Borrowed from another blog: How bad are police interrogations?

I found this while researching SCOTUS cases.  A very interesting look at interrogations by police, as well as some hard evidence about wrongfully obtained confessions at the bottom of the info.  This has been published a few times here and there, but good information should always be reprinted so no one forgets. Originally written in April 2009

 Police interrogations are the primary reason many actually innocent persons go to jail and are wrongfully convicted. The tactics frequently used in police interrogations are nothing more than psychological devices as well as some physical to coerce or (schmoose) a person into confessing a crime in which they more than likely have not committed and have no knowledge of prior to the police actually spoon feeding them details.

When the police interrogate a suspect and you are placed in an interrogation room the room itself and the tactics used are to get you to confess. This is called persuasive coercion. Almost sounds very Mafioso right? And if at this point what I am about to say should make you very uncomfortable when (taking that little ride downtown).

The psychological weapons used against you, and how they are used against as well as why are listed here as follows there are the steps used to in the interrogation of allegedly of guilty suspects;

1.) Combining the evidence of strategy with "direct confrontation" often known as "supported directed accusation". This can lead to false confessions because under standard operating procedure by the police details will be communicated to the to the suspect at the beginning of the interview. It then becomes damn near impossible to know with absolute certainty that the suspect is repeating the information that was spoon-fed to them by the police or actually is confessing to the alleged crime. Talk about being unethical and blurring the line.

2.) Theme development to lessen the moral implications of the alleged crime. In English that means tell the suspect that anyone else in that same situation or circumstances may have done the same thing. It is the classic "anyone in your shoes would've done it thinking". This goes far beyond ethical and professional limits. By doing this you begin to reduce the suspects feeling of guilt for the offense by lessoning its moral importance. So they say things like (other people committed worse crimes, what you did was not so bad) or (I understand you had no other choice). Doing this they give the suspect a morally valid reason for the crime thusly making a person feel (free) about confessing to a crime they may not have committed. Using flattery also works in this situation as well, they state how little your involvement in the crime may or may not have been. So basically what happens, make you feel good about confessing and how much better it feels then before you know it you've confessed details which they fed to you, and now you are in the system.

3.) When a suspect is constantly giving denials, law enforcement does not like this at all. It is extremely undesirable because the police lose the psychological advantage. This advantage then goes to the suspect. So it is then stopped by the interrogator at that point. They'll say things like (Stop lying, you know you did it we know).

4.) Guilty suspects will move from plain denials to objections. At this point the suspect is the inferior mentally. So at this point interrogators move quickly because they see this advantage and do not want to lose their mental edge over the suspect.

5.) When the police move in closer to the suspect while in the interrogation room, they are not doing this to better hear you speak trust me. By moving closer, touching the suspects hands gently, using first names, and even having strong eye contact. All of these are psychological devices used to relax you into a false confession. And those become extremely difficult to prove in court later, but we will examine this later. At that point the suspect becomes more alert listening to the officers suggestions, and therefore becomes more likely to believe in the picture they are painting now matter how much it may not have happened.

6.) When the interrogator exudes signs of understanding and sympathy and urges to the suspect to tell the truth, this is a joke. The primary focus is to play upon the weakness in order to breakdown the remaining residual weakness in the suspect and fattening them up for the kill or admission of guilt later on. They will say things like (If you will cooperate with us, no one will know about this. You may be working for use for years. If you do a good job you will get probation, deferred adjudication, community service, or maybe nothing). Keep in mind this is all bullshit at this point. Its all the more to get you mentally raped, because you are about to get fucked at this point always keep that in mind. They are there to make the collar. Does not matter who actually commits the crime just that someone goes down for it end of story.

7.) So after they've coaxed you into telling the (their truth of what happened)after spoon-feeding you intricate details, holding your hand to comfort you, making the crime seem morally OK. The suspect is presented with two alternatives for the crime. Both alternatives are worded in such a way that one acts as a face saving choice and the other as some deep dark callous grotesque motivation. Another words one is the pretty moral reason,the other the grime ridden horrible monstrous reason. The psychological reasoning behind this is done because it is easier for the suspect to admit what they did wrong at the time of the interrogation because the suspect gets to explain why it was done. It is that simple.

