NY - Sex Offenders Housing Restrictions Are Pointless

Original Article

08/25/2014

By Jesse Singal

On Thursday, Joseph Goldstein of the New York Times reported that “Dozens of sex offenders who have satisfied their sentences in New York State are being held in prison beyond their release dates because of a new interpretation of a state law that governs where they can live.” In short, since 2005, sex offenders in the state can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, and a February ruling from the state's Department of Corrections and Community Supervision extended that restriction to homeless shelters.

Because the onus is on sex offenders to find approved housing before they’re released, Goldstein reported, they've been left with very few options, especially in densely-populated New York City, where there are schools everywhere. This has led to an uncomfortable legal limbo and sparked at least one lawsuit (so far) on behalf of an offender who is still in custody even though he was supposed to be out by now.

The unfortunate thing about this situation is that laws designed to restrict where sex offenders can live are really and truly useless, except as a means of politicians scoring easy political points by ratcheting up hysteria. There are many tricky social-scientific issues on which there are a range of opinions and some degree of debate among experts, but this isn't one of them. Among those whose job it is to figure out how to reduce the rate at which sex offenders commit crimes (as opposed to those whose job it is to get reelected, in part by hammering away at phantom threats), there is zero controversy: These laws don't work, and may actually increase sexual offenders’ recidivism rates.

Maia Christopher, head of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, sent Science of Us a policy paper her organization has prepared on this issue (it’s not yet online, but should be later this week). ATSA’s views on housing restrictions for sex offenders are completely straightforward: The group “does not support the use of residence restrictions as a feasible strategy for sex offender management” because of a lack of evidence they do any good.

The paper notes that these laws have proliferated—“[a]t least 30 states and hundreds of cities” have them—because of some basic misunderstandings about how sex crimes are committed. There’s a collective American fixation on the creepy image of a sex offender salivating just beyond the playground fence, but that’s just not how things usually work.

Rather, these crimes are generally committed by someone known to the victim—93 percent of the time when it comes to child victims, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics—and the majority take place either in the victim’s home or the home of someone they know. “Therefore,” the authors write, “policies based on ‘stranger danger’ do not adequately address the reality of sexual abuse.”

Rest of the article

NJ - Twenty years later, has Megan’s Law delivered?

Maureen Kanka

Original Article

08/24/2014

It’s been 20 years since New Jersey’s Legislature passed Megan’s Law. The two decades since have been filled with legal challenges and disappointment it didn’t accomplish what many thought it would. It’s what happens when politics and emotion team to shortcut the legislative process.

The law is named for Megan Kanka, who was raped and killed in 1994 when she was 7 after being lured into the home of a twice-convicted sex offender, Jesse Timmendequas, who lived across the street from the child.

Her parents, Maureen and Richard, lobbied the Legislature for a law to require registration of sex offenders; it was named after their daughter. It went into effect just months after her horrible death.

Typical of legislation rushed through, New Jersey’s version has been much challenged. Other states and the federal government took their time and did it better. In New Jersey, there is a back story involving Republican Garabed “Chuck” Haytaian, who was Assembly speaker and wanted to replace Frank Lautenberg in the U.S. Senate. His colleagues saw the law as an opportunity.

In his campaign ads, Haytaian bragged he “fast-tracked Megan’s Law.” Both chambers of the Legislature were controlled by Republicans, and so was the Governor’s Office. They wanted to see Lautenberg, a Democrat, beaten. Haytaian came within 3 points of winning.

Emotion and political ambition are not a good combination for strong, effective legislation — the usual vetting and debate got lost. After its passage, it was tied up in court for years, a lot of it because of unforeseen problems. As much as we hate it, there is a reason the legislative process is slow and deliberate by design.

In 2009, a study by the state Department of Corrections and Rutgers University concluded Megan’s Law doesn’t deter sex offenders in New Jersey. The report says it makes it easier to find them because of registration, but you don’t need a report to tell us that. It also said the cost of carrying out the law — the report used $5.1 million, the cost in 2007 — may not be justified.

Rest of the article

Let's talk about (sex offenders)

Original Article

Nazi Germany had registries as well!

