Chelsea King's parents pushing "Chelsea's Law" nationwide: What you need to know

Chelsea King's parents: bringing bad laws to a state
near you!

It should go without saying that the Chelsea King murder was one of the largest high profile kidnapping – murder case in recent memory. We also know that when a pretty, young, white girl is the victim of one of these rare tragic crimes, it has become commonplace to bastardize this person's memory by naming a bad piece of legislation in her "honor". It is also a good way to make money in the ever-growing victim industry.

Not content with passing a bad law in their own state, the King family is pushing Chelsea's Law nationwide. Texas, Illinois, Utah, Ohio, and Massachusetts are the first states to be targeted. Since many of these states have very active groups of sex offender reform activists, I thought I would take a moment to review Chelsea's Law.

RSOL has already published an analysis of Chelsea's law, but I felt it was incomplete because it only addressed the mandatory minimums provision (it is still a good read so I suggest you read it). According to the Chelsea's Law official website, there are seven key elements of the law has passed in California. This means some of the elements may be altered when it appears in your state. Still, it is a good idea to review the seven points so that they may be addressed when the time comes.

(1) "A new one-strike life without parole penalty for those sexual predators who commit the most heinous violent sex crimes against a child, as well as increases in other penalties for sex crimes committed against minors by use of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear." 

Mandatory minimums take away discretion in relatively minor/petty cases. The primary concern I have is that the language we choose the use in discussing sex crimes does not differentiate between serious offenders and petty offenders. For example, if a 17-year-old and a 13-year-old had consensual sexual relations with each other ( a "Romeo and Juliet" Offense, or R&J), the legal language we use to describe this would be "sexual assault" or "child molestation". Thus, it is considered a "violent" act. While the RSOL article points out that only eight individuals in two years have fallen under the mandatory minimum provision for Chelsea's law, it is only a matter of time before a relatively petty offender gets a life sentence under this law, if it has not happened already. In addition, the law also increases penalties for a large variety of offenses, which of course fails to take into account mitigating circumstances. As we have already seen with Megan's law, the net will be cast wider with each passing year and legislative session.

(2) "Increases in parole periods with active GPS monitoring for those convicted of felony sex crimes involving physical contact with children, as well as a new prohibition against loitering in parks where children congregate for parolees convicted of most sex offenses against children."

In recent years, GPS has been promoted as some kind of quick fix solution, but instead it has become a costly and ineffective method of monitoring registrants. In addition to a number of false alarms, those determined to reoffend can do so while wearing a GPS or simply cutting it off. Since most registrants are unemployed and cannot afford the $10-$20 a day cost of GPS, it is up to the taxpayers to pay for GPS. Let's not forget the language argument from earlier; the term "children" can mean anybody up to age 17. Thus, a 20-year-old having consensual relations with a 17-year-old in a state with only a two-year age allotment would be eligible for GPS monitoring.

Perhaps an even greater concern is the so-called prohibition against "loitering in parks where children congregate". In addition to violating the constitutional right to travel and associate with others in public places, anti-loitering laws are subject to abuses. The term loitering means being in any place with no particular reason to be there. I am sure some states will interpret this to imply that sex offenders cannot enter parts at all. The term loitering means that the police would have to prove, at least in theory, that a person cannot have a legitimate reason to be at a particular place that particular time. But there are a number of things a person can do to be legally at a place. After all, people go to a park to walk their dogs, exercise, eat their lunches, or just sit on the bench and stare at the sky or watch the other people going by. These are all legitimate reasons to be at a park.

In the late 1990s, the city of Cincinnati made a similar proposal where drug offenders could not enter a particular community, which was struck down in higher courts because it was not narrowly tailored and criminalized a number of activities that are otherwise legal to do. [Johnson et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.), cert. denied, US Supreme Court case no. 02-1452]

(3) Implementation of the “containment model” approach to sex offender management proposed by California’s Sex Offender Management Board, including increased oversight, psychological evaluations, and polygraph testing for all sex offenders on parole or probation."

Every time I hear the term containment model, my first thought is the containment unit used by the Ghostbusters. Since we are on the subject of science fiction, let's talk about polygraph testing. The polygraph was invented by the same guy who created the Wonder Woman character and her infamous "Lasso of Truth". The polygraph is not an actual lie detector; it merely detects changes in bodily functions such as heart rate. It is still up to the polygrapher to interpret these bodily changes. The polygraph relies on deception, and the polygraph is inadmissible in a court of law. But we all know that sex offenders are always the exclusion to the law, so Chelsea's Law promotes this junk science as part of the containment model.

