At last a state court has shut down their version of the infamous “Megan’s Law” [Nov. 21 decision]. The Georgia Supreme Court’s particular target was the provision that prohibited freed sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, or any other place that children might congregate, including more than 150,000 bus stops in the state. The ban applied even when a school or the like opened in an area where an offender was already living. This was a bit too Draconian for a state not noted for equal justice for all. The opinion states, in part. “Under the terms of that statute, it is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected ” .. It would be nice if other states would examine their version of Megan’s Law. You will find very few reports of crimes being prevented by depriving people from the slim chance of repairing their life — without being treated like a leper. AL HARRIS Ballston Spa
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com. RED-FACE DEPT.
Recently I took to task the Schenectady County task force on sexoffenders for holding their first meeting without any announcement to the public, which I confi - dently declared to be illegal. I stand corrected by no less an authority than Bob Freeman, executive director of the state’s Committee on Open Government, who assures me that as an advisory body, the county task force is not subject to the Open Meetings Law. I apologize. Then, as if that weren’t enough, the second time I mentioned Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island in this column recently I identified him as Steve Cohen. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know. I apologize for that one too. DEAD DEADLINE Speaking of Schenectady’s task force on sex offenders, you can forget about its 90-day deadline for reporting back to the county Legislature, a deadline that has already passed. County Attorney Chris Gardner, who chairs the task force, says it hasn’t even met since the first unproductive one-hour session, but no matter —it will meet again soon, he promises. I guess the deadline just doesn’t mean anything, despite being part of the law that created the body. As for whether Gardner will let us, the public, know about future meetings so we can listen in, despite not being legally obliged to do so, I could not elicit a commitment.
ALBANY Counties sued over sex offender residence laws BY JILL BRYCE Gazette Reporter
An attorney who says the laws that dictate how far a sex offender must live from schools and day care facilities are unconstitutional has filed lawsuits in several counties on behalf of sex offenders. Terence Kindlon, an Albanybased criminal defense attorney, filed the lawsuits against the counties where the unidentifi ed sex offenders reside. Kindlon said he represents fi ve criminal defendants and filed motions to have charges against them dismissed. One client resides in Albany County, three in Rensselaer County and one in Washington County. No lawsuits are being filed in Schenectady County, and Kindlon said that county acted wisely and exercised some restraint on its sex offender law when it rescinded the more restrictive parts of it. “The most important fact is the state of New York already does a perfectly adequate job of regulating sex offenders,” said Kindlon. “ It doesn’t guarantee there won’t be recidivism, but we certainly have a regulatory scheme in place right now. “We have parole, probation, jail, prison, registration and Megan’s Law, which are working,” he said. If deficiencies exist, the state Legislature will change the law, Kindlon said. “In this instance, the Legislature doesn’t need the help of county legislatures.” He said he’s even more confident in his argument now that the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state’s restrictions on where sex offenders may live after they’re released from prison. Georgia’s law prohibited sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and other places where children may gather, including the state’s 150,000 or so school bus stops. Kindlon said his Albany County client is a Level 3 offender, who was convicted of forcibly raping a 14-year-old girl almost 20 years ago. His client, who is now elderly and disabled, faced arrest for violating the Albany County law after a sweep in September by police. The man, whom he would not identify, had served 18 years in prison, was on parole and has serious physical disabilities. He is diabetic, has high blood pressure, and because he was a military veteran who was honorably discharged, is receiving treatment at the Stratton Veterans Administration Hospital. He has no car and can’t drive or work. When he was released from prison, his parole officer found him an apartment in Albany, near the VA and under the law he was grandfathered in. But when his landlord renovated the building, he evicted everyone, including this Level 3 sex offender. Kindlon said the man looked at 30 apartments and each one was in a restricted zone. “He couldn’t find any place he could afford that was not in a restricted zone. It was proposed he move to a rundown hotel in Colonie.” Before a