The only way lawmakers will be forced to face the consequences of bad laws if is the people affected by those laws educated those in power. And that is precisely what will be taking place in Springfield, Illionois, on April 22, when a group of ordinary people seeking to reform sex offender laws will pay a visit to lawmakers.
Attached in a group produced to educate others about what's wrong with the current sex offender regime. I pass it along as an example of effective education and advocacy.
Press Release
A group of citizens from across Illinois will meet at the State Capital in
late April to voice their concerns with Illinois’ sex offender laws.
Current laws, as structured, are not keeping our children safe. They are,
in fact, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars to prosecute, monitor,
incarcerate, and severely punish many individuals who are of no danger
to children, society, or the communities in which they live. They believe
that laws which will truly benefit the safety of our children, and society
in general, must differentiate between those who are dangerous offenders
and those who are not.
“Our goal in Springfield is to advocate for research-based policies that
protect society, and especially children, as well as rehabilitate
perpetrators,” says Tonia Maloney, President of Illinois Voices.
“Emotionally charged reactions to sex crimes often lead to legislation that
is not driven by data or research, but rather by fear and outrage. Our
current sex offender laws are not addressing the true problem – how to
prevent new victims and how to monitor only those who are truly a threat
to society.”
Currently, residency restrictions and community-notification laws contain a myriad of non-violent offenders,including: teen consensual sex (with a few years difference in age), exposing genitals in public (even without realizing someone else is watching), teens posting nude or semi-nude photos of themselves on MySpace and other
social networking sites or texting them to others; parents taking innocent pictures of their children in the bathtub; and many more.
“Under the Adam Walsh Act, children as young as 14-years old will be placed on the Illinois Sex Offender Registry where all of their classmates will be able to see their photos right next to rapists, child molesters, and murderers.
We feel this is unfair to expose these kids to such harsh treatment,” points out Maloney. “Ohio is the only state that has implemented the Adam Walsh Act and the Ohio Supreme has ruled part of it unconstitutional. It will cost Illinois taxpayers over $21 million for the state to comply with the demands of the Federal Government. We would support this Act if there was evidence that it would reduce criminal sexual abuse and child murder. However, recent studies have indicated that over 95% of all sex crimes are committed by someone who is not a registered sex offender.” The Adam Walsh Act would also require most sex offenders to wear a GPS-monitoring device.
However, there are no studies available that show that GPS technology has reduced recidivism with regards to sex offenders.
Many legislators have privately admitted that these laws have gone far enough. Recently, state legislators passed a bill that would no longer allow prosecutors to criminalize teens for Sexting. Maloney further states, “We are hoping to encourage our policymakers to advocate for the most efficient and cost-effective implementation of laws based on risk-assessment procedures and differential trategies in accord with the level of threat that an offender poses to a community. There are sexually violent people in this world and those are the ones that law enforcement should be dedicating their time to, not the thousands of non-violent and even consensual offenders.”
For more information, contact:
Tonia Maloney
P.O. Box 4016
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
toniat@sbcglobal.net
Or visit: www.ilvoices.com.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Hartford Courant Weighs In On Sex Offenders
The following editorial appeared in a recent edition of The Hartford Courant, the nation's oldest continuously published newspaper. It is a sign that good sense is infectious.
Hat Tip: JK
When the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a federal law aimed at sex offenders, was being debated in 2005, Florida Attorney General Charlie Christ said, "The experts tell us that someone who has molested a child will do it again and again." Others made the same point.
The law was passed and signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. The law attempts to expand the scope of sex offender registries at the state level as well as create a national sex offender registry. States were told to sign on or risk losing a small amount of grant money.
Last week, a bill that would have brought Connecticut in line with the Walsh Act was — wisely — allowed to die in committee.
The Walsh Act has been widely criticized on many fronts, for everything from including adolescents as young as 14 on the list to violating several provisions of the Constitution. Only one state, Ohio, has adopted it.
Laws such as the Walsh Act, often named for victims of crimes the law is trying to prevent, are of course well-intentioned. But they tend not to be based on research, and so do not achieve an optimal level of public safety. Indeed, they can unintentionally make things worse.
For example, if Connecticut officials followed the research, they would not expand the state's sex offender registry, but reduce it.
All states have sex offender registries to which residents have online access. Some states put offenders on their registries based on their risk to the community. Connecticut is one of the states that place people on the registry because they are convicted of a sex offense.
Many people assume everyone on the registry is either a rapist or pedophile. If that were so, the list would be much smaller. But it also includes an array of porn possessors, voyeurs and people who as older teenagers had consensual sex with an underage girlfriend or boyfriend. As a result, the state now has more than 5,000 people on the sex-offender registry, an increasingly unwieldy group for hard-pressed police departments to monitor.
Some on the list are dangerous and must be watched, but many are not. As the list is now presented, it's difficult to tell one from the other. They are listed by the crime they were convicted of committing, but it's not clear whether a conviction for "risk of injury" or "second-degree sexual assault" means the person is a danger to others. (The registry also misses people who pleaded to a lesser offense to stay off it.)
Why does the state list so many offenders? In part, as the Florida attorney general's testimony suggests, from the widespread belief that sex offenders are likely to re-offend, along with the notions that all sex offenders are alike and that they are not amenable to treatment.
