Monday, August 30, 2010
Once Fallen registry poll
There is a little debate regarding whether the registry should be reformed or abolished (or even expanded). I have created a poll to gauge how my readers view the registry, so please take a minute to vote. The poll is to the right, just below the graphic of my book. It only takes a second, so please vote today!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Ride For Their Wallets
UPDATE: The video of the event now available. Scroll down to bottom of article to view!
Looks like Mark Lunsford has cooked up yet another Get Rich Quick Scheme (TM). As a charter member of yet another group, the "Surviving Parents Coalition," Inc., Lunsford is a part of the "Ride For Their Lives," coming to a major city near you. So what is the purpose, exactly? Well it is pretty simple. Read it for yourself:
COMMENT: So let me get this straight. The purpose of "The Ride" is to raise a million bucks or more so Lunsford can have cocktails with Congressmen who already blindly support his legislation? Does it really cost THAT much to hang around in DC for a few days? I only spent $500 for a five day conference in DC back in 1996 when I was in college and that included my airfare and my hotel stay, and a couple of souvenirs. Damn, inflation is something else.
So what are they planning on doing in DC? They were at least kind enough to explain:
Oh great. They support more Big Brother legislation. I wonder if they'll be the first in line to give their DNA to the beast.
Ok. First off, why would Lungsfull lobby for a law ALREADY PASSED AND FUNDED? And where do these crazy stats come from? Do you think Lunsford is aware the law passed yet?
See #2. What the hell has Lunsford been doing all this time? Okay, I'll explain s-l-o-w-l-y in case Lungsfull ever reads this. THE AWA PASSED 4 YEARS AGO, AND BARACK HUSSEIN OSAMA FUNDED THIS STUPID BILL! Again, why waste a million dollars to send someone to lobby a bill already passed and funded? Of course, most states found implementing AWA has been a disaster.
Now see, I have no problems with education and prevention. However, will this education tell kids not to sext or have relations with each other lest they land on the registry? Of course, there have been such programs in place for years, but people do not utilize them.
If that wasn't enough to get you going, check out the "state report cards:"
http://ridefortheirlives.com/State-Report-Cards.html
Ohio is just one of the states they will ride through. Ohio has DNA testing already. Big whoop. They're also AWA compliant. Again, big whoop. Since the Ohio Supreme Court ruled retroactive application of SB 10 (their version of the AWA), I wonder if Ohio is still technically "compliant."
This is where it gets kooky. Their stat page claims Ohio has "100,624 known sex offenders." Wow. They must have something the NCMEC doesn't because the latest stats from the NCMEC show there are just under 20,000 Registered Sex Offenders in Ohio.
The site suggests the Protect Act stats are from the ICAC though there is no study that suggests anything like they are suggesting. However, even with my limited knowledge of the internet, I'm fully aware of the use of viruses to infect PCs with child porn, sometimes even as a set-up. Lunsford should know since a news article had reported it days after his daughter's death. Considering how we let John McCain, a man who admittedly cannot use a computer, much less understand the internet, pass laws restricting the internet. Well crap, that means I could write and pass laws on combatting Nuclear Proliferation.
One activist for the rights of Former Offenders attended the Chicago event. It seems there were only about 30 people who attended, he being one of them. If you want a play by play, you can listen to the play by play on the August 28 "Open Mic Night" on ARC Radio.
The play by play highlights of the Chicago event:
1. Only 6 riders
2. Event lasted 30 minutes
3. Lunsford arrived late, did not ride during rally, appeared drunk
4. No politicians or legislators
As of this writing there is not much media coverage of the events. It looks like squeezing a million bucks from the poor people of this nation is going to be just a little tougher than he thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUsvIkEoy2A#normal
Looks like Mark Lunsford has cooked up yet another Get Rich Quick Scheme (TM). As a charter member of yet another group, the "Surviving Parents Coalition," Inc., Lunsford is a part of the "Ride For Their Lives," coming to a major city near you. So what is the purpose, exactly? Well it is pretty simple. Read it for yourself:
COMMENT: So let me get this straight. The purpose of "The Ride" is to raise a million bucks or more so Lunsford can have cocktails with Congressmen who already blindly support his legislation? Does it really cost THAT much to hang around in DC for a few days? I only spent $500 for a five day conference in DC back in 1996 when I was in college and that included my airfare and my hotel stay, and a couple of souvenirs. Damn, inflation is something else.
So what are they planning on doing in DC? They were at least kind enough to explain:
The four causes being focused on during this ride are:
1. Mandatory DNA testing upon arrest:
Oh great. They support more Big Brother legislation. I wonder if they'll be the first in line to give their DNA to the beast.
2. Protect our children act of 2008
Ok. First off, why would Lungsfull lobby for a law ALREADY PASSED AND FUNDED? And where do these crazy stats come from? Do you think Lunsford is aware the law passed yet?
3. The Adam Walsh Act
See #2. What the hell has Lunsford been doing all this time? Okay, I'll explain s-l-o-w-l-y in case Lungsfull ever reads this. THE AWA PASSED 4 YEARS AGO, AND BARACK HUSSEIN OSAMA FUNDED THIS STUPID BILL! Again, why waste a million dollars to send someone to lobby a bill already passed and funded? Of course, most states found implementing AWA has been a disaster.
4. Child safety initiative
Now see, I have no problems with education and prevention. However, will this education tell kids not to sext or have relations with each other lest they land on the registry? Of course, there have been such programs in place for years, but people do not utilize them.
If that wasn't enough to get you going, check out the "state report cards:"
http://ridefortheirlives.com/State-Report-Cards.html
Ohio is just one of the states they will ride through. Ohio has DNA testing already. Big whoop. They're also AWA compliant. Again, big whoop. Since the Ohio Supreme Court ruled retroactive application of SB 10 (their version of the AWA), I wonder if Ohio is still technically "compliant."
This is where it gets kooky. Their stat page claims Ohio has "100,624 known sex offenders." Wow. They must have something the NCMEC doesn't because the latest stats from the NCMEC show there are just under 20,000 Registered Sex Offenders in Ohio.
The site suggests the Protect Act stats are from the ICAC though there is no study that suggests anything like they are suggesting. However, even with my limited knowledge of the internet, I'm fully aware of the use of viruses to infect PCs with child porn, sometimes even as a set-up. Lunsford should know since a news article had reported it days after his daughter's death. Considering how we let John McCain, a man who admittedly cannot use a computer, much less understand the internet, pass laws restricting the internet. Well crap, that means I could write and pass laws on combatting Nuclear Proliferation.
One activist for the rights of Former Offenders attended the Chicago event. It seems there were only about 30 people who attended, he being one of them. If you want a play by play, you can listen to the play by play on the August 28 "Open Mic Night" on ARC Radio.
