How the murder of Adam Walsh changed parenting... for the worse

This morning I read an article on The Examiner (gag) entitled, "How the murder of Adam Walsh changed parenting." I guess we need to be reminded every year around this time that John Walsh still needs our money. 

The article is a laundry list of the many things the Adam Walsh murder has caused. The most notable effect is the paranoid over "predators." I usually make a short response to articles I read, but today I felt the need to write a longer diatribe. 

Below is my response:

I have to dispel a few myths here. The Etan Patz case preceded Walsh (although Walsh was more successful at making a career of it) but there was already a paradigm shift occurring at this time.

1. The "war on crime" was shifting the correctional system philosophy from rehabilitation to the incapacitation/ containment model. As such, the belief was criminals were "monsters" and can't be cured. This belief obviously extended to "sex offenders." 

2. The feminist movement, in a strange marriage with Evangelical Christians, formed a sexual counterrevolution, and the focus on "child abuse" (at the time both physical and sexual) as a natural extension of rape awareness served a common goal for both groups. 

3. After the groundbreaking (and later proven fraudulent) book "Michelle Remembers" was published, there was a belief in Satanic Ritual Abuse and "repressed memory syndrome." Couple it with the belief of vast underground "pedophile" networks that were reinforced with the FBI raids on "NAMBLA," people were already beginning to fear invisible sexual abusers by 1981. In fact, in John Walsh's own book "Tears of Rage," the police he was working with were discussing alleged "pedophile networks" with him (which was irrelevant, and the NAMBLA searches of the time were fruitless, and one member was falsely accused of being responsible for the Etan Patz disappearance). Walsh became so paranoid that he believed every death threat ever made against him was attributed to "pedophiles." In addition, the mantra at the time was "believe the children at any cost," even when the cost included coercive interrogation tactics by overzealous social workers and law enforcement agencies, or stories about abuse include rocketships, underground catacombs, and Chuck Norris. 

4. Awareness campaigns were already creating a new breed of activist-- the "victims' rights advocate." There were plenty of victim groups in existence, pushing for legislation changes and raising awareness. Walsh was taught how to be a victim advocate by others, but Walsh learned how to make a career of it. 

John Walsh wasn't the originator of Predator Panic, but he was still very influential in feeding us lies. He lied before Congress claiming 50,000 "mutilated, decapitated, raped, and strangled" children were dying every year. He got very, very rich propagating panic to our society. Lets not forget that Walsh had pushed to name Toole the killer for years, despite no evidence of involvement other than Toole's recanted statements (it does not make Toole any less of a bad man, since he made the claims to troll Walsh).  

Ironically, the NCMEC teaches AGAINST the "stranger danger" myth. They are aware that most sexual abuse takes place in the home, with someone the victim knows, and most of them aren't on some list. And despite Walsh's claims before Congress, studies found that only 115 out of 71+million kids experience a "stereotypical kidnapping,' the type you see on the nightly news.

Lets be honest. The only thing Walsh ever accomplished is getting rich at the expense of other people. We are a more fearful society as the result of his lies. Paranoid people keep their kids inside (despite our streets being relatively safe, at least more so than the 1970s and 1980s), where they sit in front of TVs watching ads, eating fatty/ sugary foods, and watching more fearmongering propaganda. 

The Adam Walsh Act has led to placing over 730,000 people on the sex offender registries, some as young as age 10. We are ruining the lives of thousands of our young people in Adam's name. Today we have more fear from being labeled a sexual predator than encountering one. 

(I would like to point out the alleged popularity of the registry is a myth. Less than a fourth of the population ever look at the registry, and of those, most do so out of curiosity rather than fear. Many who utilize the registry are members of online vigilante groups.)

Has Adam Walsh changed parenting? Yes-- It changed parenting for the worse.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Ask the media

This weekend, yet another high-profile trial ended, and there are a lot of angry people. People are protesting, a few attacks have occurred, and the fear of full scale riots are gripping the nation. Of course, this is not the only high-profile case in recent memory. Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, and OJ Simpson  have all invoked public outrage and divided a nation, sometimes over race, sometimes for other reasons like celebrity or class status. Soon, the hoopla over the George Zimmerman trial will be replaced with the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged Boston Bomber.

We all believed these cases should end in guilty verdicts, but each of these people were found "Not Guilty" by our justice system. How did come to be so sure of a person's guilt even before the trial begins? One word -- MEDIA.