The research contradicts all of these premises.
The Myth Of Incorrigibility
Sex offenders represent a cross-section, ranging from psychotics to a lot of seemingly normal people who have made a serious mistake. "They've all done something bad, but they don't all present the same level of risk," said David D'Amora, who directs the state's post-prison sex offender treatment programs for The Connection, a Middletown-based nonprofit.
Treatment works: It can reduce recidivism by as much as 40 percent, according to recent studies. "We have the lowest recidivism with the people we get through treatment, no question," said William Carbone, director of the Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division.
Perhaps the most surprising research finding is that sex offenders as a group have among the lowest rates of recidivism of any category of criminal.
A major U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study of nearly 10,000 sex offenders released in 1994 found that only 5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime in the ensuing three years. Other studies put the sex offender recidivism rate between 14 and 20 percent.
The major implication to be drawn from this data is that the great majority of sex crimes are committed by new criminals, people who have never been arrested for such an offense before. That strongly suggests that more resources should be shifted upstream, to education and prevention programs in date and dorm rape, domestic violence and similar behaviors. Just focusing on convicted sex offenders ignores the prevalence of sexual violence in the broader culture, which in part is producing sex offenders.
Shrink The Sex-Offender Registry
One way to capture resources would be to shrink the sex-offender registry so that it only lists former violent offenders who may still pose an appreciable risk to the public.
If the list is there to protect the public, it's not clear why nonviolent offenders should have to register at all. But if they do, they should not be on a list available to the public.
For low-risk offenders who have served their sentences, the additional burden of public humiliation can be devastatingly cruel. They need a home and a job, but when their presence on the sex offender registry becomes known, they not infrequently lose the house and job.
Sometimes they and their families suffer threats, harassment or physical harm, according to several studies. Some experts say the shame, isolation and depression that accompanies the public pillorying can trigger relapse.
Vermont limits public notification to individuals who pose a high risk to the community, as does Minnesota. New Jersey divides offenders into three tiers of risk, and the names on the low-risk tier are shared only with law enforcement agencies. That is the direction Connecticut should head.
In dealing with sex offenders, Connecticut officials are clearly doing some things right. There is treatment available in prison as well as close supervision, treatment and individualized case management, with appropriate restrictions, for those on parole and probation. This works. Of about 1,800 former sex offenders who have come off parole in the past six years, only a handful — fewer then 10 — have been rearrested for a sex crime, a state Department of Correction spokesman said.
Residency Restrictions
But the good work is often challenged by fear or flawed thinking.
Another bill proposed this year, and wisely allowed to die in committee, would have prohibited a registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. Although residency restrictions may make sense in individual cases — and are sometimes imposed as conditions of probation — blanket residency restrictions do not.
They are fueled in part by the notion of "stranger danger," another myth that most child molesters are strangers, sinister perverts in trench coats lurking around the school playground. The research belies that stereotype and says the vast majority of child sexual abuse victims identify their abusers as family members or acquaintances. A Justice Department study in 2000 of police reports from 12 states found that only 7 percent of sexual assaults on children were perpetrated by strangers.
The data is similar for adult women victims: More than 70 percent of rapes and 85 percent of sexual assaults are carried out by people known to the victim.
This year, thanks to thoughtful leadership on the Judiciary Committee, the legislature resisted some laws that would have been easy "get-tough" targets, but not good policy. Next year, they have the chance to make things better.
Hat Tip: JK
When the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a federal law aimed at sex offenders, was being debated in 2005, Florida Attorney General Charlie Christ said, "The experts tell us that someone who has molested a child will do it again and again." Others made the same point.
The law was passed and signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. The law attempts to expand the scope of sex offender registries at the state level as well as create a national sex offender registry. States were told to sign on or risk losing a small amount of grant money.
Last week, a bill that would have brought Connecticut in line with the Walsh Act was — wisely — allowed to die in committee.
The Walsh Act has been widely criticized on many fronts, for everything from including adolescents as young as 14 on the list to violating several provisions of the Constitution. Only one state, Ohio, has adopted it.
Laws such as the Walsh Act, often named for victims of crimes the law is trying to prevent, are of course well-intentioned. But they tend not to be based on research, and so do not achieve an optimal level of public safety. Indeed, they can unintentionally make things worse.
For example, if Connecticut officials followed the research, they would not expand the state's sex offender registry, but reduce it.
All states have sex offender registries to which residents have online access. Some states put offenders on their registries based on their risk to the community. Connecticut is one of the states that place people on the registry because they are convicted of a sex offense.
Many people assume everyone on the registry is either a rapist or pedophile. If that were so, the list would be much smaller. But it also includes an array of porn possessors, voyeurs and people who as older teenagers had consensual sex with an underage girlfriend or boyfriend. As a result, the state now has more than 5,000 people on the sex-offender registry, an increasingly unwieldy group for hard-pressed police departments to monitor.
Some on the list are dangerous and must be watched, but many are not. As the list is now presented, it's difficult to tell one from the other. They are listed by the crime they were convicted of committing, but it's not clear whether a conviction for "risk of injury" or "second-degree sexual assault" means the person is a danger to others. (The registry also misses people who pleaded to a lesser offense to stay off it.)
