Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of December 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
Does anyone have any links to studies on child porn?
Im mainly interested in ones showing link/no link between viewing child porn and hands on crimes. I am doing this to help my therapist help someone else under his care who has not yet gone to court for possession charges. All the ones i remember reading all showed no link, but i cant mange to find any of the articles/studies. This is for a good cause so any help would be greatly appreciated.
Has anyone seen or heard any updates on the CA tiered system ? Any news on how they are going to classify NON contact crimes? If no contact is that going to get to be 1st Tier? What about attempts when there again was no actual contact?
Thanks
Any other way to get an update? I can’t attend in San Diego.
@Janice and company.
Do we know once the CA tiered registry goes live if we will be forced to petition (which is bs, should be automatic) in front of the original county of conviction?
I’m in Riverside County and there’s been many calls of corruption here with something ridiculous like a 98% conviction rate I believe. Question is Will we be able to fight for our freedom from tyranny against a DA That isn’t already bias?
Question regarding new law:
2 years ago I plead no contest to a misdemeanor charge of 647.6(a). Received summary probation and no jail time. Was explicitly told, in writing, I had to register only for duration of probation( I still have the probation order). My wife and our 5 kids moved out of state immediately after sentencing, mainly due to us no longer trusting the system. I registered once and at the same time told them I was moving out of state. We got to NY and the NY sex offender board sent me a letter stating I did NOT have to register here. My family and I have moved on from this ordeal and I have a really well paying job and a good reputation.
I’ve recently been told that in a few years my name will be made public as a sex offender by California? Is this true? It has never been public because I was excluded from the website from the beginning. How can California claim to have jurisdiction over me still. I never, ever, ever, plan on going back to California. How can they say this will make the public safer?
I’m afraid for my family, my career….can someone shed some light. Please!
Mike St. Martin, whom you know as a spokesperson for Coalinga State Hospital Detainees, alerted me to a story in the Fresno Bee recently about Detainees’ right to vote and the ensuing hand-wringing on the part of the City of Coalinga and other “concerned citizens” who contemplate the possibility that “sexual predators” might swing elections or, worse run for office themselves. I suspect that we haven’t heard the last of these overly wrought panic attacks. “Can a sexually violent predator in state custody run for office in California?” https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article222032290.html
We’ve discussed these here before from SCOTUS but they are being discussed again elsewhere:
Debate over term limits for Supreme Court gains new life
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/419960-debate-over-term-limits-for-supreme-court-gains-new-life
Justices seem reluctant to make changes to double jeopardy clause
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/420059-justices-seem-reluctant-to-make-changes-to-double-jeopardy-clause
went to register today in Nevada,i was told by the person who took my information that the new ab579 wasn’t working so well (I don’t say not to register) the employee told me a lot of people haven’t registered or have moved including myself shortly
Sierah’s Law, targeting violent offenders, advances in Ohio on 85-0 House vote
Registry for violent offenders??
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sierahs-law-database-of-violent-offenders-unanimously-passes-ohio-house-
85-0?fbclid=IwAR3xNh1Plnrkm6ikIX4qYTEZTqrXwfvXQRh0k6-7Z3EFqRAIET8l5XNiNHQ
Will be able to travel soon, just seeing if anyone has had any trouble going to Europe? Thanks.
So I’m walking my dog in Half Moon Bay today (NorCal) and I pass a group of youngsters with teachers at some benches. I walk a little farther and a middle aged man sitting on a bench in onion shorts (nylon running shorts)with his hand over his groin makes a comment about the children to me, or at least out loud. Why, I have no idea. It is obvious he is covering an erection with his hand. I make a quick observation of his appearance and location, then continue on. My phone is in my car, so I have no way of immediately notifying L.E.
He then makes some comment to a couple with a young child on a tricycle passing him as I walk on.
Now I get to my car , call L.E. to report what I witnessed, and the dispatcher doesn’t even let me give a description! She puts me on hold twice, then says thx and hangs up!
WTF! Is it too much work to actually do their jobs. Are they too busy doing compliancy checks and harassing those of us that aren’t any threat to actually investigate an actual potential pervert (or at least a possible mentally disturbed person).
@Aj
I’d like your opinion on the Boyd vs Washington case that is supposed to be included in the scotus conference today. We all know that they passed on Snyder/Does for whatever reason but if they take on Boyd and rule against us wouldn’t that conflict with some of what was accomplished by them not granting Cert in the Snyder case. It appears to me that many of the same issues are being appealed here as well….post facto, punitive in-person reporting etc….I was wondering whether you think they’ll punt again as they did with Snyder and Muniz or there is enough of a dispute to hear the case…look forward to your thoughts
Do we, RSO, have any new friends in the CA legislature this next year? Who can we start to contact about how the final Tiered Registration will look?