possible arrest, Kindlon filed a lawsuit on behalf of the man against Albany County and secured an agreement from the Albany County District Attorney’s Offi ce that it would hold off on prosecution and wait until the courts decide if the local law is constitutional. The county laws on sex offenders are onerous to enforce and create additional problems, according to Kindlon. “[Sex offenders] say ‘I can’t do this anymore. I can’t do it. I quit,’ and they go underground. Now, rather than try to reintegrate them into society, we drive them out, “ Kindlon said. When there are county laws on top of state laws, it adds a level of enforcement that hinders rather than helps, he said. His client in Washington County, who is married with a family, recently purchased a home, notified authorities he was a sex offender and was told he was too close to a day care center and had to move. Kindlon said he has three clients in Rensselaer County and all three are living in a motel because there’s no place else for them to live under the county law. Despite the varying degrees of their crimes — one was convicted of misdemeanor sex offense and given probation, while another was charged with raping a minor — they are all being treated the same, he said. “We are confident if we get a ruling in a Supreme Court case it will demonstrate the law is not constitutional. Once that’s been demonstrated, everyone out there will fold their tents,” Kindlon said. Meanwhile, eight registered sex offenders were arrested in September in Albany County for not complying with the county law that prohibits them from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day care center. At the time, District Attorney P. David Soares said the investigation was done to determine if individuals were in compliance with the law and 33 were found not to be in compliance. They were notifi ed that they had to comply by moving to an apartment or home that is not within 1,000 feet of a school or nursery. Soares said even after they were given notice, eight people failed to comply and were charged with violating local law, a class A misdemeanor that carries a possible one-year jail sentence. He said at the time his offi ce and local police will continue to monitor the registered sex offenders throughout the year. Registered sex offenders in New York are classified by the risk of reoffense and must register with the local police in the municipality in which they live. A court determines whether an offender is a level 1, which is low risk; level 2, moderate risk; or level 3, high risk. The Sex Offender Registration Act, New York’s version of Megan’s Law, was signed in July 1995 and became effective Jan. 21, 1996.
My brother-in-law forwarded me a news article the other day that I had to check several times to make sure wasn’t from The Onion: A girl in Missouri was given detention for hugging her friends outside the school building. Yes, apparently we’ve gotten so hysterically paranoid about touch that entire school districts forbid any touch between anyone for any reason.
I understand that this looks like a great way to avoid judgment calls. But (a) I don’t think it’ll even work for that and (b) it sounds like a recipe for widespread mental breakdowns to me. Human beings need touch. I’m not sure I would’ve made it through middle school without hugs from the few friends I did have. Certainly not high school.
This is just the latest in a string of related absurdities: Teachers are fired for physically separating fighting students or threatened with lawsuits for dragging a child who’d gotten a potentially blinding chemical in her eyes into the bathroom to flush them out. Kindergarteners are labeled “budding sex offenders,” put in counseling, and sent to schools for delinquents for trying to kiss or goose a classmate. You’re probably safer punching someone in a school these days than you are laying a friendly or affectionate hand on his shoulder.
This paranoia about touch has infected a generation. My mother recently told me she has had to stop teaching the Gwendolyn Brooks poem “Bronzeville Woman in a Red Hat” to her college freshmen. In the poem, a white woman who had reluctantly hired a black maid flips out when the maid kisses her child to comfort him when he gets hurt. Despite the obvious emphasis on race throughout the poem (“her creamy child kissed by the black maid!”), my mother ends up with some students insisting, vehemently, that the maid is a sexual abuser. When a black student told her “I don’t see how you can defend [the maid],” my mother, horrified, gave up on teaching the poem.
This is terrifying.
It’s terrifying because it shows that our fear of touch and our inability to identify actual abuse has risen to the level of paranoia that allows for witch hunts—we have an accusation that can be leveled at anyone with little proof, with life-destroying results, and the stigma of that accusation lasts even if disproved. It’s terrifying because the threat of such accusations is making acts of comfort and trust that are necessary for children’s healthy development against the rules in nearly every place they go.
