"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

You have probably seen this line of thought to justify residency restrictions and other segregation-style laws over the years. The implication of my title suggests that all sex offenders have an illness that is beyond their ability to control. It is an extension of the old "sex offenders cannot be cured" mantra.

This statement is based on a few assumptions. The primary assumption is all people on the list are "uncontrollable pedophiles." There is a clinical definition of pedophilia, which includes a long-term period of sexual attraction to prepubescent girls (usually under age 12). The popular usage is an improper usage, much like when we used to say, "that's bad" when we mean something was good. (I already discussed why there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile.")

There is a difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. A pedophile can have inclinations but never act on them. By contrast, a sex offender is anyone convicted of any sex crime. While we immediately think "child molester" or "rapist," this category runs the gamut of activity to include even non-sex offenses or offenses marginally sexual at best. We have included teens on the list as young as 10 years old.

Between actual sex offenders, there is a difference between "situational/ regressed" offenders and "fixated/ preferential" offenders. The vast majority of sex offenders are the former type. Situational offenders are less likely to reoffend, not attracted to children, and more likely to respond to treatment. As you can expect, Preferential offenders are more likely to offend, are attracted to children, and are more likely to reoffend.

There is also sexual addiction. You can be a sex addict without being a sex offender or  pedophile. You can be a sex offender without being a sex addict.

The bottom line is the legal term "sex offender" is broad and the term is not mutually exclusive with other terms such as "pedophile" or "sex addict." Committing a solitary sex crime does not necessarily make someone a pedophile or sex addict. That makes comparing a registered citizen to an "alcoholic" comparing apples and oranges.

Alcoholism is a very narrow definition-- addiction to alcoholic beverages. Alcoholism is a persistent condition. You can't be considered an alcoholic by getting drunk one time. However, you can be labeled a sex offender by a one-time event. Sex offender is a legal term, sex addiction and alcoholism are clinical terms. Sex Offenders are a heterogeneous group. Alcoholics are a homogeneous group. Comparing sex offenders to alcoholics is comparing apples and oranges. Sex offenses are not dictated by geography but by relationships. It is indeed a semantic argument, but an important one.

Sex offender laws dictating where a registrant can live, work, or play (and even where to go for counseling) is the result of our faulty assumption that all sex offenders are both "sex addicts" and "pedophiles." While a small number of sex offenders are fixated pedophiles (Montana claims 4% of the prison sex offender population are pedophiles), most on the list are not attracted to children or even addicted to sex.

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

It is a rather irrational argument when you think about it. Studies have failed to provide links between geography and sexual offending. Even the comparison to AA at a bar is silly. In an urban area, there are plenty of bars, pony kegs, and beer joints, beer ads are on TV, and grocery stores sell it (unless you are in a "dry" county). So, does AA ever move its services to locations far from civilization? No!

This argument fails miserably because it is based on false assumptions and generalizations. It is time to put this tired argument to rest.

Sheriff Gordon Smith, A Black Eye on the Bradford County, Florida Sheriff's Department

Florida is not my favorite state. It is a cesspool of political/ police corruption and Predator Panic. But the Bradford County Sheriff's Office has taken the cake with its latest publicity stunt. The small-time Sheriff has placed road signs in front of the houses of registrants in hopes of chasing them out of town.

"So far, 18 signs have gone up in cement buried deep into the ground on public property near the homes of offenders settled in and around the town of Starke — causing one so-called sex predator to leave town and two others to consider taking off...Says Smith: “I have no sympathy for them (sexual predators), and if they don’t like their options of the sign, move!”

The trophy photos for the sheriff and the Abu Ghraib guys are eerily similar

Despite all this, Sheriff Gordon Smith claims he will protect those people targeted by those signs from vigilante violence, but I have my doubts.

I'd like to point out he has deleted criticism on his FB page. He simply needs to read some of the internet comments to see why this is a bad idea:

SheriffGordon Smith seems to have some kind of sign fetish. He was recently sued over a rather gaudy 10 Commandments display. I wonder if he really believes Jesus would approve of the Sheriff's signs?

