|
|
Featured Issue: Posted 2-7-2005
|
Real Estate, Former Sex Offenders, and Lawsuits Over Their Presence
|
2-7-2005 New Hampshire:
Megan's Law mandates disclosure
.The first public notification law for sex offenders was passed in Washington state in 1990. ... ... Several states, such as California, have enacted laws that require home sellers to inform buyers of the availability of such lists but disclosure of known registered child molesters is not required. In New Hampshire, as in most states, agents or sellers have no legal obligation to disclose that a sex offender lives in the neighborhood.
According to the National Association of Realtors, the Realtors’ code calls for honesty in all dealings, but only requires Realtors to direct buyers in writing to the state’s sex-offender Web site. "Local law enforcement agencies, not real estate professionals, are the best source of information on sex offenders," NAR’s Web site said. "While real estate professionals share the public’s concern about where convicted sex offenders are, NAR believes that Realtors should not bear the responsibility of notifying home buyers when such offenders live in a neighborhood."
The courts seem to agree. In a 1999 New York case, a buyer sued a seller for not disclosing the presence of a known child molester across the street. The judge ruled that the seller wasn’t obligated, barring any "active concealment of the fact by the seller or the seller’s agent." The court said it was up to the buyer to exercise due diligence in the matter ...
: by Chris Bernard
..more..
2-7-2005 New Hampshire:
‘Not that kind of town’
.Right up until two days before they were to sign the closing contract on their new home in Exeter last December, Melissa and Adam Leland were excited to move and confident that they’d found the right house for their family. "We thought we’d asked all the right questions and had really done our homework," Melissa Leland said. Nearly two months later, the Lelands are homeless. There was one question they forgot to ask, and for them, the answer was a deal-breaker.
Are there any sex offenders living in the neighborhood? There are 400,000 sex offenders registered nationwide, more than 2,600 in New Hampshire alone. Six of them live in Exeter. All six are in compliance with the registration laws. Information about all six is available on the state’s Web site or through the Exeter Police Department.
Leland and her husband contracted with a builder to buy a house on Deer Run Road in Exeter. After putting money down, but before closing, they learned that a registered sex offender lived across the street. "I have a 6-year-old girl and a 3-year-old boy," Leland said. "It wasn’t a choice. We could not move there." The four Lelands are staying with family in Massachusetts and have been since early December.
"We’re essentially homeless," she said. "All of us, we’re crowded into someone else’s house. The kids were worried at Christmas that Santa wouldn’t be able to find us here." They’re negotiating with the developer for a partial return of the nearly $15,000 they put toward the house. They’re also feeling like victims of the system. Who knew what; what were they required to disclose?
: by Chris Bernard
..more..
|
2-7-2005 New Hampshire:
Home buyer beware
.Federal Megan's law mandates that anyone convicted of sex crimes must register with the state. States were given some leeway in establishing their own criteria for disclosure of that information. Some have adopted a community notification component and are proactive and aggressive about notifying residents when a registered offender moves into their area. New Hampshire does not have a community notification aspect. Maine does. "I come from Minnesota, where they’re very active about community notification," said Patty Quinn. "I thought it was that way everywhere, but I guess not."
Last year, Quinn and her family moved into a Deer Run Road home in Exeter, only to find out after the fact that their next-door neighbor, Peter Valade, is a registered sex offender. Quinn was not without concerns and suspicions, but she was quick to distance herself from her neighbor. "I’d be concerned about my children’s safety no matter who lived next door," she said. "That’s just being a parent." ‘Check with local police’ ... ...
Massachusetts residents Melissa and Adam Leland put money down on a Deer Run Road home last December. Two days before closing, they found out that Valade, who lives across the street, was a registered offender. The Lelands had not checked the registry before considering purchasing their home. Neither had the Quinns nor their neighbors, the Benottis. Both families have children, and both moved to the neighborhood long after Valade, who has lived there since the 1990s. ...
The Lelands decided to withdraw from purchasing their home, and are negotiating with the developer over the nearly $15,000 they put down. Did the Lelands’ developer and the real estate brokers involved in the transaction withhold knowledge about Valade? It doesn’t seem, legally, to matter. They weren’t required to disclose that information. Real estate agents in New Hampshire, at best, are required to inform buyers about the registry if asked.
: by Chris Bernard
..more..