The containment model has recently come under fire in Colorado as ineffective and expensive.

The containment model should not be confused with the treatment model, because the containment model does not offer actual treatment for the offender; it is nothing more than an overpriced monitoring system where treatment of the offender is not a priority.

(4) "Implementation of a Dynamic Risk assessment model to improve evaluation of sex offender’s potential for new sexual violence."

The reason I did not spend much time discussing psychological evaluations until now is because this point merely repeats part three. It is true that most actuarial tests like the Static-99 rely primarily if not exclusively on static (i.e., unchanging) factors such as age of offense or characteristics of the victim. A small number of tests, including a revision of the Static-99, are attempting to point out dynamic (life-changing) factors for recidivism. 

Unfortunately, researchers are ignoring a huge dynamic factor. The stress of living under the myriad of sex offender laws, including many of the provisions included in Chelsea's Law, are primary factors in sex offender recidivism. I am willing to bet that those factors are not added to any actuarial test. However, they are serious factors that must be addressed. Those forced to register experience a number of acts of discrimination, ostracism, and even vigilante violence. There are a number of laws that push registrants into a degraded class. That is one dynamic factor that the state can change by repealing most punitive sex offender legislation.

(5) "Authorization for various upgrades to the Megan’s Law website so as to include more useful and informative data to law enforcement and the public on the actual risk of sex offenders in our communities."

I can't imagine what more you could possibly add to the public registry to make it more understandable to the ignorant public. The public has already proven itself unable to differentiate between a drunken mooner, a Romeo and Juliet offender, and a multiple rapist. It does not help that legal definitions like molestation or violence can equally apply to consensual acts between two people close in age but not close enough by legal standards. Since many states do not have statutory definitions, what we would consider a statutory offense is simply called rape or sexual assault.

Even in the early days of the registry, studies were already finding that community notification meetings actually serve to heighten public fear rather than appease it. In one Wisconsin survey, where community notification meetings are held consistently in the community, two thirds of respondents left a meetings more concerned for their safety and before. The public simply cannot digest the truth. The registry was never intended to be public in the first place, so if we are to insist on having a registry, it should return to its original purpose, a private list for law-enforcement only.

(6) "Funding for victims’ services and outreach, as well as resource-development for SAFE (Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement) teams in rural, regional areas."

Since most of the money would goes toward law enforcement in big-name victim industry advocates (like the Kings), the actual victim services can forget about collecting a big payday for their cause. Unfortunately the few organizations that collect a large amount of funding will abuse this privilege by wasting it on maintaining states a perpetual victimhood rather than healing for those who are actually victimized.

What is it with all these acronyms? The real purpose of this so-called "SAFE" team is to further harassment ostracize offenders by constantly verifying their address unnecessarily. Millions of dollars are being wasted to have over a dozen law enforcement agencies, state, local, and federal authorities, knocking on doors just to get some guy to sign a sheet of paper. 

(7) "Changes in the state MDO (Mentally Disordered Offender) evaluation process to ensure that offenders deemed by at least two psychologists to be too dangerous to be released are properly detained."

This provision sounds sensible at first, until you consider there are few individuals in this country that have any degree of certification to evaluate those convicted of sexual offenses.The Kansas v. Hendricks 1997 SCOTUS decision greatly lowered the standards and the burden of proof by which one could be considered a "sexually violent predator" (SVP) and a prime candidate for civil commitment. The whole issue of civil commitment in general has been very controversial, especially in Minnesota, where not one individual has been released as a graduate of the MN-MSOP. We have a tendency to err on the side of caution, and in doing so we cast too broad of a net. 

You can be sure that I will take this fight to the Ohio State legislation, and if it passes, I will be fighting it in court. Named laws are terrible laws because they bypass any ounce of reason or evidence of effectiveness. As far as I am concerned, the Kings can pack up their silly law and take it back to the state of California where it belongs. Actually, the state of California needs to grow a brain and repeal this law. This law has been a waste of resources already, and it is time that we stop the trend of naming laws after rare high-profile cases to justify blanket provisions that destroy the constitutional rights and opportunities for redemption for a large number of individuals that had nothing to do with Chelsea's murder.

