FL - PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: THE RALLY IN TALLY

Advocates of sex offender registry reform will gather in a peaceful protest at the Florida State House in Tallahassee FL on April 22, 2015 during the annual Lauren Book's 'Walk In My Shoes' event. The Rally in Tally is a joint collaboration among civil rights activists; we seek to raise awareness of the sex offender law reform movement, provide educational material, and garner attention to our plights at a high-profile event that brings politicians, celebrity advocates, and the news media together.

The intent of the Rally in Tally is not to attack, dispute, or criticize the efforts of Lauren's Kids as it relates to raising awareness and the prevention of sexual abuse in America. However, we are taking a stand against the policies of the Lauren's Kids foundation in its efforts to promote and lobby for Florida's "scorched Earth" policies. Lauren Book and her powerful lobbyist father, Ron Book, have pushed a number of harmful policies under the Lauren's Kids banner, including tough residency restrictions that forced registered citizens in Miami-Dade County to sleep under bridges, in abandoned parking lots, and even along train tracks and warehouses. In the past year Lauren's Kids supported a law marking the state-issued ID cards of some registrants with a scarlet letter, creating "pocket parks" to expand exclusion zones against registrants, and is currently supporting a lifetime GPS bill for all registered persons. In addition, Lauren Book has referred to all registered citizens as "monsters," "incurable," a "clear and imminent danger," and "ticking time bombs."

We cannot make the Rally in Tally a success without you, our fellow activists. We need people willing to travel to Tallahassee to present the Book family, Florida Legislature and ill-informed public with a visual representation of the unconsidered consequences of hastily-devised legislation. Registered citizens, civil rights activist and registrant families are strongly encouraged to attend. Our hope is that anyone reading this will realize each person is needed at this rally to stand publicly for our rights. If you cannot attend the event, then we encourage you to support the rally movement by making a donation to assist in paying for supplies or sponsor someone who otherwise would not be able to participate.

Please send us an email at contact@womenagainstregistry.com for more information and to receive periodic updates about this exciting event!


Vicki Henry
Women Against Registry, President
202.630-0345
Fighting the Destruction of Families
Facebook: Women Against Registry
Follow us on Twitter: @WomenAgainstReg

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

Let the Burden Fit the Crime: Extending Proportionality Review to Sex Offenders

Original Article (PDF)

03/2014

By Erin Miller

Draconian restrictions on the activities and privacy of convicted sex offenders are a new, and troublesome, trend. In 1994 and 2006, following a national dialogue about crimes against children sparked by several high-profile incidents, Congress passed two laws requiring states to register and regulate sex offenders residing within their borders. States and municipalities soon caught on, and deepened restrictions. In the last five years alone, local governments have forbidden sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of schools; “be” within 500 feet of parks or movie theaters; enter public libraries; drive buses or taxis; photograph or film minors; and use social networking websites like Facebook. Others have required sex offenders to advertise their status on driver’s licenses or social networking profiles; wear GPS bracelets at their own expense; notify local police when present in any county within the state for longer than ten days; provide notice to all new neighbors within a roughly quarter-mile radius when they move; and pay up to $100 annually to maintain sex offender registries. These burdens typically last for a decade or for life, depending on the jurisdiction and the type of crime committed.

Read the entire story here

FL - Palm Beach County Commissioners To Vote On Sex Offender Ordinance

Original Article

07/22/2014

By Thomas Forester

PALM BEACH COUNTY - There are close to one thousand sex offenders living in Palm Beach County alone.

A major vote Tuesday, could allow registered sex offenders to live closer to schools and parks. Later tonight, Palm Beach County Commissioners will debate the heated issue.

According to State law, sexual offenders and predators cannot live within one thousand feet from specified locations where children gather.

In Palm Beach County, the law is 2500 feet, but the county wants to change it to be the same as the state.

MA - Templeton approves sex offender residency restrictions

Original Article

07/11/2014

By George Barnes

TEMPLETON - Voters at a special town meeting Thursday night approved a bylaw establishing sex offender residency restrictions.

The restrictions, proposed by resident Rachael Messina, were overwhelmingly approved after Police Chief Michael Bennett and Selectman Kenn Robinson both spoke in favor of the bylaw.

Chief Bennett said there are many communities across the state that have adopted residency restrictions for sex offenders. Among the communities in Worcester County with restrictions are Leominster, Bolton, Charlton, Dudley, Spencer, Webster and West Boylston.

Templeton has three Level 3 and 13 Level 2 sex offenders in town. The regulations would not affect them unless they change their residence.

The bylaw prohibits a Level 2 or 3 sex offender from establishing a permanent or temporary residence within 1,000 feet of property of public or private schools, parks, elderly housing, an over-55 community, senior citizens center or licensed day care center.

