« Dissecting the key guideline calculation in the Libby sentencing | Main | Paris Hilton released early from jail based on "medical considerations" »
June 7, 2007
Advocacy against sex offender residency restrictions
Among a lot of great new stuff at the blogs Sex Crimes and Sex Offender Issues are posts here and here and here setting out advocacy and arguments against sex offender residency restrictions. Of particular note, and worthy of a full read, is this amicus brief filed in the Ohio Supreme Court in a case challenging the application of Ohio's residency restriction. Here is part of the brief's argument summary:
Research has shown that sex offenders with stable housing and social support are much less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack stability. Residence restrictions deprive sex offenders of stable housing and social support, and thus significantly increase the risk of recidivism. In addition, sex offenders who become homeless, or fail to provide accurate addresses as a result of these restrictions, will be more difficult to supervise and monitor in the community, thereby increasing the risk to children. Recent studies have concluded that sex offender residence statutes create a false sense of security that may leave children more vulnerable to sexual abuse.
Equally troubling is the lack of evidence that these laws actually protect children. To the contrary, those states that have studied the issue carefully have found no relationship between sex offense recidivism and the proximity of sex offenders' residences to schools or other places where children congregate.
In reality, sex offender residence laws in Ohio and elsewhere around the country are driven by fear, not facts. Despite widespread belief that sex offender recidivism rates are high, recent studies have shown that such recidivism is the exception, rather than the rule, particularly if the offender has received treatment. In cases where recidivism did occur, residence restrictions had no impact. Instead, efforts to enforce sex offender residence laws drain valuable law enforcement resources.
Some related posts on sex offender residency restrictions:
- Another indication residency restrictions imperil public safety
- Starting to smell the residency restriction coffee
- A bridge over troubled offenders
- Faith-based opposition to residency restrictions
June 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200df3521aa548834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Advocacy against sex offender residency restrictions:
Comments
Douglas, I'm Peter Del Valle, a law associate from Miami, FL. I've been passionate about sex offender issues ever since the residency restrictions started popping up, and have come about a consistent, constitutional solution for all concerned.
The problem can be summarized thusly:
1. People do NOT want sex offenders living around their children and communities.
2. Currently, there are laws that protect sex offenders from restrictions because of constitutional protection.
3. Although such ordinances have been upheld by various court levels, such a residency restriction case has not been ruled on by the US Supreme Court, which would probably decree that residency restrictions based on past offenses are invalid.
4. Even when the SCOTUS rules against the communities, it will STILL create an air of tension and even terror in the communities, knowing there are predators in the midst.
Therefore, the ONLY solution is to enact a Constitutional amendment to segregate sex offenders, who are free of the correctional system, from society by banishing them to sex offender colonies.
Although I've posted to several sex offender blogs, I still feel it's very important to get this message through. Our children and families are under a greater threat of domestic terrorism than at any point in our country. We should consider not only restriction the length of distance a child molester lives from our schools and parks, but consider a concentrated place to intern registered sex offenders AWAY from ALL children and vulnerable citizens.
It is time we seriously consider building sex offender colonies throughout the western United States and Alaska.
It is obvious. Nobody wants sex offenders to live in their neighborhoods, or even their cities. I'm a parent, and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent sex offenders from living anywhere that children may live, even if their victims were people they knew. It means NOTHING to me; what means EVERYTHING to me is they committed an atrocious crime against children. That's enough for me.
Unfortunately, these sex offenders have rights. If they are not in prison, they will probably get the ACLU to sue the city and we will have to spend thousands of dollars defending the restrictions.
The ONLY thing, therefore, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, creating sex offender colonies to restrict where these convicted sex offenders live in the first place. How to do this?
The first thing that needs to be done is to create an outline of such an amendment. I looked at the process for how an amendment is created. Here is the process:
Under Article V, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to ratify them.
To propose an amendment
1. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
To ratify an amendment
1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.
I would submit that the state legislature route would probably be more effective, but the congressional method can be tried first. It can effectively be used as a litmus test for voting, i.e., if someone doesn't want to vote for proposing the amendment in congress, their 2008 opponent can have a field day in saying that the incumbent protects sex offenders at the expense of children's safety, etc.
