Greetings in the Holy Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Thank you for contacting Vision of Hope.
First of all I don't judge people. I was an unwilling guest of the State of SC for six years of a ten year sentence. That is where I met the Man, Jesus. I am not sure what it is that I can offer at
this time other than prayers. I apologize for being so late in getting back to you. I have been ill and in the Hospital as well as taking care of my handicapped wife. The Ministry doesn't run when I
am not here so I am so far behind on e-mails and snail mail that I have no idea when I will get caught up. If you are already home I pray that God is blessing you as you begin your post prison life.
If there is anything else I can do please let us know. Again, God bless you and yours.
In Christ's Service
Doc
This is a letter (below this letter,) I asked Joann Gray to write, that just kind of introduces herself and explains her situation. (see her on http://www.cowtowninfo.com/personals/f06/f06-014.htm
--- -my site is www.usaprayermission.com, name and address: Joseph Edward Bonnette, P.O. BOX 65555 St. Paul, Mn. 55165 USA. --- email: 12000words@usa.com.cell phone: 612-749-0072) ---- I am seeking
to advance in the “heavenly calling” in every possible way and request to God, and am ready for whatever the Lord has for me to do. I am really desiring to get out of the “rut” life has thrown my way
my whole life so far!! I want to get out of the selfish self serving ways of life, and really work to serve the Lord.
--------Joann just sent this letter “to whom it may concern” last week on 8/10/11. She is supposed to get out on parole next month, and get considered on Sept 1st, so I am praying that if she is
telling the truth in this short letter, (which I slightly correct in spelling and grammar,-- and which I know her claim sounds impossible for her to get 30 years for something so “relatively”
innocent, when known murders sometimes get out after hardly a year passes,) then I ask God to get as many to pray as possible for it, and if she gets out, I have a list of vows and promises to God of
what we will do together for the furtherance of his kingdom. In this request I also want prayer that my vows will be especially “obviously” binding, (though they are already according to His word,
“pay that you owe,” etc.) and that they are proof that I really need and desire God to work in my life in behalf of Joann and myself. I will keep close track of all my resolutions and promises, and
while I do them regardless of what God does for me, there are some that cannot be done unless circumstances allow it, and prove to me that God answered my prayers in my favor. -----.
------ The Holy Spirit knows if this letter (mine and hers) is true or not, and so it would be better if those who have the gift of “true word of knowledge” could read this, and all give me their
honest most God fearing opinion as to what they believe the Lord is telling them on it, (preferable speaking through them,) knowing if you do not really “know” you better not “act like” you do, or
you are “lying to the Holy Spirit!!” You know Ananias and Sapphira and I think God could do that again, even if I would speak carelessly, etc!!! And I think we all deserve to be treated like we are
important and telling the truth, until and unless we know (can prove) otherwise, so I do not like this “based on probability stuff,” as if it is enough to be treated like a “statistic” rather than a
real individual and unique person. I think faith can be an “exact science,” and science means “logic” which probably comes from the word “logos.” Jesus said to preach the gospel to the “poor” because
the poor cannot be known unless someone goes to them, and “seeks them out,” as Jesus said to “leave the 99 sheep and seek the one lost one!!!” And Jesus said though we start working in the harvest
field late in the “day,” we will get the same “payment” (anointing) as those who have done so their whole life already. -----
---------------- I read part of Edmund Roebert’s book, “ministering in the gifts of the Holy Spirit,” (a Nigerian woman gave me, whom I unfortunately gave all that money to,) and I am trying to
practice “praying in the Holy Spirit,” though it is true I have been slack on that, though not on prayer in general. I believe the word in Romans 13:3 that all judges and police and “rulers” in
general are God’s ministers, though on a “secular pharisaical level,” and as the heart of the King, God can control and turn it anyway he chooses. It does not say “only in the case of righteous and
godly Kings and rulers,” but ALL such persons are considered “ministers” of God. The Bible also says that “if a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies at peace with him.” And so I know
God is in control, and as stated in the infallible word, in John 1:3, that “without (Jesus) the word, was not anything made that is made,” and so though people may have a lot of bad intentions “made”
in their heart, for it to be “made” outwardly, it can only happen through the word who is now made flesh, and called “Jesus our Lord and Savior.” Amos 3:6 seems to say the same, that nothing good or
bad can happen, unless the Lord does it. This should be a comfort to us, that “not a sparrow can fall to the ground without our father” Jesus said.
----------------Here is Joann's letter below: (yes she knows Jesus as her savior, and that was about the first thing she told me how much she loves Jesus, and how He speaks to her, etc. And she said
also how much she loves her Bible, etc. The “Joe” she mentions is me, though one is good and that is God, as Jesus said, but “every creature of God is good if sanctified by the word of God and
prayer.”)
======== To whom this may concern! My name is Joann and yes I’m doing time. I have been for a while now. But thank God I will be able to see the light soon. I want you and whole lot of other people
to know that just because people are behind bars doesn’t mean that they did anything. There are so many people that are doing time behind something they didn’t do! Like myself, no I didn’t know a
robbery was about to happen. They took clothes not money. The girl said she was going to pick up something and I took her. So no I didn’t know. Maybe you or no one else believes me. It’s only one
person I know loves me and knows my life and His name is God. I have nothing to hide. I really do thank you for trying to get to know me. And I love Joe he is a good man. So all I’m asking you is to
please get to know me okay. Before you all put me down. Thank you very much! Love, Joann
SEX OFFENDER ISSUES
Judge rules sex offenders can stay overnight in Grand Rapids homeless shelters
Published: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 8:00 AM Updated: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 2:53 PM
File Art | The Grand Rapids PressSite of man's death: In this
January 2009 photo, Don Lamse returns to the spot behind his recycling shop on South Division Avenue where he discovered the body of Thomas Pauli. "It was way below freezing, " he
said.
GRAND RAPIDS — A judge’s ruling allowing homeless sex offenders to stay overnight at shelters near schools could be a life saver with winter weather on the way, an American Civil Liberties Union
attorney said Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist ruled that homeless sex offenders can stay at the city’s overnight shelters despite a state law that prohibits sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a
school. Both of the city’s homeless shelters are within that student-safety zone.
Quist determined that homeless people do not “reside” in emergency shelters if they only go there at night to sleep and have no guarantee of a place to stay on a given night.
The ruling came after Thomas Pauli, 51, froze to death in January 2009 after an overnight shelter denied him admission because he was on the state’s Sex Offender Registry. He had a 1991 sexual
assault conviction involving a pre-teen girl.
“After the death of Thomas Pauli, the shelter-advocacy community really came together to say no one should freeze to death,” ACLU attorney Miriam Aukerman said.
“To freeze to death on the street, that’s a horrible fate. No one deserves that.”
File Art | The Grand Rapids
PressThomas Pauli
After Pauli’s death, five homeless people, Mel Trotter Ministries and Degage Ministries filed
a lawsuit concerning residency restrictions of the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act, or SORA, and school-safety zones.
Quist narrowed his declaratory ruling to the facts of this case, and rejected an ACLU request for an injunction to prevent enforcement of provisions of SORA and student safety zones.
He said the plaintiffs have “shown that because of the uncertainty regarding the application of SORA’s residency restrictions to emergency shelters, they face the impossible choice of staying at a
shelter and risking prosecution and sleeping on the streets, where they face physical harm or abuse or, as in the case of Mr. Pauli, death from freezing temperatures. These are the quintessential
circumstances for which declaratory relief is intended ... .”
