New Orleans Prostitutes -> Sex Offenders!

I'm not going to post stories from different states very often, but this one is just amazing.

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/GmFIdKPBMk4/new-orleans-cops-use.html

New Orleans cops are busting hookers under a nineteenth century felony law against "unnatural copulation" (NOLA PD says that oral or anal sex count), which means that they have to register as sex offenders. And life as a sex offender is terrible:

Of the 861 sex offenders currently registered in New Orleans, 483 were convicted of a crime against nature, according to Doug Cain, a spokesperson with the Louisiana State Police. And of those convicted of a crime against nature, 78 percent are Black and almost all are women. The law impacts sex workers in both small and large ways.
Tabitha has to register an address in the sex offender database, and because she doesn't have a permanent home, she has registered the address of a nonprofit organization that is helping her. She also has to purchase and mail postcards with her picture to everyone in the neighborhood informing them of her conviction. If she needs to evacuate to a shelter during a hurricane, she must evacuate to a special shelter for sex offenders, and this shelter has no separate safe spaces for women. She is even prohibited from very ordinary activities in New Orleans like wearing a costume at Mardi Gras.

Her Crime? Sex Work in New Orleans (via JWZ)

Civil Commitment, Part 2

My last post was about the so-called Civil Commitment clause of the Adam Walsh Act. Appears that the US Supreme Court is about to hear a case which challenges the clause as unconstitutional.

The case is an interesting one in part because of the ideological coalition that opposes the current law. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike have bristled at the dangerous precedent they think the law represents. The high court should overturn the "blatant government overreach," Randy Barnett and David Rittgers, both from the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote in an amicus brief.

Supreme Court to Hear Sex Offender Imprisonment Case. The comments are also worth reading.

Matt Mangino, a former District Attorney from Pennsylvania, calls Civil Commitment, and the current challenge to it, a "constitutional ripple effect." Read on:

Kansas Solicitor General Stephen McAllister says civil commitment has to be linked to a mental abnormality or condition. But a lot of people in prison are deeply disturbed. There are drug addicts, kleptomaniacs, vicious sociopaths. So why not commit them too once they have completed their prison terms?

"Constitutionally, it might be possible," to extend the rationale for civil commitment to other kinds of crimes, McAllister says. "I don't have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law."

Junior Senator from Massachusetts - Republican Scott Brown

I haven't gotten into politics yet on this blog, except when it comes to sex offender laws, but while watching Scott Brown give his victory speech, I decided to look more into his views and records concerning SOR laws. Everything I needed to know I found on his candidacy website.

► Sex Offender Reform - Sen. Brown is widely known as the state's leading advocate for reforming the sex offender management system in Massachusetts. He has sponsored a number of bills, including the Sex Offender Omnibus Bill which was a comprehensive reform package that addresses numerous discrepancies in the system. Since that bill was introduced in 2005, several elements have become law separately.

I would need to do some extra research into this, but I doubt this omnibus bill makes any sex offender laws fairer to sex offenders. Strike one.

► Repealing the Statue of Limitations for Sexual Abuse - Sen. Brown proposes repealing the statute of limitations on prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse. Currently, these crimes can only be prosecuted within a defined timetable, robbing many victims of an opportunity to seek justice through the criminal system. It often takes years for victims to come forward and speak with authorities. While it is difficult to pursue a case decades after an incident occurs, these victims should have access to the full judicial process. The decision should be left with prosecutors as to whether enough evidence exists to warrant criminal charges. Sexual offenders should not escape justice simply because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

While should you repeal statute of limitations for sex abuse cases? Why not all cases? You might say that victims of sex abuse cases often repress the memories of the abuse and may not remember it until after the statute has run out. This isn't the case, though. The statute runs out "3 years from the act, 3 years from age 18 [of the victim], or 3 years from the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an emotional or psychological injury or condition was caused the act." Strike 2.

► Closing the Youthful Offender Loophole – Currently many offenders under age 18 slip through the cracks of the sex offender registration system. Judges currently have the discretion to decide whether or not an offender must register. Too often judges let offenders avoid the Sex Offender Registry Board even when they are found guilty of serious sexual offenses. Sen. Brown filed legislation to require all offenders convicted of qualifying sexual offenses to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board. This legislation was prominently featured in a Fox 25 News investigative report.

