Showing posts with label sex crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex crimes. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Aren't These the Guys We're Supposed to Trust?
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Parole Board Revocation Hearing
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Picnic Table Sexually Violated Near Elementary School
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Sexually Violent Predator Avoids Civil Commitment
The California Supreme Court ruled last week that a SVP (sexually violent predator) could avoid civil commitment otherwise required by Welfare & Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. under certain circumstances.
Under People v. Smith (2004) 32 Cal.4th 792, 796-799 (Smith), a person can be civilly committed as a SVP after serving his full prison term if he has been convicted of certain crimes and a jury finds he may engage in sexually violent behavior in the future.
In this case the defendant had been convicted in 1982 of four counts of oral copulation on a child under 14 and one count of sodomy of a child under 14; again, in 1988 he was convicted of 15 counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14.
Seven years later he was released on parole and three years later, in 1998, he completed parole. When he moved away from California to New York the following year he sent a change of address card to the Long Beach police, but it was not received (?!).
Failing to keep California authorities informed led to his arrest in New York and his return to the Golden State for five years in state prison. At this point the Los Angeles D.A. (for the first time) decided the defendant should be placed into civil custody as a SVP when he completed the five years.
However, meanwhile, Smith was appealing the conviction and he won! The Supremes apparently decided the police might have received that change of address card after all, or at least it was a close enough question to make the court wonder if five years in state prison was the appropriate consequence of a mail mishap.
So Smith won—but the D.A. STILL DEMANDED HE BE PUT INTO CIVIL CUSTODY AS A SVP immediately because the D.A. could demand it. By that I mean this: the D.A. “could” because, incredibly, the operative language reads: “An SVP petition shall not be dismissed on the basis of a later judicial or administrative determination that the individual’s custody was unlawful, if the unlawful custody was the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law.”
In this case our California Supreme Court made a decision that may lack political correctness but it absolutely was the right decision. The court concluded that, despite the above italicized language, it was not going to let the People (the D.A.’s office) twist the meaning of the language into something different than what the legislators must have intended (or what the Supremes thought was fair).
Accordingly, the court held an SVP commitment in this case was not authorized, reversing the Court of Appeal.
Under People v. Smith (2004) 32 Cal.4th 792, 796-799 (Smith), a person can be civilly committed as a SVP after serving his full prison term if he has been convicted of certain crimes and a jury finds he may engage in sexually violent behavior in the future.
In this case the defendant had been convicted in 1982 of four counts of oral copulation on a child under 14 and one count of sodomy of a child under 14; again, in 1988 he was convicted of 15 counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14.
Seven years later he was released on parole and three years later, in 1998, he completed parole. When he moved away from California to New York the following year he sent a change of address card to the Long Beach police, but it was not received (?!).
Failing to keep California authorities informed led to his arrest in New York and his return to the Golden State for five years in state prison. At this point the Los Angeles D.A. (for the first time) decided the defendant should be placed into civil custody as a SVP when he completed the five years.
However, meanwhile, Smith was appealing the conviction and he won! The Supremes apparently decided the police might have received that change of address card after all, or at least it was a close enough question to make the court wonder if five years in state prison was the appropriate consequence of a mail mishap.
So Smith won—but the D.A. STILL DEMANDED HE BE PUT INTO CIVIL CUSTODY AS A SVP immediately because the D.A. could demand it. By that I mean this: the D.A. “could” because, incredibly, the operative language reads: “An SVP petition shall not be dismissed on the basis of a later judicial or administrative determination that the individual’s custody was unlawful, if the unlawful custody was the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law.”
In this case our California Supreme Court made a decision that may lack political correctness but it absolutely was the right decision. The court concluded that, despite the above italicized language, it was not going to let the People (the D.A.’s office) twist the meaning of the language into something different than what the legislators must have intended (or what the Supremes thought was fair).
Accordingly, the court held an SVP commitment in this case was not authorized, reversing the Court of Appeal.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Internet Sexual Predators and Their Victims
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Supremes Rules Convicted Child Sex Abuser May Challenge Conviction
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Novato Youth Arrested for Molestation of 3 Year-Old Girl
This Post Has Moved ! Click here to read this post in our new and improved blog, sexoffenderissues.org !