The state argued that homeless shelters had no obligation under the law to determine if a visitor is a sex offender, and said a challenge to the law should come after someone is actually
prosecuted. The state said the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they failed to identify any injury the court could act upon.
“As Michigan law now stands ... plaintiffs have no well-founded fear of prosecution,” Assistant Attorney General John Fedynsky wrote in court documents.
He said the homeless plaintiffs “presented no facts showing that the statute has ever been applied to any defendant (or any court or other authority, for that matter) in a manner that barred
access to emergency shelter. ... Plaintiffs are thus seeking an injuction against a hypothetical situation that has not occurred and for which they have no well-founded fear that it will occur in the
future.”
The ACLU said homeless sex-offender registrants were threatened with arrest if they used homeless shelters as residences.
Grand Rapids Police Chief Kevin Belk, in an affidavit requesting direction from Michigan State Police, wrote: “Among other things, it is unclear whether registered individuals can stay in Grand
Rapids’ shelters, which are all located within 1,000 feet of a school.”
The judge said that attorneys representing county and state officials suggested in oral and written statements that they would not enforce SORA’s residency restrictions against the homeless who
use overnight shelters, but said those statements cannot be accepted as a disavowal... .”
“Here, plaintiffs have demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution. For example, the Grand Rapids Police Department advised (Robert) Roe that he would be arrested if he continued to stay at a
shelter. Moreover, at least two plaintiffs have received written warnings that charges would be sought ‘for a residency violation of the Sex Offender-School Safety Zone’ if they failed to stop using
homeless shelters.”
The homeless people who filed suit were identified only by pseudonyms. Aukerman, the ACLU attorney, said their convictions were not for serious crimes, with three being high-court misdemeanors.
One was 19 when he had sex with a 15-year-old girlfriend who said she was 17, records showed.
She said homeless people as well as shelter operators needed clarification of the law. Now, she said, it will be important to get the word out so homeless sex offenders don’t stay outside on
bitter cold nights thinking they can’t get into a shelter.
She said keeping sex offenders out of shelters has “no impact on public safety.” In a shelter, they’re locked down for the night, and have to leave in the morning. Keeping convicted sex offenders
away from schools in the middle of the night really served no purpose, she said.
Considering you have to register as a sex offender of you are convicted of peeing behind a dumpster in the alley, forced homelessness and hypothermia are pretty severe penalties.
This whole sex offended thing needs to be reviewed as mirights so aptly denoted. Nonetheless, I understand we are talking about what a state law means and so why is a federal judge ruling in this
matter? A homeless person by definition has no residence and therefore would be exempt from a law that cites residency as the guideline. I suppose that the legislature will need to go back and amend
the law to clarifiy its position regardind residency.
when we made people who are 18 and have sex with a 17 year old, or a guy writing his name in the snow. (Famous hockey coach nailed for peeing in a parking lot, by a dumpster after midnight)
register as a sex offender we lost common sense. then we had the lady move to the trailer park infested with sex offenders. Should they have to move? Sort of like people who move by the airport and
complain about the noise? this issue needs a Solomon like decision.
Actually, the law does state that if you are homeless you have to constantly report where you are. I don't remember the exact wording, but I believe that if a homeless person changes location
within 4 blocks of their last reported location, they have to report it to the police. I keep up on this. You wouldn't believe how many people are on the sex offender list and don't even have a
victim. Some have to register for life for PREPARING (not even attempting) to have sex with a minor that doesn't exist. One republican law maker makes his carreer by pushing the fear of people being
convicted of having sex.
“To freeze to death on the street, that’s a horrible fate. No one deserves that.”.... If you're a pedaphile you do deserve that. If my math is correct this guy was 33 and had sex with a girl that
was 12 or younger. I think everything worked out for him.
If you have been dumb enough or unlucky enough to have been convicted as a sexual offender, chances are very good that you will be homeless for the rest of your life in Michigan.
Sent in via the contact form, and posted with permission.
By Anonymous:
As a father of a sex offender, I find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the changing laws. We are currently dealing with my son being arrested for a registration violation that we did not
even know about. The inclusion of email on registration. This law in IL went into affect 3 years after my son took a plea bargin agreement and conviction. We now understand the ex post facto issue with Sex Offenders which I feel is unfair. However, is there any requirement by states or
jurisdictions to inform sex offenders of law changes and how they affect their registrations? My son registers and follows requirements to the letter and this had never come up with the officers when
renewing his registration (Son just goes in and states nothing has changed... he signs and goes on his way). Thoughts or other topics already discussed with this issue? How is a sex offender able to
identify (or understand) what the laws are from year to year and know how to apply them? Even the detective who checks on his status from time to time admits he doesn't know the rules and cannot give
him any answers. Very frustrated with the system. Thank you for your efforts to those who feel helpless.
In 1996, Megan's Law was enacted, which modified the Wetterling Act. Megan Kanka was 7 years old when she was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a neighbor.
That neighbor was a convicted sex offender, but none of the neighbors knew.
Almost all state sex offender registries require a convicted offender to report his or her address to local authorities. Without an address to report or a permanent place for law enforcement to
monitor, homeless offenders are raising new questions about the registries and public safety.
Lisa Simmons, the sex offender registrar in the Greene County Sheriff's Office, said the homeless individuals she monitors don't normally cause a stir.
"Usually, my homeless offenders, they just keep to themselves -- to my knowledge," she said.
But at least two incidents involving homeless sex offenders in the county surfaced in October; both men are now jailed.
"The logic is there -- you can't track them," said Craig Hemmens, head of Missouri State University's department of criminology and criminal justice.
Hemmens said the stories of people forced into homelessness because of sex offender requirements are prevalent, but research doesn't find the same correlation.
Also often mentioned is the idea that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend.
Hemmens said data on recidivism rates among sex offenders vary widely, in part because of the umbrella of
crimes considered sex offenses.
"Lots of people are labeled as sex offenders," Hemmens said.
What has been shown in research is that pedophiles do have higher rates of recidivism than other crimes, he said.
But there are others who question whether registries protect the community as intended.
Opponents argue the registries might make offenders more dangerous --forcing some into isolation and to give up working toward acceptance by society.
Among those is Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit organization committed to protecting the human rights of people worldwide.
"If former offenders simply had to register their whereabouts with the police, the adverse consequences for them would be minimal," the group writes in a 2007 report titled "No Easy Answers Sex Offender Laws in the US."
"But online sex offender registries brand everyone listed on them with a very public 'scarlet letter' that signifies not just that they committed a sex offense in the past, but that by virtue of
that fact they remain dangerous."
Still, the group recognizes the emotionally charged issue. The report instead advocates for a new approach.
"Broad-based community notification and residency restriction laws are not the panacea to stopping sexual violence. Those who care about ending sex crimes
must demand that policymakers reject one-size-fits-all laws to address sex abuse and begin to invest the political and financial resources in policies that actually work."
Lawsuit filed by parents of Grant County boy accused of sex assault
The parents of a Grant County boy who authorities have accused of first-degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a 5-year-old girl when he was 6 years old have filed a federal lawsuit against
the county's district attorney, a social worker and a former Sheriff's Office investigator.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Madison, seeks $12 million in damages for alleged violations of the constitutional rights of the boy and his parents.
It names as defendants Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker, as well as Jan Moravits, a social worker with Grant County Social Services, and recently retired Grant County Sheriff's Sgt.
James Kopp.
Tomah attorney Richard Radcliffe, who is representing Riniker, Radcliffe and Kopp, did not return a call for comment Wednesday.
