Purchasing a lawsuit by the good citizens of North Carolina is shown here (the comments on Prof Berman's blog are interesting). The law banning sex offender from church because it has a day care is being challenged, AP reports here (where experts Prof Jonathan Turley, G-town U., Sara Tofte, Human Rights Watch, and Sara Totonchi, Southern Center for Human Rights weigh in). Katherine Parker of ACLU is assisting in this case.
And thank you anonymous for your kind comment which you posted here. Actual innocence is alive and well in criminal justice reform.
Showing posts with label banishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banishment. Show all posts
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sex Offender Hysteria
I noticed recently that I received nice comments and might have picked up a few more readers, not that I'm counting. But it's encouraging to see that other people find this of interest.
More and more we're seeing media articles cutting into sex offender hysteria and wondering where it will lead, such as these collected from Sex Crimes (WBAY Channel 2 Wisconsin) blog, Residency Restrictions don't work (Syracuse dot com); Rights Must be Observed, (Tufts Daily student paper); No Homes (Wall Street Journal); and Massachusetts Struggling (Herald: federal AWA requirements difficult to implement); this is change in the sense that more attention is being given to the ineffectiveness of residency restrictions, banishment, and throw away the key mentality. This is change in the sense that more in the media seem to be showing an interest in this issue, and seem less willing to just go along with stupid legislative proposals designed to serve one purpose, that of seeming to be tough on crime in order to further the politicians political career. Who could be that cynical?
I see that Rep. Sensenbrenner wants to impeach Judge Kent to keep him from receiving his 169 thou and change retirement pay now that he's pleaded to obstruction after being charged with sex crimes.
More and more we're seeing media articles cutting into sex offender hysteria and wondering where it will lead, such as these collected from Sex Crimes (WBAY Channel 2 Wisconsin) blog, Residency Restrictions don't work (Syracuse dot com); Rights Must be Observed, (Tufts Daily student paper); No Homes (Wall Street Journal); and Massachusetts Struggling (Herald: federal AWA requirements difficult to implement); this is change in the sense that more attention is being given to the ineffectiveness of residency restrictions, banishment, and throw away the key mentality. This is change in the sense that more in the media seem to be showing an interest in this issue, and seem less willing to just go along with stupid legislative proposals designed to serve one purpose, that of seeming to be tough on crime in order to further the politicians political career. Who could be that cynical?
I see that Rep. Sensenbrenner wants to impeach Judge Kent to keep him from receiving his 169 thou and change retirement pay now that he's pleaded to obstruction after being charged with sex crimes.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Crows Nest on a Tuesday that feels like Monday
Here is Scot Henson on TX Parole
TDCJ categorizes offenders who are eligible for parole into seven risk levels, and under the current guidelines, level 7 offenders (those identified as the least dangerous) should be approved for release between 76-100% of the time. But take a look at the approval rates for Level 7 offenders at Texas' six regional parole panels from the Sunset report (pdf, p. 31):
Parole Panel Approval Rate for Guideline 7
Amarillo 42.96%
Angleton 54.47
Gatesville 38.29
Huntsville 45.71
Palestine 57.88
San Antonio 53.14
Not one of these parole boards comes close to approving Level 7 parole candidates at even the lowest part of the guideline range. One member of the Sunset Commission pointed out, the parole board is actually more likely to follow its guidelines for the most violent, dangerous offenders than they are low-level nonviolent ones. That makes little sense.
And a little more on that from Norm Sirak's place:
Pretty Hot Letter on Parole to Texas State Senator makes points (Dec. 27)
According to December's Progress Report Texas's Motion to Oppose Class Cert is Due Jan. 17. There have been six motions to dismiss to date, unheard of.
This, from ADAM M. GERSHOWITZ , South Texas College of Law, is a very interesting proposal, politically speaking, concerning the Death Penalty.
As is this one, by WAYNE A. LOGAN , Florida State University College of Law. Thanks as always to Prof. Berman. This article is reviewed (previewed?) by Corey Young over at Sex Crimes blog.