To enforce the bylaw, police may file criminal or noncriminal complaints, but in both cases the fine is $300 for each offense.

Ms. Messina said she filed for the bylaw out of concern that sex offenders posed a risk to residents of the town. It is the second time the town has approved a sex offender residency bylaw. A similar law was approved by the town in May 2013 but disallowed by the state Attorney General's office in October. The reasons given for rejecting the bylaw were it was too vague, did not sufficiently specify prohibited conduct and did not include some terms in the definitions section of the bylaw.

Ms Messina said that in the hope of winning approval this time, she drew up a new bylaw based on similar documents in other communities.

WI - Milwaukee May Restrict Where Sex Offenders Can Live

Original Article

07/11/2014

By LATOYA DENNIS



The city may limit where ex-offenders can live, because many surrounding communities have done so, resulting in a high rate of placement in the city.

When sex offenders leave prison, state law demands that they return to the county where they had lived prior to incarceration. Nearly 90 percent of the sex offenders who came from Milwaukee County, now live in the City of Milwaukee, because of restrictions suburbs enacted.

Ald. Michael Murphy says the city asked the state to intervene, but because it has not, leaders here may also limit the neighborhoods where ex-offenders can live.

“You will have 117 locations to consider for your future placement, and in reality it will be more like 15 or less and what that impact will be to your operations,” Murphy says.

Under legislation a Common Council committee advanced Thursday, sex offenders could not live within 2,000 feet of a daycare, school, playground and other places where children congregate.

Murphy says if the full council agrees, there will only be one square mile within city limits where sex offenders could live.

Ald. Bob Bauman says while he has opposed residency limits in the past, they will now get his full support, for one reason.

“It increases the perception of Milwaukee as a crime infested second rate place to live and the suburbs are great and look, we can keep out all the undesirable people. And I’m just sick and tired of that paradigm being in place. And the state seems unconcerned because these are Republican suburbs by in large, and heaven forbid those representatives are going to take on these uniform residency rules. So enough is enough the city is going to join the party and it’s your problem now,” Bauman says.

The state Department of Corrections had a representative on hand at Thursday’s hearing, Melissa Roberts. She says if the map for placements changes, authorities could lose track of sex offenders. Right now, many do reside in the city, and police know where.

“The intent of the sex offender registry is to know where sex offenders live and to be able to provide that information to the general public and to law enforcement. Where there are registry restrictions in place and sex offenders don’t have a place to live we obviously have increased homelessness. So we do not know where they live and cannot follow them,” Roberts says.

Roberts says sex offenders are more of a danger to the public when they’re off the grid versus being monitored. When it comes to complaints about the high concentration of sex offenders placed in Milwaukee, Roberts says the majority are from the city.

The issue will come before the full board on July 22.

IL - Elgin police want new sex offender registration law

Original Article

07/09/2014

By Elena Ferrarin

Members of the Elgin Police Department have asked local state officials to craft legislation that would supersede a court decision they say makes it more difficult to enforce the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Officers from the department's resident officer program and crime-free housing unit are in charge of keeping track of Elgin's approximately 120 registered sex offenders, Elgin police Lt. Frank Trost said.

Sex offenders must notify the local enforcement agency of their residence within three days of moving. Most have to do that for 10 years; sexual predators must register for life. Failing to register once is a Class 3 felony, and a Class 2 felony thereafter, Trost said.

However, the August 2013 ruling by the Second District Illinois Appellate Court regarding a case in Aurora means that police, in addition to having to prove sex offenders are not living at their registered address, have to prove they have been living elsewhere for more than five days, Trost said.
- Remember, people are innocent until PROVEN guilty, so you must prove someone is guilty, not the other way around!

Consequently, Trost said, police now have to allocate extra time and resources -- through surveillance and record-checking -- to prove residence at the unregistered address, which is especially burdensome if the sex offenders moved out of town, Trost said.
- Aww, too bad!  Police, politicians and the public are the ones who want these unconstitutional laws, so now you should have to deal with it like those who are affected by the laws have to.

"It's a small percentage (of sex offenders) that try to go off the record, but I can think of three within the last six months that were directly affected by that ruling," he said. "The hours involved can be pretty intensive."

One case involving a sex offender who was living in Aurora without registering there required about 25 hours of work over three weeks, officer Robert Engelke said.

Trost, Engelke and other officers met with state Rep. Anna Moeller and state Sen. Michael Noland in late June to push for new legislation.

Moeller and Noland said they'll be looking into the issue.

"From my initial conversation with police, it does sound like it is a burden and it takes a lot of time and resources for the police departments to track these registered sex offenders down," Moeller said.

"I'm going to be looking into how we can fix that, if possible with legislation, but I need to do more research first to understand where in the statutes we need to fix that," she said.

