old News

Just in time for the all-important May sweeps period, a local television anchor somewhere is bound to open a newscast with a question specifically designed to simultaneously titillate and scare the crap out of you. "Does a pedophile live on your block?" the menacing voice will intone. "Are your children safe?"

The answer, invariably, is "probably" and "probably not." If you tune in, you'll confront a terrifying graphic that the station's self-glorifying "investigative reporter" has cooked up showing a map crowded with dots. Each one, you'll be told, represents a registered sex offender just waiting to snatch and rape your kids.

Here's the problem: Those sex offender registries that are sensationalistic catnip to news producers are a technological and inaccurate mess that nobody in the media or public should trust. Law enforcement officials, sex-crimes researchers and politicians all know this, and several admitted as much to me for an actual piece of investigative reporting that took nearly a year to finish and   went live last week at TakePart.com.

"I kept asking how much money we were spending to make these mistakes," said former California state Sen. Tom Ammiano, who was term-limited out of office last year after years of failing to advance reforms. "I hated being an accomplice to these inaccuracies. But nobody in politics wants to be seen as being soft on sex offenders."

Turns out, what we all think of as "the sex offender registry" is actually hundreds of individual databases -- every state, most cities and large counties and many individual police departments all have their own -- that almost never speak to one another. Jurisdictions routinely declare offenders as "non-compliant" without checking if they are properly registered elsewhere, incarcerated somewhere or dead. It's stunningly easy to spot listings with conflicting physical descriptions for the same people -- different heights, eye colors and tattoos are commonplace -- and with incorrect charges or mugshots. Doing so has become a full-time avocation for one childhood sexual abuse survivor, Tim Fisher of Las Vegas, who contacts police with fixes for inaccuracies he's able to find largely through assiduous Googling. Yet his one-case-at-a-time efforts are modest balms to a wreck of a "system" with more than 800,000 entries.

What's more dismaying is the indifference shown by the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) office at the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the National Sex Offender Public Website. Despite their name, the SMART office declaimed responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the information found through the NSOPW. The site, says a SMART executive who refused to be named, is just "a pointer system to all of the jurisdictions' public websites. ... It's not a database. It's not a registry. It's simply a search engine that allows you to search on all the different public websites with one search."

It's impossible from the outside to know just how screwed up the registries are because almost nobody publishes any assessments. One exception is Vermont, where the Legislature has prohibited the listing of addresses on its sex offender registry until, per language of the law, a "positive audit" of their database's accuracy. Audits conducted in 2011 and 2014 both came up dreadfully short; reviewers found "critical errors" in more than 10 percent of the entries.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain this is to show it. Mike Tyson is the nation's most famous convicted rapist. He went to prison in Indiana. And yet, this:

These mistakes create a myriad of real-world problems. Sex abuse victims who visit these sites, sometimes decades after the crime, can be re-traumatized to learn their attacker is "non-compliant" -- Is he on the run? Is he coming for me? -- or to run into multiple, confusing listings. Offenders who try to remain current can and have been arrested for non-compliance. Innocent people who live at addresses where sex offenders are mistakenly said to live or actually once did live have been targets of epithets and vigilante violence by the unnerved neighbors and others. And, of course, the extent of mistakes make these registries effectively useless -- or, worse, misleading -- to parents who think knowledge of nearby rapists will protect their families.

Fisher, who for my piece allowed me to follow him as he went to confront the man convicted in 1984 of molesting him, believes the registries could be worthwhile. Attorney Patrick Morrissey, who has filed several lawsuits after Chicago police turned away hundreds of sex offenders trying to register because the police didn't have enough clerks to process them, thinks there's too many ways for the information to go bad for this to exist without a dramatic overhaul. "It's almost a system created to re-incarcerate people," he said.

Until that overhaul -- which SMART officials seemed entirely uninterested in pursuing -- what's on these registries ought to be taken with great skepticism. Yet the folks most responsible for publicizing their existence and their content, the local TV newsmedia, have largely found caution and fact-checking too inconvenient. They lazily hide behind the fact that the registries and their nifty, scary maps come gift-wrapped from police sources and, thus, it can be used without question.

The standards should be higher. There are many other, better ways to help parents protect their children from stranger danger. Scaring the crap out of them with faulty information may be good TV business and great politics, but it's lousy both as journalism and public policy.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-friess/why-you-cant-trust-the-na_b_7173820.html?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=55451670e4b06cfd827f2f5e

http://www.siouxlandmatters.com/story/d/story/woman-leaves-children-with-sex-offender-faces-two/58424/i5veEgzaU0yEI-oAAPs8FQ

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/advocates-fight-for-sex-offender-rights-with-lawsuit-6935537

Registered citizens are being trapped in the U.S. by the federal government. They are not allowed to travel overseas for business reasons, to visit family members, or just to relax on vacation.