UPDATE: My Newsletter has just been posted here.(10:12am)
TDCJ categorizes offenders who are eligible for parole into seven risk levels, and under the current guidelines, level 7 offenders (those identified as the least dangerous) should be approved for release between 76-100% of the time. But take a look at the approval rates for Level 7 offenders at Texas' six regional parole panels from the Sunset report (pdf, p. 31):
Parole Panel Approval Rate for Guideline 7
Amarillo 42.96%
Angleton 54.47
Gatesville 38.29
Huntsville 45.71
Palestine 57.88
San Antonio 53.14
Not one of these parole boards comes close to approving Level 7 parole candidates at even the lowest part of the guideline range. One member of the Sunset Commission pointed out, the parole board is actually more likely to follow its guidelines for the most violent, dangerous offenders than they are low-level nonviolent ones. That makes little sense.
And a little more on that from Norm Sirak's place:
Pretty Hot Letter on Parole to Texas State Senator makes points (Dec. 27)
According to December's Progress Report Texas's Motion to Oppose Class Cert is Due Jan. 17. There have been six motions to dismiss to date, unheard of.
This, from ADAM M. GERSHOWITZ , South Texas College of Law, is a very interesting proposal, politically speaking, concerning the Death Penalty.
As is this one, by WAYNE A. LOGAN , Florida State University College of Law. Thanks as always to Prof. Berman. This article is reviewed (previewed?) by Corey Young over at Sex Crimes blog.
UPDATE: My Newsletter has just been posted here.(10:12am)
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Politics and Morays: Vicious or Sick to Pinch Bottoms?
This editorial in the New York Times posted on Sentencing Law and Policy sparked a nasty exchange over this case from California. I haven't taken the time to read it just yet, but it promises to be a good one that might get some SCOTUS action, eventually, or maybe not.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Ohio Death Penalty Overview, Abolition Possible in Maryland
Maryland Moratorium on Executions
What we're hoping will happen is that the governor will see and the legislature will see that this is an unworkable policy and that the time and money that it would take to fix it -- and we believe it is unfixable -- is just a waste of everyone's resources," said Stephanie Gibson, an associate professor at the University of Baltimore and a chairwoman of the board of directors of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions. "We're the third state now that has a de facto moratorium because of problems with lethal injection. There is no good way to execute people."
But Del. Barry Glassman, a Harford County Republican and capital punishment supporter, said he would not be surprised if the General Assembly takes up a proposal on whether to repeal the death penalty.
"This issue is of a magnitude that it's going to require some kind of legislative action to address whether you're for or against the death penalty," Glassman said. "The legislature really has the duty to weigh in on this. It's a big enough policy question that a committee should look at it and a whole body should vote on it."Click to read the full article from BSun
From near a Conspicuously Deathly post by DAB, who pasted on very good overview pieces re Ohio (not critical, I'm the one being cumbersome)
Here is a Nation article by Bruce Shapiro:
For the last decade, the issue that has driven the death penalty debate — galvanizing the attention of courts and press alike — has been innocence: a capital representation system so criminally negligent that 123 wrongfully convicted death-row inmates have been released, and public confidence in death sentences eroded.
Yet innocence cases, in their own way, have evaded a fundamental question: What about the grievously guilty? What about what one pro-death-penalty legal scholar calls "the worst of the worst"? Are executions of the truly guilty consistent with America's evolving constitutional standards, with national ideals and worldwide human rights norms?
And here the article in Cleveland Plain Dealer and on Ohio Cases are linked (thanks to DAB). Columbus Dispatch article here on sex offenders. Here is a taste of that one:In March, Judge Daniel T. Hogan, the administrative judge of the 17-member Franklin County Common Pleas bench, told lawmakers that going too far will actually benefit criminal defendants. "The vast, vast majority of child sex-assault cases are not supported by strong evidence," Hogan said, adding that if stronger punishments push more offenders to opt for trial, fewer convictions will result.
I completely agree with that...but this view is rarely heard. This also presumes that a fair trial can be had. In some states that is still not possible given the "climate" of public opinion, e.g., Texas and ... (anybody have any more from personal experience?).