Chief Deputy Jack Johnson of the Grant County Sheriff's Department said he has not seen the lawsuit and declined comment.
Among the suit's claims is that the boy was selectively accused of a felony for playing doctor with the daughter of a Grant County political figure. It also alleges that the investigations by Kopp
and Moravits were haphazard and biased in favor of the girl's father because of his political status and that Riniker did not act reasonably in charging a 6-year-old with first-degree sexual
assault.
"I think his life has been ruined, and I think it's been ruined by reckless conduct by the defendants without any regard for the little boy and his future," said Chicago attorney Christopher
Cooper, who is representing the boy and his parents in the lawsuit.
The boy, who is now 7 and has a developmental disability, has been diagnosed with stress disorders that medical professionals attribute to the defendants' actions, according to the suit. He has
experienced fear of going to jail, as well as anxiety, depression, sleepless nights, vomiting, crying and missed school time.
The lawsuit also asks that a judge issue a permanent injunction to stop Riniker's "attempts to coerce" the boy's parents into forcing the boy to admit guilt.
The boy — who under Wisconsin law is too young to be charged with a crime or in a juvenile delinquency petition, the equivalent of a criminal complaint for adults — was accused of first-degree
sexual assault in a petition seeking protection or services for the boy. Such petitions are typically used by parents or authorities to identify children younger than 10 who need services to change
inappropriate behavior.
According to the petition for protection or services, the girl's mother found her daughter in the boy's yard "with her skirt and underpants around her ankles" and the boy sitting underneath her,
penetrating her with his finger.
The girl told her mother they were playing "butt doctor" and told authorities the boy only touched her on the outside of her body, court documents state.
Sexual predation is back in the national spotlight since Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State defense coordinator who's accused of sexually assaulting eight boys over 15 years, and two top university officials and has been charged
with sexual abuse and covering up the abuse.
It doesn't take much imagination to understand the horrors and damage caused by criminal offenders. And it's hard to talk about the facts of any criminal behavior since misinformation is common
and ideas contrary to misinformation are quickly associated as soft on crime. The nuances of any criminal behavior are complicated.
Recidivism Statistics
The percentages rearrested (but not necessarily guilty) for the "same category of offense" for which they were
most recently in prison for were:
13.4% of released robbers
22.0% of released assaulters
23.4% of released burglars
33.9% of released larcenists
19.0% of released defrauders
41.2% of released drug offenders
2.5% of released rapists
Contrary to popular belief, as a group, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of all the crime
categories. These statistics completely fly in the face of conventional wisdom about sex offenders being the most likely group of criminals to re-offend for their initial crime, but these are the
facts. It could be argued that sex offender recidivism isn't detected and that is why this number is so low, but that could also be said of other crime categories, too.
Independent studies of the effectiveness of in-prison treatment programs for sex offenders have shown that evidence-based programs can reduce recidivism by up to 15 percent. This might not sound like much, but it is. Recidivism can be further reduced up to 30 percent with after prison intervention. However, our current policies make no sense; we release many offenders to the public
without some form of post-release supervision. Regardless of the program offered, it is very important to measure the effect the program has on recidivism; just because something is evidence-based,
there can't be an assumption it works in the new location!
Reentry Policy
Post-release supervision helps decrease recidivism since it involves keeping an eye on the ex-offender, but also with assisting the ex-offender to find a job, obtain drug treatment and find
housing, all of which are important to staying crime free. On the issue of housing, this is perhaps the biggest challenge facing ex-sex offenders. No one wants them and they have many legal obstacles when finding housing. And they have burnt all their bridges with society and even their family.
To help reduce the chances of them re-offending, housing is important for every ex-offender.
Reports released from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that when sex offenders do recidivate with a sex offense, approximately 75% victimize an acquaintance. The important point of this is that current sex offender residential restrictions often don't account for this and many other findings.
There are many types of sex offenders, from those who urinate in public to sexual predators and pedophiles. Some are criminally sentenced inmates while others are civil commitments deemed too
dangerous to release even though they have served their sentence. There are different grades of sex offenders that include:
Level 1 (low risk of repeat offense), or
Level 2 (moderate risk of repeat offense), or
Level 3 (high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists).
There are nearly 740,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Recent research finds that "the data presented here do not support the claim that the public is safer from
sex offenders due to community notification laws."
This is not to suggest that we should not have sex offender registries. What it suggests is that sex offender registries may provide a false sense of security, and so other strategies are
necessary. In addition, former sex offenders who do not re-offend find that sex offender registries limit their housing, job and educational opportunities. Right or wrong, some people may feel that
former sex offenders deserve on going punishment. But it is important to note that difficulty finding a job or place to live is a risk factor for other types of crime. Adequate housing is very
important for sex offenders. Think about it like this -- we don't want sex offenders to be homeless because if they are homeless, we don't know where they are.
To offer a policy outline on what to do for the various types of sex offenders by the different levels is far beyond the scope of this article. The important thing to note is that housing, jobs
and health care are important to decrease recidivism. Also, we can't make assumptions about what works in public safety based on how we think something is or should be -- what works and what doesn't
is sometimes counterintuitive.
In Conclusion
Effective strategies to deal with sex offenders are not based not anecdote, emotion, or case examples of just one; they are based on facts and what we know about the issue. At times we hear about
a high profile event; but it is important to remember that high profile events are high profile precisely because they are unusual and unlikely.
Making policy based on high profile events is a surefire way to overreact and make inefficient and, worse, ineffective policy. In short, a high profile event is good time find out where a
shortcoming or loophole might reside, but a high profile event is not what policy should be based on. Doing so would result in the majority of cases being marginalized and a strategy designed around
an unlikely event.
"How can a Judge or Justice determine that the registry is NOT punitive when, after you have paid your debt to society, no matter where you live or how you have reformed
your life, no citizen wants you or your family living any where near them. The hate and abhorrence exhibited to all registered offenders, for the rest of their lives, is a direct effect of being
required to register on a public registry. IT IS PUNISHMENT!" - By Anonymous
Pa.'s High Court Strikes Down Allegheny County Law
PHILADELPHIA - This past week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an ordinance passed by Allegheny County that would ban sex offenders from living near schools, child care
facilities or recreation and community centers.
The court ruled that the law would set up what it called "penal colonies" where all sex offenders would be forced to
live.
Six sex offenders sued the county, saying the law basically banned them from living anywhere in the county.
This ruling could have a ripple effect now on other counties that have similar laws, including Bucks and Delaware, which have similar ordinances on the books.
Attorney Lou D'Onofrio joined the Fox 29 News at 10 to discuss the case and what it could mean for other Pennsylvania communities.
Subject: The Missing 100,000 Sex Offender Myth: Are we today chasing Political ghosts?
The Missing 100,000 Sex Offender Myth: Are we today chasing Political ghosts?
9-17-2011 National:
"The Missing 100,000 Sex Offenders," the Political call to action myth. The myth originates from a 2003 telephone survey by Parents for Megans Laws. A 2003 CBS News article explains exactly what
transpired back then, it says:
"It (Parents for Megans Law)found that states on average were unable to account for 24 percent of sex offenders supposed to be in the databases . ..." In other words there were former offender
who the states believed should be in their databases, but were not. i.e., missing sex offenders .
