31 October 2007

Possible Loophole In Jessica's Law


California Sex Offenders Declare Themselves Homeless to Get Around Jessica's Law

Hundreds of California sex offenders who face tough new restrictions on where they can live are declaring themselves homeless — truthfully or not — and that's making it difficult for the state to track them.

Jessica's Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally.

Some who have had trouble finding a place to live are avoiding re-arrest by reporting — falsely, in some cases — that they are homeless.

Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day-to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need.

"We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous," said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

Similar laws in Iowa and Florida have driven offenders underground or onto the streets.

"They drop off the registry because they don't want to admit living in a prohibited zone," said Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the association of Iowa prosecutors.

The organization tried unsuccessfully in the past two years to persuade lawmakers to repeal the state's 2,000-foot residency restriction.

"Most legislators know in their hearts that the law is no good and a waste of time, but they're afraid of the politics of it," Ritchie said.

The problem is worsening in Florida as about 100 local ordinances add restrictions to the state's 1,000-foot rule, said Florida Corrections Department spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger. Sixteen homeless offenders are now living under a Miami bridge, while another took to sleeping on a bench outside a probation office.

"As society has imposed restrictions, it becomes almost impossible for them to find places to live," Plessinger said.

Twenty-two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 feet to 2,000 feet, according to California researchers. But most impose the offender-free zones only around schools, and several apply only to child molesters, not all sex offenders.

California's law requires parolees to live in the county of their last legal residence. But in San Francisco, for example, all homes are within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

"The state is requiring parolees to find eligible housing in San Francisco, knowing full well there isn't any," said Mike Jimenez, president of the California parole officers union. "It will be impossible for parole agents to enforce Jessica's Law in certain areas, and encouraging `transient' living arrangements just allows sex offenders to avoid it altogether."

State figures show a 27 percent increase in homelessness among California's 67,000 registered sex offenders since the law took effect in November 2006. Since August, the number of offenders with no permanent address rose by 560 to 2,622.

"This is a huge surge," said Deputy Attorney General Janet Neeley, whose office maintains the database. "Any law enforcement officer would tell you we would prefer to have offenders at addresses where we can locate them."

Offenders who declare themselves homeless must tell their parole officer each day where they spent the previous night.

Those who declare themselves homeless are still legally bound by the 2,000-foot rule; they cannot stay under a bridge near where children gather, for example. But it is more difficult for parole officers to keep tabs on them.

Parole officers said some offenders are registering as homeless, then sneaking back to homes that violate the law. That's easy to do because fewer than 30 percent of transient offenders currently wear the Global Positioning System tracking devices required by Jessica's Law.

"If they tell you that they were under the American River bridge, we're going to take that at face value," said Corrections Department spokesman Bill Sessa, referring to a homeless hangout in Sacramento.

During a recent sweep in the Oakland area, parole officers discovered that two of the five offenders they checked weren't living in the temporary shelters they had reported as their new homes. Neither had been issued a GPS device.

Department spokesman Seth Unger said parole agents are starting to make the homeless a priority in issuing the GPS ankle bracelets, which are still being phased in.

R.L., a 42-year-old sex offender who lives near Disneyland in Southern California, said he registered as homeless after his parole agent told him two potential homes were too close to schools or parks.

"I finally asked, `Where do you want me to live?' He said, `You have a car, don't you?"' said R.L., who asked that his full not be used because of the stigma surrounding sex offenders.

The law was named for 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a convicted sex offender near her Florida home in 2005.

The author of Jessica's Law, state Sen. George Runner, said "90 percent" of it is working well. But he conceded that some portions need to be fixed.

"When the voters voted for this, they decided that they didn't want a child molester to live across the street from a school," said Runner, a Republican from Lancaster in Los Angeles County's high desert. "If that means that in some areas that needs to be 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet, then I think that we still accomplish what it is the voters wanted."

Robocop's Comment:

It was bound to happen. I hope they find a way to seal this potential loophole. I know where they can live:



Letsgetreal said...

