Monday, May 16, 2011

Top 10 Lists - Has it Gone to Far?

The 10 Hottest Women on the Texas Sex Offenders List

And the Apology by the Author...

The "Hot Sex Offenders" List: An Explanation and Apology

Check out BOTH of these articles... Comment there and tell us what you think on here too... We always look forward to communications from our readers.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Update on Our Offender's Eyes

Hi, I am updating everyone to Matt's "vacation" from the internet. Matt did have his agents"blessing" to have internet access, but did not have her "blessing" to have a blog... Thus why he is not updating his blog, and why it now has a new internet and blog free. I will be maintaining his blog until his agent gives him the blessing to come back....

Free access to the internet is a right, not a privilege. Internet access is a right that is protected by the United States Constitution, regardless of crime. This very right has been challenged in the Federal courts, offenders have won.  Thus nobody, regardless of past history should not be forced by any state or state agency to loose that RIGHT. This is something that Matt is and will continue to fight.... The law is on his side, and I hope that he continues the fight and paves the way for others to follow his foot steps. Things like this is what starts people down the road to change, it re-kindles the fire and motivates persons even more to move forward looking for change!!! The law on this issue is on our side and we will fight!

These restrictions have been challenged, and the offenders have won, In 287 F3d 122 United States v. Sofsky it was as clear as can be... Read the case, it is an interesting case. Here is an excerpt:
In the pending appeal, the challenged condition of supervised release was not recommended in the PSR, and Sofsky had no prior knowledge that it would be imposed.  Both because the alleged error relates only to sentencing and because Sofsky lacked  prior notice, we will entertain his challenge without insisting on strict compliance with the rigorous standards of Rule 52(b).
The merits. A sentencing court may order a special condition of supervised release that is "reasonably related" to several of the statutory factors governing the selection of sentences, "involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary" for several statutory purposes of sentencing, and is consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Although the discretion thus conferred is broad, we have cautioned that we will "carefully scrutinize unusual and severe conditions." United States v. Doe, 79 F.3d 1309, 1319 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We previously considered a sentencing component that prohibited access to a computer or the Internet in United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79, 82-84 (2d Cir.2001). The restriction was imposed as a condition of probation for a defendant convicted of larceny because of the defendant's prior state conviction for incest and his accessing of adult pornography on his home computer. Noting that "[c]omputers and Internet access have become virtually indispensable in the modern world of communications and information gathering," id. at 83, we ruled the condition unreasonable. Appellate courts considering a similar restriction imposed upon defendants convicted of child pornography offenses have reached different conclusions. Compare United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199, 1205-07 (10th Cir.2001) (invalidating and requiring modification of restriction imposed on defendant who used Internet to receive child pornography), with United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 169 (5th Cir.2001) (upholding restriction imposed on defendant who produced child pornography and used Internet to distribute it), and United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 127-28 (3d Cir.1999) (upholding restriction imposed on defendant who used Internet to contact 14-year-old girl with whom he had sexual relations and photographed such conduct).
We appreciate the Government's point that permitting Sofsky access to a computer and the Internet after serving his ten-year sentence can facilitate continuation of his electronic receipt of child pornography, but we are more persuaded by the observation in Peterson that "[a]lthough a defendant might use the telephone to commit fraud, this would not  justify248 F.3d at 83. The same could be said of a prohibition on the use of the mails  imposed on a defendant convicted of mail fraud. A total ban on Internet access prevents use of email, an increasingly widely used form of communication and, as the Tenth Circuit noted, prevents other common-place computer uses such as "do[ing] any research, get[ting] a weather forecast, or read[ing] a newspaper online." White, 244 F.3d at 1206. Although the condition prohibiting Sofsky from accessing a computer or the Internet  without his probation officer's approval is reasonably related to the purposes of his sentencing, in light of the nature of his offense, we hold that the condition inflicts a greater deprivation on Sofsky's liberty than is reasonably necessary.
The Government contended at oral argument that the restriction must be broad because a restriction limited to accessing pornography would be extremely difficult for the probation officer to enforce without constant monitoring of Sofsky's use of his computer. There are several responses. First, to the extent that even a broad restriction would be enforced by the probation officer, monitoring (presumably unannounced) of Sofsky would be required to check if he was using a computer at all. Second, a more focused restriction, limited to pornography sites and images, can be enforced by unannounced inspections of Sofsky's premises and examination of material stored on his hard drive or removable disks.4 Cf. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S.Ct. 587, 591-93, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (rejecting Fourth Amendment challenge to search, on reasonable suspicion, of  probationer's premises). Finally, the Government can check on Sofsky's Internet usage with a sting operation — surreptitiously inviting him to respond to Government placed Internet ads for pornography. See White, 244 F.3d at 1201.

