Run for your lives!!!! Sex offenders are everywhere, hiding behind all them bushes, just waiting to pounce on your little kiddies!!!!
A sex offender living right near Moran Prairie Elementary School on the South Hill has parents concerned for the safety of their children.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Run for your lives!!!! Sex offenders are everywhere, hiding behind all them bushes, just waiting to pounce on your little kiddies!!!!
By Erica Bajer
There's been no decision on whether charges will be laid in the death of accused sex offender [name withheld], who was fatally injured while behind bars at the Niagara Detention Centre last month.
- What? Why not? Are you saying it's okay to murder someone, if it's a sex offender? Surely charges will be laid against someone?
Det. Sgt. Budd Rung, of the Niagara Regional Police Service's major crime unit, said the Crown Attorney is looking over the case before police determine whether charges will be laid.
It is unusual for police to consult the Crown prior to laying charges in a case, but Rung said sometimes it's necessary.
"Because of the circumstances surrounding this, it's a little bit difficult. I just want to make sure everything is done properly," he said. "It's up to us to ultimately lay charges."
- If the man wasn't a sex offender, would this even be considered?
Rung said a meeting between police and the Crown to discuss the case is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 30.
[name withheld], 46, died after suffering fatal injuries Aug. 15 while in jail at the detention centre in Thorold. He was arrested in early August on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.
The complainant was a 14-year-old male. Police haven't said if [name withheld]'s death is a homicide, nor have they revealed what caused his death.
- Yeah, they don't want people to know that sex offenders are being murdered in cold blood!
In a previous interview, Staff Sgt. James Prinsen said detectives believe crimes were committed around the time the man was hurt.
He said police were trying to determine what impact those offences, if any, had on the eventual death of the inmate.
He refused to say what type of crimes occurred or how they might be linked to the inmate's death.
Rung said officers have spoken with numerous people in the detention facility.
[name withheld]'s niece, [name withheld], who didn't want her last name published, said in a previous interview she believes [name withheld] was murdered. She also told The Standard she believes her uncle was innocent of the charges and that he never should have been behind bars in the first place.
A coroner's inquest is expected in the case — the probes are mandatory in all unnatural deaths that occur in the province's jails.
You can learn more about Google+ here. If you do not have a Google+ account, sign up here. Click the image below to visit us.
|Click the above image to visit us|
And Carol Markin claimed this man was a sex offender. Well, if he now has to register, that would mean he wasn't a sex offender, but is now. You can also see all the other related posts, by clicking the "CarolMarkin" link above. She is an author of several books on "Bad Dates," and apparently didn't take her own advice. I personally think it was a publicity stunt, but that is just me.
LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles man has been sentenced to a year in jail on his no-contest plea to sexually assaulting a woman he met through the online dating site Match.com.
Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles County prosecutors, says [name withheld] also was sentenced Monday to five years of probation and was ordered to register as a sex offender and complete a year of counseling.
Wurtzel pleaded no contest last month to one count of sexual battery by restraint.
Wurtzel met the woman through the dating website and they went on two dates. Prosecutors said that during the second date [name withheld] drove the woman to her home and followed her inside, where he sexually assaulted her while holding her down.
- Why would she let a man she hardly knows, into her home? I think she needs to investigate bad dating again, or maybe common sense?
The woman settled a lawsuit against Match.com.
By Mallory Cooke
The Fort Smith Police Department gave members of the community a lesson on sex offenders Monday night.
“The public needs to know about these offenders and the more the public knows the safer they’ll be,” said Detective Michael McCoy of the Fort Smith Police Department.
McCoy deals with sex offenders and ran Monday night’s information session. “We’re going to talk about the levels and the laws,” he said, “We’re gone talk about state laws, federal laws, what sex offenders look like, how they act.”
The audience asked questions. Citizens for sex offender reform drove from other counties to listen and voice their opinion. “It was good to be here,” said Lynn Gilmore of Arkansas Time After Time, “We were a little bit apprehensive about this. We thought oh God we’re gonna be in a room full of wolves, but really that didn’t happen at all.” (See her comment on the article, and below)
McCoy says Fort Smith has about 214 registered sex offenders right now, which is up from about 170 two years ago. “They look just like everybody else,” said McCoy, “You’ll never know who they are.”