The play by play highlights of the Chicago event:
1. Only 6 riders
2. Event lasted 30 minutes
3. Lunsford arrived late, did not ride during rally, appeared drunk
4. No politicians or legislators
As of this writing there is not much media coverage of the events. It looks like squeezing a million bucks from the poor people of this nation is going to be just a little tougher than he thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUsvIkEoy2A#normal
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Spending more on corrections than education
Americans are spending more on incarceration than education. I'm not surprised to hear it, but I did not think about it until I moved to Alabama to be with my (now EX-) fiancee.
She has a child enrolled in public school. It seemed like every day, there were notes from the school asking for money. Hat day fund, one dollar. Pizza day, three dollars. Buy a school T-Shirt (a "requirement" I'm told, $10), a CD "yearbook" costs $10 (that anyone with a CD, a label making copying machine, and Microsoft picture slideshow maker could make). And I'm not even counting those "required" supplies on that list that we were forced to buy to "share with everyone" (yet when the kid actually NEEDED a pencil from that communal stash of school supplies they were nowhere to be found). Nor did I mention the endless barrage of other "fundraiser" activities-- the candy sales, the catalogue order forms, the bookmobile, etc. It was staring to sound like a Mastercard commercial, only without the "priceless" line. Actually it felt more like petty theft mixed in with extortion.
I kid you not, if we bought into every fundraiser, hat day privilege, party, field trip and event, we could have paid enough to send the kid to a private top-notch local academy. This is supposed to be a public school paid for by the insane amount of taxes even the poorest citizens pay, like the sales tax. It makes me wonder exactly what the schools do with all that money, that communal school supply stuff we had to buy the start of the year, and all those donations collected for that "tools for schools charity."
Despite Wal-mart selling pens, paper, and notebooks at pocket-change prices (an in spite of that tax-free holiday), we still found ourselves over school budget.
While our kids' educations are compromised by the constant need for funding, the feds are spending BILLIONS to run public lists of people who committed crimes as far back as the 1950s (or kids as young as age 10), to send US Marshals to knock on doors just to see if they are home, to keep them in mental institutions just to please the public, or to send someone out with a tape measure to ensure that guy on the public list is at least 1 foot outside that residency restriction buffer.
"If it saves one child" apparently is a relative term. After all, our attitude about sexual accountability education is to shield them from it until they have it, then brand them for life. Somehow, we've grown to equate teaching kids about the legal pitfalls is equivalent to condoning a "pedophile" act. How come we do not think that "scared Straight" is the same as teaching kids how to do drive-bys and how to turn powedered cocaine into crack rock? It just seems when we put the letters S, E, and X together to form a word, people become instant paranoid schizophrenics.
But I digress. I've written TWO articles on my website on the money issue in the sex offender field. They've been up there for a while. This is just another example of capitolism gone wild.
She has a child enrolled in public school. It seemed like every day, there were notes from the school asking for money. Hat day fund, one dollar. Pizza day, three dollars. Buy a school T-Shirt (a "requirement" I'm told, $10), a CD "yearbook" costs $10 (that anyone with a CD, a label making copying machine, and Microsoft picture slideshow maker could make). And I'm not even counting those "required" supplies on that list that we were forced to buy to "share with everyone" (yet when the kid actually NEEDED a pencil from that communal stash of school supplies they were nowhere to be found). Nor did I mention the endless barrage of other "fundraiser" activities-- the candy sales, the catalogue order forms, the bookmobile, etc. It was staring to sound like a Mastercard commercial, only without the "priceless" line. Actually it felt more like petty theft mixed in with extortion.
I kid you not, if we bought into every fundraiser, hat day privilege, party, field trip and event, we could have paid enough to send the kid to a private top-notch local academy. This is supposed to be a public school paid for by the insane amount of taxes even the poorest citizens pay, like the sales tax. It makes me wonder exactly what the schools do with all that money, that communal school supply stuff we had to buy the start of the year, and all those donations collected for that "tools for schools charity."
Despite Wal-mart selling pens, paper, and notebooks at pocket-change prices (an in spite of that tax-free holiday), we still found ourselves over school budget.
While our kids' educations are compromised by the constant need for funding, the feds are spending BILLIONS to run public lists of people who committed crimes as far back as the 1950s (or kids as young as age 10), to send US Marshals to knock on doors just to see if they are home, to keep them in mental institutions just to please the public, or to send someone out with a tape measure to ensure that guy on the public list is at least 1 foot outside that residency restriction buffer.
"If it saves one child" apparently is a relative term. After all, our attitude about sexual accountability education is to shield them from it until they have it, then brand them for life. Somehow, we've grown to equate teaching kids about the legal pitfalls is equivalent to condoning a "pedophile" act. How come we do not think that "scared Straight" is the same as teaching kids how to do drive-bys and how to turn powedered cocaine into crack rock? It just seems when we put the letters S, E, and X together to form a word, people become instant paranoid schizophrenics.
But I digress. I've written TWO articles on my website on the money issue in the sex offender field. They've been up there for a while. This is just another example of capitolism gone wild.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Lets Play "The Fear Mongering Game"
We're quite the fearful nation. We're scared of sexual predators, terrorists, and whatever the flavor of the week is on our nightly news. A few months ago I was talking to some fifty-something year old guy about computers and we started talking about the Internet and the first thing he mentioned was "there are sexual predators on the internet." Do you think this guy is worried he'll be targeted by "sexual predators?" No mention of Nigerian scam artists, spammers sending you offers of cheap meds or find "flirty singles" in Timbuktu, cyber-bullies, or the loads of OTHER problems of the internet.
It made me think about all the things blasted in the media lately to scare the crap out of the public.
Let's play "fear mongering" game. I'll start off by listing as many events that was blasted over the airwaves over the years that got people afraid to leave their homes. Lets see how many we can come up with. Remember, these are fears where a few isolated cases created widespread panic or called "epidemics," or REAL epidemics where there was a lot of misinformation and acts of hate committed out of fear:
1. Sex offenders/ stranger danger
2. Terrorists
3. People sending powdered poison/ Anthrax in the mail
4. Swine/ Pig Flu
5. Bird Flu
6. SARS
7. Occult Ritualistic Abuse occurring in Day Care centers
8. Pit Bull attacks
9. Meavy metal/ violent movies/ Dungeons and Dragons/ violent video games turning kids into parent killers
10. School shootings
11. HIV
12. Food recalls (they'll recall millions of pounds of a product because it MIGHT have some virus that gives you diarrhea)
That's just for starters. Anyone else remember a good scare lately?
It made me think about all the things blasted in the media lately to scare the crap out of the public.
