BOYCOT ARIZONA NEWS FEED

Loading...

A call to action

A call to action
If you don't like the picture, BITE ME!

Monday, April 26, 2010

BOYCOTT ARIZONA! IT'S GOING TO BE A BLUE STATE!

Today's Republicans are so shitty, they are so far right, the following people today would be called liberal Democrats:

1. Ronald Reagan, Sr. Yes he was a crook. Famous for saying, "Well... I don't remember." However, he favored amnesty for undocumented aliens. That, and raising some taxes would today give him a "liberal" tag today.

2. Richard "I'm not a crook" Nixon. Sen. Barry Goldwater and two other Republicans told Nixon that he only had 15 No votes, and he needed 34 votes to save him before being convicted in an Impeachment Trial in the Senate. He resigned, but former President Bill Clinton jokingly said that Nixon was a "Communist". He proposed and later signed various laws that none of today's Republicans would endorse.

3. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Many Anti-Communist Republicans already said that he was a "liberal"; he didn't back Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and near the end of his Presidency, he lamented that this Country was an ever-increasing "military-industrial complex". 

4. Barry Goldwater. Later in the 1970's and 1980's, he was pro-abortion, detested religious leaders interfering in politics, and many of his views today would make him more of a Kennedy-Johnson Democrat today than he was in 1964. 

The Republican Party today is nothing more than a vile shell of what Southern Democrats held before the 1960's. Even former Senator Tom Tancredo wants to bring back "literacy tests" that denied Blacks and Latinos from voting. The anti-immigration stances of the Republicans/Tea Baggers won't bring Latinos into the Republican Party anytime soon. 

In Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, it will encourage racial profiling against Latinos. HAVE THEY WATCHED THE MOVIE "BORN IN EAST L. A."?!! Obviously not. They, the GOP, have as much brain cells as Karl Pilkington. Fans of Fux Propaganduh Channel were described by a former employee of theirs as "trailer-trash".

This is a major Gestapo ploy! Jews in Nazi Germany were also required to carry I. D.'s as well as wear a yellow star. Where the fuck is Michelle Bachman, that stupid cunt!  

The goal of the Republican Party is now to disenfranchise Black and Latinos, and to hold on to what power they have left. Even if the Immigration Reform bill currently pending in Congress is "amnesty", give them five more years, they'll be registered Democrats. The way Republicans/Tea Baggers have acted towards Latinos, citizen or not, registered alien or not, the GOP's acts makes them so afraid, you will only get more registered Democrats. 

Look at California, Republicans have alienated Latinos to a point where they lost GOP registration, not gained. More alienation in Arizona would cause that State to be a Democrat/Blue State. It's only a matter of time. 

Until the law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, is repealed, the State should be boycotted to send a message. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they woke up a sleeping giant. The Latino vote would change the State for the better, not worse. Latinos are not stupid. They will vote against anything that is not in their interest. 

As for Drug Cartels coming into Arizona, legalize Pot! It will be on this year's ballot. Are they like Vic on the T. V. in "Scarface" of whom Tony Montana said "that's because you got your head up your culo"? Legalization will drive the Tony Montana-types elsewhere. These are the same people that not now detest Thomas Jefferson.

Republicans are slow-fucking themselves into oblivion. The more people they alienate would cause them to lose votes. It's no longer the party of Lincoln, the party of big business, or the party of the Cold War. By associating with former Southern Democrats and Born Again idiot preachers, the Republican Party is going towards the lowest common denominator with a shrinking voter base. Sooner or later by 2020, Arizona and Texas will be Blue States because more Latinos will be citizens and Democrats, and Republicans would eventually wind up like the Whig Party, GONE! 

Until the Bill is repealed, BOYCOTT ARIZONA!!!

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

CASUAL POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT AND HACKED!

It makes me sick! A beating is a beating is a beating. WE DIDN'T SEND A HALF A MILLION MEN UP OHAMA BEACH IN NORMANDY FOR THEIR PERSONAL HEALTH!!! Police Departments that use Nazi tactics ought to be sued up the hilt until they are bankrupt, and the voters should recall their asshole Councilmen or Supervisors until their Police Departments are cleansed from this psuedo-Nazism. Otherwise, the voters GET WHAT THEY DESERVE!

From criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com:


Roll The Tape, And Hold The Stale Defense

The onslaught of videotaped beatings of suspects has created the following script:

1. Beating is taped.
2. Tape is shown all over the world.
3. Outrage over police conduct is expressed.
4. Defenders of the police conduct proclaim that not everything is on the tape. (sometimes that's actually true).
5. Public is asked to withhold judgment.

Now watch this:



Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.

A THOROUGH ARTICLE ON WHAT WE NEED ON SEX OFFENDERS

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:



Abstract:

This article argues that the new preventive law focus in sex offender laws is largely ineffective and too costly to personal liberty. The application of sex offender laws involving civil commitment, sex offender registration, and residency restrictions is often based on an individualized analysis of future dangerousness, i.e., the risk the defendant will sexually recidivate. In assessing future dangerousness, experts and courts place heavy emphasis on the use of actuarial tools, basically checklists that mental health experts use to derive statistical estimates of risk. This article provides substantiation that actuarial tools, while enjoying the imprimatur of science, suffer from significant empirical faults. Yet courts are largely abandoning their gatekeeping roles in accepting the experts’ testimony using actuarial tool predictions of risk without critical review as required by the Daubert and Frye evidentiary standards. The paper theorizes that this is likely a pragmatic strategy considering the current political and public thirst for retribution against sexual predators. But, use of this empirically-challenged science exacerbates the practice of applying sex offender restrictions to inappropriately labeled individuals. Finally, this article takes advantage of the interdisciplinary trend of engaging social science with the law on expert evidence. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of future dangerousness opinions within the Daubert/Frye scientific evidence frameworks. The significance of the conclusion reached in this article is clear: if the law continues to rely upon suspect science that results in the wrong individuals being subject to liberty-infringing sex offender laws, then the drain on criminal justice resources will leave the truly dangerous offenders without sufficient supervision at the risk of public safety.









"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

WE NEED CHELSEA'S LAW LIKE WE NEED HOLES IN OUR HEADS

They don't do squat. It didn't work for Jessica's Law, so why do we need to compound the situation. 

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

This is just absurd, IMO. The man accused has not even been to court and found guilty yet, but everyone has already found him guilty and condemned him, and in the typical knee jerk reaction, they are pushing for another law in the name of a dead child, to target sex offenders, and it has not been proven yet he actually did the crime or she was sexually abused. At least from what I have seen. The man may indeed be guilty, but why not wait until after the trial and all the facts come out before you assume things! Nathan Fletcher, IMO, is an evil sick man. He did not waste any time before he jumped on this to make himself look better, even while the parents are still mourning and emotions are going crazy. They did the same thing with John Walsh as well.



Video Link





Video Link






"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

WE NEED TO STOP BEGATTING ABUSE, NOT MOKE LAWS NAMED AFTER DEAD KIDS

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

As in the typical knee-jerk reaction, they quickly add more punishment to all sex offenders. And the man who has been charged with the crime, has not even been found guilty yet!

