Friday, July 19, 2013

TX - Guards (Vincent Aguilar, Israel Charles Jr. & Jaime E. Smith) Turn Women’s Prison Into Personal Sex Dungeon

Women in prison
Original Article

06/19/2013

This story will probably make you sick to your stomach. A complaint for civil damages was recently filed against the Live Oak County jail system in Texas, naming the county and three guards as having turned the jail into their own personal sexual torture dungeon. The complaint alleges that three guards at the county jail ran a “rape camp” where they “repeatedly raped and humiliated female inmates,” and forced them to masturbate and sodomize male guards, and one another. The three guards named in the report are Vincent Aguilar, Israel Charles Jr. and Jaime E. Smith.

The complaint states, ”Beginning sometime in 2007 to at least August of 2010 the Live Oak County Sheriff’s office ran a ‘rape camp’ known as the Live Oak County Jail,” the complaint states. “In this facility, numerous jailers, all employed by the Live Oak County Sheriff’s Office, repeatedly raped and humiliated female inmates over an extended period of time. These forced acts of lasciviousness included, but are not limited to, forcing female inmates to repeatedly perform oral sex on male guards, forcing female inmates to repeatedly masturbate the male guards, the male guards masturbating in view of the female inmates, male guards forcing digital penetrative sex acts in the female inmates’, forcing female inmates to engage in sexual sex acts with other female inmates, including but not limited to forcing female inmates to have oral sex with each other, among other things.”

In addition to the repeated sexual assaults, numerous female inmates were sexually harassed. Certain male guards would strip the female inmates of their clothing and provide only shaving cream to conceal their genitalia. Certain male guards would sometimes force the female inmates to shower in front of them while instructing them to shave their vaginas. In other instances, while detailing their degenerate sexual fantasies, the jailers would pin the girls against a wall, grope their persons, verbally berate them, digitally rape their vagina and/or anus, then force them to perform oral sex.”

In order to facilitate their carnal impulses, these guards would withhold food and water, engage in physical abuse, restrict privileges and verbally and emotionally abuse the women – even threaten to kill them in order to compel their compliance.”

You need a strong stomach to read the full complaint.

One of the three guards named was sentenced to prison for a year, the other two got 18 months. Pretty good deal for turning a jail into your own sexual torture dungeon. Imagine if you grabbed a woman off the street and held her as a sex slave in your basement. You’d never see the light of day again.

This comes on the heels of a prisoner abuse report filed against the Ontario prison system, which lead to 31 guards getting fired and another 108 staff being disciplined. The report stemmed from a team of investigators reviewing about 2,800 cases of use of force reported over an 18-month period in 2010 and 2011. As far as I’m aware, no guards were criminally prosecuted for the acts of torture uncovered by the investigation.

In a separate incident, two guards had charges filed against them for acts of torture committed in a Toronto jail. One officer testifying in that case against her fellow officers said, “I’ve been shunned, people won’t talk to me. When I go to enter a room, they’re all quiet and stop talking.” She also said that a colleague asked her to change her report to justify the use of force.

While this behavior may come as a shock to people who still believe in the necessity and virtue of a state run prison system, it doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with basic psychology. Stanford University ran a psychological experiment (Website, Wikipedia) that mimicked the modern prison system back in 1971. They had to halt the experiment just six days in because the abuse of students had gone completely out of control.

You can watch a documentary on this experiment here:


I have to believe there are better ways of dealing with criminals besides locking them in cages and torturing them. However, suggesting any alternatives to incarceration causes a great weeping and gnashing of teeth among most of western society. Our society has such a deeply ingrained need for vengeance and retribution that the thought of anything less than a cage just doesn’t cut it.

In the end, this blind need for vengeance will cost society dearly. Presently, America has more prisoners than any other country in the world, by both per-capita and total population. No one does prison better than the land of the free, where 86% of the federal prison population is there for victimless crimes. The costs associated with this vast level of incarceration are staggering, and they are only going to get worse as the number of prisoners over the age of 65 is rising at 94 times the rate of the general prison population.