Such an amendment would solve many problems. First of all, the registry would not exist in its current form. Parents don't have to worry where the sex offenders live, as they all would, by law, have to live in the colony. This also eliminates the need for GPS, as the sex offenders would be restricted to the colony in the first place. No worries about convicted child molesters stalking your children's school or favorite park, or trolling on the Internet.
Next, registrants would constitutionally have to be subjected to non-court ordered search of their premises within the zone. In addition, all their mail and phone calls would constitutionally be authorized to be monitored for illicit activities. Internet usage would also be strictly regulated, with all file storage for every computer actually done at the server-level. In addition, emails would be assigned by the administration, no Instant messaging or accessing MySpace or other children sites allowed, and all keystrokes and sites visited will be recorded 100%. All costs for such usage would be borne out by the offender, incidentally.
All registrants would be required to work, with their paychecks being handled by the administrators. Deductions for medical, rent, all services, and everything else would be done automatically, and any credit the registrant have be used for discretionary income ONLY from the colony store. Also, EVERY registrant will be required to go through treatment appropriate to his crime, and be certified as cured; otherwise, he can be subject to a felony charge and returned to prison.
Now, please keep in mind one thing: The sex offender colony is NOT...repeat...NOT a replacement for tough, appropriately long, non-paroleable sentencing guidelines in the first place! THAT IS PARAMOUNT. The colony would exist because society cannot handle the large amounts of offenders in their neighborhoods, with the inherent terror parents have with the knowledge that offenders are around their children. Therefore, the colony is SPECIFICALLY for offenders to spend their entire registration periods in a constitutionally-approved manner, eliminating the need for registries as they exist now.
Keep in mind, many offenders also are able to leave the registry for certain crimes after a specified amount of time has passed. Therefore, once a registrant's time period has expired, he can petition the administration to be relieved of the duty to register and live in the SORERA zone. A panel of professionals, law enforcement individuals, and the offender's victim representatives, will go over the request. If they feel the offender is ready to join society, then he can leave the zone and live anywhere he wants, although he will have to permanently register with law enforcement wherever he goes for the rest of his life. Bear in mind, also, that any registrant who has to register for life will NEVER get the opportunity to leave the zone. Only the most benign of the registrants will ever be allowed to leave.
So there you have it. With a constitutional amendment, we can control where they live, where they work, and how they communicate, with confidence that they won't have a "relapse" when our own children are in striking distance.
Only the sex offender colony amendment will satisfy ALL parties:
1. Rights of communities to be free of sex offenders, both from their neighborhoods and the Internet.
2. Rights of sex offenders to not be subject to arbitrary residency and GPS restriction laws.
All interested people are encouraged to write to me at man4theages@hotmail.com to further this just cause.
Posted by: Peter Del Valle | Jun 7, 2007 11:42:15 AM
Wow. The first response to an amicus brief--filed by the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, the Coalition Against Sexual Assault and other groups--detailing, among other things, the faulty mythology driving residency restrictions is...that.
Just...wow.
Posted by: Ilah | Jun 7, 2007 3:06:46 PM
Sorry Peter......but your an idiot. Now run home and tell mommie you want a new swastika tattoo.
Posted by: James Thomas | Jun 7, 2007 3:24:06 PM
Peter, I think you've stolen a George Carlin bit - he suggested fencing off several of the square western states (including my girlfriend's native Wyoming, much to her amusement) and dumping all the sex offenders, murders, etc. into them and let them fend for themselves and feast on each other. And, of course, put it all on TV. 'cept he was much funnier, of course.
Posted by: JDB | Jun 7, 2007 3:40:36 PM
1. People do NOT want sex offenders living around their children and communities.
- Do you really believe that a sex offender that has paid their debt to society and have is rehabilitated by the DOC wants sex offenders around their children? What you propose will put THEIR children at risk and wasn't this supposed to be about the children? Or are you going to try to ban sex offenders from having a family and a life after they have paid their debt to society?
2. Currently, there are laws that protect sex offenders from restrictions because of constitutional protection.
- The Constitution was created to protect ALL American Citizens not just the select few or the ones with the most money or power but ALL Americans.
