Murders of Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray blamed on Sex Offender Registry

OPINION: Press Release

Cambridge, MA-- Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) condemns in the strongest terms the recent murders of Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray by self-proclaimed vigilante Patrick Drum. According to Paul Shannon, Director of RSOL, "Washington State’s Sex Offender registry does not protect the public and in fact provides a taxpayer-financed tool for vigilantes wishing to commit murder and other horrendous acts of vigilantism.”

“Gary Blanton is not a rapist. He was only 17 years of age himself when he engaged in consensual sexual contact with a17-year-old girl he was dating,” Shannon said. The girl’s parents filed charges, however, citing that she could not give legal consent due to a handicapping condition. Gary’s death leaves his young wife Leslie alone to raise their sons Gary, Jr. and Skylar, both under the age of three.

“What is most troubling,” says Shannon, “is that this is not the first incident where a person’s name being listed on the public sex offender registry has led to his murder.” In 2005, two men who were on the Washington State Sex Offender Registry were shot and killed in Bellingham by a vigilante who gained access to their home by posing as a law enforcement officer. Authorities investigating that shooting called it “one of the nation's most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.” (Seattle Times, August 30, 2005)

The two men murdered in 2005 (Hank Eisses and Victor Vasques) were a “success story,” according to Kit Bail, the Department of Corrections field supervisor for Whatcom County. In an interview at the time, Bail said, “These guys were doing fine. They were employed. They were living according to the conditions.” She went on to state that the killings should “not be the basis on which we change the laws on registration, but if it is a vigilante act, it gives one pause.”

Examining the 2005 murders, John La Fond, an attorney who had opposed Washington’s public registration law on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, uncovered dozens of assaults and harassment incidents against sex offenders, including one case in 1993 where the house lived in by the family of a registrant was burned down just as he was moving back home. It is too late to save the four individuals who died in these carefully planned vigilante attacks, Shannon acknowledges, but he wonders, “How many must die before Washington acts?”

Shannon asks, “What has the state of Washington done during the intervening seven years to prevent this from happening again? RSOL is not aware of any action taken subsequent to the 2005 murders that would ameliorate the risk to registrants and their families. If they were concerned then, why was no action taken? And what will they do now that two more have been murdered at the hands of a vigilante?”

RSOL believes that the ultimate solution is that access to home addresses of registrants should be available only to law enforcement rather than the general public. While this dramatic change in policy would require legislative action, RSOL calls on Governor Gregoire to immediately issue an emergency order removing home addresses from the sex offender website. In addition, the Sex Offender Policy Board must commit itself to assuring the safety and well being not only of the men and women on its sex offender registry but also the family members of those registrants. Shannon says, “These people on the registry, and especially children such as Skylar and Gary Jr., are citizens entitled to equal protection the same as any other. They do not deserve to be made deliberate and helpless targets for vigilantes.”

RSOL-National
June 18, 2012
Contact: Paul Shannon
919.780.4510

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

There are over 8 Million people who regularly commit sex offenses and will escape the registry!

TRUTH: Proof follows:

What? Right, over 8 million people and the number grows daily.

If you were to stand in a room of 10 adults or so, at least four or more of them are sex offenders. Have you ever attended a family gathering, if so, you were next to a few sex offenders and didn't know it. At the shopping mall, yup, you were shopping with several sex offenders and you didn't know it. The Adam Walsh Act commands us to look at a person TODAY as though they just committed their sex act (crime), even though it may have occurred 5-10-20-30 years ago!

Oh, you say this is crazy! Well, get ready for a reality check.

The Center for Disease Control has just completed its 2011 "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)" report. Within that report is a section "Sexual Risk Behavior: HIV, STD, & Teen Pregnancy Prevention" which should cause parents of High School kids, to get a lump in their throats. Here are a few of the findings:

Many young people engage in sexual risk behaviors that can result in unintended health outcomes. For example, among U.S. high school students surveyed in 2011

47.4% had ever had sexual intercourse

33.7% had had sexual intercourse during the previous 3 months, and, of these

39.8% did not use a condom the last time they had sex

76.7% did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex

15.3% had had sex with four or more people during their life

Sexual risk behaviors place adolescents at risk for HIV infection, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and unintended pregnancy:

An estimated 8,300 young people aged 13–24 years in the 40 states reporting to CDC had HIV infection in 2009

Nearly half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years3

More than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 2009

To reduce sexual risk behaviors and related health problems among youth, schools and other youth-serving organizations can help young people adopt lifelong attitudes and behaviors that support their health and well-being—including behaviors that reduce their risk for HIV, other STDs, and unintended pregnancy.

Here we will discuss only the portions coded yellow, if folks want, you can dig into the study more (there is a wealth of other info. esp. on drugs) by clicking on the links which goto the original CDC site.

How many high school kids are sex offenders:
The above results from the 2011 questionnaire unfortunately the US Census Bureau's most recent High School figures are from 2008, so we will equate to those. 47.4% of 17.2 Million = 8,152,800 in high school have had sex! And, by today's laws they are all criminals, boys and girls alike.

