tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35205599152673734292024-02-07T01:25:59.789-08:00Notes from the HandbasketWaiting for the Second Age of Reason.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.comBlogger423125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-74722934872432104642023-01-10T07:09:00.003-08:002023-01-10T13:31:35.913-08:00new—and continuing—danger for some US passport holders<p>The Frederick Douglass Bill failed to pass in Congress, which might be reason to celebrate if you read my earlier posts about this bill, <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2021/11/dangerous-amendment-to-international.html" target="_blank">dangerous amendment to International Megan's Law</a>, and <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2022/02/call-to-action-fight-back-against-iml.html" target="_blank">call to action: fight back against IML amendment</a>. Unfortunately, the section of the failed bill that would have expanded the reach of the sex offense registries was dropped into another bill that did pass.</p><p>My friend who has been tracking this issue writes again about the devastating impact of this legislation.</p><b></b><blockquote><b>Frederick Douglass Bill 'Fails' in Congress</b><br />Many people know the story of Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave who became a hero to his nation and his people. Some people also know his famous address, <a href="https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/speeches-african-american-history/1852-frederick-douglass-what-slave-fourth-july/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"</a> In that address Douglass lays bare the hypocrisy at the root of American virtue. That hypocrisy is alive and well today. </blockquote><blockquote>Not least because Frederick Douglass' name has been on a law to fight human trafficking. The descendants of Frederick Douglass came out in support of the bill (H.R. 6552) reauthorizing funds for this law. What they chose to overlook was an unrelated section placed in that bill which would make Frederick Douglass turn in his grave. </blockquote><blockquote>That section was numbered 201. It would have expanded International Megan's Law (IML), the law that brands people convicted of certain historic criminal offenses as dangerous individuals who need to be tracked to the far ends of the earth. It also would have expanded that law to track and brand individuals who already live outside the USA as well as non-US citizens from dozens of countries who fit the same general description as those Americans. </blockquote><blockquote>The reason for these provisions was said to be the need to combat sex tourism. But there is no evidence that any of the tracked people are sex tourists; a person who resides outside the USA is by definition not a tourist. A non-American in their own country is not a tourist. And Americans who have been convicted of the crime of sex tourism are already barred from being issued a passport. <b>What is really taking place is not an effective fight against sex tourism but instead the globalization of discrimination against a despised class of human beings.</b> These human beings are statistically no more dangerous than any other group of human beings. Just more despised. </blockquote><blockquote>Frederick Douglass was accustomed to this treatment. He was not issued a US passport when he applied for one because he was not considered a proper citizen. He was tracked as a fugitive slave. He was said to be dangerous, and people were warned to avoid him. He was also guilty of a sex crime, having decided to cohabit with and marry a woman of another race, which was against the law in many states. </blockquote><blockquote>The lead sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, is a persistent man. It took him almost a decade and many attempts to pass International Megan's Law. He finally succeeded in getting it passed by tying it to several uncontroversial, noble-sounding bills in 2016. </blockquote><blockquote>This time he failed to cross the finish line before the end of the Congressional session. His reauthorization bill passed the House during the summer with the offensive section 201 removed after many people rightly objected to it; but it died in the Senate. </blockquote><blockquote>However, the story does not end there. His allies in the Senate, Senators John Cornyn and Amy Klobuchar, both former prosecutors, succeeded in <b>resurrecting the language of section 201 in section 323 of another bill, S. 3946, also a human trafficking reauthorization act. </b></blockquote><blockquote><b>This change in the law means that the US State Department will now place "unique identifiers" on the passports of even more people.</b> These identifiers consist of language stating that the bearer of the passport was convicted for the sexual abuse of a minor: that is to say, a very broad category of felonies including not just serial rapists but also teenagers caught sexting, viewing pornography, or streaking. </blockquote><blockquote>No longer will this provision of the bill be meant for other countries to determine in advance whether a visiting American poses a danger to their citizens. <b>Americans already living in other countries will also have their passports marked with the warning.</b> It will not say how long ago their conviction occurred or provide any context, leaving it up to the viewer of the passport to imagine the worst; and to do whatever they like to the passport holder. </blockquote><blockquote>Section 323 of the bill also contains language that allows the Department of Homeland Security to share information from US sex offender registries with foreign governments in exchange for information about about "comparable" historic convictions. It does not state what will be done with this information, where and how long it will be kept, with whom it will be shared, how or even if it its accuracy will be checked. </blockquote><blockquote>Needless to say, laws and definitions vary greatly from country to country. Many countries, for example, criminalize same sex activity, or did in the past. <b>Will foreign governments give the names of LGBTQ+ persons to the US government and identify them as dangerous criminals with historic convictions?</b> If so, what will happen to them if they try to enter the USA, or if they're already living in the USA as law-abiding residents? Again, the bill does not say. </blockquote><blockquote>Finally, Section 323 of the bill oversteps the IML by placing these two provisions under other federal laws relating to human trafficking (William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008) and terrorism (Homeland Security Act of 2002). So Americans and others with sex convictions can relax: You are no longer sex tourists! Instead, now under federal law, you are human traffickers and/or terrorists. </blockquote><blockquote>Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar had more success than Representative Smith because their bill was not subject to any committee hearings or debate. Its text was not released until the final week of the session, when it landed on the floor of the Senate and then passed by a voice vote. The next day it went to the House, which passed it in the same way, just before Congress shut down for the year. </blockquote><blockquote>The one detail that appears to have been lost in all this shady legislating is the name of Frederick Douglass. </blockquote><blockquote>Why do such bills become law? It is easy to say that these measures are popular or that nobody wants to vote against them. But it's not that simple. S. 3946 had no co-sponsors besides the two Senators who wrote it. The bills usually pass quickly at the end of a session for a more perverse reason. The truth is that most legislators would rather not have much to do with them. They are promoted by a small, persistent minority of zealots who accede to having them buried in unrelated, uncontroversial legislation. This method is called embedding. For example, Senator Cornyn once hid an anti-abortion provision in a similar bill, and nearly succeeded in getting it passed. This method is not too different from what the notorious abuser Jimmy Savile did by hiding his own obsession in the plain sight of noble charity work. </blockquote><blockquote>Chris Smith is known for his championing of human rights. His service on human rights committees and caucuses, including heading the House's special task force on combating antisemitism, another commission named for a famous Holocaust survivor (Tom Lantos), and for many years the US Helsinki Commission (which was established to defend the freedom of movement), grant him credibility and facilitate the laundering of his hatreds, his prejudices, and his passions. </blockquote><blockquote>Smith comes from the same part of New Jersey as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who has said that "the United States should not be exporting its pedophile problems to other countries." But that is exactly what it is doing: the number of countries that now have sex offender registries has multiplied since the USA pioneered them. Both Alito and Smith (until recent redistricting) lived in the same town in which poor Megan Kanka, who gave her name to the IML, was murdered. </blockquote><blockquote>It is understandable to want vengeance for crimes. <b>But vengeance does not equate to justice. And collective punishment is never just. </b></blockquote><blockquote>To put it another way, quoting the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Smith v Doe (2003), such registry laws are "ambiguous in intent and punitive in effect." </blockquote><blockquote>It is not the inquisitors and the vengeful who are entirely to blame for injustice in this instance, however. It is the silent majority. <b>Complicit are the human rights organizations, the clergy, the media, the bureaucrats, and the many legislators who kept silent knowing the damage the IML and related laws have done and will continue to do to the lives of more and more people.</b> Once these provisions start extending their reach, they won't stop unless the silent majority speaks up and says, enough is enough. </blockquote><blockquote>The complicit also include the president who originally signed the IML into law, Barack Obama, who often spoke of having a dignity agenda; and the president who just signed S. 3946, Joe Biden. </blockquote><blockquote>They include the Douglass bill's original co-sponsor, Karen Bass, who is known to be a loyal friend of the LGBTQ+ community and who said, in defending the bill, that its aim is to "protect all of humanity equally." </blockquote><blockquote>They include the three cabinet secretaries whose departments enforce it and related laws: Homeland Security, Justice, and State. All three men have gone out of their way to link their commitment to public service with doing everything they can to prevent a recurrence of the injustice, collective punishment, and dehumanization suffered by members of their families at the hands of the Nazis. </blockquote><blockquote>They include the Senate Majority Leader, who plucked S. 3946 from obscurity for a last-minute vote; and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who did the same before he introduced its passage in the House. Both also happen to be prominent leaders of the Jewish-American community who generally speak up in favor of civil and human rights. </blockquote><blockquote>And they include the constituents of these politicians, such as the large community of Orthodox Jews living in Representative Smith's district who have voted reliably to keep him in office for more than four decades. </blockquote><blockquote>For good reason, Jewish people object to being compared to convicted criminals; but it is a historical fact that no other other country besides Nazi Germany has branded the passports of a despised class of its own citizens. Before the IML the only group of people who were singled out like this were Jews. It should make not just Jewish Americans but all Americans feel sick to their stomachs. </blockquote><blockquote>Yet, again, no major religious, civil or human rights organization has publicly resisted this policy affecting around a million US citizens, including juveniles guilty of nothing more than sending a selfie, and numerous others around the world who may not be guilty of anything at all under US law. None of the groups praising the State Department for recently incorporating a gender-neutral option for passports has criticized it for moving a special warning about illicit sex from the back to the front of the passport book. None of the groups whose members are now regularly praised for their courage and righteousness has spoken out against the same policies of dehumanization and discrimination that were once applied to them. </blockquote><blockquote><b>This is the same sort of hypocrisy, fear, and cowardice in the face of what are assumed to be insurmountable public attitudes which gives the bigots and oppressors of hated minorities their power and sustenance. </b></blockquote><blockquote>The inquisitors and their silent accomplices do not speak about such perverse ironies. But Frederick Douglass did. He said, in 1852, "The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a bye-word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes...." </blockquote><blockquote>The anchor was lifted in time, but not enough for Frederick Douglass' name later to be taken in vain. Chris Smith was just reelected. He can be expected to sponsor a good deal more legislation. [Emphasis throughout is mine.]</blockquote><p>The existence of sex offense registries makes it possible for our own government to put people at risk both at home and abroad. International Megan's Law makes it possible for foreign governments to do the same.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-38182688722693624442022-02-13T07:45:00.000-08:002022-02-13T07:45:36.800-08:00call to action: fight back against IML amendment <p>In November, I wrote about a <a href="http://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2021/11/dangerous-amendment-to-international.html" target="_blank">dangerous amendment to International Megan's Law</a> (IML) currently under consideration in Washington DC. A friend who is following the bill closely wrote me with his observations and a warning that this bill is likely to pass:</p>
<blockquote><p>Last week, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted to approve the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022. The vote was unanimous and no amendments were passed. There was no debate about the bill, apart from a brief discussion of its cost and a couple of unrelated matters.</p>
<p>It was the second version of the bill from this Congressional session. The first bill, H.R. 5150, was much longer and contained some good provisions. Several of them were removed from the second bill, H.R. 6552 -- notably one that made important allowances for juvenile victims of human trafficking who are convicted of crimes against their traffickers. </p>
<p>One other, not so good, section remained. It is section 201, which amends and redefines aspects of the International Megan's Law, and reauthorizes it for another five years. It applies the IML not only to people who anticipate foreign travel but also to people who already live in other countries. The US government will now notify other governments of the criminal records of these people, and it may revoke their passports because those passports do not have the special mark required by the IML. Previously, passports were revoked and marked domestically.</p>
<p>The amended IML also requires the US government to compile a list of all people with sex convictions from every country that is part of the US visa-waiver program. The bill does not specify what is to be done with this list, but it does authorize the US government to share the list of 'covered' US citizens with authorities in these countries.</p>
<p>The definitions of 'covered' in this bill are rather vague given the different legal systems in so many countries. There are several definitions of 'covered' in the IML itself. Such vagueness almost certainly will lead to mistakes which could be irreversible given the worldwide distribution of the new IML list. More than six dozen countries, for example, still outlaw same-sex activity. Many more have done in the past. Which means people around the world with such convictions may well be added to the list that the US government will probably use to deny entry and share with other countries for the same purpose.</p>
<p>That likelihood is worrisome for the victims of human trafficking this bill is meant to help. Some of them also probably have criminal convictions. Section 201 treats them no differently from the human traffickers who have exploited them.</p>
<p>There are multiple ironies worth noting. Perhaps the largest group of people with convictions for historic crimes that are no longer crimes in many US states and in many visa-free travel countries are members of the LGBTQ+ community. But at nearly the exact moment this bill was passed in committee, the US House of Representatives passed the Global RESPECT Act, which imposes sanctions on countries that do not respect LGBTQ+ rights. The floor manager of that Act was Congressman Gregory Meeks, the same person who chairs the Committee on Foreign Affairs which approved the Douglass bill. The RESPECT Act was sponsored by David Cicilline, also a member of the same committee.</p>
<p>Another irony has to do with the bill's being named for Frederick Douglass. If the IML had been in force during his lifetime, it most likely would have been applied to him. That is because he married a white woman who [at 45, was 21 years younger than he was]. This was a 'crime against nature' in many states, in other words, a sex offense. He was in any event still denied the use of a passport because the US government did not consider him to possess the full rights of a citizen.</p>
<p>Yet another irony is that this bill was passed by a Democratic-led committee. It will probably go on to be passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by a Democratic president. Yet the bill's lead sponsor was Republican Congressman Chris Smith, who has led a 40-year-long inquisition against various groups, including LGBTQ+ persons and the pro-choice movement. He has not always succeeded. He has succeeded in this instance because his bill does not directly name any of his usual targets (apart from people convicted of sex offenses), but there can be little doubt that many of them and their families will be entrapped by its vague provisions. </p>
<p>Finally, it is less ironic than perverse that Congressman Smith was just given an award by a group of Orthodox Jews for his service as co-chair of the US Congress's task force for combating anti-semitism; chaired for many years its Helsinki Commission for human rights; and today co-chairs the Tom Lantos human rights commission, named for a Holocaust survivor and famous champion of human rights around the world. Smith more than most people should be aware that the IML and registries in general bear a strong resemblance to historic campaigns of collective punishment, shaming, and dehumanization. Alas, because of the IML, the United States has joined Nazi Germany in making it official policy to single out a whole subset of its population for special marks on their passports. </p>
<p>No major US or international human rights organization, apart from the small handful working for registrants, spoke out publicly against this section of the bill. No major religious figure or group questioned its ethics. No politician condemned the obvious overreach, the vagueness, or the many likely unintended consequences of Section 201. So far as most people can tell, the US State Department and other parts of the US Government that will now be tasked with targeting US citizens and their families overseas, and with composing a list of foreigners to be updated twice per year, have not expressed any serious reservations about the legality or the rationale for these provisions. </p>
<p>The bill will probably now head to a vote in the full House and then in the Senate. As with the IML, that is likely to happen first by suspension of the rules and then by unanimous consent. The only difference this time may be with the president, who will probably celebrate the legislation visibly, unlike Barack Obama, who signed the IML quietly during a Congressional recess when he could have used his pocket veto to stop what will probably continue to be a long-term process of expanding the law's provisions and the minority groups it targets.</p></blockquote>
