Because Farley is a republican, and fortunately for him, most of the people are against this law, which in turn makes the dems look bad.
So for Farley to say to 'the best ideas come from the public' is all political BS. You can bet if this idea came from the reps, he'd be singin' a different tune.
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
Whether it was the defeat of Ed Kosiur in the race for state Assembly, a lawsuit from the New York Civil Liberties Union, the strong opposition from town supervisors, the prospect of losing some seats in the next election, or all of the above, the Democrats who control the Schenectady County Legislature have decided to back down on their simple-minded, extreme sex offender legislation. This is good, but if they are going to do anything in this area — and it’s still not clear anything needs to be done — they should take their time and do it right. That would mean seeking the advice of those who work in the field and know something about it, including district attorneys, police, probation officers, mental health and treatment professionals — something lawmakers never did before passing this legislation. It would mean consulting with the Capital Region and New York State Centers for Sex Offender Management, which do take this kind of practical, unhysterical approach, trying to accurately assess the problem and determine what will work best. They want to know: Who are the different types of offenders? Just how dangerous are they? Will the proposed law actually accomplish its goal, or make things worse? This was the conclusion of the Iowa district attorneys association, which has called for repeal of that state’s residency restrictions because they have made the community less safe by driving sex offenders underground. In fact, a community is more safe when authorities know where sex offenders are so they can keep an eye on them and make sure they get treatment as required, and when the offenders have homes and jobs and are otherwise integrated into the community. How much of a problem does Schenectady County have to warrant laws that would not only prevent any registered sex offender — no matter his crime or the danger he represents — from living within 2,000 feet of schools, day-care centers or anywhere kids congregate, but would evict those who already do? As a little research by Gazette columnist Carl Strock recently showed, not much. Of 113 sex crime defendants processed by the district attorney’s office over a two-year period, only six were repeat offenders, just two were charged with offenses against children, and in both of those cases the accused was a family member or acquaintance. So much for the specter of the crazed, prowling “predator” used by lawmakers to justify such Draconian legislation. This isn’t to say an attack on a child by a stranger can’t happen, but it rarely does. The Democrats’ latest argument is that restrictions are necessary because neighboring counties have them and sex offenders, or agencies that help them find housing, will inevitably look here for a place to live. That’s a possibility, although one the Democrats dismissed when people in the towns complained that restrictions in populated areas of the county would bring more sex offenders their way. But doing something that is mindless, unfair and counterproductive because everyone else is doing it, hardly seems a good reason to act. Schenectady County, instead, should use this fiasco to show the way and push for an enlightened, effective regional and state approach to sex offenders
State still lacks victory with fledgling civil confinement law By FRED LeBRUN
What to do about convicted sex offenders after they've served their sentences remains one of the thorniest legal questions facing the country.
No state is remotely close yet to balancing the need to protect society from predators while preserving the rights of the individual, and New York is no exception.
Although we are making a stab at it with the state's much spotlighted civil confinement law heavily promoted by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and approved by the Legislature earlier this year.
Initial results, though, are mixed and confusing. They point to some heavy sledding ahead if we thought the new law was going to solve our problems.
Contrary to what you may have read in this newspaper, or saw on the news, the state has yet to get a "win" in terms of forcing civil confinement on a sex offender.
So far, only two cases have been in the legal pipeline. The first case went to trial up in Washington County before Supreme Court justice David Krogmann. The state tried to confine Douglas P. Junco, 39, who just finished serving 15 years in state prison for attempted rape and assault.
A jury of 12 didn't buy the need to keep Junco in confinement any longer, and he walked.
What the state failed to prove in dueling expert psychiatric testimony with the defense is that Junco had a "congenital or acquired disease or disorder" resulting in a "mental abnormality" that prevented him from controlling his sexual urges.
Now, keep in mind Junco faced a trial on civil confinement because the state Office of Mental Health's clinical evaluation while he was still in prison must have pointed to a "mental abnormality." Otherwise, the attorney general's office would not have brought a petition to confine him in the first place.
