Thursday, May 31, 2012
Thoughts about Residential Restrictions
One of the worst aspects of Jessica's Law is how It forces people to be homeless thru Residential Restrictions. In California there are about 10,000 S.O.s on parole. Most of them are homeless because of Jessica's Law. Now if these 10,000 people are so dangerous, out of control, and violent is forcing them to be homeless and wandering the streets all night like a bunch of zombies really the best way to protect the public? These Residential Restrictions do not protect anyone and does far greater harm to everyone. The only "good" thing It does is for The Prison Industrial Complex and all those who profit from prisons. They have made it so impossible for anyone who is a S.O. on parole to complete It that this whole population just keeps recycling back and forth to prison costing CA taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Also, with these insane Residential Restrictions forcing men and women to be homeless will drive anyone over the edge. If all S.O.'s are so unstable let's drive them a little bit crazier. Not good for the safety of CA citizens, but prison profiteers love it. A continuous supply of warm bodies to fill their prison beds. Great job Jessica's Law. Keep up the good work.
Falsely Accused HS Football Star
From: National Coalation of Free Men, http://ncfm.org/2012/05/news/criminal-sentencing/woman-admits-she-falsely-accused-hs-football-star-of-rape-he-receives-five-years-in-prison-she-receives-1-5-million-of-taxpayers-money/
Last Thursday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark C. Kim overturned the decade-old forcible rape conviction against Brian Banks after his accuser Wanetta Gibson admitted she falsely accused Banks of the crime. At the time of the false accusation, Banks was a 17-year-old football star at Long Beach Poly High School, who had verbally committed to playing for USC, and Gibson was a 15-year-old classmate. Gibson said Banks raped her on school grounds, Banks said the sex was consensual.
Banks, represented by a public defender, agreed to a plea deal serving five years behind bars instead of risking a prison term of 41 years to life. Only 17 at the time of the plea deal with little or no knowledge about the criminal justice system, Banks was not allowed to speak with his parents when offered the plea deal.
Recently, Wanetta Gibson reached out to Banks on Facebook, arranged a meeting where she admitted that she fabricated the rape accusation. Banks was accompanied at the meeting by a private investigator who recorded Gibson’s admission.
Shortly after Banks’ plea deal, Gibson’s mother, on behalf of her minor daughter, sued the Long Beach Unified School District for maintaining an unsafe environment. The lawsuit resulted in Gibson receiving a $1.5-million settlement.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles County prosecutors do not plan to charge Gibson, now 24, for perjuring herself by making false accusations, because prosecutors claim it would be hard to prove their case. Perhaps because the private investigator’s recording would not be admissible in a criminal or civil case against Gibson.
The Long Beach Police Department has not opened an “official investigation” into Gibson’s false accusation, although it is communicating with prosecutors about Gibson’s actions.
During a recent interview with a San Diego radio station, Banks talked of visiting Sea World yesterday with his attorney’s family and how great it felt to be able to wear shorts in public. He was able to wear shorts because his rape conviction had required him to register as a sex offender and wear an ankle monitor
Gibson admitted to falsely accusing Banks. Regardless of whether the incriminating tape recording is admissible in a criminal or civil action, she should be charged with appropriate crimes. Charging her with perjury, filing a false police report, and whatever else applies at least establishes a criminal record.
Banks deserves some justice. Gibson deserves to be held accountable. Society deserves protection from such women. It is inconceivable that no effort will be made to recover Gibson’s ill-gotten gains. Whoever in the District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute Gibson should be fired.
.
To learn more about Brian Banks, visit www.brianbanks.org , where you can contribute to a documentary about Brian’s struggle and exoneration.
Woman Admits She Falsely Accused HS Football Star of Rape – He Receives Five Years In Prison, She Receives $1.5 Million of Taxpayers’ Money.
Wanetta Gibson falsely accused Brian Banks of rape! She should be in jail and be made to pay restitution.
By Al Rava, NCFM SecretaryLast Thursday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark C. Kim overturned the decade-old forcible rape conviction against Brian Banks after his accuser Wanetta Gibson admitted she falsely accused Banks of the crime. At the time of the false accusation, Banks was a 17-year-old football star at Long Beach Poly High School, who had verbally committed to playing for USC, and Gibson was a 15-year-old classmate. Gibson said Banks raped her on school grounds, Banks said the sex was consensual.
Banks, represented by a public defender, agreed to a plea deal serving five years behind bars instead of risking a prison term of 41 years to life. Only 17 at the time of the plea deal with little or no knowledge about the criminal justice system, Banks was not allowed to speak with his parents when offered the plea deal.
Recently, Wanetta Gibson reached out to Banks on Facebook, arranged a meeting where she admitted that she fabricated the rape accusation. Banks was accompanied at the meeting by a private investigator who recorded Gibson’s admission.
Shortly after Banks’ plea deal, Gibson’s mother, on behalf of her minor daughter, sued the Long Beach Unified School District for maintaining an unsafe environment. The lawsuit resulted in Gibson receiving a $1.5-million settlement.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles County prosecutors do not plan to charge Gibson, now 24, for perjuring herself by making false accusations, because prosecutors claim it would be hard to prove their case. Perhaps because the private investigator’s recording would not be admissible in a criminal or civil case against Gibson.
The Long Beach Police Department has not opened an “official investigation” into Gibson’s false accusation, although it is communicating with prosecutors about Gibson’s actions.
During a recent interview with a San Diego radio station, Banks talked of visiting Sea World yesterday with his attorney’s family and how great it felt to be able to wear shorts in public. He was able to wear shorts because his rape conviction had required him to register as a sex offender and wear an ankle monitor
Gibson admitted to falsely accusing Banks. Regardless of whether the incriminating tape recording is admissible in a criminal or civil action, she should be charged with appropriate crimes. Charging her with perjury, filing a false police report, and whatever else applies at least establishes a criminal record.
Banks deserves some justice. Gibson deserves to be held accountable. Society deserves protection from such women. It is inconceivable that no effort will be made to recover Gibson’s ill-gotten gains. Whoever in the District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute Gibson should be fired.
.
To learn more about Brian Banks, visit www.brianbanks.org , where you can contribute to a documentary about Brian’s struggle and exoneration.
