CA - Sex-offender laws are ineffective and unfair, critics say

Original Article

10/17/2014

By Puck Lo

Frank Lindsay, 62, is a father, small-business owner and avid surfer. He’s also one of 105,000 people in California — and 760,000 nationally — listed as a sex offender. In accordance with federal law, his name, photograph and home address appear in a public, online offender registry. In 1979, Lindsay, then 27, was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under the age of 14.

“I thought I could do whatever I wanted,” Lindsay says. “Add on some alcohol, and I was a real asshole.”

Today, Lindsay considers himself a reformed man. He says he hasn’t had a drink in 30 years, is a Taoist and advocate for restorative justice — encouraging violent people to make amends for their actions. But, he says, “It seems that I can never be forgiven.”

Few groups are as widely despised as sex offenders. Activities prosecuted as sex offenses vary by state, but can include public urination, consensual sex between teenagers, streaking, prostitution, downloading child pornography and rape. In some states, law-enforcement officials distribute flyers to notify neighbors of registrants’ convictions. Some registrants are prohibited from using the Internet. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indefinite detention at psychiatric hospitals — or “civil commitment” — of sex offenders is constitutional.

The first law requiring sex offenders to register publicly and for life was passed in California in 1947 and targeted gay men, according to Andrew Extein, executive director of the Center for Sexual Justice. But many of today’s laws have their origins in the late 1970s, when feminists and social conservatives worked together to publicize high-profile “stranger danger” attacks on children, says Roger Lancaster, anthropology professor at George Mason University and author of “Sex Panic and the Punitive State.”

Beginning in the mid-1990s, several laws went into effect that changed how sex-offense cases were prosecuted. In 1994, states were required to create databases of sex offenders. Two years later, Megan’s Law, named for a 7-year-old in New Jersey who was brutally raped and murdered by a neighbor with two previous sex convictions, allowed states to make those registries public. States passed their own versions of the law; in some cases, they required that neighbors be notified of paroled offenders’ previous convictions. Later laws moved those sex-offender databases online, created a national registry, required lifetime registration of people 14 years old and up and imposed harsh mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving children.

But almost 20 years after the passage of Megan’s Law, criminologists and judges, along with a burgeoning movement of sex-offender registrants and their families, are challenging not only the constitutionality of the laws but their effectiveness in reducing sexual assault. In January, a California court ruled in favor of a paroled sex offender who had argued that city and county “child-safety zone” ordinances prohibiting people in the registry from using parks, beaches and similar recreation areas were an unconstitutional form of banishment. In April, the state Supreme Court upheld the ruling by declining to review it.

See Also: California Reform Sex Offender Laws

Read the entire article

MN - Reform on sex offenders stalls in Minnesota Legislature

Lucinda Jesson

Original Article

04/14/2014

By ABBY SIMONS

Judge has ordered state program overhauled, but doing so means huge political risks for legislators.

The pressure to overhaul a state sex offender treatment program that has been called “clearly broken” by a federal judge is mounting daily, but the Legislature may not act in time to prevent court intervention.

With just weeks to go in the session, Gov. Mark Dayton and legislators are blaming one another for failing to address the problems identified by Judge Donovan Frank. In February, Frank called on state lawmakers to take immediate action or face a court-ordered remedy.

But little has happened since then.

Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson, whose department oversees the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), said recently that she had hoped for a different outcome this session. “I’m disappointed,” she said. “I’m concerned about the lack of progress toward overall system reform.”

Leaving the program as it is heightens the possibility that the federal courts could, at some point, declare it unconstitutional and order the release of hundreds of the state’s most violent sex offenders. There is precedent for such dramatic intervention: In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s overcrowded prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to reduce its inmate population by 30,000.

Dayton said he asked the Legislature to approve $3 million for professional evaluation of sex offenders — a specific requirement to meet Frank’s order — and said he still expects lawmakers to approve it. “I hope we will get that money,” the governor said. “I don’t know why anyone would object to up-to-date psychological evaluations so we know what we’re dealing with.”
- Why do you need $3 million to evaluate something?  There are a ton of studies out there that have already been done on the subject of sex offenders and civil commitment, if you'd look and stop trying to waste more money and delay the process.

Minnesota’s program holds nearly 700 sex offenders — more per capita than any comparable program in other states. With costs far higher than prison costs, its outlays also have exploded. The state has been criticized in the past for doing too little to prove that those in its care are receiving an actual course of treatment rather than just being held indefinitely after serving their prison sentences.

Critics of the sex offender program say they are not surprised by legislative foot-dragging. Addressing the civil rights of serial rapists and child molesters in an election year, they say, is tantamount to political suicide.
- Not all sex offenders are serial rapists and child molesters!

“If they fix [the MSOP], I can tell you in November they’re the ones that are going to be accused of endangering all the women in Minnesota, and they know it’s gonna be ugly,” said Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, which has advocated for the confined in the lawsuit before Frank.

‘Need bipartisan support’

Last spring, the state Senate passed a bill to reform the program by modeling it after programs in New York and Wisconsin, but a companion bill faltered in the House. A similar Senate measure drafted this year also stalled.

Dayton said that he does not expect lawmakers to approve a wholesale makeover this year.

“I’ve always thought realistically it’s going to have to wait until the 2015 legislative session,” he said, “and I hope we have enough courage to deal with it ourselves.”

Senate Minority Leader David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, said that Dayton should be providing a specific blueprint for lawmakers and leading the efforts for change.

“I’ve been around here long enough to know that when governors want something, they get it 90 percent of the time,” Hann said. “And this governor has not made this a priority. This is his administration administering the program, and if anyone should know what direction to take, he should be the one.”

House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, has said that House Republicans must cooperate with DFLers to forge a sturdy plan for overhauling the existing arrangement.

“For something that’s as important as this, we do need bipartisan support,” Thissen said. “It’s an issue of fundamental public safety.”

Political reality

In addition to public safety, both sides need the other to join them in any proposed solution in order to limit finger-pointing. But House Minority Leader Rep. Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, said there are legitimate differences on approaches to reform that pose a barrier to legislative change.

“My impression is that the Democrats right now have their mind wrapped around some kind of less-restrictive alternative for the current population, and I think this would be incredibly unpopular,” Daudt said. “The public doesn’t support it because the public understands this is a dangerous population and they don’t want these people living next door to them.”

Warren Maas, executive director of Project Pathfinder, which works with sex offenders to prevent recidivism, fully understands the political realities. Maas was there, shortly after Frank’s order, when the Minnesota chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers held an informational session for all 201 legislators, offering assistance in the event of MSOP reform.

Six lawmakers showed up.

“I think for most of them it wasn’t a priority,” Maas said. “But for some of them it was whatever the opposite of priority is. Some of the legislators are pretty adamant that they’re not going to lift a finger. They’re going to let the court system take the hit on the issue of release from MSOP.”

