Falsely accused.... Yet still in prison??? This is our Justice System at its Finest...

Life Without Parole
By Mandy Oaklander Wednesday, Apr 13 2011

John Kinsel remains in prison even after alleged rape victim recanted.

Read the full article here: http://www.houstonpress.com/2011-04-14/news/life-without-parole/

Ronald Schell: Abuse of sex offender rules wastes taxpayer money

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_bb7f0150-33f3-55b2-b682-16b6921e880c.html

Dear Editor: The Department of Corrections (DOC) routinely applies the harshest sex offender parole rules to individuals who are not a threat to the community. These rules make living a normal life nearly impossible and feed a prison population in Wisconsin that is already more than twice the size of Minnesota, which has about the same population.
Jonathan (not his real name) is a UW-Madison graduate who was convicted of burglarizing a friend’s apartment and forging a check. He served two years in prison. Because he was convicted of sexual activities with other boys when he was in foster care at the age of 12, the DOC imposed dozens of oppressive rules including prohibitions on using the Internet, visiting a health club, going to a park, going to bars, or coming near any place frequented by even one person under the age of 18. It didn’t matter that Jonathan’s offenses occurred 18 years ago, or that he was never again convicted of any sexual offense, or that a psychologist determined that he is not a threat to commit sexual crimes.
Informed that he had used the Internet at his job, Jonathan’s parole officer put him in jail and recommended that he be sent back to prison. As his lawyer observed, “When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Thanks to the DOC’s hammer, we are all paying to house someone who could be a productive member of society.
Ronald Schell
Madison

intresting read....

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/31/opinion/maine%E2%80%99s-sex-offender-conundrum/

STAN MOODY

Maine’s sex offender conundrum

Posted March 31, 2011, at 8:49 p.m.

Print | E-mail | Facebook | Tweet

On Jan. 2, when the 125th legislative session was still a gleam in every new legislator’s eye, the Bangor Daily News published an article titled “State to craft new sex crime laws.” Mal Leary led off with the description of legislators “bracing” for onslaught.
Oh, those sex offenders! We seem to know what to do with every other type of offender. But sex offenders, who notoriously enjoy a recidivism and probation violation rate of around 16 percent of that experienced with your average, run-of-the-mill former prisoner, evoke the shudder complex from the most compassionate among us.
One way of reducing the bracing factor in dealing with sex offenders is to educate the public concerning the level of threat posed by various categories of offense. That would, however, demand that we psychologically profile each offender, a task above the budgetary tolerance line.
So we are required to render all sex offenders 14 and older as more or less equal if we are to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act. We create something of a lifelong leper colony for people who have been caught acting out fantasies prompted by our sex-crazed culture.
What ought to concern us more are the ones who have not yet been caught and who may be living next door.
Four of the 50 states are now in compliance with the Adam Walsh Act — South Dakota, Ohio, Delaware and Florida. Thus violation of any one of 189 sex offenses, including urinating on the sidewalk, streaking or online sex chat, will result in a lifetime registry.
Maine legislators, meanwhile, are bracing.
At stake is a cut of $166,000 to $350,000 in Byrne Justice Assistance funds to law enforcement agencies.
Thankfully, cooler heads are and have been prevailing. “We have had some serious questions about the Adam Walsh Act so far,” says veteran Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick. His former co-chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, Rep. Ann Haskell, D-Portland, adds that compliance has been a concern in many states and that change tends to be incremental.
That brings us to the ultimate in inanity — LD 8. As amended, LD 8 would permit towns with no police department to move the current 750-foot buffer between sex offender housing and schools or day care centers to 2,500 feet, or half a mile.
That affirms the public stereotype of a sex offender as a sleazy-looking, unlicensed male lurking behind bushes in the schoolyard. One veteran probation officer told me that in his 30-year career, he could think of only a handful of sex offenses that originated on school property, and all were committed by staff.
Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, a committee member and retired state trooper, is all over LD 8. “I am concerned about keeping children safe,” he avers. That sets Rep. Burns apart from the rest of us, one would suppose.
The committee verdict on the bill was a hung jury — 6-6 — and it has not yet been reported to the full Legislature. We look forward to fierce debate on the floor of the House being led by ought-to-pass advocates of this feel-good opportunity. At stake is an indeterminate fiscal report.
The fact that state legislators are “bracing” themselves ought to be cause enough for concern. The preponderance of sex offenses occur within families, carried out by family members or friends to whom it likely never occurs to lurk in the schoolyard bushes or near a day care.
They get plenty of opportunities right at home. In fact, the most common profile of a sexual predator is one who looks and acts just like the rest of us.
We could do away with the registry entirely by requiring GPS ankle monitors to be worn by all sex offenders for however long the court would deem appropriate. The savings in law enforcement man-hours would likely far exceed the loss of funds from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program.
Adam Walsh’s dad, John, argues that we ought to scrap the registry altogether and start over.
The core problem is a public that naively believes that family members, pastors, teachers and neighbors are inherently good just because of who they are.
Perhaps we all ought to wear GPS ankle bracelets to protect each other from enablers who have failed to learn that trust is not something you earn because of who you are or where you live or how you make your living but by proving yourself to be trustworthy.
Big brother is watching!
Stan Moody of Manchester served in the Maine Legislature and was a prison chaplain.

Intesting Video

Intesting Video

This is a must watch, take the time to take a look at this and listen to this lady. It is a big eye opener...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ehPfV_dzif8

Intesting Video

This is an intresting video that talks about older women (teachers) having sexual relations with teen men

Intesting Video

Intesting Video

Please take a few moments and watch this video, it is very educational and has some really great topics covered

This is scary, and i would gladly go to prison before i would allow them to implant a GPS in me, the braclet is bad enough, but this would never happen

WA Looks At Implants For Sex Offenders

January 21st, 2009

Comments Off

Washington State lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would outfit sex offenders with a surgically-implanted device that tracks their movement.