McCoy also mentioned an alert system where people can sign up to get an email if a sex offender moves into their area.
Monday night’s meeting was just the first of several. Every night this week at 6:00 p.m. people can go to the Fort Smith Police Department for an information session on sex offenders. The information sessions run through Friday, Sept. 23.
Comment (on the article) from Lynn of SOSEN:
Lynn Gilmore at 6:11 AM September 20, 2011
Just to clarify, when I said, "We were a little apprehensive about this. We thought, oh God, we're going to be in a roomful of wolves, but that didn't happen at all," I was referring to sex-offender haters, NOT sex offenders themselves! Note to self: Don't use the word "wolves" when referring to anti-sex offenders. Overall, we felt that the presentation went very well, the audience and Detective McCoy were open-minded about how the laws affect offenders and their families and we at Arkansas Time After Time greatly appreciate your plug for our organization. THANK YOU!!! Anyone troubled about the current sex offender laws should get in contact with us. Visit http://www.arkansastimeaftertime.org/.
By Amelia Cerling
TOWN OF EAGLE POINT (WEAU) -- Sex offenders are living right next to families with young children in the Town of Eagle Point. Monday evening those parents and other people demanded answers at a town board meeting.
- No matter where they are forced to live, there will always be children!
According to the Department of Corrections, there are 21,000 registered sex offenders in the state of Wisconsin, and 70 of them live in Chippewa County.
Two men recently moved into a home along Highway 124 and neighbors say they weren't properly notified of the men's presence. The two men living in the home at [address withheld] are 45-year-old [name withheld], and 55-year-old [name withheld].
It was a packed town hall Monday night, with the Chippewa County sheriff and two members from the DOC answering questions from a frustrated and often angry crowd.
Brad Martin was in that crowd, he is a father of three young children. He came to Monday night’s town board meeting out of fear for the safety of his kids.
“I think as a parent the biggest fear is for the safety of your children, safety of your neighborhood,” Martin tells us.
Martin says he lives just four tenths of a mile from the sex offenders’ home. He tells us his peaceful and fence free neighborhood has been turned upside down.
“You lose the luxury of, we kind of are living in a community where there’s no fences, you can just go from house to house, and we've kind of lost that now,” he says.
It's that pervasive fear and a flurry of phone calls from concerned neighbors that led Town of Eagle Point chairman Mike Sedlacek to invite the DOC and the sheriff to Monday evening’s meeting.
“It's always a big concern when you have a sexual offender in your neighborhood. Right away you start thinking is there something the town could do to stop this so that's why we are here tonight to find out, and we’ll go from there I guess,” Sedlacek says.
Jodi Voegeli, a sex offender registration specialist answered questions and gave worried parents advice on how to handle living close to a sex offender.
“We tell them to show the picture to their children, don't go into too many details, don't scare the child, but just let them know that this individual has hurt children before, that they shouldn't talk to this individual, or accept rides from this individual, and if they try to talk to them, that they should tell an adult, so they can call police,” Voegeli explains.
By PAUL HEROUX
Question: What is Attleboro doing about sex offenders?
Answer: A hearing will be held Oct. 4 concerning banning sex offenders from certain public places.
While the city council should be commended for being proactive, I am not sure that the proposed solution will have any effect on making people safer.
As of Sept. 14, according to the Sex Offender Registry Board website, there were 71 Level 2, and 19 Level 3 registered sex offenders in Attleboro.
Crime policy should be based on "evidence" of what is effective. But numerous laws are based on what people think might be effective, and when measured for effectiveness, the laws are found to produce no effect on public safety.
Concerning this issue, recent research finds that if a person is likely to reoffend, restrictions on where the person can or can't go may displace the problem behavior. My concern is that this ordinance may just displace the problem. If people are concerned about sex offenders, limiting where they can go leads us to a disproportionate concentration of where they are allowed.
