Rebuttal to Family Watchdog's Claims: by A Voice of Reason

Comments Apparently Deleted / Missing From Family Watchdog Website

2007-09-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

We have received a few e-mails telling us that Family Watchdog has deleted or didn't post certain comments which readers did post in response to FW claims about the new Human Rights Report.

Given that we do know that some comments were filtered and not posted, here is what we are going to do. Readers can post those comments as comments to this post of ours. Please only post them AS COMMENTS TO THIS POST so we know they pertain to what FW said, and not what our response is saying.

I will still moderate comments as I believe comments should be professional and address issues in a way that is helpful to understand the readers complaint.

Further, if a reader sends me a e-mail I can post as COMMENTS RECEIVED BY E-MAIL. Remember, let me know how you want them signed. See my example below:

COMMENTS RECEIVED BY E-MAIL:

EXAMPLE: I disagree with the Family Watchdog claims.
Anonymous, PeterPiper, or Whatever (Please remember, professionalism)

e-mail message: Websites like Family Watchdog's create a security threat to the safety of my family. I own my home, pay my taxes, and contribute as a law-abiding citizen to society. Reader #1001

e-mail message: This Human Rights Watch report is OUTSTANDING and long overdue. Good luck debunking it. They took 2 years to compile this report. Maybe if you took the time to do that same research instead of worrying about your "bottom line" you'd see it for what it really is, the TRUTH!

Amen and God Bless Human Rights Watch!
Concerned citizen and mother of four
Reader #1002

e-mail message:
For the past three years I have read the various research-based studies about recidivism of former sex offenders and I know the recidivism is extremely low. I have read the Human Rights Watch report and I find that the research was extremely accurate, well-documented and detailed; the report comes to the same conclusions I came to believe. I have read the newspaper and Net articles about the increasing harassment incidents of former sex offenders.

I have read the information given on the Internet site of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which states the majority of child kidnapping abductions and physical abuse, are a result of one of the child’s own parents. I have read the information on the Internet site maintained by the National MCH Center for Child Death Review which gives statistics such as the following for 2002: 12,442 childhood deaths from accidents (7,981 childhood deaths from motor vehicles, 1,158 from drowning, 1,856 from a firearm). I have read the statistics on the Internet site maintained by the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (here) that state approximately 2000 children each year are killed by parents or caretakers. Clearly, children are at greater physical risk, including sexual risk, within family, relatives and close “friends” setting.

The Family Watchdog says the information in the Human Rights Watch report is: inaccurate, irresponsible and fraudulent. Where are the statistics to back-up the statement? Family Watchdog says, “…the methodology used in its (meaning HRW) preparation, the conclusions it draws and the recommendations…problems and inconsistencies…invalidate the report.” Again, where is the research to back up the generalized statement?” Family Watchdog repeats the above same generalized statements two more times. I would like to see the statistics to back up the claim, “…this irresponsible, intellectually dishonest and factually flawed propaganda….” leveled by Family Watchdog. I would like to know why Family Watchdog does not consider the HRW document as part of the “constructive public discourse” involving the “relevant facts and issues.”

I have read various articles in the sexual abuse/sexual abuse treatment journals. I know that former sex offenders positively respond to therapy treatment, especially when it is individualized to the former offender’s specific needs and problems.

I have read books and research articles about what happens within a person’s brain that combines with his or her physical setting that causes people to sexually offend.

It has cost and is costing taxpayers millions of dollars to falsely protect children and the public through public Internet registries.

“The state’s interest in protecting children” would, I believe, be better served by implementing effective community family services, such as:

A. Affordable physical and mental health care for families

B. Education in areas such as human interactions, conflict resolutions, healthy coping skills, problem solving, anger management, safety in and around the home,

C. Providing professional therapy and support for those who physically and/or sexually abuse

D. Providing safe places for individuals in temporary crisis situations

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” That applies to every, single human. Good government and good people will strive and work together and do everything possible to bring all segments of society together into a society that reaches out in love, concern and help to fellow human beings, citizens and neighbors. The goal is to become a more compassionate, humane, enlightened, educated and civilized society.
Reader #1003 a mother / elementary teacher

Sex Offender Registry Mapping (SORM) Websites Research

2007-09-20T11:00:00.000-07:00

Update: Due to our continuing research on this topic, and more recent developments, we have moved this research to our Research Blog on Mapping Websites. See updates there.

FamilyWatchdog's Position Statement

2007-09-19T22:21:00.000-07:00

FamilyWatchdog.us's Position

Our position statement

We hold firmly to the following beliefs.

--There are convicted sex offenders whose "crimes" should not be crimes.

--There are registered offenders who should not have to register.

--There are registered sex offenders who should not be on a public registry.

--There are registered sex offenders in our communities that will reoffend, and Americans have a right to know who among us has the potential to hurt us and those we love.

--There are registered sex offenders who are so dangerous they should not be allowed to live in a civilized society.

--It is the responsibility of our elected representatives, that govern our states and nation, and not FamilyWatchdog.us, to determine the best system to protect the communities they represent.

--Concentrating critical safety information in the hands of a few government employees is a turn in the wrong direction.

--Americans need to know who presents dangers to those they love and care for.

--Community members should use this information responsibly.

--States should give more information so that those who will come in contact with registered offenders living in the community can make their own informed risk assessment.

--As Oprah said when she featured FamilyWatchdog.us, now that you know, you need to act like you know. You no longer have to live in fear.

--FamilyWatchdog.us is committed to providing free, unfettered access to timely and relevant family safety information.

The Following by eAdvocate:

What FW lists above are sound bites all true to some degree, but said only with former sex offenders in mind. Missing from their response is recognition that other types of offenders, most with higher recidivism rates, are far more likely to be dangerous to folks in the community.

FW claims they wish to provide access to relevant safety information. However, absent from their message is any indication of lobbying lawmakers to expand to other types of offenders. Could it be that those types will not cause the public to support such legislation?

In all of their sound bites there is not one mention of children just the community in general. Why?

As to states providing more information about former sex offenders, that is useless to determine whether a person presents a risk in the community today. All the information states have is about a person, is from when they committed the crime, and that is not indicative of the person today.

More information perpetuates history and ignores the effects of prisons, jails, therapy and maturity of the offender. Geting to know the offender -in today's light- and getting to know what strides the offender has made since the crime, is far more relevant to determining what risk a person represents TODAY!

As to knowledge of dangerous former sex offenders in society, why stop with sex offenders? FW does not address such issues.

Today registries have presented communites with information of where former sex offenders live, and additional information, the public has not shown they can be responsible to handle that information.