News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues: Charts Library
2006 News & Noteworthy
Who will commit more new sex offenses within 3-years of being paroled, sex offenders -OR- non-sex offenders? Non sex offenders commit more new sex offenses when paroled!
Released (Paroled) Offender Type Paroled ReArrested for
New Sex Offense %/# of New Sex
Offenses by Parolees Convicted of
New Sex Offense
9,691 Sex Offenders 5.3% (517) 13% (1 every 2 days) 3.5% (339)
262,420 Non-Sex Offenders 1.3% (3,328) 87% (3 per day) 83% (2,179)
272,111 All Offenders 1.4% (3,845) 100%
Based upon (Pub 2003): Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994. (NCJ 198281).

Letsgetreal said...


The backlash to these Residency Laws for sexual offenders are hurting the entire country. Passing laws based on media hype and fear has done little or nothing to protect even one child.
Getting 'tough or crime' sounds good and may get votes. However that approach has snowballed until every law maker has to 'out tough' the next law maker until we have draconian laws that have just the opposite effect than what is desired.
Law makers need to change their position to get “SMART ON CRIME," as opposed to out toughing one another.
Society is catching on to the fact that it has been duped with false statistics on recidivism and basically every aspect concerning a sexual offense. The John Coueys of the world are a very small fraction of the equation. 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by individuals who are not on any type of registry. They have yet to commit a crime or not yet been caught. I believe, for those on the registries, there needs to be a 'SMART' answer. The registries themselves need to be in the hands of police only with the exception of that minority who is known as a true predator and pedophile. Who are they.? Well, the law makers need REAL experts to assist in making these decisions. John Walsh and his organization are not even close to qualify.
"SMART ON CRIME" v “TOUGH ON CRIME." I'll go with SMART every time. Then we can get back to being a nation and a state that grants an opportunity to every individual to rehabilitation. This entire nation that I am so proud of has gone down a very slippery slope.

Letsgetreal said...

Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good


The Adam Walsh Act

The federal Adam Walsh Act, passed in 2006, will exacerbate the problems with state sex offender laws. It forces states to either dramatically increase the scope and duration of registration and community notification restrictions – including requiring states to register youths as young as 14 – or lose some federal law enforcement grant money. Compliance with the Adam Walsh Act will preclude states from adopting more carefully calibrated and cost-effective registration and community notification policies. At least some states are debating whether the costs of complying with the law outweigh the benefits. Human Rights Watch urges reform of the Adam Walsh Act.

Listen to Patty Wetterling:


Letsgetreal said...

The heading of this article is VERY MISLEADING.
"California Sex Offenders Declare Themselves Homeless to Get Around Jessica's Law."

I submit that when they are released they are given $200.00 (Gate money, If the parolie has no one to help, they must pay for a bus ticket and report to their county where convicted within 24 hours. That usually means the next day or Monday. Motel/hotel, food and GUESS WHAT, no money or opportunity for jobs. THEY ARE HOMELESS from the GATE.

I hate bias news reporting.

Debs said...

You may Hate bias news reporting, but I hate Child Molesters, Pedophiles, baby rapers..whatever YOU want to call them.

Anonymous said...

White Papers, Studies, Official Government Reports, Empirical Information

Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies
2007 Jill S. Levenson, Yolanda N. Brannon, Timothy Fortney, Juanita Baker 25 Pages; 536 KB
The hypothesis that community members hold inaccurate beliefs about sex offenders was supported. Respondents estimated sex offense recidivism rates to be around 75%. In contrast, the best available evidence suggests that sex offense recidivism rates range from 5 to 14% over 3- to 6-year follow-up periods (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005) and 24% over 15-year follow-up periods (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Although official recidivism data underestimate true reoffense rates (Hanson&Bussiere, 1998), ample evidence suggests that the majority of convicted sex offenders do not go on to commit new sex crimes. It might have been interesting to ask respondents about their sources information, but we speculate that the media furnishes a substantial amount of this type of data to most people (Lotke, 1997; Proctor et al., 2002; Sample & Kadleck, 2006).

