Friday, July 16, 2010

FL - Spread the word Florida

Original Article

The RSO’s on the street have virtually no way of knowing what is going on with the laws, citizens opinions, politician’s lies and the irrefutable studies that have been compiled to let the general public know, that the majority of sex offenders are not dangerous and need to be reintegrated back into society in order to make our communities safer.

There is not one shred of evidence that the mass majority of sex offenders need to be banished from our state due to repeat offenses or violence.

We know for a fact that the politician’s in the State of Florida as well as the one’s in Washington D.C. have lied to the public about sex offenders. Our own government has done studies that have proven the recidivism rate, that is the rate of re-offense, is extremely low.

This audio blog will help the public become more knowledgeable about sex offenders on the whole.

The media will not bring the truth out because they like high ratings. This audio blog, Spread The Word Florida, does not care about ratings. Only presenting the public with the undeniable truth.

This blog is mainly designed to get the word out to those sex offender who are forced to live on the streets. However, this blog is also an educational mechanism to help educate the public.

IN - Former Officer (Courtney Harris) Sentenced In Sexual Assault Case

Original Article

Here you have a true predator, and cop, and like usual, they get a slap on the wrist compared to the average Joe! Apparently he will not be labeled a sex offender either, from what this story shows. It sure pays to be a cop!


Police: Officer Was On Duty When He Followed Woman, Sexually Assaulted Her

INDIANAPOLIS -- A former Indianapolis police officer accused of sexually assaulting a woman while on duty was sentenced to time in community corrections and probation on Friday.

Courtney Harris, 34, was originally charged with five felony counts in February after police said he followed a 26-year-old woman near 10th and Rural streets, grabbed her and took her to an area near an abandoned warehouse, where he had sex with her.

According to court documents, Harris gave the woman $12 and told her that's all the encounter was worth.

Harris, who resigned from the department in June, pleaded guilty to official misconduct and was sentenced on Friday to one and a half years in community corrections and one and a half years on probation.

When the judge asked Harris why he did it, he responded, "I ask myself that everyday. I just used bad judgment."

"He violated the public's trust by being on duty and having intercourse with this woman. He was not doing the things he needed to do to protect the community," said Deputy Prosecutor Cindy Oetjen.

Harris, who was a six-year veteran of the department, must perform 250 hours of community service. He was also ordered not to hold any employment related to security or law enforcement.

Previous Stories:

DC - Circuit Vacates Sex Offender's Computer Restrictions

Original Article

So, did they vacate the same law for all others faced with the same thing? Or do they have to waste their hard-earned money to go before the court to do the same? Of course they'll have to waste their money, when a judge rules something is unconstitutional for one, it should apply to all in the same situation!


A federal appeals court today vacated restrictions imposed on a convicted sex offender that required him to keep a daily log of his computer use and to permit the authorities to monitor that use, saying that the trial judge failed to articulate why the limits were necessary for a crime that did not involve the Internet.

The defendant, [name withheld], a volunteer football coach in Maryland, was convicted on charges of sexually exploiting a minor and was sentenced to about 16 years in federal prison.

But the offense, which involved a 14-year-old girl and prostitution, did not involve the use of a computer and [name withheld] has no prior history of illicit computer use, court records show. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2 - 1 in vacating two computer use restrictions but kept in place a third—the requirement that he inform any potential employer of any computer-related conditions of his supervised release.

The appeals court said the trial judge failed to explain why the government should be allowed to monitor [name withheld]’s Internet use and why he should be required to keep a daily log of his computer use. Chief Judge David Sentelle and Judge Thomas said there was a lack of evidence in the record supporting those two conditions. The court remanded for additional proceedings (PDF).

The government argues that these restrictions are related to [name withheld]’s conduct because the Internet can be used to arrange sexual encounters with minors and to advertise minors for prostitution,” Griffith wrote. “Of course it can. But from drug dealers and Ponzi schemers and smugglers to stalkers—nearly any criminal can use the Internet to facilitate illegal conduct.”