A University's Shame
From:The Brown Spector, http://brown-spectator.com/2012/05/a-universitys-shame-how-brown-betrayed-one-of-its-students/
A University’s Shame: How Brown betrayed one of its students
McCormick’s Life Is Turned Inside Out:
When they began their lives at Brown in fall 2006, McCormick and Dresdale were both freshmen living in the same residential hall. They met, like most other new students, during the icebreaker activities of orientation, quickly becoming friends within the first week and exchanging both phone calls and emails. After a few days, however, Dresdale’s contact with William dwindled, even though he continued to email and call her regularly. The situation came to a head on Sept. 5, 2006, seven days into their stay at Brown, when Dresdale spoke with her Residential Counselor accusing McCormick of acting “creepy” and stalking her. On Sept. 7, Dresdale made a sexual harassment complaint against McCormick.
Brown’s reaction to the allegation was swift. On Sept. 8, McCormick was ordered to move all his belongings across campus without any assistance from the University. He was also forced to drop two of his courses because they were in the same building as some of Dresdale’s classes. He was restricted to only eating at dining halls and participating in clubs located on Pembroke Campus. During this time, however, Dresdale did not file an official report with the Providence Police Department.
After learning about the initial charge, McCormick contacted Michael Burch about becoming his faculty advocate for the impending student hearing. Burch took McCormick’s case and anticipated a student hearing on the sexual harassment complaint, but there never was one. Instead, on Sept. 13, 2006, Dresdale’s Residential Counselor, Shane Reil, lodged Dresdale’s second complaint via email that McCormick raped Dresdale on the night of Sept. 6. Brown police immediately removed McCormick from campus, even though it would later be discovered that the allegation had not been reported to the campus police, and took him to Michael Burch’s house. Within 14 hours of the rape charge being filed, McCormick was on a plane back to his home in Wisconsin, never to return to Brown again.
While in Wisconsin, Richard Dresdale’s attorney, Joe Cavanagh of the Rhode Island law firm Blish-Cavanagh, allegedly pressured McCormick into signing a waiver that forbade him from ever returning as a student to Brown, indefinitely prohibited him from traveling to Providence without the permission of the Dresdale family, and required that he seek approval from the family before he could apply to any graduate school, fearing that Beth may be attending the same one. On Oct. 15, McCormick officially withdrew from Brown – having never received his student hearing – citing a previously existing seizure condition. This condition caused him to have about one seizure a day since childhood, but by the time he returned home to Wisconsin, he was allegedly having 20-30 seizures a day. In Sept. 2009, McCormick filed a complaint against Richard Dresdale, Marcella Dresdale, and Brown University claiming wrongdoing in his dismissal from Brown.
Richard Dresdale Plays Dirty:Richard Dresdale’s influence over Brown stems from his significant donations to the University. He has a medical school scholarship named after him. He and three other donors were lauded for their “extraordinary generosity” in building the Brown Rugby field. He is one of only 54 members of the Brown Annual Fund Leadership Council. He is on the board of directors for the Brown University Sports Foundation. He is a past recipient of the H. Anthony Ittleson ‘60 Cup, which is given to extraordinary donors to the Brown Annual Fund. By contrast, McCormick was attending Brown on full financial aid.
From the beginning, Dresdale tried to use his wealth and influence to force McCormick out of the University. On Sept. 6, the day after Beth Dresdale accused McCormick of stalking her, Richard Dresdale emailed former Associate Vice President Ronald Dalgliesh ’91. Dalgliesh indicated that the issue was going to be resolved with the help of Shane Reil, Beth’s Residential Counselor. On Sept. 7 Beth Dresdale writes a sexual harassment complaint. On Sept. 9, Richard Dresdale went to Providence to take Shane Reil out to dinner at fellow alum and also wealthy private equity manager Habib Gorgi’s ’78 home and watch a football game with Beth Dresdale. On Sept. 11, Shane Reil wrote Richard Dresdale an email saying that Beth Dresdale had mentioned her father would “help straighten out a path for [his] future,” that he was thankful Dresdale was “making [him]self available to [him] as a mentor” and that he and Beth were “becoming very close.” Two days later, Reil filed the rape charge — retroactively changing the original sexual assault complaint — against McCormick and allegedly included vicious character attacks against him.
Dresdale’s influence didn’t stop with Shane Reil. He also asserted his authority over President Ruth Simmons. Not only was Dresdale one of the biggest donors to Simmons’s university, but they were also business partners. Dresdale’s Fenway Partners worked closely with Goldman Sachs (where Ruth Simmons was on the board of directors at the time), and they were involved with the takeover of Simmons (no relation) Mattresses – according to a report by PR Newswire. On Oct. 3, Dresdale emailed Simmons saying, “Ruth … I am working to resolve the matter with the student who attacked Beth — the goal is to have him withdraw from Brown and not have a University hearing. This will enable Beth and the other students to avoid having to come in contact with the student and face questioning from his advocate [Burch].” Consequently, there never was a student hearing.
The Deans Engage in Misconduct:Richard Dresdale wielded such considerable influence that he was able to prevent any semblance of a fair trial for McCormick. Not only were the deans unwilling to give McCormick his due process, but they were also instrumental in his dismissal. In an interview, Burch singled out Associate Dean Terry Addison, then-Interim Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Russell Carey ’91 (who personally handed McCormick his one-way ticket home), and then Associate Vice President for Campus Life and Dean for Student Life Margaret Klawunn, whom Burch described as a “ringleader”. The only dean whom Burch claimed was privately sympathetic to McCormick was former Associate Dean of Student Life Robert Samuels, who told Burch, “We are all scared for our jobs.”
Perhaps it was this fear that prompted the deans to perform a wholly inadequate job of granting McCormick a fair trial. They allegedly disregarded, hid, or tampered with vital pieces of evidence in the case
The first instance of alleged misconduct by the deans occurred when witnesses re-wrote character assessments for McCormick, a highly unusual and dubious action. The original statements, which the Spectator has obtained, described McCormick as an average freshman with no outward signs of violent tendencies. What makes the deans’ integrity questionable is that the new assessments – from the same students, whom Burch claimed at the time may have rewritten their accounts at the prompting of the deans – came back as acerbic assaults against McCormick’s character, a curious result considering that these students had not seen much of McCormick in between the writing of these assessments since he had already been removed and barred from campus.