Maas said he wasn’t surprised: The public’s revulsion to sex offenders becomes “low-hanging fruit for negative political messaging.”

Maas said the lawmakers who did show up were engaged, attentive and interested, but their numbers were too few to make a difference.

“It’s a huge disservice not just to offenders but to the community at large,” he said. “We’re wasting a lot of time demonizing a group of people who have the second-lowest recidivism rate among criminals, and nobody wants to hear that.”

FL - Gov. signs tougher sexual predator measures

Gov. Rick Scott

Original Article

04/02/2014

TALLAHASSEE (AP) - Rick Scott signed four bills Tuesday that will keep the most violent sexual offenders locked up longer and close loopholes in a law that allows the state to send predators to a high-security treatment center even after they've finished their prison sentences.

The bills were a priority for Democrats and Republicans in both chambers and were largely inspired by the death of 8-year-old Cherish Perrywinkle, whose photo was held behind Scott as he signed the bills. Authorities said Perrywinkle was abducted and killed by a repeat sexual offender less than a month after he finished a jail sentence in a case where he targeted another young girl.
- Yeah that is how you exploit a child for your own gain.

"As a father of two girls and the grandfather of three little boys, I think about how the legislation I'm signing today will affect Florida's families. It will make Florida safer," Scott said. "I want Florida to be the best state in the nation for raising a family and this legislation will help make this a reality."
- Most sexual crimes are committed by someone not on the registry and by someone the victim knows. This won't prevent another similar crime, it's just a placebo to make everybody feel safe and put another dead white female child's name on a bill to tug at your heart so they can get brownie points for looking "tough!"

The wide-ranging package creates a mandatory 50-year-sentence for people who rape children under 12, the developmentally disabled and senior citizens. That doubles the current mandatory sentence for the most violent sexual offenders. It also makes changes to the Jimmy Ryce Act, which allows the psychiatric review of sexually violent offenders after they finish their prison sentences. Those considered too dangerous are then committed to a high-security treatment center.
- Treatment facility or a prison in disguise?

Lawmakers began looking at the Jimmy Ryce Act after Cherish's death and a South Florida Sun Sentinel series that followed. The newspaper researched offenders who were reviewed for civil commitment but ended up being set free at some stage in the process. They found 594 offenders who committed new crimes, some the day they were released, including 14 killings. The released prisoners also were later caught molesting 460 children and raping 121 women, the newspaper found.

"Florida will not be a catch-and-release state as it relates to violent sexual predators," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (DUI Offender), R-Shalimar, to loud applause.

Cherish was abducted from a Jacksonville Wal-Mart, raped and strangled. Her body was found the next day.

_____ is charged with murder in her killing. _____ had been reviewed twice before for civil commitment and allowed to remain free. He was released from jail the month before the killing but wasn't eligible for another review. Only offenders serving prison terms can be considered for commitment and _____ was in jail on misdemeanor charges after a plea deal in a case where he made obscene phone calls to a 10-year-old girl and impersonated a Florida Department of Children and Families child protective investigator to try to get access to her.
- Yeah he was reviewed twice and apparently they didn't think he was a threat.  So what is different now?  Are you just going to assume all are dangerous now and put them all in civil (prison) commitment?

The new laws, that state lawmakers said are some of the toughest in the country, will allow referral for civil commitment review regardless if the offender is serving a jail or prison sentence. It also requires that investigators, prosecutors and victim advocates be involved in the review process.
- What about sex offender experts?  You are stacking the deck!

Sexual predators and offenders will also have to provide law enforcement agencies with any Internet usernames they use, as well as information about their passports, immigration status, professional licenses and all vehicles registered at their address, including those of friends and relatives, when they register as sex offenders.

The statute of limitations will be eliminated for molesting children younger than 16. Right now, molesters can't be prosecuted if the crimes are reported more than three years later.

The most sexually dangerous offenders will also have to serve their entire sentences and not be allowed a shorter sentence for good behavior.

Sexual abuse survivor Lauren Book took a break from a 1,500-mile sexual abuse awareness walk across Florida to attend the ceremony. Book has advocated for laws to increase penalties for sexual offenders, help victims and prevent abuse for 13 years, the first as a 17-year-old still recovering from years of being raped by her nanny.

But she said she's never seen a year where the Legislature has acted so quickly to address problems with sexual predators, a subject she said lawmakers used to have a hard time talking about.

"When we first started talking about these things it was like, 'Shhhh,'" Book said, holding a finger to her lips. "We're here today talking about these issues and people are looking at them, and that's how we shine into the darkness and prevent and protect those kids from having to go through went I went through or what any of the survivors I've met along the way have had to go through."

Video Source

The Adam Walsh Act - Un-Civil Commitment (2009)

Original Article (PDF)

10/30/2009

Emily Barker
affiliation not provided to SSRN

October 30, 2009

Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2009

Abstract:
Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 ("the Adam Walsh Act") with the aim of "protect[ing] children from sexual exploitation and violent crime." Among other measures, the Act creates a National Sex Offender Registry, establishes a post-conviction civil commitment scheme, increases punishments for a variety of federal crimes against children, and strengthens existing child pornography prohibitions. The scope of this note is limited to an analysis of the commitment portion of the Act ("Commitment Provision"). This provision authorizes the federal government to civilly commit, in a federal facility, any "sexually dangerous" person "in the custody" of the Bureau of Prisons - even after that person has completed his entire prison sentence.

Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on question of whether or not enactment of the Commitment Provision was within Congress‘s authority. This note will show that Congress lacked the authority to enact the Commitment Provision under either its enumerated or incontestable federal powers. For this reason, the Commitment Provision cannot enacted as a Necessary and Proper exercise of a legitimate federal power. The Necessary and Proper Clause by itself creates no constitutional powers; it merely allows Congress to enact legislation auxiliary to an enumerated or incontestable federal power. Thus, because Congress lacked the authority to enact the Commitment Provision under either its enumerated or incontestable federal powers, it cannot be a Necessary and Proper exercise of those powers and is therefore unconstitutional.

The discussion will begin with an overview of the relevant Supreme Court precedents bearing on a constitutional determination of this kind. This note will show that a proper reading of these precedents demonstrates that the clause upon which the federal government most often defends its power to regulate this subject, the Commerce Clause, is wholly inapplicable to an act like the Adam Walsh Act - legislation aimed at criminal law enforcement where States historically have been sovereign.

Next will be an evaluation of the current split between the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”). This note will show that only the Fourth Circuit, which held the Commitment Provision beyond congressional authority, performed an extensive analysis of the relevant Supreme Court precedents in reaching its holding. The Eighth Circuit, on the other hand, relied only on its own, distinguishable precedents. Thus the only Circuit court to analyze the constitutionality of the Commitment Provision under current Supreme Court jurisprudence has found it to be unconstitutional.

