Sex Crimes

"Sex offender residency laws are ineffective"

Syracuse.com is running an interesting editorial of the ineffectiveness of the state's sex offender residency laws:

In Iowa, prosecutors are now calling for a repeal of a state residency restriction law. They criticize such laws because, among other things, "research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children." The Iowa prosecutors also note that "law enforcement has observed that the residency restriction is causing offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new locations, to register false addresses or to simply disappear."

When offenders fail to maintain proper registration as a direct or indirect result of residency restrictions laws, such as those recently passed in Tully and previously enacted in Jordan, Cicero, Cayuga County and Auburn, no one is truly safer. Before spending the taxpayers' time and money on ineffective measures such as these residency laws, our local elected officials should first educate themselves on the facts and not just react to undifferentiated, hysterical fear that does not in fact protect our children.

Judge Kent Roundup, part deux

You may have thought the madness was over, but it is only beginning. Now, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), wants to impeach Judge Kent to keep him from retiring and receiving his annual salary of $169,300 for life. Here are links to some of the reporting and commentary around the web: the Houston Chronicle (1, 2), the Associated Press, Legal Beat, National Law Journal, Houston Press, and Sentencing Law & Policy.

Scaring Johns Straight

Police in Los Angeles are testing an interesting new program designed to reduce the solicitation of prostitutes. The program allows first-timers to avoid a conviction for soliciting prostitutes, if they take are willing to be yelled at and lectured for eight hours. Sentencing Law & Policy has more.

It's not jail, to be sure, but john school is no joke. For eight hours, the men are yelled at, pleaded with and lectured. One weary-looking john, who says he has come straight from a night shift at work, receives a firm shake from Margolis every time he nods off and eventually is told to stand up to stay awake. Each presentation is aimed at either scaring them straight with all the terrible things that can be inflicted upon a john or opening their eyes to the ugly realities of the sex-for-money industry. It's not meant as a feel-good therapy session or an opportunity to explain away bad decisions, so there is no give-and-take in the class. The johns are not allowed to ask questions or speak. They sit and listen.

Student Post - Operation Cross Country Hits Chicago

Operation Cross Country,an attempt by the federal government to remove child prostitutes from the streets, has met with what some would call moderate success. In the sweep reported on February 23, FBI had "rescued" 48 teenage prostitutes from the streets.

Operation Cross Country also has a Chicago connection. While the national sting was able to remove 48 teenage girls from the streets, the Chicago sting was less successful, arresting 44 adults. Of the 44 adults arrested, 5 were charged with running prostitution rings, 34 were charged with prostitution, and 5 were charged with being customers of child prostitutes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller stated: "We may not be able to return their innocence, but we can remove them from this cycle of abuse and violence." He went on to state that most of the teenage girls, ranging in age from 13 to 17, will be placed in child protection agencies.

In the AP article about the federal sting, FBI Deputy Assistant Daniel Roberts stated: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of these kids are what they term 'throwaway kids,' with no family support, no friends. They're kids that nobody wants, they're loners. Many are runaways," Roberts said.

The interesting question arises: Does Mueller honestly believe that removing these kids from the streets will permanently remove them from "the cycle of abuse and violence?" Does he honestly feel that placing them in child protection agencies will completely erase their past experiences? If so, he is sorely mistaken.

Particularly if these children are "throwaway" kids as Roberts states, it is more likely than not that once they are removed from the streets, and the pimps they "love" (more likely a mixture of adoration and fear), they will return to the streets as soon as possible. Many have nowhere else to go.

In her article, "Teaching Prostitution Seriously," 4 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 709 (2000-2001) Beverly Balos discusses how the criminal justice system is slowly becoming more responsive to the issues of violence against women.

What is interesting to a female law student enrolled in a sex crimes seminar is the lack of discussion centered on child prostitution. Many discussions will be held on general prostitution (about adult women) or child molestation, but not many discuss the combination of the two, particularly implications on children, including the effects of their previous histories of domestic abuse, sexual molestation, etc. that may lead to their entance into child prostitution.