04/12/2010

By John Wilkens

Provisions of Chelsea's Law unveiled in the state Capitol today might not be the best approach for how to rein in sex offenders, two experts said.

Jill Levenson (Email), a human services professor at Lynn University in Florida who analyzes sex-crime policy, wondered about the timing of the measure, noting that the state Sex Offender Management Board is currently studying sex offender policy and will be forwarding recommendations to improve the system.

When these kinds of crimes happen they are tragic and scary and it’s not surprising that people want to find ways to prevent them from happening again,” she said. “But maybe before passing laws there should be a thoughtful analysis of what happened, a careful autopsy of what went wrong. We need to understand how to provide better case management instead of trying to come up with another one-size-fits-all law.”

She said some of the measure’s features — GPS tracking, mandatory-minimum sentences, parole for life — “aren’t necessary for everybody and they do become very costly.”

The offender board was tapped by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Contact) to review state handling of the 2000 molestation case of convicted sex offender John Albert Gardner III. He now stands accused of raping and killing Chelsea King, 17, of Poway, for whom the Chelsea's Law proposal is named.
- He's accused, but has not been found guilty yet, and yet everyone is assuming he did do the crime and have already condemned the man.  Why don't you wait until after the sentencing before acting in the typical knee-jerk reaction.  He may be guilty, but he may also be innocent, and stop naming laws after dead people! [UPDATE: Gardner already pleaded guilty.]

Marc Renzema, a criminal justice professor at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania and an expert on GPS tracking, was also cautionary.

I’m all for extended supervision, but not necessarily GPS for life,” he said. “We don’t have a clue just yet about the psychological impact or even the deterrent impact of ‘forever’ monitoring.”



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

AT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IN REHABILITATION

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

Feared for their safety? Why? Because they are a bunch of motorcycle priests? Come on! God bless this pastor for sticking to the word of God.

04/11/2010

By ERIC CARPENTER

BUENA PARK – Leaders of a planned protest outside a Buena Park church that runs a group-home program for convicted sex offenders canceled the protest Sunday, saying they feared for their safety.

But, they said, they will keep up pressure on governmental officials to close the homes, located in a quiet Anaheim neighborhood with lots of children.

The church's pastor, The Rev. Jose Mata, spoke to a reporter outside the church Sunday, saying he is aware of the neighbors' concerns, but he believes in his church's mission and won't move or close the homes.

Neighbors learned last month that the church, Holy Ground Christian Fellowship, was renting two Anaheim homes within blocks of each other and running them as group homes for 11 sex offenders – six in one home, five in the other.
- Please visit this Christian Fellowship web site, and send them an email.  They are looking for ways to help spread the word that not all ex-sex offenders are dangerous.  Also see the comments to this blog post below.

That outraged many neighbors who said it has created suspicion and fear, prompting some parents to keep their children indoors.

Community leaders announced last week that they would picket the church on the 7600 block of Ninth Street in Buena Park on Sunday. But protest leader Linda Liptrap-Gutierrez – whose home backs up to one of the Anaheim group homes – drove by the church Saturday, then decided to call off the protest.

"There was a lot of tagging on structures, it appeared gang-infested and I didn't want our neighbors to feel unsafe," she said.

The church, near Beach Boulevard, is in a commercial suite next to apartments. The group homes are about 10 miles away from the church.

Betsy Mata, Jose's wife and the director of the group-home program, agreed that it is a "rough neighborhood" and said it was wise of the protesters to stay away.

"We serve this neighborhood. We've had to break up fights (outside) before," Betsy Mata said. "And if people came in with protest signs, I couldn't predict what might happen."

Jose Mata said the church, which caters to outsiders seeking to turn around their lives through Christianity, was founded eight years ago and has 60 members. They started the mission to rehabilitate sex offenders 2 1/2 years ago.

Six convicted sex offenders are living in a house on the 1700 block of North Rutherford Street; five more offenders are living at a home on the 1700 block of North Meadowlark Lane.

The group-home residents also are required to attend Sunday services at the church. None wanted to speak to a reporter, Jose Mata said.

He and his wife knew they were tackling a "taboo issue in society." But the sex offenders are screened and closely monitored, he said.

"I am a father myself. I get why neighbors have concerns," said Mata, 57, whose son is 33. "I would have these people living with me, if I could, but there are tough restrictions on where they can live – and these homes are some of the few places where they can live."

Group homes for sex offenders cannot be close to schools or parks.

"I believe these are men committed to turning their lives around through Christ," Mata said. "Some people will tell you the only way they will change is with a bullet through their head. We don't believe that. They made mistakes. And with love and compassion, they can change."

Liptrap-Gutierrez said she understands the social issue and she, too, is a Christian. "This is not a battle of who is more Christian, it is about right and wrong," she said. "I realize these men need help, but it is not right for them to be living in our neighborhood, putting the burden on us."
- Yes, it is about right and wrong.  And being a Christian, or God fearing person, is part of that.

Community leaders met with state Sen. Lou Correa (Contact), D – Santa Ana, on Friday to air their concerns. They plan to petition the Anaheim City Council for help Tuesday.



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

EXAMPLES OF GHETTOS: OHIO

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

 

Original Article



They cluster because of the laws being passed. When is the media going to investigate why offenders cluster instead of more fear-mongering?



04/12/2010




By Ron Regan



AKRON - It's one of the largest concentrations of sex offenders in Ohio. A Five On Your Side Investigaton exposes where even child molestors can be housed on a street loaded with children.



The neighborhood is located near Delia Avenue and West Exchange Street, just west of downtown Akron.



Concerned neighbors have complained their mailboxes are being stuffed with sex offender notifications. Those notifications are required by law and sent by the Summit County Sheriff's Department when rapists and child molestors move into a neighborhood.

- It's not just rapists and child molesters, like you are leading everyone to believe, it's all sex offenders.




The neighborhood is not far from two elementary schools and children can easily be spotted playing outside on lawns and sidewalks.



"For the children, that's what I'm worried about," said one resident. "There's a bunch of them go to school. A bunch on this street. I don't like it. That's too close."



Our investigation found a total of 19 sex offenders living within just a few blocks of the area.



Another resident who saw the list of sex offenders called it "horrifying."




"I think its very sickening that our community has to suffer this way," she said.



Efforts to speak with sex offenders were met with resistence.



"I've got enough problems, I don't need--if you know what I mean," said one sex offender who declined to talk.



Rev. Eric Kirksey lives behind one home that houses nine registered sex offenders, including six tier 3 offenders.




"They're all risks, as far as I'm concerned," said Kirksey, who reached for a sex offender notification card he just received this week.

- Wow, spoken from a true hypocrite pretending to be a religious person.



Tier 3 offenders include those convicted of rape and sexual battery.



Neighbors on Delia Avenue call it a "sex offender hotel." It's called "The Exit Program" and is operated by a Columbus based non-profit that's helped more than 50 sex offenders transition from prison to neighborhoods.