One of the more puzzling aspects of the entire case was the fact that the rape was not reported to the Providence Police Department or the Brown Campus Police. In an interview with both Margaret Klawunn and Senior Associate Dean of Student Life Jonah Ward that the Spectator conducted on May 2, 2012, when asked if “it would be unusual for an egregious sexual assault not to be reported to the police” Klawunn responded, “Absolutely” and Ward concurred saying, “Right, right.” One can only wonder why neither Klawunn nor Ward – both involved with the McCormick case – reported to the Providence Police after Dresdale filed her complaint.
The deans also appear to have ignored a closer examination of the incident’s timeline. Beth Dresdale claimed that the rape occurred on the evening of Sept.6, curiously the same day that she spent the entire afternoon discussing the “creepy” McCormick with her RC and a University advisor. Furthermore, just hours after the alleged rape occurred, Dresdale and McCormick were seen together at a birthday party in their dorm. In two separate emails to Terry Addison – both dated Sept. 15 – two witnesses described Dresdale and McCormick as behaving normally. When this detail was brought to their attention, Klawunn and Carey proceeded to keep McCormick out of Brown, while Dresdale enjoyed college life at her father and grandfather’s university.
Perhaps the most destructive misconduct that deans committed was concealing evidence from McCormick and his advocate Burch. In the entire rape case, there was only one piece of supposed evidence against McCormick: a pair of ripped boxers. Beth Dresdale claimed to have the pair of boxers that she was wearing when McCormick allegedly ripped them off and proceed to rape her. This being the one and only alleged piece of physical evidence in the entire case, Burch rightfully asked to see it in order to examine it for finger prints and DNA — anything to help determine McCormick’s innocence. The deans refused. In an email from Terry Addison, dated Sept. 25 he said, “The boxer shorts will not be entered as material evidence. References to the shorts in witness statements will not be stricken” i.e. witnesses can still claim that the boxers were ripped off. In an email to Spectator editor Ryan Fleming dated May 3, 2012, Ward wrote, “If there is a question about sexual activity, any reasonable evidence to help determine the truth would be admissible and reviewed by both the complainant and respondent.” That, unfortunately, does not appear to be a right afforded to William McCormick.
Richard Dresdale Gets Caught in the Act:In April 2010, Burch discussed part of the story to the Brown Daily Herald. A few months afterwards, Richard Dresdale began to target McCormick’s advocate. In fall 2010, he hired a private investigator to intimidate Burch.
On Sept. 27, 2010, a package addressed to Michael Burch was delivered to the house of his girlfriend, a single mother. Burch had not shared the location of his girlfriend’s house to any of his coworkers and was disturbed that someone had located him at that address. Upon opening the package, Burch discovered an invitation to a free meal at McCormick’s attorney’s – Scott Kilpatrick – favorite restaurant, the once popular Down City Diner in downtown Providence. When he arrived for dinner, he learned that two anonymous women had paid for his meal. The next day, he received a call from a woman claiming to be in charge of a company that delivers anonymous gifts, inquiring whether he had enjoyed his dinner. When Burch questioned her about the company, she hung up. The message to him was clear: People were watching his and Kilpatrick’s every move.
Through court subpoenas, Burch was able to trace the calls back to former New York Police Department Detective Patrick Brosnan (whom Dresdale glowingly praises in an online testimonial), the current CEO of Brosnan Risk Consultants, an investigative firm. Brosnan had been hired by Richard Dresdale to “keep a close eye on Burch, out of concern for his daughter.” Dresdale had paid $10,000 to Brosnan so that he could keep constant watch on Burch.
Shortly after the incident, Kilpatrick – a former Assistant Attorney General, in the Criminal Division for Rhode Island – filed a motion to default for the ongoing case of McCormick vs. Dresdale on account of witness intimidation, i.e. that the defense – Dresdale – would automatically default (lose) their case. After a deposition of Brosnan, Kilpatrick withdrew his motion to default and stopped the witness intimidation investigation. In a letter dated Nov. 8, 2010 Burch wrote to Kilpatrick “Scott…you are acting like someone who has been threatened. If this is baseless, then I really need some very, very good explanations for why you are taking such a different tact since Brosnan’s deposition.”
Burch, fearing for his own safety, was granted a temporary restraining order against Dresdale and filed an official complaint with the Pawtucket Police Department. Despite initial enthusiasm for investigating the case, the police quickly responded that they would not pursue the investigation. Burch speculated that it could have been because of Dresdale’s influence went beyond Brown University to elected officials (i.e. Democratic Senator Jack Reed, to whom he donated $3,300 in 2007) as well as Dresdale’s firm, Fenway Partners, receiving significant investments from the Rhode Island’s state pension fund, $15 million according to Pensions and Investments.
Not Just Isolated Cases:A case like this seems like an anomaly. It cannot be too often that a university like Brown is seemingly willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of one of its students simply to protect their endowment funds. Unfortunately, there is evidence that Brown’s actions in the McCormick case may have been the rule, not the exception.
In September 2009, just three years after the McCormick incident, there was another eerily similar case. A student, who wishes to remain anonymous, approached Michael Burch — who was known for advocating on behalf of McCormick — seeking help after being accused of sexual assault.The student dated the daughter of another wealthy member of a private equity firm throughout the 2008 school year until they had a tumultuous break-up during the summer of 2009. After the break-up, the daughter allegedly filed a sexual assault complaint with Brown Police but told them not to process it. Then the student claimed that he was indirectly warned by a Brown police officer that there was a potential charge against him. Upon learning this, the male student contacted Michael Burch asking for help.
At Burch’s suggestion, he filed a slander charge against the female student. However, for nearly three months neither Burch nor the male student knew if there was an official complaint filed against him. They claim to have repeatedly visited, called, and emailed Brown Department of Public Safety, Jonah Ward, and Margaret Klawunn asking if there was an official charge, but they never received a clear answer.After months of asking, Brown officials finally told the male student that a formal complaint was never filed against him. He claimed that he was advised by the university to not proceed with his complaint and let both charges fade away since he was graduating later that year.
