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.

...

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.

Certain Sex Offenders -and- Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF)

QUESTION:

QUESTION: What is meant by the references to "Sex Offender" in the GAO document "SMALL BUSINESS LENDING: Opportunities Exist to Improve Performance Reporting of Treasury’s Programs" released Dec 2012? Page-10 of this document says:

As mandated by the act, Treasury requires each SBLF participant to submit two annual certifications:

(1) Any businesses receiving a loan from an SBLF participant using SBLF funds must certify to the institution that the principals of the business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. Under the Securities Purchase Agreement, annually until redemption, the SBLF participant is required to provide the certifications to Treasury that businesses receiving loans from the bank have certified that their principals have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.

(2) Each SBLF participant must certify that it is in compliance with the requirements of the Customer Identification Program, which is intended to enable the bank to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of each customer.

ANSWER: When a Small Business applies for a SBA Loan at a local bank, they must complete certain application forms. One of those forms now is a form to certify that, none of the PRINCIPALS (Owners) of that business has been previously convicted of a sex offense against a minor as defined in the Adam Walsh Act (42 USC 16911). In addition, those owners, until the loan is paid back, must ANNUALLY sign that form, to prove no sex offense against a minor has occurred in the past year.

In the last Congress (111th) they passed a bill which added that requirement to Small Business Loans. If you want to read more about what happened BACK then use these two links: HERE and HERE you should be able to get the gist of what Congress did back then.

Definitions:
Minor in AWA: A person under 18;

Read 42 USC 16911 HERE it is quite long.

Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF)

---

New website for Self Employment Assistance Center

New app checks friend requests for registered sex offenders. Really?

QUESTION:

12-7: The only way this App can check w/the NASOR Registry is if they has a contract w/the US DOJ. See the Kids Act. Do they?

UPDATE 12-8: They are NOT checking to NASOR as they claim.

See their FAQ: "How Current is Your Data? The data hosted on our site is compiled from many thousands of different public record sources. From government agencies to local and state offices & court houses, opt-in databases, and other public data. Due to the large scope of sources, we are limited to when those entities release updates. However because they do not release updates all at the same time, we are constantly updating our databases individually." This immediately brings into question those "thousands of different public record sources.

AND they charge for searches: "Is there any membership or monthly fees? No, none! You are only charged for the searches you run.

How can I pay for your searches?
We offer two options when it comes to paying for your searches. You can pay as you go, and only pay for a search when you do a search, or you can purchase credits.

Why would I decide to purchase credits?
We have created a credit system so that users who intend to do multiple searches can pre-purchase credits at a discounted rate and to streamline your user experience.

12-7-2012 National:

Who’s asking to be your friend on Facebook?

It’s a concern for many people who use the popular social media website. It’s a bigger fear for parents whose children communicate online.

The wide spread concern struck a chord for New York resident Joe Penora. He launched an Android app and mobile website in March called Friend Verifier.

The app allows Facebook users to cross check friend requests against the national sex offender registry.

The app is accessible on mobile phones, tablets and the XBOX 360.

While the app has received good reviews, it’s also been criticized for accuracy. Until recently, the app could only crosscheck names on the sex offender registry, which resulted in several false identifications.

This week, the app was re-launched with a color coded system, that uses birth dates and locations to verify accuracy.

“You just click on that person’s name and you can see their sex offender information,” Penora says.

Ross Garrett, co-founder of Mobelux.com, a Richmond based company that creates apps, says users should still use caution.

“You could get accurate information, you might not get accurate information, that’s the gamble you take.” Garrett says.

Garrett says Apple is more selective than Android when approving apps. He recommends that users confirm their findings by checking government websites or individual state sex offender registries.

“Do research yourself,” Garrett advises.

Penora says 98% of the feedback he’s received from Friend Verifier users has been positive

A request to Apple, so users can download the app on their iPhones, is currently being reviewed by the company. Apple receives 26,000 app submissions weekly.

Penora says he’s confident the app can provide families with an extra safeguard when it comes to accepting friends online. ..Source.. by WTVR.com

Do Registries Help?

QUESTION:

While law enforcement groups have championed SORNA and cheerlead for compliance in every state, some counter that more stringent sex offender laws and longer registration periods could violate offenders’ constitutional rights.

SORNA’s three-tier registration system lumps statutory rape convicts with violent sexual predators, attorney Katherine Godin of the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union noted in a May 12 memo to state lawmakers there.

“Under the (Adam Walsh Act), an 18-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend will be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life and will be seen as posing the same threat to the community as someone who commits rape or first-degree child molestation,” Godin wrote in the memo.

States toughening their treatment of convicted sex offenders may lull residents into a false sense of security, the Rhode Island ACLU argues, by ignoring the statistical likelihood that children will be abused by a family member or close family friend.

“In fact, this community notification system distorts the fact that most sex crimes are not committed by some scary man lurking in the bushes,” Godin wrote. “Instead, 97 percent of child sex abuse victims up to 5 years old knew the offender prior to the offense.”

Academic studies show that offenders placed on public registries reoffend at roughly the same rate as those convicted before the registries were maintained, said M. Lyn Exum, an associate professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

“I think there is this scarlet-letter stigma that is carried with this, and whether that’s good or bad, that’s a moral judgment,” Exum said. “There’s not compelling scientific research to show that individuals on sex offender registries have lower recidivism rates.”

