|
|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 7-1-05
|
Michigan's "Student Safety Zones" confusion reigns now with those sentenced to probation!
|
|
7-1-2005 Michigan:
Senate approves bills protecting children at school, day care |
.LANSING -- The state Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a 14-bill package aimed at protecting children at school and day care from dangerous criminals and sex offenders.
One bill would bar sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school, though the ban wouldn't apply to younger individuals on the state's sex offender registry who engaged in consensual sex with minors.
: by DAVID EGGERT, ASSOCIATED PRESS
..more..
|
.We are very surprised by an omission in the AP article which changes the entire issue raised. The article mentioned that "the bill would bar sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school." The article fails to mention that the bill only pertains to those sentenced to "PROBATION," and the bill is Senate Bill 129
SB129 was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee which amended the bill from the "Introduced" version. The final version can best be described as a "nightmare" for those who will have to administrate it in the community.
There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will cause many a probationer to be violated because of the confusion in its wording, and terms used, which are not defined with any form of precision that a reasonable person would understand.
One requirement which really caught my eye, "The court shall not impose a condition of probation described in section (6)(B) if the individual only intermittently or sporadically enters a student safety zone (SSZ) for purposes of work. ..." Neither term is further described. I guess a piano tuner would not have a SSZ work restriction because he wouldn't know when he would be tuning pianos in a SSZ zone, or a seasonal worker which would be intermittent work?
The essence of this bill seems to be to allow the judge some discretion in imposing -either or both- residence and work restrictions based upon the case at hand. While that sounds just fine, the and or buts and ifs are incredibly complex, and there are several possible exemptions for certain offenders. Once the decision is made and entered into the court record only the probation officer will be able to tell if the person is in compliance with the conditions.
One can only begin to understand the depth of this complexity when it is realized that the local police will never know who is in compliance because there is nothing for them to look to. Then comes the question, once the person is off probation, what rules do they follow?
Generally speaking we all know what "to loiter" means, but here is a new creative definition: "LOITER: means to remain for a period of time and under circumstances that a reasonable person would determine is for the primary purpose of observing or contacting minors (less than 16 years old)."
So much for watching parades, fireworks, carnivals, etc. if they happen to be in a SSZ zone. So we have legislatively criminalized "eye contact" only within a SSZ zone. I wonder how some of the young offenders are going to attend school without violating the "eye contact prohibition" or attend their own graduation?
My all time favorite definition is "SCHOOL PROPERTY: means a building, facility, structure, or real property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by a school, which imparts educational instruction, -OR- is used for sports or other recreational activities by students not more than 19 years of age.
First we must remember that many of these places are not marked. Second, these places most likely will have minors (under 16) or students (under 19) at them. Now, if probationers are not allowed to make eye contact with minors or students, how will they find these places without being violated, so that they can reside outside the 1,000 ft perimeter which also has no markings?
Now, if anyone thinks my interpretations are absurd, well I have just given you reasonable interpretations of a few of the possible ways that this law could be used to violate probationers.
If folks thought "Jaws" was a scary movie, I suggest you do not get into the Michigan probation waters after this is enacted!
Senate Judiciary Committee: Senators Cropsey (Chair), Bishop, Sanborn, Patterson, Schauer, Bernero and Brater.
|
| |
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 6-30-05
|
"Student Safety Zones" -OR- "Predator Free Zones" and their effect on "student safety" both short and long term.
|
|
6-30-2005 Michigan:
Child Safety: Predator-free zones must get protections right |
.Parents who send their children off to school or day care ought to have more assurance than Michigan now offers that their little ones are safe from sexual predators.
The Legislature is trying to address this situation in a series of bills that, among other things, would make the screening more stringent for people who work or want to work with or around children.
A total of 14 bills are moving through the House and Senate. That's the good news. The bad news is that the package includes some overly broad ideas that take the focus from protecting children to possibly infringing on the rights of convicted sex offenders who have paid their debts to society.
The main issue is the creation of "Predator Free Zones" within 1,000 feet of schools. Anyone listed on the state's controversial registry of sex offenders would be barred from living or working within the zone.
: Free Press Editorial
..more..
|
In the Free Press Editorial they use the phrase "Predator Free Zone" which implies that there is a way to tell who of the former registered sex offenders (RSO) are "predators."
That is the first problem because Michigan has not followed the suggested federal guideline which defines a predator: Title 42, Sec 14071(a)(3)(E) "The term “predatory” means an act directed at a stranger, or a person with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization." As a result of Michigan failure to follow that guideline the question keeps popping up in various contexts. Who or what is a "Predator," even CSC-1 cannot be considered a predator in all cases.
If the Editorial means everyone who is on the registry is a predator, and the intent of the bills are a "Predator Free Zone," that interpretation would then conflict with the Editorial's later comments that the registry has people on it that should not be there, clearly they are not predators.