The devices would replace the ankle bracelets that are currently used to track offenders. The bracelets have been criticized as a lacking device as offenders have successfully removed them in the past before disappearing off of the radar.  “(The devices would) be a little more difficult to take off,” said Rep. Maralyn Chase, D-Edmonds.   Chase is among a handful of lawmakers are looking into radio chips that can be planted under the skin. Some of the designs are no larger than a grain of rice.   The radio chips would allow police to track an offender from a sex offender using the same technology used at the Tacoma Narrows bridge toll … If passed, the bill would allow the state to hire the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to determine whether chip implants would be more effective.

intresting read....

CA GPS Tracking Overwhelmed

June 18th, 2010

Comments Off

Several years ago, California decided to require high-risk parolees, such as gang members and sex offenders, to wear GPS monitoring devices. The idea was to relay location information to law enforcement to ensure that the convicts stay where they’re supposed to. Unfortunately, the state often misses those alerts, making the devices both a lesson in the pitfalls of technology management and a massive exercise in largely useless spending. News from CBS Business Network.

In 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger first supported a pilot program to track 500 sex offenders and alert authorities if one of them wandered too far from home. California voters passed a ballot initiative, nicknamed Jessica’s Law, in 2006 that prohibited sex offenders from being within 2,000 feet of a school or park and required all offenders to wear monitoring devices for the rest of their lives. By this year, the state wanted to expand monitoring to a thousand paroled gang members at a cost of $9,500 a year for each one.

The move expands what is already the nation’s biggest Global Positioning System monitoring program of convicts, coming three years after voters required satellite tracking of more than 7,000 paroled sex offenders.

Unfortunately, the technology, as California implemented it, didn’t work. The case of convicted sex offender Leonard Scroggins shows the system’s problem. Scroggins cut the tracking device off his ankle and allegedly tried to rob or kidnap several women and girls over a two-day period. The device sounded an alarm and parole officers pushed through the paperwork for an arrest warrant, but the process took nearly 24 hours. Even then, police would only learn of the warrant if they picked up Scroggins for some other reason and then checked the appropriate database.
Computers can automatically route signals to the proper people in law enforcement. Nevertheless, parole officials have left tens of thousands of electronic alerts unresolved:

Officials say the backlog grew because they lacked software to run an ongoing report of all unresolved cases. That is, supervisors in Southern California were working only with reports of new alarms, rather than a report showing previous alarms that had not been cleared.

Officials clearly didn’t have a desktop database or spreadsheet to filter and analyze the alerts, and so they were buried in unexamined data.
According to Petra Fuhriman, owner of GPS Monitoring Solutions, a monitoring consulting and services company never involved in the state’s system, California chose a passive alert system. Notifications from the monitoring devices automatically go to parole officers. However, there is no differentiation among different types of alerts. A device could as easily signal that it had been removed or that the battery was running down. Someone might be on a highway, technically in a restricted area but actually passing by at high speed — or stuck in traffic, where it might look like they were loitering.
Fuhriman says that that parole officers’ phones and email in-boxes “are flooded with these messages, so they become desensitized and stop paying attention.” The state could write software to prioritize the messages, based on the type of alert and the frequency of notification to help the officers choose the most important alerts, but it apparently hasn’t.
Alerts also do little good when parole personnel are off-duty on a weekend and no one receives a message until the following Monday. Some companies provide real-time monitoring, with outsourced first level screening of alerts and officer notification for serious issues, but that is more expensive.
And so California, like so many institutions and organizations, looked to technology as a silver bullet siren, but failed to undertake the operational changes necessary to make it work. Officials cost-cut the original good idea to the point where it was all but useless.

intresting read....

WI Prison Population on the Decline After 150 Years

January 5th, 2011

Comments Off

After more than 150 years of persistent increases, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is reporting a sustained decline in the state’s prison population. Between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, the population fell about 7 percent, the largest decline in state history. Experts say court diversion programs, declining crime rates and the state’s focus on preventing recidivism are responsible for the reductions. Story from the Milwaukee Magazine.

