Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Another cop, another short article. If this were the average citizen, they would have published a book about the person.
HENRY COUNTY - A former Henry County Sheriff's Deputy was denied bond today after he was charged with child molestation.
Carl Maddox Jr. is accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl.
Maddox's lawyer claims the girl told his client she was 18.
- That is never an excuse for anybody else, so hopefully it won't be here either.
Maddox is married with three children and is a 12-year veteran of the sheriff's department.
By Katelyn Beaty
For evangelicals who uphold both the boundlessness of redemption and the care and protection of “little ones” (Matt. 19:14), having sex offenders in church makes it hard to apply both beliefs at the same time.
In mid-December a Superior Court in North Carolina upheld the case of two registered sex offenders who had been attending Moncure Baptist Church, which hosts a childcare center for Sunday worshipers. _____ and Frank DeMaio were indicted in March under a year-old state law that orders offenders to stay 300 feet away from facilities intended for use by or care of children. _____’s story was highlighted in “Modern-Day Lepers,” a reported piece in the December issue of Christianity Today.
Judge Allen Baddour determined that the state law was too vague to enforce, and violated the men’s First Amendment rights to worship. “There are less drastic means for achieving the same purpose,” Baddour ruled, noting that to meet constitutional requirements, the law should specify whether or not an offender has the intent to be in the presence of minors.
But, as State Rep. Julia Howard (who sponsored the state law) told the Charlotte News & Observer, discerning someone’s intent for attending church or any other facility can be tricky. “The word intent is the most precarious word in the world. Who knows what my intent is? Anytime you see ‘knowingly’ or ‘intent,’ there’s something mysterious there.”
_____, 31, has been convicted twice of indecent liberties with a teenager and of attempted second-degree rape in 2003. According to the News & Observer, _____ had told authorities that DeMaio, convicted twice of indecent liberties with children, had “manhandled” a teenage girl in Moncure Baptist’s parking lot. The Chatham County Sheriff’s Office eventually charged both for being on church property, and _____ for staying with a church member who was hosting teenage girls in her home.
_____ expressed frustration that the law left offenders no room to seek church-based help. “The law gives you no room to better yourself,” he told the Associated Press. “I just started asking the question, ‘Why? Why am I being treated this way after trying to better myself?’ ”
“I have heard it said that sex offenders are modern-day lepers,” Prison Fellowship vice president Pat Nolan told CT in December. “That is probably pretty accurate. And we know that Jesus didn’t shun lepers. He loved them and healed them. He expects us to do the same.”
But the sex offender/leper comparison doesn’t always hold up, especially when the modern-day leper comes to the house of God not for healing but to infect others, often the vulnerable. “Pedophiles are scary people because they are highly manipulative, controlling, patient, and coercive,” said Ron Clark, a Portland-based Church of Christ minister who works with sex abuse agencies, in a letter to CT. “While forgiveness is an important virtue among us, what about repentance? . . . [The church’s] best role is to train leaders to protect and let the authorities rehabilitate them."
What do you think? In order to protect potential victims, should churches leave the restoration of sex offenders up to federal agencies? Or would that only leave offenders lacking knowledge of the true restoration found in Christ? How should churches model a belief in the redemption of the unredeemable alongside Jesus' charge to care for children at great cost?
By Patrick Varine
Rep. John Atkins (Email) (D-Millsboro) wants to make Delaware a very uncomfortable place for a high-risk, repeat sex offender.
The most uncomfortable, in fact.
“If we can set a trend and lead the nation, we can push ‘em out and push ‘em out,” said Atkins, who has proposed a legislative package that aims to do just that.
Atkins’ proposal includes a “sex offender” stamp on drivers’ licenses, a special license plate that must be registered and displayed on an offenders’ vehicle, truth in sentencing for offenders and – potentially the most controversial – mandatory chemical castration for male offenders over the age of 21, who have targeted a child younger than 12.
“It is my intent to make Delaware the toughest place for a repeat sex offender to live,” Atkins said. “We need zero-tolerance for child molesters and other sex offenders.”