Respondents were accurate in their assessment that many victims know their abusers, but overestimated the number of sexual assaults committed by strangers. Apparently the myth that many rapes occur in dark alleys remains prevalent, despite evidence to the contrary (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002, 2004). Also, there continues to be a perception that sex crime rates are on the rise, probably due to the attention that these crimes receive in the media. In fact, rape arrest rates have decreased steadily since 1991 (Maguire & Pastore, 2003), and child sexual abuse rates have also declined (Finkelhor & Jones, 2004; Jones & Finkelhor, 2003).

In sum, these data have important implications for public policy. Our hypothesis that the public is poorly informed about sex offenders was supported. Specifically, myths of extraordinarily high recidivism rates and stranger danger prevail, and the public appears to view all sex offenders as posing a similar threat to communities. These widespread beliefs perpetuate the development of increasingly restrictive policies as politicians endeavor to serve their constituents. In actuality, sex offenders represent a diversity of offense patterns and a wide range of risk for reoffense (Doren, 1998; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004; Harris & Hanson, 2004; Prentky et al., 1997). As a result, one-size-fits-all policies are not likely to be cost efficient, nor are they likely to afford maximum protection to the public.

Anonymous said...

JWF: Sex Offender Zoning Laws Don't Work At All
May 17, 2006 Nancy Sabin, Executive Director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation
'Sex Offender Zoning Laws Don't Work At All' That's from Nancy Sabin, Executive Director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation (http://soclear.org/groundzero/www.jwf.org). 'It is one of the poorest uses of our resources, vigilance and supervision,' she said.

Here's why, according to JWF:
1. Nationwide, there are no known cases of children being exploited in the safety zones created by these laws, i.e., within 2000 feet of a school, day care center or playground.
2. Most of the people convicted of sex crimes -- 92 percent -- are first-time offenders. In other words, they would not have been subject to the restrictions laid out in these zoning ordinances in the first place.
3. Of the 400 cases presented to JWF in the last 5 years, fewer than five percent of the alleged molesters are convicted sex
4. Most sex crimes are happening under our noses, in our own homes. In other words, as KARE reported last night, most attackers are related to their victims or know them well.
Nancy went on to say there 'is not one piece of research that supports zoning laws, which have been passed in the Minnesota cities of Wyoming and Taylors Falls.'

See also Sex offender laws: Good intentions gone bad? article at www.kare11.com/news/investigative/extras/extras_article.aspx?storyid=124665

Anonymous said...

States Aim To Stop Sex Offenders: Will New laws Keep Children Safe?
Fall/Winter 2006 Lori Robertson - The Children's Beat 4 Pages; 907KB
Nancy Sabin is the Executive Director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, an organization founded by the parents of Minnesota boy who was kidnapped when he was 11 years old and has never been found. 'Jacob's Law.' a 1997 federal act mandating greater registration requirements for sex offenders, is among the foundation's legislative accomplishments. But Sabin criticizes the narrow focus of the recent spat of laws. 'If your charged and convicted, that represents 10% of the (sex) crimes,' She say's explaining that the largest groups of offenders are those who are unknown (graph below) or uncharged. So, the question she has: Why are all the resources targeting this tiny group?

When you factor in the small percentage of that group that will reoffend, the focus becomes even narrower, she say's. Sabin would like to see more dollars spent on education and awareness programs, treatment and transition into society. 'What I'm saying, is we're not turning the water off at the faucet,' Sabin says. 'How quickly are we going to reduce the problem?'

Debs said...

1. Nationwide, there are no known cases of children being exploited in the safety zones created by these laws, i.e., within 2000 feet of a school, day care center or playground.

KNOWN CASES. When we already know that this kind of crime is rarely reported to begin with.

Sick people out there. They need to be stopped. I have a right as a parent to know where these sick bastards live. MY CHILDREN have the right to BE safe going to and from school and playing on the playground.

Pedophiles should not have any rights.

Anonymous said...

Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force
February 24, 2007 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 11 Pages; 75.6KB
V. NACDL Opposes Residence Restrictions Because Such Laws Do Not Provide Effective Community Protection and Threaten Offender Stability.
New sex offender legislation often includes restrictions on the areas in which a sex offender may reside. NACDL opposes residence restrictions. Such restrictions have not been shown to have any effect on sex offender recidivism and serve only to de-stabilize the offender, putting him at a higher risk to re-offend. The states of Minnesota and Colorado have conducted studies considering whether residency restrictions have any effect on recidivism. Both studies concluded that such restrictions had no effect on recidivism and therefore did not provide added protection to the community. The Colorado study finds that residency restrictions 'should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism.'

In fact, residency restrictions may cause higher rates of re-offense amongst sexual offenders. Residency restrictions increase the chance of transiency and homelessness amongst sex offenders thereby decreasing the ability of law enforcement authorities to keep track of offenders and probation officers to supervise offenders. Such restrictions can prohibit the ability of offenders to reside with supportive family members or force an entire family to re-locate. Likewise, residency restrictions diminish the ability of sex offenders to maintain employment and comply with treatment requirements. Research demonstrates that sex offenders are, in fact more likely to re-offend in the absence of such stabilizing influences. The detrimental community impacts of residency restrictions have recently been highlighted by the Iowa County Attorneys Association. In a forceful statement the prosecutor group argued against residency restrictions for many of the same reasons.

However, they also noted that the residency restriction law inhibited their ability to obtain convictions by plea of guilty because of the onerous effects. Thus, residency restrictions actually increase the risk of recidivism in the community and should be avoided in the crafting of new legislation and repealed where already enacted.

Anonymous said...

Experts' Voices
April, 2007 compiled by WWW.SOSEN.US
"Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed." -- Robert Shilling, Detective, Seattle, WA Crimes Against Children Division

"I defy anyone to try and convince me, scientifically or logically that those requirements have any affect at all. It makes great sense politically, but has no affect whatsoever on public safety." -- Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association executive director

"If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can't think of a single case from our files that would have been any different." -- Sgt. Bryce Smith, Sex Offender Registry Officer, Scott County, Iowa

"What you're doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you're really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety." -- John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

"When I talk with friends, colleagues and neighbors regarding this law, the first reaction is that we must do everything we can to protect our children. Absolutely. But I am afraid this statute gives parents and communities a false sense of protection against crimes that most often occur not at school bus stops, but where children are in the greatest danger: their own homes." -- J. Tom Morgan, Former DeKalb County DA

"The more cities choose to install these ordinances, the more ex-offenders will become an exile class, sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they're allowed to reintegrate into society, to get a job, to establish stable roots, a support network, a home, by forcing these people to be refugees, politicians are essentially making their own citizens less safe." -- William Buckman, defense attorney and national sex offender policy expert

Karmyn R said...

Regardless of any of those statistics quoted by anonymous and letsgetreal - as a mother of two children - I DO NOT, repeat - DO NOT want a KNOWN Sex Offender (particularly child pedophiles) living next door to me, near my children's school, or playground and if there is - I want to know about it.

Sure we have problems with the laws and rules in this country. There are problems with EVERYTHING - but give the public the right to know who these people are and where they are. If most offenders are "unknown" - well guess what - once convicted they are known now.

There is always a problem with the "silent" offenders (Uncle Bob, Grandpa Joe, Cousin John) - that get swept under the rug and hidden as "family secrets" - but just because these happen doesn't mean I don't think the laws we currently have should be retracted.

Thanks Robocop for listening to me rant.

dawn said...

Where there is a law, there is some sort of ridiculous loophole created by some ridiculous @$$hole. It is astounding this goes on. I am all for dropping them off on an island where they are all together, and have only themselves and each other to play with. Take away health care, and be left with He(( on earth. That is even better than they deserve.

Robocop said...

letsgetreal and annonymous:

Thanks for dropping by. It is always good to receive an opposing view.

That being said, there will always be "bias" reporting as you stated.

For example, The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers will always be biased towards the criminal. That organization is made up of people whose job is to get criminals off the hook.

One study you quoted also stated that a majority of sex crimes go unreported for a number of reasons including the stigma of being a victim, family implications, and their treatment in the criminal justice system.

Another study was also indicated that through use of a polygraph test, offenders with only two known victims ended up revealing up to 110 victims.