3. Although such ordinances have been upheld by various court levels, such a residency restriction case has not been ruled on by the US Supreme Court, which would probably decree that residency restrictions based on past offenses are invalid.
- Of course it should, if they started saying that you couldn't own a car if you had too many speeding tickets, seatbelt violations, DUIs & OWIs, I am sure there would be a HUGE uproar on how that isn't fair and unconstitutional. But what you are saying is, as long as you and some others that have tunnel vision like yourself that it should just be 'your way'. That is NOT what this country was founded on, nor there reasons that the Puritans came here to begin with. Do you need a refresher in American History?
4. Even when the SCOTUS rules against the communities, it will STILL create an air of tension and even terror in the communities, knowing there are predators in the midst.
- The only people that are raising terrorism in the communities is people like you that would rather judge before you get all the information on all the different kinds of cases out there... I appears that you would choose to have your son or daughter if caught making out with their boyfriend or girlfriend expelled from the community rather than giving them a chance at life after they have paid their debt to society. I hope that you will move with them.
Therefore, the ONLY solution is to enact a Constitutional amendment to segregate sex offenders, who are free of the correctional system, from society by banishing them to sex offender colonies.
- Were you around when they were keeping Blacks from voting because they couldn't read? Oh wait, this is more like the Japaneese in WWII when WE put them in camps... And we are ashamed of that too as a country... and you want to do it AGAIN?? What is the point? to prove that we haven't progressed as a society?
Although I've posted to several sex offender blogs, I still feel it's very important to get this message through. Our children and families are under a greater threat of domestic terrorism than at any point in our country. We should consider not only restriction the length of distance a child molester lives from our schools and parks, but consider a concentrated place to intern registered sex offenders AWAY from ALL children and vulnerable citizens.
- You do know that most child molesters only have to take few steps across a hallway to get to their vicitms right? And that the vast majority of those will NEVER be reported. That family members and friends of the family are 70% of the sex offenders most of which are never arrested, charged or convicted, BECAUSE they are never reported, and those crimes are the ones that do the most damage to our youth. Have you screened all the Sunday school teachers, school teacher, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Clergy, Daycare workers, Police people, Ice Cream shop workers, Mall workers, Next door neighbors??? They may not be sex offenders now, but THEY COULD BE!!! Better make a law that will make sure they won't hurt your kids too... Be very careful about the things you suggest, one your head may be on that chopping block for something that you didn't do, and was an accident, but now you are subject to those laws too.. No stopping to go to the bathroom, better make sure that your kids know not to 'cry wolf' about you when they are mad at you... It happens to the best of people...
It is time we seriously consider building sex offender colonies throughout the western United States and Alaska.
- Why did you pick Western US and Alaska? You live on the East Coast? don't like the mountains? What about all the people that already live there? Are YOU going to be the one that knocks on their door to tell them that they have to move because you don't know how to educate your children about sex, life, and the dangers of technology and life?
It is obvious. Nobody wants sex offenders to live in their neighborhoods, or even their cities. I'm a parent, and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent sex offenders from living anywhere that children may live, even if their victims were people they knew. It means NOTHING to me; what means EVERYTHING to me is they committed an atrocious crime against children. That's enough for me.
- So when your children get convicted of a sex crime for having a relationship with another child their own age, let's say when they are 15, you are willing to give them up for this amendment of yours... They dated someone their own age, they got sexual curious and one thing led to another, both end up in jail for it and convicted of a sex crime that they now have to register for the rest of their lives for. Are they dangerous? You know that is what you said they were, as the laws are written now... So don't start saying now that there are exceptions because you just said there weren't any.
Unfortunately, these sex offenders have rights. If they are not in prison, they will probably get the ACLU to sue the city and we will have to spend thousands of dollars defending the restrictions.
- That is what the ACLU is for, or don't you remember the 50s? You should. it wasn't that long ago... ACLU is to make sure that the constitution is still upheld and not violated. EVERY citizen has rights, and now even illegal aliens have rights too even the criminals have more rights than some citizens here. but you don't say anything about them at all.. Why is that? if you are going to be throwing out blanket statements you should be all inclusive.
The ONLY thing, therefore, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, creating sex offender colonies to restrict where these convicted sex offenders live in the first place. How to do this?