The public has used that information to isolate and banish offenders under the guise of protecting children, and refuses to recognize that the newer laws actually makes some communities far more dangerous. ex: residency laws caused the death of a child in Georgia, and in Iowa and many other states has caused sex offenders to go underground and not register. Does this make communities safer?

Finally, some in the public have used registries to murder former offenders, and persons accused of a crime, as well as a few mistaken as sex offenders. Further, that does not include those that have occurred this year which are in our blog murders of RSOs and persons accused of sex offenses.

The hysteria caused by politicians and other speakers as well as the media has masked the truth about former sex offenders and what they are experiencing. The Human Rights Watch Report has broken ground in exposing what has been occurring which lawmakers have closed their eyes to.

Mapping sites such as FW have actually ignored the few minimum laws that have been enacted to protect former offenders. Mapping sites fail to display the PUBLIC WARNING MESSAGES (now required by the Adam Walsh Act) which Congress and state legislatures have enacted already!

eAdvocate:

Family Watchdog Issue 8 Claims:

2007-09-18T19:47:00.000-07:00

We just don't even understand this statement

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 73) These exceptions still leave many teenagers at risk of being labeled as sex offenders for engaging in sexual conduct that is legal for adults.

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

???

Background

No state law holds that a sexual offense commited by a teenager is illegal while the same act committed by an adult is legal.

The Following by eAdvocate:

I particularly love this comment "No state law holds that a sexual offense commited by a teenager is illegal while the same act committed by an adult is legal."

Scenario: If two consenting teenagers (one under 16) have sex, every state I know considers that illegal. In those same states, if two consenting adults have sex, those states consider that legal. Right? Can anyone explain FW's comment? Yes FW, it makes a difference when you ignore the word "consensual."

OK, lets see what HRW really said:

Consensual Teenage Sex
Some of the sexual behaviors by youth that lead to a sex offense conviction and the application of sex offender laws do not involve the sort of acts or intent normally associated with criminal offenses. Most child behavior experts agree that sexual experimentation is a normal part of a young person’s development.250 Some of the youthful offenders who are currently required to register as sex offenders were exploring their sexuality, or engaging in other typical adolescent behavior such as genital play or consensual sexual intercourse.

According to a survey conducted by the US Department of Health and Welfare, by age 14, more than one-third of the survey’s respondents reported genital play with another youth under the age of 18, and about one-fifth had started having sexual intercourse.251 By age 16, over 40 percent of both sexes report intercourse, and that rises to 55 percent for both boys and girls at age 17.252 Child development experts agree that consensual sex play among children, including intercourse between teenagers, “is not psychologically harmful under ordinary circumstances and is probably a valuable psychosocial experience in developmental terms.”253

Every state in the United States criminalizes sexual activity with someone below the “age of consent,” a crime typically called “statutory rape.” Legislators have created “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions to these laws so as to lessen or eliminate criminal penalties for young people close in age who have non-coercive sex with each other.

At least 39 states exclude at least some teenage voluntary sexual activity from the category of statutory rape, typically by either setting a minimum age for the defendant (for example, 16 or 17) and/or by specifying that there is no crime committed if the defendant is no more than a specified number of years older than the victim (typically between two and four years).

These exceptions still leave many teenagers at risk of being labeled as sex offenders for engaging in sexual conduct that is legal for adults. At least 28 states require registration as a sex offender for someone convicted of having consensual sex with another teenager, if the offender was either age 17 or two years older than the other party. In 11 states, there are no “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions; anyone who has sex with a person below the minimum age of consent is committing a crime and could, if convicted, be required to register as a sex offender.

Well! To me HRW makes sense, when you read all of what they said instead of picking out a small sentence in the middle ignoring everything else, then trying to claim that small sentence makes no sense.

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Issue 7 Claims:

2007-09-18T19:43:00.000-07:00

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!

Family Watchdog Issue 6 Claims:

2007-09-18T19:38:00.000-07:00

Twisting the Numbers

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 31) The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register.

Family Watchdog Conclusion (Response)

27.3% (3,586) of North Carolina's 13,104 registered sex offenders were convicted of multiple charges.

Background

HRW reviewed 500 of 10,000 offenders in one state to arrive at its conclusion that only 1.4% of offenders had multiple convictions. We analyzed registry convictions data for ALL 13,104 offenders in North Carolina. 3,586 offenders were convicted of multiple charges. Source: http://www.ncfindoffender.com

The Following by eAdvocate:

OK, what did HRW say:

p-32: Human Rights Watch analyzed the criminal histories reported on the registry for a statistically significant randomly chosen sample of 500 out of the total 10,073 registrants living in the community. The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register. The earliest date of release in the sample was 12 years ago, and no offender living in the community 10-12 years from release has been reconvicted for another sex offense. Of the 36 percent of the sample (183 offenders) who had been out of confinement for more than five but fewer than 10 years, only 2.19 percent (four offenders) had been reconvicted. All four of these recidivists were reconvicted for “indecent liberties with a minor.”

The first thing I see is, that the HRW was talking about a sample of offenders (500), while FW is talking about the entire registry. Further, there is a time and number difference in when HRW performed their study and when FW did its later review. (HRW= 10,073 -at the time- [could be 2 years ago], and FW= 13,104 when they reviewed the HRW report just before 9-14-07).

Next, FW uses the term "multiple charges" with respect to the entire registry. What does "multiple charges" mean, any kind of crime or what?

HRW says something totally different, "98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the ..," speaking about just sex offenses.

It appears FW is trying to make an apple look like a potatoe to confuse the public. FW is nitpicking without considering or comparing relevant facts.

Now, if you look real close at exactly what HRW said about the sample they used, "98.6% were one time sex offenders," that means the sex offender recidivism rate is a mere 1.4%. Are these laws necessary or justified for that?

Finally, should FW question mathematical calculations? FW has a page titled "Registered Sex Offender Counts by State" and they show a chart of the states and the number of registered sex offenders in each state registry (I have a pdf file of the page when accessed showing the numbers below if they make changes). Study the following states and figures copied from their undated chart (Notice they fail to indicate when these numbers are from, we know they are not from 2007):

State No. of Offenders Pop. in Thousands Offenders Per Million
AK 4,325 700 6,050
DE 2,027 800 2,533.8
ND 307 677 453.5
SD 2,400 810 2,693
VT 331 638 518.8
WY 1,168 568 2,056.3

How should I address this, well they are using decimal points so obviously they want it to be accurate. If a state does not have a million or more residents, how can the numbers being shown under "Offenders Per Million" be correct? Especially when for each state shown the number is higher than the number of registered offenders in those states.

Assume (which I hate to do) for a moment that they mean "Projected Per Million," if so, then the title of the page is incorrect and so is the title of that column. Nothing is footnoted for these states, so how accurate are FW calculations?