There are also no definite statistics that indicate that these safety zones have not been effective, since such statistics only report an actual victimizations. I guess this is a good thing.

One more thing to comment about for now is the assertion that offenders, upon their release from incarceration, are automatically homeless. This is not true. For the most part, paroled, and discharged offenders are picked up by family members, or friends upon their release. Taking your assertion to an extreme, all homeless people would be implicated as being ex-convicts.

Statistics aside, these lack the human factor such crimes have on the victims. For the most part, a victim of a sex offense has to live with the deed for the rest of their lives. I see it fitting that the sex offenders have to do the same thing.

Until there is nothing less than a 100% cure rate for these offenders through "Treatment", I see no ethical problem with such laws.


Debs said...

All I can say is I have no respect for anyone who supports baby rapers and their rights. What about the rights of the children? They DID NOT ask for an adult to abuse them.

Copy and pasting from "reports" prove nothing. Other than the person who is copy and pasting "information" has no thoughts or feelings of their own.

Anonymous said...

The War Against Boys

By John J. Fanning


We had just arrived at the 15th hole on the number 2 course and my playing partner, Rails Finnerty, started to tell me about a disappointing trip he had taken to Nevada the week before.

“ I flew out there with my son for the weekend,” he said.

“ Oh yeah? How old is your son now?” I asked.

“ Fifteen,” he responded.

“ Kind of young for the casinos,” I opined.

“ We didn’t go to Vegas,” he said. “We went outside of Vegas to some fancy bordello they have there.”

I stopped in mid-stride on my way to the tee box. “Wait a minute,” I said. “Are you telling me that you took your son to a whorehouse?”

“ I tried,” he said. “They wouldn’t allow him inside. They actually asked for proof of age,” he said. He sounded dejected and looked upset about it.

I stuck my tee into the ground and positioned a Titleist carefully on its top. I stood and looked down the fairway, trying to concentrate on the game while at the same time trying to make sense of what Rails had just told me.

After a few moments, I bent down and retrieved the tee and ball, putting them into my pocket. I walked over to Rails and said, “I think we’re done here. Let’s get a drink.”

We drove silently in the golf cart to the clubhouse and took two seats in the near empty bar. I ordered my usual Makers Mark and took an unusually long pull on the mellow bourbon before finally speaking.

“ Rails,” I said. “Are you out of your mind?”

He looked at me and I noticed a hint of something strange come into his eyes - like maybe he was uncertain of me. No - now that I picture it - it was more like an uncertainty of us; of our years of friendship and the perception we had long ago settled in our minds was us.

“ Look,” he finally said. “Ever since my son turned fifteen, I have been petrified that he may get himself into something that could ruin his life. You don’t have kids, so maybe you don’t understand. But things are different today than they were when we were his age.”

He paused for a moment, taking a sip from his scotch. I guess in that moment we both rekindled a memory or two from many years ago - when we were his son’s age. Then he went on. “When he turned thirteen, he started to seriously take notice of girls. Going to pizza parties, hanging out with his buddies and flirting. You know?”

I nodded that I knew.

“ Well, things are different today,” he said. “If one parent, or one cop, or one stranger happened to come upon my kid with some girl and maybe found one button too many undone, my kid could go to prison - wind up having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. His life could be over...”

He paused, staring deep into the bar. He had a look on his face that only men can conjure, when they sense that something bad might happen to their family.

“ I know I can’t stop my son from falling in love,” he whispered, talking quietly into the swirls of wood grain within the bar. “I just figured that if I can eliminate his curiosity - just sate that youthful lust - then maybe that might be enough to slow him down and let him think - if and when he finds himself alone with some girl that’s just as curious and lustful as boys are his age.”

I thought about what he said, and I thought about the fear that I was hearing in his voice. I though about when I was fifteen. And I thought about all the advertisements I had seen in magazines and on billboards of teenage girls.

I thought about MTV and music videos and teen pop stars and the Internet and how kids were suppose to be smarter and more mature today because of all these things clamoring and crashing around them.

