|
|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 6-10-05 UPDATE
|
Michigan's registry e-mail notification bill: Serves public safety or serves special interest groups, at public expense?
|
MICHIGAN: Senate Bill 128:
(Relevant portion)(3) The department may make information from the compilation described in section 8(2) available to the public through electronic, computerized, or other accessible means.
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR NOTIFICATION BY ELECTRONIC OR COMPUTERIZED MEANS TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS SUBSCRIBED IN A MANNER REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPILATION DESCRIBED IN SECTION 8(2) INITIALLY REGISTERS UNDER THIS ACT, OR CHANGES HIS OR HER REGISTRATION UNDER THIS ACT, TO A LOCATION THAT IS IN A ZIP CODE AREA DESIGNATED BY THE SUBSCRIBING MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
|
According to the Michigan Sex Offender's Registration Act, the only persons or entities permitted to disseminate ANYTHING from the public registration system (PSOR) are, the department (Michigan State Police) and local police agencies.
Accordingly, should an e-mail system be enacted, then there must be appropriate controls and warnings in place to prevent further dissemination of those e-mails.
Initially one must wonder, if someone already has a computer -and can access Michigan's Public Internet Registry by zip code, why they need to be specially notified of movements of registered sex offenders (RSOs) into designated zip codes, which may or may not be the zip code of the requestor?
Michigan already has everyone report, every 90 days or annually (low risk registrants), it seems pointless to expend additional public monies for a personal e-mail system. It would be far more important to let the public know, who has not met their 90 day or annual address verification date. Information not available today.
Is this e-mail system a "special interest bill at public expense," and does it serve to improve public safety or serve special interest groups?
This bill also has a dangerous side to it, in that, it could be very easily misused to harass and stalk RSOs and their families. Given that real possibility, I am including suggested dissemination controls later in the article for individuals using this governmental service.
It cannot be forgotten that the only issue the US Supreme court approved is, that states could require registration and display selected information on the Internet. No issue beyond that was approved and therefore is open for constitutional challenge.
Initially SB128 was worded so that, it would notify a person when a RSO moved "within 1-mile of the area of a zip code." However, that has been eliminated and now only provides "notification when a RSO initially registers, or moves, to a location within a designated zip code."
Someone must have figured out that the costs of a system to support the original wording would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; Florida got lucky and got it free, but, even that system could not do what the original wording called for in SB128. Albeit.
The newer Senate (S-1) version says, the Department (Michigan State Police - MSP) MAY make information available, not MUST, because as the Legislative Analysis points out, they do not have the necessary equipment to accommodate the service today. Somehow they are going to jury-rig a system to provide it in the meantime for a lesser amount until the new computer system is installed in 2006. Is that wasted money in the interim period?
Accordingly a Michigan requestor (individual or special interest group) will be notified, if it signs up in a special way (yet to be determined), and will be told via e-mail when a RSO initially registers, or moves, to a location within a designated zip code. OK, what about the guy who moves "within a specific zip code," say from the other side of a zip code to your backyard in the same zip code? Well, we don't need to know about them.
Notice the definition of "zip code," absent, so is it a 5-digit zip code or zip+4? Left up to the discretion of the Department (MSP). Most folks do not realize this, but there are some 25,000 plus changes, nationwide, in zip codes MONTHLY.
While most of those are Zip+4 codes, some are redesignated (split-up) 5-digit zip codes. How can that happen, well it doesn't take much to figure out the number of babies born and population densities go up. Further, sometimes a building or group of buildings have their own zip code/s, but no worry, I'm sure they have all this figured out. Or, they could add a few more employees to do it by hand?
Important here is, not that the US Post Office makes 25,000 changes monthly, but, whoever in Michigan that signs up for the service indicating a "designated zip code," if that changes how will it be handled by the MSP? Will it require MSP to personally contact the Michigan requestor to determine what they really want, or just ignore the changes, and hope the Michigan requestor gets what s/he (or the special interest group) wants?
So, lets just say, no big deal. Well not so fast, assume for a moment a Michigan requestor (person or special interest group) IS NOT NOTIFIED (after properly signing up for the service) of a RSO that moves in, and that RSO then commits a crime against the child of a Michigan requestor, is there state liability? After all under the color of law seems to automatically attach here.