This Does Not Happen Often: Banishment ordinance stricken as Punitive in Cape May (Friday)
If you want a shock click on this from Worldnet Daily: "Sextra Credit"
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
What Ails Republicans?
Sorry, I only made one entry yesterday; I usually strive for two, but it is getting a little busier right now (or am I just trying to do a little more other stuff?). Enjoy, and comments, guest blogging are always welcome. Heard on C-Span Radio this morning on my daily commute, "mean tough guys" in prisons should be given a chance to serve in the military and not waste their youth. There are, admittedly, a lot of ready, willing and able men (and women) who are probably not too far gone, dangerous, or feeble-minded to serve. There is a good solution to the Army's/Marine's recruiting problems. As we know, many of these guys just made one mistake, got caught doing what a lot of other people are doing or have done, and/or simply don't need to be locked up.
Also had an interesting discussion that went (sort of) like this.
Friend: if you want to make a difference in the area of habeas corpus you have to work for the prosecution--they are the only ones who have the power to do anything (about a wrongful conviction or faulty/illegal confession for instance).
I was not able to articulate the fact that in our adversarial system too many prosecutors will NOT go out of their way to fight for right, but find that to advance in their careers they must litigate every "nook and cranny" of the law, and look the other way when Brady evidence is obvious, or just when a case might smell bad from the beginning. That mean "not caving" even when you think the other guy is right, although justice might require that. That is why justice is so hard to come by in places. It is true, my friend's point, that in habeas prosecutors hold all the cards because so few defense lawyers do that kind of work and so few prisoners can pay a lawyer after they've spent their last dime fighting on trial, appeal, etc.. Only in death penalty cases is a lawyer required in habeas. In all other cases prisoners are not constitutionally entitled to a lawyer.
My experience in Virginia, a few years back, did however give me some faith that prosecutors tried to do the right thing most of the time but this does not hold true for all too many of the other jurisdictions, especially in the South, Old South, Deep South. Evidence of that is still, sadly, seen every day.
What ails the Republicans? Find out from Newsweek.
Look what I found:
Get the rest of piece here: (from The New Republic)
This is why I love the guys over at TNR:
Last week the Washington Times op-ed page, in the form of the
oleaginous (oily? not holy oil? greasy?) (more here)
Tony Blankley, voiced its concern that Hillary was going to rough up Barack Obama. Now it's the Wall Street Journal's turn. Here's John Fund ...
Also, found this
over there.
(what I really meant to say, here, was "one of the next future presidents...")
Veto of Banishment Law Upheld:
In the Richmond Times Dispatch (in police beat somewhere, a new federal pd office opens in Western Virginia). Andrea Lantz Harris and Frederick T. Heblich are the first lawyers hired in a new defender's office serving the Charlottesville and Harrisonburg divisions of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
I am adding Richmond Times Dispatch and probably Baltimore Sun and Annapolis papers to the MSM links (at right).
"No New Prisons" Campaign starts up in Washington State.
More on the Drug War, Borden's blog.
Also had an interesting discussion that went (sort of) like this.
Friend: if you want to make a difference in the area of habeas corpus you have to work for the prosecution--they are the only ones who have the power to do anything (about a wrongful conviction or faulty/illegal confession for instance).
I was not able to articulate the fact that in our adversarial system too many prosecutors will NOT go out of their way to fight for right, but find that to advance in their careers they must litigate every "nook and cranny" of the law, and look the other way when Brady evidence is obvious, or just when a case might smell bad from the beginning. That mean "not caving" even when you think the other guy is right, although justice might require that. That is why justice is so hard to come by in places. It is true, my friend's point, that in habeas prosecutors hold all the cards because so few defense lawyers do that kind of work and so few prisoners can pay a lawyer after they've spent their last dime fighting on trial, appeal, etc.. Only in death penalty cases is a lawyer required in habeas. In all other cases prisoners are not constitutionally entitled to a lawyer.
My experience in Virginia, a few years back, did however give me some faith that prosecutors tried to do the right thing most of the time but this does not hold true for all too many of the other jurisdictions, especially in the South, Old South, Deep South. Evidence of that is still, sadly, seen every day.