8.) Having the suspect tell of various details of the crime at this point serves as the confession the police have created for the suspect. This is done because it was predicated already in the following steps. They have made the suspect accept one of the alternatives from earlier and thus making the suspect self incriminate, and after spoon feeding the details along with getting the suspect to accept on of the alternative theories this now becomes a full blown confession at this point. Which ironically enough is 100/100 the video that is shown to juries when the person is confessing after all of this has taken place. They don't show all the events leading up till the final cut of that alleged confession video of feeding the suspect details. And they will not show you that, because it is unethical either way you slice it and they know that.

9.) Finally they get the person to literally sign off on the confession. A signed confession is much better than an oral confession legally. Even though all of what they have done to get a person to confess goes far beyond the border of ethical behavior.

The psychological effects of placing a person through this kind of psychological warfare if you will are staggering.

Post Traumatic Stress, Apathy, Internal conflict, withdrawal, depression, and even stroke.

Interrogation rooms are usually set up in the following manner;

Windowless room with no air conditioning, no locks on the door, an observation room directly next to the adjacent room.

Most people know what the "Miranda Warnings or Rights" are like right to remain silent, right to counsel. However what must people do not know is that these rights only apply to custodial suspects. Custodial suspects are people deprived of freedom in any significant way so says the SCOTUS. Now if and when a custodial suspect tells the interrogator that he does not wish to make or sign a statement or they want a lawyer. The interrogator must stop asking, recording anything further.

Whenever a person is picked up for questioning but there is no probable cause to arrest is lacking. They have to tell you and make clear you are not being arrested, and you do not have to go the police station unless you are willing to do so and once there you are free to leave if you so choose. The only time an interrogation may actually take place is when a person has been advised of their rights and then by their own choice wishes to speak. Unless the police have probable cause they have no legal right to interrogate you. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) also declared in Miranda in addition to self incrimination the suspect must be advised they have a right to counsel before and DURING the interrogation.

Questions such as (Do you know why you are here?) are 100% invalid. The courts consistently state that such questions elicit incriminating answers from suspects. And they then therefore are considered to be within the prohibition of Miranda when asked of a custodial suspect when they are not preceded by warnings and a waiver. They cannot promise you leniency any more they can promise to use force because this will also elicit and induce an innocent person to confess to a crime they may not have committed. They cannot promise you cooperation will result in a lesser sentence being imposed. That is solely up to the JUDGE or JURY. This is most unethical as well, and illegal. So if they promise you that, it is also BULLSHIT. Just be a wise guy keep your mouth shut say nothing at all.

Coercive persuasion is the systematic the application of psychological techniques and social influence in an organized way. Or simply known as brainwashing. These interrogation techniques are so psychologically overwhelming the average law abiding citizen can be made to confess to a crime even though they have done nothing wrong at all. They create such a bond of mental control that it is far more powerful and effective the putting a gun to your head and making you confess that way. The goal is to hold the suspect to the point of maximum mental stress before inducing a powerful psychosis. It disables a persons sense of self to induce anxiety and emotional distress and allows for cognitive confusion.

Six condition exist in order to induce this;

OBTAINING SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OVER AN INDIVIDUAL’S TIME AND THOUGHT CONTENT (CONTROL OF ENVIRONMENT)

SYSTEMATICALLY CREATING A SENSE OF POWERLESSNESS IN THE PERSON

MANIPULATING A SYSTEM OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS

MAINTAINING A CLOSED SYSTEM OF LOGIC

MAINTAINING A NONINFORMED STATE EXISTING IN THE SUBJECT

THE SUBJECT IS FORCED TO ADAPT IN A SERIES OF STEPS, EACH SUFFICIENTLY MINOR SO THAT THE SUBJECT DOES NOT NOTICE .

AND DOES NOT BECOME AWARE OF THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM UNTIL LATE IN PROCESS (IF EVER)

MANY EXPERIENCE DIFFERENT DEGREES AND DURATIONS OF DISTRESS, DISABILITY, AND DYSFUNCTION FOLLOWING SUCH PROGRAMS

In United States V Lee(1982) The California Supreme Court found that "when a person is subject to coercive persuasion without his knowledge or consent. He may develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, self mutilation, and suicide".

Still think the police are your friend?