04/05/2014

By Marc Allen

First, let’s put some things on the table. There is wide consensus that sexual assault is under reported. There is some disagreement about just how under reported sexual assault among adults is (and some controversy about how it is defined and measured), but there are good estimates that only about a tenth of sexual abuse against children is ever reported. Abuse against children is especially heinous because of the lifelong harm it can inflict on the survivors and the subsequent costs it imposes on society.

Now, let’s talk about one hugely counterproductive way to deal with sexual assault: public sex offender registries.*

Public registries started appearing in the early 1990s and became ubiquitous, with the help of federal legislation, by the early 2000s. Since then, both the feds and the states themselves have slowly been expanding their registries and adding restrictions to registrants.

There have been a number of good pieces in the last few years critical of public registries. Here. Here. And here. But public registries remain popular. Some states have expanded their registries in the last decade and/or added additional restrictions to registrants.

You can imagine why this ratcheting upwards keeps happening. Being pro sex offender isn't a terribly popular political stance. Take geographic bans for example. Once registrants are banned from living or loitering within 500 feet of a school, it’s easy and good politics to to expand 500 feet to 1000 feet (or even 2500 feet). After that, it’s easy to add daycare's, parks, churches, and Chuck E Cheese’s to the list of protected places.

The end result of these geographic bans is that large portions of cities become off-limits. Densely populated areas are especially bad. Here’s a map of the city of Grand Rapids, blue areas are within 1000 feet of a school, red areas are within 1000 feet of a day care:

Read the rest of the article

FL - New bill could mean tougher penalties for teachers who have sex with students

Original Article

You do not need a law for this. If they have sex with someone who is underage, you have a law for that, if it's consensual, then the school board should deal with it! And what about politicians who have sex with interns (Mark Foley, Bill Clinton, etc)? Are you going to toughen the penalties for that as well? Politicians think they can just make a law and everything will go away, or they do it to help themselves look "tough" on crime while actually doing nothing.

04/01/2014

ORLANDO - Channel 9 has covered many cases of local teachers accused of having sex with students. Now lawmakers in Tallahassee hope to cut down on the behavior by increasing the punishment teachers face.

If the punishments are increased, it would not affect teachers in central Florida who already have pending cases, Channel 9's Kathi Belich learned.

Rep. Jake Raburn said high school student in Hillsborough County asked him to propose tougher penalties because the problem was growing in their area.

_____ was a teacher at Eustis High School when she was accused of having a sexual relationship with not one but two students there.

_____ was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison, but she was released after serving a year and eight months. She also had to register as a sex offender.

A bill sponsored by Raburn would make sexual crimes involving educators and students more serious, with the maximum penalties increased.
- Why only stop at teachers?  What about politicians, police, day care workers, etc?

Parents of students at Eustis High School told Channel 9 they support the idea.

Last year, two local teachers were accused of having sexual relationships with students.

Jones High School teacher _____ faces 20 charges and former Lyman math teacher _____ is accused of having sex with two students.

House Bill 485 has passed through all the House committees and one Senate committee.

Raburn's office said there seems to be a lot of support but a vote has not been scheduled yet.

AUSTRALIA - Sex offender squad faces axe

Original Article

04/02/2014

A specialist WA Police squad responsible for monitoring thousands of convicted sex predators could be axed as part of a push to shave millions off the police budget's bottom line.
- Not all sex offenders are predators!

A high-level razor gang has been examining the operations of the sex offender management squad, which tracks the movements of more than 3000 rapists and paedophiles living in the community.
- Not all sex offenders are rapists or pedophiles!

The squad also monitors about 20 offenders who are classified as dangerous, such as the recently released serial rapist known only as TJD.

But despite the importance of the work it does, senior police have refused to guarantee the unit's survival.

"All business units in WA Police are being scrutinised as part of the Frontline 2020 Reform Program," Acting Deputy Commissioner Paul Zanetti said.

But Mr Zanetti denied any decision about the future of SOMS - or any other specialist unit - had been made.

The recidivism rate for those monitored by SOMS is less than one per cent, well below other jurisdictions.