Why does the state list so many offenders? In part, as the Florida attorney general's testimony suggests, from the widespread belief that sex offenders are likely to re-offend, along with the notions that all sex offenders are alike and that they are not amenable to treatment.
The research contradicts all of these premises.
The Myth Of Incorrigibility
Sex offenders represent a cross-section, ranging from psychotics to a lot of seemingly normal people who have made a serious mistake. "They've all done something bad, but they don't all present the same level of risk," said David D'Amora, who directs the state's post-prison sex offender treatment programs for The Connection, a Middletown-based nonprofit.
Treatment works: It can reduce recidivism by as much as 40 percent, according to recent studies. "We have the lowest recidivism with the people we get through treatment, no question," said William Carbone, director of the Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division.
Perhaps the most surprising research finding is that sex offenders as a group have among the lowest rates of recidivism of any category of criminal.
A major U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study of nearly 10,000 sex offenders released in 1994 found that only 5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime in the ensuing three years. Other studies put the sex offender recidivism rate between 14 and 20 percent.
The major implication to be drawn from this data is that the great majority of sex crimes are committed by new criminals, people who have never been arrested for such an offense before. That strongly suggests that more resources should be shifted upstream, to education and prevention programs in date and dorm rape, domestic violence and similar behaviors. Just focusing on convicted sex offenders ignores the prevalence of sexual violence in the broader culture, which in part is producing sex offenders.
Shrink The Sex-Offender Registry
One way to capture resources would be to shrink the sex-offender registry so that it only lists former violent offenders who may still pose an appreciable risk to the public.
If the list is there to protect the public, it's not clear why nonviolent offenders should have to register at all. But if they do, they should not be on a list available to the public.
For low-risk offenders who have served their sentences, the additional burden of public humiliation can be devastatingly cruel. They need a home and a job, but when their presence on the sex offender registry becomes known, they not infrequently lose the house and job.
Sometimes they and their families suffer threats, harassment or physical harm, according to several studies. Some experts say the shame, isolation and depression that accompanies the public pillorying can trigger relapse.
Vermont limits public notification to individuals who pose a high risk to the community, as does Minnesota. New Jersey divides offenders into three tiers of risk, and the names on the low-risk tier are shared only with law enforcement agencies. That is the direction Connecticut should head.
In dealing with sex offenders, Connecticut officials are clearly doing some things right. There is treatment available in prison as well as close supervision, treatment and individualized case management, with appropriate restrictions, for those on parole and probation. This works. Of about 1,800 former sex offenders who have come off parole in the past six years, only a handful — fewer then 10 — have been rearrested for a sex crime, a state Department of Correction spokesman said.
Residency Restrictions
But the good work is often challenged by fear or flawed thinking.
Another bill proposed this year, and wisely allowed to die in committee, would have prohibited a registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. Although residency restrictions may make sense in individual cases — and are sometimes imposed as conditions of probation — blanket residency restrictions do not.
They are fueled in part by the notion of "stranger danger," another myth that most child molesters are strangers, sinister perverts in trench coats lurking around the school playground. The research belies that stereotype and says the vast majority of child sexual abuse victims identify their abusers as family members or acquaintances. A Justice Department study in 2000 of police reports from 12 states found that only 7 percent of sexual assaults on children were perpetrated by strangers.
The data is similar for adult women victims: More than 70 percent of rapes and 85 percent of sexual assaults are carried out by people known to the victim.
This year, thanks to thoughtful leadership on the Judiciary Committee, the legislature resisted some laws that would have been easy "get-tough" targets, but not good policy. Next year, they have the chance to make things better.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Is Pope Benedict XVI Right?
What if Pope Benedict XVI is right and doesn't have the courage to admit it publicly? The thought occurred to me the other day. By day, I counseled clients on the front line of the United States' war on sex. By night, I was tongue-clucking over a church too hard-headed and hard-hearted to do the right thing.
And then it occurred to me: The church may be right.
It is by now obvious that there are abusive priests in the church. And there are abusive fathers in our homes. There are abusive aunts, uncles, teachers, coaches. Why the world is filled with sexual abusers. It's enough to throw us into a panic, and so we do panic and fret.
Lawmakers belt out one harsh and over-broad law after another. Romeo's lovemaking nets him the scorn of a serial killer. We make those who are a risk of violent offense register and seek treatment with those who were merely curious in the wrong way and at the wrong time in their lives and in our nation's history. We want to lock people up and throw away the key. We call these offenders sick, deviant, beyong redemption, and so we punish them.
We are the sick and twisted ones. Our society is steeped in cheap and easy sensuality. Yet step out of line for a moment and you are labeled a deviant. Then comes scorn. What sane and humane society seeks to punish the ill? And why can't we as a society take broader responsibility for trapping a generation or more of young Americans in the vice of lust, one of the deadly sins?
The church is criticized for not doing enough with errant priests. Yet increasingly I read that the men, and they are almost all men, are isolated and sent for treatment and care away from press of daily life. That's not enough for the hypocritical Puritans in our midst: They want the priests in prison, and they want money damages for those abused. It is a sick and twisted cycle.
Perhaps, I say, the Pope is right.