This is the breakdown of this immense psychological pressure;

THE ASSAULT ON IDENTITY (SUPPORTED DIRECT ACCUSATION)
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GUILT (PREPLANTED EVIDENCE)
THE SELF-BETRAYAL (ADMISSION)
THE BREAKING POINT, (TOTAL CONFLICT AND BASIC FEAR)
LENIENCY AND OPPORTUNITY (FOR COOPERATION")
THE COMPULSION TO CONFESS (PLEA BARGAIN)
THE CHANNELING OF GUILT (PLEAD GUILTY)
LOGICAL DISHONORING (SENTENCING)
PROGRESS AND HARMONY
THE FINAL CONFESSION
REBIRTH RELEASE, TRANSITION, LIMBO (FELON)

According to www.justicedenied.org and www.truthinjustice.org ,
Saul M. Kassin, professor of Psychology at Williams College, a leading researcher into false confessions,
divides them into three categories:
1. Voluntary, involving no external pressure.
2. "Coerced-compliant" in which the person realizes he is not guilty but confesses to the crime to receive a promised reward or avoid an adverse penalty.
3. "Coerced-internalized" in which an innocent suspect is induced to believe he or she is guilty.

Police and courts often doubt that the second two cases actually exist.

Dr. Kassin and his student, Catherine L. Kiechel, designed a lab experiment demonstrating how innocent people can be led to a false confession, to the point that some may even become convinced they are guilty. (1,3) In the study, college students were asked to type letters on a keyboard as a researcher pronounced them. Some researchers read out the letters quickly (67 per minute), others slowly (47 per minute). The subjects were warned to not touch the ALT key, because a bug in the testing program would cause the computer to crash and lose all the data. One minute into the test, the computer was manually caused to crash. In half the tests, the researchers said they had actually seen the subject depressing the ALT key.

At first, the subjects correctly denied hitting the key. The researcher then hand-wrote a confession and asked the subjects to sign it. The penalty would be an angry telephone call to the subject by Dr. Kassin. One hundred per cent of the subjects who had typed the letters quickly, and who were told by the researcher that they had been observed hitting the ALT key, signed the confession; 65% of the subjects believed they were guilty; 35% even confabulated non-existent details to fit their beliefs. Overall, 69% signed the note and 28% believed they were actually guilty.

University of Michigan and supervised by a law professor there, Samuel R. Gross. They say that the number of exonerations is quite small when compared with the number of convictions during the 15-year period. About 2 million people are in American prisons and jails. The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations. Only nine cases involved other crimes. In more than half of the cases, the defendants had been in prison for more than 10 years.

The study's authors said they picked 1989 as a starting point because that was the year of the first DNA exoneration. Of the 328 exonerations they found in the intervening years, 145 involved DNA evidence.

In 88 percent of the rape cases in the study, DNA evidence helped free the inmate. But biological evidence is far less likely to be available or provide definitive proof in other kinds of cases. Only 20 percent of the murder exonerations involved DNA evidence, and almost all of those were rape-murders.

Some 90 percent of false convictions in the rape cases involved misidentification by witnesses, very often across races. In particular, the study said black men made up a disproportionate number of exonerated rape defendants.

The racial mix of those exonerated, in general, mirrored that of the prison population, and the mix of those exonerated of murder mirrored the mix of those convicted of murder. But while 29 percent of those in prison for rape are black, 65 percent of those exonerated of the crime are.

Interracial rapes are, moreover, uncommon. Rapes of white women by black men, for instance, represent less than 10 percent of all rapes, according to the Justice Department. But in half of the rape exonerations where racial data was available, black men were falsely convicted of raping white women.

"The most obvious explanation for this racial disparity is probably also the most powerful", the study says. "White Americans are much more likely to mistake one black person for another than to do the same for members of their own race".

On the other hand, the study found that the leading causes of wrongful convictions for murder were false confessions and perjury by co- defendants, informants, police officers or forensic scientists.

A separate study considering 125 cases involving false confessions was published in the North Carolina Law Review last month and found that such confessions were most common among groups vulnerable to suggestion and intimidation.

The authors of the Michigan study offered dueling rationales for the murder exonerations, and both reasons, they said, were disturbing.

There may be more murder exonerations, they said, because the cases attract more attention, especially when a death sentence is imposed. Death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 22 percent of the exonerated.

That suggests that innocent people are often convicted in run-of-the-mill cases. Indeed, the study says, "if we reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devote to death sentences, there would have been over 28,500 non-death-row exonerations in the past 15 years rather than the 255 that have in fact occurred".

