Saturday, April 4, 2009

Prison Nation - Just finished watching this on NatGeo!

I watched this series, and it says basically the same thing I have said for a long time. People get thrown in prison with little or no treatment, get put into solitary for years (driving them mad), in fights all the time, and are treated like animals. Then, when their time is up, they are released back onto the street with about $200 in cash with no home, job or place to stay. So it's common sense they are going to revert back to crime and are set up to fail. Like I've said, prison is a business and the cycle repeats itself over and over and over again. And all at tax payer expense. The prisoners become more and more violent and crime rates increase. It's common sense, IMO. DOOMED TO FAIL FROM THE START! When you treat people like animals, they will act like animals. The prison system, needs an enema!

FL - Lunsford describes need for funding at FAPB awards

View the article here


ORLANDO - The father of slain 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford reminisced about his daughter's life and the need for more funding for child protection organizations Saturday at the Florida Associated Press Broadcasters Awards.

Lunsford recalled when his daughter would playfully pluck raisins from his cereal bowl. But a tearful Lunsford also described the need for more funding for agencies like the U.S. Marshals, the Florida Department of Children and Families and groups that target Internet crimes against children.

He spoke two weeks ago in Congress to plead for funding for such programs.

Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped, raped and buried alive in 2005 by a convicted sex offender north of Tampa.

The FAPB awards recognize outstanding broadcast reporters in Florida every year.

IA - Authorities: Cop impersonator extorts money from sex offenders

View the article here


By Thomas Geyer

A registered Scott County sex offender is facing multiple felony charges after he allegedly tried to extort money out of other sex offenders by posing as a police officer.

Scott County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Mike Erwin said that Ruben Avila Perales, 39, was arrested Friday at Rockingham Road and Concord Street in Davenport as he attempted to meet one of his victims.

Perales is charged with six counts of extortion, seven counts of impersonating a public official, failure to register as a sex offender-second offense, and failure to abide by the residency restrictions of a child sex offender. The last charge was because Perales was living within 2,000 feet of a school.

Perales is being held in the Scott County Jail. His bond has been set at $5,000, but the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services now has a hold on Perales.

According to the arrest affidavit filed by Davenport police detective Rich Tubbs, Perales pretended to be a special agent with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, or DCI, and said that he was field coordinator for Zone 4 of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry.

Perales contacted six other sex offenders, identified himself as a police officer and made appointments to speak with them at their residence about discrepancies with their sex offender registration documents.

Perales threatened to arrest the victims if they missed their appointments and did not pay him $75 a piece for unpaid fees to the Iowa Sex Offender Registry.

Perales had made six separate file folders each of which contained information on each of his victims. Each of the folders contained the victim’s photo, personal information and an arrest warrant document.

Erwin and Tubbs are part of the Scott County Sex Offender Task Force.

Erwin said that they learned of the scheme in two ways.

One of the victims went to the Sheriff’s Department because he thought Perales’ story did not sound right, Erwin said.

“Then, by chance on Friday, we were out making compliance checks when one of the offenders we were checking asked if this took care of the other guy’s appointment,” Erwin said. That’s when detectives started asking more questions.

“It was all going down Friday,” Erwin said. “This guy was supposed to meet him (Perales) and he was going to pay the $75. They all were. None of them wanted to be arrested.”

Surveillance was set up with the help of the DCI, Scott County Attorney’s Office, and the Iowa Department of Correctional Services. When Perales showed up, he was arrested, Erwin said.

“We were concerned about how long this may have been going on,” Erwin said. “But we’re pretty confident he just got started and we slammed it shut.”

Perales was convicted in Scott County in 1991 of indecent contact with a child. In 1993 he was convicted in Scott County of sexual abuse third-degree. His victim was a male no older than 13.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Web site, Perales was released from the federal prison in Yazoo City, Miss., Feb. 28, 2008. Why he was in federal prison could not be determined Saturday.

Extortion and failure to register as a sex offender second-offense each are Class D felonies under Iowa law that carry up to five years in prison. Impersonating a public official and violating residency restrictions are each aggravated misdemeanors that carry a prison sentence of up to two years.