It is no secret the media is very influential. Even the politicians get most of their information from the media. The media is a business, and the business is selling advertising. Controversy sells. Sex offenders, serial murders, terrorist attacks, random acts of crime are the bread and butter of the "serious news" industry. Crime stories play a central role in both local and national media. Anyone who reads or watches the news knows that. 

The media is protected by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As with any Constitutional right, there are some limits to the right, and the media can be regulated to a point. In fact, in 1949, the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine, which required the media to present both sides in controversial issues (though they weren't forced to give equal time to both sides). Unfortunately, that rule was repealed in 1987. The media is no longer obligated to tell the other side of the story, so they often refuse to tell that opposing viewpoint. 

The media isn't very regulated, nor has the media faced many instances of regulation. As far back as the 1700s, the newspapers were exploited by those who owned the printing presses. Ben Franklin wrote under pen names "Silence Dogood" and "busybody" to influence people. It is subject to bias and personal whims. The media is not objective, yet we rely on a biased media for giving information. 

To illustrate the impact of the media, think about a great tragedy that was in the news a little over a decade ago -- the school shooting at Columbine in Colorado. What do you remember? You remember those two bullied teens who created their little group called the 'Trench Coat Mafia," and shot up a school in retaliation for their ill-treatment. Don't forget that they targeted minorities and other groups, and most of all, a girl named Cassie Bernall was asked if she believed in God, she replied 'Yes," and was killed for it (there was even a song by Flyleaf about that event). We believe that much about Columbine.

There is just one little problem-- most of this story was bullshit. The two Columbine killers were actually popular kids, were never a part of the school's "Trench Coat Mafia" goup, or wore Gothic Clothes. The shooting was the result of a botched school bombing-- after they failed to successfully set off a bomb, they just decided to shoot as many people as possible, and the killing was indiscriminate. Cassie Bernall was indeed shot and killed, but it was Valeen Schnurr who was posed the question of her faith after she was shot, and she survived the shooting.

This does not make the Columbine school shooting any less tragic, but it separates myth from reality, and fact from fiction. Some of the myths were comforting (after all, a movement was started based on Cassie's "martyrdom") but desires do not turn untruths into truths. In order to understand a tragedy, we have to see the events as it truly unfolded.

Critical thinking and skepticism does not come easily in a society filled with simple anthems and symbols. It is easy to latch onto the symbolism of "Skittles and a Hoodie" or a "Rachel's Prayer" or "Two I-Beams shaped like a cross" because they become symbols of comfort and of innocence. It is a world of black-and-white where the person we call the victims are wholly innocent and the perpetrators are all guilty as sin. Symbols are powerful things, but sometimes we focus too much on the symbol rather than the message.

In our 24/7 news era, there is no shortage of people willing to talk (and talk and talk and talk...). After a while, there needs to be something new to discuss. In the case of breaking news, there is competition to be the first to bring up something new. The news is more than willing to put something fresh and new, or "get the exclusive." Too often, it comes at a huge price. The old adage "the best impression is the first impression" never rings truer than in the court of public opinion.

This brings this commentary full circle to my original premise-- the first impression may be the lasting impression but it may not be the right impression. The media flooded the airwaves with a preliminary view of events and that story sticks into people's minds. That initial report is repeated. By the time contradictions are presented, those initial reports have been etched into memory. Once that story is etched into a person's mind, it is hard to convince that person to see things differently. 

The Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." 

There is nothing in the 6th Amendment about the right to be tried in the court of public opinion (or "trial by media"). In theory, the US Justice system selects a jury of "peers," or at least a jury of people least favorable to media hype. In today's culture of 24/7 braking news, that is a very tall order. The only way to be completely ignorant of an event these days is to be free of the internet, the TV, avert your eyes in the checkout lanes (because of gossip rags), and avoid gossipy friends. 

By the time a case goes to trial, the court of public opinion has reached its verdict-- GUILTY! So the people watch and wait. But then something happens. The defense presents contractions to the myth. The killer's glove didn't fit. Casey's mom dismantles the myth of the Chloroform Google search. Rachel Jeantel takes the stand and the star witness for the prosecution becomes the star witness for the defense. There was a gap between the man and the myth. In court, this gap is called "reasonable doubt."

In a court of law, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. When a myth in our minds, given to us by the media, is dispelled in court, and for a moment we feel we have been lied to, that is reasonable doubt. We were so sure it happened "this way," but we were proven wrong. Is there even a small chance that perhaps this person may not be guilty? That is reasonable doubt. That is not the same as "innocence." 