More corrupt than the BCS: Parents for Megan's Law and the “victim industry”

More corrupt than the BCS: Parents for Megan's Law and the “victim industry”

                In the popular book “Death to the BCS,” the authors contend that Division 1-A college football bowl games exploit many legal loopholes to make massive profits. Unless your football fanaticism goes far beyond the actual game, you may not even be aware that the “Bowl games” are actually considered nonprofit organizations. Obviously, when we think nonprofits, we may think of the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or perhaps your local food bank and soup kitchens. Who would have guessed our federal government had given one of the most corrupt systems in our culture nonprofit status?

                In chapter 6 of “Death to the BCS”, the authors reveal the compensation for the CEO of a number of bowl games. For example, the CEO of the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (formerly the Emerald Bowl) made $377,475 in salary, about 11.2% of the expenditures for running the game. A political action committee known as the “PlayoffPAC”, whose investigation helped spur government intervention, found the average CEO pay for nonprofit organizations with budgets between $10 million-$25 million was $185,270. Yet the Sugar Bowl CEO was paid $451,674 in 2007, and received a 42.9% raise two years later. The Outback bowl CEO made even more, nearly 4 ½ times the average.

                These numbers are important because the impact of these high salaries ultimately impact tuition rates at universities. Despite the alleged payouts of the bowl games (between $300,000 and $17 million depending on the game), most universities barely break even on their athletic budgets, and of course the losses are compensated by raising tuition. In the end, whether or not you are a football fan, you are paying the price for this corrupt system. There are few organizations more despised in our culture than the BCS, which has an approval rating of less than 10%, far worse than even President Bush at his worst.

                However, there are organizations in existence that make the BCS fatcats look like street-corner peddlers by comparison.

                Victim industry advocates know they have found the proverbial goose Lane the golden eggs. With so much focus on sexual abuse and the sex offender registry and our media, a number of entrepreneurs have found a way to turn this fear into profits. It has become a lucrative industry, with a number of organizations making substantial profits while offering little in return. Just as with the BCS system, a small number of people are making huge profits.

                For the sake of simplicity, my focus will be on a single organization as my example – the controversial New York-based “Parents For Megan's Law”, run by Laura Ahern.

                In PFML’s 2007 tax records, the group describes its organization this way:

                “PFML is dedicated to the prevention of childhood sexual abuse through the provision of educational advocacy policy and legislative support services. PFML maintains a website where information can be found on Meagans Law [sic] nationwide, childhood sexual abuse prevention and links to other resources for advocacy and prevention information.”

                So how much does an organization whose primary function is running a website that consists of a few resources and referrals to other advocacy groups need to stay afloat? Apparently a lot -- In 2007, $1.1 million, with just under $880,000 coming from government contributions (your tax dollars at work), in 2009, $1.15 Million, and in 2011, $1.07 million, all to fund an organization with roughly 20 members, most of them volunteers.

                As executive former director of PFML, Laura Ahern collects $120,000 per year, about 11.2% of the organization's total budget (comparable to the CEO of the “Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl” in terms of percentage of expenses going to a single salary), and that is before other perks that typically go with such a job. Compare that salary to a far larger organization with a larger worker base, the New Orleans area Habitat for Humanity, who spearheaded construction for people displaced by Hurricane Katrina; in 2009, the Executive Director of that organization was paid $97,500. It is interesting to note that Ahern is the only listed employee in the tax forms with a salary. In addition, $170,000 was listed as “compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees” with another $575,000 for “other salaries and wages.” That is roughly 81% of the budget going into employee salaries and compensation alone. Only about $205,000, or 19% of the budget, goes into the logistics of running the organization (they aren't the only culprits: Mark Lunsford's defunct JMLF gave nearly al proceeds to Lunsford himself, while the NCMEC spends roughlt the same amount on operating costs, including lobbying for the Adam Walsh Act, while Ernie Allen makes nearly roughly $1 million in salary and benefits).

                Also of interest, considering the condition of the PFML website, with its many errors and myths, and its simple format, I find it hard to believe the organization spends roughly $10,000 a year to keep such a poorly devised website up and running.