2-7-2005 New York:
Neighbors sue owner of boarding house over convicted sex offender
.A group of Sayville residents yesterday filed suit against the owner of a boarding house where a convicted Level 3 sex offender lives, citing what they said was the landlord's pattern of negligence that has placed a neighborhood in danger. Suffolk police have responded to 324 calls since 1994 at the boarding house, including 102 disturbance calls, the lawsuit said.
The owner of the 103 Gillette Ave. house, Ekaterina Sioutopoulos of Sayville, "has steadfastly and unreasonably refused to address the concerns of the community" by screening out the sex offender and other violent criminals, said the suit, filed in Supreme Court in Central Islip. Nineteen neighbors filed the suit because the boarding house is the stuff of nightmares, said their lawyer, Michael Regan of Sayville. They seek $10 million in damages to compensate them for lost real estate value, he said.
: by JOSEPH MALLIA, STAFF WRITER
..more..
2-7-2005 Arkansas:
Developer sues sex offender on sales loss
.A developer who claims sales in a subdivision stopped after a sex offender and his wife bought a home has sued the couple and the real estate company that arranged the purchase. NGI Rental filed the $2 million lawsuit Friday against Randall Dee Collins and his wife, as well as the real estate company that arranged their new home purchase.
Randall Collins, 39, was convicted of molesting young girls and is listed on the Arkansas Crime Information Center Web site. According to the lawsuit, his wife hired a real estate company to sell her old home, saying she had married a sex offender and that her home was too close to a school. A day after the couple bought a home in a new subdivision, the police department distributed fliers detailing Collins' case.
The lawsuit claims residents indicated they would move if Collins did not leave the neighborhood - and that sales came to a standstill because the developer was required to tell potential buyers about Collins. The lawsuit also alleged Collins called the developer and offered to move for $250,000, "or he would stay there and kill their subdivision."
: by ASSOCIATED PRESS
..more..
|
| |
Featured Issue: The Bigger Picture!
Why Legislatures Focus on Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs)
and Not on The Causes of Sex Offenses!
|
2-5-2005 Michigan:
Michigan will post photos of sex offenders online in May
.Michigan plans to start posting the photos of convicted sex offenders on the Internet in May, a move some say will keep the public safer but others say is unfair to offenders who are on the list but aren't considered dangerous. ... Michigan now has 36,068 sex offenders on its registry.
State Rep. Leon Drolet, R-Clinton Township, said the photos will help neighbors recognize someone who might be dangerous. But they also will prevent confusion between innocent people and sex offenders who have the same name.
: by The Holland Sentinel
..more..
Note: Assuming someone has the mental capacity to remember 36,068+ names and pictures, and recall each instantly, then my comments may be pointless. Remember many of the 36,068 are in prison (see comment end of pg-2 showing number incarcerated is included in reported number)
OK, who do you know that carries a computer with a wireless connection (with access to an account, that has access to a PUBLIC "wire-less net" whereever they are)) when they are out and about during the day?
Assuming someone does have the ability, then they need a way to input pictures of everyone they pass during the day, and then search the State's online database of registered offenders (will this tie up their web site??? Do you hear the chuckle. Of course, that person may be from another state too.). Yup, this is possible, I saw something similar on a TV show, CSI, but even there it was in a lab.
There is another way, one could print all 36,068 pics and create an album which they can carry with them, but when they meet someone, that person will have to wait while they compare pictures to their face. Can you just imagine the people standing around waiting for each other to compare their pics?
OK, lets assume they find someone, what is their next move, run screaming into the nearest police station for protection. My suggestion would be to simply say hello and move on! If you are at home seeing their picture, then it has no meaning, unless they are standing next to you, then what would you do?
I always thought legislators were paid to solve problems, which does require a thought process, how much thought has gone into these pictures, nill. Legislators have created another illusion. Another needless cost to offenders and the general public.
Legislators are constantly into illusion and ignore the main source of new sex offenses, caused by those not on the registry. eAdvocate
|
|
Sex offender registries, Megans' laws, have evolved from, initially a list just for the police, to worldwide Internet access, to what has become a dossier of the registrants, and now with the photos, a complete dossier.
The Claim of
High Recidivism Rates:
Political figures and public servants will tout, but registries are necessary to protect the public from the high recidivism of sex offenders; recidivism, a myth for some time now. The Department of Justice, in 2003, has proven that the recidivism rates are 3.5% as to same crime type, and 5.3% as to all crime types, but political figures and public servants ignore this because it does not support their position. Further if they tried to dispel this myth they would appear to be siding with sex offenders and would be hurt politically. It is also well known that over 90% of today's victims know the person that offends them. The same public servants regularly make this known, but political figures sidestep this point.