Oh, you says it takes two to tango, and only one can be a victim and the other must be the offender? And, you cannot consent to sex if you are under 16? Great argument, but, in the world of statistics, they all have violated the law. None are exempt even if they are minors. But you say, there are minors on the registry today, how can that be? Humm, allowing for those who are truly violent juvenile offenders, bad lawyering or more likely parents that are upset that their child -in spite of the child's consent and willingness to participate, neither recognized by law- was violated, and the parents wanted revenge. Yup, revenge!

How long has this gone on:
Well the YRBSS report began in the early 1990s but that just means we only have stats to prove what is going on, it doesn't mean it hasn't gone on for many a moon. Reality check, it has, this conduct has gone on since the beginning of time.

Who are the sex offenders:
Early on I mentioned, a room full of adults, a family gathering, and folks you were shopping with, well, all of them went to high school at some point in their lives. Wow, about 47% of society is made up of sex offenders. Hey, that would mean 47% of Lawmakers are really sex offenders! That is why the laws they enact FOCUS on CONVICTED (i.e., court processed, to cover all contexts of convicted) offenders, to keep the focus off the fact that, if revealed, half of the U.S. would tumble and be on a registry; Congress and state Lawmakers included. Congress, in the Adam Walsh Act, allowed the US Attorney General to construe the law, and on 2-28-2007 published -effective immediately- a rule which said:

The Department of Justice is publishing this interim rule to specify that the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, title I of Public Law 109–248, apply to sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required before the enactment of that Act. (28 CFR Part 72)

While most folks will read that differently, it actually EXEMPTS or GRANTS a PASS to all past sex acts committed by parents, grandparents, and so on. Statistically and logically those folks are still sex offenders, they have done something that, if done today would cause them to be registered.

The moral of that story is, you are a sex offender, only if you get caught!

Who are the most dangerous sex offenders:
The Department of Justice, in 2003, published a recidivism study which showed a recidivism rate of 5.3% (over 3 years) for sex offenders released from prison. In that study is this propensity comment: "released sex offenders are four times more likely than other offenders to commit another sex offense."

Sounds bad, but there is something hidden in that propensity comment. Notice "than other offenders," well that means other types of offenders also commit sex offenses when released from prison. Here are the real numbers from that recidivism study:

DOJ pg-24 (Left Column):
"The 15 States in this study released a total of 272,211 prisoners. The 9,691 released sex offenders made up less than 4% of that total. Of the remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, 3,328 (1.3%) were RE-ARRESTED for a new sex crime within 3-years. By comparison, the 5.3% REARREST rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4-times higher. ..."

Number Released Prisoners	Offenders	ReArrested for New Sex Offense	New Sex Offenses by Released Prisoners	Pct. of New Sex Offenses
9,691	Sex Offenders	5.3%	517	13%
262,420	Non-Sex Offenders	1.3%	3,328	87%
272,211	All Offenders	1.4%	3,845	100%

The shocking fact is, that non-sex offenders released commit six times (3,328) the number of sex offenses than do sex offenders released (517). Someone needs to explain, why do Lawmakers IGNORE the harm to society caused by non sex offenders released, and impose burdens only on sex offenders released? Congress has known this, at least since that 2003 study, and they continue to ignore this. Is this called keeping the community safer?

Dangerousness from Another View:
The Adam Walsh Act mandates a tier based classification system of only formerly convicted sex offenders. Effectively it commands the public to look at former sex offenders at the point of their offense, and ignore any rehabilitation that may have taken place since the offense. Somehow that is supposed to show how dangerous former registered offenders are to the community, today? My mind must not work like a Politicians.

However, I find this AWA system very interesting. But I wonder, how dangerous are all those who have been EXEMPTED from AWA's laws, mentioned in this commentary? Remember, high school kids, and those now an adult living in communities today.

Well, the 2003 DOJ study answered that also, on page 36 notice the chart of Victim/Offender Relationship of over 76,000 former sex offenders who were in state prisons in 1997. The DOJ found that 96.5% of the sex offenses were perpetrated by Family, Friends and Acquaintances in the daily lives of the victim. (See chart below for breakdown):

Well, it seems we have come full circle, the real problem comes from folks who ARE NOT registered. Now, if this was the world of drugs we would see all sorts of therapy programs, grants for housing, and all kinds of other money spent to resolve the problem RATHER THAN, simply TRACKING those who have a drug problem.

Why is it that Lawmakers want to spend all of their time and resources on TRACKING FORMER CONVICTED sex offenders, ignoring the traditional programs (see drugs) that are used to resolve such issues, and reduce future victims. TRACKING former sex offenders will not affect the 96.5% who are causing new victims? Remember, the over 400,000 babies born in 2009 and those annually. Lawmakers, time to take the blinders off!

Think about it.

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