                These numbers are especially troublesome considering that the vast majority of income for this organization comes in the form of government grants. It will be interesting to see how much the salary increase Ahern will give herself once she receives the $1.1 million per year fee to be assessed to the people of Suffolk County, NY, for the purpose of “monitoring” the homeless registrants currently being shuffled from shelter to shelter.

                While the BCS system is corrupt and exploited by a small number of corporate fatcats, at least some small argument can be made that bowl games have benefited the communities through tourism and at least job creation on a temporary level. With PFML, you see similar big payouts to a CEO, with compensation going to a far smaller number of individuals, and virtually no benefit to the community by way of job creation and tourism.

                Like advocates for the BCS system (who claim a playoff would “kill tradition and stifle the economy), people who are made rich by the victim industry, like Ahern, have fed us a healthy diet of lies and distortions of the facts in order to protect their livelihoods. In 2002, PFML released impromptu findings of an alleged survey of the state registries, which has given us the prevailing myth of “100,000 missing sex offenders”. This myth has been prevailing in the media, even in the face of research thoroughly dispelling the myth. To this day, PFML has yet to publish the methodology and data to justify the assertions of their “research”. In addition, PFML gives each state a “report card” of their states registries. Of interest is PFML’s insistence the state of Florida's registry is the gold standard for Megan’s list. Of course, Florida has padded their stats with thousands of dead, incarcerated, deported, and out-of-state registrants. Like the previous study, there is little information given to help determine how they came to these conclusions.

                This is the most famous of PFML’s myths, but their website is full of lies, deceptions, and distortions of the facts (such as the “sex offenders have hundreds of victims” myth). In 2008, I critiqued a number of victim industry advocate sites, and came to the conclusion that PFML offer decent prevention tips, but was clouded by a large number of sex offender myths and reliance on fear mongering tactics.

Ahern and PFML is only one of a huge number of victim industry advocates out there. Many of the smaller organizations ultimately benefit only the few people at the center of the group. Having a six figure salary in an economy where benefits are going down, unemployment is going up, and the government is looking for ways to trim expenses even in previously untouchable areas is no small feat. Ask yourself how an organization consisting of roughly 20 employees can possess a million dollar budget and a CEO with a six-figure income, putting her in the upper echelon of American earners.

The authors of “Death to the BCS” liken the bowl fat cats to “drug cartels”. If we can make such comparisons to individuals profiteering from a corrupt sports game schematic, then what can we say about an organization whose existence is justified by exploiting the fear of sex crimes in our culture? At the least, we can state that groups like PFML are more corrupt than the BCS.

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk

The third of my Examiner.com articles.

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk


Derek Logue
Cincinnati Crime Examiner

Privatization is the latest craze in government. In recent years, a number of government services have been targeted for privatization, including social security, medicare, and prisons. Privatization has many negative connotations associated with the practice, and as a result, controversy and opposition is not in short supply.

In recent months, the Louisiana-based "Watch Systems/ Offender Watch" business is privatizing the sex offender registry. Hundreds of Sheriff's offices and a handful of states have switched over to Offender Watch. The motivation for privatization is simple-- money. Supposedly, contracting business to the public sector saves a few taxpayer dollars. 

Is the state of Ohio really saving money by turning over the operation of sex offender data to a private business? I have my doubts. In 2007, when Ohio was debating the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, the legislative fiscal notes indicated the change of the current internet registry (then known as eSORN) would cost $475,000 in one time expenses and $85,000 per year in maintenance. By contrast, under the state of Ohio's current contract with Watch Systems, the state is shelling out $399,000 per year. 

In addition, Offender Watch has caused many problems in its short history. In November 2011, 10tv of Columbus reported that hundreds of people were "mistakenly" added to the public registry by Watch Systems:

 The state had been working to switch the entire registry operation over to a Louisiana company called Watch Systems. 

In early October, the state said the company took control of the search operation of the registry and mistakenly put inaccurate information into the system for all to see, Strickler reported.

The state attorney general's office said the problem was a result of human error. 

"There were probably hundreds, but we don't know exactly because we didn't take the time to go through the records individually," said Steven Raubenolt, Deputy Superintendent of BC&I.

I have my doubts this was "accidental." States compete for registry dollars, and the more people on the registry, the more money goes to the state. After all, this is the reason whyFlorida lists long dead sex offenders on their state registry (and perhaps in case they return from the dead). 