Lust is a sin. Pedophilia is an illness. Prison is not confession; it expiates no sin, and rights nothing. Imprisoning the sick is what a sick society does. And justice does not require the ill to pay fines to those they harm.
Anger grows over a church perceived to be refusing to be held accountable. But I wonder whether that rage is misplaced, really. Did we really think we could make a profit stoking desire and that the demons of lust, once set free, would obey the rules. When do we take responsibility for what we have wrought?
I've seen good men destroyed by baseless allegations of sexual misconduct. I've seen purported victims, still children, coddled, and made into veritable rock stars by the court. Prosecutors strut and preen about accountability. Yet once the prison door slams, nothing has changed. The angry victim can now enjoy the cheap and easy drug of revenge, but this pill, once swallowed, poisons the soul.
I'm starting to admire the Pope. He doesn't owe the world an explanation for the sin in his church, any more than we owe him an explanation for the excess we court in the name of profit and free expression. When one of the pope's own errs, the church takes him in and offers to treat the wounded, even as it offers counsel to victims. How much better the pope and the church than we. When a citizen fails, we brand him for life and call him a monster. We seek to ruin him. And we call it justice.
There are, Augustine wrote long ago, two cities: the city of man and the city of God. I am a pagan, and do not know God. But I know that I respect the pope far more than those critics that think call for the church to shed compassion in the name of revenge.
And then it occurred to me: The church may be right.
It is by now obvious that there are abusive priests in the church. And there are abusive fathers in our homes. There are abusive aunts, uncles, teachers, coaches. Why the world is filled with sexual abusers. It's enough to throw us into a panic, and so we do panic and fret.
Lawmakers belt out one harsh and over-broad law after another. Romeo's lovemaking nets him the scorn of a serial killer. We make those who are a risk of violent offense register and seek treatment with those who were merely curious in the wrong way and at the wrong time in their lives and in our nation's history. We want to lock people up and throw away the key. We call these offenders sick, deviant, beyong redemption, and so we punish them.
We are the sick and twisted ones. Our society is steeped in cheap and easy sensuality. Yet step out of line for a moment and you are labeled a deviant. Then comes scorn. What sane and humane society seeks to punish the ill? And why can't we as a society take broader responsibility for trapping a generation or more of young Americans in the vice of lust, one of the deadly sins?
The church is criticized for not doing enough with errant priests. Yet increasingly I read that the men, and they are almost all men, are isolated and sent for treatment and care away from press of daily life. That's not enough for the hypocritical Puritans in our midst: They want the priests in prison, and they want money damages for those abused. It is a sick and twisted cycle.
Perhaps, I say, the Pope is right.
Lust is a sin. Pedophilia is an illness. Prison is not confession; it expiates no sin, and rights nothing. Imprisoning the sick is what a sick society does. And justice does not require the ill to pay fines to those they harm.
Anger grows over a church perceived to be refusing to be held accountable. But I wonder whether that rage is misplaced, really. Did we really think we could make a profit stoking desire and that the demons of lust, once set free, would obey the rules. When do we take responsibility for what we have wrought?
I've seen good men destroyed by baseless allegations of sexual misconduct. I've seen purported victims, still children, coddled, and made into veritable rock stars by the court. Prosecutors strut and preen about accountability. Yet once the prison door slams, nothing has changed. The angry victim can now enjoy the cheap and easy drug of revenge, but this pill, once swallowed, poisons the soul.
I'm starting to admire the Pope. He doesn't owe the world an explanation for the sin in his church, any more than we owe him an explanation for the excess we court in the name of profit and free expression. When one of the pope's own errs, the church takes him in and offers to treat the wounded, even as it offers counsel to victims. How much better the pope and the church than we. When a citizen fails, we brand him for life and call him a monster. We seek to ruin him. And we call it justice.
There are, Augustine wrote long ago, two cities: the city of man and the city of God. I am a pagan, and do not know God. But I know that I respect the pope far more than those critics that think call for the church to shed compassion in the name of revenge.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
A Letter To Barack Obama: Virginia, RSOL
Dear President Obama:
When you took office you promised to give a voice to the voiceless. You spoke of the audacity of hope. You promised to include those often forgotten and despised. I am appealing to you honor those promises now.
This past weekend you appeared on a television show called America's Most Wanted. You met with the show's creator on national television and listened to him call for yet more laws designed to get tough on crime. As you know, John Walsh is a tireless advocate for crime victims. He lost his own son to murder decades ago.
Immediately after appearing on America's Most Wanted, you were contacted by a group called Virginia Reform Offender Laws. The group asked for a meeting to talk about a class of victims who have no media spokesperson and who garner little sympathy. Members of the group would like to sit down and discuss with you the other America, those stigmatized for life as a result of conduct that often wasn't even criminal a century ago. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans living in fear of the shadows cast by laws that fail to draw meaningful distinctions between those who are a risk of future harm and the overwhelming majority of folks who simply make mistakes.
John Walsh and America's Most Wanted are powerful tools in what is often an hysterical over-reaction to isolate acts of horror. When a young woman is abducted, raped and murdered by a stranger, the nation rightly grieves. But tapping that grief for purposes of stiffing moral panic poorly serves the nation. Many of us were surprised that you agreed to appear on a television show that panders in fear and unresolved rage.