I have no complaint with due process in this case at all. Junco got his day in court. The state failed to persuade a jury of his peers, and he was released. An interesting sidelight to the civil confinement trial -- and we're going to see this lineup over and over again -- is that it pits two branches of the state against each other. By statute, an assistant attorney general argues for confinement, while defending the individual in most cases (a private lawyer may be involved from time to time) are lawyers from the mid-level appellate court's Mental Hygiene Legal Service.
These are the lawyers who normally defend the rights of the retarded and others aggrieved in the mental health system. Remember, the shaky premise for civil confinement of sex offenders is based on their mental abnormality. The consequence is they get some darned good lawyers defending them at confinement trials.
The second case, which mystifyingly the state has claimed as a victory, never went to a confinement trial. Nor did it even get through a probable cause hearing, which must precede such a trial.
Instead, Howard Eaton, 38, imprisoned for 15 years for alleged sex acts against children under 10 and about to be set free, waived all that and agreed to remain confined. He essentially volunteered by signing a stipulation even before rolling the dice where he had nothing to lose.
As a curious aside, the Rensselaer County Legislature, slightly clueless, put out a release Thursday headlined "Applaud state civil confinement court decision." It's true that state Supreme Court Judge Daniel Lalor signed the order sending Eaton to St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center, but that was a matter of form following the stipulation dictated by Eaton. So if Rensselaer County's finest want to praise anyone, it should be Eaton. I could guess at why Howard Eaton wants to stay confined, but I won't. But I do wonder how many more Eatons we'll see in the future, choosing confinement over freedom because of the law, and perhaps the witch hunt mentality out on the streets. I'm not saying that's a bad conclusion, just unexpected.
So far, then, the state is 0 for 1 in getting sex offenders civilly confined. Looking at other states, that is not unexpected. In Massachusetts, over half of all civil confinement trials are lost by the state. Although in Massachusetts there is a higher level of proof needed for "mental abnormality," and it is an all-or-nothing state.
That is, the only choice is to send a sex offender who served his sentence into the ether of civil confinement, which looks an awful lot like a life sentence to me, or to let him walk.
In New York, judges technically have another choice. Should a jury find the individual does have a "mental abnormality" -- which is the only thing a jury decides -- a judge can choose between "strict and intense supervision" out in the world and civil confinement.
But realistically, what judge is going to take a chance on someone a jury has found guilty of possessing a "mental abnormality" and put him out on the street?
Likewise, what judge is going to release an individual after the legally required yearly petition hearing, knowing that anything that goes wrong will land on the judge's head?
These dice are loaded. That's why I say it looks like a life sentence to me, back door justice.
In New York, judges technically have another choice. Should a jury find the individual does have a "mental abnormality" -- which is the only thing a jury decides -- a judge can choose between "strict and intense supervision" out in the world and civil confinement.
Don't ya just love the words, 'mental abnormality'? I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to know that ANYONE, that murders, rapes, sexually offends(hate that phrase), physically beats someone, robs a bank or anything else criminal that you can think of is CLEARLY 'medically abnormal'by todays standards in society. They are NOT of a sound mind. They are a 1/2 a bubble off. Both ores are clearly not in the water. They have 'chosen' to take a path unliken to society. They have allowed their addictions to drugs, fantisy, money, lust or whatever have been allowed to take over their rational way of thinking.
But the legal system needs to clarify...are they mentally abnormal or are they just hardened criminals and should they all be treated the same?
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
Maybe the judges are overwhelmed like Moses was......dont tell me it's because they are underpaid either.......their influence goes far and beyond their cost of living and lifestyle.....maybe this is Mr.Silvers stance on the Jessicas law......He has 'friends' in certain places---make no mistake about that....and it is a backdoor entrance for an attack on the taxpayers.......
Silver said Friday that state judges "absolutely" deserve a pay raise. But he said his members "were not prepared to deal" with a judicial pay-raise bill without the salary-increase commission also being created.
And now Mr. Silver wants to create yet another government commission specific for 'salary increases'. This is absolutely pathetic. And to say that he and his members were not prepared to deal with a judicial pay raise is a total display of arrogance. Ya see people....our government is 'self serving'! They just help themselves to the money in our pockets. I say lets just all quit our jobs and go on welfare. Of course that ain't gonna happen, but ya know what we could ALL do...