Other recent research finds that: "The data presented here do not support the claim that the public is safer from sex offenders due to community notification laws. The data do, however, provide modest support for a key assumption of notification laws: that children receive more protection against victimization when their families know about a high-risk sex offender residing nearby. What is unclear is the quality and relevance of this increased protection." This is not to suggest we should not have sex offender registries or restrictions on where sex offenders can or can't go. What it suggests is that sex offender registries and banning registered sex offenders from certain places may provide a false sense of security, and so other strategies are necessary.
Civil confinement is one option to protect the public but it is important to know that civil confinement is about four times more expensive than regular incarceration.
It's hard to believe but sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of all the crime categories. This completely flies in the face of conventional wisdom about sex offenders being the most likely group of criminals to reoffend for their initial crime, but these are the facts. It could be argued that sex offender recidivism isn't detected and that is why this number is so low, but that could also be said of other crime categories, too.
In Massachusetts, the rate of recidivism (reincarcerated) for sex offenders and other crime groups is as follows: Property, 52 percent; Person, 50 percent; Other, 45 percent; Drug, 36 percent; and Sex, 19 percent. Excluding technical violations, i.e. not a new crime, sex offender recidivism is about 2 percent. And when we ask what the rate of recidivism is "for a new sex offense," we find that it is less than 1 percent. This is consistent with national data complied by the Department of Justice. The percentages rearrested (but not necessarily reincarcerated or guilty) for the "same category of offense" for which they were most recently in prison was 2.5 percent of released rapists.
The Bureaus of Justice Statistics found that when sex offenders do recidivate with a sex offense, approximately 75 percent victimize an acquaintance. The important point of this is that this proposed ordinance and current sex offender residential restrictions often don't account for this and many other findings.
Just because sex offenders have a low rate of recidivism it doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous. Dangerousness = Seriousness X Probability. If the probability is low, but the seriousness is high, we still have a problem to deal with.
So what can or should be done?
Independent studies of the effectiveness of in-prison treatment programs for sex offenders have shown that evidence-based programs can reduce recidivism by up to 15 percent. Recidivism can be further reduced up to an additional 30 percent with specific after-prison interventions. However, our current policies make no sense; we release many offenders to the public without some form of post-release supervision. Post-release supervision helps decrease recidivism since it involves keeping an eye on the ex-offender, but also with assisting the ex-offender to find a job, obtain treatment and find housing, all of which are important to staying crime free.
Regardless of the program, it is very important to measure the effect the program has on recidivism; just because something is evidence-based or has popular support we can't just assume it works.
The important thing to note is that we can't make assumptions about what works in public safety based on how we think something is or should be - what works and what doesn't is sometimes counterintuitive.
PAUL HEROUX of Attleboro is a former director of research and planning for the Massachusetts Department of Correction and has a master's in criminology from the University of Pennsylvania. He can be reached at PaulHeroux.MPA@gmail.com.
|DA Tony Rackauckas|
Just a man, IMO, trying to make a name for himself by exploiting sex offenders, children and fear. Do you really think a true predator who is intent on harming someone, will skip parks because you made some law that doesn't actually do anything?
LA HABRA (KABC) - The La Habra City Council approved a plan Monday night that bars registered sex offenders in city parks and playgrounds.
"The City of La Habra took a big step today in protecting children from dangerous sexually deviant predators by creating this safety zone. This law will discourage sex offenders from going to parks in La Habra, where they could have easy access to children and potentially get acquainted with them in the grooming process," stated Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas (Facebook, Twitter). "I hope that other cities follow the leadership shown by the La Habra Mayor and Council Members and pass a similar ordinance in their cities."
- Yeah, whatever. Not all sex offenders are predators, and are not all looking for children to sexually abuse.
According to the OCDA, California Penal Code sections 290 require individuals convicted of certain crimes to register as sex offenders. The registration process is used to ensure that such offenders shall be readily available for police surveillance at all times because such offenders are deemed likely to commit similar offenses in the future.
- This is another lie, not all sex offenders are "likely" to commit a similar offense! The facts show it's the total opposite, seen here. Sex offender recidivism is one of the lowest among all criminals.