Virginia's, Reform Sex Offender Laws cannot offer you a national forum. There is no television show dedicated to Americans forgotten and scorned by the criminal justice system. But these other Americans are organizing in each and every state in the union to educate lawmakers that the sex offender hysteria is destroying lives. Virginia's group is among the most sophisticated in the nation: In recent weeks, the group has provided lawmakers in Virgina with a recent publication about the weaknesses in our laws regarding sex offenses.
The other America still looks to you for leadership, Mr. President. When the Virginia group called the White House earlier in the week to request a meeting, a promise was made to convey the request and to get back to the group. I am urging you to take a little time to sit down with representatives and hear what they have to say. You can still make a difference for the voiceless folks looking to you for hope. Please do not scorn them. That is the easy and convenient response. But it is a response that fails to look beyond appearances.
When you took office you promised to give a voice to the voiceless. You spoke of the audacity of hope. You promised to include those often forgotten and despised. I am appealing to you honor those promises now.
This past weekend you appeared on a television show called America's Most Wanted. You met with the show's creator on national television and listened to him call for yet more laws designed to get tough on crime. As you know, John Walsh is a tireless advocate for crime victims. He lost his own son to murder decades ago.
Immediately after appearing on America's Most Wanted, you were contacted by a group called Virginia Reform Offender Laws. The group asked for a meeting to talk about a class of victims who have no media spokesperson and who garner little sympathy. Members of the group would like to sit down and discuss with you the other America, those stigmatized for life as a result of conduct that often wasn't even criminal a century ago. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans living in fear of the shadows cast by laws that fail to draw meaningful distinctions between those who are a risk of future harm and the overwhelming majority of folks who simply make mistakes.
John Walsh and America's Most Wanted are powerful tools in what is often an hysterical over-reaction to isolate acts of horror. When a young woman is abducted, raped and murdered by a stranger, the nation rightly grieves. But tapping that grief for purposes of stiffing moral panic poorly serves the nation. Many of us were surprised that you agreed to appear on a television show that panders in fear and unresolved rage.
Virginia's, Reform Sex Offender Laws cannot offer you a national forum. There is no television show dedicated to Americans forgotten and scorned by the criminal justice system. But these other Americans are organizing in each and every state in the union to educate lawmakers that the sex offender hysteria is destroying lives. Virginia's group is among the most sophisticated in the nation: In recent weeks, the group has provided lawmakers in Virgina with a recent publication about the weaknesses in our laws regarding sex offenses.
The other America still looks to you for leadership, Mr. President. When the Virginia group called the White House earlier in the week to request a meeting, a promise was made to convey the request and to get back to the group. I am urging you to take a little time to sit down with representatives and hear what they have to say. You can still make a difference for the voiceless folks looking to you for hope. Please do not scorn them. That is the easy and convenient response. But it is a response that fails to look beyond appearances.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Maine Citizen's For Change Presses Legislative Fight
If you leave lawmakers alone and assign them the task of fixing a state's sex offender registry, odds are they will screw it up. So Maine Citizen's for Change decided to leave nothing to chance when the state's Supreme Court gave lawmakers until the end of this month to alter the state's sex offender laws.
The citizen's group is little more than one year old. But they are speaking with a voice that can be heard in Augusta. Members of the group have been using the telephone and email to lobby lawmakers.
Members of the legislature are up against a deadline set by the state's high court to address infirmities in the state's existing sex offender laws. The court held in Latalien that retroactive registration was, in fact, punitive and could constitute ex post facto punishment.
"The retroactive application of the lifetime registration requirement and quarterly in-person verification procedures of SORNA of 1999 to offenders originally sentenced subject to SORA of 1991 and SORNA of 1995, without, at a minimum, affording those offenders any opportunity to ever be relieved of the duty as was permitted under those laws, is, by the clearest proof, punitive, and violates the Maine and United States Constitutions’ prohibitions against ex post facto laws. [¶64] Because the Legislature, in its upcoming session, may wish to consider revisions to SORNA of 1999 to address the registration of offenders originally sentenced subject to SORA of 1991 and SORNA of 1995, we postpone the effective date of our mandate to March 31, 2010. See M.R. App. P. 14(c). State v. Letalien, 2009 ME 130 (emphasis added)."
Lawmakers are expected to vote tomorrow on a proposal to change the law to satisfy the court. Maine Citizens for Change is hoping that lawmakers will provide reform that takes into account the individual characteristics of a registrant.
For further information about how to get involved in Maine contact:
Jane M Cantral
State Coordinator
Maine Citizens For Change
http://mecfc.blogspot.com
http://mecfc.org
207-615-8385
The citizen's group is little more than one year old. But they are speaking with a voice that can be heard in Augusta. Members of the group have been using the telephone and email to lobby lawmakers.
Members of the legislature are up against a deadline set by the state's high court to address infirmities in the state's existing sex offender laws. The court held in Latalien that retroactive registration was, in fact, punitive and could constitute ex post facto punishment.