The appeals court majority said it disagrees that the computer restrictions are “reasonably related” to the sex offenses. Judge Janice Rogers Brown said in dissent that she would have affirmed the district judge's sentence in all respects. The computer restrictions against [name withheld] cannot be likened to full computer use bans that the majority points to, Brown said.

Not knowing the court’s reasons for imposing these conditions, finding the government’s reasons unsupported by the record, and unable to identify any ourselves, we vacate the conditions as plainly out of sync with the relevant factors and remand for further proceedings,” Griffith said.

The court said that if Internet restrictions were appropriate for every defendant convicted of a sex offense against a minor, the federal sentencing guidelines would say as much.

If One Registry Is Good...

Original Article
This is why we need one "ALL SINNERS" registry!
More Registries Here


By SHG (Simple Justice)

All the good people think the Sex Offender Registry is fabulous. The good people are defined as those who aren't on the sex offender registry. We know that they think it's fabulous because legislators across the country keep expanding it to include people who are neither sex offenders nor threats to anyone anywhere ever. Why? Because every expansion brings them more adoring good people. That means votes, campaign contributions and smiles.

But just like laws named after children, it becomes increasingly difficult to find virgin territory for politicians to exploit in their zeal to protect us from the next threat that will destroy life as we know it. One direction is the attack on "digital drugs ," given that cartoons of pornography worked out so well. Hey, if people are stupid enough to buy into it, why not?

There's another direction to consider, however, and it follows along the line of SORA. Consider the National Sexual Harassment Registry. From the Proactive Employer:

There’s been a lot of discussion this week about the launch of the eBossWatch ”National Sexual Harassment Registry”. This registry, modeled after the FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry, allegedly provides information to help people avoid sexual harassers. According to Asher Adelman, founder of eBossWatch:

“The eBossWatch National Sexual Harassment Registry will send a strong message to those intending to sexually harass their employees or coworkers that they will be publicly held accountable and will suffer serious consequences for their abusive actions. Now anyone will be able to search our national database and will instantly know if their potential boss or job candidate has been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint.”

There are a variety of problems with this. So many, in fact, it’s difficult to know where to start. First, the people listed in the registry are deemed “harassers” by eBossWatch, even though the site’s disclaimer states that this might not be the case.

As one might anticipate, it's another website California, where any allegation of harassment is enough to taint a person as a sexual harasser and get one on the list, but there's no assurance of getting off if it turns out to be utterly frivolous, a lie, whatever. The disclaimer, naturally, makes all the requisite excuses to avoid libel while doing as much harm to people who are merely accused, malevolent, erroneous, improper motives aside.

But you're no sex offender. You're no sexual harasser. What do you care. Of course, some Slackoisie employee may get miffed if you refuse to let them leave when they need work/life balance, and put you on the list anyway, but what are the chances of that happening?

Given experience recently with the workplace bullying crowd, some of whom may be a wee bit overly emotional and sensitive about their grievances, it's a natural for a new registry. Every wrong, whether real or imagined, can land a new name on the list.

How long before legislators come to appreciate how ripe this Registry idea is for their re-election campaigns? Already, drug offender registries are gaining popularity. creating yet another underclass of unemployable, hated individuals. For every crime, there can be a registry. For every perceived wrong, there can be a registry. The potential is endless.

And until one's name pops up on one, the good people cheer. Hooray, we're safe from the evil people! Our children are safe. Society is safe.

Whether one frames this concern as a slippery slope, initiated with the most despised in society, sex offenders, and then spreading throughout as a means to attack any putative group against whom somebody has a beef, or as the freedom of the internet to smear at will, the potential for abuse is patent, That there's mileage to be had is without question. It seems like everybody hates somebody, so why not create a Registry to make them a public enemy, inform their neighbors. If you're really lucky, get them murdered for their wrongs.