Given FW's logic, calculation, titling error or total inability to create a logical understandable chart (or they are "Twisting the Numbers" to stir up the public), should they be questioning HRW calculations or explanations of what is wrong with current laws?

UPDATE 9-28: They are making changes to the chart, but they still fail to see their errors. Maybe they are using a spreadsheet and are having trouble with formulas which would be understandable. Here is a book that might help!

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Issue 5 Claims:

2007-09-18T19:31:00.000-07:00

Did they verify that these statements are correct?

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 38) The only reason I am considered a sex offender is because I committed an offense that triggers registration. In any other context, my crime would never be considered a sex offense, and I would not be considered a threat to society.

—Trent B., a Pennsylvania registrant convicted of streaking

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

Pennsylvania law does not require registeration for streaking.

Background

There are a total of five individuals on the Pennsylvania registry convicted of Public Indecency. Their ages at time of conviction were 21, 31, 35, 45, and 55. The 21 year old, who would seem to be the move likely to have been streaking due to the other offender's ages, was convicted in Oklahoma in 1997 of 4 counts of public exposure, including 2 felony counts, for which he was incarcerated in state prison for 1 year.

Pennsylvania’s registry law does not make exposing one’s genitalia a registry offense. Out of state offenders are subject to the same registry requirements, so an out of state offender convicted for streaking who moves to Pennsylvania is not required to register under Pennsylvania law.

Pennsylvania is one of a number of states that places a single qualifying conviction on an offender’s record, so it is not possible to verify if any of these offenders, other than the 21 year old convicted in Oklahoma, have multiple convictions.

http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/EntryPage.aspx

The Following by eAdvocate:

9-21-2007 Utah: Streaking student may face jail time

A Pleasant Grove teen may face jail time after streaking during the Pleasant Grove High School homecoming pageant.

An 18-year-old student at Pleasant Grove High school allegedly ran across the stage in the school's auditorium.

"We know who the suspect is," said Pleasant Grove police Capt. Cody Cullimore of the Pleasant Grove. "There are still a couple of witnesses we need to talk to. We plan to arrest him in the morning (Friday)."

The teen's name is not being released until an arrest has been made, Cullimore said. The man will be charged with lewdness in the presence of a minor, a class A misdemeanor, he said.

Cullimore said the charge of lewdness in the presence of a minor stems from the fact that many young children were present in the audience of roughly 800 people.

"Whoever did this was probably trying to be funny," he said. "It's still classified as a sexual offense."

Cullimore said if the teen is convicted, it is possible he will have to register as a sex offender because he is an adult. However, he said it will be up to the judge to determine the intent of the crime.

"Is this a sexual offense, or is it just a kid being stupid?" he said.

Haley Johnson, a senior at Pleasant Grove High, said she was performing her a capella skit when she saw the teen fall out from under the curtain.

"I turned around and just saw this naked body run past me out the door," she said. "His head was covered and he had sunglasses on, I think, but you could see everything."

The student probably streaked through the performance as a joke, she said, but she did not find much humor in the prank. The general reaction from her classmates Thursday was shock, Johnson said.

"I can see how someone would think it was funny, but it's kind of upsetting because we put so much work into this pageant," she said.

Johnson said she feels sorry for the suspect because he may have wanted to get a laugh, but could end up in serious trouble instead.

"I don't think he was thinking about the consequences at all," she said.

Jess Christen, principal of Pleasant Grove High, said the investigation is being left up to the police department, and the high school's staff will follow policy and procedure in disciplining the student.

"He was chased by an assistant principal and our drama teacher," Christen said.

Christen said he has not fully researched the disciplinary actions that can be taken against the student, and he does not know yet whether expulsion will be necessary.

A school resource officer is involved in the case and is working with Pleasant Grove police, Christen said. Disciplinary action will be taken once the culprit has been found.

"We'll allow him to do his work, and then we'll do ours," he said.

Christen said the school does not usually have major problems with pranks, and he does not recall any serious problems in the time he's been with the school. "I've been here nine years, and I think this is the first (streaker)," he said. "We have a pretty compliant, good group of kids." ..more.. by JANICE PETERSON - Daily Herald

'Sex offender' at Concord was merely a streaker: Imprecise categories on Pennsylvania Registry causes misunderstanding
2-2-2005 West Virginia:

.Concord University has a registered sex offender on the faculty, college officials confirmed Tuesday — but he’s actually just a streaker. James Edward Parker, 58, is listed on the Pennsylvania sex offender registry as having committed “indecent assault,” defined as sexual touching of a child under 13. But when Concord officials started looking into the matter, they discovered that their new hire had actually streaked through a park more than a decade ago, said Dean Turner, Concord’s academic dean.

Parker later moved to Pennsylvania, and because of his streaker past was required to register as a sex offender. But the closest thing Pennsylvania’s registry had to “indecent exposure” was the much grimmer “indecent assault,” Turner said. “He tried to get that changed for a long period of time,” Turner said. “But the State Police weren’t willing to do that. His employment was, in at least one instance, impacted by that.”

Secrecy has surrounded the story at Concord. At first, when Parker was hired in August, university officials didn’t know he was listed as a sex offender. Concord’s faculty employment application doesn’t ask. But “when he arrived in our part of the country, he went to the State Police and registered” as a sex offender, “as he is supposed to do,” Turner said. “The State Police notified our security department.”

Concord officials still didn’t know they were dealing with a streaker rather than a child molester. Their lawyer advised them that since Parker hadn’t misrepresented himself, they had no cause to fire him. Turner is still cautious when he talks about the matter, because laws protect registered sex offenders from harassment. “From what we understood, he didn’t seem to be a threat to the community, and the appropriate people in the community had been notified,” Turner said. That was the end of that, for a while. But the story was getting around. ..Source.. by TARA TUCKWILLER tara@wvgazette.com

He grabbed girl's arm -- now he's a sex offender
7-2-2005 Illinois:

Fitzroy Barnaby said he had to swerve to avoid hitting the 14-year-old Des Plaines girl who walked in front of his car. She said he yelled, "Come here, little girl," before getting out of his car and grabbing her by the arm. He said he simply lectured her. She said she broke free and ran, fearful of what he'd do next. In a Thursday ruling, the Appellate Court of Illinois said the 28-year-old Evanston man must register as a sex offender.

While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested. Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.

'Most stupid ruling'

Now, he will have to tell local police where he lives and won't be able to live near a park or school. "This is the most stupid ruling the appellate court has rendered in years," said Barnaby's Chicago attorney, Frederick Cohn. "If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"

But Cook County state's attorney spokesman Tom Stanton said Barnaby should have to register "because of the proclivity of offenders who restrain children to also commit sex acts or other crimes against them." In the criminal case against him, Cook County Judge Patrick Morse said that "it's more likely than not" Barnaby planned only "to chastise the girl" when he grabbed her, but "I can't read his mind."