Police working in the unit fear any attempt to close them down will lead to that rate going up.
- Which is based on personal feelings (job security), not facts!

If the unit was scrapped, suburban detectives could be forced to pick up the workload.
- So tell me, what is the purpose of probation and parole officers again?

"Any suggestion that there have been proposals put forward or decisions made regarding State crime are completely untrue," Mr Zanetti said.

Hetty Johnston, founder of child protection group Bravehearts, urged WA Police to look elsewhere to find savings.

"Any talk of scaling back in this climate - especially with the Royal Commission running - is just dangerous and irresponsible," Ms Johnston said.

SOMS was formed in 2005 after the establishment of a national sex offender register.

Those on the register have to meet regularly with a case officer - usually an experienced police detective - and disclose any changes to their personal circumstances including travel plans, the car they own, where they live and who they work for. Offenders who are considered dangerous - like TJD - must comply with stricter conditions such as wearing a GPS tracker, night-time curfews and bans on drinking alcohol.

Shadow police minister Michelle Roberts called on Police Minister Liza Harvey to intervene and guarantee the future of SOMS.

"These are crimes that the community find abhorrent and any winding back of this would disturb me greatly," Mrs Roberts said.

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!

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 - David Jolly Showcases Support of Jessica's Law in New Video

David Jolly

Original Article

Like usual, someone is running for office so they bust out the heart-tugging issues about children. Mark is being played for someone else's personal gain, in our opinion, and he's a patsy.

02/11/2014

By KEVIN DERBY

David Jolly, the Republican running in the special election for an open congressional seat in Pinellas County, released a new video showcasing his work for “Jessica’s Law” and standing against child predators. Jolly takes on former state CFO Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate, and Libertarian Lucas Overby in the March 11 special election.

“Many years ago, while awaiting to board a flight at Washington’s Reagan National Airport to return home to Pinellas, I met a man by the name of Mark Lunsford. It was a moment that changed my life,” Jolly emailed supporters on Tuesday. “Most of us know the tragic story of Mark’s loss. His 9-year-old daughter Jessie lost her life at the hands of a child predator who lived in the neighborhood. I’ll never forget my first conversation with Mark. I approached him to express my condolences and to offer my encouragement for the good work he was doing to enact Jessica’s Law in states across the country and to fight for increased federal law enforcement resources through passage of the Adam Walsh Act. When I asked Mark what he was doing in Washington that week, he replied simply, ‘I’m up here lobbying for some appropriations.’ Mark was referring to his efforts to secure funding for the U.S. Marshals Service to go after absconders from the sex offender registry.”

“I wanted to help – so I offered to work with him and other surviving parents to convince leaders in Congress to provide the marshals the funding they needed,” Jolly added. “Two years later, as one team devoted to an incredibly important cause, we had succeeded in securing tens of millions of dollars for the marshals to help protect our communities and our children from child predators. Mark has become a dear friend. He has followed this campaign closely. He recently decided to weigh in and record this commercial about our work together.”

Jolly looked to deflect attacks from Sink and her allies against his work as a lobbyist. “Throughout this campaign, my opponent and some in the press have raised politically motivated questions about my work in Washington,” Jolly wrote. “They’ve raised questions of personal trust. They’ve challenged my character. Even more, I have been criticized for saying that I am proud of my work in Washington. I am proud of my work, and Mark is the main reason why. And I am even more proud of my friend Mark and the work he did in Washington -- and I am forever grateful that he let me bear witness to his commitment, his drive and his fight to help parents across the country.”

“I didn’t get into this race to seek the affirmation of my opponent or the press. I got into this race to seek the support and affirmation of people like Mark Lunsford. I am humbled by Mark’s support and I’ll let his words in this commercial serve as my response to those in this campaign who continue to criticize my work on behalf of this community,” Jolly continued. “I’ve put my heart and soul into this campaign. I know many of you have as well. It really comes down to this – a campaign like ours that is committed to serving our community and serving those who need help working with Washington, or a campaign started, funded, and run by the Washington establishment with the sole purpose of serving the interests of Washington.”