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 7 Claims:


NC Youthful Offenders with Multiple Convictions

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 32) Among the 13 registered sex offenders in our sample who were under 18 at the time of conviction, six were registered for indecent liberties with a minor, and four were convicted of second degree rape (rape not involving the use of a weapon).


Family Watchdog Conclusion (Response)

The report fails to state that 30% of NC youthful offender have multiple convictions.

30% of young offenders had multiple convictions.

Background

We located 313 offenders who were under the age of 18 at the time of conviction.

93 (30%) offenders were convicted of multiple charges.

The convictions for the remaining 220 broke down as follows:
INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR 108
RAPE 2ND DEGREE 27
SEX OFFENSE 2ND DEGREE 26
ATTEMPTED RAPE OR ATTEMPTED SEX OFFENSE (1ST2ND DEGREE) 17
SEXUAL BATTERY 10
SEX OFFENSE 1ST DEGREE 9
INCEST WITH NEAR RELATIVES 6
KIDNAPPING AGAINST A MINOR (1ST2ND) 5
REGISTERED AS A RESULT OF OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION 4
SEXUAL OFFENSE WITH CERTAIN VICTIMS 3
SEX OFFENSE 1ST DEGREE - AID/ABETTING 1
RAPE 1ST DEGREE - W/CHILD UNDER 12 1
RAPE 2ND DEGREE - W/FORCE 1
FELONIOUS RESTRAINT AGAINST A MINOR 1
INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR - LEWD ACTS WITH A CHILD 1

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 7:43 PM
Labels:

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Multiple convictions," which FW uses first, implies the young offender has a long history and many victims.

"Convicted of multiple charges," which FW uses later, leads me to believe we're actually looking at single incidents with, duh, multiple charges.

Alas, without knowing how FW located these under-18 offenders and to what records FW was given access, it's rather difficult to assess.

September 23, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)