While the FBI sting is a step in the right direction, it is a small step that will have no significant impact unless the charges against the adults are pursued. Unless these offenders receive the harshest punishments available, specifically the racketeering and conspiracy charges that the AP article mentions, the cycle of abuse and violence will not end. Pimps will always be able to find young, impressionable, "throwaway"children with nowhere else to go.

Texas Gov. Appoints Anti-Sex Toy Activist to Parole Board

Grits for Breakfast has a post noting that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Shanda Perkins to the state parole board.  Ms. Perkins is probably best known for her efforts against the sale of sex toys in one Texas count, which ultimately led the Fifth Circuit to strike down the sex toy ban. From the post:

Normally, the Texas Senate rubber stamps the Governor's appointments to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, but one of Rick Perry's three appointees announced last week perhaps deserves closer vetting by the Senate. According to the Governor's press release:

Shanda G. Perkins of Burleson is a retired banking executive. She is a member of the United Way of Johnson County Board of Directors and Burleson Lions Club. She is also director of the Johnson County Chamber Summit, and is a member and past ambassador of the Burleson Chamber of Commerce. She also volunteered as a youth pastor, counselor and Sunday school teacher at Lighthouse Church. Perkins replaces Jose Aliseda of Beeville.

That doesn't explain, though, why she's being appointed to this slot. As far as I can tell, Mrs. Perkins' sole experience in the criminal justice realm stems from a personal morality crusade against the sale of sex toys in Johnson County that led to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning Texas' law on the subject.

She's so tough on crime, in other words, she's tough on crimes the federal courts say cannot exist because they're acts protected by the First Amendment. But Governor Rick Perry thinks she'll make fair decisions on the parole board?

At least he didn't appoint the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.

Massachusetts Struggling to Comply with AWA

Thanks to a helpful reader, I see that the Boston Herald has an interesting article concerning the lack of adoption of the Adam Walsh Act by Massachusetts and other states.  From the article:

It’s the most sweeping sex offender tracking law in history - and it’s considered virtually illegal by the Bay State’s top court.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act - named for the brutally murdered 6-year-old boy whose father became a crusader against predators - was passed by Congress in 2006. More than two years later, there’s been little progress toward one of the law’s landmark provisions: establishing the first-ever national system to keep tabs on those who have committed sexual crimes.

So far, no state has been deemed compliant with that law.

To be sure, adopting the law is complex. It requires instituting a new, uniform federal system for classifying the creepy cons.

But the law would serve a serious purpose: putting states in contact to make it much more difficult for sex offenders to cross state lines and escape the system.

Gov. Deval Patrick’s Executive Office of Public Safety is working with Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office to find a way to institute the new rules in the Bay State. And while officials refused to comment publicly on their struggle to do so - no one wants to be seen as being soft on violent sex fiends - the powers that be privately acknowledge that the law is considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Judicial Court.

The SJC has ruled sex offenders have due process rights and are entitled to a hearing before they are classified by level. But Bay State officials believe that such rulings aren’t compatible with the Adam Walsh Act, which requires “immediate” classification and posting of information about offenders. Instead of the deliberative Sex Offender Registry Board taking into account past offenses and the age of the criminal, the federal law would lump offenders into one of the three tiers based solely upon their type of crime.

States have until July to prove they’re complying with the federal mandate, or they risk losing a portion of federal anti-crime funding. And for their part, Bay State officials insist they’re committed to complying with as much of the law as they can.

But victims’ rights advocates such as Laurie Myers don’t understand why it’s taking so long for the tracking system to get off the ground.

“It seems sex offenders always get the support from people who should be looking out for our interest,” said Myers, a member of the non-profit Community Voices. “Time and time again, sex offenders get breaks in this state. It seems like foot-dragging to me.”

Second Circuit on Internet Role Play

Court-Martial Trial Practice has a discussion about a Second Circuit case wherein the court reversed a conviction because the trial court did not allow an expert to testify about Internet chat role-playing. You can read the decision here. From the blog post:

For those of us who have done internet solicitation cases, the concept of role-playing and lying amongst participants is a known serious issue.  These cases, as have mine, usually come up because the client shows up to meet the too young for prime time player.  Low and behold blow, it's a cop.  The defense then is "I didn't believe she was under age, I thought this was all part of the game, and that I was going to meet an adult interested in some role-play sex."  Of course these police stings are the ultimate role-playing game.