<p>It may be tempting to set this aside if you think it will not directly affect you. Without loud opposition, though, Congressmen like Chris Smith will be emboldened to continue trampling human rights. We must push back every time laws are proposed that will increase the reach of the registry.</p><p>How to do that?</p><p>Call, email, or send letters to your Senators and Representatives and ask them to vote against this bill. Identify your Congressional members and find their contact information by entering your address <a href="https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member" target="_blank">here</a>. Ask your family and friends to do the same. </p><p>Spread the word. Contact local, national, and international organizations that have a stake in this--registry reform, LGBTQ+ rights, criminal justice reform, racial and ethnic justice, human rights--and ask them to oppose the bill. Give them a link to this blog post so they can read about the bill. </p><p>Read my friend's letter again to see if you can identify an organization that ought to be aware. If you do not draw their attention to this bill, they may not have the opportunity to oppose it.</p><p>If this bill is passed, the United States government will put U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals at risk in foreign countries. Don't be fooled by the noble-sounding language about stopping human trafficking. People who were at one time convicted of sex offenses are not trafficking humans for sex or for labor. </p><p>A Venn diagram of human traffickers and people convicted of sex offenses would look about the same as a Venn diagram of human traffickers and people employed by Congress. </p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-48852476130500539562022-02-01T13:46:00.001-08:002022-02-01T13:46:41.629-08:00beware reformers who want to keep the registry<p>Florida Action Committee recently published an execrable piece on its website. The writers, identified as members of FAC, titled their piece "<a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/submission-by-two-fac-members/" target="_blank">Both Sides Now</a>," though they present only one side. </p><p>The two writers say they have found "several possible points of agreement with those who advocate for a [sex offense] registry." They make the weakest case possible against a registry by pointing out that most registrants do not repeat their offenses. From there, they launch a full-throated argument in favor a registry. So much for "both sides."</p><p>They say that "children need to be protected," that "there must be laws against the sexual abuse of children," that "society must end its exploitation of children..." Anodyne statements that do nothing to mitigate their intent to keep someone else--and someone else's family--on the registry. </p><p><i>"We need to particularly protect [children] from violent offenders and repeat offenders."</i> <br />This implies that repeat and violent offenders need to stay on the registry. We don't define violence; Legislators do. The same legislative bodies that have defined terms so that over a million people belong on the registry today will decide who belongs there in the future. </p><p><i>"If we return to the registry as it was first conceived—a private registry used only by law enforcement to track the most dangerous offenders—the likely harm to registrants and their families would be minimized." <br /></i>What would prevent this imaginary returned-to-virginity registry from morphing once again into what we have today? Absolutely nothing. The virginal registry these writers yearn for would still put registrants at risk for arrest for crimes that aren't crimes for anyone other than registrants, and all while providing no improvement of the public safety.</p><p><i>"We affirm that leaders should try to be concerned about all children, including the children of people on the registry." <br /></i>Rich irony, coming from writers who argue for the existence of the registry.</p><p><i>"We affirm the typical person on the registry."</i> <br />Again, sorting out Us from Them! Who will sort the typical from the atypical? The violent from the non-violent? No matter who sorts, they will be deciding that some families deserve whatever difficulty and torment the registry brings them. </p><p><i>We must resist the temptation to make laws on the basis of rare but extreme cases. <br /></i>The whole article is built on the basis of those extreme cases. The writers try to suck up to their dreamboat--the current registry regime--by reminding the dreamboat that there are worse people out there. </p><p>Make no mistake: the two writers are arguing to keep the registry in place. They are perfectly willing to have <i>you </i>on the registry as long as the people they approve of are not listed, and even though they would leave the registry in the hands of the entities that keep making registry laws harsher.</p><p>Abolish the registry, not because people convicted of sex offenses are special, but because registries violate the human right to be left alone by the state, no matter which crime--DUI, arson, sex offense, gun crime--requires them to register.</p><p>The registry is not a problem because it lists the <i>wrong</i> people; the registry causes problems because it lists <i>people</i>.</p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-17155173768085397362021-11-17T15:17:00.003-08:002022-02-06T12:28:40.384-08:00dangerous amendment to International Megan's Law <p>Tucked away in the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2021 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5150/text#toc-H42289978CAFA43F5A2ACF85A23052362" target="_blank">H.R. 5150</a>), you will find an amendment to International Megan's Law (IML). The 2016 IML set the requirement that some passport-holders on the sex offense registry must have an indicator in their passport showing that they are registrants and that they offended against a minor. </p><p>Current IML makes sure that the United States does what it can to throw unfounded suspicion upon its own citizens--suspicion of future crimes--as they travel to countries where that suspicion could put them in harm's way. This amendment will make sure that Americans who live in other countries where they are not required to register will be treated with that same suspicion; it will also collect names of <i>citizens of other countries</i> who have been convicted of sex offenses against minors.</p><p>Like the registry itself, which treats registrants as if they are ticking time bombs destined to commit more sex crimes, IML treats all registrants convicted of offenses against minors as if they are using travel to find more victims. That imagined danger puts Americans traveling abroad at risk of discrimination and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi" target="_blank">violence </a>when their passport makes known their history of a sex offense, and put them at risk in a country where they may not have legal protections they would have in the United States.</p><p>The Angel Watch Center (the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) is the entity that decides which people require the "sex offender" designation in their passport. It is also the entity that notifies other countries that a registrant is traveling to their country.</p><p>Under the innocuous label of "Information Sharing," the amendment will collect names of "convicted and registered sex offenders" from countries in the <a href="https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visa-waiver-program.html">visa waiver program.</a> In turn, the Angel Watch Center will share information with those countries "as appropriate" about citizens or nationals who are covered under IML. An American citizen or national living in another country where he is <i>not</i> on a sex offender registry, would be required to have a passport identifying him as a "sex offender."</p><p></p><blockquote>(E) BI-ANNUAL INFORMATION SHARING.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each October 1 and April 1 thereafter, the Center shall obtain from each country participating in the visa waiver program a list of covered sex offenders who are citizens or nationals of such countries. Such information shall be obtained to the extent feasible with respect to both convicted and registered sex offenders. The Center may reciprocate, as appropriate, with such information relating to covered sex offenders who are citizens or nationals of the United States.</blockquote><p></p><p>Notice that "convicted and registered sex offenders" could include people who would no longer need to register if they lived in the U.S. Does "convicted and registered" mean (a) people who have been convicted and then registered? Or does it mean (b) people who were convicted <i>and </i>people who are registered? If (b) is correct, someone who was convicted and has completed his registry duration could be included.</p><p>There is no further delineation of the responsibilities of Angel Watch for the information it would collect from other countries. How will the database of people convicted and registered for sexual offenses be used? What further requirements could be imposed on this large group of people, people from all countries in the visa waiver program? </p><p>This amendment to IML would expand the requirement for a "sex offender" designation even to those U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals living lawfully in foreign countries. A person not required to register in their country of residence would be required to have a passport with the "sex offender" indicator if that person would have to register if that person returned to live in the United States.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>Section 4(f)(2) of the International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (34 U.S.C. 21503(f)) is amended by inserting “or would have to register if the individual returned to that jurisdiction after departing it to reside outside the United States,” after “jurisdiction”. ...</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>A person may not be issued or reissued a passport without a unique identifier solely because the person has moved or otherwise resides outside the United States.</blockquote><p></p><p></p><p>It is beyond bizarre to add passport restrictions through a bill named after Frederick Douglass a former slave and a national leader in the abolitionist movement. Frederick Douglass was <a href="http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=15974" target="_blank">denied a passport</a> because, as a Black American, he was not considered an American citizen. Douglass fought for citizenship and all the rights thereof. This amendment would do the reverse by reducing the rights held by the people affected. Douglass wanted to travel with an American passport; IML would let people travel with a passport but make it dangerous to do so.</p><p>People who understand that registries must be abolished can take heart from Frederick Douglass:</p><p></p><blockquote><p><b>Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.</b></p><p></p></blockquote><p>We must stop submitting quietly to the sex offense registry and its burdensome requirements. We must stop following leaders who convince us they can make the registry a little more <i>comfortable</i> for us by making it law enforcement only or by reducing the numbers of people listed or by letting us live a bit closer to schools. </p><p>Frederick Douglass fought for the abolition of slavery and had something to say about those who tried to make slavery more comfortable:</p><p></p><blockquote>I have observed this in my experience of slavery,—<b>that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom</b>. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceased to be a man.</blockquote><p></p><p>It is not the conditions of the registry that are wrong; it is the registry itself and the idea that people can be listed because of lurid imaginings of what they might do in the future. When we talk to lawmakers, we must make it clear that the registry is unjust and it must be abolished before their own grandchildren are listed on it.</p><p><br /></p><p>New Jersey <a href="https://www.congress.gov/member/christopher-smith/S000522" target="_blank">Representative Christopher H. Smith</a> is the sponsor of this amendment just as he was the prime sponsor for International Megan's Law. Contact information for Smith is at the link if you want to discuss this amendment with him or his staff.</p><p><a href="https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative" target="_blank">Contact your own Representative in Washington D.C.</a> to register your opposition to this amendment.</p><p><br /></p><p>For reference:<br /><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/21503#" target="_blank">Current International Megan's Law</a></p><p><br /></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-27159140397480555842021-09-16T07:25:00.000-07:002021-09-16T07:25:25.629-07:00Apple wants to protect the children...but is that what would happen?<p>A couple of months ago, Apple announced <a href="https://www.apple.com/child-safety/" target="_blank">Expanded Protections for Children</a>*:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Apple is introducing new child safety features in three areas, developed in collaboration with child safety experts. First, new communication tools will enable parents to play a more informed role in helping their children navigate communication online. The Messages app will use on-device machine learning to warn about sensitive content, while keeping private communications unreadable by Apple.</p><p><i>Next, iOS and iPadOS will use new applications of cryptography to help limit the spread of CSAM [Child Sexual Abuse Material] online, while designing for user privacy. CSAM detection will help Apple provide valuable information to law enforcement on collections of CSAM in iCloud Photos.</i></p><p>Finally, updates to Siri and Search provide parents and children expanded information and help if they encounter unsafe situations. Siri and Search will also intervene when users try to search for CSAM-related topics.</p><p>These features are coming later this year in updates to iOS 15, iPadOS 15, watchOS 8, and macOS Monterey. [Emphasis added.]</p></blockquote><p>A footnote indicates the the new features will be available in the U.S. </p><p>The protective feature that interests me most is the one that intends to limit the spread of CSAM. You can read many different interpretations of the technical ins and outs but the question I want to think about is not technical: <b>Will it protect children?</b></p><p>People eager to punish those who look at illegal images will be happy. Those with collections above an unspecified "threshold" amount should worry that they will be discovered.</p><p>Collections? Yes. Apple cryptography will be looking at images on Apple devices, deciding if they include CSAM, and then deciding if the collection of images includes enough to report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). How many is enough? Your guess is as good as mine because Apple does not say.</p><p>To determine if an image is CSAM, Apple will see if any of the images on the device match images already in the NCMEC database of images. </p><p>Let me restate that. Apple will identify images that have already been identified by NCMEC as CSAM. Those images might be of children who were abused at the time the image was created. <b>This offers no protection for kids who are <i>currently</i> being abused.</b> If an abuser is recording the abuse and uploading it to the internet for other viewers, those images will not be identified as CSAM because new images are not in the NCMEC database yet.</p><p>If <i>I</i> am able to figure out that new images are not going to be discovered and reported (yet), so can people who want to distribute child porn. Where will those new images come from? Is Apple inadvertently encouraging the production of new images? </p><p>The NCMEC database makes possible arrests of people who look at those images, not of the people who are abusing children and recording the abuse. The distinction is important if you care about protecting children who are being abused. </p><p>Unfortunately for those children, the focus is on arresting the viewers and not the abusers. Arresting, convicting, and punishing people who look at existing images does not protect children who want the abuse to stop.</p><p>If you want to be picky about it, the broad label of "CSAM" includes anything that is considered child pornography and many, if not most, of those images are not of children being abused. A revealing image uploaded by a minor can be distributed to viewers beyond the intended audience. Once that image is noticed by NCMEC, it will forever be tagged as CSAM, even though there was no sexual abuse involved. </p><p>Back to the question: How does this protect children?</p><p>Since sexting is done with cell phones and millions of kids use them, how many sexting images of underage kids will be sent to NCMEC by mandatory reporters? How many arrests of teens will result? Are those kids protected? Their actions may have been foolish but should they be criminal? </p><p>If we can agree that dumping kids into the criminal justice system for sexting is a bad idea, why is it a good idea to arrest adults for looking at those images? How does that protect children who are being abused?</p><p>When someone is arrested for possessing, receiving, or distributing child porn, the images remain available on the internet just as they were before the arrest. How does that protect children who are in the images of actual sexual abuse? Sending the arrested person to prison for looking at illegal images gives law enforcement something to boast about and something for people to feel good about (<i>bad guy goes to prison!</i>) but it protects no one. The arrest and incarceration of viewers have no effect on the child in the image.</p><p>The biggest thing to remember is that new images, perhaps of current, on-going abuse, will not be found via the Apple cryptography exercise. Kids who are being abused get nothing from the theater of child porn arrests. Do not let this news from Apple fool you into thinking that children are protected by their plans to scan devices for CSAM.</p><p>People are horrified by the suggestion, but what would happen if it were legal to view child porn? More people would see those images. Many would condemn the idea for that reason alone. The idea that someone could look at the images is so abhorrent that people stop thinking at that point. They insist no one should be able to see these images--but for a child who has been recorded during sexual abuse, a larger audience could be the key to exposing the abuser. As it is now, it would be nearly impossible for a person to come forward to identify children or abusers in the images, because that report would include an admission of committing the crime of <i>looking at child porn. </i>What is seen in child porn stays in child porn.</p><p>Parents who discover that pornographic images of their children have been uploaded to the internet have no way to <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2013/10/when-embarrassing-pictures-go-viral.html" target="_blank">track down those images</a>, no way to ask for the images to be removed from web servers. Simply searching for those images could result in arrest and incarceration. </p><p>Apple may have good intentions of stopping people from looking at child porn but we must recognize that arresting a viewer is not the same as protecting children. Children are not protected when it is illegal to see <i>images that prove abuse</i>.</p><p>Protecting children from sexual abuse is imperative. Arresting people who look at child porn is not protection from abusers. It is sound and fury, signifying nothing in the battle against child sexual abuse.</p><p>When we hear that an individual, a company, an organization wants to <i>protect the children</i>, we must stop to examine their actions and the effect of those actions on children who need protection. Making images illegal when those very images could prove abuse does not protect the children. Driving images of child abuse further underground makes new images more valuable and that does not protect the children.</p><p>Apple might mean well but they have bought into the idea that punishing people for looking at a certain category of images will protect children. Like so many others, they are promoting the idea that looking at images of abuse is worse than the abuse itself.</p><p>Let's keep our priorities straight.</p><p><br /></p><p>* A note has been added to this article: </p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>Update as of September 3, 2021: Previously we announced plans for features intended to help protect children from predators who use communication tools to recruit and exploit them and to help limit the spread of Child Sexual Abuse Material. Based on feedback from customers, advocacy groups, researchers, and others, we have decided to take additional time over the coming months to collect input and make improvements before releasing these critically important child safety features.