Are States Harassing Sex Offender Registrants?

2-6-2010 Virginia:

Something is going on in Virginia which warrants our attention. Apparently state law requires the State Police to produce -annually- the following report: "MONITORING OF OFFENDERS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS: A Report to the Governor, House Appropriations Committee, And Senate Finance Committee. "

Most folks may consider such reading mundane, but we are more critical of reports produced by any state, that affect registrants. In this report, two interesting paragraphs:

As of December 1, 2009, there were 16,238 sex offenders listed on the Virginia State Police Sex Offender Registry. They are divided into three groups which consist of the following: (1) 3,171 registrants under Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Services, (2) 6,053 sex offenders whose verification will be conducted by the Department of State Police, and (3) the remaining 7,014 registrants who are incarcerated in jails or prisons across the state.

Registry Violations
In the past twelve months, from December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009, the Virginia State Police conducted 2,651 criminal investigations for “Failure to Register” and “Providing False Information.” During this same period, there were 972 arrests made across the state by the Virginia State Police for violations of the aforementioned offenses, with 379 convictions to date. Many cases are still pending trial.

Its nice to know that 7,014 (43%) of those shown on the registry do not even live in any community, but they are in jails or prisons. Guess it is easy to verify their addresses. Hey, proof that the numbers touted to the public -as being in various communities- are not true, verified by the police. Hysteria is a wonderful thing, when the state is causing it, now isn't it!

On to other things, 3,171 (19.5%) of those on the registry are on parole or probation. Well, that means they are being monitored by parole or probation officers, right? Allegedly these folks check in with whoever supervises them, at least monthly, but now catch this, the police are verifying their addresses. Am I wrong or is this doing the job TWICE? Why are the police doing -the same thing- that parole and probation officers are doing? Does this waste any taxpayer money?

Now, to the meat of my commentary: Failure to Register folks, these are the folks touted to be the bad guys for failing to follow the law. Are they, lets see?

Remember, the report covers a ONE YEAR period (12-1-08 through 11-30-09). During that time there were 2,651 investigations for "FTR" or "Providing False Information." So, approximately 29% of those registrants in the community (16,238 - 7,014) were investigated. Yes, I recognize some may have been investigated more than once, hence my approximately. The state claims 94% of the registry is in compliance, is something missing here?

Next, out of 2,651 investigations there were 972 arrests made, in other words, approximately 63% of the investigations were UNNECESSARY? Should we ask WHY? Maybe get a list of WHYS? Is there something wrong with the way the VA registry is programmed or operational problems? Or what else, no matter what 63% of the investigations must have wasted taxpayer money, someone should find out why the waste, and fix it?

Things are about to get worse, heads up: Of the 972 arrests 379 were convicted. So we have approximately 61% of those arrested were NOT GUILTY of what they were charged with. Or, we could also say, approximately 85% of the 2,651 investigations were false. Who is alerting the police to start an investigation, is it the general public harassing registrants, or police?

I think most folks know I spend oodles of time trying to document the "Harms that befall registrants and their families." Why do I smell a rat here? Are registrants being harassed, with some being forced to go through the judicial system and costing them money that their families -so dearly need-, is this further punishment? What needs to be done?

Finally, we are thankful Virginia requires this report. Now should all states be required to produce such a report? These are a sampling of the figures we need to bring to the lawmakers to show the SUBTLE HARASSMENTS that registrants are suffering. And, if this is happening in Virginia where they claim 94% compliance, what kind of disasters are there in other states whose lawmakers claim less compliance?

Advocates, there is work to be done!

Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate.

Department of Justice: Victim Offender Relationships

Bureau of Justice Victim/Offender Relationships Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, 11/03 NCJ 198281, the largest study of recidivism ever. However, there was one key piece of information not available to the researchers, "victim/offender" relationships. To resolve that the DOJ extrapolated from BJS Survey of "Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, 1997" data on 73,116 prisoners who reported having one victim. Those prisoners represented 84% of all incarcerated male sex offenders in 1997 NATIONWIDE. This chart shows the 73,116 victim/offender relationships. See pg-36 this study. Relevant highlights: Victims who are under 18 years old were 70.5% of all victims, of that, 51.6% were 12 or under, and, 48.4% were between 13 and 17.

Department of Justice: Victim/Offender Relationship Statistics "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" (NCJ 198281 Pub 2003) All: Family 35.7% Friends & Acquaintances 48.7% Stranger 15.6% over 18: Family 10.6% Friends & Acquaintances 55.0% Stranger 34.4% under 18: Family 46.5% Friends & Acquaintances 46.8% Stranger 6.7% The Victim was the Offender's --- All Victim/s were over 18 Victim/s were under 18 Spouse 1.1% (804) 3.8% (796) 0.0% Ex-Spouse 0.6% (438) 2.0% (419) 0.0% Parent / Step parent 0.6% (438) 0.4% (84) 0.6% (300) Own Child 11.5% (8,409) 1.4% (293) 15.7% (7,854) Step Child 11.2% (8,189) 0.4% (84) 15.8% (7,904) Sibling / Step sibling 1.3% (950) 0.4% (84) 1.7% (850) Other Relative 9.4% (6,873) 2.1% (440) 12.7% (6,354) Family total-- 35.7% (26,101) 10.6% (2,200) 46.5% (23,262) Boy / Girl friend 5.5% (4021) 8.2% (1,719) 4.4% (2,202) Ex-Boy / Girl friend 1.1% (804) 2.0% (419) 0.8% (400) Friend / Ex-Friend 22.7% (16,599) 24.8% (5,198) 22.0% (11,006) Acquaintance / Other 19.4% (14,186) 20.1% (4,213) 19.6% (9,806) Friends & Acquaintances total-- 48.7% (35,610) 55% (11,549) 46.8% (23,414) Stranger 15.6%(11,406) 34.4% (7,209) 6.7% (3,351) Stranger total-- 15.6 % (11,406) 34.4% (7,209) 6.7% (3,351) Grand total-- 100 % (73,116) 100% (20,958) 100% (50,027) Construction of chart- DOJ Pg-36 chart: "Characteristics of victims of rape or sexual assault, for which male inmates were serving a sentence in State prisons, 1997" indicates those stats were extrapolated from 1997 BJS Survey of "Inmates in State Correctional Facilities." Using only the victim offender portion of that pg-36 chart, and applying those percentages to the 73,116 cases, this chart was created showing specific victim offender relationship numbers and percentages. News & Noteworthy ©, Copyright 2006-2013 All Rights Reserved (eAdvocate)

How to access Bills on the Congressional website Thomas

Congress has it's own website where, excepting things that go on behind closed doors, everything it does is recorded. The website known as Thomas. To get to it simply click on the picture on the right.

When you get there you'll find many many options, long term it will amaze folks all the information tucked into that website, but for today I just want folks to learn how to get to a bill, and bill amendments.

See the word "SEARCH" well just put the bill number in that box (for the Senate Farm Bill it is S 954) and just above the word search click on bill number search option, then click on the word SEARCH.

Note: For US House bills you would put HR ####, Senate bills S #### (S or HR doesn't have to be caps, either works). How I found the bill number for the Senate Farm Bill is a long story and would muddy this tutorial, but a hat tip to a reader is worth mentioning. Thanks!

---

Now you will see this (for the Senate Farm Bill S 954, it can look different as the site is updated while a bill moves through Congress. This is the basic format used by the Congressional website for all bills.

I don't think there is any need to explain "Latest Title (yes they sometimes change the title like they did with AWA)" "Sponsor" or "Cosponsors" they pretty much explained by those words.

Related Bills: In S 954 you will see many related bills. Different lawmakers are talking about the main topic (Farm Bill) and each has come up with some provision they would like added to the Farm Bill, so each has sponsored their own bill with their specific ideas. Thats why you see so many related bills.

Now, the related bills also includes bills from the US House. The Thomas website keeps track of everything done by either house and lawmakers, or their aides, can see what others are thinking by going to this bill, related bills section. When a bill is in committee those folks watch this carefully and often incorporate things from other bills into the bill they are working on (S 954 in this instant case).

Latest Major Action: Here is a very short description of where a bill is at the moment. Note: For S 954 -today 5-30-2013- it says "5/23/2013 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate." This means it is still being considered by the Senate and the last date they worked on it was 5-23. This WILL NOT tell you what is going on behind closed doors, unfortunately. i.e., if you scratch my back I'll do ____ etc. This line will show all sorts of things on bills as they move through congress, impossible to explain them all, you'll have to learn over time.

Text of Legislation: If you click on "Text of Legislation" you will see one of two things: A) The actual text of the bill as introduced, or B) multiple bills, from which you need to pick. When you see multiple bills it means the introduced bill has been amended a few times, and usually the last one is the most current version. Its always fun to see how bills get amended along the way, but it can confuse the heck out of you. And at times you may want to compare versions to see who did what; another tutorial.