What Sheriff Gordon Smith has done violates the Constitution. In State of Kansas v. Schad, the courts ruled the signs run counter to efforts at rehabilitation:

Similarly, in the present case, the signage conditions exact a very harsh censure against Schad. Although Schad had been convicted of a sexual offense, the imposed signage conditions would work against any rehabilitation while on probation because wherever Schad would be, he would be “branded.” The signage conditions would not be helpful in restoring Schad to the ranks of society’s productive citizens…

Under the facts of this case, the probation conditions requiring Schad to post signs around his house and on his car announcing his sex offender status were not reasonably related to the rehabilitative goal of probation or to the protection of the victim and society. In short, probation is not to shield guilty individuals from the consequences of their crimes, but it is an attempt to reform their attitudes about acting out in a criminal way. Here, the signage conditions made Schad an object of condemnation and ridicule. The signage conditions only confirmed society’s outrage against Schad. The signage conditions were simply a punitive measure not reasonably related to rehabilitation.

Even the Fark website, which is usually filled with pro-sex-offender-law types, has been blasting this publicity stunt:

I have been a long time activist, been studying these issues for well over a decade now, and if there was ever  a constant in my studies it is this --the ones who make the most noise about "sex offenders" tend to have the most to hide. The Bradford County Sheriff's Office has quite a series of embarrassing scandals in their own department. Maybe that's why they need this diversion:


http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Reserve-Deputy-arrested-for-domestic-battery/qVnTI0e1CkmuNJtySesLPA.cspx

A Bradford County Reserve Deputy is in the Bradford County Jail for getting into a physical argument with his wife. According to the Bradford County Sheriff's Office, Ronald Gassaway's wife told their deputies at a gas station there that she was injured by Gassaway.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-02-22/story/former-prison-officer-bradford-most-wanted-list-arrested-puerto-rico

A 49-year-old former corrections officer and one of Bradford County Sheriff’s Office’s most-wanted has been found in Puerto Rico after an email tip led to him, according to authorities.

http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2011/06/bradford-county-corrections-officer-arrested-attempted-murder

A Bradford county corrections officer is accused of trying to kill a co-worker after investigators said he shot her in the face. 

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120207/ARTICLES/120209599

A former Bradford County sheriff’s deputy has been arrested on charges of having sex with a teenage girl while he was on duty as a high school resource officer at the girl’s school.

Maybe we should be posting signs in the yards of Bradford County Sheriff's deputies instead. They seem to be the ones we should be worried about.

 One last thing, I find it extremely creepy this harassment is posted right next to a call for the "National Day of Prayer."

False rape culture is part of rape culture, too: Lauren Nelson and her 15 minutes of shame

Lauren the false-rape denier Nelson

A few weeks ago, some random blogger received her 15 minutes of virtual fame by writing an article on so-called "rape culture." It is always a hot button and sensitive topic for Feminists in particular, because this has been a long-standing cash cow for the Feminist agenda. But it wasn't so much that Lauren Nelson put her own crazy spin on the topic IN THIS ARTICLE, she felt the need to write a followup article called "Why I Won’t Publish Your Comments About False Rape Accusations," which is the more likely reason a blog at the far reaches of the internet universe jumped to the top 100,000 in the Alexa rankings (though that spike is short-lived and will return to the 17,000,000th place ranking soon enough).

I'm not keen on quoting Wikipedia, but it has a decent definition of "Rape Culture:"

Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape...Although the concept of rape culture is a generally accepted theory in feminist academia, there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.

It is long acknowledged that "rape culture" is a Feminist catchphrase. It has long been used to shift the balance in courts to the point accusations of rape are accepted without collaborating evidence to support it. In today's society, an accusation pretty much guarantees conviction in at least the court of public opinion. One look at the comment section in any news article where a person is arrested and charged with a sex crime would reveal that much.

So why is the concept of FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS so repugnant to Feminists? The main answer is because anything that serves as a counterbalance to their inflated claims about the prevalence of rape in our society. Christina Hoff Summers, a well-known critic of the Feminist movement, has already exposed many myths propagated by Feminists, including the GENDER PAY GAP MYTH and the famous ONE IN FOUR WOMEN ARE RAPED MYTH. But that's a story for a different day. My focus is on Nelson's blatant disregard for false allegations.

Nelson attempts to justify her denial of false rape discussion by minimizing false rape cases. Nelson makes the following claim:

"First off, the idea that false accusations are a significant problem in rape is patently untrue. For this point, we turn to data." The problem is, Nelson refuses to even mention the studies or link to them, while offering her opinion as to why they are false. Lets look at her reasons.