Let's play "fear mongering" game. I'll start off by listing as many events that was blasted over the airwaves over the years that got people afraid to leave their homes. Lets see how many we can come up with. Remember, these are fears where a few isolated cases created widespread panic or called "epidemics," or REAL epidemics where there was a lot of misinformation and acts of hate committed out of fear:
1. Sex offenders/ stranger danger
2. Terrorists
3. People sending powdered poison/ Anthrax in the mail
4. Swine/ Pig Flu
5. Bird Flu
6. SARS
7. Occult Ritualistic Abuse occurring in Day Care centers
8. Pit Bull attacks
9. Meavy metal/ violent movies/ Dungeons and Dragons/ violent video games turning kids into parent killers
10. School shootings
11. HIV
12. Food recalls (they'll recall millions of pounds of a product because it MIGHT have some virus that gives you diarrhea)
That's just for starters. Anyone else remember a good scare lately?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Pit Bulls, Sex Offenders, and stereotyping
I am not a fan of pit bulls. Personally, I think they are ugly as sin with fat, bloated heads with floppy mouths and slobber (the demon dog from "Turner and Hooch" immediately comes to mind). My fiancee thinks they are adorable. I'm not really a dog person, come to think of it.A few months ago, my fiancee and I were walking around the neighborhood on a lazy Sunday afternoon when this stray dog came up to us and started sniffing us. It looked like a pit bull. I was one of those people who believed the media hype about vicious pit bulls, so I was on guard. The dog was very friendly, however, and followed us like the lost puppy it was. It eventually followed us home, and after some tearful pleas for the dog's life (as shelters routinely euthanize Pit Bulls), my fiancee talked me into letting her keep the stray.
The stray turned out to be a "Rhodesian Ridgeback." They are related to bulldogs such as Bull Mastiffs by breed, so it could be rather easily confused for a Pit Bull. So now I'm the reluctant "co-owner" of an energetic, bone-chewing, poo-and-grass eating, hole digging bag of fleas that is scared of kittens. The dog is far from vicious. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were bred for chasing lions, but this particular dog is more cowardly lion than lion chaser. It reminded me how little I knew about Pit Bulls or dogs in general.
People stereotype everything. If I say a group of anything, such as "pit bulls," we conjure up a particular image. Many people, when asked to imagine a pit bull, will conjure up an image of a vicious dog that kills cats or people, is vicious, and has "locking jaws." I was one of those people. I just accepted news media accounts and my own fear of the dogs as absolute fact. Only when I thought I was on the verge of having to share part of my life with one of those "vicious dogs" did I really research the breed.The first information I found was a website called www.pitbulls.org. There is a wealth of information at that site that breaks down the stereotypes surrounding the breed. The site refers to http://atts.org/, a site that tests various breeds for certain traits that make dogs less-than-ideal pets, like unprovoked aggression, strong avoidance, and panic without recovery. The more dogs than show one of these traits, the lower the score. Below are the numbers of a few select breeds:
American Pit Bull Terriers: 86%
German Shepherd: 84.2%
Collie: 79.7%
Miniature Poodle: 77.9%
Chihuahua: 71.1%
As an aside, my Rhodesian Ridgeback scored a 84.4%. My fiancee's mother owns a chihuahua. She's quite a vicious little nipper, and I've been bitten by the little runt. Which dog is the more dangerous dog? [To see a really good video on the Pit Bull CLICK HERE]
Thanks in part to selective breeding, the Pit Bull is a very people oriented dog. In fact, at one time they were also known as "nanny dogs" because of their people-friendliness. However, it is also thanks to people that Pit Bulls have a very bad reputation. Many people are scared of Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls gained their reputation because they are powerful and tenacious dogs, making them perfect for pit fighting (hence the name). According to the Pitbulls.org site, the current state of Pit Bull Panic stemmed from a 1987 Sports Illustrated article on Pit Bull fighting. The 1987 cover was indeed a very powerful image depicting the dog in the most negative light. It is an image not easily shaken, and fits perfectly the "dangerous Pit Bull" stereotype. Sports Illustrated has admitted their 1987 cover played a major role in the hysteria surrounding Pit Bulls. As an act of penance, Sports Illustrated ran a more recent article following the success stories of the animals rescued from Michael Vick's dog fighting ring.
Destroying stereotypes embedded in our culture is no easy task. A recent article landed on CBS news, entitled "Pitbull Kills 2-Year-Old Boy in California: Recent String of Attacks Renewed Calls for Regulations on Dangerous Breed." The article lists a total of two attacks, on that killed a 2-year-old boy in California, and one that killed an elderly man in Memphis (the dog's owner is a registered sex offender). Apparently it does not take many incidents to declare an epidemic, especially when a child is involved. The article also highlights the city of Worchester, MA, and the typical knee jerk reaction to news stories. The city is looking to pass restrictions on Pit Bull owners, including muzzling the pets and placing warning signs on the properties of owners after dog bite reports. Other cities, like Minneapolis, MN, Seminole Co., FL, and Sarasota Co., FL all have public "dangerous dog" registries, complete with mapping software (Ironically, upon actually viewing these registries, there are a lot of non-Pit Bull type breeds on this list). They look a lot like the public sex offender registries run by the same sheriff's websites. Some cities have outright bans, including Miami, FL, Denver, CO., and Cincinnati, OH (as a former Cincinnatian, I can assure you they do not enforce the ban).These actions are referred to as "Breed Specific Legislation" or BSL.
In a heavily-criticised Miami Herald article on using Pit Bulls as service dogs, Broward County resident Larry Steinhauser states, "I've never seen one that isn't aggressive. I think they're a danger to society."
Pit Bulls are ALL dangerous, cannot be cured, the stereotypes, the inflated "OMG" epidemic statistics, the blanket bans, the targeted legislation, and the public registries, the outcries for more laws to protect our children from these vicious predators.
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
I was in the dark about Pit Bulls until I decided to research the facts. I eventually learned everything I believed about them was a lie. How many people have changed their opinions about American sex offender laws after they were targeted by the very laws they blindly supported? How many have read both of the story? How many have researched the facts?
Education is sorely needed to separate fact from fiction. We are indeed fighting an uphill battle. Many current laws were passed out of fear, loathing, and blind ignorance. It will take tanacity, persistence, and the ability to grasp the truth and never let go. Not all Pit Bulls fit the sterotype. Not all sex offenders fit the stereotype. The best example we can lead is in our own lives. Educate one person at a time. Live your live above the stereotype and do not believe the hype.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The greatest "enemy" in our fight -- APATHY
Who is the greatest "enemy" in the fight against these crazy sex offender laws? Pandering Politicians pimping the nlatest ill-conceived laws? Celebrity advocates like John Walsh? Camera-hogging media news analysts? Self-made vigilantes and vigilante groups like Perverted Justice? No.
The greatest "enemy" in our fight is APATHY.
The old adage "we are our own worst enemies" rings very true in this fight. I have been involved in this fight for about seven years, and www.oncefallen.com has been up for years, and in this time, I have received many emails from people seemingly desperate for help, get their answers, thank me, and disappear. I feel a lot alike I'm in that movie "300." I am one of just a handful of people, many of whom have been in this fight for years. We fight for a "nation" of 700,000 people plus their families, every one of them threatened by a larger army backed by tough laws and blind support. Our resources are few, our warriors are fewer. Much like in the movie, this small band of warriors are fighting for the sake of their homes, while the rest sit back and watch us fight to the death.
I can understand the concerns of those affected by these laws. I fear for my safety. I worry how this will impact my fiancee's life. I worry how each high profile case in the media will ultimately impact my personal life. However, it is exactly for these reasons I have decided to fight.