"The retroactive application of the lifetime registration requirement and quarterly in-person verification procedures of SORNA of 1999 to offenders originally sentenced subject to SORA of 1991 and SORNA of 1995, without, at a minimum, affording those offenders any opportunity to ever be relieved of the duty as was permitted under those laws, is, by the clearest proof, punitive, and violates the Maine and United States Constitutions’ prohibitions against ex post facto laws. [¶64] Because the Legislature, in its upcoming session, may wish to consider revisions to SORNA of 1999 to address the registration of offenders originally sentenced subject to SORA of 1991 and SORNA of 1995, we postpone the effective date of our mandate to March 31, 2010. See M.R. App. P. 14(c). State v. Letalien, 2009 ME 130 (emphasis added)."
Lawmakers are expected to vote tomorrow on a proposal to change the law to satisfy the court. Maine Citizens for Change is hoping that lawmakers will provide reform that takes into account the individual characteristics of a registrant.
For further information about how to get involved in Maine contact:
Jane M Cantral
State Coordinator
Maine Citizens For Change
http://mecfc.blogspot.com
http://mecfc.org
207-615-8385
Virginia Leading The Way
I have not yet read Dr. Richard Wright's Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions. But I ordered a copy yesterday. If I were a lawmaker in Virginia or a member of U.S. House Judiciary Committee, I would have a copy given to me gratis. A Virginia advocacy group has made its mission the education of lawmakers and has either hand-delivered of mailed copies of the book to lawmakers.
The Virginia groups is called, simply enough, Reform Sex Offender Laws, or RSOL. It is one of a series of statewide organizations united under that banner. This latest lawmaker education campaign is a stroke of genius that should be replicated elsewhere.
Virginia lawmakers are this term neck-deep in proposed legislation regarding sex offenders. Among the bills being considered are calls for civil commitment, new laws against sexting, legislation to ensure compliance with tht federal Adam Walsh Act, and other measures. Typically, there is little debate about passage of such bills. Proponents promise to get tough on crime, hitch their proposal to the latest sensation news story they can find, and then date someone to oppose measures designed to keep the streets safe for little children. It is no wonder in such a climate that the laws regarding sex offenders have become an unintelligible mess.
Virginia RSOL is doing something about it. It is working to educate lawmakers about the consequences of passing laws without worrying about the consequences. Other states should consider following suit.
Here is a list of Virgnia lawmakers who received a free copy of Dr. Wright's book. I suggest follow up emails to these offices to determine what lawmakers thought of the book. I fear an absence of pressure will result in their ignoring the book. We all know the truth of the old aphorism: "You can elect a lawmakers to the statehouse, but you can't make 'em think."
House Courts of Justice Committee
Chairman: David B. Albo R DelDAlbo@house.Virginia.gov VCC
Vice Chair: Clifford L. Athey Jr. * R DelCAthey@house.Virginia.gov
Ward L. Armstrong D DelWArmstrong@house.Virginia.gov VCC
(Minority Leader)
William K. Barlow * D DelWBarlow@house.Virginia.gov
Robert B. Bell R DelRBell@house.Virginia.gov VCC
William Cleaveland * R DelWCleaveland@house.Virginia.gov
Benjamin L. Cline * R DelBCline@house.Virginia.gov
C. Todd Gilbert * R DelTGilbert@house.Virginia.gov VCSC
H. Morgan Griffith * R DelMGriffith@house.Virginia.gov
(Majority Leader)
Charniele L. Herring D DelCHerring@house.Virginia.gov
Patrick A. Hope D DelP Hope@house.virginia.gov
Salvatore R. Iaquinto R DelSIaquinto@house.Virginia.gov
William R. Janis R DelBJanis@house.Virginia.gov
Joseph P. Johnson Jr. D DelJJohnson@house.Virginia.gov
Terry G. Kilgore R DelTKilgore@house.Virginia.gov VCC
G. Manoli Loupassi R DelMLoupassi@house.Virginia.gov
Jennifer L. McClellan D DelJMcClellan@house.Virginia.gov
Jackson H. Miller R DelJMiller@house.Virginia.gov
Christopher Kilian Peace R DelCPeace@house.Virginia.gov
David J. Toscano D DelDToscano@house.Virginia.gov
Ron A. Villanueva R DelRVillanueva@house.Virginia.gov
Vivian E. Watts D DelVWatts@house.Virginia.gov
* On Both House Committees
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
VCSC= On Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
House Militia Police and Public Safety Committee
Chairman: Beverly J. Sherwood R DelBSherwood@house.Virginia.gov VCC
Vice Chair: Thomas C. Wright Jr. R DelTWright@house.Virginia.gov
Clifford L. Athey Jr. * R DelCAthey@house.Virginia.gov
William K. Barlow * D DelWBarlow@house.Virginia.gov
Charles W. Carrico Sr. R DelCCarrico@house.Virginia.gov
William Cleaveland * R DelWCleaveland@house.Virginia.gov
Benjamin L. Cline * R DelBCline@house.Virginia.gov
John A. Cox R DelJCox@house.Virginia.gov
James E. Edmunds R DelJEdmunds@house.Virginia.gov
C. Todd Gilbert * R DelTGilbert@house.Virginia.gov VCSC
H. Morgan Griffith * R DelMGriffith@house.Virginia.gov
(Majority Leader)
Matthew James D DelMJames@house.Virginia.gov
Mark L. Keam D DelMKeam@house.Virginia.gov