On June 30, at the end of fiscal year 2010, the department reported earlier this week, there were 22,171 inmates in the state’s prisons, up from 22,008 at the end of fiscal year 2009. But this slight increase followed three years of consecutive declines in fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009, a first since the state’s first correctional facility opened in Waupun in 1851. All told, the population has dropped from 23,797 in 2007 to 22,171 in 2010.
The state’s prison population grew by leaps and bounds in the 1990s. Then, in the first five years of the 21st Century, the growth slowed. In the five years that followed, between fiscal years 2005 and 2010, the population appears to have crested.
“It’s not like it’s dropping off a cliff,” says Kenneth Streit, an associate professor of law at UW-Madison and an expert on corrections in the state. “But I’m certainly heartened by the fact it’s coming down.”
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Wisconsin’s incarceration rate for prisons (including federal prisons) was 74 percent of the national average in 2004. But Streit says that if one includes both prison and county jail inmates, the state ranks relatively high.
“We’re reducing (the state prison population) from a fairly high number,” Streit says.
Crime has declined in Wisconsin, as in the rest of the country, in the past several years, according to Streit, meaning courts are sending fewer offenders to the state for incarceration. Efforts in Wisconsin and around the country are also mounting to find alternatives for non-violent offenders.
The previous philosophy, Streit says, was to give prisoners “a long sentence and if that doesn’t work, give them a longer one. We’re sort of winding our way out of those sentences.”
Rick Raemisch, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, agrees. “There are people that should be in prison, and there’s no question about it. But for the people who are nonviolent, the stakeholders are really starting to look at different alternatives.”
He adds, “We take a hard line with sex offenders for obvious reasons. But with others, we look at what we can do that will turn this individual around.”
Streit says that in recent years, the DOC has moved away from a “zero tolerance” approach to probation violations. Instead of automatically sending the person back to a correctional facility, he says, they may spend a short time in county jail, a strategy aided by a new state law that raised the limit on how long a DOC offender on probation can be jailed in a county facility for such a violation.
Streit and William Pelfrey, an associate professor of criminal justice at UW-Milwaukee, say court diversion programs are becoming increasingly popular in Wisconsin and are also helping to hold down the state’s prison populations. The programs, which include drug courts, where drug offenders undergo treatment and are given a chance to reform before they are imprisoned, have been relatively slow to take hold in Milwaukee County, according to Pelfrey.
The Milwaukee County Drug Treatment Court began accepting defendants in 2008. Pelfrey says judges in the county and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm have pushed for diversion programs and more “community corrections” options that allow offenders to serve their sentences on work release or home detention (with electronic monitoring).
Raemisch says he’s seen support for such approached statewide. “There are a large number of innovative sheriffs in Wisconsin, and you find a lot of innovative release programs,” he says.
He also credits the state’s focus on reentry programs for reducing recidivism. The focus needs to be on drug and alcohol treatment, education and job skills, he says. “There’s really no secret to turning these individuals around.”
The state also began an early-release program in January for nonviolent offenders nearing the ends of their sentences. Some Milwaukee leaders, including Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Ed Flynn, objected to it, saying that many of these offenders would wind up back on the city’s streets to commit more crimes.
Pelfrey says the era of long sentences for nonviolent offenders appears to be coming to a close, and prison populations are declining as a result. “The perception is that people who go to prison are dangerous, violent offenders, but that’s the exception, not the rule,” he says. Most committed property offenses (such as theft or burglary) to make money for illegal drugs.
States are also beginning to realize how expensive such policies can be. “The financial toll on states is phenomenal,” according to Pelfrey.
Raemisch says the department commissioned a study that, in 2008, recommended the department find ways to curb the flow of inmates into its prisons. The continuation of the status quo, the study found, would cost the state $1.2 billion by 2018.
“That was a roadmap of where we don’t want to be,” he says. Raemisch says that status quo is already changing, and the state is avoiding the increases in prisoners the study warned would be so costly.
Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, says the reductions in the state prison population may be due to changing demographics: There are now fewer males between the ages of 16 and 25, and consequently fewer crimes being committed.
NewsBuzz has also covered a similar decline in juvenile incarcerations in the state. Read the story here. In crafting a new state budget next year, Gov. Scott Walker could choose to close one of the state’s boys’ schools, possibly the one in Wales in Waukesha County. Raemisch says he recommended to the new administration that it close one of the facilities but says he didn’t specify which one.

Walkers plan to save money, keep people incarcerated longer! What is wrong with this picture

WI Budget Tightens Early Prison Release

March 9th, 2011

Comments Off

Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to rescind former Gov. Jim Doyle’s cost-saving sentencing reform measures will have little positive effect on the state budget or even on Walker’s wish to restore truth in sentencing, data from the state Department of Corrections shows. Reported in the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Walker has proposed changing the funding for the prison system, taking it from a $1.3 billion budget for this year to $1.2 billion in 2012 and then back up to $1.27 billion in 2013.
In Walker’s recent budget address, the governor said his plan would restore truth in sentencing, state efforts begun in the late 1990s to more closely tie court sentences to actual time that inmates serve.
While he didn’t address whether costs would increase because inmates could be kept in prison longer, he said the intention is separating issues of early release from budget considerations.
To some observers, the repealing of Doyle’s early release initiatives seem contradictory to Walker’s cost-cutting strategies.
“There appears to be substantial cuts planned in the DOC budget, and at the same time, we’re expecting prisoners are going to stay locked up for longer periods,” Brown County Judge J.D. McKay said. “That costs money. I don’t completely understand the logic of the two; they seem to run counter to each other.”
In reality, Walker’s planned changes to Doyle’s early release measures will affect relatively few inmates.
Doyle’s plan, which started on Oct.1, 2009, was originally expected to save as much as $27 million over two years. Actual savings have been minimal because relatively few inmates have been released early under the program, prison data shows.
Out of a prison population of more than 22,000, only 479 inmates were released early since Oct. 1, 2009, according to prison spokesman Tim LeMonds. No specific figure of cost savings was available, LeMonds said, but “over the last few years, it was extremely minimal.”
The largest share — 362 inmates — were released under the sentence adjustment program, a program that will remain largely intact under Walker’s proposed changes, according to Tony Streveler, the prison system’s policy initiatives advisor.
Under that program, eligible inmates who have served 75 percent or more of their sentences become eligible to apply for early release. Under Doyle’s plan, those inmates had to apply first to the governor’s Earned Early Release Commission and, if approved at that level, then to the original sentencing judge.
Walker’s plan leaves the program in place but streamlines the process: Inmates would apply directly to the sentencing judge.
“The court would make the decision up front and on the back end,” Streveler said.
Walker’s plan eliminates other early release programs that Doyle put in place in 2009.
One of those plans gave the prison the authority to release low-level nonviolent offenders who had served all but 12 months of their prison time. The unserved prison time was added to their extended supervision. Only 56 inmates were released since Oct. 1, 2009, under that program.
Walker’s plan also would eliminate early release under Doyle’s “positive adjustment time” program. That program allowed certain inmates to earn a day of early release for a specified number of days served with good behavior. Certain low-level, nonviolent offenders could earn one day for every two days served; others could earn one day for every three days served; others could earn one day for every 5.7 days served with good behavior. Under that program, unserved prison time again was added to the inmates’ extended supervision periods. Only 56 earned early release through that program since Oct. 1, 2009.
Doyle’s plan allowed early release for inmates with extraordinary health problem, as determined by two physicians. Walker’s plan tightens the rule, requiring a terminal medical condition as determined by two physicians. Four inmates were released since Oct. 1, 2009, under Doyle’s plan.
Doyle’s plan allowed qualified low-level offenders to apply to the state Department of Corrections for early release from extended supervision, providing they had served two years or at least half of the extended supervision term. To date, 87 people received early release from extended supervision. Walker’s plan would repeal that program.
Doyle had also expanded the definition of inmates eligible for the prison’s Challenge Incarceration Program, so-called “boot camp” for inmates with special programming needs. That program originally allowed only drug- and alcohol-dependent inmates; Doyle’s plan allowed admission of inmates with other program needs. Walker’s plan would restore the program’s original eligibility limits.