This note will show further that the Commitment Provision does not fit readily into the specific schemes where federal civil commitment has be found constitutional - namely in situations where it is used to prevent and prosecute federal crimes.

Finally, this note will show that the Commitment Provision does not satisfy the due process rationales for which the Supreme Court has found state-authorized civil commitment constitutional. The structure of the Commitment Provision neither comports with the classic rationale for lower proof burdens in state civil commitment schemes, nor does it provide for a probable cause hearing within a reasonable amount of time and the general practice is to keep prisoners locked for months beyond their release dates.

MO - Des Peres neighbors vent concerns about sex offender

Mob Mentality

Original Article

03/26/2014

By Jesse Bogan

DES PERES - About 100 people showed up at a community meeting here Wednesday night to hear what can be done about registered sex offender _____ living in their upper-middle-class neighborhood.

But by the time it was over, many, including Bill England, 70, would leave with a sense of powerlessness.

“What’s very concerning to me is my grandson and his mother live next door to this guy. Next door,” England told a panel of law enforcement and city officials gathered before the crowd. “Obviously, we are scared. What advice would you give us?”
- The same info as if any other ex-felon lived next to you, tell you kid about the person, tell your kid about good touch / bad touch, etc, etc.

Kathi Alizadeh, chief of the sex crimes unit for the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney’s office, told him she couldn't give him advice and only encouraged him to contact lawmakers in Jefferson City.

“What I can tell you is that there is nothing in the law that prohibits him from living next door to a child,” she said. “There’s nothing in the law that prohibits him from walking up to a child in the street and talking to him.”

Emotions have been high, particularly in the Royal Acres Subdivision, since _____ was released from custody in February.

_____, 49, who lives with his 85-year-old mother, was first arrested at 18, when he was caught sticking his hands in the pants of 5-year-old girl playing outside in the neighborhood. He avoided incarceration for that offense, but in 1997 he went to prison for 10 years for molesting a 7-year-old girl whose parents he’d befriended.

When his prison sentence was nearly over, he was flagged for possibly meeting the criteria of a sexually violent predator. Some officials argued that he should be held indefinitely as a patient at what is now called Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, a program run by the Missouri Department of Mental Health.

He was held in jail since late 2006, pending the outcome of the state’s civil commitment case against him in that matter. In February, a St. Louis County jury unanimously agreed that _____ was not a sexually violent predator, somebody with a mental abnormality that would make him more likely than not to re-offend if not held in a secure facility. Three previous trials resulted in hung juries.

Keith Krumm, director public safety in Des Peres, told the crowd Wednesday night that _____ checked in with local police the night he was released and had been in compliance ever since. But they've increased patrols around his house and at nearby bus stops.

Officials said _____ couldn't live within 1,000 feet of a school, go to a public swimming pool or give out Halloween candy. But they said laws don’t seem to forbid him from going to a pool in the subdivision because it’s privately run.

In response to questions, officials said _____ wasn’t required to have GPS monitoring or be subject to other rules such as taking polygraph tests because he was not on parole or probation.

There are hundreds of registered sex offenders in St. Louis County, an official said at the meeting. There are five in Des Peres.

Krumm said in an interview before the meeting that none of the other sex offenders in the area had raised the amount of concern that _____ has.

_____, who wasn’t at the meeting, has declined to comment since his release. His attorney said he wanted to move on with his life quietly.

But if the meeting Wednesday night was any indication, there will be a lot of eyes watching him in Des Peres.

WI - State Supreme Court To Consider Extended Confinement For Sex Offenders

Original Article

So when are we going to start extending the time other ex-felons get once they are out of prison? Say a murderer or gang member comes out after 25 years, are we then going to evaluate them and then sentence them to more time behind bars in a commitment center because they are still a threat? Why do we do this for only ex-sex offenders and not all other dangerous criminals?  This is pretty much double jeopardy, sentencing someone twice for the same crime, just worded differently, in our opinion.

03/14/2014

By Gilman Halsted



The state Supreme Court is considering a case that could limit the ability of prosecutors to use Wisconsin's sex predator law to lock up sex offenders for longer than their original sentence.

_____ was convicted of first degree sexual assault of a child in 1992. He served time in prison and was released on parole. In 2006, the parole was revoked because he told his parole agent he had touched his nieces and nephews in a sexual way. He was convicted of four counts of fourth-degree sexual assault of a child.

The state Supreme Court overturned that conviction in 2009, however, because his confession was coerced.

Now the state is seeking to commit _____ to the Sand Ridge treatment center as a sexually violent person, based on his 1992 conviction.

_____'s lawyer, Shelly Fite, told the court this week that the civil commitment law known as “Chapter 980” doesn't apply in this case, because a petition for commitment has to be filed before an offender is released from prison. “If he doesn't come within 980, then he gets to enjoy the freedom that anyone enjoys when they reach the end of their sentence,” Fite said.

The prosecutor for the state, Warren Weinstein, says despite his conviction being overturned, _____ did confess to committing a crime that falls under the sexual predator statute.

“The purpose of this statute isn't to punish him for the crime,” Weinstein said. “It's to segregate him from society and treat his underlying mental disorder.”

A decision in this case could clarify under what circumstances the state can use Chapter 980 to confine sex offenders for treatment after they've already served time for their crimes.

MN - Any fix for Minnesota Sex Offender Program looks dead for session

Original Article

03/13/2014

By Briana Bierschbach

Despite stern warnings from a federal judge to fix potential constitutional problems with the state’s sex offender treatment program, talks to revamp the program in the Minnesota Legislature have buckled — again — under political pressure.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, say a proposal to deal with issues raised by locking up about 700 offenders with little hope of release in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) is unlikely to move forward during the short legislative session.

The two political parties in the House have so far failed to strike a deal that would garner votes from both sides.

Republicans favor a plan that would create a less restrictive living facility for low-functioning sex offenders on the grounds of the MSOP facilities in St. Peter and Moose Lake. They’re referring to offenders who have mental or physical limitations that keep them from being able to successfully complete the program, such as the elderly.

“They aren’t about to hop a barbed-wire fence, but they could still pose a danger if they came in contact with potential victims,” said Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, who has been involved in MSOP negotiations.

The proposal would get some people out of their indefinite confinement within the program without moving offenders into a new community, Republicans say.

But lead Democrats in the House say that offer doesn’t go far enough to fix the long-term problems and constitutional questions with the program. They prefer to adopt most of the final recommendations of the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force.

In December, the task force recommended creating a panel of experts to advise county attorneys in recommending people for civil commitment. It also called for an automatic biennial review of people enrolled in the program and an independent judicial hearing process that first determines if a person is sexually dangerous. The task force also wants a separate hearing to determine where an offender should be treated.

Those changes, experts say, would create more options for offenders.