</i></blockquote><p></p><p></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-16398607846920176242021-05-10T06:26:00.000-07:002021-05-10T06:26:50.392-07:00pro-registry forces have a secret weapon<p>When I first started using the hashtag abolishtheregistry on Twitter, more than one person sent messages telling me to stop doing that. Asking to end the registry altogether would damage the cause, I was told. The incremental approach was the only way to go, they said.</p><p><b>It turns out that the pro-registry forces have a secret weapon and <i>the registry community</i> itself is that secret weapon. </b></p><p>We know the registry is a brutal attack on the freedom of law-abiding people and yet registry reformers don't ask to abolish the registry. They hope for incremental change. They try to find changes that a legislator might be able to slide unnoticed and unchallenged past his or her colleagues. They wait for the triumph of the ideal lawsuit.</p><p>The incremental approach hasn't brought us much in the way of increments that improve the lives of registrants. Legislatures, though, continue their own incremental approach of adding new crimes to the list of registrable offenses. </p><p>The registry has become so punitive that registrants would do just about anything to get off the list. Legislators have a lot of people who come to them with reasons why <i>they </i>don't belong on the registry. </p><p><i>If we could keep just the dangerous people on the registry, that would be so much better.</i></p><p>True, it would be better...but not for the people left on the registry. For them, nothing has changed except that the registry reformers have now pointed them out as the dangerous ones. It isn't as if an evidence-based risk assessment decides who the dangerous people are; legislators decide that your crime belongs on the list of dangerous or violent offenders. If your crime isn't on the list now, stick around because it could easily be added.</p><p>It is worth looking at <a href="https://reason.com/2018/09/07/house-passes-bill-that-would-reclassify/" target="_blank">HR 6691</a>, passed by the House of Representatives, though not by the Senate, in 2018. The bill would reclassify some crimes currently considered non-violent as violent. People who think their crime is obviously non-violent need to consider how easily legislators can move that crime to the "violent" column. See also the California registry changes, below. </p><p>If you are in a state that does rely on risk assessments, how is that working? Are those assessments used to remove people from the registry...or are they used to keep people <i>on </i>the registry?</p><p><b>Secret weapon: </b>Arguing to keep the really dangerous people on the registry is arguing for the registry.<b> </b></p><p>Look at California, where registry reform has been much ballyhooed. In California, every registrant used to be on the list for life. Now <a href="https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-sb-384-lifetime-sex-offender-registration-system/" target="_blank">registrants are assigned to tiers</a>...and those tier assignments cannot be understood. There is no way to look at the decision to put people convicted of child pornography crimes on the registry for life--on tier 3 with the "high risk" offenders--without seeing that the decision was completely arbitrary. The winning reform for some came at the expense of other registrants. </p><p>Tier 1 and 2 registrants will need to petition for removal from the registry, so even the "winners" of the California reform may not win in the end. The reformers were able to move California from all-lifetime registration to a tiered system by sacrificing some registrants to tier 3. </p><p>We saw something similar in Florida where criminal justice reformers were able to <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2018/11/when-incremental-change-is-not.html" target="_blank">return the right to vote to 1.4 million people with felony records</a>. How did they pull that off? They allowed people convicted of sex crimes or murder to be excluded.</p><p><b>Secret weapon: </b>Arguing for a tiered registry is arguing for the registry. </p><p><i>If we could make the registry law-enforcement only, that would mean I could get a job and an apartment more easily.</i></p><p>Yes, that is true but law enforcement would still be at the door of your home for compliance checks and still arrest you for violating laws that apply to no one except registrants. Who else gets arrested for <a href="https://www.kfvs12.com/story/7901628/sex-offender-arrested-for-living-too-close-to-school/" target="_blank">living too near a school</a>? Who else gets arrested for <a href="https://www.elizabethton.com/2015/10/20/sex-offender-charged-after-police-say-he-visited-a-city-park/" target="_blank">visiting a city park</a>? Or for not notifying the registry office of a <a href="https://wbng.com/2021/01/22/sex-offender-arrested-for-failing-to-register-new-address-in-tioga-county/" target="_blank">new address</a> or a change in <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/crime/article/Convicted-sex-offender-arrested-after-failing-to-13249455.php" target="_blank">vehicle information</a>? Making the registry visible only to law enforcement does nothing to ease the years, decades, or lifetime at risk of arrest faced by registrants, the risk of misunderstanding a law, of not knowing about a city ordinance or a law in another jurisdiction and paying for it with fines or prison time.</p><p><b>Secret weapon: </b>Arguing for a law-enforcement-only registry is arguing for the registry.</p><p><i>One of these days, we will have a lawsuit that will bring the registry crashing down!</i></p><p>Maybe. Legal teams work long and hard to bring lasting change. Attacking the registry with lawsuits has brought some success in eliminating residence restrictions but it hasn't ended the registry anywhere. Not even in states where the registry has been found unconstitutional. <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/02/house-oks-court-ordered-changes-michigans-sex-offender-registry/3793818001/" target="_blank">Michigan still has a registry.</a> <a href="https://lawweekcolorado.com/article/10th-circuit-colorados-sex-offender-registry-is-not-punishment/" target="_blank">Colorado still has a registry.</a><br /></p><p><b>Secret weapon: </b>Waiting for the ideal lawsuit to save us is surrendering to the registry.</p><p><i>Demanding to abolish the registry may not work, either!</i></p><p>All too true. We might end up with incremental changes. We would still cherish our hope for a magical lawsuit. The difference is that we would be asking for what is right. We would be asking for change that would improve the life of every registrant. We would make our end goal known. We would put our opponents on notice.</p><p>We would stop acting as the secret weapon for our opponents.</p><p>Saying it aloud lets others begin to consider the possibility. Saying it aloud makes it worth thinking about. Asking to abolish the registry could begin a conversation about why we have a registry at all.</p><p>Martin Luther King did not work toward incremental improvements to life under Jim Crow; he demanded an end to Jim Crow laws. We need to be just as bold and relentless.</p><p><a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2019/06/be-more-visible-in-other-reform-efforts.html" target="_blank">The registrant community needs to be seen and heard in larger reform efforts.</a> We must stop talking to <i>each other</i> about how bad the registry is and talk to people outside our little community. We must recognize that the sex offender registry is only one part of a terribly flawed criminal legal system. We are not the only people suffering.</p><p>We will not abolish the registry until our fight becomes part of the larger fight for criminal justice reform. To do that, we need to be clear about our goal and clear about why that is our goal.</p><p>Abolish the registry because it puts registrant families at risk of harassment and vigilante violence.<br />Abolish the registry because one punishment for a crime is more than enough.<br />Abolish the registry because it results in unemployment and homelessness.<br />Abolish the registry because it doesn't protect the community.<br />Abolish the registry because it encourages irrational fear.<br />Abolish the registry because it is an attack on liberty.</p><p>Abolish the registry.</p><p>If we don't say it, who will?</p><div><br /></div><p><br /></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-12218224977993687352021-04-18T12:24:00.000-07:002021-04-18T12:24:21.325-07:00killer of registrant pleads no contest to second degree murder<p>James Fairbanks, who crowed loud and long that he had killed Mattieo Condoluci in May 2020 because Condoluci was on the sex offense registry, has pleaded no contest to second degree murder.</p><p><a href="https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/vigilante-won-t-fight-murder-charge-for-shooting-sex-offender-7-times/article_a7ff9d50-9e1b-11eb-a994-4ffd73a14c2f.html" target="_blank">Todd Cooper writes in the Omaha World-Herald</a>:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>...Fairbanks and his attorney, Steve Lefler, contemplated a self-defense claim up until minutes before the 44-year-old Omaha man pleaded no contest Thursday to second-degree murder and a gun charge. They said Condoluci had charged the armed Fairbanks after he showed up at Condoluci’s house to warn him to stay away from kids.</p><p>Prosecutor Brenda Beadle, the chief deputy Douglas County attorney, called the self-defense assertion “comical.” She noted that Condoluci had no idea that a gunman would come to his door the night of May 14 and had not had any prior contact nor conflict with Fairbanks. Beadle and fellow prosecutor Ryan Lindberg suggested that Fairbanks was hunting sex offenders with the rifle he had bought earlier that year.</p><p>Before the killing, prosecutors say, Fairbanks:</p><p>Googled whether Nebraska’s death row offers a commissary. He researched stories of other men who had killed sex offenders and what their penalties were.</p><p>Sought to find out whether a gunshot alert system — Shotspotter — could detect the sounds of shots from inside a home. And he researched legal definitions of second-degree murder vs. self-defense.</p><p>Mapped out a path to the home of another sex offender.</p></blockquote><p>The <i>only </i>thing "comical" about this case, is the idea that Fairbanks was defending himself. He announced that he had intended to kill Condoluci in an <a href="https://omaha.com/news/crime/authorities-think-man-arrested-in-omaha-homicide-wrote-the-email-claiming-responsibility/article_d8f7b35e-3d1e-573e-b381-2414f2fd4c08.html" target="_blank">email to media outlets</a>. You can read the details of the case in my May 19, 2020 blog post, <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2020/05/omaha-man-murdered-because-he-was-on.html" target="_blank">Omaha registrant murdered</a>.</p><p>In <a href="https://omaha.com/news/crime/omaha-man-says-killing-sex-offender-was-justified-and-doesnt-think-a-jury-will-convict/article_c7954562-744b-56a1-9f69-b6fae594b4eb.html" target="_blank">jailhouse interviews</a> with the press during the spring of 2020, probably after conversations with his defense attorney, Fairbanks tried to turn his story into one of self defense. </p><p>Cooper continues:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Beadle said the killing was planned. She said Omaha police detectives found evidence that Fairbanks had searched for another sex offender, even mapping out a route to his house, before homing in on Condoluci.</p><p>Beadle acknowledged that Condoluci, with his prior convictions and his history as an enforcer in motorcycle gangs, was “not the most sympathetic victim.”</p><p>“But (Fairbanks) doesn’t get to be the judge, jury and executioner,” she said. “There are a lot of criminals in the world. You don’t get to confront them and then try to claim self-defense. Especially when you do all this research on someone a week before you murder them.”</p></blockquote><p>Fairbanks was able to avoid a possible death penalty by pleading to second degree murder. </p><p></p><blockquote><p>Beadle said the plea bargain eliminates any appeals — and any risk that a jury or juror would vote to acquit Fairbanks. It also gives an ample range of possible prison time — 21 years to life — when the judge sentences Fairbanks in July, Beadle said. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>Shuffling out of the courtroom in leg irons, Fairbanks told a World-Herald reporter that he regrets “what he put his family through.” Fairbanks has two young sons, and had worked as a paraprofessional in the Omaha Public Schools.</p><p>“I have many regrets,” he said.</p><p>Does he regret killing Condoluci?</p><p>“I do,” he said.</p><p>Asked if it was because he had abandoned his own children or because he killed a man, Fairbanks said, “I’ll have to think about it.”</p></blockquote><p>Nebraska legislators carry a large share of the blame for Condoluci's murder because the Legislature is the body that put the registry in place. In 2009, they voted to make names, faces, and addresses easily available to the public--easily available to someone like Fairbanks who wants to hunt for registrants.</p><p>The killing of Mattieo Condoluci made it abundantly clear that registrants have been telling the truth: the registry puts registrants and their families at risk.</p><p>Does the Legislature regret making it easy for Fairbanks to target his victim? </p><p>Given their lack of action in the 2021 legislative session to mitigate the effects of the registry, the answer seems to be clear.</p><p>As clear as Fairbanks' lack of remorse.</p><p></p><p></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-74706047385924600242021-03-13T10:07:00.007-08:002022-06-14T07:30:12.827-07:00drumming up fear in Nebraska<p>A <a href=" https://nebraska.tv/news/local/school-placed-in-lock-out-during-sex-offender-investigation" target="_blank">story from KHGI </a>in Nebraska shows what happens when we put people on a registry. People begin to believe that registrants are likely to do the unthinkable.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>GENOA, Neb. — Twin River Public Schools was briefly placed in “lock out” Tuesday while the Nance County Sheriff’s Office measured the distance between the residence of a recently-registered sex offender and the school.</p></blockquote><p>The school was locked out to protect kids from...tape measures?</p><blockquote><p>In a Facebook post, the sheriff’s office said 27-year-old George Kelly registered at the Nebraska State Patrol office in Norfolk and listed a Genoa address. NSP explained to Kelly that he could not live within 500 feet of a school or childcare facility per Nebraska statute.</p></blockquote><p>The Nebraska statute does not say that. Instead, it puts a limit on the residence restrictions cities, towns, and villages can apply. The restrictions can be no more than 500 feet from a school or child care facility and can apply only to those who fit the statutory definition of a sexual predator. Each city has to have its own ordinance if it wants residence restrictions for people on the registry.</p><p>The Genoa city ordinances are not available online.</p><p>In comments on the Nance County Sheriff's Office Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/321809631670704/posts/1080756612442665/" target="_blank">post </a>about this story, the city clerk said it was ordinance 3-502. When asked, the librarian at the Genoa Public Library provided the same ordinance number but said, "...we were not able to get a physical copy of the ordinance..." </p><p>Maybe there is an ordinance, maybe there isn't.</p><p>If the ordinances are not available online and if a physical copy cannot be easily obtained even by the city librarian and if the Nebraska State Patrol provides incorrect information, <b>how can George Kelly be held responsible for not knowing?</b></p><p>Even when there is an ordinance, its validity may not be clear. Nebraska changed from a risk-based registry in 2010 to one based on which crime was committed. If a city ordinance is still based on those pre-2010 risk levels, the ordinance may be void. </p><p>Back to the KHGI story and those terrifying tape measures:</p><blockquote><p>Due to the proximity of the residence to the school, it was agreed upon to put the school in a "lock out" status, which kept students inside the building and kept outside visitors out of the building.</p><p>The Sheriff's Department measured the distance between the two properties and discovered that the distance was 237 feet, well within the 500 feet limit. Kelly agreed to immediately leave the property and register in another county. Kelly left, and the school returned to normal status.</p></blockquote><p>There was no need to put the school in "lock out" and yet the decision was made to do that. The very fact that there is a registry encourages the idea that registrants are dangerous. <i>Why would those people have to register if they are not dangerous??</i></p><p>Why, indeed.</p><p>Paying attention to news stories about arrests for sex crimes is educational. There are far, far more news stories about first-time offenders being arrested than about people on the registry being arrested.</p><p>Locking the kids inside with other teenagers puts them in arguably more danger of sexual assault than letting them outside where a man who just completed his prison sentence for his crimes is waiting to see if he is allowed to be there. About a third of sex offenses <i>against</i> minors are committed <i>by </i>minors. </p><p>Instead, officials agreed to pretend that there was a danger outside, and the news reporter went along with that pretense.</p><p>Perpetuating the belief that registrants are dangerous is not inconsequential. Ask the family whose house is vandalized because their address is on the registry. Ask any number of registrants who have been attacked because their addresses are on the registry. If only we could ask those who have been <a href="https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/" target="_blank">murdered</a>--including Nebraska's own <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2020/05/omaha-man-murdered-because-he-was-on.html" target="_blank">Mattieo Condoluci</a>--because their addresses were on the registry.</p><p>The next arrest for a sex offense in your community is most likely to be of someone not on the registry. Drumming up fear of registrants will not change that. </p><p>Neither will making them homeless.</p><p></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-14710810854266179302020-10-06T10:03:00.001-07:002020-10-06T10:06:17.645-07:00ATSA is sympathetic but recommends more of the same for registrants<p>The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) recently published<a href="https://www.atsa.com/policy-papers/adultsorn" target="_blank"> recommendations that registry laws be based on current research</a>. The registry community is rightly excited to hear that because we know that the data are on our side: the registry makes no one safer. We know that the incidence of sexual offenses has neither stopped nor slowed since the introduction of publishing registries online.</p><p>Under Conclusions and Recommendations, ATSA tells us what we already know:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>If ATSA is paying attention to current research, that has to be good. If only they had stopped there but ATSA continues:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Based upon current knowledge and research, ATSA offers the following recommendations for evidence-based registration reforms:</p><p>• Discontinue one-size-fits all approaches for the registration and notification of individuals convicted of sexual crimes;</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>• Individualize registration and notification requirements based upon empirically validated risk assessment tools and similar methods;</p></blockquote><p>They are correct that one size fits all is not a good approach. Swapping that practice for individual assessments, though, is going to open the door to peddlers of assessment tools and to law enforcement adopting a single assessment tool to evaluate all registrants. Assessments will be used to <i>put people on the registry</i>, not to release them. Am I jumping to conclusions here? Yes, but prove me wrong. In states that use individual assessments, how many people are <i>released</i> from the registry based on those assessments? </p><blockquote><p>• Develop avenues and criteria for relief from registration which incorporates the desistance literature and recognizes the importance of treatment and supervision interventions for reducing recidivism risk, facilitating desistance and strengthening protective factors;</p></blockquote><p>ATSA notes that housing, employment, and relationships all help with desistance. So why is ATSA not recommending that sex offense registries--the <i>reason </i>registrants have trouble finding housing, employment and building relationships--be ended altogether?