Just for one week, go 'tax exempt' or 'claim 9 exemptions 'with your paycheck. Ya know, so they won't take any taxes out.
If every single person in NYS did that collectively with only ONE weeks pay, do you have any idea how much money that would be? And then the state would have to wait until we file our income taxes to collect that money!!!!! We could literally throw NYS into a tail spin! THEN PERHAPS THEY WOULD LISTEN!
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
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Sch’dy takes fresh look at sex offenders As for the Schenectady County Legislature’s pending about-face on sex-offender residency restrictions — well, good, as far as it goes. Repealing the authority to evict registered offenders from their homes without regard to how lawabiding they might have been in recent years is minimal good sense and minimal human decency, not to mention minimal avoidance of an otherwise certain lawsuit. And exempting the lowest level of offenders, Level 1, from the remaining restrictions is likewise minimal good sense. But the restrictions that the Legislature proposes to leave in place — barring Level 2 and Level 3 offenders from moving into areas within 2,000 feet of a school, youth center, child-care facility, public swimming pool, park or playground — similar to restrictions adopted in many other localities, well, they are based on the same flawed premises as the more extreme measures. One of those premises is that people who have committed a sex crime are highly likely to commit more sex crimes, because they are subject to uncontrollable urges. Studies show sex offenders to have lower recidivisim rates than other types of criminals. Another premise is that there is some necessary connection between a person’s residence and the kind of crime he commits, that a person living within a quarter mile or half mile of a school is more likely to rape a child than a person who lives farther away. There is no evidence to indicate any such thing, and certainly common sense scoffs at such a notion. And finally, if you want to call it a premise, is the notion that there is a great problem of “predators” lurking around schools and playgrounds waiting for the opportunity to make off with our children, which we must somehow address. As I pointed out in an earlier column, there has not been a single case in the past two years of a registered sex offender in Schenectady County being accused of a new offense against an unknown child. So I’ll say it again: These residency laws are based on a deep irrational fear and not on a responsible concern founded in reality. One thing I will concede: If all other communities have these silly residency restrictions and one doesn’t, then it’s indeed likely that registered offenders will migrate to that one community. And even though sex offenders as a class have a low recidivism rate, if you’re that one community, you still don’t want to attract a lot of them or to attract any other kind of just-released prisoners for that matter. So that does put a reasonable community in an awkward position. The New York Civil Liberties Union contends that all these residency laws are flawed because they are pre-empted by state law, and it is advancing that argument in a challenge to Suffolk County’s law. Presumably if it is successful there, all similar laws across the state will go down. Whether it will pursue a challenge to a watered-down law in Schenectady County remains to be seen. Melanie Trimble, director of the NYCLU’s Albany office, says, “We’re still considering our options with Schenectady. They’ve seen the light. They’ve realized how ill-advised the original restrictions were. We’re still optimistic they won’t even adopt the new ones.” The Legislature will hold a public hearing on proposed changes to its sex-offender legislation tomorrow at 7 p.m. on the sixth floor of the Schenectady County Office Building. At some unspecified later date it will vote on the changes. I will give the members of that august body credit for having the courage to admit a mistake and try to correct it, at least partially, even if it took a political backlash to prompt the action. I have no illusions that they responded to mere reason. They responded to the defeat of their man Ed Kosiur, sponsor of the sex-offender law, in a special election for an Assembly seat, which I believe had the effect of a splash of cold water in the face, and they responded to a revolt in the towns, which feared that Kosiur’s imaginary predators would be dumped on them. But at least they responded. For those of you who are tired of this subject, I’m sorry, but I think the folly of public officials is always a good subject. Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
Final vote figures from the Assembly special election spelled in granite that Democrat Ed Kosiur's lead role on the sex offender law, which many feared would drive offenders into their neighborhoods, propelled Republican George Amedore's victory.
On election night, the initial vote total labeled Amedore a winner by about 3,000 votes. Top Dems who decided to spearhead Kosiur's campaign with the sex law denied the issue caused defeat.