Unlike the soldiers in "300," I am not wanting to die fighting. I'm not trying to be a martyr to the cause. My desire is to live. However, I cannot live my life under this fear for the rest of my life, because living this life the way I'm forced to live is not truly "living" at all. I fight for myself, yet, by fighting for others, I achieve not only great things for them, I achieve great things for myself as well. We all want to live. If we all want to live, we should all want to fight.
If you think you won't be targeted because you obey every law and submit to every whim of the people, you're sadly mistaken. For two years following my release, I kept to myself. I battled umemployment and homelessness until I found a minimum wage job and a sleeping room in the "hood." It was not what I wanted but it was life and I made the most of it. I started making small contributions where I could to society, donating money and supplies to those less fortunate. Two years later, the state reclassified me arbitrarily, and determined I now lived too close to a GED school (a place pre-approved by the sheriff's office). I lost my job and my girlfriend, and eventually my tiny sleeping room. After I moved to another place meeting the residency law requirements, the city I lived in decided they were going to pass an ordinance increasing residency restrictions. I had enough.
It can happen just as easily to every one of you.
Over the past few years, federal, state, and local officials have targeted registrants on a regular basis. Below are just a few of the ways sex offenders have been targeted over the years (some may or may not apply to you today, but it is only a matter of time):
This is not about promoting websites, selling books, or collecting donations. This is about taking a stand and fighting back. This small group, this "300" has done great things-- awareness has been raised, laws have been defeated, and hope has been brought to thousands impacted by these laws. To paraphrase the movie, If we could achieve so many things with "300" Spartans, imagine what an army of "10,000" Spartans can do!
Don't sit still thinking someone else is going to fight for you. Chances are, the person you are waiting for is likely doing the same.
ADDENDUM: Let me just reiterate one thing. Fear is indeed a strong reason not to fight, but I see apathy as being as great, if not greater, than fear. There is an old adage about 20% of the people doing 80% of the work. We have LESS than 20% in this movement. Based on what I have seen, very small numbers are willing to do tasks like sign an online petition, post on a message board, or participate in online groups and forums. I'm not surprised to see the same screen names when I post a comment in Boston, Portland, or Houston. I'd like to see them flooded with new faces speaking out.
On my front page are a few suggestions on how to get active: http://www.oncefallen.com/
The greatest "enemy" in our fight is APATHY.
The old adage "we are our own worst enemies" rings very true in this fight. I have been involved in this fight for about seven years, and www.oncefallen.com has been up for years, and in this time, I have received many emails from people seemingly desperate for help, get their answers, thank me, and disappear. I feel a lot alike I'm in that movie "300." I am one of just a handful of people, many of whom have been in this fight for years. We fight for a "nation" of 700,000 people plus their families, every one of them threatened by a larger army backed by tough laws and blind support. Our resources are few, our warriors are fewer. Much like in the movie, this small band of warriors are fighting for the sake of their homes, while the rest sit back and watch us fight to the death.
I can understand the concerns of those affected by these laws. I fear for my safety. I worry how this will impact my fiancee's life. I worry how each high profile case in the media will ultimately impact my personal life. However, it is exactly for these reasons I have decided to fight.
Unlike the soldiers in "300," I am not wanting to die fighting. I'm not trying to be a martyr to the cause. My desire is to live. However, I cannot live my life under this fear for the rest of my life, because living this life the way I'm forced to live is not truly "living" at all. I fight for myself, yet, by fighting for others, I achieve not only great things for them, I achieve great things for myself as well. We all want to live. If we all want to live, we should all want to fight.
If you think you won't be targeted because you obey every law and submit to every whim of the people, you're sadly mistaken. For two years following my release, I kept to myself. I battled umemployment and homelessness until I found a minimum wage job and a sleeping room in the "hood." It was not what I wanted but it was life and I made the most of it. I started making small contributions where I could to society, donating money and supplies to those less fortunate. Two years later, the state reclassified me arbitrarily, and determined I now lived too close to a GED school (a place pre-approved by the sheriff's office). I lost my job and my girlfriend, and eventually my tiny sleeping room. After I moved to another place meeting the residency law requirements, the city I lived in decided they were going to pass an ordinance increasing residency restrictions. I had enough.
It can happen just as easily to every one of you.
Over the past few years, federal, state, and local officials have targeted registrants on a regular basis. Below are just a few of the ways sex offenders have been targeted over the years (some may or may not apply to you today, but it is only a matter of time):
- Public Registries
- Community notification
- Residency restrictions
- Anti-loitering laws/ complete bans from certain places like parks, amusement parks, playgrounds, school functions, certain eating establishments, churches
- Civil commitment laws
- Mandatory minimum sentences and registration time increases
- Barred from getting certain jobs/ cannot work too close to restricted areas
- Barred from living around other sex offenders (anti-clustering laws)
- Barred from living in a household with minors present
- Barred from many internet sites like MySpace or Facebook for any reason, or from the internet altogether
- Fees for registering
- Cannot wear costumes/ masks/ give out Halloween candy
- Cannot obtain emergency shelter during hurricanes/ blizzards/ other inclement weather
- Scarlet letter license plates
- Scarlet letter ID cards
- Random "compliance checks" by the police working with US Marshals, then threaten you under duress to agree to warrantless searches
- Barred from Section 8 Housing
- Proposed: barred from obtaining small business loans
- Proposed: Denied Unemployment Benefits
- Proposed: Denied Federal Housing Authority Loans (FHA)
- Chemical castration, polygraphs, "peter readers" (plethysmographs) and other witch-doctor science
- Periodic changes to any of the aforementioned laws
- Assumption of guilt in all your actions
- Constant threat of vigilantism; vigilante attacks are rarely severely punished
- Promotion of fear and loathing makes you more likely to face discrimination based upon status alone
This is not about promoting websites, selling books, or collecting donations. This is about taking a stand and fighting back. This small group, this "300" has done great things-- awareness has been raised, laws have been defeated, and hope has been brought to thousands impacted by these laws. To paraphrase the movie, If we could achieve so many things with "300" Spartans, imagine what an army of "10,000" Spartans can do!
Don't sit still thinking someone else is going to fight for you. Chances are, the person you are waiting for is likely doing the same.
ADDENDUM: Let me just reiterate one thing. Fear is indeed a strong reason not to fight, but I see apathy as being as great, if not greater, than fear. There is an old adage about 20% of the people doing 80% of the work. We have LESS than 20% in this movement. Based on what I have seen, very small numbers are willing to do tasks like sign an online petition, post on a message board, or participate in online groups and forums. I'm not surprised to see the same screen names when I post a comment in Boston, Portland, or Houston. I'd like to see them flooded with new faces speaking out.
On my front page are a few suggestions on how to get active: http://www.oncefallen.com/
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Mid-year report 2010
I find it hard to believe the year is almost half over! The primaries are finished, with two candidates relying on sex offenders for votes getting the boot.