I could go on with a dozen or more scenarios but there is a bigger problem with this bill. Notice three words "electronic, computerized, or other accessible means," electronic, aren't telephones and cell phones electronic (text messages too). Well all we need there is a another costly system that can remember to call back if the Michigan requestor doesn't answer their phone. Hopefully, the person answering the call will not be a child who may be scared out of their wits.
Finally, I guess the "other accessible means" could add hundreds of jobs in Lansing for folks who might want "letters" of notification because they do not have a telephone, cell phone or a computer, but no worry, John Q. Public is rich.
Now, because it is most likely Special Interests involved here, I will suggest the following controls:
1) That the service be LIMITED to an individual living within the requested designated zip code;
2) that the individual certify that their address is within the designated zip code by presenting a valid -up to date- Michigan driver's license;
3) that they be LIMITED to ONE request per address;
4) that there be a required reason, namely a minor child living at their address;
5) that the requestor certify (under the penalty of perjury) that they are not using the information except to protect their family.
No special interest group/s should receive services paid for out of public money! Today the entire Public Registry is serving "special interest groups" because it lacks this very control and the control should be added.
Freedom of Information Act:
Michigan's entire sex offender registration program is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (MCL 28.730(1)).
This e-mail system, allegedly for specific individuals, seems to circumvent the FOIA prohibition, or at very least, conflict with the FOIA prohibition within the registry law.
In closing, one thing that seems to be lacking nationwide with legislatures, and that is, a visionary feasibility study on the idea forming the basis for a bill, before it is made a bill. That may stop this special interest type of bill. Now to John Q. Public, if that does not work, then no worry, just charge the costs of these type bills to the campaign funds of those who present such legislation, after all its real purpose was to get votes wasn't it?
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues © |
|
| |
|
5-29-2005 Michigan:
Sex Offender Rule for Schools May Not Work: Proposed 1,000-foot 'predator-free zone' for schools deserves hard questions |
.Sex offenders do pose a risk to society. But serious questions have to be asked about a proposal to create a 1,000-foot "predator-free zone" around all schools in the state. The Detroit News recently reported that about 1,900 of the state's 19,000 registered sex offenders, or one in 10, lives near a school. But would a rule barring all offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school really be an effective form of protection for the state's children? [snip]
As John LaFond, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has studied attempts to treat and control sex offenders, told The News, such proposals as the school zone can be "futile, costly and ineffective gestures to falsely assure the community that they're going to be safe." LaFond told The News he was worried that get-tough proposals in a number of states would isolate sex offenders, removing them from home environments where they could get treatment and jobs, increasing the odds they could commit new offenses.
Such measures also could tie up resources that should be directed toward keeping a close watch on offenders who are most likely to perpetrate new crimes, he said. Not all sex offenders pose an equal level of risk, LaFond noted to The News. Such zones would be hard to enforce. And would children at a given school be any safer if a known sex offender lived 1,020 feet from a school rather than 980 feet away?
Also, not all sex offenders have been caught and convicted. The 1,000-foot barrier, like the state's registry of sex offenders, may create a false sense of security.
: by Detroit News Editorial
..more..
RELATED:
Michigan succumbs to the same lack of vision as other states regarding sex offender "residency laws."
"The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?" by Jill S. Levenson and Leo P. Cotter, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 2005 168-178
"Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues" by Minnesota Department of Corrrections 2003 Report to the Legislature, revised 2-04
Featured Issue: 5-26-05
|
Michigan succumbs to the same lack of vision as other states regarding sex offender "residency laws."
|
|
5-26-2005 Michigan:
Newspaper: About 1,900 sex offenders live near Michigan schools |
.About 1,900 convicted sex offenders listed on Michigan's public registry live in close proximity to schools, according to a published report. The state's public registry includes about 19,000 of Michigan's roughly 36,000 convicted offenders, who are required by law to tell police where they live at least once each year.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said she would like state lawmakers to set up 1,000-foot "predator-free zones" around Michigan's schools. The zones would prevent convicted sex offenders from living less than about a fifth of a mile, or roughly two city blocks, from schools.