Studies show that 5 percent of registered sex offenders will be convicted of another sex crime within three years of their registration. In a 15-year span, about a quarter of sex offenders will reoffend.

In some studies, the number of registered offenders convicted of a subsequent sex offense was slightly lower than the number of non-registered offenders.

“Those on the registries do offend less, but it’s a very small percentage,” Exum said. “In the research world, we say those percentages are not statistically significant.”

Nearly half of registered sex offenders said being listed on a public registry has limited their job prospects and cost them friendships, according to self-reported survey data.

“A significant minority report being attacked — being tracked down and confronted in such a way that they were physically assaulted,” Exum said.

Maybe Dr Exum needs to see these blogs: RSO/SO Murders/Killings -and- RSO/SO Vigilantism

While the public may need information about sex offenders in their communities, some scholars and civil liberties groups say those offenders deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around.

“In some ways, you’re sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face,” Exum said. “You’re putting these people on a registry and making it harder for them to reintegrate, which could increase the chance that they recidivate.” ..Source.. Opinions of attorney Katherine Godin of the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union - and- Dr. M. Lyn Exum University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Child Porn or Family Photos?

August 28, 2012 Minnesota:

The following article shows the differences between how law enforcement and prosecutors look at a photo and how the family might view the same pictures.

Minn. coach's child porn case tests investigators

A Minnesota football coach accused of taking pornographic videos of his children is offering a simple explanation: The images are nothing more than innocent family antics, unfairly misinterpreted by authorities as having the darkest possible motive.

That defense, first presented by Todd Hoffner's attorney last week and reiterated by his wife on Monday, will face tremendous scrutiny by investigators in the days ahead and a likely challenge by prosecutors before a jury, experts said.

"Where you draw the line is through investigation," said Meg Garvin, the executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Portland, Ore. "Because sometimes the pictures you first see in a child pornography case might be very similar to benign family photos, and it takes more investigation to determine that, as well as experts talking to the children. And that's sometimes how we'll find out what's happening."

What they'll discover is nothing illegal, said Melodee Hoffner, whose husband is the football coach at Minnesota State University in Mankato. In the family's first statement since her husband's arrest last week, Hoffner called the charges against her husband "ridiculous and baseless."

"My family does what every family does -- we take videos and pictures of our kids in all their craziness," Melodee Hoffner said Monday.

Hoffner, 46, of Eagle Lake, was arrested last week and charged with two felonies: possession of child pornography and using minors in a sexual performance or pornographic work. Capt. Rich Murry of the Blue Earth County Sheriff's Office said officers seized computers, discs and electronic equipment when they searched the coach's home following his arrest, and that material is being searched for any relevant evidence.

Experts who reviewed authorities' descriptions of Hoffner's videos said to determine the innocent from the nefarious, detectives will try to uncover whether the videos were kept secret or if other adult family members knew of them. While debating whether to file charges, they said, officials often consider whether there are multiple pictures or videos and whether the children are acting naturally for their age.

Marsh Halberg, a prominent defense attorney in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, said such investigations rarely yield close calls. He cited a case in which his client was investigated for taking a picture of her naked toddler on a beach. It was seen by day care workers, who went to authorities.

Officials searched his client's home and conducted interviews to determine the context of the photo, Halberg said. They decided not to charge his client.

"Usually, when I have a child porn case, this hasn't been a gray line," he said.

In Minnesota, the legal definition of child pornography includes performances depicting actual or simulated sexual conduct, and the definition of sexual conduct includes masturbation or lewd exhibitions of the genitals. That's typical of state and federal laws on child pornography, which generally define videos or photos as such if they include images that have the intent of evoking a sexual response, said Parry Aftab, a New Jersey attorney and online child safety advocate.

A naked child in the bathtub is not pornography by itself, she said, but a nude girl with her legs spread or a boy touching his genitals meets that definition.

At a court hearing after Hoffner's arrest, his attorney, Jim Fleming, said the videos show nothing graphic, abusive or exploitive and defended them as "private family moments." Hoffner's wife said Monday the couple's three children love to dance, play and act silly, and to be photographed and recorded.

"I assure you our children have not been exploited or abused -- they are healthy physically, mentally and emotionally; and have normal relationships with friends, family and teachers," said Hoffner, who works as a guidance counselor at Mankato East High School.

Cordelia Anderson, a Minneapolis-based consultant on the prevention of child sexual abuse and exploitation, said one of the things investigators likely will look at is whether Hoffner was directing the children. The description of the videos offered by authorities state a man's voice can be heard, but does not include what is being said. The described actions don't sound like those of children between the ages of 5- and 9-years-old who were in front of their parents, she said.

"Children can be smiling. Children can be laughing. The adult can be very skilled at setting this up as a game at these ages," Anderson said.

Fleming rejected such assessments of the videos: "I don't know how they can say it when they haven't seen (them)," he said.

Hoffner has been placed on leave at Minnesota State, where he was entering his fifth year as football coach. Authorities said they uncovered the videos after Hoffner brought his university-issued phone to the school's information technology department earlier this month because it wasn't working properly. An employee came across the videos and reported them to his superiors.

"There was certainly something in what they saw that concerned them. It's good to see they were willing to report it," Anderson said. by Steve Karnowski

How many -child abductions- are caused by registered sex offenders, annually?