When you base registration just on the crime, you risk registering the wrong people. If you are 16 and have sex with your 15 year old girlfriend, you have committed rape (yes, statutory rape, but it's still rape). I would assume that rape would be a "qualifying sexual offense," as Brown calls it. Sorry, buddy, you are now a registered sex offender for the reset of your life because you did something that so many people your age do every day. Strike 3.

The rest of his published viewed on criminal justice issues are as follows...

►Jessica’s Bill – Sen. Brown led the effort in the Senate for passage of Jessica's Law (legislation to strengthen sex offender laws, named for Jessica Lunsford, a child who was raped and murdered in FL). A watered down version of Jessica’s Law passed in July 2008, which is a step in the right direction but there is still more work to do to protect our children from predators.
►Haleigh’s Bill – This legislation protects victims from those who have been charged with their abuse or neglect. Sen. Brown filed “Haleigh’s Bill” in response to the tragedy of the Haleigh Poutre case in Westfield in 2005. Haleigh had been hospitalized as the result of alleged abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother and stepfather. While on life support, Haleigh’s stepfather attempted to obtain guardianship of his stepdaughter even though he was suspected of the abuse. This bill prohibits an individual from being appointed a guardian or medical proxy if they have been charged with assault and battery, or neglect of the incapacitated. Sen. Brown was successful in applying Haleigh’s Bill to restrict guardianship through an amendment to the Child Protection Bill of 2008. He filed An Act Relative to Health Care Proxies for the 2009-2010 Legislative Session to apply those same restrictions to health care proxies.
►Strengthening Public Safety – Sen. Brown remains committed to improving all aspects of public safety. For the current session he’s filed bills to reform the Commonwealth’s Criminal Offender Register Information System (CORI) and study the effectiveness of a drug dealer registry for the state. He also filed bill to increase penalties for possessing marijuana in a vehicles so that it is applied like an open container law for alcohol, and make sure that any illegal alien sex offenders are accurately reported to federal authorities.

Sex Offender Shuffle

OK, this is lighthearted, in a way. First of all, I don't think it's real. If you view the video in YouTube, read the info about it. Plus, the moment when the VHS tape "messes up" it all-too perfect timing. Regardless, thought it's be nice to do something fun for once.

Civil Commitment

From Universal Hub: Court to feds: You can lock up deviants past their sentencing date, but don't abuse the privilege

Civil Commitment is a scary thing. Stemming from the Adam Walsh Act, it allows the government to hold a person convicted of a sex offense after their sentence is up. It almost happened to me. If they designate you a "Sexually Dangerous Person" (SDP), when your sentence is up, you don't go home. Instead, you get sent to another prison where you are held until you are no longer considered an SDP. About a month before my release from jail, they told me they were going to start civil commitment proceedings against me. I was shocked and terrified. They wouldn't even be starting the actual proceedings until after my release date, so, even if I beat the SDP label, I would still be held past my release date. Luckily, about a week and a half before my release date, they told me they changed their mind and weren't proceeding. But damn was it scary.

According to the aforementioned article, and the actual ruling, the Federal court has upheld civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act. The case they are ruling on seems pretty clear cut that they defendant is an SDP, but that's not the point. His served the time that was handed down to him by the court. He earned his good time. He has not committed another crime. Yet, he is still locked up.

Notice that it is called civil commitment. If you know a little bit about the American legal system, you know that the burden of proof in a civil case is only "clear and convincing evidence" rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". So, because civil commitment is a civil proceeding, the prosecutors only need to give convincing evidence, they don't need to prove their case. According to the ruling of this case (in which they are quoting another case), "civil commitment can in no sense be equated to a criminal prosecution". Are you kidding me? Since when can you lock someone up for a civil offense? If I sue someone in court, I am awarded damages (i.e. money). There is no incarceration. However, with "civil" commitment, people are being incarcerated. Sounds like a criminal prosecution to me.

