Wednesday, April 21, 2010

CA - Runner Legislation Requires Sex Offenders to Register Online Addresses with Law Enforcement

Original Article


The Senate Public Safety Committee today passed legislation authored by Sen. George Runner (Contact) (R-Antelope Valley) that would require all registered sex offenders to register their online addresses with state law enforcement.

Runner called Senate Bill 1204 another tool for law enforcement to use in monitoring some of society’s most dangerous sex offenders, like admitted rapist/murder John Albert Gardner. If the offenders don’t comply with new registration requirements, they risk up to six months in jail, under SB 1204.
- Yep, you got to throw that name in there to make all offenders look all evil and stuff, don't you?  A person who is intent on committing a crime, online, can make a new email address in a matter of seconds.  This is just more BS to get him the brownie points he needs to "look tough" on crime, while doing nothing.

We know where they live and now we will know what web pages, instant messaging names and email addresses they control,” Runner said. “The Internet has become a virtual playground to predators. It makes sense to force convicted sex offenders to share their online addresses with law enforcement.”
- And do you think a true predator is going to give you all their email addresses?  And if the Internet is so dangerous, then why not set an age limit and kick kids off social networking sites?  We set age limits for drinking, smoking, etc.  Oh yeah, it's not about protecting kids, it's about exploiting them and fear!

Besides registering online addresses, one of the objectives of SB 1204 is to prevent sex offenders from joining Facebook, MySpace and other social networking websites. While on parole, sex offenders can be prohibited from accessing social networking sites. Once parole is completed, however, a sex offender is free to join such sites.
- As if all sex offenders are trolling these sites for victims!  And yeah, even if they are off probation/parole, we all know that sites will use that to discriminate against people and kick them off, just read the news.

By requiring sex offenders to register their online addresses, SB 1204 not only creates a database for law enforcement but creates a tool, which can be used to remove sexual predators from social networking sites. While the law cannot directly prohibit sex offenders who are no longer on parole from joining, social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace have voluntarily purged thousands of registered sex offenders from New York.
- Yes, my point exactly.  It's not because they have committed a crime, or are doing something suspicious, but simply due to a label, they assume all are out looking for kids to molest!

As the bill moves forward, Senator Runner is committed to ensuring that online address information collected under SB 1204 may be used to permit social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to voluntarily purge registered sex offenders from the sites.

California will join New York and Illinois in enacting such a law. New York became the bill passed a similar bill in 2008, known as “e-STOP,” which was sponsored by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (Contact).
- And e-STOP doesn't stop a true predator from creating a new email address and being on their way, if that is what they chose to do!

Cuomo said more than 3,500 registered New York sex offenders have been purged from Facebook and MySpace since the bill passed, including a man convicted of assaulting a 14-year-old boy and another man who raped a 2-year-old girl.
- You see, they make you assume all those kicked off were doing something wrong, and I am willing to bet, about 99% of them were not, they were kicked off simply due to a label, nothing more.  Even the very study and report many AG's and other organizations did, these two ignored and said they did not believe it, which the study says is blown out of proportion.

John Walsh, co-founder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and host of “America’s Most Wanted,” supports New York e-STOP saying last year in a press release that “New York sets the gold standard for other states to follow.”
- John Walsh, the admitted sex addict, would approve anything which punished sex offenders, even knowing that his son's death was NOT by a sex offender.

SB 1204 is supported by statewide law enforcement agencies and associations. It moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for a vote in the coming weeks.

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

NY - Former Ilion officer (Philip Spaman) sentenced for inappropriately touching his girlfriend’s teenage son

Original Article

I am beginning to think that most people on the sex offender registry are cops. Just examine these articles and see for yourself.


HERKIMER - The former Ilion police officer accused of inappropriately touching his girlfriend’s teenage son was sentenced Wednesday to three years of probation.

Philip Spaman, 47, pleaded guilty in January to a misdemeanor endangering the welfare of a child charge in Herkimer County Court.