For all the above reasons, the condition of supervised release prohibiting all computer and Internet access is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of a more restricted  condition.

I do not know how clear the law has to be defined to have my friend have internet access? There is nothing posted on his blog that is against the law, or violation of his extended supervision. Matt and I both believe that it is their way of censoring him. He has a first amendment right to to free speech. This right is so important that it is number one in the U.S. Bill of Rights as well as amendment 1 article 3 of Wisconsin's very own

Constitution. I believe that our forefathers are rolling over in there graves thinking about how the document that they spent so much time and fought so hard to create and defend has been shredded in this manner.  A sad, sad day for democracy! Freedom of speech unless they don't like what you are saying...  Reminds me of this time in Europe when a very charismatic man came through and 'removed' from society those that he did not care for or disagreed with him.

Matt is going to allow the Wisconsin Department of Corrections the time to educate themselves on this cause, and allow them to correct the wrong that have done. If they are unwilling to let him exercise his rights by allowing him to get internet, his is 100% willing to take this back to the sentencing courts and challenging this condition. This is a RIGHT, and unless we stand up and protect the few rights that he has left, he will have nothing, and if they do this to him, what will they take next?

Feel free to leave as many comments as you want on this issue. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections does have the new site address, as he did provide it to them as part of the administrative appeal process. We need your support more now then ever.... Lets help him get his rights back!!!

The War on Boys

House Bill 1208: Teen Sex Offenders - Intimacy and Sex 

by Dawn Hawkins

Teen sex offenders may be in for a more difficult path than they are already facing. If some lawmakers have their way, information on the sex offender will be public knowledge. Teen offenders are generally exempt from having their names released. The new proposal by Representative Kirk Pearson will place notification in the hands of parents, staff and adult students of teen sex offenders attending the school. It appears to be yet another case of misguided effort on behalf of "protecting" our children. There are several things wrong with this type of law though. If passed, this law burdens already overburdened students with more pressure.

Teenagers face enough pressure in today's world without politicians making it worse. Politicians want to make a name for themselves. There is little concern for the actual affect that a law like this will have on the teen offender and the school body as a whole. The sex offender is not the only one paying the price. It becomes a burden for the entire school body. It is a near certainty if parents know about the sex offense; they will discuss it with their teenagers. Those teenagers will then pass the word around the school. Classes become disruptive, students become defensive and worried and mass hysteria takes new root.

Key problems with passage of such law:

  • In the United States, it is common practice to withhold the names of juvenile offenders for any crime. This practice is in place to protect the juvenile offender's future. Kids often make rash decisions without thinking about the future. The current laws protect kids (and society) from having to pay for the rest of their lives for a youthful mistake.

  • In the United States, teens placed on sex offender lists for ridiculous reasons suffer enough already. For example, many students find themselves convicted of sex offenses after taking and sharing photographs with other students (such as a case against six teenagers in Pennsylvania). Each "offender" acted of his or her own free will, yet earned a place on a sex offenders list. The same thing happens when a 15-year-old boy has consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl. These are just a couple of examples of bad judgment on the part of prosecutors. One can debate whether students should engage in sexual activity, but prosecutors have no place in these examples. A law such as the one Rep. Pearson wishes to enact will only hurt these types of "sex offenders." These are not criminals. These are teenagers behaving like teenagers.