The male student wished to proceed with his slander charge, seeking an apology from the female student and a retraction of her statements. He was told to meet with Dean Richard Bova. The student claims that Brown would not allow Burch to attend the meeting. When they finally acquiesced, neither Burch nor the student could make the meeting in time. Days later, the student claims that he was told that the meeting that they had missed was in fact the judicial hearing for the case and that the University would not disclose the outcome of the hearing. Having a student hearing without the accuser being present would contradict statements made in the interview with Klawunn and Ward, where Ward clearly stated that at any judicial hearing the accused, the accuser, an advisor and a student conduct panel would be present.The McCormick case was not entirely unique in Beth Dresdale’s history. Two years into the McCormick case, a former high school teacher of Beth Dresdale’s revealed that he allegedly had a similar experience and that during Beth Dresdale’s freshman year of high school, she was involved in another sexual misconduct scandal.
In spring 2003, Beth Dresdale was allegedly caught cheating on a 10-point quiz by her science teacher, who wished to remain anonymous for this story. Following the teacher’s personal policy on cheating, he did not give Beth a zero on the quiz, but instead talked with her privately about the incident and discussed the possibility of retaking it. After their discussion, Dresdale accused the teacher, who had 32 years of experience, of sexual harassment. According to the teacher, Richard Dresdale quickly became involved, taking the case to the police. The police dismissed the claim and told the school to handle the situation. Within a week the teacher was escorted out of the school and was later released. Following the incident, Beth Dresdale transferred to an all-girls private school in the fall.
Legacy:Following his coerced withdrawal from Brown, McCormick sued the University Beth Dresdale and Richard Dresdale. In December 2011 the case was settled after McCormick had been offered approximately $1 million, according to Go Local Providence,who had obtained a secret recording of Kilpatrick discussing the settlement negotiations. McCormick finished his college career at Bucknell University, where he continued to wrestle, and majored in Film. Beth Dresdale graduated from Brown without interruption in 2010.
Burch continued to work for Brown until 2009, when he resigned from his coaching position, claiming that he was pressured to do so. In 2010 the University cancelled his summer teaching contract that he had had for 7 years prior. After his dismissal from Brown, Burch continues to support McCormick’s innocence, saying, “as long as there is a Brown University I will talk about this story for fear it will some day be repeated, whether it be falsely accused students or victimized students who are denied justice, Brown cannot be trusted when their money or public image is at stake. We ought to be thankful that William McCormick stood up against such odds – he did so for a lot of people.”
Klawunn, who headed the case against McCormick, was promoted to vice president for campus life and student services shortly after, while the sympathetic Robert Samuels left Brown not long after the case. Unfortunately, The Spectator could not find any solid evidence linking these outcomes directly to the deans’ involvement in the case.
Perhaps the greatest legacy of the case is a loss of faith in the University. Brown is supposedly a place where students can learn, experiment, and express themselves in a protected environment regardless of personal background. The University, however, has punctured that dream. Furthermore, both Beth Dresdale and Brown have unnecessarily called into question the veracity of any rape accusation. Through their actions, they prove accusing someone of sexual misconduct can be used as a means of manipulation. Brown’s unwavering protection of the accuser at the expense of the accused — no matter how much the evidence points in the other direction — is a major flaw in the University’s judicial system. One hopes that what happened to McCormick will never happen again, but with the current judicial structure and Brown’s own track record, there is little reason to believe this will be a unique occurrence.
“I came along with African-American parents who couldn’t read or write all that well, but they brought along traditions from their parents. I would love to live in a world where people are valued on the basis of what qualities they offer as a person, rather than on the means that they happen to have at any given time. …”
Ruth Simmons, Ebony Magazine, June 1st, 1996
Residential Restrictions on S.O.s
From: Find Law, http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/residency-restrictions-for-sex-offenders.html
Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders
Residency restriction laws are a fairly new method some jurisdictions are using in an attempt to curb the actions of sex offenders. Alabama passed the first residency restriction law in 1996. The law was part of the states' Community Notification Act. It prohibited child molesters from living within 1,000 feet of a school. By January 2006, approximately 14 states had enacted residency restrictions. Moreover, some local governments have implemented their own residency restrictions.
Critics and supporters of residency restriction laws have watched Iowa's law with interest since its passage in 2002. The Iowa law applies to a "person who has committed a criminal offense against a minor, or an aggravated offense, sexually violent offense, or other relevant offense that involved a minor." According to the law, "A person shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility." The law does not apply in certain circumstances, including where the "person has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002, or a school or child care facility is newly located on or after July 1, 2002," or where the person is a minor or a ward under a guardianship. It is an aggravated misdemeanor to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or child care.
The Iowa law took effect on July 1, 2002, but was almost immediately challenged in federal district court. The plaintiffs were three named sex offenders who contended that the law was unconstitutional on its face. The case was certified as a class action, on behalf of other sex offenders to whom the law would apply. At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence regarding the scope of the law. In many cities, the law would effectively limit sex offenders to small areas of residency. In small towns, a single school or child care center could mean that the entire town was off limits. Expert witnesses on both sides testified to their beliefs in the expected efficacy of the law.
The district court enjoined enforcement of the law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including:
Critics and supporters of residency restriction laws have watched Iowa's law with interest since its passage in 2002. The Iowa law applies to a "person who has committed a criminal offense against a minor, or an aggravated offense, sexually violent offense, or other relevant offense that involved a minor." According to the law, "A person shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility." The law does not apply in certain circumstances, including where the "person has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002, or a school or child care facility is newly located on or after July 1, 2002," or where the person is a minor or a ward under a guardianship. It is an aggravated misdemeanor to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or child care.
The Iowa law took effect on July 1, 2002, but was almost immediately challenged in federal district court. The plaintiffs were three named sex offenders who contended that the law was unconstitutional on its face. The case was certified as a class action, on behalf of other sex offenders to whom the law would apply. At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence regarding the scope of the law. In many cities, the law would effectively limit sex offenders to small areas of residency. In small towns, a single school or child care center could mean that the entire town was off limits. Expert witnesses on both sides testified to their beliefs in the expected efficacy of the law.
The district court enjoined enforcement of the law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including:
- The law was unconstitutional because it was an ex post facto law for anyone convicted before July 1, 2002;
- It violated plaintiffs' rights to avoid self-incrimination, because registrants would be required to report their addresses, even when the addresses were not in compliance with the law;
- It violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights;
- It infringed on fundamental rights to travel and decide how to conduct their family affairs; and
- It was not tailored narrowly enough to serve a compelling state interest.