"I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute." Recognizing the stigma that comes with being labeled as a sex offender, the appellate court said "it is [Barnaby's] actions which have caused him to be stigmatized, not the courts." ..Source.. by STEVE PATTERSON Staff Reporter

The Following from Sex Offender Issues:

Students question streaker penalty
17-year-old may have to register as sex offender, if convicted
9-28-2007 Colorado:

It's no official holiday, but a number of students at Boulder High School will be celebrating "Free Mason" day today.

Mason Lacy, a 17-year-old senior and the impromptu holiday's namesake, will not be in attendance.

Instead, he'll be at home doing manual labor for the fifth day in a row as punishment for his five-day suspension from school for attempting to streak naked across the football field during the annual Boulder High-Fairview game last week.

Lacy received a ticket for indecent exposure Sept. 20 after he attempted to sprint across the field wearing only racing flats and some purple body paint. His plan was foiled by security guards, who caught him hopping over the field's fence and held him until police arrived.

"I didn't think anyone would be able to catch me, or want to grab onto a naked person," Lacy said. "They proved me wrong."

After sitting in the back of a patrol car sporting a makeshift skirt officers fashioned from Scotch tape and napkins, Lacy was told that he may have to register as a sex offender.

That's because indecent exposure is a misdemeanor that carries a sentence of up to a year-and-a-half in jail and possible sex offender registration. That's not something Lacy or his parents ever expected to hear.

"If my son breaks a law, there are consequences," Gary Lacy said. "We don't want to be in the way of any fair sanctioning, but it just feels like maybe ... this seems a little bit out of balance compared to other things."

Gary Lacy said he learned that some students at the same game who were busted for fighting and being intoxicated were suspended for three days, as opposed to his son's week-long abeyance from classes.

"That seems a little out of whack," Gary Lacy said.

Students at the school also are blown away by the prospect that the annual tradition at the match-up between Boulder's rival high schools is such a serious crime.

"It was not at all sexually offensive to anyone," said Alena Heath, a 17-year-old senior at Boulder High. "If anyone was offended, it must have been a parent."

Phoebe Breed, a 17-year-old senior, chimed in: "Plus, they're so far away you can't see anything anyway."

Lacy's ticket and subsequent suspension has been a major topic of conversation in school hallways. A Facebook.com page dedicated to Lacy has attracted 220 members, many displaying their "Free Mason" T-shirts they plan to wear to school today.

"I think it's a little too extreme, and he got stopped at the fence so he didn't even do anything," said Andy Kearney, a 16-year-old junior.

As of June, of the 96 registered sex offenders in Boulder, there are 16 people who were convicted of indecent exposure.

Mark Langston, a local defense attorney with no ties to Lacy's case, said he is perplexed why lawmakers deemed indecent exposure — defined as when someone "knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person" — to be a sexual offense.

"The word sex doesn't appear anywhere in the statute, and you don't have to engage in any conduct that is sexual or sexually motivated to not only be charged but convicted," Langston said. "And if convicted, you're a sex offender and classified the same as those who commit sex offenses."

Lacy, a 4.0 student and member of the cross-country team, will be in juvenile court on Oct. 19. The judge can waive the sex-offender registration requirement even if Lacy is convicted, because the law allows exceptions for indecent exposure charges if the defendant is younger than 18 and hasn't previously been charged with a criminal sexual behavior.

Janine D'Anniballe, executive director of Boulder's Moving to End Sexual Assault, said she doesn't believe the intent of the legislature was to have activities like streaking lumped together with sexual offenses.

"It's unfortunate really," D'Anniballe said. "I think, overall, the law to register as a sex offender and when people are found guilty of sex crimes is a good thing. ... I wouldn't want a case like this to dilute the bigger purpose." ..more.. by Christine Reid

Family says I-4 rage led to mooning
5-25-2007 Florida:

If convicted of flashing a teenager, the man could receive 15 years in prison and be a sex offender.

SANFORD - A family driving west on Interstate 4 in a silver Mercedes-Benz on Sunday evening made the men in the black Chevrolet Tahoe mad.

The Mercedes had cut them off, the Tahoe's driver later told a Seminole County deputy, so front-seat passenger John Thomas Taylor dropped his pants and mooned the family, including their 14-year-old son, according to a Sheriff's Office report.

Taylor, 21, was arrested and hauled to jail, accused of committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child younger than 16.

He was being held Monday evening without bail in the Seminole County Jail.

He was not eligible for bail because Taylor also was accused of violating probation. Last month, he was placed on 18 months of probation for driving without a valid license in Orange County.

He told deputies Sunday that he hadn't mooned anybody.

Two witnesses told deputies that Taylor had dropped his pants and hung his bottom out of the window, according to the Sheriff's Office report. One was the back-seat passenger in the Tahoe.

Deputies ordered the Tahoe to pull over after two callers phoned the Sheriff's Office to complain that the Tahoe was involved in a road-rage incident.

The family in the Mercedes told deputies the Tahoe had cut them off and was driving recklessly, and that Taylor had thrown something at them and mooned them.

The Tahoe's driver, Kyle Lee Donaldson, 18, of Orlando, told deputies that the Mercedes cut him off. His back-seat passenger, James Patrick Sears, 19, of Orlando, told deputies that Taylor had hung his bottom out of the window but had exposed only a small portion of it.

Chris White, chief of operations at the Seminole County State Attorney's Office, said his office had not yet decided what charge, if any, to file.

If convicted of the charge alleged by the Sheriff's Office, Taylor could face up to 15 years in prison and forever be identified as a sex offender.

White said his office might charge Taylor with exposing himself, a misdemeanor that would carry a maximum sentence of a few months in jail.

Taylor's family would not comment. ..more..

How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life
5-8-2007 New Jersey:

Your family photos could get you arrested. Just ask one New Jersey grandmother.

Three-year-old Sarah M. is either a toddler in her birthday suit playing in the garden, or a nude temptress with a sultry look who requires protection from the culprits who took this photograph -- her doting parents.

This is the fix we're in, now that computers have opened the barn door on kiddie porn. The FBI has issued blanket requests to photo processing labs and computer repair shops in some cities to be on the lookout for pictures of kids in compromising positions, urging them to call the authorities whether they're sure or not about a picture's legality. The big national chains that have photo processing labs -- Costco, CVS, Rite-Aid, and Wal-Mart -- have company policies that compel them to notify the police about any criminal activity they see in customers' photos. And when children are involved, they're more than willing to err on the side of caution.