Whether these smear websites are run privately or become part of the institutional retribution of government in a legislative effort to pander for votes, the harm they do is enormous. Just as the sex offender registries have already grossly exceeded their initial purpose, rounding up people whose offense isn't even sex-related and pose no threat and destroying any chance of leading a law-abiding life, each of these offers the opportunity for absurdly wrong accusations, incredible and permanent destruction of lives and the creation of classes of people who will live in perpetual internet taint.

But hey, as long as you're one of the good people, why should you care? It's not like anybody would put you on a registry, right?

Update: Rick Horowitz raises yet another ripe opportunity, the Gang Registry. I wonder if the Boy Scouts count? After all, they've got their colors.

First They Came For... (Video Link)

IA - Iowa child-abuse registry could drop 28,000 names

Original Article

NOTE: This is a child abuse registry, and not the sex offender registry, I believe.



DES MOINES - More than half of the perpetrators listed in Iowa's child-abuse registry -- including those accused of committing bestiality in the presence of a child -- may have their names removed from the list because of a recent Iowa Supreme Court order.

State officials believe pulling those 28,000 cases off the registry could create a public safety hazard. In a rare move, they're seeking to delay the order for at least a couple of weeks.

"This is big," said Wendy Rickman, administrator of the Department of Human Services' child and family services division. "The implications for that are huge."

By state law, the child-abuse registry is not open to the public, but certain employers can submit names of job applicants to the state to see if they're on the registry. Those employers include nursing homes, child-care centers and schools -- all of whom want to prohibit potential abusers from working directly with children and elderly people, Rickman said.

The Iowa attorney general on Thursday filed a motion asking the Iowa Supreme Court to delay implementation of its July 9 decision.

That decision found that an unidentified mother is wrongly listed on the registry because of a Department of Human Services finding of denial of critical care or lack of supervision. That particular category of abuse isn't among those that the Iowa Code authorizes for placement on the registry, the justices ruled.

The ruling applies only to the Jane Doe-vs.-the Iowa Department of Human Services case, but DHS officials worry that it could have a sweeping, negative effect on children's safety.

In the Jane Doe case, the department concluded the mother committed child abuse by failing to provide the proper supervision of her child in 2001 and 2002, when she repeatedly exposed her child to the child's father, the perpetrator of numerous incidents of domestic abuse against Doe, the Supreme Court ruling stated.

Gov. Chet Culver directed the department to seek the court delay, DHS spokesman Roger Munns said Thursday.

If the delay is granted, the DHS would use the time to request a rehearing of the court's decision, partly to clarify the ruling's intended scope, Munns said.

Rickman believes part of the problem is that state law hasn't been updated adequately. She said the code doesn't require listing on the registry for those accused of being involved in manufacture of methamphetamine, bestiality in the presence of a minor, or living with a registered sex offender.

Of the 53,655 people listed on the registry, 26,988, or 50 percent, are listed because of a finding of denial of critical care or lack of supervision, records show.

Cases of denial of critical care or lack of supervision are serious, Rickman said. Such cases could involve someone failing to supervise a child who then wanders into the street and gets hit by a car, she said.

An additional 888 people are on the registry for other alleged abuses, including manufacturing meth.

Placement on the registry doesn't mean a person has been convicted of a crime in criminal court.

The DHS places people on the registry if child-abuse investigators conclude that allegations of abuse are "founded."

Investigators must find "a preponderance of evidence," which is a lower threshold than for a criminal court finding.

If the DHS designates an abuse case "confirmed," then the person is not placed on the registry, Munns said. A confirmed abuse is one that did happen but was minor, isolated and not likely to reoccur. About a fifth of all abuse allegations are "confirmed," Munns said.

Iowa's child-abuse registry was established in the late 1970s. Names of alleged abusers stay on the list for 10 years unless they successfully appeal the listing.

Rickman said it's not clear whether the Supreme Court ruling means the DHS has to remove all 26,988 cases not authorized in code, if someone on the list needs to request his or her removal, or if the DHS has to review each case to weigh the circumstances.