The city voted to create a child safety zone to further protect children from registered sex offenders in County parks and harbors. The ordinance was developed and proposed by District Attorney Rackauckas and Supervisor Shawn Nelson and makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine, for registered sex offenders to enter County recreational areas where children regularly gather without permission from the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD), who enforce the Ordinance. La Habra is in the Fourth District represented by Supervisor Nelson.
By Steve Woods
Going as far back as its early frontier days, Texas has never been a state to shy away from punishing its law-breakers. Many, including myself, have been critical of what might be called a heavy-handed approach to the death penalty.
With the passage of Texas Senate Bill 407 (PDF), however, I gotta hand it to Texas for a step in the right direction. So what’s the bill about? Of all things, teen sexting.
Up until just 18 days ago, Texas teens caught sexting each other were charged with a felony, sentenced with heavy jail times, possible monetary fines, and life-long registration on a sex offender’s registry. Texas Senate Bill 407, introduced by Senator Kirk Watson and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry in June, lessens considerably the possible legal ramifications.
I was a teenager once, and I might be inclined to share with you the variety of sordid activities I participated in during my “formative years;” however, I’m not sure a blog post is the best way to test the statute of limitations in California. Many of you reading this have teenagers, and know that when they’re out and about, they might be up to things that would either make your blood boil or toes curl.
In May of this year, two Indiana 13-year-olds were discovered by school administrators to have been sending nude photos to each other using their phones. The photos were consensual, and appeared to have not been sent to anyone else. Despite this fact, both children were charged with child sexual exploitation, a charge originally designed to deter adult child molesters from possessing and exchanging child pornography. The exploitation charge will likely follow the Indiana children around for life.
Sexual offender registration can affect one’s choice of work, where to live, whether or not he or she can join the military, run for public office, and more. If your teenager were caught having participated in sexting, would you support a judge handing down these lasting consequences?
Texas is not letting kids get off without punishment. Sexting will be charged as a misdemeanor, and children involved in the act may be sentenced to educational programs to educate them on the dangers of such behavior. Fines for a misdemeanor in Texas can reach as high as $4,000, and repeat offenses can lead to up to a year of jail time.
These punishments, in my mind, are far more reasonable, especially for repeat offenders. Laws with some flexibility, that allow a judge to determine not just the action, but also the intent behind the action, are much more desirable. Were the images sent to two teens who were dumb and in love? Were the images shared with a wider circle without one teen’s knowledge? Were the images shared in order to embarrass or otherwise harm one of the participants emotionally? It’s important that the answers to all of the questions and more be weighed when handing down a sentence.
Still leaning toward the more harsh sentence? Maybe you’re worried about the proliferation of sexting, and believe a more harsh sentence will stem the tide. Then you should know that a survey conducted (PDF) by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy revealed that 1 in 5 teenagers have admitted to sexting - despite harsh punishment hanging over their heads. If all kids sending nude photos could be rounded up and hauled to a jail term (followed by a sex offender registration,) which side of the jail bars would your kid be on? Are you absolutely sure?
- Again with the usual "1 in 5" statistic we seem to see all the time. Click the link above for more information on this "statistic."
“Studies show that teenage students are increasingly creating, sending and receiving explicit pictures of themselves on their mobile telephones, “ said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Personally, I applaud Texas’ decision to begin with a lesser sentence for what ought to be considered, at least by most teens, a really stupid mistake.
Texas is not the only state re-evaluating Internet-based laws established long before today’s hand-held technologies were created. According to WireUpdate, over a dozen states are either working on or considering working on revamping their legal codes as they pertain to sexting.
By Ashley B. Craig
A former state correctional officer will spend nearly four years in federal prison after investigators found child pornography on his home computer.
Joseph F. Roush Jr., 35, of Mason County was sentenced Monday to 46 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers after pleading guilty in May to possession of child pornography, according to a statement released by U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin's office.
Roush was working at the Lakin Correctional Center near Point Pleasant when the discovery was made. Lakin is a women's prison.
The FBI began its investigation into Roush in April 2009 when an agent in Maryland found information that Roush had child porn in his possession. Further investigation revealed that Roush had more than 600 images and videos of children participating in sexually explicit conduct.