"We want to make certain there are no sex offenders living or working near schools where young students congregate," Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd told The Detroit News for a Thursday story. [snip]
Granholm aides said her office still is working on the details of her predator-free zones request, as well as measures that would bar convicted sex offenders from working or volunteering in schools, day care centers, playgrounds and youth leagues. [snip]
Michigan State Police, which maintains the registry, has not done a map analysis of where offenders live, a spokeswoman said. Some who study the issue say they are concerned that fear is driving efforts that do little to protect the public but could make the situation worse.
"We're beginning to move from a question of how do we make a community safe to a question of how do we create retribution," said David D'Amora, the director of Connecticut's Center for Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior.
D'Amora worries that pushing offenders out of their neighborhoods and isolating them may increase the risk that they'll commit another crime. He noted that sex offenders range from child molesters to boys who had sex with their underage girlfriends and said most pose little danger.
: by Detroit Free Press
..more..
|
5-26-2005 Mihcigan:
State's sex abusers live near schools: One in 10 resides within 1,000 feet of kids; governor wants 'predator-free zones.' |
.This month, Gov. Jennifer Granholm asked state lawmakers to wrap 1,000-foot "predator-free zones" -- about a fifth of a mile or roughly two city blocks -- around Michigan's schools, from which convicted sex offenders would be barred. "We want to make certain there are no sex offenders living or working near schools where young students congregate," said her spokeswoman, Elizabeth Boyd.
: by Brad Heath / The Detroit News
..more..
|
.A review of these two news article reveals a claim that the number of sex offenses REPORTED in Michigan has gone up since 1997. There are several hidden reasons why.
The first one is the legislature has created new types of crimes since 1997. There are more sex offense laws today than there were in 1997. That is one way to drive the statistics up.
Recently it was reported that Michigan had found several school employees who have committed sex offenses with students being the victim. Interesting here is, none of those employees had committed a sex offense before. In reality, 95% of all NEW sex offenses are committed by someone who has never committed a sex offense before.
The problem in the schools was caused by a variety of reasons, which apparently the Governor wants to remedy by passing a series of new laws. i.e., to bar sex offenders from working or volunteering in schools, day care centers, playgrounds and youth leagues. The majority of these laws are already in place in a different form. Why the need for new laws accomplishing the same thing as other laws already on the books?
So who is it that is committing these new sex offenses? The implication is that they are committed by prior offenders. However, the most recent statistic, published by the Department of Justice, shows 5.3% of former offenders are RE-ARRESTED for a new sex offense within 3-years of release from prison.
What is so interesting about that statistic is, that it includes offenders released from prison in Michigan. Further, REARRESTED figures are always higher than CONVICTED figures. That study shows 3.5% of released sex offenders were RECONVICTED.
That study also shows, that while 5.3% of the released sex offenders were REARRESTED, only 1.3% of the released non-sex offenders were REARRESTED. At first blush it looks bad for sex offenders, however, those percentages translate into sex offenders committing 517 new sex offenses (13%) while non-sex offenders committed 3,328 new sex offenses (87%) in the same time frame, 3-years. See chart below.
That is because there are more non-sex offenders released, accordingly non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community. Michigan does nothing to curb that trend nor have we seen anything planned to stop it. The Michigan Parole Board paroles non sex offenders at a much higher rate than it does sex offenders.
Now lets look at the "residency" law proposed. The first point is, no where in the US has there been a single reported crime that would have been prevented if a residency law was in place beforehand. The proposed law is an illusion.
The theory of the law, keep sex offenders from RESIDING in the proscribed areas; the governor proposes 1,000 feet. Think about this, school is during the day when registered sex offenders (RSOs) are at work.
RSOs would be in the proscribed areas only when the schools would be closed, children at home with their parents. Further, residency laws do not prohibit RSOs from being in those proscribed areas, or driving to them.
So, if I understand this all correctly, an RSO can live next door to a child, but the RSO cannot live within 1,000 feet of where that child goes to school or is in a day care.
So the purpose of these laws are??? And they protect who or what??? This is, in part, why we continue to take the stance that public servants proposing these laws lack vision.
A very important point to note, the news reports stay clear of saying that, the reported sex offenses were committed by former sex offenders. However, that is what the general public will think, right? Is that fair reporting?
Finally, assuming the REPORTED sex crimes since 1997 are correct, and the reported arrests are so low, does that signal a problem with former sex offenders or the criminal justice system? Why focus on former sex offenders?