TX - Dallas woman erroneously listed as sex offender

View the article here
Original Article


The Texas Department of Public Safety has apologized for posting a Dallas woman's name and photo erroneously on the state's sex offender Web site.

Rachel Marquez says she accepts the DPS apology for keeping her on the Web site for almost five years. But she said she's consulting with lawyers about what her next move should be, if any.

"I don't know how many people have seen it or how many jobs it has cost me," she told KXAS-TV in Fort Worth and Dallas. "I'm just now finding this out."

Her name apparently was posted on the Web site in 2003. That's when the then-13-year-old girl was detained on a minor trespassing complaint.

DPS spokesman Tom Vinger says a department data entry operator apparently checked the "sex offender" box on her entry by mistake.

Now 20, Marquez said she learned of her listing when she tried to rent a new apartment and the management denied her application. They cited her status as a registered sex offender.

"My heart just dropped," she said.

Marquez is a mother of two and a criminal justice student at Remington College in Garland.

Law & Psychiatry: Sex Offenders in the Community: Are Current Approaches Counterproductive?


By Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D.

This column examines laws aimed at preventing sex offenders from reoffending and court challenges to those laws. All states have enacted registration and community notification requirements. More than 20 states and hundreds of municipalities now restrict where sex offenders can live. In many states, public disclosure of registration information is not limited to predatory offenders, but instead includes everyone convicted of a sexually related offense. The author argues that draconian approaches will likely not achieve the goal of protecting the public and that they divert limited resources from other law enforcement needs.

Sex offenders are perhaps the most feared and reviled criminals in our society. Because their behavior is generally viewed as pathologic—and many suffer from paraphilias—the mental health professions are often expected to assess and treat sex offenders and to predict the likelihood of their recidivism. Civil commitment statutes that target a subgroup of offenders designated as "sexually violent predators" have increased in recent years. The statutes have received a great deal of criticism, both on the grounds that they are largely punitive in intent and because of concern about the role of mental health professionals (1).

Most identified sex offenders, however, reside in the community, having completed their prison terms or having been placed directly on probation without incarceration. An even larger body of legislation focuses on this group. Registration requirements and community notification statutes exist in every state, and a growing number of jurisdictions are enacting restrictions on where sex offenders can live and work. Although each of these policy approaches could be useful when targeted appropriately, they are now frequently designed in ways that are wasteful of resources at best and are often frankly counterproductive.

Sex offender registries and community notification:
Registration requirements were the first statutes aimed directly at sex offenders to be put into place. Such laws were based on the seemingly reasonable presumption that it can be useful for the police to know the whereabouts of offenders who have committed serious sexual crimes as they investigate newly reported incidents. The federal government stimulated the adoption of registration statutes in most states, with a series of laws, often named after child victims of sexual offenses, tying the development of sex offender registries to receipt of federal funds for law enforcement purposes (2). The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994 required states to establish registries for sex offenders for at least ten years after their release. Most recently, the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 expanded the crimes covered by the registries, made failure to register a federal crime, and mandated state reporting to a national database by 2009. Many states have enacted even more stringent statutes, covering anyone convicted of a sexual offense and requiring lifetime registration.

It is estimated that more than 627,000 persons are included on sex offender registries, more than 111,000 in California alone (3). Maintaining databases of this scope is a time-consuming and expensive task for law enforcement authorities and depends heavily on the willingness of offenders in the community to comply with registration requirements. Several years ago, California authorities estimated that they had lost track of more than 33,000 offenders, and one survey of state officials suggested that states on average are missing data on 24% of potential registrants (4). No comprehensive study of the utility of such databases has been performed, but the fact that only 14% of sex offenses are committed by persons with prior sexual convictions indicates the realistic limits of their applicability (5).

Registration requirements would not be quite so onerous if every state did not pair registration with community notification. Following the lead of New Jersey, in 1996 Congress passed Megan's Law, requiring the release of sexual offender registration information to the public. In 2003 a more specific directive was enacted, mandating all states to place the information on a Web site available to the general public. Today, there is no state that does not maintain such a Web site with a search function allowing identification of offenders by name and geographic area (6). Most states supplement this on-line information with direct notification of neighbors of at least some classes of sex offenders. This can include posting flyers in the neighborhood, sending notices directly to area homes, having the police go door to door, putting notices in newspapers or on television, and holding community meetings (2).

