old News

NEWS RELEASE

When Lauren Book, 29-year-old founder of the sexual-abuse prevention group Lauren's Kids, crosses the finish line of her organization's 1500-mile "Walk in My Shoes" charity event in Tallahassee, Florida on April 22, the crowd will applaud her, call her an angel and cry real tears of support for Book's outspoken activism to protect children from sexual abuse - 95% of which could, as Book's organization teaches, be prevented by education and vigilance.

Thus the presence of a 'peaceful protest' at that same finish line is likely to shock some and confound others.

 

"We have great respect for the educational aims of Lauren's Kids," Vicki Henry, president of Women Against Registry (WAR) and spokesperson for the ad-hoc coalition of sex-law reform organizations who have members participating in the protest, explained. "Really, in this regard we would like to be walking with them, showing support."

In response to a recent statement by Book, that she wished critics "would speak directly to me so I can show them the amazing work we are doing on behalf of children," Henry has attempted to reach-out to Book and her organization's Executive Director, Ms. Van Susteren, in hopes of meeting to discuss the annihilating effect that Florida's “Scorched Earth Policy” -- which is supported by Book -- has on the children of registrant families.

 

Realistically, Henry sees this expression of solidarity as unlikely to happen because many of the groups that she represents have members, supporters and organizational leaders who are former offenders and are listed on the sex offender registry.

"But these folks are also mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, children and parents who, at some time in their life, did something stupid or immoral but never hurt anyone and yet ended branded with a sex-crime," Henry continued. "Also because some of our constituents did commit acts which violate sensibility, were rightly convicted of a repugnant crime, served years in prison and more on probation, got therapy, earned family and community support, and continue to work diligently every day to undo all harm done.

"All of whom, we hope and pray, should be welcome supporters of the skyrocketing call to educate legislators, the media, and the general public about 'how to' prevent child sexual abuse. But," Henry summarized, "because of the broad-brush which errantly portrays all who are registered citizens as incurable, evil beings, our constituents, their husbands and wives, sons and daughters, fathers, mothers and friends, are scorned, shunned and even have cause to fear for their lives when attending any public event.

"And this deadly stigma is fueled by the 'scorched earth' sex-offender laws and regulations that have been enacted by Florida legislators since the Book's began her advocacy campaign six years ago... laws that are supposed to protect everyone... are actually damaging everyone, making all of us less safe.

"Yes... about 5% of those on the sex offender registry are predatory, repeat offenders who must be kept under close observation and possibly segregated from free society for the rest of their lives," Henry affirmed. "But the other 95% of those on the registry are, respectfully, FORMER sexual offenders who are struggling just like the rest of us to find a place of acceptance in our community and fill a role that brings value to our family and friends.

"This is why we stand in solidarity with all those who support laws that do actually protect children by and through the proactive education of adults about how to prevent sexual abuse. But we are duty bound to protest these laws of which so many seem so proud of, that are, according to a growing majority of notable law enforcement and psychology experts nationwide, wasting millions upon millions of dollars in public resource to enforce laws that make society a much more dangerous place and fail to protect any child from harm."

For more information, contact Vicki Henry, President, 202-630-0345 or visit http://www.womenagainstregistry.org.

------30-------

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/237364-supreme-court-weighs-in-on-gps-case-involving-sexual-offender

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sex-offender-registry-20150329-story.html
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD contact the reporter letters@latimes.com

A group of convicted sex offenders gathered on March 7 at Carson's city hall for a march to demand equal rights to visit fast-food restaurants, parks, libraries and other public areas from which they were banned. (Los Angeles Times).

California's Supreme Court was right to drop Jessica's Law, @latimes editorial board says

Jessica's Law — California's version of it, anyway — was a mess from the beginning. Voters here adopted it (as Proposition 83) in 2006 because they mistakenly believed they were cracking down on horrific crimes against children. They were urged on by nightly harangues from national TV commentators who campaigned on-air for swift action following the rape and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida, a crime that touched an especially sensitive nerve here because the circumstances nearly mirrored the nightmarish killing of Polly Klaas in California a decade earlier. But emotional outpourings of fear, revulsion and collective guilt too often translate poorly into policy and law, and that was surely the case with Proposition 83.

The latest reminder of the law's failure came last week, when state parole officials announced that they would no longer enforce the measure's blanket ban on paroled sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather.

That decision follows a state Supreme Court ruling this month invalidating the ban as it applied in San Diego County.