Noland said he will be doing research in the next couple of weeks.

"The fact that police have to prove this individual is at a specific address, I think may be a little too burdensome for the police, and not fair to the public, because we have to ensure their safety," he said.
- So are you saying you want to just assume the person in question is guilty?

He also noted the appellate court opinion was delivered by Judge Joe Birkett, the former DuPage County state's attorney.

In Elgin, the police department conducts at-home checks of sex offenders twice a year, even though state law requires it only once a year, Trost said.

Sometimes, it's hard to say whether someone truly lives where they say they do, officer Shelley Mendiola said.

For example, one sex offender's home had only a mattress on the floor and no stove, although there was a working bathroom, she said. In that case, the only way to be certain is to set up surveillance, she said. Police also can get clues about sex offenders' whereabouts via Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, officer Rob Hartman said. Illinois bars registered sex offenders from using social networking sites.

Elgin's major investigations division used to be in charge of the sex offender program until spring 2013, when it was assigned to ROPE and crime-free housing officers, who have closer ties with the community, Trost said.

"(Sex offenders) are human like we are, so you want to create a rapport with them," Engelke said.

CA - Do Residency Bans Drive Sex Offenders Underground?

Original Article

07/07/2014

By Steven Yoder

Early last year, Los Angeles set aside a sliver of land in its Harbor Gateway neighborhood for the city’s newest and smallest park: two jungle gyms on a fifth of an acre.

The project was more than just an effort to increase the city’s green space. City Council members made clear that one of the park’s principal reasons for existence was to force 33 people on the California sex offender registry who were living in a nearby apartment building to move out. State law bars those on its registry from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

“We came together, working with the police department, to problem-solve, to send a message that Harbor Gateway cannot be dumped upon with a high number of registered sex offenders,” councilman Joe Buscaino said (Video) at the park’s opening.
- Just imaging how much money would be wasted if all grandstanding politician were to put pocket parks all over the state just so they can "look tough" on ex-sex offenders?  That is all this is, grandstanding!

But the state ban itself already clusters registrants into a limited number of areas, according to a September 2011 report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, which was created by the state legislature to advise it on sex offender policies.

California hasn’t been alone in its tough approach to ensuring that formerly incarcerated sex offenders pose no danger after they are released. As part of a wave of new sex offender laws starting in the mid-1990s, about 30 states and thousands of cities and towns passed such residency restrictions—prompting in turn a pushback from civil liberties advocates, state legislators and registrants themselves who argued the restrictions were not only unduly harsh but counterproductive.

But a court decision in Colorado last year could mark a shift in momentum.

In the Colorado case, _____, a high school soccer coach convicted in 2001 for a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student, was sentenced to seven years’ probation and put on the state sex offender registry.

Eleven years later, in 2012, he and his wife bought a house in the city of Englewood. But the police department told him he couldn’t live there because of a city ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds—a law that effectively made 99 percent of its homes and rentals off limits to offenders.

Englewood police also warned offenders that even in the open one percent, if they contacted a homeowner whose property wasn’t for rent or for sale, they could be charged with trespassing.

_____ sued, and last August a federal court concluded that the city’s ban went too far.

The judge ruled that it conflicted with the state’s existing system for managing and reintegrating sex offenders and could encourage other towns and cities to do the same, effectively barring offenders from the entire state. Englewood has appealed, but two of the state’s five other cities that have residence bans have softened their restrictions since the decision.

The other three are awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to John Krieger of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which represented Ryals.

Read the rest of the article

CA - Sex-offender ordinance to be repealed

Original Article

07/06/2014

By CRAIG SHULTZ and DAYNA STRAEHLEY

Riverside County is poised to do away with an ordinance that sets rules on where sex offenders can live or visit in an effort to avoid a lawsuit.

The county established sex-offender residency and loitering prohibitions for unincorporated areas in 2010, but the Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval last week to repeal the law because an appeal court has invalidated similar ordinances in other municipalities.

Hemet and Beaumont changed their ordinances recently for the same reason.

The county ordinance sets limits on where parolees could live and how close they could come to schools, parks and child care centers. The court said such laws are unnecessary because local ordinances regulating sex offenders are trumped by state law, a county report states.

County counsel insisted that the 2010 law be repealed because a legal group has been suing other counties that had passed similar ordinances, said Jeff Greene, chief of staff for Riverside County Supervisor Kevin Jeffries.

“The courts have struck down every meaningful provision of our ordinance in other counties,” Greene said.

“We asked if there was any of this that ought to be salvaged,” he said. The county counsel’s office insisted that there are still “good protections for families against sex offenders.”