1. "The sample sizes are painfully small. 1,300 participants is on the high end, while some had as few as 18. Not exactly representative." If sample size is an issue here, the same can be said for the studies that rape culture proponents claim. Many of the outlandish claims have come from relatively small sample sizes. Even the Koss survey (aka, the Ms. Study, so consider the source), the much-heralded study that Feminists use for the 1-in-4-women-are-raped myth, used a sample size of only three thousand. Many research conclusions are across the board use relatively small sample sizes, so the same principles apply to rape studies.

2. "The data is inconsistent. Even when it’s the FBI analyzing larger pools of data on crimes committed, false accusations are largely measured according to police report labels such as 'no crime' or 'unfounded.' The problem with these labels is that they do not translate into a false accusation." And by the same token, the few studies that address the under-reporting claims have relatively broad definitions of rape AND attempted rape. Christina Hoff Summers' critique of the Koss study reveals that the definition included having sex while intoxicated. So if you woke up next to who you thought was George Clooney but looked more like George Costanza the next day, and you regret your choice of partners, that fell under Koss's definition of rape.

Even the National Crime Victimization Survey uses "attempted rapes" under "unreported rapes." And, as I mentioned in my Sex Offender Myths Fact Guide (under Myth #9), even the NCVS admits their sample size is relatively small, and the estimate of underreporting; the NVS found 57 "unreported cases" out of sample size of nearly 71,000 people. To even rely on the NCVS then is a bit of a misnomer.

3. "The data is also only reflective of reports of a man raping a vagina with his penis. Until early 2012, the federal definition of rape excluded such crimes as female rape of male, same sex rape, digital rape, anal rape, oral rape or rape with a foreign object (they also exclude incest for some reason). The most recent data you’ll find is 2011. That means the available data on reported cases is so far from complete, it’s not even funny." And yet the NCVS includes not only completed rapes and attempted rapes (which I just described in the last paragraph). Nelson blatantly ignores this fact. Of course, the Koss/ Ms. study used pretty much the same criteria as the criteria Nelson study.

4. "The data is plagued by rape culture. The studies most frequently cited by those stumping on behalf of the falsely accused have been the subject of criticism in subsequent studies for failing to qualitatively evaluate the methodologies of the case categorizations. Many found that police officers frequently used subjective judgment calls in dismissing cases as unfounded. Other studies found direct evidence of bias in such dismissals when studied in the field." And what is the basis for this claim? Nelson does not offer any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. Who are the "many" who can verify what Nelson said? Who knows. Where are these studies that found bias? Nelson leaves it up to you to find them. I guess she didn't feel like sending us to fringe Feminist sites as the source. That's be like getting smoking stats from Joe Camel.

5. "In studies where data was not provided but gathered in the field, the methodologies used for determining a false report were suspect (and that’s putting it nicely)." She offers no further elaboration. It is merely opinion. Of course, ever study has limitations. Read any scholarly journal and you will see the researchers discuss limitations. Sample size, methodology, focus of the study, the goals of the researchers, and the reliance of laymen to interpret expert matters of law influences any study like this. Nelson's arguments are just as valid when used against her.

Now we reach the point where her logic takes a strange turn. Nelson starts out with 8% of known rape cases as false allegations, purportedly from the FBI. Then she claims that according to the FBI, only 37% of rape cases are reported. But she does not post a link to the FBI study; she posts a link to the CONTROVERSIAL and INACCURATE Enliven Project Meme that was passed around earlier this year (and thoroughly dissected and found to be bogus). In fact, I ranted about this same meme earlier this year. So Nelson is not even using an original rant. (As an aside, the 2010 NCVS numbers state only 50% of sex crimes go unreported, going by the same criteria as the previous studies.) It is like quoting a friend of a friend who heard it from Faux News. The Enliven Project meme got much of their info from RAINN, a victim industry advocate.

Regardless, using this logic, Nelson divides 8% by 37% and now false allegations are 3% of the total rape cases. She's not satisfied with these numbers, mainly because the numbers are still too high for her liking. So she invites us to think "hypothetically."