- YOU DON'T, YOU ARE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SET FORTH BY OUR FOREFATHERS. Who were obviously more enlightened than yourself.
I would submit that the state legislature route would probably be more effective, but the congressional method can be tried first. It can effectively be used as a litmus test for voting, i.e., if someone doesn't want to vote for proposing the amendment in congress, their 2008 opponent can have a field day in saying that the incumbent protects sex offenders at the expense of children's safety, etc.
- So you really are out for political gain... I knew it would come out eventually. you can't make an amendment that is UNconsitutional, that is what the Constitution says... I have read it... have you?
All registrants would be required to work, with their paychecks being handled by the administrators. Deductions for medical, rent, all services, and everything else would be done automatically, and any credit the registrant have be used for discretionary income ONLY from the colony store. Also, EVERY registrant will be required to go through treatment appropriate to his crime, and be certified as cured; otherwise, he can be subject to a felony charge and returned to prison.
- You just put them in prison, why don't you pay for them too? Threatening them with prison after doing this to them isn't a threat, you will just put more back in, why should they work if they don't get to control their own life. they paid their debt, why are you making them pay again? ex post facto... you claim to know about law, do you know what that means?
Only the sex offender colony amendment will satisfy ALL parties: - In your diluted world thinking I am sure, but then again, you weren't forced to move were you... Or told that your right to life liberty and persuit of happiness doesn't mean anything even after you have paid your debt to society. And why only sex offenders... Are you saying you would allow a drug dealer live in your neighborhood, and their clients dropping by all hours and then casing your house incase they run out of drug money? or maybe a prostitution ring or maybe even a brothel? I am sure you wouldn't mind a convicted wife batterer and child abuser living next door for your children to play with and stay over with... right? Why are you singling out one criminal? what about the repeat drunk driver that lives at the end of the block that is in the bar from the time he gets done with work until dinner and drive drunk while your children are playing all the time? If he happens to hit one, is that ok? What makes him different? why is he any less of a threat?
1. Rights of communities to be free of sex offenders, both from their neighborhoods and the Internet. - Really you can control the world? I didn't know one person had that kind of power... The internet is world wide... hence the name World Wide Web. you have no control over the rest of the world... unless you have world domination on the brain.
2. Rights of sex offenders to not be subject to arbitrary residency and GPS restriction laws. - No you just treated them like the Jews... May I call you Hitler now?
All interested people are encouraged to write to me at man4theages@hotmail.com to further this just cause. - I pity you... very much so... I am a victim and I think that you have gone completely off your rocker...
Posted by: Phoenix | Jun 7, 2007 3:41:50 PM
Peter, since protecting children is so important and more children are harmed/killed by drunk drivers than sex offenders, don't you want to advocate a drunk drivers colony? Oh, and how about a murderers colony? We certainly don't want any murderers around our children or for that matter adults either. You have lost your sense of reason. You would banish an entire group, which is clearly unconstitutional, even if their offense was not against a child or was many years ago with no repeat crimes. This is no different than Nazi Germany and colonies are the same as concentration camps without the gas chambers. Wow, what a humanitarian you turned out to be! I think you best go back to your law school books on Constitutional Law because your ideas are frightening for someone who is supposedly educated in this area.
Posted by: leah | Jun 7, 2007 3:53:05 PM
"Peter, I think you've stolen a George Carlin bit - he suggested fencing off several of the square western states (including my girlfriend's native Wyoming, much to her amusement) and dumping all the sex offenders, murders, etc. into them and let them fend for themselves and feast on each other. And, of course, put it all on TV. 'cept he was much funnier, of course.
Posted by: JDB | Jun 7, 2007 3:40:36 PM"
And Carlin also didn't exclude anyone either... Where as you Peter, you might as well call just call Sex offenders Jews or Niggers, because that is how you are talking... So before all of you get offended by my terms read the definition below.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
nig·ger (nĭg'ər) Pronunciation Key
n. Offensive Slang
1. a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).
b. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: "Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society" (John Aquilino).