Judge Patrick Kirk granted the victim, now an 18-year-old college student, an order of protection that bars Spaman from contacting him for five years.

Spaman sent photographs of a bottle of lotion to the teen’s cell phone that were accompanied by messages that asked whether the boy wanted back rubs and massages, the teen’s attorney, Theresa Girouard, has said.

Spaman, who said nothing in court before he was sentenced Wednesday, resigned in January from the police department where he was an eight-year veteran.

The alleged untoward behavior occurred between September 2007 and October 2008 when the victim was 17, according to an indictment handed up by a grand jury in July 2009.

The indictment also charged Spaman with misdemeanor forcible touching. Prosecutors agreed to drop that count in exchange for the former police officer’s guilty plea.

Spaman told police his decision to end a romantic relationship with the teenager’s mother led to the allegations, according to court documents.

A week before he was interviewed by Herkimer police, Spaman said he had a conversation with the boy’s mother about a traffic ticket the teen had received and whether he could “take care of it,” according to a copy of the statement filed with the indictment.

During that conversation, (she) asked if I wanted to do anything with her and also wanted to have sex. I told (her) no, we are done,” Spaman told police, “and now this is all happening.”

In the police interview, Spaman admitted that he gave the teen massages.

I have never touched (him) inappropriately. I treated (him) like a son. Numerous times (he) begged me for a back and foot rub after wrestling practice. I would do these sometimes for 10 to 20 minutes and when I would stop, (he) would ask for more,” Spaman said.

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

CA - Sex offender wearing GPS bracelet molests Fontana girl (Once again, GPS is proven to not prevent anything, but it does waste tax payer money!)

Original Article


By Melissa Pinion-Whitt

A convicted sex offender wearing a state-issued GPS monitoring device molested an 11-year-old Fontana girl Tuesday, police said.

Fontana police arrested _____, 35, and booked him into jail on suspicion of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a child.

"I don't know if we found him from the device or other leads," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker.

Police received a call about 5:30 p.m. from a resident who reported an 11-year-old girl had been molested. Decker said the man was wearing a GPS tracking bracelet because he is a convicted sex offender.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California leads the nation in tracking sex offenders with GPS technology.
- They may lead the nation in requiring people to wear them, and wasting a ton of tax payer dollars, I'd agree with that!

More than 6,600 sex offenders are equipped with GPS devices in the state.

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

UK - Sex offenders win appeal against indefinite inclusion on register

Original Article
Related Article


By Alan Travis

Supreme court backs case of two sex offenders who claim being on register for life without review breaches their human rights

A supreme court ruling today has opened the way for hundreds of sex offenders to challenge whether they should remain on the sex offenders' register for life.

The ruling backed a case brought by two convicted sex offenders who challenged their indefinite inclusion on the register without any right to a review, claiming it breached their human rights.

One, who was convicted of rape when he was 11 years old, argued that being on the register had prevented him taking his family on holiday or playing rugby league. The other offender, _____, now aged 59, was jailed for five years for indecent assault 14 years ago.

Their lawyers argued they had been labelled for life without any opportunity to demonstrate they had reformed.

The current legislation says that any sex offender sentenced to a prison sentence of at least 30 months is placed on the register for life and has a duty to keep the police informed of any change of address or travel abroad.

The supreme court decision published today follows an appeal by the home secretary against an earlier appeal court ruling that the lack of any review was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, in particular the right to respect for a private and family life.

Lord Phillips, the supreme court president, said: "It is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified."

The judges stressed that the ruling did not mean the sex offenders' register itself was illegal and said that it was entirely reasonable and lawful to monitor someone for life if they were assessed to be a danger to society.

But the judges rejected the home secretary's appeal, saying there was no evidence to show it was impossible to identify which sex offenders had reformed. Home Office research submitted during the case showed that 75% of sex offenders who were monitored over a 21-year period were not reconvicted of any offence.