Harm to Registered Sex Offenders and Their Families:
So the myth continues, and daily harm is caused those registered and it flows over into their families. Again, political figures and public servants tout, "I have not heard of any harm" and the public eats up those comments. Of course the Department of Justice and a several other researchers have documented the harm, but no one listens, including the courts because lawyers fail to present the research in the courts when actions have been brought.
Loss of Privacy:
The dossiers' grow with information so that everyone in the world knows everything there is to know about those registered, information they have no need to know, information that invades the very core of the life of the registrant and his or her family. The majority (over 99% a fair guesstimate) of those with access to Internet registries, worldwide, do not even live in the proximity of the registrants. Everyone says, so what, they [registrants] have lost their right of privacy. The only problem with that argument, which political figures say nothing about, is, there is a hidden agenda, one not apparent to the public eye.
Laws of Exclusion:
More recently legislatures have been enacting "laws of exclusion," laws to exclude registrants from every conceivable aspect that might place them near, or in contact, with a child, and more recently have gone beyond children. Legislatures have enacted laws to exclude registrants from housing in general, employment of all types, college housing, associating with people who may be considered venerable, no longer just children, and within these laws of exclusion have required that background checks be performed, checking into even juvenile records which have been long since sealed.
Verification of Backgrounds:
The results of which are to be used to exclude anyone who has committed any crime of a sexual nature, young and old are excluded, and even streaking or urinating in the park, and even juvenile offenders including those that merely experimented but got caught. Given the concept of "background checking," business costs have risen, current and future employees must be constantly checked, and the profit margins of the businesses have been squeezed. Many of these businesses are owned by, or their stock is owned by, political figures and public servants, and yes the general public too.
Business Expenses:
Before these new exclusionary laws were enacted, businesses had to hire search firms to do the background checking, and that costs money affecting income. Here is how the public is paying for these business costs. Megans' laws are now virtually a complete dossier on those registered, businesses no longer need search firms to do that work, all they do is get on the Internet and do it at a clerk's pay scale.
Sex offenders a Perceived Business Liability Problem:
Overall sex offender issues are a problem for businesses, in a business risk analysis, a clear liability. There are many lobbyists that support various businesses and they look to legislators to enact laws which give them more access to any business liability information (sex offender dossiers are one) so that businesses can make more informed decisions. The fact that, more access may violate rights is of no concern to businesses, the bottom line, is the only thing that drives businesses. Getting the public to pay for one of the biggest perceived liability businesses have today, is a priority for them.
Get the Public to Pay for Background Checks:
Income is down, the threats of lawsuits are up if registrants are included, which causes other business costs to rise which again reduces income. How can these business costs be curtailed wonders the political figure? One way is, to enact legislation to get the public to pay for these costs. What, the public pays for business costs? You can't do that, it's against the law!
The Circle is Complete:
The public pays for Megans' laws, which are now on the Internet for easy access by all including businesses, and businesses reap the benefits, illegal, yes in concept, but legislatures have now made it legal, and why, to reduce the business expenses & liabilities, which ultimately increases income, and that flows back into the pockets of those who own businesses or stockholders. Higher income means higher taxes. Further, legislatures have recently been trying to put caps on lawsuits or to eliminate lawsuits, why, business income must be reduced when lawsuits win.
Cost of Megans' laws Registries:
Recently legislators have begun to charge registrants to pay for administering the state's registry by enacting laws to charge fees and other charges hoping to quell the outflow of state money, which is beginning to show. Iowa recently published its' annual registry costs, it came to about $85.00 per registrant. We have no idea if their figures are comparable to other states but it is a benchmark. Michigan recently reported 36,086 registrants, but a goodly portion of those are still in prison (37.6% reported the Michigan State Police 12-2002), accordingly, annual costs should be about $1,914,030.00 (22,518 times $85.00). Benchmarks only, exacts figures are unavailable.