Cosponsors Self explanatory, here there are (None)

Amendments If you were to click on "Amendments" you will find a list (Clickable) of each amendment made to the bill. Below I take you to the Vitter amendment by looking at what occurred each day, you could skip that and use this link too, but you miss what occurred daily. SO, it is up to you: The quick way, or around the barn way where to learn other things about the bill; your choice.

Now the rest of the options I have not found to be very informative, so for the sake of brevity I'll skip them. As you learn more and more about the Thomas site you will decide what is important to you. Try all of them.

Now, how do you find what happened and when it happened? See below, it really is very important.

---

On the right are three sections: "Major Congressional Actions," "All Congressional Actions," and "All Congressional Actions with Amendments." Usually -when a bill is new- only the first two are clickable, the third one becomes clickable when the bill gets worked on, and is the most useful of all three.

Daily List of Changes to the Bill: Since we are working on the Farm Bill lets click on the third one. There you will see a day-by-day list of everything they have done with this bill, with direct links deeper into the website so folks can see specific things worked on.

---

Lets study the Vitter Amendment: On 5-22 you will see:

S.AMDT.1056 Amendment SA 1056 proposed by Senator Stabenow for Senator Vitter. (consideration: CR S3716-3717; text: CR S3717)
To end food stamp eligibility for convicted violent rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

I will be mentioning several "clicks" to get to the Vitter Amendment, but before clicking on anything you might read the following. Yes it gets tricky the deeper you get into the congressional record. Congress stores things their way, we need to follow their way!
Now click on the "S.AMDT.1056" and you will see:

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED Note the clickable link, this will take you to a short list of numbers, find S3695 and click on it. Then scroll down to SA 1056. Mr. VITTER submitted ..., you will see -verbatim- how the amendment was introduced.

STATUS: Under status it shows any changes made to the amendment, here there are none, but at times there may be many on different days too. Now to see how the amendment ended click on "text: CR S3717)" then click on "Page: S3717" there you will see "AMENDMENT NO. 1056" and its final form entered into the congressional record, with changes, if any (none for the Vitter Amendment). And, only here will the PURPOSE of the amendment be shown!

This where I found what I posted to alert folks. See my post: ACTION ALERT: Senate Farm Bill S-954: AMENDMENT NO. 1056

Now bad news, the Thomas website only allows you a certain amount of time on it before you must reenter the bill number, and start over; it does time out. Yes, that is very frustrating, but you decide how important the information is to you? Over time you'll become a speedy researcher, trust me!

---

...

Are there only189 ways to end up on the sex offender registry?

FACTOID:

The mystical 189 ways list.

Because I have been asked this question -it seems- umpteenth times, I researched it and here is what I found, two personal comments:

Comment from Damian January 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM:

My point is, with the registry being as OVERBLOWN as it is (there are 189 ways to get on that list, under the AWA), you can't tell who the "bad guys" are, and who the "made a dumb mistake as a young adult". You are stereo typing them all together, with a tiny, fine print ... ... ...

Comment from DonavonLace January 13, 2012 11:16 PM:

I hate to burst everybody’s bubble because it sounds like this issue is close to the heart but I have a few facts you need to know about. First the two guys in the story are the worst and system failed but to change laws that would affect 1000’s for one guy is just wrong. Everyone on the registry is not a child molester sorry that the truth. Florida has 57,000 on the list and growing because we have 189 ways to get on the list. If everyone on the list was a monster and touching kids you’d have 57,000 new sex case’s on the books well you don’t. Now some facts the re-offend rate for sex offenders is 5.3% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offe...) the only re-offend rate that’s lower is murder. Most of the new cases are guys that are not on the list and 98% of the time it is ... ... ....

Let me start with AWA, there is nothing in AWA (any Title within it) that a person (a non sex offender) would be prosecuted for and end up on the sex offender registry. AWA expands other existing laws, and if prosecuted under those laws a non sex offender could end up on a sex offender registry.

As to the second comment, about the number of offenses in Florida, that a non sex offender -if prosecuted for- could result in being placed on the sex offender registry. Don't know if 189 is correct, because laws change seemingly daily. Assuming it to be correct, at some point in the past, it speaks ONLY of one state and no other state.

So we end with this, are the other 49 states sex offender laws, exactly the same as Florida? Nope, so if we were to use Florida's number as a standard, we could end up with a national number of 9,450 possible laws any one of which could result in the person being placed on a sex offender registry.

Good luck checking either the 189 or the 9,450.

One closing thought, how many sex offender registries -nationally- have folks on them convicted of other types of crimes? California's includes arsonists, and some registries are titled "Sex and Violent Offender Registry" all sex offenders?

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

How many juvenile sex offenders are there nationally, TWO VIEWS?

3-8-2013 National:

QUESTION:

The number of juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) -or- the number of registered juvenile sex offenders (JRSOs) are both elusive numbers. So, here we gathered two sources which address those issues and contain numbers which reasonable assertions can be made from.

As we searched for information we began to wonder why these numbers are not readily available? Guessing, lawmakers do not want them easily found because when addressing sex offender issues it is too easy for folks to feel sorry for these offenders, and rally around suggesting changes which lawmakers do not want to make, for fear they will be considered soft on sex offenders. Not good at election time.

Initially we are not going to say much more than, the facts are below, use them as you wish.

NOTE: The 2009 DOJ study claims -in 2004- there were 14,000 in 29 states, or 483 per state, which nationally would be 24,150 (JSOs), now the 2011 Marie Claire Survey claims 22,290 in 23 states, or 969 per state, which nationally would be 48,450 (JRSOs).

For the moment we will leave this and see if we can find anything further to work with.
eAdvocate

---

FIRST SOURCE:

Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors (Dec 2009) NCJ 227763 (DOJ)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/ojjdp/227763.pdf

At the very bottom of the following from the bulletin, it says, In 2004, in 29 states, there were 14,000 juvenile sex offenders. Thats a reasonable starting point: 14,000 / 29 = 483 per state, times 50 states = 24,150 nationally (reasonable no.).

If we accept NCMEC map figures (I keep old NCMEC map numbers in the Community Room) and the oldest I have is 2005 which was 549,038 RSOs nationally (I know their numbers are not perfect). So juveniles sex offenders represent 4.4%, I think it is a bit low, but thats how this calculates. Do we accept this?

From that bulletin we see this panel:
The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

The U.S. Department of Justice is replacing its long-established Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system with a more comprehensive National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Whereas UCR monitors only a limited number of index crimes and gathers few details on each crime event (except in the case of homicide), NIBRS collects a wide range of information on victims, offenders, and circumstances for a greater variety of offenses. Offenses tracked in NIBRS include violent crimes (e.g., homicide, assault, rape, robbery), property crimes (e.g., theft, arson, vandalism, fraud, and embezzlement), and crimes against society (e.g., drug offenses, gambling, prostitution).

Moreover, NIBRS collects information on multiple victims, multiple offenders, and multiple crimes that may be part of the same episode. Under the new system, as under the old, local law enforcement personnel compile information on crimes coming to their attention and the information is then aggregated at State and national levels. For a crime to count in the system, law enforcement simply needs to report and investigate the crime. The incident does not need to be cleared, nor must an arrest be made, though unfounded reports are deleted.

NIBRS holds great promise, but it is still far from a national system. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began implementing the system in 1988, and State and local agency participation is voluntary and incremental. By 1995, jurisdictions in 9 States had agencies contributing data; by 1997, the number was 12; and by 2004, jurisdictions in 29 States submitted reports, providing coverage for 20 percent of the Nation’s population and 16 percent of its crime. At the beginning of 2004, only 7 States (Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) had participation from all local jurisdictions, and only 5 cities with a population greater than 500,000 (Columbus, OH; El Paso, TX; Memphis, TN; Nashville, TN; and Milwaukee, WI) were reporting. The crime experiences of large urban areas are thus particularly underrepresented. The system, therefore, is not yet nationally representative, nor do its data represent national trends or national statistics. Nevertheless, the system is assembling large amounts of crime information and providing rich detail about juvenile offending and victimization that was previously unavailable. The patterns and associations these data reveal are real and represent the experiences of a large number of youth.

For 2004, the 29 participating States* reported more than 4,037,000 crime incidents, with at least 14,000 involving an identified juvenile sex offender. As more jurisdictions join the system, new patterns may emerge.

More information about NIBRS data collection can be found at these Web sites:
(1)
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
(2)
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm
(3)
www.jrsa.org/ibrrc

* In 2004, participating States included Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

---

SECOND SOURCE:

Kids on the Sex-Offender Registry: A Marie Claire Survey 8-26-2011

As American teenagers increasingly get labeled as sex-offenders — for offenses such as sleeping with an underage high-school sweetheart — Marie Claire conducted an exclusive survey, state by state, to determine how many juveniles are on the sex-offender registry. Learn more about this issue in our story, "The Accidental Sex Offender."