Mike Pemberton, solicitor for _____, who was convicted of the rape of a six-year-old boy when he was 11, said his client wanted a fair chance to show that he had reformed.

"This case is important because it considers the right of a child to mature and develop. At present, any child who commits an offence of this type is labelled for life with no consideration being given to the effect of growing older and learning important lessons from previous mistakes."

He said the men were not arguing to be automatically removed from the register, only for a chance for the risk they now posed to be reviewed.

The supreme court ruling means that an incoming government will need to look again at the law and introduce a review mechanism. Home Office officials will consider the ruling before making any recommendations. The existing requirements on sex offenders to notify the police of their movements remain in force in the meantime.

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

OH - Thousand of new hearings may be ordered for sex offenders

Original Article

If the constitution still means anything, then no, they should not be forced to obey ex post facto (retroactive) punishment, it's unconstitutional!


Ohio Supreme Court to decide if old cases should be held to new, tougher rules

The Ohio Supreme Court will decide if people convicted before Ohio adopted a tougher sex-offender law are subject to those tougher penalties. It heard arguments today in a case that could affect hundreds of courts, and thousands of offenders and the neighborhoods in which they live.

Supreme Court case summary

Does ‘Adam Walsh Act’ Require New Hearing to Exempt Pre-2008 Sex Offender from Community Notification?

When Sentencing Court Found Notification not Required Under Pre-2008 Law

Robert Gildersleeve et al. v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2009-1086

8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)

ISSUE: In cases where a defendant was sentenced prior to Jan. 1, 2008, for a sexually related crime, and where the sentencing court determined at a hearing that under the pre-2008 version of Ohio’s sex-offender statute the defendant was not subject to community notification, do amendments to the law that took effect in 2008 require that pre-2008 offenders who have been reclassified as Tier III offenders must undergo a new hearing to reestablish their exemption from community notification?

BACKGROUND: Effective Jan. 1, 2008, the General Assembly amended Ohio’s former sex offender registration and community notification statutes to conform them with the federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA). Under the amended Ohio statutes, thousands of persons who had been classified as lower-level sex offenders under the pre-2008 version of the law were reclassified as Tier III (highest level) sex offenders. The new provisions require that, after Jan. 1, 2008, 1) all Tier III offenders must register with local law enforcement agencies every 90 days for life, and 2) sheriffs must provide regular notices regarding the identity, residence, place of employment and other information about Tier III offenders to neighbors, schools and specified others in the communities where the offender lives and works.

However, a separate provision in the 2008 rewrite of the law, R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), specifically exempts a Tier III offender from the requirement of community notification (but not the duty to register): “if a court finds at a hearing ... that the person would not be subject to notification” under the previous version of the sex offender statute (i.e. the version that was in effect from 2002 through 2007).

This case involves a group of nine people, including Robert Gildersleeve, who were convicted and sentenced prior to Jan. 1, 2008 as sex offenders. In each of their cases, the sentencing court held a required hearing and determined that the defendant was not a sexual predator or a high-risk habitual sex offender, and therefore, under the pre-2008 version of the sex offender statute, was subject to registration but was not subject to community notification. Following enactment of the Ohio AWA, each of the plaintiffs received a notice from the attorney general’s office informing him that he had been reclassified as a Tier III sex offender and would from that date forward be subject to both the more stringent registration requirement and the community notification requirement imposed on Tier III offenders by the AWA.

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking a judgment that 1) retroactive application of the AWA to offenders who had already been classified under the pre-2008 sex offender statute was unconstitutional; and 2) even if retroactive application of the AWA to them was constitutional, they were entitled to relief from community notification under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) because each of them had already undergone a hearing and been found not to be subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the statute. The trial court ruled that retroactive application of the AWA to previously classified sex offenders was constitutional, and also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief from community notification.