The reason given for this entrapment is to prevent the international sex trafficking of children. We do not support international sex trafficking of children which is a heinous crime. However, the U.S. government is overreaching in the methods it uses to address this real and dangerous problem. That is, the U.S. government is targeting virtually all registered citizens who attempt to travel abroad. It matters not that their offense did not involve a child or occurred decades ago and hasn't been repeated.

The U.S. government is preventing registered citizens from traveling overseas in a number of ways, including reviewing the manifests for international flights. If a registered citizen is found on such a flight manifest, U.S. government officials provide a written warning to the country into which they are traveling. The receiving country, in turn, does not allow entry into that country and in fact immediately deports the registered citizen.

This all happens with no prior notice to the registered citizen and/or those who are traveling with him/her. Deportation of a registered citizens is embarrassing and expensive at the least and a violation of his/her constitutional rights at the worst.

Where is the due process guaranteed for all citizens by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? If a registered citizen is not allowed to travel outside the U.S., then the U.S. government must provide that citizen with a hearing during which he/she can provide evidence that he/she is not involved and has never been involved in international sex trafficking.

In the absence of such hearings, registered citizens have already been denied entry into may countries, including but not limited to, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates and the Philippines.

In one such case, a registered citizen is being denied re-entry to the Philippines where he moved 10 years ago and subsequently married, started a family, initiated a business and purchased a home. He left the Philippines a year ago for what he thought was a 30-day business trip to the U.S.

Several decades ago U.S. citizens, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and author Arthur Miller, were prohibited from traveling abroad because the U.S. government determined their overseas travel was "not in the interests of the United States". Fortunately, the U.S. government corrected that problem long ago.

It is now time for the U.S. government to correct the problem it has created by preventing overseas travel by registered citizens. The U.S. government must either allow registered citizens to travel overseas or conduct hearings that provide registered citizens with their due process rights.

- Janice Bellucci

Read all of Janice's Journal

http://www.nyunews.com/2015/04/07/panel-examines-sex-crimes-laws-registry/#comment-77108

By John Agar - jagar@mlive.com

GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A restriction prohibiting sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of schools made a patchwork path of nearly half of Grand Rapids off-limits to people on a statewide registry, an ACLU attorney said.

Now, a federal judge in Detroit has ruled that "geographic exclusion zones" are unconstitutional, one of multiple provisions of the law, which was so confusing that lawyers had trouble advising clients how to steer clear of violations that were struck down last month.

"SORA (Sex Offender Registry Act) imposes myriad restrictions and reporting requirements that affect many aspects of registrants' lives," U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland wrote.

The law's ambiguity and lengthy provisions "make it difficult for a well-intentioned registrant to understand all of his or her obligations," he said.

"SORA was not enacted as a trap for individuals who have committed sex offenses in the past (and who already have served their sentences). Rather, the goal is public safety, and public safety would only be enhanced by the government ensuring that registrants are aware of their obligations."

Miriam Aukerman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan who represented plaintiffs in the Detroit case, said: "We can't be punishing people for not understanding a law that is so unclear."

Aukerman, who works in Grand Rapids, said sex offenders have enough trouble finding a place to live or work. She said courts are recognizing problems with the sex-offender registry. Earlier, a federal judge ruled that homeless Grand Rapids sex offenders could legally stay at homeless shelters, despite all of the centers being within a school safety zone.

Aukerman said additional changes are needed. She said risk assessments should be done to determine if someone belongs on the registry, rather than simply a conviction for certain crimes.

One of her clients in the Detroit case met a teenager who slipped into a night club. She was 16. The woman and the client now have two children, but he's required to be on the registry. With so many included, the "registry doesn't actually protect the public," Aukerman said.

"We need to take a common-sense approach to the registry. The laws don't make us safer. People tend to think everybody on the registry is dangerous. There's no risk assessment."

She said that Michigan has the fourth-largest sex offender registry in the country because everyone convicted of certain offenses is put on the list. Other states do risk assessments.

"We have no idea how many people on the registry are truly dangerous and who are not," Aukerman said. "The registry may make us feel safer, but actually this doesn't make people safer."

The ruling that struck down certain provisions of the registry came in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of five John Does and a Jane Doe against Gov. Rick Snyder and state police Director Col. Kirste Etue.

State police spokeswoman Shanon Banner emailed: "We have reviewed the ruling with the Attorney General's office to determine its immediate impact on our practices, and we are currently working to make necessary changes to come into compliance. We will also be working with the Legislature to clarify portions of the Act that need addressing."

Aukerman said that the U.S. Department of Justice does not recommend exclusion zones.