The court of public opinion has no standards. In the court of public opinion, the first evidence is the best evidence. That explains the discrepancy between public perception and jury decisions in many high profile cases. if people are mad at the court's decision, it is mainly because they already made up their minds and hate being told they were wrong. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind."

English jurist William Blackstone said in 1765, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Today, we feel differently, thanks in large part of the media. Until 2008 we had "Court TV" (now TruTV), media talking heads like Nancy (dis)Grace and Dr. Drew run back-to-back to rehash the same news bite, and justice-based TV dramas like Law and Order SVU that further skew our perception of "the system" (we even call the influence of these shows on perceptions of the system the "CSI Effect"). Few, if anyone, is innocent, on those shows. Even the portrayals of the defendants has changed-- a couple of decades ago, we had shows like Matlock and Perry Mason, where defendants were almost always innocent by a witty defense attorney/ investigator. The shows reflect the public attitude, which in turn reflects the media.

This is a long rant, but I have a point to all this. There are a few things that the media COULD do to end bias. I know they won't and this is a pipe dream, but if they could, the world would be a better place and the system of justice would be restored to its role as solemn seeker of justice:

1. I think media coverage of criminal trials in America should follow the guidelines set by our friends across the pond. In the United Kingdom, strict contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested. These rules are designed so that a defendant receives a fair trial in front of a jury that has not been tainted by prior media coverage. Our US Constitution was written in a way to favor the defense for a reason-- to ensure we did not lock up an innocent man, even at the risk of letting a guilty man go free.

2. The media should also bring back the Fairness Doctrine as a rule. One-sided debates, celebrities and washed-up reality stars asked to elaborate on subjects in a "Politically Incorrect" show format does not count. I'd like to see more real, civil debates between experts, not between screeching harpies and dirt truck drivers or hotel managers-turned-celebrity activists with no credentials. 

3. We must revive the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Far too often, a person's life is ruined simply because that person is accused of a crime. That person becomes a target because some people equate accusations with guilt We cheer, for example, if a man kills another man and claims he did so because the other man "molested his daughter." Do we know that for sure? There was never a trial, just an execution. It gives the green light for others to do the same. 

The media wields great power, and with that great power comes great responsibility in wielding that power. It is past time for the media to be held responsible for this power. 

Guest Post: Jeanne Sager Tells Moms to “Just Kidnap” Their Children to Save Them from Sex Offenders

This is a guest article written in response to a CafeMom article written by Jeanne Sager. For the backstory behind the article, CLICK HERE. A court has awarded custody of a six year old girl to a registered man, who may have been falsely convicted. Sager suggests the mother kidnaps the child. It is a hot topic at both Bakersfield Now and Cafe Mom.

Jeanne Sager Tells Moms to “Just Kidnap” Their Children to Save Them from Sex Offenders
By Wendy Testaberger

Jeanne Sager, blogger at “"The Stir," doesn’t seem to realize that her recommendation would, in many states, result in the mother committing the “mercy” abduction to register as a sex offender if found guilty.

Jeanne Sager

Like many websites whose content is mainly composed of private bloggers, it appears that The Stir (an offshoot of Café Mom) has little to no standards when it comes to picking those who will represent them. Obviously, you don’t have to know the first thing about a subject in order to write about it. Apparently, it’s also okay to encourage people to commit felonies as well. You know, in the best interest of children and all.

A quick review of online comments in reaction to this story – on Ms. Sager’s blog and more reliable news outlets (I use that term lightly) – highlight one of if not the most pervasive problems plaguing the prevention of sexual abuse. The public, particularly women, seem unable to read a five-paragraph story in its entirety, at least not before forming a staunch emotional opinion, which renders the whole picture moot anyway.

In their quest to “protect the children,” they are fully willing to support a woman who has been accused of forcing her young daughter to fabricate a molestation claim against her own father – and not just by the jilted husband. The “sex offender” father-in-question was convicted during a flurry of false child sex abuse allegations in Kern County, and plead guilty to one of twelve counts of “lewd and lavicious behavior with a child” in exchange for dropping the other eleven. One commenter on bakersfieldnow.com happily chortles that she was successful in preventing a sex offender from moving into their neighborhood (so much for the other neighborhood’s children!) and another claims the judge is “pro-pedophilia.”

