Showing posts with label Sex Offender Treatment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Offender Treatment. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
60 Days Until Eviction
I have exactly 60 days now to find a new "home" because the city is building a new park less than 2,000 feet from where I live. A park is getting me evicted and forcing me into homelessness? That's right, a park. Jessica's Law in California has made about 80% of the area off-limits to all RSO's on parole. Homeless RSO's are not even allowed in Homeless Shelters around here There are over 10,000 RSOs on parole here and most have been forced into homelessness. I very soon will be joining their ranks. At 50 years old I am going to be forced to live on the streets? I really can not believe it. I've been homeless before after refusing to register,jumping parole a dozen times, and for my 1990 prison break, but I'm not a fugitive anymore. The Streets are no fun. Being homeless is awful. A daily nightmare where my only concern is where the hell to charge up this damn GPS Tracking Shackle I have locked onto my ankle. Not only are the bastards driving me into homelessness, I may have to start attending 2 classes a week for sex offender treatment. I now only go to see a shrink once a month, but the state/county has hired a new SO Treatment Corporation and I am a commodity to them, so naturally I'll have to attend or go back to prison. It's all about money. How the hell am I suppose to go to 2 damn group sessions a week when I'm forced to live on the streets? It's all such bullshit. I know exactly why alot of RSO's go "Underground". I've been dealing with this insane crap since 1985. "Living Off the Grid" again is looking like a option. What choice do those in exile have anyway?
Friday, July 15, 2011
Few SO's in CA "Violent Offenders"
Few sex offenders deemed 'violent predators,' audit finds
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The year before California voters passed Jessica's Law, a broad crackdown on sex offenders, the state prison system referred 512 potentially "violent predators" for examination.
But the number of convicts considered violent predators has dwindled in the years since, according to a report released yesterday by the California State Auditor. After a significant uptick in sexually violent predator commitments in 2006 and 2007, the number dropped to 16 in 2008 and just three in 2009, according to data collected by the auditor.
The auditor's examination [PDF] also found that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been referring far more inmates for examination as possible sexually violent predators than the law permits. Rather than discerning which sex offenders to refer, the prison system has instead forwarded all such offenders for review.
Further, the corrections department has not given the state Department of Mental Health the required six-month lead time for examinations.
Corrections officials confirmed the findings. "We agree that improvements can be made in streamlining the process and have already implemented steps to improve the timeliness of our referrals to DMH," wrote Scott Kernan, the corrections undersecretary.
Offenders deemed predators are committed to treatment by the mental health department after finishing their prison sentences.
Jessica's Law made it easier to designate a predator in two ways. First, it expanded the number of criminal offenses that can earn a convict that label. Second, it changed the law so that all sex offenders who have one victim of a criminal sex act can potentially be deemed a predator; in the past, an offender had to have committed crimes against at least two victims.
Perhaps the most noteworthy finding in the audit report is how few convicts the state's court system has committed as sexual predators.
Since 2005, 59 percent of California's released sex offenders violated their parole; however, just 1 percent (134 convicts) committed a new offense. One committed a new sex offense.
The auditor concluded that the corrections department forwarded for review all inmates convicted of any sex offense, not just those designated under Jessica's Law. More than 14,000 cases (45 percent of all referrals) were sent to the mental health department, despite the fact that the agency had previously concluded the inmates were not sexually violent offenders.
The report concludes the huge number of referrals is the result of unintended consequences.
"By expanding the population of potential SVPs to include offenders with only one victim rather than two, Jessica's Law may have unintentionally removed an indirect but effective filter for offenders who do not qualify as SVPs because they lack diagnosed mental disorders that predispose them to criminal sexual acts. In other words, the fact that an offender has had more than one victim may correlate to the likelihood that he or she has a diagnosed mental disorder that increases the risk of recidivism."
Story courtesy of our media partners at California Watch (A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting)
california watch, sex offender, crime, california news
Friday, February 4, 2011
Sex Offender Treatment and Forced Confessions
I was falsely accused in 1985 and wrongly convicted in 1989. I have always maintained my innocence and have passed lie-detectors test. Even when maintaining my innocence cost me years and years in prison because I refused to "confess" to the Oregon Board of Parole. They said I was "in denial" and because I refused to "confess" I was too dangerous to be released. This sham went on thoughout the entire 1990's, except when I was a fugitive after my Oct. 1990 prison break. I will NEVER "confess" to something I would NEVER do.
sex offenders can be required to admit past crimes during rehab.
sex offenders can be required to admit past crimes during rehab.