The court's ruling isn't all more-of-the-same, though.

This does not excuse what may be a pattern in which the government certifies prisoners as sexually dangerous mere days before their scheduled release, thereby guaranteeing that they will be held for an extended period beyond that date even if there is little basis for the charge. Any such practice is a result of improper administration, not statutory command.

Here, the court is basically telling the government to stop playing games with prisoners' releases by filing SDP motions so late that the motion can not be held before the prisoners' release date and ensuring that he is not released on time, even if the government has no case.

Also in the court's concurring opinion, Judge LaPlante weighs in:

I have serious concerns about whether the Walsh Act is necessary and proper to the exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers.

While he concurs with the court's opinion based soley on the case at hand, he does question the law's constitutionality.

Witches & Warlocks, Terrorists and Sex Offenders

Witches & Warlocks, Terrorists and Sex Offenders | PEOPLE FINDER USA

A friend of mine always compares sex offender laws to witch hunts. He's not the only one. This is a great article that should be read before passing any sex offender laws. Read on...

Take, for example, sex offenders. Can you think of a more despicable, detestable, disgusting crime How can anyone take such advantage of a child How can anyone do such a thing to a helpless woman And of course we would never convict an innocent person. A child could never lie or be manipulated to lie or misinterpret an event. We would never use any sort of psychological coercion to extract a confession from one of our citizens. We would never threaten someone with more jail time and certain financial ruin if they did not take a plea deal. We would never assume one was guilty and make them prove their innocence in a court of law. We would never entrap anyone. We would never convict some kid who was having consensual sex with another kid. We would never convict some little kid for a sex offense because he decides to do something childish. We could never become so frightened of these men as to banish them from our society. We would never force entire families to move from their home simply because it was situated too close to some sanctified location. We would never punish an entire family like that because of what one of their relatives did. We could never believe myths such as that a man is unable to be cured of a condition, that a human being is unable to change. We could never pass laws and regulations that would under normal circumstances be considered unconstitutional and declare them legal simply because we are so afraid that some old men have some sort of magical power to be able to entice young ladies to their beds. We are far more understanding than that. We realize that some people may under certain circumstances do something they would not normally do. We understand that a man may make a one time mistake. We have learned to take these things into consideration when prosecuting them and understand it is best to let a learned judge make an assessment of all aspects of the entire case and make a determination as to appropriate punishment or restitution. We have learned to balance justice with the law, retribution with fairness. We would never let hysteria dictate to us that a one size fits all punishment is fair and appropriate. We left that kind of thinking behind long ago when our founding fathers wrote the constitution protecting us all from the tyranny of government. We left that kind of thinking behind three hundred years ago when we realized just how unjust we were for executing witches.

Level 3 sex offender moves into Scituate - Scituate, MA - Scituate Mariner

Level 3 sex offender moves into Scituate - Scituate, MA - Scituate Mariner

Level 3s should feel lucky. Most of them just have their picture in the police station, library, and maybe on TV and the internet. This guy has a story written about him just because he moved to town.

1980s 'mall rapist' seeks parole - SalemNews.com, Salem, MA

1980s 'mall rapist' seeks parole - SalemNews.com, Salem, MA

After reading this article, I might be against Pizzo getting parole. But it brings up a good subject: parole for sex offenders.

I spent over two years incarcerated for my crime. I was housed with other sex offenders. In that time, I only saw one sex offender get parole. In my hearing, I had a good a good case for parole. I had over thirty letters from friends, family, and community leaders supporting my parole. I had three letters of job offers upon my release. I had a home with a good support system to go to. But it was obvious during my hearing that the parole board administrator was barely listening to me. She had her mind made up.

Is this fair? Of course not. The parole board obviously treats sex offenders differently than most other criminals. Those up for parole for drug offenses, a crime much more likely to be recommitted, parole is given all the time.

What is the problem then? To answer that, look at these two situations: a drug dealer is given parole and a week later is arrested for dealing drugs. Or, a person convicted of indecent exposure (a sex offense) is given parole and a week later is arrested for indecent exposure. Both are fairly serious crimes. Which do you think is going to get more media attention? I don't think the drug dealer would get any. The sex offender, on the other hand, will be the top local news story on every station.