5 to 20,

This is another sex offenders blog, this man was just sentenced to 12 years in the federal system for child pornography. He has a very good prospective about his sitiation, take a look.

http://5to20.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/the-meeting/

intresting read....

1 in 99 Males are Registered Sex
Offenders in WI.  With hundreds
added yearly when they release
incarcerated offenders.

Wisconsin Total Population – 5,654,774
18 years and older – 4,348,606
Males – 2,141,508
Females – 2,207,098

Total Registered in Wisconsin– 21,636
Males – 21,462
Females – 174

Joys of GPS

It is lovely when you get ready to leave a store and come back home. I sat in the parking lot of the local wal-mart for almost 20 minutes because they wounderful "high tech" piece of equipment did not work. It is pretty bad when the company that provides wisconsin with the equipment posts a list of things on there website that states the defects with it.

http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/GPSlimitations.pdf

The state of wisconsin really needs to take a serious look at this system, there are people, like me, that need to deal with these types of issues every day of there life unless meaninful change is made to the current statue. I would challenge anyone, especially a legislator that made these laws to spend a week with one of these on, and to walk a mile in my shoes. If they are able to do this, and not have any issues with it, I will shut my mouth and you won't hear from me about this agian. I know that would not happen!

Five million for this program this year, yeah money well spent!!!!!

There is a need for change, and the time for change is NOW!!!!

intresting read....

http://constitutionaldefense.org/

State of Wisconsin Surpreme court ruling in favor of sexual offenders

State v. Dinkins, 2010 WI App 163 (Nov. 18, 2010)

This case examines if a convicted sex offender is exempt from complying with the address reporting requirement of Wisconsin’s sex offender registration law on grounds that the sex offender claims to be homeless.
On appeal, the appeals court reversed the circuit court order denying William Dinkins’ motion for post-conviction relief, concluding the plain language of Wis. Stat. sections 301.45(2)(a)5 and (e)4 do not permit prosecution of a soon-to-be released prisoner for failing to fulfill the address reporting requirement if he cannot reasonably predict his residence upon release.

Ken Kratz

I have been watching the coverage about the Calumet county now-former district attorney Ken Kratz. On all the coverage they keep showing Atty Robert Bellin saying Mr. Ken Kratz did not violate the law.

Well I came accross the following statue that shows this man did violate the law.


Wis. Stat. § 947.0125. Unlawful use of computerized communication systems. (1995)
(1)   In this section, "message" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature, or any transfer of a computer program, as defined in s. 943.70 (1) (c)
(2)   Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:
With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.

I belive that Mr. Kratz would have saught these charges agianst others, so why is he not being charged? It is sad that he could only face a class B Misdermeanor. I think this man should be a Registered Sexual Offender. This man sexualy assaulted these women and revictimized them. It is just sad that the law never is used to protect people when you are a public official. Speak out and ask lots of questions on this matter, you know they would be charging you for this type of action!

Furlough Days in Wisconsin

Well, what a joy, The state agencies were shut down today for a furlough day. Why should this matter to me? Well as a offender that is on GPS I go on lockdown every day that the DOC decides to take a day off.
So today, they were nice enough to let me go to work then straight home. I am told that they limit my movements due to staff being short! Well, lets take a look at the situation. It is true that on furlough days the DOC staff is short, this is because the state spent more money then they had and they were forced to make cuts. Good idea in theory but does it really make sence, that is an entirly another blog for another day!

So lets look hour these furlough days affect offenders on GPS! Due to the furlough day, the DOC made a policy that limits offenders movements on these days. So they pretty much put you on house arrest, and what did the offender do wrong? NOTHING. The DOC "justified" limiting movement due to staff shortages. So they decided that offenders on GPS can only go to work and to treatment. So becuase the DOC can state that the staff is short, they put offenders in my situation on house arrest.

So this made me start to think, what is the difference between a fulough day and say a weekend. In both situations there is a shortage of staff, because they only staff enough people to run the programs that run 24 hours a day, things like the monitoring center. It is mandated by the GPS statue that the monitoring center is mandated to be staffed 24 hours a day 365 days a year. So there is staff there to operate the monitoring center in Madison Wisconsin. This is staffed weather it is a weekday, a weekend, or a furlough day because they have to monitor all offenders that are on electonic monitoring weather it is GPS, scam, sobrieter or any other electonic moniting that they state has.

On weekends I have an approved schedule and i pretty much have free movement when i have "outtime." They allow me to leave my residence then, and this is one of those times that there is limited DOC staff on. Now today, there are persons working in the monitoring center. I have an approved schedule from my agent, just like any other weekday. What is different between today and yesterday? They both had "limited DOC staff" so why should i be only allowed to go to treatment or work, any other time I am locked within my house, and if I leave anywhere else there will be a warrent issues and i will have a couple of officers knocking at my door to take me to the town motel for the night. So it just proves that there is someone sitting behind a desk in Madison to monitor the movements of the offenders on electronic monitoring, as there has to be someone to issue the warrents and to verify the the warrent when the wounderful police department calls.

So we know that the DOC monitoring center is staffed on furlough days, same as weekends and holidays. So why is the DOC punishing offenders on electronic monitoring. GPS and most electronic monitoring is used as a tool. GPS is a tool, it should be used as a tool until it is deamed unconstitutional. It should never be used as a punishment. This is not a punishment, this is a tool that is mandated by statue. So as a tool, it should not be used as a punishment, and should not be used as house arrest when the DOC does not want to do there job!