To me, I view our present prison system as a form of double victimization. When criminals are incarcerated, their victims are forced to pay for the associated incarceration costs through the tax system, so in essence, the system victimizes the victim twice. Further, in the vast majority of cases, at some point in the future, that prisoner is going to be released from prison. So society has a choice to make. They can either stick with the current system of vengeance based double victimization, which leads to high rates of recidivism and churns out exceptionally violent and sociopathic criminals, or society can look for more humane and cost efficient alternatives.

I believe the goal of a penal system should be reform, not vengeance. Every criminal that is put behind bars becomes a black hole of resource destruction. They produce nothing, yet consume everything. Putting prisoners in a structured environment where they can be productive and learn to value their life, as well as the lives of others, leads to a more productive society. Our present system of punishment accomplishes the exact opposite.


MN - Most civilly detained sex offenders would not reoffend, study finds

Civil commitment
Original Article

07/18/2013

By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.

Other new research finds further flaws with actuarial methods in forensic practice

At least three out of every four men being indefinitely detained as Sexually Violent Predators in Minnesota would never commit another sex crime if they were released.

That’s the conclusion of a new study by the chief researcher for the Department of Corrections in Minnesota, the state with the highest per capita rate of preventive detention in the United States.

Using special statistical procedures and a new actuarial instrument called the MnSOST-3 that is better calibrated to current recidivism rates, Grant Duwe estimated that the recidivism rate for civilly committed sex offenders -- if released -- would be between about 5 and 16 percent over four years, and about 18 percent over their lifetimes. Only two of the 600 men detained since Minnesota's law was enacted have been released, making hollow the law's promise of rehabilitation after treatment.

Duwe -- a criminologist and author of a book on the history of mass murder in the United States -- downplays the troubling Constitutional implications of this finding, focusing instead on the SVP law’s exorbitant costs and weak public safety benefits. He notes that "Three Strikes" laws, enacted in some U.S. states during the same time period as SVP laws based on a similar theory of selective incapacitation of the worst of the worst, have also not had a significant impact on crime rates.

The problem for the field of forensic psychology is that forensic risk assessment procedures have astronomical rates of false positives, or over-predictions of danger, and it is difficult to determine which small proportion of those predicted to reoffend would actually do so.

Minnesota has taken the lead in civilly detaining men with sex crime convictions, despite the state's only middling crime rates. Unlike in most U.S. states with SVP laws, sex offenders referred for possible detention are not entitled to a jury trial and, once detained, do not have a right to periodic reviews. Detention also varies greatly by county, so geographic locale can make the difference between a lifetime behind bars and a chance to move on with life after prison.

Ironically, as noted by other researchers, by the time an offender has done enough bad deeds to be flagged for civil commitment, his offending trajectory is often on the decline. Like other criminals, sex offenders tend to age out of criminality by their 40s, making endless incarceration both pointless and wasteful.

The study, To what extent does civil commitment reduce sexual recidivism? Estimating the selective incapacitation effects in Minnesota, is forthcoming from the Journal of Criminal Justice. Contact the author (HERE) to request a copy.


Scarlet Letter: Learn from my mistakes (I'm begging you)

Written Letter
Original Article

Link was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission.

07/19/2013

By Congruent Culture

I’m pretty open about my testimony.

Normally, people in my situation hide for pretty much the rest of their lives. They do their best to never call attention to themselves. They often lose their spouses, their jobs, their families. Some end up homeless. Some are never able to get another job. And they live in fear of being accused of something they did not do because of what they DID do in the past. In fact, many fear for their very lives in society so bend on vigilantism.

We are the only ex-criminals in America that are forever labeled publicly. We live eternally as if we committed our crime yesterday, no matter how many years pass. All it takes is one neighbor checking an online map and suddenly, I go from “a guy down the street” to “a monster waiting to strike.”

I am a registered sex offender.

I am open about it, because I feel that is what God is calling me to be.

I am not special. I am not better than other sex offenders. I am what I am. I made a mistake and I got caught. I was just blessed enough to have a wife, a family, and a church that decided to stand beside me instead of shutting me out, even though no one would blame them if they had. Not even me.