Gildersleeve and his co-plaintiffs appealed. On review, the 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed that the AWA was constitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, but held that they were entitled to relief from community notification under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), because the courts that sentenced them had judicially determined that they were not subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the law.

Both parties sought Supreme Court review of the portion of the 8th District’s ruling unfavorable to them. The Court accepted Gildersleeve’s appeal regarding retroactive application of the AWA and held that appeal pending the Court’s ruling in a similar case that has already been argued but not announced (State v. Bodyke). The Court agreed to hear arguments on the state’s claim that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) does not provide “automatic” relief from community notification for any past offender who was found not subject to community notification under the prior version of the statute at the time of his original classification.

Attorneys for the state argue that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) exempts an offender from the requirement of community notification under the AWA only if a court has conducted a de novo (new) hearing at which it considers 11 criteria set forth in the 2008 statute, and has made a new and independent finding that the offender would not have been subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the sex offender law. They point out that the hearing requirement in R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) is written in the present rather than the past tense, which they say indicates legislative intent that courts considering appeals by pre-2008 offenders should not rely on the court proceedings conducted at the time of that person’s original classification, but rather should conduct a new and independent review of the statutory criteria and make a new determination regarding the offender’s likelihood of reoffending.

Attorneys for Gildersleeve and the other plaintiffs point out that the hearing criteria set forth in R.C. 2950.11(B)(2) are virtually identical to the criteria that were considered in determining at the time of their original classification that they were not subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the statute. They argue that in cases involving offenders who were classified under the former statute, “a court” has already conducted a hearing at which the statutory criteria have been considered, and has ruled that the offender was not subject to community control under the pre-2008 law. They assert that interpreting the law to require an entire new hearing at which the same criteria are applied to make exactly the same legal determination would be redundant and wasteful of judicial resources, and also contrary to the doctrine of res judicata (that issues decided by a court and not appealed should not later be relitigated).

Video Link

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

GA - Senate approves change to sex offender law

Original Article

This is good news, and finally people are thinking. So now, many will be able to petition to get off the lifelong punishment list, if the governor passes it.


ATLANTA (AP) - A bill that would allow some low-risk sex offenders to get off the state's registry has passed the Georgia Senate.

House Bill 571, which passed 45-0 on Wednesday, now goes to the governor's desk to be signed into law. It was approved by the House in March.

The legislation gives certain inmates the ability to petition the courts to remove them from the state's sex offender registry after completing their sentences. Among those who would be eligible are the disabled, those confined to a hospice and so-called Romeo and Juliet statutory rape cases, in which the teens are close together in age.

A judge could approve or deny the petition.

The bill makes other technical changes to bring the state's tough sex offender law in line with various court rulings.

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

KY - Kentucky Abortion Center Fails to Report Child Sex Abuse

Original Article

This undercover footage was taken by Live Action President Lila Rose and Live Action Actor Jackie Stollar who both posed undercover as minors with Rose telling the staff that she was 14-years-old and impregnated by her 31-year-old "boyfriend".

In the video, the EMW counselor named "Wendy" determines that Rose is “14 to 15-weeks pregnant” and Rose expresses that she wants to keep the situation secret from her parents. Despite not giving any indication that Rose will face abusive parents, the clinic guides Rose to call Louisville attorney Mickey Adams so that Adams can help Rose obtain a judicial bypass around Kentucky's parental consent law and avoid parental knowledge of the abortion or sexually abusive relationship.

In the state of Kentucky, sex between a 14-year-old and a 31-year-old is rape in the third degree and would reasonably be considered sexual abuse of a child which must be reported to law enforcement immediately. The clinic failed to ask the questions necessary to file a child sexual abuse report and did not communicate to Rose about the illegal or dangerous nature of her sexual relationship.

Video Link | More Videos Here

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

NY - Flaws found in state child-abuse registries

Original Article

Isn't it ironic, none of these questions come into play when it's about punishing sex offenders, but when any other registry is attempted to be created, then all the questions come out. What a bunch of hypocrites!