The study offered a competing theory, as well. Mistakes, it said, may be more likely in murder cases and far more likely in capital cases.

"The truth, the study concludes, is clearly a combination of these two appalling possibilities".

If you still do not believe me, just remember these words.

"Evidence of innocence is irrelevant".--Mary Sue Terry, former AG Commonwealth of Virginia

Don't worry. I believe you....

You can find the original from Here

Are we really sheeple?

Follow the link to a story of What-a-Burger employees that got a phone call and believing that they were talking to the home office 'tested' the fire system, stripped to their underwear and broke out every window in the place. 

Article here

Are we really so used to following Big Brother that we would not at least question something that sounds on the surface to be totally against everything that is outside normal behavior? in this case, I guess not.

Yet another article on how ineffective the registry is in Texas

Discretion is the hallmark of the criminal justice system in Texas. The laws are written clearly, but the decisions are left to people. Juries are empowered to examine the facts of cases and make responsible decisions regarding guilt and innocence. Judges are trusted to maintain decorum and uphold the laws so that justice can prevail. At all times, participants within the court system are expected to handle difficult and sensitive matters in the interests of fairness and justice.

The Sex Offender Registration Program is the exception to this general principle. Unlike most areas of the criminal justice system, judges are given no discretion whatsoever. Under Texas law, when a person is convicted of a qualifying sex offense he or she is automatically and permanently required to register as a sex offender.

The laws providing for mandatory lifelong sex offender registration are ineffective. For the justice system to live up to its name, judges should be given discretion over the terms of registration.

Texas Sex Offender Registration Laws

Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, anyone who is convicted of a sexual offense is required to register with local law enforcement as part of the Sex Offender Registration Program. Depending on the particular crime, the offender must register for 10 years, or for his or her entire lifetime.

The duration of the registration requirement depends entirely upon the crime; once a person is convicted, a judge has absolutely no discretion. The judge cannot decide that the registration period should be limited or that registration is inappropriate under the circumstances. The required registration period is mandated by the relevant statutes.

The Problem With Eliminating Discretion: No Two Cases Are the Same

Some may argue that the lack of discretion leads to equitable treatment; one person convicted of possessing child pornography should be treated the same as any other person convicted of possessing of child pornography. However, in criminal matters the circumstances are always important. No two cases are identical and removing a judge's discretion does not lead to equitable treatment.

For example, consider the case of a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old who are engaged in a consensual sexual relationship. Despite the laws, such relationships are undoubtedly common and rarely draw the attention of Texas courts. However, in the event that the relationship turns sour or results in pregnancy, the 16-year-old may report the encounters as nonconsensual.

In accordance with Texas law, the 18-year-old could be prosecuted for indecency with a child. Indecency with a child is an offense requiring registration; if convicted, the older partner would be required to register for life.

This hypothetical is not intended to undermine the very real threat of sex offense or to suggest that all accusations are false. However, by leaving the judges without any discretion in sentencing, people who truly pose no threat are classified and publicly ostracized with those who are legitimately dangerous. Lifetime registration as a sex offender is a tremendous burden to place on someone for a mistake made at age 18 in a consensual relationship.

An Overinclusive Registry Undermines the Intent of Notification

Furthermore, including this hypothetical 18-year-old ultimately undermines the registry. One of the primary purposes of a sex offender registry is to alert the public to local people who are potentially dangerous. When people who are not truly threatening are included in this database, the registry is overinclusive and becomes less valuable.

If judges had discretion, they could examine the individual circumstances and determine whether a particular offender is likely to commit another offense in the future. Accordingly, the registry could be limited to those who truly threaten others and therefore warrant inclusion.

Alternately, the judge could consider the circumstances and determine whether a shorter registration period might be sufficient, rather than the current lifetime registration requirement. Again, this would alert the public to people who had recently committed sex offenses without including those who haven't committed crimes for decades.

Unfortunately, judges in Texas are not currently given this type of decision making authority; they are beholden to unbending laws. As a result, it is extremely important that anyone accused of any type of sex offense in Texas take these accusations seriously and consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. A knowledgeable lawyer cannot change the laws, but can take actions to minimize the potential consequences of any accusation.

To the Article

The truth is HERE, why will the idiots in Austin not listen?

Link to this article

Texas has more than 54,000 people in its sex offender registry database. Most of them are required to register for life, periodically reporting where they live and work. The sex offender registry makes this information, in addition to data on offenders' physical characteristics and relevant sex offenses, available to the public online.