I never intended on doing what I did. And, I’ve learned through actually studying the facts, meeting people, hearing cases, etc. that MOST sex offenders are not the predators we are all made out to be.

I’ve also learned that, despite what we’re told by the nightly news and how you’ve been taught to guard your children, if your child is abused, it is not very likely a registered sex offender will be responsible. In fact, less than 10% of Registered Sex Offenders ever commit another sex-related crime. (Many sources claim that Sex Offender Recidivism rates are as high as 50%, but those are counting ALL crime, such as theft or failing to register, not just sex offenses.)

Your child is far more likely to be abused by someone your family is close to: a teacher, a relative, or a family friend. It is very rare that a child is abused by a stranger.

And while some RSO’s are just inexplicably obsessed with children or inflicting pain on others, those make up a very small minority. Most are people who used sex to cope with pain in their own lives and lost control of themselves. Many were molested themselves when they were children. Nearly all of them never thought they’d be capable of such terrible things. Most have a "thinking problem," not necessarily an attraction to children.

And 100% of Sex Offenders I've encountered or read about are/were addicted to pornography.

This was my problem. I’ve used pornography as a coping mechanism since I first discovered it at 11-years-old. There were times I tried to fight it. In fact, it was the catalyst for my salvation, fear of never breaking free from it. But it would still not leave me alone.

At my worst, I was spending up to 8 hours a DAY trolling the internet for porn.

And then, one bad click, one wrong website, one stupid decision made when high on endorphins and adrenaline has me branded for life with a scarlet letter.

That’s all it takes, men. One stupid decision can destroy everything.

Frankly, I thank God that I was caught then and there, because though I can’t imagine I would have done it again or done something worse, sex/porn addiction is a powerful drug that breaks down your morality.

Strip clubs, illegal pornography, prostitutes, adult arcades, affairs, homosexual acts (done by otherwise straight men)… pornography and sex addiction can lead to it all.

Now for most men, it won’t lead to something that drastic or illegal, but it still can destroy lives.

Pornography destroys your idea of what intimacy is supposed to look like. It offers a fantasy, and the longer you live in that fantasy, the harder it will be to conform to reality in a relationship.

It is one of the most profitable industries in the world (and that’s saying something, since most pornography can be obtained for free).

Not only that, but downloading illegal (underage) pornography is the fastest growing Sex Offense in the world today. And it’s no wonder, seeing as “barely legal,” “girls gone wild,” and “jailbait” pushers are doing their best to offer the youngest pornography possible.

In fact, illegal sex acts with underage girls is even a big acceptable mainstream joke with characters like “Quagmire” from Family Guy and the internet meme “Pedobear.” We live in a society that not only allows for the FANTASY of sex with a minor, but celebrates it. And then we are shocked when fantasy becomes reality!


Is It Time to Change How We Treat Sex Offenders?

Original Article

Diigo Post Excerpt:
The two filmmakers present two very different perspectives: Lisa reps victims, David, abusers. However, as the documentary shows, the US justice system creates victims of its own by pointlessly restricting convicts, many of whom were juveniles when convicted, and/or are guilty of victimless crimes.

Every high-profile sex crime spawns a rush to do something about the ‘predators’ among us.”

The rush to legislate creates two main problems. First, badly written laws give prosecutors too much latitude, which they use to slap harmless people with permanent, debilitating “sex-offender” labels. People like [name withheld], who had to register for having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. Whether you think that’s right or wrong, it defies reason to say that [name withheld]'s crime means he will pose a threat to his neighbors for the rest of his life.

Besides being a terrible injustice to these men and women, and it also weakens the power of the label. How seriously should you take it when a sex-offender moves in next store when you don’t whether he or she is a rapist or public urinator? When teenagers are branded for life for sexting, the label loses much of its meaning.


AZ - Goodyear PD officer (Jose Roman) accused of child molestation, placed on leave

Jose Roman
Original Article

07/18/2013

By Andrew Michalscheck

GOODYEAR - A Goodyear police officer has been placed on administrative leave for allegedly having sexual contact with an underage girl.

