-- A Statement on Rights --
"Sex Offender Rights" -and- "Sex Offender Privacy Rights"
Those phrases can be misleading and are regularly misused!
RIGHTS DEFINED: The "rights" granted to every Citizen, also apply to ALL sex offenders and flow from common law, constitutional law, and statutory law. These rights apply to every citizen, yet rights can be diminished, if a person adversely infringes on rights of another person.
Some rights are so fundamental that they need no law to define them. At birth a person is automatically entitled to a place in society, a place to live, a place to work to support themselves, a place to worship God according to their belief, and the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children. Absent a criminal act, and then only during the sentence for that act, these rights are fundamental and -cannot be eliminated- by anyone or any government.
Society generally perceives, that ALL sex offenders (society refuses to distinguish between former offenders and current offenders) will recidivate (meaning former offenders will again infringe on the rights of another in the future), and because of that perception, society believes their rights, can or should be diminished today (some feel eliminated, but, the Constitution prohibits that)!
There are some folks who want to diminish rights which exist for ALL sex offenders, those folks fail to recognize, if government can diminish rights of -anyone or a group-, then it has the power to diminish rights of everyone! Someday, every door may knock!
Persons convicted of a CRIME have a circle of people around them, their Zone of Associations, their family (often with children), friends, business associates, and their daily contacts.
Finally, when rights of persons PREVIOUSLY convicted of a CRIME are diminished, it effects not only that person, but every person in their Zone of Associations -everyone suffers-, including their children!
|
|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 4-28-06 |
|
FALCON II: Sensationalism and costly!
|
|
4-28-2006 National:
Operation FALCON (Federal And Local Cops Organized Nationally): Valley arrests part of sweep to jail fugitives in sex crimes |
.Statistics:Deputy US marshals teamed up with their state, local, and federal colleagues in the largest fugitive sweep to ever primarily focus on violent sex offenders. FALCON II resulted in the arrest of 9,037 fugitives and the clearance of 10,419 warrants. Of those fugitives arrested, 462 were wanted for violent sex crimes, 311 for other sex crimes, and an additional 783 failed to register as Sex Offenders.
..more..
: by US Department of Justice
|
. Falcon II, their main focus being sex offenders. I must admit I like the acronym; A bird of prey that swoops down on unsuspecting prey and overpowers them. Many of these folks needed to be brought to justice for their crimes. I have no comment about them; I hope none of the charges are false.
Still, there are some statistics which are troubling; 1,102 are violent sex offenders according to the Falcon II Press release. However, the detail numbers do not agree! The truth is, 462 were wanted for violent sex crimes, 311 for other sex crimes, and an additional 783 failed to register (FTR) as Sex Offenders according to the DOJ website.
Here is where things get a bit sticky. Press release says 1,102 violent sex ofenders, but, the detail say only 462 were wanted for violent sex offenses. Ahh, the difference, 640, come from the group of offenders that were arrested for "failure to register," the DOJ has reviewed their backgrounds and DECLARED them violent. i.e., past crimes. Statistical sensationalism!
The 783 arrested for FTR needs to be examined more closely. Within the term "failure to register (FTR)" there are people who simply failed to sign a form, failed to provide a change of address within time limits, failed to register or de-register with one of the agencies (residence, school, or work jurisdictions) when they moved into or out of that jurisdiction, and, this one catches many college folks -failed to de-register and re-register when they go home for school break-; technical violations of registration laws (TFTR).
I am not ignoring those who knowingly refused to register (KRTR) just addressing those who may be charged for technical violations of registration laws (TFTR). Many will say I am full of baloney, to them I cite the 2005 Michigan Auditor General's report after auditing the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. My July 2005 Commentary has a more detailed explanation of what the Auditors found in the mixed manual/computerized system.
Unfortunately the DOJ statistics lack detail to determine, if any TFTRs were in the DOJ 783 FTRs. Further, if Michigan's Auditor General found those kinds of errors in their system it is likely all states have similar errors. How many of today's RSOs nationwide (reported to be 551,000) are being held captive under technical violations of registration laws (TFTR)?
The DOJ chose arrests to arrive at what they call the "Falcon 15" a sample of the worst offenders. The first one is Reginald Dozier wanted for FTR. FTR is now considered one of the worst crimes in the nation! Absurd, failure to provide an address is now worse than murder, or more sensationalism?
What is most interesting about the Dozier case is, on the Illinois registry he is shown "Compliant" at the address he was arrested at (See Falcon 15) and it shows prior FTRs. Now, apparently when he registered in Illinois they did a background check and were satisfied he was not in violation of anything, or they would have arrested him and it would show he is in jail or prison. So, whatever the current FTR is it must fall within a TFTR that Illinois could have handled by simply visiting him and getting it resolved. So it seems that Dozier was complying with the spirit of the law and is being held to some technical violation of a law.