I may not have accomplished much in 2010 so far, but I have done a few things:
1. Made an appearance on CNN and the Allen Hunt show,
2. Started ReFORM Alabama, a site specifically on Alabama sex offender issues,
3. Fought the three laws specifically targeting Alabama registrants,
4. Began major revisions to Once Fallen, with the revised version due out later this year and this time in PRINT format, and
5. Was interviewed by a film crew for a documentary out later this year.
It sounds like a lot, but it really was not much. More can always be done. We are finally at a point where we are taken seriously by mass media, and I encourage you to spread the word. Word of mouth is still the best way to spread the word. Support websites like Once Fallen, Texas Voices, the various state affiliate sites, and SOSEN, both in terms of time and money. The more helpers, the more that gets accomplished. Simple as that!
I may not have accomplished much in 2010 so far, but I have done a few things:
1. Made an appearance on CNN and the Allen Hunt show,
2. Started ReFORM Alabama, a site specifically on Alabama sex offender issues,
3. Fought the three laws specifically targeting Alabama registrants,
4. Began major revisions to Once Fallen, with the revised version due out later this year and this time in PRINT format, and
5. Was interviewed by a film crew for a documentary out later this year.
It sounds like a lot, but it really was not much. More can always be done. We are finally at a point where we are taken seriously by mass media, and I encourage you to spread the word. Word of mouth is still the best way to spread the word. Support websites like Once Fallen, Texas Voices, the various state affiliate sites, and SOSEN, both in terms of time and money. The more helpers, the more that gets accomplished. Simple as that!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
If It Saves One Child: The Trading of Freedom for Security
This article was added to the front page of www.sosen.org. Think about how far these laws are going as we are trading freedom for a false sense of security.
When Patty Wetterling first lobbied for a sex offender registry in 1990, she was met with resistance because people knew these laws violated the civil rights of those who served their sentences. Twenty years later, the pendulum has swung completely; the public feels we cannot pass enough laws against people convicted of sex crimes . And despite a decline in sex crime cases since 1993 (before the passage of modern sex offender laws) , our culture fears the sex offender more than any other criminal in our culture.
Over the past two decades, a definitive pattern has repeated itself in our culture and media which has led to our current state of “Predator Panic.” Mass media offers round-the-clock coverage of a tragic rape-murder, almost always of a white female child . Through the victim’s family or through legislators, a new bill is introduced or an existing law is expanded. Most, if not all, sex offender laws pass without dissenting votes or even debating the laws in question ; facts and studies about the true nature of sexual abuse are ignored in favor of harsher post-conviction sex offender laws. These laws are justified by such myths as “sex offenders are highly likely to re-offend” and “all sex offenders are ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles’” coupled with the generalization all sex crimes are similar to the high-profile sensationalized cases used to justify the passage of these laws .
Law professor and author Eric S. Janus warns us sex offender laws are a “harbinger of a preventive state” and re-introduce the concept of a “degraded status” that was largely abolished during the civil rights era . One recent case in Ohio illustrates Janus’s point perfectly. In the decision to retroactively apply registration duties under the Adam Walsh Act, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals stated:
“By their voluntary acts, sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens. Their conviction of felony offenses puts them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them .”
One of the primary features of this trend has been the exclusiveness of sanctions specifically targeting those on the sex offender registries. The shift towards this degraded status began with the creating of the first registry under the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, followed by community notification, residency restrictions, GPS monitoring, and other laws . In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the public registry, stating the laws were “regulatory” and not “punitive,” meaning Constitutional safeguards do not apply to the public registry . Since that decision, the US Supreme Court has only made one single ruling against any sex offender laws; the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision ruled 5-4 against the use of the death penalty in child sex crime cases where the victim did not die .
Having “no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments” against sex offenders has resulted in the erosion of civil rights that could potentially expand to other crimes and eventually a “risk-alone society.” In 2004, the same arguments to justify sex offender registries were used to attempt to pass a Maryland bill that would have made a public AIDS registry. It was argued AIDS patients were “bad people,” many of them “brought it upon themselves,” they are “high-risk people,” and it is a “public safety” issue. While that law was struck down (for now), other registries began popping up in different locations, from violent offenses to DUI registries. A few places even have “dangerous/ vicious dog” registries with Fido’s picture, street address, and a map showing where they live. The United Kingdom already allows people deemed “dangerous” but have never been charged with a sex crime to be listed on their sex offender registries. The United States has not passed a similar law yet, though the state of Ohio passed a “civil registry,” which forces people not convicted in criminal courts to register and abide by all other sex offender laws through a civil court (and a lesser burden of proof) .
A recent poll revealed 51% of American citizens would gladly give up personal freedoms for laws that make them feel more secure . Slowly we allowed personal rights and freedoms to erode in exchange for a false sense of security. Columnist Naomi Wolf described 10 steps of fascism in writing about the Bush administration; current sex offender legislation follows her pattern as easily as the war on terror:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: It is obvious sex offenders are the most vilified members of our culture. In a recent billboard campaign asking “what’s forgivable” in our society, the general consensus was sex offenders are unforgivable .
2. Create a gulag: Janus has pointed out the sex offender is America’s degraded class complete with a separate set of legal rules registrants must follow . Laws regularly dictate where a person and live, work, or even worship. Few legislators are willing to speak out against these laws because it is political suicide , and mass media largely fails to acknowledge the negative consequences of these laws.
3. Develop a thug caste: “The feds” were given increased jurisdiction under the Adam Walsh Act, which led to massive round-ups of registrants suspected of failure to meet strict reporting requirements . We’ve justified our laws and actions by claiming registrants are an imminent present threat, despite evidence that proves much of what we know about sex offenders is untrue .
4. Set up an internal surveillance system: Megan’s Law has been in place for over a decade, and was “intended to increase awareness of dangerous sex offenders in the area .” “Big Registry” is big business, as companies are offering iPhone tracking applications , GPS devices and readers , and even microchip implants .
5. Harass Citizen’s Groups: Those who speak out against these laws become targets of individual vigilantes, with the legal system rarely offering sanctions against those who assault registrants. In 2009, a Seattle woman received a mere 90 days for assault with a deadly weapon of a registrant ; outraged citizens had organized and raised money for her $15,000 bail for a woman with a lengthy criminal record . Organizations that sometimes work with police (such as the controversial group “Perverted Justice”) have targeted individuals and groups that speak out against sex offender registries with no repercussions for wholesale harassment of civil rights activists .
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: Civil commitment laws have rebounded in recent years. In 1997, the US Supreme Court ruled a person can be civilly confined under a relatively low standard of “personality disorder .” It has become nothing more than a means of detainment; since 1993, no one has ever graduated from Minnesota’s civil commitment centers .
7. Target Key Individuals: Our fine legislators believe it to be “political suicide” to oppose tough sex crime measures. During a campaign to pass the Adam Walsh Act, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh shamed would-be opponents to his bill by asking them if they were child molesters or had child porn on their computers . No one opposed the bill.