NEW YORK (AP) -- Combatting child abuse is a cause with universal support. Yet a push to create a national database of abusers, as authorized by Congress in 2006, is barely progressing as serious flaws come to light in the state-level registries that would be the basis for a national list.

In North Carolina, an appeals court ruled last month that the registry there is unconstitutional because alleged abusers had no chance to defend themselves before being listed.

In New York, a class-action settlement is taking effect on behalf of thousands of people who were improperly denied the chance for a hearing to get removed from the state registry.

And the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case this fall arising from the plight of a California couple whose names remain on that state's registry years after they were cleared of an abuse allegation made by their rebellious teenage daughter.

"Nobody wants to be seen as soft on child abuse -- and that's gotten us where we are," said Carolyn Kubitschek, a New York attorney who has waged several court battles over the registries. "In the state of New York, it is still almost impossible to get off the list."

More than 40 states have the abuse registries -- which are distinct from the better-known registries of convicted sex offenders that every state makes publicly available on the Internet. The abuse lists aren't accessible to the public, but are used by day-care centers, schools, adoption agencies and other entities to screen people who want to adopt, be foster parents or get a job working with children.

Even critics of the registries say they can serve a vital purpose in barring perpetrators of serious abuse from roles where they would interact routinely with children. It's the process underlying many of the registries that has come into question -- and their potential to entangle innocent people as well as wrongdoers.

A person doesn't have to be convicted or even charged with a crime to get listed. Under the general practice in most states, entries are based on a child protection investigator's assertion that the person committed an act of abuse or neglect; hearings or appeals, if granted at all, often come long after the name is entered.

"Anybody can call a child abuse hotline and report abuse -- anybody, including your ex-spouse who hates you, your landlord who's trying to evict you," Kubitschek said.

By law, she said, child protection services must investigate each call -- and their subsequent reports can lead to a person's placement on an abuse registry before they are notified or allowed to defend themselves.

The problems with due process were highlighted last year in an interim report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has been directed by Congress to assess the feasibility of a national child abuse registry.

"Strong due process protections could necessitate significant changes to CPS investigation processes in some states that could be costly to implement and may discourage participation in a national registry," the HHS report said.

The report also questioned whether a national registry might be plagued by "false positives" affecting innocent people sharing a name with a perpetrator.

The potential problems will be assessed by a new HHS-commissioned study over the next two years, examining the state registries, gauging the states' interest in participating in a national registry, and trying to determine if one is indeed needed.
- We need one registry with all criminals on it.  If it's okay for sex offenders then it's okay for all other criminals as well.

"Would a national registry in fact be useful to states?" said Barbara Broman, an HHS official who oversaw preparation of the interim report. "We do not know the answer to that question."

Congress authorized a national child abuse registry in 2006 as part of the Adam Walsh Act, named for a Florida boy abducted and murdered in 1981. His father, John Walsh, hosts the TV series "America's Most Wanted."

Among those urging faster progress toward a national registry is Sen. Chuck Schumer (Contact), D-N.Y., who says such a list would help track child abusers who cross state lines to avoid detection and offend again in the new location.
- So Chuck, what about tracking all other criminals?  If it helps "save" one person, isn't it worth it?

"It doesn't make any sense at all that while we try to watch sex offenders like hawks, we let child batterers, who physically batter children, slip through the cracks," he told a news conference last month.
- And the same goes for all other criminals as well.

However, Howard Davidson of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, said most people on the state registries are accused of neglect, not battering or other physical abuse.
- So, neglect is still child abuse, is it not?

Davidson supports use of the registries to screen potential adoptive or foster parents. But he questions whether they're a suitable tool for employers to vet job applicants because of inconsistencies in the level of proof required to register a name.

A disproportionate number of people on the registries are poor, Davidson said, decreasing their chances of successfully challenging an unfair inclusion on the list.