Michelle Johnson is the program's executive director and said it helps keep offenders off the street and placed in a monitored facility.



One man who lives in the home said "for the most part, they are just a bunch of decent guys."



It's a program that has received plenty of support, including letters to program officials from Akron's Chief of Police who wrote it "helps promote safe neighborhoods."



Another letter from the Summit County Sheriff's Department said the program "helps offenders to more likey succeed and not re-offend."




The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction also wrote a letter supporting the program calling it "an exceptional program."



Corrections officials report that taxpayers spent $262,000 last year on the program in Akron and Columbus.



In Ohio, there are no laws barring multiple sex offenders from living in one home or neighborhood.



But concern among neighbors has reached Ward 4 Councilman Russel Neal who said he was unaware of the facility until resident contacted him.



"There are a lot of children in the neighborhood", said Neal. "If they're concerned, I'm concerned"


- Yeah, you are a councilman, who wants to exploit the issue to look good to the people.  There are kids everywhere, and the offenders have to live somewhere.



Neal said he plans to call a series of neighborhood meetings to educate the community.

- Yeah, to incite fear so he can help further his own reputation and career maybe! [This asshole Councilman might as well got tar and feathers!]



Video Link






"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

WE DON'T NEED ZONES!

That's like saying that we need to rebuild the Warsaw Ghetto.

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

06/30/2006

By Kerry Howley

"Paranoia," University of Maryland Professor C. Fred Alford, has said, "is the will to meaning." In the U.S. of late, paranoia has become the will to zoning. Pick a vice—guns, drugs, smokes, fast food—and you will find zoners pushing it to the fringes of any place children may congregate, mapping large and often redundant circles with schools, parks, and playgrounds at their whitewashed centers. The urge to zone has long been confined to things people do, its target activities thought best confined to the fringes of a decent society. But the increasing popularity of criminal registries has spawned a trend of zoning out people themselves.

Sex offenders are the ultimate fish-in-a-barrel political target. Absent any apparent upswing in crime, pervert bashing seems to be in vogue. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco has signed 14 anti-sex offender bills this month. (''Is there anything left we can do to sex offenders with a few days left in the session?'' a state rep joked to reporters.) In Virginia, a new law requires every college and university to send applicants' personal information to state police, where it will be checked against sex offender registries. Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich is campaigning on a new sex offender hotline. Indiana, Colorado, and South Dakota have new laws, to name just a very few among the many states on the anti-offender high this summer.

For the moment, boilerplate sex offender legislation includes residency zoning, laws that typically require registered offenders not live within 1,000, 2,000, or 2,500 feet of day care centers, schools, bus stops, or other randomly chosen but suitably Mayberry-evoking public gathering places. To the extent that there is a theory at work here, it appears to be that men and women who have committed sex crimes will re-offend if permitted to spend their nights within 2,000 feet of public places where children gather during the day.

It would take an impressive zone indeed to actually separate children from sex offenders—the kind of zone that keeps out the parents, grandparents, priests, friends, and acquaintances who commit (by conservative estimates) 80 to 90 percent of those crimes. Zoning schemes, according to Sarah Tontochi at the Atlanta-based Center for Human Rights, are based on the "stranger danger myth," which Tontochi feels actively does harm by underemphasizing the very real danger of abuse-by-acquaintance.

In any case, the restrictions are likely to destroy the integrity of existing registries. Reasonable people can disagree about whether marking public personal information on ex-cons is a good idea, but zones make the costs of registering stratospheric as compared to the cost of not registering at all. As law enforcement officials in Iowa, the first state to impose residency restrictions, have come to realize, the requirements send offenders underground.

Couple the enormously elastic definition of sex offender, which tends to swallow the inane and victimless along with the truly heinous, with the blunt tool of residency zoning, and you're bound to hurt a lot of people whose crimes are hardly worthy of the name. One such case is Wendy Whitaker, who performed oral sex on a 15 year old boy 10 years ago, when she was 17. Whitaker owns a home near a church daycare center in Georgia; police forced her to leave that home last year. She then moved in with her brother, whose niece will go to school next fall. Since a school bus will pick up her niece from the house, Whitaker will again be in violation of the law if a new bus stop zoning law passes. According to the Southern Center for Human Rights, which is fighting the Georgia legislation, thousands of people will be forced to move if the law takes effect. Twenty-five of those are in nursing homes.

New public places emerge all the time, and zoning laws leave it to the highly sexed psychic powers of offenders to choose a home where authorities will not plop a public park, school, or day care center. Entire towns are easily covered, forcing offenders to move locales. But once one town adopts an ordinance, pushing sex offenders to neighboring towns, the tendency is for those towns to do so as well, provoking an arms race of circle drawing as offenders bounce from city to city. It is exile by attrition.

As with flag burning, the appeal of such legislation flows from politician to populace, its highest purpose being to smoke out politicians who oppose it. The problem with zoning proposals is that, unlike recent Republican values grandstanding in D.C., they tend to pass.

In a larger sense, recent national debates about redistricting should give the non-registered pause. It is possible to collect vast amounts of personal information about residents of any locality, to aggregate and act upon any number of data sets voters unknowingly provide. The high art of gerrymandering reminds us that it's not just sex offenders who are living highly mapped lives; let he who is without vice build the first zone. If the country really is suffering a bout of paranoia over hypothetical strangers, the sentiment would be better directed at politicking neighbors.



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE SLOW TO PLEAD "GUILTY"?

Number One Reason: Michael McArdle.

This man was victimized by his own lawyer, Valdean Watson, because Watson believed that lawyers are "trustees" not advocates. He had McArdle plead guilty through his therapist. This was after the previous lawyer was trying to get his case based on a vigorous First Amendment defense.

If a person is actually guilty then he should plead out, BUT if he's only guilty of a lessor offense or NOT GUILTY at all, then he should be tried, and be defended by a COMPETENT lawyer who knows what he is doing. Drugged-out, drunk, lazy, shystering, etc., lawyers need not apply.

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:



Click the link above to see the videos from this show, and the others below!

If you are innocent or not, NEVER ACCEPT A PLEA DEAL!

06/17/2004

INTRODUCTION:
It is the centerpiece of America's judicial process: the right to a trial by jury system that places a defendant's fate in the hands of a jury of one's peers. But it may surprise many to learn that nearly 95 percent of all cases resulting in felony convictions never reach a jury. Instead, they are settled through plea bargains in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence.

"The real American justice system is unlike anything depicted on Law & Order and Court TV," says producer Ofra Bikel. "I know I was stunned when I realized that only about 5 percent of all felony convictions result from jury trials. The rest are settled by plea bargains. And these deals aren't always to the defendant's advantage."

"The Plea" tells several stories -- different people, different charges, different parts of the country, all with one thing in common: the difficult dilemma of confronting a plea. The program also interviews experts on the criminal justice system.