August 2012:

Today, there is no known professional research addressing the number of child abductions by registered sex offenders, annually. Yes, we know cases such as John Couey, Brandon Lavergne and Phillip Garrido have occurred, all terrible, but professional research is lacking on this topic. However, it does appear the FBI is working on something, yet to be published:

In two FBI Law Enforcement Bulletins there is sketchy mentions of registered sex offenders and abductions, but nothing we can draw statistics from. See Endnotes.

So, are statements such as " However, only 115 reported abductions represent cases in which strangers abduct and kill children, hold them for ransom, or take them with the intention to keep." correct? (source: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin) And, what is the ultimate source which explains that statement?

A proper understanding begins with knowing how the Department of Justice (DOJ) categorizes abductions. Within each subgroup is a definition for that subgroup. Here are the subgroups (each shown with the 2000 DOJ NISMART Report covering that subgroup):

FAMILY Abductions: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196466)

NON FAMILY Abductions: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196467)

RUNAWAY / THROW AWAY Children: Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196469)

The 115 number (sometimes misquoted as 100-200) comes from NISMART's NonFamily Abductions. There an abduction is defined as:

Defining Nonfamily Abduction and Related Terms

• Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least 1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently.

• Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in which a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.

• Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.

• Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose name is unknown to the child or family prior to the abduction and whom the child or family did not know well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who the child or family have known for less than 6 months, or someone the family or child have known for longer than 6 months but seen less than once a month.

Now, in the NISMART report the 115 number is referenced many times, esp. in each Table showing all different statistics related to that number, but the most important one is found in Table-6, how many are "sexually assaulted" and notice it shows 49.

Click on Pic for Further Information
So, here is what we have now, out of 70,172,700 children in the U.S. (Table-2 Census figure for 2000) 49 were abducted for a sexual purpose (.00006% of the total child population).

Were they abducted by a registered sex offender? That is unknown because there are no studies which show that, and the only valid study of abductions are those mentioned above by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000.

If you wish to read more about the NISMART Reports, I wrote a "Primer" back in 2007, it is here.

Should anyone have any other source, I'd be glad to include them here and address them.

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

---

ENDNOTES:
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) also cites the 115 number. See their page HERE.

---

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, November 2011:

FBI research revealed that 74 percent of children abducted and murdered were killed within the first 3 hours of their disappearance. To aid local law enforcement and FBI investigators in child abduction investigations, the FBI created the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) team in 2006. Since its inception, CARD has provided field offices with the resource of additional investigators with specialized experience in child abduction matters. As of September 2011, the CARD team has assisted in the investigation of 69 child abduction cases involving 77 children. Of the 77 children, 31 were recovered alive; 11 remain missing. CARD statistics also indicated that in 70 percent of these cases, the child was abducted by an individual with a known relationship to the child. In contrast, 10 percent of abductors were registered sex offenders.

---

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 2011:

Media news outlets have portrayed that abductors primarily consist of strangers or registered sex offenders (RSO), which has proven invalid in the past 2 fiscal years (FY). When a child is reported missing, members of the media advise parents to check sex offender registries to prevent their child from possible abduction or sexual victimization. However, FBI reporting indicates that RSOs are a minimal part of the problem. In FY 2009, an RSO was the abductor in 2 percent of child abduction cases; in FY 2010, this figure dropped to 1 percent. ...

Over the past 4 years, the FBI has seen a decrease in abductions committed by a stranger or RSO. However, it is important to note that abductors with sexual intentions are, in fact, sexual offenders who have not yet been identified and, therefore, are unknown to local law enforcement agencies.

A majority (68 percent) of the child abduction cases the FBI’s Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) team has assisted in has resulted in the identification of an offender who had a relationship with the child victim.3 Moreover, an RSO was involved in only 10 percent of the investigations, 5 percent of who knew the victim.

In FY 2009, 63 percent of child abduction cases involved an offender known to the victim; only 1 percent were RSOs. In FY 2010, 70 percent of child abduction cases resulted in the identification of an offender who had a known relationship with the victim; less than 1 percent of the abductors were RSOs.

Note: While it may seem easy to calculate how many abduction there were in 2009 and 2010 by RSOs, in reality it is not that easy: A) We do not know if above means ALL abductions, just FAMILY abduction or NON FAMILY abductions; B) There are no known statistics of abductions by year published by the FBI or the DOJ.

RSOs contribute to a miniscule part of the child abduction problem. In contrast to media reporting, the number of cases involving a registered sex offender is decreasing. In addition to the FBI reporting, NCMEC has revealed that there were no RSOs involved in AMBER Alert cases in 2009.

---

Child Abduction Myths

Host: What is the biggest myth about child abductions?

Nancy McBride; The biggest myth surrounding the issue of child safety is that the danger to children is greater from a stranger than from some body they know and this is an issue that we really need to retire, that whole stranger danger message.

It is not effective because kids do not get it, adults do not practice it and if the child is in a situation where they need help, they are surrounded by a sea of strangers, none of whom can help them, if they have been taught never talk to strangers.

The fourth reason why this is a myth is because the danger to children is far greater from somebody they or you as the parent or guardian know than from a random individual. So, we really need to take this safety message and put it in a museum and realize that it is not an effective way to teach kids about safety.

..Source.. by NCMEC

Real Estate Values -v- Registered Sex Offenders: Home Sale Prices Affected by Registrants or Unfounded FEARS?

National:

Does the presence of sex offenders really affect the value of homes?

Reality is, registered sex offenders DO NOT affect home values whatsoever. Peoples' fears do! So, how does FEAR get into the sale of homes?