Every state has a sex-offender registry, and there are now more than 650,000 registered sex offenders nationwide. Not all states register juveniles. Of the 34 that do, only 23 keep track of the number of juveniles on the registry. In those 23 states, there are an estimated 23,000 registered juveniles. No states monitor whether the number of juveniles is on the rise or not, but one state, Oregon, provided an estimate, reporting a 70 percent jump in that state since 2005.

To be sure, some of the juveniles on the registry are guilty of violent sexual crimes. The grassroots movement in writer Abigail Pesta's story is trying to help a different group of people: the high-school lovers who get labeled as sex offenders for behavior that may technically be a crime, but which, activists argue, should fall into a different category.

As of May 2011, here are the 23 states that register juveniles, along with the number of registered juveniles in each state:

Alabama (1,594)
Colorado*
Florida (127)
Idaho (116)
Illinois (1,962)
Iowa (295)
Louisiana (91)**
Michigan (4,392)
Minnesota (2,417)
Missouri (156)
Montana (103)
New Mexico (0)
New York (40)
North Carolina (14)
North Dakota (106)
Ohio (1,251)
Oregon (2,690)
Rhode Island (152)
South Carolina (923)
South Dakota (69)
Texas (3,853)
Washington (424)***
Wisconsin (1,515)

*Colorado does not release number of registered juveniles to the public.
**This number does not include people who registered as juveniles and are now over the age of 18.
***This number does not include people who registered as juveniles and are now over the age of 18.

As of May 2011, here are the 11 states that register juveniles but don’t keep track of the number of registered juveniles:

Arkansas
Arizona
California
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire*
New Jersey
Virginia

*Juveniles only register if court-ordered to do so; they are not automatically required to register.

As of May 2011, here are the states that do not register juveniles.

Alaska
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Nebraska*
Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah**
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

*Offenders who were convicted in juvenile court in another state and then moved to Nebraska are required to register; juveniles from Nebraska are not required to register.

**In Utah, a juvenile is required to register if he or she entered the Youth Corrections system within 30 days of his or her 21st birthday.

...

Indiana Sex Offender Statistics: How to make good statistics look bad

2-13-2013 Indiana, National:

OPINION: Vigilantism?

Nothing is more frustrating than to read a recidivism study and see negative comments about sex offenders, and then find out that the study shows a low recidivism rate for sex offenders. Its as if the study authors, required to do the study, have a grudge towards sex offenders and searched for a way to make them look worse than other offenders.

They did, using technical violations. But are technical violations new crimes? No! So the authors claim to do a study about recidivism rates, which the world thinks means new crimes, and the study is really about who commits the most technical violations, not new crimes.

The Study in Question: Indiana's Recidivism Rates Compared 2005 to 2007

Quote from Study: "The findings of this comparative report are extremely exciting; recidivism rates are decreasing in the State of Indiana." Then we see "Overall, offenders identified as a sex offender who were released in 2002, 2003, or 2004, returned to IDOC at a higher rate than all other offenders. (pg-7)"

Reality: This study, once you understand how they confuse folks, shows that sex offenders have the lowest (same crime) recidivism rate.

Indiana Defines Recidivism: The Indiana Department of Correction defines Recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three (3) years of their release date from a state correctional institution. Once released, an offender is verified as a Recidivist if they return to the institutional custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision (pg-5).

Discussion: First we must point out that the breakdown of crime types is the oddest we have ever seen (pg-14). Weapons a crime type? Anywhere else weapons are not a crime type, true crimes are committed with weapons, but the weapon is not a crime type. Very odd comparison.

Charts will help us: Excepting the "Totals" lines, all numbers were copied into these charts from pages 12, 21 and 22. The numbers for "Other Offenders" are adjusted downward, by the IDOC separately reported numbers for sex offenders, so that we could do this comparison.

Offender Type	Year	# of Offenders	#+% Ret for Tech Violations	#+% Ret for New Crimes	# Ret this year	#+% Ret for new Sex Crime (pg-22)
Sex Offenders	2002	764	274 (35.8%)	65 (8.5%)	339	18 (5.3%)
	2003	893	284 (31.8%)	98 (10.9%)	382	20 (5.2%)
	2004	845	272 (32.1%)	115 (13.6%)	387	22 (5.7%)
	---	---	---	---	---	---
Total:		2502	830 (33.1%)	278 (11.1%)	1,108	60 (5.4%)

Offender Type	Year	# of Offenders	#+% Ret for Tech Violations	#+% Ret for New Crimes	# Ret this year	#+% Ret for Same Crime (IDOC Doesn't Report This)
Other Offenders	2002	11,045	2,009 (18.1%)	2,286 (20.6%)	4,295	?????
	2003	12,076	2,082 (17.2%)	2,547 (21.0%)	4,629	?????
	2004	12,806	1,998 (15.6%)	2,773 (21.6%)	4,771	?????
	---	---	---	---	---	---
Total:		35,927	6,089 (16.9%)	7,606 (21.1%)	13,695

Since the study focus is on "Technical Violations" one would expect some definition of them, or examples; nothing is found in the study, not even any detailed discussion. Why? All we can see is, sex offenders have more of them -by percentages only- than other offenders; 33.1% to 16.9% respectively. However, -by the numbers- significantly lower than other offenders; 830 to 6,089. If there is any reason to focus on technical violations, I'd certainly be more concerned with higher numbers than higher percentages. See charts.

Recidivism rates for new crimes should be the focus; sex offenders have half as many as other offenders -by the percentages- and about -27 times fewer- than other offenders; 11.1% and 21.1%, -and- 278 crimes to 7,606 crimes. This study focuses on the wrong thing to make society safer.

Then pg-22 tells the real story, sex offender recidivism rate -same crime- is 5.4% over the three years of this study.

The "Quote from the Study" above (pg-7) is way off base, misleading and further damages sex offenders, unnecessarily.

Need anymore be said?

eAdvocate

Sex offenders are on the move

(Part) FACTOID & (Part) TRUTH:

Even though there are several problems within this study (see highlights below), it does show that a significant number of registrants are moving. Given that fact, one would think the study authors would want to know why, but they ignore that and draw conclusions based on, yet undetermined, not apparent in the study! While the technology used to record movement is valid, it must also include all the facts before drawing conclusions, here missing!

January 2013:

Geospatial technologies help track real-time movements of sex offenders

Convicted sex offenders continue to move freely within communities, including in restricted areas, despite laws designed to limit their movements. A new study, by Alan Murray from Arizona State University and colleagues, uses new tracking techniques to better understand the actual movements of sex offenders. This information can help develop effective strategies to promote public safety. The findings are published in a new book, Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies, published by Springer.

Sexual offenses, especially those committed against children, are of concern to both the public and policy makers. In response to these concerns, local, state and federal legislators in the US have passed a series of laws designed to reduce interaction between children and these potentially dangerous individuals. To date, the vast majority of research on sex offenders and residence restrictions deals with issues of housing availability and affordability. Very little work has focused on sex offender mobility, and residence trends in particular.

Murray and his team analyze sex offender residential movement patterns over a two and a half year period in Hamilton County, Ohio.  They used geographic information systems and a developed exploratory system (SOSTAT)* to uncover spatial behavioral patterns, which give important insights into offender reintegration, their mobility within communities and the implications of restrictions on both offenders and the community.

Their analyses showed that sex offenders appear to be a very mobile group. Over the two and a half year period, 65 percent of registered offenders changed residences. Although there was a noticeable trend towards fewer offenders living in restricted zones overall, worryingly, nearly a third moved from non-restricted areas into restricted zones.

The first flaw in this study is, authors ignore why there is movement? Authors simply make conclusions. Interestingly is, if 1/3 moved into restricted zones, in reality they would have been arrested. So what is the authors' definition of "restricted zones," were those zones actually covered by a local law? Did the authors arbitrarily create zones they believed should be covered by a law? Are the police not arresting registrants if they move into a restricted area -covered by a law-? All questions unanswered by the authors!

The authors conclude: "Over the years, changes in laws governing post-release activities of offenders were designed to monitor and track this group of individuals. Our study highlights that, despite these increasingly stringent laws, sex offenders move freely about communities and continue to reside in restricted residential areas. This mobility suggests that current policies may require modification to achieve their intended goals."

It appears these authors believe, that the purpose of registries is to prevent registrants from moving into any community. History has shown that the purpose of registries is, simply to know where registrants live in communities, not to prevent them from moving into communities, or from moving when they have a reason to do so (Often because of harassment or newly enacted laws [Remember, authors ignored looking at why registrants move])!

This example of the value of spatial analysis for crime analysis is featured in a new book Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies edited by Michael Leitner of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge (USA). The book tackles various types of crime and places them in a geospatial context. As well as posing interesting questions on crime in such a context, the chapters also discuss applications and implementations of geographic information systems.

*Key components of SOSTAT include a map-based display, linked graphics, statistical measures and optimization models. ..Source.. by Springer

Why Are Cops Asking for Twitter, Google User Data?