8. Control the press: Mass media rarely offers opposing viewpoints to the sex offender laws. Even in our skeptical society, few question celebrity advocates like John Walsh no matter how often scandal and controversy plague him. John Walsh testified before Congress that our country is “littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children” while claiming hundreds of thousands of kidnapped children every year . Yet the studies conducted in part by Walsh’s own lobbying contradicts him by proving “stereotypical kidnappings” are extremely rare; only 45 were killed or went permanently missing across the country per year . Mass media needs little goading because child abduction stories equal ratings; the media even called the summer months of 2002 the “summer of abduction” because of the amount of media attention based on the issue . For the most part, fueling the fear rather than objective reporting is the key.
9. Dissent equals treason: If you oppose tough-on-crime measures, you are a “hug-a-thug” liberal, or worse, a closet pedophile. Politicians running for office in Omaha Nebraska were the targets of a flier campaign from the local police union claiming they allowed sex offenders to roam the streets; the campaign was retaliation for opposing viewpoints on police pensions . Another site targeted a Wylie, Texas Councilman and the Mayor for “supporting” a registrant .
10. Suspend the rule of law: For years, sex offender laws have been circumvented the Constitution because they were considered “regulatory” rather than “punitive .” The Adam Walsh Act was passed under “Suspension of the Rules” without even enough members of the Senate to hold a quorum. Most of the provisions of the bill were added just minutes before the suspension of the rules vote . Not only did the vast majority of the US Senate failed to vote on the Adam Walsh Act, most of them had not even read the bill! Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applied the rule retroactively using “Interim Rule,” which bypassed APA procedure due to “pressing emergency .”
This issue is not a matter of sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes. In an ideal society, they would be punished and receive treatment for their crimes, but also given a chance to be productive members of society after serving their sentences. Thanks to a perfect storm of moral panic, a society willing to surrender Constitutional safeguards for security, a Big Brother bureaucracy, and a “Big Registry” industry willing to further erode our civil rights, we are no closer to sex crime prevention but closer to an Orwellian “risk-alone” society.
In vetoing a bill that would exclude teens from registering for consensual sex with other teens within four years of each other, Texas Governor Rick Perry stated it was to “protect young victims .” Texas has over 4000 sex offenders listed on the public registry who were convicted as juveniles, many for consensual sex with other teens . How much are we willing to sacrifice to “save one child?”
If it Saves One Child: The Trading of Freedom for SecurityBy Derek W. Logue
Over the past two decades, a definitive pattern has repeated itself in our culture and media which has led to our current state of “Predator Panic.” Mass media offers round-the-clock coverage of a tragic rape-murder, almost always of a white female child . Through the victim’s family or through legislators, a new bill is introduced or an existing law is expanded. Most, if not all, sex offender laws pass without dissenting votes or even debating the laws in question ; facts and studies about the true nature of sexual abuse are ignored in favor of harsher post-conviction sex offender laws. These laws are justified by such myths as “sex offenders are highly likely to re-offend” and “all sex offenders are ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles’” coupled with the generalization all sex crimes are similar to the high-profile sensationalized cases used to justify the passage of these laws .
Law professor and author Eric S. Janus warns us sex offender laws are a “harbinger of a preventive state” and re-introduce the concept of a “degraded status” that was largely abolished during the civil rights era . One recent case in Ohio illustrates Janus’s point perfectly. In the decision to retroactively apply registration duties under the Adam Walsh Act, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals stated:
“By their voluntary acts, sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens. Their conviction of felony offenses puts them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them .”
One of the primary features of this trend has been the exclusiveness of sanctions specifically targeting those on the sex offender registries. The shift towards this degraded status began with the creating of the first registry under the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, followed by community notification, residency restrictions, GPS monitoring, and other laws . In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the public registry, stating the laws were “regulatory” and not “punitive,” meaning Constitutional safeguards do not apply to the public registry . Since that decision, the US Supreme Court has only made one single ruling against any sex offender laws; the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision ruled 5-4 against the use of the death penalty in child sex crime cases where the victim did not die .
Having “no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments” against sex offenders has resulted in the erosion of civil rights that could potentially expand to other crimes and eventually a “risk-alone society.” In 2004, the same arguments to justify sex offender registries were used to attempt to pass a Maryland bill that would have made a public AIDS registry. It was argued AIDS patients were “bad people,” many of them “brought it upon themselves,” they are “high-risk people,” and it is a “public safety” issue. While that law was struck down (for now), other registries began popping up in different locations, from violent offenses to DUI registries. A few places even have “dangerous/ vicious dog” registries with Fido’s picture, street address, and a map showing where they live. The United Kingdom already allows people deemed “dangerous” but have never been charged with a sex crime to be listed on their sex offender registries. The United States has not passed a similar law yet, though the state of Ohio passed a “civil registry,” which forces people not convicted in criminal courts to register and abide by all other sex offender laws through a civil court (and a lesser burden of proof) .
A recent poll revealed 51% of American citizens would gladly give up personal freedoms for laws that make them feel more secure . Slowly we allowed personal rights and freedoms to erode in exchange for a false sense of security. Columnist Naomi Wolf described 10 steps of fascism in writing about the Bush administration; current sex offender legislation follows her pattern as easily as the war on terror:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: It is obvious sex offenders are the most vilified members of our culture. In a recent billboard campaign asking “what’s forgivable” in our society, the general consensus was sex offenders are unforgivable .
2. Create a gulag: Janus has pointed out the sex offender is America’s degraded class complete with a separate set of legal rules registrants must follow . Laws regularly dictate where a person and live, work, or even worship. Few legislators are willing to speak out against these laws because it is political suicide , and mass media largely fails to acknowledge the negative consequences of these laws.
3. Develop a thug caste: “The feds” were given increased jurisdiction under the Adam Walsh Act, which led to massive round-ups of registrants suspected of failure to meet strict reporting requirements . We’ve justified our laws and actions by claiming registrants are an imminent present threat, despite evidence that proves much of what we know about sex offenders is untrue .
4. Set up an internal surveillance system: Megan’s Law has been in place for over a decade, and was “intended to increase awareness of dangerous sex offenders in the area .” “Big Registry” is big business, as companies are offering iPhone tracking applications , GPS devices and readers , and even microchip implants .
5. Harass Citizen’s Groups: Those who speak out against these laws become targets of individual vigilantes, with the legal system rarely offering sanctions against those who assault registrants. In 2009, a Seattle woman received a mere 90 days for assault with a deadly weapon of a registrant ; outraged citizens had organized and raised money for her $15,000 bail for a woman with a lengthy criminal record . Organizations that sometimes work with police (such as the controversial group “Perverted Justice”) have targeted individuals and groups that speak out against sex offender registries with no repercussions for wholesale harassment of civil rights activists .
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: Civil commitment laws have rebounded in recent years. In 1997, the US Supreme Court ruled a person can be civilly confined under a relatively low standard of “personality disorder .” It has become nothing more than a means of detainment; since 1993, no one has ever graduated from Minnesota’s civil commitment centers .
7. Target Key Individuals: Our fine legislators believe it to be “political suicide” to oppose tough sex crime measures. During a campaign to pass the Adam Walsh Act, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh shamed would-be opponents to his bill by asking them if they were child molesters or had child porn on their computers . No one opposed the bill.