Using "Predator" further confuses the issues facing the legislature.
"Student Safety Zones" are established by House bill 4932 and Senate bill 617. What is most interesting is, the House passed its version almost without question ignoring all the testimony given in the House Education Committee showing the long term problems it would cause.
However, the Senate Committee on Education used its vision, following testimony, to see many of the long term problems such a bill will cause and feels more information is needed before simply rubber stamping the bill.
The Editorial characterizes the differences in opinion between the House and the Senate as "taking the focus from protecting children to possibly infringing on the rights of convicted sex offenders."
That is mischaracterizing the Senate purpose which is, in fact, the long term safety of children. It is a well-known fact that, recidivism of sex offenders can increase when they are left idle with nothing to do. These bills, if enacted as written, would put many offenders out of their jobs leaving them idle, need more be said? (See study below)
Further, by forcing future offenders to reside outside the 1,000 foot student safety zone, creates a hidden problem. The problem cannot be seen until one visualizes how many schools and school properties there are in Michigan, schools alone are over 7,000, school properties are unknown.
The bills' definitions of "school property" includes property that does not even have any students going to them, vacant properties, and these are impossible to locate, but RSOs could easily take up residence not knowing they were within a prohibited zone of a vacant lot owned by a school, then be arrested. The definition of "school property" is overbroad and goes beyond the intent of protecting students.
Effectively many of these 1,000 ft circles will overlap causing future offenders to "cluster" in the small openings where they can find one, and that assumes there is available housing and that it is affordable, especially given the bills will put many out of work.
Now, future effects of developing "circles of safety" today is, notice the bills initially exempt RSOs currently living or working in a "circle of safety" when the bills are enacted.
Now turn on LONG TERM VISION, each bill also contains a "future exemption" to cover when schools move or are newly established and then conflict with where RSOs are living then, that RSO (or cluster of RSOs) are exempt and allowed to live within 1,000 ft of the relocated or newly established school.
Finally, another consideration is, future properties acquired by schools, after bills are enacted, with respect to previously displaced RSOs.
Remember, the bills will create "clusters" of offenders, well these "clusters" will eventually be within a "circle of safety" of a new or relocated school. This cycle will continue on as the community grows. So eventually these bills automatically permit RSOs to live in a Student Safety Zone! It takes LONG TERM VISION to see the illusion in these bills.
The bills become self-defeating and that concept is magnified as it applies to where offenders work as well.
The real disaster, administering the law in the community, the local police will have no way to know who has been exempted, or when schools (and school properties) were established, purchased or otherwise donated. These bills create a nightmare for local police who already have precious little time to spare especially given the online registry, PSOR, will not show exemptions. Anyone know a good lawyer who at $200.00 an hour will enjoy figuring it out, and recoup the costs from the State of Michigan.
The Senate has seen these problems, and many more, the House has either ignored them or failed to see them.
Strange facts that arise with these bills, all RSOs are permitted to live next door to a minor, but under these bills, cannot live within 1,000 ft of where the child next door goes to school. Further, assuming RSOs have jobs they would be at work when the minor next door is at school, and home when the school is closed and the minor is at home. Do these bills still make sense?
Another issue yet to be raised is this, Michigan has the HYTA law, Youthful Trainee cases, from years ago, which current and past laws granted them certain rights and privileges to, how will these cases be affected by these laws, will those rights and privileges simply be abolished? Remember, a judge entered those court orders.
Finally, Governor Granholm's bills will prevent non-sex offender felons from working in schools because they too are considered too dangerous to be around children, BUT, they are permitted to live and work at other jobs WITHIN the student safety zones!
House Committee on Education: Reps. Palmer (Chair), Mortimer, Gosselin, Hoogendyk, Vander Veen, Wenke, Ball, Elsenheimer, Hildenbrand, Pearce, Proos, Hopgood, Miller, Angerer, Lemmons III, Virgil Smith, Kehrl, Clack.
Senate Committee on Education: Senators Kuipers (Chair), Cassis, Van Woerkom, Clark-Colemman, Leland.
Conditional Treatment (JOBS) and Its Effect on Recidivism: Herman J. Bierens Pennsylvania State University, USA & Tilburg University, The Netherlands; Jose R. Carvlho Federal University of Ceara, Brazil
Pub: November 2002: The objective of this paper is to evaluate the effect of the 1985 "Employment Services for Ex-Offfenders (ESEO)" program on recidivism. Initially, the sample has been split randomly in a control group and a treatment group. However, the actual treatment (mainly being job related counseling) only takes place conditional on finding a job, and not having been arrested, for those selected in the treatment group. We find that the program helps to reduce criminal activity, contrary to the result of the previous analysis of this data set. This finding is important for crime prevention policy.
|
| |
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 6-20-05
Michigan is FAST TRACKING bills!