And it’s most terrifying because it doesn’t protect children from abuse. If anything, it makes it more likely.
The vast majority of childhood sexual abuse happens with people a child knows, and much of that is within the intimate family. When we isolate children in their immediate families and never allow them any contact or conversation with other adults, it becomes much easier for incest to go undiscovered.
When we pour resources into “rehabilitating” gregarious 6-year-olds, often through programs that themselves could be called emotionally abusive, but leave proven anti-bullying programs languishing, we leave kids vulnerable to other kinds of abuse.
When we funnel our scarce public dollars into measures to ease our anxiety, like permanent sex-offender registries, residency bans, and civil confinement, instead of listening to what the people in law enforcement who monitor sex offenders say will reduce recidivism—stable housing, a job, and regular monitoring—we make our kids less safe, not more.
If we’re serious about reducing childhood sexual abuse—which we damn well ought to be—there are concrete things we can put our time, money, and attention toward that will actually do that.
For example, many kids who are being abused come in contact with Child Protective Services or the foster-care system, which is notorious for being too overburdened to fully protect the kids in its care. There are some great prevention services that work with families deemed “at risk.” How about giving them more funding and mandating that any family that has had a child taken away by CPS and is now getting that child back work with those agencies for a year? How about taking the young, stressed, and inexperienced CPS caseworkers and mandating that they get the same training in child development, appropriate parenting, and attachment disorders that foster parents are required to get? How about reducing caseloads across the system, especially of law guardians (who are supposed to advocate for the child’s best interest in a foster care case), so everyone can actually find out the details and nuance of each case, and so there can be lower turnover in caseworkers?
Beyond the foster-care system, how about respite care for overstressed parents? How about better funding for community mental-health clinics that can serve both parents and children? Drug and alcohol rehab? I could keep brainstorming, but there are better people than I out there to formulate the specifics. The point is, policies to protect kids should be judged on being functional, not feel-good.
I am a parent, and lord knows, I understand wanting to protect my child from the big bad world. But even more than that, I know that it’s a crying shame to be claiming to “protect the children” using measures that only reduce the diffuse anxiety of parents (or protect people from lawsuits by those parents) at the expense of measures that might protect kids who are actually getting hurt. Let’s get our priorities in order.
Yesterday, CNN’s Erica Hill featured an interview with Terry Kindlon, the much-admired Albany, NY, criminal defense lawyer, who is simultaneously bringing pro bono lawsuits against sex offender residency restrictions in three Capital Region counties (see our prior post). The CNN Prime News interview, which runs over 5 minutes, is called “Registered Sex Offenders Sue: A group of sex offenders wants to change the laws that dictate where they live” (Dec. 5, 2007) If you’re interested in the issues surrounding sex offender residency restrictions [SORRs], you should click on the interview.
As an article in today’s Schenectady Daily Gazette explains, Kindlon represents five sex offenders with charges pending against them for failing to comply with local SORR laws. “One client resides in Albany County, three in Rensselaer County and one in Washington County.” (”Counties sued over sex offender residence laws,” Dec. 6, 2007; and see, “Sex offenders sue over residency laws” (WNYT.com, Dec. 3, 2007)
In the CNN interview, Hill seems amazed that Terry, as the father of seven and grandfather of five, appears willing to have sex offenders live near children and other human beings. Hill starts by saying, “Changing this law would mean that a sex offender could live next to your family. Are you okay with that?” Terry’s response is:
“Our purpose is not to invite sex offenders to move onto Sesame Street. . . Our point is to overcome the destructive effects of too much regulation.”