A second controversy has surrounded the misuse of statistics to justify their existence. Offender Watch-run websites have posted a false statistic claiming "50% of sex offenders re-offend." This stat was extrapolated from yet another privately run registry, Family Watchdog, which recently removed the statistic from the website. Some websites have posted the offending stat while others have posted more lower and more accurate stats (CLICK HERE to view the different web pages for comparison). 

One such example of stat inflation was recently reported in Connecticut, where a recent study has confirmed what has been known for mny years-- sexual recidivism is far lower than believed. The Connecticut study found only 2.7% of convicted registered sex offenders repeated their crimes, far lower than the 50% Offender Watch standard. Now, Offender Watch has dropped the 50% stat from many of it's websites. 

The thought of privatizing the registry should scare you, since it is obvious they will public advertise fear to sell their wares. Imagine a corporation investing money in promoting laws making it easier to add you or your loved ones to the public registry. Perhaps we'll see sex offender registry stock on the New York Stock Exchange as we currently see with the private prison companies GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America. Worse, imagine contracts to keep the registry ever at full capacity like the private prison industry. In KATU of Portland's March 2012 article on the debate over expanding the registry, the person representing the side of expansion of the registry is Dan Meister who sells--what else-- background checks to paranoid individuals. 

The current registry is already bloated as a result of ill-conceived legislation, fear, propaganda, and special interest groups. Adding private business aspects to the registry will only serve to exacerbate an already existing problem with an all-encompassing public registry. How many more people are we willing to sacrifice for this false sense of security?

Once Fallen Registry Fees Fact Guide

Just a quick note: Be sure to visit my latest article at OnceFallen regarding sex offender registry fees.

http://www.oncefallen.com/registryfees.html

More privatization of the justice system

Last month, I wrote an article about the privatization of prisons. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Private companies will also be handling GPS monitoring in California, and companies like Offender Watch Systems is taking over public registries in many locations. All this privatization implies lowest bidder, corner cutting, and less oversight. As bad as the government is at targeting those forced onto public registries, corporate/ private business interest is downright scary.

Think about it-- the business has a vested interest in keeping business alive. There is a wealth of information to suggest the registries cause the social ostracism which increases the likelihood of re-offending, so why would a private company concern itself with rehabilitation and effective measures of reducing crime?

On the Offender Watch corporate website, it says, "Together, Appriss and Watch Systems are providing services covering nearly 70,000 sex offenders, about 15 percent of the registered sex offender population in the United States." Actually, it is less than 10%. Business is booming, after all, especially with their systems making the claim they are "Adam Walsh Act compliant."

"Appriss currently notifies residents and businesses when registered sex offenders move into their neighborhoods. Its solutions also locate non- complaint offenders and update at-risk agencies of registered sex offenders in their area via phone, fax, or e-mail. Appriss will now be able to tap into Watch Systems' OffenderWatch® to enhance law enforcement's ability to track offenders' whereabouts." I'm curious how they locate non-compliant registrants. After all they are only a database. They also pimp iris scan technology. I am curious as to how an iris scan will prevent crime. Again, remember OffenderWatch is a business.

Consider this quote from the Houston Chronicle: "'You can easily see how it goes from iris scans for registered sex offenders to iris scans for all felons, to iris scans for everyone who is convicted of a misdemeanor, to iris scans for anyone who is arrested,' said Melissa Ngo, director of EPIC's identification and surveillance project." It reminds me of the registry itself. We are seeing more offenses added to the registry with every legislative session, while new registries from violent offender to dangerous dog registries exist across the US. It makes me wonder what else applied only to sex offenders will expand in due time, given people have been willing to accept intrusions of their rights for the sake of security.

There are a few questions I have. What does Offender Watch mean by "Geographic Risk Assessment?" Studies have already proven where a registrant lives is irrelevant. Why is there no disclaimer against abusing the registry info? What is a "Geo-Address Scrubber?" Sounds like some kind of Swiffer-style cleaner. My favorite is the "Fireworks Safety" PDF-- what does firework safety have to do with sex offenders? Don't shoot fireworks at home; instead, get on the sex offender registry.

I wonder if Watch Systems, LLC will offer stock someday, like GEO Group has. That is a disgusting thought. I'm sure there will also be paid lobbyists designed to keep more low-risk offenders on the registry. The corporate takeover of the Justice system is a very scary thought indeed.