Suppose I were a real estate salesperson showing you a home, and said, there is a toxic waste site near here. Would you buy the home? The majority of folks would say "NO, not on your life." But, suppose I then told you, I meant the sewer that connects to the home. Right, your answer would change in a second.

Its all about perceived risks, fact versus fiction. Acceptable risks versus perceived risks!

Supposedly there are studies which prove, that the presence of registered sex offenders in a neighborhood, will reduce the value of the homes in that neighborhood. However, are those studies based on fact or fiction, we are about to reveal the loophole in known research (listed below).

Do sex offender registries display anything, that TODAY, proves a registrant is a person who must be feared? Or has the public been led -by Politicians and the Media- to believe ALL registrants should be FEARED? Never forget, today registries are bloated with folks that simply do not belong there. i.e., folks urinating in public, kids experimenting, Romeo & Juliet type cases and more.

Also, it is now well known that when lawmakers want to get a law passed, they couch it with fears about what life is like without the law. Every single sex offender law has been passed using, FEAR! "Perception, not crime, drives down property values," says a real estate salesperson (See source below).

"While sellers tend to sell their properties at substantially lower values when a registered sex offender lives nearby, they may not be lowering their sales price enough. Sellers and their agents may have difficulty estimating a property’s expected value if a sex offender is near. ..." Source below.

What? Manipulating prices BEFORE the sale, then the study is done AFTER the sale, and claims the sex offender caused the reduction! The sex offender did not reduce the price, the real estate person influenced the seller.

Are "FEARS" now being INTRODUCED into home sales, by law and the real estate industry to further their goals? Lets take a look! State laws; Smart Phone Apps; News Articles; Major Research Papers are all in "Supporting Research" below.

The answer is, yes, the real estate industry and law, are the ones inserting Unfounded FEARS into the sales of certain homes. Review the research below, draw your own conclusion, we feel you will agree, the claims that sex offenders caused the reduced values are FALSE! PS: Ask assessor's offices if they reduce values because of registered sex offenders, you will get a surprise! NO!

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2011

---

* * * Supporting Research * * *
State Laws Requiring Disclosure of Sex Offenders: Some states have laws requiring disclosure of sex offenders before the sale of a home. Does that legal requirement cause hysteria, affecting the minds of the buyers? Accordingly, the law itself may be affecting the sale of homes by implying there is something negative about the home, simply because of a registrant in some proximity to the home for sale.

Example: California Law: Department of Real Estate :
M. Data Base – Locations of Registered Sex Offenders:

Written leases or rental agreements for residential real property and contracts (including real property sales contracts as defined in Civil Code Section 2985) for the sale of residential real property of 1 to 4 dwelling units must contain, in not less than eight-point type, a notice as specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3):

(1) A contract entered into by the parties on or after July 1, 1999, and before September 1, 2005, shall contain the following notice:

Notice: The California Department of Justice, sheriff’s departments, police departments serving jurisdictions of 200,000 or more, and many other local law enforcement authorities maintain for public access a database of the locations of persons required to register pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.4 of the Penal Code. The database is updated on a quarterly basis and is a source of information about the presence of these individuals in any neighborhood. The Department of Justice also maintains a Sex Offender Identification Line through which inquiries about individuals may be made. This is a “900” telephone service. Callers must have specific information about individuals they are checking. Information regarding neighborhoods is not available through the “900” telephone service.

(2) A contract entered into by the parties on or after September 1, 2005, and before April 1, 2006, shall contain either the notice specified in paragraph (1) or the notice specified in paragraph (3).

(3) A contract entered into by the parties on or after April 1, 2006, shall contain the following notice:

Notice: Pursuant to Section 290.46 of the Penal Code, information about specified registered sex offenders is made available to the public via an Internet Web site maintained by the Department of Justice at www.meganslaw.ca.gov. Depending on an offender’s criminal history, this information will include either the address at which the offender resides or the community of residence and ZIP Code in which he or she resides.

See also this article from The California Association of Realtors.

---

State Laws Exempting Disclosure: A recent National Association of Realtors survey revealed that only 16 states have exempted real estate licensees from sex offender related disclosure responsibilities: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wyoming. See "Megan's Law: New Risks for Real Estate Licenses?"

---

Realtors Use Smart Phone Apps: It has also been reported that some real estate sales folks actually use iPhone Apps -BEFORE A SALE- to show folks involved in a sale, where local sex offenders live. And it must be noted that those iPhone Apps are frequently out of date, incomplete and the data mined from illegal entry into state registries. The vendors of these apps even admit they are using a "Private Database" which they have created sometime in the past, and may not be updated as frequently as state registries.

"Lacy Williams, a Realtor with Joyner Fine Properties in Richmond, said she has an application on her smartphone that allows her to show the list of offenders to prospective clients." Sex offenders as neighbors a realty factor Virginia 8-11-2010

---

Real Estate Agent Quote In News Article: "Perception, not crime, drives down property values!"

The Wagners have lived in their same home for 26 years and they’re raising their daughter, a freshman in high school, in the neighborhood. “We’re raising our daughter here and if we felt it was unsafe, we wouldn't be here,” Deb said.

But Deb Wagner is also a real estate agent and does most of her business in North Minneapolis. When potential buyers get their hands on a real estate contract, they are notified that they should check the area for sex offenders on the DOC Web site.