Kindlon makes some important points that need to be heard by a wide audience:
There are over 600,000 registered sex offenders in our society. This is “a group of people who admittedly have to be supervised.” However, the regulatory scheme has to be rational. “If the laws become too harsh you have driven them out of society” and “begin to create whole cities where they are not allowed to live,” forcing them into places with no public transportation and no jobs. More sex offenders would be registering if the housing requirements were not so strict. Pressed on whether we can “guarantee the safety of residents” without these residency laws, Kindlon says we can’t give any guarantees, but driving people underground is the opposite of what we intended to do with these laws.
Purgatory, USA? When Erica Hill noted that some people would have no sympathy for the sex offenders and say “too bad, they shouldn’t have done this sort of thing in the first place,” Kindlon replied: “I live in a place called America. I don’t live in a place called purgatory.” That’s an interesting comparison, but Purgatory would be preferable to the Limbo where politicians and “concerned” parents seem to want to send sex offenders. With Purgatory, you do your time for your sins, and then you get out and have a crack at Paradise. With Limbo, you are stuck suffering for all eternity.
Although I respect Terry Kindlon’s legal skills and greatly appreciate his pro bono efforts on behalf of sex offender (and in other civil liberties cases), I want to point out a couple of disagreements that I have with his choice of issues to emphasize in recent media interviews.
Over and over, Terry has stressed that the residency laws will drive sex offenders underground, where they will be unregistered and unmonitorable. (He even claimed on CNN that about half of SOs in Georgia were no longer registering, a number that sounds rather high.) While pushing offenders to choose not to register is clearly one problem with SORRs, I am reluctant to focus so completely on this particular unintended result. First, “these guys won’t obey that law” is seldom an argument that creates sympathy for a group that is already disliked and distrusted (and usually creates the response, “then we’ll damn well make sure they do comply, with harsher penalties and more manpower”). More important, there are many other significant undesirable effects that can and should be stressed — especially because they affect the majority of offenders who are willing to comply with the restrictions, and who are unlikely to re-offend. Thus, predictable, inevitable effects such as disrupted family relations, inability to find affordable housing, poorer access to transportation, jobs and counseling services, all reduce the stability that experts believe help to reduce the chances of recidivism. (see our post “Sunday papers question sex offender laws,” Sept. 9, 2007) More to the point: We should be making sure that the public understands that there is no reason to believe residency restrictions reduce recidivism rates — and many reasons to believe they may matters worse. Where you live has not been shown to relate to whether you are likely to re-offender or who your target is likely to be. See, e.g., Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Corrections, April 2007), which we quoted back in August. And, across the nation, law enforcement officials have come out against the use of SORRs, because they are ineffective, costly to enforce and counterproductive. Thus, the five-page statement by Iowa County attorneys explains that their law “does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measure.”
Terry also continues to place major emphasis on the recent Georgia Supreme Court decision in the Georgia decision in Mann v. Dept. of Corrections. (which we discuss here) Thus, he told CNN’s audience that Georgia “struck down a state law that is quite similar to laws we are seeking to have declared unconstitutional in New York State.” And, the Gazette article today notes “[Kindlon] said he’s even more confident in his argument now that the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state’s restrictions on where sex offenders may live after they’re released from prison.” The problem, of course, is that the Mann case is totally based on the statute’s failure to contain a grandfather clause, and on the property right of a homeowner not to be unreasonably forced to move. In the Court’s general statements about the unseemly effects of the law fit that narrow context. In Mann, the plaintiff and other sex offenders “face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes.” As far as I know, none of the laws challenged by Kindlon share this feature. Indeed, he told the Gazette that Schenectady County’s SORR is not being challenged, because “that county acted wisely and exercised some restraint on its sex offender law when it rescinded the more restrictive parts of it.”
Of course, what Schenectady County did was to add a grandfather clause by voiding the section that would evict a sex offender already living in an exclusion zone, or when a school or day care center moved nearby. As I said on Nov. 29th, there are some other very good constitutional reasons for striking down the local SORRs (which are briefly summarized below the fold), but the differences between them and the Georgia statute and decision make pointing to Mann without any disclaimers unnecessarily misleading and unhelpful for any members of the public who would actually like to understand the legal principles being defended.