</p><blockquote><p>• Limit public community notification practices to the highest risk registrants, decrease broad-based dissemination of registrant information and/or re-establish law enforcement only registration practices coupled with allowing public inquiry about specific individuals;</p></blockquote><p>How do we identify the highest risk registrants? The study used in the ATSA document used the Static 99R to pick them out. This is the same Static 99R that has come under heavy <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6787&context=nclr" target="_blank">criticism</a> for inadequacies in predicting future risk of an individual and for scoring that doesn't reflect how a person has changed, among other concerns. No matter which assessment tool is used, there is a risk in getting it wrong. When getting it wrong affects a person's liberty interest--will he be stuck on the registry for 15 years or for life?--an inadequate assessment tool cannot be trusted. </p><blockquote><p>• Remove adjunct policies, such as residence restrictions, from SORN laws as they do not work and are one of the primary drivers for legal challenges. Adjunct policies also undermine protective factors and create unnecessary barriers for community reintegration;</p></blockquote><p>If only the rest of the recommendations were so clearly spoken, right? But if residence restrictions create <i>unnecessary barriers for community reintegration</i>, what does ATSA think the registry itself does? Is there such a thing as <i>necessary</i> barriers to reentry?</p><blockquote><p>• Recognize that a national one-size-fits all approach to SORN laws does not work within the U.S. and allow states to make adjustments to their registries based on individual needs without incurring any financial penalty;</p></blockquote><p>This is a solid recommendation. </p><blockquote><p>• Utilize registration as part of a larger management scheme for adults convicted of sexual crimes, with greater collaboration and focus on rehabilitative and reintegration efforts;</p></blockquote><p>And we're back to looking at this group of people--those convicted of sex crimes--as people who need <i>management</i>. The group with a very low rate of re-offense is not a group that needs management.</p><blockquote><p>• Enhance SORN information for law enforcement purposes, including steps to ensure the accuracy of the information and strengthening tracking of registrants moving between jurisdictions; and </p></blockquote><p>Why? Does research show that registrants who move between jurisdictions commit more sex offenses? Ensuring the accuracy of information on a registry will not make it better. If <i>ensuring accuracy</i> means more people are arrested for registry violations, that is not an improvement.</p><blockquote><p>• Strengthen partnerships between law enforcement and sexual offense specific management professionals, including treatment professionals.</p></blockquote><p>Treatment professionals who have strong partnerships with law enforcement are likely to find themselves distrusted by the very group they hope to...to <i>what</i>? What does ATSA hope for? </p><p>Does it want to keep registrants coming back for therapy? Good therapy would be the answer for that, not keeping registrants subject to a regime that mandates therapy provided by therapists (ATSA members?) answerable to probation or parole instead of to the registrants themselves. </p><p>Does ATSA want to keep registrants under the thumb of law enforcement even though re-offense rates are very low? The registry keeps registrants vulnerable to arrest for violating laws that apply only to those on the registry. Does ATSA hope that more registrants will return to prison for forgetting to notify law enforcement that, for example, they bought or sold a car?</p><p>Does it want to keep that group under the thumb of law enforcement even though re-offense rates are very low and were very low even before we had registries?</p><p>Remember that ATSA said, </p><p></p><blockquote>The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required. </blockquote><p></p><p>...and yet ATSA wants to keep the registry in place. Why?</p><p>ATSA needs courage to do what it recommends: Heed the current research. Keeping the registry in place is not <i>meaningful legislative reform</i>.</p><p>Abolish the registry.</p><p><br /></p><p>In 2013, I wrote about <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2013/09/protecting-integrity-of-psychiatry.html" target="_blank">protecting the integrity of psychiatry</a>.</p><p></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-9086714384043793092020-09-24T08:16:00.000-07:002020-09-24T08:16:23.532-07:00suggestions for comments on the SORNA rule changes<p><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/13/2020-15804/registration-requirements-under-the-sex-offender-registration-and-notification-act" target="_blank">Go here to comment</a> on the changes to the SORNA rules proposed by Attorney General Barr. Comments can be submitted until <b>midnight ET, October 13, 2020</b>. See my earlier analysis of the changes <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2020/09/changes-proposed-for-sorna-rules.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>When composing your comments, address the proposed changes specifically. Consider the suggestions below.</p><p><b>1. States vs. Federal Government</b><br />The changes will be used to push states into full compliance with SORNA. In our comments, we can respond to the suggestion to bypass state legislatures in the push to increase federal involvement in registry violations. Federal bureaucrats, accountable to no one, should not be able to foist changes on state laws, especially when the new regulations create new ways to deprive people of their liberty.</p><p><b>2. Public Safety</b><br />Because the proposal pretends to be concerned about public safety, respond to that. What do these changes have to do with public safety? If the Attorney General used evidence-based studies about the behavior of registrants when writing the new rules, the studies are not mentioned in 93-page document. </p><p><b>3. Additional Reporting Requirements</b><br />The changes would add to the list of items SORNA requires to be reported within three days (remote communication identifiers, temporary lodging--being away from your registered home address for more than seven days, vehicle sale/purchase), so we can respond to that. Remember that for many, if not most, registrants, traveling to the registry office requires taking time off work. If current reporting requirements cause problems for registrants, additional requirements will not help. If current reporting requirements have no effect on public safety and no effect on the incidence of sex crimes, additional requirements will not help.</p><blockquote><p>72.7(e) Reporting of changes in information relating to remote communication identifiers, temporary lodging, and vehicles. A sex offender must report within three business days to his residence jurisdiction (by whatever means the jurisdiction allows) any change in remote communication identifier information, as described in § 72.6(b), temporary lodging information, as described in § 72.6(c)(2), and any change in vehicle information, as described in § 72.6(f).</p></blockquote><p>Reporting those additional items--in <i>any</i> time frame--have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with controlling a group of people who lead law-abiding lives. </p><p><b>4. Reasons behind Changing the Rules</b><br />Target the reasons for the changes. The reasons come down to <i>because sex offenders might do something </i>(use telephones to lure victims, for example), not because they have evidence that this is something that happens with any frequency. </p><p>The rule governing International Megan's Law uses despicable reasoning like this to justify the DOJ reporting a person's international travel plans to INTERPOL and to other foreign law enforcement agencies: </p><blockquote><p>... for a sex offender disposed to reoffend, it may be attractive to travel to foreign countries where law enforcement is weaker (or perceived to be weaker), where sexually trafficked children or other vulnerable victims may be more readily available</p></blockquote><p>It is unacceptable for the US government to put US citizens in danger by identifying them as suspect individuals to foreign governments when wild imagination is the only reason to suspect an intended crime. Comment on the awfulness of IML if you'd like but a more effective comment will focus on the specious reasoning throughout the proposed rules change document.</p><p><i>Imagining </i>that people on the registry are plotting to commit more sex crimes does not make it true.</p><p>The document is weighted down with paragraph after paragraph explaining why the AG has the authority to impose these rules. Those explanations can be summed up as "we are doing this because we can." Because this court decision said it isn't punishment, the government can do what it wants. Because another court decision said it isn't bad to require email addresses, the government can do what it wants. There is nothing in the proposed rule document that refers to research on the effectiveness of registration. No research was used in building that document other than finding court cases that say the government can do this. </p><p>Watching this process underlines how easily the government can devise new ways to put our liberty at risk. Remember that the next time you think we should put the government in charge of something.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>More analysis of the proposed changes:</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://all4consolaws.org/2020/09/proposed-sorna-regulations-would-add-uncertainty-to-registrants-lives/" target="_blank">Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws</a></li><li><a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/a-summary-of-the-proposed-justice-department-changes-to-sorna/">Florida Action Committee</a></li><li><a href="https://parsol.org/fed-dept-of-justice-wants-to-dictate-state-laws-comments-needed/" target="_blank">Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</a></li></ul>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-41326578235543509132020-09-19T14:42:00.006-07:002020-09-26T10:07:10.627-07:00changes proposed for SORNA rules<div>On Twitter, @CrimeADay estimates that it will take hundreds of years to tweet one federal crime each day. That estimate does not include any additional crimes that are being added and will continue to be added to the federal code.</div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Today, <a href="https://twitter.com/CrimeADay?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CrimeADay</a> has tweeted one federal crime every day for five years. In 1790, it would have taken under a month to count them all at that rate. It's going to take just a little bit longer today, but I'm getting there: <a href="https://t.co/rc9i4hxxYH">pic.twitter.com/rc9i4hxxYH</a></p>— A Crime a Day (@CrimeADay) <a href="https://twitter.com/CrimeADay/status/1151649731120156672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Federal government bureaucracies are the powerful but quiet engine behind federal laws. Those bureaucracies can--and do--create laws without going through the arduous legislative process in which our elected Senators and Congressmen serve as our voice. We have no voice in the bureaucratic process except for an opportunity to comment on proposed changes.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/13/2020-15804/registration-requirements-under-the-sex-offender-registration-and-notification-act#h-9" target="_blank">You can comment on the proposed SORNA rules changes until midnight ET October 13, 2020.</a> Instructions on that webpage (starting <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-7" target="_blank">here</a>) provide information about the comment process. <b>It is important to read those instructions before leaving a comment.</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>At the time this blogpost was written, only 370 comments had been submitted. Given the nearly million people on sex offense registries across the country and the serious effect these federal rules may have on their states, more comments are necessary. To see the proposed rules as well as current laws, rules and guidelines, the links to resources at the bottom of this post may be helpful.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Registry laws vary from state to state and none of the state laws match SORNA exactly. Some of the registry laws in your state may be better or worse than what SORNA laid out for us but your state laws are still the laws that you need to follow. </div><div><br /></div><div>The proposed changes raise questions about why the Attorney General thought it necessary to expand federal rules expressed in 400 words to a much more detailed 3000 words, especially since those federal rules don't apply in the states. </div><div><br /></div><div>What problem is the AG trying to solve? Have registrants across the country been committing the lion's share of sex offenses? No. The vast majority of sex offenses are still, as always, committed by people not on the registry. The Attorney General and the Department of Justice know this fact as well as we do, even if they prefer to ignore it and drum up fear of registrants.</div><div><br /></div><div>To drum up unreasoning fear, proposed changes include crazy talk based on the idea that registrants are some kind of otherworldly monsters:</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i></i></div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>...because sex offenders may, for example, provide false date of birth information in seeking employment that would provide access to children or other potential victims. (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-75" target="_blank">link</a>)</i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><i><br /></i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>...because sex offenders may, for example, attempt to use false Social Security numbers in seeking employment that would provide access to children or other potential victims. (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-76" target="_blank">link</a>)</i></div></div><p style="text-align: left;"><i>...addressing the potential use of telephonic communication by sex offenders in efforts to contact or lure potential victims (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-77" target="_blank">link</a>)</i></p><p style="text-align: left;"><i>...because sex offenders may reoffend at locations away from the places in which they have a permanent or long-term presence... (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-79" target="_blank">link</a>)</i></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><i></i></p><div><div>The phrase "public safety" appears 13 times in the 93-page proposal document. If that sounds like the AG is focusing on public safety, consider that the word "authority" appears 77 times.</div><div><br /></div><div>The phrase "Attorney General" appears 134 times. </div><div><br /></div><div>This makes it clear that public safety is but an afterthought. That has always been the case with registry laws. The data show that registration has no effect on public safety, no effect on reducing the incidence of sex crimes, and yet here we are with an AG trying to make registration requirements even more onerous for people who are unlikely to commit another sex offense.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Is the AG trying to encourage states to come into full compliance with SORNA?</b> <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-158" target="_blank">From the proposed rule changes</a>:</div></div></div><div><div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><blockquote>For example, SORNA requires registration based on conviction for child pornography possession offenses, see 34 U.S.C. 20911(7)(G), but some states that have not fully implemented SORNA's requirements in their registration programs may be unwilling to register a sex offender on the basis of such an offense. Section 2250(c)'s excuse of the failure to register terminates if the state subsequently becomes willing to register the sex offender, because the circumstance preventing compliance with SORNA no longer exists. </blockquote></i></div></div></div><p>In this passage, notice the sly suggestion that a state can <i>become willing</i> to register someone for a SORNA requirement even if the state doesn't have the same requirement. If that sounds underhanded to you, that's because it is. Providing a 'roundabout way to lay failure-to-register traps for registrants who are unaware of federal requirements is not a plan that comes from concern for public safety. Failure to register laws have nothing to do with public safety.</p><div><div><b>Is the AG trying to lay out a plan for larger federal involvement in failure-to-register cases?</b> <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804/p-20" target="_blank">From the proposed rule changes</a>:</div></div><div><div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><blockquote>The rule will facilitate enforcement of SORNA's registration requirements through prosecution of non-compliant sex offenders under 18 U.S.C. 2250.</blockquote></i></div></div></div><p>See the <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42692.html#_Toc472919171 ">list</a> of qualifying convictions according to the 2017 Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. §2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender) provided by the Congressional Research Service.</p><div><div><div><b>Is the AG outlining a defense against future legal challenges to registry law?</b> The proposed rules are veritably <i>stuffed </i>with explanations about how the AG has the authority to make and change the rules.</div><div><br /></div></div><div><b>What kind of comment will be useful?</b> Comments that demand the registry be shut down (a sensible demand for another day) will be ignored because the proposed rule changes do not control the existence of the registry. Comments that include specifics about a person's case and complaints of unfairness will be ignored because they are not requesting information about case details.</div><div><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: left;">Starting on page 62 of the current <a href="https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/final_sornaguidelines.pdf" target="_blank">SORNA Guidelines</a>, you can read a summary of comments that were submitted in 2008 before those Guidelines were published. As you read that summary, you will start to see how comments are understood and why some are ignored and some result in change. To give you an idea of what will be needed for them to understand reasonable objections to the proposed changes, read the beginning of the summary:</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div></div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Approximately 275 comments were received on the proposed guidelines. The Department of Justice appreciates the interest and insight reflected in the many submissions and communications, and has considered them carefully. In general, the comments did not show a need to change the overall character of the guidelines, but in some areas the commenters provided persuasive reasons to change the proposed guidelines’ treatment of significant issues, or pointed to a need to provide further clarification about them. </div></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The initial portion of this summary reviews the most significant and most common issues
raised in the comments, and identifies changes made in the final guidelines relating to these
issues. The remainder of the summary thereafter runs through the provisions of the guidelines in
the order in which they appear, and discusses in greater detail the comments on each topical area