"The Plea" is Ofra Bikel's latest investigation into America's criminal justice system. Her previous reports include "The Burden of Innocence," "Requiem for Frank Lee Smith," "An Ordinary Crime," "The Case for Innocence," "Snitch," and the trilogy of programs entitled "Innocence Lost".

When Charles Gampero, Jr. was arrested and charged with murder in the second degree in 1994, the 20-year-old insisted he was innocent. While admitting to having hit the victim while trying to break up a fight outside a bowling alley on the night in question, Gampero said the victim was very much alive when he left him.

Given numerous unanswered questions in the case -- including statements by the victim's family, who said the man had been the target of harassment and vandalism by unknown parties in the weeks before his death -- Gampero was convinced that a jury would believe his story and acquit him of the charges.

But a jury would never hear his case. After jury selection had begun, Gampero and his family say the judge pressured the young man to accept a plea bargain that would send him to prison for seven to 21 years.

"[The judge] told me point blank—he said, 'I will give your son 25 to life, so you better take the plea, or if you don't take the plea, he's getting it,'" says Charles Gampero, Sr., whose son is now entering his ninth year in prison. "We took the plea agreement thinking that the judge knew what he was talking about and my son would be home by the time he's 27," Gampero Sr. says. "It didn't work out."

To overworked and understaffed defense lawyers, prosecutors, and jurists, plea bargains are the safety valve that keeps cases moving through our backlogged courts.

"The system would collapse if every case that was filed in the criminal justice system were to be set for trial," says Judge Caprice Cosper of the Harris County Criminal Court in Houston, Texas. "The system would just entirely collapse."

Critics, however, contend that the push to resolve cases through plea bargains jeopardizes the constitutional rights of defendants, who may be pressured to admit their guilt whether they are guilty or not. In Erma Faye Stewart's case, for example, she says her defense attorney encouraged her to accept a plea bargain when she was arrested in a major drug sweep based upon information provided by a police informant who was later deemed not credible. The 30-year-old mother of two steadfastly maintained her innocence, but says her court-appointed defense attorney didn't want to hear it.

"He was, like, pushing me to [plead guilty and] take the probation -- he wasn't on my side at all," says Stewart, who tells FRONTLINE that after spending 25 nights in a crowded jail cell, she decided to follow her attorney's advice. "Even though I wasn't guilty, I was willing to plead guilty because I had to go home to my kids. My son was sick."

After accepting the plea bargain and 10 years' probation, Stewart was freed. What she didn't know was that under the terms of her probation, she would be required to pay a monthly fee to her probation officer. Her felony conviction also meant that the single mother was banned from the federal food stamps program. Within three years of pleading guilty to a crime she says she didn't commit, Erma Faye Stewart had fallen behind in her probation payments and been evicted from her home.

"One reason that a lot of people plead guilty is because they're told they can go home that day, because they will get probation," says Steve Bright, a defense attorney and law professor who serves as director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. "What they usually don't take into account is that they are being set up to fail."

Other defendants in "The Plea" describe being pressured by prosecutors and judges into accepting plea bargains that resulted in them spending years behind bars for crimes they say they didn't commit. Those who refuse to cut a deal, insiders say, are often rewarded with extra-harsh prison sentences as a lesson to future defendants.

A case in point: Patsy Kelly Jarrett. In 1973, the 23-year-old North Carolina resident drove to New York with a friend for a summer-long vacation. It was only when the police showed up at her door three years later, Jarrett says, that she learned that sometime during their New York stay, her friend had robbed a gas station and murdered the attendant.

While the evidence against Jarrett's friend was concrete, the only evidence against Jarrett was the statement of an elderly witness who said he saw a car at the time of the crime with someone inside. The man did not know, however, whether the person was a man or a woman.

To avoid a trial, prosecutors offered Jarrett a plea bargain: If she would plead guilty to the robbery, they would drop the murder charge and give her a five- to 15-year prison sentence.

"I told my attorney, 'I can't, I can't do this,'" Jarrett tells FRONTLINE. "And he said, 'Well, my hands are tied. We want to drop the murder charge on you if you'll plead guilty to the robbery.' And I said, 'But I haven't robbed anybody.'"

Convinced that the jury would believe her, Jarrett refused the plea bargain and took her chances with a trial. She was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life.

"I believed in the American system of justice," Jarrett says from the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, where she has spent the past 27 years of her life. "I really believed that, you know, just tell the truth and the judge and jury will hear you and nothing will happen to you. But I was wrong…."

Twelve years into her prison sentence, Jarrett's case was reversed after the prison warden became convinced of her innocence and asked a new defense attorney to take up her case. The state decided to appeal the reversal, but first offered Jarrett another plea bargain: If she would admit to committing the crimes with which she was charged, she would be sentenced to time served and released.

In "The Plea," Jarrett's lawyers describe how they urged her repeatedly to take the plea bargain. She refused. The state won its appeal, and Jarrett's 25 years to life sentence was reinstated.

"It's just morally wrong to say you did something you know in your heart you didn't do," says Jarrett, who will not be eligible for parole until 2005. "I might have walked free physically, but in my spirit and in my soul, I would have had to have lived with that the rest of my life. And I couldn't live with me like that. I can live with me better in here."

Update: In the spring of 2005 Kelly Jarrett had her first parole hearing and was granted parole. She will be released June 13, 2005.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

WE NEED A NEW SUPREME COURT

Here's part of the reason why:

From secondcircuitcivilrights.blogspot.com:

Another case falls into the Garcetti graveyard

Things changed when the Supreme Court in 2006 tightened up the legal standards governing the rights of public employees who speak out on the job. The old formulation was that you can't suffer retaliation for speaking out on matters of public concern. The new test, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is that speech arising from your "official duties" is not protected speech, no matter how important the subject matter.

The Garcetti cases are now starting to trickle in from the Second Circuit. A few months ago, the Court of Appeals rejected a First Amendment retaliation case where a public school teacher filed a grievance complaining about how the school disciplined an unruly student. (Weintraub v. Board of Education, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010)). This time around, the Court of Appeals rejects a case where a public employee advocated on behalf of a subordinate who complained about profiteering on public property.

The case is Huth v. Haslin, decided on March 11. Huth was the supervisor. Archer was the subordinate who told Huth that Thruway employees were selling bootleg DVD's on Thruway Authority premises. Archer also told Huth that a supervisor was engaging in reverse discrimination in the workplace. Huth conveyed this information to her supervisor, Bloomer. The Thruway Authority then accused Huth of unrelated misconduct, prompting her to bring a lawsuit. Afterwards, the Thruway Authority demoted Huth, which led to an amended complaint alleging that she was demoted in retaliation for the lawsuit.

Huth's case fails for two reasons. First, the Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Hall and Stein [D.J.], tells us, "Huth passed along Archer’s concerns about the actions of certain Thruway Authority employees to the head of Huth’s division and that she did so at daily meetings when they discussed the employees in their division. We have no difficulty concluding that such speech was made not as a 'citizen' but, rather, pursuant to Huth’s official duties as a Thruway Authority employee and supervisor."