"You can't have a blanket set of guidelines because pictures are subject to interpretation based on community standards," says Mike DeAngelis, a spokesman for CVS Pharmacy, with about 5,400 outlets nationwide. "But the store managers know it's up to law enforcement to decide what's criminal."

Tragically for a number of people all over the country, innocent family photos turned over to the police have led to financial ruin, divorce, debt, public humiliation, and lifelong scorn as a registered sex offender for mothers and fathers.

Some cases involved pictures much less provocative than Sarah M.'s. Based on the way prosecutors interpreted photos in a few of those cases -- Marian Rubin, a New Jersey grandmother charged for taking nude photos of her granddaughters, then aged 3 and 8; and Jeffrey B., a New York father who lost custody of his two daughters after he shot pictures of them mooning him -- it's possible to spot red flags where our innocence used to be.
Here's how a zealous prosecutor could view Sarah M.'s picture: Smoldering eyes; styled, tousled blond tresses; pouty, parted lips; splayed legs; an engorged navel. And that viscous liquid dripping from the wand onto her thigh? Money shot.

A blurry line

Just because they didn't shoot the picture for the purpose of sexual stimulation doesn't mean parents who just want to document their child's garden years can't get stuck in the sordid world of pedophilia.

Since there have been documented instances where photo lab employees have kept copies of sexually explicit pictures that were dropped off for development or printing, including from digital sources, imaginative authorities believe that it's possible for child pornography to be inadvertently made and unknowingly distributed. (Adult porn isn't illegal unless it's found to be obscene.)

This has led to a more proactive, better-safe-than-sorry approach to snooping into people's photo archives, which gives civil libertarians the jitters.

The claim has been made that we all have to view innocent photos through the eyes of a pedophile, for the good of the children. But, attorney Andrew McCullough argued before the Utah Supreme Court in a case involving allegedly arousing pictures of underage children, "lots of things are innocent enough and can be misused, but you can't be responsible for everybody's thoughts."

And in Honolulu, after the local FBI office started contacting computer repair shops about what they should be on the lookout for inside customers' computers, the ACLU Hawaii's executive director, Vanessa Chong, was quoted as saying that the G-men's fishing expedition "needlessly violates the privacy rights of honest consumers to find the guilty few."

The question of whether you surrender privacy rights when you hand over a computer full of personal information to a repair shop is still open. Cops say they're sensitive to these issues. Photo labs and computer repair shops "haven't sent us anything that wasn't clearly child pornography, or could reasonably be suspected," remarks Lt. C.L. Williams, in charge of the Crimes Against Children unit of the Dallas, TX, police department.

Lt. Williams acknowledges that there's a gray area when it comes to interpreting photos of children, and often the kids are taking pictures of each other without their parents' knowledge. His unit frequently determines that pictures referred to them are innocent artistic or family photos, "but there's very little artistic value in a crotch shot of a 6-year-old girl." He says his investigators are now seeing pictures of penetration on 2-year-olds.

"We're not trying to pry into people's lives," he says. "I wouldn't want the government sticking its nose into my photography, and I don't want to be the one doing it to someone else. But when a picture crosses the line into child abuse, then it's my business."

The wages of sin?

In May 2006 in Lackawana, NY, the FBI arrested William D. Baker, 63, for possession of child pornography after getting a tip from a computer repair technician. (His case was still pending as we went to press.) Technicians finding questionable material also have led to arrests in Seattle, WA; Collier County, FL; and Odessa, TX.

It isn't just porn. Also in May 2006, an east Georgia man was arrested when he went to pick up pictures of his marijuana crop at a drugstore photo counter. And the snooping doesn't have to involve anything obviously illegal: In October 2005, a student in North Carolina got a visit from the Secret Service at his high school after the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart photo lab called the police. As a classroom civics assignment to photographically illustrate the Bill of Rights, he'd cut out a magazine photo of President George W. Bush, tacked it to a wall with a red thumbtack through the head, made a thumb's down sign next to it, and snapped a picture. Lesson learned.

Images of children, though, have the power to stir passionate forces. And the smallest photographic detail can send the shooter into a waking nightmare.

Jeffrey B. (he requested his last name not be printed to protect his daughters) was divorced and had custody of his two girls, then aged 4 and 7, until a Genovese drugstore photo lab in the New York City borough of Queens inserted a note into a packet of his prints that said several shots had been turned over to police. Seven years later -- after four weekends in jail, three years on probation, mandated therapy, losing custody of his daughters, contemplating suicide, and incurring about $300,000 in lawyer's fees and loss of income -- he's a registered sex offender and has no contact with his children.

He declined an interview, but the lawyer who handled his appeal, Joseph Klempner, who also wrote Irreparable Damage, a novel based on the case, says Jeffrey B. is "destroyed," and has not taken a single picture in seven years. "I'd stake my life on the fact that all he was doing was taking cute photos of his kids," says Klempner, who saw the offending pictures.

According to Klempner, the prosecutor said she found the silk sheets on the bed where the 7-year-old's picture was taken "very telling." The girl had mooned her father, and he snapped a picture from across the room. "It would take the Hubble Telescope" to see her unmentionables, relates Klempner.

In the other offending photo, the girls are shot from below, sans bathing suit bottoms, as they pretend to read books. A crucial fact in Jeffrey's conviction: One girl testified that Daddy posed them.
'Granny Busted'

In early 2000, Marian Rubin's granddaughters, Amy, then 8, and Kayla, then 3, were dancing naked on her bed before bath time, strutting their best Britney and Christina moves. In still photos, they must have looked posed.

Rubin is the basis of an urban legend, the 65-year-old granny taken to jail for snapping innocent bathtub pictures of her beloved grandkids. Except her case was real, and the headlines in the Trentonian screamed, "Granny Busted/Cops Think She's a Perv."

The night that she was arrested, after picking up the nude pictures of the girls at a local MotoPhoto outlet -- Rubin, an experienced and award-winning art and children's photographer, insists that she never intended to publish these photos -- Montclair, NJ, police went to the girls' home and had their parents wake them up.

"They asked totally inappropriate questions," says Rubin, who is now 72. "'Did Granny get undressed, too? Did Granny touch you? Did Granny touch herself?' They threatened my son and daughter that, if they didn't cooperate, the kids would be taken away."

Rubin wrote a book, Naked Truths (www.naked-truths.com), detailing her outrage at what she calls vigilante film processors, and she excoriates cops and prosecutors for being unable to admit they'd made a mistake.

On her lawyer's advice, she took a deal called a "Pretrial Intervention" that amounted to conditional probation but left her with no criminal record. She now regrets not taking the case to trial. Even though a federal judge later found the pictures to be "totally inoffensive," Rubin is still paying off the $30,000 debt.

