Sunday, April 27, 2014

Catch 22 on civil commitment housing: 'Outpatient treatment' a cruel farce

There have recently been a spate of stories about housing for "civilly committed" sex offenders, people who've completed their sentences but been kept under supervision through civil proceedings, culminating in the resignation of the board chair at Texas' Office of Violent Sex Offender Management. But until yesterday's Houston Chronicle article ("For sex offenders who've completed their sentences, 'the only way out appears to be to die'," April 26), the focus of discussion had been on demonizing the agency for housing too many such offenders in a handful of neighborhoods. The real problem, though, is the failed, underlying policy which fails to acknowledge that a) these folks must live somewhere and b) public safety is poorly served by ostracizing ex-offenders instead of promoting reintegration. The article opened:
As criminals go, these few hundred men officially are labeled the worst of the worst, offenders whose past sexual crimes have branded them as such pariahs that the state has decided to keep them confined in jails and halfway houses and run-down boarding homes across Texas at taxpayer expense, even though they long ago completed their prison sentences.

They were the unknown, until a month ago when the little-known agency that supervises them - the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management - relocated more than two dozen into the Acres Homes neighborhood in north Houston, without any advance public notice, causing controversy and alarm.
A few days later, disclosure of the agency's plan to build a center in rural Liberty County to house perhaps more than 100 offenders there brought immediate local opposition.

But legal experts, former employees and legislators now suggest that the biggest controversy may involve the program itself: Why outpatient treatment supposedly intended to transition offenders out of confinement once they complete rehabilitation programs, never has.

Not one. Not in 15 years.

"The only way out appears to be to die," said Nicolas Hughes, a Harris County assistant public defender who has represented several offenders in the program. "That's not how it's supposed to work. In that regard, it's clearly not constitutional. These people are just being kept locked up."
Proponents of civil commitment programs for sex offenders insist it is legal, pointing to a string of court decisions upholding its strict rules.

While none of the civilly committed offenders ever have been discharged, Allison Taylor, the program's executive director, has said repeatedly that none of the offenders in the program ever have been charged with committing another sexually violent act. "That, to me, is success," she told the Houston Chronicle in 2012.

Taylor, who did not respond to calls for comment, recently has taken official leave, as has program manager Deborah Morgan. Their subordinates now are managing day-to-day operations.
Chairman John Whitmire of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee recently announced he'll hold hearings to evaluate the agency's housing policies, calling agency management "out of control" and questioning whether the program is "even needed anymore, considering that prison sentences for sexual predators have been increased in the past decade." Unless the committee can identify solutions, though, all the "oversight" in the world won't change the situation. It probably just needs to be scrapped.

As several critics said in the article, the whole "outpatient treatment" model for Texas' civil commitment  program is basically a farce. A former case manager for the agency "came to the conclusion that the rules were designed to send the offenders back to prison, not allow them to successfully complete their treatment." And though civilly committed offenders are supposed to be reevaluated every two years, a former attorney at the State Counsel for Offenders told the paper, "My concern is that the regulating agency is so biased against these guys they don't give them a fair evaluation." That seems to be what's really going on.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would ever agree to serve on the agency's board. Nothing they do will prevent them from being scapegoated by politicians and/or neighborhood groups, even if they ensure every offender under their charge never commits another sex offense. Nobody wants these folks housed in their zip code, even individually, much less en masse. Yet, they've completed their prison sentences and must live somewhere. It's a classic Catch-22: There's no viable solution that can please the agency's critics. You couldn't pay me enough to do Allison Taylor's job.

MORE: Embattled agency chief retains attorney who thinks civil commitment program is unconstitutional. AND MORE: State may fire agency director.

45 comments:

sunray's wench said...

Given that predatory sex offenders that prey on minors (the ones people are usually so scared of) generally commit more crimes when in contact with others like them and are very good at networking, I'd have thought the last thing you would want to do would be to house them all together somewhere.

And John Whitmire seems to have missed the point completely as usual.

Anonymous said...