It is a well known fact that, over 80% of the time, victims know the offender or the offender is someone known to the victim's family, a trusted person!
Most Sex Offenders Are Not Strangers To The Victim "But there is a line between being protective and being paranoid, Swain said. Parents need to be careful not to frighten their children and make them believe the bogeyman is just around every corner." by KSL 1160 News Radio and The Associated Press
Why are these laws needed? Oh yes, to pacify the public, lull them into a another false sense of security.
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
Related Articles:
Residency laws cause clustering of offenders!
How does one measure the distances involved with Child Safety Zones?
Do Child Safety Zoning Laws Really Protect Children??
Does Megan's Law Protect All Children?
|
Who will commit more new sex offenses within 3-years of being paroled, sex offenders -OR- non-sex offenders?
According to the Department of Justice, non-sex offenders commit more new sex offenses when paroled!
|
| No. Released |
Offenders Paroled |
ReArrested for a New Sex Offense |
New Sex Offenses Over 3-Years |
% of New Sex Offenses |
Average per year |
9,691 |
Sex Offenders |
5.3% |
517 |
13% |
172 |
262,420 |
Non-Sex Offenders |
1.3% |
3,328 |
87% |
1,109 |
272,211 |
All Offenders |
1.4% |
3,845 |
100% |
1,281 |
Source: US Dep't of Justice, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." pg-24 Published 11/2003.
|
|
| |
Featured Issue: 5-1-05
|
Does Michigan violate federal law by posting photos of former offenders?
|
|
5-1-2005 Michigan:
Web site to post photos of sex-crime convicts |
.Photos of sex-crime convicts listed on the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry will be posted on the Web site beginning Sunday, the Michigan State Police said Wednesday. A new state law requires that a photo of each offender registered under the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act be included, according to a press release from the Michigan State Police.
Photos will be obtained from the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. Every registered offender, by law, must maintain a Michigan driver's license or personal identification card and digital image with the Secretary of State's office. As of this month, 36,748 offenders were registered under the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration law. There were 19,088 registered on the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry.
: by Kalamazoo Gazette
..more..
|
Federal law criminalizes the release and use of certain personal information (photo or image) from state motor vehicle records. Today Michigan has begun posting photos of former offenders which it retrieved from the state's Department of Motor Vehicle records.
Title 18, Section 2721:
(a) In General.
A State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity:
(1) personal information, as defined in 18 USC 2725(3), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, except as provided in subsection (b); OR
(2) highly restricted personal information as defined in 18 USC 2725(4), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, without the express consent of the person to whom such information applies, except uses permitted in subsection (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): Provided, that subsection (a)(2) shall not in any way affect the use of organ donation information on an individual's driver's license or affect the administration of organ donation initiatives in the States.
2721(b) Permissible Uses: personal information referred to in subsection (a) SHALL BE DISCLOSED for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle ...
"Highly restricted personal information" normally requires the express written consent of the person it belongs to, but there are four (4) exceptions to that written consent requirement [(b)(1)(4)(6)(9)]. However, under those exceptions, the use must pertain to "matters of motor vehicle."
Given that subsection (b)(1) appears to allow a governmental agency use of "highly restricted personal information (photograph or image)" to carry out its functions, those functions must be in connection with matters of motor vehicle and the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry has nothing to do with matters of motor vehicles.
For discussion sake, lets assume (b)(1) permits a governmental agency to display photos, then it follows that social security numbers, medical and disability information may also be publically displayed. Then the registry would be a candy store for ID Theft, and maybe with the new photo it already is.
Even more unusual is the second part of (b)(1), where it appears to permit the governmental agency to provide the photo to a "private person" (presumably the general public), but then -if true- the public would be working for the state under the color of law; worldwide.
Finally, 2721(b) Permissible Uses, says SHALL BE DISCLOSED for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle, and there is no way to get around that. Someone has not done their homework. Could that someone be charged with over 19,000 federal crimes (the number of folks on the Public Registry)?
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
18 USC 2721:
Subsection(b)(1): For use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions.
18 USC 2725:
(3) “personal information” means information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver’s status.
(4) “highly restricted personal information” means an individual’s photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information; ...
|
| |
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
|
|