The "Falcon 15" seems to be folks who have committed serious crimes and have not been caught until this sting. And, in Dozier's case who has a resolved serious criminal history with the current crime classified serious (i.e., FTR being a felony. Nature of FTR is administrative with no victim) and here the DOJ is using him as a poster-criminal to make their sting look better in the public eye. Unless something is hidden, this case should have been handled locally, but then there is the sensationalism factor. How many more of the 783 are like this?
The Cost: I found one news paper that summarized the costs in a way we can work with: "Valley arrests part of sweep to jail fugitives in sex crimes" by JOSH KLEINBAUM, Staff Writer. I quote:
"The Marshals Service spent $531,000 on the weeklong exercise, most of it to pay overtime to local and state police, said David Dimmitt, chief deputy U.S. marshal. More than 2,100 officers from 786 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies took part."
So, 9,037 fugitives arrested which cost $531,000 means each arrest cost $58.76. Sex related charges are state crimes (1,556 in total), so federal funds were used to capture state criminals costing $91,430.00. Given that 783 were for FTR that cost alone was $46,009.00. Let us not forget that FTR includes TFTRs although we do not know how many.
So I have to ask, was this a Deal or NO Deal, for states not part of Falcon II who partially subsidized these arrests? Further, why are the Federal Marshals doing the work of local jurisdictions, and why were they needed within state jurisdictions? Sensationalism?
Note: For those of our readers that follow courts and court cases there is an impressive list to access here: CLICK. Also there are links to other state sites that may be of value for researching.
|
|
|
News & Noteworthy ©
Featured Issue 9-25 UPDATED 9-29 |
Why are lawyers not raising "Conflict of Law" arguments against "Residency Laws" (laws of exclusion and relegation)?
Restrictive local Residency Laws should cause a loss of federal funding!
|
|
9-26-2005 Nebraska / Iowa:
Nebraska city aims to thwart Iowa sex offenders South Sioux City has adopted an ordinance that mirrors an Iowa law restricting where offenders can live. |
.Officials in a Nebraska city want to block child molesters from crossing the Missouri River to dodge a tough new Iowa law that severely restricts where they may live. Elected leaders in South Sioux City, Neb., "are sending the message: We don't want these people living around our kids, either," said Deputy Rod Herron of the Dakota County sheriff's office in Nebraska.
South Sioux City council members last week approved an ordinance matching the Iowa law that bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, licensed child-care center or library. Three men have been told they must move or be arrested. Authorities say the ordinance is a first in Nebraska, one of more than 30 states with no residency limits on sex offenders.
..more..
|
9-25-2005 Iowa:
Few Choices in Residence for Des Moines' Child Sex Offenders |
.Des Moines, September 23rd, 2005- An industrial area, a trailer park, and the East Village. They are among the very few places left for child sex offenders to live here in Des Moines, now that the two thousand foot rule is back on the books.
At "Simply For Giggles" on Locust Street, Tanya Keith says she is far from overjoyed that this up-and-coming neighborhood is on that small list. But she says sex offenders have to live somewhere. "But I feel in this neighborhood...the different merchants will continue to make it the safe place we found it to be. "
..more..
: by WHO TV
|
9-25-2005 California:
Police Concerned about Sex Offender Bill |
.Hollister - Proposed legislation cracking down on sexual predators could make nearly all of Hollister off-limits to sex-offenders by prohibiting them from living near schools or parks. The bill, which is California’s version of Florida’s “Jessica’s Law” and was joint-authored by State Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, would ban any sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school. However, due to serious concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union, prisoner right’s groups and others, the bill is being held over until next year’s legislative session, according to Denham’s aide, Nick Rappley. [snip]
The bill would also require all sex offenders convicted of a felony to wear a global positioning device for the rest of their lives. Current law only applies to registrants who are convicted of committing especially egregious crimes involving children, and prevents them from living within a quarter-mile, or 1,320 feet, of a school while on parole. The proposed legislation would not only add parks, and potentially other sites such as children’s museums or water parks, but it would affect all sex offenders.[snip]
While the proposed bill mirrors legislation enacted in Florida after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped, molested and murdered by a convicted child molester in February, most child sexual abusers do not find their victims by frequenting schools or parks, according to the Megan’s Law Web site. Often times sexual predators abuse those who they know and have established relationships with, according to the site.
..more..
: by Erin Musgrave/Staff Writer
|
Conflicts of law: an overview
What is the intent of "residency laws," to protect children or exclude offenders from communities?
Are "residency laws" consistent with the intent of registration and community notification?
In order to register and notify the community the registrant must have a community to live in.
If local or state law prevent (or substantially prevent) former offenders from living within a community , those laws are in contradiction with the supreme laws requiring offenders to register in those communities.
Accordingly, all registration laws should exempt former sex offenders from registration, if there is another law preventing them from living in that community. i.e. "Conflict of Laws"
Effectively, the local laws preventing offenders from living in communities are attempts to usurp the higher law which requires registration of offenders.
Further, if local jurisdictions are receiving any grant money for maintaining compliance with registration laws, those grants should be revoked if they have a law preventing offenders from living within their community.
