do parents a disservice," she said. "They need to be aware of what to look for in anyone who spends time with their child."

[Ed: Continuing to promulgate bad public policy, despite the evidence of both its ineffectiveness and damage to society, is the definition of irrational behavior. When politicians pander to the most irrational and  hotheaded amongst us to the exclusion of all reason, we must fear for our safety and our liberty. ]

Judge Blocks Rules Limiting Sex Offenders on Halloween

New York Times

A federal judge in Missouri on Monday temporarily blocked parts of a new state law that requires sexual offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween evening and to avoid any contact with children related to the holiday.

The judge, Carol E. Jackson, of United States District Court in St. Louis, said the law was unclear, questioning language that prohibits “all Halloween-related contact with children” and allows sexual offenders to leave their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. only if they have “just cause.”

Two issues raised by the case were whether sexual offenders could celebrate the holiday with their own children or grandchildren, for example by hanging decorations or carving pumpkins, and on what grounds they could leave home during the curfew.

The attorney general’s office said it would appeal the order, but declined to comment further.

Chief Judge Jackson allowed two provisions in the law to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.

Illinois and Louisiana have also passed state laws restricting sexual offenders’ activities on Halloween, and some other states have similar agency regulations or municipal ordinances.

Missouri’s law was enacted as part of broader legislation cracking down on sexual offenders.

“We’re counting it as a victory that kids going trick-or-treating will be a degree safer,” said State Senator John Loudon, a Republican who sponsored the legislation, speaking of Monday’s ruling. “And then we’ll have to go back to the drawing board depending on court action.”

The ruling came after four anonymous convicted sexual offenders sued this month, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. They say the law is not only vague but also unfair and unconstitutional, an argument their lawyer vowed to keep pushing. “Once people have completed their sentences,” said the lawyer, Anthony E. Rothert, “you can’t go back and punish them for the same crime.”

Detective Gary Coxen of the St. Louis County Police Department had planned to knock on doors to ensure the sexual offenders were home, but he worried they would ignore him, mistaking him for children trick-or-treating. After the ruling, he said his job would be easier; he would simply go to each house to ensure that a sign was posted and the porch lights were off. “It takes the guesswork out,” he said. [Ed: This ruling provides only the slightest bit of justice in a sea of ex post facto persecution]

Law Enforcement Cracks Down on Sex Offenders as Halloween Nears

Chattannoga, TN-

Halloween is a time of fun and games for kids, but for sexual predators it can mean easy prey, that's why local law enforcement will crack down on sex offenders leading up to the 31st. Tennessee passed a law in July that prohibits convicted sex offenders from impersonating, or dressing as, or professing to be any fictional character or real person that would entice a minor to come around them.

 The Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole has issued restrictions to sex offenders during the Halloween season. Offenders are not allowed to pass out candy, decorate their homes for Halloween, go to haunted houses or other seasonal activities, or wear costumes.

 "Halloween is about children, and it's a time of disguise, and that's one of the reasons why.", says Hamilton County Sheriff's Detective Jimmy Clift.

 "It would be very difficult to prosecute a case of a stranger on a child if all we have is he was dressed as a baseball player or had a mask on or whatever, we can't really determine that."
 Despite the Halloween crackdown, officers say Tennessee law hinders them from doing more.
 "I believe in Georgia or Florida, one of the neighboring states, they have to post in their yard they are a convicted sex offender.", Clift says. "In Tennessee, we're kind of lax in that area, and it's not the Police Department or Sheriff's office, we can only enforce the laws that are on the books." 

That means parents must do more to ensure a safe Halloween for their children. Clift stresses the best way to do that is to go to the TBI's Sex Offender database and "know who's in the area they are going trick or treating in, you know know the addresses, and don't let your children go there. Not every offender is a predator, but I can't know that and I would treat all offenders as dangerous."
[Ed: Hey kids! It's "Boogey-Man" time again! And there ain't nothin' scarier than a nation of ignorant and bigoted adults brain washin' children to be extra paranoid about non-existent threats.  Hell, they don't need no damned statistics to tell them otherwise!]