We live in a more tolerant society today - don’t we? We have school counselors and child psychologists and child advocates and a million authors selling books about raising kids. Certainly we have come a long, long way
since my own youth, when sex was learned from whispers, magazines and the occasional dirty playing card - haven’t we? The idea that some kid’s life would be ruined simply by what we used to call “heavy petting” is simply preposterous.

“ I think you’re overreacting,” I finally said.

“ Oh, do you?” he said, looking up and locking eyes with my own. “Well, you’re the hotshot journalist! You’re the one that’s suppose to know what is going on in the streets,” he spouted - a tone to his voice that I had never heard in all the years of our friendship. “Why don’t you open your eyes and see what’s going on?”

And so I did. That very night and in the days that followed I researched everything I could get my hands on pertaining to kids and what it’s like to be a kid today. And in the end, I discovered that my friend was right.

For reasons that I still do not fully understand, America has declared war on male children. It is true that little boys have, and are being arrested, imprisoned and placed on sex crime registries for nothing more than touching girls of their own age group.

Little boys are being tried as adults and placed in penitentiaries alongside dangerous felons. I found boys of ages 13 years and up listed on sex crime registries, their crimes listed as things like “sexual battery”, “sexual contact”, and “voluntary statutory rape”.

In the research I did, and the sex crime registries I viewed, I never once found a little girl listed. The reason for this I learned, is because in the vast majority of cases the girl is never prosecuted. She is returned to her parents. It is the boy, and only the boy, who is arrested, charged, tried and punished.

If I were to start listing all the male children I found who have been charged with sex crimes, I could fill this entire magazine. I found everything from a four-year old boy, charged with inappropriate sexual contact when he rested his head on his pre-kindergarten teacher’s chest, to seventeen year old boys who are serving decades long sentences for having sex with willing young women their own age. Again, in nearly every one of these cases, it is just the boy who is punished. The girl, even if she initiates the encounter, is not charged.

Voluntary sexual contact does not matter. If a boy is caught or accused, he will be arrested, charged, convicted and sent to prison. And if a boy is found not guilty, or the case is dismissed, the boy is still often punished. Some, whose cases were dismissed, have still been taken from their families and made to attend special classes for sexual predators.

In some states, when a boy of say, fifteen, is charged with a sex crime, he cannot be returned to his home if he has sisters or brothers. Child sex criminals cannot live with or near other children. Because of this, bail is often refused and the child is forced to remain in detention until his court date. In some states, fifteen-year-olds accused of sex crimes are automatically charged as adults. So their wait for trial is done in a county jail with adult offenders.

In many states, after serving his punishment, the child cannot return to a house that has children or is situated adjacent to homes with children - nor can he return to a home that is near a school or church. These children must be placed in foster homes - if such can be found. These boys can never return to school. They must be home schooled or wait until they are old enough to obtain a GED.

This problem of released sex criminals has led to some shocking acts. For example, a judge in Miami required ten released sex offenders to sleep under a highway overpass every night, between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The men had to take turns sleeping because rats coming from a nearby canal would gnaw on them otherwise. The city simply could not find any other place to house these men. Even though they were free, they will never be free.
Some children accused or convicted of sex crimes simply go homeless. They vanish into cities or just wander off and disappear. Suicide is common.

I could go on and tell you more about what I found out during my research. But I honestly don’t think you would believe me. So I am just going to tell you that if you give a damn at all, you can verify everything I have written here and find out a lot more that will make you angry and make you cry. Just like it made me angry and made me cry.

I called Rails and apologized for doubting him that day in the bar at the golf course. We talked for a long time about what was going on in America. We both cried over the phone. We both became angry too, but mostly at ourselves. We realized during our conversation that what is happening to male children in this country today is, for the most part, our own fault. You see, there is no greater mandate conveyed to man by any god of any religion than the mandate that we care for our children. And we both recognized that in our pursuit of building careers and taking care of our own, we have lost sight of what is our greatest responsibility. We have forsaken our sons.

Rails and I made a vow that night on the telephone. I am not talking about a promise here. I mean we took a solemn and sacred vow before God and at peril of our immortal souls that we would, from that moment on, do whatever we could to stop this madness that is destroying boys and young men in our country. We are now, together, a part of the fight to end this war against America’s sons.