It cannot be forgotten that, federal guidelines require states to be substantially in compliance with federal guidelines, and if not then states lose funding.
Likewise, local jurisdictions within states that have laws preventing offender from residing within them, or a substantial portion of the community, clearly are not in compliance with the federal guidelines and should also lose funding.
|
9-25-2005 Florida:
No place for sex offenders to call home |
.DAYTONA BEACH -- Christopher Daughtry paid his debt to society -- but now society won't take him back. Daughtry, 34, was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child in 2000. In July, he had completed his sentence and was ready to return home -- but his mother's Daytona Beach house is in a "no-offender" zone. New laws have reduced Daughtry's options. Because he couldn't give his probation officer an acceptable address, he was charged with violation of probation -- before he ever got out the prison door.
"He's already done his time," said Maxine Bronson of Daytona Beach, Daughtry's mother. "He needs to live somewhere." Daughtry is one of four men being held at the Volusia County Branch Jail because, although they have finished serving their sentences for sexual offenses, they have nowhere to go. "It's called banishment," Public Defender Jim Purdy said. "And it's not the way we treat American citizens."
Florida Department of Corrections officials say they have to enforce the law. "We need to be able to contact them to supervise them," Joelyn Rackleff, a department spokeswoman, said Friday. "If they don't have a legal address, we violate their probation and they have a hearing before the court." Some offenders, like Daughtry, go through a series of hearings, only to learn at each one that the new addresses they present are also in the no-offender zones.
Some judges say they are having a hard time considering these probation violations "willful" on the sex offenders' part -- but they're equally reluctant to release them without acceptable addresses. The zero-tolerance stance for probation violators kicked into high gear after a probationer was accused of murdering six people in Deltona last summer. The deaths of two Florida children at the hands of sexual predators put all sexual offenders under greater scrutiny and sparked a flurry of legislation aimed at keeping the offenders away. [snip]
Purdy calls the new restrictions "a scarlet letter, a knee-jerk reaction to two cases." He says the state's reaction to the murders is understandable, and notes that few want to champion the rights of sexual offenders. But his role as public defender in the 7th Judicial Circuit is to represent those rights. "I have to be the squeaky wheel," he said. Purdy and others, including local American Civil Liberties Union leaders, say they're worried the new ordinances may actually create safety hazards.
"The unintended consequence," Purdy said, "is they're making it so difficult on these citizens that they're having to go underground." [snip] Some defense lawyers say the state law that deems failure to supply an acceptable address a probation violation is a violation itself -- of the offenders' constitutional rights. Assistant Public Defender James Jacobs filed a motion Friday seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. Calling the situation "Kafkaesque," Jacobs argues that defendants are in a situation where they cannot reasonably comply with the law by finding housing upon release.
"The Department of Corrections has admitted that it does not take a proactive stance in terms of assisting similarly situated defendants . . . to find appropriate housing," he wrote. The ACLU also is trying to work out a solution. "We are actively involved in collecting information," said George Crossley of the ACLU of Central Florida. Crossley said it's almost impossible for someone without any money, confined to a jail cell, to find an apartment. As the areas where offenders can live continue to shrink, the situation grows worse. "We have created a permanent underclass," Crossley said.
..more..
: by JAY STAPLETON, Staff Writer
|
9-25-2005 Pennsylvania:
Lower Makefield approves ordinance limiting residency of sex offenders |
.Parents living in Lower Makefield Township can rest a little easier this week knowing that sex offenders will now be barred from living in certain areas of their community.
On September 19, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a new ordinance restricting registered offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, parks and other places where kids typically congregate. The new law is the latest in a string of similar laws that have been cropping up throughout the nation and have been particularly proficient in New Jersey, the home state of Megan Kanka. [snip]
Pete Stainthorpe, who voted in favor of the new law, reiterated concerns voiced at a prior meeting over the constitutionality of the new law. "I have grave reservations about this," said Stainthorpe. "I consulted with the district attorney and with a number of people whom I consider experts in criminal law and each of them thinks our definition is too broad, which makes this ordinance very, very vulnerable to being overturned. And an ordinance that can be overturned with the first challenge, frankly offers little or no protection." [snip]
The problem with such a broad definition, he said in August, is that if an 18-year-old who has a little too much to drink and acts inappropriately toward a 15-year-old, under the law the 18-year-old could conceivably be required to move out of town because the 15-year-old is under the age of consent. "I don't think we've done all our homework," Stainthorpe said on Monday. "If we really did this right, we would consult a noted criminal attorney or someone who is an expert in the area of sex offender laws and make sure we have the best definition. We're sort of rushing this to get this done. Are we making good headlines or are we making good law?" [snip]
Under the ordinance, sex offenders who move into a zone of protection will have 45 days from the receipt of a written notice to move. Failure to move to a location outside of a zone of protection within the 45-day notice period would constitute a violation. The ordinance goes on to say that each day past the 45-day notice period that a sex offender continues to reside or live within a zone of protection would constitute a separate violation under the law.
..more..
: by JEFF WERNER
|
|
|
|