"Still not fantastic, I’ll admit, but far from justifiable as an interruption to important discourse. Still, I’m not satisfied with leaving it at that. Let’s talk hypothetically.

Let’s give the police the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their frequency of subjective dismissal justifies an adjustment down in the false reporting rate to 7%. There’s enough out there to justify a stronger cut, but we’ll be conservative.

And let’s say that, with only 37% of rapes being reported and sexual violence education woefully lacking, the amount of “unfounded” cases labeled as such due to lack of evidence to take it to trial –  as women shower, dispose of clothing, and so forth post attack - brings false accusation rate down again to 6%.

And lets assume – given that only 9% of cases ever go to trial and only 3% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail - that rape culture factors such as dress, former sexual encounters, use of alcohol, and so forth, account for enough perceived potential for reasonable doubt to derail an additional portion of those “unfounded” cases bringing down the rate once more to 4% (and that’s being generous).

I know this is all conjecture. It’s an exercise. Stay with me."

So at this point, even Lauren Nelson admits this entire exercise is a smoking pile of horse shit. But I wish to take just a moment to return to the under-reporting myth. Because under-reporting is truly an unknown factor (simply put, we have no way of knowing how many claimed unreported crimes exist or are indeed crimes), we can claim any number greater than 0% and less than 100%. Rape Culture proponents will claim numbers as high as the upper 90s, as suggested by the Enliven Project Meme. I already noted the NCVS, which is rather generous with its definition of rape and attempted rape, finds low numbers of under-reporting in a very large sample size. Nelson tries to argue this is "rape culture," but her argument falls flat.

If there is such a thing as rape culture, then there is also such a thing as False Rape Culture. Lauren Nelson makes the same arguments as many other false rape deniers. The justification is "It makes victims feel as though they won’t be believed if they do come forward." I find that hard to believe. After all, rarely do false accusers face incarceration, and in the very rare event a false accuser is convicted, they are rarely punished.

When a false rape accuser gets off with no penalties, THAT IS FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

Lauren Nelson: "If you want to comment about false rape accusations, it won’t be on this blog."

When Lauren Nelson denies and minimizes the harm of false rape accusations and states she will not allow anyone to discuss it on her blog, THAT IS FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When a person finally gains an appeal due to faulty and contradictory evidence at trial, and a victim industry profiteer like Laura Ahearn accuses him of still being guilty and denying the chance he may be innocent, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When TV Analyst Wendy Murphy famously proclaims "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth," and maintains this position after watching the Duke Lacrosse case turn into an indictment against overzealous prosecutor William Nifong (and still put this crazy lady on the air), that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When it takes 11 false allegation cases before a woman serves time for ruining lives, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When people serve decades behind bars and after being exonerated, and 2 of every five of them doesn't get any compensation for losing many years of their lives, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

There is always more than one aspect of any issue. Feminists, and people like Lauren Nelson, would have you believe that acknowledging its existence is some kind of power issue, like rape. So denying their argument is basically tantamount to raping them. What faulty logic!

We have seen the power of false allegations that came as the result of overzealous prosecutors and awareness campaigns in the very recent past. Remember the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases of the mid 1980s-early 1990s? Bakersfield? McMartin? Little Rascals Day Care? Even the "West Memphis Three" (which were recently allowed release after taking an Alford plea, which prevents them from suing the state for wrongful imprisonment)? Or the many stories we hear of individuals serving years for crimes they didn't commit, released after DNA tests exonerated them or the accuser finally admits she lied?

False Rape Allegations and the culture that fails to address it should be as much a part of the conversation as rape culture discussions. It takes an honest approach from all sides, and denying one side only distorts the overall picture. There are brutal rapes, cases where the circumstances are not clear, cases where a rape occurred and the wrong man is imprisoned, and cases where someone flat-out lies about rape. This is all a part of the overall picture of rape False Rape Culture is very real, and will be around long after Lauren Nelson slinks back into obscurity.

My 10 year anniversary, of sorts...

Happy anniversary to me! No, I'm not referring to my ex-wife Brandi ( personally I'd love to forget she ever existed). Ten years (and 75 pounds) ago, on April 1, 2003, I was released from prison and moved to Cincinnati to begin a new life. I did not know what to expect. I had not lived in a big city since my family moved from Baltimore in 1982, when I was only five years old. However, my greatest fear was how to live my life on "The List."