According to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Jose Roman has been charged with three counts of child molestation and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 12.

MCSO said the case dates back to 2003.

The Goodyear Police Department said they immediately placed Roman on leave after learning of the alleged criminal activity in May.

Roman was hired by the Goodyear Police Department in August of 1993.

His rank is that of Police Detective, and he has been serving in the Investigations Division since 2006.


KS - Kansas appealing in sex offender registry ruling

Newspaper and coffee
Original Article

Of course they are. They have to look like they are putting up a fight all the while spending more tax payer money to defend their stance, even though it is unconstitutional.

07/18/2013

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

WICHITA (AP) - Kansas will appeal a state district court judge's decision that orders a child molester's name to be removed from its offender registry after finding the registration laws violate the U.S. Constitution, the state's top prosecutor said Thursday.

At issue is Tuesday's decision in which Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks found that Kansas law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary. But, his ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County sheriff's office seeking to end his registration requirement.

"After carefully reviewing the district court's ruling, we do not think it is legally correct," Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said Thursday in a written statement.
- Did you also review the US and state Constitution?  We doubt it!  It's clearly an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

Kirk Ridgway, the attorney representing the Johnson County sheriff's office, said one of their concerns when considering whether to appeal was that any Kansas Supreme Court ruling would apply to others currently on the registry.
- If a law is deemed unconstitutional, then it should affect others who are being unconstitutionally punished!

Schmidt said the state would fight for the integrity of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, as well as for continued compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is designed to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.
- Why is the act named the "Adam Walsh CHILD PROTECTION and safety act?"  It only punishes ex-sex offenders and not everybody who harms children, like abusive parents, baby sitters, gang members, drug dealers, etc.  Why not rename it to "Adam Walsh Sex Offender Punishment Act" to be more accurate?

"Having complete and accurate information about registered sex offenders available to the public through the online registry is a central public safety purpose of the federal law, which Kansas has implemented, and the district court's ruling runs counter to that purpose," Schmidt said.
- And the act itself runs counter to the US and state Constitutions!

The Kansas offender registry law requires sex, drug and violent offenders to register with law enforcement. It applies retroactively and offenders must register for 15 years to life, depending on the severity of the crime. Nearly 11,600 persons are on the registry, according to the KBI — 7,417 for sex crimes, 2,283 for drug offenses and 1,899 for violent crimes.

Kansas will also appeal the lower court's decision that allowed the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the case. The plaintiff's attorney, Chris Joseph, has said his client is fearful of retribution if he is identified.

"The public has a right to know when a convicted sex offender challenges the very law that is designed to protect the public," Schmidt said. "This cloak of anonymity does not serve the public interest or advance public safety."

Joseph said in an email Thursday that he welcomed an appeal, but was concerned about the attorney general's request to reveal his client's identity.

"The only purpose for doing so, that I can think of, is to attempt to intimidate him and discourage his effort to protect his constitutional rights," Joseph said. "I am disheartened that our Attorney General would resort to such tactics."
- Does it really surprise you?  Not us.

The plaintiff pleaded guilty in 2003 to having taken indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But in 2011, the Legislature amended the law, extending the length of time offenders must be registered to 25 years.

The state told the plaintiff it applied retroactively and that he had to remain registered until 2028.

His lawsuit argued the law is unconstitutional because it was applied retroactively, violating the "ex post facto" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Attorney, who represented the plaintiff, argued several state supreme courts have found provisions in registry laws as excessive in relation to public safety objectives. He cited registry provisions struck down by state supreme courts in Alaska, Indiana, and Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected in 2003 a similar retroactive challenge to Alaska's registration law, finding at the time it was constitutional as a civil regulatory scheme. But the nation's highest court also said that if a retroactive law is punitive, then it would be unconstitutional.

Hendricks said the 2011 Kansas law was effectively punitive, noting its requirements have become increasingly severe and social media creates a virtual forum for "shaming."

See Also: