News & Noteworthy:
Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues ©
It is our intent to create a respectful environment for understanding and healing, a Discussion-Zone for Related Topics, while maintaining our Visitors' Zones-of-Privacy, and to interact on a non-judgmental basis. Today far too many communities fail to even allow discussion on these topics!
Updated as news and court cases becomes available. Topics, issues, court cases, and consequences facing former sex offenders and those accused (adults & juveniles), in prison, jail, civil commitment and LifeAfter in society. The truth about recidivism, dangerousness, registration, community notification, harassment -to- vigilantism, therapy, and community issues of housing, employment and schools. United Nations human rights issues addressed. Site keeps advocates, criminal justice and mental health professionals, and public policy decision makers up to date.
You are now in our -Op/Ed Archives-:
Return to the News Home Page -or- Return to the List of Op-Eds
Newsroom Library:
Headlines
Special Report: Position statement on OPPOSITION to HR 291 as introduced!

Fundamental problems with HR 291 as introduced.
UPDATED 3-5-2007


Main Concerns are focused on:

A) Theme and Intent of Bill: "Danger" and "Risk" are improper themes to attribute to ALL registered offenders in the nation.
1) Registrants have been through the criminal justice system, and that system has released them, then they are no longer legally considered a danger or a risk. The US Supreme court in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (2003) held that because the State did not raise the issue of "dangerousness" no hearing was necessary before listing in a registry. However, this federal bill raises the "dangerous" issue and makes no provisions for a hearing before declaring registrants a danger;

2) Congress and the US Supreme court have identified juvenile offenders and certain types of cases for special handling as to "dangerousness issues. This bill ignores that group, their special issues, and certain types of cases as well;

3) In addition, currently in society where Levels (low, medium, and high) are used the theme is "likelihood of re-offense" this bill changes that theme to the detriment of registrants and their families by declaring them dangerous.
This bill cannot be used as an end-run around the judicial system.

B) A forced participation experiment: to be carried out using registrants from five jurisdictions and apparently without their consent;

C) The wording of the bill as introduced: Referring to sections covering "Creation of Guidelines" and "Working Groups" (See right hand panel), being "Shall and Must do," what the bill omits and should have included is very disturbing;

D) Committee Makeup, Prejudices and Leanings: It is victim-centered and not balanced so that when something comes to a vote it can be impartial. Victim centered thinking is not what is best for society where both the victims and offenders (and their families) must co-exist;

E) Committee Representation Missing: Absent from the committee is representation by someone who knows what is happening to registrants and their families today. Registries have been in existence for over ten years now and registrants have suffered because of registries, Congress and State Legislatures have simply ignored the suffering and have not even taken measures to document what has happened.


The Theme and Intent of the bill:
The theme and focus here is to attribute "Danger" and "Risk" to all registrants.

Attributing "dangerousness" to registrants without a hearing violates a "liberty interest," Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe:
"We (High Court) granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticut's sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a "liberty interest," and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a pre deprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be "currently dangerous." Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme."
Further, Congress in the Adam Walsh Act (42 USC 16911(5)(C) -and- 16911(8)), and the US Supreme court in Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (See Oral Arguments at end of this report) and even in that court's decision had special concerns about a specific sub-group of offenders, juveniles and certain types of cases (ex: Romeo and Juliet cases):
Justices Souter and Ginsburg: "... I write separately only to note that a substantive due process claim may not be the only one still open to a test by those in the respondents' situation. Connecticut allows certain sex offenders the possibility of avoiding the registration and reporting obligations of the statute. A court may exempt a convict from registration altogether if his offense was unconsented sexual contact, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-251(c) (2001), or sexual intercourse with a minor aged between 13 and 16 while the offender was more than two years older than the minor, provided the offender was under age 19 at the time of the offense, § 54251(b). A court also has discretion to limit dissemination of an offender's registration information to law enforcement purposes if necessary to protect the identity of a victim who is related to the offender or, in the case of a sexual assault, who is the offender's spouse or cohabitor. §§ 54-255(a), (b). * (*To mitigate the retroactive effects of the statute, offenders in these categories who were convicted between October 1, 1988, and June 30, 1999, were allowed to petition a court for restricted dissemination of registry information. §§ 54-255(c)(1)-(4). A similar petition was also available to any offender who became subject to registration by virtue of a conviction.)

The Experiment (verbatim from the bill):
Safe NOW Act of 2007 (then CLICK on Summary) - "Establishes the National Sex Offender Risk Classification Task Force to create guidelines for a risk-based sex offender classification system.