Californians have every right to protect their children from child molesters, so it would be understandable if they were perplexed by the actions of the court and corrections officials — until they realize that the residency restriction did nothing of the sort.

In fact, it likely undermined public safety for everyone, children included, by pushing paroled sex offenders from their homes and compelling them to live homeless or as transients, leaving the public in the dark as to their whereabouts and making parolees harder for agents to find.

Besides, it is important to remember that the law did not single out child molesters. It did not distinguish parolees at high risk to commit new crimes, or those more likely to target children, from any of the other 6,000 parolees required to register as sex offenders — or indeed any of the approximately 80,000 Californians not on parole but with a sex offense on their record.

Proposition 83 had such broad appeal in part because it ignored those kinds of distinctions. Little thinking was required. A person was either required to register as a sex offender or not. And if he or she was, it was a simple jump to conclude that any "sex offender" was a "child molester" — and from there, a "pedophile," a "sexual predator," a "sexually violent predator" or a "mentally disordered sex offender." Commentators and campaigners readily conflated those terms and engaged in a kind of definition creep that allowed, even encouraged, voters to believe that everyone on the sex offender registry was necessarily violent, targeted children and was more likely than other criminals to re-offend. None of that is true.

That misperception is a problem, and not just because of concern for the rights of sex offenders. Californians can be forgiven if they keep their safety and that of their children foremost in their minds, ahead of justice for criminals. But it's a problem as well because it leads us to believe we are properly, effectively and efficiently expending public safety resources when we are not. Just as societal concern about rampant drug abuse led to laws that filled prisons with drug users, strained budgets and deflected attention from more violent crimes, the unfocused application of sex offender laws hurts rather than enhances public safety.

It's important to remember that California has had a sex offender registry since 1947, and that its purpose is to safeguard the innocent from people who are deemed to pose a particular, continuing risk even after their sentences have been served and their parole has been completed.

But behavioral science and criminal justice research have come a long way since the 1940s. It was once thought that people convicted of crimes involving sex suffered from disorders that made them constant threats to re-offend; or at least that it was impossible to distinguish between those who did pose such a risk and those who did not.

In fact, long-term studies of the general population of sex offenders show recidivism rates much lower than for the population of all criminals. But for particular subgroups, the risk of re-offending is much higher.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determines whether an inmate soon to be released on parole is at high risk of committing another offense and, if so, that parolee may not live within a half-mile of a school. That properly tailored law was in effect before Proposition 83's blanket residency restrictions on anyone on the offender registry and properly remains in effect today even after the court ruling and the decision by the parole department to change its enforcement strategy.


Also, special restrictions will continue to apply to sexually violent predators — people who have been convicted of sexually victimizing another person and who have diagnosed mental conditions that make them likely to engage in additional sexually violent crimes. Even after such people are released from prison, they can be committed by the Department of State Hospitals until they are deemed to no longer pose a threat.

It makes sense to craft laws to protect the public based not on some sweeping designation of "sex offender" but rather on the risks posed by each subgroup and, when possible, by the particularized risk of each offender. The court ruling and the parole decision move California in that direction.

But there is pushback, and it is cause for concern. Public officials and commentators freely label any sex offender as a "predator," implying that each such person poses an equal risk to the public and thus must be equally restricted and supervised. Clearer thinking, based on data rather than emotion or demagoguery, would serve California better.

http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/publications/the-reentry-of-adults-convicted-of-sexual-offenses-a-national-survey-of-reentry-professionals/

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2015/03/sex-offender-policy-registries.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CongressCourtsAndNationalLegislationccl+%28Congress%2C+Courts+and+National+Legislation+%28CCL%29%29

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/virginia/2015/03/25/virginia-teaching-license-revocations-database/70394798/

http://digital.vpr.net/post/rutland-volunteers-help-sex-offender-re-enter-community

I am Vicki Henry and I am the President of a nationwide organization, Women Against Registry. We exhibit at National Legislative Summits each year as well as at NACDL National Conferences, conduct workshops at Annual Public Defender Conferences to educate on the impact a public registry has on our families. We also speak at events held by other like-minded advocacy groups.

We advocate against a public sex offender registry due to the collateral consequences experienced by our registrant family members, many on a regular basis. According to the NCMEC map, there are 819, 218 men, women and children registered across the nation. That impacts approximately 3 million individual family members. The numbers of registrants is increasing by 2,600 a month so we will be at 1,000,000 within seven years.

Something seldom considered regarding publicly listing a registrant’s employer and/or address is the potential for a person to see that and go there with or without a child and then accuse the registrant of some inappropriate action. Please don’t think that would never happen because there are cases of females who have done just that.