We aren’t alone in that fight. There are many good men and women who stand with us. And we don’t have any illusions about how hard it will be either. There are powerful groups mounted to oppose us. But we both know that if there is to be an America, we must win this fight.

As our conversation drew to a close, I asked Rails what he planned to do about his own son, now that his Nevada plan had fallen apart.

“ I already told my wife that my son and I were going away together on a fishing trip,” he said.

“ Oh?” I responded. “Where are you thinking of going?”

“ Costa Rica,” he replied.

“ Good idea,” I said. “I hear there is some beautiful fishing in Cost Rica.”

Editor’s Note: In mid-September, soon after this story was filed for publication, the international watchdog agency, Human Rights Watch, released findings from a 2-year study the organization conducted into sex crime laws in the United States. Their report calls for the removal of children from sex crime registries as well as other reforms.

Robocop said...

Touching story. Now, I am no spring chicken, but in my high school days, there was this saying: "15 will get you 30." Perhaps an exercise in parental control would help such children to stay off this list.

Now, I would applaud this "human rights watch" group if they also concentrated their efforts on the rights of the unfortunate victims of sex crimes. After all, are they not also human?

Robocop said...

Taking a child to a whorehouse does more than "satisfy a curiosity." First, it teaches the child that women are sexual objects.

Second, are you not aware that this encourages the sex trade, which also has connections of human traffiking? There are other human rights groups that are working on this, and I can't believe human rights watch would not be one of them.

Debs said...

Ok let's face it. The "Anonymous" and "Letsgetreal" are TROLLS. They don't have a thought of their own.

The support the baby rapers only because they are probably members of NAMBLA.

Copy and paste your life away cowards. You will be on the sex offenders database sooner or later.

I have a real life to get to now. :)

Anonymous said...

I can see you really don't care about protecting children. If you did, you would care about laws that actually protected them. And would do something about these laws that do more harm than good.

You commit malfiesence by congregating sex offenders into areas and tell yourself that the children are less of a child than the ones in your neighborhood.

Your emotional hatred blinds you to the harm that these laws actually do to children. I feel sorry for you.

Instead of an ontelligent answer, you attack cpmmon sense and accuse anyone that seeks to really protect children through laws that actually work.

You say, "they are probably members of NAMBLA." That is about the most ignorant response I ever heard. I'm talking about "PROTECTING" children, your talking through your backside. You make no sense, your a hater, you are part of the problem, not the solution to PROTECTING CHILDREN.

I see my last post was deleted. What is wrong with you? Can't handle truth and real solutions? So, you must censor. Are you a communist?

Debs said...

This is not my blog therefore I have no control on what is deleted and what is not.

YOU "CLAIM" to care about human rights. All of your "copy and paste" of so called "reports" all leans toward the rights of the Pedophiles.

As I have stated before I see things as black and white. You are either for the rights of the victims or the criminals. It seems to me you are for the criminals.

SO go and copy and paste to your hearts content. Yaaawwwn I am now bored with you and your kind.

I will be busy loading my guns to shoot anyone of "your" kind that comes near my children. :D

See ya on the database.

Debs said...

I must also add, most pedophiles "hide" under alases.

Since anonymous and letsgetreal, is not so real, seems to "hiding" we all can assume you are cowards. You give no real response to a thing except to copy and paste. Yawn. Boring.

LOL calling someone a communist is better than a pedophile.

Can't reason with baby rapers, to let them know as a parent, I have a RIGHT to know where they live. They should NOT live near any school, bus stop, or play ground. It is very simple.

Anonymous said...

It just amazes me when one cannot argue against the stats, they attack the one who provided them.

Again I say, you don't care about protecting children. You only care about hate. And your full of it. While I do agree that crimes against children are heinous in themselves. Hate does NOTHING to protect the innocent children. Even innocent children of sex offenders are just as much children as yours, if you have any.