I had always thought that the Civil Commitment process here in Texas was designed to rehabilitate and provide treatment to former offenders deemed too dangerous to be released out into the community. I’m starting to question this process. If their so called ‘treatment’ is considered to be effective, why is no one ever graduated out of the program? There’s just something scary about a secretive state agency that can imprison people beyond their sentence by hiring biased therapists to testify at the offender hearings.
“Deciding which offenders had "behavorial abnormalities" - not a medical condition, but a legal definition - was subject to interpretation by therapists hired by the office managing violent sex offenders.”
I’m certain that there are people in my neighborhood and in my community who have ‘behavioral abnormalities’ and are sexual deviants but have never been diagnosed or arrested. Maybe we should expand the witch hunt and lock away every individual who just might be dangerous. What the heck- let them come for our sons, husbands, ministers, teachers, and neighbors. After all, it’s all in the name of safety, isn’t it?

ckikerintulia said...

I can think offhand of three gross miscarriages of justice in North America: (1) the Salem witch burnings; (2) the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in WW II; and (3) the continuing punishment of sex offenders long after they have served their sentences. The first two have been acknowledged as such. How long until the third is added to that list? (I'm sure others could add to the list; I could too by thinking a little. But thinking is hard work, and this is Sunday--Christian Sabbath, day of rest.)

Anonymous said...

@ckiker, maybe also slavery/Jim Crow, Native American genocide? Once you start, it's a long list.

Anonymous said...

I have worked at the halfway house where these guys use to reside n yup sure enough the therapists, and especially the case managers are biased so can they complete the program????

common$ents said...

The "continuing punishment" rampant in the "justice" system applies to just about every person released from prison....not just sex offenders. Apparently lots of folks are quite satisfied with the notion that "criminal" actions can never be forgiven. They can "do the time", but they pay the rest of their lives.

rodsmith said...

lol loved this!

"While none of the civilly committed offenders ever have been discharged, Allison Taylor, the program's executive director, has said repeatedly that none of the offenders in the program ever have been charged with committing another sexually violent act. "That, to me, is success," she told the Houston Chronicle in 2012."

This statement tells me that madame taylor is a perfect gov't fucktard of the highest order.

Anonymous said...

"The process is the punishment". Again.

Anonymous said...

In response to sunray's wench posting, what evidence are you citing when you state that predatory sex offenders of minors generally commit more crimes when in contact with others like them. I have never seen a single study that suggests this.

Most people who are involved with sex offenders know the real truth concerning this sort of thing.
Sex offender recidivism rates are among the lowest, if not the lowest, of all felons. Most studies place it at 3% to 6% but you wouldn't tell by the way sex offenders are managed once they are released from prison or after they are adjudicated. This means that approx. 96% of new sex offenses are committed by people not on the sex offender registry.
Yes, sex offender management is a sham, and a shame too that a nation still allows politicians, special interest groups, i.e. companies that profit off of the draconian sex offender laws, (electronic monitor providers), to target and disenfranchise a group of people.
Seems like America has always had to have at least one group to hate. Haters will be haters but what has hatred ever accomplished? There are better ways to manage sex offenders but an honest and sane dialogue must begin first.

Tom said...

I represented the only person ever to get out of the program. He was released after his initial commitment was overturned on appeal because the trial judge improperly excluded defense expert testimony. After it was reversed, the state non-suited the commitment petition.
However, in my represenation of him and others charged with criminal violation of the commitment order, I am appalled at what is going on. There is no real treatment, just a few picture books and talk theraphy among sex offenders.
I have had people charged with felonies for failure to admit crimes they have NEVER admitted and when that charge was dismissed, for refusing to answer under the Fifth Amendment because he was afraid that a truthful answer would lead to new charges.
They have been charged with felonies for failure to recharge their ankle monitors, being too religious and having consensual sex with adult members of the halfway house staff.
Basically, these guys just bounce back and forth between prison and the civil commitment program.
And, in prison, the people have more rights. For example, one of my clients could not contact his mother or his wife while in the civil commitment program but had no problem once he was charged and in the Montgomery COunty Jail.
They are very limited in their access to what would be called in prison commissary, like the ability to buy toiletries. Somethimes they aren't allowed to make purchases for years at a time.
The Chronicle has said that the program exists to keep these guys incarcerated after their prison terms expire. I wonder who is the source of that, Sen. Whitmire maybe?
And, if these guys really are in need of mental health treatment, why is the statute designed so they aren't identified until shortly before their prison sentences expire? Why isn't the treatment begun early in their sentences?