Information disseminated typically includes an offender's name, address, criminal offense, and photograph. Given the consternation aroused by sex offenders, it can hardly be unexpected that the typical consequences of such disclosure are loss of housing, jobs, and friends. Yet these are just the kind of supports that can anchor a released offender in a community and reduce recidivism. Numerous reports have surfaced of offenders being threatened, harassed, and in rare cases killed after community notification (2). Suicide also has been reported (7). Perhaps most disturbing is the large number of states that fail to limit disclosures to predatory offenders, instead extending the process to everyone convicted of a sexually related offense. Swept up in this net are people who have committed noncontact crimes, such as exhibitionism or peeping, those whose only offense occurred as children, and persons who engaged in consensual sex with a somewhat younger girlfriend or boyfriend and were convicted of statutory rape (2).

Public notification requirements are flawed in another way as well. The assumptions underlying the statutes are that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend, which is why they are singled out from all other categories of criminals for registration and notification, and that informing the community will better enable potential victims to take precautions. According to the best available data, however, sex offenders are less likely to commit a sex crime in the future than almost all other categories of criminals are to recidivate—though the problem of accounting for unreported offenses always must be taken into account. A large meta-analysis showed sexual offense recidivism rates of 13.4%, ranging from 12.7% for child molesters to 18.8% for rapists, over an average follow-up period of four to five years (8). A major federal follow-up study of sex offenders in 15 states who were released in 1994 found reconviction rates for sexual offenses of 5.3% over the subsequent three years, with 40% of arrests coming in the first year (5). Moreover, most sex offenses are committed by family members and friends well known to victims, not by strangers about whom warnings might be helpful (4).

Legal challenges to registration and notification laws have been singularly unsuccessful. Not only have such statutes repeatedly been upheld by state courts, but in 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court also rejected a set of constitutional challenges. In Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the Court turned aside an argument that registration and notification requirements violated procedural due process (9), and in Smith v. Doe, it rebuffed the litigants' contention that the Alaska statute violated the Constitution's ex post facto clause (10).

Residence restrictions:
The most draconian approach to protecting the public from sex offenders is reflected in the growing number of statutes and local ordinances restricting where they can live (11). More than 20 states and hundreds of municipalities have such laws today (2), but there seems little question that Georgia's statute is the most extreme. The Georgia law prohibits released offenders from working within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, or daycare centers and living or loitering within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate, including all of the facilities in the work restrictions plus such other locations as playgrounds and school bus stops. The last of these provisions is the most onerous, because stops for school buses are ubiquitous in the state and bus routes change constantly. Thus full implementation of the law would render most of the residential areas in the state off limits to sex offenders, and almost every registered offender would be faced with the prospect of moving immediately (12).

A challenge to the Georgia statute led to one of the very rare instances in which a court has struck down a law regulating sex offenders. In late 2007 the Georgia Supreme Court considered Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections, an action brought by a registered sex offender who after his release had gotten married, bought a home, and established a business (13). Not long thereafter, child care facilities located themselves within 1,000 feet of both his home and workplace, and under the new statute he was barred from both locations. Mann asked for a declaratory judgment that the statute would result in an unconstitutional taking of his property without due compensation. In its opinion, the court seemed particularly impressed that any third party could compel offenders to leave their homes simply by locating a child care center or church near their residences. Thus the court struck down the residence restrictions. However, the court was less persuaded about the hardship wrought by preventing Mann from working at the business he owned and upheld that part of the law (13). Other litigation is under way in the federal courts, and enforcement of the school bus stop provision is being held in abeyance (12).

Residence restrictions appear to be based on the unverified proposition that offenders are more likely to target victims, particularly children, in the immediate vicinities of their residences or workplaces. Even if that were true, the laws at best would be internally inconsistent, because they do not prevent sex offenders from living next to or even with children, though they cannot reside or work near schools and other facilities where children are likely to be more closely supervised. Surveys of sex offenders themselves indicate that they do not believe that residence restrictions will actually keep predators away from children if the predators are intent on reoffending (14).