Even the National Child Abuse Coalition, a major player in Washington in advocating on behalf of abused children, is cautious about the proposed national registry.

Tom Birch, the coalition's legislative counsel, said there are many unanswered questions about the registry's costs and how it would reconcile differences in the states' definitions and handling of child maltreatment.

"Rushing ahead to create a national registry is not the way to go at this point," he said. "It would need to be done right."
- Wow, you sure did push ahead quickly for a sex offender registry, without investigating all the facts and money, so why now?

While the abuse registries remain out of the spotlight in most states, there have been some notable recent developments. Among them:

California has had a series of cases involving people who were exonerated of abuse allegations yet struggled to get their names off the state's Child Abuse Central Index.

One such case is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. Lawyers say it will draw attention to the registry debate even though the issue before the justices involves a dispute over Los Angeles County's position in the case -- not some of the more fundamental issues raised during their nine-year legal battle.

The couple, _____ and _____ of Valencia, were arrested in 2001 after their daughter, then 15, accused them of abuse; their younger children were placed in foster care. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on the list of 800,000 names.
- Wow, 800,000 names?  We have more abusers than sex offenders.

In 2008, a federal appeals court found the registry system unconstitutional because there's no way for the innocent to clear their names. The ruling empathized with the _____ as "living every parent's nightmare."

Esther Boynton, the _____' attorney, is frustrated by what she considers a slow, piecemeal government response to the ruling.

"It shows how the defendant is circling the wagons, how hard they will fight," she said. "This goes on and on and on. My clients are living through that."

Boynton knows the ordeal firsthand -- she was placed on the abuse index in 1990 after accidentally splashing her 17-year-old daughter with hot coffee. Only three years later, applying for a volunteer job, did she learn she was on the list; it took two more years of litigation to get removed.

Later, Boynton represented a Bakersfield stockbroker, _____, who had been accused of child abuse by an ex-girlfriend in 1986. _____ avoided contact with their son for years, worried that another allegation might land him in prison, before he was cleared and won a 2007 court ruling upholding his right to challenge the index system.

Despite the vindication, _____ says being on the registry left lasting scars.

"I will never get over this -- it is still oozing out of me," he said in a telephone interview. "I think I've given up my anger, but I have to continually readdress that. Forgiveness was so difficult."

Boynton says the officials responsible for the registries have good intentions, with the aim of protecting children, but often overlook the harm that can befall people wrongly placed on the lists.

"If they do look, they'll see that parents and children have a shared interest," she said. "Accurate information helps everyone. Inaccurate information can pull people apart unfairly."

North Carolina's Court of Appeals ruled in March that the state's registry process was unconstitutional because it gave suspected abusers no chance to defend themselves prior to being listed. The ruling also required a higher standard of proof before a name could be entered.

Sherry Bradsher, director of the state's Division of Social Services, said the legislature would amend the law to conform with the ruling. Temporarily, she said, the roughly 8,000 names on the list will not be made available -- but their long-term status is uncertain.

The law was challenged by _____, whose name had been on the list since 2007 even though he denied abusing his son and was never charged with a crime.

His attorney, Miriam Thompson, said the unanimous appeals court ruling brought tears to her eyes with its eloquent affirmation of the right to due process.

"I have two daughters -- I'm all for protecting them," Thompson said. "But you've got to provide a better system before you accuse someone and put them on that list. That's a punishment, a state action with consequences. Before you do that, you've got to prove it."
- Yep, being put on an registry, especially an online one, is punishment, and thanks for admitting that.

In New York State, lawyer Thomas Hoffman is representing thousands of people who may have been improperly denied the chance for a hearing to get removed from the state abuse registry.

Hoffman says somewhere between 17,000 and 25,000 requests for hearings were terminated prematurely by the Office of Children and Family Services between 2003 and 2007 -- in many cases with the request letters simply shredded. Under a proposed class action settlement, the state has agreed to restore their right to a hearing and promised not to allow employers access to their names in the meantime.