“That’s all fine with me, but you don’t need a bill for that,” DFL Rep. Tina Liebling, chair of the Health and Human Services Policy Committee, said of the Republican proposal. “That’s a bonding project that the department can propose and nobody would be opposed to that, but that doesn’t solve the problem we are dealing with.”

Talks have stalled with time running out in the short session. Without Republican votes on the table, Democrats haven’t moved forward with a proposal, fearing the issue will be used against them on the campaign trail this fall.
- You see, it's not about fixing a broken system, it's about their own reputation and career!  That is why this country is falling apart!

“This is a problem that’s created bipartisanly over a number of years, and it has to be solved bipartisanly,” Liebling said. “It’s such an explosive political issue, such a difficult one to deal with, that unless there’s buy-in from all sides here, nobody is going to be willing to move forward because it’s a very potent election issue.”

Pressure mounting

Minnesota currently houses more sex offenders per capita than any other state with a similar program in place. Only one person has been successfully released from the program in its nearly 20-year history. The MSOP population exploded after the 2003 rape and murder of University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin by a released offender.

Experts have warned that it’s unconstitutional to lock people up in a treatment center with little hope for release after they’ve served out their prison terms. But politicians and state officials have been reluctant to release offenders or make changes to the program, fearing political backlash for releasing an offender into a community.
- So do politicians run the program?  If not, then it's not their function to determine who can and cannot be released.

Late last year, Republicans criticized Gov. Mark Dayton over the proposed transfer of six men from the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter to a less restrictive facility in Cambridge. In response, Dayton used his bully pulpit to throw the issue back into the legislative arena, publicly opposing those transfers and calling on lawmakers to make an MSOP fix a priority during the 2014 session.
- Again, it's about saving yourself and blaming others, not about Constitutional rights and fairness!

Pressure is mounting to tackle the issue. In late February, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank issued a strongly worded ruling that called on legislators to do something to fix serious constitutional questions with the program immediately or face court action.

“The Court, like others, will not hesitate to take strong remedial action,” Frank wrote. “The program’s systemic problems will only worsen as hundreds of additional detainees are driven into MSOP over the next few years.”

Frank and a team are currently reviewing case by case hundreds of offenders committed in MSOP as part of a class-action lawsuit (Liebling said she has introduced a bill this session that will pay the $3.5 million it will cost to complete that review process).
- If these people already get paid for doing their job, then why do you need an additional $3.5 million to do their job?

No plan in place

Without action from the Legislature, Frank could toss out the whole program out on constitutional grounds. He also could single out individual cases where continued commitment of the offender doesn’t meet constitutional muster. Without a legislative plan in place, it’s unclear where offenders would go.

“I’m not surprised it remains a politically charged issue, but I am surprised that the Legislature would be willing to risk a federal court takeover of this program,” said Eric Janus, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law and a member of the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force. “Why would anyone want to delay that and risk a federal court order that could have very substantial consequences?”
- Because they don't want to accept the responsibility of it and want someone else to get the blame for it, that's why!

It’s not unprecedented for the courts to order states to release prisoners. In 2009, a three-judge special panel ruled that widespread overcrowding in California prisons was unconstitutional and constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.” The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling, and a federal judge ordered the state to release thousands of low-level offenders before their sentences expired.

“We do not have a publicly safe plan in place to deal with somebody that the court determines we are not longer able to treat under our civil-commitment laws. That is a failure on the part of the Legislature,” said Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, who successfully passed a bill adopting many of the task force recommendations in the Senate last year.
- If you are no longer able to treat them, then let them go.  If they re-offend, then arrest them just like you would anybody else who commits a crime.  Stop playing with people's lives!

“If the public isn’t scared to death about that, I don’t know what’s going to scare them,” Sheran added. “It scares the living daylight out of me.”
- Yeah, they need the public to be scared of something so they can continue to eradicate our rights!

Politics complicates debate

This session, Sheran has introduced another bill to fill out some of the final recommendations from the task force, but she’s skeptical anything will move to the governor’s desk this session.

The proposal passed off the Senate floor last year with support from Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader David Hann, but the bill was never brought to the House floor because Republicans and Democrats again couldn’t reach an agreement.

After Dayton’s call for legislative action, Zerwas and Liebling were part of high-level meetings with officials from the Department of Human Services and the Department of Corrections to find a solution before session started, but talks again broke down in the House.

“I was told that that [our proposal] was a non-starter,” Zerwas said. “They want a bifurcated trial system…. we could get there, probably, but we are not going to get there in a two-month session.”

“I’m somewhat frustrated. I didn’t think we could solve the whole MSOP problem in the shortened session, but I really felt like in the progress we were making, we were going to take a bite out of it,” he continued. “I don’t think that’s in the cards now.”
- We don't see what the whole problem is.  If you hire experts to treat ex-offenders and then they later determine they are not a risk, then release them.  Let the people you hired do their jobs!  If nobody wants to release anybody for fear of repercussions, then you need to eradicate civil commitment!

Liebling said she got no indication from Republicans that they would be willing to accept a two-part judicial review process, a key part of the task force recommendations.

“Bottom line is, there hasn’t been any real willingness from the minority in the House to move forward with this, and that’s why nothing has happened,” Liebling said.

GOP Sen. Warren Limmer, who has been working to resolve issues with MSOP for the last four years, says he fears the House will put off taking action until the court does, pushing legislators into a likely special session scenario to fix the problem.

“Then all the eyes of Minnesota will be focused on us and this issue and our failure to act when we should have,” Limmer said. “When you have a federal court threatening action, it behooves us to do something ourselves.”
- It should never have came to this in the first place!

FL - Sex-Offender Bills' Critics Say They Won't Stop Most Crimes Against Kids

Don Gaetz

Original Article

Politicians do not care about the facts, they only care about what makes themselves look better to the sheeple!

03/04/2014

By JESSICA PALOMBO



As Senate President Don Gaetz had promised, his chamber passed several bills on the first day of session aimed at denying convicted sex offenders the chance to hurt children. But critics of the crackdown say it does nothing to prevent first-time offenses, which they say make up the majority of crimes against kids.

For Diena Thompson, the sex predator legislation is personal. The mother from the Jacksonville suburb of Orange Park said she was at the Capitol Tuesday because of her daughter Somer.

“Somer, who was a twin, was walking home from school October 19, 2009, and she was abducted and murdered and subsequently found two days later in the Georgia landfill," Thompson says.
- Why wasn't she being a parent and picking her kid up from school or the bus stop?  Why let a young child walk home from school?  Anybody can tell you that is not safe for anybody!

Somer was 7 years old when a neighbor killed her. In the almost five years since, her mother has been advocating for educational programs in public schools to teach other children how to avoid danger.
- Yes education is the key and should be taught in school and by the parents.

