Thursday, June 11, 2009

Research: Vigilante Justice Revealed

Courtesy of "Hope Lounge"

Long, but worth the reading!


By Hope

I have not posted a blog lately because I have been so busy trying to get my research paper I told you guys about done. So here it is. It’s long, 15 pages. I’m debating whether or not I should just post it here, or have you email me if you want it. I hope you guys enjoy this. I didn’t wind up talking about God much like I wanted to. I just ran out of time (due to severe ADD and procrastination). Enjoy! Let me know what you think, that is, if you actually take the liberty to read it. P.S. I have no idea why that middle section is really large and bold. It wont let me change it and it’s not like that in my actual paper. Like I said, if you want the official copy on Word, just email me at

Vigilante Justice Revealed

Imagine that there is a parent at a playground pushing their son on the swing. Suddenly, their cell phone rings and they walk away to answer the phone. They get caught up in business because a customer called asking for information on a specific product. The phone call winds up lasting about five minutes or so. When they turn around to go play with their son again he is not there. They seek frantically, calling his name out loud, but he is nowhere to be found. They hear the sound of screeching tires as a van flies down the road. Their son has been kidnapped. At this point, some people would call the police; others would chase the vehicle down themselves to investigate so they ensure that they do not lose that vehicle. Now imagine that their son was killed. Out of revenge the parent seeks out the killer and shoots him. This is known as vigilance. The person chose to kill the murderer because they lashed out of anger or a lack of confidence in the justice system, or some other similar reason. Killing is quite often perceived in a negative view. How does society look at vigilantes and is it okay to kill?

Almost all people have this burning desire to defend and fulfill right and wrong themselves. They desire justice and long to take it into their own hands. So many people do not trust the justice system these days. They feel the system is skewed and even though they make the claim of “not guilty until proven otherwise,” people feel that so many people are slipping through the cracks. A fictional example could be the television show that aired back in the early 90’s called Dark Justice. Dark Justice is about a judge whose daughter and wife is murdered and loses faith in the justice system (Dark Justice). The main character, the judge, is named Judge Nicholas Marshall. He begins to see how the judicial system is corroding into something that should not be. The criminals learn how to use it to their advantage and they begin to get away with terrible crimes. After his family is murdered he goes after criminals that he believes should have been prosecuted by “trying to stop their next scheme or get evidence that is needed to convict them” (Dark Justice). This is a prime example of how good people can and do take the law into their own hands to make sure that justice is served. It is not necessarily true that a vigilante is a bad person, or is ensuring that justice is served in crude or irrational ways.

To look further into this point consider abolitionists around the 18th century. These people took the law into their own hands by breaking federal law and assisting in helping free slaves. By definition a vigilante is a “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) a self-appointed doer of justice.” (Dictionary) Clearly, the group of abolitionists can represent an example for a vigilante group as they take the law into their own hands to ensure that what they felt to be just was carried out. Through the eyes of most people the topic of ending slavery and abolitionist groups are looked at in a positive manner. However, these people really did break the law. Think about it, slaves were not even considered citizens during this time period (Slave laws). This therefore, gave the blacks no legal rights whatsoever. Caucasians could treat African-Americans however they wanted and got away with it. The whites were in control of the law system and nobody seemed to want to realize that the way they treated these people, human beings, was wrong. The abolitionists were the people that broke this pattern though, broke what society felt to be okay during this time period. In fact, they risked their lives to stop this madness and help gain the slave’s freedom.

How about the people that were rescuers during the time of the Holocaust? These people were from a wide variety of backgrounds, regions, and careers, but they all looked at the Jews and other victims as human beings, not enemies. “Rescuers had to decide whether or not to assume the responsibility of helping and risk the potential consequences. Public hangings, deportation to concentration camps, and on-the-spot shootings were very real consequences of helping enemies of the Third Reich (Guide to Holocaust).” These people showed such heart and compassion for these minorities. By taking Jews into their homes and secure places they had to have great vigilance, attentiveness, and awareness as to keep from getting caught. Instances like these are great examples of how being a vigilante are not necessarily an awful thing.

In today’s society with people being so obsessed with technology, computers, and communication, online predators is a huge issue. The police have taken the liberty in trying to crack down and catch some predators, but many people feel they are not doing enough. An example is the people that are in this group called Perverted Justice. This group of people is dedicated to cracking down and catching online predators. Many people criticize this group saying that their aggressive tactics rarely lead to convictions, but if this is the case then why do they have three hundred plus noted convictions? One of these convictions is particularly interesting. A Perverted Justice volunteer, Frank Fencepost, was pretending to be a fourteen year old girl in a yahoo chat room and caught a twenty-nine year old man, Adrian, which was going to meet up this girl when her mother was out of town. When Adrian showed up, he received a warm welcoming from Mr. Fencepost and another volunteer. One was holding a baseball bat, the other a video camera. The two men followed Adrian back to his minivan, “berating him for soliciting sex with a minor and filming his hasty retreat (Vigilantes Troll).” This being a more recent example of a “good deed” vigilante it goes to show that not always is being a vigilante a bad thing. However, there are times when vigilante’s deserve the reputation they have.