At that time it was reported that there were between 400,000 and 500,000 registrants: see " Parents for Megans law estimates that 24% or between 100,000 and 150,000 aren’t even registered ,
meaning over 100,000 sex offenders are roaming the streets unknown to local law enforcement ." Sen Schumer's website (July 2005). Also eAdvocates list of " Assorted Quotes of Missing Sex Offenders
also that time frame; 2005-2006"
PML also found that, many former offenders who were registered (i.e., in state databases) had not updated their addresses. These folks are not the focus of this discussion, here we are focusing
only on the "Missing" i.e., roughly the claimed 100,000 sex offenders missing and not in data bases. Since that time Congress has appropriated millions and millions of dollars so that States and the
U.S. Marshals could find the missing 100,000 and that war cry has been used to get law after law enacted, including the Adam Walsh Act.
Daily I read news reports and I am always looking for any comment with respect to the capture of someone who "MAY BE" one of the alleged 100,000 missing. Never have I found a single comment
eluding to the capture of such a person. Yes, there are many comments about capturing folks, who were in a registry but failed to update something they were required to update, but these are not the
missing 100,000 folks (remember they were not in any state database, according to PML 2003 report). So the myth lives on.
Dr. Jill Levenson has addressed the myth in two of her papers and also concluded she could not find anything to substantiate the myth. see " 100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They?
Deconstruction of an Urban Legend " and " Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. ."
Remember, we know that the 100,000 are not in any database. Are these folks ghosts and if so, why do we continue to chase ghosts, or dead people? Reality, these are the Politicians' Ghosts,
thats why, and they need them to enact further laws!
Lets roll forward in time to the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act, the Final Guidelines - pages 6-7 which seems to address former offenders who are no longer in the system . See the
following:
C. Retroactivity
The proposed guidelines require the application by a jurisdiction of SORNA’s requirements to sex offenders convicted prior to the enactment of SORNA or its implementation in the jurisdiction, if
they remain in the system as prisoners, supervisees, or registrants, or if they reenter the system because of subsequent criminal convictions .
Moreover, the specific provisions of the guidelines relating to ‘‘retroactivity’’ incorporate some features that may limit their effect on sex offenders with older convictions . While SORNA’s
requirements apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they were convicted, see 28 CFR 72.3, the guidelines do not require jurisdictions to identify and register every such sex offender .
Rather, as stated in the guidelines, a jurisdiction will be considered to have substantially implemented SORNA if it applies SORNA’s requirements to sex offenders who remain in the system as
prisoners, supervisees, or registrants, or reenter the system through subsequent convictions . So the guidelines do not require a jurisdiction to register in conformity with SORNA sex offenders who
have fully left the system and merged into the general population at the time the jurisdiction implements SORNA, if they do not reoffend.
Guess what, states are not required to register them because they are no longer in the criminal justice system , so sayeth SORNA. Only if they commit another crime will they be brought back
under the harmful umbrella of SORNA. Why are we spending millions (by now Billions) of dollars looking for people (Political Ghosts) who are not required to register because they are out of the
system, or have died?
Further, Congress has yet to prove, or even try to prove, that these folks even exist, remember it was nothing but a "state's belief that they existed." But we also must remember, Congress needs
a bad guy, a group to perpetuate fears, and pass newer laws.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Stay tuned for my next commentary: Congress has recently addressed these missing sex offenders! You will not believe what Congress has done!
Making a sex offender registry public, as proposed by Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, looks on first glance to be about the public’s right to know. Parents’ rights come first!
Map out your neighbourhood, be informed, know where all the risks are for your kids!
But the proposal’s superficial appeal to voters falls apart on inspection. How would people change their behaviour if they knew where registered sex offenders live – except to drive their children
further indoors, if such a thing is possible? How much would it take to terrorize people? Ten registered offenders in a neighbourhood? Three?
Few would accept living in a bunker for long. They would try to drive the sex offenders out of their homes and jobs. That is why some U.S. jurisdictions with public registries also have residency
bans. Sex offenders – who may include a streaker, or a 20-year-old who had consensual sex with a teenager two weeks before her 16th birthday – are barred from living within, say, 2,500 metres of a
school or playground. “In many cases, residency restrictions [in the U.S.] have the effect of banishing registrants from entire urban areas,” says Human Rights Watch.
And what happens, then? Sex offenders, major and minor, habitual and one-time offenders, are driven into the shadows. They become isolated from family, friends and supports. Won’t they become more
likely, not less, to reoffend?
And why stop at sex offenders? Why not thieves, arsonists, people who beat others to a bloody pulp, paroled killers, terrorists, those on federal security certificates, fraudsters? The practice of
reintegrating convicted criminals would be destroyed.
Mr. Hudak pointed to Alberta as a model. It has a public high-risk offender list (for selected sex offenders and others), replete with photos and criminal records. John Doe “is in the Calgary
area,” says a typical entry. It is hard to see how Calgary’s children are any safer as a result.
In the U.S., harassment and violence (including murder) have been the predictable result of public registries available on the Internet, says Human Rights Watch. And for what? “Proponents of these
laws are not able to point to convincing evidence of public safety gains from them.”
Naming, shaming and giving addresses of sex offenders on the Internet is an easy grab for votes that would push people into the shadows, where they are most dangerous.
This page will be dedicated to Sex Offender Issues. While these offenders are the bottom of the chain of criminals in our society and even in prison society. They are humans beings that need Jesus
in their lives. When the "Great Commission" was given by Jesus, He didn't say all peoples tongues and nations except Sex Offenders. However, the Word of God does say that he who continues in such
behavior cannot enter the kingdom of God. (See: Matthew 28:19,20; Galatians:5:21).
ACTION ALERT: New Bill in Congress to Reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act GRANTS: For Years 2012 through 2016
9-9-2011 National:
HR-2870 "Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2011" was introduced by Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] on 9/8/2011 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Stated Intent: To reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Instead of my normal review lets look at the essence of what this bill wants to do:
1) Extend "Implementation Grants" and "Address Verification Grants" from 2012 through 2016, and authorize $15,000,000 for each of those years, for a total of $75,000,000;
2) Authorize $40,000,000 per year, for the years 2012 though 2016, for the U.S. Marshals to go after violators of SORNA, for a total of $200,000,000;
3) Authorize $3,000,000 per year, for the years 2012 though 2016, for the prosecution of sex offenses, for a total of $15,000,000;
4) Reduced to -0- ZERO previously authorized amounts for the purpose of "Training" of people (Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors to effectively respond to the
threat to children and the public posed by sex offenders who use the Internet and technology to solicit or otherwise exploit children;). Rep Sensenbrenner cites 42 U.S.C. 13941(c) but that has
nothing to do with AWA/SORNA, and I do believe it will be amended to the proper AWA/SORNA equivalent being 42 U.S.C. 16944.
5) Reduce from $10,000,000 per year to $2,979,000 per year, for the years 2012 through 2016, for Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants, which totals $14,895,000.
The Net total is: $304,895,000 for the Adam Walsh Act, a misdirected law.
One has to ask why 2/3 rds of this money is spent looking for folks who have done nothing but fail to update their address; $200,000,000 million to maintain an address book with pictures, and
informs the public where registrants sleep for a few hours, and there is no proof this makes anyone safer.
When is it time to call it quits, on a law which states do not want and there is no proof it is doing anything but providing jobs for tons of law enforcement people, and in the process
destroying hundreds of thousands of citizen lives, forcing many to welfare rolls which is not even calculated in these appropriations.
How do we get lawmakers to open their eyes, and say, no more?
I CANNOT in good conscience recommend this bill, and would suggest everyone to contact their folks in Washington DC and tell them to "VOTE NO" on this bill. Its time for proof that this is
working, so far we see nothing!