QUESTION:

We now know for certain that police are tracking us on social media. First Google put out its report on police requests for user data, and now Twitter has also released its numbers. The number of requests for both platforms is high.

Both companies also noted that while some requests come with a warrant, many more come with a subpoena that doesn't require a judge's approval.

We know that police want the information, and in many cases they're able to get it. So what are they looking for in your social media accounts?

Not to merely state the obvious, but they're looking for information that's not open to the public. Setting your posts to "private" won't keep them away from police.

As for the specifics, police are generally looking for evidence of crime in their current investigations. Those may be linked to a specific charge, or they may be part of an effort to arrest a suspect.

It's not just the content of your posts that are useful although those can obviously provide evidence of a crime. They're also looking for other things such as:

• Aliases or nicknames. To determine if you're linked to a crime by an alternate name.
• Location information. IP addresses where you log in or make posts can tell police where you were at any given time.
• Contact information. Your email addresses and phone numbers may be tied to a crime. Through a data request police can find what accounts you're using.
• Known associates. It might not be you that police are looking for, but rather your friends. Your online connections could be evidence or the basis of an investigation.

It seems that Twitter and Facebook are making police work for this information, but that doesn't necessarily mean all social media platforms will. It also won't stop police from getting information if they have a warrant or a valid court order.

The best course of action is to stop thinking about social media as private space. What you say online can have a lasting impact because it can't be easily erased.

Police aren't going to stop making requests for user data, and social media platforms can't always say "no" under the law. So take control and make your profile less interesting to law enforcement. ..Source.. by Deanne Katz, Esq.

Sex Offender Laws: Collateral Consequences - Killings and Murders

UPDATE Reader Req. 1-23:
Figure 1b: Deaths by U.S. Regions

December 2012:

Introduction:
Our specialty, what Lawmakers have ignored. Collateral consequences of their laws. So far 432 deaths without counting suicides and related deaths, and we are still counting!

Sex offender laws! The cry, protect the public! Lawmakers fail to consider the collateral consequences of their laws before enacting them. Protecting the public should not mean excluding prior sex offenders, and their families, which may well be further punishment. Today's sex offender laws place former offenders, no matter what their offense level was, at a greater risk of being killed or murdered. We have documented when that has occurred, 432 times!

Changing burdensome laws, politicians and the media, all voices behind growing incidents of violence towards former sex offenders. These voices unknowingly manipulate the public into a -nongovernmental force- mind-set seeded by "sex offender" (like now defunct CIA mind control experiments). The public then declares war on those labeled "sex offender" in ways that disorder their lives, and makes lives a burden often dangerous. Many are driven over the edge. All a grand scheme to evade constitutional protections? Constant media and political attention influences the public? We believe so! Now our research. Readers can form their own opinions!

Daily we reviewed news articles for reports of deaths, suicides and vigilantism related to sex offenders or offenses, documenting those in our blogs. We do believe there are many more articles not published. In addition, folks close to our project alert us to those they find. Frequently we gather more than one, and other credible sources, so we have as complete a story as possible in our blogs. It is important that readers understand our definitions they are all explained in our definitions section (link below).

We must point out that, to our knowledge there is no other research which has delved into this topic, especially with so many unknowns and limitations. Given the uncharted waters of this research we hope it is instrumental and influential for future researchers with similar aims. This report comes with a caveat, traditional norms and definitions may not apply, nor reveal subtle nuances specific to this population. Some may dismiss or distinguish these nuances, but an open mind is necessary in uncharted waters.

List of Sections and Tables:

Definitions:

Reports Generated from our Harm Blogs

I) Murders and Killings of RSOs and SOs	II) Suicides of RSOs and SOs
III) Related Deaths: Folks Associated w/RSO/SOs	IV) Vigilantism: Subtle to Severe.

Each of these four reports will be released separately. Today we start with those killed or murdered (See Definitions for distinctions):

---

Report-I Murders and Killings of RSOs and SOs
This report essentially covers 1991 through 2012 during which we have documented 432 deaths. Death by natural causes and death penalty cases are not included. Using news articles, a RSO or SO accused must have died, no matter what the cause of death.

Figure-1: Complete Database of Deaths

	RSOs	SO Acc.
Reg. Sex Off.	304	-
Reg. Sex Off. Acc.	20	-
Reg. Sex Off. Acc. but Innocent	2	-
Sex Off. Acc.	-	87
Sex Off. Acc. but Innocent	-	19
Total:  432 (100%)	326 (75.5%)	106 (24.5%)

Figure-1a: States w/Deaths and No. of Deaths:

Calif. (75)	Florida (30)	Texas (29)	So. Carolina (18)	Ohio (17)
Washington (16)	Illinois (15)	Michigan (14)	New York (14)	Georgia (13)
No. Carolina (13)	Colorado (12)	Indiana (12)	Maryland (11)	Arizona (10)
Virginia (9)	Maine (8)	Penn. (8)	Alabama (7)	Arkansas (8)
Oregon (7)	Mass. (6)	Nevada (6)	Utah (6)	West Virginia (6)
Wisconsin (6)	Kansas (5)	Missouri (5)	New Jersey (5)	Oklahoma (5)
New Mexico (4)	Tennessee (4)	Delaware (3)	Idaho (3)	Kentucky (3)
Louisiana (3)	Minnesota (3)	Mississippi (3)	Connecticut (2)	Iowa (2)
Montana (2)	New Hampshire (2)	Nebraska (1)	So. Dakota (1)

Figure-1b: Deaths by U.S. Census Bureau Regions:

Region Northeast	10.4%	45 Deaths Total
18		Division: New England	Maine(8), New Hampshire(2), Vermont(0), Massachusetts(6), Rhode Island(0), Connecticut(2)
29		Division: Mid-Atlantic	New York(14), Pennsylvania(8), New Jersey(5)--
Region Midwest	18.8%	81 Deaths Total
64		Division: East No. Central	Wisconsin(6), Michigan(14), Illinois(15), Indiana(12), Ohio(17)
17		Division: West No. Central	Missouri(5), North Dakota(0), South Dakota(1), Nebraska(1), Kansas(5), Minnesota(3), Iowa(2)
Region South	38.2%	165 Deaths Total
103		Division: So. Atlantic	Delaware(3), Maryland(11), District of Columbia(0), Virginia(9), West Virginia(6), North Carolina(13), South Carolina(18), Georgia(13), Florida(30)
17		Division: East So. Central	Kentucky(3), Tennessee(4), Mississippi(3), Alabama(7)-
45		Division: West So. Central	Oklahoma(5), Texas(29), Arkansas(8), Louisiana(3)
Region West	32.6%	141 Deaths Total
43		Division: Mountain	Idaho(3), Montana(2), Wyoming(0), Nevada(6), Utah(6), Colorado(12), Arizona(10), New Mexico(4)
98		Division: Pacific	Alaska(0), Washington(16), Oregon(7), California(75), Hawaii(0)
Totals:	100%	432 Total Deaths	--

States with NO Deaths: Vermont, Rhode Island, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Wyoming, Hawaii.

---

SECTION: Status Based Murders:

---

Status Based Deaths:
This is the focus of our work. Deciding if RSOs or SOs were targeted because of being a RSO or SO (their status). Indeed we are trying to get into the mind of the perpetrator, using article facts, and discover why they targeted that person. Out of 432 deaths we found 36 (8.3%) were murdered because of their status, in the community or jails and prisons (Table-1). For a FULL explanation of how we make a decision as to whether a case is a Status Based case: see HERE

The above cases were the ones -which had proof- that fit our outline for what is a status based murder case. With that said, there are several others which we feel fit our definition, but lack the essential proof we seek. As folks will see in a later report there are many more cases of status based vigilantism than there are status based murders. One potentially could have caused the deaths of not only sex offenders but the rest of the folks living in that apartment building. See the case of Lawrence Trant. Then there is a Tennessee case of a SO Accused who was in jail awaiting prosecution, and his close by neighbors who set fire to his home, his wife was in there and died. Status based other death? There will always be cases that we have a hard time deciding.

Table-1
Status Based Deaths

Status Based:	Community	State	Jails/Prisons	State
Reg. Sex Offenders	16	WA(4), ME(2), MI(2), CA(2), AZ, IN, MS, NV, TX, UT	15	CA(5), FL(2), IN(2), TX(2), GA, MA, OH, VA
Sex Offenders Acc.	4	WA, FL(2), NY	1	CA
Total = 36 (8.3%)	20		16

State Totals: CA(8), WA(5), FL(4), IN(3), TX(3), ME(2), MI(2), 1 Each: AZ, GA, MA, MS, NY, NV, OH, UT, VA

Table-1a
Apparent Motivation / Method for Status Based Deaths:

Apparent Motivation / Method:	Community	Jails & Prisons
Hatred of sex offenders: 47.2%	5 (TX, MS, UT, IN, AZ)	12# (CA-4**, IN-2, FL-2, 1 each MA, VA, GA, OH)
Registry used to find sex offenders: 22.2%	8 (WA-4, ME-2, CA-2)
Belief person was a sex offender: 13.8%	4 (WA, FL-2, NY)	1 CA
Status revealed by prison guards: 8.3%		TX-2, CA-1
Circumstances of murder indicate hatred for RSOs: 5.5%	MI-2
Status revealed by home address check officer: 2.7%	1 (NV)
Total: 36	20	16

(#) In 8 of the 12 cases RSOs were cellmates of previously convicted murderers; (**) In one case a previously convicted murder killed his RSO cellmate, the prison then AGAIN housed him with another RSO which he also killed.