If all of these examples seem justified, at what point is the line drawn? When does vigilante justice become inappropriate? Why are there laws and a justice system if people are going to be okay with taking the law into their own hands? In 1851 when the Gold Rush occurred in California the population grew so much that crime went to a much higher rate. A group of six hundred volunteers formed a Vigilante Committee and in the first year they hung four law breakers, whipped one, deported twenty and released forty one after trial (Vigilante Justice, 1851). As a result of them taking the law into their own hands crime did go down, but does this justify killing? How many of those hanged were wrongly accused? How many were guilty, but of minor crimes? What if one of those four people that they hung was innocent? What would the people do, just say “Whoops” and move on with their lives? Killing is never okay under any circumstance. It violates international human right laws. As a religious person, the sixth commandment comes to mind, “You shall not murder” (New International Version, Exodus 22). Killing in whole is basically a world wide agreement that it is wrong. The basis of under what circumstances is it allowed is where the controversy lies. It is not our duty to decide who lives and who dies. That is almost as though people are attempting to play the role of God. Every human being has the right to live. The death penalty, for many reasons is not right. It is never okay to kill someone. If they commit a crime that is so drastically terrible that you seek revenge, allow them to suffer in jail for the rest of their lives without any chance of parole. Killing these people, guilty or innocent, is not justifiable. Ever heard the term, “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Merely because the criminal did something wrong does not give anyone the right to kill them. Punishment is required for criminals, or else why would we have a justice system? However, even law enforcement has a limitation to the actions they are allowed to take. Law enforcement is not allowed to shoot whoever they feel like; it has to be purely under self defense or the defense of someone else’s life. Otherwise, they cannot pull that trigger.

Another example similar to this is of a man that was accused of raping and killing an eleven year old girl. A village mob attacked the accused man and beat a confession out of him. The problem with this is that when the police could not explain how the accused got injured so badly, the Supreme Court acquitted him because they discovered that his confession was due to him being physically attacked (Rape). In a sense it teaches people that they need to rely on the justice system to serve justice. If American, or any country for that matter, were to allow vigilante justice when someone is accused of a terrible crime, then it would just happen more and more. The Supreme Court almost had to do what they did to show that what that mob did was wrong. Even if the guy was guilty, he was on the road to getting the death penalty. If justice is what the mob sought after, why did they not merely allow him to die the legal way?

There is an old song titled “Vigilante Man” by Woody Guthrie. The most interesting part in the song is when he says:

Tell me why does a vigilante man carry that club in his hands would he beat an innocent man down? That no good vigilante man” (Guthrie).

This is interesting because it attempts to make the point that vigilante’s are up to no good. This tends to be a wrong perception that many people have. Vigilance can actually be quite a good quality to have. To be aware and attentive to everything that goes on around can ensure that someone else or that person’s own self are safe and secure. It could save a life, or change the way a person acts. These lyrics point out the fact that society as a whole looks at vigilantism as wrong and should be avoided at all costs. This is why we have a justice system. Years ago, vigilantism may have been an acceptable result while the justice system was still growing, forming, and finalizing. But with the way today’s justice system is set up, we have police, lawyers, judges that all exist so that everyday citizens do not have to turn to vigilance. The lyrics also mention vigilantes killing innocent people. Without going through a trial and determining all points of evidence clearly, it is very possible vigilantes do indeed kill innocent people.

An example of the death of an innocent bystander is prominent here: Helenwood, Tennessee is a small town near the Appalachian Mountains. A man named Timothy Carl Chandler was arrested for child pornography charges and everyone in Helenwood knew about it. Two of Chandler’s neighbors took the liberty make sure that Chandler did not do this again and caught fire to his home. Chandler escaped from the flames alive, but his unfortunately his wife did not. The two men that started the fire were charged of first degree murder and arson with a one million dollar jail bond (CBS). The fact that these men received a penalty for their actions makes it clear that vigilante justice is not always right. Sometimes you have to leave things to be handled by the police. Having the guilt of the blood of an innocent person in someone’s hands has to be the most terrible feeling and baggage they could carry with them for the rest of their lives.

To show another negative view of a vigilante group, think about the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of slavery. Abolitionists, as previously stated, were vigilantes because they took the law into their own hands to help free the slaves, but what about a group such as the Ku Klux Klan? This vigilante committee has an extremely negative view on society, and rightfully so. After slavery was abolished, the Ku Klux Klan “sought to continue white dominance over freed blacks by lynching and other forms of intimidation that were prohibited by law” (Law Library). These two groups are completely different spectrums and this is where the problem with vigilantism lies. At some point being a vigilante is in fact morally wrong. The KKK is prime example of a group of people that are unmistakably wrong for feeling as though they are superior to other human beings merely due to their skin color.

The book, A Time to Kill’s plot is concerning this very topic. In the book a young ten year old black girl is severely injured and raped by two white men. The girl’s father, Carl Lee Hailey, is frightened that the white men will get away with the crime due to a previous memory of four white men that had raped another African American girl and wound up getting acquitted. Out of determination to not allow this to happen in this case, he takes the law into his own hands and winds up shooting both of the men on their way to the court room. Carl gets tried and the verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity (Grisham 508). This book raises the question of whether or not it is okay for a father to kill out of vengeance for the loss of a child, as well as uncovering the racial attitudes of that time and place. Think about the different perspectives throughout the book. In one case you have a young black girl who was raped so badly that doctors told her that she would not be able to have children in the future. On the other side, you have grown adult white men that feel African Americans should have no rights at all so for a black man to kill these two rapist is completely absurd. The KKK specifically was outraged and appalled that a white man would defend a black man on such a controversial issue. In fact these threatened to kill Jake, the lawyer, and also burned down his home while he and his family were away. Things got so out of control that the National Guard had to come into Canton to keep peace during the trial for Carl. Which side is justified? Do the white people have the right to be dreadfully upset that two of their colleagues, friends, and family were shot and killed by a black man? Or is Carl Hailey justified in killing the two men that raped, and nearly killed his daughter?

