Protecting our kids – or jeopardizing everyone's freedom?

From the Christian Science Monitor of all places.

New York - Few crimes deserve greater sanction than child sex offense. Such crimes betray all reasonable standards of moral conduct and they are (deservedly) punished harshly.

Yet in society's understandable rush to punish these criminals, the Constitution is being violated.

Residency restrictions, unconstitutional laws that bar sex offenders from living in a specified area, are on the rise. But why break the highest law for the lowest crime?

When government betrays the Constitution, no matter the reason, we jeopardize everyone's freedom.

Twenty-two states have prohibited sex offenders from living within a minimum distance of family facilities, such as schools and day-care centers. The distance ranges from 500 feet to five times that. And further restrictions are on the way.

In California, state legislation already bans a child sex offender from living within a quarter mile of a school. And a number of jurisdictions are contemplating banning residence by sex offenders altogether.

In larger cities and rural areas, such restrictions may not be overly burdensome. But in small towns, they can make residence for an ex-offender impossible.

The more crucial problem, though, is that residency restrictions clearly violate the constitutional limits on statutory law. Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads in part: "No bill, or attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed." The Latin phrase "ex post facto" literally translates as "from after the fact." The Founding Fathers wisely realized that law must not be retroactive.

A free citizenry must know what the law permits and what it forbids; arbitrary punishment is unacceptable. If ex post facto legislation were permitted, no citizen would know if his present actions might be later ruled illegal. We owe our liberty a stronger safeguard than the whims of popular conscience.

Most state laws require their state to build schools and family facilities according to the population of a constituency. Therefore, inevitably a case arises when changes in demographics require construction of a school within the restricted range of a convicted child sex offender. We may feel no sympathy when an ex-convict is forced to sell his home because of it, but this practice is retroactive punishment.

Legislators have cleverly tried to sidestep the constitutionality of residency restrictions by inserting a clause specifying retroactive punishment into federal law. But in the traditional spirit of heavy-handed government, this attempt to steer around the spirit of the law is rather like solving racism with Jim Crow. Clever, but the wrong way to protect children.

Until now, the courts have been far too lax. In Doe v. Miller, the Eighth Circuit Court held that residency restrictions, as civil regulations designed to protect children, did not violate constitutional law. But that response barely addresses the argument.

Should society accept law that holds citizens in double jeopardy just because it does so explicitly? If a law, or clause, violates the Constitution, does it make it acceptable simply because a senator notes the unconstitutionality in the law itself? If so, of what value is the Bill of Rights at all?

In fact, residency restrictions are uniquely egregious violations of the ex post facto restriction. It is not only that they happen to fall afoul of the law; it is that they fly in the face of our law. Passing a law that mandates the flouting of the Constitution requires a special brand of legislative hubris.

So what can we do instead?

Society could fix the exact location of all future schools. But without infallible demographic predictions, legislators would find themselves building schools where they were not needed. No law can reasonably lay out exact future residency requirements; therefore no law can constitutionally impose residency restrictions.

Even if an offender is never actually forced to sell his home, democratic society cannot function when citizens are subject to arbitrary forced relocation.

There are other ways to protect our children; we might begin by increasing the number of police assigned to patrol near city schools. Such measures might be costly, but far less costly than violating due process.

We owe our Founding Fathers respect that transcends anger and haste.

C. Alexander Evans is a doctoral student in political philosophy at the City University of New York and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn College.

Well, that is a good read. Yes Yes, granted that he is saying things that might one day affect me. However his words ring true. How can a free citizenry allow such laws in the supposedly most free society upon this earth?

The answer is obvious, American citizens are no longer free. They are commanded by a vocal minority of powerful people who bend the ear, and the pocketbooks of the legislature to their will. Can we allow this to continue?

Each person must follow what they believe to be the right path for government, however when it is so obvious that government is controlled by such a small yet financially powerful group of people, how can we let this continue? it is time for a change. That change must be now. We must take control of our government back, and wrest it away from the powers that have profited from our penance.