Authorizes the Task Force to carry out demonstration programs in five selected jurisdictions to: (1) use the Task Force's preliminary guidelines to implement such a system for their sex offender registries; and (2) identify ways to improve such guidelines.

Expresses the sense of Congress that each participating jurisdiction should use final Task Force guidelines to implement such a system for its registry."
First, the underlined, in essence says, the registrants of five unknown jurisdictions will be forced to participate in an experiment, which will be made public through their respective registries while the experiment is carried out.

Further, the final guidelines are discretionary, not mandatory, states can use them or ignore them. What happens to those forced to live under them in the experiment, certainly they will be more damaged in the public eye. Further, no one knows, at this point, what additional information may be required from registrants, and that may very well raise other privacy and legal concerns.


Classification systems:
I agree a classification system is desirable, IF, it is based on more than negative facts of a registrant's past history. Today, all risk-based classification systems I have reviewed are based upon the registrant's negative history, and a few factor in a registrant participation in sex offender therapy. A risk determination should be based on first, the past, but factor in, the present, positives since the crime, and guidelines must recognize that, every person's psychological and physical circumstances change as time passes.

Graduated Classification Systems (GCS): When a person commits a crime and is found guilty the judge makes the first decision, guided by statutes and guidelines, whether the person can be put on probation or whether he goes to prison. i.e., generally controlled by the severity of the crime.

If placed on probation that person remains under the jurisdiction of the court, but if sent to prison, they have a classification system to determine where that person can be placed, at which facility, with each facility representing differing levels of security and controls over the person. During imprisonment the inmate is moved from a higher level facility to lower level facilities, based upon behavior and time, until they are paroled.

While a person is on probation, or when placed on parole, supervising agents determine the best levels of supervision based on the facts of the case. Over time agents allow the person more and more freedom until finally the supervision is over and the person is again on his own.
Above are the classification concepts that are traditionally employed no matter where one is under state supervision in the nation, and given we do not have mass riots, we know these GCS systems work. Remember, that sex offenders are within the current working GCS systems today nationwide. Now, if I could write in a few short sentences the concept of a workable GCS system in use today, why could this bill not do that and make such the aim of the Committee and resulting Guidelines?

It is my contention that omitting Congressional guidance (Congressional guidance is provided in the Adam Walsh Act by vesting powers to the USAG) was intentional because such a classification system has a beginning, an end, and a graduated middle, and that does not fit the current thinking of victim-centered persons (the USAG chosen committee) who believe in the misguided theory that "there is no cure." Those folks refuse to recognize that, there is no cure for anything related to the human body or mind, and that society accepts management for everything else, but will not accept that for sex offenders.

Society wants all or nothing, but for, say, cancer or heart disease or many other maladies' of the body or mind, continues to search for an answer. Society has telethons and Congress appropriates funds to search for answers, and even appropriates monies for therapy programs for other types of offenders. i.e., drug offenders. Society has no tolerance for persons once they have committed a sex offense, even after prescribed punishment, society wants only isolation and uses legal pretexts which merely sound good to accomplish the isolation.

Therapy programs and community grants are non-existent in Congressional bills which is contrary to an important US Supreme court case: McKUNE, WARDEN, et al. v. LILE (States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U. S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner's Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988)). Congress does nothing but track movements and create new crimes requiring registration.


Committee Makeup, Prejudices and Leanings:
HR 291 calls for the USAG to appoint, committee members of his personal choosing, from 20 pre-defined groups, agencies and non-profits in society.

The committee is charged with developing dangerousness guidelines that will be applied to every person required to register. While it is true that the guidelines will not directly control everyday behavior of RSOs, the guidelines will affect how society perceives each registrant; as a more dangerous person. Society already treats anyone on a registry as a person that must be isolated in someone else's backyard. This is not good for society or registrants as it inhibits successful reentry into society.

Accordingly, the collective mindset of the committee must focus on integration and not segregation, or isolation. Some of the listed groups are well known for their open stance against registered sex offenders making all sorts of claims against offenders, unsupported factoids, false beliefs and myths. Several of the organizations listed have no particular expertise beyond personal opinions, and are not experienced in creating guidelines.

It is unlikely they will be objective due to their personal biases and prejudices. Accordingly, the committee needs to be balanced with a representative of the registrants and their families.


Committee Representation Missing:
Under Sec. 3(2)(E) the committee is charged with considering:
"any negative consequences that have resulted from Megan's Law (Public Law 104-145; 110 Stat. 1345), and steps that might be taken to reduce such negative consequences."
Sex offender registration systems have been in effect for over 10 years now and no entity has taken the time to implement a system to record the consequences of registration. Further, in reality there is no one appointed to the committee who could properly present to the committee what daily life is like for a registrant and their family, accordingly I am suggesting implementation of an Ombudsman on the committee, and appropriate questionnaires designed that they cannot be duplicated, and tallied by an independent firm to assure anonymity. Only a summarization of the results would be made available to the committee.