in the guidelines and changes made (or not made) on the basis of public comments</div></div></blockquote>They will pay attention to <i>persuasive reasons </i>related to the changes the Attorney General wants to make. We need to <i>show a need</i>. <div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div></div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div></div><div>The rules open the door to new reporting requirements for people who consistently demonstrate they are unlikely to commit a new sex offense. Why the Attorney General wants to flex his muscles to make life more difficult for law-abiding people is a mystery.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty</i> is a quote often (wrongly?) attributed to Thomas Jefferson.</div><div><br /></div><div>When it comes to life on the registry, <i>eternal vigilance</i> is exactly what is necessary, especially when Congress routinely turns regulatory authority over to bureaucrats who answer to no one. Bureaucrats thrive on power.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your comment on the proposed rule changes is vital. </div></div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div>Resources to help you sort out what the changes will do:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-15804" target="_blank">Proposed changes to the rules</a> </li><li>The federal <a href="https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/sorna_full_text.pdf" target="_blank">Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act</a> (SORNA) </li><li>The current <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2012-title28-vol2/CFR-2012-title28-vol2-part72" target="_blank">SORNA </a><a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2012-title28-vol2/CFR-2012-title28-vol2-part72" target="_blank">rules</a>, published by the DOJ. </li><li><a href="https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/final_sornaguidelines.pdf" target="_blank">SORNA Guidelines</a> from the SMART office</li><li>This document shows how the proposed rules will change existing rules. <iframe height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/14kERlUr6J6ZR7VV6IvB-44P0Y0EjuPoI/preview" width="640"></iframe></li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Also see my additional <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2020/09/suggestions-for-comments-on-sorna-rule.html" target="_blank">suggestions for comments for the SORNA rule changes</a>.<br /><br /></div></div>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-84241291812666621422020-07-25T21:49:00.002-07:002020-07-27T20:09:17.178-07:00Christianity Today wonders if churches should welcome registrantsMegan Fowler, in a Christianity Today article titled, <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/sex-offender-welcome-church-abuse-safety-ministry.html">Sex Offenders Can Find Hope in Christ But Not Necessarily a Place at Church</a>, begins: <div><div></div><blockquote><div>Churches that suspended in-person gatherings during the pandemic have pledged not to welcome their congregations back until they’re sure they can be safe. </div></blockquote><div>The pandemic is on the minds of everyone who wants to return to in-person worship but that is not what she wants to talk about. Not at all.</div><blockquote><div>While the risk of coronavirus spread is the major concern right now, LifeWay Christian Resources is urging leaders to use their reopening plans as a chance to also revisit their policies to prevent sexual abuse. </div></blockquote><div>Who is LifeWay Christian Resources? Why do they want churches to look again at sexual abuse policies? Why now? <i>Good questions.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Fowler tells the story of a church that makes sure to "pay attention to new faces." That sounds friendly, doesn't it? They noticed a new face, learned his name, looked him up and found him on the registry.</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>The church had a plan in place for cases like his, developed based on conversations with the local alderman, police officials, and other church leaders. Tony Silker, an associate pastor at the Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation, had a conversation with the man on his next visit, explaining what they found. <b>Silker said he could not return; if he did, the staff would call the police</b>. [My emphasis...but the church seems happy to emphasize this, too.]</div></blockquote><div>So much for "friendly." </div><blockquote><div>Silker gave the man information about another church in the neighborhood that ministers to people struggling with sexual addiction and urged him to get the support he needed.</div><div><br /></div><div>The staff at Family Empowerment Center are trained to interact with registered sex offenders because they expect sex offenders to enter their church. </div></blockquote><div>Remember that <i>interact with</i> means to tell them not to come back to church. </div><blockquote><div>The church works with the homeless and other vulnerable populations in the high-crime crevices of the neighborhood.</div></blockquote><div>Does the church leadership ever wonder why they regularly find registrants among the homeless? Do they realize that government statutes and ordinances are what drive registrants into homelessness? Do they care enough to demand changes so that this vulnerable population--a population they seem to pay attention to--can find decent housing? </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Fowler writes:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Boz Tchividjian, a lawyer and the founder of Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment (GRACE), suggests obtaining the offender’s court file, talking to the parole officer assigned to the case, and verifying whatever the sex offender tells the church leadership.</div></blockquote><div>Not just a lawyer; a former prosecutor. (I wrote about him and his advice <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2017/03/advice-about-how-church-should-treat.html">here</a>.) </div><div><br /></div><div>The Godly Response <b>not</b> to Abuse in a Christian Environment but to someone who wants to attend church is to obtain the court file...just like Jesus always did?</div><blockquote><div>Tchividjian said the way sex offenders talk about the crimes they committed can reveal the state of their heart and if they are ready to participate in worship or ministry.</div><div><br /></div><div>“If they marginalize and minimize their behavior, [the sex offender is] not in a position to even be served,” he said. </div></blockquote><div><i>Not even to be served</i>? Oh, my God. They know not what they do.</div><blockquote><div>“If you get to the point where the person is sorry and an open book, that’s a different story. They are teachable.”</div></blockquote><div></div><div><i>They are teachable...</i>as long as they talk about their past in a way that is acceptable to someone who insists on <b>ignoring all the evidence that people on the registry rarely reoffend with another sex offense</b>.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The Christianity Today article has more stories about churches who turn away registrants. Fowler quotes Rob Showers, a church law advisor for a different CT publication:<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "chronicle ssm a", "chronicle ssm b", serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><div><font face=""></font></div></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="background-color: white;"><div><font face="">“Only the churches that can delve in and get good legal counsel that walks through this should undertake it,” Showers said. “It’s a wonderful ministry that can go wrong in so many ways.”</font></div></span></div></blockquote><div>Boy, isn't that the truth? Reaching out to people yearning for connection with church is a <i>wonderful ministry</i>. The part that goes <i>wrong in so many ways</i> is the refusal of churches to look at the wealth of research available that could help them welcome people to their congregation.</div><div><br /></div><div>If Megan Fowler had done just the tiniest bit of research, she would have found that people on the registry are not the ones committing sex crimes in churches. No, those crimes are committed by people who are not on the registry. Are there exceptions? Of course. Those are the stories that make the big headlines precisely because they are so rare.</div><div><br /></div><div>The other part that goes <i>wrong in so many ways</i> is illustrated by Fowler's article: lots and lots of talk about keeping registrants away from church but not a word about preventing sexual abuse.</div><div><br /></div><div>By focusing on registrants, attention is taken away from those people who <b>are</b> molesting or assaulting people. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, yes...those questions about LifeWay. Who are they and what is their interest?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>LifeWay sells background checks.</b> They sell a lot of background checks, <a href="https://blog.lifeway.com/newsroom/2020/07/14/background-checks-remain-essential-part-of-reopening-kids-ministries/">according to their own website</a>:</div><blockquote><div>From 2009 to 2019, more than 20,000 customers have conducted more than 416,000 screenings through the program, according to Jennie Morris of LifeWay. “On average, we add 150 customers a month,” she said.</div><div></div></blockquote><div>Businesses across the country are permanently closing because the pandemic has reduced their business so drastically. The pandemic probably has a similar effect on a business that sells background checks to churches at a time when churches are no longer meeting in person.</div><div><br /></div><div>A good guess is that LifeWay is tired of losing business and is spreading fear of people sexually abusing kids at church, now that churches are beginning to open up again. </div><div><br /></div><div>While child sexual abuse at churches and schools has certainly been reduced by eliminating in-person activities, sexual abuse is still occurring where it has always occurred most often: in the home. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>__________</div><div><br /></div><div>I have written previously about how churches treat people on the sex offender registry:</div><div><br /></div><div>March 29, 2017 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2017/03/advice-about-how-church-should-treat.html">advice about how a church should treat registered citizens</a></div><div><div>November 25, 2016 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2016/11/whats-harm-in-background-check.html">what's the harm in a background check?</a></div><div><div>October 6, 2016 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2016/10/who-does-jesus-look-like.html">who does Jesus look like?</a></div><div><div>August 26, 2015 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/arrested-for-attending-church.html">arrested for attending church</a></div><div><div>February 4, 2015 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2015/02/we-dont-ever-see-jesus-rejecting-ever.html">"...we don't ever see Jesus rejecting. Ever."</a></div><div><div>August 7, 2014 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-congregation-should-respond-to-sex.html">how a congregation should respond to sex offenders among them</a></div><div><div>August 6, 2014 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-church-welcomes-registered-sex.html">a church welcomes registered sex offenders</a></div><div>October 18, 2013 - <a href="https://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2013/10/persecution-leads-to-suicides.html">persecution leads to suicides</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div></div>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-63898452083600926492020-07-14T10:25:00.002-07:002020-07-14T10:26:15.670-07:00added--a list of resources<i>Notes from the Handbasket</i> now offers a list of resources that may be useful to those traversing the rough territory of the registry. On your mobile device, click the arrow to the right of <b>Home </b>and select <b><a href="http://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/p/resources-incomplete-list.html" target="_blank">NEW! Resources, an Incomplete List</a></b>. On your computer, under <b>Pages</b> to the right, click the <b><a href="http://handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/p/resources-incomplete-list.html" target="_blank">Resources </a></b>link.<div><br /></div><div>As the page title says, this is an incomplete list. You are welcome to add other resources in the comments below or in the comments for the <b>Resources </b>page.</div>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-2369721519940954892020-06-08T19:26:00.012-07:002020-06-09T04:37:52.064-07:00Black Lives Matter<p class="MsoNormal">Black lives matter. Absolutely. People of color are
disproportionately represented at all phases of the criminal justice system: interactions
with law enforcement, arrests, jail, prison, probation and parole. Recognizing
that truth <i>ought</i> to lead us to make changes that will result in fair,
proportional treatment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’ve known that truth for decades and yet here we are, mourning
another death of another black man at the hands of police. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So why have we not seen reforms?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The simplistic response is to blame racism but racism alone
doesn’t make it possible for cops to kill a man in broad daylight, with the death
recorded and seen around the world, and not face consequences. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Racism with
power is the explanation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Without the power to act with impunity, law enforcement
officers would be much less likely to treat people with such aggression and
hostility. The racists we encounter in our daily lives--neighbors, co-workers, family--are extremely unlikely to kill someone just because of skin color. Racism can show itself in other damaging ways but most racists cannot kill without being held accountable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Law enforcement officers <i>can</i>. What gives them that power? The doctrine of qualified immunity, for one. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://theappeal.org/qualified-immunity-explained/">An
article in The Appeal explains</a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">That doctrine has become one of the chief ways in which law
enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct and…even proven constitutional
violations. Ordinary people—whether they’re doctors, lawyers, or construction
workers—are expected to follow the law. If they violate someone else’s legal
rights, they can be sued and required to pay for the injuries they’ve caused.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials
are held to a much lower standard. They can be held accountable only insofar as
they violate rights that are “clearly established” in light of existing case
law. This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable
constitutional violations each year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other
government officials to violate people’s constitutional rights with virtual
impunity. Today, we hear about police shooting after police shooting where
officers are rarely if ever held accountable by the criminal legal system,
either because prosecutors decline to charge, because grand juries decline to
indict, or because juries decline to convict.</p></blockquote><div>In Minneapolis, the four police officers involved in George Floyd's death were all fired the same day Floyd was killed. At first glance, that looks like progress...a police department that has had enough of overly aggressive cops.</div><div><br /></div><div>History, though, shows us that firing bad cops is not a sure thing.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Omaha NE, June 2017, Zachary BearHeels, in the midst of a mental health crisis, was tasered a dozen times by one of the police officers who were called to help him. Another officer punched BearHeels 13 times in 15 seconds. Bearheels died after those assaults. </div><div><br /></div><div>There was video, and Omaha Police Chief Todd Schmaderer fired the four cops involved in BearHeels' death. The city breathed a sigh of relief and gratitude that Schmaderer saw things clearly.</div><div><br /></div><div>Three years later? Three of those cops are <a href="https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/arbitrators-reinstate-3-omaha-police-officers-uphold-anothers-termination-in-bearheels-case/article_939bf3a3-728b-5b3d-88b3-08d6334cc782.html">back on the force</a>, thanks to efforts by the Omaha Police Officers’ Association, the police union. The Omaha World-Herald reports,</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>All three will receive back pay since they were fired, minus any income they may have earned in that time, in den Bosch said. Those amounts have not been calculated yet. McClarty’s payment will have 20 days — the length of the suspension period imposed by the arbitrators — taken out of his back pay.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a statement, Schmaderer said it is time to move forward.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Omaha police officers have a very difficult job and my focus is on keeping my officers safe in the coronavirus environment while simultaneously protecting the city,” he said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tony Conner, the president of the police union, said the process was fair and that “every American citizen has the right to due process, including any police officer.”</div></blockquote><div>In addition to qualified immunity, law enforcement officers have powerful unions to protect their jobs. In a USA Today opinion piece, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/08/george-floyd-police-union-contracts-increase-racist-killings-column/3168157001/">former union official Benjamin Sachs</a> explains:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Among the many outrages in the death of George Floyd is this one: Derek Chauvin, the police officer who killed Floyd, had been the subject of at least 17 misconduct complaints and yet he remained an armed member of the Minneapolis Police Department. How does that happen? Part of the answer is the collective bargaining agreement reached between the police department and Chauvin’s union.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like other such police agreements, the one in Minneapolis gives cops extraordinary protection from discipline for violent conduct. It mandates a 48-hour waiting period before any officer accused of such conduct can be interviewed, a common delay and a luxury not afforded even to criminal suspects and one that allows officers time to develop a strategy to avoid accountability.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like many police contracts, including those in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, D.C., the Minneapolis agreement also requires the expungement of police disciplinary records after a certain amount of time.</div></blockquote><div>When people call for an end to police unions or a limit to their bargaining power, this is why.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are other elements that lead to overly aggressive and violent policing, including the militarization of America's police as detailed in the Radley Balko book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577">The Rise of the Warrior Cop</a>. Look at the armored vehicles used against protesters in the current demonstrations and riots across the country. Look at the riot gear. Look at how those military tools are used against young protesters.</div><div><br /></div><div>Something is wrong with policing in this country. Police assume a warrior attitude of cops vs citizen, even though they are sworn to protect and serve the community.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until we make changes that will hold law enforcement officers accountable to their communities, the vulnerable in our communities will pay for our lack of will to push for change.</div><div><br /></div><div>The cry to "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-the-police-us-what-does-it-mean">defund the police</a>" is one that puzzles some people--generally people who work from the assumption that the cops are here to deal with criminals for us. Defunding police departments--or reducing the law enforcement budget--would force those departments to rework their priorities. Can they do more with less? Can they do without spending money on ever more advanced riot gear? Can they operate without flashy surveillance equipment? </div><div><br /></div><div>The combination of over-criminalization and over-policing is not found in every neighborhood. Some of us live where police officers come to the block party carrying beer. Others live where cops cruise the neighborhood waiting to arrest someone. Big difference.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until people can see that some communities suffer from over-policing, they will continue to think that those communities have more criminals and that's why so many of those families have a loved one who is incarcerated. </div><div><br /></div><div>And that is where racism shows up: the willingness to believe that people of <i>that </i>race or <i>that</i> neighborhood are inherently worse than we are. </div><div><br /></div><div>When the power of the state is brought to bear against an individual like George Floyd, a list of people convicted of a certain category of crime, a neighborhood or a demonstration, we had better make sure that we have a way to fight that power. When the state puts policies in place that prevent us from holding the state--law enforcement--responsible for its crimes and misdeeds, the power of the state is magnified. Magnified power is hard to destroy.</div><div><br /></div><div>We must demand change to reduce that power.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Yes. Black lives matter. They matter enough this time to cause riots. Are we listening? Are we watching? Are we demanding changes that will decrease the power of law enforcement? </div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div></div></div><div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-62228813929451557252020-05-19T21:44:00.000-07:002020-05-23T11:10:50.237-07:00Omaha registrant murdered<div>