My first taste of freedom was my 16 hour bus ride from Montgomery, Alabama to Cincinnati, Ohio. I hardly had any time to settle in before it was time to go register as a "sex offender." I was sitting at the Hamilton County Sheriff's office waiting to be processed. People were walking all over the place, heading the court, visiting inmates, getting fingerprints and police reports, and (thankfully) ignoring my presence. 

Do you remember your first time? I do. As tough as an individual I am, standing in that hallway awaiting my registration was a very nerve-racking experience. 

After nearly half an hour, I was finally called to the back. At some point while the registrar was typing in my information into their database, he received a phone call from one sounded like a "concerned citizen" who received a notification that a registrant was moving into the neighborhood. The woman was speaking so loud and frantically that despite sitting a fair distance away from the phone, I can hear every word the woman was saying.

The thing that got my attention the most was the response from the officer. First, he informed the woman that he had a legal right to live wherever he chose (at the time Ohio did not have a residency restriction law), and that they all have to live somewhere. A follow-up comment really caught my attention-- the officer stated that there was only one perfect person that ever existed and he was hung on a cross.

I have been registering for 10 years now. I know a lot of other individuals have had bad experiences while registering. I have been fortunate to have experienced relatively few problems while registering. The officers I see at the registry office would much rather be doing something else. They know this registry is a fruitless endeavor, and at times they have encourage me to fight back against the laws.

Being an advocate wasn't my first choice, but after 10 years of experience in a number of difficulties related to the laws, at times I see it as my only choice. I have not had as many difficulties his other individuals on the registry, but I have experienced my share of social ostracism, discrimination, and legal battles. I was originally classified as a "sexually oriented offender" and had the state not reclassified me arbitrarily, today would've been the day that I would've been removed from the list.

Perhaps there is a reason beyond my understanding why I am still on the list. I feel it is my calling in life to fight this injustice. We are on the unpopular side of the issue. It is very easy to pass laws against people on the registry because 10 years ago our movement practically did not exist. I did not discover any advocacy groups or activists in general until April 2004. 

Things are so much different now, it seems like a lifetime ago since that day the prison gates opened and I walked out into the "free" world. But the free world is not really free. Many laws have passed over the years to remind me of that fact. Registration laws that change arbitrarily, residency restrictions, typing "criminal sex offender" on my ID card in Scarlet letters, and the consistent denial of support services and employment. Because I have experienced all these things, I fight. I fight because these laws are wrong. I fight because these laws harmed me.

I have lasted 10 years on the outside. Depending on how you look at my story, you might say I have beaten the odds. One of the individuals in my group therapy classes in prison predicted I would be back in prison in three years, because the odds are against me. Victim industry advocates teach society that people like me are sent back to prison at alarming rates. A number of vigilante groups have attacked me, slandered me, and have claimed many times that my rearrest was imminent. Ten years later, I have proven every one of them wrong.

I have seen a lot of changes in the past 10 years. There was a time when there was practically no discussion about the collateral consequences of passing these laws. Over time, activists like myself have chipped the seemingly invincible armor of the victim industry, and we have made great strides over the years to make our voices heard and impact the laws that affect us. While there is much room for improvement, each small victory keeps the small glimmer of hope I keep in my heart alive. My hope began the day I sat in the registry office and listened to the words of the person assigned to punch my information into the online registry. That hope has continued over the years the actions of my fellow activists, from Mary Duval to Tom Madison to Jan Kruska and others who helped form a foundation upon which we can build a stronger network of reform advocates, to those of us who are continuing the fight today. Each time one of us appears in the news, speaks before a legislative committee, recruiting new activists, or even feels the comment boards with rational discussions about the dangers of these laws, my hope continues the grow.

The past 10 years have been a long, tiring journey, but it has given me hope for the next 10 years. 

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.

There is always more to the story

A newly released study by a professor at Arizona State University is suggesting that people deemed “high risk sex offenders” are more likely than low risk sex offenders to live in what he called “school zones”. The media will certainly milk this story for what it's worth, accepting its implications at face value. But there is more to this study than meets the eye.