State penal code provisions include a lifetime requirements for sex offenders to register with local law enforcement, prohibitions against entering any park where children gather and a prohibition against a sex offender living with other sex offenders or within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

The 2010 county ordinance prohibited sex offenders from being within 300 feet of a park, school or day care center Supervisors have not heard objections to the repeal of the ordinance from the sheriff or district attorney, Greene said.

The county ordinance came amid public furor over the prospect of a child rapist and killer, _____, being released to a Perris-area group home. _____ eventually was turned away from the facility. Two court rulings said parts of the ordinance were illegal.

In September 2012, the 4th District Court of Appeal’s ruling on a San Diego County case decided that blanket restrictions of Jessica’s Law were unconstitutional.

The law, named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was the murder victim of a convicted sex offender who had failed to report his whereabouts, was approved by California voters in 2006 (Proposition 83).

It requires registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices and includes a number of other provisions that increase the legal penalties for specified sex offenses.

The ruling does not prohibit the Department of Corrections from individually enforcing residency restrictions of the law in San Diego County, but disallowed blanket enforcement.

A different division of the same Court of Appeal issued a decision earlier this year invalidating ordinances in the city of Irvine and Orange County that prohibited sex offenders from entering public parks and recreational facilities.

The state Supreme Court in April denied Irvine’s request to review the decision, keeping the ruling in place.

CA - Sex offenders sue over ordinances that ban them from places

Original Article

07/03/2014

By Jose Gaspar

BAKERSFIELD - Wasco and Taft are among a group of California cities being sued by a civil rights group that advocates on behalf of sex offenders.

In 2006, state voters approved Jessica's Law (Proposition 83), which bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

Shortly after, numerous cities adopted much more restrictive local laws that prohibit sex offenders from being present in any "children's facility," such as a public library, school bus stop, or "any location that facilitates on their property classes or group activities for children."

"We believe it is a misguided and unconstitutional effort to do that," said Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

Bellucci said the group was created to give a voice to registered sex offenders.

In addition to Wasco and Taft, Shafter, Delano, Tehachapi and California City also passed similar sex offender ordinances. So far, Wasco and Taft are the only two cities in Kern County served with a lawsuit by the civil rights group.

In June, the Tehachapi City Council voted to repeal its ordinance rather than risk litigation.

"For us, it's going to be a point where we're going to be spending a lot of money on attorney fees," said Tehachapi Mayor Phil Smith. "And we will not win that battle."
- And that is why all states and counties must fight these laws!

In May, Shafter Mayor Jon Johnston wrote a letter to Bellucci stating Shafter would stop enforcing its ordinance pending further review. The city of Wasco is currently reviewing its response to the lawsuit.

For people such as _____ of Grover Beach, he said the ordinances and restrictions placed on his life have made it extremely difficult to continue with his life. According to the Megan's Law website, in 1979 _____ pleaded guilty to lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14. He served six months in jail and was given two years probation. _____ went on to make a new life and opened a small business. He never committed a new sex crime again.

"The city of Pismo Beach awarded me volunteer of the year for a project I worked on for them," said _____.

But when word leaked about his past, _____ said his landlord terminated his lease and he was forced to lay off five employees and run his business from his home. His gross earnings fell dramatically, he said. He came home one night to find a man waiting for him inside his house. The man took a hammer to _____, who managed to fight him off, but _____ said he suffered numerous injuries. The assailant was arrested and is now in prison.

The way Bellucci sees it, not everyone on the sex offender registry should be on it.

"We have a boy on the registry because he streaked at his high school. That's a sex offense. We had a 16-year-old girl who took a nude selfie and shared it with some students at her high school, she's on the registry," said Bellucci.

And because cases like these are on the registry, they are subject to all sex offender restrictions. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, less then 2 percent of sex offenders on parole committed a new sex crime between 2007 and 2009. The vast majority of children who are sexually molested suffer at the hands of someone known to the family.

California Reform Sex Offender Laws is lobbying for the state to create a tiered registry that distinguishes between the severity of the offenses.

"There are people on the sex offender registry who have raped a child or an adult, and they certainly would be at the highest level," said Bellucci.

For _____, his 1979 conviction will never go away. California law requires him to register for life as a sex offender.

"That was 35 years ago I did something. That's not who I am today," said _____.

AL - Law banning sex offender camp might violate Alabama's constitution

Original Article

07/03/2014

By JAY REEVES

CLANTON - A new law used to shut down a church-affiliated camp for convicted sex offenders in rural Alabama violates a state constitutional amendment designed to protect religious liberty, the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.

Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU's Alabama office, said the law that went into effect this week is in apparent conflict with the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, passed in 1998 to make it tougher for government to infringe on religious rights.

Pastor Ricky Martin says he built a church in rural Chilton County and allowed convicted sex offenders to move to the property because the men had nowhere else to live. He said he was trying to follow biblical instructions to help the outcast.