The time to change is now. We need to speak out about this and contact our legislators and anyone that will listen to force change on this issue. How is one supposed to become a productive member of society and give back if they are locked in there house whenever the DOC and legislators want to "save" money.

GPS - A feel good law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EjdZq0PGyU

This is a video that shows what legislators really think. If they place a GPS on every offender we will stop crime, anyone that is informed on sexual offenders know that 90+% of sexual assaults are committed by persons that have never been caught! Informed persons also know that persons with sexual based crimes do not usally comitte other crimes of the same nature. Most studies show that a person that goes to prison for a sexually based crime that recive meaninful treatment do not comitte another crime. Most studies show that recidivism rates of sexual offenders is around 2.5%. So why do we as a state and country push for all of these regulations on sex offenders, simple, it sells and it gets the votes. It gets the votes because of media and polititions keep telling the general population that this class of offenders will comitte more crimes, when in all reality, this is not true. But it this sells, and gets votes.

So, in all reality, what does GPS really do? It shows the location of the offender (when the system works properly). Is that what the general public really needs to know? The answer is no, in the perfect world probation and parole officers want to know what the offender is doing, who they are with, and what they are doing with said people! GPS for this class of offender sounds wounderful on paper, but what does it really do to protect the community?

So before we can do something to change this for this class of offender and stop violating there rights, we need to educate the people that make these laws. Then we need to speak out and educate the general public. Once we do this we can find good ways to stop the vicimization, and help the victims, the offenders, and there family and friends to make this country a better place. Until we are able to do this, the states and the federal systems will continue to spend countless billions of dollars on laws and programs that do nothing to stop further victimization.

As you see on the video, there is a lot of education to be done. Until we can change the minds of the people that are in office, they will continue to believer that every sex offender will be released from custody and will recommitte crimes!    This video tells the truth! check him out, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kgho7SC6xk    his website is http://www.allenhuntshow.com/

Fact vs. Fiction on Sexual offenders

•

unsuspecting children?

think this, the facts show a different story. Federal and State data show that most sex

crimes against children are committed by someone the child knows—either a family

member or close associate. Under 10 percent of sex crimes against children are

committed by a stranger. Sexual abuse of children is not typically committed by

strangers.

Aren’t all sex offenders perverted strangers who sneak up and snatchAlthough news stories about gruesome crimes lead us to

•

fact the DOJ statistics show how many missing children were runaways (99% of

which return home safely, according to their statistics) and how many were abducted

by a family member. They don’t list the number abducted by strangers, because the

number is so small, as shown in table 3 of the NISMART-2 2002 Bulletin, “National

Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview.”

Aren’t most of the America’s missing children abducted by strangers? No, in

•

2002 U.S. Department of Justice study showed that 60% of the children abducted by

strangers or slight acquaintances during a 12-month study period

This statistical data relates to all abductions, not specifically regarding sex offenders.

Aren’t children who have been abducted by strangers typically murdered? Awere not killed.

•

crime (habitual sex offenders)?

recidivism (re-arrest) rates for tens of thousands of sex offenders show that 87 to

97% of all convicted sex offenders who have been released do not commit any more

sex crimes. Time spans in the studies ranged from 3 to 13 years. The offenders

included those who had committed crimes against children, as well as those who had

committed crimes against adults. A 1994 U.S. Department of Justice study of

recidivism of sex offenders versus other ex-convicts showed that 87% of sex crimes

during the study period were committed by someone other than a convicted sex

offender.

Aren’t all or most sex crimes committed by people formerly convicted of a sexFederal and State crime statistics and data on

•

the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000 report, “Sexual

Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and

Offender Characteristics” show that a surprising 40% of reported sex crimes against

children are committed by other children (under the age of 18), not by adults. So not

all sex offenders are adults.

Aren’t all sex offenders warped or psychologically damaged adults? Data from

•

between the terms “sex offender” and “sexual predator.” According to Grubin and

Winegate

and 13% of the population of sex offenders. Theses predators are likely to commit

other sex crimes. The other 87% to 97% of sex offenders are very unlikely to commit

any more sex crimes. This shows that not all sex offenders are sexual predators.

Only a small percentage of them are. These predators can be identified through

existing assessment tools. If these people are not incarcerated or civilly committed,

Once a sex offender, always a sexual predator. There is an important difference1 statistics, apparent sexual predators constitute somewhere between 2.5%

they should have the highest level of police attention, in order to protect the public.

The low-risk sex offenders are a different group with a different risk level and should

be treated differently, using programs outlined in this report. This approach will result

in significant cost savings without increasing risks to the public.

•

that the registry will list 'the most violent and predatory sex offenders'; however,

people caught up in this situation are most times given the appalling choice only

between 25 years to life if you go to trial, or accept a plea bargain. What they are not

told, is the plea bargain countless times includes the predator label and registering for

life. Unfortunately many times this includes one-crime one-victim, non-violent and novictim

(public exposure that was not even witnessed by anyone) offenders, even

those who were never officially charged or convicted of a sex offense and the severity

of the sentence and label depends highly on public and judicial attitude of the day.Abuse of the Predator Label. The stated legislative intent of Megan's Law specifies

new videos that i just found on Ken Kratz

http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/Women-speak-about-why-they-filed-complaints-against-Kratz-103589259.html

This is very disturbing to me, that the guy that was supposed to protect victims of crimes, was sexualy assalting them. There is big issues that people of power are getting away with these types of things. If i would have done this, this man would have yelled from the highest mountain and would have made a hudge deal about this, but instead he did everything possible to cover it up. This is a double standard, and this man should be punished. This is why people are affraid to file with the district attorneys information about crimes and vitimizations. This man violated his oath to protect victims of crime and now he is going to get away with this. All that happened he lost his office, but know he opened his law office. Therr is big issues here!