Caylee's mom leaves jail

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- The mother of a missing central Florida toddler was released from jail on $500,000 bail Thursday and ordered to return to her parents' home, where authorities will monitor her with an electronic ankle device.
Casey Anthony didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days, police say.

Casey Anthony didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days, police say.

Casey Anthony, 22, said nothing as she left the Orange County jail Thursday.

She faces charges of child neglect, making false statements and obstructing an investigation in the disappearance of 3-year-old Caylee, who has been missing since June.

Police say Casey Anthony lied to them and didn't report Caylee missing for more than a month. Caylee's grandmother reported her disappearance in July.

Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, escorted her out of the jail under a black umbrella amid a throng of reporters. He got into a scuffle with a journalist, pushing him out of the way.

Anthony, who has been jailed since mid-July, was instructed to go to her parents' home and plug her electronic monitoring device into her phone, Orange County Corrections spokesman Allen Moore said.

A hearing in the case was scheduled Thursday morning, but Anthony was not expected to appear.

A group from a California bail bonds company flew to Florida on Sunday to help Clearwater-based bondsman Albert Estes post the bond. They said they believe Anthony might be more likely to talk about her daughter's disappearance if she were released from jail.

Anthony told investigators she left Caylee in an apartment with a nanny June 9. But investigators say the apartment had been empty for several months.

She told detectives she didn't immediately call authorities to report Caylee missing because she was conducting her own investigation, according to an affidavit.

But authorities say Anthony, a single mother, has shown no remorse or concern for Caylee under questioning. Cadaver-sniffing dogs detected a scent in her car, and hair, dirt and a strange stain were found in the trunk. Investigators are still awaiting FBI tests on that evidence.
advertisement

A neighbor told detectives Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel some time in June. Her father said she had stolen two gas cans from the garage and refused to let him get something from the trunk of her car. A boyfriend said she never told him in June that Caylee was missing.

Baez maintains his client is innocent and is waiting for the proper time and place to explain her behavior.

Why is it that there is NO national outrage at this. Yes there are a few people, god bless 'em, that are making noise over it, but really, there was more press over that Natalie Holloway case, and she may have actually been at partial fault for being in that situation.

Here we have this very young child, baby actually, missing for several months. Mom, arguable I know, that loves to party, sleep around, have a good old time without one smidgeon of parental responsibility. My kids leave my sight for more than 10 seconds and I am asking about them, or looking for them. Why is it that no one is starting a nationwide hunt for this child? Oh, that's right, there's no sex offender involved.

What we have here is the greatest perversion of trust possible. A mother abandoning (sadly possibly killing) her very young child. Throwing the child to the wolves as it were. What more heinous crime can be attested to? I can think of none.

I hope this child is found. I know the possibility is low that she will be found alive, but I keep that hope. If not, then I hope that the body can be found so that she can be laid to rest with dignity.

The mother on the other hand, if she is proven to be responsible, that bitch needs to die.

Gary Glitter’s return prompts tighter sex offender laws

Richard Ford, Jack Malvern and Andrew Drummond in Bangkok

Child sex offenders are to face tighter travel restrictions after it emerged that existing laws would not curb Gary Glitter’s movements after he returns to Britain.

The measures to be announced by the Home Office today come as the 1970s glam-rock star heads for London after serving a 33-month sentence in Vietnam for molesting two girls.

Glitter, 64, was released yesterday and deported. He flew to Thailand but managed to avoid boarding his planned flight to Britain last night, complaining of fatigue and dizziness. He rented one of the small rooms at Bangkok airport that are available for passengers who want to rest and declared: “I’m not going back to London. You can’t make me. I’ve done my time. I’m a free man.”

The singer, who was told that he would be arrested if he tried to enter Thailand and whose requests to fly to Singapore or Hong Kong were denied, was traveling on a passport issued by the British consulate in Ho Chi Minh City last November. He has the same rights as any British citizen to travel to any country that does not require a visa.