In a ruling dated April 29, 2005, three judges from the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with each ground relied upon by the district court, and ruled that the law was not unconstitutional on its face. The court ruled that there exists no constitutional right to "live where you want." Therefore, the state only needed to show that the statute rationally advanced some legitimate governmental purpose. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the law was enacted to promote the safety of children, and that this was a legitimate legislative goal. They argued, however, that the law is irrational because there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that residency restrictions will enhance the safety of children. The court rejected this argument as well, noting that state policymakers are entitled to employ "common sense" when making a determination that "limiting the frequency of contact between sex offenders and areas where children are located is likely to reduce the risk of an offense."
Two judges agreed that the law did not amount to an ex post facto punishment. They ruled that plaintiffs did not establish by "clearest proof" that the law's punitive effect overrides the legislature's "legitimate intent to enact a nonpunitive, civil regulatory measure that protects health and safety" of the state's citizens.
Municipalities and counties have enacted their own versions of residency restrictions. For example, in Des Moines, Iowa, the state's largest city, officials added parks, libraries, swimming pools, and recreational trails to the list of protected buffer zones.
A report in the Des Moines Register on January 22, 2006, reported that since the state's residency law took effect, more sex offenders are eluding tracking by authorities. The paper reported that 298 sex offenders were unaccounted for in January 2006, compared to 142 on June 1, 2005. Critics charge that the law has forced some sex offenders to become homeless; others may lie and say that they are homeless to hide the fact that they are not complying with the law. Iowa has approximately 6,000 registered sex offenders.
Two judges agreed that the law did not amount to an ex post facto punishment. They ruled that plaintiffs did not establish by "clearest proof" that the law's punitive effect overrides the legislature's "legitimate intent to enact a nonpunitive, civil regulatory measure that protects health and safety" of the state's citizens.
Municipalities and counties have enacted their own versions of residency restrictions. For example, in Des Moines, Iowa, the state's largest city, officials added parks, libraries, swimming pools, and recreational trails to the list of protected buffer zones.
A report in the Des Moines Register on January 22, 2006, reported that since the state's residency law took effect, more sex offenders are eluding tracking by authorities. The paper reported that 298 sex offenders were unaccounted for in January 2006, compared to 142 on June 1, 2005. Critics charge that the law has forced some sex offenders to become homeless; others may lie and say that they are homeless to hide the fact that they are not complying with the law. Iowa has approximately 6,000 registered sex offenders.
Megan's Law to Mug Shot For-Profit Mags
From: Once Fallen, http://once-fallen.blogspot.com/2012/05/from-megans-law-to-mug-shot-magazines.html ( Excellent Website )
From Megan's Law to Mug Shot Magazines: Citizen involvement in the growing police state
America is slowly becoming a similar police state. But just like the Nazi era, the police is not the only concern. This generation has done the same. We are a nation of nanny cams, background checks, and a growing number of public pillories known as "registries". Right now meth maker registries, domestic violence registries, and animal abuser either on the books are in the process of creation. Hell, we even have registries for your dog!
 |
| Bad Dog, Go Register! |
But even that is not enough. Someone has decided that taking mug shots and putting them in a newspaper format and selling them is a great business opportunity. Somewhere along the way, we've turned the criminal justice system into the next spectator sport:
 |
| Someone should make a rag with pics of those who sell this crap |
Imagine going to the Internet to search your name only to find a mug shot from years ago posted on multiple websites. There are publications and websites whose sole purpose is to feature police booking photos. Some make a profit selling advertising around the photos, while other websites are offering, for a price, to remove or hide these images permanently. ***** McMahon learned about the mug shot business the hard way.
In 2003, McMahon woke up one morning covered in blood, with stab wounds and evicted from his home. McMahon was fired from his job and slept in a gas station bathroom that night. McMahon knew his life was in need of a change. At the time, the then-bartender was dealing with the deaths of his best friend and sister within months of each other, along with a family history of drug abuse. McMahon started using cocaine at age 12 and lived in a drug-induced haze until he was 23. During those tumultuous years, McMahon was arrested several times, including two instances for driving under the influence of alcohol.
These days, McMahon is a happily married, churchgoing father who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. His wife, ***** McMahon, is a part-time student at the University of Georgia earning a master's in social work. When they're not working, life for the McMahons revolves around their 2-year-old daughter, ******. It is a much different existence than McMahon once had.
Congratulations are in order. This man turned his life around, rehabilitated, cleaned up his act, etc. He's a happily married man with a wife and kid, works hard, and even goes to church. Who would want to mess that up? Enter the Mug Shot Magazine Business:
As part of his recovery, McMahon went to the Internet to check his online image after he read that employers use Google to search the names of potential employees. Having served the time for his crimes, McMahon was shocked to find his mug shot still posted on a website along with others. He contacted the site to have the image removed. He paid a another site to have the mug shot removed only to see his photo show up in four other places. "It's like killing one flea and then saying, 'OK the flea problem is done,'" McMahon said. His frustration built when he contacted the website Reputation.com, which said for $7,500 it could not get rid of his image, but could "bury" it in Internet purgatory.
McMahon is not alone in finding his murky past displayed for the public.
So you not only have a business that posts your mug shot, no matter how old it is, but for a high price, you can pay to have it removed. But then it shows up elsewhere, because now that you have paid one site, other sites know you are willing to pay. It is like the South Park "Underpants Gnome" equation, only instead of collect underpants, someone collected mug shots, and they found that missing step to turn mug shots into profit.
 |
| I'm pretty sure a phase 2 involves something illegal. |
Yes, I went there.
Caught Up is a Tennessee-based weekly that dubs itself a "crime-fighting publication." It features police booking photos. Found primarily in smaller communities throughout Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky, the publication showcases people's names and alleged crimes listed below their mug shots. Caught Up and other similar papers collect mug shots, which are public record, from sheriffs and local police departments, who hand over the information with the names listed in alphabetical order, detailing the criminal charges. These photos are also featured and archived on the publication's website caughtuplive.com...
"Sometimes I say I'm the most popular woman of the small counties because police departments are so grateful," said Lori Broderick, the media liaison for Caught Up. Broderick is involved in the publication of every paper, which puts out more than 25,000 copies weekly. Broderick, who is also a paralegal, joined the Caught Up team in December 2010. She feels the mission of the paper is to give people the ability to keep an eye on their communities.
Well in the interest of fairness, I will post a link to Lori Broderick's Facebook page here in case any one is interested in suing her. So if they are putting out 25k+ copies per week at a dollar a pop, and assuming they are making at least a 50 cent profit ($12,500 weekly), then they are racking up $650,000 per year. That is a lot of dollar rags.