There are cases where one female has successfully gotten several males convicted and placed on a registry. One I am familiar with involved a military base, a girl and lying.

Please consider the long-term effects on a registrant when, due to their inability to be gainfully employed there is no insurance. Who pays for any care they receive? Also, when they have no 401K or pension for retirement? Again, who will they look to for help? Our families are being annihilated by these laws and restrictions and the irony is they are the population that wants to work and provide for their families.

(No Easy Answers – Human Rights Watch, page 83 & 84)
Parole officers supervising former sex offenders also testify to the difficulty
registrants have in finding work. An officer in Michigan told Human Rights Watch that “most employers, whether they are required by law or not, refuse to employ sex offenders, even if the crime the individual committed was not violent. They say it’s bad for business. So now, I have a hard time lining up work for my sex offender parolees, so my parolees are stuck in halfway homes, unable to meet the full conditions of their parole.”282 An Arizona parole officer expressed similar concerns: “I have found it near impossible to find an employer willing to take a chance on a convicted sex offender.”283 As a parole officer in Florida told Human Rights Watch, “We have to find ways to find appropriate jobs for sex offenders, in a way that will both protect the public and also help sex offenders successfully reintegrate into society.”

When a registrant has to go another state the charge codes don’t always transfer to the secondary state’s code leaving the staff in a quandary.

AWA and Title 1 (SORNA) – only 17 states are “substantially” compliant and the state of Nevada is currently considering a bill which would take them out of compliance. There are also rumblings of Nebraska making some changes.

When the employer information is listed on a public registry and that profile is printed by a co-worker and passed around the workplace there is the potential for some who don’t understand the terms used on a profile to embellish and further endanger a registrant from vigilante actions.

Let’s not forget about the ‘rag mag’ publications that try to extort money from registrants who ask that their information be corrected or removed if no longer required to register.

Some employees may be in a union and if fired because of their past offense the union can file a grievance about the discharge and push it to arbitration.

Internet publication of an employer name and address is one of the consequences of registration most likely to destabilize an offender socially and psychologically. The risk of consigning an offender to a lifetime of unemployment may also be a factor in deterring some family reporting.

During the closing speech at the 2013 ATSA Annual Conference, Patty Wetterling openly stated that the registry has been “hijacked!” Based on research from sources too numerous to mention here I would say the legislative bodies are faced with a dilemma. Do the right thing by the people of your state and protect them from sexual harm by developing and implementing a risk assessment protocol therefore losing the Byrne Fund Grant money altogether, which, by the way is not adequate compensation for the expenditure Illinois will face OR choose to stay with the poorly designed and non-funded act for which there was NO mandated annual recidivism study directive.

Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
The Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. § 534) defines hate crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender or gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures crimes perceived by victims to be motivated by an offender’s bias against them for belonging to or being associated with a group largely identified by these characteristics. For a crime to be classified as a hate crime in the NCVS, the victim must report at least one of three types of evidence that the act was motivated by hate: the offender used hate language, the offender left behind hate symbols, or police investigators confirmed that the incident was hate crime. If our families continue to be attacked by vigilantes we will pursue legislation accordingly.

Women Against Registry has a Support Line that is manned by our members who want to help others struggling to live. This service is operational from 10 AM to 10 PM seven days a week. We place the calls under one of five categories; H=housing, J=job, S=someone to listen, G=a group to allow them to learn about advocacy and L=legal help which we have none. Here is a small synopsis of our calls where someone was needing help finding work:

Rob called to tell the volunteer who helped him find a job that he was fired after 3 days.

Mom of registrant called needing help finding housing and a job for her son.

Sean has been fired from 31 jobs due to registry status.

Billy - Sheriff shows up at new job to make sure employer knows he is a registrant and he gets fired.

Dennis - Released on Friday. He needs help finding housing and job. Most of the IL folks are held through eligible parole time due to inability to find approved housing because of restrictions.

Theron - Works as a chef and can’t keep a job because sheriff’s deputy calls new employer to make sure they know he is on the registry.

Andrew - Needed job, housing and support group to affiliate with.

Academics and researchers have clearly stated, for successful re-integration into society folks need three things; a job, a home and a “positive” support system.
Please consider the information provided and help our Illinois families by voting NO on SB31.

http://www.nvdaily.com/beck/2015/03/area-woman-convicted-for-harassing-sex-offender/

http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2013-10-caution-your-gps-ankle-bracelet-is-listening