GPS System Limitations straight from BI Inc, Wisconsins GPS provider

GPS System Limitations

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) tracking systems were originally designed and utilized by the

military for a variety of purposes, but generally to provide location and/or velocity information

of objects or individuals around the world. GPS has been used in the last decade by civilians to

effectively track vehicles, inventory, Alzheimer’s patients, migrating animals, and even pets.

In community corrections, GPS tracking is a form of intensive supervision used most commonly to

monitor higher-risk individuals under community supervision. Offenders are tracked by a portable

GPS receiver that is carried or worn. In order to provide accurate location information, a receiver

must be in clear sight of at least three satellites. In most normal situations, a human being is likely in

view of between five and eight satellites; however there are basic limitations in GPS technology that

inhibit or block transmissions for brief or extended periods of time.

Known Geographic & Weather Related Limitations

Since satellite transmission power is low, certain geographical conditions may cause problems with

a GPS receiver’s ability to record location data:

Terrain

information if the view of the sky is severely limited. This situation can occur in deep canyons, or

under dense vegetation.

– Signals can become degraded and the receiver system may not provide location

Urban Canyons

fading errors that may affect the ability to track offenders.

– Large or tall buildings grouped closely together can cause large multi-path and

Vehicles

transportation if the receiver is not placed near a window within the vehicle.

– Signals can be lost when an offender is riding in a car or other enclosed means of

Weather

Because of these factors, it is difficult to ensure complete or thorough GPS coverage at all times.

However, with the ongoing advancements in technology, certain system components and features

are now available that improve the equipment capabilities. For example, omni-directional antennas

enable tracking devices to pick up GPS coverage in virtually any orientation. Flat patch antennas are

not as advanced and must maintain an upright position to receive coverage. Reliable radio frequency

(RF) technology, cellular towers and Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) can also be paired

with GPS to enhance system accuracy.

Due to the types of individuals normally being supervised with GPS by community corrections

professionals (i.e. higher-risk offenders on parole/probation, pre-trial defendants, etc.), equipment

reliability is imperative. Community safety is a concern if faulty or sub-standard equipment is used

to supervise individuals that may otherwise be in detention, jail or prison. Affordable and effective

alternatives to incarceration are available and agencies must consider the benefits as well as the

system limitations and liabilities that exist with all GPS products.

http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/GPSlimitations.pdf

Here is a link to BI Inc. GPS page http://bi.com/exacutrackat– Signal strength can become degraded by moisture such as rainfall, fog, or snowfall.

some intresting videos about the GPS Falure last fall and others...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVpqFjd2Sg8#normal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBAT07UEWug&NR=1

Millions Spent On GPS Tracking Devices For Parolees Wasted As State Of California Is Unable To Keep Up With Generated Alerts – 10′s Of Thousands Sex Offender Alerts Ignored

http://ourtaxdollarsatwork.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/millions-spent-on-gps-tracking-devices-for-parolees-wasted-as-state-of-california-is-unable-to-keep-up-with-generated-alerts-10s-of-thousands-sex-offender-alerts-ignored/

CALIFORNIA – Tens of thousands of electronic alerts caused by sex offender missteps have gone unresolved, a situation that the state is trying to correct this week with a massive push to get the backlog under control.

Parole supervisors are following up on more than 31,000 alarms in Southern California, caused by low batteries, lost signals, entry into forbidden zones or severed straps on electronic ankle bracelets.

Parole administrators got their orders June 3, the day after a state inspector general’s report found lax GPS supervision of paroled sex offender John Albert Gardner III, who went on to kill two San Diego County teenagers.

The backlog has developed since March 19, when the department committed to resolve “all alerts and violations” by sex offenders, in response to the Gardner case.

Officials say the backlog grew because they lacked software to run an ongoing report of all unresolved cases. That is, supervisors in Southern California were working only with reports of new alarms, rather than a report showing previous alarms that had not been cleared.

The retroactive reports have been available for the past week, revealing the backlog, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Gordon Hinkle said.

“We have stated several times that GPS is an evolving science, where technology and best practices continue to be fluid,” Hinkle said by e-mail. “This is a new policy, and as CDCR leads the nation in GPS development, more improvements will be made.”

Agents and union leaders complain that the new emphasis on GPS monitoring by computer keeps them from performing important work in the field, where they can more effectively track dangerous offenders.

“This policy has created so much busy work that this work cannot get done,” said Melinda Silva, the Parole Agents Association of California president. “The real work of getting out and supervising these people is not getting done.”

Hinkle said the department is reviewing workloads for agents handling GPS cases. Clearing the backlog will help, he said.

“Once this reconciliation process is cleared, case management will become more manageable,” he said.

GPS monitoring can be a powerful tool, judging by the report this month by the state’s independent inspector general, David Shaw. He concluded that Amber Dubois, 14, of Escondido and Chelsea King, 17, of Poway would likely still be alive if agents had done a better job watching Gardner, who served five years in prison and three years on parole for a 2000 molestation conviction.

Among other mistakes, agents failed to check Gardner’s GPS tracks, which showed he broke curfew at least 168 times and visited remote areas near where he later hid Amber’s remains, the report found. GPS data also show he visited a state prison, which could be a felony. GPS data from 2008 show he parked in an area where officials say contraband is smuggled into the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility on Otay Mesa Road.

A spokeswoman for Shaw said Monday she could not address the unresolved alerts without seeing documentation, but noted the review included proposals to improve monitoring of sex offenders.

“As we said in our report, the Office of the Inspector General recommended strategies that could allow the (corrections) department to more effectively review and use GPS data,” spokeswoman Laura Hill said.

According to records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, unresolved alerts totaled more than 31,000 in Region III, which is Los Angeles , and Region IV, which includes counties from San Bernardino to the border with Mexico.