                This geographical study tracked the movements of registered sex offenders in Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati) from 2005 to 2007. The study found that people forced to register were far more likely to move than the average person, and that people who were considered “Tier 3” offenders, the so-called high risk category, were 3.9% more likely than Tier-1 (“low risk”) offenders to live in a school zone. Obviously, the research study is implying that high risk sex offenders are somehow violating the law and are intentionally living closer to schools for the purposes of reoffending.

                I know better.

                I know because for the past 10 years (with the exception of my 14 months living in Alabama), I have lived in Cincinnati, Ohio. Around the time the study began, I was classified as a “Tier 1” offender, and arbitrarily reclassified as a “Tier 3” offender on the basis of moving from a state where everybody registers for life. In June 2004, when I was still considered a tier 1 offender, I moved into a slum property that allegedly met the residency restriction laws of the state of Ohio, 1000 feet from schools and day care centers. For nearly a year, I lived a quiet life, working, paying my bills on time, and keeping to myself as much as possible.

                In the spring of 2005, when I was arbitrarily reclassified, the city determined I was living to close to a business called the “Life Skills Center”. This place offers GED courses for individuals aged 16 to 24, but for the purposes of the state’s residency restriction laws, the Life Skills Center was considered a school, and I fought unsuccessfully to keep my residence. As I stymied the city's case against me as long as I could, I called well over 100 places to try to find a new place to live. After nearly a year, I stumbled upon a new apartment (much bigger than my meager sleeping room at $150 a month) that met the current residency restriction laws.

                Just after Thanksgiving 2006, I moved into my new apartment. I had not even finished unpacking when the city of Cincinnati was debating a new ordinance that would increase citywide residency restrictions to include a number of places not covered by state law – YMCA centers, boys and girls clubs centers, swimming pools, parks, and recreation centers. My first true taste of advocacy was addressing the Cincinnati city Council against the new ordinance. I fought successfully to keep my current residence. The city still passed the ordinance, but dropped parks from its list of banned locations, while grandfathering register citizens so long as they lived in their current residence.

This move was undoubtedly inspired by my personal circumstances. My new residence was close to a place called Triangle Park. It is a city run Park maintained by the Cincinnati Parks and Recreation Commission, but it is not a part in the traditional sense of the word. Triangle Park is nothing more than a stone wall with a small flower garden and a couple of trees, a half-acre peninsula extending at the far corner of the block in which I reside. It is not the kind of Park someone takes her children to play, but to take their dogs to poop. In fact, when I was in the Cincinnati Restoration Church (where we raised funds for the church by selling candy), we referred to that location as the “doo-doo spot”. The park is still a part, no matter what it is called or what purpose it serves. If not for the grandfather clause or the removal of parts from the ordinance, I would have been forced to move again.

                We are too quick to take media accounts or even research at face value without questioning how we came to certain conclusions. This study would have you believe that all sex offenders move to elude detection. That is simply untrue; as a result of social ostracism, threats made against sex offenders, or at times, legal actions from overzealous city prosecutors all play roles in forcing registered citizens to move on a more frequent basis. I am sure this study did not take into account the negative effects of the postcards the city of Cincinnati sends to individuals when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood.

                The implication of this study assumes sex offenders move close to schools for the purpose of obtaining victims. This is simply untrue. When Cincinnati sought to pass their own ordinance in December 2006, they passed out a color-coded map of restricted zones within the city. There were a number of overlapping circles which gobbled up potentially available housing in the vast majority of areas where sex offenders could afford to live. In places like Over-The-Rhine, where many of the poorest residents tended to live before the urban renewal project started, there were no spaces where a registered citizen could legally live at all under the new ordinance.

                Cincinnati was not the only city in Hamilton County to have an increased residency restriction law. The city of Reading, for example, is an independent suburb of Cincinnati with its own police force in city Council. The city passed a 2000 foot restriction which made virtually the entire city off-limits to any person forced to register as a sex offender. Another suburb, Norwood, also had its own residency law restrictions. Did the study take these ever-changing laws into effect when asserting that sex offenders move more frequently in the average citizen?

                In my personal case, I did not move by choice, but by law. My motivation for choosing a new residence was necessity coupled with affordability. I simply looked or a place I can afford to live that met the legal requirements of the law.