Posted by: Phoenix | Jun 7, 2007 4:09:42 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but what you said Mr. Del Valle, is absolutely sickening to say the least. Almost as sick as the ones who've created these laws, and if I were your employer, I would most like terminate you based on what you've said. You should be ashamed of what you said. What you have said is tantamount to that of what the Nazi's did to the Jews. I surely pray for your soul upon death, and hope the Lord has mercy.
Posted by: Janice | Jun 8, 2007 12:53:59 AM
You sir, are an idiot.
Posted by: cj | Jun 8, 2007 7:09:02 AM
Once again, Peter, you are blovating your tripe. I am beginning to think you are trying to pull a "Foley". Scream loudest so no one notices what are your doing. This will NOT fly in America and I would suggest you suggest you start educating yourself. You are, as posted earlier, an idiot.
Posted by: Kate | Jun 8, 2007 10:39:41 AM
Thank you, Phoenix, for at least attempting to itemize your concerns regarding my proposed recommendation that we try to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution to create Sex Offender colonies. But I will address a few points to the other posts first:
1. To the person who had the AUDACITY and TEMERITY of even INCLUDING the suppression and internment for people of different races and religious doctrines, to that of individuals who have committed the most heinous crimes in America, shame! ALL sex offenders have been designated so IN A COURT OF LAW... and for you to even USE race and religious indoctrination shames the argument to that of shrill poppycock.
2. To the person who claims my employment would be threatened by my posting sound, itemized constitutionally-valid societal changes: Sorry, that won't wash either. She and her life partner (yes, she is) actually agree with my views! But that is neither here nor there, and I'll leave it at that.
Now, back to Phoenix (whom I believed emailed me the same information).
1. As I said, most people do NOT want sex offenders living around them, and in fact many of them would not care that Constitutional rights are eliminated for them for this purpose. That is their OPINION, and their FEELINGS. They do NOT have this same feeling for ex-convicts such as murderers, carjackers, or gangbangers, as they can be proven to be rehabilitated and can be trusted in their neighborhoods. (For all of you in Rio Linda...that's called "sarcasm")
2. Regarding your general "but it's not Constitution!" attitudes permeating with many of your answers: the POINT of having a constitutional amendment is, indeed, to MAKE sex offender colonies legal! Of COURSE they are illegal right now as they would violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment clauses of the United States Constitution, not to mention the Ex Post Facto Clause. I GET that. THAT is why a constitution is NEEDED. Comprende?
3. The Founding Fathers also saw fit to execute murderers, child molesters, and other criminals, usually in a very short time period. They did NOT envision that murderers would ever be free after being convicted, nor child molesters free to molest again, as well as other such crimes. But I do agree with you, that they allowed for the process of the US Constitution to be changed to permit changes over time, and in fact that is EXACTLY the legacy I'm invoking in the current amendment request to colonize sex offenders.
4. I notice you said that drug dealers and other criminals aren't going to the colonies. Well, give it time. But they don't pose the threat that sex offenders do, at least to most parents.
Sorry, your concerns do not wash. But nice try anyway.
Posted by: Peter Del Valle | Jun 8, 2007 3:55:02 PM
Wow, another one for the Nuremberg, PA, trials.
Posted by: George | Jun 9, 2007 2:04:33 PM
To Peter from a friend of mine, they know who they are:
1. You’re full of crap.
2. If you want to get rid of sex offenders get rid of families since the majority of sex offenses of children are family related and that includes the extended family.
3. Get rid of families since the majority of child abuses and child murders occur by someone the child knew. And the majority of child abductions occur by a family member.
4. Get rid of twisted thinkers like yourself who can offer no solution to society’s ills. You are part of the problem because you aren’t working hard enough to get sex out television, music, and idols that kids worship. You aren’t working hard enough to first rid your society of the moral majority like yourself who can’t follow God’s laws, but keep pretending that man’s laws are God’s laws.
5. You’re a pathetic human because from your hate based idea you clearly demonstrate you are a danger to anyone whom you don’t like. You’re no better than all the other hate based persons and groups lingering around on the Internet spewing garbage because of your inability to think straight.
6. In history there were the banishments that occurred. Even in colonial times there were banishments. Australia was once a penal colony of banished people, but did any of these banishments in historical times produce your nirvana? No! For you see, the world is corrupt and nirvana never happened. The nirvana that you want in these so called United States won’t happen either, that’s why you are a mad man. You want something that can never happen. To have nirvana get rid of mankind, but wait, that would mean you would have to go as well.