She cited a report by the Department of Justice's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

"Restrictions that prevent convicted sex offenders from living near schools, daycare centers and other places where children congregate have generally had no deterrent effect on sexual reoffending, particularly against children. In fact, studies have revealed that proximity to schools and other places where children congregate had little relation to where offenders met child victims," the report said.

Aukerman said that an expert determined that nearly half of Grand Rapids is off-limits to sex offenders.

John Agar covers crime for MLive/Grand Rapids Press E-mail John Agar: jagar@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ReporterJAgar

Source:  http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/04/judge_eases_rules_for_sex_offe.html

By L.L. Brasier, Detroit Free Press

Michigan's Sex Offender Registry law is so vague that parts of it are unconstitutional, including the requirement that offenders stay at least 1,000 feet from schools, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland, in a 72-page ruling, struck down several reporting requirements of the 1994 law, which has been amended several times by state lawmakers to make requirements stricter.

Regarding the 1,000-foot school safety zone, he said offenders are left to guess where the zones were and are not provided with enough information from the state to abide by the restriction.

And he struck down several other requirements, including a mandate that offenders report in person new e-mail and instant messaging addresses and notify authorities of all telephone numbers "routinely used by the individual."

The vagueness of the law "leaves law enforcement without adequate guidance to enforce the law and leaves registrants of ordinary intelligence unable to determine when the reporting requirements are triggered," Cleland wrote in his ruling.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan against Gov. Rick Snyder and Michigan State Police Director Kriste Etue, on behalf of six Michigan residents who are convicted sex offenders required to register. The University of Michigan Clinical Law Program also participated.

The residents argued that the law, and its many amendments, are impossible to follow. Regarding the 1,000-foot rule, they said, "the zones are not physically marked and registrants are not provided with maps demarking the boundaries."

"Is it point to point or property line to property line ... as the crow files or as people actually travel?" the suit asked.

Some of those suing are parents and grandparents and say the rule, including the restriction that they not loiter near a school, prevents them from participating in their children's education. They are afraid to attend parent-teacher conferences or school plays.

The judge found that part of the law unclear as well, noting that the law's "present definition of 'loiter' is sufficiently vague as to prevent ordinary people using common sense from being able to determine whether plaintiffs are, in fact, prohibited from engaging in the conduct from which plaintiffs have refrained."

Law enforcement officials were reviewing the order.

"We are aware of the ruling," said Shanon Banner, a spokesperson for the Michigan State Police, in an e-mail. "We have reviewed it with the Attorney General's office to determine its immediate impact on our practices, and we are currently working to make necessary changes to come into compliance. We will also be working with the Legislature to clarify portions of the Act that need addressing."

Andrea Bitely, spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, said the office was also studying the ruling.

It's not clear what, if any, immediate impact the judge's ruling will have on the 41,600 Michigan residents on the state's registry.

The judge limited some of his rulings, including the school safety zone, to the specific plaintiffs in the lawsuit, although as a practical matter others on the registry could point to the ruling for relief from the safety zone requirement.

ACLU attorney Miriam Aukerman, who worked on the case, said the judge was sending a strong message that the law was not working properly and the Legislature needs to consider an overhaul. Most have to follow dozens of restrictions regarding reporting and where they live and work.

"The law is so confusing that even a well-intentioned registrant can't follow it," Aukerman said. "We found that even the police don't know what the law is."

Many of those on the registry are not considered dangerous. One of the plaintiffs in the suit, identified only as John Doe #4, was 23 when he met a woman at an adult nightclub in 2006. She was under 16 and became pregnant. He was prosecuted and placed on the offender registry. He completed probation, and now the couple have two children.

In another case, from 1996, a man was 18 when he had sex with his girlfriend, age 14. He was prosecuted and sentenced under the state's Holmes Youthful Training Act, which seals his file and eventually clears his record. He completed probation and has committed no new crimes, but still is required to register as a sex offender.

"We need to look at this as a public safety issue," Aukerman said. "This law is not keeping us safe. We need to take a hard look at the sex offender registry and base it on facts, not fear. Are these the people we want to monitor? We should do what other states have done, by identifying the offenders who are dangerous, rather than take this broad brush approach."

In addition to the safety zones, the judge also ruled as unconstitutional the requirement that offenders report the license plate, registration and description of any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel "regularly operated by the individual," and a requirement that offenders report "all electronic mail addresses routinely used by the individual."