The flip side is how the publication affects the people showcased. Broderick recalled a man who was a sex offender and had finished serving his sentence. The man was trying to rejoin the community but felt he couldn't with his mug shot in the paper and online. Broderick said she and her team discussed the issue, but ultimately felt their need to inform was more important than helping the man overcome his past.
"When you're talking about the safety of the community and the safety of children and seeing as how these are already public records, we just made the determination that it was in the best interest of the public to have this information available," Broderick said. "The lack of knowledge was not a chance that we were ready to take."
Here we get to the meat of the issue. The paper really should have said "their need to publicly humiliate in order to sell papers was more important than helping the man overcome his past. In other words, increasing the likelihood of recidivism is LESS important than selling papers.
Mug shots: Informative vs. slander?
Caught Up consists mostly of mug shots with a few related written pieces and various games that it calls "informative fun." There also is some local advertising. Caught Up Vice President Geoffrey Bar-Lev said in today's economy the profit margin for this business is relatively low. However, the demand for the publication in smaller communities has remained the same. The business makes money even if the lives of the people who make up its content have changed, which leaves someone like McMahon out of luck.
Again, I broke down the profit margin. What is disturbing is Caught Up calls this "informative fun." So what can you do about it?
Several clients have asked Kavan Singh-Grover, an Atlanta-based criminal defense attorney, about removing their mug shots from the sites and about what legal action can be taken. "They are using a person's image for commercial gain without their permission," said Singh-Grover. "To me, its extortion, maybe not legally, but the common use of that term." Singh-Grover said legally, there is nothing that can be done. The only thing that could stop the publications and websites is legislation that forbids them. That legislation does not exist.
That legislation NEEDS to exist. That being said, I'd argue False Light and misusing my image. And yes, these papers have been sued in the past, HERE and also HERE.
Caught Up's Broderick said she understands the concerns and said other publications might have a lower standard, but their purpose is to encourage safety in communities, not promote public humiliation. "People think we are in the business to mock," Broderick said. "They believe that we have photos of a person who has been arrested to allow the community to thumb their nose at and that's not our purpose. If people find some of the mug shots amusing, that's more or less a side effect." McMahon isn't laughing.
Oh, really?
It is hard to claim that when all the mug shot papers' web pages resemble this.
"But that's the main way they make profit, right," he said. "We can read a paper without looking at a picture and know that seven people were arrested for DUI -- we don't need the picture. It just -- to me -- seems like the way that they're making money is because the pictures are pathetic or sometimes funny."
RemoveSlander.com is a website that erases mug shots from the Web once a person has been legally cleared. The site said it uses "trade tools" to eliminate the mug shot. Spokesperson Philip Lee said he does not feel RemoveSlander.com should be "affiliated with the mug shot website."
RemoveSlander.com via ImageMax Mugshot Removal said it is the first reputation management firm to offer the service. For $399, RemoveSlander.com allows a customer to specify one website from which to have a mug shot deleted. For $699.00, the mug shot is removed from three sites. Remove.Slander.com has 14 business days to remove the mug shot from the website and Google or the customer gets their money back. If a customer has multiple arrests with more than one booking photo, that costs more.
In his suburban Atlanta home, McMahon seems at peace with his new life and everything that comes with it. However, he's eager to talk about his past if it means more people are aware of publications like Caught Up and sites like RemoveSlander.com.
"I'm human, I made a couple of mistakes -- it's not a secret I made more than one," McMahon said. "Everyone has a past. It's just unfortunate that mine is exploited for profit."
Again, this is all about the money.
With 65 million Americans with criminal records, including 750,000 or so on the sex offender registry, the business opportunities are endless, at the expense of the people.
I have my own story to tell. During the lowest point in my life, the week my mother died, they released my mug shot in a Mug Shot rag, leading to harassment as I was grieving over my mother's death. A neighbor told my now ex-fiancee Brandi's mother that I was a "bad man" who "hurts people." The same could be said for that person as well as the people who run the Mug Shot Magazines.
I have my own story to tell. During the lowest point in my life, the week my mother died, they released my mug shot in a Mug Shot rag, leading to harassment as I was grieving over my mother's death. A neighbor told my now ex-fiancee Brandi's mother that I was a "bad man" who "hurts people." The same could be said for that person as well as the people who run the Mug Shot Magazines.
My original premise is this phenomenon is merely an extension of the Gestapo generation. Megan's Law, the flint that ignited this fire, has expanded over the years to other crimes. The justification has been to "inform the public." However, we have seen that argument fall apart when you see how these papers are viewed by the general public. It is the return to the scarlet letter and public pillories. These methods have been proven ineffective, so there is no other reason to have them than for entertainment value. Roman society crumbled while its citizens were distracted by "bread and circuses." American society is falling into an equally dangerous trap.
It is past time for legislation putting an end to these practices once and for all.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
J.A. Released from Co. Jail
J.A., the founder of this blog, along with the Society Against False Accusations of Rape (1990) and Californians Against Jessica's Law (2006) has been released from Co. Jail following a DUI arrest. He served 25 days on a 50 day sentence from CA's Parole Board. He had been sober for over 18 months since his release from State Prison in Oct. of 2010 after a 4 year prison term for refusing to register as a sex offender. He was captured in Salem, Oregon after a neighbor ratted him out to local police. J.A. vowed never to be put in handcuffs again or ever step foot in a prison. He is currently homeless. Forced to live on the street like an animal due to CA's insane Jessica's Law which makes 75% of the county he is forced to live in off-limits to him. He's lost his van, driver's license, and his home. Another victim of the unconstitutional Jessica's Law. J.A. has 17 more months on parole before he can return to his home state of Alaska. If he can hold out that long. 15 years in prison couldn't break him, but Jessica's Law just may. What happens to a man that has no Hope? He can become very dangerous, because he has nothing to lose. Good work Jessica's Law.