What ails the Republicans? Find out from Newsweek.
Look what I found:
One of the ill-concealed subtexts of my book Our Undemocratic Constitution is that my colleagues in the legal academy pay much too much attention to the rights-conferring parts of the Constitution (which are often exactly what Madison predicted they would be, "parchment barriers" that are all too permeable given the right degree of public panic and malleable judges) and too little attention to the "hard-wired" structural features that, I now believe, explain much more about the actualities of American politics than do the clauses that law professors fixate on...
Get the rest of piece here: (from The New Republic)
This is why I love the guys over at TNR:
Last week the Washington Times op-ed page, in the form of the
oleaginous (oily? not holy oil? greasy?) (more here)
Tony Blankley, voiced its concern that Hillary was going to rough up Barack Obama. Now it's the Wall Street Journal's turn. Here's John Fund ...
Also, found this
over there.
(what I really meant to say, here, was "one of the next future presidents...")
Veto of Banishment Law Upheld:
“As parents we need to be constantly vigilant of our children. Preventing sex offenders from living here does not prevent them from being here,” Mr. Ossing said. “This law is going to be another unenforceable feel-good law.” Finally, common sense seems to be taking hold. Read this here and more here.
In the Richmond Times Dispatch (in police beat somewhere, a new federal pd office opens in Western Virginia). Andrea Lantz Harris and Frederick T. Heblich are the first lawyers hired in a new defender's office serving the Charlottesville and Harrisonburg divisions of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
I am adding Richmond Times Dispatch and probably Baltimore Sun and Annapolis papers to the MSM links (at right).
"No New Prisons" Campaign starts up in Washington State.
More on the Drug War, Borden's blog.
Friday, December 15, 2006
AN OPEN LETTER ON BANISHMENT: S-4089
RE: Senate Bill S-4089 "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006"
I would like to express my deep and sincere concern over this Bill. First, let me say that I do not favor the exploitation of children, but this Bill casts the net too widely.
It does not accomplish the stated purpose. I am particularly concerned that this Bill would deny constitutional rights to freely access and participate in the Internet and WorldWideWeb.
The internet (web), and all of its various shapes, forms and devises, to include websites, shopping and communications services, and other informational tools and utensils are very important, if not absolutely essential to life in the twenty-first century.
We do not say that we will prohibit all sex offenders as a class from reading or writing, or publishing books, or telling stories in person. We do not say that we will prohibit sex offenders from using the telephones or the public roads, or rail, or buses, or parks, or schools or mails or other public utilities and establishments.
We should not say that we will prohibit sex offenders from using the internet.
Please do not pass a Bill that would restrict any American from using the internet to the full extent of her and its capabilities.
A review and additional info on this Bill is available by clicking here.
Throughtout the Internet folks are discussing Sen. McCain's proposed bill S-4089 (click link to go to bill) "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006" which is claimed to be an effort to curtail child porn. The bill has been read twice in the Senate (on 12-6-06) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
A second focus of the bill is to require registered sex offenders (RSOs) to provide an e-mail address when they register. Folks are erroneously claiming there will be a federal registry of just e-mail addresses so that social networking sites may deny RSOs access to their websites, that is not true. What the bill indicates is, each RSO's individual record will also contain the e-mail address they provide when they register.
Place to go for all things (okay, many) affecting sex offenders (eAdvocate).
I would like to express my deep and sincere concern over this Bill. First, let me say that I do not favor the exploitation of children, but this Bill casts the net too widely.
It does not accomplish the stated purpose. I am particularly concerned that this Bill would deny constitutional rights to freely access and participate in the Internet and WorldWideWeb.
The internet (web), and all of its various shapes, forms and devises, to include websites, shopping and communications services, and other informational tools and utensils are very important, if not absolutely essential to life in the twenty-first century.
We do not say that we will prohibit all sex offenders as a class from reading or writing, or publishing books, or telling stories in person. We do not say that we will prohibit sex offenders from using the telephones or the public roads, or rail, or buses, or parks, or schools or mails or other public utilities and establishments.