<b>Edited May 23. </b>After a conversation in which I was critical of people jumping to conclusions when, really, very little is known in the Condoluci case, I went back to check my own earlier assumptions. In this blog post, I wrote as if I knew for sure that Fairbanks had written the email even though I don't know that for a fact.<br />
<br />
Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those of us who have seen the criminal justice system in action understand clearly that mistakes are made too frequently for comfort. We must demand a scrupulous adherence to due process in this case because that is what we would demand for ourselves.<br />
<br />
I left the blog post as originally written, with this note to explain my error. I did change the title from <i>Omaha man murdered because he was on the registry</i> to <i>Omaha registrant murdered</i>.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>***</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>This is a big story</b>, not just because reporters must love having something other than the coronavirus to talk about, but because it illuminates the truth about the sex offense registry: It puts registrants and their families in danger and protects no one. It didn't protect Matt Condoluci's 5-year-old victim because Condoluci was not on the registry when he committed that 1994 crime. It didn't protect another victim when Condoluci <i>was </i>on the registry in 2007.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
You know who else it didn't protect? <i>Matt Condoluci. </i>From everything we think we know now, he was murdered because he was listed on the registry.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm going to recap (with links!) for people who were listening to great music or reading a book instead of following the news over the last couple of days.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Saturday, May 16, 64-year-old Matt Condoluci's body was found at his home at 43rd and Pinkney Street in Omaha NE. Monday, we learned that someone had emailed news outlets claiming to have killed Condoluci because he learned that Condoluci was on the sex offense registry for raping children.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/anonymous-e-mailer-claims-to-have-killed-convicted-sex-offender-found-shot-dead-in-omaha/32587366">https://www.ketv.com/article/anonymous-e-mailer-claims-to-have-killed-convicted-sex-offender-found-shot-dead-in-omaha/32587366</a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tuesday, James Fairbanks turned himself in to the police for the murder and stories started flying. Fairbanks' ex-wife said he confessed to her that he had done it; she said he is such a great guy, even the part about him murdering a stranger isn't too bad.<br />
<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/ex-wife-says-suspect-told-her-he-killed-sex-offender-calls-him-protector-who-cared-for-victimized-kids/32598125">https://www.ketv.com/article/ex-wife-says-suspect-told-her-he-killed-sex-offender-calls-him-protector-who-cared-for-victimized-kids/32598125</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
The ex-wife, Kelly Tamayo, a psychologist, explained that in Fairbanks' work as a corrections officer, he...</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...may have been driven to kill by working with pedophiles while he was employed by the prison system. ... I think he reflected on his experiences working with them as just bothersome and upsetting because they are repeat offenders, we know them to be people who, you know, who repeatedly act out their intent or they act on their wishes that are to harm children." https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/19/vigilante-shot-child-sex-predator-dead-saw-leering-children-12729140 </blockquote>
To be fair, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/kelly-tamayo-omaha-ne/229949">Tamayo's work</a> is in weight loss and mental fitness, not in therapy for those who committed sex offenses. She ought to be forgiven for not knowing that repeat offenses are very rare among those on the registry.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
Condoluci's daughter was interviewed and she said kids are safer now that her dad is dead.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.kearneyhub.com/news/state/omaha-police-make-arrest-in-homicide-of-convicted-sex-offender/article_e65fe0d9-d2e8-511c-9be8-f2a875a4f206.html">https://www.kearneyhub.com/news/state/omaha-police-make-arrest-in-homicide-of-convicted-sex-offender/article_e65fe0d9-d2e8-511c-9be8-f2a875a4f206.html</a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reporters did a little work and found that Fairbanks' ex-wife who gave such a glowing report of him had actually taken out two protection orders on him while they were going through a divorce. There is also a report of him threatening to kill a family friend.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/ex-wife-omaha-man-arrested-in-killing-of-registered-sex-offender-fearful-man-would-offend/article_ca281537-18e6-5e9f-8bd6-3cee4499b939.html">https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/ex-wife-omaha-man-arrested-in-killing-of-registered-sex-offender-fearful-man-would-offend/article_ca281537-18e6-5e9f-8bd6-3cee4499b939.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reporters also found Condoluci's son, who said his dad's crimes were a long time ago and his dad had changed since then. He said that Fairbanks didn't know his dad and his dad should not have died the way he did.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/i-thought-it-was-all-a-dream-omaha-schools-employee-accused-of-killing-sex-offender/32603770">https://www.ketv.com/article/i-thought-it-was-all-a-dream-omaha-schools-employee-accused-of-killing-sex-offender/32603770</a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In his confession [see my May 23 note above] as represented on the Omaha Scanner webpage, Fairbanks said he "stumbled across" Condoluci's registry information; he agonized about it for days, and came back to kill him. He said he agonized because Condoluci was a child rapist. Never mind that the registry did not report any rape convictions for Condoluci.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.nossmedia.com/post/man-on-omaha-scanner-facebook-page-claims-to-be-killer-in-north-omaha-homicide?fbclid=IwAR2sLnXE78WqFvqC6o0uQBvIEkI3KjTm13fWaqRQUdTxn0XGYSfQ7To6Eu0">https://www.nossmedia.com/post/man-on-omaha-scanner-facebook-page-claims-to-be-killer-in-north-omaha-homicide?fbclid=IwAR2sLnXE78WqFvqC6o0uQBvIEkI3KjTm13fWaqRQUdTxn0XGYSfQ7To6Eu0</a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fairbanks goes on to say that he "researched him more" and learned that Condoluci had molested kids in several states. Then he mentions the mother of the 1994 victim and her Facebook group dedicated to letting the world know that Condoluci was a bad, bad man. In a post in the Facebook group, she says, "This preditor preys on single mother's to get his hands on her children. He moves from state to state. He must be stopped." </div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.nossmedia.com/post/man-on-omaha-scanner-facebook-page-claims-to-be-killer-in-north-omaha-homicide?fbclid=IwAR2sLnXE78WqFvqC6o0uQBvIEkI3KjTm13fWaqRQUdTxn0XGYSfQ7To6Eu0">https://www.nossmedia.com/post/man-on-omaha-scanner-facebook-page-claims-to-be-killer-in-north-omaha-homicide?fbclid=IwAR2sLnXE78WqFvqC6o0uQBvIEkI3KjTm13fWaqRQUdTxn0XGYSfQ7To6Eu0</a> </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The Facebook group was called <i>Matt Condoluci (preditor)</i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At least, that is what it was called until she renamed it <i>Free James Fairbanks </i>today.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
She seems to feel quite strongly about James Fairbanks. On the <i>Free James Fairbanks</i> Facebook page, she says,</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I do not believe James was acting as a vigilante. I believe he had seen enough of the wreckage sexual abuse causes and may have felt helpless and "snapped" when he saw what he saw. He is as much a victim as my son and the other children he is not a vigilante. I don't know him but from what I am seening of him he is a good man and may be suffering from PTSD though I'm not a Dr. This man deserves our support. </blockquote>
This mother endured the death of her son (the 1994 victim) from a drug overdose in 2017 and held Condoluci responsible for that death because of the early molestation. We can certainly sympathize with any parent who endures the death of a child.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the fact that both her son and Fairbanks were corrections officers has something to do with her strong support of a man she never met. Perhaps it was just that she wanted Condoluci dead and Fairbanks made that happen. Who knows?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is surprising that in the area where Fairbanks was looking for an apartment, 96 registrants live within a one mile radius around Condoluci's home, yet Fairbanks picks out the one guy who has a Facebook group dedicated to calling him out as a child molester. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This story has many twists in it and the news media is making the most of it. News reports love to show the playground equipment in Condoluci's backyard as if it says anything about the man's intentions...as if none of us have rented a home with something in the backyard that is more trouble to move than to leave in place. They like to repeat Fairbanks' fantasy about what Condoluci was thinking while he watched children play. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They like to explore Condoluci's criminal background as if it has <i>any bearing</i> on why he was murdered by a stranger.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Under all the twists and the lurid imaginings, though, is the truth: <br />
<b>The registry was used to target a law-abiding man for murder.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is beyond time to acknowledge what the registry does--put people in danger--and <b>abolish the registry</b>.</div>
Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-88460304869843233522020-03-31T21:39:00.000-07:002020-03-31T21:39:32.821-07:00County Attorney has a chance to slow the spread of the coronavirusNebraska's Douglas County Prosecutor's office is faced with the opportunity to model good public health practices.<br />
<br />
From a March 30 <a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/douglas-county-attorney-prosecutor-tests-positive-covid-19/31983233">KETV story</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A prosecutor in the Douglas County Attorney's Office has tested positive for COVID-19, according to Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine....</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Friday, the prosecutor got a call ... saying someone he was working closely with had tested positive. [The prosecutor] been at work for more than a week. Kleine said the prosecutor had contact with at least 25 people in the office. He'd also been in courtrooms on nearly every floor of the courthouse. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Defense attorneys, bailiffs, judges, even defendants that might have been in the courtroom while he was there are all being notified,” Kleine said.</blockquote>
<i>Even defendants.</i> Um...thanks for noticing?<br />
<br />
March 12, the Nebraska Supreme Court Chief Justice announced that courts will continue to operate as usual and even though Governor Ricketts limited gatherings to ten or fewer, courts were excluded from the 10-person limit.<br />
<br />
From an Omaha World-Herald <a href="https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebraska/health/omaha-prosecutor-tests-positive-for-covid--had-contact-with/article_25b9937d-9612-561d-a77d-fb0372e3a775.html">article</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Courthouse crowds became more sparse as presiding judges of a few counties, including Douglas, imposed more restrictions than the chief justice had, delaying jury trials and encouraging attorneys and litigants to either delay hearings or appear by video or teleconference. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even so, the Douglas County Courthouse, while quiet by normal standards, has been brimming with dozens of attorneys, litigants, clerks, sheriff’s deputies and security personnel who have to check all courthouse-goers. </blockquote>
Sounds like a great way to spread the coronavirus.<br />
<br />
Crowds, small or large, at a courthouse are not a static group. People come in and out of the courthouse all day. Some leave to go home, others are taken to prison or jail. The comings and goings are excellent vectors for the virus.<br />
<br />
An assisted living facility in nearby Blair NE closed for a deep cleaning after<a href="http://netnebraska.org/article/news/1213629/10-new-covid-19-cases-confirmed-carter-place-senior-living-blair"> ten residents tested positive</a> for the virus, reminding us how easily the virus spreads in environments where people are close together.<br />
<br />
Like the courthouse. Like jails and prisons.<br />
<br />
The World-Herald continues,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“When it starts hitting close to home, it really makes a difference,” Kleine said. “We’re obviously thinking of him. And we’re going to work with the Health Department to track every place that he’s been in the courthouse as we try to make sure everyone’s fears are allayed.”</blockquote>
But will he delay prosecutions to <i>make sure everyone's fears are allayed</i>? Or will he continue to require people to appear at the courthouse?<br />
<br />
Will he continue to send people to prison? Remember how quickly the virus spread among the residents at the Blair assisted living facility and think how much more quickly it would spread in Nebraska's overcrowded prisons.<br />
<br />
That's the big question. Did Douglas County Attorney Kleine learn enough when it started <i>hitting close to home</i>?<br />
<br />
Is his home confined to the prosecutor's office or is his home the community?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-55810773274455513782020-03-29T07:41:00.000-07:002020-03-29T07:41:07.112-07:00Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center statement on COVID-19<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center (SOLPRC) at Mitchell Hamline
School of Law issued a <a href="https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/03/SOLPRC-COVID-19-Guidance-March-28-1.pdf">statement</a> March 28 about sex offense registries at a time when social distancing is essential to slow the spread of COVID-19.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The information in this statement can be used to craft your own letter to your governor, attorney general, legislators, law enforcement agencies--anyone who needs to understand the issues here.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the statement:</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="color: black;">Suspend in-person registration requirements</span></b><span style="color: black;">. Registration requires frequent in-person visits
to police stations or jails, where dozens of people commonly congregate in waiting
rooms or bullpens, multiplying the risk of transmission of COVID-19. Following the lead of Oregon and other jurisdictions,
this process should be modified.</span> </span></blockquote>
People on the registry are not immune to this virus. If they contract the virus because of registry laws, they will carry the virus everywhere they go, no matter how clear the need is to employ social distancing, no matter how badly registrants themselves want to avoid contracting or carrying the virus.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span><b><span style="color: black;">Waive or suspend housing banishment laws and other
housing restrictions.</span></b><span style="color: black;"> People experiencing homelessness
need emergency housing in order to comply with stay-at-home orders or self-quarantine.
But many people listed on “homeless registries” have places they could otherwise
reside: housing restrictions alone caused their homelessness. Likewise, prisons
have backlogs of people incarcerated past their release dates, or who would be released
on parole or probation supervision, if so much housing were not barred. Suspending
these restrictions will allow cities to house people more efficiently, conserve
emergency beds, and give prison officials the flexibility to place people in homes
they already have available. This will protect their populations from the heightened
risk of contagion created by needless incarceration and homeless encampments when
there are safe available homes for people on the registries.</span> </span></blockquote>
Using the imagined danger of registrants living too close to children, legislators passed laws forbidding registrants from living in some areas. Those laws create a disadvantage for the whole community, keeping shelters full when there is a need to put more people in homeless shelters--during bitter winter storms, blazing summer heat, or when it is necessary to slow the spread of a virus. Legislators created this problem.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span><b><span style="color: black;">Waive or suspend arrests and prosecutions for failure-to-comply
offenses.</span></b><span style="color: black;"> “Failure to comply” charges
are the result of a missed deadline to reregister or update registration. Akin to
technical parole violations, these are often hyper-technicalities that stem from
the difficulty of following so many onerous reporting requirements, and have no
reported correlation to public safety. Despite this, they contribute to jail and
prison churn, risking increased transmission of the virus.</span></span></blockquote>
When over-incarceration is clearly something that burdens the United States, incarcerating people because they did not report to law enforcement that their address and employment and vehicles have not changed is ridiculous. At a time when the world is trying to slow the spread of a new virus, is is dangerous to add to overcrowded prisons.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span><b><span style="color: black;">Suspend fees for registration.</span></b><span style="color: black;"> Economists are projecting 14%-20% GDP contraction
for this quarter and unemployment in double-digit rates. Many people have already
lost their incomes as a result of the shutdowns. People with past convictions are
far more likely to be poor, with reduced job prospects. Non-payment of these fees
can result in failure-to-comply charges; during this crisis registration fees should
be suspended.</span></span></blockquote>
Siphoning money from the pockets of the poor is outrageous. When the response to that statement is that those people committed sex crimes so they deserve it, it becomes abundantly clear--again--that the registry is commonly considered to be punishment, no matter how often courts deny that fact.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><b>
Suspend in-person address verifications.</b> Routine police visits to the addresses
of people listed on registries, for the sole purpose of an address check, should
be suspended. These visits are widespread, and number in the tens of thousands.