S.C. SupremeCourt Declares Lifetime GPS Unconstitutional
From: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/05/south-carolina-supreme-court-declares-lifetime-sex-offender-gps-tracking-unconstitutional-on-various.html
South Carolina Supreme Court declares lifetime sex offender GPS tracking unconstitutional on various grounds
The South Carolina Supreme Court has a very interesting (and seemingly ground-breaking) constitutional ruling concerning GPS tracking of a sex offender. The ruling in SC v. Dykes, No. 27124 (S.C. May 9, 2012) (available here), is a bit hard to figure out: the first opinion seems to announce the opinion for the court, but then a footnote at the state of Justice Hearn's opinion states that "[b]ecause a majority of the Court has joined the separate concurring opinion of Justice Kittredge, his concurrence is now the controlling opinion in this case." I will quote the first paragraph from both opinions in the case, because they both are noteworthy, starting here with the opinion of Justice Hearn:Jennifer Rayanne Dykes appeals the circuit court's order that she be subject to satellite monitoring for the rest of her natural life pursuant to Section 23-3-540(C) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010). She lodges five constitutional challenges to this statute: it violates her substantive due process rights, her right to procedural due process, the Ex Post Facto clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We hold the mandatory imposition of lifetime satellite monitoring violates Dykes' substantive due process rights and reverse and remand for further proceedings.The very lengthy opinion by Justice Hearn, which apparently garnered only two (of the five) votes on the court, is thereafter followed by a shorter opinion by Justice Kittredge which starts this way:
I concur in result. I commend my learned colleague for her scholarly research, and I agree with the majority's general proposition that persons have a fundamental right "to be let alone." But I respectfully disagree that Appellant, as a convicted child sex offender, possesses a right that is fundamental in the constitutional sense. I do not view Appellant's purported right as fundamental. I would find Appellant possesses a liberty interest entitled to constitutional protection, for all persons most assuredly have a liberty interest to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. I would find that the challenged mandatory lifetime, non-reviewable satellite monitoring provision in section 23-3-540(C) is arbitrary and fails the minimal rational relationship test.Long story short, it appears that all members of the South Carolina Supreme Court have concluded that the mandatory lifetime satellite monitoring now required by stature in South Carolina for sex offender Jennifer Rayanne Dykes is unconstitutional. (I mention the full name of the defendant in this case because I cannot help but wonder, yet again, if the defendant's gender may have played at least an unconscious role in this notable outcome. I do not think it is implausible to at least suspect this case might well have come out another way if the the defendant was named Johnny Rex Dykes.)
I have not kept count of how many states are like South Carolina in requiring lifetime GPS monitoring of many sex offenders, but I am pretty sure this ruling could (and should?) have ripple effects in at least a few other jurisdictions. I am also sure that both constitutional scholars and those interested in the intersection of modern technology and criminal justice doctrines ought to check out the Dykes opinions.
More Banning SO's From Public Places
From: http://www.telegram.com/article/20120530/NEWS/105309890
Sex offenders face dwindling spaces in public
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. — Convicted sex offenders are barred from surfing at the famous pier in this Orange County city.
In nearby Dana Point, they are prohibited from casting a fishing line in the harbor.
And if they wander into a public park in Mission Viejo, they could be shipped back to jail for six months, following the city council’s vote this year to ban them from a host of places where children congregate.
“We need to protect our kids,” the Orange County district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, had told the Mission Viejo City Council. “The danger is very real.”
Orange County finds itself at the epicenter of a new wave of laws restricting the movement of sex offenders. The county government and a dozen cities here have banned sex offenders from even setting foot in public parks, on beaches and at harbors, rendering almost half the parks in Orange County closed to them. Ten more cities are considering similar legislation.
And Orange County is far from alone. In recent years, communities around the country have gone beyond regulating where sex offenders can live and begun banning them outright from a growing list of public places.
From North Carolina to Washington state, communities have designated swimming pools, parks, and school bus stops as “child safety zones,” off limits to some sex offenders. They are barred from libraries in half a dozen Massachusetts cities and from all public facilities in tiny Huachuca City, Ariz.
“Child safety zones are being passed more and more at the city and county level,” said Elizabeth Jeglic, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “It’s becoming more and more restrictive. They’re not only limiting where sex offenders can live, but they’re limiting their movement as well.”
The proliferation of such restrictions reflects the continued concerns of parents and lawmakers about potential recidivism among sex offenders. But the implementation of these restrictions has increasingly raised questions about their effectiveness, as well as their fairness.
Opponents have dismissed “child safety zones” as unenforceable, saying they are designed to make politicians look tough on crime and drive sex offenders from the area, not make children safer.
“These are cheap laws that can be passed to make people feel good,” said Charles P. Ewing, author of “Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy.”
Irene Pai, a lawyer with the Orange County public defender’s office, said “child safety zones” give parents a false sense of security, punishing many offenders who are not dangerous without actually stopping predators from entering parks.
Pai said she had a stack of cases involving people who were arrested for urinating in public in the 1970s and pleaded guilty to indecent exposure without realizing they would have to register as sex offenders.
“The very notion that a park ordinance could in any way protect children, more than an attentive caregiver’s presence or any other way we protect our children, is absurd,” she said.
Greg Bird was convicted of indecent exposure in 2001. Since then, however, Bird said he has gotten married and turned his life around.
But he now pauses at the idea of having children of his own, because he knows he could not even take them to the park to play catch.
“Sometimes I wonder, is there any compassion?” Bird said. “I know I don’t deserve compassion. I broke the law. I get that. But these laws set people up to fail more.”
In some cities, law enforcement has done very little to enforce child safety zones. In Albuquerque, where some sex offenders have been banned from libraries since 2008, with some exceptions, the police have never even issued a trespass notice, a prerequisite to an arrest.
Thus far, the park bans here have led to just three convictions across the entire county.
Still, Rackauckas said he was satisfied that the laws were serving as a deterrent.
“We’re not going to know how many kids were not molested or groomed for later sexual contact as a result of this law,” he said.
At La Bonita Park in La Habra, parents largely supported the ban.
“I feel better bringing my 2-year-old grandson to the park now,” said Barbara Bellen, 51.
And, once one community has enacted “child safety zones,” they often spread quickly to nearby towns, as municipal governments fear becoming local havens for sex offenders.
In Lake County, Fla., earlier this year, county commissioners — surrounded by communities with tough laws targeting sex offenders — responded with some of the most dramatic restrictions anywhere, including a law prohibiting sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of a park, school or playground.
“We wanted to assure our residents that if they took their kids to the playground, they wouldn’t have to worry about someone in the parking lot across the street watching them,” said Leslie Campione, a county commissioner.