But what about the lawsuit? Doesn't it violate the First Amendment to suffer demotion in retaliation for challenging an (allegedly) false charge of misconduct leveled against her in retaliation for reporting a subordinate's complaint about illegal behavior at work? In other words, does the initial lawsuit alleging retaliation for reporting illegal conduct qualify as First Amendment activity? This may surprise you, but the answer is no. The lawsuit was not protected activity under the First Amendment. The Second Circuit summarizes its reasoning:

The record also makes plain that Huth’s present lawsuit, asserting claims for monetary and punitive damages, does not qualify as speech "on a matter of public concern." Huth’s original complaint, which she contends was protected speech and the basis for defendants’ further retaliation, alleged only that defendants retaliated against her for specific statements she made to her supervisor and for the union activities of Archer. Much like other public employee speech that we have held not to be protected from retaliation by the First Amendment, Huth’s lawsuit was "personal in nature and generally related to her own situation.”


Why is this so? Because Huth's lawsuit did not reflect that she "wanted to debate issues of ... discrimination, that her suit sought relief against pervasive or systemic misconduct by a public agency or public officials, or that her suit was part of an overall effort ... to correct allegedly unlawful practices or bring them to public attention.” Since the original complaint was personal in nature and was not part of a broader effort to grieve systemic problems in the workplace, it does not qualify as First Amendment activity.

WHY OKIES ARE STOOPID?

They believe in fascism.

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

04/12/2010

By ROBIN BLUMNER

For the last generation we've put criminal justice policy in the hands of legislators with one injunction: Hang 'em high. Words like "rehabilitation" and "gain time" were excised from corrections vocabulary as if they were Bolshevik propaganda.

Punishments got tougher, fines stiffer, tolerance for mistakes became "zero." But there have been costs to this, both apparent and hidden. And now that states are facing crippling budget deficits, they are beginning to see that criminal law written solely to mete out punitive retribution is no longer affordable.

Our jails and prisons are stuffed with 2.3 million people. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, according to the nonprofit advocacy group the Sentencing Project. To save bucks on all this human warehousing, states are taking some obvious steps to reduce the population. California has just revised its parole system to eliminate requirements that low-level offenders check in regularly.

The state expects fewer people will return to jail for missed meetings with a parole officer. But another byproduct is that ex-offenders with jobs won't have to figure out how to make meetings, leading to more stable employment.

This points up the hidden expense of our criminal justice system, which is how absurdly difficult it makes life for people trying to abide by the rules once they are released.

We purposely stack the odds. And this myopic policy wrings tremendous costs from individuals, families, communities and ultimately entire states.

The extent of some of these obstacles is documented in a report on Florida's "cash register justice" by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

The report details how the Florida Legislature has imposed user fees on offenders for the costs of the criminal justice system, burdening them with debt loads that make a successful re-entry a pipe dream.

The report found that since 1996, criminal defendants have been slapped with more than 20 new categories of financial obligations.

The fees are imposed to recoup the cost of prosecution and defense, court costs, housing, food and medical care. Offenders are charged for their probation supervision, substance abuse treatment and their own electronic monitoring.

Tom Bakos, who runs a residential re-entry program in Gainesville, Fla., told the Brennan Center that about 80 percent of his clients are charged from $100 to $300 per month in financial obligations related to their interaction with the criminal justice system.

For people out of prison who usually qualify for some of the state's lowest-paid work — an average Florida prison inmate reads at a sixth-grade level — this can make subsistence impossible.

Florida then takes it further. When people cannot keep up with their payment plans, depending upon the county, their driver's license may be suspended, which can lead to job loss or new offenses for driving on a suspended license. If they fail to show at a hearing on a missed payment a warrant is issued for their arrest.

Florida also heaps late fees and collection fees on delinquent payments. In 2009, the Florida Legislature required that collection agents be used after 90 days, allowing a surcharge of up to 40 percent on the amount owed.

The state essentially invites recidivism by laying the groundwork for failure. Call it counterproductive, heartless or insane, any one fits.

As states grapple with ways to dig out of their budget holes, they should address the hidden costs as well as the apparent costs encumbering their states. By ending these blood-from-a-stone corrections policies, more people would leave prison with the real possibility of putting the past behind them. This in turn would reduce recidivism and make more taxpayers out of tax burdens. Long-range thinking, anyone?

See Also:



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

TEXAS CAN TAKE THE STATIC-99 TESTS AND SHOVE THEM UP THEIR ASSHOLES WITHOUT THE VASOLINE

The Static-99 is the same test they used on John Albert Gardner III. His result was 2 out of 10, and therefore, a "low risk offender". Now he's surely guilty as hell, but in the meantime, the Static-99 Tests don't do squat and endangers children's lives.

Now from sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

Original Article



04/11/2010



By Robin Pyle




Which sex offender is a higher risk to the public?



A. A 20-year-old unmarried man who exposed himself at a party.

B. A 30-year-old married man who molested his 3-year-old niece and 5-year-old daughter.



If you said B, you probably would be wrong - if you're going by the state's assessed risk level for sex offenders, experts say.



You also might be notified by postcard about the man who exposed himself, but maybe not the other, because public notification is based on the risk level.




Authorities warn sex offender risk classifications can be confusing to the public, though state officials are working to improve that.



"It doesn't measure how violent he is," said Adam Taylor Puckett, a sex offender officer with the Lubbock-Crosby County Community Supervision and Corrections Department.



Forty-eight of 411 offenders in the city and county were considered high risks, according to law enforcement listings as of Thursday. More than 150 were considered low or moderate risks.



Nearly one-third of sex offenders in the city and county didn't even have a risk level assigned to them, most commonly because they were convicted and released from prison prior to the 2000 law that requires a risk assessment.



But while the classification may be misleading, it is widely used with little explanation in sex offender registries, which the public can go online to check and see if any offenders live in their neighborhoods.




Locally, residents may go to the police department's or county's Web sites to check.



Residents are notified via postcard when a high-risk offender moves into a neighborhood, but postcards aren't sent for lower-risk levels.



Authorities urge residents to not discount low- and moderate-risk offenders.



"I wouldn't go by the risk level," said Police Cpl. Mark Long. "We've had low-risk offenders re-offend."




Despite the label, a low-risk offender could be someone who committed a serious crime against a child or multiple victims or be prone to violence.



The state's assessed risk level doesn't take into account the individual offender or even his offense.



The classification is determined by a form called Static 99, which is aimed at providing a statistical analysis of the offender's likelihood to repeat an offense.



The form includes 10 questions, and each answer is associated with a point. The risk level is determined by the number of points.



Questions include such things as the number of prior sex offenses, if the victim was a stranger or a family member and the offender's age and the relationship status. The victim's age is not a factor on the form.




For example, single men in their 20s automatically get more points than an older man who is married because statistically they are more likely to re-offend.



"We're not sure what benefit (the classification) has to the public," said Jennifer Mora, a supervisor with the Lubbock-Crosby County office.



She is concerned the classification may cause residents to "have a false sense of security living next to a low-risk offender."