7. I recognize that mad men have ideas. Hitler had ideas also, and so did all the other mad men in history.
8. You will never get rid of sex offenders because you and I do mean you, will never get rid of families.
9. You will never get rid of other sex offenders either for your world keeps producing them.
10. If you want to get rid of sex offenders change your perverted society starting with yourself.
11. Lastly, you are a danger to America as a whole for you are amongst the deranged that would like to see The People’s constitutional rights, liberties, and protections diminished if not altogether done away with. You are un-American. You don’t believe in justice, you don’t believe in fairness. Your narrow mindedness is clearly demonstrated in what you wrote. Your ability to reason apart from hate leaves you a wanting person looking for attention, hoping that other twisted minded people will join your bandwagon to hell. Don’t worry you will have your followers just like Hitler did, but just like Hitler you too will be defeated just as all mad men with grandiose ideas of ‘better than’ were defeated. I’m sure you believe the clap-trap you are espousing. I will keep my eye on you for mad men will do great harm before they are stopped.
Posted by: ZMan | Jun 10, 2007 1:01:25 AM
You sir are a few french fries short of a happy meal!!!
Your Hitler mentality will be your downfall. How, as an American citizen, can you deny ANYONE their constitutional rights......??????
He who does not remember history is condemned to repeat it.
Posted by: MF | Jun 10, 2007 1:12:39 AM
Also Mr. Del Valle, I would like you to quote your historical statistics on your point to Phoenix in Para (3). What is your reference for this information??
Posted by: MF | Jun 10, 2007 1:36:20 AM
I am a mother of a young sex offender male who is now 21. His crime involved his 'minor' girlfriend and consensual picture that THEY took of themselves.
This is directed to
Peter Del Valle:
I would strongly urge you to seek mental treatment.
Your 'idea' in ending sexual offenses and ridding this country of sexual offenders is that of Hitler. Hitler too thought of the 'children'.
With that being stated, where are the children of a sexual offender to go? Are they too to be punished?
I am astonished that you actually BELIEVE this is a solution!
You have NOT done your research concerning sex offenses. Sexual offenses in today's society are now charging our CHILDREN! Children as young as FIVE!
Reading your 'solution' is so disgusting and insane, that it is my opinion there is no just cause for me to continue to educate you on the facts.
You need phsyc evaluation and I suggest you receive this treatment as soon as possible.
Jacquelyn
Posted by: JacquelynHorst | Jun 10, 2007 11:32:27 AM
Hmm, I wonder if his firm knew he was spewing this BS around what they would think?
I found this:
http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/uploads/publications/Employment%20Law%20Authority%20April-May%2005%20SECURED.pdf
Also, if you go here, it seems he shows up in a lot of gay forums as well:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Peter+Del+Valle%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Posted by: ZMan | Jun 10, 2007 1:03:22 PM
Sorry those links got hosed:
Posted by: ZMan | Jun 10, 2007 1:07:44 PM
He's also posted here and telling people to open Day Cares next to sex offenders so they can evicted. This guy is a true Nazi a$$hole.
http://www.topix.com/forum/family/kids/TOP7I7N2CA15M11MQ
He said:
If the verdict is upheld, then I will write a tutorial on how interested citizens can start a home care business in your area. It only takes $400 dollars and an inspection by the city, along with personal information on paperwork, and the average person can become accredited and licensed to run a day care.
Next, open up a day care within 1,000 feet of a registered sex offender. Once the license is accepted, then you can legally petition the local sheriff's department or police department to initiate eviction proceedings against the sex offender.
Anyone who wants information to do this legally and cheaply contact me at man4theages@hotmail.com
IN addition, consider supporting my upcoming amendment to the US Constitution to inter sex offenders into a colony far away from civilization. This colony is NOT for jailing, but for corralling sex offenders once they've been released from prison.
For now, though, the daycare scheme should work if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, and I will be available to help those who need to kick sex offenders out of their neighborhoods.