“It’s mentioned several times in real estate contracts” she said. “For people to disregard that, it takes somebody pretty unusual. Unless they’re not super paranoid about that, but who isn't when you mention sex offenders? Especially if you’re planning to move into a community with your children.”

The recidivism rate for sex offenders is 12 percent, which is lower than for other criminals, according to Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007 study. “It creates a perception that this is not a safe place to live,” Wagner said. (Finding new homes for sex offenders 2-28-2011)

---

Research Studies Claim: The presence of local sex offenders makes the value of the home less. All of this research has been using data AFTER the sale, and after the sale price has been manipulated. They are assuming the reason is, because of the presence of sex offenders to the home sold. No research has investigated "TACTICS" used in selling the home.

Certainly it is easy to scare a seller into reducing a selling price, saying the sex offender over there is the cause, but in reality, the home is still assessed a certain amount by the assessor's office and they do not change assessments because a sex offender moves close to a home. Fear is being used as a tool, fear is "undue influence" and that is well known in real estate law! Lets review the main studies being quoted:

Study-1: "Estimating the Effect of Crime Risk on Property Values and Time on Market: Evidence from Megan’s Law in Virginia" (Brastow 2010)claims that homes have a lesser value because of local sex offenders. However, buried with that study is this comment:

"From the Study" p-9: "While sellers tend to sell their properties at substantially lower values when a registered sex offender lives nearby, they may not be lowering their sales price enough. Sellers and their agents may have difficulty estimating a property’s expected value if a sex offender is near. That is, a reduced offer price may not attract enough potential buyers, resulting in a longer marketing duration of the home. Table 4 shows that homes located near (within .1 mile of) a registered sex offender spend abut 10% more time on the market. This works out to be about 13 days longer on the market than other similar properties, which are also competitively priced. In relative terms, this is roughly equivalent to selling your home in the “off” season of fall or winter (as compared to the summer or spring)."

That portion of the study shows, "Sellers and their Agents" are influencing the sale price of the home BEFORE placing it on the market. Method: FEAR! Why are real estate agents even suggesting lowering the sale price?


Study-2: "There Goes the Neighborhood? Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values From Megan’s Laws" (Linden 2006) This study uses the "Fear of Crime" but never shows that there is any rise in crime when sex offenders move in, or where they lived before. Fear is its focus.

From the study: In response to the fear of crime, residents generally have two options: they can vote for anti-crime policies, or they can vote with their feet. i.e., move..... In this paper, we combine data from the housing market with data from sex offender registrations to estimate individuals’ valuation of living in close proximity to a convicted sex offender. By exploiting both the timing of move-in and the exact locations of sex offenders, we can improve on past estimates of individuals’ responses. The exact location of these offenders then allows us to exploit variation in the threat of crime within small homogeneous groupings of homes. The timing of a sex offender’s arrival allows us to confirm the absence substantive pre-existing differences in property values and to control for the remaining minor differences. Our study is the first to exploit both inter-temporal and cross-sectional variance in the presence of an offender, but not the first to exploit the cross-sectional variation alone. Larsen et al. (2003) examine the cross sectional relationship between property values and proximity to sex offenders using a single year of data from Montgomery County, Ohio. They find a reduction in housing prices of 17% within a tenth of a mile of an offender’s home, and find significant changes in price up to a third of a mile. Although their study is similar to ours in the empirical question it addresses, their empirical strategy suffers from the same potential biases mentioned above.

Throughout this study they talk of the "threat of crime" and use studies of areas where there was crime, but never do they show any crime where the targeted sex offenders lived.

Again we see "fear" being used, and who placed the fear in front of the sellers to induce them to lower their sale price? I doubt very much anyone selling a home, would on their own, say, "Oh, there are sex offenders in the neighborhood, so I'll lower the selling price." This is not the seller's mind, it is being placed before them by someone BEFORE the sale.

Study-3: "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws" (Linden 2008) Here again, "Fear of Crime" is the focus, but here they introduce "Property Crimes" and localize the fear. Like the earlier study, they never show that any of the crime was found before or after the sex offenders moved in, which might by itself cause someone to lower their selling price.

From the Study: Crime is predominantly a local issue. The majority of both violent and nonviolent offenses takes place less than one mile from victims’ homes, and most government expenditures on police protection are local ..... Understanding the relationship between property values and local crime risk is useful for measuring the willingness of individuals to pay to reduce their exposure to crime risk. This, in turn, can help determine the appropriate level of public expenditures that reduce crime, such as police services. A number of papers have documented an inverse relationship between property values and local crime rates. In one of the earliest studies, Richard Thaler (1978) finds a negative relation between property crimes per capita and property values. His estimates imply that a one standard-deviation increase in the incidence of property crime reduces home values by about 3 percent. A more recent study by Steve Gibbons (2004) finds a decrease in property values of 10 percent for a one-standard-deviation increase in property crime. Over time, crime rates may change as the composition and characteristics of neighborhoods change. Reductions in crime levels may correspond to other changes that increase the value of property located in a particular neighborhood.

Here their focus is on "local crime rates" but they do not show that any crime rate increases or decreases because of the presence of local sex offenders. The study creates the perception that there is a local crime rate when there is none mentioned with respect to the area where the sex offenders lived.

Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2011

* * Research Papers on this Topic * *
"Estimating the Effect of Crime Risk on Property Values and Time on Market: Evidence from Megan’s Law in Virginia" (Brastow 2010)

Fear of Crime and Housing Prices: Household Reactions to Sex Offender Registries (Pope 2008)

"Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws" (Linden 2008)

"There Goes the Neighborhood? Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values From Megan’s Laws" (Linden 2006)

The effect of proximity to a registered sex offender's residence on single-family house selling price.(features) (Larsen 2003)

"The Impact of Megan’s Law on Real Estate Values" (Bell 1998)

MEGAN'S LAW: NEW RISKS FOR REAL ESTATE LICENSES? (Goodman)

Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2011

Is it constitutional to FORCE sex offender registrants to carry the governments message?

QUESTION:

During oral arguments of Smith v Doe, US Supreme court case (2003), there were things said by the Justices and lawyers which TODAY makes us question the legality of certain things registrants are forced to do TODAY which was not part of registration at the time of the US Supreme court case (2003).

We will not be able to answer these questions, but, lets say this is a heads up for folks to get lawyers to look for the source of the US Justices comments, and raise them in a new court action today.

The FULL text of the Oral Argument can be found HERE, however we are only addressing the portion below. Further discussion after the Justices' comments:

Mr. Roberts: Could... could the State require a special mark on your license plate?

Mr. Olson: --No, I... well, I don't know, Justice Kennedy, but I would say that would be considerably different than what's here because that would--

Mr. Roberts: I don't think it's very different.

Mr. Olson: --Pardon me?

Mr. Roberts: I don't think it's very different.

Mr. Olson: I... I respectfully submit that it's a great deal different.

That mark on your license plate, or mark on your forehead would go wherever you would go.

It would require you to carry the government's message rather than the government supplying the message.

Mr. Roberts: Well, this statute requires you to make the government's message four times a year.

Mr. Olson: It only... it doesn't require you to make the government's message four times a year.

The government's message, I respectfully submit, is made when a citizen submits an inquiry to the State through the Internet listing.

All... it is required four times a year is to advise the government of a current location or current information so that the information on the registry is accurate and... and up-to-date.

This is information that citizens have requested of their government.

Their government has the information of people who have committed certain types of crimes, who society has perceived as particularly dangerous.

It's a self-protective mechanism.

The... not only the--

Mr. Roberts: But they... the Megan's Laws are not all one size and shape.

I mean, some of them have the disclaimer right on the page saying we're not labeling this person dangerous and... and have a chance for a person to get off it.

Here, because there's no give, it does have a punitive feel.

I mean, as far as the Federal legislation is concerned, a State that tells the whole truth... is that... that kind of law is totally acceptable within the Federal requirement, isn't it?

Mr. Olson: --It... it would seem to... well, I think the answer is that yes, it would because the Federal statute simply prescribes a floor.

It's going to be virtually impossible and quite burdensome for the State to supply what you suggest would be complete information about any individual.

What the parents and the--

Mr. Roberts: It doesn't... at least to say what... whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony, the disclaimer certainly to... to say, now we are not labeling this person a forever sex offender.

We are labeling this person a convicted--

Mr. Olson: --Well, and that is all that the registry does, and I submit that to the extent that your question goes to any of the seven Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez factors, it's excessiveness is... on... on the scale.

Mr. Roberts: --Yes.

Mr. Olson: And I would submit that this registry and this information, providing truthful, public record, readily accessible information is... is minimal.

Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Olson.

In the minds of the Justices and lawyers there is a difference as to "who carries the message" the registrant or the government? That sentence implies there is something obscure in law on that point, and very likely one is constitutional and the other not constitutional. Better minds need to grasp this and resolve that distinction. With that said, here are some examples:

UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Judge nixes graphic anti-smoking ads " A federal judge has snuffed out a government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images about the dangers of smoking on cigarette packs. Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon said in Wednesday’s ruling those requirements were a violation of free speech." See also: Government Speech and North Carolina's 'Choose Life' License Plate

CONSTITUTIONAL:
Sentence for theft is humiliation in Bedford town center; or Poetic key to justice? Creativity (Various types of Public Punishments as their sentence).

Traditionally when someone is forced to carry the government message it has been as part of the punishment for the crime convicted of.

Today this is important where registrants' State IDs, Drivers Licenses, License plates and more recently -social networks- are concerned.

---

Further excellent research by a reader:
Wooley v. Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1977)

eAdvocate Note about this case: However, I see a couple of concerns:

1) A license plate is displayed publicly, designed to be that way. A driver's license is not meant to be displayed publicly;

2) The government does not require a person to show anyone other than police. their driver's license, merchants are the ones who want to see a DL, thats not the government, neither does the government require the merchant t do that.

Same Reader brings us this:
Signs of the Times: Scarlet Letter Probation Conditions (Note: Buried in the links of this document is further documents on this discussion)

Additional research we found this:
Do judicial "scarlet letters" violate the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the eight amendment and in it is this case: GOLDSCHMITT v. STATE about putting messages on drivers' licenses. Must read...need to do other things right now. grrrrrr

---

DANGEROUSNESS Footnote:
Further, notice carefully that Justices were of the belief that the state was NOT declaring registrants as being dangerous. TODAY with tiers they are!

Can Failure to register as a sex offender get expunged?

QUESTION:

This question and answers come from an online "Ask a Lawyer" site.

Question by its Texas viewer:
As a minor I was charged with a aggravated sexual assault "this is not on my record" what is on my record is a failure to register as a sex offender. I was in the middle of moving houses and I didn't comply with my registration, is there anything I can do about the failure to register as a sex offender that is on my record? I would no longer have to register as a sex offender in 2013 because i was a minor when this happened.