It’s people like Ms. Sager who have the power to influence a major demographic on an immeasurably important issue. Sadly, she failed. “Convicted pedophile?” No such thing. Claiming the registry was created to protect children from “creeps?” Not so much. And again, the sweet irony of the entire thing is that if Ms. Sager were convicted of kidnapping her child, she’d be right up there on that list with all the “creeps” to whom she would just as soon deny any sort of parental rights. What was that about when the shoe’s on the other foot? (Oh, and just one more thing – Ms. Sager’s most recent blog post, prior to this one, was a giddy announcement that a new season of Teen Mom is starting. What exactly does she think happens to all those Teen Dads – you know, the ones whose girlfriends don’t star in reality TV shows glamourizing what the registry refers to as “sexual assault on a minor?”)

I suppose I should not be surprised by the assertion that sex offenders are bad – regardless of guilt or innocence or type or severity of crime – but kidnapping and child abduction is not. After all, this type of sentiment is regularly echoed in every day online commenting whenever the subject is sex offenders. Murder, torture, rape, and genital mutilation are fine and dandy as long as the victim is on the registry.

Do people fail to see that this makes them murderers, torturers, rapists and molesters too – and that in their quest to protect children, they are teaching them that those things are okay?

"Justice For All" -- The 5th Annual RSOL Conference is almost here

Hello fellow readers and friends,

The 5th annual Reform Sex Offender Laws is upon us, and I'm proud to announce I will be giving a presentation on Sex Offender Myths. As much as I hate asking for donations, the conference is in Los Angeles and a little more expensive than Albuquerque, so I am asking for my readers to send in a few bucks of you can spare to help offset the costs of attending.

If you wish to donate, my Paypal address is derek_logue@hotmail.com or iamthefallen1@yahoo.com (you can also use the button on the left)

Or, you can send money in the mail to:

Derek Logue
2559 Eden Ave #14
Cincinnati, OH 45219

If you would like to attend the RSOL Conference, you can learn more info by going to the official RSOL Conference site @ http://rsolconference.org/

I am sure some readers are curious for an update to my documentary on the Port Angeles murders, which I had hoped would be finished by the time of the conference. Well, unfortunately I hit a few snags in collecting some relevant info, plus conversing with the killer -- yes I have received correspondence from Patrick Drum and am trying to set up some way of getting him in the film, but the Washington DoC refuses to allow us to film the event. Plus, I am still in need of a Forensic Psychologist to give an expert opinion of Drum. His letters  are... disturbing, to say the least. And, in light of the "I Killed My BFF" documentary, I wanted to get his response to it.

As it gets closer to the conference, I'll write about my experiences at last year's conference.

Supreme Traitors! The current SCOTUS lineup and the growing Police State

The US Supreme Court (or, if you prefer the newer acronym SCOTUS, though it sounds like genitalia) have made a few recent decisions that should scare anyone concerned over the growing police state.

Arizona v. US, 567 U.S. ___ (2012)

The Immigration law decision allows police to verify the status of an immigrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally. Reasonable suspicion sounds rather self-explanatory-- it simply means a standard by which a person could "reasonably" suspect the individual may be involved in or have committed a crime. 

Majority -- Roberts, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy
Dissented -- Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Kagan did not vote

Salinas v. Texas, Docket # 12-246

Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

Majority: Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Dissent: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor,  Kagan.

United States v. Kebodeaux, Docket # 12-418

Justice Breyer wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  The Court’s opinion turns on the fact that even after his release from custody, Kebodeaux was still subject to sex offender registration requirements under the federal Wetterling Act.  Consequently, SORNA merely modified registration requirements that applied to him.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 (the “Military Regulation” Clause), Congress has the power to “make Rules for the … Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”  Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to the Military Regulation Clause, the Court held that SORNA made reasonable changes to the existing statutory regime governing sex offender registration.  

The Chief Justice concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that the Court’s holding is not based on any recognition of a “federal police power,” but is instead based on Congress’s power to make rules for the regulation of the Armed Forces. Justice Alito wrote a similar concurrence. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas each wrote separate dissents.  Justice Scalia would have found that SORNA was not designed to carry the Wetterling Act into execution, and questioned whether the Wetterling Act’s registration requirement was itself a valid exercise of federal power.  Justice Thomas would have held that SORNA “usurps the general police power vested in the States” and is therefore unconstitutional as-applied to Kebodeaux.

Majority: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor,  Kagan.
Dissent:  Scalia, Alito

Taken together, these cases show a scary pattern of SCOTUS shifting the power to our military-style police force. We are effectively undoing the constitutional advancements of the Civil Rights Era. We could call this the "Police Rights Era." The burden has shifted on the People to know your rights. That's easy. Under the current court scheme, you don't have rights!

That song by the Clash is fitting.