We should not say that we will prohibit sex offenders from using the internet.
Please do not pass a Bill that would restrict any American from using the internet to the full extent of her and its capabilities.
A review and additional info on this Bill is available by clicking here.
Throughtout the Internet folks are discussing Sen. McCain's proposed bill S-4089 (click link to go to bill) "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006" which is claimed to be an effort to curtail child porn. The bill has been read twice in the Senate (on 12-6-06) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
A second focus of the bill is to require registered sex offenders (RSOs) to provide an e-mail address when they register. Folks are erroneously claiming there will be a federal registry of just e-mail addresses so that social networking sites may deny RSOs access to their websites, that is not true. What the bill indicates is, each RSO's individual record will also contain the e-mail address they provide when they register.
Place to go for all things (okay, many) affecting sex offenders (eAdvocate).
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Chilly, but Nice in Western Maryland
Just a little something to get you going on a chilly Tuesday morning in Western Maryland. Thank god it's not Vietnam and thank god its not Iraq.
1 Over at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston is reporting that the Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision in Carey v. Musladin. The short majority opinion is more about habeas standards than about button-wearing prejudice, though the three short concurrences get into the substantive issues a bit more. For some additional blogosphere commentary, check out Crime Consequences and Althouse (blogs). Hat Tip Doc Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.
2 California's Prison Problems Spotlighted in NYT:
More on that in LA Times: "Punishing Prisoners at all Costs." As I note in my header (the blurb at the top, describing my blog), "there has to be a better way." (by Joe Domanick, author of "Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in America's Golden State," -- Domanick is senior fellow in criminal justice at the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism)
3 Texas Parole: This is of special interest to me so I'm going to do a bit more reading and post further on this. Meanwhile, read Doc Berman on the future of parole here.
4 Unintended Consequences: Iowa's residency restrictions creating more problems than they solve. Hat Tip Doc Berman.
5 Sentencing and SCOTUS:
Sentencing fans eagerly awaiting what the Court will say in the Cunningham case about Blakely's applicability to California's sentencing system will have to wait at least another month.
Some have speculated that, in light of the cert grants on Booker issues in Claiborne and Rita, the Court might not issue Cunningham until late Spring. Personally, I would be surprised if the Justices will sit on Cunningham until it deals with Claiborne and Rita (which won't be argued until late February), but who knows what we should expect from slow-poke SCOTUS these days.
Doc Berman's blog Sentencing Law and Policy has all this and more. My hat is permanently tipped in your direction Doug. Thanks!
Christmas Is Time For Giving: As it will soon be Christmas, or Holidays, or just time for gift giving and spending money, let's not forget that lots of people will be missing their loved ones who might be soldiers fighting overseas, or locked away in prison: there is no justice. Lots of prisoners are just plain innocent. Too many. That's why I started the Innocence Project and write this blog and newsletter. Please donate. Send your check to Innocence Project, PO Box 200, Jefferson, MD 21755.
It is an especially hard time of year if you are in prison. It's hard even if you're not. It is an especially good time to begin thinking of new resolutions and turning over a new leaf. If you have not done your good deed for the day, month or year just start today and give a little. It will make you a better person! There is always room for improvement, right?
1 Over at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston is reporting that the Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision in Carey v. Musladin. The short majority opinion is more about habeas standards than about button-wearing prejudice, though the three short concurrences get into the substantive issues a bit more. For some additional blogosphere commentary, check out Crime Consequences and Althouse (blogs). Hat Tip Doc Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.
2 California's Prison Problems Spotlighted in NYT:
More on that in LA Times: "Punishing Prisoners at all Costs." As I note in my header (the blurb at the top, describing my blog), "there has to be a better way." (by Joe Domanick, author of "Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in America's Golden State," -- Domanick is senior fellow in criminal justice at the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism)
3 Texas Parole: This is of special interest to me so I'm going to do a bit more reading and post further on this. Meanwhile, read Doc Berman on the future of parole here.