She says, “As a mother in this situation, I can’t help but wonder or think, if Somer had been given the opportunity to receive that program, would I still be talking to all these people? Would I still be here today?”
- Or if you taught your child about safety and what to do if someone approaches her.  Parents need to be parents and stop letting Big Brother be their scapegoat when something goes wrong!

The man who killed Somer had no sex crimes on his record. Thompson acknowledges the bill package Gaetz calls the "centerpiece" of the session is not aimed at preventing first-time offenses.

“As far as Somer’s case, unfortunately, none of this really would have made a difference for her," she says.
- You may be right, and it may not help others.  If you do not teach your kids about their bodies and safety then how are they suppose to know what to do when a situation arises?  We do believe if safety / abuse courses were taught in school then many children / adults would know what to do when something happens.

But she says she supports increased monitoring and penalties for convicted offenders nonetheless.

“I can’t change it for myself. I can’t change it for anyone else that has had this happen to them, but hopefully with these new laws coming in, we’ll be able to help other people. And by getting them educated," she says.

The measures passed Tuesday would make it more likely sex offenders are referred to civil commitment proceedings upon their release from prison, meaning more of them could be committed to a facility or subject to community monitoring. The bills also impose longer prison sentences and monitoring periods after release. And they increase requirements for reporting an offender’s whereabouts, including noting whether they’re on a college campus.
- Longer prison sentences and civil commitment is not going to fix everything.  I may stop one person, but most sexual crimes are by first time offenders.  Education is the key not fear and hysteria!

In his opening remarks, Gaetz said over the past 15 years, 594 Florida sexual offenders had reoffended after serving time for a previous crime.
- Reoffended how?  We are willing to bet most were due to parole / probation violations due to the draconian nature of the unconstitutional laws, but that's only a guess.

Gaetz said, “We will protect our children, and we will scorch the earth against sexually violent predators. And we will start today because we cannot waste one more day and we cannot lose one more child.”
- You need to get off Fantasy Island!  No matter how many laws you pass, people will be violated and (God forbid) murdered.

But critics of the proposed laws call them well-intentioned but ultimately nothing more than “feel-good legislation.” Florida Action Committee President Gail Colletta says Gaetz is pushing something that won’t make children safer.

“I understand where he’s coming from and I admire his intent and his beliefs to make Florida a safer state, but instead of saying this is going to be the most unfriendly place for sex offenders, his statement should have been, ‘This is going to be the safest place for children,'” she says.
- You cannot say that since nobody can guarantee Florida will be the "safest" place.  That is another false / wishful statement.  Passing insane laws won't solve anything, you need to be educating children in school!

Colletta’s group advocates for what it calls an evidence-based approach to sex offender legislation. She says the new laws employ more of the tactics that haven’t worked: imposing harsh punishments on all sex offenders regardless of their risk for committing future offenses. She advocates for risk assessments to be administered before sentencing.
- We do not believe in risk assessments at all.  If someone commits a crime then they need to be punished for it, but once they get out of prison and off probation / parole, then they should be able to do what everybody else does without any regulations and insane rules!

And she says violent sex offenders released from prison need step-down housing so they can get re-acclimated to society. "Because some of these guys are going to be, like, 30-plus years that they haven’t been living amongst the rest of us, and now they’re going to be given $100 and a bus ticket," she says.

With research showing more than 95 percent of sexual offenses are committed by first-time offenders, Colletta agrees with Thomspon that education is the most important factor in preventing more cases like Somer’s.

See Also:

• Florida lawmaker says DHS should face "tough questions" about its new sex offender evaluation director

Video Source

MN - Inside The Razor Wire, Part 1: Tour Of MN Sex Offender Program

Moose Lake

Original Article

03/03/2014

By Susie Jones

The Minnesota Sex Offender Program is “clearly broken” and in need of repair. That’s according to a federal judge who ruled this month on a class action lawsuit, brought against the state, by clients of the program.

WCCO’s Susie Jones begins a series of reports on the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, taking us “Inside the Razor Wire.” We begin with an exclusive tour of the Moose Lake facility.

MOOSE LAKE (WCCO) – Inside the Minnesota Sex Offender Program at Moose Lake, men return to the hallways after being locked inside their rooms to be counted.

It is bright and clean, and doesn't look like you might think it would.

“I think they think of something more dark and dingy, something more punitive,” Kevin Moser, who manages the facility, said. “This is a therapeutic community. It is a therapeutic expectation of staff, and clients, who support our clients in positive change.”


About 500 clients live in locked rooms with a bed, a dresser, a desk and their own belongings. The average age is 47 and most are white. They have all served time in prison for sexual offenses and have been civilly committed to the program.

While there, they can learn a trade and get treatment.

“Someone could be struggling with anxiety and pedophilia,” Clinical Director Jannine Hebert said.

Hebert is in charge of the therapy the client’s receive. She says the men take part in group sessions three times a week, and their behavior is monitored at all times — with staff keeping a close eye on how they interact with their peers.

“Because what we know about people with pedophilic interest is that they are scared of adults and gravitate toward children. So, part of his treatment plan may be this weekend, ‘I’m going to tell you to go play basketball and I’m going to let staff know if you are isolating in the corner,’” she said.

Herbert believes re integration into society is possible and should be attempted.

“I want clients to be successful in treatment, so they don’t hurt anyone else going forward,” she said.


On Tuesday, we meet Michael, a sex offender at Moose Lake who molested a 10-year-old girl. He says the system is broken.

FL - Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders Flouts the Rule of Law

Original Article

So what's next? Concentration camps? Oh wait, these are concentration camps! They are just naming them differently!

02/26/2014

By Jacob Sullum

Although _____ completed his prison sentence in 2006, the state of Missouri kept him behind bars, repeatedly trying to commit him as a “sexually violent predator.” After three juries deadlocked on the question of whether _____ suffers from a “mental abnormality” that makes him “more likely than not” to commit new sex crimes after he is released, a fourth jury on Friday unanimously agreed he does not. In effect, the state retroactively extended _____'s sentence from 10 years to 17.

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay is notorious as a place where people can be held indefinitely without charge because the usual rules of criminal justice do not apply. Twenty states have their own versions of Guantanamo Bay for sex offenders, a fact that attracts little attention and generates little outrage because the detainees are even less sympathetic than suspected terrorists.

At the age of 18, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, _____ “got caught sticking his hand in the pants of a 5-year-old girl playing in a yard.” He pleaded guilty to sexual abuse, got probation and underwent treatment. Fourteen years later, after he was arrested for molesting the 7-year-old daughter of close friends, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

You may well think a 10-year sentence is too short for a child molester. The prosecution thought 25 years would have been appropriate. But that is not the sentence _____ got, and lengthening a prison term after it has been completed is a practice usually associated with arbitrary dictatorships, not liberal democracies that supposedly respect the rule of law.

