Friday, December 2, 2011
Should idiots be allowed to pass feel good laws that are not based on facts but their own emotions, and also violating their oath of office? There has been one, maybe two accounts of a child being sexually harmed on Halloween, the one I know of was back in 1975 by a man called "The Halloween Killer!" The Halloween restrictions are pure hysteria!
By Sadie West
Supervisor Jeff Stone of Riverside County introduced an ordinance that would ban sex offenders from putting up Halloween decorations and passing out candy to children.
This is unjust to many of the registered sex offenders, taking away more of their constitutional rights.
According to the article in the Los Angeles Times, "the measure would bar registered sex offenders from answering the door to trick-or-treating children or decorating their homes with Halloween decorations between 12 A.M. and 11:59 P.M. on October 31 each year.
Beyond that, they would be prohibited from leaving any external lights on between 5 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on Halloween night." When the term sex offender is first heard, one usually thinks that the person must have molested a child or shown off their genitals to a child, but this is not necessarily true.
The dictionary definition of a sex offender is a person who has committed a crime involving a sexual act.
Nowhere does it say that the person committed a sex crime against a child, just a sex crime.
Sex offenses come in many different types.
In order for a person to be registered in the federal system as a sex offender, one must have committed rape or other forms of sexual assault and sexual abuse, obscenity, human trafficking, incest, inappropriate phone calls/sexting, sex with animals, and public order crimes (i.e. public urination, streaking, stealing underwear, etc.).
Of course, what was afore mentioned crimes all can be committed with or against children.
Like any other crime, there are serious and minor differentiations between the many committed.
It is unjust to punish and treat all registered sex offenders the same, when not all of their crimes are the same.
A more serious offense that deserves a more serious punishment is child molestation.
Streaking, or public urination, is a minor offense that does not need a serious course of action.
The registering of sex offenders provides a sense of (false) security and protection for parents in all neighborhoods.
Parents can look up the locations and names of sex offenders in their neighborhoods, which help to prevent and avoid such houses.
Sex offenders should have the right to actively participate in the traditions of Halloween.
Parents should especially be cautious on such a night, taking extra precautions to make sure that nothing happens.
Just because sex offenders decorate their houses or purchase candy to pass out, doesn't mean that their houses will be visited.
Sex offenders are people too, people with sexual deviant behavior, but people nonetheless.
Crimes committed by the offenders are already taken care of and regulated by the government, as unjustly as it is.
It's unnecessary and cruel for more rules and regulations to be implemented.
Although sex offenders are definitely to blame for their actions, it's not right for even more rules to be added.
Halloween has been celebrated for many, many years.
The government has no place in regulating who gets to celebrate a famous and treasured holiday and who doesn't.
Everyone should be wary of sex offenders in their neighborhoods (and those nearby) and should take precautionary measure, but sex offenders don't need any more punishments added on either.
Halloween is a time of tricks, treats, and costumes, not a time of limitation and punishment.
By James Long
MCCRACKEN COUNTY (KFVS) - A McCracken County elected official is facing various sex crime charges following a three month police investigation.
McCracken County Constable Mark Hayden turned himself in shortly after 11 a.m. on Friday to detectives.
Hayden was charged with one count of sexual abuse first degree, two counts of sodomy third degree and one count of rape third degree.
Hayden was taken to the McCracken County Jail.
Investigators say state police were told of an initial complaint of sexual abuse in September 2011.
Detectives say the alleged victim was 15-years-old at the time of the abuse.
According to Trooper Dean Patterson, the abuse is alleged to have happened over a period of months beginning in February 2011.
Officials say Hayden is not employed by or related to McCracken County Sheriff Jon Hayden.
The investigation is ongoing.
By Bill Kelly
Lincoln – Two years after Nebraska followed a federal mandate to add more names to the public sex offender registry, some state senators question whether the approach makes the public any safer.
At a recent hearing about the use of the sex offender registry before the State Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, the largest number of people offering testimony to the state senators were the people whose names are listed on the registry.
- Good, at least the folks in Nebraska are speaking out.