                In recent months, there have been a number of questionable studies. A few months ago, a study from Utica College in New York claimed a large number of sex offenders were intentionally lying about their residents, allegedly based upon computer software used to determine credit card fraud. To this date, the researchers have never formally published the results including methodology in any peer-reviewed publication, yet the story spread like wildfire and accepted as fact. Nobody questioned the validity of this study or how they came to this conclusion. I can understand the reason why, as many research studies use complex algorithms and algebraic formulas to come to their conclusions. Sometimes reading a research paper requires an advanced mathematics degree to understand the conclusions they arrive at based upon the numbers they crunch.

                If independent research was not bad enough, influences from the victim industry Advocates with no formal training offer more misinformation to further confuse the uninformed public. A very recent example is a much publicized graphic from the Enliven Project which suggested that roughly 9 of every 10 sex crimes are unreported, with a very small number of falsely accused. This graphic is very inaccurate. The people who created this graphic claim they used reports like the national crime victimization surveys (NCVS), yet the current NCVS states that only about half of sex crimes are unreported. However, there are some major flaws even with the NCVS surveys-- they rely on self-reports and include the broader term “attempted rapes” which are broadly defined as any situation in which a person feels that they were in danger of being raped. Even Anna Salter, a longtime victim industry advocate, has stated that self-reports are notoriously unreliable and lead to incredibly inflated statistics. The NCVS is indeed a self-report survey.

                Unfortunately, these results of these studies are easily misinterpreted, or in many other cases such as the graphic from the Enliven Project, the studies are flat-out false. Who is going to take the time to critique these assumptions? It is obvious the average citizen is not going to question the media. We are all too eager to accept something as fact when it is attuned to our personal belief systems, especially when it involves something or someone we particularly hate.

                However, in order for true conflict resolution to take place, we must look beyond our preconceived notions and questioned the things we have been taught to believe with an open mind. It is difficult, but not impossible to look outside of our own way of thinking. Only by looking at the issue from all sides can we have any hope of coming to a true solution rather than a mere Band-Aid for a long-standing societal issue.

Update on the “Beyond the Label” Documentary, Dec. 15th, 2012

Update on the “Beyond the Label”  Documentary, Dec. 15^th, 2012

Derek W. Logue

                First, I wish to thank the dozens of people who have invested their time, energy, and support of this landmark documentary. I promised a formal update upon my return from Port Angeles, WA, so here is the trip in a nutshell. But first, the technical aspects. I had raised $700 in the raffle for this project, which paid for the trip and other expenses. It is divided as follows: Round trip bus ticket, $260, hotel fare $100, video editing software $40, extra memory cards to handle all the filming $60, gas $25, new travel bag $20, and sending out the raffle prizes $20, so that’s $525 accounted for thus far. I don’t count food and personal expenses as production costs. (I already own a tripod, and an HD Camcorder was already donated to the cause).

                Long distance bus rides are always interesting and unpredictable. My ride to Port Angeles was quiet and uneventful until I reached Missoula, Montana for our layover. The bus was four hours late due to a snowstorm, and after it arrived, it had a wiper malfunction, and thus we were delayed two more hours. It served as a harbinger of things to come.

                I arrived at Seattle six hours late so I missed the shuttle to Port Angeles. Thus, I had a 14-hour layover. The station was locked down and I was one of only five people who spent the night in the station. Greyhound fed us some pizza and sodas and I slept in the terminal for a few hours. Sunday morning, with eight hours left to kill, I decided to do a little sightseeing. I visited the Space Needle and the Pike Street Fish Market to watch the famous fish-throwers. After a lunch of fried Calamari, I headed back to the station to await the shuttle.

                The shuttle ride was great. We rode across the Kingston Ferry and instead of going all the way to Port Angeles, I got off at “Discovery Bay.” I ate a fried oyster po’boy while I waited on Erik Mart from monstermartorg.blogspot.com. I spent Sunday night with Erik and his girlfriend and toured his quaint little Pacific paradise with envy.

                The next morning I began my work at Port Angeles, setting up interviews and collecting information for the documentary. I spent the evening with Leslie, who was to be my liaison with the Blanton family, but I was receiving little cooperation from her in this matter. As my time went on, Leslie became less cooperative and as communication broke down, I became a target of her anger. Eventually, she took it upon herself to cross a certain line and at that point I found it prudent to permanently sever a working relationship with Leslie.