In United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008), the divided court reversed the conviction.  In dicta, the court said the court should reconsider the denial of expert testimony about role-playing in internet chat sessions, at retrial.

The expert testimony would assist the jury since it was “unlikely that the average juror is familiar with the role-playing activity” and the expert could explain in the context of sexually oriented conversations on the Internet. The social science field was an area in which the Daubert factors involving peer review, publication, and potential error rates were not applicable. Cross-examination could be used to expose weaknesses in the opinion.

Student Post - Holy Sex Offenders

A few years in seminary school does not make you a saint - in fact, it could mean the opposite.  The Catholic Church holds a reputation of employing many of the most enlightened of holy leaders, but all too often the spiritually divine become sexually deviant.  Over the years, sexually promiscuous priests have been coming out of the woodwork.  Religious leaders, who claim they have a heightened level of spirituality, are abusing that power to rape and molest young boys and girls. Although, the bible proclaims forgiveness, the justice system should throw the book at them.

There have been many reported in recent years about this holy conundrum.  The news of priestly pedophiles took center stage in the 80’s when Gil Gauthe, the former parish priest in rural Louisiana, fondled boys and girls in confessionals and convinced others to engage in sexual acts with each other while he took photos. He was later charged with molesting 39 kids.  He was sentenced to 20 years in a prison, but was quickly released on good behavior.

As shocking as that story may sound, it begins and ends like so many others. In the John Jay Report, which was commissioned by the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops, a team of annalists discovered that 4,392 priests in the USA, which is about 4% of all priests, have been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. The report was based on surveys completed by the Catholic dioceses in the United States. Worse yet, the Catholic Church has stopped at nothing to protected the sanctity of their reputation. The Roman Catholics spent $615 million dollars on sex abuse cases in 2007 and have been accused of withholding information, paying off victims, and destroying evidence.

So why is the blow of the judicial gavel softened by the words of the gospel?  Is it their title, their affiliation with God, or is it their proclaimed “devotion” to the word of God?  These questions I cannot answer, but one thing is for certain, the justice system has failed when it throws the book at a boy 17 years of age for having consensual sex with a 12 year old female who told him she was 15, but only slaps the wrist of a priest for child molestation.

Will Judge Kent have to Register as a Sex Offender?

While people are asking if Judge Kent is getting off easy, I think it is relevant to consider whether he will be subject to the registration requirements of the AWA after he is released from prison. Since Judge Kent took a deal as to the obstruction charge and not the sexual assault charges, he might think he won't be required to register as a sex offender. However, that question is far from settled. Importantly, Judge Kent was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 2241. The express terms of SORNA provide that a crime under 2241 yields a Tier III classification. 

The 9th Circuit, in U.S. v. Byun, adopted a non-categorical approach to interpreting what constitutes a "sex offense" for SORNA purposes. The result means that in the Ninth Circuit, obligation to register is determined on a case-by-case basis by looking at whether the underlying conduct of the crime was of a sexual nature (within the other limitations of the AWA). Because of the allegations against Judge Kent, I think the 9th Circuit approach would require him to have to register as a sex offender. The only other circuit (that I know of) that has considered the categorical approach issue is the 11th Circuit. However, as I have noted before, I can't make much sense of that opinion and it is unclear how Judge Kent would be treated under that approach. If Judge Kent decides to return to Texas after serving his sentence, he will be subject to the dictates of the 5th Circuit (assuming the USSC never decides the issue). If that circuit follows the 9th, then I think the indictment under 2241 will mean that Judge Kent will be classified as a "sex offender" and will be required to register as a Tier III offender. 

Judge Kent Roundup

The blawgosphere is abuzz with news of Judge Kent's resignation and plea deal.  Here are links to some of the great reporting and commentary around the web: Sentencing Law & Policy (1, 2), ABA Journal (1, 2), The New York Times, Houston Chronicle, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Associated Press, and this Department of Justice press release.  You can also read Sex Crimes' previous coverage here, here, and here.