Content of Questionnaires: (Note: Questionnaires need to be designed to thwart duplication or other fraudulent means, and be tracked from distribution through collection.) First, general questions about the RSO's crime. Questionnaires with questions targeted to the learn more about the specific population (See Distribution below) the person falls into. The intent here is to tailor questions, so that, the responses will enable lawmakers to make allowances in laws to handle life's special conditions and disabilities identified by that specific population. An "Employer Questionnaire" is also to be developed and used as shown below. Effectively the questionnaires are to be designed to learn about the real life consequences of these laws. Questionnaires will contain questions pertaining to vigilantism (real and subtle) suffered by the RSO or his/her family or by employers. (Undeveloped thought, if employers could be damaged by the laws, could landlords or other people that RSOs do business with (therapists, etc.), and should they be included?)

Distribution of Questionnaires: All prenumbered questionnaire responses to be handled so as to protect the identity of the submitter FOREVER! This is necessary to prevent retaliation from persons who may be mentioned in the questionnaire, and the general public.

Further, no questionnaire is to be distributed to any RSO listed in a state registry who, has died, moved to another state, been deported, or is incarcerated (unless specifically mentioned below), each state is to provide a tally of each of these groups to the committee. Any questionnaire mailed and returned because the registrant moved will be included in the tally of "G)" below as an unaccounted for registrant.
Each of the following represents a specific population that has been adversely affected by registration laws, and some have special needs due to life's circumstances which the current laws do not recognize.

A) Spouses -or- one other family member (when there is no spouse) of Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs), who would receive a questionnaire in "B) "C)" "D)" "E)" or "F)" below;

B) General Population of RSOs, 10% (at least) of those registered in each state (If a RSO has an employer listed, then an "Employer Questionnaire" is sent to that employer), excluding anyone that would fall into the following groups:

C) RSOs with ADA qualified disabilities (the Americans w/Disabilities Act), 50% of this group that is registered in each state. States should know who these folks are as states are having to handle them specially already because of their disabilities;

D) RSOs who have infirmities, due to age or otherwise that would not be classified as a -qualified disability- under ADA, 50% of this group that is registered in each state. States likely know who these folks are, as states are handling them specially already, because of their infirmities;

E) RSOs who were a minor (when the crime was committed) or are a minor now (Definition of minor according to that state's law), 50% of this group that is registered in each state;

F) RSOs whose victim was at least 13 years old and the RSO was not more than 4 years older than the victim when the crime was committed, (Adam Walsh Act 42 USC 16911(5)(C)), 50% of this group that is registered in each state;

G) RSOs who are listed or considered "Homeless / Transient" or otherwise cannot find a residence, 50% of this group that is registered in each state.

H) RSOs who have been convicted of "Failure to Register" or any other technicality of registry laws (including any currently charged and are awaiting disposition), ALL of these that can be identified in each state including those that may be serving a sentence for that failure to comply;

Vigilantism Studies and News Articles: The committee shall consider news articles and any studies describing -all forms of hate and violence- against RSOs and their families. CLICK for some news articles already compiled.

Collectively, this information will represent the balance missing from the committee, and act as the collective voice of registered sex offenders, their families, and employers nationally as to the consequences occurring from registration. Sec. (3)(b)(3) "Working Groups" shall be amended to include "Collective Work" as one more "Working Group" in the bill.


Summarizing:
There is quite a bit left out of the bill as introduced and needs to be included before implementation of a risk based dangerousness classification system, as this bill intends for all registered. Until such time I cannot support this bill. Above are the major issues as I see them! I am eager to hear from folks on this proposed addition to the bill as introduced.

Finally, will this classification system REPLACE the Tiers established by the Adam Walsh Act, or be in addition to those tiers when it is phased into that Act?

eAdvocate

Congressional guidance in HR 291:

Sec. 3(b)(2) CREATION OF GUIDELINES- In creating the guidelines required under this subsection, the Task Force shall consider--
(A) empirically-based assessment tools available to assess the dangers posed by sex offenders;

(B) the methods used to classify sex offenders for the purposes of sex offender registries in use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies as of the date of enactment of this Act, and how those methods differ from a risk-based sex offender classification system;

(C) means by which information regarding the risk-based classification of sex offenders may be comprehensively and consistently disseminated to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the public;

(D) opportunities available to sex offenders (especially those who are not under court supervision) to change their risk-based classification, including voluntary participation in sex offender treatment and monitoring programs; and

(E) any negative consequences that have resulted from Megan's Law (Public Law 104-145; 110 Stat. 1345), and steps that might be taken to reduce such negative consequences.