Now, as best we know this is the first time there has been a review of a significant number of cases which sought proof of Status Based targeting of sex offenders. So we thought it best to identify those who have murdered RSOs and SOs. See Tables 2-3 which show who, and links to the stories of their crimes.

Table-2
Status Based Murderers: RSO/SO Deaths in the Community:

Patrick Drum (2)(WA-12)(28/56)	Stephen A Marshall (2)(ME-06)(24/57)
Michael Anthony Mullen (2)(WA-05)(49/68)	Danny Grammer (1)(TX-10)(20)
William Inmon (1+) (AZ-07)(72)	Kenneth Payne (1)(NY-09)(42)
Ivan Garcia Oliver (1)(CA-07)(67)	Alexander James Letkemann & Jean Pierre Orlewicz (1)(MI-07)(26)
Jeremiah Brown (1)(IN-04)(54)	Henry Lee Craig (1)(MS-09)(65)
Michael Garay & Robert Pascale (1)(FL-12)(79)	George Casanova (1)(NV-10)(30)
Vigilante (1)(CA-09)(75)	Vigilante (1)(UT-05)(40)
	Vigilante (1)(MI-09)(65)
Angela King; William Barry; Justin Mahaffey; and a 17-year-old suspect. (1)(WA-12)(51)	Christopher Kubiak (1)(FL-12)(33)

Format: Name of murderer (w/No. Murdered)(State-Year)(Victim Ages)

Table-3
Status Based Murderers: RSO/SO Deaths in Jails and Prisons:

John Joseph Lydon (2)(CA-04 and 10)(49/60)	Christopher Lunz (1)(FL-09)(43)
Brian Richardson (1)(GA-07)(59)	Dewey Keith Venable (1)(VA-04)(64)
Joseph W. Brown (1)(IN-11)(62)	Ricky Silva (1)(FL-09)(49)
3 Prison Vigilantes (1)(CA-03)(43)	Rick Henry Kase (1)(CA-07)(28)
Joseph L. Druce (1)(MA-03)(65)	James Porter (1)(TX-05)(40)
Clay M Howard and Paul M Rayle (1)(IN-07)(44)	Timothy Hancock (1)(OH-00)(25)
Robert James Deffenbaugh; Frank George Barbosa; Jack Stewart Woller; Reggie Allan Bullock, Jr.; Johnnie Dalerae Johnson. (1)(CA-05)(45)	Four prison employees & inmate (1)(TX-06)(20)
Garret Eugene Aguilar; Jared Louis Petrovich; Miguel Angel Guillen; Raul Villafana; Stephen Paul Carlstrom; Michael Stewart Garten; Christopher Teague; Jeremy Dezso Culmann; Eric Charles Miller. (1)(CA-06)(41)

Format: Name of murderer (w/No. Murdered)(State-Year)(Victim Ages)

There are 16 states that had one or more status based murders, with California, Florida and Washington state having the highest numbers. Washington had two different incidents where two RSOs were murdered by single perpetrator in each incident, and Maine had one such incident. Of the 36 Status Based cases 30% of the victims were 60 years old or older.

Lawmakers need to significantly strengthen registry WARNINGS and possibly issue a periodic public statement against harming of registrants and their families. In addition, of the cases that were resolved it seems the punishment needs to be reviewed, especially since Status Based cases are effectively pre-meditated murder crimes.

---

SECTION: Case Classifications:

---

---- The "WHO"/"HOW" the Deaths of RSOs and SOs Occurred? ----
Case Classification / Victim (RSO/SO) Relationships
Now we look at the 432 deaths from the perspective of "WHO" or "HOW" the deaths were caused. Earlier we talked about "Status Based" cases and they will be included here, in the section appropriate to "WHO" killed them. To see these stories click on the appropriate Tag: "Who Caused Deaths" found on the right side of the Murders blog. With that said:

Deaths Caused -by or during- an incident with Public Servants:
There were 95 deaths caused during an incident with law enforcement; 22% of all deaths. Status Based cases above are not included here. Since these 95 cases (22%) roughly a quarter of all deaths, they warranted a closer look; all occurred in the community.

Caution: It is imperative that folks study the four tables before simply concluding the police were responsible. Notice, there were outstanding warrants, alleged sex and other crimes committed, armed robbery, home invasions, etc., all by these RSOs/SOs. However, one has to wonder why 14 of the RSO/SOs apparently committed suicide (Suicide-by-Cop), what is influencing and pushing them over the edge?

Table-4
RSO/SO Deaths by Public Servants:

RSOs	RSOs Accused	SO Accused	SO Acc. but Innocent
45 (47.4%)	11 (11.6%)	38 (40%)	1 (1%)

Deaths in 31 States and No. of Deaths: CA-13, TX-11, FL-9, SC-5, 4 Each: MI, OH, NV, AZ, 3 Each: VA, KS, CO, OR, NC, NY, GA, 2 Each: AR, ID, AL, WA, 1 Each: NE, AZ, MD, MS, NJ, NM, IA, UT, MO, WV, PA, OK

Table-4a
Interaction w/Police Appears to have Begun With:

Warrants (31)*	Alleged Sex Crime (20)*	Other Crimes (16)
Traffic Stops (7)	911 Calls (7)	Domestic (5)
Gang Related (3)	Armed Robbery (2)	Home Break in (2)
Address Check (1)	False Sex Crime Rpt (1)

* = Some articles mentioned "warrants" and others "alleged sex crimes" we distinguished between them (31/20). There was no way we could know what the warrants were for.

Table-4b Was the RSO/SO Armed w/Weapon?

In 52 cases the RSO/SO had a gun; In 21 cases the RSO/SO did not have a gun; In 17 cases the RSO/SO had another kind of weapon (deadly force questionable); Cannot determine in the remaining cases.

Table-4c Cases with "incidents" worth mentioning:

Family mentioned RSO could not get a job (1) Suicide by Cop cases (14) 70 year old shot 27 times (1) RSO Murdered, Officer arrested (1) False sexual assault report (1) Accused Officer denied police funeral (1) Innocent Others Killed: Police(5) Civilians(4) See Table-BB (below)

Fourteen cases had facts indicating "Suicide by Cop," RSO/SOs in society who are ready and willing to resist going back into the system! There is no doubt todays laws are affecting former sex offenders driving them beyond what humans should endure.


Deaths Caused in Cases tagged "by Vigilantes":
There were 84 deaths caused by vigilantes; 19.4% of all deaths. Note: We tag a case "Vigilante" if a case is not solved (see Def. above for reasoning). So, strictly speaking these are -temporarily / permanently- unsolved cases?

Table-5
Deaths Caused by :Tag "by Vigilantes":

Case Classification:	Comment:
by Vigilantes (55)	These are unsolved cases as of this report. Unsolved cases have not been reviewed like the 'captured' below have been.
by Vigilantes Captured (29).	These are cases which started as unsolved, and the police have since ID'ed, arrested and/or convicted someone for the death of the RSO/SO.

A review of the 29 cases Tagged "Vigilante Captured" revealed, "Status Related (10)," "Robbery of the RSO/SO (5)," some form of "Argument (4)," and "Domestic Dispute (4)" with the person they lived with. Currently we are not going to re-tag these cases because some of the cases have not finished processing through the judicial system. This will be a constant problem with cases where the perpetrator is not caught for a period of time following the death. Both of groups are periodically reviewed so there could be updates here over time.


Deaths Caused by Victims:
There were 73 deaths caused by Victims or Family - Friend (includes victim's family members or boy/girl friends), strangers and/or homeowners(##):

## Curious about the choice of tags: "by Victim - Offender a Stranger" and "by Victim - Homeowner." "Stranger" simply means there is no known relationship between the RSO/SO and the person who killed them. Now that can also be true of the "Homeowner," but we wanted to separate crimes committed by home invasions. Some of the more high profile sex crimes involving children have occurred by breaking into a home, considered more dangerous crimes and we wanted to know how often they happened where the RSO/SO was killed during that type of crime.