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Federal Child-Pornography Charges Following Internet Slave/Radio Talk Show Host/Former Catholic Priest Obeying Commands of Internet Dominatrix
Charges filed against radio talk show host Bernie Ward resulted from his obeying the dominatrix’ command to, “Send me some [pictures]; why haven’t I gotten any pics, slave?” Judge unseals indictment against Bernie Ward
In response, the popular talk show host promptly obeyed with a picture of a naked boy sitting between a topless woman and a clothed young girl. This picture prompted the dominatrix to contact the Oakdale, CA. police, telling them that the former priest had also emailed her messages about group sex at a San Mateo porn theater.
The Oakdale police contacted the FBI and a federal grand jury indicted Ward on two counts of possessing and distributing child pornography using the Internet.
Ward’s business attorney, Jeannette Boudreau, said, “The authorities have been in possession of these messages for three years. Bernie was only just indicted in December [2007]. There is no doubt in my mind that they would have allowed Bernie to conduct his family and work life as usual for all that time if they believed the content of the messages to be factual.”
This is just another illustration that you are completely, 100% exposing yourself to any possible claim on the Internet. Remember, when it comes to child porn and the Internet you do not have the same rights and privileges under the law as defendants do for other crimes.
In response, the popular talk show host promptly obeyed with a picture of a naked boy sitting between a topless woman and a clothed young girl. This picture prompted the dominatrix to contact the Oakdale, CA. police, telling them that the former priest had also emailed her messages about group sex at a San Mateo porn theater.
The Oakdale police contacted the FBI and a federal grand jury indicted Ward on two counts of possessing and distributing child pornography using the Internet.
Ward’s business attorney, Jeannette Boudreau, said, “The authorities have been in possession of these messages for three years. Bernie was only just indicted in December [2007]. There is no doubt in my mind that they would have allowed Bernie to conduct his family and work life as usual for all that time if they believed the content of the messages to be factual.”
This is just another illustration that you are completely, 100% exposing yourself to any possible claim on the Internet. Remember, when it comes to child porn and the Internet you do not have the same rights and privileges under the law as defendants do for other crimes.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Sex Offenders Prohibited from Florida City Parks
I just learned of another over-the-top law affecting those deemed to be sexual predators, this time an ordinance approved on February 12, 2008 by the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, city council.
The ordinance makes it illegal for registered offenders to attend cultural affairs, recreation centers, and city parks within the city limits; they may no longer enter such facilities as the Indian Temple Museum or the Tennis Center.
This ordinance was written after a stricter law discussed in 2007 was deemed unenforceable by the police; it would have make it illegal to live within 2000 ft of “wherever children gather”—usually something of a moving target.
One city council member summed up the council’s attitude: “The other benefit of the public realizing these are predator-free areas is just as important as he predator not being there at all.”
My take on this?
Florida state law is more than sufficiently draconian already.
For just one reference to all the reasons such legislation is counter-productive (aside from being mean-spirited), see “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S.”—published by Human Rights Watch in September 2007. I refer you to the following language from that study:
“Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against [them]; politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws. Instead, they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence.”
The ordinance makes it illegal for registered offenders to attend cultural affairs, recreation centers, and city parks within the city limits; they may no longer enter such facilities as the Indian Temple Museum or the Tennis Center.
This ordinance was written after a stricter law discussed in 2007 was deemed unenforceable by the police; it would have make it illegal to live within 2000 ft of “wherever children gather”—usually something of a moving target.
One city council member summed up the council’s attitude: “The other benefit of the public realizing these are predator-free areas is just as important as he predator not being there at all.”
My take on this?
Florida state law is more than sufficiently draconian already.
For just one reference to all the reasons such legislation is counter-productive (aside from being mean-spirited), see “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S.”—published by Human Rights Watch in September 2007. I refer you to the following language from that study:
“Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against [them]; politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws. Instead, they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)