Human Rights Watch Report:
"No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States."

Apparently Family Watchdog and the Human Rights Watch have met to discuss the claims made by FW against the HRW report. In essence, they agree on one point, that they both support preventing sexual violence, and that is where consensus ends. Their "Statement of Cooperation" is on the HRW site dated 10-3-2007, there has been no collaboration between these organizations since that date;nothing.

In addition, FW announces the most insane program I have ever heard of, they propose, anyone -including RSOs- may submit CERTIFIED COURT and OTHER DOCUMENTS realted to the RSOs' crime to FAMILY WATCHDOG, so they may make them available to the public. But, read carefully, FW would then be a Central Repository of criminal records, stored in Indiana.

Then if someone wants to assess the risk of a RSO, they would have to -fly, drive, take a train, etc.- to Indiana where the records are stored, and by some magical means, read the documents and be able to determine the risk the RSO presents to the community. FW will not be assessing RSOs.

Any reasonable person can see the falacy of such a risk determination, those documents would be at the point of the crime and will not reflect what the RSO is like in today's light. FW, like so many politicians, are stuck in history refusing to recognize the RSOs' accomplishments, changes and system reforms since the crime. FW proposes such a system because it fosters a need for their cottage industry.

Further, FW made claims -unsupported by evidence- of the HRW's report. And, FW promised a full report by 9-17-07, none has ever been published. Now FW expects to be entrusted with documents when there are no laws protecting those documents or governing Family Watchdog's use of them. I would never recommend such a system in the hands of an uncontrolled and unregulated private party.

Note: Look closely at the documents FW will accept, then look closer at the documents FW will reject. FW will reject anything not on a public registry. None of what they will accept is on any public registry. Should someone want to assess the risk of a RSO and not live in Indiana, will FW then charge a fee to copy the records and mail them? Another cottage industry, and hopefully not a source for the newspapers.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Family Watchdog Issue 4 Claims:


Is a 6 year age difference OK? What about 20?

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 32) In our sample, 67 percent of the registrants reported indecent liberties with a minor as the registerable offense (this is a broadly-defined offense that need not include violence and need not even involve physical contact with the minor victim). Another 10 percent were registered for rape (first and second degree), The other 23 percent were registered for other sex crimes.

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

83% (10,201) of Indecent Liberties Minor convictions (12,309) involved a sexual encounter between an offender over the age of 21 and a victim under the age of 16.
17% of Indecent Liberties Minor convictions (2108) were committed by an offender 21 or younger targeting a victim at least 6 years younger than the offender.

Background

In order to convict for Indecent Liberties Minor it must be proven that the victim was under 16, the offender was at least 16, there was at least a 5 year age difference in age and the purpose was “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire;”. No reasonable person should believe that a 17 year old should “arouse or gratify a sexual desire” with an 11 year old (or younger), 18 / 12, 19 / 13, etc..

Source: http://www.ncfindoffender.com/


The Following by eAdvocate:

I find Family Watchdog's response further proof of their inability to read, comprehend and analyze simple words as expressed by the Human Rights Watch.

What part of "in our sample" does FW not understand?

FW trys to dispell HRW comment by effectively agreeing that there are some, in fact more if you consider the whole registry, which HRW chose not to do, they sampled the registry.

Given the severe claims made by FW, their response is not worthy of considering any further since they changed the issue, and failed to show that what HRW said, as to the sample they used, was in any way incorrect.

FW claimed what HRW said was wrong, fraudulent and whatever, yet FW did not address their issue in that light.


Family Watchdog!
Posted by at 7:20 PM
Labels:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)