The basis of a vigilante group is all about justice and what is fair. If someone makes the decision to become a vigilante it shows a great sense of character and morality. It also shows qualities of being a good citizen and wanting to better the community. These two qualities, fairness and being a good citizen, are two of the six pillars of character. The concept of the six pillars of character came from the book Making Ethical Decisions. The six pillars include trustworthiness, caring, responsibility, citizenship, respect, and fairness (Six Pillars). Fairness and justice is probably the most difficult characteristic to have because it makes a person step outside of a box and sometimes away from what society says is right and wrong. Fairness, on the other hand, is a lot more subjective and personal. To be fair a person has to be completely open-minded and considerate of all options. A vigilante holds the quality of being a fair person because they seek justice no matter what other people think or say. They go with what they feel is the right thing to do and do not allow anyone to stop them. A person is clearly a good citizen as a vigilante because in a lot of cases the vigilante is doing what they are doing to ensure that their family, friends, town, region, or country is secure and safe. Think about to the example given about the vigilante group that seeks for online predators. Those people are good citizens because they have taken the law into their own hands to ensure that young women or boys are safe from sick and perverted older men or women. These are the type of people that make the world a better place.

Another example that shows how a person should act is forgiveness. Forgiveness binds so many wounds, and the lack of forgiveness is what causes a lot of pain and suffering throughout someone’s life. Holding on to baggage of something that happened can truly affect the way a person lives and their happiness. Colossians 3:12-13 says, ”12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (New International Version, Col. 3:12-13) and it puts it all into perspective on basic guidelines on how a person should live. Another similar bible verse also correlates on how to respond when you are wronged 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15 says, “And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else” (New International Version, 1 Thessalonians 5:14-17)

In almost all towns there are areas that have residential speed limits of twenty-five miles per hour and almost everyone flies down at a greater speed than that. With a lot of today’s modern vehicles it is actually almost a difficult task to stay at a speed of twenty-five miles per hour. However, these people are flying down these residential roads when children are riding around on bicycles and playing football in their front yard. It is common for people that live in residential areas to become upset with the way people drive down their roads. An example is in the city Allentown, PA there is a man that is extremely fed up with people speeding down his road. The problem is that the law enforcement is not doing much of anything about the situation, so he took the liberty to make a couple of threats to attempt and keep people from speeding. This man posted a sign that says “Speed Limit: 25 mph, speed enforced by rock throwing”. Even though this at first comes off as a humorous statement, it can actually be quite serious. “Law-enforcement officials cannot, and do not, endorse vigilante actions of any kind, nor even the threat of such actions as displayed by this homemade placard — even though the cops might understand the motive” (Morning Call).

The movie Taken also is an example of a vigilante, but in this case we desire for the main character played by Liam Neeson to succeed in his vigilance. The basic plot of the movie is about how Neeson’s daughter goes off to Europe with a friend and gets kidnapped. Neeson receives a phone call from his daughter right before she gets kidnapped and winds up having a phone conversation with the guy that personally kidnapped his daughter. He states “I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you I will not pursue you. But if you don’t I will look for you I will find you and I will kill you (IMDB).” Throughout the rest of the movie Neeson goes to great lengths to locate his daughter and save her. For example, the most intriguing scene of the movie is when Neeson goes to dinner with an old friend that he knows is associated with the kidnapping of his daughter. So in order to find out more information from this French man, he shoots the man’s wife in the arm and then threatens to hurt his children as well. So after a bit of probing the man gives Neeson the information he is seeking so Neeson knocks him out. The most interesting part about all this is that while watching the movie with big crowds in a theater you’ll receive heaps of “oou’s and ahh’s” of people rooting for Neeson as he does everything he can to get his daughter back. Shooting an innocent woman, electrocuting a man involved with the kidnapping, and killing several men until he finally discovers his daughter on a yacht. When he finds her, they hug and go back home. The question this movie brings up is whether or not Neeson was justified. He killed several people, some innocent. Yes, his daughter was in great danger and his motive is completely understandable, but it does not justify what he did. Killing is never okay.

When someone is in a situation where the only solution to a problem seems to be violence, what should they do? For a person to learn to control their anger, it has to be one of the most important qualities a person can have. To be patient and slow to anger shows great wisdom and integrity. These thoughts lead to the poem Revenge by Kim Hooten. These are the last two stanzas of the poem:

The anger causes pain inside too deep to understand. And the pain, in turn, will cause, more malice to my hand. The scourge I lay upon you now, you surely cannot break, this curse will last for on and on, you’ve made a grace mistake.” (Hooten)

Anger is often due to an enticed situation, which should be an obvious statement. This poem lays out a clear image of someone being emotionally distraught and lashing out on a person. It is moments similar to these that a person needs to learn how they react to situations because they are the ones that are capable of knowing how they personally will handle a dilemma. A person needs to learn this about themselves in order to build an acceptable amount of patients and forgiveness. Forgiveness is also extremely important as it will help ease a person’s anger. If someone is fuming with anger at a person and then the person they are frustrated with apologizes, that almost always eases some tension. If the person is a forgiving person it will lighten the situation and stop things from happening that would have otherwise occurred. Another option for people to consider when under ‘heat of the moment situations’ is how this benefits them in the long run. They should also consider the laws of their land and if it is against the law, do they feel passionately that those laws are wrong? If they do not consider this question they are failing to really take all accounts of action into consideration. Not only does this show impatience, but it also show great lack of self-control. If someone is incapable of fading their anger enough so that they can consider these options before acting crudely they need to learn more about how they act and maybe even think about attending anger management classes. These are some of the best ways from keeping a person from turning towards vigilante justice.