Source: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/06/michigan-sex-offender-registry-judge-robert-cleland-state-police-governor-snyder/25385625/

By Leon Neyfakh

Last week, California officials announced that the state would allow some sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of schools and parks for the first time since 2006, making it easier for them to find housing. High-risk sex offenders and those whose crimes involved children under the age of 14 will still be subject to the residency restrictions, which were introduced as part of a voter-initiative known as as Jessica's Law -- but all others will be granted exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

The new policy, passed by California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, will help combat a growing problem of homelessness among sex offenders out on parole, who have had a difficult time finding places to live because Jessica's Law has made so much of the state off-limits to them. According to the Orange County Register, the number of paroled sex offenders living on the street jumped from 88, when the residency restrictions were passed, to almost 2,000 five years later.

The new rule, which comes on the heels of a decision from the California Supreme Court that found the Jessica's Law residency restrictions unconstitutional as applied in San Diego County, stands out as one of the only policy changes in memory that makes life for sex offenders in the United States easier rather than harder. To put the move in perspective, I called Emily Horowitz, a criminologist at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and the author of the new book, Protecting Our Kids?: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us.

How often does it happen that states become more lenient toward sex offenders rather than more punitive?

Never, that I can think of. This is really significant. I just wrote this book on it, and I can't think of any other example -- except for small little triumphs, like in Orange, California, where they defeated a proposed law where registered sex offenders would have had to put a sign on their front doors that said "Sex offender at this residence, no candy or treats allowed." That ordinance was successfully fought back.

Why is it significant?

They said they're going to look at sex offenders individually, and see who actually would pose a threat to children. And that's what anybody who advocates for sex offenders has always said makes sense. So it seems pretty radical. Obviously, everyone wants to protect children, and no one wants dangerous sex offenders who are at high risk to reoffend to be in communities near children. But there are very, very few of those people.

Is it part of any broader shift in thinking on sex offender laws that you've noticed?

Not really. There has been a little bit of rationality about it in the last year. But it's been mostly in academia and in the legal community. There have been a lot of law review articles that challenge it.

Why did you write a book about the sex offender registry?

When I saw the research on the registry I was really shocked at how pointless it is. And it was shocking because usually, when you research something, there's ambiguity--there are some good things and there are some bad things. But with the registry, there's really no research that shows it's effective at all.

You previously had believed the registry was doing something worthwhile?

As a kid I'd heard about Etan Patz and Adam Walsh and so, when I first heard about sex offender laws I thought, oh, well these makes sense -- you'll have a registry and kids will be safer. And I had the sense that stranger danger was this profound problem. But then I found out that, statistically, it was a completely insignificant problem -- that these cases were really anomalous -- and that the registry really didn't protect kids at all.

How do the studies you read show the registry's effectiveness, or lack thereof?

If the registry was effective, you'd want to see that, after 1996, when Megan's Law was implemented, there was a big drop in sex offense cases. But the rates didn't change, or they'd already started going down before Megan's Law was implemented. Rates of sexual abuse neither increased nor decreased as a result of the registry.

Why?

Because more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse cases -- some say 96 percent -- involve the family. And the registry only targets stranger danger. It prohibits people from going to parks and malls -- whereas most child sexual abuse takes place in the home. Also, most people on the registry have adult victims. It's just all the rhetoric around the registry is about children.

So what does the registry accomplish?

It's just a form of public, permanent shaming to make us feel better. ... I mean, I think a lot of these people deserve to go to prison. They're sex offenders who do things that are against the law, and they should go to prison and they should be on parole and they should get treatment. But I don't think they should be publicly branded for life.

If there's all this research showing that the sex offender registry doesn't drive down rates of sexual abuse, why has it survived all these years?

Because it's politically really popular. And because it's political suicide to say you don't want the registry.

What did the people you talked to for your book say about how being on the sex offender registry affects their lives?

I talked to a lot of people on the registry but I also talked to a lot of wives and mothers, because a lot of times the people on the registry are so traumatized that they don't even want to talk about it. Basically they all talk about this constant fear. Because, you know, a lot of times your address is on the Internet so people look you up -- and everyone knows. The ones who have jobs just wait for the day that people they work with find out. And they worry that somebody's going to come and throw eggs at their house or throw beer cans at them or scream and yell at them. Some people have kids, and so they dread the other parents finding out. They just all talk about this constant dread and fear and always looking over their shoulder.

Do you think there will be more policy action on making registry laws more lenient or forgiving, along the lines of what we've just seen in California?

I think there's going to be some success on fighting back for people who were juveniles when they were added to the registry. I think people are sympathetic to that. Some people go on the registry at like, 10 or 12. Very young. But then they're in their 30s and they're still on it because they're subject to lifetime registration.

In Missouri there was some hope that they were going to get juveniles off the registry, but then at the last minute the governor, I believe, was like "forget it."

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/04/california_s_sane_new_approach_to_sex_offenders_and_why_no_one_is_following.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/lenore-skenazy-lox-bagels-juice-sex-offenders-article-1.2163758

http://www.lifeonlist.org/