Does Megan’s Law work? Does notifying a community that a sex offender lives in its midst actually reduce sex crimes? A new study in the Journal of Law and Economics says it may not.
Two researchers have looked at laws that that require authorities to notify citizens when convicted rapists, molesters, pedophiles, and the like move into their neighborhoods. Looking at national crime statistics, J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia University found that while
registering sex offenders appears to be a good thing – it enables police to better monitor them -- notifying the public is not always a good thing. Public notification may scare
away those inclined to be future offenders. But it appears to actually increase the likelihood that convicted sex offenders will offend again.
How can this be?
In this 2010 preliminary paper Prescott and Rockoff theorize that sex offender
notification laws may increase recidivism rates because offenders figure things can’t get any worse for them than they already are. Life on a sex offender notification list tends to result in “loss
of employment, housing, or social ties,” as well as “stress, loneliness, and depression.” Presumably, criminals figure that they’re already living out the punishment, so why not commit another crime?
The researchers suggest it’s also possible that a marginalized life outside prison may make prison life relatively more attractive. If the researchers are right and the unintended consequences of
notification lists is more crime, it’s well worth wondering whether they’re worth keeping.
Remedy an Injustice: Too many names on sex offender registry
By John Aspinwall
Posted: 08/12/2011 01:05:33 AM PDT
There should be little public doubt about the fallibility of the legal system.
Not only are laws enforced with wide disparity from place to place, they endure dramatic changes over time. With each fragmented, arbitrary addition, their purpose, strength and effectiveness
disintegrates, just as a scattered army loses its force.
As the truth of the law is lost, we become increasingly susceptible to injustice. One injustice especially is in dire need of remedy. Its intentions were admirable, but the law has been an utter
failure: the sex offender registry program.
An extreme minority of registrants are truly dangerous people who continue offending, showing no signs they've received adequate treatment. And some evidence indicates that registry programs
exacerbate conditions that lead to reoffending.
But there are many nonviolent registrants who do not reoffend. In fact, the overall recidivism rate for sex offenders is the second-lowest for any crime.
Still, our protective system is overloaded with nonviolent offenders, and that drains funds that should go toward keeping tabs on the dangerous minority. These programs offer a negligible and
dangerously false sense of security in our communities.
Those who make up the enormous chunk of the registry were primarily in their teens or 20s at the time of conviction and their "crimes" were an expression of natural behaviors. Their "crimes"
involved no threat, no force, no coercion, manipulation or violence.
Advertisement
They had consensual sexual contact with someone who'd developed past puberty, but was still a minor.
Yet they are placed next to child molesters and rapists on the registry, branded alike for life.
They present no real danger. They might have incredible gifts that will never be shared, beautiful families that will never be formed. They might teach and inspire a future president or Army
general.
But often they can't find jobs, let alone ones that suit their unique talents. They have great difficulty developing normal relationships for fear someone may think they are child molesters or
serial rapists. Because the public is led to believe such things, these individuals are unjustly scarred and scandalized. They transgressed the law, but a scarlet letter does not belong on their
chests.
I want to offer a different way of responding to sexual indiscretions and those who commit such offenses. I hope the benefits will be self-evident.
If those nonviolent people were removed from the registry, it would in no way endanger society. They pose no more a threat than would any random person plucked from a crowd. It may even relieve
communities to see that there aren't, as they'd believed, pages and pages of dangerous, prowling sexual predators.
The tax money used to track these nonviolent people might be put toward more treatment facilities that focus on individuals who do threaten our communities -- programs for people suffering from
compulsions they are ashamed of, for which they want help without fearing social damnation.
If these plans were developed with genuine care, we could study these cases and derive the sort of qualitative results by which to make significant strides toward eliminating these serious crimes.
Consider the potential victims who might be spared irreparable suffering by any small advance in the ability to prevent actual sexual abuse.
This doesn't take into account funds currently put toward welfare programs for those who have work skills but are denied jobs because they are on the registry. They often can't find housing, as
few landlords will rent to them. This creates a drag on local government that can't be underestimated.
These are members of our communities who made a young mistake. They shouldn't continue to be isolated and cut off from society, their contributions unfairly shunned. They can't keep being heaped,
so inhumanely, with burdens that aren't theirs.
Would we rather let them move on, trying to improve with a job and home, or have them living under bridges, forever disgraced, with the truly dangerous few whispering sickness in their ear?
- - -
The author, a former Solano County resident, resides in River Falls, Wis.
Crime And Courts
6-year-old who was accused of sexual assault will get counseling
This story appeared first in the Sunday edition of the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper.
LANCASTER — The case against a 6-year-old Grant County boy accused of first-degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a 5-year-old girl last September could be dismissed in six months
under an agreement between the boy's parents and the district attorney that requires the child to participate in counseling.
Experts in child sexual behavior have said such sexual exploration or play is normal for children that age, calling it completely outside accepted medical practice to characterize a 6-year-old's
actions as sexual assault.
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families said a review of the case found that the Grant County Department of Social Services referred the matter to law enforcement as required by law.
Under state law, the boy is too young to be charged with a crime or in a juvenile delinquency petition, the equivalent of a criminal complaint for juveniles. Instead, a petition seeking protection
or services for the boy was filed in November in Grant County Circuit Court.
According to the petition, the girl's mother found her daughter in the boy's yard with her skirt and underpants around her ankles and the boy sitting underneath her, penetrating her with his
finger. The petition alleges the boy had sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 12 and accuses him of committing the delinquent act of first-degree sexual assault.
The girl told her mother they were playing "butt doctor" and told authorities the boy only touched her on the outside of her body, court documents state.
A consent decree approved July 22 by Iowa County Circuit Court Judge William Dyke requires the boy to participate in counseling. The family also will have in-home meetings with a counselor twice a
month.
In addition, the family must participate in therapy if the boy's counselor finds it necessary, and complete an assessment and case plan and follow through with goals and recommendations.
The two families are to have no contact. In April, the boy's family was granted a temporary restraining order against the girls' parents after claiming they were being harassed and tailgated.
The boy, who has a developmental disorder, had several enemas and other procedures for a medical problem prior to the incident. He was evaluated by two psychiatrists who found he lacks the sexual
awareness for his alleged actions to have been sexually motivated, according to Madison attorney Stephen Eisenberg, who is representing him.
The petition against the boy can be reinstated for failure to comply with the consent decree. If not reinstated, the petition will be dismissed in six months.
A second petition filed two weeks after the first also accused the boy of disorderly conduct for allegedly grabbing the breasts of two teenage baby sitters, taking off his clothes and rubbing
himself on their legs, and trying to kiss them.
According to court records, Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker said she would dismiss the disorderly conduct petition as long as the conditions of the consent decree are met. Riniker did
not return calls for comment.
Last week, the mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (exonerate.org) hosted a lunch to honor two very different men. One is black. The other is white. One has served 27 years in Virginia prisons for crimes he didn’t commit. The other is Virginia’s chief
law enforcement official.
Their story began one evening in 1984, when 18-year-old Thomas Haynesworth went to a Richmond store to buy sweet potatoes
for his mother. He’d never been in trouble, but as he left the store, a rape victim spotted him, called the police and mistakenly identified him as her attacker. Mr. Haynesworth was quickly arrested, jailed, tried, convicted of raping three women, sentenced to 84 years, hustled off to a state
penitentiary and promptly forgotten.