Sex Offender Compliance Checks (Oink Oink! Pigs are here!)

Today, the Hamilton County OH Sheriff's office released the results of a four-day long compliance check of those being forced to register on the public registry. According to one of my local news stations, 72 of 1350 were found non-compliant.

The task force checked on 1,114 addresses of the 1,350 registered sex offenders in the county and here are the results:
     
       720 lived where they said they did;
         72 were out of compliance;
         50 warrants were signed;
         20 warrants are pending;
       237 notices were left on doors where offenders registered;
         19 are homeless;
         66 require additional investigation.

I have been free for just over a decade now, and while this is not my first compliance verification, this is the first time I have had to deal with the US Marshals. It was a very unnerving experience. Imagine you are just finishing fixing dinner and you hear a loud bang on the door. Not a nice little knock, but the kind of knock that sends wall hangings tumbling to the floor and give heart attacks to easily startled individuals. Then you open the door and see this sight:

Just like these pricks, only half as many

The two "officers" at my door never really bothered to identify themselves, but the first thing that came out of their mouths was "May I come in?" My response: "Hell no! No warrant, no entry." They then demanded I step outside. I said, "Hell No!" I made it crystal clear to them I did not appreciate them coming to my door in the manner in which they arrived. The US Marshal fed me a line of BS about how he can't verify my address by simply seeing me open my own door. The Marshal claimed I could have just been "visiting." I guess Ohioans make it a point to visit friends while wearing sleep clothes and house slippers. I signed their stupid form and the Marshal (the Mutt in this Mutt and Jeff duo) said he'll "be back next week." I told him he can come every day of the week and still not get in my house without a warrant.

But these cops were not done. As I stepped outside my apartment, I noticed the two thugs in blue sitting outside my apartment watching me. I took down their car tags and the stepped out and approached me. I'm still in my night clothes, but what the hey, they feel that is appropriate attire for a night on the town. I gave them a piece of my mind. (You can catch the latter part of our "discussion" by CLICKING HERE; it is on my old ReFORM Radio page if the other link doesn't work).

I stood my ground and upheld my rights. Am I hiding anything? No. However, you have the right to say NO to a cop. If a person is not on probation or parole, and the police do not have a search warrant, then they have no right to enter your home.

In this video of a compliance check in Wayne Co. OH, notice the police ask the man if they can enter his house and "see' his "bedroom" to verify his residence. They have no need to go inside to "verify" your residence. Did you notice they asked the man if they can come inside? That is because they don't have the authority to come inside UNLESS YOU GIVE THEM that authority. You have a constitutional right to refuse. You see, once they are inside, they can search your house. If you have a computer, they want to see it. Now they are looking for any way to lock you up. That is how people get arrested in "compliance checks."

I had already created a page on my main website about this issue. In addition, there is free software allowing you to encrypt your entire computer and surf the web anonymously, tested and approved by fellow activists.
Remember these important steps and follow them in any compliance check.

• DO NOT sign anything, ever, at your door! No matter how "innocent" it seems. Politely refuse, unless you can speak to your lawyer first. (NOTE: If you do not have an attorney, be sure to read anything you sign if you feel compelled to do so. Standing up to a cop is scary, indeed, but they know you have to give up your rights willingly in order for them to proceed)
• DO NOT answer any questions beyond confirming that you are you, and required registration info. Anything else could be used (or twisted) to incriminate you.
• DO invoke the 5th amendment if necessary. But be prepared to be peppered with more questions (What are you hiding? Eh?), and reply only that you want your lawyer present first.
• DO NOT let anyone into your home without a warrant, unless you are still "on paper" (i.e., probation/ parole) and it is required. "Uncle LEO" has no right whatsoever to enter a person's home without a warrant, UNLESS you give them permission to enter. Don't fall for the old "can we come inside to confirm you live there" trick. Once inside they are looking for any reason to lock you up. Depending on the state, having toys or other items they consider "paraphernalia" may subject you to arrest or investigation.
• DO NOT leave your home while LE is still at your door. You have strong protections in your home, but practically none once you are out on the street.
• If you have easy access to a camera (cell phone in pocket), take a picture of the group on your porch, or better yet record the whole thing. Many cell phones have a "record" feature for you to talk into. Turn it on and keep it aimed at everyone speaking. The last one is highly important, in my opinion. HOWEVER, it may It may be illegal depending on the circumstances and where you live. For more info on police recording laws for your individual state you can visit the following website: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

In regards to videotaping police, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court decision finding it unconstitutional to enforce an Illinois state law that makes it a felony to videotape police officers working in public if a microphone is turned on. The case in the US Appeals Court decision is ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583. (7th Cir. 2012).