@ AJ, so what do you think happens with substantive due process if the court accepts and sides by Smith still. I really doubt if SCOTUS will go out its way to rule on substantive due process unless specifically asked. But they very well may as they mentioned it in Conn v Dept. I imagine SCOTUS can and does whatever they want but do you think this will effect substantive in any negative way either way the court goes? I really cannot see them inserting any claim like that if it is not specifically asserted and without the proper record before the court on that issue.
Here is another great quote and report by Hanson, I am not sure if I have ever contacted Hanson but I am doing so now see if he will agree to testify in my case. I want to subpoena him if we will not voluntarily testify, but I think that could present all kinds of problems since he is in Canada.
Conclusion
The vast majority of individuals with a history of sexual crime desist from further sexual crime. Although sexual crime has serious consequences, and invokes considerable public concern, there is no evidence that individuals who have committed such offenses inevitably present a lifelong enduring risk of sexual recidivism. Critics may argue that the near zero recidivism rates observed in the current study should not be trusted because most sexual crimes remain undetected. This type of argument, however, distances policy decisions from evidence. If the goal is increased public protection (not retribution or punishment), then efficient policies would be proportional to the risk presented. Risk in most individuals with a history of sexual crime will eventually decline to levels that are difficult to distinguish from the risk presented by the general population. Instead of depleting resources on such low risk individuals, sexual victimization would be better addressed by increased focus on truly high risk individuals, primary prevention, and victim services. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © The Crown in Right of Canada (Public Safety), 2017
2018, Vol. 24, No. 1, 48–63 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000135
@ AJ> “Yet here we are 15 years later with that “begging” (tip o’ the hat to @Chris F) from SCOTUS still sitting unused on the shelf. Maybe and hopefully it is preserved on appeal after the 10th decides Rankin.”
Did I miss something that Chris stated like a citation to this “begging” in the tenth or somewhere.
@ AJ, here we go, straight out of CASOMB report. LOL. I do not like the recommended tiering at the end. I know I seen somewhere in one of these reports tonight that stated that the legislature made changes not recommended by the board but cannot find it after hours of going back over all the recent reports. If anyone can find where it states that in one of the reports it would be cool.
http://www.casomb.org/docs/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%204-2-14.pdf
Here we go, found it, it was in the 2017 report to which is good. I can use this to show that the legislature are still not using any empirical evidence at all and neither was the tiered bill at all. CASOMB implies that the bill uses risk assessment for all when in fact it is only for those that score as high risk offenders and not lower level offenders at all. These are based solely on offense, which is a problem when you classify people with out a individual assessment and then project that dangerousness on to the public. How can you use the tool to classify high risk offenders but not use it for all offenders. That I am sure is another problem… The board goes out of its way to describe risk based as the only reasonable solution but recommends this screwed up tier system and then the legislature just makes it ever worse with their amendments. I think I can successfully make these arguments while connecting Hanson to the CASOMB directly.
After about eight to nine years offense‐free in the community, people who have committed sexual offenses and are assessed as average or above‐average risk to reoffend pose no greater risk of committing a new sex offense than any other type of offender.3 For this reason, they were intended to be in tier one (10‐ year registration) or tier two (20‐year registration). During the bill process, however,
amendments to the original draft of the bill moved some of these offenders to the lifetime tier. CASOMB will re‐evaluate this as well as other amendments made to the original bill and make future recommendations for modification.
The original bill provided that only tier three offenders would have their home addresses
displayed online. Public safety is best served when offenders are employed and have
stable housing (i.e., are not homeless).4 This is not always achievable when offenders are
posted online. Landlords may be afraid to rent to people with this history. Employers
may worry about loss of business or retribution if it becomes known they are employing
someone who has sexually offended in the past.
http://casomb.org/pdf/2017_CASOMB_Annual_Report_uploaded_7_16.pdf
These reports have some great citations in them as well. Kind of hard to argue against your own reports.
I received the following “Dobb’s Wire” from Bill Dobbs today: Enlightenment and a trigger warning in Connecticut: A day-long event in Connecticut featuring a series of presentations about the sex offense registry proved enlightening and remarkable! [Note: Video of this conference is linked at the end] One highlight was the first speaker who gave an overview, taking some trouble to explain the important and little-discussed concept of “moral panic” and the big impact that phenomenon has had, and continues to have, on sex offense laws. Drawn from research and professional experience, the remarks were even more resonant because the speaker is a jurist, Judge Mary Huffman of Ohio. Complementing Huffman’s talk was the next presentation, by Eric Janus, a Minnesota law professor and director of the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center, who vigorously urged a rethinking and reboot of current measures—because the overarching goal of preventing sexual harm has been forgotten amidst a push for emotion-driven laws. Other personal, professional and political perspectives rounded out the day.