Deaths Caused by Victims represent 16.9% of all deaths. The context of whom the "victim' is, is important. In Table-6 (62 cases) victim means the victim from the RSO/SO' original crime (therefore revenge is that victim's motive). Also in Table-6 ((4)+(7) cases) victim here means the victim of a new crime committed by the RSO/SO (so, self-defense is this victim's motive):

Table-6
Deaths Caused by: Tag "Victims":

Case Classification:	Comment:
by Victim or Family - Friend (62)	Here we see acts based on revenge for a past sex crime committed. Victims, family members or friends, sought the past offender to kill them.
by Victim - Offender is a Stranger (4) --OR-- by Victim - Homeowner (7).	Here we see acts based on self-defense. The RSO/SO was committing a new crime, such as breaking into a home (homeowner), or committing a any other new crime (stranger), when killed by the (would-be) victim of that new crime.

Deaths Caused by Acquaintances:
There were 52 deaths caused by acquaintances; 12% of all deaths. Acquaintance here means an acquaintance of the person killed. Reviewing the circumstances of crimes of "by Acquaintance" tag we see the following:

Table-7 Incidents Appear to Have Started With:

Domestic Situation (13) (25%); Disputes of Some Kind (11) (21%); Status Related Circumstances (10) (19.2%); Claim of Protecting a Child or Woman (7) (13.5%); Robbery (4) (7.7%); New Crime (2) (3.8%).

Table-7 is a general review of these cases, there wasn't any mass commonality, beyond what is shown we didn't report them. However, three of the thirteen domestic cases were "Same-Sex couples" and we wondered if, in two of them, whether police reviewed them for possible "Hate Crimes," or let them slide?


Deaths Caused by Robbery & Neighbors:
There were 12 deaths caused by Robbers and Neighbors; 2.8% of all deaths. In the "by Neighbors" tag we see all RSO/SOs killed, and six (6) of them are clearly status related.

Table-8
Deaths Caused by: Tags Robbery & Neighbors:

Case Classification:	Comment:
by Robbers (3)	A) In one case a robber broke into the home of a 72 year-old RSO robbing and killing him.   B) In 2 cases RSOs were robbed somewhere in the community and killed.
by Neighbors (9)	A) In 6 cases, the neighbor thought that, the person they killed (RSO/SO) either -HAD or WAS GOING to- molest a child of theirs or someone else. There was no proof (as of this report) the RSO/SOs did anything to their neighbors or children.   B) In the 7th case, in court the DA told the court that, "Richard Brown 'chased down and executed his next-door neighbor, Arthur Twyman (RSO)'," some sort of a prior argument between neighbors. The 8th case it is unknown why, and in the 9th case that was a "StatusBased" Case (Neighbor does not necessarily mean "Next door neighbor," neighbor includes neighborhood.

In the 72 year old's case, it is possible -since the registry shows age of registrants-, that the 23 year old robber targeted him thinking easy prey. Would love to know what police found since they allowed him to plead down from 1st degree. Table-FF below shows that sixteen percent of the 432 deaths were folks 60 or older.

Deaths Involving Laws:
There are 16 cases with deaths involving laws; 3.7% of all deaths. Lawmakers pass laws to protect people. Sometimes laws fail and someone dies because of the law. Then the law played a part, but what part? In a theoretical death say there are ten steps, the tenth being the death. Where does the law fall, in the low numbers (indirect), or in the high numbers 8-9 (direct), of our example? We have already reviewed all deaths using that principle. See Table-9:

Indirect Scenarios: A Michigan registrant froze in a junk yard because two shelters rejected him. Why? Michigan's residency law prevented residency within xx feet of schools, which is where the shelters were. Since, a Illinois registrant has died because of the cold, but there, it is not known if a law played a part we are still reviewing that case. So, laws -as applied to registrants- can result in situations preventing registrants from access to Public Welfare programs or proper medical needed for their care (See Table-9 Tags: SO Resid and SO Nursing Hone).

Table-9
Registrant Deaths where a law was -Indirectly or Directly- involved:

Case Classification:	Law and Case Example for those tags:
by Other than a Person (6): (Indirect)	SO Resid - Medical (4) SO Resid - Froze (1) SO Nursing Home - Choked (1)
by Persons (Murderers)(10): (Direct)	SO Registry (7) Status Revealed(3)

Direct Scenarios: Registries today are available to the public. In society there are folks who's lives are driven by hatreds, and at times they act on them, sometimes murdering a person. Reading news articles about sex offenders today, and the article comments, no doubt many folks hate anyone labeled a sex offender. The articles we draw from, journalists even mention the deaths were "because of a hatred for sex offenders," and have shown when a perpetrator admitted murdering someone based on their hatred of sex offenders. We have documented such cases (See Table-9 Tag: SO Registry).

Similarly when someone finds out (or believes) a person is a sex offender, and allows their hatred of sex offenders to control, resulting in a murder of a sex offender. We have documented such cases (See Table-9 Tag: Status Revealed). News articles support these cases as well.

In each of these 16 cases laws played a part. It is important that we track all subtle, direct and indirect ways, laws play a part in deaths of RSO/SOs. We can never forget, that lawmaker intent is to protect some group, so they say. However, the laws' "effects" need review before enactment, to make sure it does not put other folks (here registrants and their families) in harms way, as they have done here with former offenders and their families!


Deaths Caused by Good Samaritans & Passerbys:
There were 3 deaths caused by Good Samaritans & Passerbys; 0.7% of all deaths. Here we see people coming to the aid of NEW victims (RSOs committing NEW crimes) and killing the RSOs who has just committed a new crime.

Table-10
Deaths Caused by: Tags Good Samaritans & Passerbys:

Case Classification:	Comment:
by Passerbys (2)	In one incident the RSO abducted a woman and carjacked her car, then crashed into a truck killing the woman, and while fleeing the RSO is killed by a passerby. The other incident was a argument between two men (one a RSO on parole) and a security guard tried to break it up, guns were drawn and fired killing the RSO.
by Good Samaritan (1)	"A Brighton man shot and killed a 44-year-old registered sex offender who attacked two women in their home early this morning, officials said."

Deaths Caused by Misc Reasons:
There were 6 misc deaths; 1.3% of all deaths. Accidents happen and best advice is not to get involved with either gangs or drugs.

by Vehicle / Accident (2)
by Gangs / Drug Related (4)

Deaths in Jails or Prisons:
There were 102 RSO/SO deaths in jails or prisons; 23.6% of all deaths.

Table-11
Deaths in Jails and Prisons:

Case Classification:	Tags Combined and Comments:
by Inmates (74)	by Inmates Known (44):-- These are cases where officials named a suspect/s and didn't mention if it was a cellmate. And one case where the prison "Code of Silence" was apparent. by Cellmates (30):--  These are cellmate murderers. Of the 29 cellmate murders, 12 were by cellmates who were serving a sentence of "life w/o Parole" or "murder." And in one case a murderer who had previously killed another sex offender who was his cellmate at the time.
by Guards (12):	by Guards (3):--  These cases must be read. Its hard to believe this is going on in some places. by Guards Release of Crime Info (4)--  Prison is a violent place, and those convicted of sex offenses are in real danger when their crimes are released to the inmate population, guards are fully aware of that, these deaths resulted from the guards actions. See Former prison guard describes hostile atmosphere for sex criminals by Gross Negligence (5):--  It is difficult to read these cases and not say the guards had a choice and instead acted in a way which resulted in the death of the RSO/SO.
by Hostage/Escape (4)	When a inmate takes a hostage or attempts to escape, and is killed in the process, then they have placed themselves in harms way, they become responsible.
by Vigilante Circumstances (12)	This will be most controversial because we carry forward the "vigilante" when the circumstances show "unsolved." In a prison environment how is it possible deaths can occur without knowing who did it? These are all cases where the administration has no clue as to who done it. Hence, our tag because all these cases were someone taking the law into their own hands and want to remain unknown; a vigilante.

There is no doubt that serving a sentence for a sex crime, that person must watch every aspect of their life during their sentence. These cases show the dangers faced in many ways, from housing to even obtaining medical services, sex offenders must be on guard.


End of by Case Classification Section

---

SECTION: The overall impact based upon the numbers:

---

Now we step back and look at topics from a broader view. Accordingly, when you see a "Case Classification" mentioned there is a full story behind it, but that story is above, make sure you take the time to read them. ex: Case Classification "by Law Enforcement" looks like the police are the bad guys, but until you read everything about that case classification (ABOVE) you do not know who is right and who is wrong in those cases. With that said:


Deaths of RSOs with "Failure to Register" History or Charges:
Twenty-three (23) people died related to failure to register issues, includes two police officers and two civilians. What part, if any, did "Failure to Register" charges/history play in the deaths of those who died?