More general tips at my main website HERE.

If we truly want equality, then REGISTER Kaitlyn Hunt, not 'free" her

Kaitlyn Hunt's Mugshot

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -- Abraham Lincoln

I have been thinking about this subject all weekend, and I am going to say something rather controversial and spoken from a completely selfish prospective.

I say prosecute Kaitlyn Hunt to the fullest extent of the law. Sentence her to prison time, then add her cute, white, blonde face to America's sex offender registry. Sacrifice one of our exalted pretty white girls to the false idol of the sex offender registry.

Let Kaitlyn Hunt live the life I have had to live for over a decade. Have a dozen US Marshals bang on her door at dinner time in their SWAT attire just to have her sign a piece of paper stating she lives at her residence. Kick her out of one home by proclaiming it is one yard too close to a place where children congregate. Deny her housing and employment, forcing her to live off the good of charities and the government. Bye bye nursing job dreams, Kate! Notify the neighbors. Send fliers in the mail, or go door-to-door. Plaster her in a mugshot magazine. Create an anti-Kate webpage and harass her. After all, this is an "equality" issue, right?

Lets get something straight here. I would not wish life on "The List" on anyone. Do I really want Kaitlyn Hunt on the registry, suffering as I have suffered? Not really. HOWEVER, maybe that is what it will take to get people to realize the horrors of the public registry.

All these "Free Kate" sycophants weren't around when thousands of teens and barely-18 adults were being added to the Megan's fLaw Registry all across the USA. They weren't around to protest when a nine-year-old kid was added to Delaware's sex offender registry.

Yet, the homosexual activists have claimed this case as their own. "Stop the Hate, Free Kate," they say. The media will likely pressure the DA to get Kate off. Quite frankly, I don't think the prosecutor will go through with it. But the pro-gay movement is barking up the wrong tree. Kate is an anomaly. There are thousands of heterosexuals on the list for consensual sex, but you don't hear the gay activists mention that fact.

In 1692, we killed 19 people in Salem after accusing them of "witchcraft." The infamous Salem Witch Trials were only stopped after the daughter of the Governor of Massachusetts was accused of witchcraft. It seems the rich only care when it is one of their own facing the accusations. What will it take to end the modern Witch Hunt called the public sex offender registry? This could be the case.

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

A series of rare but high-profile sex crime and missing person cases, most notably involving young, cute,
preferably blonde females (hence the term "Missing White Girl" syndrome) has been the catalyst for America's obsession with sex offender laws. For years, laws have passed without one iota of thought to the consequences. Now, one of America's exalted children is facing the very laws designed to exalt her. Florida's "Romeo and Juliet" statute is woefully inadequate and does not cover this case. The moral panic caused by the sex offender registry has led to the ever-expanding list requiring more names and faces.

Kaitlyn Hunt has become collateral damage in the "War on Sex Offenders."

The only solution to end this war is to end the public registry. Simply reforming the registry is not enough. It would only take one "R&J" offender committing a subsequent sex crime in life to undo any mere reforms of the registry. Abolishing the registry is the only way to ensure there will be no more Kates. Think this is a "gay rights" issue? Think again.

It is not about homosexual rights.

Here is an article that breaks down the Kaitlyn Hunt case apart from the things told to us by the parents:

http://supporthonesty.net/

The Kaitlyn Hunt saga is not just about gays, it is about the sex offender registry

Over the weekend, the Internet has been abuzz last the story of Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old Florida girl arrested and charged with “felony lewd and lascivious battery on a child between 12 and 16” for having a consensual relationship with a girl three years younger than her. So far, the news media has made it a point to stress this girl’s sexuality. However, this tragic story is not about discrimination against gays, but our growing obsession with Predator Panic.

[CLICK HERE for one of the many articles on the Kaitlyn Hunt case]

Across the USA, children as young as age 9 found themselves listed on public sex offender registries. Behavior that may have been seen as nuisance behavior is now criminalized by an ever-growing industry whose sole mission is to place as many people on a public registry as possible. The sex offender registry was originally intended to be a private list for law-enforcement, with only those proven to be a high risk of re-offense listed in the event of a rare stranger abduction. Today, the registry has over 700,000 names, including thousands of kids under the age of 18 who have engaged in consensual relations with each other or sexting. 