In an interview with a good friend, Jason Dick, the question was asked whether or not he believed vigilante justice was ever justifiable? Jason replied, “Certainly. In the long run we don’t want it, because it lacks checks and balances. But if the laws are unjust, then it’s absolutely justified. I’d say that in some cases, it’s even demanded. Of course we should change the laws to reflect the more just system, such that we don’t have mobs going overboard” (Dick). His statements are worth looking at, but it also leads to the controversial question of where the line is drawn at. This is probably something that people will rarely agree on and is up to each person to decide for themselves. But out of curiosity the question was asked to Jason, “Then where is the dividing line? At what point do you feel it’s not okay, where is that line drawn?” His answer goes back to a lot of what said earlier in this paper,

That’s a difficult question. There’s always going to be a massive grey area with these things. As a personal choice, I would put it far in the safe zone. As such I would only act in that manner if I felt that there were laws in place that are wholly unjust. An example might be laws justifying slavery. For the current examples of unjust laws, I can’t see honest ways of circumventing them, so I just wouldn’t do it today” (Dick).

As previously stated, an example of when vigilante justice is appropriate is the abolitionist in the early 18th century that was against the laws justifying slavery. However, Jason makes note of the fact that he has the intelligence and patients enough to recognize that he cannot think of any current laws that he disagrees with enough to take the law into his own hands to end a specific problem. Jason is a great example for how a person needs to think before they act. To keep a calm and collected mindset in all situations will keep someone out of serious trouble and heartbreak. If the men mentioned in Tennessee had considered their consequences, would they have taken the liberty to burn down that man’s house? Would that woman still be alive, enjoying life to the fullest degree that god has planned for her? These are the types of thoughts that must go into consideration before acting irrationally.

In the book The Catcher in the Rye Holden is in love with this girl named Jane. When he is at the Pencey Prep, his roommate, Stradlater, goes on a date with Jane. Stradlater is known for making his “moves” on the girls he goes on dates with. Since Holden knows this about him, he becomes extremely distraught. In fact, when Stradlater gets back from his date with Jane, Holden begins to question him about the date. His probing led to getting into a fight Stradlater because he became so upset over the topic (Salinger). This is not vigilante justice or anything, but it does deal with the way Holden managed his problems. Holden interrogated Stradlater and therefore wound up getting into a physical interaction because of wrong choices made along the way. If Holden had considered a more appropriate way to address the issue, it would not have escalated to the point it did. This exemplifies the point that a person needs to learn who they are, how they react to situations, and what they can do to prevent regretful moments.

Another subject to touch is standing up for what a person believes in. Dr. Martin Luther King is a prime example of someone who believed strongly on many issues and was not afraid to stand up those causes. In fact, he even made a speech n this very subject:

I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live….And you refuse to do it because you are afraid. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house. So you refuse to take a stand. Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at 38 as you would be at ninety. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit. You died when you refused to stand up for right. You died when you refused to stand up for truth. You died when you refused to stand up for justice” (King, Jr.)

Doctor King is not necessarily speaking about taking the law into someone’s own hands, but about why someone is alive, and what they live for. The choices someone makes, and the things they do is what forms everything about. If they nothing to live for, they might as well be dead. Many vigilantes are standing up for what they believe is the right thing to do. They are not dead, but alive. If under the proper circumstances vigilantism can be a beautiful thing.

If someone is doing something wrong, morally or merely due to ignorance, a lot of the times they are unaware of this. In fact, if everyone went around murdering and killing, it would be socially okay at that point, to kill. Morality is extremely biased and unique, and is not always based off of “majority” beliefs. This is shown quite clearly through controversial topics like abortion or the death penalty. Marianne Williamson lays this concept out quite beautifully, “May we not succumb to the thoughts of violence and revenge today, but rather to thoughts of mercy and compassion…We are to love our enemies that they might be returned to their right minds” (ThinkExist). For someone to realize that they are in the wrong, sometimes they have to have someone else show them. If the person they wronged shows compassion and forgiveness it can not only let a person see what they have done wrong, but also correct the issue. It is possible that they may do the issue frequently. If this is the case then by showing a person love they see how they should act themselves. People are swayed left or right based on those around them very easily. An amazing way to make a small, but crucial impact on the bettering of people and the world is to love and care for someone.

In conclusion killing is never okay no matter whom someone is or what has been done to them. Every person has been blessed with the gift of life and it is not any other human’s duty to take that from them. Vigilante justice will always be a controversial topic and nobody can give a definite right and wrong on the issue. A basic rule of thumb when it comes to vigilantism is that if someone is pursuing revenge they are most likely in the wrong. However, if they are defending someone and their lives they’re probably doing something that takes great courage and it will be respected by many people in the future. Just as Edwin Hubbel Chapin says, “Never does the human soul appear so strong as when it forgoes revenge and dares to forgive an injury.”

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

NJ - Pols Seek Residency Limits For Sex Offenders

View the article here


By Hazel Sanchez

CHERRY HILL (CBS) - Some New Jersey lawmakers want to tighten residency restrictions on sex offenders.

Critics, however, say that may only make it more difficult to identify predators.

"When you put these kids in front of these predators, it's like giving a bottle of vodka to an alcoholic," Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt (Email) says.
- Once again, sex offender and sexual predator are not the same damn thing!  Send this idiot your opinion, I did, see below!

