Saturday, June 28, 2014

AZ - Arizona Boy, 5, Gets Accused Of ‘Sexual Misconduct’

Sexual Misconduct
Original Article


By Lisa Fogarty

_____, a kindergartner at Ashton Ranch Elementary School in Surprise, Arizona, was recently forced to serve detention for an unusual offense: sexual misconduct.

The little boy was playing on his school’s playground when another child instructed him to pull his pants down “or else he would do it for him,” reports Daily Mail. The child did as he was told, pulling down both his pants and underwear in front of other students.

School administrators responded to this incident by taking _____ to the principal’s office and forcing him to sign a document that labeled his actions as "sexual misconduct," according to the child’s mother.
- So what about the bully who told him to do this?

_____ says the school did not contact her immediately after the incident and that she only learned about it after her son was told to sign the paper.

He’s a 5-year-old,” _____ said. “He does not know right from wrong yet.”

_____ says she fears the label will follow her son throughout school and that he only signed the paper because he was forced to do so. When she tried to appeal the school’s actions and have the document removed from _____’s permanent record, she was told it couldn't be done.

My son is not a sexualized minor,” _____ told AZ Family. “I’m just heartbroken. That’s not my son.”

Dysart Unified School District representatives insist the school’s administrators were simply following the proper protocol when they took disciplinary action against the young boy. Indecent exposure is considered a form of sexual misconduct, according to their rules, and parents are not required to be at the school during the meeting that follows the incident, unless the child asks for them.

NH - They’re killing sex offenders

Bloody murder
Original Article


By Chris Dornin

I was pleased to see a recent Sentinel editorial declaring the Internet sex offender roster punitive. My nonprofit group Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform filed an amicus brief in December supporting John Doe, a former sex offender challenging the New Hampshire sex offender shaming list as an unconstitutional ex-post-facto punishment.

At the oral arguments in May, all four justices asked questions suggesting they viewed the registry as an added criminal penalty applied retroactively. If Doe wins, he will blow some serious holes in the targeting registry. Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform is raising money to pay expert witnesses for a follow-up class-action suit that is ready for filing.

But your editorial should have gone further in its criticism of sex offender laws. Keene has lately become the New England epicenter of vigilantism against this demonized group. _____ of Keene, a registrant and invalid, was shot dead at his front door last December. A front-door bludgeoning in October left _____ of Westmoreland with major head trauma. His attacker was looking for someone else, according to State Police. The next-door neighbor was a registrant.

It’s pretty easy to connect the dots here. But Keene and State Police have refused calls from Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform to take down the registry as a precaution, or even warn registrants they may be in grave danger. Worse, to my knowledge, the Keene police are the only ones in New Hampshire who post a user-friendly Internet map of sex offender registrants to help neighbors find them.

I must respectfully disagree with this part of your editorial:

Given the recidivism rates involved in sexual assault cases, especially those victimizing children, there’s a lot to be said for keeping the public informed of legitimate threats. There does need to be some way for the public to be informed.”

That passage is bad advice and reinforces the dangerous myth that sex offenders have high recidivism rates. Former Assistant Safety Commissioner John Stephen urged the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 to post our registry online, saying only 16 of the 717 people who had been on the non-public registry to date had been arrested for new sex crimes, including three for indecent exposure and one for criminal restraint. Stephen assumed publishing the list would lower the rate even more.

Dozens of research articles confirm that sex offenders have the lowest same-crime recidivism rate of any ex-prisoners, a cumulative 1 to 5 percent in the first three years out of prison, depending on the state. The rate per year plummets after that.

There is also extensive research showing the public registry does nothing to lower recidivism, but makes registrants unemployable and homeless. The widespread vigilantism against them makes them even more likely to re-offend. It costs them wives and support systems. It keeps them on the run. It pressures landlords to drive them out.

Lawrence Trant repeatedly stabbed a Concord registrant in 2004 and tried to burn an apartment building with another seven registrants.

I hope I’ve done a service to the community,” Trant told the Boston Globe. “These guys are sexual terrorists.”

A chanting Manchester mob burned a scarecrow on the wooden porch of registrant _____ in 2006. Huot was away, but her roommate watched from inside their home with her two young sons and a baby. That is life on the registry.

Victim advocates in Ohio see the problem. Rape crisis centers in Texas and Cleveland filed an amicus brief supporting the successful Williams vs. Ohio challenge to the Ohio public registry. Margie Slagle, the lawyer for the women, argued the shaming list perpetuates dangerous myths, creates a false sense of security, misuses police resources, harms and destabilizes former offenders and thus increases the risk of recidivism.

Any argument,” Slagle wrote, “that Ohio’s (Adam Walsh Act) is simply a remedial law designed to protect children and the public from sexual abuse and sex crimes is seriously flawed. Ohio’s AWA is not based on empirical evidence or proven research, but on fear and misinformation.”

The Ohio law was similar to New Hampshire’s.

Chris Dornin
P.O. Box 3492

RI - Bill would make businesses rethink hiring sex offenders

Paper and morning coffee
Original Article


By John Mitchell

The Rhode Island General Assembly passed a bill Friday that would fine certain businesses for knowingly hiring a child sex offender.

Target 12 broke the story that prompted action, and now, a new state law is in place to protect children from sexual predators. In the final days of the legislative session, the Alliance for Safe Communities was closely watching its bill about child safe zones.

This all stemmed from Tim White’s investigation with the incident at Hasbro Children’s Hospital,” said Executive Director of the Alliance for Safe Communities Carolyn Medeiros, “where a level two registered sex offender was found employed there, knowingly,” by the hospital.

The Target 12 Investigators found _____ working as an electrician at Rhode Island Hospital and Hasbro Children’s Hospital. The convicted sex offender was labeled as having a ‘moderate risk to re-offend’ by the sex offender board of review. After the story aired, Hasbro Children’s Hospital reported that _____’s employment was terminated.

Under the new law, employers of safe zones will be fined if they knowingly hire a sex offender — including third party contractors — where the victim was a minor. Fines and possible jail time will be handed down to such sex offenders who apply for work at a designated safe zone, including health care facilities intended primarily for minors. The law is not retro-active, so while it was inspired by what happened at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, the penalties do not apply to that case.

We looked at nationwide what was happening,” said Carolyn. “There are 20 other states with similar legislation in place, so this is about Rhode Island catching up.”

There is also an immunity clause, so an employer cannot be sued for not hiring a sex offender under these guidelines.