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr. D DelLLewis@house.Virginia.gov
L. Scott Lingamfelter R DelSLingamfelter@house.Virginia.gov
Donald W. Merricks R DelDMerricks@house.Virginia.gov
Paula J. Miller D DelPMiller@house.Virginia.gov
James W. Morefield R DelJMorefield@house.Virginia.gov
David A. Nutter R DelDNutter@house.Virginia.gov
James M. Scott D DelJScott@house.Virginia.gov
James M. Shuler D DelJShuler@house.Virginia.gov
Roslyn C. Tyler D DelRTyler@house.Virginia.gov
* = On Both House Committees
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
VCSC= On Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
Senate Courts of Justice Committee
Chairman: Henry L. Marsh III D district16@senate.Virginia.gov VCC &VCSC
R. Creigh Deeds D district25@senate.Virginia.gov
John S. Edwards D district21@senate.Virginia.gov
Janet D. Howell D district32@senate.Virginia.gov VCC
Robert Hurt R district19@senate.Virginia.gov
L. Louise Lucas D district18@senate.Virginia.gov
Ryan T. McDougle R district04@senate.Virginia.gov
Ralph S. Northam D district06@senate.Virginia.gov
Mark D. Obenshain R district26@senate.Virginia.gov
Toddy Puller D district36@senate.Virginia.gov
Fredrick M. Quayle R district13@senate.Virginia.gov
William Roscoe Reynolds D district20@senate.Virginia.gov
Richard L. Saslaw D district35@senate.Virginia.gov
Open Seat (was Cuccinelli)
Open Seat (was Stolle)
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
The Virginia groups is called, simply enough, Reform Sex Offender Laws, or RSOL. It is one of a series of statewide organizations united under that banner. This latest lawmaker education campaign is a stroke of genius that should be replicated elsewhere.
Virginia lawmakers are this term neck-deep in proposed legislation regarding sex offenders. Among the bills being considered are calls for civil commitment, new laws against sexting, legislation to ensure compliance with tht federal Adam Walsh Act, and other measures. Typically, there is little debate about passage of such bills. Proponents promise to get tough on crime, hitch their proposal to the latest sensation news story they can find, and then date someone to oppose measures designed to keep the streets safe for little children. It is no wonder in such a climate that the laws regarding sex offenders have become an unintelligible mess.
Virginia RSOL is doing something about it. It is working to educate lawmakers about the consequences of passing laws without worrying about the consequences. Other states should consider following suit.
Here is a list of Virgnia lawmakers who received a free copy of Dr. Wright's book. I suggest follow up emails to these offices to determine what lawmakers thought of the book. I fear an absence of pressure will result in their ignoring the book. We all know the truth of the old aphorism: "You can elect a lawmakers to the statehouse, but you can't make 'em think."
House Courts of Justice Committee
Chairman: David B. Albo R DelDAlbo@house.Virginia.gov VCC
Vice Chair: Clifford L. Athey Jr. * R DelCAthey@house.Virginia.gov
Ward L. Armstrong D DelWArmstrong@house.Virginia.gov VCC
(Minority Leader)
William K. Barlow * D DelWBarlow@house.Virginia.gov
Robert B. Bell R DelRBell@house.Virginia.gov VCC
William Cleaveland * R DelWCleaveland@house.Virginia.gov
Benjamin L. Cline * R DelBCline@house.Virginia.gov
C. Todd Gilbert * R DelTGilbert@house.Virginia.gov VCSC
H. Morgan Griffith * R DelMGriffith@house.Virginia.gov
(Majority Leader)
Charniele L. Herring D DelCHerring@house.Virginia.gov
Patrick A. Hope D DelP Hope@house.virginia.gov
Salvatore R. Iaquinto R DelSIaquinto@house.Virginia.gov
William R. Janis R DelBJanis@house.Virginia.gov
Joseph P. Johnson Jr. D DelJJohnson@house.Virginia.gov
Terry G. Kilgore R DelTKilgore@house.Virginia.gov VCC
G. Manoli Loupassi R DelMLoupassi@house.Virginia.gov
Jennifer L. McClellan D DelJMcClellan@house.Virginia.gov
Jackson H. Miller R DelJMiller@house.Virginia.gov
Christopher Kilian Peace R DelCPeace@house.Virginia.gov
David J. Toscano D DelDToscano@house.Virginia.gov
Ron A. Villanueva R DelRVillanueva@house.Virginia.gov
Vivian E. Watts D DelVWatts@house.Virginia.gov
* On Both House Committees
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
VCSC= On Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
House Militia Police and Public Safety Committee
Chairman: Beverly J. Sherwood R DelBSherwood@house.Virginia.gov VCC
Vice Chair: Thomas C. Wright Jr. R DelTWright@house.Virginia.gov
Clifford L. Athey Jr. * R DelCAthey@house.Virginia.gov
William K. Barlow * D DelWBarlow@house.Virginia.gov
Charles W. Carrico Sr. R DelCCarrico@house.Virginia.gov
William Cleaveland * R DelWCleaveland@house.Virginia.gov
Benjamin L. Cline * R DelBCline@house.Virginia.gov
John A. Cox R DelJCox@house.Virginia.gov
James E. Edmunds R DelJEdmunds@house.Virginia.gov
C. Todd Gilbert * R DelTGilbert@house.Virginia.gov VCSC
H. Morgan Griffith * R DelMGriffith@house.Virginia.gov
(Majority Leader)
Matthew James D DelMJames@house.Virginia.gov
Mark L. Keam D DelMKeam@house.Virginia.gov
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr. D DelLLewis@house.Virginia.gov
L. Scott Lingamfelter R DelSLingamfelter@house.Virginia.gov
Donald W. Merricks R DelDMerricks@house.Virginia.gov