Posted by: ZMan | Jun 10, 2007 1:12:28 PM
And his law firm: http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/
Posted by: ZMan | Jun 10, 2007 1:15:11 PM
Thank you all for your comments. The fact that most of you do not even attempt to debate the issue, but would rather just dig around the Internet is just plain ludicrous. And now you have posted the law firm who employs someone who actually shares my name. I don't think they will take too kindly to that fiasco, as I have no connection with any major law firm whatsoever.
My STRONGEST advice: look at my arguments. Create reasoned, non-hysterical responses if you feel that what I've written is incorrect. And finally...FINALLY...before you post the name of a law firm...LAW FIRM!!! with guys who SUE OTHERS FOR A LIVING... whom I have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE... make sure you have good lawyers in place yourself, otherwise it will be YOU going to the hoosegaw.
For the record: Peter Del Valle is NOT my real name. It is a combination of my middle name and the street on which I live on. My real name is irrevelent, but judging from the potentiality of crackpot justice as demonstrated by your retorts in this column, I will remain under the radar with regards to my real identity until the book is published.
As to certain recommendations that I get "therapy" or other things: the fact that someone would recommend such a draconian measure because I want to rid society of sex offenders from children is a very, very sad state.
It is truly amazing that most of you can't even see that the sex offender registries cannot be condoned anymore, and that I am proposing a constitutional (therefore, legal) resolution to the entire issue.
I'm do not wish to abuse Douglas' forum to any of your rants any more, and will take emails from those whom can INTELLIGENTLY discuss the issue. Thank you.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 10, 2007 1:46:44 PM
Let's play along, pretend Sex Offender Colonies are in the future, and take a look at the logistics.
All other comparisons aside, the best logistical comparison is the relocation camp model used during WWII, which housed 120,000 persons in ten different camps. Each camp was designed to be self-sufficient, and to be far enough removed from population centers that the public wouldn't complain about proximity to those the government had deemed a grave and immediate danger to the nation's security. The Manzanar camp was about 6000 acres, forex, and the Topaz camp about 20,000. Each supported around 11,000 people.
So let's take the low number--six thousand acres for eleven thousand people. (Incidentally, that wouldn't be enough, agriculturally speaking, to support the population, but we'll let that pass for now.) There are currently about 600,000 registered offenders, up from 385,000 in late 2005. So, at minimum, and working from historical models, you'd need about 325,000 acres of land to meet the current numbers.
But then there's the issue of growth. From 385K in 2005 to 600K in 2007 is an increase of 215K in two years. So you'd need to add about 60,000 acres per year to meet demand. In less than ten years, you'd need land space equal to the state of Rhode Island. (Sure, the rate of increase will decline as a result of longer prison sentences, but that decline will take years to realize.)
And that wouldn't count the amount of land needed to create "buffer zones" between the "colonists" and their nearest neighbors. After all, if the colonists are going to be farming in order to meet your proposal of self-sufficiency, they'll have to be working in the fields--so you can't count the colony's agricultural acres as part of the buffer zone.
Then there's the infrastructure needed to provide water to the remote locations, and for sewage treatment so as not to create an environmental hazard. How long will it take to establish that for more than half a million people? That wasn't a concern during other historical periods, but environmental regulations are a tad more complicated these days.
And what would you propose be done between the time your amendment is passed, and the time the colonies are ready? What amount of law enforcement resources will be needed to round up and detain 600,000 people? There are historical precedents for swift capture of whole classes of persons, but you didn't much like those comparisons. (In order to avoid such comparisons, I suppose you could reach all the way back to the destruction of the Knights Templar for guidance--but that was dependent upon utter secrecy.) Keep in mind that, when the registry first came around at the federal level, the FBI estimated it would take every field officer in every office in California to merely track down and register California's sex offenders.
Then there's the issue of staffing. With many prisons already understaffed, where would you find the personnel to merely patrol the perimeters of the colonies to prevent escape?
How about juvi offenders? Some are as young as eight and nine years old. Would they have a seperate colony (which would have to include not only the above infrastructure, but an increased level of supervision and outside support, since most youngsters lack the skills to support themselves, let alone run a factory or grow crops), or would you send them to the adult colony?
And lastly, since the Department of Justice found the overwhelming majority of sex crime convictions were of people who had no previous sex crime conviction, just how would your proposal protect the vast majority of future victims?