4 Unintended Consequences: Iowa's residency restrictions creating more problems than they solve. Hat Tip Doc Berman.
5 Sentencing and SCOTUS:
Sentencing fans eagerly awaiting what the Court will say in the Cunningham case about Blakely's applicability to California's sentencing system will have to wait at least another month.
Some have speculated that, in light of the cert grants on Booker issues in Claiborne and Rita, the Court might not issue Cunningham until late Spring. Personally, I would be surprised if the Justices will sit on Cunningham until it deals with Claiborne and Rita (which won't be argued until late February), but who knows what we should expect from slow-poke SCOTUS these days.
Doc Berman's blog Sentencing Law and Policy has all this and more. My hat is permanently tipped in your direction Doug. Thanks!
Christmas Is Time For Giving: As it will soon be Christmas, or Holidays, or just time for gift giving and spending money, let's not forget that lots of people will be missing their loved ones who might be soldiers fighting overseas, or locked away in prison: there is no justice. Lots of prisoners are just plain innocent. Too many. That's why I started the Innocence Project and write this blog and newsletter. Please donate. Send your check to Innocence Project, PO Box 200, Jefferson, MD 21755.
It is an especially hard time of year if you are in prison. It's hard even if you're not. It is an especially good time to begin thinking of new resolutions and turning over a new leaf. If you have not done your good deed for the day, month or year just start today and give a little. It will make you a better person! There is always room for improvement, right?
Friday, December 08, 2006
Law Bad? Beware of Your Texas Legislators
How bad laws are made: this comment tells all. Quoted in full from OfftheKuff
[hat tip sex crimes]
What to do with sex offenders
The following was forwarded to me by a reader. I thought it was provocative. I present it here in the interest of starting a conversation.
Warning to Texas residents: a group of individuals, still at large, poses an imminent threat to the public. Several thousand Texas citizens may be at risk if the activities of these people are not monitored more closely. Registered sex offenders, you say? No, actually I am referring to the elected members of the Texas Legislature, who will soon meet in Austin for the 80th legislative session.
Several bills have been pre-filed for the session which opens in January, ostensibly with the intent of protecting Texas children from the clutches of the 45,000+ registered sex offenders currently residing in Texas. Our elected officials, certainly all honorable and well-intentioned people interested in serving the public interest, want us to believe these bills will protect us and our children from harm.
To the contrary, most of the provisions of these bills are “smoke and mirrorsâ€, an illusion designed to create the appearance of concern and activity by your elected representatives. Our elected officials, with access to current academic and Justice Department research and statistics, know that - but they are hoping we won’t find out. Otherwise, we voters might actually demand that they do their homework and provide some real solutions.
Beyond being of illusory value, the bills contain provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional, in direct violation of several fundamental principles of constitutional law in this country - principles like due process, equal protection, protection against double jeopardy and uncompensated property takings. Registered sex offenders - though convicted of felonies and misdemeanors - still remain citizens protected by our Constitution.
Our legal system requires due process - hearings, evidence, opportunity for judicial review. It provides that all citizens have equal access to our courts. It requires that individuals may not be punished more than once for an offense, no matter how heinous. Once served, a sentence of incarceration or probation cannot lawfully be extended or additional conditions of punishment imposed by another legislative body or even a court. And the total use of property cannot be denied absent just compensation for its value. These are fundamental, time-tested, basic principles that govern how our legal system is supposed to work.
But some Texas legislators, despite their sworn oath to uphold the constitution, apparently do not believe these principles apply here or at least to some citizens of Texas. Legislators will soon be taking up several proposed laws that will create “child safety zones†around schools, parks, day-care centers and similar place where children gather. Registered sex offenders will not be permitted to walk or even drive within 1,000 feet of these facilities.
More draconian still is a provision to restrict where registered sex offenders can reside in our communities, prohibiting them from living within 2,500 feet of places where children gather. Those offenders already living within that radius - even homeowners and long- time residents who have not presented a threat in the past, probably even some nursing home residents - will be forcibly evicted or face incarceration.