Under the Home Office’s proposed measures, child sex offenders would have to renew their passport annually and new rules would make it easier for police to seek an order restricting an offender’s movements. The ministry also wants to extend the length of time — currently six months — that child sex offenders can be barred from traveling abroad.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: “I want to see anyone who poses a threat to our children dealt with as firmly as possible. I’ve spoken to child protection experts and the police and they have told me that these changes will further restrict the ability of child sex offenders to harm children both here and overseas.”

She said that it was her view that with his criminal record, Glitter, who, in his heyday, earned £800,000 a year, should not be travelling anywhere in the world.

The proposals came after the disclosure that police were powerless to impose a sexual offences prevention order on Glitter on his return to Britain. At present police require recent evidence that a person is at risk of re-offending. In future there will be no timescale on the evidence.

Registered sex offenders will also have to give more than the present seven days’ notice of their intention to travel abroad, making it easier for police to seek an order to ban them from going overseas and for their passports to be confiscated. The measures require legislation, so they will not be in place when Glitter returns.

The singer was driven from jail to Ho Chi Minh City airport via the British consulate and put on a flight to Bangkok. As he boarded his lawyer, Le Thanh Kinh, said: “Everything is OK. He is happy to be going home. He was in a good mood.”

On his arrival in Bangkok Glitter was met by Thai immigration police. He said: “I am not getting back on the plane with all the press there and I’m not going to the first-class lounge to be hassled by them. And I’m not going to London. I’ve done my time. I’m a free man.”

British Embassy officials were called in. Thai immigration officials declined to force Glitter back on the plane and the British police officer escorting him admitted that he had no jurisdiction to make him board the aircraft. As the officials pondered the situation, flight TG901 pulled away from the gate with Glitter still at the airport.

The singer, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was due to be met by police at Heathrow and told that he was being placed on the sex offenders’ register. He will join 30,000 people on the register and will be required to give police his name, date of birth, home address and national insurance number. He will be kept under the highest level of surveillance and be visited weekly by police and probation staff. If he breaks the terms of his registration he could face a prison sentence of up to five years.

Off the air

— Gary Glitter is thought to receive up to £50,000 a year from royalties and performance fees

— Glitter was enjoying a revival until he was charged in 1997 and had expected to appear in a Spice Girls film

— He used to earn about £100,000 a year from the National Football League in America, which played his Rock and Roll parts one and two after touchdowns. They dropped the songs after his conviction

Source: Times database

Did this man break any British laws? I don't care what he did in Vietnam. If they wanted to put him on a registry there, then fine, he should be on theirs. What justifiable law do the British have that allows a person to be placed on this registry if they have broken no British law?

Here is the real threat from these laws. This man has done his time, the arresting authority states that he is now a free man, but the police state fascists want to impose unlawful restrictions on someone that never broke their laws.

And why exactly does it take a 7 day notice for citizens to travel abroad? If one needs to travel on business, how is it justified? Why is it that the world's people allow governments to shave away our inalienable rights so easily. First it is the sex offenders, just as Hitler did. When are you people going to open your eyes and see that this is only the beginning. When they come for you and you are alone, who will fight for your rights? I certainly will not. I will welcome you into the crowd of all of us that have served our time, and should be free but are not.

Sieg Heil the New World Order.

