Monday, July 2, 2012

SOSEN News - Summer 2012 Brochure

AUSTRALIA - Women denies trying to kill sex offender

Original Article

You will notice, that in most crime related news articles, if the victim is not an ex-sex offender, they don't mention the victims name but do mention the name of the offender, but when it comes to ex-sex offenders, it's the other way around, as in this article. The woman who "allegedly" attacked this man and women, her name wasn't mentioned while theirs was. Why is that?


By Sean Fewster

A woman who allegedly tried to murder former cycling coach and convicted sex offender [name withheld] has been ordered to stand trial.

In the Supreme Court this morning the woman, 20, pleaded not guilty to one count of attempted murder.

She further denied one aggravated count of causing serious harm with intent, and one aggravated count of assault.

Court documents allege the offences occurred at Kilburn on September 10 last year.

They further allege the woman used a knife to attack [name withheld] and his wife, [wife name withheld].

[name withheld] received a suspended four and a half-year sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse in 2009.

Today, lawyers for the woman asked the court to suppress any information that could "tend to identify" their client.
- Which they did, but they also name the "victims?"

Corinne Harrison, prosecuting, said any such order should extend only to the woman's name and image.

"The accused has previously been the victim of sexual offending," she said.
- So does that make it alright to list his name?  Apparently so, but he was the "victim" here!

"In relation to that earlier offence, the complainant in this matter ([name withheld]) was named as the perpetrator."

Justice Margaret Nyland suppressed the woman's name and image, saying the order could be reviewed following her trial.

She remanded the woman on continuing bail to a directions hearing next month.

How to conduct a job search with a criminal record

Original Article


By Debra Auerbach

Seventy-three percent of human resources professionals said their company, or an agency hired by their company, conducted criminal background checks for all job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. That you may undergo a background check upon applying for a job isn’t noteworthy, but for job seekers with a criminal record it can feel like an inevitable uphill battle.

While persons with a criminal record cannot be discriminated against, they may be prohibited from working in some industries such as health care and financial services,” says Bruce Hurwitz, president and CEO of Hurwitz Strategic Staffing. “Except in rare cases, employers will want to do a background check on the candidate.”

Yet not all hope is lost. Because you know a background check is likely coming, you can take steps to prove to hiring managers that you are an upstanding member of society. Ultimately, employers want to know you have the skills necessary to succeed in the civilian workforce. Here are some ways to do so:

Look into getting your criminal record expunged
Depending on the type of crime committed, it may be possible to get your criminal record expunged, or sealed. While this doesn’t mean your record is erased, it does limit who can access it. Consult a legal professional about your options or visit your state government’s website for more information. The website provides additional information on how this can be done.

Know everything about your conviction
Donna Ballman, a Florida-based employment attorney and author of “Stand Up For Yourself Without Getting Fired,” says it’s important to know exactly what you’ve been convicted of and whether the record was expunged. “Lots of people have no idea [about] the actual charges that they were convicted of,” Ballman says. “It makes a difference. If you don’t care enough about your criminal record to explain the details, employers may assume you think committing crimes is OK.”

Explore volunteer opportunities
If people want to shake the stigma of a questionable past, they need to find at least two civic organizations to volunteer at so they have solid references behind their applications,” says David Perry, co-author of “Guerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters 3.0.” “Six to 18 months of volunteer work — and I do mean sincere volunteer work — will go a long way in getting a usable reference.”

Consider the type of company to which you’re applying
Depending on the type, size or management style of a company, it may or may not conduct a criminal background check or be more lenient in accepting applicants with a criminal past. “Most applications ask whether you have been arrested or convicted of a crime,” says Mary Greenwood, attorney, human resources director and author of “How to Interview Like a Pro.” “Some will say felony so that conviction of a misdemeanor might be allowed.”

John Millikin, clinical professor of management at Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business, adds, “For a convicted felon, it may be better to look for something in small business, where you may have an opportunity to explain what happened directly to the owner.”