The problem grew so severe that administrators and unit supervisors held a special meeting last week at Region IV headquarters in Diamond Bar.

New reports documenting alerts will be developed every week by the company that supplies the GPS anklets, administrators wrote, in part because “the district management report is inaccurate.”

The alerts listed on more than a dozen pages of internal documents range from simple low-battery warnings to so-called strap tampers, when a parolee cuts off the buckle and removes the tracking system.

GPS devices need to be charged every 12 hours, creating a challenge for homeless parolees who lack a steady source of electricity.

Records also show thousands of inclusion- and exclusion-zone alarms, when parolees enter or leave restricted areas, as well as “message gaps” and “no GPS” cases, when signals are lost for some period of time.

Peggy Conway, editor of the Journal of Offender Monitoring, said most alerts are inconsequentia l, like low-battery signals or exclusion-zone warnings when a parolee drives past a school or park.

“What (agents) are going to do is gloss over a lot of them because they know what they are,” she said. “Hopefully there are some that catch their attention and get them to say, ‘Hmmm, we need to take a closer look at this one.’ ”

California spends about $60 million a year tracking 7,000 or so convicted sex offenders with GPS systems.

Nonetheless, the technology’s effectiveness has been questioned by agents, lawmakers and criminal-justice experts because parole officials place so much emphasis on where parolees go rather than what they do.

Retired parole supervisor Rebecca Hernandez said she relied on lower-paid staff to monitor GPS tracks when she oversaw a sex-offenders unit in Huntington Park.

“Interns were awesome in a lot of the stuff they could do, which freed up the agents,” said Hernandez, who retired in January after collecting a $900,000 settlement to a discrimination claim she filed against the department. “As long as you don’t give them personal data, it’s fine.”

Keeping sworn peace officers indoors to read GPS data and constantly respond to GPS alerts is not the best use of the agents’ time, Hernandez said.

“You’re putting community safety at risk,” she said. “It means you’re telling agents not to go out in the field and monitor these parolees.”

Silva said the department took the unusual step last week of approving overtime so agents could resolve the alarms quickly. Even so, her members are overwhelmed with the workload, she said.

“They’re tired. They’re burned,” Silva said. “Most people aren’t about the overtime. They want to do a good job and go home at the end of the day.”

Sex Offenders After Prison: Lifetime GPS Monitoring?

By Kamika Dunlap

Following their release from prison, sex offenders are already required by law to register or notify local law enforcement.
In addition, many are required to wear a GPS (Global Positioning System) or an electronic monitoring device which tells law enforcement officials the exact location of the offender 24 hours a day.
The length of time sex offenders are assigned to electronic monitoring varies from state to state. It can be months, years and in some cases a lifetime.
So, why do some states require lifetime GPS monitoring of some sex offenders?

Lifetime GPS monitoring is typically assigned to high-risk offenders and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In general, people who commit sex offenses against children are often required to wear lifetime GPS monitoring after serving time.
For example, in Oklahoma the law also requires habitual sex offenders to wear GPS monitoring devices for the rest of their lives.
How do GPS monitoring devices work?
People on the tracking system must wear the electronic waterproof ankle bands at all times and stay within a certain distance from their separate GPS transmitters, which can be carried on belts, in purses or set down on desks and tables when at work or home.
Several states, including Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois Oklahoma and California (Prop. 83), have laws which require certain high risk child and violent sex offenders to be monitored through GPS devices for the remainder of their life.
The lifetime electronic monitoring has raised questions not only about whether the penalty is too harsh but if the price tag is too expensive.
Some say offenders should not have to endure lifetime monitoring after “paying their debt” to society and serving their sentences. In addition, ankle monitors are too uncomfortable for the offender to wear daily on a long term basis, such as in a lifetime.
Currently, lawmakers in Iowa are reconsidering the state’s law requiring lifetime supervison for sex offenders. A panel recommended the state should revise its law due to scarce resources, focusing on the highest-risk offenders.
The results from Iowa’s experiment with lifetime monitoring of sex offenders would cost at the very minimum about $168 million over the next 20 years, the Des Moines Register reports.
Since Iowa’s law went into effect in 2006, the number of offenders under 10-year or lifetime monitoring has grown from six in 2007 to 113 by September of last year. By 2019, the number under 10-year supervision is expected to grow to 962, and the number under lifetime monitoring to 954, the panel said.
This post was mentioned on Twitter by IsaacBrant: FindLaw News: Sex Offenders After Prison: Lifetime GPS Monitoring? http://ow.ly/16tt8L Read More

RSOL Resource Sites

If you have any sites that would be a good resource for RSO's please let me know, I will add them to my site

Thanks

Virtual Death Sentence

•Allegan County Circuit Court Judge Kevin Cronin called a listing on the Sex Offender registry “equivalent to a death penalty” to a person’s reputation and career. “It’s a lifetime disability.”

•Judge William C. Buhl: When we have people married to their victims, with children that are a product of their crime, and they have to worry about whether they can go watch their kids’ soccer games at school, it just struck me as just wrong.

The Real Due Process.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)


Due Process is a term that is difficult to define. Many courts have tried to define it, to create tests to measure it, and show equality in it.
But, if you look at it, and think about it, Due Process is a rather simple concept.

The base version of Due Process is that it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

All three parts are equally important. Without any of those three elements, there would be a violation of Due Process.

This leads us to the question of:

"Where is the beginning of Due Process?"

When this country was created, it was done so with the understanding that the government drew it's power from the permissions of it's citizens.

As the source of the sovereignty, we have a right to have our legislation passed in accordance to the social contract created with the Constitution.

Every time that a law is passed outside of the original construction methods that the Constitution lays out, our Due Process rights are being violated.

The Legislative Branch does in fact have the ability to suspend our rights for a time. That leads us to an understanding of the two types of Due Process.