Need for perspective:
Taken as a whole, current legislation aimed at people dwelling in the community who have committed sexual offenses seems largely counterproductive. By publicly labeling and shaming offenders, it all but ensures that they will have difficulty reintegrating into community life, supporting their families, and making friends. In banning them from living or working in large portions of many states, it further isolates them, inhibits their ability to put down roots and achieve stability, and often throws them together with other sex offenders in the few locations where residence is still possible (15). Through the indiscriminate process of including anyone ever convicted of a sexually related offense, many states blur the focus of police and the public on the most dangerous offenders. If restrictions were more narrowly targeted, they might have some role to play in assuaging public fears and preventing further crimes by the most serious sex offenders, but it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the current system is ill thought through and may ultimately be more harmful than no legislation at all.

However, apart from the Georgia Supreme Court decision in Mann, there are few indications that the tide is close to turning. States and localities continue to adopt residence restrictions, and even more aggressive initiatives surface regularly. Texas recently announced that it would screen all evacuees during hurricanes and other emergencies to prevent sex offenders from boarding buses with other citizens (16). In another move, New Jersey joined Florida and Nevada in barring sex offenders who used the Internet in their crimes from ever logging on again, except as part of work or looking for a job; offenders will have to install special equipment on their computers so that their usage can be monitored, another unwelcome task for law enforcement (17).

Reasonable and effective responses to the commission of sexual offenses require thoughtful consideration of the effects—both positive and negative—of restrictive laws and of their costs. Every dollar spent on tracking nonviolent offenders or enforcing restrictions on persons who are unlikely to commit new crimes is money taken from other law enforcement needs. At some point, policy makers need to gain perspective on these issues and develop strategies to calm public fears, rather than inflame them.

Government Sex Scandals?

A few articles I thought you might find of interest. Not only are our lawmakers violating the Constitution, but they are also covering up for the real monsters.

The Washington Child Sex Ring Coverup:

The Story of the CIA's "Finders" Abduction Operation:

The Rusty Nelson-Kelly Ford Report (Child sexual abuse at the highest levels).


Jeff Gannon, Bush Jr's White House presspool "plant" and male prostitute - Is he really Johnny Gosch, abducted in 1982 and conected the the Page Boy Scandal?

I know these may be a little left of this sites purpose but I consider these important issues when questioning the whole sex offender laws constitutional question, human rights, and our politicians/lawmakers self serving agendas.

Child Prostitution, Satanism, & The CIA

The Franklin Scandal - Conspiracy of Silence


View the article here (PDF)

In 2006, the Adam Walsh Act was passed, lengthening registration periods, requiring more frequent updating of registrant information, and expanding the number of sex offenders to whom notification requirements apply. The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) also increased penalties for sex offenders who fail to comply with registration obligations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between failure to register as a sex offender and subsequent recidivism. Since little is known about sex offender registration violators, our first goal was to describe the characteristics of a sample of sex offenders convicted of failing to register in South Carolina. Second, we sought to determine whether, as a group, sex offenders who failed to register differed significantly from compliant registrants on relevant risk variables. Third, we endeavored to identify factors predictive of failure to register (FTR). Finally, we evaluated the role of registration noncompliance in contributing to recidivism risk over time.

Results from this study do not support the supposition that sexual offenders who fail to register are more sexually dangerous than those who comply with registration requirements. Specifically, results indicated that approximately 10% of sex offenders had registry violations across an average follow-up period of about 6 years. Of those who failed to register, 11% also had a sexual recidivism charge, compared with 9% of compliant registrants. The presence of prior sexual offenses did not predict FTR, and FTR did not predict sexual recidivism. Consistent with other research, sex offenders are more likely to reoffend non-sexually than with a subsequent sex crime.

Sexual violence is a serious and complex problem requiring a comprehensive set of strategies to enhance public protection. Interventions based on research data are more likely to succeed in preventing sex crimes by targeting resources toward factors associated with reoffending. The current study indicates that sex offenders who fail to comply with registration are not more apt to reoffend sexually, but substantial resources are spent for enforcement, and, as required by the Adam Walsh Act, to incarcerate violators. We suggest that utilizing empirically derived risk assessment to identify highrisk predators, and assisting sex offenders to reintegrate successfully might contribute in more meaningful ways to public safety.

This report is a summary of a research article forthcoming in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Justice Quarterly.