The investigation showed that Roush used an Internet peer-to-peer file sharing program to download and share the explicit videos.
This case was prosecuted as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative designed to protect children from online exploitation and abuse created in February 2006 by the Department of Justice.
OK - Former officer (Maurice Martinez) accused of sexually abusing some of his former foster children gets bond
More Related Articles, Videos, Etc!
By Jesse Wells
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A former Oklahoma City police sergeant accused of sexually abusing some of his former foster children could soon walk out of jail. Monday morning an Oklahoma County judge agreed to set a bond of $175,000 for Maurice Martinez.
The judge agreed to set a bond in part because 23 of the 37 criminal charges against Martinez have been dropped.
Even with bond, Martinez will be kept under close supervision until trial.
After court, we asked Martinez if he was pleased with the judge's decision.
"I wish the bond was lower, but sure," Martinez responded.
Before granting Martinez the $175,000 conditional release, the judge heard evidence that several alleged victims, including the initial accuser, would all come to court and testify the alleged sexual abuse by Martinez didn't happen.
"We believe the judge treated us fairly. We think Martinez should've never been held without a bond," Martinez's attorney David Slane said. "All the children are saying it's not true."
All except Shadow Blessing, the former foster son of Martinez who claimed he witnessed some of the sex crimes.
The defense has repeatedly claimed Blessing has a reputation for dishonesty and lying.
"We're asking people to just withhold judgement. We believe many more of these charges will be dismissed in time," Slane said.
As part of his bond, Martinez will have to live at his parents' home in Oklahoma City, wear a GPS ankle monitor at all times and have no contact with the alleged victims.
Still, his attorneys call the bond agreement a clear victory.
"While he may be under house arrest, at least he won't be in the county jail," Slane said.
Prosecutors claim Martinez has a history of tampering with witnesses and evidence in this case.
The D.A. asked that a much higher bond be set, but didn't want to talk about the judge's decision on camera.
Martinez still faces 14 criminal counts.
No trial date has yet been set.
So are men allowed to see their kids each year on father's day? I don't think so, so why are the mothers allowed to see them on mother's day?
SACRAMENTO (KABC) -- A plan that could allow more than 4,000 female inmates to walk out of prison early is stirring controversy across the state.
The new law, signed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last year, changes what incarceration means. As of this week, it no longer has to involve cell blocks.
Once a year, kids get to visit their incarcerated moms for Mother's Day.
But under California's new Alternative Custody Program, kids could see their moms every day: Low-level, non-violent, non-sex-offender female inmates with less than two years left on their sentences will be able to serve the remainder at home.
"Mothers can go back into their own home and care for their children while also obtaining rehabilitative services outside in their own community of their last legal residence," said Dana Toyama, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
It's not totally a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. The women have to wear a GPS ankle bracelet, be enrolled in classes or rehabilitation, and report to parole officers. They could also get job.
They'll be thrown back in prison if they commit a new crime.
About half of the state's 9,500 female inmates are eligible.
The move will help the state meet a court order to reduce its prison population and maybe reduce the likelihood the children will end up in a life of crime.
Crime Victims United calls this move "early release" and is worried about the children, who the group says might be better off in foster care.
"If they really have loved their children and were good mothers, they would have never gone to prison in the first place," said Harriet Salarno, president of Crime Victims United.
"It's not an early release program. It's alternative custody," said Toyama.
Suzanne Dorman has had a number of friends incarcerated. She supports home detention.
"It means so much to a mother to be at home with their children, despite some of the bad choices they made," said Dorman.
But Dorman can't say definitively whether alternative custody would prevent some of her friends from re-offending.
"That's kind of hard to say because it's ultimately the decision of the mom to make choices that are good," said Dorman.
"You don't go to state prison for minor offenses. These are serious and violent offenders," said Salarno. "And now they're going to come out with no rehabilitation?"
Since state policy cannot discriminate, the Corrections Dept. might also extend the program to men who are deemed primary caregivers of their children. They must also be deemed low-level, non-sex-offender, and non-violent inmates.