When it upheld a law similar to Missouri's in the 1997 case Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court said preventive detention of sex offenders is constitutional as long as the aim is not “punitive” and the procedures for committing people meet the requirements of due process. In a concurring opinion, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned that if the official rationale for commitment is treatment, “but the treatment provisions were adopted as a sham or mere pretext,” that fact would indicate “the forbidden purpose to punish.”

Missouri's Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (SORTS), the target of a federal lawsuit that argues it locks people in a prison disguised as a hospital, seems to illustrate Kennedy's point. “Since the program started in 1999,” the Post-Dispatch reports, “nobody has completed treatment.” In a 2009 memo, the director of Missouri's Department of Mental Health worried that such a record would prove SORTS is nothing but a “sham.”

Minnesota, with more civilly committed sex offenders per capita than any other state, has a similarly dismal record, even though it spends $120,000 a year to detain each of those “patients,” three times the cost of keeping someone in prison. Last week, in a ruling that allowed a lawsuit challenging the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) to proceed, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank noted that “no civilly committed sex offender has ever been discharged.” Assuming the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true, he said, “it appears that MSOP may very well be serving the constitutionally impermissible purposes of retribution and deterrence.”

Some states have better records. But overall, as you might expect given the incentives involved, civilly committed sex offenders are almost never deemed to be “cured,” and so they are almost never released.

In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court emphasized that a sex offender could be committed only if he suffered from a “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” that undermined self-control, justifying “a prediction of future dangerousness.” But according to Justice Department data, most prisoners have “mental health problems,” and many of them surely have behaved in ways that would make a “prediction of future dangerousness” plausible.

Is that all it takes to lose your freedom forever? If so, the idea that people should be imprisoned only for crimes they have committed, as opposed to crimes they might commit in the future, may one day seem positively quaint.

MN - Talking Points: Legality Of MN’s Sex Offender Program

Original Article

02/23/2014

By Esme Murphy

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) - A ruling late last week says the legislature needs to act to fix a draconian system that Minnesota uses to lock up more than 700 sexually dangerous offenders.

The ruling stopped just short of calling the program unconstitutional, but it appears to pave the way for some of these offenders to be released.

It’s the kind of charged issued that no elected official wants to deal with — especially in an election year.

More than 700 sexually dangerous offenders who have completed their prison sentences are locked up at state facilities in Moose Lake and St Peter.

Now, a federal judge, Donavan Frank, has ruled that program is broken and the legislature needs to change it — or else the courts will act.

The message is pretty clear. If the legislature doesn’t take action leading to some of the individuals being released, the court may take action on its own.

Gov. Mark Dayton’s efforts to pave the way for one or two releases last year was met with cries of protest and the release of the offenders was put on hold.

Dan Gustafson, who represents the 700-plus offenders in a class action lawsuit, appeared on WCCO Sunday Morning.

“There is no question that people who have been committed under this program in the state of Minnesota have committed some horrific acts in the past. That really can’t be disputed. The files are what they are, but this is not a situation in this country under our constitution in which we allow preventative detention,” Gustafson said. “If the treatment they have been promised is just a guise for ‘we are going to lock you up and never let you go,’ that is not allowed under our constitution.”

With Dayton and the entire Minnesota House up for reelection, the issue on what to do with the sexual offender program will certainly be a subject of fierce debate during the upcoming legislative session as well as a likely key election issue this fall.

WI - Scott Walker's administration fires new sex offender administrator

Scott Walker

Original Article

02/20/2014

By Jason Stein and Daniel Bice

Madison - Gov. Scott Walker's administration Wednesday dropped a controversial new hire charged with evaluating sex offenders for release back into Wisconsin communities, a move that came only hours after Walker said he opposed the psychologist.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported on the hire of Daniel Montaldi as "evaluation director" at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, a state facility for sex predators. Montaldi, who was to evaluate sex offenders and recommend to court officials which ones should be released, resigned from his post running Florida's sex predator program six months ago because he was seen as being too sympathetic to offenders.

"The Department of Health Services has rescinded the verbal offer of employment made to Daniel Montaldi for the Psychologist Supervisor-Chapter 980 (Evaluation Unit Director) position at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center," agency spokeswoman Stephanie Smiley said late Wednesday.

Smiley said Montaldi hasn't received any salary or payment from the state.

"The department will continue to protect the public by operating the program with existing resources as it has during this vacancy. Next steps for recruitment of this position have yet to be determined," she said.

Only hours before on Wednesday morning, Walker told reporters he wasn't happy about the hire of Montaldi and said it would be tricky firing him since he wasn't a political appointee under his direct control.

"I wasn't pleased with it. It's a civil service hire so ... the last two days we've been looking at what legal means we have to try to seek an alternative there," Walker said. "My hope is we'll have an answer by the end of today to do that."

Walker made that statement just as Wisconsin lawmakers began to look critically at the Montaldi hire.

Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc), chairman of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice, said late Tuesday that he hadn't researched Montaldi and didn't know him or his record beyond news accounts.

But "what I have read about him would give me extreme pause about whether he's the right person to ensure serious sex offenders are kept off the streets and away from our children," Kleefisch said.

Florida state Rep. Matt Gaetz said this week that he admired Walker but didn't think much of the Montaldi hire.
- See this article to read more about Mr. Gaetz.

"This is a guy who has a catch-and-release approach to violent sexual predators," said Gaetz, a Fort Walton Beach Republican and chairman of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee. "Mr. Montaldi is a bad egg. We're just glad he's out of Florida."
- Speaking of bad eggs, see the links at the bottom for more on Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Walker.

Smiley said earlier this week that the governor and his staff weren't involved in the selection of Montaldi and that he was chosen as part of a civil service hiring process.

Montaldi came under fire from Gaetz and other Florida lawmakers last year when the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel wrote a three-part series examining problems in the state's sex predator program.

The newspaper found the number of potential predators identified by the state dropped by more than 50% under Montaldi's leadership. The paper also publicized an essay that Montaldi wrote in which he said he believes sex offenders as a group are "statistically unlikely to reoffend."
- The fact is that the recidivism rate, as Mr. Montaldi states, is lower than any other criminal, but hey, who cares about facts, right?

Wisconsin officials at first defended their decision to hire him, referring to the problems in Florida as "an aberration that resulted from factors beyond his control." Initially, Walker's office referred questions about Montaldi to the state Department of Health Services.

Montaldi has not returned calls to his Florida phone number and didn't immediately return a phone call Wednesday.

On Monday, Gaetz — whose father is president of the Florida Senate — said Montaldi resigned shortly after his chief of staff was informed that Montaldi was being called before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee to answer for recent failures in the state's violent sex offender program.
- So what is success to these folks?  Throwing everybody with the "sex offender" label in prison for life?  Sure sounds like it to us.