Margaret Moon said...

I will try to keep my anger at a minimum but first I will thank you for addressing this CRIME, yes crime, because it is unconstitutional and a huge scam! In fact, most of the laws and regulations covering sex offenses are nothing but a posturing of lawmakers, and a money-maker for those who service and supply prisons and post-incarceration schemes!
When researching any of the Draconian laws and restrictions proposed and sadly usually passed every time a legislative body meets, one will find many authorities (psychologists, attorneys and law enforcers) who say they are expensive, unconstitutional, and most importantly ineffective. Often counter productive. Yet the our courts, state and federal, allow them due to fear of harming their own careers.
And we musn't forget that all of these programs provide good paying jobs. Look at the salaries of those involved in Civil Commitment. Why would they let their cash cows escape?
Again, thank you for your honesty and bravery in discussing this horrible state of affairs in our country!

sunray's wench said...

Anon 7.39 ~ my comment is not based on a study (if it was I would have included a reference), it's my opinion. But it appears to be common knowledge that the people we are talking about often seek out others the same as them, and then if unrestrained, see nothing wrong in swapping images and sometimes live humans for their own pleasure.

Yes of course, these things happen where the perpetrator is by themselves and unconnected to a group of like-minded individuals; but providing a group setting seems to me to be a temptation too far that need not exist.

I am perfectly aware that like-for-like recidivism rates are extremely low for this group of offenders, which is why I do not advocate that they be rounded up and stashed away somewhere all together.

Anonymous said...

sunray's wench 11:58 -- I think the "common" knowledge that you speak of deals with those that have never been caught and sent through the judicial system. There is a huge difference between these type of offenders.

Most sex offenders who have been to prison or on probation for a sex offense only interact with other sex offenders because they are mandated by the state to do so, i.e. civil commitment housing or sex offender treatment sessions etc..

If you agree that the recidivism rates are very low as stated, perhaps you can explain why there is so much of an emphasis on the super intensive monitoring and registration of these individuals?

Please don't take this as an assault on you personally. There is simply too many uneducated opinions concerning sex offenders in general, not just those that under civil commitment.

The laws that deal sex offenders affect more than just the offenders. It adversely affects their families as well -- including their innocent children.

Many sex offenders were themselves sexually abused as children, never received counseling for the abuse and went on to develop deviant addictions which in turn led to their offense. Where are the advocates on their behalf for the personal abuse that they suffered at the hands of their abuser?

This is a complex issue, all sex offenders are unique, as are all humans. The approach towards dealing with them should be as unique as they are. A cookie-cutter approach to this problem does not work. Society does not deal with heinous murderers like this. What about parents who seriously physically harm children? No simply add the three lettered word SEX to anything and it takes on a whole new meaning.

Sorry for the rant, no disrespect intended.

Margaret Moon said...

@sunray's wench
I am not going to "pick on" you, I'm going to attack "common knowledge." In the past it was common knowledge that the world was flat. Some people still think that swimming after eating is dangerous, high cholesterol will kill you. (A lie thrust upon people by big pharma. Current research has exposed the
fallacy.)
Sex and violence sell because humans find them interesting. They are also very profitable. Therefore media has a field day with anything connected to sex or sex offenders. As has been repeatedly stated here, many legislators and investors, and others also find sex and violence very profitable. Myths, lies, and hysteria are purposely spread and the public has bought into the package. Please check the facts when you think something is "common knowledge."

Anonymous said...

The Geo Group who runs the program is responsible. They fill the politician's pockets up with lots of cash. Tommy Williams might have been public enemy number one on this, but he bailed out of the senate early.