Megans' Laws Created A Nomadic People:
Registered sex offenders, over 500,000 strong now, are in society and forced to register. The stigma that results makes them a pariah so they lose jobs, are forced to move, or are homeless, the laws of exclusion have forced them to be nomads moving around looking for a place to settle in peace. This nomadic movement places them, daily, in the face of businesses nationwide, their backgrounds must be checked each and every time they move into a new residence or area trying to get reestablished. You must also remember, if they have immediate families, they too are becoming nomadic and increase business expenses, as new employees, requiring their own background checks.
Legislatures Focus on Registered Sex Offenders:
For some time now we have made it known that legislatures, have ignored the "Divisions of Offenders," are focusing on "registered sex offenders," and not on those "sex offenders" who are committing over 95% of new sex offenses. It has been our contention that, legislatures must get to the root of the problem (solve the causes) and that requires a focus on research. But, legislative focus has not been on research, they focus only on registered sex offenders (former sex offenders who have low recidivism rates). Why?
Until today, we missed the reasoning, it is a 5-letter word M-O-N-E-Y, income! This is why the myths must remain.
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
|
| |
Featured Issue: Posted 2-1-2005
|
The Exiling of Former Sex Offenders (FSOs)
|
Courts have said, and legislatures agreed, that Megans' laws have one purpose, to protect the public and more specifically children who are the most venerable. Megans' laws were not meant to further punish, instead to protect the public from sex offenders who are believed to have a high rate of recidivism.
Today's laws fail to distinguish between the "divisions of offenders." the term "sex offender is too loosely used, casting a wide net. The history of Megan's law will show that it is based upon the actions of a non-typical offender. The unfortunate truth is, that type of offender will exist whether there is a law or not.
Reviewing the background of Jesse Timmendequas you find that he should not have been released into society. The New Jersey parole board recognized that fact, but all too late, they found their parole criteria was too loose and tightened it up in the years following. There have been similar crimes in other states, and if you review the backgrounds of those non-typical offenders, you wonder why they were released too, in each case the release criteria was lacking. Megans' laws will never solve faulty parole board criteria.
In 2003 the Department of Justice released a study of the recidivism of 9,671 sex offenders released from prison (2/3 of all sex offenders released nationally in 1994) and what they found is, sex offender recidivism (as to the same type of crime) was 3.5%. Yes, some committed other types of crimes, but the basis of Megans' laws is sex offenses, not other crime types. If other crime types were the focus, then there would be a separate registry for those types of crimes.
So, how do we resolve the "claims of high recidivism," actually it is very easy to understand. In our opening we spoke of the "divisions of offenders," well for this discussion there are two divisions, those who have not been caught (new sex offenders), and those who have been caught (former sex offenders). "New sex offenders" have the "high rate of recidivism," while former sex offenders have the "low rate of recidivism." DoJ Study proves this.
Yes, it is true that Jesse Timmendequas fell into the class of "former sex offenders" at that time, but we cannot forget that he would not have been in that class, if the parole board criteria was not so lax (although later rectified). Megans' laws will never fix parole board failures. Unfortunately, there will always be a John Wayne Gasey and nothing that is done will ever resolve that, but thousands of lives cannot be held responsible for the criminal acts of the non-typical offender.
Megans' laws, and the laws following it, and the actions of society today have but one purpose, not to protect society, but to exile former sex offenders. Exile! If the focus was "protection of society" then what legislatures' focus on would be broader than just former sex offenders.
"Divisions of Offenders" is the key, legislatures ignore "new sex offenders" and their issues, yes punishing them more heavily when caught, but legislatures ignore research into the causes of sex offenses, if they did this then there would be fewer new sex offenders to punish. Instead legislatures focus on former sex offenders.
Review January news articles:
There is already a homelessness problem faced by many states, and if former sex offenders (FSO) have no place to live, then they have no place to register a residence. Effectively, Megans' laws are self-defeating. Landlords are being asked to deny rentals to FSOs, especially when they are released from civil commitment centers following successful completion of a treatment program.
Then comes the school and day care residency laws, laws of illusion, these laws are a pipe dream, offenders cannot live close to the proscribed areas, but the can drive or go there without restriction. School bus stop laws are no different. Coupled to all residency type laws is how to measure the distance from the proscribed place to the offender's home, straight line, circle, as the crow flys, driving, walking, etc.
Finally, do child safety zone laws really protect children at all? Then the question no one wants to ask, or address, what about children of former sex offenders, are they protected?
When the community cannot get what it wants, exclusion of the FSO, then it protests outside of FSO homes, in complete violation of Megans' laws and the police do nothing. FSOs have major employment issues as they are being excluded from more and more job types. Further, there is excessive notification of FSOs to keep the fires of hysteria fueled.