Even so, in Lake County a lower-level offender like Bird would be allowed visit the park as often as he liked, because the ban applies only to those whose crimes were against minors.
Not so in Orange County, where the prohibitions are among the most severe yet, aimed at all sorts of offenders.
Sex offenders here can apply to the Orange County sheriff’s department to be allowed into a county park. So far, 15 applications have been submitted; all but one has been denied.
One applicant requested access to Dana Point Harbor to continue working as a commercial fisherman. Another was a locksmith who did work at businesses at the harbor and said he had a clean record during 28 years living in the area. A third wanted to attend a memorial service for his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, who had recently died.
All three requests were turned down.
Since Orange County set up its “child safety zones,” 12 cities in the county, two other counties in California and two cities in Arizona have all done the same.
With the exception of Irvine, Calif., all of them have applied the ban to all registered sex offenders.
Joe Carchio, a city councilman in Huntington Beach, where a park ban went into effect in December, said he feels bad for lower-level offenders whose convictions many years ago prevent them from bringing their children to Little League. Still, he wishes he could have made the restrictions even broader.
“In a lot of ways, it is a feel good law; it makes people feel safe,” Carchio said. “You make choices in this world, and I guess the choice that individual made is one that is going to follow him for the rest of his life.”
In nearby Dana Point, they are prohibited from casting a fishing line in the harbor.
And if they wander into a public park in Mission Viejo, they could be shipped back to jail for six months, following the city council’s vote this year to ban them from a host of places where children congregate.
“We need to protect our kids,” the Orange County district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, had told the Mission Viejo City Council. “The danger is very real.”
Orange County finds itself at the epicenter of a new wave of laws restricting the movement of sex offenders. The county government and a dozen cities here have banned sex offenders from even setting foot in public parks, on beaches and at harbors, rendering almost half the parks in Orange County closed to them. Ten more cities are considering similar legislation.
And Orange County is far from alone. In recent years, communities around the country have gone beyond regulating where sex offenders can live and begun banning them outright from a growing list of public places.
From North Carolina to Washington state, communities have designated swimming pools, parks, and school bus stops as “child safety zones,” off limits to some sex offenders. They are barred from libraries in half a dozen Massachusetts cities and from all public facilities in tiny Huachuca City, Ariz.
“Child safety zones are being passed more and more at the city and county level,” said Elizabeth Jeglic, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “It’s becoming more and more restrictive. They’re not only limiting where sex offenders can live, but they’re limiting their movement as well.”
The proliferation of such restrictions reflects the continued concerns of parents and lawmakers about potential recidivism among sex offenders. But the implementation of these restrictions has increasingly raised questions about their effectiveness, as well as their fairness.
Opponents have dismissed “child safety zones” as unenforceable, saying they are designed to make politicians look tough on crime and drive sex offenders from the area, not make children safer.
“These are cheap laws that can be passed to make people feel good,” said Charles P. Ewing, author of “Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy.”
Irene Pai, a lawyer with the Orange County public defender’s office, said “child safety zones” give parents a false sense of security, punishing many offenders who are not dangerous without actually stopping predators from entering parks.
Pai said she had a stack of cases involving people who were arrested for urinating in public in the 1970s and pleaded guilty to indecent exposure without realizing they would have to register as sex offenders.
“The very notion that a park ordinance could in any way protect children, more than an attentive caregiver’s presence or any other way we protect our children, is absurd,” she said.
Greg Bird was convicted of indecent exposure in 2001. Since then, however, Bird said he has gotten married and turned his life around.
But he now pauses at the idea of having children of his own, because he knows he could not even take them to the park to play catch.
“Sometimes I wonder, is there any compassion?” Bird said. “I know I don’t deserve compassion. I broke the law. I get that. But these laws set people up to fail more.”
In some cities, law enforcement has done very little to enforce child safety zones. In Albuquerque, where some sex offenders have been banned from libraries since 2008, with some exceptions, the police have never even issued a trespass notice, a prerequisite to an arrest.
Thus far, the park bans here have led to just three convictions across the entire county.
Still, Rackauckas said he was satisfied that the laws were serving as a deterrent.
“We’re not going to know how many kids were not molested or groomed for later sexual contact as a result of this law,” he said.
At La Bonita Park in La Habra, parents largely supported the ban.
“I feel better bringing my 2-year-old grandson to the park now,” said Barbara Bellen, 51.
And, once one community has enacted “child safety zones,” they often spread quickly to nearby towns, as municipal governments fear becoming local havens for sex offenders.
In Lake County, Fla., earlier this year, county commissioners — surrounded by communities with tough laws targeting sex offenders — responded with some of the most dramatic restrictions anywhere, including a law prohibiting sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of a park, school or playground.
“We wanted to assure our residents that if they took their kids to the playground, they wouldn’t have to worry about someone in the parking lot across the street watching them,” said Leslie Campione, a county commissioner.
Even so, in Lake County a lower-level offender like Bird would be allowed visit the park as often as he liked, because the ban applies only to those whose crimes were against minors.
Not so in Orange County, where the prohibitions are among the most severe yet, aimed at all sorts of offenders.
Sex offenders here can apply to the Orange County sheriff’s department to be allowed into a county park. So far, 15 applications have been submitted; all but one has been denied.
One applicant requested access to Dana Point Harbor to continue working as a commercial fisherman. Another was a locksmith who did work at businesses at the harbor and said he had a clean record during 28 years living in the area. A third wanted to attend a memorial service for his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, who had recently died.
All three requests were turned down.
Since Orange County set up its “child safety zones,” 12 cities in the county, two other counties in California and two cities in Arizona have all done the same.
With the exception of Irvine, Calif., all of them have applied the ban to all registered sex offenders.
Joe Carchio, a city councilman in Huntington Beach, where a park ban went into effect in December, said he feels bad for lower-level offenders whose convictions many years ago prevent them from bringing their children to Little League. Still, he wishes he could have made the restrictions even broader.
“In a lot of ways, it is a feel good law; it makes people feel safe,” Carchio said. “You make choices in this world, and I guess the choice that individual made is one that is going to follow him for the rest of his life.”
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
CA Paroles Get New GPS Shackles
CA Parolees have been outfitted with new GPS Shackles. You can believe that someone, somewhere in the CA "Just Us" got a big payday. As we know, The Sex Crime Witch Hunt is all about money. Here's an article about it - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43186851/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/california-change-sex-offender-tracking/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)