Mayor Platt is on a mission to protect his township. He tried to establish a 2,500 foot pedophile-free zone around places where children congregate, but the state Supreme Court shot it down.
- And again, sex offender and pedophile are not the same either!

The court ruled that individual towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds, or other places where children gather because, under Megan's Law, parole officers already limit where released sex offenders can live.

"They violated the rights of our most vulnerable: our children," NJ State Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo says. "We have to protect them at all costs."
- And you violated your oath of office to uphold the constitution, which protects ALL people's rights!

The NJ Assembly Judiciary Committee just approved a bill spearheaded by DeAngelo that, if passed into law, would allow individual towns to place residency restrictions on sex offenders. It would prohibit offenders over 21 years old from living up to 500 feet from playgrounds, schools, or childcare centers.
- So you see, the state Supreme Court has already said towns cannot do this, so they keep on trying and trying until they get what they want.  The Supreme Court is suppose to be the final say.  Not anymore.  You have idiots in office who love to trample on someone else's rights, to make themselves look better, and to provide everyone with a false security!

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey says the law would put the public at greater risk.

"It's more likely that these offenders will go underground, and that the police will therefore lose tabs on these individuals," Ed Barocas, of the ACLU of New Jersey, says. "It ties the hands of parole officers so they can not send these individuals to the most appropriate and stable locations."
- But you see, they do not care about this, they only care about "looking good" to the sheeple, and providing a false sense of security, instead of listening to the facts, upholding the Constitution and their oaths of office.  The government is corrupt.

"I'm not saying it's foolproof – I'm saying this is a precaution," Mayor Platt says. "And the safety of our children and the safety of our residents is of the utmost importance to me."
- Notice that second part?  "Safety of out residents," well, sex offenders are residence as well.

For now, the safety of those residents lies in the hands of legislators.

The bill now moves to the full assembly. An identical bill is being considered in the state senate.

Sponsors of the legislation are hoping the residency restriction law is passed by the end of the summer.
- Yeah, in time for elections maybe?

The email I sent to this Mayor, who ignores the Constitution and his oath of office. I also sent him the recidivism info, here. But, do I expect he will read any of this? No!

I recently read an article, here:

And find what you said absurd. Sex offender, predator and pedophile do not equal the same thing. If you'd open a dictionary once in a while, you'd know that.

Studies show that 90% of all sex crimes being committed today, are by those NOT on the registry, and 90% or more of all sexual crimes occur in the victims own home. How many can you tell me about, which occurred at a school, park, playground or any other place children congregate?

The people in politics make me sick, and they are all liars and corrupt hypocrites, IMO. They are exploiting peoples fears to TRAMPLE ON sex offenders rights, and yes, they are citizens of your town, and they do have rights, regardless of what you may think.

It's called the Constitution, which you apparently have not read either. It protects ALL people or ALL races, creeds, etc. You also took an oath to uphold the US and State Constitutions, which you apparently lied about, because these laws are unconstitutional ex post facto punishment, and the Constitution is very clear and FORBIDS ex post facto laws. Why don't you read this document some time.

These laws are just fodder for you to use to grandstand and boast so you look good to the people to get votes.


You can read more of my thoughts, at my blog (links above) or below. I am sure you won't read it, because you do not care about facts, but at least I tried:

Here is some quotes for you to read and contemplate, from some wise men of old, which we seem to have very little of anymore:

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power." - James Madison

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

"The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice." - Benjamin Franklin

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." - Thomas Jefferson

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Rabbi Daniel Lapin or Adolph Hitler

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolph Hitler

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King

"That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." - Martin Luther King

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

VT - Judge to decide whether Barre can limit where sex offenders live

View the article here


By John Dillon

A Superior Court judge must decide whether the city of Barre has the authority to limit where sex offenders can live.

The case is the first in Vermont to challenge local ordinances aimed at keeping sex offenders away from schools and playgrounds.

VPR's John Dillon reports:

(Dillon) The Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union brought the case on behalf of _____, a 29-year-old Barre resident.

Eight years ago, _____ pleaded guilty to an offense involving a 15-year-old girl. _____ was 18 at the time the crime was committed. He served time in prison, successfully completed the state's sex offender treatment program, and is considered a low-risk to re-offend.

_____ is now married and lives in Barre with his wife _____ and their two children. _____'s apartment is within 1,000 feet of a playground. And this spring, the city told him he'd have to move.

Dan Barrett is _____'s lawyer.

He told the court that Barre's ordinance is illegal, since the Legislature never granted the city the right to impose residency restrictions.

(Barrett) "There is no pre-existing general power of municipalities in Vermont to legislate on the subject of where individuals may live."

(Dillon) Barrett said _____ is unemployed, and can't afford to pay the $500 a day fine the city could impose for violating its ordinance. Barrett says if _____ is forced to move, he'd be homeless.

(Barrett) "_____ lives in Barre with his family and he has nowhere else to go and neither he nor his family can afford to go elsewhere."

(Dillon) But Oliver Twombly, the lawyer representing Barre, said _____ brought the problem on himself. He said the family knew about the restrictive ordinance but chose to rent the apartment anyway.
- Read the first comment above by Barrett again!

(Twombly) "This is a self-created crisis, in the sense that at the time the _____ moved into the apartment they had reason to know that there was some concern that this tenancy might violate a law."

(Dillon) And Twombly said the city's ordinance is legal under the general concept of nuisance law, which allows the city to protect public rights.
- Nuisance law?  That is just another word for "trampling on someone's rights!"  This man and family are part of the PUBLIC as well, so how are you PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS?