Paula J. Miller D DelPMiller@house.Virginia.gov
James W. Morefield R DelJMorefield@house.Virginia.gov
David A. Nutter R DelDNutter@house.Virginia.gov
James M. Scott D DelJScott@house.Virginia.gov
James M. Shuler D DelJShuler@house.Virginia.gov
Roslyn C. Tyler D DelRTyler@house.Virginia.gov
* = On Both House Committees
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
VCSC= On Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
Senate Courts of Justice Committee
Chairman: Henry L. Marsh III D district16@senate.Virginia.gov VCC &VCSC
R. Creigh Deeds D district25@senate.Virginia.gov
John S. Edwards D district21@senate.Virginia.gov
Janet D. Howell D district32@senate.Virginia.gov VCC
Robert Hurt R district19@senate.Virginia.gov
L. Louise Lucas D district18@senate.Virginia.gov
Ryan T. McDougle R district04@senate.Virginia.gov
Ralph S. Northam D district06@senate.Virginia.gov
Mark D. Obenshain R district26@senate.Virginia.gov
Toddy Puller D district36@senate.Virginia.gov
Fredrick M. Quayle R district13@senate.Virginia.gov
William Roscoe Reynolds D district20@senate.Virginia.gov
Richard L. Saslaw D district35@senate.Virginia.gov
Open Seat (was Cuccinelli)
Open Seat (was Stolle)
VCC = On Virginia Crime Commission and received their book on December 15, 2009
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Obama On "Most Wanted"? Ugh
Please tell me it's not true. Tell me President Obama did not appear on the 1000th edition of America's Most Wanted. Tell me he did not succumb to the fear-mongering hysteria that seeks to transform worst-cases scenarios into norms of public policy.
But it is true. The president sat for an interview with one of the angriest and most self-righteous men in the United States, John Walsh. He's the father of Adam Walsh, a little boy abducted and murdered several decades ago. Since then, we've all felt the pain of the Walsh family.
Is it only in America that we transform those undone by grief into celebrities?
Walsh is a hero to many Americans. His son was abducted and killed by a stranger. Because this should never have happened, Walsh wants to make sure it never happens again. He's been instrumental in playing to the moral panic that has made our nation's over-inclusive and draconian sex offender laws the target of international criticism. Human Rights Watch has taken note; last summer the Economist carried a front page story of our war against the very forms of desire we stoke with advertising and a culture drenched in cheap, easy and vulgar sensuality.
President Obama's decision to appear on America's Most Wanted was not the reasoned and measured response of a commander in chief committed to rule of reason. Obama sat with Walsh and was lectured by the talk-show host about the need to take DNA samples of every person accused of a felony. The president listened to a man who has lent his son's name to controversial federal legislation that has been declared unconstitutional in some federal courts and is destined for a Supreme Court challenge. What was Obama trying to accomplish with this appearance?
Obama promised change. But it's looking more and more like the same old stuff. Pandering to fear to keep the plebeians at bay; bailing out those too big to fail to keep the elite fat and sassy; promising to close Guantanamo, but now folding in the face of those critics who want men tried in secret. It's looking more and more like the same old stuff in D.C.
But it is true. The president sat for an interview with one of the angriest and most self-righteous men in the United States, John Walsh. He's the father of Adam Walsh, a little boy abducted and murdered several decades ago. Since then, we've all felt the pain of the Walsh family.
Is it only in America that we transform those undone by grief into celebrities?
Walsh is a hero to many Americans. His son was abducted and killed by a stranger. Because this should never have happened, Walsh wants to make sure it never happens again. He's been instrumental in playing to the moral panic that has made our nation's over-inclusive and draconian sex offender laws the target of international criticism. Human Rights Watch has taken note; last summer the Economist carried a front page story of our war against the very forms of desire we stoke with advertising and a culture drenched in cheap, easy and vulgar sensuality.
President Obama's decision to appear on America's Most Wanted was not the reasoned and measured response of a commander in chief committed to rule of reason. Obama sat with Walsh and was lectured by the talk-show host about the need to take DNA samples of every person accused of a felony. The president listened to a man who has lent his son's name to controversial federal legislation that has been declared unconstitutional in some federal courts and is destined for a Supreme Court challenge. What was Obama trying to accomplish with this appearance?
Obama promised change. But it's looking more and more like the same old stuff. Pandering to fear to keep the plebeians at bay; bailing out those too big to fail to keep the elite fat and sassy; promising to close Guantanamo, but now folding in the face of those critics who want men tried in secret. It's looking more and more like the same old stuff in D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)