At a time when even 911 calls are under stress, law enforcement should be able to
redirect their resources as needed.</span> </span></blockquote>
Sending cops door-to-door to make sure registrants live where they claim to live is a bizarre choice even when there is no threat of carrying a new virus door-to-door. When these compliance checks make headlines in the evening news broadcast, look around to see if there is a reason law enforcement agencies are trying to look pro-active. Using law-abiding people as props in an attempt to buff up the image of law enforcement or the tough-on-crime image of and elected official is despicable.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Suspend Internet access restrictions.</b> Some people who are on probation or parole are forbidden
from accessing wide swaths of the Internet, and some states have laws limiting Internet
access for people listed on a conviction registry. During this crisis, access to
the Internet has become even more critical: nearly everyone must rely on Internet
access for work, news, homeschooling, services, and family connections. Individual
safety, as well as public health compliance, requires timely online access to crucial
information about social and health services, as well as access to medical services
that are moving online. </span></blockquote>
Because news about the virus and public health recommendations can change so quickly, no one should be <i>forbidden</i> to stay current with news and health guidance.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span><b><span style="color: black;">“Step down” people in civil commitment.</span></b><span style="color: black;"> More than 6,000 people are locked post-sentence
in prison-like state civil commitment facilities, that pose the same coronavirus
dangers to staff and detainees as jails and prisons. States should speed up “step-down”
procedures and move people into supervised community settings.</span></span></blockquote>
People in civil commitment facilities have lost their liberty without due process. To leave them where they are essentially defenseless against a fast-spreading illness is cruel.<br />
<br />
The registry does not protect anyone and it puts registrants and their families at risk of public humiliation, increased contact with law enforcement, and now, COVID-19. Write to anyone who can influence how registry laws are implemented and let them know the many reasons they should make changes during emergencies.<br />
<br />
If you quote from the SOLPRC statement, make sure to include a link to the statement itself (<span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: inherit;"><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/03/SOLPRC-COVID-19-Guidance-March-28-1.pdf&source=gmail&ust=1585566606355000&usg=AFQjCNHVRHv5wjhwXtFiiEe-hoxnMFIz_w" href="https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/03/SOLPRC-COVID-19-Guidance-March-28-1.pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://mitchellhamline.edu/<wbr></wbr>sex-offense-litigation-policy/<wbr></wbr>wp-content/uploads/sites/61/<wbr></wbr>2020/03/SOLPRC-COVID-19-<wbr></wbr>Guidance-March-28-1.pdf</a>)</span>.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-92083754762767240372020-03-27T05:27:00.001-07:002020-03-27T05:32:57.142-07:00reducing the spread of COVID-19 in federal prisons<div class="tr_bq">
Attorney General William Barr in a press conference and an interview with ABC News, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-william-barr-pushes-expansion-home-confinement-reduce/story?id=69816504">talked </a>about the fears of COVID-19 spreading inside federal prisons. The fears are warranted. We have already seen the virus moving quickly through other closely-housed populations such as nursing homes.</div>
<blockquote>
"You want to make sure that our institutions don't become petri dishes and it spreads rapidly through a particular institution," Barr said on Thursday. "But we have the protocols that are designed to stop it and we are using all the tools we have to protect the inmates."</blockquote>
Having "all the protocols" is meant to reassure us that the Bureau of Prisons is on top of this threat to community health. Are prison staff and their families are reassured by that? The unions for correctional officers are <a href="https://khn.org/news/coronavirus-puts-prisons-in-tight-spot-amid-staff-shortages-threats-of-lockdown/">worried</a>.<br />
<br />
ABC News continues:<br />
<blockquote>
He added that "one of the those tools will be identifying vulnerable prisoners who would make more sense to allow to go home to finish their confinement."</blockquote>
Home confinement for vulnerable prisoners does make sense. The BOP already has a way to release those who are elderly or have a terminal illness: compassionate release. Why not release inmates to their families and reduce the prison population, slowing the spread of the virus?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Barr said that of the 146,000 inmates currently serving time in federal prison facilities, one third are believed to have pre-existing medical conditions and roughly 10,000 are over the age of 60 years old.</blockquote>
Would the BOP actually release 10,000 inmates? Until the 2018 First Step Act increased the number to around 100, an average of a dozen inmates were granted compassionate release each year, so it doesn't seem likely.<br />
<br />
ABC News:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...Barr stressed that there would be significant limits on what would make prisoners eligible for release to home confinement, noting that they could not be convicted of violent crimes or sex offenses -- which makes up roughly 40% of the over-60 population.</blockquote>
What is he doing here? Is he talking about reducing the spread of the virus or not? The virus spreads as easily to those convicted of violent crimes or sex offenses, and just as easily from those people to the prison staff and back out to the community.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In response to some local and state prisons across the U.S. who have opted to release inmates in prisons and jails in large numbers, Barr said he was concerned about those using the coronavirus simply as a vehicle to de-populate prisons around the U.S.</blockquote>
He isn't talking about the virus here. He responds to questions about the virus by talking about protecting the prison system.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, we continue paying to incarcerate 146,000 people in federal prison, including the increasing costs of health care for elderly inmates.<br />
<br />
Only time will tell.<br />
<br />
<br />Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-57623601321146555032019-09-29T10:18:00.000-07:002019-09-29T10:51:23.328-07:00University of Nevada researchers want to hear from partners/spouses of registrants<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">I received an email from researchers in Nevada, asking me to recruit partners and spouses of people on the sex offender registry to complete a <a href="http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX">survey</a> for them. This is the email I received:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">We are conducting a research project entitled Stigma and Consequences for Partners of Registered Sex Offenders at the University of Nevada, Reno. This project is being completed in collaboration with university faculty as part of the SORNA Policy Project. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">Our intention is to distribute a <a href="http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX">survey link</a> to partners and spouses of registered sex offenders to assess how they feel registration and notification policies impact their lives. We hope to gather information about the unintended consequences of these policies.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">...We expect that the results from this study will be substantially informative for both treatment providers and advocacy groups. The better we understand the collateral consequences these policies have on innocent spouses and partners, the better able we are to provide services for these individuals and argue for policy reform.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">The survey should take less than 30 minutes to complete. The surveys are completely anonymous, and the data is protected to ensure the highest level of confidentiality.</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"></span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: times, serif;">I verified that this survey is legitimate before taking it myself. Some questions are good; some are inscrutable, as survey questions can be. It took me more than 30 minutes to complete it. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">This is the text I was asked to use: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Have you ever been in a relationship with an
individual who was required to register on a sex offender registry?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, we are interested in hearing from you.
We know that individuals who have been or are currently in relationships with individuals
who are/were required to publicly register as a sex offender may experience a
unique set of challenges and experiences. We want to learn more about your own
personal experiences, how this has affected you, and how you feel about current
sex offender policies.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">This is the first ever national-level survey to
gather data solely from spouses and partners of individuals required to
register. This is your chance to share your voice and address the issues that
are affecting you!</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">If interested, please click the link below to
learn more. The first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (2)
$100 and (6) $50 Amazon gift cards. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: normal; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , serif;">URL: http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX</span></blockquote>
Tip for researchers who want to talk to people affected by the registry: Many of us are already familiar with other studies and other scholars working in this field so, when recruiting, your first job is to make sure we know who you are and what your intentions are. That is why I included that information instead of just using your provided text.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-17004086880060277532019-06-23T20:43:00.000-07:002019-06-23T20:43:16.361-07:00be more visible in other reform effortsIt is past time for registry activists to become visible in the larger criminal justice and prison reform efforts. We will not end the registry until we are part of the larger fight.<br />
<br />
At least four national organizations fight against the sex offender registry and the harm it causes: <a href="https://ww1.womenagainstregistry.org/">Women Against Registry</a> (WAR), <a href="https://narsol.org/">National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</a> (NARSOL), <a href="https://sosen.org/">Sex Offender Solutions & Education Network</a> (SOSEN), and <a href="https://all4consolaws.org/">Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws</a> (ACSOL).<br />
<br />
Excellent organizations, they educate people affected by the registry, they stand up for registrants, they hearten those of us in the fight. Walking into a room full of these warriors can be life-changing.<br />
<br />
We have scholars who have taken up the fight against the registry because their research shows that the registry offers no protection to the community and that it harms families. The data is on our side.<br />
<br />
If passion, righteous anger, facts, and our own efforts were enough, the whole idea of registries would already be gone. Instead, we see states adding crimes to the list of registerable offenses, states proposing <i>whole new registries</i>, news media still trying to gin up fear against those labeled "sex offender," and reform organizations using the sex offender category as leverage to pass reforms.<br />
<br />
We need to do something different. We need to join forces with other criminal justice and prison reform organizations.<br />
<br />
Maybe we don't always agree with those other organizations but we can still learn from them and--here's the beauty part--<i>they can learn from us</i>. The more we speak up about registry issues in those organizations, the more those organizations learn. We can learn from them about how they built their advocacy organization, how they approach legislators, how they change hearts and minds.<br />
<br />
We can find common ground with others.<br />
<br />
For example, <a href="https://famm.org/">Families Against Mandatory Minimums</a> (FAMM) doesn't talk a lot about sex crime sentences but they are firmly opposed to mandatory minimum sentences for any crime. Would they be more active in eliminating mandatory minimums for sex crimes if we were visible in their organization? Yes, they would, and <i>we</i> would be pushing harder for sentencing reform in general because of what we learned from FAMM. Both causes win.<br />
<br />
Criminal justice reform in the United States is having its moment. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, all have reason to want to reduce mass incarceration, to shorten prison sentences, to offer something <i>other</i> than prison sentences, to improve prison conditions, to reduce corruption in departments of correction, to increase the success rate for those who come back to our communities after prison.<br />
<br />
We do not need to agree on all points to attend meetings, to listen and learn, to make connections with other good people. After all, disagreeing with our own registry reform organizations on some issues doesn't stop us from using them as resources.<br />
<br />
An internet search for "criminal justice reform organization [your state or city]," or "prison reform" or "sentencing reform" will show you which organizations are active near you. Follow the larger organizations on Facebook or Twitter so you can see where their focus is. Go to their meetings, if possible. For states that have no registry organizations, this could be a good way to meet others like you.<br />
<br />
If you find <i>local</i> organizations working with reentry efforts, go to those meetings and listen. That is where you can make connections with others who have answers you may need. You will have stories and information <i>they </i>will need.<br />
<br />
Remember that asking for an end to registries is the right thing to do, even if other reformers tell you it will never happen. It certainly will not if we are not clear that abolition is our goal.<br />
<br />
Abolish the registry.<br />
<br />
Below is a list (an inadequate list!) of some national organizations that might be used as a starting point:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blackandpink.org/">Black and Pink</a><br />
<a href="https://famm.org/">Families Against Mandatory Minimums</a><br />
<a href="https://www.innocenceproject.org/">Innocence Project</a><br />
<a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/">The Marshall Project</a><br />
<a href="http://www.prisonpolicy.org/">Prison Policy Initiative</a><br />
<a href="http://www.wpaonline.org/">Right on Crime</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sentencingproject.org/">The Sentencing Project</a><br />
<a href="http://www.vera.org/">Vera Institute of Justice</a><br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.wpaonline.org/">Women's Prison Association</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-58177474050742732242019-02-20T16:53:00.000-08:002019-02-20T16:53:08.219-08:00Indiana considering a registry of all felons<div class="tr_bq">
Indiana is looking at a bill that will <a href="https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/every-hoosier-convicted-of-a-felony-could-find-themselves-listed/article_a9ee6953-3cd8-576f-ae95-7c7b00819ea8.html">put all felons on a registry</a>. This is obviously a bad idea. A terrible idea.</div>
<br />
From an article by Dan Carden at nwi.com:<br />
<blockquote>
Every person convicted of a felony in Indiana since at least 2012, and going forward, soon may find their name publicly listed on a state website and forever associated with their crime on internet search engines. </blockquote>
Indiana already has a statewide case management system, Odyssey, where records are available for free. The sponsoring senator, Randy Head, is trying to sell the idea that this is simply a more complete listing than currently found on the Odyssey system. What he doesn't mention is that Odyssey cannot be searched through Internet search engines like Google.<br />
<br />
The registry that his bill would create <i>would </i>be Internet searchable, like the sex offender registry.<br />
<blockquote>
The Republican-controlled Indiana Senate last week voted 40-9 to establish a statewide felony registry featuring the name, photograph, age, last known address, description of the crime and any other identifying information, other than Social Security number, that the Office of Judicial Administration wishes to post. </blockquote>
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Randy Head is the only senator in Indiana willing to inflict this on his constituents. The vote in the Senate was 40-9 in favor.<br />
<blockquote>
Hoosiers with prior felony convictions would not be required to register with the state. Rather, under Senate Bill 36, the state court system simply would publish a searchable list of felons on its website that must be updated at least every 30 days.</blockquote>
People with felony convictions wouldn't even have to be told they were on the list, that their faces were out there for anyone in the world to find, that their crimes would be forever public.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However, [Senator Head] said since not all courts are yet on Odyssey, a felony registry is needed to fill in the gaps and <b>help Hoosiers know who in their family, workplace, school, church or community has been convicted of a felony.</b> [My emphasis.]</blockquote>
<i>Needed.</i><br />
<br />
His felony registry would be<i> helpful. </i><br />
<br />
As if Hoosiers today struggle with not knowing.<br />
<br />
But look:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The legislation sunsets the felony registry on June 30, 2023, when all courts are expected to be using Odyssey.</blockquote>
Readers who are listed on the sex offender registry are having a wry laugh at that plan. They know how easily legislative intentions can change, how easily ten years on the registry can become a lifetime. They know how easily a legislature can create new restrictions, how last year it was okay to hand out candy to trick-or-treaters but this year doing so is a new felony.<br />
<br />
They know how easily a registry can encourage fear, and result in job and housing discrimination, vandalism, vigilantism, even murder.<br />
<br />
They know how easily public shaming can result in suicide.<br />
<br />
It is both fascinating and nauseating to see next to the article a link to a story with the headline, <i>Indiana lawmakers to consider plan for reducing youth suicide</i>. If Indiana legislators were at all concerned about suicide, this bill would have died a quick and easy death.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The nonpartisan Legislative Service Agency has not estimated how many Hoosiers might be listed on the felony registry if it becomes law.</blockquote>
Good question. How many families will be put at risk?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Prior to 2014, Indiana charged numerous crimes as felonies that currently are treated as misdemeanors. For example, theft of any amount, even a pack of gum, previously was a felony, while today felony theft requires at least $750 in stolen property.</blockquote>
Laws change. It is good that Hoosiers are no longer charged with felonies for small thefts.<br />
<br />
Laws change. Today, only those convicted of sex offenses are listed on the Internet. Tomorrow, all Indiana felons.<br />
<br />
What happens when people realize their neighbors have felony records? What emotional demands will be made of legislators? Residence restrictions for those with convictions for violent crimes?<br />
<br />
How long until people on the felon registry will be required to report their travel plans? How long until drivers licenses and passports carry a felon identifier?<br />