(Twombly) "The right of parents to feel secure that their children, in locations where children will be at - schools, playgrounds, daycares - the ability to enjoy the comfort and feeling that they're safe."
- Yeah, so what about this man and his family?  What about him feeling safe without the state kicking him out every chance they get?  What about his and their rights?

(Dillon) But outside the courtroom, Allen Gilbert, director of the Vermont ACLU, said ordinances like the one in Barre promote a false sense of security. He said the legislature this year discouraged towns from passing these kinds of laws.

(Gilbert) "There's been a problem from the very beginning of the passage of sex offender legislation where oftentimes either the legislature or the municipality passes something, adopts an ordinance, that makes people feel like they're safer. But the reality is that they're not safer. It's simply a show that tries to reassure people that things are better, when in fact public safety has not been increased."

(Dillon) The city has agreed to hold off enforcing the ordinance until early next month. And Judge Helen Toor said she would decide the case quickly.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

IL - Chicago cop charged with sex assault

View the article here


By Matthew Walberg and Pat Curry

A Chicago police officer is being held in lieu of $350,000 bail this afternoon after being charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault in an attack on an underage girl.

CHICAGO - A Chicago police officer is being held in lieu of $350,000 bail this afternoon after being charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault in an attack on an underage girl.

William Greenwood, 43, a nine-year department veteran, was charged late Wednesday. He was arrested Tuesday at Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park, sources said.

Chicago police confirmed an officer had been relieved of police powers after being charged with the sex crime, but refused to release his name, citing terms of a union contract. Other sources said Greenwood worked in the Wentworth District on the South Side.

The assaults happened between Feb. 1 and May 1, Cook County Assistant State's Atty. Kathleen Muldoon said. After each assault, the victim told a friend about the incidents on her Facebook page, Muldoon said.

The friend, Muldoon said, eventually encouraged the victim to tell police about the attacks.

On Tuesday, the victim sent a text message to her mother informing her about the abuse, Muldoon said. After going to the police station for advice, the victim's mother took her to the hospital.

Muldoon said police are looking to obtain the Facebook message exchanges between the victim and her friend.

Chicago Police News Affairs, which initially had no immediate comment, later confirmed that the officer had been relieved of his police powers but refused to confirm his name, citing terms of its contract with the Fraternal Order of Police .
- In other words, the "Good Ole' Boys" club!

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act specifically requires the disclosure of "the name of a person in the custody of a law enforcement agency and the charges for which that person is being held," but Chicago Police News Affairs Director Roderick Drew said the city's agreement with Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7 trumps state law.
- What?  So they are ABOVE the law?

Drew has said previously that another state statute, the Local Records Act, provides an exemption regarding the release of law enforcement officers' names and identifying information when they are charged criminally.

"We just cannot release the name," because of the union contract, Drew said.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

FL - Crist delays decision on Fla. 'Romeo-Juliet' case

View the article here



TALLAHASSEE - He was 19 and she was 14 when they first had sex. The teenage lovers now have been married for nearly 10 years, but as a result of that youthful indiscretion _____ is listed as a sex offender on a state Web site.

That's because he was an adult and she was still a minor. She reported the crime only after finding out he was having relations with another - adult - woman.

_____, 34, told Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet, sitting Thursday as the Florida Board of Executive Clemency, that being on the sex offender list has caused him to lose at least 17 jobs in the last several years and that his four children, ages 7 to 14, have shared his stigma.
- And they say being on the registry is not punishment.  Well, I beg to differ, and the above also proves it's punishment!

_____, who now has a retail sales job in Panama City Beach, asked for a pardon to lift the cloud over his life caused what's known as a "Romeo and Juliet" case.

His name, picture, address, a map showing where he lives, a description of his vehicle and tag number and other information are posted on the state's sex offender Web site for all to see.

"I just want a chance to just be a regular person again," McCranie said. "I'm not a monster. I don't belong on this list."

Crist delayed a decision, saying he wanted more time to think about it and study the facts.

"It's a difficult case," Crist said. "I'll make my ruling based on what I believe to be true."
- KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!  And you should rule based on facts, not what you "believe to be true!"

To get a pardon, an applicant must receive approval from the governor and at least two of the three Cabinet members: Attorney General Bill McCollum, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson.

The couple met through their parents, who were friends, when growing up in Jacksonville. _____'s wife, _____, now 28, said she became angry and jealous when he developed a relationship with another woman. She told her father she'd had sex with _____ and they went to the police.

"I wish I could take it back," she said in an interview. "Once we got back together I realized how detrimental it was to him."

The couple have two children together and _____ has custody of two others he had with the other woman.

_____ said he's never been accused of any other crime and has worked in a series of stores where he frequently has contact with families and children without incident. He said, though, he has been repeatedly fired after some customers and other employees have found him on the sex offender Web site and complained to his bosses.

Originally charged with rape, _____ pleaded no contest to lewd and lascivious behavior with a child as part of a plea deal.

He was placed on probation and the judge withheld adjudication. _____ said he later violated probation "for monetary reasons" and wound up serving about a month in jail.

"My prison's out here on this Web site," _____ said after the meeting. "Yeah, I've done about 14-15 years of hard time, believe me. I'd been better off in prison, probably."

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

How Bad Are Police Interrogations?

View the article here


By Dre Smith

Police interrogations are the primary reason many actually innocent persons go to jail and are wrongfully convicted. The tactics frequently used in police interrogations are nothing more than psychological devices as well as some physical to coerce or (schmoose) a person into confessing a crime in which they more than likely have not committed and have no knowledge of prior to the police actually spoon feeding them details.