While his proposal has certainly been colored by the investigation into Dr. Earl Bradley, who is facing multiple sex-offense charges, Atkins was also the primary sponsor for the state’s Child Internet Protection Act in 2004, a bill which helps to regulate Internet content at public libraries to protect children against obscenity and child pornography.
Atkins said state lawmakers must stand up for kids who are victims of sexual offenses.
- All the while, ignoring your oath of office to defend to constitution, which includes everyone! Just another hypocrite liar in office trying to make a name for himself at the expense of others. And if this article is correct, he has a problem with speeding and driving under the influence. Maybe he should be on a DUI offender registry for life?
“We have the power to protect them,” he said.
- Truth in sentencing All high-risk, repeat sex offenders would serve out their full term of jail time
- Motor vehicles Drivers’ licenses would be stamped with “sex offender” and easily-identifiable license plates would be designed by the DMV
- Castration Any male sex offender older than 21, who targeted a victim younger than 12, would receive mandatory chemical castration n Offenders would receive an additional penalty for providing a cell phone to his or her victim
- Phones Offenders would receive an additional penalty for providing a cell phone to his or her victim
Court Case PDF File
By ELIZABETH BANICKI
(CN) - The 9th Circuit rejected as unconstitutional a legal provision requiring juvenile sex offenders to register and report four times a year, saying it could "wreak havoc" on the lives of former offenders who are now law-abiding adults.
Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in 2006 in response to growing concern over sex crimes, particularly against children.
The Act applied not only to adults, but also to juveniles convicted of aggravated sexual assault or worse at the age of 14 or older. It also applied retroactively.
At age 13, the unnamed juvenile male defendant sexually abused a 10-year-old boy. The abuse continued for two years until the defendant, then 15, pleaded "true" to the sex acts. He spent two years in a juvenile detention center and entered a prerelease program, but was kicked out. He was sentenced to six more months and ordered to register as a sex offender.
He argued that the U.S. Constitution's ex post facto clause bars the government from retroactively applying the registration provision to juvenile offenders.
The 9th Circuit agreed, ruling that the juvenile register provision "may not be applied retroactively to individuals adjudicated delinquent."
The three-judge panel ruled that forcing former sex offender delinquents to register is a violation of their privacy under a judicial system that has operated, historically, to shield juveniles from the public eye.
- The same should apply to adults. The ex post facto clause does not say it's okay to pass retroactive laws for adults, but not children, it's for ALL people.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the provision appears to impose a punishment that could be "severely damaging to former offenders' economic, social, psychological, and physical well-being."
He also noted that the statute lists 17 victims and details the crimes committed against them, "strongly suggesting that the motivation behind its passage was not only to protect public safety in the future but also to 'revisit past crimes.'"
"Juveniles are as a general matter less mature, more impulsive, and more confused about sexually appropriate behavior than adults," Reinhardt continued. "They do not understand their sexual drives as well or know how to deal with them. We do not, of course, excuse such conduct as mere juvenile exuberance. We simply recognize that the predictive value of an individual's conduct, especially sexual conduct, at the age of 14 or 15 is, under most circumstances, limited."
"For that reason, requiring former juvenile sex offenders to register as such many decades thereafter will often not only be unnecessary to secure the safety of the community but may even be counterproductive."
The panel concluded that juvenile offenders are not required to register and report under the Act.
On January 5th I attempted to register at the Douglas County Sheriff’s office in Omaha, NE (156th & Maple). The Sheriff told me that I do not have to come in, because my information is already on file. I asked him about providing my internet identifiers as stated in the letter we received and he told me that I would just provide those when I come in for my annual reporting during my birthday month.
Unfortunately, this contradicts the notice that was sent out, the state patrol’s instructions, and even Sheriff Tim Dunning’s (Contact) public statements that all registered sex offenders must report in this week.
According to the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act, you are required to report to a location designated by the Nebraska State Patrol for purposes of registration within three (3) working days after you become subject to the Act.
You must complete a full registration including fingerprints, palm prints, a photograph and DNA which will be obtained by any registering entity in order to comply with the registration requirements. You must register all addresses, employment, school, vehicles, travel and immigration documents, professional licenses and certificates, email addresses, internet identifiers and telephone numbers as required under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006. You are required to report any changes thereafter in three (3) working days in person with the county sheriff.