Table-AA
Failure to Register Charges/Convictions:

Death under this Case Classification:	In the Community	In Jails or Prisons:	History of Other FTRs:
by Law Enforcement (11)	6(#)		5
by Victims (1)	1
by Acquaintances (3)	2 (*)		1
by Vigilantes (3)	2(@)		1
by Cellmates (3)		3
by Inmates Known (5)		4	1
by Vigilante Circumstances (2)		1	1
by Other than a Person (2)			2(&)
___________	____	______	______
Total:  19 Deaths	11	8	11

(#) Other deaths occurred during -two- incidents: One incident -two- police officers were killed and in another incident -one- civilian was killed; (@) Other deaths occurred during -one- incident: -One- civilian was killed; (*) One death was the result of a domestic situation and the FTR situation had nothing to do w/that death; (&) These two cases are the result of the weather/elements and must be read to understand (A) and (B)

Note: Failure to register (FTR) charges can be misleading, covering from refusal to register down to forgot to sign a form, and everything between. Titling all forms of technical violations as well as refusal to register, the same, and into a person's history as felonies is plain egregious. And there is no state-to-state standard list one can equate to, either. If someone misses an appointment because of their work schedule they can be charges with FTR. It seems lawmakers use this as a way to make registrants look bad and there is no way out for them; another way laws becomes overbearing.

All from news articles about these deaths. If FTRs were relevant in any other case, we have no way of knowing. It is sad that, at very least the 8 deaths in jails/prisons occurred because of, the want for an address or employer information, all ministerial information and there is no proof such will protect anyone in society. Registration is considered a civil matter, but violate it and it becomes a felony criminal matter; makes no sense. Effectively, Politicians wanting to keep their jobs passed these senseless requirements, so who is responsible for these deaths? And, but for these requirements -two- police officers and -two- folks from the community would be alive today! See (#)(@).


Deaths of Innocent Others:
There were 19 cases where people other than a RSO/SO were killed, during or just before the death of the RSO/SO.

Table-BB
Innocent Other Deaths:

Death under this Case Classification:	In the Community	State
by Law Enforcement (9)	Civilians (4)   Police (5)	MS, CO, FL, MO, GA WA, MI
by Victims (2)	Civilians (2)	AR, AL
by Acquaintances (6)	Civilians (6)	NH, FL, CA, GA, PA
by Vigilantes (4)	Civilians (4)	NC, IN, WA, FL
by Passerbys (1)	Civilians (1)	GA
___________	____
Total:   22 Deaths	Civilians (17)  Police (5)	14 States

Just to prevent misconstruction, the Case Classification (ex: by Victims) does not mean that the victims killed the "Innocent Others." You would have to read the individual cases to learn -who specifically- killed the innocent others and the circumstances; likewise for other case classifications shown.

Deaths of Innocent RSOs/SOs:
There were 2 cases of innocent RSO Acc., and 19 cases of innocent SOs Acc., that were killed.

Table-CC
Innocent RSO/SO Deaths:

Death under this Case Classification:	In the Community	State
by Law Enforcement (1)	SO Acc. (1)	SC
by Victims (9)	SO Acc. (7)   RSO Acc. (2)	IA, OR, NJ, AZ, SC, Wa, IL, NM, CA
by Acquaintances (5)	SO Acc. (5)	WA, CA, OR, CA, CA
by Vigilantes Captured (1)	SO Acc. (1)	WA
by Neighbors (5)	SO Acc. (5)	AR, DE, FL, CT, AL
___________	____
Total:   21 Deaths	SO Acc.(19)  RSOs Acc.(2)	14 States

Just to prevent misconstruction, the Case Classification (ex: by Acquaintances) may not mean that the acquaintance killed the SO Acc.. You would have to read the individual cases to learn -who specifically- killed the SO Acc. and the circumstances; likewise for other case classifications shown.

Recently a newspaper published this comment by a person who was "falsely accused" about the accuser that seems appropriate here:

"The embarrassment and humiliation to my wife, my daughter and myself was immeasurable; it caused severe emotional trauma and in some ways permanent damage to my marriage. I hope and pray this woman receives the justice she deserves and that some day laws are passed making false rape claims a felony. They also should be treated as a sex crime. Even though no physical rape was committed, men who are almost always the victims in these cases, are raped by the justice system. If they are unfortunately convicted and sent to prison, they are often physically raped and sometimes murdered. I once worked as a correctional officer for four years in a maximum security federal penitentiary and know that convicted rapists and child molesters are often targeted for violence by other inmates; any amount of time in prison for me would have ended my life. ... But the biggest crime of all, are committed by people who bare false witness against others." Source: FULL COMMENT

Deaths of Homeless RSOs:
There were 16 cases where homeless folks were killed. Seven (7) of them have facts that COULD indicate a "Hate Crime."

Table-DD
Homeless Deaths:

Death under this Case Classification:	In the Community	Hate Crimes??	State
by Law Enforcement (2)	2		CA, OR
by Law (5)	5		CA, CA, CA, CA, MI
by Vigilantes Captured (3)	3	2	CA, ME, KS
by Vigilantes (3)	3	3	CA, FL, MA
by Acquaintances (2)	2	2	TX, TX
by Accident (1)	1(#)		CA
___________	____
Total:   16 Deaths	16	7	8 States

(#) This case happened in California, along with 7 others (50% of homless cases). We wondered if Jessica's Law may have been responsible for his (& their) homelessness, but police have not released anything further on these cases.

These cases were reviewed as though "homelessness" was a "Hate Crime" basis, as we believe it should be. Unfortunately it isn't but one Lawmaker presented a bill but it did not pass.


Deaths of RSO/SOs (Victims) -v- Case Classification:
Case classification is determined by the circumstances under which the RSO/SO was killed or murdered and by whom. As to "Decedents' Conduct" unfortunately sometimes folks do things which places them in harms way. See Footnote

Table-EE
Case Classification / Victim (RSO/SO) Relationships:

Case Classification Tags "Who Caused Deaths"	No. Killed or Murdered	Percentage of Total:	Decedents' Conduct @
by Law Enforcement	95	22.0%	96
by Vigilantes (*) (55 Unsolved)	84	19.4%
by Victims	73	16.9%	11
by Acquaintances	52	12.0%
by Robbery & Neighbors	12	2.8%
by Good Samaritans & Passerbys	3	0.7%	3
by Other than a Person (#)	6	1.3%
by Misc.	6	1.3%	3
_____	____	______	______
Sub Total:	331	76.4%	113
by Prison Inmate/s Known (**)	44	10.2%
by Prison Cellmates	29	6.7%
by Prison Vigilante Circumstances	12	2.8%
by Prison Gross Negligence	5	1.2%
by Prison Dur Hostage/Escape	4	.9%	4
by Prison Guards Release Crime	4	.9%
by Prison Guards	3	.6%
_____	____	______	______
Sub Total:	102	23.5%	4
Grand Total:	432	99.9% (Rnd)	117 (27%)

(#) Of the 16 cases which involve laws, these 6 do not have a "person" classification tag; (*) See Endnotes for Def. of and use of Vigilante; (@) No. of cases where Decedents' placed themselves in the circumstances which resulted in their death. ex: Decedent committed a new crime; Shootout w/Police; Arguments, etc..; (**) 1 case is where the inmates are refusing to reveal who killed the person, claiming the well known prison code of silence (no snitching).

Deaths of RSO/SOs by Age:
Table-FF shows the age groups of the 432 RSO/SOs that have been killed or murdered. Table-GG Compares the RSO/SO percentages to the FBI Murder Victims by Age: 2010 Expanded Homicide Data Table 2:

Table-FF
Deaths of RSO/SOs by Age:

% Of Total Deaths	No. Deaths	Age Ranges	In Community	In Jails/Prisons
30.2%	130	37-48	99	31
25.7%	111	24-36	89	22
18.1%	78	49-59	60	18
10.5%	45	60-69	29	16
5.6%	24	70+	20	4
5.1%	22	18-23	19	3
5.1%	22	Unknown	15	7
_____	_____		_____	_____
100.0%	432	<<-Total->>	331	101

Note: 16% of the 432 deaths were folks 60 or older.