Finally, even the treatment centers for FSOs are being targeted, like once before in history (abortion centers). Treatment centers are being forced out of industrial areas also.
One would think that "Community Education" would prevail and instill some balance in the community. New York, Illinois and Missouri tried this and from all reports have failed. Communities want FSOs exiled, but where, anywhere but where a community is. These failures are caused by the lack of vision on the part of legislatures, they cannot see past former sex offenders!
When legislatures recognize the "divisions of offenders," and that, laws enacted should not destroy the therapeutic effects FSOs have already gained from therapy, then resolutions will begin.
I would hope that all legislators would read the findings of a federal judge in a residency case in Iowa (Doe -v- Miller (298 FSupp 2d 844 [SD Iowa 2-9-2004] appeal pending]). The judge after listening to expert psychological testimony (pgs 23-30) concluded, in part, that recidivism is a likely result of these overbearing laws, which is partly why he declared Iowa's to be unconstitutional.
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
|
| |
Featured Issue: Posted 2-5-2005
|
Must there be consequences for one's actions when they are based upon something false?
|
2-5-2005 Maryland:
Principal Sues Students Who Accused Him of Sex Abuse
.A principal accused of molesting two elementary school girls at their school in the late 1970s is now suing his accusers, weeks after prosecutors dropped charges against him. Kevin Lindsey, principal of McCormick Elementary School, filed suit on Wednesday seeking $8 million in damages for each of eight counts filed against the women, sisters who attended Pine Grove Elementary School in Carney in the 1970s while Lindsey was a teacher there and, according to charging documents, recovered memories of abuse decades later.
The two students, now in their 30s, told police they recently had recovered memories of the alleged abuse. Based on those allegations, police arrested Lindsey on Dec. 11. He was placed on paid administrative leave. Lindsey denied the allegations. On Dec. 29, Baltimore State's Attorney Sandra O'Connor dropped all charges against Lindsey, saying there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Lindsey's attorney said Wednesday that the primary purpose of the suit is to hold the women accountable for what the principal says are baseless accusations and to clear Lindsey's name.
The women did not return phone calls yesterday, nor did they respond to letters seeking comment that a reporter delivered to their homes. The suit details physical and emotional anguish that Lindsey endured as a result of the allegations, saying he sought medical treatment for "fear, anxiety, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, sense of loss, confusion and psychological trauma." In August, the older sister told police she had recovered a "new memory" of a sexual assault by Lindsey when she was in fourth grade at Pine Grove in 1979, court documents state.
The younger sister, now 34, told police in September that Lindsey assaulted her in a school bathroom when she was in second grade at Pine Grove in 1977, according to the documents. She said she had been in therapy because "she knew something had happened but never knew what it was" and that she had been praying when the "memory came to her," the documents show. Last month, Lindsey returned to McCormick Elementary in Rosedale as principal.
: by WJZ13
..more..
|
If the facts that the girls alleged were true, then this principal would have been convicted of a crime and spent some time in prison and lifelong harassment when he returned to the community.
Today he has been very lucky to get back to some sense of a normal life and got his job back, which is far better than many others.
Here it appears that damages are due the offender when he is falsely accused of sexual abuse and most likely he will get something as many others have.
The consequences of one's actions can result in civil damages, but what is the basis here, false memory recollection, false accusations or simply lies? No one knows, but what is known is, the alleged offender was harmed, how much will be determined by the suit.
Whatever the basis the state proceeded with prosecution (based upon something false) and would have convicted him. What if he was convicted and later learned the victims lied, would he still be entitled to damages?
In most all states, the state proceeds with prosecution of any person who has "perceived or real" sexual contact with a minor under 16-years of age. The presumption being, a minor cannot consent to a sexual act and therefore the other party is guily of a crime.
In several of those cases the minor has lied about their age, or has consented to the act, and later admitted to those facts. The minor is rarely prosecuted, and suffers no consequences. However, the older person is convicted or adjudicated of a crime.
So lets see what we have, in the principal's case the state proceeds on the presumption of truth of the allegations and STOPS when found to be false, in our example about minors, the state proceeds on the presumption of the truth of the allegations and CONTINUES even when they learn of the lies.