Cops and prosecutors alike rolled their eyes at his protestations of innocence. Mr. Haynesworth said that although few
people can imagine what it’s like to serve time in prison, it is impossible to imagine what it’s like for someone like him who finds himself facing life behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit.
Years later, the staff of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project took a fresh look at his case and became convinced that he might be innocent. They sought DNA tests of evidence still in police files,
and the tests proved another man already serving time for serial rape was the perpetrator in one of the cases in which Mr.
Haynesworth had been convicted.
This led to the likelihood that his other two convictions resulted from mistaken identity as well. There was, however, no DNA evidence to test in the other two cases. Still, under 2004 Virginia law, Mr. Haynesworth had a chance to be cleared and win his
freedom by seeking a “writ of actual innocence for non-biological evidence” and convincing a state appeals court that newly discovered non-DNA evidence would have made it impossible for a “rational
trier” to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt had it been available at his original trial.
Until last March, it seemed Mr. Haynesworth would remain in prison unless his lawyers could persuade an appeals court to
grant such a writ, even though law enforcement officials and prosecutors familiar with his case already were persuaded that he was a victim rather than a criminal.
At that point, Virginia’s attorney general, a fire-breathing conservative best known for filing the first constitutional challenge
to the individual mandate in President Obama’s health care law, got involved. As a state senator, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli had
been a key supporter of the 2004 legislation that would give Mr. Haynesworth a chance at exoneration. After reviewing the
evidence, he signed on as Mr. Haynesworth’s most important supporter.
When he discovered in March that in spite of all that had happened, Mr. Haynesworth had been denied parole, Mr. Cuccinelli persuaded Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell to revisit
an earlier parole denial so that on his 46th birthday, Thomas Haynesworth walked out of prison. He’s still a convicted felon
and has to register as a sex offender, but he’s free, and Mr. Cuccinelli swears he will do everything in his power to clear
Mr. Haynesworth’s name.
Some years ago, I testified before Congress on the need to allow post-conviction DNA testing in death-penalty cases when there was any possibility that such tests might prove that a prisoner
facing execution might, in fact, be innocent. I just couldn’t understand how a prosecutor or anyone involved in such a case wouldn’t want to be sure before taking a human life, but members of the
prosecutorial community almost unanimously opposed such tests.
They said they did so in the name of certainty, finality and respect for the juries that decide questions of guilt or innocence, but I couldn’t help thinking it had as much to do with ambition,
ego and the prosecutorial batting average, combined with government’s knee-jerk unwillingness under virtually any circumstances to acknowledge a mistake.
Mr. Cuccinelli agrees. He told those gathered to recognize him for his efforts on Mr. Haynesworth’s behalf that his “somewhat idealistic view is that ‘justice’ is still a part of our criminal justice system.”
Fortunately for Mr. Haynesworth, Mr. Cuccinelli is
one attorney general who believes that while our criminal justice system works pretty well most of the time, it isn’t perfect. “We have to remember” he told his audience last week, “it was designed
by human beings and is staffed by human beings, who sometimes make mistakes.” This simple and obvious fact, he argues, means those working within the system have an obligation to keep in mind the
possibility that mistakes might be made and do all they can to rectify them when they occur.
Mr. Cuccinelli was on that stage last week with the man he helped free because those interested in such issues know that
too many in his position would, like those who put Mr. Haynesworth away almost three decades ago, simply have rolled their
eyes, rejected the accused’s protestations of innocence and gone on to other things.
Because Mr. Cuccinelli didn’t look the other way, Thomas Haynesworth is free after 27 years in prison, looking forward to complete exoneration and reporting to work five days a week -
in the office of Virginia’s attorney general.
It seems that idealism and justice are still compatible.
Those of you who have been following the SVP controversy know that "Paraphilia NOS, nonconsent" (PNOS) is a fake diagnosis that is losing traction as justification for committing rapists to
psychiatric hospitals. PNOS was based on a fundamental misreading of DSM IV and was an egregious example of inexpert diagnosing that should never have received any credibility as expert testimony.
The PNOS fad developed only as a means to expedite SVP proceedings—misusing psychiatric diagnosis and commitment to conveniently park about-to-be-released criminals.
Fortunately, everyone seems finally to be waking up to the fact that rape is a crime, not a mental disorder. The ultimate downfall of "Paraphilia NOS" was sealed recently when DSM 5 rejected
"coercive paraphilia" as a diagnosis—the fourth resounding DSM rejection of this fatally flawed concept. Hopefully, before long ""Paraphilia NOS, nonconsent" will be totally discredited and
disallowed in SVP hearings. */
Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning fast. Last week, the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) abruptly reversed its long standing policy of encouraging the diagnosis of Paraphilia
NOS. Previously, its state employed evaluators were instructed that a diagnosis of Paraphilia was necessary to qualify for SVP commitment. The Department has now recanted in a new memo giving
evaluators just the exact opposite instructions—that diagnoses other than Paraphilia must now be considered in SVP commitments. This sudden about face represents a clear surrender by the DMH, an
implicit admission that PNOS is a misguided concept losing its power to fool juries.
The DMH memo applies clear pressure on its evaluators to find a substitute justification for SVP commitment. They will now probably resort to the frequent use of Antisocial Personality Disorder
(ASPD) as the new go-to diagnosis. ASPD is already allowed as an SVP qualifying disorder in some states, but (at least until now) it has been considered non-qualifying in California and in many
others. This lack of consistency cries out for testing at the appellate level in both the state and the federal courts. The appropriateness of ASPD as an SVP diagnosis touches on fundamental
constitutional questions of due process and double jeopardy and should not be settled inconsistently across states or arbitrarily by evaluators or juries not equipped to deal with the complex legal
issues that must be resolved. Moreover, policy on something this important should not be arbitrary and subject to the fickle and unexplained fiat of DMH memos.
There are cogent arguments both for and also against ASPD as grounds for SVP commitment. This is a debate with no obvious or easy right answers. Three plausible arguments support accepting ASPD
as an SVP statutory mental disorder: 1) Unlike "coercive paraphilia" and "hebephilia," ASPD is not a faked and ad hoc diagnosis—it is an official category that is included in DSM IV and thus has its
sanction as a mental disorder; 2) ASPD can be diagnosed with reasonably good reliability- so that experts are likely to agree sufficiently on its presence or absence; and 3) ASPD is correlated with
criminal behavior, including sexual offenses, and may be a predictor of future recidivism (although admittedly a weak one that accounts for only about 10% of the variance in who will and who won't
offend again).
In opposition, there are four arguments against considering ASPD to be a qualifying SVP diagnosis: 1) the DSM IV definition of ASPD is mostly a cataloging of criminal behaviors, making ASPD
extremely common among sex offenders and not useful in distinguishing between common criminality and mental abnormality- a distinction clearly required by the Supreme Court; 2) Since ASPD doesn't
allow an offender to avoid prison, why later should it justify his psychiatric incarceration; it is inconsistent to rule that the ASPD offender had sufficient volitional control to be held
responsible for his crimes (resulting in him receiving the prison sentence), while years later ruling that he is now no longer in volitional control (and therefore can be forced involuntarily into a
hospital); 3) there are no other circumstances where ASPD is ever grounds for psychiatric commitment (or for any other type psychiatric hospitalization); 4) many ASPD diagnoses in SVP cases are
rendered inaccurately because it is often impossible to establish the history of childhood conduct disorder (as required by the DSM definitional criteria) and/or whether the diagnosis of ASPD is
still current vs whether, as often happens, the offender has matured, mellowed, or aged out of it.