"I haven't taken a nude picture since," says Rubin, who has won awards for nude bodyscape photography. "Portraiture was my thing. They took away my innocence, constricted my vision, brainwashed me into seeing things differently. They definitely changed my pictures of children." ..more.. Here for the original picture in question

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Issue 4 Claims:

2007-09-18T19:20:00.000-07:00

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/

Family Watchdog Issue 3 Claims:

2007-09-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

How likely is it that an offender will be reconvicted?

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 38)The US Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders in 15 states who were released from prison in 1994 and found that within three years only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders were arrested, and 3.5 percent convicted, for a new sex crime; 2.2 percent were rearrested for a sex offense against a child.

(page 38)State-specific studies have yielded similar results. For example, in Ohio, only 8 percent of former sex offenders were reincarcerated for another sex offense within a 10-year period. Sex offenders who returned for a new sex offense did so within a few years of release. Within three years of their release, 2 percent of New York inmates who had served time for a sex offense returned to prison with a conviction for another sex offense. Within nine years, the number was 10 percent.

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

In long-term sex offender recidivism studies the rate of reconviction is between 40 and 50+%. HRW cites time-limited studies that do not accurately report recidivism rates.

Background

"the true recidivism base rate over 25 years for extrafamilial sexual abusers is 52% and for rapists is 39%."*

The recidivism rate, which is defined as rearrest and/or reconviction, is 24% for all offenders, and as high as 37% for molesters that have targeted a male.**

This study allows that a 20 year recidivism rate can be determined. Increasing the time line to 20 years increased the recidivism rates to 28% and 41%, respectively.

42% of the total sample were reconvicted for sexual crimes, violent crimes***

The majority of adult male perpetrators have sexually abused more than one victim. 70% claim to have abused 1-9 children, 23% claim to have abused 10-40 children, and 7% claim to have abused 41-450 children. 6.6% of perpetrators also claim to have sexually assaulted an adult victim.****

The number of sexual acts against children committed by pedophiles ranges from about 20 to nearly 300 per offender.****

Sources

*Doren, D. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the "sexual predator" commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97-114.

**http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/200403-2_e.pdf

****Long-term recidivism of child molesters by Hansen et al in Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 1993, 61(4):646-52.

***Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Non-incarcerated Paraphiliacs by Abel et al in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1987, vol 2, no 1, pp 3-25.

The Following by eAdvocate:

The most logical way to respond here is to show FW and readers why the sources cited by FW are incorrect and should not be applied to ALL registered sex offenders in American communities.

First, SOURCE-1: "*Doren, D. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the "sexual predator" commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97-114. "

Why is it that anyone could believe stats applicable to those in civil commitment would be applicable to former offenders in society. In fact, D.M.Doren's civil commitment percentages are actually cited from a study done by R.Prentky in 1997. That study, of folks in civil commitment in Massachusetts, whose author said, DO NOT apply these stats to any other population of sex offenders. See Prentky Error Explained

Next, SOURCE-2: **http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/200403-2_e.pdf

This meta-analysis is quite misleading because while it claims 4,613 particpants, in reality there were only 3,632 (See Table-1 pg-4 of study). Further, of the 3,632 actual participants 2,410 had recidivism rates calculated based not just on new convictions, but also on new charges and new convictions (Table-1), hence bloating their recidivism rates. In addition, the California group (1,137) did not have ANY therapy while they were in prison because California does not provide therapy to folks while imprisoned. That particlular study is flawed as was reviewed here.

The Source-2 Canadian meta-analysis of studies, contained some studies that predate a time when correctional systems provided modern therapy regimes, and individually the studies were of selected sub groups of sex offenders and not indicative of all sex offenders. Further, the meta-study does not consider the larger and more relevant 1994 Department of Justice study of American sex offenders released from prison: Recidivism of sex offenders released in 1994

Abstract: Presents, for the first time, data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994. The study represents the largest followup ever conducted of convicted sex offenders following discharge from prison and provides the most comprehensive assessment of their behavior after release.

This is the best cross sectional view of the entire class of sex offenders. This study, unlike all others, does not exclude any offender, instead includes all sex offenders released that year for those 15 states. The 9,691 sex offenders were released from State prisons in these 15 States:

Arizona (122); California (3,395); Delaware (45); Florida (965); Illinois (710); Maryland (243); Michigan (444); Minnesota (239); New Jersey (429); New York (692); North Carolina (441); Ohio (606); Oregon (408); Texas (692); Virginia (260). (DoJ pg-39)

When commenting on all sex offenders this study is most relevant and on point.
This study reveals a recidivism (REARREST) rate for both, sex offenders and non-sex offenders who went on to commit a sex offense following release from prison. A subtle point most folks miss, non-sex offenders commit more sex crimes than do sex offenders following release, see following chart:
Released Offender Type ReArrested
New Sex Offense %/# of New Sex
Offenses Convicted of
New Sex Offense
9,691 Sex Offenders 5.3% (517) 13% (1 every 2 days) 3.5% (339)
262,420 Non-Sex Offenders 1.3% (3,328) 87% (3 per day) .83% (2,179)
272,111 All Offenders 1.4% (3,845) 100%

Construction of chart- DOJ Pg-24 states: Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders: "The 15 States in this study released a total of 272,111 prisoners in 1994. The 9,691 released sex offenders made up less than 4% of that total. Of the remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, 3,328 (1.3%) were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years." and "Based on official arrest records, 517 of the 9,691 released sex offenders (5.3%) were rearrested for a new sex crime within the first 3 years following their release (table 21)." and DOJ Pg-2 states: "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period." **Calculated using same proportions between 517 and 339 for sex offenders.

Finally, SOURCE-3: ***Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Non-incarcerated Paraphiliacs by Abel et al in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1987, vol 2, no 1, pp 3-25.

I find it very interesting that FW would quote this study because it is taking the word of convicted sex offenders (while not imprisoned they were under various forms of state control or referral, and about 45% felt pressured to particpate. pg-13-14), and FW discounts as not credible the word of any registered sex offender in the community who the Human Rights Watch cites as a source. Did Able check and verify the claims of those he questioned, or did he accept them as true because that suited his ends? I don't know and the study is silent on that point (I have read it). Finally, this study was done in 1987 using subjects from a time before there was any modern day therapy regime and is not indicative of former offenders found in American communites today.

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Issue 2 Claims:

2007-09-18T18:38:00.000-07:00

Peeing in public

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 39) At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

This is one of the biggest sex offender myths propagated by registry opponents. There are no more than 463 offenders in a population of over 150,000 that could possibly have been convicted of peeing in public.