One example of a low-risk offender who lives in Lubbock is a 45-year-old man who was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a 7-year-old girl in 1992, according to the city's sex offender registry. In another case, a man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a 6-year-old boy in 1999.



And once a risk level is assigned to an offender, officials said it is not reassessed unless the offender goes to jail for more than 30 days.




Steven Henderson, director of the Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said officials are still learning the best ways to assess a sex offender.



"We're still in the infancy stage of this," he said, noting the standardized form is recognized nationally.



In 2005, the Texas Legislature directed the Council on Sex Offender Treatment to study dynamic risk assessment, which would include assessing the offender based on multiple factors.



"What it's going to provide is a more accurate predictor of risk," said Allison Taylor, executive director of the council. "The main thing is determining the true predators."




She said the public needs to be notified of how dangerous an offender is, rather than just the sexual recidivism level as indicated on the Static 99 form.



The council has been researching the best tools that would help officials determine the danger to the public.



Once complete, the new risk assessment will take into account other factors, such as the age of the victim and how many victims there have been, and provide a better-rounded glimpse of the offender.



The council implemented a pilot program in 2007, for which data are still being collected and analyzed.



The five-year study period is to end in October, but Taylor didn't know when the new risk assessment would be implemented statewide.







I think we should give everyone in the general public the same Static-99 test, and lets see who would be considered a dangerous sexual predator, even without committing a crime, or being caught. I am willing to bet, a vast majority would fail the test.





Video Link






"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Thursday, April 15, 2010

WE HAVE TO PROTECT ALL INNOCENT

From gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com:

Innocence Yet Again

I've talked about innocence far more than I like. But if I'm going to toil in the field of criminal defense blawgging with an emphasis on the death penalty, it's hard to avoid.

The problem with innocence, though, is like the problem with guilt. The words are slippery. Just what sort of "innocence" are we speaking of? Factual? Legal? Moral? Spiritual? Are we involved in ontology or omphaloskepsis? (There is a difference.) Same for guilt.

OJ is legally innocent of the murder of Nicole and of Ron Goldman. That's the result of the criminal trial. But he is legally responsible for their deaths. That's the result of the civil trial. Try explaining that to the man or woman on the street, and then ask if it makes any sense.

In fact, and I get tired of saying this, criminal trials are not about factual guilt or innocence. (Though we hope their verdicts will reflect it.) They're about proof as presented through a set of procedures and rules developed and refined over centuries and subject to almost daily modification at the whim of judges, justices, and legislators.

Take the case of the already executed Cameron Todd Willingham. (I'm not going to rehash it all here or even set out links to the 15 posts I've given that label. [It'll be 16 once I post this.] There's a link to all of them on the right.) He did or did not murder his children. Despite the claims of the surviving arson investigator who testified that there was a fire set and of Willingham's trial lawyer who's sure he was guilty, who was sure of it at the time, and who wants the world to know it, there's simply no credible evidence that Willingham killed anyone. Which doesn't mean he didn't, but goes a long way toward proving that.

(A brief digression. Grits reports that John Bradley, who's the head of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and was seemingly appointed to whitewash the Willingham case, now seems poised to do just that. Stay tuned.)

Then there's Hank Skinner (Again, you can find the links yourself). He's still on death row as opposed to having been executed thanks to some great, creative lawyering. Did he actually do the things the jury said he did? Damned if I know. Is that relevant to questions of guilt or innocence? Depends on the questions.

The Death Penalty Information Center maintains a list of those exonerated from death row, what it calls "The Innocence List."

For Inclusion on DPIC's Innocence List:

Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

a) their conviction was overturned AND

i) they were acquitted at re-trial or

ii) all charges were dropped

b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence.

That's it. Notice that nowhere in that explanation is the claim that being on the list means a person is not factually responsible for the acts at issue. (Though, certainly, maybe most are innocent in that way.) Rather, they are on the list because the law has so declared them and in the case of gubernatorial pardons there is some "evidence of innocence."

And so we come to the sad case of Timothy Hennis. In 1985, in Fayettevill North Carolina, Kathryn Eastburn was raped and she and her two young daughters were murdered. Hennis was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to die. Tried and convicted of rape and murder from 1985, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered a new trial. In 1989, he was acquitted, found not guilty. That's exoneration. Legal innocence.

Hennis qualified under (a)(1) for inclusion on the list of exonerated persons. And there he remained. Until Thursday of last week when he was found guilty of the crimes in a military court. (Don't try to understand how this is possible given that pesky double jeopardy prohibition in the constitution. I've talked about that before, most recently here.)

Kent Scheidegger cackled.

This is the smoking gun that proves what we have been saying all along. The so-called innocence list is nothing of the sort.

. . .

We have known all along that the "innocence list" claim was a lie. Now we have official proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Times balances Scheidegger's claim with Dick Dieter's explanation.

In an interview, Mr. Scheidegger said that the Hennis case showed the stark difference between a jury’s not finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and actual proof of innocence. In the Hennis case, he said, “we have proof that he was a guilty murderer who got away with it, and yet he was on the innocence list.”

Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said in an interview that Mr. Hennis’s name would be removed from the innocence list. But Mr. Dieter defended the list and its name.

Being found “not guilty” is not innocence in the sense of “innocent as a newborn babe,” he said, and “we’ve never said that’s what the innocence list is about.”

Paul Cassell, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, has a slightly different take. DPIC deceived him.

I’ve always understood the DPIC to be arguing that their list contained only proven “wrong man” cases — that is, cases in which the wrong person was convicted of a crime he did not commit. If all the DPIC is arguing is that the list contains the names of people who the state failed to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it needs to be clear on that point in their future discussions of the death penalty.

You see, if DPIC is going to have what they call an "Innocence List," they need to do more than explain how it's derived. They have to make sure that Professor Cassell reads and understands the explanation. That's a tough job. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

Then there's Bill Otis whose post I'm reproducing in it's entirety:

Inspired by, but not a report of, the Hennis case and the commentary thereupon, and in appreciation of so many other indignant DPIC stories of "the innocent."

Innocent (archaic) -- Didn't do it.

Innocent (modern) -- Not as "innocent as a newborn babe" but kind of innocent, not in the woden, old fashioned sense, but in the sense that the "alleged" killer was, you know, abused 30 years ago by his long-dead step-father, leading to his inability to form criminal intent notwithstanding that he stabbed the victims 20 or 40 times or something; and which step-father his lawyer would have found out about but for his sleeping through pre-trial preparation, not to mention the trial, leading to reversal for ineffective assistance. So, you see, he was, to the more sophisticated among us, innocent. See also "exonerated."

Innocence list -- A compilation of people who either (a) did it, or (b) didn't do it, not that it matters that much, since the whole point is to conflate the two, so long as much of the media can be relied upon to portray the list as consisting only of (b). See also Roger Keith Coleman, who never made the innocence list but served the same purpose despite his now quietly conceded abject guilt.