Participate in a re-entry program
Programs are available to help job seekers with a criminal record re-enter society and secure employment. One such initiative is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program, a Houston-based nonprofit whose mission is to “stimulate positive life transformation for executives and inmates, uniting them through entrepreneurial passion, education and mentoring.” According to Jeremy Gregg, the organization’s chief development officer, their “entrepreneurship boot camp” connects convicted felons with top executives, MBA students and politicians, and provides education, training and support. This is just one example; search the Web for local organizations that offer similar services.

Be honest
Perhaps the best piece of advice? Be honest. It’s true for all job seekers, whether you’re talking about work history, references or past salaries. It’s especially true for job seekers with a record. “If you fail to disclose a criminal record when asked, and you aren’t allowed to say it didn’t happen — as with an expunction — then the employer can fire you for failing to disclose it, even if you’ve worked there for years with no problems,” Ballman says.

Adds Millikin: “A job seeker with a felony record who has ‘paid his or her debt’ should be transparent about it without having to wear it on his or her sleeve. You should mention it after real interest has been expressed in you but before you get an offer. You should always answer questions about it truthfully, and never act as if you are hiding something, as it is worse to have it exposed in a background check.”

If It Saves One Child

Original Article


By Shelly Stow

It would be difficult today to find a person who had no idea what the sex offender registry is. It would be equally difficult to find someone with only a passing interest who didn’t feel that it is a good thing to have. It started in most states as a law enforcement tool identifying repeat, sexually violent child predators. It now has an estimated 700,000 names (PDF) on it and encompasses acts as varied as consensual teen sex, taking and sending a photo of one’s own breasts, and rape. And even though many with much more than a passing interest, including most research studies and experts in the field, are pronouncing the shaming roster to be an ineffective tool in fighting sexual crime, the battle cry of its supporters still resounds whenever the subject comes up: “If it saves one child…!

If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children.

There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child.

If it saves one child….” Children themselves are registrants on sex offender registries. Nine years old is apparently the youngest at which children have been put on the registry (Delaware; Michigan). (1) Several states, including but not limited to Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, register children as sexual criminals at ages ten and eleven. By the time twelve is reached, it isn’t even a rarity. And the fifteen year old who is the child victim for having consensual sex with an eighteen year old partner becomes a predator and registered sex offender when his or her partner is fourteen. In Wisconsin last year a district attorney did everything he could, and bragged about it, to have a six year old prosecuted and targeted for sex offender registration for “playing doctor.”(2) Three year olds caught looking at and touching each other in a daycare bathroom were reported and investigated for “sexual fondling.”(3) Some of these children, after several years of being on the registry and treated as monsters, have committed suicide. The registry didn’t save any of these children; it destroyed them.

If it saves one child….” Children do need saving. According to the Justice Dept. and the CMEC, many thousands are sexually abused and molested every year. We pour everything into the registry, millions of dollars and uncountable hours. State after state has voiced complaints about the cost of keeping up with the ever-increasing expenses and strain on limited manpower hours to satisfy the requirements of the registry. The federal government, knowing this, has offered huge financial incentives (bribes) to states to bring them into federal registry compliance. However, this is futile; the registry is not the answer. Children aren’t sexually abused and molested by nameless, faceless people on the registry. They are abused and molested by their family members and acquaintances, by those they know and trust and love, by those they see and interact with on a daily basis, often by those they live with. By the most conservative estimates, this is true for 94 out of every 100 children who are molested. The latest figures from the Justice Department's Bureau of Juvenile Justice show these startling facts: for sexual crime against a child six or under, 58.7% is committed by family members, 39.7% by family acquaintances, and 1.8% by strangers; the registered sex offenders who are in that stranger pool are so few that it is virtually incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule. Keeping the focus on those on the registry keeps us from dealing with these facts. It keeps us looking in another direction, and it leaves us nothing in the way of resources with which to deal with it.

If it saves one child,” isn’t good enough. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, need saving. When and how and with what will we save them?

Shelly Stow is a member of Reform Sex Offender Laws [RSOL] and Texas Voices, the Texas affiliate of National RSOL.

Some new shirts designed by SOSEN

SOSEN has come up with three new shirt designs that you might find pretty cool.

Don't forget to visit our store as well.

Click the image for more information

Everyone Deserves a Second Chance Don't Panic, Organize! Stand Up for What's Right