When the police interrogate a suspect and you are placed in an interrogation room the room itself and the tactics used are to get you to confess. This is called persuasive coercion. Almost sounds very Mafioso right? And if at this point what I am about to say should make you very uncomfortable when (taking that little ride downtown).

The psychological weapons used against you, and how they are used against as well as why are listed here as follows there are the steps used to in the interrogation of allegedly of guilty suspects;

1.) Combining the evidence of strategy with "direct confrontation" often known as "supported directed accusation". This can lead to false confessions because under standard operating procedure by the police details will be communicated to the to the suspect at the beginning of the interview. It then becomes damn near impossible to know with absolute certainty that the suspect is repeating the information that was spoon-fed to them by the police or actually is confessing to the alleged crime. Talk about being unethical and blurring the line.

2.) Theme development to lessen the moral implications of the alleged crime. In English that means tell the suspect that anyone else in that same situation or circumstances may have done the same thing. It is the classic "anyone in your shoes would've done it thinking". This goes far beyond ethical and professional limits. By doing this you begin to reduce the suspects feeling of guilt for the offense by lessoning its moral importance. So they say things like (other people committed worse crimes, what you did was not so bad) or (I understand you had no other choice). Doing this they give the suspect a morally valid reason for the crime thusly making a person feel (free) about confessing to a crime they may not have committed. Using flattery also works in this situation as well, they state how little your involvement in the crime may or may not have been. So basically what happens, make you feel good about confessing and how much better it feels then before you know it you've confessed details which they fed to you, and now you are in the system.

3.) When a suspect is constantly giving denials, law enforcement does not like this at all. It is extremely undesirable because the police lose the psychological advantage. This advantage then goes to the suspect. So it is then stopped by the interrogator at that point. They'll say things like (Stop lying, you know you did it we know).

4.) Guilty suspects will move from plain denials to objections. At this point the suspect is the inferior mentally. So at this point interrogators move quickly because they see this advantage and do not want to lose their mental edge over the suspect.

5.) When the police move in closer to the suspect while in the interrogation room, they are not doing this to better hear you speak trust me. By moving closer, touching the suspects hands gently, using first names, and even having strong eye contact. All of these are psychological devices used to relax you into a false confession. And those become extremely difficult to prove in court later, but we will examine this later. At that point the suspect becomes more alert listening to the officers suggestions, and therefore becomes more likely to believe in the picture they are painting now matter how much it may not have happened.

6.) When the interrogator exudes signs of understanding and sympathy and urges to the suspect to tell the truth, this is a joke. The primary focus is to play upon the weakness in order to breakdown the remaining residual weakness in the suspect and fattening them up for the kill or admission of guilt later on. They will say things like (If you will cooperate with us, no one will know about this. You may be working for use for years. If you do a good job you will get probation, deferred adjudication, community service, or maybe nothing). Keep in mind this is all bullshit at this point. Its all the more to get you mentally raped, because you are about to get fucked at this point always keep that in mind. They are there to make the collar. Does not matter who actually commits the crime just that someone goes down for it end of story.

7.) So after they've coaxed you into telling the (their truth of what happened)after spoon-feeding you intricate details, holding your hand to comfort you, making the crime seem morally OK. The suspect is presented with two alternatives for the crime. Both alternatives are worded in such a way that one acts as a face saving choice and the other as some deep dark callous grotesque motivation. Another words one is the pretty moral reason,the other the grime ridden horrible monstrous reason. The psychological reasoning behind this is done because it is easier for the suspect to admit what they did wrong at the time of the interrogation because the suspect gets to explain why it was done. It is that simple.

8.) Having the suspect tell of various details of the crime at this point serves as the confession the police have created for the suspect. This is done because it was predicated already in the following steps. They have made the suspect accept one of the alternatives from earlier and thus making the suspect self incriminate, and after spoon feeding the details along with getting the suspect to accept on of the alternative theories this now becomes a full blown confession at this point. Which ironically enough is 100/100 the video that is shown to juries when the person is confessing after all of this has taken place. They don't show all the events leading up till the final cut of that alleged confession video of feeding the suspect details. And they will not show you that, because it is unethical either way you slice it and they know that.

9.) Finally they get the person to literally sign off on the confession. A signed confession is much better than an oral confession legally. Even though all of what they have done to get a person to confess goes far beyond the border of ethical behavior.

The psychological effects of placing a person through this kind of psychological warfare if you will are staggering.

Post Traumatic Stress, Apathy, Internal conflict, withdrawal, depression, and even stroke.

Interrogation rooms are usually set up in the following manner;

Windowless room with no air conditioning, no locks on the door, an observation room directly next to the adjacent room.

Most people know what the "Miranda Warnings or Rights" are like right to remain silent, right to counsel. However what must people do not know is that these rights only apply to custodial suspects. Custodial suspects are people deprived of freedom in any significant way so says the SCOTUS. Now if and when a custodial suspect tells the interrogator that he does not wish to make or sign a statement or they want a lawyer. The interrogator must stop asking, recording anything further.

Whenever a person is picked up for questioning but there is no probable cause to arrest is lacking. They have to tell you and make clear you are not being arrested, and you do not have to go the police station unless you are willing to do so and once there you are free to leave if you so choose. The only time an interrogation may actually take place is when a person has been advised of their rights and then by their own choice wishes to speak. Unless the police have probable cause they have no legal right to interrogate you. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) also declared in Miranda in addition to self incrimination the suspect must be advised they have a right to counsel before and DURING the interrogation.