Background

There is not a single state that requires a conviction and registration for peeing in public. These states have laws against exposing one’s genitalia to the view of a minor or another person who may be offended. If you are peeing into a bush and no one can see your genitalia, there is no crime and no requirement for registration.

Below are the 13 states referenced in the HRW study. We have included the total number of offenders registered by state for a single conviction for Indecent Exposure (or Public Indecency): State Count
AZ 0
CA 0
CT 0 *
ID 6
GA 21
KY 0
MA 0
MI 0 **
NH 0
OK 433 ***
SC 0
UT 3
VT 0

Even if all 463 offenders were convicted of peeing in public (statistical probability 0%), this would only account for less than 0.1% of all offenders.

* CT law does not make simple Public Indecency a registerable offense
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-186.html

** Michigan requires a second conviction of Indecent Exposure that includes fondling under Section 335 to be a registerable offense.
(http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-722)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-335a

*** A statistically significant sample of 50 of the 433 Oklahoma offenders convicted of a single count of Indecent Exposure exposed the following:

8 not found in DOC records
8 sentences suspended
12 incarcerated
22 were sentenced to probation (between 4 and 20 years)

It is highly unlikely that an offender convicted of peeing in public would be sentenced to probation or incarceration.

The Following by eAdvocate:

I love this FW statement "This is one of the biggest sex offender myths propagated by registry opponents. There are no more than 463 offenders in a population of over 150,000 that could possibly have been convicted of peeing in public."

First they say it is a myth, then they say some could be convicted of the myth. I guess calling it a myth is not truthful? OK, let the truth be known, HRW actually said:

At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two
limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;109

109 Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), .. §28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601, §5407, 5401.

It appears FW has misquoted HRW and totally ignored the statutes cited, a review of the Michigan links will support the HRW cites. SOmeone at FW needs to learn how to read. Maybe the following news articles will be understood by FW:

Lawmaker: peeing in public exposes a flaw in the law
9-30-2007 New Hampshire:

CONCORD, N.H. --A New Hampshire lawmaker says peeing in public exposes a flaw in the law.

Strange as it sounds, Democratic Rep. Stephen Shurtleff says making public urination a separate crime could really help people out.

Currently, there is no state law specifically addressing public urination; it's prosecuted under a patchwork of local and state laws, indecent exposure among them.

Shurtleff says because indecent exposure is a sex offense, multiple convictions could land habitual public urinators on a sex offender registry, a penalty he feels is too severe for the crime.

"I think some of the stigma attached to that is greater than the offense," he said. "It's public urination and they should be charged with it."

A member of the House Judiciary Committee, Shurtleff, of Concord, is working to rewrite New Hampshire's sex offender laws to comply with new federal law. Under federal law, those convicted of indecent exposure twice in three years would be forced to register as sex offenders.

Shurtleff said in the upcoming legislative session he will push for a law making public urination a misdemeanor. ..more.. by AP

Public urination can require sex offender registration!
5-28-2004 Michigan:
According to Michigan State Police Sgt. Troy Fellows, urinating in public is classified as indecent exposure, and requires sex offender registration after three convictions. Fellows said, however, judges have leeway to order registration after any number of convictions, providing the individual was convicted under state law.

State Police Sex Offender Registration Analyst Charlotte Marshall said county sheriff deputies, city and township police officers typically will not charge individuals under the state law. She said those officers generally charge people under a local ordinance, and if convicted, penalties outlined in the ordinance apply. ..Source.. Oceana's Herald Journal

MIDDAY UPDATE: MSU officials propose public urination ban
2-1-2005 Michigan:

University officials are aiming to lessen the punishment that comes with urinating in public by proposing an ordinance that bans it.

The ban would bring the offense under a local ordinance specifically related to public urination. Currently, a state law places the act under disorderly conduct.

A third violation of the state law would place an individual on the state's public sex offender list.

"This is a clear-cut need to do," MSU spokesman Terry Denbow said. "It's a recognition that without it, people would unfairly be on that list."

The ordinance was proposed along with a ban on open alcohol at the Jan. 14 meeting of the MSU Board of Trustees. The board intends to vote on the proposal on Feb. 11. ..source.. by Lindsay Vanhulle, The State News

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Issue 1 Claims:

2007-09-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

Where it begins

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 24) With the purpose of helping parents identify unknown convicted sex offenders in the neighborhood, sex offender laws like community notification schemes reflect the assumption that children and adults are most at risk from strangers. Yet sexual violence against children as well as adults is overwhelmingly perpetrated by family members or acquaintances.

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

This statement demonstrates a shortsighted and myopic view of the safety net the publicly available registry of convicted sex offenders provides the community.

Background

"Joseph Frank Smith, who had been known in Texas as the Ski Mask Rapist, was allowed to move into my neighborhood - just around the corner from my house. According to his own defense attorney, he was linked to a minimum of 286 victims (most of them children) in two states - Texas and Virginia. If there had been a registry available at that time, there is NO WAY I would have allowed my children anywhere near him, and thus they would NOT have been victimized by him."

Polly Franks, mother of 2 molestation survivors and Executive Director, the Franks Foundation

Indeed, the true value of identifying individuals that have been convicted of prior sex crimes has little to do with forensic capabilities and even less to do with identification of strangers. Sex offender registries provide vital information about offenders known and familiar to you, allowing you to decide who to allow into your life and the lives of those you love, care for and nurture. A marginal side benefit is that the sex offender registry can be used as a forensic tool to identify an offending stranger after a sexual attack.

This mistaken premise that sex offender registries are only useful for stranger attacks is the crux of the failing of this report. Managing the epidemic of sexual assaults perpetrated upon our communities will require many tools. Used properly, sex offender registries are one of the best tools available. Sex offender registries reduce the number of assaults because Americans are able to identify known threats within their acquaintance sphere.

No one can dispute that there is an epidemic of sexual assault in our society today. This is stated on the first page of the report. It should be everyone’s goal to prevent sexual assaults, rather than prosecute offenders. After all, if there is an offender, there is at least one victim. Past acts are predictors of the future, and what someone has done in the past demonstrates what they are capable of in the future. Not what they will do, but what they are capable of.

The Following by eAdvocate:

The essence of the Family Watchdog response is, that if the laws we have today were in place in 1995, when Polly Franks children were molested by Joseph Frank Smith, then those children would not have been molested because Polly Franks would have checked the registry before allowing her children to go to a neighbor's home. Hindsight is 20-20.

Since I see no other way to read the FW response, and if their claim is -if laws today were in place no molestation would have taken place-, then FW is guilty of being shortsighted. FW looks ONLY at one law in place today, the registry, and ignores all other laws in place today.

That is their failure, civil commitment exists today, and if civil commitment were in place in Texas, certainly a man with the background of Joseph Frank Smith would have been civilly committed. Therefore, his case does not support a need for a registry.