As Greenfield notes, this is all about the definition of innocent, which is kind of where I began and which allows for a difference between legal and factual innocence. Scott explains in his just slightly snarky way:

Cassell wants to know how these people can be called "innocent". Because this is the United States of America, and in the United States of America, everyone who is not convicted is innocent. Actually, truly, really, 110% innocent.

Absolutely.

Neither Cassell nor Scheidegger is really as stupid or as inattentive as I'm making them sound (or as Greenfield does) by throwing their own words back at them. They're making rhetorical points by deliberately misreading DPIC's use of "innocence" just as DPIC chooses to the call it's list of the exonerated an "Innocence List" for rhetorical purposes.

But words matter, and DPIC at least has the integrity to define its words and explain its list. Don't like that list? Fine. Make your own. Hell, make a list of everyone you think is guilty who still isn't behind bars or strapped to the gurney. Be careful, though, to define your terms out in the open.

But while they're compiling the lists, there's still the question of Hank Skinner's DNA.

Bill Otis asserts the importance of DNA testing and took me to task for saying that he thought it shouldn't be done. That claim doesn't seem to be echoed in a demand that Texas allow that testing for Skinner (or Ohio for Darryl Durr). I don't notice Scheidegger or Cassell demanding it, either. Neither Scalia nor Thomas, the two justices who are on record as saying that the Constitution isn't concerned with conviction of the innocent but think governors will surely save any that come close, seem to have demanded the testing, either.

(I'll be happy to redact from that paragraph the name of any of those folks who've demanded that Texas allow DNA testing for Skinner or Ohio for Durr. I can't find it.)

Because really, if we're going to discuss hypocrisy and the abuse of rhetoric, there's no shortage.

And regardless of whether Hennis is one of them, there have been factually innocent folk sentenced to death. And whether Scheidegger or Otis or Cassell or Scalia or Thomas or your next door neighbor wants to believe it, it's damned likely some have been executed. And it's a mathematical certainty that if we kill enough people, some will be innocent. Factually.

If that's OK with them, let them say so. Then they can decide about who needs to apologize to whom. If it's not OK, then what happens?

And let's get at the DNA.

THE HISTORY OF THE CURRENT HYSTERIA

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

A generation ago, few Americans would have supported registration and “marking” of sex offenders who had served their time and paid their debt to society. In today’s world, however, the tracking of sex offenders is no longer seen as un-American or neo-Nazi, according to Prof. Wayne A. Logan (Email) of Florida State University College.

Logan visited the Law Center as part of the “Criminal Law at the Cutting Edge” lecture series sponsored by the Criminal Justice Institute. He outlined how every state now operates a system of mandatory registration and notification, and noted how the nationwide obsession with tracking sex offenders represents “a really remarkable public policy story.” The story is made all the more remarkable because there is no empirical evidence that the system does any good. “We live in a very scared society,” he said, “and a very unforgiving society.”

Some 700,000 sex offenders are registered in the United States, but the actual number is much higher as many sex crimes are never reported and offenders find easy ways to skirt the registration law, Logan said. While listing names and addresses of offenders on the Internet may make the neighborhood more alert to the convicted sex offender down the street, Logan noted how the system focuses on “strangers” – and does nothing to protect loved ones from relatives or trusted family acquaintances who commit most of the offenses. As the father of two young daughters, Logan admits he frequently scans the offenders list on the Internet. At the same time, he said he is “very aware that potential abusers could be someone I know and trust.

The history of registering criminal offenders and alerting the community to their whereabouts is not new, according to Logan. The practice traces back at least to France, Germany and England in the 19th Century and, he said, “derives from a human desire to know what’s going on around us.” In the United States, a registry of freed slaves was kept in the 19th Century, and in the 1930s, California kept a registry of known gangsters who were migrating from the East Coast. Other states followed suit – and the move toward public registries gained impetus in the 1980s after a number of child abductions, including the kidnapping and death of Adam Walsh whose father, John, became a television crime crusader. [There was also the McMartin Case in Manhattan Beach, California back in 1982. The case lasted for eight years, and brought all of the mass hysteria caused a late phony-ass reporter by the name of Wayne Satz who dated one of the private interrogators who brought in allegations of "witchcraft" and "satanism". The Judge dismissed the case as to five people, and a jury acquitted the other two. This is what you get when you have assholes and worse, politicians, who exploit the children to get power and gain. We might as well bring back the Salem Witch Trials!] In 1994, the federal government waded in with the so-called Megan’s Law, which requires states to adopt a registration system. To ensure compliance with the registration requirements, the government employed a “carrot and stick ” approach of awarding and withholding federal criminal justice funds from states. In 2006, President Bush mandated certain additional requirements, including adding juveniles to the registry and making it retroactive, when he signed into law the Adam Walsh Act. The law is seen in some quarters as a states’ rights issue, Logan said, and 18 states have refused to adopt the measure. He predicted legislatures will be debating the matter as the act comes up again in July.

Logan raised the question: What accounts for the remarkable turnaround from 1986, when just a handful of states had a registration system? Logan conjectured that a “notion of moral panic ” swept the country in the 1980s and 1990s as a rash of high-profile child disappearances refocused debate on the issue. Missing children’s pictures began appearing on milk cartons; several child protection bills made their way through Congress; and Walsh launched America’s Most Wanted on television. “Shame sanctions” became popular in the courts, gaining a national reputation for Harris County judge (now Congressman) Ted Poe, who employed unique attention-getting sentences. Harsher terms, chain gangs and civil commitments for sex offenders “provided fertile ground for registration and community notification to take root,” Logan said. The politics of criminal justice also witnessed a trend toward personalization and demonization. The previously unusual practice of naming laws after victims – Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law, for example – made it much more personal and compelling, Logan said. If a legislator opposed a bill, he or she appeared anti-victim or “anti-law-and-order.” Defendants were demonized in legislative halls, courts and the press as “monsters,” “animals,” and “predators.” The public developed “a sense of information entitlement on sex offenders,” Logan said, “with any concerns of privacy or other rights trumped by the right to know.” In recent times, courts have shown little concern for the offenders who are governed by these laws; in fact, Logan noted how the net has been cast wider as more and more categories of offenders are being added. “If everyone is classified, then classifications are meaningless,” he said, adding that it raises the risk of the public becoming inured to the threat. “It is corrections on the cheap,” he said. The government puts everything on the Internet and says, “It’s up to you to self-protect.”

Logan said the effort to narrow the scope of registries could gather steam in the years ahead. But he predicts the system will remain and may actually strengthen. “We’re not going to see an unwinding of these laws,” he declared. Reaction to sex offenders is psychologically very visceral – “much more so than any other crime, even murder,” Logan noted. It may take a horrible act perpetrated by “community vigilantes” to prompt a change, he added. “Tragically, what’s on the line is our own personal safety, and that of our loved ones.”



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

OPRAH NEEDS TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THE TRENCHCOAT PREDATOR

Then there assholes in her family that molested her. Most sex offenses occur in the home than with a stranger. 

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

 

Article: Disinformation (Wikipedia)



Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.