  • This law only strengthens the ability for law enforcement and communities to further harm the teen offenders such as listed above. It encourages abuse of an already dysfunctional system. Prosecutors are already having a field day at the expense of the American teenager. This law could make it impossible for a teen with a sex offense to get an education, even when the "crime" he/she committed should not be a crime at all.

  • If laws like House Bill 1208 get enacted, teens with sex offenses stand little chance of rehabilitation. Instead of encouraging the young person to get on the right track, he/she has little hope of rising above the challenge for a bright future. The entire country suffers because of it. These students will likely see little reason to change current behaviors because no incentive for them exists.

Teens are less likely to repeat their offenses than adult offenders are. A law such as HB1208 discourages rehabilitation for those who committed the offenses to begin with. That harms society as a whole because the teen sex offender will then become more likely to repeat the offense. It is important to note that juvenile offenders in the United States receive a second chance to have a clean record. At age eighteen, convictions are sealed. This gives the juvenile offender a second chance to live a normal life. Under HB1208, this would be impossible for the juvenile to accomplish.

The principal and those who supervise the student currently receive notification of the sex offense. Serious sex offenders are dangerous to society. There is no dispute about that. However, this particular law targets teens when placed on the sex offender list for outrageous reasons. Lawmakers are not considering the consequences of such a law. America can become a land of open information about sex offenders by adding more and more laws until no one can distinguish what is right and what is wrong. American teens are being legislated into the ground, literally.

Justin Fawcett was a normal American teenager. While one could argue that he practiced bad judgment when he had sexual relations with a fourteen-year-old girl, his involvement was not that unusual. The sex was consensual on both parts. The girl, in fact, seduced Justin. She then wrote about the conquest in her diary. Justin, along with several other young boys in the Detroit area, who made the same mistake, found themselves placed on a sex offenders list. Justin attempted to move on with his life after believing his name would not be placed on the list. One year after a plea agreement, he received notification of placement on the list. His peers and others ostracized him. Justin committed suicide on March 19, 2004. He was twenty years old at the time. The so-called crime happened in 2002. He felt his life was hopeless. 

Did Justin deserve to die? No, and his actions did not merit a listing on the sex offenders list either.

If Justin felt that distraught because of placement on the sex offender list, it is safe to say that other teens in his position might feel the same way. This law simply makes it legal for people to harass them. The law does not discern what the teen's actual offense was. It is simply a notification that he/she has committed a sex offense. It is of utmost importance that fathers find out what constitutes a sex offense in their state. Shock is certain to set in when fathers realize just how easy it is for prosecutors to charge their sons with sex crimes. There is an urgent need for fathers to stand up to the legislators that represent them.

The real crime on these issues is to knock the teenager down and then to strip him of any dignity that may be left. Pearson believes that anti-bullying laws will regulate whether convicted students will be harassed or not. However, Pearson is not the one living the nightmare that these kids are living. The length that legislation goes to has stripped parents' rights away. It happens little by little until there is nothing left of the parenting role. Laws such as the proposed HB1208 punishes acts that should not be considered criminal and it does not allow parents the control necessary to properly raise their children.

Fathers, it is your duty as a parent to ensure that lawmakers are not further harming the children of our nation. What is covered in a gooey haze of fluff (protecting the children), is really just another way to take the parenting role away from the parent. These laws harm children rather than help them. This debate is currently happening in Olympia, Washington. These types of laws could be at your backdoor at any given moment. 

It is time for fathers to claim their parenting role and push legislators back over the line. Let the lawmakers know that they are being watched on this issue. 

copyright (c) 2011