CCAGW Cheers Closure of Pell Grant Sex Offender Loophole

WASHINGTON, Aug 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today expressed support for a provision in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R. 4137) introduced by Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) that will redirect wasteful grants from sex offenders to the hard-working students who need them.
"With every penny of Pell Grants needed for students, it was inexcusable for the federal government to be providing any money to sex offenders," said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. "The elimination of this loophole in the Pell Grant program that had allowed convicted child predators to receive federal financial aid to take college courses is a welcome development for taxpayers and the higher education system."
H.R. 4137 was signed into law by President Bush on August 14. Prison inmates have been banned from receiving Pell Grants since 1994 and some students convicted of drug offenses are barred. However, repeat sex criminals who have served their sentences but are deemed too dangerous to be allowed back out into society are kept in civil confinement centers and have remained eligible until now.
Rep. Keller's provision closes that loophole. In Florida in one year alone, 54 of the most violent sexual offenders in one center obtained Pell Grants at taxpayer expense totaling over $200,000. With 20 other states employing civil confinement centers, millions of dollars have been wasted.
A March 17, 2008, report from the Associated Press said, "some institutions report that sex offenders are putting the financial aid to questionable uses by buying such things as clothes, a DVD player and music CDs -- sometimes, after they have dropped out of school. Pell Grants can legally be put toward expenses that are education-related. But the unused portion of a grant is supposed to be repaid when someone withdraws from school."
"Rep. Keller deserves the thanks of every taxpayer for fighting to include his provision in H.R. 4137. He has been working diligently to eliminate Pell Grants for sex offenders for many years, and his hard work has finally paid off," concluded Schatz.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
SOURCE: Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Leslie K. Paige, 202-467-5334
Alexa Moutevelis, 202-467-5318

this is a reference to something I wrote about a while ago.

Ric Keller's a Tool

Here's the thing. Sex offenders pay taxes too, we also go to college. Are we not as capable of paying taxes, and attempting to rebuild our lives? I guess not. This is yet another reason that we need to begin soliciting our government bodies and request that our taxes be adjusted to compensate us for all of the state run and funded items that are currently and in the future will be taken from us. parks, libraries, now government grants, soon streets, and the inability to travel abroad for work or vacation. Yeah, it's time that America understands that we are still citizens and pay our taxes. If you don't understand, maybe one day you will when they take away your freedoms after you have paid whatever debt was originally put on you.

After a week off...

I took a week away, to enjoy the company of my family. So to anyone that has been watching the blog, sorry I didn't post anything.

I see that after a week,m not much has changed. I do see where a couple of states courts have ruled AWA un-Constitutional. which is as it should be. Maybe, finally, the courts will actually start ruling on law, instead of money for congressional projects.

Other than that, nothing else has changed. Lies are still being told, malice in the media is still flowing freely, and the masses of sex offenders are not re-offending. Yeah, pretty much the same as I left it.

S.O.

Hearings begin on toughening sex crimes

Associated Press - August 7, 2008 3:35 PM ET

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - The probation officer who supervised the man accused of abducting 12-year-old Brooke Bennett says he felt compelled to recommend the release of Michael Jacques from probation on an earlier conviction.

Richard Kearney told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Jacques had completed his prison term, sex offender treatment and other requirements of probation for the 1992 aggravated assault conviction.

That testimony came as the legislative committee opened a series of hearings on how the state can toughen its sex offender laws following the girl's abduction and death.

The committee is investigating what went wrong in the Jacques case and what the state can do to better protect its children.

What went wrong with Jacques? It isn't like someone can magically understand this man's thoughts. He is one of the 5% minority who will always re-offend. This isn't rocket science, and I certainly do hope that the government will drop its little act and own up to that. It is fairly evident that neither the government agencies or the news medias read any of the accredited reports out there. The experts in this field state that there will always be persons that re-offend. The percentage is small, however there are some that are just plain bad and cannot be taught to control, or do not want to control themselves. Nothing can be done about this, as you cannot read someone's heart when they go through the system and finish therapy.

This is the failing of the entire sex offender branding system. If the authorities would stop telling people that all will re-offend, and that all are equally bad, they would be able to be selective on those that have the 'markers' for future deviant behaviors. It isn't hard. Some can be identified through psych evaluations, and they are the ones that should be watched. If the government had done their job and used the registry as it was originally intended to be used, their list would be much smaller. The masses of sexual offenders are not what is being pushed on the public, the numbers are mis-reported and as such the system created the Brooke Bennett kidnapping and murder. Not taking anything away from the Uncle or the Father, who both actually committed the crime. No, the system made it possible, flooded with so many low or no risk offenders that law enforcement cannot hope to watch everyone, and cannot identify the real threats as they can slip in and out of the SO population. Take the kids off the registry, take the first time offenders that have shown positive treatment successes, and that will leave you with a much smaller group to work with and weed through until you get down to the hard core offenders that will never change. If Congress, and the states would follow through on what they say there would be fewer on the registry true, but they would be the ones that you WANT on the registry. The true baddest of the bad, that one 3.2 to 5% of the offenders that will reoffend. It is true that some that will re-offend might not be on the registry, however this is the same as a parolee for murder, or theft as well. Some people will never change. That is a failure of man individually not on a whole group of persons.