Procedural Due Process
"Procedurally, due process prescribes the manner in which the government may deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property. In short, the procedural guarantees of due process entitle litigants to fair process." Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com
To take that quote and to think about it leads one to understand that our Procedural Due Process rights guarantee us that our rights will only be suspended by certain methods.
Procedural Due Process is the method by which the government can suspend our rights for a time.

Substantive Due Process
"Substantively, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons from legislation infringing on certain individual rights. Such individual rights may be expressly enumerated in a constitutional provision, as are the liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"These unenumerated rights have been derived from Supreme Court precedent, common law, history, and moral philosophy. Such rights, the Court said, "represent the very essence of ordered liberty" and embody "principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 [1937])" Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com
Substantive Due Process is the safeguards against encroachment of our rights by the government.
Now we can explore the idea of:

"Where is the 'middle' in Due Process?"
The "middle" in Due Process is the breaking of a law, and the beginning of the Court process.

This is the portion that most people try to define when talking about Due Process.

Here is where people mix up the idea of "Due Process OF law" vs. "Due Process IN law."

"Due Process OF law" is the entirety of Law.

"Due Process IN law" is merely in the Court Room.
And lastly:

"Where is the 'end' in Due Process?"
The 'end' in Due Process is exactly that, the end of a courts sentence on a person.

The finality of a sentence. The completion.

Without that end in a sentence, not only is our Due Process rights violated, but we are put into a form of Involuntary Servitude.
To recap, Due Process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is very limited in it's allowance of suspension of rights, and exponential in it's protection of rights.

A simple concept to understand, but a hard one to put into practice.

Until you know where the boundaries are...

like to find inmates at institutions and county jails

https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/siteInfoAction.do?siteId=50100

Another example of Goverment waste

Killer, sex offender to be released
Citizens attend meeting about Sayers’ release

http://www.rhinelanderdailynews.com/articles/2010/08/04/news/doc4c5985e941735617958088.txt#blogcomments

This is what we are up agianst... I think it is time to speak out and "try" to educate him about these programs. Emails anyone....

Suder introduces legislation to keep dangerous criminals behind bars

Madison (Press Release) – Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) introduced legislation Wednesday that would repeal former Governor Jim Doyle's dangerous and controversial Early Release program.

"This legislation will make Wisconsin a safer place to live and work by eliminating a program that makes Wisconsin a safer place to commit crime," said Suder. 

The program allows drunk drivers, drug dealers, identity thieves and other criminals to significantly reduce their sentences through good behavior by appealing to hand-picked political appointees and government bureaucrats—not judges, prosecutors or law enforcement officials.

"Since its inception, I have argued against this short-sighted and risky program because it circumvents the rule of law and puts dangerous criminals back on the street," said Suder.  "If we fail to hold criminals accountable for their heinous acts, what kind of message does that send to would-be offenders and the community at large?"

The Doyle Administration implemented the failed program in the last state budget under the guise of saving Wisconsin money.  Almost two years later, there have been no credible numbers that prove the program has saved taxpayers what Doyle promised.  

"The only thing Early Release has succeeded in doing is making our streets more dangerous, and I would argue that you cannot put a price on the safety of Wisconsin's citizens," said Suder.

Here is his email address: Rep.Suder@legis.wisconsin.gov

Full article:

http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14351966

Court rules serial sex offender confessions inadmissible

Court rules serial sex offender confessions inadmissible

http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=310116

A man who confessed to sexually assaulting more than 20 children cannot be sentenced for this, because his admission was legally inadmissible, according to a ruling by the Third District Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  Ronnie Peebles, who was on probation for a prior offense, had ile participating in court-ordered sex-offender treatment. The appmade the admission wheals court ruled that it violated the federal and state constitution to use this information in a resentencing by a judge.

Peebles was convicted in 2005 of sexually assaulting a child and received a light sentence partly because he had no prior record of sexual abuse. But the judge in that case later threw the book at Peebles after he admitted, while undergoing court-ordered therapy, that he had assaulted more than 20 children in his life.

The appeals court opinion, handed down last week, concluded that because the treatment was a condition of Peebles’ probation, he was compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence, a violation of his constitutional rights. In treatment, Peebles was required to admit to counselors his entire history of sex offenses, whether they had led to criminal prosecutions or not, and he was even required to take polygraph tests to determine if he had admitted to all his crimes.

Peebles, who lived in the Green Bay area, had no prior sex offenses on his record and was originally sentenced by a Brown County judge to a year of county jail and five years of probation. Peebles participated in treatment, but his probation officer found evidence he was cutting other corners, according to the opinion. The convict had volunteered to work at a church where children would be present; he had attended story time at a library with his girlfriend and her child; and he had gone to his daughter’s school (but never went in), all violations of his probation.

At the hearing to revoke Peebles’ probation, prosecutors argued for the tough new sentence because he had admitted to being “a pedophile” with a long history of victimizing children. The judge accepted the confessions as evidence (Peebles’ defender didn’t object) and commented that he was “shaken to (his) roots” by the case because the prior sentence had been given with the understanding that Peebles “had no prior record of any type of aberrant sexual behavior.” The judge sentenced Peebles to 25 years in prison follow by 15 years of extended supervision.

But the Court of Appeals concluded that because the evidence considered at that hearing was unconstitution al, the sentence, barring an appeal by the prosecution to the state Supreme Court, will have to be recalculated by a new judge who won’t figure in the confessions.

The opinion cited a landmark 1977 case where the state Supreme Court found that “the privilege against self-incrimination extends to persons on probation” and that probation officers can’t force convicts to fess up to probation violations or other incriminating evidence. To prevent a situation where convicts refuse to talk openly to probation officers, however, this 1977 decision created a new rule granting immunity for such confessions, so they wouldn’t be admissible in court.
Last week’s appeals court ruling didn’t consider whether that immunity rule applied in this case. It based its decision solely on its conclusion that using Peebles’ confessions as evidence violated both the state and federal constitutions.