The sex offenses for which defendants are required to register vary widely. Lawmakers and others have expressed concern that the registry is overinclusive.

Sex Offender Registration Laws
The purpose of Texas' sex offender registry is to alert neighbors and colleagues to the presence of convicted sex offenders. Ideally, this allows people to make informed decisions about interacting safely with those around them. Even though the vast majority of sex offenses are committed by people known to the victims, sex offender registries can bring some peace of mind to wary residents.

The shortest registration period in Texas is ten years, but most registrants must remain on the list for life. Some defendants are surprised when, after they have completed their sentences and other obligations, they are unexpectedly required to register. This outcome is not uncommon in Texas.

Placement on the sex offender registry does not mean only that the defendant's name and other information are available to the public. Registration also means that the registrant may not live near areas where children congregate. In some cities, it can even prevent registrants from going to the movies or eating in some restaurants.

Within the category of sex offenses that require registration is a broad range of behaviors. Some sex offenders have committed numerous violent assaults against women or produced child pornography. Others however, have engaged in sexual behavior with consenting partners who were minors only a few years younger than themselves, or solicited a teenager over the Internet. In addition, juveniles convicted of sex offenses may be required to register; the obligation may follow them for the rest of their lives.

The Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan's Law, the Pam Lychner Act, and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act are federal laws that provide registration and notification requirements. States must either follow these laws or lose federal money. States also may strengthen the laws if they choose.

Moving to Change Registration Requirements
Although sex offender registries may provide information that some people consider vital, others argue that the inclusion of nonviolent, juvenile and other less controversial offenders makes the registries too broad.

Some Texas lawmakers, registrants and even statutory rape victims who do not feel that they were truly victimized are calling for more selective registration requirements. They argue that people who are not a threat to society at large should not be on sex offender registries. Their presence on registries makes it more difficult to distinguish between violent predators more likely to reoffend and those who committed statutory rape crimes (unlawful sex with someone under the age of consent) or less serious crimes highly unlikely to be repeated.

Additionally, law enforcement resources are spent following up with registrants, making sure they are where they say they are. Registrants who do not keep up with their registration may be imprisoned for significant periods of time. Some see this as an inefficient way to monitor people who are arguably not dangerous.

Some assert that requiring juveniles to register may harm their chances for rehabilitation, forcing them to carry stigma that will prevent them from fully integrating into adult society.

The sense of security that the sex offender registry can provide makes it difficult for lawmakers to change the rules. But the chorus of voices against the strict rules is rising, making modifications more and more likely.

Seeking Creative Solutions
People who face sex offense charges could end up registering for the rest of their lives. An attorney who is familiar with the relevant laws may be able to help by negotiating a plea for a serious crime that is not a sex offense, such as assault with a deadly weapon. The defendant would then pay his or her debt to society without having to register as a sex offender afterward. With the frequent changes in and complexity of sex offender registration laws, a criminal defense lawyer's assistance could be invaluable to anyone charged with a sex crime.

Attorney General, Shapiro, and the lot...

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, state Sen. Florence Shapiro and Rep. Aaron Pena today marked the Texas Senate’s passage of legislation that would require convicted sex offenders to provide their online and cellular telephone account information to the state’s Sex Offender Registry. Senate Bill 689 passed the Senate on Monday and is now pending in the Texas House of Representatives.

What they forget to explain to you is that even if you are NOT convicted that you still have to give these up. By legislating Guilt, the legislature has mandated those who's charges were dismissed to continue to register.

“This legislation will help protect children by ensuring that state law keeps up with modern technology,” Attorney General Abbott said. “By requiring sexual predators to provide their electronic identities, the Legislature is simply improving existing registration requirements – which require convicted sex offenders to provide their addresses to the Department of Public Safety. As Attorney General, I am grateful to Sen. Shapiro and Rep. Pena for their innovative approach and commitment to Texas children.”

Bullshit. This actually is a clever ploy by them to circumvent the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Sen. Shapiro added: “I have spent my career protecting the innocent against predatory sexual offenders, beginning with Ashley's Laws in 1995. With today’s new Internet sites, it is now time to take this fight into the virtual world and target those who target our children through social networking sites, chat rooms and live video gaming systems. I commend General Abbott for his work against these most heinous criminals as well, and am grateful to his Cyber Crimes Unit for the strides it has made to bring these offenders to justice.”