There are arguments for and against allowing ASPD based on differing interpretations of the words "predisposition" and "volitional" as these appear in the statute. The contrasting points of view
cancel out and the debate about what "volition" or "predisposition" mean is essentially meaningless. These words have been routinely included in the SVP statutes without any precise definition; they
are impossible to operationalize or assess reliably; and there is no scientific literature to provide any guidance in using them. Each psychologist and each jury member will inevitably be left to
make up his own definition of volition, with any one person's guess being just as good as any other's. I think the "volition" portion of the statute is useless- far too vague to give any help at all
in deciding whether ASPD should qualify as an SVP diagnosis.
Taking all the above arguments into account, my personal view is that ASPD should not have the status of an SVP diagnosis for two reasons that trump all else: (1) ASPD is far too overlapping
with simple criminality; and (2) if ASPD does not excuse someone from getting locked up in prison, it is inconsistent to use it as a convenient excuse to keep someone locked up in hospital once his
sentence has been fairly served.
The fact that ASPD is included in DSM IV does not mean that it defines anything beyond a criminal lifestyle. Using ASPD in SVP cases may sometimes serve the cause of public safety, but it
compromises the equally important cause of due process.
The status of ASPD in SVP cases is fundamentally a legal (not a psychiatric) issue- one that should be settled by the appellate courts, not on an ad hoc and poorly informed basis, case by case,
by ill equipped mental health professionals and juries. Neither psychologists nor juries are remotely qualified to evaluate the proper legal standing of ASPD under the strict conditions imposed by
the Supreme Court in rulings that have only narrowly accepted the constitutionality of SVP statutes. The Court explicitly requires that the distinction be made between the mental ill and the simply
criminal- SVP psychiatric commitment has been declared constitutional for the former, but would be a violation of the civil rights of the latter.
ASPD straddles this boundary in the most remarkably awkward way. Yes, ASPD has been included as a mental disorder in DSM IV, but it's DSM IV definition is really nothing more than a pattern of
sustained criminality that characterizes the majority of run-of- the-mill rapists. Ultimately only the Supreme Court can resolve this unfortunate and puzzling conundrum that lies at the heart of the
application of SVP statutes. We need it to provide the necessary clarification of its previous rulings by explaining whether the law regards ASPD more as a mental disorder or more as simple
criminality.
Clearly the decision about ASPD should not be made case by case by a mental health professionals or by a jury. Appellate courts are needed to decide this essentially legal, not psychiatric,
issue. I fully realize that getting the question in their hands will not be easy and, once there, judges are unlikely to want to make a clear and specific stand. So we may be stuck with the chaotic
current mayhem for some time.
But however difficult the ASPD question, it is a big step forward to be having this discussion since it marks the beginning of the end of the unfortunate and misguided "Paraphilia NOS"
fad.
Kimberly DuBina
Indiana RSOL/SOSEN State Leader
Indiana C.U.R.E. Affiliate
Campaign For Youth Justice Affiliate
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.-----Abraham Lincoln
Convicted sex offender sentenced to life in prison
MOUNT VERNON, Ill. — A former southern Illinois corrections officer convicted of sex offenses with children continued to maintain his innocence when sentenced to
spend the rest of his life in prison.
Fifty-two-year-old Edward Oats was sentenced this week in Jefferson County, more than a year and a half since being convicted of three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault involving two
children.
The Mount Vernon Register-News reports that during the sentencing hearing, the mother of one of Oats' victims pressed in writing that Oats should not be allowed to hurt children again. She also
said the psychological damage caused to the victims will never go away.
A judge rejected Oats' request for a new trial on claims his attorney was ineffective.
Oats' new attorney says he plans to appeal the convictions.
Make sure your sitting down when you read the first article.
" In the news by Karen Franklin PhD " - 1 new article
1. Positive approach key to sex offender change
2. More Recent Articles
3. Search In the news by Karen Franklin PhD
4. Prior Mailing Archive
Positive approach key to sex offender change
Trailblazing authors have walked the walk for 40 years
John distorts his offense history and refuses to accept his sexual deviance. Although the other members of his treatment group vigorously challenge him, they are not fully transparent in their
own disclosures. The therapist feels stymied. What should she do?
First, she should abandon confrontation and negative labeling. Next, she should race lickety-split for her computer and order a radical new book that will help her succeed as a therapist and
also feel better about herself.
The visionary book is Rehabilitating Sexual Offenders: A Strength-Based Approach , written by the team at Rockwood Psychological Services in Canada. Under the leadership of Bill Marshall, a
pioneer in the field, the program has successfully treated sex offenders for 40 years. Unlike most sex offender treatment programs, Rockwood has a negligible refusal rate and a negligible dropout
rate. Offenders enter therapy, they complete therapy, and when they get out they are very unlikely to reoffend.
Therapist is the key
As psychologists know from the general treatment research, the therapeutic alliance is a primary factor in successful therapy, with more impact than any specific theory or technique. With sex
offenders, who are often mistrustful and reluctant to enter therapy or disclose information that may be used against them, the therapist is even more critical, accounting for between 30% to 60% of
change.
Like anyone else (only more so), John isn’t going to benefit from confrontation or shaming. Instead of being critical or judgmental, an effective sex offender therapist is empathetic, warm,
respectful, and even humorous at times.
Toss out those iatrogenic labels
Language is powerful. When we call people names -- pedophile, rapist, offender, sex offender, deviant – we encourage their negative and harmful beliefs about themselves. That certainly doesn’t
reduce shame or foster change.
Instead, the Rockwood authors (Bill Marshall, his son Liam Marshall, Geris Serran, and Matt O’Brien) focus on strengths, invoking a vocabulary heavily influenced by the positive psychology
movement and motivational interviewing .
Their guiding principle:
Inside every offender is a good person waiting to throw off the burden of his dysfunctional past. It is the therapist’s job to facilitate the emergence of that good person.
(Ironically, they do use the term “psychopath,” if only to say that scores on the Psychopathy Checklist are NOT predictive of treatment failure or recidivism. Of the 70 offenders in their
outcome research who scored high on psychopathy, only one reoffended during the 8-year follow-up period.)
The authors do not mince words in critiquing the dominant treatment approach that emphasizes deficits and avoidance. When treatment fails, they say, it is most likely because it was too
confrontational. When confronted, patients learn to say what the therapist wants to hear, rather than to genuinely engage.
Denial: Not necessarily a bad thing
One of the most unusual features of the Rockwood program is its emphasis on helping men who continue to deny their offenses despite having been convicted. The therapists do not challenge these
offenders to admit their crimes. In fact, they don’t think admissions are that big a deal. They offer several reasons for this:
• Given what we know from the false-confession literature, some deniers truly are innocent. And it is impossible to know which ones.
• Forcing an offender to match his account to his victim’s is silly, because we know from research that victim accounts are highly unreliable.
• Men who deny offending or offer excuses actually have lower rates of recidivism. As Shadd Maruna found out in his research with offenders in the UK, excuse-making is
related to good mental health as well as to guilt, which (unlike shame) suggests prosocial values.
For those engaged in treatment, the manual gives loads of practical advice on how to structure and run a program. For forensic evaluators on the outside looking in, who have watched in mounting
horror as iatrogenic practices are systematically mislabeled as “treatment,” this book lays out the research that can help you explain real treatment to judges, jurors, and attorneys.