What you offer, sir, is a dilettante's solution--long on tactics to get the amendment passed, utterly lacking in the logistics of enactment.
Posted by: | Jun 10, 2007 1:47:52 PM
God! Can't you guys see this is a cry for help? We have seen this in the past from sexually deviant people. Such passions come from personal demons. This is a precise plan as to what he thinks will stop him and a great deal of thought has gone into it.
Peter, give it up, man. You don't want to hurt anyone else. Your problem seems huge to you but there are solutions that do not involve colonies and constitutional amendments.Get the help you so desperately need.
Posted by: Shirley | Jun 10, 2007 6:14:00 PM
I've read the commentary and it's about time to stuff "Peter" or "Michael" or whoever the deviant is up his own chimney. First thing: don't throw around the word "sue" because you're totally full of crap in doing so. I'd LOVE to see someone sued for posting a link and theorizing that you are associated with it. You ARE aware of the strict requirements for successfully bringing a libel or slander suit against a person in the USA that is not classified as "in the public eye," correct?
Next, let's cover your perverted colony idea. You call it "Constitutional," but you fail to note that your "Amendment" would go against not only the literal meaning, but also the general spirit of the United States Constitution. It wasn't made to protect YOU, it was made to protect unpopular people, things, and ideas FROM you. With a little stretch, we could say it was written to protect sex offenders from those who would violate their most basic inalienable human rights--like YOU. Your "idea" goes against the foundation of the country you choose to remain in, and does not deserve to be entertained any further.
You stated that no one has presented arguments against what you have said, when it is very clear that the arguments against your "idea" are overwhelming and powerful. You are choosing to ignore the arguments, thinking that downplaying them as non-existent will push others to think that way. It is a foolish attempt at ignoring something and hoping it will go away. It will not. You have suffered the Internet equivalent of being laughed out of the room, and you're too arrogant to get lost, lick your wounds, and re-read the Constitution a few times. You're not fooling anyone.
Let's not forget that we're talking about over 600,000 people, and the last thing YOU want is to push 600,000 people past a breaking point. I must say that there is a lot of tolerance in the world of sex offenders to let people like you mouth off with such dangerous concepts and not speak up against it like a swarm of locusts. Let this be a warning to everyone: if you choose to continue to harm sex offenders out of blind, ignorant fear, you will reap that which you sow, and ultimately a child's blood will be on YOUR hands for not heeding the warnings. It is fools like this one that are pushing up the (currently insanely lower than we're led to believe) sex offense recidivism rates. And by ignoring the 90+ percent of NEW sex crimes that are not even related to convicted sex offenders in any way, this crazed man has the potential to pull the watchful eyes from the people that deserve it: people known to the potential victims.
See http://www.angryoffender.com/so_registration.html for an illustration of why people like this guy are a distraction from the real dangers.
Posted by: The Angry Offender | Jun 11, 2007 12:26:59 AM
It was good reading and to see such an idiot who is right in line with the 4th Reich of the United States. It's people like this who have made these laws by creating fear as Hitler did. Know the best part???
Joshua Lunsford-the brother of the Florida 9-year-old rape and murder victim Jessica Lunsford-faced charges in a Clark County, Ohio courtroom, Friday, May 25, 2007.
Lunsford, 18, pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The charges stem from an alleged incident that occurred in March with a 14-year-old girl outside the Upper Valley Mall. The incident stems from a complaint filed by the mother of Joshua Lunsford's young girlfriend. He has pleaded not guilty.
The mother says in a police report that Joshua Lunsford fondled the girl at a skating rink and outside a shopping mall on March 30 and 31 while the two were kissing.
Although the mother says the girl was a willing participant, Ohio law prohibits anyone 18 or older from having sexual contact with anyone younger than 16. Lunsford turned 18 in February.
Mark Lunsford-father of the accused-has been a leading advocate of the Jessica Lunsford Act, legislation that imposes stringent penalties on those convicted of a sexual offense.
Let him get off with a slap on the wrist and no registration. There will be a war. It's better to die fighting then to die without a cause.
Posted by: Po'ed SO... | Jun 13, 2007 1:58:38 AM