Congressional mandate in HR 291:

Sec. 3(b)(3) WORKING GROUPS- The Chair shall designate 5 working groups within the Task Force, each of which shall conduct one of the following activities:

(A) Survey the methods of risk classification used by each jurisdiction, as of the date of enactment of this Act, and identify changes to such methods that jurisdictions could implement to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of sex offender registries.

(B) Research and analyze the effectiveness of the most recently developed tools available (as of the date of enactment of this Act) to assess the dangers posed by sex offenders and to classify sex offenders based on risk.

(C) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Federal, State, and local sex offender registration and notification procedures in use as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act, and propose methods to improve any such weaknesses.

(D) Analyze Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency procedures for community notification regarding sex offenders (as of the date of enactment of this Act), and determine the most appropriate procedures to notify communities regarding sex offenders of varying risk-based classifications.

(E) Develop a resource guide that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies may use to educate the public about the prevention of sex offenses, the dangers posed by sex offenders, the systems used to classify sex offenders, and the access and use of sex offender registries.


Committee Members: One Representative from each of the following (Sec. 3(c)):


Unknown:

the Chair _________________________

Victim Advocates:

the Safe NOW Project

the National Association to PROTECT Children
Standing Position
Real Safety Resolution

Standing Position
How you can stop sex offender dumping

Parents For Megan's Law, Inc.

CDC: Center for Disease Control and Prevention

2004
Sexual Violence Prevention: Beginning the Dialogue

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

the Office for Victims of Crime

Law Enforcement:

the National Sheriffs' Association

the National Association of Police Organizations

the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center

the Federal Bureau of Investigation

the American Probation and Parole Association

Research and Statistics:

the Center for Sex Offender Management

Various Years to 2007
CSOM Papers on Sex Offenders

Myths and Facts about Sex Offenders

the Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Legal Representation:

the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers NACDL

2-24-2007
Position Statement on Sex Offenders

Psychological Community:

the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

the American Psychological Association

In addition: three unnamed representatives of the academic community who specialize in risk assessment of sex offenders

Registrants and Their Families:

(Missing from Bill)     


Possible committee alternatives,
not specifically named

NCIA: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives

Various Years to 2007
NCIA Research on Sex Offenders

SEX OFFENSES: FACTS, FICTIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS



JUVENILES and DANGEROUSNESS:
Comments during Oral Arguments of Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe in US Supreme Court

JUSTICE STEVENS: --May I ask you a question about your system?

Last year we had a case that came, I think, from Kansas, McKune, involving whether a person had to... could be, in effect, compelled to go into a sex offender program.

Does your... and that... presumably the... those treatment programs do some good in preventing recidivism.

Does... does your reporting system give the convicted offender a chance to differentiate between whether he went through such a program and one who did not?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --There is--

JUSTICE STEVENS: Does it draw any distinction between those two?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --Justice Stevens, there is no category of information on the registration, as it's made available to the public, about whether there has been treatment.

The information provided is very simply address, identifying factors--

JUSTICE STEVENS: So they treat one who had treatment and one who had no treatment exactly the same.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --That is correct, so far as the information provided to the public is concerned.

And the reason, if I may presume to say it, may be that the effectiveness of treatment may be problematic, and the same is true with hearings on dangerousness.

The unreliability of these hearings has been a very, very substantial problem, and the kind of information that may come to the public from such hearings or from information about treatment may be as misleading as it is accurate in many instances.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Would you... would you agree that there is at least some subclass of cases here in which the non-dangerousness could be shown in a way that probably was highly accurate and did not involve the... the difficulties that you raise?

What I've got in mind is this.

The... the categories of individuals who are listed under the Connecticut statute include young men who as teenagers had intercourse with younger teenage girls.

No one, by normal standards of English usage, would say at the age of 25 that... that a... a young man like that is dangerous in any sense that we would associate dangerousness with... violent sex acts and things of that sort.

So there seems to be a... a category, not merely a set of individuals who may prove they're not dangerous, but a category that is presumptively not dangerous in the sense that the others are.

And yet, there is no way for them, in effect, to... to get themselves declared ineligible for the... for the stigmatization that... that goes on.