In the audience of 150+ that filled a large room were a range of stakeholders— probation officers, public defenders, victims and victim advocates, judges, legislators, scholars, prosecutors, registered individuals, advocates for registrants. Lead organizer of the Dec. 7th gathering was the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, an “independent state criminal justice agency,” with the support and help of the Connecticut Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (CATSO), National Institute of Corrections, Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, and the University of Connecticut School of Law, which hosted the event. Kudos to Sentencing Commission Chair Judge Robert Devlin and Executive Director Alex Tsarkov, Eileen Redden of CATSO and all those who made the event possible.
Below is a link to the archived video of the proceedings, along with the program, speakers list, and time marks for the presentations – have a look! In his welcoming remarks Dean Timothy Fisher allowed that the law school’s hosting of the event was a “difficult decision” out of concern the session might “trigger further harm and fears” – an unexpected reminder of the prevailing high anxiety and moral panic that surrounds registration laws – even a discussion of this topic at a public law school.
Related: Responding to an official request from the Connecticut legislature, in late 2017 the Sentencing Commission issued a report on the state’s sex offense registry with recommendations and continues to press for legislative changes. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire info@thedobbswire.com
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15814
Excellent LS, I did not know that they used Hanson on the actual Megan’s Law site. Kind of hard to connect him anymore than that. It is crazy how CASOMB touts about risk assessments as the only way a registry works and tries to push the tiered bill as risk related when it is offense based. They are trying to intermingle the two trying to conceal the fact that it is offense based only and nothing to do with empirical evidence or actual risk. How can you tell everyone everywhere that only risk based is viable and that registries do nothing but make recidivism worse and then turn around a push a bill that is not based on empirical evidence or actual risk and that does nothing anyways except for exacerbate risk factors. The following is exactly why everyone pushes these laws, I knew that it was expensive but damn, it is really going to piss some serious people off if I win my case, or when anyone wins a case against the registries for that matter.
“When quantifiable costs are summed, they are estimated to range from $10 billion to $40 billion nationally per year. These costs could be reduced if the registry did not try to track everyone for life.”
http://casomb.org/pdf/CASOMB_Education_Pamphlet.pdf
Holly crap batman-this surpasses the entire DOJ budget by far, wonder what a jury will think about this,
The DOJ FY 2019 Budget totals $28.0 billion in
discretionary budget authority. The FY 2019 DOJ Budget
delineated by category is: law enforcement (50%); prisons
and detention (31%); litigation (12%); grants (6%); and
immigration/administration/technology/other (2%). DOJ is
estimating $6.0 billion in mandatory budget authority in
FY 2019.
https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1033086/download
So the funds spent on registration in one year could fund the entire DOJ for two years. Prisons and all..
WOW….
Twice the budget of the entire Department of Justice on something that “ALL” the empirical evidence and professional experts say does not work but is actually counter-productive. This is a incredibly huge argument in and of itself……………….. Want to talk about something nefarious going on, then this is proof beyond a doubt. This is insane and I will push the hell out of this……
While researching something else, I stumbled across some Federal Appeals cases that may be helpful to someone still under supervision in the 2nd, 3rd, or 8th Circuits’ territories. Each case ruled that blanket rules/prohibition on internet usage is excessive:
2nd: US v Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2002)
3rd: US v Freeman, 316 F.3d 386 (3rd Cir. 2003)
8th: US v Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005)
Though Sofsky and Freeman have both been criticized four times (in the same cases), all three still appear to be valid case law.
“The Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview, or FETI.” This was new to me and mentioned in the following piece on the “Simple Justice” blog, “Abby Honold Act: Another Name, Another Bad Law.” An excerpt: “The creator of FETI, Russell Strand, isn’t a scientist, and yet expounds upon the “neurobiology of trauma.” The problem is that it’s without basis.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, FETI appears to have never been subject to empirical testing according to its website. [D.I.K.: I’m SHOCKED!] In a 2015 report to the United States Armed Services Committee, the United States Air Force declined to adopt FETI as its interview technique, citing the reports of several psychiatrists who evaluated FETI and found multiple problems with it.” https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/12/10/abby-honold-act-another-name-another-bad-law/
If someone who’s address isn’t posted and only has to report once a year is moved to third tier, is there an actionable cause here, and what would it be called?