Recently released figures show tiny Duanesburg gave Amedore a whopping 904-vote plurality. That surprisingly wiped out Kosiur's unexpectedly low 876-vote edge in the city of Schenectady, a Democratic monopoly.
Traditionally in Duanesburg, when Democrats lose to Republicans, it's by only 100 to 200 votes -- not a 900-plus wipeout. Duanesburg activists labeled the sex legislation "Kosiur's Law" on red signs sprinkled all over town.
Voters in Duanesburg, Princetown and Rotterdam, concerned about an influx of sex offenders from the city to their towns, gave Amedore a combined 2,236-vote plurality.
It was the same story in Montgomery County, where voters were concerned sex offenders from Schenectady would relocate there. Amedore took that county by about 1,700 votes.
Okay Duanesburg!!!! Wow...for a sleepy little town, you guys and girls really kicked the old democratic Kosiur butt!!! Congrats!!
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
Special Public Hearing for public comment on Local Laws 06-2007 and 07-2007 that rescind/revise Local Laws 03-2007 and 04-2007 on Wednesday, August 21 at 7pm at the Schenectady County Building - 6th floor.
It is imperative that all of those who have an opinion on the Sex Offender Residency Laws (a.k.a., Kosiur's Laws) attend this meeting and let your voices be heard. There is power in numbers. We must each commit to participate in this meeting to demand accountability and responsibility from those who we have elected to represent our interests. We each need to bring a friend, family member and/or neighbor with us to establish a presence. If we fail to make our positions known, we will further sacrifice influence and control of the the government whose actions affect our communities.
I hope to see you in the standing room only conference room on Wednesday night!
The fight isn't over yet, both laws need to be rescinded. I hope if nothing else, the lesson learned is the effect a BI-PARTISAN effort can have. We all worked together toward a common goal regardless of party affiliation. We do that all the time in D'burg. As Zim put it once before Ed Kosiur was simply collateral damage to a greater end. Cicero pointed out that this will all be forgotten in a short time and that unfortunately is very true. That is why we needed to fight so hard now. While, there may not be an exodus of sex offenders to Duanesburg right now, we are a community in progress. There are many changes taking place. We had one developer propose an apartment housing complex near the old Pine Grove Farm property a year or so ago. There was another in the Mariaville area, that was for seniors though. There are proposals before our planning board for developments as well as cluster housing. It would not take long for developers to realize they could find a nice "cottage industry". During our discussions at our adhoc committee reviewing our zoning ordinance we addressed the fact that there isn't much available to young people or those who can not afford a large home. Should we have to alter our planning motives to accomodate a foolish law enacted by the County Leg? We will see what happens, but I guess the answer is yes if we have to we will. In the future there will be different boards and different residents, and yes, this will be forgotten. That is why we need to stop it now. I hope one and all can make it to voice your opinion. Whether it is in favor or against, play a part in it. See ya there.
Public hearings slated tonight on sex offender laws SCHENECTADY — The county Legislature will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. today on whether to change its controversial sex offender laws. The hearing will be held in the Legislative Chambers on the sixth floor of the county office building. The Legislature plans to amend both laws, which had banned all convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any facility that caters to children and would have forced sex offenders to leave their homes and apartments by Oct. 1 if they lived in an exclusion zone. The proposed amendments would ban sex offenders from moving into the exclusion zones, but would not force offenders to move if they lived there before the first laws were passed. The new laws would also exempt all Level 1 sex offenders, who are considered the least likely to reoffend. In addition, the proposed amendments would give county towns and villages and the city of Schenectady the ability to impose stricter measures to control Levels 2 and 3 convicted sex offenders. The Legislature plans to vote on the amendments at 7 p.m. on Thursday.
Isn't it just amusing how our local, liberal news paper, up and until one short week ago, had the 'sex offender' issue as front page news. NOW...it's just a little 'blurb' strategically placed to bring as little attention to it as possible.
Is the liberal gazette trying to help this issue go away? ALL of the surrounding counties are still fighting this issue and consider it a major one. One would think that the liberal gazettte would be responsible in printing the important views of it's readers. Or are they just losing touch with it's readers?
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
Logged