Why isn't there a due process problem that is legitimately raised as at least to a category like that?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: There... there is, in fact, Justice Souter, a category of the registrants who are excepted for the... a... a category of convicted offenders who are excepted from the registry if, for example, they are 18 or younger and they commit statutory rape, if the victim is 13 to 16 years old.

There are exceptions for making accessible to the public information--

JUSTICE SOUTER: What do... what do they have to do to get the exception?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --At the time of sentencing, that finding is made by the sentencing court, or later, that that kind of registration is not required by public safety.

JUSTICE SOUTER: What about the ones who have already been sentenced?

In other words, the... the... sort of the carryover class that you pick up the minute the statute goes into effect?

I mean, these... these are the ones who are the... raising in... in the prior case, the ones who are raising the ex post facto kind of claim.

What do you do about them?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: The... the legislature has made a determination that certain... under certain circumstances, the crime is not registrable, that is, there is no requirement for registration.

In certain instances unquestionably, Justice Souter--

JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, but take... take... simply take the case as an example.

The 19-year-old boy the... whatever it is... 14-year-old girl have intercourse.

Is... is that person, if convicted prior to the date of the statute, subject to exception from the listing, and... and how--

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --They... they could go back to the sentencing court.

There is a provision--

JUSTICE SOUTER: --I see.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --that someone who would fit the exceptions can go back to the sentencing court.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Does this... does this category fit?

Let's take... those ages will do fine, 19 and 14.

Does that fit within an excepted category?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: I'm sorry, Justice Ginsburg.

I'm... I'm not sure that I followed the... the specific class that Justice Souter was referencing.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: You said that there are certain categories of people who can be exempted from that, and I asked if the hypothetical that Justice Souter raised... that particular hypothetical... fits within that exempted or excepted class.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: I believe that it could.

JUSTICE BREYER: It doesn't on my list here.

What it says here... I mean, maybe I'm wrong in the statute which my law clerk looked up.

She's usually right.

And it's that you... you get into the exceptions.

You go back to the sentencing court if you committed the sexual intercourse when you were under the age of 19 with a victim between 13 to 16 and you were 2 years older.

So I think that... that Justice Souter's hypothetical was purposely created--

JUSTICE GINSBURG: --Nineteen.

JUSTICE BREYER: --so they didn't fit within that exception.

And... and I... I suspect that we can find a large number of people who would be convicted of statutory rape who don't fit within this exception and who are, therefore, thrown in.

And I think the point of his question... it would... certainly would be mine... is what about those people.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: And... and that question really is the more fundamental issue about legislative line drawing and unquestionably--

JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, before we get to line drawing, I misunderstood your response to me I guess.

What is the answer?

Are those people in my hypothetical exempted or do they have a process by which they can be exempted or not?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --Maybe I should--

JUSTICE SOUTER: Justice Breyer understands that they would not be exempted from listing.

And I... I guess... Is he right or isn't he?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --I... I believe that probably they would not be exempted, although they could go back to the sentencing court, and determine whether the circumstances of that hypothetical and... and... I'm not--

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But what is the category?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --But I had in mind all--
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What is the category, General Blumenthal, in which such a person might go back?

There seem to be rather precise categories that are excepted with an age range, and if you fall outside that age range, there doesn't seem to be built into this scheme any discretionary exercises.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: --That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.

And someone who was not within the exemption... and... the hypothetical may put that person outside it... could not go back.

The... the legislature has drawn that line, and it's done so because it has to draw lines somewhere and has imposed that classification because it's judged it to be in the public interest to do so.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Let's assume... you know, we accept the fact that line drawing has to be done and so do the other people on the other side of the case.

Their claim is that the fact is we've got at least some category which we can identify on a categorical basis which is being stigmatized as dangerous for a period of... I guess, a minimum of 10 years.

And all they're asking for is a way out.

They're not even claiming that you affirmatively have got to make a proof of dangerousness in the first instance with respect to those.

They are saying, as a matter of procedural due process, there ought to be a way out and there is none.

That's not to contest line drawing.

That is to contest the fact that the State could let them have the burden of getting out, and the State still won't do it.

What is the justification?

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: The justification is that the information that is put on the registry is accurate.

The stigma, if there is any stigma, results from the conviction of that offense, and--

JUSTICE SOUTER: No.

That is not... I don't think that's their argument.

Their argument is not that they are... are being subject to a stigma for 10 years because they were convicted.

They are being subject to a stigma for 10 years because the State of Connecticut is saying through the Internet in... in effect, that they are currently dangerous.

That's the stigma, not the conviction, the current state of dangerousness which is stigmatizing.

Copyright ©2001-2007 News & Noteworthy. All rights reserved.   Privacy Policy
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau -
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." RR