WASHINGTON — Convicted sex offenders can be forced to confess to their past crimes as part of a prison's rehabilitation program despite the Constitution's ban on forced self-incrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the sex abuse treatment programs used in Kansas.
The programs require prisoners--some of whom have proclaimed their innocence--to admit in detail to every sex offense they have committed during their lives. They are also given polygraph tests to see if they are telling the truth.
In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the sex abuse treatment programs used in Kansas.
The programs require prisoners--some of whom have proclaimed their innocence--to admit in detail to every sex offense they have committed during their lives. They are also given polygraph tests to see if they are telling the truth.
"Acceptance of responsibility is the beginning of rehabilitation," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred.
Kennedy pointed to a Justice Department study, which found that only about 15% of prisoners who complete the sex-abuse treatment are arrested again for sex crimes.
Those inmates who refuse to participate in the treatment lose privileges, such as having a television, and can be sent back to a maximum-security block. The court described these as minimal punishments.
Kansas reserves the right to prosecute inmates for new sex crimes that they admit during the treatment program.
Nonetheless, Kennedy concluded that the program "does not compel prisoners to incriminate themselves in violation of the Constitution."
The four dissenters, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, accused the majority of ignoring "a bedrock constitutional right." The government cannot punish anyone for refusing to confess, they said, even prisoners.
"We ought to ask ourselves--what if this is one of those rare cases in which the jury made a mistake, and [an inmate] is actually innocent?" Stevens wrote. Voluntary treatment programs pose no such problem, he added.
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his dissent.
Lawyers for 18 other states joined in support of Kansas, saying they had similar programs. California was not among them.
The ruling dealt a defeat to Robert Lile, who was convicted of raping and kidnapping a high school student in 1983. He claimed that the young woman got in his car of her own accord and that their encounter was consensual. A jury disagreed.
A few years before he was due to be released, prison officials ordered him to participate in the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program. He was required to complete a sexual history form and sign an "Admission of Responsibility."
Lile refused, contending that the requirement violated his rights under the 5th Amendment, which says: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Because Kansas said it would prosecute inmates who revealed past sex crimes against minors, a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals in Denver said the state could not punish Lile for remaining silent and refusing to cooperate.
Disagreeing in McCune vs. Lile, 00-1187, the Supreme Court said the 5th Amendment need not be interpreted so rigidly.
"If the state had to offer immunity [to uncooperative inmates such as Lile], the practical effect would be that serial offenders ... would be given a windfall for past bad conduct," Kennedy said.
Kennedy pointed to a Justice Department study, which found that only about 15% of prisoners who complete the sex-abuse treatment are arrested again for sex crimes.
Those inmates who refuse to participate in the treatment lose privileges, such as having a television, and can be sent back to a maximum-security block. The court described these as minimal punishments.
Kansas reserves the right to prosecute inmates for new sex crimes that they admit during the treatment program.
Nonetheless, Kennedy concluded that the program "does not compel prisoners to incriminate themselves in violation of the Constitution."
The four dissenters, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, accused the majority of ignoring "a bedrock constitutional right." The government cannot punish anyone for refusing to confess, they said, even prisoners.
"We ought to ask ourselves--what if this is one of those rare cases in which the jury made a mistake, and [an inmate] is actually innocent?" Stevens wrote. Voluntary treatment programs pose no such problem, he added.
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his dissent.
Lawyers for 18 other states joined in support of Kansas, saying they had similar programs. California was not among them.
The ruling dealt a defeat to Robert Lile, who was convicted of raping and kidnapping a high school student in 1983. He claimed that the young woman got in his car of her own accord and that their encounter was consensual. A jury disagreed.
A few years before he was due to be released, prison officials ordered him to participate in the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program. He was required to complete a sexual history form and sign an "Admission of Responsibility."
Lile refused, contending that the requirement violated his rights under the 5th Amendment, which says: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Because Kansas said it would prosecute inmates who revealed past sex crimes against minors, a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals in Denver said the state could not punish Lile for remaining silent and refusing to cooperate.
Disagreeing in McCune vs. Lile, 00-1187, the Supreme Court said the 5th Amendment need not be interpreted so rigidly.
"If the state had to offer immunity [to uncooperative inmates such as Lile], the practical effect would be that serial offenders ... would be given a windfall for past bad conduct," Kennedy said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)