Why is it that the state condones "lies of minors" and does nothing, an adult would be prosectued for lying (i.e., Martha Stewart)? Is it possible, the parties still have a civil suit for damages available to them? We don't know, maybe the lawyers out there can answer this one.
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
|
| |
Featured Issue: UPDATED 2-1-2005 2:00 PM
|
Pennsylvania's Internet Sex Offender Registry Also Shows Those Incarcerated in Jails & Prisons?
|
2-1-2005 Pennsylvania:
Sex offenders' residences could be misinterpreted
.Are 24 convicted sex offenders living among the residents of Dallas? That's the impression visitors to Pennsylvania's new Megan's Law Web site might get, but the reality is quite different. ... ... But a review of the site shows information provided regarding an offender's address is misleading in some cases. In Dallas, for example, the site lists the names of 24 offenders, giving the impression they are free within the community. But state Department of Corrections records show 21 of those offenders are incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, which is actually in Jackson Township. The Web site does not provide that information, except for one inmate, Larry Paden, a sexually violent predator who is subject to more stringent reporting requirements.
The situation is similar for the 17 offenders listed as living in Hunlock Creek, 14 of whom are currently imprisoned at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat, located in Hunlock Creek, the DOC records show. In Wilkes-Barre, three of the 25 offenders listed are lodged in the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, according to the prison's records department. One person - Larry Tooley - is in a state prison for a murder conviction. He was convicted of sexual assault of a minor in another state in 1983. ... ...
It was unclear Tuesday why state police opted to include incarcerated inmates on the Megan's Law list. Trooper Linette Quinn, spokeswoman for state police in Harrisburg, said the department wants to provide as much information on as many sex offenders as is legally permissible. She could not say if the Web site might be altered to indicate if an offender is incarcerated. Quinn said incarcerated sex offenders normally are not included on the list. Those who are have been released into a community at some point, but were re-incarcerated on parole or probation violations. In those cases, the "residence" is listed as the state prison where they are lodged.
Quinn said the parole violations could be for a number of reasons ranging from technical violations of parole rules to commission of another crime, although not necessarily a sex crime.
: by TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
..more..
|
Is it incorrect, or a mistake, to show those incarcerated in jails and prisons on the state's Internet sex offender registry? Well, YES and NO!
The threshold question that needs to be asked is, why are those who are in jails and prisons included in the state's sex offender registry when they are TECHNICALLY not in the community?
A multi-part answer, but lets start with the real reason, MONEY, INCOME for the state!
Under the federal guidelines states can annually receive federal funds for the number of persons they have to keep track of in the state's registry. See Title 42 sec. 14071(I) Grants to States for costs of compliance.
So, it is in the state's best interests to have as many as possible registered, the more the merrier, and more income to cover the costs of administering the state registry.
What states have done within their registry laws is, to require persons, as soon as they are convicted, to register in the state's registry. Now logically they should not show them on their Internet listing, because it misleads the public (as the news article points out), but when has -misleading the public- caused a state to do what is right and fair?
The article correctly points out that, at times, some on parole are going back to prison (for whatever reason), and it takes time to get all records corrected. It is also fair to mention that, correctional facilities sometimes have Trustees who are housed at low levels and work outside the prison, such cases, if a sex offender, would warrant showing them, as well as when an inmate escapes or walks away.
A better system might be, when a person is released from a jail or prison, then have them register as part of the facility release process, then change their proposed address when they find a place to live. Already the proposed jurisdiction where a inmate is going to live is notified, so it's a simple step.
The bigger question arises when the state charges the registrant a fee when they come to register, the state gets money from the registrant and from the federal grant. Is that wrong? You be the judge..
Michigan has admitted, it too is doing this. See Michigan State Police Background Information: pg-2 where they show the number incarcerated. California also: see California 2002 Report to its Legislature, pg-19
Note: Notice also they are showing "Out of State figures," those that have moved, but do they report that as part of their registry numbers too? Are feds paying 2-3-4-5-6-etc times, as offenders move from state to state?
I suspect all states are doing it, but is it right?
I wonder, are states trying to scare the public into thinking there are more sex offenders in the community than there really are? No, they would not do that....
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
|
| |
Legal Issues & Court Cases Affectine Sex Offenders ©
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex offender Issues ©
Beyond the Abuse: A Personal Recovery Program ©
Copyright ©2003-2005 L. Arthur M.Parrish. All rights reserved.Privacy policy
|
|