Rehabilitating Sexual Offenders is an auspicious debut for the American Psychological Association series, Psychology, Crime, and Justice, edited by Shadd Maruna . I can’t wait to see what’s
next.
If you found this review helpful, please visit my Amazon review ( HERE ) and click on "yes" (this review was helpful).
The art on this page is by Ricky Romain , an internationally acclaimed human rights artist in the UK whose work focuses on themes of justice, alienation and sanctuary. Mr. Romain has kindly
given permission to showcase his art here. I encourage you to check out his extensive online gallery ( HERE ).
• Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • •
RICHMOND — Legislators have put the brakes on Gov. Bob McDonnell's plans to infuse millions of dollars into the state's program to
indefinitely detain sex offenders after their prison sentences, choosing instead to investigate the program's explosive growth.
McDonnell had requested about $70 million over the next year and a half for the civil commitment program, in which more than 200 offenders are held in a Burkeville psychiatric facility for
treatment.
In the budget passed Sunday, legislators rejected McDonnell's plan, instead choosing to double-bunk up to 150 of the offenders and consider transferring some of them to one of the 19 other states
with civil commitment programs.
In the meantime, a legislative panel will study the program over the summer. The General Assembly approved an additional $14 million to deal with immediate needs.
Del. Beverly Sherwood, R-Frederick, who is the head of the budget-writing panel that considers public safety issues for the House, said legislators want to know why so many offenders are going
into the program and so few are being released before pouring millions more into it.
"There seem to not be a lot of answers to our questions," Sherwood said.
The program's budget has ballooned from $2.7 million in 2004 to an expected $24 million this year.
While more than 200 offenders have been committed since the program began less than a decade ago, only 10 have been released from the treatment facility.
It costs the state about $100,000 a year to treat each offender. Monitoring them in the community costs about $20,000.
When the program first started, only four violent sex crimes qualified someone for commitment. In 2006, the law was expanded to include 28 crimes, including everything from attempted abduction to
statutory rape, and commitments shot up from three per month to an average of 12.
Cost to keep sexual offenders in check is escalating for
Virginia
By Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 22, 2011; B08
RICHMOND - Virginia launched its program to keep sexual predators locked up once their prison sentences ended after learning that a serial child rapist who had kidnapped and brutalized a boy and
then buried him alive might go free.
Now, nearly a decade later, state legislators are struggling with the escalating cost of the program that has kept hundreds of dangerous felons detained at the same time the state is facing
growing needs in education, health care and transportation.
As of January, 252 sexual offenders had been indefinitely committed, costing taxpayers more than $100,000 per felon every year. That population is expected to more than double within five years,
causing even the program's biggest supporters to question whether the state can afford to keep so many sexual predators locked up for so long.
"Are we being too aggressive in this?" asked Paul Martin Andrews, 51, a Woodbridge man whose harrowing experience as the young captive of Robert Ausley in 1973 led him to lobby the state to fund
indefinite civil commitment for dangerous criminals. "It looks like someone is being overzealous or committing everyone they can."
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has proposed spending nearly $70 million over the next two years to temporarily house an overflow of sexual predators at a Petersburg facility while renovating a
mothballed prison in Southside Virginia. But legislators in his party are balking at the cost.
The Republican-controlled House of Delegates stripped most of the money out of the state budget, proposing instead that Virginia double-bunk some offenders and ship others out of state. The
Democratic-led Senate is backing the governor's plan.
It is one of the biggest budget issues dividing the two chambers in the final days of Virginia's annual legislative session,
which is scheduled to end Saturday.
"I certainly told the legislators don't not give me the money and then not change the law and leave me with a mess," McDonnell said. "That's not acceptable."
Virginia passed a law allowing civil commitment in 1999 after a Supreme Court ruling allowed states to keep detaining dangerous criminals as long as they get treatment. But lawmakers provided no
money for it.
Andrews was 43 and living in Miami when he went public about his attack in 2003, after it appeared that Ausley, who had served almost 30 years, was about to be released. Ausley, on parole for
raping and abducting one boy, was expected in court in connection with a second boy's disappearance when he kidnapped Andrews in 1973. Andrews's lobbying helped persuade the House and Senate to vote
unanimously to fund the commitment program.
In Maryland, lawmakers are considering a similar program this session.
Other states with commitment programs require that offenders have exhibited a pattern of sexually dangerous behavior before being committed, such as through multiple convictions, but in Virginia
it only takes a single crime. A committee of corrections and mental health officials recommends candidates for commitment, and a judge makes the determination.
"Once someone is in there, they are in all likelihood in there the rest of their life," said Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), one of the Senate's budget negotiators. "We have no way of being
totally sure we are making the right decision of who is committed and who isn't."
Once committed, the felons live at a $62 million facility about 60 miles southwest of Richmond in Burkeville.
"For those that are in the program that accept treatment, and not all do, they can find their way out," said Keith Hare, deputy secretary of health and human resources. "But we're pretty
stringent. . . . We can't just open the door and let them out."
Those committed are held indefinitely, subject to annual reviews by doctors. Since the program began, 11 have been released.
Opponents say civil commitment programs - now in 20 states - could be used to keep violent criminals behind bars forever.
"Certainly society has the right to protect themselves," said Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. "But I hope this is not a ruse, under the pretense of treatment,
for permanent detention."
Virginia has expanded the crimes eligible for civil commitment from four to 28, and the number of offenders admitted to the program has soared, from one a month, to six to eight a month. The cost
is expected to hit $32 million next year - more than 10 times what it was eight years ago.
And it's still not enough. The 300-bed Burkeville facility built in 2008 will be full by this summer.
McDonnell proposed spending an additional $68.5 million over two years on the program - $24.4 million on operating costs and to temporarily open the 48-bed Petersburg facility, and $43.5 million
in borrowed money to convert the closed prison in Brunswick County into a 300-bed treatment center.
But delegates were alarmed by the price tag - particularly the ratio of two staffers to every resident - and have asked state officials to study how to bring costs down.
"I'm not saying we just need four walls and let them do whatever they want, but why should we have stricter security over them than they have in prison?" Del. Harvey B. Morgan (R-Gloucester)
said.
There was little discussion about swelling costs when Andrews broke his long silence and began pressing for offenders' continued detention. In Richmond and on national television, he repeatedly
told his story:
It was January 1973 when Ausley lured Andrews, then 13, into his van with an offer of $3 to help deliver furniture.
Instead, Ausley drove Andrews 20 miles to the Great Dismal Swamp near the North Carolina border. He kept the boy chained inside a 4-by-8-foot plywood box that he had built and hid underground. He
beat him and raped him for seven days.
On the eighth day, rabbit hunters found Andrews in the box, bloodied, scared and crying after being abandoned by his kidnapper.
Ausley was tried, convicted and sent back to prison.
Andrews returned to his family in nearby Portsmouth, talking little about the ordeal that made national headlines - until Ausley was set to be paroled.
Ausley, as it turns out, was never civilly committed. He was sentenced to prison for 47 years for raping another youth. He was 64 when he was beaten to death in 2004 in prison by his cellmate, who
had been sexually assaulted as a boy.
Staff researcher Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.
Site of man's death: In this
January 2009 photo, Don Lamse returns to the spot behind his recycling shop on South Division Avenue where he discovered the body of Thomas Pauli. "It was way below freezing, " he
said.
Thomas Pauli
E-mail
Print
Print
Recommend this page 
Considering you have to register as a sex offender of you are convicted of peeing behind a dumpster in the alley, forced homelessness and hypothermia are pretty severe penalties.