Answer Lawyer-1:
If your Failure to Register charge resulted in a criminal conviction, you cannot expunge the arrest. Unfortunately, the conviction and the arrest will remain on your record. If the charge was dismissed or you were acquitted, you should speak with an attorney about getting an expunction of your arrest record on that charge. Good luck to you.

Answer Lawyer-2:
Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to get those records expunged if you were convicted or received any kind of felony probation, including deferred adjudication. I was prepared to answer that you wouldn't even qualify to have the records nondisclosed ("sealed"), because being required to register will normally make you in eligible. I went to look at the statute that says that so I could quote you the exact language, and now I'm not so sure about that. Here's the statute section that potentially disqualifies you:

Section 411.081 Texas Government Code

(e)...A person is not entitled to petition the court under Subsection (d) if the person was placed on the deferred adjudication community supervision for or has been previously convicted or placed on any other deferred adjudication for:

(1) an offense requiring registration as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure;

If you were adjudicated for a sexual assault case as a juvenile offender, rather than being handled as an adult, I believe you'd only be considered to be "convicted" if you ended up going to TYC or got certified as an adult. I could be wrong about that, and I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think there may be a loophole there specifically because of it being a juvenile offense. I would imagine that the DA would probably oppose it, realistically, which would mean you'd have to have a contested hearing so the judge could decide 1) if my theory about your actually not having a sexual assault conviction is a valid way to look at the situation, and 2) whether it would be "in the best interest of justice" (which means the judge can do whatever seems right to them, and there's no way to appeal the decision). But given your lack of other options, I think a nondisclosure might be worth going after. Good luck.
Page cited from which may have more Answers

Do you believe Tiers and Levels have the same meaning and purpose?

TRUTH: No, Proof follows:

No, tiers and levels have different meanings and serve different purposes.

Traditional Risk Assessments:

Compared to clinical methods, actuarial risk instruments are a preferred method to discern sex offenders risk for sexual as well as violent recidivism because, unlike clinical practices, they are considered inexpensive, objective and modestly accurate. Scientists argue that risk instruments that employ only static, or historic measures of offender characteristics, rather than dynamic, are certainly sufficient for the purposes of gauging individuals’ likelihood of recidivism. See Sex Offender Risk Assessment Institute of Public Policy Truman School of Public Affairs University of Missouri – Columbia

Risk assessment systems result in defining "Levels" of risk:

Level 1 (low risk of repeat offense), or

Level 2 (moderate risk of repeat offense), or

Level 3 (high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists).

See NY Risk Level & Designation Determination

All traditional risk assessment systems will use words like, risk, assessment, dangerousness, recidivism etc. which defines their intended purpose. The result of these assessments are levels of risk likelihood of recidivism, clearly defined.

However, under the Adam Walsh Act we find something never before heard of in history. A tier assignment system, a wolf in sheep's clothing, without any stated intent of risk assessment, in fact, its stated intent is otherwise.

SORNA's Tier Assignment System (TAS): Everything you thought you knew is about to change, truths revealed, this is an expose of its real -but hidden- purpose. It is cunning, devious, cruel, and genius at the same time; its real purpose is not what it seems.

SORNA does not use these words "classification, risk, dangerousness, punishment or 'offense based'" in its discussion of tiers! Accordingly, tier assignment purpose has to be other than flagging registrants as dangerous or a risk. Right?

In SORNA it clearly says, tier assignment is used to inform registrants when they are required to verify their information, in person(42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916).

So why does the public need to know something, whose only purpose is, to tell registrants when to do their verification and for how long? Registrants' tier levels have no public safety value?

Public Perception of Tiers: There is no doubt the SORNA/TAS system is a risk based classification system of a devious kind, a wolf in sheep's clothing, resulting in a dangerousness rating, even though certain words are purposely omitted from SORNA discussion on tiers. Historically the public has been primed to believe "Levels" meant levels of dangerousness, because of states that have/had traditional risk assessment systems (which arrive at dangerousness levels of 1-2-3, meaning likelihood of re-offense). Now with the coming of SORNA/TAS tiers and all the political and media hype, tiers are now believed to have the same meaning and purpose as levels. Levels 1-2-3 = Tiers I-II-II.

In a recent news article Target 8 News had this to say:

"One of ___' rape victims says he's dangerous and belongs on the list as a predator, though she'd rather see his name in an obituary. But there is nothing on the registry that actually says Tier 3 is the most dangerous. That's something you have to figure out for yourself." "Michigan sex offender tiers confusing" (5-8-12 by Ken Kolker)

Here we see a law firm believing -tiers mean dangerousness-:

Michigan law calls for sex offenders to be registered in three tiers, based on the crime committed, their risk of reoffending and their perceived danger to the public. For example, Level 1 offenders have a low risk of committing future crimes and pose a minimal public safety risk. Each tier has different requirements, particularly concerning registration and reporting.

All offenders must report, in person, to law enforcement officers on a scheduled basis. Level 3 offenders have the most rigorous reporting schedule. They must report during the first 15 days of the months of October, July, April and January in order to confirm their addresses. Level 2 offenders must report in January and July, while Level 1 offenders must report once a year in January.

Offenders convicted of a Level 3 offense are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives. Level 2 offenders must register for 25 years, and Level 1 for 15 years. Registry Reporting Requirements for Michigan Sex Offenders (6-17-12 by Garton & Vogt, P.C.)