Terry Kindlon told the Gazette: “We are confident if we get a ruling in a Supreme Court case it will demonstrate the law is not constitutional. Once that’s been demonstrated, everyone out there will fold their tents.” I think he’s correct, thank him for his efforts, and wish him and his client’s speedy justice. Then, perhaps, politicians who have been pandering to and whipping up sex offender fears will be able to come up with meaningful (and constitutional) solutions. SORR laws already on the books could then be rescinded, and those still inexplicably under consideration (as in Schuyler County, NY) tabled forever.
As we noted ,at the time, an article in the Albany Times Union summarized the SORR laws in local counties, last September (“Efforts to protect kids often carry own risks: Regional laws restricting residency for paroled sex offenders can be counterproductive, some officials say,” Sept. 9, 2007). Here is what it said about the Counties involved in Kindlon’s lawsuits:
Albany County: Levels 2 and 3 can not reside within 1,000 feet of a school or child-care facility.
Rensselaer County: Levels 2 and 3 cannot reside within 2,000 feet of a school or child-care facility.
Washington County: All levels cannot reside or work within 1,000 feet of schools, child-care facilities, parks, playgrounds, youth centers, public swimming areas, libraries, the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and the Warren-Washington County ARC. Offenders must remain at least 150 feet from school bus stops.
In the CNN interview, Hill seems amazed that Terry, as the father of seven and grandfather of five, appears willing to have sex offenders live near children and other human beings. Hill starts by saying, “Changing this law would mean that a sex offender could live next to your family. Are you okay with that?” Terry’s response is:
People with ideas like that are part of "The Minority Report"...... >
basically it states "I want the government to pre-test every one before they move into/buy/rent a home/apartment, because I'm not like that, 'they are'."
I bet there are sex offenders in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS (not caught and convicted and probably will never be).....but damn, we like the tax revenue from the strip/adult/gentlemans clubs and bookstores(this I say tongue in cheek)---clubs and bookstores(chess club/barnes noble) in my mind evoke the idea of knowledge,community,educating etc, not tittlating animal instincts and one of the basest of human natures.............as for the 'gentlemen'---they know what they are not......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
FONDA Man first to be prosecuted locally under new sex law Defendant admitted using stolen credit card to hire strippers BY EDWARD MUNGER JR. Gazette Reporter
A Schenectady County man who admitted to hanging a cat and using a stolen credit card to hire strippers is the first defendant in Montgomery County to be prosecuted under a new law that stiffens penalties for sexually motivated crimes. Greg L. Soucia, 22, of 122 Elm St., Delanson, appeared in Montgomery County Court on Wednesday and pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary and aggravated cruelty to animals, District Attorney James “Jed” Conboy said. Soucia was arrested in August after a visitor to a Sprakers farm on Crosby Road discovered a dead black cat hanging from a roof rafter by a piece of string, according to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department investigation report. The investigation revealed Soucia was hired to watch the farm while the owner was away. Calls placed to the farmer’s home Wednesday were not returned. Upon return from his trip, the farmer discovered two other cats were missing, as were two credit cards that had been inside the house, according to the report. The farmer told investigators Soucia also neglected the work he was asked to perform at the farm, including feeding the animals, according to the investigation report. The farmer instructed Soucia not to enter the house, but only to open the “mud room” door to let the dogs out, according to the report. Soucia told an investigating deputy that he took a Visa credit card from inside the house and while at the residence, he used the credit card to hire two strippers from Sheer Pleasure in Schenectady. The investigation report states that the two strippers “performed in front of him for about an hour,” and charged him $600 for the service. Since there was a sexual motivation for the crime, Conboy said, Soucia was prosecuted under the “Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act,” which became state law in April. The law provides for continued management of sex offenders after the expiration of their criminal sentences to include longer periods of parole. It also mandates treatment for all sex offenders and eliminates parole for some sex offenders altogether, according to the Web site of the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. The law also added “sexually motivated felony” to the state’s Penal Code, which led to additional penalties in Soucia’s case, Conboy said. “If you commit a burglary and your goal is because of your own sexual gratification, it’s a sexually motivated felony,” Conboy said. The law heightens sentencing guidelines for crimes, including burglary, kidnapping, arson, promoting prostitution and others, according to the state’s Penal Law. Under the new law, Soucia at sentencing will be ordered to register as a sex offender and his sentence will also exceed the time typically imposed in a third-degree burglary case, Conboy said.