Montaldi does have an impressive résumé, Gaetz said. But Montaldi's track record should be apparent to anyone interested in hiring him, the Florida lawmaker said.

See Also:

• Unsealed email ties Scott Walker to secret email system (PDF)
• Scott Walker ordered chief-of-staff to fire doctor for past life as thong model
• Florida lawmaker says DHS should face "tough questions" about its new sex offender evaluation director

FL - Florida lawmaker says DHS should face "tough questions" about its new sex offender evaluation director

Rep. Matt Gaetz DUI Photo

Original Article

Mr. Gaetz was arrested for DUI, refused a breathalyzer test, and didn't have his license suspended like the law mandates (here), wants closure, yet he continues to exploit ex-offenders for his own gain? He's also pro-Marijuana legalization. How hypocritical of him! Maybe Florida needs a DUI registry, make it retroactive, then put Mr. Gaetz on it?

02/17/2014

MADISON (WXOW) - The man hired to be the new sexual offender evaluation director for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) resigned from a similar position in Florida last September, after defending the rights of sex offenders and allowing the number of offenders tagged as "sexual predators" to drop by more than half under his watch.

A DHS spokesperson says the agency has selected Dr. Daniel Montaldi to head up sex offender evaluations at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, but notes that the "hiring process is not complete."

Sand Ridge specializes in treatment services for offenders committed under Chapter 980, Wisconsin's sexually violent persons law.

Dr. Montaldi last served as the lead administrator for Florida's Sexually Violent Predator Program.

He resigned that position one day after the Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote an article raising questions about is views and record.

As in Wisconsin, Florida law allows the state to keep sexual predators locked up after their prison sentences end. Dr. Montaldi was in charge of the staff that would evaluate those offenders before they were released and recommend those likely to re-offend for continued confinement.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, the number of sex predator recommendations dropped considerably under Dr. Montaldi. In the year before he became director, the program flagged 213 offenders as potential predators. In the year under Dr. Montaldi's direction, that number dropped to 86.

"We learned that Florida had been releasing violent sexual predators under Mr. Montaldi's watch and that those violent sexual predators were re-offending, sometimes even the day or the same week they were released," Florida State Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-District 4) said on Monday.

Rep. Gaetz is the Chair of the Florida House Sub-Committee on Criminal Justice, who says he found not only Dr. Montaldi's record troubling, but also his comments on the civil rights of sex offenders.
- All human beings are entitled to civil rights, period, so if it offends you then you are not adhering to your oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the rights of others!

The Sun-Sentinel reported that in an August 2013 email to members of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Dr. Montaldi wrote: "The value of liberty in a free society must also extend to society's most feared and despised members. The civil rights of even sex offenders is still an important moral value."

"I think the people of Wisconsin should have a lot of questions about somebody that was essentially run out of the State of Florida because he used a position as an administrator with our sexually violent predator program to increase the propensity for releases for some very, very dangerous people," said Rep. Gaetz.

But in its statement, DHS downplayed those concerns.

"Dr. Montaldi has experience, expertise and philosophies that align with the Department's role under Chapter 980 with regard to the treatment and supervision of sex offenders as well as sex offender re-offense risk assessment. He is widely recognized as a content expert in risk assessment and we are eager to have him join our staff," wrote DHS Spokesperson Stephanie Smiley.

Smiley said that because the hire is not yet complete, she cannot confirm a start date or salary for Dr. Montaldi, but says the starting salary for the position was listed to go as high as $122,316 annually.

See Also:

• Scott Walker looking to fire new sex offender administrator
• Bill Would Ban Release of Mug Shots in Florida

MO - Sex offender faces a different kind of limbo

Civil Commitment (SORTS)

Original Article

02/19/2014

By Jesse Bogan

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY - There is a special wing here at the county jail that holds nine detainees who were convicted long ago for sex crimes. They already served their time in prison.

Still, they wear bright orange jumpsuits as they await another kind of trial.

Flagged as possible sexually violent predators, the Missouri attorney general’s office wants them held indefinitely at a secure state mental institution called Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS.

But first, in most of their cases, juries will be asked to make a rare decision in the American legal system — keep them locked away on the expectation of another crime.

“Somebody with a crystal ball believes I may commit a crime in the future. And they want to lock me up for the rest of my life in a mental institution out of fear,” detainee _____ said from jail last week.

_____, 49, who had a condo in Ballwin before going to prison in 1997, compared the civil commitment legal procedure to throwing a DWI offender in prison before getting pulled over for a repeat offense.

“To me, it makes no sense,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court assured in a 5-4 decision that it does.

But few have seen the civil commitment process play out the way it has for _____ — or for as long. He’s been detained and awaiting trial — mainly at the Ste. Genevieve County Sheriff’s Department Detention Center — since he finished his prison sentence at the end of 2006.

Since then, three juries have failed to agree on a unanimous verdict needed to commit him to the care of the Missouri Department of Mental Health.
- Why is it even going to three juries?  After the first, if they failed to say he needed commitment, then he should've been released.  Seems to me like they want him committed regardless of what "experts" say or a jury.

A fourth jury was selected Tuesday in St. Louis County.
- Really?  So I guess you will continue to get new juries until you get what you want, in the mean time wasting a ton of money!

“I am going to my fourth trial now after six years, and I am hopeful that I’ll go home,” _____ said from jail.

FEW ABSOLUTES

The jury for _____’s latest case won’t be told about the mistrials, nor SORTS, a facility that has been criticized by civil libertarians for being a prison disguised as a mental hospital. A civil lawsuit against SORTS leaders that has been crawling through U.S. District Court says there is little evidence showing that SORTS residents can progress through treatment and be released back into the community.
But _____’s situation is a different kind of limbo.

He’s found himself tangled in a legal web that isn't holding him at SORTS, nor in prison, but rather in jail, where he’s been playing board games and watching television the past six years.

As the mistrials rack up, he has no idea when it will end.

“It could go on the rest of my life,” he said.

Part of the challenge is there are few absolutes about _____’s case, other than he hasn't been on the streets of St. Louis County for a long time, which is the way some officials want to keep it. They see a pattern in his behavior.

_____ was first arrested in 1983, at age 18. He got caught sticking his hand in the pants of a 5-year-old girl playing in a yard. _____ pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and was sentenced to probation. He underwent sex-offender treatment.

_____, at 5 feet tall, stands out for his size. After graduating from Parkway South High, he earned an associate degree from St. Louis Community College at Meramec. But he was never able to land the career in business that he wanted.

By 1997, he’d been arrested again for molesting a 7-year-old girl. Her hearing-impaired parents used sign language and tears at the criminal trial to describe what their family had been put through by their former friend.

“He seemed such a nice person,” the father testified. “He was so friendly, like family to us. He was taking advantage of us, and that makes me very angry.”