Both Table-GGs (2010 and 2004-2011) we are out on a limb because there is nothing which we could compare to; but study the following tables. We wanted to know if there was any substantial difference in the percentages of those killed in society and our group of RSO/SOs, equating ages as best we could. Using the FBI Expanded Homicide data (Expanded Homicide Data Table 2 [Murder Victims by Age]), just the FBI age ranges that quasi-equated to our age ranges (see Table-FF); unknown ages are dropped from the FBI table as well as ours:

Table-GG: 2010
FBI Murders by Age -v- RSO/SOs Murders by Age:

DOJ Ages	DOJ No. Pct.		RSO/SO Ages	RSO/SO No. Pct.	Difference:
20-34	5,671 (54.2%)		18-36	14 (33.3%)	-20.9%
35-49	2,792 (26.2%)		37-48	16 (36.3%)	+10.1%
50-59	1,159 (10.9%)		49-59	7 (16.6%)	+5.7%
60-69	514 (4.8%)		60-69	3 (7.1%)	+2.3%
70+	396 (3.7%)		70+	2 (4.7%)	+1.0%
	_______			_______
Totals:	99.8%			99.8%

FBI Source:FBI Murder Victims by Age 2010 Expanded Homicide Data Table 2:

FBI data was only available for the years 2004-2011, hence the following:

Table-GG: 2004-2011
FBI Murders by Age -v- RSO/SOs Murders by Age:

DOJ Ages	DOJ No. Pct.		RSO/SO Ages	RSO/SO No. Pct.	Difference:
20-34	49,661 (54.3%)		18-36	92 (31.9%)	-22.4%
35-49	25,288 (27.7%)		37-48	88 (30.6%)	+2.9%
50-59	9,118 (10%)		49-59	59 (20.4%)	+10.4%
60-69	3,903 (4.3%)		60-69	33 (11.5%)	+7.2%
70+	3,364 (3.7%)		70+	16 (5.6%)	+1.9%
	_______			_______
Totals:	100%			100%

FBI Source:FBI Murder Victims by Age 2004-2011 Expanded Homicide Data Table 2:

It appears that younger RSO/SOs seem least likely to get into situations resulting in their death; but still, we have recorded some (See Table-FF 18-23 age group). However, the older RSO/SOs get, the more likely it is they face circumstances which result in their deaths. Yes, we do realize that earlier in our report -in a few places- we show circumstances which are the fault of the RSO/SO. Yet, their fault, or, are they being hounded until they do something illegal? This unanswered question is left for professional research, with appropriately generated data. Statistics which do not focus on political views, instead, on consequences of laws, lawmakers have enacted. I'll let readers decide if there is value to the above chart. Excepting the 18-36 group, it appears that RSO/SO deaths are above the national averages.


Deaths of RSO/SOs in Jails & Prisons by Age:
Here we have DOJ data to compare to, Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000-2010 - Statistical Tables (Sum of Tables 11 and 21, Jails and Prisons respectively), December 2012, NCJ 239911, with noted adjustments, and we constructed the following Table. Age ranges are as close as we could get based on data. Our unknown ages were dropped, as well as any cases before 2000 and those after 2010, and our four Hostage/Escape cases. This chart is the result:

Table-HH: 2000-2010
DOJ Homicides by Age -v- RSO/SOs Murders by Age:

DOJ Ages	DOJ No. Pct.		RSO/SO Ages	RSO/SO No. Pct.	Difference:
18-24	66 (12.3%)		18-23	1 (1.6%)	-10.7%
25-34	146 (27.2%)		24-36	16 (25%)	-2.2%
35-44	152 (28.4%)		37-48	22 (34.3%)	+5.9%
45-54	111 (20.7%)		49-59	11 (17.1%)	-.1%
55+	60 (11.2%)		60+	14 (21.9%)	+10.7%
	_______			_______
Totals:	99.8%			99.9%

DOJ Source: Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000-2010 - Statistical Tables (Sum of Tables 11 and 21, Jails and Prisons respectively), December 2012, NCJ 239911:

There were 32 cases not included in the RSO/SO numbers because they were outside of the years shown, and 26 of them occurred in 2011-2012. This shows two groups with percentages over the national averages for homicides, one being the frail older RSOs/SOs who likely cannot defend themselves.

---

SECTION: Conclusion:

---

Frequency of Status Based Murders:
A topic not covered by the media, they only cover when two registered offenders are killed, recently in Washington (Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray) or earlier in Maine (Joseph Gray and William Elliott in 2006). Table-JJ reveals all status based murders between the years 2000-2012.

Table-JJ
Deaths (##) Month-by-Month for Years 2000-2012:

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Jan=45			1	1	2	1	4	7	3	6	9	5	6
Feb=26					2		2		7	5		4	6
Mar=30				Court	4		5		4	3	6	4	4
Apr=29					2	1	5	1		6	1	4	10
May=25					1	1		4	5	1		5	8
Jun=33				1	2	1	1	2	1	5		10	10
Jul=33	1			1	3	1	AWA-2	5	2	6	1	6	5
Aug=36				1	1	5	3	1	5	6	6	2	6
Sep=49	1				2	4	8	2	5	8	6	2	11
Oct=27				1	1	2	3	1	5	4		5	5
Nov=45	1			2	2	3	4	5	5	4	6	7	6
Dec=40	1			3			2	4	5	6	11	7	1
	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
Total:418	4		1	10	22	19	39	32	47	60	46	61	78

2003 U.S. Supreme court decisions which allowed registries to continue, and start of the Adam Walsh Act..

One or more, of the 36, Status Based Murders occurred in each of the 26 months.

Months which have the highest aggregate number of deaths.

## Thirteen deaths occurred in the years 1991-1999 which are not shown.

Table-JJ shows StatusBased Murders are not as rare as one might think! The table also shows, nineteen deaths before the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Connecticut Dept Of Public Safety V Doe and Smith v Doe). Sixty-seven deaths between the U.S. Court decision and the start of the Adam Walsh Act. Three hundred and forty-six deaths since the Adam Walsh Act was enacted. What do you think is fueling these deaths?


Number of RSOs and SOs Killed and Murdered:
Our graph, a timeline composite of deaths, a senseless era of violence, there were triggering events. First, the 2003 US Sup court decisions allowing online registries to continue; and second, the 2006 law of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). This graph and Table-JJ give us a clear view of the broader picture.

From 2003 to 2005 the number of deaths doubled, then in 2006 came AWA and the number of deaths went up 7-fold over the next 6 years 2006-2012. Sex offender laws and attention is affecting society and registrants, and resulting in deaths (murders and killings) of people charged, convicted and thought to have committed a sex offense; 432 have died under these changing laws!

In closing, why are these deaths occurring, deaths were a rare event before 2003. Over 80% have occurred since the Adam Walsh Act became law, the data supports that conclusion. I cannot help remember a comment made by Sen. Hatch on the Nancy Grace show (7-16-2006) just days before the Adam Walsh Act:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Well, the bill really puts the screws to those who are sexual predators, and you know, sexual offenders. You know, we have we have around 500,000 of them in ... Source: CNN Transcript.

Sen. Hatch had just finished one of the many -Behind Closed Doors- sessions that took place before enacting AWA. Given those undocumented sessions and AWA passed under suspension of the rules, contrary to Congressional rules for such legislation, there must have been something they did not want known. Today we still wonder about that dark history especially given findings of this report about lives of sex offenders.

For those who think plotting to kill former sex offenders -OR- someone thought to be a sex offender, is not happening today, take note of this recent Wisconsin article:

Bizarre Murder Plot Foiled By Tosa Police (1-8-2013): An East Troy man stands accused of attempted murder of a Wauwatosa resident after a caller warns police that a truck has been circling his block — and officers find the driver has hatched a strange plot to kill an old friend. An East Troy man's obsession with protecting children and his delusion that an old friend was a child sex offender led him to plan to murder the man, according to Wauwatosa police, as detailed in a criminal complaint. .... A second officer arrived on the scene and went to the passenger side of the truck, where he found several printed handbills on the seat. They pictured a man, gave his age and address, and said that the subject "...targets and sexually assaults little girls 5 to 12 years old. Protect your kids." (Wauwatosa police would later learn that such handbills had been appearing in the neighborhood for two years, and that Milwaukee police had been taking them down.) Full Article HERE

Had the police not foiled that plan we would be writing about another StatusBased murder.

Of the 432 deaths: RSOs (75%) SOs (25%), and SOs had yet to go through the courts. Death sentences for these crimes are unconstitutional. U.S. Supreme court Kennedy -v- Louisiana. Should overbearing laws and stalking of -one crime- type also be unconstitutional? True, some 27% (Table-EE) of the decedents, placed themselves in the circumstances resulting in their death. Yet, if the laws were not overburdening, would they have done that?

The eight imprisoned for "failure to register" charges (Table-AA) would not have died if FTR charges did not result in a felony. Registration is a civil matter, but FTR charges result in a felony; that just does not make sense. Two age groups, in Jails and Prisons, (37-48 and 60+ Table-HH) are being killed at a higher rate (5.9% and 10.7% respectively) than equivalent age groups nationally as reported by the U.S. Department of Justice. One being senior sex offenders.

False accusations resulted in the deaths of 21 innocent RSOs/SOs (Table-CC). Continuing the innocent vein, but in addition to the 432 deaths, 17 civilians and 5 police officers died (Table-BB). Would they have died but for their involvement in those respective cases? Again beyond the 432 deaths, are those who have died in civil commitment over the years, some 118 as best we can discover from news articles. Civil commitment centers carefully guard any death reports from the media, but some get through and we have saved them.

Changing burdensome laws, politicians and the media, all voices behind growing incidents of violence. One residency law allowed a RSO to freeze to death in 2009, and still lawmakers in that state have done nothing to prevent another! Laws have lives in a turmoil nationally and pushing many over the edge. What dots have to be connected to get lawmakers and the courts to see? These lives matter!

When there is no redemption, when a lifetime of legalized stalking of this class results in violence, who is responsible?

Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2012