Actually no she hasn't. Ms. Shapiro has spent her legislative career getting family members appointed to the various Holocaust committees, diverting state funds to Israel for economic purposes, as well as allowing herself to also infringe rights of those she deems unpure... Funny how a Jewish woman would use the same tactics as Hitler did.. I will bet that her mother and father are turning over in their graves.

Rep. Pena said: “We are closer today to preventing sex offenders from using social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to prey upon our children. SB689 is an important progression in making the Internet safer from online predators. This legislation will provide law enforcement with new tools, resources and information to track sex offenders online.”

And Here they even tell you that they want to usurp the Bill of Rights by blocking access to all Internet sites.

The bills – Senate Bill 689 by Sen. Shapiro and its companion House Bill 1239 by Rep. Pena – include four key provisions that strengthen state sex offender registration laws:

689 was the only one to actually pass, but the other was exactly the same.

• Registration of Internet accounts and e-mail addresses. If enacted, the legislation would require all sex offenders to register their Internet account and online identifiers, including e-mail addresses and designations used for online chatting, instant messaging, social networking or other similar Internet communication. The law would require that sex offenders notify their primary registration authority or the Department of Public Safety, which manages the state’s Sex Offender Registry, any time offenders change their Internet service providers or other online identifiers.

Wow.. As you can see, they want your life so they can contact the ISP's, Social sites as well as ANY site that you register with to DENY you access. Yeah, that pretty much kills opportunity to have First Amendment rights...

• Registration of mobile telephone numbers. Dramatic growth within the mobile communications sector has increased children’s access to cellular telephones. As a result, young Texans now frequently send text messages, transfer photographs, and use their mobile telephones to chat online. To help prevent sexual predators from using mobile phones to prey upon children, the law would require registered sex offenders to register their cell phone numbers with the DPS.

This one I find interesting. How does this 'protect' the children again. What, some rSO is gonna randomly dial or text phones until he finds someone to exploit?.. Oh whatever, this is just another way to give out your information to be harassed

• Sharing information with law enforcement. Authorizes DPS to release state sex offender Internet identifiers to the OAG and social networking sites (i.e., MySpace.com, Facebook.com).

See! Explained this above. What does Facebook or Myspace need to know my phone number for again?

• Internet prohibitions for certain sex offenders. Requires sentencing courts and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to prohibit certain sex offenders (e.g., those who committed a sex offense against a minor; are designated a level 3 sex offender; or used the Internet to facilitate the commission of the crime), as a condition of parole or probation, from using the Internet to access obscene material; access a commercial social networking Web site; communicate with other individuals or groups for the purpose of promoting sexual relations with persons under 17; or communicate with a person under 17 when such offender is over 17.

Ok, as a PROBATION requirement, I can see that. However, I am not on Probation or Parole.. So how again can you legally MAKE me do these things?

In 2003, Attorney General Abbott established the Cyber Crimes Unit to crackdown on child pornographers and sexual predators who use the Internet to prey upon children. The Cyber Crimes Unit has arrested 105 predators in 25 Texas counties and Indonesia. These defendants were caught trying to arrange sexual encounters online with victims they acknowledged were young children. The “children” actually were undercover investigators. Cyber Crimes Unit investigators have also obtained convictions against 96 individuals on child pornography charges.

Ok, I cannot fault them for trying to stop people from harming children. That IS protecting them, however I find it a flat lie to say they arrested someone in Indonesia.. Texas law is long, but it ain't that long.

Since taking office, Attorney General Abbott has earned a national reputation for aggressively arresting and prosecuting child sexual predators. In addition to arrest roundups, Abbott also launched a series of town hall meetings statewide to educate parents and teenagers about the kind of criminal activity that goes on in connection with Internet diaries, chat rooms and social networking sites. Thousands of concerned Texans turned out at venues across the state to participate in the interactive presentation about the risks of online predators and the steps parents can take to protect their children online.

Well, I am happy that he aggressively goes after predators. So why in the FUCK is he still messing with the other 97% of us that are not predators? I think it is funny in the quote above, how he is trying to teach parents and teens the evils of having online information like 'diaries' .. Umm, earth to old dude.. What in the fuck do you think Myspace and Facebook are? Fucking idiots.