Brookhaven enacts landmark sex offender ruling

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lisexo065790533aug06,0,5155612.story

BY PATRICK WHITTLE |patrick.whittle@newsday.com

August 6, 2008

Brookhaven Town enacted a landmark measure yesterday that makes it illegal for more than two registered sex offenders to live in the same single-family home.

The ordinance, which town officials and child protection advocates have said is the first of its kind in the state, is designed to break up clusters of sex offenders, such as the one in the Homestead Drive area of Gordon Heights. According to a state registry Web site, more than 40 registered sex criminals live in that roughly half-square-mile area.

The town board unanimously approved the measure last night after a public hearing. One resident, Timothy Timms of Coram, which adjoins Gordon Heights, asked the board to pass it because he fears "my children aren't safe on the street."

Other residents questioned whether the law is strict enough and will hold up in court.

Just before the vote, Councilwoman Kathleen Walsh, who proposed the measure, said she was confident the town had created "something enforceable" that will "create an environment where we can keep our children safe."

Proponents have said the measure, coupled with existing laws that prevent sex offenders from living near schools, parks and playgrounds, will help families take back communities such as Gordon Heights. The law imposes a fine of up to $2,500 per week on any registered sex offender who does not comply within 45 days of being notified. It also holds landlords accountable with a fine of up to $2,500 per week.

But some civil liberties advocates have said it might infringe on fair housing laws and sex offenders' right to associate with people of their choice. Sex crime experts have also questioned the wisdom of breaking up offenders who are supporting each other in rehabilitation.

Councilman Tim Mazzei said town officials believe the measure is within the confines of the law. "Any time you restrict individuals' liberty to travel, to live, to house, you are going to have objections," Mazzei said.

The biggest change is a ban on more than two offenders living in one single-family home, but town officials have said they might later tweak the law to include multifamily homes.

Last night's hearing came two months after the town increased the distance a sex offender must live from a school, park or playground from 1,000 feet to a quarter-mile. The town made the change to make local laws as strong as Suffolk County laws.

Parents for Megan's Law representatives have said the ordinance would be the state's first "saturation statute."

Laura Ahearn, the group's head, has said offenders will still need greater supervision and help finding jobs to reform. Town Supervisor Brian X. Foley said the clustering issue will eventually require a change in state law.

Opinion: Why does it always take a 'tard with a name like Foley or Walsh to pass the most stupid laws out there?

Ok, so towns have been passing restrictions on where sex offenders can live, quickly pushing them farther and father towards a mutual center, they then are 'shocked' and 'surprised' that they have two or more living in the same house? Go figure.

When brains were passed out these cats are in the other line. Why does it take that one government rocket scientist to figure out that if you relocate, move, BANISH sex offender that it might one day lead them to HAVE to live together due to housing issues that arise because of your exposte facto and double jeopardy laws? Let me see, if you disallow the people from housing in the majority of an area, and only give them a highly restrictive criteria to search and secure housing, how is it again that you are surprised that you have multiple SO's living in the same structure?

Once, when I was a child, I actually believed in the government. I thought they were intelligent, bright, and generally looked out for the betterment of all people and citizen's of the United States. Now that I have grown older, and are subject to the laws they create, I understand. They are smart, bright and Intelligent. They know exactly what to say, and do to keep themselves in office. They know precisely what to lie to the American people about to have their own agenda's met.

In Sex Offenders, they have found the one item where they will guarantee themselves votes. And they are not about to allow this cash cow out of the fields.