The camp, which began accepting former inmates in 2010, closed when the new law took effect Tuesday.

Marshall said the amendment "raises serious questions" about the law, which was passed this year and affects Chilton County only. The amendment says laws can restrict religion narrowly only if there is a "compelling governmental interest."

Martin "has sincerely held religious beliefs that he's acting upon, and now you've got government prohibiting him from doing something that he considers part of his religion," Marshall said.

The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Kurt Wallace, said the law is meant to protect the public from people convicted of rape, child molestation and other crimes.

Most of the more than 50 men who've lived in the camp through the years are from other counties and states, officials said.

"No religion is being disenfranchised," Wallace said. "He can practice any religion he wants, but he can't recruit sex offenders to our community. That's just crazy."

Martin hasn't sued to block the law, but he said he might. Some of the half-dozen men who were living in old campers behind his Triumph Church are now homeless, he said.

"I don't know what they're doing, just walking around trying to find a place to sleep," he said.

The law, which Wallace said was drafted with Martin's refuge in mind, prohibits two convicted sex offenders from living within 300 feet of each other on the same property in Chilton County unless they are married. It includes a provision to allow a state-approved counseling center or halfway house if one opened, Wallace said.

Martin, who serves as a volunteer prison chaplain, said the camp was needed because inmates serving time for sex-related offenses have a hard time finding suitable residences after release.

Like other states, Alabama restricts the areas where sex offenders are required to live, barring anyone convicted of certain crimes to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or day care. Laws are even stricter about where offenders can work or hang out, restricting them from being within 500 feet of parks, athletic fields or businesses where kids gather.

Inmates serving time for sex crimes must tell authorities where they plan to live following their release, and prisons or county jails must continue holding anyone who can't prove they have a legal place to live.

See Also:

• New law forces Chilton. Co. sex offenders to leave pastor’s backyard

End of Love (Documentary)

Original Article (Survey)

They are looking for people to interview for this documentary, so if you are interested, take the survey (link above) and contact them if needed.

Matt, Neil, Josh and Zach sought out pornography on the Internet as adolescents. Today they are convicted felons on the National Sex Offender Registry. Their names, photos and addresses are public information available on the Internet. Their residency, movement and employment options are extremely limited.

Law enforcement officials say child pornography possession constitutes the fastest growing prosecuted crime in the US. END OF LOVE is a feature-length documentary about the epidemic of males who are being convicted of downloading child pornography - how it happens and what it says about who we are.

END OF LOVE questions why and how the impulse to seek out child pornography originates in boys and men. Is their on-line sexual exploration and arousal responding to the normalization of sexualized images of underage girls in popular culture? Taking into consideration new discoveries in brain development and addictive behavior, does uncontrolled access to the cornucopia of sexual acts on the Internet at an early age pre-dispose youth to become eventual consumers of child pornography? Or not?

SD - My Voice: Treatment, not prison, answer for sex offenses

Original Article

06/16/2014

By Georgina M. Schaff

On behalf of our 4,000-plus members, the Dakota Reform Sex Offender Laws Family Solutions is asking South Dakota Senate candidates to make this issue a campaign priority.

Our mission — promote medical research, legislation and education to provide an empirically based, rational approach to dealing with sexually related offenses and stop the cycle of abuse to protect all children.

According to the Department of Justice, most child sexual-abuse victims are molested by family members or close acquaintances. About 40 percent of crimes take place in the victim's own home, and 20 percent take place in the home of a friend or relative. Your children are more at risk from your family, your friends and you than from convicted sex offenders.

While I was growing up in the Dakotas, incest was common. The abuser was confronted by family members and the inappropriate behavior stopped, a method that was very successful. I know from personal experience that the behavior can be changed and the abuser can be stopped, with the support of family and loved ones.

History has proved that incarceration and labeling does not protect all children. The Unified Judicial System Annual Report and the Crime in South Dakota report published each year by the Division of Criminal Investigation verify the number of new offenses each year while another child is victimized.

For an "offense" of any sexual nature, America law does not hesitate to destroy the family structure, slowly bankrupts the family and might force the family on public assistance (paid by taxpayers). Often the accused is provided additional legal resources through the court (paid by taxpayers). Citizens are incarcerated (health insurance, room and board paid by taxpayers), and once their sentence is served, they are released back into society, labeled with the registry as to where they can live and have difficulty finding jobs.

Tax dollars could be spent on prevention with a focus on changing the behavior and stopping this cycle of abuse. The Dakotas are known for their compassion and the opportunity to reach out and help those less fortunate.

We must take the "weapon" away, the "law" that provides the power and control over their victim. "If you tell I will have to go to prison, you will never be able see me and our family will be divided." Replace that "law" with, "If you tell, I will have to change my behavior or go to jail."