<br />
This is why registries must be abolished. Once legislators find something that is easy <i>and</i> satisfies their need to look as if they are doing something for public safety or for the children, they will do it.<br />
<br />
The existence of the registry is what makes residence restrictions and presence restrictions possible.<br />
<br />
It is horrifying that legislators have discovered how easily records can be vomited onto the Internet and yet not considered the damage they will do to their constituents.<br />
<br />
Abolish all registries.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-6812428792861262902019-01-03T19:37:00.000-08:002019-01-03T19:37:18.994-08:00Israel: no more name-changing; public shaming remainsNews about irrational laws in Israel, via <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-sex-offenders-are-no-longer-allowed-to-change-name-1.6802548">Haaretz</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Knesset on Monday passed into law a bill that prohibits people convicted of sex crimes from changing their name. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The law came about as a response to complaints by women who were shocked to learn they had been in a relationship with convicted sex offenders in the past,” said Meretz MK Michal Rozin, who drafted the law. </blockquote>
Seems to me that if those women had discovered that their partners were committing new sex crimes, Haaretz would have mentioned it, if not put it in the headline. <i>Dozens of women shocked to learn their romantic partners have been molesting preschoolers!</i> No reporter would fail to mention that. No publisher would have missed the chance to use that salacious headline.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“This had been hidden from them since the men had changed their names. We’re now letting the public and the victims protect themselves from people convicted of sex crimes.” </blockquote>
Protect themselves from what? From being exposed as enjoying the company of a man who has changed his ways?<br />
<br />
It would be much more useful to talk about how to prevent sexual abuse instead of ginning up fear of those who no longer commit sex crimes.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In explanatory notes to the law it says that every citizen is allowed to change his or her name or surname, but that convicted sex offenders could abuse this right in order to continue endangering the public under another name. The notes go on to say there is no dispute that a convict can open a new page in life, but that limits need to be in place. </blockquote>
It is possible a name change could aid someone in criminal endeavors. Is that what has happened in Israel? Almost certainly not.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Habayit Hayehudi MK Moti Yogev, who helped draft the law, noted, “Coming right after 1,000 criminals, including sex offenders, were released from prison (due to overcrowding), this law is even more important. Systems don’t always work". </blockquote>
Systems don't always work, true, and yet legislators cling desperately to one system that has been shown again and again to be an inarguable failure: sex offender registries.<br />
<br />
After releasing 1,000 people from overcrowded prisons, legislators--<i>again!</i>--find that a new registry law makes them look tough on crime.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-17917346174803737032018-12-30T12:54:00.000-08:002019-01-01T10:54:57.794-08:00sheriff's deputies and their sex crimes<div class="tr_bq">
It cannot be a surprise that law enforcement officers sometimes break the law but some stories still raise our eyebrows. The Omaha World-Herald reports, in a <a href="https://www.omaha.com/news/plus/citing-cases-of-alleged-sexual-misconduct-judge-refuses-to-dismiss/article_342729f9-35a7-562a-b231-9e5f247f63a4.html">subscriber-only story</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a young woman’s lawsuit against Douglas County Sheriff Tim Dunning and his office over a 2013 assault in which an on-duty deputy made her perform a sex act on him at Zorinsky Lake.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In doing so, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon cited 15 sexual misconduct cases involving deputies or Sheriff’s Office employees from 1998 on. Unlike former Deputy Cory Cooper’s 2013 crime against the young woman, none were prosecuted, and several did not seem to rise to the level of a crime. </blockquote>
Of fifteen, only one case was prosecuted--the 2013 assault at Zorinsky Lake.<br />
<blockquote>
However, Bataillon ruled that the woman has the right, at this point, to have jurors decide whether the incidents indicate that Dunning was indifferent to sexual misconduct in his office — and whether such indifference and little training led to a culture where Cooper feared no consequence for boorish behavior. </blockquote>
Boorish behavior? This deputy is accused of sexual assault, not boorish behavior.<br />
<br />
He is accused of forcing a young woman to perform oral sex on him in return for letting her boyfriend go free and it seems he feared no consequences for <i>that </i>sexual assault.<br />
<blockquote>
“The court finds that the 15 instances of sexual misconduct at the (Sheriff’s Office) create genuine issues of material fact concerning the municipality’s ... failure to train or supervise its employees on sexual misconduct,” Bataillon wrote. “The DCSO was on notice of these sexual misconduct incidents through the office’s complaint and investigation process. Yet, similar sexual misconduct incidents continued to recur over a nearly twenty-year period. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“The court agrees with the plaintiff that there is sufficient evidence as a matter of law that would enable a jury to find deliberate indifference on the part of Sheriff Dunning.”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In an interview late this month, Dunning denied being callous toward the misconduct, saying that suspensions or terminations followed any case that could be corroborated. </blockquote>
Suspensions or terminations but only one prosecution. The article does not include details of any suspensions and terminations.<br />
<blockquote>
He also noted that none of those prior cases involved Cooper. And he said he had no warning signs that Cooper — a former military member — would act out. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Cooper did what he did because he’s a sex offender and a criminal,” Dunning said. </blockquote>
Because he's a <i>sex offender and a criminal</i> or because the sheriff's office doesn't pay much attention to deputies who use their authority to commit sex crimes?<br />
<blockquote>
“Before we hired him, he had a psychological screen. He was polygraphed. As far as we could tell, he was going to be a sterling employee.” </blockquote>
C'mon, Dunning. We all know that polygraphs are junk science, akin to phrenology. You know it, too. You made a bad hire...or you failed to train your deputies on how not to commit sex offenses, how to keep one's hands to oneself and how to keep one's pants zipped, the way the most people manage to do without special training.<br />
<br />
Dunning's deputies need training on how not to abuse one's authority.<br />
<blockquote>
Cooper was convicted of misdemeanor assault in a plea deal and served six months in jail. Prosecutors reduced the charges from first-degree sexual assault after consulting with the woman, who wasn’t eager to relive the ordeal at trial. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Under the plea bargain, Cooper did not have to register as a sex offender and is not a convicted felon.</blockquote>
That's a heck of a plea bargain. Crazy that a law enforcement officer was able to get such a good deal, isn't it?<br />
<br />
While it is infuriating to read a story that sounds as if a deputy was able to avoid being listed on the sex offender registry <i>because he is a law enforcement officer</i>, there is a piece of the story that deserves even more attention.<br />
<br />
<b>Sheriff Dunning's office administers the sex offender registry for Douglas County. </b><br />
<br />
This is the office where people listed on the registry report two or four times each year, to report an address change, to report that they have a new vehicle, to be photographed when they have grown a beard or shaved one off, to notify the sheriff that they are leaving town for more than three business days.<br />
<br />
<b>They report to deputies who are not held accountable for their own sex offenses.</b><br />
<br />
This is the office where people <i>who have lived law-abiding lives for years</i> have to report that they have nothing to report. If they do not report that they have nothing to report, they will be charged with a felony.<br />
<br />
If they fail to report again, even after more law-abiding years, they can be charged with a more serious felony.<br />
<br />
Sheriff's deputies, on the other hand, can seemingly commit more than one sex crime and not be prosecuted at all.<br />
<br />
A sidebar story in the Omaha World Herald details each of the fifteen cases in which a deputy or staff member was accused of sex offenses. More than one deputy was accused more than once. An example:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2002: A deputy repeatedly licked his juvenile's stepdaughter's nipple while horse playing. He also admitted to getting in the shower with her while she was naked. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2002: Same deputy (as the previous 2002 case) took a juvenile detainee to his apartment, repeatedly told her how pretty she was and touched her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. He threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. (Dunning said he did not recall that a threat was made.)</blockquote>
Another:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2011: Someone complained about a Douglas County sheriff's lieutenant's romantic relationships, including texting pictures of his genitals to women and sending sexually explicit emails to women. He also was accused of having sex at the office and abusing his work hours to conduct personal business.</blockquote>
The registry protects no one and it certainly protects no one from law enforcement officers who have little worry about being prosecuted for a sex offense.<br />
<br />
<br />
Update: This is a link to an<a href="https://www.apnews.com/fb43adce5838486ca72ec33e1539f286"> AP article </a>derived from the OW-H story. No paywall, no subscription required.<br />
<br />Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-12395535592959889772018-11-08T05:22:00.001-08:002018-11-08T05:22:17.353-08:00when incremental change is not incrementalAfter Tuesday's elections, ACLU Deputy National Political Director Udi Ofer tweeted,
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Here is the moment we announced in Miami that we won! Amendment 4 passed, ending 150 years of a Jim Crow law that deprived the vote to 1.4 million Floridians. History. And the movement to end mass incarceration continues 2 grow & win! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yeson4?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#yeson4</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Election2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Election2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cjreform?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#cjreform</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/smartjustice?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#smartjustice</a> <a href="https://t.co/hCG7S9sj6M">pic.twitter.com/hCG7S9sj6M</a></div>
— Udi Ofer (@UdiACLU) <a href="https://twitter.com/UdiACLU/status/1059993900457361408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
When I saw that, I was happy. I understood that people convicted of murder and sex offenses were not included but I was happy that so many others with felony convictions would be able to vote in Florida. After all, of the over 6 million Americans disenfranchised because of felony voting restrictions, almost a quarter are in Florida.
<br />
<br />
Then I read the multi-part Twitter thread from Joshua Hoe, host of the <a href="http://decarcerationnation.com/"><i>Decarceration Nation</i> </a>podcast.<br />
<br />
He <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaBHoe/status/1060219303100932096">begins</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. Look @johnlegend @VanJones68 @UdiACLU @ClintSmithIII @JFormanJr I am not trying to be the Grinch here...It is AMAZING that 1.4 MILLION of my brothers and sisters in incarceration can vote again. I understand the racial legacy & it is a Great day! </blockquote>
Imagine the joy of those who have been prevented from voting! Now they can vote against candidates who would work against their interests. Now they can vote for those who will work for them.<br />
<br />
Now they have a voice.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2. However, the WAY this was done is extremely problematic, it turned Triage into throwing people under the bus and then driving the bus over them until they were [erased]. Don't believe me, listen to the people saying ALL formerly incarcerated folks were re-enfranchised today</blockquote>
The celebration of re-enfranchisement made no mention of those left behind. Those who still do not have the right to vote in Florida are not seen as worthy of notice. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3. I suspect, the people in Florida sentenced to murder and sex offense charges are wondering if they even get to be considered to have carceral citizenship now (to quote @reubenjmiller)</blockquote>
Udi Ofer trumpeted the end of "150 years of a Jim Crow law that deprived the vote" but it is not ended <i>at all</i>.<br />
<br />
Joshua Hoe continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
4. This objection isn't an attack on incrementalism, it is about HOW we create models FOR incrementalism. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Explain to me a pathway back to the franchise for people convicted of murder or any sex offense after Amendment 4? An amendment just for these folks? No way that happens</blockquote>
Those convicted of certain felonies would not be included. As usual. Except <i>not</i> as usual.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
5. Many of you oppose the #FirstStepAct but at least I can tell you the pathway to expanding it after it is passed. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
After Amendment 4 there is no path to expansion that makes political sense.</blockquote>
How many in your community would sign petitions demanding that <i>rapists and murderers</i> be allowed to vote...because that is the way those petitions would be represented by the opposition and the press would be unable to resist those juicy headlines.<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
6. At the core, now enshrined in the Florida Constitution is the premise that disenfranchisement is legitimate - but ONLY for "Those People"<br /><br />Only now, "Those People" are a much smaller group with less allies & incredibly vulnerable (see the folks living under bridges in Miami)</div>
— Joshua B. Hoe (@JoshuaBHoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaBHoe/status/1060221975510040576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Fewer allies, indeed. We have all seen that <i>Those People</i> are easy to ignore, easy to use as the pawn in criminal justice reform efforts.<br />
<br />
A politician can work toward reform more effectively if she can demonstrate that she is still tough on crime. That demonstration is made much simpler when laws provide easy categories to separate the acceptable from the unacceptable: violent vs. nonviolent, murderers and sex offenders vs. everyone else.<br />
<br />
As long as the reformers have a pawn to sacrifice, reformers can claim incremental successes. As long as those convicted of murders and sex offenses are kept occupied with problems finding housing and employment, they are vulnerable to criminal justice reformers willing to sacrifice them and their families.<br />
<br />
As long as they cannot vote, they have no voice.<br />
<br />
Florida's Amendment 4 is not a legislative bill that can be easily changed later when the political environment will allow it. This is not something that can be fixed by sliding a wording change into a maintenance bill when constituents are distracted by more urgent headlines.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
7. So, moving forward, I am only suggesting </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
a) Triage can make sense but ritual sacrifice is a dangerous model<br />b) We need to remember that these folks need help, & have NO allies to unite with to gain rights back now<br />c) We should call on all the new voters to come back & help</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
8. I will now shut up and go back to talking about other more positive things. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am not trying to rain on the parade, I am trying to suggest the job is not finished and that <b>there were dangers in this approach</b>. [My emphasis.]</blockquote>
The dangers in this approach stem directly from the existence of the sex offender registry. The registry does the sorting for legislators and reformers who need to prove they are tough on crime. Need a dog to kick? Look to the registry.<br />
<br />
The registry provides a list of people to fear.<br />
<br />
As long as the registry exists, no amount of data will convince the general public that registrants are not to be feared. After all, if there is a list, there must be a reason, right? Why would there be a list if those people are not dangerous?<br />
<br />
As long as the registry exists, legislators will find more crimes to add to that category. Do not underestimate the need for legislators to prove that they hate a despised category of criminal.<br />
<br />
Abolishing the registry removes the easy categorization it provides, the easy demonization it encourages.<br />
<br />
Joshua Hoe is correct. Criminal justice reformers must choose their methods more carefully.<br />
<br />
<b>It isn't incremental if no increments remain. </b><br />
<br />
Abolish the registry.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520559915267373429.post-36923985128714133212018-10-27T07:17:00.000-07:002018-11-03T11:07:50.288-07:00Valor Village<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://www.valorvillage.org/">Valor Village</a> provides a wonderful service:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Valor Village Foundation, Inc. is a non profit organization that has been established to provide a network of safe, comfortable homes (Staytions) where families of incarcerated military veterans can stay free of charge. There is nothing more important than consistent support during confinement. Valor Village ensures that you can be there for visits, court proceedings, and legal meetings without the crippling housing costs. </blockquote>
If you know families with a family member who is an incarcerated veteran, pass this information along to them.<br />
<br />
<b>Updated November 3:</b><br />
As Two States East said, this is a growing program. I contacted Valor Village myself and Angela Johnson, executive director said,<br />
<blockquote>
...we provide advocacy information and support to family members, regardless of their location. Our Support Service number is <b>(202) 476-9058</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Support is critical to empowering family members to effectively care for themselves throughout the crisis of their loved one's incarceration, so that they can learn about and leverage all available resources, veterans benefits, and legal options pertaining to justice-involved veterans. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
We will be updating the website soon, but do not want to discourage any family member from calling before we do so. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Please do include the phone number. <b>Isolation impedes action.</b> We are available 24-7 to take calls. [My emphasis.]</blockquote>
This is a powerful service for families of incarcerated veterans. Many thanks to Valor Village for seeing a need and stepping up to do something about it.Mariehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10597007600326637447noreply@blogger.com1