The state funding guys are the ones to blame. Private corporations have no business having contracts with our state criminal justice agencies.

rodsmith said...

yes I've always loved that myself

they are sane enough to be charged
they are sane enough to go to trial
they are sane enough to be convicted and sentenced
they are sane enough to serve said sentence

then when it's time to leave SUDDENLY THEY ARE CRAZY!

sorry in my book the crazy ones are the retarded hate filled Nazi wannabee's who are behind this illegal crap.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your post. I personally know of 2 SO's having to struggle through treatment that's traumatic at best - having to lie to be able to go home because they wouldn't dream of doing what they were convicted of. It's another revenue game where you are absolutely correct in that private contracts have no business in criminal justice as maximizing profit takes precedence over offender treatment which leads to pretty terrible outcomes like those I witnessed as a CCA contracted nurse.

In addition, lol at the "escapee" from Kyle Unit who had ZERO business being approved for substance abuse treatment at MTC with such altered mental status that my husband shared that he presented with a flat affect reminiscent of an extrapyramidal mask...except that the reality is even more disturbing because psychotropics aren't administered to offenders in treatment there. He was just that far gone. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Sex offender registration has become the modern day "Scarlet Letter."

Anonymous said...

Folks, we will never, in our lifetime, change the ignorant opinions on this subject. We must learn to play the game. We need to quit trying to do away with the registry and civil commitment and just change them. Work on changing the Sex Offender Registry to the Predator Registry. We must make pedophilia a recognized mental disorder and allow it to be used as a defense in court, thereby allowing the pedophiles to go to mental health prisons instead of the regular prisons. We have GOT to differentiate between pedophiles, predators and sex offenders.

sunray's wench said...

Margaret and Anon ~ so are you saying that predatory sex offenders who like young children do not network and share images?

I am definitely not including all sex offenders in this group, but the activites of those who have been convicted for their offences here in the UK (and spreading out across Europe to asia) appear to suggest that this is the case.

I'm not even against supervision or assisting these individuals to try and live in society again. I just don't think that housing lots of them together is a good idea.

Shelomith Stow said...

Sunray, what they are suggesting, and it is borne out by research, is that the man who committed sexual offenses before being arrested, compelled to face his misdeeds, and punished for them is, in the vast majority of the cases, a very different person than the same man after those events have taken place. Yes, there are a small percentage who either cannot or will not modify their behavior. That much is fact. This is my opinion. I believe that the numbers would fall out very close to the same if you separated those whose victims were family members and others close and well-known to them from those whose victims were strangers.

Anonymous said...

I am drawn to this conversation as my emotions run rampant upon reading these posts. As a grandmother in Texas I am learning, learning, learning about the injustice of this system. Just to say, boys cry too, along with their families. Romeo and Juliet cases are 10% of the cases in this country. In a case where the act was consensual, protection was used, and age is lied about by the girl, these boys become known as felons at an early age. With no criminal history they are tagged as sexual offenders. The treatment for them on probation is so similar to what I am reading on this blog. From the beginning they are threatened with revocation to probation in they don't admit to their 'crime'. They are told they are deviant, that they are thugs, that if they don't comply with the sex 'therapy' groups program they will go to prison. I cried when I saw what they are forced to do and admit to, even if not true. Being housed together in the county fairground arena on Halloween night from 6 to 8 .... given literature that sets out Holiday policy, i.e., the sexual offender is not allowed to look out the window of his own home when trick or treaters arrive, or display Christmas ornaments because that might attract young people. I have lived with my grandson for 12 years, and to say that this is devastating is an understatement. He is sinking under this treatment and with no hope of any of this changing because families live in fear that if they do something slightly wrong in support of their family member that they will further harm him. This has to change, but it will only change through legislation. A PR campaign throughout the country is needed. Share your information with others.

Anonymous said...

This also leads to the question of why no one graduates from the SOTP who are not civil commitment. I have been in the program for 7 years now, completed all the requirements, and am considered a model group member and parolee. Yet I find myself still in the program. As several people said, if this works, what gives. My opinion only, but it seems to me that the parole division uses this as an additional level of supervision that parolees are compelled to pay for themselves.

Shelomith Stow said...