“I am a convicted sex offender,” began the testimony of [name withheld] of Lincoln. “I was convicted of enticement via computer in 2008. I was one of the first people charged with this crime in the state.”
[name withheld] spent time in jail for attempting to set up a sexual encounter a 15-year-old girl. Until his arrest, he was unaware the person he swapped online messages with was actually a police officer. At the time of his conviction, he knew his photo and current address would be listed on the registry for ten years. By the time he was released from prison in 2010, a new law passed by the Legislature changed the rules. It increased the amount of time [name withheld] would be listed on the State Patrol’s website.
- And this is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
“I was a ten-year, and now I’m a 25-year,” [name withheld] told the senators.
He’s not alone. Dozens of others who previously had been kept on private police lists are now publicly identified as sex offenders. [name withheld] argues the changes made by the state are unfair and unnecessary. Others feel they’re part of an important public safety campaign. Some members of the Legislature who supported the tougher approach two years ago now wonder if it might undermine the usefulness of the online list. Legislation likely to be debated next year would authorize a study of how the changes approved in 2009 impacted the registry’s effectiveness.
It’s a debate over what has become the most prominent and, in the view of some, the most politically popular tool law enforcement created for use by the general public.
|Click to enlarge|
The list of those considered to be of the lowest risk was for the private use of law enforcement. A second list of people with a higher risk of re-offending could be shared with institutions like schools and organizations that dealt with children. The people considered at the highest risk of offending again, and of the greatest concern to the public, would have their photos and addresses listed on the State Patrol’s website. The system earned praise from both law enforcement and professionals who treated sex offenders and their victims.
- And it needs to be put back to how it was, before the sex offender hysteria. It really needs to be offline and used by police. It's not an online hit-list for vigilantes to use to harass people.
“The good folks in the State Patrol did a lot of research on how would be the best way, and how we can improve upon that, and I believe they had a really good idea going,” said RoxAnne Koenig, coordinator of Adult Offender Treatment Services with Lutheran Family Services of Nebraska. She sat on a governor’s task force that reviewed how the state deals with those who commit sex crimes.
In October People of the Second Chance and Moment Church dedicated 2 Sunday services to address the issues of labels, shame, confession and who we really are.
This is Steve's story of addiction, love and breaking through his label as we followed him from one Sunday to the following Sunday.
This video is part of the Labels Lie campaign by People of the Second Chance.
Filmed and Edited by: Aaron Kim
Senator Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made comments in the Committee about the Finding Fugitive Sex Offender Act of 2011.
So can they also vote?
By GENE JOHNSON
A man who was convicted as a 13-year-old boy for molesting his younger sisters can possess guns now that he's been rehabilitated, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
SEATTLE — A man who was convicted as a 13-year-old boy for molesting his younger sisters can possess guns now that he's been rehabilitated, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The man pleaded guilty to felony child rape in 2000, five years before he graduated from high school. In 2007, a King County Superior Court judge determined that he had completed his treatment and no longer needed to register as a sex offender.
But that judge and a state appeals court refused to let him have firearms after prosecutors argued that under state law, no one convicted of a felony sex offense can ever have their gun rights restored.
The high court reversed those decisions in a 7-2 opinion. Writing for the majority, Justice Gerry Alexander cited another law, one that states a person shall not be precluded from possessing guns if his or her conviction has been the subject of a "certificate of rehabilitation or other equivalent procedure."
The finding by the lower court that the man no longer had to register as a sex offender met that standard, Alexander wrote.
The majority found it unnecessary to consider the man's argument that a lifetime firearm ban for an adult who was convicted of a felony as a juvenile violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. The man comes from a family of avid hunters.
Alexander was joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Mary Fairhurst, James Johnson, Tom Chambers, Debra Stephens and Susan Owens.
In dissent, Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justice Charlie Wiggins agreed with the state's argument that the law prohibits a person convicted of a sex offense from even petitioning for restoration of gun rights. If state courts are barred from considering giving those rights back, it makes no sense that judges would be allowed to make findings "equivalent" to rehabilitation that would result in those exact rights being restored.
"The majority's conclusion is implicitly contrary to legislative intent," Madsen wrote.