Early intervention is the only true way to protect all children who are being sexually abused by a first-time offender, and many can live with their family with respect and dignity while confronting their wrongdoing.

Among intervention benefits:

• Protect all sexually abused children with a promise of resources to change the behavior and stop the abuse.
• Behavior therapy is covered by most insurance, not the taxpayer.
• Children would be encouraged to immediately report.
• Future, additional victims will be prevented.
• Taxpayers would save billions on prosecution, incarceration and the registry.
• Cover-ups would be eliminated if treatment were the first option.
• Overcrowding in prisons would be eliminated.
• Families would not have to face a lifetime of shame.
• Many lives would be saved for those who choose suicide.

Dakota RSOL Family Solutions' Mission is for legislation for a confidential family intervention for first time nonviolent sex offenses.

Georgina Schaff of Lemmon is a Dakota RSOL Family Solutions State Affiliate Organizer.

CA - Santa Fe Springs City Council repeals sex offender restrictions

Original Article

06/14/2014

By Mike Sprague

SANTA FE SPRINGS - The City Council Thursday voted 5-0 to repeal a 2010 law that doesn't allow registered sex offenders to come within 300 feet of day-care centers, libraries, schools and parks.

City Manager Thaddeus McCormack said the council didn’t have a choice after a state appellate court in January ruled that state law preempted a city of Irvine law prohibiting registered sex offenders from entering city parks without written permission from its police chief.

The state Supreme Court later declined to review the case.

In his opinion striking down the Irvine law, Justice Richard Aronson wrote, ”We conclude the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupies the field and therefore preempts the city’s efforts to restrict sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities.”

Santa Fe Springs hasn't enforced its law for about a year while awaiting a decision from the court, McCormack said.

The city still has Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83), which was approved by California voters. The law bans registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park, McCormack said.

“It’s a bit regretful that we can’t add our own restrictions,” McCormack said.

“(But) “I think the health and safety of residents of Santa Fe Springs are still going to be maintained and protected,” he said. “It’s an area where the state had weighed in and we defer to the state.”

McCormack said the city was threatened with a lawsuit from California Reform Sex Offender Laws if it didn’t repeal its law.

Janice Bellucci, president of the group, praised the city for its action.

“We are very encouraged and commend the city for repealing the ordinance that violates both the state and federal constitutions,” Bellucci said.

Bellucci said ordinances like Irvine’s and Santa Fe Springs are unfair and don’t make people safer.

The laws restricting where sex offenders can go also give families a false sense of security, Bellucci said.

“Less than 2 percent (of registered sex offenders) will commit another sex crime, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” she said. “(Sex) offenders are more likely to be a family member, a coach or a member of the clergy.”

Whittier Police Chief Jeff Piper, whose city provides police services for Santa Fe Springs, said he understands the rationale for repealing the law and doesn't expect any problems because of the presence of Jessica’s Law.

He also couldn't remember anybody in past years being charged with a violation of the Santa Fe Springs law.

WI - Council Workshop - Sex Offender Placements

See Also:

• Sex Offender Recidivism Studies
• Vigilantism due to the online hit-list

WI - Proposed sex offender ordinance up for debate in Milwaukee

Original Article

06/11/2014

By Michele McCormack

MILWAUKEE - On the eve of a committee hearing about a new sex offender ordinance Alderman Terry Witkowski is taking issue with his fellow council member, Tony Zielinski's, proposal.

"This plan is not a very balanced plan to say the least," Witkowski told CBS 58 investigative reporter Sarah Barwacz.

While Alderman Witkowski says it's important to regulate where sex offender live and hang out, under Zielinski's proposal nearly half of the city's available housing units for convicted sex offender's would be in Witkowski's 13th Aldermanic District.

A CBS 58 News Bottom Line Investigation in May exposed the lack of restriction on where offenders stay.

Reporter Sarah Barwacz broke the story just weeks later about Zielinski, who represents the 14th district, proposing a two thousand feet buffer zone from schools and parks.

When Sarah questioned Witkowski about his district having fewer schools, the council member said that doesn't mean there aren't children around.

"I think you have to look at what's the perception from neighbors here," Witkowski explained. "Are you saying there's less children just because the school isn't within walking distance or two thousand feet? I can guarantee you I got a call from a person indicating that they've got a sexual predator living next door who watches his daughter get off the school bus."
- Imagine if we made and passed all laws based on PERCEPTION!

The Common Council’s Steering and Rules Committee meets Thursday, June 12th in room 301-B at City Hall at 1:30 p.m.