I also find that those who hate the most, have the most to hide. What is in your closet that you wouldn't bring out in the open. God says your righteousness is like a "filthy rag" The context here is a used menstrual rag, like a kotex. So no matter how righteous you think you are. Your not. Argue with God, it is His Book.

Your entire atitude puts innocent children in danger. Laws that do not work, but do more harm to children and society should make an intelligent THINKER sit up and ask themselves, WHAT WILL WORK?

Your right, you see in only black and white which is to be a self proclaimed narrow minded individual who can only think and understand within the limits of narrow thought. You are incapable in my opinion of thinking 'outside the little box' of your black and white.

While your thinking process is so narrow that you refuse to look at the harm you cause to children, I have to see you as part of the problem not part of the solution. Thinking is beyond your capabilities. You actually harm children and are as guilty as one who actually molests one. Strickly because you don't want solutions that are good for protecting children and advance our society.

Here is how the statistics break down:

57 registered sex offenders minding their own business murdered, 24
of them in prisons and jails;

7 registered sex offenders were involved in domestic or other
incidents, and were killed;

17 people, non sex offenders, were accused of a sex offense and

9 registered sex offenders were accused of a new sex offense and
were murdered;

12 people, non sex offenders, were falsely accused of sex offenses
and were murdered;

3 registered sex offenders were falsely accused of a new sex
offense and were murdered;

5 innocent bystanders were murdered;

1 person was murdered when they were attacking a registered sex
offender's home;

1 person in prison was falsely labeled as a sex offender and was

112 persons murdered in 103 incidents

This information and more can be found here:


Robocop said...

Wow. I have an all out flame war on my blog. I feel honored.

My question regarding your lack of concern over the rights of the victims of sex crimes still stands. Your failure to defend pedophiles caused you to use the old liberal tactic of using "for the children" to reinforce your views. The touching story about bringing a child to a whorehouse is a prime example. It also negates the concept of parental responsibility.

Second, even if three sex offenders met up with an unfortunate "accident", that would still serve justice.

Third, no posts have been deleted from this thread. Leave the conspiracy concerns to those who give a damn. Perhaps you can find the answers about your "missing post" with Jim Morrison, who is writing poetry with Elvis.

Fourth, if Debs is on "the rag", it was artificially induced by your pro-pedophile stance. It is only natural for a genuine parent and human being to feel this way. Using such terminology, however, degrades women, and therefore, nullifies that you are genuinely concerned about human rights. Your concern lies only in the rights of those who sexually assault children.

Finally, I doubt she is a communist, because she can think for herself, unlike those from the extreme left.

Anonymous said...

I'm a registered republican. Voted for Bush twice. And you can't see the forest for the trees. You are a direct danger to children because you can't see past your black and white narrow box However, I am registering Independent because neither party is worth a damm.

It says in proverbs that "if you argue with a fool, you become one."

Exit time. You can't talk stats, they confuse you because you already made up your little pea brain.

TexasFred said...

Sex offenders and pedophiles CAN be cured...

A 230gr Golden Sabre right between the eyes, it cures ALL of their problem...

Robocop said...

My little pea brain still knows the difference between right from wrong, despite of your "claimed" party affiliations. If, by some ungodly reason, you are a Republican, I hope this does not reflect the common views from the "Sooner State."

Debs said...

Matthew 18:6 "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believed in me, it were better for him that millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I do believe in God's word,the pedophiles would be the "RAG". Argue with HIM, before HE condemns all the pedophiles straight to Hell.

Putting down woman by using terms such as "rag" shows how small minded, chauvinistic, woman hating, and oppressive you are.

God's word never advocated rape or harming children.

Debs said...

I am now done with this Okie.

The reason Texas does not fall into the Gulf of Mexico, because OK sucks.

Debs said...

Texas Fred you ROCK!! :D

Hyunchback said...

I'm with Texas Fred, with some exceptions.

180 Grain versions are also functional. Even smaller ones can be useful.

It would be useful to have some of these fine men volunteer for a comparison study, though. We could test different velocities, grain weight, bullet builds, etc.

This way we don't get into trouble with PETA or Earth First for animal testing.

Robocop said...

I agree with this important study. We can use Jack McClellan as a control subject.