"I think there are grave implications as we try to digest what that may mean for the ability of the department to say we're doing a good job to protect, and also for other entities that depend on that registry to say they're doing a job to protect," she said.

FL - Former corrections officer (Byron Thornton) sentenced to 30 years

Original Article


A former Santa Rosa County corrections department officer was sentenced as a sexual predator to 30 years in state prison, followed by life probation.

Byron Thornton, 39, of Milton is charged with two counts of attempted sexual battery of a victim less than 12 years old, two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct in Escambia County, according to a press release issued by State Attorney Bill Eddins.

He was also charged with an additional count of lewd and lascivious molestation in Santa Rosa County.

The offenses occurred between 2008 and 2009.

He was arrested Jan. 13.

The charges stem from sexual abuse of his lover's children, according to the release.

Escambia and Santa Rosa deputies cooperated in the investigation, as well as Gulf Coast Kids House and Santa Rosa Kids House.

I'm in the ring and standing

Courtesy of "Offender's Wife," excellent post!

Video Link

Round one wasn't what I thought it'd be
Round two I'm struggling to breath
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times I wondered why I stepped inside this ring

I may be knocked down and bruised
But I'm here to tell you
That I may be knocked down but not for the count
So take me one more round
I'll just keep fighting
One more round
You're messing me up but I'm still here

One more round I'll come out swinging
One more round
I'm telling you now I'm not gonna lose it

It's so hard to get up off the floor again
But I know that victory is when
I'm pushing through the pain that tries to feed me lies that I won't reach the end
I may be bloodied and so bruised
But I'm here to tell you
That I may be knocked down but not for the count
So take me one more round I'll just keep fighting one more round
You're messing me up but I'm still here
One more round
I'll come out swinging
One more round

I'm telling you now I'm not gonna lose it
I am not defeated
Though you cannot see it
I have never won a battle on my own
I find strength in weakness
I find hope in believing
God is for me who can bring me down?
So take me one more round
I'll just keep fighting

One more round
You're messing me up but I'm still here
One more round
I'll come out swinging one more round
I'm telling you now I'm not gonna lose it here
I'm not gonna go down now
Try to bring me
I'll come out swinging

AUSTRALIA - MEN ARE TOO AFRAID TO HELP A CRYING CHILD; Three in four fear being called a perv.

Original Article

This is old, but still applies.

By Mark McGivern

THREE in four men would think twice before helping a crying child in case they are accused of being a paedophile a poll claims.

And one in four would ignore the distressed youngster completely, the survey revealed yesterday.

Now a campaign group are warning the attitude actually makes children more vulnerable to being abused by real sex offenders.

The poll of 500 men found that 75 per cent feared assisting a lost or upset child in case others thought they were trying to harm them.

Nearly half - 45 per cent - said they would try to find a female passer-by, while 23 per cent would ignore the child completely.

The research was commissioned by child safety firm IdentiKid. Managing director Nadine Lewis said: "The very fact that nearly half of the population won't help children does make them more vulnerable to people who do want to do them harm."

"I find that quite scary."

However, the poll also showed men are right to worry.

Two in three people they spoke to said they would be concerned about a man whose approach caused a child to cry or scream, compared with only 21 per cent if a woman approached them.

And it is a growing problem, with 80 per cent of men saying that they felt more scared of helping children today than 10 years ago.

Nadine advised men not to approach a distressed child if they can avoid it, for fear of a protective parent returning and reporting them to police.

Instead she advised them to find a woman, or a uniformed worker, rather than approach them directly.

She added: "If you are the only person about, you should keep your distance and not try to cuddle them if they are upset."

"The last thing anyone wants is to be accused of inappropriate behaviour."

Nadine blamed recent horrific stories of strangers abducting kids, coupled with a weaker sense of community.

She added: "People are living insular lives. We've lost the ability to interact."

"If you see a child crying and a man close by, you would look at the man quite suspiciously."

"It is a sorry portrayal of modern life that children could potentially be put in danger because men are frightened of how they will be perceived."