Article: Fear Mongering (Wikipedia)


Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.



Video Link | Oprah Article







"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

RECALL THE ENTIRE RIVERSIDE COUNTY BORED OF STUPIDVISORS

Don't they something else better to do?

WE DON'T NEED STATUTORY RAPES TO BE ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES! The problem is that Unchristian conservatives would want to make everything but marital sex a crime that has to be registered, thereby wasting resources that can used to watch violent predators.

The more isane laws we have, the more deaths of children we will have.

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article


04/11/2010

As a teenager, _____ made a very bad decision, for which he spent time in jail and on probation.

He's 29 now, and if he had committed a crime such as burglary or assault, he would be considered to have paid his debt to society and would be clear of the justice system.

But _____'s crime was sexual in nature, so his debt to society is a lifelong one. Like hundreds of thousands of others, he must register his address with authorities everywhere he goes.

And because that address is posted on an Internet database, his neighbors on a Murrieta cul-de-sac recently became aware of him. They have been protesting outside his house, demanding he move, and last week took their case to the City Council.

In a plea bargain, _____ (15 at the time) admitted to sexual battery on a girl under 14; exactly what his crime was is unclear, because court records don't offer details and he isn't speaking about it. He has not been accused of any other offenses in the 14 years since.

_____'s case highlights the flaws in the "Megan's Law" databases around the country, from their unwieldy size to their lack of useful detail. What were intended to warn residents of the presence of dangerous sex offenders in their midst have been broadened to include so many people convicted of such a wide array of offenses that even law enforcement officials say they have become largely useless as crime-fighting tools.

What they are good at is painting offenders with a scarlet letter they wear for life, making it that much more difficult for them to ever fit back into society.

For some on the list, that lifelong tag is warranted. But for every John Gardner ---- charged earlier this year with the heinous rape and murder of a 17-year-old Rancho Bernardo girl ---- there are dozens on the list who pose no threat to others.

Now the Riverside County [Bored of Stupidvisors] wants to add to the clutter.

Supervisors voted last week to send out notifications to people when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood.

What the supervisors should be doing is pushing the Legislature to modify the law, narrowing the database to the true threats ---- serious, violent offenders, and adults who commit crimes against children. Or at least create levels of threats, so people know whether the neighbor on the list is a predatory pedophile or someone whose teenage transgression 20 years ago continues to haunt them.

Where _____ fits on that scale is unclear. But it has been 14 years since he committed whatever act landed him in jail, and there is no indication he has committed another offense since then.

He deserves the right to try to reclaim his life without fear of harassment or worse everywhere he goes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (Emphasis added.)

FLORIDA STILL DOESN'T GET IT

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article


04/11/2010

By JAY STAPLETON

DAYTONA BEACH -- A compromise bill moving through the Florida Legislature would sharpen definitions of where sex offenders can live but also prohibit them from "loitering or prowling" in areas where children are found.

The measure, Senate Bill 1284 and its House companion, HB 119, have lurched forward this session with political tweaks to the language along the way. Similar measures have been pushed in recent years but shot down.

"It's not perfect, but it does tighten up some things," said local Public Defender Jim Purdy, vice president of the Florida Public Defender Association. "A person that has to obey this statute will have a better idea of what he or she can or cannot do."

The bill would specifically define places sex offenders cannot live, including near child-care facilities, playgrounds and schools. Under the old law, broad terms like "day care center" and "places where children congregate," caused some confusion among offenders trying to find homes.

Although the provision that adds a loitering-and-prowling restriction gave Purdy some "heartburn" because of potential constitutional challenges, he said the bill is "a step in the right direction."

In recent years, local people released from prison as sex offenders have found it difficult to find suitable places to live, as cities created ordinances to keep them out.

In 2006, sex offender _____ was told he could no longer live in his home in Ormond Beach because a new city ordinance extended the buffer between sex offenders and schools, parks and day care centers to 2,500 feet.

A year later, the local courts were faced with a flood of sex offenders who were being jailed because they couldn't find places to live. South Florida made national headlines when sex offenders were housed beneath a bridge because of a 2,500-feet residency restriction for offenders.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union (Contact) have debated that a 1,000-foot rule statewide would protect the rights of offenders to find housing.

"We would have to see how (the proposed restrictions) would be enforced before we could evaluate them," said Brandon Hensler, director of communications for the ACLU of Florida in Miami.

Under the bill, counties and cities will be prevented from passing local ordinances that add to the list of places defined by the law. But, Purdy said, the law would allow cities to increase their buffer zones to 2,500 feet.

The bill would allow sex offenders already living in a house to stay if a child-care facility, school or playground is built nearby.

In the past, officials said citizens were getting permits to operate day-care centers as an effort to force offenders living near them to move.

"That has been cured by this," Purdy said. "The bill will close some of the problem issues and make it more understandable."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

******************************************************
This is also insane! Why should Florida still debate about where sex offenders live? It won't prevent more sex offenses from occuring.

Look at California. Jessica's Law didn't prevent the deaths of Amber Dubois and Chelsea King. It would not have prevented the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard. In fact, it also did not prevent the murder of Somer Thompson in Floriduh of all places. Floriduh and all other conservative states should START OVER!

Yes, they would need more prisons, but they should also stop begatting abuse, and provide for more mental health.

Let's look at two cases in Floriduh that don't include SEX! Casey Anthony, and Misty Croslin are in jail. Casey is awaiting trial for her murder of her daughter Caylee Anthony, while Misty Croslin is a person of interest in the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings. The problem with these two are that either they were abused as children or they suffer from mental health issues. Outwardly, Anthony and Croslin were more interested in "partying" than taking care of their kids.

GUESS FUCKING WHAT? When you have a child, especially at an early age, YOUR PARTYING DAYS ARE OVER! They probably were on drugs and alcohol to self-medicate their bipolar disorder. It's time that Floriduh should concentrate on abuse and mental health issues, sex or no sex, before they enact any Gestapo regulations.

SOUTHWORTH BELONGS IN THE SOUTH

The south of the Earth, which is Hell. I guess he wants to see more welfare babies, and belittle the mothers who didn't have the facts to begin with.

From kennedy-law.blogspot.com:


Speak no evil, hear no evil

In the neverending quest to criminalize everything, the Juneau County (WI) District Attorney has threatened to charge health teachers who teach their students how to use condoms or other birth control devices with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor charge that carries a maximum punishment of nine months in jail.

The DA, Scott Southworth, an evangelical Christian, took issue with a new state law that calls on schools to take a comprehensive approach to sex education -- something more than the "just say no" method. Mr. Southworth contends that telling students about birth control will only serve to make them want to have sex -- as evidence he pointed to the Milwaukee schools who teach a comprehensive approach to sex education and still have high teen pregnancy rates.

Of course he neglected to mention that Juneau County's teen birth rate (33.9 per 1,000) is about three percentage points above the state average and that Juneau County teaches abstinence.

Next up on Mr. Southworth's agenda: the evils of marijuana, cable television and that new-fangled internet thing. Stay tuned.