Anon 8:16, would you be willing to give your county/jurisdiction? I am aware and working against valueless Halloween restrictions for registrants, but restriction against Christmas ornaments or anything Christmas-related has not crossed my radar in Texas.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I am labeled as a sex offender after meeting a lady in an adult establishment, drinking adult beverages, and doing adult things. After consensual intimacy, three days later she returned to my hotel to break in and steal my car. It was after her arrest that she revealed she was under aged. I have served my probation, and still am labeled. I am no threat, not a predator, etc...-never was.
My restitution has been paid back to the state. Why am I still being punished?

George said...

The civil commitment process here in Texas is like so many misguided efforts that the state uses to address an issue that is complex and for which there are too many hard decisions to be made to deal with these issues.

Never before has any type of convicted felon been forced to follow statutes of law that were not in effect when they committed their offense -- until laws were passed to make the sex offense statutes retroactive. This alone is one of the most glaring examples of injustice. It is unconstitutional regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled.

They have ruled that the retroactive application of the sex offender laws are allowable because society has a right to protect itself from sex offenders. This is pure hogwash because nowhere can you find ANY statistical evidence that CONVICTED sex offenders pose this perceived huge threat to society. In fact, just the opposite is true! The report from US Department of Justice states that anywhere from 3% to 6% of convicted sex offenders will reoffend.

The threat comes from the unknown sex offenders and yet we continue to allow our elected officials to enforce and enact legislation that has very little if any impact on the reduction of sex offenses.

This is a huge mess, people's rights are being violated and innocent people's lives are being destroyed (the sex offender's families). At what point do we, as citizens of this state and nation, decide that enough is enough and unite to stop this madness? It is our DUTY to protect our constitutional rights as Americans, not delegate this duty to self-serving politicians who truly do not have our interests at the forefront of their priorities.

George said...

@Shelomith Stow 8:55 -- The parole division in Bexar County certainly has restrictions against Christmas lights and outside decorations.

The City of San Antonio recently banned sex offenders from the Riverwalk as well.

plato said...

Excellent comments all. They reflect a diversity of view points that are certainly revelent; however, I would like to introduce a peripheral dynamic about being on the sex offender registry lost on or not even in perview of the average person. And that is how the registry psychologically debilitates a man. How it takes away your manhood, and disenfranchies you. Especially the taking away of your manhood! That is, you can't be the head of your house hold becase your parole officer has to approve every move you make, every decision. If you are married you are really in trouble. To the ladies out there let me ask you this--what if your husband had to run every decision pertaining to your home through another man? For example, if you wanted to go on a second honey moon to San Antonio river walk
but your husband had to get permission from another man--a parole officer. How would your husband look to you? Not much like a man--uh? You might as well be with the parole officer! But this is just small example of how the registry strips you of your manhood, or what I call deboning you like a fish. Seriously, you can't even protect your family,and unless you own your home, you can't have stability in your home because you never know when your landlord will evict you and your family because he gets pressure from the neigbhors who looked you up on the web and found you in their neigbhorhood. This is the real purpose of the registry to destablize, disenfrancise and shame you-period but because the registry cannot and will not protect anyone from a real preditor hell bent on committing another offense. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

AMEN Plato

George said...

I second that Amen to you plato. I feel your pain and understand what you are going through, believe me on that.

Shelomith Stow said...

Thanks, George; I was unaware of that, although folk under supervision may be restricted in ways that those not under supervision may not. Do you know if there are any Christmas decoration injunctions against registrants not under supervision?

Yes, I know all about the recent park ordinances although for some reason I thought the River Walk was exempt.

Anonymous said...

It appears from your comments that you assume that all these civilly committed people are "predators who like young children" when in fact we have been given NO information about what these people have done. None whatsoever. To me this implies that government is afraid to disclose the truth of the facts. Given that we live in a system where laws have gone too far, politicians benefit from fearmomgering, and companies profit from human beings being put through the legall system, I would lean more towards believing that these people are not as dangerous as we are made to believe. We now know that these "counselors" are biased, there is no real counselling, and they keep the participants indefinitely in the program. I know for a fact that people in this country are continually charged, prosecuted and punished fo many things that most of us would consider not being serious. The fact is, the people working in government, enjoying their own power trips have created a fascist system. We now live under a government of wolves. If the sheep are not quick to wake up and see the truth and fight back, this will have the most terrible consequences for this country.