Michigan Governor's new campaign to bar anyone with a felony record from working in schools or day cares: However, ONLY registered sex offenders will be barred from living or working within 1,000 ft of schools.
|
|
Only registered sex offenders will face residency restrictions -AND- work proximity restrictions, -AND- it appears to include those who are not on parole or probation as well! |
Michigan's latest set of bills to protect children are being FAST TRACKED. The majority of the bills were introduced only last week and hearings have already been held on some. This week there will be more hearings, and possibly more bills introduced, in an effort to have them all passed by the end of the month. The end of the legislative session.
PREDICTION: Housing availability shortage
While the current wording of the Bill Title (HB 4932 and SB617) on "residency restrictions" appears to apply only to those on parole. Yet a closer review of the wording of the bills (SB 617 and HB 4932) one will see, there is not one word in them indicating they pertain to those on parole. The hearing on HB 4932 has already been held, but the hearing on SB 617 is next Thursday 6-23
Interesting is, the bill (SB 129) regarding "probation residency -AND- work restrictions" clearly indicates, in its Title and throughout the bill, that it pertains to probation. Such is missing from the bills marked "parole." I'll be the first one to admit error but experience has taught me otherwise. See also the "Legislative Analysis" of the bills1
Accordingly, if you are a registered sex offender in Michigan, I strongly advise you attend the upcoming hearing and contact your legislators.
Further, while the bills contains exemptions for where you currently live, should you have to move, then you will be subjected to the residency restrictions. Recently is was reported that there are some 300-400 address changes monthly. Clearly that will be forcing RSOs to seek housing which could be non-existent.
ILLOGICAL REASONING: Under child protection bills
Under this package of bills to protect children in schools and day cares, anyone who is a sex offender -OR- who has any other felony in their background, is prohibited from working in schools or day cares.
If persons with a felony record who are not sex offenders, are considered too dangerous to work in schools -OR- day cares, why do residency restrictions -AND- work proximity restrictions, not apply to them?
In addition, every state has a separate registry of persons, accused of or convicted of, child abuse (any age under 18), none of these persons are subjected to any restrictions on work or residency. Many may now be working in schools and day cares, but since Michigan's "Central Registry" IS NOT public, that information is withheld from the public.
Further, in the 2003 Child Maltreatment report (Table 2-2) it shows Michigan had 74,675 credible cases of child maltreatment. All of these perpetrators are totally excluded from the Governor's Child Protection package.
PREDICTION: Day Care Crisis
Following the effective date of these new bills, yet unknown, many of the licensed "Mom and Pop" and "Franchise" day cares in Michigan will have to perform regular background checks of anyone working or volunteering for them.
Under the proposed law anyone with a felony record, whether or not it is a sex crime, will be barred from that day care operation. Today it is not illegal to work for a day care if one is a felon and not a sex offender. This will impact both workers and costs in day cares. We may see many closing before the next school year.
Hopefully, the ACLU is watching these bills, especially the bill (HB 4937) about permitting evidence of past sex crimes to be admitted in a current prosecution for committing a listed sex crime. This resulted from the Michael Jackson trials. No other crime type has such a provision!
Accordingly, if you are a Michigan registered sex offender, the time to act is now!
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues © |
|
| |
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 6-20-05
|
Michigan Governor expands the net, by removing current exemptions in Michigan law, to bar now other felons and even some with misdemeanor offenses in her attempt to protect children in schools and day cares.
|
|
6-14-2005 Michigan:
House, Senate leaders to announce bills banning felons from schools, daycare |
.Republican legislative leaders are making an effort to keep felons and other dangerous people away from children at school and daycare by requiring background checks for the volunteers and employees at those facilities. "It is our responsibility to make sure that criminals aren't slipping through the cracks to find their next victim in our classrooms," state House Education Committee Chairman Brian Palmer, R-Romeo, said in a release obtained by The Associated Press on Monday.
Palmer and a few other Republican leaders in the House and Senate were scheduled to announce the 14-bill package at an afternoon news conference Tuesday in the Capitol. House Speaker Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, had assigned Palmer to review state laws covering teachers and other school personnel who have been convicted of a crime.
The review followed a state auditor general report released last year that showed 222 licensed school workers, mostly teachers, had criminal records, and that the state did not know about 178 of them. Five employees had convictions for robbery, assault and criminal sexual conduct; others had been arrested for shoplifting or alcohol-related offenses.
: by Detroit Free Press Inc
..more..
|
| |
Legal Issues & Court Cases Affectine Sex Offenders ©
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex offender Issues ©
Beyond the Abuse: A Personal Recovery Program ©
Copyright ©2003-2005 L. Arthur M.Parrish. All rights reserved.Privacy policy
|
|