SORNA/TAS does not command lawmakers or others to explain the real meaning and purpose of Tiers, as it is written into SORNA (a system of notifying registrants when they are to report to verify their information (42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916)).

Absent from SORNA is any command to show the tier level on the public registry, in fact, SORNA only requires "The jurisdiction shall maintain the Internet site in a manner that will permit the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender ..." 42 USC 16918(a) and as to the National Sex Offender public registry "The Website shall allow the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender ..." 42 USC 16920(b).

Given the SORNA stated purpose of "tiers" why is that information not exempted from the public registry? It is quite apparent that Lawmakers want the public misconstruction to continue. Why?

Because it suits the hidden purpose of further punishing registrants, by the community where registrants live, work and go to school, without lawmakers saying, that is what TAS was designed to do. Think about it, why does the public need to know about tiers, if their purpose pertains only to something the registrant needs to do at specified times?

And, until you fully analyze SORNA/TAS and its -intended effects- you will not see this subtle and onerous gotcha system. The gotcha is, that, Lawmakers through TAS do not inflict further punishment, TAS is DESIGNED so that registrants are further punished by the community where registrants live, work and go to school. It took genius (many legal minds) to design this gotcha system, and TAS also effectively TAKES AWAY from registrants, and public view, registrants' efforts at rehabilitation during serving of their sentences. This places registrants in a PERPETUAL FALSE LIGHT before the public eye, many for the rest of their lives; if that isn't further punishment, nothing is.

Tiers and levels have different meanings and purpose, need more be said...

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

What Is SARATSO?

QUESTION:

The term SARATSO refers to State authorized risk assessment tools used for evaluating sex offenders. Senate Bill 1128, Alquist (Chapter 337, Statutes of 2006) established the state committee, known as the SARATSO (State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders) Review Committee, to consider the selection of the risk assessment tools for California.

To learn more about SARATSO Click Here

Do sex offenders who live together or in close proximity to each other re-offend at a higher rate?

QUESTION:

As best we can figure this idea is the result of a far out Politician who is trying to garner more supporters, because we can find no support for the principle. To start with former offenders will have a tendency to cluster because of ineffective residency laws and offenders' loss of employment due to newer laws, which means they need cheaper living arrangements. Lawmakers create the problem then complain it exists; Lawmakers are their own worst enemy.

Admittedly there is a belief that a group of former offenders living together makes the surrounding community more dangerous, but there is no authority -that we know of- to support that theory either. Over time we have seen that people and politicians will conger up all sorts of claims, always unsupported, to rid their community of sex offenders; its banishment they want!

Interestingly enough there is research to support that, former offenders living together is good. Yes, GOOD! see this 2004 Colorado report to its legislature:

Do the living arrangements of sex offenders, including Shared Living Arrangements, have an impact on community safety?

The findings and subsequent recommendations are presented below.

High-risk sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements had significantly fewer violations than those living in other living arrangements. In addition, the average overall number of violations was low in Shared Living Arrangements, which is surprising, given that this was the only residence type that had significantly more highrisk sex offenders. Shared Living Arrangements also had one of the shortest amounts of time between when a sex offender committed a violation and when the probation officer or treatment provider found out about the violation. In addition, the roommates of sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements called in violations of probation and treatment requirements to the sex offender’s treatment provider and probation officer more times than roommates in any other living arrangement. This leads back to the conclusion that a positive support system, which 100% of the Shared Living Arrangements provided, is an important component of being successful in treatment.

Recommendation:
Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders living in the community. Source: REPORT ON SAFETY ISSUES RAISED BY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR AND LOCATION OF SEX OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY

Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behaviors, such as returning home late or having contact with children.

In California, the San Diego County District Attorney's FAQ: What is the rationale for placing multiple patients at the same location? has this in response "However, more importantly according to DMH, the research indicates that sex offenders living together who are in treatment reoffend at lower rates that those living alone."

And, as to making the immediate community more dangerous, in a 2003 Minnesota Report to its Legislature. Of the 13 sex offenders who did re-offend between 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2002, none of them re-offended in their immediate community; their offenses were mile/s away from where they lived. see LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT ISSUES: 2003 Report to the Legislature (Revised 2004)

Finally, if anyone has other information or studies we can cite, positive or negative, please contact us and we will update this; no hearsay please.

Do sex offenders commit murder or homicide more frequently than other types of offenders?

QUESTION:

According to a 2006 study by Lisa L. Sample "Findings indicate that sex offenders do not frequently commit murder, nor do they commit homicide at higher rates than other types of offenders."

Study: An Examination of the Degree to Which Sex Offenders Kill

Abstract:
It seems clear that most of our current sex offender policies and those being proposed for the future are the result of sexually related homicides against children committed by previously convicted sex offenders. Given the enactment of these laws, one implicit legislative assumption emerges: that many, if not most, sex offenders go on to kill. This study explores the assumption that sex offenders often kill their victims. Specifically, criminal history information from Illinois from 1990 to 1997 is analyzed to examine the degree to which sex offenders are charged with murder in conjunction with a sex crime and the likelihood of arrested sex offenders experiencing a future arrest for homicide. These results are compared to those found for other types of nonsexual offenders. Findings indicate that sex offenders do not frequently commit murder, nor do they commit homicide at higher rates than other types of offenders.