Questions such as (Do you know why you are here?) are 100% invalid. The courts consistently state that such questions elicit incriminating answers from suspects. And they then therefore are considered to be within the prohibition of Miranda when asked of a custodial suspect when they are not preceded by warnings and a waiver. They cannot promise you leniency any more they can promise to use force because this will also elicit and induce an innocent person to confess to a crime they may not have committed. They cannot promise you cooperation will result in a lesser sentence being imposed. That is solely up to the JUDGE or JURY. This is most unethical as well, and illegal. So if they promise you that, it is also BULLSHIT. Just be a wise guy keep your mouth shut say nothing at all.

Coercive persuasion is the systematic the application of psychological techniques and social influence in an organized way. Or simply known as brainwashing. These interrogation techniques are so psychologically overwhelming the average law abiding citizen can be made to confess to a crime even though they have done nothing wrong at all. They create such a bond of mental control that it is far more powerful and effective the putting a gun to your head and making you confess that way. The goal is to hold the suspect to the point of maximum mental stress before inducing a powerful psychosis. It disables a persons sense of self to induce anxiety and emotional distress and allows for cognitive confusion.

Six condition exist in order to induce this;









In United States V Lee(1982) The California Supreme Court found that "when a person is subject to coercive persuasion without his knowledge or consent. He may develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, self mutilation, and suicide".

Still think the police are your friend?

This is the breakdown of this immense psychological pressure;


According to and ,
Saul M. Kassin, professor of Psychology at Williams College, a leading researcher into false confessions,
divides them into three categories:

1. Voluntary, involving no external pressure.
2. "Coerced-compliant" in which the person realizes he is not guilty but confesses to the crime to receive a promised reward or avoid an adverse penalty.
3. "Coerced-internalized" in which an innocent suspect is induced to believe he or she is guilty.

Police and courts often doubt that the second two cases actually exist.

Dr. Kassin and his student, Catherine L. Kiechel, designed a lab experiment demonstrating how innocent people can be led to a false confession, to the point that some may even become convinced they are guilty. (1,3) In the study, college students were asked to type letters on a keyboard as a researcher pronounced them. Some researchers read out the letters quickly (67 per minute), others slowly (47 per minute). The subjects were warned to not touch the ALT key, because a bug in the testing program would cause the computer to crash and lose all the data. One minute into the test, the computer was manually caused to crash. In half the tests, the researchers said they had actually seen the subject depressing the ALT key.

At first, the subjects correctly denied hitting the key. The researcher then hand-wrote a confession and asked the subjects to sign it. The penalty would be an angry telephone call to the subject by Dr. Kassin. One hundred per cent of the subjects who had typed the letters quickly, and who were told by the researcher that they had been observed hitting the ALT key, signed the confession; 65% of the subjects believed they were guilty; 35% even confabulated non-existent details to fit their beliefs. Overall, 69% signed the note and 28% believed they were actually guilty.

University of Michigan and supervised by a law professor there, Samuel R. Gross. They say that the number of exonerations is quite small when compared with the number of convictions during the 15-year period. About 2 million people are in American prisons and jails. The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations. Only nine cases involved other crimes. In more than half of the cases, the defendants had been in prison for more than 10 years.

The study's authors said they picked 1989 as a starting point because that was the year of the first DNA exoneration. Of the 328 exonerations they found in the intervening years, 145 involved DNA evidence.

In 88 percent of the rape cases in the study, DNA evidence helped free the inmate. But biological evidence is far less likely to be available or provide definitive proof in other kinds of cases. Only 20 percent of the murder exonerations involved DNA evidence, and almost all of those were rape-murders.

Some 90 percent of false convictions in the rape cases involved misidentification by witnesses, very often across races. In particular, the study said black men made up a disproportionate number of exonerated rape defendants.

The racial mix of those exonerated, in general, mirrored that of the prison population, and the mix of those exonerated of murder mirrored the mix of those convicted of murder. But while 29 percent of those in prison for rape are black, 65 percent of those exonerated of the crime are.

Interracial rapes are, moreover, uncommon. Rapes of white women by black men, for instance, represent less than 10 percent of all rapes, according to the Justice Department. But in half of the rape exonerations where racial data was available, black men were falsely convicted of raping white women.

"The most obvious explanation for this racial disparity is probably also the most powerful", the study says. "White Americans are much more likely to mistake one black person for another than to do the same for members of their own race".

On the other hand, the study found that the leading causes of wrongful convictions for murder were false confessions and perjury by co- defendants, informants, police officers or forensic scientists.

A separate study considering 125 cases involving false confessions was published in the North Carolina Law Review last month and found that such confessions were most common among groups vulnerable to suggestion and intimidation.

The authors of the Michigan study offered dueling rationales for the murder exonerations, and both reasons, they said, were disturbing.

There may be more murder exonerations, they said, because the cases attract more attention, especially when a death sentence is imposed. Death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 22 percent of the exonerated.

That suggests that innocent people are often convicted in run-of-the-mill cases. Indeed, the study says, "if we reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devote to death sentences, there would have been over 28,500 non-death-row exonerations in the past 15 years rather than the 255 that have in fact occurred".

The study offered a competing theory, as well. Mistakes, it said, may be more likely in murder cases and far more likely in capital cases.

"The truth, the study concludes, is clearly a combination of these two appalling possibilities".

If you still do not believe me, just remember these words.

"Evidence of innocence is irrelevant".--Mary Sue Terry, former AG Commonwealth of Virginia

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

IA - Grassley Webcast- How a bill becomes a law

YouTube Channel

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)