Anonymous said...

The unfair treatment of sex offenders or criminal in general, can be debated till hell freezes over. Fact is very little law pertaining to criminal behavior is created for the purpose of stopping criminal behavior. Until voters, media and others embarrass the living hell out of every new, incumbent, candidate running for office who makes up bullshat to get elected or re-elected, those concerned are just pissing into the wind.

plato said...

If their just has to be a sex offender registry, then only the most violent malcontents should be on it. Those identified as such by some type psychological evaluation(s)from an un-biased psychologist/therapist. Alternatively, the state should allow all other registrants a "Due Process Hearing" (DPH). A registrant would go before his/her convicting court to "show cause" why he/she should be de-registred. He/she would be given an opportunity to present evidence of his/her rehabilitation since release form prison. The state of course can send its representative for rebuttal if they so choose. This process would give a man a fair chance to get his life back and also offer due process of which under current law, you get not even an iota of. Another idea would be for the state to offer "Amnesty". Under this program you would have to meet certain criteria, e.g.,
a) must be 50+ years of age
b) must have served 20 straight years in TDC
c) must have 7 years clean parole, i.e, no violations, no dirty UAs etc.,
d) must be gainfully employed
e) get recommendation for PO
These wwould be my criteria to quailify for Amnesty. And if anyone out there has any connection to any state legislator with the balls to introduce legislatation to do this, please, by all means get the above ideas to them.

Anonymous said...

sunray's wench: Common knowledge? I beg to differ. It's more like common misconception and lack of common knowledge. There is zero empirical evidence that substantiate your claims. Those that actually seek out the facts have common knowledge. As far as your “opinion” goes I am more inclined to consider it more speculation and conjecture than an opinion. I strongly suspect you get much of what you consider knowledge from the main stream media, which has become more concerned with the number of readers than actually reporting unbiased fact's.

What is factual is that the vast majority of people on registries have committed one crime that prosecuting district attorneys break up into multiple counts to bolster their case and which always removes the defendants chance of receiving an impartial trial; an example would be someone that downloaded a single file containing multiple pictures. The prosecuting attorney invariably charges the individual with one count for each picture, which tends to blow the case way out of proportion to what it is in reality. Another example is the man that has consensual sex with a minor. The sexual aspect of these relationships are always broken down into individual acts; that is to say the couple may have had sex once, yet the adult will have multiple charges based on what they did during their intimate encounter.

The facts of the matter are that the vast majority of sexual offenses are committed by someone familiar and known to the victim. These people include the father, uncle, priest, coach, teacher, counselor, neighbor, etc. The cases involving a stranger are about as common as a child being struck by lightening. Another fact is that statistically people like the ones in these civil commitment facilities are as likely to commit a new sex offense as a child being struck by lightening; again. It happens, but these instances are not common by any stretch of the imagination. This group have the lowest re offense rate of any group and I, for one would like to see the resources spent violating the rights of these people go to policing the segments of society that pose a real threat to children and society in general; like people that sell drugs to children, murderers, gang bangers and drunk drivers.

Please do not consider this an attack, because it's not. My only wish is to contribute some accurate information. If you wish I can post links to empirical studies done by experts. Let me know.

rodsmith said...

well plato you were doing great till that last post. That has to be about the stupidest ideal I've ever seen.

First in any conflict between the state and a citizen the burden of proof should be on the STATE not the citizen. Sorry if the state thinks said individual is a threat it's their job to go in front of a real judge and PROVE IT.

as for your list of requirments. What's the poor sucker who plead out to time served 30 years ago and maybe spent a week in the country jail supposed to do? Nevermind none of this illegal shit was even in place when his crime occurred.

Lee said...

They call it a civil case but they aren't really all that civil about it.

Civil court ironically is a prosecutors dream fight. They do not have to allege a criminal offence, not much of a due process, the defendant is not entitled to counsel (like a criminal case), they can more easily inflame the jury, there is a much easier and lower burden of proof and they get around double jeopardy.

Prosecutors destroying the civil liberties and rights of the accused that James Madison worked so hard to build.