These provisions would not just be applied to new offenders being released from prison, but also to current parolees and those who have already served their sentences and are no longer under court jurisdiction. Some have been off of probation for years, living as law-abiding neighbors and friends in our communities. But they will all have to move elsewhere. Thousands of Texas citizens face the prospect of being literally banished from their homes and families by legislative action - a practice unheard of and considered morally and legally unthinkable in this nation until only recently. No court hearing, no evidence of a crime, no appeal. These are authoritarian governmental abuses that all of us ought to vigorously oppose.
It would appear that there would be no lawful way to comply with these residency restrictions, as onerous as the proposals are. Even if an offender lived in a rural area, say on a 500-acre farm in the Hill Country, the bills would measure the distance restrictions from the property line of the farm to the nearest school or bus stop. How many parts of Texas, aside from the isolated mountainous and desert areas of the west, are more than 2,500 feet from a school or school bus stop location?
So where will these people go in September 2007 if these bills are passed? Well, since they cannot lawfully comply with the laws, they will probably hide. A few may choose to leave the state, as is no doubt the obvious intention of lawmakers - make these people someone else’s problem. But many of them have families, homes and jobs here in Texas. So they will just live elsewhere, hoping not to be found, costing us lots of tax dollars to seek them out and punish them for breaking a law against something that was not a crime in the first place.
Iowa recently passed a similar law and the rate of non-compliance with that state’s sex offender registration statute jumped by 300%. The Iowa County Attorneys Association, the people in charge of actually enforcing that statute, is now opposed to residency restrictions that were enacted there and are being proposed here in Texas. The unintended consequence of what was probably an honest and well-intentioned effort turned out to be worse than the problem they were trying to solve.
California recently passed a similar law by public referendum and it was immediately halted by a federal judge because its provisions were in obvious violation of our constitution. A similar federal court challenge will surely be filed here if the bills pass as proposed.
The academic and law enforcement research does not support the effectiveness of these restrictions. Several prominent research groups - including child abuse prevention advocacy groups hardly sympathetic to sex offenders - have concluded that there is no statistical link between restricting the residence of registered sex offenders and the incidence of sexual assault cases.
More importantly, the proposed bills ignore the faulty theory behind sex offender registration in the first place. Let me clear up a very common misconception - most registered sex offenders don’t commit repeat offenses. Recent research by the federal Department of Justice has indicated a recidivism rate of between 4 and 15 %, lower than for most other categories of major crimes. And here is the really startling fact: by far, most sexual assaults of a child are committed by a parent, other family member or family acquaintance, not the registered offender living down the street. Most of the people on the list of registered offenders served their time, paid their debt to society and just want to be left alone.
Our elected officials do not want us to be aware of or understand these facts. They want us to be fearful enough to trust that they are looking out for us. Do not be deceived by this group of people - a group representing a direct threat to the liberty and lives of thousands of law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizens. Citizens just like me.
What do you think? Let me know.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 07, 2006
[hat tip sex crimes]
What to do with sex offenders
The following was forwarded to me by a reader. I thought it was provocative. I present it here in the interest of starting a conversation.
Warning to Texas residents: a group of individuals, still at large, poses an imminent threat to the public. Several thousand Texas citizens may be at risk if the activities of these people are not monitored more closely. Registered sex offenders, you say? No, actually I am referring to the elected members of the Texas Legislature, who will soon meet in Austin for the 80th legislative session.
Several bills have been pre-filed for the session which opens in January, ostensibly with the intent of protecting Texas children from the clutches of the 45,000+ registered sex offenders currently residing in Texas. Our elected officials, certainly all honorable and well-intentioned people interested in serving the public interest, want us to believe these bills will protect us and our children from harm.
To the contrary, most of the provisions of these bills are “smoke and mirrorsâ€, an illusion designed to create the appearance of concern and activity by your elected representatives. Our elected officials, with access to current academic and Justice Department research and statistics, know that - but they are hoping we won’t find out. Otherwise, we voters might actually demand that they do their homework and provide some real solutions.
Beyond being of illusory value, the bills contain provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional, in direct violation of several fundamental principles of constitutional law in this country - principles like due process, equal protection, protection against double jeopardy and uncompensated property takings. Registered sex offenders - though convicted of felonies and misdemeanors - still remain citizens protected by our Constitution.