However, Hoffman says it may take years for these hearings to be scheduled -- which could leave many of the affected individuals in limbo while prospective employers get no response of any sort to screening requests.

"At least 50 percent of the people who get a hearing are exonerated," Hoffman said. "There are a lot of people who don't belong there, and it's taking too long to exonerate them."
- Yeah, what ever happened to the "right to a speedy trial?"  You have overwhelmed the system with so many stupid law suits, that now nobody can possibly get a speedy trial, and that is a problem!

"There's a good purpose for these lists," Hoffman added. "But you could have a divorce case, fighting over custody, the dad puts the kid in car with no seat belt on and the mom calls it in. Suddenly you're on the same list as the pedophile, and the employer doesn't know difference."
- I thought the child abuse and sex offender registries were separate?  Apparently not, from what this person is saying.

Missouri's Supreme Court, in a 2007 ruling, said the state's method of placing people on the abuse registry was unconstitutional because it allowed a listing based solely on a state investigator's determination. Now, a hearing is required beforehand.

Since the ruling, disputes have flared over how many names should be removed from the registry.

"It's a horrible thing to be on this list," said Timothy Belz, the lawyer who won the 2007 case. "You can't get a job as a teacher, a nurse. You can't volunteer for your church's nursery duty."
- Yep, another man basically saying how simply being on the registry is punishment, and can prevent jobs, etc.  The same applies to those on the sex offender registry!

"If you're a sex offender, your name doesn't go on the list until you're convicted," Belz added. "But if you're a little late getting a kid to the emergency room after he cut his finger, you could be on the list for ever."

Belz attributed the due-process problems to zealous legislators.
- Amen, I'll buy that!  They want to "look tough" on crime, so they can further their own careers, it's called POLITICS!

"You can't find a lawyer or judge who isn't shocked," he said. "Yet you go to the legislature and it's like pulling teeth to get it changed. All it takes is one kid to get molested, one horrible story, and the legislators just go nuts. The legislature ought to require itself to cool off."

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

AL - McCalla teen (Brittany Krider) charged with making false rape report

Original Article


By Carol Robinson

A McCalla teen is under arrest after authorities say she made up a story that she was raped to avoid getting in trouble for being out past her curfew.

Her tale of being attacked at a service station made its way onto the internet and grew to the point where rumors spread that the same type of incident had occurred two other times over the past week, said Jefferson County Chief Deputy Randy Christian.

"At the very least it caused serious concerns and some panic in that area and also had the potential to damage the reputation of area businesses," Christian said.

Brittany Krider, 18, is charged with giving false information to law enforcement. She was booked into the county jail Tuesday and released on $5,000 bond.

The investigation began April 13 when Bessemer police responded to the report of an 18-year-old woman being treated at a hospital for a reported rape. Krider, authorities said, told police that just after 9 p.m. she was returning to her car after paying for gas when she was forced into the back seat by a masked man and sexually assaulted.

Sheriff's deputies took over the investigation on April 15, Christian said. They reviewed surveillance video from the service station and couldn't find the victim or an alleged offender on tape. When questioned about that, Krider changed her statement to say that it happened at a home, Christian said.

Further questioning revealed the entire report was fabricated and the alleged rape case has been closed.

"I am sure this young lady never dreamed her story would get so out of hand and she sincerely regrets it. We are happy to let the good people out in McCalla know that there isn't a serial rapist on the loose out there as described," Sheriff Mike Hale said. "Hopefully Ms Krider has learned a valuable lesson about how a lie can take on a life of its own and dramatically affect many people."

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

Public Experiment - What would you do if a child was in danger? Apparently most would not NOTHING!!!!

Apparently most people would do nothing. And I thought people wanted to protect kids and prevent crime? Apparently not! They just like the "for the children politics!"

Video Link (1 of 4)

Video Link (2 of 4)

(3 of 4 - Coming soon)

(4 of 4 - Coming soon)

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