According to most law enforcement, If you do the crime, one should to the time. Then everyone moves on and double jeopardy protects the defendant.

Next prosecutors will want to see what they can get in bankruptcy, family or even probate court. When is the end of the madness?

Anonymous said...

Lee is right, these civil trials are a walk for the prosecutors. The defendants have no right to remain silent and are subject to civil discovery. But they do have a statutory right to counsel in civil commitment trials and the burden is reasonable doubt.

So what will counsel do when the Montgomery County jury (almost all cases are tried there) finds out the defendant has at least two sex convictions? No way they're not going to find reasonable doubt and say he doesn't have a "behavioral abnormality."

plato said...

I don't think these ideas are stupid at all Rodsmith. I'm putting a concept out there to be at least looked at that, will allow for de-registration. I did 20 years straight in TDC (1985-2005).I went to TDC at a time when it was legal for them (guards)to kill you! Not to mention the convicts. But thank GOD I survived and came out alive. Now I am 58 years old and under the yoke of the state's SO registry---for life! Think that's fair? What was that 20 years I did for? why should I have to pay in perpetuity? And there are many many more people just like me out here: older, wiser, doing the right thing everyday but just spinning our wheels. If nothing is done about the regisrty, I will never be able to advance socially or financially out here and that puts my future for a good retirement and to be able to pay my final expenses at stake. so you tell me Rodsmith, why not allow me to go before a judge and say why I should come off the registry? Or, at 58 and not a threat to anyone, why I should not be given Amnesty? However, if you have any better ideas concerning my future and the future of all those in the same situation, brothers I'm all EARS!!!

rodsmith said...

well plato if you had read it all. you would see I don't think it's your job to prove anything. It's the states absent that proof in front of a judge by them. nothing happens. as for the current registry system. based on the original doe v smith 2002 decision by the United States Supreme Court pretty much every law put in place since they is pretty much illegal.

read it for yourself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html

sad thing is the illegal rot has gone too far. absent some major bloodshed involving the criminal's who support the system is going to stop it.

Anonymous said...

The program needs to be overhauled, but I'd think long and hard before I advocated scrapping it altogether and releasing several hundred violent sexual predators into the community with no supervison. That didn't work so well with Kenneth McDuff.

rodsmith said...

well believe it or not 1:17 if they had left the registry as originally created they wouldn't have to fix it or scrap it.

You know the one that was for "Violent or repeat offenders"
the one that was Law Enforcement Only
the one that didn't have 10,000 little gotcha's attached like residence restrictions and all the other little illegal shit that's been attached to it.

Sorry what we have now is completely illegal and unconstitutional sorry it all needs to go.

right along with the treanous little shits who have created it.

Anonymous said...

I would respond to that, but I honestly don't understand it.

rodsmith said...

the sad thing 8:22 is I'm not surprised.

When the original registry law was passed it was passed because it was a law enforcement tool that would track violent and repeat offenders only. it would only apply to those conviced AFTER it's passage. you know a legal law. the original registry via the smith v dole case decided in 2002 said what registry was legal.

it was a registry that was NOT like probation/parole because the individuals were NOT required to do inperson updates. They were legally able to live where they wanted. work where they wanted. go where they wanted without any interference by law enforcement. There were to be no no interference in their lives than any other ex con.

now of course it's an illegal after the fact lifetime parole

the state tells them
where they can live. but they get around by making it where they CAN'T live

same with where they CAN'T work
CAN'T walk
and any other idiotic useless rules

plus of course there is the mandatory official visits to the local police station every year.

anywhere from 1 to god knows each year depending on the location.

here in florida It can run from 2 to 4 minimum if nothing changes.

that's why I say the entire system is illegal and unconstitutional.

sorry once once set of judges has said WHAT YOUR DOING IS LEGAL BECAUSE YOUR NOT DOING SOMETHING.

I don't need another judge to confirm it's illegal once you add all the very things the ORIGINAL JUDGE SAID WOULD HAVE MAKE WHAT YOUR DOING ILLEGAL.

John Dudley said...

To get more infoDermatologist Delhi/Ncr