See Also:

• Ordinance restricting sex offenders living in Milwaukee poised for vote

CA - Wasco sued over sex offender ordinance

Original Article

05/16/2014

By Jose Gaspar

WASCO (KBAK/KBFX) - A lawsuit filed Thursday in federal district court in Los Angeles by a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws challenges a Wasco ordinance that restricts sex offenders.

"We allege that the Wasco sex offender ordinance violates both the federal and state constitutions," said Santa Barbara attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the nonprofit legal group.

Wasco approved the ordinance in 2007. It prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any "children's facility."

But, it also bans registrants from being within 300 feet of a wide range of public and private locations, such as libraries, day care centers, parks and other places.

Bellucci said registrants have a right to access a library.

"There's a constitutional right to access to information. That's part of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, and that is being abridged by this city ordinance," said Bellucci.

She said the goal is to get rid of "presence restrictions" in every county in California in 2014.

Wasco city officials defend the ordinance, saying it was adopted with the intent of protecting residents and most of all, children.

"My intent is to protect the welfare and the safety of our children in our community," said Wasco Mayor Tilo Cortez.

According to Megan's Law website, Wasco has 15 registered sex offenders living within the city limits.

"Whenever you have registered sex offenders around small children, it's a concern for any parent," said Cortez.

The lawsuit is asking the federal court that it strike down the city's ordinance as null and void, and that Wasco pay all attorney fees and costs associated with the suit.

Five other cities in Kern County have similar sex offender ordinances in place: California City, Delano, Shafter, Taft and Tehachapi.

Just two weeks ago, the city of Shafter agreed to stop enforcing its ordinance after being informed by California Reform Sex Offender Laws that it, too, could be sued.

Cortez said he could not comment on the suit as the city has not yet been served.

"Obviously, we're just finding out about this, but we'll see where the law takes us," said Cortez.

OK - Thousands come off sex offender list months after new law

Original Article

05/13/2014

By La'Tasha Givens

A new law took thousands off the sex offender registry.

Exposing yourself near a playground, urinating in public or peeping in a bathroom stall are just some of the actions that have landed thousands of people on the sex offender registry.

Now many of those names are disappearing from the list.

“If you were to slap a woman on the behind, that would be sexual battery and you would have to register for 15 years and that has nothing to do with children on the playground,” said attorney David Slane. “People who urinated in public or fall under what we call the Romeo and Juliet situation, where the young man may have been just a little bit older than the girl or vice versa. They’re the ones typically being removed.”

Slane said he’s taken on over 400 sex offender cases, more than anyone else in the state.

In many situations the offenders were on the list way past their punishment because the laws kept changing.

“They’ve had a number of changes or revisions of sex offender registration act over the last ten or 15 years and the court said those later laws could not apply retroactively,” said Jerry Massey spokesperson for the Department of Corrections (DOC).

Out of the 2,400 now off the list, Slane said most are level one or level two offenders which does not include those who committed violent and heinous sex crimes.

He also said under the new law a judge is able to decide a punishment on a case by case basis and not paint all offenders with a wide brush.

Slane said, “The more serious cases are the one we should spend our resources on, not someone who urinated in public.”

DOC officials say they still have another 2,700 cases to review to see if there are more offenders who are eligible to come off the list based on the new law.

TX - Mart May Pass First-Ever Sex Offender Ordinance

Original Article (Video available)

05/11/2014

By Matt Howerton

City Council members in Mart will be voting on a new sex offender ordinance Monday night. The town has never adopted a sex offender ordinance before and if passed, this would be the city’s first ever.

The proposed law comes on the heels of a sex offender registration in town. In April residents’ living near the city’s elementary and high schools were notified via postcard that a registered sex offender was residing in the area.

Since Mart currently has no sex offender ordinance whatsoever, the offender only has to comply with state law, which states that a sex offender can’t live within 500 feet of places where children commonly gather only if he or she is on parole or probation.

Offenders can live wherever they want if they aren’t on parole or probation and there is no city ordinance in place.

Since April, council members have been under the gun to adopt a sex offender ordinance.

“I was bombarded with emails and phone calls and that's what made me realize we needed to do something about this pretty quickly," Mart Mayor Pro-tem Henry Witt said.

“I was just as appalled as some of the other members of the city council.”

Witt and other city council members have since drafted a sex offender ordinance for Mart that states registered sex offenders with violations against children 16 and under cannot live within 1000 feet of where children commonly gather.

If passed however, current sex offenders living near child safety zones like schools or parks would be grandfathered into the ordinance and wouldn’t be forced to relocate.

But new offenders coming into the city could be fined each day they live in a prohibited child safety zone.

Mart’s city council meeting starts at 6:30 pm Monday night.