So, what it comes down to is the parole board protecting themselves not the public.

MA Man Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison on Child Porn Charges

Massachusetts Man Sentenced to Five Years in Prison on Child Pornography Charges -- WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

According to testimony at trial, Pires obtained images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, through a file share program called Limewire, which allows users to exchange image and video files for free.

This is why I stay clear of file-sharing sites like LimeWire. It is so easy to accidently download pornography, even child pornography. You never know what you actually are downloading. It could be pornography, viruses, copywritten music, or other dangerous files.

An Unfair Stigma?

Found a good blog at http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/.

On this blog, they have a good article on the impact of the Michigan SORB on offenders.

Job Loss

So, normally this blog is going to be used to post news stories that impact sex offenders. But today, I'd like to share news about myself.

I am employed at a nationally-known restaurant. I disclosed on my application that I do have a felony conviction on my record and that I was incarcerated. I never lie on my application. I just don't volunteer more information that they require.

So, I have been working there for about 2 months now. They love me there. I've been given extra responsibility. I'm basically the go-to guy in my department. I have more experience than any of my coworkers so I am always depended upon. But I also play it safe. I was laid off from my last job because I went for a promotion (which I would have gotten) and in the interview process they found out about my history. So I try not to look for advancement any more. At least at first.

Today I walk into work and my manager says he needs to speak to me. He says that a guest sent an e-mail to corporate and attached a news article about my case. So basically someone came into my job, saw me and recognized me, and complained that I am working there.

I am now suspended while the legal department investigates the situation. The only issue my GM brought up is whether there is any issue with the restaurant's liquor license (which there shouldn't be).

So, maybe I get my job back. Maybe I don't. But this is the second time in a row I have dealt with this situation. I don't know what to do to prevent it. I could start my own business, but that takes money. I just want to move on with my life but my past keeps holding me back.

Another issue people keep bringing up is whether these jobs have a right to fire me in these situations. I believe they do. Most part time jobs at employment-at-will which gives the employer the right to lay you off without giving a reason (also gives the employee the right to quit without giving a reason). There is no discrimination either. Felons are not a protected class like race, sex, etc. But if I am ultimately laid off from this job, I will be looking into it.

Supreme Court to Hear SO Case

I have to admit, this is the first time I have heard about this at all. It is 4 AM on New Year's Day so I don't have the ability to research it now, but I thought it was worth noting. If anyone has any information on the topic, feel free to comment!

From World Magazine

January 12: A day after the Supreme Court of the United States reconvenes from its winter break, the justices will hear arguments in United States v. Comstock. Justices must decide whether Congress overstretched its authority in passing the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, signed into law in 2006, to create a national sex offender registry.

Mixed Opinion

First of all, Happy New Year to all. This will be my first full year out of jail so I am looking forward to it. Even with the crime and SORB always impacting my life, I am gainfully employed with a productive life. Hopefully things can continue to improve in 2010. And to all those other SOs out there, just trying to do the right think, atone for the past, and be a productive member of society, God Speed.

I was reading this article about a SO with old charges coming back to haunt him (article). The article is a little confusing, but note that at the time of the crime, the accused was 15 and the victim was 13. My post isn't about the story itself. It's about the comments. It's good to see a healthy debate on a small-scale newspaper. Here are some good ones.

• Confusing post, so he was 15 when this happened? Can they really charge somebody for that? Why did it take 7 years to find this guy and why couldn't they find him at his place of residence or work? As noted above, all that info it on several government websites.
• 'Why did it take 7 years to find this guy and why couldn't they find him at his place of residence or work?' He was already charged with this crime, read the articles.
• Have to admit, these articles are all jumbled, doesn't even make sense, the public has the right to have the CORRECT information. Try writing this over MDN....
• Its sad when children of those ages say things and they don't know the consequences of their actions and people end up looking bad and having these charges on their records for the rest of their lives, people need to learn to fight for their rights, it's tough to do so when it's so expensive to fight for your innocence and some people just can't afford it.