The HRW report is clear about this point, that laws today are enacted without evidence to support them. FW presents the case of Joseph Frank Smith because it fits their need and has not reviewed the evidence of Smith's case as applied to all laws today. FW only reviewed the registry as a solution.

This news report goes over Smith's background. It says, in 1986 he got married -and quit court ordered therapy- and moved to Virginia, then the Virginia molestations began. Now lets look further applying the idea of -if there was a registry-. Is there anyone who would believe, given he was already violating a court order, that he would have complied with registry requirements when he moved to Virginia?

But, -if there was civil commitment- it is far more likely he would have been committed in the early 1980s: "In 1983, he gained notoriety as the "ski-mask rapist" for trying to rape the same North Side woman twice. He was nabbed on his third attempt - each time he wore only socks and a pink ski mask."

Here is an excellent account of his deeds supporting civil commitment:

In the early 1980s, a rapist was terrorizing women and children in San Antonio, Texas. He had stalked hundreds of victims, peeping into their windows. Once they went to sleep, he would break into their homes - if the victim continued to sleep, he would molest her, but if she awoke, he forcibly raped her. In many cases, his victims were as young as eight. Police had no clue as to the assailant's identity but the local newspapers had a name for him: the Ski Mask Rapist.

In 1983, he broke into a house at 931 Sumner Lane. He assaulted the woman who lived there, then fled undetected. One month later, he returned. He again raped the hapless victim and again escaped leaving no clues.

This was enough for the woman. She moved out. But this time, a concerned neighbor decided to set a trap for the rapist. Gene Allred, in an interview with ABC's 20/20, said, "I figured [if] this guy was crazy enough to come back the second time, he'd come back again."

With permission from his former neighbor, Allred and his son-in-law installed microphones in the house next door, and placed a mannequin wearing a wig on the bed. They made sure to leave a night-light on so that the rapist could see the outline of his intended victim underneath the covers. They also kept their handguns at the ready.

Sure enough, almost exactly one month later, the rapist returned. Allred was asleep when the microphones indicated that someone was breaking into his former neighbor's house. He later said, "We grabbed our pants and pistols and my son-in-law went out the front door...and I went out the back." Other family members surrounded the house to keep the intruder from escaping. Allred and his son-in-law encountered the man attempting to leave through a window. He ran into an alley, but was tackled by Allred's son-in-law. A brief struggle ensued until Allred pulled his gun, subdued the man, and handcuffed him.

Police were called, and they arrested Joseph Frank Smith whom they suspected of being the Ski Mask Rapist. Although he later admitted his guilt in more than 200 cases, he was tried and convicted only of raping the woman who had lived in the now-empty house. ... ..more..

Now lets look at the Human Rights Watch statement, in essence it says, laws today are enacted based upon the -stranger danger logic- when it is far more likely that a child is molested by family members or acquaintances.

Who was Joseph Frank Smith to Polly Frank at the time of the molestations? He was a neighbor and acquaintance, not a stranger as FW portrays him. He lived next door and the Frank children were permitted to go to his home. Remember, he was living there in violation of a court order, would he of complied with registry requirements? Plain and simple, NO!

Who is being shortsighted and myopic?

Lawmakers are the same way, shortsighted and myopic, and they too fail to look at the evidence before enacting any law where former sex offenders are concerned. Which, by the way, is the heart of the Human Rights Watch report!

Family Watchdog!

Family Watchdog Makes These General Claims as to the Human Rights Report

2007-09-18T18:05:00.001-07:00

On 9-27-2007 Family Watchdog removed the original claims they made against HRW, shown below 9-14, from their front page and buried them along with the responses they received on this page.

9-14-2007:

Your rights to protect yourself, your children, family and community are under attack!

On September 12, 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report that assails the US sex offender registration and notification system: "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States."

While taking two years to produce this report, FAMILYWATCHDOG.US, the nation's leading registered sex offender search and alert service, took less than 24 hours to expose the 146 page report as an inaccurate, irresponsible and fraudulent editorial masquerading as a research study.

While so much is wrong with this report, the methodology used in its preparation, the conclusions it draws and the recommendations made are especially concerning. The problems and inconsistencies in any one of these areas are enough to invalidate the report. Additionally, this report should be discredited due to its:

Un-cited and anonymous falsehoods presented as facts

Misrepresentation of the dangers posed by known sexual predators

The unwarranted assault on our law enforcement, legislative and judicial systems as protectors of our communities

"The Human Rights Watch report is full of gross inaccuracies, innuendos, un-cited statistics, anonymous anecdotes and contrived facts. It is unfortunate that the leadership of an organization like Human Rights Watch would recklessly gamble its reputation and credibility as well as our nation's public safety by submitting this patently flawed report as a serious response to a serious problem." says FAMILYWATCHDOG.US President Steve Roddel.

"The worst possible result is that Americans, their legislators and public policy makers will mistakenly assume this document was well researched and unbiased. After careful review, the document presented is quite the contrary. It omits facts and distorts truths, while injecting fictional anecdotes, myths and red herrings in their place. I call on the American public to join me in demanding Human Rights Watch immediately cease distribution of this irresponsible, intellectually dishonest and factually flawed propaganda and join in a constructive public discourse of the relevant facts and issues."

On September 17, 2007 FAMILYWATCHDOG.US will provide a full public response including its own statistical analysis.

Tell us how you feel and share this information with your family, friends and community.

Contact us at feedback@familywatchdog.us ..more.. by Family Watchdog

The above underlined items will be addressed by eAdvocate throughout this rebuttal. Folks will see what Family Watchdog claims about the Humnan Rights Report, is actually what is wrong with the Family Watchdog response!

eAdvocate has no interest in the Human Rights Watch per se, and stands as a independent watchdog of sex offenders' and accused sex offenders' issues and in their LifeAfter residency in communities thoughout the nation!

Today is the 20th of September and Family Watchdog has yet, in any of their responses, proved any of the underlined claims they make above. However, they say they still have more to post. I will await it.

State	No. of Offenders	Pop. in Thousands	Offenders Per Million
AK	4,325	700	6,050
DE	2,027	800	2,533.8
ND	307	677	453.5
SD	2,400	810	2,693
VT	331	638	518.8
WY	1,168	568	2,056.3

Released	Offender Type	ReArrested New Sex Offense	%/# of New Sex Offenses	Convicted of New Sex Offense
9,691	Sex Offenders	5.3% (517)	13% (1 every 2 days)	3.5% (339)
262,420	Non-Sex Offenders	1.3% (3,328)	87% (3 per day)	.83% (2,179)
272,111	All Offenders	1.4% (3,845)	100%