_____’s attorney asked for probation. Prosecutors wanted 25 years.

St. Louis County Circuit Judge Robert S. Cohen sentenced _____ to 10 years in prison.

“I have to be concerned about protecting this little girl and other little girls like her from the likes of you,” Cohen said.

_____ is essentially on trial again in St. Louis County for that same concern, even though he hasn't committed another crime.

RISK FACTORS

While in prison, _____ was admitted to the Missouri Sex Offender Program. Participants are encouraged to explore empathy for victims and develop a plan to prevent a relapse. Graduates have some of the lowest reoffense rates compared to other criminals released from prison.

_____ was kicked out of the program for lack of progress. The second time around, he completed it.

In a 2006 report, evaluators recommended that _____ transition to community supervision, rather than “prolonged incarceration” that could “erode progress made in treatment.” The report asked that he continue therapy after being released from custody. He was instructed to stay away from children and to participate in polygraph testing to ensure compliance with parole.

_____ was never released.

A different evaluator flagged his file near the end of his sentence for possibly meeting the criteria of a sexually violent predator (another evaluator didn’t). A corrections report says _____ self-reported molesting other victims. _____ told an evaluator that he made up victims to satisfy a demanding therapist, according to records in the case.

Actuarial testing tools, similar to those insurance companies use to predict future damage, also showed an increased risk to reoffend.

A panel of mental health professionals agreed that _____ fit the criteria of a predator. So did a collection of prosecutors. A judge was convinced there was probable cause to hold him for evaluation.

Then _____ got a break.

It came in the form of a Department of Mental Health report that said _____ does not belong in the SORTS program. Although he “suffers a mental abnormality,” he isn't “more likely than not” to reoffend if he was free.

Richard G. Scott, who wrote the 13-page report, continues to testify on _____’s behalf.

PROVING HIMSELF

St. Louis County jurors in his previous civil commitment hearings were surprised to hear _____ is still on trial.

Kimberly Zeman, 57, was in the jury box in 2010. That jury deadlocked 6-6, according to the court file.

“I don’t think anybody on the jury thought he wouldn’t do it again if he got out,” Zeman said in an interview. “But if we went based on the law, he passed every test, and I think that was a problem for a lot of people. We had to go by the law, not by what we thought.”

The second trial was closer. Nine wanted to turn _____ over to mental health authorities; three voted to free him, including Richard Herbert, 76, a retired trucking company supervisor.

“He served his time. He should be released,” Herbert said. “Of course all the females, they said he should be incarcerated. They all had kids.”

Herbert said the jury wanted to know more about what commitment would entail, but those details weren't shared.

Dan Kapsak, 40, was the jury foreman of that trial. Before he agreed to be interviewed, he said his comments were not associated with his job as a federal prosecutor in Illinois. He said the three dissenters on the hung jury seemed to base their decision on public policy arguments, not the evidence.

He was in disbelief that the third jury also failed to get a verdict and that a new one was being seated.

“That speaks to how serious of a threat the state thinks _____ is,” Kapsak said. “They are willing to spend the taxpayer money and keep moving forward.”
- So tell me again, what is the purpose of a jury?

Over the past six years, _____ has spent about $75,000 trying to defend himself.

“I’ve had to sell my house, my car. All my finances are gone,” he said.

His adoptive father, a retired price analyst at McDonnell Douglas, died while _____ was in jail. Now, _____ would like to care for his 85-year-old mother in Des Peres.

“I really just want to get back out in society and prove myself, let people know that I am a changed person,” he said. “The mistakes I made in my past are not who I am.”

On Tuesday, at the first day of his fourth trial, he’d swapped the orange jumpsuit for a blue button-down shirt. Leg shackles were hidden by gray dress pants.

He sat near his lead attorney, Eric Selig, and jotted notes about potential jurors.

“It’s the most important part,” he said during a break in jury selection.

See Also:

• (Similar case) Jury deadlocks on whether to deem convicted sex offender as violent predator

FL - Florida lawmakes hope to tighten loopholes in sex offender laws

Rep. Dane Eagle

Original Article

02/17/2014

By Marisa Kendall

Florida lawmakers have agreed to make reforming sex offense laws a priority this legislative session, a move spearheaded in part by a Cape Coral representative.
- What else is new? They do this every single year.

Rep. Dane Eagle, R-Cape Coral, jumped on board after a Sun Sentinel investigation suggested the state mishandled hundreds of sex offense cases and allowed convicted offenders to find new victims.

“I’m passionate about it,” Eagle said, “and I’m glad others are taking notice.”

House and Senate panels passed a handful of correlating bills last week that would keep sex offenders behind bars longer, require them to provide more personal information after they are released, notify victims when they are released, and eliminate a loophole that could allow sex offenders to leave prison without serving a period of community supervision. The legislative session begins March 4.

HB 7021, one of two bills sponsored by Eagle, would make it easier to detain sex offenders under Florida’s Jimmy Ryce law. The 1999 law requires the state to evaluate violent sex offenders to determine if they are still a threat to society after completing their prison terms. If they are deemed a threat, the offenders can be confined indefinitely in a treatment program.

Almost 600 offenders evaluated since 1999 were released and later convicted of another sex crime, according to the Sun Sentinel investigation published last year.

“We should at least be able to do our best to keep those kind of people behind bars and under watch,” Eagle said.

Now the decision to commit a sex offender under Jimmy Ryce hinges on a unanimous vote by a Department of Children and Families panel (Isn't that a conflict of interest?), which can range from two to five people. If Eagle’s bill passes, one vote in favor would be enough to commit an offender. And if every member of the DCF panel votes no, the state attorney’s office could override the panel and commit the offender.
- So basically they are going to just start committing everybody?

But Roger Gunder, a Fort Myers sexologist who has worked with sex offenders and victims of sexual abuse, thinks it should be harder, not easier, to imprison someone indefinitely.

“I have never been in favor of locking people up for what you think they might do,” he said, “which is exactly what the Jimmy Ryce act does.”

Eagle’s second sex offender bill, HB 7025, would require sex offenders to disclose more personal information when they are released from prison. The bill updates the current statute, requiring sex offenders to register information including their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

HB 7027 would impose 50-year minimum mandatory sentences for dangerous sexual offenders, eliminate the statute of limitations for sex offenses committed on victims younger than 16, and authorize arrests without warrants in cases of unlawful exposure of sexual organs.

An extended prison sentence would be appropriate for a small percentage of the state’s most violence sex offenders, Gunder said. But most sex offenders need more treatment, not more time in prison.

Gunder said media coverage, such as the Sun Sentinel report, gives the public a distorted view of the recidivism rates of sex offenders. Research shows sex offenders re-offend less often than other types of criminals, he said.

House and Senate leaders, in a show of bipartisanship, have agreed to move forward with the proposed sex offender bills. Eagle is in favor of all of them. He said:

“I’ve already supported them with my votes.”