ME - South Portland may curb where sex offenders can live

Original Article

05/08/2014

By Kate Irish Collins

SOUTH PORTLAND - South Portland Police Chief Ed Googins said he never wants to ask the question of whether his department could have done more to protect the city’s children. That’s why he is pushing for a new ordinance that would limit where a certain class of sex offender could live within city limits.

At its meeting on Monday, the City Council gave unanimous initial approval to the new residency rules, which would prohibit sex offenders convicted of “serious crimes” – defined as a class A, B or C felony against children under 14 – from living within 750 feet of a school, park, athletic field or recreational facility.

The Greenbelt Walkway, which runs the length of the city, however, would be specially exempted. A public hearing and second reading on the ordinance will be held at 7 p.m. on May 19.

In introducing the sex offender residency restrictions, Googins called them “reasonable and balanced” and said the goal of the new rules is to protect children.

He said South Portland has 26 registered sex offenders who live, work or attend school in the city. Of that group, 10 offenders reside in the city and six are now living in areas that would fall within the proposed sex offender restriction zones.

Googins said any sex offender who has had a prior continuous residence within the areas designated as off limits would be grandfathered if the new rules take effect.

In a memo sent to City Manager Jim Gailey outlining the new residency restrictions, Googins said, “There are significant residential areas of the city, which would not be affected and therefore (this ordinance) balances the interests and needs of sex offenders by allowing ample housing.”

In the memo Googins also said, “I fully understand the impact such an ordinance has, and I strongly believe that these further protective measures (are) necessary to safeguard places where children congregate and (are) a positive step toward improving the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.”

Once the new rules are in place, a sex offender violating the residency restrictions could face fines of up to $500 a day.

In his comments Monday, Gailey told the City Council that the Maine Legislature passed a bill in 2009 specifically allowing municipalities to put residency restrictions on a certain class of sex offender. Creating and implementing such an ordinance for South Portland, he said, is a top priority of the police department.

Specifically, the new ordinance would prohibit a sex offender from living within “a distance of 750 feet surrounding the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle or secondary school or up to a maximum distance of 750 feet surrounding the real property comprising a municipally owned or state-owned property that is leased to a nonprofit organization for purposes of a park, athletic field or recreational facility that is open to the public where children are the primary users.”

In the findings and purposes section of the new ordinance it states: “The city promotes and strives to create a safe environment for its citizens to live and raise families and considers the promotion of the safety and welfare of children to be of paramount importance. The city recognizes that sex offenders who prey upon children may have a high rate of recidivism (Studies don't show this)  … (and) the city finds that further protective measures are necessary and warranted to safeguard places where children congregate.”

No one spoke against the new residency restrictions during Monday’s meeting, although Councilor Tom Blake did ask Gailey if the city had heard anything from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine in opposition to the ordinance. Gailey said that as of Monday his office had received no communication from the civil liberties union in regard to the sex offender residency restrictions being proposed.

Prior to the council’s initial vote on the new ordinance, Councilor Melissa Linscott said she’s pleased to see the restrictions come forward and said they were important to have in place.

Mayor Gerard Jalbert agreed and said, “We need tools in place to keep children safe.”

Council favors zoning proposals

In other action Monday, the City Council gave initial approval to a controversial new commercial zone in the Thornton Heights neighborhood, which could pave the way for a new Dunkin’ Donuts store to go up on what is now an undeveloped, city-owned lot at the corner of Main and Westbrook streets.

The vote on the Thornton Heights Commercial zone was 5-2, with councilors Blake and Patti Smith opposed.

The vote followed another lengthy public comment period, during which most of the speakers urged the council not to move the new zone forward.

And, similar to the workshop held on the new Thornton Heights zone last week, members of the Congregation Bet Ha’am synagogue on Westbrook Street were outspoken about the plan.

However, before the vote on first reading, Jalbert said the council is still keeping an open mind about how to best use the city-owned lot, which is adjacent to the synagogue. And he said within the next two weeks there is still time to come up with a compromise solution.

Following the 5-2 vote on the new Thornton Heights zone, the council unanimously approved new zoning for the west end of Main Street that it hopes will lead to reinvestment and new development in that area of the city.

The new Main Street zone specifically prohibits drive-through restaurants, and the council has said it would make the new rules retroactive in an attempt to save the historic St. John the Evangelist Church, located on the corner of Thirlmere Avenue and Main Street, from being torn down by Cafua Management, the Massachusetts-based developer that wants to build a 24-hour Dunkin’ Donuts on the west side of the city.

A public hearing and final vote on the new Thornton Heights Commercial zone and the new Main Street Community Commercial zone is scheduled for 7 p.m. on May 19.

Also on Monday, the council unanimously approved new rules that would allow restaurants, in certain areas of the city, to provide outdoor seating for their patrons under specific guidelines, including requiring the business to get a license from the city and to provide adequate insurance.