8. Control the press: Mass media rarely offers opposing viewpoints to the sex offender laws. Even in our skeptical society, few question celebrity advocates like John Walsh no matter how often scandal and controversy plague him. John Walsh testified before Congress that our country is “littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children” while claiming hundreds of thousands of kidnapped children every year . Yet the studies conducted in part by Walsh’s own lobbying contradicts him by proving “stereotypical kidnappings” are extremely rare; only 45 were killed or went permanently missing across the country per year . Mass media needs little goading because child abduction stories equal ratings; the media even called the summer months of 2002 the “summer of abduction” because of the amount of media attention based on the issue . For the most part, fueling the fear rather than objective reporting is the key.
9. Dissent equals treason: If you oppose tough-on-crime measures, you are a “hug-a-thug” liberal, or worse, a closet pedophile. Politicians running for office in Omaha Nebraska were the targets of a flier campaign from the local police union claiming they allowed sex offenders to roam the streets; the campaign was retaliation for opposing viewpoints on police pensions . Another site targeted a Wylie, Texas Councilman and the Mayor for “supporting” a registrant .
10. Suspend the rule of law: For years, sex offender laws have been circumvented the Constitution because they were considered “regulatory” rather than “punitive .” The Adam Walsh Act was passed under “Suspension of the Rules” without even enough members of the Senate to hold a quorum. Most of the provisions of the bill were added just minutes before the suspension of the rules vote . Not only did the vast majority of the US Senate failed to vote on the Adam Walsh Act, most of them had not even read the bill! Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applied the rule retroactively using “Interim Rule,” which bypassed APA procedure due to “pressing emergency .”
This issue is not a matter of sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes. In an ideal society, they would be punished and receive treatment for their crimes, but also given a chance to be productive members of society after serving their sentences. Thanks to a perfect storm of moral panic, a society willing to surrender Constitutional safeguards for security, a Big Brother bureaucracy, and a “Big Registry” industry willing to further erode our civil rights, we are no closer to sex crime prevention but closer to an Orwellian “risk-alone” society.
In vetoing a bill that would exclude teens from registering for consensual sex with other teens within four years of each other, Texas Governor Rick Perry stated it was to “protect young victims .” Texas has over 4000 sex offenders listed on the public registry who were convicted as juveniles, many for consensual sex with other teens . How much are we willing to sacrifice to “save one child?”
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Letter opposing AL SB 48: Social Networking ban
My letter opposing Alabama Senate Bill 48, which bans registrants from social networking sites, and is broadly interpreted and can include other non-social sites.
Dear Senators Benefield, Smitherman, and Denton,
I am writing to you today in opposition to your proposed Senate Bill 48, the proposed law to ban sex offenders from "social websites."
I am a former sex offender residing in Sheffield, Alabama, and a nationally-known civil rights advocate for the rights of individuals who have completed their sentences. I was granted a partial pardon, restoring my voting rights, from this state in May 2007, a powerful testament to my status as a reformed individual. My primary web address is www.oncefallen .com, but I use certain sites like Twitter and Google Blogspot to showcase my authorship and writings. In addition, I am involved in a national movement to reform well-intentioned but ill-conceived laws, which also utilize forums and sites that could be considered "social networking sites" under your proposed bill.
I am very concerned your bill gives a harsher penalty for simply participating in a social networking site than someone who has actual physical contact with a child. I would also like to point out that many social networking sites ban the access or use of their services by minors, FaceBook allows 13-year-olds, and MySpace 14-year-olds to access such sites, which also allow adults on said sites. Even without age restrictions, there is no way to monitor every internet activity. [See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1156136/Children-exposed-pornography-prostitution-drugs-Twitter.html]
In addition, your bill is not very clear as to what is licit and illicit use. For example, I use Twitter [http://twitter.com/oncefallenbook] as a way to advertise my book and website, as well as keeping my followers up to date on the latest must-read articles, research papers, and site updates. By virtue of the fact that the aforementioned article states Twitter has no explicit age restrictions, this would mean I'd be in violation of this law and be incarcerated for 20 years, with no good time or parole, simply because I have a Twitter account.
In passing this bill, you will be criminalizing legitimate uses for the internet or sites that could be deemed social networking sites. For example, I have posted online responses to articles at the Montgomery Advertiser website. As with many sites, the Montgomery Advertiser has a profile page as a registered member of the site, and you have to be a registered member in order to post comments. And children could theoretically access my Montgomery Advertiser profile. Thus, by exercising my First Amendment right to comment on a public message board, I'd be a Class B felon in this state, and I'd serve more time than if I had touched a child. In addition, places that offer both IM services and email, such as “Yahoo!,” would fall under these laws, as the profiles connected to the service could possibly be accessed by children.
This bill is difficult to enforce, but could be subject to abuses. It only takes a couple of minutes to create a new account. I could even create an account in the name of a Senator if the name is unused by a certain service; as I’ve discovered as a victim of online harassment, my identity can be used by someone else in the commission of a crime. There are also anonymous browsers, web services, and netbooks/ PDAS/ notebook computers to mask illegal activity. What would be next? Will registrants unable to use or possess cell phones or portable computers? On one hand, criminals could easily circumvent the law; on the other hand, reformed registrants using web services for legitimate enterprises could be locked away for years or decades!
Courts have ruled against many restrictions that criminalize normally legal activities [see Johnson et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.), cert. denied, US Supreme Court case no. 02-1452]. In addition, courts have ruled that the mere suspicion that one might engage in illicit activity is not enough to justify punishment [see US v. Cintolo, 818 F. 2d. 980, 1003 (1987), Tot v. US, 319 US 463 (1943), and Robinson v. California, 270 US 660 (1962)].
Studies have shown the fear of "online predators" is grossly exaggerated, and laws directed at "online predators" fail because of our misconceptions regarding online “predators” [Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and Michele L. Ybarra. "Online 'Predators' and their victims." American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2 February-March 2008). Sadly, we’ve based our perceptions of the nature of online solicitation by watching re-runs of “To Catch a Predator;” many of those cases on that show were thrown out in court. Studies have shown most teens solicited online for sex were from their peer group. Also interesting to note is in the study of online solicitation, not one online solicitation resulted in physical contact [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/predator_panic_a_closer_look/].
The vast majority of sex crime arrests are of people not on the sex offender registry, i.e. first time offenders. We’d spend millions of dollars on an expensive law that will do nothing to prevent crime, yet we won’t spend a dime on treatment and prevention programs. We spend millions on long periods of incarceration, denial of parole, and good time, but not a dime to treat the offender to become a productive citizen upon his or her release. We’ll spend millions to incarcerate a teen for “sexting,” but not one dime to educate our youth on sexual responsibility and accountability .