Our legal system requires due process - hearings, evidence, opportunity for judicial review. It provides that all citizens have equal access to our courts. It requires that individuals may not be punished more than once for an offense, no matter how heinous. Once served, a sentence of incarceration or probation cannot lawfully be extended or additional conditions of punishment imposed by another legislative body or even a court. And the total use of property cannot be denied absent just compensation for its value. These are fundamental, time-tested, basic principles that govern how our legal system is supposed to work.
But some Texas legislators, despite their sworn oath to uphold the constitution, apparently do not believe these principles apply here or at least to some citizens of Texas. Legislators will soon be taking up several proposed laws that will create “child safety zones†around schools, parks, day-care centers and similar place where children gather. Registered sex offenders will not be permitted to walk or even drive within 1,000 feet of these facilities.
More draconian still is a provision to restrict where registered sex offenders can reside in our communities, prohibiting them from living within 2,500 feet of places where children gather. Those offenders already living within that radius - even homeowners and long- time residents who have not presented a threat in the past, probably even some nursing home residents - will be forcibly evicted or face incarceration.
These provisions would not just be applied to new offenders being released from prison, but also to current parolees and those who have already served their sentences and are no longer under court jurisdiction. Some have been off of probation for years, living as law-abiding neighbors and friends in our communities. But they will all have to move elsewhere. Thousands of Texas citizens face the prospect of being literally banished from their homes and families by legislative action - a practice unheard of and considered morally and legally unthinkable in this nation until only recently. No court hearing, no evidence of a crime, no appeal. These are authoritarian governmental abuses that all of us ought to vigorously oppose.
It would appear that there would be no lawful way to comply with these residency restrictions, as onerous as the proposals are. Even if an offender lived in a rural area, say on a 500-acre farm in the Hill Country, the bills would measure the distance restrictions from the property line of the farm to the nearest school or bus stop. How many parts of Texas, aside from the isolated mountainous and desert areas of the west, are more than 2,500 feet from a school or school bus stop location?
So where will these people go in September 2007 if these bills are passed? Well, since they cannot lawfully comply with the laws, they will probably hide. A few may choose to leave the state, as is no doubt the obvious intention of lawmakers - make these people someone else’s problem. But many of them have families, homes and jobs here in Texas. So they will just live elsewhere, hoping not to be found, costing us lots of tax dollars to seek them out and punish them for breaking a law against something that was not a crime in the first place.
Iowa recently passed a similar law and the rate of non-compliance with that state’s sex offender registration statute jumped by 300%. The Iowa County Attorneys Association, the people in charge of actually enforcing that statute, is now opposed to residency restrictions that were enacted there and are being proposed here in Texas. The unintended consequence of what was probably an honest and well-intentioned effort turned out to be worse than the problem they were trying to solve.
California recently passed a similar law by public referendum and it was immediately halted by a federal judge because its provisions were in obvious violation of our constitution. A similar federal court challenge will surely be filed here if the bills pass as proposed.
The academic and law enforcement research does not support the effectiveness of these restrictions. Several prominent research groups - including child abuse prevention advocacy groups hardly sympathetic to sex offenders - have concluded that there is no statistical link between restricting the residence of registered sex offenders and the incidence of sexual assault cases.
More importantly, the proposed bills ignore the faulty theory behind sex offender registration in the first place. Let me clear up a very common misconception - most registered sex offenders don’t commit repeat offenses. Recent research by the federal Department of Justice has indicated a recidivism rate of between 4 and 15 %, lower than for most other categories of major crimes. And here is the really startling fact: by far, most sexual assaults of a child are committed by a parent, other family member or family acquaintance, not the registered offender living down the street. Most of the people on the list of registered offenders served their time, paid their debt to society and just want to be left alone.
Our elected officials do not want us to be aware of or understand these facts. They want us to be fearful enough to trust that they are looking out for us. Do not be deceived by this group of people - a group representing a direct threat to the liberty and lives of thousands of law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizens. Citizens just like me.
What do you think? Let me know.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