So let me get this straight...and I may be wrong here, but if a person steals credit cards and buys a plasma tv, they will be punished accordingly..correct?
But if a person steals credit cards and buys 'sexual favors', they're punishment will be harsher AND they must register as a sex offender...correct?
Sorry folks, but I don't quite see the reasoning here...really! Please someone help me make sense of all this!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
First I believe that the law as written is unconstitutional by giving a lesser sentence to a burglar who just steals your money as opposed to a person who steals your credit card and hires a stripper. They are both thieves and should receive the same sentence unless there was some kind of sexual offense committed against someone. This law will be changed as soon as a court hears a challenge from some lawyer who pushes the issue.
I'm glad to see you've all had the same reaction that I did this morning, when I saw the Gazette article. I did a write-up at f/k/a discussing and linking to the law, and learning that other states have passed similar legislation. See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/12/13/was-legal-news-1/
My conclusion was cheekier than usual, but warranted:
Of course, I’m not an expert in criminal law l. . . , but I’m going to go out on a limb and use some fancy legal terminology and analysis: No matter how much of a hard-on politicians have for sex offenders, “stiffening” the penality for crimes — and saddling people with the Sex Offender Label and all the consequent registration and supervisory obligations — whenever a prosecutor “proves” that a felony was motivated in “substantial part” for the defendant’s “sexual gratification” is simply un-American. It will throw a lot of cold water on a lot of immature male hormones. Increasing penalties because a person commits a non-sexual crime while presently or imminently horny, is a rather broad-sweeping approach to stopping sex abuse and sexual predation. Prosecutors should consider reading a constitution or two, or taking a cold shower, prior to drawing up charges under SOMTA.
D. A. Conboy told that Gazette, that in the absence of the sexually motivated felony, Soucia could have faced a prison term of one to three years. Instead, he faces a three-year determinate sentence with five years of post-release supervision.” As with the sex offender residency laws covered so often around here, I’ve got to say that, if this kind of law makes you feel more righteous and — especially — like you’re making our children and women-folk a lot safer, you appear to need a major reality check, and a significant boost in your EQ.
What if you steal a credit card, buy a dvd player and plasma tv, go to the local 'adult store' purchase 'legal' videos and play them for yourself(after you have already watched It's a Wonderful Life).....you are now a 'sex offender'??????
sounds like minority report to me....... I'd say you're a dirtbag.....
someone check out Mr.Flint and Mr.Heffner--see if they have any charges pending in NYS...oh, wait, NYS can tax their business and 'get in bed with them' too......the demons were cast out of the people and into the herd of pigs and the pigs ran off the ledge into the water killing themselves, and the person who cast out the demons was run out of town for ruining 'business as usual'......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
A sex offender is a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled guilty to, or pled Nolo contendere to a sex crime. Crimes requiring mandatory sex offender registration may include downloading pornographic material of persons under the age of 18, (child pornography), rape and even non-sexual offenses such as kidnapping. The term sexual offender is a broad term, with sexual predator being used to describe a more severe physical or repeat sexual offense.
Mr.Soucia's moral compass is obviously off but the punishment does not fit the crime. I don't see a sexual offense here. I do see a liar, a cheat, an animal abuser and a thief and maybe even a young man with too much testosterone!
Logged