The state of Florida does indeed have what is called a “Romeo and Juliet” provision, which allows individuals convicted of certain sex crimes, consensual sexual contact between minors and someone less than four years of age older or younger, granted the “victim” is at least 13 years old. If, by some chance, this girl is convicted, she would qualify for the Romeo and Juliet provision. However, the law is written in such a way that Kate would have to actively petition the court to be removed from the registry.

[CLICK HERE to review Florida's Romeo and Juliet Law]

We have proven that having a publicly accessible registry does nothing beneficial to society. This girl is charged with “sexual battery” for an obvious mutual sexual relationship. To use that term implies sexual violence. The registry does not differentiate between a case like this and somebody who has committed a real sexual offense. Florida is one of the worst states for the treatment of those on the registry, putting signs in yards, forcing registrants to live under bridges, and allowing a number of violent vigilante groups to exist. 

This case is only one of many across country. No doubt it is somewhat unique because of the angle, but we have kids as young as 10 years old on the public registry in Texas. Over the years, there've been a number of high profile cases, from the 12-year-olds convicted in Utah of having consensual relations with one another to Ricky's story, which brought the issue of criminalizing teen sex to national prominence.

It is sad that after all these years there are still a number of people supporting the notion of adding kids to a registry. Even sites devoted to support for Kate have been attacked by trolls demanding she except her punishment.

[CLICK HERE to see more criminalized teen sex stories]

To me, there is only one common sense solution that will prevent cases like this from occurring in the future. We must abolish the public aspect of the sex offender registry. I hope that this is the case that becomes the proverbial straw breaking the back of the camel. 

Repeal or reform: Should the registry exist in any form?

Over the years, there has been a rather large divide within the grassroots campaign to reform sex offender laws, regarding the registry itself. Some people believe that the sex offender registry should merely be reformed to reflect only those registrants deemed a high risk to society, while others, like myself, believe the registry should not exist in any form. Sometimes the argument can be a rather heated, sometimes to the point that activists have left the movement altogether.

I have told my story many times over the years and I have confessed on numerous occasions that joining the grassroots campaign to end the sex offender registry was not my first choice of careers. When I first got out of prison back in 2003, my only goals were to find my own residence and a job, keep a low profile, and not "rock the boat." In two years since my release, I had achieved what I set out to do, and things were starting to look up. In 2005, all that changed – I was targeted by local politicians who believed the city of Cincinnati was becoming a sex offender Mecca. The city reclassified individuals from out-of-state as sexual predators. With my reclassification team a civil suit to force me out of a residence that was pre-approved by the Sheriff's office. That was when I decided to fight back.

I got my start in 2004 on my now-defunct website called "sex criminals," a site that debated the need for sex offender laws, and even that long ago, the subject was hotly contested. It was barely a year removed from the US Supreme Court decisions of Smith v. Doe and Doe v. Connecticut Department of Public Safety. In both cases, the registry was upheld. 

It is a bit ironic that my first year of college began in 1994, the same year the Jacob Wetterling Act created the first national sex offender registry in existence. The Wetterling Act created a private registry for law-enforcement officials and a select number of other individuals to access in the event of a missing child. While the concept of a sex offender registry dates back to the 1930s, the modern era of predator panic coupled with the containment model of justice helped morph and expand the sex offender registry to its current monstrocity.

In 1996, just two years after the Wetterling Act, Megan's Law made the registry public. As the result of one high-profile case, the registry has been expanded. Over the years, this scenario has written repeated time and time again. Whereas the Wetterling Act was limited to those deemed high-risk, such as repeat or extremely violent offenders, the public registry has expanded to include a number of minor or nuisance offenders, such as people who urinate in public, teens who have had consensual relations with one another or have sent naked pictures of themselves to others, and in some cases, people who have not even committed sex crimes. With the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, legislators ensured that even more people would be ensnared in lifelong registration schemes.

The registry has expanded many times over the years, and often is justified by a number of myths and a few rare but tragic high-profile cases. Currently, Massachusetts and Oregon, two states that if only previously listed high-level offenders on their public registries, are considering expanding the public registry. This news story from Massachusetts is typical of the mentality to ever expand the registry:

"State lawmakers from both political parties are lining up behind bills to allow limited public access to information on Level 1 sex offenders and give the state Sex Offender Registry Board new power to update risk levels assigned to such convicts. The proposed changes are driven by the case of John Burbine, a Wakefield man and Level 1 sex offender who was charged late last year with sexually abusing more than a dozen children at his wife’s unlicensed day care business."