                This ending of our business partnership, of course, means there will be some slight changes to the premise and direction of the film. For now, I am still referring to the film as “Beyond the Label” but without Gary Blanton Jr.’s name in the title. It is even possible the project will be renamed. There will still be a documentary but since the majority of the footage revolves around the murder, most of the film will revolve around that. This changes my original premise of the film, which was intended to be largely a portrait of Gary Blanton himself, whereas now it is more a traditional journalism piece.

                This is not to say this was a wasted trip. There still successful interviews from one of Gary Blanton Jr.’s friends as well as audio from the DA who handled the case. In addition, I received the case files from the county prosecutor’s office, which has answered many questions I had about the murders themselves, in addition to some extra stock footage of the city.

                So at this point, I feel there is enough footage to proceed to the next step. I will have to revise a few things at this stage, including the instructions to some of my narrators.

                Once Fallen Productions, Inc. is still dedicated to producing a quality product for the sake of all those impacted by these laws. 

ANNOUNCEMENT: The winners for the Beyond the Label Raffle

First off, I wish to thank the two dozen wonderful individuals who contributed to the Beyond the Label documentary.

I have notified the winners by email they have won. For the sake of anonymity here are

1st prize -- Initials B. K. (raffle #155)
2nd prize -- Initials L. R. (Raffle #15)
3rd Prize -- Initials L. A. (Raffle # 75)

To all those who didn't win, I still thank you for supporting the Beyond the Label documentary, and I wish to reward you by adding you to the credits at the end of the film. If you wish to be added to the credits, please contact me at iamthefallen1@yahoo.com as soon as possible.

Once Fallen Fundraising Drive: Raffle to raise funds for the "Beyond the Label" Documentary"

It takes a fair amount of money to create a documentary, more than I first thought. Unfortunately I've been in need for newer equipment and travel expenses as there is still a little fundraising left to do. So I have an idea.

Between now and Nov. 30, every dollar donated to Once Fallen will give you one virtual ticket towards any one of the three items below, so if you donate thirty dollars you have thirty chances to win. The drawing for the items will be December 1st. I will post the winning numbers rather than names on my sites and notify the winners personally.

TO ENTER, donate to the following--

By Paypal: derek_logue@hotmail.com (don't forget the underscore)

By US Mail:

Derek W. Logue
2559 Eden Ave. #14
Cincinnati, OH 45219

Be sure to include your email address. I will send you your ticket numbers in the return email, verifying your entry. Every bit helps, and ALL the proceeds will go to covering the expenses.

If you have any questions, email me, iamthefallen1@yahoo.com or call me at 513-238-2873

On to the items.

ITEM #1

Toshiba DR430 DVD Recorder: This device records TV, VCR and camcorder footage onto DVDs. Everything you see here is included, guaranteed to work, and includes 5 unused DVD+R discs to get you started. For full specifications, visit the following link: http://us.toshiba.com/video-electronics/dvd-players/dr430/

ITEM #2

Item #2 is a huge collection of mostly family oriented DVDs. Most are Christian/ Religious but not all. Below is the full list of movies:

1. DC Talk: The Movie
2. Karen Kingsbury's Dandelion Dust documentary
3. The Pistol (Pistol Pete) 
4. The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman
5. The Christmas Blessing
6. Mandie and the Secret Tunnel
7. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Documentary
8. Billy; The Early Years of Billy Graham
9. Steve Harvey: Don't trip- God's not through with me yet
10. Natalie's Rose
11. WWJD: What Would Jesus Do?
12. Believe In Me
13. The Wild Stallion
14. The Last Adam
15. The Courage To Love 
16. Come What May
17. Comedy: The Road Less Traveled (documentary)
18. Relative Stranger
19. The Gospel
20. Blessed and Cursed
21. Angels Love Donuts
22. The Cross and the Towers (Documentary)
23. A Greater Yes
24. The Time Changer
25. Come Dance at my Wedding
26. Secret at Arrow Lake
27. Daniel's Lot
28. Change of Plans

Since someone begged me for the Chonda Pierce DVDs I will replace them with two more movies of my choosing. 

ITEM #3

Item #3 is a very good pair of amplified computer speakers. If you are a bit hard of hearing, like I am, you won't have much trouble hearing these.