Thus, I implore you to look long and hard at this law and realize it is nothing more than another piece of well-intentioned but poorly designed laws. It is time Alabama learns to do what is RIGHT rather than what is popular. The thought of spending millions to incarcerate people, who simply use the internet to make a living, protest or petition our government, or even keep up with family and loved ones, is simply appalling. In regards to certain sites like Face Book and MySpace, they do not allow registrants to use their services in the first place; however, the potential for abuse of these laws and overextending of the punishments to legitimate purposes of this law is unconstitution al, and likely to be successfully challenged in a court of law.
I am most troubled there is no disclaimer on your state website regarding the abuse of registry information (thus allowing vigilantes to target registrants and family members without recourse), while simultaneously pushing a bill barring registrants from legitimate enterprises. At what point do we, as a society, put a stop to draconian punishments of those who have finished their sentences and stop sliding down the slippery slope of Predator Panic? I hope you do the right thing and repeal support for this terrible law.
Dear Senators Benefield, Smitherman, and Denton,
I am writing to you today in opposition to your proposed Senate Bill 48, the proposed law to ban sex offenders from "social websites."
I am a former sex offender residing in Sheffield, Alabama, and a nationally-known civil rights advocate for the rights of individuals who have completed their sentences. I was granted a partial pardon, restoring my voting rights, from this state in May 2007, a powerful testament to my status as a reformed individual. My primary web address is www.oncefallen .com, but I use certain sites like Twitter and Google Blogspot to showcase my authorship and writings. In addition, I am involved in a national movement to reform well-intentioned but ill-conceived laws, which also utilize forums and sites that could be considered "social networking sites" under your proposed bill.
I am very concerned your bill gives a harsher penalty for simply participating in a social networking site than someone who has actual physical contact with a child. I would also like to point out that many social networking sites ban the access or use of their services by minors, FaceBook allows 13-year-olds, and MySpace 14-year-olds to access such sites, which also allow adults on said sites. Even without age restrictions, there is no way to monitor every internet activity. [See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1156136/Children-exposed-pornography-prostitution-drugs-Twitter.html]
In addition, your bill is not very clear as to what is licit and illicit use. For example, I use Twitter [http://twitter.com/oncefallenbook] as a way to advertise my book and website, as well as keeping my followers up to date on the latest must-read articles, research papers, and site updates. By virtue of the fact that the aforementioned article states Twitter has no explicit age restrictions, this would mean I'd be in violation of this law and be incarcerated for 20 years, with no good time or parole, simply because I have a Twitter account.
In passing this bill, you will be criminalizing legitimate uses for the internet or sites that could be deemed social networking sites. For example, I have posted online responses to articles at the Montgomery Advertiser website. As with many sites, the Montgomery Advertiser has a profile page as a registered member of the site, and you have to be a registered member in order to post comments. And children could theoretically access my Montgomery Advertiser profile. Thus, by exercising my First Amendment right to comment on a public message board, I'd be a Class B felon in this state, and I'd serve more time than if I had touched a child. In addition, places that offer both IM services and email, such as “Yahoo!,” would fall under these laws, as the profiles connected to the service could possibly be accessed by children.
This bill is difficult to enforce, but could be subject to abuses. It only takes a couple of minutes to create a new account. I could even create an account in the name of a Senator if the name is unused by a certain service; as I’ve discovered as a victim of online harassment, my identity can be used by someone else in the commission of a crime. There are also anonymous browsers, web services, and netbooks/ PDAS/ notebook computers to mask illegal activity. What would be next? Will registrants unable to use or possess cell phones or portable computers? On one hand, criminals could easily circumvent the law; on the other hand, reformed registrants using web services for legitimate enterprises could be locked away for years or decades!
Courts have ruled against many restrictions that criminalize normally legal activities [see Johnson et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.), cert. denied, US Supreme Court case no. 02-1452]. In addition, courts have ruled that the mere suspicion that one might engage in illicit activity is not enough to justify punishment [see US v. Cintolo, 818 F. 2d. 980, 1003 (1987), Tot v. US, 319 US 463 (1943), and Robinson v. California, 270 US 660 (1962)].
Studies have shown the fear of "online predators" is grossly exaggerated, and laws directed at "online predators" fail because of our misconceptions regarding online “predators” [Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and Michele L. Ybarra. "Online 'Predators' and their victims." American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2 February-March 2008). Sadly, we’ve based our perceptions of the nature of online solicitation by watching re-runs of “To Catch a Predator;” many of those cases on that show were thrown out in court. Studies have shown most teens solicited online for sex were from their peer group. Also interesting to note is in the study of online solicitation, not one online solicitation resulted in physical contact [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/predator_panic_a_closer_look/].
The vast majority of sex crime arrests are of people not on the sex offender registry, i.e. first time offenders. We’d spend millions of dollars on an expensive law that will do nothing to prevent crime, yet we won’t spend a dime on treatment and prevention programs. We spend millions on long periods of incarceration, denial of parole, and good time, but not a dime to treat the offender to become a productive citizen upon his or her release. We’ll spend millions to incarcerate a teen for “sexting,” but not one dime to educate our youth on sexual responsibility and accountability .
Thus, I implore you to look long and hard at this law and realize it is nothing more than another piece of well-intentioned but poorly designed laws. It is time Alabama learns to do what is RIGHT rather than what is popular. The thought of spending millions to incarcerate people, who simply use the internet to make a living, protest or petition our government, or even keep up with family and loved ones, is simply appalling. In regards to certain sites like Face Book and MySpace, they do not allow registrants to use their services in the first place; however, the potential for abuse of these laws and overextending of the punishments to legitimate purposes of this law is unconstitution al, and likely to be successfully challenged in a court of law.
I am most troubled there is no disclaimer on your state website regarding the abuse of registry information (thus allowing vigilantes to target registrants and family members without recourse), while simultaneously pushing a bill barring registrants from legitimate enterprises. At what point do we, as a society, put a stop to draconian punishments of those who have finished their sentences and stop sliding down the slippery slope of Predator Panic? I hope you do the right thing and repeal support for this terrible law.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Message from a REAL THRIVER
Of all the comments I read from the CNN article on civil commitment on Jan. 12, 2010, none touched me more this comment from someone using the screen name "nowathriver." I'm not against punishment or sex offenders, but I also believe in healing and therapy for both offender and victim to put an end to the cycle of abuse and address the root causes of sexual offending.
I couldn't even hold a candle to this comment.
nowathriver
"No, it's not worse than murder. I recovered from three years of being raped beginning at the age of seven. I am married, happy, educated, and a productive member of society. Your comments suggests that I would be better off dead. I find that insulting. Many people feel that those of us who were once victims can never recover and that is simply not true. While there are some who struggle all of their lives there are many of us who actually are strengthened by what happened to us. I was asked once if I could go back in time would I changed what happened to me. I replied no. It is part of who I am now and I use my experience to help others. Please do not tell a survivor that their living is worse than death. That is just an awful thing to say.
What is needed is more access to affordable therapy for survivors. I'm thankful that articles like this get people talking about the topic so that it is not hidden behind secrecy and shame. Survivors need to know that it is never their fault and that the adult had all the power. Therapy works and survivors need more access to it."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)