When I was at the Sheriff’s office they turned away 3 people trying to comply with the new law telling them they did not need to be there, including myself. I argued with the Sheriff telling him we had to register and it would be a felony if I did not. He told me I was wrong and that I would need to provide the information at the end of the year when my birthday month comes up.
29-4006 (10) If the person required to register under the act falsifies the registration or verification information or form or fails to provide or timely update law enforcement of any of the information required to be provided by the Sex Offender Registration Act, the person shall be in violation of this section.
29-4011 (1) Any person required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act who violates the act is guilty of a Class IV felony.
So, if I do not provide my email identifiers and all the other data by tomorrow January 6, I can be charged with a Class IV felony. Does that make the Sheriff’s office an Accessory to my crime because they instructed me to commit the felony?
According to Findlaw a person is an accessory to a Felony if he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, or assists in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. John Bruning (Contact), will you please arrest the Sheriff at 156th and Maple in Omaha, he is instructing sex offenders to commit felony’s.
This is a perfect example of how vaguely written the new law is. It is virtually impossible for any offender to comply. Even when the offenders try to comply law enforcement is too confused by the law to even allow them to comply. I am now facing 5 years in prison if I cannot convince the County Sheriff to take my information today.
By Leia Mendoza
An Omaha police officer admitted to La Vista investigators in a July interview that when he chatted online, those chats “sometimes” got sexually graphic.
The officer, David M. Kass, 26, denied ever knowingly having such chats with a minor. But Sarpy County authorities accuse him of having one July 13 with a person he'd been told was a 14-year-old girl.
The “girl” was actually a La Vista police investigator.
“I thought she was 24,” he told La Vista police during the recorded interview, which was played for the jury Tuesday afternoon in Sarpy County District Court. “I would not talk to someone that young.”
Kass is charged with child enticement by electronic communication device, a felony that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. He is currently on unpaid administrative leave from the Omaha Police Department.
In opening arguments Tuesday afternoon, Kass' attorney, Alan Stoler, told jurors that Kass may have discussed sexual experiences in online chats, but he “was honestly conversing with individuals he believed to be adults.”
After all, Stoler said, Kass was visiting a Yahoo “adult romance” chat room, which requires people to be at least 18 years of age to enter. Stoler also said Kass “had no intention of meeting” the person played by a La Vista investigator and that Kass was chatting with two or three people at the same time.
Prosecutor Matt Lierman called Kass an “online predator” and told jurors that Kass initiated the chat and “knew the age of the girl at the beginning.” He also said Kass was persistent at keeping the conversation sexual.
According to Lierman, the beginning of the chat went something like this:
CHS1665 (a screen name authorities identified as Kass): A, S, L?
Mickigirl14 (the La Vista investigator posing as a teen girl): 14, F, Omaha
CHS1665: 25, M, Omaha
CHS1665: Too old?
Mickigirl14: For what?
CHS1665: For anything?
Lierman said “Mickigirl14” told Kass she was looking forward to going swimming at her grandma's house. Kass then asked if she was wearing a one-piece or two.
He eventually asked if she had a boyfriend, what kind of panties she wore and whether she had ever had oral sex.
Lierman said Kass continued “with perversion” and asked “Mickigirl14” if she'd ever had an orgasm and if she wanted to do sexual things.
La Vista Detective John Danderand testified that he posed as “Mickigirl14” and chatted with Kass from 10:11 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. that July morning.
Danderand set up the profile for “Mickigirl14” through Yahoo as a 19-year-old female but said the chat made it clear that “he” was a 14-year-old “she.”
When officers visited Kass' northwest Omaha home July 15 with a search warrant, Kass didn't remember much about the chat with “Mickigirl14,” Danderand said.
And when officers reminded him of some of the sexually explicit messages he typed, Kass, in the recorded interview, said: “There's no way in hell I would do anything like that with a minor.”
Kass graduated from the Omaha Police Academy in the fall of 2006 and worked as a patrol officer in the northwest precinct.
His trial continues today.