The situation in Massachusetts serves as a reminder that it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. If we merely reform the registry rather than repeal it, then we're only one high profile case away from a return to the full-scale registry. In recent memory, we have witnessed the same pattern with other laws, such as gun control. After a rash of school shootings such as Littleton or Columbine in the 1990s, a number of restrictions severely limiting gun rights were passed. As the years passed, these laws fell out of favor, but in the wake of more recent shootings such as Sandy Hook and the "Batman movie" shooting in Colorado, there is a renewed push for further restrictions.

In Oregon, the public registry is being expanded while at the same time providing an opportunity for high-risk offenders to come off the registry sooner. On the surface, it sounds like a feasible option:


"It's a bill that would add about 400 sex offenders to the 800 currently listed on Oregon's public website. That's out of the 18,000 sex offenders required to register with the state...The crimes include first-degree rape, sodomy, sex abuse, sexual penetration, child pornography, encouraging child sex abuse, compelling prostitution and kidnapping.  If House Bill 2549 passes, the offenders convicted of those crimes can ask to be taken off the state's registry within as few as five years after they're done with probation or parole."

Personally, I feel as if the Oregon bill should pass without expanding the registry whatsoever. Some people may ask, "What is a mere 400 people if it benefits all registrants in the long run?" If you are one of the 400 people that the law potentially impacts, then you already know the answer. Social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence are all directly linked to public disclosure on a sex offender registry.

Since sex offender registries are expanded by rare high-profile tragic cases, the what is to stop us from contracting the registry as a result of high profile vigilante crimes, such as the double murder in Port Angeles, Washington of two guys on the sex offender registry? Where is "Gary's Law?"

It is often said a picture is worth 1000 words. Perhaps the following better illustrates my point better than any of my words could. Allowing the sex offender registry to exist has led to the monster it has become today.allowing the sex offender registry has led to this:

Wapello, Iowa

And this:

Bradford County, FL

And this:

Portland, OR

And this:

And this:

Pennsylvania

And this:

Louisiana

And this:

Alabama

And this:

Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender camp: Miami, FL 2009

And this:

Port Angeles, WA

Get the picture?

A few activists have tried justifying simple reform over repeal by looking at the few who re-offend. It is an established fact that sex offenders have an extremely low rate of re-offense. One thing the reformists tend to forget it is we are a long way from perfecting the art of determining who is a high risk and who is not. Even the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art actuarial risk assessment tests can predict who is going to re-offend about as accurately as a coin flip. In Massachusetts, the push to expand the public registry is the result of a Tier 1/ Low Risk registrant committing a series of crimes. Ultimately, trying to argue which registrants deserve to be on a public list is about like asking the individuals who rely on the "if it saves just one child" mantra which child deserves to be saved.

Since 2005, I have been a living example of how an individual can be wrongfully classified. The basis for bumping my tier level up from 1 to 3 was on the basis of coming from a state with lifetime reporting requirements for all registrants, whereas Ohio had a three-tiered risk assessment. In 2008, risk assessment tests were abolished in favor of the Adam Walsh Act, which places people in one of three tiers based upon the offense alone. As a result, the number of individuals on the highest here in Ohio more than doubled.

Because sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, there is no simple way to weed out the chaff from the wheat. There are fixated offenders, and there are situational offenders. There are people who have committed rape or sexual abuse; there are people who have engaged in conduct with a willing but underage participant; there have been people who have flashed others; there have been people caught urinating in a secluded the public area; others who had consensual adult relations in secluded but public areas; there have been teens who have taken pictures of themselves; there have been teens who have had consensual relations with each other; there are individuals placed on the public registry for crimes that were not of a sexual nature. Only a very small portion are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia, and not everybody who is a pedophile commits sexual offenses.

Some people feel we should merely fight to reform rather than repeal because they do not believe the registry will never disappear. I do not believe that argument. The main reason that these laws have passed in the manner they have was mainly because nobody was speaking up against them. In the past few years, the movement to reform sex offender laws has indeed succeeded in raising awareness and slowing down the momentum, and in some cases stopping, the myriad of tough on crime sex offender laws. We have encouraged a growing number of individuals to take a second look at these laws and understand the harm they are causing.

I have lived under the public registry for a decade. I have experienced firsthand the effects of social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence in my own life. Because I have this label, everything I do is considered suspect. The masses say is part of the punishment, the legislators claim it is not punishment. It certainly feels like punishment. The registry is unconstitutional, unethical, and causes social harm. Allowing it to exist is merely cutting one head from a hydra. Anything less than repealing the registry is not acceptable.

"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.